Galbestos cladding was composed of asbestos fibres embedded in bitumen, hot-fused to corrugated steel sheets then spray-coated with melted polyester. On the evening of Thursday, 2 August 1973, toxic fumes from this poison sandwich, plus flaming fragments from the Oroglas acrylic roof panels, killed 50 and maimed 80 more in the Summerlands leisure centre fire on the Isle of Man. An inquiry was established on 3 September. The Manx attorney general’s brief was to investigate “inadequacies and failings” but, crucially, not to pursue “villains”. Evidence was gathered over a period of 40 days, between November 1973 and February 1974. A 40,000-word report costing £5.5m in today’s money was published in May 1974. Part E of the Building Regulations were rewritten and enacted on 31 July 1974, just under a year after the blaze.
On Monday the government accepted 49 of the 58 recommendations in the 1,700-page Grenfell report which cost £178m to compile. A team of 180 officers is currently pursuing 20 villains, both corporate and individual. This vainglorious quest for justice has cost £24m to date. The bill is forecast to reach £100m. The pursuers are only halfway through producing millions of words in statements and proofs. September 2026 is the deadline for dispatching documents to the Crown Prosecution Service. Consideration is being given to building a full-scale model to benefit the jury in trials that may not take place until the 2030s. Relatives of the 72 victims see that justice delayed is justice denied. “The trust is broken in the Met Police and its systems”, says the Grenfell Next of Kin group.
The scope of the criminal investigation mirrors the untrammelled, years-long, regulatory overreaction. A disgrace that dares not speak its name. It is a disgrace that it took five years to enact the 2022 Building Safety Act. Did there need to be 13 separate consultations before the law was passed? It is a disgrace that those riding the Grenfell Safety bandwagon did not have the more gold-plated demands stripped from the legislation as it made its way through parliament. No MP or peer dared vote “nay” to belts as well as braces. Finally, comes the disgrace of paying insufficient attention to the practicalities of running the new civil guard, the Building Safety Regulator.
The aftermath
As a result, the nascent Building Safety Regulator has been overwhelmed. James Saunders, of Wembley developer Quintain, raised the alarm in December after waiting six months for Gateway 3 approval, allowing occupation of 500 flats. “This is going to cause enormous blockage that is going to make planning reform look irrelevant,” he said. He was still waiting last week. Tens of thousands of new flats are snared in the system. Three weeks ago, building safety minister Alex Norris promised to “explore all possible options” to end the fiasco.
Quintain’s block is finished. There are hundreds of towers containing tens of thousands of flats stalled at the starting line, awaiting Gateway 2 permission to build. Sebastian Kalmar of south east London agent Kalmars says several big sites along the Old Kent Road have been affected. He said: “Developers are reducing heights to avoid the delays: shaving off a few storeys to stay under the radar and keep schemes moving. Gateway is not having the quality control effect it was likely intended for but instead has become a deterrent.”
Omer Weinberger of Avanton is developing 1,152 flats on the Ruby Triangle site off the Old Kent Road. BSR delays can kill viability, he says. ‘The main issue is the duration of the investment has increased from four to five years to seven to eight years. We are constantly having to recapitalise as risks shift due to delays. In the past, we could start groundworks, which would last about 12 months, while finalising the design. Allowing trusted contractors to commence groundworks while undergoing Gateway 2 is a simple solution.”
Norris will maybe publish his “possible options” to help dispel the angst that will surround the Grenfell anniversary. Make it far easier to pass through the gateways and raising the 18m hight limit to 25m would help. But as one major developer says, there is only one way to permanently repair the damage: “There needs to be a culture change with a focus on collaboration rather than industry bashing. There needs to be engagement with the regulator from the start.”
Peter Bill is a former editor of Estates Gazette
Image © Colin Miller
Follow Estates Gazette
