Cladding for 36 buildings may pose fire risk

SINGAPORE — The external walls of 36 buildings in Singapore may have used materials that do not meet the Singapore Civil Defence Force’s (SCDF) fire safety requirements. 

Of the 41 buildings on SCDF’s checklist, five have been given the all-clear, the authorities said on Thursday (Aug 24).

The discovery came after an industrial building at 30 Toh Guan Road caught fire in May, claiming the life of a 54-year-old woman. Investigations found its external composite panels, supplied through a sole local distributor, did not meet the Fire Code’s standards.

The Fire Code here allows only non-combustible panels, or Class “0” combustible panels that do not allow flames to spread, to be used on external walls. Of the 40 other buildings, 14 were found to have non-Class “0” panels on their external walls. 

They include condominiums The Peak @ Cairnhill I and II, Teaching Blocks 1 to 10 of the Singapore Polytechnic, and Our Tampines Hub. The cladding in these buildings has yet to be removed.

Three buildings have had their unapproved cladding removed: Clementi Fire Station and the McDonald’s outlets at 60 Yishun Ave 4 and 152 Bukit Batok Street 11. Twenty-one of the 40 buildings have not been tested, while five of them were found to have Class “0” cladding.

The 21 untested buildings include some blocks of JTC LaunchPad @ one-north, Ang Mo Kio Methodist Church and the Singapore Pools Building at 210 Middle Road. The tests will be completed in a week.

The SCDF said it has conducted comprehensive fire safety assessments of the 40 buildings and all remain “fit and safe for occupancy”. This is because of existing fire safety provisions such as escape routes and fire alarms. 

“In its assessments, the SCDF examined various factors including the proximity of the cladding to possible ignition sources, occupied spaces and escape routes, the proportion of the external walls covered with cladding, and the availability of fire protection systems such as fire hose reels, sprinklers and fire alarms,” said the SCDF in a statement. 

“So, with this assessment, we want to assure the public that the buildings are safe for occupancy,” said the SCDF’s director of Fire Safety and Shelter Department Christopher Tan. 

The SCDF is working closely with building owners to rectify the improper use of composite panels on their buildings within two months.

The SCDF also filed a police report on July 6, arising from its 30 Toh Guan Road fire findings.

So far, police investigations have revealed that local distributor Chip Soon Aluminium supplied the cladding to the 40 buildings. It sold two models of composite panels from the same Alubond brand — FRB1 (certified as Class “0” for use as cladding on external walls) and model FRB2 (certified as Class “1” for roofs and internal walls). 

Stocks of both models were mixed together at Chip Soon’s warehouse, and both models were used on the external walls of some buildings. In addition, some FRB1 panels did not meet the Class “0” standard. It has ceased supplying the two models of composite panels to building projects. 

When approached, Chip Soon said it believed the FRB1 and FRB2 panels to be of Class “0” standard and “fully compliant and properly certified”. The products are manufactured by Eurocon Building Industries FZE in the United Arab Emirates, it added.

Set up in 1981, the firm has been importing and distributing the Alubond models since 2011. It is cooperating with the authorities.

Police investigations are ongoing to determine how non-Class “0” composite panels ended up as cladding on external walls. 

“Action will be taken if there is evidence of criminal culpability,” said the SCDF. It will also review fire safety regulations and processes for certification — relating to the use of composite panels on buildings — to “ensure they remain robust”.

The use of cladding has come under scrutiny after London’s deadly Grenfell Tower fire in June that killed at least 80 people.