Cross-examination of Terry Ashton from Exova about fire safety strategy failures, including lack of analysis of external cladding and cavity barriers
00:00:16 yes is mr. Ashland there please
00:00:33 alright alright mr. eshton I'm thinking think you will carry on this was great thank you yes just to pick up on the point raised by the chairman just before the lunch adjournment and about what it
00:00:45 the lunch adjournment and about what it was that prompted you to start work again and get back involved in 2013 I just want to show you an email on this if we can go to EXO five zeros six nine
00:00:58 if we can go to EXO five zeros six nine three and look at page 5 of that so what seems clear and I'm going to come back
00:01:09 seems clear and I'm going to come back to this in more detail a bit later is that on the 17th of September 2013 there was a meeting a second meeting with our bkc Building Control do you recall that
00:01:20 bkc Building Control do you recall that yes yeah and this is an email that you've written to mr. soon on the 18th of September the next day 2013 and you
00:01:31 of September the next day 2013 and you say Bruce further to yesterday's meeting up annotated copies of your drawings to show what I believe our bkc require in order to approve the design from a fire safety point of view I've added the
00:01:43 safety point of view I've added the necessary fire ratings as well and you're talking then about vents areas events and the ventilated lobbies and what you can achieve for each lobby so it appears to be very much in connection
00:01:54 it appears to be very much in connection with the smoke ventilation in doing system yeah and we will come back to that in due course when we pick up a bit more about Building Control but just while we're here and you it looks there like what
00:02:09 here and you it looks there like what you've done is access drawings on a shared link and put that shared link in this email when you've annotated them and sent them back to studio E is that
00:02:20 and sent them back to studio E is that correct I couldn't say without looking at the drawing to be on I see I mean I've just printed them and scanned them I see but it looks like you're managing to use a system of communicating on a
00:02:34 to use a system of communicating on a link with with Studio E do you see that there because you put the link in the email the game ok : /i a product project do you see that yes and do you have a
00:02:45 do you see that yes and do you have a memory of
00:02:46 memory of of using that kind of link to share drawings back to studio II not a clear memory but I mean clearly it must have I must have done it on this occasion yep
00:02:58 okay so picking up we're looking now towards issue three of the outline fire safety strategy which was issued in November 2013 and before I ask you about
00:03:11 November 2013 and before I ask you about that issue specifically I want to take you to an email chain between you and mr. rec of studio a Thomas rec this is a chain on the 1st and the 4th of November
00:03:23 chain on the 1st and the 4th of November 2013 if we can go to that this is a EXO 5 zeroes 5 8 6
00:03:38 and I want to pick it up on the bottom of that first page do you see there there's an email at 1725 on the first of November from mr. rector you leave and
00:03:50 November from mr. rector you leave and he says evening Terry can you please confirm that the rainscreen cavity fire barriers are to be 60 minute fr to match the compartment ation do you see that question I do yes and then if you go up
00:04:03 question I do yes and then if you go up the page to your response where we could look up to your response we see on the 4th of November at 9:05 you respond Thomas cavity barriers need only have a
00:04:15 Thomas cavity barriers need only have a 30 minutes standard of fire resistance kind regards Terry do you see that I do yes now mr. Rex question referred to the
00:04:26 yes now mr. Rex question referred to the rainscreen cavity fire barriers and we can bring that up just go back to the bottom of page 1 yeah can you please confirm that
00:04:38 page 1 yeah can you please confirm that the rainscreen cavity fire barriers are to be and did you know what rain screen mr. rec was referring to in this email no only generically as a rain screen so
00:04:53 no only generically as a rain screen so and did you know any more than that about the rain screen at this stage no if you didn't know wouldn't this have been a good opportunity to have asked for that detail I think again I must
00:05:07 for that detail I think again I must have assumed that some detail might be forthcoming they're not too distant future but I mean the specific question was what for resistance period to the cavity fire barriers have to have it's
00:05:21 cavity fire barriers have to have it's clear isn't it that mr. reck is asking for advice in relation to the cavity fire barriers indeed yes did this email alert you to the fact that Studio II needed guidance on the building
00:05:33 needed guidance on the building regulations and ADB requirements for the external wall well I think that gave him the answer which was the cavity barriers only need to have a 30-minute stands in a fire resistance did this email prompt
00:05:48 a fire resistance did this email prompt you to think oh I need to address this in the outline fire safety strategy because they're asking me questions about cavity barriers and external war it didn't lead me to think that no
00:06:01 it didn't lead me to think that no because that's a very small detail in relation to the external walls I did sort of come out of out of the blue in
00:06:12 sort of come out of out of the blue in the sense that it's not in context it's just what for resistance to clarity fibers have to have know precisely and how did you given it come out of context
00:06:23 how did you given it come out of context as you just said how did you feel able to provide the answer that you did without a full appreciation of the external war works because the for resistance period of the five areas
00:06:34 resistance period of the five areas wouldn't change for any permutation rain screen is cladding you'd only needs to subdivide or the void only needs to be subdivided by cavity barriers not fire stops thirty
00:06:47 cavity barriers not fire stops thirty minutes is all that's required well you're not curious to know what the rain screen would be and what the insulation sitting behind it would be doesn't mention insulation there wouldn't that be implicit in a rain
00:06:59 wouldn't that be implicit in a rain screen system not necessarily you could apply rain screen to a masonry wall with nothing else in between are you saying you didn't know that the purpose of the rain screen system here was to improve
00:07:10 rain screen system here was to improve the thermal performance of the building I'm saying just though you didn't know that I didn't know that how did you feel able to provide this answer without
00:07:22 able to provide this answer without having carried out the analysis of external fire spread which you had promised in issue one and issue two of your outline fire safety strategy it was just an isolated question which I felt
00:07:34 just an isolated question which I felt capable of answering why didn't you ask for more information before giving this advice because as I said earlier the advice wouldn't have changed the
00:07:45 advice wouldn't have changed the question was specifically related to fire resistance of the cavity barriers what did your advice mean I mean if we can scroll up at the top page with respect to load bearing capacity
00:07:56 respect to load bearing capacity integrity and insulation
00:08:01 aren't there different requirements for integrity and insulation for cavity barriers yes there would be no load-bearing capacity load integrity and
00:08:12 load-bearing capacity load integrity and insulation wouldn't there be different requirements why have you only given a single well it would be if you look in the approved document it tells you what its criteria in each individual element
00:08:24 its criteria in each individual element of construction has to achieve in AIA the integrity insulation load-bearing capacity
00:08:31 capacity insulation etc I'm assuming a degree of knowledge of what was in approved document b when they posed the question but clearly they didn't know that the
00:08:43 but clearly they didn't know that the precise answer which is why they thought it was sixty rather than thirty no did you yourself look up in AD B what the precise answer was before giving this advice no I knew that answer or not off
00:08:55 advice no I knew that answer or not off the top of my head anyway mm-hmm table a1 of ADB defines a performance of 30-minutes integrity and 15 minutes installation but by only providing a single value your email could be read as
00:09:08 single value your email could be read as meaning that 30 minutes was required for both it could be read that way I agree why didn't you why weren't you careful to give the precise performance requirements set out in a DB I didn't
00:09:21 requirements set out in a DB I didn't think it necessary because well because you know if it was the 30 minutes down there the fire resistance in terms of integrity the insulation would probably have been the same was it about your
00:09:35 have been the same was it about your involvement in this project and what you knew about what was happening it meant that you didn't think it was necessary to be giving that advice well not quite sure what additional advice I should
00:09:46 sure what additional advice I should have given on this specific question well for example why did you fail to reference the locations that the cavity barriers ought to have been fitted to comply with section 9 of approved
00:09:58 comply with section 9 of approved document being but that wasn't the subject matter of the question the question purely related to the fire resistance he might just have been ordering looking on the internet to find what type of cavity bearers were of
00:10:10 what type of cavity bearers were of and how much they were or whatever were you aware at the time that approved document b recommended cavity barriers around windows in diagram 33 wasn't
00:10:21 around windows in diagram 33 wasn't where were you also aware that there was often some debate within the industry about the interpretation of diagram 33 and how I wasn't aware of a debate in the industry generally about it it could
00:10:34 the industry generally about it it could be argued this is in the abstract if you like if you have cavity barriers at the junction of the floors and the compartment walls then cavity barriers
00:10:46 compartment walls then cavity barriers around windows are probably not necessary what view did you take of that sorry what was your view it depends on the circumstances of the case but it
00:10:58 the circumstances of the case but it does seem to be a bit of an overkill here not in this particular project but generally it wasn't that precisely the kind of information that you ought to have been providing either in response to this kind of request or in your
00:11:10 to this kind of request or in your outline fire safety strategy it's the sort of information I might have provided having looked at detailed drawings which showed what was being built or what was proposed to be built then I could have made a judgment as to
00:11:21 then I could have made a judgment as to whether or not I felt it necessary to go back to our BK C and say we don't think it's necessary to put cavity bearers in these locations do you agree we weren't
00:11:32 these locations do you agree we weren't at that stage of development as far as I was concerned but studio we obviously were because they were asking you about the fire resistance of the cavity barriers but I'm sorry that's just one
00:11:43 barriers but I'm sorry that's just one question they might have said to me what doors to flats have to be do they have to be 60 minutes or 30 minutes it's that level of question I think so to
00:11:55 level of question I think so to summarise on this you felt that that one sentence was sufficient to advise studio at this time I could have said 30 minute standard for assistance 15 minutes standard of integrity that would have
00:12:06 standard of integrity that would have made it clearer and you could have also said by the way be clear on the locations where you need these cavities yes I could have said that yes let's go to issue three then of your outline fire
00:12:18 to issue three then of your outline fire safety strategy we find that EXO 4 zeros were
00:12:22 were 1:07 so that exchange that you had with mr. rec that we just looked at concluded on the 4th of november 2013 and then on
00:12:34 on the 4th of november 2013 and then on the 7th of november 2013 just three days later you produce issue three of your outline fire safety strategy and this
00:12:45 outline fire safety strategy and this final issue of that strategy was prepared less than two weeks after issue 2 that's right isn't it correct now we see there there's the date on this page
00:12:56 see there there's the date on this page of the 7th of November and then on the second page if we can go to that we can see that it was prepared by you and this time rather than dr. Pearson who reviewed it she - we've got mr. Mackall
00:13:09 reviewed it she - we've got mr. Mackall Amy again there as the seat he's now a senior consultant with in xover we can see that there yes and right but he's still junior to you isn't he yes yes and we'll come back to the
00:13:22 yes yes and we'll come back to the review process later and we can also see on the box on that page at the top we've got various boxes and it talks about reason for revision and under su3 we see
00:13:36 reason for revision and under su3 we see there it says third issue revised to take into account comments from the design team is that right yes indeed and and is it right that in the days before
00:13:47 and is it right that in the days before this was finalized you'd had various exchanges with the studio a design team particularly about the fire strategy for the lower levels of the tower and at walkway level I believe so yes yes for
00:14:01 walkway level I believe so yes yes for the for the transcript these are EXO four zeros one four zero eight and changes to the fire strategy are marked up on EXO four zeros one five zero one
00:14:13 up on EXO four zeros one five zero one now in terms of this this issue what are IBA stage was this report intended for this issue three well it
00:14:24 intended for this issue three well it would still be our IBA stage D as far as ours
00:14:27 ours turned it's just another iteration of pretty much the same report with minor modifications but we hadn't moved on into stage year as far as I was concerned so does it follow that and by
00:14:40 concerned so does it follow that and by this stage as with at the time of issue 2 you weren't aware that studio ease stage D report had been issued in August 2013 no because I hadn't seen it now if
00:14:56 2013 no because I hadn't seen it now if we can go to the introduction on page 4
00:15:02 we see that the refurbishment comprises it's the familiar bullet point list but again we see no mention of the over cladding works do we know that's right
00:15:14 cladding works do we know that's right and can you explain why and this issue of the fire strategy there's no mention of it well I think the explanation is things hadn't moved on from the issue of the previous report but I accept that we
00:15:26 the previous report but I accept that we should have said another bullet point dealing with cladding and you say in the very last part of this introduction the
00:15:37 very last part of this introduction the report is based upon discussions held with the design team the RB Casey and on fire access and fire strategy drawings produced by Studio E now unlike with
00:15:48 produced by Studio E now unlike with issue 2 where you had set out to specific drawings you don't set out here the drawings that the report was based on no I done can you explain why that was I can't honestly say why I mean it
00:16:01 was I can't honestly say why I mean it may well have been self explanatory because the report would have been appended to drawings by Studio E but if we would normally put the drawing numbers down so that there was no
00:16:12 numbers down so that there was no misunderstanding as to what we were talking about yeah so we admitted to do it on this occasion because wouldn't it be difficult for anyone to look at this report and understand what information had fed into it if you've not identified
00:16:25 had fed into it if you've not identified those drawings yes it would be
00:16:34 let's go to the b4 section again first this is on page nine at the top of the page and again we see exactly the same wording as before under the b4
00:16:46 wording as before under the b4 requirements and that can you explain why the wording remained unchanged because as far as I was concerned or as far as xover was concerned nothing had changed and can you explain when you're
00:17:01 changed and can you explain when you're issuing this issue three why you haven't made sure that you had up-to-date information about the cladding so that you could do the analysis in this report
00:17:12 you could do the analysis in this report the only explanation I can give you is the one that I've already given you which is what we haven't been given details of these did you take any steps
00:17:23 details of these did you take any steps to try and clarify the position concerning the cladding did you ask studio II did you speak to any other members of the team no I didn't and why was that
00:17:34 was that um I assumed wrong as it turned out though they would send something to me and asked for comment in order for the thing to progress and is it right that
00:17:48 thing to progress and is it right that you took no steps prior to the production of this issue of the report to ascertain whether the cladding could have an adverse effect on the building in relation to extent that's true I
00:17:59 in relation to extent that's true I didn't take any steps to confirm that one way or the other do you agree that the lapse of time between the various iterations of the strategy issue one in October then issue three in November 13
00:18:12 October then issue three in November 13 made it all the more important for you to clarify the position about the cladding and whether it could have an adverse effect in relation to external fire spread no I think I've already said
00:18:23 fire spread no I think I've already said that I'm going to be to come up to be discussed on it the gaps between they explained the gap between issue one an issue too because we're the we were disengaged if you like from the design
00:18:34 disengaged if you like from the design team for a considerable number of months issue two to issue three was just really a reflection of some changes to layouts that we discussed with studio in
00:18:46 layouts that we discussed with studio in when you were drafting this issue three did you think this was likely to be a fairly final version of the strategy no it didn't
00:18:54 it didn't did you look back at X Avis fee proposal what had been promised during stage D and E of the process no I wouldn't do that as a matter of routine so you know
00:19:07 that as a matter of routine so you know assuming it would carry on until such pointers we were able to say well now we have the full picture but in seconds is where the projects got a bit cold in 2013 it's been picked up again yeah you
00:19:19 2013 it's been picked up again yeah you didn't have a look back at the fee proposal and remind yourself what you had committed to doing on the project no I wouldn't do that routinely we saw and we looked at it in detail yesterday that
00:19:31 we looked at it in detail yesterday that a detailed fire strategy for the proposed development was promised in that proposal it was yes indeed so this wasn't the detailed fire strategy no it
00:19:43 wasn't the detailed fire strategy no it certainly isn't for example it doesn't contain an analysis under B 4 no and that detailed fire strategy was said to be going to include determination of any
00:19:56 be going to include determination of any external fire spread issues indeed and recommendations of compartment ation yep but we don't see that in this report no no I I say this wasn't as far as I was
00:20:07 no I I say this wasn't as far as I was concerned this wasn't the final report so when did you think you were going to be doing that when we got information from the design team to enable us to do that I mean we weren't speaking to each
00:20:20 that I mean we weren't speaking to each other on a weekly basis I mean this is you know we would have expected to get something from somebody in the design team to enable us to progress this
00:20:31 team to enable us to progress this strategy well you anxious to get that part of the strategy I sorted out and she's in address word that I would use in that particular context because as I think I've said earlier there were other
00:20:43 think I've said earlier there were other jobs that I was dealing with do you think the reality is that you'd simply forgotten about the over cladding and it just got fallen off your radar no I don't believe that to be the case
00:20:54 don't believe that to be the case so it's still in your mind was it well in the back of my mind yes but you didn't think two drops to do me an email and say guys I you do you are aware aren't you I'm gonna need to know much
00:21:05 aren't you I'm gonna need to know much more about the external wall no I didn't think to do that so you did intend that an analysis of external fire spread would be carried out in a future issue
00:21:16 would be carried out in a future issue of the report as you resolutely and what would that analysis consist of what what was in your mind at this stage well it
00:21:27 was in your mind at this stage well it would have dealt with all three parts of the what before consists of which is the roof covering that we might have been just a sentence saying that no changes proposed to the roof coverings it would
00:21:39 proposed to the roof coverings it would have dealt with a construction of the external walls including in that section where cavity barriers would have been provided it would have described a construction of the external walls or in
00:21:51 construction of the external walls or in this case there's stuff that was being applied to them and the other one would have been a reiteration that in terms of space separation there were no issues to consider that's the sort of detail that
00:22:04 consider that's the sort of detail that we would have gone into but before we dealt with that we would have sat down with studio E and looked at the drawings and possibly with a contractor I mean the Nall arrangement is that you have a
00:22:18 the Nall arrangement is that you have a design concept which is agreed in principle and you then go out to tender and somebody the provision of cladding will be a subcontract to somebody who
00:22:31 will be a subcontract to somebody who was an expert in in the field and you would sit down with them as well which is one we say at stage F we sit down with the approved contractors I think but you had envisaged that stage de that
00:22:44 but you had envisaged that stage de that you would be determining any external fire spread issues and you would be recommending compartment ation absolutely I'm going to put this to you directly so you have the chance to
00:22:55 directly so you have the chance to respond would you agree that maintaining this wording without clarifying the position about the cladding and what hadn't hadn't been done was an abdication of your responsibilities as the designated
00:23:07 the designated for a strategy consultant for the project I wouldn't put it in those strong terms I don't think abdication is the right word I mean we can only react to what we're being given to to look at would
00:23:19 we're being given to to look at would you agree that it demonstrated a lack of thoroughness on your part or in considering about I would accept that maybe we should have pursued studio be a bit more firm at all to say what are you
00:23:31 bit more firm at all to say what are you doing about the external wall so that's as far as it went and again why didn't you at the very least set out clear performance requirements to comply with the B 4
00:23:43 requirements to comply with the B 4 requirement particularly given you say you were aware that external fire spread was an issue with the use of combustible materials at that stage I didn't know
00:23:54 materials at that stage I didn't know they were proposing combustible materials I wouldn't highlight that particular aspect of the designers being the most crucial okay well we've gone over there being sentenced HC report and
00:24:05 over there being sentenced HC report and we have your evidence on that can we look at this point at your I want to pick up something in your second statement at this stage this is an EXO four zeros one seven seven five at
00:24:18 four zeros one seven seven five at paragraph two point three now this is a statement that you serve recently in response to mr. Crawford's oral evidence and we're going to come back to this in
00:24:31 and we're going to come back to this in due course when we look at what was happening in 2014 on the project right but I just want to ask you about this this paragraph so you say they're two point three had mr. Crawford suggested
00:24:42 point three had mr. Crawford suggested using Celotex I would have raised doubts about that at the time I was aware that there were some facade systems which used combustible insulation materials and was still considered acceptable
00:24:53 and was still considered acceptable because the system as a whole was tested or assessed under bs8 for one four and found to comply with BR one three five all was accepted as an engineered solution however where the linear route
00:25:07 solution however where the linear route to compliance under ADB was followed it required an installation to be non combustible or of limited combust ability and I was not aware of any Celotex products that would meet that requirement do you see that there
00:25:19 requirement do you see that there yes now as I say we'll come back to this and look at this statement in more detail but for now I want to ask you if you knew that there were these two routes to compliance the linear route
00:25:30 routes to compliance the linear route within a DB in the whole system test under 8 for one forum BR 135 why didn't you spell that out in the b4
00:25:41 why didn't you spell that out in the b4 section of your fire strategies I think comes back to what the answer that I gave you before - why didn't you put out that include that the performance
00:25:52 that include that the performance specification in your strategy we don't as a matter of course put in performance requirements in every Clause of every report
00:26:02 report I appreciate that you'd need to have some something to think that it was going to be relevant but you did know that was going to be over cutting you had no reason to think that the over cladding had somehow fallen away why
00:26:14 cladding had somehow fallen away why didn't you flag for example the need for the insulation to be of limited combust ability if following ADB because at that stage I didn't know which route they were thinking of pursuing and why didn't
00:26:28 were thinking of pursuing and why didn't you think to ask well it goes back to why didn't I speak to them at all about the issue I would have expected them to speak to me first to tell me what their proposals were to enable me to make a
00:26:39 proposals were to enable me to make a judgement and to advise them accordingly yeah was that not something again you were keen to know which weak to compliance they were going to be following because that obviously then
00:26:51 following because that obviously then potentially would affect how you analyze the external wall no I think that took the two routes if you like to call them that are reasonably self-explanatory if you want to call use what and call the
00:27:05 you want to call use what and call the linear route that means you have to use materials which satisfy the criteria in approved document b if you want to go another way then that requires a lot more effort you need to get it tested if
00:27:19 more effort you need to get it tested if it hasn't already been tested all you need to get it assessed based on the test that has been done on a similar setup and it's quite a lengthy process
00:27:32 setup and it's quite a lengthy process but we didn't have any of that discussion with them because they didn't raise the question with me but given that that route could be a lengthy process and potentially an expensive one
00:27:43 process and potentially an expensive one that's right isn't it if you're going to go down that route I don't know whether it's more expensive than going the linear route as they call it because I don't believe that those systems that
00:27:55 don't believe that those systems that have been tested are more expected the the cost of those tests has been borne by the manufacturers I thought for a moment you were saying that one possibility was that there was a bespoke test in relation to these materials no
00:28:08 test in relation to these materials no this that the tests are defined in BSA for 1/4 and BR 135 so if you if you don't want to use materials it's already satisfied approved document b you have
00:28:20 satisfied approved document b you have to get them tested or assessed yeah and what did you understand at this stage it's a slightly different topic but still relevant to the external wall what
00:28:31 still relevant to the external wall what did you understand at this stage of what about what would be at the very top of the building at there at the head of the cladding system I had no idea I've never seen any drawings did you know that there was to be a crown structure at the
00:28:43 there was to be a crown structure at the top of the building no I didn't were you ever made aware that there was a crown structure at the top of the building no were you at it and so you were never asked to advise on that aspect no on to
00:28:58 asked to advise on that aspect no on to the b33 requirement so looking at this on page 8 at 3 sorry this is back to the outline fire safety strategy issue 3
00:29:10 outline fire safety strategy issue 3 that's EXO 4 zeros penguin yeah so this is what was said here about the b3 requirement so again you're scanning down this we can see there's no
00:29:22 down this we can see there's no reference here to approved document b in section 9 or paragraph 12.8 about the requirement for cavity barriers is there no no this is headed compartment ation
00:29:34 no no this is headed compartment ation and when you were writing this bit of your report or finalizing it did you not have in mind that studio II had just a few days before consulted you
00:29:45 few days before consulted you about the cavity barium requirements and clearly did need guidance in this area although they'd asked me and I think we just been through this was that they needed to know the fire resistance of
00:29:57 needed to know the fire resistance of cavity bearers was it 60 minutes or was it something else if we look back with b3 still in mind I just want to look back at page four of the report where we
00:30:09 back at page four of the report where we set the way you set out the introduction and what the refurbishment would comprise do you see the last bullet you've got generally improvements to the building services do you see that I do
00:30:22 building services do you see that I do yes were you aware at this time that the refurbishment Works would involve key changes to the lobbies on all floors of the building I knew that they were going
00:30:33 the building I knew that they were going to put in a smoking strings and mechanical smoke extract system is that's what you're asking what about new rises water pipes for the heating and for the cold water system no you didn't
00:30:45 for the cold water system no you didn't know that what I knew there were improvements to the services but whether they were relevant to the fire safety strategy or not with a questionable well again why didn't you ask why didn't you find out whether they might be relevant
00:30:58 find out whether they might be relevant well I just didn't because you don't explain what those works were and this is just a general introduction to the
00:31:09 is just a general introduction to the reversion comprised it didn't go into my new detail as to what was going on now I understand but with reference to compartment ation why do you not
00:31:21 compartment ation why do you not consider the impact on complementation of these general improvements to the building services such as the heating and the cold water I didn't think they
00:31:32 and the cold water I didn't think they were significant what gave you that impression well they're not they don't introduce major breaches in compartment ation in a block of apartments they could only be run in the common area and
00:31:45 could only be run in the common area and then feed off into the various apartments cold water and and the like and then that would have to be fire stopped at some point but that would have been in a space
00:31:56 have been in a space vacation which I'd not seen because you don't consider for example the impact of the cupboard in the lobbies which has how's the new Rises and the impact of that in terms of complementation - you
00:32:09 that in terms of complementation - you know but it was an existing cupboard I believe but you wouldn't think to check whether the imposition of new pipe were new rises might have affected the
00:32:20 new rises might have affected the building's complementation on all the lobbies no because it wasn't a particularly significant alteration to the building as far as I was concerned okay and looking down at B one means of
00:32:35 okay and looking down at B one means of warning and escape I just want you to look briefly at this if we go to page 7
00:32:43 we can see in the middle of the page under the heading smoke ventilation of lobbies you've included a note which
00:32:54 lobbies you've included a note which said this said this supply and extract system will be overhauled as part of the improvement to the building services this is covered in a separate report by max Gordon do you see that - yes so in
00:33:07 max Gordon do you see that - yes so in this third issue of your report you've left the design of the lobby smoke control system - max Fordham - address is that correct it was duteous that's the right word
00:33:18 it was duteous that's the right word from day one it was part of their brief but you didn't think that you ought to set out in this fire strategy for the refurbishment for the building any
00:33:29 refurbishment for the building any performance requirements for the new smoke control system well I think I've answered this question earlier the performance requirements for smoke ventilation systems serving a common
00:33:41 ventilation systems serving a common lobby are well known in the industry certainly would have been well known to max Fordham which is that the objective is to prevent spread of smoke into the stair so it can be used by other
00:33:53 stair so it can be used by other occupants of the building and the fire service I didn't see the need to spell that out in this place would you agree with me that these performance criteria fell into two categories first of all
00:34:04 fell into two categories first of all the performance criteria for the smoke control system itself secondly the performance criteria for the fire and smoke dampers as well but
00:34:16 the fire and smoke dampers as well but that that's just a detail what you would need to do would be to improve like sorry I proved the the concept initially and you would then talk about I mean
00:34:28 and you would then talk about I mean when you're designing a smoke extract system which is only designed to extract smoke on one floor you have a series of dampers the one on the fire floor opens and the others remain closed but that
00:34:40 and the others remain closed but that could be an integral part of the design of the system which was being done by others I see so because it was being done by others you didn't look at the potential impact for example of on
00:34:51 potential impact for example of on compartment ation of having these shafts rising through the building and whether the the the the dampers were adequately rated no I would see that as part of the
00:35:03 rated no I would see that as part of the design of the system but I mean we weren't introducing or they weren't introducing further openings in the compartment ation those openings already existed the vertical shafts were already
00:35:15 existed the vertical shafts were already there yes do you accept that the fire strategy should have at least made clear the role of the system the performance requirements it should have met and how
00:35:27 requirements it should have met and how that system contributed to life safety in the building I could have done that but I didn't think to think it was necessary to go into that level of detail do you agree that in a building
00:35:39 detail do you agree that in a building which featured a single stair which served flats and non residential demise the smoke control to the stair was a fundamental cornerstone of the fire strategy for residents and for
00:35:50 strategy for residents and for firefighters which should have been addressed in your reports I'm not sure I would agree that it was it's certainly an important feature of it but given
00:36:02 an important feature of it but given that we need that was one there already and it was being improved I don't really see why I needed to go into any more detail in this report okay now you go on in this b1 section we could keep this
00:36:14 in this b1 section we could keep this bit up on the screen here you go on to indicate that for the walkway mezzanine and ground storey level this blue heading there for that that
00:36:25 this blue heading there for that that the lobby to the boxing club and the community room should have automatic opening vents of nine point four meters squared in area do you see that I do in the second line do you agree that this
00:36:38 the second line do you agree that this advice was contrary to the guidance given in a DB 2013 because the size of the opening vents were not compliant with the relevant British standard that's BS five five eight eight five
00:36:49 that's BS five five eight eight five 2004 which required vents of more like a metre squared in area I accept that but I mean that was the best that we could achieve but again isn't it about did it
00:37:03 achieve but again isn't it about did it not occur to you to highlight that it wasn't compliant with that guidance but then explain why that was the best that could be achieved and why that was nevertheless acceptable for this building well we discussed it with the
00:37:19 building well we discussed it with the local authority and they appear to be happy with that as being the best that could be achieved why didn't you draw attention to this non-compliance in your
00:37:30 attention to this non-compliance in your strategy and explain why you were recommending a departure from that guidance well the guidance in relation to smoke ventilation of firefighting
00:37:42 to smoke ventilation of firefighting shafts in residential buildings it relates to a fire in a in a residential apartment and the code asked for vents larger than this to deal with a domestic
00:37:55 larger than this to deal with a domestic fire which is sometimes a lot more severe than a fire in an area such as a boxing club or an office but all right maybe there should have been some more detail in there but it's a statement of
00:38:08 detail in there but it's a statement of what we were doing there and it was accepted by the local authority okay
00:38:16 stay with just ask you about stare width and this third issue we gave in the b1 section back to page six
00:38:29 and there you've dealt with various aspects of means of escape right I think it's right that nowhere there do you ever state that the stare width of
00:38:42 you ever state that the stare width of 1040 millimetres was 60 millimeters less than the current design guidance a DB would have required which is 1,100 millimeters no you know it's an existing
00:38:56 millimeters no you know it's an existing stair but again wasn't that a non-compliance with the current statutory guidance that you should have referred to expressly and then said you've taken into account
00:39:08 then said you've taken into account nevertheless when you're drafting the fire strategy I'm not sure that we would start all of our fire strategies with the list of the ways in which a building doesn't comply with current standards I
00:39:19 doesn't comply with current standards I mean if you're seriously suggesting we should recommend it to the client that he increased the width of that stair to the code compliant width that's just not
00:39:31 the code compliant width that's just not practicable no I'm not suggesting that nor am I suggesting that you do list out all the areas of non-compliance at the beginning of the report speaking on this particular aspect because the stairs
00:39:43 particular aspect because the stairs were narrower than current design guidance would recommend and wasn't that a point that could be made and and and then explained why it would clearly not be practical to widen them but to show
00:39:56 be practical to widen them but to show that you've taken into account when you've balanced all the other measures isn't that exactly what a fire strategy is well it could see that we might have added something to the narrative but not
00:40:08 added something to the narrative but not a great a lot I don't believe I mean what would what should we have said the stair is actually less than 1,100 millimeters but we don't consider that
00:40:20 millimeters but we don't consider that to be a major factor in fire safety in this building yes for the following reasons because well I can't give you any reasons why it wouldn't be any better because it was an existing stair
00:40:32 better because it was an existing stair and in terms of its capacity to evacuate the building it was perfectly adequate could that not have affected for example the performance of the smoke control system and how no there wouldn't have had any bearing how
00:40:43 there wouldn't have had any bearing how good you would want that to be sorry how good you would want it to be no because he stared as I said earlier the smoke extract system is designed to stop smoke
00:40:54 extract system is designed to stop smoke getting into the stair not compensate for its lack of wit
00:41:10 do you agree that there's no requirements specified anywhere here in this report for the response responsible person regarding mobility impaired
00:41:21 person regarding mobility impaired persons well that's a difficult one I'm not saying it's a difficult question for me there are no requirements to put in
00:41:33 me there are no requirements to put in place provisions for facilities for disabled persons in residential buildings they are excluded from the requirements but other buildings simply
00:41:44 requirements but other buildings simply I think on the basis that you can't manage it in this type of building and that persons with disabilities if they're not in the far effected apartment are perfectly safe to stay
00:41:56 apartment are perfectly safe to stay where they are does that mean that in the preparation of these reports you didn't consider the means of escape for those with disabilities no but the law didn't require us to at
00:42:10 no but the law didn't require us to at this time were you aware that approved document b requires consideration of means of escape from those with a disability I think that that was a general statement in the approved
00:42:21 general statement in the approved document but it didn't apply specifically to apartment blocks because there are no provisions for apartment blocks in the guidance can we just go to that it's at CLG five zeros two to four
00:42:36 that it's at CLG five zeros two to four at page 13 and it's naught point 1/9 of a dB
00:42:44 a dB and it's there at the bottom and on the left if we can zoom in on the bottom half of the page inclusive design not 0.19 we looked at this yes sorry two
00:42:55 0.19 we looked at this yes sorry two days ago with miss Barker do you were you aware that this section draws attention to part M of the Building Regulations access to and use of
00:43:08 Regulations access to and use of buildings which requires reasonable provision for access by people to buildings were you aware of that yes I'm aware of the general cross-reference and were you aware that it said people
00:43:20 and were you aware that it said people regardless of disability age or gender should be able to add gain access to buildings and use their facilities both as visitors and as people who live or work work in them yes I'm aware of them and then this as such the fire safety
00:43:32 and then this as such the fire safety measures incorporated into a building will need to take account of the needs of all those persons you may have access to the building it is not appropriate except in exceptional circumstances to presume that certain groups of people
00:43:44 presume that certain groups of people will be excluded from a building because of its use I absolutely agree with that sentiment but I go back to the point I made that there are no recommendations in the documentation is she by
00:43:57 in the documentation is she by government departments or others as to what you do about means of escape for disabled persons in residential buildings you might you might say well there should be but the fact is there
00:44:08 there should be but the fact is there are not I appreciate that within the rest of ADB you don't have a specific recommendation that you ought to have this performance because of the need to accommodate X people or the need to have
00:44:21 accommodate X people or the need to have a refuge here or whatever but isn't this signalling to you you've still got to take into account the needs of those persons when you're putting for example your fire strategy together generally
00:44:34 your fire strategy together generally for a new residential building we would say under means of escape for disabled persons there are no requirements you're not required to provide facilities to
00:44:46 not required to provide facilities to them to escape does that mean then you just don't think about it anymore well exactly can we look also at page 17 in the right column and criteria for
00:45:00 in the right column and criteria for means of escape that's half way down that page can you see there there's a note so it says some people for example those who use wheelchairs may not be able to use stairways without assistance for them evacuation involving the use of
00:45:12 for them evacuation involving the use of refugees on escape routes and either assistance down or up stairways all the use of suitable lips will be necessary do you see that I do yes and again did you have that in mind when you were working on the Granville project not at
00:45:24 working on the Granville project not at all
00:45:26 all I think the important point is that you do not provide refuges in stairs in residential buildings and you don't have
00:45:37 residential buildings and you don't have management arrangements to evacuate disabled persons because frequently and quite often there are no management facilities on-site you might think
00:45:48 facilities on-site you might think that's a bad thing but that's not a decision taken by fire consultants such a decision taken by the government does it follow then therefore that there was no consideration given to the time for
00:46:00 consideration given to the time for people living in the building when constructing the fire safety strategy with particular regard to approve document M yes you could say that I mean approved document M is outside the scope
00:46:12 approved document M is outside the scope of fire I mean for a new building you would obviously have to consider that the building provides access for people with disabilities did you ever ask for
00:46:24 with disabilities did you ever ask for any information arising out of say consultations with residents or other information about who was living in the building to be provided to you no I didn't I mean did you ever give
00:46:43 no I didn't I mean did you ever give consideration to the types of people likely to be living in high-rise residential buildings in terms of needs no it isn't something that a fire consultant would necessarily do at this
00:46:57 consultant would necessarily do at this time were you aware that xover had provide the outlined fire strategy for the Kensington Academy and Leisure Centre project which did refer to disabled evacuation under that heading a
00:47:09 disabled evacuation under that heading a heading called disabled evacuation were you aware of that probably because I think I reviewed or helped turn the cut my colleague dealing with that but um and why would have been considered for
00:47:21 and why would have been considered for that project but not for this one because that the law requires that it is in the other building did you never consider for example refugees for the non residential accommodation below
00:47:32 non residential accommodation below level four they were already there those refugees were they no no that the that that the non-residential elements were already there albeit in a slightly
00:47:44 were already there albeit in a slightly different configuration did you ever consider refugees in relation to that no I mean had I done so I would as soon realized that there wouldn't be a management regime in that building you
00:47:57 management regime in that building you were able to evacuate people with disabilities
00:48:12 do you also agree that nowhere in your reports is there an acknowledgement of the mixed use nature of the building and so the potential for there being multiple responsible persons some more
00:48:26 multiple responsible persons some more in control than others no that wasn't something something I considered I mean bear in mind that the the uses were fairly low-key you had a boxing club
00:48:37 fairly low-key you had a boxing club with two adults and a few boys sorry young children you had a sort of office type accommodation which is very low
00:48:49 type accommodation which is very low occupancy you had a community room for use of the occupants of the building I didn't see that they were needed to be a great deal of more detail provided
00:49:00 great deal of more detail provided wouldn't it given that you might have had multiple responsible persons wouldn't that potentially present challenges in terms of communication and coordination which ought to have been addressed in your report no I I think
00:49:13 addressed in your report no I I think that would be more in the fire safety management plan Ivysaur to satisfy the regulatory reform water we can't really dictate how a building is run when we're
00:49:26 dictate how a building is run when we're doing a fire strategy we can say that there are certain aspects of the design of this building which do require to be managed - but that's about as far as we can go I think I might break and ask one
00:49:41 can go I think I might break and ask one more question before I do and then we're going on to a bigger topic that would be a good point yeah so this is just picking up on something you said yesterday so we established that you you don't have four more fire engineering
00:49:52 don't have four more fire engineering qualifications and and miss Barca said something similar did xover have a policy of putting unqualified personnel on to this job given that 90% of their
00:50:04 on to this job given that 90% of their people you said were qualified in fire engineering was there was there a deliberate decision that this job could justify having people without the fire engineering qualifications yes I believe
00:50:17 engineering qualifications yes I believe it could I mean when I say you say unqualified I mean not not having a formal fire engineering well I don't I mean well if they're having a formal fire engineering
00:50:28 having a formal fire engineering qualification is desirable for everybody doing for engineering it's not absolutely essential for a building where they're proposing fairly modest changes to the layout and you have an
00:50:40 changes to the layout and you have an individual who is dealt with hundreds of buildings like that but back to my question do you think there was
00:50:51 question do you think there was something about this project which meant that it wasn't considered necessary to have people with formal fire engineering qualifications on it no I think you you can't just say that it has to be firing
00:51:02 can't just say that it has to be firing if somebody was fire engineering qualifications you have to have regard to experience as well somebody who's just gotta fire engineering degree has come out of a college may not be the
00:51:13 come out of a college may not be the appropriate person to look at a difficult building in terms of getting the means of escape sorted out properly and was cladding at all including wasn't
00:51:26 and was cladding at all including wasn't I know I don't think cladding played any part in the decision as to who ran the job I mean but you also have to accept that when the job comes into a particular office there will be a finite
00:51:39 particular office there will be a finite number of people who can work on it and it may be that there aren't people with for engineering qualifications with enough capacity to deal with this particular job but I really don't think
00:51:52 particular job but I really don't think that it was necessary for a fire a qualified for engineers to work on this project that implies that somebody reason isn't good enough to do the job and I believe that to be wrong yeah
00:52:07 thank you mr. chairman that would be good
00:52:11 good all right well we'll say again have a short break now okay can you say 10 plus 3 and usual instructions please don't talk to a non-virtual evidence thank you
00:52:25 talk to a non-virtual evidence thank you very much
00:52:27 very much [Music]
00:52:32 [Applause]
00:52:41 right
01:09:21 yes thank you could you ask mr. Ashton to come back please
01:09:33 all right mr. eshton yes thank you very good thank you very much yes yes I've just got one follow-up question on that topic that I was look we were looking at in terms of the disabled and
01:09:44 looking at in terms of the disabled and mobility impaired persons was it normal to have such a passive client as the TMO in terms of passing new information about the residents in in the building
01:09:58 about the residents in in the building would you normally expect to be provided with more information about no I wouldn't describe TMO as passive but we wouldn't be past that sort of information unless there were reasons
01:10:10 information unless there were reasons for us to consider it for example if there was a building that was purpose-built for people with disabilities but we would treat painful towers as the same as any other block of
01:10:22 towers as the same as any other block of apartments okay so I want to move now and slightly different topic which is about the review process and quality control within xover okay and that's
01:10:35 control within xover okay and that's before we come on after that we're gonna discuss some further ad hoc advice which you gave after November 2013 on the project now to whom if anyone in xover
01:10:49 project now to whom if anyone in xover did you report to in respect of the the Graham for project I've didn't report to anybody in that sense I mean I I was the
01:11:00 anybody in that sense I mean I I was the manager of the London office and the buck stopped with me if I can put it that way yep so does that mean was there anybody x over responsible for
01:11:11 anybody x over responsible for overseeing your work on the project oh yes the director the company will oversee my work in that sense yes who would that be mr. David Harris and did he do that on this project no he
01:11:24 he do that on this project no he wouldn't routinely do it on projects you know it would just maybe a spa trip now and then yeah because it appears from the documents and and correct me if I'm
01:11:35 the documents and and correct me if I'm wrong that essentially you were working on this project on your own but for large parts of it is that right through a number of projects that we work on given the resources that we have
01:11:46 work on given the resources that we have was there any chartered professional 4x over working on the project with you Tony Tony Pearson Tony Pearson was chartered actually I think was working
01:11:58 chartered actually I think was working towards being charted and was anybody your formal line manager with in excess my formal line manager was David Harris general manager of division and at the
01:12:12 general manager of division and at the time you were working on the ground floor project were you aware whether or not xover was certified under British Standards Institute publication iso 9001 on quality management systems we weren't
01:12:24 on quality management systems we weren't certified at that point but we were working towards getting certification and we are now certified and when did xover get that 9001 give you a precise
01:12:35 xover get that 9001 give you a precise date but it was certainly after we were working on Grenville I see
01:12:46 i what i want to do now is look at the quality control procedure that xover followed in relation to two different aspects of the work the first in relation to the fire safety strategy reports and the second with regard to
01:12:58 reports and the second with regard to technical emails okay we'll look at those two things and looking first at fire safety strategy reports can we look at an internal xover document entitled overall procedure
01:13:10 document entitled overall procedure review we find this at EXO four zeros one to zero nine
01:13:25 now looking at the top of this it's called overall procedure review it's said to be issued - which is dated the 18th of December 2014 do you see that
01:13:36 18th of December 2014 do you see that yes indeed and it's to be reviewed in 2018 so this comes towards the end of your time on the grand Thor project right and but I just want to ask you
01:13:48 right and but I just want to ask you about whether some of these operating procedures were familiar to you at the time you were working on the ground floor project yep yes so let's look in the introduction at item 2 it says their operating
01:14:04 item 2 it says their operating procedures are issued to assist staff in ensuring that the requirements of the relevant standards are followed correctly in the relevant division if there is any conflict between this operating procedure and the relevant
01:14:15 operating procedure and the relevant standard the requirements of the standard take precedence do you see that yes I don't and then if we go on to page 3 at paragraph 8 yeah there we have a
01:14:29 3 at paragraph 8 yeah there we have a section called main project phase right and at the bottom of the page in the first paragraph it states yeah so the first paragraph says x over undertakes a
01:14:42 first paragraph says x over undertakes a diverse range of project types the most appropriate main phase procedures should be selected from the following list if no clear match is found the general main phase procedures should be adopted which
01:14:54 phase procedures should be adopted which requires a specific project plan to be developed and then it says each procedure can be supplemented by and then it says those those things and a
01:15:05 then it says those those things and a number of items are listed there and if you look down the bullets five bullets down there's a black heading and bold guidelines guidelines which provide
01:15:17 guidelines guidelines which provide advice and background information on how to approach specific projects do you see that I do yes there in the light of that were there any guidelines that you followed when
01:15:28 any guidelines that you followed when drafting the fire safety strategies for the granville project no the note that will the more guidelines but I didn't religious
01:15:36 religious follow those guidelines I just followed the procedure which I adopted on numerous previous projects when you say there were guidelines does that mean there were guidelines which were
01:15:47 there were guidelines which were specific to how to prepare fire safety strategy reports no no not specifically I mean there I mean bear in mind that these things were produced in you know the early part of
01:15:59 produced in you know the early part of the 20th century not in the 2000s but custom and practice before that had been
01:16:10 custom and practice before that had been to follow agreed procedures as to how you composed reports and all reports were review to ensure that those general
01:16:23 were review to ensure that those general guidelines were followed why did you feel that you didn't need to follow the guidelines and you could just follow what you'd always done well the structure of the report that I put the
01:16:34 structure of the report that I put the reports that I produced on Grenfell was the same as the structure of reports on numerous other projects unpaid for if we
01:16:46 numerous other projects unpaid for if we go into page four paragraph nine there's a heading project closure do you see that yes indeed yeah and it says X a ver procedure and then a number of letters and numbers are given for a procedure
01:16:59 and numbers are given for a procedure describes the project closure process which requires to see that and then we've got a number of bullets including a check that all elements of the project to have been completed satisfactorily a
01:17:11 to have been completed satisfactorily a check that all time and other costs have been posted by the timesheet etc a check that the projects been fully invoiced all relevant electronic files to be in
01:17:22 all relevant electronic files to be in the placed in the correct folders all hard copies of the files to be appropriately file do you see that there yes indeed now we're you aware that there were project closure processes when you were working on the Grenville project yes there were I was aware of
01:17:35 project yes there were I was aware of those procedures yeah and did you follow those procedures no because as far as I was concerned the project didn't finish in the normal way
01:17:45 did you ever do a check that all elements of the project had been completed satisfactorily no I mean as I
01:17:56 completed satisfactorily no I mean as I said in response to earlier questions at the time of producing the last fire strategy report I was still awaiting details of the external enclosures for
01:18:09 details of the external enclosures for me to examine and report on and that never happened I appreciate that let's think forward at any stage in the project for a moment I appreciate we'd stopped at HG 3 for
01:18:20 I appreciate we'd stopped at HG 3 for the moment but we'll look at the other pieces of an email advice you gave over 2014-2015 etc but at any stage thereafter did you follow this project
01:18:31 thereafter did you follow this project closure procedure and check that all elements of the project had been completed satisfactorily no I didn't do that check and again why would that be because as I say the I don't believe
01:18:43 because as I say the I don't believe that the report is that sorry that the project followed the normal progression other projects I did say earlier in my statement I think that sometimes we
01:18:54 statement I think that sometimes we would work and do a proportion of the the proposal that we was contained in our fee proposal and then we might not proceed for some reason either the
01:19:05 proceed for some reason either the project came to a halt or they chose somebody else did it ever occur to you to do a check and if necessary get back
01:19:16 to do a check and if necessary get back in contact with the design team or the client and say that we've done this seems to have run into the sand but is there any more we should be doing did
01:19:27 there any more we should be doing did you ever think to do that no I didn't think to do that I thought it would come the other way if I'm honest ok let's look at another internal document x over document entitled project completion
01:19:38 document entitled project completion procedure this can be found at EXO pause knee arrays one two two four and this one is said to have become effective if we look at that top but set of boxes
01:19:50 we look at that top but set of boxes issue date first of april 2010 right and the review date was the 1st of April 2012 do you know if there was a review of this internal document after
01:20:02 review of this internal document after 2012 do you mean the the procedure document yes so it is issued and it looks like it's supposed to be reviewed after 2 years and then as we saw with the other document you then maybe get an
01:20:13 the other document you then maybe get an issue - do you know what happened with any issue after this no I don't were you aware of this project completion procedure in 2010 and 3 to 20 oh yes did
01:20:27 procedure in 2010 and 3 to 20 oh yes did you ever follow it on some projects yes but not on every one I must be honest you have to accept that there are other priorities that you know you're actually
01:20:39 priorities that you know you're actually dealing with live jobs I mean ok the ISO 9001 standards are if you like a council of perfection at that time we weren't certified to ISO 9001 I think that there
01:20:53 certified to ISO 9001 I think that there were procedures that weren't necessarily follow to the letter yep if we look in page 1 at section 4 we can look down at
01:21:04 page 1 at section 4 we can look down at that so this deals with closure of the project if we can read that first paragraph for many projects the exact point at which the consultancy work has been completed is not always immediately evident the project manager should make
01:21:16 evident the project manager should make careful note of the scope of services provided in the contract documentation this would initially be the fee proposal which provided and the details confirmed on the fee acceptance form do you see that I do yes and it was a careful note
01:21:31 that I do yes and it was a careful note taken of the scope of services provided but by myself yeah well I understood what we were we were going to be doing because I wrote the fee proposal then
01:21:45 because I wrote the fee proposal then goes on to say appendix a shows the flow chart and it says to ensure a high standard is maintained the project manager is required to check that all elements of the project to have been
01:21:58 elements of the project to have been completed satisfactorily this will entail a review of the scope of services set out in the FIBA posle and a specific review of the documents stored on the electronic filing system the scope of services have been
01:22:10 the scope of services have been completed now pausing there with the project manager have been you for the gram for project it would have been yes and I think we've asked this but I'm
01:22:22 and I think we've asked this but I'm going to ask it again in accordance with this procedure did you ever check that all elements of the project had been completed satisfactorily at any stage no I didn't there was an expectation that there
01:22:33 there was an expectation that there would be further work coming on the project and then we see that all there after that first bullet says or contact the client or clients representatives to
01:22:45 the client or clients representatives to ensure that they are satisfied that the scope of services matched with their expectations any comments from the client should be stored on the electronic filing system in the correspondence folder so again that was the alternative I was talking about
01:22:56 the alternative I was talking about earlier did it ever occur to you to do that to contact the client no to check
01:23:16 I now want to look at the quality control of strategy of the fire strategy can we look at paragraph four point seven of your witness statement so this is an EXO four zeroes one six two one at
01:23:30 is an EXO four zeroes one six two one at page nine
01:23:33 and this was with reference to the first addition of your fire strategy you said the report was signed as having been reviewed by mr. Shawn McElhaney it is
01:23:45 reviewed by mr. Shawn McElhaney it is standard practice within X over four reports to be peer reviewed in this way mr. Mack Elena's role was to review the report against the drawings which I had which had been provided I would expect him to check that what was set out made
01:23:57 him to check that what was set out made sense and there were no clear errors in it do you see that I do yes what would have been the process if there were clear errors in the report he would have told me yeah either verbally or he would
01:24:10 told me yeah either verbally or he would have annotated a hard copy of the draft and then considered those or maybe discuss them with him and then altered the report accordingly and would that be
01:24:22 the report accordingly and would that be the same process if someone made amendments to a report not quite that was a little less formally I think that well you're under some time constraints to get the report issued as we
01:24:35 to get the report issued as we frequently on so at the time I was content for the tony pearson to make any changes you saw fit can we look at
01:24:46 changes you saw fit can we look at paragraph 3.8 of masconi's witness statement
01:24:49 statement that's EXO four zeros one five nine zero page three
01:25:01 so if we look at paragraph 3.8 in the second sentence she says the peer review process at xover is part of the document quality control and typically involves
01:25:12 quality control and typically involves someone of equal or greater seniority to the drafter reviewing the report to ensure that there are no clear errors and that it is sound in its basis do you see that I do yes do you agree that the
01:25:24 see that I do yes do you agree that the reviewer ought to be someone of equal or greater seniority than the drafter yes I do agree now with your reports on the Graham for project we know mr. Mack
01:25:35 Graham for project we know mr. Mack mcleaney was junior to you you confirm that earlier yes and mr. Pierson was was he a junior to you as well he was yes but in the case of mr. Pierson aren't my
01:25:48 but in the case of mr. Pierson aren't my he was suitably qualified to review a report that I've prepared so why would the why were the reports on this project being checked by someone more junior to
01:25:59 being checked by someone more junior to you it was short I'm assuming it was just down to availability of somebody to do the review bearing in mind that we don't we're not sitting at a desk all day long every day we're out of meetings
01:26:10 day long every day we're out of meetings as other clients people are on holiday etc and is that normal practice with an
01:26:21 etc and is that normal practice with an X over that reports are actually checked by someone Junior no I said it was normal practice but it does happen because of staffing resources so on on
01:26:34 because of staffing resources so on on this job is your explanation that the reason it happened was because of staffing issues it's no I didn't know I think that as I said one of the reports was reviewed by Tony Pearson who was
01:26:46 was reviewed by Tony Pearson who was adequately qualified to review reporters at nature I don't believe that sean michael Oni was an inadequate person technically to review the report
01:26:58 technically to review the report considering what the content of the report was was the ground full project a lower priority for x over than other projects going on on time I mean if you if you're in an office
01:27:12 I mean if you if you're in an office with four people and three of them rules two of them are out and not available or on holiday or whatever and you're left with one other person you're would generally ask that person to review the
01:27:23 generally ask that person to review the report if you can't get it reviewed by somebody of a comparable grade if I can call it they in another office isn't one answer to that to prepare the report sufficiently in advance so that you can
01:27:34 sufficiently in advance so that you can always make sure you find a senior person yes that's that's first that's very common does that mean that often within xover you were providing reports quite close to the deadline when they
01:27:45 quite close to the deadline when they were new in my case yes I'm not saying that's the general generally true of X / I also want to ask you why the practice of reviewing these fire strategy reports
01:27:56 of reviewing these fire strategy reports seems to differ as between different xover employees so I'm going to try and summarize for you what everyone said James Lee says the process of reviewing
01:28:07 James Lee says the process of reviewing was to check whether it was accurate and reasonable mr. McKee Laney says proofreading it was proofreading and checking for clear mistakes
01:28:18 checking for clear mistakes Claire Barker said it was reviewing the report alongside the drawings considered in order to produce that report looking at the relevant guidance referred to in the report in order to ensure that the
01:28:30 the report in order to ensure that the report was correct and then dr. Pearson gives the most detailed explanation perhaps we could go to his statement this is an EXO 4 zeros one seven five
01:28:43 this is an EXO 4 zeros one seven five three page three this is at paragraph three point nine he says there the
01:28:54 three point nine he says there the process of peer reviewing and report involves comparing what's written in the report with any floor plans provided and ensuring one that the report is factually correct two that it correlates with the plans three that the approach
01:29:06 with the plans three that the approach taken is appropriate et that the design is based on the appropriate design codes or any fire engineering analyses are based on sound principles for that it is correct where the report says that there's compliance with the cited design
01:29:18 there's compliance with the cited design codes and five that the facts logics and math
01:29:22 math attics of any fire engineering analyses are correct do you see that there I do yes
01:29:27 yes can you explain why we have so many different versions of what the process of reviewing a fire strategy report actually involved I think probably because each of the individuals concern
01:29:38 because each of the individuals concern was asked to put it in their own words I don't know that for a fact but clearly that the textbook the Toni Pearson definition is a text book would you accept that there was variation within
01:29:51 accept that there was variation within xover as to how people did review these fire strategy reports I think that's inevitable although they should follow basic the basic rules are that they the
01:30:03 basic the basic rules are that they the report makes sense that any well that the first three at least of what is in Tony Pearson's statement I mean mr. mcclain he said it's about proofreading and checking for clear mistakes that's
01:30:14 and checking for clear mistakes that's very different to what's described here by me yeah I agree with you and that may be Shawn's perception just thinking back to dr. Pearson's amendment which he made
01:30:26 to dr. Pearson's amendment which he made to issue two which we looked at where he drew attention to the non-compliance of the escape route with a DB would you usually expect to discuss such amendments before anything was issued to the client yes that would be the normal
01:30:40 the client yes that would be the normal procedure if changes were required the reviewer would talk to the rib the person who prepared the report to agree a way forward now in the specific instance we're referring to you didn't
01:30:51 instance we're referring to you didn't discuss any such issues with him did you before no it would be evident from the correspondence that we were under some time pressure to get the report issued so I felt sufficiently confident that
01:31:03 so I felt sufficiently confident that what he would do if he needed if he needed to do anything were being adequate for purpose yes you sent an email to Margaret Trenor saying please get Tony to review the attached then
01:31:14 get Tony to review the attached then format it and send it to briefs at Studio E so you were happy for him to review it and then for it to be sent straight out indeed and you you actually
01:31:27 straight out indeed and you you actually said to Tony Pearson I told mags to send the report out without reading what you'd add it do you see that because the most important thing that that John was to get the report sent down I mean
01:31:40 was to get the report sent down I mean at the end of the day that particular instance you're quoting wasn't significant it was just a different way of wording something
01:31:49 can I ask now about quality control of emails and thinking about technical emails if we go within staying within dr. Pierce since witness statement and
01:32:02 dr. Pierce since witness statement and looking at page three a paragraph three point seven sorry that's further up this page at three point seven and we if we pick it up four lines down he says there as a
01:32:13 up four lines down he says there as a general rule at X over technical advice would not be sent to external clients without two people considering the advice it was therefore not uncommon for mr. Ashton to discuss technical queries
01:32:25 mr. Ashton to discuss technical queries with me or other senior consultants do you see that I do yes and just to see the complete picture in terms of what he says if we go on page six at paragraph
01:32:37 says if we go on page six at paragraph four point five and this is with reference to an email that we're going to come back to and look at three lines from the bottom he says it was not
01:32:49 from the bottom he says it was not uncommon for mr. Ashton to discuss technical matters with other staff as all email containing technical information had to be approved by at least two people and this might explain
01:33:00 least two people and this might explain my involvement do you see that those I think what he said is substantially correct so do you agree with dr. Pearson statement about the approval of emails
01:33:12 statement about the approval of emails containing technical information emails giving a technical opinion are in in many ways as important as reports they do need to be sound when they're given
01:33:23 do need to be sound when they're given therefore we generally look to our colleagues to confirm that what we're saying makes sense and can you help us as to what you would have understood technical advice or technical information to cover in such email
01:33:35 information to cover in such email advice well can you just helpers as to what you would imagine that would cover well we talked earlier about an email I received in studio he about cavity berries yeah we had technical question
01:33:47 berries yeah we had technical question too
01:33:47 too forgave a technical response and did somebody check that a second person check that before you responded on I didn't consider it to be necessary because it was a fairly simple question
01:33:58 because it was a fairly simple question I think so in terms of your own practice is it fair to say that not every email you would send containing technical information would have a second person review it before it went out that might
01:34:10 review it before it went out that might be true because of the sheer number of emails that we dealt with but if there was something which I felt I needed a second opinion and I would definitely get a second opinion do you know where
01:34:24 get a second opinion do you know where this checking of technical advice was explained in Ex overs written quality control procedures I don't think it specifically mentioned as emails but I've always understood that any anything
01:34:35 I've always understood that any anything that goes out of the office containing a technical opinion needs to be reviewed by somebody else now I'm gonna turn now
01:34:48 by somebody else now I'm gonna turn now to look at the other work and the ad hoc advice that you gave after issue 3 of the outline fire safety strategy yeah is
01:35:00 the outline fire safety strategy yeah is it right that after issue 3 was produced on the 7th of November 2013 you had no further meetings with our bkc Building Control to discuss the fire strategy I
01:35:11 Control to discuss the fire strategy I think that's correct yes just picking up on the contact that you had had with John Heyburn of our bkt Building Control did you ever discuss the cladding and
01:35:23 did you ever discuss the cladding and whether it complied with the building regulations with mr. John Heyburn or any other RB Casey Building Control inspector no can we go to look at mr.
01:35:34 inspector no can we go to look at mr. Howe burns first with the statement this is a our BK 3 zeros 3 3 9 3 4 at page 8
01:35:52 and I want to look at paragraph 67
01:35:59 so in that paragraph he says I also looked up information on the insulation and he talks about the cladding panels in the next sentence and then it's this bit I wanted to ask you about he says I
01:36:10 bit I wanted to ask you about he says I was also advised that the initial at the initial meeting on site by the specialists consultant but the cladding would comply with the standards set out in a proof be do you see that I do just
01:36:22 in a proof be do you see that I do just to be fair I think we ought to scroll back to the page previously and just see the question that mr. Ashton was being mr. Hoban sorry was being asked so he
01:36:34 mr. Hoban sorry was being asked so he was asked what advice or information was available and what assessments were made about the components that comprised the exterior of the building their fire safety fire resistance and compliance with safety standards do you see that in
01:36:46 with safety standards do you see that in bold at 64 endued yes and this was part of a paragraph where he answered that so if we go back then to page 8 he says
01:36:59 if we go back then to page 8 he says he's a advisor at the initial meeting on site by the specialist consultants does it follow from the fact that you never went to site that it couldn't have been you giving this advice that the cladding
01:37:10 you giving this advice that the cladding would comply with the standards set out in a dB
01:37:14 in a dB yes that's correct by specialists consulted I would assume that with somebody who is involved with the cladding then can we also look at mr.
01:37:25 cladding then can we also look at mr. Hoban second witness statement this is our BK 3 zeroes five zero four one six at page 17 and I want to look at forty
01:37:37 at page 17 and I want to look at forty four a so he's been asked and this is the question in paragraph sixty seven that was what we just looked at you state that you were advised by the
01:37:49 state that you were advised by the specialist consultant that the cladding would comply with a predock youment B and he's asked who was the specialist consultant and he says it would have been employees of from max Fordham xover
01:38:01 been employees of from max Fordham xover and cider eyes do you see that yes I see that now what is your response to that could it have been you that mr. Haven was referring to in his evidence at this
01:38:13 was referring to in his evidence at this point no I think he was mistaken I can't believe that max Fordham would have answered questions about cladding we
01:38:24 answered questions about cladding we certainly didn't answer we never met John I open on site side rise as far as I know make fire stops and cavity buries
01:38:35 I know make fire stops and cavity buries I don't think they make cladding so I think with respect he's mistaken did you ever advise mr. Hoban or anybody else from our bkc Building Control that the cladding would comply with the
01:38:47 the cladding would comply with the standards set out in a pre document be no catechu categorically no now we looked at it when we started back in this afternoon session that you'd had a second meeting
01:39:00 session that you'd had a second meeting with our bkc Building Control back on the 17th of September 2013 is that right if you are me Norman yes probably yeah let's look at an email that helps with
01:39:11 let's look at an email that helps with this so it's an EXO five zeros three nine zero
01:39:22 this was an email you sent there on the 18th of September further to yesterday's meeting this is the one you exactly yeah
01:39:32 now you're referring in that email to general arrangement drawings and drawings of the mezzanine and walkway we can see that from the title of the sorry
01:39:44 can see that from the title of the sorry from the attachments at the top can you see that it's got Grenville GL Graham full Metz Graham full walkway yes can you recall whether there are any
01:39:55 you recall whether there are any discussions at that meeting about the external cladding no there weren't any can you explain why there weren't any oh I can't no not really when we had meetings were Building
01:40:07 when we had meetings were Building Control it was purely to do with getting the means of escape and firefighting access sorted out would it have been
01:40:18 access sorted out would it have been normal on a project of this size to have only met with Building Control two times over the length of the project so that would be November 2012 and September 2013 no I would have expected further
01:40:31 2013 no I would have expected further meetings and I think our fee proposal included for at least three meetings but I'd have to check then and did it ever occur to you to initiate those further meetings make sure that they happened
01:40:43 meetings make sure that they happened sorry it's only necessary to arrange meetings with Building Control if the architect asked for it I see all in
01:40:55 architect asked for it I see all in extremity max forum he wanted a meeting with them to discuss mechanical issues or building services issues I would never initiate a meeting myself I did
01:41:07 never initiate a meeting myself I did the first one because I was it was easier for me to contact them it was for studio II when you had those two
01:41:18 studio II when you had those two meetings with our bkc Building Control what it was it in your mind that there would need to be a meeting with them at some point to discuss the external cladding yes and all other aspects of
01:41:30 cladding yes and all other aspects of the fire safety design not just the ones that we agreed with them in my mind the design team wanted to get the internal refurbishment sorted out first
01:41:42 internal refurbishment sorted out first that was their first priority can you explain why you never checked that that meeting had occurred that there'd been a
01:41:55 meeting had occurred that there'd been a meeting with Building Control it's in the same category is why why weren't we looking at the look at the external walls you know there was never any we're
01:42:06 walls you know there was never any we're never asked to and it didn't concern you that there hadn't been a meeting with Building Control to discuss the external wall no I mean I'm assuming that that
01:42:18 wall no I mean I'm assuming that that would have happened at some point in the future whether is whether we were still involved or whether after the contractor had been appointed I don't know now I
01:42:29 had been appointed I don't know now I want to ask you a little bit about the basis from which you carried on providing advice into 2014 and 2015 we know that after ridings appointment in
01:42:40 know that after ridings appointment in early 2014 you did continue to provide advice in particular in relation to the upgrade and overhaul of the existing smoke ventilation system and in relation
01:42:51 smoke ventilation system and in relation to the rainscreen cladding system and we'll come to this in you dealt you dealt with that in September 14 and March 2015 do you do you agree yes yes
01:43:02 March 2015 do you do you agree yes yes did you understand that this advice was provided pursuant to X overs again engagement as fire strategy consultants as set out in your fee proposal no I I
01:43:14 as set out in your fee proposal no I I took it to be an ad hoc advice that came about because they wanted some information and this frequently happens with us with other projects people maybe
01:43:26 with us with other projects people maybe even two years after the completion of the work we'll get a random query from somebody about our things operate and we generally will give them that advice and
01:43:38 generally will give them that advice and that's how it works I mean I would have been if I was certain that we were no longer employed on this project because ridin hadn't novated us
01:43:50 project because ridin hadn't novated us I would have been entitled to say look you know we're not really part of the design team anymore but you never did say that did you know it didn't and you
01:44:02 say that did you know it didn't and you know perhaps I should have done but that doesn't change the fact that we were no longer part of a design team once riding was appointed they didn't know veyts us and as far as I was concerned that was
01:44:15 and as far as I was concerned that was the end of it we were not actually employed by KC TMO they didn't write to us and say would you carry on providing advice to Studio Li but they've accepted your fee proposal which said at state f
01:44:27 your fee proposal which said at state f that you would be providing advice as needed to the building well as a factor and so why if your client you're still client side I appreciate you haven't
01:44:38 client side I appreciate you haven't been innovated but given you a client side why did you think that your appointment had come to an end well because they they appointed they gave the contract a ride and then ride and
01:44:49 the contract a ride and then ride and didn't approach us to ask us if we wanted to work with them isn't it right it's quite common for sometimes the fire engineer might get innovated over but isn't it right that sometimes the fire
01:45:01 isn't it right that sometimes the fire engineer might stay client side and keep advising the client under those circumstances I would have expected he had a clear instruction from the client I don't to carry on working for him rather than the contractor but that does
01:45:14 rather than the contractor but that does happen you're quite right but I would expect to be told in no uncertain terms that I'm still employed doing that I received nothing from GMO to that effect
01:45:26 received nothing from GMO to that effect but I think as you made clear yesterday you weren't expecting an instruction from the TMO to go to each stage you were assuming you were going to each stage unless you've heard contrary no this is a separate entirely separate
01:45:38 this is a separate entirely separate issue this is where they have imported and they've appointed up a contractor who effectively takes over as the person designing and building the building but
01:45:50 designing and building the building but is it right that you never said well now there's a contract that you've appointed by the way we regard ourselves as no longer the fire engineers on this project I should have said that when
01:46:02 project I should have said that when they made the first approach but I didn't so on what basis just to be clear on what basis did you carry on providing the advice that you did on the project
01:46:14 the advice that you did on the project like for example on the smoke vent system on the external wall will come to look at that and do you call I thought it would be helpful and if there wasn't you know if they wanted free advice we
01:46:25 you know if they wanted free advice we would have given them free advice simply because that's the way we operate were you aware that xover didn't charge separately for this advice but treated
01:46:36 separately for this advice but treated it as covered by the fixed lump sum fee already paid by the TMO for stage D and E yes I am aware of that and do you agree that you continue to provide advice throughout the duration
01:46:47 provide advice throughout the duration of the project up until March 2016 no I well I wouldn't say we provided continuing advice in that that assumes a regular contact with the design team it
01:46:58 regular contact with the design team it wasn't anything like that I think there were two isolated emails in 2016 which I answered because they sent them in but I
01:47:09 answered because they sent them in but I don't think that we had a continuing relationship beyond the initial ad hoc queries that came in we've checked mr. eshton in between the 1st of April 2014
01:47:20 eshton in between the 1st of April 2014 and the 24th of March 2016 which is your last email exchange you actually was sent or were copied in to approximately 90 emails on the ground for project
01:47:34 90 emails on the ground for project 90 yeah but I don't believe that we are answered 90 or anything like that you may not have answered 90 this comes back to this thing about copying people in on
01:47:47 to this thing about copying people in on emails are they that doesn't necessarily imply that they still have an involvement in the project that 90 emails implies that we would have been working every week on the project and
01:47:59 working every week on the project and that certainly isn't true can we look at what you say at paragraph 5.10 of your witness statement this is an EXO 4 zeros 161
01:48:10 161 page 14a 5.10 so you said in 5.9 so he should actually pick it up at five point
01:48:21 should actually pick it up at five point nine this is x overs involvement after the appointment of ride-in i was not aware at the time precisely when Wyden took over the site all were formally appointed I was aware in general terms that Ryden had taken on
01:48:32 general terms that Ryden had taken on with overall responsibility for the project we were not approached by writing to provide services to them this is not an unusual state of affairs I think you've just explained that to us and then you say as a result of this we
01:48:43 and then you say as a result of this we were not copied on project correspondence or invited to attend design team meetings or to agree commercial terms for our continued involvement on occasion some queries
01:48:54 involvement on occasion some queries were raised with me from time to time and I discussed these below but aside from that we were no longer involved in the project now in your experience was that an unusual state of affairs to be
01:49:08 that an unusual state of affairs to be being given advice from time to time in response to queries but otherwise just consider yourselves no longer involved was that a normal state of affairs as I
01:49:20 was that a normal state of affairs as I said earlier it does happen quite frequently people will say you know you might be the manager of the building already occupied can you just give me some information as to what this meant
01:49:32 some information as to what this meant in the fire strategy and I don't think that's unreasonable for them to ask that or for me to answer it I'm sure I I don't think we've seen copies of ninety
01:49:43 don't think we've seen copies of ninety emails that you've referred to I mean we've been through all of the documentation and I don't ninety miles doesn't ring any bells with me at all and why would they send them to me well
01:49:56 and why would they send them to me well there's a lot of emails about the smoke control system for example that were being 90 not all about the smoke control there's there's some on the cladding there's the smoke control system there's
01:50:07 there's the smoke control system there's advice being continued to be provided but let's move on
01:50:16 did you ever question why you were being asked so many times to give advice I didn't think it was a large number of times to be honest okay so did you ever
01:50:28 times to be honest okay so did you ever question why you were being asked for advice that you were not embedded within the design team at this time I didn't ask that question though did that ring any alarm bells for you that you were
01:50:39 any alarm bells for you that you were providing advice but you weren't looped in to the day-to-day work of the design team was that concerning for you it wasn't concerning for me in the sense
01:50:50 wasn't concerning for me in the sense that the questions that were put forward were reasonably straightforward if can we go to the minutes from the contractor
01:51:01 we go to the minutes from the contractor induction meeting on the 4th of April 2014 this is an AR T for 0 to 255
01:51:14 paragraph five point three on page four
01:51:20 now this wasn't a meeting that you were at it's recorded five point three x over completed the fire strategy at tender stage they have not been debated but SL
01:51:33 stage they have not been debated but SL and I think that Simon Lawrence will contact them with the view of using them going forward do you see that there I do yes did Simon Lauren Thor anyone else at rider and ever approached you with a
01:51:44 rider and ever approached you with a review to instructing you on object never where he surprised that you were not approached to provide advice pursuant to a contract with Rhydon
01:51:55 pursuant to a contract with Rhydon during this post contract phase no because as I said earlier once writing had been appointed and we had no contact from them I assume that was it that as I
01:52:09 from them I assume that was it that as I said earlier the design and build contractors frequently used their own consultants I just want to have a look
01:52:20 consultants I just want to have a look at some of the emails that you sent during the period you were providing some advice on the project I want to start with an email of the 25th of October 2013 can we go to that that's a
01:52:31 October 2013 can we go to that that's a se a five zeros one two one
01:52:44 so if we look at this this is an email from mr. Sears to John Allen and Paul Hanson of our bkc building control and you are cc'd into that do you see that
01:52:55 you are cc'd into that do you see that there I do yes and in the first paragraph it so it's further to our meeting at our bkc on the 17th of august we're now in a position to forward you
01:53:07 we're now in a position to forward you our proposed fire strategy for Grenville tower for comment please see attached fire strategy drawing strategy document from x over and a description of the proposed upgrade to the smoke exhaust
01:53:19 proposed upgrade to the smoke exhaust system do you see that yes and we can see from the documents list that is attached below there's a heading documents attached it's got various
01:53:30 documents attached it's got various plans sections and then it says the final item on the list Granville Tower OFS s to see that and
01:53:41 Granville Tower OFS s to see that and it's to issue - do you see that there yeah and then the email concludes with reference to a number of other issues that needed to be discussed so it says
01:53:54 that needed to be discussed so it says there are a number of other issues in dealing with this refurbishment that need to be discussed and this is probably best done in person once you've had a chance to study the documents would you be able to advise on
01:54:05 would you be able to advise on availability etc etc now the email refers to a meeting of the 17th of August 2013 do you recall attending that meeting no
01:54:16 do you recall attending that meeting no I don't recall what I'm sure I did if I'm if it's they said I did when you were copied into this email do you do you recall knowing what the other issues
01:54:28 you recall knowing what the other issues were that needed to be discussed that are being referred to at the end by mr. soon's no do you know now what he might have been referring to there no not even
01:54:40 have been referring to there no not even now now there was a response from Building Control copying you in on the 11th of November 2013 if we can go to that that's our BK 4 zeros 2 9 8 5
01:54:57 this is a response from John Allen of our bkc Building Control yeah and we can see from the first sentence of that that
01:55:08 see from the first sentence of that that building control was saying that the information submitted so far was not adequate to enable an effective consultation with the fire authority do you see that there yes indeed and it seems clear from the rest of the email
01:55:21 seems clear from the rest of the email that the concerns focused around the smoke control system yes is that correct yep that your understand that is my understanding yes and the email
01:55:32 understanding yes and the email suggested in the fourth paragraph that a letter should be written so as a letter needs to be written that can be forwarded to the fire authority that presents information on the existing smoke extract system design and
01:55:44 smoke extract system design and performance and the proposed replacement system to your knowledge was that letter ever written I'm no idea as it was max
01:55:55 ever written I'm no idea as it was max Fordham's responsibility I'm not sure whether it went or not I see so you don't know what happened about not dressing it in a letter no did you understand at the time he saw this
01:56:08 you understand at the time he saw this what it was that was inadequate in the information that had been provided at the time I'm sorry could you repeat that did you understand what it was that was inadequate in the information that had
01:56:19 inadequate in the information that had been provided at this time I read that to mean that they were not satisfied that we'd put forward a smoke ventilation strategy which they could reasonably send to the fire brigade for Colin can we go to paragraph 5.3 of your
01:56:35 Colin can we go to paragraph 5.3 of your witness statement this is an EXO four zeros 161 page 12
01:56:45 and you're dealing with this email there you say on the 11th of November 2013 John Allen of our bkc emailed mr. soon's copying me stating that our bkc did not think that the information submitted so
01:56:58 think that the information submitted so far was adequate to enable an effective consultation with the fire authority the email stated that the question that needs to be proposed to the brigade is whether the replacement smoke extract system to the residential parts will be
01:57:10 system to the residential parts will be acceptable I do not know what was sent to our bkc prior to this email the points in the email relate to Mac's Fordham's work in designing the smoke extract ventilation system not to expose
01:57:21 extract ventilation system not to expose work you see that there yes sir do but we saw from the email and we specifically looked at a moment ago that what had been sent to our bkc to which you were copied in was issue 2 of
01:57:34 which you were copied in was issue 2 of your outline fire safety strategy yes but that I don't think that relates to John Allen's concerns John Allen's
01:57:46 John Allen's concerns John Allen's concerns was specifically related to the smoking strike system yes that part of the information they'd receive which they obviously didn't find adequate was your outline fire safety I'm sorry
01:57:57 your outline fire safety I'm sorry you're inferring that that's was the case I did I didn't read it that way at all I didn't think that our report that it ever said to us that our report was inadequate I think the concern they specifically
01:58:08 I think the concern they specifically have was they couldn't send it to the brigade without answering specific questions on the performance of the smoking strike system were you at all concerned at this stage that you hadn't
01:58:22 concerned at this stage that you hadn't given sufficient advice to enable an effective consultation with the fire authority no I wasn't did you notice that only issue 2 of your outline fire safety strategy had been provided to our
01:58:34 safety strategy had been provided to our bkc Building Control I did note that but I as we've already established there was not an awful lot of difference between 2 & 3 2 still contained the fundamental
01:58:47 & 3 2 still contained the fundamental proposals in relation to the internal alterations did you ever think about sending them issue 3
01:58:58 sending them issue 3 so the most recent version not at that point and did you ever do a response to our be Casey's email no it wasn't
01:59:09 our be Casey's email no it wasn't addressed to me specifically it was addressed to Bruce sounds I think or
01:59:20 addressed to Bruce sounds I think or certainly studio II that's I can just mr. Chairman I quite like to just finish this small topic it's just a page in a bit of notes if I can be allowed five
01:59:31 bit of notes if I can be allowed five minutes that would be great so and if we go to EXO five zeros six five three
01:59:54 this is an email date at the 15th so if we could just
02:00:03 sorry I want to look at the one at the bottom of page one yes that's it sorry it's 15th of January it's from you too is it Duncan Campbell at max Fordham and Philip booth do you
02:00:17 at max Fordham and Philip booth do you see that there yes I do and it's the subject is lobby smoke venting so this is a few months on from the correspondence we were just looking at we can read that so Duncan you say it
02:00:29 at we can read that so Duncan you say it would be possible to carry out a CFD analysis which compared a base case a code compliance scheme with an automatic opening vent 1.5 meters squared in area
02:00:40 opening vent 1.5 meters squared in area located on one side of the lift lobby with what we are proposing but we haven't budgeted for this analysis and the cost might be more than measuring the flow rates provided by the existing system given what we are proposing is a
02:00:52 system given what we are proposing is a significant improvement over what exists I think I think I should say think or bkc are being unreasonable can we go over however we still need to satisfy
02:01:03 over however we still need to satisfy ourselves that the LF EPA won't reject the system under the RO therefore it is imperative that our bkc consults the latter for review should we collectively have another go our bkc kind regards
02:01:17 have another go our bkc kind regards Terri do you see that there by doing this it does appear from that email that you are seeing yourself as part of the team that is trying to persuade our bkc that this smoke control proposal is
02:01:30 that this smoke control proposal is acceptable is that not a fair reading of that well I think to just ignore all of these emails would would not have been very helpful to the design team is it
02:01:42 very helpful to the design team is it right that you're encouraging the design team to have another go to ensure that the system is not rejected by the London fire and emergency planning authority I think yes I think that's correct it was
02:01:54 think yes I think that's correct it was the correct thing to do I mean we had to get a resolution to this the situation had been going on over a prolonged period as we've seen you've been made aware on the 11th of November 2013 that
02:02:05 aware on the 11th of November 2013 that the building control officer felt he'd not been provided with sufficient information to have an effective consultation would you agree I'm gonna put this to you that in with hindsight you should
02:02:16 you that in with hindsight you should have been focused on ways to improve the system as to as opposed to trying to get it past the fire Authority and rbtc Building Control no I think that it was
02:02:29 Building Control no I think that it was generally accepted and I've said this several times over the last couple of days that the natural ventilation system wouldn't work and that it had to be made a mechanical system to have any prospect
02:02:40 a mechanical system to have any prospect of improving the situation the subtle difference between just making it mechanical or doing one which had been verified by CFD analysis is that our bkc
02:02:55 verified by CFD analysis is that our bkc may in conjunction with the lfb being prepared to accept something which improved it but didn't amount to a scheme which meets current standards if
02:03:09 scheme which meets current standards if that's clear I mean there are two ways of doing this you either put in a code compliance scheme yeah and you have to justify that by comparing it to what would have been done naturally or you
02:03:22 would have been done naturally or you say well look we are going to put a fan at the top of the shaft and extract the smoke from there will then suffice that would be a quantum improvement in the
02:03:33 would be a quantum improvement in the arrangements anyway would you agree that you should have been warning the client the TMO and/or studio II that the proposed ventilation system was
02:03:45 proposed ventilation system was unsatisfactory I think the client already knew that but as I said earlier I don't want to sort of avoid answering your question directly it was max Fordham's job to deal with the smoke
02:03:56 Fordham's job to deal with the smoke extract system we would merely assist them in that process was there a policy within X over at the time which would have governed the circumstances in which such a warning about the system being
02:04:09 such a warning about the system being unsatisfactory which would have governed the circumstances in which such a warning should be given so any policy not specifically now
02:04:18 mr. chairman that is that is a really good moment to stop oh you've done well so keep it within five minutes thank you right well we're gonna break at that point mr. eshton for the afternoon I'm
02:04:31 point mr. eshton for the afternoon I'm afraid we are going to have to ask you to come back a few more questions tomorrow yes indeed but for the time being you're free to go please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're away from the road
02:04:42 evidence while you're away from the road okay thank you will resume at 10 o'clock tomorrow please right thank you very much
02:05:00 good Thank You 10 o'clock tomorrow