Grenfell contractors predicted cladding would fail, inquiry told

KEY firms involved in refurbishing Grenfell Tower predicted their proposed cladding system would fail in the event of a fire two years before the disaster, emails disclosed to an inquiry have revealed.

The war of words over who should bear blame for the inferno intensified yesterday as the manufacturers of the flammable material used on the block hit out at those in charge of the refit.

It comes as the inquiry examines how a cladding system which fuelled the blaze came to be installed a year before 72 people were killed in June 2017.

Celotex, which made the combustible insulation, used its opening statement yesterday to draw attention to an email exchange from March 2015. It involved Rydon, the contractor; Studio E, the main architects; Exova, the fire engineers; and Harley Facades, which coordinated parts of the external facade.

In an internal email from Harley Facades

dated March 27 2015, Daniel Anketell-jones, a manager, discussed with Ray Bailey, a director, whether “fire-stopping” measures should be considered to prevent flames reaching the proposed aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding panels.

He said: “There is no point in ‘fire

‘If significant flames are ejected from the windows, this would lead to failure of the cladding system’

stopping’, as we all know; the ACM will be gone rather quickly in a fire!”

On March 31, Terry Ashton from Exova said in an email to Neil Crawford, from Studio E Architects: “In the event of a fire where external flaming occurred … this would cause the zinc cladding to fail.”

Tony Pearson, also of Exova, told Mr Ashton: “If significant flames are ejected from the windows, this would lead to failure of the cladding system.”

On the night of the fire, two years after the email exchange, flames escaped through a kitchen window to ignite the external cladding system.

Craig Orr QC, for Celotex, told the inquiry: “The risk was expressly foreseen by the designers, contractors and fire safety consultants.”

The refurbishment companies claim the manufacturers – Celotex and Arconic, which made the cladding panels – misled them about product safety.

Both manufacturers argue that they only sold the product, and had no responsibility for construction or installation.

Exova said it was not consulted on the cladding by the architects or contractor, while Harley Facades said it had no reason to believe the materials “would behave as they did in the event of a fire”, a claim Mr Orr suggested was undermined by the emails.

The inquiry continues.