Fire safety changes for Penge flats are 'shocking'

The Fire Brigades Union said it was "pretty shocking" the affected block in the new development will not get a second staircase

The Fire Brigades Union (FBU) has said revised plans for a development at a shopping centre are "shocking", despite being approved by the Greater London Authority.

The multi-storey 230 home development at the site of the Blenheim Shopping Centre in Penge, south-east London, was also criticised by London Fire Brigade (LFB) for not "deferring to the spirit" of fire safety guidance.

Developers Hadley Property Group and Clarion Housing Group reduced the height of one of the buildings to avoid the need for a second staircase.

In a statement Hadley Clarion said the changes were not mandatory and transitional measures would have permitted the original plans.

Developers Hadley Property Group said the site's current shopping centre had no architectural merit

In a joint venture with the UK's largest housing association Clarion Property Group, Hadley Property Group applied to Bromley Council in 2022 to build six blocks at the site of the old shopping centre, ranging from three to 16 storeys high.

The following year, in July 2023, the previous Conservative government confirmed that any new residential building in England more than 18m high (59ft) will in future need to have two staircases in case of fire, as part of its response to the Grenfell Inquiry following the 2017 fire.

One of the blocks in the proposed Blenheim Square development, referred to in the application as Block A, was designed to be six storeys high with a single staircase - a total of 18.74m (about 61ft).

Bromley Council approved the plans in March 2024, with the Greater London Authority also giving its approval in December

Following the government announcement, Hadley Clarion revised the design and reduced the height of the commercial units on the ground floor, taking the overall building height down to 17.7m - just 30cm below the threshold.

After the revised plans were submitted, LFB was consulted by the council and in a letter, it noted the building was still tall "and is reliant on a single staircase".

"We therefore do not see this as deferring to the spirit of the guidance used and doesn't ethically justify this decision," LFB's letter continued.

However, Bromley Council went on to approve the plans in March 2024, with the Greater London Authority also giving its approval in December 2024.

Matt Wrack from the FBU said "the risks are actually almost identical" to a taller building

The FBU told BBC London it was "pretty shocking" Block A will not get a second staircase given the small reduction in height.

The FBU's General Secretary Matt Wrack said: "The building is essentially the same as another building that would be 30cm taller.

"Therefore the risks are actually almost identical to a building that wouldn't meet the requirements of the regulations."

However, Matt Hodges-Long, from the Building Safety Register, said LFB's language in its letter "seems a little intemperate".

"If we look at the wording of the law, I don't see there is anything wrong with what the developer has put forward in terms of an approach," he added.

"The regulations kick in at 18m; this building is below 18m."

Mike Payne, from the Stop Hadley campaign group, he is concerned by the plans

Local resident and Stop Hadley campaign group member Mike Payne said: "If the fire brigade are saying that this building isn't justifiable ethically then clearly there's something wrong, and that concerns me."

A spokesperson for the Hadley Property Group and Clarion Housing Group said: "All the buildings in the scheme comply fully with the latest building regulations and fire safety standards.

"As a matter of best practice Hadley Clarion took the step of redesigning the scheme twice during the planning process to meet evolving legislation... when the threshold was amended to 18 metres...requiring two staircases."

They added: "This was done despite transitional arrangements that could have allowed us to proceed with the original plans.

"These costly and time-consuming decisions were made to prioritise safety and ensure compliance with the highest standards."