The government’s decision to demolish the remaining hulk of the Grenfell Tower, announced on Wednesday evening by Angela Rayner at a meeting of victims’ families and survivors, has inevitably attracted mixed views and controversy.
Grenfell United – an amalgamation of groups representing survivors and the bereaved families of Grenfell – immediately issued a statement, saying there had been a lack of meaningful consultation with those closely affected by the fire. They alleged that the Deputy Prime Minister could not give a reason for demolishing the tower and that she ‘refused to confirm how many bereaved and survivors had been spoken to in the recent, short four-week consultation.’
Building safety must surely be at the core of any decision regarding the tower
However, another prominent group, Grenfell Next of Kin (GNOK) representing the families of those who perished in the Tower, has taken a more conciliatory line. Their statement following the Rayner meeting gave a very different view of the way the government had handled the consultation process: ‘It is a deeply sensitive decision and one that came after a thorough engagement process.’ GNOK did also note though that ‘some people are now enraged that [the government] did not engage.’
GNOK began its statement on the demolishment of the tower with the astute observation that ‘structural issues have informed our position’. Building safety must surely be at the core of any decision regarding the tower. This is despite, as the GNOK statement went on to say, this being ‘an uncomfortable conversation with uncomfortable truths at its heart.’
It is a marvel to the strength of concrete that Grenfell tower is still standing at all, almost eight years after that terrible conflagration. Even so, it is also only being held in place by around 6,000 metal props. This is unsustainable in the longer term. Successive ministers since the fire have undertaken to keep the tower in place until the eighth anniversary of the tragedy – now is the time to take it down.
Duncan Rudall – Chief Executive of the National Federation of Demolition Contractors – has emphasised the safety issue: ‘the tower poses a critical safety risk. It’s a danger to the surrounding environment if it fails in any part. Everyone understands the symbolism of the structure, but it can be removed sympathetically to leave a meaningful memorial to those that lost their lives.’ Patrick Hayes of the Institution of Structural Engineers also emphasised the safety issues inherent in leaving the tower standing indefinitely: ‘Structural engineers have carried out assessments on the safety of the structure and their recommendations are that the tower will not remain stable and should be carefully deconstructed to protect the safety of those around the tower. The longer this is left the more difficult the process will become as the structure ages. This operation obviously has to be carried out as sensitively as possible.’
With the eighth anniversary of the tragedy just four months’ away, the coming weeks are important for Grenfell. Last year, when the much-delayed Final Report of The Grenfell Tower Inquiry (GTI) was published, the Prime Minister made a firm commitment that the government would respond within six months. There is every indication that this response, which is likely to lead to further legislation, will be made before the end of February.
While the government will no doubt wish to be seen to be reacting positively to the report’s 58 far-reaching recommendations, their implementation will require a sea-change in the way we regulate buildings in this country. Increased regulation and growth are never comfortable bedfellows and the regulatory regime established by The Building Safety Act 2022 is already creating significant delays in building projects that threaten the government’s growth targets. Given that growth is the government’s main priority, and just a few days ago the Prime Minister vowed to deregulate Britain, his response to the Grenfell report will need to be very carefully crafted to avoid further controversy.
Late last year, the Grenfell bereaved received a letter from the police, which was described by some family members as cold and impersonal. The letter notified them that the remains of their relatives could still be among a small quantity of unidentified remains in storage, and may possibly be mixed up with the remains of other victims.
Given incidents like these, and with it unlikely that there will be any prosecutions related to the fire until 2026 at the earliest, it is hardly surprising that survivors and bereaved families are still sensitive about the future of the tower itself.
Still, taking down the remains of the building to establish a safe, permanent and cherished memorial has to be the main objective now. But there is a lesson here for the government in future: when dealing with the Grenfell tragedy, it must take care to properly consult and communicate with those affected by the blaze.
Comments