Wrapping a building in a polythene bag is wrong

Following the Grenfell Tower tragedy, BRE have confirmed the details of the tests that are now being carried out on samples of ACM cladding submitted by councils throughout the UK. The test was devised by an ‘independent panel of experts’ on behalf of the communities department and performed on the core of test samples after the external aluminium skin had been removed from the panel.

So are these the same tests that were performed by test houses to confirm the fire rating of Reynobond panels before Grenfell? Is this how British Board of Agrement (up at the BRE site in watford) tested and certified the panels that it is claimed were installed at Grenfell Tower? Were such tests even carried out or was reliance made on ‘desktop assessment”? Or are these more stringent tests – tests that common sense should have told the specifiers, the regulation makers, the installers and the ‘Value Engineers’ were required? A spokesman for Unite has suggested that we should stop attacking the existing regulations and, by inference, that we should stop vilifying those who have worked within those regulations.

(Since writing the above, it has been reported that “even the Government’s newly-formed fire advisory body said the fire tests only examined the filler inside the aluminium panels. But because the cladding system has not been tested, it considers that some buildings could still be deemed to be safe, assuming the entire cladding, insulation and cavity block system worked to expected standards.”)

It appears now that investigations are being carried out on everything that might have contributed to the cause of the fire, the rapid spread of flames, the existence or otherwise of adequate warning, the effectiveness of compartments during the remodelling, the lack of sprinklers, the inappropriateness of the advice to stay in the flats, the lack of additional fire escapes, the restricted appliance access etc., etc. Is there to be a similar attack on regulations covering theses aspects also?

Without appearing to be #betterinmyday, I am confident that we would never have entertained the use of such materials, regardless of whether someone, somewhere certified that they achieved an acceptable level of fire safety or had carried out a ‘desktop assessment’ to assert acceptability. My duty as an Architect was to look after the interests of not only my paymasters, but those of my paymasters’ end users.

Wrapping a robust and inherently safe building in a polythene bag and allowing it to be set alight is wrong. Insisting that the regulations allowed it to happen is also wrong. Don’t hide from your responsibility to tell the regulation makers that they are wrong.

Do the right thing, whatever the cost.