Chapter 14: The Local Government Association Guide

Chapter 14: The Local Government Association Guide

¶14.1 On 29 July 2011, DCLG on behalf of the Secretary of State published the Local Government Association (LGA) guide entitled Fire safety in purpose-built blocks of flats ("LGA Guide")^19701970 {HOM00045964}. pursuant to his obligation under article 50 of the Fire Safety Order.^19711971 {HOM00045964}; {HOM00046077/1-2}. The LGA Guide was published as part of the response to the Lakanal House fire, albeit before the hearings of the Lakanal House inquests that took place some two years later.^19721972 {HOM00000720}. It was recognised that there was a need for guidance on ensuring fire safety in purpose-built blocks of flats. The guidance, which had not previously existed, was directed at responsible persons, fire risk assessors and enforcing authorities.^19731973 {HOM00000720/3-4}; {HOM00045964/2-3}. The section entitled "Preparing for emergencies" contained guidance for the evacuation and assistance of disabled persons in the event of a fire. It recognised that there is likely to be a diverse range of physical and mental capabilities among the occupants of a general needs block.^19741974 {HOM00045964/119-120} paragraphs 79.8 - 79.9. The needs of vulnerable occupants were addressed in paragraphs 16.11–16.13, which recognised that older people and people with certain disabilities may have particular needs in responding to a fire.^19751975 {HOM00045964/25-26} paragraphs 6.11 - 6.13.

¶14.2 In the Phase 1 report, the Chairman recommended that the owner and manager of every high-rise residential building be required by law to prepare personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) for all residents whose ability to escape may be compromised, such as persons with reduced mobility or cognition.^19761976 Phase 1 Report Volume IV paragraph 33.22(f). Disabled people were particularly affected by the speed and ferocity of the Grenfell Tower fire. In Phase 2, therefore, we explored why the LGA Guide advised landlords and responsible persons that it was usually unrealistic to plan for the evacuation and assistance in the event of a fire of disabled and vulnerable residents living in general needs blocks of flats,^19771977 {HOM00045964/120} paragraph 79.9. such as Grenfell Tower.

¶14.3 The department engaged the Local Government Improvement and Development Agency to draft the LGA Guide^19781978 Todd {CTA00000012/6} page 6, paragraph 30. and the agency delegated the work to C S Todd and Associates.^19791979 Todd {CTA00000012/4} page 4, paragraph 14. A project group was appointed by the agency to act as a steering group to oversee the content, monitor progress and contribute technical expertise.^19801980 Todd {CTA00000012/11} page 11, paragraph 48. The project group was ultimately responsible for the content of the publication.^19811981 Todd {CTA00000012/11} page 11, paragraph 48; Project Group Terms of Reference {HOM00000990}. Louise Upton from the Fire Safety policy team, Brian Martin from the Building Regulations team and Peter Wise from the Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser's unit, as well as housing policy officials, represented the department on the project group.^19821982 Louise Upton {Day248/9:9-25}. No disability specialists or representatives of organisations representing disabled persons were invited to join the project group.^19831983 Todd {Day168/133:22-25}. For full membership of the project group, see Project Group Meeting agenda for meeting on 5 April 2011 {HOM00018117}.

¶14.4 The members of the project group also sat on a larger "reference group" that included representatives of organisations involved in the provision of housing in the local authority and voluntary sectors as well as representatives of the fire and rescue services.^19841984 Terms of Reference for the Reference group {HOM00001976}. The reference group was intended to act as a sounding board for the project, to gather views and to promote consensus on the contents of the guidance.^19851985 Terms of Reference for the Reference group {HOM00001976}. The department maintained oversight of the whole process and was a member of the reference group.^19861986 Todd {CTA00000012/6} page 6, paragraph 31; Louise Upton {Day248/10:11-20}. None of those who sat on the reference group was a disability specialist or a representative of an organisation representing disabled people. That appears to have been an oversight rather than a deliberate decision,^19871987 Louise Upton {Day248/11:3-18}. and the reference group did contain representatives from residents' associations and landlords.^19881988 Louise Upton {Day248/10:21}-{Day248/11:23}.

¶14.5 The draft document was subject to a detailed and wide-ranging consultation, the responses to which were then considered by C S Todd and Associates and the project group.^19891989 {HOM00018928/1}. However, neither the department nor C S Todd and Associates took any steps to ensure that the views of organisations representing the disabled and the vulnerable were sought.^19901990 Louise Upton {Day248/13:11-20}; Todd {Day168/108:17-25}. One of the key questions that arose from the consultation, to which attention had been drawn by many of the respondents, was how people with disabilities could escape from their flats in the event of a fire.^19911991 {HOM00018928/2}. In its response to the consultation, the Chief Fire Officers Association said that not to include advice on the evacuation of disabled people was a fundamental error.^19921992 {HOM00002660/7}.

¶14.6 On 22 June 2011, the project group considered the issues raised by the consultation but it is not clear whether that particular question was discussed.^19931993 Louise Upton {Day248/14:21}-{Day248/16:18}. In any event, a disability specialist or someone who could represent those who were disabled and vulnerable was not appointed to assist the project group.^19941994 Louise Upton {Day248/17:17-25}; Louise Upton {Day248/23:1-13}. Despite the views raised by the Chief Fire Officers Association, the project group did not seek to commission any research or embark upon a further round of consultations to examine ways of helping those who were unable to escape unaided.^19951995 Louise Upton {Day248/18:1-6}. As is plain from paragraph 79 of the LGA Guide, its response was either considered and rejected or simply ignored.

¶14.7 Another matter that was raised by the consultation was the provision of PEEPs. Consultees appear to have accepted that they were not appropriate in general needs housing but questioned whether the guidance should identify other means of reducing the risk to vulnerable people.^19961996 {HOM00018928/2-3}. C S Todd and Associates sought the views of the project group, which agreed that PEEPs were impracticable because of the difficulty of collating information and keeping the document up to date and the absence of staff who could help people to escape.^19971997 Todd {CTA00000012/17} page 17, paragraph 78; Louise Upton {Day248/21:1-9}.

¶14.8 After the LGA Guide had been published at the end of July 2011, Elspeth Grant, a director of TripleAconsult and a fire safety consultant who had worked with disabled people, wrote to Sir Merrick Cockell, the chairman of the LGA, on 23 August 2011 saying that paragraphs 79.9 to 79.11 of the LGA Guide encouraged readers to ignore the Fire Safety Order and to breach international and domestic law on equality and fire safety.^19981998 Letter from Elspeth Grant to Sir Merrick Cockell dated 23 August 2011 {HOM00019844/1}. She also said that the LGA Guide reflected an outdated viewpoint and was discriminatory.^19991999 Letter from Elspeth Grant to Sir Merrick Cockell dated 23 August 2011 {HOM00019844/2}.

¶14.9 A copy of that letter was sent to Caroline Bosdet, who had been the project manager responsible for drafting the LGA Guide, who in turn sent it to Colin Todd asking him to draft a response. Copies were also sent to some other members of the project group, including Louise Upton, Brian Martin and Peter Wise.^20002000 Email from Caroline Bosdet to CSTA Office and others dated 29 August 2011 {CLG10004907/2}. Ms Upton told Ms Bosdet that she would be very interested in hearing the views of her organisation's lawyers, including any disability discrimination specialists,^20012001 Email from Louise Upton to Caroline Bosdet dated 12 September 2011 {CLG10004908/1}; Louise Upton {Day248/108:22}-{Day248/110:2}. but no lawyers or disability specialists were asked to comment.^20022002 Email from Louise Upton to Caroline Bosdet dated 12 September 2011 {CLG10004908/1}; Louise Upton {Day248/108:22}-{Day248/110:2}.

¶14.10 In her response Ms Bosdet told Ms Grant that the particular needs of people with disabilities and vulnerable people had been taken into account but that no practical solutions had been offered for evacuating disabled people from purpose-built blocks of flats.^20032003 Letter from Caroline Bosdet to Elspeth Grant (undated) {CLG10004932/2}. Although the response suggested that practical solutions had been sought, Colin Todd confirmed no one on the project group had asked stakeholders to suggest solutions to the problem.^20042004 Todd {Day168/137:22}-{Day168/138:18}. Nor is there any evidence that the department sought legal advice on whether Ms Grant's allegation of unlawful discrimination was well-founded or not. The response of the department to Ms Grant's letter was wholly unsatisfactory; it was, in effect, simply brushed aside.

¶14.11 In December 2011, BS 9991 Fire safety in the design, management and use of residential buildings – Code of practice was published.^20052005 {BSI00000059/2}. BS 9991 provided recommendations and guidance on the design, management and use of dwellings, including self-contained flats, to achieve reasonable standards of fire safety.^20062006 {BSI00000059/21}. It included recommendations and guidance on the management of fire safety throughout the life of a building and could be used in the assessment of existing buildings.^20072007 {BSI00000059/21}.

¶14.12 Section 9 of BS 9991 advised that those responsible for managing fire safety should take into account the full range of people who might use the premises, paying particular attention to the needs of disabled people,^20082008 {BSI00000059/145-146}. and Annex E pointed out that the UK has an ageing society and that there are therefore many people living in standard residential accommodation who have a range of impairments that could affect their ability to evacuate or follow procedures.^20092009 {BSI00000059/175}.

¶14.13 For present purposes, it is enough to note that the guidance in paragraphs 79.9 to 79.11 was concerned with what arrangements for the evacuation of disabled people could as a matter of practicability be made in general needs blocks of flats. It was not, therefore directly inconsistent with BS 9991, which drew attention to the need to pay particular attention to the needs of disabled people, but it was couched in language that suggested a very different approach. It is surprising and disappointing, therefore, that the department failed to recognise the difference and take steps to reconcile the two documents. In our view that was a significant oversight.

¶14.14 In July 2012, the LGA conducted an evaluation of the LGA Guide to assess how widely it was being used and how useful it was.^20102010 {HOM00023280}; Louise Upton {HOM00046040/10-11} pages 10 – 11, paragraphs 35 – 36. On 31 July 2012, Ms Upton was sent the draft report.^20112011 Louise Upton {Day247/138:23}-{Day247/139:5}; {HOM00023279/2}. It indicated that those who had used it considered the guidance to have been effective in improving fire safety of residents in purpose-built blocks of flats^20122012 {HOM00023280}. but gaps were identified in relation disabled and vulnerable persons.^20132013 {HOM00023280/11}. The report referred to a failure of the government to understand that disabled people could not escape from flats without help in the event of a fire and that more guidance was needed on the provision of PEEPs for residents known to have difficulty escaping or to be unable to escape.^20142014 {HOM00023280/11}. Those were similar to the concerns that had been raised by Elspeth Grant in August 2011.^20152015 {HOM00023280}; {HOM00019844}.

¶14.15 The department did take steps to develop guidance on the evacuation of disabled people living in sheltered or specialised accommodation, but considered it too difficult to find a solution to the problem posed by vulnerable persons who could not escape from purpose-built general needs blocks of flats without assistance.^20162016 Louise Upton {Day248/33:25}-{Day248/34:14}. Although the department recognised the concerns, it took the view that the risks to disabled people in general needs housing were far lower than the risks to those living in specialist accommodation or sheltered housing.^20172017 Louise Upton {Day248/34:4}-{Day248/35:8}.

¶14.16 In her submission of 13 May 2013 to the Secretary of State Ms Upton advised the minister that the department was content that the LGA Guide provided sound advice on both the process of fire risk assessment and the matters that housing providers should consider if they are to ensure an acceptable level of fire safety.^20182018 {HOM00004403/2} paragraph 7. That was based on the assessment carried out by the LGA and informal reports received by the department.^20192019 Louise Upton {Day247/142:4-18}.

¶14.17 In the present case it is difficult to see what additional measures the TMO could have taken to assist the evacuation of disabled residents once they had entered the common parts of Grenfell Tower, but one piece of advice that in our view requires reconsideration is paragraph 79.11, which states that in the case of a "general needs" block it is not realistic to expect the responsible person to hold information relating to residents with mobility or other conditions affecting their ability to escape in a way that enables it to be made available to the fire and rescue services, for example, in a premises information box. We have covered this more fully in Part 5, Chapter 46.

¶ISBN 978-1-5286-5080-9

¶(Volume 1 of 7) 7 volumes not available separately