Grenfell Tower Inquiry - Exova Evidence - Thursday 9th July 2020 (2/2)
00:00:26 yes would you like the ostrich ration to come back please
00:00:42 all right distraction is thinking very good thank you very much yes thank you I just want to pick up on a few matters arising from this morning's evidence before then moving on with my remaining
00:00:53 before then moving on with my remaining topics I want to start by discussing zinc so zinc zinc panels you said a number of times that you have seen that the panels were zinc and therefore made
00:01:04 the panels were zinc and therefore made certain assumptions about the fire behavior of those panels were you aware at the time that there were zinc composite polymer panels on the market
00:01:15 composite polymer panels on the market no I wasn't and indeed in the NBS specification for this project one of the alternatives that was put forward was a zinc polymeric composite panel
00:01:30 was a zinc polymeric composite panel right and was again was that something you were aware of on this project no I I never saw the NBA specification is that part of the employer's requirement no
00:01:43 part of the employer's requirement no well I never saw those I mean as I said in my evidence this morning it's important that the design team see the employers requirements very early on in the design process that didn't seem to
00:01:55 the design process that didn't seem to happen or at least didn't happen in my case was there ever something you raised with Studio A or your client the TMO and said exactly that it's important that I see the employers requirements please
00:02:07 see the employers requirements please can I see them because this is an important document no I say that I'm thinking more in terms of new commercial developments they may not have been any as far as I was aware for this building
00:02:22 know necessarily for the refurbishment project mean it's a big refurbishment entirely expected there to be employees can I put it another way I don't see the
00:02:34 can I put it another way I don't see the employers requirements on every project that I work on but I normally see some I mean back to the point I'm putting to you is that if you've known that there was Inc composite panels on the market
00:02:47 was Inc composite panels on the market might you have been bit more questioning about whether the use of zinc panels was appropriate yes one of them yes that was right as well you couldn't have simply assumed when
00:02:58 you couldn't have simply assumed when the fact it was zinc as opposed to aluminium but that meant the panels were inert and no no I mean I think aluminium is another an inert material anyway but
00:03:09 is another an inert material anyway but so it's the same zinc but so you know if somebody said we're gonna clad the building in zinc or aluminium that wouldn't have raised any particular concerns would you accept and we looked
00:03:23 concerns would you accept and we looked at it this morning that there were email there was an email where you were told it was an element Manion aluminium rain screen cassette system would you accept that a reasonably competent fire
00:03:34 that a reasonably competent fire engineer would have noticed that the contractor was telling him that the cladding had changed no I I said earlier I think this morning that I didn't read
00:03:45 I think this morning that I didn't read a limine cassette as being the totality of the cladding on the building when I looked at the drawings that they did send me they were aluminium elements in
00:03:56 send me they were aluminium elements in that but the principal cladding was zinc as I saw as I could tell would you accept that a reasonably competent fire engineer would have investigated for himself or inquired if necessary the contractor what a cassette
00:04:09 necessary the contractor what a cassette was if you didn't know no it just didn't it just didn't strike me as being a significant elements of the construction and yet you said candidly you didn't
00:04:20 and yet you said candidly you didn't actually know no no but as I say that the central question was not to do with the declaring but more to do with cavity barriers and fire stops and the
00:04:31 barriers and fire stops and the performance and well that sort of thing yeah wasn't specifically to do with the construction of the external walls just one for the proposition on this would you accept that a reasonably competent fire engineer would have advised that
00:04:44 fire engineer would have advised that now that there was further detail about the external wall materials and the design that he should complete the outstanding work under the fire safety strategies and do the proposed future
00:04:55 strategies and do the proposed future analysis on before I think it would be reasonable to assume that I would have asked them for details so that we could discuss the details I see reasonable for them to assume that
00:05:08 I see reasonable for them to assume that that's what you were going to do no no reasonable I mean I could have asked them well you know can we have more details of the cladding although these should have been you know
00:05:21 although these should have been you know made available much earlier in the design process I'd want to put it to you again do you accept that a reasonably competent fire engineer would have advised that now that there was further
00:05:32 advised that now that there was further detail about the external wall materials and the design that he should complete the outstanding work under the outline fire safety strategies and do the promise to future analysis under before
00:05:44 promise to future analysis under before I don't think so yeah I think that's a reasonable assumption in that case I think you could help me by telling me why you didn't do that because I was
00:05:57 why you didn't do that because I was more focused on the specific question in the email which wasn't actually to do with the external wall construction was to do with components of it I now want
00:06:09 to do with components of it I now want to ask you a little bit about knowledge of us developments at the time that you were advising studio-a about for example cavity barriers in the cladding and
00:06:20 cavity barriers in the cladding and other issues in September 2014 and March 2015 where you were where that in June 2014 the fire protection research foundation based in Massachusetts USA
00:06:31 foundation based in Massachusetts USA had published a report on fire hazards of exterior wall assemblies containing combustible components no I wasn't aware of that publication so you have never
00:06:43 of that publication so you have never read it digested its content in which case I'll move on and I now want to ask you some questions about Celotex and Desktop study work that was done in
00:06:56 Desktop study work that was done in relation to the Celotex rs.5000 I want to look at mr. Rex witness statement this is at se a three zeroes one four to seven eight at page 34
00:07:17 and and amidst of rec just to put this in context as one of the witnesses for studio II that we've heard evidence from already and he was involved for example
00:07:28 already and he was involved for example in putting together the NBS specification that's one of the things he had involvement in okay and he says this at the end of his witness statement he says after I left Studio II LLP I was
00:07:39 he says after I left Studio II LLP I was involved in the design of a high-rise building where Celotex fr5 thousand was also specified on that project x over had produced a desktop study comparing the rainscreen facade cladding with
00:07:51 the rainscreen facade cladding with Celotex is tested sample and they had concluded that it complied with BR one three five to see that there I do yes and did you know at the time you were
00:08:02 and did you know at the time you were advising on the ground floor project anything about this Desktop study work in relation to their it's the F are five thousand Celotex product no I mean had I
00:08:14 thousand Celotex product no I mean had I looked into the thing in more detail I might have asked whether there had been a desktop study I was aware that Jessica stopped desktop studies were being
00:08:25 stopped desktop studies were being carried out by one of my one of the other departments in our organization which is what I was saying you know in terms of following the the opposite to
00:08:36 terms of following the the opposite to the linear route you could actually get an assessment or a fire test as a way of satisfying the regulation yeah but you weren't aware of this specific desktop
00:08:47 weren't aware of this specific desktop study work no I weren't know so you can't help us too as to the building that was involved how tall it was it's the detail of it yeah well I guess by
00:08:59 the detail of it yeah well I guess by the by high-rise he probably meant over 18 meters yeah but
00:09:11 we're you aware when you were working on the ground floor project that in February and March 2015 that had been direct contact between Celotex and xover personnel about Celotex products
00:09:24 personnel about Celotex products including RS 5000 were you aware of that no I wasn't aware of that can we look at an example this is C el4 zeros 3 5 4 1
00:09:37 this is an email between Celotex if we can zoom in on the top one to start with this is Debbie burger at Celotex and
00:09:49 this is Debbie burger at Celotex and someone called Fran's PAP it's over and it's in the context of exchanges about the RS 5000 product did you know or have
00:10:03 the RS 5000 product did you know or have any contact with Fran's path of x over I new friends per year so you didn't have any exchanges with him on Sela things were you aware that he was having
00:10:14 were you aware that he was having exchanges with Celotex no at this time if we also could look at CES for zeros 3 5 4 7 this is
00:10:32 an appointment for a meeting between Celotex and xover on the 16th of February 2015
00:10:42 yes 16th of February 2015 appears to be a a meeting subject rs.5000 field of application location Celotex Breton
00:10:54 application location Celotex Breton House boardroom do you see that and you're saying hi Angie and Franz thank you so much for greenseer so quickly I'll organize lunch when you arrive and that's from Debbie burger and were you
00:11:06 that's from Debbie burger and were you aware of that meeting or me no I mean we we weren't sort of them aware of what was going on in the testing and assessment department on a routine basis
00:11:19 assessment department on a routine basis just one final email to look at this is C e l 4 0 3 5 8 9 and if we look at the
00:11:33 C e l 4 0 3 5 8 9 and if we look at the top again so this is Debbie Berger 18th of March 2015 to Fran's PAP and she's enclosing a copy of her 32 page the 32 page test report for BS 8 for one for
00:11:45 page test report for BS 8 for one for part 2 using Celotex RS 5000 and finding sending examples of for build ups which we commonly see presented to us at design stage did you see those and again
00:11:58 design stage did you see those and again was that something that was being discussed within X over at the time something you were aware of and these different build ups for RS 5000 that were being considered no but if I'd
00:12:10 were being considered no but if I'd become aware that Celotex was being if I'd been aware of the totality of the external walls and that Celotex was being used I would have carried out some investigations they would have included
00:12:22 investigations they would have included an inquiring of our testing department whether they had any information on the performance of Celotex and we what given sort of configurations yes this would be
00:12:37 sort of configurations yes this would be part of the process of determining whether or not they had a certificated approval to a system yep it would appear from the documents we
00:12:49 it would appear from the documents we have that these common buildups form the subject of a draft Desktop study carried out by x over dated the 7th of May 2015 right I seen from your answers so far
00:13:01 right I seen from your answers so far that you didn't have any involvement or knowledge of that no I wouldn't expect to but if you had been inquiring within your firm about the use of rs.5000 you
00:13:12 your firm about the use of rs.5000 you might have found out about this oh yes yes sir would now just on the subject of updating your fire strategy work I now want to turn to an email that you
00:13:23 want to turn to an email that you received on the 21st of December 2015 so later in the project again can we go to that this is at ma x4 0 6 0 8 for a
00:13:35 to that this is at ma x4 0 6 0 8 for a page 6
00:13:45 and if we zoom into the top of that so this is from Andy bridges of RJ electrics the subcontractors on the
00:13:56 electrics the subcontractors on the project go to you and Tony Pearson copying in some others at J s right Steve Blake that's right and Matt Smith max Fordham David Hughes ridin do you
00:14:09 max Fordham David Hughes ridin do you see that there right and he's emailing you about installing smoke detection to
00:14:20 you about installing smoke detection to operate the aov system in the community rooms
00:14:23 rooms that's the estates office in the concierge office were removed in favor of two additional flats at the mezzanine level and and if we look at the second sentence of the first paragraph he says
00:14:37 sentence of the first paragraph he says how it says hello Terry we are the electrical contractors on this project and then he says this I'm not sure if you've been aware but there have been some fairly major changes to the lower levels since you issued your last fire strategy document issue three
00:14:50 last fire strategy document issue three and then he gives and we don't need to trouble ourselves about the the detail of this but he gives a an explanation of what the the changes are and then if we
00:15:01 what the the changes are and then if we look down at his questions and he raises three questions how is the admission of the content is going to affect your current document and thinking and I
00:15:16 current document and thinking and I think in the version of this document what we're seeing is answers that you then gave to those questions is that right probably yes so so in that first
00:15:27 right probably yes so so in that first question how is the omission of the concierge going to affect your current document and thinking it would appear that you've then typed into this document the omission of the concierge doesn't materially affect the fire strategy do you see that I do do you
00:15:40 strategy do you see that I do do you remember doing this do you remember I remember yes I remember coming from an electrical subcontractor yeah now given that you're being updated on development
00:15:52 that you're being updated on development since the third issue of your fire strategy and he's saying that these are fairly major changes to the lower level and didn't that put you on notice that the fire strategy for the tower was out
00:16:03 the fire strategy for the tower was out of date and no longer reflective of the design and should you have not at least advised Ryden or studio a or the TMO of the need for an updated report he
00:16:16 the need for an updated report he described them as major changes they don't seem to be major to me or didn't at the time I should say I say can we
00:16:29 at the time I should say I say can we look at another exchange this is with miss Williams on the 19th of October 2015 this is a RT for zeroes for 9 to 6
00:16:49 so here what we're seeing in this is a a series of exchanges that you have with Miss Williams entitled fire strategy and
00:17:01 Miss Williams entitled fire strategy and you're providing advice on I think fire strategy drawings at this point does that right it would appear to be a PDF well I mean yes for example the top
00:17:14 well I mean yes for example the top email tere this plan shows that we had esteemed in AOV within the lobby of the boxing club I where it's accessible at walkway level top right drawing wouldn't this suffice I don't know how you'd be able to reach to manually reset one at
00:17:25 able to reach to manually reset one at the top of the stairs here thanks for your help again my question is a general question when when you've got this kind of email exchange and it's entitled changes to floor layout didn't that prompt you to
00:17:36 floor layout didn't that prompt you to at least think about whether or not you ought to be telling someone that the fire strategy that you'd been done for the building needed to be revisited with the first question related to an AO V
00:17:48 the first question related to an AO V which I knew was required in the lobby between boxing club and the stairs so that to me didn't make any have any
00:17:59 that to me didn't make any have any impact but it didn't occur to you that there would need to be a finalized fire strategy for the building that would for
00:18:11 strategy for the building that would for example form part of the Health and Safety file as part of compliance with the CDM regulations it didn't occur to me at that point now and also an updated
00:18:23 me at that point now and also an updated fire strategy to deal with regulation 38 information that would be passed on to the responsible person so there's a link between what's been done under the building regulations and then the
00:18:34 building regulations and then the responsible person's obligations under the rro that didn't occur to you either no didn't know I also briefly want to turn to some Clarke of works reports
00:18:48 turn to some Clarke of works reports review meeting minutes so if we go a rt4 Xero's 6 6 8 8
00:18:57 this is from a meeting on the 12th of January 2016 so it's at these are CEO W
00:19:08 January 2016 so it's at these are CEO W we haven't looked at any of these yet but their clerk of Works reports review meeting minutes and then it says there's been a meeting at the ride and site office and you can see the attendees now you're not present at this meeting just
00:19:20 you're not present at this meeting just to be clear but if we look on at page five of this document and we look if we blow that up yes
00:19:31 blow that up yes so three lines from the bottom it says their fire strategy needs to be updated as per on-site discussions and then there's a initials their D H which I think we think a David Hughes of ridin
00:19:43 think we think a David Hughes of ridin now Mike my question for you is did David Hughes or anyone else from ridin or indeed anyone else involved in the project contact you in or around this time so January 2016 to ask for the fire
00:19:56 time so January 2016 to ask for the fire strategy to be updated no before we leave that I'm not exactly sure looking
00:20:09 leave that I'm not exactly sure looking at the list of items here why would we would need to update the fire strategy to deal with what are snagging defects I
00:20:20 to deal with what are snagging defects I mean we can explore that in due course with the writing witness but I was just interested to know whether or not you'd ever had any contact absolutely no contact no now yesterday I put to you
00:20:33 contact no now yesterday I put to you that there appear to be around 90 emails either sent by you or CC between April 14 when ride and come on board and March 16 now there appears to be a dispute
00:20:45 16 now there appears to be a dispute about this and your sisters have emailed overnight and said that their their calculation is it's closer to 40 emails I there's not been time to double-check that so what I'm going to do is just
00:20:57 that so what I'm going to do is just withdraw that question but put it to you in a different way in the light of what we've been looking at today so the advice you gave into an insect ember 2014 the advice you gave in the spring
00:21:10 2014 the advice you gave in the spring of 25
00:21:11 of 25 fifteen these ongoing queries in late 2015 the substantive point is that doesn't this show that you were still regarded as involved in the project even
00:21:24 regarded as involved in the project even if you're saying you didn't regard yourself as a fully full part of the design team I think that some that some members of the design team did assume that we were still on board so to speak
00:21:38 that we were still on board so to speak and again the follow-up question is did you ever disabuse them of that perception any stage no and sprinklers
00:21:51 perception any stage no and sprinklers briefly I just want some brief questions about sprinklers and I think it's right isn't it that your understanding of the existing smoke control system serving the common lobbies pre the refurbishment
00:22:03 the common lobbies pre the refurbishment was that it was not compliant with current guidance and it needed to be refurbished and or modified you said that in your design note that we're a fad yeah
00:22:13 fad yeah you also said in that initial design though that as the stairs serving the residential accommodation should not serve other non residential accommodation it may be necessary to provide sprinkler or water mist systems
00:22:26 provide sprinkler or water mist systems to the boxing club or office suite that was something that was said in your design note now given the problems you'd identified including the narrow that the
00:22:38 identified including the narrow that the single stair the width of that stair and the ventilation deficiency did you consider will ever consider whether sprinklers would be appropriate throughout the building I can answer
00:22:52 throughout the building I can answer that in two ways if you asked me should existing high-rise blocks of flats be sprinted retrospectively my answer to that would be yes that's not always
00:23:05 that would be yes that's not always possible and it's not backed up by any statutory requirement with regard to this development I mentioned sprinklers in the context of the non-residential uses as identifying that it might be or
00:23:18 uses as identifying that it might be or will think the worry you was may may be needed to satisfy building control yeah did you ever advise anyone that it might
00:23:33 did you ever advise anyone that it might be a good idea to consider sprinklers throughout the building no I didn't can we go to paragraph four point one hour of your witness statement this is EXO first witness statement four zeros 161
00:23:45 first witness statement four zeros 161 page ten and you say following the design though I recall having a discussion with studio a about some of
00:23:56 discussion with studio a about some of the issues that have been raised in Miss kinis 10th of September 2012 email including the possibility of sprinklers this was also a point that had been covered in email exchanges with Studio
00:24:07 covered in email exchanges with Studio II following the design mode did you see that there yes can you recall who you had that discussion with at Studio a about sprinklers well it was either
00:24:18 about sprinklers well it was either Bruce owns or Adrian Jess want one of the two people the specific problem was travel distances in one apartment which
00:24:29 travel distances in one apartment which exceeded the recommended nine meters and
00:24:35 my view was that we had to offer something by way of mitigation for that particular extended travel distance and that could have been are using
00:24:47 that could have been are using sprinklers or it could have been done by putting in an enhanced fire detection system which meant a detector in every
00:24:58 system which meant a detector in every room now I have to say that of the two to deal with that particular problem the detection system would be better because it would have detected the fire sooner than a sprinkler would the user bear in
00:25:11 than a sprinkler would the user bear in mind that a sprinkler would only operate when there was a very high temperature in the room in which the fire had started so for the occupants of that flat the fire detection system was the
00:25:23 flat the fire detection system was the better option I think so do you think that what you've just been explaining was the subject of your discussion with studio E at the time about sprinklers to that specific fat
00:25:34 that specific fat no I think that if you read on in what I said later in that paragraph it was what do we need to do to provide a you know an extra factor of fire safety and what
00:25:46 an extra factor of fire safety and what which particular way of doing that will be accessible to sorry acceptable to Building Control yeah because they could conceivably I said well we think you should put sprinklers in in which case
00:25:57 should put sprinklers in in which case the client would have had to face putting a a sprinkler in installation in one small apartment so it was a number of two options to provide compensation
00:26:09 of two options to provide compensation for a slightly increased travel distance and practicum and practice was that you put in a an enhanced fire detection system for the reasons that I've just
00:26:20 system for the reasons that I've just given yeah well you were aware of mr. Kuhn ease comment no sprinklers wanted in her email of the 17th of August 2012 to Andrew Martin that was the email we
00:26:33 to Andrew Martin that was the email we looked at before where she said we're making a crap condition worse that kind of very frank exchanged she had yeah yes I was aware of that yes I don't know no
00:26:47 I was aware of that yes I don't know no sprinklers wanted yes I don't know whether it was the client or studio he who told her that yeah that was my next question did you ever ask her who had told her no sprinklers wanted and where
00:26:59 told her no sprinklers wanted and where that had come from well I assumed had to come from the client side if it had come from the client as distinct from studio
00:27:10 from the client as distinct from studio he would have carried more weight if you like but I think that the general philosophy was a they didn't want sprinklers and there are obvious
00:27:23 sprinklers and there are obvious benefits in putting in sprinklers but if a client says I don't want to put a partial sprinkler system into this building then and and it's not required
00:27:34 building then and and it's not required by the regulations then it wouldn't happen now presumably at the time of the ground floor project you were aware that sprinklers were mandatory in new builds over 30 meters absolutely yes do
00:27:49 builds over 30 meters absolutely yes do you accept that Grenville tower was or could be properly described as a complex building over 30 meters not complex no no it was a block of flats with a little
00:28:02 no it was a block of flats with a little bit of non-residential accommodation in the lower levels complex in the sense it's an old building single stair very narrow stair smoke ventilation system
00:28:13 narrow stair smoke ventilation system natural system no longer working wouldn't that all make it quite complex from a fire safety perspective come not
00:28:25 from a fire safety perspective come not complex I would say it wasn't up to modern day standards and you have to then make a value judgment as to what how you do that but the vehicle for
00:28:36 how you do that but the vehicle for doing that is the regulatory reform order if the risk assessment is carried out in an existing block of flats it needn't be Grenville it'd be somewhere
00:28:48 needn't be Grenville it'd be somewhere else and we think that you ought to provide sprinklers in this building then that would be the way in which it would be sprinkling so unless you're but
00:28:59 be sprinkling so unless you're but backed by legislation as in in the case of Scotland where all parts of Scotland where an act of Parliament was put through forcing owners of existing
00:29:11 through forcing owners of existing high-rise residential buildings to put sprinklers in retrospectively so and I think I understand what you're saying there and you've said it in relation to other topics that that's really a
00:29:22 other topics that that's really a separate question for the fire risk assessment and under the rro what I want to put to you is that actually when you're doing a fire safety strategy that's also your concern and your
00:29:33 that's also your concern and your consideration and that there isn't this hard division between what you're doing for a fire strategy and the fire risk assessment process that actually to some extent there's an overlap and you're you're looking at potentially forward
00:29:46 you're looking at potentially forward what's going to happen at the next fire risk assessment and also be asking is it compliant with the rro the absence of sprinklers is not evidence of non-compliance of the rro I
00:30:00 evidence of non-compliance of the rro I don't automatically think in dealing with buildings like this that why does first principle why don't we suggest that the client put sprinklers in now
00:30:11 that the client put sprinklers in now with the wisdom of hindsight and following this fire that might be our stance now but at the time there was no reason to think that putting in sprinklers throughout the building would
00:30:23 sprinklers throughout the building would be a reasonable way to go about things what I'm putting to you I think is a more general point than just sprinklers but it's because as an example that about this Oh potential overlap in some
00:30:34 about this Oh potential overlap in some sense with the fire risk assessment process feeding into this fire strategy and vice verse that you're feeding into that process so it's not again it's not
00:30:45 that process so it's not again it's not a hermetically sealed to bubble for some extent you've both got to be having regard to what the others done does that not make sense well no I think we I
00:30:57 not make sense well no I think we I didn't get sight of the fire risk assessment for this building because that was really I guess to inform my colleagues in Warrington who were doing the existing fire strategy and that
00:31:08 the existing fire strategy and that wasn't a document that you ever thought important for you to see the current fire risk assessment no because I think if they'd said in the risk of the latest risk assessment we consider this building should be provided with a
00:31:20 building should be provided with a sprinkler system then Kate would have passed that information on to me okay one final question on this topic with the benefit of hindsight do you think that you should have strongly advised
00:31:31 that you should have strongly advised that sprinklers should have been installed throughout the building no I you know you say that but I had no reason to expect when I was dealing with
00:31:43 reason to expect when I was dealing with this building that there was going to be such a catastrophic fire
00:31:49 I've got a few other questions on miscellaneous topics before we're just gonna come and look overall at the work that xover did and just look back at it at the end and so I wanted to ask you
00:32:02 at the end and so I wanted to ask you some questions about the evacuation of residents given that you say you never visited Granville Tower what consideration did you give to the residents who were living in the building in what sense in terms of
00:32:17 building in what sense in terms of evacuation strategies well I think I've said on in earlier sessions of this that there is no evacuation strategy for
00:32:30 there is no evacuation strategy for blocks of residential flats it's a stay put strategy yeah I mean we've gone over the disabled and we've looked at ADB and those changes did you at any point
00:32:42 those changes did you at any point consider any other particularly vulnerable groups elderly young children and how the fire strategy might affect them was there any consideration about the specific community within this building no I mean I think in answer to
00:32:54 building no I mean I think in answer to an earlier question you gave me the only time I would look at the occupant profile of a building is if it were how to use expression an old person's home
00:33:06 to use expression an old person's home where it's would be completely reasonable to to put in sprinklers but if you've got any other mix of occupancy
00:33:18 if you've got any other mix of occupancy young people old people people with disabilities it wouldn't cause me to to do anything yeah given that we've given that if there's a fire they don't need
00:33:29 that if there's a fire they don't need to evacuate unless they happen to be in the flat in which the fire starts dr. Barker suggested in her evidence that the assumption was that residents could self evacuate was that also your
00:33:42 self evacuate was that also your assumption when you were working on the project that's never explicitly stated in any of the codified guidance but yeah I mean obviously a corollary to that is
00:33:53 I mean obviously a corollary to that is that the occupants of the fire affected plant apartment would be expected to self evacuate so did you ever turn your mind to the fact that some residents might not be
00:34:04 fact that some residents might not be able to self evacuate without assistance no that would be true for any any any apartment block now the existing
00:34:18 apartment block now the existing building fire strategy report makes two statements about evacuation it says first the evacuation of flats beyond the dwelling of fire origin would be carried
00:34:29 dwelling of fire origin would be carried out under the control of the attending fire service if necessary and it also states due to an assumed high degree of compartment ation and therefore low probability of fire spread beyond the
00:34:41 probability of fire spread beyond the dwelling of fire origin simultaneously evacuation of the building is unlikely to be considered now the existing building fire strategy uses the word assumed these are assumed what
00:34:54 assumed these are assumed what investigations did you make to confirm what the degree of compartment ation would be after the refurbishment I'm sorry could you repeat them yeah what
00:35:05 sorry could you repeat them yeah what did you make to confirm what the degree of complementation would be after the refurbishment given that those were the evacuation assumptions I didn't make any
00:35:16 evacuation assumptions I didn't make any assumptions and it wasn't part of our agreed to scope of works to visit the building after the works to see that a satisfactory degree of compartment a
00:35:28 satisfactory degree of compartment a ssin had been provided had it been asked for that would have been an our fee proposal now we discussed today and the Celotex rs.5000 we were discussing it a
00:35:40 Celotex rs.5000 we were discussing it a moment ago and and you said you didn't know about the fire of fire performance of that product and and but that you were aware that it was not a non combustible material were you aware that
00:35:52 combustible material were you aware that there'd been a number of fires worldwide involving both aluminium composite material and foam insulation I was aware that there were fires in the Middle East involving certainly ACM but not not not
00:36:07 involving certainly ACM but not not not necessarily that they'd involved foam insulation no I think it's it might be relevant it may not but the in the fires in the Middle
00:36:18 not but the in the fires in the Middle East the buildings of sprinkler and the evacuation strategy for them was simultaneous evacuation so nobody lost their lives in the fires that I was
00:36:30 their lives in the fires that I was aware of yeah although there was significant property damage as you would imagine yeah another question were you aware of anything to do with the process
00:36:42 aware of anything to do with the process involved in forming Celotex rs.5000 that the manufacturing process do you have any knowledge of that no no but III know what what you
00:36:54 no no but III know what what you probably urethane foam 'yes i mean its exfoliated plastic did you know in sort of layman's terms did you know anything about the blowing agent that was used
00:37:06 about the blowing agent that was used for the foam no or the flammability of any such blowing no but III was aware from work done by the GLC
00:37:17 from work done by the GLC and goes back that far that the composition of a lot of these materials was such that if they were involved in the fire they would give rise to toxic
00:37:29 the fire they would give rise to toxic fumes yeah and dense smoke which would hamper mainly firefighting operations yep just a few questions on the smoke
00:37:40 yep just a few questions on the smoke ventilation system can we look at an email to Matt Smith that you sent Matt Smith of Max Fordham this is an EXO five
00:37:51 Smith of Max Fordham this is an EXO five zero six five nine
00:37:59 and I want to look at the bottom of page one this is an email you've sent on the 3rd of October 2013 from you to Matt
00:38:11 3rd of October 2013 from you to Matt Smith max Ford and copying in breach scenes and others including it max Fordham and you say there Matt we're trying not to have to provide mechanical smoke extract to the lobbies you've
00:38:23 smoke extract to the lobbies you've queried kind of gods Terry do you see that there yes yeah but you've said in evidence that you understood that a mechanical system
00:38:34 you understood that a mechanical system would be installed to rectify the inadequacy of the existing system that correct that is correct but I think here I might be referring to other areas of
00:38:46 I might be referring to other areas of the building which was not possible for the main extract system to serve ie the non-residential uses various levels all of which were required to have some
00:38:58 of which were required to have some forms link control do you agree that a mechanical smoke extract system was necessary to rectify the problems with the main existing system absolutely yeah
00:39:13 I want to look at another email this time to Duncan Campbell this is a ma X 3 zeros 2 3 2 0 4 and I want to look at
00:39:24 zeros 2 3 2 0 4 and I want to look at page 2
00:39:32 so this is you and I think it's to Duncan Campbell is that max Fordham yes it would yeah yeah and state Duncan I
00:39:44 it would yeah yeah and state Duncan I appreciate your making an existing unsatisfactory system more reliable however given our be KC's comments when we met them they are likely to require that we demonstrate in some way that this system is as good as or better than
00:39:57 this system is as good as or better than a compliant natural ventilation system I don't believe that the enhanced system would equate to a depressurization system meeting the recommendations of BS 1 to 101 6 and I believe we should
00:40:09 1 to 101 6 and I believe we should resist a requirement for this as a starting point it is is it possible to state how many air changes hour per hour will be achieved on the fire affected floor do you see that there I do yes
00:40:22 what do you mean by a compliant natural ventilation system in that fourth line well a compliant natural ventilation system was not we didn't have enough
00:40:34 system was not we didn't have enough space to put one in I mean a compliant natural ventilation system would be a three square meter chimney located in the central lift lobby no that was not
00:40:45 the central lift lobby no that was not really practical yep with automatic opening vents into it events at the top no we could not be
00:40:56 events at the top no we could not be accommodated in the in the new floor play so we were forced to go to some form of natural ventilation I saw some form of mechanical calculation yeah yeah and can you explain why you're saying in
00:41:08 and can you explain why you're saying in this email that you believe you should resist a requirement for a depressurization system meeting there were recommendations of that British standard there well possibly because a
00:41:20 standard there well possibly because a brand-new depressurization system meeting the recommendations of this British standard might be difficult to achieve in this building can you give
00:41:31 achieve in this building can you give any more details to why that would be difficult to achieve it could probably be again for spatial reasons yeah I mean I think it's useful to point out that there are commercial systems on the MA
00:41:44 there are commercial systems on the MA which required ducks a very small cross-sectional area which do work and would have been suitable here and I think that's actually what we ended up with although it was after my
00:41:55 with although it was after my involvement in this particular part of the design we'll be exploring this more in module 3 but okay yeah and then can I just go to another exchange this is an
00:42:08 just go to another exchange this is an exchange you had with Claire Williams this is an EXO five zero six one eight
00:42:22 I think we don't start by looking at page three
00:42:31 and she says at the bottom of that page if we can look at this you're see seed into an email to Matt Smith she says Matt on site we talked about finding out the original installation
00:42:42 finding out the original installation information from building regulations as this would evidence the intended design strategy and any measurements do you have access to building regulations information or have you done this already I think this is she's trying to
00:42:55 already I think this is she's trying to establish what the existing system was yes that's correct and then if we can go one up they say
00:43:07 and then if we can go one up they say we'll look into this we hold historic historical regulatory documents in our library etc there will also be the issue of which regulations applied at the time and then there's all that and I think
00:43:20 and then there's all that and I think that the general question for you here is why was the design strategy and measurements of the existing system still uncertain at the time of this email exchange in 2014 can you what were
00:43:33 email exchange in 2014 can you what were they uncertain yeah why they still struggling to understand the existing system when I heard but it was I was struggling to understand what it was because they were quite clearly defined
00:43:46 because they were quite clearly defined methods for dealing with smoke extra from common areas of residential buildings and they were documented in both the LCC sorry London County Council
00:43:59 both the LCC sorry London County Council so to practice and then the subsequent GLC code of practice but what was put in there we seem to me to be a somewhat
00:44:10 there we seem to me to be a somewhat experimental and I think I've referred to it as such somewhere in the correspondence yep would you agree that that the performance of that existing
00:44:22 that the performance of that existing system should have been determined from the outset to inform the design strategy for the new system no not really I think as I said quite often there was an
00:44:35 as I said quite often there was an intention to put in a mechanical system because of the difficulties in getting small area natural vents to work in a building of this
00:44:47 now just finally on this topic I want to go to another email EXO five zeros three four four yeah if
00:45:01 EXO five zeros three four four yeah if we can blow this up so this is the 6th of January 2015 so this is Matt Smith max Fordham to you you are the recipient of this email copying in max Fordham and
00:45:12 of this email copying in max Fordham and Artie Lea subject Graham for tower smoke extract system and then he says afternoon Terri can you look over and provide comment on the smoke extract proposal put PS b on behalf of Jace
00:45:23 proposal put PS b on behalf of Jace right it looks acceptable and I believe the principle of it has been verbally accepted by Building Control but it may be wise to get your viewers it falls slightly outside our area of expertise it's fundamentally different to what we
00:45:35 it's fundamentally different to what we specified and then it's now a pressure differential system rather than a simple smoke clearance details can be found below if you have any questions please give me a call do you see that there yes
00:45:46 give me a call do you see that there yes and do you recall receiving that request verb yes I do recall receiving it and can you recall making any comments on it I I said something I believed to the
00:45:58 I I said something I believed to the effect that PSB are specialists in this area similar to PSB another specialist
00:46:09 area similar to PSB another specialist smoke extract company does do bespoke systems for this application and when we're dealing with that we say well they have their own design backed up buying
00:46:23 have their own design backed up buying CFD and so that the the job of getting it approved is generally handed over to them I think so as long as PSB were able to satisfy our vkc
00:46:35 to satisfy our vkc that it would work then that was fine yeah I mean I wouldn't seek to argue that what they were doing was inadequate because they're the experts in that but
00:46:47 because they're the experts in that but in their own system I think so does it follow that you didn't get involved in the design process which chain when when the change was made to go to a pressure differential system
00:46:58 differential system now I didn't I mean uh just to give you another example where we're doing with a commercial building with fire fighting shafts and the building design consultants ops to go for a commercial
00:47:12 consultants ops to go for a commercial system all that we say in our documentation is this will be provided by X and we have no further involvement in that because the experts were you
00:47:25 in that because the experts were you ever given an explanation on the project as to why the system that was finally proposed was not the same as that which had been specified by Mike Gordon no I wasn't and do you know why the design
00:47:39 wasn't and do you know why the design intention for the systems was still unclear at the time of this email exchange in 2015 at the time when soaring so why was the design intent intention for the system still unclear
00:47:50 intention for the system still unclear at the time of this email exchange in 2015 all I can say was it probably hadn't been firmly established that what was being proposed was workable yep now
00:48:05 was being proposed was workable yep now fire doors just a few quick questions on that one is there any reason why the fire safety strategy reports which which he produced didn't refer to the location
00:48:17 he produced didn't refer to the location and performance of all the fire doors in the building no it was quite deliberate we were only dealing with doors to new openings so it wasn't part of your work
00:48:32 openings so it wasn't part of your work to look at the doors that were already existing in the tower and check that they were compliant with well either comply with modern requirements and then explain why they didn't have to be or
00:48:43 explain why they didn't have to be or check whether they complied with the requirements that would have been applicable at the time no I would expect that to be what's the word highlighted as a result of a fire risk assessment if
00:48:54 as a result of a fire risk assessment if the doors were inadequate I mean I know a number of cases with local authority housing where one of the recommendations of a fire risk assessment is that the doors are either replaced or modified to
00:49:06 doors are either replaced or modified to make them comply yeah but as we know you never got a copy of the fire risk assessment so you wouldn't have known whether any of those doors had been highlighted no no no is
00:49:19 doors had been highlighted no no no is there a reason why no investigation was made by x over into the performance of the existing flat entrance doors stair doors or lift shaft doors anywhere in the building to see if it complied with
00:49:31 the building to see if it complied with relevant fire safety requirements different way of putting the same question I think it is really we wouldn't have looked at the remainder of the building because it wasn't part of
00:49:42 the building because it wasn't part of the scope of works what about the fire doors that were proposed in the refurbishment was there any part of your role to check the compliance with fire safety regulations and building regulations of the new fire doors that
00:49:55 regulations of the new fire doors that were proposed as part of the refurbishment no we had no inspection function as part of our scope of works I mean I think the reason for that is a
00:50:06 mean I think the reason for that is a fairly obvious one that we would expect that that work would be done by Building Control anyway so and it's moving to another topic and we're getting towards
00:50:18 another topic and we're getting towards the end of my questions or there we're gonna have to pause when I finish and just sweep up anything else okay but what I'm gonna try and do is finish my questions first and then we break if that's okay and so I want to take stock
00:50:31 that's okay and so I want to take stock and look back at the work of X over and and compare the work which you proposed in the fee proposal and the work that was carried out it's right isn't it that
00:50:42 was carried out it's right isn't it that the third version of the outline fire safety strategy was in the end the only version of that report that was ever produced yes that's right
00:50:53 produced yes that's right and do you agree that that third version represented the culmination of X overs work up to and including our IBA stages D and E yes now as we discussed earlier
00:51:07 D and E yes now as we discussed earlier your fee proposal envisage that a detailed fire strategy would be prepared for our IBA stage D & E which would be written in line with the requirements of the building regulations did you think
00:51:19 the building regulations did you think that the third issue of the outline fire strategy satified that part of the fee proposal no it didn't because it didn't deal with a number of issues in particular before issue that we've been
00:51:31 particular before issue that we've been discussing for the last few days did you ever look back at the fee proposal and see that what was promised in the
00:51:42 see that what was promised in the detailed fire strategy was a determination of any external fire spread issues that there may be and recommendations of complementation and fire protection standards did you ever look back and consider whether that work
00:51:56 look back and consider whether that work had been completed no but I was I was aware that we hadn't completed the task can you explain why we see so little change between the three iterations of
00:52:09 change between the three iterations of your fire strategy report the level of detail that was provided yeah I think that's because it really only picked up internal changes as a result of goe and
00:52:22 internal changes as a result of goe and redesigning parts of the law for flaws and is it right that nothing commensurate with our IB a stage F or indeed any stage thereafter was ever
00:52:33 indeed any stage thereafter was ever produced by x over I think that's that's fair comment and that is particularly because we weren't novated to Ryden do
00:52:44 because we weren't novated to Ryden do you accept that each time you were copied into an email about the external wall design in 2014 and 2015 it represented a missed opportunity to give comprehensive guidance on the building
00:52:56 comprehensive guidance on the building regulations and statutory guidance document ad B and what they required I think it could be interpreted that way but as I've said on many an occasions
00:53:07 but as I've said on many an occasions over the last few days the the general gist of the Enquirer's that we go what were details rather than this is a system that we're thinking of using what do you think would you accept that these
00:53:22 do you think would you accept that these were missed opportunities for any CDM related issues to be addressed as part of a design risk assessment process we had no involvement with the CFT
00:53:34 we had no involvement with the CFT coordinator I think probably most of its a CFD coordinator do you mean CDM Freudian slip CDM coordinator I mean had
00:53:46 Freudian slip CDM coordinator I mean had we been employed by ride and it's likely that we would have had to provide some information and cooperate with the CDM coordinator because the critical role
00:53:58 coordinator because the critical role they perform is mainly when the building is when the building is being built although there are some aspects of the design that they need to consider as
00:54:09 design that they need to consider as well particularly those architectural issues that could create problems for end users of the building it's just a very important aspects of the design
00:54:21 very important aspects of the design process that have to be considered it is the building safe to use yes did you know during your time on the project who the CDM coordinator was no so you didn't
00:54:34 the CDM coordinator was no so you didn't know that up until 2015 that was an RT Lea or Apple Yards no I didn't did it ever occur to you did you ever think about that the client would need your
00:54:46 about that the client would need your client the TMA would need a more detailed and up-to-date fire strategy when considering Building Control approval I think I thought it might be necessary but Building Control didn't
00:54:57 necessary but Building Control didn't ask for a more detailed fire strategy they appeared to have approved the concepts without that information we never had any instruction from the
00:55:10 never had any instruction from the client to update it were you ever worried or concerned that Building Control might read your iterations of the fire strategy and see that no issues had been identified and take comfort
00:55:23 had been identified and take comfort from that no I would assume that they were a competent Building Control Authority and if they weren't happy they would have said so and that is my experience of dealing with Kensington
00:55:35 experience of dealing with Kensington and Chelsea Building Control by and large they really do want to know what's going on exactly Building Control needed to have an another sis of the before performance requirements and how the external war satisfied those requirements didn't they
00:55:47 satisfied those requirements didn't they they did in your proposed scope of works for our IB a stage F you said that there
00:55:58 for our IB a stage F you said that there would be an updated revision of the fire safety strategy documentation to reflect any agreed changes to the strategy following any related design development and consultation with the approvals body
00:56:11 and consultation with the approvals body do you want to look at that again no that's a standard thing that we would do if necessary can you explain what happened to that
00:56:22 can you explain what happened to that that updated revision to reflect any agreed changes following any related design development and consultation with the approvals body I wasn't aware it was necessary as I said earlier we didn't
00:56:37 necessary as I said earlier we didn't get anything back from Penzance and Chelsea which required us to change that the fundamentals of our fire strategy so you didn't think about the fact that your fee proposal stated that xover
00:56:51 your fee proposal stated that xover would be providing an updated revision of the fire strategy that was accepted by the TMO that was what you'd proposed what we do I think as I said earlier the the the wording in our fee proposals is
00:57:04 the the wording in our fee proposals is a standard wording and it covers all areas of what might happen we all might reasonably cover all eventualities if at stage f it's necessary to update a
00:57:18 stage f it's necessary to update a report to reflect changes either in the design as brought about by the contractor or any other reason then we would expect to have to update the
00:57:29 would expect to have to update the report there's no evidence of you meeting with our bkc Building Control after September 2013 do you agree that
00:57:41 after September 2013 do you agree that such meetings would have been useful to discuss your fire strategy and necessary revisions to it as the project progressed and before the full plans application in August 2014
00:57:53 application in August 2014 we generally find that either the project manager or the lead consultant asks for meetings with Building Control if he or she deems it necessary it
00:58:04 if he or she deems it necessary it doesn't come from the building control they don't say we need to meet you say once every two months to discuss things it's generally we ask them or we might say we I mean the design team I think we
00:58:18 say we I mean the design team I think we saw before that you in fact initiated yourself the first meeting with Building Control you organized yes that was because I knew how to get hold of them easily I think but that wasn't something
00:58:29 easily I think but that wasn't something that you occurred to you to do thereafter on the project no no III assumed that from there on the lead consultant would arrange these things because when they go and see good
00:58:40 things because when they go and see good in control they don't just talk about fire they talk about all the other parts of the building regulations do you think at the time that it was odd this is why
00:58:52 at the time that it was odd this is why you're still involved in the project that compliance check of the design for the external wall had not been carried out design sorry a compliance check of the design for the external wall did it occur to you it was odd that no
00:59:04 occur to you it was odd that no compliance check had been carried out yes III think it was very odd that I had no contact with studio e to discuss it and did you ever think about contacting
00:59:16 and did you ever think about contacting your client the TMO and just saying that it's really odd that we haven't done this you should know that no I wouldn't do that I don't think I mean that's not the normal way of how a building design
00:59:29 the normal way of how a building design team works so if somebody goes to the project manager and says we're not getting sufficient input from Warrington on a particular subject I I would be
00:59:41 on a particular subject I I would be slightly upset that they hadn't come to me and said look we need some information from you regarding X Y or Z rather than going straight to the project manager or climb
00:59:56 would you accept that it fell below the standards of a reasonably competent fire engineer not to advise the TMO your client that there was a need for a compliance check of the design to be
01:00:08 compliance check of the design to be done no now we know that the outline fire safety strategy issue 3 was expressly incorporated into the design
01:00:21 expressly incorporated into the design and build contract between the TMO and Ryden it formed part of the contract documentation did you know prior to that that it was going to be incorporated
01:00:33 that it was going to be incorporated into the design and build contract no I didn't so follows you didn't know that it would be relied on and used by the main contractor well no well I said I didn't know I mean that it would
01:00:45 didn't know I mean that it would normally be information given to a contractor prior to him tendering for the job were you aware at the time that
01:00:57 the job were you aware at the time that issue 3 of the outline fire safety strategy was eventually submitted to our bkc Building Control by Studio A on the 29th of September 2014 as part of the
01:01:09 29th of September 2014 as part of the full plans application for Building Control approval did you come to know about that at the time no I wasn't aware of that but I would imagine that that would be standard practice for our fire
01:01:22 would be standard practice for our fire strategy report to be part of the full the full burns application and you were completely comfortable with that way you would likely to happen but that fact
01:01:33 would likely to happen but that fact that issue three like well they had to have something to look at I mean if the full burns application would be made without any statement about the fire
01:01:44 without any statement about the fire strategy then it could have been rejected under the building regulations in my view yeah but was it common in your experience for a fire strategy to go in as part of a full plans application which didn't deal with for
01:01:57 application which didn't deal with for example the B 4 requirement when there was to be an overt cladding no that wasn't no no I don't you know I think in that sense it would have been nice if the the final
01:02:10 it would have been nice if the the final edition of the fire strategy did contain details of compliance with p4 but it didn't because it hadn't been considered can we look at paragraph 3.1 3.2 one of
01:02:21 can we look at paragraph 3.1 3.2 one of your witness statement this is EXO four zeros one six to one page six and I just want to read what you say here you say
01:02:32 want to read what you say here you say by the time of stage F a contractor has generally been appointed to carry out the project for large projects this is often on a design and build basis meaning that the contractor takes on responsibility for the design of the
01:02:43 responsibility for the design of the works including completing any unfinished design work as well as the construction of the works what often occurs is that the contractor who has been appointed to carry out the project will carry out a value engineering
01:02:55 will carry out a value engineering exercise meaning they look for ways to reduce the cost of the project for instance through changing materials or approach while still meeting the clients and objectives such changes may or may
01:03:06 and objectives such changes may or may not impact on the fire strategy and then you say it's it's not a given that you'll remain involved in the project at this stage I just want to ask you a bit
01:03:17 this stage I just want to ask you a bit about that value engineering process you refer to there did you ever hear about whether there had been a value engineering process on this project no but it's very common yeah or the
01:03:32 but it's very common yeah or the successful tenderer to do that to see if there are ways in which the design can be accomplished so you didn't ever reduce cost yep so you didn't ever try
01:03:47 reduce cost yep so you didn't ever try and find out if such a value engineering exercise had taken place and whether changes had been made which would affect the fire strategy no I did
01:04:02 do you agree looking at it now that the questions that were being asked of you you buy studio in both September 2014 and March 2015 about the cladding flowed
01:04:15 and March 2015 about the cladding flowed directly from the lack of any analysis about b3 and b4 in your outline fire strategy reports no I think it's a reflection of the fact that they didn't
01:04:26 reflection of the fact that they didn't tell us what they wanted to do and sit down and discuss it would you agree that the queries raised by Studio E were basic questions about performance
01:04:38 basic questions about performance requirements in fire which should have been addressed by x over in the fire strategy report ideally they should have been but weren't for the reasons I've already given
01:04:58 [Applause]
01:05:02 would you agree that in light of your knowledge that the refurbishment works included over cladding panels over cladding with panels which would potentially fail in the event of a fire
01:05:14 potentially fail in the event of a fire with external flaming from the compartment that you should have produced a further and final outline fire safety report which took account of up-to-date information about the over cladding I think that you are placing
01:05:28 cladding I think that you are placing too much importance on local failure of a cladding because of fire coming out of a window that's not the same question at all that's the explanation you've given
01:05:40 all that's the explanation you've given for those emails yeah you don't think that that should have meant you should have been producing a further and final version of your fire strategy I think I've said on a number of occasions that
01:05:51 I've said on a number of occasions that it would have been nice if we had done a full and final fire safety strategy but for reasons that I've already explained that didn't happen do you accept that you should have advised the TMO as your
01:06:03 you should have advised the TMO as your client and a D to do e that there were serious issues which needed to be addressed
01:06:07 addressed concerning fire safety of the cladding given its likelihood that it might fail in the event of a fire with external flaming no I didn't see the need to say that to them because I had no way of
01:06:18 that to them because I had no way of knowing that it might fail in the way that you're describing I mean that that could happen with any building I just
01:06:29 could happen with any building I just want to look then at the overall time spent on the project and just ask you a few questions about that we've had disclosed to the inquiry a spreadsheet which shows the time spent on the
01:06:41 which shows the time spent on the project by x over that's if we can go to the native version but this is EXO four zeros one three five three
01:07:01 and I want to look at the timesheets at the second yes the second tab at the bottom have you seen this document before no I don't think so now the
01:07:13 before no I don't think so now the inquiries expert dr. Lane has considered it and it appears to show that 53 hours are assigned to the primary refurbishment project that that excludes work on the existing fire strategy
01:07:25 work on the existing fire strategy between September 12 and April 15 now we know that there must have been some other time spent before that before September 12 because we can see xover
01:07:38 September 12 because we can see xover personnel for example attending design team meetings before that but subject to that I just want to ask you about that time allocation some 51 hours are associated with your work on the
01:07:50 associated with your work on the refurbishment does that sound about right
01:07:53 right 51 and the refurbishment yeah I didn't have any part in the work to do sorry
01:08:04 have any part in the work to do sorry I'll start again clearly we've under spent and by a significant amount of money now that is a reflection of the
01:08:15 money now that is a reflection of the lack of discussion on some of the key structural elements of the building including the cladding so that figure of 3000 853 would have been considerably
01:08:27 3000 853 would have been considerably more if we'd had a series of meetings with Studio E to discuss that yeah we'll just come to the figures in a moment
01:08:38 just come to the figures in a moment just thinking about just the time at the moment and the spreadsheet is split the time allocation between the stage C work and the stage D and E work and it
01:08:49 and the stage D and E work and it appears to indicate less than well around full working days if you do a seven hour day on stage C and and just less than one week for stage D and E
01:09:02 less than one week for stage D and E work does that sound about right to you stage C yes probably I'm surprised at stage D strokey yeah I would have
01:09:13 stage D strokey yeah I would have expected there to be more time yeah and I think as you've anticipated the cost of the time spent at stage C was indeed the full amount xover were invoiced and paid the full amount of
01:09:25 invoiced and paid the full amount of 3,300 for stage D and E the time spent an invoice is 3874 which is less than
01:09:36 an invoice is 3874 which is less than the 5300 stated in the fee proposal yep and I think you've just explained it but I just want to give you another chance can you explain why xover didn't invoice for the full amount shown in the fee
01:09:48 for the full amount shown in the fee proposal didn't do the work that was indicated would be done January unless we have a fixed fee for each stage as
01:09:59 we have a fixed fee for each stage as distinct from an estimate we would only charge for the work actually carried out
01:10:09 would you agree that less than one week's work on the stage de process for a project of this complexity was unacceptable I think you need to understand what we did at stage C are
01:10:20 understand what we did at stage C are you saying D&E I'm saying de could you put those together in your yeah no yeah it is much less than I think I thought
01:10:31 it is much less than I think I thought that I spent yeah mr. Escher just the last couple of questions from me and then we'll pause and and break if that's okay to pick up anything else looking
01:10:44 okay to pick up anything else looking back at this and in the light of the last few days of evidence and can you tell us would you have done anything differently now if you had the chance to do it again yes I think I would have
01:10:59 do it again yes I think I would have asked more questions of the design team
01:11:04 instead of expecting them to come to me all the time I'm a should have said maybe what's happening with so-and-so and what about this and there wasn't a
01:11:17 and what about this and there wasn't a great element of me ringing them up and saying what's happening it was me waiting for them to send the information to
01:11:25 to to deal with yep okay Thank You mr. chairman
01:11:31 chairman can we take a break yes okay how fast three work give you enough time yeah it sure can I just look behind me to see ya
01:11:47 yeah half that should be fine well we're gonna have a break now and mr. eshton miss greynitz think she's reached the end of her questions but sometimes when they review it comes we'll find there are things they picked up okay so we
01:12:00 are things they picked up okay so we will break down and turn with you half past three if you would please okay yes thank you
01:12:16 good a43 please
01:39:48 yes would you ask mr. eshton to come back please
01:40:01 well we're special I'm sorry we kept you waiting longer than I indicated turned out there are more things to be done than I thought but anyway we're ready just to continue I just have a few short
01:40:14 just to continue I just have a few short questions for you mr. Ashton and at the time the grandfather our project was taken on by x over had x over done many social housing residential projects yes
01:40:26 social housing residential projects yes we had I couldn't tell you how many but yes certainly I'd you yourself done any social housing residential projects yes I heard yeah is it less likely that
01:40:40 I heard yeah is it less likely that xover would have accepted an invitation to work on this project if it had not already been involved in the calc project the Kensington Academy and Leisure Centre project in your view no I
01:40:52 Leisure Centre project in your view no I don't think we would have been reluctant to take the job on regardless of whether we were working on the talent project would you accept that less detailed care
01:41:03 would you accept that less detailed care was taken over the grandfort our strategies than for the calc strategies I'm not sure I'd use the word less care I would say that obviously because the
01:41:15 I would say that obviously because the KLC project was a new build it necessitated much more detailed involvement I say that the distinction you would draw that the new build versus
01:41:27 you would draw that the new build versus refurbishment as to why there appears to be left detailed work in terms of the fire strategies for Gwen for tower as compared with the calc fire strategies yes yes did you or to your knowledge
01:41:42 yes yes did you or to your knowledge anybody else that X over ever asked to see the Health and Safety file or the fire safety manual for the building no I don't believe we did if it we had been
01:41:55 don't believe we did if it we had been it would have been the people dealing with the existing fire strategy I see so that was not something that ever occurred to you to ask no and you're not aware whether miss kinian miss Barker
01:42:06 aware whether miss kinian miss Barker ever requested that information I've no idea one way or the other I have to say it's pretty Cotuit us but I'll say it anyway my experience is that
01:42:19 say it anyway my experience is that these documents are not easily obtainable for a building at that age I see so you wouldn't expect to find an up-to-date CDM health-and-safety file
01:42:31 up-to-date CDM health-and-safety file for Granville tower no not really and that's based on what your experience yes I mean if you go to a shopping center that's been built ten years finding the
01:42:46 that's been built ten years finding the original fire strategy for that is not easy I mean this is why the DA or their predecessor or where their successor decided to put in regulation
01:42:58 decided to put in regulation thirty-eight to ensure that the as-built information is actually sent to the end user of the building and is maintained yeah only what he's doing the risk assessment would bomb to satisfy him or
01:43:11 assessment would bomb to satisfy him or herself that it's still got that information and in your experience was regulation thirty-eight complied with in practice as a generality objects I can't
01:43:22 practice as a generality objects I can't serve any experience of that okay just finally a few questions about the evacuation of residents it was put to you today whether you ever turned your
01:43:33 you today whether you ever turned your mind to the fact that some residents might not be able to self evacuate without assistance and and in your evidence was that you didn't consider that were you aware that there were at
01:43:44 that were you aware that there were at least 22 people with disabilities living in Granville tower above the 10th floor no I wasn't aware of that given you weren't aware of that would
01:43:55 given you weren't aware of that would you expect to have been told that information during the time that you were working on the fire strategies for the project no no not normally we don't normally get that sort of information as I say unless
01:44:06 that sort of information as I say unless there's a specific client profile such as they're all people with disability or impaired sight we would expect there to be a cross-section of society living in
01:44:17 be a cross-section of society living in these build had you been told that information would you have done anything differently from that what you did do know if you
01:44:29 that what you did do know if you wouldn't have expected to have been told whose job do you think it was to make the necessary provision for such residents in terms of their evacuation the building management do you mean the
01:44:45 the building management do you mean the responsible person under this well the responsible person or the management they may well have been the same I think the one in the same person okay mr. chairman those are all of the questions
01:44:56 chairman those are all of the questions that wrote we going to ask very good thank you very much well mr. Ashman that is the end of the questioning I'm sorry we've asked you to come for quite such a long time but it's
01:45:08 come for quite such a long time but it's been very helpful we're very grateful to you for coming to give your evidence and now you're free to go
01:45:14 to go thank you very much thank you very much
01:45:30 thank you Miss Granger today that's it thank you we'll have another witness on Monday right well thank you very much that's all for today we're going to rise now and we shall resume on Monday
01:45:43 now and we shall resume on Monday morning at 10 o'clock than we're going to hear from dr. Tony Pierson dr. Pearson thank you yes thank you very much