Why weren’t Grenfell survivors informed of toxic soil concerns?

Sixteen months after the Grenfell Tower fire, news of an independent study finding “huge concentrations” of potentially carcinogenic toxins in the soil and dust up to a mile away from the building has caused significant distress to survivors, local residents and the bereaved.

“This has been a concern that Grenfell United have raised time and time again,” said the chairwoman of the survivors’ group, Natasha Elcock, in a letter to ministers. “And now the community of North Kensington has had to find out through a newspaper article that the area is not as safe as you have led us all to believe.”

At a meeting on Monday evening, Public Health England (PHE) officials joined Kensington and Chelsea council (RBKC) in an unscheduled visit to reassure residents that health risks from contaminants remained low. Officials from both bodies took pains to highlight that they had not seen the full report, which has not yet been published or peer-reviewed. Yvonne Doyle, PHE regional director for London, told residents that her advice remained unchanged. RBKC’s interim director of public health, John Ashton, said PHE had been monitoring air quality in the area since before the fire. Until “this story” in the Guardian, he said, waving a copy of Saturday’s paper, there had been no need to monitor soil or dust.

Residents pressed for more detail. Had the authorities been notified of the interim findings in February 2018? Yes. Had authorities gone on to complete tests on soil or dust, or these smaller particles identified by the study’s author, Professor Anna Stec? No. Why, if authorities were notified in February of concerns around soil toxicity, had they not undertaken any tests on soil, dust or debris in the local area?

Their answers, in short, were that PHE’s “heightened” air quality monitoring did not highlight any areas for concern, and London soil is already contaminated from industry and traffic. In a statement, PHE confirmed that contaminated soil is the responsibility of the local authority, not PHE. On Monday night, the chief executive of RBKC, Barry Quirk, said they were now stepping up efforts to obtain a baseline of contaminants in soil and calling in the Environment Agency to help with this. Both authorities were seeking an urgent meeting with Professor Stec.

It is unclear why this work was not started earlier. RBKC have signed up to the principles of the Hillsborough charter, and yet failed to disclose what they knew about this new research to residents or to Grenfell United, who represent the bereaved and survivors. It raises questions about the need for a duty of candour to be enshrined in legislation, as it was in the proposed public authority accountability bill tabled in 2016.

At the moment, there is little clarity about what this new data means for survivors, firefighters and residents – and no information about whether toxicity of materials will be considered in the review on building regulations. Can a material be considered safe for residential homes if it emits large quantities of toxic gas on burning? Does this not hamper residents’ abilities to leave safely, or to stay safely in their homes while the fire is put out? The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will give no clarification on this, other than to say further detail of the building regulations review will be released “in autumn”.

While the inquiry will look at some aspects of toxicity, it will not examine the impact on the wider area – this may not be the best place for it, but it has to be looked at by someone. At a procedural hearing of the Grenfell inquiry in March this year, Stephanie Barwise QC raised concerns about toxicity and its impact on those who had survived the fire, asking for these matters to be considered. The judge declined, saying that “an investigation into the actual or potential effects of the fire on the health of those who escaped from the tower, the firefighters and residents of neighbouring buildings, either immediate or in the long term,” was not within the inquiry’s current terms of reference. He noted PHE had been asked to investigate this immediately after the fire, and had been testing air quality “and other potential threats to public health”. They were not testing dust.

As the inquiry continues to hear evidence from those who were trapped by toxic smoke, outside the hearings families are facing many years of health-related anxiety. What is important now is to ensure comprehensive testing to identify the presence of the toxins and the impact – if any – on people’s health for the long term. PHE, the local authority, the NHS and other experts must find agreement about what the contaminants are and how people can be treated.

In the past few weeks, chief coroner Fiona Wilcox wrote to Simon Stevens, head of NHS England,saying “action should be taken to prevent future deaths”. Again, this came about after Grenfell United raised concerns. The government has now announced £50m for regular health MOTs for survivors, but as yet there has been no comprehensive monitoring of survivors, residents or firefighters. It will be PHE that agrees the details of this with the NHS.

While NHS sources tell me there is no need to panic, they also want the screening to be comprehensive. Five years is not long enough. This must be a lifetime-plus programme to monitor and treat the long-term health needs of everyone affected, including those who were bereaved, for the impact of toxicity, trauma and stress. The authorities must adopt the principle of candour. There must be absolute transparency around the risks to health so people can make informed choices.

The screening programme and the public health response must both place bereaved, survivors and residents at their heart. It is vital the authorities get these right, and pursue all lines of investigation, providing enough information to reassure residents about the long-term health impacts they may be facing, and take steps to prevent a future public-health crisis. They did not listen before the fire. They did not listen in February. They must listen now.

• Seraphima Kennedy is a writer and academic researcher and a former neighbourhood officer at Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation