Grenfell Tower: Cladding manufacturer knew in 2011 panels were ‘not suitable for use on building facades’, inquiry hears

Main contractor for refurbishment accuses company of ‘misleading’ designers over safety

The manufacturer of the cladding used on Grenfell Tower knew in 2011 that the panels were “not suitable for use on building facades” and could be dangerous, an inquiry has heard.

The admission came in documents released for the second phase of the public Grenfell inquiry, which determined in October that flammable cladding which was added to the tower during its refurbishment was the “principal” reason for the rapid spread of the fire.

Manufacturer Arconic worked on the cladding, which contained the material Reynobond PE, the inquiry heard on Monday.

In emails shown to the inquiry, senior members of the firm appeared to be aware that the panels performed worse in fire tests than their advertised performance rating.

Studio E, the lead architects in the 2012-16 refurbishment of Grenfell Tower, has claimed it “did not have any knowledge that the products used on the tower were unsafe” and accused manufacturers of “misleading” designers into thinking the cladding was safe.

Rydon, the main contractor for the refurbishment, has claimed Arconic and Celotex, a provider of insulation, misled buyers into believing their products were safe for use on high-rises, despite appearing to know of potential dangers.

An internal report from an Arconic director in 2011 noted Reynobond PE was “dangerous on facades and everything should be transferred to (FR) fire resistant as a matter of urgency”, according to Marcus Taverner QC, counsel for Rydon.

Mr Taverner also read an internal Celotex email from 2013 which showed officials were aware that using the insulation Celotex RS500 alongside the aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding used on the tower could be dangerous.

“We cannot seem to find or design a suitable barrier in which we have enough confidence that it can be used behind a standard ACM panel which we know will melt and allow fire into the cavity,” the email said.

However, the company marketed its insulation as being suitable for buildings taller than 18m after it decided to get in the “lucrative” high-rise market in 2013, Mr Taverner told the inquiry.

The accusations came as Richard Millett QC, counsel to the inquiry, criticised those involved in the refurbishment for showing “no trace of responsibility” for what happened in the fire.

“With the sole exception of Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea council, not a single core participant involved in the primary refurbishment of Grenfell Tower has felt able to make an unqualified submission against their own interests,” Mr Millett said on Monday.

“With that solitary exception, Mr Chairman, one finds in those detailed and carefully crafted statements no trace of any acceptance of any responsibility for what happened at Grenfell Tower.”

Studio E has insisted it is a “conscientious, ethical and responsible” firm and argued that it “acted as would be expected as a reasonably competent architect in its position”.

Arconic and Celotex are due to give opening statements to the inquiry tomorrow.

Survivors’ groups have urged phase two of the inquiry to focus on who is to blame for the “devastating refurbishment” of the tower.

Grenfell United, a group which represents bereaved families and survivors, has expressed hopes that the panel will “expose the people and organisations who put profit and greed above our safety”.

Additional reporting by Press Association