The Grenfell inquiry wrapped up this week for the summer recess after providing weeks of yet more incredible revelations.
Whereas the first part of the inquiry last year examined the harrowing details of the night itself, since it reconvened in January, this year’s instalment has heard often shocking details about the corporate decisions that lead to the blaze being so deadly.
Ignored emails, architects who weren’t aware of rules and a general trend of passing the buck were all major themes as the refurbishment of the tower from 2016 to 2016 was dissected.
It was of course this refurbishment that resulted in the tower being clad in a combustible material that burned quickly and fiercely on the night of the disaster.
Here are seven key revelations that the second part of the inquiry has brought to light so far.
Lead fire consultant ‘ignored’ cladding email
A senior fire consultant who worked on the refurbishment ignored emails that detailed the type of cladding to be used on Grenfell Tower, the inquiry heard on July 9.
Terry Ashton, of fire engineering firm Exova, was provided architectural drawings of the planned original zinc cladding in September 2014 and was asked for his advice about the use of fire-stopping measures in the system.
By this time the new contractor Rydon had not kept Exova on as a “fully paid-up member of the design team” and Ashton said his advice was given on an “ad hoc” basis, adding he did not feel obliged to “give these drawings much attention”.
Ashton said he offered his advice despite not knowing what kind of insulation was being proposed and without knowing if the architects even planned on using the tested method.
However, the same day he had been sent an email with an attachment specifying the designer’s intention to use CelotexRs5000 insulation, a combustible material.
Ashton failed to open the attachment before offering his advice, and he denied inquiry lawyer lawyer Kate Grange QC’s suggestion it was “patently...