Calls for BRE to step back from certifying MMC materials post-Grenfell

Peers in the UK’s House of Lords have called for the Building Research Establishment (BRE) to be stripped of its responsibility for certifying modern methods of construction (MMC), following the release of the Grenfell Inquiry’s final report. During a debate held on September 5, voices from across the political spectrum expressed concerns about the credibility of BRE, urging that a new, independent body take over the certification of construction materials and methods to restore public confidence.

The Grenfell Tower disaster has had profound implications for the safety standards of high-rise buildings. The Inquiry’s report emphasised that the fire at Grenfell was exacerbated by the use of unsafe materials, such as combustible cladding, and the failure to implement stricter safety standards. Peers in the debate noted that the BRE’s involvement in testing and certifying these materials has led to diminished trust in the organisation’s ability to uphold safety standards.

The report specifically criticised the BRE for lacking rigour in its testing processes. It stated: “Much of the work carried out by BRE was marred by unprofessional conduct, inadequate practices, a lack of effective oversight, poor reporting, and a lack of scientific rigour” (Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 2 Report, Volume 2, p. 218). This stinging critique has prompted widespread calls for reform, particularly regarding how MMC products and systems are certified for safety and performance.

Concerns About BRE’s Role

One of the most vocal proponents of the call to remove BRE from its certification duties was Lord Rooker, a former Labour minister. He argued that the BRE, having been privatised in 1997, is no longer fit for purpose in overseeing the safety of modern construction techniques. “Given the Grenfell report, the BRE should no longer be involved in certifying modern methods of offsite construction techniques or products. Such work should be seen to be fully independent and professional,” Lord Rooker remarked during the debate.

The Grenfell Inquiry revealed that the fire performance of external cladding systems, especially those subjected to the BS 8414 test, was inadequately assessed. The reliance on outdated and insufficient testing standards has raised questions about the robustness of the procedures used to certify materials. While MMC offers significant efficiency benefits, the use of untested or poorly tested materials poses risks, particularly in high-rise buildings where fire safety is paramount.

BRE’s Defence

In response to these calls, the BRE has defended its position, arguing that it remains an impartial and scientifically grounded organisation. As first reported in Construction Enquirer, a BRE spokesperson stated: “As a scientific, UKAS accredited, organisation built on independence and impartiality, we are constantly reviewing our procedures to ensure we adhere to industry standards and keep up to date with the many external factors that could impact our work. Our mission has always been – and will continue to be – to develop science-led solutions to built environment challenges.”

The BRE also expressed its willingness to work with the government to address the concerns raised in the Inquiry. “We will be reviewing the report and its recommendations and will continue to work constructively with government to ensure the new building safety and testing regime delivers on the findings of the inquiry’s report and is fit for purpose,” the spokesperson added.

Findings on Modern Methods of Construction

The Grenfell Inquiry’s focus on modern methods of construction has shed light on both the potential and risks associated with these techniques. Prefabrication and modular construction have gained traction due to their cost-effectiveness and speed. However, the Inquiry’s findings underscore that MMC materials, particularly those used in cladding systems, have not always been subject to the necessary levels of scrutiny and testing.

The Inquiry highlighted that while BRE conducted tests on materials like those used on Grenfell Tower, the testing did not reflect real-world fire scenarios accurately. As a result, materials were certified as safe, when in fact they posed significant fire risks. This has led to calls for an overhaul in how materials used in MMC are assessed and regulated.

Additionally, the role of BRE as a privatised entity has raised concerns about its independence. The Inquiry revealed gaps in communication between BRE and regulatory bodies, leading to delays in addressing safety issues related to modern construction materials. Going forward, there are widespread calls for more transparency and rigour in the certification process for MMC materials to ensure public safety.

 Find the Grenfell Inquiry report HERE