NFRS 2025 17 - Cladding
You asked for
Dear Madam/ Sir, I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to request the following under the Freedom of Information Act 2000:
- How many buildings in Nottinghamshire were identified following Grenfell ashaving potentially dangerous cladding
- How many of those still have the potentially dangerous cladding identified
- Can you provide a list of the buildings still affected?
- Is anything in place to monitor these buildings?
If you need any further information in order to deal with my request, please let me know. Please can you acknowledge receipt of this request?
Our Response
- How many buildings in Nottinghamshire were identified following Grenfell ashaving potentially dangerous cladding
Answer: - 42 premises identified as having cladding that poses varying degrees of riskwith 7 identified as having similar cladding as that installed on Grenfell Tower. - How many of those still have the potentially dangerous cladding identified
Answer: - All 7 that that were identified as being similar to Grenfell have beenremediated. A further 7 have also been remediated with the remaining 28 at varying stages of theremediation process. - Can you provide a list of the buildings still affected?
Answer: - Exempt by virtue of section 38 (Health and Safety) of the Freedom ofInformation Act 2000. 4. Is anything in place to monitor these buildings? Answer: - Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Serviceoperate a Joint Audit & Inspection Team (JAIT) that continuously monitors the premisesin scope. This team takes appropriate action using a blend of the Regulatory Reform(Fire Safety) Order 2005 and the Housing Act 2004. This team works with MHCLG andHomes England who provide scrutiny of landlords and responsible persons and monitorand agree funding to the Cladding Safety Scheme and Building Safety Fund.
38.Health and safety.
- Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likelyto—
- endanger the physical or mental health of any individual, or
- endanger the safety of any individual.
- The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, have either of the effects mentioned in subsection (1).
Section 38 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is categorised as a Qualified and Prejudice Based type exemption and therefore requires a public interest test be carried and that Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service articulate the harm in disclosure.
Evidence of Harm
Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service is only required to consider the consequence of the disclosure of the information that has been requested to the ‘world at large’ and whether this, in itself, that the requested information ‘could be used’ and that ‘there is a likelihood’ buildings would be targeted causing ‘potential harm’.
There are precedents set that give credence to Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service’s concerns.
For example, in January 2025, a deliberate fire occurred on the 12th floor of Aulton Court, a 19-storey tower block in Aberdeen, Scotland, the resulting fire caused seven injuries and onehospitalisation. Authorities confirmed the fire was intentional and launched an investigation.
Link: https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/14205841/seven-injured-huge-fire-flats-aberdeen/
Another example occurred only recently in March 2025 A man has been arrested on suspicion of arson with intent to endanger life after a fire in a block of flats. The fire was located on the top floor, with firefighters - six of whom had to wear breathing apparatus - using jets both inside and from a ladder to control the spread of the blaze.
Link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpq2g5lggpvo
An arsonist who put hundreds of lives at risk when he deliberately lit a fire in a city centre block of flats in April 2024 has been jailed. Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service put out the fire and a joint investigation with police discovered an accelerant had been used and the blaze had been started deliberately.
Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service is of the view that disclosing details of a property, identified by name and address, which is known to be vulnerable to the effects of a fire, would be useful intelligence and therefore likely to be of assistance to a terrorist group, or similar, should they be contemplating an attack on such a building.
Public Interest Test
Factor in Favour of Disclosure:
Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service accepts that there is always a degree of benefit in making information held by public authorities available as it can be expected to increase public participation in decision making and aid the transparency and accountability of government.
There is a clear public interest in ensuring that information about buildings with dangerous cladding is accessible to the public. Transparency would enable residents, local authorities, and the wider community to be aware of which buildings are at risk and take necessary precautions.
Disclosure would support the ongoing public debate about building safety and the regulatory measures in place to prevent further tragedies similar to Grenfell.
Public access to this information could prompt quicker action from building owners and local authorities to prioritise the remediation of dangerous cladding and safeguard the health and safety of occupants.
Factors in Favour of Withholding:
Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service is only required to consider the consequence of the disclosure of the information that has been requested to the ‘world at large’ and whether this, in itself, that the requested information ‘could be used’ and that ‘there is a likelihood’ buildings would be targeted causing ‘potential harm’.
Disclosing the addresses of buildings with potentially dangerous cladding could result in harm to public safety. For example, it could lead to targeting buildings for acts of vandalism or arson, particularly if the public is unaware of specific remediation actions already taken or planned.
Disclosure could increase fear or panic among residents of affected buildings, potentially exacerbating stress and mental health concerns. The exposure of building addresses could also compromise the safety of residents who may already be vulnerable.
Balance Test
Having reviewed both factors in favour of disclosing and withholding the information requested, the service believes that, on balance, the serious risk to public safety and endangerment of lives far outweighs any public interest in releasing information which identifies all the buildings in question.
Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service believes that there is a likelihood of buildings being targeted by persons with malicious intent (such as terrorists or arsonists), should the requested information be disclosed. That there are concerns that the name and addresses of tall buildings in residential use could be used to attack, or otherwise compromise, the safety of these buildings and the residents. It is argued that the potential harm that could be caused to residents, should this information be used in this way, is very significant and would endanger safety.
It has therefore concluded that it is not in the public interest to disclose the information at this time.