Bolton fire: government downplaying risks of HPL cladding, say critics

The government has been accused of downplaying the fire risk posed by the type of cladding that burned ferociously on a Bolton student housing block on Friday – and of refusing help to worried residents of other affected buildings.

Officials were dismissing pleas for the removal of high-pressure laminate panels similar to those used at the Cube in Bolton as recently as a fortnight ago, the Guardian has learned.

In August, owners of flats in high-rise blocks wrapped in combustible cladding in other parts of Greater Manchester asked the housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, for help to find the money to strip their buildings of all kinds of combustible cladding. It took almost three months for an official to respond that money would be made available to remove only the specific kind of aluminium composite cladding (ACM) used at Grenfell Tower, and not the high-pressure laminate (HPL) cladding used in Bolton and on thousands of other homes.

The official said that “government intervention to provide funding for the removal of unsafe ACM cladding is wholly exceptional” and ”was based on the unparalleled fire risk ACM poses”.

The response came despite the government’s own fire safety advisers calling for the panels to be removed unless they are used with the least combustible insulation. They have told owners to take immediate action. It is estimated that hundreds of high-rise apartment blocks are believed to be covered in combustible HPL panels.

Over the weekend, an investigation was launched into Friday’s fire, which caused the evacuation of 200 students and two injuries. A small fire on the fourth floor ripped through the upper part of the six-storey town centre building, which the fire brigade said was clad in HPL panels, “within minutes”. One witness said the fire was “crawling up the cladding like it was nothing”. Greater Manchester fire and rescue service said it had requested a fire safety assessment of the building in 2018 which included assessing the cladding materials. It said unspecified works were subsequently carried out.

“We feel extremely let down by the government continuing to ignore our pleas to take the dangers of other materials such as HPL seriously,” said Fran Reddington, a tower block resident in Manchester who wrote to Jenrick. “The recent horrific fire at Bolton with HPL cladding clearly demonstrates that this cladding is as dangerous as ACM and we urge government to reassess, retest and provide much-needed funding to leaseholders in these blocks. We are relying on sheer luck. You shouldn’t have to rely on luck when your life is at stake.”

The government still has not completed testing of HPL cladding to fully determine the fire risk it poses and will not know how many thousands of residents are at risk from the material until March 2020 at the earliest, as the data collection exercise was only launched in July this year.

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government denied it had been slow to tackle the risk. “Building owners must ensure their tenants can live safely in their homes and this means all cladding systems, including HPL, that do not conform to our strict building safety standards must be removed,” they said.

“We made clear that we agree with the Hackitt review and have committed to implementing its recommendations in a new building safety bill.”

In July 2017, a month after the Grenfell Tower fire that killed 72 people, the shadow housing secretary, John Healey, was among those calling on the government to widen its testing regime beyond Grenfell-style cladding. The then housing secretary, Sajid Javid, replied that it was important to prioritise, but that did not “preclude tests on other types of cladding”. Yet it was not until April 2019 that tests on HPL began.

“It was always implausible that it was only this specific type of cladding that was at fault when the whole system of building safety checks had been exposed as failing, but ministers refused to act,” said Healey. “The government still hasn’t passed the legislation needed to overhaul the high-rise fire safety system.”

Sarah Jones, the shadow housing minister, said: “It’s scandalous that ministers knew this type of cladding was lethal for over a year and failed to act.”

Sources with knowledge of government thinking suggest its decision to prioritise tackling ACM cladding appeared to be driven in part by the potential additional cost of exposing a far higher number of affected buildings than the 436 found to be covered in ACM. It has already earmarked £600m to cover replacement costs of ACM. They also highlighted the greater political urgency in tackling Grenfell-style cladding and awareness that civil servants and council officials were already stretched by dealing with ACM.

Boris Johnson visited the scene of the fire on Saturday afternoon and briefly met students who had been evacuated. He hailed the “incredible response” from the community after appeals were made via social media to help students displaced by the fire. The University of Bolton said it had plans in place to support students, with food and accommodation for all evacuated students. Access to the building would be reviewed on Monday.

The Fire Brigades Union general secretary, Matt Wrack, said the blaze was deeply troubling and highlighted the “complete failure” of UK fire systems. “This is not how any building should react to a fire in the 21st century, let alone a building in which people live,” he said. “It’s time for a complete overhaul of UK fire safety before it’s too late.”