好色先生TV

The government stopped an investigation into a fire which killed six people less after less than a month, the Grenfell Inquiry has heard.

Senior civil servant Brian Martin asked a fire expert to 鈥渟tep away鈥� from an investigation into the 2009 Lakanal House fire, which was later found to be caused by combustible cladding panels.

Martin, who was responsible for fire safety regulations, also said he saw no reason to amend official guidance on the basis of information which he admitted was limited.

The fire in July 2009 at Lakanal House in Camberwell, South London, injured at least 20 people and killed six, including three children. One of the children killed was a 20 day old baby.

Thursday鈥檚 hearing of the inquiry was shown emails from Martin to the 好色先生TV Research Establishment technical development director for fire safety Martin Shipp.

In one email, sent just 11 days after the fire, Martin said that from the 鈥渟nippets of info鈥� he had received he thought there was no need to make changes to Approved Document B, the section of building regulations which deals with fire safety.

The emails were read out to former BRE head of fire investigation David Crowder, who was a member of the investigation team looking at the causes of the fire.

Inquiry to the council Kate Grange QC asked Crowder: 鈥淐an you help us with how Brian Martin could have come to the view 鈥� this is just 11 days after the fire 鈥� that there would be no need for changes to Approved Document B?鈥�

Crowder replied: 鈥淣o, I鈥檓 afraid not鈥� my work was still just focused on gathering evidence and compiling it and establishing what had occurred and when.鈥�

He added that he was aware of discussions happening between Martin and Shipp but was not party to them.

On 28 July, less than four weeks after the fire, Martin emailed Shipp saying: 鈥滷or the purposes of the fire investigation contract you have with the [government] I鈥檓 satisfied that there will be no need for you to re鈭抳isit Lakanal House.

鈥淎ny further visits will need to be funded by a third party. I鈥檝e raised this with [fire specialists] and they are happy for you to step away now.鈥�

Asked what his reaction to the email was, Crowder said: 鈥淚 doubt I was pleased. It was a time that - I suppose I would describe it as a time of uncertainty, because鈥� it was an investigation that I thought needed to be progressed and it wasn鈥檛 going to be, and鈥� as a result of that, you know, attention switched.鈥�

The investigation ultimately continued on the request of the Metropolitan Police and found that the cladding panels on Lakanal House fell far short of the required fire standards.

Crowder said that his general impression was that the fire was 鈥渘ot of particular concern鈥� to the government in terms of amending fire safety regulations because of the non-compliance of materials used on the building.

But he added that a drive for deregulation under the coalition government, which came to power in 2010, meant that 鈥渧ery difficult decisions鈥� had to be made about official guidance which concerned life safety.

Ministers had introduced a 鈥榬ed tape challenge鈥� which meant that a new regulation could only be introduced if two existing regulations were removed.

The inquiry heard last year that an 鈥渦nbridled passion for deregulation鈥� had resulted in the government allowing itself to become the 鈥渏unior partner鈥� to the construction industry.

Last month, the hearing was told how Martin had failed to clarify 鈥榗onfusing鈥� building regulations in the years before Grenfell despite telling a group of cladding experts 鈥渢here is going to be a major fire鈥�.

The inquiry continues.