黑洞社区

Architect Studio E was 鈥渋mprudent鈥� not to have appointed a specialist fire consultant when it took on the Grenfell Tower refurbishment project, the inquiry into 2017鈥檚 fire that claimed 72 lives was told.

Expert witness Paul Hyett said given Studio E鈥檚 lack of experience in high-rise residential overcladding 鈥渋t would have been important for them to get a fire consultant and to use that fire consultant properly鈥�.

Hyett, a former RIBA president who retired in June after 16 years as a principal at HKS Architects to set up his own consultancy, began what is expected to be three days of evidence to the inquiry on Monday afternoon.

He faced a series of detailed questions from inquiry barrister Richard Millet QC about architects鈥� training in 黑洞社区 Regulations and fire safety and the level of competence that could reasonably be expected of them.

Millett first asked him whether Studio E should have refused to take on the project since it had no experience of high-rise residential overcladding.

Hyett replied: 鈥淲e are designers and we are trained to design and, through design, to solve problems. So the fact an architect hasn鈥檛 done, in this case, a building of the scale and type at Grenfell doesn鈥檛 suggest to me there鈥檚 an immediate problem.

鈥淭he important thing is to understand that code has to be researched, has to be understood, has to be applied and, where advice is needed from other specialists 鈥� either architects with particular experience in that area brought in to the office as subcontractors or 鈥� other consultants like a specialist fire consultant 鈥� architects have to know that they must, in researching the project, get the right experience into that project as it develops.鈥�

Asked whether the 鈥渟tandard of service expected鈥� could have been achieved by Studio E through CPD or research alone he said: 鈥淵es. I鈥檓 in no doubt that it could.鈥�

Millett then asked him whether he would expect a firm in Studio E鈥檚 position to have hired a specialist fa莽ade engineer or consultant.

Hyett replied: 鈥淣o. I would expect them to look very hard at the problem to satisfy themselves 鈥� or to question themselves whether they had resource in the office that could do the research necessary and develop the expertise necessary, or whether they should make a strategic hire.鈥�

Millett asked how early in the project this should happen, to which he replied: 鈥淟ike, at the beginning.鈥� He then explained this was because the 鈥渇oundations of the project would need to be right from the beginning鈥� and because 鈥渢ime is ticking fast on a project once the instruction comes鈥�.

He was asked specifically whether Studio E project associate Neil Crawford should have considered employing specialist help because he had used a fa莽ade engineer, Arup, for the cladding on an office project in Manchester he led for his previous practice, Foster & Partners in 2004.

Hyett said it was 鈥減erfectly reasonable to proceed without a specialist fa莽ade specialist on an overcladding project鈥�.

Millett then asked whether it was 鈥渦nreasonable鈥� for Studio E not to have hired a fire consultant.

Hyett replied: 鈥淚 don鈥檛 think they鈥檙e absolutes but the experience Studio E had would suggest this is a building type they have not done before. It鈥檚 certainly pretty substantial and complex. One would have to make an extremely good argument for not having a fire consultant.

鈥淭hat argument might be, 鈥榃ell, we鈥檝e been doing these for 15 years and we know all about it , we鈥檝e got some highly specialised architects in the office who have done 10 of these before鈥�.

鈥淏ut looking at it from where they were coming from, I think that it would have been very, very prudent 鈥� it would have been important for them to get a fire consultant and to use that fire consultant properly.鈥�

Millett pushed him further, asking whether it was therefore imprudent not to have hired a specialist fire consultant. Hyett replied: 鈥淭hat particular firm? Yes.

鈥淚鈥檓 not saying that no architect could have proceeded without, but that particular firm, a partner in that firm 鈥� when we take on work, we鈥檝e got to be confident that we can deliver what is required. We have to look at our resources, we have to look at the skill, the size, and we have to satisfy ourselves we can do that work and do it with a competence and a confidence. I wouldn鈥檛 have wanted to proceed on that without getting a fire consultant.鈥�

He concluded: 鈥淚f you think you can address the problem as an architect, as a designer, then I think it鈥檚 reasonable to proceed. But you would have to make the case for why you wouldn鈥檛 be going to a specialist. And I think from where they sat I would, as a partner, have said, 鈥榃e need a fire consultant on this鈥�.鈥�

The inquiry continues.