#dailyservice | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

erpsoftwarsolution · 4 years

Text

Grenfell Cladding risks were known, inquiry told

The suppliers of two key components implicated in the Grenfell Tower fire were accused yesterday of knowingly allowing the installation of dangerous products during the refurbishment of the west London block of flats. The criticism of Arconic, a US metals group, and Celotex, a UK-based materials company, came in opening statements on the first day of the resumed public inquiry into the June 2017 disaster that left 72 people dead and many more injured. The claims were made by barristers acting for Rydon Maintenance, the main contractor responsible for the tower block’s refurbishment between 2014 and 2016, and Harley Facades, the specialist contractor overseeing the installation of the cladding on the building’s exterior. The public inquiry’s first phase, which reported in October, focused on the night the fire swept through the tower block in north Kensington and sharply criticised the London Fire Brigade’s response. The second, longer phase of the inquiry, led by retired Court of Appeal judge Martin Moore-Bick, will consider the tower’s renovation, when insulating and rain-proofing panels that allowed the fire to spread were installed. Marcus Taverner, representing Rydon, presented evidence in his opening statement that Arconic had

long accepted that the cladding panels provided for the Grenfell project posed a fire risk. Mr Taverner produced an email sent in 2011 by Claude Wehrle, an Arconic executive, in which he referred to the product exhibiting “bad behaviour” in response to fire. He also quoted a 2015 email from Mr Wehrle in which the executive described the panel used at Grenfell as “dangerous on facades”. Mr Wehrle discussed an element of French regulations which he said could be interpreted as permitting the use of the Grenfell-type material on tall buildings. However, that rule should have been discontinued “over 10 years ago” because of the risks, Mr Wehrle wrote. Mr Taverner also cited internal emails at Celotex from 2013, in which two executives discussed giving up on designing a rain screen of the type that was eventually installed at Grenfell because it posed a serious fire risk. Later, Jonathan Laidlaw, for Harley, described how Celotex had made “erroneous” claims that its RS5000 rain screen, fitted at Grenfell, could safely be used on buildings as tall as the 24-storey tower. In fact it had only very limited safety certification that did not cover the combination of materials fitted at Grenfell, Mr Laidlaw said, citing internal Celotex correspondence. Mr Laidlaw revealed that Harley had contacted Jonathan Roome, Celotex’s major projects and specification manager, to discuss the refurbishment. “At no stage was it suggested by Mr Roome, or anyone else at Celotex, that the wall build-up being proposed at Grenfell Tower in any way called into question the suitability of the use of RS5000 above 18 metres,” Mr Laidlaw told the inquiry. Richard Millett, counsel to the inquiry, had earlier criticised the “merry-go-round of buck-passing” between the companies involved in the refurbishment. Only the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the local council, and Celotex had accepted any responsibility, he said. He said the submitted evidence gave the impression no one had done anything wrong. Barristers for Arconic and Celotex are due to give their opening statements today. Robert W

Grant Shapps, transport secretary, is expected to confirm tomorrow that Northern Rail will be removed from the control ofArriva, part of German stateowned company Deutsche Bahn, and placed in the hands of the government’s “operator of last resort”, Whitehall figuressaid. Mr Shapps has previously said that he would choose between either nationalising the line or allowing the current franchisees to run it on a short-term management contract. But one government figure said: “You wouldn’t give the keys back to the people who crashed the car.” The Conservatives have been vehementcriticsofLabour’splanstotakethe entire system gradually into state control, which they have criticised as 1970sstyledirigisteinterventionism. But the nationalisation of Northern Rail would be the second such move by the Tory government in less than two years, after East Coast Mainline collapsed and was taken over by the operatoroflastresortinJune2018. The sprawling network stretches from Cheshire to Northumberland and carries 101m passengers a year on 2,500 dailyservices. One option that has been discussed in Whitehall is splitting Northern into two less unwieldy entities: north-western andnorth-eastern. Meanwhile, Mr Shapps has indicated that South Western Railway could also benationalisedwithinmonths. At the same time, other lines are struggling because passenger numbers are failing to hit the heights predicted at the time that private consortiums took themon. Arriva has run Northern Rail since 2016, when it replaced a consortium of Serco and Abellio with a promise to upgrade the network with a fleet of new trains, replacing its old-fashioned Pacer rollingstock. Butthelinehasbeendoggedbydelays to infrastructure improvements — including train track electrification — from Network Rail, which owns the country’s rail infrastructure, and a longrunningdisputewithunions. The announcement on reopening somelinesaxedintheBeechingclosures of the 1960s is part of a wider drive by Boris Johnson’s government to prove that it is serious about “levelling up” regionalinequalities. Areas set to benefit from the reopening of lines could include Blyth, a former Labour-controlled town in Northumberland that turned Tory in December. Mr Shapps this month visited Blyth to discuss plans to reopen the line linking Newcastle to Ashington via the town. Other projects being considered are thought to include the Blackpool-FleetwoodlineinLancashire. The “Beeching cuts” are totemic in railway lore, marking the moment that more than 4,000 miles of track were closed on the guidance of Richard Beeching, then chairman of British Railways.