ao link
Twitter
Facebook
Linked In
Twitter
Facebook
Linked In

You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles

Company connected to government fire expert advised on Grenfell refurbishment

A major fire safety company connected to the chair of the government’s independent expert panel provided advice for the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower, the inquiry has heard. 

Linked InTwitterFacebookeCard
Sharelines

Company connected to government fire expert advised on Grenfell refurbishment #ukhousing #grenfellinquiry

Sam Stein QC, representing survivors of the fire at the inquiry, revealed that Exova Warrington was the fire safety consultant for the refurbishment, which has been widely blamed for causing the fire to spread rapidly.

Sir Ken Knight, the chair of the government’s expert panel, was chair of the ‘impartiality committee’ and a director at Warrington Certification, part of Exova, before he was appointed by the government in June following the Grenfell Tower fire.

Sir Ken was a director of Warrington Certification from 2004 to July last year, according to Companies House.

Exova Warringtonfire and Warrington Certification are both subsidiaries of Exova UK. Exova is a giant multinational fire safety firm operating in several countries.


READ MORE

Expert fire report for Grenfell based on plans which did not include cladding, document revealsExpert fire report for Grenfell based on plans which did not include cladding, document reveals
Government fire expert recommends continued use of combustible insulation on high risesGovernment fire expert recommends continued use of combustible insulation on high rises

Sir Ken has already faced criticism for this role, after it emerged that while in that position he signed a certificate saying Grenfell-style cladding could be used on high rises in 2012.

Mr Stein, in his opening statement, said that in Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation’s (KCTMO) evidence it stated, “that Exova noted that the proposed changes would have no effect on the building in relation to external fire spread and that this was to be confirmed by future analysis”.

It is not suggested that Sir Ken had any involvement in this report, and he resigned as chair of the committee before taking the expert role and as director shortly afterwards.

The government has been contacted for comment.

 

According to Mr Stein, KCTMO stated that it believes “that Exova conducted that further analysis and gave such confirmation to [the architects] Studio E”.

Mr Stein added: “What plans was Exova ever asked to report on, if they did not identify the cladding and rainscreen? At present, we have no reason offered for their preliminary conclusion that the refurbishment works will have no adverse effect on the building in relation to external fire spread.

“Nor is it even identified what changes were being preliminarily approved as having no adverse effect.”

He displayed to the inquiry a copy of Exova’s fire strategy for the Grenfell refurbishment, which made no reference to cladding.

However, he said, he has seen “documentation which has Exova included on the distribution list which makes reference to the proposed cladding”.

The role of the impartiality committee, which Sir Ken chaired, is to ensure Warrington Certification acts impartially and includes an independent review of any changes to the certification schemes.

Its impartiality to the testing and consulting businesses of Exova Warringtonfire is audited annually by UKAS.

Mr Stein also referred to Carl Stokes, the man revealed by Inside Housing last June as the fire risk assessor for Grenfell Tower.

He said that in his last risk assessment of the tower, he concluded there was only a risk of “slight harm” in the event of fire.

A spokesperson for Exova said: "Exova’s specialist fire consultancy division provided some limited consulting services to Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation Limited (“KCTMO”), related to fire strategy and building regulations, as part of KCTMO’s overall fire safety strategy, ahead of the refurbishment of the Grenfell Tower block. This work was conducted mainly in 2013 and primarily focused on the refurbishment of the bottom four floors of the block, which were to undergo a material change of use with the creation of new apartments.

"At the time of its engagement, Exova was not supplied with any detailed specification in relation to any proposed cladding system, and so was not in a position to comment in that regard. The summary of the proposed refurbishment at the start of the outline fire strategy report produced by Exova in 2013 (which reflected the brief given by the client) accordingly did not include any mention of cladding. Exova made it clear in that report that any impact on external fire spread would need to be confirmed as part of a later report. Exova was not subsequently instructed or engaged to produce a further report, nor was it engaged for the later stages of design, material selection, construction or sign-off of the Grenfell Tower refurbishment project. In particular, Exova did not select, test, review or approve the cladding systems that were finally chosen and installed. Any suggestion or report to the contrary would be completely incorrect.

"We have fully supported the public inquiry from its inception, including providing extensive disclosure and access to all relevant information at the inquiry’s request, and we will continue to do so until the inquiry’s work is complete."

Update: at 12.15pm, 06.06.18 This story was updated to include Exova’s statement

The Grenfell Tower Inquiry

The Grenfell Tower Inquiry

Closing statements

 

Day 85: victims' lawyers attack the fire brigade

 

Further expert evidence

Including some additional evidence from emergency call handlers, bereaved and relatives

 

Day 84: further evidence from survivors and relatives

Day 83: swift evacuation of tower possible if residents alerted

Day 82: initial fire was extinguished but then returned to the flat

Day 81: overheating fridge-freezer most likely cause of fire

Day 80: fire doors installed did not match product tested

Day 79: resident advised to stay put despite fire in flat

Day 78: insulation and cladding material below required standard

Day 77: molten plastic spread blaze down tower

Day 76: 'stay put' should be dropped when fire spreads across floors

 

Other witness evidence

Police, ambulance, gas suppliers, council, TMO and call room operators give evidence

 

Day 75: call room operators give evidence

Day 74: further evidence from TMO officers

Day 73: TMO boss failed to pass information to firefighters

Day 72: fire finally extinguished when gas switched off

Day 71: further questions over stay put advice

Day 70: the police evidence

 

The bereaved, survivors and relatives’ evidence

 

Day 69: video shows smoke billowing through fire door

Day 68: KCTMO removed self closing mechanism and never replaced it

Day 67: gaps in cladding fixed with duct tape

Day 66: 'don't fix broken system with a sticking plaster'

Day 65: survivor dragged disabled man down nine floors to safety

Day 64: KCTMO 'did not replace broken fire door'

Day 63: foam insulation inside cladding 'exposed' says survivor

Day 62: father gives harrowing account of son's death

Day 61: council’s management organisation slammed for faulty electrics

Day 60: stay put advice ‘led to deaths’, residents say

Day 59: residents describe problems with new windows

Day 58: survivor describes how daughter saved his life

Day 57: firefighter evidence ‘a slap in the face’, says survivor

Day 56: relations with contractor were ‘toxic’

Day 55: resident 'never happy' with stay-put advice

Day 54: tenant gives evidence about housing association

Day 53: stay put advice 'felt like trap'

Day 52: resident saved by son's phone call

 

The firefighters’ evidence

 

Day 51: firefighter feared encouraging residents to jump

Day 50: the LFB commissioner

Day 49: fire chief reveals frustration over lack of building plans

Day 48: internal fire spread 'bigger story' than cladding

Day 47: fire officer considered evacuating crews over building collapse fears

Day 46: 'we were improvising' senior firefighter admits

Day 45: firefighter urged for abandonment of 'stay put' policy

Day 44: firefighter recalls radio signal difficulties

Day 43: call hander 'uncomfortable' with insisting residents stay put

Day 42: residents only told to leave if they called fire brigade back

Day 41: breathing equipment delay 'hampered rescues on upper floors'

Day 40: chiefs told firefighters to abandon policy

Day 39: firefighters reveal dramatic rescue of children

Day 38: firefighters issue aplogies to families

Day 37: council 'unable to provide tower plans'

Day 36: QC defends inquiry process

Day 35: Javid would welcome interim recommendations

Day 34: water from hose 'too weak' to reach the flames

Day 33: 'oh my god, we've been telling people to stay put'

Day 32: further fire fighter describes lack of equipment and low water pressure

Day 31: 'incredibly difficult' task of recording information outlined

Day 30: struggle to maintain control over rescue operation described

Day 29: fire service 'overwhelmed' by survival guidance calls

Day 28: 'the building beat us'

Day 27: firefighters 'forced to abandon plans to reach roof'

Day 26: poor signage hindered rescue efforts

Day 25: water pressure left firefighting equipment 'like garden hose'

Day 24: decision to abandon 'stay put' explored

Day 23: TV images 'could have assissted' rescue effort

Day 22: description of hectic scenes in the control centre

Day 21: account from the fire service 'nerve centre'

Day 20: firefighter describes 'huge volume' of calls from trapped residents

Day 19: firefighter 'given no training on cladding fires'

Day 18: evacuation would have been 'huge catastrophe'

Day 17: firefighters describe access and lift issues

Day 16: scenes of carnage likened to 9/11

Day 15: firefighters recount trauma of survival guidance calls

Day 14: firefighters describe spread of blaze

Day 13: firefighters recall radio difficulties

Day 12: "it was like a war zone"

Day 11: questions raised over fire fighters' radios

Day 10: watch manager emotional under questioning

Day nine: lead firefighter 'not trained in stay put policy'

 

The expert reports: authors give evidence to inquiry

 

Day eight: where the fire started

Day seven: what was in the cladding?

Day six: the cause and spread of the fire

Day five: expert highlights key issues

Day four: firefighters defend response to fire

Day three: council and contractors appear for the first time

Day two: lawyers for the survivors make their case

Day one: expert evidence released on cladding and stay put

 

The commemoration hearings

 

30 May: Grenfell Council 'recognised it should not house disabled victim above four storeys'

29 May: Anger on day six of the Grenfell Inquiry

25 May: Grenfell families 'forced to live in chimney with stay put policy'

24 May: Grenfell family complained about father being housed on 17th floor

23 May: Tributes to children on third day of Grenfell hearings

22 May: Emotions run high as Grenfell bereaved shown footage of the tower burning

21 May: Grenfell victims share tributes as inquiry opens

 

The ‘Class 0’ debate explained

The ‘Class 0’ debate explained
  • Since the Grenfell Tower fire, the government has insisted that its official guidance, Approved Document B, required cladding panels to be of ‘limited combustibility’. But many industry figures disagree, saying that the standard the guidance set was ‘Class 0’ or ‘Euroclass B’.
  • Approved Document B sets limited combustibility as the standard for ‘insulation materials/products’ in paragraph 12.7. It sets Class 0 or Euroclass B as the standard for ‘external surfaces’ in paragraph 12.6.
  • Paragraph 12.7 says that “insulation product, filler material etc” must be of limited combustibility. In a letter to social landlords on 22 June, the government said that the word ‘filler’ in this context covered the plastic in between the aluminium sheets in the cladding.
  • But experts have disputed this view, pointing out that the cladding itself does not have an insulation function.
  • The cladding used on Grenfell was certified to Class 0 and so would apparently have met the official standard for external walls.
  • This debate remains crucial in assessing the liability for the removal of cladding, much of which is also rated Class 0, from hundreds of tower blocks nationwide.
Linked InTwitterFacebookeCard
Add New Comment
You must be logged in to comment.