Terry Ashton of Exova gives evidence on fire strategy advice, admitting he never saw cladding details and failed to update reports despite knowing about fire risks.
00:00:22 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to continue hearing evidence from mr. Ashton of X over there would you like to ask mr. Ashton to join us please
00:00:41 morning good morning mr. Ashton so do you have you to carry on I am in Vegas and good thank you very much yes Miss
00:00:52 and good thank you very much yes Miss Granger yes thank you and mr. eshton I've got a number of questions that I'm going to deal with at the beginning now which arise from matters covered
00:01:03 which arise from matters covered yesterday or potentially with some of your colleagues when they've been giving evidence and then I'm going to turn to the topic I flagged yesterday which is the September 2014 emails about the
00:01:15 the September 2014 emails about the carding so we'll do that we'll do these Corrections and questions first so first of all a correction yesterday while we were discussing the role of RT Lea Apple yards and and the role they played on
00:01:28 yards and and the role they played on the project and whether they performed roles other than that of qsr I referred to the mistakenly as performing the role of project administrator as well that was at page 19 at the transcript in fact
00:01:39 was at page 19 at the transcript in fact I should have said that they were employers agent not project administrator does that make more sense it doesn't do yes I actually some
00:01:52 it doesn't do yes I actually some questions yesterday it's on another topic about inclusive design and you remember we looked at some of the early sections of approved occupant B which provide that fire safety measures
00:02:03 provide that fire safety measures incorporated within a building will need to take account of the needs of all people including those with disabilities to remember we look doing now just on that topic is it right that you were on
00:02:14 that topic is it right that you were on the psi of the British Standards Institute Committee which drafted part eight of BS five five eight eight eight 1999 which was headed fire precautions
00:02:26 1999 which was headed fire precautions in the design construction and use of buildings part a code of practice for means of escape for disabled people for you on that committee I was on the code drafting committee responsible for
00:02:38 drafting committee responsible for several parts of BS double v double O in fact I was the chairman for a number of years but part eight was dealt with by a subgroup of the same committee without
00:02:50 subgroup of the same committee without FS h 14 FS age 14 was the the over seeing if I call it that yeah FSH 14:1 was a subcommittee of that main
00:03:01 FSH 14:1 was a subcommittee of that main committee
00:03:01 committee I see so you were involved in relation to that Britishness oh yes let's just bring it up so we can just see it Ramona it's BSI six zeros 18
00:03:18 there we go so it's fire precautions and the design construction and use of buildings care duplexes or means of escape for disabled people and my question really is in the light of your work on that committee should you not have had in mind considerations for
00:03:30 have had in mind considerations for designing means of its escape for the disabled when you worked on the Granville fire strategies given what was in approved document b at the time well
00:03:41 in approved document b at the time well i think we went into it in some detail yesterday but the building regulations or at least the the approved documents
00:03:52 or at least the the approved documents do not require the same level of provision for disabled people in residential buildings as they do in commercial buildings now why they chose
00:04:04 commercial buildings now why they chose to do that i don't know in an ideal world you would have a block of apartments or flats all called apartments nowadays where there were
00:04:18 apartments nowadays where there were provisions for disabled people that mean they do make provision for what they call accessible flats so there are people with disabilities in residential
00:04:30 people with disabilities in residential blocks there's a safe to go back to the the core business in an ideal world there would be a means of getting those disabled people out of that block
00:04:42 disabled people out of that block normally would be done by using the lifts yeah but there would have to be a management regime attached to that to ensure that that would work no that isn't always present in apartment buildings yeah and
00:04:57 present in apartment buildings yeah and that's presumably why and I found say for certain why the government the responsible government department didn't say that you had to make provision for
00:05:08 say that you had to make provision for disabled people to escape were you aware though that they've been chained there were there changes in 2006 to approved document b which brought in those inclusive design provisions that we
00:05:20 inclusive design provisions that we looked at yesterday oh yes I'm aware that it is covered in a pro document B as well as in the the British standard you got displayed at the moment yeah but the fact remains that you do not
00:05:31 but the fact remains that you do not have to make provision for means of escape for disabled people in residential buildings I'm not saying that's right yeah that's that's what it
00:05:43 that's right yeah that's that's what it is at the moment but is it right and I think this what you said yesterday that in the light of that it simply wasn't considered in the context of the fire strategies for the Graham field project correct and just moving on to
00:05:58 project correct and just moving on to another topic yesterday in response to questions about Miss Cooney's observations about the overall refurbishment plans and remember we looked at her email whether they're
00:06:10 looked at her email whether they're making a crap situation worse in terms of fire safety you were asked I asked you whether you had warned the TMO about this and the answer you gave this is it page 9 of the transcript lines 4 to 12
00:06:23 page 9 of the transcript lines 4 to 12 you said I think when I had the first meeting with the TMO which was essentially a design team meeting which they attended I did make the point fairly forcefully that the proposals as
00:06:34 fairly forcefully that the proposals as drawn up by Studio B were not acceptable in terms of getting approval under the building regulations and that therefore we needed to do some serious work to get to a situation where we could actually
00:06:45 to a situation where we could actually go forward to Kensington and Chelsea with a confident confident that a scheme would be approved yes I remember saying that yesterday and you couldn't give a
00:06:56 that yesterday and you couldn't give a precise date for that meeting but you said it was the very first design team meeting that had the full design team there including the TMO now the first meeting that you attended with the TMO
00:07:07 meeting that you attended with the TMO and the rest of the design team appears to be the project meeting number eight held on the 6th of September 2012 I just want to pull up the minutes for that this is a RT for zeros six seven seven
00:07:21 this is a RT for zeros six seven seven zero
00:07:26 so we looked at these notes and yesterday we can see that you were physically present at this meeting because your four lines up on the present list and do you think that it
00:07:40 present list and do you think that it was at this meeting that you made the comments that you referred to these forceful comments possibly I mean I know I did say at one meeting that we had some hard work to do to get the scheme
00:07:53 some hard work to do to get the scheme into an approvable yeah situation condition because the point I want to put to you is that that doesn't seem to be anything in the minutes of this or these notes from this meeting that that
00:08:06 these notes from this meeting that that record that what we've got on page two if we can go to this and again we looked at this yesterday under fire do you see that there and we've got this note that
00:08:19 that there and we've got this note that xover need to understand the existing situation and whether lfv do test the system twice a year and what was behind the proposed upgrade works to the smoke exhaust fire the statutory position on the design needs to be established as
00:08:30 the design needs to be established as it's not possible for Building Control to insist on enhancements and then draft fire strategy needs detail interrogation and a meeting was arraigned with Studio E early next week to review do you see
00:08:42 E early next week to review do you see that there on the action for that is noted to be studio II annex over and so that the question I want to put to you is whether you did actually say that in
00:08:55 is whether you did actually say that in a meeting with the TMO present because that seems to be being disputed in my experience minutes don't always reflect exactly what was said at meetings but I
00:09:07 exactly what was said at meetings but I do recall saying to more than just an audience comprising Studio II that there were approval risks based on the current
00:09:19 were approval risks based on the current proposals
00:09:20 proposals I even referred to the need possibly to provide sprinklers to the non-residential portions and so on now if I haven't got that the date of the meeting right or the precise meeting
00:09:32 meeting right or the precise meeting right I apologize but I did say there yeah to what extent were you seeking to engage with the TMO on that issue and talking directly to the TMO about it as
00:09:43 talking directly to the TMO about it as distinct from Studio E I wasn't really thinking about the TMO specifically when I made those comments I just made the
00:09:55 I made those comments I just made the the comments to whoever was assembled at that meeting yeah this was before we did the the first design note so it was in
00:10:06 the the first design note so it was in advance of that now that may give some idea as to actually when that meeting took place yep would you agree that and you were actually you of day-to-day dealing with Studio E as part of the
00:10:18 dealing with Studio E as part of the design team and not the TMO in respect to the preparation of the fire safety strategies yes that's correct so and just moving on to another topic
00:10:29 so and just moving on to another topic this is in relation to the existing fire safety strategy and you said yesterday that you thought it was misunderstanding between you and between Claire Barker
00:10:40 between you and between Claire Barker and Kate Clooney on the other hand about who was actually going to finalize the draft existing fire strategy you remember saying that I do yes and given
00:10:51 remember saying that I do yes and given that this work remained outstanding for such a long period of time from August 2012 until the end of X overs involvement in the ground floor project I want to put to you that can that
00:11:02 I want to put to you that can that really have been a misunderstanding what why was that not picked up in that length of time I I don't know to be honest I mean I assumed as I said
00:11:16 honest I mean I assumed as I said yesterday that Claire was going to continue to deal with that until it was completed but I did take from the the recommendations of that draft report the
00:11:27 recommendations of that draft report the issues that we needed to address with the refurbishment scheme do you think it was that that you simply forgot to come back and address that or in fact did you
00:11:39 back and address that or in fact did you actually think about it but consider finalizing that draft report not to be a significant priority in the greater scheme of things finishing that report off wasn't the top priority
00:11:52 that report off wasn't the top priority I mean we've got three strands here we've got the the risk assessment which is carried out or should be carried out periodically which will highlight things
00:12:03 periodically which will highlight things that have gone wrong or need to be put right we've got work going on with the refurbishment which was my main focus and we have the existing fire safety
00:12:15 and we have the existing fire safety strategy drawn up which I took to be just a record of what was there and I only took out of their draft the the things that we needed to concentrate on going forward so can we take it from
00:12:27 going forward so can we take it from that answer that you were aware and conscious that it was a draft that hadn't been finalized but you just didn't think that that was a priority that needed to be come back to I thought but if I'm honest I didn't think it was
00:12:38 but if I'm honest I didn't think it was that important given that there were these are the strands to the building were you aware that the existing fire safety strategy was meant to be a baseline on which the refurbishment
00:12:50 baseline on which the refurbishment strategy built no and did you ever in the next four years after 2012 investigate what had happened to the draft existing for a strategy no I
00:13:02 draft existing for a strategy no I didn't okay so moving on to another topic and you said yesterday on a number of occasions that your time was stretched because you were handling
00:13:13 stretched because you were handling often a large number of projects can you recall to the best of your ability approximately how many projects would you have been working on at any one time
00:13:26 say during 2012 when you were first working on the fire strategies well it could be six to ten I guess but they would all be at different stages of development and I don't think that I
00:13:40 development and I don't think that I want to give the impression that there wasn't enough time to deal with this project because it was when they didn't have time to do that yep now another
00:13:52 have time to do that yep now another point arises from Miss Cooney's evidence and
00:13:56 and she was asked about why she hadn't referred to diagram 52 of approved document b in relation to and the the fire main outlet let's being in the
00:14:09 fire main outlet let's being in the lobbies so you know at Granville tower the the rising fire main outlets are in the lobbies and she was asked a question why did you not include any discussion or assessment within your draft existing
00:14:22 or assessment within your draft existing fire strategy report about the impact on operation of firefighting of the fact that the main rise outlets when the lobbies are not in the stair as required by diagram 52 and the answer she gave
00:14:34 by diagram 52 and the answer she gave was the outlets being in the lobby and I'm fairly sure on this we're a requirement of section 20 of the London building acts at the time Terry is probably your man to clarify this for
00:14:45 probably your man to clarify this for you is what she said so I just want to ask you in your view is it correct that it was a requirement of section 20 of the London Building Act that the fire main outlet should be in the lobbies as
00:14:56 main outlet should be in the lobbies as opposed to in the stair that's totally correct and would you agree that the existing fire safety strategy should have addressed the impact on
00:15:07 have addressed the impact on firefighting of not having the fire main outlets in the stair as required by the the current design guidance no it sort of comes back to what I said at some
00:15:18 of comes back to what I said at some point yesterday that this is an existing building and it would not be reasonable just because a more recent code of practice suggested some other way of dealing with things that we should
00:15:29 dealing with things that we should modify the building in the way you're suggesting and you don't think that that's something that could have been highlighted or should have been highlighted in the existing strategy and then addressed and explained why that
00:15:41 then addressed and explained why that was nevertheless not a difficulty in this building I don't think it should have been mentioned in her strategy but I would like to say that this idea that
00:15:52 I would like to say that this idea that the five main out that should be in the stair wasn't there wasn't unanimity amongst this in the in the fire community if I can use that word because what it meant was in operational terms
00:16:06 what it meant was in operational terms that if a fireman was fighting a fire in a flat the door to the stair would be permanently open and a lot of people in the BSI for example didn't
00:16:20 people in the BSI for example didn't feel that that was a good idea so to change that given that it would be an unreasonable thing to ask for in an existing situation didn't make a lot of
00:16:32 existing situation didn't make a lot of sense technically well I think the thrust of the question applies I think to other things as well is whether the fire safety strategy ought to identify changes in
00:16:44 ought to identify changes in requirements since the date of construction of the building was to point out well it should be it was supposed to be like this but it's not
00:16:55 supposed to be like this but it's not supposed to be like that and to highlight the distinction yeah we could have we could have put in a general narrative and perhaps he should have done saying this building was built in
00:17:06 done saying this building was built in 1971 to a code of practice which was drawn up in 1950 or wherever it must be recognized that the arrangements there don't meet current standards and taking
00:17:19 don't meet current standards and taking a lesson from that I think if we came to do a similar development or partial redevelopment we would put that in as a an upfront statement can we look now and
00:17:35 an upfront statement can we look now and staying with mr. Cooney for a minute can we go to EXO five zeroes three eight eight
00:17:46 so this is an email we looked at yesterday from mr. Cooney to you on the 10th of September 2012 and she says that
00:17:57 10th of September 2012 and she says that in the very beginning as promised my thoughts on the possible solution to Graham fault our general fire line markup attached to clarify ideas below and then she set out various ideas under
00:18:08 and then she set out various ideas under different headings and we looked a lot yesterday at if we can scroll down to the end of this email this is the one where she talks about in the third from
00:18:21 where she talks about in the third from bottom paragraph some fairly long protected entrance halls we talked about that and then where she says in the next paragraph the existing ventilation system is questionable and the overall scheme theoretically makes the existing
00:18:33 scheme theoretically makes the existing conditions worse etc and just in terms of this email and how it came about did mr. Cooney send you her thoughts on the possible solutions to Graham for
00:18:44 the possible solutions to Graham for tower because you asked her to do so no the opposite I think she went further than I thought she would but I mean all
00:18:55 than I thought she would but I mean all information is useful in pulling together a fire strategy for a building so it wasn't unwelcome in that sense but I didn't ask for it the follow-up
00:19:08 I didn't ask for it the follow-up question is if she was sending you thoughts on the refurbishment fire strategy did that not prompt you to think well I need her thoughts on how to finalize the existing fire safety strategy it didn't know it didn't leave
00:19:20 strategy it didn't know it didn't leave me to think that did you ever ask mr. Cooney any questions about the draft existing fire safety strategy no did you
00:19:32 existing fire safety strategy no did you ever discuss it with her at all no I didn't I mean I think that she enlarged on the concerns that she had about the
00:19:43 on the concerns that she had about the three issues that we talked about in this document so I had a summary of what her views were about the building in one page so does that explain why you didn't
00:19:56 page so does that explain why you didn't feel the need to discuss it with her yes indeed
00:20:01 on another topic I take it that you are familiar with article 13 of the rro 2005 which relates the obligation on the responsible person to ensure that the
00:20:13 responsible person to ensure that the premises are equipped with appropriate firefighting equipment fire detectors and alarms I am aware of that yes I want to ask what information did you seek from the responsible person I records
00:20:26 from the responsible person I records past compliance notes in order to complete the outline fire safety strategy yeah well in generally speaking
00:20:37 strategy yeah well in generally speaking fire appliances for use by the occupants and not provided in residential buildings because you can't train residents of flats to tackle a fire and
00:20:50 residents of flats to tackle a fire and indeed it might be dangerous for them to do so so broadly speaking there are no fire extinguishers in apartment buildings I appreciate that but there be some equipment within the building which
00:21:02 some equipment within the building which would be there for the purpose of firefighting wouldn't having the main the dry but those would be for use by the fire service now in terms of the other parts of the building I would have expected that there would be portable
00:21:16 expected that there would be portable fire extinguishers for use by the occupants but is it right my question is did you seek any information any stage from the responsible person in terms of records relevant to article 13 of the RR
00:21:30 records relevant to article 13 of the RR oh no because it wouldn't have had any impact on the fire strategy report that I was working on yeah did you ever have any communication with the responsible person no moving on yesterday we
00:21:46 person no moving on yesterday we discussed the email you received from Janice Rael you were forwarded an email from Janice ray which if you remember had referred to the smoke control system not operating properly in a previous fire in the building in 2010 do you
00:21:58 fire in the building in 2010 do you remember that I do yes and I said I asked you why that hadn't caused you to update your fire strategy to note that had been in it you mean the existing building foresters know the the outline
00:22:10 building foresters know the the outline that sorry they prefer basement strategy well I think the you might ask the question if there was a fire in 20 chain and and there was a criticism made about
00:22:24 and and there was a criticism made about the smoke extract system that something would have been done about it by the responsible person then now in terms of mentioning it in the fire strategy that
00:22:35 mentioning it in the fire strategy that I drew up no we made a clear statement in there that we were going to improve it we're you aware did anyone ever make you aware that
00:22:46 did anyone ever make you aware that during the fire in 2010 the AOV system sent smoke from the 6th and then later the 9th floor to upper floor lobbies to the 15th and 18th floor during that fire
00:22:57 the 15th and 18th floor during that fire no I've seen no documentation about that fire there was a email which said that was a foreman did you ever ask for any
00:23:09 was a foreman did you ever ask for any documentation relating to that fire it wasn't really relevant to what I was doing maybe I should have put to you that well it would certainly be relevant to the existing fire safety strategy
00:23:21 to the existing fire safety strategy wouldn't it yes but I wasn't dealing with the existing fire safety strategy I mean if you have a fire incident in building like that and there are things
00:23:34 building like that and there are things that you mentioned like smoke spread from floor to floor via the air from automatic opening vents then you would have expected the final authority to have follow that up with the building
00:23:45 have follow that up with the building owner or the responsible person that doesn't seem to have taken place that wasn't something that you thought to outline in your fire safety strategy to make sure that it had been followed up
00:23:57 make sure that it had been followed up given there are residents in that building the resident did that building at the time and we're going to be for several years before the system was refurbished I didn't know that it happened no well you knew there'd been a
00:24:08 happened no well you knew there'd been a fire in 2010 I think we established that yes yesterday you were sent that email but is it right that you you never requested any further details of what had happened in that fire or have Co
00:24:19 had happened in that fire or have Co because it wasn't my responsibility to do that that would have been a matter between the the fire or so in the responsible person had you known that had you known that the malfunctioning of that system had been
00:24:31 malfunctioning of that system had been sending smoke from lower floors to upper floors would that have rendered the stay-put strategy untenable and meant that mitigation ought to have been put in place in terms of evacuation we
00:24:44 in place in terms of evacuation we couldn't I don't well in the first place I didn't know about it in the second place I don't think you can alter a state strategy just like that because you need to do a number of things to
00:24:56 you need to do a number of things to make sure that that can function for example you would need to put in a fire alarm system to ensure that people would respond and make their escape I appreciate there might be steps that
00:25:08 I appreciate there might be steps that would follow from that if it was considered that actually the stay-put strategy wasn't tenable anymore but wasn't it your responsibility to be flagging up that someone ought to be thinking about that no I don't believe
00:25:20 thinking about that no I don't believe it was I believe that it should have happened at the time not two or three years later just one final topic before we then pick up where we left off yesterday and we looked at a document I
00:25:33 yesterday and we looked at a document I want to just bring up exo five zeros six nine three which was an email of the 18th of September 2013 so if we scroll
00:25:46 18th of September 2013 so if we scroll down within this document I think it's on page four or five that's it yeah so I
00:25:57 on page four or five that's it yeah so I showed this to you yesterday and I asked you whether the the reference in blue and underlined meant that you were using a file share link to send documents back to studio II now it's been quite
00:26:09 to studio II now it's been quite properly pointed out overnight that actually there's another version of this email if we can look at that that's EXO five zeros 390
00:26:23 and if we look at the top of that this is exactly the same email it's another Xavier reference and and I think I may have actually taken you to this later yesterday but what we didn't pick up was
00:26:36 yesterday but what we didn't pick up was that underlying attachment at the top it looks like what you were sending back was actually three PDFs Graham full GL PDF met Celine PDF do you see that there listen dude so it does in fact appear
00:26:48 listen dude so it does in fact appear that you were sending documents back attached to the email as PDFs rather than using a file share link in that patient I wouldn't know how to use a file share link even now I mean the
00:27:01 file share link even now I mean the standard way that I dealt with these was to print the drawings annotate them scan them and then send them back as PDFs they might seem fairly simple but it's
00:27:13 they might seem fairly simple but it's fairly full and okay so let's pick up then and we're moving forward in the chronology to September 2014 and I want
00:27:25 chronology to September 2014 and I want to look at an exchange of emails which you had on that date concerning the external cladding at the tower can we go to se a three zeros one one seven zero five
00:27:42 so if we can start with the top email on this page this is mr. Crawford of Studio E to you copying in to ride in personnel there Simon Lawrence and Simon O'Connor
00:27:54 there Simon Lawrence and Simon O'Connor do you see that there yes indeed subject Granville Tower cavity fire barriers and he says hi Terry I'm working on the ground for tower regeneration project from the studio II end the following RFI
00:28:07 from the studio II end the following RFI has come in relating to horizontal fire breaks within the cladding areas can you comment on the RFI attached and whether you believe this interpretation in relation to stack effect is correct
00:28:19 relation to stack effect is correct regards Neil do you see that there yes indeed
00:28:23 indeed and is it right the RFI stands for request for information that's how you understood it yeah so if we can go to that request for information this appears at har
00:28:35 appears at har four zeros three six one six
00:28:45 so we can see if we blow up the top half of this document so this is we can see at the top its to Simon Lawrence of
00:28:56 at the top its to Simon Lawrence of Ryden from Daniel angkatell Jones of Harley it's dated the 17th of September 2014 and then we see lower down the query please may you confirm the
00:29:08 query please may you confirm the required extent of the horizontal fire breaks within the cladding areas and can you see there there's a suggested solution we believe that they will be required at every floor level on the
00:29:19 required at every floor level on the vertical columns but not in the area of cladding between windows this is because there is no chimney effect here and therefore the cladding will not add to
00:29:30 therefore the cladding will not add to the spread of fire did you see that so that's the RFI that you've been forwarded by mr. Crawford yeah and then if we can go to your reply this is at
00:29:41 if we can go to your reply this is at our yd three zeros one eight one five four
00:29:46 four [Applause]
00:29:53 and if we can go I want to start on page two of this email string with your initial reply yeah so if we can look and the second half of that page yep so this
00:30:06 the second half of that page yep so this is an email you sent back at 11:33 on the 18th of September and you reply Neal I've never seen details of what you're doing to the external walls do you have
00:30:18 doing to the external walls do you have any cross sections elevations kind regards Terry do you see that there yes indeed now is it right that up until this point you had given no substantive
00:30:31 this point you had given no substantive consideration whatsoever to the cladding or the impact of the cladding on external fire spread correct can you
00:30:42 external fire spread correct can you explain how it came about that despite preparing three issues of the fire strategy you still didn't have the details of what they were doing with the external walls until this point well I
00:30:53 external walls until this point well I think we went through this in some detail yesterday I mean they never sent me anything asking me to comment on it
00:31:05 when you got this request from mr. Crawford to look at this RFI did this knot ring alarm bells for you given what you'd written in your previous fire
00:31:16 you'd written in your previous fire strategies about the B for requirement being satisfied by the proposals it didn't ring alarm bells because I've never seen any details of what they were proposing and that's all I said in my
00:31:27 proposing and that's all I said in my response did you look back at what you'd written in your fire strategies I mean this is September 14 so it's nearly it's
00:31:38 this is September 14 so it's nearly it's not quite a year but from your third issue which was November 2013 says no no I didn't refer back I mean I think it's worth pointing out that at September
00:31:49 worth pointing out that at September 2014 my belief was that we were not really a fully paid-up member of the design team because ride and were appointed in March and we were never
00:32:00 appointed in March and we were never approached by Ryden to work for them and we did talk yesterday about why it was that we saw fit to respond to these
00:32:11 was that we saw fit to respond to these emails and we did it because we normally do that if it's limited in extent even though we're not we consider ourselves not to be working on the project I think
00:32:22 not to be working on the project I think what we establish is we don't see in these emails is you saying to mr. Crawford what are you asking me we're not engaged anymore if you want our advice yeah well I I did hint at that
00:32:33 advice yeah well I I did hint at that yesterday I did say that we would have been entitled to say we are no longer employed on this project why are you asking me those questions but I I didn't see fit to do that there wasn't entirely
00:32:45 see fit to do that there wasn't entirely because we felt generous towards them but you know if you refuse to help people when they ask you questions it might be seen that you're not being very professional yeah now in fact your reply
00:32:59 professional yeah now in fact your reply I've never seen details of what you're doing to the external walls and may it be that you'd not seen them but as we established yesterday you had in fact been sent details not direct link to the
00:33:12 been sent details not direct link to the state's TV report and you had attended meetings in which cladding had been discussed including zinc rainscreen cladding no no I don't remember as I
00:33:23 cladding no no I don't remember as I said earlier don't remember ever tithing ever being discussed at meetings that I attended now Neil Crawford replies to you on the 18th of September the same
00:33:34 you on the 18th of September the same day at 12:18 and can we go to that I've got a different reference for that
00:33:45 let's go to the different reference I think I'm gonna follow my notes here so EXO 5 0 7 0 9 yeah so this is mr.
00:33:57 EXO 5 0 7 0 9 yeah so this is mr. Crawford's response at 1218 so he says hi Terry please see attached our sections and the initial drawing set we have had from Hartley's the initial drawings from Hartley's are fairly
00:34:08 drawings from Hartley's are fairly limited but they attempt to establish the basic approach and can you see there yeah the reason I've gone to this email is you can see that there's various attachments clearly that are sent with that email do you see that I do yes and
00:34:21 that email do you see that I do yes and one of those is s drawing called SVA and one two seven nine zero six one twenty the first one do you see that yes now if
00:34:34 the first one do you see that yes now if we can look at what you say at paragraph five point one seven of your witness statement this is an EXO for zeros one six to one at page 15 in that last
00:34:48 six to one at page 15 in that last sentence when you're dealing sorry with this email you say these were large scale drawings which shows encounter cladding but did not specify the materials to be used for installation do you see that yesterday
00:34:59 you see that yesterday now let's I just want to look at that drawing if we can go to it and we will need the native version this is EXO five zero seven one Oh
00:35:26 yeah if we can what I want to do is look at the labels on the left-hand side of those sections perhaps we can look at the top of the page and zoom in now that
00:35:41 the top of the page and zoom in now that they're quite small mr. Ashton butt out that's better thank you so and can you see that we get various
00:35:52 so and can you see that we get various labels here and we can see that the top there it says h92 Zink composite rainscreen panel do you see that and framing system two stills can you read
00:36:03 framing system two stills can you read that a clone yes and then if we keep going down we should see one that's labeled h92 seven seven six
00:36:17 [Music]
00:36:22 so I keep going down a bit further yes there are three labels up from the bottom there's a 1892 776 thermal insulation do you see that dude yep
00:36:33 insulation do you see that dude yep now did you understand when you got these drawings what these little labels in circles were referring to well I
00:36:44 in circles were referring to well I assume that there were various components of the cladding system yeah so I mean had you seen similar references like h92 in other projects or Pete no no then did that do that it
00:36:56 Pete no no then did that do that it didn't mean anything didn't mean anything
00:36:57 anything so you didn't understand that that related to the employers requirements in the NBS specification for the project and may I say I didn't look at these
00:37:08 and may I say I didn't look at these drawings in any great detail I just noted that the outer material seem to be zinc and that the the insulation wasn't defined at that stage I see so you noted
00:37:21 defined at that stage I see so you noted that much oh yes because as I said earlier we were no longer part of a design team we hadn't been employed by Ryden and so I wasn't spending a lot of
00:37:35 Ryden and so I wasn't spending a lot of time on this did you ever make that clear to Studio II no no you didn't ever say by the way I'm not spending much time on this you need to understand that
00:37:47 time on this you need to understand that no I didn't make that clear - no but as an overall impression we have a building which is gonna be cleared with zinc with some aluminium elements such as window
00:38:00 some aluminium elements such as window flashings and there was some insulation which I would expect to see but it wasn't specified as whatever it was it was just insulation but you didn't think to ask for no details no I think it
00:38:12 to ask for no details no I think it comes back to the fact that I wasn't employed by Leiden and therefore I didn't feel that I was obliged to spend a lot of time on this just to be clear I think I know what your answers gonna be
00:38:24 think I know what your answers gonna be but I want to just check with you did you ever see any employers requirements or the NBS specification at any stage on the ground floor project no I mean that's an interesting question because
00:38:35 that's an interesting question because employers requirements are normally provided at the beginning of a development not towards the end because if you're drawing up a fire strategy for
00:38:48 if you're drawing up a fire strategy for a building you need to know what the employers requirements are and I never saw them on this job did you ever ask to see the employers requirement no when
00:38:59 see the employers requirement no when had I done so at the time that I produced the first report they wouldn't have been available it would appear just to be clear when you looked at these drawings sent to you was this the first
00:39:10 drawings sent to you was this the first time that you'd looked at Studio e's design and specification for the cladding system well I was given to understand these were Harley drawings not Stevie oh yeah yeah and it was the
00:39:21 not Stevie oh yeah yeah and it was the first time using can we then turn to your reply to the email you were sent then by mr. Crawford if we can go exo five zero seven zero eight so it's on
00:39:38 five zero seven zero eight so it's on the same day yeah if we can zoom in it to the top box so this is it 15:32 you say Neal if the insulation in
00:39:51 15:32 you say Neal if the insulation in the cavities behind the rainscreen cladding is combustible you will need to provide cavity barriers cavity barrier as shown on your drawing number one two seven nine zero six one twenty that's
00:40:03 seven nine zero six one twenty that's the one we were just looking at indeed in order to prevent fire from spreading from one flat to the one above even if there isn't a continuous cavity from the top to the bottom of the building kind
00:40:15 top to the bottom of the building kind regards Terry you see that I do yep now I just want to take this response in stages first of all what do you mean by
00:40:27 stages first of all what do you mean by if the insulation in the cavities behind the rain screen is combustible well as I said yesterday there were systems around which employed combustible insulation
00:40:40 which employed combustible insulation but which have been validated for use by tests the BSO for one four and therefore satisfied BR 135 so and
00:40:51 and therefore satisfied BR 135 so and there must be a number of buildings in the country which still have combustible cladding which is endorsed in that way by test evidence you've said there if the insulation in the cavities is
00:41:03 the insulation in the cavities is combustible did you think to ask for the specification for the insulation to check that point no I didn't why not I I wanted to deal
00:41:14 no I didn't why not I I wanted to deal with this in a light way because I wasn't working on the project full-time what was the reaction to fire performance requirement for insulation
00:41:25 performance requirement for insulation in a prove document B for buildings over 18 meters at this time well if you were going the Lunia route as studio he described it which is a term I don't understand you would be have to use
00:41:37 understand you would be have to use materials of limited combust ability however if you were using a tested system you wouldn't have to do that yes so under paragraph twelve point seven of
00:41:48 so under paragraph twelve point seven of a DB the installation should be of limited combust ability in a building greater than eighteen meters yeah and what did you understand the term limited combust ability to mean at the time well
00:41:59 combust ability to mean at the time well it's um it's a firm that it's um it's a term that's defined an approved document b I implored Li speaking it's historically it was introduced so that
00:42:11 historically it was introduced so that plasterboard wasn't deemed to be a combustible material bearing in mind that plasterboard has a a non combustible core but his face both sides
00:42:23 combustible core but his face both sides with paper or cardboard and so it's an artificial definition produced by the DOA at the time and I know sorry
00:42:34 DOA at the time and I know sorry please go on well I I pretty well have yes I hope thank you right that definition was by reference to certain fire testing it included materials which
00:42:47 fire testing it included materials which have been tested to various parts of the British Standards yes indeed yep now if you were aware that under paragraph twelve point seven the insulation should be of limited combust
00:42:59 insulation should be of limited combust ability
00:43:00 ability then why were you asking whether the insulation was combustible I wasn't asking what I was saying if it was combustible you would need to provide
00:43:12 combustible you would need to provide cavity barriers can you explain why you didn't immediately draw mr. Crawford's attention to the fact that the insulation must be of limited combust
00:43:23 insulation must be of limited combust ability if following a DB paragraph 12.7 I didn't know which route they were taking why didn't you ask because as I said earlier I wasn't have felt didn't
00:43:36 said earlier I wasn't have felt didn't feel obliged to do a lot of work on this given that we were not part of the design team would you agree looking at this now this email that it appears to
00:43:48 this now this email that it appears to suggest that combustible insulation is permissible as long as there are cavity barriers it could be interpreted that way yes I agree is that how you meant the email to be
00:44:00 is that how you meant the email to be read yes I think so I mean I didn't know what insulation they were using I didn't know whether they were going compliance with ADP or whether they were going to
00:44:12 with ADP or whether they were going to use a system which had been tested given you didn't know it wasn't the correct device to give was it to say or to suggest that if the insulation is
00:44:23 suggest that if the insulation is combustible it's permissible as long as there are cavity barriers I could have worded it better I can see them [Applause]
00:44:36 do you agree that as at the 18th of September you'd not been provided with any information suggesting that the proposed cutting system that Studio a or highly we're proposing to use had been
00:44:47 highly we're proposing to use had been tested to be s eight four one four or otherwise shown to meet the performance criterion be our one three five I haven't been given any information at all about the cladding or the insulation
00:45:00 all about the cladding or the insulation for that matter did it not occur to you at this point to advise TTA about the risks of using combustible insulation in a cladding facade I didn't feel that was
00:45:11 a cladding facade I didn't feel that was my job at this stage of the project and I mean I just want you to think about the warning that is in a previa 12.5
00:45:23 the warning that is in a previa 12.5 that the use of combustible materials in the cladding system may present a risk to health and safety did you not think with reference to that very clear warning that you ought to be giving that
00:45:34 warning that you ought to be giving that warning to the design team on this project no I think if I think it comes back to to what I was saying yesterday which is that because of the very
00:45:46 which is that because of the very onerous requirements of the thermal regulations designers are forced to use more thermally efficient insulation and at that time there were lot there was a
00:45:58 at that time there were lot there was a lot of work going on at making highly efficient plastic plastic type materials compliant in order to minimize the
00:46:11 compliant in order to minimize the amount of insulation provided on the external walls of buildings if you're restricted to using mineral wool which is effectively the only alternative the thickness of your external wall would be
00:46:23 thickness of your external wall would be quite significant that's why there was a lot of work going on at seeing if other materials had better thermal properties than mineral wall could be used and they
00:46:36 than mineral wall could be used and they were having it tested on a regular basis do you agree looking at this now that you ought to have ensured that the design team is fully and properly advised that as that as to the risks of
00:46:48 advised that as that as to the risks of using come suitable insulation in the system and the requirements in a prevent B or the guidance in a few mint B in particular at twelve point five and twelve point seven no I think that the designers
00:47:02 seven no I think that the designers should have been aware themselves of the need to comply with the building regulations and the the guidance documents that they published in support of those regulations if this issue had
00:47:14 of those regulations if this issue had come up at a time when I was a fully paid up member of the design team then all of these things that have been discussed in much more detail I mean I'm being asked to comment on things when
00:47:26 being asked to comment on things when we've effectively left the design team and only in little bytes of information not the full picture do you appreciate at the time that that was quite a risky
00:47:37 at the time that that was quite a risky thing to be doing to be advising piecemeal without full details on something as important as an external wall given the effect it could have on compartment ation arguably it's a risky
00:47:51 compartment ation arguably it's a risky thing for the architect to do as well I'm asking you whether you appreciated at the time asking me something a question which is not supported by a sufficient level of detail now just
00:48:05 sufficient level of detail now just going back to the the answer that you've given there you've recognized that combustible insulation would permit the spread of flame upwards from one flat to another you see that there yes yes can
00:48:22 another you see that there yes yes can you explain why you've suggested that the need for cavity barriers depends on there being combustible insulation I'm not quite sure on saying I coveted
00:48:35 not quite sure on saying I coveted barriers are required irrespective of the combust ability or otherwise of the insulation the regulations are quite clear you have to provide cavity bears at the junction of all compartment walls
00:48:47 at the junction of all compartment walls and compartment floors with the external walls yes quite but can you see reading this now where you said if the installation in the cavities behind the rain skin is combustible if you will
00:48:59 rain skin is combustible if you will need to provide cavity barrier as shown on your drawing do you see that can you see that it seems to make it contingent the cavity barriers on being combustible insulation but if it's read that way then it wasn't
00:49:10 but if it's read that way then it wasn't meant to read that way and I concede that it could have been more clearly wording yeah and it's right isn't it that approved document b recommended that cavity barriers were provided around the
00:49:22 barriers were provided around the windows and also at the head of the cladding system regardless of whether the insulation was combustible that was the requirement or recommendation in the approved document yes I agree so even if
00:49:34 approved document yes I agree so even if the insulation was of limited combust ability isn't it right that cavity barriers were still required to be provided if following that guidance if you followed that guidance through a letter yes that's correct at this time were you aware of paragraph
00:49:47 at this time were you aware of paragraph twelve point eight of approved document b which required cavity barriers to be installed in accordance with section nine of approved document b yes I was aware of that and we're you aware that
00:49:59 aware of that and we're you aware that to comply with section nine and in particular diagram thirty-three cavity barriers are required around all openings in the external walls I around all window openings at the head on top of the external wall and at the junction
00:50:11 of the external wall and at the junction of compartment walls and floors yes yes there was aware and those cavity barriers are all required just to be
00:50:23 barriers are all required just to be clear irrespective of the reaction to fire performance of the insulation do you agree I do agree given that why do you not recommend cavity barriers at the window openings or at the top of the
00:50:35 window openings or at the top of the external walls that wasn't the question I was being asked I don't think can we just go back to the drawing that you looked at and you you appear to have
00:50:48 looked at and you you appear to have looked at it because in the email you say you need to provide cavity barrier as shown on your drawing so it does appear that you looked at this drawing at the time those briefly yes can we go
00:50:59 at the time those briefly yes can we go back to that drawing then the native version that's an EXO 5:07 100
00:51:08 and I want to zoom in on that top section again as much as we can now the point I want to put to you is that
00:51:20 the point I want to put to you is that the horizontal bat cavity buries in this drawing are not placed around the window frames but only in between the windows so in this section for example there's
00:51:32 so in this section for example there's nothing showing that still level is there can we see that at the bottom of the page there's no no cavity area maybe the drawing needs to go up a bit so I
00:51:43 the drawing needs to go up a bit so I can see the bottom there is a there is a cavity Burak which is in the same horizontal plane as the floor yes yeah but can you see the window frame about
00:51:54 but can you see the window frame about that
00:51:55 that there's no cavity barrier and there's no label for a cavity barrier the sill of the window at the bottom of the window I can see that now yes but I as I said to you earlier I didn't look at this drawing in any great detail so when you
00:52:09 drawing in any great detail so when you were advising that you would need to provide the cavity berries as shown in this drawing were you just talking about the cavity barrier you can see and you didn't think about whether or not other
00:52:21 didn't think about whether or not other cavity berries ought to be there as well you know that's right and again can you explain why you advised in that way I
00:52:32 explain why you advised in that way I can't really add to what I said earlier which is that I didn't give these drawings much attention I just wanted to know in broad terms what they were doing I wasn't asking for full constructional
00:52:44 I wasn't asking for full constructional details in order for me to do a house and hours of work which I was not entitled to be paid for were you aware of the importance of cavity barriers
00:52:55 of the importance of cavity barriers around the windows yes they're preventing fire spread from the compartment into the cavity and then into the system yeah we did have a little bit of a discussion about this
00:53:06 little bit of a discussion about this yesterday you definitely need cavity barriers at the junction of walls and compartment floors there is some debate
00:53:18 compartment floors there is some debate about the efficacy of cavity parents around window openings where you effectively you've got cavity parents on all four sides however I concede that that is not what the approved document
00:53:30 that is not what the approved document says diagram 33 is very clear isn't it absolutely why didn't you give detailed advice to mr. Crawford just a required location of cavity barriers in
00:53:42 location of cavity barriers in accordance with the requirements of a predock youment being I'm sorry if is it gonna sound repetitive and we weren't really charged with helping them in this way we weren't partners we weren't
00:53:54 way we weren't partners we weren't employed by Ryden and does it follow that you didn't think it was part of your role when you're responding to this email to be stating that the drawings
00:54:09 email to be stating that the drawings did not comply with approved document b because they didn't have cavity berries at the window openings no I didn't see that to be my function at all and these drawings don't show cavity berries at
00:54:21 drawings don't show cavity berries at the top of the external wall either we zoom out
00:54:33 we see the top on the right hand side of this drawing we were looking at the left
00:54:42 right and there's no cavity Barre at the top of the building do you see that it's not one that's labeled but there's one looking at it now which could be this one I'm talking a higher up shouldn't
00:54:56 one I'm talking a higher up shouldn't all be one higher up but the very head of the cladding system can't answer that now I mean if I'd been asked to look at these in detail sometime earlier in the design procedure then I would have gone
00:55:07 design procedure then I would have gone over them with a fine-tooth comb okay now later that same day so staying with the 18th of September 2014 Neil Crawford sent you in another email can
00:55:18 Crawford sent you in another email can we go to that SCA 3 zeroes 1 1 7 2 4 and I want to look at the top of page 1
00:55:35 yes thank you so just looking at that very first team at the top so this is now at 407 in the afternoon and then he says Terry is this interpretation
00:55:46 says Terry is this interpretation correct see below regards Neil and then if we can look at the email directly below
00:55:54 below it's from Daniel and kettle Jones to mr. Crawford copying in Ryden and Kevin lamb as well right subject Grenville tower fight cavity fire barriers and it says
00:56:06 fight cavity fire barriers and it says Neil thank you for your response and he says the insulation is class naught therefore after reading the correspondence below I believe that the fire barrier in these locations will not be necessary can you confirm that this
00:56:19 be necessary can you confirm that this is acceptable so this is a debate that's going on within the design team about whether further fire barrier is necessary and he said there the insulation is class naught to see that
00:56:30 insulation is class naught to see that there yes I do now we can also see from the top email when Neil Crawford emails you forwarding this on he attaches a
00:56:42 you forwarding this on he attaches a rainscreen cladding Product data sheet August 2014 PDF do you see that there I see there is attachment yes yeah and I
00:56:53 see there is attachment yes yeah and I want to just go to that attachment and this is at r yd three zeros one eight one five five
00:57:10 this is we can if we zoom into the top half of this this is the Celotex rs.5000 sorry in the very top right hand corner
00:57:22 sorry in the very top right hand corner there was actually a date which I can't now see on the screen yeah issue one you know goes 2014 do you see that there yes indeed so this is the Celotex rs.5000
00:57:34 indeed so this is the Celotex rs.5000 datasheet for premium rainscreen cladding board and it makes it says there it's premium performance PIR solution for use in rainscreen cladding systems now i'm going to come back and
00:57:46 systems now i'm going to come back and ask you some questions about this datasheet but before I do I just want to follow through what happened with the emails before I asked you a number of questions I want to go to your response to mr. Crawford's email where he asked
00:57:59 to mr. Crawford's email where he asked for advice on mr. ankertill James's interpretation and if we can go to that EXO 4 zeros 1 4 3 0 and if we can go
00:58:13 EXO 4 zeros 1 4 3 0 and if we can go zoom in at that thank you so this is 1621 so a little bit later in the afternoon you respond to mr.
00:58:24 the afternoon you respond to mr. Crawford Neil a material which has a class naught rating it's not necessarily non-combustible although the reverse is invariably true some class naught
00:58:35 invariably true some class naught products will burn when exposed to a fully developed fire in any case you need to prevent fire spread from I think I mean one flat yeah to the flat above as I stated in my earlier email what
00:58:48 as I stated in my earlier email what isn't clear from the information to hand is whether or not there's a continuous cavity from top to bottom in any part of the cladding apart from around the column casings irrespective of the type
00:58:59 column casings irrespective of the type of insulation kind regards Terry you see that now again I want to ask you a number of questions about this exchange first of all do you recall reading the data seat for the installation which mr.
00:59:12 data seat for the installation which mr. Crawford had forwarded to you no I didn't open the attachment I mean I didn't see the need to open the attachment I just well I'm just dealing with an
00:59:24 I just well I'm just dealing with an exchange of emails about whether a class oh material is means you don't need to have cavity bearers wouldn't it be important to open the attachment look at
00:59:35 important to open the attachment look at the data sheet so you can see exactly what type of insulation it is this is this is the end of communication I think I assumed that if I needed to look at it that Neal would have said please see the
00:59:47 that Neal would have said please see the attached and the data sheet attached he didn't he just asked me a question about whether big you know whether you needed cavity bearers because of the fire performance of the material he's asked
01:00:02 performance of the material he's asked you about whether mister ankertill James's interpretation is correct he says the installation is cast naught and they've ordered to you the data sheet so you've got the information on the installation wasn't it Payton be
01:00:13 the installation wasn't it Payton be clear that you needed to open that attachment and then no it wasn't clear to me that that was what I needed to do
01:00:24 were you familiar with the Celotex RS 5000 product at this time so this is September 14 it was actually launched in August 14 as per the datasheet so as I
01:00:36 August 14 as per the datasheet so as I needed launched a month before but were you aware of the Celotex RS 5000 product I was aware that there was a product called Celotex I'm not actually
01:00:50 called Celotex I'm not actually investigated or not had cause to investigate it for any particular application how long had you been aware because we know they'd been another product called F R 5000 which in fact is
01:01:01 product called F R 5000 which in fact is the same product but they then marketed it differently how long had you been aware of the Celotex insulation product it's difficult to put a time on it did
01:01:13 it's difficult to put a time on it did you know what type of insulation it was well it was I knew it was PIR foam which is polyisocyanurate or polyurethane foam
01:01:26 is polyisocyanurate or polyurethane foam did you mean that these foam products have been around for a long while did you know it's occurred to you yesterday they were be used in insulation to fast food factories in the
01:01:38 insulation to fast food factories in the night did you know it's reaction to fire performance no I didn't were you aware
01:01:49 performance no I didn't were you aware that there might be an issue about how a PIR insulation would perform in an external cladding system yes yes of course I was aware of that but I don't
01:02:00 course I was aware of that but I don't know where they were using it here now in your witness statement you said at paragraph 5.20 and of your first
01:02:12 paragraph 5.20 and of your first statement that you do not remember seeing the datasheet that's right because I didn't open the attachment so you just didn't open the attachment that's why I just wanted to clarify yeah
01:02:23 that's why I just wanted to clarify yeah so you didn't take any any information away from that datasheet at all no can you explain to us with reference to your email and discussion of class knows how
01:02:35 email and discussion of class knows how class naught is relevant to insulation products in an external rain screen system it isn't really relevant I mean the if you're looking at approved document b what it says i summarized it
01:02:48 document b what it says i summarized it is that insulation must be of limited combust ability and the external wall finished outer surface must be class zero if it isn't really relevant why
01:03:04 zero if it isn't really relevant why didn't you respond saying exactly that saying I'm sorry class naught is not relevant to an insulation product on whether it should be on an external wall
01:03:15 whether it should be on an external wall it wouldn't be relevant whether you were following a prove document B or the full fire test we would in I didn't know at that time what insulation they were using in fact I didn't know until after
01:03:27 using in fact I didn't know until after the fire had taken place but they were saying that if we've got a material at whose class zero we don't need cavity barriers in it and I'm saying oh yes you do I see so
01:03:38 and I'm saying oh yes you do I see so you just took it at face value that it was a material with class naught and you responded to that narrow question yes I felt with a new narrow way for the reasons I've given earlier at this stage of the development of the building I was
01:03:53 of the development of the building I was not really fully engaged but not really engaged at all so again my questions the same as before why didn't you immediately refer to paragraph twelve point seven of a DB and explained that
01:04:05 point seven of a DB and explained that the installation needed to be of limited combust ability if following that guidance well and I think I've already answered that question
01:04:16 we were part of the design team I mean how what are the obligations on somebody who stopped working on a project to carry on as if nothing had happened
01:04:28 carry on as if nothing had happened well mr. Escher and that rather feeds into what I wanted to ask you I think is this if you had regarded yourself as still part of the design team would you have responded in a different way
01:04:40 have responded in a different way oh yes I would I would have probably spent more time looking at the drawings and literally looking at into in much more detail and the attachment would you
01:04:51 more detail and the attachment would you evoke the attachment I might have done but you know I wasn't part of the design team that was the way I felt my status was with regard to the project yeah I
01:05:02 was with regard to the project yeah I understand that if you're asked a question on that hoc basis so let's sign
01:05:13 question on that hoc basis so let's sign you're not part of the design team but for commercial reasons you are willing to respond to questions is there any reason why you shouldn't be expected to
01:05:25 reason why you shouldn't be expected to respond in a fully professional manner no no there isn't a reason why we shouldn't do so so you would expect to do that I would expect to do that yes that's fair comment and would there be
01:05:37 that's fair comment and would there be any difference between responding in a professional manner to an ad-hoc question and responding in a professional manner as part the design to him well I think that's a
01:05:53 the design to him well I think that's a difficult question to answer because if you're not part of the design team you know you're not really obligated to give them any answer at all which is
01:06:05 them any answer at all which is something I've said yesterday I think with the wisdom of hindsight maybe I should have said to Steve Joey look I'm no longer a part of the design team please stop sending the technical
01:06:17 team please stop sending the technical queries do you understand that and I can see the force of what you say that you could have responded by saying it's my
01:06:29 could have responded by saying it's my responsibility to answer these questions but once you do agree to answer questions I'm just wondering whether there's any real difference between professional obligations as a member of
01:06:41 professional obligations as a member of the design team and obligations in answering questions probably not put in those terms probably not just a couple
01:06:57 those terms probably not just a couple of follow-up questions on that and had you been part of the design team would you have advised that the installation needed to be of limited combust ability do you think all tested yes indeed
01:07:11 do you think all tested yes indeed that's a very simple easy thing for you to advise isn't it didn't require detailed research no you knew that didn't you yes so it wasn't something
01:07:23 didn't you yes so it wasn't something that was going to take you a lot of extra time was it to go in research not necessarily research just tell them that it needed to be a limited combustibility
01:07:34 it needed to be a limited combustibility or justified by test data that's a sentence which I could have added I agree right at this time you're still recording your time and assuming you're
01:07:46 recording your time and assuming you're going to be billing for the work is that correct
01:07:49 correct not necessarily anticipating billing but certainly recording my time that's you know you have to record what you spend your time on on a timesheet
01:08:00 spend your time on on a timesheet everybody's are the same xavier do well look at this later is they've still got some Headroom in their stage de fée so it just gets added to that in the end
01:08:11 it just gets added to that in the end and you never reach the limit of that stage de fée was that your understanding I think that's correct yes
01:08:20 did you ever any stage on the project give any consideration to whether Celotex rs.5000 was a suitable insulation product to be used on the tower no because I didn't know was being
01:08:33 tower no because I didn't know was being used did it occur to you to forget whether you open the Celotex datasheet to quickly look up the project research
01:08:46 to quickly look up the project research it yourself or even approached Celotex directly and find out what type of insulation it was I'm sorry as I just said I didn't know that we're using Celotex on the building do you agree
01:08:59 Celotex on the building do you agree that if a product is of limited combust ability it will typically be marketed as such so take rockwool for example do you agree that normally that they'll expressly say in the marketing material
01:09:11 expressly say in the marketing material this is of limited combust ability yes and I would expect them to say a bit more than that it's suitable for use in high-rise buildings and and so on and what tested had it have been tested
01:09:25 what tested had it have been tested under and so on it would be quite a fairly comprehensive description because they if you try and market a material as a being of limited combust ability people wouldn't understand it yep in
01:09:39 people wouldn't understand it yep in your second statement at paragraph 2.3 you say that had it been suggested that the insulation was Celotex you would have raised doubts about that and you said something similar yesterday in oral
01:09:51 said something similar yesterday in oral evidence you said if I'd been told they were using Celotex I would have said that it is not acceptable without test evidence that's suitable for use on the building
01:10:00 building and I'm suggesting to you now that effectively you were told that they were using Celotex you were sent the data see no I mean I think this is this is in the
01:10:12 no I mean I think this is this is in the same sort of category as sending me a link to a stage see report but not asking you to look at it and comment on it in your reply just looking at it you
01:10:24 it in your reply just looking at it you say a material which has a class naught rating is not necessarily non-combustible and can you just help us I know you touched on this yesterday precisely what your understanding is of
01:10:35 precisely what your understanding is of the meaning of class noise I couldn't give you the precise definition in approved document b but as I said earlier this morning it was a an
01:10:48 earlier this morning it was a an artificial term come composed by the do e to ensure that plasterboard was not put at a commercial disadvantage
01:10:59 was not put at a commercial disadvantage because it had cardboard facings that is that's the background to it and so it's a sort of artificial definition if you
01:11:11 a sort of artificial definition if you like I mean I'm not aware of any materials of limited possibility other than non combustible materials manok it mineral wool it's probably the
01:11:25 manok it mineral wool it's probably the only material you can use with confidence in the sort of situation that we're talking about yeah unless you happen to have had your system tested and validated for use on high-rise
01:11:36 and validated for use on high-rise buildings when you state there and in the second line some class naught products will burn when exposed to a fully developed fire which class naught
01:11:47 fully developed fire which class naught products were you meaning to refer to they're not I couldn't be specific I mean some will infer mineral wool they will have a class over rating but it
01:11:58 will have a class over rating but it won't burn and you weren't aware at the time where you where the Celotex rs.5000 was non combustible or whether it was in your words a product which will burn
01:12:09 your words a product which will burn when exposed to a fully developed fire I think I knew that Celotex was ISOs I on your eight phone which is not a non combustible material can I just moving
01:12:24 combustible material can I just moving on within this this this Emacs there's a lot of detail in here why do you ask whether there's a continuous cavity apart from around the column casings did you believe that such a cavity within
01:12:35 you believe that such a cavity within the column casings would have been permissible I was just asking whether there was one or not and you weren't curious to see the full details of the
01:12:46 curious to see the full details of the drawing so you could see more information about the cavities and whether they were continuous in certain locations no would you agree that you're
01:12:59 locations no would you agree that you're not in a position to provide comprehensive advice without full details of the cladding system and the design and should not have sought to give that advice without having that no
01:13:11 give that advice without having that no I was answering a fairly simple question and I felt able to answer that without being in full knowledge of what was due it was going on but the specific question was do we need to have cavity
01:13:25 question was do we need to have cavity bare as if the material were using as a class or a rating and the answer is you still do you know maybe I should have just stopped at there did you not think there was an immediate need to correct Harleys interpretation that all they
01:13:37 Harleys interpretation that all they needed to be concerned about was whether or not it had cast naught I thought I did by this response
01:13:47 you mentioned also that you say you need to prevent fire spread from one flat to the flat above where is that requirement
01:13:58 the flat above where is that requirement taken from what were you thinking of when you said that approved document b and any particular part of it well it's the provision of cavity barriers it's in
01:14:11 the provision of cavity barriers it's in B third in section 13 of approved document b where you need them yeah i mean it's very difficult to give a two
01:14:22 mean it's very difficult to give a two or three page answer to every what i regarded as fairly minor technical questions did you ever think about approaching other experts in x over to
01:14:33 approaching other experts in x over to help you when advising on these topics I didn't think I needed to I mean this goes into my next question which is did you feel that you were appropriately
01:14:44 you feel that you were appropriately qualified and had the right expertise to be advising on these issues do you mean the totality of the issues that they raised or just this particular one this
01:14:55 raised or just this particular one this particular string so back to the RFI and then being asked about the installation is class naught and cavity barriers did you feel that you were appropriately qualified to give the right advice about
01:15:09 qualified to give the right advice about I did I did film suitably qualified
01:15:15 going back to your answer early you said if I had been asked a specific question is it okay to use Celotex rs.5000 then I might have answered in a different way
01:15:26 might have answered in a different way and were you qualified an experience to advise on the use of Celotex rs.5000 if you've been asked to advise on that specific product would you have thought
01:15:37 specific product would you have thought you were able to or would you have referred it to other experts with an X / no I would I think I would have been able to do it on my own now you're
01:15:49 able to do it on my own now you're you're asking a question at the end you're saying what isn't clear from the information to hand is whether or not there's a continuous cavity from top to bottom any part of the cladding irrespective of the type of insulation
01:16:01 irrespective of the type of insulation put a question mark at the end can you recall we can't find any evidence of this but did mr. Crawford or mr. Anker tell James ever get back to you regarding the extent of the external wall cavity as you requested no I don't
01:16:16 wall cavity as you requested no I don't think they came back at all and you didn't think to chase for a response know that the last statement in there was intended to be helpful are they continuous cavities and you
01:16:28 are they continuous cavities and you didn't think that you needed to clarify the position you'd posed in this email before letting this trail go cold no mr. chairman I think that's an
01:16:42 no mr. chairman I think that's an appropriate name intensity I mean I there's a related topic coming but I yeah well mr. Ashman will have another break now tasting we'll come back at 25
01:16:57 break now tasting we'll come back at 25 to 12 okay so if you'd like to go to the UH sure that would be good and then please remember not to talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out of the room I'd have to keep telling you that just in case you so I I won't
01:17:08 that just in case you so I I won't forget thankfully I'll show you where thank you very much
01:17:20 alright 25 to 12
01:35:17 right will you ask mr. eshton to join us again please
01:35:29 all right mr. eshton ready to carry on I am saying thank you very much yes from screech yes and just a couple of follow-up questions from this morning's evidence at what point did you consider
01:35:44 evidence at what point did you consider that the or retainer as per the fee proposal had ended he seemed to be saying you'd entered a different stage and you weren't part of the design team and you didn't consider you were appointed anymore what point are you
01:35:57 appointed anymore what point are you saying you thought that I think when I became aware that Ryden had been appointed and they hadn't approached us to help them isn't it quite common for
01:36:11 to help them isn't it quite common for fire engineers to stay client-side so to carry on advising your client the TMO despite the appointment of a design and build contractor doesn't that happen on some project that's exactly what is
01:36:22 some project that's exactly what is happening on a project I'm currently working on the client said I want you to carry on notwithstanding the fact that there has been a contractor appointed to
01:36:33 there has been a contractor appointed to do the job that being the case I would expect he'd some sort of indication from the client that he wanted us to carry on
01:36:44 the client that he wanted us to carry on you didn't get any kind of indication that they didn't didn't want no no obviously that's the inference you can draw from not being said you know and you carry on and you carry on being
01:36:56 you carry on and you carry on being requests
01:36:57 requests yes leaving requests for advice yeah can I just look at your fee proposal for a moment we'll come back to this again later
01:37:04 later EXO five zero is four seven four
01:37:13 I beg your pardon sorry that's not the fee per person so it's EXO five zeroes
01:37:25 fee per person so it's EXO five zeroes I'm sorry before you go on can I just ask you to clarify you you just said to me strange looking at the transcript she
01:37:37 me strange looking at the transcript she put it to you didn't get any kind of indication they didn't I think she meant want you to continue correct and you said no obviously that's the obvious inference you could draw from not being
01:37:48 inference you could draw from not being and then there was smoother speech so they're not what are you clear well that's what I want you just yeah I mean if they were if there had been no communication at all from the client
01:37:59 communication at all from the client then it would have been reasonable to assume that they were happy for me to advise on and as and when basis okay thank you sorry I've got the reference now TMO one triple zero three eight
01:38:12 now TMO one triple zero three eight eight five
01:38:21 so this is the proposal that we looked at of the ninth of May where you set out your work for the TMO and we know that that was accepted and you were told to proceed on that basis can we just look
01:38:32 proceed on that basis can we just look at page five within that there's a section there headed changes to client or invoice details it says that if during the
01:38:43 details it says that if during the project you inform us of changes to the client or invoicing information we'd be happy to make those changes however if there are changes to the client company we would need to carry a credit check etc so you were never informed were you
01:38:57 etc so you were never informed were you that there'd been any change to the client at any stage no no so you understood your client throughout to be the TMO thank you angels yes even when
01:39:08 the TMO thank you angels yes even when you were providing the ad hoc advice you were providing in 2014 and 2015 yes well I think I assumed a Katy CMO
01:39:20 yes well I think I assumed a Katy CMO was still the client yep and once you knew that you were being asked for ad hoc advice in say September 14 that we were looking at this morning did you
01:39:32 were looking at this morning did you think to go back to the TMO and raise your status your contractual status with them no just on another point we looked
01:39:46 them no just on another point we looked at that drawing that you were sent and can we go back to that this is EXO 5 0 7 1 0 this is the drawing you were sent by
01:39:59 1 0 this is the drawing you were sent by mr. Crawford and I want to go again to the top left-hand section and zoom in on that yeah right and if you see the
01:40:10 that yeah right and if you see the labels towards the bottom of that there's a label with a little circle h92 1 2 5 and it says PPC aluminium composite rainscreen panel and framing
01:40:22 composite rainscreen panel and framing system do you see that I see that now yes and there's a little line and a label and you can see it's referring to the outer panel of the rain screen system as distinct from the insulator
01:40:34 system as distinct from the insulator they're sitting behind it do you see that I do so it's referring there to a composite aluminium composite do you see that TBC I also see TBC after that yeah
01:40:47 that TBC I also see TBC after that yeah yeah now yesterday you said in evidence I think this is round pages 76 and 77 that you weren't familiar with composite metal panels so when you looked at this
01:41:00 metal panels so when you looked at this drawing did it occur to you that that was something you ought to clarify and check if you weren't familiar with a aluminium composite is that not a trigger to find out more about that it
01:41:13 trigger to find out more about that it might have been but TBC means to be confirmed in yeah it might have been an alternative material ultimately but as I said earlier I didn't look at these drawings in a huge amount of detail so
01:41:27 drawings in a huge amount of detail so they can get back up in 2014 and in the light of the advice we just looked at that you gave were you aware of the Building Control Alliance technical
01:41:38 Building Control Alliance technical guidance no 18 use of combustible cladding materials on residential buildings issue naught that had been published in June 2014 were you aware of that publication no I wasn't can we just
01:41:51 that publication no I wasn't can we just bring that up so you can just see it it's a c ii l 4 zeros 3 6 1 5
01:42:09 so this is the Building Control Alliance note so do I take it that you didn't read this at the time of working on the ground floor project no I didn't have you ever read this piece of guidance No
01:42:22 you ever read this piece of guidance No so you're not aware of the the warnings that are contained within it about the use of combustible materials on residential buildings and the different routes to compliance that it's
01:42:33 routes to compliance that it's recommending when dealing with that but looking at it sort of pretty similar guidance as to what is contained in other publications I'm quite sure why
01:42:44 other publications I'm quite sure why the BCA decided that they needed to reinforce that because I'm look as I say just looking at it I can't really see anything in there that adds any
01:42:55 anything in there that adds any information to what was already in the marketplace I think so just looking in a little bit more detail under key issues if we can go Dumon on
01:43:06 under key issues if we can go Dumon on the bottom of that page it says there in the third paragraph a surface spread of frame classification does not infer any resistance to combust ability it is
01:43:17 resistance to combust ability it is solely a measure of the spread of a flame across the surface and then in the first bullet it says thermosetting insolence rigid polyurethane foam boards do not meet the limit of combust ability
01:43:28 do not meet the limit of combust ability requirements of a DB VT table a seven and so should not be accepted as meeting a DB paragraph twelve point seven yeah however if they are included as part of a cladding system being tested
01:43:39 part of a cladding system being tested to be our one three five and bs eight four one four the complete assembly may ultimately prove to be acceptable do you see that I do yes that's more or less what I was saying earlier without
01:43:53 what I was saying earlier without referring to rigid polyurethane foam boards I mean any system can be justified by test to be suitable for use did you have any understanding around
01:44:05 did you have any understanding around this time of the limited conditions in which Celotex rs.5000 could be used within an external cladding system not specifically but I was aware that
01:44:18 specifically but I was aware that Celotex was not a non-combustible materials
01:44:22 materials I see and the data sheet can be found let's have a look at it again ry d three zeros one eight one five five
01:44:40 I can blow that up and I want to look in particular actually it page three and the top of page three so it says there
01:44:51 the top of page three so it says there Celotex rs.5000 as a premium performance solution as the first PIR board to successfully meet the performance criteria set out in BL one three five four rainscreen cladding systems and
01:45:02 four rainscreen cladding systems and then it says there the system tested was as follows and it explains what the system was can you see that it involved twelve millimeter fiber cement panels do you see that I do so where you were
01:45:17 you see that I do so where you were where at any time when you were working on the ground floor project that if you're using Celotex rs.5000 it would have to be within this the parameters of this system that was tested no I think
01:45:28 this system that was tested no I think as a general comment if you've had a particular construction tested to PS eight four one four and you then want to
01:45:39 eight four one four and you then want to use vary that specification slightly at the time you were able to go and get an assessment from the test house that conducted the test look this is slightly different we're
01:45:51 look this is slightly different we're using a different facing material we're not using fiber cement panels we might be using I don't know sheet steel can you assess whether that would still perform in the in the same
01:46:02 would still perform in the in the same way as the tested system and can I go back to the email you wrote to mr. Crawford this is EXO four zeros one four
01:46:14 Crawford this is EXO four zeros one four three zero did you think at this time to ask mr. Crawford what type of rainscreen cladding panel was proposed at this time
01:46:26 cladding panel was proposed at this time no I didn't
01:46:32 given it was clear that these email exchanges that there was some confusion within the design team did you think that it might be helpful to suggest a meeting to discuss these issues
01:46:43 meeting to discuss these issues yes but equally I would if it could have come from the other side if there was some doubt as to whether or not they would they were doing was acceptable
01:46:54 would they were doing was acceptable then it would be open to them to have called for a meeting and did you think about whether or not you ought to advise mr. Crawford that the fire strategy report that you'd written in November 13
01:47:07 report that you'd written in November 13 a third issue should be revised given that the beak for compliance was to be confirmed by an analysis in a future issue of this report no I didn't think to tell him at that point can you
01:47:21 to tell him at that point can you explain why no I can't really
01:47:27 now in his oral evidence mr. Crawford said a number of things about discussions that he had with you at this time and I want to take you to some of
01:47:38 time and I want to take you to some of what he said so do you have the chance to respond to that okay and you've addressed this in your second statement but I want to ask you some more questions about what mr. Crawford said can we go to the transcript from day 9
01:47:52 can we go to the transcript from day 9 at page 176
01:48:00 and I want to read from line 23 this is right at the bottom I just want to read this so he says I think when I spoke with xover it must have been 17th or
01:48:13 with xover it must have been 17th or 18th September and he's talking about 2014 here well the exact dates we were just talking about to confirm what confirm the compliance of the Celotex
01:48:24 confirm the compliance of the Celotex installation and the proposed cavity barriers strategy my understanding from the conversation with xover is there that what was being proposed was
01:48:35 that what was being proposed was compliant I'm not sure if I entirely understood on which method they were using or which basis they assumed it to be compliant I think I'd probably assumed a linear route but I think
01:48:46 assumed a linear route but I think having said that xover have a massive they have a massive wealth of knowledge in terms of similar projects and they may have may have had the confidence to say what they said based on desktop
01:48:58 say what they said based on desktop studies previous projects similar projects buildups do you see that there I do yes so he is saying that he spoke with you around the 17th or 18th of
01:49:10 with you around the 17th or 18th of September to confirm the compliance of the Celotex insulation now I just want to ask you first do you recall speaking with mr. Crawford on the telephone at
01:49:21 with mr. Crawford on the telephone at the time that these email exchanges were being extent and exchanged no I don't recall any conversation with Neil Crawford so you didn't have any
01:49:32 Crawford so you didn't have any conversations with him around this time no or in the days thereafter no it's interesting he's his conversation with xover he doesn't name me as the person that he spoke to it's pretty clear from
01:49:47 that he spoke to it's pretty clear from his evidence and that he's talking about you mr. Ashton well I didn't have this conversation with him so did you ever confirm the compliance of the Celotex
01:49:59 confirm the compliance of the Celotex insulation in in conversations with him at this time no definitely not did you ever have a conversation with him in which you were talking about the Celotex rs.5000 installation no
01:50:12 Celotex rs.5000 installation no can we look at another extract from his oral evidence sorry to enjoy if mr. Crawford's right it would be quite an important conversation wouldn't it it
01:50:23 important conversation wouldn't it it would indeed yes I'm just wondering wasn't your practice to keep notes of these conversation of that kind if it had taken place no I wouldn't have kept notes but given that it is an important
01:50:36 notes but given that it is an important subject I would have expected him to confirm by email that I had agreed that these materials were acceptable to rely on a telephone conversation or an
01:50:48 on a telephone conversation or an alleged telephone conversation is not very reliable thank you can we look at another extract from the transcript this is day 10 this time at page 58 and I
01:51:05 is day 10 this time at page 58 and I want to read from line 1 on this page down to line 1 of the next page so the question is so just so I've got your evidence clear on this it's the class not fire performance throughout the
01:51:17 not fire performance throughout the entire product which to you meant that it was safe to use on buildings above 18 meters as an insulation product do you see that there yes I do yes and then the answer that mr. Kaufer gives no no it's
01:51:29 answer that mr. Kaufer gives no no it's the entire presentation material I then sought to check that interpretation with xover which I did and which I understood from that from what was fairly emphatic conversation from xover that it was
01:51:42 conversation from xover that it was applicable and that it could be used and then there's let's look and then he carries on with his answer their understanding of how it was and how it could be used may have been different from mine they may have had they work on
01:51:55 from mine they may have had they work on hundreds of buildings they may have had knowledge of BR one three five testing for example that led them to believe that it was a pickable in this particular build-up and then the question is put but you don't know that
01:52:07 question is put but you don't know that do you and then he says no but what I know is from the conversations I had with xover they were emphatic fairly emphatic about the fact that it was appropriate to use and that's what they
01:52:19 appropriate to use and that's what they suggested to me I mean that was my understanding from the conversations I had with them I asked them to put it in writing they put it in writing the contacts with the cavity barriers on reflection it is a
01:52:32 cavity barriers on reflection it is a tacit approval in writing but from the conversations I had with them I understood that it was appropriate to use now in the light of that did you at
01:52:45 use now in the light of that did you at any stage on the project discuss with mr. Crawford whether the insulation was compliant and appropriate to use no I didn't did you provide emphatic confirmation to him that it was
01:52:57 confirmation to him that it was appropriate for the project no I didn't it says in there that they that we wrote to them confirming this and we did not yes I think it was clear from follow-up questions that mr. Crawford was talking
01:53:08 questions that mr. Crawford was talking about the emails we've just been discussing and then there's some further emails in 2015 you want stammering to any other written correspondence yeah
01:53:19 any other written correspondence yeah but nothing in the emails that I exchanged with him could be described as emphatic about anything and you don't
01:53:30 emphatic about anything and you don't recall ever putting in in writing that the installation category categorically was appropriate to use no and I wouldn't have done that anyway were you ever
01:53:41 have done that anyway were you ever asked by Studio E about bs8 for one for system testing or BR one three five classification not specifically known and I now want to ask you about whether
01:53:54 and I now want to ask you about whether you had any discussions around again around the 17th 18th September 2014 with mr. Crawford about the ACM the aluminium composite material panels and can we
01:54:06 composite material panels and can we look at what mr. Crawford said about this on day 10 at page 91
01:54:14 and I want to pick it up at line 16 right to line 11 on the next page so the
01:54:25 right to line 11 on the next page so the question is but why didn't you say to mr. Ashton I should just tell you that the bits where it says zinc aren't right anymore it's aluminium composite and then he says but I think I did there was
01:54:37 then he says but I think I did there was a follow up i zinc cm and a cm and performance terms as I understood it were the same and then so he worked on the assumption I think of the zinc cm performance of which I think I had been
01:54:51 performance of which I think I had been the same as the ACM then at the end of the conversation I think I did confirm with him that it was my understanding was that we were running with ACM and he's asked when was that conversation
01:55:03 he's asked when was that conversation please and he says at the same time and he's asked at the same time as 17th 18th conversation question that you referred to on Thursday that where you told us
01:55:16 to on Thursday that where you told us that he had said that the seller text was compliant the same conversation as that is that what you're saying and then he says I think it was yes I think it was do you see that and then he does say
01:55:27 was do you see that and then he does say the question is asked really and he says I mean maybe I've got conversations mixed up do you see all that I do and again I want to give you the chance to respond to this did mr. Kaufer confirm
01:55:40 respond to this did mr. Kaufer confirm that aluminium composite material was to be used I mean you've pointed out on the drawing it was TBC but did he ever actually confirm that to you on the telephone no he didn't and do you ever
01:55:52 telephone no he didn't and do you ever recall at any time discussing the use of Alemany aluminium composite material panels with mr. Crawford never I mean I think in my witness statement I said I didn't know that ACM was being used
01:56:04 didn't know that ACM was being used until after I wrote about the far in the press
01:56:07 press did you ever specifically discuss the use of raina bond 55 PE rainscreen panels with mr. Crawford no I didn't
01:56:18 and then I just want to look at what mr. Crawford said later in the day and this is within day 10 page 94 between lines 1 and 22 and then the question well we're
01:56:31 and 22 and then the question well we're going to look at the rest of the email changed shortly but just so I understand your answer you're saying are you that you had a conversation conversation with mr. Ashton on 17th or 18th September in
01:56:42 mr. Ashton on 17th or 18th September in which he told you that Celotex rs.5000 and Raina bond pe 55 aluminium composite rain screen material ACM question ACM yeah we're compliant is that your
01:56:54 yeah we're compliant is that your evidence I don't want to put words in your mouth I'm trying to summarize what I think you've been telling me and if I'm wrong please say and then he says my understanding is that in discussing the fire strategy the cavity barriers
01:57:06 fire strategy the cavity barriers strategy in relation to the wall buildup he understood what the wall buildup was we had sent in the insulation detail the insulation datasheet and he understood what the cavity barrier strategy was and
01:57:17 what the cavity barrier strategy was and he understood what the cladding panel build-up was and I asked him to confirm that in writing and then you say that he did confirm it in writing and then he confirmed in writing that he thought that it was so I can go to the next page
01:57:34 appropriate but on reflection it's more of a tacit approval than an explicit one and did you ever confirm in conversations with mr. Crawford that you understood what the war build-up was no
01:57:46 understood what the war build-up was no I didn't did you have a conversation about the suitability of the cavity barrier strategy at any time [Music]
01:58:00 did you ever say to him that your advice was based on desktop studies or previous projects no and and he goes on to say I
01:58:13 projects no and and he goes on to say I think I just summarized this bit that his understanding of the route to compliance on the cladding system was from conversations he had with you around 18th of September again do you recall any conversations about the route
01:58:25 recall any conversations about the route to compliance for the cladding system no I don't recall any discussion about that did you tell mr. Crawford around this time that you would be completing the
01:58:36 time that you would be completing the outline fire safety strategy no didn't mr. Crawford said that he remembered you alluding to the fact that he would have to complete the report or something of
01:58:48 to complete the report or something of that nature do you recall ever having a conversation about having to complete the outline fire safety strategy no I'm assuming we're talking about one telephone
01:58:59 we're talking about one telephone conversation here which I didn't you know didn't take place as far as I was concerned seems seems to exchange a lot
01:59:10 concerned seems seems to exchange a lot of information in one telephone conversation conversely did you ever tell him that you were so sure that what was being constructed was acceptable that there was no need for a further report definitely not did you ever tell
01:59:26 report definitely not did you ever tell him that there was no risk of external fire spread no
01:59:34 okay before just sticking them with 2014 and moving on to a slightly different topic can we go to se a three zeros one
01:59:45 topic can we go to se a three zeros one two one eight nine now these are some exchanges that you had in late 2014 with
01:59:57 exchanges that you had in late 2014 with mr. Crawford about observations that are bkc Building Control had made on the means of escape arrangements for the refurbishment and if you look at the top
02:00:08 refurbishment and if you look at the top email there and mr. Crawford is saying that he's received some markups from Building Control on the fire strategy it's due to meet them on Monday and wondered if you had any views on their comments and then in the second and
02:00:22 comments and then in the second and third lines he says this on the Academy project we had the situation where Tony Pearson managed to argue some of their comments away if you had any observations particularly where you
02:00:34 observations particularly where you think there are comments their comments may be excessive I would be grateful to know as I can take these with me to the meeting on Monday regards Neil do you see that yes I do now was it your understanding that Tony
02:00:49 now was it your understanding that Tony Pearson had argued some building control comments away on the calc project that Academy and leisure center project no I think I took Neil Crawford's word
02:01:01 no I think I took Neil Crawford's word that Tony Pearson had managed to do that I didn't discuss it with Tony Pearson because the Academy building was Tony Pearson's job did you know what topic
02:01:12 Pearson's job did you know what topic seat manage to argue away to know the detail of what they were talking about no I think my inference from this was that phony Pearson has managed to
02:01:23 that phony Pearson has managed to persuade Building Control to accept a number of modifications do you think you could do the same yeah that's how I read it
02:01:30 it yeah did you think well I didn't know what he wanted to run equations over that at the time of reading then but did you think that it might be part of your role on the ground field project at this
02:01:42 role on the ground field project at this time to argue Building Control comments away to go into debate with very definitely I'm we had quite lengthy discussions with
02:01:53 we had quite lengthy discussions with Kensie and Chelsea Building Control do you agree there that best practice would have been to engage in an open and transparent way with Building Control
02:02:06 transparent way with Building Control and not seek to get around issues that they're raising I'm not actually sure what Tony Pearson managed to argue away I mean our objective is not to go that
02:02:21 I mean our objective is not to go that take the line of least resistance on projects is to provide a safe building without seeing the context of what Tony personing Kensington and Chelsea
02:02:32 personing Kensington and Chelsea discussed that I couldn't comment further it may have been totally unrelated to the sort of questions that we had okay so we're now going to go forward in the chronology and look at
02:02:44 forward in the chronology and look at some emails that were exchanged in March 2015 between you and the design team on the project and just before we get to those and by March 2015 had you heard or
02:02:57 those and by March 2015 had you heard or read about a fire which had occurred on the LaCrosse building in Melbourne Australia in which a rain screen facade incorporating ACN panels had rapidly spread up the entire external facade to
02:03:10 spread up the entire external facade to the top of a 21 storey building no I wasn't aware of that specific job or building it was a fire that occurred in Melbourne yeah I mean fires do occur but
02:03:24 Melbourne yeah I mean fires do occur but I don't follow them all no do you remember ever hearing or reading about that specific fire the LaCrosse fire in Melbourne no I don't it's not one you're aware of even to this day no and so
02:03:40 aware of even to this day no and so turning to the advice which was thought from you on the 3rd of March 2015 from Neil Crawford again let's go to that this is EXO four zeros one three one five
02:03:54 and if we can blow up that top email so he says hi Terry just a quick question relating to Granville Tower as part of the reclad we are we have added fire
02:04:08 the reclad we are we have added fire breaks around the apartments as per the email below can you comment on the level of protection 90 plus 30 as to whether this is suitable my only query might be
02:04:19 this is suitable my only query might be that we have different levels of party wall at the level levels see attached fire plan with since with some sixty some 120 walls regards Neal do you see that I do this do you
02:04:36 do you see that I do this do you remember receiving this email yes I think I do yes did you ever respond to this email I'm not sure we can't find a
02:04:49 this email I'm not sure we can't find a response to this no it's possible that this was one that identified in my first witness statement is one that I obviously received because it was on our
02:05:01 obviously received because it was on our system that I may not have seen it and had I seen it I would have responded I mean looking at the project as a whole I
02:05:12 mean looking at the project as a whole I pretty sure that I answered every single query that was put to me whether it was the right way to do it or not is another issue but I don't remember responding to
02:05:24 issue but I don't remember responding to this and as I understand it I didn't which must indicate to me that I hadn't read it okay yeah I mean you talked about your witness statement if we just look at that paragraph 5.25 of your
02:05:37 look at that paragraph 5.25 of your first statement this is at exo couldn't go to this EXO 4 zeros 161 at page 17
02:05:48 and you say there this is in reference to this email I do not have any recollection of seeing this email all the attach specification note or of sending any reply to it I understand that in reviewing ex Ava's documents no
02:06:00 that in reviewing ex Ava's documents no response to this email has been found it's very possible I did not reply to it and if that's the case then I probably did not see this email and that so that remains your evidence yeah that's that's in essence what I just said yeah did you
02:06:13 in essence what I just said yeah did you have did you have any kind of system or procedure within the office for checking or picking up on any requests that hadn't been answered or would you just
02:06:24 hadn't been answered or would you just leave it to the person sending email to send another one saying responded no there isn't there isn't a system for checking on whether all emails received have been answered but from time to time
02:06:40 have been answered but from time to time if I or one of my colleagues fails to respond to an email we generally get a reminder may I please have a response to my email dated CERN so yeah which is
02:06:51 my email dated CERN so yeah which is attached and I didn't get that in this case now if we can go and and look just down on this page paragraph five point
02:07:03 down on this page paragraph five point two 7b of your statement yeah you say I would not have needed to look sorry let's pick up at five point two seven I
02:07:14 let's pick up at five point two seven I would not have needed to look at the details of the attachments to provide this answer having now received the email and the attachments I note that at the back of the pack there's reference to glazing p1 panels in the specification note which provides some
02:07:27 specification note which provides some information on the panels and describes the cladding as aluminium composite panels and then you say it'd be in
02:07:38 panels and then you say it'd be in relation to that email and it's attachments I note the specification note mentions that the cladding would be a rain upon rain screen Cosette Rana Bourne is a brand name and there are
02:07:49 Bourne is a brand name and there are various types of Rana bond products some of which some some which include installation of limiter combustibility and others which do not the information provided in the specification note
02:08:01 provided in the specification note indicate which type of Rana bond system it was intended to use do you see that there I do yes I just wanted to ask you some questions about what you say there about the Rana bond product and what do you mean when
02:08:15 bond product and what do you mean when you say here that there are some Rana bond products it's a third line they're a little B some really bond products some some of which include insulation of
02:08:28 some some of which include insulation of limited combustibility and others which do not what do you mean by that I think I'm not particularly funny with Rana bond but I think I must have looked
02:08:39 Rana bond but I think I must have looked at some technical data sheet for them subsequently bear in mind that this particular email was tabled at a meeting
02:08:50 particular email was tabled at a meeting with our legal advisers and as I've explained already I hadn't seen it before and therefore didn't reply to it but I can't say hand on heart now that Rana bond is a product which could be
02:09:04 Rana bond is a product which could be used in any circumstances without a test the phrase of use there about the product some of which include insulation
02:09:15 product some of which include insulation of limited combustibility do you mean include it within the panel itself yes indeed yeah I see inside the composite we have a sound we drove I think it's a
02:09:26 we have a sound we drove I think it's a Dominion with a feeling of one particular material or another but this is only my understanding I'm not sailing categorically here that yes that is the
02:09:37 categorically here that yes that is the case I just wanted to check whether you're mixing up the rain upon a cm there with the insulation but I think is it right what you're saying is that sometimes inside the panel you have
02:09:50 sometimes inside the panel you have insulation material of limited combust ability yes yes indeed
02:09:56 now you also say in your witness statement a little sea below that that had you seen the specification notes giving the specification details of the cladding so had you looked at the
02:10:08 cladding so had you looked at the attachments to this email you would have drawn studio ease attention to the fact that the use of styrofoam the glazing panels would not have been accepted to build in control because
02:10:19 accepted to build in control because styrofoam is combustible do you see that there yes indeed can you just explain the basis on which you would have given that advice had I become aware of the whole of the totality of this
02:10:30 whole of the totality of this specification and I would have told them that it wasn't acceptable styrofoam was obviously a combustible material in which case you know there's no arguments about his fire performance as I've said
02:10:41 about his fire performance as I've said in B it's possible that raina bond has different fillers which may be acceptable yes I'm trying to concentrate for the moment on that on there the
02:10:53 for the moment on that on there the glazing p1 panels yeah having a 25 millimeter styrofoam core do you agree that the reason you would have given that advice to say well it just can't be used is because of 12.7 of a brief
02:11:06 used is because of 12.7 of a brief document B that provides that any insulation product filler material etc used in the external wall construction should be of limited combust ability yes I do agree with that yeah and you'd have
02:11:18 I do agree with that yeah and you'd have said the styrofoam panels were classified as an insulation product yes indeed yeah had you been asked I
02:11:29 indeed yeah had you been asked I appreciate your position is you weren't ever asked to advise on it but had you been asked to advise on whether raina bond aluminium composite material with a PE core used with Celotex RS 5000
02:11:42 PE core used with Celotex RS 5000 insulation was compliant what would you have said in terms of compliance with the building regulations well I was still in the face of it it doesn't comply but I will do so make some
02:11:53 comply but I will do so make some inquiries as to the fire properties of what is proposed let's just break that down and think about that the the aluminium composite material panel on the exterior for a moment can you be
02:12:04 the exterior for a moment can you be more specific as to on what basis you've said it wouldn't comply no I said on sorry you won't good deal with component by component and now I didn't know
02:12:15 by component and now I didn't know enough about Rana bland to say one way or the other I see would you have been looking do you know whether you would have been looking at paragraph twelve point six of a predock youment be in diagram forty or
02:12:27 predock youment be in diagram forty or would you have been thinking more about twelve point seven in the requirement for limited combust ability well i'd have been looking at the define properties of the material in in in their totality because as i said
02:12:39 their totality because as i said yesterday
02:12:40 yesterday class o materials the approved document b does allow the external covering of buildings to be a class zero fire
02:12:52 buildings to be a class zero fire performance it doesn't tell the whole story and with material like this you would have to look at it a bit more carefully to see whether in fact it was a suitable material and for that I might
02:13:05 a suitable material and for that I might rely on our testing colleagues in Warrington okay now we know that on the 27th of March 2015 mr. Crawford then
02:13:16 27th of March 2015 mr. Crawford then sends an email to mr. John Hoban copying you in let's look at that this is an EXO for zeros one four three four and I want
02:13:29 for zeros one four three four and I want to pick this up on page four and the second email down on page four from Neil Crawford to you yes so there we see at
02:13:41 Crawford to you yes so there we see at 10:53 mr. crawford states there's been a lot of conversation on site about the cavity fire barrier requirements to be fitted between the existing concrete external wall panels and the new
02:13:53 external wall panels and the new external rainscreen aluminium cassettes can you please see the proposal by the cladding contractor below and confirm if this is acceptable to you do you see that yes and that's so that's from mr.
02:14:05 that yes and that's so that's from mr. crawford to mr. Hoban copying you in and also copying in Paul Hanson of our bkc Building Control do you see that yes I do and can we just note while we're
02:14:18 do and can we just note while we're looking at this that it says there's been a lot of conversation on site about and then in the second line it says and to be fitted between the existing concrete external wall panels and the
02:14:30 concrete external wall panels and the new external rain screen aluminium cassettes do you see that yep I do so you would have been aware looking at that email that at that stage at least
02:14:42 that email that at that stage at least they were using rain screen aluminium cassettes do you see that and then the proposal is from Ricky K at cider eyes below that if we can look at that email
02:14:55 below that if we can look at that email below and Ricky k states
02:15:07 apologies for the delay please find below an extract from a proof document B of the building regulations and then if we can go on the next page he says here
02:15:18 we can go on the next page he says here you can see that it clearly states that 30 minutes for integrity and 15 minutes insulation is all that's required from a cavity fire barrier this is referenced to rainscreen cladding applications
02:15:29 to rainscreen cladding applications where the cavity barrier is deemed to be on the outside of the building our RH 25 1930 will offer 90 minutes fire integrity and 30 minutes fire installation therefore exceeds minimum
02:15:41 installation therefore exceeds minimum requirements and he says 120 minute fire rating is generally the industry standard for curtain walls two concrete slab edge fire stopping where the fire stop is located on the inside of a
02:15:53 stop is located on the inside of a building and is contained and considered to be a continuation of the floor slab and then he says please get in touch if you need anything further did you see that yes indeed now looking at those
02:16:05 that yes indeed now looking at those emails was this the first interaction that you'd had with our bkc Building Control about the cladding system well the first time you've been looped into
02:16:16 the first time you've been looped into an email about the cladding which also involves our bkc building control I believe it was well you know I can't say with certainty that I'd never seen anything else but I do remember seeing
02:16:29 anything else but I do remember seeing this I think did the reference to rain screen aluminium cassettes in mr. Crawford's email to you which we just looked at raised any concerns with you it didn't register if I'm honest I don't
02:16:41 it didn't register if I'm honest I don't understand the term aluminium cassettes I mean when I looked briefly at the original details that Neal Crawford sent me they were aluminium elements in there
02:16:52 me they were aluminium elements in there and that didn't cause alarm because some aluminium is used for things like louvers and more heavy but to this day I don't understand the term cassettes okay
02:17:06 did it register with you when you receive these emails that they weren't proposing to use zinc panels anymore but but aluminium no no it didn't register
02:17:18 but aluminium no no it didn't register with me
02:17:19 with me that was the case and so it follows does it that it didn't signal to you that you needed to consider giving some detailed
02:17:31 needed to consider giving some detailed advice with regard to requirement before at this stage no I think the main focus here was the cavity burners again now we can see that you'll then copied into an
02:17:42 can see that you'll then copied into an email of the 30th of March 2015 from mr. Hoban let's look at that this is EXO five zeros seven one five and I
02:17:54 is EXO five zeros seven one five and I want to look at page two of that yes so if we look at this email so this is from mr. Hoban 30th of March to a number of
02:18:06 mr. Hoban 30th of March to a number of people and cider eyes Harley riding and then you're there on the list as well so it's actually sent to you this email yes
02:18:18 it's actually sent to you this email yes and at that stage what John Haven does is set out his interpretation of diagram
02:18:29 is set out his interpretation of diagram 33 and he says that it's his interpretation that the detail between compartment floors was not a cavity barrier but a fire stop which needed to be of 120 minute standards do you see
02:18:43 be of 120 minute standards do you see that in it so in the substance of his email he says two lines down I'd advise you that it is my interpretation of diagram 33 of a DB that is that the detail between compartment floors and
02:18:54 detail between compartment floors and external cladding is not a cavity barrier therefore it must be far stopped at least the standard of the existing compartment floor 120 minutes you see that there yes indeed and you're then
02:19:07 that there yes indeed and you're then sent an email from Neal Crawford at 12:05 on the 31st of March we go to the bottom of page one of this string
02:19:21 yeah if we look at the bottom page so they're 12:05 31st of March Neil Crawford says to you hi Terry can you comment on the history of this item
02:19:32 you comment on the history of this item please see correspondence below is it's not clear to me why this item is causing such a difference in interpretation and then he says can't see anything that seems to reference it in the fire
02:19:44 seems to reference it in the fire strategy regards Neil do you see that there yes indeed and then I'll ask you some questions about this but let's look
02:19:55 some questions about this but let's look at your response first in response at the top of page one you say Neil so it's later that day Neil this isn't something
02:20:06 later that day Neil this isn't something that would necessarily form part of a fire safety strategy for a building therefore it would not have been dealt with in the fire safety strategy drawings for this buildings I agree with
02:20:17 drawings for this buildings I agree with Ben K I believe that a cavity barrier is all that's required in this application even if we were to agree with our bkc it's difficult to see how a fire stock would stay in place in the event of a
02:20:29 would stay in place in the event of a fire where external flaming occurred as this would cause the zinc cladding to fail kind regards Terry Ron do you see that there yes indeed now again I just
02:20:40 that there yes indeed now again I just want to take this email in stages first of all why was this not something that would necessarily form part of a fire safety strategy for a building well I
02:20:51 safety strategy for a building well I think that's not correct as written me I'm not quite sure why I wrote that I mean the provision of cavity bearers it would normally be part of a fire safety strategy under B 3 we just say that
02:21:03 strategy under B 3 we just say that internal voice will be provision provided with fire cavity barriers and so on I think the main thrust of this was to do with whether or not there
02:21:15 was to do with whether or not there needed to be a fire stop or a cavity barrier at the junction between the cladding and the structural flaws and in that sense I agree with mr. Kay
02:21:27 that sense I agree with mr. Kay it quite clearly it was a cavity barrier and not a fire stop so you knew that cavity barriers arose in the context of
02:21:39 cavity barriers arose in the context of functional requirements b3 and b4 you knew that absolutely and you knew that your fire strategy reports for the project had purported to address both of those requirements hadn't they hadn't
02:21:51 those requirements hadn't they hadn't had they dealt with b3 and b4 yes but not in great detail I had to say there isn't advice on cavity barriers something that a fire strategy consultant would need to address when
02:22:04 consultant would need to address when considering the fire strategy for a building that was to be over clad arguably yes it would be I think I was an unfortunate form of words in the sense that you wouldn't be discussing in
02:22:15 sense that you wouldn't be discussing in the body of a fire strategy whether or not there was a difference between a fire stop and a cavity bro that's what I meant do you think in that first
02:22:26 meant do you think in that first statement which you've just said was not not strictly correct that what you were really trying to do here was justify your failure to deal with it in the fire strategy reports that you prepared prior
02:22:37 strategy reports that you prepared prior to this no as I said just now the central question here was do we need a fire stop or a cavity barrier where the floor is in the junction of the
02:22:50 the floor is in the junction of the floor and the external wall and that sort of argument would not be part of a fire strategy I certainly wouldn't and said well this wouldn't form part of a
02:23:01 said well this wouldn't form part of a fire safety strategy because I'd forgotten to deal with it in the report yeah that wasn't my intention at all can we just look at what you said in your
02:23:12 we just look at what you said in your witness statement about this this is a paragraph 5.29 F this is a EXO four zeros 161 at page 19
02:23:24 so you say that I replied that this isn't something that was necessarily form part of a fire safety strategy looking at this comment now it reads a little oddly I think that my comment was
02:23:36 little oddly I think that my comment was probably a narrow one I that a detailed commentary on whether a pre document be required cavity barriers or fire stops in this location was not something which would normally be included in a fire safety strategy in a broader sense
02:23:49 safety strategy in a broader sense commenting on the need for cavity barriers within a cladding system or elsewhere certainly might form part of a fire safety strategy I agreed however that cavity barriers all that's required
02:24:00 that cavity barriers all that's required in this application and then you say how your email continued yes I think that's that's putting in slightly different wording what I've just said to you that it was you wouldn't have an argument in
02:24:14 it was you wouldn't have an argument in a fire strategy report about whether something was a either a cavity barrier or a fire stop you would actually have made it quite clear what was needed where when wood commentary on whether a
02:24:27 where when wood commentary on whether a DB required cavity barriers or fire stops be included as part of a fire safety strategy never that's what I'm suggesting that but at the time you've written the fire strategy you would have advised the design team that you need
02:24:42 advised the design team that you need cavity bearers here because it's a it's only closing a cavity or you need fire stops because this Junction needs to
02:24:53 stops because this Junction needs to have the same standard of fire resistance as the floor to which it uniforms a junction with a wall with but I think you've accepted here and I think you accepted earlier that in it you've said in a broader sense commenting on
02:25:05 said in a broader sense commenting on the need for cavity barriers within a cladding system or elsewhere certainly might form part of a fire safety strategy I do I do accept that yes and that's not something that you ever did in a fire safety strategy for Graham
02:25:17 in a fire safety strategy for Graham fort on this particular occasion I didn't know do you accept thinking back to the fee proposal document which talked about compartment
02:25:28 document which talked about compartment ation requirements that it might be thought to be included in the work that you had committed to provide on the ground floor project yes it could have been
02:25:40 but it would have been a general statement to the effect that you need to provide cavity barriers in in in within
02:25:51 provide cavity barriers in in in within cavities yeah so to restrict the spread of unseen sorry the unseen spread of smoke and fire yep and can you just help us a little bit more as to precisely why you thought the cavity barrier was all
02:26:03 you thought the cavity barrier was all that was required rather than a fire stop because of its location in the building envelope yeah I mean I believe that John Hoeven was wrong in his
02:26:14 that John Hoeven was wrong in his interpretation and I think you're probably gonna ask me later on anyway but fire stopping is designed to stay in
02:26:25 but fire stopping is designed to stay in place for the duration of the fire it's not it's an extension of the structural slab or an extension of the vertical compartment wall cavity barriers are
02:26:38 compartment wall cavity barriers are only there to present a sorry prevent unseen spread of smoke and flames so they're not structural elements they are
02:26:49 they're not structural elements they are elements to contain foreign smoke at this time did you know what type of cavity barrier was proposed ie whether it was going to be full fill or open
02:27:00 it was going to be full fill or open state cavity barrier no was that not something that you thought about clarifying with alerting that would have been part of the consideration of the
02:27:11 been part of the consideration of the complete details of the cladding which we never did did you have any opinion on the ability of an open state cavity barrier to achieve 30minutes integrity and 15-minutes insulation and well
02:27:23 and 15-minutes insulation and well they're used quite a lot I mean what you have is you have an intermittent seal which allows still allows the passage of water which has penetrated the outer layer to drain down and we got rid of at
02:27:36 layer to drain down and we got rid of at the bottom and then when there is a fire spread in that cavity the material in she messes and forms a complete barrier and it's the only practical way to do it
02:27:49 and it's the only practical way to do it here it's forming a barrier against a metal panel that may warp or deform if that's something you ever thought that's well that's we cover that later I'm sure
02:28:01 well that's we cover that later I'm sure you're going to ask me about it now you refer to zinc cladding in the email that we just looked at yes
02:28:12 what made you think it was zinc at that stage I thought from start to finish that they were using zinc so I think we've just established that you'd received an email of the 27th of March
02:28:23 received an email of the 27th of March where it's stated to be aluminium but you just hadn't picked that up from the I if you were referring to the email we've just discussed where they were talking about ala meaning to say it so I
02:28:34 talking about ala meaning to say it so I didn't you recognize a cassette as a complete cladding system I see yeah let's go back to it so it's EXO five zeros seven one five at the top of page four
02:28:51 sorry no that's the wrong reference
02:28:57 [Applause]
02:29:04 so it's EXO five zero seven one five it's the top of page one yeah so that's
02:29:16 it's the top of page one yeah so that's where you say what caused the zinc cladding to fail did you ever appreciate at any time during your involvement with the project that the cladding had been changed from
02:29:27 that the cladding had been changed from a zinc to an aluminium composite panel no and I would have thought that somebody could have corrected me if that wasn't the case yeah do you recall mr.
02:29:39 wasn't the case yeah do you recall mr. Crawford ever emailing you or calling you after this to tell you that the cladding was aluminium and not zinc no I mean we discussed this earlier when we were discussing his evidence he'd never
02:29:50 were discussing his evidence he'd never round me yeah you you refer in that email to Benkei in the second line I think you mean Rick EKF side arises is that right yes yes yeah sorry about that
02:30:02 that right yes yes yeah sorry about that you see mr. Kay I said yeah in the email and now as you've anticipated I do want to focus on the last lines of that and
02:30:15 to focus on the last lines of that and and by saying that the zinc cladding would fail did you mean that the zinc cladding panels would burn melt and fall off the building and that that's why a fire stop would not stay in place in the
02:30:27 fire stop would not stay in place in the event of a fire no zinc cladding as an entity would not burn metal cladding wouldn't necessarily burn I think the
02:30:39 wouldn't necessarily burn I think the point I was trying to make here was that if you got a severe fire in one file in one a compartment or apartment which causes the windows to break if there are the windows are in some way connected to
02:30:51 the windows are in some way connected to the cladding there will be local failure of the cladding ie will fall off the building and it might fall off to the extent that fire coming out of the
02:31:03 extent that fire coming out of the window would bypass [Music]
02:31:07 [Music] the cavity barrier at the the window head and I think probably you're gonna ask me about Tony Pearson's because Tony Pearson put it rather better than I did
02:31:18 Pearson put it rather better than I did or sing that yeah I will ask you about that but just picking up on that that's a rather that's a rather specific concern flaming coming out of the window and localized failure it doesn't seem to
02:31:34 and localized failure it doesn't seem to bear much relation to what you say here which is where external flaming occurred this would cause the zinc cladding to fail it seems to be a more general point you're making could it could it have been a more general point no no based on
02:31:47 been a more general point no no based on experience of fires over a larger number of years if you do get failure of glazing if it's not in a masonry wall it will take a bit of whatever's it's
02:31:58 will take a bit of whatever's it's attached to with it when it falls out that's inevitable I think if the cladding were to fail as you've suggested here wouldn't it wouldn't it follow that the external fire facade
02:32:10 follow that the external fire facade would have failed to resist the spread of fire over the walls in breach of the building no I think failed in this context I mean structurally it means
02:32:21 context I mean structurally it means that bits of it would fall off the building it doesn't mean that they would catch fire and zinc if it's pure zinc you wouldn't expect fire to spread up it
02:32:33 you wouldn't expect fire to spread up it because it's non combustible I see and this goat maybe goes back to the fact that you weren't aware at this time of composite products where the zinc composite or aluminium composite products that might have polymeric no no
02:32:47 products that might have polymeric no no I wasn't aware of that no does that not perhaps suggests that you weren't the best person to be advising on these issues at the time and there might have been more appropriate experts within X aver that would have
02:32:58 experts within X aver that would have known for example about the development in the use of composite panels as I wasn't aware that those products existed
02:33:09 wasn't aware that those products existed at that time I'm not sure I can answer that in any other way than saying well no I don't believe there was the expertise we hadn't routinely call on
02:33:20 expertise we hadn't routinely call on our test
02:33:20 our test ding colleagues to give judgments on what's proposed on a material that sort on a building unless we are unsure but at no stage in this development was I
02:33:31 at no stage in this development was I aware that they were using a composite material so it was no need for me to consult our testing colleagues would you agree that the failure of the cutting in
02:33:43 agree that the failure of the cutting in in the event of a fire in the way you've described in this email would be a major fire safety issue for the project no no when I say it would fail it wouldn't
02:33:56 when I say it would fail it wouldn't cause the cladding on the building as a whole to fall off I mean I don't want to go back years and years and years but there was a serious fire in the West in the London where great big sheets of
02:34:10 the London where great big sheets of glass were released and flew along the street that's the sort of thing I'm talking about bits of the or pieces of the cladding falling not the whole thing
02:34:21 the cladding falling not the whole thing failing but you've said to us yesterday that you were aware for example of the the big Tower fires in Dubai weren't those kind of really quite stark
02:34:33 those kind of really quite stark examples of external fire spread through external rain screen panels but they weren't zinc as far as I know I see
02:34:50 we're you aware at this time that the existing fire strategy report that had been drafted by Miss CUNY had justified the stay put or defended play strategy remaining by reference to an assumed
02:35:02 remaining by reference to an assumed high degree of compartment ation I think that's a given for any apartment building the stay put is because it's highly compartments in did the knowledge
02:35:15 highly compartments in did the knowledge that you had here that fire could spread even if we could go with your narrow you know fire spreading from the compartment and out and localized spread did that knowledge that spark if I could spread
02:35:27 knowledge that spark if I could spread that way give you concern about its impact on compartment ation and your knowledge that a stay put strategy applied no I mean if if I
02:35:38 strategy applied no I mean if if I deceive them and I think I did that the cladding and the insulation would comply with the recommendations of a food document be then that would not have caused me any concern about external
02:35:49 caused me any concern about external fire spread
02:35:52 did the knowledge that you had about this fire spread and give you any concern given the difficulties posed by the interior of Grenville tower namely
02:36:03 the interior of Grenville tower namely the ventilation issues you knew about at the time and a narrow single stair did that give you any concern no my expectation of the internal compartment
02:36:16 expectation of the internal compartment ation then it was okay or it should have been following the completion of the works in terms of smoke control my assumption again was that the design of
02:36:27 assumption again was that the design of the smoke control would prevent fire spread sorry smoke spread into the stair that's the functional requirement for a smoke extract system in that location
02:36:38 smoke extract system in that location now if you lose compartment ation and I'm not not telling you anything we don't already know if you lose compartment ation for one reason or another then a stay cut strategy is a
02:36:51 another then a stay cut strategy is a risky one yes but I'm not talking about the completion of the works mr. Ashton I appreciate you where you knew that the smoke control
02:37:02 where you knew that the smoke control system would be refurbished I'm talking about Granville tower as it existed at that point and you knew that the smoke control system had real problems yes but I didn't know that there were only defects in compartment ation and I'm not
02:37:14 defects in compartment ation and I'm not sure there were do we take it from the fact that mr. Pearson becomes involved and that you did have some concern about advising on this or some concerns about
02:37:27 advising on this or some concerns about ramifications of this absolutely not can you help us as to how and mr. Pearson becomes involved in this I think he must have been copied in on the email and he
02:37:38 have been copied in on the email and he offered his sim opinion as well I don't believe I asked him to agree with what I was saying but I may have done yeah we were in the same room together Connelly
02:37:50 were in the same room together Connelly did you appreciate at the time that one conclusion to be drawn from your observations about failure of the cladding in the event of fire was that the proposed refurbishment works would
02:38:01 the proposed refurbishment works would have an adverse effect on the building in relation to external fire spread no I didn't conclude that at all if they put a compliant cladding on that building
02:38:12 a compliant cladding on that building then there wouldn't be a problem in my view so it follows that you didn't appreciate that the comment you've made in your fire safety reports that the proposed changes will have no adverse
02:38:24 proposed changes will have no adverse effect on the building in relation to external fire spread you didn't appreciate that that comment required immediate retraction because it couldn't be justified no I said it would be confirmed by an analysis in the future
02:38:37 confirmed by an analysis in the future to deal with the information that I hadn't been provided with and I'm gonna put it to you that what you should have
02:38:48 put it to you that what you should have done is that you should have retracted that comment in the fire safety reports and advised studio-a that they needed full and proper advice about the fire safety risk posed by the AVA cladding
02:39:01 safety risk posed by the AVA cladding once you started advising in these kind of terms about zinc cladding failing except
02:39:07 except nothing that I'd seen that I commented on gave me any cause for concern because I didn't know they were using unsuitable materials as far as I was concerned they were using zinc cladding which I took to
02:39:19 were using zinc cladding which I took to be non combustible and I think that's a reasonable assumption I didn't know about the insulation but I assume that at some point they would tell me what it was but they never did so you didn't
02:39:30 was but they never did so you didn't think about engaging for example with our bkc Building Control in order to discuss with them whether the external wall was compliant with the functional requirements of the building regulations that's not something we would do
02:39:42 that's not something we would do routinely we wouldn't ring up the Building Control Department and say oh is what we're proposing for this okay it would be more direct than that we would sit down with them with the details of
02:39:54 sit down with them with the details of what was proposed and go through them did you consider that the statement you'd made in the draft fought well in the fire strategy reports the the three
02:40:05 the fire strategy reports the the three issues that the proposed changes would have no adverse effect on the building in relation to external fire spread could still be justified it depends at what time you you you look
02:40:17 it depends at what time you you you look at this if you'd asked me that remark was or that statement was valid poster far I'd say no it wasn't wrote it we
02:40:29 far I'd say no it wasn't wrote it we didn't know what they were doing I'm asking you at the time you wrote this email here now in March 2015 yeah do you think when you were writing it or did you consider whether the
02:40:40 it or did you consider whether the statement you'd made previously could still be justified no it didn't link the two because I didn't smell a rat I mean we were talking about ink cladding and there are not there needed to be cavity
02:40:52 there are not there needed to be cavity barriers or fire stops at the junction between the external walls and the floors it was that narrow and did it occur to you at this time that there
02:41:04 occur to you at this time that there might be a need to identify more clearly the performance requirements for the external wall construction in the locations where these cavity barriers were required I think I've already said
02:41:15 were required I think I've already said the
02:41:16 the in evidence earlier that with the wisdom of hindsight it might have been helpful to quote what the regulation required in effect in the strategy but we didn't do
02:41:28 effect in the strategy but we didn't do it we assumed I think a degree of knowledge on the part of the reader yeah can we just have a quick look at a passage in a DB if we go to CLG five
02:41:40 passage in a DB if we go to CLG five zeros two to four at 86 page 86 CLG five zeros two to four and
02:41:53 page 86 CLG five zeros two to four and it's a paragraph yeah 9.15 they're in the bottom half of that page on the left-hand column it states there that cavity berries should also be fixed so
02:42:05 cavity berries should also be fixed so that their performance is unlikely to be made ineffective by and then it says see failure in a fire of their fixings and failure in a5 any material or
02:42:16 failure in a5 any material or construction which they a bit about do you see that example about suspended ceiling over the top of a fire resisting wall did you ever think about that guidance and have regard to that when
02:42:29 guidance and have regard to that when you were giving this advice about cavity barriers no I think the reality is that if what I said had occurred you would get the cavity Barry would not have been
02:42:41 get the cavity Barry would not have been an effective barrier against fire and smoke with sort of collapse of the the external covering of the building adjacent to that it would almost become
02:42:53 adjacent to that it would almost become redundant and I think that's pretty much in line with what Tony Pearson said in his response which was only to me as it happens given what you've said about the
02:43:05 happens given what you've said about the risk of flaming exiting a compartment and spreading into the cladding did you ever consider advising studio a or Ryden of the need for cavity barriers around
02:43:18 of the need for cavity barriers around windows to prevent a breach of the compartment into the external cladding not specifically but I had said today that there is some debate as to
02:43:29 today that there is some debate as to whether or not cavity barriers around window openings are strictly necessary where you've got cavity barriers at the junction of the compartment walls and flaws it is a matter that could be
02:43:41 flaws it is a matter that could be debated I accept the the approve document says they should be provided but I'm saying that it some it is a matter for debate if you if you had advised on that issue would you have
02:43:53 advised on that issue would you have been advising that they were required around the windows if I'd been looking at the details in totality then yes I would have said this is what is required you talk about debate in the industry
02:44:05 you talk about debate in the industry were you aware that there was a debate in the industry at this time as to the correct interpretation of diagram 33 in particular whether in a rainscreen cladding system there should be a cavity
02:44:17 cladding system there should be a cavity barrier or whether there should have been a fire stop which was the same fire resistant as the compartment lines as the cladding passed over no I wasn't aware of then miss Beryl Menzies the
02:44:31 aware of then miss Beryl Menzies the inquiries Building Control expert has indicated that if she had been the building control officer at Granville and she would have required a 120 minute fire stopped at compartment lines to extend right through the complementation
02:44:43 extend right through the complementation out into the rain screen system so she supported John ho burning in effect that's what she said yes well that's an interpretation again I would suggest did
02:44:56 interpretation again I would suggest did you ever think about whether the substantive requirements of B 3 and B 4 together might mean that complementation should be maintained and that this meant dividing the rainscreen cavity with a hundred and twenty minute fire stop in
02:45:08 hundred and twenty minute fire stop in the way that John Hoban and this menzies is indicated no because they Tim I'd mine go further than what the approved document says if you look at where
02:45:19 document says if you look at where cavity bearers need to be provided it's there hein rainscreen cladding yep it doesn't say you must have fire stops behind range green plating
02:45:30 behind range green plating yep now moving on to that email from with dr. Tony Pearson that we just talked about just two minutes after you sent your
02:45:42 just two minutes after you sent your email to mr. Crawford on the 31st of March 2015 you received an email from dr. Pearson on this same point so can we go to that that's EXO four zeros one
02:45:53 go to that that's EXO four zeros one three four seven so this is just an email an internal email if you like with it between you and mr. Pearson he sends
02:46:05 it between you and mr. Pearson he sends to you and he says we know that the barrier against fire spread between floors is provided through the connection of the structural flaws to the existing external walls the existing
02:46:17 the existing external walls the existing external walls are expected to provide sufficient fire resistance to prevent far from entering the cavities at or near floor or ceiling level we would not rule out that fire could enter the
02:46:28 rule out that fire could enter the cavity if there's flaming through the windows
02:46:31 windows however if significant flames are rejected from the windows this would lead to failure of the cladding system with the external surface falling away and exposing the cavity eliminating the
02:46:42 and exposing the cavity eliminating the potential for unseen fire spread a standard cavity barrier should be sufficient to prevent fire spread between floors while there remains a cavity in view of the above we do not
02:46:54 cavity in view of the above we do not feel that there should be a need for a two-hour fire rated rated fire break in the cavities along the lines of the compartment walls or floors do you see that I do yes and I said earlier I
02:47:05 that I do yes and I said earlier I thought I thought he expressed it better than I did yeah you say he's saying the same thing as me effectively let's just
02:47:16 same thing as me effectively let's just explore this and so you say first of all in your witness statement at paragraph 5.32 that you don't recall receiving the emails from dr. Pearson at the time and
02:47:28 emails from dr. Pearson at the time and isn't it likely that you forwarded mr. Crawford's email of the 31st of March to him and asked for his view on how to answer mr. Crawford's query I think that's the most likely scenario and I
02:47:40 that's the most likely scenario and I think that he responded to me too late in other words after I've responded to mr. Crawford yeah dr. Pearson has said in his witness statement the likely reason he became involved in comments
02:47:52 involved in comments was that all emails containing technical information had to be approved by at least two people he says that at paragraph four point five of his witness statement now we've covered this already
02:48:06 statement now we've covered this already but would you agree I think you agreed yesterday that that was normally the practice with technical advice even an email that it would have been approved by two people
02:48:18 by two people yes that was standard practice now by responding to mr. Crawford's query at 1332 before you've received dr. Pearson's email at 13 34 do you
02:48:29 dr. Pearson's email at 13 34 do you agree that on this instance you didn't follow that practice yes I didn't follow that practice but I was fairly confident in what I was saying to mr. Crawford and
02:48:40 in what I was saying to mr. Crawford and as it turned out Tony Pearson was saying pretty much the same thing did you read dr. Pearson's email subsequently yes I did yes when you say
02:48:51 subsequently yes I did yes when you say subsequently when would that have been well I think I when I was having a meeting with my legal advisers or legal advisors sorry do you have a recollection of reading it at at around
02:49:02 recollection of reading it at at around that's the time you've sent your email or shortly thereafter I think I may have done but I can't honestly say one way or the other it doesn't give me they didn't
02:49:13 the other it doesn't give me they didn't give me any cause for alarm because it essentially says what I said in my email well I want to put it to you that actually what dr. Pearson's done is draw
02:49:24 actually what dr. Pearson's done is draw more explicit attention to the risks posed by fire to the cladding by explaining in particular that if significant flames are ejected from the windows this would lead to fade of the
02:49:35 windows this would lead to fade of the cladding system with the external surface falling away and exposing the cavity do you see that yes I see that and I did say earlier I thought his response was better than mine it's more
02:49:50 response was better than mine it's more explicit about the risks that are posed mm no I think it's not the risks I think what he's saying is what would happen in the same way that I was if you get from coming out of a window it will lead to
02:50:05 coming out of a window it will lead to could lead to failure of the cladding system surrounding that window opening did it alarm you that flaming through the windows might lead to failure of the cladding system no I'm suggesting that
02:50:18 cladding system no I'm suggesting that would happen anyway would you agree that if you were reading or reading dr. Pearson's email at the time that you should have appreciated that his
02:50:29 should have appreciated that his comments had significant implement implications for the fire safety of the refurbishment works no no I think I've answered that question a different way earlier noting that I'd seen to that
02:50:40 earlier noting that I'd seen to that point gave me any cause to think that there would be external extensive external fire spread would you agree
02:50:51 external fire spread would you agree that that had significant implications for compliance with the requirements of the building regulations in particularly the b-41 requirement I was not concerned
02:51:02 the b-41 requirement I was not concerned what was being proposed at that time as I understood it the question was and I take you back to that the question was do we need cavity barriers or do we need
02:51:13 do we need cavity barriers or do we need fire stops in this location and that's all it was about really and I sought to justify why cavity barriers would be adequate yes I think what I'm suggesting
02:51:26 adequate yes I think what I'm suggesting to you is that although it began with that narrow question in answering that question something far more serious was exposed by the answers that you're both
02:51:37 exposed by the answers that you're both giving sorry this is this happened I won't say it happens every day that would be an exaggeration but numerous fires windows do fail and if they're in
02:51:50 fires windows do fail and if they're in a lightweight construction they will cause part of that lightweight construction surrounding them to fail [Music]
02:52:00 [Music] that doesn't imply something far worse which is that the whole of the facade on fire worship what happened that Grenville
02:52:10 did it occur to you that dr. Pearson's comments here had significant implications for the correctness of the statement in the fire safety reports
02:52:21 statement in the fire safety reports that the works would have no adverse effect on the building in relation to external fire spread no it didn't
02:52:33 again I'm going to ask you and I know what your answer will be but I'm counting it can you explain why you didn't seek to update your fire strategy report at this stage because I hadn't
02:52:46 report at this stage because I hadn't got sufficient details from the architects to enable me to do that I see so was it still in your mind that you might need to do that when you got those details yes absolutely
02:53:22 can you explain why you didn't raise with Studio E at any stage that there was the potential for flame spread within the cladding system because the cavity berries would not be effective
02:53:33 cavity berries would not be effective once the panels started to heat up and melt know whether to say that to the designer would imply that that always happens and it doesn't always happen
02:53:44 happens and it doesn't always happen just looking at dr. Pearson's view it appears to be that fire could enter the cavity if there's flaming through the windows that cladding will then fail therefore there's no unseen fire spread
02:53:57 therefore there's no unseen fire spread and no need for a two-hour fire break would you agree looking at that now that it potentially overlooks the point that the cladding materials including for example the insulation can still burn
02:54:10 example the insulation can still burn and spread flame between flats even once the panel's have fallen off I think I don't think that he envisaged combustible materials being used on the
02:54:22 combustible materials being used on the face of this building I would differ with him in one respect is if the fire comes out and hits the the external surface of the cladding it could be that
02:54:33 surface of the cladding it could be that that fails first before it gets into the cavity the other route which I'm sure you all know about is if the fire gets into the cavity behind the cladding but
02:54:44 into the cavity behind the cladding but that's not examined in this analysis of his that's exactly the point it also overlooked that before the cavity actually falls off there could be some
02:54:55 actually falls off there could be some unseen fire spread behind the panels they could be you can't say that fire will never do what it's predicted to it
02:55:07 will never do what it's predicted to it doesn't that potentially present problems for the fire service if they are attempting to put out a fine you've got unseen fire spread behind the panels yeah I'm sure that's why we have cavity barriers I mean a one thing that as I
02:55:22 barriers I mean a one thing that as I think I've said this several times over the last few days that that's why we have to be careful with buildings where they can't fight it far externally
02:55:34 did you discuss this further with dr. Pearson at the time or with anybody else within xover no I didn't know do you remember what you did with dr. Pearson's
02:55:45 remember what you did with dr. Pearson's email did it just stay in your Inbox just stayed in yen box yes I mean we've
02:55:56 just stayed in yen box yes I mean we've to add to that I mean if he'd said something totally different to what I'd said then I would have had a discussion with him and I might have gone back to studio and said oh my colleague doesn't agree with me
02:56:07 oh my colleague doesn't agree with me this is what we jointly think but reading what Tony is written here it's saying as I said it's slightly better than I would have done though more or
02:56:18 than I would have done though more or less saying the same thing that you will get localized failure of the cladding
02:56:26 wasn't dr. Pearson's written advice intended to alerts DDOE Harley ride and in building control that there was a need to review the fire safety of the whole cladding system due
02:56:37 safety of the whole cladding system due to the risk that fire could enter the cavity if there was flaming through the windows but this was an internal email from him to me he wasn't addressed to anybody else yes
02:56:50 he wasn't addressed to anybody else yes dr. Pearson about this but did you not think about whether what he was doing was giving you some thoughts which actually were important to send on to studio II Harley riding and building
02:57:03 studio II Harley riding and building controls so that they were fully aware of the risks I'm not sure that he said anything extra that would needed to be conveyed to studio etc he's saying the
02:57:17 conveyed to studio etc he's saying the same thing as me essentially he's saying more what using more words but what are you saying is that you will get some local failure of a cladding which could
02:57:28 local failure of a cladding which could lead to the fire bypassing the cavity of area yep now if we go back to the email at the 31st of March 2015 SCA three zeros one three zero four four
02:57:49 yeah and we've look at the top of that page at that email that he sent to you where he's asked you to comment on the history of this item and we can see in the attachments that he sends a drawing
02:58:00 the attachments that he sends a drawing 1 2 7 9 SC a o 6 1 1 o typical Bay do you see that there yes I see the reference um do you recall looking at that drawing at the time no I don't
02:58:12 that drawing at the time no I don't believe I did can we just have a look at it so it's se a 4 zeros 2 4 9 9 and we will need the native version
02:58:45 brilliant thank you and what I want to look is that section on the top right that proposed section typical Bay if we could zoom in as much as possible on that right now this again indicates that
02:59:06 that right now this again indicates that there were cavity berries at the head of the window only can you see that there behind of the window we see it says ensure horizontal and vertical cavity berries meet tightly you know under P
02:59:18 berries meet tightly you know under P ten four three five and there's nothing there at the sill of the window right does it follow then from the fact that
02:59:31 does it follow then from the fact that you didn't look at the drawing that that was not something that you noticed at the time or checked at the time no that's right now finally and I'm just on my last couple of questions on this topic and then we can break for lunch if
02:59:43 topic and then we can break for lunch if that's okay and can you recall whether in March April 2015 you had any telephone conversations with mr. Crawford about the cavity barrier strategy I calls not
02:59:55 the cavity barrier strategy I calls not not emails no I don't believe I heard any did mr. Crawford ever raise with you any concern that it was not possible to construct the rainscreen cladding in
03:00:06 construct the rainscreen cladding in accordance with the adb guidance in particular section 9 of adb in paragraph 12 point 8 no I remembered a conversation like that did he talk to you about the practical application of
03:00:18 you about the practical application of cavity barriers and whether it was possible to have them immediately around the windows for whether they should be further away but in line with the compartment walls no and did he ever
03:00:29 compartment walls no and did he ever talk to you about the practical application of diagram 33 of ADB within section 9 no thank you very much they're
03:00:42 section 9 no thank you very much they're going to have another break now mr. eshton Thank You time some lunch so we'll resume at 2 o'clock please thank you and no talking about your evidence right thank you very much
03:01:06 thank you good thank you very much up to speed
03:01:08 speed yes I think we're gonna be fine I mean it slightly depends on whether inundated in the lunch paper course yes with any luck with we've covered a lot of questions overnight all right well done