Grenfell Tower Fire: The Ongoing Tragic Story

Like the majority of domestic fires, the Grenfell blaze began with the malfunction of an electrical appliance. According to UK government sources,³ approximately one-quarter of all domestic fires begin as an electrical or appliance failure, but, significantly, account for only one-tenth of fatalities. In other words, most of these fires are brought under control before tragedy occurs. What made the Grenfell fire different?
First responders arrived on the scene within six minutes of the emergency call and, as The New York Times reported:

The difference between the Grenfell Tower tragedy and an ordinary kitchen fire is the difference between a simple appliance malfunction and a catalogue of errors, involving building regulations, construction, maintenance, management, and much more.

Later examination by independent agencies revealed that a recent renovation to the building had been performed without due oversight, adequate regulations or sufficient attention to detail, creating
a number of “hidden” deficiencies. These shortcomings may not have created a disaster, individually, but in combination created a cascading effect, where back-up safety measures either didn’t exist,
or failed. These issues should have been seen and corrected, but weren’t.

Now, a year after the event, the many deficiencies have been catalogued – a survey of the issues identified in current reports can be found on the Pro-Demnity website.5 Some of them are shocking, others seem to indicate nothing worse than shoddy workmanship,6 notwithstanding the catastrophic consequences:

1. The new exterior cladding incorporated a lightweight core that was insufficiently fire-retardant. Once the flames reached the cladding, they were able to spread rapidly from panel to panel.
   
2. The cladding was installed improperly, resulting in a gap between the cladding and the backing wall that was twice as large as it should have been. Although it was only a matter of millimetres, it was sufficient to render ineffective the barriers within the cavity. So rather than providing a deterrent to fire-spread, a chimney effect was created, promoting the spread of the fire.
   
3. New window frames were too small for the wall openings, leaving large gaps at the jambs. These spaces were poorly filled with material that was not sufficiently fireproof, allowing the flames to spread easily from interior to exterior and vice versa.
   
4. Unidentified combustible insulation was used on the spandrel beams.
   
5. Many apartment doors had malfunctioning or missing door closers, making containment of smoke virtually impossible.
   
6. Deficiencies in fire fighting facilities included poor building access, wet rising mains replaced by dry rising mains, absence of sprinklers and fire extinguishers that were out of date or condemned.

The net effect of these inadequacies was that a small electrical fire in flat 16 on the fourth floor was able to quickly penetrate the exterior wall and ignite the flammable cores of the cladding panels. The flames then quickly spread vertically due to the chimney effect, and re-entered the building, floor by floor. By the time the firefighters arrived, the building was virtually a pillar of fire.

The impact of the Grenfell fire on the building industry around the world cannot be underestimated. While many of the causes of the fire can be attributed to specific problems in the building itself, one issue stands out from the rest, as a global concern: the cladding system, which is similar or identical to systems used all over the world, proved to be a fire hazard. As the Pro-Demnity report points out, when, following the fire, the cladding components were tested for non-combustibility, they failed the tests. Earlier this month, the UK Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government tabled a consultation paper entitled “Banning the use of combustible materials in the external walls of high-rise residential buildings.” The consultation will wrap up on August 14 of this year.

As a result, some building owners in the UK are taking no chances; insurance claims have begun to appear, demanding that “non-compliant claddings and products used on their buildings be replaced, at the designers’ and contractors’ expense.” As we have noted, the use of these materials is not confined to the UK, and so building owners in other parts of the world may be expected to follow suit.

The resulting flood of claims is likely to occur over a short period of time and will strain the manpower and financial resources of insurers everywhere. In this event, it’s unlikely that claims will be settled quickly, implying that, either many buildings will remain unsafe, or building owners will be forced to invest enormous amounts of their own money in the hope of being reimbursed by insurers in the future. In the meantime, insurance rates, building ownership, rental costs, and apartment unit availability will not remain unaffected.

Every day, we are subjected to a constant barrage of distressing news, reporting tragedies and atrocities around the world. Amid this constant barrage, the Grenfell Tower fire in West London is one disastrous event that should catch the attention of all of us involved in the building industry. Quite apart from the professional ramifications, involving important legal and insurance matters, the Grenfell Tower fire was a huge human tragedy. It was not the result of terrorism, ethnic or religious conflict or any deliberate criminal act. It was simply the result of negligence, possibly criminal, at many levels. To the extent that architects are sworn to protect the public safety, such building catastrophes should be carefully observed and lessons learned.

This is a complex, unfolding story and significant facts with important consequences have yet to emerge. Watch this space for further developments.