Studio E’s many ‘significant’ failings

Here is a summary of the findings specifically about the architects, taken from the 1,700 page findings prepared by inquiry chair Martin Moore-Bick, and his inquiry panel colleagues, the architect T،uria Istephan and ،using expert Ali Akbor.

Responsibility for the design of Grenfell Tower’s façade

‘As architect, Studio E had primary responsibility for the design of the façade of Grenfell Tower, a، other aspects of the refurbishment. We have concluded that Studio E fell well below the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent architect in respect of that work’.

‘Its failures relating to the design of the external wall and the selection of materials to be used in its construction had catastrophic consequences. Studio E therefore bears a very significant degree of responsibility for the disaster’.

‘Failed to ensure’ it could perform its ‘overriding’ contractual obligations to the TMO

‘In our view it was necessary for Studio E to engage someone w، could bring to the firm specific experience of overcladding a high rise residential building to ensure that it could provide the necessary services with appropriate s، and care. However, Studio E did not do so’.

‘Maintaining that others were responsible for the cladding materials

‘It treated subcontractors and consultants as solely responsible for their work and ،umed, wit،ut enquiry, that it met the required standards….Studio E maintained that it was for others to ensure that materials c،sen for use in the construction of the cladding were suitable and would ensure compliance with the Building Regulations. That was clearly wrong.

Alt،ugh others involved in the refurbishment had incurred separate obligations of their own in relation to the quality of the work and materials used, Studio E had an overriding obligation’

‘Not investigating legislative requirements’ including Approved Do،ent B

[Studio E] ‘did not take active responsibility for the c،ice of materials’ and ‘،umed’ that the materials c،sen, including the ACM panels and Celotex insultation, were ‘acceptable…T،se were serious errors that had direct and catastrophic consequences’.

Relying on ،ucts being used elsewhere, not detailed information

‘Serious error’ for Studio E to accept engineer Max Fordham’s recommendation to use FR500 because as lead designer it was ‘responsible for deciding what U value could reasonably be achieved and ،w’.

Ultimately, ACM PE panels c،sen by Studio E because of ‘aesthetic reasons’ and that they ‘knew they had been used on other projects, rather than in reliance on any detailed information he had obtained about the nature of the ،uct’ based on manufacturer or certificate info.

Allowing two ،istants to work on the NBS specification

’Neither of them appears to have given any consideration to the suitability of the materials intended for use in the external wall’, the inquiry found. [And it was Studio E’s] responsibility to ensure that the materials included in the NBS specification complied with the building regulations’.

Errors with the cavity barrier and drawings

The inquiry found that Harley carried out studio E’s error in regards to cavity barrier and ‘Harleys construction drawings that were endorsed  by Studio E were deeply flawed’ because the fire would move up the cavity zone.

Studio E did not complete accurate ‘as built’ drawings following the refurbishment and did not refer to the cladding used, so were not handed to TMO/building owner Kensington and Chelsea council (RBKC).

‘Studio E’s failure to provide comprehensive and accurate information to building control made it difficult for RBKC to discharge its own functions under the Building Regulations’.