103 aluminium clad buildings in Wellington, but 'no concerns' from council

Wednesday, 4 April 2018

The revelation that banned materials were used in the Grenfell Tower has prompted thousands of urgent inspections at other towers across the UK.

Wellington City Council has found 103 buildings surfaced with aluminium cladding in an investigation prompted by London's Grenfell Tower blaze in which 71 people died.

But the council said it had found 'nothing that raises any concerns'.

Leaked report urges suspension of aluminium panels on high-rises

The news comes as a leaked report surfaced which said some aluminium cladding building panels currently on the market should no longer be approved for use in New Zealand.

The report by Australia-based engineer Tony Enright was commissioned by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) in the wake Grenfell Tower blaze in June last year, though MBIE has concerns about the report's accuracy.

**READ MORE:

Wellington has 103 buildings clad in aluminium panels, but the council has not found any fire safety issues.

* No fire risk in building with Grenfell-like cladding on Auckland's North Shore

* Class action litigation lawyer Adina Thorn eyes possible new cladding action

* After London tower fire, Government checks NZ buildings for cladding**

Aluminium cladding panels (ACP) contributed to the speed in which the blaze engulfed Grenfell Tower, prompting investigations into the use of aluminium cladding on high-rise buildings around the world.

The Grenfell Tower cladding was what was known as PE, or polyethylene cladding, while in New Zealand the most commonly used product is FR, or fire retardant cladding.

Councils across New Zealand have been asked to report to MBIE on the use of ACP in their areas.

Wellington City Council said: 'We will be continuing with our building assessments and inspections. The team will be considering any possible and potential risks associated with these buildings.

'This includes establishing what type of ACP panel has been used where possible, the amount of ACP and location of its use, the design of the building, and the life safety features that the building has.'

In November, Auckland Council had identified 209 ACP-clad buildings, but like Wellington City Council had not found any building that would be considered dangerous.

Michael James, from the New Zealand chapter of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, said compared to Australia, he expected any ACP issues identified to be of a limited scale.

MBIE appeared to confirm that.

'MBIE is waiting on the final reports from a few councils, however, the preliminary evidence suggests there is no systemic issue of ACP use in high rise buildings in New Zealand.'

And, it said: 'In New Zealand, there is not a single line of defence for fire safety in buildings. New Zealand relies on both active (automatic fire detection and alarm plus sprinkler systems) and passive (solid fire-rated construction, eg, gib walls) fire protection. Unlike the UK, a building similar to Grenfell tower constructed in New Zealand would have smoke detection, a building wide alarm, an automatic sprinkler system and an all-out evacuation plan. The Grenfell tower did not have all of these features.'

Australia's building boom had been much larger than New Zealand's and its style of building was different, James said. In particular, New Zealand did not have the same high-rise building boom as Australia.

The Victorian Cladding Taskforce, for example, found 1400 buildings clad with PE panels.

When compiling his report, Enright studied the CodeMark 'certificates of conformity' of 13 ACP products, and found insufficient supporting information had been provided to show they met the fire safety standards of New Zealand's Building Code, which are designed to stop fires from spreading from floor to floor.

The report, which recommended nine of the products lose their certification for use in New Zealand, was leaked to RNZ.

Enright found one relied on an 18-year-old test, and the 'tested specimen was not representative of the end use common in New Zealand'.

In another case, Enright found 'no evaluation reports or other supporting information has been provided.'

But MBIE was not convinced that Enright's findings were robust enough to justify action, and said the missing information he identified had been found.

Enright had been engaged by MBIE through the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand (JAS-ANZ), it said.

JAS-ANZ 'was easily able to find this additional detail,' MBIE said.

'As it stands Enright Consulting's assessment of these ACP product is insufficient to make any decision for suspension,' MBIE said.

The Enright report was now being peer reviewed, MBIE said.