Grenfell architect bears primary responsibility for fire, barrister tells inquiry

Source: Shutterstock

Studio E Architects is among those who bear ‘primary responsibility’ for the full extent of the Grenfell Tower fire, according to one of the lawyers for the bereaved and survivors

A closing statement delivered yesterday (7 November) to the 300-day long inquiry into the 2017 tragedy, ranked the practice in the top three of those most accountable for the disaster that killed 72 people.

Barrister Stephanie Barwise, who was representing one of three community groups, pointed the finger at Studio E together with cladding manufacturer Arconic and fire engineer Exova, as the main ‘protagonists’ who ‘tower[ed] above the rest in terms of their responsibility’ for the speed and extent of the fire.

In her statement, Barwise claimed that Studio E's ‘lack of experience of high-rise projects and over-cladding’ had resulted in its failure to produce a ‘compliant design’ and to identify that aluminum composite material (ACM) panels with a polyethylene (PE) core – a cause of the fire's rapid exterior spread – was ‘unsuitable for a complex building’.

She added that the practice had put forward a ‘predominantly proprietary specification providing various alternatives for cladding panels but without stating any required fire performance'.

Barwise also condemned Studio E for not carrying out a routine design review 'in line with RIBA recommended practice' which would have identified the decision to 'fundamentally change the cladding system' from zinc to ACM cladding and pick up on the differing fire performance of PE and fire resistant cores.

And she said a ‘reasonably competent architect’ should have ensured fire expert Exova had been properly and fully instructed by contractor Rydon in respect of the cladding system's impact on compliance with part four of the Building Regulations – rather than on an ad hoc basis.

Barwise also criticised the practice's failure to read beyond the front page of the British Board of Agrément certificate and failure to establish fire performance.

She added that Studio E had also ‘fundamentally failed to identify and address the need for cavity barriers’ in accordance with Diagram 33 of Approved Document B and failed to specify them to close window openings meaning there was ‘no protection against the passage of fire and smoke around the window opening directly into the cavity behind the rainscreen cladding’.

Barwell added that secondary responsibility for the fast spread of the fire should be borne by Harley as cladding subcontractor, main contractor Rydon, Kensington and Chelsea Council,and the government ‘as custodian of the statutory regimes governing fire safety’.

She concluded: ‘The full extent of the disaster was caused by a complex combination of corporate greed with complete disregard for safety, professional incompetence, oversight and organisational failings, and facilitated by an insufficiently robust regime.’

Further closing statements from Harley, Arconic and Kingspan, which made the Kooltherm K15 insulation used towards the end of the project, will be heard later today.

Studio E Architects, which is now in liquidation, has previously said it did not know that the products used on the Grenfell Tower were unsafe and that the there was no information available to it which meant it reasonably should have been alerted to a lack of safety.

It also said that product manufacturers' marketing materials and testing data were misleading – a claim supported by the inquiry's expert architectural witness Paul Hyett – and argued that the building regulations had permitted the ‘routine use’ of unsafe cladding on buildings ‘for many years’.

comment and share

Tagsfire safety Grenfell Inquiry Studio E Architects