好色先生TV

A report which mentioned the use of the cladding held responsible for the Grenfell Tower fire was never sent to the refurbishment鈥檚 fire safety team, the public inquiry into the disaster has heard.

Fire safety consultant Exova has been heavily criticised for an October 2013 assessment of the tower鈥檚 refurbishment which stated that the use of combustible ACM cladding 鈥渨ould have no adverse effects on the building鈥�.

But the firm鈥檚 counsel, Michael Douglas QC, said the report referred to drawings which 鈥渄id not contain any reference whatsoever to cladding and were concerned primarily with the revamp of the lower four floors鈥�.

A later report which did mention the option of using ACM was never sent to Exova, Douglas told the inquiry.

He added that Studio E, the project鈥檚 principal architect, 鈥渙bviously considered that they didn鈥檛 need or want input from Exova. No questions were asked, no drafts circulated. No Exova involvement in the selection of materials. Exova were simply not involved.鈥�

He said: 鈥淓xova are not aware that anyone appointed by the design team or the design team itself took any steps to verify whether the fire performance requirements set out in the employer鈥檚 requirements were being complied with.鈥�

Exova was principally involved in the tower鈥檚 ground-floor renovation and was  not involved in the decision to use ACM cladding by the design team, Douglas added.

He said ACM was first mentioned in March 2013 during a period when the refurbishment had effectively been put on hold 鈥渂ecause of cost issues and the project running over budget鈥�.

Once the design team had been established, Douglas said that main contractor Rydon, building manager Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation and quantity surveyor Artelia 鈥渁lmost immediately began discussions about [the] saving of money on the cladding if ACM was selected鈥�.

Douglas added that cladding subcontractor Harley had estimated a saving of 拢450,000 if the job used ACM.

The inquiry is expected to continue for up to 18 months.