Agenda item

[To consider the Executive Summary of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry – Phase 1 Report]. 

The Chair remarked that Phase 1 of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Report had been published and the Executive Summary of the report had been included within the agenda pack.  He believed that the inquiry should have first looked at the time before the fire, rather than starting first with investigating the night of the fire.  Had the remits of Phases 1 and 2 been reversed, it would have fed into the new legislation which was coming out as a consequence of the Hackitt review.  The Fire Safety Scrutiny Review Group needed to see the newly awaited legislation before making its final recommendations to the Council’s Cabinet Committee.

The Joint Competent Authority recommended by the Hackitt review would be led by the HSE (Health and Safety Executive).  He could assure the Panel that the Fire Service were addressing the issues raised in the Phase 1 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Report.  He had been speaking regularly to the West Midlands Fire Service Chief Officer and the Scrutiny Officer to the Panel had also raised a matter directly with them regarding EDBA (Extended Duration Breathing Apparatus).

The Chair raised the issue of Premises Boxes, which was a recommendation from the Phase 1 report.  This was a box with accurate up to date information on the building, residents and contingency plans.  The report also recommended that the Fire Service should have a hard copy and an electronic copy of the plans of the building.  He asked the representatives from Wolverhampton Homes, how they would respond to the Phase 1 report recommendation on Premises Boxes.  The Head of Commercial Services and Stock Investment of Wolverhampton Homes responded that they were trying to initiate regional discussions with the Fire Service and Landlords about whether premises boxes were the best way to respond.  Experience and reviews of premises boxes in the past had shown they were a challenge.  There were issues such as keeping the information up to date and data security issues for residents.  There was clearly a willingness and desire to share information with the Fire Service, it was ensuring that the format and structure met the appropriate requirements of the Fire Service.

The representative from the West Midlands Fire Service remarked that in the interim it was important to utilise the site-specific risk inspections.  They asked to have a meeting with Wolverhampton Homes to discuss some of the generic information that would be helpful to them and some more of the detailed information about vulnerable residents.  The Assistant Director for Property at Wolverhampton Homes responded that he would welcome the dialogue with the West Midlands Fire Service.  He thought ongoing electronic access to information relating to fire safety was far more important than a premises box.  The Chair commented that this was clearly an issues which needed to be addressed very carefully.

The Chair commented that the Phase 1 Report had highlighted issues with fire doors and door closing mechanisms.  He asked for Wolverhampton Homes to comment on this issue in relation to the homes they managed.  The Head of Commercial Services and Stock Investment of Wolverhampton Homes responded that all high-rise blocks, door closing mechanisms were checked daily.  After the Grenfell tragedy there had been inspections on all the fire doors in the high-rise blocks to check if they were fit for purpose and to replace any that were found to be defective.  There was a rolling programme of improvements, which they were part way through, that was replacing fire protection measures. 

The Chair commented that the Phase 1 report had highlighted the difficulty in obtaining a Structural Engineer on the evening of the tragedy.  The Assistant Director for Property at Wolverhampton Homes stated that Wolverhampton Homes had an SLA (Service Level Agreement) with the Council which allowed 24/7 access to Structural Engineering services.  Wolverhampton Homes themselves did not have access to a Structural Engineer.  

The Chair asked how Wolverhampton Homes would relay information relating to vulnerable residents to the Fire Service, during an emergency situation in high rise accommodation.  The Head of Commercial Services and Stock Investment responded that they held information in their housing management system on the health of residents.  The weakness was that this was information which residents had declared and not necessarily an accurate representation of all the residents.  The information was on a shared drive and could be brought up on iPads and similar devices for the Wolverhampton Homes staff attending an incident.  The Assistant Director for Property commented that the benefit of electronic information was the ability to update it daily if required, whereas the information in premises box was harder to keep up to date.

A Member of the Panel asked about the arrangements for leaseholders and their tenants.  In response, the Head of Commercial Services and Stock Investment remarked that it was a valid point.  The information was not held mandatory, they were reliant on managing agents or tenants and leaseholders confirming who was living in the properties.  Unless, the proposed legislation put a greater emphasis on them providing the overriding landlord with the information, it was a weakness as they could not do a complete audit at any point in time.  A representative from the Fire Service commented that they did offer safe and well visits. 

A Member of the Panel asked if all leaseholders knew that systems existed containing information on residents.  The Head of Commercial Services and Stock Investment commented that there was a lot which needed to be done moving forward to refresh how they communicated with the residents of all high rise buildings and in particular on what happened in the event of an emergency.  It was important to ensure that leaseholders were fully informed.  The Assistant Director for Property commented that the concern was when leaseholders sub-let, this was where there could be some gaps in the information.  He did however think the number was relatively low. 

The Chair commented that during the recent regional conference hosted by the West Midlands Fire Service, the idea has arisen that people who had medical waste collected by the Council could be referred for a safe and well visit due to their perceived vulnerability.  There was the obvious GDPR to overcome but the concept was sound.

The Chair remarked that one of the recommendations in the Phase 1 report was regarding an evacuation signal in high rise blocks.  If there was a need for an immediate evacuation, the intention would be for the fire service to sound the signal.  The Head of Commercial Services and Stock Investment commented that people often ignored a sounder.  To achieve what Moore-Bick was asking, would require new infrastructure and re-wiring in the high-rise blocks.  This would require a significant capital outlay and so they were therefore waiting to see what any new legislation would prescribe.  There were potential opportunities down the line, as they were looking at introducing fibre-broadband to certain blocks. 

The Chair commented that the risk of a full evacuation in the tower blocks managed by Wolverhampton Homes was low due to the mitigating work Wolverhampton Homes had carried out and were doing in the future.  If it was in the legislation, then it was important for the Fire Safety Scrutiny Group to alert the Our Council Scrutiny Panel, who it was intended would scrutinise fire safety in the future. 

The Chair remarked that floor numbers on all high-rise blocks should be clearly marked as recommended in the Phase 1 Report.  The Head of Commercial Services and Stock Investment stated that this work had been completed in all the high-rise blocks managed by Wolverhampton Homes.  The Chair asked the Temporary Service Manager for Private Sector Housing if the floor numbers were clearly visible for all the private high-rise blocks in Wolverhampton.  He responded that he would address the issue.  A representative from the Fire Service stated that they were hoping to carry out live exercises in the near future and preferably with residents involved.  The Head of Commercial Services and Stock Investment commented that they were happy to assist the Fire Service and would work with them on the specific details.  The Assistant Director for Property commented that Wolverhampton Homes had assisted with a Fire Service exercise at Pennwood Court, but this hadn’t gone as far as a full evacuation of the residents.   

The Panel asked about whether more CCTV should be installed in the high-rise blocks managed by Wolverhampton Homes.  The Head of Commercial Services and Stock Investment responded that in the main CCTV was on the ground floor levels, in the lifts and on the entrances to the building.  There were not cameras on every single floor, but it seemed sufficient to manage safety at the current time.  The CCTV was managed 24 hours a day at the control centre, he extended an invitation to the Fire Service to see the control centre, if they so desired.   

A Member of the Panel commented that the cause of the fire in the entrance to the block he lived in, had not been determined due to a blind sport in the CCTV coverage.  He asked if the blind spots had been eradicated.  The Head of Commercial Services and Stock Investment responded that additional cameras had been mounted to rectify the problem of the blind spot following the incident.  As part of the programme of works in the tower blocks, there was a review of camera locations and they were taking the opportunity to update the signals to digital rather than analogue to ensure better quality. 

The Chairman asked the Fire Service representatives their overall opinion of communication between the Service, the Council, Wolverhampton Homes and the Tenant Management Organisation’s (TMOs).  In response, the representatives from the Fire Service commented that the relationships were on the whole positive.  The Head of Commercial Services and Stock Investment of Wolverhampton Homes commented that relationships were good.  He had provided reassurance to a number of groups associated with tenants since the Grenfell Tower tragedy.  There was some more work to be done at grassroots level to ensure a clear path for concerns of tenants. 

The Wolverhampton Homes Tenant’s Association representative on the Panel, commented that formal communication was very good.  Where he had his doubts was the proportion of residents this communication reached.  He was of aware of the Fire Service’s availability to be available at community events, he wondered whether it needed to happen more often and whether clearer targets were required.  The Fire Service representatives offered to have a meeting with him so he could fully understand their offer and to consider the strategy of engagement with the community.  The Chair commented on the importance of preventative work by the Fire Service and how he saw this as the way forward.

A Panel Member enquired about properties where there was a shop underneath.  The Fire Service representatives commented that this was a particular area of focus for them.  They carried out, “Safe and Strong” visits to businesses.  They had an extensive range of businesses they were planning to visit.  The Panel Member commented that she had particular concerns in one area, where she thought some shops were really acting as a factory.  The Fire Service representatives offered to provide the Panel Member with the details of their referral inbox.  The Assistant Director for Property of Wolverhampton Homes commented that it was a valid point raised by the Councillor.  Wolverhampton Homes also had some shops in their property portfolio, some which had flats above them.  It was an area which they were paying particular attention to.  The Fire Service commented they were always happy to receive information and asked for the Panel Members help in spreading the message that they were there to help and not to be feared.