Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Flammable insulation chosen for Grenfell Tower as part of a focus on eco-friendliness

Combustible Celotex RS5000 insulation selected to meet ‘thermal performance’ target, says chief architect

Thomas Hornall
Tuesday 14 July 2020 16:45 BST
Comments
Keir Starmer says three years on from Grenfell fire there has been 'little justice or accountability'

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Flammable insulation was chosen for the Grenfell Tower refurbishment as part of a focus on eco-friendliness, the inquiry into the blaze has heard.

Bruce Sounes, chief architect for the firm Studio E, said the combustible Celotex RS5000 insulation was selected to help meet a “thermal performance” target for the block set by the “aspirational engineers” Max Fordham.

The engineers had set a so-called U-value target of 0.15 for the insulation, a measure of energy efficiency, which exceeded what was required for existing buildings and was the standard for new-build homes, the inquiry heard.

Another Studio E architect suggested in internal correspondence that Max Fordham had opted for an “ott” U-value to “achieve maximum credits available for thermal performance criteria”, according to documents submitted to the inquiry.

The target prevented the use of Mr Sounes’s first choice material of rock wool, which he told the inquiry was “the safest in terms of fire”.

But he said he “couldn’t see any reason to abandon the target”, adding: “It was in the project’s interests to try and achieve it.”

Mr Sounes said he did not have concerns about using the foam Celotex as at the time “these type of products were widely used”, adding: “At the time, I was of the view that Celotex didn’t burn it just charred and it was safe to use in cavities.”

He added: “With hindsight obviously no-one challenged the insulation.”

Mr Sounes said: “We have done a lot of work with Max Fordham and they pride themselves as aspirational engineers ... they have done exceptionally sustainable buildings.

“The emphasis on passive sustainability was something we shared with Max Fordham over a number of years.

“I couldn’t see any reason to abandon 0.15. It was in the project’s interests to try and achieve it.”

The inquiry has previously heard from a lawyer for the survivors and bereaved families of the tragedy that an “overfocus on sustainability ... literally fuelled the inferno which ensued”.

Stephanie Barwise QC told the inquiry in January that the design team wanted to win an annual award for the most “innovatively sustainable” buildings, known as a BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method).

She said: “Given the current environment imperative, the drive to reduce carbon emissions was laudable, but it is perhaps an opportune moment to reflect on the fact that at Grenfell, at least, that drive very directly led, with much encouragement from the insulation manufacturer, Celotex, to the use of combustible insulation behind the rainscreen cladding which fuelled the inferno which ensued.

“The use of combustible insulation resulted in fires of much higher temperatures than they otherwise would be – and so it was at Grenfell.”

PA

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in