The firm that made the combustible insulation installed on Grenfell Tower deliberately misled architects about its safety as if selling horsemeat as beef, the public inquiry into the disaster has heard.
Neil Crawford, the lead designer for the architects Studio E, alleged Celotex “calculatedly sought to deceive” in the way it described the attributes of its foam insulation. “It’s masquerading horse meat as beef lasagne – and people bought it,” he said.
Crawford made the allegation while under cross-examination by the inquiry about why Grenfell Tower was wrapped in combustible materials that spread the fire on 14 June 2017 that killed 72 people.
While not a fully qualified architect, Crawford was overseeing the design when an explicitly fire-retardant insulation was replaced with a combustible material by the cladding subcontractor Harley Facades.
The marketing sheet that Crawford saw for the new product said it was “acceptable for use in buildings above 18m in height” and had passed a full-scale fire test. However, it also said the test was carried out with cladding panels less combustible than the plastic-filled materials proposed for Grenfell.
“They calculatedly sought to deceive based on the understanding that the average architect could have with the way they worded this document,” Crawford said.
The Celotex RS5000 insulation used on Grenfell burned during the fire, which spread through the cladding system. Celotex executives have yet to give oral evidence but the inquiry has already seen an email in which a Celotex executive said it was “clearly wrong” to think combustible insulation could be used on buildings of any height.
Rob Warren, the head of technical at Celotex in Ipswich, said: “The fire hasn’t got a tape measure and if it starts at the ground floor it will love to race up.”
Crawford also highlighted the responsibility of Exova, a firm of fire engineers that he said he trusted “for all things fire-related”. He said he relied on Exova and it was “fairly emphatic” that the new insulation was appropriate to use”.
However, the inquiry heard that Studio E almost sacked Exova in 2012 for failing to adequately scrutinise early proposals and it never delivered a promised analysis of whether the cladding system was safe.
In 2012, Exova was advising on Grenfell and the construction of the neighbouring Kensington Aldridge Academy school and leisure centre. Studio E complained it had failed to commit to fire strategies for the buildings, the designs had not had adequate scrutiny, and Exova had provided “no concrete input by way of drawing markups or draft reports to support the developing designs”.
The inquiry also heard that a building contractor complained about Exova’s response to fire safety concerns from Grenfell Action Group (GAG), an association of concerned council tenants that predicted disaster in 2016.
On 10 October 2012, Colin Chiles, an executive at the contractor Leadbitter, told Studio E: “I am not willing to commence the works until I receive demonstration that the fire safety of the estate has been considered on the design … This response received from Exova is in my opinion casual. Should I issue this to GAG it would further exacerbate an already high-risk project.”
In 2013, Exova concluded that “the proposed changes will have no adverse effect on the building” in relation to building regulations about external fire spread. It said “this will be confirmed by an analysis in a future issue of this report” but this was never done, Crawford said.
Richard Millett QC, counsel to the inquiry, asked why Crawford did not follow this up. “My understanding was that they had been kept abreast of the development and the scheme,” Crawford said.
The inquiry continues.
