Anderlecht Fire Exposes Grave Safety Failures

Around 60 residents were evacuated from a six-storey apartment building in Anderlecht, Brussels, after a fire broke out in the early hours of Sunday morning. No one was killed or seriously injured, but firefighters who tackled the blaze discovered serious fire-safety deficiencies — including dismantled fire doors and holes punched through walls and ceilings — that they said allowed smoke to spread through the building’s stairwells and floors.

The fire broke out overnight, with firefighters alerted at around 01:30 to heavy smoke coming from the building on rue Ropsy Chaudron, in the Cureghem district near the Anderlecht abattoirs, according to RTBF, citing the Brussels fire brigade.

No Injuries, But a Major Mobilisation

When emergency services arrived, many residents were already outside while others were still leaving the building, the fire brigade’s spokesperson Walter Derieuw said. Police from the Brussels-Midi zone — covering Anderlecht, Saint-Gilles and Forest — set up a security perimeter and helped with the evacuation, and an STIB public transport bus was requisitioned to shelter residents temporarily.

Because of the large number of people evacuated and the fact that several showed symptoms after inhaling smoke, a medical intervention plan was activated in coordination with the emergency doctor, Derieuw said. A priority alert of the fire brigade’s internal emergency plan and a psychosocial intervention plan were also triggered. Several people were examined on site, but none had to be taken to hospital.

“The seat of the fire was quickly located near the rubbish room and extinguished,” Derieuw said. However, he added, smoke had already spread into the stairwells and across several floors because of failures in the building’s fire compartmentalisation. Ventilating the building took time; residents were allowed back into their apartments one by one only after the common areas had been carefully aired and carbon monoxide levels had been checked.

Firefighters Find ‘Voluntary Degradations’

The most significant finding came during the operation itself. According to La DH, which reported the deficiencies, firefighters established “grave failings in fire safety” at the scene.

In several places, fire doors had been dismantled and holes had been made in walls and ceilings. “These voluntary degradations of the building had seriously compromised the fire compartmentalisation and favoured the spread of smoke,” Derieuw said. The smoke-extraction system was also not working properly, and no smoke detector was found.

The findings are to be transmitted to the competent services for in-depth examination, the fire brigade said. The exact cause of the fire remains undetermined, with an investigation ongoing, RTL Info reported.

A Recurring Pattern in Brussels

The Anderlecht incident echoes a wider problem with ageing and poorly maintained residential buildings in the Brussels region. In July 2026, a major fire in the common areas of a building on the chaussée de Haecht in Schaerbeek killed two people — a mother and her daughter — and injured eight others, two seriously. An investigating judge was appointed for involuntary homicide and alleged abusive practices by the building’s owners.

That case drew attention because safety problems in the building had reportedly already been documented years earlier. The pattern of negligent ownership and compromised fire safety — of which the Anderlecht deficiencies appear to be the latest example — raises questions about how effectively fire-safety rules are enforced in older apartment blocks, particularly in dense, economically fragile districts such as Cureghem.

What’s Next

With no casualties this time, the Anderlecht fire is unlikely to generate the scrutiny that followed the fatal Schaerbeek blaze. But the presence of fire doors deliberately removed and walls breached — described by firefighters as degradations rather than mere wear — shifts the story from a routine incident to a question of building accountability. Whether the deficiencies are formally pursued by authorities, and whether they prompt broader inspections in the district, will determine whether the case becomes a footnote or a turning point.

For the roughly 60 residents of rue Ropsy Chaudron, the immediate danger has passed. The underlying risk posed by their building has not.