Architect Expert Evidence - Tuesday 3rd November 2020 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:00:13 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to hear further evidence from mr paul hyatt so would you ask mr hyatt to come in

00:00:28 please

00:00:40 the morning was tired yes good morning mr chairman good morning mr hyatt uh

00:00:47 hyatt uh we were about yes we were about to look at two pieces of mr sones's oral evidence yesterday evening and i'd like now to show those to you and then ask you one or two questions about what he said

00:00:59 or two questions about what he said first can we please look at mr sohn's oral evidence at day seven page 22 line 14.

00:01:08 and he says there rain screen cladding itself is quite straightforward especially when you've got a concrete substrate you've got if it were a new build

00:01:17 build and an ideal backing is a concrete background for a rain screen cladding so the existing building was in a sense no different to a new build it just happened to have a lot of people living in it

00:01:28 in it that's where the complexity arose can i then

00:01:31 then show you day 10 please day 10 page 19 line 1.

00:01:40 line 1. and he says there at the top of the page the lower levels from a fire strategy perspective were much more complex in my view and i would have been aware of those and focusing on those then i would have

00:01:51 and focusing on those then i would have read the whole report i would have read the whole report in the context that it was the third version of the report and that's where it was at the point in time i wouldn't be going back and analyzing it from the perspective of

00:02:03 analyzing it from the perspective of completeness of the brief as you would at the start of a project now the report he's talking about there is the x over

00:02:10 over i was going to ask okay yes for your benefit

00:02:14 benefit now my question is um do you think that studio e

00:02:17 studio e underestimated the complexity of the task

00:02:24 well what he says resonates with me in the sense of the rain screen cladding i can't remember his exact words but he's implying that it is not

00:02:35 words but he's implying that it is not too

00:02:36 too complicated and the lower part of the building

00:02:39 building was um from the perspective of an architect i i have some um sympathy with that view but there are different kinds of um issue the lower part of the building involves substantial

00:02:51 involves substantial replanning and that's i use the term yesterday the shifting and manipulation of space it's spatial planning um and the space has to be arranged both to be efficient and um

00:03:04 and um good for the residents but it's also got to be safe in terms of particularly egress so there was complexity down there and i can well understand him pointing to that as being a demanding area

00:03:16 as being a demanding area there was no such complexity with the uh rain screen cladding it was more a technical issue but the geometries were complicated we were looking yesterday at the model and the way the columns protruded beyond

00:03:29 and the way the columns protruded beyond the span rules and the the slots between the spanner and the columns so there was complex geometry to understand so i don't think that um i would

00:03:41 dismiss the complexity of the um of the rain screen cladding work but it was a different kind of problem i see thank you in general would you agree that one aspect of professional competence

00:03:54 aspect of professional competence is understanding the limits on one's own expertise

00:03:57 expertise and recognizing when third-party expertise is required essential and is it your opinion that studio e

00:04:04 studio e failed adequately to do so

00:04:12 individuals failed but the company as a whole also failed in that respect

00:04:25 now in your report i think you assess studio e's performance against the rieba plan of work in use at the time of the refurbishment or at least the time that the refurbishment began that's right i think

00:04:36 refurbishment began that's right i think yes

00:04:36 yes yes and i think you're also is this right judging studio e against the riba job book 7th edition 2007 and the handbook of practice management 9th edition of may 2013.

00:04:49 9th edition of may 2013. yeah i did use both of those yes and they i think were both enforced just confirmed for me that at the time of the refurbishment yes yes

00:04:57 yes yes and now what about the arb code of conduct

00:05:00 conduct um that was clearly enforced at the time um do you accept or agree uh in your opinion that a failure to comply with the arb code of conduct does not of itself constitute

00:05:12 does not of itself constitute unacceptable professional conduct or serious professional incompetence

00:05:19 so could you repeat that yes it's a slightly

00:05:23 slightly wide question um but one i've been asked to put to you um do you agree that a failure to comply with the arb code of conduct does not of itself constitute unacceptable professional conduct or

00:05:35 unacceptable professional conduct or serious professional incompetence um i don't think it um it necessarily suggests professional

00:05:46 it necessarily suggests professional incompetence but misconduct i would have thought it had to because the the code of conduct is something that we all have to comply with and failure to comply with that yeah i would agree thank you very much

00:05:58 yeah i would agree thank you very much i'm now going to turn to a completely different topic which is contract terms and i want to ask you about your view in relation to the terms on which studio he undertook work for the tmo

00:06:08 the tmo and then ryden and the scope of studio e's appointment now just to be clear before i am i embark on these questions i'm not asking you to interpret

00:06:17 interpret uh the contracts or for any legal opinion from you what i'm looking for really is your understanding and experience of how a reasonably competent architect would

00:06:27 would understand these these things at the time

00:06:30 time now do you accept do you agree that a large number of large-scale projects similar to the refurbishment project at grenfell tower are nowadays or between 2012 and 2016

00:06:43 are nowadays or between 2012 and 2016 procured by way of design and build yes and that it would have been unusual uh for the grenfell tower project not to have been procured via that method

00:06:54 method unfortunately yes you say unfortunately i'm going to park that as a as a question that itches to be asked but we'll come back to it in due course

00:07:06 but we'll come back to it in due course are projects procured by way of design and build

00:07:09 and build always tendered at the same raba workstage

00:07:12 workstage no what stage generally would our iba workstage generally in your experience to design and build projects get tendered

00:07:24 tendered certainly earlier than this one in the territory of workstage d is the architect always novated and i put those words in

00:07:35 always novated and i put those words in audible quotation marks to the successful design and bill contractor following the tendering process no is it uh more common than not

00:07:46 no is it uh more common than not that the architect is quotes unquote novated to the winning contractor well i've never read any statistics on this but my experience tells me

00:07:56 tells me that yes it is more common than not right can we look at paragraph 2.2.8 please of your supplemental report that's phys 50 sorry 602 at page six

00:08:11 now you say here um by way of a quotation from the guidance given in the riba job book at page 29 and you set out the quotation there

00:08:22 quotation there appointment of an architect as a consultant in design and build and there's a quotation there and that's the context for this and then you just you identify the typical duties and then you say it 2.2.8

00:08:34 typical duties and then you say it 2.2.8 an architect should be well aware not only that it is important to ensure that the duties and scope of services to be provided at any and every stage of his stroke her involvement

00:08:45 stroke her involvement under a design and build contract are clearly defined but also that it is his stroke her clear professional duty to ensure that this is done and properly recorded

00:08:57 recorded is it for that reason that you consider that it's no excuse for studio e to rely on the proposition that during the course of its work for ryden there was no signed agreement in place governing its obligations

00:09:10 obligations yes that is correct that is my view a qualification it's important to ensure duties are clear whatever the kind of procurement route yes

00:09:22 procurement route yes uh are you aware of any challenges which the architectural profession generally faces in agreeing appropriate terms of appointment for these services

00:09:34 terms of appointment for these services am i aware of any challenges yes uh from what source well is it difficult in practical terms for architects to agree terms oh yes uh there's there can be a lot of

00:09:47 oh yes uh there's there can be a lot of um

00:09:48 um cut and thrust around uh appointment terms uh absolutely right uh are there difficulties particularly in ensuring those agreements are agreed and then signed off before any

00:09:59 agreed and then signed off before any work commences on a project from an architect's perspective i've had that experience across the entire course of my professional career what about

00:10:11 of my professional career what about sorry yes that i i have yes and what sort of um well is it right that it's also difficult or there are challenges when it comes to agreeing variations in the scope or

00:10:23 agreeing variations in the scope or terms

00:10:23 terms of the appointment variations to a standard appointment or variations during the course of the project

00:10:34 that's a question i'm not quite sure what you mean um well let's take it in a little bit more

00:10:40 more of a staged approach what do you think studio we should have done as the putative reasonably competent architect if ryden had not agreed the

00:10:51 architect if ryden had not agreed the terms of studio he's appointment before any further work from studio e was required after ryden had won the tender

00:11:00 tender well um they they can down tools or put another way never pick the tools up um that would be a very good starting point i don't think

00:11:12 point i don't think it's fair to say that at the start of every job following an ovation the contracts are all signed and everything is in place but there must be clear

00:11:21 clear indication to the arctic that there is a a defined

00:11:25 a defined scope of work the fees are satisfactory and that things look good to go thereafter it can take i think often a good few weeks into some months

00:11:38 a good few weeks into some months for the lawyers to finally tie up the contract on a very very large job on a job like this it might take you know a good few weeks it shouldn't endure beyond three months

00:11:49 it shouldn't endure beyond three months it certainly shouldn't endure through the entire process and but through the entire process do you include the construction process of course yeah that was going to begin pretty quickly anyway yes and what about um in circumstances

00:12:01 yes and what about um in circumstances where the scope of studio is obligations was in practice changing over the course of the works what would you expect studio e to do if they couldn't agree specific terms with ryden

00:12:11 ryden well again the codes of both well certainly the code of the arb and i believe from memory the code of the rba make it incumbent an incumbent duty on

00:12:22 make it incumbent an incumbent duty on the architect to define any changes and that must be done in writing and can i just ask you this the um [Music]

00:12:30 [Music] is there any understanding within the construction industry by which i mean architects and contractors about the terms on which the architect is working

00:12:42 is working pending some revision to those terms between the lawyers over the period of weeks that you identified you

00:12:53 identified you i don't mean there's any set document i know of nothing in that form but um usually an exchange of lettuce um would produce some clarity in that area

00:13:04 would produce some clarity in that area but it's certainly a quite a an uncertain period i mean one possibility is that the contractor takes the architect on on the

00:13:17 contractor takes the architect on on the same terms as the architect had been working for the original client and unless and until those terms have changed is there any understanding to that effect or something similar

00:13:28 that effect or something similar there's a section in my report that actually explains that and the iba have a particular form of appointment for what's called um contractor employers

00:13:39 employers and that would pretty well mirror the uh in fact the only change is is the title

00:13:45 title the actual process of work with the actor would be expected to undertake mirrors that of a traditional appointment under the dmb yes thank you very much yes and just to follow up on that where

00:13:56 to follow up on that where the architect and the contractor in this case studio e and ryden respectively hadn't finalized the precise terms of their own engagement

00:14:08 engagement between themselves would it be your opinion

00:14:11 opinion that architects would understand that they were

00:14:15 they were being they were being retained uh on the um riba form of appointment for contracted employers um i think that that would be

00:14:27 um i think that that would be well certainly the lawyers would have a lot to say but that i would consider that to be very risky so if there was anything in there that i was absolutely set against yeah i would say this is still under negotiation

00:14:38 this is still under negotiation but this and that paragraphs of your proposed appointment are unacceptable yes so i'd set that up pretty clearly yeah yes

00:14:52 it sounds from that answer that your your view is that the reasonably prudent architect wouldn't simply not allow their retainer to continue without

00:15:03 allow their retainer to continue without at least some form of document identifying their obligations after the tender had been awarded is that am i understanding you correctly you are and if i could add to that

00:15:15 and if i could add to that once you are in contract it's actually pretty difficult in this country to stop i have experience of american contracts downing tools the term i used a few minutes ago is relatively easy in

00:15:27 minutes ago is relatively easy in america

00:15:28 america it's not here so once you start you have to be in a position to resolve problems like that as you go along or go through quite a complicated

00:15:40 along or go through quite a complicated process

00:15:41 process of suspending and terminating work so you are of the view i take it that it would have been uh reasonable for studio e to refuse to commence any work for ryden until agreement as to the extent and

00:15:53 until agreement as to the extent and nature of studio e's obligations had been agreed yes to be absolutely clear i wouldn't hold back until the contract's absolutely signed but i'd want the principles sorted right and unreasonable of studio e not

00:16:05 right and unreasonable of studio e not to have done that is that i would use the word unwise yes we've had that before i'm going to press you a little bit i'm wise but is it is it unwise to the extent of imprudent

00:16:17 unwise to the extent of imprudent unreasonably imprudent by the objective standards we are examining

00:16:24 examining i think it's putting the project at risk as well as the firm right and do i take it from that that a reasonably competent architect would do nothing to put the project at

00:16:35 would do nothing to put the project at risk yeah that's correct yes thank you [Applause]

00:16:44 just a question from your perspective about artelia as the employer's agent and from the perspective of the reasonably competent architect

00:16:55 reasonably competent architect would that person expect artelia as the employer's agent to do something in circumstances where

00:17:04 the employer's agent can see that no terms

00:17:07 terms or at least principles had been agreed as between the contractor and the architect

00:17:17 uh yes absolutely and what would you expect well the as employers agent

00:17:23 agent um telia were um responsible for a substantial part of the administration on the part of the client and i can't

00:17:36 on the part of the client and i can't think of anything more important in that administration process at the start than making sure the contract is in place yes thank you and can i then turn on uh

00:17:48 can i then turn on uh just to ask you a question about mr crawford's evidence and i'll summarize it uh he said uh and indeed mr lawrence of ryden simon

00:18:01 uh and indeed mr lawrence of ryden simon lawrence of ryden have also said that ryden tended not to use architects so much uh and uh indeed and i don't need to go to it i think with you mr crawford said

00:18:12 to it i think with you mr crawford said in his oral evidence and that's day 9 page 103 line 18 of the transcript we don't need to turn it up but he envisaged studio e's role as being more responsive

00:18:24 being more responsive now about that issue on the assumption that in fact such conversations between mr crawford and mr sones did take place

00:18:35 sones did take place is it your opinion that studio e ought to have produced and agreed with ryden a clear record of exactly what was expected

00:18:43 expected of studio e by ryden yes yes and it would be normal practice i think you're saying for for an architect uh to do that as early as possible rather than to wait to the end of the

00:18:54 rather than to wait to the end of the project

00:18:55 project yes

00:18:59 would a reasonably competent architect study carefully the terms of any formal agreement

00:19:04 agreement that it was entering at any stage to ensure that it wasn't taking on any legal responsibility for things over which it had no control or which it had not done itself

00:19:17 right right through the scale of projects i've been involved with and you mentioned optus yesterday i've personally either been involved myself or

00:19:29 either been involved myself or somebody else in the firm has been involved i can't imagine passing responsibility for negotiating a contract to parties outside the firm even

00:19:40 to parties outside the firm even appointed lawyers the the architect has to remain involved yes

00:19:46 yes and involved i'll just ask the question again would a reasonably competent architect

00:19:51 architect actually sit down and study the terms of the contract to make to make sure that he or she or it the firm wasn't taking on any responsibility for things over which it had no control or which it hadn't done

00:20:03 or which it hadn't done on the contract i just referred to which is the most recent large one i've negotiated um every paragraph through an enormous document over a number of individual days spread across weeks was

00:20:15 individual days spread across weeks was what each of the three firms of architects appointed did and they did it together

00:20:18 together yes thank you and i was the one who did it for

00:20:22 it for that now that that's your experience and i completely um accept that as an answer but i'm just after what your view of the reasonably competent architect the objectively reasonably competent

00:20:34 the objectively reasonably competent architect would do would they sit down and study the terms of a formal the formal contract to make sure that they were not taking on legal responsibility for things over which they had no

00:20:45 for things over which they had no control or things which they hadn't themselves done i i can conceive circumstances where the terms might be summarized but the architect has to

00:20:56 architect has to know what they have undertaken yeah thank you can i then turn to a different topic still which is design responsibility uh can we look first at your

00:21:08 uh can we look first at your supplemental report please at phys

00:21:13 at phys 602 page 30 and i'd like to look with you please mr hyatt at paragraphs 2.3.20 and 21. at 2.3.20 you say studio e also

00:21:26 and 21. at 2.3.20 you say studio e also seems to be suggesting for example that opening statement paragraph 13.6 that its duty to comment under its postnovation obligations to ryden in relation to harley drawings was

00:21:37 in relation to harley drawings was restricted to matters of quotes architectural intent close quotes by which i understand it means matters of aesthetics and appearance only and did not extend to technical

00:21:48 to technical or compliance related matters i have seen no documentation to support this view

00:21:53 view and such a restriction of duties is not consistent with my understanding of an architect's normal duties when receiving and reviewing specialist subcontractors information in this respect i quote variously from the schedule of architectural services

00:22:05 the schedule of architectural services of the ryden stroke studio e deal of appointment did you give the reference which contradicts this view entirely and i'll quote seek to ensure that all designs comply with the relevant statutory requirements

00:22:16 with the relevant statutory requirements including scheme development standards item 8 at page 8 examine subcontractors and sub

00:22:21 and sub suppliers drawings and details interface details with particular reference to tolerances and dimensional coordination finished durability appearance and performance criteria and reports to the contractor

00:22:32 the contractor item 27 at page nine now i've shown you that in

00:22:36 that in in full um uh is it your opinion that to the extent that studio e appeared to consider that their duty was limited to commentary and respect of

00:22:47 limited to commentary and respect of architectural intent uh that they were wrong about that yes yes

00:22:57 would any reasonably competent architect think that they were right about that

00:23:04 i don't think so now um can we uh look specifically at the two items you refer to there within the deal of appointment

00:23:15 the deal of appointment um you've given the reference within the text of 2.3.21 um but we can look at it it's ryd3094228 at page nine and item eight which is the

00:23:28 at page nine and item eight which is the first of the two items as you say says seek to seek to ensure that all designs comply with relevant statutory requirements including scheme development standards

00:23:39 including scheme development standards and then if we look at item 27 on page 10 please the next page over it says examine subcontractors and suppliers drawings and details etc and i've read that already allowed

00:23:50 etc and i've read that already allowed into the record my question about these two items is this were these services typical obligations as between an architect

00:23:59 architect and a design and build contractor in the uk construction industry and the architects profession respectively between july 2014 and february 2016.

00:24:12 between july 2014 and february 2016. well again i haven't surveyed the i haven't got any evidence that but i certainly don't think they're unusual right now at paragraph 2.3.21 which we've just

00:24:23 now at paragraph 2.3.21 which we've just looked at

00:24:25 looked at uh you you say

00:24:29 just get back to that

00:24:35 you say such a restriction of duties is not consistent with my understanding of an architect's normal duties

00:24:46 normal duties and and then you set those out and you say at the end of that paragraph before the quotation uh that the deed of appointment contradicts this view entirely you see that sorry i i

00:24:58 you see that sorry i i i lost you at the first quote is that a quote from the text here or what i just said yes the text of what you've said if you look at paragraph 2.3.21 yes you say in the second line that the document that the restriction of duties

00:25:10 document that the restriction of duties is not consistent with your understanding of an architect's normal duties right and then you say just at the end of that paragraph that the deed of appointment contradicts this view entirely you see

00:25:23 contradicts this view entirely you see that

00:25:23 that yes um is it therefore your opinion that these services listed at items 8 and 27

00:25:30 and 27 that i've shown you are are not consistent with a review merely for architectural intent in other words they go further than that i think so yes by architectural tent we

00:25:42 i think so yes by architectural tent we talk we're talking about by architecture and intent we're talking about aesthetic appearance they of course they go substantially further than that yes and what is the difference between a

00:25:53 yes and what is the difference between a review for architectural intent on the one hand

00:25:56 one hand and what is involved in the performance of these obligations at items 28 sorry 8 and 27 on the other

00:26:06 again i don't know of a definition but i think a review for architectural intent would be interpreted by most architects to mean that in terms of appearance it would be

00:26:19 in terms of appearance it would be the same or very similar and i think it would relate more to um elevations um and finishes inside the building um as opposed to planning an organization

00:26:31 as opposed to planning an organization yes or putting it more bluntly does architectural intent as you understand it encompass or include seeking to ensure that all designs comply with relevant statutory requirements

00:26:42 statutory requirements including scheme development standards

00:26:45 on the interpretation i've just applied no no it wouldn't no and what about the next one examining subcontractors and sub

00:26:53 sub no no thank you do you consider that the reasonably competent architect ought to ensure that there's

00:27:04 to ensure that there's consistency between the drawings and the specifications as developed and issued to out to tender and the work undertaken by the specialist cladding subcontractor developing the

00:27:16 cladding subcontractor developing the design of the architect well if if if retained and evaded appointed yes yes and would that work go beyond review for

00:27:26 for quotes architectural intent clearly certainly most certainly can we then look on in your report uh the main report which is p-h-y-r-5027

00:27:41 the main report which is p-h-y-r-5027 at page 54. that's phyr5027 at page 54 and i'd like to look with you please a paragraph 2.10.27

00:27:52 where um you say a fifth important issue is that of prefabrication and off-site fabrication and five lines down or six lines down

00:28:04 and five lines down or six lines down the in that paragraph you see that there's a sentence which starts metal specialized cladding panels require the preparation of fabrication drawings by the subcontractor or its supplier and these in turn

00:28:16 or its supplier and these in turn require inspection and effective sign off by the architect and or other consultants what do you mean there specifically by fabrication drawings in respect of the metal specialized cladding panels

00:28:29 well um those would be drawings prepared by um the subcontractor that's the first point

00:28:37 point uh but it's very important that they they're

00:28:40 they're checked and checked um carefully and one of the major reasons for that is that

00:28:47 that metal is such an unyielding unforgiving kind of material

00:28:54 material with timber you can have trades people skilled craftsmen on site who can work it likewise with bricks but once you get down to pre-formed metal panels and flashings and all the

00:29:06 metal panels and flashings and all the other

00:29:06 other paraphernalia that goes together with a system like that it has to be made away from the site that's almost universally true i think and so getting those things right so they're delivered right in terms of

00:29:19 so they're delivered right in terms of the programming of the construction is essential otherwise great delays can arise very quickly with big knock-on effects other than delays what are the other risks or any other risks that

00:29:30 the other risks or any other risks that you can identify well um uh the failure of the the product to look as it should when it arrives the favor of the product to fit the failure as it should when it rise

00:29:42 the failure as it should when it rise which might be a problem of assembly but the failure to fit might lead to breaches of code so there's another example when the architect

00:29:52 architect that is the reasonably prudent architect is signing off these fabrication drawings can you give us an idea of the sort of detail that they'd be checking in order to give what you call the effective sign-off

00:30:06 there'd be an ordered a process um and and marking up the drawings is very very common um as they go uh notepad to the side um but i think that

00:30:19 notepad to the side um but i think that it would be important for an architect to check

00:30:22 to check and read the entirety of the drawing that's all the spatial arrangements all the drawn lines but also

00:30:30 but also all the words and all the dimensions i'm not necessarily suggesting that every single dimension has to be ultimately ratified but the principal dimensions have to be sort of

00:30:41 principal dimensions have to be sort of sort understood and signed off by the architect and um any specification notes subtle needs to be read and understood right now you've referred to the fabrication drawings i think of the

00:30:52 fabrication drawings i think of the specialist subcontractor that's harley in this case is it yes yes um do you consider that studio e were under any obligation to examine or sign off cep's fabrication drawings

00:31:05 sign off cep's fabrication drawings so far as they ever saw them well they're a subcontractor of harley yes um so as far as the act is concerned i think as far as those drawings um well firstly

00:31:16 firstly harley have a duty to pass through sufficient material uh in the form of drawings and specification information for the architect

00:31:23 architect to be satisfied that the work has been properly understood and has been properly developed i see so cp's drawings are amongst that then they'll have to check them yes yes i see

00:31:32 i see so but essentially i think you're saying that it would come with the harley work yes yes

00:31:44 yes yes um going back to the question of architectural intent for a moment is it is it in your experience practice common practice within the architects profession

00:31:55 profession for the architect to limit obligate or his obligation or her her obligation to review the drawings and details of the specialist subcontractor only to review for adherence with

00:32:07 only to review for adherence with architectural intent

00:32:12 um i think you're are you referring there to the stamp that was used on well drawings the stamp or the idea behind the stamp let me ask the question again is it is it

00:32:23 again is it is it common in the profession or was it common in the profession at the time for the architect to limit their obligation to a review of the drawings and details uh for architectural intent yeah yes but

00:32:35 uh for architectural intent yeah yes but i think the term architectural intent there means something slightly different that is and i do you want me to explain what i'm yes please yeah that would be that the design work

00:32:46 that would be that the design work as shown on the drawings and uh incorporated into the specification as issued by the architect and that's not just its appearance that's the whole lot has been properly

00:32:57 the whole lot has been properly understood interpreted and applied to the subcontractor's drawings

00:33:06 right so architectural intent isn't simply aesthetic i think that's what you're telling us in in that context no i see

00:33:18 um but the definition i think of architectural intent that you've just given us is a is a a very broad one

00:33:30 is a is a a very broad one which encompasses a wide range of obligations including drawings and incorporation into the specification is issued what what about um what about materials

00:33:44 well they as far as they described on the drawings um and this any specification that has been issued yes they'd be included right so do you understand the expression architectural intent

00:33:55 expression architectural intent to be absolutely everything which the architect intends through the drawings and the specification in the context of that checking yes i see so is that how you understand this

00:34:06 see so is that how you understand this understood the stamp maybe we were getting ahead of ourselves a little bit in the questions but let's let's deal with it now is that how you as a

00:34:13 you as a as as the expert architect would have understood the idea uh architectural intent or the stamp that used the expression

00:34:24 or the stamp that used the expression um yes there'll be more detail on that question

00:34:27 question i'm sure but yes i cannot imagine that an architect would see drawings and specifications passing through from the subcontractor that

00:34:35 that uh departed from the intent of the architect as expressed in his own work his or her own work without raising um questions or alarm bells right

00:34:47 questions or alarm bells right um if um

00:34:51 um if um the use of the expression architectural intent was intended to be a limiting one limited perhaps simply to matters of aesthetics uh would you expect that limitation

00:35:05 uh would you expect that limitation to be recorded clearly in the formal appointment or a formal appointment document between the architect and the design and build contractor without any doubt whatsoever

00:35:17 contractor without any doubt whatsoever can we then look at the transcript for day 38 please

00:35:29 uh before i ask you this question i'll i'll have to have the page up it's page eight and i'll we're going to go to line three before i ask you that just arising out of the last answer would you expect the definition

00:35:41 would you expect the definition of architectural intent therefore to cover

00:35:44 cover the things included in items 8 and 27 of the deed of appointment that we looked at earlier

00:35:55 so compliance with statutory requirements etcetera and yes yes i was trying to remember exactly what was in those but um yes yes uh fair enough uh m eight is statutory requirements and

00:36:08 uh m eight is statutory requirements and 27 was

00:36:09 27 was subcontractors and suppliers drawings and details with particular references to tolerances drawing called dimensional coordination finish durability performance etc i mean that's what they said so you

00:36:21 i mean that's what they said so you would expect those matters to be covered with you

00:36:24 with you by the expression architectural intent architectural intent is what is shown on the architect's drawings the specialist subcontractor will be developing

00:36:35 developing fabrication information and more detailed information i'm talking about screw sizes washers right then to very very deep detailed uh component selection or

00:36:46 detailed uh component selection or manufacture i don't want to go beyond what's on the architect's drawings and specifications i accept that there would be another layer that the subcontractor may well be involved in that layer may

00:36:57 may well be involved in that layer may be generally described in engineers or architect specifications may not at all so i would restrict it to to i click the intent being um the proper

00:37:09 i click the intent being um the proper application of what has been shown on the architect's drawings and specifications what about specifically item eight which is checking for statutory compliance

00:37:20 would your understanding of the expression architectural intent encompass the adherence to the subcontractors drawings with

00:37:31 to the subcontractors drawings with statutory requirements well i think there's another clause in that um

00:37:37 that um writing appointment that deals with that anyway

00:37:41 anyway if i remember rightly but the architects the architect's work should comply with statutory compliance anyway so it would follow i think right i see

00:37:52 so it would follow i think right i see so can we can we leave it this way that whatever

00:37:55 whatever architectural intent might or might not include it it would always include ensuring that the drawings that came up from the specialist cladding subcontractor to the architect

00:38:08 cladding subcontractor to the architect for review or approval complied with the statutory obligations yes that is correct yes

00:38:17 can we then look at mr lam's evidence day 38 page 893 um he was asked the question by ms grange who in your view

00:38:29 by ms grange who in your view had ultimate responsibility for checking and approving the drawings you were producing

00:38:35 producing who did the buck stop with and you can see the answer at line six the architect and he was then asked at line seven and that would be consistent with what we've just looked

00:38:47 consistent with what we've just looked at and your understanding of the process question mark to which he said at line nine that's correct yes do you agree with mr lam on this point

00:38:57 point uh yes with the proviso that it always depends on the appointment terms that the architect uh is engaged by yeah yes and uh having seen the

00:39:10 yeah yes and uh having seen the uh yes in this particular instance what do you think yeah sorry i anticipated your question yes yes

00:39:21 might the answer depend on on the particular issue in question for example the dividing line

00:39:28 line as to the responsibility for a drawing might be different depending on what the item in question is is that a is that a fair qualification yes

00:39:36 yes yes so would might it be the case and tell me

00:39:39 tell me if this is if this is wrong that on matters of engineering for example fixing cleats or connecting bolt sizes or the viability of a fabricating component

00:39:50 fabricating component might well be the responsibility of harley as opposed to that of the architect

00:39:55 architect yes and i think i'd alluded to that earlier on so there might be a drawing a dividing line where you draw the distinction between the two yes and if i wasn't clear about that i'm sorry because a

00:40:06 sorry because a few questions ago i think i made that point you did okay thank you that's that's clarified that when a drawing is stamped approved for construction by the cladding subcontractor what in your opinion does that mean to the

00:40:18 your opinion does that mean to the reasonably competent architect um

00:40:29 exactly what it says um i would probably extend that to um approved for fabrication because they've actually stamped it and you can't construct it if it hasn't been fabricated so

00:40:41 fabricated so i would uh say that that is a drawing that's been stamped as compliant with all the requirements and good to go

00:40:56 and would i be right to take it from that answer that you think that the drawing

00:41:02 drawing stamped approved for construction would be a a complete and accurate representation of everything that would be required in respect of the particular component or detail which is shown in

00:41:13 component or detail which is shown in the drawing

00:41:16 yes and there's some questions no doubt they'll follow about whether those drawings should have been so stamped at those various stages but i'm sure we'll come on to that um

00:41:27 we'll come on to that um now would a competent architect ever look at a drawing stamped approved for construction and reasonably think that it was

00:41:38 and reasonably think that it was effectively incomplete or in progress as more information came through

00:41:49 came through noah it would be a strange thing to do if the drawing's not complete um it's not complete if the arctic's checking work hasn't been carried out it hasn't been carried out

00:42:00 hasn't been carried out um so um i i wouldn't be persuaded by a stamp

00:42:05 stamp um i wouldn't be persuaded that the stamp told me that i haven't got the checking job to do right now i mean from what you're saying tells us that it it's not your experience of industry practice that a drawing

00:42:16 practice that a drawing that is stamped approved for construction was essentially telling the architect that the drawing was incomplete or um work in progress well the architect has the duties that the architect has

00:42:27 has the duties that the architect has under the appointment full and i think you're telling us that an architect would read a proof for construction as a final and complete depiction of what was in the drawing

00:42:37 drawing nothing more nothing more to do um i i don't think i'm saying that the architect has duties to carry out if

00:42:48 architect has duties to carry out if that drawing's arriving for the first time

00:42:50 time and the architect hasn't checked it in accordance with his duties her duties under the contract then that checking process needs to take place if that joins gotta approve because for construction stamp

00:43:01 approve because for construction stamp on it i wouldn't be persuaded by that stamp

00:43:04 stamp i wouldn't accept that that tells me i've no longer got the checking job to do

00:43:08 do i understand that um but would he read the words

00:43:12 the words uh approved for construction as a representation by the subcontractor that the drawing was in some way incomplete

00:43:23 i i can't understand what they meant by that stamp right can we go to paragraph 2.3.2 of your supplemental report at phys 602

00:43:35 report at phys 602 page 25 please uh and you say in paragraph 2.3.2 it is not the case that because

00:43:48 it is not the case that because a contractor or specialist subcontractor such as harley had responsibility to complete detailed design as referred to under paragraph 12.14 of studio e's opening statement

00:43:59 12.14 of studio e's opening statement that this in any way relieved studio e from its duty to carry out and complete its own design work in relation to the external wall in accordance with its obligations under work stages e

00:44:10 work stages e and f1 i deal with this point more extensively below what do you say in respect of studio e's work at work stages f2 and following

00:44:21 f2 and following well they didn't have a duty to carry out f2 after the novation

00:44:34 after the novation because although their original appointment to the tmo uh included for all work stages i think through to l

00:44:45 through to l and therefore at that point in time it was anticipated at the very least that they would see all of that work through that appointment was suspended now they could have as the chair

00:44:58 now they could have as the chair has just intimated they could have been transferred over or novated to ryden on the basis that they would carry out exactly the same duties but for ryden

00:45:10 exactly the same duties but for ryden rather than the tmo but those the form of appointment was changed

00:45:17 changed and the ryden appointment was a completely different document however on examining that document it demands demands is probably the wrong word it

00:45:29 demands is probably the wrong word it requires work that i would describe as being included in a normal interpretation of f2 so going to the ryden appointment and they were required to

00:45:43 and they were required to continue work on detailed design would it be normal for an architect to consider that where a specialist subcontractor has assumed design responsibilities to the design

00:45:55 design responsibilities to the design and build main contractor the architect is thereby relieved from its own obligation to fulfill the duties that it's contracted with the client his original client to undertake

00:46:07 original client to undertake at least where the retainer direct by the client has not been formally terminated um i think we're going to get into considerable

00:46:20 considerable complex territory here in interpreting the word design

00:46:27 could you ask the question again uh yes um

00:46:31 um all right well let me let me try without the word design in it then would it be normal for an architect to think that where a specialist subcontractor um such as harley in this case has assumed

00:46:42 assumed responsibilities to the design and build contractor which would include design in some respects um the architect is thereby relieved from its own obligation to fulfill

00:46:53 its own obligation to fulfill those obligations that it has contracted with

00:46:56 with um with his original client to undertake the obligations my understanding um as an architect uh the obligations that i had

00:47:08 uh the obligations that i had would have had to the client originally um

00:47:12 um imposed on me a duty to carry out that work and to complete it and in certain senses if i hadn't completed i need to make it jolly clear that i haven't so um the

00:47:23 so um the the subsequent appointment of a subcontractor to further develop that work doesn't release me from my duties to make sure that that

00:47:34 from my duties to make sure that that work

00:47:35 work in its original form was correct yes so i think we're on to code here i'm anticipating that's the background when you say we're on to code can you just explain what you mean

00:47:46 code can you just explain what you mean i i i'm talking there about um the architect's obligations to make sure that the design work done in the documentation at um employees requirement stage

00:47:58 at um employees requirement stage complied with um the building regulations and adb too i see what you mean yes so do i take it from that answer that the architect remains obliged to undertake

00:48:06 undertake and fulfill the duties that it contracted to fulfill under the original appointment from his original client in this case the tmo notwithstanding the appointment of a main contractor and

00:48:18 the appointment of a main contractor and his subcontractor

00:48:22 i think it's a legal point i'm sure but i think the responsibilities for the work that was done for the tmo remained live that would be my

00:48:34 remained live that would be my understanding of it um having accepted the novation signed or not from ryden i would understand that i had the same responsibilities of

00:48:46 that i had the same responsibilities of those that i've just described repeated in terms of my duty to ryden and through ryden because ryden had assumed design responsibility but they then produced a back-to-back

00:48:58 but they then produced a back-to-back contract so i carried the duty twice yes thank you you're quite right that i put it to you as a legal point but actually what i was after was your understanding as a professional and you've given me that so i'm grateful for that

00:49:09 that so i'm grateful for that and it would it be your understanding as an architect that if there was any uh if the architect thought

00:49:17 thought that um his or the practice's obligations were in some sense being restricted or whittled down as a result of the design and build main contractor

00:49:28 design and build main contractor and its subcontractor coming in then the architect ought to seek a variation uh to the responsibilities that he'd undertaken to an absolute clarification and if i may

00:49:39 an absolute clarification and if i may add here we're dealing with um very important issues um principally safety and i'm not restricting that to the issues of

00:49:51 not restricting that to the issues of fire i'm

00:49:52 fire i'm talking about a host of other issues panels falling off buildings all sorts of things

00:49:57 of things so it's very very important to make sure that the work is being properly carried out and there should be no room for ambiguity about who

00:50:08 about who is carrying these duties and if the architect

00:50:11 architect feels that his terms of appointment aren't allowing him to do the job properly

00:50:17 properly then he should make it absolutely clear thank you very much can i just close this point off then um and i suspect

00:50:23 suspect that you've given us the answers already but i just want to close it off by reference to your report can we turn the page

00:50:29 page to page 26 in this report please and look at paragraph 2.3.6 you say there whilst this is a legal matter upon which the inquiry will decide it is my opinion

00:50:40 the inquiry will decide it is my opinion that studio e are correct in asserting that under design and build procurement design responsibility for the work hitherto carried out for kctmo as incorporated into the employer's requirements documentation

00:50:51 employer's requirements documentation did indeed pass to the contractor however studio e is quite wrong in its apparent belief that with the assumption of design responsibility on the part of ryden as design and build contractor studio

00:51:04 as design and build contractor studio e's design responsibility respectively was and would be absolved in terms of work done hitherto under its appointment to casey cmo and under innovation to ryden now you

00:51:17 and under innovation to ryden now you say

00:51:17 say studio e is quite wrong there could you just explain why studio e is quite wrong as you say

00:51:25 well the um the i believe that the writing documentation makes it clear that studio e is responsible for its design work

00:51:37 e is responsible for its design work anyway

00:51:37 anyway um i think i've referred to that somewhere else in the in this

00:51:44 in this in this part of the report but um let me read it again please yes of course

00:51:59 no studio we have accepted in the novation

00:52:02 novation the design and build contractor has principal immediate responsibility to the client under the terms that they uh entered into for past work so they

00:52:14 uh entered into for past work so they assumed responsibility for work done by the design team in arctic pre-innovation and they accepted it for all work that would be done post novation that is what the

00:52:26 post novation that is what the ryden document essentially laid out the writing document and that was with the client the writing document also made it clear that the article was carrying responsibility for work and

00:52:37 carrying responsibility for work and it's listed um one to five drawings as the host of work actually described that the studio would be responsible to ryden for so i don't think that they

00:52:49 to ryden for so i don't think that they can

00:52:49 can suddenly um they can introduce the idea that their responsibilities fall away in this in this fashion mr millett i think mr hyatt would be the

00:53:00 mr millett i think mr hyatt would be the first to accept that the nature of the legal obligations arising from the original appointment and ovation and so on are essentially matters of law aren't they

00:53:11 matters of law aren't they yes on which he probably can't help us

00:53:17 no uh that that's right which is why i think he prefaces this paragraph yes with the words whilst this is a legal matter and i'm just seeking to i think i've got the answer but i think

00:53:28 i think i've got the answer but i think simply seeking to close this off by relating the studio is quite wrong view with the previous answers well that's his view about whether studio

00:53:39 that's his view about whether studio as in studio e's view of the contractual relationships is correct or not but uh well not sure his view on that is one which we really need to pursue is it uh very well we'll um we'll leave that

00:53:51 uh very well we'll um we'll leave that where it lies can i then turn uh to another topic which is

00:53:56 which is compliance and specification of materials generally i'm going to ask you some questions about the regulatory regime at the time of the grenfell tower refurbishment and the specification of materials in general terms and then

00:54:09 of materials in general terms and then we're going to look more specifically about

00:54:11 about uh the um the actual materials the acm and the insulation and then the cavity barriers now can i ask you to go please to your

00:54:22 now can i ask you to go please to your report

00:54:22 report at phyr 5027 page 46.

00:54:32 and i want to go to paragraph 2.9.2 and uh you uh there's a long paragraph i'm not going to read it all out to you

00:54:44 i'm not going to read it all out to you but you um you set out the relevant quotations from the requirements of b3 and b4 of the building regulations

00:54:56 and b4 of the building regulations but before you do that you say this in relation to the issue of fire the requirements and intentions of the building regulations 2010 as at the time of construction of the 2012 to 16 works were in my opinion

00:55:08 2012 to 16 works were in my opinion absolutely clear the fire should have been impeded from breaking out of the compartment quotes on quotes in which it started and in circumstances where any breakout occurred

00:55:17 occurred the spread of fire should thereafter have been consistently impeded the word inhibited is typically used in this context then you quote

00:55:26 and then you go on at paragraph 2.9.4 at the foot of that very same page to say it should therefore be clear to all whose work is required to comply with the building regulations that the regulations are essentially

00:55:38 that the regulations are essentially descriptive of intent as opposed to being prescriptive of method this point is fundamental the reason being in brief to permit innovation in design and construction as opposed to placing designers and

00:55:49 as opposed to placing designers and constructors in a metaphorical straight jacket

00:55:55 but if you go over the page to page 47 at paragraph 2.9.8 you say despite their brevity

00:56:04 brevity the building regulations make absolute demands and are inclusive in scope and ordered with clarity and then at 2.9.6 just a little bit above that

00:56:15 above that you say in the second line that no competent architect could ever credibly claim to be unaware of the importance of designing responsibly in relation to fire both in terms of spatial

00:56:26 fire both in terms of spatial arrangements with respect to facilitating rapid escape where necessary for occupants through designated protected routes and in terms of materials and methods of construction i put a lot of that to you just to bring

00:56:38 i put a lot of that to you just to bring it all together in one place do you agree that a reasonably competent architect responsible for the initial design of the overcladding system at grenfell tower

00:56:50 grenfell tower ought to have been aware of the requirements of b3 and b4 and also b2 of the building regulations yes

00:57:02 of the building regulations yes and is it your opinion that the reasonably competent architect would understand that that meant that first the integrity of the structure must be preserved for a reasonable

00:57:13 must be preserved for a reasonable period pursuant to b three sub paragraph one yes and also that the spread of fire and smoke must be delayed for a reasonable period both internally and externally pursue two b2 subpara one

00:57:27 and externally pursue two b2 subpara one b3

00:57:28 b3 sapphires three and four yes b41 yes is it your opinion as a result that that would require the reasonably competent architect to consider the precise

00:57:39 consider the precise build up of the external wall structure and its elements in order to understand whether it as a system could resist the spread of fire for a reasonable period yes now can we

00:57:52 yes now can we go to your supplemental report please p h y s five zeros sorry six zeros twenty four

00:58:03 sorry six zeros twenty four and go to page sixty

00:58:14 hello i want to show you 2.7 section 2.7 and you entitle that as theme f four roots to compliance studio e

00:58:25 four roots to compliance studio e opening statement paragraph nine at sec and you start by saying that you agree with studio e's opening statement that there are four possible routes to demonstrating compliance of a design

00:58:36 demonstrating compliance of a design proposal for a range screen facade in terms of the entire wall construction of which it forms a part with the requirements of the building regulations and then you say as i've already made

00:58:47 and then you say as i've already made clear from the evidence which i've seen there is no indication that any of the alternative avenues to compliance were either explored or pursued by studio e

00:58:57 studio e or the design team now

00:59:03 before june 2017 and specifically i'm really interested in the period 2012 to 2016 were you aware of there being a number of different

00:59:14 of there being a number of different routes to compliance with functional requirement b4 of the building regulations

00:59:21 and no you weren't yeah

00:59:27 so just to be to be clear you weren't aware that there were there was a linear route

00:59:32 route or the eight four one four route or yes the question was about four i i knew that one had to either design to comply with adb with the approved

00:59:46 to comply with adb with the approved document

00:59:47 document or one uh could find alternative uh methods and take guidance on them

00:59:53 on them but i wasn't aware of this specific nature of each of those different routes would you expect a reasonably competent architect either to have

01:00:04 architect either to have a level of familiarity when confronted with an overcladding structure or to obtain

01:00:10 obtain such familiarity during their initial research on being appointed to such a project

01:00:13 project i'd expect them to obtain well i wouldn't expect them necessarily to have that knowledge but i'd expect them to obtain it as they be began to prepare

01:00:24 obtain it as they be began to prepare their work very briefly i think you agree that approved document b requires section b4 um under paragraph 12.5 or section 12.5 that external rules

01:00:36 or section 12.5 that external rules should either meet the guidance given in section b4 paragraphs 12.6 to 12.9

01:00:42 12.9 on the one hand yes one root or alternatively meet the performance criteria

01:00:47 criteria set out in br 135 using data from a full-scale test a full-scale test under bsa414 yes

01:01:01 and do i take it that as at 2012 to 2016 did you know the existence of br 135 or heard reference to full-scale bsa414 i

01:01:12 heard reference to full-scale bsa414 i knew about full-scale uh testing i didn't i wouldn't have been able to rehearse um the exact

01:01:19 the exact uh standards i would have had to either take advice or look at the documentation yes but i knew i knew the process yes and again are these things which you would um expect a reasonably competent architect

01:01:31 expect a reasonably competent architect to become familiar with at the start of the project yes the way we work um is to do is to develop a design work with a an array of issues that we're

01:01:44 with a an array of issues that we're going to need to investigate and understand at the uh as the work proceeds and so um that would be a routine part of the work

01:01:55 of the work right yes thank you now um can i show you technical guidance note 18 issued by the bca in june 2014 as issue naught which is

01:02:09 cel401284 please

01:02:17 now i i think i could probably take this uh quite quickly um because uh uh if you go to page two

01:02:29 uh uh if you go to page two this is a document that we've seen in the record a number of times now with some of the factual witnesses if you go to page two you can see at the top of the page it says that the bc where a building

01:02:40 it says that the bc where a building exceeds 18 meters in height the bca recommends three options for showing compliance with paragraph 12.7 of adb2 and then there are three options

01:02:51 of adb2 and then there are three options there set out option one is the use of materials of limited combustibility option two and i'm summarizing it is a full-scale test to satisfy the

01:03:02 a full-scale test to satisfy the criteria in br135 and then option three is a desktop study report from a suitable independent ucas accredited testing body for example the bre

01:03:14 bre now um you could see that um those are the three options there uh were you familiar uh with

01:03:25 uh were you familiar uh with this document when it was published in june 2014

01:03:29 june 2014 no no and what about its successor issued

01:03:33 issued issue one issued a year later in june 2015.

01:03:37 2015. were you aware that in june 2015 a fourth option was presented namely a preparation of a holistic fire engineering report as another route to compliance not at the time i've become aware through

01:03:48 the time i've become aware through researching for this um report but not at the time right but again looking at those options whether it's

01:03:54 it's uh three options as at june 2014 or four options as of june 2015 would you expect a reasonably competent architect to become familiar with these

01:04:06 architect to become familiar with these when presented with an overcladding project

01:04:11 i i would uh ex expect an architect to start by looking at um adb2 and deciding whether there

01:04:22 at um adb2 and deciding whether there was any reason to go outside adb-2 yeah do do you i could put this to you adb2 in fact also includes uh although not within section 12 i think the the what became the fourth option in

01:04:34 the the what became the fourth option in june 2015 namely the um holistic fire engineering approach it was already in the building regulations so it wasn't a new thing in june 2015. yes i've learned that during the course

01:04:46 yes i've learned that during the course of this research right

01:04:50 can we look at paragraph 4.4.8 please of your report at p-h-y-r 5-0 is 29. may i make one further point yes um the option here that talks about

01:05:03 yes um the option here that talks about a full-scale test that kind of work is pretty complicated to set up it's time consuming

01:05:12 consuming and it's expensive i wouldn't expect a project like this to normally introduce

01:05:20 introduce that as an option an architect wouldn't routinely say oh we'd like to set up a full-scale test the such testing has to be very exact the entire wall has to be assembled et cetera et cetera

01:05:31 cetera et cetera there would it would be very strange to go off in that route unless there was a a an imperative for doing so the the normal route would be to take the adb2

01:05:42 the adb2 by which you mean linear i think people have called it linear rate correct and just to be clear for everyone watching that does that mean simply the selection of materials which were either

01:05:53 materials which were either non-combustible or genuinely of limited combustibility correct

01:06:00 uh uh and um so far as the exterior wall is concerned genuinely compliant with the fire classifications

01:06:12 with the fire classifications correct um can i ask you then to look with me at um where we were going which is your report at phyr5029 please at page 104

01:06:27 and i'd like to go to paragraph 4.4.78 there in the middle of the page you say i wouldn't expect an architect a specialist cladding contractor or a rain screen contractor be to be aware of the

01:06:38 screen contractor be to be aware of the advices and circulars as issued by the bca but i would certainly expect a building control department either through direct membership of the bca or indirectly through their membership of the labc

01:06:49 membership of the labc to be properly informed of such advice now i'll show you that can i also show you your report at another part phyr5028 page four please

01:07:04 and paragraph 3.1.8 there you say in the middle of the page either show and describe through a combination of diagrams and specification notes an outline of some of the key features of such an overclouding system

01:07:15 of such an overclouding system sorry overclocking scheme these would form the basis for routine discussions with manufacturers suppliers and the building regulations officers in preparing a scheme that would satisfy the requirements of the building regulations and be compliant with the

01:07:27 regulations and be compliant with the guidance in the approved documents it is important to note that this kind of work cannot be fully developed without such discussions which as i will show in section four were not conducted with appropriate effect now um just to be clear by building

01:07:40 now um just to be clear by building regulations offices do you mean building control

01:07:43 control yes building bcos building control offices yes is it your opinion that an architect a reasonably prudent architect would normally

01:07:50 normally involve the building control body in preparing their initial scheme design uh this is um uh pretended pre-employees

01:08:01 uh this is um uh pretended pre-employees requirements um yes uh depends on the complexity and size of the job of course and how familiar the architect is with that particular type of work

01:08:13 that particular type of work but in the circumstances here uh pretty big and complex job and studio's experience in this territory i would certainly expect them to engage with the building regulations

01:08:25 building regulations department uh can we be a bit more precise at what stage you would expect them to do that was it before they put pen to paper or after they developed their schemes

01:08:36 after they developed their schemes building control departments are terribly busy and getting access to them can be difficult at times um so the architect i think has a professional duty to get him or herself

01:08:49 professional duty to get him or herself sorted out um and carry out a code review understand the um

01:08:55 um basic issues that are going to have to be dealt with and develop the in principle proposition then set up meet a meeting or meetings

01:09:06 set up meet a meeting or meetings in order to establish that uh there's general acceptance to that and with that meeting there may be some specific questions as well right so i do i take it from that answer that

01:09:17 that a reasonably competent architect would use

01:09:20 use building control as a check to make sure that the design that the architect had prepared thus far was compliant or rather would

01:09:31 was compliant or rather would would yes was compliant with the building regulations i i don't like the word check there no would you i agree with you um it wasn't perhaps sorry i meant no disrespect by that but

01:09:43 sorry i meant no disrespect by that but no but i but i want to know what your very opinion is what would be the purpose of an architect

01:09:49 architect going to building control with a drawing

01:09:56 with design build work in particular where the

01:10:00 where the building regulations application is usually i think um by far the majority of cases issued by the builder after

01:10:13 issued by the builder after um the builder has been appointed it's very important to ensure that the principles of the design

01:10:21 design have been properly sorted and many builders would wish to see some kind of comfort that dialogue had taken place and principles had been agreed

01:10:33 principles had been agreed sometimes local authority of control department are willing to issue what's called a letter of comfort other times the architect will rely on

01:10:44 other times the architect will rely on notes that they took at those meetings but i think short being comfortable that the principles are

01:10:51 are correct and have been properly interpreted you used were checking i don't like checking because it's it suggests transferring responsibility but being comfortable being assured

01:11:03 being assured as far as reasonably possible that that i think is uh is good um just to get back sorry there may be some issues which in i beg your pardon there may be issues that

01:11:14 may be issues that uh require interpretation there are options you can read the regula you can read the guidance not the regulations the regulations are clear but you can read the guidance and interpreted it might mean

01:11:27 and interpreted it might mean this or that i could put i'll use an example a cavity barrier in a variety of positions around the column i'd just like to discuss that and those sort of issues might be

01:11:38 might be issues that one seeks guidance from the um

01:11:41 um building control department on right do i take it from that and forgive me if this is a

01:11:48 this is a uh this this is reaching into the dark a little bit but do i take it from that that

01:11:53 that the building that the approved documents such as approved document b are so susceptible of different views about what they mean that it would be normal for an architect

01:12:04 normal for an architect to consult a building control officer as a as it were an expert on how to interpret the building regulations well so susceptible suggests a general

01:12:15 well so susceptible suggests a general weakness i think my experience is that they provide a pretty good guide but nevertheless there is still

01:12:21 is still areas that one might wish to double check and there may be one of the i was going to use the word safe i don't like the word safe but an example would

01:12:32 like the word safe but an example would be the cavity barrier over the top of the window the windows on this building the top frame of the window actually abutted

01:12:41 abutted the uh concrete soffit of the concrete slab some windows are set 300 millimeters down from a concrete slab there is a requirement

01:12:53 a concrete slab there is a requirement that there is a cavity barrier to the top of the window there is also a requirement there is a cavity barrier to um at the point of the compartmentation

01:13:04 compartmentation those two that would suggest that it's two cavity barriers it may be that the design could um double up for one of a better term could

01:13:15 double up for one of a better term could use one single arrangement to meet both of those requirements that might be an issue for discussion with the fire consultant and with the building regulations department i see um in the process of these

01:13:27 i see um in the process of these discussions uh would you expect that an architect might become aware of building control alliance guidance such as technical guidance note 18

01:13:42 might do but i i don't think there's any uh i i have no sense that an arctic should discover that

01:13:51 miss men's is in her report and i'll just give the reference it's paragraph 172

01:13:56 172 at bmer 604 page 45 is of the opinion that a local authority building control is not required to adhere to the guidance issued by bodies such as the labc

01:14:08 such as the labc or the bca and she confirmed that view in her oral evidence at day 29 page 78 line five that's her opinion

01:14:16 opinion um you um you you you say in your report here

01:14:21 here uh that uh um that uh you would have expected a building control department to have been informed

01:14:32 control department to have been informed of the bca advice um is that right does does her well let me put it differently does her opinion that she's expressed both in her report and already change your view in any way

01:14:45 change your view in any way no i think a building i'm not a building control officer but i think a building control department should be aware such information

01:14:57 should be aware such information um i don't think they necessarily have to be directed by that information it depend on the issue but i think that they should be aware of it it's very important to stay

01:15:08 it it's very important to stay up to date as far as possible organizations like the bca are mopping up for one of a better term

01:15:17 term all sorts of information from a variety of sources like the riba for us and feeding through information to those in the field who are working and it's very useful to get that kind of guidance

01:15:28 that kind of guidance why would one not want it yes thank you very much

01:15:32 very much mr chairman we are sort of mid-topic really and there's no there's no reasonable prospect of finishing it before the coffee break should we give in then and have a break now i think it would be sensible thank you

01:15:43 you right thank you um we'll again have a short break in the morning now uh we'll come back at 25 to 12 please and again while you're out of the room please don't talk to anyone about your

01:15:55 please don't talk to anyone about your ever i will not all right thank you very much

01:16:09 25 to 12 please

01:35:17 yes would you ask mr hyatt to come back in please

01:35:35 all right there's tired ready yes mr hi i'm afraid we were mid-topic when we broke but we can get back to it can we look at the transcript for day nine please

01:35:44 please page nine i want to show you something that mr crawford said in his evidence to the inquiry day nine page nine line eight and he says here i would say

01:35:55 says here i would say the way that as an architect you use building regulations is much in the same way

01:35:59 way you use an encyclopedia i.e you don't read it from front to back you look at the documents as they become relevant so for example 2014 i had done dozens of projects so in each project you would

01:36:10 projects so in each project you would look at the regulations that were relevant to that pertinent to that project or pertinent to what you were doing on that project so part b i was familiar with because i'd worked on projects where clearly that was a large part of the building

01:36:21 that was a large part of the building and the fire strategy is fundamental in any project do you agree first of all that a fire strategy

01:36:28 strategy is fundamental in any project

01:36:33 uh yes yes do you think that a reasonably competent architect would be familiar or become familiar in broad terms on a project with the b3

01:36:45 in broad terms on a project with the b3 and b4

01:36:45 and b4 requirements of the building regulations

01:36:51 on a building project with this type yes yes yes

01:37:00 and and do you agree with mr crawford's characterization of the use of the building regulations in the same way as one might use an encyclopedia i'd like to qualify my answer in that respect

01:37:13 yes word encyclopedia is an interesting one but

01:37:17 one but yes it's a reference document that you use and you work with as you develop your design however i think it's very good at some point in an architect's career

01:37:29 at some point in an architect's career for them to have actually been completely through the building regulations and in this case they since they developed i didn't have them when i trained but the um uh approved documents so that one has

01:37:40 uh approved documents so that one has got a general familiarity with the whole lot

01:37:43 lot that wouldn't lead to being competent to remember it all you'd have to work the document thereafter as a in that way described as a sort of encyclopedia but you need a general understanding of

01:37:54 but you need a general understanding of what's there and what you're expected to deal with

01:37:57 deal with now just following up on that you say you think it's a very good at some point in an architect's career for them to have actually been completely through the building regulations

01:38:09 regulations in an architect's training as it stood um

01:38:13 um in the years up to perhaps including 2012

01:38:17 2012 2013 2014 particularly what point in an architect's career would

01:38:25 would the need or opportunity to go through the build building regulations as a single corpus arise in preparation for part three examination right

01:38:38 is that the only one

01:38:42 to go through the whole lot in that way yes and that the way uh i i did it was it took the form of a structured course as part of part three

01:38:53 structured course as part of part three and we were um introduced to various aspects yes so that's the longer answer the short one is that would be the point right i see that and if you hadn't done part three then you'd never get the

01:39:04 part three then you'd never get the holistic

01:39:06 holistic overview of the entirety of the approved documents

01:39:11 documents it's certainly very much less likely it's a very convenient way of doing it yes indeed can i then ask you to go to phys

01:39:19 phys 505 please your supplemental report at page 19

01:39:25 page 19 phys 505 for page 19 and let's look together please to paragraph 3.3.4.3 and you're they're dealing with submissions made by x over

01:39:37 submissions made by x over and i just want to look at b you say i agree b that to the extent sorry that the extent to which a specialist fire consultant input is needed in such situations would

01:39:49 input is needed in such situations would depend on the route to compliance that is adopted and then you go on in the next paragraph 3.3.4.4 to say the corollary of this is also true that is that a specialist

01:40:01 is also true that is that a specialist fire engineer should not normally be required to assist an architect in interpreting and applying

01:40:06 applying the guidance of adb-2 with respect to specifying the materials within and designing the arrangements for an external wall or an over-cladding system as applied to an external wall

01:40:17 as applied to an external wall on those two passages let me just ask you a number of questions first is it your opinion that a reasonably competent architect is expected to be capable of interpreting and applying the

01:40:28 of interpreting and applying the guidance in adb as far as it relates to an over cladding system yes

01:40:41 and you don't say i don't i think tell me if i'm wrong you don't mean to say that when the linear route is adopted in other words compliance with each of paragraphs 12.6 to 12.9 of approved document b

01:40:54 to 12.9 of approved document b a fire engineer if appointed or consulted in any other way is relieved from any obligations to provide advice and guidance on the linear route absolutely not if they're appointed they're appointed

01:41:05 appointed they're appointed would you agree that the external flame spread rating of a product may need to be verified by a fire engineer

01:41:16 but that's the the information as given in an employer's sorry in a in a manufacturer's documentation or a certificate

01:41:29 um well that's forgive me but verified by suggested there would be some kind of a re-testing of that um

01:41:40 some kind of a re-testing of that um should i interpret that to be um that the

01:41:44 the fire consultant would explain that uh part of it or you actually asked me whether they would re re-test it in any way i'm sure you're not well there may be a debate about what verification

01:41:55 verification it should involve but from an architect's point of view where an architect did consult a specialist fire consultant would the reasonably competent architect let me ask it openly what would a

01:42:07 let me ask it openly what would a reasonably competent architect expect the reasonably competent specialist fire consultant to do by way of satisfying themselves that a particular product

01:42:18 particular product had the relevant external flame spread rating

01:42:25 i would expect the specialist fire consultant to examine the certificate provided bba in this instance and to ensure

01:42:39 and to ensure that that was clear and compliant with adb2 yes and do you you think that a reasonably competent architect might be expected

01:42:52 competent architect might be expected to seek advice from a specialist fire engineer

01:42:55 engineer if they were uncertain as to whether a particular product was of limited if they're uncertain they must obtain certainty from somewhere and that would be the place to go thank you

01:43:14 uh in these paragraphs of your report do you mean to say that the specialist fire engineer in this case x over

01:43:25 over had no obligation to carry out compliance checks on stage reports or other design material produced by studio e pre-tender in order to satisfy itself that the guidance in adb

01:43:37 that the guidance in adb had been adhered to

01:43:40 well that suggested i've said that i certainly wouldn't i wish that to be the interpretation no thank you

01:43:47 thank you that clarifies that now in your report i think it's right that you consider only the first route to compliance with the building regulations which people in this inquiry have called the linear route yes is that right

01:43:58 route yes is that right yes that is correct and i think you've measured studio e's professional standards only against that route to compliance and no others that's correct yes and why is that can you just explain

01:44:09 you just explain two reasons in the absence of any stated alternative route that is the default position

01:44:18 secondly um i remember that in their own technical review of their work

01:44:26 work they stated that um compliance had been um

01:44:34 been um achieved i believe that's correct just on the first of those answers you say in the absence of any stated alternative stated where well the with a submission to a building based

01:44:45 to a building based uh department it's the architect would set

01:44:48 set or the the the documentation would set out the the way in which the um the design had been developed i see i see so you say that where they hadn't said that they pursued

01:45:00 said that they pursued for example an eight four one four full scale test the default is that they would have pursued or yes and taken to pursue the linear route and before the break i i said that it would be unusual for

01:45:12 i said that it would be unusual for example to undertake um a full test so these uh such a route would have to be made clear yes i see

01:45:20 yes i see now um you've heard evidence from a number of witnesses perhaps saying that the building regulations and the associated guidance are not fit for purpose

01:45:32 and that's a general view just in general terms do you agree with it

01:45:39 well there's two different

01:45:42 issues there the building regulations and then the approved documents if we restrict the building regulations conversation to the issue of overclouding and fire i think they are abundantly clear um

01:45:55 i think they are abundantly clear um and there and i i think uh as far as they go they are fit for purpose the adb

01:46:03 the adb documentation is much abdb2 documentation is a much more substantial document and it's pretty complex and we've seen

01:46:15 it's pretty complex and we've seen um dame judith's report on on this i think there there is more difficulty with that document regardless of the degree of complexity

01:46:26 the degree of complexity comprehensibility of adb on which i suppose opinions may reasonably differ is it your opinion that studio e may studio e failed to follow adb or any

01:46:38 studio e failed to follow adb or any other recognized route to compliance yes and did that failure fall below the standard of the relatively competent architecture so i anticipated the conclusion that but yes yes thank you do you think that

01:46:52 yes thank you do you think that the decision as to which route to compliance with functional requirement b4 of the building regulations that the design should take is a decision for the architect

01:47:08 the architect not not solely but the architecture was lead consultant and would have to garner opinion from anywhere that it might be relevant but then ensure that a

01:47:19 but then ensure that a strategy was adopted and clearly understood yes perhaps by the word decision i mean ultimate decision

01:47:27 i think so yes

01:47:34 and what would your view be in respect of the proposal to overcloud grenfell tower specifically

01:47:42 was studioe the ultimate decision maker in respect of what route compliance should be taken yes they were driving the process yes and in your opinion should that decision reasonably have been taken on the basis

01:47:53 reasonably have been taken on the basis of a consultation with a fire safety engineer

01:47:56 engineer given what studio e did and didn't know and what experience they did and didn't have

01:48:04 have yes it follows from answers that i've given earlier an architect has to assess their own

01:48:08 their own uh ability experience and competence and in circumstances where they hadn't done a building of this type um then i think that they should

01:48:19 um then i think that they should uh ensure that they're receiving that advice from somewhere in this instance we the uh fire engineers were appointed so it would follow logically from that

01:48:31 so it would follow logically from that that they should ensure that they have got the advice that they need to do their work properly and to assure them that they're doing their work properly um they should receive that advice some confirmation from the fire consultant

01:48:43 confirmation from the fire consultant and would you expect the reasonably competent architect to have reached the decision about which route to compliance with the functional requirement in b4

01:48:57 with the functional requirement in b4 before the tender process yes yes does that tell us that the reasonably competent architect wouldn't be relying on the input of a specialist subcontractor

01:49:08 input of a specialist subcontractor specialist cladding subcontractor to make a decision oh no absolutely no absolutely not no now

01:49:19 no now forgive me for this question but were you aware

01:49:22 you aware as at 2012 to 16 that there was a distinction between non-combustible materials materials of limited combustibility and combustible materials yes

01:49:34 and i've i've used the what years 2012 to 2016. i think there are others who want me to ask that question on the basis

01:49:40 basis of the period prior to june 2017 as well yes the answer must be yes

01:49:48 and in in practice how would the reasonably competent architect go about discovering whether for the purposes of the linear route to compliance that he had selected a material was of

01:50:00 he had selected a material was of limited combustibility within the meaning of adb and specifically paragraph 12.7 um i think broad descriptions of

01:50:13 i think broad descriptions of materials may be contained in adb but um essentially it's going to be certificates provided by manufacturers of their product

01:50:27 and we'll come back to that in some detail um

01:50:31 detail um but you say certificates um can we then just turn to uh adb itself clg please five zeroes one seven three and i'd like to go to

01:50:42 to go to page 95. sorry i i apologize there um the word certificates is uh is resting heavily

01:50:50 heavily on my mind manufacturers literature and information um would be certainly the first guide in some areas may well call for those four

01:51:01 may well call for those four certificates to support that literature would it be your experience that manufacturers would use the certificates as part of their yes yes yes can we can we then look at what is

01:51:13 yes can we can we then look at what is in front of us which is paragraph 12.5 of adb

01:51:17 of adb and that says the external envelope of a building should not provide a medium for fire spread if it is likely to be a risk to health or safety the use of combustible materials

01:51:27 materials in the cladding system and extensive cavities may present such a risk in tall buildings

01:51:32 buildings yes do you agree that that provided a clear warning to the reader against the use of combustible materials in the cladding system yes and was there anything unclear to the architectural profession so far as you

01:51:43 architectural profession so far as you know about what that was saying no it's perfectly clear to me do you accept or agree that a reasonably competent architect should take into consideration that warning in respect of combustible materials when

01:51:55 respect of combustible materials when considering the specifications of such materials in an external wall structure no doubt whatsoever and uh again the overall functions or functional requirements of adequately

01:52:07 or functional requirements of adequately resisting the spread of fire and whether the use of combustible materials would comply with that objective

01:52:12 objective same question again yes yes and do you consider that whichever route to compliance with the functional requirements of b4 is chosen that a reasonably competent architect ought to have been aware of

01:52:23 architect ought to have been aware of the dangers of using combustible materials

01:52:26 materials within an overclouding structure yes and and does it follow from that that you're you are of the opinion that studio we ought to have sought assurances from a fire safety engineer

01:52:37 assurances from a fire safety engineer if they couldn't get there themselves as to the safety of these materials when used as part of the system as a whole um there's an awful lot of materials and

01:52:48 there's an awful lot of materials and components go into that wall but um the broad answer that is yes yes can we turn to sea 50169 please

01:52:59 can we turn to sea 50169 please this is studio e's nbs specification now the one i'm going to show you is actually dated the 30th of january 2014. in fact the version went to

01:53:13 in fact the version went to tenderers is dated the 28th of november 2014 but there's nothing that is materially different about this document

01:53:21 document this is just the final version of it and my first question is have you yourself ever compiled a specification using the nbs software similar to that used by studio aoe when they came to

01:53:33 used by studio aoe when they came to compile this document no i haven't myself earlier on i've used predecessors to that and hand written and drawn together specifications that was early in my career but

01:53:45 was early in my career but no i haven't right so you've done you've done a specification but not on the nbs software uh no i've i've certainly written some substantial specifications right

01:53:56 specifications right um what we'll leave a scientist when we use ink and a pen

01:54:00 leave aside the software point um just in principle do you accept that a specifier using the nbs

01:54:07 nbs system whether it's software or hardware has basically got three options um either to compile a performance specification a prescriptive specification or a proprietary specification yes

01:54:18 proprietary specification yes yes and each of those breaking them down a performance specification am i right is is is one where the desired outcome of the material is specified correct and a prescriptive specification is one which provides the

01:54:30 specification is one which provides the full details of the product type the material the workmanship but doesn't specify the particular product to be used correct and a proprietary specification the third of

01:54:41 proprietary specification the third of these

01:54:42 these is one which actually names the specific product to be used in order to achieve a particular outcome whether it's that's my understanding yeah yeah aesthetic or functional outcome

01:54:53 functional outcome and is it right that in your experience a specification may well combine a number of these different approaches yeah

01:55:02 um familiar i'm assuming with the mbs specifications yes yes do you agree that as regards the external facade of grenfell tower which is part

01:55:12 is part h92 the rain screen within this nbs specification studio is specification adopted for the most part a proprietary approach

01:55:24 yes i think that's correct yes and that that's just to be clear for those listening that is because it named specific products yes and it also said

01:55:35 yes and it also said that studio e had latitude or were giving

01:55:39 giving latitude to tenderers to choose a similar or equal product yes and that's a a a core sort of cultural issue of design and build um

01:55:51 cultural issue of design and build um do you say it's a sort of cultural issue of design and build can you just explain what you mean by that well the the the general idea is that contractors should be free to find equal and alternatives to ensure

01:56:03 find equal and alternatives to ensure that they've got the most usually the most economic solution contractors frequently have their own supply chains

01:56:14 their own supply chains they're buying in bulk across many many contracts

01:56:18 contracts and they can use that muscle to drive prices down in favor of their particular company so they may well have preferential routes um

01:56:29 routes um to satisfying a specification which would lead them to seek to use alternative equivalence yeah you say equal

01:56:40 yeah you say equal and alternatives in that answer but also alternative equivalence i i i want to get a better feel for what exactly you mean by equal or equivalent

01:56:52 exactly you mean by equal or equivalent do you mean that the freedom given to a contractor um is an economic one but it it doesn't extend

01:57:00 extend uh to changing the functional for functionality uh or performance of the primary choice not without agreement right so within

01:57:11 not without agreement right so within equal

01:57:12 equal or similar or equal is it your opinion that that expression used in the industry

01:57:17 industry denotes a different material but of the same performance and the same performance quality

01:57:28 and the same performance quality it might do i'm thinking more frequently of a different product but a different manufacturer but achieving the same but it might be a different

01:57:36 different it might be a completely alternative material

01:57:40 material but achieving similar or equal what um outcomes in terms of a range of things the um the

01:57:52 of a range of things the um the function a good example i think might be the zinc versus acm an appearance which is acceptable

01:58:04 acm an appearance which is acceptable that might relate to panel sizes joint sizes etc

01:58:08 sizes etc um and a visual experience that is is satisfactory but also a performance in terms of you know the effectiveness of keeping without durability a range of issues

01:58:19 without durability a range of issues fire safety oh yes of course yeah yes you say yes of course as if it was a given well it's given

01:58:24 given on ev everything that we do yes right so similar or equal you interpret as similar or equal in terms of fire performance as well as aesthetic appearances it would have to

01:58:35 aesthetic appearances it would have to comply with the basic requirements that have been set out yes now am i right also that the starting point in a tender is the product actually contained in the specification

01:58:46 contained in the specification as the primary choice yes you start that's your linchpin yes yes am i right in thinking that studio e could as an alternative approach have specified a set of operational requirements and

01:58:58 a set of operational requirements and then leave it to the tenderers to identify the materials that they would use in order to satisfy those

01:59:06 and could a performance specification requiring fire safety compliance with fire safety requirements in the building regulations have been drafted as a means by which to achieve greater input from the design

01:59:18 achieve greater input from the design and build contractor um in ensuring that the fire safety of whatever products we use was achieved yes yes was it unreasonable for studio e not to have taken that approach well

01:59:30 not to have taken that approach well they've got other issues to think about this planning consideration the building has to

01:59:38 has to achieve a

01:59:41 achieve a approval under planning and the planners are going to be very concerned about the appearance of material and so it's it's not an unusual in fact it's

01:59:53 it's it's not an unusual in fact it's very sensible to get as many of those sort of issues dealt with as soon as possible time is always the killer here you need to nail the design principles as early as possible so i

02:00:04 principles as early as possible so i would suggest that it would be better to be as prescriptive as possible as early as possible

02:00:12 possible i see just following on from that do you agree that under a design and build procurement method as we have here in the case of grenfell tower if the architect uses a specification

02:00:24 if the architect uses a specification which specifies the precise products to be used

02:00:26 be used so proprietary rather than specifying the desired outcome by reference to performance criteria

02:00:33 criteria the architecture seems responsibility for making sure that the products are yes in their contemplated use compliant

02:00:40 compliant with the building unless they've stated otherwise yes compliant with the building right yes yes and if studio e didn't seek to satisfy itself that the materials being specified even

02:00:52 that the materials being specified even as alternatives complied with the building regulations then they fell below the standards of the reasonably competent architect yes

02:01:03 can we look at paragraph um 2.10.24 of your report that's at p-h-y-r-5027 please

02:01:12 please at page 53

02:01:21 and this is under the heading some pros and cons

02:01:24 and cons in relation to design and build and at paragraph

02:01:28 paragraph 2.10.24 the second paragraph down you say the second issue relates to process under traditional procurement the architect has a far greater control for selecting and specifying the

02:01:39 control for selecting and specifying the building materials and components under design and build the architect usually shows indicative arrangements which may frequently be less developed at the tender stage he may frequently be asked to obtain

02:01:50 he may frequently be asked to obtain tenders on a variety of options for example cladding as occurred at grenfell tower indeed after appointment indeed even after appointment the successful builder may introduce major changes to the specification during design

02:02:02 to the specification during design development and value engineering is what you're saying here just to be clear a generic feature of design and build contracts

02:02:14 yes do you is it your opinion that whatever major changes uh are made to the specification by the contractor during design development and perhaps value

02:02:26 design development and perhaps value engineering a reasonably competent architect would regard his responsibility as confirming compliance of the materials

02:02:34 materials which which are specified with the building regulations yes i'm afraid this answer will be a little longer if you'll permit me but um it of course depends on the point at

02:02:45 it of course depends on the point at which the project is put out to tender it depends on whether the architect is innovated

02:02:51 innovated and transfers responsibility it effectively is retained but essentially the answer is yes yes

02:03:05 so unless he's specifically instructed you say that the architect an architect's obligation to confirm compliance of the material specified with the building regulations remains undiminished if the architect is

02:03:17 undiminished if the architect is retained that is correct yes uh could we look at ryd three zeros nine four three five seven please

02:03:28 nine four three five seven please um this is the design and bill contract and it's the first page dated the 30th of october 2014 and 14. this is the executed version of the contract between the tmo and ryden

02:03:43 contract between the tmo and ryden and if we go to page 87 of that document it's actually a pack of contract documents we can see under project particulars a10

02:03:55 design that it stated that all design work completed to date riba stage e you see that this is um the penultimate entry down design colon all design work completed

02:04:06 design colon all design work completed to date

02:04:07 to date rib stage e so it's a it's the it's actually the it's the pre-pen ultimate consultants innovation that's the one isn't it just above that design oh i see sorry i beg your button

02:04:22 it says design all work completed today our iba stage e i'm just reading it yes is included with this tender document yeah my question is does that include technical design

02:04:33 technical design well there is technical design within stages so um as far as it had gone uh or should have gone into stage e and also as far as it actually had gone yes yes

02:04:45 yes yes and is it right that regardless of when the contract is put such as this is put out to tender the materials that go into the specification

02:04:56 specification have to be checked for compliance

02:05:01 the architect produces information which in this case artelia draw together and issue and that information has to be checked correctly put it another way would a reasonably

02:05:13 put it another way would a reasonably competent architect uh put um um well do his stage e work without us uh ensuring that the materials or products which are specified

02:05:24 specified up to that point are compliant with the building regulations the the key qualification you've used is up to that point that is correct yes

02:05:35 up to that point that is correct yes up to this point on this project november 2013 which results in this document would you have expected studio e as a reasonably competent architect to have ensured that whatever products were

02:05:46 have ensured that whatever products were specified or stipulated in the nba specification were compliant with the building regulations

02:05:55 yes they should have been compliant from the moment they were first introduced and they should have been checked on the way through yes thank you now if we go to your supplemental report at

02:06:07 supplemental report at phys 602 at page 46 we can see paragraph 2.4.15 i asked you about technical design here

02:06:20 i asked you about technical design here at the top of the page you give some more detail about what that is and you say technical design usually prepared straight provided by consultant design team drawings which give information that is adequate to describe

02:06:32 information that is adequate to describe the elements of construction in sufficient detail to establish fitness for purpose buildability and in principle compliance with building regulations so it looks very much from what you say

02:06:43 so it looks very much from what you say there that that tenderers when they were considering the contract documents would be entitled to expect that compliance of these materials which are specified

02:06:54 specified in the employer's requirements within the building regulations sorry start again they were entitled to expect the

02:07:01 the com that there was compliance of the materials specified with the building regulations and that that had been checked and confirmed correct i think this is one of four bullet points actually this is three or four bullet points i think

02:07:12 three or four bullet points i think there's an earlier one but well let's turn that let's turn the page then back to page the answer is uh correct you are correct yes okay just to give it context so that everybody can see it

02:07:21 see it if we go back to page 45 you can see the first of the bullet points yes that's right uh sorry it helps me orientate myself oh absolutely and you you are here um examining technical design stage e

02:07:35 uh and you are explaining what is uh involved in that stage yes correct okay but i think the answer is is yes

02:07:46 is is yes um would it have been and we had touched on this earlier just to confirm it when we're looking at this would it have been usual for the tender documentation to have been discussed with building control before it was issued to the potential

02:07:57 before it was issued to the potential tenderers

02:07:59 tenderers not in its entirety but aspects of it i would have expected the design team to have shared with building control

02:08:10 building control both in the form of meetings and in the form of

02:08:14 form of submissions

02:08:18 information sent before the building regulations application is made sent through and comments passed back

02:08:26 back would a design and build contractor be entitled

02:08:30 entitled to proceed on the basis that since an nvs specification like this was part of design that had been taken to at least work stage e

02:08:41 had been taken to at least work stage e that the materials or products specified in it were compliant with the building regulations i i that's a legal point i think let me put it differently then would you would a reasonably competent architect

02:08:52 would a reasonably competent architect anticipate that a design and build contractor would regard themselves as entitled to proceed in that way

02:09:02 yes i would certainly uh do that but i'd like to again qualify that and answer a a in my experience a competent uh design and build company

02:09:13 a competent uh design and build company and i've worked with many um carries out a substantial review

02:09:19 review at the point of accepting the job they've looked at it very carefully through the tenant documents and they've won the jobs so it's sleeves rolled up and let's have a really fair check because guys we're taking this lot on so we need

02:09:31 guys we're taking this lot on so we need to be pretty sure that um anything that's missing is identified and you know let's have a good check on what we got and following on from that

02:09:42 from that would it would it be your view that since the design and build are taking this lot on as you put it so no that's fine because it's clear but would it be your view that the

02:09:53 but would it be your view that the design and builder taking this lot on uh would have a really thorough check themselves that wouldn't absolve the architect from having done

02:10:06 the architect from having done its previous check to satisfy itself that the materials and products it was specifying in the nbs specification were compliant with the building regulations if i may the issue of checking is i'm

02:10:19 if i may the issue of checking is i'm sure going to come up a lot and i think they're checking up on checking with this job and i don't like too much checking what i like is the correct process of analysis at the right time by the right people

02:10:30 right time by the right people the contractor i don't think is uh necessarily competent to carry out the check although some contractors employ their own architects i don't think we should assume that they carry out the check what they should be doing is satisfying

02:10:42 what they should be doing is satisfying themselves that the work has been thoroughly checked and that would take the form of you guys are coming on board as our architects what processes have you been

02:10:53 architects what processes have you been through

02:10:54 through let's have a look at some of the issues that have been developed along the way up to we have the following questions from the point at which we were preparing our tender we bring them all to the table because we won the job here we go

02:11:06 we won the job here we go thank you very much so so the answer to the question is that they the the reasonably competent architect um would expect to be asked by the incoming design and build

02:11:17 asked by the incoming design and build contractor if they were competent uh assuming they were competent uh that that architect had carried out sufficient checks itself to make sure that the materials specified in the specification were compliant with the building regulation

02:11:29 compliant with the building regulation that is correct and it's checking the the the competent architect is doing the work needs to be checking their work at every single stage as they go through thank you can we then look uh on at your supplemental report

02:11:41 supplemental report at page i'm sorry it's behind actually 25

02:11:46 25 go back to page 25 in the same document and i'd like to look at paragraph 2.3.3

02:11:56 we looked at 2.3.2 earlier 2.3.3 you say it is also my opinion that any obligation on the part of the subcontractor to complete the design in

02:12:07 subcontractor to complete the design in accordance with the designated code of practice

02:12:10 practice see 12.14 of the studio is aiming statement does not impose an obligation upon that subcontractor to undertake a checking role or to assume responsibility for any or all past work of the architect further this certainly

02:12:23 of the architect further this certainly does not exonerate the architect for any design failures in its own past work that are not picked up by the subcontractor

02:12:31 and then you also say if we can just look at another part of this report at page 31.

02:12:37 page 31. can we look at paragraph 2.3.25 on that page um you say sixth line down there

02:12:45 there there is no indication whatsoever in this um

02:12:50 this um which is i should tell you age 92 paragraph 210 that's the what you're referring to which you can see above in on the page but you say there is no

02:13:01 but you say there is no indication whatsoever in this that the design and build contractor or its subcontractor respectively ryden or harley had either a responsibility to check the broad assumptions and the principles in

02:13:12 assumptions and the principles in upon which studio's work had been based or that ryden and or harley would be absolving studio of responsibility for the work that it had done in this connection

02:13:24 uh when you say absolve that do you mean assume responsibility in place of studio e correct

02:13:32 e correct right and finally can we look at page 54 in the same document i'm so sorry it's it's a dif it's a different part of your report it's p h y s 605

02:13:46 s 605 at page 54.

02:13:52 it's also your supplemental report because it's a different section of it p h y s six zeros five page 54. let's look at paragraph 6.3.4

02:14:03 let's look at paragraph 6.3.4 you say there after some qualifications these qualifications aside i agree with harley's implied suggestion that paragraph

02:14:10 paragraph 20 that it was entitled to proceed on the basis that when compiling the nbs for the project studio e's work as provided under the employer's requirements was compliant with the requirements of the building

02:14:21 with the requirements of the building regulations and the guidance contained within adb2 now i just want to be clear about what i've just put to you there you're professing no expertise are you

02:14:33 you're professing no expertise are you as a specialist cladding subcontractor no no can you just explain the basis on which you consider that you can express an opinion about what harley d themselves did was reasonable

02:14:44 themselves did was reasonable um well uh having worked um with subcontractors uh a variety of disciplines not because the principles

02:14:55 the principles are in many ways similar not the same across different aspects but here we talked about cladding having worked with subcontractors

02:15:06 subcontractors through main contractors um i've gained an experience of the way um they think and they work and so it's based on that i see so this is your opinion as an

02:15:17 i see so this is your opinion as an experienced and reasonably competent architect about what you in that role would expect harley's as the reasonably competent subcontractor to do yes but

02:15:28 subcontractor to do yes but may i qualify that a little yes i've listened to um i wrote this before i heard evidence and the evidence has come across a long period of time

02:15:40 period of time i don't want to imply this that a subcontractor has no responsibilities for their own work and um

02:15:51 work and um it's important here to remember that harley had offered themselves through their own documentation as experts in over cladding buildings and part of the decision and we heard

02:16:02 and part of the decision and we heard this from the evidence of mr madison i think part of the decision to um select ryden um and free ride and harley's was based on their past experience

02:16:13 experience and i think that can be taken into account by an architect and i don't think a subcontractor can just say well we breezed up and we've got no responsibility even to comment on anything we'll take

02:16:24 even to comment on anything we'll take it all blind you would expect them to have some substantial knowledge which they would inform their work with and they would raise questions if they thought something was fundamentally

02:16:35 thought something was fundamentally wrong

02:16:36 wrong yeah thank you can i then turn to a different topic

02:16:43 which is the acm material i want to ask you some questions about the compliance of and the selection of reynobond pe55

02:16:54 and the selection of reynobond pe55 aluminium composite panels which were the rainscreen material used at grenfell would you expect a reasonably competent architect to be aware

02:17:04 aware first that acm panels were manufactured at the time with different cores a pe core and an fr core no no

02:17:15 core no no is that therefore particular specific knowledge

02:17:20 knowledge that an architect you would expect would obtain as part of their preparation for the initial design of a rain screen cladding system if appointed on a project such as grenfell tower

02:17:31 grenfell tower yes

02:17:35 were you yourself aware during the period 2012 to 16 that acm panels came with a pe uh and an fr core

02:17:43 fr core no

02:17:47 would you expect a reasonably competent architect to be aware that of the fire performance properties of acm

02:17:54 acm panels in general aluminium composite panels in general

02:18:01 um yes yeah yes

02:18:10 yeah yes can we look at your supplemental report please p h y s six zeros two

02:18:17 and i'd like to look at page 52

02:18:21 and let's look together at paragraph 2.5.10 on that page at the top of the page there you say it would have been impracticable impractical and indeed it was not part of my instructions for me to investigate

02:18:33 of my instructions for me to investigate and provide contemporaneous examples of the approach of a reasonable body of the profession for this kind of work as has been suggested at paragraph 8.16 of studio e's opening statement on that

02:18:44 of studio e's opening statement on that basis i simply do not know in any detail what had at the time of the grenfell fire been done elsewhere although i am aware that widespread problems have been reported and suggested a paragraph a 1.4 of the riba expert

02:18:56 paragraph a 1.4 of the riba expert advisory group on fire safety's report 19th of october 2017 submitted to james judith hackett during her review how similar the various pieces of design work relating to any such

02:19:08 work relating to any such problems are to the work that studio e carried out for grenfell tower i cannot know

02:19:13 know as previously stated even if i was to be presented with such a body of evidence for example evidence that many of many other over-cladding products to existing residential tower blocks in the uk revealed widespread and basic failures

02:19:25 revealed widespread and basic failures to meet the requirements of the building regulations such as our evidence within the work of studio e at grenfell tower i would remain equally critical of studio e

02:19:33 studio e [Applause] um now i read that to you in full um there's some questions that follow from that if architects in the uk were routinely specifying acm panels

02:19:45 were routinely specifying acm panels with ape

02:19:46 with ape core prior to june 2017 should this not weigh in your analysis of the steps that a reasonably competent architect ought to take when considering the compliance

02:19:57 the compliance and specification of those products i think so but this paragraph was um intended to comment on the worker's studio area across the

02:20:09 on the worker's studio area across the entire

02:20:10 entire overcladding it wasn't specific to just acm

02:20:15 no i understand that uh uh but so i think the answer is you think so and i appreciate that this paragraph is a more general paragraph than just on the acm but

02:20:26 than just on the acm but specifically in relation to the acm would the with the um the fact that if it were the case architects in the uk were routinely specifying acm

02:20:37 were routinely specifying acm panels with a pe core would that fact not weigh in your analysis of the steps that a reasonably competent architect ought to take when considering whether or not

02:20:46 or not those panels complied yes architects were specifying and yes i agree yeah yes does the routine specification of such products in the industry if that

02:20:58 such products in the industry if that was the case indicate or would it indicate a common industry practice

02:21:06 well acm has been specified extensively it is a commonly used material yes um commonly used um it's not a material

02:21:17 commonly used um it's not a material acm that's why dr lane calls it acp which i agree with it's uh it's aluminium core and aluminium as a composite so it's not

02:21:28 and aluminium as a composite so it's not a material but it's a very commonly used product

02:21:30 product product is the word that absolutely i understand that um just looking at the industry practice if the industry practice was that acp as you would prefer to call it was being

02:21:42 you would prefer to call it was being commonly prescribed would that fact bear on the standard by which a reasonably competent architect should be judged when an architect prescribes it yes

02:21:54 when an architect prescribes it yes yes and how much weight would you think that that should be given when judging uh an architect's performance well i i think we're comfortable to specify

02:22:07 think we're comfortable to specify products which are regularly used and gains the increasing comfort in that way

02:22:15 way but there is still the obligation to check that that product meets the requirements um of adb2 and it's specific within that document as to

02:22:28 it's specific within that document as to what the performance should be so um i think a degree of comfort can be obtained or enjoyed by the arctic but at the end of the day they've got to be satisfied that the particular

02:22:40 satisfied that the particular manufacturing particular product is okay thank you now if we go back to five sea 169 please back to the nbs

02:22:52 five sea 169 please back to the nbs specification i'd like to go with you to page 69

02:22:59 and on this page and this is part of age 92 rain screen cladding halfway down the page under the rubric design straight performance requirements you see it says um

02:23:13 you see it says um uh cwct standard for systemized building envelopes

02:23:16 envelopes you see that there yes um now you'll have heard the evidence of all seen the transcript of the evidence of mr wreck rek yes employee of studio e at the time

02:23:27 rek yes employee of studio e at the time uh and his evidence was that the cwct standard is offered for inclusion into section 892 of an nbs specification and then you change the question mark to a green tick

02:23:38 a green tick if you want to include reference to the specification that's how you go about it and just for our purposes in the transcript that's a day 12 page 37 line 20 onwards

02:23:50 37 line 20 onwards that that was the evidence he gave do you consider in your opinion that studio e should have been familiar with the contents of the cwct standard before it chose to specify that standard

02:24:01 before it chose to specify that standard expressly within the body of age 92 within the specification

02:24:07 somebody in the firm needed to be comfortable they understood that i don't see how an architect can responsibly include

02:24:14 include [Music]

02:24:17 [Music] qualifications or parts of a specification without understanding them

02:24:23 would you say that studio e was under a professional obligation to make sure that

02:24:27 that the products that it was specifying uh whether as the primary product or the similar or equal alternatives fell within

02:24:37 within or and satisfied the cwct standard that the architect was specifying here i think the bottom line is does it um satisfy adb

02:24:48 satisfy adb uh too but um i think that this is a an important document it's um uh by the federation that um uh lead the uh collective

02:25:01 uh lead the uh collective the subcontractors involved in this kind of work and so i i would have thought that uh

02:25:07 that uh it was good guidance to use yes now mr said in his oral evidence and for our reference purposes this is day 7 page 164 line 18 of the transcript

02:25:18 of the transcript that he hadn't read this standard at the time of working on the refurbishment in your opinion did that failure or that non

02:25:25 non happening fall below the standards of a reasonably competent architect well if you'd forgive me i don't want to comment

02:25:34 comment in that respect on mr sones and his particular duties because i'm not clear about that at this point in time but

02:25:41 but the firm of studio e i think should have had a technical competence amongst its team

02:25:52 competence amongst its team to understand this document and somebody in that team should have certainly familiarized themselves with the general principles of it

02:26:00 of it well okay taking mr sainz in particular he hadn't read the standard as he said if nobody else in his team had read the standard would that would that um mean that mr sones had

02:26:11 would that um mean that mr sones had fallen below the standards of the reasonably competent architect team leader leading a team of designers if he's unfortunately if he's a team leader he should have made sure that the work was

02:26:22 should have made sure that the work was properly understood yeah and as a firm we asked that question again if nobody in studio e had read the stand that it was specifying in the nba specification would that failure fall below the standards of a reason

02:26:33 standards of a reason i think so yes yes

02:26:38 and it would follow from that that um that it was not the action of a reasonably competent architect

02:26:47 architect sorry let me start that question again do you accept that studio e fell below the standards of a reasonably competent architect in not ensuring that the product specified complied with the standards expressly

02:26:58 complied with the standards expressly referred to

02:27:04 this question is relating in solely to the acp

02:27:09 the acp to the acp yes just in relation to that and the cwct standard stipulated

02:27:18 well for me the the bottom line is ensuring that the um requirements set out in

02:27:27 out in adb2 are met by the product and i think that that was

02:27:34 a separate and pretty clear

02:27:38 affirmative yes but here we've got a specific reference to cwct standard for systemized building envelopes and if that standard as we'll see in a moment contains

02:27:49 moment contains guidance or illustration advice market information industry information technical information about rain screen cladding then a

02:28:00 rain screen cladding then a reasonably competent architect stipulating this specific standard in its own specification should have read and understood that standard

02:28:11 i i think so i'll no doubt find which particular issue you're going to be questioning me for everyone but yes well is the answer yes first of all yes general terms yes thank you now let's look at the standard cwct

02:28:24 you now let's look at the standard cwct five zero is 46 please five zero is 46 so page 11. i just want to go straight into it um and go to paragraph 6.3 in the second

02:28:35 um and go to paragraph 6.3 in the second paragraph

02:28:36 paragraph from the bottom and it says in italics this is under the heading fire resistance it says aluminium envelope systems do not normally have significant resistance to fire most unmodified aluminium building

02:28:48 most unmodified aluminium building envelopes will provide only 10 to 20 minutes stability and integrity resistance and negative negligible insulation resistance

02:28:58 and then if you go to paragraph 6.2 higher up the page third paragraph down it says the building envelope shall not

02:29:09 it says the building envelope shall not be required to provide fire resistance unless a performance is stated by the specifier you see that yes uh and then the third paragraph down after fourth

02:29:21 third paragraph down after fourth paragraph down the building envelope shall not be composed of materials which readily support combustion add significantly to the fire load and or give off toxic fumes those things

02:29:33 fumes those things that i've shown you those three things on that page things that a reasonably competent architect briefed to design an overcloud of a high-rise building should know well i think they should know them but i

02:29:45 well i think they should know them but i haven't seen anything here that says that an acp product should not be used it's um

02:29:54 it's um the comments are more general i think

02:29:59 i'm not asking you whether the cwct guidance advised not using acp or acm products i'm not suggesting that to you but i'm what

02:30:10 that to you but i'm what all i'm asking you is whether those three items i've selected from this page are things that a reasonably competent architect who is briefed to design an overcloud of a high-rise building all to know

02:30:21 building all to know yes yes

02:30:25 and do you think that that is especially the case in the case of a

02:30:32 of a an architect who actually chooses to stipulate the application of this very standard in his own specification

02:30:46 in his own specification um yes but if i take that that fourth paragraph down the building envelope shall not be composed materials which readily support combustion add significantly to the fire load and

02:30:57 add significantly to the fire load and will give off toxic fumes um well if we look at the profession generally

02:31:03 generally and all of the professions involved i'm talking about facade engineers a range of others

02:31:08 of others in modern buildings of this type and ac macp has been extensively widely used over a long period of time across a wide range of countries

02:31:20 across a wide range of countries and we could say that all of us should have

02:31:24 have been far more focused on this line here so i do not want to suddenly turn on

02:31:30 turn on studio e and say that the weight of that fourth paragraph should rest entirely on their shoulders the industry was generally using those products yes while we've got this open

02:31:43 products yes while we've got this open just um

02:31:44 just um help me in your understanding and i'm only asking you for your understanding of this at the moment does acp readily support combustion

02:31:57 um i did i well at the time i did not do does it readily support combustion is my question no yeah yeah all right um

02:32:11 no yeah yeah all right um i think you might all know the answer to that but i just like to i think it's difficult to get it to burn but once it's burning it burns with ferocity

02:32:21 ferocity and does it add significantly to the fire load

02:32:25 fire load once it's burning yes and um the question which i think you would wish to answer was that something which architects

02:32:36 was that something which architects generally

02:32:37 generally were aware of at the time we i don't think we were

02:32:44 right yes thank you

02:32:50 actually we weren't it's the answer if we weren't there's no think we were not

02:32:57 right thank you does the fact that these four paragraphs as i've shown you within this very specification which

02:33:08 within this very specification which expressly forms part of the nbs specification not have acted or should should they have acted as a prompt or an alarm bell to studio e just to make sure that the building

02:33:19 just to make sure that the building envelope that it was proceeding to design

02:33:24 didn't readily support combustion didn't act significantly to the fire load

02:33:30 load and didn't give off toxic fumes

02:33:38 we're on the entire on overcladding or focus just on this let's focus on the acp i appreciate the point about the building envelope as a whole but just focusing on the acp at the

02:33:49 but just focusing on the acp at the moment

02:33:53 i i think an architect yes that is correct i i think that would make that should make us alert

02:34:03 alert yes thank you

02:34:06 do you agree that an architect specifying a specification for an overcladding facade which included reference

02:34:12 reference to this standard the cwct standard for building envelopes in 2013 should have been aware also of the subsequently published cwct technical

02:34:23 subsequently published cwct technical note

02:34:23 note 73 of march 2011. i say subsequently because this document is an earlier document yes yeah yes can we look at that that's

02:34:34 yes yeah yes can we look at that that's cwct

02:34:36 cwct 5019 please and at page one in the left-hand side on

02:34:47 and at page one in the left-hand side on the left-hand side under the heading introduction and this is the penultimate paragraph it says rain screen walls are additionally required to limit the spread of fire in the rain screen cavity

02:34:59 the rain screen cavity do you think that information or that requirement or that statement of the requirement i should say in addition to that set out in the standard we've just looked at ought to have caused the reasonably competent

02:35:11 have caused the reasonably competent architect to consider whether an fr chord panel would be required

02:35:24 no and the reason for that is that i don't think that um i may be going back on evidence i've just given in which case i apologize but

02:35:35 just given in which case i apologize but the difference between fire retardant and and cause was was not as clearly understood at the time as it should have been and it hasn't been since actually

02:35:47 it hasn't been since actually this is this is going there's going to have to be a root and branch review of all of this across the entire industry and across all of the professions involved um i came across the difference by

02:35:59 um i came across the difference by accident

02:36:01 accident so i suppose you could say that faced with all these documents and weighed into them in the most immense detail

02:36:09 detail maybe it should have become apparent i i learned about it the difference by accident independent

02:36:21 the difference by accident independent actually of this inquiry but by accident

02:36:28 but the the the broader points ranging walls are additionally required to limit the spread of fire invention gravity the principle of that we should all know and understand fully

02:36:39 we should all know and understand fully that that's thank you for that and that then leads me to this would this statement in this document technical nate 73 coming from the cwct sorry cwct

02:36:54 have made the reasonably competent architect think that they needed to look for products which were going into the rain screen walls

02:37:05 screen walls to ensure that whatever was available on the market resisted the spread of fire or limited the spread of fire as much as possible and therefore actually go out actively and look for

02:37:16 go out actively and look for well what was available namely fr products it's not an answer which is particularly helpful but it's a sort of yes and no answer the problem is we don't know what to to look for we're taking so much on trust

02:37:27 look for we're taking so much on trust we've got so much going into a building and it's not particularly to do with limits of time although time is crushingly tight it's to do with not knowing what to look for and

02:37:38 for and i think it's fair to say that the uh the the designing part of our industry i'm i'm making that separation from the manufacturing part so i'll actually

02:37:50 manufacturing part so i'll actually include contractors in this as well none of us had any idea that there were such dangerous components being incorporated into a composite panel would

02:38:02 into a composite panel would the fact that this statement appears in a technical guidance note such as this not have prompted the reasonably competent architect at the very least to spell out in the nba specification

02:38:15 to spell out in the nba specification uh that whatever product was being used or chosen in the end the rain screen walls were required to limit the spread of fire in the rain screen cavity so that the contractor would know that whatever product was ultimately chosen

02:38:27 whatever product was ultimately chosen it would it would comply at least with that i don't think so i think that the the architect would take that and ensure that

02:38:35 that in his her own work they were not reaching that and i think we many of us would have blindly stumbled into the same problem right

02:38:49 and to know what to look for you would have to look at the manufacturer's literature wouldn't you on a case-by-case basis before you put certainly a very good starting point well before you put the material into your mbs specification yes

02:39:00 your mbs specification yes it's it's it's the starting point yes sorry to make repeat the question before you specified the particular products whether it's for the rain screen or the insulation or any other element of the ray of the

02:39:12 other element of the ray of the exterior wall construction you would look at the manufacturer's literature to make sure

02:39:15 make sure as much as possible that it complied with the cwct guidance and this technical node yes sir yes and the and of course the approved documents yes yes yes now you address the fire

02:39:26 yes yes yes now you address the fire classification of the proteus the zinc proteus cladding panels and the three alternatives included as alternatives in the nbs specification in your report

02:39:40 in the nbs specification in your report let's look at that that's p-h-y-r-5029 page 50.

02:39:48 and you um say at paragraph 3 4.3.27 um clause 11 in studio e's full nbs age

02:40:01 um clause 11 in studio e's full nbs age 92 employers requirement document of the 30th of january 2014 which was what we're looking at or we're looking at included a provision for tenderers to provide a cost comparison for alternative cladding systems

02:40:12 alternative cladding systems from the list exhibited belay reyna bond aluca bond zinc i am critical of this listing as it refers in one instance to a product name raino bond in a second to a manufacturer

02:40:23 raino bond in a second to a manufacturer a leuco bond and then the third were material it seems that the references are two and then you set them out alkyl architectural products rayna bond the leukobond spectra vm ink called zinc and you say what

02:40:35 vm ink called zinc and you say what those are

02:40:37 those are um and and then if we go to uh paragraph 4.3.29 on page 53 of this document

02:40:48 on page 53 of this document this report

02:40:52 you have there and i'll just show this to you you have there

02:41:00 um after the extract from the bba certificate for the reyna bond you say uh assessment of paragraph 6.1 a standard

02:41:12 assessment of paragraph 6.1 a standard non-fire retirement sample was certified as compliant with european standard class b is set out in adb 2 diagram 40. then if we look at paragraph 4.3.30 at page 54

02:41:24 you deal with here with the luca bond spectra

02:41:28 spectra and you say that that was tested to class d under en13501 but tested the class naught in the uk just on that as we can see just pausing

02:41:39 just on that as we can see just pausing there

02:41:40 there what does that tell us about the reliability of the stated equivalences between the euro classes and the uk national classes

02:41:51 well i think the euro class is more specific in the way it measures performance than the british one

02:42:02 one how can something be class d euro but class naught uk do you know well uh class naught class o is commonly referred to

02:42:16 naught class o is commonly referred to but class naught as well is a measure of a spread of flame across the surface and the other classifications uh are a measure of the performance in terms of

02:42:28 a measure of the performance in terms of s

02:42:29 s and d being smoke emission and droplets as the material changes form from solid to liquid and it's a measure of the uh

02:42:40 it's a measure of the uh rate of formation of droplets and the rate of formation of smoke now beyond that we're into a science which i don't have the competency very well to deal with but that's the gist of the story

02:42:49 the story are you surprised to see a product uh a leukobond spectra obtaining both an eu class d but at the same time a uk class naught or english class north

02:43:03 a uk class naught or english class north uh i i certainly am now um it begs many many questions about the way we've all been operating at the time uh well you'll no doubt go

02:43:14 at the time uh well you'll no doubt go on to ask me about that yeah so that's the answer all right well that's that's that's helpful can we go to paragraph 4.3.31 please on page 55 where we see the vm sync zinc

02:43:28 and that says that that achieves a b b s one d naught in accordance according to the european fire resistance standard en13501

02:43:39 en13501 and uh and you say underneath that that uh that 4.3.31 assessment this manufacturer's classification confirms compliance with

02:43:50 classification confirms compliance with european standard b class b is set out in adb 2 diagram 40. and then at paragraph 4.3.32 you can see just below that on the page

02:44:02 you can see just below that on the page the

02:44:03 the kme architectural solutions proteus hr which um has class naught as classified by the building regulations and it also says any specified fire

02:44:14 and it also says any specified fire breaks would be installed by a proteus approved contractor a non-standard a2 system is also available

02:44:20 available and you say in your assessment that the manufacturer's classification confirms compliance with adb-2 diagram 40 and the class naught national standard now save for the rainer bond product and

02:44:31 now save for the rainer bond product and are these classifications i've shown you taken from material um which were on the relevant products websites yes yes i think that was a source yeah what steps if any did you take to ensure that the classifications were accurate

02:44:43 the classifications were accurate as at the date of the nbs specification so

02:44:47 so for present purposes you can take november 2013 or january 2014.

02:44:55 um i don't know the answer to that i'm afraid

02:44:58 afraid but did you take any steps to ensure that the classifications were accurate as at the date of the mbs specification yes that particular piece of research was done

02:45:07 was done from somebody in my team i assumed that that would have been um relevant at the time because that's the

02:45:13 the entire base from which we were working across the board but i personally didn't check that very good can we then look at your report at

02:45:23 report at phyr5029 please at page 35. i want to ask you about paragraph 4.2.44 of your report and i'll i'll read this

02:45:34 of your report and i'll i'll read this to you in full because it's technical you see finally i note that paragraph 12.7 of adb2 refers to filler material amongst the components and substances that must be of limited combustibility

02:45:45 combustibility where and when used in the external wall construction poor drafting has this paragraph under the heading external surfaces when it would clearly be better placed under

02:45:56 be better placed under the previous heading of external wall construction that point aside it is my view that the term filler material in this sense relates to a product or material such as mineral wool

02:46:07 material such as mineral wool or pir insulation that is something consisting of the same material or at least largely the same material throughout its makeup i do not think that the authors of adb-2 intended the term filler or filler

02:46:19 intended the term filler or filler material to mean any part of a composite material

02:46:22 material for example aluminium composite panel that is factory manufactured and delivered to site as a finished product rather it is something either solid for example polystyrene granular for example sand or fluid

02:46:35 granular for example sand or fluid for example mastic that is put into squeezed into or poured into a host environment it will be for the inquiry to determine the meaning of filler material in the context of paragraph 12.7 of

02:46:46 in the context of paragraph 12.7 of adb-2

02:46:47 adb-2 but i can i can affirm with confidence that as an architect i would never have interpreted the polyethylene core of an acp panel to be a filler material in the sense of the term as used in adb2

02:46:59 in the sense of the term as used in adb2 that is a material component in its own right

02:47:02 right therefore i would have looked in terms of considering the bba test certificate in relation to the performance of the radio bond acp panel only at the rating given to the product as a whole i would not have made any inquiry of the

02:47:14 i would not have made any inquiry of the elements of the product

02:47:18 now in coming to that opinion did you consider paragraph 13 of appendix a to adb

02:47:27 can you refresh my yes i'm looking at you i thought i probably ought to do that i'd rather regret i wrote such long paragraphs actually but it was very helpful but let's look at it clg 50173 please

02:47:42 page 22.

02:47:51 and uh if we look at uh sorry page 122. sorry page 122.

02:48:02 my fault i'll give you the wrong reference page 122. and if we look there we can see paragraph 13. uh now i'd like to read this to you in full that's slightly shorter than your paragraph um the highest national product performance

02:48:14 the highest national product performance classification for lining materials is class naught this is achieved if a material or the surface of a composite product is either a composed throughout of

02:48:25 is either a composed throughout of materials of limited combustibility or b a class one material which has a fire propagation index i of not more than 12 a sub index little i one of not more

02:48:38 a sub index little i one of not more than six

02:48:39 than six note class naught is not a classification intended in any british standard test

02:48:46 now sorry may i ask could you just um go back to the title of this whole section

02:48:54 section uh yes um it is at uh either page 120 or page 121 and let's start with page 121 see if i'm

02:49:05 and let's start with page 121 see if i'm right about that

02:49:09 uh well the type i am at least to this extent material this is under internal linings

02:49:14 linings yes yes is that what you were after yes yes

02:49:18 yes and what does that tell us um this is a kind

02:49:21 kind this is a good example of the kind of confusion

02:49:25 confusion that can exist that does exist within this

02:49:28 this document adv ii which i would suggest i i don't suggest i'm absolutely clear should be user-friendly and it is not when information which

02:49:39 and it is not when information which may be key is buried in the document under the wrong headings

02:49:47 um now what you've just told us is that a view you've come to during the course of your instruction for this inquiry and writing your reports or is that a view that you held

02:49:59 reports or is that a view that you held in the period 2012 to 2016

02:50:06 i grew up with the london building acts and constructional bylaws and it was a different world of greater precision

02:50:14 precision um i have never been the greatest fan of the absolute document uh um arrangement but having said that

02:50:26 uh um arrangement but having said that my criticism is to the drafting of it as opposed to the principle of the guidance that it gives and i don't think the drafting uh there are many many examples with the

02:50:37 uh there are many many examples with the drafting for good i did have a concern around the the adb documents before but certainly my work on this

02:50:52 for this inquiry has i'm very sorry to say this is it's taken me through this document in the greatest of detail and i have been somewhere between

02:51:06 have been somewhere between disappointed and uh and appalled at times

02:51:10 times by some of the confusions right um let me

02:51:14 me refocus my question a bit more tightly um is the uh view that you expressed uh about a lack of clarity um a specific view

02:51:25 a lack of clarity um a specific view about the lack of clarity about this part paragraph 13 of appendix one of adb no there are other um parts of the document

02:51:37 other um parts of the document okay now um does what i've just shown you paragraph 13 affect your view as expressed about filler in paragraph 4.2.44 of your

02:51:50 about filler in paragraph 4.2.44 of your report that we that i read to you in full

02:51:56 i no i i would not have looked at the filler i would not have sought evidence about the performance of the

02:52:07 evidence about the performance of the filler

02:52:07 filler the polyethylene within the acp panel i would have taken the um the test certification

02:52:18 um the test certification at bold face value test certification for the rain screen yeah for the well i'm thinking of the rainer bond in that respect radio yes indeed

02:52:29 in that respect radio yes indeed and the reason i'm asking you the question about your report from the passage i read you is because of the uh

02:52:36 of the uh sentence in paragraph 13 that says this which is class naught is achieved with a material

02:52:42 material or the surface of a composite product is either

02:52:46 either composed throughout of materials of limited combustibility or a classworm material etc and i i'm just

02:52:53 just asking you whether your view about the polyethylene core not being a filler is affected in any way by class not being achieved by

02:53:06 by class not being achieved by a material being composed throughout the materials of limited combustibility or the surface of a composite product being composed throughout of materials of limited combustibility or

02:53:17 materials of limited combustibility or is there no parallel at all now well then i'm asking if you're understanding your and your clarification of your opinion well now it's it's clear to me that class

02:53:28 now it's it's clear to me that class not and i knew this at the time but i hadn't made i hadn't considered it carefully enough but it's clear to me that class naught is the surface spread of flame i always knew that

02:53:40 flame i always knew that but i had not used that knowledge that i had

02:53:45 had as a basis for me interrogating the matter further and it's very i don't want to defend myself in this respect but i'd like to say when we talk about the rain

02:53:56 rain screen cladding and a thin aluminium aluminium composite panel it's easy to take that as the surface of the wall or the surface of the building i didn't read that to be the aluminium i've got

02:54:09 read that to be the aluminium i've got three parts i've got the aluminium internal part i've got the composite i think that was 0.5 of a millimeter i've got 1.5 maybe it's 2.5 millimeters of polyethylene and i've got an aluminium

02:54:21 polyethylene and i've got an aluminium outer face i considered the whole of that to be the external surface of the wall i didn't consider the outer face of the aluminium

02:54:30 aluminium composite panel to be in its own right and separately the surface of the whole wall and that would lead i would not therefore have interrogated the core of it at all and therefore

02:54:44 the core of it at all and therefore and that takes me to this question what in your opinion is the purpose of the core of the panel it's you said it's not filler in the way of

02:54:52 of understanding for 12.7 uh therefore what was it i know exactly what it was therefore

02:54:56 therefore it's it's the the problem with the metal cladding systems is that they tend to we use the term oil can

02:55:05 can and so when you're looking at a the key with

02:55:09 with hanging a cladding system it's glass or metal is to get it to hang in the single play plane uh if if

02:55:22 plane uh if if if that's done reflections of it should be

02:55:26 be pretty regular if you have panels which are not hung then you don't get that but if you have individual panels which themselves are not stable they they can twist and produce effect

02:55:39 they can twist and produce effect almost like an oil can that can be very very visually distracting distracting unacceptable so the the role of the polyethylene

02:55:51 the role of the polyethylene is to produce stability to the aluminium panel to ensure that it lies in a pr or hangs in a perfectly straight plane that's why it's there right now can we

02:56:04 that's why it's there right now can we uh sorry if the answer was a little longer no that that's uh can we then go back to the heading before we go away from 13a and you've explained how you would have

02:56:15 and you've explained how you would have looked at if an acm panel the distinction between the panel as a whole and the surface of the panel being the aluminium yes it is surely a composite product

02:56:29 yes it is surely a composite product isn't it the acm panel yes and therefore um you would perhaps ask yourself whether it is composed throughout

02:56:40 whether it is composed throughout of materials of limited combustibility i think that i should have

02:56:50 i think all of us who have specified that without doing so can be criticized i wouldn't want to focus undue criticism

02:57:01 i wouldn't want to focus undue criticism on studio in this respect it's a universal problem i think so would your view be that studio e were at fault in not asking themselves that question

02:57:13 asking themselves that question in common with a lot of other oh yeah that that would be the case yes but that not not in isolation thank you

02:57:28 mr chairman that's probably a convenient moment

02:57:32 moment interrupted your question well i had actually well i had a question you've sort of asked it [Laughter] i'm afraid but there's one more question i could fit in i think in the minute before one o'clock

02:57:43 before one o'clock you were interested in the title to this part of um appendix one um or appendix a i should say

02:57:51 say and that was linings if we can go back a page to page one two one

02:57:57 um and that says internal internal linings what's the relevance of that

02:58:04 that uh to paragraph 13 and class naught generally

02:58:10 well um if his internal linings i wouldn't expect to be looking in here in relation to um the external cladding very simple and why would the

02:58:23 cladding very simple and why would the why would class not be relevant to internal linings well again we've got uh problems of fire with partitions um with certain

02:58:34 with partitions um with certain partitions here it's of concern uh to know what the linings

02:58:38 linings how the linings will perform yeah yes yes thank you um i have one can i make one further comment on that the or maybe you're going to take me to diagram um 40 after the break

02:58:52 diagram um 40 after the break may well do okay then i'll yes i'll save it for then all right all right is that a good moment

02:58:59 moment uh it is mr chairman yes thank you thank you well

02:59:02 you well it's time for us all to have some lunch it will break now come back at two o'clock please thank you again no talking about your evidence i will not thank you very much

02:59:21 thank you very much two o'clock please very good thank you

02:59:36 you