COMMENT
What’s the worst that could happen?
A
few years ago, there was an advert for the Dr Pepper fizzy pop. Its tag-line was What’s The Worst That Could Happen and involved someone stealing a can and chaos ensuing. It’s a question that should be asked at every stage of a building product’s manufacture and testing. Asked again and again and again. And those answers should be acted upon.
I have held off from writing anything about the ongoing Grenfell Inquiry because I’m a bit hazy on the technical details, but mostly, because, as is the nature of these things, it keeps changing from day to day as more revelations come out. And what revelations they have been.
Now though, I think, things need to be said. Along with many others I have been gripped by the Twitter feed of Pete Apps, the deputy editor of Inside Housing who has been diligently following the Inquiry day after day and tweeting the salient points. The jaw-dropping, mind-blowing, almost-unbelievable, repugnant, salient points at that.
Who could forget the sight on every news bulletin that June day as that 24-storey Brutalist concrete block burned for nigh on 12 hours? Much like the picture of the second plane hitting the World Trade Center, the burning Grenfelll image is etched into our collective minds’ eye.
I wrote at the time that it appeared to be a perfect storm of a number of things all being wrong at the same time and the earlier inquiries have already found fault with some of the actions and decisions made by the London Fire Brigade.
However. The Inquiry has also thrown a light on the conduct and testing practices amongst the two manufacturers - Kingspan and Celotex - involved in the insulation products used to clad the building. Conduct that was, at best, dubious, at worst, criminally careless of the consequences. The reports from the inquiry, and
INFO PANEL
Builders Merchants Journal Datateam Business Media London Road Maidstone Kent ME15 8LY Tel: 01622 687031
www.buildersmerchantsjournal.net
EDITORIAL Group Managing Editor: Fiona Russell Horne 01622 699101 07721 841382
frussell-horne@datateam.co.uk
Assistant editor Catrin Jones 01622 699186
cjones@datateam.co.uk
Production Controller: Phil Hammond
ADVERTISING Publication Manager: Dawn Tucker 01622 699148
mobile 07934 731232
dtucker@datateam.co.uk
Senior Account Manager: Burim Osmani 01622 699174
mobile 07934 865418
bosmani@datateam.co.uk
North & midlands sales: David Harman 01772 462596
david.harman@talktalk.net
Publisher: Paul Ryder
pryder@datateam.co.uk CIRCULATION
ABC audited average circulation July 2018-June 2019: 7,801
SUBSCRIPTIONS
UK 1 year: £97 UK, 2 years: £164 Outside UK: one year £113/$204; two years: £196/$353
© Datateam Business Media Ltd 2020. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form, by any means, electronic or mechanical including photo-copying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system without the prior written consent of the publisher. The title Builders Merchants Journal is registered at Stationers’ Hall. Suppliers have contributed towards production costs of some photographs in this issue.
30 IT
Merchants continue their online migration
32 BMF Industry Voice News from the BMF.
36 Product News The latest innovations.
38 And Finally News and the crossword.
December 2020
www.buildersmerchantsjournal.net 3
Apps’ astonishing article in The Spectator on December 6th, a copy of which I urge you to get hold of, make for very uncomfortable reading for anyone involved in the construction industry and in the testing regime for construction products.
The evidence given to the inquiry suggests that the insulation products used on Grenfell were not the exact same formulation as those which had passed tests. The tests for combustibility. The tests that would show whether such products could catch fire and for how long, and to what temperature they could burn. Test that would determine a product’s suitability to be used on a building where human beings live. And that the manufacturers involved knew it. To quote Apps: “What has emerged is evidence which suggests each of these firms were aware their products posed serious fire risks, but this was concealed from both regulators and the market so they could be sold for use on high rises”. When this inquiry is over, there will be serious consequences because the world will need someone to be culpable. And to pay.
In an ideal world, there would have been no fridge fire, the LFB would have had sufficient long ladders, water pressure and evacuation protocols for a very different outcome and thus, in an ideal world, the fire- test of the insulation would not have mattered. But there was a fire, it did matter and it could happen again. All over the country there are high-rise buildings that use the same dangerous combinations of cladding and insulation materials. Thousands of people cannot afford the repair bills, nor can they sell their properties Oh, and that question that should have been asked - What’s the worst that could happen? We know the answer. The families of 72 people know the answer to that one. BMJ
Fiona Russell-Horne Group Managing Editor - BMJ
“ O, for a muse of fire,
that would ascend the brightest
heaven of invention, William Shakespeare
” CONTENTS
4 The Month The latest news 6 News Extra
NMBS’ Virtual Exhibition and The 10 Point Plan
10 People Who’s now working where?
11 Business Helpdesk Test and Trace explained
12 Viewpoint Our guest commentators
16 Merchant Focus Jewson plans to approach the future from a green perspective
18 Merchant Focus Looking at digital disruptor
CMOstores.com
20 Ironmongery Locking into security trends
22 Adhesives & Sealants Trends and developments with the sticky stuff
25 Company focus Making the most of upmarket guttering opportunities
26 Timber
Working together will be more important post-Brexit.
28 Transport
Ryder transports Wickes to better fleet management
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
