Professors Kim McKee and Vikki McCall, University of Stirling
Fire safety has, quite rightly, received significant media and political attention following the Grenfell Tower fire of 2017, in which 72 residents of a high-rise block in North Kensington, London lost their lives. It was one of the worst fires in the UK of recent times and a tragedy for bereaved families, survivors of the fire and the wider community.(1)
Whilst new laws and guidance across the UK introduced measures to improve fire safety in residential homes, it has, ironically, also led to older and disabled people becoming trapped by the very fire doors designed to keep them safe.
New research from the University of Stirling highlights this key paradox. Fire doors are heavier and fitted with door closers to ensure they self-close to help stop the spread of smoke and fire. However, this also makes them more difficult to open, especially for frailer older people and those using mobility equipment. Interviews with professionals working in housing and health suggests that in both policy and practice, “fire safety trumps accessibility”.
These heavy fire doors act as daily reminders of how the built environment can limit people’s independence and freedom. To avoid becoming trapped, residents are wedging doors open, which is unsafe. This practice can also invalidate building insurance and prevent fire doors doing their job in the event of a fire. These heavier doors can also cause older and disabled people to lose their independence by making them reliant on neighbours and carers opening doors for them. These doors also risk injuring people who cannot move through the opening quickly enough before it closes – leaving them bruised or even knocked off their feet.
A common solution is for occupational therapy (OT) assessments to recommend the installation of automatic door openers (ADOs), which allow residents to open fire doors with a push button or fob. However, making fire doors more accessible often requires an adaptation that can be difficult to achieve in practice. Our research found a lack of clarity around the legal and technical requirements, and inconsistencies in the issuing of building warrants.
Additionally, some residents have rejected ADOs because they look ugly and medicalised, making their house look more like an institutionalised health or care setting than a home. This emphasises the importance of avoiding stigma by design.
In some areas, OTs have recommended free-swing door closers as an alternative, but again, practice is inconsistent. Not all OTs supported their use, and not all building standards teams will approve them. Frontline practitioners often described the situation as a “very confusing landscape”. Progress is further slowed by limited funding for adaptations, inconsistent advice from allied professions, and a lack of understanding about compliance when retrofitting doors.
Importantly, our research showed that these aren’t just local issues. Building design is a technical standard set nationally. It urgently needs reviewing or the challenges we identify will persist. But we need to avoid silo thinking. Any review of building standards must also consider the equalities impacts for older and disabled people.
Our research recommends bringing together professionals from housing, health, design and fire safety, alongside product manufacturers, to develop clearer, consistent national guidance. This kind of collaboration is essential to support practitioners working on the frontline and to ensure that residents aren’t put at risk – or left trapped – by fire safety measures.
You can read the report on the website of the Intersectional Stigma of Place-based Ageing project: https://www.housinglin.org.uk/_assets/Resources/Housing/Practice_examples/Other_case_studies/Fire-Doors-Report-final-version-24Oct25.pdf
Professors Kim McKee and Vikki McCall, University of Stirling
Footnotes
1 Peter Apps (2022) book Show me the Bodies, provides a forensic analysis of the events surrounding Grenfell, including the emergency response and is well worth a read.
