Grenfell: Diane Abbott urges retro-fitting of sprinklers in Hackney blocks

Diane Abbott MP

Diagnosed with diabetes: Diane Abbott MP

Hackney MP Diane Abbott has called for fire sprinklers to be “immediately” retro-fitted in all council tower blocks in the wake of the Grenfell disaster.

In an article for PoliticsHome, the Shadow Home Secretary said it is clear the Lakanal coroner’s 2013 recommendation for sprinklers in every block has not been implemented, with Hackney “no exception”.

The coroner’s report followed the 2009 Lakanal House blaze which left six people dead.

Abbott is demanding action, saying Grenfell survivors and residents in large buildings across the country “deserve better”. She wrote: “They need reassurance – and installing sprinklers would do just that.”

The Hackney Citizen launched a petition last month calling on Mayor Philip Glanville to “take immediate steps to install sprinkler systems” in council blocks over 30 metres tall. It has so far been signed by over 1,600 people.

Glanville revealed at the time that just two of Hackney’s 181 mid- to high-rise blocks have fire sprinklers.

Abbott told the Citizen: “Every measure must be taken to protect members of the public against fires like that of Grenfell Tower. It is clear that the recommendations from the coroner’s report into the Lakanal House fire in 2009 have not been implemented, with Hackney being no exception.

“We do not need to wait for the results of an inquiry for the government to insist that all similar buildings are retro-fitted with sprinklers.”

In her article, published last Friday, Abbott wrote: “Expert opinion suggests that an entire retro-fit of sprinklers in a tower block like Grenfell would cost just £200,000. That’s just a fraction of the overall cost of the refurbishment that did take place, and which may have been a factor in the disaster.”

The Hackney North MP, who recently returned to Labour’s shadow cabinet following a short break due to illness, went on to say: “Buildings with sprinklers are much better at actually containing fires.

“Lives are saved, building damage is minimised, residents are not displaced to the same extent, or sometimes not at all. Their treasured possessions are not all destroyed. Insurers and others take account of this and premiums fall.

“This government claims to know the price of everything it is opposed to funding. But it knows the value of nothing when it comes to the benefits of public spending.

“This cynicism must end. The survivors of Grenfell and all the residents of large buildings deserve better. Retro-fitting sprinklers saves lives, saves homes and saves money. It is essential this government gets on and does it.”

Brent Council announced today that it is to spend £10 million on fire safety improvements for its 37 high-rise tower blocks, including installing sprinklers, smoke detectors and fire alarms.

Council leader Muhammed Butt said: “Grenfell changed everything. When it comes to fire safety, ‘good enough’ is no longer good enough.

“Here in Brent we have 37 high rise blocks and they’re all fire risk compliant. But we also have lots of people asking whether those rules and regulations are actually up to standard, and who can blame them? So we’ve found the money to go above and beyond what’s required, to ensure that residents are safe – and feel safe – in their homes.

“Obviously, eight years of austerity have not made this easy, and no doubt some will find a way to criticise our decision. But we can’t afford to wait any longer for Government to take the lead, which is why we’re committing £10m to this work, right now. And if we get the Government to step up and put its money where its mouth is then all the better.”

You can sign the Hackney Citizen’s petition here.

Update: this article was amended at 17:32 on Tuesday 11 July 2017 to include the news that Brent Council is to spend £10 million on fire safety improvements, including sprinklers, for its high-rise tower blocks. A quote from council leader Muhammed Butt is also included.

12 Comments

  1. Darren Martin on Tuesday 11 July 2017 at 12:49

    It is currently law that all new buildings taller than 30 metres require sprinklers. The Liberal Democrats firmly believe that people living in older buildings deserve the same levels of safety.
    Mayor Glanville and Hackney Council say that fitting sprinkler systems in tower blocks will be reviewed in risk assessments but the evidence and advice from the report into the Lakanal House fire is clear. We should not wait any longer and act now.

    We welcome the comments from Diane Abbott and we hope that Mayor Glanville is listening.

    But we should not wait for central Government instructions on this issue. We have a chance to get ahead of the national picture and really show residents in Hackney that their safety is our top priority.



  2. Sarah on Tuesday 11 July 2017 at 18:22

    Pity the Lib Dems did not make the Lakanal House Coroner’s report recommendations legally binding when they had the chance as a governing party at the time that report was released (2013). All this campaigning of yours is too little too late I’d say, Darren.



  3. Graham Hall on Tuesday 11 July 2017 at 18:46

    The Coroner on the Lakanal House fire recommended only that Councils consider the retro fit of sprinklers in buildings – not that they do it in every case. So Abbott is wrong yet again – no surprise there then! The risk against the additional protection provided has to be considered. I know that in some H blocks that a dry riser has been fitted and staircase exits better protected since Lakanal – so things have been done. Given that the Councils rent account (financed by rents paid) is ring fenced from other Council services (financed by Council Tax) the money would have to come from Council tenants via increased rents. Would the tenants call for sprinklers if their rent was to go up to pay for it?

    These blocks have existed in their current form for nearly 60 years with no reported fatal fires. The situation in Grenfell tower was much the same until combustable insulation (the primary problem in my view) and combustable cladding (a secondary issue in my view) was added to a building that was very much safer before energy saving additions were made. There are always safety improvements that can be made to any service you like to mention – whether its actually necessary, economic or practical to do so is what has to be rationally considered. It might cost (on Abbotts figures and we know how competent she is with those) £36M to fit sprinkers in the blocks. How many fires would they have dealt with in the past 50 years – hardly any. Would the money be better spent on hew homes?

    She’d be better off questioning whether some of the infill panels in the PVC window frames in some H blocks are safe- these look remarkably similar to those in use on Lakanal House – where 6 people died.



  4. Darren Martin on Tuesday 11 July 2017 at 21:08

    Sarah, it is clear from the tragic Grenfell Tower fire that all political parties should have done much more to improve fire safety. The Tories have had a completely illogical and frankly dangerous policy of one in two out on new regulations which they changed when we left government to one in three out, and of course Labour’s cosying up to big business from 97 onwards was not much better.
    We can’t go back in time but we can do everything in our power now to make sure nothing like this happens again and that is what we are fighting for. We also want this to be the beginning of a much more transparent relationship with residents in which risk assessments for all public buildings are available to view online or by written request, so that residents can scrutinise the safety standards in their buildings.
    Graham, I totally agree with you on the infill panels on window frames as something similar was highlighted following another fire in Shepherds Bush about a year ago. The Deputy Commissioner of the London Fire Brigade wrote to all local authorities urging action but it is not known how Hackney Council responded. We have written to the Mayor to ask and should receive a response soon.
    On sprinklers I completely disagree with you. Even excluding the Lakanal House advice which clearly recommends these be fitted, the evidence is very clear that sprinklers prevent the spread of fire and would safe lives. I think the outcome from the Grenfell inquiry willl be that all older blocks will be fitted and I think Hackney Council has the chance to get ahead of the national picture and take action.



  5. Graham Hall on Wednesday 12 July 2017 at 12:16

    Darren
    Sprinklers do limit the spread of fire and might or might not save lives – depending on the circumstances. But if sprinklers are fitted in blocks of 10 floors why not 9 floors then 8 – eventually you’d put them in every home in the country even bungalows! There is a balance to be struck between safety and cost – there always has been and always will be. Where that balance is struck is the question here. We do it all ourselves every day we assess risk (sometimes very poorly) and make our decisions. We don’t all reach the same decisions – hence some people smoke and others don’t.

    The Coroner at in the Lakanal House inquest recommended that providers of high rise residential buildings containing multiple domestic premises should be encouraged to retro fit sprinklers. My Brother was a fire protection engineer and designed sprinkler systems so I have a little knowledge of their benefits. However, there is no such thing as absolute safety – witness the deaths on our road or in our hospitals from superbugs.

    Personally I don’t think much more should have been done to improve fire safety – but very much more should have been done to ensure already existing safe buildings remained that way after so called improvements are carried out. Grenfell Tower wasn’t a new block – the “improvements”
    made in recent years permitted and facilitated the rapid spread of fire, first up one face and then around the building. The Lakanal Coroner had pointed out risks from poorly implemented improvements too. She did a very good job, but at local level the risk appreciation was clearly lacking.



  6. Cllr Jon Burke (@jonburkeUK) on Wednesday 12 July 2017 at 12:41

    It is worth noting that the 2013-14 London Assembly Labour Group alternative budget – which I wrote – specifically allocated money, to be match-funded by local authorities, for the retrospective installation of sprinkler systems in social housing. Unfortunately, the then Mayor, Boris Johnson, rejected these proposals and the Conservative Group voted them down. In the succeeding four years, and for less than 10% of the £46m of taxpayers’ money Johnson wasted on the absurd ‘Garden Bridge’, we could have retro-fitted 72 high-rise blocks…

    https://twitter.com/jonburkeUK/status/875347327480991744

    It is also worth noting that in the 2014-15 London Assembly Labour Group alternative budget – which I wrote – we called on the then Mayor, Boris Johnson, to implement the request of 57% of respondents to the 5th London Safety Plan (LSP5) that the he should ‘use his funds to provide sprinklers in social housing’. Action on the matter was not forthcoming.

    While I concur with the view that sprinkler systems save lives, expecting local authorities like Hackney – which has received a £110m cut in its annual Government Grant since 2010 – to foot the bill for the consistent failure of central government to allocate sufficient funding to build, maintain, and upgrade council housing is outrageous. Frankly, it’s very hard to see how DCLG’s decision to kick responsibility for additional capital investment in fire suppressant equipment will not result in even further damage to the local government services upon which so many people depend.



  7. Darren Martin on Wednesday 12 July 2017 at 18:48

    Cllr Burke,

    It is clear from what you have written that you and the London Assembly Labour Group have campaigned for the introduction of sprinklers. It is also clear clear that Mayor Glanville believes in their safety merits from this http://news.hackney.gov.uk/hackney-pioneers-fire-sprinkler-system-for-social-housing.
    You may be entirey correct in the role the former London Mayor played in stopping this from happening, but residents do not want to hear the blame game, they want action.
    As Social Housing providers Hackney Council is a Landlord, and as such, has a duty to ensure its buildings are as safe as they can be for residents.
    The money may be forthcoming from central Government following the Grenfell Inquiry, but by waiting and not taking action now, you are telling residents that you are prepared to continue to leave their homes without a safety measure you believe (from what you have written above) may save their lives in a fire.
    Other councils have found the money to go ahead with sprinkler installations and Hackney Council should do the same.



  8. Josh Loeb on Thursday 13 July 2017 at 11:11

    I appreciate the council’s difficulties, and no doubt there are complexities I don’t appreciate, but the beancounters did manage to find several thousand pounds to spend on what was essentially a party for Jules Pipe to mark the refurbishment of the Town Hall. I’m sure that in light of Grenfell ratepayers would understand if some “nice to have” (rather than strictly essential) services were slimmed down to redirect money towards financing what seems like a life or death measure amid these exceptional circumstances. I for one would forfeit access to my local library services for a day, for example, if I knew the money saved would go towards funding these sprinklers. A rise in the price of coffee at the Clissold Park cafe would seem like a small price to pay (if that’s how it works – I’m not much of an economist). The language of priorities is the religion of socialism and all that. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?



  9. Graham Hall on Thursday 13 July 2017 at 13:25

    Josh

    One of the difficulties is that the housing budget is entirely ring fenced from the services financed in the rest of the Council! Therefore savings that you would accept would not result in any additional funding for housing.

    You don’t need to be an economist, just knowledgeable in the dark art of Local Government finance – and very few are!.



  10. James on Friday 14 July 2017 at 09:59

    Echoing what Graham Hall has said, unless there is direct allocation of funding from Central Government for retro fitting the 179 blocks in Hackney that would require them, based (I assume) off the back of the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry, this would be paid for by residents in the blocks themselves (unless, Hackney Council funds it directly, which I doubt they can).

    With that, you’ll have an issue with increased rents for the residents and for lease holders, a significant bill, as that would come under a major work notification (a notification created by any works costing more than £250 per leaseholder I believe). I foresee, in these austere times, opposition to such financial outlays, especially when there is countering evidence of the usefulness of such sprinkler systems in stopping a fire like Grenfell from happening again (as Graham says, a very rare occurrence if you look over the entire history of the fire safety of such blocks).

    The other consideration is, are these sprinklers going into every block resident’s home? If so, the disturbance for residents is something to consider, also, if they are activated, everyone’s belongings will get soaked and thus destroyed, as (and someone with greater knowledge can correct me) their reaction to increased heat from a fire is not an isolated system, but universal response (I believe).

    However, I don’t live in a block, perhaps if I did, I wouldn’t be so questioning of the installation of sprinklers.

    Just some thoughts.



  11. Graham Hall on Friday 14 July 2017 at 17:58

    James

    Each sprinkler head is fitted with a capsule or spring system which melts or escapes in the presence of a specified amount of heat. Thus they only go off in a particular locality where the fire is. However fitting them into flats would involve pipes into each room and unless a false ceiling is installed these would be visible, plus the ceiling lights would need to be lowered.. Also sprinklers in common areas would sometimes be set off by vandals who think such things funny.

    I’m not against sprinklers per se, but their utility prior to Grenfell was very limited. There will be many lessons from Grenfell. Unfortunately the passage of time will dampen the anger justifiably felt by many communities, and Governments tend to downplay costly recommendations when it suits them. The public judgement on this Government’s response to the inquiry recommendation will hopefully be positive.



  12. pixelist999 on Monday 29 January 2018 at 17:59

    It’s a shame that Hackney’s planning officers/councillors/mayor simply ignore and “mislay”fire officers reports, when they state that operations could be put in “jeopardy” – making money from backhanders, is far more important to these dis-honourable people, than the concerns of chief fire officers (or from the people that have to live in fear of their corrupt decision making).



Leave a Comment





This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.