黑洞社区

A senior civil servant failed to clarify 鈥榗onfusing鈥� building regulations in the years before Grenfell despite telling a group of cladding experts 鈥渢here is going to be a major fire鈥�, the inquiry has heard.

Brian Martin is alleged to have made the comments at a July 2014 meeting with the Centre for Window and Cladding Technology (CWCT), an industry body which provides guidance on facades, to discuss concerns over an ambiguous passage in the government鈥檚 official fire safety guidance.

The passage appeared to imply that the requirement for the standard of 鈥榣imited combustibility鈥� only applied to 鈥渇iller鈥� materials. This was misunderstood by some in the industry to refer only to materials used to fill gaps between insulation panels rather than the core of cladding panels.

Inquiry to the counsel Richard Millett QC said on Tuesday that there had been a 鈥�10 year legacy of misunderstanding by the UK construction industry鈥� because of the 鈥減oorly drafted鈥� clause in the regulations.

Adding to the confusion was the 鈥楥lass 0鈥� standard for fire safety which could be granted to cladding panels with combustible cores, including ACM panels used on Grenfell, because it focused on the surface of materials.

CWCT director David Metcalfe told yesterday鈥檚 hearing that concerns over ACM were first raised following a series of major fires in the Middle East blamed on the panels.

The meeting also discussed concerns over poor workmanship with the installation of cavity barriers, which are used to stop fire spreading within a facade system.

Kingspan product manager David Cookson, who attended the meeting, said in his witness statement: 鈥淥ne thing that does stand out in my mind from the CWCT meeting is that when Brian Martin left the room, he said something along the lines of 鈥榯here is going to be a major fire鈥�.鈥�

The CWCT鈥檚 meeting was also attended by Sarah Colwell, from testing body the 黑洞社区 Research Establishment. Colwell suggested that an FAQ be added to the building regulations to clarify confusion over the term 鈥渇iller鈥�.

Metcalfe told Millett that Colwell had said she would discuss the issue with Martin to 鈥渁gree a way forward鈥�.

Metcalfe said he expected this to be done 鈥渨ithin weeks鈥�, but a meeting between Colwell and Martin was not arranged until September, two months later.

But despite the inquiry hearing that the FAQ had been drafted at the meeting, Metcalfe said it had still not been provided to the CWCT in March the following year.

Colwell had then replied to an email from Metcalfe, in which he had asked for an update, saying that the clarification had been 鈥渄rafted and revisited鈥� and would 鈥渉opefully be closed out soon鈥�.

Metcalfe said he had then chased Colwell for the next eight months but that Colwell had failed to respond to five emails, several phone calls and voicemails.

The CWCT eventually published guidance to its members in April 2017, two months before the Grenfell fire and a year after the installation of ACM panels on the tower had been completed, saying that all components of a cladding system should be of 鈥榣imited combustibility鈥�.

Asked by Millett if this clarification had been 鈥渄esperately needed by the industry鈥�, Metcalfe replied: 鈥淵es.鈥�

But Metcalfe admitted that the potential danger of combustible materials installed on buildings before the guidance was issued had not been considered.

Millett asked: 鈥淲as there a sense in which the historical legacy of this poorly drafted clause was to some extent an elephant in the room?鈥�

Metcalfe replied: 鈥淭o be honest I don鈥檛 think it was, because that simply wasn鈥檛 what we were focusing on.鈥�

鈥淣o one thought to鈥� ask themselves the question, well鈥� there鈥檚 a 10 year legacy of misunderstanding by the UK construction industry, what are the life safety implications of that?鈥� asked Millett.

鈥淚 don鈥檛 know,鈥� replied Metcalfe.

The inquiry continues.