Exova Evidence - Monday 6th July 2020

Full transcript

00:00:21 yes would you want to talk to Barker's come back please yeah

00:00:36 [Music]

00:00:40 all right ready ready to carry on yes thank you very much yes mister dr. Barker thanks for coming back to us I just want to ask a follow-up question if I can you said this morning in the

00:00:52 if I can you said this morning in the course of examination that when you signed off miss Cooney's reporters fine there were errors you needed more information on and if there were areas

00:01:05 information on and if there were areas on which more information was needed why didn't you raise those areas with mr. Cooney as part of your review there

00:01:17 Cooney as part of your review there wasn't time really until they the report was due to be sent out so I considered it well I don't actually remember whether I did raise anything with Kate I can't

00:01:32 raise anything with Kate I can't remember however we thought it was better to send the report out and then the design team had an understanding of the things that needed to be clarified

00:01:44 the things that needed to be clarified and then there could be discussed later date had you had more time would you have raised those areas with mr. Cooney as part of your review and got and got to the bottom of them before the report

00:01:55 to the bottom of them before the report was sent out yes I think we would have tried to obtain more information against the bottom of it yes so is this something of a missed opportunity do you

00:02:06 something of a missed opportunity do you think with hindsight yes thank you can we go back to where we were then when we broke at the lunch break which was

00:02:19 broke at the lunch break which was looking at the draft report itself can I ask you to look at it it's a TMO 1019 25 page 15

00:02:37 and I'd like you to look with me please at paragraph seven point one and this is under the heading requirement b5 access and facilities for the fire service you

00:02:49 and facilities for the fire service you see that yes and under seven point one with provision of fire mains and it says that the height of the building means that a firefighting shafts is required

00:03:00 that a firefighting shafts is required for the residential floors and one is provided as stated in the current fire risk assessment there should be a dry rising main within the fire fighting

00:03:11 rising main within the fire fighting shaft and the outlets from fire main should be cited within the firefighting stair the main is located in the lobby approach this is an existing condition now you say there well she says there as

00:03:24 now you say there well she says there as stated in the current fire risk assessment when you did your review did you notice the reference in here to the current fire risk assessment yes you did

00:03:35 current fire risk assessment yes you did did you read it did you read the current fire risk a fire risk assessment yes you did it's quite a long document so you got that into your two hours did you yes

00:03:47 got that into your two hours did you yes I did read it right now it's at we need to look at it necessarily but we've looked at the fire risk assessment and

00:03:59 looked at the fire risk assessment and we can't see anywhere where it mentions that grenfell Tower was provided with a firefighting shaft now I don't know

00:04:10 firefighting shaft now I don't know whether that's something you've had a chance to consider yourself but on the footing that I'm right about that can you explain why miss Cooney thought

00:04:22 you explain why miss Cooney thought under your review that the current fire risk risk assessment did say that a firefighting shaft was provided for the

00:04:33 firefighting shaft was provided for the residential floors in this building I think it's probably a reference to the to our fire resistance around the stair

00:04:44 to our fire resistance around the stair and the ventilation provides it right Edisto well let me ask you did a different way did you yourself verify whether or not the fire risk assessment did say that there was a firefighting

00:05:00 did say that there was a firefighting shaft I don't remember right did you verify any of the

00:05:11 right did you verify any of the assumptions or statements made by mr. Stokes in his fire risk assessment I haven't shown it to you because I'm assuming you're familiar with it but if you're not I cannot I can show it to you hmm

00:05:21 hmm but as a general don't remember right if you you don't remember it well let me ask it this way if you hadn't verified the assumptions in his fire risk

00:05:32 the assumptions in his fire risk assessment how would you satisfy yourself that Miss Kuhn is draft report was accurate

00:05:45 I don't know let me be slightly clearer my question how would you satisfy yourself that Miss Q news report about about the assumptions and statements

00:05:56 about the assumptions and statements made by him was accurate I would have gone to the fire risk assessment do you know or remember whether James Lee attempted to identify a fire fighting

00:06:08 attempted to identify a fire fighting shaft on his site visit and I'm not aware that he did I'm only aware that he took some photographs do you do you recall thinking that the TMO should be

00:06:22 recall thinking that the TMO should be advised that they should confirm whether there was or wasn't a fire fighting shaft for the residential floors

00:06:36 and know why not

00:06:47 because when the building was designed it wouldn't necessarily have had to have a firefighting shaft that was my

00:06:58 a firefighting shaft that was my understanding it had to have two hours fire resistance and it needed the rising main mr. Cooney says it's 7.1 that the

00:07:11 main mr. Cooney says it's 7.1 that the height of the building means she says it that a firefighting shaft is required for the residential floors did you write it like that or was she wrong about that yes under the current guidance yes and

00:07:24 yes under the current guidance yes and given that that is correct but why didn't you verify but whether by looking at the f ra or mr. Lee's work whether

00:07:37 at the f ra or mr. Lee's work whether one was provided

00:07:43 I did look at the fire risk assessment and and I thought it stated that there was a firefighting shaft in there how long did you spend actually looking at the fire risk assessment dr. Baca I

00:07:56 the fire risk assessment dr. Baca I don't remember we're going to come back to it in in due course this afternoon let me just move on

00:08:06 on could you go back please to page 5 of the same document earlier under Section

00:08:17 the same document earlier under Section 1 introduction and in the third paragraph it says I suppose fourth

00:08:30 paragraph it says I suppose fourth paragraph it is expected it says it is expected and therefore assumed that the existing building has been built to the prevailing standards of the day thought originally to be the building

00:08:41 originally to be the building regulations 1965 which did little more than require the structure of the building to have fire resistance the design of the building predates the guidance of the 1971 code of practice cp3 the London Building Act Amendments

00:08:53 cp3 the London Building Act Amendments Act 1939 however required features to be included in the building which are very comparable with today's standards in terms of firefighter access the date of later developments is unknown now we

00:09:05 later developments is unknown now we looked earlier at London Building Act Amendments being relevant this is a specific reference to them here were you familiar with section 20 of the London Building Act amendment act 1939 at the

00:09:16 Building Act amendment act 1939 at the time yes I hadn't seen that you you have yes you had seen the act we're familiar with section 20 yes so you were familiar with the fact that

00:09:28 so you were familiar with the fact that it required buildings of more than a hundred feet that's 30 meters or buildings over 80 feet if the area of the building exceeds 10,000 square feet 25 meters high if that area exceeds 930

00:09:41 25 meters high if that area exceeds 930 square meters you're familiar with that at will you yes did you know at the time how tall grenfell Tower was

00:09:51 no but I could have made an assumption from based on the number stories or booked on the sections to see how high it was did you make an assumption

00:10:07 I can't remember all right did you know at the time that grenfell tower was sixty seven point three meters tall that's 220 feet and ten inches okay did

00:10:20 that's 220 feet and ten inches okay did you know that um yes I think I would have known that you would have known that say would you would you have known therefore that section 20 of the London

00:10:32 therefore that section 20 of the London Building Act amendment act nineteen thirty nine applied to this building yes and did you know what the relevant design codes were relating to the two statutory requirements under Section 20

00:10:47 statutory requirements under Section 20 it was um

00:10:49 it was um provisions for the fire service access to the building right where were those contained what what code had those in them um that's in b5 approved document b

00:11:06 them um that's in b5 approved document b right now given that according to the scope of work we looked at earlier and we can look at it again if you like the design of the building was to be assessed against the relevant design codes relating to the statutory

00:11:17 codes relating to the statutory requirements on design of the building under Section 20 of the LBA in 1939 my question is did you did you think at the time that it was sufficient for miss

00:11:28 time that it was sufficient for miss Cooney to assume and expect as she says here in this fourth paragraph under the introduction assume and expect that the building was built to the prevailing standards of the day yes

00:11:43 standards of the day yes why was it sufficient for her to assume and expect that

00:11:52 well the one thoughts it would have been allowed to be built if it didn't meet those standards the day did it occur to you to question that assumption and expectation not at the time no say well

00:12:08 expectation not at the time no say well why is that well as I said I thought that the building would have been built had it not had the relevant approvals

00:12:19 had it not had the relevant approvals under the guidance at the time and what about later developments was it was it sufficient for mr. Cooney to assume and expect that the building was and

00:12:31 expect that the building was and developed later in accordance with prevailing standards of those later days

00:12:38 yes I would have assumed that it had been done if any further developments had taken place was it not part of X overs job in

00:12:49 was it not part of X overs job in providing a complete existing fire safety strategy to examine the correctness or otherwise of these assumptions and expectations

00:13:13 not necessarily because we were just looking at the design of the building and comparing it to what the current standards would be initially if you were

00:13:27 standards would be initially if you were preparing an existing fire safety strategy for an existing building in circumstances where one had never been done before in the full 40 years of its

00:13:38 done before in the full 40 years of its existence just under 40 years of its existence would you not think to check the building to make sure that as a starting point the building was

00:13:49 starting point the building was compliant with relevant building standards so far as they related to fire safety

00:13:59 yes say why didn't you I don't know can we then turn - I'm so sorry back to the

00:14:10 then turn - I'm so sorry back to the scope of work and page two [Music]

00:14:13 [Music] [Applause]

00:14:19 the scope of work which I should have given you a reference to and so it's um [Music]

00:14:46 very good I didn't even have to give the reference and the document manager has produced it thank you very much now on page two here under proposed scope of work it says the proposed or

00:15:01 scope of work it says the proposed or the scope of the work for the project this is the second paragraph would therefore include a a site visit you see that expected to take no longer than

00:15:13 that expected to take no longer than half a day to survey the building's architecture and fire safety systems you see that yes and before James Lee left xover did you have a conversation with

00:15:26 xover did you have a conversation with him in which you asked him for his notes on the site survey or or did this all happen after he left no I didn't have a conversation with James because my involvement with Grenfell only began

00:15:41 involvement with Grenfell only began after he'd left so at the point you took over the responsibility which was after he left us I think we established this morning did you know well let me ask you

00:15:52 morning did you know well let me ask you that did you think that a site survey would be required

00:15:59 and yes when would that be carried out and

00:16:15 I don't know because I think after that I then found out that he had been two sides are you meaning somebody from the Warrington office to do sorry survey

00:16:27 Warrington office to do sorry survey this way you you get the proposed scope of work within the fee proposal around about the 24th of July and when you go to a meeting on the 26th of July and you

00:16:38 to a meeting on the 26th of July and you can see from the document that part of the scope of the work would include a site visit did it occur to you at the time the a site visit was going to be needed in order for the report to be

00:16:49 needed in order for the report to be produced yes and when was that site visit to take place no I don't mean that I was going to do a site visit and I

00:17:01 I was going to do a site visit and I mean that I saw a copy of the fee proposal yeah and so that a site visit was required and I think I found out

00:17:12 was required and I think I found out that wanted or had to take in place are you referring to the site visit that James Lee did at the end of May did you know that he'd done it at the end of May and I didn't know the precise dose event

00:17:25 and I didn't know the precise dose event I just knew that he'd carried out a site visit before he left I see did you know that he done it prior to the fee proposal even being drafted by him no I didn't know that did you ask

00:17:39 by him no I didn't know that did you ask yourself why if he'd already done a site visit he would be providing for a site visit to be conducted no I didn't ask myself that did you make any

00:17:51 myself that did you make any investigations at all when you took this project over on the 24th of July to find out whether the site visit referred to in the fee proposal had already been done or whether it remained outstanding

00:18:04 done or whether it remained outstanding no I didn't take any steps to find out I just assumed that the site with it that he'd carried out was in relation to the existing building no strategy

00:18:15 existing building no strategy did you ask yourself why the site visit that he had carried out would be what was the one referred to in the fee proposal given that the fee proposal post-dated it by some weeks

00:18:27 post-dated it by some weeks no I didn't given that you didn't have as you've told us earlier any note of his site visit or a report or any conversation with him before he left

00:18:38 conversation with him before he left about a site visit can you explain why you didn't commission or perform yourself another site visit in order to be able to produce at least a draft

00:18:49 be able to produce at least a draft existing fire safety strategy and we looked at the photographs that he taken and but to be honest I didn't have the

00:19:01 and but to be honest I didn't have the time to do a site visit right thank you

00:19:11 did you all miss can miss Cunha discuss together whether the draft that she had produced would be improved by a site visit no did you at any stage tell mr.

00:19:26 visit no did you at any stage tell mr. sands over TMO that in order to finish this document off and produce a final version a site visit was going to be needed No why is that and I don't know

00:19:50 you know the escape of work also says halfway down page 2 that and it is just

00:20:02 halfway down page 2 that and it is just about halfway down page 2 it says in developing the report we would use our expert knowledge of fire safety design codes the report for the building will consider the following items and then it says means of escape and fire safety

00:20:15 says means of escape and fire safety systems just focusing on fire safety systems dr. Barker do you know or did you ask what investigations mr. Lee had

00:20:26 you ask what investigations mr. Lee had carried out in order to assess the fire safety systems no but I couldn't because he left correct say does that tell us

00:20:37 he left correct say does that tell us that an investigation into the assessment of the fire safety systems in the building was yet to be done and there were fire safety systems mentioned in the fire risk assessment so

00:20:50 mentioned in the fire risk assessment so this was a paper exercise based on Carl Stokes his 2010 report yes in some respects yes I see so how would you know whether the fire safety systems were the

00:21:03 whether the fire safety systems were the same or in the same condition in August 2012 as they had been reviewed by mr. Stokes in December 2010

00:21:18 I would just forgot the information from the fire risk assessment that's 18 months during which things about fire safety systems in the building could

00:21:29 safety systems in the building could have changed at least in terms of their maintenance which was unchecked was that satisfactory and usually the fire risk

00:21:41 satisfactory and usually the fire risk assessment is updated periodically or it's updated if there are significant changes within the building so we

00:21:53 changes within the building so we assumed that the current fire is a fire risk assessment stood it was that a safe assumption to make given that it was not by August 2012 a particularly recent

00:22:06 by August 2012 a particularly recent document

00:22:18 I don't know possibly do you know what did you ask what investigations miss Cooney had carried out into the existing fire safety systems at Greenville tower

00:22:30 fire safety systems at Greenville tower and I think I discussed it with her however she had used the fire risk assessment did you see anything in the

00:22:47 assessment did you see anything in the report by way of an analysis of the fire safety systems

00:22:58 not really an analysis the report states what is there in the common areas makes an assumption on what's provided in the

00:23:10 an assumption on what's provided in the flats themselves indeed let's look if we can together at Carl Stokes whose fire risk assessment of the 29th of December 2010 please it's a TMO

00:23:21 29th of December 2010 please it's a TMO one zero zero three seven seven four three and if we can just look at the

00:23:33 three and if we can just look at the very first page of that document together you can see areas not covered you see that talked about here you all

00:23:44 you see that talked about here you all right

00:23:44 right yes sorry areas not covered yes and it says all the private residential

00:23:55 says all the private residential apartments the ground-floor electrical substation Dale youth Boxing Club Grenville nursery the access to the upper ground floor level and the upper ground floor level office is complete

00:24:08 when you reviewed ms Cooney's draft did you notice what or did you know that

00:24:19 you notice what or did you know that these areas have not been covered by the f ra yes

00:24:26 did does that tell us that so far as Miss Cooney's work is concerned she hadn't reviewed those areas either and

00:24:38 hadn't reviewed those areas either and she did look at them in terms of the means of escape yes okay we'll come to the means of escape later did you

00:24:51 the means of escape later did you discuss with Miss Cooney why there was whether there was any further fire risk assessment for the area's not covered by mr. Stokes whose review Norden why is

00:25:03 mr. Stokes whose review Norden why is that and I think because we were primarily concerned with the risk assessment for the residential parts and

00:25:16 assessment for the residential parts and because of the fire resistance provided between the residential parts and these areas we considered them almost to be separate entities

00:25:28 separate entities so does that maybe I misunderstood that that answer you've just you've just given us but are you saying that because you were primarily concerned with the risk assessment for the residential

00:25:40 risk assessment for the residential parts there wasn't actually therefore a fire risk assessment which mr. Stokes had done which was relevant because private residential apartments had been excluded yes private residential

00:25:53 excluded yes private residential apartments wouldn't normally form part of a a residential building risk assessment the risk assessment stops at the flat entrance door yeah

00:26:10 how would you be able to assess and analyze the existing fire safety measures by way of checking as Cooney's work given the given what's not covered expressly by mr. stokes in this fire

00:26:23 expressly by mr. stokes in this fire risk assessment in what way do you mean the the private apartments or the or the

00:26:34 the the private apartments or the or the common or communal areas well let me ask it a slightly different way did you approach miss Cooney's Draft on the basis that it was limited to the same parts of the building that mr. Stokes is

00:26:47 parts of the building that mr. Stokes is fr a was limited yes supposed yes I did and that would that mean that those

00:26:58 and that would that mean that those areas would me wouldn't it that those areas not covered by mr. Stokes his analysis would also not be the subject of your existing fire safety strategy at all

00:27:15 and no they were covered in the strategy but without reference to the fr a is that right yes so what information did you

00:27:28 right yes so what information did you have for those other parts of the building not covered by the fr a to see a few lines if they hadn't done a flight a site visit so it's the floor plan right thank you could we now turn please

00:27:39 right thank you could we now turn please to a document TMO 137 seven four zero

00:27:50 this is an email from Paul dunker ton to miss Cooney of the 13th of August 2012 attaching mr. Stokes his Fr a which she had asked for you see that yes now it

00:28:05 had asked for you see that yes now it didn't include what mr. Stokes called the significant findings and action plan that he had also prepared on the 29th of December now you you wouldn't you were

00:28:18 December now you you wouldn't you were not copied in on this but do you have a recollection of such a document existing no well let me just go back then if I can just to jog your memory we can look

00:28:31 can just to jog your memory we can look back at the fire risk assessment TMO one zero zero three seven seven four three paid one again at the foot of that page you can see just underneath the dock the

00:28:42 you can see just underneath the dock the area's not covered there's a rubric the significant findings an action plan of this fire risk assessment are inserted next with this document continuing at page two so when you did see this report

00:28:53 page two so when you did see this report as part of your review of Miss Cooney's work did you notice that did you notice that you didn't have the significant findings an action plan of the Fr a no

00:29:04 findings an action plan of the Fr a no you did can you explain why you didn't

00:29:13 No well let me it's a slightly negative question to us and we tried a different way what would a word significant findings and an action plan of a fire risk assessment highlighted like this in

00:29:25 risk assessment highlighted like this in bold on the first page not be an important extra document or or or ride a document for you to examine so that you

00:29:37 document for you to examine so that you could understand the full advice being given by mr. Stokes as part of his fire risk assessment yes however I would also

00:29:49 risk assessment yes however I would also have thought that there would have been mention of the findings actually within the risk assessment itself before they were summarized in a separate document

00:30:01 were summarized in a separate document with an action plan at any rate you told us you didn't notice that it you hadn't got it can we take it there was therefore no discussion between you and Miss Cooney about whether you should

00:30:12 Miss Cooney about whether you should have it and why you didn't have it yes there was no discussion you right can I then get back to the scope of the works in the fee proposal TMO one double zero

00:30:25 in the fee proposal TMO one double zero three seven seven two one at page two this is about the fourth time I'm afraid dr. Barker and I apologize I've taken you back to this it's it's the scope of the works again we looked at this this morning in the first paragraph there the

00:30:38 morning in the first paragraph there the second sentence this report will serve to inform the fire safety risk assessment and fire risk management plan for the building you see the reference to the word fire risk management plan

00:30:49 to the word fire risk management plan Casey how did you expect the report would form a fire risk management plan for the building and if neither you nor miss Cooney had undertaken a detailed

00:31:00 miss Cooney had undertaken a detailed review and analysis of the existing fire risk assessments and also the documents accompanying it such as the significant action plan

00:31:12 well again the reports was primarily to look at the design of the building in relation to compliance with approved document b so if there were areas of non-compliance

00:31:24 so if there were areas of non-compliance or measures that were in place that serves to fought to inform the fire safety risk assessment beyond the

00:31:36 safety risk assessment beyond the management plan of the building yes and how would the report serve to inform the fire risk assessment and and the management plan of the building the next one that was to be produced if you

00:31:48 one that was to be produced if you didn't have the whole of the last one well I think that's one of the reasons why when it was sent out as a draft there were areas that needed to be

00:31:59 there were areas that needed to be looked at that needed more information dr. Barker you didn't notice as you've told us that the F ra that mr. Cooney

00:32:12 told us that the F ra that mr. Cooney had been sent by the TMO did not include the significant findings an action plan so how could it have been something on the on the on the radar to be looked at next if you hadn't noticed it I don't

00:32:26 next if you hadn't noticed it I don't know

00:32:31 is the reality that you didn't have time to chase up this extra document and make sure that you fully understood the full extent of the f ra because you were

00:32:43 extent of the f ra because you were going on holiday I think time was a factor it wasn't necessarily because it was going on holiday and there was all

00:32:54 was going on holiday and there was all the work Lord factors there I understand that

00:32:59 that and if you'd had different workload factors level at lower workload factors and more time would you have asked miss Cooney to get hold of the full

00:33:10 Cooney to get hold of the full significant action plan having noticed that it was missing and incorporated that into the report even they were draft so that you could make the best shot you could at informing the fire

00:33:21 shot you could at informing the fire safety risk assessment and fire risk management plan as instructed yes can I ask you to look at fact please at the

00:33:35 ask you to look at fact please at the fire risk assessment oh sorry I'm so sorry Liam at the draft report it's just in general and then this might speed things up a little bit this is a TMO

00:33:47 things up a little bit this is a TMO 1019 25 but this might speed things up do you recall that there are many unknowns and assumptions throughout the draft yes I could list them all to spend

00:33:59 draft yes I could list them all to spend time doing that but you accept that they're there yes was it usual that an

00:34:10 they're there yes was it usual that an existing fire safety strategy even in a draft would have so many uncertainties in it so many assumptions and uncertainties in it and yes

00:34:29 and you say yes what normally would then happen to those assumptions and uncertainties I think if if it was a strategy for an existing

00:34:41 if it was a strategy for an existing building that was just done as a piece of work and there was going to be no refurbishment done on the building it would be a slightly different scenario because you would want to gain as much

00:34:56 because you would want to gain as much information as you can about that building so that you can complete the reports but because the refurbishment was being carried out sort of concurrently or the design for the

00:35:07 concurrently or the design for the refurbishment was happening concurrently with this report for the existing building it was understood that we'd

00:35:19 building it was understood that we'd potentially be able to get more information as time went on and Terry attended meetings that's the way that I understood it I see let's look at just

00:35:30 understood it I see let's look at just one or two together if we if we can because there are too many to get through to this afternoon can I ask you please to look at the draft report TMO 1019 25 page 8 at 3.2.1

00:35:46 1019 25 page 8 at 3.2.1 this is under means of warning levels one and two and she says in the draft it is unknown whether the community areas and nursery are covered by an automatic

00:35:59 and nursery are covered by an automatic fire detection system AFD or a manual system triggered by manual called coal points you see that yes and then she says in the next in the next um

00:36:10 says in the next in the next um paragraph under the same numbered paragraph there is detection within the ground floor lift Lobby the provision of this detector was only served to inform the management of the building of a fire

00:36:21 the management of the building of a fire and presumably disable the operation of the lifts note the word presumably there did you think to check with Ms Cooney the basis on which seemed she made the

00:36:32 the basis on which seemed she made the assumption that the detection system would disable the operation of the lifts that's usual practice for when a

00:36:44 that's usual practice for when a detector detects ball is that the lifts aren't to be used in the event of a fire and they return to ground see that's general passenger lifts firefighters

00:36:56 general passenger lifts firefighters lifts where there is one are different because they tend to have a control mechanism that can be used by the fire service when they arrive given that

00:37:07 service when they arrive given that there'd been a site visit and no tests of the lifts to see whether in fact this detector did actually disable the operation of the lifts why was that assumption made because that's that's

00:37:20 assumption made because that's that's common practice in designs and I think also what she's meaning with that sentence is that when that detector

00:37:31 sentence is that when that detector activates it might not necessarily sound an audible alarm and warn the people in the flats

00:37:41 why did you think that it was safe to approve aid a draft report that contained an assumption which had not been checked merely because there was an

00:37:53 been checked merely because there was an assumption based on common practice yes but this could have been something that could have been discussed later on as well with the design team as they read

00:38:06 well with the design team as they read and digested the draft reports I see are you aware of any way in which this report or any later communication

00:38:18 report or any later communication flagged up in crystal-clear terms both to Studio II and critically to the client that all these presumptions had to be double checked to make sure they

00:38:30 to be double checked to make sure they were valid no no why is that

00:38:36 I don't know she says in the first sentence it is unknown whether the community areas and nursery are covered by an AF D or a manual system triggered by manual call points why was it unknown

00:38:48 by manual call points why was it unknown why was that not something that had been checked before the 15th of August I

00:38:56 don't know I I'm not sure whether when James went to science whether he was given access to those areas and we

00:39:07 given access to those areas and we didn't have the fire risk assessment for those different areas let's look at another one three point three point six page ten please

00:39:24 under three point three point six in the third line it says the distance to the stairs from the flat entrance doors appears to be more than seven point five meters from the flats with entrance doors to the north of the lift shaft the

00:39:37 doors to the north of the lift shaft the maximum of which is approximately eight point three meters scaled from microfuge planned to be checked on site this excessive distance of less than one meters results in an increase of travel at less than one second and would be

00:39:49 at less than one second and would be considered to be acceptable under current standards and risk assessment now did you not want to know why mr. Cooney was content to proceed on the basis of appearances and not precise

00:40:02 basis of appearances and not precise measurements well as she says in it's been scaled from microfiche plans so it may well have been less than eight point

00:40:14 may well have been less than eight point three yes my question is what were you happy or what why were you happy that she was going to proceed as she it has

00:40:25 she was going to proceed as she it has on the basis of appearances in other words working off plans and scaling up from them as opposed to on site precise measurements again there wasn't a

00:40:39 measurements again there wasn't a sufficient time time took outside so time okay

00:40:54 under Section 3.4 same page smoke ventilation

00:41:01 she says this is some at three point four on the following page this is page

00:41:12 four on the following page this is page 11 please the third paragraph down she says there in the third line it is

00:41:29 says there in the third line it is understood that fans are positioned do you see that it is understood that the fans are positioned at the base of the shaft is it is unknown how the fresh air ventilation shaft operates in a fire condition the rate of extraction the

00:41:42 condition the rate of extraction the system currently achieves both naturally and mechanically it is also not known how the existing system performs as a natural shaft for the purposes of escape prior to fire service intervention again

00:41:54 prior to fire service intervention again dr. Barca same question did you not want to know why mr. Cooney was content to proceed on the basis of what she didn't know well she's put in the report that

00:42:09 know well she's put in the report that what is provided is unsatisfactory and she's noted that it's going to be changed and that was the information

00:42:22 changed and that was the information that we'd been given that as part of the refurbishment works the ventilation system would be upgraded I see ok so these were things to be tested rather

00:42:34 these were things to be tested rather than unknowns that could be solved by her by way of a site visit is that no they probably oh they may have been

00:42:45 they probably oh they may have been solved by site visit [Applause]

00:42:53 are you familiar with pas 9/11 2007 documents yes you have which bears the elegant title fire strategies guidance and framework for their formulation you

00:43:06 and framework for their formulation you are can we have a look at that please it's BSI 6 0 66 please and I'd like to turn to page 46 within it which is

00:43:17 turn to page 46 within it which is internal page 46 so page 52 of the of the document on our system

00:43:40 that's BSI six zeros 66 page 52 intern

00:44:00 [Applause]

00:44:13 now this is paragraph 92 I'd like to look at with you please where it says level of detail do you see that yes 9 -

00:44:27 level of detail do you see that yes 9 - it says the strategy is designed and I should just put this in wider context so everybody can understand this finalizing the fire strategy document and under 9 -

00:44:38 the fire strategy document and under 9 - level of detail it says the strategy is designed to be a single overview of all relevant fire precautions specific to the building it is not meant to specify detailed designs or arrangements but is

00:44:49 detailed designs or arrangements but is there to give sufficient guidance for more detailed assessments and designs in this way it is likely to continue to be relevant throughout minor changes to the building its occupants etc however it

00:45:00 building its occupants etc however it should not all it should also not be so vague as to lead to ambiguous or misleading conclusions and then if you look at paragraph 7 point 1 point 3 on page 37 if you go back a little in the

00:45:13 page 37 if you go back a little in the document

00:45:23 there's a photograph of some people having what we used to call a meeting at paragraph seven point one point three e it says on the first review collation

00:45:36 it says on the first review collation and review of information received with relevant stakeholders where the information is found insufficient or ambiguous further investigations may be required

00:45:45 required this may include for instance the requirement for system health checks this will involve one or more meetings with stakeholders given that that it is

00:45:57 with stakeholders given that that it is a well let me ask you this was pas 911 which we've just been looking at a guiding framework for you in your work when you were reviewing Mis Cooney's no

00:46:09 when you were reviewing Mis Cooney's no why is that can you explain we just didn't use it it's not mandatory to use it so we didn't use the house 9-1-1 framework other principles that i

00:46:21 9-1-1 framework other principles that i just shown you on those two pages principles that nonetheless you and your practice when reviewing a draft would adopt yes there are some common

00:46:33 adopt yes there are some common practices and now that in the way that we did our projects why were you content to sign this report or draft report off as fine when there were so many unknowns

00:46:44 as fine when there were so many unknowns and so many matters which had been assumed where the assumptions had not been verified because it was sent out on the basis that it was a draft on the

00:46:57 the basis that it was a draft on the understanding that these issues could be clarified yes my question is even though it was sent out as a draft why were you happy to sign off on it as a fine draft notwithstanding so many

00:47:09 a fine draft notwithstanding so many unknowns and so many unverified assumptions

00:47:20 because I was happy that that was a a document that could be built on at a later stage to provide more information or a complete document I see

00:47:38 can I just then get back to the draft report at page 10 that's t mo 1001 925

00:47:50 report at page 10 that's t mo 1001 925 at page 10 and look at paragraph 3.4 with you please

00:47:56 smoke ventilation

00:48:05 we looked at the start of this paragraph but then went over the page I just want to come back to the beginning of it halfway down that first paragraph four

00:48:18 halfway down that first paragraph four lines down it says the dimensions of the shafts are unknown do you see that yes the dimensions of the shafts are unknown from the microfiche archive drawings they appear to be in the region of 400 millimeters by 600 millimeters each

00:48:30 millimeters by 600 millimeters each between their internal walls these measurements are not able to be precisely scaled and should be checked on site the shafts appear to continue up to the roof of the plant housing where they are terminated the details of the

00:48:42 they are terminated the details of the shaft termination cows stroke protrusions are unknown you see that did you again did you not want to know why mr. Coony was content to proceed on the

00:48:53 mr. Coony was content to proceed on the basis of appearances in respect of those shafts and not precise measurements

00:49:04 I think in the timescale that we had for the report and the quality of the drawings shown on the microfiche I think it was reasonable of her to say that

00:49:17 it was reasonable of her to say that they were in the region of those dimensions and they needed to be checked on site because she was making the point that what is provided doesn't comply

00:49:32 that what is provided doesn't comply with the current guidance so yes it did need to be checked on site and when would that happen did you think possibly

00:49:50 would that happen did you think possibly at some point after the draft report had been issued and the design team had seen it and discussed it with a colleague

00:50:02 it and discussed it with a colleague teri given the numbers of assumptions which had been unverified and the numbers of occasions when Kay Cooney had

00:50:13 numbers of occasions when Kay Cooney had identified things as unknown can you explain why you didn't instead of signing off her reporters fine amend it to identify or suggest that she amends

00:50:25 to identify or suggest that she amends it to identify in a list of shopping lists of some kind future investigative actions to determine or confirm unknown or assumed facts I don't know why I

00:50:40 or assumed facts I don't know why I didn't and with hindsight probably should

00:50:48 and the same question why didn't you make it absolutely crystal clear to the TMO and Studio II that until and unless the missing information was obtained and

00:50:59 the missing information was obtained and the assumptions were verified the draft couldn't be relied on and again I don't know I'm with her inside I probably

00:51:11 know I'm with her inside I probably should

00:51:24 did you consider how unless those matters were verified and the unknowns were made known the TMAO as the responsible person under the regulatory reform order could discharge their

00:51:36 reform order could discharge their obligations under it no because I assumed that some discussion would be held regarding the draft report to try

00:51:49 held regarding the draft report to try and rectify or clarify some of the assumptions that were made in the report can I ask you to go back to the report itself so I on in the report and say

00:52:00 itself so I on in the report and say sorry back in the report to page 7 we're on page 10 if we can go back to page 7 I want you to look with me please section 2 purpose groups now there are three of

00:52:13 2 purpose groups now there are three of them per the guidance and approved document b residential assembly and offices you see that yes I just want to look at residential but did you consider

00:52:24 look at residential but did you consider whether it was important that the report should reflect or examine the characteristics of the occupants under each of these purpose groups and no

00:52:37 each of these purpose groups and no because the purpose groups in approved document b in a way reflect that in themselves when in it in themselves for

00:52:49 themselves when in it in themselves for example when it's residential the risk is that there is a sleeping risk so you have to consider then the means of

00:53:00 have to consider then the means of warning may be different to what's required for example in an office purpose group where people are familiar

00:53:11 purpose group where people are familiar with the building it's their place of work and they're generally awake yes was any consideration given to how the characteristics of the occupants as individuals would impact or rather would

00:53:24 individuals would impact or rather would need to be addressed by the TMO as a responsible person when managing fire safety in the building no I mean for example did you give any

00:53:35 I mean for example did you give any consideration or ask why miss Cooney had not given any consideration to for example people who made may need assistance in escaping in the event of a fire because they have mobility problems

00:53:47 fire because they have mobility problems well for residential buildings in approved document b there is no requirement to consider occupants that have mobility impairments for

00:54:01 have mobility impairments for residential buildings it is not a requirement to have disabled refugees because of the remaining place

00:54:10 evacuation policy so you rely on self evacuation so the occupant of a fire affected flat they're the only ones that receive a

00:54:21 they're the only ones that receive a warning that there's a fire in their flat so they can evacuate the person who lives next door doesn't receive a warning that something is going wrong in

00:54:32 warning that something is going wrong in the flat next door and the provisions are in place so that there is a sufficient level of fire resistance around each apartment that other people

00:54:44 around each apartment that other people should not need to evacuate and with a residential building there is not always a management presence on-site so with the disabled refuge an EVC a voice

00:54:59 the disabled refuge an EVC a voice communication system is required and it's a safe area where for somebody with a disability to remain until they are rescued but if there's no management presence there to consider that then

00:55:14 presence there to consider that then they all fall down hit up that plan will fall down so in the in the other parts and the offices and assembly if there

00:55:26 and the offices and assembly if there are any stairs to negotiate in those areas there would generally be a requirement for a disabled refuge did you have any thoughts at the time about

00:55:37 you have any thoughts at the time about how the TMO would comply with its obligations under the RR Oh

00:55:43 in relation to its fire safety management plan it without having some kind of guidance or strategy for

00:55:55 kind of guidance or strategy for assisting people who need assistance from evacuating the building whether they're from their own flats which are on fire or whether by way of a wider more generalized evacuation possibly but

00:56:12 more generalized evacuation possibly but and when you're considering the guidance in the ODB it is assumed that people can self evacuate from the flood yes what about what is that as a fire engine

00:56:25 about what is that as a fire engine experienced fire engineer was your experience and understanding that that assumption was also made in the obligations under the RR oh and I think

00:56:36 obligations under the RR oh and I think under the our our role and they would need to consider their residents and consider if some of them did have mobility impairments to house them in a

00:56:48 mobility impairments to house them in a high-rise residential building might not be an appropriate place to put them let me see if I can put the question a bit more they're more less delicately a bit more bluntly did it occur to you when you saw miss Cooney's report to

00:57:00 when you saw miss Cooney's report to think to yourself call given that we're dealing with residents in a high-rise block and we've got to advise the TMO on the fire safety management plan to the occupants we should look at how we're

00:57:11 occupants we should look at how we're going to get people with mobility issues out

00:57:19 no I didn't consider that can you help us understand why that is because again um if they did have mobility issues then

00:57:31 um if they did have mobility issues then maybe Graham felt I wasn't the best place for them to live to reiterate approved document b does not make any provisions in residential buildings for people with mobility

00:57:43 buildings for people with mobility impairments I see that's not to say that they can't be put in but the ODB does not make provision for them

00:58:02 now can I then move on to another area of this report just a minute I've got one eye on the clock yes some point imagine we're going to

00:58:15 yes some point imagine we're going to need to take another break yeah

00:58:24 no no that's right let me just do one more topic and then if that's all right doctor dr. Barker is that all right with you you feeling all right to go on for a ten minutes or so yes pushed into it by mr. minutes you

00:58:39 yes pushed into it by mr. minutes you feel you need a break now yes yes I think that sensitively it's just another case for course not well I'd rather ten minutes if it were possible the last time you took quarter

00:58:51 possible the last time you took quarter an hour I think very much happened pardon me having you know if we say ten minutes I think if you need longer you let me know very good is this ten minutes all right Phil you dr. de Barker

00:59:02 minutes all right Phil you dr. de Barker will have a 10-minute break now please go with the Asscher please don't talk to anyone about your evidence

00:59:15 the temple sweeties

01:11:44 yes would you all talk to Warka to come back please

01:11:58 all right dr. Barker now if at any stage you feel you'd like a bit of rest bite just indicate will you mr. chairman

01:12:09 just indicate will you mr. chairman thank you dr. Barker can I just examine a DB with you just in light of the answers you were giving us earlier on in answer to my questions about mobility difficulties can I ask you please to be shown CLG

01:12:22 can I ask you please to be shown CLG zero zero zero zero zero one seven three page fourteen and if you look at the

01:12:35 page fourteen and if you look at the rubric inclusive design under paragraph zero one nine you see that there there is reference here to the health and

01:12:49 is reference here to the health and safety of all persons including people with disabilities you see that yes and it goes on part M of the regulations its

01:13:00 it goes on part M of the regulations its Building Regulations access to and the use of buildings requires reasonable provisions were accessed by people to buildings regardless of compliance with building regulations there will also be obligations under the Disability

01:13:11 obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 for service providers and employers to consider barriers created by physical features of buildings people regardless of disability age or gender should be able

01:13:24 disability age or gender should be able to gain access to buildings and use the facilities their facilities both as visitors and as people who live or work in them as such the fire safety measures incorporated into a building will need to take account of the needs of all

01:13:37 to take account of the needs of all those persons who may have access to the building it is not appropriate except in exceptional circumstances to presume that certain groups of people will be excluded from the building because of its use and then over the top of the

01:13:51 its use and then over the top of the next column the provisions set out in this approved document are considered to be a reasonable standard for most buildings however there may be some people whose specific needs are not addressed in some situations sorry not addressed in some situations additional

01:14:03 addressed in some situations additional measures may be needed to accommodate these needs these should be done on a case-by-case basis can I also then show you page 8 under paragraph b1 little five page

01:14:15 under paragraph b1 little five page eighteen b1 little five criteria for means of escape and if you look at the note under that it says some people for

01:14:28 note under that it says some people for example those who use wheelchairs may not be able to use stairways without assistance for them evacuation involving the use of refugees or asan escape routes and either assistance down or up stairways or the

01:14:41 assistance down or up stairways or the use of suitable lifts will be necessary now I've shown you that again to refresh your memory looking at that again it's not right to say is it that ADB was

01:14:53 not right to say is it that ADB was completely devoid of any guidance in respect of people with mobility issues no I didn't say that it was completely devoid and the guidance with respect to flats the provision of disabled refuges

01:15:07 flats the provision of disabled refuges is not mentioned in that section and disabled refugees aren't generally provided in flats because the emergency

01:15:18 provided in flats because the emergency voice communication system that would go need go with it would need to communicate with somebody I'll be a management presence in many high-rise

01:15:31 management presence in many high-rise residential buildings that are built there can be no management presence so if there was a person within the refuge there wouldn't be anybody there to

01:15:43 there wouldn't be anybody there to rescue them similarly evacuation lifts could be provided but they aren't they're not

01:15:54 provided but they aren't they're not mentioned in the section of guidance on means of escape from flats I note those answers and that's very helpful in in a

01:16:05 answers and that's very helpful in in a more general sense coming back to your specific role in a in signing off as fine miss Cooney's draft

01:16:14 and given that your understanding was that she was working from approved document b as as the design code can you explain why even they should identify the residents as a purpose group there's

01:16:26 the residents as a purpose group there's nothing in the report about whether about the suitability of the building in respect to fire safety for those with

01:16:37 respect to fire safety for those with mobility issues yes that's right there is no provision in there yeah and why is why is that something you didn't pick up when reviewing her draft I did it's not

01:16:52 when reviewing her draft I did it's not that I didn't pick up on it it's that within residential buildings we wouldn't normally require there to be provisions in place for mobility impaired persons and coming back to the

01:17:06 impaired persons and coming back to the question I asked just before the break given that it's in a DB there is at the very least a consciousness that fire safety systems should take account of

01:17:17 safety systems should take account of people with mobility issues can you explain why the draft that Miss Cooney produced a new signed off on did not advise the TMO that when formulating their fire safety management plan

01:17:29 their fire safety management plan consideration should be given to a strategy which incorporated or included in keeping disabled people safe sorry

01:17:40 in keeping disabled people safe sorry could you rephrase the question yeah I can rephrase it yes can you explain when you signed off miss Cooney's draft why there was no advice given to the TMO in it about how their

01:17:53 given to the TMO in it about how their fire safety strategy was going to keep people with mobility issues safe in the event of an evacuation no account so explain okay can sticking with the

01:18:04 explain okay can sticking with the subject of evacuation can I take you to page 8 of the existing fire safety strategy please TM o 1001 925 page 10 and I'd like to look pleased with you at

01:18:16 and I'd like to look pleased with you at paragraph 3 point 3 point 4

01:18:24 3.3.4 evacuation principles residential the recommendations in the current guidance of approved document be supported evacuation strategy which is based on the following assumptions it

01:18:36 based on the following assumptions it says and then you can see the four of them set out you see that and you told us earlier that the evacuation strategy that you understood that was in place of

01:18:47 that you understood that was in place of Grenfell was stay put yes and you refer to that as an evacuation strategy yes infatuation policy policy yes does stay

01:18:58 infatuation policy policy yes does stay put as a strategy rely on a high degree of compartment ation yes look at paragraph three point three point four in the third bullet point it says due to

01:19:10 in the third bullet point it says due to an assumed high degree of compartment action 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 do that yes did you

01:19:23 considered necessary do that yes did you understand the basis on which mr. Cooney had made that assumption yes that was also an assumption in approved document b because of the level of fire resistance to the floor of the floors

01:19:35 resistance to the floor of the floors within the building and the walls between adjacent flats and between the flats and the common lobby on each level well well you say it's an assumption in

01:19:49 well well you say it's an assumption in approved document b i rather than debating that with you let me ask you a question did you ask miss Cooney what information she had relied on to assume that within Grenville tower there was a

01:20:01 that within Grenville tower there was a high degree of compartment ation and no but I took that to mean the provision of concrete floors a concrete frame and

01:20:14 concrete floors a concrete frame and masonry walls would provide the compartment ation did you note when you examined this report as part of your peer review that no investigation had been done of the fabric or the build-up

01:20:25 been done of the fabric or the build-up of the compartment walls

01:20:29 nor how ever the fire is the fire risk assessment does refer to the walls being masonry and the floors being concrete I do remember reading that in the fire

01:20:41 do remember reading that in the fire risk assessment and did you note that Miss Cooney hadn't recommended that an investigation into the fabric all the build-up of the compartment walls should be carried out no I didn't know about it

01:20:56 be carried out no I didn't know about it did the drawings you were provided with tell you what materials of the building were no they they the general arrangement layouts don't tell you what

01:21:08 arrangement layouts don't tell you what the building fabric is given that the stay-put policy or strategy relied on a high degree of compartment ation can I ask you why you didn't suggest to Miss

01:21:20 ask you why you didn't suggest to Miss Cooney that she should include some guidance or some advice that further inspection of the layout the materials and the buildup of the compartment Walsh was necessary in order to verify this

01:21:33 was necessary in order to verify this assumption

01:21:40 and I understood that that could be a matter for discussion following the receipt of the draft report by the design team and also it would involve

01:21:55 design team and also it would involve going into a residence flat which at the time I understood we didn't have access to the actual dwellings themselves and

01:22:06 to the actual dwellings themselves and as you say in fact the dwellings themselves were outside the scape even of the fire risk assessment and by mr. Stokes that you were relying on yes so if mr. Stokes

01:22:18 were relying on yes so if mr. Stokes hadn't done an assessment and you hadn't done an assessment the what was the assumption of the high degree of compartment ation actually based on and when the building was originally

01:22:29 when the building was originally constructed it was required to be a two-hour concrete frame so that will be the basis of the fire resistance of the floors each floor will be a two-hour floor so this is this is similar to an

01:22:43 floor so this is this is similar to an answer you gave this morning you just presumed compliance at the point of origin yes without ever checking it yes and similarly the statement in the same part of the report simultaneous

01:22:55 part of the report simultaneous evacuation of the building is unlikely to be considered necessary did you analyze or ask Miss Cooney if she had analyzed whether the stay in place or stay put evacuation strategy was the

01:23:08 stay put evacuation strategy was the most appropriate one for this building and no I didn't specifically discuss it with her however it is usual practice for residential flats to operate a

01:23:22 for residential flats to operate a remain in place policy and the stairs are sized accordingly as opposed to a building which has a simultaneous evacuation strategy where you have to

01:23:34 evacuation strategy where you have to consider all of the pill all of the people in the building trying to get out at once and stairs would have to be the appropriate width yeah come let's ask you to turn on then

01:23:46 yeah come let's ask you to turn on then please in this report to page 13 and look at paragraph 5 point 1 point 3 fire stopping within concealed spaces you see

01:23:58 stopping within concealed spaces you see that yes and she quotes from approved document b the building shall be consigned and constructed so that runs the unseen spread of fire and smoke

01:24:09 the unseen spread of fire and smoke within concealed spaces in its structure and fabric is inhibited and then she says there are limits to which sorry

01:24:20 says there are limits to which sorry there are limits to the extent to which any cavities can exist for example between walls and cladding and between ceilings and roofs fire stopping via appropriate cavity barriers are assumed to be in place these elements are not

01:24:33 to be in place these elements are not usually visible without invasive surveying and it is recommended that these elements are assessed within void flats to a level which would provide confidence in whether or not the provision is satisfactory can I take it

01:24:45 provision is satisfactory can I take it dr. Barker that you understood the difference between a fire stop and a cavity barrier yes do you think that it was clear or did miss Cooney mean cavity

01:24:58 was clear or did miss Cooney mean cavity barriers here where she said fire stopped and I think she means both and there is a diagram in approved document b diagram 33 i think which shows where

01:25:13 b diagram 33 i think which shows where compartment floors meet the external walls you need a fire stopped under cavity barrier otherwise you need cavity barriers around openings

01:25:25 barriers around openings whereas fire stopping is there to ensure the integrity of fire separating elements junctions are where there are openings through them yes well we could

01:25:39 openings through them yes well we could spend time debating the definition my question is what you didn't I think suggests that she should amend the existing fire strategy to make it clear that she was referring to cavity barriers

01:25:51 barriers no I didn't why is that I don't know was it because you had too little time perhaps possibly yes in this section she

01:26:05 perhaps possibly yes in this section she says as I've shown you there are limits to the extent to which any cavities can exist for example between walls and cladding and between ceilings and roofs

01:26:16 cladding and between ceilings and roofs did you understand what she meant there

01:26:20 yes again referring to the the diagram that's in approved document b yeah you have cavity barriers around openings such as windows yeah and then you also

01:26:33 such as windows yeah and then you also have a cavity barrier between a wall and a cladding so that you usually at every floor level to prevent there from being

01:26:44 floor level to prevent there from being it allows that to be a cavity but it prevents the cavity from being too big so that fire can spread unseen within that void and again why didn't you

01:26:56 that void and again why didn't you suggest miss Cooney amend the draft to make that clear I don't know okay now the paragraph is we've seen continues she says these elements are not usually

01:27:07 she says these elements are not usually visible without invasive surveying you've seen that I've shared it see did you find out from Kate Cooney or from anybody whether there had been any attempt to investigate or inspect the

01:27:18 attempt to investigate or inspect the compartment ation of the building physically no was it not vital in order to understand the efficacy of the compartment ation in this building to consider the fire stopping of services

01:27:32 consider the fire stopping of services or the existence of adequate cavity barriers yes I assumed though that the cavity barriers would be looked up while the window replacement work was

01:27:46 the window replacement work was undertaken us that would be an area where you've got openings where cavity barriers would be required but that's looking forward we're looking at the the existing fire strategy report that you were approving was it not vital in order

01:27:59 were approving was it not vital in order even to produce a sound existing fire safety strategy that that you should understand the efficacy of a compartment ation in the building yes and you took no steps other

01:28:14 building yes and you took no steps other than to look at the drawings in order to do that yes I think we just as we discussed earlier and just let me ask it

01:28:25 discussed earlier and just let me ask it again it's right I think isn't it that a stay put evacuation policy relied on a high degree of compartment ation and a low probability of fire spread beyond the flat of origin yes yes did you think

01:28:37 the flat of origin yes yes did you think that it was necessary to make clear that any defects in compartment ation would impact on would affect the stay-put strategy or affect its efficacy

01:28:53 not at the time with hindsight yes and again can you explain why you didn't make that clear or ask mr. Cooney to make that clear when you did your review

01:29:04 make that clear when you did your review I don't know again lack of time is it perhaps time

01:29:17 in your statement and there's no need to turn it up but it's paragraphs 3.13 you say that you reviewed your report alongside the drawings and you told us earlier this morning that you did do

01:29:29 earlier this morning that you did do that you confirmed it what at what assistance did the drawings give you in reviewing miss Cooney's work and it gave

01:29:40 reviewing miss Cooney's work and it gave me the general layout of des fleurs so I could see the layouts at the apartments where the stare was located and the layouts of the lower floors sections

01:29:54 layouts of the lower floors sections would have given me the height of the building okay let's just move on to the question of the height of the building can we go back to something we looked at

01:30:06 can we go back to something we looked at this morning in the in the report or perhaps just after lunch at page 15 paragraphs 7.1 under provision of fire

01:30:18 paragraphs 7.1 under provision of fire mains we looked at that this morning earlier and it says there should be a dry rising name within the fire fighting shaft and the outlets from fire main

01:30:30 shaft and the outlets from fire main should be sited within the fire fighting stare you see that yes now if we looked at 7.3 fire fighting shafts it says the in the fourth line down let's look at it

01:30:41 in the fourth line down let's look at it together

01:30:41 together the fire risk assessment describes the provision of a fire fighting shaft and fire fighting stroke evacuation lifts with the dry rising main current guidance would be for a wet rising main as the building is over 50 metres in

01:30:52 as the building is over 50 metres in height

01:30:53 height the provision of a wet main saves time in firefighting operations due to the increased time for a dry main to be primed by the pumping appliance the time today in priming the dry riser is not considered to have an adverse effect on

01:31:05 considered to have an adverse effect on firefighting operations due to the high levels of compartment ation and fire resistance of the building elements of structure

01:31:17 as you say it says current guidance would be for a wet rising main as the building is over 50 meters in height can you explain why she says that there

01:31:28 you explain why she says that there should be a wet rising main in paragraph 7.3 but there should be a dry rising main in paragraph 7.1 no can't explain it

01:31:38 it did you notice mr. Wynne is that right she says in 7.1 there should be a dry rising made second line and then the wet

01:31:50 rising made second line and then the wet rising main is 7.3 preferred 27.3 yes I

01:32:01 do you understand the point on and I am the chairman I think of putting to you 7.1 you refer to a dry rising main 7.3 to a wet rising main or she does my question is did you notice that

01:32:12 question is did you notice that contradiction when you review the existing fire safety strategy I did and I should have picked up on that because a wet rising lane would be required yes the building's over 50 meters so you

01:32:24 the building's over 50 meters so you accepted that something you should have picked up interview however the fire risk assessment states it is a dry risers name provided now

01:32:44 Kate Cooney describes the purpose of the existing fire safety strategy to provide as to provide a baseline for the proposed refurbishment works did you

01:32:56 proposed refurbishment works did you understand that that was their purpose its its purpose yes what did you understand by baseline in that context

01:33:12 we were looking at what approved document b would require now and

01:33:21 outlining what was provided within the building um with the view that in the future when the refurbishment works took

01:33:33 future when the refurbishment works took place any building work resulted it in it being no worse than it was before

01:33:43 yes so come back to that in a moment then can I then just go back to something you we were just discussing a

01:33:54 something you we were just discussing a moment ago and that's the relationship between stay put and compartment ation can I ask you to look please first of all at the report at paragraph 3.3.4 on

01:34:07 all at the report at paragraph 3.3.4 on page 10 we looked at this a minute ago

01:34:13 where you said or say you in the in the second she says in the second bullet point there is no reliance on rescue for evacuation other than via the main core

01:34:25 evacuation other than via the main core you see that can you now also then be shown paragraph three point two point five on page eight

01:34:42 which says in the last line the evacuation of flats beyond the dwelling of fire origin would be carried out under the control of the attending fire service if necessary when you reviewed

01:34:57 service if necessary when you reviewed this report did you see that there might be a possible contradiction or conflict between those two statements no did you

01:35:13 between those two statements no did you believe there is a conflict well in in one it says that evacuation of the burning beyond the fire dwelling of fire origin would be carried out under the

01:35:24 origin would be carried out under the control of the attending Fire Service in the other it says that no reliance would be placed on rescue how do you wreckage

01:35:38 be placed on rescue how do you wreckage you try to reconcile those two statements to make them fit together it's a factual question did you do that no you didn't do you accept sitting here now that those two statements do require

01:35:51 now that those two statements do require to be reconciled

01:35:59 no because I I take that to mean that there is an alarm in each flat and the alarm in the fire effected flap will

01:36:15 alarm in the fire effected flap will warn the people of that flat they will evacuate on their own and it is accepted that in the process of them escaping some smoke may enter the common lobby

01:36:28 some smoke may enter the common lobby and that's why there is a ventilation system in the common lobby now if somebody else on that floor came out of their flat they may feel the need to

01:36:43 their flat they may feel the need to evacuate they won't have been warned but the ventilation of the common lobby is supposed to maintain tenable conditions for them to escape if then the fire

01:36:56 for them to escape if then the fire brigade arrived on scene and find that conditions within that lobby are not tenable they may then start to evacuate

01:37:07 tenable they may then start to evacuate the remaining flats on that floor that's that's what it means

01:37:19 so going back then to paragraph three point three point five which we look at the moment ago

01:37:30 sorry 3.3.4 we can mount a game on page

01:37:38 ten 3.3.4 there is no reliance on rescue for evacuation other than via the main core what does that mean it means generally that

01:37:56 that mean it means generally that occupants will self evacuate if if the fire service deem it necessary to evacuate the other flats on a level

01:38:08 evacuate the other flats on a level where there is a fire in a flat I take that to mean that they will knock on their doors and ask ask them or tell them that there would be it would be a

01:38:20 them that there would be it would be a good idea to leave is that what you mean by rescue mmm so would you understand by its my words I see now you refer to the

01:38:31 its my words I see now you refer to the minute ago you referred to the smoke ventilation system can we just look at that briefly you I think it attended the project meeting as you told us before on the 26th of July and we looked at the

01:38:43 the 26th of July and we looked at the minutes of that we can go to it again but I can take this more quickly I think at that meeting you requested a copy of the specification of the smoke extraction system for going full time and they were status NT on the 31st of

01:38:56 and they were status NT on the 31st of July 2012 and you refer to that in your witness statement paragraph 3.9 and you say it was needed in order to prepare the existing fire safety strategy I have

01:39:10 the existing fire safety strategy I have summarized quite a lot there but do you accept that thank you and you say in your statement that the reason is that in residential buildings there are requirements in relation to

01:39:21 there are requirements in relation to travel distances in the common corridor from an individual flat to the stair and for the corridor to be ventilated yes did you know what the travel distances were at Granville tower oh

01:39:34 distances were at Granville tower oh when I received the the ventilation document No

01:39:47 dude would have got the travel distances from the drawings when we were sent the drawings right and was that an important aspect of the report that you were reviewing and yes and Kate alluded to

01:40:01 reviewing and yes and Kate alluded to that in the report about the seven point five meter single direction limit that's recommended in an approved document b for a single stir yeah if you go to page

01:40:13 for a single stir yeah if you go to page 10 I think we're on still at this document three point four under smoke ventilation she refers to assumptions made from information available you see

01:40:25 made from information available you see that yes

01:40:27 that yes assume that the common area to each residential floor is ventilated etc and she says in the fourth line the dimensions of the shaft are unknown and when we looked at that and the measurement should be checked on site

01:40:38 measurement should be checked on site and in the fifth paragraph of this section which I think you need to go over the page four

01:40:47 she says the existing system is unsatisfactory you see that yes and then

01:41:01 unsatisfactory you see that yes and then she goes on to saying it's covered by the word draft that it's just about halfway down that that paragraph within the big a in draft this also costs into doubt the justification on grounds of

01:41:13 doubt the justification on grounds of escape time the excessive travel distance is outlined to three point three point six above as the ventilation provision is critical to the stay in place evacuation principle it's strongly recommended that the performance of the

01:41:24 recommended that the performance of the automatic system of the mechanical ventilation as existing and as proposed is assessed in order to ensure that a satisfactory level of safety is provided to the residents throughout the tower you see that

01:41:39 did you fight finally I should just show you three point three point six on page but ten because get back to page ten

01:41:50 but ten because get back to page ten three point three point six she says under common areas but in the third line the distance to the stairs from the flat entrance doors appears to be more than seven point five meters from the flats

01:42:02 seven point five meters from the flats with entrance towards to the north of the lift shaft the maximum of which is approximately eight point three meters scaled from microfiche plans to be checked on site and we looked at this before the success of distance have less than one meter results in an increase of

01:42:14 than one meter results in an increase of travel of less than one second would be considered to be acceptable under current standards and risk assessments now we look at this before my question is did is this did you notice that mr. Cooney had not actually stated the basis

01:42:25 Cooney had not actually stated the basis of her assumptions here

01:42:33 whatever in what way she's not status the best it's a very soldier do you mean as relating to the requirements of approved document b no

01:42:45 requirements of approved document b no in relation to the measurements sorry

01:42:56 in relation to the measurements sorry could you rephrase a question but she says in in that paragraph at three at three point three point six that the distance from the flat entrance doors

01:43:09 distance from the flat entrance doors appears to be more than seven point five meters from the flats with entrance doors to the north of the lift shaft and she then goes on to say that it should be checked on site did you when you did

01:43:20 be checked on site did you when you did your review notice that this CUNY hadn't stated the basis of that assumption

01:43:32 No did you notice during your review that the whole fire safety strategy mr. Muller did maybe my fault but I thought she was telling us here that it's more than 7.5 because it appears to be 8.3

01:43:44 than 7.5 because it appears to be 8.3 skills from the plans yes well that's the basis of her what assumption are you trying yes I'm putting the assumption

01:43:55 trying yes I'm putting the assumption that it remains an assumption based on the plans and hadn't been checked by reference to physical measurements no it hadn't been checked on site at that point no and that leads on to a series

01:44:08 point no and that leads on to a series of questions did you notice during your review that the whole of the fire safety strategy was reliant on a smoke ventilation system working properly in order to rip to maintain tenable

01:44:19 order to rip to maintain tenable conditions for means of escape purposes yes yes and what did that - you mean that the lobby smoke control system had

01:44:31 that the lobby smoke control system had to be in full working order because if it wasn't then the travel distance would not be acceptable I think what Kate was seeking to do in the strategy is to say

01:44:45 seeking to do in the strategy is to say that it would be acceptable to have a vent an a chiral ventilation strategy if the shaft was big enough but in section

01:44:57 the shaft was big enough but in section 3.4 she goes on to state that from the drawings the shaft is not big enough for a natural ventilation strategy so the

01:45:11 a natural ventilation strategy so the only way that it would be acceptable would then be to provide a mechanical system if for if say the shaft had been big enough for a natural ventilation

01:45:26 then it may have been acceptable for the travel distance to be 80 centimeters greater than the recommended distance however because the shaft isn't big

01:45:38 however because the shaft isn't big enough case is trying to convey that that ventilation system may not work satisfactorily therefore mechanical one should be provided yes I mean cutting to

01:45:51 should be provided yes I mean cutting to the chase on this particular point dr. Barker did it not concern you at the time that here was a building which had excessive travel distances mitigated only by a smoked extract system which

01:46:02 only by a smoked extract system which worked and if it didn't work there'd be a problem and yes is that not something that although they've never tried slightly more neutrally did you

01:46:13 tried slightly more neutrally did you think at the time to amend the report to say that that problem was made crystal clear to the TMO as the recipient of

01:46:24 clear to the TMO as the recipient of this draft and no couldn't and again why don't with hindsight should have done right now you've explained what the

01:46:36 right now you've explained what the baseline purpose of this document was

01:46:41 can I perhaps see if you can agree with what mr. vet says can I take you back to his statement that we looked at right at the start of your evidence this morning it's a meaty triple zero six five one

01:46:53 it's a meaty triple zero six five one three zero

01:46:58 and he produced this statement for the police in August 2017 paid to please and I'm looking at pet the third paragraph on that page and he says there in the

01:47:13 on that page and he says there in the fourth line we completed the fire strategy for the existing building prior to regeneration works as there was no fire strategy in place this was required as a base from which to work from for

01:47:24 as a base from which to work from for the purpose of completing a fire strategy for the building during the works and then he says also in the deep in the neck on the next page page on

01:47:36 in the neck on the next page page on page three in the second paragraph if you see that he says our strategy for the existing building therefore then became the baseline from which the refurbishment would be done and that's

01:47:50 refurbishment would be done and that's also important as during construction they need to understand what the fire strategy is for the building during the refurbishment and as it is being constructed first of all do you agree with mr. vetches description of the

01:48:02 with mr. vetches description of the purpose of the existing fire safety strategy for Grandville tower that I've just read out to you from his statement yes you do what role did mr. vetch play do you remember in the production of the

01:48:14 remember in the production of the existing fire safety strategy or indeed the outline didn't provide any role right when you read miss Cooney's draft

01:48:26 right when you read miss Cooney's draft existing fire safety strategy did you spot the fact that she didn't anywhere in the report link the existing building or the draft existing building fire safety strategy report that she'd done

01:48:38 safety strategy report that she'd done to the fire safety needs of the primary refurbishment works no didn't did it occur to you to suggest that she should amend the report to make that link so

01:48:50 amend the report to make that link so that whoever picked up the existing fire safety strategy even if in draft would understand what it was for

01:48:58 and

01:49:04 no because I understood that following the discussions with the design team after they'd received the draft once we had a clearer picture of some of the

01:49:16 had a clearer picture of some of the things that needed to be clarified we could then update the report and make that correlation does it come to this that in order to be effective as a

01:49:27 that in order to be effective as a proper and reliable baseline as mr. Cooney and mr. vetch and you have described the existing fire safety strategy needed to be finalized all the

01:49:38 strategy needed to be finalized all the elements of assumption and lack of knowledge or information fill in completed say that it's so that it was a finalized document yes and that as a

01:49:49 finalized document yes and that as a draft

01:49:50 draft it could never fulfill that purpose yes updated as principal fire engineer

01:50:02 updated as principal fire engineer reviewing the draft existing building fire safety report and a senior - miss Cooney dr. Barker given the emissions and the assumptions and the lack of and the gaps in it can you explain sitting

01:50:15 the gaps in it can you explain sitting here today why you described the report that she'd done without any further elaboration as fine and no account I can

01:50:27 elaboration as fine and no account I can offer a possible explanation which was I sent the email back to say it's fine it's possible that had I printed out the

01:50:42 it's possible that had I printed out the report and marked up things on the drawing sorry on the report that there were things to put in it I do not remember however I considered that it was acceptable to be sent out as a draft

01:50:55 was acceptable to be sent out as a draft on the understanding that there were a number of issues that needed to be discussed and clarified before the proper issue of the report could be done

01:51:07 proper issue of the report could be done and in your supervisory roles as peer reviewer senior - mr. Cooney do you accept that it was your responsibility to point all those matters out to the reader of

01:51:17 reader of this draft and ensure that they were addressed by the next person picking it up and not necessarily in that draft I think it was important for me to

01:51:33 communicate with Terry who was going to be taking over the project the items that needed clarification thank you very much dr. Barker know mr. chairman I've

01:51:46 much dr. Barker know mr. chairman I've come to the end of the questions thus far this afternoon it's customary to take a short break in order to make sure that I've made with my team absolutely everything I think if we if we say ten

01:52:01 everything I think if we if we say ten minutes or so for the moment if we need a little bit longer because there are questions coming from outside this building then we'll let you know as you know it's a Jonah's important that that those people who are watching this remotely have an adequate opportunity to

01:52:13 remotely have an adequate opportunity to they must if I say five fast four in the first instance in the first instance that would be very good mr. chairman thank you well dr. Barker those are the questions that mr. Milich wanted to ask you but he needs time just to check that

01:52:25 you but he needs time just to check that there aren't other matters that need to be put to you so as you heard we're going to have a short break until probably five paths for could be a bit longer we'll see how they go okay so

01:52:36 longer we'll see how they go okay so would you please go with the usher now and don't talk to I know about your evidence thank you very much

01:52:51 right 504 thank you

02:05:41 yes would you ask dr. Barca to come back please

02:05:57 Thank You dr. Barker well it may be that mr. millet has some more questions I haven't actually asked admit see I do have a few questions dr. Barker but they shouldn't take too long mr. chairman

02:06:09 shouldn't take too long mr. chairman first in your experience where the agreed fees for this job by which I mean the production of the existing fire-safety Trat adji as per the 11th of

02:06:20 fire-safety Trat adji as per the 11th of june fee proposal unusually high or unusually low or usual considering the time that would be required to do a proper job with hindsight and if the

02:06:37 proper job with hindsight and if the projects had been run completely from London I still think they were a little bit on the low side can you give us an idea of how much on beliefs I do you think I would have been visited it being

02:06:55 think I would have been visited it being positive possibly fifty percent higher

02:07:01 do you know or did you know why they were set a little bit on the low side as you say

02:07:14 no no I don't know it could possibly be due to the fact that as James prepared the fee proposal he was intending to carry out the work himself

02:07:26 intending to carry out the work himself so he allowed for the amount of time that he would spend on it based on his charge rate I see oh I see do you know why he left i don'ti don't

02:07:40 do you know why he left i don'ti don't have you previously worked on an existing fire safety strategy for a private or luxury project not

02:07:53 private or luxury project not necessarily the same thing

02:07:59 off the top of my head I can't remember if I have worked for a private or luxury project but I have done existing building fire strategies well let me ask it differently what would X overs

02:08:10 it differently what would X overs proposed fees so hourly rate numbers of hours allocated to the task be the same regardless of whether the project was a luxury development in a high-end part of

02:08:24 luxury development in a high-end part of town or a simple private development or social housing no I don't think don't think they would I don't think we would

02:08:35 think they would I don't think we would charge a premium rate because we were working on more expensive apartments

02:08:46 No are you aware of Kate Cunha's email which described making a crap building worse or crap condition worse yes if we

02:08:57 worse or crap condition worse yes if we looked at when she gave evidence and given that did you see this job essentially to be a paper exercise whose aim was to pass building control rather than as an actual strategy to ensure

02:09:09 than as an actual strategy to ensure that lives were saved in the building no I don't think it was just a paper exercise

02:09:16 exercise I think Kate's email rather bluntly was referring to one particular aspect of the design which didn't comply with

02:09:30 the design which didn't comply with approved document b and needed addressing now we looked earlier in the afternoon at your evidence about the compartment ation and the need for an investigation into the build-up of the

02:09:42 investigation into the build-up of the compartment of the compartment walls at the time of this report august 2000 and draft august 2012 were you aware of compartment fires or fires on the

02:09:54 compartment fires or fires on the exterior of buildings in the UK or elsewhere and yes they've been they fire it block an old house yes a few years before in 2009 now at this stage of

02:10:07 before in 2009 now at this stage of course you may or may not remember the coroner had not yet delivered her report and I think the inquest hearings had yet happened but to what extent was the

02:10:18 happened but to what extent was the lacan experience in your mind when reviewing miss Cooney's draft for this building

02:10:36 I don't I don't actually think I considered it

02:10:44 say does that tell us that the fact that it was a high-rise residential building not raised of a particular flag about the risk of fires

02:11:02 No No

02:11:08 but what experience did you yourself have of refurbishment like this involving a substantial change to the exterior of a relatively old building

02:11:27 I can't remember I don't I don't actually think I had worked on a project that was a refurbishment of that scale

02:11:42 yes thank you thank you very much dr. Barker mr. Gemini no further questions this panel member may further questions dr. Bach thank you very much indeed for coming here and assisting us with our investigations we're extremely grateful

02:11:54 investigations we're extremely grateful to you thank you thank you yes dr. Barker thank you very much for coming it's a bit of a journey and I'm glad we've got your evidence finished this afternoon so back to Warrington this evening it's mom tomorrow's good well

02:12:06 evening it's mom tomorrow's good well that's not so rushed and thank you very much for coming you're free to go okay

02:12:22 yes thank you mr. minute well that's it for the day then it is mr. chairman yes and really finished in time and almost I'm getting better

02:12:32 miss Grange will be here in my place tomorrow and I shall be in hers and we have the next witness mr. Ashton good thank you very much and that'll be 10 o'clock 10 o'clock thank you thank you

02:12:43 o'clock 10 o'clock thank you thank you 10 o'clock tomorrow