黑洞社区

A senior client on the Grenfell Tower refurbishment project admitted he never asked Studio E if it had experience of cladding a high-rise residential building before he recommended the architect鈥檚 appointment.

Mark Anderson of Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (TMO) was unable to tell the Grenfell Inquiry yesterday why he had not asked the question despite the inquiry barrister describing it as 鈥渙bvious鈥�. The inquiry also heard the question was raised by a resident.

Inquiry barrister Andrew Kinnier QC asked Anderson: 鈥淲hy not? It鈥檚 an obvious question, isn鈥檛 it?鈥�

Anderson, who was the TMO鈥檚 interim director of assets between 2011 and January 2013, responded: 鈥淚t is now. I don鈥檛 know why I didn鈥檛 ask that question.鈥�

Kinnier responded: 鈥淲ith respect, Mr Anderson, it was an obvious question then: Have you been involved in cladding a high-rise residential building? That鈥檚 what you were asking them to do.鈥�

Anderson replied that at that stage the type of cladding 鈥� render or rainscreen 鈥� had not been decided. He said he did ascertain the practice had experience of complicated cladding projects and that individual architects working there had experience of residential refurbishment.

He said he had at least two meetings with Studio E director Andrzej Kuszell and reviewed RBKC鈥檚 procurement documents for the neighbouring Kensington Academy and Leisure Centre (KALC) project, which was designed by Studio E, before making his recommendation.

He also asked his team to research Studio E and all the consultants working on KALC to establish their professional standing, client base and competence.

Inquiry chairman Michael Moore-Bick interrupted the cross-examination to suggest the first step should have been to consider whether they wanted Studio E.

Anderson said: 鈥淭here was nothing to indicate we wouldn鈥檛 want to use them. There was a process I went through to satisfy myself that the pre-construction professional team were suited to a project of that nature.鈥�

Kinnier spent much of the day asking about the procurement of the Grenfell project and whether it was Ojeu-compliant because, for speed, the plan was to rely on the Ojeu process RBKC had undertaken for KALC in summer 2011 which Anderson described as 鈥渞igorous鈥�.

Asked whether the KALC Ojeu notice had mentioned Grenfell, Anderson said not specifically but that it had referenced housing regeneration.

He said RBKC鈥檚 legal and procurement specialists initially advised him that relying on the prior procurement process to appoint the Grenfell consultant team would be OK 鈥� but that that advice had changed twice, prompting Anderson to introduce a limit for fee bids to keep them below the 拢174,000 Ojeu threshold. During his evidence in March, owing to its lack of experience.

The inquiry heard yesterday that residents of the Lancaster West Estate were unhappy with the academy and leisure centre project planned for the bottom of Grenfell Tower and so the improvements to the estate were intended to repair relations.

RBKC wanted to run the projects in parallel 鈥� which would require Grenfell to catch up with KALC 鈥� to achieve efficiencies, Anderson confirmed. These efficiencies included cost and programme. Anderson said in his witness statement that using the same consultant team would save up to nine months.

He said of this joint procurement process: 鈥淩BKC never said 鈥榶ou must do it鈥� but there was a very strong message that that was their desire.鈥�

Kinnier asked him: 鈥淲hat came first, Mr Anderson, was it the pragmatic benefits of using Studio E because of their connection with KALC, or looking at their qualifications, expertise and experience?鈥�

鈥淚 think it was a combination of both,鈥� he replied.

鈥楴ot look bad next to KALC鈥�

The inquiry was shown a confidential internal report on the Grenfell project from January 2012 which said that because KALC would have a significant effect on the residents of neighbouring Lancaster West the council wanted to fund a 鈥渓egacy project鈥� on the estate and was 鈥渄esirous that [it] be reflective of the design proposals for KALC, benefit residents of the estate and is delivered efficiently鈥�.

Kinnier asked Anderson if 鈥渞eflective of the design proposals鈥� meant 鈥渓ook good next to KALC? Or to put it another way, not look bad next to KALC?鈥�

Anderson said that was not his recollection of the conversations preceding the report. Rather these were concerned with modernising Grenfell Tower, improving its thermal efficiency and upgrading the flats, he said.

Kinnier went on: 鈥淒elivered efficiently. Does that mean for the lowest possible cost?鈥� Anderson replied: 鈥淭hat鈥檚 not my understanding.鈥�

Anderson said his definition of efficient was about 鈥済etting maximum output for your available budget鈥�. He conceded cost played a part but said it wasn鈥檛 鈥渘ecessarily the prime driver鈥�.

Earlier, Anderson said Studio E project associate Bruce Sounes, who initially led the project for the practice, was 鈥渁 very different individual鈥� when he gave evidence to the inquiry in March this year.

Atkinson said: 鈥淚 was quite impressed with Bruce. If I may, Mr Chairman, I think the Bruce Sounes you had here in March is a very different individual to the one I had experience of.

鈥淗e appears to have lost confidence and his enthusiasm and drive.鈥�

When Anderson first met him in 2012, he said: 鈥淗e came across as very knowledgeable and experienced.鈥�

Sounes鈥� testimony to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry had to be adjourned twice back in March because he was said to be too unwell to continue being cross-examined.

The inquiry continues.