黑洞社区

An ambiguous reply by a senior figure at the housing ministry to a question on whether ACM panels could be used in tall buildings was a typical response to fire safety queries, the Grenfell Inquiry was told.

黑洞社区 Research Establishment (BRE) scientist Sarah Colwell said she was 鈥渦sed to seeing the style鈥� of Brian Martin鈥檚 non-committal explanation of a confusing passage in official guidance dealing with cladding systems.

Thursday鈥檚 hearing was shown an email between Nick Jenkins, of cladding supplier Euroclad, to Martin seeking clarification on whether ACM cladding panels could be used on buildings taller than 18m. Martin was the policy lead for building regulations at the ministry.

黑洞社区 regulations on cladding systems stated at the time that the fire standard of 鈥渓imited combustibility鈥� only applied to 鈥渇iller鈥� materials, which was taken by many in the industry to mean materials used to fill gaps between insulation rather than the core of cladding panels.

Inquiry to the counsel Richard Millett QC said this month that the 鈥減oorly drafted鈥� clause had led to a 鈥�10-year legacy of misunderstanding by the UK construction industry鈥�.

Jenkins had initially sent his query to Colwell in January 2016, explaining that ACM panels 鈥渂urn quite efficiently鈥� and that he was aware of many tall residential buildings in the UK where the panels were being installed alongside combustible insulation materials.

Colwell then referred Jenkins to Martin, telling the inquiry that the housing department would be able to 鈥渢ake action more widely鈥�.

Jenkins forwarded his email to Martin, adding: 鈥漈his matter is currently the topic of much discussion in the construction industry and, if one thing is evident, it is that there is much confusion and misunderstanding.鈥�

Martin鈥檚 response to Jenkins, in February, said: 鈥滻 think the core of an ACM panel could reasonably be considered to be a 鈥檉iller鈥�. 

鈥淪o, unless the core material meets the 鈥檙ules鈥�, then the [guidance] suggests a full-scale test.  

鈥淗owever, if the designer and building control body choose to do something else, then that鈥檚 up to them.鈥�

Colwell was asked by counsel to the inquiry Kate Grange QC what her reaction was to Martin not being able to give a 鈥渄efinitive answer鈥� to the question. Colwell replied that the email was 鈥渧ery much the style鈥� of Martin鈥檚 responses.

Asked if this was typical of the style in which Martin would respond to these kinds of queries, Colwell added: 鈥淚 believe so. He鈥� I can鈥檛 speak for him in the terms of how he writes, but that is typical of the type of response I had seen.鈥�

Colwell, who admitted that she was 鈥渟urprised鈥� when reading Jenkins鈥� original email alerting her to the use of ACM on tall buildings, was also asked why the BRE did not put out a statement to the construction industry alerting it to the dangers of using ACM.

She said it was 鈥渘ot a route that BRE had taken in those circumstances鈥�.

Grange said: 鈥淲hy don鈥檛 we see presentations by the BRE, articles by the BRE?鈥� why don鈥檛 we see anything from the BRE about the dangers associated with ACM PE, particularly from this point onwards, once 鈥� you know for sure at this point that it is being used on tall buildings鈥�.

Colwell said: 鈥淲e spoke where we were invited to speak.鈥�

Earlier, the inquiry was shown an email exchange between David Metcalfe, director of the Centre for Window and Cladding Technology, an industry body which provides guidance on facades, and Stuart Taylor of facade engineer Wintech.

Taylor had been asking for advice on what cladding panels were compliant in a cladding system under official guidance.

Metcalfe replied that the ambiguous clause in the building regulations which referenced 鈥渇iller鈥� material 鈥渕akes no reference to cladding panels鈥� and the current view is that [this] does not apply to such materials鈥�.

He suggested that the clause was 鈥渧ery poorly written and misleading, and needs clarifying ASAP鈥�, adding: 鈥淚 am very sorry that I cannot give you a definitive answer 鈭� the more we look into the fire regulations, the messier it becomes. 

鈥淲hat is clear is that further guidance is needed.鈥�

The inquiry continues.