In June, residents in the same estate as the fire, which destroyed 20 flats, claimed prior concerns over fire safety ‘have been ignored’. The fire at the Barking Riverside Estate saw one six storey block catch fire, with 20 homes destroyed and 10 others damaged, and two people treated for smoke inhalation; 100 firefighters and 15 appliances attended.
An investigation of other blocks after the fire by LBC found ‘faulty fire doors, broken smoke alarms and combustible cladding’, with Bellway having been ‘in talks’ with the government on building regulations and fire protection laws, adding that fire protection measures inside the building ‘received all regulatory approvals’ and ‘ensured occupants were safely evacuated’.
Residents claimed fire safety concerns ‘were downplayed’ by Bellway a month prior to the fire, with Peter Mason, chair of the Barking Reach residents’ association, stating that in early May he contacted Bellway to ‘ask for the fire risk to be investigated’ after BBC Watchdog’s investigation into other Bellway Homes properties. Then, according to reports, developer Bellway had been reported to have carried out ‘remedial fire safety work’ a few weeks before the fire, and also dropped its stay put policy.
Residents of a neighbouring block raised concerns over fire risk assessments ‘as they face having to move back’ in, because many believed the block is ‘unsafe’, and have outlined issues with fire safety and structural reports. Most recently in August, social housing residents said they were ‘being forced to move back’, having been evacuated to hotels or temporary accommodation.
The social housing landlord, Southern Housing Group, had informed residents they will ‘no longer receive financial support’ to stay in alternative accommodation, and ‘must return to their flats’. Leaseholders will ‘continue to receive’ financial support for the alternative accommodation until September, with social housing residents arguing they were being ‘forced to move back in’ before the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (LBBD) had carried out safety assessments.
These were due to start on 21 August and be completed by 29 August, with wooden cladding in its totality to take ‘several months’ to be removed. A report in June recommended that existing cladding be sprayed with fire retardant, but ‘this ha[d] yet to happen’, with experts having previously warned that wooden balconies could ‘accelerate fire spread’ as well.
Now, BBC News has reported that residents have been told to return to their homes, after the funding for temporary accommodation ended last week. The building’s management company, Residential Management Group (RMG), said that the building is ‘completely safe for residents to return home’ to, a spokesperson adding that ‘two investigations, including a... risk assessment, didn’t identify anything that should prevent re-occupation. A number of mitigating measures and remedial works have already been implemented’.
The building currently has a 24 hour waking watch, while LBBD’s recently concluded health and safety investigation found ‘no Category 1 hazards remaining’ on site that ‘would have prevented re-occupation’, though it highlighted ‘ongoing safety concerns’. These included that openings ‘allowing for the potential of fire to spread upwards’ remained.
In turn, ‘no evidence was provided to confirm external wooden timbers were ‘non-combustible’, so the council assumed the timbers ‘remain a significant risk to the spread of fire’. It said: ‘Unfortunately there are no legal channels available to the council prohibiting work from being carried out with residents in situ.
‘While we have exhausted all our legal powers, right now unfortunately all we can do is put pressure on the building owners to make sure they manage the return of residents with consideration of the traumatic events that occurred.’
Barking and Dagenham Post also reported that the council had spent £100,000 ‘supporting neighbours’ after the fire, as well as on the independent report, but this did not include the 40 staff ‘working on the response full-time in the two weeks immediately after’. Council leader Darren Rodwell called for local authorities to be given ‘more power to regulate private house building’, such as ordering destructive testing and regulating materials used in buildings below 18m.
Mr Rodwell also ‘questioned wider housing policy, including whether profits are being put before people in low-rise housing’, and added further details on the inspection, including that fire doors ‘weren’t self-closing, possibly letting flames spread if they weren’t closed manually’. HomeGround, representing the building owners, stated that the doors were ‘only temporary’ after being damaged by fire crews, and new doors ‘are now in place’.
Mr Rodwell also called for putting the ‘onus’ on companies to ensure buildings are safe ‘throughout their life span’, adding: ‘The private sector shouldn’t be allowed to get away with treating the management of post-fire incidents as someone else’s problem. Developers may have passed building control and gained planning consent, but they are the ones making the profit.’
A Bellway spokesman said the building’s fire safety measures ‘ensured the safe evacuation of residents’, and that it had commissioned an independent fire safety review, as well as pledging to work with the council, residents and the building owner ‘to come up with a permanent design solution’. The news outlet also noted that a planning application to remove the wooden balconies was with the council, but ‘there currently isn’t enough information to move it forward’.