Looking at the figures, which are based on news reporting, it’s impossible to ignore the concentration of post-Grenfell building prohibitions and evacuations in London, while other regions show comparatively fewer incidents. 

This leads us to ask: Is London truly leading the way in implementing new building safety regulations, or is something else driving this regional disparity?

Our analysis reveals:

• London Dominance: 29% of reported building prohibitions between June 2017 and December 2024 occurred in London
• Other Regions: A few other regions stand out for higher incidences of post-Grenfell building prohibitions; Greater Manchester 15%, West Yorkshire 12%, and Essex 6% 
• Cause of Prohibition: 73% of prohibitions were due to Fire Safety, 25% of prohibitions were due to Structural Safety, and 2% were due to both Fire and Structural safety concerns

This raises some important questions about the data that we don’t have definitive answers to, but do have some thoughts on what might be happening:

1. Is London more proactively identifying and addressing building safety issues? At first glance, it looks like London is far more active than other regions from a building prohibition perspective. However, when we consider London is home to 61% of high-rise residential blocks it makes the 29% prohibition in London look abnormally low. With over 1,100 London blocks with waking watch in 2022 perhaps the London Fire Brigade prefer mitigation via Simultaneous Evacuation to prohibition? 

2. Are other regions facing similar issues but not identifying them at the same rate? It is very difficult to establish the cause of regional variances. Data is not published routinely. Even enforcement notices are unreliable as a source. We are unaware if MHCLG are tracking prohibitions, but previous correspondence on related Building Safety impacts would indicate they do not.

3. Are there resource constraints affecting the ability of other regions to conduct necessary inspections and interventions? We haven’t seen any data to answer this question. We do know that there has not been a significant increase in funding announced for Fire Service enforcement activity despite the Building Safety Act and Fire Safety (England) Regulations significantly increasing FRS workload.

4. Does the data reflect a true representation of the problem, or are there discrepancies in data collection and reporting across regions? Yes, our data could potentially be underreporting significantly, as it is based on news reports and once reported depends on a member of the Building Safety Register finding it, or one of our contacts sending us an alert. This process is nowhere near precise, but is far more informative than ignoring the problem in its entirety, as the Government appears to be doing.

5. Given that defects are not confined to older buildings, are newer buildings receiving the necessary scrutiny? There are many ways a building will be assessed and could end up being prohibited. In the main, building managers (Responsible Persons / Accountable Persons) will be routinely inspecting their buildings to identify and manage risks to satisfy legal compliance. There are further layers of ad-hoc inspection from the Fire Service and Local Authorities. There would also be a more intense assessment if a building has a fire or some form of near-miss incident.

It’s essential to ensure that all residents, regardless of their location, live in safe buildings. The analysis of data across regions is important to inform performance and self-reflection. London’s figures are an important marker in terms of how the data is interpreted.

In order to make decisions, the Government really does need to up their game in terms of robust data gathering and reporting. This type of work should not be left to industry on a best endeavours basis. It is too important.

What do you think? 

Are there other factors contributing to this regional disparity? 

How can we ensure consistent safety standards across the UK?