Expert building control surveyor testifies on RBKC's failures in reviewing Grenfell refurbishment plans, including lack of cladding package scrutiny and inadequate records.
00:00:11 thank you would you ask mr menses to come back in please
00:00:27 all right miss menses thank you ready to carry on
00:00:30 carry on yes when you're ready ms green yes thank you yes mrs benzis in a moment i'm going to start exploring with you some of the main conclusions that you've reached in your report but just before i do can you just help us what is the usual qualification route
00:00:43 what is the usual qualification route that people follow to become a building control officer what type of qualification would they routinely
00:00:49 routinely uh undertake um these days it would be uh usually a degree in building surveying or following the route right the way
00:01:01 or following the route right the way through to becoming a member of the cabe charlton association of building engineers or you can actually take a degree
00:01:09 degree in building control okay good thank you so your main conclusions first of all about rbkc's building control department if we can go on page 9 of your report paragraph 32
00:01:28 and we can see there
00:01:32 that you say disclosures today indicate that the building control department lacked a strategic policy to support the legal obligations of rbkc to achieve and enforce compliance with the building act
00:01:43 enforce compliance with the building act 1984 and the building regulations can you just help us when you say lacked a strategic
00:01:49 strategic policy to support those legal obligations what what exactly do you mean by that i've not seen anything in the disclosures that suggest to me that there was a policy that
00:02:01 that there was a policy that staff were required to abide by whereby decisions were made within the statutory time limit that certain policies were followed to
00:02:12 that certain policies were followed to ensure that the requirements of the building regulations as regards time limits and getting decisions out and achieving compliance for uh completion certificates were within
00:02:25 uh completion certificates were within the department yeah and would you have expected to have seen such a policy in a reasonably competent building control department yes yeah now moving on to the
00:02:36 yes yeah now moving on to the relationship with the the means of escape group within the department you say at paragraph 34 on that same page
00:02:44 page that you consider it to be a failure on the part of rbkc not to have used the valuable asset of a qualified fire engineer that's paul hansen
00:02:54 hansen to the benefit of the building control department as a whole and then you say at 35 it appears to me that the working relationship between the means of escape group and the other parts of the building control department
00:03:05 parts of the building control department was
00:03:05 was undefined and unclear to those involved and did not necessarily support project surveyors reaching the most appropriate decisions
00:03:13 decisions in relation to part b of schedule 1 of the building regulations 2010 you see that there yes and i think you think that that was an underused resource focusing predominantly on b1 and b5 issues when
00:03:26 predominantly on b1 and b5 issues when it could have been used for other issues including
00:03:28 including b2 to b4 is that correct that's correct because a competent building control officer would have a knowledge of b1 seeking support perhaps for complicated
00:03:40 seeking support perhaps for complicated uh
00:03:40 uh escape proposals and would have a knowledge of b5 i thought it was a strange
00:03:51 i thought it was a strange setup to have a department specifically for those things that should have been general knowledge to most yeah how common is it for a local authority building called department to have a qualified fire
00:04:02 department to have a qualified fire engineer working within that department these days it's not uncommon yeah and at the time of the grenfell project there were building control suppose with fire engineering qualifications yes
00:04:16 [Music] where local authority building control bodies have access to a fire engineer what's your experience of how access to the skills of that fire engineer are
00:04:27 engineer are used they'd be consulted on
00:04:33 complex proposals or proposals that for what for which there was not government so shall we say they weren't they're not covered in the approved
00:04:44 they're not covered in the approved document
00:04:45 document but perhaps covered elsewhere by other guidance uh or where interpretation of the guidance was questioned perhaps between the the the applicant and the building control
00:04:57 the applicant and the building control body
00:04:58 body yeah was the structure of rbkc building control
00:05:01 control body in that way uncommon amongst local authorities [Music]
00:05:08 [Music] um
00:05:11 um yes i've never encountered a separate group
00:05:16 group it is not clear to me who mr hansen actually reported to where he sat within the building control department because he's in a subgroup of what i understand is the
00:05:28 subgroup of what i understand is the building control department yeah but he seems to be quite you know frank underused yeah are you
00:05:39 you know frank underused yeah are you aware any reason why there might historically have been a focus on means of escape at the expense of other aspects of fire engineering
00:05:50 um i could make guesses but it i have nothing to support my view i mean one possibility that's been suggested to us is could this be as a result of the catastrophic summerlands
00:06:01 a result of the catastrophic summerlands fire
00:06:02 fire in the isle of man in 1973 where 50 people were trapped and died in which emphasis was put on the need for regulating authorities to ensure full provision of means of escape could that be part of the reason why
00:06:14 could that be part of the reason why building control bodies like rbkc have such a focus i would not have thought so no okay now pre-application and looking at the different stages of
00:06:26 and looking at the different stages of rbkc's involvement we know there's the pre-application advice stage and we know that mr allen mr gammon and mr hansen provided some pre-application advice on grenfell tower
00:06:37 pre-application advice on grenfell tower in particular with relation to b1 and b5 issues
00:06:44 now you're going to be giving evidence about the smoke vent system in module three
00:06:48 three so that will come later but in general what level of scrutiny of proposed works would you expect from a building control body at the pre-application stage it would mainly be
00:06:59 stage it would mainly be via discussion as to adequacy of what was being considered to be proposed may have been written comments if there was a particular
00:07:11 comments if there was a particular aspect that was contentious
00:07:14 but not to the degree of giving marked drawings back yeah would you expect them at that stage to look at the scheme as a whole and note problems or areas where
00:07:25 and note problems or areas where information might be lacking [Music]
00:07:28 [Music] yes the pre-meetings uh pre-application meetings are generally instigated by the applicant because they've got a particular concern i see um
00:07:41 particular concern i see um and then they would go away uh and take that
00:07:44 that but if there was anything evident if somebody said oh we're going to overclad it i would have expected somebody to said well what are you going to overclad it with yeah well let's take that that kind of
00:07:55 yeah well let's take that that kind of example
00:07:56 example so we know that the x over outline fire safety strategy versions one and two were provided to rbkc when studio e sought pre-application advice now at that stage before the full plans
00:08:08 now at that stage before the full plans application was submitted would you have expected rbkc's surveyors to pick up on the fact that there was no in-depth analysis of b4 issues it wasn't it's still not uh well
00:08:20 it wasn't it's still not uh well post-fire it is but pre the fire grenfell it was not unusual for b4 in the context of the actual war construction
00:08:31 construction to follow on because it was probably being discussed at planning anyway the aspect of b4 i think that was in the exo van it was quite common at the time to comment on that at the
00:08:42 at the time to comment on that at the very early stages was the space separation um whereby a fire in one building is not trans by ray transferred by radiation to another building
00:08:52 building and because it's an existing building it would be necessary to do a full analysis to make sure that if the relevant boundary
00:09:04 that if the relevant boundary which was the notional boundary between the two existing buildings um didn't comply with current standards it would be set to be most advantageous to the existing buildings and made no
00:09:16 to the existing buildings and made no worse by the new works yeah just to be clear you said there that the aspect of b4 i think that was in the x over was the space separation i don't think
00:09:27 was the space separation i don't think we do see in any of the outline fire safety strategies any space separation analysis correct we just see a single statement saying that's right proposals no no
00:09:38 saying that's right proposals no no the changes won't affect this um we'll consider it in a future uh issue of this report but i'm interested in your focus on space separation would you say at the time that to the extent that building control
00:09:50 that to the extent that building control officers were looking at b4 issues they were focusing predominantly on space separation ie section 13 of adb as opposed to section 12 of adb an
00:10:01 as opposed to section 12 of adb an external fire spread i don't think there was any particular focus on b4 full stop but it was in the x over
00:10:07 x over i it doesn't actually say space separation but i to me it's inferred that it is the space separation that's being thought about bikes over i see so when
00:10:19 thought about bikes over i see so when they talk about an analysis in a future issue of the the report
00:10:22 report you think they they were referring to space separation yes i see
00:10:28 now mr allen's evidence was that during the pre-application stages he was not aware even in broad terms that the project involved over cladding that's day 47 page 176 lines 1-16
00:10:42 page 176 lines 1-16 would it be common for a building control officer at that stage not to know
00:10:45 know the broad details of what a project involved
00:10:50 involved well in my experience the person who was the applicant come for the pre-application advice would give an overview of what was going on
00:10:59 on and as the overcladding was a major constituent of that i would have thought it would have been mentioned by i honestly don't know if it was mentioned at the time i can't see anything
00:11:08 anything from the disclosures that i recall would you expect a building control officer to ask for an overall summary of what the scheme comprised
00:11:17 comprised for any refurbishment works yes yes now moving on to the full plans application um you've said in paragraph 316 of your report on page 98 that you would have
00:11:29 report on page 98 that you would have expected
00:11:30 expected the building control body review of the full plans application to have been recorded and retained that's right isn't it
00:11:38 it yes and you've also said that the disclosed
00:11:41 disclosed p 60 tick list would in your opinion have been an inadequate record that's right isn't it yes now can we just look at that p60 it's that page you've got it on page 66
00:11:52 it's that page you've got it on page 66 of your report
00:11:55 you've ah try the next sorry
00:12:04 oh we'll find the reference to it ah there we go thank you 65 thank you sorry that's a wrong reference um so here we can see that form p60 which
00:12:15 so here we can see that form p60 which is the full plans decision tick sheet can you just help us as to precisely why you say this was inadequate it says pass
00:12:26 i wouldn't think other than for a small domestic there would be no conditions attached it says conditional perhaps you would tick it but there's no place to put
00:12:39 any conditions condition one amended deposited plans i don't know if that meant it was a condition that used to shall amend the plans and deposit the plans but
00:12:50 plans but there's no in nowhere that you would record
00:12:53 record what those amendments were required or in the further plans required what those plans should address rejected reason one does not comply with regulation four
00:13:05 regulation four would contravene regulation for well that's no help to anybody going forward yeah so i'm not quite sure at what stage this would be used
00:13:18 at what stage this would be used on a large project yeah i mean how would the decision on a full plans application normally be recorded internally what kind of document would
00:13:29 internally what kind of document would you expect to see um in the in practice i have used um almost like a a checklist a going down yeah in my case b going
00:13:42 a going down yeah in my case b going down
00:13:43 down and making sure that i address every aspect in looking at those plans for a general building control officer there are 20 approved documents
00:13:55 there are 20 approved documents all of which could apply to a project and there's no way they could retain that in their head yeah so to have to use some form of document to recall what they were doing and to make sure for themselves that they went through a process whereby they
00:14:08 they went through a process whereby they were looking at every aspect they had to yes now on that topic of text that you should carry out so if we now look at um on page 98 of your report paragraph
00:14:19 um on page 98 of your report paragraph 317
00:14:23 at the bottom you've helpfully explained what the part b review of the works at grenfell tower should have comprised and you've given us a list
00:14:32 us a list a detailed scrutiny of the fire safety proposals i sat out in the plans and documents
00:14:37 documents an assessment by the building control body as to whether there was adequate detail to allow an assessment to be made a record of the review noting any variations from recognized guidance
00:14:48 variations from recognized guidance and if we go over the page an assessment of whether the proposal was generally compliant as regards b1 and b5 to allow the fire authority consultation and then the issue of a decision notice
00:15:00 and then the issue of a decision notice as a record of the approved or rejected work
00:15:03 work so those are certain key things you you say
00:15:06 say should be considered just as part of the the part b review that's right in my opinion yes yeah now we know that the hard copy file cannot be located of the full plans
00:15:17 cannot be located of the full plans application within rbkc and the electronic records that are held by them are not complete however taking into account the documents you have looked at and the oral evidence you have now heard
00:15:29 oral evidence you have now heard to what extent did rb casey's review of the full plans application cover the issues you would expect to see as you've set out in this report
00:15:40 you've set out in this report the only um disclosure that i've seen that
00:15:44 that addressed your question would be the uh documentation produced by mr hanson under his
00:15:50 under his b1 review b5 is alluded to as regards the drive riser in that relocation but overall it's not covered and
00:16:03 but overall it's not covered and between documents and witness statements that i've seen i'm still not sure what mr hansen was going to give
00:16:15 mr hansen was going to give comment on a standard because mr hoban asked for comments under part b yeah
00:16:22 yeah but you only ever get back b1 comments yeah so um apart from that there's nothing
00:16:29 nothing that i can suggest to you says that that was a review of part b yeah as such yeah now um just then moving on to highlight your
00:16:41 just then moving on to highlight your conclusions on the substance of the full plans application and this is set out early on in your report where you've helpfully given a summary of your opinion if we can look at page 9 of your report
00:16:52 if we can look at page 9 of your report paragraph 37
00:16:58 you say there in paragraph 37 in my opinion the information submitted to the bcb at the time of the full plans application was insufficient to demonstrate compliance with the building regulations
00:17:09 regulations the bcb ought to have requested further information about the proposed works and in particular the cladding panels and insulation the bcp also failed to acknowledge that some information was out of date and
00:17:20 some information was out of date and contradictory for example the fact that the x over fire strategy did not address the actual proposals
00:17:26 proposals indicated on the submitted plans was not mentioned in paul hanson's response so we we can see that there and then at paragraph 8 38
00:17:38 paragraph 8 38 you state that um the building control body effectively what you say is they should have asked for a new or updated fire strategy that's in the fourth line should have been requested from the
00:17:49 should have been requested from the applicant to reflect the full extent of the works
00:17:52 the works that's correct isn't it yes the xova fire strategy um addressed the initial proposal it did not address
00:18:03 the initial proposal it did not address the additional residential units that were ultimately built yeah and then at 39 um importantly for our purposes on the cladding particularly
00:18:14 cladding particularly you say as far as i've been able to ascertain
00:18:17 ascertain an in-depth review of the cladding was not undertaken as we can just move the page down so i can see
00:18:24 can see paragraph 39 yeah the disclosures to date indicate that no comprehensive details of the cladding systems were submitted to the building control body for review and the building control body does not never go over the page appear to have
00:18:36 never go over the page appear to have sought details from the applicant or sought to ascertain or corroborate that the materials individually or the cladding system as a whole were in accordance with the recommendations of approved document b
00:18:47 recommendations of approved document b or bs
00:18:47 or bs triple nine one for a building of this height and use the failure to ask for detailed information about the cladding system was in my opinion a fundamental failing on the part of the building control body
00:19:00 on the part of the building control body um
00:19:00 um see that there yes just picking up on that
00:19:04 that sometimes in your report you've said there was a fundamental failing sometimes you've just said there was a failing or a procedural failing can you just help us and help the panel
00:19:14 the panel um how have you distinguished between those things in your report so when you say here this is a fundamental failing what do you mean by that by fundamental i think it's the outcome
00:19:25 i think it's the outcome and the result of not gaining that information i don't know why there was no cladding package as i describe it because it wouldn't only address part b but it would address part
00:19:38 part b but it would address part l for the thermal aspect yes of the project which was a major feature one of the reasons as i understand it the project was undertaken and there was also aspects of
00:19:50 and there was also aspects of acoustic separation between the units that would have been influenced so there just seems to be a fundamental failure as i describe it a basic failure with
00:20:00 with fast spreading consequences yeah of not gaining that package information yeah so where we read fundamental failing i think you've said their basic failing or serious failing would we take it to mean
00:20:11 serious failing would we take it to mean that yeah
00:20:15 now at paragraph 40 you then go on to say due to the number of issues found in respect to requirement b1 alone
00:20:22 b1 alone the full plans applications should have been rejected when first received the plans should have been reviewed in the five week statute time limit this would have been a simple exercise based on comparison with the p1
00:20:34 exercise based on comparison with the p1 annotations now you've explained in detail in your report and i'm not going to take you through it today because we don't have time and all the reasons why the requirement b1 alone
00:20:43 b1 alone would have justified rejecting the plans does that remain your evidence even having heard the oral evidence of the witnesses yes yes and then
00:20:55 yes and then now if we can go to paragraph 358 of your report which starts on page 100 [Music]
00:21:06 [Music] sorry 328 at the bottom
00:21:12 we can see and this is picking up at this full plan stage that mr hansen states in his response that rbkc is not in a position to approve the proposals at this stage
00:21:23 approve the proposals at this stage due to the need for the design team to establish an acceptable extract rate for the power
00:21:28 the power powered lobby ventilation system and the provision of ventilated lobby protection to all stairway connections to residential and other uses further details were requested including the fire alarm system
00:21:42 escape lighting mechanical ventilation fire signage the powered smoke shafts and the alternative power supplies to life safety systems and then you say the formal consultation with the fire authority was undertaken
00:21:54 with the fire authority was undertaken and i am going to come back to that later
00:21:57 later um so in circumstances where that was the position where rbkc is saying they're not in a position to approve the proposals due to the need
00:22:06 the need to establish all these things um do you consider that it would be acceptable to approve the full plans application in those circumstances
00:22:19 if there had been given a structured conditional approval it could have been approved subject to conditions yeah but no such decision was made no
00:22:30 yeah but no such decision was made no yeah at least as far as you've seen you've seen no evidence of a conditional decision being made no evidence at all no now in terms of the drawings that
00:22:41 no now in terms of the drawings that were submitted with the full plans application you have uh helpfully analyzed those in paragraphs 277 to 281 of your report that's on page 88
00:22:52 that's on page 88 and um you've explained that there are some um
00:22:55 some um inconsistencies and mislabeling of the drawings missing drawings now mr hoban's evidence is that he didn't notice that some of the drawings were missing or mislabeled
00:23:06 were missing or mislabeled that's his evidence at day 45 page 163 to 164. my question is would you expect a reasonably competent building control officer to have picked up these issues
00:23:17 officer to have picked up these issues about the drawings that you have identified in your report yes i would um you'd be looking at the revision number or date etc to make sure
00:23:28 revision number or date etc to make sure you had
00:23:28 you had the most up-to-date drawing or indicated it was
00:23:32 it was and the fact it spoke about a music school i think was quite evident that it was mislabeled yeah so we have drawings that appear to refer to a a school yes um in the label to be fair
00:23:44 a school yes um in the label to be fair i think they do look like their grenfell drawings but they've got the wrong label they're definitely grenful footplate the footprint rather than the plan but it's mislabeled definitely disabled and you would have expected him to have
00:23:55 and you would have expected him to have picked up
00:23:56 picked up things like that yes
00:23:59 and you've also referred in your report to the what's called the meaningful response
00:24:05 response um to the full plans application um which is on accolade that was the electronic document system that they were using um if we can go to that that's at
00:24:20 rbk3044876 at page 69.
00:24:27 [Music] if we can blow that this up this is a screenshot from accolade and we can see that the the meaningful response
00:24:39 the the meaningful response is what we see there where it says requested details of the works john e hoban do you see that there yes and that's said to have been the meaningful response and you say that in your
00:24:50 response and you say that in your opinion
00:24:51 opinion that does not describe a meaningful response to a building regulations application that's right isn't it correct yes can you just help us what should a meaningful response look like in general terms how much detail
00:25:02 in general terms how much detail would you expect to see if it was um indicating a total non-compliance that would probably be an adequate this the pro the submission
00:25:13 adequate this the pro the submission just uh indicates non-compliance in respect of x y and z
00:25:20 i would expect that to be followed by a rejection yeah um or it would be you'd uh further details required in respect of x y and z having established that what was
00:25:32 y and z having established that what was there was a viable proposition anyway and it was just the main detail that was not available but the the the term meaningful response
00:25:44 the term meaningful response i'm more familiar with that in terms of approved inspector but it's used in their various um documents and procedures uh common to an approved inspector i
00:25:55 uh common to an approved inspector i would
00:25:56 would expect that to said approved or accepted or rejected yeah but a meaningful response if it had been in terms of a pre-application discussion i could
00:26:07 of a pre-application discussion i could understand the term meaningful response but that may just be my established thinking and it comes up on accolade the approval
00:26:18 it comes up on accolade the approval section is a meaningful response but it says meaning the meaning of response meaning of response
00:26:27 response yeah i think in that it's a bit unclear under the action box yeah maybe it says meaningful actually it might be meaningful response to be fair
00:26:36 fair yeah um i'm not sure what that's meant to
00:26:41 to re refer to yeah now if we can then pick up um a little bit more about your conclusions about the cladding aspect of the work if we go to page 96 of your report paragraph 303
00:26:59 at the bottom of that page we've got the heading the cladding and you say this importantly i have not seen any documents or exchange of emails between any party
00:27:08 any party and building control that refers to the compliance brackets or non-compliance of the cladding system external wall construction as far as i've been able to ascertain the bcb made no request for details
00:27:20 the bcb made no request for details or information regarding the construction of the overcladding and or new external walls at the lower levels and their ability to resist far spread internally or across their services
00:27:32 across their services some limited information was provided by the applicant piecemeal and not specifically related to compliance with requirement b4 no comprehensive cladding package was
00:27:43 no comprehensive cladding package was ever provided i would have expected such a package to be provided and if it was not then the bcb ought to have requested it so your views are very clear on that there and you talk about
00:27:55 and you talk about that you would have expected a comprehensive cladding package to be provided
00:27:59 provided and at what stage would you have expected that to have been submitted at the full plan stage or at a later stage
00:28:09 stage at a later stage but certainly before the works commenced or in the very early stages of the works just in case it had to be taken off and replaced yeah
00:28:20 replaced yeah and would you expect there to be a clear statement
00:28:23 statement from the applicant that it considered the design complied with b4 as part of that full plans application or part of the information that followed it yes and if it was not evident then i'd
00:28:35 yes and if it was not evident then i'd ask for justification of that statement yeah now mr hoban gave evidence that he passed the full plans application but with conditions that was his oral
00:28:46 but with conditions that was his oral evidence
00:28:48 evidence and he said that one of the conditions was the cladding system shall be in compliance with section 12 of adb please provide further
00:28:59 12 of adb please provide further information that's what he says one of the conditions was this is day 45 page 189 lines two to seven now again it's going to be for the panel to decide whether they accept that evidence
00:29:10 decide whether they accept that evidence by mr hoban but just sticking with it for the moment if such a condition was applied does that
00:29:18 that represent the sort of condition that would be applied in circumstances where information was lacking
00:29:26 lacking yes so for him to say the cladding system
00:29:30 system shall be in compliance with section 12 of adb
00:29:33 of adb that's the kind of condition you think is is would be reasonable to impose yes yeah well can we just have a look at that a bit further um i thought as a result of our
00:29:44 um i thought as a result of our exchanges this morning that you had told me that um the condition would be a condition of submitting further plans not doing it correctly
00:29:57 further plans not doing it correctly and there is quite an important distinction isn't there because building control's role is to ensure that what is proposed
00:30:04 proposed will be in accordance with the regulations if it's constructed in accordance with the proposal yeah so the wording that mr hoban says he used
00:30:20 would normally have been followed by full details shall be submitted right to indicate compliance
00:30:30 before the work was done
00:30:34 there's nothing that building control can do
00:30:38 can do to stop the work starting right it can go on to site and find a non-compliance and serve a notice
00:30:45 notice if they don't change it by good word um there's nothing to stop the work going ahead
00:30:53 ahead they would do that at their own risk carrying on with the knowledge hopefully he would have told them if you carry on and i'm not satisfied then you could end up there all this work needs to be
00:31:04 up there all this work needs to be undone
00:31:04 undone and that seems rather a complicated way of going about it you'd have thought the preferable course would be to impose a condition
00:31:12 condition saying i'm passing this on condition that you provide me some plans which demonstrate compliance that that is what you would do as i say you the work shall comply with
00:31:24 as i say you the work shall comply with b4
00:31:25 b4 all details shall be submitted what would normally happen is that the applicant would make the statement the work will comply and then building control would say prove it to me show it to me on the
00:31:37 prove it to me show it to me on the plans yeah right thank you yeah yes it's great yes thank you
00:31:42 you and sticking with that theme if we could go to paragraph 244 of your report on page 61
00:31:57 you say a conditional decision will also request details of elements installations that may not be available at the time of the initial submission and then you say this any request for details of the overcladding
00:32:08 details of the overcladding should have at the same time or following their receipt required the submission of any fire tests or assessments to attest to whether the relevant materials were of limited combustibility surface spread of flame fire resistance
00:32:20 surface spread of flame fire resistance of the individual materials and or assembly forming the over cladding do you see that there yes now just to be clear you say there any request for details of the overcladding
00:32:31 overcladding but can we be clear in circumstances where you say it would have been acceptable to apply a condition that you apply with a part of adb on b4 would it also have
00:32:42 a part of adb on b4 would it also have been
00:32:42 been expected that those details would in fact be submitted yes yeah yes so you as the building control officer wouldn't just leave it to them just say you've got to comply
00:32:53 to them just say you've got to comply with section 12 then leave it to them you would require proof that it had or was going to comply and the type of information you would
00:33:04 and the type of information you would expect is what you're describing here including fire tests and assessments is that right yeah my answer to you previously was incomplete it should i should have had always wherever you request details you
00:33:17 always wherever you request details you always request details on every aspect to prove to you that edit complaint is compliant if they said the walls are going to be made of 120 mil masonry block
00:33:29 of 120 mil masonry block throughout the height you've probably taken that as acceptable but you would have asked for how would you restrain those walls etc etc yeah
00:33:40 etc etc yeah just then taking the grenfell example specifically um for example for the acm panels on grenfell
00:33:47 grenfell if if the drawings had shown acm panels what in your opinion ought to have been requested by the building control officer in relation to the compliance of those
00:33:58 in relation to the compliance of those materials details of the individual materials
00:34:02 materials and or an assessment under br135 or as set out in the building control alliance
00:34:09 alliance um an assessment a fire engineered proposal to support their statement that they thought it complied with the building regs yeah and again the set would you
00:34:22 yeah and again the set would you require the same for the insulation product to be used would you require some supporting test evidence or other certificate that suggested that that insulation was
00:34:33 that suggested that that insulation was compliant with the requirements either if of adb
00:34:36 if of adb and the linear route if that's what they're following or a br 135 certification if they're following the system testing route is that right yeah if the components of the wall
00:34:48 yeah if the components of the wall had individually been known to be non-combustible
00:34:54 then the details of the insulation would be requested to make sure that that was non-combustible but you it should be
00:35:06 but you it should be known to a building control officer the materials in combination do not always work as individual materials
00:35:14 materials so if you mix combustible and non-combustible you may still be up to the required standard
00:35:21 standard or you may be the quite the converse by virtue of the the reaction of the combustible materials relative to the ventilation paths and the backing material and the support yeah
00:35:33 backing material and the support yeah and you would have expected a reasonably competent building control officer to have been aware of those matters would you that you're just describing yes
00:35:44 you that you're just describing yes is it realistic to expect that an applicant will be able to provide test data and supporting evidence of compliance at the full plan stage eye before work has commenced on site
00:35:55 site if they were proposing a material that formed part of the submission albeit it was still in negotiation perhaps with planners by virtue of the fact that they were
00:36:07 by virtue of the fact that they were proposing
00:36:09 proposing it they should then go to the manufacturers the suppliers to get that test evidence yeah it's down to
00:36:16 to them to provide it yeah the most manufacturers if you approach them for their test data will not give it to you
00:36:27 you because they fear it would be commercially beneficial to other parties but if you're buying it often they seem to be more willing to actually give you the information and
00:36:38 to actually give you the information and sometimes you have to sign a non-disclosure agreement right but it is available
00:36:44 available yeah and would you say you sometimes have to be persistent about getting hold of that information yes i mean sometimes the applicant comes back and said well give me one they won't give me the test certificate and we'll go back and tell them that you need it
00:36:56 go back and tell them that you need it otherwise you can't use their material yeah now you and mr hyatt have come to the conclusion through a review of the documents that there was no form of tracker used by rbkc building control to monitor
00:37:09 used by rbkc building control to monitor the refurbishment um would you accept though that there was no specific requirement for local authority building control services to operate a tracker system for such applications
00:37:20 such applications that's correct in your opinion would a reasonably competent building control body have in place a tracker or an equivalent to a tracker to monitor the progress of
00:37:32 to a tracker to monitor the progress of that
00:37:32 that application through its life cycle yes and i know that many building control officers in all different offices even if there's no policy within their office for such a tracker
00:37:43 office for such a tracker set up their own trackers or quite often they're instituted by the applicant or generally the architect because everybody's got so much to deal with that's a way of dealing with the regulatory side as
00:37:55 of dealing with the regulatory side as regards building regulations yeah now mr hoban has described his plan check record sheet to the inquiry he referred to that in his oral evidence at day 45 page 79 line 19.
00:38:09 day 45 page 79 line 19. do you know what he was referring to there are you familiar with something called a plan check record sheet
00:38:16 yeah i mean there's no set formula for it it'd be a probably a spreadsheet or something he may have devised individually or it may have been
00:38:26 have been in the office where it would be effectively an aid memoir and a record of what you'd look at and what you'd come to the conclusion of yeah because when you get all that
00:38:37 yeah because when you get all that information in it's a quicker way of referring
00:38:40 referring back to the initial review to see what you were looking for and the particular aspect of what you were looking for it just helps the process all the way along it improves efficiency and it records
00:38:52 improves efficiency and it records if you haven't got a record and it's months between you don't know you know you don't want to do it twice yeah so he's back sorry sorry is that carry on um but is that the same thing as a tracker or is a
00:39:04 that the same thing as a tracker or is a tracker different a tracker usually comes after the decision
00:39:08 decision yeah because it'll have the conditions if any were on it the record is
00:39:16 your record of your work going through and recording what you found acceptable or not now if it was you with a detailed
00:39:28 now if it was you with a detailed initial decision sheet whatever you want to call it you can in fact then turn that into the tracker yes but they're not the same thing not in my mind no yeah now i'm going to come back a little
00:39:40 yeah now i'm going to come back a little bit later because the next stage in the process
00:39:42 process is consultation with the the fire authority but i i want to press on at the moment with your main conclusions and we'll come back to that topic um so now assessment of compliance
00:39:54 um so now assessment of compliance what i want to do is take you through rbkc's assessment of compliance with part b of the building regulations and just pick up what your overall conclusions
00:40:05 conclusions were now we've already discussed b1 means of escape and the full plan stage and your your evidence that it should have been rejected purely on b1 grounds at that stage um
00:40:19 b1 grounds at that stage um but i just want to um pick up your overall conclusions and for the transcript in paragraph 355-341
00:40:28 355-341 on pages 101 to 105 of your report you've summarized the updated information that was provided by studio e
00:40:36 e and also the second consultation with the fire authority and at paragraph 342 you conclude that although you've highlighted several issues with the proposals your view is that the review of the
00:40:48 your view is that the review of the later proposals the s2 proposals i the updated fire strategy drawings and the smoke control system proposals was adequate and acceptable is that correct yes in relation to b1
00:41:00 correct yes in relation to b1 yes yes and that aspect of the building control application was reviewed by paul hanson that's right isn't it yes yeah now in terms of your conclusions on
00:41:11 yeah now in terms of your conclusions on b2 internal fire spread linings they're set out at 346-349 of your report on page 106 and again just to try and get to the nub
00:41:22 and again just to try and get to the nub of your overall conclusion you say at paragraph 347 that part b2 was addressed in the x over outline fire safety strategy version 3 of november 13 and it fully reflected
00:41:34 of november 13 and it fully reflected the recommendations of approved document b
00:41:36 b is that right correct and that at the end of that paragraph you note that the x
00:41:41 x over fire strategy did not reflect the proposals
00:41:45 proposals um does that have a bearing on your overall conclusion that the information submitted
00:41:50 submitted to building control demonstrated compliance with the b2 condition
00:41:58 b2 if you if it stated it will comply
00:42:05 you would look from my aspect i would then if on site and it was other than something i knew and recognized as being acceptable yeah
00:42:16 yeah i would then at that stage ask for the details
00:42:20 details if it was a if it had been a hotel shall we say
00:42:23 we say um or a high-end office block boardroom i would have asked for details because i would know it would not be emulsion on block it would be some
00:42:34 emulsion on block it would be some laminate or something like that and i would ask for details or evidence that it complied i see so depending on what they're choosing to do with their internal linings that might affect the level of scrutiny
00:42:43 scrutiny you gave to yes yeah now b3 because the key the key things for our purposes are predominantly b3 and b4 now in terms of cavity barriers and
00:42:54 now in terms of cavity barriers and turning first to cavity barriers around openings yes you say at paragraph 390 of your report page 114 perhaps we can just bring that up
00:43:09 you say they're picking up in the second line the building control body failed to recognize that no cavity barriers had been indicated to seal the cavities at openings within the walls
00:43:20 the walls for example around the windows we can see that there yes now just breaking that down would you expect a cavity barrier strategy showing the location of cavity barriers
00:43:32 showing the location of cavity barriers to be submitted at the full plan stage not necessarily quite often it's covered by a statement the cavity barriers will be provided around all openings i see to close the
00:43:45 around all openings i see to close the cavities
00:43:46 cavities so if you saw that kind of statement you might not worry that they weren't marked in the drawings is that what you're saying at that stage yeah yeah but but what if there was no such statement
00:43:57 statement and what if the drawings you had as part of the full plans application didn't show any cavity barriers around the windows would you expect that to be picked up
00:44:05 picked up at that stage yes now um if we can just look at mr hoban's evidence on this topic and i want to look at the transcript of his evidence here this is day 46
00:44:17 his evidence here this is day 46 page 95 and i want to pick it up around line six
00:44:26 so um this is mr hoven being asked questions by mr millet and at line six he says um looking at this one did you notice that there were no cavity barriers
00:44:36 barriers indicated at the head jam or sill of the windows
00:44:41 windows and then he says it was my understanding that the framework supporting the window would act as a cavity barrier and then he's asked what was the basis of that understanding and then he says if you look at approved
00:44:53 and then he says if you look at approved document b it calls up that a steel frame
00:44:56 frame framework over a certain thickness can act as a cavity barrier and then it says yes i don't want to argue with you but that's right isn't it only if it's made of a particular material like steel and then he says answer
00:45:09 steel and then he says answer metal steel yes question steel not aluminium
00:45:14 aluminium and he said yes from my understanding it was steel
00:45:17 was steel do you see that there yes and then if we just before i ask some questions look at what it says just over the page at page 96
00:45:27 96 and he's asked who told you that and he says i can't say it was always my understanding that the framework supporting the window was of a thickness of steel that could act as the cavity barrier
00:45:38 act as the cavity barrier and then question well it could as a matter of theory under adb my question is did you ever see any drawing any plan any note or have any discussion and then starts answering but then it says let me
00:45:50 starts answering but then it says let me finish the question please about steel being the material used in those positions to act as a cavity barrier and he said that was as i say my understanding
00:46:01 understanding now that that was his oral evidence and i want to ask you have you seen anything in the information uh provided to rbkc building control that could have led mr hoban to conclude that there was steel
00:46:12 that there was steel framework supporting the windows no
00:46:18 not that i can recall in circumstances where an applicant is relying on a steel framework of a window
00:46:25 window instead of a cavity barrier would you expect this to be recorded somewhere in the submission to building control yes would you expect it to be clearly indicated on a drawing
00:46:38 indicated on a drawing or a statement down the side of the drawing or in the details submitted yes yeah and what inspection would you expect a building control officer to carry out
00:46:48 carry out on-site in those circumstances where you've then been told that information to go and on the assumption it was steel to go and make sure the steel was of the requisite thickness and to
00:46:59 was of the requisite thickness and to make sure it was forming a barrier between the cavity and the opening yeah so you'd actually go and do some checks for yourself you wouldn't just take their word for it that the steel was going to be compliant
00:47:11 that the steel was going to be compliant with a cavity barrier or synonymous with a cavity barrier as given in the guidance in adb yeah wouldn't look at every opening wouldn't be there long enough on the
00:47:22 wouldn't be there long enough on the daily basis to do it but um you would judge by the standard of the work generally how often you would
00:47:29 would go yeah and check and to what extent you would
00:47:32 would check yeah now mr haben's evidence was that he did not check around the windows because
00:47:37 because when he visited the site the windows were either not there or had already been
00:47:42 been enclosed for the transcript that's day 46
00:47:45 46 page 98 lines 8-25 in your opinion should he have asked to have a window removed so he could inspect it if he couldn't otherwise see what was around the windows
00:47:59 it would have been a decision on the knowledge of the particular job understand of the work etc but if he hadn't said that i would have expected him to have said when you're not going to put that window
00:48:10 when you're not going to put that window in the opening i want to see it before it goes in yeah something like that to check that there was at least the
00:48:19 again it a lot of it is judgment of the person that you're dealing with and the standard of work yeah um but in best practice it would have been to take the window
00:48:30 it would have been to take the window out and have a look yeah or i think as you've said one possibility would be then arrange a specific
00:48:37 specific time to visit in the future when he could be shown an area around an installed window before it was covered up correct yes
00:48:51 now you say at paragraph 396 on page 117 of your report let's just look at that
00:48:59 um yes and this is a bit of your report where what you're discussing is what was shown on the studio e drawings and if you recall on the studio e
00:49:10 and if you recall on the studio e drawing as you note in the in the middle of this paragraph you note that in the studio e drawing
00:49:16 drawing one two seven nine o six one two o zero zero
00:49:19 zero there is a cavity barrier above the head of the window in line with the compartment floor do you recall that yes and you say this you say in principle a building control body
00:49:29 body may have considered this cavity barrier to be effective as a window cavity barrier
00:49:34 barrier however i've seen no evidence that john hoban adopted this approach um and then you you go on and explain what the harley drawings showed yes
00:49:50 [Music] now
00:49:55 moving on to your conclusions on cavity barriers within the cladding system at compartment wall and floor lines you've explained the history of this in your report at paragraph 363 to 389 on
00:50:08 your report at paragraph 363 to 389 on page 113
00:50:10 page 113 and i just want to focus on your opinion about the standard of fire resistance required by the cavity barriers now what we know is that mr hoban um
00:50:21 now what we know is that mr hoban um in march 2015 initially advised that fire stops were required and that these should be 120 minutes fire resistance do you remember that yes and then eventually he changed his mind having
00:50:33 eventually he changed his mind having been provided with some further information and advised that only a cavity barrier was required at compartment wall and floor lines you recall that he i don't know why he changed his mind
00:50:47 he i don't know why he changed his mind i've got there's nothing that's been disclosed to me that the reasoning behind his [Applause] ultimate decision there is a confusion
00:50:59 ultimate decision there is a confusion between a cavity barrier and a fire barrier to maintain compartmentation the big debate with um rain screen is where that
00:51:11 where that fire barrier sits and i believe that was the whole debate that was going on there is still some discussion within the
00:51:20 the industry at the moment yeah i'm going to take you to diagram 33 in a moment and you can just explain that to the to to us um let's just look before we get to that
00:51:30 to that at what you say in your report um so you refer to diagram 33 in your report
00:51:37 report paid paragraph 381 and again at 382 if we can go to 382 on page 112
00:51:48 you say this it's consistent with exactly what you've just been saying this diagram caused much debate in the industry at the time of the application and continues to do so the debate centered on whether the required cavity barrier in a rain screen
00:52:00 required cavity barrier in a rain screen cladding system should be 30 fr or the same as the fire resistance of the compartment lines the cladding passed over the compartment lines at grenfell between the flats and between the flats
00:52:12 between the flats and between the flats and any other areas
00:52:15 and then if we can just look at what you say at 386 on page 113
00:52:24 you say if i had been the building control officer on the grenfell refurbishment i would have required 120 fr fire stop at compartment lines to extend
00:52:34 extend compartmentation out through the rain screen system this would have been the starting point and i would required any proposals to use
00:52:41 use 30 fr cavity barriers in these locations to be justified yes so that's your view there if we can look at the version of diagram 33 that you've helpfully provided in
00:52:54 33 that you've helpfully provided in your
00:52:54 your report this is on page 111
00:52:59 now here what you if we blow this up what you've helpfully done is change some of the color coding so that
00:53:07 that um here we've got the um the fire stopping is in green and the cavity bearer is in blue which makes it actually clearer
00:53:18 makes it actually clearer looking at this diagram than in approved document b yes i think that's why you've done it is that right yes so blue are cavity barriers and green
00:53:29 so blue are cavity barriers and green is fire stopping now um do you agree that for this building that's being shown here in this diagram it appears to show cavity barriers in
00:53:40 it appears to show cavity barriers in the location between the external wall and the rain screen cladding either little blue [Music]
00:53:48 [Music] rectangles yes yes this this diagram is on the assumption that the wall complies with the requirements of b4
00:53:59 requirements of b4 right yeah so is what you're saying that where there's perhaps some doubt about whether the b4 require that requirement is met
00:54:12 the b4 require that requirement is met um you need to potentially apply a higher
00:54:16 higher standard of resistance to the cavity barriers and make them equivalent of a fire stop is that what you're saying
00:54:27 when i i've my view is that this diagram doesn't actually relate to brain screen cladding yeah it reflects a
00:54:38 brain screen cladding yeah it reflects a cavity wall
00:54:41 and the weather line of the thermal line can vary on rain screen cladding this looks like a cavity wall where the thermal line would be
00:54:53 where the thermal line would be effectively inside so the compartmentation from say the floor
00:54:58 floor goes up to the external wall which would be to standard yeah in the high rise building it will be effectively not that that's the green bit is that what
00:55:09 that that's the green bit is that what you're saying correct green bit takes you to
00:55:11 you to a solid wall yes and then there's a cavity in the wall that needs to be subdivided to stop the unseen spread of fire yeah
00:55:23 to stop the unseen spread of fire yeah and then there are around the openings there are cavity barriers to stop fire from the compartment going into the cavity and then spreading
00:55:34 going into the cavity and then spreading beyond the cavity yeah so but applying this
00:55:38 this and assuming a rain screen on the outside can you just explain to to us um why you get to a slightly different result in a rain screen application why i think
00:55:52 in a rain screen application why i think the
00:55:52 the compartment should be continued through the rain screen yes and why you need a 120
00:55:57 120 minute fire stop where the little blue square is rather than a 30-minute cavity barrier to my mind there is potential for a fire in the compartment
00:56:11 potential for a fire in the compartment to which is stopped by the
00:56:15 the green on the end of the compartment breaking into the cavity where the blue stops are
00:56:23 stops are and spreading up to and entering another compartment so therefore to my mind the compartment line should go out as far as possible such that any void
00:56:34 void is fire stopped has a fire barrier in it yeah and why do you say there's that potential for fire to break out from the compartment if you've closed around openings with
00:56:45 if you've closed around openings with cavity barriers because it can go up and go back in right
00:56:49 right i see um
00:56:53 i see um now in paragraph 383 of your report on page 112 you say that this diagram is only an indication of where in principle to locate cavity barriers and fire stopping to deter the unseen
00:57:04 and fire stopping to deter the unseen spread of fire yes yes can you just help us as to what you mean exactly by that why is it an indication is that because you were saying it it applies perhaps more to a standard
00:57:15 it it applies perhaps more to a standard masonry construction yes it applies to the majority of whatever one determined would be normal buildings yeah and you refer to a debate in the
00:57:26 and you refer to a debate in the industry on that topic um can you just help us as to what that debate was at the time
00:57:35 some people take the diagram 33 and apply it to every form of external wall
00:57:42 some of us don't agree that it's relevant to a rain screen cladding
00:57:48 and again the rain screen cladding is not a standard formation and so it will depend on what that rain screen cladding is made of and the extent it continues beyond
00:58:01 and the extent it continues beyond compartment lines but that diagram 33 sets out the principle of fire stopping to maintain compartmentation cavity
00:58:12 to maintain compartmentation cavity barriers
00:58:13 barriers to stop the unseen spread into the cavity and through the cavity so you would apply that principle where the debate comes where you're sitting down
00:58:23 down discussing where with somebody the barriers are appropriate or not and just to be clear on either interpretation uh it was clear wasn't it that cavity barriers needed to be provided around openings
00:58:35 needed to be provided around openings yes
00:58:38 um do you agree that it is cavity barriers not fire stops that are referred to in some of the industry guidance giving assistance about external walls
00:58:49 giving assistance about external walls for example in bca technical guidance note 18
00:58:53 note 18 under the heading key issues that talks about the importance of cavity barriers rather than fire stops um do you agree with that um what what are they
00:59:02 are they in the context of sorry yeah let's look at that cep three zeros five seven two nine four on page one
00:59:13 [Music] this is the building control alliance technical guidance note use of combustible cladding materials on residential buildings
00:59:25 residential buildings and then under key issues
00:59:31 it's talking about fire spread is exacerbated by the use of combustible materials
00:59:36 materials statutory guidance addresses these issues
00:59:39 issues in the second paragraph um
00:59:45 and then
00:59:48 in the last bullet it says so it starts with a surface spread of flame classification does not infer any resistance to combustibility solely a measure of the spread of a flame across the surface and then it says the br135 bs8414 test
01:00:01 and then it says the br135 bs8414 test deals solely with the spread of fire once it's entered the cavity hence the requirements for cavity barriers in accordance with section 9 of adb-2 are required in all cases including around openings in the facade
01:00:13 the facade now i appreciate that this isn't saying it's it's just specific to rain screen systems but this guidance at the time suggests that it's cavity barriers that are required
01:00:24 are required i would suggest it's talking about when the fire has entered the cavity stopping it spreading yeah and it's not specifically relating to maintaining compartmentation
01:00:37 to maintaining compartmentation i see i see
01:00:44 now at paragraph 387 of your report you say that there's logic in questioning the rationale of a fire barrier in a cladding system that has no
01:00:55 barrier in a cladding system that has no fire
01:00:55 fire resistance and may when attacked by fire fail and collapse within 30 minutes thereby rendering any fire stopping or cavity barriers ineffective yes now what do you mean by the cladding
01:01:08 yes now what do you mean by the cladding system failing in that context
01:01:14 in very few circumstances the fire the wall the external wall would have to be fire rated
01:01:25 rated generally i've never seen a rain screen cladding that has had to be fire rated which means it doesn't have to withstand fire from inside the building for any particular time if it's
01:01:38 for any particular time if it's aluminium
01:01:40 aluminium it will fail relatively early in a fire so it could be you could have a fire raging in a two-hour building and the cladding has fallen off
01:01:54 then there is the question if you have the cladding disintegrating falling off or even just bowing
01:02:03 bowing is that cavity barrier could have any effect whatsoever yeah in your view does the risk that risk of failure justify emitting cavity barriers entirely no no because the cavity barrier
01:02:18 no no because the cavity barrier will and the rain screen will be there for a
01:02:21 for a period of time by which time hopefully other measures uh may have come into play and definitely the evacuation will be underway the big risk then comes or there's a
01:02:32 the big risk then comes or there's a bigger risk of the falling cladding falling onto fire fighters which is why we would generally aim to put the entrance and
01:02:45 generally aim to put the entrance and the set down point for firefighters away from the potential for cladding to fall onto them
01:02:52 onto them there have been um stories of large sheets of glass falling out and literally cutting through the hoses that are going into the buildings right yeah now
01:03:04 right yeah now on this point about whether it should have been a fire stop or a cavity barrier
01:03:08 barrier your overall conclusion is that requiring a cavity barrier instead of a fire stop was within the range of reasonable responses for a building control body at the time that's right isn't it
01:03:20 that's right isn't it i think so yes yeah so you say there's a debate there's different views on it but you're not critical of mr hoban for ultimately accepting a 30-minute cavity barrier in that
01:03:31 a 30-minute cavity barrier in that location
01:03:32 location is that right yeah i think a number of building control officers would have come to the same conclusion
01:03:45 come to the same conclusion do you find it surprising that mr hoban despite his years of experience in building control had never advised on diagram 33 in the context of a rain screen cladding system that was his evidence at day 46 page one
01:03:58 that was his evidence at day 46 page one two three lines seven to ten in your experience would it be surprising for someone particularly of his
01:04:04 of his um length of experience not to have come across and had to deal with diagram 33 before yes particularly if he's worked as he has in an urban situation
01:04:17 has in an urban situation you do find that surprising somewhat surprising yeah
01:04:23 now finally on this issue you commented on the crown at paragraph 405 on page one two three and if we can pick that up
01:04:36 page one two three of your report 405
01:04:42 you say finally as far as i can ascertain the building control body was not provided with any detail of how the crown of the tower was to be constructed stroke clad the initial submission of details in september
01:04:53 submission of details in september indicated zinc crown elements but this was changed i would expect that once the bcb saw the crown on site he should have asked for further information i've not seen any evidence that this was done the site visit notes make no
01:05:06 done the site visit notes make no reference to the crown i now know from inspections by others that no cavity barriers were installed at the junction between the rain screen cladding system and the crown or within the crown itself in my opinion this ought to have been noted
01:05:17 this ought to have been noted and questioned by the bcb and now it's right isn't it though that there was
01:05:26 there was nothing say an approved document b which assisted
01:05:29 assisted about whether you should have cavity barriers in an architectural feature like a crown that's right isn't it correct
01:05:36 correct um my statement is that um ought to have been noted and questioned by the bcb he may have come to the conclusion that they didn't need cavity barriers
01:05:47 they didn't need cavity barriers i see but you think it should have been um something he was thinking about when he was looking at this building yes now mr hoban's evidence was that he inspected the crown on site that's day
01:05:58 inspected the crown on site that's day 46 page 148 line 3. if that evidence was to be accepted by the panel and again that's going to be
01:06:06 be up to their assessment um and if we assume that he did inspect it on site do you have any comment on what he ought to have noticed or recorded in his notes
01:06:17 to have noticed or recorded in his notes of any such inspection i'm presuming he looked at it from a structural aspect if he wasn't interested in it from the fire aspect but he should have it should have registered with him what
01:06:28 it should have registered with him what the material was yeah and questioned whether it constituted part of the external enclosure or was um an attachment which again uh since the fire have become
01:06:40 again uh since the fire have become quite prominent uh controlled prior to that as you say there was nothing as regards an attachment an architectural feature but i would have expected him to have looked at it as to if there had been a
01:06:52 looked at it as to if there had been a fire
01:06:53 fire what would would it have caused the fire to progress yeah his evidence was also that his understanding was that cavity barriers were not required within the crown because it was not a concealed space
01:07:05 because it was not a concealed space that was day 46 page 102 lines 10 to 21. do you agree with that i don't know the full details of the construction of the crown so i couldn't without seeing
01:07:17 the crown so i couldn't without seeing the details comment on that okay he also said that he considered the cavity barrier at the head of the window at the very top of the building would act as a cavity barrier at the
01:07:28 would act as a cavity barrier at the junction of the spandrel cladding and the crown
01:07:32 the crown and again that so that was day 46 page 103 lines 17 to 18. do you agree with that that that cavity barrier at the head of the the very top windows before you get to
01:07:43 the very top windows before you get to the crown above um would have acted as a cavity barrier in that location um without looking at the plan at this point i couldn't say
01:07:55 point i couldn't say or the elevation but if that if the irrespective of where the barrier sorry the cavity barrier to the opening was
01:08:07 opening was as there was no barrier to the side of the opening if the fire could have gone sideways and then
01:08:14 then up and spread into the crown that would have been a concern yeah now we've heard evidence during this
01:08:22 this inquiry oral evidence that in fact on-site
01:08:27 on-site the horizontal cavity barrier above the head of the window was moved even further up from the location shown in the harley drawings if you remember it was shown at the head of the window immediately ahead in the studio e drawings
01:08:38 drawings was shown slightly higher in the harley drawings and then the evidence of osborne berry to the inquiry was that on-site a decision was taken to move it up even further than that now is that
01:08:50 even further than that now is that something you would have expected mr hobin to have noticed on site as part of his site inspections that the cavity barriers the horizontal ones were
01:09:00 ones were located higher up than shown on the studio e
01:09:03 studio e or harley drawings as a general rule um building control officers don't walk around with
01:09:14 around with all plans of everything but as he wasn't looking for cavity barriers at openings at all he probably would not have noticed it had been moved up
01:09:26 noticed it had been moved up but the principle of having it at or about the opening should have registered with him the fact that he had moved slightly probably wouldn't have registered with him
01:09:38 registered with him yeah okay now b4 on your conclusions on b4 we know that no comprehensive cladding package was ever submitted and we've looked at your views
01:09:49 views on that already but i want to briefly explore with you how the guidance in approved document be uh should be interpreted and should have been interpreted you've set out your views two at paragraphs nine of your report
01:10:02 paragraphs nine of your report pages one two six two one two seven at paragraph four one four you've referred to paragraph 12.5 of approved document b and and we know that the cladding on
01:10:13 and and we know that the cladding on grenfell tower purported to follow the linear route either guidance in approved document b except perhaps for the insulation where it seems
01:10:22 seems possible that an 8414 test plus br 135 may have been relied upon at least by some of those responsible for the design of the cladding
01:10:33 of the cladding do you have a view as to whether it is appropriate for a project to pick and choose
01:10:38 choose which route to compliance applies for different materials in a rain screen cladding system you can't in a composite unless they are all
01:10:49 in a composite unless they are all totally non-combustible i don't think you can pick and choose which bit goes to make up that composite that composite as a whole must be looked at and the effect of one material on the other
01:11:02 material on the other yeah now mr allen um seemed to suggest and here's oral evidence that if the linear route was adopted you know what i mean by the linear route you follow 12.6 12.7
01:11:13 you follow 12.6 12.7 of adb rather than your br135 route yeah it's the two routes that are suggested in 12.5 of adb now he seemed to suggest that if the linear route was adopted and the insulation
01:11:24 insulation was not of limited combustibility this would be non-compliant do you agree
01:11:31 he said that the insulation was non-compliant or non-combustible sorry could you
01:11:37 could you he said if the insulation was not of limited combustibility this would be non-compliant do you agree with that yes yeah that was day 47
01:11:46 day 47 page 29 lines 12 to 20. now you refer in your paragraph 415 on page 126 to paragraph 12.6 of approved document b which
01:11:57 12.6 of approved document b which addresses the external surface of walls and the requirement that over 18 meters the external surface should achieve one option is should achieve national class naught
01:12:08 class naught would you expect a reasonably competent building surveyor to understand what national class naught means yes
01:12:18 would you expect them to understand that you can have a product where the surface achieves class naught national class naught
01:12:24 naught but it nonetheless contains combustible material inside yes
01:12:32 and would you expect them to have an appreciation of the risk in terms of external flame spread that that limited testing to national class naught might pose
01:12:43 naught might pose yes because it's purely a surface spread of flame
01:12:46 of flame description now in paragraph 416 and 417 you give your interpretation of paragraph 12.7 of approved document b
01:12:57 of paragraph 12.7 of approved document b um if we can just look at the text of of adb there if we go clg
01:13:06 five zeroes one seven three played 96
01:13:16 so there we have um 12.7 it will be um very familiar to many of us by now we've looked at it a number of times in this inquiry now you say in paragraph 416 of your
01:13:29 now you say in paragraph 416 of your report that you interpreted 12.7 as we're
01:13:31 we're referring to elements of the wall but not the fabric protecting the building against
01:13:37 against weather can you help us as to what you mean by that
01:13:44 um
01:13:50 the wall in itself
01:13:56 comprises of those components
01:14:02 when i referred to the aspect of weather i'm trying to recall how i've why i phrased it in this particular way would it help to see the passage in your report if i may
01:14:13 report if i may yes i'm sorry so um paragraph 416 of your report on page one two six so there
01:14:26 you've set out um in the first half of that
01:14:30 that sorry in the first few lines a quote from
01:14:33 from 12.7
01:14:38 sorry that's a quote from 12.5 and then you say the requirement required resistance to the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another
01:14:47 another then you say this 12.7 of adb referred to any
01:14:50 to any insulation product filler material except gasket sealants and similar etc i interpreted that as referring to elements of the wall but not the fabric protecting the building
01:15:01 protecting the building against the weather do you see that there yes
01:15:04 there yes and we were just wanting you to just try and help us as to exactly what you meant by that
01:15:20 to be quite honest i'm struggling myself to explain that why i've put it in that particular way tell us what you use yeah let's see what we're trying to say and then we'll worry less about the words
01:15:31 words yeah i mean do you want to go back to 12.7 of adb would that help yes please yes so that's clg
01:15:41 clg 50173 at page 96. right the components that make up that wall as a whole
01:15:52 that wall as a whole of the components of the wall where it's in it it's entitled the insulation materials
01:15:57 materials yeah so it quite clearly says that it should be of limited combustibility where the building is over 18 meters yeah the intent of b4 is to stop spread of
01:16:10 the intent of b4 is to stop spread of fire
01:16:11 fire across the surface of the building which would not necessarily be the insulation of the building yeah most insurance require protection i think i'm right in
01:16:23 require protection i think i'm right in saying against the weather because they will deteriorate yeah so it's almost like two distinct uh aspects so
01:16:31 so it's the insulation needs to be earning limited combustibility and then the wall elements that make up the external aspect of the wall yeah
01:16:44 the external aspect of the wall yeah have to have a surface spread of flame restriction yeah and a limited uh combustibility in themselves yeah it's where you get that limited combustibility
01:16:56 combustibility from that is interesting we know in 12.6 the paragraph before that it says that external rules have to meet certain requirements and that's
01:17:07 meet certain requirements and that's where we get national class naught above 18 meters in diagram 40 for example
01:17:13 example um as it applied to grenfell but can you help us as to why you think that the external wall element also had to be of limited combustibility not just the insulation
01:17:27 not just the insulation by virtue of the is it 12.5 yeah if we go back could we go back down yes of course if we go back i think um one possibly
01:17:39 if we go back i think um one possibly yes there we go the bottom of that page yeah we've got the the general warning in 12.5 at the beginning the external envelope of a building should not provide a medium for fire spread if it is likely to be a risk
01:17:50 spread if it is likely to be a risk to health or safety the use of combustible materials in the cladding system and extensive cavities may present such a risk in tall buildings is it that part of 12.7 which you're saying then informs how broad you
01:18:03 you're saying then informs how broad you think you ought to interpret 12.7 is that right yeah well 12.7 relates specifically to the
01:18:09 the insulation yeah this is the external wall construction yeah and the limited spread as dictated by 135 or compliance with
01:18:21 as dictated by 135 or compliance with 12.6 to 12.9 inclusive yeah so and 12.6 to 12.9 cover as it says external services the surface spread of flame externally yeah so if a refuse bin
01:18:35 yeah so if a refuse bin caught to light what would it do to the surface how far would and how fast would the
01:18:40 the flame spread up the external surface then you've got the um insulation and then you've got the actual components forming the overall format of the wall
01:18:53 the overall format of the wall yeah i hope that helps so i think what you're saying is that the external surfaces here it would be the rain screen are you saying that you need to look at it from two
01:19:04 two angles one is its external surface and the other is whether or not it could propagate fire is that what you're saying yes they are two distinct things in my mind i see and is that why you then interpret
01:19:15 i see and is that why you then interpret 12.7
01:19:16 12.7 perhaps more broadly than others do [Music]
01:19:21 [Music] i didn't realize i did but to me there is distinct the external surface limited surface spread of flame whether you adopt the national class or the european class
01:19:33 european class the overall wall construction must not propagate the spread of fire yeah that will include in the test the reaction of the surface spread of flame yeah now if we can go back to 417 of
01:19:48 yeah now if we can go back to 417 of your report on page um
01:19:53 one two six yes so there you say this my interpretation of the recommendation of paragraph 12.7 was that for a building such as grenfell tower the elements of the external wall
01:20:04 the external wall save four gaskets and sealants and similar
01:20:07 similar should be of limited combustibility as that interpretation reflects the overall functional requirement of b4 this view is also supported by bca technical guidance note 18
01:20:18 technical guidance note 18 which i have referred to elsewhere in my report and which states that the insulation internal lining board and external facing material should be of limited combustibility
01:20:29 should be of limited combustibility and then you say that in december 2018 you think some amendments have clarified that but in your view that was clear already is that what you're saying yes
01:20:42 i think what the amendment subsequent to the fire
01:20:47 the fire related to was the question over the what they termed as the insulation in the actual acm panel which i
01:20:58 in the actual acm panel which i to me was not insulation in terms of the insulation referred to in the approved document i see
01:21:11 in the approved document i see so you accept it's not insulation and so strictly it's not the kind of product that 12.7 needs to be seems to be primarily
01:21:22 12.7 needs to be seems to be primarily focused on if you agree with that that was my interpretation at the time yes yeah it was uh to me it was a stiffener if anything and i i like many assumed it was completely encapsulated
01:21:34 completely encapsulated within the aluminium yes we go on to we're going to go on to that in just a moment um so you've also said that you don't
01:21:45 so you've also said that you don't consider the core of an acm to be a filler within the meaning of how that term is referred to in 12.7 is that right
01:21:52 right correct yes and is that because you've said that the core provides quite little insulation is that is that why you say to my mind
01:22:03 is that why you say to my mind at that time filler would be something like you
01:22:07 like you put in an imperfection of fits yeah a material you'd use to infill a gap to form a shadow gap or similar it would not have been in the terms of that material within the
01:22:19 in the terms of that material within the actual cassette panel yeah was the review at the time and if we're going to pursue these sort of questions i wonder whether they ought to be
01:22:27 be by reference to the understanding within the industry rather than the witnesses personal yes absolutely that's fine yes i was about to ask that very question i'm also going to ask you whether we're when we're going to
01:22:39 you whether we're when we're going to break yes don't worry i've got that um right just a couple more questions and then i think we can great um was there a view held at the time within the industry that the core of an acm panel might be
01:22:51 acm panel might be quotes filler were you aware of that view at the time personally no
01:22:59 but were you aware of others within your industry sharing your view as to how 12.53 to 12.7 should be interpreted i can't recall at that time any major
01:23:12 i can't recall at that time any major discussion to be quite honest
01:23:17 i cannot recall any discussion where the
01:23:23 what the government now calls filler was being discussed but that that is just my involvement in the industry at that time yeah mr chairman i'm midway through this topic but we're coming on to a slightly
01:23:34 topic but we're coming on to a slightly different sub-topic now so i think we'll break
01:23:37 break i think we probably should have a break of this thank you this means if we're going to have another break now we'll come back at 22 4 please and they're talking to anyone well about your evidence that is when
01:23:48 well about your evidence that is when you're out of the room okay thank you very much
01:23:57 all right thank you 24 please
01:40:09 [Applause] thank you do you ask mr menses to come back in please
01:40:27 all right happy to carry on i am may i clarify a response yes earlier of course i believe you asked me whether there was a debate in the industry yes about cladding
01:40:39 which debate we were talking about the actual cladding um and what it comprised of and the solution to dealing with it in terms of cavity barriers and fire stopping or in terms of how twelve point
01:40:51 stopping or in terms of how twelve point seven
01:40:51 seven twelve point seven years yeah okay yeah i feel the debate to my mind was before the full plans application the cladding at grenfell and that had been
01:41:04 and that had been the response to that was the bca alliance technical note 18 yes so that in my mind and i think the industry's mind that was the solution that you went forward with
01:41:15 forward with so as to i'm not saying the debate wasn't going on but it wasn't a primary debate on the forefront of everything at the time i see so you're saying in june 2014 when
01:41:26 see so you're saying in june 2014 when the bca technical guidance note 18 comes out
01:41:30 out referring to i think like all key elements of the wall being limited combustibility in your view the debate was settled at that point was it that was the view at the time of the way that to deal
01:41:41 that to deal with the aspect of the composite cladding yes right i see thank you thank you um now at paragraph 436 on page 135 of your report
01:41:54 436 on page 135 of your report you've said that um in the first few lines there i believe it was generally thought at that time that an acm panel fully encapsulated the core material in the panel
01:42:06 core material in the panel and that panels were not generally cut on site either the core material was not exposed um can you explain why you think that that was the the general
01:42:17 you think that that was the the general view at the time that these panels were fully encapsulated um when i had discussed them previously on projects that's how they were described to me
01:42:28 described to me and post-fire discussing it with various colleagues uh several had agreed that they thought they were like i did fully encapsulated
01:42:39 like i did fully encapsulated and can you just explain how that was relevant to what building control offices uh ought to have been doing at the time
01:42:47 the time well the exposed face would have been another exposed face of a combustible material
01:42:53 material and something that you think mr hogan should have noticed on sites yes yes
01:42:59 now just to finish off your conclusions your your conclusions on b5 access and facilities for the fire service are at paragraph
01:43:07 paragraph 451-460 of your report that's pages 137 to 139
01:43:12 to 139 and then at paragraph 460 you say that the smoke control system will be the subject of a separate report that's right isn't it yes
01:43:20 at this stage are you able to give any view about whether the assessment for compliance with b5 was appropriate i think the assessment was appropriate but i
01:43:30 but i am unclear as to the conclusion as what the final system was because the acceptance of the system
01:43:41 because the acceptance of the system preceded some amendments required by building control that i don't actually know whether they were carried out and what they actually related to yeah that's helpful
01:43:52 related to yeah that's helpful thank you um now at this point i just want to go back to the question of consultation with the fire authority which we've referred to a number of times
01:44:04 number of times now you deal with that topic at paragraph 298 299 of your report on page 96 um and just for the benefit of the public and those who've not read your report i'm just going to summarize
01:44:16 report i'm just going to summarize what a fire authority consultation is and you can just tell me if you agree is it right that article 45 of the 2005 order requires a local authority and receipt of a full plans application for
01:44:28 receipt of a full plans application for a building or part of a building that will be the subject to the 2005 order on completion of the works to consult the fire authority before passing the plans correct um and the 2005 order applied to
01:44:42 correct um and the 2005 order applied to parts of grenfell tower didn't it yes so that meant rbkc had to consult the london fire and emergency planning authority as the relevant fire authority is that correct correct
01:44:54 fire authority is that correct correct and we know as a matter of fact rbkc did do that on two occasions first on the 11th of november 2014 and again later in february 2016 that's right isn't it
01:45:05 right isn't it yes now in terms of that first consultation the inquiry rbkc and the london fire brigade have been unable to locate the substantive response from the the london
01:45:16 substantive response from the the london um fire and emergency planning authority and
01:45:19 and and you record that at paragraph 298 of your report on page 96 so we don't know what the substantive response was um but i just want to ask you a few things about that
01:45:30 things about that that consultation and what it did and didn't um comprise um is it correct that the role of the fire authority was advisory so it had no power itself to reject the plans or
01:45:41 power itself to reject the plans or impose conditions correct and in terms of the scope of the consultation if we just look at what you've said at paragraph 466 on page 139
01:45:59 paragraph 466 on page 139 that's right at the bottom of that page you say in my experience for all but high risk very high rise or complex projects
01:46:07 projects and where no dispensation of the building regulations relating to fire was proposed the consultation expected by both the building control body and the fire authority related to b1 and b5 matters
01:46:19 authority related to b1 and b5 matters only do you see that there yes now in your view was grenfell tower a high risk very high rise or complex project
01:46:34 [Music] in my experience not high risk on the basis if it complied it would have not been high risk
01:46:46 high risk very high rise or complex projects it's high rise
01:46:50 high rise and it's not i wouldn't say it was complex right the words you've used in that perhaps we can go back and look at the bottom of that page i think is very high rise in my experience
01:47:02 very high rise in my experience for all but high risk very high rise do you see that there yeah can you help us what do you mean by very high rise projects um
01:47:12 at the time i would have thought of something like 50 or 60 meters high right now it would be over 30 meters or over 18
01:47:23 over 18 now i think grenfell was around 62 meters high um so does that mean that grenfell 67 mr millet is correcting me
01:47:36 67 mr millet is correcting me on the basis it was an existing building um
01:47:41 um i wouldn't have it's not something i would have thought on the basis of what was proposed would have gone to the fire brigade
01:47:51 brigade fire engineering department who dealt with the higher risk type buildings i see yeah now have you had the opportunity before um giving evidence today to review the second
01:48:02 evidence today to review the second witness statement of lindsay seal of the lfb yes i have yes um if we can bring that up this is
01:48:16 lfb20118998
01:48:30 lfb20118998 is that there it's not coming out okay can we check that okay we'll check that um perhaps what i can do is just um explain to you where we find that what
01:48:43 explain to you where we find that what um
01:48:44 um she says in her witness statement i know you've read it already um and she says inspecting officers are more likely to offer observations in relation to the building regulations
01:48:55 in relation to the building regulations in terms of means of warning and escape b1
01:48:58 b1 and access and facilities for the fire service b5 and then she says this does not amount to restriction or limitation on what inspecting officers should and should not do and if there are other
01:49:10 should not do and if there are other critical issues apparent in the consultation documentation provided then it would be illogical for such
01:49:16 such issues to be ignored now just pausing there
01:49:20 there do you agree with that that although they're more likely to offer observations on b1 and b5 that's not a restriction or limitation on what inspecting officers
01:49:31 on what inspecting officers should and do consider if there are other critical issues apparent in the consultation yes yes because they can comment on whatever they like really in relation to fire safety yes
01:49:42 really in relation to fire safety yes yeah
01:49:43 yeah and then she says however an inspecting officer can only consider and consult upon the information provided and within the bounds of their competence it's not the role of that officer to second guess or peer
01:49:54 of that officer to second guess or peer review compliance decisions made by the building control body do you agree with that i do so i was just reading for the transcript that is um paragraph 11 on page five
01:50:06 paragraph 11 on page five and then at paragraph 12 she says matters relating to means of escape and firefighting access facilities are the main areas on which the extent experience and knowledge of inspecting
01:50:17 experience and knowledge of inspecting officers can be brought to bear in their consideration of simple and standard consultations hence the focus on them again do you agree that that's that the reason
01:50:29 do you agree that that's that the reason why
01:50:29 why they often focus on b1 and b5 yes um and then at paragraph 23 on page nine she says this he said i
01:50:41 on page nine she says this he said i would not expect our locally based inspecting officers to offer any specific observations in relation to the building regulations beyond anything they've noted from their review
01:50:50 review of the consultation regarding relating to general means of escape and firefighting access facilities now pausing there would you agree with that
01:51:01 that that you wouldn't expect the the locally based
01:51:04 based fire officers to offer any specific observations beyond anything they've noted from their review relating to means of escape b1 and firefighting access b5
01:51:16 and firefighting access b5 that would be the norm yes but then and then
01:51:19 then she says this any comment upon b2 to b4 was and is more likely to be made by the fire engineering group following an internal referral although
01:51:30 following an internal referral although as i explained below such comment particularly in relation to the external wall constriction construction was unusual and again does that accord with your experience that
01:51:41 with your experience that any comments that you might get from the fire authority on b2 to b4 were more likely to be made by their fire engineering group is that right yes that's correct and would you agree with her that
01:51:53 and would you agree with her that particularly in relation to external wall construction such comment was unusual yes
01:52:01 and then at paragraph 46 on page 16 she says in terms of external fire spread b4
01:52:10 spread b4 the x over strategy issue 3 that was provided with the first consultation detailed that and then she sets out a quote from that um xover fire strategy
01:52:23 that um xover fire strategy and it's the quote we're familiar with i'm going to read it now it is considered that the proposed changes will have no adverse effect on the building
01:52:30 building in relation to external far spread but this will be confirmed by an analysis in a future issue of the report so she records that there and she says this she says due to this
01:52:41 and she says this she says due to this statement and there being nothing in regulation in relation to b4 highlighted by the building control body within either consultation with us there would be no reason to comment or
01:52:52 there would be no reason to comment or question this area of the design the expectation would therefore be that unless otherwise advised the design would comply with the building regulations in this regard do you see that there
01:53:04 in this regard do you see that there so what she's saying is the con the combination of the statement that was made in the x over fire strategy that the proposed changes will have no adverse effect but we will be considered
01:53:15 adverse effect but we will be considered in a future issue together with the fact that there was nothing in relation to b4 highlighted to them as the fire authority
01:53:23 authority meant that they they would have no reason to comment on that area of the design
01:53:29 design do you agree with that i do in your opinion should the building control officer on grenfell tower have highlighted to the fire authority that there was a lack of information
01:53:41 that there was a lack of information about the cladding proposals and compliance with b4 at the time of considering the full plans application should that have been communicated to the fire authority
01:53:55 communicated to the fire authority i i don't think there would have been anything to gain from those comments and i think as i've said in my report i don't think the application should have been accepted
01:54:06 accepted to start with or because the building control body had categorically stated that they couldn't say it was acceptable to them i don't think it should have
01:54:17 to them i don't think it should have gone on in the initial stage to the fire brigade yeah so you're saying it was so inadequate that actually it shouldn't have been sent to the fire authority for consultation at all at that stage even on the basis
01:54:28 at all at that stage even on the basis of b1 because what was said to be proposed and supported by the fire outline fire strategy was not in in fact what was shown on the plans to be built yes i understand
01:54:39 be built yes i understand now just on this topic of consultation but different kind of consultation now are you yourself aware of any requirement to consult residents as part of considering a building
01:54:50 as part of considering a building control application where it involves renovation of an existing occupied building to consult them no so you're not aware of any requirement to do that kind of resident consultation no
01:55:04 resident consultation no now in terms of your compliance set assessment overall um i just want to ask you a few general questions about mr hoban's approach to
01:55:15 questions about mr hoban's approach to checking compliance with the building regulations we now know that he says he gleaned some evidence
01:55:22 evidence from sight from knowledge from sight for example he says that he saw the insulation and the acm on site and then he says he went away to check for further
01:55:33 check for further uh information now again subject to the caveat that that factual evidence will have to be considered by the panel but if we we take that as our starting point and assume that's right for
01:55:44 and assume that's right for present purposes would that be a common way of doing things in the industry for example to get information from site and then go away to check
01:55:55 site and then go away to check other information relating to what you've seen on site i would say it is often done it usually triggers a contact to the
01:56:07 it usually triggers a contact to the applicant to say i have seen on site xyz i need details of it and justification for your using it yeah yeah so you put the owners back on them
01:56:19 yeah so you put the owners back on them to justify to you what you've seen or been told on site yeah you might go away look it up and have an idea in your mind from the details provided but then when those details came in
01:56:32 but then when those details came in you could then sort of compare what you knew about it to what was being proposed yeah as given as the detail yeah and and just to be clear i think what you've said is there needs to be a very
01:56:43 you've said is there needs to be a very clear written record of what you've seen on site and what further information you're requiring is that correct yes for lots of reasons yeah yeah now we also know that mr hoban said in
01:56:55 now we also know that mr hoban said in his oral evidence that he trusted studio e
01:56:58 e and believed that they knew what they were doing and he thought it reasonable to expect that they would know and understand the building regulations that was his evidence that day 45 page 202 line 23 to 203 line 25
01:57:12 page 202 line 23 to 203 line 25 in your opinion is it ever reasonable for a building control officer to make assumptions about the level of skill and competence of an architect or a builder not to make assumptions no that's the
01:57:25 not to make assumptions no that's the american way where they the plumber or whoever writes an affidavit signs an affidavit that it complies
01:57:32 complies but that's not the way we do it in this country no and you wouldn't ever assume perhaps based on i mean what he said is that he'd worked with them previously on the um calc project um
01:57:43 on the um calc project um if you've worked with someone previously and they you think they've done a decent job
01:57:48 job would that perhaps reasonably lead you into assuming that they knew what they were doing and perhaps that you didn't need to check everything as thoroughly as you otherwise would no because the academy was a
01:58:01 no because the academy was a school wasn't high rise and the grenfell tower was a high-rise residential block completely different yeah does the fact that a fire engineer had
01:58:14 does the fact that a fire engineer had been engaged on the project um and provided some advice does that affect the level of scrutiny that a building control officer should exercise on a project no
01:58:26 should exercise on a project no it just if they're a competent engineer it makes your job easier because the justification and the information is usually set out for you
01:58:37 information is usually set out for you was it reasonable for mr hoban to assume that compliance had already been checked by the design team
01:58:44 he may have assumed it but he didn't have any evidence of it and therefore in your view it wasn't reasonable was not reasonable yeah do you agree that the task of building
01:58:56 do you agree that the task of building control is made markedly more difficult if members of the professional team don't work collaboratively with it don't attempt to make its task easier and don't inform it
01:59:07 make its task easier and don't inform it if they identify themselves areas of non-compliance or potential non-compliance yes
01:59:15 have you seen any evidence of that kind of behavior on the grenfell project from what you've reviewed [Music]
01:59:23 i can't say that i have but there has been no re request from building control for that
01:59:34 that so it may be like okay i can only surmise that because they weren't asked they assumed that it wasn't required but that was wrong yeah now we've heard from mr hoban that he
01:59:45 now we've heard from mr hoban that he says he was given various verbal assurances on-site about the compliance of the cladding if we can just look at your report paragraph 42 page 11.
01:59:59 paragraph 42 page 11. [Music]
02:00:01 [Music] you say this you say mr hoban appears to have relied on the unsubstantiated word of the contractors that the cladding achieved class naught classification for the fire surface spread of flame and met the criteria within adb for cladding
02:00:13 met the criteria within adb for cladding incorporating combustible materials for a building exceeding 18 meters in height this was a fundamental failing on the part of
02:00:22 part of the building controlled body so we have that there
02:00:28 um has anything you've heard in the oral evidence
02:00:32 evidence changed your view in any way about that
02:00:38 now we've been through your evidence of the failings that you've identified in rb casey's
02:00:49 rb casey's scrutiny of the refurbishment project and
02:00:52 and you've heard the oral evidence of mr hoban and mr allen and the reasons they gave for why they didn't do things um and he now accepts
02:01:01 accepts in some occasions with hindsight things ought to have been done do you have any further comment you want to make in relation to that evidence as relevant to your conclusions in your report
02:01:14 um i don't believe so having heard the evidence of mr hoban
02:01:26 and subsequently had sight of the hr records i feel he was struggling um he appears to
02:01:38 um he appears to and in the joint meetings between the two gentlemen it was stated and recorded that he was at one stage 50 percent behind on his site record keeping
02:01:51 his site record keeping and yet during that time as that figure was going up he was asked to take on
02:01:58 on and did accept two additional patches into his overall control which seems a bad management
02:02:11 decision as regards uh getting the best out of a
02:02:15 out of a building control officer yeah
02:02:20 now having heard evidence about the size of the building control department and the number of projects that mr hoban was overseeing are you able to give us your opinion on whether the building control
02:02:31 on whether the building control department in your view appeared to be overstretched at the time of the grenfell project
02:02:38 the department as a whole i can't say mr hogan appeared to be but having said that without details
02:02:44 details of all the other jobs whether they were dormant the size of them etc i can't categorically say he was overburdened yeah and i think the chairman's already
02:02:55 yeah and i think the chairman's already asked you this morning about the number of projects that mr hoban was working at at a given time i think he said at its highest it was 120 230 projects and you've already provided some comment
02:03:07 and you've already provided some comment on that this morning do you have anything else to say about that no now quality control now is a separate topic [Applause]
02:03:19 [Applause] now is it right that you found no evidence of rbkc having a quality control policy or document management system
02:03:27 system that's true uh it's mentioned several times
02:03:30 times in documents but i've no i found no evidence of it yeah and i think you explain that in the building control performance standards that were in force at the time it was left to a local
02:03:41 at the time it was left to a local authority to create a business policy to enable maximum effectiveness in achieving compliance and formulate its own documented quality control
02:03:51 control management system is that right correct some building control bodies go for pretty standard quality control uh attainment which is reviewed occasionally but not all
02:04:02 occasionally but not all yeah and i think just in terms of the transcript the reference for those quality that those performance standards are inq303
02:04:12 and clg one triple zero six eight one four
02:04:20 now you also said in your report this is at paragraph 33 in your summary at the beginning on page nine that you've not seen evidence of a quality control system or quality audits being undertaken by
02:04:31 being undertaken by rbkc is that right correct can you just help us as to what you mean by quality control system and quality audits [Music]
02:04:42 [Music] monitoring by management that the work being produced by their officers was as required and fulfilling the requirements procedural requirements and technical
02:04:54 procedural requirements and technical requirements of the building regulations and what kind of quality audits would you have expected
02:05:00 expected in a a competent building control department um checking that decisions were being made within their time limits
02:05:11 within their time limits checking that all aspects that were necessary were being achieved on the jobs by randomly perhaps picking out a job and basically peer reviewing it
02:05:22 a job and basically peer reviewing it yeah or sitting down with your junior members and going through their jobs to make sure that they were actually doing what was required and making sure that where
02:05:33 where completion certificates were required they were actually being issued and issued on time and issued correctly yeah now you've talked about peer review there in the context of a quality audit
02:05:46 there in the context of a quality audit in your view would it ever be the case that a building control department would have
02:05:51 have more formal peer reviews of work on projects
02:05:55 projects to check that they were being done correctly or a second check would that would that ever happen was that common um not a technical check that i know of being common
02:06:06 being common um it would be if you were going for iso registration that they would be looking at your processes and your documents to see if you had documents that were giving the information to um that was available to everybody as
02:06:19 to um that was available to everybody as and who needed it yeah but no it may be but i can't give any detail that
02:06:28 that perhaps an authority would ask another authority to come in and review but i can't give any examples of that in practice how would you expect
02:06:39 in practice how would you expect building control bodies to ensure that quality was maintained in the work of that department i would expect the manager to have processes
02:06:50 processes in place whereby there was periodic review of what actually was taking place within the department and the quality of the response to the applications
02:07:02 and to what extent would you expect there to be a system for line managers to check the work of those working beneath them um
02:07:13 there should be sort of a an appraisal if you like definitely annually from the point of view of the employment um also they're keeping up with
02:07:25 um also they're keeping up with technical information and generously just reviewing to make sure they weren't being overburdened and were doing what's expected of them at that level
02:07:36 that level would that ever be as specific as checking um on physical inspections that have been done on site or checking test certificates and that they've been looked at would you ever
02:07:47 they've been looked at would you ever take it to that level in terms of quality control yes i think so
02:07:52 so i mean it it was not uncommon um for the head building control officer to arrive on sites unannounced to check
02:08:03 to arrive on sites unannounced to check that his men had been there and had done what was supposed to have been done yeah do you agree that there is no specific requirement for a local authority building control body to have in place a quality control system
02:08:16 in place a quality control system i believe that so yeah now site visits um i want to ask you about the site visits carried out at grenfell tower in paragraph 125 of your report on page
02:08:27 in paragraph 125 of your report on page 36 you state that there's no generally available guidance as to how many inspections should be undertaken is that correct in as much as there's no um minimum
02:08:39 in as much as there's no um minimum a building control a local authority building control body is not required to inspect but as an offence can only occur on site yeah that's the only means of checking
02:08:51 yeah that's the only means of checking that the
02:08:53 that the regulations are being complied with yeah so you would there is there's guidance in the latest draft of the bcp sag and
02:09:04 in the latest draft of the bcp sag and the documents as to the number of of inspections but it's all based on the complexity the knowledge of the builder
02:09:15 the knowledge of the builder [Music]
02:09:17 [Music] whether they are competent etc so it is a judgment but it's once it's set out it doesn't mean that you can't do ten more
02:09:26 more or ten less yeah i think it follows from what you've just said that you would agree that it's difficult to be too prescriptive and specific about the number or frequency of inspections given the multitude of different
02:09:38 given the multitude of different building project scenarios a building control officer might deal with it is it's i mean the recommendation again his informal recommendation is that you should visit the site
02:09:49 that you should visit the site um a dormant site periodically to ensure that it is still dormant yes etcetera
02:09:57 etcetera yeah now you've helpfully referred to those building control performance standards
02:10:01 standards um we know that the 2017 version of those that's clg 5042 at page 27 don't need to go to it they say that the scope and frequency of
02:10:12 they say that the scope and frequency of inspections should be determined and incorporated in a formal written plan
02:10:17 plan but then this was a change i think from the 2014 guidance which we can see if we bring this up this is clg one triple zero six eight one four
02:10:29 one triple zero six eight one four page sixteen
02:10:32 under the heading inspection frequency
02:10:39 in the middle of that page you can see there's a heading inspection frequency and it says their scope and frequency of inspection should be determined and incorporated in a formal written plan
02:10:50 incorporated in a formal written plan plan should be kept under review as the project proceeds and then in the next paragraph all sites should be inspected frequently this is unlikely to be less than one visit every 28 days for all
02:11:01 visit every 28 days for all live and reasonably active sites and three months maximum for non-active sites to ensure that legal control is maintained do you see that there yes
02:11:13 and was that kind of frequency common practice within the industry so it's saying they're unlikely to be less than one visit every 28 days for all live and reasonably active sites would you agree with that that
02:11:25 sites would you agree with that that that was common practice yes um generally yes now mr hoban's evidence was that he endeavored to visit site
02:11:33 site once a month um that's rbk zeros page 19 in his second statement of page paragraph 48
02:11:44 paragraph 48 in your opinion was that reasonable to endeavor to visit site once per month i would say that was a minimum but
02:11:56 i would say that was a minimum but when visiting it should be established what was likely to come
02:12:01 before the next visit and it may be that you'd have to code the next day because there was something that was going to be covered up so you needed to adopt a flexible
02:12:12 so you needed to adopt a flexible approach
02:12:13 approach to it what i would say is the site visits
02:12:19 anticipated was probably reflected in the fee um because the fees are separate but it's a case of
02:12:29 case of um a visit will likely dictate when you come back the next time what i did find um strange in mr
02:12:41 what i did find um strange in mr hoban's evidence was that he said it was not a site you could just turn up to well i appreciate if you go to a site you can't just wander all over it for health and safety reasons
02:12:53 health and safety reasons but i find it a little strange that he would be dictated to as and when he could
02:12:58 could in fact go onto the site right that wouldn't be normal in your experience i don't think anybody would unless they had something to hide shall we say anybody would refuse a building control officer access to a
02:13:11 a building control officer access to a site unless it was particularly dangerous at that time to do so yeah now having heard the evidence and considered the documents that have had been disclosed and in particular the revised chronology from rbkc would you agree that mr hope
02:13:24 from rbkc would you agree that mr hope and
02:13:24 and hoban generally did manage to visit site once a month uh i think there are a couple of frequencies a couple of periods when it was longer than a month um
02:13:35 it was longer than a month um but it may have been when he was um ill right i did notice in his hr or the appraisal notes is that they found it difficult
02:13:46 found it difficult to cover when he was off sick because they couldn't find the files or his notes
02:13:54 his notes yeah overall what is your opinion on whether the number of inspections was appropriate for the project
02:14:04 i think at the time when the site was running
02:14:11 as they had hoped it would run um if it was just repeat to have to repeat it's difficult to say but as
02:14:22 it's difficult to say but as if he was there at least once a month that was probably
02:14:28 anticipated as being acceptable but in retrospect knowing what he didn't look at probably not okay
02:14:37 not okay do you agree it would be good practice for a building control officer to arrange visits with a contractor so as to ensure that they visit when there is something to see that needs to be inspected
02:14:50 that would not be the only time that would that would be definitely a time to visit but there would be additional visits no doubt right would past experience of a contractor ever be a relevant factor in
02:15:01 contractor ever be a relevant factor in determining the frequency of inspections i believe it would yes now rbkc accepts that the site visit notes were not sufficiently detailed
02:15:13 notes were not sufficiently detailed however do you agree that it would not have been normal practice at the time for local authority building control services
02:15:19 services to compile a detailed report of each site visit
02:15:25 i don't think poor notes
02:15:32 is common practice it's the only method of recording that you've actually done your job
02:15:39 your job so would you have said at the time that it was common for building control services to compile detailed reports of each site visit
02:15:48 depends what you mean by report there will be notes of what you had seen yeah um what you found was not acceptable um and the action that you took at the
02:15:59 um and the action that you took at the time
02:16:00 time to get that right yeah um but not a full report there just wouldn't be time probably to do that now if we go to paragraph 528 of your report on page 152
02:16:15 you've helpfully uh indicated there in a list
02:16:19 list of what records of site inspections should have indicated and then below that at paragraph 529 you've said the recorded notes do not contain sufficient detail
02:16:30 contain sufficient detail do you see that there yes now is that something that those supervising mr hoban's work ought to have picked up on at the time that the site visits notes he was recording on accolade or
02:16:42 he was recording on accolade or elsewhere
02:16:42 elsewhere were not sufficiently detailed yes i believe that should have been picked up
02:16:50 picked up having said that i don't know what the general level of detail was at rbkc i've got no knowledge of other projects
02:16:58 projects okay now regulation 38 now i'm on to my last
02:17:03 last uh three topics one of which is very short um
02:17:07 short um we've heard evidence from mr hoban that it was rbkc's practice to accept a verbal assurance that regulation 38 had been complied with either handing over of fire safety information
02:17:19 of fire safety information to those to the responsible person by those carrying out the works um that's day 46 page 201 lines 19-23 mr allen also gave evidence that this
02:17:30 mr allen also gave evidence that this was his practice day 47 page 190 lines 2 to 14. now is it right that you are aware of this practice in other building control bodies as well i.e accepting a verbal
02:17:42 bodies as well i.e accepting a verbal assurance
02:17:44 assurance of compliance with regulation 38 yes is it your view that this was an acceptable approach for a building control body to take
02:17:58 at the time yes provided it was recorded that they had accepted that as being adequate as as being the indication that
02:18:09 adequate as as being the indication that it had been passed over i see so you're saying it was okay to accept the verbal assurance but that verbal assurance needed to be documented yes can you help us as to how that
02:18:21 yes can you help us as to how that fits with the requirement of the regulations to take quotes all reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that it complies with the relevant provisions including regulation
02:18:32 relevant provisions including regulation 38
02:18:33 38 before issuing any completion certificate under regulation 17. the regulation 38 requires that the person carrying out the works
02:18:44 that the person carrying out the works passes over that documentation in hindsight it's proven to be an inadequate method of
02:18:53 of [Applause] satisfying oneself that that is adequate verbal
02:19:00 verbal is adequate um but the onus was on the person carrying out the work to pass that information over the responsibility of the building
02:19:12 the responsibility of the building control body was to obtain information that that had been passed the information had been passed over
02:19:24 the level of that information would have been determined by what the building control body thought was adequate in the circumstances or what they should have attained does that mean do you
02:19:37 have attained does that mean do you think the building control body would have had any role in checking the information provided to see if it did in fact satisfy regulation 38
02:19:55 as best practice yes
02:19:59 does that does you referring to best practice means that you wouldn't think it fell below reasonable standards at the time not to check
02:20:10 it was the way of complying with regulation 38 at the time varied as i say some would take a verbal confirmation others
02:20:22 confirmation others would have a slip at the bottom of the
02:20:28 building regulations application form that people would sign and tear off and send back
02:20:35 send back as confirmation the information had been passed over
02:20:41 i honestly cannot recall anybody who has received
02:20:44 received all the documents and checked that they were adequate for the purpose
02:20:51 i see so does that does it follow then that you don't think a reasonably competent building control body needed to receive all the documents and check them
02:21:01 them that would have been my view at the time yes
02:21:05 yes your your view now looking back on it was that an adequate way of dealing with regulation 38 just to have it in a slip no there should been some evidence as to what had gone um
02:21:20 i've subsequently asked building control bodies what evidence they require as to compliance with regulation 38 and they have said
02:21:33 and they have said variously a copy of the o m manual the operation maintenance manual or lists
02:21:40 lists of the documents it would on some projects the o m manual which contains this information generally can be six
02:21:51 generally can be six eight or ten volumes yeah and sitting here now do you think reasonably competent building control bodies if provided with the o m manual should do at least some check of that to check that it
02:22:02 of that to check that it contains the right information to be handed over yes um i think it would be good practice in asking for that evidence that the evidence
02:22:16 that the evidence is extracted from the o m manual rather than them having to plow through how to clean the toilets and everything else from the carpets that goes into an o
02:22:26 o m manual yeah now you've given your view um in your report on the options for who the person carrying out the work is
02:22:37 who the person carrying out the work is under regulation 38 and ultimately that's a legal issue for the panel to
02:22:41 panel to decide um to summarize your view you say the building owner can be the person carrying out the works because they're the ones who decide whether to carry out building work and
02:22:52 whether to carry out building work and that the overall aim of maturing a building
02:22:55 building uh has a reasonable standard of safety is to take effective action to enforce against the person
02:23:01 person capable of correcting deficiencies so those two points lead to your view i think that you think the person carrying out the works is is normally the building owner is that
02:23:12 normally the building owner is that right yes
02:23:14 right yes but you're also aware of a country view that the contractor is the person carrying out the work um would you accept the proposition that because regulation 38 requires the
02:23:25 because regulation 38 requires the provision of information about building works
02:23:28 works the party best place to provide that to the responsible person is the contractor because they're the ones with intimate knowledge of the works
02:23:37 works yes um this is really signing up to a question of construction of the regulations it is but i'm interested in this witness's
02:23:47 witness's understanding of the regulation and ultimately i've made it clear it's a matter for the panel as a building control officer i don't think
02:23:58 think it matters where the information particularly comes from um but it should be accompanied by a statement the the person carrying out the works is aware that that's gone over
02:24:09 aware that that's gone over to the responsible person under the order if it's the building owner they won't have that information they would have to get it from their agents whoever's responsible for
02:24:22 their agents whoever's responsible for compiling that on their behalf and pulling that together yeah do you agree that if the tmo was both the response the person carrying out the work and the responsible person and that will
02:24:34 and the responsible person and that will be a question of law to determine that do you agree in those circumstances is it your opinion that there would be no need for formal notification for the purposes of regulation 38
02:24:45 for the purposes of regulation 38 because effectively it's going within the same body no um the building control body needs to be satisfied that information has been passed over yeah if it's just passing it from one
02:24:57 yeah if it's just passing it from one desk to the other that may be the practical physical aspect but it should be shown that it's being compiled and given
02:25:06 given to the people who are going to operate the building yeah so you wouldn't just accept that it was going within an organization your practice at the time would it have been to to check and ask
02:25:17 would it have been to to check and ask whether it has been formally handed over
02:25:21 by acceptance of that verbally yes it had been handed over yes now you referred to rbkc's failure to check that the fire safety information
02:25:32 check that the fire safety information had been provided as a procedural failure and a lack of rigor in their processes that's at paragraph 494 on page 145. can you just explain what you mean by a procedural failure
02:25:44 by a procedural failure i can find nothing in the documents that i've seen that the question was asked or written confirmation was sought that the information had been passed over
02:25:57 the information had been passed over to the responsible person it didn't i've seen no process whereby that information was required as as part of the procedure within rbkc building control
02:26:08 building control yeah now finally on this topic just to confirm we know that you have not yourself undertaken a detailed review of the o m manual but dr lane has do you defer to dr lane's
02:26:19 dr lane has do you defer to dr lane's analysis
02:26:20 analysis of the o m manual in terms of compliance with regulation 38. i must confess i've not looked at that as that particular part of her report in detail
02:26:28 detail but i'm sure she's covered it okay now record keeping this is my penultimate topic we know that rbkc has accepted that there were shortcomings in aspects of the record keeping on this
02:26:40 aspects of the record keeping on this project
02:26:41 project can you just give us your overall opinion about the standard of record keeping for the grenfell tower project from what i've seen it was in adequate
02:26:52 from what i've seen it was in adequate to allow
02:26:55 to allow any third party who was reviewing the project
02:26:59 project to ascertain whether compliance had been achieved
02:27:04 achieved um in your view um was there a failure to comply with the standards contained in the building control performance standards 2006 and 2014 in regards to record keeping yes
02:27:17 in regards to record keeping yes would a competent building control body have had in place a policy requiring each building control body to identify the means by which compliance was being achieved and recording what evidence
02:27:29 and recording what evidence substantiation the person had seen that compliance by such a route was being achieved
02:27:37 i would hope so it's the only means by which they can be shown to have been carrying out their duty
02:27:46 do you accept that it would have been normal practice at the time for local authority building control services to weed their files at the end of projects i filter out material and dispose of material
02:27:57 material rather than keeping the whole file provided that sufficient documentation was retained to enable a reader to identify the key decisions weeding is common practice and it's done
02:28:09 weeding is common practice and it's done for all sorts of reasons but you have to be careful and have to know what you're doing when you're weeding from what i've seen the policy at um rbkc has stated by the officers it was
02:28:22 rbkc has stated by the officers it was effectively weeding down to the point where everything went
02:28:27 which is obviously no good um in looking back or having any records of what's gone before which allows you to determine if you're making it worse by the next proposal
02:28:39 making it worse by the next proposal yeah now finally i just want to go to your overall conclusion about the completion certificate can we go to paragraph 47 of your report on page 11.
02:28:54 paragraph 47 of your report on page 11. there you say that a completion certificate should only be issued by a building control body if it is satisfied that the fire safety information required by regulation 38 has been given to the person defined as the responsible
02:29:05 to the person defined as the responsible person
02:29:07 person and you say this in the last uh sentence in the absence of evidence that regulation 38 had been complied with i can only determine that a completion certificate should not have been issued
02:29:18 certificate should not have been issued now does that remain your view yes and is it also your opinion that a completion certificate should not have been issued because the works did not comply with the building regulations including
02:29:29 regulations including b4
02:29:32 the when the certificate was issued i can only
02:29:35 can only assume that the officers concerned were of the opinion that it did comply the works
02:29:42 the works did comply but is it your evidence that in fact
02:29:46 in fact the works didn't comply and the certificate shouldn't have been issued
02:29:52 following the fire everything i've seen indicates that the building did not comply
02:29:57 comply yeah mr chairman i've come to the end of my questions yes i'm sorry that i take until 4 30 to do that right this is an important expert um for the
02:30:08 this is an important expert um for the inquiry anyway we better have a bit of a break now
02:30:11 break now yes i think let's take 10 minutes that should be sufficient well you can let me know if it isn't thank you yes uh well mrs yes we're gonna have a short break in case something else uh comes to mind or
02:30:22 something else uh comes to mind or somebody else's mind as to questions that should be asked so yeah 20 to five please thank you and uh no talking to anyone thank you very much
02:30:36 [Music] all right you can let us know if you deep water yes thanks
02:40:09 yes would you ask mrs menzies to come back in please
02:40:26 all right well we'll see if there any more questions yes mr scrange are there any more questions uh just on one very short topic which is about photographs yes um would it have been common practice at
02:40:37 would it have been common practice at the time for building control officers to take
02:40:39 to take photographs on site and then retain those as part of the record of what they'd seen of yes yes it would yes yes
02:40:51 yes yes it would yes yes does it follow from that that we you're surprised that there are no photographs in any of the records that we've seen i mean i know we we don't have the full records unfortunately but would you have
02:41:03 unfortunately but would you have expected to see some photographs taken on site by relevant building control offices that form part of the documentary record for a project like this yes it was and
02:41:16 for a project like this yes it was and is common practice to be quite blunt it saves writing a lot of notes yeah um but it would would have been quite common yes particularly for key points yes
02:41:26 yes yep thank you um mr chairman those are all of my questions uh it just goes to to to say and i know you'll
02:41:33 you'll say it as well just to thank miss menses for
02:41:36 for all the incredible hard work that's gone into the report and and thank her very much for
02:41:40 much for for taking the time to come and give evidence today we really appreciate it yes well i certainly endorse all that it's been uh a pleasure to listen to your evidence today and very helpful to do so but i
02:41:51 today and very helpful to do so but i know a great deal of work gone on before you came into the hearing room this afternoon and we're all very grateful for your your efforts and for your support so thank you very much indeed
02:42:02 thank you very much indeed and now you're free to go thank you thank you very much
02:42:14 yes well that's it for the day then yes thank you and we have another expert tomorrow
02:42:19 tomorrow we have dr lane yes good well thank you very much
02:42:22 very much uh that's it for today we'll resume at 10 o'clock tomorrow thank you thank you very much
02:42:44 you