Martin Brown wrote:

It isn't actually prohibited AFAICT and it is "Class 0" -
a worthless BS - bull**** standard of fire safety if ever there was one!

Reuters has an interesting take on the legal situation:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/brita...-idUKL8N1JD3YI

The rules didn't forbid it. This will be a very expensive legal case.

The originally proposed zinc cladding was specified as "FR".

Has anyone seen anything in the planning documents about whether the
substituted aluminium cladding was specified as "PE" or "FR" or was it
left unspecified?