The Building Research Establishment (BRE) missed an opportunity help clarify government guidance that combustible ACM cladding should not be used on high-rise buildings in 2014, shortly before the 2016 refurbishment of Grenfell Tower.
The news came in the latest hearing of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry yesterday (17 February), which heard evidence from senior BRE scientist Dr Sarah Colwell.
Colwell was tasked by a group of industry leaders with preparing a frequently asked questions (FAQ) document in July 2014, the aim of which was to make it clear that ACM should not be used on tall buildings. The move was prompted by concerns that the wording of Approved Document B at the time was causing discussion over interpretation and was not sufficiently clear that the use of ACM in buildings over 18m was prohibited.
Colwell agreed to take responsibility for drawing up the FAQ and raise it with Brian Martin, the civil servant at what was then the Ministry for Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) in charge of the guidance.
However, Colwell told the Inquiry that while several outlines of the FAQ were discussed between BRE staff and representatives from the Centre for Window & Cladding Technology (CWCT), no final FAQ document was produced. Colwell claimed that this was because Approved Document B was under review by MHLCG and that there were “ongoing discussions” with the department “around the issues that may need to be covered as part of the review. This matter formed part of those discussions with MHCLG.”
Colwell said in the hearing: “The revision of the ADB was coming through, and it was assumed that, as we’d already had that conversation earlier in the year, it would be taken up with that, and so I didn’t pursue that conversation with Brian [Martin], which with hindsight, is something I should have done.”
Early cladding test failure
The Inquiry heard on Tuesday (15 February) how a cladding system similar to the one used in Grenfell Tower had failed in a BRE test as early as 2001. The test involved an external wall system incorporating ACM cladding on a 9m-high test rig.
Within five minutes of what was intended to be a 20-minute exercise, the test had to be stopped because flames rapidly reached 20m – more than twice the height of the rig.
Colwell said she was “shocked” at how rapidly the fire had spread.
Asked by counsel to the Inquiry Kate Grange QC if following the test, Colwell considered that “the use of ACM panels on a high-rise building would present nothing other than a grave risk to occupants in the event of fire”, Colwell replied: “I genuinely… yes, I couldn’t see that ACM would be an appropriate product for use in that application.”
Asked if anyone considered alerting the construction industry, local authorities, building control or building owners after the test of the dangers posed by the panels, Colwell said: “I made the department aware of the outcomes and what was occurring with that, and they were obviously then in a position to take the dissemination route.”
But Colwell said that the BRE would not make a warning itself. She explained: “We were delivering this to the department for them to take forward and make the necessary statements, provisions and changes arising from that. It was not something we would do from the type of contract work we were involved with.”
The Inquiry continues.
