LPC student Rachel Jones provides an analysis of the Grenfell Inquiry’s outcomes and its effects on the housing and construction sectors. On 14 June 2017, a catastrophic fire destroyed a 24-storey residential tower block in London, claiming the lives of 72 people. The then Prime Minister, Theresa May, announced an inquiry led by retired judge Sir Martin Moore-Bick. The phase one report was published on 30 October 2019, and phase two followed on 4 September 2024. The fire has had far-reaching impacts on legislation, various sectors, and communities, revealing a deep-rooted distrust of public authorities. Phase two concluded that the fire was “the culmination of decades of failure by central government and other bodies in positions of responsibility”.
The fire and subsequent inquiry have had significant implications for sectors such as construction, social housing, and governance. The question arises whether the changes implemented thus far have been sufficient. This article will analyze the recommendations from phase two to determine what further changes are needed to ensure tenant safety.
The Impact on the Housing Sector
The Grenfell Tower fire has underscored the necessity of ensuring compliance with safety regulations. Since 2017, the housing sector has seen significant changes and will continue to evolve for many years. In 2023, the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 was enacted, revising standards and imposing duties on landlords concerning tenants’ health. This act was a necessary update to the law, influenced by Grenfell and other tragedies such as the death of Awaab Ishak from prolonged exposure to mould.
Phase two concluded that no further recommendations were necessary in this regard, suggesting that current legislation is sufficient to protect tenants. The effectiveness of this can be attributed to the strengthening of the Regulator of Social Housing’s ability to issue unlimited fines to ensure compliance. However, the sector must ensure adherence to the act, potentially by assessing any gaps in enforcing these new statutory requirements over the coming years.The housing sector faces a challenging task: a number of policies need to be reviewed in response to the fire. The use of ‘stay put’ policies has been particularly contentious. LFS Fire explains that these policies recommend “residents not in the area affected remain in their flats with the windows and doors shut”. However, at Grenfell, this meant that many residents were not alerted to the fire in time. Moreover, the policy left those with disabilities and mobility issues without an adequate evacuation plan, a concerning omission.
As a result, phase one recommended that Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) be established for high-rise residential buildings. The housing sector will be evaluating and looking to legal professionals to help draft policy changes reflecting safety and liability concerns. It is clear that stronger guidance is needed.
The Fire Brigades Union has expressed concern over the lack of ‘sensible’ or ‘useful’ government guidance on building evacuations. This highlights the need for further direction on the development and implementation of Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) to ensure tenant safety. Phase two of the inquiry revealed that inspection and maintenance regimes were inconsistent with best practices, as evidenced by the ineffectiveness of fire safety measures like self-closing doors in Grenfell Tower.
The Fire Safety Act 2021 was introduced to enforce stricter fire safety requirements, addressing the shortcomings exposed by Grenfell. It is crucial for housing sector bodies to align with these standards and be aware of potential liability issues. While the act is a significant step, phase two also recommends the development of new fire safety test methods and further consultations with fire safety professionals to establish more effective procedures.
The construction sector has faced criticism, with phase two of the inquiry deeming the regulatory system for high-rise residential buildings ‘seriously defective’. The Building Safety Act 2022 was a response, aiming to ‘secure the safety of people in or about buildings and to improve the standard of buildings’. This act expanded the responsibilities of landlords and addressed the risks associated with cladding, providing greater protection for tenants.
However, the report indicates that the act’s implementation alone is insufficient. Section 113 of phase two recommends several improvements for the construction sector, including the establishment of a single regulator reporting to a Secretary of State, which would streamline building safety regulation. It also suggests a statutory requirement for a fire safety strategy, produced by a registered fire engineer, to be submitted with building control applications for high-risk buildings, ensuring safety at all stages.
While these changes are necessary, they come with increased costs for regulatory compliance, which could affect social housing expenses and housing affordability. The removal of cladding, for example, can cost millions per block, leading to financial repercussions for the construction sector.
The Grenfell Tower fire tragedy has underscored the importance of planning for costs in affected sectors. It is crucial that these sectors anticipate and plan accordingly to address these costs.
Want to write for the Legal Cheek Journal? Find out more about contributing to our publication. The Grenfell incident also brought to light the necessity for enhanced governance and compliance, particularly in matters of safety. Companies and landlords must focus more on regulatory compliance to prevent future failures similar to those seen in the past. The Knowsley Heights tower fire revealed that the government had failed to heed warnings from the Environment and Transport Select Committee in December 1999 about minimizing risks posed by external cladding systems. Authorities must ensure that such mistakes are not repeated. The government has pledged change on multiple occasions, with the introduction of greater regulatory control aimed at tackling complacency. However, the question remains: are promises of compliance sufficient? A blog post warns against blind compliance, emphasizing that safety regulations should be seen as a minimum standard, not a guarantee. The changes introduced so far have their merits, especially in terms of improved accountability for building safety and the evolving requirements for cladding. By viewing these rules as the minimum standard, we can ensure that relevant bodies continue to reassess safety measures and seek new advice to maintain building safety in the future. The suggestion for a singular regulator is likely a crucial step towards sustained vigilance. UK law firms, sectors, and authorities will reflect on the Grenfell inquiry’s findings and work proactively to reassess policies to prevent such failures from recurring. The housing and construction sectors have already undergone significant changes and will continue to do so as policies are re-evaluated following phase two. The laws and policies introduced thus far are steps in the right direction towards correcting the failures that led to the Grenfell fire. However, the inquiry has indicated that further changes are necessary. The importance of safeguarding human lives and ensuring that events like the Grenfell Tower fire are never repeated cannot be overstated. Rachel Jones, an aspiring solicitor, is currently studying the LPC LLM at Cardiff University. She graduated from the University of Manchester with an LLB Law degree. The Legal Cheek Journal is sponsored by LPC Law.
