黑洞社区

The senior civil servant responsible for fire safety guidance knew there was a 鈥渃lear risk鈥� of a major cladding fire three years before Grenfell but failed to warn the government鈥檚 chief fire and rescue advisor.

Brian Martin, who was in charge of fire safety regulations in buildings for nearly 17 years before the Grenfell Tower fire, told the inquiry into the 2017 blaze that he 鈥渄idn鈥檛 really know鈥� why he had not warned Peter Holland in a February 2015 email exchange about the dangers posed by the use of combustible ACM panels in the UK.

Yesterday鈥檚 hearing focused again on an ambiguous passage in the fire safety guidance that was intended to ban the use of ACM.

The passage, added in a 2006 revision of the guidance written by Martin and his civil service team, stated that 鈥渇iller鈥� materials in cladding systems needed to obtain the tough fire standard of limited combustibility.

The phrase was a last-minute addition that was never subjected to consultation with the industry and lacked a clear definition.

It was also contained in a passage titled 鈥淚nsulation Materials/Products鈥�, leading many in the industry to believe that the word only referred to insulation products and not to cladding panels.

Martin accepted that he had been aware from July 2014 that parts of the construction industry had been misinterpreting the passage after he was warned at a meeting with fire safety experts organised by the Centre for Windows and Cladding Technology.

But he had not shared this with Holland, who had emailed Martin following an ACM fire at the Torch Tower in Dubai, and accepted he had instead 鈥渓ulled鈥� Knight into a 鈥渇alse sense of security鈥� about the risk of a similar fire occurring in the UK.

Martin told Holland that there were 鈥減rovisions in the building regulations designed to prevent this kind of problem, so this shouldn鈥檛 be a problem in the UK鈥�, adding: 鈥淭here are, of course, no guarantees鈥�.

Counsel to the inquiry Richard Millett asked: 鈥淵ou knew by this point that the guidance鈥� was not being correctly understood in the sense you intended it by at least some of its intended audience; yes? You鈥檇 known that from July.鈥�

鈥淵es,鈥� replied Martin.

鈥淎nd that therefore you knew that there was a clear risk that the guidance couldn鈥檛 be applied correctly鈥� by at least that group of readers; yes?鈥� Millett asked.

鈥淵es鈥�, Martin replied.

鈥淎nd that therefore there was a clear risk that the fire, just like that at The Torch building, might well not be prevented, because people in the industry, for some years beforehand, had not understood [the guidance] in the way you鈥檇 intended it?鈥� Millett asked.

Martin said: 鈥淚 think that鈥檚 a fair point. I think at the time it was one of a number of issues that could have arisen, I guess. I don鈥檛 think I鈥檇 have treated it differently.鈥�

Asked if he had not considered alerting Holland to the 鈥渨idespread lack of consensus鈥� about the passage on cladding materials, Martin said 鈥淚 didn鈥檛 at the time, no鈥�.

Asked why, he said: 鈥淚 don鈥檛 really know鈥�, adding Holland鈥檚 role had been reduced. 鈥淲hen Mr Holland took over the job, the remit had become quite narrow, and maybe that鈥檚 what I had in mind, I don鈥檛 know鈥�.

Millett suggested that Martin had given his reassurances to Holland with his 鈥渇ingers crossed鈥�, knowing that there was 鈥渁t least a significant proportion鈥� of the industry which had been misinterpreting the phrase 鈥渇iller鈥�.

Martin said: 鈥淚 didn鈥檛 say it couldn鈥檛 happen, I said it shouldn鈥檛 happen, and I said that there were no guarantees鈥�.

鈥淭hat鈥檚 hardly sending the message, is it, to Peter Holland that there is a sizeable chunk of the building industry who does not think or did not think for some years that a core of a composite rainscreen panel needed to be of limited combustibility? Is it?鈥� Millett asked.

Martin accepted that it 鈥渨ould have been better to鈥� bring that more to the front than perhaps I did at the time.鈥� 

鈥淏ut it鈥檚 worse, isn鈥檛 it?鈥� Millett said. 鈥淏ecause by not doing that, do you accept that you lulled him, and others reading this, into a false sense of security?鈥�

鈥淚 think that鈥檚 perhaps a fair accusation or criticism,鈥� Martin replied.

The inquiry has already heard that Martin had agreed at the meeting with the CWCT to draft a 鈥渇requently asked questions鈥� (FAQ) document clarifying the meaning of the word 鈥渇iller鈥� and to publish it on the government鈥檚 website.

The FAQ was never published, with Martin telling a hearing earlier this week that he had 鈥渇orgotten鈥� about the request because it had been a 鈥渂usy time鈥�.

He has also admitted that he 鈥渃ompletely underestimated鈥� the hazard posed by ACM, adding 鈥淚 think if I鈥檇 fully understood it, I may have put more time into this issue鈥�.

ACM, which was used on Grenfell Tower and has been found by the inquiry to be the 鈥減rimary cause鈥� of the rapid spread of flame which caused the deaths of 72 people, was only explicitly banned by the government in December 2018, a year and a half after the fire.

The inquiry continues.