London tower tragedy Could it happen here

Learning the lessons of GrenfellIn the wake of the deadly London fire last week, Australians are asking the question: could it happen here? The Australian Building Codes Board’s general manager Neil Savery provides his views.The investigation into the fatal Grenfell Tower fire, which has claimed the lives of dozens of people, is currently underway, but critics are already pointing to the lack of sprinkler systems or building-wide alarms, and just one functional fire escape. Questions are also being raised about the aluminium cladding installed on the building during a 2016 renovation. Similar cladding was also blamed for the fire in Melbourne’s Lacrosse building in 2014.Savery (pictured) says there are never any guarantees, especially in older buildings, but Australia’s building codes are among the best in the world.”You simply could not build a Grenfell apartment block today and comply with Australia’s codes and standards,” Savery says.”Buildings that meet the National Construction Code and referenced standards will withstand the rigours of fire safety, as well as other requirements like structural integrity, weatherproofing and energy efficiency.”Australia has a very sound regulatory framework. The key is making it work effectively.”Savery has recently returned from Washington, during which time he met with representatives of the Interjurisdictional Regulatory Collaboration Committee, a group of 12 countries including Australia, China, Canada, the United States and Japan, which promotes knowledge sharing on performance-based building regulatory systems.”When I compare our codes with others, I believe we are at least on par with the codes in other jurisdictions,” he explains.Independent senator Nick Xenophon has called for a national audit of high rise buildings, arguing that “the London building tragedy demonstrates how critical it is to ensure that Australian building products comply with all Australian standards and regulations”.Xenophon is on the Senate committee currently undertaking an inquiry into non-conforming building products. Established in 2015, the committee is expected to release its final report in October.Property Council chief executive Ken Morrison said the industry shared concerns about the issue of non-conforming products.”This is an area where the industry needs to be vigilant. There have been instances where builders have purchased product which they believe to be complaint with Australian law, and it isn’t. “The fact is non-compliant product is a fraud and misrepresentation against those who believe they are purchasing the right product – and if the product subsequently fails, it also has the potential to harm innocent people.”The Federal Parliament has a committee studying the issue and we are looking forward to seeing their recommendations. Some state governments are already moving, but the best solution would be a national approach. Any solutions also need to be practical and workable in operation,” Morrison says.Investigations undertaken after the Lacrosse fire at Melbourne’s Docklands found the building was clad in aluminium composite panels, or ACPs, which have a highly-flammable polyethylene core.Savery says ACPs can be “legitimate products if used in the right situation. In other words, they need to be fit for purpose under the evidence of suitability provisions of the NCC”.”Our understanding is that the product used on the Lacrosse building was applied in a manner that did not comply with the code. “Everyone is getting carried away with the idea that Grenfell Tower is another case of ACPs, but they aren’t the only potentially flammable cladding product on the market. We don’t yet know what product was used in London and how it contributed to the fire”.At the heart of the cladding subject, which will only be part of the story that unfolds from this tragic event, is whether the products used were non-compliant or non-conforming, Savery says.”We need to make an important distinction between non-compliant use of products and those that are non-conforming,” he says.”Non-conforming products do not set out to meet necessary standards, such as those contained in the NCC, and are marketed to deliberately deceive. These are primarily a consumer affairs matter.”The non-compliant use of a product is essentially a practitioner issue, where a decision has been made to use a product where it is not fit for purpose. In many cases this may be by accident, but the key is around education, auditing and enforcement. “If auditing is considered necessary, there are different auditing regimes that apply to non-conforming products and practitioner application of products.”Morrison says the Property Council will be following the Grenfell Tower inquiry closely to see if there are lessons for Australia. “While the review of the UK tragedy is only starting, it is already clear there have been multiple failures of compliance and maintenance. Australia already has appropriately strict fire safety standards, but if there are lessons to learn from the UK we should learn them. We fully support the need for building standards to be maintained and reinforced in a way that delivers safety for residents.”Savery emphasises that Grenfell Tower was a “40-year-old building – one which no one is constructing today. Buildings being constructed today are fundamentally safe to occupy if they comply with the provisions of the NCC”.There can’t be complacency, however, when it comes to Australia’s codes, its regulatory system and maintenance of existing buildings, particularly whether fire systems are being regularly inspected for ongoing compliance.”Once constructed, buildings can drop off the radar of ongoing compliance with codes and standards. A new group of people has responsibility: body corporates, strata title managers and building owners.”But the bottom line is clear, Savery says.”A Grenfell apartment block built today would not comply with Australia’s codes and standards.”