The Grenfell Tower fire was one of the most horrific blazes in recent history – but could the incident have been avoided if confusion over a building regulation had been cleared up beforehand?
On June 14th 2017, 72 people died in the electrical fire in west London, leading to an inquiry looking at how it broke out and ripped through the 23-storey block of flats, spreading through the building in just a couple of hours.
As part of the Grenfell Inquiry, it has really transpired that a Building Research Establishment (BRE) expert did not clarify ambiguity over certain regulations regarding the permitted use of combustible cladding in tall structures, Building.co.uk reported.
Following a meeting in 2014 with senior civil servant Brian Martin and the Centre for Window and Classind Technolgy (CWCT), Sarah Colwell had agreed to clearly state what is meant by the word ‘filler’ in the paragraph that stipulates cladding materials needed to meet the standard of ‘limited combustibility’.
Some thought this meant the materials to fill the gap between the insulation, while others believed it should have included the cladding panels too.
Ms Colwell was meant to draft an FAQ over the confusion, but she never added this to the guidance and failed to answer emails, phone calls and voicemails from the CWCT over the matter during the subsequent 16 months.
In her defence, she did not complete the FAQ as she “assumed” the existing documents would be revised, adding: “I fully acknowledge that that was a lapse on my part of not keeping them informed of that thought process.”
Get in touch with us today for more information on building compliance audit services
Commentaires