Disability campaign group loses fight over Grenfell recommendations

For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails

Sign up to our free breaking news emails

Please enter a valid email address

Please enter a valid email address

SIGN UP

I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our privacy policy

A campaign group which complained about a Government “failure” to implement Grenfell Tower Inquiry recommendations relating to disabled people living in high-rise flats has lost a High Court fight.

Claddag, which campaigns on fire safety issues facing disabled residents, raised concerns relating to recommendations that owners of high-rise residential buildings should prepare “personal emergency evacuation plans” for people with disabilities.

The group took legal action against Home Secretary Suella Braverman, who has responsibility for national fire safety legislation and guidance, and asked a judge to quash a decision “not to implement” recommendations.

Mrs Justice Stacey, who had considered arguments at a High Court hearing in London in December, has dismissed the group’s claim.

She heard that Claddag had been set up by Sarah Rennie, from Birmingham, and Georgie Hulme, from Manchester, who had physical disabilities and had also taken legal action.

The judge said Ms Rennie and Ms Hulme, and many others, must have been “desperately” disappointed that the recommendations had not been implemented.

But she said the decision was “essentially a political decision” and “not unlawful”.

Mrs Justice Stacey said a personal emergency evacuation plan was a “specifically designed evacuation plan”, tailored to meet the “specific needs of a person with reduced mobility”.

The judge said the aim was for residents and people responsible for the management of fire safety in a building to have “thought through the available options in advance of any emergency”.

She said a consultation had led ministers to conclude that introducing personal emergency evacuation plans would not be proportionate because of “practical difficulties and concerns” raised by a number of “responsible persons” and building owners.

“The reasoning could have been fuller and engaged more closely with the detailed and thoughtful findings and conclusions in the (inquiry) report and careful advice of the experts appointed to assist the inquiry, but there has been a sufficient grappling with the … rationale in all the circumstances sufficient to meet the legal threshold,” said the judge.

“This was essentially a political decision for the defendant to take and was not in breach of the requirements of public law and procedural fairness.”

She added: “It must have been desperately disappointing for the claimants and many others that the carefully considered personal emergency evacuation plan recommendations contained in the … report have not been implanted, but it was not an unlawful decision.”

Barrister Raj Desai, who represented the claimants, had told the judge 72 people had died following the outbreak of the Grenfell Tower fire on June 14 2017.

He said those who died were “disproportionately persons with disabilities” whose “ability to self-evacuate was compromised”.

Alan Payne KC, who led a government legal team, had told the hearing that a consultation was ongoing and indicated that ministers were looking at ways to implement recommendations in a “proportionate and safe manner”.