Council admits ‘serious failings’ as Grenfell Inquiry reopens

One email from Harley employee Daniel Anketell-Jones read: “There is no point in ‘fire stopping’, as we all know; the ACM will be gone rather quickly in a fire! The whole point [of barriers] is to stop ‘unseen’ fire spreading in the cavity.”

Celotex and Arconic said the use of products in compliance with the regulations was a matter for the design team. But comments from Arconic, read out by a lawyer acting for contractor Rydon, appeared to show that Arconic officials were aware that the cladding panels used on the tower block – Reynobond PE 55 – were three grades below their advertised performance rating.

In one June 2015 email, Claude Wehrle, an Arconic employee, is alleged to have said that he thought Reynobond PE was “dangerous on facades and everything should be transferred to [fire-resistant] as a matter of urgency”.

Celotex argued that it should not be blamed for the designers failing to stick to its specification and instead using highly combustible aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding. However, in other statements to the inquiry, it was claimed that in an email in November 2013, Celotex had considered that its insulation simply was not safe for cladding systems, particularly in ACM systems.

“Everything should be transferred to [fire-resistant] as a matter of urgency”

Exova was also alleged to have seen its role as “playing down potential non-compliance in order to get around the building control officer”. But it said it had not been asked for its opinion on the cladding system.

Kensington and Chelsea Council did acknowledge “serious failings” on the part of its building control team in signing off the work as compliant. Its building officers had failed to request basic details about Grenfell’s cladding system, the authority admitted.

The inquiry, which is now looking at the decisions made prior to the fire that killed 72 people, also heard how Grenfell’s refurbishment was dogged by an obsession with aesthetics and cost-cutting.

Survivors’ lawyers claimed that the council’s TMO also made an approach to Rydon asking it to reduce its quote, including a £234,000 reduction by switching the zinc cladding for an alternative.

The proceedings, witnessed by survivors and the bereaved at a hearing room in London, were thrown into further disarray when the firms involved in the refurbishment requested that their evidence would not be used against them in a criminal prosecution.

This application is still being considered.