Fire Cladding Report Update

Following the Grenfell Tower Fire Disaster

11th February 2021

Grenfell Tower and Fire Cladding

The Grenfell Tower fire occurred on 14^th June 2017.  Fire broke out in a kitchen of a flat on the fourth floor of a 23 storey block of flats in North Kensington, West London.   The fire is believed to have been due to faulty white goods.

The fire lasted about 60 hours before finally being extinguished.  It was confirmed that 72 people died.

Who was to blame?

Richard Millett QC, the Inquiry’s Lead Barrister, said on 27^th January 2020 that each claimed what happened “was someone else’s fault”.

Key elements

One of the key elements on this seems to have been the composite cladding, which is known as aluminium composite material (ACM), as well as the insulation. 

Cladding

The first phase of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry concluded that the cladding fuelled the fire, which we understand to mean that it caused a chimney effect, allowing the fire to transfer up the outside of the building.

Arconic were the company who sold the fire retardant product, advised during the Grenfell Inquiry that they would by default sell polyethylene products, also known as PE, to the UK market and “the UK was generally a PE market”.  This is a highly flammable material used at the core of the panels.

Specifically when Richard Millett QC, the Lead Barrister, asked if Arconic would by default sell the PE cladding, to which Ms French replied “That’s right, yes”.

The combustible cladding is thought to be the main cause of the building safety crisis now affecting millions of flats and apartments.

Ms French, Arconic’s UK Sales Manager, advised that the Reynobond PE panels were four to five Euros cheaper per square metre than the fire retardant version.  She advised the Grenfell Inquiry that “discussion never came up about requiring anything other than a PE core”.

Ms French went on to say that it is “very, very, very rare” for customers to ask about fire safety.  She said that “the majority of what are dealt with are colours, availability and those types of things”.

Safety Standards Fire Classification 0

It is interesting to note that the Reynobond PE cladding has helped with the sales by a certificate issued by the Independent British Board of Agrément (BBA), which stated “These flammable panels may be regarded as meeting a British Fire Performance Standard, known as Class 0”.   However, it had not specifically passed the relevant British laboratory tests and had failed several European tests, on which the certificate was based.

Mr Millett QC asked Ms French “If you were selling that product based on claims without its fire performance do you agree that you should be tending to mislead fires”.  Ms French responded “Yes, I wouldn’t knowingly have done that, but inadvertently I have been”.

Ms French, Sales Manager, insisted that she was not a technical expert and passed the question on to Technical Manager Claude Wehrle, based in France.

Mr Clause Wehrle, who we assume also works for Arconic, refused to give evidence on legal advice, as if he did so he would incriminate himself under French law and he is one of three witnesses in the Inquiry who refused to give evidence, all of whom work for Arconic.  They are fellow Frenchman Gwenaëlle Drrendinger and Peter Froehlich based in Germany.   Richard Millett QC said that the refusal of Clause Wehrle to come and give evidence is unreasonable.  This is known as the French blocking statute, which prevents its citizens taking part in some foreign legal cases.

It has also come to light that Arconic refused to disclose documents to the Inquiry and did so following a European criminal investigation, ordered by the Metropolitan Police.

Celotex Insulation and fire resistance

Celotex, who made the majority of the insulation, is said to have lied for commercial gain.  The Inquiry was told that Celotex added a non-combustible material to its test to ensure the company’s insulation passed the fire test. 

Kingspan Insulation and fire resistance

For 14 years Kingspan sold insulation for high rise buildings without relevant large scale fire tests.  In 2005 their insulation did pass the fire test but Kingspan changed the product a year later.  However, Kingspan continued to sell its insulation based upon the 2005 data.

This was only corrected in October 2020 when the information on the test was withdrawn, with the company accepting that they were not representing the product correctly.

Richard Millett QC suggested that using Kingspan’s interpretation of regulations that a “stick of dynamite wrapped in foil could also be advertised as Class 0 (it was the foil that originally helped them to get their insulation through the test).

The Architects Studio E

The Inquiry considered that lead Architects Studio E and others did not have a full grasp of the Building Regulations in relation to the standards recommended for high rise buildings.

It has also been considered that Studio E’s experience was not suitable for high rise residential buildings, although they had designed a school and a leisure centre opposite Grenfell Tower.  They were hired by Kensington and Chelsea’s Tenant Management Organisation (TMO).

Complex web of contracting and sub-contracting

The Inquiry established that 17 different companies worked on the refurbishment and there seems to have been a misunderstanding of responsibility between the different contractors and sub-contractors, which in turn, as stated by Richard Millett QC, caused “a merry-go-round of buck passing”.

Harley Facades, the cladding contractor, said they thought Studio E were checking the drawings for Building Regulations compliance, which in turn would meet fire regulation compliance, and vice versa.

Exova are safety consultants.  Terry Ashton advised that he expected Studio E Architects to have made enquiries about the state of the cladding, or asked them to.  Terry Ashton advised that they wouldn’t have looked into matters unless directed by the Architects.   The Exova Safety Report was criticised because it used the term “assumed” 19 times in a 16 page report.

Rydon was the main contractor.  Simon Lawrence, Rydon’s Contracts Manager admitted to the Inquiry that the firm under-reported savings from the switch from the original specified zinc cladding to a plastic filled aluminium panel, and did not investigate the fire performance of the ACM panels.  They also said they would hire a Fire Safety Officer in meetings in April, June, July and September and October 2014 but they did not.

SD Plastering were hired to do the reveals of the windows.  Mark Dixon of SD Plastering said he had previously worked for Rydon, the main contractors, and thought that what he was doing was nothing more than a cosmetic detail.

Kate Grange QC asked Mark Dixon whether he had ever been given a proper Specification of Work and he advised no he hadn’t.

Osborne Berry, have been identified as the cladding installers (Mark Osborne and Graham Berry).

John Rowan and Partners (known as JRP), supplied the Clerk of Works for the Grenfell Tower refurbishment.  Jonathan White, one of the Clerk of Works, advised that they only checked if the work was neat and tidy.

Procurement, breach of rules

There are general rules with regard to procurement and both Studio E, who considered their fees would be under £174,000 and therefore didn’t have to go to competitive tender quotes.  The company managing the tender, K&C TMO (Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation), also advised Rydon they were in pole position to win work before the results were announced, breaking procurement rules.

Thermal Efficiency and aspirations for Grenfell Tower to be a 1970’s concrete tower block of flats

Max Fordham had advised on the energy efficiency of Grenfell Tower and recommend the two insulations: Celotex and Kingspan (see our earlier comments).  He didn’t check the Building Regulations Guidance to see if the products could be used, and having a mixture of different contractors, not knowing their responsibilities.

Post fire inspection

Surveyors/Investigators found there were errors in a post fire inspection.

Cavity barriers

Many of these were found to be poorly fitted or wrongly installed.  The intention of cavity barriers is to stop fire spreading to the cladding, or from floor to floor.

Kensington and Chelsea Building Control Officer John Hoban advised that he didn’t notice the cavity barriers around the windows to stop the flames spreading to the outside weren’t in the application.  He also failed to recognise the cladding materials were not suitable for use on high rise buildings.  Mr Hoban advised that he was handling up to 130 projects.

What are the numbers?

As of 11^th February 2021 they are as follows, as we understand it:

The government identified 462 high rise residential buildings that had problems identified with the cladding. 

216 of these have now had the cladding fully removed.

246 buildings still have cladding, with the work having begun on many of these.

How high is the risk?

To buildings above 18 metres, and below 30 metres, there is said to be a “four times greater risk of fatality or serious casualties” than apartment blocks generally.

What money has been allocated?

We understand that £1.6 Billion was allocated to this in 2020 and in 2021 a further £3.5 Billion has been added.

The government is hoping to get much of this back over the next ten years from housing developers. 

Has the problem moved to apartments below 18 metres?

The problem if you live in an apartment below 18 metres high is that you don’t receive any grants and as most leases require the leaseholder not the freeholder to carry out safety improvements it is likely where there’s cladding on the building and other elements, such as balconies, etc, you will have a liability to put these right.

At the time of writing this article on 11^th February 2021, the government has offered a loan scheme for the repayment of a maximum of £50 per month.  However, with some apartments below 18 metres the costs are said to run into the £30,000’s and above.  Many don’t consider this an ideal solution.

EWS1

Many, if not most, mortgage lenders require a specific fire safety certificate, known as EWS1, before offering a mortgage.  This has affected the property market considerably.  The government is working with the industry to reduce the need for the EWS1 form, as, from what we understand, it’s having an impact upon sales, as predominantly the market is mortgage based.

Crystal ball gazing

We feel to make any predictions with regard to the future as to how this will develop is crystal ball gazing, although we do think it’s fair to say that further regulations will come in with regard to the safety in all apartments, which with most leases will affect the owners of the building.

Podcast

The Grenfell Tower Inquiry continues.  For further information there is a Podcast available if you wish to keep up to date with it, which we recommend.

 

Sources

BBC

The Guardian

This article will be updated periodically.

Surveying  Articles

Click on any of the links below to read some of our surveying articles - we hope they are of interest to you.

Buying a Purpose Built Modern Flat

Buying a Purpose Built Flat over a Shop

Energy Efficiency, have we got it all wrong?

 

Building Surveying

If you need help and advise with regard to a building claim or insurance claim, commercial surveys, building, structural surveys, structural reports, engineers reports, specific defects report, home buyers reports or any other property matters please call 0800 298 5424 for a friendly chat.

If you would like dilapidations help then please visit our www.DilapsHelp.com website and for Disputes go to our Disputes Help site www.DisputesHelp.com .

Surveying articles

We hope you found the article of use and if you have any experiences that you feel should be added to this article that would benefit others, or you feel that some of the information that we have included is wrong then please do not hesitate to contact us (we are only human).

The contents of the website are for general information only and is not intended to be relied upon for specific or general decisions. Appropriate independent professional advice should be paid for before making such a decision.

All Rights are Reserved

All rights are reserved the contents of the website are not to be reproduced or transmitted in any form in whole or part without the express written permission of 1stAssociated.co.uk.