The Chalcots estate

• THERE are a number of areas of concern with the Chalcots Fire Risk Assessments (FRAs) completed after the evacuation.

They are broadly similar, so I will focus on the FRA for my block, Bray. The FRA from February 2017 completed by Euro-Compliance classified the risk rating for Bray as “moderate.”

Following the evacuation and the return of residents to their homes, an FRA was carried out by Frankham. The August FRA (on its summary page) described the risk level as “normal.”

This suggests an improvement from moderate, but what does “normal” really mean?

The scale used by both companies is as follows:

1. Trivial.
2. Tolerable.
3. Moderate.
4. Substantial.
5. Intolerable.

So, “normal” is not a risk rating.

The actual risk rating, which can be found near the end of the document, just before the sign-off sheet, is “moderate”, exactly the same as before. Any suggestion that the official risk rating for this block has “improved” would be misleading.

With so much work still outstanding it is interesting to note exactly how this block was rated as moderate risk.

According to the FRA: “The block has been considered moderate/normal risk due to the ongoing fire safety measures/works currently being put in place in relation to passive protection, the proposed removal of the ACM cladding tiles, the 24-hour security arrangements and waking watch in place until the cladding tiles are removed.”

So, three things allow the block to be considered as moderate risk:

1. Cladding removal.
2. Ongoing safety works.
3. Fire marshals/security.

Of these, only one is fully in place – security. The cladding removal and other works have not been completed yet, they are to be done in the future.

The risk level has been reduced on the basis of promises, not actual work done. The minimum possible risk level for Bray tower must therefore be at least one level higher than stated, that is, “substantial.”

Even this is based on assumptions such as the maximum occupancy of the building being a mere 322 people, just two per flat. The actual number of residents is at least double that.

If an incident required an evacuation, as some have, there is double the safe number of people to evacuate, which raises doubts about whether this could be done safely.

I conclude that residents of this block were asked to return prematurely. This risk assessment should have been done, and its results should have been acted upon, before anyone was asked to return home.

PAUL URQUHART
Bray
Chalcots Estate, NW3