|Home>||Fire||>Alarms and Detection||>National Fire Chiefs Council calls for “clear answers on cladding” at Grenfell Tower Inquiry|
|Home>||Fire||>Enforcement||>National Fire Chiefs Council calls for “clear answers on cladding” at Grenfell Tower Inquiry|
|Home>||Fire||>Evacuation||>National Fire Chiefs Council calls for “clear answers on cladding” at Grenfell Tower Inquiry|
National Fire Chiefs Council calls for “clear answers on cladding” at Grenfell Tower Inquiry
16 July 2020
THE NATIONAL Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) has called for the Grenfell Tower Inquiry to “get to the truth” about why such dangerous cladding came to be installed on the building and ensure those responsible are held to account.
NFCC chair Roy Wilsher has stated: “It’s imperative we find out why a non-compliant, extremely dangerous cladding system was on Grenfell Tower, along with hundreds of other buildings across the country. The bereaved survivors and families deserve answers and I truly hope they find the answers they need from Phase 2.”
The first phase of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry found the cladding system was the “principal” reason for the rapid and “profoundly shocking” spread of the fire. The second phase concentrates on how – and why – the building was clad in a flammable material during its refurbishment.
Back in February, the NFCC expressed shock following the opening evidence given to the second phase of the Grenfell Inquiry, including e-mails which suggested companies knew the components of the cladding system would fail in the event of a fire.
At the time, the NFCC stated: “The evidence undoubtedly showed a clear lack of concern for fire safety and a blatant disregard for people. It made it clear manufacturers and distributors were fully aware of the flammability of the cladding. This disregard for safety undoubtedly contributed to the loss of life at Grenfell Tower.”
Wilsher continued: “The evidence presented was so shocking I’m not sure how anyone, including the London Fire Brigade, could have possibly known the building was wrapped in such a cladding system that so clearly breached Building Regulations. Firefighters faced an impossible situation when confronted with the enormity of the fire, with no prior knowledge of the materials used in the refurbishment. The extraordinary work of firefighters on the night must be commended.”
He added: “As highlighted by expert witnesses in Phase 1, it was not reasonable the Brigade should be expected to fully mitigate a fire arising from the installation of these materials, particularly so where the Brigade had never been informed that a combustible system had been installed in the first place.”
According to Wilsher: “The Grenfell Tower fire was a tragedy waiting to happen. It is indefensible that we still have such cladding systems on buildings across the country. The Independent Expert Advisory Panel highlighted this cladding system is a level of risk beyond anything else we’ve seen and has noted that there was nothing else firefighters could do that wasn’t already procedure.”
Further, Wilsher asserted: “Fire and Rescue Services are doing their utmost to minimise the risk. However, 20 years of building safety failure is not the responsibility of Fire and Rescue. Phase 2 of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry should re-emphasise the importance of the reform of building safety and how it needs to happen at pace.”
Better legislation and regulation
The NFCC has repeatedly stated that it’s “wholly unacceptable” people are still living in dangerously clad buildings. Mark Hardingham, chair of the NFCC’s Protection and Business Safety Committee, added: “It’s only through better legislation, regulation and clear lines of responsibility that we can ensure we don’t see another tragedy of this scale unfold. The Grenfell Tower fire highlighted beyond doubt that the building safety regime was broken, yet three years’ later, tens of thousands of people are still living in buildings clad in the same or similar materials as that on Grenfell Tower.”
The NFCC also welcomed the decision earlier this year from the Attorney General not to grant any individual or corporate entity involved in the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower immunity from future criminal prosecutions. Witnesses from Phase 1 of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry didn’t make such a request and gave unfettered, open and honest disclosure surrounding the tragic fire.
Evidence presented so far at the Grenfell Tower Inquiry includes the following:
*Decisions taken to use ACM cladding to make savings in the region of £450,000
*Fire engineers being excluded from communications about the details of the cladding
*An internal e-mail from the insulation manufacturer where an executive admitted to a distributor it was “clearly wrong” to think it was OK to use combustible insulation on buildings of any height
*e-mails show that distributors of the cladding stating they would only use non-combustible cladding if “specifically challenged”
*In April 2016, while works on Grenfell Tower were ongoing, cladding manufacturer Arconic was sent guidance stating that UK Building Regulations required “all significant elements of each and every layer of the wall to be non-combustible or of limited combustibility”