Industry News


No one taking the blame for Grenfell Tower tragedy


contractors and consultants were willing to shoulder responsibility for mistakes that allowed a fire to engulf the building more than 30 months ago. This is despite emails showing people knew the planned cladding system would fail in the event of a fire. In opening statements the inquiry’s chief lawyer


T


criticised many of the core participants for “taking part in a merry go round of buck passing.” Richard Millett QC, said each one claimed what happened was "someone else's fault". A notable exception was the Royal Borough of


Kensington and Chelsea, who owned the tower block but were also responsible for building control oversight of the tower’s refurbishment. They admitted their building control service should never have signed off the work as compliant with building regulations. The council funded the refurbishment work to


the tower. It was savings in the project’s budget that lead to changes in the cladding panels being made from inflammable materials and replaced with combustible panels, which had a flammable polyethylene core. Survivors of the fire were critical of the council, saying their apology did not go far enough. Further shocks awaited the families (and the


inquiry chairman) when some of the witnesses who were involved in the refurbishment project threatened to withhold evidence unless they received assurances that their testimony would not be used to mount criminal prosecutions against


he public inquiry into the Grenfell tragedy has resumed but it quickly became evident that none of the many designers,


them. They said they would only speak openly if the Attorney General gave an undertaking that nothing they said would be used against them.


FINGER POINTING The second phase of the inquiry has been organised into eight modules and these are expected to last at least 18 months. The first week after its resumption was dominated by opening statements from legal representatives of the various firms involved in the tower’s refurbishment, completed a year before the fire broke out in June 2017 killing 72 people. Several of the firms’ legal representatives pointed


the finger squarely at Arconic, makers of the highly flammable Reynobond cladding panels. They said the company’s brochure “gave no indication Reynobond was not suitable for high-rise residential blocks” and boasted of “complete versatility in external applications”. They refuted Arconic’s claim that it should have


been obvious to anybody involved in construction that its product was not of limited combustibility. They also said safety concerns were raised in internal Arconic emails in 2011 and 2016, when an Arconic employee Claude Wehrle said the Grenfell cladding was "dangerous on (the) facades" and should be replaced. However, Arconic differentiated between


their different cladding products. One of the panel types was identified as being ‘fire retardant’ by use of the initials ACM FR rather than ACM PE. It was the latter product that was used on Grenfell. They also claimed it was the responsibility of designers, builders and installers to check that the products used


were suitable for their intended purpose.


DIVISIONS The legal representative for Celotex mounted a vigorous defence of the company and its reputation, directly challenging claims put forward by Studio E, Rydon and Harley Facades. Celotex said it was known in advance of the fire that their insulation materials (RS5000) should not have been used in the way they were at Grenfell. Emails disclosed by Celotex to the inquiry


appeared to show that staff at various firms involved in the refurbishment project, were aware two years before the tragedy that the cladding and insulation systems used at Grenfell would fail in the event of an external fire. A clear rift has developed between the


manufacturers of the cladding and insulation products used at Grenfell and the various designers, contractors and installers. The former claim their products were not


marketed as being inflammable and it was the responsibility of the latter firms to check on whether the combined cladding and insulation systems were safe and appropriate to use together on the basis of tests. The firms reject this, saying they relied on the manufacturers to make and supply safe products. Earlier the inquiry’s image of impartiality took an


enormous dent when one of the independent experts (engineer Benita Mehra) appointed to assist the inquiry chairman, had to resign just days before it restarted due to concerns over a conflict of interest involving Arconic, who made the ACM panels used for the tower’s cladding.


Government must fund removal of Grenfell-style cladding from all buildings


Housing bodies are demanding the Government extends its financial package for removing Grenfell- style aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding, so it applies to all buildings regardless of their height. It follows the publication of new safety advice


warning that Category 3 ACM with an unmodified polyethylene filler “presents a significant fire hazard” on buildings of any height and that action to remove it should be taken as soon as possible. Previous advice said that cladding only needed to be replaced on high-rise buildings, over 18m in


height. Ministers also published a consultation exercise on extending the ban on combustible materials in the external walls of new buildings from 18m to 11m. It is also expected to cut the height at which water sprinklers are required in new residential buildings from 30m, down to 11m. In welcoming the proposals, Lord Gary Porter,


spokesman for building safety at the Local Government Association, said councils will be looking to central government to pick up the bill for any extra work now required. His comments were echoed and supported by spokesmen at other


6 | HMM February/March 2020 | www.housingmmonline.co.uk


housing bodies. Darren Rodwell, executive member for housing


and planning at London Councils, said a move to fund the remediation of buildings under 18m would be “equitable and consistent” with its approach for ACM buildings over 18m. Victoria Moffett, head of building and fire safety


programmes at the National Housing Federation, welcomed the decision to remove Category 3 ACM from all buildings, but said the same principle around funding needed to apply to those under 18m.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44