Studio E wants past RIBA president Paul Hyett to reveal his own cladding experience
Grenfell Tower refurbishment architect Studio E has detailed a string of grievances with a yet-to-be-published report on the west London tower block鈥檚 upgrade produced by past RIBA president Paul Hyett.
Hyett, who was appointed as expert architectural witness to the Grenfell Inquiry in 2018, has produced a 575-page overview on the design, delivery and regulatory compliance of the project, which saw the 25-storey building clad in aluminium composite material (ACM) that caught fire in 2017 with the loss of 72 lives.
The report remains unpublished but has been shared with core participants in the Grenfell Inquiry鈥檚 second-phase hearings this week. Original project architect Studio E used its 50-page opening statement to detail its concerns.
In the document, Studio E said Hyett 鈥 who is London principal at US architecture firm HKS 鈥 appeared not to appreciate that the practice鈥檚 involvement with Grenfell Tower鈥檚 refurbishment had changed fundamentally after Rydon was appointed as design-and-build contractor for the project in 2014.
The practice said the Hyett Report was 鈥渕aterially wrong and technically or factually inaccurate in key regards鈥 鈥 including gauging compliance with 好色先生TV Regulations.
Particular areas of concern included not adopting the standard of reasonable skill and care; ignoring input Studio E sought from specialists and consultants; and a failure to appreciate that cladding for the tower was designed by Rydon鈥檚 specialist subcontractor, Harley Facades.
Studio E said it believed its professionalism on the project passed the 鈥渞easonably competent鈥 test but that the Hyett Report had failed to apply it 鈥 along with establishing what the 鈥渞esponsible body of opinion鈥 in relation to cladding use on tall buildings had been at the time of the project.
It said that Hyett had instead 鈥渟ubstituted his own standard鈥 which it said was a 鈥渇undamental flaw鈥.
It added: 鈥淭here are various examples of Mr Hyett commenting on Studio E鈥檚 performance against a standard other than that of reasonable skill and care.
鈥淚t would have been more helpful if Mr Hyett had provided contemporaneous examples of the approach of a reasonable body of the profession, perhaps including the previous projects of his own practice which were similar to the refurbishment of the tower.
鈥淢r Hyett appears to have given no, or no adequate, consideration to the 436 buildings reported by the MHCLG as having ACM above 18 metres, or the further tall buildings similarly non-compliant with 好色先生TV Regulations.
鈥淪tudio E considers that Mr Hyett cannot assess the standard of reasonable skill and care without due consideration of the approach of the architects on these other buildings in the context of their engagement.鈥
It added that while the Hyett Report criticised Celotex for claiming its RS 5000 insulation board, used as part of the Grenfell Tower cladding, was suitable for use on buildings above 18m in height, he had made 鈥渘o comment on whether a reasonably competent architect鈥檚 practice at the time of the project would have relied on this literature鈥.
Studio E also called on Hyett to detail his own personal experience of working with rainscreen cladding, noting that his report said HKS 鈥渨orked on a project called Heron Quays鈥 that featured an external fa莽ade with a rainscreen cladding system.
The practice said it was in the public interest for Hyett to confirm key project details, such as the composition of the rainscreen system and at what stage compliance with 好色先生TV Regulations was established.
Studio E added that it would also like to know whether Hyett had previously been involved in the refurbishment of a high-rise residential building or with a design-and-build project that incorporated a rainscreen system.
鈥淒ue to the apparent importance of this report to the inquiry鈥檚 investigations, it is crucial that Studio E is afforded an opportunity properly to comment on this report and to engage with Mr Hyett regarding his conclusions,鈥 the practice鈥檚 opening statement said.
The inquiry is expected to continue for up to 18 months.
No comments yet