NEWS
Grenfell inquiry
Such a process might involve advertising and tendering the opportunity publicly or using consultants from an approved framework list.’ Mr Anderson had stressed to Studio E in May 2012 that ‘we have a project to deliver within a very tight timescale and an even tighter budget’, Mr Sounes confirming that at that time ‘none’ of the company’s architects had experience of such cladding projects. Sir Martin asked him ‘did you ever suggest’ that ‘because of the level of fees it ought to go out to tender?’ and Mr Sounes replied ‘I’m afraid I don’t have the insight’ on the rules to ‘take a view on what ought to have happened’ and said that he ‘did not know who in the TMO made the decision’. The inquiry was halted by
community activists during Mr Kuszell’s evidence, who shouted that the inquiry was a ‘cover-up’ and a ‘disgrace’ due to the witness protection, which ‘had not been given’ to firefighters. The two men said witnesses were being given ‘different treatment’ and ‘you should shut them down’. Sir Martin halted proceedings and ordered them to be removed, however they refused, leaving the bereaved and survivors to remonstrate with them before they eventually left.
Parallels to horsemeat scandal Studio E’s lead designer Neil Crawford then alleged that insulation manufacturer Celotex ‘calculatedly sought to deceive’ over its product’s safety. The Guardian reported on the testimony of Mr Crawford, in which he alleged Celotex ‘deliberately misled’ the company over its insulation’s safety ‘as if selling horsemeat as beef’. He added that Celotex, in his
opinion, ‘calculatedly sought to deceive’ in the way it described attributes of its foam insulation used on the tower, adding that ‘it’s masquerading horsemeat as beef lasagne – and people bought it’. Despite not being a fully qualified architect, he was overseeing the building’s design
14 MAY 2020
www.frmjournal.com
when an ‘explicitly fire-retardant insulation was replaced with a combustible material’ by Harley Facades. Mr Crawford also saw a
marketing sheet for that product, which said it was ‘acceptable for use in buildings above 18m in height’ and had passed a full scale fire test, but one that had been carried out with cladding panels ‘less combustible than the plastic-filled materials proposed’ for Grenfell. He said that Celotex therefore ‘calculatedly sought to deceive based on the understanding that the average architect could have with the way they worded this document’. The news outlet noted that while Celotex executives had not yet given evidence at the inquiry, it had already seen an email in which head of technical Rob Warren said the fire ‘hasn’t got a tape measure and if it starts at the ground floor it will love to race up’. Mr Crawford also highlighted Exova’s responsibility ‘for all things fire-related’, and that he ‘relied’ on the company, which had been ‘fairly emphatic that the new insulation was appropriate to use’. Despite this, Studio E nearly
sacked Exova in 2012 ‘for failing to adequately scrutinise early proposals’, and it ‘never delivered a promised analysis of whether the cladding system was safe’ while other complaints from building contractor Leadbitter referenced Exova’s response to fire safety concerns from Grenfell
Action Group (GAG), a group of concerned council tenants. An email revealed that in
October 2012, Leadbitter executive Colin Chiles told the architects: ‘I am not willing to commence the works until I receive demonstration that the fire safety of the estate has been considered on the design … This response received from Exova is in my opinion casual. Should I issue this to GAG it would further exacerbate an already high-risk project.’ A year later, Exova concluded
that ‘the proposed changes will have no adverse effect on the building’, relating to building regulations about external fire spread, and added that ‘this will be confirmed by an analysis in a future issue of this report’, but this was ‘never done’. When asked by inquiry counsel Richard Millet why he had not followed this up, Mr Crawford responded that ‘my understanding was that they had been kept abreast of the development and the scheme’.
‘Cost and delay’ before safety Mr Crawford’s testimony also alleged that contractors were more concerned about ‘cost and delay’ than fire safety. During discussions on installing cavity barriers in March 2015 in an email chain between Rydon, Harley Facades and Studio E, it was noted that an upgrade from 30 to 120 minutes of fire resistance would cost £12,000, with Rydon’s contracts manager
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
