好色先生TV

A government official wrote to the UK鈥檚 largest building control body two days after the Grenfell fire asking it to rebut claims that the tower鈥檚 deadly cladding panels were permitted under building regulations.

Senior official Brian Martin wrote to the National House 好色先生TV Council (NHBC) with a 鈥減re-prepared script鈥� which defended the government against a report in the Times, 48 hours after the fire, which said combustible ACM panels complied with fire safety guidance.

Thursday鈥檚 hearing of the inquiry into the blaze which claimed 72 lives on 14 June 2017 was shown an email sent two days later from Martin to the NHBC鈥檚 now operations director, Diane Marshall.

It said: 鈥淎pologies in advance for asking but; I鈥檝e been asked to prepare a rebuttal of the assertion that [combustible] cored ACM panels comply with the guidance in ADB [Approved Document B] . 

鈥淚鈥檝e also been asked if an independent expert would be willing to say this (or something similar) in public? Can you consider the attached and let me know please.鈥�

The correspondence reveals the government鈥檚 attempts to manage the media fallout of the disaster in the immediate aftermath of the fire, as ministers sought to explain how such a combustible material had been used on a 67m tall residential building.

Inquiry to the counsel Richard Millett QC asked Marshall: 鈥淒id you consider it appropriate that a government official was approaching you with a pre鈭抪repared script, or proposed pre鈭抪repared script, in support of government after the Grenfell Tower fire? 

Marshall replied that it was 鈥渦nusual鈥�. 

鈥淵es, but was it appropriate?鈥�, Millett asked, to which Marshall said: 鈥淚 don鈥檛 know if I considered it at the time.鈥�

The Times article had focused on a passage in Approved Document B, part of building regulations, which said that 鈥渇iller material鈥� in external walls of buildings taller than 18m should be of 鈥渓imited combustibility鈥�.

This had generated some confusion in the industry, as it was widely believed that 鈥渇iller鈥� referred to materials used to fill gaps between insulation components rather than the core of cladding panels.

Marshall told the hearing: 鈥淭he definition of 鈥榝iller etc鈥� was open to interpretation and we saw that through our role as a warranty body, where there were different approaches to 鈥榝iller etc鈥�.鈥�

In a document shown to the inquiry, Martin provided Marshall with a suggested text which said that the type of panels used on Grenfell tower could not have complied with building regulations, which Marshall had said she 鈥渇ully agree[d]鈥� with.

But the inquiry has already heard that the NHBC approved in principle the use of ACM panels without requiring either a fire test or a 鈥榙esktop鈥� assessment as long as they met certain minimum specifications.

NHBC fire engineer John Lewis admitted earlier this week that the guidance, introduced in 2016, had been produced to reduce the workload of staff at the NHBC.

Millett asked Marshall: 鈥淗ow did your agreement with Brian Martin鈥檚 suggested text conform with NHBC鈥檚 2016 guidance note, which allowed external cladding panels with a class B classification?鈥� 

Marshall replied: 鈥淏ecause they excluded polyethylene鈭抍ored panels by the restrictions of use.鈥�

Millett said: 鈥淵ou say that, but was in fact not the real problem here that you couldn鈥檛 be seen to be disputing the assertion that a polythene鈭抍ored panel was acceptable for use under current building regulations precisely because your 2016 guidance note said, at least on one reading, but I would put to you clearly, that you accepted [combustible]鈭抍ored ACM panels so long as they achieved class B? 12 A. 

Marshall said that she disagreed with Millett鈥檚 assertion.

The inquiry continues.