Agenda item

i10 Building

[The Interim Compliance Office will outline the findings of the Independent Inspector’s Report on the i10 Building]. 

Minutes:

The Interim Compliance Officer gave an update on the Council owned, i10 building.  Fire safety Investigations had been undertaken by external consultants Aecom.  A draft report from Aecom had been made available.  There were three components to the investigations. The first being a review of the building manual and carrying out an on-site inspection to check that fire protection measures and other matters relating to fire safety had been installed correctly.  The second part of the investigation was a review of the fire strategy.  The final area was the commissioning of a new fire assessment. 

 

The Interim Compliance Officer stated that some of the information he had available was only at the current time based on preliminary findings.  The type of cladding installed on the building was Reynobond PE cladding.  The Chair added that this was very similar to the cladding used on Grenfell and gave off very toxic fumes when burnt. 

 

The Interim Compliance Officer commented that an area that they would look at further was whether fire breaks had been installed correctly behind the cladding.  They also needed to ensure that the fire stopping between the curtain walling and the concrete slab had been installed correctly.  They had photographs for one level but needed to take them for the rest. 

 

The Interim Compliance Officer stated that it was possible that the insulation on the building was not of the correct thickness, but this was not a fire safety issue.  Some of the fire stopping in one of the corridors was in place but had not been correctly installed.  This was not a risk to life but the Council wanted to rectify the problem.  Aecom whilst considering the fire strategy had discovered that the fire alarm was not working correctly within the building.  The i10 fire alarm was probably the most complex fire alarm system within the Local Authority.  This had now been fixed by electrical engineers.  The Council did need to ensure that when tenants moved in and installed their own fire alarm systems, that it did not impact on the main alarm for the building.  It was clear that regular drills were required to ensure the integrity of the systems.  A full test would be carried out in the next few weeks. 

 

The Chair raised the general point about the importance of fire marshals within buildings to ensure evacuation procedures were correctly followed.  There was a discussion about the use of a human voice in alarm systems.

 

The Interim Compliance Officer reported that Aecom had completed a new fire risk assessment for the i10 building.  They had assessed the risk as tolerable, whereas the previous fire risk assessment had been low risk.  There were some housekeeping activities which needed to improve and minor repairs and adjustment to fire doors.  There was also some further engagement required with the tenants.  

 

Resolved: That the Group go into exempt session by virtue of paragraph 3, information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information) under Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended. 

 

A confidential discussion was held in relation to the i10 building. Following the discussion, the Committee went back into public session.  There was a discussion about the i9 building.  The Head of Assets remarked that a decision had been taken by the developers of i9 that it would not have sprinklers.  This decision had also been further ratified at board level.  The Council would not own the building for a further three years. 

 

A Member asked for clarification as to why the Council had not insisted on sprinklers as part of the design specification, she wanted to ensure that this was put right for future developments.  The Head of Assets responded that she would have to ask the Regeneration Team for an answer and report back to the Group.   They were improving communication between Corporate Landlord and Regeneration.  They had learnt lessons from the i10 project but there was more work required about how Corporate Landlord and Regeneration worked together during development projects.  Corporate Landlord had not yet taken part in any of the design discussions regarding the Westside development.  A Member of the Panel asked at the next meeting for an Officer from the Regeneration Team and Corporate Landlord to report to the Panel about how they would interact in future Council development projects.  The Chair agreed and added the relevant Director should also be present for the discussion.  

 

The Interim Compliance Officer confirmed that Officers from Corporate Landlord had attended some later design meetings regarding the i9 and had been able to influence some decisions, such as the importance of not using flammable cladding.  A Quantity Surveyor had been appointed for the i9 building to protect the Council’s interests, as the Regeneration Team had acknowledged there had not been sufficient oversight of the construction of the i10 building.  

 

The Chair remarked the fire safety group had been vindicated over their concerns about i10 and he was pleased that rectification was taking place. 

 

Resolved:

 

A)    That the monitoring and inspection of construction materials should be enhanced for all Council development projects. 

 

B)    That a robust, accurate and comprehensive audit trail should exist for all materials used during construction works for Council projects.

 

C)   That the highest standards of fire safety should be at the heart of Council development projects from concept to completion. 

 

D)   That consideration should be given to a dedicated Clerk of Works role for all Council development projects and for this person to have the appropriate legal backing to enforce their decisions upon developers. 

 

E)    That strategic interaction between the Regeneration Team and Corporate Landlord be a vital part of the planning process for new developments. 

 

F)    That a progress update be provided on the i10 building at the next meeting of the Fire Safety Scrutiny Group. 

 

 

The Chair referred to the recommendations and the Cabinet response to the initial recommendations of the Fire Safety Scrutiny Group, which were received at the Cabinet Resources Panel of 20 March 2018.  He made reference to two of the recommendations which the Group had put forward: -

 

Recommendation 6 - That in principle it be agreed that only the highest rated fire retardant materials, including cladding systems are promoted for any future builds or refurbishments. Reasons must be provided as to why a specific material has been chosen if not the highest rated.

 

Recommendation 7 - That the Council or any subsidiaries of the Council such as Wolverhampton Homes or wholly owned companies such as WV Living, agree in principle that in any buildings under major refurbishment or any new builds, strong consideration is given to fitting sprinklers and hard-wired smoke alarms/fire detectors.  Reference to this consideration and the reasons for and against fitting sprinklers and hard-wired smoke alarms/fire detectors should be detailed and mitigating measures listed that will assure safety and negate the need for sprinklers and hardwired smoke alarms/fire detectors to be fitted.

 

The response from Cabinet had added a caveat to these two recommendations being fully accepted, which was “Await Outcomes of Moore-Bick and Hackitt Inquiries”.  The Hackitt Inquiry had now concluded but the Moore-Bick Inquiry was still ongoing.  The Chair asked the Panel if they wanted to take these two recommendations back to Cabinet in due course for a further response, now the Hackitt Inquiry had concluded. 

 

Resolved: That the Executive Team and Cabinet be asked to provide a further response to the two previous recommendations listed below, because the Hackitt Inquiry’s final report had been published.

 

Recommendation 6 - That in principle it be agreed that only the highest rated fire retardant materials, including cladding systems are promoted for any future builds or refurbishments. Reasons must be provided as to why a specific material has been chosen if not the highest rated.

 

Recommendation 7 - That the Council or any subsidiaries of the Council such as Wolverhampton Homes or wholly owned companies such as WV Living, agree in principle that in any buildings under major refurbishment or any new builds, strong consideration is given to fitting sprinklers and hard-wired smoke alarms/fire detectors.  Reference to this consideration and the reasons for and against fitting sprinklers and hard-wired smoke alarms/fire detectors should be detailed and mitigating measures listed that will assure safety and negate the need for sprinklers and hardwired smoke alarms/fire detectors to be fitted.