Afternoon session examining fire safety consultant's report for Grenfell Tower refurbishment, focusing on inadequate fire safety assessment and failure to challenge assumptions about building compliance.
00:00:16 yes would you ask Miss Kitty to come back in please
00:00:30 thank you yep ready to carry on I am pretty thank you yes thank you mr. chairman mr. Coony thank you and just a couple of follow-up questions flowing from the topic we were examining before
00:00:42 from the topic we were examining before lunch first of all did you ever ask mr. Sains or miss or dr. Barker for a history of the previous fires at Grenfell tower no why is that it
00:01:00 Grenfell tower no why is that it wouldn't be normally something that you will pick up in a fire safety strategy it would be more that that is a standard question for a fire risk assessment I see just generally as at 2012
00:01:15 see just generally as at 2012 what was your awareness in general of the history and experience of fires in high-rise residential buildings and
00:01:27 high-rise residential buildings and generally in in line with what what you might expect for somebody doing the job I was doing so yes I was aware of various landmark fires any landmark
00:01:40 various landmark fires any landmark fires stand out in your mind like an old
00:01:45 there was I believe there is an a couple of cladding fires is quite big one in France who's Ronnie Scotland as well was it various fires up as well yes you
00:01:59 it various fires up as well yes you mentioned lack not from the fire safety engineer's perspective what was the big lesson learned from the lack of a house fire the
00:02:10 fire the from my understanding of it that there were two major causes of the fire that's the external walls spread spread of the
00:02:23 the external walls spread spread of the external walls the building and there were compartment ation defects because of these stairs there were there were but what was the takeaway if I can use an expression for a fire safety
00:02:35 use an expression for a fire safety engineer such as yourself takeaway was to to ensure that that the building
00:02:46 to to ensure that that the building materials were appropriate appropriate for for the building and that any defects repairs etc were what well
00:02:57 defects repairs etc were what well shouldn't happen in the first place but if they're okay can I ask you them to look at your draft existing fire safety strategy that's TMO one zero zero zero
00:03:09 strategy that's TMO one zero zero zero one nine two five there it is have you read it recently yes I have so I can take it can i that you're familiar with
00:03:20 take it can i that you're familiar with it yes okay now it's dated as we can see at the bottom of page one the 16th of August 2012 and it's marked as a draft watermark as such across the front and
00:03:32 watermark as such across the front and indeed all other pages and we can see from the second page that it's prepared by you and reviewed by dr. Clair Barker
00:03:45 by you and reviewed by dr. Clair Barker principal consultants you'll see that I'm going to come back to that review process later but can I just show you something above that box there's a smaller box which says reason for
00:03:56 smaller box which says reason for revision and it's issue number D zero one is the D Draft it is right and reason for revision first draft yes does
00:04:10 reason for revision first draft yes does that tell us that what you produce this document was as clearly as a first draft but that there was intended to be perhaps a further draft and then a final version typically that would be the
00:04:24 version typically that would be the process yes right can you explain why the document was issued with the word draft over it if it was the final version it was it wasn't the final version as nicely I'm so sorry so sorry
00:04:37 version as nicely I'm so sorry so sorry I don't know whether that's what you understood my last response but it was it was just a first draft it was just a first draft did you ever do a further draft no do
00:04:48 did you ever do a further draft no do you know whether anybody else ever did a further draft not that I'm aware have you ever seen a final version of this document no would it be usual for you as the drafts person of this document not
00:05:01 the drafts person of this document not to see a final or the final version of the document that went to the client and it really depends on on feedback to be honest so a document would remain as a
00:05:15 honest so a document would remain as a draft until all parties were satisfied that it covers everything it needs to cover very well well we'll come back to that in due course we see on page three the contents page if we can just look at
00:05:27 the contents page if we can just look at that and you can see there that from part 4 onwards a lot of part 3 onwards in fact you've addressed the main functional requirements b1 to b5 yes yes
00:05:39 functional requirements b1 to b5 yes yes from d1 to b5 or parts 3 through to 7
00:05:45 now despite the fee proposal referring to section 20 of the London Building Act 1939 and also the rro as we talked about
00:05:56 1939 and also the rro as we talked about earlier there's no mention of those in the contents pages there there isn't no do you know why that is um I mean principally because when when
00:06:11 um I mean principally because when when we're looking at a fire safety strategy whilst it it does that there are large overlaps with the rro and obviously the the local acts such as
00:06:24 and obviously the the local acts such as along that the London act in and others which have now been repealed would be
00:06:34 there's quite a lot of overlapping requirements so the the information in terms of what we had for what for those
00:06:46 terms of what we had for what for those elements
00:06:48 elements probably didn't have enough information to really complete a full section on those at that time I see if you go please to page five we could see the introduction and you can see what's set
00:07:00 introduction and you can see what's set out there and in the fourth paragraph of the introduction do you see it says it is expected and therefore assumed you see that that the existing building has been built to the prevailing standards
00:07:12 been built to the prevailing standards of the day see that uh-huh could you just read the rest of that paragraph to yourself
00:07:27 now on what basis did you form that expectation or assumption on the basis
00:07:41 expectation or assumption on the basis that the building having been long standing in the same use as it was constructed to be used for and the the
00:07:52 constructed to be used for and the the very stringent adherence to acts such as as that as the London Act section 20 cetera and the requirement for a fire risk assessment being in place for
00:08:05 risk assessment being in place for several years prior to I think it was a reasonable assumption to to assume that any works that have been carried out had been done in a workman like manner and
00:08:17 been done in a workman like manner and and that there was no significant deviations from from from the from the guidance did you take any steps to ask
00:08:29 guidance did you take any steps to ask the TMO or investigate with them or indeed Studio II whether the existing building had been built to the prevailing standards of the day no why
00:08:42 prevailing standards of the day no why is that because the layout of the buildings the building front from the information we had gave that information within it in in enough detail right so
00:08:57 within it in in enough detail right so can I take it from that answer that you took no steps to verify that the existing building had indeed been built to the prevailing standards of the day I didn't ask for certification or anything
00:09:09 didn't ask for certification or anything like that no it didn't um if you look at the fifth paragraph the existing fire safety strategy states it is assumed that the various provisions required
00:09:24 by of it's a bit difficult to read by I think of the existing the above legislation uh-huh should mean by the above legislation have been maintained
00:09:35 above legislation have been maintained since the building was constructed and subsequent amendments have been carried out with the approval of the regulating authority over the day see that when you talk about various provisions being
00:09:46 talk about various provisions being maintained which do you or what do you mean so if if there's the compartment
00:09:57 mean so if if there's the compartment ation so if this works been carried out which create holes that they've been properly sealed and that everything has been maintained as it should be so lifts
00:10:09 been maintained as it should be so lifts Rises dampers any kind of system which relies on maintenance of detection systems so just to be clear do you mean
00:10:22 systems so just to be clear do you mean there that it was assumed that the building had been maintained to comply with the prevailing standards at the time of construction No so maintained so that they would meet
00:10:37 so maintained so that they would meet their performance requirements to for the time that they were put in or as amended I suppose I mean what basis did you make these assumptions that you set
00:10:50 you make these assumptions that you set out here reasonable good practice right did again am I to take you that you didn't ask the TMO or Studio e as to whether those assumptions were sound I
00:11:02 whether those assumptions were sound I did ask some questions about the ventilation and the detection systems and we asked quite extensively for
00:11:15 and we asked quite extensively for checks to be made on the existing compartment ation and cavity barriers if if present in the external or internal of the building there were quite a number of recommendations within the
00:11:27 number of recommendations within the within the report to look at these items that assumptions are based on yes what steps Divini did you take to verify that any amendments to the building satisfied the relevant
00:11:39 building satisfied the relevant legislation or guidance I didn't take any like I said that I didn't ask for any certification or completion certificates whether they were even
00:11:51 certificates whether they were even available I don't know would it be normal in your practice to proceed to provide a draft fire safety strategy for an existing building by making
00:12:02 an existing building by making assumptions of that nature yes I think I think it's reasonable to assume various things well I didn't ask you whether it was reasonable I asked you whether it was normal for you it's not it's normal
00:12:16 was normal for you it's not it's normal if it's reasonable yes I mean one does make assumptions on on various things and that is normal there was nothing unusual or not normal about the layout
00:12:27 unusual or not normal about the layout of the building right so the answer to my question is it was your normal practice to proceed on assumptions such as those without investigating them yes
00:12:39 as those without investigating them yes if I have to assumed it to be reasoning it yeah it depends what it was but yes I see now you haven't I think anywhere in this introduction identified what the current safety legislation guidance is
00:12:51 current safety legislation guidance is for example the building regulations 2010 all the provisions in the guidance in a DB approved document b we could see that you haven't done that can I ask why not because the building is existing
00:13:07 not because the building is existing really and so the the whole of the construction of the building predates any predates modern building regulation and as we've discussed earlier this
00:13:20 and as we've discussed earlier this morning where we have an existing building just because it doesn't follow the letter of current guidance doesn't doesn't make it unsafe and it's not a
00:13:33 doesn't make it unsafe and it's not a gap analysis between the two it's a
00:13:39 bringing together of all that information and a consideration of whether it is safe or not rather than trying to push something into guidance which is more modern than the building
00:13:50 which is more modern than the building itself okay I think that's an answer to a different question that we just try to get it a different way if I can mr. Cooney you frequently refer in your in this report and we'll see them into your course references to current regulatory
00:14:03 course references to current regulatory standards but you don't identify what they are and the question is why don't you do that why don't you say building regulations and set out the provision
00:14:13 they were the current legislative standards am it could have been clearer I suppose but I didn't I didn't added I didn't put it in because they they were
00:14:25 didn't put it in because they they were the prevailing standards of the day I suppose what expertise experience or knowledge were you assuming on the part of your reader when referring to current
00:14:37 of your reader when referring to current regulatory standards as it was a document to inform the design team and and essentially our London office a
00:14:53 and essentially our London office a reasonable level of knowledge
00:15:02 now in the sections which follow this introduction you can you see halfway down the page you give a brief description of the building and you start with level 1 ground and you then
00:15:15 start with level 1 ground and you then go up level 2 Metzen level 3 walkway deck just want to pick up a couple of those you in level 2 Metzen team to see you say in the third sentence all
00:15:27 you say in the third sentence all accommodation on the ground and mezzanine levels are assumed to be under the same management you see that yes and then you say under the next level level 3 walkway deck in the fourth line you
00:15:40 3 walkway deck in the fourth line you say this is assumed to be separated from the firefighting lobby with to our construction and one our fire doors I take those together mr. Cooney for the sake of speed but on what basis did you make those assumptions do you think the
00:15:55 make those assumptions do you think the fact that it was a building room by allowing a large organization and having a very substantial residential element to it so whether or not the the
00:16:12 accommodation at the lower levels was within the same management organization that is of the of the residential areas
00:16:25 that is of the of the residential areas or not it would have to meet this higher standard so we would apply the higher the highest standard of fire safety to
00:16:37 the highest standard of fire safety to it well maybe just so I understand your evidence are you saying that you assumed taking the second of those passages I've shown you that the external stair would be separated from the firefighting lobby
00:16:49 be separated from the firefighting lobby with to our construction and one our fire doors because the TMA was a large organization and the building had a substantial residential element to it is
00:17:00 substantial residential element to it is that what you're saying as the basis of the assumption and no what is the basis of that assumption if I could just read this please do
00:17:26 and I'm not quite sure why you're drawing the two items together is that something that could well ask for clarification on please well I'm just asking the base that what was the
00:17:37 asking the base that what was the factual basis or informational basis on which you made the assumption that you've separately set out there and because the building was over a certain
00:17:48 because the building was over a certain height that would require that level of fire resistance both and modern-day guidance contemporary guidance as far as
00:18:01 guidance contemporary guidance as far as I was aware and the London act so you would assume a building of that long-standing nature would have that level of fire resistance now the weather that was under the same management or
00:18:13 that was under the same management or not you would expect the building to have been built in a robust manner so the answer to the question that you you assumed that the building was compliant without further investigation in that in
00:18:26 without further investigation in that in that respect again I don't think he's a nun it's a reasonable assumption for
00:18:38 nun it's a reasonable assumption for such a robust constructional method to provide that level of Verve fire resistance mr. Cooney I'm sorry to be
00:18:50 resistance mr. Cooney I'm sorry to be difficult it may or may not be a reasonable assumption that's not a matter if I'm asking you about and it's not with a great respect no matter for you to tell us about what I'm after is what happened at the time I didn't ask the question once more did in fact at
00:19:01 the question once more did in fact at the time you assume that the building was compliant in this respect without further investigation in respect of its elements of structure yes I would given this construction now can I ask you to
00:19:14 this construction now can I ask you to look at page seven keys you set out three purpose groups there'd you see yes residential assembly and offices and I
00:19:25 residential assembly and offices and I think you provide any information there about the characteristics of the occupants under any of those purpose groups do you could you clarify with me about characteristic yes so okay so for
00:19:36 about characteristic yes so okay so for it for residential we don't see any information there either given or requested or identified as missing about the characteristics of individual occupants of the residential
00:19:48 individual occupants of the residential premises it is inherent in the purpose group so approved document b breaks buildings down into different purpose groups and applies different levels of
00:20:00 groups and applies different levels of various fire safety matters to each purpose group for example an office building would be generally assumed to
00:20:11 building would be generally assumed to have awake and familiar occupants in it that is inherent in the purpose group whereas residential 1a would be flats where you would expect people to possibly be asleep and and be familiar
00:20:24 possibly be asleep and and be familiar with the building so they are inherent in in those purpose groups when you did this report did you consider specific issues relating to the management of the
00:20:35 issues relating to the management of the fire safety for people who might need assistance in the event that they had to escape from a fire I recall not having
00:20:46 escape from a fire I recall not having really had sufficient information for the lower floors but for a residential building with the stay-put policy the
00:20:57 building with the stay-put policy the place of refuge or the the manner of of evacuation for for all people is to remain in the flat where to be given you
00:21:11 remain in the flat where to be given you know the the design scenario of our flats generally where there would be in a place of safety or defined period of time right okay we'll come come back to
00:21:22 time right okay we'll come come back to stay put shortly and can we start there with requirement b1 meanings of means of warning and escape this is dealt with on page 8 and following that paragraph three point two you see and you set out
00:21:35 three point two you see and you set out there whether there are adequate facilities for the early warning of fire yes would it be fair to say that in this section you have said that a lot of information is unknown and you've made a
00:21:46 information is unknown and you've made a number of assumptions just generally and there are a number of assumptions yes let's look at some of them for example levels 1 & 2 in paragraph 3 point 2
00:21:57 levels 1 & 2 in paragraph 3 point 2 point 1 you see there you say that it's unknown whether the community areas and nursery are covered by an automatic fire detection system AFD or a manual system triggered by manual call points you see
00:22:08 triggered by manual call points you see that yes is that not something that you could have found out yes and it's information that will probably have informed a further draft but the fire
00:22:26 informed a further draft but the fire risk assessment didn't cover those areas so at that point we didn't have enough information to to say yes it's one thing or another it's is therefore written in
00:22:39 or another it's is therefore written in that manner that there are areas where there wasn't sufficient information and you know we would have expected some some feedback from that right let's just
00:22:52 some feedback from that right let's just look a little further down then perhaps we could take this quickly three point two point three at level four it is unknown whether the office stroke doctors levels are covered by AF D again this may not have been required see that
00:23:03 this may not have been required see that again that's something that you could have found out isn't it and we could have found out yes but the again the point of which this draft was what was prepared and it is only a draft so there
00:23:17 prepared and it is only a draft so there are going to be areas which which require further clarification that that's we didn't have that information at the time so it's it's not unusual to
00:23:30 at the time so it's it's not unusual to have that as a holding statement if you will until we have further information I see just just hearing this further three point two point four individual apartments all apartments are on on the residential floors contain an entrance
00:23:42 residential floors contain an entrance hallway it is assumed you say the apartments include smoke detection to at least the protected entrance hall but it is unknown whether this is a mains operated AF D again that's something
00:23:53 operated AF D again that's something that you could have found out isn't it the the risk assessment as a remember wasn't particularly clear on this whether it was it seemed to be a little bit of a a had
00:24:07 it seemed to be a little bit of a a had hock provision and the report does later say to upgrade it if it's not to a current standard so it with with matters
00:24:19 current standard so it with with matters such as this where it is a key element of of the design it's it is brought up later in their poll these are all matters that you could have found out for yourself either by a
00:24:30 have found out for yourself either by a site visit or by asking mr. Sains all the TMA before you signed off on this draft and sent it to some of the information some of the information we could have done but that there was a
00:24:42 could have done but that there was a deadline for the first draft to go out so that's probably why that information wasn't there at that time right and you haven't identified any of these as matters for the client to verify and
00:24:53 matters for the client to verify and bottom out so that they could then come back to you for the next draft why is that I don't agree with that there are several recommendations within the report that they actually do check
00:25:05 report that they actually do check various matters and if they don't comply to to either upgrade or you know we need more information to see what what the state of play is with that so I'm talking about these ones these three you
00:25:17 talking about these ones these three you just leave it on the basis that it's unknown you don't say it's in these matters need to be verified before a final report is signed off and sent out no I didn't put it in those terms but in
00:25:30 no I didn't put it in those terms but in order for this document to move on that they are elements which we would require further information on I said that is detail this may we Mabel to cut things short then because having longer of questions about assumptions but I might
00:25:42 questions about assumptions but I might take it from that answer based on the three examples I've shown you on on this page that where we see it is unknown or it is assumed those were in your language placeholders to be verified by
00:25:54 language placeholders to be verified by the client so that the final version would have the accurate and up-to-date information in it generally generally yes but I can only
00:26:06 give information on I can only make assumptions if I don't have sufficient information to work from and what stage would that verification and the second
00:26:17 would that verification and the second draft which would identify these matters occur usually typically normally whichever way you want feedback from the
00:26:30 whichever way you want feedback from the from the design team would would advise various matters where where there is some uncertainty within a report and
00:26:41 some uncertainty within a report and then that would be incorporated in the report and we would move on to the next iteration until everybody was happy with it so can we assume that that's the case
00:26:53 it so can we assume that that's the case and possibly yeah without going through them all one by one so when you sent this report on the 15th of August to dr. Barker why didn't you say to her
00:27:05 Barker why didn't you say to her something like you'll see that this report contains a huge number of unknowns and assumptions that I've had to make we need to sort better sort these out with the client before we finalized the report it's not I don't
00:27:19 finalized the report it's not I don't know whether we discussed that afterwards or we didn't look like it like I said before I said Jason to Claire so we did do a lot of
00:27:30 Claire so we did do a lot of communicating just verbally between us so I wouldn't necessarily put that in writing with that that verification process with the client and further draft happen before or after she signed
00:27:42 draft happen before or after she signed off on your draft typically after because it's a draft one so that that iteration would go out to the to answer the client for their comment and and and
00:27:53 the client for their comment and and and feedback we would assess that and discuss it and and we move on to the next the next draft it's not it's not unusual for for there to be several
00:28:04 unusual for for there to be several drafts before the document is issued right can I just ask you to look at something it's something called pas 9/11 of 2007 fire strategies guidance and framework for their formulation have you
00:28:16 framework for their formulation have you heard of something like that I don't not familiar with that - sure - at BSI zero zero zero zero zero six six
00:28:28 at BSI zero zero zero zero zero six six yes that's it I think it's six zeros actually um this is the first page of it and it is it is not the British Standard it's a pas you know you know the
00:28:40 it's a pas you know you know the difference between exactly thank you and it's from its promulgated by the BSI and people called King fell can I ask you to go to the bottom of page two please you'll see there that it's been
00:28:52 you'll see there that it's been published in August 2007 you see is this a document that you oh and others that xover would have used at the time no
00:29:03 xover would have used at the time no it's not now okay and if I could just ask you just one or two questions on it then
00:29:10 then page 31 please which is actually page 37 of the digital age 31 internally paragraph seven point one point three which sets out fire strategies for existing buildings do you see and it
00:29:23 existing buildings do you see and it says for existing buildings all the fire strategy inputs given in Figure one to worry about will be applicable to a greater or lesser extent well no other guidance exists the flowchart given in Figure 7 could be followed and this covers the following
00:29:35 followed and this covers the following and then it sets out a list of things including D site activities you see that for existing buildings this will incorporate audits and surveys of the building occupants services systems etc
00:29:46 building occupants services systems etc I know you didn't may not have seen didn't use this guidance at the time with an x over but would that set out a general principle to what you would have here when producing an existing fire
00:29:58 here when producing an existing fire safety strategy report and in as far as it is applicable to the scope that we're doing yes right and looking at seven point one point three number letter e first review bottom of the page
00:30:11 first review bottom of the page collation and review of information received with relevant stakeholders where the information is found insufficient or ambiguous further investigations may be required this may include for instance the requirement for system health checks
00:30:22 requirement for system health checks this would involve one or more meetings of stakeholders now again I prefaced the question by recognising that you may not have used this precise policy at the time within Xavier but would that represent a
00:30:33 Xavier but would that represent a general principle when going about producing an existing fire safety strategy such as the one you did for Granville tower yes
00:30:50 Granville tower yes - as a general principle as a general principle yes yep okay now then going on to the report you can put that away go back to the report
00:31:01 can put that away go back to the report please TMO one zero zero zero one nine two five page 8 subsection three point two point one levels one and two you say there it is unknown whether the community areas and nursery are covered
00:31:12 community areas and nursery are covered by an AF D looked at that a moment ago now it's right isn't it that at the time you sent this in draft form to dr. Barker the TMO had provided you with the f ra from carl states we saw that
00:31:24 f ra from carl states we saw that earlier today yes and let's look at that it's a TM oh one zero zero three seven seven four three please and I'd like to take you to page 12
00:31:38 now if you go to page 12 you'll see that we get to it there's a box which refers
00:31:52 we get to it there's a box which refers to a FD in the staff kitchen you see that
00:32:06 sorry actually it's the top box and top box and second paragraph there is suitable automatic fire detection in this area to give early warning to a fire situation there is no extraction system in the cooking area
00:32:17 extraction system in the cooking area you see that when you write your report where you say it's unknown whether the community areas or nursery are covered by an AF D had you not read this page of
00:32:30 by an AF D had you not read this page of the f ra which refers to an AF D in the staff kitchen I will have done so can you account for why the report doesn't identify that or why you say it's
00:32:43 identify that or why you say it's unknown whether the community areas and nursery are covered by an aft oh it only relates to a certain area I don't know how extensive the the automatic fire detection is what
00:32:57 automatic fire detection is what standard it's at so rather than I mean it's a partial piece of information so yeah yes I mean again is this isn't this
00:33:09 yeah yes I mean again is this isn't this something that you could have once the question has arisen this is found out for yourself either by picking up the phone to the TMI or mr. Sainz or sending an email or or coming down for a site visit collating all these unknowns and
00:33:20 visit collating all these unknowns and assumptions and coming down for a site visit absolutely we you know we can we can ask for all of that information I think at the time and again I keep
00:33:32 think at the time and again I keep coming back to this point it was it was a draft one report so that the the report in and of itself was you know as it stood at that particular time and as
00:33:44 it stood at that particular time and as I said that there will be bits areas which which can be further added to and made clearer and assumptions can can be
00:33:56 made clearer and assumptions can can be confirmed but at that time I must have felt that there wasn't sufficient information to say that it was you know to know what that detection system much
00:34:07 to know what that detection system much they meant did you ask James Lee when you had access to him if he had noted on his site visit whether automatic fire alarm and detection was provided and I do remember speaking
00:34:18 remember speaking about detection in the common areas of the of the residential areas the thes detection in there I don't know whether he he went into the to the other areas
00:34:32 he he went into the to the other areas whether they were available to him at the time that we we attended right okay I mean going back to the question before last and the and the answer you gave it only being a draft I can understand that
00:34:44 only being a draft I can understand that it's only a draft but my question is did it need to be so draft in circumstances where you could have picked up a phone to the TMA or to mr. stones or done a site visit we did there's always extra
00:34:58 site visit we did there's always extra information which you can which you can glean from from this kind of point forward I suppose the the question here was that we had a deadline that studio
00:35:12 was that we had a deadline that studio he wanted some form of a document for so we we did a draft one and that's that's specifically why it is you know a lot of
00:35:23 specifically why it is you know a lot of assumptions yes I see yes thank you getting back to your report under three point two point five common areas page eight you
00:35:42 yes thank you you can see down to three point two point five common areas you say an audible fire alarm is not required two common areas of residential buildings and then you go on to say in
00:35:57 buildings and then you go on to say in the second paragraph evacuation of flats beyond the dwelling of fire origin would be carried out under the control of the attending fire service if necessary what guidance were you applying when you made that statement it's not it's not
00:36:13 that statement it's not it's not specifically guidance what would you call it that when you have a stay put policy in a building it is not typical
00:36:25 policy in a building it is not typical to have an all that evacuation that's that that's the way that these buildings are designed and have been designed for many many years so in order to evacuate
00:36:39 many many years so in order to evacuate the building it is typically the fire service or management if they have a presence on site that would initiate a full evacuation were you aware at the
00:36:53 full evacuation were you aware at the time you rate this that the statutory guidance approved document be required that the building design should be such that there is no reliance on the fire service that's what it says in approved
00:37:04 service that's what it says in approved document b and i'm aware of that but however if there is the need for an evacuation then that is typically undertaken by the fire surface advice
00:37:26 so on what basis then did you make the statement that evacuation of the flats beyond the flat of origin would be carried out under the control of the fire service what whilst it is a the design of the
00:37:44 what whilst it is a the design of the building doesn't rely on the fire service if there is one then that is that that is the way that buildings are evacuated on the advice of the fire service or if the management see fit did
00:37:56 service or if the management see fit did you give any thought to have a building as he stood at the time might support evacuation of the occupants from flats beyond the dwelling of fire origin yes
00:38:09 beyond the dwelling of fire origin yes yes of course that that is part of the fire safety design of residential buildings particularly where it would
00:38:22 buildings particularly where it would have excessive height the the the core of the building has a specified fire resistance dependent on height it has the the smoke control which should
00:38:34 the the smoke control which should maintain the 10 ability for that fire scenario and therefore people who aren't directly on the floor fire origin should
00:38:45 directly on the floor fire origin should should be able to make a evacuation of the building right three we've come back to that let me look at stay put but coming back up the page to three point
00:38:56 coming back up the page to three point two point three we looked at the question of whether the office all doctors levels are covered by F D you say it's unknown and you've explained
00:39:07 say it's unknown and you've explained why you didn't seek to find out were you aware of the TM OHS statutory obligation under article 8 of the our our own so and I don't know the the rro articles
00:39:22 and I don't know the the rro articles off by heart which which amp which article are you referring to article 8 to take well I'll just give you a little bit of it to take such general fire precautions as will ensure so far as
00:39:33 precautions as will ensure so far as reasonably practicable the safety of any of the
00:39:36 of the building owners employees the responsible persons employees you were aware of that right were you aware of the TM OHS duty under article 13 where necessary just safeguard the safety of
00:39:50 necessary just safeguard the safety of relevant persons the responsible person must ensure that the premises were to the extent appropriate equipped with appropriate firefighting equipment and with fire detectors and alarms you knew
00:40:01 with fire detectors and alarms you knew about that yes so having said it's unknown whether those areas are covered by a FD did you think about how the TMO were going to fulfill their duties as a responsible person under the RR Oh without providing
00:40:13 person under the RR Oh without providing them with some specific guidance on those matters I suppose without further information it's not something I could have had a
00:40:24 it's not something I could have had a firm opinion on the again the the general fire precautions that are applied to a building under the RR o
00:40:35 applied to a building under the RR o bespoke and and you know depending on the building itself so whilst it may say [Music]
00:40:43 [Music] automatic fire detection the extent of that varies between buildings so some buildings may need nothing other than a manual call point system which is you
00:40:56 manual call point system which is you know the break lesson and a sounder then others might need more detection so when looking at the rro it's it's really a
00:41:07 looking at the rro it's it's really a matter of applying it to to a specific set of circumstances so as we didn't know I haven't specified a category or anything along those lines
00:41:18 a category or anything along those lines I'm looking at three point three point one please on page nine moving on means of escape evacuation principles you say they're you to your
00:41:31 principles you say they're you to your knowledge was there any evacuation strategy that was already in place as far as I would be aware and guarded I suppose by the the fire
00:41:43 and guarded I suppose by the the fire risk assessment again and general escape principles for that type of purpose group within the building you would you would use a simultaneous evacuation
00:41:55 would use a simultaneous evacuation approach did you and how did you envisage or simultaneous evacuation approach would be managed and that falls on the duty falls on the responsible persons for those areas whether they're
00:42:08 tenant a door or a an ad hoc use of space it would fold it down to the people who are responsible for for the people that are in that area indeed and
00:42:19 people that are in that area indeed and would not was it not your thinking at the time that the responsible person would want to be able to use your report in order to inform what evacuation strategy they should adopt yes in
00:42:32 strategy they should adopt yes in conjunction with the with the fire risk assessment I think that there's quite a blurry line here between the two document types and purposes so yes having that suite of documents
00:42:46 so yes having that suite of documents that the the general escape strategy would put up eyes it Heisey the
00:42:58 would put up eyes it Heisey the principle proscape your strategy doesn't contain any information or guidance or advice as to how a simultaneous evacuation strategy would be managed does it no it doesn't but we wouldn't
00:43:13 does it no it doesn't but we wouldn't extend the actual management provisions within a design document it's again it
00:43:24 within a design document it's again it it's that suite of documents it's the the strategy the fire risk assessment and the management [Music]
00:43:34 [Music] documentation with held by the responsible persons that would bring together all these parts to to be able to to run our safe building yeah you you
00:43:46 to to run our safe building yeah you you call it a design document and I know from your evidence this morning that there was an expression you you used could just explain to me what you mean exactly when you say design document so
00:44:02 exactly when you say design document so when when buildings are being constructed to ensure fire safety whether it be a change of change of any
00:44:15 whether it be a change of change of any kind of an alteration to a building or a new building whatever it may be there there are design parameters which we use a DB for principally to ensure an
00:44:28 a DB for principally to ensure an adequate level of safety so those those matters which are refer to under B 1 to B 5 of a DB are design parameters they're not management parameters they're parameters which if what one's
00:44:43 they're parameters which if what one's who wants have all come together as a as a design should be able to be managed effectively but it doesn't go as far as to say what those management parameters ought to be as long as it is reasonable
00:44:54 ought to be as long as it is reasonable to be able to manage that building for that lease for the design so that's where the other documents come in yes I
00:45:05 where the other documents come in yes I mean is what you're saying actually the existing fire safety strategy for this building would be based on an up-to-date fire risk assessment and informed by it
00:45:18 fire risk assessment and informed by it so that your client could have in its hands a single document read either with the up-to-date fire risk assessment or if one wasn't available some pointers
00:45:30 if one wasn't available some pointers from you so as to know exactly whether or not the building was compliant in what respects it wasn't and what you should do about it as a suite of documents that's
00:45:41 as a suite of documents that's essentially with the with the existing management strategies and provisions that the the organization holds those
00:45:52 that the the organization holds those all come together to do that all right okay let's move on looking at three point three point two and you discuss occupancy of the boxing club page nine
00:46:03 occupancy of the boxing club page nine three point three point two do you see the second paragraph and you see there in the second paragraph there you talked about the square footage or meter age of the of the boxing club and how it's
00:46:17 the of the boxing club and how it's served and then travel distances to the exit and you say an additional exit would be required for an occupancy exceeding 60 people the use of this room is therefore limited by the omission of
00:46:28 is therefore limited by the omission of an alternative escape route now that's what you say for the boxing club you don't mention any other calculations of occupancy for any other non-residential
00:46:39 occupancy for any other non-residential parts of the building do you I don't think I do no why is that that's that's a question which is kind of a little bit fuzzy in my mind to be honest I do
00:46:51 fuzzy in my mind to be honest I do remember there being some discussion about areas not being in use at that time and there wasn't on plan though
00:47:05 time and there wasn't on plan though that there weren't large areas so when you I think the reason I picked out the boxing club at this point is because it was quite a large floor area and
00:47:16 was quite a large floor area and therefore the the ability to have a number of people in there well it was greater than any of the other areas in the building so I think that's that's
00:47:28 the building so I think that's that's probably why I've pulled out the boxing club buzzer okay three point three point three just a bit lower down page nine in
00:47:39 three just a bit lower down page nine in the first paragraph there you identify I think contradictory information in respect to the lifts landing doors as between the
00:47:51 between the original construction drawings and the existing drawings that were provided I'm summarizing there but that's right if I may read the paragraph yes but don't we
00:48:02 may read the paragraph yes but don't we take it more simply second second first paragraph under three point three point three second sentence there's no access to the stairwell lifts in the central core shown on the original construction drawings however lift landing doors
00:48:14 drawings however lift landing doors appear to be shown on the existing drawings provide it see that did you attempt to verify which drawings were correct
00:48:34 I don't know I don't know I'd have to look into that in a bit more detail to actually look at the drawings that I had
00:48:45 actually look at the drawings that I had well let me ask you this way do you remember trying to get to the bottom with somebody of which drawings were correct
00:48:51 correct I don't recall to be honest that there was a good let me just pursue that a
00:49:05 was a good let me just pursue that a little bit did is that something that you asked James Lee about do you think
00:49:21 and I can't I can't remember I can't remember no is there any reason why you didn't or couldn't have asked Studio E or insisted on going down for a site
00:49:34 or insisted on going down for a site visit in order to sort that out and resolve the contradiction
00:49:52 and whilst Wasser is a contradiction there the lift landing doors being shown in the lobby wouldn't have been a
00:50:05 in the lobby wouldn't have been a non-compliance for want of a better term [Music]
00:50:09 [Music] either he either lifts London doors
00:50:20 either he either lifts London doors being shown it wouldn't have been a concern it would still have been satisfactory and for them to open into the into the lobby it would have been
00:50:32 the into the lobby it would have been good to know the answer to the question they wouldn't it before signing off on this it would have clarified that that sentence yes but I don't think it have any material difference to the design of
00:50:43 any material difference to the design of the building all right I think it's right that nowhere here in this part of the report or in general do you make any reference to or provide any
00:50:54 you make any reference to or provide any discussion of the fabric making up the compartment walls and the I I seem to
00:51:06 compartment walls and the I I seem to recall that there are there are references to the fabric of the internal walls being masonry how we go but you don't do it here it would this not be an
00:51:19 don't do it here it would this not be an appropriate place to identify it
00:51:28 it's part of the of the many layers of fire safety within a building so it could it fits well in lots of different places to be to be honest but erm
00:51:44 alright it's you sorry yeah I'm sure that information is in the in the document somewhere
00:51:55 I think it's right though that you made no recommendation anywhere in this report for and in an invasive test or investigation sorry I do I do make
00:52:08 investigation sorry I do I do make references to various items being checked yes but so in that respect yes I made quite a few recommendations on on
00:52:19 made quite a few recommendations on on the construction of the building looking at the first sentence of the second paragraph you say if the accommodation communicates with the firefighting shaft or lifts then the core in this area should be protected to two hours fire
00:52:30 should be protected to two hours fire resistance and one hour fire doors but just on that you weren't able to say whether those walls satisfy the
00:52:41 whether those walls satisfy the requirements for fire resistance unless you knew what they build up was and no we didn't but I had the information of the original drawings the information
00:52:55 the original drawings the information from just looking at the photographs themselves the thickness of the walls and the general appearance of the walls do look masonry but again I'm I'm
00:53:08 do look masonry but again I'm I'm certain that that's recommendation is also within within the report to check the fire resistance around the cause are you familiar or were you familiar that at the time the diagram 52 of ADB okay
00:53:23 at the time the diagram 52 of ADB okay it's CLG zero zero zero zero zero one seven three please at page one one six
00:53:31 and here it is it's got a and B and I'd like to look at a but I don't think you mentioned diagram 52 anywhere in your
00:53:43 mentioned diagram 52 anywhere in your existing fire safety strategy do you yeah diagram 52 a just looking at it makes it clear does it make it clear that a minimum of 125 I'm sorry 120
00:53:57 that a minimum of 125 I'm sorry 120 minutes of fire resistance should be provided to a lobby separating non-residential areas from a fire fighting shaft from that that design yes
00:54:08 fighting shaft from that that design yes yes that being so if you could go back to section 333 of your report we were just looking at a moment ago page 9 uh-huh just get back to that and we may
00:54:20 uh-huh just get back to that and we may need to have these in parallel but just go back to that for the moment that being so in diagram 52 why do you say in 3 3 3 of your report as there is a
00:54:31 3 3 3 of your report as there is a single escape route from the building at this level the exit should be Lobby to provide them in a minimum of 30 minutes fire resistant construction and there should be no combustible materials contained within the entrance lobby I'm
00:54:43 contained within the entrance lobby I'm interested in 30 minutes why did you say that the the the exit refers to the door rather than so if going back to diagram
00:54:57 rather than so if going back to diagram 52 the diagram on the right where we have a firefighting shaft within a residential yes occupancy the door between the between the lobby and the
00:55:13 between the between the lobby and the fire fighting shaft you just go back sorry I appreciate you're trying to answer I'd like to go back to the diagram 52 so that everybody can see what you're referring to I just have the
00:55:25 what you're referring to I just have the whole thing up on the screen yes say sorry you wanted you want to get back and repeat the answer okay so going back to what you were saying before if you look at the left hand draw right here well you have the firefighting shaft and
00:55:37 well you have the firefighting shaft and the
00:55:38 the the 60-minute doors 60 minutes fire resistance within the shaft itself and the 30-minute doors within the so the door that is in the hatch line would be an hour and the door that some of the
00:55:51 an hour and the door that some of the internal line would be half an hour though it's a one-hour walk no I see but if you've got accommodations looking at
00:56:02 if you've got accommodations looking at a any building yes and looking at firefighting lobby you can see the doors on the left hand side those walls should be 120 minutes resistance and 60 minutes
00:56:13 be 120 minutes resistance and 60 minutes from the accommodation yes yes so if accommodation is on is behind the doors leading into the firefighting Lobby on diagram 52 a those shouldn't least 30
00:56:25 diagram 52 a those shouldn't least 30 minutes should they should be 64 that door yes fits into the stair would be good 30 and into the stair would be 30 I can see that
00:56:37 can see that so the question again uses a single escape proof of the building at this level the exit should be lobbied to provide a minimum of 30 minutes fire
00:56:48 provide a minimum of 30 minutes fire resistant construction we could I look at what the reports musical three point three point three page nine please okay
00:57:00 three point three page nine please okay so we're looking here at level four which is the office accommodation yes yes you say in the second sentence as there is a single escape route from the building at this level the exit should be lobbied to provide a minimum of 30
00:57:12 be lobbied to provide a minimum of 30 minutes fire resistant construction and I'm really putting to you that shouldn't be thirty should be 16 should be 60 that's quite correct yes
00:57:23 now 3.3.4 so just before I leave that are you accepting that that's an error and 3.3.4 page 10 you discover they
00:57:41 and 3.3.4 page 10 you discover they discuss the evacuation principles for the residential accommodation and look with me please at the third bullet point do you say due to an assumed a high degree of compartment ation and
00:57:52 degree of compartment ation and therefore a low probability of fire spread beyond the dwelling of fire origin simultaneous evacuation of the building is unlikely to be considered necessary see that yes I want to look at
00:58:03 necessary see that yes I want to look at with you at the words and assumed a high degree of compartment ation and therefore a low probability of fire spread what information did you rely upon to assume a high degree of compartment ation and the inherent fire
00:58:19 compartment ation and the inherent fire resistance within such a robust structure would give you a high degree of compartment ation the there were no
00:58:31 of compartment ation the there were no [Music]
00:58:32 [Music] for want of a better term red flags within the fire risk assessment that showed that compartment ation wasn't as you would expect it to be and
00:58:44 essentially the design of the building being - at its time of construction was was higher than it would need to be for current regulation so again it is a an
00:59:02 current regulation so again it is a an assumed high degree but it it's it's a reasonable to make yeah I mean you started off that answer by saying the inherent fire resistant within such a robust structure I understand what that
00:59:13 robust structure I understand what that that might mean but my question really is what investigation did you perform to satisfy yourself that it was that there was an inherent fire resistance within
00:59:24 was an inherent fire resistance within such a robust structure like I said we didn't undertake invasive surveys to find out what we did recommend within the
00:59:33 the or that was checked so to be perhaps colloquially looked at it it was a big nineteen seventies concrete building and you assumed that it was reversed with
00:59:44 you assumed that it was reversed with with the advice to check it yeah it's it's I mean it's worthy advice to check it so first of all did you
00:59:55 it so first of all did you cross-reference those assumptions of that assumption with Carl Stokes his risk assessment I obviously we looked at the fire risk assessment and because the
01:00:08 the fire risk assessment and because the construction and the compartment ation in the building didn't give us any cause for concern a paragraph six point five of your witness statement has just have that of if we can please that's EXO zero
01:00:22 that of if we can please that's EXO zero zero zero zero one five nine zero and I'd like to go six point five the end at the end of it you say in the second sentence a compartment ation survey as a
01:00:34 sentence a compartment ation survey as a separate piece of work which we were not instructed to carry out at the time compartment ation servers we're not were common wouldn't sorry we're not commonly undertaken though in my experience they have become more common since the fire
01:00:45 have become more common since the fire at groennfell tower the fact that a compartment ation survey hadn't been carried out would that not be all the more important a reason for you to carry
01:00:58 more important a reason for you to carry out some kind of risk assessment even if even if just examining the thickness of the walls making up the compartment
01:01:08 I think that was a matter which obviously we've caveated and which is for the fire risk Assessor to to ensure
01:01:20 for the fire risk Assessor to to ensure is maintained the building as it stood was as you say a very robust 1970s concrete tower and there is a great
01:01:32 concrete tower and there is a great degree of fire protection in that type of construction so whilst yes we we say make sure and check it's not
01:01:43 make sure and check it's not unreasonable to assume that that's that's the nature of that construction is going to give you what you what you've acquired I don't think I think I'm ready to say that nowhere in your strategy do you advise the reader to
01:01:55 strategy do you advise the reader to verify the assumption or the basis of the assumption that the building contained a high degree of compartment ation we didn't ask for it to be verified no but again it's a it goes
01:02:09 verified no but again it's a it goes back to that iterative process of drugs it's the with hindsight yes I could have made a list of I wanted various things
01:02:22 made a list of I wanted various things but at the time we went off the information that we had available to us were you aware at the time that the regulatory requirement for the elements
01:02:33 regulatory requirement for the elements of structure comprising compartments in a building such as this was a minimum of 120 minutes of fire resistance yes yes and that's but that's not something that you put in your strategy and why is that
01:02:47 I'm not sure I would have to take your word for it term I I was aware of that and I am NOT concerned with with that not being achieved I think with with you
01:03:04 not being achieved I think with with you know events that that happened that that's not an unreasonable assumption to made in hindsight but I would have to again look at the at the strategy see
01:03:15 again look at the at the strategy see what I actually wrote about 120 me requirement okay let's move on through back to your report please can I get back to page
01:03:26 report please can I get back to page nine look at the seller second bullet point under paragraph three point three point four I'm so sorry page ten 3.3.4
01:03:37 point four I'm so sorry page ten 3.3.4 evacuation principles residential you see that and you say they're in the second bullet point there is no reliance on rescue for evacuation other than via
01:03:50 on rescue for evacuation other than via the main core you see that yes what do you mean by that that the that this did the stair in the building was
01:04:02 this did the stair in the building was the only means escape so that was that was the only route vertically through the building so right how does that
01:04:13 the building so right how does that statement there relate to your earlier statement at paragraph three point two point five on page eight that evacuation of flats beyond the dwelling of far origin would be carried out under the control of the attending fire service if
01:04:24 control of the attending fire service if necessary how do those two relate to each other well the the principle of the state policies that people not on the not within the flatter fire origin
01:04:36 not within the flatter fire origin should be able to remain within their apartment for a defined period so it relates to the fact that because of the
01:04:47 relates to the fact that because of the ventilation provisions within the common area other people should they feel they need to leave in that unless in that escape time would be able to use the staff did you ever ask yourself to stand
01:05:01 staff did you ever ask yourself to stand back and ask yourself or how if evacuation of flats beyond the dwelling of origin were to be carried out by the attending Fire and Rescue Service they would get everybody out down the down
01:05:12 would get everybody out down the down the single staircase comprising the central core I didn't stand back from it from a point of view of a criticising the prevailing
01:05:25 of view of a criticising the prevailing guidance at the time that's that that's for others to look at I suppose the the the guidance but that is that that is
01:05:37 the guidance but that is that that is the standard to which buildings are of this nature have been constructed since of in its present format since since the mid eighties so so so did I stand back
01:05:50 mid eighties so so so did I stand back and say is that suitable I would say then this this is the guidance which which dictates the design of these buildings so if it meets with that guidance then I would deem it to be
01:06:01 guidance then I would deem it to be suitable I wouldn't I wouldn't necessarily start to base my my recommendations on opinions which
01:06:13 recommendations on opinions which haven't been ratified by government right
01:06:20 did it occur to you to think about the situation where if evacuation of the flats beyond the dwelling of origin had
01:06:31 flats beyond the dwelling of origin had to be carried out by the attending LFP and they had to use the central staircase that other fire mitigation and
01:06:46 staircase that other fire mitigation and protection measures would be needed in order to assist that evacuation not beyond the the guidance which is in
01:06:57 beyond the the guidance which is in place to to design those buildings right going back to the third bullet point on page 10 where we were you we've looked
01:07:12 page 10 where we were you we've looked at this before due to an assumed high degree of compartment ation etc you say simultaneous evacuation of the building is unlikely to be considered necessary whether any conditions or situations in
01:07:23 whether any conditions or situations in which you contemplated the simultaneous evacuation might be necessary
01:07:34 not given the parameters of of fire safety design which is reliant on many many provisions kind of interlinking to
01:07:48 many provisions kind of interlinking to provide a satisfactory level of fire safety we don't rely on just a single point of failure it is it's a layered
01:08:00 point of failure it is it's a layered approach so with the robustness of the construction the ventilation the compartment ation principally the the
01:08:13 compartment ation principally the the likelihood of a full evacuation is it's very very small so simultaneous evacuation of the entire building has to
01:08:24 evacuation of the entire building has to has to be because there is a failure of one of those elements which is which is negating all the rest of them really looking at three point three point six
01:08:36 looking at three point three point six on the same page but a little bit lower down common areas in the third line you say the distance to the stairs from the flat entrance doors appears to be more than seven point five meters from the
01:08:47 than seven point five meters from the flats with the entrance doors to the north of the lift shaft the maximum of which is approximately eight point three meters scaled for micro fiche plans to be checked on site this excessive distance of less than one meter results
01:09:00 distance of less than one meter results in an increase in travel of less than one second and would be considered to be an acceptable to be acceptable under current standards and risk assessment okay now you say the distance have needed to be checked on site wants to be
01:09:12 needed to be checked on site wants to be checked on site what guidance were you referring to when you say that the travel distance exceeds 7.5 meters relating to modern day I prove document b through document b was it right right
01:09:25 b through document b was it right right did you intend to check this yourself or ask that it be checked before this draft was finalized and sent to dr. Parker um no hen survived I've asked for it to be
01:09:36 no hen survived I've asked for it to be checked on site I believe it was slightly more than that yeah as it turns out but it was it was it was scaled as I say from quite grainy drawings indeed and therefore who was
01:09:48 drawings indeed and therefore who was going to check it on site um I suppose James could have checked it when he was on site I don't recall whether I asked him to do that or whether he did but it was it's clear that it's something that
01:10:00 was it's clear that it's something that needed to be checked so that we could put something more in the document but mrs. King I'm puzzled you say you suppose James could have checked it when
01:10:11 suppose James could have checked it when he was on site but this here says to be checked on site you're not suggesting that you would ask mr. mr. Lee to check it and not at that time No
01:10:28 now now you know this building as a building with a single stair and we know from parts of this report we're going to come to in a moment that the smoke control system is unsatisfactory from a
01:10:39 control system is unsatisfactory from a modern perspective you say that in the next section which we will come to in those circumstances how were you able to justify these excessive travel distances
01:10:51 principally because the the travel distances were not the excess in the travel distance was relatively small whilst we would design a ventilation
01:11:08 whilst we would design a ventilation system for for a certain extract rate or a certain natural pull and to today's standards we you know it would have had
01:11:19 standards we you know it would have had some effect and I think later on in that in the strategy I do say that the suitability of the existing system is is
01:11:30 suitability of the existing system is is dependent on how how the funds are working for a mechanical shaft at that time and for that to be checked but the the excess in travel distance under
01:11:43 the excess in travel distance under normal that design guidance it's not some reason above these cities not something that will cause great concern my question is really whether or not in
01:11:56 my question is really whether or not in saying that you could afford the excess travel distance because of the fact that the time increase in travel was less than a second whether you're whether in
01:12:09 than a second whether you're whether in saying that you were dependent on a fully functioning AOV smoke extract system it is part of the a part of the package of measures yes I mean when when
01:12:22 package of measures yes I mean when when when we have a design for a building we we assume that we're going to have some smoke that leaks into the into the common area as the occupants leave the flat on fire and that the ventilation
01:12:35 flat on fire and that the ventilation system will start to clear that within a reasonable amount of time the the the excessive travel distance is dependent on on that smoke ventilation
01:12:50 dependent on on that smoke ventilation system working and because we had limited information on how it all worked that's why the emphasis on the smoke
01:13:01 that's why the emphasis on the smoke ventilation checks and design was put in the in the strategy so well I feel it was it was brought out in the report quite strongly let's look at smoke
01:13:13 quite strongly let's look at smoke ventilation this is the next section section three point four just at the bottom of page 10 mr. chairman yes that's probably sensible well if you're
01:13:24 that's probably sensible well if you're getting into another's I'm I'm just moving on but yes it's an activity good idea yes yes Cooney we'll have a short break again please don't talk to anyone for evidence or anything doing it while
01:13:36 for evidence or anything doing it while you're out of the room and we'll come back at twenty five four three please
01:13:50 all right 25 calls please
01:14:38 right would you ask mrs. Gideon to come back please right dyskinesia ready carry
01:14:51 back please right dyskinesia ready carry on yes
01:14:51 on yes it's gonna I'm going to ask you one or two questions about the next section smoke ventilation can I ask you please to be shown page 11 of your report okay
01:15:06 to be shown page 11 of your report okay and the bottom there you in the penultimate paragraph say the existing system is unsatisfactory you see that yes from a modern perspective as the smoke extract shelf is significantly undersized to see that
01:15:19 is significantly undersized to see that yeah and then at the end you say as the ventilation provision is critical to the stay in place evacuation principle it is strongly recommended that the performance of the automatic system of mechanical ventilation as existing and
01:15:31 mechanical ventilation as existing and as proposed is assessed in order to ensure a status that a satisfactory level of safety is provided to the residents throughout the tower now satisfactory level of safety what
01:15:42 satisfactory level of safety what guidance were you relying on to determine what a satisfactory level of safety would be approved document b would be the benchmark document for for
01:15:57 would be the benchmark document for for satisfactory level of safety right so were you saying that the existing smoke control system in the building was not compliant with modern standards um I think I'm saying that we don't know
01:16:09 think I'm saying that we don't know enough about it to be able to say that it is and therefore we would assume it isn't right now your witness statement we can look at it if we need to you say you made a strong recommendation to the
01:16:21 you made a strong recommendation to the effect that you say that you didn't meet current standards and you said you said make a strong recommendation in that regard
01:16:34 in fact the recommendation was no more than the performance of the existing system be assessed
01:16:42 yes the upgrade of this is a big leap it says here the upgrade would not meet the aspiration of achieving current
01:16:53 aspiration of achieving current standards so that's why I made a strong recommendation for it to be looked at you're not recommending here that the smoke ventilation system be brought up to current standards are you
01:17:14 no I'm asking for it to achieve a satisfactory level of safety so as a benchmark again would go back to a proof document B which would be the current
01:17:25 document B which would be the current standard wouldn't you need to know whether it was compliant with current standards in order to be able to know whether what was proposed was a material alteration for the purposes of approved
01:17:36 alteration for the purposes of approved document b mm-hmm yes yes you you would need to know what it is and I think that's what we asked for we asked for it to be checked so
01:17:47 for we asked for it to be checked so that we could apply if you like the the parameters of a material alteration so that it's it is a satisfactory level of
01:17:59 that it's it is a satisfactory level of safety is achieved whether that is to modern standards is a matter for the M&E designers really but it's it's a a
01:18:12 designers really but it's it's a a requirement to bring it up so it's achieves a satisfactory level of safety I mean given the reliance on compartment ation on stay put the single staircase
01:18:23 ation on stay put the single staircase and the excessive travel distances across the lobbies it wasn't it absolutely essential to spell out to the client that they needed to have an
01:18:34 client that they needed to have an upgraded modern compliant AOV system because otherwise the lives of the residents would be at risk and I think we do spell out that it needs a thorough
01:18:46 we do spell out that it needs a thorough looking at I know we say it is critical to the state place stay in place evacuation principle I don't think it could be much clearer than a thorough
01:18:57 could be much clearer than a thorough looking at isn't the same as advice to change it out and replace it with something modern and compliant with modern current standards is it it may or may not be the case we're
01:19:10 it may or may not be the case we're looking at something which we haven't got a performance criteria on so as we don't know what its current state of affairs is that's why it needs needs to be looked at and then obviously if it if
01:19:24 be looked at and then obviously if it if it's not achieving a satisfied to a level of safety then it needs to be remediated when would this assessment take place would it take place prior to your draft becoming a final draft for
01:19:36 your draft becoming a final draft for the client or at some stage after the D final version had gone to the times it's it's part of the of the part of the raft of the recommendations in the document
01:19:48 of the recommendations in the document now obviously did that document whether it's this draft or the next draft or when it finally gets to a final issue the the onus is on the responsible persons to be able to carry out those
01:20:00 persons to be able to carry out those works to achieve that standard a little bit above that paragraph that sentence in this paragraph it's hard to read because the word draft is smeared all over it but if you can see it it says
01:20:11 over it but if you can see it it says this also casts into doubt do you see it's also constant to doubt the justification on the grounds of escape time the excessive travel distance has outlined in three point three point six above which we looked at just before the
01:20:23 above which we looked at just before the break miss Cooney say it's clear as a tip that the fire safety strategy in draft that you're putting forward is reliant very heavily on the smoke ventilation systems to maintain tenable
01:20:34 ventilation systems to maintain tenable conditions in the building four means of escape purposes it is it is a key component of the fire safety measures in the building yes why didn't you make that clear in paragraph three point
01:20:45 that clear in paragraph three point three point six itself which says that even which would which should say I suggest that even the excessive distance was acceptable under current standards you needed to take account of the unsatisfactory condition of the lobby
01:20:56 unsatisfactory condition of the lobby smoke control system I think that it is clear in that paragraph that it needs to be it needs to be assessed in and you
01:21:09 be it needs to be assessed in and you know make sure that it does meters satisfactory level of performance ed I don't think that it isn't clear or isn't
01:21:20 don't think that it isn't clear or isn't strongly enough worded can I ask you just to confirm with me you didn't address anywhere in your report stare
01:21:32 address anywhere in your report stare width did you um no nor doors on to escape routes doors on to escape routes the doors on to the skate boots was part of the core
01:21:44 to the skate boots was part of the core the the consideration of the core materials in the in the building so doors are whether it's the door a wall it needs to meet a certain level of
01:21:56 it needs to meet a certain level of resistance I don't think you did any investigation you or anybody else attics over into the performance of the existing flat doors stair doors or lift doors anywhere in the building no no
01:22:08 doors anywhere in the building no no that wouldn't be typical for what we were doing right did you any way I think to tell the TMO is the ultimate client
01:22:19 to tell the TMO is the ultimate client that they needed to undertake an investigation and to what standard we again it is one of the recommendations in the in the strategy in the draft to to check the decor the the fire
01:22:32 to check the decor the the fire resistance of the core and that relates also obviously to doors being part of the building fabric in the walls and floors etc I don't think you addressed anywhere in your report the lighting of
01:22:43 anywhere in your report the lighting of escape routes did you um I don't I don't recall it being in the report now no come on just take take you slightly into a siding on this one can I ask you that
01:22:55 a siding on this one can I ask you that please at CST 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 which is mr. Stokes his record of his significant
01:23:06 mr. Stokes his record of his significant findings as part of his 29th of December 2010 fire risk assessment and it's got 5 pages you see I think this is a document
01:23:17 pages you see I think this is a document you didn't read at the time as you've confirmed it I've never seen this document no yeah can I ask you to go to page 5 please and look at item 23 e on that page you can see here that mr.
01:23:29 that page you can see here that mr. Stokes has given this high priority hence the red color in the column and he'd identifies the risk under 23 e it
01:23:40 he'd identifies the risk under 23 e it is not known if the monthly occupiers checks are being carried out on the buildings emergency lighting system final exit doors etc as per the caretakers checklist then you see the actions to be taken
01:23:51 actions to be taken it should be confirmed with the caretakers if they're carrying out all the monthly occupiers inspections that other checklist as per the caretakers checklist you see that okay and in the
01:24:03 checklist you see that okay and in the same yeah if you also look at the f ra if we can just go to that there's a reference to emergency lighting in that
01:24:15 reference to emergency lighting in that if you go to page 17 please in the FR am so sorry f ra that's t mo one zero zero three seven seven four three
01:24:32 TMO one zero zero three seven seven four three at page 17 if you look at item 15 emergency escape lighting he's ticked yes yes yes yes under each of those
01:24:44 yes yes yes yes under each of those items you see that mm-hmm
01:24:48 unless you had read that part of the f ra alongside the record of significant
01:24:59 ra alongside the record of significant findings you wouldn't have known would you that the emergency lighting that wasn't being maintained monthly no I wouldn't know whether the checks were
01:25:11 wouldn't know whether the checks were being undertaken and it would have been helpful to know that in order to be able to advise the TMA wouldn't it and your strategy whether it's being checked
01:25:22 strategy whether it's being checked tonight is a management type of division so they that the managing team should carry out these checks in terms of the
01:25:33 carry out these checks in terms of the design of the building and the expectation would be that it met a certain design criteria which is which is noted here on under comments and
01:25:45 is noted here on under comments and observations lighting of escape routes is one of those things that is that there is guidance in respect of under b1 isn't there yes similarly exit signs for
01:25:59 isn't there yes similarly exit signs for yes it sounds ease under they evacuation lifts evacuation the lifts aren't a aren't a a required feature for for
01:26:12 aren't a a required feature for for buildings right and yet you haven't I think covered in your report either lighting of escape routes or or exit signs and I don't recall it being in
01:26:23 signs and I don't recall it being in there no
01:26:28 and why is that I don't know if I perfectly frank am its again an area of
01:26:39 perfectly frank am its again an area of the report which needs further information into it as a draft but certainly it was it will it would be a
01:26:50 certainly it was it will it would be a key component of be bond now can I just ask you then about section five moving on to that please in your report if you
01:27:01 on to that please in your report if you go back to that TMO one zero zero zero one nine to five page 13 and look please at paragraph five point one point three I want Justin to ask you about fire
01:27:12 I want Justin to ask you about fire stopping
01:27:22 five point one point three fast stopping within a concealed spaces you see that and you say in the first sentence under this heading and in the second paragraph
01:27:33 this heading and in the second paragraph well before I go to that actually there's a quotation the building shall be designed and constructed so that unseen fire husbands unseen spread effect this Martin tore out sought again the building shall be designed and
01:27:45 the building shall be designed and constructed so that unseen spread of fire and smoke within concealed spaces in its structure and fabric is inhibited that's a quotation isn't it from be three or four and then you say there are
01:27:58 three or four and then you say there are limits to the extent to which any cavities can exist for example between walls and cladding and between ceilings and roofs okay and then you go on to safe are stopping via appropriate cavity
01:28:10 safe are stopping via appropriate cavity barriers are assumed to be in place you see that yes did you understand that there was a difference between cavity barriers and fire stops yes and what was
01:28:27 barriers and fire stops yes and what was that difference so sensibly it's the difference between a fire resisting element and a compartment line a
01:28:39 compartment being a a more robust element of fire resistance yes
01:28:51 would you say that you went about far stopping with a cavity barrier it really depends on the on the location of what
01:29:04 depends on the on the location of what it is that he's being stopped or a barrier the cavity barrier you know the different areas need different might need a fire stopper it
01:29:17 different might need a fire stopper it might need a cavity barrier but when we refer to fire stopping it's not necessarily needing fire stopping on a
01:29:28 necessarily needing fire stopping on a on a compartment line it means that a material which is preventing the spread of fire between through an element which
01:29:39 of fire between through an element which may only be a cavity barrier or a fire resisting role for means of escape purposes or an element of structure that this is various uses of of the words
01:29:52 this is various uses of of the words well let's see if we can make this shorter now go to CLG 0 0 0 0 0 173 at page 144 this is a DB and these are the
01:30:04 page 144 this is a DB and these are the definitions used in a DB Appendix II page 144 and look with me please at the
01:30:15 page 144 and look with me please at the definition of fire stop which is on the right-hand side second from the end you see that and it safe seal provided to close an imperfection of fit or design
01:30:27 close an imperfection of fit or design tolerance between elements or components to restrict the passage of fire and smoke we see that did you understand that that was the definition of fire stopped at the time yes and then if you
01:30:39 stopped at the time yes and then if you go on to page or back rather to page 143 please back to page 143 we see the definition of cavity barrier Donna did this order deliberately a bottom of that page on the left-hand
01:30:50 a bottom of that page on the left-hand side cavity barrier a construction other than a smoke curtain did provided to close a concealed space against penetration of smoke or flame or provided to restrict the
01:31:01 provided to restrict the movement of smoke or flame within such a space given those are too clear and distinct well I should ask you all those to clear and distinct definitions of two
01:31:12 to clear and distinct definitions of two different things and they they are
01:31:19 without wanting to be you you can have a penetration through a cavity barrier for example of a fire resisting dorset which
01:31:34 example of a fire resisting dorset which then needs to be fire stops with a fire stopping product yes so that while suppose there are two distinct definitions we can use the word fire
01:31:47 definitions we can use the word fire stop for a generic manner of ceiling penetrations through fire existing elements well I wonder if you could just
01:31:58 elements well I wonder if you could just go back to page 13 of your report in section five point one point three TMO one zero zero zero 1 to 5 age 13 when
01:32:09 one zero zero zero 1 to 5 age 13 when you say that fast stopping via appropriate care of cavity barriers and you say that there aren't you mixing up terminology dealing with the separate
01:32:20 terminology dealing with the separate aspects of approved document b
01:32:30 it could be clearer I would I would admit it could be clearer but the context in the and the general understanding is is is clear it's a hole
01:32:46 understanding is is is clear it's a hole in a fire resisting element it needs to be first optional but if the reader of your room but let me ask you this what assumptions were you making about the familiarity that the reader of your
01:32:58 familiarity that the reader of your report had with approved document b and i would like i said before thought for the for the reader of this particular draft i was expecting this to go through
01:33:11 draft i was expecting this to go through to and the design team and those in the the team undertake in the next set of
01:33:22 the team undertake in the next set of documents to to be fairly knowledgeable about by relating letters did you expect the reader of this report the ultimate ultimate end user as you refer to them
01:33:34 ultimate end user as you refer to them earlier it'll be more expert on adb as expert on adb or less expert on adb than you less I would yeah and given that you
01:33:46 you less I would yeah and given that you are expecting them to be less expert on ADB than you wouldn't the expression fire stopping via appropriate cavity barriers muddle them up and get them to think that one could fire stop with a
01:33:58 think that one could fire stop with a cavity barriers
01:34:07 um that's what it can be read that way I don't think it's necessarily a like I said it could be Clara but unless you
01:34:22 said it could be Clara but unless you knew the difference in definitions and perhaps the acceptance to the difference in definitions that you've identified you would think wouldn't you that you would fire stop with a cavity barrier if
01:34:34 would fire stop with a cavity barrier if the cavity barrier has a cavity barriers masking reserve a certain understanding of a requirement the cavity barrier can have various fire resistances and
01:34:47 have various fire resistances and various uses cavity barriers are
01:34:55 prolific throughout buildings internally and externally so like so yes it could be clear but I don't think the intention is to to necessarily confuse where in
01:35:09 is to to necessarily confuse where in the building did you think that appropriate cavity barriers were in place so the the prime places for cavity
01:35:20 place so the the prime places for cavity barriers are in excessive bodied Sam and to the external facade the over-over
01:35:31 to the external facade the over-over various internal door sets and down corridors it that they can be anywhere in a building that requires fire resisting really does need to have a
01:35:44 resisting really does need to have a capital barrier to extend an element to fire resistance for example a protected corridor or something along those lines but Linda I
01:35:56 something along those lines but Linda I mean on the basis of your familiarity such as it was with this building where within the building did you think cavity barriers were in place according to the assumption you were making and I didn't
01:36:08 assumption you were making and I didn't know whether the cavity barriers were which is in I suppose the reason for the recommendation but they can be you know
01:36:20 recommendation but they can be you know anywhere in the building so it would be anywhere above a suspended ceiling for example or again in external sods or the
01:36:36 example or again in external sods or the lobbies within the accommodation places such as that you go on in the last sentence to say that it's recommended that these elements are assessed within
01:36:47 that these elements are assessed within void flats to a level which would provide confidence in whether or not the provision is satisfactory mm-hm by what performance criteria were you telling were advising the ultimate end
01:36:58 telling were advising the ultimate end user of this report to to measure satisfaction is factor enos with bidden within the whole fire stopping section
01:37:11 within the whole fire stopping section what was being looked for there was basically penetrations and holes within the fabric between the the enclosing
01:37:23 the fabric between the the enclosing walls of the flats internally and the and the adjacent spaces they're all flat yes by what standard were you advising the reader of this report to judge
01:37:34 the reader of this report to judge whether the provision was satisfactory or not should have done shouldn't take again fire stopping comes in in in in in
01:37:52 again fire stopping comes in in in in in different periods of fire resistance so it could have been clarified there but typically it can move throughout the building so yes it would have been a
01:38:03 building so yes it would have been a good place to put that let's move very quickly into external fire spread very quickly you go please to page fourteen of this report section six
01:38:15 and you set out there the requirement of before at the top and the general philosophy and the external wall construction and just to be clear on
01:38:27 construction and just to be clear on that we have no complaint about that my question is you didn't have anything in there about the external fire spread requirements on them in respect of the roof we can see that it wasn't there
01:38:39 roof we can see that it wasn't there why was that um I don't think we had any information on the roof at that particular time but holding spot there's no holding spot in respective it does
01:38:51 no holding spot in respective it does that mean you didn't consider the roof at all and I would have considered the roof and obviously there's not there's
01:39:04 roof and obviously there's not there's not a right a reason for concern on it so I haven't put that holding spot in there right and just to be to be clear
01:39:16 there right and just to be to be clear although you haven't set out the basis on which under six point to the you said that the external surface over 18 meters should have a surface classification of class naught national or B etc European
01:39:28 class naught national or B etc European that's a DB isn't it clearly diagram 40 yes yes and what the question is why didn't you just set out that it was diagram 40 said that the reader would know that it was anchored in the
01:39:39 know that it was anchored in the regulation it it wasn't common practice to to replicate all these parts of
01:39:50 to to replicate all these parts of approved document b and import various diagrams into into into a draft report well can I take you to section 7 B 5
01:40:02 well can I take you to section 7 B 5 access and facilities for the fire service page 15 I just want to look at to chop provisions seven point one and seven point three and a seven point one you said in the second line there should
01:40:13 you said in the second line there should be a dry rising main within the fire fighting shaft you see that yes and to be fair to you I think her point here is that the outlet should be in the stair and not in the lobby but that's an existing condition that right
01:40:26 existing condition that right that's correct yes now come back to that in a minute but I just want to focus on your advice that it should be a dry rising main looking at 7.3 if you look there you say that the current guidance
01:40:37 there you say that the current guidance do you see in the that paragraph four lines up from the bottom should be for a wet rising main you see that because the building's over 50 meters in height yes yes was this not contradictory
01:40:48 yes yes was this not contradictory advice dry rising in 7.1 wet rising in 7.3 I don't think so no I think the so section 20 of the London act asked for a in main and it would have
01:41:03 asked for a in main and it would have needed a wet riser for whatever reason we have a dry rise in an existing building so in terms of the of the
01:41:14 building so in terms of the of the existing provision it is satisfactory based on having a single fire scenario a flat on fire given the the heavy level
01:41:27 flat on fire given the the heavy level of construction fabric and compartment ation I didn't think that the the dry riser would would be a significant
01:41:42 riser would would be a significant reduction in standard over of the wet for this type of the building given that there there's no there's no works being
01:41:53 there there's no there's no works being carried out on those on those levels as I understood it at the time right
01:42:02 did you try that one again you say there should be a dry rising main and then you say there should be a wet rising main which is it the the current guidance would say that there's a recognized in
01:42:14 would say that there's a recognized in Wayne but would have a dry rising rain and I and I go on to say that given the provisions in the building that should be satisfactory you say in the sentence
01:42:26 be satisfactory you say in the sentence beforehand in seven point three the fire risk assessment describes the provision of a wet sorry of a firefighting shaft and firefighting the evacuation lifts with dry rising main you see that yes and if you go to the 27.1 you say the
01:42:48 and if you go to the 27.1 you say the building should be provided with a firefighting shaft and then you say one is provided you see that yes if seven point one at the very top of the page
01:43:00 yes you say one is provided I stated in the current fire risk assessment was that a reference to Carl Stokes is 29th of December fr a yes well we've we've
01:43:11 of December fr a yes well we've we've looked at the then current fire risk assessment from the 29th of December 2010 we can't find any reference to the tower being provided with a firefighting shaft I'm not gonna sit here and comb
01:43:24 shaft I'm not gonna sit here and comb through it with you there isn't time but do you remember taking any steps to verify that the fire risk assessment did actually say what you say it says um having a two-hour stare dry rising main
01:43:37 having a two-hour stare dry rising main fire evacuation lifts that are there the key component pilot parts of the 5,000 shaft
01:43:47 [Applause] did you take any steps to check that it was correct with regard to the provision of a firefighting shaft I'm sorry I don't understand the question did you
01:44:00 don't understand the question did you did you check the fire risk assessment did the fire engine so the fire risk assessment noted these component parts
01:44:11 assessment noted these component parts which are integral to a firefighting shaft so together they would form the shaft itself so with the residential
01:44:23 shaft itself so with the residential building which I hope we can come back on to later to pick up another point from before but that the the the the constituent parts of a firefighting shaft are the stairs the lift and the
01:44:38 shaft are the stairs the lift and the lobby approach and the and the firefighting main whether that be wet or dry yeah you're summarizing just now is the essence of what diagram 52 I think shows it is a firefighting chapter now
01:44:50 shows it is a firefighting chapter now you say in 7.1 the fire main outlet should be sited in the stair you don't refer to diagram 52 but we looked at that we know that the fire main outlets
01:45:01 that we know that the fire main outlets were in the lobbies and that's an existing condition we've just been through that why did you not include any discussion or assessment within your draft report about the impact of the operation or on the operation of
01:45:13 operation or on the operation of firefighting on the fact of the fact that the fire main outlets were in the lobbies and not in the stair as required by diagram 52 the B outlets being in the
01:45:26 by diagram 52 the B outlets being in the lobby and and fairly sure on this and were a requirement of section 20 at the time
01:45:34 time Terry's probably a Munter to clarify that for you but the the section 20 outs for it to be in the protected Lobby
01:45:45 for it to be in the protected Lobby rather than in the stair so that's probably why it was originally constructed in that manner and as an existing condition of a provision that was putting specifically
01:45:57 provision that was putting specifically under firefighting legislation yeah yes that wasn't my question wasn't my question wasn't about compliance my question was about the absence of any
01:46:08 question was about the absence of any discussion or assessment in your report about the impact of the fire main outlet being in the lobby as opposed to the state and its potential impact on firefighting operations now you don't
01:46:19 firefighting operations now you don't mention anything in your report about that and my question is why why didn't you do that we didn't do an assessment on it in terms of outlining how we came to that conclusion but that process has
01:46:33 to that conclusion but that process has been gone through and come to the conclusion we didn't I suppose I didn't feel it necessary to put it in if I'm ultimately gonna say it satisfactory so the ultimate reader of this report
01:46:45 the ultimate reader of this report wouldn't know that having the fire main outlets in the lobbies as opposed to in the stair as required by approved document b diagram 52 would have an impact on firefighting operations but then we are trying to push an existing
01:47:03 then we are trying to push an existing building and it's fire safety provisions into a current guidance documents which is is somewhat of a gap analysis it was discussing before and that's not always
01:47:14 discussing before and that's not always [Music]
01:47:16 [Music] necessary and so it doesn't make it unsafe it's it's an existing provision under what was still then current I just guidance I guess right so firefighting
01:47:31 guidance I guess right so firefighting lift you deal at paragraph 7 point 3 on page 15 in the fourth line with that and you say the fire risk assessment describes the provision of a
01:47:42 describes the provision of a firefighting shaft and firefighting strike evacuation lifts with dry rising main we did that before you see that uh-huh can I ask you to look at mr. Stokes is December 2010 fire risk
01:47:53 Stokes is December 2010 fire risk assessment TMO one zero zero three seven seven four three at page four and just to remind just to remind you you got this on the 13th of August 2012 page
01:48:04 this on the 13th of August 2012 page four please and this is at the bottom of that page and it says that you see in the in the bottom box under use and layout of the building four lines up the entrance
01:48:15 building four lines up the entrance lobby has two lifts which service all the floor levels both of a QA ssin stroke firefighting lifts so can be used for disabled evacuation if needed you see that and then it goes on please see
01:48:27 see that and then it goes on please see the attached plan showing the layout and a little bit higher up the page 3/4 of
01:48:40 a little bit higher up the page 3/4 of the way through the big box just before the last paragraph break mr. Stokes says the two lifts in the building are both firefighter evacuation lifts both of the lifts serve each floor level and run the
01:48:51 lifts serve each floor level and run the height of the building see that yes and now you recall I showed you this earlier you had asked Bruce owns on the 9th of August whether the lifts were firefighting lifts haven't you I had yes and he had responded to you on the 10th
01:49:04 and he had responded to you on the 10th of August saying no firefighting lifts this morning and then you went back to him the same day saying thanks Bruce that all makes sense within the context of the existing building you remember I
01:49:15 of the existing building you remember I showed you that yes you can look at that again if you like you remember that now my question is this once you saw the December 2010 fire risk assessment on
01:49:27 December 2010 fire risk assessment on the 13th of August a few days after you'd responded to mr. Sainz did you notice that it contradicted what mr. stones had told you a few days before in this respect yes I did notice a contradiction at that
01:49:39 yes I did notice a contradiction at that time you did did you go back to mr. stones and ask him why he had said that there was no firefighting lift when in fact the FRS said there was i don't recall whether i did we don't have a record of you doing so and you don't cover it in your statement and i think
01:49:51 cover it in your statement and i think he covers it in his statement so i don't recall doing so but as the as a fire professional I suppose I took a judgment
01:50:02 professional I suppose I took a judgment on on the fact that mr. Stokes his fire risk assessment is littered with this information and it's it being a you know a
01:50:15 and it's it being a you know a regulatory document the the lifts are clearly noted throughout the document so given the difficulty that I'd had
01:50:28 given the difficulty that I'd had getting information out of out of Studio II because they didn't seem to have very much on the existing building and this this was a more reliable source um well you say it was a more reliable source
01:50:39 you say it was a more reliable source you would actually ask mr. sage the question he'd given you a clear answer so there was now a conflict as far as you could see between what mr. Sains have told you and what the f ra had said so my question is why didn't you simply
01:50:50 so my question is why didn't you simply send him an email pick up my phone to him and ask him well I've got the Fr a it says there are these firefighting lifts why do you say they weren't and resolve the conflict in some way and I
01:51:01 resolve the conflict in some way and I don't have an answer for that I don't know whether I did discuss that with them or I didn't um I just simply can't recall whether it did can I suggest an
01:51:12 recall whether it did can I suggest an answer and please tell me if this is wrong you were very short of time well we weren't short a time yes sir in terms of the deadlines which to do he wanted the draft document for but I don't think
01:51:24 the draft document for but I don't think that's necessarily why I didn't I I genuinely can't recall whether I did or anything did you think to sort the issue out with anyone from the TM oh no I
01:51:35 out with anyone from the TM oh no I don't recall having any contact to the team oh did you know that as it turns out the lifts were not firefighting lifts and I learned that post fire so opting not to sort out the issue but
01:51:46 opting not to sort out the issue but opting instead simply to go on what mr. sakes have said do you accept turns out to be a serious error in your work I think that the reliance on the fire risk
01:51:59 think that the reliance on the fire risk assessment which like I say is a is a regulatory document is a reasonable thing to do in this set of circumstances and given that it was you know the it was a draft document and that is there
01:52:11 was a draft document and that is there to be challenged by the design team so whilst it as it as it as it transpired not to be the case that was
01:52:23 transpired not to be the case that was the information I was given and was reliant upon at that time well you had two conflicting sources of information your instructing architect and the Fr a
01:52:34 your instructing architect and the Fr a hmm
01:52:35 hmm and so why was any why was the Fri any of the more reliable than your instructing architect and you you would assume but the regulation reform order
01:52:46 assume but the regulation reform order requires a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment and the the presence of firefighting lifts and indeed he says
01:52:57 firefighting lifts and indeed he says evacuation lifts is throughout the document now on page 16 of your draft report you've set out your conclusions and recommendations you identify three
01:53:10 and recommendations you identify three items that you say have significant consequences in the event of a fire for the means of escape and potential for breaches and complementation you don't identify who is responsible for
01:53:21 identify who is responsible for investigating those matters why is that
01:53:29 from a point of view of of this document it would be going back to the design team so these items will be picked up by
01:53:42 team so these items will be picked up by the design team and uninvestigated by the design team you mean studio ad the and and the and a larger team yes who's the larger team so in terms of the
01:53:55 the larger team so in terms of the mechanical elements that be the people who were looking at the ventilation etcetera etcetera right and you don't identify a time frame within which
01:54:06 identify a time frame within which investigations have identified should be carried out why was that again it's a draft document so it's it's really for this duck this document is a draft for
01:54:17 this duck this document is a draft for discussion if you will so we we rely on on on feedback to be able to move the document forward I see how long would it normally have
01:54:30 I see how long would it normally have taken you to prepare a final draft client ready for a fire strategy for an existing building such as Granville tower a number of weeks so steadily you
01:54:44 tower a number of weeks so steadily you know solidly for for a program number of weeks over the time if if it was to meet all the requirements right just to be
01:54:58 all the requirements right just to be clear how long would it take you normally to revert to prepare a first draft
01:55:07 again it's dependent on the amount of information we have okay let's get to our wheat suppose I'm sorry I cut across
01:55:18 our wheat suppose I'm sorry I cut across your answer so anything up to week a few days to a week depending on the on the information we have like can I ask you to be shown please the native version of EXO 0 0 0 0 1 3 5 3 the native version
01:55:31 EXO 0 0 0 0 1 3 5 3 the native version and this miss Cooney is a spreadsheet which has been disclosed by x over showing the time you spent on this report so just look at it with me I don't know if you've ever seen this
01:55:42 don't know if you've ever seen this document before would it be a I understand it but I don't think I've seen it if you if you look at it under
01:55:54 seen it if you if you look at it under rows 49 to 52 I'm afraid you're going to have to go to those time sheets and then look at 49 to 52 yeah now you can see 49
01:56:05 look at 49 to 52 yeah now you can see 49 to 52 we just there we go this far strategy for existing condition Kate Cooney and if you look at row or column I'm sorry column e row 49 9th of August
01:56:19 I'm sorry column e row 49 9th of August 2012 plans appraisal and then we have further dates 10th of August 13th of August 15th of August okay it went out to dr. Barker on the 15th of August and
01:56:33 to dr. Barker on the 15th of August and therefore am i right in thinking that all the times between the 9th and the 15th were spent working on this draft yes right so adding up those hours we
01:56:46 yes right so adding up those hours we get to 6 1 & 6 which by my even my maths I think I get to 15 mm-hmm yes so can we take it from this document that you spent 15 hours working on and producing
01:56:57 spent 15 hours working on and producing this draft that you sent to dr. Barker
01:57:06 yes from from from that timesheet which which I may have spent more time on than that but yes that's what I've booked
01:57:17 that but yes that's what I've booked down to it would that be a normal period of time to spend on a document like this
01:57:25 for a draft it's essentially the best part of three days so yes it's say for a first draft off
01:57:41 so yes it's say for a first draft off this kind of this kind of information where there's a lot of coming out so I think and it's not it's not unusual
01:57:53 think and it's not it's not unusual right so you said earlier on in answer to an earlier question I asked you how long it would take to prepare a first draft and you said it would depend on the amount of information you would say anything up to a week depending on the
01:58:04 anything up to a week depending on the information 15 hours isn't anything like a week is it it's half a week really and in terms of the way that we booked time in it chair was based on a essentially
01:58:19 in it chair was based on a essentially you know if you worked all day on it do you typically book six hours down to it I mean to be to be blunt about it is it's not very long is it well it's it's
01:58:32 it's not very long is it well it's it's quite an intensive a piece of work you know you are working on it all day long it's it's really a matter of gathering
01:58:44 it's it's really a matter of gathering all the evidence which which isn't I think it's it's really accurately reflected in those in those hourly
01:58:55 reflected in those in those hourly figures and again knowing what I you know what I know in terms of producing works to a standard that we can we can
01:59:09 works to a standard that we can we can call it a draft and we we might work more hours than that but log less depend on fees and other things going on at the
01:59:20 on fees and other things going on at the time so it's whilst it's it's a good
01:59:27 indicator it's not necessarily 100% of the talent you spent and can I ask you to look at exa zero zero zero zero 302 which is an invoice of the 27th of
01:59:38 which is an invoice of the 27th of September 2012 and this is sent to the PMO and you can see that it's dated the
01:59:50 PMO and you can see that it's dated the 27th of September and what is billed here it's a fixed lump sum fee for 2865 that's the quote we saw on the fee proposal cumulative to date was 2000 111
02:00:04 proposal cumulative to date was 2000 111 pounds 50 you see that yes and that meant that something like 753 odd pounds remained to be invoiced from the lump sum fee quoted in the fee proposal why did X over invoice less than
02:00:16 why did X over invoice less than originally quoted and I don't know I wouldn't have been responsible for instructing the invoice given that the report had not progressed at this point
02:00:28 report had not progressed at this point beyond the draft state would it be normal for it x over to invoice at that point yes
02:00:33 point yes the typical invoicing period was at the end of each month right given that this was a draft was the balance of the fee to be invoiced once the draft was turned into a final
02:00:45 once the draft was turned into a final document and sent to the client and not necessarily no dependents did some jobs you'd use a feed quite quickly or the
02:00:57 you'd use a feed quite quickly or the jobs and there will be lots of fee there it's merely a matter of managing your workload it's not necessarily a and absolutely you know to the quarter of
02:01:09 absolutely you know to the quarter of our logging system there's an awful lot of work that doesn't actually it says it's a it's a lump sum free so you do
02:01:21 it's a it's a lump sum free so you do the work regardless of what the fears with the fact that only seven hundred and fifty three odd pounds remained at and to be done that indicate that the
02:01:32 and to be done that indicate that the vast majority of the work had been done and I think the the majority of setting out the report had been done but there's obviously more information to follow
02:01:44 obviously more information to follow okay I'd like to turn turn next please to the review done by dr. Barker a couple of preliminary questions I think these are really yes or no answers far as you can recall is x over was x over
02:01:57 as you can recall is x over was x over at the time certified under iso9001 I don't know you don't now a paragraph three point eight of your witness statement if we could please get back to that at page three you say that the peer
02:02:11 that at page three you say that the peer review process ethics over you see that three point eight the peer review process that xover is part of the document quality control and typically involves someone of equal or greater
02:02:22 involves someone of equal or greater seniority to the drafter reviewing the report to ensure that there are no clear errors and that it is sound in basis and it was clear Barker I think you reviewed your report didn't she vodka yes and if
02:02:35 your report didn't she vodka yes and if we look at what she said it's EXO five zeros one seven five this should be a pair of emails one from you to her and one from her to you yours on the 15th of
02:02:47 one from her to you yours on the 15th of August second email down 15:37 to dr. Barker Claire please can you review the existing FSS for the above I've printed out the drawings if these helped they probably will and she
02:02:58 helped they probably will and she responds at 15 22 just under 20 exactly 24 hours later on the next day 16th of August have reviewed it and as he's fine you see that yeah did you and she have
02:03:11 you see that yeah did you and she have actually have any actual discussion about your draft or was her statement that it was fine quote-unquote the extent of any discussion between you at that time um it's very probable though I
02:03:23 that time um it's very probable though I don't recall a specific any specifics of any conversation well she's asked questions about it her comment I've reviewed it and it was fine is it usual or was it usual for you to receive so
02:03:35 or was it usual for you to receive so little detail from a peer review of such a report um it depends depends on the on the job and a lot on
02:03:46 depends on the on the job and a lot on what it entails really it wasn't unheard of not to have any substantive comments
02:03:58 of not to have any substantive comments back for ya that's why I'm saying is it's probable with we discussed it between us so yes I mean sometimes it
02:04:10 between us so yes I mean sometimes it came back with comments and sometimes they didn't it's would you usually expect some kind of feedback as part of the peer review process yes if there are
02:04:26 the peer review process yes if there are questions that have been raised then um they're not straightforward or do you need to put some more information to
02:04:38 need to put some more information to them to put it in context then then a peer review the velocity questions and if they if they don't need to then they well it's really is dependent on the job
02:04:50 well it's really is dependent on the job and normally how long would a peer review on average take before coming back to you with a peer review report on your work again it's down to two workload but if it if you're reading
02:05:03 workload but if it if you're reading through it it may take a couple of hours or also to two to review a report and the report was quite short so I would
02:05:16 the report was quite short so I would have thought that Claire would have read it fairly fairly quickly maybe an hour or so I don't know
02:05:27 so you don't know how long she spent reviewing your draft during the 24 hours that elapsed between now sending it to her
02:05:33 her did you send her any other documentation that you had reviewed to prepare your draft other than the report you sent her on the drawings and the drinks I think Claire had obviously the same
02:05:48 I think Claire had obviously the same amount of information I had from the from the beginning so she may rather prefer to that did you send her the Stokes f ra and the email correspondence that you'd had with mr. sands um I don't
02:06:02 that you'd had with mr. sands um I don't think I would have sent those documents I would have had them printed out somewhere and probably just mana desk come on whose desk on clothes desk did
02:06:17 come on whose desk on clothes desk did you alert her to ever need to read them or did you not I can't recall it again it makes me in the conversation we had okay you then say in your statement to
02:06:29 okay you then say in your statement to paragraph three point ten after the peer review reports are then sent to our administration team to produce in final form they're still marked draft until approved by the regulator or plant before being circulated this was clearly
02:06:41 before being circulated this was clearly intended to be sent to studio e as a draft wasn't it yes yes was it ever sent to studio E or decay all the TMA for approval yes I sent it through to see
02:06:55 approval yes I sent it through to see Joey and fire email you sent it a studio e would you then have followed up to make sure that a final version was sent to the client for this particular
02:07:08 to the client for this particular project because I was I was undertaking the draft strategy on behalf of the London office then not necessarily that
02:07:20 London office then not necessarily that the project was being managed in London sir now we know from your statement that the version which we've looked at the 16th of August draft mark draft is the only version of the existing fire safety
02:07:32 only version of the existing fire safety strategy report ever created do you know why it was never finalized I don't know was it usual for drafts not to be finalized
02:07:46 no not-not-not to this extent no no typically we will get some detail back from the design team and it would be updated
02:07:59 did you never discuss the assumptions and unknowns in it said that a final draft could be produced with the studio a or with well at all
02:08:11 a or with well at all I discussed the the assumptions must have discussed the assumptions with
02:08:22 have discussed the assumptions with Claire because I don't recall it in the time frame but I do know that studio a did come back with some comments on it so I don't know whether they were ever
02:08:36 so I don't know whether they were ever then followed through to to produce another document I was never requested to to produce any further documentation let's just let's just chase this through
02:08:47 let's just let's just chase this through could you please be shown TMO one zero zero zero I'm so sorry um axo zero zero zero zero one three nine six this is your email sending
02:09:00 nine six this is your email sending draft one which is this draft through to mr. Sains on the 16th of August you see you say look Bruce please find attached draft one of the existing fire strategies that our I'll be finishing to go on holiday on Friday please feel free
02:09:12 go on holiday on Friday please feel free to ring and discuss any of the content before then now 16th of August was a Thursday I've checked so in fact you were going on holiday the very next day weren't you okay would you remember that
02:09:23 weren't you okay would you remember that I don't remember the specifics are not okay so you gave him at best 24 hours to review it and discuss it with you didn't she um well to discuss it with me
02:09:35 she um well to discuss it with me personally yes but he obviously would have discussed it with others all right can you go forward then in time and a different document se a five zeroes six
02:09:46 different document se a five zeroes six zeroes 48 se a six zeroes 48 this is an email from mr. Sainz to mr. Ashton Alex over copy to Clare Barker
02:09:58 Ashton Alex over copy to Clare Barker and poor dong Curtin Terry we have a meeting planned for the afternoon you see that yes of the 6th which is the
02:10:09 see that yes of the 6th which is the date Kate returns bounced back below and you could see the bounce back at the very bottom of the page you see I'm currently on annual leave will not return till firstly the 6th September 2012 and then then he says this she did
02:10:21 2012 and then then he says this she did offer to have someone come back with the mark-up of the plans forwarded 16th of August but we haven't received one yet these have been developed as part of the preparations the planning submission etc we need to go through the fire strategy
02:10:34 we need to go through the fire strategy existing draft received 16th wolves which has numerous recommendations some of which may be unrealistic for an interim strategy it is probably a also a good time to make contact with the local fire office that have discussed the project you see that yes when did you
02:10:47 project you see that yes when did you offer mr. stones someone to come back with a mock-up of the plans I think the markup of the plans is relating to the the layouts of the lower floors we
02:10:59 the layouts of the lower floors we looked at before do you record a discussion with mr. stones about that topic on the friday morning of the 17th of august before you went on holiday I don't recall the conversation now do you know if there was ever a going
02:11:12 you know if there was ever a going through of the fire strategy I don't was it ever followed up with you and no I went back to obviously - were you ever asked to discuss your recommendations assumptions or other
02:11:25 recommendations assumptions or other things had left out standing and anybody know did it not occur to you to find out from dr. Barker or mr. Sains why that was and chase it on um after you got
02:11:37 was and chase it on um after you got back from holiday no because it was it was only about 2 to 2 colleagues who were dealing with the with the project
02:11:48 were dealing with the with the project overall did mr. Ashton ever ask tell you or invite you to comment on the idea that a detailed interrogation of the draft our strategy was required once you've got back from holiday no no I don't recall tell me do you know
02:12:02 no no I don't recall tell me do you know if Xavier ever made any efforts to understand the draft strategy that you'd provided in any detail so sorry could you do that please yes did anybody ever ask you tried
02:12:16 yes did anybody ever ask you tried differently and to help xover understand the existing situation and the draft strategy that you produced after I am
02:12:27 strategy that you produced after I am sent the email to to Bruce and once I had commented on the proposals I didn't
02:12:39 had commented on the proposals I didn't have any further involvement with the project so no do you remember having a discussion with mr. sands on the morning of the 17th of August I don't you don't I'm going to get back to an email we looked at earlier today the email of the
02:12:51 looked at earlier today the email of the 17th of August 2012 at EXO zero zero zero zero one two seven nine this is your email to Andrew Martin remember we
02:13:03 your email to Andrew Martin remember we looked at this before I did that's the one with a colorful language and only read it all out to you but I'm taking it you're familiar with it I am yes what was your purpose in sending this email
02:13:15 was your purpose in sending this email and the purpose was to basically advise Andy that if if somebody was to ring in relation to the project kind of an
02:13:30 relation to the project kind of an outline of what it was about really but as far as I know Bruce never called and and Andy didn't reply to it so it's just
02:13:43 and Andy didn't reply to it so it's just an internal email to a colleague yes it has colorful language but it was never intended for anybody but understand you say they are now adding additional
02:13:54 say they are now adding additional levels which merges around a single stare not great you see that did you explain your view about that to mr. stones when you spoke to him and this
02:14:05 stones when you spoke to him and this this email as I stated before doesn't so that this this is in relation to the refurbishment an early design proposal so I didn't speak to to Bruce
02:14:22 proposal so I didn't speak to to Bruce about um about the markup stall because I had I sent those through to Terry I don't think I can't recall speaking to boots but yeah you say basically I've
02:14:33 boots but yeah you say basically I've told him we can massage the proposal to something acceptable with separation lobbies etc but there are approval risks to the project on the FF shaft stroke mo
02:14:44 to the project on the FF shaft stroke mo e means of escape front were you suggesting to mr. sands that you could do something to get around the problem posed by Building Control being otherwise likely to reject the smoke
02:14:56 otherwise likely to reject the smoke ventilation and other proposals for the building absolutely categorically not what do you mean so sorry so in in in the in the use of massage which yes it's
02:15:08 the in the use of massage which yes it's it's a word I could have used several other words but what I intended by that is then followed on with separation lobbies but what it essentially means is design changes which would improve the
02:15:22 design changes which would improve the layout from a fire safety perspective so that that's all that was intended by that I see you go on to say in fact well it just brought jumping ahead para five
02:15:34 it just brought jumping ahead para five three of your statement you say that what you meant in that sentence was that there with some design changes the proposal could be improved to a level where they would be satisfactory from
02:15:45 where they would be satisfactory from the Building Regulations perspective that's what you meant is it design changes to make it work essentially from a from a fire safety design point of
02:15:57 a from a fire safety design point of view yes that's not what massaging normally means is it it has several meanings and as I've already said yes I could have chose a different word didn't
02:16:08 could have chose a different word didn't there's no there's no intention to be anything other than just design changing it
02:16:16 it and and that is all I meant by it yes I'm what I'm really suggesting to you is that the use of the word massagers was really a deliberate one because what you
02:16:27 really a deliberate one because what you were seeking to do was really just to present matters in a different way so as to get it past building control absolutely and not to make any substantive changes to the design absolutely reject that absolutely absolutely
02:16:39 absolutely you say in the email we can massage the proposal to something acceptable acceptable to whom something acceptable in general terms really and the the
02:16:52 in general terms really and the the proposed design as I remember it was as I say it wasn't great it took residents out of the single step back through the building which we wouldn't allow to
02:17:05 building which we wouldn't allow to happen without further measures being in place did you ever discuss your concern about merging of uses around a single stair with mr. Ashton do you remember I think I did because it
02:17:18 do you remember I think I did because it was Terry that asked me to look at that that layout as I recall and then you go on to say in the penultimate sentence they are making an existing crap condition worse so it's a matter of
02:17:30 condition worse so it's a matter of working the worst bits out and making the new stuff work you see that yes what did you mean exactly by making an existing crap condition worse and from
02:17:41 existing crap condition worse and from my understanding of the original layout that there were some non residential areas off the single stair which under
02:17:54 and the modern day guidance wouldn't be what we would ideally be looking for so - - in in fact to negate the risk from
02:18:06 - - in in fact to negate the risk from those we needed to introduce new measures to improve that situation so whilst it was an existing condition
02:18:20 whilst it was an existing condition I suppose this is where you kind of try to improve on an existing condition when relevant works have been carried out in
02:18:31 relevant works have been carried out in what respects did the proposed refurbishment make the condition of the building as regards compliance with the building regulations worse from a point of view that they were adding additional
02:18:44 of view that they were adding additional flats to the to the to the building and they did they were changing the the
02:18:55 they did they were changing the the escape routes for the residents so it was it was a way of making sure that
02:19:06 was it was a way of making sure that we're as I said before the the residents would come out of the single stair and through the building to make sure that those new provisions were making it no
02:19:21 those new provisions were making it no less satisfactory and what were the worst bits or worst bits I didn't like the non lobbied approach that they had
02:19:32 the non lobbied approach that they had to other purpose groups so right and is this a conversation you had with mr. Sains did you did you say to mr. stones
02:19:44 Sains did you did you say to mr. stones that you that he was making a crap condition worse so it's a matter of weight working out the working the worst bits out and making the new stuff work now this was an internal email funding and at that particular time and there
02:19:58 and at that particular time and there had been nothing concrete that had gone back to him as far as I know I've been asked to provide some thoughts on her on a design and that was just really to say
02:20:12 a design and that was just really to say to to Andy that's it it's it's not where it needs to be did you ever communicate to mr. Sainz the gist of your concern breasts
02:20:25 the gist of your concern breasts colorful in here I didn't speak to my recollection I didn't speak to mr. stones and once I've been once I went on holiday I recall any reason I asked you is because you say in
02:20:36 reason I asked you is because you say in the first part of them paragraph I've just spoken to Bruce in relation to the attached okay so in the just speaking to Bruce did you tell him words to the effect of the making existing crap condition worse I wouldn't
02:20:49 existing crap condition worse I wouldn't know I know just a bit with Bruce but I am I can't recall the the detail of the conversation with Bruce at all I don't remember the conversation in in any
02:21:00 remember the conversation in in any detail if there was if there was a [Music]
02:21:09 [Music] likely you know the way I would have told him is that there are approval risks and it needs to be you know we
02:21:23 risks and it needs to be you know we need to look at separations lobbies things like that to try and make the proposal work but I don't recall specifics of a conversation delve the conversation with it right and then you
02:21:35 conversation with it right and then you say at the end of that paragraph al ABC Building Control Kensington and Chelsea do any have any contacts there did you in fact have any contacts within our be
02:21:46 in fact have any contacts within our be Casey's Building Control Department in relation to this project I didn't know what was the purpose of asking the question the purpose of asking the question really is to so it's it's very
02:21:58 question really is to so it's it's very normal to engage with Building Control as soon as as you can to get their opinion and and involve them in the in
02:22:10 opinion and and involve them in the in the project so that if there is anything that they have concerns all over that we can at that stage incorporate those into the zone so that's once the design
02:22:23 the zone so that's once the design reaches a final stage that we're all happy that it achieves what it needs to achieve mr. chairman it's gone half past four
02:22:32 four well I know I know I noticed you noticing it I am pretty much at the end of my questions for this witness if I'm conscious that we need to take a few minutes so that I can just make sure I've covered everything and also to see
02:22:44 I've covered everything and also to see whether others the room they have supplemental questions given the exceptional circumstances of today and our latest art I wonder if I might trespass on your time you would like to finish her
02:22:55 time you would like to finish her evidence yes yes and if we get we went on for another ten minutes or so with that absolutely I'm trusting it will be
02:23:11 yes yes yes
02:23:33 [Applause]
02:23:47 right can I ask you please to be shown EXO zero zero zero zero zero three eight eight this is an email that you sent to
02:24:00 eight this is an email that you sent to mr. Ashton about the smoke control system at the tower on the 10th of September just after your holiday do you see that and you say Terry has promised my thoughts on the possible solution to Grenville tower you see I mean do have a
02:24:14 Grenville tower you see I mean do have a do take time to have a look at it sometime look at it you deal with ground level medicine in walkway office level and then in the last big paragraph before the bottom you say the existing
02:24:25 before the bottom you say the existing ventilation system is questionable and the overall scheme theoretically makes the existing conditions worse by adding the additional risk of to number extra residential floors to the building its
02:24:36 residential floors to the building its proposed to upgrade the ventilation system at the standard it will achieve as unknown there are also no details on the terminal to the shaft generally there is a significant approvals risk with the current proposals particularly at walkway level if your task was
02:24:53 at walkway level if your task was limited to production of the existing fire safety strategy report why were you sending mr. Ashton this email including your possible solution to grenfell tower
02:25:04 your possible solution to grenfell tower so that this email was the response I think to Terry's asking me to have a look at those layouts so this part and parcel of of that I see and then you go
02:25:20 parcel of of that I see and then you go on at the bottom the existing ventilation is questionable as I've shown you what did you mean by the existing ventilation system being questionable again that goes back to the
02:25:31 questionable again that goes back to the existing fire strategy where we question what is actually there and and to make sure that the overall scheme it to make sure that it it was was up to the job of
02:25:43 sure that it it was was up to the job of of doing what we expect it to do which was to provide adequate ventilation in the event of a of a design fire had anybody actually
02:25:54 of a design fire had anybody actually assess the existing ventilation ventilation system for its design or its its maintenance and between your producing your draft report and the date
02:26:05 producing your draft report and the date of this email I don't know whether that any of the work or any of the recommendations had been done by this pointer I didn't have any involvement
02:26:16 pointer I didn't have any involvement with it unfortunately right you do you agree that apart from this reference to
02:26:27 agree that apart from this reference to the theoretical worsening of the smoke ventilation system you made no reference here to the proposed refurbishment making existing conditions worse and no but in context that that statement was
02:26:41 but in context that that statement was in relation just to this just to this this email essentially this this proposed layout from from the architects
02:26:53 proposed layout from from the architects it doesn't relate in any other way to to the ongoing scheme did you ever express your concern that a bad condition was to be made worse by the proposed refurbishment to mr. Soames at Studio II
02:27:04 refurbishment to mr. Soames at Studio II I don't recall speaking to police following my holiday I call it did you relay your concerns to dr. Barker and I
02:27:17 relay your concerns to dr. Barker and I think dr. Parker was aware of the level of concerns and the caveats we'd put in the report and obviously that document
02:27:31 the report and obviously that document was there for others to read as well
02:27:52 go back please - EXO zero zero zero zero one six zero seven
02:28:08 this is a the email which I'm not sure we looked at this is from
02:28:25 yeah that's right this is from mr. stones to mr. Ashton as a 30th of August
02:28:35 you see that yes and he says we have a Terry we have a planned a meeting plan for the afternoon of the sixth which was
02:28:46 for the afternoon of the sixth which was the date Kate returns see that she bounced back below we offered that we looked at this earlier on no Danny I looked at this last paragraph with you we need to go through the fire strategy existing draft which makes numerous
02:28:57 existing draft which makes numerous recommendations and then in the last sentence mr. saiyans said it is probably also a good time to make contact with the local fire officer to discuss the project did we you ever asked by mr.
02:29:10 project did we you ever asked by mr. sands or mr. Ashton to make contact with the local fire officer or did you receive any information about that kind of contact no were you ever asked to discuss your recommendations further after you come back from holiday and no
02:29:23 after you come back from holiday and no do you did you or anyone else from xover engage with the local fire officer oh I don't know I have seen so people just
02:29:35 don't know I have seen so people just simply because there was an ongoing project what sir I don't know
02:29:43 did you ever take any steps to ensure that matters for further investigation were considered and addressed by the TMO I may have asked you that before but please know it from from from here it
02:29:54 please know it from from from here it went on to others in unity yes I see okay
02:30:04 well finally can I ask you please to go back to paragraph 3.5 of your statement page 2 this is the paragraph which
02:30:15 page 2 this is the paragraph which refers to the baseline you remember we discussed that earlier this morning was Kuni yes
02:30:20 Kuni yes was there any process whereby you took Terry Ashton through your report or draft and discuss it in detail so that he could use it as his baseline for his
02:30:31 he could use it as his baseline for his work on the refurbishment fire safety strategy and there wasn't any process as such I don't recall ever having done
02:30:43 such I don't recall ever having done that I don't recall Terry asking me to go that through that with him obviously the document was there for him to read
02:30:55 did you take any steps and I think the answer from the last question is no but correct me if I'm wrong did you take any steps to ensure that the team responsible for putting together the fire safety strategy for the
02:31:07 fire safety strategy for the refurbishment works understood your proposals concerns assumptions etc in the existing fire safety strategy no is
02:31:18 the existing fire safety strategy no is there a reason why you didn't
02:31:23 I suppose if there was any ambiguity or any anything that they wanted to question I was I was there too on the
02:31:37 question I was I was there too on the end of wanted to call so I don't know
02:31:42 it's a fairly straightforward strategy with the straightforward recommendations so I wouldn't necessarily expect it but
02:31:54 so I wouldn't necessarily expect it but no I didn't I didn't follow it up with Terry and I don't I don't recall Terry asking any particular questions all right thank you very much what one more
02:32:05 right thank you very much what one more question what your different topic are you aware of X over ever having carried out a desktop study considering the compliance with BR 135 and I'm assuming
02:32:16 compliance with BR 135 and I'm assuming you know what that is of a rainscreen cladding facade for a high-rise building using Celotex insulation and no that's part their business it's a separate part
02:32:28 part their business it's a separate part of the business is it okay can you just help me which part of the business is it and so in terms of assessments it would be I don't know the name of the but I think it would fall under the
02:32:39 think it would fall under the certification business but you do I see okay have to check a lot right okay that's very helpful mr. Chairman I think we should I've got a two minute credit
02:32:51 we should I've got a two minute credit perhaps
02:32:53 perhaps well it's may I just break and just make sure that there are no other people in the room who want me to ask any further close it is usual to have a break visit is may I ask for that break it's cool
02:33:06 is may I ask for that break it's cool thank you sometimes when Council thinks he's reached the end of his questions
02:33:13 checking suggested he hasn't so I normally would rise with a couple of minutes at this point to give customers a chance to see whether there are other questions that need to be so I'm going
02:33:24 questions that need to be so I'm going to ask you to go with the ocean and we rise for a short time to see whether the remote
02:33:30 remote that will define I would if I could have the opportunity like to go back to a question regarding I think it was three point three point three where I think I could offer a little bit more
02:33:42 could offer a little bit more information was there something you wanted to complete that yes let's do that first yes three point three that'll be TMA one zero zero zero one nine two five at pick
02:33:57 zero zero zero one nine two five at pick nine about that know is that first of all is that the passage you had in mind it was it was in relation to how we were
02:34:10 it was it was in relation to how we were talking about diagram 52 and firefights in shaft six senator and I was lost I was having a break I was having a think of where that could possibly have come
02:34:21 of where that could possibly have come from and could it have meant anything else and just given the way that it's it's written in so much as and the lobby is to provide a minimum of thirty minute
02:34:33 is to provide a minimum of thirty minute I think in that in that regard I was relating not to the firefighting shaft but actually to a lobby off the firefighting shaft to the accommodation so which would will typically be that so
02:34:47 so which would will typically be that so i i i think that's where that has come from i just wanted to clarify that hmm alright thank you do you want to follow up this at all yes mr. chan I've never
02:34:59 up this at all yes mr. chan I've never to follow up on that and well I might for them in let's take a break and if there's a spare question which comes crawling out of the woodwork we'll have the break now we'd like to go to the
02:35:11 the break now we'd like to go to the action thank you
02:35:17 you you let me know by the usher when you're ready yes it will not be long I will not
02:35:56 yes mister will you find I have found some and some have been found yes would you asked you to come back in
02:36:11 Sakuni I'm afraid mr. millet has found a few more questions was Kenny I'm sorry to detain you further well you do have one or two minutes of further questions
02:36:23 one or two minutes of further questions can I also ask you to get back since you raised it to Section three point three point three of your report but should still be on the screen yes page nine in the second from last paragraph you say
02:36:36 the second from last paragraph you say as there is a single escape route from the building at this level the exit should be lobby to provide a minimum of 30 minutes fire resistant construction we heard your answer about that but you'd wanted to explain just before we
02:36:48 you'd wanted to explain just before we rose a moment ago but would it not be important to explain to the reader that on any of you a 60 minutes fire resistant construction was required of the door into the fire fighting shaft in
02:37:00 the door into the fire fighting shaft in accordance with diagram 52 I could have stated the the diagram number but I think it already says that in in in the
02:37:11 think it already says that in in in the words with this at the time being a level of non-residential accommodation the the the fire fighting shaft itself
02:37:23 the the the fire fighting shaft itself has a core which is protected two hours and one hour fire doors as there is a single escape route from the building at this level I think that's the relationship of the office with the fire
02:37:36 relationship of the office with the fire fighting shaft itself so because it's a different purpose group it should be lobbied off from the residential so that's that that having ready back and thought about it and having time to kind
02:37:50 thought about it and having time to kind of wonder what I was looking at at the time that to me would make much more sense than it's just with it saying that
02:38:02 sense than it's just with it saying that the exit and it it just raised a question in my head while I was on brain yes I can understand that I mean it's not the clearest and it is apt to confuse really isn't it um coming back
02:38:16 confuse really isn't it um coming back to it eight years later and not having the the drawings in front of me and you know I needed a few minutes to look at it so can I thank you can I ask you
02:38:28 at it so can I thank you can I ask you then to be shown e^x zero five zero three eight eight it's an email we looked at just before the end of your questions 10th of September the one you
02:38:39 questions 10th of September the one you sent to mr. Ashton and I think I did ask you about the penultimate paragraph and touched on significant approvals risk in the last paragraph just one of just one
02:38:52 the last paragraph just one of just one of you questions on that you say generally there is a significant approvals risk with the current proposals and to what extent were you concerned that the current proposals might not be safe and with the proposals
02:39:06 might not be safe and with the proposals as they stood and I am not aware of what eventually was chosen and the the the the the principle of once you are in a
02:39:17 the the principle of once you are in a stare you should descend in that stare to final exit was being buried so the the approvals risk is that if we are then bringing people after that staring
02:39:29 then bringing people after that staring closure without adding additional fire precautions then that represented a significant approvals risk from from the regulator's as well as not being satisfactory from our policy so is it
02:39:42 satisfactory from our policy so is it right that you were concerned that the current proposals would not comply or might not be seemed to comply with the building regulations that they carried a significant approvals risk that the that
02:39:55 significant approvals risk that the that the regulators would not be favorable without design so the design needed to be changed yes it's really what I understood understand by approvals risk
02:40:08 understood understand by approvals risk by risk do you mean as a chance that the building that Building Control might understand that it was actually non-compliant although they might misunderstand and think wrongly that it
02:40:19 misunderstand and think wrongly that it was non-compliant it an approvals risk is the risk that the the risk of it being approved is is diminished so it may result in a in a
02:40:34 is diminished so it may result in a in a refusal of that particular design right if you were concerned that the current proposals might not comply with the building regulations why didn't you say
02:40:45 building regulations why didn't you say so expressly well I did it in the form of this email and the one to two hundred Martin
02:40:55 Martin I may well have had conversations around that as well but I've certainly raised it in in in those two emails I mean did you think that the current proposals
02:41:07 you think that the current proposals didn't comply with the building regulations and there was a risk that Building Control would see that I think that the current layout as it was shown wasn't acceptable which is why I asked
02:41:21 wasn't acceptable which is why I asked for additional design changes to make sure that it could become a design which
02:41:32 sure that it could become a design which which would provide them the right level of safety so be in in that way reduce the risk of it being rejected we say acceptable do you mean non-compliant the
02:41:45 acceptable do you mean non-compliant the word compliance is compliant with what's building regulations with building regulations so yes eventually essentially if it if the regulator didn't feel that it met with the
02:41:57 didn't feel that it met with the requirements of any other parts of Part B then yes it was a risk that they could say no and either it complies or it doesn't well I'm trying to get out yes yes so either it complies it doesn't but
02:42:08 yes so either it complies it doesn't but the way in which you kind of comply you know so get to various design criteria really you know these there are several ways of of compliance it's not
02:42:20 ways of of compliance it's not necessarily for following a a specific guide to the letter and that's you know there are variations that can also be equally acceptable so in terms of the
02:42:32 equally acceptable so in terms of the approvals risk it's a risk of the regulators saying no it doesn't meet with their requirements Thank You mr. Cooney thank you very much and thank you for patience I'm very
02:42:43 and thank you for patience I'm very grateful to you for coming down here today and helping us with our investigations say thank you for your evidence we are very grateful to you for coming I'm sorry the day's turned out
02:42:55 coming I'm sorry the day's turned out here are longer than perhaps you wish
02:43:05 now before we formally call an end to the day's proceedings can I just do two things one is to thank the transcribers and the document managers because it's been a long day for you as well and your
02:43:17 been a long day for you as well and your fingers I suspect get very tired by this time thank you very much and the other thing is just to say something briefly about where we go tomorrow overnight we are going to look at the responses we've
02:43:30 are going to look at the responses we've received during the course of the day to the consultation that we sent out yesterday about the best way forward and it may be I'll be in a position to say
02:43:41 it may be I'll be in a position to say something more concrete about that tomorrow but I think for the purposes of tomorrow we should work on the basis that will continue as we have today in other words the limited attendance
02:43:52 other words the limited attendance hearing that on a voluntary basis I'm pleased to see that the quite a lot of empty seats towards the back of the room and I think it would be very desirable
02:44:03 and I think it would be very desirable if tomorrow as many people have sent it themselves as is reasonably practicable and followed the proceedings online but we have another witness who's come from the north of England to give evidence
02:44:14 the north of England to give evidence tomorrow and I would like to take her evidence on the basis have as few people exposed to risk of numbers as we can so tomorrow we'll go
02:44:27 numbers as we can so tomorrow we'll go ahead on the basis of limited attendance hearing but as I say on the voluntary basis and then we'll take it from there all right so 10 o'clock tomorrow please
02:44:38 all right so 10 o'clock tomorrow please thank you