2022 – 002 Grenfell Tower and cladding

Who is Michael Gove protecting exactly?

It was Nick Raynsford who fobbed off the Garnock Court Select Committee in 1999 with BRE Fire Note 9 and commissioned Warrington Fire to compare Class 0 (National) to the classes in BS EN 13501-1.

Charles Falconer seems to have been in office when Warrington Fire finished the RADAR 2 report in early 2002, which told the Ministry that Class 0 (National) could be (European) Class C or D for composites.

Making a mockery of Diagram 40.

The Ministry declined to publish that revelation under Jeff Rooker, which would have had an effect on Cladding and Insulation. When he wanted to increase urban density using MMC and push Approved Document Part L for Conservation of Fuel and Power to low “U” Values.

By Yvette Cooper and the Code for Sustainable Homes AD Part B Fire Safety and the combustibility of the external wall was nowhere in the Insulation obsessed Ministry mind. All they wanted was thinner walls with lower “U” Values. Kingspan obliged with the Code 6 home “Lighthouse” at the BRE.

All under John Prescott.

The Grenfell Tower Inquiry will examine the period through the Lakanal House fire in 2009 under New Labour and the Inquest in 2013 under Coalition administrations.

Module 6 will continue to look at the 2013 to 2017 period when concerns about external wall fires exercised the Building Control Alliance, but led to no ADB revision under Coalition or Conservatives.

Michael Gove is protecting a Ministry that has changed hands between iterations of political parties.

The failure over Class 0 goes back to the 1990s through John Gummer and forwards after 2006. But Yvette Cooper is still in the Shadow Cabinet. Has she nothing to admit about the failure to address the double-definition of Class 0?

Of course the contemporary failure was not admitting to the public the Class 0 double-definition in June 2017. Sajid Javid at the time gave way to the late James Brokenshire and Robert Jenrick before Michael Gove.

A 20 year succession of Ministers and their shadows and their subordinates have played a game of “cat and mouse” with the Grenfell Tower Inquiry. Assisted by an unquestioning media and a cowering construction industry executive. At any moment someone with authority and personal integrity could tell the truth.

Is Lisa Nandy as Michael Gove’s shadow not going to point out Class 0 could be combustible but was approved under Section 6 of the 1984 Building Act?

Who is Lisa Nandy protecting exactly?

The technical version is this…

Class 0 to BS 476 Part 6 [Index (I) <12 and Sub-Index (i1) <6] and BS 476 Part 7 [Class 1] could be achieved by Class C and D products under BS EN 13501-1, and was never Limited Combustibility, which would have meant Class A2, not B. Class 0/B being the graphical transposition in Diagram 40 of Approved Document B after 2002. Reiterated in 2006.

See Paragraph 13b. of ADB Volume 2 (2006 as amended 2010 and 2013). Also see Table B1. of both Volumes of ADB (2019 as amended 2020).

Image preview

Activate to view larger image

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.