Cross-examination of Dr. Tony Pearson from Exova about his peer review of fire strategy, knowledge of cladding fire risks, and awareness of the over-cladding proposals.
00:00:39 good morning everyone and welcome to today's hearing today we're going to hear from the last of the xover witnesses so could you ask please
00:01:03 yeah these clowns you to be I do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I
00:01:15 declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you very much dr. Pearson do you like sit down make yourself comfortable
00:01:28 right yes what strange sorry mr. chairman I think the sound system may be off is that right I'm sorry doctor look
00:01:41 off is that right I'm sorry doctor look so we've got a slight technical hitch at the moment can you hear me when I'm speaking yes sorry that's better I think it's just come on thank you yes yes yes good morning dr. Pearson thank you very
00:01:53 good morning dr. Pearson thank you very much for attending today to give your evidence
00:01:55 evidence it's very much appreciated if you have difficulty understanding anything I'm asking you in the course of my questions please can you ask me to repeat it or put the point in a different way and if
00:02:07 put the point in a different way and if you feel you need a break at any point please just let us know and also please try and keep your voice up so that the transcribers just sitting to your right can can hear you now you've made one
00:02:19 can can hear you now you've made one statement to the inquiry can I please take you to it's also in a folder on the desk in front of you it's a witness statement dated 16th of October 2019 and
00:02:31 statement dated 16th of October 2019 and we find that EXO four zeroes one seven five three yes thank you and if we can go to the last page on page 7 of that is
00:02:43 go to the last page on page 7 of that is that your signature there it is and have you read the statement recently yes I have and can you confirm that the contents are true okay it's a lot to the
00:02:55 contents are true okay it's a lot to the best of my knowledge yes they are thank you and now I want to start with asking you some questions about your background and your experience can we look at paragraph 2.1 of your witness statement
00:03:07 paragraph 2.1 of your witness statement is on page 1 so there you tell us in the first part of that that you studied mechanical engineering at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in
00:03:18 Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich
00:03:19 Zurich do you see that there yes and later in the paragraph you you say that you went on to undertake a PhD in fire behavior
00:03:30 on to undertake a PhD in fire behavior which was Co supervised by the University of poitiers and France yes and professor Dougal Drysdale at the University of Edinburgh is that correct yes yes so is it right that you have
00:03:41 yes yes so is it right that you have extensive academic knowledge of fire behavior I like to think so yes yeah now we know that you were working at X over from 2008 and in a altum of
00:03:55 at X over from 2008 and in a altum of 2013 you became a senior consultant to X over is that right correct yes now can you just help us as to what that means the senior consultant in terms of the hierarchy of positions within X over the
00:04:07 hierarchy of positions within X over the basic grading you assuming that your join the company with no or very limited practical experience you'd start off as a graduate so somebody who is not
00:04:20 a graduate so somebody who is not expected to be polities capable of working unsupervised a consultant is then the next grade somebody who is
00:04:31 then the next grade somebody who is trusted to the project manager on a relatively simple project and author reports and do the technical work themselves a senior consultant is then
00:04:42 themselves a senior consultant is then the minimum grade for reviewing other people's work or for managing a more complicated project or for leading negotiations of Building Control yeah beyond that there was then principal
00:04:54 beyond that there was then principal consultant which was somebody with many years experience and the hierarchy wasn't entirely consistent after that
00:05:06 wasn't entirely consistent after that due to the policy changing over the years and people who got grades under one policy then not changing their
00:05:18 one policy then not changing their grades when the policy changed so the general rule was then the office managers were associates yeah and above that there was a general manager yeah and one of the office managers at the
00:05:29 and one of the office managers at the time was Terry Ashton is that correct he acts
00:05:32 he acts I can't remember at what st. in time the the transfer occurred in 2012 I think he was still office manager yeah at some
00:05:44 was still office manager yeah at some point he stepped down from that role and handed it over to Andrew Wilmot yeah so certainly the earlier phase of my career not for the first two weeks I was lying managed by somebody else who then left
00:05:56 managed by somebody else who then left the company but after that and so it must have been during 2012 Terry Ashton was my immediate line manager yeah after he stepped down from that the world of office manager and he was still an associate still in the
00:06:07 was still an associate still in the office yeah then Andrew Wilmots who took over and would that have been during the time when you were still doing some albeit limited involvement in the ground
00:06:18 albeit limited involvement in the ground floor project 2015 for example it must it must have been there about us I do not recall the exact date of the transition yeah and just to be clear you
00:06:29 transition yeah and just to be clear you were based throughout in the London office correct yeah now we know from your statement at paragraph 2.1 that you also served as an encore firefighter in the local brigade
00:06:40 encore firefighter in the local brigade while you were in Zurich no no that's not in services alone Switzerland Terry and I studied in Zurich I did not live in Swit in Zurich I think it's a small town ten miles upriver from Basel that's
00:06:52 ten miles upriver from Basel that's where you that's where I was a firefighter yes yeah and you say that parallel to your work as a fire taster consultant since you've been in the UK you joined Surrey Fire and Rescue Service in 2011 which to serve as an
00:07:05 Service in 2011 which to serve as an on-call firefighter do you still I do so is it right that you've got considerable first-hand experience of the behavior of fires through that fan experience a
00:07:17 fires through that fan experience a certain amount I mean thankfully we we have less serious fires nowadays than you know you did 20 30 years ago so I don't have the experience that somebody may have had in the 1950s and 60s yeah
00:07:31 may have had in the 1950s and 60s yeah particularly not with the change of rules for furniture and domestic currencies so I don't exactly what my experience ma I have been in burning
00:07:43 experience ma I have been in burning buildings under breathing operators before yes yeah yeah and we know that you left it's over in January 2016 and you tell us in your statement that you left and you became
00:07:54 statement that you left and you became the fire engineering manager with the international fire consultants limited is that correct well that's my current grade I started off in international vital to the senior consultant yeah so you're still there well I'm still with international fire consultancy right and
00:08:07 international fire consultancy right and now just thinking back to your time on the ground floor project when you were x over were you carrying out regular continuing professional development CPD was that part of the regime within X
00:08:19 was that part of the regime within X over at the time there was very little formal CPD within X over they they had a regime of regular training days and
00:08:32 regime of regular training days and encouraging people to turn to visit external seminars and and whatever training appeared relevant at the time
00:08:43 training appeared relevant at the time the training budget was somewhat cut in 2008 during the recession and yeah then we in statement that budget was well that's loco so should we say yeah and
00:08:55 that's loco so should we say yeah and can you recall anything that you did specific to external fire spread any particular courses or CPD that might have been relevant to that no and then
00:09:08 have been relevant to that no and then prior to the Grenville project what experience did you personally have of over cladding projects as a as a fire safety engineer they anything to do with
00:09:20 safety engineer they anything to do with external wall design materials I attended to to pass over to colleagues in the certification division so it's
00:09:31 in the certification division so it's not something that I myself ever really gained a lot of experience with I did and of work on a number of projects where questions rose up in external walls and over time you do learn some
00:09:44 walls and over time you do learn some things yeah and you know pick up on some of the requirements but if somebody had send a set of detailed drawings to me and take any police assess these I would have passed them on to a colleague with
00:09:55 have passed them on to a colleague with much more specialist experience and knowledge in the field and those colleagues in the certification division were they also based in London in within X overs offices there no because I mean some of
00:10:08 offices there no because I mean some of them were based in Warrington some of them because they did a lot of work on site actually work as far as I understood officially based at home yeah so those in the Southeast of England
00:10:20 so those in the Southeast of England although they weren't notionally attached to the London office they probably spent more time in London than in any other office right they tend to be the other end of a telephone call then somebody would see face to face on
00:10:34 then somebody would see face to face on a day-to-day basis and did you personally have any experience of residential high-rise over cladding projects before you worked on the on-the-ground field project not that I
00:10:47 on-the-ground field project not that I can recall now I just want to then move to I mean if I can qualify that there was there were new build projects on
00:10:59 was there were new build projects on residential high-rise where obviously the same technical requirements under standard for external walls apply the
00:11:10 standard for external walls apply the refurbishment projects that I can recall in high-rise buildings were non-residential so I've worked on high-rise residential have worked on refurbishment of residential have worked on refurbishing of high-rise but I think
00:11:22 on refurbishing of high-rise but I think grenfell Tower was the first one that brought all three together I want to ask you a little bit about your knowledge of international facade fires and as part
00:11:34 international facade fires and as part of your work as a senior consultant in the fire engineering team at xover did you did you read industry journals at the time probably not as much as I
00:11:45 the time probably not as much as I should there was a obviously I did spend some time reading yes fire protection engineering did that ever not something I would have read regularly do you know
00:11:57 I would have read regularly do you know whether that journal covered large international fire outbreaks beside not having read it regularly wouldn't really have noticed yeah I'll certainly was aware of that
00:12:10 I'll certainly was aware of that external wall construction is a potential work for fire spread between buildings I mean that's obviously lack in our house I was a known phenomenon there that the refurbishment and the
00:12:23 there that the refurbishment and the materials used in the refurbishment were part of an issue fairly close to the four films my mind would have been a fire and the outskirts of Paris in 2003
00:12:34 fire and the outskirts of Paris in 2003 one of the similar issues and I know that knew that those two fires weren't isolated cases that yes they were putting the two that the forefront of my mind yes today many yeah you used the
00:12:47 mind yes today many yeah you used the words there I certainly was aware that external wall construction is a potential route for fire spread between buildings there's a specific set of requirements aren't there about space separation within the building
00:12:59 separation within the building regulations were you more generally aware not just of those space separation issues but of the potential for rapid external fire spread yes specifically citing the example of like an old house
00:13:11 citing the example of like an old house and that 2020 fire in Paris absolutely yeah so as at the 31st of March 2015 I picked that date because we're going to come to an email that you drafted later in my questioning that's relevant
00:13:24 later in my questioning that's relevant to this where you aware that there had been a number of substantial fires in high-rise residential buildings with cladding on external walls yes yeah and
00:13:35 cladding on external walls yes yeah and you've mentioned the lacan or house fire did you know for example about the fire at knowsley heights in liverpool in 1991 that wasn't one that will have been at the for films in my mind because I lived
00:13:46 the for films in my mind because I lived abroad when it happened I say that what I was more familiar with this one in the outskirts of Paris because I knew living in France at the time yes and then anything that happened in the UK specifically while I was living abroad
00:13:57 specifically while I was living abroad yeah or a fire at garnet caught in every night because I was living abroad at the time that one as much as I had heard the fire had occurred that one work there
00:14:09 fire had occurred that one work there wasn't at the forefront of my mind yeah were you aware of a spate of fires in the United Arab Emirates in and in Dubai probably not in 2015 it's
00:14:22 and in Dubai probably not in 2015 it's probably later when I became aware of quite how frequent they had been occurrences of this nature so for example the Altair tower in April 2012
00:14:33 example the Altair tower in April 2012 or the 10-wheel tower in November 2012 you weren't aware of those specifics only the names don't bring any bills were you aware of a fire in France in murat tower in Roubaix in France in May
00:14:47 murat tower in Roubaix in France in May 2012 doesn't ring any bells and what about just moving forward in time to the far in the LaCrosse building in Melbourne in Australia in November 2014
00:15:00 Melbourne in Australia in November 2014 was that something that you were aware of I've got a vague recollection of hearing something of a fire in Melbourne but I certainly didn't pay a lot of
00:15:12 but I certainly didn't pay a lot of attention to it yeah you've said you had some general awareness of the issues did you think that these international fires and indeed some domestic ones were relevant to projects involving composite metal
00:15:25 to projects involving composite metal materials and external insulation was that an awareness that you had at the time certainly had an awareness that we
00:15:37 time certainly had an awareness that we didn't you of the need to specify the appropriate materials as for metal composites if we jump into something
00:15:49 composites if we jump into something here but maybe to give something in context when I wrote that email that I'm assuming you're going to refer to about the question of cavity barriers or fire stops I was not aware that metal polymer
00:16:02 stops I was not aware that metal polymer composite range between panels exists on the market yeah I just assumed that these panels through either metal or glass I see so your awareness of other cladding fires
00:16:14 your awareness of other cladding fires hadn't resulted in an awareness that some of those fires had involved composite metal panels with a different turret composition core yeah
00:16:25 turret composition core yeah I understand were you aware that external wall systems needed heightened vigilance in terms of the risks that
00:16:37 vigilance in terms of the risks that could be posed by this yes now were you also aware that they've been guidance produced by the BRE the British Research Establishment concerning the hazards
00:16:48 Establishment concerning the hazards posed by exterior wall cladding systems in 1988 2003 and 2013 in terms of BR 1:35 where you were aware of that
00:16:59 1:35 where you were aware of that distinction here between 2012 and 2015 my awareness throughout the period while Excel was working on the project my awareness grew I had approved document b
00:17:12 awareness grew I had approved document b from cover to cover at the start of my employment of text over external walls weren't the subject I occupied myself
00:17:26 weren't the subject I occupied myself with to a great degree so although all was aware that the were requirements
00:17:34 2012 I wasn't really hadn't memorized should we say the what those requirements specifically were yeah roundabout 2014 we then had a number of
00:17:49 roundabout 2014 we then had a number of queries come in from various directions about suitability of materials most of them driven by insurers rather than by building regulators and obviously from
00:18:02 building regulators and obviously from that moment onwards my awareness did increase but again had anybody asked me can I please confirm whether such and such a design is appropriate as I said before I really would have passed that
00:18:14 before I really would have passed that over to my colleagues my own knowledge of the subject yeah yeah so we know that B are 135 is is referred to in paragraph 12 point 7 of a DB right
00:18:27 to in paragraph 12 point 7 of a DB right let's just look at the second edition of that this is the 2003 edition if we can go to this at BRE 4 zeros 5 5 5 4
00:18:40 great so this is fire performance of external thermal insulation for walls of multi-story buildings do you think you had read this by the time you were
00:18:51 had read this by the time you were working on the ground object categorically I hadn't okay fine so and and did you know in general terms that this guidance drew attention to the
00:19:02 this guidance drew attention to the possibility of rapid fire spread in external cladding system say not not not having read it I didn't know what its contents were that's how when I first read approved document b I loved
00:19:13 read approved document b I loved obviously seen the reference to be on three five yeah but because it wasn't a subject today that I really got very involved with I didn't spend a lot of time trying to work out what exactly the
00:19:26 time trying to work out what exactly the technical specifications in beyond p5 are and and how they differ from from the what tends to be referred to as the linear route yeah I follow entirely I am gonna just take you to a few passages in
00:19:38 gonna just take you to a few passages in it because nevertheless even if you haven't read this specific document I'm just interested to know whether you were aware of the general risks warnings that this document given so if you just bear
00:19:49 this document given so if you just bear with me your hands and so let's start by looking at page eight and I want to look at the bottom paragraph so it states there this guide
00:20:00 paragraph so it states there this guide provides a basis on which the external fire performance of external cladding systems can be assessed it doesn't specify where this performance standard should be adopted this is a matter for regulators and specifiers and then it
00:20:12 regulators and specifiers and then it says however the performance standards set out could be adopted where the implications of rapid fire spread by way of the external cladding system are considered to be unacceptable such as
00:20:23 considered to be unacceptable such as tall buildings above eighteen meters that may be out of the reach of conventional firefighting techniques and areas where people sleep when external fire spread may present an unacceptable
00:20:34 fire spread may present an unacceptable risk to the occupants so just just pausing there and thinking back to 2012 2013 when you first were working on the ground floor project were you aware in
00:20:45 ground floor project were you aware in general that guidance was drawing this distinction between lower rise buildings and
00:20:51 and high-rise building surveys yes are you aware of that yes and okay and then and we're just going to look at a number of warnings
00:21:02 going to look at a number of warnings that this guidance gives about the potential route for fire spread three multi-story buildings and if we look at page 10 under item 3 there's a section
00:21:15 page 10 under item 3 there's a section there a sub paragraph can you see cavity yes yes so it says there cavities may be incorporated within an external cladding system or may be formed by the
00:21:26 system or may be formed by the delamination or differential movement of the system in a fire if flames become confined or restricted by entering cavities within the external cladding system they will become
00:21:37 cladding system they will become elongated as they seek oxygen and fuel to support the combustion process this process can lead to flame extension of five to ten times that of the original flame lengths regardless of the
00:21:48 flame lengths regardless of the materials used to line the cavities this may enable fire to spread rapidly unseen through the external cladding system if appropriate fire barriers have not been provided do you see that there yes you
00:22:01 provided do you see that there yes you know just breaking that down were you aware of the phenomenon of a flaming elongation yes I was in a cavity yes I was and when you aware of that regardless of the materials used to line
00:22:14 regardless of the materials used to line the cavities absolutely yeah so you were aware of the potential for unseen rapid fire spread oh yes yes yes yep and then
00:22:27 fire spread oh yes yes yes yep and then if we can stay on that page under item five in the last section there's a heading fire service intervention and it
00:22:39 heading fire service intervention and it says there where the external cladding system is not significant contributing to the spread of fire from one story to the type a then intervention by emergency services should prevent
00:22:51 emergency services should prevent continued fire propagation by way of the building envelope but then it says this however where the external cladding system is contributing to the fire propagation rate the potential exists
00:23:03 propagation rate the potential exists for the fire to affect multiple stories simultaneously thus making firefighting more difficult so again on that last point there where you aware of the potential for external fire to
00:23:16 the potential for external fire to affect multiple stories simultaneously that's precisely the situation that occurred at Lac and L house or that phone 2003 on the outskirts of Paris so absolutely yeah thank you and then if
00:23:29 so absolutely yeah thank you and then if we can go on to page 17 within this document under the heading yes system specific details in the second to last paragraph it says there in the beginning
00:23:43 paragraph it says there in the beginning once it says once the fire is within the cavity it may propagate unseen through the system if adequate fire barriers are not employed this may result in significant risk of system collapse or
00:23:54 significant risk of system collapse or fire break out at significant distances from the fire origin so again focusing on that last sentence was that something that you were aware of this significant risk of system collapse or breakout
00:24:07 risk of system collapse or breakout significant distances from the fire of origin in as much as I was well aware that that risk exists wherever this cavities got and specifically in
00:24:19 cavities got and specifically in external walls yeah a cavity in an external wall in that context is basically the same issue is the cavity anywhere yeah yeah and then at the top
00:24:30 anywhere yeah yeah and then at the top of page 18 just over the page in the top paragraph in the second-to-last and the last sentence yeah I want to focus on
00:24:41 last sentence yeah I want to focus on the bit that talks about metal panels mm-hmm so it says they're metal panels such as aluminium may fall from the system if the strength of the fixings is affected by the local fire source they
00:24:52 affected by the local fire source they may also melt generating molten metal debris if exposed directly to the sustained flame envelope did you see that there yes so just looking at those
00:25:03 that there yes so just looking at those two sentences separately were you aware of the potential for metal panels falling from the system yes yeah and what about the melting and the
00:25:14 what about the melting and the generation of molten metal debris if those panels were exposed directly to the sustained flame well obviously you know particular minion with its low
00:25:25 know particular minion with its low melting point would you know would melt if attacked by flames of Mel quite rapidly had no knowledge of molten metal
00:25:36 rapidly had no knowledge of molten metal flowing any significant distance yeah images I had in my mind were more of the the fixings failing and panels becoming detached and therefore large pieces of
00:25:48 detached and therefore large pieces of shrapnel the right word but certainly smaller large pieces of I was assuming solid metal Ralph and molten metal not that I want to be hit by either yeah
00:25:59 that I want to be hit by either yeah yeah yeah now the version of the BR of this VR BRE guidances BR one three five guidance which was available for the majority of the period of the Graham
00:26:11 majority of the period of the Graham Volterra refurbishment was set out in the 2013 the third edition of the O 135 can we bring that up that's @c ii l four zeros three three six four now can you
00:26:24 zeros three three six four now can you recall so this is the third edition there we can see slightly grainy after the title by Sarah Caldwell and Tony Baker and do you recall reading this at
00:26:36 Baker and do you recall reading this at any time when you were involved in the ground floor not while I was involved in working on the project only after after I'd left it's over so again I just want to look at some of the warnings that
00:26:48 to look at some of the warnings that were within this document just to see if you were aware of the principles and can we go to page 11 in this document and at paragraph 2.1 in the third paragraph so
00:27:05 paragraph 2.1 in the third paragraph so it's drawing attention to potentially conflicting requirements in terms of thermal performance versus fire performance and it says this it's paragraph these potentially conflicting
00:27:17 paragraph these potentially conflicting requirements are highlighted in the area of innovative materials and designs which are being driven by the need to construct more energy efficient and sustainable buildings in order to meet
00:27:29 sustainable buildings in order to meet these design challenges the new and innovative materials and designs of systems being offered as potential solutions has also increased the volumes of potentially combustible materials
00:27:41 of potentially combustible materials being used in external cladding applications in addition these external wall cladding systems while still widely used for refurbishment applications on masonry structures are increasingly
00:27:52 masonry structures are increasingly being applied to new build scenarios using lightweight framing solutions for the walls system do you see that there yes again just just taking a number of points from that were you aware of there
00:28:06 points from that were you aware of there being the development of innovative materials driven by the need to construct more energy efficient and sustainable buildings I wasn't keep I mean yeah how innovative
00:28:19 I wasn't keep I mean yeah how innovative is innovative I wasn't keeping abreast of the developments this paragraph mentions the the challenge of improving energy efficiency and the potential
00:28:32 energy efficiency and the potential conflict there between the fact that some of the most effective insulators are also combustible yeah I was aware of that potential conflict whether how much
00:28:49 that potential conflict whether how much the word an innovative really would have connected to any of my thoughts I'm not quite sure yeah put it this way I mean
00:29:00 quite sure yeah put it this way I mean I'm building on to the next but were you aware that increased volumes of potentially combustible materials were being used in external cladding applications
00:29:11 oh I was aware that but that insulating materials that were not of limited
00:29:22 materials that were not of limited combust ability were being used I don't know about any awareness of their increasing I mean I thought about it
00:29:34 increasing I mean I thought about it well yeah it seems logical that with with the concerns about global warming well of course we're we're adding more insulation to buildings and at the logical consequence we will
00:29:47 and at the logical consequence we will be using more insulating materials just thinking back at the time you said you had an awareness that insulate more insulating materials of being used that were not of limit to combust ability how
00:29:58 were not of limit to combust ability how did you gain that awareness what was that from difficult to say wet respectively
00:30:09 respectively was it an awareness of bs8 for one for testing having been done on full sis no I mean most of it will have been sitting
00:30:20 I mean most of it will have been sitting in design team meetings with with project teams where obviously it's not just my part of the project that focuses on a part of that meeting we'll look at
00:30:33 on a part of that meeting we'll look at fire safety in another part and so there will be discussions about material selections as I can't recall any specific conversation with any particular person on any particular project other than I know that buildings
00:30:48 project other than I know that buildings need insulation never since the oil crisis in the 1970s if not before and I was certainly aware that some of the
00:30:59 was certainly aware that some of the insulating materials of the use or not of limited combust ability know exactly how that awareness generated I can't really recall yeah okay moving on within this third edition of BI one three
00:31:11 this third edition of BI one three fibers we can go to page 19 and pick up at paragraph three point six point two yeah there on the right-hand side and and if we pick up the fourth line it
00:31:24 and if we pick up the fourth line it talks about there that there is the potential for fire to propagate throughout the system if adequate fire berries are not installed and it says since a cavity is
00:31:35 installed and it says since a cavity is likely to be present behind the insulation boards in LFS I think that's lightweight frame system yes was that right yes it is important that this potential is recognized and adequate fire stopping is provided using fire
00:31:48 fire stopping is provided using fire barriers or fire stopping details to maintain the systems stability in the case of fire so it's really drawing it significant attention to the importance of this fire stopping or cavity barriers
00:32:01 of this fire stopping or cavity barriers gravities again was that something that you had an awareness of absolutely how this is one frustrating things it's the hidden items of construction that very
00:32:12 hidden items of construction that very often are the most important and the ones are the easiest to neglect and and bodge Springs just for the transcript purposes it's actually paragraph six point three point two yes sorry sorry I
00:32:29 point three point two yes sorry sorry I thought I said six point three point two sorry and I apologize and can we go on to page 22 of this and look at paragraph
00:32:41 to page 22 of this and look at paragraph six point four point one so that starts at the bottom of that page if we could just move down yeah and then it's the
00:32:53 just move down yeah and then it's the heading is performance of materials in fire and it there's a subheading insulation and it says this as it can be difficult to prevent fire entering the cavity and spreading in these systems
00:33:05 cavity and spreading in these systems the selection of the insulation materials used and the design of the fire barriers to close these cavities are particularly important and now pausing there were you aware at the time
00:33:17 pausing there were you aware at the time you were working on their grandfather how important it was to make sure the selection of the insulation materials was in general terms I mean again I
00:33:32 was in general terms I mean again I didn't spend a lot of time immersing myself in questions about detailed design of an external wall systems so the the general requirements and the risks generally speaking yes it's not
00:33:46 risks generally speaking yes it's not something then it's specifically in the context of external walls I spent a lot of time thinking about yeah it's just picking it up but one sentence further on in the sentence beginning once it
00:33:58 on in the sentence beginning once it says once the fire enters the cavity the surface of the insulation materials is exposed to the fire source the fire is contained within a narrow
00:34:09 contained within a narrow ah tea which will encourage elongation of the flame front and so increase the potential for propagation of the flames through the cavity and then it says it is therefore essential to provide
00:34:20 is therefore essential to provide suitable fire barriers to protect this these systems so again were you aware of this phenomenon that once the fires entered the cavity the surface of the
00:34:31 entered the cavity the surface of the insulation is then exposed to the fire source and and then that narrow cavity can be a source of fire spread again generally in the context of cavities yes
00:34:45 I don't know that I'd spent a lot of time thinking about the issue specifically in the context of external walls but I was very much aware of the issues of cavities generally speaking
00:34:56 issues of cavities generally speaking yep and then if we can look in the right hand column under six point four point one you might have to go back up to the top of that page under the Hanning
00:35:08 top of that page under the Hanning heading external panel panels and finishes at the end of that paragraph we get another reiteration metal panels may
00:35:23 get another reiteration metal panels may fall from the system if the strength of the fixings is affected by the local fire source and then they may also melt generating molten metal debris if exposed directly to the sustained flame envelope or other combustible materials
00:35:37 envelope or other combustible materials in the system do you see that I think that's the development from the last piece of guidance so again were you aware that that there could be an awful lot of interaction going on in the external wall as between you know the
00:35:50 external wall as between you know the insulation the metal panels if there's sustained flaming in the envelope well I'm Garin in the context of cavities
00:36:02 I'm Garin in the context of cavities generally sort of something I could have worked out for myself
00:36:08 also to repeat what I said earlier my awareness of issues relating to external walls rather evolved over the period 2012 to 2015 and by 2015 more awareness was rather greater than it was in 2012
00:36:20 was rather greater than it was in 2012 yeah but just to be clear hadn't read this guidance I mean yeah how do I read it there and then I would not have been surprised at anything that's written if that's an appropriate
00:36:32 that's written if that's an appropriate way of putting it yeah then just one final thing I wanted to look at in this third edition under six point four point one this last paragraph beginning combustible panels if we just read that
00:36:44 combustible panels if we just read that together so it's as combustible panels are typically based on vinyl or glass reinforced plastic although various new products are being developed in this area some of which also contain
00:36:55 area some of which also contain insulation materials these products generally have good surface spread of flame characteristics to prevent rapid fire spread across the surface of the system but once the panel's become
00:37:06 system but once the panel's become involved in the fire they have the potential to generate falling debris add to the overall fire load and provide a route for fire to propagate up the outside of the building so again I think
00:37:20 outside of the building so again I think you said earlier that you weren't aware at the time of the development of composite panels is that I think distinction needs to be drawn here between the sorts of composite panels
00:37:31 between the sorts of composite panels that one typically finds on low-rise buildings rather cheaply constructed portal frames and the likes so a structural sandwich panel or a
00:37:43 so a structural sandwich panel or a sandwich panel which is serving both to provide the structural rigidity and insulation they are firefighters absolute nightmare and I am very very
00:37:54 absolute nightmare and I am very very aware of those and yet and the risk posed with those grain screen cladding obviously a slightly different application I was not aware of products on the market that were metal composite
00:38:07 on the market that were metal composite sandwich panels for that particular application yeah so yes I was aware that if you put a metal composite on an external wall it creates risks and
00:38:18 external wall it creates risks and therefore one must question the wisdom of putting such panels on the external walls of high-rise buildings but I really was thinking more in the context
00:38:29 really was thinking more in the context of the insulation well from the rain screen yeah
00:38:35 just thinking back now to approve document beer and you said you'd read it at the outset of your engagement with x over where you were where in 2012-2013 that approved document b also expressly
00:38:48 that approved document b also expressly warned in section 12.5 that the use of combustible materials in the cladding system and extensive cavities may present a risk in tall buildings were
00:38:59 present a risk in tall buildings were you specifically aware of that I'm not sure it's at the forefront of my mind maybe yes I will have read it and I was aware that materials on the external
00:39:10 aware that materials on the external walls of tires buildings need to be correctly specified so it's not to create unacceptable risks not sure it's
00:39:23 create unacceptable risks not sure it's at the forefront of my mind have to say yes where are you also aware of a report from x over Warrington fire Australia on
00:39:34 from x over Warrington fire Australia on fire safety engineering design of combustible facades from December 2011
00:39:46 so just to recap by March 2015 were you aware that cladding facades on high-rise buildings pose serious fire hazards for
00:39:57 buildings pose serious fire hazards for the safety of the occupants of such building yes and were you aware that it's essential to have regard to those risks when assessing whether the cladding complies with requirement B for
00:40:09 cladding complies with requirement B for that the external walls of a building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls that's fair to say that yes yeah now we touched we've touched already on the different kinds
00:40:21 touched already on the different kinds of cladding panels that were available in the UK around this time and your awareness where did you have an awareness of composite metal panels in
00:40:32 awareness of composite metal panels in general being used for rainscreen facades not for range green facades no and does it follow then that you didn't have an awareness of composite metal
00:40:43 have an awareness of composite metal panels with a PE polyethylene core used again not for that application so if we're talking about a single store refrigeration warehouse yes
00:40:57 refrigeration warehouse yes not for this application yeah what did you know about polyethylene at the time it is a thermoset polymer so it tends to
00:41:12 it is a thermoset polymer so it tends to melt and run away rather than just comparison with say perspex which which tends to char and burn polyethylene or melt and burn yeah but it certainly
00:41:24 melt and burn yeah but it certainly burns quite nicely yeah and if you create a foam of it well well obviously allow more air to get into it and rather accelerate their combustion yeah at the time were you aware that PE was highly
00:41:36 time were you aware that PE was highly combustible yes and there any panels containing such cause would exacerbate the spread of fire over external how'd I imagine that such products existing I
00:41:47 imagine that such products existing I would have worked out but that there isn't like there was a great risk there yes and does it also follow few more answers that because you weren't aware that these products existed that you also weren't aware that some of these
00:41:59 also weren't aware that some of these cladding panels were aware with were available with fr fire resistant cause which could be expected to perform better than other thermoplastic cause
00:42:11 better than other thermoplastic cause gummy seats if somebody had told me I'm is the logical conclusion that yes I was aware that plastics is listed with fire retardants and and of course you know
00:42:22 retardants and and of course you know their performance is I'm not going to say good but be less bad but it wasn't something you were specific aware of saying well this product manufacturer has a range of cause available and does
00:42:34 has a range of cause available and does an fr cor know okay
00:42:40 and so moving to your role at Granville Tower is it right that prior to that you'd been ex overs lead consultant on the calc the Kensington Academy and
00:42:52 the calc the Kensington Academy and Leisure Centre project for the latter phases of that project yeah not initially yep from around the autumn of 2013
00:43:01 2013 must have been there abouts yes yeah I can't remember the date the exact date of the handover that must have been there about yeah I think that's what you say at paragraph 3.5 of your statement yeah and is it right there in relation
00:43:14 yeah and is it right there in relation to the Granville tower project your your role involve reviewing issue 2 of the outline fire safety strategy that had been written by mr. ash I think saying
00:43:25 been written by mr. ash I think saying my role was he's possibly a misinterpretation situation I didn't have any informal designated role within the team for grenfell tower yeah it was
00:43:38 the team for grenfell tower yeah it was more ad hoc provision of assistance to mr. Ashton who was the lead on that project yeah and and is it also right that you were called upon to review
00:43:49 that you were called upon to review emails of a technical nature on an ad hoc basis correct yes time and we'll look at that in more detail later and now in terms of your role as a fire
00:44:01 now in terms of your role as a fire safety engineer and can I just take you to a publication we looked at with mr. Ashton this was the fire industry association guidance note which
00:44:12 association guidance note which addressed the scope of works for the fire engineer this is a inq three zeros 1 1 2 1 9
00:44:24 now in fairness to you this document wasn't produced until May 2015 so it post dates you involved your key pieces of involvement and the Graham full project but I'm just interested to
00:44:36 full project but I'm just interested to know first of all when it came out were you familiar with this document I must have heard of its existence I can't
00:44:48 have heard of its existence I can't remember at what point our first ready it probably wasn't immediately I see it doesn't sound like you're hugely familiar with it I am in the mean time
00:44:59 familiar with it I am in the mean time okay yeah but it's more due to having read it subsequently yes to having left takes over well d would you agree that this guidance note reflects good
00:45:11 this guidance note reflects good practice in the construction industry before and after 2012 so that what it's saying about the scope of work for the fire engineer is reflective of what
00:45:22 fire engineer is reflective of what would be of regarded as good practice generally yes one thing to bear in mind with this document it is aimed at clients advising what they should
00:45:35 clients advising what they should specify the fire engineer to do rather than engine the fire engineer telling the fire engineer what to do I see if we
00:45:46 the fire engineer what to do I see if we can go within it at the top of page 4 where it deals with the general section we can see there that it's dates some a couple of paragraphs about the fire
00:45:58 couple of paragraphs about the fire engineer's overall role I just want to ask you about this so it says there the fire engineer's overall role will be to provide advice in relation to the fire safety aspects of the design in order to
00:46:09 safety aspects of the design in order to provide reasonable confident confidence that the design that is developed as well as the completed building should achieve an acceptable standard of fire safety comply with the clients objectives and meet all relevant legal
00:46:21 objectives and meet all relevant legal fire safety requirements I appreciate that's just a very general overview but would you agree with that that's certainly what we're trying to the services we're trying to offer the client yes yeah and in the next
00:46:34 client yes yeah and in the next paragraph it says this the fire engineer should
00:46:37 should warden 8 with the design team in order to ensure that the other members of the team who are aware of any fire safety design issues relevant to their responsibilities within the project
00:46:48 responsibilities within the project again would you agree with that as a summary of the role of a fire engineering again looking at it from the
00:46:59 engineering again looking at it from the perspective of this is a document aimed at potential clients yes it's what should happen the degree to which the coordination occurs is very often
00:47:10 coordination occurs is very often dictated by the project managers and the client some clients are more proactive and others and at times it can be quite frustrating if a project is poorly
00:47:23 frustrating if a project is poorly managed
00:47:24 managed whereas then others if anything you then get roped into lots and lots of work where actually there's nothing I can provide of benefit you're just wasting
00:47:35 provide of benefit you're just wasting your money asking me to sit in a meeting and obviously the entire spectrum between those two extremes yeah so yes obviously it is much more productive and also much more pleasant to work with a
00:47:47 also much more pleasant to work with a project team that invites you in for a very proactive coordination yeah about the degree to which that coordination occurs will very much vary from project
00:47:58 occurs will very much vary from project to project and precisely one of the reasons for this document as I understand it was to make clients aware of this need for for coordination and and how deeply they shouldn't involve a
00:48:12 and how deeply they shouldn't involve a fire safety engineer in the team yeah I follow all of that and would you agree though that the mindset of the fire engineer ought to be to coordinate with the design team that should be the
00:48:23 the design team that should be the expectation and their intention so the opposite
00:48:27 opposite coordinate with yeah the team not coordinate the team no coordinate with the design providing advice I'm not ramming that advice down the college throughout okay and would you agree that
00:48:42 throughout okay and would you agree that in carrying out that coordination and working with the design team it your role is to try and ensure that the other members of the team are aware of any fire safety design issues relevant to their
00:48:53 issues relevant to their responsibilities within the project you're there to try and educate that yes yes yes now just before we come to some
00:49:08 yes yes now just before we come to some more detailed examination of what you did on the ground field project who did you understand the client to be on the project when you worked on it I had no understanding whatsoever I my
00:49:20 understanding whatsoever I my understanding of the you ages with calc were somewhat confused pre-construction as I understand it the client was the
00:49:31 as I understand it the client was the Royal Borough of Kensington Chelsea who employed CEO E and we were then a subcontractor to Studio II hosts or during the construction phase we were
00:49:42 during the construction phase we were then employed directly by the contractor sorry are you describing the Calico yeah in absence of any of any information to the contrary I just assumed that the same arrangements are in place for
00:49:53 same arrangements are in place for Grandville tower I see so I mean first of all when you were involved in the ground floor project let's take when you reviewed issue 2 of the strategy and then when
00:50:05 issue 2 of the strategy and then when you gave the advice to mr. Aston in March 15 yes did you have any active awareness at that time of who your client was to do engage I say I just by default assume that our client was
00:50:16 default assume that our client was studio II and their client was the world Borough of Kensington and Chelsea which in the mean time I know was completely wrong okay so moving on then
00:50:27 completely wrong okay so moving on then to the specific work you did I want to look at three main topics now I want to look at the peer review process within X over then we'll look at your review of
00:50:38 over then we'll look at your review of issue 2 of the outline fire safety strategy and then I'm going to look at the ad hoc advice which you were involved in including in 2015 so I want to take those three topics in turn so in
00:50:51 to take those three topics in turn so in terms of the peer review process I want to discuss with you the process by which team members that xover review each other's work and if we can start with technical emails
00:51:03 technical emails technical advice let's look at paragraph 3.7 of your witness statement this is an EXO for zeros one five seven yeah thank you
00:51:13 you and four lines down in that paragraph you're talking about a specific instance where you asked to appraise some layouts and then four lines down you say as a
00:51:26 and then four lines down you say as a general rule that xover technical advice would not be sent to external clients without two people considering the advice it was therefore not uncommon for mr. Ashton to discuss
00:51:37 not uncommon for mr. Ashton to discuss technical queries with me or other senior consultants do you see that there now to your knowledge while you were working
00:51:45 working xover was that practice of having two people considering technical advice was that ever formalized in a written policy or procedure within its waiver i I mean yes there was the a procedure
00:52:00 i I mean yes there was the a procedure for creating technical written technical work which I did read when it was first produced I didn't memorize it to the
00:52:11 produced I didn't memorize it to the point where I could say one way or the other whether it's specifically related to the more informal communications or whether it was to two reports this requirement to to get any emails County
00:52:28 requirement to to get any emails County review this was something that was drummed into us verbally quite regularly in the office I mean it was made quite clear to us and Terry Ashton to his credit was leading by example and
00:52:40 credit was leading by example and unusually any email that he sent out yeah he would get although he was the most senior person in the office he would as a general rule get somebody to double check it and what I said it knows
00:52:52 double check it and what I said it knows what I'm saying correct yeah okay and probably the leading by example is is the stronger way of enforcing a policy than any written document now and
00:53:03 policy than any written document now and just to look at something else you say in your statement about this a paragraph four point five of your statement on page six
00:53:10 page six you also say in the last three line just picking it up you say it was not uncommon for mr. Ashton to discuss technical matters with other staff as
00:53:22 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 reiterated the point there again and how did you
00:53:35 point there again and how did you understand the term technical information or technical matters to apply in this situation what what would count as a piece of technical advice deserving of a second pretty much
00:53:48 deserving of a second pretty much anything to do with the design of a building contrasted to arrangements for the logistics of a meeting and dates for
00:54:00 the logistics of a meeting and dates for location for meetings or contractual issues scopes of work and then probably also minutes of meetings I mean the viewer wasn't in oh I wasn't in the
00:54:13 viewer wasn't in oh I wasn't in the meeting how do they know whether the minutes are accurate or not yeah so but it sounds like you applied quite an expansive definition of when something was a technical yes yes yes on the side
00:54:25 was a technical yes yes yes on the side of caution yeah now I just want to go to mr. Ashton statement at this point at paragraph 5.3 one this is an EXO for zeros one sixty one at page 19 now he's
00:54:42 zeros one sixty one at page 19 now he's discussing an email that we're going to come to later that the email of the 31st of March 2015 but for the current purposes I just want to focus on the fact that he appears to have sent an
00:54:55 fact that he appears to have sent an email to mr. Crawford of Studio II before receiving an email from you on that topic in which you were giving advice yeah yeah
00:55:07 so he'd sent an email and then sometime after he received an email from you and would you say that this is an instance where it was contrary to the standard
00:55:19 where it was contrary to the standard practice for mr. Ashton to respond to the query without another person are we not not knowing the full circumstances in which that email or he wrote his own well I couldn't say but
00:55:30 wrote his own well I couldn't say but certainly appearances are that yes this this would be a non following of that general policy we're going to come to look at this in more detail can we look
00:55:43 look at this in more detail can we look at another example that you refer to
00:55:47 this is at paragraph 3.7 of your witness statement
00:55:51 statement so EXO 4 zeros 1 573 at page 3 and there you say this and I have a vague
00:56:02 you say this and I have a vague recollection about being asked to appraise the layout of the entrance area of the boxing gym in Greenville Tower and it's connection to the rest of the building and particularly the requirement for fire doors possibly I
00:56:14 requirement for fire doors possibly I was asked by mr. Ashton to review an email he had drafted and then that's where we looked earlier that you go on and explain as a general rule it would have the second level review I just want
00:56:29 have the second level review I just want to ask you about that I don't I don't want to discuss the specifics of the advice you were given but ask you a bit more generally about what you recall about the checking process it would happen in these circumstances using this
00:56:41 happen in these circumstances using this as an example how much information would you expect to be given for example before you would appraise the layout of an entrance area in a building like Graham full Tower Oakleaf would you
00:56:56 Graham full Tower Oakleaf would you expect to be given additional information or would you expect to be able to deal with it on the face of that the emails that say it really depends on
00:57:07 the emails that say it really depends on where we are in the design process so you know you may have an early concept design even feasibility study in which case it's some very rough sketch lines
00:57:20 case it's some very rough sketch lines on a piece of paper later there was the design develops you'll have more information so the information you're given really depends on the context I see yeah but would you say that it was the practice with an X
00:57:32 say that it was the practice with an X over if necessary to ask for contextual information oh yes and oh yes you say that you knew so much you advise it yeah some if you look at something so I don't quite get
00:57:44 look at something so I don't quite get this fixie nor there are situations well this is a classic case of where enforcing consequences can you please give me a bit more background contact
00:57:55 give me a bit more background contact absolutely I would ask for the additional information you know where I felt that there's something I that didn't understand or or the maybe hidden it risks lurking somewhere else
00:58:07 it risks lurking somewhere else yeah and we all get there you know never mind that either you've got a bigger problem over here that you need to pay attention yeah that yeah obviously occasionally happens yeah because I'm interested on the Graham for project for
00:58:19 interested on the Graham for project for example if we go back one paragraph to the page before in paragraph three point six on the bottom of that page you've
00:58:31 six on the bottom of that page you've explained there because my colleagues were working on the ground floor tower refurbishment as well as the close proximity of that project to calc I became aware of some isolated bits of information regarding the Graham full Tower refurbishment you see that there
00:58:43 Tower refurbishment you see that there so can you explain it in circumstances where and you're only aware of isolated bits of information can you explain how you were able to carry out the reviewing
00:58:55 you were able to carry out the reviewing process competently where I was asked to review something well yes I would make sure that I've got all the information
00:59:06 sure that I've got all the information that I felt I needed there's situations where you and in the open plan office you're doing something and someone somewhere else is discussing something
00:59:17 somewhere else is discussing something well you know you will hear of details about the project which have got no relevance to what you're then later going to be asked to at all yeah and then there's the ask to do a specific
00:59:29 then there's the ask to do a specific task well in that case obviously yes you do ask for all the information that you you think you might need okay so
00:59:40 you you think you might need okay so moving on then to the the question of reviewing a report as distinct from say a technical piece of advice and I think we know that some other witnesses but it's right isn't it at the time you were
00:59:51 it's right isn't it at the time you were working on the ground field project xover wasn't certified under ISO 9001 I thought we were said you were working towards I gained I can't I can't
01:00:03 towards I gained I can't I can't remember the details now certainly the lots of discussions about knives oh 9000 certification and policies were written where we were I don't know yeah okay
01:00:20 Alex over was there a documented procedure established which defined the controls that were needed to approve a report priority issue thinking back and
01:00:32 report priority issue thinking back and not having refresh my memory of those the procedures worked I couldn't tell you what the specific contents were yeah certainly was a procedure but with on
01:00:43 certainly was a procedure but with on report generation yeah the exact details of his contents I can no longer recall yeah and you can't recall whether that was a written procedure or something that was written it was oh yeah though there was a whole suite of written policies and procedures
01:00:56 suite of written policies and procedures but I cannot recall the details yeah and what about the reviewing and updating of safe our strategy reports was there a
01:01:07 safe our strategy reports was there a formal procedure that would be relevant to that again I can't recall how much detail was captured in the policies now you've helpfully explained for as in your witness statement if we go to
01:01:19 your witness statement if we go to paragraph 3.9 on page three of your statement we just move on yeah yeah you've described the process of reviewing a report and you've said that
01:01:32 reviewing a report and you've said that it picking up in the first line it involves comparing what is written in the report with any floor plans provided and ensuring one that the report is
01:01:43 and ensuring one that the report is factually correct to that it correlates with the plans three that the approach taken is appropriate for example that the design is based on the appropriate design codes
01:01:55 is based on the appropriate design codes or any fire engineering analyses are based on sound principles for that it is correct where the report says that there is compliance with the cited design codes and five that the facts logic and
01:02:07 codes and five that the facts logic and mathematics of any fire engineering analyses are correct do you see that there now was that your understanding of the standard review process for reports
01:02:20 the standard review process for reports issued by X / I didn't in my mind really make any distinction between a procedure for reviewing a standard report and procedure reviewing any other document
01:02:32 procedure reviewing any other document or something something less formal bearing in mind that if you give correct incorrect information in an informal email link and have just as grave
01:02:47 email link and have just as grave consequences is making a mistake in a report yeah yeah the process you've described there of peer reviewing a report and do you think that that was
01:03:00 report and do you think that that was commonly understood within X / yeah I see no reason why I wouldn't have been is it possible that the the process that
01:03:13 is it possible that the the process that was followed for peer reviewing and report may have differed as between different x over employees where you were where that people were doing different things well what do you mean by process I mean in terms of some
01:03:26 by process I mean in terms of some people will print the hard copy out and scribble notes on a hard copy some people will review it on screen but no it's more about the detail the and
01:03:37 no it's more about the detail the and whether you're for example just checking for obvious errors or whether you're doing what you described here which is a more thorough check to see whether report is correct
01:03:49 certainly my understanding was that the understanding was fairly universal let you know you are checking all the data I mean at the end of the day we need to make sure that the documents were producing are correct and we all
01:04:02 were producing are correct and we all know that occasionally when you're authoring a document you may commissions make mistakes and therefore that it needs to go double check the double
01:04:13 needs to go double check the double checked so certainly my understanding was that everybody had a was an appreciation for the the importance of
01:04:24 appreciation for the the importance of the the review process and the needs who were to be throw with it yep was there any commonly understood procedure for making amendments to reports they I mean
01:04:38 making amendments to reports they I mean in the sense that if the reviewer finds something in a report they disagree with you would then discuss the matter I'm
01:04:50 you would then discuss the matter I'm hand with the author until you come to a consensus about what the contents should be the process via which that happens well that will that will vary from
01:05:02 well that will that will vary from person to person for some people found it a lot easier to work or file copies with handwritten notes other people were using track changes on a molecular
01:05:14 using track changes on a molecular document so the the techniques and the processes changed but the basic I think it's not the written one but if the
01:05:27 it's not the written one but if the viewer disagrees with the author you work together to find a consensus as to what the the wording should be yeah and it doesn't go out and the report doesn't get issued until you reach that consensus yep yep so how would you
01:05:40 consensus yep yep so how would you commonly have gone about notifying the author of any suggestions or amendments how would you do that Oh depends on circumstances at the time
01:05:52 Oh depends on circumstances at the time it tended to be I certainly worked a lot more on hard copies when we were viewing than then electronically I mean my my techniques have evolved over the over the years anyway yeah
01:06:03 the years anyway yeah and it depends if I'm reviewing something that was authored by one of the
01:06:10 the - another Manchester office all obviously my communication media be very different from reviewing something authored by someone in in London they
01:06:21 authored by someone in in London they communication be very different if I'm reviewing something that one of the more senior members of staff did then it would be for a graduate writing their first report by you expecting it to be
01:06:32 first report by you expecting it to be full of mistakes yeah and if you did have suggestions or amendments would they usually be discussed with the original author yes yeah yes and would
01:06:45 original author yes yeah yes and would those amendments usually need to be approved by the author the original for the report yes
01:06:52 and was there any policy you've talked about sometimes you might get a disagreement and you'd have to resolve that was there any kind of policy or procedure within xover that you had to
01:07:03 procedure within xover that you had to follow for for doing that was I can't I can't remember what the details were the written procedures yeah and if we look
01:07:14 written procedures yeah and if we look at paragraph 3.14 of dr. Barker's witness statement this is an EXO for zeros one six zero three at page four
01:07:25 she's indicated there in those first few lines ordinarily if I had any comments on the draft report I would provide my comments but I have a manuscript markup and would discuss any queries with the
01:07:37 and would discuss any queries with the author do you see that there and I think you were explaining that sometimes that might be what you would do print out a hard copy make any comments in manuscript and then discuss them is that
01:07:51 manuscript and then discuss them is that would you say that that description there is was the standard xover review process at around the time of the grandfather date I wouldn't say that really was a stand because again if you've taken two extreme examples if
01:08:05 you've taken two extreme examples if you've got a report written by a graduate who doesn't yet really hasn't yet really developed the skills for whatching report well you may end up having to completely restructure it yeah
01:08:16 having to completely restructure it yeah which is a lot easy to do in an electronic format okay or possibly said well do this this and this and we visit it whereas if it's then something
01:08:27 visit it whereas if it's then something that is yeah almost perfect give or take a few editorial punctuation marks well there it might be easy to do it on paper it really depends on you choose your
01:08:38 it really depends on you choose your tools depending on the exact task at hand which will vary from one port to another yeah okay now before just before we leave this process just a few more questions and going back to paragraph
01:08:49 questions and going back to paragraph 3.93 of your statement this is on page three yeah thank you so we looked at that list that you've set out there and in the third line you have in the third
01:09:02 in the third line you have in the third point that that the approach taken is appropriate for example that the design is based on the appropriate design codes or any fire engineering analyses now
01:09:13 or any fire engineering analyses now thinking back to your work on the ground foot project can you explain what the appropriate design codes would have been what would be the main codes you would be looking to when reviewing a fire
01:09:24 be looking to when reviewing a fire strategy for a building like Granville tower well for yes a mixed-use building where they effectively public assembly
01:09:35 where they effectively public assembly and and a block of flats approved document b and basically approved document b is the default for blocks of
01:09:46 document b is the default for blocks of flats bs nine nine nine one would be an
01:09:52 alternative option but because that is just blocks of flats who are than mr. mixed-use buildings it's not the appropriate code and similarly BS nine nine nine nine is then just that just
01:10:04 nine nine nine is then just that just the commercial so it's not appropriate for that there are some buildings to which approved document b is not applicable hospitals schools but approved document b is the default and
01:10:16 approved document b is the default and he's a fairly there's a primitive code which is why it's so widely applicable so and also at times it's the easiest to
01:10:28 so and also at times it's the easiest to use so it's the default to which you fall back to if if nothing else appears appropriate yeah did you consider at the time that the CDM regulations the construction design
01:10:41 CDM regulations the construction design and management regulations were relevant to any review of a fire strategy for a building like Granville tower oh I mean my my appreciation of CDM regulations
01:10:53 my my appreciation of CDM regulations has evolved over time I couldn't recall how much appreciation I had for them in 2012 and if I did it was probably in two
01:11:05 2012 and if I did it was probably in two contexts one is fire safety during the construction phase and then designing things so that they are maintainable if
01:11:16 things so that they are maintainable if I can put it that way I'm not sure I would have had a wider wider view and that particular is obviously the CDM regulations involved themselves during the period that we're looking at yeah by
01:11:29 the period that we're looking at yeah by preparing a fire strategy at the time so let's think back to that's a 2013 when you reviewed was - transfer strategy by preparing such a fire strategy did you consider that you fell within the
01:11:41 consider that you fell within the definition of a designer within the meaning of the CDM regulations at the time I can't recall how well evolved my understanding of the CDM regulations were at the time yeah I mean yes we are
01:11:53 were at the time yeah I mean yes we are designers how say how develop my understanding was at the time I couldn't tell you I just came up with all is it possible that at the time that wasn't something that you were you had an
01:12:04 something that you were you had an awareness of I don't think I'd given it much thought put it that way
01:12:12 mr. Toman I'm going to come on to a different topic that might be moment for a break yes perhaps till half-past okay well we didn't have a break now until
01:12:26 well we didn't have a break now until half past eleven I'm going to ask you to go with the usher in the moment that please while you're actually room don't talk to anyone about your evidence and we'll resume again as I say a tough 11
01:12:37 we'll resume again as I say a tough 11 for the benefit of those watching if anyone wonders why we have quite such generous breaks I can say that one reason is to enable council to consider and deal with questions that may be
01:12:49 and deal with questions that may be coming in from lawyers who are watching proceedings from other locations all right we're like to give the usher please
01:13:01 [Applause]
01:13:09 I thought a little please okay
01:31:09 yes well I see you're back with us already dr. Pearson I'm you ready to go on yes I am but thank you very much yes Miss Granger yes thank you so I just want to pick up then on and what knowledge you had of
01:31:21 then on and what knowledge you had of the fee proposal and scope of work for the Granville project and were you aware of the fee proposal and the scope of work for the consultancy services at
01:31:32 work for the consultancy services at Gretel tower Xavier had agreed to do prior to getting involved in any detail on the project I don't think I ever read it until the aftermath while preparing
01:31:45 it until the aftermath while preparing can we just bring that up for a moment so this is TMO one three zero three eight eight five so this is the fee proposal that was sent to studio a on
01:31:57 proposal that was sent to studio a on the 9th of May 2012 and then on page 2 we see at the top of the page proposed scope of work the plans for our safety
01:32:09 scope of work the plans for our safety work would be undertaken using the relevant design codes and will facilitate the progression of the design from our IBA stage C to our IBA state F do you see that there and and is that
01:32:21 do you see that there and and is that common that xover would undertake to facilitate the design work according to those our IBA stages no actually our
01:32:32 those our IBA stages no actually our work go off and was punctuated by planning applications tenders admissions commencement of work on site so actually for most projects I tended not to really
01:32:43 for most projects I tended not to really think in terms of RIBA stages as much as a planning application typically will we done with the RIBA stage C design and so yeah then you're developing P
01:32:56 yeah then you're developing P construction is of a de possibly F from my recollection the majority of our fee proposals actually were then headed pre concerning post planning rather than
01:33:08 concerning post planning rather than RIBA stage XY Zaid
01:33:13 but can I just check were you aware of what that our IBA stages were at the time powers I was a wave of stages sort A to F don't because I I didn't very
01:33:28 A to F don't because I I didn't very often get involved during the construction stage is my my recollection of what the individual stages were beyond F was was rather hazy
01:33:41 beyond F was was rather hazy I had access to a list and so had anybody asked me to do something for a particular stage I could have looked it up and reminded myself what it was yeah but most of our work really was well
01:33:54 but most of our work really was well Charlotte most of my work is a strategic level which tended to be completed by the time you got to about Bieber stage II sometimes went into RIBA stage F
01:34:05 II sometimes went into RIBA stage F anything beyond that was was then a different department really yeah we can see looking on at this people pay so that under our IBA stage C if you look
01:34:17 that under our IBA stage C if you look at the second paragraph there it talks about a preliminary fire strategy report will be produced which summarizes the main fire safety issues for the project do you see that there and then if we go
01:34:30 do you see that there and then if we go to the bottom of that page and look at our IBA stages D and E which I dealt with together in the first paragraph there it states work undertaken during
01:34:43 there it states work undertaken during our IBA stage C would be further developed during the approval stage of the project where the work would ultimately involve the creation of a detailed fire strategy for the proposed
01:34:55 detailed fire strategy for the proposed development which will be written in line with the requirements of the Building Regulations 2010 do you see that there and I just want to ask you about that difference between a
01:35:06 about that difference between a preliminary fire strategy and a detailed fire strategy was that a distinction that you were familiar with in terms of your own working on projects yes with the caveat that there's no strict
01:35:20 the caveat that there's no strict definition of what level of detail one provides in each
01:35:25 typically on your I mean there's no such thing as a normal project because every projects different but typically I'll be writing an outline strategy at the
01:35:36 writing an outline strategy at the pre-planning phase and a full strategy or detailed strategy post planning and obviously as the design develops you add a lot more detail in particularly with the pre-planning phase what I have found
01:35:49 the pre-planning phase what I have found over the years it's often disadvantageous to provide a lot of detail because there's a risk of a client focusing on details and missing the big picture and getting the
01:36:00 the big picture and getting the fundamentals wrong so at the pre-planning stage let's focus on what's needed there get the the basic concept right and then fill in the details as we go along the actual level of detail will
01:36:14 go along the actual level of detail will very much depend on the specific needs of the project there's nothing no rules written in stone as to what level of detail is required at any given stage and it will very much depend on what
01:36:27 and it will very much depend on what information that the rest of the design team has produced it's obviously an iterative process usually the architect will come and set up a millinery prams will then say what if you want to do
01:36:38 will then say what if you want to do this the consequences are such and such that then goes back to the architect and mechanical engine and electrical services engineer who will then come with proposals so with it's almost a
01:36:49 with proposals so with it's almost a ladder were working out together working our way towards the detailed design yeah typically I fully appreciate every project is different typically how much difference would there be between the
01:37:00 difference would there be between the preliminary fire strategy stay at stage C and a detailed strategy as as we've got outlined here we they look like very different documents they vary greatly
01:37:12 different documents they vary greatly from one project to another how much they're worth through a sum we're actually the outline already contained probably more detail than needed the
01:37:24 probably more detail than needed the some projects where the detail was possibly not that detail it really did vary greatly from one project to another yeah would you expect that detailed fire
01:37:35 yeah would you expect that detailed fire strategy to include reference to drawings I would I would expect any strategy to contain references to drawings now again what what are the key ones and what are the detailed ones very
01:37:48 ones and what are the detailed ones very much depend on the specific to the project but I mean at any any strategy will be relating to a specific design yeah and in order to ensure there's no
01:37:59 yeah and in order to ensure there's no confusion yeah yes you do need to refer to the drawings and which revisions are those drawings because otherwise you might find it you're trying to work and
01:38:10 might find it you're trying to work and I'll describe one particular iteration of the design and which is not what the architect thanks you're talking about yeah would they typically include key drawings with annotated overlays
01:38:21 drawings with annotated overlays supporting the analysis in the text so kind of extracts from drawings with some annotations on would you frequently see that in a fire-- strategy again varies I
01:38:34 that in a fire-- strategy again varies I mean particularly in the earlier stages it tends just to be general arrangement drawings they if you're getting into the
01:38:47 drawings they if you're getting into the level of detail or Ebury then if they were I mean taking character as an example which is possibly the atypical one because we did get engaged by the contractor well beyond the the
01:39:00 contractor well beyond the the pre-construction phase where throughout construction various complications made their selves apparent and so we're then asked lots of detailed questions and and all the relevant documentation obviously
01:39:12 all the relevant documentation obviously for that then had to be included in the in the list of references on which the fire surface strategy is based okay so there is quite a lot of detail in there
01:39:23 there is quite a lot of detail in there specifics to do with connections between walls and floors and all and things like that that that's probably one of the more detailed ones and an extreme
01:39:35 more detailed ones and an extreme example that certainly at one end of the spectrum rather than the average okay just staying with this page if I'm looking at the bottom of it we see a series of bullet points it says the fire
01:39:47 series of bullet points it says the fire safety strategy for the building will consider the following item and we can see there that the fourth item is determination of any external fire spread issues that there may be and
01:39:58 fire spread issues that there may be and the impact this may have on the architectural design do you see that there and then fifth one recommendations of compartment ation and structural fire protection standards was it your understanding that a fire
01:40:11 was it your understanding that a fire strategy should typically cover those aspects if relevant yeah they are parts of the sort of standards the default scope of work for a fire safety strategy if I can put it that way yep and I think it follows from that
01:40:25 yep and I think it follows from that that whole list that this fire strategy should be considering b13 to be five the functional requirements normally yes I mean any any project the requirements
01:40:36 mean any any project the requirements will depend on specific requirements I've worked on projects for buildings abroad and obviously there it's not B 1
01:40:47 abroad and obviously there it's not B 1 B 5 its whatever the local legislation is yeah but yeah normally in the context of design work or a design project in England
01:40:56 England well yes then almost invariably the building regulation or Part B of the building regulations will be at least part of what we're focusing on and
01:41:07 part of what we're focusing on and therefore they will will be covering discussing they want to be 5 yeah thank you
01:41:13 you now moving on then to your review of issue 2 of the outline fire safety strategy if we can bring that up this is an EXO 4 zeros 1 7 5 8 this is the first
01:41:29 an EXO 4 zeros 1 7 5 8 this is the first page we can see its data the 24th of October 2013 and it's fishy number 2 digit right hand corner and then at the top of page 2 if we can go on to that we
01:41:41 top of page 2 if we can go on to that we can see there the the previous issue was the 31st of October so almost a year before 2012 and it's prepared this issue
01:41:53 before 2012 and it's prepared this issue 2 is prepared by Terry Ashton and reviewed by you is that correct yes yes now can you recall approximately how much time you spent on that task of reviewing the report not not for memory
01:42:08 reviewing the report not not for memory no I mean obviously the changes I made there was the one paragraph are inserted beyond that not a lot so you know we're not talking about hours and hours of
01:42:19 not talking about hours and hours of work here but specifically now I can't okay
01:42:24 okay can we look at an ex oh four zeros one seven six three and I want to look at the top of page two so here I think
01:42:37 the top of page two so here I think we're seeing an email from Margit Rena is it right that she was an administrative assistant within xover I can't say that I'm particularly like that the the job title but that was her
01:42:49 that the the job title but that was her official job title yes I don't know what's gone she's sending you at 1540
01:43:00 what's gone she's sending you at 1540 subject ground fault our high importance this is on the 24th of October hi Tony please can you review please for issue today do you see that there yes so this seems to be her emailing you the report
01:43:12 seems to be her emailing you the report and then you appear to send this on to Terry Ashton at 1613 that day can we look at the middle of page one yeah so
01:43:24 look at the middle of page one yeah so if you look there there's an email 1613 in the middle of that page Terry I've added something although if you think what I've added is too long and draws
01:43:36 what I've added is too long and draws too much attention to the issue feel free to shorten it and then you say report with the aforementioned addition and a couple of editorial Corrections attached do you see that this so it
01:43:49 attached do you see that this so it would appear from this that you're sending the report at 1613 prior to that we can see that you've sent an email that we'll come back to at the bottom of
01:44:01 that we'll come back to at the bottom of that page at 1601 sorry Terry Ashton sent an email discussing the resi stare acceptor we'll come back to that in a moment
01:44:12 come back to that in a moment but based on those timings in terms of when you've sent the report through and when you got the report it would appear that it was 33 minutes after you got it that you sent it through it's 8
01:44:23 that you sent it through it's 8 certainly wasn't ours correct yep and did you feel at the time that that that time period was sufficient to peer review the report in accordance with
01:44:35 review the report in accordance with that practice that we saw at paragraph 3.9 of your witness statement I like trying to recollect I just I haven't got
01:44:49 trying to recollect I just I haven't got sufficient of a recollection to really know what my my emotions were at the time I mean obviously half past 3:00 in the afternoon doesn't give me a lot of time before the end of play to review it
01:45:01 time before the end of play to review it and there's a certain amount of urgency there that I must have appreciated that urgency at the time and I've got no
01:45:12 urgency at the time and I've got no specific recollection of what my emotions were at the time okay do you remember comparing what was written in the report with the floor plans that had been provided in relation to the project
01:45:26 not not specifically it's something that I I always did so I see no reason why I wouldn't have yeah and precisely because
01:45:37 wouldn't have yeah and precisely because a if you compare this revision to of the report with revisions one one of the key changes was a complete rewriting of the description of the means of escape and
01:45:50 description of the means of escape and so I think and if you just read that without the plans it it's difficult to work out what's going on because it was a fairly complex design so I must have done if for no other purpose than myself
01:46:01 done if for no other purpose than myself understanding what's going on and which stairs which yeah just to be clear prior to being asked to review this report had you had any involvement in relation to the Graham field project as I mentioned
01:46:13 the Graham field project as I mentioned in my witness statement there was an episode that I cannot recall in any great detail the miss Cheerilee layouts the factory
01:46:24 the miss Cheerilee layouts the factory put a set of floor plans in front of me and asked me for my views in relation to the protection of the means of escape from the boxing gym it's something to do
01:46:35 from the boxing gym it's something to do with locations or specifications for doors I cannot recall the details yet but it was at that point in time that I became sensitized to the fact that we have a shared means of escape between
01:46:47 have a shared means of escape between the gym and the and the and the flats which must have been the reason why this was at the forefront of my mind while I was reviewing the report yeah now that
01:47:00 was reviewing the report yeah now that there's two drawings that are mentioned on page four of the outline fire safety strategy if we just look at these that this is EXO four zeros one seven five
01:47:11 this is EXO four zeros one seven five eight page four we could just blow that up this is the introduction and at the end it says it's based on discussions with the design team and then there's
01:47:22 with the design team and then there's fire exits and fire strategy drawings and two are named there do you recall whether you looked at those drawings as part of your review I'd say I must have
01:47:33 part of your review I'd say I must have done I've got most specific recollection but I struggled to imagine that I would have read the report without looking at those drawings okay and did you ensure during that time that
01:47:44 and did you ensure during that time that the report was factually accurate was that what you were attempting to do that's what I was attempting to do can you recall what you did to try to ensure that the report was factually correct
01:47:58 steps did you take to check that well possibly first of all to answer to not answer the question what what my focus
01:48:10 answer the question what what my focus must have been on the parts of the report that changed well from the parts of the report that remained the same yeah that's the only way I can explain some things that I should have picked up on that didn't I think so the focus must
01:48:23 on that didn't I think so the focus must have been on on the parts of the report that have changed and taking on trust that the previous issue had been entirely correct as far as it that matters to which it pertained yeah
01:48:35 that matters to which it pertained yeah so most of the text I was concentrating on the fact that were being presented almost all relate to the configuration
01:48:47 almost all relate to the configuration of a layout of the building so the checking of those is synonymous with the comparing of the text in the description with the informations so does that mean that you were predominantly focused on
01:48:59 that you were predominantly focused on the means of escape provisions I must be I must have been
01:49:05 [Applause] now the other checks that you said you routinely did in your in your statement for reviewing this kind of report was to ensure that the report correlated with
01:49:16 ensure that the report correlated with the plans did you do that yeah and obviously again I've got no detailed recollection of my actions but from our
01:49:27 recollection of my actions but from our normal coaster procedures I cannot imagine that I reviewed that report without looking at the plans did you actually you also say you would look at the design codes and standards that would be appropriate did you have
01:49:40 that would be appropriate did you have to look at any design codes or standards did you go to any the code on which this is bases approved document b and for reasons already mentioned there was
01:49:52 reasons already mentioned there was complete unanimity among within the office that that was the appropriate code yeah but do you actually have a memory of looking at a pre document B while you're not not while i'm reviewing
01:50:04 while you're not not while i'm reviewing you said you'd also routinely ensure that the facts logic and mathematics if the fire engineering analyses were correct was there anything of that nature that the only thing you could call a for engineering analysis was the
01:50:15 call a for engineering analysis was the one i inserted so it wasn't there's nothing there to be checked okay but you did all of that within just 33 minutes yeah well I said bearing in mind that it's a it's a very brief report and B
01:50:30 it's a it's a very brief report and B yeah they were the facts of logic it was largely a year you know that those facts almost all pertain to their year to the drawing so reading the text of that length comparing it with the the
01:50:42 length comparing it with the the drawings
01:50:44 drawings is not a massive and not like a massive number of man hours required for that yep and now I want to look at the
01:50:55 that yep and now I want to look at the amendments to issue two of the fire safety strategy we've discussed in general terms the process for making arrangements already today but that let's look at the specific amendment
01:51:06 let's look at the specific amendment that you made if we can look at page six within the fire strategy and section three point one point one it's in the middle of that page it's that the
01:51:17 middle of that page it's that the largest paragraph there yep so is it right that you inserted these words while the sharing means of escape between residential and non-residential accommodation is not endorsed by current
01:51:28 accommodation is not endorsed by current statutory guidance these proposals represent a continuation of the existing principles for means of escape in the building and therefore do not create a non compliance with the requirements of
01:51:39 non compliance with the requirements of the building regulations it is noted in this context that the fire loads and the offices and boxing club are no greater than those in a typical flat and that the non-residential accommodation will be separated from the stairs by
01:51:51 be separated from the stairs by ventilated lobbies see below the risks the occupants of a flat from a fire and a non-residential demise are therefore not considered significantly greater than those stemming from afar in another flat so those were your words that you
01:52:04 flat so those were your words that you inserted when you reviewed the report is that right correct and I think you explained in your statement inserting that and and you explained that you
01:52:17 that and and you explained that you inserted that because it didn't comply fully with modern design guidance which modern design guidance are you referring to that primarily approved document b but i mean 80 applicable design code so
01:52:29 but i mean 80 applicable design code so it doesn't matter if you use in BS 9 9 9 1 or anything whatever approach you would take the the recognized design codes do not endorse that situation yeah
01:52:41 codes do not endorse that situation yeah it's certainly not something that you would be allowed to do under the building regulations as they stood in 2012 yeah for a new build yeah and you say paragraph 3 point 12 of your witness
01:52:54 say paragraph 3 point 12 of your witness statement perhaps we can just bring that up just to orientate ourselves there and see what you say this is exa four zeroes one seven five three you explained the
01:53:11 seven five three you explained the change I propose to the report was based upon my understanding of the existing means of escape and then you say and was made in the context of regulation three two of the building regulations 2010 which states an alteration to an
01:53:22 which states an alteration to an existing building is only material for the purpose of the regulations if it creates a non compliance with the relevant functional requirements the design standards or if non compliance already exists it creates conditions
01:53:34 already exists it creates conditions that are less satisfactory than before so that was your understanding of the building regulations and although the relevant provisions of the building regulations
01:53:45 regulations obviously the building regulations cover a lot more than fire and a lot more than alterations to existing building was relevant in this context yeah and then
01:53:56 relevant in this context yeah and then at 3.13 you say that the amendment wasn't intended to indicate that while the addition of the boxing gym was not in line with standard guidance due to the mixed use conditions were not being
01:54:07 the mixed use conditions were not being made worse by this alteration and therefore it did not amount to a material alteration and moreover that in fact the risk to occupants was not significant significantly different from
01:54:18 significant significantly different from the risks in a typical block of flats without a gym and then you say this is due to the fact that the fire load in a boxing gym would be unlikely to be higher than that in a typical flat yes so we have your explanation there and
01:54:31 so we have your explanation there and then paragraph three point one five you refer there to an email that you received on the evening of the 24th of October expressing from mr. Ashton
01:54:44 October expressing from mr. Ashton expressing concern about the amendment that I've made to section three point one point one of the report and you say I've only a vague recollection of this email conversation
01:54:57 recollection of this email conversation have you in advance of giving evidence being able to look over those emails and remind yourself of that email authorization I've had a chance to reread them yes if we can go back to
01:55:08 reread them yes if we can go back to that chain of emails this is EXO four zeros one four four four and we
01:55:19 EXO four zeros one four four four and we look at the bottom of page one at so at
01:55:30 look at the bottom of page one at so at 1553 we see at the bottom of that page that you wrote Terry I note that there's a stair which is shared between residential and non-residential parts of
01:55:41 residential and non-residential parts of the building and then if we go over the page you've said do we need to flag this up as a deviation from the standard guidance and provide a comment to the effect that the risk to the occupants of
01:55:53 effect that the risk to the occupants of the flats from a fire in the boxing gym are no greater than those from afar in another flat and or include compensating measures cheers Tony so you're flagging to mr. Ashton that you think you may
01:56:04 to mr. Ashton that you think you may need to draw attention to this deviation and explain the justification for it and then if we go back to page one we
01:56:16 and then if we go back to page one we see that mr. Ashton replied 1601 Tony this is an existing situation whereby the resi stare does he mean residential there must oh yes whereby the resi stare
01:56:30 there must oh yes whereby the resi stare is shared with other uses if you feel that it would help feel free to insert some text but if you do bear in mind that the escape route from the resi is shared with both the boxing club and
01:56:42 shared with both the boxing club and office accommodation Terry and we can see that that sent from his iPhone do you see that there so he's would appear to potentially be on his iPhone
01:56:53 to potentially be on his iPhone somewhere and he sent that back to you and then 12 minutes later as we've seen you reply at 1613 saying Terry I've added something although if you think
01:57:06 added something although if you think what I've added is too long and draws too much attention to the issue feel free to shorten it and then you attach the report with the aforementioned addition now just focusing there on that email yep
01:57:20 just focusing there on that email yep why do you say there draws too much attention so you say if you think what about it is too long and draws too much attention to the issue feel free to shorten it can you explain
01:57:34 feel free to shorten it can you explain why wouldn't you want to draw attention to easy with a non compliance with Clarence statutory guidance the report is or was until I did my paragraph
01:57:46 is or was until I did my paragraph totally focused on the requirements of building regulations and the discussions Building Control as to whether the alterations complied with the
01:58:00 alterations complied with the requirements whereas what I was putting in there is more a flag to whoever's doing the risk assessment in the context of the regulator perform order to be aware of
01:58:12 regulator perform order to be aware of the fact that there's something here that is not code compliant what I'm trying to say is that we do not feel that the building is so safe that we should be altering it or closing it down
01:58:25 should be altering it or closing it down irrespective of the of the refurbishment works and that it in its current state it is not safe enough to continue to be operated but precisely because this
01:58:38 operated but precisely because this potentially detracted from the primary purpose of the report which was the the validation of the design of the alterations for the building regulations
01:58:50 alterations for the building regulations that it might potentially draw attention to things to which the tension did not need to be drawn I see so and the deviation from the current design
01:59:02 deviation from the current design guidance that you'd referred to we're not referring there principally to paragraph 2.5 1 of a DB that talks about you can only share a static number the
01:59:13 you can only share a static number the paragraph number off by heart I mean he'd say
01:59:16 he'd say it it's a fairly universally accepted rule not just an approved document b but all the other relevant design codes yeah so I say I wouldn't have been able to tell you at the time what the paragraph
01:59:27 tell you at the time what the paragraph is this is something that the authors of these codes are yeah quite a while the disquiet about the I think but I think
01:59:38 disquiet about the I think but I think you've just said that as well as flagging up the non-compliance with a predock youment B you also intended to flag this up because of the responsible persons obligation so this besides this
01:59:50 persons obligation so this besides this is primarily a flag in the context of the fire safety order where I'm trying to say that the building into the existing state is we do not feel that building its existing state is so dangerous that remedial action needs to
02:00:02 dangerous that remedial action needs to be done for this issue irrespective of what may or may not be going on elsewhere for the and what the scope of the refurbishment work is yeah just just
02:00:14 the refurbishment work is yeah just just going back to the language you've used there about whether it draws too much attention to the issue I just want to put to you that wouldn't you want to draw attention to it to ensure that an
02:00:25 draw attention to it to ensure that an alternative proposal is put forward which ensures there's equal or better compliance with the building regulations obviously the fact that I raised it I do
02:00:36 obviously the fact that I raised it I do want to draw attention to it yeah but at the same time we I mean say the purpose of the report was to discuss the design
02:00:47 of the report was to discuss the design in the context of the building regulations compliance for these alterations and there was no reason why this existing situation that was not
02:00:58 this existing situation that was not being amended had any bearing under the building regulations and I wasn't wanting to overly complicate the negotiations for the Building
02:01:11 negotiations for the Building Regulations approval because of this is pre-existing issue yeah now just at this time we know later in the evening you got an email from Terry Ashton but but
02:01:24 got an email from Terry Ashton but but after at this time when you'd flag this did you have any power this telephone calls or discussions with mr. Ashton about this do you recall a I don't recall and B from the fact that
02:01:37 don't recall and B from the fact that everything is the wording of that email would imply that I didn't yeah you know the whole reason why this conversation occurs by email is precisely because he was not available on his phone yeah like
02:01:48 was not available on his phone yeah like all the reasons why if we go a little further up the chain to the next email up from 1613 we see that what you've done there is at sixteen fifty three so
02:02:00 done there is at sixteen fifty three so a bit later after you've sent him back the report and you've just flagged in that email the text that you've inserted so and can you recall why did you send
02:02:11 so and can you recall why did you send that second email were you concerned that mr. Ashton might not have opened the report you you attached and read
02:02:22 the report you you attached and read your change I was I was certainly trying to make it as easy as possible for him to satisfy himself that with the appropriateness of the text I'd inserted the exact ins and
02:02:35 the text I'd inserted the exact ins and outs of the context and what conversations were going on I can't the call okay
02:02:40 call okay now mr. Ashton was clearly unhappy with your amendment at the time wasn't he yes he responds at the top of this page this
02:02:53 he responds at the top of this page this is it 17:47 that same day and he says this Tony
02:02:57 this Tony I told mags to send the report out without reading what you'd added had I been able to read it I would not have agreed to the amendment as what you've said highlights the non-compliance with
02:03:08 said highlights the non-compliance with codified guidance but more importantly it's debatable let's hope that Paul Hanson doesn't pick up on it Terry do you see that there yes yes what did you understand at the time
02:03:20 yes what did you understand at the time when you were reading that about mr. Ashton saying that the amendment was debatable
02:03:24 debatable the justification I've put for allowing this non-compliance of standards to persist
02:03:33 persist he's very qualitative and he's precisely based on an argument that was not accepted by the authors of
02:03:44 that was not accepted by the authors of approved document b because if it had been that the proof document they would have would have allowed this this sort of configuration the part of my thought process there was probably this is a you
02:03:58 process there was probably this is a you know I'm guessing on a part I must have had in my mind that the the the pressing timeframe of trying to get that report
02:04:09 timeframe of trying to get that report issued to the in offered half an afternoon this is something rather quick and easy I can put in should it raise
02:04:21 and easy I can put in should it raise questions and building control then question it to ask for further justification we can provide that at a later date yeah I see that that's helpful so basically saying it's your
02:04:32 helpful so basically saying it's your your justification for the non-compliance is what's debatable ease yes I mean the the argument that the fuel load in the boxing gym or we can rely on the fuel load in the boxing gym being being low that's certainly
02:04:44 being being low that's certainly something that would not be universally concurred with by the rest of the the fire safety community yeah and I must have been fully aware of that at the time for memory what befell my thoughts
02:04:59 time for memory what befell my thoughts must be well I'll put something in there a first attempt at justification yeah if Building Control comes back and says we're not happy with it yeah well we'll revisit it but the fundamental attitude
02:05:10 revisit it but the fundamental attitude had to be well if the building's unsafe then the fire brigade should have put an enforcement notice on it before we start talking about the refurbishment the fact that they appear to be happy for the
02:05:21 that they appear to be happy for the building to continue to be operated would suggest that there's a general consensus that although it is not code compliant the risks in the context of the regulator perform order are
02:05:33 the regulator perform order are tolerable bearing in mind that design standards for existing buildings for the purpose of the regulation reform order tend to be lower than the the benchmarks
02:05:44 tend to be lower than the the benchmarks and thresholds tend to be lower than the standards that you would accept from for the new-build doctor today and that explained in your mind does it or did it at the time that because your
02:05:56 at the time that because your justification was somewhat debatable that's why he then says let's hope that Paul Hanson doesn't pick up on it all there's more background to it then I mean first of all I suspect as much as anything else terry was annoyed with himself that now
02:06:08 terry was annoyed with himself that now he certainly report out without having checked my wording and that discussion that he should have had Terri had been in the business of fire safety obviously
02:06:20 in the business of fire safety obviously for decades they've been in the business since before I was born he knew the senior building control officers and the fire safety engineers within the
02:06:31 fire safety engineers within the Building Control departments in central London blowers quite well and I suspect any reference to Paul Hanson was due to a specific relationship with Paul and
02:06:42 a specific relationship with Paul and experience of Paul being somebody was relatively pedantic impossibly add that different boroughs in London had varying cultures in their Building Control
02:06:53 cultures in their Building Control departments some were a lot more willing to accept justifications for non-standard solutions of others and the
02:07:04 non-standard solutions of others and the oil barrel comes in Chelsea their Building Control Department had a bit of a reputation of being particularly hard to convince to accept anything non-standard now thinking back to the
02:07:16 non-standard now thinking back to the time when you receive that email were you troubled by mr. Ashton's approach in what he said to you their troubles not the right word I mean obviously it came
02:07:29 the right word I mean obviously it came as a bit of a smack like oh whoa what's going on here and I've given you every opportunity to review the text and and comment on it it's a bit late now but
02:07:42 comment on it it's a bit late now but there's obviously the gloss Gustus of it I think must have put me back a bit but no more than that did you feel at the time that you were being reprimanded by him back in your box that you know
02:07:57 I can't exactly what I thought but I mean obviously by that time I'd work with Terry for five years already I knew that it turns he can be a bit gruff but
02:08:10 that it turns he can be a bit gruff but it it was one of these world that wait till the morning and let's wait and see yeah by which time apparently had calmed down and I don't think anything was ever said of it subsequently were you
02:08:22 said of it subsequently were you concerned that his whole approach appeared to be not to draw attention to debatable points like that not to draw attention to non-compliance with current codes and hope that Building Control
02:08:34 codes and hope that Building Control didn't pick up on it did you have any concerns about that approach at the time not really I mean as I said he'd been in the industry since before I was born I mean those Paul hands I'm quite well so
02:08:47 mean those Paul hands I'm quite well so I trusted him to know his business better than I knew it now in terms of the justification given for the non-compliance in the in the wording that you used and I appreciate you said
02:08:59 that you used and I appreciate you said you're under time pressure to get this drafted isn't part of the reason why a pre document B doesn't recommend mixed use accommodation sharing a single exit
02:09:10 use accommodation sharing a single exit because the risk of fires breaking out in non-residential accommodation is much higher what do you mean by the whisper breaking out much higher the the issue
02:09:22 breaking out much higher the the issue is not the likelihood of the fire the issue is the the potential for a fire to be to be large and to threaten fire
02:09:33 be to be large and to threaten fire spread to wider parts of the building and and to jeopardize the escape routes there's in any building there was always a residual risk bide nature of the fact
02:09:47 a residual risk bide nature of the fact that we allow blocks of facts to exist we accept that there is a residual risk of a flat fire may break out in a flat and may lead to some compromising of the means of escape we control that risk as
02:10:01 means of escape we control that risk as best we can with appropriate fire doors compartment ation etc etc etc but there's never 100% safety the codes recognized that you know
02:10:12 the codes recognized that you know commercial accommodation if I can use that word is potentially harbors greater fire risks and therefore yeah if a fire breaks out it the there was put an
02:10:25 breaks out it the there was put an increased risk of compromise and means of escape from the flats than the would be from a fire in another flat yeah possibly acting out at the time I thought there was well the approved
02:10:36 thought there was well the approved document b is a fairly blunt instrument
02:10:40 lumps types of accommodation and different purposes together in fairly broad categories so a intelligent and
02:10:53 broad categories so a intelligent and the ants to coach review of what are the actual risks might be able to justify something that just the broad brush purpose group categories of approved document they don't if they just say
02:11:05 document they don't if they just say what's public assembly the contents could be anything and that the content of the theater set it's the same purpose group and potentially massive fire loads
02:11:16 group and potentially massive fire loads so did you feel at the time when you were writing it that your mitigation had adequately addressed the risks that were posed I was I was satisfied at the time
02:11:29 posed I was I was satisfied at the time that the risks were such that we didn't have to close the building as it were as it stood at the time yeah despite the fact that the pre-existing conditions did not comply with that guidance
02:11:42 did not comply with that guidance whether my explanation as to why I was satisfied with the conditions were sufficient to satisfy a building at all or thority I don't know okay to put it a
02:11:55 or thority I don't know okay to put it a building control authority some were more willing to accept a qualitative argument others would have required a detailed mathematical analysis I didn't
02:12:06 detailed mathematical analysis I didn't know what to expect from Kensington and Chelsea in this particular instance yeah so okay so well put something down there and if they reject it well will provide
02:12:17 and if they reject it well will provide a more detailed analysis if required okay
02:12:20 okay at the time were any design risk assessments done which underpinned the assessment of mitigation did that was that a process you thought about undertaking doing some kind of design
02:12:31 undertaking doing some kind of design risk assessment to weigh the pros and the cons not nothing formal okay now in due course we're going to look a bit more at the content of a situ of the
02:12:44 more at the content of a situ of the fire safety strategy but I just want to stick for a moment with these changes and I want to look forward to issue three of the outline fire safety
02:12:55 three of the outline fire safety strategy and we know that there was a draft of that on the 5th of November with yellow highlighting showing the changes and then the final version is at
02:13:10 changes and then the final version is at TM oh if we could bring up tma-20 eight two eight three nine nine
02:13:32 you got TMO two zeros eight two eight three nine nine yeah so this is the final version of issues three dated the
02:13:43 final version of issues three dated the seventh of November and if we can go to page six under the heading means of escape and then so this we can see there
02:13:57 escape and then so this we can see there there's that paragraph means of escape general so this contained similar wording save that some of what you'd written had been deleted and in
02:14:08 written had been deleted and in particular there was a phrase that had read these proposals represent a continuation of the existing principles for means of escape in the building and therefore do not create a non compliance
02:14:20 therefore do not create a non compliance with the requirements of the building regulations that phrase has been removed and we have a smaller paragraph here now I want to ask you and this fire strategy
02:14:33 I want to ask you and this fire strategy was written by the third is she was written by mr. Ashton and reviewed by mr. Mack Eleni was he aware when he did
02:14:44 mr. Mack Eleni was he aware when he did his review that you had made an amendment to issue two to add in this paragraph no idea did you would have ever discussed that with mr. Mack I
02:14:55 ever discussed that with mr. Mack I don't think idea I would put it this way I don't see any reason why he no it's not true EADS he was obviously review of issue one yeah he was the review of it
02:15:09 issue one yeah he was the review of it of revision three there was a fair lapse of time between revision 1 and revision 3 so how well his recollection how good his recollection was at the contents of
02:15:21 his recollection was at the contents of issue 1 of revision one and the change between what he reviewed and what he was now being given to of you I don't know certainly I don't recall having any
02:15:32 certainly I don't recall having any conversations with him at the time so you didn't ever discuss with him that you had added wording or to issue to drawing attention to don't think I did not know
02:15:43 not know thing I did do you agree that it would have been helpful for him to have known that when he was reviewing issue three it is only a few days later but it would have been help for him to have known
02:15:54 have been help for him to have known possibly possibly can we look at your witness statement again this is paragraph 3.20 of your statement this is
02:16:05 paragraph 3.20 of your statement this is EXO four zeroes one seven five three at page five
02:16:10 page five [Applause]
02:16:16 and
02:16:21 you say they're both issue three and three B contain the same language in relation to the mixed-use issue identified above with which differs
02:16:33 identified above with which differs slightly from issue two in particular emitted my earlier comment that this did not create a non compliance with building regulations it continued however to note that the plans involve mixed use of the staircase and that this
02:16:45 mixed use of the staircase and that this was not in line with guidance at the time but that the typical file aides would be no greater and that the non-residential accommodation would be separated by ventilated lobbies so the risk to opposite occupants were not
02:16:56 risk to opposite occupants were not considered significantly greater to see that there
02:17:07 now
02:17:10 you say there I think that it's not uncommon we've said that it's not uncommon if a reports been previously reviewed and minor changes have been inserted for someone to be asked simply to review those changes rather than
02:17:22 to review those changes rather than necessarily repeating the full review to it again was that something that was spelt out in Ex overs Quality Assurance processes that you could just review the changes and not review the report as a
02:17:35 changes and not review the report as a whole as per the previous answers I cannot recall the details of the written policies and procedures but your understanding was that was a common practice was it within my understanding was that it was a common practice of
02:17:46 was that it was a common practice of when somebody was reviewing a revision of a report that they might just be reviewing the changes and taking those read that bits that were changed were as
02:17:57 read that bits that were changed were as they should be and then at paragraph 3 point t1 you say I do not recall having discussed with mr. Ashton the reasons why the text of issue 2 if the report
02:18:10 why the text of issue 2 if the report was changed but I'm happy that the revised wording in issue 3a and 3b adequately highlighted the point and reached the correct conclusion do you see that there so I think you agree that
02:18:23 see that there so I think you agree that words were removed yes a paragraph but they clearly were where are you aware of this at the time that issue 3 was going out I I don't believe I was I don't
02:18:35 out I I don't believe I was I don't believe that I ever did see issue 3 at the time when it was issued I see that yeah that was my next question is whether you saw a c3 when it I I doubt
02:18:46 whether you saw a c3 when it I I doubt it I may not have in preparation for the hearing today I've actually checked my diary for the date on which it was issued and that particular day I was out of the office yeah so I I conclude there
02:18:58 of the office yeah so I I conclude there that no I did not see it yeah do you agree do you agree that in principle it be better to highlight that potential non-compliance in the fuller way that your revision - did I mean the vision 3
02:19:09 your revision - did I mean the vision 3 does draw attention to the number of ions but your language talked specifically about whether it does create a non-compliance with the building regulations your language is clear isn't it I mean my my general
02:19:22 clear isn't it I mean my my general approach to writing strategies for existing
02:19:24 existing buildings is somewhat different from from mr. eshton's and as much as I would generally start with a description of the building as it is and the state of
02:19:35 the building as it is and the state of the fire safety provisions in it before then going on to explain what's being modified and what impact the modifications have on fire safety and the ins and outs in the context of the
02:19:46 the ins and outs in the context of the building regulations so this is very much a Terry Ashton report not an Anthony Pearson report but as I said before he'd been in the business since before I was born so it's that this
02:20:00 before I was born so it's that this report was very much as I understood it targeted to specific needs of a specific project in a specific or under the jurisdiction of a specific building at all authority and I didn't really see
02:20:12 all authority and I didn't really see any reason to question his approach okay so pausing there you just said that my general approach to writing strategies for existing buildings is
02:20:23 strategies for existing buildings is somewhat different from mr. Ashton's and you've said that you would generally start with the description of the building as it is the state of the fire for safety provisions within it before then going on to explain what's being
02:20:34 then going on to explain what's being modified how was mr. Ashton's approach different from that this is very much focused on the the validation of the
02:20:45 focused on the the validation of the changes in respect to Part B of the building regulations and anything that's that's pre-existing and not being altered is is not generally not
02:20:59 altered is is not generally not mentioned at all and I can only presume that I delivered and that and that reflected a general practice of mr. Ashlyn's as distinct from your practice today yes yeah
02:21:14 I mean with the caveat that every product every report again is tailored to the needs of the specific project and depending on who the client is
02:21:25 depending on who the client is and the the technical knowledge and abilities of the client I mean with if you're writing a report if the your client is the owner of a building you
02:21:36 client is the owner of a building you you might need to adapt and things in slightly more layman's terms than if your client is mechanical electrical services engineer yeah you've talked a couple of times about how experienced
02:21:48 couple of times about how experienced mr. Ashton was his you know extensive experience in in Building Control before coming to xover did you feel in practice that it was difficult to question him no
02:22:01 that it was difficult to question him no no so you weren't you didn't feel somehow that it was harder to question him because he'd had such a length of experience and expertise in oh it's
02:22:13 experience and expertise in oh it's obviously it's he's always going to be harder to question somebody with 40 years experience than it is a graduate with four years experience and I had a
02:22:25 with four years experience and I had a lot of respect for him and so possibly there was occurred and a tendency at times to think twice and very often when I did disagreed with him it turned out
02:22:37 I did disagreed with him it turned out that he was right and I was wrong but that didn't stop me from from questioning him no I mean precisely because he was usually quite religious with getting all of his documents
02:22:49 with getting all of his documents double-checked including fairly minor innocuous emails where you think that really is a statement of the obvious why you wasting my time answer because he's leading by example that no I mean he
02:23:02 leading by example that no I mean he precisely was somebody who would do very much practice this this requirement of making sure that everything was double-checked but what about others within the office I mean you've
02:23:13 within the office I mean you've obviously got some academic experience that we discussed earlier in relation to fire behavior etc and do you think others take mr. Mack Eleni he's
02:23:25 others take mr. Mack Eleni he's reviewing this third issue do you think it would have been different for him to have challenged mr. Ashton if he disagreed with him and that there was a level of deference to him because of
02:23:36 a level of deference to him because of the his level of experience I think probably for anything if there was anything bearing in mind that yes mr. Mackall amy was relatively inexperienced if there was anything that was probably
02:23:48 if there was anything that was probably itself doubt on the basis on the part of mr. Mac Eleni not having the experience not having seen I was as wide a range of different strategy reports to to have as good a
02:24:04 strategy reports to to have as good a judgement as I would like to think I've got as to what's good what's bad what's ugly if you'd known at the time that it was mr. Mac Elena he was reviewing the third issue with the report do you think you would have thought that was odd
02:24:16 you would have thought that was odd given his relative genius I certainly would have thought it was odd and yeah it the general rule was no you would give it to somebody more senior I can only imagine that this was
02:24:31 senior I can only imagine that this was a breach of normal Cota called due to the urgency of needing to get something issued yeah a soap to repeat my earlier thing on that particular so it's absolutely checked on that particular
02:24:42 absolutely checked on that particular day I was not in the office and I'm will presume that had a vision in the office or had it been a choice of myself and mr. Mackall aney that mr. Ashton would have given it to me yeah and not not to
02:24:54 have given it to me yeah and not not to mr. Mac Eleni you go on I was just about to touch on that you go on 3.22 to deal with this you say you're not aware of the reasons why he was chosen to review
02:25:06 the reasons why he was chosen to review it but would note that whenever there was a need to issue a minor amendment to a report urgently the choice of reviewer was often dictated by who was available in the office at the time and then he
02:25:17 in the office at the time and then he said I don't recall he was available at the time and can you explain why that was that the choice of reviewer was often dictated by who was available in the office at the time
02:25:31 this Eisley as it as it says everything there's nobody else available then then you if the entire staff is out of the office on meetings well I'm not
02:25:44 office on meetings well I'm not available to review it and so but was ever discussed with an ex over that perhaps a more formal process ought to be adopted for important issues like these fire strategies I mean this was
02:25:57 these fire strategies I mean this was very much the exception rather than the rule of giving it to somebody as junior as mr. Mackall only two of you so this will only have been done as needs must
02:26:08 will only have been done as needs must this was certainly not normal practice and was really only on accepted because mr. Ashton was so experienced and so
02:26:19 mr. Ashton was so experienced and so because everybody in the within the firm had sufficient trust in him that to actually get things right yeah so are you saying that normally the choice of reviewer would be a more considered
02:26:31 reviewer would be a more considered process yes yes and and time built in to allow for the review process so it's not being done at the last minute I'd I've been a normal practice yeah but that didn't
02:26:43 normal practice yeah but that didn't happen here that's the only conclusion I can draw well we could see it didn't happen in relation to issue two because you only got a few minutes to review it and we can it would appear that mr. Mack
02:26:58 and we can it would appear that mr. Mack Eleni work may have been chosen because there was no one else available so am i right in thinking that it would appear that for the Grenville project these two fire strategies didn't follow a considered process for the review or
02:27:13 considered process for the review or revision to possibly other reviewers was possibly rushed the revision 3 yeah I'm not sure that considered is a very
02:27:26 I'm not sure that considered is a very very precise word but it's probably wasn't as considered as one might ideally want it to be even I can put it that way right I put it to you a formal process which involves someone more senior reviewing it yeah
02:27:40 senior reviewing it yeah just briefly before we come to looking at a little bit more at the content of issue 2 and what you were reviewing just
02:27:51 issue 2 and what you were reviewing just just to explore a little bit your attitude to building control and building control approval and can we just look at an email this is se a three zeroes one two one eight nine this is
02:28:06 zeroes one two one eight nine this is the top of the page so this is Neil Crawford - Terry Ashton on the 20th of November 2014 copying in a number of
02:28:18 November 2014 copying in a number of others and he says this Terry I've received these markups from Building Control regarding the fire strategy on Granville tower I'm due to meet with
02:28:30 Granville tower I'm due to meet with them on Monday on-site and wondered if you had any views on their comments on the Academy project we had the situation where Tony Pearson managed to argue some of their comments away if you had any
02:28:42 of their comments away if you had any observations particularly where you think their comments may be excessive I would be grateful to know as I can take these with me to the meeting on Monday regards Neil do you see that there no
02:28:53 regards Neil do you see that there no I'm not suggesting you aware of it all the time you're not copied into it but there I want to ask you about the comment there that on the calc you'd managed to argue some of the
02:29:04 you'd managed to argue some of the Building Control comments away do you know what they might be referring to there on that I believe with that without going having access to the
02:29:15 without going having access to the minutes of the meetings and the report I cannot recall in detail certainly we did have discussions during meetings with representatives attending in Chelsea and there were some aspects of the design
02:29:27 there were some aspects of the design that originally they weren't convinced of that we were then able to persuade them that actually in terms of the the level of risks that they would create
02:29:39 level of risks that they would create that they were within the parameters of what requirements B 1 to B 5 would would allow yeah fair I cannot recall the specifics of what those aspects of the design were
02:29:50 design were can I ask is that generally your attitude to building control offices that part of your job is to try and argue their comments away the the the
02:30:02 argue their comments away the the the the job is it's twofold is on the one hand we need to ensure the building is safe while at the same time avoiding the
02:30:13 safe while at the same time avoiding the lumbering a client with something that's over engineered I'm not going to sit in front of a building control officer and argue that black is white and try and push a substandard design particularly
02:30:25 push a substandard design particularly as being a firefighter if I do a fire in the building I may be then the one putting my own neck on the line trying to put that fire out I'm not that suicidal so know if there's something
02:30:36 suicidal so know if there's something where the code says do something and I'll say again I've said this before period document B as a fairly blunt instrument there are situations where code compliance would require the design
02:30:48 code compliance would require the design to incorporate certain features and you look at it and think well actually the if you omit or if you do something slightly differently or the circumstances got here I'm not quite
02:30:59 circumstances got here I'm not quite what the authors of the codes had in mind for that usual common situations and that actually the building absolutely achieves the level of safety that's necessary there then yes it
02:31:12 that's necessary there then yes it precisely one of the reasons why I'm employed is to explain to building a 12 why the building is safe rather than necessarily explained to building control by the building is code compliant do you ever feel that there's
02:31:24 compliant do you ever feel that there's pressure or expectation from clients that that's your role to the husband engaged there has been in the past and I've been fired off jobs before now for
02:31:37 I've been fired off jobs before now for not putting in my reports what the client wants me to put in yeah did you feel on the calc project that there was an expectation that you would be trying to argue with Building Control and persuade them round to your views other
02:31:50 persuade them round to your views other words there was a pressure to to persuade them of things that things that I felt were safe were safe there was not
02:32:01 I felt were safe were safe there was not a pressure to convinced some of things that I myself was uncomfortable with do you agree that best practice for a fire engineer is to engage openly and transparently with Building Control officers rather than
02:32:14 Building Control officers rather than seek to go into combat with them we combats a strong word I mean there's for
02:32:25 combats a strong word I mean there's for that matter I don't I don't see that the combat might necessarily not be opened so yes yes yes yes it does need to be open and transparent as much as some of
02:32:39 open and transparent as much as some of these discussions happen during a design team meeting when the only witnesses are the other members of the design team so as much as it then the results will be minute ease and so the only yeah called
02:32:51 minute ease and so the only yeah called for third plants to see the minutes so how open that is okay easy sometimes debatable but precisely the way you you
02:33:02 debatable but precisely the way you you discuss these things is in the quiet calm rationally in a quiet room and not over you know not in a pub slow this
02:33:14 over you know not in a pub slow this it's not something where we try to do dodgy back to room deals no now looking then I want to ask your feet some questions about the content of issue two
02:33:25 questions about the content of issue two of the fire strategy that you reviewed can we go to back to that that's the exo four zeros one seven five eight
02:33:39 and I want to look at page four and the introduction to the report and if we can just that's better yeah so this is an
02:33:51 just that's better yeah so this is an introduction which explains the background to the proposed refurbishment 24-story residential block and then we've seen this a number of times already that I haven't shown it to you
02:34:03 already that I haven't shown it to you yet the refurbishment then comprises a number of bullet points now we're you
02:34:16 number of bullet points now we're you aware at this time when you were reviewing issue two that the refurbishment included over cladding not that I recall know so we know it's not
02:34:27 that I recall know so we know it's not included in this list so you don't recall anybody saying to you around this time of no recollections on that matter at all did you feel that you had
02:34:40 at all did you feel that you had adequate information about the project to conduct a competent review of the this strategy in terms of background to the project at the time there was
02:34:54 the project at the time there was nothing that I felt that I needed that I didn't have looking at it subsequently theirs would have been useful if I had minutes they referred to discussions
02:35:06 minutes they referred to discussions with kensic and Chelsea it would have probably useful if I had access to the minutes of those meetings yeah so you could have seen what was discussed so with hindsight yes there was into other information that that probably should
02:35:18 information that that probably should have been available that yeah maybe I should have asked for but at the time [Music]
02:35:25 [Music] though in mind that this is a document titled outline strategy so it is a fairly brief high-level review and so I wasn't really expecting that much
02:35:37 wasn't really expecting that much information would be available over the most general arrangement drawings we know that a number of those design team Metis included reference to over caddying was that something that
02:35:49 caddying was that something that ideally you would have known at this time in terms of reviewing this outlying fire safety strategy probably yet were you aware at what stage in the Riv a
02:36:01 you aware at what stage in the Riv a process
02:36:02 process I appreciate you said it wasn't typical in the fee proposal to break it down but were you aware what stage the design team was at no so you weren't aware when you drafted this sorry when you reviewed
02:36:16 you drafted this sorry when you reviewed this outline strategy that for example studio YZ stage D report had come in in the August of 2013 prior to this and that there stage C report had been the
02:36:28 that there stage C report had been the previous October 2012 so you didn't know
02:36:36 [Applause]
02:36:40 how do you read prior to working on this the existing fire safety strategy prepared by X / that was authored by Miss Cooney and reviewed by Miss Barker
02:36:51 Miss Cooney and reviewed by Miss Barker not as far as I would recollect no I don't think I saw that report until after the fire did you even know that such a report existed that the X / had been commissioned to do and a report on
02:37:03 been commissioned to do and a report on the existing fire safety strategy I must have known I'm again there's no specific recollection of what was in my memory at the time but there was a separate I think was a sub-project rather than a
02:37:15 think was a sub-project rather than a project there was a separate scope of works for the existing building I must have been aware of that so I must have been aware that something was going on yeah but what that specifically entailed
02:37:28 yeah but what that specifically entailed I don't think I was aware no and what the where the boundaries were between the scope of the refurbishment project in the work on the existing building yes
02:37:41 in the work on the existing building yes had you known at the time that there was an existing fire safety strategy is that something you'd have want ordinarily when reviewing a report that you'd have wanted to see before conducting such a review probably yes I say with possibly
02:37:54 review probably yes I say with possibly with the caveat that if I were writing the report it would have contained quite a lengthy summary of the existing fire safety strategy anyway do you think that
02:38:05 safety strategy anyway do you think that the fact that mr. Ashton hasn't made reference to that anywhere within this issue he's not made any reference to the existing fire strategy could that reflect that this distinction you were talking about earlier between a an
02:38:17 talking about earlier between a an Ashton report and a Pearson report yes yeah that you would build on the existing in your reports yes but he would focus on the changes yes yeah well
02:38:29 would focus on the changes yes yeah well he he would focus on what is the purpose of the report and in this case my understanding is the purpose of this report is to explain to Building Control why these works comply with partly in
02:38:42 why these works comply with partly in the building regulations and when you say these works you mean these works listed as as nested on that yeah you weren't aware that there the works as well no and I think we've
02:39:01 the works as well no and I think we've established it but but can I just check had you been provided with any other design documentation that had come from the design team when you reviewed this we talked about the two drawings that at
02:39:12 we talked about the two drawings that at the bottom of this action I mean I must have seen earlier floor plans of earlier iterations I couldn't recall specific details of which but how many different versions had seen I was aware that that
02:39:26 versions had seen I was aware that that I mean but she it nature the fact that we obviously we were talking about a changing rewording of the entire description the means of escape here I was aware that there had been previous iterations and I had seen previous iteration floor plans beyond the the
02:39:40 iteration floor plans beyond the the general arrangement floor plans and markups that colleagues have done we recommended fire resistance ratings
02:39:50 there's nothing else would you have expected by this time for a full suite of design documentation to have been provided to Xavier as far not not
02:40:02 provided to Xavier as far not not knowing where they stood in the context of the project and its program I didn't really know what to expect and how much detail should have been provided
02:40:18 so just back to the Riv a stage reports did it occur to you at any time to check where in the Riv ace state process the
02:40:30 where in the Riv ace state process the design team were nope I just took it on trust that Terry knew how to manage a project at our end they didn't need me to tell him how to do his job
02:40:41 to tell him how to do his job so he'd asked me can I review a report he didn't ask me for advice as to whether that before you know was whether the level of detail was appropriate for
02:40:53 the level of detail was appropriate for where we are in the project so I really didn't know the context where we were in the project and would you ever ask for a
02:41:04 the project and would you ever ask for a stage C or a state d report from the architects and existed would that ever be something you might inquire us to really I mean they they're normally
02:41:18 really I mean they they're normally something that they will give you quite voluntarily and bearing in mind that there's a piece of work that usually architects are fairly proud of so it's not you know getting that report off them isn't it's not a tooth extraction
02:41:29 them isn't it's not a tooth extraction process so yeah if it's available it would normally be provided to us yeah if anything the the the issues of the opposite if they provided with so much
02:41:41 opposite if they provided with so much information and actually trying to extract the relevant wood from the forest trees is the difficulty let's look on at requirement I want to start with b3 and then we'll come and look at b4 so I want to look at b3 this is
02:41:54 b4 so I want to look at b3 this is internal fire spread if we go to page 8 of this
02:42:01 and there's the section B 3 at 3.1.3 there now under the heading fire
02:42:16 there now under the heading fire resistance of elements of structure just there hmm
02:42:20 there hmm mr. eshton's identified that the flaws should provide at least 60 minutes of fire resistance do you see that yes now shouldn't that have been a hundred and
02:42:32 shouldn't that have been a hundred and twenty minutes fire resistance if applying approved document b at the time applying approved document b as of 2012 yes for a new build it should have been
02:42:44 yes for a new build it should have been yeah but that was not something you picked up on your that's not something I picked up in my overview is that because you didn't think it was your role to check that kind of detail as part of the
02:42:56 check that kind of detail as part of the review process think more likely because I took it on trust that that paragraph had been written was correct and not I can only the only explanation I can give
02:43:08 can only the only explanation I can give myself is that I wasn't as diligent as I might have been in reviewing it I mean there's looking at it with heart with with a benefit of hindsight I can
02:43:19 with with a benefit of hindsight I can only presume that this was something that was agreed between mr. Ashton and the Building Control surveyors at the time based on an understanding of the
02:43:32 time based on an understanding of the design codes at the time of construction yeah but the next question is should this have been explained well that probably would have been useful yes okay thank you
02:43:44 thank you under cop compartment ation then the next heading and there's various sub paragraphs there about where compartment walls and all floors will be provided
02:43:55 walls and all floors will be provided and then there's more about standards of resistance and
02:44:01 and it may may be explained by the fact you didn't know about the over cladding but I wanted to ask you about why this section doesn't deal with regulation B 3/4 which states the building should be
02:44:13 3/4 which states the building should be designed and instructors say that the unseen spread of fire and smoke within concealed spaces and its structure and fabric is inhibited did you note at the time that there wasn't any reference to
02:44:24 time that there wasn't any reference to b3 for not not consciously and I can only get respectively try and
02:44:36 only get respectively try and reconstruct what my thought purchase must have been it was it was not uncommon that a for an outline to report
02:44:48 uncommon that a for an outline to report so something that is intended for an early design stage for that to be considered the level of detail that is not at this stage of the design yet velopment
02:44:59 velopment and would be inserted later when you say at this stage of the design you didn't know what but based on the fact that it calls herself an outline strategy rather
02:45:10 calls herself an outline strategy rather than the strategy so I would infer from that that it is a relatively early design stage and a relatively brief high-level document so do you think you assumed at the time that it was a stage
02:45:21 assumed at the time that it was a stage C document as opposed to being a stage de document that's what the level of detail in the report implies yeah and and on the b3 for themed did you notice
02:45:34 and on the b3 for themed did you notice at the time that there was no reference to say section 9 of a pre document B which deals with location and provisions for cavity barriers in the external wall as well as other locations whether I
02:45:48 as well as other locations whether I consciously noticed it I cannot recall
02:45:53 so that wasn't something that you picked up at the time I would have commented if I had to pick it up I'm guessing I would have commented on it did it concern you
02:46:05 have commented on it did it concern you that issue 2 of this 5 outline fire safety strategy you knew it was issued - didn't yes and you knew that the issue 1 had been a year before because that's on the front how much attention I paid to
02:46:17 the front how much attention I paid to the dates on issue 1 and did it concern you that it emitted to identify the locations in Greenville tower that formed concealed spaces or the locations
02:46:29 formed concealed spaces or the locations that cavity barriers were required in order to comply with section 9 of approved occupant B that a based on the fact that this is calling itself an outlined strategy and not a strategy no not particularly
02:46:42 that was my next question in your view would addressing the need for cavity barriers be something that ought to be included as part of a fire safety strategy as part of a full strategy yes
02:46:53 strategy as part of a full strategy yes and have you ever come across a situation in which you've put in the performance requirements for say cavity barriers even if you don't know precisely what the design team have in
02:47:04 precisely what the design team have in mind in order to give them guidance and to flag up that that's something they need to be thinking about I have done in the past yes yeah
02:47:16 when you reviewed this issue two of the strategy where you were where that this was a high-rise block of flats with a stay put evacuation strategy yes and were you aware that such a strategy
02:47:28 were you aware that such a strategy relies on a high degree of compartment ation yes did it concern you at all that the outline fire safety strategy made no reference to reliance on copper
02:47:40 reference to reliance on copper mentation in a building with a stay put evacuation strategy not particularly I was I think under the impression that all parties concerned were taking that
02:47:51 all parties concerned were taking that as read and particularly if this document looks as if it is focused primarily on providing relevant information to the building control surveyors and they will have been
02:48:02 surveyors and they will have been absolutely aware of that and wouldn't need to have needed us to remind them of that fact do you agree that we're a high degree of compartment ation is required cavity barriers are particularly
02:48:13 cavity barriers are particularly important including for example around the windows yes but you didn't flag up to mr. Ashton at the time that there was
02:48:25 to mr. Ashton at the time that there was no mention of cavity barriers in this no I didn't requirement before then is on that page in the next section three point one point four and we looked
02:48:40 point one point four and we looked before at the fee proposal which said that the fire strategy would include determination of any external fire spread issues and when it when you did your review were you concerned at all
02:48:52 your review were you concerned at all that all we have on the B for requirement is that one sentence there did that like any alarm bells with you I can't recall how much I mean obviously
02:49:04 can't recall how much I mean obviously there's the the sentence being finished by it will be confirmed that's a flag for we don't yet have all the information we need how concerned I was
02:49:15 information we need how concerned I was at the time I cannot recollect okay
02:49:21 when you say it's a flag for we don't yet have all the information we need it doesn't say that does it it doesn't it doesn't say that it's considered the proposed changes will have no adverse
02:49:32 proposed changes will have no adverse effect but this will be confirmed by an analysis and a future issue it goes further doesn't it than just we don't have enough information well yeah in the sense that yeah there is you don't see
02:49:45 sense that yeah there is you don't see what it's saying is it's something that will need to be revisited yes did you ever discuss this paragraph or or b4 around this time with mr. Ashton did you ever have any discussions with him not
02:49:56 ever have any discussions with him not in the specific context of this project so you were involved I think we know in the calc project at this time yes and
02:50:08 the calc project at this time yes and you were aware of the potential impact of cladding on fast bread your example from that project yes and we know that you were aware of numerous facade fires generally would you agree that this
02:50:21 generally would you agree that this statement is clearly incorrect even on the basis of just some form of cladding being proposed because any form of cladding has a potential effect on their ability well bear in mind at the time I
02:50:35 ability well bear in mind at the time I think I was completely ignorant of the the fact that the the works included over cladding yeah so that explains why you didn't pick that up yeah when you
02:50:48 you didn't pick that up yeah when you reviewed this wording did you understand what the proposed changes were which mr. Ashton was referring to the moment
02:51:00 Ashton was referring to the moment started almost there are no change the I was must have been thinking primarily in the context of space separation so sizes of on non fire resisting sections of
02:51:11 of on non fire resisting sections of external wall and sizes of compartment and fire load so the the two risk categories in B are 187 to report on
02:51:26 categories in B are 187 to report on analysis methods in connection with space separation so now the expectation is that the
02:51:39 now the expectation is that the alteration was the alteration being undertaken on the lower levels of the the building yeah that's any any changes of apartment sizes and changes the window sizes will
02:51:53 will not significantly impact the the conclusion if one were to do it beyond one eighty seven analysis yeah this point about space separation I'm
02:52:06 point about space separation I'm interested in this then is it possible that at the time any issues around external fire spread we considered only in terms of space separation and that perhaps less emphasis was given to say
02:52:19 perhaps less emphasis was given to say section twelve of a DB in general would you agree with me at the time that fire engine is in your situation were often
02:52:30 engine is in your situation were often focusing on space separation building to building flame spread and that there was generally less focus on flame spread up and within the existing building odd I'd
02:52:42 and within the existing building odd I'd be hesitant to make any statement about fire engine in the rest of the industry in general you know perhaps not as much as I have we had fire safety strategies
02:52:54 as I have we had fire safety strategies from although some of our competitors in some context I don't have enough of a recollection of what they said and certainly not enough a recollection of what may have been emitted to really
02:53:05 what may have been emitted to really draw any conclusions about what was normal practice throughout the rest of the industry yeah take your practice research certainly with in Warrington fire what there certainly was a tendency
02:53:17 fire what there certainly was a tendency particularly at the early design stages to to focus on on spatial separation bearing in mind that an outline strategy typically you would write for the pre-planning phase and one of the things
02:53:30 pre-planning phase and one of the things the aspects of planners need to concern themselves with is the external appearance and so sizes of windows on obviously the separation distance between buildings so that is very much a
02:53:42 between buildings so that is very much a focus of
02:53:44 focus of other out considerations are the pre-planning phase whereas the selection of materials then is something that can be left till elated or top often is
02:53:56 be left till elated or top often is something that can be left at a later date yeah so so we know that pre document B when it looks at B for we've got section 12 explain offs prosper at section 13 space separation and section
02:54:07 section 13 space separation and section 14 roof coverings it breaks it down into three does it follow from what you've said and that a lot of the focus particular the pre-planning stage would be on space separation that it's a fair it's a fair comment to say that perhaps
02:54:20 it's a fair comment to say that perhaps less focus would go on section 12 and external the pre planning phase certainly yes and and and indeed Germany at this time at times yes I mean as I
02:54:31 at this time at times yes I mean as I said my turning my own awareness grew you in this period looking back let's think about 2013 where you did this review of this fire safety reports would it be a fair
02:54:43 safety reports would it be a fair comment say that within xover you would be less focused on section 12 than you would on section 13 generally speaking probably yes
02:55:07 now just in staying within this external fire spread point did did you think to question why there were no plans
02:55:19 question why there were no plans sections or elevations relating to the external wall that you could review at this time no I didn't I mean I having
02:55:31 this time no I didn't I mean I having worked for the long side Terry for five years I assumed that if he had had that information and it was relevant to that design stage he would have put it in the report would it be normal to give advice
02:55:44 report would it be normal to give advice on the B for requirement without such plans sections or elevations to hand
02:55:53 well know precisely because you can't ya know then I mean this was in this case yeah the I think educated guess is probably the wrong term but there's
02:56:05 probably the wrong term but there's certainly an expectation of what we're likely to find yeah precisely then why this then the the caveat of this will need to be revisited where you were
02:56:16 need to be revisited where you were where at this time that Celotex FR 5,000 was planned to be used as the insulation behind the roads ever even heard of the project product I mean I was I was aware
02:56:28 project product I mean I was I was aware that it was common practice to use polymer foams as insulation rather than materials of limited from basta bility
02:56:39 materials of limited from basta bility that specific product I don't think I'd ever heard of the fact that the product and and did it occur to you at this time when you were viewing this strategy to
02:56:50 when you were viewing this strategy to ask about insulation and as I said I don't think I had any knowledge of the fact that it was there was any proposal to over clad the building at all yeah my
02:57:03 to over clad the building at all yeah my recollection is I was just completely ignorant of that aspect of the bill check thinking back were you aware at the time of the provisions in 12.7 of ADB and the recommendation about materials of limited combust ability for
02:57:15 materials of limited combust ability for insulation
02:57:18 I can't recall how I'm out I mean I certainly hadn't memorized them I mean I'd read them and on as I said the you know earlier on this morning I'm
02:57:31 know earlier on this morning I'm certainly aware that it's something to which attention must be paid but precisely because any questions of detail design I'd usually give to colleagues my familiarity with the
02:57:45 colleagues my familiarity with the details of those paragraphs was limited and did you know anything about the top of the tower at this point did you know
02:57:56 of the tower at this point did you know anything about the crown did you know look whether there was going to be a crown was that ever discussed and even from the documents I've read subsequently I still don't understand what was going on on the top level yeah it's determined I think that would be an
02:58:09 it's determined I think that would be an appropriate mainland topic I'd like to do in yeah but we're making good
02:58:23 do in yeah but we're making good progress obviously we always have to sweep up additional questions and indeed a lot of questions from core participants have already fed into my questioning so it's a constant ongoing
02:58:34 questioning so it's a constant ongoing process
02:58:37 process good thinking well mr. doctor we'll have a break at this stage for some lunch we'll come back at two o'clock please okay and please don't talk to anyone
02:58:48 okay and please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out on the road all right I took over the ushers beers
02:59:09 good thank you - coke please