A costed proposal to fit Grenfell Tower with panels that did not burn was dropped amid pressure from the Conservative council to slash the cost of the refurbishment, the Guardian has been told.

A cladding company which fits nonflammable aluminium panels claimed it provided a £3.3m quote to fit its system to the 24-storey tower in west London at the request of Leadbitter, Kensington and Chelsea’s preferred contractor in 2013.

But a few months later the council decided Leadbitter wanted to spend too much on the refurbishment and put the contract out to tender to save £1.3m. It selected Rydon, which provided a lower price but fitted the building with combustible cladding which caught fire on 14 June 2017, killing 72 people in what lawyers for victims have called a “national atrocity”.

If the solid aluminium cladding had been chosen it would have almost certainly saved lives, fire safety experts said, and it could also have been cheaper. The council’s housing arm ended up agreeing to a budget which put the cost for the plastic-filled aluminium panels and synthetic insulation which burned so fiercely at £3.5m – £200,000 more than the quote for the noncombustible materials.

The survivors’ group Grenfell United described the development as heartbreaking. “It is more news that tells us our loved ones would be alive today if different decisions had been taken and if the people in charge had put safety first,” said Sandra Ruiz, who lost her niece in the fire.

“We need the inquiry to get to the bottom of why plans for the refurbishment were changed and why when the community raised concerns they were ignored.”

Peter Hillyard, the director of D+B Facades, said his company was asked to provide costs for solid aluminium sheets which do not spread flame, backed with mineral wool insulation which does not burn. He said the thought that his company’s safer and cheaper system was not used sent a shiver down his spine.

Geoff Wilkinson, an independent fire safety expert, said that if D+B’s version had been used it would have performed better in the fire.

“There would have been little or no fire spread, so the lives lost at Grenfell may have been prevented,” said Stephen Mackenzie, an independent fire safety consultant.

The emergence of the proposal will heighten scrutiny of the procurement decisions made by the Kensington and Chelsea Tenants Management Organisation (KCTMO), which managed the building, and the council, which owned it.

Scotland Yard detectives are investigating possible manslaughter and corporate manslaughter charges. They are also looking into “any failings of duty of care owed to victims of the fire”.

Downing Street indicated that the public inquiry, which starts on 21 May, would examine the claims. A spokesperson said: “It will be a decision for the public inquiry exactly what they choose to look at, but the prime minister has set out her view that the truth of what happened must be fully established.”

D+B’s system has passed the full-scale British Standard 8414 fire test, but Grenfell was clad in a combustible synthetic insulation faced with aluminium composite panels that had a combustible polyethylene core. The system has since been shown to fail the fire test.

Researchers claim the panel system used for Grenfell had a calorific value equivalent to 12,000 litres of petrol, while the insulation foam added the equivalent of almost another 20,000 litres. The foam has also been shown to release cyanide gas when it burns and it is feared this may have contributed to the death toll.

There was sustained pressure from the council to cut costs on the project despite the authority being in “robust” financial health, according to accounts for 2014. It had £235m in usable reserves and had underspent its budget for services by £23m.

The council had originally only wanted to spend £6m on Grenfell, but later set the budget at £9.7m when it realised it also needed to replace the heating system. In July 2013, however, the council’s housing committee reported that Leadbitter, which was interested in the nonflammable cladding, was on course to spend £11.3m and so it put the contract out to tender and launched a cost-cutting programme which it called “value engineering”.

The following summer, with Rydon on board, the council’s tenants management organisation emailed the project team: “We need good costs for Cllr Feilding-Mellen [deputy leader in charge of housing].” At that point £300,000 was removed from the cladding budget and zinc panels were replaced with the aluminium composite material with the plastic core.

At least 300 other tall buildings in England are clad in similar systems to Grenfell and need to be reclad after they failed fire safety tests. The system D+B proposed for Grenfell is now being used to replace the dangerous failed cladding on several of those towers.

A leaked report prepared for detectives has already claimed that the insulation on Grenfell “provided a medium for fire to spread up, across and within sections of the facade”. The Building Research Establishment found the fire would not have spread beyond the fourth floor flat where a fridge freezer had malfunctioned if the tower had not been clad in the combustible materials.

“Leadbitter sent us quantities as directed by Studio E Architects,” Hillyard said. “Based on quantities alone our budget was £3.3m. We provided figures based on our own ‘A1 non-combustible’ cladding system and our high quality composite windows. All went quiet and the next time we heard anything was in August 2013 when the tender notice was issued.

“Kensington and Chelsea were inviting main contractors to express interest under a ‘design and build’ contract. This was the last we heard and received no further requests from Rydon, who won the contract for the work.”

Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the chair of the Grenfell Tower inquiry which opens in full on 4 June, has said he wants to find out “what decisions about the exterior of the building … were made, by whom and when”. He also wants to know whether the cladding and insulation met building regulations and standards, who was responsible if they did not and “what factors or motives influenced the decisions”.



Bouygues, which now owns Leadbitter, declined to comment on the cost plan for noncombustible cladding, citing the police investigation and public inquiry.



Rydon, the council and KCTMO also declined to comment for the same reasons.</s>Proposals to fit Grenfell Tower with fire-resistant cladding were dropped by the local council in a bid to cut costs just four years before the blaze which killed 71 people.

Conservative Kensington and Chelsea council turned down a quote by a cladding company which fits nonflammable aluminium panels, claiming the £3.3million quote was too expensive.

But it has now emerged that although they went with the cheaper, combustible cladding at £1.3million, the more expensive option would have both saved lives and been cheaper in the long run.

Police and fire services believe the fire was started accidentally by a fridge-freezer located on the fourth floor. The rapid growth of the fire is thought to have been accelerated by the building's exterior cladding.

In the days after the fire, it was revealed that the type of cladding used on the 24-storey Grenfell Tower is banned in the US over fire safety fears.

The Guardian today reports that D+B Facades was asked to provide costs for solid aluminium sheets which do not spread flame, backed with mineral wool insulation which does not burn, by Kensington and Chelsea's contractor, Leadbitter.

But the council later decided that the costs for the cladding were too high and put the contract out to tender to save £1.3million, eventually awarding it to Rydon.

Rydon provided the council with a cheaper quote but used the combustible cladding which caught fire on June 14 last year, killing 71 and leaving 223 homeless.

Stephen Mackenzie, an independent fire safety expert, said that if D+B's version had been used it would have performed better in the fire.

'There would have been little or no fire spread, so the lives lost at Grenfell may have been prevented,' he said.

Survivors' group Grenfell United said today's revelations were 'heartbreaking', with Sandra Ruiz, who lost her niece in the blaze, adding: 'It is more news that tells us our loved ones would be alive today if different decisions had been taken and if the people in charge had put safety first,' said Sandra Ruiz, who lost her niece in the fire.

'We need the inquiry to get to the bottom of why plans for the refurbishment were changed and why when the community raised concerns they were ignored.'

A report carried out after the fatal fire found there was pressure from the council to cut costs on the project - despite the authority being in 'robust' financial health.

Last month a group of fire safety experts and building industry bodies urged the Government to introduce immediate changes in safety standards without waiting for the conclusion of the Grenfell Fire inquiry.

In an open letter, they called for an immediate change in the law requiring all high-rise and high-risk buildings be fitted with sprinklers and that only non-combustible cladding and insulation be installed.

They further demanded all new buildings be required have alternative escape routes.

The letter was prompted by an interim report from the ongoing Grenfell investigation leaked to the press last weak that revealed a myriad of safety failings following refurbishments between 2013 and 2016.

Among the shortcomings were the fact the cladding and insulation material was highly combustible, the windows badly fitted, front doors lacked door closers, the building had no sprinklers, escape routes were too narrow and the building was almost impossible for firefighters to access effectively.</s>Tories wanted cheaper cladding on Grenfell Tower to save cash, it was claimed last night.

A construction company said it quoted £3.3million for fireproof panels for the council’s preferred contractor Leadbitter.

D+B Facades provided costs for solid aluminium sheets backed with mineral wool insulation, which does not burn.

But months later Tory-run Kensington and Chelsea council decided Leadbitter were too expensive and put the contract out to tender to save £1.3million.

It chose Rydon, which offered a cheaper price but fitted the building with panels blamed for the blaze spreading so quickly.

D+B Facades director Peter Hillyard told The Guardian the decision sent “a shiver down my spine”.

Experts have said that solid aluminium cladding would almost certainly have saved lives.

The West London skyscraper was burned out in a blaze last June, killing 71 people.

Investigations, including a police probe and a public inquiry, are under way.

Leadbitter owner Bouygues, Rydon and the council all declined to comment, citing the probes.
The Guardian reports that the Grenfell Tower in London, which burned down last year with the loss of 71 lives, received a quote for non-flammable cladding but it was rejected for a more expensive option which exacerbated the fire.