A boutique law firm of exceptional quality and talent where clients' and lawyers' interests are aligned by collaboration and innovation
The deaths of 72 people in a fire at Grenfell Tower in West London was the UK's worst residential blaze since the Second World War.
Such a terrible loss of life demanded thorough investigation and now, after seven years later and more than 300 public hearings, a panel of inquiry into the tragedy has delivered its final report.
Totalling 1,694 pages, it is a substantial piece of work and makes for very sobering reading, not least for the conclusion that the deaths were "all avoidable" (https://www.grenfelltowerinquiry.org.uk/).
The entire process has, in my opinion, been cathartic for individuals, businesses and authorities working in a number of different specialisms - construction, building management, social housing, regulation and more.
They have been forced to confront a large number of failings across all levels identified by the head of the inquiry, Sir Martin Moore-Bick.
In the days, weeks and months to come, the findings of Sir Martin and his colleagues will be explored in full, not least by police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) who will now examine whether criminal charges should follow.
Rather than second guess their work, I think that it's more appropriate and hopefully more useful for me to consider the practical implications of the Grenfell inquiry.
It has, of course, already had impact.
The publication of a report in May 2019 which followed the first phase of the inquiry was preceded by the results of a companion, industry-wide review led chaired by Dame Judith Hackitt, the former Chair of the Health and Safety Executive, Britain's primary safety regulator.
Part of its remit included scrutiny of building safety and fire regulations applying to high-rise buildings.
Together, they convinced Government of the importance of not waiting until Sir Martin's work was complete to make legislative changes. Those changes were reflected in the new provisions contained within the Building Safety Act, which became law in April 2022 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/30/contents).
Among other things, the Act allowed for the creation of two new regulators - the Building Safety Regulator and the Construction Products Regulator - in an effort to ensure that those involved in constructing buildings and managing them once they were occupied fully understood their responsibilities.
Since coming into being, both regulators have been taking steps to establish both presence and capability in carry out the work entrusted to them by the Act.
For all the willingness to meet these changes, organisations and individuals have been trying to come to terms with what the new requirements mean for them in practice.
Trying to help organisations navigate this changing landscape has certainly kept me very busy since the Act was introduced.
The effort to understand the implications of the new law remains the case - at least, in part - two years after the Act was added to the Statute Book.
As a result, the pressure on planning teams, architects, structural engineers and builders charged with delivering projects, and managers taking charge of finished structures has only intensified.
I believe that it will take more time than has been allowed so far for that additional regulation to filter down to people working at all levels of those industries and become truly effective.
Meanwhile, there is still much work to do in educating professionals about their obligations in order to achieve the kind of improvements in culture and behaviour which Sir Martin Moore-Bick regards as essential.
In fact, he emphasised that organisations will be reminded to look at and understand the law as a whole and not feel that they are entirely compliant simply by meeting the terms set out within Approved Documents or guidance.
Furthermore, improved accountability, senior commitment, culture and behaviours was one of the main focal points of the report. For example, in those instances where safety case reports are needed for high rise buildings (HRBs), it has been proposed that the most senior person involved in the project should now provide a statement in addition to those reports providing further confirmation and assurance.
Just as importantly, the final report has again sought to ensure that people aren't fixed on the specifics of Grenfell itself.
Whilst the investigation was brought about by a fatal fire in an apartment block, the report highlights the nature and use of buildings - including those in which vulnerable individuals are resident - should be a fundamental factor, not just their height.
I do think that it quite likely that our current approach to and definition of HRBs will be reviewed still further in the future.
I think that it's perhaps also worth some final thoughts in relation to the recommended creation of a new regulatory body - the construction regulator.
It may, of course, increase the pressure and the regulatory burden facing those working in the industry.
Having said that, I fear this in itself might still not bring about the desired shift of mindset, attitude and culture. We will, though, need to wait and see.
That is even when weighed against the package of wider proposals, especially those relating to education, training and registration or accreditation for fire professionals or fire risk assessors.
Several recent incidents in other parts of the UK have shown that there are still buildings which are unsafe and do not come close to the meeting the practices either required by the Building Safety Act or envisaged by the final Grenfell inquiry report.
Until those advances are made, it means that leaseholders will be forced to consider taking action against landlords so that improvements are made.
What is critical in the end is that the new law - alongside whatever future steps may be adopted by industry in response to the report recommendations - eventually brings about clarity.
That it will take time before we start to see whether we have lasting progress is, I believe, to be expected.
After all, there was regulation and a legal framework before Grenfell but clearly - and for a variety of reasons - there was not compliance.
Sir Martin Moore-Bick's report is an historic step on the journey to improvement. It is a shame, of course, that it took a tragedy such as Grenfell to lead us here.
To discuss any of the above further, please contact Emma: emmaevans@bexleybeaumont.com | 07738 007652
