Given the person quoted, I thought regular readers would like this story in today’s Sunday Express.
I wrote it before today’s fire at a tower block in in Bromley-by-Bow in which thankfully no one was hurt.
But I don’t think today’s incident in any way alters the “health and safety gone mad” argument in the Sunday Express piece. It concerns Dan McCurry and the houseplants he’s placed in the communal landing outside his flat in Clare House in Bow.
Dan McCurry is a Labour activist in the area and a regular commenter on this blog. He and fellow Old Ford Housing Association residents are a bit peeved by letters they’ve recently received. Similar letters have also been sent out by Tower Hamlets Homes, but I’m hoping they’ve got more common sense than Old Ford…
So some fun Sunday reading for you.
A GROUP of tower block residents has been ordered to remove the pot plants that spruce up their drab communal corridors… because they are a fire risk.
Tenants were told their pots in the ex-local authority building are “combustible” and would endanger the lives of firefighters if a blaze broke out.
Old Ford Housing Association, part of the Circle Anglia group, last inspected the plants about three years ago when leaseholder Dan McCurry wanted to enter them in a flower competition.
Legal executive Mr McCurry, 47, who lives on the 19th floor of the 21-storey block in Bow, east London, said: “They disqualified me from that, not because they were combustible but because they’re not flowers. They didn’t mention anything about fire hazards then.
“I’ve tested one of them outside with a lighter and I can assure everyone that they’re definitely not combustible. They’re just leaves.
“They make the place look nice. Without them, it would be just drab.
“It’s important to have decor here but they’re just being heavy-handed and lacking common sense.
“Pensioners are frightened to complain but they’re furious about what they’re being told. It’s bureaucracy gone mad.”
Old Ford sent out its health and safety letters earlier this month. It said it recognised its decision was distressing but it had a duty to act as a responsible landlord.
Its customer services team told Mr McCurry the fire at the Lakanal House tower block in south London four years ago, in which six people were killed, had changed the face of health and safety. They wrote: “The landings have to be cleared of everything, which includes the plants. Items that are deemed combustible must be removed.
“Our concern as a landlord in the first instance is the safety of our residents.
“The plants as well as other items have to be removed to ensure that we can get you out of the block in the event of a fire.
“When a fire breaks out, smoke is one of the main causes of death and when people are trying to escape they become disorientated and are not sure if they turn left or right and the smallest thing can be an obstacle for some of us, especially those that have poor or failing eyesight as well as other disabilities.
“We also have to ensure the safety of the firefighters when they are entering the block and trying to rescue people.
“I am aware that these letters that are sent out are distressing for residents and cause frustration but we all have to adhere to the rules that are set out so lives aren’t needlessly put at risk.”
An Old Ford spokesman added: “We took this decision following clear advice from London Fire Brigade.
“They advised that personal items in common parts and corridors must be removed. We understand our residents want to add a more personal touch, however it is in everyone’s interest that we put safety first. Taking these very simple steps could potentially be the difference between life and death.”
A London Fire Brigade spokesman said it was no longer its role to judge whether plants and other obstacles were risky. He said its job was to ensure landlords carried out checks and the landlord decided what was acceptable.
Trial by Jeory 
What happened at Lackanal House was that negligent repair and maintenance work broke through the fire compartmentation. The flats were built so that fire couldn’t spread between each flat, with impervious walls and floors made of concrete etc and any penetrations firestopped. This is designed so that a fire can burn for an hour or two before it could spread, giving the fire service plenty of time to put it out. But over the years, various ad hoc works were carried out, with new holes for services being knocked through, without then being fire proofed. This enabled the fire to spread through the compartment walls between the flats.
There were other issues about informing people about how the escape routes work, and how to plan for what to do when a fire breaks out, but it mostly seems to be about negligent works to the flat.
It’s good that landlords are taking care of the fire safety of blocks, and checking up after Lackanal that their blocks are safe. And it’s true that you mustn’t keep any combustable materials in the escape routes. It’s possible that the plants might combust in sufficient heat, but if that were to happen the compartmentation would have to have been massively breached. The wooden table certainly isn’t ideal though.
I just hope that they are doing proper fire risk assessments, with proper experts checking the compartmentation, rather than just sending letters to people about plants and feeling like that covers their backs.
Can we see copy of the letter sent to residents – the one based on ‘advice’ from the LFB? No civilized group under whatever guise/association will issue a draconian ‘instruction’ to remove all decoration/personal artifacts/plants etc from public areas in accommodation blocks – unless of course they are the type of gated community that have such authority e.g. HMP Holloway, Pentonville etc. It’s crass beaurocracy – penned by imbeciles.
Of coure its all a matter of degree. A small market garden display would be inappropriate, however remove grandma’s potted plants with these sweeping instructions and you deprive her and others of their right to a civilized existence.
That’ll teach ’em.
On my estate THH made everyone get rid of the flowers on the external access balconies. I thing the rationale was meant to be about their getting in the way of fire crews, which I thought seemed a bit fanciful. These are external so the risk of smoke from combustion – a big danger in fires – doesn’t seem as relevant.
Having plants around makes common parts of flats seem cared for and civilised. I don’t think it’s the LFB being in charge of fire risk assessments – some sort of deregulation now – but some kind of professional ought to test these things.
Only this afternoon there was a big fire in a block in Bromley by Bow. In a fire, everyone needs the escape routes to be safe. If the professional view is that plants can pose a danger in a fire, I would (grumblingly) go along with this.
Thank goodness my 93 year old, soon to be 94 in October, Mum, voluntarily watered our front garden this evening. I hate to think that the few flower pots could have set the rest of the garden alight and perhaps too the grape vines, the holly tree, the 40 foot high fir tree, hydrangeas, runner beans, the potato plants etc., the grass and all the rose bushes not forgetting the privet hedges. (we have a former LCC house).
We are most grateful to the excellent advice from the professional nincompoops at wonderful ‘Old Ford’. Thank goodness we now know about the dangers of flower pots suddenly combusting. Is it really true some people living in tall blocks of flats have been filling their flower pots with cottonwool soaked in petrol disguised as flowers packed in earth ?
I’d be asking for:-
(a) a copy of the Old Ford inspection report
(b) the academic and professional qualifications of the Old Ford Heath & Safety inspector
(c) a copy of the laboratory analysis of the material used in flowerpots.
(d) a review of the Old Ford banning decision based on common sense.
Amazingly when caught lying to the public, Old Ford tried to put the blame on the Fire Brigade.
How on earth did council flats and their tenants come to be managed by a crap third-rate bunch of idiots ??? It is an another sign of Great Britain slowly sinking beneath the waves.
Curious Cat.
In answer to (b) I’d bet its just NEBOSH which takes about six months part time to achieve, it’s usually paid for by the employer and considering the whinging, listless, imbeciles at my old job who got it – its hard to fail. You don’t need ANY other qualifications to become an official Elf&Safety
leave the flowers. at least they belong to people who have some pride in how they live and want to make and keep their homes and the area pretty. get rid of the scabby washing lines people hang up on walkways and communal areas- now thats unsightly and a fire hazard….and unfortunately most AMO/ council/ HA run properties in tower hamlets are blighted by the sight of them.
This is Dan’s finest hour, it’s finally happened. How incredible.
Many Health and Safety types use a risk x severity grid to assess the potential risk. The combined result provides a very simplistic solution to a question, “is it safe?”.
For example, an old chair would get a 2 for severity (of consequences) and a 3 for risk = 6. A plant in a lobby gets 9 for severity (because hundreds could die) and 1 for risk = 9.
The system is flawed and over simplified so total muppets can master it. It requires a third equation – common sense – but all too often it isn’t applied.
Personally, I’d like to see them turn ambulance and police sirens down several notches for H&S reasons. The stress and anxiety they cause genuinely effects people.
Well done Dan. Don’t give up, get even. Ask to speak to them in their office and take a camera. Photograph plant you find. Demand they remove all their potted plants or risk the lives of every staff member!
There is a more serious and more fundamental aspect to this ‘ban the flowers and flowerpots’ diktat.
Living in a flat in a city like London where everyone lacks a personal garden can significantly increase stress and encourage mental health illnesses.
Life without greenery around people is unnatural. Dan lives on the 19th floor (above the ground floor ?) in a 21 storey bloke. Nothing is more natural and reasonable than him wanting to create a very small patch of relaxing and humanising greenery. Instead the Gestapo morons have declared
‘Bland and soulless is good, greenery is bad’.
If Old Ford was competently operated, its Health & Safety Officer should walk along every corridor and public balcony making a proper Health & Safety check. If the HSO sees a risk, its easy to ask the tenant to mitigate the risk. If the greenery just looks nice, then leave it alone.
Nothing is worse than being governed by morons, whether in local government, national government or at Old Ford. In those circumstances the public who pay the salaries, pensions and perks enjoyed by the morons have very little ability to obtain a proper service.
Dan has to appeal all the way to the top of Old Ford.
Curious Cat.
From experience I know there is a formal width of corridor for escape purposes which is recommended by the HSE. From memory it’s just over a metre in width. I recommend Dan researches this properly and then measures it…
Business premises where people work ….
http://www.outsource-safety.co.uk/freehelp/94-fire-risk-assessment-escape.html
http://www.firesafe.org.uk/basic-means-of-escape-from-fire/
The relevant legislation is the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 which updated a range of bits and pieces of fire safety legislation and consolidated them into one coherent piece of legislation. It covers commercial buildings, hotels, bedsits, and blocks of flats of all sizes and both public and privately owned.
It puts a duty on the owner to appoint a ‘responsible person’ to carry out a fire risk assessment on the building and ensure that measures are put in place to minimise the risk of fire and mitigate any risks which do exist.
Apparently the ‘responsible person’ cannot be a fire brigade officer (they might offer advice if you’re lucky but they’re not going to be held responsible if a fire breaks out because they missed something in carrying out a risk assessment.) The Fire Brigade will enforce the legislation, however, and can (I believe) prosecute owners of buildings where there is no risk assessment in place.
It is disingenuous of Old Ford to claim that Lakanal House had changed the health and safety culture. They should have been carrying out fire risk assessments since 2005 – long before Lakanal House. In fact the legal action against Southwark Council with regard to Lakanal House rests partly on the fact that they had not been carrying out any risk assessments on the block when they were under a legal obligation to do so. If they had risk-assessed Lakanal House they would have found (as Architectron states) that there were breaches in the physical structure that meant that smoke and fire could spread quickly and the fire resistance of walls and doors was breached.
The legislation applies to private blocks as well. A friend of mine, living in an upmarket apartment block in the Surrey countryside, was told by the managing agents of his block that his doormat presented a trip hazard. All sorts of things in communal areas present a hazard in a fire: the issue is how great a hazard they present and what can be done to mitigate it. Doormats are going to be a very minor hazard. Somebody doing up their flat and leaving bits of wood, buckets of paint and DIY kit out overnight presents a much higher risk.
In Dan’s case a load of plants may or may not be flammable but anything in a corridor presents an obstacle and in darkness, surrounded by smoke and burning heat, residents trying to escape or firemen coming in may not see items left in corridors and either trip over them or have to move round them, adding vital seconds to the time available to get out/tackle the fire. If it were only Dan’s plants it might just be an inconvience but if every floor has something outside in the corridor then it could present a serious problem.
I don’t know where the plants are located in relation to other flats on the same floor or in relation to exit points such as the stairs. If they are tucked in a corner away from entrances to any other flats and not in the path to the stairs (or any external staircase or exit window) I would think they present a low risk.
But then the housing association will have to address each item left outside in the communal areas on a case by case basis and I’m sure the residents will welcome the increase in rent they will have to pay to cover the administrative costs of deciding whether Dan’s plants can be allowed while Mr X’s bike 2 floors below has to go as does Mrs Y’s washing line (and then enforcing that). Far cheaper, easier (and fair on the residents actually) to say ‘Nothing to be left in communal areas’. After all they are just that: communal areas. Rent will cover the upkeep of them but the flat owners do not have the right to the area for their own personal use.
PS I live in a purpose built block of flats myself so am also covered by everything I’ve just written. (In fact I’ve used the legislation very successfully to press managing agents to install and maintain various fire safety measures.) I would like to put plants on the window ledge outside my front door but I do not have any right to do so.
Nothing really beats a bit of common sense.
Litigation beats common sense (and also the ECHR) …
version 2
———————–
eastendersscriptwriterscouldn’tmakeitup,
Thank you for your thoughtful reflection.
Essentially when the flats were designed, a failure to include safe space for humanising greenery occurred. The designers forgot about the welfare of flat dwellers. Wonder why the planning committee didn’t consider areas for public greenery on each floor.
You wrote about people navigating in the dark but surely there should be emergency illumination designed to work when power is off ?
What about floor or very low height illuminated fire escape / exit markers when smoke obscures normal visibility ?
Curious Cat.
P.S. Should or will the rents increase if Old Form physically and regularly inspects the public accessible corridors, stairs, and balconies checking for fire hazards ? Old Ford would be doing that as part of their management due diligence.
Emergency illumination is something that I would have thought should be installed and maintained but ideally there still shouldn’t be anything that people could bump into/trip over. Fortunately I’ve never been in a fire but I understand that smoke can be very dense and if the fire occurs at night the emergency lighting may not give full sight of the area – possibly enough to see where the ultimate exit is.
As for the costs, I agree that regular inspection and risk assessment is part of overall management and therefore should not incur extra charges. But if they have to start deciding (in a block of 19 floors, so several flats) that one person’s stuff is acceptable but another one’s isn’t and then having to justify and enforce that (with all the arguments that would arise) the costs will go up and, I would have thought, would have to be reflected in rents or service charge or something.
Replying specifically to Dan’s case, a floor plan of the public areas on his 19th floor, including lifts, stairs and other fire exits superimposed with Dan’s greenery display might help everyone to make a more accurate comment about Dan’s specific instance.
Curious Cat.