Expert architect witness testimony examining professional standards and compliance failures in the Grenfell Tower refurbishment. Detailed cross-examination on BBA certificates, fire safety guidance, material specifications, and the responsibilities of architects in checking product compliance with Building Regulations.
00:00:12 yes would you ask mr hyatt to come back in please
00:00:32 all right mr hyde ready to keep going uh yes
00:00:35 yes actually i think i better just switch my phone off if you'll forgive me sorry that's all right better to switch it off now than yeah be caught out yes i'm fine good to
00:00:46 yeah be caught out yes i'm fine good to go good well done thank you yes mr miller
00:00:49 miller yes uh mr
00:00:52 yes uh mr um mr hi we were on the subject of the cwct standard when we break for lunch and i'm
00:00:57 and i'm going to dive back into that again can we go back to the standard please cwct 5046 please
00:01:06 i'd like to go to page 13. and here it is page 13. if you look please at paragraph
00:01:18 6.4.2.1 i just want to ask you some questions about class naught and it says here external surface spread of flame the external surface of the envelope shall
00:01:30 external surface of the envelope shall satisfy the requirements for class naught when tested in accordance with bs 476 part 6 and 7 national class or class b s3 d2 or better in accordance with
00:01:43 d2 or better in accordance with bsen13501 european class see that yes and then underneath that is a reference to rain screen and underneath that still uh it says
00:01:56 and underneath that still uh it says uh uh the class naught is the highest product performance classification for lining materials and then it sets out what we've looked at just before uh the lunch break at paragraph 13
00:02:08 uh the lunch break at paragraph 13 of appendix a and then it says at the very bottom just above the next paragraph title it says class naught relates to to the reaction to a flame a more
00:02:19 to to the reaction to a flame a more sophisticated approach would be to select materials based on their reaction to radiation now my question on that is would that statement have warned a reasonably
00:02:30 statement have warned a reasonably competent architect off reliance on class naught so where was that bit about radiation italics at the bottom just above the title internal surface spread of flame
00:02:45 you see it oh i see the class i'll read it to you again class not relates to the reaction to a flame a more sophisticated approach would be to select materials based on their reaction to radiation yes would that statement have warned a
00:02:57 yes would that statement have warned a reasonably competent architect off reliance on class naught no i i i don't think so that isn't to
00:03:08 no i i i don't think so that isn't to say that it shouldn't have but i don't think it would have her at the time
00:03:13 the time i think we placed um a lot of trust in the um in the adb in the documentation there
00:03:24 documentation there uh we're not lawyers we should be able to
00:03:28 to read and understand information in front of us we should know when to go for help but
00:03:33 but that i don't think that would have alerted particularly right look at paragraph 6.6.3 on page 16 then please if we can page 16. if we look at paragraph 6.6.3 i
00:03:45 page 16. if we look at paragraph 6.6.3 i beg your pardon mr minute sorry could we go back to that yes of course and page 13 i think we want it says a more sophisticated approach but why would one want a more sophisticated approach the adb refers to um class o
00:04:00 the adb refers to um class o well uh why would one want a more sophisticated approach perhaps one answer is because this standard which was specifically stipulated in the nba specification uh tells you that a more sophisticated
00:04:12 uh tells you that a more sophisticated approach is at least available yes i accept that um paragraph 6.6.3 on page 16 if we can just go back to that
00:04:23 if you look at that it says composite components can you see and it says when one of the cladding elements is a composite of two or more materials
00:04:33 materials mechanically jointed bonded or fused together the elements as a whole must demonstrate the appropriate fire performance similarly it must be demonstrated that the composite will remain reasonably whole and not become prematurely separated
00:04:44 separated from the building or framework i'm interested in what you think about the expression um the the elements as a whole you see
00:04:56 you see yes uh in the second line there yes in in your view should that reference if the com reasonably competent architect had read this document have prompted him or her to consult a fire engineer
00:05:09 him or her to consult a fire engineer about the fire load to be imposed and the fire resistance to be required of the rain screen panels as a whole element
00:05:24 panels as a whole element well in this case uh we we had a specialist fire consultant anyway and so um i think one an architect could assume that they would
00:05:35 that they would anyway be aware should the architect have actually looked at that and started interrogating the specialist dragonzilla in their work again i
00:05:46 dragonzilla in their work again i i think that if i was to say yes i would be going way beyond what i think architects normally do that might be a criticism of us all but
00:05:57 criticism of us all but i i i still feel that the the adb2 document is one
00:06:08 document is one plank upon which we rest most of our thinking
00:06:12 thinking the second is the bba in this case the bba certificate and it's getting those two to marry up which is the key piece of work that i would wish to see done i
00:06:24 done i i accept sitting here today looking at all this that it begs the question as to how far we all were in our work but nevertheless um
00:06:35 um i think at the time these sort of documents wouldn't necess would not have been it's not necessarily would not have been interrogated in this way um nonetheless does the expression
00:06:47 um nonetheless does the expression the elements as a whole here set in its context
00:06:50 context so that when one of the cladding elements is a composite of two or more materials
00:06:54 materials mechanically jointed bonded or fused together that tells uh one as the putative reasonably competent
00:07:03 competent architect that the whole of the object the whole product as a whole must demonstrate the appropriate fire performance as opposed merely to the
00:07:14 performance as opposed merely to the surface i know exactly what you're saying and i agree thank you
00:07:20 and what about the cladding system as a whole the
00:07:24 whole the expression is elements as a whole would one expect one to examine the entirety of the cladding system and ask the question
00:07:30 question does it demonstrate the appropriate fire performance well there's a big question as to what constitutes the system that i could spend a lot of time which you won't want me to do
00:07:42 you won't want me to do dealing with that but i i think that uh each of the elements of the system as a whole
00:07:50 whole would be it would follow they would all be considered in that way or should be i i would say
00:08:00 now
00:08:04 we were talking and looking at class naught
00:08:08 naught um do you
00:08:12 um do you know were you aware at the time of any confusion
00:08:16 confusion at the time to 2012 to 16 within the architect profession or the construction industry generally about what national class naught actually meant
00:08:29 i don't know of any and i don't think there was
00:08:32 there was i think we've all understood it simplistically to be the surface spread of flame
00:08:39 of flame and that it's a performance in the context of the surface spread of flame that is acceptable
00:08:46 were you aware in general terms of manufacturers of products making misleading claims or
00:08:57 making misleading claims or misleading reference perhaps to class naught in their product literature
00:09:04 i was taught during my part 3 to be suspicious of manufacturers claims actually
00:09:15 manufacturers claims actually skeptical and i was taught to check them carefully and to make sure that promises the documents are to come thomas's certificates will be sent
00:09:26 thomas's certificates will be sent bottomed out and i actually get the documentation so to that extent i've always been suspicious but in terms of um the
00:09:38 of um the the reliability in terms of truth of the information when i receive it i would expect that information to be reliable
00:09:46 reliable and i think that i think it's reasonable to expect that the manufacturers take trouble to give reliable information and it's not unreasonable for the arctic
00:09:57 and it's not unreasonable for the arctic to think uh to to receive it in that way now i'd like to show you a document that i put to mr hoban of building control for rbkc when he came to give evidence it's rbk3059351
00:10:12 it's rbk3059351 it's a document produced by the bsi from the british standard groups entitled don't be a flaming liability memo to manufacturers does your product literature unwittingly
00:10:24 does your product literature unwittingly imply that your product is safe if exposed to fire now we think this document dates back to sometime in the late 1980s um have you ever seen this document or something like it before
00:10:35 like it before uh only when i was watching the evidence right so not not before then no right i mean if you look at page two and let's look at the column on the right hand side there's a heading
00:10:46 right hand side there's a heading examples of misleading copy uh and then in the second entry down interlocking cladding it's fireproof grade naught you see that and it goes on to explain what national class naught
00:10:57 to explain what national class naught means
00:10:59 means do you recall whether you'd seen this document or not any concern um within the architects profession in your time in practice um that manufacturers were putting out misleading statements in their
00:11:10 misleading statements in their manufacturing literature about class naught and its effects i'm not familiar with any that isn't to say that
00:11:18 say that um people uh in involved daily in specification work wouldn't be i can't speak for everybody else but i'm not aware would you mind sure if i take
00:11:29 not aware would you mind sure if i take my jacket off i'm a little hot i do some of us in this room share that sense
00:11:40 right that better yes that's better thank you
00:11:44 thank you um can i then ask you to go to uh bre-405554 this is br e this is br 135 second edition of 2003
00:11:58 and
00:12:05 you can see from the first page that it is entitled fire performance of external thermal insulation for walls of multi-story buildings there's a there's a 2013 third edition
00:12:16 there's a there's a 2013 third edition as well
00:12:17 as well um but this was the version at the time that um studio first became involved in the project at least and if we go to page 18 in it
00:12:29 and if we go to page 18 in it you can see that um there's a heading fire barriers and just above that there's a bullet point and it's a with a title saying combustible panels do you see that yes and it says typically vinyl or
00:12:40 that yes and it says typically vinyl or glass reinforced plastics based panels these products should have a good surface spread of flame characteristics to prevent rapid spread of flame sorry prevent rapid fire spread across the surface of the system
00:12:51 the surface of the system once the panels become involved in the fire they have the potential to generate falling debris and also provide a route for fire to propagate up the outside of the building um was that principle something that you
00:13:02 um was that principle something that you would expect a reasonably competent architect to have been aware of at the time of being involved in the grenfell tower project in the years 2012 to 2016. uh yes yes now
00:13:14 uh yes yes now moving on then we know from the oral evidence of other witnesses to the inquiry that by july 2014 decisions had been made to seek planning approval to a check to change the the rain screen
00:13:28 to a check to change the the rain screen panels from zinc to acn or if you prefer acp that's the background for the questions i'm going to ask you now let's go to your
00:13:39 your report at phyr5029 please at page 94. and i'd like to go with you to paragraph 4.4.45 on that page
00:13:52 4.4.45 on that page and you say there
00:13:57 stated earlier it is my opinion the studio had not developed their work as far as it should have been developed at the point of tendering the project and then you say against that background a routine design review in line with
00:14:09 a routine design review in line with riba recommended practice and compliance with iso 9001 would have identified at the outset of the construction documentation stage of the work
00:14:17 the work that due to the decision to fundamentally change the rain screen clouding system a major investigation of the rayner bond system would urgently be required to test its compliance with the requirements of the building
00:14:28 the requirements of the building regulations and the relevant guidance within the approved documents most notably adb-2 such a review appears either never to have been carried out or if so not to have been carried out properly
00:14:39 properly i am critical of both studio e and ryden in this respect now is it your view that compliance of the product specified in the nbs specification had to be checked for compliance with
00:14:51 had to be checked for compliance with building regulations prior to their specification we looked at this earlier and i think you said they were
00:14:56 they were so the answer is yes why just tell us why is that it may sound like an obvious question but is there an obvious answer yes because
00:15:10 all work should be compliant with the codes
00:15:14 codes uh i use the word codes that's acceptable and any failure to to make them compliant can well lead and usually will lead to redesign and if it's major fundamental
00:15:26 it's major fundamental components of the building that redesign work can be significant and so that's disruptive to process and and
00:15:33 and and all um that surrounds that in terms of going out to tender the contractor is um going to be entering into a contract
00:15:42 contract where usually they're pretty well guaranteeing the price any changes to price are going to have to be um
00:15:49 to be um for any in further payments are going to have to be fought for very very hard so the contractors are going to be reliant on that tender documentation to a large
00:16:00 on that tender documentation to a large extent that can often lead to questions during the tendering process but it's it's fundamental to the whole process
00:16:10 process that the information can be relied upon and by the contractor as a sound basis from which he will proceed after appointment
00:16:22 he will proceed after appointment and if studio e had conducted a compliance check of the reyno bond jira gloss 5000 pe product when it was specified in the nbs specification as an alternative material
00:16:33 alternative material do you consider that a further an additional compliance check needed to be made by studio e and ryden before the ultimate selection by the design team of that well if i as
00:16:44 by the design team of that well if i as studio e i would be content that i'd conducted that review um but i would be uh expecting the contractor to ask me to verify that i had done and maybe
00:16:55 verify that i had done and maybe interrogate me on on what i'd found and how i found it yes could we then please turn to sea 50223
00:17:09 this is an email from neil crawford to john hoban of the 18th of november 2014 and in it mr crawford was seeking comments from building control in respect of the compliance of the revised
00:17:20 respect of the compliance of the revised window openings with part k of the building regulations um one of the attachments to the as you can
00:17:31 one of the attachments to the as you can see
00:17:31 see was an nma set you see that um and i'd like to go to that that's sea
00:17:44 50225
00:17:48 and uh you can see here that and this is one of the elevation drawings uh dated the 4th of november 2014 if we look at the bottom right hand corner
00:17:59 look at the bottom right hand corner and made by studio e
00:18:03 and if you look at the top left hand corner there's a materials key if we can just focus in on that top left now i'm not sure this expands much better than it does and
00:18:14 expands much better than it does and retains its legibility i can read it but if you can read it that's very helpful and under the materials key it says that the existing concrete spandrel and columns from levels 4 to 23
00:18:26 levels 4 to 23 you see would be covered in aluminium composite material rain screen panel do you see that
00:18:34 i i can't see that no i cannot well i'm reading materials key yes but under the yes under the materials key which item it it it's item three aluminium
00:18:45 it it it's item three aluminium composite material range screen panel yes yes
00:18:48 yes yes that's right uh and that actually is item three which links to the three on the drawing which we can pan out we can see there's also a reference there
00:18:59 reference there in the key under item five to aluminium cassette rain screen you see that i don't have the key here it's gone it will item five there
00:19:10 here it's gone it will item five there it's the same point yeah aluminium rain oh i see yes yeah so here is a drawing uh being sent by uh mr crawford to john hogan at building control which
00:19:21 john hogan at building control which identifies the materials at least at that date november 2014 as aluminium composite material rain screen panel and aluminium cassette rain screen
00:19:32 screen um well i can see where the tree is on the drawing i can't see where the five is uh um i'm looking at the materials oh it's usually on the drawing itself i can see
00:19:43 usually on the drawing itself i can see a number three on the drawing which suggests that that component is equivalent to three i cannot see where the five is um and i'm not going to try and spend time on my feet trying to pick that out my point is
00:19:54 point is that we can see that from the materials key the specific rain screen product to be used wasn't identified my question is should it have been
00:20:05 my question is should it have been um what was this drawing being used for uh it's being sent as part of a package of drawings to building control in fact in order to answer a totally
00:20:16 in fact in order to answer a totally separate question about window openings uh mr crawford was seeking
00:20:22 seeking building controls input if you like uh in respect of compliance of the revised window openings with part k okay could you help me at what stage was this sent to building control november
00:20:33 this sent to building control november the 18th
00:20:34 the 18th 2014 so about seven or eight months after ryden had won the tender about two weeks after the final contract
00:20:45 about two weeks after the final contract between ryden and the tmo had been signed
00:20:49 signed well building control by then should certainly have known what what the products were whether it was necessary to actually specify
00:20:59 specify the precise product on this drawing i wouldn't go as far as say that was necessary there needs to be a generic description of the product on this drawing
00:21:09 drawing but somewhere in the documentation the actual product should have been identified and that should have been um communicated to building control right now let's think about harley's
00:21:20 right now let's think about harley's role for a moment if we can just turn to that
00:21:23 that ray bailly of harley said in his evidence to the inquiry and this is day 32 page 34 from line 11 of the transcript we don't need to go to it but that's the
00:21:34 we don't need to go to it but that's the reference they said harley knew that the acm was class naught and then he said so we didn't review them it was taken as read that they were compliant
00:21:43 compliant that's his that's it was his evidence and
00:21:47 and my question is do you consider that the reasonably competent architect would expect the specialists cladding subcontractor to check compliance of the particular
00:21:58 to check compliance of the particular acm pe clouding panel ultimately selected
00:22:10 the architect's job is to make sure the product
00:22:13 product specified is compliant if an alternative is being proposed under the terms of this appointment which is that they will retain through
00:22:24 which is that they will retain through innovation then they should they should seek evidence that the alternative is compliant
00:22:35 compliant and who they seek evidence about that matter
00:22:39 matter from uh well routinely from the cladding sub contractor who is make well um quite who made the
00:22:50 um quite who made the uh quite whose initiative it was i am not sure
00:22:53 not sure whether that initiative came from ryden or from the subcontractor or through a combination of their reviews with no doubt it would have been
00:23:04 with no doubt it would have been pursuing
00:23:06 pursuing a combination of cost and possibly availability reliable availability of the component and
00:23:14 and also its reliability in performance but some between them they had made an alternative proposal and the architect needed to receive that alternative
00:23:25 alternative and verify that it was compliant with the basis upon which the design had been carried out so is your answer that in fact the reasonable reasonably competent architect would not only have made the
00:23:36 architect would not only have made the check
00:23:37 check himself but also have expected the cladding subcontractor to have done so
00:23:45 yeah i i think the architect can expect that this
00:23:49 that this subcontractor who is they held themselves out as specialists with knowledge i think the architect can expect that but at the same time would have wanted to have verified it
00:24:00 to have verified it now can we then go to your report at ph yr50
00:24:05 yr50 please and look at page four paragraph 15 towards the bottom of the page
00:24:11 page in the third line down you say i am however critical of studio e who i believe should as a specialist fire consultant i'm sorry i am hover critical of x over who who i
00:24:22 i am hover critical of x over who who i believe should as a specialist fire consultant have drawn studio e's attention to the need for very careful consideration in terms of the specification of a composite clouding system with a polyethylene core particularly into a
00:24:33 polyethylene core particularly into a high-rise residential building is it correct that when the decision was made to substitute zinc or the zinc product with the reyno bond pe55 product xavier wasn't engaged by
00:24:45 pe55 product xavier wasn't engaged by ryden as a sub-consultant
00:24:49 that is correct from my understanding of the document of the evidence put before me yes that's correct yes you're absolutely right i'm not actually asking you to comment on the evidence i'm
00:25:00 i'm i'm actually really just giving you the background but it's assuming that it's my understanding yes and assuming your understanding is correct in the life of that is it your opinion that studio eve should either have consulted x over at this
00:25:12 either have consulted x over at this time
00:25:13 time to ascertain their view ought to have advised ryden to do so in other words when the decision was made to substitute zinc out and put acm in
00:25:27 uh x over were retained by the tmo that's a separate issue the architect i think yes should have um should have checked it they had access to x over and they should have sought to check it with them
00:25:45 in your opinion uh should fabrication drawings specify right or identify the core of an acm panel
00:25:55 panel on their face on the face of the drawings
00:26:00 no i would expect them to identify the product
00:26:03 product right right not to explain its constituent parts
00:26:08 right
00:26:13 what sort of information should ordinarily be included in fabrication drawings
00:26:17 drawings about the panel type you say you identify the product would you go further than that and explain what the product comprises or is composed of no because they're
00:26:28 or is composed of no because they're fabrication drawings so they they are there for the purposes of taking a product and then um so the recipient of that information
00:26:41 so the recipient of that information will
00:26:44 receive the product and carry out work on that product so that it is
00:26:51 it is um ready for supply to the site that work will include in this case the folding the shaping the cutting all of those things but the the so the
00:27:02 all of those things but the the so the information that should be on the drawing
00:27:04 drawing tells them what to do with the product not not
00:27:08 not not it doesn't tell them what the product's made of right can we then go to your report at phyr 29 and go to page 66.
00:27:27 this is figure 4.49 of your report and you can see here that this is an extract from a studio e drawing
00:27:38 you see yes it's a proposed typical bay plan
00:27:42 plan section and elevation and if you look at for example the fourth item down on the right hand side you see it says composite zinc cladding to columns and then there's a
00:27:54 cladding to columns and then there's a little bubble h92 120. you see that yes and then again also by way of example towards the bottom of the same
00:28:02 same column or same rule of text it says thermal insulation plus ventilated cavity
00:28:12 h92776 yes it's the third item from the bottom of that and then there's an arrow or a line
00:28:17 or a line with a ball at the end of it pointing into the yes thermal insulation now those numbers in the bubbles uh h92776 for example
00:28:28 h92776 for example those are references to the nvs specification aren't they correct so you're supposed to take the drawings and and read them next to the nbs specification yes yes yes and when you look up the
00:28:41 yes yes yes and when you look up the references in the nbs specification those would then link to or show you the products actually specified wouldn't they yes so if you um for were interested in h92 120 composite
00:28:55 for were interested in h92 120 composite zinc cladding to columns you would look across to the nba specification and you'd see the proteus hr zinc panel with a honeycomb core wouldn't you
00:29:07 panel with a honeycomb core wouldn't you yes yes
00:29:10 is it usual in the industry for architects to annotate drawings with references to the nbs specification in the way that this does i think it's common yes yes is it good practice
00:29:21 practice to uh in drawing such as these namely general arrangement drawings to do that i i think it's perfectly acceptable practice as long as at the end of the journey the
00:29:33 at the end of the journey the information is is clear and available i prefer myself um to see um as much information
00:29:45 to see um as much information as possible on the drawing itself in the form of notes but having said that there's a huge amount of information to go on a job like this and i
00:29:52 and i quite accept this um this method uh here what is very important is that it's said as it's said at the right
00:30:03 it's said as it's said at the right the information is given at the right time there's a hierarchy of information one doesn't want the same notes or notes whether they are on the drawing or referring to something else you don't want the notes repeated time infinite on every detail
00:30:16 repeated time infinite on every detail so that you start with general arrangement plans and section and possibly elevation you move on to greater detail i would expect it to be said uh
00:30:27 i would expect it to be said uh once if possible but a very few times in the right place for the simple reason for that is that if not changes require multiple changes
00:30:38 if not changes require multiple changes right through all the drawings again that's easier today with computer programs but it's still
00:30:44 still difficult and that's the kind of thing that can
00:30:47 that can open up fissures for mistakes if at some point during the construction process or at a point after
00:30:58 construction process or at a point after the
00:30:59 the main contractor has been appointed the architect is told or agrees that there should be a change to the rain screen panel to a different
00:31:08 different product would you expect the architect to change the drawings so as to reflect the up-to-date choice of product well it's certainly the case that as the
00:31:19 well it's certainly the case that as the project moves on certain types of information in this case the
00:31:26 case the subcontractors information can tend to take precedence but having said that i would not wish to see general arrangement drawings which this is effectively a general arrangement
00:31:37 is effectively a general arrangement drawing
00:31:38 drawing carrying redundant information particularly if they're both in currency if there's been an express statement no longer look at our drawings x y and z these take precedence
00:31:50 drawings x y and z these take precedence then maybe they don't have to be amended but if the drawings are still in currency they should be amended to be consistent thank you i'm now going to turn to some questions about the bba certificate
00:32:02 questions about the bba certificate for the rainy bond pe55 products uh and this is certificate zero eight four five one zero dated the 14th of january 2008.
00:32:13 january 2008. uh and uh before i turn to the actual document um well let's have it up anyway it's bba
00:32:20 it's bba 6047 just to have it on the screen so that everybody outside this room knows what we're discussing together
00:32:31 this is the bba certificate and i think this is the bba certificate you are critiquing and referring to in your reports that's correct yes we'll come back to it uh but let's
00:32:43 yes we'll come back to it uh but let's go to your report first of all phyr5029 please at page 95 and i want to look at paragraph 4.4.48 on page 95.
00:32:58 and you say there in the first sentence however as stated in section 3 above i believe that because page 1 of the bba certificate they referred to it for rayna bond
00:33:09 they referred to it for rayna bond architecture wall clinic panels stated that the panels may be regarded as having a class naught surface in england they appear to have met
00:33:17 have met the guidance given under adb diagram 40. i also consider this to be a satisfactory basis upon which studio e could in principle have accepted the product
00:33:25 product to which this certificate of confirmation related that is rayna bond architecture wall cladding panels aluminium polyethylene composite panels used to provide a decorative stroke protective facade
00:33:37 protective facade over the external walls of the buildings see top of page 1 of certificate and then if we go on to page 97 two pages on from this you see paragraph 4.4.55 and there
00:33:49 you see paragraph 4.4.55 and there you say as i've stated above i believe that because page one of the bba certificate and again you give the reference for reinabled architecture wall clowning panel state stated that the panels may be regarded
00:34:00 stated that the panels may be regarded as having a class naught surface in england see section six it was reasonable for an architect to conclude on that basis alone that the product met the guidance given under adb2 diagram 40. i say this because the statement was not
00:34:12 i say this because the statement was not qualified in any way i accept that there is as included in my quotation and advice c section 6 but i do not think it right to unduly criticize an architect who simply took the class naught endorsement
00:34:23 simply took the class naught endorsement on page 1
00:34:24 on page 1 of the bba certificate at face value and proceeded to specify the product on the basis that it met the guidance in adb-2 diagram 40 without further reference to section six
00:34:35 without further reference to section six now you've set out that your view there in two places and i've read them to you in full can i just ask you whether it's right to summarize your view
00:34:44 view that a reasonably competent architect at the time could properly have specified reyno bond pe55 duragloss smoke silver which is what it ended up
00:34:55 smoke silver which is what it ended up on the building by consideration only of page one of the bba certificate the qualification at the time yes
00:35:05 so they could just take phase page one at face value and proceed to specify without any further investigatory work at all
00:35:12 at all about whether the panel actually complied
00:35:17 complied i i don't want to cast [Music]
00:35:22 [Music] make any comment i'll rephrase that many architects would study the whole document there's no doubt about that i asked myself here
00:35:34 myself here would it be fair to criticize studio e unjulie for not doing that or to criticize him for not doing that the front page of the certificate is is
00:35:46 the front page of the certificate is is clear
00:35:48 clear it states that they may be regarded as having a classroom service in england full stop it doesn't say it doesn't advise to study
00:35:59 it doesn't advise to study further detail within it doesn't qualify that statement in any way that's what i'm trying to say there's no qualification on it and so i think that the architect could take that
00:36:09 take that um at face value and i would ask um please to be allowed to say that we have to take all this in the context of the time
00:36:18 the time as well at the time this material was being used regularly for many building types tall buildings commercial buildings hotels hospitals it was regularly in currency
00:36:32 hospitals it was regularly in currency an architect is moving as swiftly as possible
00:36:35 possible through the work because there's great pressures why would they why would they feel a need to go beyond a statement that says it from the bba as well
00:36:47 that says it from the bba as well not from the manufacture but from the bba this may be regarded as and so i think that could be taken at face value right well you've raised a rhetorical question there as part of that answer and i'm going to
00:36:58 that answer and i'm going to see if i can answer that with you with your assistance um first i'm going to ask you to having told us what you think about the bb
00:37:09 bb a certificate to consider what you say in the context of the pir insulation let's look at that p h y r 5 0 is 29
00:37:20 let's look at that p h y r 5 0 is 29 please at page 48
00:37:24 this is in the context of the uh insulation of course and this is paragraph 4.3.17b and you say in my view two things are
00:37:35 and you say in my view two things are clear
00:37:37 clear b an architect should study manufacturer's literature carefully to ensure as far as reasonably possible that the claims made meet standard stipulated in approved
00:37:49 meet standard stipulated in approved document
00:37:50 document guidance and before i come to the questions i got about that can i ask you to go to your supplemental report at phys 503 please could i please just make the comment
00:38:02 could i please just make the comment about that that says manufactures literature which is a different thing to a bba certificate yeah well that may be the point maybe your answer to the question and i'm going to ask you shortly but let's
00:38:13 going to ask you shortly but let's let's just tiptoe up to it a bit more slowly if we can um if we go to your supplemental report at phys
00:38:19 phys 503 please at page 23
00:38:29 you say there at paragraphs
00:38:34 well you're caught it's a box actually you're commenting on paragraph 4.3.17 to 4.3.18 of the studio e's appendix to their opening statement and
00:38:46 appendix to their opening statement and you say that it is indeed an architect's duty to interrogate manufacturers literature to ensure as far as reasonably possible that the products to which that literature speaks would be compliant with the building regulations
00:38:58 with the building regulations in its proposed application in particular it's important to check as far as possible that literature performance and test certificates are consistent and appropriately accurate in their description that is a routine part of
00:39:10 description that is a routine part of the job of an architect as was made up as was absolutely made clear to me during my riba part 3 training now again these comments are made in the context of the specification of pir insulation
00:39:24 do you say that there's a difference between the degree of care to be exercised by the reasonably competent architect
00:39:30 architect when looking at a bba certificate for a product and when looking at a manufacturer's uh statement in its literature well i think that different kinds of
00:39:41 well i think that different kinds of information the manufacturer's uh information will give a whole host of repeat the word information but down to
00:39:53 repeat the word information but down to durability cleaning many many different things and an architect would need to be to understand the characteristics of the
00:40:02 the of the product in that sense the certificate is a much more precise document and it's dealing with um in this case the performance
00:40:13 the performance uh of the um of the product in in relation to um fire and so it's a much um
00:40:24 it's a much um more focused document well with respect mr
00:40:28 mr hyatt the certificate the bba certificate particularly isn't only dealing with fire it's dealing with other things as well yes yes including other aspects of compliance with the building regulations yes yes so can i ask the question again
00:40:41 yes yes so can i ask the question again do you say is it your opinion that there is a difference between the degree of care to be exercised by the reasonably competent architect when looking at a bba certificate for a product
00:40:52 certificate for a product on the one hand and when looking at manufacturers literature for a product on the other
00:41:03 i think the architect needs to extract from
00:41:07 from the certificate the information that he or she needs to be comfortable with that product
00:41:16 product in use in relation in this instance to the codes
00:41:22 yes i understand that but it's not quite an answer to my question my question is really why i'll put it more perhaps more bluntly why would a
00:41:34 bluntly why would a reasonably competent architect be interested to read the whole of the manufacturer's literature but only be interested in reading the first page of a bba certificate i may need to um step back from
00:41:45 i may need to um step back from the um the the words i've used in the report i don't think it would be fair of me to say that an arctic should read the whole of
00:41:57 arctic should read the whole of the manufacturer's literature when you get manufacturer's literature you've got to tease
00:42:01 to tease the part that lit part of the literature which is
00:42:05 which is important and that which is for one of a better term uh marketing type literature that is trying to persuade an architect and you've got to tease the the issues apart and the detail out of
00:42:17 the issues apart and the detail out of it
00:42:17 it um but to to say that an architect would have to read in with great care the whole of the literature produced by a manufacturer um i i think
00:42:28 produced by a manufacturer um i i think that was a step too far that's um what i said that i need to withdraw from that well that assumes that the person who's reading the document whether it's a bba certificate or
00:42:39 certificate or architect or the manufacturer's literature knows what they're looking for
00:42:43 for in order to tease it out assuming that they were seeking to tease out information about fire performance that's what the architect wanted to know why would you why do you say that the architect if you do say this
00:42:55 that the architect if you do say this the reasonable the competent architect would only be interested in looking at page one of the bba certificate to tease out information about fire but look at the whole of or perhaps more of the manufacturer's literature
00:43:07 of the manufacturer's literature to tease out the same information if that's the impression i've given then it's the wrong impression what i am absolutely clear about is that the architect needs to establish
00:43:19 to establish in the context of this product and fire that it carries the correct certification that needs to be established somehow and
00:43:30 that needs to be established somehow and somewhere and somewhere reliable the the somewhere reliable is going to be the be
00:43:35 be the be somewhere the absolute fall back in terms of reliability is going to be the bba
00:43:40 bba certificate and that's where i would go um for the most efficient verification all right i'm just taking it in stages first of all in terms of
00:43:51 first of all in terms of products you don't say do you that the degree of care to be exercised by the architect should be any the less when examining the suitability of cladding panels on the one hand as opposed to insulation on the other
00:44:02 on the other no that is correct no and would you also accept that the relevant product literature coming from the manufacturer might often include the bba certificate yes yes and
00:44:16 yes yes and therefore come on not simply put the bba certificate into the same category of manufacturer's data which a competent architect would want to read and study thoroughly
00:44:27 thoroughly in order to understand the performance and functionality of indeed compliance of the product
00:44:40 possibly but i i'm afraid i'm pretty resistant on on this in my own mind if the architect is satisfied of that page one
00:44:51 page one of that certificate that the information he needs
00:44:55 he needs um to be confident is there then i it's not a witch hunt the architect shouldn't be searching through the document to find irregularities in it the architect should be able to find pretty efficiently and
00:45:08 able to find pretty efficiently and quickly
00:45:08 quickly a clear statement and that statement i believe was on page one of the certificate well we're going to come to page one of the certificate in a moment uh because uh it says a little bit
00:45:20 uh because uh it says a little bit more than perhaps um you've been letting on but before we do that let me just see if we can look at something else you say in your report we previously looked at paragraph four point uh 4.45 of your report which is a term
00:45:33 uh 4.45 of your report which is a term uh we'll look at it again p h y r 5 0 29 at page 44 94 page 94 paragraph 4.4.45
00:45:45 page 94 paragraph 4.4.45 we looked at this before and you said there due to the decision to fundamentally change the range screen cladding system do you remember yes um a major investigation of the rayner bond system would be urgently required to test its
00:45:56 would be urgently required to test its compliance with the requirements of the building regulations and the relevant guidance within the approved documents most notably adb2 see that would it be legitimate for that major investigation to encompass
00:46:07 major investigation to encompass only a review of the first page of the bba certificate or would the major investigation actually extend to turning to the few pages on in it as well
00:46:20 i i i'm afraid i
00:46:24 i'm comfortable to stay with the remark i made earlier ideally an architect should go further many would i don't know whether most
00:46:35 many would i don't know whether most would but many would the minimum is that they have to satisfy themselves and i think that that page one
00:46:42 one on this particular point is clear
00:46:46 all right let's we will come to it and i note the answer which is page one is the answer but let's look at adb again
00:46:54 adb again clg five clg50224 page 119 please
00:47:02 this is uh within adb and it's a note to appendix a note 2.
00:47:10 note 2. and it's on the right-hand column at the top of the right-hand side of the page and it says um and i should just point out of course as i'm sure you're familiar appendix a is about performance of materials products and
00:47:22 performance of materials products and structures and under note 2 it says any test evidence used to substantiate the fire resistance rating of a construction should be carefully checked to ensure that it demonstrates compliance that is adequate
00:47:33 adequate and applicable to the intended use small differences in detail such as fixing method
00:47:37 method joints dimensions and the introduction of insulated insulation materials may significantly affect the rating do you agree that this note applies to architects as well as other construction professionals
00:47:48 professionals yes yes and do you agree that it should be taken to reflect the standard by which all professionals should operate when considering the fire resistance rating
00:47:55 rating of a construction uh or reviewing test evidence
00:48:02 well an architect is using these uh adb2 um
00:48:06 um and should use all those parts relevant to the issue um along the way i think there would have been cause to look at appendix a uh this is clearly
00:48:17 look at appendix a uh this is clearly stated in appendix a on that basis i i think it follows yes yes thank you then let's um let's go back then to paragraph 4.4.55 of your report at phyr5029 page 97.
00:48:32 report at phyr5029 page 97. just to get back and see what you say there you
00:48:36 there you say that um
00:48:40 six lines down you i accept that there is included in my quotation and advice c section six so you you've noted that but then you go on to say as we've read
00:48:52 but then you go on to say as we've read before that you don't think it right to undue to criticize an architect who simply took the class naught endorsement on page one of the bba certificate at face value and proceeded to specify now let's look at the bba certificate
00:49:03 now let's look at the bba certificate bba 5047.
00:49:06 bba 5047. may i just make one comment there yes of course i i did say unduly criticize yes by that i i probably should qualify it by that i i mean
00:49:17 it by that i i mean i wouldn't go overboard criticizing them but nevertheless i think the criticism by implication is there yes i see oh i see okay
00:49:25 see okay so you would criticize but not just there's not overboard if overbought isn't acceptable to him yes yes it's always acceptable um let's look at the certificate then and building on that answer you've just
00:49:36 and building on that answer you've just given me
00:49:37 given me we can look at the first page it's bba
00:49:42 5047. looking at the first page
00:49:48 the key factors assessed and we can see it says behavior in relation to fire in relation to the building regulations for reaction to fire the panels may be regarded as having a class naught surface in england and wales and
00:49:59 naught surface in england and wales and a low-risk material in scotland and then in brackets it says c-section six um
00:50:04 six um would you accept that a reasonably competent architect reading this document picking up this document and reading it uh would understand that those who wrote
00:50:16 uh would understand that those who wrote the bba certificate were directing their readers
00:50:19 readers to as it says c section six i i i'm very critical of the drafting of this document it
00:50:30 of the drafting of this document it follows
00:50:30 follows c section six follows the reference to scotland
00:50:33 scotland again i'm not a lawyer you will apply legal expertise to what these documents mean
00:50:41 mean but from my point of view c-section six is almost
00:50:45 is almost very remark after scotland it doesn't say it's
00:50:49 say it's it's essential that you see section six in order to understand the first phrase within this um particular heading behavior in relation to fire it for me it says i beg your parents sorry sorry sorry i'm
00:51:02 i beg your parents sorry sorry sorry i'm certain i didn't mean to interrupt you mr hyde go on please well to me it says in relation to the building regulations for the reaction to fire the panels may be regarded as having a class o surface in
00:51:10 in it should be surface spread of plane but in england and wales that's it yes um would you accept that an architect
00:51:22 um would you accept that an architect this document up for the first time and reading down the page would come to key factors assessed and would see practicability of installation first of all the panels are suitable for installation
00:51:33 the panels are suitable for installation by cladding contractors provided or providing they have undergone suitable training c-section four strength and stability the panels can be incorporated in a cladding system designed to resist the wind loads
00:51:44 designed to resist the wind loads normally encountered in the uk see section five and then he might pause there and and think to himself hmm well if i want to know about practicability of installation i need to go to section four and i want to know about strength and stability i need to
00:51:55 about strength and stability i need to go to section five isn't that how a reasonably competent architect might read the certificate thus far um i i sit here today and i'm persuaded by your argument and therefore when it comes to behavior
00:52:06 and therefore when it comes to behavior in relation to fire a reasonably competent architect would need to look at section six to understand in more detail why it was that the panels may be regarded as having a class naught surface in england and wales i i am persuaded um
00:52:21 and well to be clear my job isn't to try to persuade you i just want to try and elicit your i didn't mean it in that sense mr military what i meant was that you've taken me through a logical argument i've listened to it
00:52:33 argument i've listened to it and i think that my argument doesn't stand
00:52:36 stand right um now building on that a little bit more
00:52:41 bit more where it says um the panels in behavior in relation to fur in fact it says it all throughout so it doesn't matter where you see it um when it says the panels
00:52:53 when it says the panels have a class naught surface even on that page one it doesn't refer to the core of the panel nor the cause behavior in a fire
00:52:59 fire does it no no and the wording may be regarded as having what does that suggest to you
00:53:09 well what would it suggest to you as the the putative reasonably competent architect
00:53:14 architect coming to this document well it's it's a strange use of words i would have thought that at the time but i take it to mean that um the panels have a class zero um
00:53:25 the panels have a class zero um um spread of flame and if it was a strange use of words that you would have thought at the time would that not have impelled you to see section six to see why it was that the authors of this document
00:53:36 authors of this document were telling you that the panels may be regarded as happening well may be regarded as a funny phraseology for certificates is supposed to be absolute and but i think maybe i'm slightly more
00:53:47 and but i think maybe i'm slightly more sensitive to words than some architects but um i don't think i can add any more to this
00:53:54 to this i i've conceded concede is the wrong word
00:53:58 word i think having heard the argument you put to me
00:54:02 put to me um it is
00:54:05 um it is my my i need to adjust my report in that respect
00:54:10 respect how would you adjust it um i i think probably not probably yes an architect should a reasonably competent architect should not take um
00:54:22 should not take um page one on its own very good can we then um go to section uh well before we go to section six
00:54:33 uh well before we go to section six which i do want to show you i just want to ask you something about page three assuming that as i think you've now accepted with me the reasonably competent architect would look at the whole document if we
00:54:45 would look at the whole document if we go to figure one on page three uh it uh tells us that the panels were available in cassette and riveted versions yes
00:54:56 versions yes yes and it then goes on to describe the product in broad terms uh and you can see that under the description both at the beginning and and on this
00:55:08 both at the beginning and and on this page
00:55:09 page looking at um figure 1
00:55:15 and paragraph 1.1 we'll start with 1.1 it says the rainer bond architecture wall clouding panels comprise two half a millimeter thick aluminium alloy sheets bonded to either side of a
00:55:27 sheets bonded to either side of a a core of low density polyethylene ldpe the panels are available either plain edge derivative system or flanged cassette system to suit architectural requirements c figure one and then the eye is
00:55:38 c figure one and then the eye is directed to figure one and there it is at the bottom uh you would the reasonably competent architect reading this page think that both systems rivet and cassette were covered by the certificate
00:55:53 yes i i i'm sure they would yes and i did yes and then can we look at i'm sorry to drop in and out of these documents can
00:56:05 drop in and out of these documents can we then look at adb again clg50224
00:56:10 clg50224 and i want to go to page one two two in that please paragraph 16 of appendix a
00:56:22 at a paragraph 16 at the bottom of the left hand column it says results of tests on proprietary materials are frequently given in literature available from manufacturers and trade associations
00:56:33 manufacturers and trade associations any reference used to substantiate the surface spread of flame rating of a material or product should be carefully checked to ensure that it's suitable adequate and applicable to the construction to be used small differences in detail such as
00:56:45 small differences in detail such as thickness substrate color forms fixings adhesive etc may significantly affect the rating
00:56:53 does that tell us that the reasonably competent architect would need to read the whole of the certificate including the part about the fixings that i've shown you in figure one in order to understand
00:57:05 figure one in order to understand any limitations or restrictions about what the product might be subject to oh gosh um
00:57:16 well this paragraph is is making deep giving detailed advice um very very detailed advice i i
00:57:27 very very detailed advice i i i don't think an architect would interrogate a bba certificate in in that kind of way um the certificate um i think is it's clear
00:57:40 um i think is it's clear that uh in its description of the on in relation to fire we're talking about if the product is being compliant with
00:57:47 with adb 2 diagram 40. there we are well i may come back to that um but do you
00:57:58 i may come back to that um but do you accept that differences in color as warned by paragraph 16 is something that a reasonably competent architect should be alive to when being told
00:58:09 alive to when being told what the results are on proprietary materials
00:58:15 i doubt if most architects are aware of that
00:58:19 that it is a matter of fact if you put your hands on the bonnet of a car that's black in color in the sun it will burn your hands and white will be a very different temperature most of us have a sense of that but i
00:58:32 most of us have a sense of that but i don't
00:58:33 don't think that architects would necessarily automatically conclude that the color is going to impact on the test results
00:58:45 when it says any reference used to substantiate the surface spread of flame rating of a material product should be carefully checked who would do the checking in your opinion or who should do the checking as contemplated by this
00:58:57 checking as contemplated by this guidance
00:58:57 guidance in your opinion
00:59:01 well um first read it has to it has to be the person using adb too in this case it's going to be the architect but anybody else who's
00:59:12 the architect but anybody else who's involved in the process managing the team right and take over to manage the team
00:59:17 team i suppose it could extend wider than that but
00:59:21 that but yeah the person reading and applying the adb too
00:59:25 adb too and how would for present purposes the architect hey db2
00:59:31 using reading and applying adbt go about uh carefully checking the reference used to substantiate the surface spread of flame rating of a
00:59:42 surface spread of flame rating of a material or product so as to ensure that it's suitable adequate and applicable to the construction to be used how would they go about that
00:59:52 well they certainly the use of the word encyclopedia for adb too or the approved documents was a reasonable description of them
01:00:04 reasonable description of them we don't at the beginning of every job read the entire uh document we find that way we thread our way through adb 2 in this case based on the work we are doing and um a
01:00:17 the work we are doing and um a particular reference may take us to a definition and the definition might take us to an appendix and the appendix might refer to another appendix
01:00:24 appendix um nobody describes this better than dame judith so on the way through one might i suppose pick it up but
01:00:35 one might i suppose pick it up but um i don't think color would have necessarily come to the mind as being that important to an architect looking at the bba certificate now a
01:00:47 looking at the bba certificate now a color was an example i picked but there's also thickness substrate forms fixings and adhesives etc a variety of things of which color is one
01:00:56 is one and my question really is how would the architect go about a careful check of the reference used to
01:01:07 a careful check of the reference used to substantiate the surface spread of flame to make sure that it's suitable adequate and applicable to the construction to be used well moving from what i said a few minutes ago i suppose
01:01:19 minutes ago i suppose it has to be the bba certificate i don't know where else one would go um for that and one i would assume that within the bba certificate
01:01:30 within the bba certificate there is sufficient information to satisfy right so that's another reason why the reasonably prudent architect would look beyond the mere claim of class naught in order to look at section six which i think you've agreed with he
01:01:41 six which i think you've agreed with he should do
01:01:43 should do yes yes now then let's go to uh with the bba certificate again uh five zero forty seven at page five here we have section six
01:01:55 at page five here we have section six which is what we're directed to look at behavior in relation to fire um and we can see at section 6.4 let's start with that
01:02:06 with that the uh these performances i'm sorry sorry let me just back up a little bit i'm assuming that you're familiar with section six this is the certificate yeah i certainly
01:02:17 this is the certificate yeah i certainly am yes exactly so i don't need to read out section six one two and three two in order to ask this question it says at 6.4 these performances may not be achieved by other colors of the product and the designations of a particular color
01:02:29 designations of a particular color should be confirmed by in england and wales test or assessment in accordance with the proved document be appendix a clause one now uh if if the reasonably prudent
01:02:43 uh if if the reasonably prudent architect had read this section then they would have concluded that the panels used at grenfell tower were not covered by the bba certificate because they were not the same color or finish they weren't the same as the gold
01:02:55 they weren't the same as the gold colored duragloss finish used in the euro test or the metallic gray pvdf finish when uh tested under the uk standard
01:03:07 uh tested under the uk standard correct
01:03:11 so what what should the reasonably prudent architect have done in noting that the color to be selected and used at grenfell was not the same as that tested
01:03:22 that tested well the obvious recourse there is to the manufacturer and some form of uh letter that would give comfort or
01:03:34 letter that would give comfort or alternatively um well first question would be have you tested the color i'm using and then
01:03:42 then the follow-on from that if they haven't tested the color uh being used would be advices to what they have to say about that and they might say um actually
01:03:54 they might say um actually it's a i won't speculate as what they might say
01:03:57 might say right um can we go back into page three of this document um and look at paragraph 1.1 we looked at it before briefly but i didn't focus on what i now want to focus on and it says
01:04:08 focus on and it says in the last sentence of that paragraph the products which certainly means the panels are also available in a fire retardant
01:04:21 are also available in a fire retardant grade
01:04:21 grade fr with a reasonably competent architect
01:04:29 consider having seen that using an fr grade panel and seeing that it was available consider
01:04:37 consider whether it should be used well it must follow from my earlier uh comment that page one may not do it must follow that on
01:04:49 may not do it must follow that on reading uh through this sort of point would come up if this point if i got as far as reading this
01:04:57 this and i'm not saying i wouldn't have by the way um but if i if i was reading this and i saw this i would immediately want to know uh what the difference was between fire retardant and non-fiery talent and why know if you'd ever use
01:05:09 know if you'd ever use um one that didn't have the fire retardant in it yeah you see it i'm going to suggest to you that it would be
01:05:17 would be unreasonably incompetent if that's the right expression for an architect not to read beyond page one not least because if he read me on page one he would discover that in fact this product was available in an fr version
01:05:29 yes if i'm if if i may i'll leave it after this but it's a degree it's an issue of harshness how harshly am i going to criticize studio e i
01:05:42 am i going to criticize studio e i didn't feel it was appropriate to be so harsh as to say one couldn't proceed without reading the whole document i've made concessions in that basis
01:05:54 i've made concessions in that basis because i
01:05:55 because i i accept the the argument having now got to this um i think yes you'd you you would want to know what was
01:06:06 know what was what was the difference between fire retardant and not fire retardant and um i can't imagine why one wouldn't want
01:06:13 want to have fiery darden as soon as you got here you'd you'd be opening up a can of worms really
01:06:20 really yes and at this point uh mr millet i think one would be back to the um to the specialist fire consultant i mean this is
01:06:29 this is as far as i'm concerned as an architect this is information that i i want advice on yes and um you say it's an issue of harshness i
01:06:40 um you say it's an issue of harshness i i i think all i need to know is whether or not it is your opinion that in not reading beyond the first page and looking at for example paragraph one and section six as directed
01:06:51 six as directed the architect would be falling below the standards of reasonable competence
01:06:59 well i've i've i've accepted that yes okay fair enough then if the answer to my question is yes then i needn't i didn't press you further on that can i then uh
01:07:10 then uh look at section six again and just ask you bearing in mind what's on the page in front of us i'm so sorry i'm going to ask to go back to the
01:07:20 to the tip to page 3 again and just bear in mind
01:07:24 mind the diagram figure 1 which shows the two different fixing systems and just focus on that for the moment you see it says figure one rainbow architecture panels and typical fixing systems and then we see on the left hand
01:07:36 systems and then we see on the left hand side
01:07:37 side the riveted system with the aluminium rivets going in externally and on the right hand side the rhinobond panel which is a cassette system do you see the hook on the hook the hook on exactly yeah
01:07:48 the hook the hook on exactly yeah and we know that the hook on was the cassette system was what was ultimately chosen for the grenfell tower project and indeed your um very um beautiful model
01:08:00 um very um beautiful model demonstrates exactly how that system works
01:08:05 works given that that is what is described as the the
01:08:08 the the systems for the product or products can we then look at section six on page five again
01:08:19 and you can see under section 6.1 is a standard sample of the product with the gray green duragloss 5000 coating
01:08:29 coating when tested for reaction to fire achieved a classification of bs2d naught in accordance with en 13501 a fire retardant sample of the product with a gold color duragloss finish when
01:08:41 with a gold color duragloss finish when tested for reaction to fire achieved classification of bs d naught in accordance with en13501 and underneath that it says under section 6.2 a fire retardant sample of
01:08:53 section 6.2 a fire retardant sample of the product with a metallic gray pvdf finish when tested in accordance with bs4766 1989 achieved a fire propagation index of uh one of naught and when tested in accordance with bs four six four seven six
01:09:06 four six four seven six seven achieved a class one surface spread of flame and then it says as a consequence of sections 6.1 and 6.2 the products may be regarded as having a class naught
01:09:17 regarded as having a class naught surface
01:09:18 surface in relation to approved document b of the building regulations so that's where we see uh the may be regarded and that's the explanation for it which is why we need to look at this to go there
01:09:29 why we need to look at this to go there to see it um just a number of questions which follow from that when the uh reasonably competent architect read section 6.1 and 6.2 would they
01:09:42 read section 6.1 and 6.2 would they notice
01:09:45 that in fact the standard sample the pe had not been tested in accordance with the uk
01:09:57 the uk uh test standards bs7 bs 476 or 4767 well i came to look at all this in detail
01:10:06 in detail in preparing my report and i read this this part of this report many many many times and it revealed
01:10:17 many many many times and it revealed more and more to me in terms of inconsistencies etcetera the more often i read it so would an architect on a read a first read
01:10:26 read spot that i don't know i doubt it i would also wish to say that with 6.3 it says as a consequence of the section 6 1 and 6 2 the products may be regarded
01:10:37 6 1 and 6 2 the products may be regarded as having a class o this is bad drafting it doesn't say the products listed above which is the green juror glass it says the products and when we started on page one we were talking about rivet and cassette well
01:10:48 talking about rivet and cassette well that's that's my next question oh sorry but exactly but the the products may be regarded as having a class naught surface is this right because according to a reasonable reasonably prudent architect's reading
01:10:59 reasonably prudent architect's reading of it they were they they were both versions were tested standard and fr under the euro testing and achieved the equivalent of a class null namely class b and a fire retardant sample achieved a
01:11:10 and a fire retardant sample achieved a class naught in the strict sense in the under uk test right um
01:11:18 right um and can i then ask you about how a reasonably prudent architect would understand that as applicable may i make one further point on that when tests are carried out the testing
01:11:31 when tests are carried out the testing station should should be very specific as to what they had tested and they will often record detail and in here we have the color
01:11:42 detail and in here we have the color but if if a manufacturer offers products with
01:11:46 with 14 different colors it's unlikely that they would have tests carried out for every single color so it may be
01:11:53 may be that the manufacturer would advise well this was the one that was tested and leave it at that i think if if it's if it's important
01:12:04 if if it's if it's important very very important to note that different colors will perform in a very different way then that should be made abundantly clear we can i'm sure you're going to examine whether it was clear enough i don't think that
01:12:16 it was clear enough i don't think that this
01:12:17 this certificate is particularly clear would it be obvious to the reasonably prudent architect on reading
01:12:24 reading section six the first time or the tenth time
01:12:28 time uh to ask the question well do these tests apply both to the riveted system and to the cassette system or only one of them
01:12:44 i don't think
01:12:48 i would ask that question it says the products i i wouldn't have reason to to there could be two separate certificates
01:12:59 there could be two separate certificates one for
01:13:00 one for rivets and one for cassette there isn't there's one certificate why would i start asking a question like that i would have taken it that it applied to both
01:13:11 it that it applied to both thank you very much mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes i think it is thank you very much well we'll have a short break now thank you all right um back at half past three please okay thank you and usual
01:13:22 thank you and usual injunction no talking while you're out of the room i shall not we're not about your evidence anyway thank you very much
01:13:41 thank you for three
01:30:37 yes do you want us to hire to come back
01:30:46 in
01:30:56 thank you all right mr now if you're too warm at any stage you feel free to take a jacket off no i think it was not me actually i think it was the air conditioning suddenly certainly in this part of the room uh wasn't working quite as it had before
01:31:08 wasn't working quite as it had before all right well we do have our battles well thank you for your consideration there it is yes right right yes um
01:31:18 i want to go back to a question about cassettes if i can first please um now you've done a model which you showed us in detail yesterday and it very helpfully illustrates the form and shape of the reiner bond pe
01:31:30 the form and shape of the reiner bond pe 55
01:31:31 55 acm or acp if you prefer panels fabricated from flat panels into cassettes
01:31:36 cassettes and although we can go back on the video and look at it you great pains to try to show to us the tray at the bottom and the return remember of about i think you said
01:31:47 remember of about i think you said something like 20 centimeters yes but no not centimeters uh millimeter millimeter sorry my fault um very well limited success because i couldn't quite get dominic to hold it
01:31:58 couldn't quite get dominic to hold it against the turquoise where it would have shown up so it was not quite as clear on the camera as i would have liked no i i recall that um but it raises some important questions i think and is it right that in order to achieve
01:32:11 and is it right that in order to achieve the cassette shape the acm panels had to be scored right through one surface of the aluminium and almost entirely through the pe core creating a line of exposed pe
01:32:23 uh that's my understanding i gained that understanding fairly late i can't remember where i got it from but the insides of the panels in their corners i believe are scored
01:32:34 are scored and i believe that scoring is straight through the aluminium into the core yes i wonder whether we might be able to trace down where you got it from and this may be wrong but let's see if we can have a go um i'll let you take off excuse me i'm
01:32:46 um i'll let you take off excuse me i'm sorry about that stack it off again no that's quite all right
01:32:53 right
01:32:58 can we go to met three zeroes one nine nine one five please
01:33:11 this is uh the
01:33:15 manufacturer's instructions for fabrication and it's a fabrication guideline step by step to a perfect cladding
01:33:21 cladding put out by our cover you see and yes yes is this the document you think you might have got this from no i was just trying to think because you were flashing this up
01:33:33 flashing this up i i think that i was told and i don't think it was because of my examination of any panels on site
01:33:44 examination of any panels on site it might be that it might be that one of my colleagues told me it might be that it came from dr lane but it was certainly during the course of this investigation
01:33:56 of this investigation i'm afraid i can't be more specific than that
01:33:59 that right okay uh i was certainly told mr millet i didn't read it i was told where the person who told me got it from i do not know right um the question is in your opinion
01:34:11 um the question is in your opinion should a reasonable a reasonably competent architect have been aware of the fact that the panel was going to be taken and when fabricated into a cassette would be scored such that the pv no i
01:34:22 would be scored such that the pv no i don't know no you wouldn't expect that would you expect a reason a reasonably competent architect to read the manufacturer's fabrication instructions or would that be a matter for others no i don't think so who would that be a
01:34:33 i don't think so who would that be a matter for do you think uh the subcontractor right i see okay um can i ask you a question about lachenal house i know you're aware of the lack of house fire and and the recommendations that
01:34:44 and and the recommendations that followed it yes yes um do you remember what the effect of the fire and the inquest and the subsequent coroner's recommendations uh was on the architect's profession
01:34:55 uh was on the architect's profession generally
01:34:58 generally was there an effect um well at the time i don't recall um i was actually not even in the country i think
01:35:09 country i think at the time um can you remind me which year it was well yes 2009. if i was in 2009. no i would have been in this country i certainly remember it happening
01:35:21 certainly remember it happening and um i certainly remember uh seeing it actually on television but i don't know what the effect was right
01:35:32 effect was right just in general terms would you say that the national house fire put the architects professional notice that cladding
01:35:39 cladding fires were a feature or cladding could be combustible
01:35:45 i've i think that's too broad uh a description if i may say so those architects involved
01:35:56 may say so those architects involved with cladding would certainly or should certainly be take notice of it to be put on notice but many architects have nothing to do with cladding they're involved in completely different kind of
01:36:08 involved in completely different kind of work
01:36:13 now a paragraph oh can we look at your reported
01:36:19 phyr5027 please and go to page nine in that can we look at paragraph 2.2.18 of your report here
01:36:30 report here and you say there
01:36:37 and this is in the light of your conclusion at paragraph 2.2.17 that overall the uk construction industry had indeed been sleepwalking for some prolonged period towards serious problems in terms of perform its performance and conduct and then you
01:36:50 its performance and conduct and then you say further evidence and support of my comments exists in the general failure of the industry to respond to lessons from other recent fires both in the uk and abroad including a series of very serious fires in residential buildings and some very
01:37:02 in residential buildings and some very serious facade fires more recent uk examples include the summerland fire 1973 50 killed 80 seriously injured bradford city stadium fire 1985 56
01:37:13 bradford city stadium fire 1985 56 killed
01:37:14 killed and most recently the latino house fire 2009 six killed 20 injured and garnet court 1999 won death overseas facade fires include the neo-soho project in jakarta
01:37:25 neo-soho project in jakarta the address downtown hotel 2016 14 injured and the torch residential building both in dubai as well as fires in ruby france chechnya russia and monte carlo and las vegas the latter
01:37:36 and monte carlo and las vegas the latter two both involving hotels now you set out a list there um would you expect a reasonably competent architect to be aware of those fires come 2013 2014
01:37:48 of those fires come 2013 2014 no and i was only aware because when i started this work i asked for a list to be prepared for me so i was aware of some of them but not all of them for example i didn't know about the monte carlo or the las
01:37:59 about the monte carlo or the las vegas ones right that's those are examples
01:38:02 examples which are examples of those you did know about well i i knew all about the dubai one because i sat under the building the morning after the fire um when it was still smoldering
01:38:13 was still smoldering and i was there with the forensics people it might have been two days after i can't be quite precise but the engineers who have been brought in to investigate so i was immediately aware of that when i was
01:38:24 immediately aware of that when i was there by chance um i knew about the lack and hold one um i knew
01:38:30 knew um about this the summerlin one i knew about the
01:38:33 about the uh bradford uh stadium fire i wouldn't die because i deal with sports extensively yes i see can i then turn to the topic of insulation i want to ask you some questions about the compliance of and selection of
01:38:45 the compliance of and selection of the insulation products installed within the cavity created by the over cladding system
01:38:51 system would you expect a reasonably competent architect to be aware of the fire performance properties of pir or
01:38:58 pir or phenolic insulation products
01:39:04 fire properties suggests a detailed knowledge of the way they will perform not necessarily do are they
01:39:15 not necessarily do are they um non-compliant with adb too um limited yes um do they give up lots of
01:39:23 of uh toxic fumes yes but um it's a general awareness of the um of the characteristics as opposed to detailed i i see
01:39:35 detailed i i see um in that last answer you you say are they compliant with non are they non-compliant with adb2 limited yes do they give off lots of toxic fumes yes does the yes in each case tell us that
01:39:47 does the yes in each case tell us that the reasonably competent architect would know
01:39:50 know that pir and phenolic insulation products weren't compliant with adb too yes and that they gave off lots of toxic fumes as you put it
01:40:02 um i don't know about the toxic fumes they
01:40:05 they should certainly know that i mean we've got an awareness of um filler materials which with cartogenic qualities um i think most of us
01:40:16 qualities um i think most of us appreciate that the fumes can be extremely dangerous but of course
01:40:20 of course any smoke any fumes in most people who are seriously injured or die in fire die as a result of the fumes we all know that
01:40:34 and am i right in thinking that you considered only the linear route to compliance with the building regulations what's been called the linear route so
01:40:46 what's been called the linear route so by applying the guidance specifically contained in paragraph 6. 12.6 to 12.9 of adb when coming to your view
01:40:54 view as to the suitability of the use of pir and phenolic insulation within the cavity the external cavity created by the over the purpose of this report yes yes and is that because as i think
01:41:05 yes and is that because as i think you've confirmed in your um your supplemental report of paragraph 2.7.2
01:41:10 2.7.2 um well let's look at it and let's look at that it's p h y s five zeros two sorry six zeros two at page 60.
01:41:23 you say paragraphs 2.7.2
01:41:31 correct 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 are either explored or pursued by studio e or the design team
01:41:45 is that the basis on which you um criticize studio e yes now let's just work on a little bit further can you go to your report at phyr5029
01:41:58 can you go to your report at phyr5029 at page 27 please phyr-5029 page 27 and let's look together at paragraph 4.2.18 there at the top of the page
01:42:09 4.2.18 there at the top of the page you say celetex 5000 is a polyissay cyanurate product known as pir i note that the prefix fr as well as rs are used in connection with the celotex 5000 product
01:42:20 5000 product these both refer to the same product as i understand the distinction was purely for marketing purposes and in those circumstances i've used rs rain screen and fr flat roof interchangeably throughout this report
01:42:31 this report it did not meet any of the definitions for materials of limited combustibility as so that in table a7 of adb-2 studio we should not have specified an insulation product that did
01:42:42 specified an insulation product that did not carry proper certification as evidence of its suitability in meeting the guidelines of adb2 and the requirements of the building regulations now if we go on you also
01:42:55 now if we go on you also tell us about kingspan cool thumb k15 and if we go to page 29 of this same report
01:43:01 report two pages on we can see what you say there
01:43:05 there um to paragraph 4.2.25 you say the second sentence the pir range of products including celetex rs 5000 and kingspan cool theme k15
01:43:19 rs 5000 and kingspan cool theme k15 which is a phenolic insulation did not achieve that compliance and then just going back a little bit further
01:43:28 in the report to page 93
01:43:33 paragraph 4.4.41 there you say studio is continued confidence in the celetex rs 5000 product and the use of pir insulation within the cladding system
01:43:43 system represents an ongoing major failure on their part to understand both the requirements of the building regulations and the guidance given within adb2 with respect to insulation and external walls that failure of understanding appears to
01:43:55 that failure of understanding appears to have extended both to both harley mr d anchored jones and surprisingly x-over mr ashton you see that yes um now uh
01:44:11 we then also go back i think to the cwct standard
01:44:15 standard and bear with me mr hyatt there is a question coming but i just want to show that to you as well cwct standard please at cwct 5046 at page 15.
01:44:29 it says under paragraph 6.6.1 under the heading materials and the subheading materials in rain screen cavities
01:44:38 cavities it says the cavity behind a rain screen and in front of the air barrier should not include materials which can significantly promote flame spread within the unseen cavity in general this zone may contain a timber aluminium rather
01:44:50 timber aluminium rather metal vertical framework and insulation of appropriate resistance to combustion you see that insulation of appropriate resistance to combustion then it says in italics the use of any
01:45:01 then it says in italics the use of any combustible material for the supporting framework and insulation within the cavity
01:45:05 cavity may need to be considered as the building height increases and then underneath that insulation materials insulation in walls of buildings with a story more than 80 metres above ground level should be of limited combustibility uh
01:45:18 should be of limited combustibility uh now
01:45:19 now i've shown you all of that collecting all that together i have some some questions for you as follows first would you agree that since celetex and selex celetex fr 5000 and rs 5000 were not materials of
01:45:31 and rs 5000 were not materials of limited combustibility studio e's specification of celetex fr5000 insulation and the later selection and installation of rs 5000
01:45:44 selection and installation of rs 5000 was contrary to the express requirement of the cwct standard as incorporated into the nbs specification
01:45:54 uh yes do you agree next that combustible materials could be incorporated into a rain screen system in accordance with approved document b
01:46:05 in accordance with approved document b if the total wall construction underwent a specific full-scale bs 8414 complete system test and the results of that test met the
01:46:16 and the results of that test met the br135 performance criteria there's the qualification and the results met yes so yes yes
01:46:29 there may be an alternative approach mine they're not which is adopting the fire engineering approach set out in bca technical guidance note 18 either a desktop study yes or holistic
01:46:42 either a desktop study yes or holistic fire engineering solution yes yes but if none of those three alternatives 8414 test desktop study holistic fire engine solution was adopted as the
01:46:54 fire engine solution was adopted as the route to compliance then the use of pir or phenolic insulations was prohibited essentially yes by by adb2 and
01:47:06 essentially yes by by adb2 and the the other route options inevitably involve complex procedures where i as an architect would want the help of
01:47:14 help of a facade engineer specialist with expertise that's appropriate or particularly specialist fire consultants i wouldn't feel comfortable to go anywhere beyond adb2 guidance adb to
01:47:26 anywhere beyond adb2 guidance adb to guidance
01:47:27 guidance without such help and given that as it seems gdoe and indeed everybody else appears only to have adopted or considered they were
01:47:38 have adopted or considered they were adopting the linear route yes
01:47:41 yes [Applause] they do you uh are you of the view that studio e therefore had to satisfy themselves that fr 5000
01:47:52 satisfy themselves that fr 5000 rs 5000 and the kingspan cool firm k15 were uh materials of limited combustibility well they were specifying them so yes
01:48:03 and from a prudent architect's point of view
01:48:06 view uh would the prudent architect if asking someone like xover or harley or ryden to have expected them to have done the same yes yes
01:48:22 and do you agree that in the absence of any consideration of any of the other alternative routes to compliance that we've listed those three quite simply pir insulation and phenolic
01:48:33 quite simply pir insulation and phenolic insulation should simply not have been considered at all by the design team or specified by studio e
01:48:42 certainly i mean many architects working in this kind of field would know anyway but if they were new to it and they were going to stop working here then they should have found out on the way through yes
01:48:56 now can i ask you to look at your report phyr5029 please at page 91.
01:49:08 you say it to paragraph 4.4.35 and this is after paragraph 4.4.34
01:49:21 uh i'd better read that to you this is this is an extract from or a quotation from an email run in september 2014 between neil crawford of studio e
01:49:33 between neil crawford of studio e and terry ashton of x over and in 4.4.34 you note the answer given by mr ashton to mr crawford's question and he says
01:49:44 to mr crawford's question and he says if the insulation in the cavities behind the rain screen cladding is combustible you'll need to provide cavity barriers shown on your drawing etc and you've put in bold the first part of that sentence
01:49:55 part of that sentence there as we can see and then at paragraph 4.4.35 you say i cannot understand how a fire specialist could be asking if the insulation is combustible then you should well know that under
01:50:07 then you should well know that under paragraph 12.7 of adb it should be of limited combustibility
01:50:15 should mr crawford as let it be assumed the reasonably competent architect not also have realized that he should only be using insulation of limited
01:50:26 using insulation of limited combustibility
01:50:29 yes
01:50:33 if we go to page one two two of this same report
01:50:40 you say at paragraph 4.4.111d
01:50:48 and this is in the context of a different email chain um
01:50:56 uh or rather in the context of a different uh point but it's the same email chain itself
01:51:03 itself you say mr ashton's reply is astonishing coming from an alleged expert in fire safety within construction by stating if the insulation is combustible he appears to be condoning an outright breach of adb-2 guidance
01:51:15 an outright breach of adb-2 guidance under paragraph 12.7 now just looking at that do you agree that if another route to compliance with the building regulations had been adopted in other words one other than the linear route to compliance under
01:51:27 the linear route to compliance under paragraphs 12.6 to 12.9 then incorporation of an insulation which was combustible may not have been a breach of the building regulations
01:51:39 yes yes so is it possible then for cladding systems as a whole to satisfy the b4 requirement by other routes even though they included combustible products i i believe that's
01:51:51 combustible products i i believe that's correct yes now if mr ashton didn't know let's assume for as a fact at the moment he didn't know what route compliance had been
01:51:59 been adopted do you take the view that his response might have been reasonable no no looking at mr crawford though
01:52:11 may i explain very briefly why yes he anybody giving advice like this should understand the context in which the advice is being given
01:52:22 the advice is being given they should get the information in front of them he should have already known that the building was over 18 meters high if he didn't he should have got the information in front of him
01:52:33 information in front of him if he'd forgotten he should have reminded himself unqualified advice is just not acceptable this is very very serious
01:52:41 serious territory here he should have established the facts and then given the advice
01:52:45 advice having established the facts i think he should have been astonished and that's mr ashton turning then to mr crawford
01:52:54 crawford if the facts are that mr crawford knew that none of the three alternative routes to compliance was being considered let alone pursued would it have been reasonable for mr crawford
01:53:06 have been reasonable for mr crawford to have relied on mr ashton's statement here as providing any kind of comfort to him
01:53:11 him that he could go ahead and use combustible insulation but he did know that
01:53:15 that nova route was being pursued and uh he shouldn't have accepted such advice he should have raised questions and would you say shouldn't have um are
01:53:26 and would you say shouldn't have um are you saying that his doings he is um accepting the advice and not raising questions fell below the standard of the recent competent architecture yes yes [Applause]
01:53:37 [Applause] and would that not be all the more unreasonable for mr crawford to continue in the way he did in circumstances where what he was being told rightly or wrongly was that mr ashton didn't know what the build-up of the external wall comprised
01:53:49 external wall comprised well it's evident he didn't know what the build-up comprised and so as the um
01:53:57 i'm forgetting whether this comes after the novation isn't it this sequence it does this is september 2014. nevertheless to all intents and purposes it's the lead consultant
01:54:08 it's the lead consultant coordinating consultant anyway um he should have ins insisted that uh that the the source of advice
01:54:16 advice was properly informed and that they all got to grips with this i i can't understand i've heard the evidence um on this a number of the times i've read the evidence and i've heard it
01:54:28 read the evidence and i've heard it again the other day i cannot understand how an issue like this could have remained unresolved over such an extended period of time and this goes to the heart of it i think an architect should get grasp a nettle
01:54:42 an architect should get grasp a nettle like this
01:54:42 like this very very firmly and gather the people around the screen or the table and and fresh it out now at the time of celetex's launch of
01:54:54 now at the time of celetex's launch of rs 5000
01:54:57 rs 5000 in august 2014 uh it didn't replace it seems the fr 5000 product seletech seemed to continue mark to market both products as different
01:55:08 to market both products as different products for different applications
01:55:16 let's just look at well i'm going to put it to you
01:55:19 it to you do you remember that the celetex data sheet actually claimed that unlike the fr 5000 product rs 5000 had passed a bs 8414 test and therefore achieved compliance with the
01:55:30 therefore achieved compliance with the building regulations i do recall that yes i put the point rather generally um in that circumstance do you agree that studio e
01:55:39 studio e ought to have investigated the compliance of rs 5000 given that it was replacing fr5000 which is what they'd originally specified in the nbs specification
01:55:51 specified in the nbs specification uh i um forgive me i don't remember quite the what evidence came to them how they came to know that there had
01:56:02 how they came to know that there had been a replacement but if a product is being replaced they they should satisfy themselves that the replacement meets the requirements um that would allow it to be used yes
01:56:15 allow it to be used yes so do i take it from that answer that a re you would expect a reasonably competent architect um to investigate the change if i'm told anything's changing i want
01:56:26 if i'm told anything's changing i want to know what is being changed too would a reasonably competent architect expect the reasonably competent specialist cladding subcontractor also to investigate the compliance of the new insulation product well
01:56:40 new insulation product well this subcontractor claimed from the outset to be specialists um we'll deal with all the issues whereas away they cannot be specialists and then not deal with this sort of
01:56:51 and then not deal with this sort of issue
01:56:53 issue now can we go to phys five zeros three please
01:56:57 please i'm so sorry six zeros three in this report
01:57:02 report p-h-y-s-603 at page 22. i'm sorry on that last point there's a balance here yes architects and other consultants rightfully rely
01:57:14 rightfully rely on the good advice from competent suppliers and subcontractors i i don't want to give the opinion that nobody can be trusted we rely
01:57:25 nobody can be trusted we rely and we not only properly rely but we receive extremely good advice from very very
01:57:33 very very responsible companies so to suggest that such advice should it never comes would be wrong but an architect should always be circumspect and and satisfy themselves that they can
01:57:44 and satisfy themselves that they can rely on what they're being told certainly but certainly we get very good advice from very good suppliers and contractors but you're not saying are you in that answer that studio e would be able to perform their obligations
01:57:56 obligations uh to ride and or to their client the tmo simply by relying on harley with whom they had no relationship to make the check
01:58:07 relationship to make the check no absolutely not no um can we then go to phys 603 please at page 22 which i think is now on the screen in front of us i'd like to look at paragraph 4.2.27 with you
01:58:20 at paragraph 4.2.27 with you and you say in the third paragraph there with respect to the third paragraph of studio e's submission i confirmed that i understood at the time of writing my report that max fordham had indeed first proposed this product celetex fr5000
01:58:33 proposed this product celetex fr5000 it was studio e's responsibility to consider such a recommendation and to check its compliance with the guidance in adb2 and ultimately with the building regulations in this respect it was
01:58:44 regulations in this respect it was studio e not max fordham who incorporated the celetex product into the main construction information drawings and specification which form the principal documentation employs requirements upon which the design and build tender was procured
01:58:58 design and build tender was procured do you agree that studio e couldn't expect to fulfill that responsibility by simply adopting max fordham's proposal without any further investigation
01:59:11 they should have either already known or they should have investigated and is that because it was studio e's responsibility as the architect as the lead designer and indeed the lead consultant before novation
01:59:23 consultant before novation to consider and confirm the suitability of that material
01:59:28 that is correct i know the answer should be concise that's correct i think that it's reasonable to be pretty disappointed that um a recommendation has been made for ceretex by consultant
01:59:41 for ceretex by consultant and that's a very fine firm max for them but nevertheless i think it disappointment or otherwise they had a duty to check it they were expect they were drawing up the specification and when i say suitability in that last
01:59:53 and when i say suitability in that last question
01:59:53 question i'm including compliance with the building regulations and approved documents that's what i was focusing on yes thank you
02:00:06 in your view would consideration of suitability uh include assessing not only compliance with
02:00:13 with uh part b fire safety but also part l of the building regulations conservation of fuel and power
02:00:24 um
02:00:28 i think there it's it's much more um reasonable for the architect to rely on um a firm like max fordham because we're now into specialist
02:00:39 we're now into specialist territory of calculating the performance of a material or a combination of materials um that's a stock in trade
02:00:51 um that's a stock in trade so i think the the area there is to ensure that the proper questioning of this of the other consultant max fordham
02:01:02 fordham takes place uh to satisfy um myself as an archday if i put into the first person that the insulation is not only going to do the job
02:01:13 do the job that they said it will do but that the target figures that they've suggested are the right target figures yes but i think
02:01:21 think an architect would rely much more heavily on um a specialist services consultant to perform those calculations to make those recommendations and would you expect that to include
02:01:34 and would you expect that to include consideration of all of the component elements of the cladding system so the panels the insulation the cavity barriers fixing rails etc and look at the entire system in terms
02:01:47 and look at the entire system in terms of
02:01:49 of the insulation in terms of the performance in terms of the performance of the entire system well now we're down into conversations i think about the bracketry and and the rest of it yes i mean
02:01:58 i mean the whole thing needs to be looked at in the round yes and that would include also beyond the round in a way the design strategy within the constraints of the client's requirements planning requirements and technical issues like buildability
02:02:15 i don't think that i'd necessarily expect the um the services consultant to be thinking about buildability with the same level of
02:02:27 with the same level of awareness that i as an architect would be doing or expecting my team to do no and i meant the questions from the architect's point of view the architect would have to consider not only all of the component elements of the cladding system
02:02:39 the cladding system but also the design strategy within the constraints of the clients requirements planning issues and technical issues such as buildability that's their job yes and therefore would you agree with
02:02:51 yes and therefore would you agree with me that it's the architect's responsibility to satisfy itself or himself or herself that the materials are capable of meeting the target u values and complying with part l
02:03:02 complying with part l but also to make sure that the materials also comply with the requirements of part b
02:03:08 part b yes
02:03:11 [Applause] and the architect would have to make a holistic
02:03:16 holistic assessment of the proposal in the light of all these perhaps competing um guidance considerations well again i say that's a job yes yes now can we uh go to
02:03:29 can we uh go to your report please at phyr 6029 please at sorry 5-0 29 at page 29.
02:03:49 and let's look at paragraph 4.2.26 together
02:03:54 together that says a service engineers max fordham should have known the importance and principle of compliance with building regulations and should have been sufficiently familiar with both the building regulations and the approved documents with respect to all aspects of
02:04:05 documents with respect to all aspects of their
02:04:06 their particular discipline in those circumstances they ought not have proposed a pir product in this situation i think that max fordham can therefore be criticized for proposing a material that was clearly non-compliant with the
02:04:17 that was clearly non-compliant with the guidance in adb-2 and which did not meet the requirements of the building regulations now on that paragraph can i just ask you in proposing the celetex fr 5000 product would you expect the reasonably
02:04:29 would you expect the reasonably competent
02:04:29 competent architect to understand that the m e engineer in this case max fordham had made its proposal on the basis of the thermal performance aspirations and thickness requirements which studio
02:04:41 and thickness requirements which studio e had set
02:04:47 as opposed to complying with the fire aspects is that what you're asking uh well i'm asking you whether it it you would understand the reasonably
02:04:58 you would understand the reasonably competent architect to have understood that the m e engineer in this case max fordham had put forward its proposal for um thermal aspirations performance
02:05:09 thermal aspirations performance aspirations and thickness requirements based on what the architect itself had said
02:05:16 well i think that the u-value target was something that emerged through discussion between the parties which is a perfectly normal thing having established the
02:05:27 established the the target you value yes i would expect max fordham's to propose a way of complying with that new value okay but does that then raise this
02:05:40 okay but does that then raise this question
02:05:41 question would a reasonably competent architect expect that the m e engineer had given consideration to the fire performance properties of that product
02:05:57 services engineers are very familiar with the
02:06:01 with the building regulations and the approved documents but not in as wide a sense as architects
02:06:10 the origins of the building regulations are in the early part of the 19th century public health legislation public health is drainage and water and safety in that respect that's the platform from which all
02:06:22 that's the platform from which all subsequent building regulations have come
02:06:25 come serious engineers deal with drainage and water they're very concerned about these sort of things so they know the importance of regulations and um they would be familiar with the entire suite
02:06:36 would be familiar with the entire suite of documents although their focus may be on particular i accept their focus on particular parts but i think that um a firm uh a good firm of service engineers who are getting
02:06:47 engineers who are getting increasingly involved in insulating buildings whether new or overclouding to meet
02:06:54 meet um shifting and improving standards they should familiarize themselves with the
02:07:02 the the broader range of issues that their proposals need to be considered under
02:07:09 under and by that i'm saying yes they should familiarize themselves with the basic principles of fire yes maybe they should maybe they should mr height that wasn't quite an answer to my question my question was
02:07:21 my question my question was would a reasonably competent architect in the position of studio e expect a services engineer in the position of max fordham uh to have uh given consideration to the fire
02:07:34 uh given consideration to the fire performance properties of fr 5000 well they they were the first people who specified it i believe and as an architect that has not specified it they
02:07:46 architect that has not specified it they were the people that recommended the product
02:07:48 product if they had recommended it to me i would expect that recommendation to be based on um a reasonable
02:08:01 based on um a reasonable careful assessment of the product and i would not expect them to be recommending a product which fails at the first post because it isn't going to get past part b um let me try it slightly
02:08:13 part b um let me try it slightly differently although i can see that you might expect a reasonably competent architect to expect
02:08:25 architect to expect that the services engineer would have examined very carefully the thermal performance of fr 5000 and whether it complied and worked
02:08:34 worked for that purpose but why would you consider if you do consider that studio e was reasonably entitled to rely on the services engineer to make sure that fr 5000 complied with
02:08:46 to make sure that fr 5000 complied with part b of the building regulations with part b part b fire performance
02:08:56 because they're in in the they're working in this territory extensively and i would afford their ex their experience would have informed
02:09:08 their experience would have informed their recommendations having said that i'm clear that the final responsibility for this the screening of this uh that responsibility lies with the architect
02:09:21 responsibility lies with the architect yes so does that lead us to this conclusion that even though studio he might reasonably have thought that that max fordham might have satisfied itself as to the uh
02:09:32 as to the uh compliance of fr 5000 with um adb nonetheless it remained studio e's obligation to make that check independently for itself i would have expected my team to make
02:09:44 i would have expected my team to make that check and if i found out that this had happened i would have been on the phone to them and i'd have expressed my extreme displeasure yes
02:09:57 i hope that's that was clear that was clear yeah thank you um and um
02:10:07 would it therefore be unreasonable for studio e to have assumed without any checking that the m e engineer max fordham in this case had considered the suitability of fr
02:10:18 had considered the suitability of fr 5000 so far as its performance in fire and compliance with part b was coming sorry can you deliver that one again yes do you think it would have been unreasonable in other words fell below the standards
02:10:29 in other words fell below the standards of the reasonable architect for studio e simply to have proceeded on the assumption that the m e engineer had considered the suitability of fr five thousand feet the architect has inspected the responsibility for what
02:10:40 responsibility for what he is specifying and um this isn't locked away in in some highly discrete part for example of the structural engineers calculations or
02:10:52 structural engineers calculations or anything like this this is a broad specification issue having said that my displeasure is based on the fact that i don't want curved balls sent at me when i'm trying to get a specification together so i expect people to be pretty responsible about
02:11:03 people to be pretty responsible about what they're doing but nevertheless
02:11:08 it would be wrong to rely on the services engineer in that way if the services engineer was making his recommendation on the basis of thermal performance do you accept that it would be unreasonable
02:11:19 you accept that it would be unreasonable for studio e to assume that the m e engineer had also considered the um compliance of fr 5000 with part b of the building regulations fire performance
02:11:31 performance it's almost i'm taking that as almost the same question again it is really yeah
02:11:36 yeah and i'd give i think the same answer as before yes good um now um i i just wanted to show you what mr sands said in his oral evidence and this is at day 12 page 181
02:11:50 evidence and this is at day 12 page 181 please
02:12:00 and if we can go to line 17 [Music]
02:12:04 [Music] uh well we could start at line 12 in fact there's a bit of a run up miss grange asks mr sands this question during your time on the grenfell project can you explain why you thought celetex
02:12:15 thought celetex fr 5000 was suitable to be used within the overcladding system answer why did i think it was question yes
02:12:23 yes answer erm it had been put forward by max fordham who knew had who i knew had who i understood had undertaken this sort of project several times or many times and i guess i made an assumption that
02:12:35 and i guess i made an assumption that they had used this before in similar circumstances so it's based rather on inferring its acceptability from previous experience by max fordham do you uh mr hyatt sitting there agree
02:12:47 do you uh mr hyatt sitting there agree that that was not a reasonable basis upon which mr sones as the architect could have relied on max fordham's identification of fr 5000 as representing any
02:12:59 fr 5000 as representing any proper consideration or advice about its compliance with part b of the building regulations it is not it is not
02:13:08 just focusing away from fire and looking at thermal performance for a moment do you consider that a figure of 0.15
02:13:19 do you consider that a figure of 0.15 watts per
02:13:23 square meter k u value target adopted by studio e was achievable at all through the use of insulation materials compliant with the building regulations uh the indicative design demonstrates it
02:13:35 uh the indicative design demonstrates it is
02:13:39 well uh sorry achievable in the context of this building yes when i say that yes and yes i see so your answer is achievable but but if i should say only if you build it
02:13:50 but if i should say only if you build it out in the way you've you've identified in the indicative well also i'd need to see the circumstances of
02:13:55 of any particular building there may be reasons why there is not enough space to have that thickness of insulation but on this building as demonstrated by the indicative approach it it could have been made to
02:14:06 approach it it could have been made to work
02:14:07 work um the 0.15 figure wasn't a mandatory requirement under the building no it's not no um if it was thought that this target you value wasn't achievable through use of
02:14:18 value wasn't achievable through use of um through use of mineral wool for example could the u-value target have been relaxed yes and was the decision to place the new thermal insulation on the outside of
02:14:30 new thermal insulation on the outside of the building an appropriate one given the u-value
02:14:38 any
02:14:42 if i just use the broad heading of save the planet and any insulation on the outside of the building is going to do a good job because what it effectively does is turns the entire concrete structure of
02:14:54 turns the entire concrete structure of the building into a great heat or cool sink so the insulation on the outside of the building is going to enable that structure to stay cooler
02:15:05 enable that structure to stay cooler in the summer therefore less air conditioning to get temperatures down and warmer in the winter so it was the right place to put it from that point of view there are other
02:15:16 from that point of view there are other reasons why it was right as well the level of disruption within those apartments by going into them and insulating all of those walls from the inside would have been
02:15:26 been extreme so there's many reasons why it was a good decision now moving on this the stage c report done by studio e was completed i think in october 2012 wasn't
02:15:37 wasn't it right yes uh is it i don't remember the dates oh i said but i would lie on you it was um take it from me that it was and is it right that the stage c report uh set out the preliminary design
02:15:49 uh set out the preliminary design decisions and materials to be incorporated within the refurbishment yes i've seen that report and
02:15:55 and it it's a very fair document and um the design then uh developed significantly following in the period following the stage c report
02:16:06 stage c report after october 2012. yes and indeed the in the end the materials ultimately installed as part of the rain screen cladding facade at grenfell tower were not the ones specified in the stage
02:16:18 were not the ones specified in the stage c report of october 2012 were they some of them were not when i say materials i i mean the rain screen and the insulation at the very least
02:16:30 insulation at the very least correct yes let's look at your report please at p-h-y i beg your pardon the main screen no the insulation uh yes you're correct no
02:16:41 the insulation uh yes you're correct no because it was designated with a different code but i believe it was the same product we'll come to the okay exactly but we'll come to the tease that distinction apart shortly um probably tomorrow now
02:16:54 apart shortly um probably tomorrow now but shortly anyway in your examination can we look at your report at page 28 phyr50 is 29 please at page 28. and we can look at paragraph 4.2.21
02:17:05 28. and we can look at paragraph 4.2.21 there it's a long paragraph so let's pick it up six lines down if we can
02:17:10 can you say that i am however aware that xover was sent a link to the studio e stage c report and you give the reference there on 31st of october 2012 and that this stage
02:17:21 31st of october 2012 and that this stage c report contained details about the specification of fr 5000 those details were contained on page 12 of the max fordham stage c report which was included within the studio e stage c report from
02:17:33 within the studio e stage c report from page 70.
02:17:35 page 70. by virtue of x over having received the studio e stage c report it's therefore clear that xover had indeed received confirmation of the proposed use of fr 5000
02:17:46 5000 from the 31st of october 2012 regardless of whether they then later received the studio e stage d report
02:17:53 report you see that yes and then you go on to say on this basis i am of the opinion that xavier should have realized that the design team were intending to incorporate an insulation material within
02:18:05 material within the external wall that was not compliant with the guidance in 12.7 of adb and in such circumstances should have advised that the product was non-compliant and should not be specified
02:18:16 specified now just as a reminder at this time xover
02:18:21 xover had been engaged by the tmo as the consultant fire safety engineer and xavier had produced revision one issue one of its outline fire safety strategy
02:18:31 strategy the same day in fact the 31st of october 2012.
02:18:35 2012. and it's it but that document i don't think was part of the the stage c report what was was its design note of the 12th of september 2012 uh uh which was in there now
02:18:49 uh uh which was in there now it it is obviously correct that the stage c report is 186 pages long and the celetex fr 5000 product is referred to in four lines in a table on pages 82 and 83.
02:19:02 pages 82 and 83. um we can we can look at those let's just pick that up if we can it's sea406429
02:19:09 sea406429 a page 82.
02:19:13 sca406429 page 82 that's where we see the celetex fr 5000 reference within the stage c
02:19:19 stage c report you see that it's on the right hand side in the two boxes spandrel wall panel green three entries down
02:19:27 down you see that yep insulation new celtics fr 5000 and then again column pink insulation new celitex fr 5000 so that's where it appears now you've said in your report and we've
02:19:39 now you've said in your report and we've discussed
02:19:40 discussed elsewhere that an architect shouldn't be criticized for reading only one page of the bba certificate um what do you say to the view that your opinions in respective studio are reading the heard of the bba certificate
02:19:51 reading the heard of the bba certificate and your
02:19:51 and your criticism of x over failing to comment on the proposed use of celetex fr 5000 are difficult to reconcile i think now you've accepted i think that the architect should have read the whole of the bba certificate
02:20:03 the bba certificate there's there's no inconsistency the architect should have read uh on x over should have read um the fr5000 reference here as well shouldn't they
02:20:14 shouldn't they yes i've i've still think there's shades of grey and all this but yes yes yes and if we go then on to uh exo40s one five seven
02:20:25 exo40s one five seven five please this is an email chain
02:20:32 uh from october 2012 and in the second email down if you look this is adrian jesse's email he's studio e and it goes to
02:20:44 e and it goes to it goes to various people but it goes to artelia
02:20:47 artelia or then apple yards which also goes to the tmo
02:20:51 the tmo and it's copied to x over you see that and it says please find attach the studio e
02:20:56 studio e ftp location for the stage c report and there it is set out you see that yes and then we can see some action points
02:21:09 that are set out by mr jess for artelia mr jess hasn't asked x over to consider the proposed materials and to comment on them
02:21:19 them do you think that mr jess or somebody else ought to have considered the proposals and made a comment on them at that stage
02:21:30 [Music] do i think mr jess should have well studio e generally then if not mr jess personally so do i think they should have
02:21:41 so do i think they should have considered what do i d do you think that studio e uh should have uh asked x over to consider the proposals and
02:21:52 x over to consider the proposals and comment on them at that stage in in the stage c report yes
02:21:56 yes yes was it unreasonable of of studio e not to alert x over to the materials to be used in the cladding
02:22:08 be used in the cladding well the report is report and i don't think i i would expect studio e to have summarized the report of the principal headings
02:22:20 the report of the principal headings that they particularly want xover to look at
02:22:23 look at having said that i do think it's very important
02:22:26 important with other consultants and particularly the building regulations people that when information is sent when links are sent to things when documents are sent the purpose of that is made clear and i think it would
02:22:38 that is made clear and i think it would have been
02:22:40 have been incumbent on the actor to say here is a stage d report please look at it carefully full stop having made that comment
02:22:48 comment um i wouldn't expect necessarily the fire people to fire specialists to read every uh paragraph in every subsection because some of those will have nothing to do whatsoever with fire
02:22:59 whatsoever with fire but they are experienced people they know what they should be looking for is escape principles of escape arrangements there the overcladding there's another key
02:23:10 the overcladding there's another key issue and i think they would have known where in they should have known where in that report to go and having got there they should find
02:23:18 find the diagram that you just showed me previously and the table and they should be zeroing in on that pretty quickly of their own accord was it incumbent on studio e to have pointed out to example
02:23:29 pointed out to example what it is they should be looking at and asking for that no i don't think so now go to um your report please at phyr5030
02:23:40 page 27 phyr 5030 at page 27. let's look together at paragraph 5.2.18 at
02:23:49 at f and you say there surprisingly it seems that the intention to use celotex fr 5000
02:23:54 fr 5000 was not brought to the attention of building control either by way of discussion during meetings or by way of documentation submission alternatively building control despite being made aware of the proposed use of
02:24:05 being made aware of the proposed use of pir insulation did not raise objection now you also i think if we go back to page
02:24:13 page 69 of
02:24:16 69 of this report
02:24:21 yeah you say their paragraph 5.4.47 um at the bottom of the figure 5.55 under the materials key
02:24:33 the figure 5.55 under the materials key and that materials key we looked at earlier on you say an issue of this significance should certainly have been brought clearly to the attention of building control
02:24:40 control through dedicated and discreet correspondence and documentation um taking those two paragraphs together paragraph 5.2.18 f and paragraph 5.4.47
02:24:52 f and paragraph 5.4.47 on these separate pages um would this view apply similarly to the use of celetex
02:24:58 celetex fr 5000 or rs 5000. sorry i need some help here
02:25:03 help here that um sentence an issue of this significance should certainly have been brought to the attention which issue is that well that that is the issue about
02:25:14 well that that is the issue about acm the proposed change uh from zinc to aluminium and that is the basic context of this point if you look above that
02:25:26 of this point if you look above that 5.4.7 um but the point i want to put to you is that given that that issue of significance should have been brought to the attention of building control
02:25:36 control my question is um does that view apply also to the use of celitex fr 5000 or rs 5000 or indeed the change from one to the other well yes if the the building regulations
02:25:52 well yes if the the building regulations application at whatever point the information came through we talked i've heard of us talking about tracked um
02:26:01 um systems of application a lot of information is flowing over a long time but the information about the installation needed to get to the building makes people at some point
02:26:13 some point and if there was a change to that specification
02:26:19 i think it should have well i'm hesitating sadly i think it should have been brought to their attention but if the architect was confident that the change didn't make any change
02:26:31 that the change didn't make any change in its status in terms of compliance then
02:26:34 then maybe he or she could confidently proceed
02:26:37 proceed but essentially it if a product has been if if information if a product product has been described as part of a building rig's application
02:26:48 as part of a building rig's application and that product is going to change um then i think that uh it's it's incumbent on the architect to advise building control accordingly right um
02:26:58 right um do you think it was a bit of a long answer no that's all right do you think it
02:27:01 it encompass incumbent on studio e to have drawn x
02:27:05 drawn x overs explicit attention to the proposed use of celetex fr5000
02:27:14 well um yes but in that sense it was there in the report in the hc and d report and do you think it was incumbent upon studio e to draw
02:27:25 it was incumbent upon studio e to draw xover's attention to the change from fr 5000 to rs 5000 in the summer of 2014. well firstly it's clearly there in the
02:27:36 well firstly it's clearly there in the newport anyway to start with um yes if well if the pro if the product was changing and x over have given advice based on
02:27:48 and x over have given advice based on one piece of information if the information from which their advice was given
02:27:53 given has changed then they should be told you say it's clearly there in the report but there's no report which ever identifies uh the fact that fr 5000 is not being used
02:28:04 is not being used and rs 5000 is being used instead right yes
02:28:08 yes um but there was a change and my question is sh was it incumbent on studio e to to go to x over and ask them to confirm to them
02:28:18 them whether the change was appropriate and whether rs 5000 could be used in this range screen system yes i think that follows yes
02:28:32 do you think it was critical for the reasonably competent architect to send the stage d report to the specialist fire safety consultant
02:28:42 well certainly
02:28:47 i mean they were they were never released as i understand it tmo remained the consultant even though they
02:28:53 they didn't get invaded and so um yeah and that raises a whole host of questions which you may ask me tomorrow about that but i'll leave that there
02:29:04 leave that there yes and just in on that when you say the tmo remained the consultant i think you mean x over remain the consultant of the tma i it's it's been a long day i meant that is what i meant it has
02:29:15 is what i meant it has uh and when you say you'll leave that there i think i will also leave that there mr chairman is that a convenient certainly is yes well it has been quite a long day with diet but um we'll stop there um we'll ask you if you
02:29:27 we'll stop there um we'll ask you if you would
02:29:27 would come back tomorrow please with some more questions
02:29:30 questions start at 10 o'clock 10 o'clock and uh in the meantime it may be a relief to be told you're not supposed to talk to your ev
02:29:37 ev about your evidence to anyone else no on the break
02:29:41 the break i'm aware of that yes it'll be a very quiet supper well you can talk about anything else oh yes
02:29:48 yes all right thank you very much would you like to go with the ocean thank you
02:30:06 right thank you very much 10 o'clock tomorrow please
02:30:48 you