Forum Topic

Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Architects behind refurbishment 'really sorry' for victims

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51707499 Andrzej Kuszell, a director of Studio E, told the inquiry into the disaster he was "really, really sorry", he wanted to "turn the clock back", and the firm lacked tower block experience. However, he blamed other firms for giving misleading information and said fire safety rules were "not robust". The more I learn about this the more outraged I become.  The fire brigade has paid the price while all others involved are blaming each other — but the politicians seem to be escaping scrutiny — with impunity.  Devastating.

Ivonne Holliday ● 2289d6 Comments

Bunny that is how it used to be but there have been changes made as to who can do what with privatisation of various posts.  Government is responsible for Building Regulations and England's had not been updated for some time. Scotland's are I'm told more up to date (or were at the time of Grenfell) and easier to deal with.Various changes have been made since.Changing materials and the different ways of testing and specifying and the suitability in different situations all seems to need readdressing.Once upon a time there always seemed to be a Clerk of Works overseeing projects.

Philippa Bond ● 2287d

Probably right in a new build case Bunny. But this is a refurbishment with the added difficulty of a self management organisation.It will be very interesting , as it unfolds, as to who took what decisions. My view is that the owner is ultimately responsible for decisions but The Governments guidance (at the time of the management company being set up) gave the option for the TMO to be responsible in total for this type of work. During my time at Wandsworth we tweaked  the guidance to ensure that any project of this nature (all major projects in fact with TMO involvement)  would be overseen under the full control of the Councils Housing Department precisely to avoid the TMO having to make decisions that they probably would have little if any expertise in.  It was a battle to keep that control in the Housing Dept but so glad we did.It also seems that the appointment of the Architects was outrageous in the lack of proper vetting of the practice and their expertise to carry out such works. I think there will be much more to come regarding poor governance of the works at all stages by all involved.

Andy Pike ● 2289d

Apparently final sign off can be done by private companies now and some question its worth, although I don't know if that applies to RBKC. It's certainly the case with regard to some privately owned blocks of flats in Wandsworth. My understanding is that there's a question about the robustness of the regulations?

Michael Ixer ● 2289d

Councils decide what's to be built, architects brought in, council decides on tenders and chooses winner. Council implement planning laws and building regulations.... builders obtain winning tender and then work side by side with council, passing checks and balances along the way.  Council gives the signoff at the end of the build, ensuring all regulations have been followed.  Am I missing something?

Bunny Payne ● 2289d

Just think: lowest cost not quality tendering, profit motive, dislike of regulations .... Interesting, in one news clip I heard, the Studio E director said the Grenfell Tower project was tagged onto another project they were already doing for RBKC and if it had gone to open tender they wouldn't have won it! I suspect all roads may lead back to RBKC cutting costs and not following appropriate due diligence? I wonder if they can substantiate they followed due process? As the building's owner they aren't they ultimately responsible?

Michael Ixer ● 2289d

You have to ask and keep on asking how it is that so many building companies and their designers could possibly have made the same mistake.https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-05-09/debates/BF830CB0-CCE8-448F-A80D-18D1699CC079/BuildingsWithACMCladding

Philippa Bond ● 2289d