Experiences gained from applying to the Waking Watch Removal Fund (WWRF)

When significant compartmentation failures are identified, responsible persons have a duty to notify the local fire service in the case of Higher Risk Buildings (HRBs). This often results in an enforcement notice requiring accountable persons to resolve the issue within a specified timeframe.

Applying for government grant funding is a complex process. The Cladding Safety Scheme (CSS) applies only to external wall remediation, and there is currently no equivalent scheme to indemnify owners against compartmentation defects where the original developer no longer exists. What is available, however, is the Waking Watch Relief Fund (WWRF), which aims to eliminate expensive waking watches by funding the installation of sophisticated automatic fire detection systems. These systems replicate the function of a 24-hour waking watch using sensors rather than people.

While such systems do not resolve the underlying compartmentation defects, they can legally allow the removal of a waking watch. This provides leaseholders with crucial financial breathing space to plan and save for a long-term solution. Anyone who has managed a building with a waking watch will understand the severe financial burden it places on leaseholders, particularly where a Residents’ Management Company (RMC) or Right to Manage (RTM) company is directly responsible for the invoices. In some cases, it is necessary to address the symptom before the cause.

To secure WWRF funding, applicants must undertake a competitive tender exercise demonstrating value for taxpayers’ money. Homes England administers the fund on behalf of the Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government (DCHLG), applying a framework of tests before awarding funding.

Interestingly, while the application process requires drawings and specifications, neither DCHLG nor Homes England appears to prohibit Design and Build (D&B) procurement routes. We were successful with one such application despite having only a very high-level bill of quantities covering less than an A4 page. The Employer’s Requirements amounted to little more than the relevant page of the Fire Risk Assessment specifying the type of alarm system required.

D&B procurement can save considerable time. Most fire alarm contractors can produce a compliant design within a couple of weeks, compared with the six weeks often required for a building surveyor to finalise a traditional specification, followed by a further four weeks to tender the works. It is also worth noting that DCHLG does not fund what it terms ‘professional services’. As a result, where third-party consultants such as surveyors or CDM Principal Designers are required, those costs must be funded separately by leaseholders through the usual Section 20 process. The construction works themselves, which typically represent the bulk of the cost, are fully funded by central government.

Once the application is complete and a tender analysis submitted, Homes England will usually award funding and issue a contract prior to releasing the first-stage payment. A critical issue is that DCHLG does not automatically provide for monthly interim payments as set out in the Construction Act 1996. Where projects extend beyond one month, alternative cash-flow arrangements will be required.

Typically, up to 50% of the funding is released at commencement, with the remaining 50% paid only on practical completion. This arrangement must be clearly explained to contractors at the outset as they have a statutory right to interim payments every 30 days under the Construction Act (1996). Transparency significantly reduces the likelihood of disputes. It is also important to note that DCHLG pays grant monies directly into the management company’s client account rather than to the contractor. Under the funding agreement, however, the management company remains liable to reimburse central government if the installed system proves inadequate. For this reason, appointing an experienced surveyor or technically qualified third party to oversee the works is strongly advisable.

Six months ago, one of our sites faced an apparently impossible challenge where the WWRF became the solution. The site’s annual Fire Risk Assessment identified severe compartmentation breaches alongside problematic cladding on certain elevations. The assessor concluded that the existing fire strategy was no longer tenable and required a complete rewrite, specifying one of the most advanced detection systems available: an L1/M LD1 system. The assessor determined that the compartmentation failures were so serious that the building could no longer be assumed to achieve the standard 30 minutes of flat-to-flat fire resistance. As a result, the long-established ‘stay put’ strategy was replaced overnight with ‘simultaneous evacuation’.

This conclusion was supported by the local fire service, and a waking watch was imposed alongside an enforcement notice, effectively ending any debate over the system’s necessity. The decision to adopt simultaneous evacuation was not taken lightly. The alternative would have required decanting and rehousing all 240 leaseholders for months or years while the building was re-compartmented internally. Every flat would likely have required reinstatement and redecoration, with costs and loss of rent running into the millions.

The difficulty was that the building had never been designed for a simultaneous evacuation strategy, the existing fire alarm was completely inadequate, and the only viable option was to rely on the WWRF to fund a system capable of supporting it.

Under a ‘stay put’ strategy, compartment walls and floors are assumed to resist fire spread for at least 30 minutes, allowing the fire service to attend and manage evacuation locally. Simultaneous evacuation is used where this assumption cannot be made. Residential buildings are rarely designed this way because frequent false alarms can quickly lead to alarm fatigue, increasing the risk that occupants ignore alarms during a genuine fire.

To support simultaneous evacuation, an automatic fire detection system must alert all occupants, including those asleep, and achieve evacuation within four minutes. This requires sounders of at least 75dB in almost every room. In this case, the highest domestic standard—LD1—was specified, requiring detectors in every room except bathrooms, in accordance with BS 5839-6:2019. In addition, the existing L4 system in the common parts was upgraded to L1, increasing coverage from escape routes only to all areas.

By completion, each core was fitted with a Grade A zoned and addressable control panel, fully integrated with wireless LD1 detectors within every flat. Activations could be pinpointed not only to a specific flat, but to the exact room, providing a level of accuracy rarely seen in residential settings, but essential to supporting a safe and workable simultaneous evacuation strategy.

James Paul MRICS AIFSM of Ringley Fire Consultancy