A path to disaster – unpacking the fallout of the final Grenfell Inquiry report
Posted on: 5 September, 2024
On Wednesday 4 September, the final report from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry was released, documenting how a series of institutional failures led to the disaster that claimed 72 lives on 14 June 2017.
The findings of this report confirmed the fears and suspicions of many of failures and negligence across the board, and have sparked a blame game between companies implicated in the tragedy.
Drawing the conclusion that every single loss of life in the fire ‘was avoidable’ and that the safety of Grenfell’s residents ‘was never a priority’, the damning findings of the report are, unfortunately, far from closure for residents of Grenfell and families of the fire’s victims. As The Guardian reported, it could be three years until anyone is convicted.
The background – how the fire started
Grenfell Tower remains derelict – at one point, the 24-storey tower was lined up to be demolished and replaced by a memorial, but as of the time of writing, no plans currently exist. The cost of preserving its ruins and creating a memorial have been estimated to be over a third of a billion pounds (£340 million). As Kimia Zabihyan, a spokesman for the Grenfell Next of Kin group, told The Telegraph:
‘Nothing is happening. Nothing is going on … It’s just sitting there, standing there, wrapped in this kind of white cover with a big banner at the top and everything is just static. It’s £340 million. How do you justify this?’
Until then, Grenfell remains a chilling reminder for residents in the area of the tragedy – when, on 14 June 2017 at 12:54am, an electrical fault on the fourth floor of the building sparked a fire, triggering a smoke alarm. The cladding of the tower, composed of highly flammable polyethylene and added during a much-criticised refurbishment, helped the fire spread quickly, and within 15 minutes it had begun climbing the building’s exterior.
It wasn’t until hours later, at 8am the next morning, when the last survivor of the tragedy, Elpidio Bonifacio, was rescued from the 11th floor of the tower. Despite the efforts and courage of fire fighters, the fire claimed 72 victims, including 18 children.
The inquiry – what were the findings of the report?
An immediate inquest was ordered by then Prime Minister Theresa May the day after the tragedy to determine the causes of the fire, leading to the formation of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry. Split into two phases, September 4 saw the release of the final 1,700-page report from the inquiry from Phase 2, which came to several conclusions about the cause of the disaster. Some of the biggest takeaways include:
1. There were warning signs 25 years ago, but they were ignored
According to the report, concerns were raised about cladding fires back in 1992, after an incident at a tower in Huyton, Merseyside. Another fire following in 1999 in North Ayrshire, but despite concerns being raised by MPs, no action was taken.
Blame for the tragedy has also been levelled at the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government that was in power from 2010 to 2015. The report criticises the government’s policy of cutting regulations, to the point where ‘even matters affecting the safety of life were ignored, delayed or disregarded’.
2. Companies deliberately concealed the dangers of the cladding
The Grenfell tragedy was found to be the result of the ‘dishonesty and greed’ of those responsible for the safety of the tower. According to Sir Martin Moore-Bick, Chairman of the inquiry, manufacturers of the tower’s cladding ‘engaged in systematic dishonesty’ and ‘mislead customers’ about the safety credentials of their products.
Fire testing conducted on the cladding manufactured by Arconic ‘performed poorly’ and ‘burned violently’, but the results of these tests were ‘kept confidential’ and Arconic ‘deliberately concealed’ the true extent of the danger. As the inquiry panel commented, ‘we do not understand the failure to act in relation to a matter of such importance’.
3. The landlord ignored the concerns of tenants
A repeated criticism throughout the Grenfell inquiry process has been the controversial £10 million refurbishment of the tower that was conducted in 2012 by Studio E – an architectural firm ‘with no prior experience in high-rise residential refurbishments or cladding’.
This refurbishment was administered by the tower’s Tenant Management Organisation (TMO), who showed ‘a persistent indifference to the safety of vulnerable people’ and was found ‘to have consistently ignored tenants’ views’. As Moore-Bick notes, ‘the TMO was often very defensive when it came to criticism.’
4. The London Fire Brigade was not adequately prepared
The increase in the number of high-rise fires meant the London Fire Brigade knew it was facing challenges, but they failed to prepare their teams adequately or address problems in the service. A lack of knowledge about cladding figures, poor training for how to communicate with trapped residents, and insufficient planning for such a high number of calls meant the brigade were effectively overwhelmed, and this unfortunately contributed to the tragedy.
5. The management of building safety is ‘seriously defective’ in the country
The Grenfell disaster has already had an irrevocable impact on the built environment and the importance of regulation in the sector, but in the wake of these findings, many will question if enough has been done. As the inquiry notes, the management of building safety in England and Wales ‘is seriously defective’, and the industry ‘needs to be held to account by a single regulator’. This message should be heard far and wide, particularly as, in just the last week, another tower block fire that broke out in Dagenham, London has raised concerns about the safety of our built environment once again.
6. The deaths of the victims could have been avoided
The most shocking and disappointing headline from the inquiry is that the verdict that the deaths of all 72 victims of the tragedy ‘could have been avoided’, were it not for ‘decades’ of failure. However, with it being potentially three years (and 10 years since the tragedy) until anyone is convicted, the fallout from the Grenfell Tower fire is far from over, and a resolution is likely many years away.
The aftermath – what needs to happen next?
The responses to these findings have been anguish, frustration and concern. Hisam Choucair, a member of the Grenfell Next of Kin group that lost six relatives in the tragedy, branded the inquiry as ‘a joke’.
“Words cannot describe the pain that I have gone through… with having this inquiry running parallel to the criminal investigation… I’m sorry to say but it’s been a joke.”
Deputy Prime Minister Angela Raynor commented that work to fix unsafe buildings ‘must be sped up’. Stating that 4,630 buildings of this type had been identified but ‘only 29%’ had been remediated, she stated that the government were ‘looking at ways to hold building owners to account.’
Andy Roe, London Fire Commissioner, responded:
“We recognise the importance of the Inquiry’s findings and recommendations. We will set out an action plan, detailing our response to each recommendation, in due course. This will be developed following consultation and in collaboration with the Grenfell community and our Community Forum.”
As the Construction Industry Council commented in a statement on the day of the report’s publication:
‘It is essential that government and the construction sector recognise the findings (Sir Martin Moore-Bick) has reported and that we learn the lessons and continue to respond to create an industry and a culture where safety, competence and compliance with the law is an absolute priority. Only then will public trust in the sector be restored.’
UCEM’s Fire Safety Module Leader commented:
‘With the web of involvement that often spans the construction industry and the complex nature of fire safety legislation in the UK, it is not surprising that the report has taken 7 years to produce an outcome. Let’s all hope that this was time well spent and that it leads to a meaningful and long-lasting change in the fire safety landscape of the UK.’
