Appeal from Residents for Safe Blocks of Flats

Appealing to you all to contribute to our Crowdfund to remove the dangerous highly combustible XPS panels off our fire stairs at Royal Artillery Quays and bring down our permanently high insurance and make our flats safe.

In order to get the highly combustible panels off our fire stairs at Royal Artillery Quays - we need a fire engineering report to ensure the freeholders or Barratt are forced to remove them.

Fortunately we've had Grenfell Inquiry Council Stephanie Barwise KC state the panels need to come off powerfully here : https://stephaniebarwise.substack.com/p/the-case-for-candour-a-local-authority

Along with 2 supportive fire engineering opinions below:

Opinion 1 Fire Engineer:

Drawing on my 30 years of fire safety experience and current work in high-rise remediation I would say yes, they need to come off. I’m surprised and disappointed it’s not simply included. It makes me wonder what else they consider a tolerable risk.

1. Risk Assessment & Tolerability

Risk Profile: While the fire ignition risk may be low (excluding e-bike scenarios), the high consequence of losing the sole stairwell elevates the overall risk to an intolerable level under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

Legal Context: The Fire Safety Order does not permit reliance on a "zero ignition risk" to justify omitting safeguards. Remediation should prioritise life safety over cost or convenience.

2. FRAEW vs. Fire Risk Assessment (FRA)

Hierarchy of Documents: The FRAEW (Fire Risk Appraisal for External Walls) is intended to inform the FRA, not supersede it. If the FRA identifies an intolerable risk, this must drive remediation-even if the FRAEW aligns with funding constraints.

Systemic Flaws: PAS 9980’s limitations often lead to inconsistent outcomes, with some buildings over-remediated and others under-remediated. My own FRAEWs have faced challenges from contractors seeking cost reductions. These need to be robustly repelled.

3. Contractor Influence & Industry Challenges

Conflict of Interest: Contractors should not dictate safety-critical decisions. Their role should be limited to executing remediation plans validated by independent fire engineers.

Two Extremes:

Developer-Pledged Projects: Contractors often challenge specifications to minimise costs (“challenge everything” tactics).

Non-Developer Projects: Contractors may inflate scopes to increase profitability.

4. Recommendations

Advocate for XPS Replacement: Given the stairwell’s criticality, I strongly recommend insisting on XPS removal in this area.

Leverage the FRA: Use the FRA’s findings to justify necessary work, ensuring alignment with the “golden thread” of safety.

Independent Review: Consider third-party validation of contractor claims to mitigate bias.

Opinion 2 Fire Engineer:

I think there is a strong argument for removing the XPS panels from the single stair.

I'm surprised this has not been recommended within the FRAEW report assessment. Typically, this is a high risk in the event of a fire within the staircase. as it's the only/primary means of escape out the building.

Chartered Engineer | CEng MIEI, MIFireE, Affil. CIBSE

PhD (Eng.), MEng (Eng.), B.Eng (Eng.)

PGDip. (Thermal Bridge Calculations) | BFRC Thermal Modeller

Director | CFD | Fire Engineering | Building Physics Consultant

Please contribute - we need £4260 to raise and then we can make this happen. Thanks in advance.

Best wishes

Steve Day, Royal Artillery Quays residents chair