Dr Bernard Rimmer, construction commentator
The Grenfell Tower Inquiry uncovered dishonesty and misleading information in relation to the supply of the aluminium composite material (ACM) panels. The sort of information it uncovered would not normally be available in construction disputes (over the failure of facades) and will be useful to the police when they decide whether to prosecute any of the parties.
One of the underlying causes of the Grenfell fire and the general cladding disaster was that, in seeking to drive down costs of facades and avoid using expensive proprietary precision-engineered systems, clients appointed architects to design a ventilated open-cavity system without checking on their engineering competence to carry out this task.
Architects have been involved with the design of rain-screen cladding (RSC) since the late 1960s, when the original panel manufacturers (Cape and Eternit) pulled out of installing their proprietary systems. The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) collaborated with the Cladding and Window Technology department at the University of Bath to ensure it understood the technology, and few problems arose until insulation started to be introduced into systems.
Notwithstanding the inquiry’s conclusions on the responsibility of Arconic, the Grenfell refurbishment’s RSC panel supplier, we must now conclude that architects are not best placed to carry out RSC design. RIBA needs to say so (it has been encouraged by the inquiry to review its involvement in the disaster).
It clearly should be mandatory for engineers to be the lead consultant for bespoke non-proprietary facades (with their terms of reference to include design for compartmentation and supervision of the installation work), and it would be more effective and timely for structural engineers to be trained in fire engineering rather than form a new institution (as recommended by the inquiry).
Otherwise, I would not take issue with the inquiry recommendations to government, except to say that streamlining all the various regulatory controls through one secretary of state may be a stretch too far for our busy new government. And if non-proprietary facades are designed by the consulting engineers, the need for the integration of the system will be far less critical.
Taking responsibility
The construction industry produces the best facades when design consultants produce concept designs and delivery is by proprietary system contractors who take full responsibility for their systems’ design and installation (curtain-walling, closed-joint metal panel systems, precast concrete panels etc). This is the approach taken for virtually all the world-class buildings the UK produces. But if multi-component bespoke facades are used to gain cost advantage, they will still be risky – even when designed by consulting engineers – due to the split responsibilities for design and installation.
Grenfell Inquiry chair Sir Martin Moore-Bick has witnessed the worst of the industry, and this is why he has a poor impression of skills and competence levels in general. Great skills are available in design and engineering but, with industry resources being so fragmented, clients often make key decisions on who to employ and the sort of design and construction methods to use. The developers must be regulated in relation to their engineering oversight and choices of materials. Not only for safety, but also for longevity and low maintenance of the products they sell to the public.
Dr Bernard Rimmer previously held managing director roles at Clarke Construction and John Laing Concrete and was construction director at Slough Estates
