Insulation giant redrafted guide after official test failure

The notes state that staff were told: “We are not distributing the [Routes to Compliance] brochure any longer.”

The Routes to Compliance document is badged as “advice” on how to meet the demands of building regulations in relation to Kingspan products. The previous edition was issued a year before the Grenfell Tower fire.

A new document with the same title, published in September, is virtually identical to the previous edition but does not mention the combination that failed the government test.

Despite this, the same meeting notes show that the company also set out a “strategy” to support the continued use of desktop studies to clear materials for use on high rises. The firm has since recommended to Dame Judith Hackitt’s review of building regulations that desktop studies be retained, but rules around them be strengthened to include elements such as a “standard methodology”.

A Kingspan spokesperson told Inside Housing: “Given the failed [Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government] test result using fire-retardant [aluminium composite material], we removed this study from the document until there is greater clarity around the future approach to building regulations.

“There is no recommendation made on the products to be used, as the route to compliance chosen is always the responsibility of the architect or contractor on any specific project. The document clearly stated, ‘each assessment is specific to the project for which the build–up is specified. While the build–ups shown have been confirmed as being suitable for the designated application, it should not be assumed that they are automatically suitable for others’.”

Kingspan has pointed out that the government test on these products used 20mm gaps between the panels, larger than the industry standard, and that these allowed fire to spread behind the cladding. It has repeated the test with smaller gaps between panels, 4mm and 10mm, which it says is more standard practice in the industry. These tests were successful.

The meeting notes state: “We will be looking at challenging the norms that are associated with non-combustible. We will be changing the gap to a 4mm and if we get a pass it’s a credible alternative.”

In its submission to the Hackitt Review, the LGA said: “[Desktop studies] are a matter of judgement and cannot be verified by building control… A number of cladding systems which have been used on tall buildings have proved not to meet the required standard. This raises serious questions about the appropriateness of a route to compliance which does not depend on an actual fire test.”