So the Stay Put doctrine rests on one principle: the fire stays inside the flat where it starts. That holds for a building put up in 1974, with concrete walls and an inert facade. It no longer holds for a building whose facade has been altered. Like Grenfell Tower.
In 2012, RBKC has a 67-metre problem. The tower can be seen from the Avondale and Ladbroke conservation areas. It is grey, massive, and it sticks out. The planning documents say the works will improve its appearance, especially as seen from the surrounding areas. A council member, Jane Trethewey, writes that the aim is to stop Grenfell looking like a poor cousin of the new school being built right beside it. So the tower will be dressed up. The only question is how much it costs.
Email from Jane Trethewey
The initial budget is around £10M. The first firm approached, Leadbitter, comes back with a quote of more than £11M. Too expensive. The contract goes back out to tender. In March 2014, Rydon finally wins it with a bid of £9.2M. Except that the real budget, the one KCTMO, the body that manages the borough’s housing, is willing to spend, is £8.4M. There is £800K missing. It will have to be found somewhere. Before the contract has even been officially awarded, KCTMO managers hold an “offline” meeting with Rydon to discuss possible savings. Despite a warning from the law firm Trowers & Hamlins that negotiating before the end of the process would be unlawful. An internal Rydon email sums up the mood2:
“We’ve been told unofficially that we’re in pole position.”
Which will lead to choices with grave consequences.
The architects at Studio E had specified zinc panels for the facade. Zinc lasts. But zinc is expensive. Harley Facades, the cladding subcontractor, proposes an alternative: ACM panels, aluminium composite. The saving is documented: £293,368. That is enough to balance the budget. That is what gets chosen. What KCTMO is not told is that the real saving is over £400K. Rydon keeps the difference to cover a £212K pricing error in its own quote. Simon Lawrence, Rydon’s contract manager, will later admit it at the public inquiry. When counsel asks whether Rydon deliberately understated the savings to pocket the difference, he says yes, twice.
And yet the consequences were not entirely unknown.
On 12 November 2014, Claire W., a project manager at KCTMO, sends an email. She asks for details on the fire resistance of the new cladding. She writes that she has had a Lakanal moment, a reference to the 2009 fire at Lakanal House, a London tower block. A personal worry, slipped into a technical exchange. But no trace of a reply dealing with the substance has ever been produced. The works carry on.
In the end, the refurbishment is completed in mid-2016. New windows, new heating system, new facade. Nick Paget-Brown, leader of the council, issues a statement.
Seeing it first-hand, he says, shows how remarkably the cladding has improved the look of the tower.
The 67-metre problem is solved.
Phew.