>A senior official has admitted the government knew 15 years before the Grenfell Tower disaster that plastic-filled cladding panels – which fuelled the fatal fire – burned “fast and fierce” and he believed they should not be used on tall buildings.
>
>But the results of tests were not published, and on Monday Anthony Burd, the principal fire safety professional and later head of technical policy in the government’s building regulations division from 2000 to 2013, denied there was a cover-up.
>
>The taxpayer-funded tests showed the cladding panels failed “catastrophically”, with flames reaching 20 metres into the air within five minutes.
>
>Similar panels went on to be used on more than 400 high-rise blocks, including Grenfell, where they were the main cause of the spread of the fire on 14 June 2017 that killed 72 people.
>
>Burd said the results should have been published but denied that this did not happen because the government feared it would trigger “an immediate cladding crisis” and was afraid of the response of the companies who made the materials.
>
>…
>
>The testing report compiled for Burd, at the time working in the office of the deputy prime minister, said the ACM panel performed so badly that the rig had to be extinguished early. Under a European classification of combustibility, the panels were likely to be ranked as D, which meant they should not be used on tall buildings. The safest class is A.
>
>“It’s a very fierce, fast fire,” said Burd. “This sort of product would not have been acceptable under the building regulations.”
>
>But under a separate UK system that measures only the spread of fire across the surface of a material, they were rated as class 0, which gave some users confidence that they could be used under building regulations, partly because guidance diagrams suggested that.
>
>Asked if the government considered making it clear after the tests that this kind of product should not be used above 18 metres, Burd said he understood that the building regulations guidance at the time did not allow this product.
>
>Asked whether anybody in the department considered alerting builders, local authorities, building control bodies or building owners to the “obvious dangers”, Burd said those bodies were part of an industry group consulted by government and there could have been discussion with building control representatives in that forum.
>But the results of tests were not published,
…
>denied there was a cover-up.
Pick one. Why weren’t they published? In case it cost companies money?
Not that it matters because the people involved will almost certainly have immunity from prosecution anyway.
So, the cladding was against building regs at the time?
And yet the residents are still having to foot the bill for it being replaced??
So who’s going to prison then?
Let me guess… no one?
How new and exciting.
Just a reminder that the mayor of London and other elements of government tried to blame the fire service for this.
Reason 4820 never to buy anything built in the last 20 years.
Which is reason 638 we have a massive housing crisis.
6 comments
>A senior official has admitted the government knew 15 years before the Grenfell Tower disaster that plastic-filled cladding panels – which fuelled the fatal fire – burned “fast and fierce” and he believed they should not be used on tall buildings.
>
>But the results of tests were not published, and on Monday Anthony Burd, the principal fire safety professional and later head of technical policy in the government’s building regulations division from 2000 to 2013, denied there was a cover-up.
>
>The taxpayer-funded tests showed the cladding panels failed “catastrophically”, with flames reaching 20 metres into the air within five minutes.
>
>Similar panels went on to be used on more than 400 high-rise blocks, including Grenfell, where they were the main cause of the spread of the fire on 14 June 2017 that killed 72 people.
>
>Burd said the results should have been published but denied that this did not happen because the government feared it would trigger “an immediate cladding crisis” and was afraid of the response of the companies who made the materials.
>
>…
>
>The testing report compiled for Burd, at the time working in the office of the deputy prime minister, said the ACM panel performed so badly that the rig had to be extinguished early. Under a European classification of combustibility, the panels were likely to be ranked as D, which meant they should not be used on tall buildings. The safest class is A.
>
>“It’s a very fierce, fast fire,” said Burd. “This sort of product would not have been acceptable under the building regulations.”
>
>But under a separate UK system that measures only the spread of fire across the surface of a material, they were rated as class 0, which gave some users confidence that they could be used under building regulations, partly because guidance diagrams suggested that.
>
>Asked if the government considered making it clear after the tests that this kind of product should not be used above 18 metres, Burd said he understood that the building regulations guidance at the time did not allow this product.
>
>Asked whether anybody in the department considered alerting builders, local authorities, building control bodies or building owners to the “obvious dangers”, Burd said those bodies were part of an industry group consulted by government and there could have been discussion with building control representatives in that forum.
>But the results of tests were not published,
…
>denied there was a cover-up.
Pick one. Why weren’t they published? In case it cost companies money?
Not that it matters because the people involved will almost certainly have immunity from prosecution anyway.
So, the cladding was against building regs at the time?
And yet the residents are still having to foot the bill for it being replaced??
So who’s going to prison then?
Let me guess… no one?
How new and exciting.
Just a reminder that the mayor of London and other elements of government tried to blame the fire service for this.
Reason 4820 never to buy anything built in the last 20 years.
Which is reason 638 we have a massive housing crisis.