THE FIRE in September 2019 destroyed 23 flats in the block, with reports that the original developer had admitted it had ‘let [residents] down badly’.
The fire last September destroyed a block on the estate in London, and residents were reported last October to have been ‘left at risk’ because of ‘missing or useless’ compartmentation. At that time, it had been established that there were ‘apparent flaws’ in two other buildings constructed by the same developer – Berkeley Group – that would ‘allow fire to spread quickly’.
While the company responded that all the properties had been ‘independently signed off’, the housing association for The Hamptons estate amended its stay put evacuation policy after advice from London Fire Brigade (LFB). According to former resident Stephen Nobrega, the fire’s spread ‘was more or less instant. It was like paper. You would expect that the materials would contain a fire for a considerable amount of time, but it just didn’t happen’.
While there were no injuries, residents ‘believed they just about escaped in time’, with a number losing their homes. As a consequence, the development was ‘on high alert’ with 24 hour waking watch patrols, and housing association Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTVH) ‘fitted smoke alarms in the electrical cupboards’ of all blocks. Two independent surveyors assessed another building on site, and found fire would ‘spread at speed’ there due to missing compartmentation.
Arnold Tarling found a ‘large gap between the fire stopping and the cladding’ which would act as a ‘chimney through which a fire will spread […] what we have here is a form of fire stopping which just won’t do its job’. Greig Adams said the breaches had ‘consequences, including a considerable increased risk to life in the event of a fire. The provision of effective fire barriers is a mandatory requirement, not an element that can be shoddily thrown together or to cut corners on’.
Previous residents had contacted Berkeley Group ‘years ago’ over fire safety concerns, with one hiring an independent inspector in 2005 who discovered ‘similar problems’ with compartmentation that ‘did not meet basic fire safety requirements’. In December 2019, it was revealed that LFB had served the estate with 16 enforcement notices, after intrusive surveys found ‘a series of defects in the passive fire protection’.
This necessitated remedial work including ‘installing or improving’ cavity barriers, and correcting internal firestopping elements, MTVH having until 30 April 2021 to complete the work. The work was to be undertaken by original developer St James, which was also issued enforcement notices on some of its buildings on the estate, and MTVH pledged to rebuild the block – which had been made up of 23 shared ownership homes.
Post fire, the waking watch was accompanied by a move to simultaneous evacuation across the estate, while the communal fire alarm systems were ‘in the process of being installed’. However, it was reported in September this year that an investigation into the fire had found that it was fitted with ‘defective’ cavity barriers that ‘contributed nothing to control of the fire’.
An investigation into Richmond House by consultancy Probyn Miers revealed flames ‘were able to rip through a 16cm cavity between the building’s main structure and cement board cladding’, and the cavity contained ‘three layers of timber battens, which provided fuel for the fire to burn behind the non-combustible cladding’.
The fire’s spread should have been slowed by cavity barriers, but those installed were defective, with the report adding: ‘In Richmond House, the cavity barriers that were fitted were defective: they were too small to close the cavity and they would have contributed nothing to control of the fire. Based on the limited number of drawings that I have seen, the defects in the cavity barrier installation appear to be the result of errors in the design.’
This meant flames were able to spread ‘almost unhindered both horizontally and vertically’ through the cavity, and on reaching the roof met a plastic board attached to battens that ‘burned readily and melted away’. There were no cavity barriers fitted to prevent spread into the roof, and so ‘there was no effective obstacle to prevent fire spreading into the roof, which there should have been’.
The report also noted that external walls were built with limited combustibility cement board with an A2 fire rating, but this was fitted to the cavity with timber battens that ‘burned fiercely’ and allowed flames to ‘spread rapidly, vertically and horizontally, inside the wall’. The cavity barriers were ‘too small and had almost no effect’, said to be because of ‘errors in the design’. Balconies were made from steel and finished with glass reinforced plastic and timber decking, which burnt.
The aforementioned issues with the roof and the plastic board allowed fire into the roof made of timber, which also burned, and while firestopping ‘may have been absent’, it ‘probably contributed little’ as the fire had already spread so far. Internal plasterboard walls were attached to timber stud walls, and resisted fire spread ‘more effectively’ than outer walls, largely preventing spread to the north east of the building ‘despite the south-west being almost completely destroyed’.
An escape staircase remained ‘largely undamaged’ as well, while residents noted that both Berkeley and MTVH were ‘refusing to pay compensation and have instructed commercial professional dispute lawyers to deny any liability’, while Richmond House – having been under 11m in height – would not be considered higher risk even under the new regime. The residents called for an ‘increase in scope to cover all innocent leasehold victims coupled with backing of real financial consequences that cover the costs of remediation’.
The Times reported that Berkeley Group founder Tony Pidgley had told owners of flats in the block that the company had ‘let [them] down badly’ at a meeting in a community hall, an apology recorded by residents and – the news outlet pointed out – a ‘rare admission from a developer in the building safety scandal’.
Mr Pidgeley had said: ‘I founded Berkeley and we’ve always prided ourselves on trying to do things right. And we’ve let you down, we’ve let you down badly, each and every one of you. I’d like to say sorry ... It is our fault, we’ve missed it ... We did miss that fire stop, and I’m sorry, and we will be taking responsibility.’
Asked by a resident if this would include compensation, he said ‘yes’, but passed away from a stroke earlier this year, and residents’ lawyer Christian Hansen said that the company ‘has since instructed contractual dispute solicitors who are now denying liability and saying, “We are not paying anything”’.
Berkeley subsidiary St James, which built the development, commented: ‘The cause of the fire was never identified but the building “performed” as it was supposed to, allowing everyone to get out safely. Compensation has been paid to Richmond House residents and comprehensive checks made on the rest of the development. All properties remain safe and remedial works have been scheduled.’
However, The Times pointed out that residents had said each household was given £3,000 plus a contribution towards legal fees, while personal injury claims ‘have yet to be paid’, with MTVH having offered to buy back residents’ shares for the flats.