Nobody at the construction company that installed the combustible aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding on Grenfell Tower was designated with the responsibility of assessing the fire safety of products used on its projects, the Grenfell Inquiry heard today.
Kate Grange, counsel to the inquiry, asked whose job it was at Harley Facades at the time of the Grenfell project to “think about fire”, to which Daniel Anketell-Jones, the company’s design manager during the work, replied that there was nobody across the company assigned that role.
Mr Anketell-Jones said: “Each individual person would look after the responsibility on the projects. [For Grenfell] the responsibility would fall on Kevin [Lamb, lead designer] and Ben [Bailey, project manager].”
The revelations came after Mr Anketell-Jones revealed earlier in the week that it would be the role of the company’s technical manager to assess the technical compliance of materials used.
Harley had no one in this role for a three-year period between the end of 2012 and the end of 2015, a period that coincided with the Grenfell refurbishment.
When asked who was responsible for ensuring the designs of cladding systems complied with the building regulations during the period the company was without a technical manager, Mr Anketell-Jones said for the projects he worked on he would pass back to clients and the design team.
Mr Anketell-Jones took on the role of technical manager at Harley in late 2015.
Today was Mr Anketell-Jones’ third day of questioning at the inquiry, with discussion around fire-stopping and the installation of cavity barriers around the windows during the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower.
The inquiry has already seen chains of emails between the contractors, architects and building control inspectors which show that they resisted the idea of including fire breaks between floors at Grenfell Tower and did not design cavity barriers above windows – as required by building regulations.
During phase one of the inquiry, experts concluded that the windows at Grenfell “had very little capacity to resist a fire”, allowing the blaze to break out of the flat it started in and ignite the combustible cladding on the walls.
During questioning, Mr Anketell-Jones was presented with an email he sent to project stakeholders, in which he said that fire-stopping would not be needed as fire would quickly destroy the ACM cladding.
He wrote: “There is no point in ‘fire stopping’, as we all know, the ACM will be gone rather quickly in a fire!”
Asked by Ms Grange to elaborate on his comments, he said that from his structural design training, he knew that aluminium was unable to resist fire for a long periods and would melt and fall off the building.
When asked how this comment about the performance of the cladding was consistent with his previous evidence that he was concerned with and educated on structural issues only, Mr Anketell-Jones said: “It’s what I picked up from the email further down, and picking up bits and pieces over the years. It was not an area I was trained on and I would always send off the drawings to consultants to be checked on other projects.”
Ms Grange concluded her questions by asking Mr Anketell-Jones if he would do anything differently if he had the chance to do the project again.
“Looking back on it, because my role was very limited and I was only asked to dip in and out and look at pieces of info, and do structural design, I think at that point I didn’t have the education or knowledge to pick up on signs or see things were missing,” he said.
“So, I don’t think I could have anything differently without the education I have now.”
Week one: A vivid picture of a broken industry
After a week of damning revelations at the opening of phase two of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, Peter Apps recaps the key points
Week two: What is the significance of the immunity application?
Sir Martin Moore-Bick has written to the attorney general requesting protection for those set to give evidence at the Grenfell Tower Inquiry. Peter Apps explains what the move means
Week three: Architects of misfortune
This week saw the lead architects for the Grenfell Tower refurbishment give evidence to the inquiry. Peter Apps runs through the key points
Week four: ‘I didn’t have any perception that it was the monster it’s become’
The architects continued to give evidence this week, outlining a lack of understanding of the fire risk posed by the cladding materials and its design. Nathaniel Barker reports
Week five: ‘No adverse effect in relation to external fire spread’
As the Grenfell Tower Inquiry returns from its long absence, Peter Apps recaps the key points from a week of important evidence from the fire consultants to the refurbishment
Week six: ‘I can’t recall any instance where I discussed the materials with building control’
Nathaniel Barker summarises what we learned from fire engineers Exova, architects Studio E and the early evidence from contractor Rydon
Week seven: ‘I do not think I have ever worked with a contractor operating with this level of nonchalance’
Two key witnesses from contractor Rydon gave evidence this week. Peter Apps recaps some of the key points from a revealing week of evidence
Week eight: ‘It haunts me that it wasn't challenged’
Four witnesses from contractor Rydon gave evidence this week. Lucie Heath recaps what we learned on the last week of evidence before the inquiry breaks for five weeks
Week nine: ‘All I can say is you will be taken out for a very nice meal very soon’
This week the inquiry heard evidence from witnesses at Harley Facades, the sub-contractor responsible for Grenfell Tower’s cladding. Peter Apps recaps the key points
Week 10: ‘As we all know, ACM will be gone rather quickly in a fire!’
As the Grenfell Tower Inquiry entered its 10th week, Jack Simpson recaps the key points from a week of important evidence from the refurbishment’s cladding contractor
Week 11: ‘Did you get the impression Grenfell Tower was a guinea pig for this insulation?’
With witnesses from the cladding subcontractor, the firm which cut the deadly panels to shape and the clerk of works which inspected the job giving evidence this was week full of revelations. Peter Apps recaps the key points
Week 12: ‘Would you accept that was a serious failing on your part?’
With the surveyor who inspected Grenfell Tower for compliance giving evidence, this was a crucial week from the inquiry. Dominic Brady and Peter Apps report
Week 13: ‘Value for money is to be regarded as the key driver for this project’
With consultants to Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO) giving evidence, attention at the Grenfell Tower Inquiry turned for this first time to the actions of the TMO and the council. Peter Apps reports
Week 14: ‘Did it not occur to you at this point that your budget was simply too low?’
This week, for the first time in phase two, the inquiry heard from Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation, the landlord that oversaw the fatal refurbishment of Grenfell Tower. Lucie Heath reports
Week 15: ‘Have you ever informed the police that you destroyed documents relevant to their investigation?’
Witnesses from the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO) gave evidence for a second week, which began with a shocking revelation about withheld and destroyed evidence. Pete Apps recaps
Week 16: ‘I conclude this was very serious evidence of professional negligence’
This week saw members of Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation finish giving evidence, before the inquiry’s expert witnesses took the stand to make some highly critical assessments of the work they had seen before and during the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower. Jack Simpson recaps
Grenfell Tower: a timeline of the refurbishment
Following the conclusion of module one of the Grenfell Inquiry’s second phase, Peter Apps presents a timeline of the key moments during the fatal refurbishment of the west London tower block.
Week 17: ‘It’s hard to make a note about this because we are not clean’
The start of the second module of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry phase two came with some huge revelations about the companies that sold the products used in the cladding system. Peter Apps reports
Week 18: ‘It was just reckless optimism wasn't it?’
As the inquiry began cross-examining witnesses for the second module of its phase two work, the picture surrounding just how Grenfell Tower ended up wrapped in such dangerous materials became a little clearer. Nathaniel Barker was keeping an eye on proceedings
Week 19: ‘And that was intentional, deliberate, dishonest?’
The Grenfell Tower Inquiry this week heard the shocking story of how the insulation manufacturer "manipulated" official testing and marketed its product "dishonestly". Peter Apps tells the story
Week 20: ‘We were outed by a consultant who we then had to fabricate a story to’
This week the inquiry investigated the actions of Kingspan – the manufacturer of one of the insulation products used in the tower’s cladding system. Dominic Brady reports
Week 21: 'It's there in black and white isn't it? We see a complete absence of any consideration of life safety'
The story of insulation giant Kingspan’s testing and marketing of its combustible insulation for high rises was unpacked in minute detail this week. Peter Apps reports
Week 22: 'All we do is lie in here'
In the third week of evidence from insulation giant Kingspan, the inquiry continued to uncover shocking details about the firm’s behaviour both before and after the Grenfell Tower fire. Lucie Heath reports.
Week 23: 'That would have come as an earthquake to you at the time, would it not?'
This week the inquiry took its deepest dive yet into the inner workings of the cladding manufacturer whose product has been blamed for the terrible spread of fire up Grenfell Tower. Nathaniel Barker reports
Each week we send out a newsletter rounding up the key news from the Grenfell Inquiry, along with exclusive analysis of what it all means for the social housing sector.
Already have an account? Click here to manage your newsletters