Herefordshire Council Mentioned In Final Grenfell Report.

[Hereford Voice]

K15 – the product

22.3 K15 was first manufactured at Kingspan’s Pembridge site in Herefordshire inNovember 2002.422 At that time, the foam was produced with a pentane blowing agent.423 The foil facers of the product were unperforated, with a thickness of 7.6 microns.424

22.4 Following its acquisition of a Dutch company in 2003,425 Kingspan began to introduce a number of changes to its phenolic foam range. They included physical changes to the structure of the foam and the introduction of different chemical ingredients and manufacturing processes to achieve better thermal performance and rates of productivity.426 In particular, Kingspan introduced the use of a mixture of pentane and isopropyl chloride as a blowing agent 427 and perforations were introduced to the aluminium foil facers. 428 The new version of K15 came to be known within Kingspan as “new technology” or “Kesteren technology”429 K15 and the previous version as “old technology”K15.430 Dr Rochefort said that by September 2006 the K15 available to the market was the “new technology” version of the product.431 Ivor Meredith, who had been a Project Leader in the Technical Projects team,432 and his line manager, Philip Heath, Technical Manager until 2010,433 both agreed, although they thought that production of “old technology” K15 had ceased in about August 2007. 434

22.5 Phenolic foam is an organic polymer, so whatever blowing agents or methods are used to produce it, it is not a material of limited combustibility as defined in Approved Document B.435 With the exception of Dr Rochefort, who professed not to have been aware at the time of the fire performance of K15 or the existence of a definition of limited combustibility in Approved Document B,436 all the Kingspan witnesses from whom we heard confirmed that they had been aware throughout their employment at Kingspan that K15 was not, and never could be, a material of limited combustibility. 437

23.9 Herefordshire County Council agreed to undertake the assessment of K15 and prepare any resulting certificate. The work was given to David Jones, who was a Senior Building Control Surveyor from June 2005 until November 2011 and thereafter a Building Control Team Manager until July 2014.942 Mr Jones told us that Herefordshire was selected to undertake the assessment not for any reasons of technical expertise but due to its proximity to Kingspan’s Pembridge site.943 He had never previously been involved in the Type Approval process944 and believed that the work had been delegated to him because he had a specific role in the department for marketing activity. The Type Approval scheme was viewed as a way of raising the profile of the LABC brand. 945

23.10 Mr Jones was reluctant to undertake the assessment of K15. He could see that it involved testing and certification, which he knew were not matters within his experience or within the experience of any other members of his department.946 He had not undergone any specific training on the reaction of materials to fire, the testing and certification of construction products, or on the use of materials in buildings over 18 metres in height. There were no buildings over 18 metres in height in Herefordshire, so he had not had to consider the guidance relating to them in the course of his work. 947

23.11 Mr Jones spoke to someone at LABC, probably Philip Harrison,948 to explain his concern about undertaking the assessment but was told that it would be fairly limited in scope and should involve an initial meeting with the client and a review of the information provided by it. He was also told that if third party certification was considered to be reliable, it could be accepted at face value and that he need not go behind it.949

23.12 The reliability of third party certification was a matter for LABC rather than the assessing authority and the BBA was regarded as the leading organisation accredited by UKAS and therefore treated with a high degree of trust.950 Mr Jones specifically remembered being told during the call that he could rely on the existence of a BBA certificate for K15, which he regarded as significant.951 It provided him with reassurance that he was not expected to delve into complex matters of fire testing.952 He explained that he was specifically told that his assessment should be based on the BBA certificate and that because the BBA would already have examined all the test information,953 he need not verify any part of its contents.954

23.13 LABC did not accept Mr Jones’ account of the telephone call, which it said was contrary to its practice both then and now.955 However, none of its witnesses was able to tell us who had spoken to him or to provide us with any other information about the call he described. David Jones, on the other hand, was a straightforward, candid and credible witness who gave a clear and detailed account of it. We have no doubt that Mr Jones was assured by LABC that there was little to be done beyond checking the BBA certificate (which broadly reflects what a building control officer would have done) and that it was on the basis of that assurance, and the knowledge that there would be a second check,956 that he agreed to take on the task. 957

23.14 Mr Jones’ evidence about what was said during the call is consistent with the terms of LABC’s Service Manual in relation to BBA certificates958 and with Barry Turner’s evidence that when carrying out the second level review959 he would probably not have looked beyond the BBA certificate.960 That all supported Mr Jones’ understanding that in practice LABC did place complete reliance on BBA certificates and expected any authority carrying out an assessment to do the same.

• Publication of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry phase 2 report

The Inquiry published its final report on 4 September 2024. The Government will carefully consider its recommendations, to ensure that such a tragedy can never occur again.

 

[M. Preece]

This should never of happened. RIP to all those people who lost their lives.