Continuation of evidence from Terrence Ashton of Exova, the fire safety consultants for the Grenfell refurbishment. Key issues examined include failure to finalize the existing fire safety strategy, inadequate consideration of over-cladding in early fire safety advice, and awareness of previous fire safety failures in the smoke control system.
00:00:18 yes would you answer thrush to come back please
00:00:30 thank you right mr. eshton ready to carry on yes thank you very much yes yes thank you and thank you mr. Ashton so we were still looking at the fee
00:00:44 so we were still looking at the fee proposal for the refurbishment works and if we can go back to that TMO one triple zero three eight eight five at page three and we've been looking at stage
00:00:59 three and we've been looking at stage rebirth state F and then what I want to ask you now is about why is there no mention of the regulatory reform order
00:01:11 mention of the regulatory reform order 2005 in that stage F section I think it's because of what I said earlier that the regulatory reform or are only really
00:01:22 the regulatory reform or are only really implies to an occupied building and so there's very little that we can taught in a fire-- strategy document other than
00:01:33 in a fire-- strategy document other than the fact that pointing out that there is a need to comply with this and that the fire strategy will contribute in some way to informing people what they need
00:01:47 way to informing people what they need to do but only insofar as maintaining structural means of escape firefighting equipment and that sort of thing yeah because there was mention of it at the
00:01:58 because there was mention of it at the stage D in E stage I think as we saw earlier yeah and do you agree that a fire strategy for this stage ought to identify aspects of the fire strategy which would be required to form part of
00:02:10 which would be required to form part of the ongoing fire safety management in accordance with the responsible persons duties logically it should as the other two parts do but maybe we need to look
00:02:21 two parts do but maybe we need to look at all the proposal template and tinker it with it or modify it to make it more user-friendly because the point is isn't there that there's a link between the
00:02:32 there that there's a link between the building regulations and the RR oh there's a absolutely an approved document b makes that clear at the very beginning yes
00:02:40 can you also explain why there's no mention of the CDM regulations anywhere in this fie proposed or the construction design and management regulations we
00:02:51 design and management regulations we have traditionally taken the view that we're not designers as defined under the CDM regulations that is changing I think in the light of the fact that we
00:03:02 in the light of the fact that we sometimes design smoke extract systems and so possibly we need to look at that undoubtedly if we were still employed at
00:03:13 undoubtedly if we were still employed at this stage of the Riv a series of works then we would be in touch with the CDM regulation so with the the go improve to approve to ensure that the CDM
00:03:26 approve to ensure that the CDM regulations are met so maybe that's something else that we would need to put in our documentation can you expand on why it is that XA was taking the view
00:03:38 why it is that XA was taking the view that they're not designers for example if they're preparing a fire strategy for a building well because when we prepare a thye strategy for a building in most cases we're I'm referring to published
00:03:50 cases we're I'm referring to published documentation a designer would do something unique or original so as a sake if we were given the task of
00:04:01 sake if we were given the task of designing a smoke extract system for a shopping center then we could be deemed to be designers but aren't you taking that guidance those standards and
00:04:14 that guidance those standards and applying them to a project or a building in your fire strategy aren't you kind of interpreting them and explaining how it applies to that particular building
00:04:25 applies to that particular building isn't that exactly what you're doing we're not we're not actually how can I describe this we're not actually reinventing the wheel we're using existing codified guidance to enable us
00:04:38 existing codified guidance to enable us to apply it to a building we're not doing anything original in that I think but you wouldn't say but the clear position you've taken is that's not the definition of a designer no and that's
00:04:49 definition of a designer no and that's why we don't see reference to it correct and are you familiar with regulating 38 of the building regulations 2010 yes I am can you explain briefly what that requires it
00:05:01 explain briefly what that requires it requires the end-user of the building to be provided with all the information that he or she needs in order to to run it so it would be as built documentation
00:05:12 it so it would be as built documentation the final fire strategy that sort of thing yep and it's covered under building regulations because historically the people who take over a
00:05:24 historically the people who take over a building don't often get that information so now it's a requirement of the regulation yeah and I want to ask you two questions about that why do you not explain for example in this fee
00:05:35 not explain for example in this fee proposal that this fire strategy will be part of any compliant regulation 38 information a good question and maybe we
00:05:47 information a good question and maybe we should I mean all that our involvement in compliance with regulations 38 would be to ensure that the project manager hands over the appropriate documentation
00:06:00 hands over the appropriate documentation that we've prepared but that would be the limit of Orrock you know the extent of our involvement in that yes because the other question is whether you accept that the fire strategy should have been clear on what
00:06:12 strategy should have been clear on what the requirements were under regulation 38 and the information which would need to be passed from the person carrying out the works to the responsible person why is that not dealt with in the fee
00:06:25 why is that not dealt with in the fee proposal as I said earlier maybe it should be
00:06:32 now before we come to look at the fees that were proposed if we can go to the top of page 4 within this document and look again at the fire engineering team
00:06:46 and just to be clear under this you were said if we could look at that second paragraph you were said there to be the
00:06:57 paragraph you were said there to be the the leader of the project that the leap would lead the project with assistance from others is that correct correct so is it clear that it was invited from the very outset that you would be the project lead but potentially with some
00:07:09 project lead but potentially with some assistance from others as necessary yes it was just on the rro in CDM before we
00:07:20 it was just on the rro in CDM before we leave those what training had you received on the regulatory form order all the CDM regulations we've had internal presentations from people who
00:07:31 internal presentations from people who are experts in those as far as the CDM makes the same thing we do have a series of internal training which is part of the continuing professional development
00:07:44 the continuing professional development and everybody has to attend that I see so you've been trained on it but it's not something that you would be looking at as part of your fire safety engineering services not necessarily
00:07:56 engineering services not necessarily known so turning now to the fees we can see there the next section of this page four of the proposal deals with the fee proposal and it's proposing a fixed lump
00:08:09 proposal and it's proposing a fixed lump fee for rebus rarbie a stage c and a fixed lump stage for our IBA state as de so we've got three thousand three hundred and five thousand three hundred and then the next sentence says it is
00:08:23 and then the next sentence says it is proposed that charges for work carried out during our IV a stage F will be charged at our standard hourly rates a time basis charge has been proposed during this stage due to the difficulty
00:08:34 during this stage due to the difficulty in determining the extent of work required during this stage if prefer the lump sum fee could be provided if the scope of services was further defined so do you agree that
00:08:45 do you agree that it's saying there that a time basis charge has been proposed because it's hard to determine the extent of work it's not saying a time basis has been
00:08:56 it's not saying a time basis has been proposed because we don't know whether we're being engaged in stage F at all no no no no I mean nobody very few clients would actually sign up to an open-ended agreement where I paid us on an hourly
00:09:09 agreement where I paid us on an hourly rate but where we don't actually know what they want that's the best way of dealing with it by saying we'll do it at an hourly rate unless you can be more precise as to what it is you're actually
00:09:20 precise as to what it is you're actually looking for at this stage of the Riv a yes work process now when you were reviewing and preparing this fee proposal did you think that those fees
00:09:32 proposal did you think that those fees let's look for the moment at the lump sum fees did you think that those fees were adequate to deliver the work that had been outlined in the proposal I believe they were yes now we've seen
00:09:45 believe they were yes now we've seen from a spreadsheet disclosed by x over that you were being charged out at a rate of 118 pounds per hour as an associate is that correct yes for the
00:09:56 associate is that correct yes for the transcript the reference is exo for zeroes 1 3 5 3 we don't need to turn that up and then a senior consultant was being charged out at 103 pounds per hour
00:10:09 being charged out at 103 pounds per hour is that correct so that would be the team correct at that time yes that's the tier below you so based on those rates that would mean for stage C 28 hours of
00:10:20 that would mean for stage C 28 hours of your time at 118 pounds per hour if you did all the hours yes and for state D and a 45 hours of your time yeah now again I want to ask you do you think
00:10:32 again I want to ask you do you think that that did allow sufficient time to create a stage C and a stage D stroke e-report
00:10:38 e-report yes I think it was do you agree that these would be two significant reports it's very significant for this building yes
00:10:49 yes and you've also said in their proposal that the work would include a fixed number of meetings so you said three at stage C that's two with the design team one with the statutory authorities and
00:11:01 one with the statutory authorities and six that stage is D and E so that's nine meetings in total if you take it make allowance for that and you allow just take half a day per meeting yeah then
00:11:13 take half a day per meeting yeah then that would take up 4.5 days at the time approximately 40% of the time allowance in fees at attending meetings now taking that point into account as well so
00:11:25 that point into account as well so you've got some time comes off because of meetings do you still think that this fee was adequate to carry out the work that had been outlined in the proposal yes I believe it was so you don't think
00:11:37 yes I believe it was so you don't think that it was too low for the work involved in the preparation of a detailed fire strategy which would be used as the basis to gain statutory approval no I don't think it was too low
00:11:49 approval no I don't think it was too low I mean meetings do tend to take up quite a lot of the fee because time consuming and you didn't think was too low is that based on your experience it takes over
00:12:01 based on your experience it takes over and other projects it's based on my experience I bear in mind that I'm not sure that was true with this case but we do operate it in a competitive world and
00:12:14 do operate it in a competitive world and sometimes we lost jobs because our fees were too expensive where are you trying to keep fees low on this proposal we try and keep the fees low on all jobs where
00:12:25 and keep the fees low on all jobs where we know we're competitive I can't say that was true of this particular project because I wasn't aware that we were in competition with anybody else for it because in fairness to you I want to put it to you that these were too low for
00:12:38 it to you that these were too low for the work that was imposed well you didn't actually use up all the fees I don't believe but I'd need to look at the actual breakdown to see whether or
00:12:49 the actual breakdown to see whether or not we were going to lose money on it yeah we have lost money on projects where we've underbid them you know it's the way of the world we will look
00:13:00 it's the way of the world we will look at how much was billed and I think that the position is that all everything was built at stage C but it was not everything was built at stages de so we'll look at the ends my recollection
00:13:11 we'll look at the ends my recollection yeah before we leave this B proposal can we also look at one of the assumptions included under the fee proposal section if we look at the second to last paragraph under that section I think we
00:13:23 paragraph under that section I think we need to go down the page so it says here we have a scene that our work would only be carried out once and would be based on an agreed set of building layouts any
00:13:34 on an agreed set of building layouts any subsequent changes revisions to the building layouts that require additional time from ourselves would be treated as additional work and therefore charged accordingly any further work identified
00:13:45 accordingly any further work identified outside the above-mentioned scope would be considered additional work and would be subject to an additional fee proposal do you see that I do indeed and I want to ask you about that assumption at the
00:13:56 to ask you about that assumption at the beginning there that it would be based on an agreed set of building layouts I think that again this is standard wording and when we were looking at the
00:14:07 wording and when we were looking at the various permutations of floor layouts for the lower floors of Grenville we did do look at several different layouts so that was actually didn't comply with
00:14:20 that was actually didn't comply with that I think this is more intended to apply to where someone has a fairly firm idea of what they're going to do but if they decide they want to change it
00:14:32 they decide they want to change it completely and that does happen in practice then we would reserve the right to ask for more money to put it crudely yeah I mean I think you partly answered my question but I was building up to say
00:14:43 my question but I was building up to say was that really realistic given that the layouts can change regularly during the design development phase was it really realistic to think that the work would be only carried out once on an agreed
00:14:54 be only carried out once on an agreed set of building layouts well the changes that were made were fairly modest moving around petitions in one or two floors of the building when
00:15:07 one or two floors of the building when we put this in our few proposals we're not envisaging minor changes to the layout we're talking about a major design change okay but as you've said it came to pass in the end that we were
00:15:19 came to pass in the end that we were looking at four iterations of the same floor plans yes and just stepping back from it do you agree that there's nothing in this fee proposal which
00:15:30 nothing in this fee proposal which limits the scope of its Ava's work and services to the remodeling of the lower four floors of the tower sorry yes quite understanding that do you agree there's nothing in this fee
00:15:42 do you agree there's nothing in this fee proposal which limits the scope of work to the remodeling of the lower four floors no no it doesn't and do you agree
00:15:53 floors no no it doesn't and do you agree that the clear intent of the fee proposal was that it would cover the whole of the ground floor tower refurbishment project as outlined in mr. stanzas email of the third of May which we looked at earlier yes so and then
00:16:06 we looked at earlier yes so and then finally before we leave this fee proposal as we discussed briefly before this fee proposal was reviewed by mr. Shawn McElhaney yeah we see that on page
00:16:17 Shawn McElhaney yeah we see that on page five at the bottom of the page if we can turn that and so we've got this box reviewed graduate engineer on the 9th of May so we know he's junior to you what
00:16:31 May so we know he's junior to you what was the purpose of the review which he did of this fee proposal it was just to make sure that everything that was in there made sense it's less critical when you're doing a fee proposal for it to be
00:16:43 you're doing a fee proposal for it to be peer reviewed all you're really looking at is do the sums add up I think yes have you a certain amount of time to
00:16:55 have you a certain amount of time to this are the charges that you're proposing commensurate with those I see so he's not doing a real in-depth examination of whether the scope fits we're not just doing a technical I'm
00:17:08 we're not just doing a technical I'm sorry I check really yeah it's not like a technical review of I find a strategy that's a slightly different yeah let's go and look at his witness statement and what he said that's an EXO four zeroes one seven six
00:17:22 that's an EXO four zeroes one seven six six page two paragraphs three point two and three point three so he says on the 9th of May 2012 my colleague Terry Ashton sent me an email asking me to
00:17:33 Ashton sent me an email asking me to review a draft fee proposal for works relating to the ground floor Tower refurbishment project the draft fee proposal is largely based on a standard template I have no recollection of receiving this email or reviewing the
00:17:45 receiving this email or reviewing the draft fee proposal and then he says the process of reviewing a document of this nature would generally involve checking the document for any clear errors with a focus on the part of the document that had been specifically drafted for this
00:17:56 had been specifically drafted for this project that is the scope of works and fee estimate I do not recall whether I suggested any changes to the draft fee proposal so I think it follows from your previous answer that you would agree with him as to the description of the
00:18:09 with him as to the description of the review process he's carried out that's correct yes can you recall whether he suggested any changes to the fee proposal or had any other comments I don't believe he did I
00:18:20 other comments I don't believe he did I mean how often would reviewers have comments on fee proposals very rarely occasionally some of you might say for example have you allowed enough money
00:18:31 example have you allowed enough money for this yeah in broad terms it's interesting to see that he says I have no recollection receiving this email or reviewing the draft a proposal and yet in three point four he said I confirmed
00:18:44 in three point four he said I confirmed the authorization of my use of my electronic signature yes I suppose he may be referring to the fact there's an email recording that but he doesn't have a recollection of it yeah let's look now
00:18:57 a recollection of it yeah let's look now just briefly at the fee proposal for the existing fire safety strategy if we can turn that up that's TMO one triple zero three eight eight four this is dated the
00:19:11 three eight eight four this is dated the 11th of June 2012 now it's it it's right isn't it that this exercise of preparing a fire strategy for the existing
00:19:22 a fire strategy for the existing building was because there was no fire strategy in existence for the built is that right that we know of yes now at page three if we go on to page three of this it's indicated that this was
00:19:34 this it's indicated that this was reviewed by you if you look at the text at the bottom yes it's also by James Lee and you've reviewed it on the 11th of June do you agree that it was reviewed
00:19:45 June do you agree that it was reviewed by you on the 11th of June 2012 it would have been done there or there abouts depending on availability do you have any recollection of doing that reviewing the reviewing a few professional yes I
00:19:57 the reviewing a few professional yes I remember doing it when I said it's there or there abouts occasionally we might say a few days before and it isn't until we confirm that you know you can use the
00:20:08 we confirm that you know you can use the electronic signatures that it actually gets dated and signed so it's done in draft form yep it's then agreed and then it's sent for formatting I see can we just look at what you say at paragraph
00:20:20 just look at what you say at paragraph three point two four of your witness statement that's EXO four zeros 161 at page seven now you say there I am aware
00:20:33 page seven now you say there I am aware that a separate fee proposal was provided in relation to a five strategy report on the existing condition of the building I was not involved in this work and I do not personally recall how it
00:20:44 and I do not personally recall how it came about so I will not comment on it do you see that yes now when you say I was not involved in this work what do you mean by that I wasn't involved in doing the work or
00:20:55 I wasn't involved in doing the work or reviewing the work that was done signing a reviewing a fee proposal isn't the same as participating in the in the project I see I know it was dealt with
00:21:08 project I see I know it was dealt with blinding our colleagues in Warrington I'm not quite sure how it came about this is what I said in my state well we're gonna come back in a moment and look at this and and what happened about the existing fire strategy before we do
00:21:23 the existing fire strategy before we do at this point can I just go to paragraph 3.14 of mr. Lee's witness statement that's EXO four zeros one seven four zero at page four
00:21:37 and at paragraph so 3.14 he's dealing with the fee proposal the existing strategy fee proposal and he says the fee proposal of the 12th of June 2012
00:21:49 fee proposal of the 12th of June 2012 again indicates that was reviewed by mr. Ashton
00:21:51 Ashton I expect that mr. Ashton's review would have been focused on ensuring that the proposed scope of works and fee schedule were both accurate and reasonable now given we've seen your name and you did
00:22:04 given we've seen your name and you did review it and you've confirmed you reviewed it is that does that accurately reflect the scope of that or the purpose of the review to check whether it was accurate and reasonable that would be normal for any review of a proposal
00:22:17 normal for any review of a proposal because mr. Lee's describing it here is whether it's accurate and reasonable and mr. Mecca Lanie's described it as whether there's clear errors and do you
00:22:29 whether there's clear errors and do you see those two things is the same or are they describing it no I think they're saying the same thing honest now we'll come back to X Ava's quality control
00:22:41 come back to X Ava's quality control processes later but can you explain why on one reading they are different accounts as to the type of review that would be done one is saying accurate and reasonable and one saying clear errors
00:22:56 the subtle difference between the two is reasonable implies have you is a sum of money you're quoting appropriate for what you're doing yes and when you would
00:23:10 what you're doing yes and when you would review a proposal would you be so with the existing fire strategy proposal that you reviewed would you have been asking yourself is this sum of money reasonable I would indeed I see
00:23:25 and in terms of the approval process within X over four feet proposals like this can you describe what would happen is it that the main person puts it
00:23:36 is it that the main person puts it together and then it's reviewed once and then it goes out to the client is that the process the standard procedure when it works as it should is that somebody will produce a fee proposal and she is
00:23:48 will produce a fee proposal and she is reviewed by the office manager now that arrangement frequently falls down because of lack of resources people are out of the office or people are working
00:24:01 out of the office or people are working too busy to review it so there is a tendency and it's not in a huge number of cases but we need to get this fee
00:24:12 of cases but we need to get this fee proposal out can you can somebody review it for me please but in an ideal world fee proposals as well as reports would be peer reviewed checks I mean you've
00:24:27 be peer reviewed checks I mean you've said you would have asked yourself whether it was a reasonable quote for the existing fire strategy can you explain the process by which you would go about getting to that position what
00:24:39 go about getting to that position what checks would you do well whether whether the amount of work specified in the fee proposal the charges for those were reasonable in the circumstances was it a
00:24:50 reasonable in the circumstances was it a kind of gut reaction to the fee pretty much yeah
00:25:00 we we know that the fee proposal for the existing strategy quoted a sum of two thousand eight hundred and sixty-five pounds plus VAT for the existing fast safety strategy I want to put to you
00:25:13 safety strategy I want to put to you that that was a very low fee for the amount of work that was involved in the existing fire strategy report as I understood it it was just a review of the existing fire safety arrangements
00:25:25 the existing fire safety arrangements that prevailed in the tower and reporting on that know that you could either go and visit the tower and do a full survey look at every every area of the building apart from within the
00:25:37 the building apart from within the individual flats and then your very comprehensive report it might also include a sort of defect survey to do
00:25:48 include a sort of defect survey to do that you will be talking about a substantial sum of money as I understood this this was just a review of what the existing fire safety Arrangements in
00:25:59 existing fire safety Arrangements in that building were not an appraisal Atum just a record of what was there I think so just to be clear and just check one more time you you still think that that
00:26:10 more time you you still think that that was a fair fee do you for the existing fire safety strategy the 2865 based on based on just reviewing what was there a yes rather than a detailed
00:26:22 was there a yes rather than a detailed examination let's come on to discuss that existing fire safety strategy and as we know Cooney produced a draft
00:26:35 as we know Cooney produced a draft existing fire safety strategy dated the 16th of August 2012 and she would appear to send this so Miss Barca sends this to you on the 3rd of September 2012 can we
00:26:47 you on the 3rd of September 2012 can we just look at that so that's EXO 5 zeroes 4 1 3
00:27:03 so this is a short email from Claire Barker to you on the 3rd of September 2012 and it's just here it is cheers Claire do you see that yes indeed and
00:27:15 Claire do you see that yes indeed and attached to it is Miss Cooney's draft Graham thought our existing fire safety strategy it would appear and I think miss Barker confirmed this yesterday that you'd asked her for a copy of this
00:27:28 that you'd asked her for a copy of this is that correct just for information yes I mean that I already understood that there were some key recommendations in that draft report which we would need to take forward yeah
00:27:40 which we would need to take forward yeah those were look at the adequacy of the smoke ventilation of the central lobby look at the separation between the
00:27:51 look at the separation between the non-residential use and the residential use and look critically if you like that wasn't the words used those weren't the words used look whether or not it was
00:28:02 words used look whether or not it was desirable to have service risers in the central core those are the three things that Claire sorry that some kate highlighted in her draft report yeah do
00:28:13 highlighted in her draft report yeah do you know why that you were only being sent this on the 3rd of September 2012 and not the 16th of August 2012 when it was actually prepared do you know why no
00:28:24 was actually prepared do you know why no no I don't I mean I I think I may have assumed that they were they were dealing with this in its entirety you know they were only giving me some information which would help me to go forward with
00:28:37 which would help me to go forward with the refurbishment works did you all the things that they recommended in that ping to the yes quite did you read it
00:28:50 ping to the yes quite did you read it when it was sent to you I read it very briefly yes I went through I wouldn't say I spent hours on it because it had already been reviewed already been reviewed by here by Claire did you note
00:29:04 reviewed by here by Claire did you note that it was a draft it said it was a tort
00:29:08 tort did you note the number of assumptions and unknowns that were there throughout the report I don't know I didn't I mean if you look at the the heading on this
00:29:21 if you look at the the heading on this email that you've got in front of us now it says existing fire safety strategy using existing drawings yeah that's all it was
00:29:31 it was yeah it wasn't a more comprehensive review of the building safety but it had followed a site visit by mr. Lee headington apparently yes
00:29:42 headington apparently yes when you say apparently well I wasn't aware that he'd visited the site as I say I assumed that this exercise was a completely separate one from the one that I was undertaking I think when you
00:29:54 that I was undertaking I think when you say I wasn't aware he visited the site were you not aware at any stage of your involvement in the ground floor project that he'd visited the site I think I learned about it later yep what was the
00:30:07 learned about it later yep what was the usual process carried out within X over so far as you understood it when a draft strategy had been sent to a client it would normally go for as a clutter as a
00:30:19 would normally go for as a clutter as a draft for coming and then once comments had been received it would have been updated and then issued as a formal issue and would you expect to discuss
00:30:30 issue and would you expect to discuss the strategy with the client oh we think so yes that's only by email and would you expect a final version of that strategy to have been produced yes
00:30:41 that strategy to have been produced yes I think I would have done and would you ever expected it to have been discussed with Studio E I think if unless I'm wrong I thought it was Studio either asked for this to be done yes can I turn
00:30:58 asked for this to be done yes can I turn at this point to an email sent to you by mr. students on the 30th of August 2012 if we go to that that's se a six zeroes for 8
00:31:11 so this is from Bruce tooms to you 30th of August 2012 copying and Claire Barker and mr. Duncan teri we have a meeting planned for the afternoon of the six
00:31:23 planned for the afternoon of the six which is the date Kate returns bounce back below she did offer to have someone come back with a markup of the plans forward at 16th of August but we still haven't received one yet these have been
00:31:35 haven't received one yet these have been developed as part of the preparations for the planning submission will it be possible to have something prepared before the meeting and perhaps for someone to attend and then he says we need to go through the fire strategy
00:31:46 need to go through the fire strategy existing draft received 16th of August which has numerous recommendations some of which may be unrealistic for an interim strategy it is probably also a
00:31:57 interim strategy it is probably also a good time to make contact with the local fire officer to discuss the project please could you come back to me do you see that I do indeed now following that email did you go through the draft
00:32:09 email did you go through the draft existing fire strategy with mr. soon's no not Klaus by Klaus I mean I think we focused on the on the issues that we had
00:32:21 focused on the on the issues that we had recommended the three that I just mentioned I see because they impacted on the building as a whole rather than the refurbished floors do you know what he's
00:32:32 refurbished floors do you know what he's referring to in that email where he says there were recommendations which were unrealistic for an interim strategy no I didn't really understand that now I didn't understand it then I didn't know
00:32:44 didn't understand it then I didn't know what he means by an interim strategy could he have meant the fire strategy for the existing building Ivan I think he might have meant the strategy for the refurbish floors
00:32:55 refurbish floors I didn't clear he I don't remember querying that particular phraseology with him I mean it by this point he didn't have any kind of fire strategy for the refurbishment did he no I don't
00:33:06 for the refurbishment did he no I don't believe he did but I you know I can't say because I wasn't involved in that process I can't say where it was to you
00:33:17 process I can't say where it was to you and all it was the draft existing fire strategy ever approved by Studio A or the TMO
00:33:22 the TMO I've no idea can we also look at EXO for zeros one six zero seven
00:33:40 so what we can see is that following that email of the 30th of August which we just looked at from mr. Singh's to you on Monday the 3rd of September 2012
00:33:54 you on Monday the 3rd of September 2012 you send an email to Claire Barker Claire can you please ring me regarding this thanks teri do you see that yesterday and it appears to be in response to the email you've received
00:34:06 response to the email you've received from mr. students which you've set out below yes yeah did you speak to Claire Barker after you send that email yes I'm sure I did can
00:34:17 send that email yes I'm sure I did can you recall what you discussed well I think it was and what what what was can in that report that needed to would have an impact on what we were doing with the
00:34:28 an impact on what we were doing with the refurbishment but I can't you know some time ago I can't remember precisely what we discussed but I did talk to her did you understand that the existing fire
00:34:41 you understand that the existing fire strategy was now your responsibility no I didn't but I think that if you look at the way it was written it was a record a record rather of what was there but with
00:34:54 record rather of what was there but with three recommendations which needed to be followed up whose responsibility did you think it was given if it was not your responsibility given it was a draft document the author's so you your
00:35:09 document the author's so you your understanding was that miss Barker and mr. Cooney would work with Studio E the TMAO etc that what we described I would have to finalize that strategy yes I would have expected that to be fun
00:35:21 would have expected that to be fun wasn't in a position to finalize it myself because I didn't do the survey of the drawings did you understand that there was a need for detailed interrogation of that existing fire
00:35:33 interrogation of that existing fire strategy because it had so many assumptions and unknowns in it the assumptions and unknowns were relating to the areas of the building that it didn't cover like the commercial
00:35:45 didn't cover like the commercial elements know I knew that the commercial elements were going to try as I said as I saw this document it was intended to report back to the design
00:35:58 intended to report back to the design team on what the existing conditions are in broad terms how many stairs are there are there any defects in it or potential
00:36:10 are there any defects in it or potential defects in that which would have a lesson for us going forward did you understand that miss Barker Hannity miss Keaney would have no further involvement no I said that I didn't so you thought
00:36:23 no I said that I didn't so you thought they would be I thought they would finish the job yes so did you understand that she was handing the project back to you
00:36:32 you she didn't explicitly tell me that and that wasn't your understanding no but as I said earlier the key things were that
00:36:44 I said earlier the key things were that we take on board or consider the the things that she felt or they jointly felt were things that needed to be improved in the building or considered in in drawing up the strategy for the
00:36:57 in in drawing up the strategy for the refurbishment yep can we look at the notes of a project team meeting if we can go to a Artie five zeroes 404
00:37:13 these are notes from a project meeting held on Thursday the 6th of September 2012 and we can see in the present list
00:37:24 2012 and we can see in the present list that for up from the bottom you are said to have been present at that meeting is that correct correct yes and did you receive the notes of this meeting afterwards yes if we look at
00:37:38 meeting afterwards yes if we look at page 2 of these meeting minutes under the heading fire we can see two paragraphs it says xover need to understand the existing situation and whether lfb do test the system twice a
00:37:50 whether lfb 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 it's not possible but Building Control to insist
00:38:01 possible but Building Control to insist on enhancements to see that yes indeed and that's referring to the smoke control system isn't it it is yes and then it says this draft fire strategy needs detail interrogation and a meeting
00:38:15 needs detail interrogation and a meeting was arranged with Studio E early next week to review and then the actions have studio enx over yeah mark they're right
00:38:29 now when you were at that meeting was it in visits that you would be involved in the detailed interrogation of the draft fire strategy no I think I was I would
00:38:41 fire strategy no I think I was I would have been involved in the specific issues that needed to be looked at not the the wording of the draft report
00:38:53 there in the in the the paragraph before where we looked at the smoke control system there's reference to the existing situation testing the system twice a year and what xover needed to do to
00:39:04 year and what xover needed to do to understand the existing condition do you know what xover did to further establish the statutory position about the existing design of that system I think
00:39:16 existing design of that system I think we all knew I remember the design team knew that what was there was wasn't code compliant when it was built and what
00:39:27 compliant when it was built and what needed to happen to it in order to make the building safer okay I mean the natural system which wouldn't
00:39:38 natural system which wouldn't necessarily be very efficient and I think identified in the draft report on the existing conditions but from day one we knew that we had to do something
00:39:49 we knew that we had to do something about the smoke extract system because that was something that the fire brigade specifically were concerned about yep can we look at this point at a paragraph
00:40:00 can we look at this point at a paragraph in mr. Singh's is witness statement if we bring up se a three zeroes one four two seven three at page 61 this is paragraph one hundred and twenty
00:40:11 this is paragraph one hundred and twenty eight point four of his witness statement and we just need to read the first five lines he says on the 10th of September 2012 I met Terry Ashton at our offices I do not recall what was
00:40:23 offices I do not recall what was discussed
00:40:24 discussed although note that the minutes for the design team meeting those are the ones we just looked at on the sixth of September state draft for our strategy needs detail interrogation and a meeting was arranged with Studio E early next
00:40:36 was arranged with Studio E early next week to review do you see that yes I do yeah
00:40:39 yeah and in the second line of that email mr. Singh's is referred to an email chain that's the reference in curly brackets if we can bring up that email chain it's
00:40:52 if we can bring up that email chain it's se a six zeros 58 now if we can start from the bottom email on page two of
00:41:05 from the bottom email on page two of this chain this is mr. soon's to miss Cluny on the 28th of august
00:41:14 mr. Steen says our planning application has just been submitted and we will be working on the visuals for a week or two still however I'm very conscious that the fire strategy for the proposed design is somewhat embryonic please
00:41:28 design is somewhat embryonic please could you come back to me regarding progress and when we can expect a markup of the plans do you see that I do yes and then if we go up the bottom of page one with Cooney in emails back on the
00:41:40 one with Cooney in emails back on the 10th of September saying she's been away hi Bruce apologies for the delay in getting back to your only return from leave on Friday I will send sue some
00:41:51 leave on Friday I will send sue some preliminary markups this afternoon to give you an idea of possibilities with current layout and what may be required for approval do you see that I do yes and then mr. Singh's emails if we go to
00:42:05 and then mr. Singh's emails if we go to the top of that page on the 10th of September at 10:24 he says Teri's coming into our office at 3:00 p.m. today no need to duplicate any work so it would
00:42:20 need to duplicate any work so it would appear that you do meet mr. soon's on the 10th of September 2012 yes I think that yes I'm sure that's correct yeah I think that what Kate made some
00:42:32 think that what Kate made some recommendations to Bruce about how the means of escape could be improved yeah whether or not she was asked to do that
00:42:44 whether or not she was asked to do that I don't know but she did and then he he and I sat down with the designed to and discussed how things could progress so I mean for Kate to
00:42:57 could progress so I mean for Kate to come all the way down from Warrington to discuss the meeting with him it was obviously a good idea for him to tell her not to do anymore can you recall thinking back to that meeting
00:43:08 thinking back to that meeting can you recall what you spent your time discussing at that meeting fundamentally it was the layout of the for the bottom four floors and was that in the context of work on the refurbishment rather than
00:43:21 of work on the refurbishment rather than the existing yeah I've never had any discussions with Bruce about the existing conditions we knew that as a result of improving the smoke extract
00:43:33 result of improving the smoke extract that would benefit everybody in the building but the rest of the focus was on the floors that were being altered I see so you're quite clear that at that meeting on the 10th of September you
00:43:46 meeting on the 10th of September you didn't look in detail at the draft existing fire safety strategy no I think we were conscious that there were these three issues that she had identified but
00:43:58 three issues that she had identified but you didn't see that meeting as part of a process of getting the draft to a final stage no not at all and that's because you didn't see that as your responsibility correct
00:44:11 as your responsibility correct did you ever check with Miss barkow miss Cooney that the work on the draft existing fire strategy had been completed and finalized no I think if it
00:44:23 completed and finalized no I think if it had been I would have do you know where of it because they would have copied me in there's a misunderstanding here it would seem that they assumed that I was going to take over ownership of the
00:44:35 going to take over ownership of the existing strategy and I was thinking that they were and retaining yeah he didn't happen and as a result it never
00:44:46 didn't happen and as a result it never got finalized no didn't get finalized but in terms of its significance the key things that came out of there so they were addressed did you not see
00:44:57 were addressed did you not see finalizing that report and getting it into a final state as it really important in terms of your work on the refer
00:45:04 refer fire strategy so you knew what the baseline was in the thing I think we knew what the baseline was it was a high-rise block of flats with a repetitive floorplan at every level above that the four floors that we were
00:45:17 above that the four floors that we were considering I'm not quite sure what benefit they would have been in in finalizing that report I don't think that it would have gone into much more detail than it actually did what he did
00:45:29 detail than it actually did what he did do is highlight the areas that needed to be considered we considered those as part of the refurbishment what were you basing that on when you say it was a high-rise blow up with a repetitive floor plan etc except what were you
00:45:43 floor plan etc except what were you basing that on I'd seen on it I'd seen existing plans you know I mean when they sent me drawings to look at the proposed changes they included a typical residential floor above that level just there's a bit of background information
00:45:55 there's a bit of background information but that's what high-rise blocks of flats are like they are repetitive on a floor-by-floor basis so I think you've said that at that meeting on the 10th of
00:46:07 said that at that meeting on the 10th of September your recollection was it was more about the refurbishment fire strategy than about the existing yes and I want to ask you some questions about that in his oral evidence the inquiry
00:46:19 that in his oral evidence the inquiry mr. soon's stated that he remembered having the elevations on the table showing the proposed cladding and that he was almost sure we discussed it those
00:46:30 he was almost sure we discussed it those were the words he used almost sure we discussed it do you recall there being elevation drawings on the table at that meeting no I don't recall seeing any elevations of the building at that
00:46:42 elevations of the building at that meeting and they certainly weren't discussed in any way shape or form do you recall discussing the proposed caddying at that meeting on the 10th of September we didn't have a discussion on
00:46:54 September we didn't have a discussion on cladding at that meeting
00:47:00 did you think too that it might be important to raise it was it in your mind that perhaps you ought to discuss it he wasn't in my mind to raise it no as I say the focus is on getting the means of escape from the the flaws that
00:47:13 means of escape from the the flaws that were being altered right
00:47:17 can we turn now to another chain of emails this is EXO five zeros - - oh
00:47:27 this is a chain of emails into which you're copied spanning between the 10th and the 11th of September 2012 and I want to start with the email at the very bottom of the chain on page 2
00:47:39 bottom of the chain on page 2 this is 1703 yeah and this is an email from mr. Sue's - mr. Duncan copying you
00:47:50 from mr. Sue's - mr. Duncan copying you in we see that on the CC list yes and it states hi Paul you forwarded as a specification for the upgrade to the alarm and smoke extract in July it was
00:48:01 alarm and smoke extract in July it was prepared by a calm and dated the October 11th 2011
00:48:06 11th 2011 presumably this was the result of feedback from the London Fire Brigade our fire consultant xover would like to know if there was anything received in writing outlining their concerns with the current system if not how was the
00:48:19 the current system if not how was the specification arrived at I think it was Ricky Sam's who originally raised this back in May so I've included him on the email many thanks Bruce seems do you see that I do indeed and then if we go up
00:48:30 that I do indeed and then if we go up the chain we can see that this email is forwarded to Janice Ray of the TMO at the top of page two and it says Bruce by
00:48:42 the top of page two and it says Bruce by way of update I passed your request for information on to Janice it says wary but I think should say ray and Adrian Bowman Janice please read the email below and then her reply miss Ray's
00:48:56 below and then her reply miss Ray's replying if we go up the top of the next Paige yeah so in the middle of that page we see Janice Rey's reply on the 11th of
00:49:07 we see Janice Rey's reply on the 11th of September at 10:54 and she says hi Paul as per conversation just now I've attached an email I sent to the LF bees fire safety officer following a fire in
00:49:19 fire safety officer following a fire in the common parts of Granville tower in April 2010 unfortunately as I've outlined the vents did not operate as required during this fire which led to pressure on us from the lfb subsequent
00:49:31 pressure on us from the lfb subsequent to this correspondence Keith v field are then Building Services Manager and I met with the lfb at Graham for tower however as commonly happens none of this was put in writing by the lfb I believe
00:49:43 was put in writing by the lfb I believe that this and further investigation undertaken by our GC our planned maintenance contractor led to Keith and his team concluding that this system needed to be replaced refurbished I'm
00:49:54 needed to be replaced refurbished I'm afraid I was not involved in the detail of progressing this or drafting the specification do you see that I do indeed yeah and then we can see at the top of that page that that email from Janice ray is forwarded to you on the
00:50:07 Janice ray is forwarded to you on the 11th of September 2012 please found a response from our health and safety officer below and attached email now in the light of all of that I want to ask you did you think to update
00:50:22 want to ask you did you think to update the existing fire safety strategy following receipt of this information from miss ray of the TMO no because I think as I said earlier the one of the
00:50:35 think as I said earlier the one of the key recommendations that was made in our report was that the existing smoke extreme facilities were not adequate and
00:50:48 extreme facilities were not adequate and should be investigated and we always understood that we were going to put a mechanical system in that building to rectify that problem I must say I don't remember the fire but that's how it came
00:51:01 remember the fire but that's how it came to light but though it was always an intention from day one to replace the smoke extract system so because it was the intention to replace it you didn't think it was important to update the
00:51:12 think it was important to update the existing fire safety strap to G to make clear for example that the vents hadn't opened during a previous fire no I mean I don't certainly don't
00:51:23 fire no I mean I don't certainly don't believe that Kate or Clare would have been aware of this email chain wasn't that relevant information that ought to have gone into the existing fire sale well only if only if we were not making
00:51:36 well only if only if we were not making any criticisms of the smoke extracting strategy to what level that the detail you should need to go to in that report I mean they've said the smoke extract
00:51:47 I mean they've said the smoke extract system is inadequate something needs to be done about it or words to that effect and I think that's enough this just provides a little bit of history wasn't
00:51:58 provides a little bit of history wasn't it relevant information that ought to have been included for the TMO sake in their existing fire strategy that there'd been a previous fire and the vents had not operated as required
00:52:11 possibly did he think to ask miss Keaney or miss Barker to go back over the existing fire safety strategy and update
00:52:22 existing fire safety strategy and update it with this important information no I didn't think to because as I've said there was an intention to replace the fire that was the smoking strong system
00:52:36 mr. Toman that might be a good moment for this afternoon's break yes all right about to move to a different topic which is a bigger topic thank you for ten minutes to be long enough that's fine
00:52:48 minutes to be long enough that's fine for me if it's fine Ashtyn back to the witness from The Wizard well let's say ten past three ten possibly give you a little bit more time to do the journey
00:52:59 little bit more time to do the journey they're back I think all right and please don't talk to anyone
00:53:06 thank you
00:53:20 are we doing on progress yes we're making good progress there's a lot to cover with this no no no I am likely to cover the next two days with him no I just wanted to be alerted if you were
00:53:33 just wanted to be alerted if you were going too slowly and then we could consider the length of our breaks but I think we're okay if the witnesses are happy to carry on at this pace it's fine okay ten past three
01:09:54 yes would you ask mr. rush to come in geez
01:10:08 right mr. eshton thank you yes good thank you very much this is great yes thank you yeah I've just got a couple of questions arising from that last topic can we go back to the string of emails we were looking at on the smoke control
01:10:20 we were looking at on the smoke control system this is it EXO five zeros two to zero and if we go to page two about the email that we started off looking at we see there in
01:10:35 started off looking at we see there in the second paragraph of that email on the 10th of September at 1703 you just zoom in on that we can see that this request has come from xover it says in
01:10:48 request has come from xover it says in that second paragraph our fire consultant x over would like to know if there was anything received in writing outlining their concern so that's the LF B's concerns with the current system so
01:11:01 B's concerns with the current system so do you know whether that was you that had generated that request was it you that wanted to know yes I would have liked to see what the fire brigade thought about it in writing yeah I think
01:11:14 thought about it in writing yeah I think it says in later email they don't normally write yes but so it's you that wants to know and that would be in part because the existing fire safety
01:11:25 because the existing fire safety strategy wouldn't have told you that detail would it it didn't tell you that deep the existing fire safety strategy said from memory that there were natural
01:11:36 said from memory that there were natural ducts provided a smoke exchange and and stipulated a size that they measured from microfiche drawings yeah may or may not have been accurate
01:11:47 not have been accurate yeah which therefore needed to be checked but just looking at there it was obvious to me that that system would not work properly yeah and it wouldn't tell
01:11:58 work properly yeah and it wouldn't tell you it didn't tell you about the LF B's concerns with the current system no but I mean I think any fire offers who had gone into the building not because of a fire incident but just to inspect it and
01:12:11 fire incident but just to inspect it and they do that occasionally what is it what is this yep given that this is um helping we the existing fast Rattata to to inform the TMS management plan for the building
01:12:24 the TMS management plan for the building and although the smoke vent system is going to be upgraded as part of the refurbishment there are residents living in that tower at the time wasn't it
01:12:35 in that tower at the time wasn't it important to make sure that the existing fire safety strategy outlined that the system hadn't worked properly in a previous fire it was that serious I don't think that Kate knew that when
01:12:48 I don't think that Kate knew that when she produced the report later on I don't remember
01:12:53 remember considering the fire incident no I'm not suggesting mr. Cooney did know that I'm suggesting that you then became aware of that information why didn't you think
01:13:04 that information why didn't you think well we've we need to put that in the existing fire strategy because the responsible person needs to be aware that we have a building that relies on a single staircase high degree of
01:13:15 single staircase high degree of compartment ation smoke vent system is important and it's not working we we I'm
01:13:27 important and it's not working we we I'm not sure that we could have got anything done immediately to resolve that situation in terms of its effect on the building there was still I stay put
01:13:40 building there was still I stay put strategy in the building in other words nobody who's in a flat that wasn't on fire needed to leave the building yes but didn't that stay put strategy in
01:13:51 but didn't that stay put strategy in part depend on their being proper smoke control in the lobby of origin in theory it does because the the smoke extract system is supposed to keep the stair for
01:14:02 system is supposed to keep the stair for your smoke not the lobby there isn't a system or there wasn't a system around at that time that was capable of providing tenable conditions for escape
01:14:13 providing tenable conditions for escape in the horizontal mode but I mean when you said it wasn't much could have been done well no you couldn't actually go in there the next day and replace it with it with
01:14:24 it with with a mechanical system could you not have proposed some mitigation in in the years before the refurbishment was finished to deal with the fire safety situation as at that time I'm not sure
01:14:36 situation as at that time I'm not sure what system could have gone for a period of a year that would have made it any better but didn't that then in call into question the stay-put strategy no it
01:14:47 question the stay-put strategy no it reinforced the need for the stay-put strategy in my view because they wasn't safe for them to leave their flats unless it was that the flat that was on fire and that's what I'm the pins escaped from lots of flats anyway but if
01:15:00 escaped from lots of flats anyway but if you're not in the flat that's on fire you're safe to stay where you are now we all know what happened but that was the philosophy at that time okay
01:15:11 was the philosophy at that time okay let's move to a different topic then and I'm now gonna turn to you look at the design note which you prepared on the 12th of September 2012 can we go to that
01:15:24 12th of September 2012 can we go to that and bring that to up that's at TM oh one three zeros one five six two so this we can see from the top that this is dated the 12th of September 2012 and it's
01:15:38 the 12th of September 2012 and it's headed Grenville tower fire safety strategy do you see that I do yes and then in the first paragraph it says introduction this design that provides an outline fire safety strategy for the proposed refurbishment of the building
01:15:50 proposed refurbishment of the building with particular emphasis on means of escape and access and facilities for the fire service do you see that I do and then if we turn onto page four at the top of the page we see it was prepared
01:16:01 top of the page we see it was prepared by you is that your signature it is yes and it was reviewed again by mr. Mack Elena is that correct correct can you explain for us what the purpose of this
01:16:14 explain for us what the purpose of this note was it was just a series of headlines following a meeting that we had with studio he and other members of the design team as to the way forward
01:16:26 the design team as to the way forward for achieving a satisfactory fire safety strategy they wanted something in writing from us telling them what we told them
01:16:36 told them I tell them that the meeting was that the same meeting we were just discussing the 10th of September 2012 meeting yes yes and which are IBA state was this prepared for well it was see really but
01:16:50 prepared for well it was see really but it wasn't a staged see report it was a preliminary report designed to highlight what the key issues it could have been an email with bullet points but instead
01:17:01 an email with bullet points but instead we chose to do a design though that is a way that we do things sometimes it looks better more efficient yeah can we look at what you say about this at paragraph 4.2 of your witness statement that's an
01:17:12 4.2 of your witness statement that's an EXO four zeroes one six to one page seven and there we can see that you say I recall that the design note was
01:17:25 I recall that the design note was produced following an initial meeting with studio e who requested that we prepare something in outline form to discuss the design design though therefore contained an outline fire strategy for the refurbishment with
01:17:38 strategy for the refurbishment with particular emphasis on means of escape and access and facilities for the fire service it was not intended to be a firm set of proposals for gaining Building Control approval but rather to assist the architects in developing the design
01:17:50 the architects in developing the design do you see that now I do yes now can you just explain that those last words that you've used there was intended to assist
01:18:03 you've used there was intended to assist the architects in developing the design which particular part of the design was it to assist them with means of escape and access for the fire service in other words you didn't embrace all parts of B
01:18:16 words you didn't embrace all parts of B Part B of the building regulations we were focusing on those two issues so it's just B 1 and B 5 yeah in more detail in a moment I want to ask you how
01:18:27 detail in a moment I want to ask you how you went about preparing this initial design note so we know that you'd attended the project meeting number 8 on the 6th of September 2012 we just looked at those minutes and you'd had the
01:18:40 at those minutes and you'd had the meeting with studio E and mr. Singh's on the 10th of September 2012 was it just mr. soon she was in attendance at that meeting was one else from Studio a present cool I
01:18:54 one else from Studio a present cool I think I think there were two or three architects there but it wasn't miniature I don't think that meeting and then if we can look at an email this is EXO five
01:19:07 we can look at an email this is EXO five zero six eight five and we start at the bottom of page two
01:19:15 this is jumping back in time there's an email of the 22nd of May from you too mr. soon's and you've set out some initial comments on your proposals you
01:19:27 initial comments on your proposals you can see that in the first line of your email I'm not able to meet you this afternoon here are my initial comments on your proposal and you set out some initial comments and then mr. students
01:19:40 initial comments and then mr. students we don't need to look at the detail of those for the moment they're dealing with the lower levels of the tower and then you say a site visit would be very
01:19:52 then you say a site visit would be very helpful in understanding what the existing arrangements are do you see that at the end yes regards Terry and then if we can look at mr. Singh's his reply at the bottom of page one and and
01:20:08 reply at the bottom of page one and and he says in the second paragraph he starts by saying thank you but I don't follow we'll look at this in a moment but I want to focus on what he says
01:20:19 but I want to focus on what he says about a site visit for a moment he said mark Gundersen would like to hold a design team meeting for Thursday I do not think it's essential you're there but I think it's important we get a more detailed appraisal of any issues a site
01:20:32 detailed appraisal of any issues a site visit is probably essential there are risers in the lobby and the fire safety strategy obviously needs to work with the existing and then he goes on TMA estate staff are there every day
01:20:44 on TMA estate staff are there every day and then you reply at the top of that page top of page one on the 23rd of May at 9:47 and you say I can't look at the
01:20:55 at 9:47 and you say I can't look at the building this week due to other commitments and I'm afraid they're on their own the photos don't help it would be better to visit the building of or giving you the necessary advice do you see that I do indeed
01:21:06 you see that I do indeed did you undertake a site visit to better understand the building no I didn't did you visit grandpa tower
01:21:17 no I didn't did you visit grandpa tower at any stage during the time you worked on the project no I didn't can you explain why that was other priorities possibly or I became
01:21:31 other priorities possibly or I became more familiar with the layout of the building based on the drawings that were produced by studio II did you not think that it would be essential in order to
01:21:42 that it would be essential in order to carry out your role as the lead member of X overs fire safety engineering team that you visited the building it would have been desirable but I
01:21:54 it would have been desirable but I didn't do it yes because we can see here your own recommendation to visit the site before giving advice do you think
01:22:05 site before giving advice do you think you should have satisfied yourself that all areas under your responsibility concerning the refurbishment had been covered by visiting grandfa tower itself
01:22:15 it would have been nice to do it but I didn't do it now we know that mr. James Lee did a site visit at the end of May
01:22:29 Lee did a site visit at the end of May that was around 2 hours and and he took some photos is that correct a balloon so
01:22:39 so just now trying to focus on what you had what information you had about the building when you prepared the design note if we can go back to that to that at TMO one triple zero one five six -
01:22:57 now we know you've received miss Cooney's existing fire safety report nine days before you drafted this we saw that from the emails and you'd also had
01:23:08 that from the emails and you'd also had various sketches and some marked up general arrangement plans that had been sent to you we can see that from the email
01:23:15 email we don't need to pull it up but for example at EXO five zeros four six eight did you have anything else I mean do you did you have any written records of mr.
01:23:27 did you have any written records of mr. Lee's site visit not in drawing up that design note did you have the photos of mr. Lee's visit when you were drawing this up I don't believe I looked at them
01:23:38 this up I don't believe I looked at them I think that the the object of this was what needs to be done in the future to achieve a satisfactory level of means of escape and fire fighting access to the
01:23:50 escape and fire fighting access to the altered floors so it's about the design that design changes we know that mr. Lee's visit lasted no more than two
01:24:01 Lee's visit lasted no more than two hours and we've got his Trant that the timesheet where he logged two hours that's at EXO five zero five zeros 802 and we don't need to turn that up but
01:24:14 and we don't need to turn that up but would you agree that a two hour visit was insufficient to fully survey the building including the active and passive fire safety systems probably was inadequate
01:24:30 at the point you prepared this fire safety strategy did you know that mr. Li had done a visit I may have done but as I say the focus of this design note was what do we do to make your proposal as
01:24:42 what do we do to make your proposal as acceptable as Cooney said that she'd had discussions with mr. Li to understand the layout did you have any such
01:24:55 the layout did you have any such discussions with mr. Li at any time before preparing this design note no very - design note was produced having looked at drawings that they tabled
01:25:07 looked at drawings that they tabled showing their proposals did you get any feedback from mr. Li or about anyone else about the design team meetings that he'd attended no was there a project
01:25:19 he'd attended no was there a project file for Granville where yes there was a project file but I'm not sure that he produced any notes which were filed what about the project notes that were circulated regularly by the architects
01:25:32 circulated regularly by the architects or well they would have been filed yes did you have a look at those before you prepared this design note only those that related to their proposals we had
01:25:45 that related to their proposals we had not a huge amount of correspondence before we produced this design note did you have any problems after the first meetings with him did you have any
01:25:59 meetings with him did you have any discussions with mr. Li or anyone else at xover
01:26:02 at xover about the fact that the project involved improving the thermal efficiency and visual appearance of the tower by over cladding no I didn't so we know that was
01:26:15 cladding no I didn't so we know that was discussed at a meeting that mr. Lee attended on the 19th of April 2012 was there any further information then other than what I've listed so miss Cooney's existing fire strategy various sketches
01:26:28 existing fire strategy various sketches and marked apparent general arrangement plans was there anything else that you had before preparing the design note
01:26:38 did you make any inquiries of the TMO building maintenance team before you prepared it no did that did it occur to you that that might be something that
01:26:49 you that that might be something that would be helpful no as I say that the folks we didn't have very much to do with TM oh they were our client but we wouldn't we didn't have a lot of interaction with them we worked with Studio II by launch
01:27:03 them we worked with Studio II by launch and max for them occasion yeah but at this stage we were concerned only with the getting the proposal in shape that could be presented to Building Control
01:27:16 could be presented to Building Control did you think that you had sufficient accurate information about the tower when you wrote the note I thought I think that was that a cook yes now let's look at the content of the
01:27:27 now let's look at the content of the design note so we've got it up here we can see from the blue headings and you've already confirmed in the note at pages 1 & 3 that it only deals with b1
01:27:39 pages 1 & 3 that it only deals with b1 that's means of warning and escape and b5 access and facilities for the fire service can you explain why it only deals with those aspects of schedule 1
01:27:50 deals with those aspects of schedule 1 of the building regulations because the other aspects weren't as pressing
01:27:58 so in your mind b2 b3 and b4 they weren't as pressing not at that stage no we wanted to get the domains of escape
01:28:09 we wanted to get the domains of escape and the firefighting access the light and why weren't they pressing given that you knew that the tower was to be over clad well if you take B to that's the
01:28:20 clad well if you take B to that's the fire classification of surfaces applying surfaces to the walls in the building would have been done at a much later
01:28:31 would have been done at a much later date and therefore wasn't significant in terms of means of escape and firefighting access b3 the only aspects
01:28:42 firefighting access b3 the only aspects of b3 which were part of these alterations would be separation of existing uses from the main escapement and they are covered but albeit under B
01:28:53 and they are covered but albeit under B 1 B 3 4 well coming forward in terms of complementation we would did we were
01:29:06 complementation we would did we were just dealing with the specific alterations at that stage where B 1 and B 5 the parts you were most familiar with about the project at this stage yes that's fair comment yes they were but if
01:29:20 that's fair comment yes they were but if you were aiming to help the architects with their development of their design why are you choosing only to help with those aspects at this stage because those are the aspects they wanted answers on immediately what gave you
01:29:34 answers on immediately what gave you that impression they told me that they wanted a quick report confirming what I'd said to them at the meeting that we had with him did they say we only need
01:29:46 had with him did they say we only need you to deal with B 1 and B 5 no they didn't but we didn't discuss the other parts of Part B at the meeting can you see that that might have led the design team to think that only b1 and b5 were
01:29:59 team to think that only b1 and b5 were important no I can't see that can we just look at what mr. scenes have said in this and his witness statement about this if we go to se a three zeros 147 3
01:30:10 this if we go to se a three zeros 147 3 that page 61 and I want to look at paragraph 128 point five and he says on the 12th of September 2012 Jean watt x over emailed
01:30:23 September 2012 Jean watt x over emailed me attaching X a vers design note 1 that's what we just looked at the note provided an outline fire safety strategy for the proposed refurbishment of the tower it focused on means of escape and
01:30:34 tower it focused on means of escape and access facilities for the fire service which reflected our conversations with xover as a result I would have believed these were the most significant issues that needed to be addressed at this
01:30:45 that needed to be addressed at this point do you see it I think that's that's perfect true that's what we discussed and those were the issues that were needed most attention at that time
01:30:56 were needed most attention at that time and did you think that they were the most significant issues that needed to be addressed yes indeed given that you knew the building was to be over clad
01:31:07 knew the building was to be over clad why didn't you consider requirement before in the design note because we hadn't discussed over cladding in any shape or form at that stage but you were
01:31:18 shape or form at that stage but you were aware I think you've accepted this that that there was a proposal to over clad the building yes but our priorities were and and Bruce sounds has identified the same priorities was to get the means of
01:31:30 same priorities was to get the means of escape and the access and facilities for the fire service right as a first task yep can we just look at a few instances
01:31:41 yep can we just look at a few instances where the cladding is mentioned we know and we looked at it earlier in that initial email at the 3rd of May 2012 that it was one of the six principles of the project you remember it was point
01:31:52 the project you remember it was point four over cladding can we now look at another document if we look at se a four zeros three nine six two
01:32:08 now this is an email from mr. soon's to Ledbetter Ledbetter mark deacon and you
01:32:21 Ledbetter Ledbetter mark deacon and you are copied in i think to this email is that correct yes so on the copy list we see that you are one line up for the bottom on a copy list can you see that yes indeed and in
01:32:35 list can you see that yes indeed and in the third paragraph paragraph second line we see they say for instance we are approaching specialist over cladding subcontractors and i feel it's
01:32:48 subcontractors and i feel it's appropriate that there better have the opportunity to comment on who might they might be do you see that yes so again would you have read that email and been aware that they were approaching specialist over cladding subcontractors yes I think I would have
01:33:01 subcontractors yes I think I would have assumed that from reading the email so you were aware of that when you drafted the design note not specifically I mean it wasn't uncommon in on a lot of a
01:33:12 it wasn't uncommon in on a lot of a correspondence which doesn't ask me to take any action but I was aware in the background that they were gonna over clad the building yeah we know you also
01:33:24 clad the building yeah we know you also attended the project team meeting number eight on the 6th of September can we look again at those minutes so if we look at that at a RT five zeros 404
01:33:38 and we look at page 4 of these minutes second item from the bottom we can see that what's discussed there coordination
01:33:49 that what's discussed there coordination of cladding heating and seasons critical input required from Ledbetter do you see that I do so that's a meeting that you attended in person wasn't it I may not have been there for the whole time but
01:34:00 have been there for the whole time but yes I I do remember going to the meeting do you remember there being a discussion about coordination of cladding no it's possible that I left the meeting early
01:34:12 possible that I left the meeting early would you have been sent the minutes to these meetings probably yeah but I would only have looked at those in in relation to the action column which would had X
01:34:25 to the action column which would had X over it against it rather than LBO TMO so you wouldn't read I mean these meetings there any four pages long you wouldn't have looked through these meeting minutes get a sense of how the
01:34:37 meeting minutes get a sense of how the design was progressing how the the team was progressing what the issues were that were coming up you wouldn't do that not necessarily no I mean bear in mind that you're working on a large number of
01:34:49 that you're working on a large number of projects if there's something which is high life it is an action for you then look at that there were a number of other design team meetings between April 2012 and August 2012 where cladding was
01:35:02 2012 and August 2012 where cladding was referred to meetings to which the minutes were distributed 2x over even if they weren't present and I just want to look at two examples of that with you can we go to a meeting on the 18th of
01:35:15 can we go to a meeting on the 18th of July 2012 this is EXO five zeros seven five three this is a project meeting on
01:35:27 five three this is a project meeting on the 18th of July we can see that and you're part of the distribution list you see that they split the minutes right into those that were present in the
01:35:39 into those that were present in the first list and then do you see distribution as present tere Ashton xox over at the end of that do you see that I do
01:35:49 I do and there is a separate email or a few days later on the 24th of July where these minutes are sent to you for the reference that's EXO five zeros 751 can
01:36:02 reference that's EXO five zeros 751 can we look at in this meeting we can see on page two under architecture there's reference second item up from the bottom to think rain screen emerging as
01:36:15 to think rain screen emerging as front-runner aesthetically for cladding VM zinc composite panel may be most cost-effective for trees dink finished do you see that I do think this do you remember reading those minutes
01:36:26 remember reading those minutes no but had I done so zinc rain screen emerging as frontrunner wouldn't have caused me to have any concerns come on
01:36:41 caused me to have any concerns come on told you in a moment but and so I probably didn't read the the minute if I'm honest but I mean had I done so
01:36:52 I'm honest but I mean had I done so seeing that wouldn't have why do you think you probably wouldn't have read them in it well because I don't tend to read minutes of meetings that I don't
01:37:04 read minutes of meetings that I don't attend you know it's not as if this is the only project I'm working on yes let's look at another example on the 19th of April 2012 there's a design team
01:37:16 19th of April 2012 there's a design team meeting at which James Lee of X / was present this is t mo one triple zero one one four three and if we go within this
01:37:29 one four three and if we go within this sorry just didn't know James Lee is midway down on that present list from x over and if we go to page two item three
01:37:40 over and if we go to page two item three point naught project scope at the bottom of the page there's further objectives and you see there the first item is improving the thermal efficiency and
01:37:52 improving the thermal efficiency and visual appearance of the facade possibly complimentary to calc to see that I do this and then paid for there's a post meeting notes
01:38:04 the very last item so it's that is the post-meeting note at six point naught and in the very last paragraph there it
01:38:19 and in the very last paragraph there it says the planners responded negatively to aluminium rain screen as a cladding solution calling it plastic they would like to see the character of the tower retained or enhanced even suggesting leaving the diamond piers exposed they
01:38:31 leaving the diamond piers exposed they would prefer to see an insulated render system do you see that I do yes would you have seen those minutes given that mr. Lee had been present at them no no I
01:38:44 mr. Lee had been present at them no no I wouldn't
01:38:45 wouldn't was there a system within xover so we know mr. Lee left decks over at the end of May I think it was 2012 would there have been a system within xover for capturing and recording the information
01:38:58 capturing and recording the information on a project so that the person then carrying on working on it would be able to access it not specifically I mean I think that if I were taking over a project from somebody else and that
01:39:11 project from somebody else and that wasn't the case here but if I were then I would familiarize myself with it I might even have a discussion with my colleague as to what issues had been
01:39:22 colleague as to what issues had been discussed or needed to be resolved but you're named as the lead xover consultant on the beginning but it doesn't mean to say I go to every meeting and what's written there about
01:39:34 meeting and what's written there about the cladding seems to suggest that they didn't like aluminium rainscreen and they would rather see something like an insulated render system so it was not clear at that stage even if I'd read it
01:39:46 clear at that stage even if I'd read it in detail the the cladding was gonna present an issue I appreciate that but what we did just look at is in July several months later the zinc rain screen was emerging as the front-runner
01:39:57 screen was emerging as the front-runner and you were present taken as present in that meeting rain screen would have been the normal way of doing over cladding applying insulated render to a building
01:40:09 applying insulated render to a building isn't rain screen when you drafted your design note that first piece of work for the studio Ian and the TMO and we're you aware of the
01:40:21 and the TMO and we're you aware of the possibility that aluminium rainscreen might be used absolutely not so that that hadn't been picked up from you either from colleagues at xover or from reading the meeting minutes
01:40:33 from reading the meeting minutes I mean alamin your own scream per se isn't necessarily a problem it's a non an iminium is a non combustible material
01:40:44 an iminium is a non combustible material but even as I say I didn't pick this up because it was minutes of meeting that a colleague that attended but aluminum in the same way as Inge wouldn't raise any
01:40:55 the same way as Inge wouldn't raise any alarm bells with me because there are very few building materials you can put on buildings as a rain screen and I mean you would be one zinc would be another
01:41:07 you would be one zinc would be another yep glass will be another will come to look in a moment the advice you gave on before and just pausing here for a
01:41:19 before and just pausing here for a moment
01:41:19 moment you don't mention any of these design team meetings in your witness statement is there a reason for that because I didn't go to them no starter and you don't mention for example the one on the
01:41:30 don't mention for example the one on the sixth of September that you did go to no because there wasn't anything significant in that in my view that was worth mentioning in my witness statement if we can go back to the design note
01:41:43 if we can go back to the design note which is at TM oh one triple zero one five six - do you agree that the over cladding should have been mentioned at
01:41:54 cladding should have been mentioned at the very outset of this design note as a significant part of the refurbishment no not really even though you described this as in that first note as an outline
01:42:08 this as in that first note as an outline fire safety strategy addressing two specific issues only but do you agree that over cladding a building of 23 stories is a significant piece of work I
01:42:21 stories is a significant piece of work I would agree with that statement general statement yes and with the potential to make a significant difference in terms of the fire strategy for the building ultimately I would have
01:42:32 for the building ultimately I would have done this now let's look at your witness statement again this is EXO four zeros 161 page seven a paragraph four point
01:42:47 161 page seven a paragraph four point three you state in the second sentence the design note does not consider cladding the only information I had at this time was the reference to an
01:42:59 this time was the reference to an intention to have over cladding in mr. Singh's his email of the third of May 2012 and I had not seen any specific proposals that could be commented on do you see that yes I do what do you mean there by specific
01:43:11 what do you mean there by specific proposals what did he have in mind well materials possibly I mean we knew that there was an intention to whether the
01:43:22 there was an intention to whether the clad the building but we didn't know what was even though you didn't have those specific proposals at that stage didn't you think it might have been helpful to explain the regulatory
01:43:33 helpful to explain the regulatory framework which would apply to any over cladding work not in that particular document why was that well because that document that I'm produced there we're talking now about the design note was
01:43:46 talking now about the design note was quite specific to two issues did you ever think at this time about whether it might be helpful to explain the performance requirements that would
01:43:57 performance requirements that would apply to any over cladding work of a high-rise building such as grandfa tower not specifically now did you ever ask
01:44:08 not specifically now did you ever ask mr. soon's for the specific proposals about the over cladding no I didn't but equally he didn't come back to me at any point and say this is what we're thinking of doing
01:44:19 say this is what we're thinking of doing Terry what do you think yeah well I think I mean as I put it to you earlier it was his evidence that he'd in that meeting of the 10th of September 2012 he put elevations out on the table
01:44:32 put elevations out on the table they weren't discussed can you explain why miss Cooney did consider the B for functional requirement in her existing
01:44:44 functional requirement in her existing fire strategy but you didn't consider it in this note so can we just look at what she says her existing fire strategy is at EXO four zeros one zero seven four
01:45:06 and if we can go to page 14 within this so this is the existing Firestone HD strategy the draft of its 16th of August 2012 and paid 14 is where she deals with
01:45:18 2012 and paid 14 is where she deals with be for external fire spread and we can see there that what she's done is explained what the requirement was in B
01:45:29 explained what the requirement was in B for external walls of the buildings to resist the spread of fire over their surface etc and then she's explained the general philosophy of the requirement and then she's given some information
01:45:41 and then she's given some information under external wall construction space separation do you see that I see the space separation calculation which just as you you know just confirms that the position of the building in
01:45:54 that the position of the building in relation to the boundaries such that there was no limit on unprotected areas in the facades I see that about space
01:46:05 in the facades I see that about space separation yeah and understand that looking at 6.2 above it external wall construction it says there the external surface of the building which is more than 18 meters should have a surface
01:46:17 than 18 meters should have a surface classification of class naught national class or Class B s 3 D 2 or better European class the external surfaces appear to be of concrete and glazed openings in metal frames which would be
01:46:28 openings in metal frames which would be satisfactory for the purposes of external fire spread do you see that I do the earth so for a essentially concrete building with aluminium windows she has explained the intent behind
01:46:42 she has explained the intent behind before the philosophy and she's given some performance requirements why could you not have done the same for the B for requirement in your design there even if you didn't have specific proposals it
01:46:55 you didn't have specific proposals it would not be normal doing a design note to quote verbatim from every single clause of approved document b it ceases then to be a
01:47:07 document b it ceases then to be a designer and becomes a much more complicated document but did you appreciate at this stage that the b4 one requirement on external walls adequately resists the
01:47:20 on external walls adequately resists the spread of fire was going to be important given that it was going to be over clad no I didn't at that stage this would have been considered at a later stage
01:47:32 have been considered at a later stage when details of the cladding became known and you didn't think that it was important to make studio II and the other members of the design team aware of the performance requirements for a
01:47:46 of the performance requirements for a building above 18 meters in terms of external wall I would expect a competent architect to know the fundamental requirements of the building regulations without them being spurred out to him in
01:47:58 without them being spurred out to him in a design note as the guidance as to how to meet those requirements I would expect him then to look to a five consultant for advice but I wouldn't
01:48:10 consultant for advice but I wouldn't expect to design them to be page after page of quotations of fire performance well it could it could end up that way you're focusing particularly on the
01:48:24 you're focusing particularly on the cladding but it would apply to any number of parts of who document being yeah I mean I guess design note was a list of points that they needed to take
01:48:37 list of points that they needed to take into consideration in the immediate future in the basic point I'm putting to you here is that even for a fairly simple building with a concrete surface miss CUNY has gone into the requirements
01:48:51 miss CUNY has gone into the requirements and set out some of the performance requirements yes and I'm just suggesting that that could have been done in the design notes it could have been done but wasn't I mean she's just recording what the what is there in effect I just want
01:49:06 the what is there in effect I just want to pick up on a few other points about the design note if we go back to that TMO one triple zero one five six two
01:49:17 and just a general point and we'll look at some examples in a moment do you accept that often what you do is you you
01:49:31 accept that often what you do is you you don't identify the relevant statutory requirements or guidance which is relevant to the topic that you're considering in the note well under 3 it
01:49:42 considering in the note well under 3 it says 3.1 compliance with B 1 means it warning and escape yeah then that's the the functional requirement which this part of the report is dealing with let's
01:49:55 part of the report is dealing with let's just look at some examples if we look at on page 1 at the very bottom and over to page 2 in section 3 point 1 point 2 dealing with means of escape under requirement b1 we don't get anywhere in
01:50:12 requirement b1 we don't get anywhere in that section if you look at what's written there and then over the page we can go over the page
01:50:23 we don't get any explanation there of what the relevant guidance documents are that you are relying on when you're giving that advice or in specifically with relation to smoke extract yes well
01:50:36 with relation to smoke extract yes well it's not it was not possible for the existing smoke extract system to be redesigned to a natural system complying
01:50:47 redesigned to a natural system complying with approved document b it would have had to have been a bespoke system
01:50:56 ultimately installed in the building I see I mean the point is that you say at the top of page two that the existing
01:51:07 the top of page two that the existing smoke system serving the common lobbies will need to be refurbished and/or modified to reflect statutory requirements to see that there yes indeed you don't identify what those statue requirements are that you have in
01:51:19 statue requirements are that you have in mind to which it will need to be refurbished or modified well I think there's a lot of this is is obvious maybe not to somebody who is used to dealing with these things on a day to
01:51:30 dealing with these things on a day to day basis but the fundamental requirement for a smoke extract system in a high-rise block of apartment is that what is provided in the lobby keeps
01:51:41 that what is provided in the lobby keeps the stay and free of smoke and I think most professionals who are dealing with smoke extreme systems understand that completely
01:51:52 completely did you ever check with a studio he understood that it wasn't studio he's design responsibility was max Fordham's design responsibility and I'm pretty sure they knew what they were doing do
01:52:05 sure they knew what they were doing do you think it would have been helpful for the design team to have known what those statutory requirements were yes obviously it would have been but you could say that about an awful lot of the
01:52:16 could say that about an awful lot of the the comments that sorry a lot of it the text that's in there you could have expanded it yeah you wouldn't have been able to issue that in in the short period of time that it needed to be issued it's really only headlines as
01:52:29 issued it's really only headlines as I've said several times yeah I hadn't said the existing smoke extract system needs to be modified then that you could say well why didn't you say
01:52:41 you could say well why didn't you say that but I haven't said that just to take another example if we look at the rest of page 2 there follows below we can see that you go on to identify the performance of doors in various
01:52:53 performance of doors in various locations in that section so we often see it says F D 30s doors F D 20 doors doors having a walls having a 30 minute standard of fire resistance to see that
01:53:05 standard of fire resistance to see that we see that throughout this section yeah and again you haven't identified where that guidance comes from and it's the same point wouldn't that have been helpful for the design team to know
01:53:17 helpful for the design team to know where you're getting this guidance from so that they can also have that in mind as they develop the design well I think that you know they knew that we were
01:53:29 that you know they knew that we were looking at this with the toads of practice in the back of our minds whether or not we say you need to comply with approved document b and that means
01:53:41 with approved document b and that means safety 20 doors or ft 30s doors I'm not sure in a in a more comprehensive fire safety strategy that sort of thing will be there the basis for compliance with
01:53:53 be there the basis for compliance with the building regulations is compliance with approved document b this was not that this was a as I say a list if you like of headline things that needed to
01:54:05 like of headline things that needed to be considered there isn't a proof document be potentially quite a complex document yes that's why they employ five consultants to interpret it yeah can we look under
01:54:16 to interpret it yeah can we look under the heading and altered parts we see that on that page on page two and under the heading within apartments that's in capitals and blue in the last sentence
01:54:31 capitals and blue in the last sentence there you are graph there need only be one exit from each apartment provided that the travel distance from the apartment entrance door to the door to the farthest habitable room does not
01:54:42 the farthest habitable room does not exceed nine meters do you see that no that's correct now on the topic of travel distances can we just look at an email sent to you on the 10th of September by mr. Coony so this
01:54:53 10th of September by mr. Coony so this is two days before this design note which is dated the 12th of September if we can go to that that's EXO five zeroes three eight eight right so this was a
01:55:08 three eight eight right so this was a long email that mr. Cooney sent you on the 10th of September and it's thoughts on the possible solution to Granville tower do you see that yes indeed and she
01:55:20 tower do you see that yes indeed and she split it into it so thoughts over different categories and then if you look the third paragraph from the bottom she says I noted some fairly long
01:55:32 she says I noted some fairly long protected entrance halls on the new levels I've previously spoken to Bruce some are only just over nine meters there are two entrances to some flats
01:55:43 there are two entrances to some flats which could be rationalized but I've mentioned flat entrance halls opening into the refuse sheet Lobby is not acceptable do you see that yes indeed
01:55:54 did you check when you did your design note how long the entrance halls were before you wrote what you did sorry could you repeat that did you check how long the entrance halls were before you wrote what you did
01:56:06 halls were before you wrote what you did in your design note no because I don't think the plans were sufficiently well developed at that stage to measure them I mean nine meters is that is the normal
01:56:18 I mean nine meters is that is the normal maximum of travel distance within an apartment she was clearly looking at an earlier iteration and the drawings where there were several at the end of the day
01:56:30 there were several at the end of the day we only ended up with one apartment where the travel distances were in excess of nine meters and we provided mitigation for that in the form of an enhancement detection system I think so
01:56:42 enhancement detection system I think so these are even earlier comments the nine if you like in terms of what have been developed the point to put to you is why didn't you include that detail that there might be some over nine meters in
01:56:54 there might be some over nine meters in your design notes the plans weren't fixed at that stage
01:57:00 where you were so this is a separate point about travel distances where you aware at the time of preparing the design note that there were travel distances at the existing residential levels of the tower between the flat
01:57:12 levels of the tower between the flat doors and the stair doors that were over 10 meters no I wasn't but that doesn't surprise me would that have been a
01:57:24 surprise me would that have been a material point to take into account when considering compliance with B 1 and means of escape no I think that the statutory position with regard to buildings of this sort is that if you
01:57:37 buildings of this sort is that if you are not altering a building in its danger complying with the building regulations it doesn't concurrent for safety standards where you alter the building
01:57:48 standards where you alter the building then those parts of the building should be so far as is practicable brought up to current standards and you know you can't there's nothing you can do about an existing lobby lift lobby where the
01:58:02 an existing lobby lift lobby where the travel distances exceed the the code recommendations it was approved by the GLC presumably when the building was built I followed that mr. eshton I followed that there might be nothing you could do about those travel distances
01:58:13 could do about those travel distances but wasn't that relevant information to be noting in any fire strategy when you're looking at B 1 means of warning and escape that were exponentially
01:58:25 and escape that were exponentially travel distances in excess of 10 meters well Kate had already identified that there were one or two instances where the 9 meter travel distance had been exceeded it was my job to ensure that
01:58:38 exceeded it was my job to ensure that changes of her mate of the design to avoid that wherever possible yes to any it was just one flat where there were excessive travel distances yes she's talking there about travel
01:58:51 she's talking there about travel distances in the protected entrance halls on the new level I was talking just now about travel distances in the existing residential areas levels of the town yes but as I say she was looking at
01:59:05 town yes but as I say she was looking at an earlier iteration of the drawings that I subsequently looked with studio II where these wrinkles have been ironed out yep except in one case just one fair the topic for today
01:59:18 just one fair the topic for today because I think we're aiming to stop at four o'clock you're gonna get a topic through in a minute Dave do you think well I'm just wondering whether discretion would be the bit of an event
01:59:30 discretion would be the bit of an event I'll give him then thank you let's stop there it's been a long day well mr. Ashman we're going to call a halt there for the day
01:59:42 for the day I'm sorry there'll be more questions here to come an answer tomorrow sorry they should resume at 10 o'clock please so be here in time and please don't talk to anyone about your evidence
01:59:53 don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything to do with it overnight I won't thank you thank you very much you get in the ocean
02:00:14 right nothing else thank you very much 10 o'clock tomorrow please