Earlier this month, police investigating the Grenfell Tower tragedy revealed that a door from the building, rated to resist fire for 30 minutes, lasted only 15 minutes in a test. This is the latest example of a building product performing below expectations, the most notable being the cladding that allowed fire to spread so rapidly up the sides of Grenfell Tower last June. This comprised aluminium composite material (ACM) rainscreen panels, featuring a polyethylene core sandwiched between two thin skins of aluminium.

Since the Grenfell disaster nearly 300 residential towers featuring the same type of cladding have been identified. In most, if not all, instances, it is likely these towers were signed off in good faith by people who believed the products complied with Building Regulations and were therefore safe.

How did this happen? Product performance is defined by British and European standards that set out test criteria, including on how the product performs in a fire. The guidance in the Building Regulations references these standards, so if the product meets the level of performance set out by such a standard then it is considered safe to use and will be signed off by Building Control. Therefore product standards and the testing underpinning these standards could be said to be the bedrock of Building Regulations. Get these wrong and, as we know, the consequences can be disastrous.

…