It could have been so much worse. When a fire broke out at a town centre block of flats last month, the images brought to mind the Grenfell Tower fire of 2017, which claimed 72 lives.
The Local Democracy Reporting Service later revealed that top two floors of the Mosaic Apartments on Slough High Street – where the fire took place – were fitted with flammable ACM cladding.
That discovery came just a week before the Grenfell inquiry delivered its damning verdict on those responsible for installing the same type of flammable cladding that helped the fire spread so disastrously.
Thankfully in Slough, no one was hurt – though almost 300 people were evacuated. And the people responsible for the cladding on Mosaic Apartments still have questions to answer. Here’s what we know so far.
READ MORE: Fire service investigating role of Grenfell cladding in Slough fire
The cladding was installed when the apartments were built in 2007, according to the original developer Durkan.
Durkan has told the LDRS that this was in line with building regulations at the time. But it didn’t answer further questions about whether it knew that the cladding was a fire safety risk anyway, or why it chose that particular type of cladding.
ACM material was banned on buildings in 2018 a year after the Grenfell Tower fire.
Building owner Wallace Estates and the company that manages the building PBM have known that ACM cladding was on the building since at least 2022. But Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service (RBFRS) says it didn’t know of this until 2024.
The fire service says it inspected Mosaic Apartments twice – once in 2021 and again in 2022 – as part of a review of all high rise buildings in Berkshire.
But it says it wasn’t told of the cladding during either of these inspections. A fire service spokesperson says it’s up to the ‘responsible person’ for fire safety – which it says is PBM – to test any cladding for flammability and inform the fire and rescue service.
PBM has been difficult to contact for comment. But building owner Wallace Estates says it obtained an external wall fire safety assessment known as a PAS 9980 for the building in 2022. It says this found the cladding to pose a ‘tolerable to moderate (low) risk’.
It says residents of Mosaic Apartments were told of the cladding through correspondence and with a presentation by PBM in 2022.
Wallace also says it commissioned a fire risk assessment in January 2024, which took the PAS 9980 into account and ‘did not recommend any interim measures’.
Wallace says it ‘has always followed the recommendations of third-party fire safety experts with regards to the safety of the building’.
Despite this, the government’s Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) asked Slough Borough Council and the fire service to inspect Mosaic Apartments in July 2024.
The ministry has told the LDRS that this is because the building was flagged to it on its ACM high rise remediation programme. This is a project that includes funding for works to remove flammable cladding.
The ministry did not answer further questions about how, why or when Mosaic Apartments was flagged through this programme.
Slough Borough Council and RBFRS both say this is the first time they became aware that there was potentially flammable cladding on Mosaic Apartments.
The council says it then contacted the building’s managing agent Simarc – which shares the same directors and contact details as Wallace Estates. It says Simarc confirmed it had received a report indicating there was ACM fitted to the top two floors of the building.
The council got Simarc to send it a copy of the building’s fire safety assessment, which it then passed on to MHCLG. The ministry has not said what it did with the assessment after receiving it.
Council and fire service officials also met staff from PBM at Mosaic Apartments in person on August 13 – just nine days before the fire. The council says they discussed ‘a range of works required to the building including the cladding’.
RBFRS says the ‘responsible person’ – which it has identified as PBM – is responsible for fire safety measures. It says it will ‘work robustly’ with the management company to ensure proper fire safety measures are in place at Mosaic Apartments, and take enforcement action if needed.
Wallace Estates also says that PBM is responsible for ‘all aspects of fire safety’ at Mosaic Apartments.
But it admits that as the building owner it is considered the ‘accountable person’ under the Building Safety Act 2022. This legislation determines who is responsible for removing dangerous cladding.
However Wallace also says that under the same law it is up to the original developer to pay for this work. Both Wallace and the developer Durkan say they are working together on remediation.
A spokesperson for Durkan said: “We continue to work together with Wallace Estates to agree and action a suitable remediation plan for the building”.
But neither company would answer further questions about what this plan might involve, how long it might take, or how long they’ve been discussing it for.
So despite all we’ve learned about the cladding so far, there are still some questions the public needs answers to.
Why was ACM cladding chosen for the top two floors of the building when it was developed in 2007? Did Durkan know that this type of cladding was a fire risk at the time?
Why did the PAS 9980 in 2022 consider the cladding to be a ‘tolerable’ or ‘moderate risk’? Did this mean Wallace Estates decided no action needed to be taken? And did Wallace Estates know ACM cladding was fitted to the building before this?
Why was RBFRS not informed of the ACM cladding at Mosaic Apartments during inspections in 2021 and 2022?
Why did the fire safety assessment in January this year apparently not recommend any ‘interim measures’ be taken?
How did Mosaic Apartments come to be flagged to the government in July this year? What did the government do with the fire risk assessment that was then passed to it by Slough Borough Council?
What action did PBM agree to take after its meeting with Slough Borough Council and RBFRS at Mosaic Apartments on August 13 this year? Was this the first time remediation was considered?
How long have Wallace Estates and Durkan been discussing remediation? When will the cladding be replaced?
Most importantly of all, why was flammable cladding still left on an apartment building in Slough seven years after the Grenfell Tower fire claimed 72 lives?
And why did it take another fire to bring this to light?
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here