‘None of us had any idea that there were such dangerous components being incorporated into cladding panels,’ said independent witness Paul Hyett
Architects and contractors all over the world have been routinely specifying ACM cladding for years with no idea how dangerous it could be, the Grenfell Inquiry has been told.
专家建筑师Paul Hyett，前RIBA主席和HKS负责人说，需要对行业对包层的理解和使用进行根本性的审查。
他说，在整个行业都在使用ACM(铝复合材料，也被称为ACP -铝复合产品)的情况下，单独挑出Studio E来批评这一点是不公平的，他说。
And he laid into the drafters of Approved Documents and product performance certificates as being part of a wider problem.
He was being questioned by inquiry barrister Richard Millett QC on the second day of his evidence to the Grenfell Inquiry into the events leading to the deaths of 72 people in 2017’s fire.
He said there was widespread ignorance of the fire retardance of insulation.
Asked about his own knowledge of fire retardants and PE cores he said he had only found out the difference “by accident”.
Millett阅读了CWCT(窗户和包层技术中心)系统建筑围护结构标准中“防火”部分的三个摘录，Studio E在格伦费尔大厦翻新的规范中使用了该标准。
These stated:
- · aluminium envelope systems do not normally have significant resistance to fire, giving way after 10-20 minutes;
- · the building envelope is not required to provide fire resistance unless a performance is stated by the specifier;
- · the building envelope shall not be composed of materials which readily support combustion, add significantly to the fire load, and/or give off toxic fumes.
Hyett agreed a “reasonably competent architect briefed to design an overclad of a high-rise building” should know those things.
但谈到第三点，他说:“如果我们从总体上看这个职业和所有相关的职业——我说的是façade工程师，一系列其他的人——在这种类型的现代建筑中，ACM/ACP已经被广泛地、广泛地使用了很长一段时间，在广泛的国家，我们可以说，我们所有人都应该更关注这条线。
“所以我不想突然转向E工作室，说这段话的重量应该完全落在他们的肩上。整个行业都在使用这些产品。”
调查委员会主席马丁·摩尔-比克询问ACP是否乐意支持燃烧。海特说没有，但他补充说:“我认为很难让它燃烧起来，但一旦燃烧起来，它就会猛烈地燃烧。”他还同意，一旦燃烧，就会大大增加火灾负荷。
Moore-Bick asked whether architects were generally aware of that at the time of the Grenfell project. Hyett replied: “We were not.”
Hyett agreed with Millett that the bullet points “should have acted as a prompt or an alarm bell to Studio E just to make sure that the building envelope that it was proceeding to design didn’t readily support combustion, didn’t add significantly to the fire load, and didn’t give off toxic fumes”.
Millett then referred to an earlier edition of the CWCT standard which said: “Rainscreen walls are additionally required to limit the spread of fire in the rainscreen cavity.” Hyett agreed that all architects should know and fully understand that principle.
But he disagreed that a reasonably competent architect should as a result have considered the need for a cladding panel with a fire retardant core.
He explained: “The difference between fire retardants and cores was not as clearly understood at the time as it should have been, and it hasn’t been since, actually.
“There’s going to have to be a root-and-branch review of all of this across the entire industry and across all of the professions involved.
“I came across the difference by accident. So I suppose you could say that, faced with all these documents and wading into them in the most immense detail, maybe it should have become apparent. I learned about it, the difference, by accident, independent actually of this inquiry, but by accident.”
Millett asked whether a reasonably competent architect should go looking for a fire-retardant product after reading all the information.
海特说他的答案是肯定的，也不是。“问题是我们不知道要寻找什么。我们太依赖信任了。我们在一栋楼里做了这么多。这与时间的限制无关，尽管时间非常紧迫;而是要知道该找什么。
“I think it’s fair to say that the designing part of our industry – I’m making that separation from the manufacturing part, so I’ll actually include contractors in this as well – none of us had any idea that there were such dangerous components being incorporated into a composite panel.”
Elsewhere in his evidence he was critical of most of the consultants working on the Grenfell project.
But he also had harsh words for the people who drafted the Approved Documents (AD) in the Building Regulations and BBA certificates for products.
He said: “I did have a concern around the ADB documents before, but certainly my work for this Inquiry has – and I’m very sorry to say this – taken me through this document in the greatest of detail, and I have been somewhere between disappointed and appalled at times by some of the confusions.”
These included information which he felt was placed under the wrong headings, making it hard to find.
The BBA certificate for the Reynobond rainscreen specified by Studio E did not make it sufficiently clear that it was only pertinent to one colour, he said.
He added: “If it’s important, very, very important to note that different colours will perform in a very different way, then that should be made abundantly clear. I’m sure you’re going to examine whether it was clear enough. I don’t think that this certificate is particularly clear.”
The inquiry continues.
No comments yet