Agenda item

To receive a report from Surrey Fire and Rescue Service about the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase Two Report.

Witnesses:

• Kevin Deanus, Cabinet Member for Fire and Rescue, and Resilience
• Dan Quin, Chief Fire Officer – Surrey Fire and Rescue Service
• Lee Spencer-Smith, Area Commander for Protection – Surrey Fire and Rescue Service

Key points made in the discussion:

1.            A Member asked about the risks of not pursuing enforcement actions regarding the high-risk residential buildings, the legal advice that indicated enforcement would likely be unsuccessful, and the implications of this. The Chief Fire Officer explained that only 7 of the high-rise residential buildings in Surrey needed mitigation measures, which were already in place. He explained that it was the Responsible Persons (RP) role to ensure those measures worked well. The Chief Fire Officer added that the Surrey Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) inspected the buildings and confirmed that the mitigation measures met the required standards.

2.            A Member asked if the 263 mid-rise buildings in the County were safe, the timeframe for addressing potential fire risks in the 14 flagged buildings and questioned the actions to be taken if building owners did not respond regarding the cladding issues. The Chief Fire Officer explained that inspections began prior to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 2 report/findings. Fourteen buildings were identified for further investigation due to concerns about their external wall systems. The Area Commander for Protection noted that under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, the ‘RP’ must ensure fire safety. He added that SFRS would continue to work with premises and offer advice and, where necessary, issue notices to ensure compliance before considering other enforcement options.

3.            A Member asked a supplementary question about what powers the fire authority holds if property owners choose to ignore their advice. The Area Commander for Protection said that the authority has enforcement powers under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order. This means they can issue notices which require premises to notify the enforcing authority of any proposed changes which may increase risk to their premises and in serious cases can prohibit or restrict the use of unsafe buildings. He mentioned that this Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 applies to most buildings/workplaces in England, except single private dwellings (homes), but covers common areas in premises where there are 2 or more private dwellings like high-rises. The Chief Fire Officer added that the fire and rescue authority uses its full suite of powers to enforce the law when necessary.

4.            The Chair asked about the implications of creating a single regulator for the construction industry, including its potential advantages, disadvantages, and risks to stakeholders during the development process. The Chief Fire Officer stressed that this was a heavily caveated opinion and the difficulty of creating a new regulator for the construction sector, noting the benefits of a consistent regulatory approach across England while also cautioning against potential losses in local oversight and context. He assured the Committee that current regulatory activities will persist until changed, with the possibility of safety improvements as new measures are integrated.

5.            A Member asked about the gap between building regulations and guidance, and what could be done about it. The Area Commander for Protection responded that clarity in the regulatory framework is essential and that SFRS is consulted primarily under Approved Document B. He emphasized the importance of distinguishing between building regulations requirements and the requirements of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order in consultations and welcomed any improvements in clarity to enhance compliance.

6.            A Member asked whether the suggestion to have building control managed by a national body is supported by SFRS. The Chief Fire Officer explained this was a heavily caveated opinion and that building control is currently handled by local boroughs and that they are involved in the process. He noted that a national body could provide consistency but might lose local understanding.

7.            A Member asked a supplementary question about whether independent bodies rely solely on SFRS for fire safety assessments. The Chief Fire Officer stated that these bodies should not depend entirely on SFRS and emphasised the need for a more robust approach to ensuring that individuals involved have the appropriate qualifications and skills.

8.            A Member asked if SFRS could provide feedback to the Committee after the Local Resilience Forum met on 3 October 2024, to discuss the Grenfell Tower Inquiry report recommendations. The Chief Fire Officer, in his role as Local Resilience Forum Chair, said that the Local Resilience Forum had met and an agenda item was to discuss the Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase Two report and the need to share individual agency action plans. All agencies agreed to review the recommendations, especially Volume 7, which focused on local authorities. They planned to report their findings at a future Local Resilience Forum Executive meeting.

9.            A Member asked whether there were any concerns regarding the tenant management organisations running buildings in Surrey and if those concerns had been flagged. The Area Commander for Protection stated that that they would continue to engage with the RP under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order, which could be the owner, leaseholder, or tenant management agencies, to ensure they were communicating with the right people.

10.          A Member asked whether improvements have been made in communication practices between SFRS and other emergency services considering the criticisms highlighted in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase Two report. The Chief Fire Officer acknowledged the concerns and outlined measures already in place. He emphasized the need for training to make informed decisions and highlighted a recent mutual aid agreement among boroughs, districts and SCC to formalise incident support mechanisms.

11.          A Member asked whether SFRS had ensured that the Crisis Management Plan was simple, easy to read, and accessible to everyone who needed it in emergency situations. The Chief Fire Officer confirmed that the Local Resilience Forum has a single and joint Emergency Response Plan, that all agencies are familiar with and have access to via a secure portal. The design of the plan is such that it is easy to refer to, split into two key parts.

12.          A Member asked whether SFRS is checking and managing the ventilation systems in buildings. The Chief Fire Officer responded that it is the RPs responsibility to ensure that the ventilation systems (used for smoke extraction) are properly managed and functioning, and that these would be reviewed as part of the fire safety inspections; he emphasised the importance of management roles for RPs, occupiers, Fire Safety Inspectors and operational staff in maintaining fire safety measures.

Conclusion:

RESOLVED, that the Communities Environment and Highways Select Committee,

1. Welcomes the work done by SFRS in preparing its current response to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase Two Report.

2. Recognises the key role that SFRS plays in ensuring the safety and wellbeing of Surrey’s residents, including utilising the full range of powers to ensure that buildings are maintained to a safe standard.

3. Recommends that SFRS provides a further update once its thinking is finalised on recommendations arising from the Grenfell Tower inquiry in 2025.

4. Strongly supports the use of an independent panel with regard to Building Control (SFRS supports the National Fire Chiefs’ Council’s approach with regard to this initiative); and the Committee would like the Cabinet to pursue this panel by approaching central government through the appropriate process.