Chapter 51: The origins of the Grenfell Tower Project

Introduction

¶51.1 In this chapter we describe the background to the Grenfell Tower refurbishment project, including its origins and reasons, the establishment of the project team and the appointment of Studio E as architect.

The Kensington Aldridge Academy and Kensington Leisure Centre ("KALC") project

¶51.2 In 2009, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) instructed a design and planning consultant, Urban Initiatives Limited, to produce a report into options for the transformation of Notting Barns in North Kensington.²³²²³² Notting Barns South, Draft Final Masterplan Report, {IWS00002090/5}. The report proposed the demolition of Grenfell Tower due to the appearance of the building and the blight on its surroundings resulting from the way in which it met the ground and affected the area east of Latimer Road Station.²³³²³³ {IWS00002090/19}. The report envisaged a new academy for the area and a new leisure centre.²³⁴²³⁴ {IWS00002090/17}.

¶51.3 The report was presented to an RBKC cabinet working group in September 2009.²³⁵²³⁵ {RBK00057224}. Rock Feilding-Mellen was then a backbench councillor who sat on the Public Realm Scrutiny Committee and was familiar with that report.²³⁶²³⁶ Feilding-Mellen {RBK00033403/5} page 5, paragraph 18. Later, in 2012, when he held the portfolio for Civil Society,²³⁷²³⁷ Feilding-Mellen {RBK00033403/5} page 5, paragraph 20. he became aware through a conversation with Cllr Timothy Coleridge of the proposal to refurbish Grenfell Tower and was concerned to know whether it would hinder or obstruct any future potential regeneration of the Lancaster West estate.²³⁸²³⁸ Feilding-Mellen {RBK00054433/2} page 2, paragraph 5. Cllr Feilding-Mellen attended a meeting on 25 April 2012²³⁹²³⁹ {RBK00028392}. with Cllr Coleridge and Laura Johnson, RBKC's director of housing, during which the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower and the effect of wider regeneration were discussed. Ms Johnson told Cllr Feilding-Mellen that there was an immediate need to decide whether to invest in Grenfell Tower and reassured him that such investment would not preclude the possibility of regenerating the wider estate in the future.²⁴⁰²⁴⁰ Feilding-Mellen {Day131/138:15}-{Day131/139:16}.

¶51.4 In 2010 RBKC began work on the Kensington Aldridge Academy and Kensington Leisure Centre.²⁴¹²⁴¹ Laura Johnson {RBK00034943/10} page 10, paragraph 44. The borough needed a new secondary school, for which RBKC had received a government grant. The school was to be located on the site of an existing leisure centre that was to be demolished and rebuilt as part of the same project. Together the work was known as the "KALC" project.²⁴²²⁴² Coleridge {RBK00033737/4} page 4, paragraph 21. A certificate of practical completion was issued on 13 November 2014.²⁴³²⁴³ {RBK00068791}.

¶51.5 Laura Johnson was the senior responsible officer for the project and oversaw the project managers in RBKC's property services team who managed it on a day-to-day basis.²⁴⁴²⁴⁴ Laura Johnson {RBK00034943/10} page 10, paragraph 44.

¶51.6 In September 2011, Studio E won the commission advertised by RBKC in the Official Journal of the European Union ("OJEU") for the design of the KALC project.²⁴⁵²⁴⁵ Kuszell {Day6/31:10-23}. This was a competitive procurement exercise. Studio E retained the services of specialist fire engineers Exova as sub-consultant.²⁴⁶²⁴⁶ Kuszell {Day6/36:3-16}.

The reasons for the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower

¶51.7 RBKC recognised that the KALC project would be disruptive to residents of Grenfell Tower and consequently a KALC Residents Forum was set up, chaired by the RBKC Cabinet Member for Housing and Property, Cllr Timothy Coleridge. It first met on 18 July 2011²⁴⁷²⁴⁷ Coleridge {RBK00064251/2} page 2, paragraph 5. and was usually attended by Cllr Coleridge, Laura Johnson, local residents and, on occasions, the KALC architects or contractors.²⁴⁸²⁴⁸ Coleridge {RBK00033737/4} page 4, paragraph 22. The local residents who attended included some living in Grenfell Tower who were unhappy that KALC was being built while Grenfell Tower and the wider Lancaster West Estate was in need of refurbishment.²⁴⁹²⁴⁹ Coleridge {RBK00033737/4-5} pages 4-5, paragraph 22.

¶51.8 In December 2011 Cllr Coleridge was invited to visit the flat of a resident of the tower, Edward Daffarn.²⁵⁰²⁵⁰ Coleridge {RBK00064251/2} page 2, paragraph 4. He saw that the windows were very poor and single-glazed. Mr Daffarn told him that because the hot water was on all the time the flat was very hot in the summer but that it was very cold in the winter due to the lack of good insulation. Cllr Coleridge felt that something should be done for the residents of the tower and hoped that the rest of the Lancaster West estate could be refurbished in the long term.²⁵¹²⁵¹ Coleridge {RBK00033737/5} page 5, paragraph 23. Grenfell Tower had seen no significant investment for 30 years.²⁵²²⁵² Coleridge {RBK00064251/3} page 3, paragraph 7.

¶51.9 At about the time the KALC project was being undertaken, RBKC developed and sold basement space at Elm Park Gardens in Chelsea. The sale resulted in surplus capital receipts initially to the value of about £6 million.²⁵³²⁵³ Coleridge {RBK00033737/4} page 4, paragraph 20. In late 2011, when RBKC knew that that money would become available, Cllr Coleridge raised with Laura Johnson the possibility that the funds might be used to improve Grenfell Tower.²⁵⁴²⁵⁴ Coleridge {RBK00064251/3} page 3, paragraph 8.

¶51.10 A meeting took place on 1 November 2011 between Jane Trethewey, RBKC's Housing Strategy and Regeneration Manager, and representatives of the TMO, including Mark Anderson, the TMO's Interim Director of Asset Investment and Engineering. At that meeting the effect of the KALC project on Grenfell Tower and the Lancaster West estate was discussed. In an email sent by Jane Trethewey of RBKC to Laura Johnson the following day, Ms Trethewey said that the TMO was keen to investigate the opportunity to overclad Grenfell Tower and replace its windows, which would have the advantage of improving one of its worst properties and preventing it looking like a poor cousin to the new facility being developed next door.²⁵⁵²⁵⁵ See the email from Jane Trethewey to Laura Johnson on 2 November 2011, containing a summary of the discussion – {TMO10000965/3-4}. It was also suggested that a cladding design might be chosen which corresponded to the design of KALC, thereby improving the overall visual appearance of the area.²⁵⁶²⁵⁶ As above.

¶51.11 That is the first record we have found of any discussion of the possibility of cladding Grenfell Tower. In his evidence Mark Anderson said that the thermal efficiency of the building had been discussed at that time but not cladding as such,²⁵⁷²⁵⁷ Anderson {Day52/44:22}-{Day52/45:2}. but the emails recording the discussion²⁵⁸²⁵⁸ {TMO10000965/3}. and Laura Johnson's evidence suggest otherwise. She said that the primary motivation at that time for considering cladding had been the building's appearance²⁵⁹²⁵⁹ Johnson {Day128/34:23}-{Day128/35:1}. and accepted that RBKC had no reason to think that the thermal efficiency of the tower was poor enough to justify the cost of cladding.²⁶⁰²⁶⁰ Johnson {Day128/35:3-8}. Laura Johnson said that she was probably the person who first mentioned the idea of cladding Grenfell Tower to the KALC project architects, Studio E.²⁶¹²⁶¹ Johnson {Day128/47:15-18}.

¶51.12 On 12 December 2011 Mr Anderson sent Ms Johnson an email containing indicative costings for cladding the tower.²⁶²²⁶² {RBK00002335}. The costings came from Hunters & Partners Ltd, a firm of architects, quantity surveyors and building consultants who had been recommended to the TMO by RBKC, and were intended by Mr Anderson to give an indicative budget for the overall cost of the project.²⁶³²⁶³ Anderson {Day52/46:21}-{Day52 47:7}. The assumptions behind the costings included using a rainscreen cladding incorporating an insulated panel. According to Mr Anderson, that assumption originated from Hunters.²⁶⁴²⁶⁴ Anderson {Day52/48:1-6}.

¶51.13 Mr Anderson prepared a report²⁶⁵²⁶⁵ {TMO10001001/110-112}. for the meeting of the TMO's Operations Committee on 31 January 2012,²⁶⁶²⁶⁶ {TMO10001001}. the purpose of which was to advise the committee that RBKC might make funding available for significant regeneration. In that report Mr Anderson advised the committee that cladding Grenfell Tower and providing it with new windows would address the TMO's need for investment in the building; he also told it that the KALC and Grenfell Tower projects would be procured jointly.²⁶⁷²⁶⁷ {TMO10001001/112}.

¶51.14 On 9 February 2012 a housing digest meeting took place between RBKC and TMO. The purpose of such meetings was to provide an opportunity for the member of the RBKC cabinet holding the housing portfolio, at that time Cllr Coleridge, to meet the TMO and discuss important aspects of its delivery of the council's housing strategy and investment.²⁶⁸²⁶⁸ Anderson {Day52/49:5-14}. At that meeting there was detailed discussion about the proposed work to Grenfell Tower and it was noted that any new windows and cladding should reflect or complement KALC. Officers were planning to appoint Studio E to draw up a detailed design plan which was intended to provide the benefit of economies of scale and ensure that the two projects complemented each other.²⁶⁹²⁶⁹ {RBK00033739}.

¶51.15 Mark Anderson said that by that stage a decision had been made that cladding Grenfell Tower was also the route to achieving greater thermal efficiency. He said that the repeated use of the words "reflect" and "complement" in relation to the KALC project indicated a genuine desire on the part of RBKC not only to improve the Lancaster West estate in general and Grenfell Tower in particular, but also to ensure there was synergy between the two projects.²⁷⁰²⁷⁰ Anderson {Day52/50:21}-{Day52/51:4}. He said that there had been a desire to give a good feeling about the Grenfell Tower refurbishment project and convey a message that North Kensington was receiving some very serious investment.²⁷¹²⁷¹ Coleridge {RBK00064251/10} page 10, paragraph 27. Mr Coleridge also said that it had been clear that any insulation for the building would require a rainscreen of some sort, which would change the look of the building and could only improve its general appearance. It had been his view that, if it were decided that Grenfell Tower needed to be insulated, a fresh look at the exterior would be welcome.²⁷²²⁷² Coleridge {RBK00064251/10} page 10, paragraph 27. He had thought it a reasonable assumption that metal sheeting would be used as a rainscreen, which would result in a clean and contemporary look.²⁷³²⁷³ Coleridge {RBK00064251/6} page 6, paragraph 17.

¶51.16 In the light of that evidence, we are satisfied that the initial motive for cladding Grenfell Tower was to improve its visual appearance and to prevent its looking like a poor relation to the KALC development next door. RBKC in particular wished to ensure that the significant investment involved in the refurbishment resulted in a visible legacy. The desire to improve the thermal efficiency of the building was a later consideration, driven in part by Cllr Coleridge's meeting with Mr Daffarn in late 2011. As Laura Johnson admitted, other than residents' complaints about the windows, RBKC did not have any independent evidence that the thermal efficiency of Grenfell Tower was so poor that it needed overcladding.²⁷⁴²⁷⁴ Johnson {Day128/32:15} – {Day128/33:6}.

Funding the Grenfell project

¶51.17 Mr Anderson prepared a further report on the tower for a meeting of the TMO board on 29 March 2012.²⁷⁵²⁷⁵ {TMO10001095}. In it he recommended that the board approve the submission of a Housing Revenue Account (HRA)²⁷⁶²⁷⁶ The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) was used by RBKC and the TMO to account for housing income and expenditure. It was used for day-to-day repairs, planned and major works and all other costs relating to RBKC properties managed by the TMO. See, for example, Johnson {RBK00034943/3} page 3, paragraph 10 and Matthews {TMO00873380/10} page 10, paragraph 36. Regeneration Bid for Grenfell Tower in the sum of £6 million (excluding VAT) together with the appointment of the members of the existing KALC design team to undertake the detailed development of the project.²⁷⁷²⁷⁷ {TMO10001095/4}. He informed the board that RBKC had already appointed professionals for the KALC project and proposed that, subject to due diligence and legal compliance, they also be appointed to undertake the work on the Grenfell Tower project, subject to a dispensation from the full TMO Contract Regulations.²⁷⁸²⁷⁸ See paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 {TMO10001095/3}. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation Ltd Contract Regulations were approved by the TMO board on 26 May 2011 {RBK00000762}. Those Regulations provided the framework for the procurement by the TMO of goods, works and services. They were intended to ensure propriety, compliance with statutory and other regulatory frameworks, and the proper use of financial resources. They required a competitive tendering process in accordance with the regulations for any contract with a value in excess of £25,000, see {RBK00000762/7} paragraph 6.04.Show full note His recommendation was accepted by the TMO board, which unanimously agreed to the submission of the bid and the appointment of the KALC consultant team for the project. The board also agreed to dispense with the TMO Contract Regulations guidelines for that appointment.²⁷⁹²⁷⁹ {TMO00847333}.

¶51.18 Following that approval, the RBKC cabinet met on 2 May 2012 to consider a report prepared by Laura Johnson on the use of the funds derived from the sale of basements at Elm Park Gardens.²⁸⁰²⁸⁰ {RBK00029027}. The report recommended that they be set aside for investment in renovation, regeneration and conversion works to Grenfell Tower.²⁸¹²⁸¹ {RBK00029027/8} paragraph 6.3.3. The cabinet accepted that recommendation.²⁸²²⁸² {RBK00047482}. Consequently, RBKC funded the Grenfell Tower project and had oversight of how it was undertaken.²⁸³²⁸³ Laura Johnson {Day128/9:5-12}.