News

‘All professionals should familiarise with the recommendations’: construction reacts to Grenfell report

Grenfell report reactions
Image: Vigen Mnoyan | Dreamstime.com

The Grenfell Inquiry published yesterday (4 September) its second and final report of the fire in the residential tower that killed 72 people on 14 June 2017.

The 1,700-page document, produced after almost seven years of an Inquiry divided into two phases, includes a series of recommendations, most aimed at the built environment.

Here’s a round-up of reactions from industry bodies.

Construction Leadership Council

“The CLC has welcomed publication today of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s final report. The Inquiry’s findings are a serious and comprehensive reflection of the worst of UK construction’s culture and practices, which led to a tragedy that should and could have been avoided. We fully respect those findings and offer our sympathies and condolences to the families and wider Grenfell community.

“The Inquiry has also put forward a number of recommendations for both our industry and government, to ensure that such a tragedy is never repeated. The CLC, as the representative body for the entire UK construction industry, will now study these recommendations and engage with industry and the government as to how they can be taken forward through our ongoing work on building safety."

Construction Industry Council

“CIC and its member organisations are now reviewing the full report and its recommendations and carefully considering the further actions that we will need to take. 

“Whilst much work has already been done […] Sir Martin Moore-Bick has clearly identified several further matters that require attention and CIC will be working with its members, the wider industry and government to develop appropriate responses to those matters, ensuring that they are given the critical and expedient attention that they demand. 

“It will take time to give the thought and consideration that the report requires and for the action that is needed to address the various recommendations Sir Martin has brought forward.

“CIC believes that every construction professional should fully familiarise themselves with the report and its recommendations, and we will work closely with our members to facilitate this process as we develop an appropriate detailed response to the report.”

Caroline Gumble, chief executive, CIOB

“We very much welcome the publication of the final report into the Grenfell Tower fire and will be reading it in detail to understand the implications for the construction sector in the UK.

“Improving the safety of buildings must be a priority. Although some progress has been made with the introduction of the Building Safety Act and changes to the Fire Safety Act, there is still much to do. 

“We are committed to working with others across the industry to follow up on the recommendations made in the report. Every step possible must be taken to ensure such a tragedy, which has impacted the lives of so many people, can never happen again.”

Mark Snelling, president, Association for Project Safety

“In the coming days, APS will forensically study the report findings and will then be in a position to make a more detailed assessment.

“What is clear is that the findings and recommendations contained within this report are of critical importance to the future of the UK built environment. 

“The scale of the Grenfell tragedy will profoundly impact the approach to future construction safety and the report reinforces an APS commitment to ensure the safety of those living in our communities is robustly upheld.”

Gill Hancock, head of technical content, Association for Project Management

“As the chartered membership organisation for the project profession, APM is shocked by the report’s findings and the many examples of bad project management practice applied at Grenfell that contributed to the tragedy.

“The competence framework for managing projects in the built environment, which APM helped to create, is a good step on the journey to ensuring a tragedy like Grenfell never happens again. However, we acknowledge it is only one step. Businesses operating in the built environment sector must recognise the importance of appointing dedicated project experts. Not only that, but they must ensure these people are competent and have the right level of qualifications and training in place.

“Many are doing so already. APM’s goal now is to work with the public and private sector as a whole to ensure this understanding is embedded across industry, so businesses can be confident they are appointing the right people to manage construction projects of all sizes.”

Story for CM? Get in touch via email: [email protected]

Comments

  1. The BBC’s Grenfell Tower Inquiry podcast is well worth listening to.

  2. I am Dyslexic so reading the Grenfell report is basically out of the question.
    So my question has the report decided on the one point and product that has caused / allowed the spread of the fire?
    I started as an Architectural Technician in 1971 at John Crowther & associates.
    There was no internet then we had sales men visit with there literature and it was my job to see them go through the literature, read it, (that was a problem), but there were usually lots of drawings, sketch’s that i could look at and ask questions about them.
    So i got to know the products what they did or not do, fire ratings and so on, (there was no computers or internet or computer moulding, which i have my droughts about its ability?
    At college we watched British Gypsum and Pilkington fire tests, (real life tests),which showed us exactly how fire burns and how quickly and the consequences.
    In my opinion from what i have learnt the root cause of the Grenfell Fire is not the cladding! yes it became the main problem because the cladding created a the Chimney Effect.
    The Chimney Effect creates fiercer fires that burn hotter and quicker and depending on the Cavity Barriers ratting i think they were just burnt away and again in my opinion not even Rockwool Cavity Barriers could have stopped the fire because it would have been so hot and fierce.
    I do believe i know the material that wad not up to the required fire resistance.
    Under the Building Regs. part B i think everything should have have had a 90 minute ratting.
    Common sense was not used in the design & costing phase’s and a lack of interest is the way i describe the short comings.

Comments are closed.

Latest articles in News