The Conservative politician in charge of Grenfell Tower has given an emotional apology to the bereaved and “all those who had their lives shattered on that night” during his testimony to the public inquiry into the disaster. Rock Feilding-Mellen, the then deputy leader of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, said he would probably be haunted by the question of what he could have done differently for the rest of his life, but he said: “Based on the information I had and given what I considered my roles to be, I really don’t know what I could have done differently.” He told the inquiry: “From the very bottom of my heart I wish things had been done differently so as to have prevented that fire … I know that the sorrow and the pain I have experienced over the last four years is nothing compared to what must be unbearable grief that those who lost their loved ones had to suffer, and indeed all those who had their lives shattered on that night, and to those people I want to say how very sorry I am.” His apology came after the inquiry heard that Feilding-Mellen did not properly read a warning to councillors from the London fire brigade issued after the 2009 fatal tower-block fire at Lakanal House not to assume fire safety was being effectively managed in council tower blocks. Despite being the cabinet member for housing, he only “skimmed” LFB documents that spelled out councils’ “legal duties to keep properties safe from fire” and he admitted he did not ask questions the LFB recommended about the fire safety of council housing before the disaster. He told the inquiry he regretted not doing so. He did give detailed views on the colour of the cladding being proposed on Grenfell, suggesting “British racing green” and “turquoise” as possible options, but failed to ask about its fire safety. He was told of plans to switch from zinc to aluminium panels to save money, but he said he didn’t know they had different fire safety qualities. The aluminium panels were combustible and filled with plastic. They fuelled the fire that engulfed the 24-storey block in less than 30 minutes and killed 72 people. The fire brigade had told councillors in documents circulated in July 2014 to check that where works had been carried out there had been “a proper assessment on the impact on fire safety”. It told them to ensure their borough had a policy to ensure all works made homes equally or more fire safety compliant. Although they were sent to him, Feilding-Mellen couldn’t remember when he saw the documents and admitted they didn’t prompt him to think about the safety of the cladding. He didn’t check if there was anything in them he needed to know about the Grenfell refurbishment, and believed there were “many layers of people” checking the fire safety of the works. The LFB guidance specifically told councillors to ask questions on site visits about escape routes and evacuation plans and how these were communicated to residents. It said emergency evacuation plans should allow residents to “safely escape from a fire” and councils had a responsibility to inform tenants about the evacuation measures. The fire brigade document warned councillors: “Do not make assumptions that fire safety is being actively or effectively managed in purpose-built blocks of flats.” “You were making exactly the assumption that this document advised that you should not make,” said Richard Millett QC, counsel to the inquiry. “That appears to be the case,” agreed Feilding-Mellen. He was, however, interested in the appearance of the new cladding, which had become a sticking point in the planning process. “I really don’t like the lime green and champagne combination at the ground floor,” he emailed that same month to Peter Maddison, director of assets and regeneration at the Kensington and Chelsea Tenants Management Organisation. “The lime green should be less neon and a more pastel shade of green/turquoise or a deeper/darker British racing green … And I’d personally prefer the battleship grey.” Millett asked him how he thought getting into some “pretty aesthetic” issues would help solve the impasse with the planners. Feilding-Mellen replied that his view was “as valid as anyone else’s”. He confirmed he didn’t ask any questions about fire safety of the panels. The councillor, who resigned a fortnight after the 14 June 2017 fire, has told detectives investigating the disaster the refurbishment was “to improve the quality of the accommodation inside the tower, in response to complaints that had been received from residents of the tower. It was not done in order to improve its outward appearance at the behest of nearby residents.” The inquiry continues.