Grenfell Tower Inquiry - Exova Evidence - Wednesday 8th July 2020 (1/2)
00:00:40 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing we're going to continue taking evidence from mr. Ashton elects over just a moment would you like to ask mr.
00:00:51 just a moment would you like to ask mr. Ashton to come in please good morning mr. Ashton once sit down make yourself
00:01:03 mr. Ashton once sit down make yourself comfortable I'm sorry that you've been kept waiting longer than usual and indeed those watching through the livestream may be wondering why we're running late the
00:01:15 wondering why we're running late the answer is we had a small technical hitch but we are now ready to start to carry on yes thank you yes mr. Ashton when we broke yesterday
00:01:27 yes mr. Ashton when we broke yesterday we were just looking at some of the contents of the design note that you prepared on the 12th of September 2012 and I just want to pick up back with that so if we can bring that up that's
00:01:40 that so if we can bring that up that's at TMO 1 3 zeroes 1 5 6 2 on page 3
00:01:51 and if we could zoom in in the middle of the page at 3.2 this is where you're dealing with the b5 access and facilities for the fire service do you
00:02:02 facilities for the fire service do you see that I do yes and we can see there that you've talked about necessary to recite the existing inlet to the dry rising main it's that correct yep correct and can you explain why
00:02:15 yep correct and can you explain why that's the only item you've referred to in relation to the b5 requirement access and facilities for the fire service given that there would have been a whole lot of other issues that would need
00:02:27 lot of other issues that would need addressing in a fire strategy in relation to b5 I think that that was the item needed immediate attention before
00:02:38 item needed immediate attention before they did any further alterations to the site because notwithstanding the the construction process the fire service would still need to fight a fire
00:02:50 would still need to fight a fire anywhere in the building and and the the location of the inlet of the dry main was in the wrong position I see so that was the most pressing issue you could include under b5 okay and then if we can
00:03:03 include under b5 okay and then if we can look at section 6 of the note at the bottom of that page you've set out some references there that you've referred to you know item 1 and you've dealt with a
00:03:18 you know item 1 and you've dealt with a British Standard fire detection and alarm systems for buildings and you've given a 1995 revision of that British standard but the version of a predock
00:03:30 standard but the version of a predock you meant be current at this time has a 2004 updated standard for BS 5 8 3 9 6 2004 right and you explain why there's
00:03:41 2004 right and you explain why there's an out-of-date version there well it's probably an error on our part I mean I think that that the problem with the British Standards institution is they keep revising their standards it's an
00:03:56 keep revising their standards it's an ongoing process and it's difficult to keep up with the new issues that they come out we try and do it as in when we and clearly when we're using or quoting
00:04:09 and clearly when we're using or quoting British standards as part of a fire strategy it would be the particular standard that was relevant at the time the the statutory sorry that the strategy was drawn up ya know if this
00:04:22 strategy was drawn up ya know if this one was out of date at the time we wrote that design note then that was an error which we should have corrected yeah and then finally just on the content of the design note we're gonna come back in a
00:04:33 design note we're gonna come back in a moment and look to some more emails about what the design note was was trying to achieve and I want to look again at the email sent by Kate Cooney to you on the 10th of September this is
00:04:44 to you on the 10th of September this is it
00:04:45 it EXO five zeroes three eight eight so this is two days before your design notes right and we looked at this email
00:04:56 notes right and we looked at this email yesterday and I want to focus on the last two paragraphs if we can zoom in on those so she says there the existing ventilation system is questionable and
00:05:08 ventilation system is questionable and the overall scheme theoretically makes the existing conditions worse by adding the additional risk of too no extra residential flaws to the building it is
00:05:19 residential flaws to the building it is proposed to upgrade the vent upgrade the ventilation system but the standard it will achieve is unknown there are also no details on the terminal to the shaft generally there is a significant
00:05:30 generally there is a significant approvals risk with the current proposals particularly at walkway level and then she says hope the above is of some use and now what would like to understand is can you explain why you
00:05:42 understand is can you explain why you didn't go into the detail that Miss Cooney did that does they're in your design note well I think the design note
00:05:53 design note well I think the design note was only a precursor to further work that was going to be carried out on the building in terms of developing a fire strategy for it I mean I agree with her sentiments in there that there were
00:06:06 sentiments in there that there were significant approvals risks because what she looked at and wasn't excited Factory yeah I know I think I should also emphasize
00:06:18 emphasize the smoke ventilation system was not acceptable and that needed to be sorted out as a fundamental part of the fire strategy yeah I mean in fairness to you
00:06:29 strategy yeah I mean in fairness to you you've said in the note that the smoke ventilation system needs to be refurbished and modified to reflect current statutory requirements but my point really is why weren't you as direct as she is in that email with your
00:06:43 direct as she is in that email with your clients about the approvals risk that was presented by the scheme well I think what I'm saying is that the as-drawn at the time that she looked at it there was
00:06:54 the time that she looked at it there was a significant approval risk our job was to make sure that that risk was mitigated I think now you knew that the existing system was unsatisfactory and
00:07:05 existing system was unsatisfactory and that the London fire and emergency planning authority wanted it to really be replaced that's the smoke control system you know you say that in paragraph four point four of your
00:07:16 paragraph four point four of your witness statement your first statement and as we've just seen mr. Cooney had also warned you that the overall scheme theoretically makes existing conditions worse did you have any conversations
00:07:28 worse did you have any conversations with mr. Cooney about this at the time no I don't believe I did I mean I think what's in her note to me is pretty comprehensive we're you aware at the
00:07:39 comprehensive we're you aware at the time of a separate email that she had sent to mr. Martin in August in which she unequivocally says there are approvals risks on the firefighter shafts and means of escape I'm not sure
00:07:53 shafts and means of escape I'm not sure if I was I did see it subsequently yeah let's bring that up so this is an EXO four zeros one two seven nine
00:08:05 so if we can just blow up the the main text of that email so this is an email that mr. Miller explored in detail with mr. Cooney when she gave evidence and it
00:08:17 mr. Cooney when she gave evidence and it sounds like from your answer you have now seen this email yes can you recall when you saw it I can't recall when but I know I have seen it do you think it was during your time on the project or subsequently in the context of this
00:08:29 subsequently in the context of this inquiry I don't know if I'm honest I mean it's possible that I saw it sometime shortly after that I mean it's
00:08:43 sometime shortly after that I mean it's a memorable email in some senses yeah but I think the thing is that she was having a dialogue with studio in relation to her work on the existing
00:08:57 relation to her work on the existing fire strategy and she somehow got involved in a discussion about the proposals for refurbishment but that wasn't really her job that was my job I
00:09:08 wasn't really her job that was my job I mean we can see there that she says they're now adding this is picking up on the second line they're now adding additional levels which merges uses around a single stare not great basically I've told him we can massage
00:09:20 basically I've told him we can massage the proposals to something acceptable with separation lobbies etc and then later in the email she says there this is three lines from the bottom of that paragraph they are making an existing
00:09:31 paragraph they are making an existing crap condition worse so it's a matter of working the worst bits out and making the new stuff work and did you share her opinion about the proposals for the
00:09:43 opinion about the proposals for the refurbishment at this time no I wouldn't I wouldn't describe it in the way that she did I mean I think you need to or one needs to bear in mind that ideally a residential building will have
00:09:55 residential building will have residential flats and common areas but we won't have a mixture of uses now in this particular case we had an existing building built in the seventies consented to by which I'm assuming the
00:10:08 consented to by which I'm assuming the Greater London Council using a different code of practice the one that currently applies
00:10:15 applies but they were existing non-residential users in there and I think the general consensus amongst xover was that we
00:10:26 consensus amongst xover was that we needed to make sure that what how the scheme ended up was acceptable to the Building Control Authority and was safe had you seen this email at the time
00:10:37 had you seen this email at the time would it have caused you any concern no no not particularly in what respect would you have considered warning mr. Singh's that you were making an existing
00:10:49 Singh's that you were making an existing crap condition worse I'm not sure I've used those words no I think we were we were going to be talking to Bruce about how to improve his original scheme for
00:11:03 how to improve his original scheme for the alterations didn't comply in my view what about warning the TMO your kind would it would that have caused you to
00:11:14 would it would that have caused you to raise the issue with them I think when I had the first meeting with the TMO which was essentially a design team meeting which they attended I did make the point
00:11:26 which they attended I did make the point fairly forcefully that the proposals as drawn up by studio we were not acceptable in terms of getting approval under the building regulations and that therefore we needed to do some serious
00:11:38 therefore we needed to do some serious work to get to a situation where we could actually go forward to Kensington and Chelsea with a confident that a scheme would be approved and which
00:11:49 scheme would be approved and which meeting would that be would that be the one on the 6th of September I couldn't give you this date but it was the very first design team meeting that had the full design team there including TMO and the rest of them okay it was my first
00:12:02 the rest of them okay it was my first meeting if you like just on this design note did you consider the design note to contain sufficient information to enable the design team to progress the design
00:12:14 the design team to progress the design for our IBA stage C no it was it was as essentially as I said yesterday it was a list of points that they needed to address as a matter of some urgency
00:12:26 address as a matter of some urgency before we then the design so does it follow that this design note was not what you envisage you would produce for this stage when you drafted the original proposal
00:12:37 you drafted the original proposal document and you talked about a preliminary fire strategy no I think I said yesterday giving my evidence that this design could have taken a different form it could have been an email with
00:12:49 form it could have been an email with bullet points and that would reduced its status to just a normal communication it wasn't intended to be a definitive document to go forward for discussion
00:13:02 document to go forward for discussion with the local authority okay can we look at some contemporary contemporaneous emails around this time which to give some background to the run-up to this design note can we turn
00:13:13 run-up to this design note can we turn and to EXO five zero six six eight and this is an email sent to you on the 8th of August 2012 by Miss Barker and she
00:13:26 of August 2012 by Miss Barker and she says hi Terry hope you're well and recovered from your illness and then she explains that she went to a meeting in your absence and she continues the email below from Bruce has irritated me a
00:13:38 below from Bruce has irritated me a little to say the least I've asked Kate to do the fire strategy for the existing tower building and so far this is the only part of the project we've had the fees accepted on if Bruce wants us to do the next stage then we have to have the fees accepted this has
00:13:50 have to have the fees accepted this has not happened yet and then she goes on and explains that she's got concerns because various people are away at that time now can we just read the email
00:14:04 time now can we just read the email below that she's referring to sorry that go down within page 2 to breach scenes as email sorry forget it that's it so if
00:14:17 as email sorry forget it that's it so if we can zoom in on that so this is Bruce tooms to her on the 7th of August and it copies you in do you see that at the top yeah so you saw this at the time and he
00:14:30 yeah so you saw this at the time and he says apologies for not responding to you know I've been distracted but I couldn't understand why you got the 16th of August deadline this is the planning deadline any impact the fire strategy has on the overall ski
00:14:42 has on the overall ski needs to be understood sooner than this ideal we should be submitting a stage C type document to the client for the end of this week or next week it would be enough to know that you have reviewed
00:14:54 enough to know that you have reviewed the scheme and have no significant comments reservations to make and the strategy for the fire safety is achievable and any implications on the layout and external works is understood by the rest of the design team and then
00:15:07 by the rest of the design team and then he explains he said this might sound unreasonable but the project's been live for some time notwithstanding the delay on formal appointments and then he says see attach markup provided by James Lee
00:15:18 see attach markup provided by James Lee and he discussed it previously with him on the phone etc now do you agree that it's very clear from that that Studio II wanted a stage C type document to submit
00:15:31 wanted a stage C type document to submit to the client yes I'm but that's reasonably clear from what he's saying whether that stage she typed document incorporated an outline fire safety strategy or not I don't know
00:15:46 well I think there are two issues here one is that we hadn't been formally appointed to do the work on the refurbishment which fair alluded to in
00:15:57 refurbishment which fair alluded to in her earlier email and and that really is you know we weren't able to produce a stage C report dealing with fire safety
00:16:08 stage C report dealing with fire safety issues and the time to go yes I mean I was gonna pick this up later but maybe we come to this now there had been an email to you dated the 18th of July from Artie Lea saying that your fee proposal
00:16:22 Artie Lea saying that your fee proposal was accepted so maybe we could quickly look at that exo five zeroes five four three
00:16:35 if we can blow that up so on the 18th of July Alan Dawson emails you saying I
00:16:47 July Alan Dawson emails you saying I just want to drop you a short note to confirm that the client has now confirmed your proposed fee is approved right to which end we would now ask that you engaged with briefs at Studio E and respect to the above project forthwith
00:16:58 respect to the above project forthwith and then they're currently reviewing how to formalize appointments there may be that we have one may appointment with studio II he then sub consult to all other parties and then can you please
00:17:10 other parties and then can you please confirm by return that you're happy to proceed in the interim on the basis of this emails an instruction on behalf of the client in respect of the same did you see that I do yes now to be fair to you I think you were away because of
00:17:22 you I think you were away because of illness during this time I was away for four weeks as I said yesterday and and does that potentially explain why miss Barker was under the impression in August that the fee proposal hadn't been
00:17:33 August that the fee proposal hadn't been accepted yes indeed when in fact we can see here that it was and the email have been sent to you confirming that right
00:17:45 if we can just go back to mr. Singh's his email that we were just looking at EXO five zero six six eight at page two
00:17:57 can I just ask at the end of that first paragraph what you understood him to mean when he says so in the very last
00:18:08 mean when he says so in the very last few lines he says and any implications on the layout and external works is understood by the rest of the design team what did you understand him to mean by that well there were changes proposed
00:18:21 by that well there were changes proposed to the landscaping which we would have gone on in parallel with him general improvement to the entrance to the site and I would interpret external works as
00:18:33 and I would interpret external works as meaning landscaping including access for fire appliances to the base of the tower I see would you have interpreted external works to include the external
00:18:45 external works to include the external works on the now I wouldn't now the design note that we were looking at that you produce on the 12th of September was that effectively an attempt to address this
00:18:59 effectively an attempt to address this request for a stage C type document I would hesitate to describe it as a stage C type document since it wasn't a formal
00:19:10 C type document since it wasn't a formal fire safety strategy it was a design note which doesn't have the same status in our Terms as a report it said it's a note for information to the design team
00:19:22 note for information to the design team these are the sort of things that you need to consider before we can start formulating a fire strategy I mean there were issues in there which were resolved
00:19:34 were issues in there which were resolved fairly shortly afterwards but some remained as an issue until we had our first meeting with our bkc Building Control so you know these were early
00:19:45 Control so you know these were early days in our terms are we right that that document was was the only document that could have been responding to this request yeah that's fair comment yeah there was no other report there was no
00:19:56 there was no other report there was no other report no and I'm gonna put this to you directly given that mr. C ins are called for a stage C type dr. Andrews explaining what mr. stones is saying is
00:20:08 explaining what mr. stones is saying is that we I think Studio II should be submitting a stage C type document and he's asking X over to tell him whether
00:20:19 he's asking X over to tell him whether you absolutely would put it a different way
00:20:22 way give give him what mr. mr. students had asked for in this email he wants to know you've revealed the scheme no significant comments reservations and the strategy is achievable etc given
00:20:35 the strategy is achievable etc given that request I'm going to put it to you that the note that you prepared should've covered b2 b3 and b4 as well even if briefly at that stage and I
00:20:50 even if briefly at that stage and I think you asked me this question yesterday those weren't pressing issues design-wise
00:20:59 when I when I looked at the scheme from day one it occurred to me that what the studio we were proposing was not
00:21:10 studio we were proposing was not acceptable in fire safety terms I don't want to make that sound dramatic but you have to understand that you need to go to some to a building control authority work with a scheme that you can justify
00:21:22 work with a scheme that you can justify yeah and get them to agree to what we saw initially wasn't acceptable in layout terms and there were other imponderables such as will they ask for
00:21:34 imponderables such as will they ask for sprinklers but wasn't the fact that you knew it was going to be over clad something which would be an important issue Building Control would also have
00:21:45 issue Building Control would also have to be looking at in detail I didn't think about cladding at that particular stage no we were more focused on the layout of the floors at the lowest four floors of the building did you envisage
00:21:56 floors of the building did you envisage at this state when you submitted the design note that it would be relied upon and included in studio e's own stage C report I would have been surprised if that's what they thought they were going
00:22:07 that's what they thought they were going to do because it was only a note I mean I think that's the operative word it's these are the things that we need to consider yeah and you can't go forward
00:22:18 consider yeah and you can't go forward to the client with a stage C report saying this is we think the fire safety strategy is fine when the note that they've got in their hands suggests
00:22:29 they've got in their hands suggests otherwise yep can we go back to the email that we were just looking at just to pick up another point this is EXO five zero six six eight two yes sorry
00:22:43 five zero six six eight two yes sorry that that's this email and go up a page to the short email you sent in response yes to miss Barker so if we just look at
00:22:54 yes to miss Barker so if we just look at this on the 8th of August you say Claire thank you for dealing with this in my absence are you taking this project over now and then Terri yeah and can I just ask you about that
00:23:06 yeah and can I just ask you about that does that indicate that you were keen to hand the project over to in stage yes that might be the case I just come back from four weeks suffering
00:23:17 just come back from four weeks suffering from pneumonia so yeah I don't think that I was feeling terribly wonderful two days after coming back but no it was a genuine question now you seem to be corresponding with studio a about the
00:23:30 corresponding with studio a about the refurbishment do you want to take the project over it might have made some sense in terms of continuity at least
00:23:39 you've explained why you're keen to do that and just briefly before we then get to the outline fire safety strategies themselves I just want to pick up and just be clear who xover we're working
00:23:51 just be clear who xover we're working for on the project we looked at the email from Alan Dawson of Apple yards on the 18th of July 2012 it's just go back to that EXO five zeroes five four three
00:24:09 and they're emailing you confirming that the client has now confirmed your fee proposal is approved can you just just to be clear explain who you understood the client to be on
00:24:21 who you understood the client to be on the project I understood the client to be the TMO Apple Yards I think were the quantity surveyors yeah it's not uncommon for quantity surveyors to be because they're
00:24:32 quantity surveyors to be because they're looking at all the financial aspects of a development not unusual for them to get involved in the costs of the various consultants yeah and in fact having a
00:24:45 consultants yeah and in fact having a dialogue with them I mean they were also I think they were the project administrators as well that's not a term that I understand you either have approach you have a project manager
00:24:56 approach you have a project manager generally I think you have a client and then you have a lead consultant the term you've just used is not something that I I'm familiar with okay I'm to be honest
00:25:07 I'm familiar with okay I'm to be honest I thought Apple yards were their main function was quantity so yeah and where you clear that your day to day engagement on the project was by a studio II as I said to you in this email
00:25:20 studio II as I said to you in this email yes I mean that would be normal for any project we would normally work with the lead consultant and the lead consultant is nearly always 100 percent of the cases the architect yeah we don't the
00:25:34 cases the architect yeah we don't the exception to that is that some actions are required by the project manager if you have a project manager who is very active or proactive in this particular
00:25:49 active or proactive in this particular case most of the the running if I can call it that was by Studio E which is not unusual yeah and then this last paragraph he asked you to confirm that
00:26:00 paragraph he asked you to confirm that you're happy to proceed in the interim on the basis that this emails an extra instruction on behalf of the client in respect of the same did any more formal arrangements ever materialized
00:26:11 arrangements ever materialized I would hope it did but I'm not sure I mean I think there was a contract the contract that we had an exchange of emails with studio RIA there that the problem that everybody has in
00:26:24 that the problem that everybody has in this business is if you haven't got a formal instruction to work you might end up in a situation where you've done work and then for some reason rather you can't get paid for doing it and that's
00:26:35 can't get paid for doing it and that's not very good for your business but we would always want to proceed on the basis of an agreed contract now we are happy to do a limited amount of work
00:26:47 happy to do a limited amount of work where we have an email of this sort we said the client is happy with your phase can you carry on until with the whole thing is falling that formula formalized
00:26:59 can you confirm that there was no competitive tender process involved in X overs appointment um I think I must have
00:27:11 overs appointment um I think I must have realized that there was no competition because we weren't asked to tenderize such a draft a provider fee proposal where we get we are competing with
00:27:22 where we get we are competing with another consultancy or two other consultancies or whatever then we would know about that because the the form in which were asked tender would be
00:27:33 which were asked tender would be somewhat different this one was we'd like you to do it can you please give us a fee proposal for doing that yeah so to your knowledge X Ava was the only firm approached by the
00:27:44 Ava was the only firm approached by the TMO for this work yes that's correct and did the TMO pay your invoices I believe they did and who did you actually report to on the ground floor project during the work report to him
00:27:57 project during the work report to him what so in terms of reporting back on your work you we didn't have a formal reporting procedure and there are some projects the project manager insists on
00:28:09 projects the project manager insists on a monthly progress report from all the consultants that sort of structure didn't apply to this project okay so if you like the client or his project
00:28:21 you like the client or his project manager wasn't seeing what everybody was doing yeah do you think it would have been helpful on this project to have had that kind of formal reporting structure I think that type of
00:28:32 I think that type of regime if I can call it that is highly desirable on any project of any significance yep okay so I now want to turn to look at the outline fire safety
00:28:43 turn to look at the outline fire safety strategies issues one two and three that you prepared and we're going to look at these in stages and issue one is dated the 31st of October 2012 if we can bring
00:28:55 the 31st of October 2012 if we can bring that up that's it EXO five zero is five one nine and we can see it's headed there outline fire safety strategy and we see on the front
00:29:06 safety strategy and we see on the front page the date in the bottom right hand corner issue zero one and so what we know is this was prepared seven weeks after the design note of the 12th of
00:29:18 after the design note of the 12th of September that we were looking at previously I can what which are IBA state was this issue one prepared for I
00:29:29 state was this issue one prepared for I don't think we tied it to a particular are IBA stage it was clearly an outlined fire safety strategy so logically it would have come under the heading of our
00:29:41 would have come under the heading of our RBA stage C in other words it wasn't fully developed it didn't you know didn't deal with every aspect of the building design so even though your fee proposal had broken down the work
00:29:53 proposal had broken down the work according to the our IBA stages which he'd been asked to do you hadn't provided this report with a particular stage in mind well I think I just confirmed that it was effectively a
00:30:05 confirmed that it was effectively a stage C report in other words it didn't have a huge amount of detail yep now studio e stage C report their own stage C report was also issued on this same
00:30:18 C report was also issued on this same day the 31st of October 2012 and max Fordham's stage C report had come in on the 10th of October 2012 now just just
00:30:31 the 10th of October 2012 now just just looking at those dates I want to put it to you would you accept that this indicates that X overs work was insufficiently coordinated with the design work of the other parties so did
00:30:42 design work of the other parties so did you say insufficiently yeah coordinated because it's in too late to be absorbed into the stage see report for example of the architect I was aware that studio here
00:30:54 architect I was aware that studio here in ourselves issued a report on the same day that was a bit of a coincidence I'm not entirely sure whether our report needed to be in the stage C report that
00:31:06 needed to be in the stage C report that was prepared by studio a look at it in a moment in fact what was in the stage C report and I will I will show you this was the design note from September well
00:31:18 was the design note from September well that presumably was all they had at the time yes yeah yeah now we see from the second page of this outline fire safety strategy that it was prepared by you and
00:31:30 strategy that it was prepared by you and it was reviewed by mr. Mac Eleni and we'll come back to think about his role later I want to look at the contents page at page 3
00:31:42 page at page 3 this is EXO 5 zeroes sorry you've got that there yeah and that sets out the topics that are addressed in the report and then if we go on to page 4 this is
00:31:55 and then if we go on to page 4 this is the introduction and it explains in paragraph 1 the proposed development is the refurbishment of ground floor Tara 24-story residential block and then it
00:32:07 24-story residential block and then it explains what else it incorporates including other accommodations and then we have a list it says the refurbishment comprises and we have a list of what the
00:32:18 comprises and we have a list of what the refurbishment comprises in bullet points
00:32:23 now nowhere in that list does it state that the refurbishment includes over cladding does it no that's correct can you explain why you didn't include
00:32:34 can you explain why you didn't include that over cladding of the tower in that list well because it wasn't on mind my mind at the time I guess I mean have we had some sort of preliminary details of
00:32:45 had some sort of preliminary details of cladding for us to consider then we might have incorporated in the list but equally we could have put it in the list but you'll see if you look at the report there is no no statements regarding the
00:32:58 there is no no statements regarding the cladding
00:32:58 cladding in the in the later part of the report yes so we've established that you did know that overcrowding was going to be part of the refurbishment yes and can
00:33:12 part of the refurbishment yes and can you explain why you hadn't sought further details yourself by that time about the cladding proposals it's not something that we would do ourselves we would expect you to come from Studio E
00:33:24 would expect you to come from Studio E or from somebody else I see we can't guess what their proposals are for cladding if they send us a set of proposals then that's that's
00:33:37 us a set of proposals then that's that's another thing that's the normal way it would be done yep now we looked at some meetings where cladding was referred to including aluminium rain screen and zinc
00:33:49 including aluminium rain screen and zinc cladding yesterday but I'm now wanting to focus on what had happened after your design note was prepared but before this outline strategy was submitted so if we
00:34:02 outline strategy was submitted so if we can pick this up so if we go to MIT three zeros six five six five eight on page eight
00:34:18 and if we can zoom in on the top of this this we can see this is an email for mr. Jes of Studio E to Colin Charles of Ledbetter max Fordham etc and you're
00:34:29 Ledbetter max Fordham etc and you're copied in do you see your cc'd listen to that and we can see from the content of the email that mr. jess is inviting people to a design team workshop on the
00:34:42 people to a design team workshop on the 13th of september at 2:00 p.m. and can you recall whether you attended that design team workshop I appreciate you're
00:34:53 design team workshop I appreciate you're only copied into this email but we just wanted to know whether you did attend I don't believe I did attend I'm probably I'm pretty sure I didn't attend that meeting it was actually held on site from the look of this yeah and you know
00:35:05 from the look of this yeah and you know that you didn't go to site can we look at another email this is se a four zero six three nine four
00:35:19 and if we can blow that up so this is a little bit later in October on the 23rd of October 2012 mr. Jes of Studio E
00:35:30 of October 2012 mr. Jes of Studio E emails a draft of Graham for work packages for the refurbishment project to a number of members of the design team and including you you're on the
00:35:42 team and including you you're on the main list there in terms of receipt of this email do you see that you're the last person dude yes yeah and it appears
00:35:53 last person dude yes yeah and it appears to be for the purposes of a workshop on the 25th of October Thursday the 25th he's saying the plan for Thursday is to
00:36:05 he's saying the plan for Thursday is to initially have a brief discussion and do you remember attending that design team workshop I don't remember attending it but I might have done but I
00:36:18 attending it but I might have done but I think the key was that during the discussions between the issue of design note and issue one of the fire safety strategy report we had discussions quite
00:36:29 strategy report we had discussions quite detailed discussions with Studio E as to how they could modify their design to the point where we felt confident that
00:36:40 the point where we felt confident that we could actually present it to building control yep and if I'm sorry if I might add a bit yeah and clarification because it was an existing building which was
00:36:53 it was an existing building which was being altered there was a slight risk in my mind that the Building Control Authority and consultation with the fire brigade might say now is the opportunity
00:37:05 brigade might say now is the opportunity to put sprinklers in the non-residential parts of the building right that was a genuine concern on the part of the
00:37:16 genuine concern on the part of the client that if you look at the statutory position the statutory position is that as long as the existing arrangements are maintained in the building
00:37:28 maintained in the building you don't have to do anything to it where you're doing alterations to part of it
00:37:35 of it anything goes the local authority could say well we'll treat these floors of the building as as a per new building and with all that that implies so there was
00:37:46 with all that that implies so there was a need to get to see our bkc Building Control to sound them out yeah I see and I mean I had a section that will come to you on sprinklers in due course so I
00:37:58 you on sprinklers in due course so I don't wanna go into this too much but I've said the TMA were concerned about that what was the name I don't think they were specifically concerned about sprinklers they were concerned that we
00:38:09 sprinklers they were concerned that we wanted you know whether the proposals were going to be approved under the building regulations I think so whether it was there a concern about potential cost of putting some linkers into that no no I I'm sorry maybe I oversee
00:38:21 no no I I'm sorry maybe I oversee emphasize the the concern about sprinklers there I mean when we've met with the design team we said you could end up with a requirement for sprinklers in certain parts of the building so they
00:38:34 in certain parts of the building so they may have been a concern but they didn't express it to me yep just looking back at this email here on the 23rd of October it's headed and that it's
00:38:45 October it's headed and that it's dealing with the workshop and attached to it we can see from the top of various gram for work packages documents and do you remember looking at those Graham for
00:38:56 you remember looking at those Graham for work packages documents no I don't I probably wouldn't it look to them if I'm honest
00:39:02 honest and yes they had a fire dimension I see can we just have a look at those if we bring them up se a four zero six three
00:39:13 bring them up se a four zero six three nine five and if we can blow up the top of that
00:39:22 do you see there we can see there's a number of items at the beginning in these work packages which are about over cladding some to the podium insulation and then there's in that second box down
00:39:35 and then there's in that second box down it says over cladding podium insulation precast concrete and then over cladding insulation zinc rain screen do you see that yes I do yeah so that's making clear that over cladding is definitely
00:39:47 clear that over cladding is definitely still a big part of this project it's known yes I just say I didn't look at any of these packages I mean if we'd been asked to look at these then that would have been somewhat different the
00:39:59 would have been somewhat different the whole tenor of the email was we are having a meeting to discuss the various workshops didn't say would you xover look at all of these work packages and
00:40:10 look at all of these work packages and can't give us your coins I see so so is that the point that you expect there to be a specific email to you saying you need to look at this for the context in the context of the fire
00:40:21 the context in the context of the fire strategy yes I mean we would not expect to look at a whole series of building packages just because we were part of the design team we would want something specific to go on I think so let's come
00:40:36 specific to go on I think so let's come back then on the 31st of October 2012 we know the studio II stage C report was issued can we look at that now so if we
00:40:48 issued can we look at that now so if we look at a RT four zero eight three nine six
00:40:57 if we can blow up this email at the top thank you yes so this is agent Jess from studio II on the 31st of October 2012
00:41:09 studio II on the 31st of October 2012 emailing and the subject is stage C report and he says please find attached the studio II FTP location for the stage C report and a link is provided to the
00:41:21 C report and a link is provided to the stage C report do you see that yes I do and you're copied into that you're on the CC list so your name appears one
00:41:32 the CC list so your name appears one line from the bottom on the C ceiling but we weren't the primary recipients of that were we we were just copied in and that happens a lot on project you get copied in it's a sort of scattergun
00:41:44 copied in it's a sort of scattergun approach copy everybody in did you actually access the link did you look at no no that I didn't see that I needed to there was no you can see there those instructions or requests for information
00:41:57 instructions or requests for information from some of the people to whom that report has been sent but there's nothing asking us to look at it wasn't that a really important document no pair by the architects inform your work on the
00:42:12 architects inform your work on the outline fire safety strategy it's setting out there effectively their proposals where they've got to by that time for the concept design stage if I
00:42:23 time for the concept design stage if I can broaden this out we don't routinely look at Riv a stage C or stage D reports unless we specifically asked to do so I mean on a current project I was
00:42:36 mean on a current project I was specifically asked to look at a section of the stage 3 which is the same as Stacey report which had fire safety implications and the architects sent me
00:42:48 implications and the architects sent me an extract from the stage C report which enabled me to comment on their now to just send me a link to a an FTP site without any it's instruction as to what
00:43:00 without any it's instruction as to what I should do with it then I would ignore it she's what I did but as someone who's as experienced as you are you've worked in Building Control for many years wouldn't that be a document which you
00:43:12 wouldn't that be a document which you could very easily look at and work out which bits were relevant to you know I don't think my building control experience is particularly relevant here I think it's absolutely the case that if
00:43:25 I think it's absolutely the case that if somebody wants an answer from somebody they will ask them the question otherwise you spend lots of time looking at things which may have no interest for you bear in mind these are very lengthy
00:43:36 you bear in mind these are very lengthy documents yeah I appreciate you didn't see this at the time I mean did you ever so you didn't ever look at this data Stephen I've never seen the Stasi with man can we look at it now I want to take
00:43:48 man can we look at it now I want to take you to a few sections just to see what information was in it this is at mmax five zeros four four five so this is the
00:43:59 five zeros four four five so this is the the stage C report and if we look at page 27 there's a section that begins design approach over cladding do you see
00:44:12 design approach over cladding do you see that I do yes and what we get is a narrative description starting with the existing building and then if you go over on to page 28 in the middle under
00:44:26 over on to page 28 in the middle under materials it says a zinc composite rainscreen cladding is proposed to the upper levels and it talks about the advantages of zinc and we can see some sketches on the right towards some
00:44:38 sketches on the right towards some drawings on the right which show you the proposed cladding and then if you go to page 31 we see some plan and sections on
00:44:54 page 31 we see some plan and sections on that page showing over cladding incorporating the zinc cladding that's actually clear from the bottom
00:45:05 section on that page and then if we go to page 32 at the top there's a it's called an isometric and you see there if
00:45:18 called an isometric and you see there if we can zoom into that it's got the rainscreen cladding on the outer layer with the new aluminium windows and then you can see it's got insulation as the layer in the middle and then the the
00:45:30 layer in the middle and then the the cladding rails etc so it's showing you the build up of the cladding system right and then at the bottom of page 32
00:45:42 right and then at the bottom of page 32 if we can look at that it says cladding ideas and it's looking at various options I appreciate these are options but its setting out rain screen
00:45:53 but its setting out rain screen aluminium for example rain screen zinc and giving various photographs and then if we can go with on in this report to page 82 this is within the max fordham
00:46:08 page 82 this is within the max fordham part of this stage see report within their own stage see report and we see the heading for point naught at the top refurbishment response to existing
00:46:19 refurbishment response to existing energy and environmental issues and we can see in the table on the far right that the insulation is said to be new Celotex FR 5,000 can you see that my
00:46:31 Celotex FR 5,000 can you see that my turn yes
00:46:32 turn yes we've got zinc cladding new rain screen ventilated cavity and then insulation and it's giving you values etc and
00:46:46 in the next page page 83 under the heading glazing infill panels we also see again two rows with insulation new Celotex fr 5,000 do you see that I do
00:47:01 Celotex fr 5,000 do you see that I do yes so just looking at this now do you agree it does contain some specific information about what was proposed including the specific type of insulation to be used in the outer
00:47:14 insulation to be used in the outer cladding yeah I can see that now yes and it's also clear that the over cladding
00:47:25 it's also clear that the over cladding is at all levels of the building isn't it it's not just there over cutting part of it no no I'm over coding I assume it means the whole building yeah and if we go to page 68 I just want to pick this
00:47:37 go to page 68 I just want to pick this up because you said earlier you didn't know and you certainly didn't anticipate that your design note would be included in this Stacy report it was it was
00:47:48 in this Stacy report it was it was included under item six point naught fire strategy and this is your design note of the 12th of September 2012 do you see that I do yes and did you say that's because that's what studio II
00:48:00 that's because that's what studio II that's also bad yeah yes and do ya now as we saw this email to you of the 31st of October with this stage see report was timed at 11:37 a.m.
00:48:12 stage see report was timed at 11:37 a.m. so it came in the morning and your issue one of the outline fire strategy was emailed by Margaret Trenor to studio a at 1621 that afternoon right we can look
00:48:28 at 1621 that afternoon right we can look at that let's just check that time exo five zeros five one eight
00:48:39 so if we can blow that up so we see that Margaret Trenor is she an administrative assistant at accessories yes and she's emailed across your outline fire safety
00:48:52 emailed across your outline fire safety strategy please find issue zero one for the above project sent by email only a paper copy can provided on request now did you notice that the studio East HD
00:49:04 did you notice that the studio East HD report had come in before you finalized probably not I mean the lead into issuing a report in our organization can sometimes be as long as three or four
00:49:15 sometimes be as long as three or four days depending on how many reports miss Trina has to issue so it may I may have asked her to issue this some days
00:49:29 asked her to issue this some days previously but I'm not quite sure what the you're asking about its position relative to the stage Stacy report it was really weather incidents isn't it really well it was really whether you've
00:49:41 really well it was really whether you've noticed that morning that the stage see reports come in and thought well I'm just trying to finalize this outline fire safety strategy and whether it occurred to you to have a look at it no
00:49:52 occurred to you to have a look at it no no I I may not have even have seen that email that morning I mean I did we go to lots of meetings we deal with lots of projects at the same time I may not have seen that email on the morning it was
00:50:04 seen that email on the morning it was saying yeah now going back to that outline fire safety strategy and we're sticking with the cladding at the moment and so this is EXO five zeros five one nine on page five
00:50:24 so at paragraph 2.1 this is early on in the report you have outlined that the building will have to be carried out in
00:50:35 building will have to be carried out in conformity with requirements of schedule one of the building regulations and you've explained there what the requirements of schedule one are so we've got B for external fire spread there is item D do you see that I do and
00:50:47 there is item D do you see that I do and you've said at the bottom there compliance with these requirements is normally achieved by meeting the standards contained an approved document b a DB and/or BS triple nine one do you
00:50:58 b a DB and/or BS triple nine one do you see that I do and then the only other reference to the B four functional requirement is that page eight of this report if we can go on to that this is
00:51:09 report if we can go on to that this is an item three point one four three point one point four sorry and this is headed compliance with B for external fire spread and you say it is considered that
00:51:22 spread and you say it is considered that the proposed changes will have no adverse effect on the building in relation to external fire spread but this will be confirmed by an analysis in a future issue of this report do you see
00:51:34 a future issue of this report do you see that I do now can you confirm that that's the only guidance you gave in this report about the B for functional requirement yes it is and can you explain why that was because that we
00:51:47 explain why that was because that we didn't have any other information to to say anything else this is why we say this will be confirmed by an analysis in a future issue of this report I see
00:52:01 a future issue of this report I see speaking this down we know that the drawings that your report listed in the introduction section we've had a look at those they were just general arrangement drawings so they they were plans yeah
00:52:13 drawings so they they were plans yeah yes they contain those no sections or elevations in the tower so what were the proposed changes which in your view
00:52:24 proposed changes which in your view would not have had an impact on external fire spread well there are three aspects to before one is the fire performance of roof
00:52:34 roof rings there is the performance of the external walls in relation to what they can construct it off and there is space separation which I think we talked about
00:52:45 separation which I think we talked about at some length yesterday and at the time that I wrote this report there were no details of any changes to the external wall construction that we could look at
00:52:57 wall construction that we could look at and comment on but we were aware that there would be no space separation or roof covering implications because they
00:53:08 roof covering implications because they weren't being altered none of the words you know the building wasn't moving or they weren't putting other buildings near to it so at that point there were
00:53:20 near to it so at that point there were no implications for b4 but we do reserve the right if I can put it that way to carry out an analysis in a future report
00:53:31 carry out an analysis in a future report should that change you said you didn't have sufficient information to be able to make an assessment in relation to the cladding why didn't you simply flag that
00:53:42 cladding why didn't you simply flag that in this report and say clearly I've had inadequate information to make any assessment at all that's not the way that we chose to do it I mean the truth
00:53:53 that we chose to do it I mean the truth of the matter was that we didn't have any details that we could comment on or put it another way we weren't asked to look at anything which would give us the
00:54:04 look at anything which would give us the necessary details but given what we've been through today and yesterday and the fact that you had been told about the over cladding and have been sent some details of what that might involve do
00:54:16 details of what that might involve do you agree that this statement was potentially misleading for the readers of it because they might have thought that the cladding those changes would have no adverse effect in theory they
00:54:29 have no adverse effect in theory they might not have had any adverse effect if we'd stopped it it is considered that the proposed changes will have no adverse effect on the building in relation to external fire spread . that could be questioned in my view but we
00:54:43 could be questioned in my view but we weren't in a position to say that equivocally unequal you know that there are no implications for external fastweb which is why we said we will confirm this by a future analysis do you agree that this was
00:54:58 analysis do you agree that this was potentially misleading because it implied that the proposed works which did involve over cladding would have had no adverse effect on the building in relation to external fire spread
00:55:10 relation to external fire spread misinterpreted by whom by those reading this report so Studio II the TMO well Studio II but I'm not sure that TMO would have registered this but as far as
00:55:23 would have registered this but as far as studio we are concerned I would have expected them to come back and say well you know do you know what we're doing on the external walls or is this statement
00:55:36 the external walls or is this statement mean that we're in the clear with regard to B 4 or don't need to do anything else I see so you expected this to be the subject of a follow-up indeed yes I mean I could have worded it differently I
00:55:48 I could have worded it differently I could have said there are insufficient details at this stage to confirm complete compliance would be for yeah you know that's a choice of words which might have been more appropriate at the
00:55:59 might have been more appropriate at the time but we did say we will carry out a future analysis yes after that the future analysis what were you in visiting when you wrote this what kind
00:56:13 visiting when you wrote this what kind of analysis were you thinking would be undertaken well if this were another project probably they would have sat down with the architect and maybe the building services engineering gone
00:56:25 building services engineering gone through their proposals for over cladding insulation and all the rest of it you would have looked at materials you would have looked at cavity barriers
00:56:36 you would have looked at cavity barriers fire stopping and all the rest of it we didn't have that sort of meeting I appreciate you didn't but at the time you wrote this this will be confirmed by
00:56:47 you wrote this this will be confirmed by an analysis in a future issue of this report
00:56:50 report well I anticipated that would happen and that's why I put that wording in there that there would be a future analysis yeah as things turned out it never happened
00:56:58 happened and which parts of the B for requirement did you in visited would be considered in that future analysis well it would have been cladding I guess because I've
00:57:09 have been cladding I guess because I've already said that the the works that were proposed had no implicit no implications for space separation or the roof covering yes and I'm gonna put that to you that actually what was in your
00:57:20 to you that actually what was in your mind here was space separation and the roof and that you weren't actually thinking about whether it would adequately resist the spread of fire under the b41 requirement I think what
00:57:33 under the b41 requirement I think what I'm saying here is that we don't actually know whether or not in the final analysis before will be satisfied which is why we say we need to look at it to carry out an analysis in the
00:57:44 it to carry out an analysis in the future so just to be clear we know that a pre be divides up the B for requirement into three different sections section 12 which deals with the
00:57:56 sections section 12 which deals with the external you know section 13 which deals with space separation and section 14 which deals with roof coverings yes I just explained that yeah so which parts
00:58:08 just explained that yeah so which parts of ADB were you envisaging would be the subject of that future analysis at that point in time it might have included all three parts I mean my don't I don't know we didn't have sufficient information at
00:58:20 we didn't have sufficient information at that time to confirm one way or the other which is why we said we would carry out an analysis miss ration just helped me to make sure I've understood yep this correctly would it be would I
00:58:31 yep this correctly would it be would I be right in thinking that when you refer to the proposed changes you are referring to all the changes proposed to the building including the cladding we
00:58:42 the building including the cladding we didn't specifically say that in this report is that how I should understand that is how you could understand it yes thank you that's helpful
00:58:57 do you accept that the use of the word confirmed there as in confirmed by an analysis and a future issue report was also potentially misleading if you've not actually considered the substance of
00:59:09 not actually considered the substance of the cladding proposals at this stage well if they were not adequate we wouldn't have confirmed that they were I mean but you see the use of the word
00:59:21 mean but you see the use of the word confirmed suggests that you've you've got a fairly firm view that there isn't a problem but you'll just confirm that later I think that's one way you could
00:59:32 later I think that's one way you could interpret it that's not the way I intended it to be interpreted do you agree that you shouldn't knowing that any form of cutting was to be used have
00:59:44 any form of cutting was to be used have said that the proposed changes will have no adverse effect this is a state a statement of the future tense it will have no adverse effect but that
00:59:55 have no adverse effect but that presupposes that we satisfy ourselves at some point in the future that everything is okay yeah do you agree with me that you couldn't possibly have known that given that any form of cladding would
01:00:07 given that any form of cladding would have a potential impact on the building's compartment ation I accept that it is open to interpretation yes would you agree looking at this now that
01:00:20 would you agree looking at this now that you should have highlighted the significant effect that over cladding could have on the building's compartment ation and its ability to comply with the building regulations I'm not sure that I
01:00:32 building regulations I'm not sure that I would accept that I needed to highlight that particular aspect of the building at this stage you don't think that you needed to highlight that the over
01:00:44 needed to highlight that the over cladding could have a potentially significant effect on the ability of the building to comply with the building regulation if an if an acceptable cladding system had been proposed and we
01:00:55 cladding system had been proposed and we were aware of it then the wording in this report would have been somewhat different but we didn't know what was being proposed did it ever occur to you around this
01:01:07 did it ever occur to you around this time and we'll see in due course that you use exactly the same wording in the second issue in the third issue that you might have created a false sense of security within the design team about
01:01:19 security within the design team about what they were doing with the external rule they might have thought that but they might thought well maybe we should check we like so that that is the case and also a false sense of security for
01:01:34 and also a false sense of security for the ultimate client the CMO who received this report may be I mean I don't know how critically TMO looked at the report
01:01:46 how critically TMO looked at the report we haven't heard any feedback from TMO on anything really can we just look at mr. Singh's as evidence on this if we go to his witness statement and this is a
01:01:58 to his witness statement and this is a CA three zeros one for 273 at page 73 I want to look at what he says at paragraph one for nine so he says there
01:02:14 paragraph one for nine so he says there I do not recall when I read the section regarding Part B 4 of the outline fire safety strategy however on rereading it I know that X / did not identify that
01:02:25 I know that X / did not identify that the proposed over cladding works would present any specific problems or difficulties in respect of requirement B 4 of the building regulations therefore there was nothing that suggested to me
01:02:36 there was nothing that suggested to me there would have been a risk in this regard do you see that yes indeed and in evidence mr. soon stated that he understood that the statement you made
01:02:48 understood that the statement you made on B 4 to mean that it was too soon for X over to comment but that from studio E's point of view this confirmed that there was no concern that that was his
01:02:59 there was no concern that that was his evidence to us on day 8 and for the reference for the transcript that was page 52 lines 9 to 11 did you know at the time that the statement had given
01:03:13 the time that the statement had given studio a comfort that there was no concern
01:03:16 concern the external fire spread in relation to the proposed changes no I didn't know that
01:03:26 do you also agree that without addressing the cladding the report would not be an all-encompassing document which provided an overview of how fire could impact on the building
01:03:38 could impact on the building I accept that yes and it wouldn't consider all aspects of fire safety and protection in a unified manner looking at all key features of the building at
01:03:50 at all key features of the building at that point no I don't think he did I mean the statement in in this witness statement is all right Stevie oh he thought that everything was okay
01:04:02 thought that everything was okay but they didn't ask me whether they didn't ask me is it everything okay so even if the information that you had was lacking at this stage I want to return
01:04:15 lacking at this stage I want to return to something we discussed briefly yesterday why didn't you at least set out the performance requirements for the external wall if following approved document b i the guidance given in in
01:04:26 document b i the guidance given in in section 12 of a DB well I think I answered it yesterday I wouldn't expect you to quote every single part of the
01:04:38 you to quote every single part of the regulations in a fire strategy report
01:04:43 how familiar were you at this time with those parts of a proved occupant B we know that you hadn't done a nova cladding high-rise project before were
01:04:54 cladding high-rise project before were you familiar with the provisions in section 12 of approved document b dealing with the external wall yes I was
01:05:08 do you think it would have been helpful for the design team to have known about these performance requirements when designing the over cladding I think that app we had a specific meeting to discuss
01:05:21 app we had a specific meeting to discuss those proposals which were a fairly significant part of the design and then all of those things would have come out but we never had a dialogue with them I see so you anticipated that at a
01:05:37 I see so you anticipated that at a meeting you might have explained the performance requirements to them yeah on in another project for example the architect all the project manager would
01:05:49 architect all the project manager would contact us and we'd say we now like to talk about how we're going to deal with the external wall construction or in this case the other cladding can we have a meeting that never happened mr. tonin
01:06:06 a meeting that never happened mr. tonin that's probably a good moment yes I'm coming on to look at b3 next and I'd rather do that in one go right thank you we'll have a break now there mr. eshton I think give you a chance to stretch
01:06:17 I think give you a chance to stretch your legs we'll start again the top cost 11 so if you'd like to give the actual oh thank you very much oh please don't talk to a nun about to rip it up now probably won't get the chance but if you
01:06:28 probably won't get the chance but if you do it
01:06:37 right off 11 please
01:20:02 yes would you ask miss rash them to come back please
01:20:18 all right mr. eshton thank you good thank you Miss Granger thank you yes so I now want to look at what you've included under requirement b3 in this first issue of the outline fire safety strategy so if we can bring
01:20:31 fire safety strategy so if we can bring up and so it's EXO five zeros five one nine at page seven and at the bottom of that page we have a section headed
01:20:42 that page we have a section headed compliance with b3 and you've dealt with fire resistance of elements of structure and then compartment ation and you say
01:20:53 and then compartment ation and you say compartment walls and/or floors will be provided and you've said where walls and floors will be provided and then if you go over into the next page page eight
01:21:05 you've explained what the standard of fire resistance will be a compartment walls and floors and the doorways within compartment walls will be fitted with
01:21:16 compartment walls will be fitted with self closing doors having a 60 Minutes star fire standard of resistance now can you explain why there's no reference at all in this section to functional
01:21:27 all in this section to functional requirement b3 4 that's the one that states the building shall be designed and constructed so that the unseen spread of fire and smoke within concealed spaces in its structure and
01:21:39 concealed spaces in its structure and fabric is inhibited given that we know the building was going to be over clad well it isn't in there I mean I don't think I made a conscious decision to
01:21:50 think I made a conscious decision to make any statement about cavity bearers at that point in time no can you remember why that was no not really I mean I think that if we had
01:22:03 really I mean I think that if we had more details at that stage we would have said something more about it I mean as I said early on it's easy to put in a number of conditions without saying how
01:22:14 number of conditions without saying how they were a number of statements but without saying how those particular requirements will be met it's just the statement of you know this is what b3 requires however we haven't got anything
01:22:26 requires however we haven't got anything to say about it at this stage is but my point is given that we know there's going to be an over cutting and and section nine of a proof document B contains design guidance relevant to
01:22:39 contains design guidance relevant to compliant with the compliance with the functional requirement why don't you specifically refer to be 3/4 or section nine of a proof document B in this part of your report I didn't
01:22:52 B in this part of your report I didn't feel it necessary at this stage why haven't you identified the locations within Granth or tower that formed concealed spaces well as far as I was
01:23:04 concealed spaces well as far as I was concerned there were none in the in the existing structure I mean the building here is a reinforced concrete building that weren't any cavities proposed
01:23:15 that weren't any cavities proposed within the individual constituent parts that we were looking at as far as I know does that mean that when you're drafting this b3 section you weren't thinking at
01:23:27 this b3 section you weren't thinking at all about the implications of the external wall and the over cladding probably not no correct and that explains does it why you don't
01:23:38 and that explains does it why you don't identify the need for cavity barriers in the external wall complying with section 9 of ad B yes yes and why you don't
01:23:49 9 of ad B yes yes and why you don't refer to the fire-resistance performance of cavity barriers or the locations of cavity barriers including key locations like around the windows no that's correct
01:24:02 looking at this now and and given that you said in relation to b4 that your final answer was that you work thinking about the over trading do you agree that you should have included those
01:24:13 you should have included those performance requirements I think yes with the wisdom of hindsight one could have provided more details with regard to all parts of the building regulations
01:24:25 to all parts of the building regulations you know maybe we should have said there are other parts of b3 that need to be considered in the future particularly when more constructional details are
01:24:38 when more constructional details are available but we don't normally do that routinely but judging you know if in fact studio he felt they hadn't to do anything more in relation to the
01:24:49 anything more in relation to the external walls based on what you showed me before we broke then maybe with the wisdom of Hansard it might have been helpful yep where you were where at this time that Grenville tower had a stay put
01:25:00 time that Grenville tower had a stay put evacuation strategy yes that was stay put strategy applied across the board for all high-rise residential buildings and that strategy would rely on complementation wouldn't it it wasn't
01:25:13 complementation wouldn't it it wasn't Aegeus and why is that not mentioned anywhere in your report just those basic things that here's a building stay put strategy compartment ation is key a good
01:25:29 strategy compartment ation is key a good question I mean I don't we don't normally make those sort of statements every time we deal with a with a block of apartments where we're dealing with a brand-new apartment there will be a brand-new apartment block I should say
01:25:41 brand-new apartment block I should say there will be a statement about the evacuation strategy which will spell out not in a lot of detail but we'll explain the philosophy behind a stay put
01:25:53 the philosophy behind a stay put strategy here we were dealing with alterations to part of an existing building yeah well we're looking at this b3 part of your report if we just go
01:26:04 b3 part of your report if we just go back to page 7 and look at the bottom of the page
01:26:10 the page right so under that first subheading fire resistance of elements of structure you've you've talked about all new
01:26:23 you've you've talked about all new elements of structure will be considered to have the same standard as that of the existing elements this is assumed to be one hundred and twenty minutes for the structural frame and sixty minutes for the floors isn't it right that approved document b requires the floors to
01:26:36 document b requires the floors to provide 120 minutes fire resistance and sprinklered if you're following that guidance know this building would have been designed to satisfy the london building acts and bylaws which required
01:26:48 building acts and bylaws which required 120 minutes for the structural frame 60 minutes for the floors i see so it wasn't relevant to point out in this that on current design guidance it
01:27:02 that on current design guidance it wouldn't have met the current design standards no we wouldn't normally do that let's look at what you say about B one means of warning and escape and you
01:27:16 one means of warning and escape and you deal with B 1 on page 6 of the report we can go to that and it goes over into page 7 now in that section and under heading b1 you've not identified what
01:27:29 heading b1 you've not identified what evacuation strategies were adopted for the residential and the non-residential areas no I haven't do you know why that is
01:27:39 no no wouldn't that be something that ought to have been included in a fire strategy report those different evacuation strategies for different parts of the bill yes probably it should
01:27:51 parts of the bill yes probably it should have done and then in the means of escape section that begins towards the top half of that page you identify that
01:28:03 top half of that page you identify that both the Boxing Club and the offices
01:28:09 we'll share a means of escape with the apartments in the residential part of the tower you say that under base of those headings now do you agree that
01:28:22 those headings now do you agree that that would have been a departure from the guidance in a PP yes yes because isn't it right that paragraph two point five one of a pre document be provided that for buildings with more than three
01:28:33 that for buildings with more than three storeys stairs can serve both flats and other occupancies only and certain defined circumstances including if the stair was separated from the other
01:28:44 stair was separated from the other occupancies on the lower storeys that's right isn't it it is correct yes I mean this is an existing building within existing mixed-use I don't think that we
01:28:55 existing mixed-use I don't think that we would have wanted to highlight particularly that this was contrary to current recommendations because it already was we were trying to do the
01:29:07 already was we were trying to do the best that we could to make sure that a fire in a non-residential part of the building didn't make escape from the remainder of the building inadequate but
01:29:20 remainder of the building inadequate but there were no means by which you've got to think that other than by the fire service attending and knocking on people's doors why wouldn't you want to highlight it and then explain how you've
01:29:31 highlight it and then explain how you've justified or mitigated it that's just the way it was written we're going to come back to this point again because we
01:29:43 come back to this point again because we know that mr. Pearson dr. Pearson adds adds some text to issue two and we'll talk about that in due course let's look at b5 facilities for the fire service and this is addressed on page 8 of your
01:29:59 and this is addressed on page 8 of your report if we can zoom in on that it's at three point one point five b5 and
01:30:08 we've got there a sentence there at the beginning about the dry rising main it's the very first part a new inlet to the existing dry rising main will be provided in a location where it will be
01:30:20 provided in a location where it will be within 18 meters where a pumping of pipes could pull up do you see that I do yes can you explain why you didn't identify that the original design guidance for the building CP 3 1971
01:30:34 guidance for the building CP 3 1971 would have required a wet rising main not a dry rising main I'm not sure that CP 3 was up applied to this building I
01:30:46 CP 3 was up applied to this building I think it was the London County Council code up ranked has given the age of the building we've we've had evidence from dr. lane in phase 1 that CP 3 1971 would have applied and indeed I think mr. Tod
01:30:59 have applied and indeed I think mr. Tod and dr. Lane are agreed that the building should have been provided with a wet riser given the height of the building it was more than 60 metres I'm sorry we wouldn't do but didn't design I
01:31:14 sorry we wouldn't do but didn't design I don't believe that the design of this building was to CP 3 chapter 4 part 1 I think it building was erected we think in 1971 but the negotiations with the
01:31:30 in 1971 but the negotiations with the Greater London Council prior to the building receiving approval would have been conducted using a different code of practice now it's true to say that the
01:31:41 practice now it's true to say that the building at that height nowadays would require a wet main yeah didn't in those days but was why wasn't that something even that point worth highlighting in
01:31:52 even that point worth highlighting in the report because it that but then imply that a wet rising main had to be introduced retrospectively to a building which didn't require one in the first place did you give any consideration to
01:32:05 place did you give any consideration to whether the existing dry riser system was compliant with current requirements no
01:32:14 no did you consider whether the creation of new residential units on the lower floor would increase the load on the existing dry riser system no because the the
01:32:25 dry riser system no because the the design of residential buildings if you exclude the non-residential allowance in this building assume that you're only going to get a fire in one apartment or one flat and that will not alter the
01:32:38 one flat and that will not alter the requirements for the rising main in any way did you consider whether the creation of new residential units would make access and availability of adequate
01:32:49 make access and availability of adequate facilities for the fire service more unsatisfactory than before the refurbishment works no I didn't consider that to be the case it's quite low down in the building yep did you consider whether the
01:33:03 yep did you consider whether the non-compliance of the dry riser with current regulations should be drawn to the TMA's attention so that they could take the potential risks of retaining the existing system into account when
01:33:14 the existing system into account when determining how to manage the building I think I've said earlier in statutory terms there is no obligation on the
01:33:25 terms there is no obligation on the building owner to bring his or her building up to current building regulation standards if there were then the only mechanism that would be the
01:33:36 the only mechanism that would be the regulatory reform order the building regulations do not allow Building Control authorities to go into existing buildings of which there are thousands and say you have to upgrade your
01:33:48 and say you have to upgrade your building to current building standards that might change as a result of future legislation but currently there is no legal obligation to increase the fire
01:33:59 legal obligation to increase the fire safety standards in an existing building I fully appreciate that mr. Ashton that that's understood but the question I'm asking is was it not important that the TMO understood that it wouldn't have
01:34:13 TMO understood that it wouldn't have complied with current guidance and that was a risk that they ought to be taking into account when managing the building as the responsible person will learn the appropriate vehicle for their
01:34:25 appropriate vehicle for their warning would be the the risk assessment under the our our own which was done by others I see so that you think that's a matter for the fire risk Assessor and not for someone doing a fire strategy
01:34:36 not for someone doing a fire strategy for the refurbishment yes if we if we do a risk assessment of an existing building we would draw attention to those aspects of that building which don't meet current requirements and with
01:34:47 don't meet current requirements and with or without a recommendation for improvements to be made but what you're inferring is that sorry have you finished well I was just gonna say what what you were implying is that we should
01:35:00 what you were implying is that we should have said to the TMO we think you should build bring this building up to current standards
01:35:06 standards no what I'm suggesting is that given this is an old building it's been in existence for a long time you know design codes have moved on that it was important information for the TMO to
01:35:18 important information for the TMO to know that in a building of this height modern design guidance would require a wet rising main yes I think I answered that I think I said that that would be a
01:35:29 that I think I said that that would be a function of the risk assessment area and the are our own yeah so now I want to consider what happened after you'd issued this first issue of your report
01:35:40 issued this first issue of your report and before issue 2 which was in October 2013 so a whole year later it was issued to now shortly after the issue of this
01:35:51 to now shortly after the issue of this report which was on the 31st of October on the 16th of November Adrienne 2012 Adrienne Jess of Studio e sent you a link to all of the current drawings on
01:36:03 link to all of the current drawings on an FTP site can we just look at that this is se a four zeroes six six six six
01:36:20 so here we have that email and you are one of the recipients of that email you're in the main list 16th of November and he says following an earlier
01:36:32 and he says following an earlier telephone call with Matt of Max Fordham I've uploaded a PDF copy of all the current drawings to the studio FTP site did you understand FTP to mean File Transfer Protocol yeah so it's a site
01:36:45 Transfer Protocol yeah so it's a site where you can access large documents is that going yeah and there you've got the link and then they say the intention is to present a draft copy of the stage D report at the project meeting next
01:36:58 report at the project meeting next Thursday the 22nd and then can you please issue a copy of any relevant information for inclusion in the report beforehand so that areas requiring further coordination can be identified before the meeting do you see that I do
01:37:11 before the meeting do you see that I do yes do you remember receiving this email I think I must have received it yes can you remember actually accessing any of the material that was sent to you by studio e don't believe what he did in
01:37:24 studio e don't believe what he did in this occasion so we can see an email that you send back to mr. Jes let's look at this this is EXO five zeros six zero one at page three so if we look at the
01:37:40 one at page three so if we look at the email you send at the top of that page you say Adrian I haven't logged on to this FTP site before how can I get on to it
01:37:47 it kind regards Terry yes or an understanding that and then if we scroll up onto page two you get a long email
01:37:58 up onto page two you get a long email from mr. Jes in which he says at the very end of that he's updated certain drawings on the FTP site and he sends
01:38:09 drawings on the FTP site and he sends you another link a new link is sent do you see that I do yes yeah and then one email up on the 28th of November mr.
01:38:22 email up on the 28th of November mr. Jess says that they're having to you they're having a few email problems and the email below has just bounced back and then he talks about design workshop
01:38:33 and then he talks about design workshop including the TMO our offices might be worth you attending and so looking at these exchanges now does that prompt any recollection in whether you ever
01:38:44 recollection in whether you ever actually act access that FTP site no I don't know I didn't actually access the FTP site I originally said I couldn't and how could I do it and I think he
01:38:55 and how could I do it and I think he must have sent me the same link but I don't remember receiving that do you remember going back to studio E and saying well I can't access the link but can I have the drawings another way no I
01:39:07 can I have the drawings another way no I know because that email there says we having a few email problems I'm assuming that that was the reason we decided to do by way of a workshop rather than by looking at drawings but that's only my
01:39:20 looking at drawings but that's only my assumption yeah I didn't I didn't access the FTP site anyway wouldn't you have been keen to have seen the drawings that they had available on the FTP site
01:39:32 they had available on the FTP site particularly given you didn't have information about there over cladding at this stage over clothing isn't mentioned anywhere in this correspondence I am assuming that this was to do with floor
01:39:44 assuming that this was to do with floor layouts
01:39:44 layouts I see now just to be clear mr. Ashton we haven't been able to work out exactly what was on that FTP so I know that doesn't seem to be information we can gather a little dent of time afterwards
01:39:56 gather a little dent of time afterwards I want to ask you a little bit about liaison with our bkc Building Control because that that takes place in late 2012 and if we can go to a RT five zero
01:40:09 2012 and if we can go to a RT five zero three eight five this is an email that mr. soon sent to David Hale of Apple yards and others on the 17th so it
01:40:23 yards and others on the 17th so it appears to be the 13th of September 2012 now you're not copied into this just to be clear so this is after you've delivered your design note but before is
01:40:36 delivered your design note but before is she one of your outline strategy and in the last two sentences of this email it says in that last paragraph we've identified a 200k saving
01:40:48 paragraph we've identified a 200k saving against the just on the measure to the elevations Terry didn't identify any fundamental problems with the fire strategy but liaison with Building Control is essential because as he put
01:41:00 Control is essential because as he put it
01:41:01 it RB Casey set their own standards and then xover outline strategy attached now I just want to ask you I know you're not copied into this email but what mr.
01:41:12 copied into this email but what mr. Singh's might have meant there by reference to your comment that our bkc set their own standards was that something you said to him no not not in
01:41:23 something you said to him no not not in those terms I mean I don't think that RB Casey would ask for anything that the building regulations guidance documents gave him their entitlement to that's a
01:41:36 gave him their entitlement to that's a bit clumsily wordy but no they don't have their own rules if that's what he's implying so you don't know what he's referring to but I believe he's misreporting what I said can you remember what you said to him alone no I
01:41:48 remember what you said to him alone no I think I have said before and I've said again now that during the discussions with studio 8 I did point out that I'll
01:41:59 with studio 8 I did point out that I'll be Casey Building Control were a little difficult to deal with but that was it that isn't saying that they have a different set of rules for the rest of the country and what did you mean by
01:42:11 the country and what did you mean by that a little difficult it is they are they were at the time difficult to deal with particularly where you were providing something which was not
01:42:22 providing something which was not completely code compliant I see so they were sticklers for compliance were they is that what you mean I think that's a fair description of them yes now you
01:42:34 fair description of them yes now you wrote personally to John Allen at our bkc Building Control attaching the first issue of your outline fire strategy on the 31st of October 2012 itself let's
01:42:45 the 31st of October 2012 itself let's look at that that's a SCA four zero six four four three
01:42:59 and we see there your email to him from Terry Ashton to John Allen at our bkc is he seeing in studio a John further to my email PC attached our report can you
01:43:11 email PC attached our report can you explain why you sent that version of the fire strategy issue one directly to our bkc building control but you don't appear to have done that for the the two later revisions of the fire strategy in
01:43:23 later revisions of the fire strategy in 2013 no I can't I mean I'm assuming that they would have been sent by the design team as distinct from me personally and
01:43:36 team as distinct from me personally and then we can see from the documents on the 6th of November 2012 you organized a meeting at Kensington town hall with Adrian Jess of Studio II and John Allen
01:43:47 Adrian Jess of Studio II and John Allen and Dave gammon of our bkc Building Control is that correct yes that's correct
01:43:52 correct and can you recall what was the purpose of that meeting it was to introduce the the scheme to them engage their feelings about it
01:44:03 about it so was it to discuss the fire strategy report that you had prepared that could have been the agenda for the meeting yes it was purely to discuss fire strategy yeah now your notes of this meeting are
01:44:17 yeah now your notes of this meeting are at exo kippah can go to this EXO 4 zeros 1 3 7 1
01:44:31 and we can see it says purpose of the meeting at the bottom of that page to discuss fire strategy report do you see that indeed and then if we look at page
01:44:42 that indeed and then if we look at page two we don't need to look at the detail let's just look at the headings we can see you're discussing firefighting access
01:44:52 access so that's b5 firefighting means of escape so that's b5 possibly be one and then if we go on to page three we've got
01:45:07 then if we go on to page three we've got means of escape details required and then consultation with the fire authority so we see all those topics yes
01:45:18 authority so we see all those topics yes or do ya and Adrian Jess also made notes following that meeting can we just look at those briefly as well this is a SE a four zeroes six five to six he wrote his
01:45:35 four zeroes six five to six he wrote his notes up in an email and this was sent to you on the 7th of November 2012 and again I think it's suffice us to look at that the bold headings so he said please
01:45:47 that the bold headings so he said please find below my notes and the bold headings we've got fire fighting and then he's dealing with that on various aspects of the tower then he begins smoke ventilation if we go over to the next page and there's a number of points
01:46:01 next page and there's a number of points about smoke ventilation then we've got means of escape detection and containment did you see that I do and then if we keep going that's that's the
01:46:13 then if we keep going that's that's the last item do you see that yeah now based on these two sets of notes it appears that at this meeting there was no reference to requirement before and
01:46:25 no reference to requirement before and the external over cladding of the tower is that correct that's correct can you explain why that was given you knew it was going to be part of the refurbishment scheme well it wasn't
01:46:39 refurbishment scheme well it wasn't discussed because we were discussing their response to our report if cladding had been an issue to be discussed and that would have expected studio II to say can we put an item in
01:46:52 studio II to say can we put an item in the agenda on cladding but they didn't wasn't that something you should have picked up on not necessarily I mean at that stage I didn't really know what they were doing with the cladding wasn't
01:47:03 they were doing with the cladding wasn't that an opportunities to say perhaps before the meeting just to Studio II and and to the TMO I still haven't got enough details i I don't think I've seen enough on the cladding this is an
01:47:16 enough on the cladding this is an important part of the Building Control approval process and before we need we need to sort this out wasn't that something you should have done it was something I think the studio he could
01:47:27 something I think the studio he could have done themselves I could have said can we start talking about cladding can we introduce the topic with Building Control what they didn't see fit to I see and is it right that because you
01:47:39 see and is it right that because you haven't mentioned there over cladding in your issue one of the fire strategy that when it comes to this important meeting with Building Control it's simply not
01:47:51 with Building Control it's simply not discussed correct what I'm not saying it wasn't discussed because I didn't mention it in my report I mean we went there to talk about means of escape and firefighting access generally but Dave gammon had already
01:48:04 generally but Dave gammon had already looked at the report and had given a sort of verbal response to it at the meeting so we were looking at his notes that responded to ours but how would Dave gammon know that over cladding was
01:48:15 Dave gammon know that over cladding was part of the scheme it's not mentioned in your report no maybe he didn't know and you didn't think to check that Building Control knew that
01:48:26 now by this point we know you've had the studio e stage C report but I think it follows from your earlier answers that you wouldn't have looked at that prior to this meeting at the date of this
01:48:41 to this meeting at the date of this meeting did you know about the proposed use of PIR insulation no PIR insulation we're sorry in that part of the over
01:48:54 we're sorry in that part of the over cladding underneath the rain screen as part of the over cladding no absolutely not
01:49:03 can we go to mr. Singh's as witness statement this is a SE a three zeros one for 273 at page 72
01:49:18 perhaps I can just ask because these are long paragraphs can you just read those two paragraphs to yourself for a moment
01:49:46 well I suggest to you that in the end of one four six that term Building Control did not express any concerns about the prose cladding or the facility that they hadn't been told about it right
01:50:05 can you see why mr. soon's might have thought looking at the notes that Building Control just simply didn't express any concern about the proposed cutting at that meeting I'm not quite
01:50:19 cutting at that meeting I'm not quite sure why he assumed that when it wasn't tabled with the Building Control Authority I think it's an assumption on his part that it was and just to be
01:50:31 his part that it was and just to be clear can you explain why the oh why wasn't the cladding significant enough to add it to the agenda with building controls so you could discuss their views on it well because we hadn't looked at any cladding at that stage and
01:50:47 looked at any cladding at that stage and wasn't it your responsibility and leading the meeting to at least include reference to the cladding so as to cover all the areas of fire safety no not necessarily
01:50:59 I'm now going to come to a different topic here obvious why this is relevant in a moment so I want to ask you about
01:51:10 in a moment so I want to ask you about your awareness at this time this is 2012 and 2013 of the risks posed by combustible materials in external wall systems okay and we're going to look in
01:51:23 systems okay and we're going to look in due course at issues two and three of their outline strategy um first of all can you tell us what if any training or study had you undertaken into the
01:51:36 study had you undertaken into the hazards of rainscreen cladding systems or other building facades containing combustible materials as at two 2013 we
01:51:47 combustible materials as at two 2013 we didn't have any specific training on that aspect of building design and I mean obviously as a former consultancy we were aware of a number of serious fires that occurred worldwide because of
01:52:00 fires that occurred worldwide because of the use of inappropriate materials on buildings and some in the UK where plastic soffits had caught fire and caused fire spread there was the obvious
01:52:13 caused fire spread there was the obvious case of lateral house yeah and I've seen examples myself where you had external fire for it where there's been no combustible material applied to
01:52:24 been no combustible material applied to the facade but where fire has been channeled up the building by the building configuration which formed a sort of chimney albeit in reinforced concrete so yes I was well aware that
01:52:35 concrete so yes I was well aware that the potential for external fire spread given that potential and wasn't that something that you were keen to have it
01:52:46 something that you were keen to have it some formal training or other professional courses about external fire spread and combustible materials on tall buildings as a part of your work as a
01:52:59 buildings as a part of your work as a fire safety consultant well as part of our workers fire safety consultants we were expected to know what the standards were and what should and shouldn't be used on an external wall construction or
01:53:11 used on an external wall construction or on roofs for that matter was it as simple as that in terms of what should and shouldn't be used isn't it actually quite a complex topic this in terms of external fire spread and combustible use
01:53:24 external fire spread and combustible use of combustible materials and how it might spread and why I don't think it's any more complicated than any other aspects of building construction I mean you get buildings where there's considerable internal fire spread fire
01:53:36 considerable internal fire spread fire voids and shafts and what-have-you I wouldn't highlighted external cladding as the the most important issue covered by the building regulations if that's
01:53:48 by the building regulations if that's what you're asking I'm not saying it was the most important issue but I'm saying it was particularly the high-rise and in a vitally important project it was an important issue it was an important issue I agree with you on
01:53:59 an important issue I agree with you on that DDX over encourage its fire safety team members to undertake continuing professional development courses relevant to their work it didn't it does did you undertake any such CPD I did not
01:54:14 did you undertake any such CPD I did not on not on that specific issue how did you keep up to date with relevant developments or changes to relevant guidance in that area then if you didn't
01:54:25 guidance in that area then if you didn't we had regular meetings attended by all members of the staff where new codes of practice
01:54:30 practice were discussed and explained that was the forum for doing that and at the time that approved document b was produced and that goes back a long while we did
01:54:43 and that goes back a long while we did in to attend public presentations conducted by the de then do e yeah I think you said that you were aware of a
01:54:54 think you said that you were aware of a number of international and domestic fires where you were where of a suite of a spate of fire story in high-rise buildings in the in the UAE in the
01:55:06 buildings in the in the UAE in the united arab arab emirates i was yes yep and what did that tell you in terms of your work or what what messages did you
01:55:18 your work or what what messages did you take from that that there'd been these high-rise fires in combustible cladding well the combustible cladding shouldn't be used on high-rise buildings
01:55:35 were you aware that projects involving composite metal materials and external insulation required height and vision vigilance given the risks that are posed
01:55:46 vigilance given the risks that are posed in the use of such materials no I wasn't I'd not encountered the term composite metal metal product so something that's
01:55:59 metal metal product so something that's not just purely a lie manual purely thing but has a different core of polymeric core where you were where no I wasn't aware at the time though were you aware that guidance was produced by the
01:56:12 aware that guidance was produced by the BRE
01:56:13 BRE concerning the hazards posed by exterior wall cutting systems in 1998 2003 and 2013 I was aware of br 135 and I was aware that they developed large scale
01:56:25 aware that they developed large scale tests to test assemblies that to ensure that there wasn't for fire spread up the face of a building how do you actually
01:56:36 face of a building how do you actually read BR 1 3 5 yourself not from cover to cover no did you think to read it when you started work on the ground floor project given you hadn't done and over cladding high-rise before no I didn't
01:56:50 were you aware that it contained extensive warnings as well as guidance on the fire risks associated with cladding systems yes I was and were you
01:57:02 cladding systems yes I was and were you aware that it drew attention to the possibility of rapid fire spread in external cladding systems yes I was aware of that particularly if you used the wrong materials
01:57:15 and we're you aware that it drew attention to the problems with cavities within such systems for example leading to flame extension of five to ten times
01:57:26 to flame extension of five to ten times yes I was
01:57:31 and we're you aware that the potential existed for the fire to affect multiple stories simultaneously that's making firefighting more difficult yes I was aware of that I mean I think one of the the reasons
01:57:43 I mean I think one of the the reasons why the rules changed once you get above a height of 18 meters that is that if an I can't before using an external firefighting appliance so that the rules
01:57:54 firefighting appliance so that the rules for high-rise buildings or buildings over 18 meters are necessarily more strict yes were you aware that a new addition of BR 1:35 came out in 2013
01:58:08 addition of BR 1:35 came out in 2013 not specifically now say you've went to the same ground I would imagine as the earlier one it was maybe just brought up to date as a lot of these publications are can we go to that let's look at the
01:58:19 are can we go to that let's look at the 2013 version this is the third edition it's @c ii l 4 zeros 3 3 6 4
01:58:31 so this is the third edition by Sarah Caldwell and Tony Baker
01:58:36 so you didn't I think you just said you didn't read it during the time you were working on the ground foot project have you ever read this guidance not in detail I am aware of the dot over the
01:58:48 detail I am aware of the dot over the documents existence can we look at a couple of a few points in this guidance can we go to page 11 within it and I
01:59:00 can we go to page 11 within it and I want to focus within on the left hand side we've got a column beginning 2.1 Building Regulations yep and in the third paragraph of that I'm just gonna
01:59:13 third paragraph of that I'm just gonna read this out to you so it talks about these potentially conflicting requirements are highlighted in the area of innovative materials and designs which are being driven by the need to construct more energy efficient and
01:59:25 construct more energy efficient and sustainable buildings in order to meet these design challenges the range of new and innovative materials and designs of systems being offered as potential solutions has also increased the volumes
01:59:38 solutions has also increased the volumes of potentially combustible materials being used in external cladding applications in addition these external wall cladding systems while still widely used for refurbishment applications on
01:59:50 used for refurbishment applications on masonry structures are increasingly being applied to new build scenarios utilizing lightweight framing solutions for the wall system do you see that I do yes so just to ask you about the scenes
02:00:01 yes so just to ask you about the scenes that that's highlighting were you aware generally of this drive to construct more energy-efficient sustainable buildings absolutely we used to comment
02:00:12 buildings absolutely we used to comment on it and say that it tended to persuade people to use things like foamed plastics rather than mineral wool which is an inert material so you were aware
02:00:24 is an inert material so you were aware therefore that that had the potential to increase the volumes of potentially combustible materials being used in external cladding application absolutely yes you're aware of those trends yes
02:00:38 [Applause] and then perhaps I can pick up just a few other parts of this and if you look at page 19 I want to look at six point
02:00:56 at page 19 I want to look at six point three point two fire barriers that's in that right right-hand column yeah and if we read that it says if fire enters a void in the system whether that void is
02:01:07 void in the system whether that void is created by a fire or as part of an existing design and the installation is exposed to the fire source any combustible material present may become involved and there is potential for the
02:01:20 involved and there is potential for the fire to propagate throughout the system if adequate fire barriers are not installed do you see that there I do yes and then so sorry so just picking up on
02:01:35 and then so sorry so just picking up on that were you aware of the importance of ensuring that adequate fire barriers were installed there's a combustible material present around it may otherwise
02:01:47 material present around it may otherwise cause fire propagation yes I was aware and then on page 22 we can look at six point four
02:02:00 and I want to focus on their the second paragraph under ventilated cavity systems do you see there it says if the fire is able to enter the cavity it may
02:02:12 fire is able to enter the cavity it may propagate unseen through the system if adequate fire barriers are not employed this may result in significant risk of system collapse or in the fire breaking out at significant distances from its origin do you see that I do and again
02:02:24 origin do you see that I do and again was that something you were aware of oh yes and then at six point four point one further down the same page on the bottom left performance of materials in fire
02:02:39 left performance of materials in fire we've got installation so it says here as it can be difficult to prevent fire entering the cavity and spreading in these systems the selection of the insulation materials used and the design
02:02:52 insulation materials used and the design of the fire barriers to close these cavities are particularly important did you see that I do yes and again were you aware of the particular importance of the selection of materials as outlined
02:03:04 the selection of materials as outlined there yes if you were aware of that why wasn't that something you were highlighting to the design team on the
02:03:15 highlighting to the design team on the ground floor project I think I said earlier that we didn't have any discussion with them about the cladding and the insulation had those discussions
02:03:27 and the insulation had those discussions taken place then we would have been able to give them the appropriate advice but given that for example this important
02:03:38 given that for example this important guidance is talking about the importance of the selection of the insulation materials to be used why wasn't that something that you had a laser-like focus on at the time of working with the
02:03:49 focus on at the time of working with the design team and preparing these fire strategies
02:03:54 I'm not sure I can say that I had laser-like focus about anything I mean the thing is that we were looking at the building alterations always aware that
02:04:05 building alterations always aware that there were proposals to over clad the building but because we didn't discuss this I didn't see fit to say to the design team we need to have a discussion
02:04:16 design team we need to have a discussion about what you're doing with the over cladding now with maybe I should have said that but he didn't come from them they didn't say we'd like to talk to you about what we're doing with the over
02:04:27 about what we're doing with the over cladding I assume that that would happen at some point in the future given you with the fire experts xover have this international reputation and you've
02:04:41 international reputation and you've explained in the fee proposal you can have access to real experts in this area what wasn't that your responsibility to raise with Studio II I don't see it that way I mean for all I knew they could
02:04:52 way I mean for all I knew they could have been purported providing something using mineral wool wood steel outer cladding but they didn't tell me what they were doing let's just look at
02:05:04 they were doing let's just look at before we leave this just a couple more passages within this if we go so within section 64 one on the right-hand column under the heading external panels and
02:05:16 under the heading external panels and finishes right there we go yeah so you can see on the right-hand column there's a heading just their external panels and finishes and at the end of the second
02:05:27 finishes and at the end of the second paragraph
02:05:30 there's talk so it talks that they're pretend there's a I'm going to pick it up where it says there in the middle there's a potential risk of injury to people or damage to property if spalling
02:05:41 people or damage to property if spalling material is expelled from the system during a fire the panels may also generate large pieces of falling debris if the integrity of the fixings to the railing system is lost during the fire and then it says this metal panels may
02:05:54 and then it says this metal panels may fall from the system if the strength of the fittings is affected by the local fire source they may also melt generating molten metal debris if exposed directly to the sustained flame
02:06:05 exposed directly to the sustained flame envelope or other combustible in the system do you see that I do yes and was that something that you were aware of the propensity of metal panels to melt and generate molten debris if
02:06:19 to melt and generate molten debris if exposed to an external fire I hope I was aware that there are certain materials you shouldn't use as cladding on an external face of a building GRP for
02:06:30 external face of a building GRP for example would melt and fall off metal panel is used as cladding might fall off the building if the fixings were
02:06:42 the building if the fixings were inadequate the metal panels wouldn't actually melt because they're non combustible then that last paragraph
02:06:53 combustible then that last paragraph there it says combustible panels are typically based on vinyl or glass reinforced plastic although various new products are being developed in this area some of which also contain
02:07:04 area some of which also contain insulation materials do you see that I do yes is that something that you were aware of that new products were being developed in this area some of which contained insulation materials I wasn't aware that it was being used widely I
02:07:18 aware that it was being used widely I mean I was aware that there were laminated panels that were used as decorative fascias but I never I've never seen a proposal to use him as the complete facade of the building but if
02:07:31 complete facade of the building but if you'd read this guidance it would have alerted you to that wouldn't it it would have done yes and then it says these ducts generally have good surface spread of flame characteristics to prevent
02:07:43 of flame characteristics to prevent rapid fire spread across the surface of the system but once the panel's become involved in the fire they have the potential to generate falling debris add to the overall fire load and provide a route for fire to propagate up the
02:07:55 route for fire to propagate up the outside of the building do you see that yes I do and again with that something that you were aware of at the time I was aware in general terms that materials which have a good performance when the
02:08:08 which have a good performance when the surface is applied to the flame would pass a test but wouldn't necessarily be satisfactory where they the hole sembly was in a fully developed fire in
02:08:23 sembly was in a fully developed fire in other words a class Oh material is really only a material which has fairly minimal resistance to fire propagation an external fire spread but it isn't
02:08:36 an external fire spread but it isn't necessarily by definition one that won't burn yep yep Thank You mr. Ashton we'll come back to that topic when we look at some of the emails they were exchanged in 2014 between you and the
02:08:49 exchanged in 2014 between you and the design team and just sticking with the guidance that was available about external fire spread and I just want to check where you were where in 2013 that
02:09:00 check where you were where in 2013 that approved document b itself also expressly warned in section 12.5 that the use of combustible materials in the cladding system and extensive cavities may present a risk to health and safety
02:09:12 may present a risk to health and safety in tall buildings yes yes it was aware of in it were you aware at this time of a report from x over Warrington fire in
02:09:23 a report from x over Warrington fire in Australia on fire safety engineering design of combustible facades that was dated December 2011 no I had not encountered that document where you were
02:09:36 encountered that document where you were where that that warned a combustible external facade may ignite from flames venting from a compartment fire and lead to a self-propagating fire spread no but
02:09:48 to a self-propagating fire spread no but I think Vince that's what would determine where you use combustible materials on the facade of a building and I want to ask you a little bit more about that the type different kinds of cladding panels that you had an
02:09:59 cladding panels that you had an awareness of at this time I think you said before that you you weren't really aware of composite metal panels is that right I've not encountered them though
02:10:10 right I've not encountered them though so had you encountered any composite panels with a PE polyethylene core one particular product which as I said was used on a very small scale you know as
02:10:25 used on a very small scale you know as facades on garages that sort of thing
02:10:31 but I didn't envisage that sort of material will be used to clad a high-rise building or even a medium rise building for that matter what did you know about polyethylene at this time
02:10:43 know about polyethylene at this time polyethylene is a combustible material now you I you know I would caution people who think that class o is all it
02:10:55 people who think that class o is all it is required now the building regulations interestingly say that the external surfaces of buildings could be class o but had I been aware of the precise
02:11:08 but had I been aware of the precise proposals for this building I would have sought guidance not only from my colleagues but also from our testing department who have a much better feel for these things I think and when you
02:11:22 for these things I think and when you say had I been aware of the precise proposals for this building what kind of information are you talking about there the specific panels the specific insulation that was to be used absolutely yeah
02:11:37 did you understand that PE is highly combustible yes I do and that did you understand at the time that if there were panels containing that material it
02:11:48 were panels containing that material it could exacerbate the flame spread over the exterior wall well I think God have been subconsciously aware at that but I didn't know that they were doing that where you were where at this time that
02:11:59 where you were where at this time that cladding panels were available with a fire retardant fr core which could be expected to perform better in a fire than panels with for example a polymeric PE core yeah I mean I am aware that
02:12:11 PE core yeah I mean I am aware that there are a number of products which are far retardant but they only have an initial effect in terms of fire if they become involved in a fully developed
02:12:22 become involved in a fully developed fire they will burn yeah I mean there was a lot of work done with told stores and factories producing fast food
02:12:35 and factories producing fast food a lot of these buildings were made from metal panels with combustible cause and the once that didn't result in too many facilities there were one or two tragically the biggest problem was
02:12:48 tragically the biggest problem was firefighting access because the the product burned and produce such dense and toxic smoke that the fire service couldn't tackle it there's a secondary problem with that is for the runoff from
02:13:00 problem with that is for the runoff from these toxic materials into the environment so I was aware that plastics were not a good building material from the fire point of view these were kind
02:13:11 the fire point of view these were kind of polystyrene polystyrene polyurethane polyethylene almost all of them I think
02:13:23 polyethylene almost all of them I think it must follow from your answers but I want to ask you this nevertheless we're you aware that ACM panels were ordinarily installed on a building in either a riveted or a cassette form no I
02:13:34 either a riveted or a cassette form no I wasn't aware of that and so you weren't aware of any differences in fire performance between rivets and cassettes no I've never looked at the product if
02:13:46 no I've never looked at the product if you go to your witness statement now this is it I want to look at paragraph 3.6 this is your first statement at exo four zeros one six to one page three
02:14:06 now there you say for a proposed building this naught you're talking about fire strategy advice here this normally involves advising on the type of measures which need to be adopted for example doors with a particular level of
02:14:17 example doors with a particular level of resistance or smoke detectors of a particular standard rather than using a specific product such as a particular manufacturer or system we can be asked to advise on whether a specific product
02:14:29 to advise on whether a specific product would be satisfactory and would give that advice on the basis of test evidence and/or product certification but this is not normally part of fire strategy advice and was not something we were asked to do for Grandville do you
02:14:41 were asked to do for Grandville do you say that there yesterday would you agree that in the case of building works involving over cladding using a rain
02:14:52 involving over cladding using a rain screen system with insulation that it would be essential for a fire strategy consultant to consider the flammability of the particular type of panel to be used if he or she knew what it was I see
02:15:07 used if he or she knew what it was I see so we're back to if you're told what it was you can advise exactly but if you're not you don't know that's right would
02:15:19 not you don't know that's right would you agree with me though that it would be essential to know the particular type of panel or particular type of insulation to advise on the fire hazards proposed by that and it's compliance with the building regulations yes I
02:15:31 with the building regulations yes I think that is essential that you have that knowledge provided you're told what what materials are being used and would you also agree that without taking account of the particular type of panel
02:15:42 account of the particular type of panel or insulation to be used a fire strategy consultant couldn't identify the main fire safety issues for the project not as written it didn't know I agree with
02:15:55 as written it didn't know I agree with that
02:15:55 that I mean if we'd been given a presentation showing what was proposed then we would be being able to have assessed that not necessary on our own we may well have
02:16:06 necessary on our own we may well have talked to our testing certification department to see what the five properties of what was proposed were but we weren't given that information I
02:16:17 but we weren't given that information I think that's that's the crux of this is that we were not told what was being done we look at paragraph three point four on that same page of your witness statement a bit further up yeah and in
02:16:32 statement a bit further up yeah and in that paragraph you explained that work on a fire strategy can involve highly technical analysis and I think in the sixth line you say so pick it pick it up
02:16:43 sixth line you say so pick it pick it up four lines down it can involve highly technical analysis for example on the performance characteristics of a smoke ventilation system all the likely behavior of a particular materials in a
02:16:54 behavior of a particular materials in a fire where our involvement in a project calls for that sort of work it would be handled by other colleagues with relevant engineering qualifications and expertise though our work on Grenville
02:17:07 expertise though our work on Grenville did not call for that level of advice now just just breaking that down does that mean that you yourself didn't have the expertise or the qualifications to
02:17:18 the expertise or the qualifications to be able to advise on the likely behavior of particular materials in a fire no I didn't have the expertise to deal with for our engineering analyses but we did
02:17:30 for our engineering analyses but we did have suitably qualified colleagues who would be able to do that and I said already with regard to the fire performance of materials if I wasn't sure I would be able to call on our
02:17:41 sure I would be able to call on our testing and assessment colleagues in Warrington so just looking at the words you've used there you've singled out all the likely behavior of particular materials in a fire are you are you
02:17:56 materials in a fire are you are you saying that what you've written here isn't right that actually where that was necessary
02:18:00 necessary it wouldn't be handled by other colleagues wouldn't necessarily be handled by other colleagues and it might be handled by you depending on if I can put this another way if somebody said we
02:18:12 put this another way if somebody said we need to do a CFD analysis on the smoke movement in the lobbies of the stairs of this building I would rely on a colleague with the appropriate technical qualifications to do that if somebody
02:18:25 qualifications to do that if somebody then said to me we are proposing to you his X&Y to line the facade of the building I would make a judgment based on what I knew and if I wasn't sure then
02:18:37 on what I knew and if I wasn't sure then I would ask for test evidence and nor get advice from the people that do fire testing on a daily basis what would you what checks would you do to work out
02:18:49 what checks would you do to work out whether you could be sure or not what considerations would you bear in mind about whether you could advise on that or whether you needed to refer it to colleague well I would suggest that anything that had plastic in it unless
02:19:02 anything that had plastic in it unless there was a straightforward fire test certificate to back up its use in the given situation such as an 8 4 1 4 test and there are products that have passed
02:19:13 and there are products that have passed that which are not non combustible then I would need to get further advice what about a new type of insulation that's come on the market then we would have to discuss it with our with our testing
02:19:25 discuss it with our with our testing colleagues I mean basically on this might sound simplistic but if a building if a material building material is inert it won't burn if it isn't in it will burn
02:19:38 won't burn if it isn't in it will burn and the degree of burning or the degree of severity of burning will be subject to what its chemical composition is and some plastics will perform better than
02:19:49 some plastics will perform better than others for example there are plastic type insulation materials used as insulation in external wall construction which have passed the PSA for 1/4
02:20:02 which have passed the PSA for 1/4 large-scale test in which therefore satisfied BR 135 but they're few and far between I'm interested as well to explore why you say in that last two
02:20:14 explore why you say in that last two lines though our work on the ground floor tower did not call for that level of advice didn't it call for precisely that level of advice it didn't call for any fire engineering techniques the work
02:20:25 any fire engineering techniques the work that we did on grunt filter we did offer them this is this is written after the fire this statement we weren't asked to do the CFD analysis to demonstrate that the smoking strike system in the tower
02:20:38 the smoking strike system in the tower was adequate we did offer it but they didn't take us up on that focusing on the the likely behavior of particular materials in a fire well I think that's a style was that there were let's the statement of fact we weren't
02:20:49 let's the statement of fact we weren't told what they were using we've looked at the state see report and we can see that the insulation was specified FR 5,000 yep
02:20:59 5,000 yep had you been told that are you saying that you could have advised on it if I'd been told that they were using Celotex older said that is not acceptable without test evidence that it is suitable for use on that building okay
02:21:12 suitable for use on that building okay well we'll come and we'll come and look back at this topic let me look at some emails exchanged in 2014
02:21:25 I now want to look at the studio East HD report so we saw in that earlier email we looked at when they were setting up the Building Control meeting that studio area we're talking about getting a draft
02:21:37 area we're talking about getting a draft of their stage D report ready and it sounds like an obvious question but presumably you anticipated studio e would be doing at stage D report on this project well yeah so I seen that would
02:21:50 project well yeah so I seen that would have taken place now on the 20th of August 2013 studio we issued there are IB a stage D report if we can look at
02:22:01 IB a stage D report if we can look at that that's at ma x5 zeros seven five seven and if we go to the contents page on page three
02:22:21 the xover first issue outline fire safety report was included at appendix D can you see that at the bottom yes I can it's fire safety report and we can see
02:22:33 it's fire safety report and we can see when we look further within the report that that was the issue one the 31st of October 2012 report that studio included because that was the most up to date information they have from you at that stage yes that's right and we can see
02:22:48 stage yes that's right and we can see the x over were listed as being the fire engineer on the design team on page 4 in the right hand column we can go to that you're there second breakdown yep where
02:22:59 you're there second breakdown yep where you aware at the time that x overs first outline strategy report from october 12 was included in the stage d report no it wasn't just for the record that appears
02:23:12 wasn't just for the record that appears at page 78 so had studio he asked x over or spoken to x aver about the fact they were going to include that report no no they didn't did you ever read or review
02:23:26 they didn't did you ever read or review the stage d report no again in fairness to you we can't see you being sent this or a link to this unlike with the stage c report and but i want today
02:23:38 c report and but i want today why if you knew a stage d report would be produced by studio ii why didn't you ask for it i won't normally ask for it it's the same comment with regard to the stage C applies really if the architect
02:23:52 stage C applies really if the architect felt they wanted some guidance on what they put in the stage D report then I would've expected them to say can you please look at that and tell us what you think but weren't you keen to see their
02:24:06 think but weren't you keen to see their stage D report at some point in 2013 given you knew you hadn't yet advised in detail on the cladding I'm sorry you didn't you said earlier they didn't even
02:24:17 didn't you said earlier they didn't even send the link to me though can't see that they obviously didn't want my can't comments on the report from what you're saying but I'm asking you why that
02:24:28 saying but I'm asking you why that wasn't a piece of information a piece of important information on the project that you yourself would be asking for if you haven't seen it well I think I said earlier in our discussions
02:24:39 think I said earlier in our discussions that I don't normally look at stage C or stage D reports unless I'm specifically asked to do that okay I'm not going to
02:24:51 asked to do that okay I'm not going to take you through the detail of this but merely to note that there are references again in this to zinc composite rainscreen panels and also to the proposed installation the Celotex FR 5000 it's named as with the stage C
02:25:05 5000 it's named as with the stage C report are now there for want to look at issue 2 of the outline fire safety strategy date of the 24th of October 2013 can we go to this this is it
02:25:16 2013 can we go to this this is it EXO 5 zeroes 4 3 0
02:25:27 and we can see from the first page it's got similar format outline fire safety strategy and this is issue number two on the bottom right dated the 24th of October 2013 do you see that so it's
02:25:39 October 2013 do you see that so it's almost a year after the first issue of the report which yes I think it's it's relevant to point out that we didn't have much communication with Studio E
02:25:50 have much communication with Studio E for some time and that might explain why there's a gap between reports I mean that's quite a large gap yeah yep in
02:26:03 that's quite a large gap yeah yep in when you were preparing this report and given that you'd broken your fee proposal down into the RI ba stages which are IB a stage was this one prepared for you could conceivably be in
02:26:15 prepared for you could conceivably be in stage D at this stage if you pardon e usually would stage twice yeah but you didn't know at the time is that right that's not the studio we had served
02:26:26 that's not the studio we had served their stage D report in August 2013 no I didn't know now if we scroll down and look at page two we can see that this was prepared by you teri Ashton and
02:26:38 this was prepared by you teri Ashton and then we can see it's reviewed by a different person this time this is by an Toni Pearson a senior consultant do you see them yes was it's dr. Pearson isn't
02:26:49 see them yes was it's dr. Pearson isn't it is that right yes yes yeah was dr. Pearson senior to you no it was junior to you he was junior to me and then if we go to the introduction
02:27:01 me and then if we go to the introduction on page four
02:27:04 again this is famiglia it's very similar to the issue one you've set out in bullet points here what the refurbishment comprises again you've
02:27:15 refurbishment comprises again you've updated the list to add the first bullet and the third bullet you've added a new stair providing access to the boxing club and you've added office
02:27:26 club and you've added office accommodation in the mezzanine over the ground story but reference to the cladding is still admitted where why is that for the same reason that I've given before that we hadn't actually at that
02:27:37 before that we hadn't actually at that point considered any details of cladding so even though you were provided with a link to the studio II stage C report back in October 2012 you'd not
02:27:51 back in October 2012 you'd not considered that report by this by this time no no but why didn't you nevertheless given you new overcutting would be included why didn't you
02:28:02 would be included why didn't you nevertheless add it to the list so that anyone reading this report would know that the proposed refurbishment comprised over cladding as well as these items I could have added over cladding
02:28:13 items I could have added over cladding to the list that would have made it more comprehensive and reflect what we were told originally however there is nothing in this report that says anything about cladding and so I think that you might
02:28:25 cladding and so I think that you might imply from that the cladding isn't an issue but say cladding wasn't we hadn't discussed cladding with them at all nobody might be thought mr. eshton that
02:28:37 nobody might be thought mr. eshton that when you give a description of the refurbishment because you then set out what it comprises something as substantial as over planning the whole building perhaps ought to have been included yes I agree yes he should have
02:28:50 included yes I agree yes he should have been thank you now you've got some drawings mentioned here at the end of this section you say the report is based on discussions held with the design team or bkc and Chow or bkc and on fire
02:29:05 or bkc and Chow or bkc and on fire access and fire strategy drawings and you've given some numbers now we know that those were general arrangement drawings we've looked at those and they don't show any information about the cladding just to be clear and then if we
02:29:17 cladding just to be clear and then if we go to the B for section starting with that again if we look at page 8 we can see at paragraph three point one point four what said there is unchanged from
02:29:28 four what said there is unchanged from the first issue is that right correct yes and you've said in your witness statement we don't need to turn it up a date thing at 4.15 that you'd still not received any information regarding any
02:29:40 received any information regarding any proposals in relation to over cladding and therefore did not make any change to this part of the report yeah range and I put to you that it's simply
02:29:51 range and I put to you that it's simply not right that you'd receive no information regarding the aiviq adding given you received a link to the studio east AC report which did have information about it in yes but as I've
02:30:03 information about it in yes but as I've said earlier that there wasn't encouraged to look at that there was nothing from studio he's saying would I please look at it and comment on its contents now we know you've met with
02:30:16 contents now we know you've met with Studio E you've met with Building Control in the November 12 and you've had an opportunity to see drawings wouldn't you didn't you have enough
02:30:27 wouldn't you didn't you have enough information to offer at least some advice about the external cladding at this stage I didn't have any information on the external cladding do you accept
02:30:38 on the external cladding do you accept the statement you've made here remained potentially misleading because in fact you've still not given consideration to the implications of the extent of the
02:30:49 the implications of the extent of the refurbishment works to external fire spread well clearly pseudo he thought that disc eight of them can't belongs to do what they wanted in that regard but
02:31:02 do what they wanted in that regard but I'm not sure that anybody not everybody would take that as being confirmation that everything that was being done to the building was okay in terms of external fire spread but again why not
02:31:16 external fire spread but again why not include a big caveat and say it's a year on and I still haven't had the information I need that information would be x y&z or send a separate email
02:31:27 would be x y&z or send a separate email saying by the way my B for section is unchanged but that's because I don't have any proposed details why not do that well I didn't I mean I could have
02:31:39 that well I didn't I mean I could have done I guess
02:31:43 and I want to put the point again again to you because I'm not sure you actually answered it last time but wouldn't it have been helpful for the design team to have at least had the key requirements
02:31:56 have at least had the key requirements on before given we know they're going to over clad this building you say you're aware of the use of combustible materials increased use of combustible materials wouldn't it have been helpful
02:32:07 materials wouldn't it have been helpful for them to have had the basic performance requirements set out in section 12 well I think it would have been yes not something to do routinely
02:32:20 been yes not something to do routinely but we didn't do it in this particular case was there ever on your part as far as you aware are kind of increasing
02:32:31 as you aware are kind of increasing awareness that you needed to start flagging up external fire spread issues in these fire strategies because of the use the increased use of combustible
02:32:42 use the increased use of combustible materials not specifically because of that I was slightly non-plus that we hadn't actually discussed it in in any way shape or form this a fairly late stage in design development so thinking
02:32:55 stage in design development so thinking back to I mean you're still working as a fire consultant was there ever a time when you were thinking actually I need to be more proactive in relation to
02:33:07 to be more proactive in relation to external fire spread issues because I'm aware that the use of new materials new combustible materials is a significant risk I think there's a general awareness
02:33:18 risk I think there's a general awareness in the whole of the building industry of the need to look critically a construction of external walls following this particular fire mcgrann for fire yes indeed and does it follow from that
02:33:30 yes indeed and does it follow from that that there wouldn't in your view have been that awareness prior to that no no not it not as it wouldn't have been as prevalent then for sure
02:33:45 then just looking at what you said about b3 if we go back one page and that starts at the bottom of page sorry if we
02:33:58 starts at the bottom of page sorry if we go sorry it's actually it's at the top of page eight yes sorry there's the b3 section again yeah and am i right again there's AB there's no change again in
02:34:09 there's AB there's no change again in relation to the b3 part not in terms of what we were doing no there is no change so no guidance there to the design team about for example part nine of a pre
02:34:20 about for example part nine of a pre document B and the provision of cavity barriers no now and in terms of B one means of warning and escape in issue two
02:34:32 means of warning and escape in issue two at section three one one this is on page six if we can go to that you've added a new paragraph under the heading means of
02:34:44 new paragraph under the heading means of escape apartments so that that fir'd your meaty paragraph they're beginning while the sharing means of escape do you
02:34:55 while the sharing means of escape do you see that yes I do yes am i right that that's a new paragraph that wasn't in there last so it says well the sharing means of escape between
02:35:06 well the sharing means of escape between residential and non-residential accommodation is not endorsed by current statutory guidance these proposals represent a continuation of the existing principles for means of escape in the building and therefore do not create a
02:35:18 building and therefore do not create a non compliance with the requirements of the building regulations it's noted in this context that the fire loads and the offices and boxing club are no greater than those in a typical flat and that
02:35:29 than those in a typical flat and that the non-residential accommodation will be separated from the stairs by ventilated lobbies see below the risks the occupants of a flat from a fire in a non residential demise are therefore not considered great significantly greater
02:35:41 considered great significantly greater than those stemming from a fire in another flat do you see that I do indeed now as we've already discussed dr. Pearson reviewed issue two of the this strategy didn't he he did and did
02:35:54 this strategy didn't he he did and did he draft this additional paragraph before the report was issued I believe he altered what I'd already written and is it right that you didn't read what he'd written before it was
02:36:06 read what he'd written before it was sent out no I didn't it was sent out I asked him to review it and he made that change and then asked Miss Trainor to issue the report now when you did read
02:36:19 issue the report now when you did read it we know that you sent him an email on the 24th of October 2013 can we just go to that that's an EXO for zeroes 1 4 4 4
02:36:37 and I want to read from the bottom of the chain up would say let's start on page two there's an email from Margaret Trenor at 1540 sending yeah
02:36:54 Trenor at 1540 sending yeah Margaret turn out to Tony Pearson 24th October 2013 hi Tony pizza can you review please for issue today did you see that missile room so he's being sent the draft for review and then if you go
02:37:08 the draft for review and then if you go up to his email which is at the bottom of one page one
02:37:19 we can see right at the bottom there yeah 15 1553 he says Terry I know that there is a stair which is shared between residential and non-residential parts of the building and if we can go over the
02:37:31 the building and if we can go over the next page and if we could zoom in yep Thanks
02:37:36 Thanks and he says do we need to flag this up as a deviation from the standard guidance and provide a comment to the effect that the risks to the occupants of the flats from a fire in the boxing gym are no greater than those from a
02:37:48 gym are no greater than those from a fire in another flat and or include compensating measures Cheers Tony do you see that I do yes and then if we go back
02:37:59 see that I do yes and then if we go back to page 1 and look at the email above his email
02:38:12 so it's still at the bottom of the page there's an email you send to him 24th of October at 1601 yeah and you say Tony this is an existing situation whereby
02:38:25 this is an existing situation whereby the resi stare is that residential stare yeah sorry have you got it no no how could it yes yeah this is an existing situation whereby the resi stare when
02:38:36 situation whereby the resi stare when you say residue you mean resident yes yes it's shared with other uses if you feel that it would help feel free to insert some text but if you do bear in mind that the escape route from the resi
02:38:48 mind that the escape route from the resi is shared with both the Boxing Club and office accommodation teri do you see that yeah and then we can see immediately above Tony Pearson back to you 1613 teri I've added something
02:39:00 you 1613 teri I've added something although if you think what I've added is too long and draws too much attention to the issue you feel free to shorten it and then if we can go to your email at the very top of that page
02:39:18 you say Tony I told mags to send the report out this is it on the 24th I told mags to send the report out without reading what you'd added had I been able to read it I would not have agreed to
02:39:29 to read it I would not have agreed to the amendment as what you've said highlights the non-compliance with codified guidance but more importantly it's debatable let's hope that Paul Hanson doesn't pick up on it Terry do you see that there I
02:39:41 up on it Terry do you see that there I do yes and I think we see that actually before we sent that there's an email just below that from Tony Pearson where he actually sends you the text that he'd
02:39:54 he actually sends you the text that he'd inserted so he sends that to you in an email and then you've responded yes now do you agree that there was a
02:40:06 do you agree that there was a non-compliance with the current statutory guidance yes I think everybody including Building Control understood that this building did not comply fully with current building regulation
02:40:17 with current building regulation standards yes but on this specific point the sharing of a single stair with residential and non-residential that was that was the non-compliance yes can you
02:40:32 that was the non-compliance yes can you explain why you didn't want to identify the risks of different purpose groups with different evacuation strategies sharing a single escape route I didn't
02:40:44 sharing a single escape route I didn't want him to highlight it in such a way that Paul Hanson of RB Casey would say well it's not acceptable because we'd been through this at meetings with our
02:40:57 been through this at meetings with our vkc and we didn't believe that there was a problem with it mixed use given that we already had existing mixed use in the building but why not highlight it but
02:41:09 building but why not highlight it but then say this is our justification this is our mitigation there's a very good reason why this is fine yeah I mean I think on reflection looking at his wording now I agree with what he said
02:41:21 wording now I agree with what he said did the reality there's a higher fire load in a residential flat than there is an ax Boxing Club or and office and therefore the fire severity
02:41:34 office and therefore the fire severity would be a lot more in a flat well exactly that's the point isn't there's a number of points here isn't there that there's an increased risk of a fire in
02:41:47 there's an increased risk of a fire in non residential is that right generally no no I'd say it was the other way around I see yeah but also a lack of detail detection that there's periods in the non-residential where it's empty and
02:42:00 the non-residential where it's empty and fires can start and develop undetected isn't that part of the problem well I think well that is part of the problems the problem the main problem with a mixed-use building is that if a fire
02:42:12 mixed-use building is that if a fire starts in any part of the building no warning is given to the occupants of the flats as you has been stated before I'm sure that buildings that is kind do not
02:42:24 sure that buildings that is kind do not have fire alarm systems which gave an evacuation signal throughout the building so if a fire occurred in enormous an intial part of this block
02:42:37 enormous an intial part of this block then the occupants of the flats wouldn't know about it you know the risk isn't greater tonight because at night the doors to the non-residential accommodation will be locked shut so the
02:42:50 accommodation will be locked shut so the fire shouldn't spread the bigger danger would be if the the smoke escaped while people were still in the residential sorry the non-residential part but if
02:43:04 sorry the non-residential part but if you look at that within the context of the overall evacuation strategy it wouldn't have caused people in the flats to escape so it's really a question of emphasis and maybe I overreacted to what
02:43:17 emphasis and maybe I overreacted to what Tony put in my report yeah and as a fades having looked it again I agree what he put
02:43:32 you you say there at the time this was your reaction and maybe this is what your accepting' was part of the overreaction you say that the non-compliance with codified guidance is
02:43:43 non-compliance with codified guidance is debatable was there really a debate about it or was it actually really clear it was non-compliant we could well have a debate with Paul Hansen as to whether or not it was a safe arrangement as it
02:43:58 or not it was a safe arrangement as it as it turned out we didn't they were prepared to accept that the measures that we proposed in fire separation ventilated lobbies were sufficient
02:44:09 ventilated lobbies were sufficient mitigation for the mixed use can you explain at the time why you were so unhappy with an amendment made by a colleague who is appearing to act in good faith in I think I'm not saying I
02:44:23 good faith in I think I'm not saying I was unhappy I think that's putting it too strongly really I think he'd altered the sense of what I'd said originally and that might cause Paul Hanson or one
02:44:34 and that might cause Paul Hanson or one of his colleagues it's a bit hard to pick on Paul Henderson particularly might say Oh maybe we should revisit this issue that was all it was it was an irritation rather than anger isn't it
02:44:49 irritation rather than anger isn't it the role of a fire safety engineer to point out any potential issues around non-compliance with statutory guidance so that everyone is fully aware of those I think we've already done them by this
02:45:00 I think we've already done them by this amendment well I think in discussions with them we'd already said that we realize this doesn't comply I think and these are the measures that we're going
02:45:11 these are the measures that we're going to take to remedy their or mitigate them would it have been your normal practice not to highlight non-compliance is with codified guidance in your fire strategy
02:45:23 codified guidance in your fire strategy reports no I think frequently we have to say this doesn't meet current standards however what we're proposing to put in place to mitigate that we consider to be
02:45:36 place to mitigate that we consider to be adequate do you agree that not only dr. Pearson
02:45:41 Pearson also miss Cluny had expressed concern to you about the merging of the stairs around and the residential units I think
02:45:53 around and the residential units I think yeah but Tony Kate had a very quick look at the the scheme she only commented you know once on it I was aware that they
02:46:04 know once on it I was aware that they both knew that it was a non-compliance but I I'd already established with Kensington and Chelsea council rvk see that their waters
02:46:15 that their waters there was already a mixture of use in this building pre-existing or before we were addressing the mixed use by certain fire safety measures the alternative
02:46:29 fire safety measures the alternative would have been to say to the client I'm sorry we can't do this you can't do what you're doing yeah and we're gonna finish
02:46:41 you're doing yeah and we're gonna finish this topic shortly but just two final questions that I feel I must put to you do you agree that it was inappropriate for you to have not addressed the extent of the non-compliance in the report originally I'm not sure didn't address
02:46:57 originally I'm not sure didn't address it and such I mean I think everybody knew the it wasn't a traditional residential tower block of flats you had
02:47:08 residential tower block of flats you had a mixed use but those excuses were already there do you also agree that it was inappropriate for you to have reprimanded dr. Pearson for having addressed the point clearly I don't
02:47:19 addressed the point clearly I don't think he I meant it as a reprimand and I don't think he felt it was a reprimand you probably get the opportunity to ask him that no it's not a wasn't a serious
02:47:31 him that no it's not a wasn't a serious disagreement they might appear that way but it wasn't mr. Ashman we've seen that
02:47:44 but it wasn't mr. Ashman we've seen that this second edition of the document was produced in October 2013 as you say quite a long time after the first edition indeed can you remember
02:47:56 first edition indeed can you remember what prompted it what led you to produce it then and I think we we either had some additional drawing submitted to it so we had a meeting I can't remember which but that there was a hiatus on the
02:48:09 which but that there was a hiatus on the project whereas I understand it now they were planning issues but no I think it must have been triggered by alterations to the drawings that were attached to
02:48:21 to the drawings that were attached to the previous report thank you thank you very much do you want to follow that up at all well thank you very much refreshed and we get a break now to have some lunch okay we'll come back at 2
02:48:32 some lunch okay we'll come back at 2 o'clock please okay and don't talk to you about your evidence if you get the chance to do so that is over the break thank you very much you'd like to give the officer
02:48:51 [Applause]
02:48:55 good thank you very much