Unsafe and Unlawful: company director sentenced over serious fire safety failings

Anthony Coates, a company director involved in a high-profile residential conversion project in Worthing, was sentenced on 14 March 2025, at Lewes Crown Court after pleading guilty to five serious breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. His sentencing marks a stark reminder of the legal responsibilities developers and building owners carry—especially when lives are put at risk due to inadequate fire safety measures.

The case centred around Columbia House, a former commercial office block in Worthing, which was in the process of being transformed into a seven-storey residential complex. Coates was a director of the two companies overseeing the acquisition and redevelopment of the site. As the project progressed, flats were marketed and sold, and residents were allowed to move in—even though vital fire safety precautions had not been completed or approved.

Investigators from West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service (WSFRS) became aware of potential breaches after a fire safety inspecting officer noticed a number of vehicles in the property’s car park—raising suspicions that the building, which was still undergoing work, was already occupied. This discovery prompted an official inspection, during which multiple critical failures were identified.

The most concerning breaches related to the fire escape routes within the building, including inadequately protected corridors and staircases that had not been verified as compliant with fire safety regulations. The lack of proper certification and safety assurance meant that, in the event of a fire, the means of escape for residents could have been fatally compromised.

WSFRS stated that these violations created an unacceptably high risk to the safety of the building’s approximately 30 residents. Their investigation found that the overall fire strategy was significantly flawed and failed to meet basic legal requirements—leaving occupants vulnerable to injury or worse in the event of an emergency.

In January 2025, Coates admitted guilt to five separate charges under the 2005 Fire Safety Order. These included failing to implement effective fire precautions, neglecting to ensure the building’s fire escape routes were protected, and allowing occupation before the necessary safety approvals were secured. His sentencing two months later reflected the court’s view on the seriousness of the offences.

At Lewes Crown Court, Coates received:

• A six-month custodial sentence, suspended for 12 months.
• A £1,000 fine.
• 150 hours of unpaid community service.

While the penalties may seem modest compared to the scale of the potential risk, legal experts point out that the conviction and suspended prison sentence send a clear message: directors and duty holders can be held personally accountable for endangering lives through neglect or non-compliance.

Area Manager Dave Bray, Head of Fire Safety at WSFRS, praised the outcome and its broader implications for fire safety enforcement across the county.

“We are extremely pleased with the outcome of this case and believe it serves as a strong reminder to all those responsible for the design, construction, occupation, and management of premises in West Sussex, to which the Fire Safety Order applies, that the duties placed upon them are taken seriously.”

Bray added that the fire safety framework in place is not merely a formality—it is essential for protecting life.

“Duty holders are reminded that the Fire Safety Order is in place to protect life in the event of a fire. As such, the highest sanctions possible will be sought where these failings endanger the lives of residents and visitors to West Sussex.”

The case has reignited debate about the oversight of residential conversions, especially as the demand for housing leads to an increasing number of office-to-residential developments. Fire services across the UK have consistently raised concerns about inadequate fire compartmentation, unsafe occupancy practices, and non-compliant designs being introduced during rushed or poorly managed conversions.

Ultimately, while no physical harm came to the residents of Columbia House during their premature occupation, the prosecution makes clear that “waiting until something goes wrong” is an unacceptable approach to fire safety. Regulatory bodies are watching closely—and taking decisive action when the law is breached.

As the housing market evolves, so too must the vigilance of those responsible for ensuring that conversions and new builds alike are not just profitable—but safe.

Visit BrAInbox today where you can find answers to questions like Who is responsible for fire safety?

• Supreme Court rules on definition of "sex" in Equality Act 2010
• Fake Greggs manager jailed for £710k baker fraud
• Holiday horror: structural collapse leads to corporate manslaughter charges
• Holly Willoughby's company settles £377k tax bill