Fire safety on Woudestein campus was not up to standard for months in 2024

In 2024, multiple deficiencies in the fire safety systems were identified in ten buildings on the Woudestein campus. For eight of those, the inspectorate wrote that the university was thereby endangering the safety of people in and around the buildings, although the inspectorate has since acknowledged that this wording was ‘a little too dramatic’.

The buildings concerned are Theil, Erasmus, Van der Goot, Sanders, Polak, Mandeville, the library, Bayle, N and G. In nine of the ten buildings, fire detection was not compliant, and nine buildings also had issues with the evacuation alarm. Smoke control (four buildings) and compartmentation (five buildings) were also not in order. Compartmentation refers to the separation of areas within a building to prevent a fire from spreading too quickly. The university is working to repair all deficiencies, which should be completed by December.

Only Langeveld, Q, P and the Partou daycare centre were found to have no shortcomings. The Tinbergen building was closed immediately in 2021 due to poor fire safety and is currently being renovated.

‘People in danger’

The shortcomings were reported to the university in the first quarter of 2024 by the inspectorate of the Safety Region. In the following months, the problems persisted despite repeated requests, according to inspectorate letters from that period. “You are thereby endangering the safety of people in and around the building”, the inspectorate wrote about eight of the ten buildings. The inspectorate then handed these eight buildings over to the municipality of Rotterdam for enforcement and the possible implementation of sanctions.

Fortunately, no sanctions were imposed, says Marcel Quanz of the university’s Real Estate & Facilities (RE&F) department. “We have identified all deficiencies, many of which have already been resolved. The remaining issues are under control. We have taken temporary measures or are working with the fire brigade on structural solutions. Some matters simply take time.”

Minor deficiencies

This is confirmed by the municipality. “The municipality has determined that these are minor deficiencies. For example, a missing certificate for a fire alarm system or a door that sticks. Nothing shocking, but still matters that the university must address”, a spokesperson wrote in an email. According to the municipality, there were no unsafe situations.

The ‘danger’ to people in and around the building, as the inspectorate phrased it, should not be taken too literally, says Quanz. “If something doesn’t meet the standard, it is formally considered dangerous. But in fact, there was never any immediate danger. We always consulted with the fire brigade on what was needed. If a building were truly dangerous, it would have been closed immediately. That was never the case.”

Frustration rather than danger

According to the Safety Region, the ‘standard phrase’ that people were put in danger has not been used in inspectorate letters for ‘some time now’, because the phrase, inspector Peter Bitter says, ‘is a little too dramatic and reflects more our frustration with how things were handled’. “The phrase means we were disappointed and frustrated that the measures weren’t taken within the set timeframe. We felt a bit taken for a ride.”

Bitter does not know why the Erasmus University failed to resolve the issues within the given deadlines. “But the timeframes were reasonable, and the university could have fixed the deficiencies within them.”

Whether there was actually any danger is a complex question, Bitter says. “The shortcomings at least meant that fire safety did not meet the requirements, but the risks depend entirely on the specific situation.” Bitter cannot comment on the specific situation at EUR, as he is not familiar with that particular case. “We have handed these files over to the competent authority, the municipality of Rotterdam.”

Fire wardens in Mandeville

Some problems can be resolved through temporary measures. One example can be seen in Mandeville. There, the evacuation alarm is just not loud enough, says Quanz. “The system does work, but it does not meet the standard. That’s why we have deployed fire wardens. They receive a signal when the fire alarm goes off and check each floor to ensure everyone leaves the building.” By early 2026, the alarm should again meet the standard, and the fire wardens will no longer be needed, Quanz expects.

Some issues have not yet been resolved, such as fire penetration risks. In fire-resistant walls, there are sometimes holes that still allow fire or smoke to pass through, for instance because a technician once ran a cable there. These need to be sealed with fire-resistant material, but that hasn’t always been done. “We are now repairing such deficiencies.” The plan is for the last building to be completed in December, after which certification will follow.

Reorganisation

According to Quanz, the deficiencies came to light as a result of the restructuring within the building services department. “In 2023, all property matters were brought together within the Real Estate department. That gave the organisation more control over inspections. In that process, we discovered deficiencies ourselves, even before the fire brigade did. Thanks to the inspections, we gained an even better overview of the situation, which we now monitor through a dashboard.”