Industry News


Building safety update for ACM clad high rises


For the first time since removal work of Aluminium Composite Material cladding panels first began, more high-rise buildings are now free of the dangerous covering systems than still have it on them. The Government’s latest progress


report shows that 458 high-rise residential and publicly owned buildings were identified with ACM cladding systems and unlikely to meet Building Regulations. Remediation work (full cladding removal and replacement) has either completed, or has started on 341 high-rise residential and publicly owned buildings in England. Of these, 231 buildings (50 per


cent of all identified ACM clad buildings) have either fully completed the remediation process (167 buildings), or have had their ACM cladding systems removed (64 buildings) but not yet replaced. There are 227 high-rise residential and


publicly owned buildings still with ACM cladding systems in place and unlikely to meet Building Regulations in England. Of these, 110 buildings have started remediation work. A further 89 buildings have a remediation plan in place. There are five buildings, where it is still not clear what the remediation plan is, all of them are hotels. The social housing sector has a


better record for the completion of remediation work with 94 per cent either having completed or started remediation. 74 per cent of the 155 buildings have removed the ACM cladding, with 83 (54 per cent) having completed remediation. 58 per cent (121) of private sector buildings have either completed or started remediation. Of these, 56 have had their ACM cladding removed. The total number of high-rise


residential multi-occupied buildings of 18 metres or more in height, or more than six storeys (whichever is reached first) in England is estimated as of April 2020 to be 12,500. Of these, 6,500 are private sector


buildings (private residential buildings and student accommodation) and 6,000 are social sector buildings. Over 95 per cent of the buildings were identified as flat dwellings, with the remaining proportioned across Houses in Multiple Occupation, residential education and sheltered accommodation.


Grenfell Tower inquiry news – in brief


• Survivors and bereaved of the Grenfell Tower fire branded as “madness” rules banning them from attending the public inquiry in person. The inquiry restarted hearings in early September with builders of the refurbishment continuing to give evidence. But survivors and bereaved have had their participation in the inquiry restricted to watching a live YouTube broadcast of witnesses being cross-examined in front of the chairman, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, and his fellow panellist Thouria Istephan. The inquiry said it is “planning for bereaved, survivor and resident attendance as soon as it is possible” and is considering a ballot system allowing in 10 members of the community at a time. The inquiry said it worked with the Government Property Agency (GPA) “to ensure our premises are as safe as they can be for those who need to attend. This includes taking account of the required physical attendance of individuals who are in more vulnerable groups.” The GPA approves the limit on the numbers of people allowed in each room in the venue, and these limits would not currently allow for extra attendees.


The restrictions are adding to tensions between the Grenfell community and the Government.


Members of Grenfell United have compared rules forbidding their attendance at the inquiry with rules (at the time) allowing the public to eat at a restaurant or drink in a pub.


• The Grenfell Tower inquiry must include a separate investigation into how “race and class” contributed to the tragedy, according to a group supporting more than a third of the deceased. The organisation, which represents 28 of the 72 individuals who died in the fire, submitted a statement to the inquiry chairman, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, requesting that an extra module be added to the eight modules which the inquiry is already looking at. This extra module would ask if the cost-cutting measures that helped spread the fire would have been sanctioned “if the tower block was in an affluent part of the city for an affluent white population”. The statement from the Grenfell Next of Kin group, accuses the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, of “contemptuous disregard” in the decision-making that led to the tragedy. “Systemic racism goes deep to the heart of the problem that caused the catastrophe. Questions around race and social


14 | HMM October/November 2020 | www.housingmmonline.co.uk


class is at the heart of this truth-seeking and we would be grateful if you can revisit it and add it as an extra module,” said the document. Of the residents who died in the fire, 85 per cent came from ethnic minorities. Official surveys have found that 40 per cent of high-rise residents in the social rented sector are from BAME communities, which makes up just 14 per cent of the country’s population.


• Rydon, the lead contractor for the Grenfell Tower refurbishment project was tipped off that the job was “ours to lose” before the formal procurement process ended, following an “informal” chat at a CIH conference in Brighton in 2014, the inquiry heard. Rydon was duly appointed in spring 2014, after bidding against rival contractors Durkan and Mulalley for the contract. Stephen Blake, who was refurbishment director at Rydon for the duration of the project, was questioned about his longstanding relationship with the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO) and the procurement process which resulted in the firm winning the job. It emerged that Mr Blake had a “professional relationship” with Peter Maddison, director of assets and regeneration at KCTMO, dating back to the early 2000s when Mr Maddison worked at housing association Hyde. The inquiry heard that Mr Blake had forwarded an initial email from KCTMO’s consultancy Artelia about the project to Jeff Henton, managing director at Rydon, describing it as “the Peter Maddison scheme which is right up our street”.


• The Celotex RS5000 insulation foam boards, widely blamed for spreading the fire, were sold at a discount of 47.5 per cent to Harley Facades, the cladding firm who worked on the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower as a sub- contractor for Rydon. The synthetic foam was not in the original architects’ specification for the tower and Harley’s project manager Ben Bailey admitted he did not check it complied with building regulations to prevent fires spreading through the external walls of tall buildings. The inquiry was told a salesman for Celotex pushed the idea of using Grenfell Tower as a case study for using the new polyisocyanurate foam insulation boards on tall buildings. The Celotex boards were fitted behind aluminium composite panels, also combustible, with a polyetheleyne core. Together with failures in the installation, the materials fuelled the deadliest fire in the UK since the second world war. It has since been withdrawn from sale.


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  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52