黑洞社区

The civil servant formerly responsible for fire safety guidance 鈥渇orgot鈥� to clarify that ACM cladding was not permitted despite a request from industry experts.

Brian Martin told yesterday鈥檚 hearing of the Grenfell Inquiry that he had 鈥減ut it to one side and waited for [the experts] to contact me鈥� because it had been a 鈥渂usy time鈥�.

He also admitted that he had 鈥渃ompletely underestimated鈥� the hazard posed by ACM panels despite being warned that an ambiguous passage in official guidance could be interpreted as permitting their use.

Martin had attended a meeting of fire safety professionals organised by the Centre for Window and Cladding Technology (CWCT) in July 2014 following a series of major cladding fires in the Middle East which had been caused by ACM.

The inquiry has already heard that the passage in Approved Document B, the part of the building regulations dealing with fire safety, stated that 鈥渇iller鈥� materials needed to obtain the tough fire rating of 鈥榣imited combustibility鈥�.

Martin admitted on Tuesday that the word 鈥榝iller鈥� had been a last-minute addition to the guidance and had not been consulted on with the construction industry.

It was also contained in a passage titled 鈥業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 has claimed that the scope of the word included the combustible cores of cladding panels, like the plastic cores of ACM, and it was used deliberately to encourage designers and building control bodies to think 鈥渂roadly鈥� about what products were compliant.

But minutes from Martin鈥檚 meeting with the CWCT show that it was agreed that it was 鈥渘ot clear鈥� that the guidance prohibited the use of ACM because of how it was worded. It was also agreed that clarification could be achieved by publishing a 鈥榝requently asked questions鈥� (FAQ) for this section of Approved Document B.

No FAQ on the passage was ever published and ACM was only explicitly banned by the government in December 2018, a year and a half after the Grenfell Tower fire which claimed 72 lives. The inquiry has found that ACM was the 鈥減rimary cause鈥� of the rapid spread of flame up the sides of the tower in June 2017.

Asked by counsel to the inquiry Richard Millett QC why the FAQ was not published, Martin said that he had decided to 鈥渨ait for [the experts at the meeting] to contact me with what they were proposing鈥�.

鈥淲hy would it be up to them to contact you with what they were proposing, given that, having read the minute, you knew what the problem was and you were the one with, as it were, a finger on the planning portal button and could put the FAQ section in?鈥� Millett asked.

鈥淚 think I thought it would be better for a group of fire safety experts and cladding experts to draft something and for us then to look at it,鈥� Martin said, adding that he 鈥渦nderstood鈥� that that was what the attendees of the meeting would do.

Asked why he had not contacted them when no proposals for an FAQ were sent, Martin said: 鈥淚 think this was a busy time for us and I think I probably forgot about it is the honest answer. I think I鈥檇 put it to one side and waited for them to contact me and then focused on the other work that I was doing.鈥�

Martin鈥檚 colleagues, Anthony Burd, Bob Ledsome and Richard Harral have all told the inquiry that issuing the FAQ was not a difficult piece of work and could have easily been done by the fire safety team in the housing department.

Martin accepted yesterday that there was nothing 鈥渦nreasonable or inappropriate or disproportionately difficult鈥� in publishing the FAQ. 鈥淚t certainly wasn鈥檛 impossible. I mean, it would have taken some work, but yes,鈥� he said.

Asked if the reason he had done nothing to clarify the passage was because he did not consider there was any risk of a major fire in England and Wales due to the use of ACM panels, he admitted that he 鈥渃ompletely underestimated the hazard鈥�.

He added: 鈥淚 underestimated the risk that ACM presented. I think if I鈥檇 fully understood it, I may have put more time into this issue.鈥�

He also said he had not raised the lack of clarity in the guidance on ACM with any other senior official at the time, admitting: 鈥淚 don鈥檛 think I recognised how serious it was. It was a problem which was really peculiar to ACM, and I just didn鈥檛 think it was that significant an issue at the time.鈥�

Martin was also asked yesterday about an email exchange, in the same month as his meeting with the CWCT, about the use of combustible insulation within cladding systems.

In the emails, Martin was told by building control body the National House 黑洞社区 Council that Kingspan鈥檚 K15 insulation was being used in high-rise projects on the basis of a certificate from the British Board of Agrement.

The inquiry has heard that Martin did not investigate how widespread the problem was and did not issue warnings to other organisations.

鈥淲ere you not interested to know, if it was a problem, how big the problem was, even at that stage, pending Kingspan coming up with their tests that would cure it all?鈥� Millett asked.

鈥淚t seems like a reasonable question to ask,鈥� Martin replied. 鈥淏ut we didn鈥檛 think of it at the time. I don鈥檛 know why.鈥� 

鈥淚s it because it was just unthinkable, and you had the makings here of a crisis on your hands that you simply couldn鈥檛 conceive of?鈥� Millett asked.

Martin said: 鈥淚 don鈥檛 think it was that.鈥�

The inquiry continues.