NEWS Grenfell inquiry delayed amid witness demands


THE INQUIRY’S second phase began and was then delayed after witnesses threatened to ‘withold evidence’ unless given assurances that they could testify without the risk of incriminating themselves.


Second phase begins Phase 2 began with a focus on decisions ‘taken in the months and years before the fire’, as well as in its immediate aftermath and the role of the government. It is expected to last 18 months, during which around 200,000 documents – including private emails, phone transcripts and commercial agreements – will be released. Statements from lawyers


for architects Studio E, builders Rydon, installers Harley Facades, insulation manufacturer Celotex and cladding manufacturer Arconic opened the proceedings, followed by Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), as it was owner and manager of Grenfell Tower at the time of the fire via the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO). On the opening day, ‘key


revelations’ included the fact that ‘almost none’ of the clients, consultants or contractors during the refurbishment ‘are accepting much blame’, and ‘ignored pleas from the inquiry not to engage in a “merry-go- round of buck-passing”’.


Emails reveal perspectives The Guardian and BD Online reported that emails between the architects, builders and fire engineers showed that they ‘knew the cladding system would fail in a fire more than two years’ before the June 2017 blaze, with staff at Studio E, fire engineers Exova, Harley and Rydon seen to be discussing this in emails in 2015. An architect emailed a fire


engineer to say ‘metal cladding always burns and falls off’, and that it was ‘difficult to see how a firestop would stay in place in


8


the event of a fire where external flaming occurred as this would cause the zinc cladding to fail’. Also, an employee of the cladding installer told a colleague that ‘there is no point’ in building fire stopping into the facade as ‘we all know, the ACM [aluminium composite material] will be gone rather quickly in a fire!’. Another fire engineer said that


‘if significant flames are ejected from the windows, this would lead to failure of the cladding system, with the external surface falling away and exposing the cavity’. Celotex counsel Craig Orr claimed: ‘Each of Harley, Studio E, Exova and Rydon was openly acknowledging in these emails that the cladding would fail in the event of a fire with external flaming. That, tragically, is what happened’. In addition, the inquiry


heard how Arconic’s cladding was chosen in 2014 to help cut £454,000 from KCTMO’s budget, the company stating that it was not its responsibility ‘to decide if the product was appropriate to use on a particular project or in [a] particular configuration’. Celotex claimed its insulation was sold as combustible and its use was down to a ‘myriad of failings on behalf of the designers, contractors, consultants and building control inspectors’. RBKC confessed to six mistakes


by its building control department, and apologised ‘unreservedly’.


APRIL 2020 www.frmjournal.com


These included failing to: ask for comprehensive details of the cladding system; request an up to date version of the fire safety strategy; and identify that the insulation was combustible and met regulations. It also apologised for issuing a completion certificate in July 2016 ‘when it should not have done so’. It did not believe, however, that


these failures meant it ‘should be held legally responsible for building regulations breaches, as ‘those financially affected should look to designers, rather than local authority building control services, for compensation’. Survivors and bereaved ‘responded angrily’ to the ‘far too limited apology’, calling it ‘insulting’ and RBKC ‘no better than all the companies we have heard this week, passing the buck and minimising their own role’. KCTMO ‘made no admissions


of responsibility’, claiming value engineering ‘could not be blamed’ and that it had been ‘failed by inspectors’, who had ‘never raised any concerns’ despite producing 35 reports about the refurbishment. Exova revealed it was never sent a report discussing the cladding, having been criticised for its 2012 assessment that combustible ACM ‘would have no adverse effects on the building’.


Its counsel Michael Douglas said that report ‘did not contain any reference whatsoever to


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  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60