Dr Barbara Lane, expert fire safety engineer, provides detailed technical evidence on fire safety strategies, professional standards, and requirements for existing buildings. She explains the fundamental failures in Exova's fire safety work on Grenfell Tower.
00:00:21 yes could we have dr. Pearson back please
00:00:33 [Applause]
00:00:47 right ready to carry Andalus yes thank you thank you very much yes Miss Granger yes thank you so I just want to start by picking up a few points that have arisen out of your evidence this morning and
00:00:58 out of your evidence this morning and then I'll go back to where we were in my series of questions and just in terms of supervision and at the time that you were reviewing issue 2 of the outline
00:01:12 were reviewing issue 2 of the outline fire safety strategy who did you report to use your line manager as I said this morning I cannot remember the point in time in which the transition occurred between Terry Ashton being the office
00:01:25 between Terry Ashton being the office manager and Andrew will not in 2012 it was probably still Terry Ashton this was 23 2013 yeah October 2013 at the time of
00:01:38 23 2013 yeah October 2013 at the time of my I can't I really can't remember the the chronology what happened first yeah okay and by the time of your email of the 31st of March 2015 which were going
00:01:49 the 31st of March 2015 which were going to come to look at do you think by that phone must have been Andrew Wilma must have taken over the office yeah okay where you aware when you were reviewing mr. Ashton's issue two of the fire
00:02:01 mr. Ashton's issue two of the fire strategy that he'd had no experience of advising and respect of cladding works in high-rise buildings part of this project no I wasn't and does it follow
00:02:13 project no I wasn't and does it follow from the fact that you didn't know at the time that there was going to be any over cladding that you didn't think to question his suitability to be advising in relation to that project I've been
00:02:30 in relation to that project I've been asked to put it to you directly that would you agree that we looked at the amount of time that you carried out the review in and it's around 33 minutes between the two emails would you agree that that's an insufficient amount of
00:02:42 that that's an insufficient amount of time to carry out the steps you ordinarily would looking back at things that slip through my my review can only conclude that yes it
00:02:56 my review can only conclude that yes it was not as those it yeah maybe should have been what further checks or changes do you think you might have made to the report how do you get
00:03:08 have made to the report how do you get given time I mean difficult to say because I've reread it now with my knowledge and experience and I have and you're going to put myself in my shoes
00:03:20 you're going to put myself in my shoes of five years ago it it's difficult to recollect you know what my knowledge and experience would have would have allowed me to conclude at the time yeah it
00:03:31 me to conclude at the time yeah it certainly with hindsight would have been useful to ask for the the minutes of any meetings with the design team and or Building Control just to verify that they correlate yeah and it would have
00:03:45 they correlate yeah and it would have been useful to ask for further information on a reference in relation to this max for them report to which to report the first in relation to the
00:03:56 report the first in relation to the ventilation yep okay that's helpful thank you
00:04:01 thank you and so just picking back up and I want to just ask you a little bit more about the analysis of external fire spread that was done on the calc project yep just for a moment and can we go to EXO
00:04:14 just for a moment and can we go to EXO four zeros one three eight zero
00:04:24 so this is an email to you on the 25th of February 2013 and then and it's the subject of calc kaa comes into the
00:04:36 subject of calc kaa comes into the Aldridge Academy and then we've got external fire spread analysis yes and southern external fire spread as the subject and attachments do you see that there and this seems to me mr. Madison
00:04:48 there and this seems to me mr. Madison within xover emailing you saying you've included the southern external fire spread analysis with the midpoint between the Kensington Aldridge Academy and the Granville tower as 8.5 meters
00:05:00 and the Granville tower as 8.5 meters and then he says either way we get 100% changes to the report are highlighted in yellow now was this a space separation analysis that had been done it must have
00:05:13 analysis that had been done it must have been relating to the two buildings yes it must have been and dosuk so be routinely carry out those kind of analyses yes yep but none appears to
00:05:28 analyses yes yep but none appears to have been done on Granville Tower certainly at the time that you reviewed the outline fire safety strategy I'm certainly not aware of any no and was that something that that seemed odd to you when you reviewed it uh I cannot
00:05:41 you when you reviewed it uh I cannot recall okay now you also peer review the outline fire safety strategy for calc dated the 27th of September 2012 which did address
00:05:52 27th of September 2012 which did address the B 4 requirement in detail can we just look at that this is at our BK 3 zeroes 1 5 703 this is the outline fire safety strategy for
00:06:04 is the outline fire safety strategy for that project we see the date down on the right-hand bottom of the page and it's issue 1 and your name is reviewer is on
00:06:15 issue 1 and your name is reviewer is on page 2 if we can go within that we can see it was prepared by ben rogerson senior consultant and then you reviewed it you see that yeah then just pausing
00:06:27 it you see that yeah then just pausing there was ben rogerson senior to you yes senior consultant so you've reviewed even though you're junior to here yeah now the B for requirement is
00:06:38 yeah now the B for requirement is addressed at pages 9 to 10 of this fire strategy and we can see external fire
00:06:50 strategy and we can see external fire spread for example on the right there and there's various provisions in there so you were peer reviewing mr. Ashton's fire strategy report on version 2 of the
00:07:01 fire strategy report on version 2 of the Graham full strategy on the 24th of October 2013 so eight months after you'd reviewed
00:07:08 reviewed you've received the calc fire spread analysis that we just looked at yeah can we just not think possibly some confusion here not only you email related as I understand at Kensington a
00:07:21 related as I understand at Kensington a large economy this is Jensen leisure centers right yeah two buildings in the Cal project yeah yeah it makes a difference but yeah just avoidance of any confusion yeah fair enough I think
00:07:32 any confusion yeah fair enough I think the point is that given you'd been doing these kind of fire spread external fire spread analyses and related to related projects nearby did that not prompt you
00:07:43 projects nearby did that not prompt you to question mr. Ashton as to whether there were more beef or issues that needed addressing for the Granville Tower project I just took it on trust aid first of all again I don't remember
00:07:55 aid first of all again I don't remember in detail but my thought process must have been because there's a caveat in the report for grenfell tower that the
00:08:08 the report for grenfell tower that the it will be confirmed at a later date whether or not the issues that I just took it on to us that he would do an analysis later whether the lack of
00:08:20 analysis later whether the lack of details in that revision of the report was due to us not having elevation drawings or whether it was due to not having had the time I do not know yeah
00:08:31 having had the time I do not know yeah it certainly didn't concern me at the time absolute faith in him that he would provide all necessary information okay what's the analysis of external
00:08:43 okay what's the analysis of external fire spread that was done at Cal was it done due to any concern that those rules might not adequately resist the spread of fire given that our understanding is that some aluminium
00:08:54 understanding is that some aluminium skin panels stuck together with polyurethane adhesive to a core of dow styrofoam liquid blowing agent that that was the nature of some of the panels
00:09:06 was the nature of some of the panels that were on the leisure center yeah I've got no detailed recollection I mean it was this space separation analysis was something that was typically done as
00:09:17 was something that was typically done as a routine of matter of course including on some projects where you just take one look at the size of the compartment and the separation distance season it's pretty obvious to anybody with a bit of
00:09:28 pretty obvious to anybody with a bit of experience that it's gonna pass the the relevant tests even before you've done the maths
00:09:34 the maths there's obviously in this particular instance an example where there's relatively close separation distances for a relatively large compartment size
00:09:46 for a relatively large compartment size so it will certainly have been part of due diligence to to verify whether or not these external walls pass the relevant tests or whether the
00:09:58 relevant tests or whether the proportions of that external wall that a fire resisting need to be increased yeah so does cannot recall the details of that analysis can we just have a look at page 10 of the external fire spread analysis for calc
00:10:15 yes there we see it finishes off it's gone through each elevation and looked at external fire spreading so you can't help us as to whether the particular type of panels that was proposed to be
00:10:26 type of panels that was proposed to be used on that project necessitated close look at the before requirement I would be surprised whether it had anything to do with this election of materials but
00:10:40 do with this election of materials but now I've got no recollection nada
00:10:46 I don't even know who it was who did that analysis and where that was in a previous issue if I just got no recollection where you were aware at all that some of the external walls were covered with a panel which had a core of
00:10:58 covered with a panel which had a core of combustible styrofoam insulation my recollection here is behind there were certainly discussions about external
00:11:09 certainly discussions about external walls I think they're related to the Academy rather than to the leisure center so same again recollection affair just too hazy yeah so did you did you
00:11:21 just too hazy yeah so did you did you ever ask your colleagues at x over whether in the context of reviewing issue 2 or subsequently thereafter whether they had done or considered a flame spread analysis on granville tower
00:11:37 so then I just want to ask you some questions about means of escape for the disabled and so can you explain why even
00:11:50 disabled and so can you explain why even though the calc outline fire safety strategy which he paired review did accept a dress means of escape for the disabled your peer review of the Graham for tower if she - of the fire strategy
00:12:02 for tower if she - of the fire strategy failed to mention that the Graham for tower strategy did not contain a plan for disabled evacuation can you explain that
00:12:09 that there's due to the the general practice for four blocks of flats the approved document b contains certain advice on on
00:12:21 document b contains certain advice on on provisions that need to be made in offices public buildings etc for four blocks of flats the requirement to provide appropriate complementation
00:12:34 to provide appropriate complementation between the the flats and the common circulation spaces to provide adequate separation between stair stair lobbies Goa doors and stairs and and nothing else and conclusion from that is that
00:12:49 else and conclusion from that is that the the expectation from the regulator's were that we need to ensure that anybody within a flat where there was a fire can get out of that flat but that really is
00:13:00 get out of that flat but that really is as far as the expectation went and there's there's no further expectation then placed on the on the designers to to ensure there's a way that's means for
00:13:15 to ensure there's a way that's means for you know management for what a better word to then assist with an evacuation yeah can we just look at a couple of provisions within a DB itself if we go bring up CLG five zeros two to four at
00:13:28 bring up CLG five zeros two to four at page 13
00:13:40 and we can see in the bottom left-hand column as a section headed inclusive desire at naught point one nine and draws attention within that for example
00:13:53 draws attention within that for example at the second paragraph two part n of the regulations access to and use of buildings requires reasonable provision for access by people to buildings and then it continues in the third paragraph
00:14:05 then it continues in the third paragraph people regardless of disability age or gender should be able to gain access to buildings and use their facilities both as visitors and as people who live or work in them as such the fire safety measures incorporated into a building
00:14:16 measures incorporated into a building will need to taking account of the needs of all those persons you may have access to the building it is not appropriate except in exceptional circumstances to presume that certain groups of people
00:14:28 presume that certain groups of people will be excluded from a building because of its use and then I think it continues at the top of the next column the
00:14:36 provisions set out in this approved document are considered to be a reasonable standard for most buildings however there may be some people whose specific needs are not addressed in some situations additional measures may be
00:14:47 situations additional measures may be needed to accommodate these needs this should be done on a case-by-case basis now just taking this in stages I think these were provisions that came in in the 2006 version of approved document b
00:15:00 the 2006 version of approved document b were you familiar with these provisions at the time you were working on the ground floor project saying in 2013
00:15:09 memorized the wording but the the basic principles yes yes and was any consideration given by you to those provisions when you were reviewing the fire safety strategy issue 2 in October
00:15:23 fire safety strategy issue 2 in October 13 not specifically in context of that project it's a discussion that you have every time a new member of staff joins the firm and your particular issue with
00:15:35 the firm and your particular issue with graduates needed to learn the ropes so there's certain principles that you will apply to only general need blocks block of flats
00:15:44 of flats grenfell tower is considered a general needs block of flats and so it was just a case of world revert to normal procedures so is that a way of saying no
00:15:55 so is that a way of saying no consideration was being not say not not not beyond the the fact well it's a general need block of flats therefore say just revert to plan 8 which is not
00:16:06 say just revert to plan 8 which is not to look any further which is which is to provide adequate compartment ation between the flats and the the common areas between the the corridor Lobby and the stairs the smoke ventilation that
00:16:19 the stairs the smoke ventilation that those requirements drawing on that sentence at the top of that right-hand paragraph the provisions set out in this approved documents are considered to be original standard for most buildings Grenfell tower in that respect was
00:16:31 Grenfell tower in that respect was considered to that we could conclude it in in that category of most buildings it's a general needs block of flats as distinct from something that is specifically intended for a retirement
00:16:44 specifically intended for a retirement home or for people with particular care needs I think and possibly I can also add and also reference to the Local Government Association guidance on fire
00:16:56 Government Association guidance on fire safety management of blocks of flats which block an on staff block of flats again doesn't place any expectations for any management procedures or anything like that other than the requirement
00:17:08 like that other than the requirement there is to provide advice to the residents and basically that assumption of that is the the understanding of what the legal requirement is okay can we just look at another part of a pre
00:17:20 just look at another part of a pre document B and on page 17 this is in the b1 little V section on the right hand
00:17:32 b1 little V section on the right hand side there's a heading criteria for means of escape and then if we could zoom in on the bottom of the page yes then a note and it says some people for example those who use wheelchairs may not be able to use stairways without
00:17:44 not be able to use stairways without assistance for them evacuation involving the use of refuges on escape routes and either assistance down or up stairways or the use of suitable lips will be necessary do you
00:17:55 suitable lips will be necessary do you see that so there again it's drawing attention to the fact that some consideration ought to be given to that yes ask
00:18:03 yes ask of the building and those who may be using wheelchairs was any such consideration given as far as you were aware on the ground floor project not beyond what we would normally have
00:18:16 beyond what we would normally have thought through for any block of flats is that no because of the compartment ation provided that should have been
00:18:27 ation provided that should have been provided obviously with hindsight didn't work and because of the levels of compartment ation and the corresponding stay put
00:18:36 stay put strategy that the guidance in approved document b four blocks of flats is all that is required to to ensure the the
00:18:48 that is required to to ensure the the expected levels of safety for people who are not able to use the stairs unaided so does it follow from that that there was no consideration given to particularly vulnerable groups whether
00:19:00 particularly vulnerable groups whether the elderly disabled or young children and how the fact price strategy might affect them not specifically again it was a it was a general needs block of flats and as much as we are aware that
00:19:12 flats and as much as we are aware that there may be disabled residents in a in a block of flats that the the understanding of the legal requirements are that the the guidance set out in the
00:19:28 are that the the guidance set out in the relevant sections for for blocks of flats equates to the legal requirements yeah and there's no expectation than the regulator to go beyond that the existing
00:19:41 regulator to go beyond that the existing building fire strategy report I appreciate you didn't see this at the time about existing fire strategy shows three different purpose groups with various levels of hazard identified as against approved occupant B did you
00:19:56 against approved occupant B did you consider whether it was important that issue two of the refurbishment fire strategy report should reflect or examine the characteristics of the occupants under these different purpose
00:20:07 occupants under these different purpose groups I didn't at the time know and is the reason for that the answers you've just already given about the regulatory framework
00:20:16 framework yeah did you ever give any consideration in this context of how the TMO would comply with its obligations under the rro in relation to its fast rate safety
00:20:27 rro in relation to its fast rate safety management plan without having some kind of guidance or strategy for assisting people who needed assistance evacuating well I think possibly tip 2 opted to not
00:20:38 well I think possibly tip 2 opted to not answer that question at the time I wasn't aware of who the Tiamo were yeah so again I was under the impression that we were working as a subcontractor on behalf of Royal Borough of Kensington Chelsea rather than the PMO but it's a
00:20:53 Chelsea rather than the PMO but it's a general needs block of flats that you know I'd know no reason to assume that it wasn't already being adequately managed and therefore that they would need any advised beyond well continue
00:21:06 need any advised beyond well continue managing it well I think so it didn't occur to you that more information might be necessary from the person managing the building about the characteristics no information at the time that would
00:21:18 no information at the time that would raise any concerns and it was currently not being adequately well managed yeah dr. Barker suggested in her evidence that the assumption was that residents can self could self evacuate was that
00:21:31 can self could self evacuate was that the assumption that you made when you would do how deeply I was thinking through it at the time I can't say that yes you do assume that even a block of
00:21:44 yes you do assume that even a block of flats there may be residents or visitor's who are disabled but my understanding of the legal requirements at that point is you need to protect them in the stairwell well enough so
00:21:55 them in the stairwell well enough so they can if nothing else waiting the stairwell until the fog if I has been put out so yes certainly is the the possibility of there being somebody in
00:22:06 possibility of there being somebody in the building cannot use the stairs but we're just facing our understanding of the requirements on that paragraph we looked at earlier about the design
00:22:18 looked at earlier about the design guidance here is it sufficient for most buildings yeah so does it follow from your answers that you didn't turn your mind to the fact that some residents might not be able to sell
00:22:29 might not be able to sell q8 without assistance not not specifically about this project I mean I'll say again it's a question one asks oneself or one discusses every time somebody new joins the team so it is a
00:22:40 somebody new joins the team so it is a an issue to which we were rather sensitized and and yes so this is a in other generally block of flats and - so
00:22:55 other generally block of flats and - so the same requirements apply as to all the general needs locks of flats which we've worked in the past and the in particular you know comparing to new
00:23:07 particular you know comparing to new build blocks of flats that there was a number of projects I've worked on certainly the expectation there was never went beyond dividing what document B calls for flux dr. Barker also said
00:23:22 B calls for flux dr. Barker also said this she said if they did have mobility issues then maybe Granville Tower wasn't the best place for them to live to reiterate approved document b does not make any provisions in residential buildings for people with mobility
00:23:33 buildings for people with mobility impairments do you agree with her in relation it's not the way I tend to look at it because as I said we always have to assume that there may at some time at
00:23:45 to assume that there may at some time at the lifetime of the building be somebody who can't use the stairs so it certainly I'm not I can't rely on
00:23:56 an owner of a building operating procedure of not allowing people to rent or buy or rent a flat if they're disabled particularly bearing in mind that that disability or the cause of the
00:24:07 that that disability or the cause of the disability may arise long after they've moved in they may live there for 10 years have an accident and then become disabled so I'm certainly not going to base any strategy or policy on the
00:24:20 base any strategy or policy on the assumption that that I can block of flats and I can rule out there being disabled people in the building did you have access to any information about the makeup of the residents in terms of
00:24:34 makeup of the residents in terms of they're not not beyond the knowledge that it's a council block of flats and being able to make an educated guess as to what the demo it might be right and what would that educated guess have been that probably
00:24:47 educated guess have been that probably or lease a should say higher than average proportion may have been from the lower socio where you cannot make sectors if I can put it in well the technocratic language right
00:25:01 well the technocratic language right would it be common practice to have information about individuals in terms of their vulnerabilities their disabilities before you put together a
00:25:12 disabilities before you put together a fire safety strategy all indeed as part of reviewing a safety strategy certainly not for a block of flats because you know there's going to be a turnover of residence tenants moving in tenants moving out flats being bought and sold
00:25:24 moving out flats being bought and sold and the profile of the day when the contractors hand the keys over might be very different for the profile ten years later it's not something you can predict and therefore you don't try and predict
00:25:35 and therefore you don't try and predict it you where you made aware at any time of when you were working on the ground field project that there were at least 22 people with disabilities living in
00:25:48 22 people with disabilities living in the tower know would you expect to have been told information of that nature if that was the case do you not not really because I mean you assume that it's quite possible that there might be so if
00:26:01 quite possible that there might be so if you had been told would you have done anything differently probably not I mean again my understanding of the the legal requirement although that the standard of safety required is that that would be
00:26:13 of safety required is that that would be achieved by implementing the the guns in approved document b and again with reference to the the guidance on the regulator reform order that doesn't
00:26:27 regulator reform order that doesn't really place any expectation on the management other than to provide advice to the residents okay
00:26:37 did you consider just going back to issue two that you reviewed did you consider issue two to be a detailed fire strategy no now I now want to turn on to
00:26:51 strategy no now I now want to turn on to the email of the 31st of March 2015 which she sent to mr. Ashton in relation to cavity barriers in rainscreen cladding systems can we go first up to
00:27:05 cladding systems can we go first up to EXO for zeros one seven five six
00:27:21 so this is an email that you sent to mr. Ashton headed Granville tower external cladding in on the 31st of March 2015 so sometimes some significant time on
00:27:32 so sometimes some significant time on from October 13 when you review - II - of the fire strategy and you say this we note that the barrier against fire spread between floors is provided
00:27:44 spread between floors is provided through the connection of the structural flaws to the existing external walls the existing external walls are expected to provide sufficient fire resistance to prevent far from entering the cavities
00:27:55 prevent far from entering the cavities at or near floor or ceiling level we would not rule out that fire could enter the cavity if there is flaming through the windows however if significant flames are rejected from the windows
00:28:06 flames are rejected from the windows this would lead to a failure of the cladding system with the external surface falling away and exposing the cavity eliminating the potential for unseen fire spread a standard cavity
00:28:19 unseen fire spread a standard cavity barish should be sufficient to rent fire spread between floors while there remains a cavity in view of the above we do not feel that there should be a need for a two-hour rated fire break in the
00:28:31 for a two-hour rated fire break in the cavities along the lines of the compartment floors or walls do you see that there and we know or appear to be
00:28:44 that there and we know or appear to be the case that this email arose in the context of questions that had been asked of mr. Ashton about whether or not it needed to be a fire stop or a cavity barrier in the external wall at this
00:28:56 barrier in the external wall at this time now you say in your witness statement that although you don't recall this email you note that this appears to be a draft response to a query received
00:29:10 be a draft response to a query received by mr. Ashton from Neil Crawford at 1205 earlier that day that's what you've said yes and we can just see that email from mr. Crawford to mr. Ashton if we go to
00:29:22 mr. Crawford to mr. Ashton if we go to EXO five zero seven one five at the bottom of page one
00:29:31 so there we see it 12:05 Grenville tower fire stop being high Terry can you comment on the history of this item please see correspondence below as it's
00:29:43 please see correspondence below as it's not clear to me why this item is causing such a difference in interpretation can't see anything that seems to reference it in the fire strategy did you see that there yes now um had Terry Ashton requested your
00:29:58 now um had Terry Ashton requested your advice or approval prior to you sending him that email he must have done cuz why else would I have written in an email I
00:30:09 else would I have written in an email I mean I've got no recollection of the exact course of events and I can only make an educated guess as to what the circumstances were here and what do you
00:30:20 circumstances were here and what do you think this has the hallmarks of a situation that did arise from time to time of client sends a question to the lead fire engineer on the project that
00:30:31 lead fire engineer on the project that lead fire engineers in the middle of some things though says I don't have time to deal with it immediately forms it out to colleagues can you please have a look at this if it's something that you can deal with very quickly please do so if it's something more complicated if
00:30:43 so if it's something more complicated if you can summarize the issues to me so I can work out what's going on rather more quickly and say this has all the hallmarks of this being one of those situations yeah which for example probably also explain
00:30:55 which for example probably also explain why my email is not part of the change yes
00:30:59 yes what probably happened here is Terry probably printed out the original email chain gave it to me as a hard copy and then yeah I then draft and did mine I'm guessing it was open you know for
00:31:11 guessing it was open you know for example this here's a text you could maybe copy and paste into your response or something along those lines yeah can we look at what you say about this at
00:31:22 we look at what you say about this at paragraph 4.5 of your witness statement this is EXO four zeros one seven five three
00:31:31 so you say on the 31st of March 2015 I sent an email to mr. Ashton I do not recall this email but I see that it contains what appears to be a draft response to a query received by mr.
00:31:43 response to a query received by mr. Ashton by email from Neal Crawford from Studio II earlier that day I do not recall why I was involved in the conversation although as already noted it was not uncommon for mr. Ashton to
00:31:54 it was not uncommon for mr. Ashton to discuss technical matters with other staff as all email containing technical information had to be approved by at least two people and this might explain my involvement so you've hopefully tried to explain why I think you were involved
00:32:08 did you know at the time what Terry Ashton actually did with that draft email that you sent it no did you ever ask him not until they run up to the
00:32:21 ask him not until they run up to the preparation my appearance here today no right when you drafted that email that draft response and sent it to him did you expect it to be forwarded to the
00:32:33 you expect it to be forwarded to the client on the project that must have been my assumption yes and they forward probably more likely copy and paste yeah into an email of his own yeah so sent to the design team on the project yes sent
00:32:45 the design team on the project yes sent to the client on the project well the client the design team I said I was yeah with reference to earlier conversations about me not knowing the project history of where we were through the stages or
00:32:57 of where we were through the stages or even understanding who the client was yeah I didn't give it much thought as to who the recipient of the email might be other than recognizing the name Neil Gordon knowing him from my work on the calculate X yeah now if we can look at
00:33:10 calculate X yeah now if we can look at paragraph 5.3 one of mr. Ashton's witness statement this is EXO four zeros one sixty one at page 19 so actually
00:33:24 one sixty one at page 19 so actually pick it up at 5.30 he says he sent an email trying to explain that if a fire were to occur with external flaming it would take some of the cladding panel with it and this might cause the fire
00:33:36 with it and this might cause the fire stop to fall away with it depending on precisely how the faster was fit and then he says some minutes after I sent that email I received an email from mr. Pearson that commented on the same
00:33:47 mr. Pearson that commented on the same issues and then he set out what you said so it would appear that he had already responded back to mr. Crawford with his that is my subsequent understanding yeah
00:33:58 that is my subsequent understanding yeah before he got your response if that's correct and just thinking back to the usual practice you said that every email technical email be improved by two
00:34:10 technical email be improved by two people yeah that would suggest that that wasn't followed in this case wouldn't it that that's no certainly the implication yes and and should the proper process have been to wait for your response
00:34:21 have been to wait for your response given he it would appear he's referred it by in absence of the full facts don't know but probably yeah and and then when he got your response decide how to then yes phone bag yeah I mean to just going
00:34:35 yes phone bag yeah I mean to just going back to the what the situation probably was say it didn't happen you know that that uncommon Lee that you'd receive something don't have time of meeting to do with the pastor Dawei client then
00:34:46 do with the pastor Dawei client then phones up chasing for a response and that telephone call then prompts the project manager in this case mr. Ashton to then actually deal with the question rather than waiting for me to to come
00:34:57 rather than waiting for me to to come back to him so that that to me is the most logical explanation of how this chronology occurred of him then answering the question before I had a chance to get back to him was it a
00:35:08 chance to get back to him was it a common occurrence when you were working with mr. Ashton it he would not comply with the checking of the email technical email by two people in a way I wouldn't
00:35:21 email by two people in a way I wouldn't know because you know the times you asked me to review something I don't know how often he didn't Jenn I mean he certainly very often would make a point of asking for a second opinion on something
00:35:31 something and I just assumed that that was the majority of the cases not having been party to and in any way yeah been surveilling his entire email in
00:35:44 surveilling his entire email in communications how often he followed the procedure how often he didn't I couldn't tell you okay where you were where when you sent your email to him he'd already responded to the query I doubt it I have no clear recollection
00:35:57 doubt it I have no clear recollection but I can't imagine that I would have sent my response to him had I known that he had already answered the question okay let's go back I want to look at it in detail of what you said in that draft
00:36:08 in detail of what you said in that draft to mr. Ashton let's go back to that this is an EXO four zeros one seven five six
00:36:24 great so it's it's really that second paragraph that I want to focus on and I just want to kind of unpick what your your view was and why you were saying this so you say there that however if
00:36:36 this so you say there that however if significant flames are ejected from the windows this would lead to failure of the cladding system do you see that there so is it correct that your view was that fire could enter the cavity if
00:36:48 was that fire could enter the cavity if there was framing through the windows the right there obviously with hindsight we now know what was and was not installed but this was all based on the
00:36:59 installed but this was all based on the assumption that everything else is code compliant so there should have been a cavity barrier on the top edge of the window frame on the flap flat with the fire is at floor level and another one
00:37:12 fire is at floor level and another one then on the other side what bear in mind at the bottom of that email chain from DL chord it's referring to aluminium rainscreen cladding yeah if I allow
00:37:25 rainscreen cladding yeah if I allow myself to assume that that external cladding is Salib mininum well that would you know there's certainly the fixings if not the panel's themselves would detach quite rapidly and so it is
00:37:36 would detach quite rapidly and so it is rather likely that actually would have failure of the cladding all we had failure of the cavity barrier however without doing a detailed analysis I can't guarantee which of those
00:37:47 can't guarantee which of those components would fail most easily so I can't entirely rule out that actually the fire would penetrate that first cavity barrier before there's
00:37:59 cavity barrier before there's substantial damage to the external cavity but we've got well we should have three of these cavity barriers between where the flames are coming from and the window frame above and the amount of
00:38:12 window frame above and the amount of heat it would take to compromise all three cavity barriers would rather exceed the amount of heat I would expect it to take for the the external cladding the moat the outermost layer to
00:38:29 seeks to be recognizable as an external sheet if I can use those words okay I don't know how much I thought about the materials I've got a very vague recollection of seeing that word
00:38:42 recollection of seeing that word aluminium at the bottom of the the email train which if I did that will have led me to to think of sheet metal most of my experience up to that point
00:38:54 most of my experience up to that point with external or most of the queries I've had had related to glass facades rather sorry glass facades rather than metals so I
00:39:05 glass facades rather than metals so I don't know how Carentan idea I had in my mind as to what the materials were and this admittedly somewhat awkward wording is partly precisely because actually I
00:39:16 is partly precisely because actually I don't know what the materials are what the components are and so I'm trying to cover all eventualities just going back to that wording there you talk about frames ejected from the windows leading
00:39:28 frames ejected from the windows leading to failure of the cladding system are you saying at the time did you mean failure of the cladding system as a whole or that this would lead to a localized failure of the cladding again
00:39:41 localized failure of the cladding again I probably didn't give it very much thought yeah and I just can't remember what I was thinking in terms of materials I mean if if I had in my mind
00:39:52 materials I mean if if I had in my mind an image of glass well glass would probably shatter over a fairly wide area yeah if it was an image of sheet metal panels well they're going to detach a panel at a time how local is local
00:40:07 panel at a time how local is local before we consider it not to be local in a way in the context of the question I was asking it didn't really matter the question was does this barrier in line with the with the floors need a
00:40:19 with the with the floors need a four-hour resistant rating or a 30 minute 30 minute for integrity 15 for insulation yeah and the answer is if you accept the design guidance in diagram 33
00:40:33 accept the design guidance in diagram 33 of an approved document b it is a situation where a cavity barrier is required ie 30 15 120 oh yeah mr. Ashton said to his last week that the way he interpreted this was
00:40:45 that the way he interpreted this was that you were saying there would be failure of the cladding in a localized way but it sounds like from what you're saying here he didn't intend that to me it didn't matter in the context or the question always been lost
00:40:56 question always been lost no and is it right that then you're what you're saying is because the cladding will fail there was therefore no unseen fire spread and therefore no need for
00:41:08 fire spread and therefore no need for the two-hour fire break and that the standard cavity barrier should be fundamentally once you've no longer got a cavity the cavity barrier was serving no purpose we're you aware first of all that mr.
00:41:22 we're you aware first of all that mr. Ashton was actually asking you about this in the context of Graham Ville tower that it was in the context of that building that you were advised if I was reading a hard copy of that email chain
00:41:33 reading a hard copy of that email chain from Neil Warford well I must have done so I met Neil core for the design team meetings for the calc and I knew this email didn't relate to count so what
00:41:44 email didn't relate to count so what else could it be like - yeah doesn't it subject green filter yes and you'd been
00:41:55 subject green filter yes and you'd been working on the calc project we know that at the time but apart from version 2 of this fire strategy that you reviewed and we looked at that had you looked at any
00:42:06 we looked at that had you looked at any other information relevant to Grenville tower any other drawings report was early in the design stage there must have been at least one iteration of their general arrangement floor plans
00:42:17 their general arrangement floor plans and markups created by Terry Ashton had you seen anything specific to the cladding no before this recollection
00:42:31 cladding no before this recollection we're you aware that by the 31st of March 2015 there's still not been a final fire strategy report on ground for tower
00:42:43 I just wasn't following the project at all so I didn't know where we were so you didn't know we're in the in the design stages so no were you basically
00:42:54 design stages so no were you basically just looking at a very narrow question that's been asked of you and answering that narrow question yes so ya know where this fitted into the bigger picture I really didn't know where you
00:43:08 picture I really didn't know where you aware that issue three of the fire strategy had said know more about the before requirement than had been an issue to I don't that I don't think hey I knew that it did all be how many
00:43:19 I knew that it did all be how many issues had been sent since on to where you were where at this time that there was a stay put evacuation strategy that
00:43:31 was a stay put evacuation strategy that was my was implicit throughout the entire project understanding had you known that there hadn't there hadn't
00:43:43 known that there hadn't there hadn't been a further final version of the fire strategy report would you have been willing to give the advice you gave in those circumstances what specifically in this in the context of this question
00:43:55 this in the context of this question about whether yeah that how do you know that there hadn't ever been a detailed fire strategy produced would you have still been prepared to well again I was
00:44:06 still been prepared to well again I was asked a specific question and so I gave an answer to that to that specific question and that aren't so is you know basically in a very wordy fashion saying
00:44:19 basically in a very wordy fashion saying what what good diagram 33 of document B says should be provided looking at this now yeah sorry it was there anything
00:44:30 now yeah sorry it was there anything more you wanted to say looking at this now would you agree that your advice potentially overlooks the point that the cladding materials such as insulation can still burn and spread flame between
00:44:42 can still burn and spread flame between flats even once the panels have fallen off yes because that wasn't the question I was being asked
00:44:54 and it also potentially overlooks the fact that before the cavity actually falls before the cladding fails and there's no cavity there could be some unseen spread before that point well
00:45:07 unseen spread before that point well precisely that that's the reason why we've got a cavity barrier there so it cannot spread beyond the cavity barrier yeah and I appreciate you say that you're advising on on narrow issues but
00:45:18 you're advising on on narrow issues but but the question here is that what you've then both ended up describing to agree had potentially more serious consequences for the building and for
00:45:29 consequences for the building and for the fire strategy and what should be contained within it one of these things difficult to say with hindsight yes
00:45:44 difficult to say with hindsight yes obviously with hindsight somebody should have reviewed the materials being used on the external walls and pointed out hang on a moment we've got an issue here how I put that in the context of this
00:45:56 how I put that in the context of this this particular email I mean do you agree that what you're describing here would suggest that there does need to be
00:46:08 would suggest that there does need to be an amendment to the fire strategy that you saw which specifically analyzes the B 4 requirement and whether it does adequately resist the spread of fire the
00:46:19 adequately resist the spread of fire the walls well I mean obviously they're needed they needed to be further work on the strategy full-stop because that even the issue 3 is an outline report well
00:46:30 the issue 3 is an outline report well from the full strategy with hindsight you know I mean certainly the way I know our fire safety strategies yes I do provide more information on that subject
00:46:41 provide more information on that subject and in absence of knowing what the specifics of the design are they give the generic guidance what was it you say
00:46:52 the generic guidance what was it you say I do provide more information on that subject now what was it that changed that the pattern of behavior the the the fire in the subsequent realization of
00:47:03 fire in the subsequent realization of quite how widespread the ignorance is about what to have external walls we hadn't either - rather allowed ourselves to assume the people doing the detailed design know what the requirements are and obviously
00:47:16 what the requirements are and obviously that with hindsight turns out to have been a rather misplaced assumption do you remember discussing this any further with mr. Ashton at the time this dominant the external fire spread okay
00:47:30 dominant the external fire spread okay not in specifically in Grenfell Tower
00:47:34 certainly the the general issue of all the reasons why there were restrictions on materials on high-rise buildings not just blocks of flats something yes that
00:47:45 just blocks of flats something yes that was discussed in what context at what point in time I cannot recall probably once early in my career and then certainly around about this time
00:47:58 certainly around about this time 2014-2015 as we were then getting queries from clients particularly with they tend to be the new build blocks rather than refurbishment work where it was start and become a bit more apparent
00:48:10 was start and become a bit more apparent that there was a rather widespread use of materials that shouldn't be used and suddenly client clients coming to us and saying the insurers have rejected this
00:48:21 saying the insurers have rejected this can you please advise us and Tibet ever prompt you to think to go back and look on projects you'd handled the fire
00:48:32 on projects you'd handled the fire started a roomful tower as an example when that increasing awareness did it prompt I realized a certain certainly on a couple of the projects that I was working on then there was additional
00:48:43 working on then there was additional work done because I was not the lead on grenfell tower I certainly wouldn't have prompted the review and been felt tower but there was a couple of the projects I was working on where yes then further
00:48:54 was working on where yes then further work was done to confirm what they can and cannot do right and and do you know why that wasn't that work wasn't done on ground for charges because it was not request I said oh because I wasn't the
00:49:05 request I said oh because I wasn't the lead engineer on there again I wasn't following the progress of the project I was only assisting ad hoc as and when required
00:49:14 and yeah so just had no overview of what was going on that particular project yeah
00:49:19 yeah now at four point six of your statement we don't need to turn it up I can just summarize it you say I've got no recollection of any further involvement in the discussion and I'm not aware that the final conclusion of the discussion
00:49:30 the final conclusion of the discussion about the required standards I five stock cavity barrier was ever communicated to me okay yeah possibly correction with that since I've been written that witness statement I have since seen the email from or an email
00:49:41 since seen the email from or an email exchange between Terry Ashton and Kensi and Chelsea now you know how that course ended but you didn't know at the point in time didn't know it at the time where
00:49:52 in time didn't know it at the time where you know at the very least curious to know at the time how that had a look curious yes but no that curiosity didn't
00:50:05 curious yes but no that curiosity didn't go beyond you know didn't actually drive me to action know are certainly curious yeah but but not such that you inquired as to how how that issue had ended up
00:50:16 as to how how that issue had ended up being resolved
00:50:22 do you agree that your advice there about the failure of the cutting system in the event of significant ejection of flames from the windows would apply irrespective of whether the cladding
00:50:33 irrespective of whether the cladding panels were made of zinc or aluminium it certainly would you know what I'm saying
00:50:44 certainly would you know what I'm saying can aluminium will be seen both both those cases if it would be sheet metal and it wouldn't make much difference to which it were as I said this morning I wasn't aware that metal composite panels existed my knowledge of BR one three
00:50:57 existed my knowledge of BR one three five at the time was rather limited I mean they give an opinion now on the subject that's where are the more detailed and I could have done at the time that the the two options in
00:51:12 time that the the two options in approved document b as to either all insulation fillers etc to be of limited combustibility or for the external wall system perhaps the pr one three five test well we now know that certainly
00:51:25 test well we now know that certainly insulation wasn't it wasn't a limited possibility irrespective of where we fall in the argument as to whether they ex they going to being cladding is an etc in that list of of insulation filler
00:51:37 etc in that list of of insulation filler etc and that would certainly not pass the video one three five criteria so there's two separate considerations here
00:51:48 there's two separate considerations here the the fact that cavity barriers warm and the selection materials the other ADB doesn't say you know make the the requirements for cavity barriers conditional on the materials and doesn't
00:52:01 conditional on the materials and doesn't make the selection of materials conditional on on the cavity barriers this was a specific question about the cavity barriers that I answered in why the ignorance that elsewhere there's
00:52:12 the ignorance that elsewhere there's other things amiss when you refer therefore to the potential for unseen fire spread were you focusing on the B
00:52:24 fire spread were you focusing on the B three four requirement of the building regulations that the building shall be designed and constructed so the unseen read of fire and smoke within concealed spaces in its structure and fabric is inhibited in the
00:52:36 inhibited in the particular situation it's B 3 and B 4 really are interlinked and I don't
00:52:47 really are interlinked and I don't really want to be going arguing semantics about whether there's a p3 or p4 issue it's the it's a live safety issue and these precautions the point I want to put to you is that under both
00:52:58 want to put to you is that under both it's a significant issue yeah yeah it's a significant interest issue under B 3 for unseen fire spread but it's also a significant issue in terms of B 4 and adequately resisting the spread of the
00:53:09 adequately resisting the spread of the fire yeah absolutely advice you're giving absolutely do you think you appreciated that at the time the potential for this advice to really impact awesome as much as difficult to
00:53:20 impact awesome as much as difficult to say with no clear recollection to my so my emotions and thoughts at the time but I I believe I was aware that it relates to both yes did you know at the time you
00:53:36 to both yes did you know at the time you were commenting on it that this statement in the version of the outline fire safety strategy that you've reviewed before the statement about b4 had remained unchanged I think a I
00:53:50 had remained unchanged I think a I didn't know where the static report was and B there's so much time had passed since when I'd reviewed the revision - and then this email I don't think I had much of a clear recollection of what the report said at all see this object when
00:54:02 report said at all see this object when you were giving this advice did you have a quick look back - I don't believe I did because again it's a specific question with a where the answer can be given it's a specific topic of its own
00:54:16 given it's a specific topic of its own and and so I felt I can answer that question
00:54:21 question I felt a capable of answering that question I mean this was not something I was sending directly to Building Control precisely again the rule of get a second opinion
00:54:29 opinion so parting that to Terry am i right in in a my understanding of the question and beam I give a my understanding of requirements on the correctness of the answer do you agree that it follows from
00:54:43 answer do you agree that it follows from your observation here about the failure of the cladding and that the proposed refurbishment works word have an adverse effect on the building in relation to external fire spread contrary to what had been said in that
00:54:54 contrary to what had been said in that fire report that's one of these things that had they been code compliant then
00:55:05 that had they been code compliant then it's a bit of a philosophical question I mean we're looking at the context of material alteration I mean clearly if we're if we're adding a code compliant insulation system onto
00:55:18 a code compliant insulation system onto a concrete wall well yes that is introducing risks but as long as the external though all this the additions
00:55:29 external though all this the additions are remained within the parameters of the code eats it's permissible under I appreciate that mr. Pearson but would you have really been saying that there
00:55:40 you have really been saying that there was no adverse effect on the building in terms of external Osbert I would probably be spelling it out as to what we're doing and and say if we take a
00:55:56 we're doing and and say if we take a hypothetical building where we were happy with the materials they were using I would probably then spell out well you know we're adding this and this and it complies because of such and such creating cavities creating the potential
00:56:09 creating cavities creating the potential for yes Perrin hind the rains law precisely with we're not creating an issue because the the relevant control measures are being put in place so I
00:56:20 measures are being put in place so I mean there's always a residual risk but that residual risk is within the limits that the the legal expectations which obviously if I became aware of somebody
00:56:32 obviously if I became aware of somebody proposing a design where the materials are not satisfactory I wouldn't be putting in the strategy before it's justified because of this in there so I'll be sending it back to the client and say yeah please go back to the drawing board this doesn't work mr.
00:56:45 drawing board this doesn't work mr. speaking quite sorry and I think I'm getting too excited so no no no it's fine just just maybe just bear in mind the transcriber so in terms of okay would you agree that the advice that has
00:56:57 would you agree that the advice that has been given in I'm fire strategy report to the effect that there would be no impact on external fire spread required immediate retraction because it couldn't be
00:57:10 retraction because it couldn't be justified in the light of this acknowledgement with hindsight probably yes
00:57:21 yes well there may be a prior question did he recall what was in the fire I did just ask that I think yes Isis is a risk of trying to treat he was an expert yeah
00:57:32 of trying to treat he was an expert yeah yeah just to be clear I think I did ask you whether he had gone back and no what happens in time when I'm on when I'm writing this draft email I don't think
00:57:44 writing this draft email I don't think it had any clear recollection at all about what the static report said about v4
00:57:52 did you ever in the context of Granville tower give any consideration to revisiting the b4 section and conducting a thorough analysis of the external fire spread issues well because I wasn't
00:58:04 spread issues well because I wasn't leading the project I was again assisting in the in this case mr. Ashton but if he'd asked me to I would have but
00:58:15 but if he'd asked me to I would have but there's no reason why I would have taken the initiative and and told him how to manage this project would you agree that any fire safety strategy should have
00:58:26 any fire safety strategy should have been updated to include such an analysis generally speaking yes
00:58:38 so a mystery I'm just gonna check we had a flurry of questions come in just before the lunchtime break I'm just I'm just gonna double check whether I've covered yes did you think before giving
00:58:52 covered yes did you think before giving this advice to check what the materials were because the answer to that question is somewhat independent of the selection
00:59:03 is somewhat independent of the selection of materials as I said before the advice in in section 12 of a DB referencing back to section 9 the location of the cavity barriers aren't dependent on the materials and the materials aren't
00:59:15 materials and the materials aren't dependent on the number and location of cavity barriers with the combust ability of the insulation not have a potentially significant impact on the phenomenon you're describing well because if the
00:59:27 you're describing well because if the insulation was combustible with 9/10 I think two separate scenarios here if we're using a materials compliant with
00:59:38 we're using a materials compliant with the linear route well they wouldn't be combustible if we got combustible materials then the act the technically correct answer would be that the cavity
00:59:49 correct answer would be that the cavity barriers or whatever fire barriers were putting in there need to be as per the PSA for 1/4 certificate and obviously if
01:00:00 PSA for 1/4 certificate and obviously if you can either pass a PSA for 1/4 or neither meet the BR 135 criterion nor are using material limited combust ability well the the whole question about cavity barriers is a bit academic
01:00:11 about cavity barriers is a bit academic because the materials irrespective of any amount of 5 areas it's not acceptable would you agree that prior to giving this advice you ought to have
01:00:22 giving this advice you ought to have sought clarification as to the precise materials they were proposing to use at this stage I didn't see a need to because again the is a question specifically about those five areas and
01:00:34 specifically about those five areas and the answer to that question is is the same irrespective of what the materials are bearing in mind that as I said before we were assuming that the
01:00:45 before we were assuming that the designers were choosing the the appropriate materials nothing to steer me towards any year any notion that the materials were actually
01:00:58 notion that the materials were actually given that you've accepted earlier on today that you were aware for example of the Lacan or house fire and other international fires wasn't it important to check the composition of the
01:01:10 to check the composition of the materials used before you started assisting mr. Ashton with with advice such as this I just took it on trust that he had that anything that he's not
01:01:23 that he had that anything that he's not covered by that email he's that he's on top of him dealing with elsewhere would you have expected mr. Ashton to have inquired what the materials were that they were using prior to answering a
01:01:35 they were using prior to answering a query about cavity berries and fire stopping difficult to say there was a bit of a tendency to take material selection as or consider those as
01:01:46 selection as or consider those as detailed design rather than strategy so yeah I'm going to struggle to give a straight answer that was raid finally
01:02:00 straight answer that was raid finally and mr. Pearson we're you aware at the time of the chemical composition of TIR installation were you aware of I know
01:02:11 installation were you aware of I know PIR is probably I knew right where you aware that it was a combustible incident
01:02:22 aware that it was a combustible incident I'm very much aware that PIR is well nevermind combustible anything with civil cyan in it chemically is really nasty stuff if you set fire to it okay
01:02:33 nasty stuff if you set fire to it okay mr. chairman that concludes my questions and the ones I've absorbed so far but the usual custom is to now take a short break
01:02:42 break well we'll do that and I think we'll take a break until twenty past plenty of time to organize any questions so we'll have a break now mr. doose dr.
01:02:55 so we'll have a break now mr. doose dr. Pearson I'm so sorry we'll come back at twenty past three please unless you're told otherwise occasionally we find it overruns reasons and please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while
01:03:07 to anyone about your evidence while they're out of the room all right thank you very much the ashes
01:03:25 20 past or least not before 2014
01:20:24 well could we have dr. Pearson back please
01:20:40 right doctor isn't this great do you have any more customers yes yes just just a few um so we discussed earlier on
01:20:51 just a few um so we discussed earlier on today that there was no formal design risk assessment that was done remember we were talking about the shared means of escape yet residential and non-residential I think your answer was that there was no formal design risk
01:21:03 that there was no formal design risk assessment done what form of design risk assessment was done was any kind of design risk assessment done beyond discussions with mr. Ashton when it was
01:21:18 discussions with mr. Ashton when it was first put to me that we've got an unusual situation here and obviously the discussions that we've seen in the email exchange I'm not aware of anything beyond that do you agree that design
01:21:32 beyond that do you agree that design risk assessment is the process of identifying and assessing risk and then eliminating risk when we're putting it yet when you were reviewing the outline
01:21:46 yet when you were reviewing the outline fire strategy is she number two did you give any consideration to whether that design risk assessment process had been carried out nor didn't
01:22:00 if mr. Ashton was not going to flag the non-compliance and we know he didn't flag it in his first issue of the report
01:22:13 flag it in his first issue of the report how would risk have been identified and eliminated if it's not flagged in a report like that do you ever have a situation where it's done separately from the fire strategy they really
01:22:26 from the fire strategy they really dependent on the individual project and then they how that project is managed and each one being different depending on whether we're working for the architect or directly for a developer
01:22:39 architect or directly for a developer contractor whether there's a project management consultant involves the middleman each project is different yeah now you've said that yours and this is linked to design risk assessment you've explained that your approach to writing
01:22:51 explained that your approach to writing a fire strategy as a comparative approach and you compare what's there you establish what's there and the existing and then you look at any changes after that and do you agree that
01:23:03 changes after that and do you agree that that approach provides a solid basis for carrying out a design risk assessment doing it that way it certainly helps us with anything the you can have a good
01:23:19 with anything the you can have a good approach and not do things with that it would delegate diligence and budge things that so it's not a condition that automatically means that everything else is fine but I certainly find they'd say
01:23:33 is fine but I certainly find they'd say it's a more appropriate way of setting out yeah you've explained in contrast which which mr. Ashton's approach was which focus much more on just validating
01:23:45 which focus much more on just validating the changes would you agree that that's totally less satisfactory satisfactory in terms of and trying to follow a design risk assessment process if you haven't bottomed out what's there and
01:23:56 haven't bottomed out what's there and what's in the existing before you do it it's not something up to which I've given a lot of a thought to be honest but I mean probably
01:24:07 but I mean probably and just in general how can one be satisfied that the fire strategy poses no risk to safety if the risks have not
01:24:18 no risk to safety if the risks have not been assessed in the context of the building as a whole well I think I disagree with the statement of they haven't been assessed in this particular
01:24:29 haven't been assessed in this particular incident hadn't been assessed of the building in the whole it's really when you writing a strategy or what is the purpose of the report and what is your brief they when you're making
01:24:45 brief they when you're making alterations in an existing building yes and absolutely you need to understand the context and I my understanding was that mr. Ashe had a fairly good
01:24:57 that mr. Ashe had a fairly good understanding of of the context how that's documented and whether everything is in one document or split across several with each with a specific
01:25:08 several with each with a specific purpose really depends on the on the needs of the project and the preferences of whoever's managing that project just
01:25:19 of whoever's managing that project just on another topic and your knowledge of over caddying and did Ledbetter ever mention that there was cladding proposed on Grand Hotel proposed to be used on
01:25:30 on Grand Hotel proposed to be used on ground for tower certainly not to me no because we know that there was a link between calc and the Granville Tower project and you became employed on count by the
01:25:41 became employed on count by the contractor is that right by register but they never mentioned to you that there was an overcrowding proposal in relation
01:25:57 mr. chair I'm just turning to a second set of comment of questions that have come in we talked about that email in which it was said that you'd argued away
01:26:09 which it was said that you'd argued away comments with building control on the calc project would you accept that there was a general culture in the fire engineering industry at the time of arguing away Building Control comments I
01:26:23 arguing away Building Control comments I think arguing away I think is rather awkward awkward language I mean nog Ewing in the academic sense of you put an argument to support a particular hypothesis the a lot of our work is to
01:26:41 hypothesis the a lot of our work is to that invalidate designs that are not code compliant verify that they're safe and explain to the relevant regulator your authorities why they're safe and so
01:26:53 your authorities why they're safe and so in an academic sense well every fire engineering analysis is is argumentation it sometimes you get building and troll
01:27:05 it sometimes you get building and troll officers to a rather set in their ways and it does generate a certain amount of frustration when they apparently refuse to see something that to yourself seems self-evident but ya know precisely the
01:27:20 self-evident but ya know precisely the building regulations require that without wanting to quote the full length of the the five requirements of part babe they require reasonable levels of safety and the approved document b sets
01:27:34 safety and the approved document b sets out the benchmark that defines the level but doesn't define what the design needs to be and so yes very often our design is actually explaining why a non-standard solution provides the requisite level of safety okay I mean as
01:27:50 requisite level of safety okay I mean as I said before I'm not gonna say argue black is white and and try and pull the wall on over building charles i's and try and push something that I don't feel is safe because I might be the firefighter copying it then trying to
01:28:02 firefighter copying it then trying to fight the fire ten ten years down the line
01:28:07 and I want to ask you whether you were aware at the time you were giving that advice to mr. Ashton in March 2015 what you were aware of in
01:28:18 in March 2015 what you were aware of in terms of the cladding materials that were being discussed can we just look at an email this is EXO five zero seven one five
01:28:33 so I'm looking for the email at 1332
01:28:43 yeah so this is mr. Ashton's email back to mr. Crawford did you see this email at the time I don't think I did No
01:28:54 at the time I don't think I did No so he's referring in the second-to-last line about causing the zinc cladding to fail were you aware at the time you were advising on these issues that mr. Ashton
01:29:05 advising on these issues that mr. Ashton was referring at least two zinc cladding I got no recollection one way or the other
01:29:13 and your answers today demonstrate that you were aware that the failure of the cladding system with the external surface falling away might include
01:29:24 surface falling away might include pieces of cladding or as you describe them shrapnel would represent would fall would you say first of all that that would represent a potential danger to
01:29:36 would represent a potential danger to people if that happened and second was that an acceptable hazard to be contemplating it clearly represents a hazard our understanding of the
01:29:48 hazard our understanding of the statutory requirements and again going back to approved document b I think it's part of the paragraph one of section 12 saying that there is no universal
01:30:02 saying that there is no universal general need for external walls before I was listing there are certain circumstances in which they need to do need to be but if those circumstances don't exist there is no requirement for
01:30:13 don't exist there is no requirement for for fire resistance and the consequence of that is well precisely there were then no controls over that sort of incident happening where pieces of
01:30:24 incident happening where pieces of external wall then then fall away my understanding of the quarter building regulations is that something that would not be allowed under normal circumstances but then fire is considered an unusual event
01:30:37 considered an unusual event and yeah that kind of failure was accepted by the authors of approved document b as that may okay may may occasionally occur and is the risks are
01:30:50 occasionally occur and is the risks are sufficiently low for it to be to be tolerated
01:30:55 tolerated most of these requirements come out of stable door legislation and I can only presume that it's something where we don't have so sufficiently horrendous
01:31:06 don't have so sufficiently horrendous statistics of people being injured by objects falling off burning buildings for the regulator's who have decided well actually we need to tough from the requirements here and and put in
01:31:17 requirements here and and put in additional controls I mean obviously as a firefighter something I'm acutely aware of that's why I wear a helmet anywhere near a burning building because yes you do know that things might fall off it yeah just going back to the
01:31:32 off it yeah just going back to the discussion you were having about shared means of escape did it ever occur to you to discuss with this mr. Ashton whether you should be saying to the client that they shouldn't be mixing residential
01:31:43 they shouldn't be mixing residential with non-residential means of escape I can't remember the exact word to the day of the discussion I mean as I mentioned looking at an early phase design plans
01:31:54 looking at an early phase design plans we identify the fact that there was this means of escape
01:31:59 mr. Ashton's focus was primarily on building regulations and are we or are we not creating material alteration
01:32:08 where as I will allow myself to think I took probably a wider view and let's take that make sure we're adequately taking the regulator reform order into consideration our conclusion at the time
01:32:21 consideration our conclusion at the time was for the risks that for the reasons that are outlined rather briefly without much in the way of fire engineering mathematics there the conclusion was that the the risks are such that the
01:32:35 that the the risks are such that the continued use of the building in its existing situation should be acceptable and therefore as the works are not creating any additional risks that there for continued use should be acceptable
01:32:47 for continued use should be acceptable on the works at least aspect so it wasn't seriously considered that you should go back to the client and say don't mix these two different uses with a single escape I mean we
01:32:58 uses with a single escape I mean we asked ourselves the question is the bother circumstances say for not applying the benchmarks of the regulator with all Mordor and the conclusion was
01:33:10 with all Mordor and the conclusion was that the the risks to residents are they in line with what one would expect in a quote unquote normal block of flats just
01:33:24 quote unquote normal block of flats just another question on evacuation the existing fire strategy report which I appreciate you didn't see discusses evacuation of flats beyond the dwelling of fire or an origin being carried out
01:33:36 of fire or an origin being carried out under the control of the fire service if necessary and it also says due to an esteemed high degree of compartment ation and therefore a low probability of fire spread beyond the dwelling of fire
01:33:47 fire spread beyond the dwelling of fire origin simultaneously evacuation of the building is unlikely to be considered so it made those two statements in the existing for our strategy did you notice at all in the second issue of the
01:33:58 at all in the second issue of the refurbishment strategy that there was it didn't advise on the need to check what the degree of compartment a ssin would be after the refurbishment no I mean two
01:34:13 be after the refurbishment no I mean two things here first of all with mr. Ashton's absolute focus on the the works in the building regulations place requirement on the works rather than the edifice so there's a requirement in that
01:34:27 edifice so there's a requirement in that strategy any alterations to complementation to low paying elements etc etc need to meet certain standards what's their existing is not governed by
01:34:38 what's their existing is not governed by the regulation by the building regulations looking at the separate perspective from the regulatory reform order and that's then the legislation that governs whether the existing conditions are adequate out there take
01:34:52 conditions are adequate out there take my cue from the Local Government Association guidance for fire risk assessment in blocks of flats I can't remember the exact wording but the basic attitude there is that in a in
01:35:08 the basic attitude there is that in a in a block of flats unless there's any particular reason to give concern that's the existing compartment ation or structural resistance or inadequate it cannon moat it is in most instances safe
01:35:21 cannon moat it is in most instances safe enough to assume that the complementation is adequate okay and you mentioned that you'd consulted with mr.
01:35:32 mentioned that you'd consulted with mr. Ashton
01:35:33 Ashton about these issues can you tell us when you spoke to mr. Ashton about the matters we've discussed today and have you had any conversations with him about
01:35:44 you had any conversations with him about your witness statement or your evidence prior to giving evidence here today which issues specifically because there's obviously she's we've discussed the early in the design your work on
01:35:55 the early in the design your work on issue two of the outline fire safety strategy in the amendment did you discuss that with mr. Ashton before you came to give it beyond acknowledging
01:36:06 came to give it beyond acknowledging that that yes I reviewed it and this is what I put in and not really yeah you know we have met since the fire but it's
01:36:17 know we have met since the fire but it's not as if we've in any way I've asked him what he wants me to say and he's asked me what that's enough okay and what about the email of the 31st of March 2015 have you had any discussions
01:36:29 March 2015 have you had any discussions about that email I've read his witness statement but that's about as far as the communication went yeah now mr. chairman
01:36:40 communication went yeah now mr. chairman well I've been on my feet I have had an email from the team TBS arse saying they would like another pause to check with their clients that all has been covered
01:36:51 their clients that all has been covered how long do they want it doesn't say right we'll have a you understand what mr. crane is saying we're going to have
01:37:02 mr. crane is saying we're going to have a short break until 10:00 to 4:00 right okay so off you go with the usher don't talk to annoying about your evidence and we'll resume a 10-4
01:49:59 yes would you like to ask dr. Pearson to come back please
01:50:10 right don't fizzle yes was Grange Lola well I've had it confirmed in the break that there are no further questions but that I'm to thank the Chairman on
01:50:21 but that I'm to thank the Chairman on behalf of team T for allowing extra time for them to do thank you and so it just goes to thank dr. Pearson for coming today
01:50:29 today yes well then there's no more questions with no doubt you're quite relieved anyway so thank you very much neva coming to give your evidence all great helps to hear from you and
01:50:40 all great helps to hear from you and you're now free to go thank you thank you very much right and when you're ready okay you gave the usher
01:51:02 well that's it for the day I say we've only got ten minutes left exactly and we start tomorrow with mr. stones again to finish his evidence and
01:51:13 stones again to finish his evidence and we'll resume with him at 10 o'clock yes and before we go can I just think short pen writer who I think was finding like it'll be difficult at times because the witness was quite voluble thank you very
01:51:25 witness was quite voluble thank you very much I'm gonna talk tomorrow please