Architects Criticise Product Certification as Grenfell Inquiry Resumes

ARCHITECTS at Studio E have criticised the system which certified the cladding products installed at Grenfell Tower, during the inquiry into the tragedy.

Neil Crawford, Bruce Sounes and Andrzej Kuszell from the firm which worked on the 2012 renovation project have all given evidence.

Evidence

Speaking at the inquiry, director at Studio E, Andrzej Kuszell, said: “We’ve all lived two and a half years since the tragedy, and doubtless absolutely every one of us would wish to turn the clock back. And the truth is that, through those two and a half years, a lot of information has come out, some of it through our evidence. But there’ s also other information that’ s come out through various sources.

“I have to say, that if we had understood that the building regulations were not robust, if we had understood that we can’t trust a certification, if we had understood that advice that was being given from parties who were either specialists or marketing products were that unreliable and misleading – this is so sad to say – but I don’t think this tragedy would have happened. And it really cracks me up, because it shouldn’t have happened. It really shouldn’t have happened.”

Compliance

Bruce Sounes, Associate Partner at Studio E, also gave evidence, stating that the cladding part of the project was less complex than construction of Grenfell Tower’s lower floors  (referred to as the podium level), and as a result, received less attention.

Bruce Sounes said, “The podium level, the alterations to the podium were considerably complex, both in the design, the number of changes, the routing of the services , co-ordinating the work. Given that it also had to accommodate the entrance and exit from the tower for the residents, and agreeing the scheme with  the planning.

He continued, “Rainscreen cladding itself is quite straightforward, especially when you’ve got a concrete substrate. You’ve got – if it were a new-build – an ideal backing is a concrete background for a rainscreen cladding.

“So the existing building was in a sense no different to a new-build; it just happened to have a lot of people living in it. That’s where the complexity arose.”

Regarding Building Regulations and standards, Sounes refuted that it should have been the architect’s role to check the work of the cladding sub-contractor for compliance.

Sounes said, “A lot of the work fell to specialist subcontractors who held design responsibility for their work. Obviously the cladding, but also a lot of the internal works on the services, and it would not in any event fall to us to check compliance.

“Compliance would fall to the specialist themselves to check. I don’t – that’s almost asking us to provide a certification role, which we didn’t have, I believe.”

The inquiry continues.