Dr Barbara Lane provides expert evidence on the role and failures of Exova fire safety engineers, the evolution of industry awareness about external fire spread, and critical deficiencies in fire safety strategy documentation and advice for Grenfell Tower.
00:00:14 um good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing
00:00:19 hearing today we're going to continue hearing evidence from dr barbara lane so would you ask dr lane to come in
00:00:28 please
00:00:41 good morning dr elaine good morning all ready to carry on uh well i just want to talk about the screen and things because yesterday um my a3 pages are very blurry and they're too
00:00:52 pages are very blurry and they're too small in here and i'd appreciate if you could give me the section number when the thing is coming up on the screen so i can read it and listen to you and answer the question
00:01:03 you and answer the question okay because it's very fast and i'm trying to read and then listen a little bit late
00:01:08 bit late so if you could say the section number i will read it when it's small and large i see i'd really appreciate that yeah i don't think we're going back to too many of those
00:01:17 of those big a3 okay sections today but they were a bit challenging yeah yeah okay yeah make sure you can no it's just because i want to answer the questions properly of course yeah yeah right that's great thank you yes
00:01:29 yeah right that's great thank you yes thank you yes can i just pick up on on one part of your evidence yesterday and yeah if we could just go back to the transcript so this is day 61 page 65. and i want to look at lines
00:01:41 page 65. and i want to look at lines five to nine
00:01:46 so um this is where we were discussing if you remember the kind of evolution in thinking between like 2012 2013 2014 if you remember yes uh in your
00:01:57 2014 if you remember yes uh in your evidence yesterday and then um if we pick up at line five you say bye 2013. i did go back i dug out all my of notebooks the other day to see what was up to
00:02:08 see what was up to by 2013 we were sufficiently worried about materials and certificates that we started to run joint fire and facade seminars together within arab you see that there yes and i just wanted
00:02:19 you see that there yes and i just wanted to be absolutely clear so those were internal seminars between arab fire and arab facade is that right that's what i was referring to yesterday yeah um
00:02:31 yeah um yes yes were any external outside organizations or individuals involved in say those seminars industries try in those private seminars
00:02:42 industries try in those private seminars and arab know but if you're trying to ask me about external events in 2013 yeah yes there were some external events where different
00:02:53 some external events where different companies or individuals yeah were raising concerns i could not list out all the data no i understand but that's the companies because i haven't prepared for that no i understand but just to get the
00:03:04 no i understand but just to get the general sense that it wasn't just within arab that this was absolutely not i mean i was trying to not stray too far yes but i'm very clear that in 2013 let's say external to my company there
00:03:17 let's say external to my company there were other professional organizations like arab yeah
00:03:22 yeah and and other types of organizations raising questions yeah yeah that's really helpful thank you now um we've got to look at uh issue
00:03:34 now um we've got to look at uh issue three of x over's work from november 2013 yesterday yes i'm now going to go forward in time and look at uh what happened with x over's involvement after issue three okay and into the time when ryden is
00:03:47 okay and into the time when ryden is appointed as design and build contractor yes so that's going to be a big theme of the questions uh coming up um now it's right isn't it that the whole process of selecting the acm
00:03:58 acm and selecting the particular acm panels was one that was done without involving or consulting xover yes and i've made no such assertion in my report and i also wouldn't expect a fire safety
00:04:10 also wouldn't expect a fire safety engineer at that time to ever be consulted on selection of products
00:04:14 products yeah yeah and um i think you mentioned yesterday that you are also familiar with the nbs specification yes i have studied it for the inquiry yeah from
00:04:25 yeah from january 2014 um all versions yes yes actually you're right there were another drafts and then um iterations in late 2013 and then the
00:04:36 um iterations in late 2013 and then the final version in january 14. yeah exactly um and again are you aware that studio e sought no input from x over on the nbs specification including
00:04:47 specification including the different alternative materials within that i'm very well aware and i have no concern with that arrangement yeah now the contract was then put out to tender
00:04:58 tender ryden after the aj eu procurement exercise are chosen and then on the first of april 2014 there's
00:05:06 there's uh an initial meeting with the contractor and on that agenda is the possibility of swapping zinc for rayna bond uh cassettes and it's right isn't it that x over weren't at
00:05:18 that x over weren't at uh or even invited to that meeting and i think weren't even sent the minutes of it
00:05:22 it as would be entirely normal practice yeah
00:05:26 yeah at that time and i just want to highlight um something you say at paragraph uh sorry page 284 of your report if we could bring that up now so that's blarp25017
00:05:42 so that's blarp25017 and look at paragraph 9.1.34 [Music]
00:05:46 [Music] and you say there yeah it's very important to acknowledge the change from zinc to acm and it is correct that xover will not ask their opinion about this change as i read
00:05:56 read the evidence available yes and that remains your position yes it does yeah sorry just so we're absolutely clear about the change from zinc to acm yes yes yes
00:06:10 and you also in your report you've listed some instances where it's apparent that ryden contacted rbkc building control directly to discuss
00:06:20 discuss discuss matters relating to fire safety and that x over were excluded from some of those discussions that's correct and yet and this is a
00:06:32 that's correct and yet and this is a point you made yesterday and i want to take you to the invoice table you've made the point that xover do continue to invoice the tmo yes and that the latest invoice we found is
00:06:43 invoice we found is i think february 2015 can we look at that
00:06:47 that in your report if we go to page 89 of your report
00:07:00 here i think is that invoice table that you were referring to yesterday is that correct yes that's correct so what you've helpfully done here is is split down all the invoice numbers and their dates on the left-hand side the amounts
00:07:11 the amounts and uh the name of the person and organization they were issued to yes i think always either apple yards or the tmo is that correct uh yes or both sometimes yeah so i've
00:07:22 uh yes or both sometimes yeah so i've given the names there yes yeah and if we could go down the page we can see that there's invoices then in march 2014 at the bottom of that page
00:07:39 october 2014 february 2015 and then if we go over the page
00:07:46 time booked after 18th of february 15 but no associated invoice provided to you
00:07:51 you so that's that's the invoicing position is that correct in the evidence that i have available yes in the written evidence yes yeah and
00:08:02 yeah and you acknowledge in your report that x over claims that it was quote substantially excluded from the project
00:08:08 project following the third issue of its report and the appointment of a design and build contractor now can we just be clear about your view and and i just want to summarize your
00:08:20 and and i just want to summarize your view and and check that you agree with this do you agree that it is your opinion as expressed in your written report that by that stage there had already been very serious failures in xover's work
00:08:31 very serious failures in xover's work both on the existing fire strategy and the fire strategy for the refurbishment works
00:08:36 works yes i do and am i right in summary that your evidence is that even after that stage x over did respond to queries but did so inadequately yes that's
00:08:48 but did so inadequately yes that's correct
00:08:49 correct yeah and i'm going to take you back to a couple of those including the important ones in the 18th of september 2014 and then in march 2015. yeah we'll do that in a moment so we can see from the email exchanges
00:09:01 so we can see from the email exchanges that xover were consulted on an ad hoc basis to give advice on issues that arose after ryden's appointment as contractor that's correct isn't it yes and that
00:09:13 that's correct isn't it yes and that again that's something that's very familiar to me an entirely normal practice
00:09:18 practice and we see a number of emails in which xover are consulted about the works and you've helpfully set out some of those exchanges in a table section 8.4 of your report and i want to
00:09:30 section 8.4 of your report and i want to just look at that now briefly if we go to page 256.
00:09:40 it's a table 8 one if we could blow up the bottom of that page it begins at the bottom of that page
00:09:48 are you able to see that easily on the screen yeah no that's fine that's the landscape page it's the a3 though yeah so um here we've got table 8.1 and you've got evidence of fire safety design advice
00:09:59 evidence of fire safety design advice being provided by x over by email and or telephone contact yeah and then you've set out a chronology yes some of the advice and if we could look at the next page yeah we need to keep going yeah
00:10:12 yeah we need to keep going yeah in 2012 and then perhaps we can go to the next page yeah yeah just if we keep going too i think you're you said about after ryden have been appointed yeah
00:10:23 appointed yeah if we keep going yeah across this table
00:10:31 if we go to the next page
00:10:41 [Applause] yeah if we can we keep going yeah just 2014 yes so keep going sorry i haven't got the exact page
00:10:52 sorry i haven't got the exact page reference for when it starts at pace 2014 but it's coming up i think shortly
00:10:59 yes so here and we can see yeah after their third issue we get the 18th of september 2014. there's a a couple of exchanges there yeah we will look at and then if we go
00:11:11 yeah we will look at and then if we go over the next page 29th of september 14th 23rd of october 14.
00:11:18 14. we can keep going
00:11:21 and then we have some in 2015 there and it goes all the way to december 2016. that's right isn't it and again i just want to be clear that that's
00:11:32 be clear that that's again aligned with my own experience working on projects you've issued your detailed fire safety strategy for which you're responsible yeah and then depending on how the project's going depending on the rest of
00:11:44 project's going depending on the rest of your scope of work you'll have quite queries like that for the rest of the project or you may be appointed to do something more detailed yes but the the most important point
00:11:55 yes but the the most important point is that your detailed fire safety strategy is finished and available as a reference document to the rest of the professional design team as they carry on with their duties for the rest of the project
00:12:07 their duties for the rest of the project yes now can i look at what's something you say
00:12:10 you say page 270 of your report paragraph 8.4.11 yep this is where you've you've had you've set out the table clearly
00:12:21 you've set out the table clearly and then you're making a number of remarks and i want to pick up there and you say in reviewing the queries x over received i consider these to be directly caused by the fact no detailed fire strategy
00:12:32 by the fact no detailed fire strategy had ever been produced the queries are basic questions about performance requirements in fire yes so do i take it that you have looked at those email exchanges that have occurred
00:12:44 those email exchanges that have occurred through to 2016 some in 2014 some in 2015 some in 2016. yes and your view is that had a detailed fire strategy been prepared yeah what all of those wouldn't have
00:12:56 yeah what all of those wouldn't have been necessary or just a large proportion of them
00:13:02 i would i'm i'm not going to say all because i can't frantically go and read everything again but a large proportion of them
00:13:08 of them yeah and i'm particularly interested in all the questions over many years it wasn't just a period of weeks
00:13:16 of weeks for for two further years asking basic questions about cavity barriers and insulation neither of which was addressed in the detailed fire safety strategy as it
00:13:28 detailed fire safety strategy as it should have been yeah do you think that those were points that might have cropped up anyway as the design evolved they they've
00:13:39 as the design evolved they they've they very well may anyway and i think you know i was thinking about this
00:13:46 this i think this concept that the professionals in the construction industry could write to report and leave out bits on some kind of assessment they've made of other people in the design team
00:13:57 in the design team i i don't understand that as a proposition and i think even when you write a detailed fire safety strategy it's perfectly acceptable for people to still come back
00:14:08 still come back to the fire safety professional and just recheck
00:14:12 recheck ask a new another few questions make sure their understanding is accurate yeah okay um i don't think that's an excuse to not produce a detailed fire safety strategy
00:14:25 produce a detailed fire safety strategy yeah yeah so just to summarize and then i'm going to ask you some more questions on this theme the position appears to be that after
00:14:34 after ryden were appointed x-over wasn't asked at any point whether by the tmo studio e ryden or building control they weren't specifically asked to
00:14:45 they weren't specifically asked to update the third version of their report but they do get asked a number of questions from time to time mainly by studio e yes now i want to ask you what did what would you
00:14:56 you what did what would you reasonably expect x over to do when being asked those additional questions so i just i know i sound like a broken record they should already have issued their detailed fire strategy as they
00:15:08 their detailed fire strategy as they offered in their own scope of work and then
00:15:11 then when we hopefully i'll have the opportunity to show some details but when the design team were clearly reaching
00:15:20 reaching for information and mr ashton you know should have known it wasn't
00:15:27 wasn't in his report i feel it was time to update that report and that's what my professional practice is but do you think he should have unilaterally done
00:15:38 think he should have unilaterally done that
00:15:39 that and and just gone ahead and updated his report and sent it or do you think he should have sought clarification about what his role was at that point so so it's a matter for him to explain why
00:15:52 so it's a matter for him to explain why the report wasn't finished in the first place if he had concerns about contractual arrangements or if xover were going to get paid which is entirely valid
00:16:02 valid if they were to do some work the bare minimum
00:16:05 minimum i would expect a fire safety engineer to do is to simply write to their client and say
00:16:11 and say i'm getting asked lots of questions about cavity barriers i haven't addressed it in my report um i need x number of days to carry out this activity do i have your approval to proceed
00:16:24 do i have your approval to proceed perfectly normal professional practice yeah that is not an unreasonable ask of an experienced company working in the built environment yeah so do you consider it was important
00:16:35 yeah so do you consider it was important for xover
00:16:37 for xover to be informing their client the tmo that there was work that still needed to be done on the fire strategy and that was incomplete oh that was incomplete it shouldn't have
00:16:50 oh that was incomplete it shouldn't have been incomplete but it was incomplete and the design team were asking for help so yes i would expect them to to take a proactive step to resolve the
00:17:02 take a proactive step to resolve the matter either way if the client instructs you you know no don't do any more work and that does happen
00:17:10 happen sometimes then you can write and say i need you to understand that my report has not addressed before and there is a risk because that not work has not been
00:17:21 because that not work has not been completed you need to get someone else to do that assessment yeah so i think there's a duty of care to personally i think you should get your work done
00:17:32 your work done anyway and if you can't for whatever reason
00:17:36 reason you explain to the decision makers the consequences of you not finishing or doing that work and we are trained to behave and operate that way
00:17:47 that way yeah so just to be clear are you critical of x over for allowing itself to be drawn into
00:17:53 into advising on an ad hoc basis without being more formal about their their contractual position no because they offered an ad hoc basis level of service
00:18:04 an ad hoc basis level of service in their in their fee proposal i see so what you're saying is um as you read the fee proposal the stage f work is always going to be assisting the contractor on an ongoing basis that's what exover
00:18:16 on an ongoing basis that's what exover said yeah
00:18:30 now um you note in your report that the tmo
00:18:33 tmo never formally stood x over down so there's no evidence is there that the tmo uh ever said to x over actually your appointment is terminated now yes it's finished
00:18:45 now yes it's finished i have not found any evidence about that and and neither did studio e or any other party inform x over that their services were no longer required that's correct
00:19:00 and and again i i need to say that that commonly occurs do you agree that it would have been difficult for x over to have interposed themselves between ryden and
00:19:11 interposed themselves between ryden and the tmo once ryden come on board as the main design and build contractor can would you just explain a little bit more of what you mean by interpose that once ryden come on board
00:19:23 interpose that once ryden come on board there's a there's a kind of big change in terms of the way the project is structured and the responsibilities on the project and it might be said that once a design and build contractor is on board
00:19:35 build contractor is on board it's obvious that if they don't deport a fire engineer xover's work has run its course what would you say to that oh no i i don't agree with that at all
00:19:46 agree with that at all it's not obvious and it isn't a i i don't understand i mean when the contractor gets appointed or is being considered like my experience is is
00:19:57 considered like my experience is is there'll be and you can see that in the evidence here all sorts of exchanges trying to get
00:20:03 get you know who's getting novated who isn't all the arrangements set up you know ready for for day one that happens on all the design and build contracts i've ever worked on
00:20:15 contracts i've ever worked on yeah when um xavier were first appointed they were appointed i think by the tmo to give such advice through or to
00:20:26 such advice through or to studio e as studio you might think was required is that fair at that stage why oh i'm where does it say in their scope that it's far the architect
00:20:38 it's far the architect well that was the way they report it anyway and it doesn't seem to no one seems to have objected to that but i was really asking the question to compare it with the situation after the appointment of
00:20:49 the situation after the appointment of ryden right and take over responsibility for design okay at that point presumably uh xover was still engaged by the tmo yeah
00:21:01 xover was still engaged by the tmo yeah and give such advice on design yeah or on fire safety as ryden might okay so that so that's really interesting so i i don't see that the scope of work is
00:21:15 i i don't see that the scope of work is for the for to assist just the architect so a client appoints a fire safety engineer
00:21:22 engineer and uh unless it ex unless i wrote expressly
00:21:27 expressly dear client i understand you want me to assist only the architect on the design team
00:21:33 team which would be quite rare we we are providing advice to the team and we are producing our own advice for the benefit of the team not just for
00:21:44 team not just for one company okay i entirely understand that when a principal contractor is appointed whose leading decision-making day-to-day
00:21:56 whose leading decision-making day-to-day has altered or you know increased or changed in some way but when i'm when i when my experience is
00:22:04 is when i'm stick with the client after that change which happens a lot the the you know you're you're you're still giving advice on behalf of the client
00:22:15 giving advice on behalf of the client if i was worried because ryden knew people were contacting me i would write to my clients and say look the principal contractor and his his or her team
00:22:26 her team are now contacting me do you want me to carry on providing advice to those new parties and my client will say to me either yes or no don't give
00:22:38 either yes or no don't give any advice to the principal contractor and their team i want you to just check everything at the end or something like that
00:22:45 that so there is an obligation to check with your client which was the tmo in this instance if they wanted you to carry on giving advice to ryden and any other individuals where i'd not
00:22:57 and any other individuals where i'd not appointed
00:22:57 appointed yeah thank you that's not again please don't think that's a weird experience of mine that is normal
00:23:05 is normal practice in the industry right thank you very much
00:23:08 very much yeah that's helpful um now you note if we can bring it up on the page um at 339 of your report page 339 paragraph
00:23:20 14.1.58 there you've said and this links to the point you've just made i found no evidence of any concern expressed by x over staff at any time relating to any uncertainty they had
00:23:32 relating to any uncertainty they had about the contracted status once ryden was on board so i think what you're saying is you've looked at all the exchanges that were occurring afterwards some of them were with uh studio e
00:23:43 some of them were with uh studio e some of them were with ryden or their sub appointed subcontractors yeah and you can't find anywhere any evidence of of x over saying hang on a moment um
00:23:54 of x over saying hang on a moment um who are we being asked to advise what's our current status what's our contractual position that just doesn't happen no it doesn't i mean everyone's entitled to worry about being paid if nothing else
00:24:05 paid if nothing else so that's why you check i thought the thrust of the question which precipitated these exchanges was that
00:24:13 that it was not perhaps reasonable to expect x over two when you use the word interpose itself but uh in a sense take an active stance uh uh as between ryden and the tmo
00:24:27 uh uh as between ryden and the tmo is that the point that was one of the points just to make sure we're getting yeah okay yeah yeah watch it it's so active so i i think one of the points that might be made is it it certainly wasn't
00:24:38 made is it it certainly wasn't reasonable to expect x over to just finish its fire strategy work of its own volition once a design and build contractor comes on board so so i'm very sorry they were meant to have finished their fire
00:24:50 were meant to have finished their fire strategy
00:24:51 strategy before ryden were appointed and that keeps getting blurred they had to have finished their stagey detailed fire strategy
00:25:01 strategy before the contractor came on board normal common practice on design and build projects
00:25:11 mr chairman is that helpful yes i just wanted to make sure that the question which
00:25:15 which uh might be quite an important one yeah
00:25:21 now just some other points about what happens once ryden are appointed um it's right once ryden are appointed that xover aren't passed any work packages to review is that correct
00:25:33 packages to review is that correct that's correct and they're not asked to carry out a compliance check by any of the design team is that correct a compliance check of the the overall the final design
00:25:47 of the the overall the final design as so as the more and more detail was being produced yeah no no one on the design team asked the fire safety engineer to do a full review
00:25:59 and is it right that x over they aren't invited to any design team meetings that's correct and they aren't invited to any meetings with building control
00:26:10 to any meetings with building control that's correct yes nor to any meetings with the tmo themselves no now does any of that affect the views that you've expressed in the last 15 minutes no it doesn't because again
00:26:23 15 minutes no it doesn't because again that is also my experience when i'm working on projects yeah
00:26:30 now the understanding of the studio e witnesses when they gave oral evidence was simply that x over was available as and when questions came up yes um and that's consistent with
00:26:41 yes um and that's consistent with what you see in the documents is that right yes that's correct now ryden's attitude appears to be that if necessary studio e should take advantage of any free advice that x over were offering
00:26:53 free advice that x over were offering yeah um yeah it's a shame yeah i again just terribly typical of things
00:26:59 things yep when you say it's terribly typical of things
00:27:03 of things well you know i look i don't i don't know
00:27:06 know all those people but i i don't you know factually
00:27:10 factually i don't know why ryden called it free advice i presume they meant it was free to them
00:27:14 to them but you know it's best that they discuss what that meant to them i i you know in my mind the the facts are exova had an appointment and they were asked to give advice and
00:27:28 and they were asked to give advice and if they were worried they should have checked
00:27:30 checked yeah and is it right that any further fees that x over charged or invoiced in that later period were negligible less than 300 pounds yes it was a very low amount
00:27:41 low amount yeah yeah can i just i'm sorry this yeah following up this thought that you were putting to yeah um i know that you take the view and i understand why that the fire
00:27:53 understand why that the fire strategy report was not completed um once ryden came on board and became responsible for design yeah uh
00:28:04 responsible for design yeah uh might it be said by x over well at that point we were only expected to do that which we were specifically asked to do yeah yeah or are you suggesting that they should have been aware that there was
00:28:15 should have been aware that there was unfinished work that should have been completed without any further request okay so i think um so presumably xover considered their
00:28:27 so presumably xover considered their fire strategy to be complete i'm retrospectively saying it wasn't because there were so many things missing from it okay so i'm assuming they considered it to be complete
00:28:38 to be complete and the design team included it in the employers requirements because they considered it to be complete the fire strategy is seen as being a risk item
00:28:48 risk item to a principal contractor normally they like to know it's complete and it's been approved or approved in principle by building control before they take on that risk
00:28:59 that risk okay that's another thing that happens and that's where the timing comes into it all
00:29:04 it all so you have the strategy completed you you can
00:29:08 you can say to the architect and the looming principal contractor i've had various discussions with building control and in general they're happy
00:29:16 happy with the founding principles of the report so once you take this and use it for your detailed design you're not running at risk it might be said that uh the fire
00:29:27 it might be said that uh the fire strategy report in relation to b4 yes was on its face not complete and was not thought to be complete because it referred to a further report uh
00:29:38 a further report uh is that further report something which in in your view ought to have been provided as it were in any event or was x over entitled to wait and see if it were asked for a
00:29:50 wait and see if it were asked for a further report and given further information on which to make it so i don't understand what the further report was going to be okay i don't know what was in in their
00:30:02 okay i don't know what was in in their minds
00:30:03 minds as a minimum i think they should have set out the basic performance standards as part of their fire strategy if the contractor was going to come
00:30:14 if the contractor was going to come along and wanted to do something very different to what was set in the fire strategy then i can imagine someone needed to be commissioned to do a further
00:30:25 a further report to to set out the minimum requirements of their fire strategy
00:30:34 strategy you don't need a lot of detail just to be clear on those points
00:30:41 all right i mean i raised the point because i think i'm right in saying that mr ashton said that that he had not been told about the nature of the cladding at the
00:30:52 about the nature of the cladding at the time when he produced the hexover produced the
00:30:58 fire strategy report yes and the impression i have we'll have to check his evidence is that uh he was expecting to be given more information about the
00:31:09 given more information about the cladding yes uh before he could say anything more definitive about the implications of b4 okay so so i think i think
00:31:23 so i think i think you all use the phrase reasonably competent fire engineer would set out the minimum requirements and leave it at that later on and i re i think we will get there
00:31:34 think we will get there he is asked very specific questions about the exact makeup of harley's proposals so if in the in xova's plan
00:31:48 so if in the in xova's plan was they were going to do even more when they had
00:31:51 they had that very specific information that was the time
00:31:56 the time to now say to everyone we told you we were going to do even more work on b4 the questions are now coming in the product specific information is coming in
00:32:08 information is coming in we you know we would like to finish b4 please confirm you are agreed it is time for us to do that if they were worried commercially yes right thank you yes i've got the
00:32:20 yes right thank you yes i've got the passage here i i think we should go to it now in mr ashton's evidence which is helpful about how he saw the fire strategy if we can go to day 17 page 132
00:32:36 and look at if we look at lines um
00:32:40 if we look at line uh eight there and pick it up there i asked him you didn't have a look back at the feed proposal and remind yourself what you'd committed to doing on the project and then he said no i wouldn't do that
00:32:51 and then he said no i wouldn't do that routinely and then i say we saw and we looked at it in detail yesterday that a detailed fire strategy for the proposed development was promised in that proposal
00:33:00 proposal he says it was yes indeed and then i say so this wasn't the detailed fire strategy
00:33:06 strategy no it's certainly for example it doesn't contain an analysis under b4 and then i said no and that detailed fire strategy was said to be going to include
00:33:15 include determination of any external fire spread issues and he says indeed and recommendations of compartmentation yeah but we don't see that in this report
00:33:25 report and then if we go over the page no no as i say this wasn't as far as i was concerned this wasn't the final report so that was mr ashton's evidence
00:33:38 so that was mr ashton's evidence now okay just to be clear does that affect the answer that you just gave to the chairman about what you would have expected x over to do once they are being asked specific
00:33:49 once they are being asked specific questions later in the project i i i i don't think it does no because um if it if if the third version of their fire strategy
00:34:01 their fire strategy which occurred in stage e wasn't a stage e fire strategy it's not written down anywhere anyway what stage strategy it is
00:34:12 what stage strategy it is which again is normal to do okay people know this is the stage the stage d stage e report if he hadn't got round to doing his stage e report
00:34:24 stage e report and i still don't understand why not now really specific questions are coming in
00:34:31 in about construct you know now the construction team are in place and we're into named materials isn't at the time to say do you
00:34:42 isn't at the time to say do you understand my fire strategy is not the detailed fire strategy i offered
00:34:48 offered and do you want me to now write it just as a minimum yeah yeah
00:34:54 yeah yeah um now can i just show you um some of x overs internal operating procedures for a moment
00:35:01 a moment so um if we can go to exo401209
00:35:08 this is dated the 18th of december 2014.
00:35:14 yeah um and it's called overall procedural procedure review yeah and if we look um at figure one on page two
00:35:28 oh it suggests in this flow diagram that after the main project phase which is the fourth box down there's going to be a project uh completion procedure to be followed
00:35:40 uh completion procedure to be followed yes
00:35:43 and then if we go to page four
00:35:47 in section nine there's something called project closure yeah and it says xavier procedure and then it's got a name of the procedure describes the project closure process which requires
00:35:58 which requires a check that all elements of the project have been completed satisfactorily a check that time and cost have been posted by the timesheet a check that the project's been fully invoiced all relevant electronic files
00:36:09 invoiced all relevant electronic files to be placed in the correct folders etc um now before i ask you some questions about that i just want to look at another
00:36:16 another of x over's project completion procedures this time dated the first of april 2010 yeah we can go to exo four zeros one two two four
00:36:31 now on page one there is a heading uh under paragraph four if we can look at the bottom half of the page there's a heading there closure of the projects
00:36:42 heading there closure of the projects yeah and it says this for many projects the exact point at which the consultancy work has been completed is not always immediately evident the project manager should make a careful note of the scope of services provided in the contract
00:36:54 provided in the contract documentation this would initially be the fee proposal which was provided and the details confirmed on the fee acceptance form and then two bullets below it says
00:37:07 to ensure sorry just below then there's a sentence beginning appendix a and then below that there's a sentence that says to ensure that a high standard is maintained the project manager is required to
00:37:20 project manager is required to and then it says check that all elements of the project to have been completed satisfactorily this will entail a review of the scope of services set out in the fee proposal and a specific review of the documents
00:37:31 and a specific review of the documents stored on the electronic filing system so and then it suggests you do that or contact the client or the client's representative to ensure they are satisfied that the scope of services
00:37:43 satisfied that the scope of services matches their expectations so that's what we see in their their written procedures is a project completion procedure of some description standard practice amongst competent fire
00:37:55 standard practice amongst competent fire engineers
00:37:56 engineers any for any fire safety engineering company that operates to the iso 9001 which again is quite is common practice
00:38:04 practice yes it is does xavier's procedure reflect what you would generally expect of such a procedure having looked at that limited information yeah so the debate yeah so i just want to be absolutely clear i've
00:38:16 just want to be absolutely clear i've not reviewed xov xova's full management system under the iso but in the context of the language on this page it is a close-out in the sense you are actively taking a step
00:38:29 sense you are actively taking a step there's two options given to make sure your work is completed and that aligns with the
00:38:35 with the the the type of requirements that are set for our staff as well it's a very important part of the work yeah and does a project completion procedure
00:38:46 does a project completion procedure usually require a check that the scope of services have been completed and or that the client is satisfied absolutely yes yep and have you seen any evidence that this project completion procedure was
00:38:57 this project completion procedure was followed by x over on the grenfell project
00:39:00 project not in the evidence available to me now um um grange would you be okay i i would like the panel to see an email exchange between bruce soon and terry
00:39:13 exchange between bruce soon and terry ashton
00:39:14 ashton about fees can you remember the date of that um
00:39:18 that um it was in february 2013 and bruce soon wrote to terry ashton to ask him
00:39:26 ask him their status on the project their fees stages on the project yeah we'll find that right now yeah and if we just whenever you're ready because that is relevant
00:39:37 ready because that is relevant to these completion procedures also and it's in my report yeah
00:39:46 now um xover's position in this inquiry is that after the third issue of its report it was substantially excluded from the project and tmo
00:39:55 and tmo effectively put an end to xover's continuing obligations now having regard to that project completion procedure what is your view of that contention
00:40:06 what is your view of that contention that its role simply fell away or was put to an end yeah but but the but the contention isn't fell away or put to an end it's excluded which is a very strong word and then what the second point was if is
00:40:18 and then what the second point was if is it effectively ended by the tmo i think you said
00:40:22 you said what in your question effectively put to an end it's over's continuing obligations no i don't i don't understand i i don't understand why that is being said okay
00:40:34 understand why that is being said okay um i think the email um i've had a reference it's exo 50639 yeah excluded means you know it's quite a
00:40:45 excluded means you know it's quite a dramatic kind of pushing out yeah i see people contacting the fire safety engineer when they think they need some fire safety advice yeah i don't call that's not the
00:40:57 yeah i don't call that's not the classification of exclusion in my mind yeah is this the email that you were just referring to yeah so i just i thought it's useful when thinking about these completion
00:41:08 when thinking about these completion procedures for the panel to see this email so we've got um from terry ashton to bruce soon 11th of february 2013. yeah okay so he says one was for
00:41:21 yeah okay so he says one was for providing a fire safety strategy for the existing building yeah and the other is for cdenf yeah work relation to the former has been completed
00:41:32 completed yeah uh with regards to the latter um he sets out that they've invoiced for sage stage c yeah and they're in now invoicing in
00:41:43 yeah and they're in now invoicing in stage d
00:41:44 stage d e yeah and then he says we indicated that for our iba state yes work yes the appropriate hourly rate yes the uncertainty about the amount of input that would be yesterday
00:41:55 input that would be yesterday yes so one part of the work is already completed
00:41:59 completed so i don't know if he considers this to be the completion procedure here right and it also shows an understanding of moving through the stages yes
00:42:11 the stages yes yes thank you [Applause] now i want to move now to the 18th of september 2014
00:42:24 september 2014 and uh the emails that occurred uh at that time you address this at page 285 and following of your report so that we we know that by email dated
00:42:35 so that we we know that by email dated the 18th of september 2014 neil crawford of studio e forwards to terry ashton and a request for information rfi number one received from harley relating to
00:42:46 received from harley relating to horizontal fire breaks within the cladding
00:42:49 cladding yes we can see that at sea 3011703 yes i'd really like to um oh yes good and if we could
00:43:02 um oh yes good and if we could also have the actual rfi because there's very interesting text in there please oh yes sorry sorry that's fine so just so this is from daniel jones to
00:43:13 from daniel jones to simon lawrence so to ryden and studio e yeah
00:43:17 yeah uh attaching harley's request for information for number one yes which relates to the requirement of fire breaks yeah and he says this may be something that's already been decided or may need
00:43:28 that's already been decided or may need confirmation from the local fire officer as the opinion tends to vary yeah and the rfi we can find that at har 403616
00:43:38 403616 [Applause] and i think even this email is very interesting because he clearly has some prior experience where opinions have varied okay so
00:43:49 where opinions have varied okay so there's the i would be paying very close attention now to this correspondence yeah so this is the rfi you can see it's from daniel anchor jones in the top right hand corner
00:44:00 right hand corner date to the 17th of september the query is please may you confirm the required extent of the horizontal fire breaks within the cladding areas yeah and the suggested solution says we
00:44:11 yeah and the suggested solution says we believe that they will be required at every floor level on the vertical columns
00:44:15 columns but not in the area of cladding between windows this is because there's no chimney effect here and therefore the cladding will not add to the spread of fire now you wanted to go to this yeah so i i
00:44:26 now you wanted to go to this yeah so i i think so
00:44:27 think so this is actually such an interesting question and it shows um so uh daniel uncle ankital jones clearly has either had some
00:44:40 jones clearly has either had some experience or is thinking about the columns
00:44:42 columns acting as it he uses the word i think it's chimney and and then he's taught even more than about the area between the columns and he's decided there's no
00:44:53 he's decided there's no potential for a chimney effect there so there's a lot of thinking going on about fire in his view you know how the fire might
00:45:03 might perform yeah and that is the background that quite complex question actually is the background to the email exchange we're going to yeah going to see so so there's a
00:45:15 yeah going to see so so there's a recognition that clouding the columns so extensively may cause this classic chimney effect for deferred fire spread and for some reason he thinks the windows are going to break
00:45:27 windows are going to break that effect between the columns yeah now terry ashton's response is at exo
00:45:36 exo 50708
00:45:39 and it's the third email down on page one
00:45:44 yep okay so i think perhaps if we go to page two what we see is he's sent this email yeah uh exchange yeah so if we go um in the middle of
00:45:57 yeah so if we go um in the middle of that page neil crawford hi terry i'm working on the grenfell tower regeneration project from the studio e end the following rfi has come in relating to horizontal fire breaks within the cladding areas can you comment on the rfi attached and
00:46:09 can you comment on the rfi attached and whether you believe this interpretation in relation to stack effect yeah is correct so that's neil crawford to ashton and then we see terry ashton's response at the bottom of page one yeah
00:46:20 page one yeah and his initial response is neil i've never seen details of what you're doing to the external walls do you have any cross-sections elevations now pausing there what would you
00:46:33 now pausing there what would you have expected mr ashton to do in this situation where he's being sent this request
00:46:39 request and has realized that he's never seen details of what they're doing to the external rules well he what he's what he's done there which is ask
00:46:47 is ask for the drawings yeah so that's there's a problem yeah that's a reasonable threat but there's a little problem in the background isn't there which is his report said he wanted to do
00:46:59 which is his report said he wanted to do some more work later yeah on b4 and this is you know this is a b4
00:47:08 what i would call you know harley and studio e are interpreting themselves fire performance chimney effect stack effect
00:47:18 effect to quite complex fire behaviors by the way
00:47:22 way so we are in in fire safety territory where advice is needed
00:47:32 would you have expected him to have pointed out that this was not something that he had properly addressed in the fire strategy report
00:47:41 ideally yes i wasn't going to kind of really hammer that point home ideally yes i think he's asked for the drawings so that is a
00:47:52 he's asked for the drawings so that is a reasonable response at this stage okay yeah so moving on with the story further information is then provided by neil crawford to terry ashton on that same day on the 18th of september
00:48:03 same day on the 18th of september yes um if we go to exo 50709
00:48:15 we can see neil crawford says to terry ashton
00:48:19 ashton terry please find see attached our sections and the initial drawing set we've had from harley's the initial drawings from harley's are fairly limited but they attempt to establish the basic approach
00:48:30 establish the basic approach yeah and we can see that he sent a number of attachments there yeah including sca drawing one two seven nine zero six one twenty yeah it would be good to see that yes i'll take you to that and then detailed
00:48:42 i'll take you to that and then detailed sections
00:48:44 sections detail number of detailed sections and harley's initial drawing set a pdf of that and then if we go to that drawing 1279
00:48:55 to that drawing 1279 which is at exo50710 okay i think if we could look over at
00:49:07 okay i think if we could look over at over see where it says the number 19 and 20 on the right hand side yeah so if we zoom in on the right yeah just there that's fine yeah so um i just i don't have a pointer
00:49:19 yeah so um i just i don't have a pointer or anything but i hope i'll try and so what we see here i hope you can see
00:49:24 can see the red line of the old window the new window coming to the left yeah and um further out to the left you'll see some dashed lines
00:49:35 you'll see some dashed lines in in a big long strip with the little thing sticking out to the right hand side
00:49:40 side now that is meant to represent the um cavity barriers proposal in the column as i understand this drawing and then you see it come
00:49:52 drawing and then you see it come in over the the top of the window yeah is that okay so the more intensively little hatch directly yes and immediately at the head of the window yes and it's it's
00:50:04 window yes and it's it's tricky some people are good at reading drawings and are experienced or reading drawings and some aren't so it's a tricky drawing to interpret there is some information written on the
00:50:15 there is some information written on the left so it says zinc composite rain screen and you actually have to move to the left yeah to find the cavity barrier arrow because it isn't placed on this side of
00:50:27 because it isn't placed on this side of the drawing yeah should we look to the left yeah it's just no harm to have a look at it okay oh yeah so yeah maybe scroll up a little bit
00:50:37 bit or no actually that's fine so if you look at p10 435 it has an arrow over to the vertical cavity barrier yeah and if you look at p10435 it has a
00:50:48 yeah and if you look at p10435 it has a line to the horizontal cavity barrier okay yeah so the vertical cavity barrier uh is at the top of that page
00:51:00 top of that page yeah and it's just pointing to the dashed lines running down yeah and then the horizontal cavity barrier is again pointing into the slightly darkened hashed area
00:51:11 darkened hashed area near where it says walkway level yeah joining out to the dashed line and the columns okay so this drawing is very useful yeah
00:51:22 so this drawing is very useful yeah and it also includes somewhere i think a reference to thermal insulation h92776 let's try and find that yes
00:51:34 i think potentially if we go i can't see the whole time
00:51:42 no i know pretty sure it's on here somewhere if we could we just zoom out so i can see the whole oh god i can't everything maybe go to the um the bottom left section
00:51:58 there yes you can see oh yeah i can see it above the mechanine level plus nine yeah three labels up you've got h92
00:52:07 got h92 776 thermal insulation yeah yeah now
00:52:14 yeah now would you have expected mr ashton to realize that these numbers labeled on the drawings were to the nbs specification well i'm going to say no
00:52:23 say no no okay i'm going to say no at the moment
00:52:26 moment yeah so right now he's being asked about um cavity barriers in a particular context which is harley's
00:52:37 a particular context which is harley's understanding that you get the chimney effect on the columns and you won't get the chimney effect
00:52:42 effect yeah in the windows yeah okay and this is this is the drawing yeah and my memory is mr ashton refers to this drawing in his response yes yes and good to see that and would
00:52:53 yes yes and good to see that and would you agree that he can see from this what the proposed cavity barrier strategy is their proposed cavity bars yes he can yeah so he can see vertical cavity barriers in the column horizontal
00:53:06 cavity barriers in the column horizontal cavity barriers in the column and between the windows yeah you know horizontally between the windows yeah and moving forward with the story you then note in your report that later that
00:53:18 then note in your report that later that day mr crawford sends mr ashton the data sheet for celetex rs 5000. well sorry i'm just sorry can we see his response to this first and can we go back out to yeah
00:53:31 first and can we go back out to yeah um so i think we were on um exo four zeros five zero 708 yeah thank you
00:53:39 you because his response is very important so if we can go to the top of this page so what he says is if insulation behind the rain screen
00:53:51 insulation behind the rain screen clouding is combustible yeah you will need to provide cavity barriers shown on your drawing yeah and that is wrong yeah can you just explain why exactly
00:54:02 explain why exactly it doesn't matter if the insulation is combustible or not you are required to provide cavity barriers yeah and i was asked yesterday about being critical
00:54:13 critical um that is why i'm critical one of the reasons why yeah so that's just incorrect that is incorrect
00:54:20 incorrect advice inaccurate advice yeah and would you have also expected him as part of this response to highlight
00:54:28 highlight that paragraph 12.7 of approved document b
00:54:31 b requires any insulation to be of limited combustibility so at this stage yeah no i think right now the what's needed
00:54:43 i think right now the what's needed is for the fire safety engineer to say you need cavity barriers they're talking about chimney effects and stack effects yeah
00:54:52 yeah okay he needed to say unique cavity barriers
00:54:55 barriers on the floor lines and around the windows and the top of the wall it doesn't matter what insulation or anything else you selected for the columns
00:55:05 columns or between the areas between the column yes
00:55:08 yes at this point i understand is there anything else you want to say about this email before we move to the next that's fine so then we know that later that day mr crawford sends the data sheet for the celetex this is
00:55:22 the data sheet for the celetex this is sea3011724
00:55:31 yeah so is that okay i can when i so that so daniel says the insulation is class naught yep
00:55:43 the insulation is class naught yep so having read your correspondence because correspondence says if the insulation is combustible you need cavity barriers yeah daniel says the insulation is class north so having read the correspondence
00:55:55 north so having read the correspondence i believe fire barriers are not necessary yep okay so he clearly is under the impression the class naught means non-combustible yeah and he's
00:56:09 means non-combustible yeah and he's read the advice carefully yeah and he's also now
00:56:13 also now checking if his opinion is correct yeah and then we see um the response above yeah um again the architect asks the
00:56:24 yeah um again the architect asks the fire safety engineer are we interpreting all of this correctly yeah
00:56:34 [Applause]
00:56:40 and then his response mr ashton's response is then exo50714
00:56:53 and this is what mr ashton says here so he's
00:56:57 he's sorry you go yeah just there's the email where
00:57:00 where the bba search is attached sorry excuse me
00:57:03 me the the cellotex information is attached and that's when you know in harley's response yes they said they attach
00:57:14 said they attach the information they're relying on to understand the installation has class naught
00:57:18 naught yes fire performance and they ask for clarification that their interpretation is correct yeah okay
00:57:28 can we just see where it is attached yes go back to sca three zeros one one seven two four
00:57:36 yeah so it's that one it's where he just said data sheet isn't it yeah is this interpretation correct and we can see the attachment is the rain screen cutting yes data sheet august 14. it would be
00:57:47 yes data sheet august 14. it would be good to open that yes let's open that now this ryd three zeros one eight one five five
00:57:59 yeah that's the data sheet that's attached yeah and if you can zoom in um the front page just zoom in at the top half yeah so there you go so harley again they
00:58:11 so there you go so harley again they have this information yeah they've read it they think they have an insulation that has class notes they think it's not combustible yeah and they think therefore they don't need cavity barriers yeah and they're
00:58:22 need cavity barriers yeah and they're very clear about that yeah so this then comes to mr ashton yes so can i now go to mr ashton's response again so ex050714
00:58:35 so ex050714 and he says this a material which has a class naught rating is not necessarily non-combustible although the reverse is invariably true some class naught products will burn when exposed to a fully developed fire
00:58:48 when exposed to a fully developed fire in any case you need to prevent fire spread from one from i think it means one flat to the flat above as i stated in my earlier email what isn't clear from the information to hand is whether or not there's a continuous
00:58:59 is whether or not there's a continuous cavity
00:59:00 cavity from top to bottom in any part of the cladding apart from around the column casings
00:59:04 casings irrespective of the type of insulation yeah in regards to terry yeah now um you say in your report first point that mr ashton
00:59:14 mr ashton is correct that not all class naught materials are non-combustible yeah um but that's not the important
00:59:24 exact point about this email so the next point you make is that mr ashton doesn't identify the need for the insulation to be of limited combustibility nor does he correct the erroneous
00:59:35 nor does he correct the erroneous performance cited by harley yeah so this is a really important moment in my mind you've got professionals asking really specific questions about b4 as they're
00:59:47 specific questions about b4 as they're entitled to do they needed to hear that insulation for a very long time needs to be
00:59:55 be a material of limited combustibility which is not class naught and they needed to hear regardless cavity barriers were required around the window
01:00:07 around the window and they had harley had shown them on the
01:00:10 the compartment lines you know where the walls and floors meet the cladding yeah they hadn't shown them around the window they needed to it to be explained to them that they are required anyway
01:00:21 required anyway and that the insulation could not be class knot yeah so that's what you would have expected a reasonably competent fire
01:00:32 expected a reasonably competent fire engineer to have written in response to yes because it's very simply
01:00:36 simply exactly what it says in the approved document be
01:00:49 so to be clear this email does not provide clear guidance on what is or is not
01:00:54 not compliant with the statutory guidance document nor the functional requirement no b4 now mr ashton refers back to the need to
01:01:05 now mr ashton refers back to the need to prevent
01:01:05 prevent fire spread from one flat to the fat above yes
01:01:08 above yes was that correct advice to be giving just that part yeah that that's correct but i think he he there was a need to mention the
01:01:19 he he there was a need to mention the words cavity barrier because the the design team were asking about cavity barriers so he was correct to say that yeah but it it it needs some interpretation doesn't it and people
01:01:30 interpretation doesn't it and people are already asking for more specific advice
01:01:35 yeah and i think what happens is there's no evidence then that mr ankitel jones ever confirms um the extent of external wall cavity so nobody gets back to mr ashton
01:01:49 cavity so nobody gets back to mr ashton about this would you have expected him to
01:01:52 to reasonably follow up on that
01:01:56 what i've expected i would have preferred if he had given accurate advice in the first place like i haven't
01:02:07 like i haven't i suppose you know ideally maybe he should have been worried i think he needed to get a reply back to this email more than he you know that more in the balance of
01:02:19 you know that more in the balance of who needs to do what i think a reply to his email was needed and more interrogation was needed yeah and not to just leave it um
01:02:30 yeah and not to just leave it um as occurred on both sides actually yeah yeah
01:02:34 yeah now you say in your report that the 18th of september 2014 was a point in time when a detailed fire strategy could have been successfully put together yeah so
01:02:45 together yeah so you say that just just for the transcript that's page 340 paragraph 14.1.62
01:02:51 14.1.62 can you just explain why you say that well it's for the same reason you know we've exchanged on in the last day or so
01:02:59 exover now say that report wasn't final and they were going to do a b4 report or analysis later these are really detailed b4 questions
01:03:11 these are really detailed b4 questions the design team clearly needs some help so
01:03:14 so it's time to do the work to give them the guidance that they need yeah would you have expected mr ashton to have updated that outline fire safety strategy after this
01:03:25 outline fire safety strategy after this correspondence it's what i said earlier it's now time to say i need to do my b4 work are you happy for me to proceed yeah
01:03:34 yeah so you wouldn't necessarily expect him just to go ahead but what you would have reasonably expected him to do just to be clear is to clarify with his client yeah that they
01:03:46 clarify with his client yeah that they are content for him now to finish the work that's incomplete yeah because that's a it's it's a safer commercial way to behave and mighty have needed access to perhaps
01:03:57 and mighty have needed access to perhaps more information in order to do that full before analysis might he have needed more information well he knew this he knew the insulation was not
01:04:08 this he knew the insulation was not compliant
01:04:09 compliant yeah he should have known there were missing cavity barriers there's two red flags raised i think it's now time to start worrying about what the external surface is and
01:04:21 about what the external surface is and how together the three things can comply with b4 yeah so it's time to start
01:04:28 start asking for more information yeah but remember
01:04:31 remember regardless because in fairness and i wrote this it still says zinc on these drawings you know
01:04:38 know erroneously yeah but the the bigger problem in terms of compliance at that time
01:04:45 time is the insulation and the cavity barriers yeah so i i don't know what work he was he had planned to do to resolve that matter yeah and we're now in september 2014
01:04:57 now in september 2014 yeah now going back to the conversations we were having yesterday about an evolution that was occurring in terms of people's awareness of external flame spread issues people's
01:05:08 of external flame spread issues people's awareness of the problem with the use of combustible materials um does the fact that this is now september 2014 affect what you were saying yesterday
01:05:19 affect what you were saying yesterday about what a reasonably competent fire engineer should know yeah so in in in by then things were let's say noisier
01:05:30 by then things were let's say noisier than they were in 2013 okay about insulation particularly the bca note was issued that was june 2014 yes and that group of
01:05:43 that was june 2014 yes and that group of people had decided on different ways of resolving external world problems i don't want to it taken that i agree with their proposition but that was their
01:05:55 their proposition but that was their proposition and and their that guidance note was circulating in in industry
01:06:03 you know i struggle to understand because xover warrant and fire were cited in that note as being a company that one could go too far
01:06:14 a company that one could go too far these so-called desktop assessments i don't know if we're allowed to can we see that
01:06:19 see that um the bc guidance number 18. i don't know i mean of course you can see it and we'll find the reference i don't need to but you know
01:06:26 know so i think you've got that that guidance has been issued it's circulating widely i we i just wish i knew all the dates i think
01:06:37 i just wish i knew all the dates i think the lacroix has the lacrosse fire happened by now i can't remember and certainly there's a yeah anyway so there is more noise in the industry and more and more use
01:06:51 in the industry and more and more use of materials going on in the industry at this time
01:06:54 this time so i think the lacrosse fire is november november yeah i think it is but i'm just going to check my notes on that in a minute
01:07:00 minute we can go to the bca technical guidance note 18 cep yeah three zeros five seven two nine four
01:07:17 yeah and if we can just scroll down to the when it gets to options please yes i think that's page two of this guidance
01:07:27 yeah drop option three please yeah
01:07:33 okay yep so there it says if no actual fire test data exists for a particular system the client may instead submit a desktop study report from a suitable independent
01:07:45 study report from a suitable independent ucas accredited testing body accredited testing body yeah and then you've got the bre chilton fire or warrington fire that's six over wellington fire stating whether in their opinion the br
01:07:57 stating whether in their opinion the br 135 criteria so what you're saying is in according to this guidance note there's only three independent uclass accredited bodies that can do desktop assessment at that
01:08:09 that can do desktop assessment at that point
01:08:10 point and this is the guidance isn't it that introduces the idea of a desktop yeah and in the industry yes and you might say it's it's a tacit acknowledgement
01:08:22 acknowledgement regarding the insulation you know the use of
01:08:25 use of insulation
01:08:28 yeah that is not of material of limited combustibility yeah so you would have expected a reasonably competent fire engineer to have been
01:08:39 have been aware of this guidance yes um and i think what you're saying is particularly if you're in xover to have been aware of it
01:08:50 yes
01:08:56 just going back to those emails that were exchanged between mr ashton and the team and do you think that it also ought to have been incumbent on him to have
01:09:06 to have asked what the basis of which uh compliance was being achieved ie were they going to follow adb in paragraphs 12.6 to 12.9
01:09:17 paragraphs 12.6 to 12.9 or were they following the alternative route
01:09:21 route canvassed in section 12.5 do you think he should have clarified that of the design team i think it should have been in his report anyway sorry to be annoying okay but at that point
01:09:34 okay but at that point the insulation's not compliant the cavity barriers are not compliant it's absolutely time to ask how is this external wall being assessed
01:09:46 this external wall being assessed yeah yes yeah
01:09:52 how you might phrase that you know i don't i don't know but it is it is time to now check and ask yeah now mr chairman i now want to turn to the march 2015 emails yes um we could break now
01:10:05 yes um we could break now would that suit you it would suit me just fine you could break now and then do those i'd rather do that in one run than have to start it and then break yes all right
01:10:15 all right well we're going to take a break now okay i think a bit earlier than usual but
01:10:18 but um okay convenient point so we'll we'll come back at half past eleven and uh please no talking well i won't no thank you
01:10:26 thank you thank you very much
01:10:36 are we going along this screen we're doing well we're doing well yes all right i'll possibly please thank you
01:31:07 yes would you ask dr lane to come back in please
01:31:22 right ready to carry on yep good thank you yes mrs grange yes thank you um just um in terms of dates
01:31:29 dates it's right that the lacrosse fire was november
01:31:32 november 14 and just for the chronology because i know we're coming to march 2015 next yeah the marina torch fire in dubai was in february 2015. yeah so now i want to turn to the emails
01:31:45 yeah so now i want to turn to the emails that were exchanged in march 2015 between uh mr crawford and studio e if we turn to sea three zeroes one three zero four nine
01:32:02 so um i want to look at the final email on the first page for the moment going over into the second page yeah so um neil crawford 31st of march
01:32:13 yeah so um neil crawford 31st of march 2015 says hi terry and then if we go to the next page can you comment on the history of this item please see correspondence below as it's not clear to me why this item is causing such a
01:32:24 why this item is causing such a difference of an interpretation can't see anything that seems to reference it in the far strategy and he's forwarded correspondence below which was this debate that was going on
01:32:35 which was this debate that was going on between building control and other members of the design team about whether a cavity barrier was required or a 120 minute fire stop yeah in the rain
01:32:47 a 120 minute fire stop yeah in the rain screen
01:32:47 screen yeah and then if we go uh over so that's mr crawford asking for terry ashton's comment
01:32:55 comment yeah on this item if we go then over to the bottom of page one mr ashton responds the same day neil this isn't something that would necessarily form part of a
01:33:07 necessarily form part of a fire safety strategy for a building therefore it would not have been dealt with in the fire safety strategy for this buildings i agree with ben kay i believe that a cavity barrier is all that is required
01:33:19 cavity barrier is all that is required in this application even if we were to agree with rbkc it's difficult to see how a fire stop would stay in place in the event of a fire where external flaming occurred as this would cause the zinc cladding to fail
01:33:31 zinc cladding to fail yeah so that's his response um now you you say in your written report that mr ashton is substantially wrong
01:33:42 ashton is substantially wrong to say that cavity barriers isn't something that would necessarily form part of a fire safety strategy yeah can you explain to us exactly why you say that well i think this correspondence shows exactly the problem
01:33:53 shows exactly the problem with the fire safety engineer not making clear minimum requirements as as you know this concept of reasonably competent fire safety engineering
01:34:05 fire safety engineering and the important point is another year has passed and the design team are still confused and now they've drawn in the rbkc as
01:34:16 and now they've drawn in the rbkc as well
01:34:17 well yeah to try everyone's trying to resolve a confusion yeah and again another year later it needs a competent person with experience of fire safety engineering
01:34:29 experience of fire safety engineering legislation and fire safety engineering you know behavior of materials and construction forms to give that team some advice yeah so just to be clear what you're saying i
01:34:41 so just to be clear what you're saying i think is that the the b3 and b4 sections together
01:34:45 together of a detailed fire strategy should have answered these questions that they were asking
01:34:50 asking yes because we now see entering into the narrative here a confusion about the difference between a fire stop and a cavity barrier
01:35:01 fire stop and a cavity barrier and the need for someone who understands that fully which is the fire safety engineer's job to explain what those two things are what they're far
01:35:12 far and where they needed to go or not on the grenfell tower project yeah and and again is your answer the same in terms of what you would have expected mr
01:35:23 terms of what you would have expected mr ashton to have done about the fire safety strategy at this point i think earlier you said at the very least he should be writing saying
01:35:33 saying it's not complete it needs to be completed
01:35:36 completed do you want me to do it yes as an absolute minimum yeah and you think some fire safety engineers may have decided actually i'm going to write the strategy now on the back of
01:35:48 write the strategy now on the back of this
01:35:49 this you know i like honestly at this point with the confusion the most important thing now in in the email
01:35:58 email is to give accurate advice to the design team
01:36:01 team yes okay having a detailed fire safety strategy on the record is second yeah okay because xov are now in a position where the the design team are confused
01:36:14 where the the design team are confused they haven't set out what's needed in their report and they need to deal with that matter arising in the email correspondence yeah yeah now we can see that mr ashton
01:36:26 yeah now we can see that mr ashton is saying later in that that it's difficult to see how a fire stop would stay in place in the event of a fire where external flaming occurred as this would cause the zinc cladding to fail um
01:36:39 to fail um so he's stating that the zinc cladding can fail however is it right that it's your view that he wrongly offers no alternative solution to demonstrate that the external wall construction still meets the functional
01:36:51 construction still meets the functional requirement of regulation b34 yes in terms of internal fire spread yes
01:36:57 yes [Applause] now given that the zinc cladding had been changed to aluminium cladding by this time yes um do you find it surprising that mr
01:37:09 um do you find it surprising that mr ashton is referring to zinc cladding in this
01:37:11 this exchange do i find it surprising perhaps a better way of putting this is ought he to have taken note of the email from
01:37:20 from neil crawford to john hoban further down the chain
01:37:24 the chain which refers to the new external rain screen
01:37:28 screen aluminium cassettes yes so would you have expected him to have read the full chain
01:37:34 chain and picked up i'll show you where it is in a moment and picked up the fact they're referring now to aluminium yes because he he was asked i think if we can scroll down to
01:37:43 down to neil's original neil crawford's original query of terry yeah so that's at the bottom of page one um
01:37:51 um can you comment on the history of this item yeah so comment on the history of the item
01:37:55 the item means you need to open up the email and read the history of the item yeah please see correspondence below and then i think if we look on page four that's where i think we see an email from neil crawford to john
01:38:07 an email from neil crawford to john hoban yeah in the middle of that page dated the 27th of march 2015 yeah where he says there's been a lot of conversation on site about the cavity barrier requirements
01:38:19 requirements and then in the second line it's saying between the existing concrete external wall panels and the new external rain screen aluminium cassettes so just to be clear are you saying that
01:38:30 so just to be clear are you saying that a reasonably competent fire engineer reading this correspondence ought to have picked up that what they're now referring to contrary to what was shown on the drawings that you'd seen in september 14
01:38:42 drawings that you'd seen in september 14 was aluminium cassettes yeah yes but i don't want to overstate that change okay the the
01:38:54 that change okay the the primary issue here is a lack of understanding about the difference between a firestop and a cavity barrier a fire stop is inside the building a cavity barrier is you know out
01:39:05 you know out in the external wall and the ongoing confusion about which one is required
01:39:12 required and its performance rating
01:39:17 there's still the problem of the insulation being cell attacks i i don't want to say that i don't you know i don't want to
01:39:28 that i don't you know i don't want to say
01:39:28 say that i would immediately have expected terry ashton to have noticed aluminium and to do something else on that particular day okay okay i don't i i i'm trying to be
01:39:40 okay i don't i i i'm trying to be fair yes and only focus on the problem in hand which is incorrect reference to fire stopping incorrect reference to where cavity
01:39:52 incorrect reference to where cavity barriers go and a non-compliant insulation yeah going back to mr ashton's response if we can look at that again on page one
01:40:05 he's talking about how he expects uh the cladding will perform and he says in the last couple of lines it's difficult to see how a firestop would stay in place
01:40:16 stay in place in the event of a fire where external flaming occurred as this would cause the zinc cladding to fail now would you expect a reasonably competent fire engineer to bring their understanding of that
01:40:28 to bring their understanding of that i the potential for the zinc cladding to fail where external flaming occurred to the attention of the building control officer
01:40:42 i i think i'm going to say no but it would it would be better if they did i can imagine that that would not happen because
01:40:53 that that would not happen because you're really now dealing with the design team problem the the building control officer is actually on
01:41:02 on this chain as well yes he's further down i know he's further down but yeah um yeah so
01:41:09 yeah so i don't want to i i think it would be unreasonable if i said that he should have you know kind of called the building control officer i understand and then we can see just to complete the the story at the top of the
01:41:21 complete the the story at the top of the page neil crawford responds back to terry ashton thanks that this was my point as well metal cladding always burns and falls off hence firestopping is usually just to the back of the cladding line
01:41:32 just to the back of the cladding line thanks for this confirmation anyway yeah um and and just to be clear in terms of the substance of the advice that was being given i think you agree that it
01:41:42 that it it was a cavity barrier required in that location yes not a fire stop correct and that's if you look at diagram 33 yes what do you say to the point though that diagram 33
01:41:54 that diagram 33 is the point made by miss menzies i think she gave evidence that diagram 33 is perhaps a more suggestive of a traditional masonry construction yes it is yeah and therefore
01:42:05 yes it is yeah and therefore when you come to a rain screen arrangement yes you perhaps don't apply it literally because your thinking is slightly different about how a rain screen might
01:42:17 different about how a rain screen might behave in fire so so i don't know about not applying it but
01:42:25 but certainly you know if remember we looked at a drawing earlier there's lots of lines
01:42:30 lines dotted lines hashed lines it's much more complex than the diagram in the approved document b so i would say
01:42:40 say it's going to require more thought yes and
01:42:43 and for me i would absolutely be calling an architect at that point because i would need to understand how with the complexity of grenfell tower
01:42:54 with the complexity of grenfell tower you could end up with something that achieved the same simplicity as set out an approved document b do you know what i mean so i couldn't ignore it but i'd understand it might
01:43:06 ignore it but i'd understand it might look slightly different yes yes i understand rain screen clouding was very prevalent by then so preferably a new diagram would have been put into
01:43:17 a new diagram would have been put into approved document b that would be my preference yeah and just on that point again on cavity barriers
01:43:25 barriers um at phase one when you gave evidence you expressed some reservations about the effectiveness of cavity barriers yeah in a rain screen system once the rain screen is on fire yes remember we looked at the diagrams
01:43:37 yes remember we looked at the diagrams of the rain screen warping etc but can i be just clear with you what is your evidence about the importance of cavity barriers around windows in a rain screen system
01:43:50 windows in a rain screen system is it your view that cavity barriers can be effective and are effective around windows
01:44:00 sorry are you asking me this in the context of xo in xova's evidence no generally have suggested in their opening that uh a number of experts at
01:44:12 opening that uh a number of experts at phase one including yourself made the point that cavity barriers uh were
01:44:17 were effectively redundant in any event because of the way the fire spread because of the terrible material used for the external surface yes that's the problem yes not
01:44:28 yes that's the problem yes not some theoretical proposition about cavity barriers around the windows exactly that's the point i'm just wanting to tease out oh yeah
01:44:36 yeah so so all of this it's a bit hard to talk about i do have to say it's quite upsetting but all of this is about the external surface and the insulation and the cavity
01:44:47 and the insulation and the cavity barriers it's just theoretical and i just find it slightly
01:44:53 deflecting to start to really hone in on one thing or the other the three together are required to provide the performance yeah okay so i i don't want to even get
01:45:05 yeah okay so i i don't want to even get into could the cat if the cavity barriers had been there could something else have happened the cavity barriers were not there the insulation was not
01:45:16 there the insulation was not compliant and the external surface was highly combustible and there's nothing else to say in my mind i understand and just one more question yeah
01:45:27 and just one more question yeah you're clear are you that cavity barriers can be effective round windows even in a rain screen system no i've never said that and i'm not going to say that now
01:45:37 that now i think okay but i don't want that to be taken
01:45:41 taken as a reasonable excuse never to have considered them in the first place einstein okay i don't want to imply that yeah now just some questions now about
01:45:52 yeah now just some questions now about um building control and what happened with building control later in the project um
01:46:02 now you're aware i think that it was studio e that had a lead role on building control approval and the building control approval process yes on behalf on behalf of ryden as i understand it would it be normal for a fire
01:46:14 it would it be normal for a fire consultant a fire engineer to liaise directly with a building control officer or would they normally do that through the design team yeah so experience um so normally you work in partnership
01:46:27 um so normally you work in partnership you know with the design team as you go through the approvals process if you get worried about something or if you have something very complex and you feel the need to do you know maybe have a special meeting do
01:46:38 maybe have a special meeting do something else i suppose is it just professional courtesy
01:46:44 courtesy that you know you would work with the company
01:46:47 company and let them know that's what you wanted to do and typically together then you would approach building control or the architect or the contractor may say you you keep going on your own so again
01:46:59 you you keep going on your own so again it's about asking you know and agreeing the plan yeah now we know early in the project that xover did have some direct contact with building control for example xover
01:47:10 with building control for example xover sent
01:47:10 sent issue one of their outline fire safety strategy directly to building control just for the transcript the reference is sca406443
01:47:21 the reference is sca406443 where mr ashton did that would that be normal practice on a on a project like this for a fire engineer to send their fire strategy for their outline fire safety strategy direct
01:47:33 safety strategy direct to building control do you mean not telling anyone before they did it or just that it was a i mean i don't i don't recognize that as being a negative thing no what you know once you're keeping
01:47:44 what you know once you're keeping everyone else in the loop yeah i just want to then look at some more september 2014 emails some more correspondence between neil crawford terry ashton and john hoban if we look at exo
01:47:57 and john hoban if we look at exo 50454
01:48:03 this is an email from neil crawford to terry ashton attaching revised fire strategy drawings and then saying terry please find
01:48:14 and then saying terry please find attached revised fire strategy plans for grenfell tower regeneration project now at this point i think it might be helpful to distinguish between a number of things is it right that fire strategy drawings as they're
01:48:27 fire strategy drawings as they're referred to say in this email are different from the fire safety strategy that x over had been writing a report yes
01:48:37 yes yeah so a report is a narrative the drawings are meant to locate show the location of the fire safety measures yeah
01:48:48 measures yeah and then there are a number of drawings attached these um just to be clear they show the first four floors of the tower and a typical residential floor in those drawings and then mr ashton replies uh ten days
01:49:01 and then mr ashton replies uh ten days later
01:49:02 later if we go to exo four zeroes one four four
01:49:06 four one on the 29th of september
01:49:13 he says this um at the top of that page neil apologies for the late response i came back on monday after a week away he's been catching up i think this opening is a relic from the
01:49:24 i think this opening is a relic from the past and can be blocked up um sorry i should have read from the top of page two apologies if we go to the top of page two
01:49:34 he says 29th of september sorry for the lateness
01:49:38 lateness that then he says this the proposed changes highlighted in your email are acceptable from a fire strategy point of view
01:49:44 view and then it gives a little bit more detail
01:49:49 now [Music]
01:49:52 [Music] pausing there would you have expected just assume this was all that was going on in september and assumed the 18th of september exchanges about the external war haven't happened
01:50:03 war haven't happened would these kind of exchanges in your view
01:50:07 view should they have prompted mr ashton to think about going back and revising the fire strategy
01:50:14 strategy report that he'd done yes so yes your view is
01:50:18 view is that should have yes because happened things changed throughout construction yeah so again is your answer the same that at a minimum you would expect a reasonably competent fire engineer to clarify
01:50:29 clarify whether or not he ought to do that given he can see that changes are occurring and and so then you might agree with your client let's you know wait a few months and sweep up all the changes in one final
01:50:42 sweep up all the changes in one final issue
01:50:42 issue of your report on x date so i'm not implying there's just this constant reissuing of the fire strategy typically you give your advice and you agree a final sweep up
01:50:54 final sweep up and a final version yes and if we look at what you say i think about these exchanges in your report page 255 paragraphs 8.2.10
01:51:07 paragraphs 8.2.10 and you say this however even though substantial changes had been made to the proposed layout of the building the review of a new set of design drawings in september 2014 did not lead mr ashton to communicating
01:51:19 did not lead mr ashton to communicating to studio e ryden or tmo that their fire strategy report needed to be updated to match the layouts he had just commented on instead mr ashton simply stated in his email that the proposed changes
01:51:31 email that the proposed changes are acceptable from a far strategy point of view yeah um now just follow forward with what happened next um on this string um if we go to
01:51:46 rbk402974
01:51:56 um so this is a message then from neil crawford to john hoban the building control officer uh on the 18th of uh november 2014
01:52:11 and he's attaching a number of plans etc and if we look in the email
01:52:23 can we just pan out because i need to just find there
01:52:34 i think in this email somewhere he attaches
01:52:37 attaches the x over rev b changes
01:52:47 i can't see that in that email sorry that might be a wrong reference
01:52:56 but there's an email perhaps i can just read out to you what happens there's an email
01:53:01 email that then occurs where neil crawford forwards mr ashton's reply to building control and says please see attach the current x over study which
01:53:13 attach the current x over study which was written prior to the fire strategy rev b
01:53:15 rev b changes and also attached the correspondence with x over relating to the rev b changes ah there it is sorry yeah which we will modify
01:53:25 modify accordingly do you see that there yeah so sorry this is back on the 29th of september 2014 neil crawford sent those exchanges to john hoban okay
01:53:36 those exchanges to john hoban okay and so so neil is referring to the drawing
01:53:40 drawing rev b yes yeah okay and it's it's to ask you a little bit about that final few words he uses so he says um which we will modify accordingly
01:53:52 um which we will modify accordingly now um does it look like from these exchanges that studio e are acknowledging that the fire strategy is out of date and offering themselves to
01:54:05 and offering themselves to modify the fire safety strategy no can you explain what's happening i i see the architect offering to update their drawings
01:54:16 their drawings i see and that would be normal practice would it
01:54:20 would it you have to update the drawings till the end the last day yeah so that doesn't suggest in your view is this right that somehow studio e
01:54:31 studio e themselves are taking on responsibility for updating the fire strategy themselves absolutely not
01:54:40 it does show an understanding though doesn't it that there's a difference in completeness or you know reflect the
01:54:51 completeness or you know reflect the reflection of where the design well the detailed design actually is at this stage during construction yes yes so things are out of sync yeah yeah the key point i wanted to put to you is
01:55:02 the key point i wanted to put to you is whether this is somehow studio e assuming responsibility no no or the fire strategy no i think that would be that's an unfair allegation actually that's not what that email says to me yeah and just one further
01:55:14 says to me yeah and just one further email on this topic and and then i'll move to a different topic um a little later uh if we go to exo401441 on page one
01:55:25 uh if we go to exo401441 on page one and look at the foot of page one mr crawford's response back to mr ashton is hi terry
01:55:35 hi terry we will take this forward for building control discussion regarding the rev b modifications so again same question do you see that as somehow studio e assuming responsibility for the fire
01:55:47 assuming responsibility for the fire strategy
01:55:48 strategy no i again they're talking about their drawings
01:55:52 drawings i i i mean what i would wonder is why neither mr crawford nor mr ashton in this exchange one of them doesn't say
01:56:03 in this exchange one of them doesn't say when are we updating the fire strategy to reflect the changes yes just as we are updating the drawings to reflect the changes because both were required
01:56:15 required and again perfectly normal professional practice
01:56:19 practice to do both yes i understand um and then i think you may have heard miss menses give evidence that in her opinion
01:56:29 opinion later than this mr paul hansen she felt wrongly took it upon himself effectively to redesign the fire strategy in terms of the smoke control system
01:56:41 of the smoke control system so in her report miss menzies is critical of how much input mr hansen put into the design of that system which she felt overstepped a boundary
01:56:52 overstepped a boundary and again a similar question do you see that as somehow building control themselves taking on responsibility for the fire strategy
01:57:05 no i don't but building control always have to be very careful about any advice they give because once they step over that line they enter into cdm
01:57:16 step over that line they enter into cdm territory and take on design responsibility and it's a very delicate line
01:57:24 line they have to walk by by based on my own experience of working with building control officers yep um i i don't particularly want to
01:57:35 um i i don't particularly want to criticize
01:57:36 criticize paul hansen for doing that i've some sympathy
01:57:39 sympathy with what he was trying to achieve yeah but yes
01:57:42 but yes it is dangerous for building control officers and approved inspectors when they start to stray into giving advice or making changes and i we would raise concerns when that
01:57:54 i we would raise concerns when that happens on our projects which it does yeah yeah now um my penultimate main topic cdm just briefly as it applies to
01:58:06 cdm just briefly as it applies to x over's work i know miss grogan's going to be asking you about your cdm reports yeah now in in chapter 14 of your the first version of your report dealing with the fire engineers work
01:58:18 with the fire engineers work you expressed the view that xover was a designer
01:58:21 designer for the purposes of the cdm regulations because fire safety strategy is an important performance specification in the design process yes yes now does that remain your view
01:58:34 does that remain your view yes
01:58:39 and i think you said suggest that there were three types of information that pursuant to regulation 18 2 of the cdm regs 2007 x over should have provided to the cdm coordinator
01:58:50 provided to the cdm coordinator principal designer for inclusion in the health and safety file yes that was in the first version of your report and and what i want to ask you is that chapter
01:59:02 what i want to ask you is that chapter doesn't feature in the next version of your report so we don't get the same comment later but we want to be clear whether that's still your view that they are i i need to see where i
01:59:13 that they are i i need to see where i wrote that in the first version i don't have it with me so i'm afraid to answer that question i'll bring it up this is blarp2
01:59:23 603 a page 249.
01:59:35 and that's paragraph 14.1.6 and following
01:59:42 following where you say first i consider x over to be a designer because and then you've got the definition of a designer under the 2007 reg and then you say with design defined as
01:59:53 and then you say with design defined as include
01:59:54 include drawings etc and then you say regulation two of cdm states and you set out the definitions there of design
02:00:03 design and designer yeah and then below that four one nine ten yeah sorry fourteen point one point you say i consider the fire safety
02:00:15 you say i consider the fire safety strategy to be a substantially important important performance specification in the design process and so a fire safety engineer is a designer yeah yeah that that remains my view i i now need
02:00:27 that that remains my view i i now need to be
02:00:28 to be i just i have my own version of report comparisons yeah and i need to go back and check you're saying it's gone because it's not a criticism
02:00:39 a criticism oh no no i know that but i want to make i you know i want to do a comparison and if it is gone i need to put it back in
02:00:46 in i see okay now the ex-over witnesses were asked about their understanding of the cdn regulations and whether they would have been classified as designers um
02:01:00 designers um now let's just look at briefly at what mr ashton said this is day 16 page 120 lines 1-24
02:01:17 so i ask him the question at the top of that page can you also explain why there's no mention of the cdn regulations anywhere in this fee proposal
02:01:26 proposal and he says line 4 we have traditionally taken the view that we're not designers as defined under the cdm regulations that's
02:01:34 that's changing i think in the light of the fact that we sometimes design smoke extract systems and so possibly we need to look at that undoubtedly if we were still employed at this stage of the
02:01:45 this stage of the riba stages of works then we would be in touch with the cdn regulations so with design approved to ensure that the cdn regulations are met so maybe that's something else that we
02:01:56 so maybe that's something else that we would need to put into our documentation and then i say can you expand on why it is that xover's taken the view that they're not designers for example if they're preparing a fire strategy for a building
02:02:07 strategy for a building and he says well because when we prepare a fire strategy for a building in most cases we're referring to published documentation a designer would do something unique or original
02:02:17 original so as i say if we're given the task of designing a smoke extract system for a shopping center then we could be deemed to be designers do you see that there yeah and and i just want to ask whether you um whether you agree with
02:02:29 whether you um whether you agree with that
02:02:31 that no no and you maintain your view as expressed in the sections of the report that i just took i don't think the cdm regulation says that a designer does something unique or unusual and in your view would a
02:02:43 unusual and in your view would a reasonably competent engineer or engineering firm have appreciated that they were designers under the cdm regs at the time they were working on the grenfell project yes
02:02:55 working on the grenfell project yes [Applause] okay now my final substantive topic is about
02:03:00 about disabled and mobility impaired persons
02:03:05 and if we look at um
02:03:10 actually this is one of those a3 one of those a3 parts of your report so yeah put up that warning but if we go to page one two nine of your report table five point seven at the top
02:03:22 table five point seven at the top yeah can i just be clear that in module 3 i'm doing extensive work about all the different types of people that need assistance
02:03:33 need assistance yes in the event of a fire i've not finished that work and i don't want to give any final opinions
02:03:40 opinions on this subject until i have finished that work
02:03:43 that work okay because it's not something i've focused on yeah very heavily yeah in this module one i understand i mean the key point i'm going to want to put to you
02:03:54 going to want to put to you yeah um is that when x overs witnesses were taken to a number of passages in approved document b which deal with um mobility impaired persons
02:04:08 deal with um mobility impaired persons and other similar topics and the answers that they gave were well approved
02:04:15 approved document b doesn't require us to do anything concrete it doesn't make any positive suggestions that we have to do anything different as a result of those initial paragraphs yeah so that's why we don't see it in
02:04:27 yeah so that's why we don't see it in their existing or refurbishment fire strategies okay it's that point i want to ask you okay yeah so um just going back to table five
02:04:37 five seven uh in your report um you say that paragraph um i want to deal with paragraph 3.3.1
02:04:49 um i want to deal with paragraph 3.3.1 of the existing strategy sorry can i just have a look on the left hand side so i need to orientate myself yes so if we then go to section nine
02:05:01 across the page again
02:05:13 and somewhere in here you make the comment
02:05:18 that
02:05:24 it doesn't provide any information on disabled persons or any other occupant requiring assistance to escape the end of the second paragraph in that box
02:05:33 box yes so yeah i can see it yeah have you got that clearly yeah i can see it on the paper version yeah
02:05:40 yeah so in that section mrs cuny's dealing with evacuation strategies based on defined principles etc and using terms from bs
02:05:51 and using terms from bs quadruple 9 x over proceed to set out why a simultaneous evacuation is most appropriate for levels one two and four and then you say however this does not provide any information on disabled persons or any other occupant requiring
02:06:03 persons or any other occupant requiring assistance to escape yes
02:06:08 and if you look on page 180 in table 6.11 box 8.
02:06:20 table 6.11 box 8. so this is instead where we're dealing with now the outline file strategy for the refurbishment project the first version of that you state
02:06:33 there that it provides an overview of means of escape arrangements for the nursery etcetera
02:06:40 and then
02:06:43 in the penultimate uh paragraph there you say x over do not state design requirements for travel distance minimum escape width root widths calculations of number of occupants
02:06:54 calculations of number of occupants minimum door sizes or provision of refuge
02:06:57 refuge spaces for disabled people do you see that there yes so what we can see is that in a number of places both as regards the existing fire strategy and the refurbishment fire
02:07:08 strategy and the refurbishment fire strategy
02:07:10 strategy you are critical of x over uh in terms of what information has been provided about the occupants requiring assistance to escape their vulnerabilities is that
02:07:21 escape their vulnerabilities is that correct
02:07:21 correct yes now in her evidence if i take you to dr barker's evidence first
02:07:28 first if we go to day 15 of the transcript page 143 lines 4 to 11.
02:07:52 so um actually let's go to the bottom of day 14 of page 142 the page above so i can see exactly the question
02:08:04 so this is mr millet asking miss cooney oh sorry dr barker and he says very bottom there line 22. let me see if i can put the question a bit less delicately and a bit more bluntly
02:08:16 delicately and a bit more bluntly did it occur to you when you saw miss cooney's report to think to yourself given that we're dealing with residents in a high-rise block and we've got to advise the tmo on the fire safety management plan for the occupants
02:08:28 management plan for the occupants we should look at how we're going to get people with mobility issues out and she says no i didn't consider that and mr miller asks can you help us understand why that is
02:08:40 understand why that is and then the answer is because again if they did have mobility issues then maybe gremful tower wasn't the best place for them to live to reiterate approved document b does not make any provisions in residential
02:08:51 not make any provisions in residential buildings
02:08:52 buildings for people with mobility impairments now um pausing them before i ask you about this i also want to show you what mr ashton
02:09:02 mr ashton said on this same topic and if we go to day
02:09:05 day 17 now at page 149
02:09:13 and
02:09:16 we're discussing a similar topic here
02:09:22 and if we pick it up
02:09:27 at 14 i say do you agree that there's no requirement specified anywhere here in this report for the responsible person regarding mobility impaired person so i'm putting to him that there's
02:09:40 so i'm putting to him that there's nothing specified anywhere in his report for the responsible person regarding mobility impaired persons and he says this well that's a difficult one i'm not saying it's a difficult
02:09:51 one i'm not saying it's a difficult question for me there are no requirements to put in place provisions for facilities for disabled persons in residential buildings they are excluded from the requirements for other buildings simply i think on
02:10:03 for 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 affected apartment are perfectly safe to stay where they are do you see that there yeah
02:10:16 are do you see that there yeah and then if we go on to the next page and i'll say 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 and
02:10:29 no but the law didn't require us to and then
02:10:30 then i say at this time were you aware that approved document b requires consideration of means of escape for those with a disability and he says i think that was a general statement in the approved document but it didn't specifically apply
02:10:41 it didn't specifically apply to didn't apply specifically to apartment blocks because there are no provisions for apartment blocks in the guidance and then we go to that and i take him to that
02:10:53 that and i take him to a number of references within that and he says he's aware of the general cross-reference at line 22 and if we go over the next page
02:11:07 i'm taking him to a number of parts of approved document b and his la his answer at line 11 he says i absolutely agree with that sentiment but i go back to the point i made there
02:11:18 but i go back to the point i made there are no recommendations in the documentation issued by government departments or others as to what you do about means of escape for disabled persons in residential buildings
02:11:29 buildings and then at line 17 he said you might say well there should be but the fact is there are not okay so that was dr barker and and mr ashton's uh evidence um
02:11:42 and mr ashton's uh evidence um and i want to ask you about whether they're right that there is no requirement within approved document b to make provision for those with mobility issues or other disabilities
02:11:55 that's a very long question
02:11:59 so remember grenfell tower has two uses one is residential one is non-residential and so it would be helpful to go to
02:12:10 and so it would be helpful to go to approve
02:12:10 approve document b if we can because i was going to take you to it next yeah so if we go clg 50173 and i was going to pick it up on page 12 at paragraph
02:12:21 at paragraph 0.13 there i mean there are a number of um yeah passages within adb yeah well i'd
02:12:28 i'd like i'd like to could we go to inclusive design 019 first please yes uh that is on page 14 of this document
02:12:40 14 of this document so there at the bottom there of the left hand column yeah
02:12:46 yep um do you want me to so it says there the fire safety aspects of the building regulations are made for securing
02:12:53 securing reasonable standards of health and safety of persons in in and about buildings
02:12:58 buildings this is intended to include all people including people with disabilities part m of the regulations access to and use of buildings requires reasonable provision for access by people to buildings
02:13:09 buildings regardless of compliance with building regulations there will also be obligations under the disability discrimination act for service providers and employers to consider barriers created by physical features in buildings
02:13:20 features in buildings people regardless of disability age or gender should be able to gain access to buildings and use their facilities both as visitors and people who live and work in them
02:13:28 in them and then it says this as such the fire safety measures incorporated into a building will need to take account of the needs of all those persons who may have access to the building which is not appropriate except in
02:13:39 which is not appropriate except in exceptional circumstances to presume that certain groups of people will be excluded from a building because of its use
02:13:45 use and then the sentence upon the yes and then it says the provisions set out in this approved document are considered to be a reasonable standard for most buildings
02:13:53 buildings however there may be some people whose specific
02:13:56 specific needs are not addressed in some situations additional measures may be needed to accommodate these needs this should be done on a case-by-case basis yeah
02:14:08 now with reference to to that and i know there are other passages in approved
02:14:15 approved the approved document which have a similar sentiment yes in your view do you consider that a reasonably competent fire safety engineer
02:14:24 engineer should take those general paragraphs into account when preparing a fire safety strategy i i think we're required to do so would you have expected x over to have
02:14:36 would you have expected x over to have given guidance in both fire safety strategies i in the existing one and in the refurbishment one
02:14:43 one on persons who may have required assistance to evacuate yeah so remember grenfell tower we need to split it into two when we're thinking about the subject okay
02:14:54 subject okay so for the lower floors which are non-residential there is guidance in approved document b very specifically about provisions
02:15:05 very specifically about provisions for those uses yeah okay including things like refuges refuges etc yeah okay so that's all set out
02:15:11 out yeah so the lower floors there was clear guidance available the upper floors which i think you might want me to focus on yes is a different matter
02:15:23 yes is a different matter okay and i don't know if we so it is correct that when it comes to refuges
02:15:36 that when it comes to refuges that is in the part of approved document b
02:15:39 b that excludes high-rise residential buildings
02:15:42 buildings yeah okay so that is correct when you get to the general um after i think it's section 5 and a b1 i don't know if we can go there
02:15:54 in approved document b can we um so we just don't want to i'll just quickly find the page yeah for that is that okay so because section 5 in in b1 document b which is for all buildings
02:16:07 document b which is for all buildings again
02:16:07 again yeah okay so sorry excuse me all useless excuse me yes yes all uses it draws in there this issue of
02:16:20 mobility impaired so i just want to wait i don't want to ad-lib the the text yeah actually maybe have a look at uh
02:16:27 at uh page 18 is it under criteria for means of escape
02:16:33 of escape oh yeah yeah is that is that let me just uh so there's a note at the bottom of uh underneath a and b in that heading criteria for means of escape on the
02:16:44 criteria for means of escape on the right hand side oh yeah thank you so looking at b 1.5 yep some people for example those who use wheelchairs may not be able to use stairways without assistance
02:16:56 stairways without assistance for them evacuation involving the use of refuges and escape stairs and either assistance down or up stairways or the use of suitable lifts will be necessary yeah okay so i i'm
02:17:09 okay so i i'm i am very clear in my own mind there is no
02:17:12 no section in the approved document b for high-rise residential buildings that expressly asks for you know x and y measure so it doesn't
02:17:23 you know x and y measure so it doesn't say in a high-rise residential building please put in refuges please put in lift okay i understand that and i accept that but it makes very clear that these are
02:17:34 but it makes very clear that these are reasonable measures and there are there are cases where
02:17:39 where the the person do you know the the fire safety engineer needs to consider the occupancy profile and if these general provisions are relevant
02:17:50 relevant okay so on the lower non-residential floors
02:17:55 floors xova did need to set out the published guidance
02:17:59 guidance and on the upper floors there were a few things that needed to be considered okay because remember in the risk assessment for grenfell tower
02:18:11 assessment for grenfell tower it said there were evacuation lifts if people had a peep yeah okay so i and i'm looking into all of that
02:18:23 so i and i'm looking into all of that yeah
02:18:23 yeah i understand okay so there there is a complexity that requires attention and careful attention because if there
02:18:34 and careful attention because if there are evacuation lifts as a fire safety engineer i need to understand that why are they safe to use why have they been provided what is the occupancy profile of this
02:18:46 what is the occupancy profile of this building
02:18:47 building that merited apparently the need for an evacuation lift and for potentially peeps
02:18:54 peeps yeah okay and i i think that the inclusive design part of approved document b and other signals around lifts
02:19:05 and other signals around lifts not about refuges at the moment is enough
02:19:08 enough for a fire safety engineer to just raise the issue
02:19:13 the issue yeah okay yeah probably wouldn't want to go very much further on that point no but i don't at all agree that there was
02:19:21 was nothing needed on the lower floors and there's no duty whatsoever to even consider the residential floors yes
02:19:29 yes and just very specific to xover's work would you expect a reasonably competent fire engineer to have requested information from the
02:19:40 to have requested information from the tmo from the client about the occupancy profile of those in the tower
02:19:45 the tower if i read in a fire risk assessment for a building a high-rise residential building that they had an evacuation lift i would absolutely want to know why and
02:19:56 i would absolutely want to know why and so i needed to ask about the occupancy profile
02:19:59 profile yeah and would that be limited to disability issues or would any other characteristics of residents yeah in mind i i would prefer to talk about
02:20:09 about all the different characteristics in module three i'm in the middle of doing i'm just doing a lot of work on that at the moment it's really getting across the point about whether further information should have been requested it's your evidence
02:20:20 have been requested it's your evidence that it should have been yes yes because i said the risk assessment says
02:20:27 says there is an evacuation lift so you need to know why yeah and
02:20:34 yeah and would you have expected these issues about
02:20:39 about those requiring assistance to evacuate to have been addressed expressly in both the existing fire strategy and the refurbishment fire strategy
02:20:48 strategy as a minimum for the non-residential floors
02:20:56 and just help us we we talked a lot yesterday about the the site visit if a proper site visit had been done
02:21:05 done and someone had looked at the lift as part of that site visit how obvious would it have been on that site visit that the lift was not a fully functioning fire
02:21:16 functioning fire fighter lift in the way that term is understood oh fire fighter lift not an evacuation lift are we in a different subject no no i'm really trying to um yeah
02:21:27 no no i'm really trying to um yeah discover from you um how obvious it would have been to x over if they'd gone to sight what the limitations were of the lift there that they okay so that would be
02:21:38 there that they okay so that would be difficult
02:21:39 difficult to observe on a quick walk round
02:21:45 if it was an evacuation lift um british standard double nine double nine for example says it it does the lift needs to be signed as such
02:21:56 signed as such okay it would be very difficult based on my experience as a fire safety engineer to stand outside a lift and work through you know the level of detail for example i've done in my phase one report you
02:22:07 i've done in my phase one report you need drawings i'd need to talk to you know other engineers
02:22:12 engineers yeah so you don't think there might have been key signs in terms of physical signs about the lift that might have told you that it was or wasn't a certain standard of lift well if i'd been told
02:22:23 standard of lift well if i'd been told it was an evacuation lift yes before i went to site yes i'd want to see the sign in the building that says it's an evacuation lift yes you're meant to sign i haven't noticed that it's there as a
02:22:35 i haven't noticed that it's there as a minimum
02:22:36 minimum yeah when miss grange refers to science i think what she really had in mind was physical indication i think that would be very difficult now others may say they should immediately notice but i would
02:22:48 immediately notice but i would i would find that a very difficult thing to do myself i think i was thinking about just on a quick talk on a quick tour you couldn't do it yeah sorry i think we're both talking overwatch oh sorry excuse me sorry i was thinking of exactly physical
02:23:01 sorry i was thinking of exactly physical indicators such as the the hatch for firefighters inside the lift or or other similar features
02:23:09 features if you're doing a two hour walk around
02:23:16 i understand that about two hours but i think your evidence yesterday was a reasonable time period for that visit would have been a day yeah okay so sorry do you mean if i okay
02:23:27 yeah okay so sorry do you mean if i okay sometimes i get confused because that didn't happen and you asked me to talk about things that never happened i know okay saying if a reasonably competent fire engineer had done a proper site visit yeah and had taken the time that was
02:23:38 yeah and had taken the time that was necessary on that site visit yeah would they have been able to discover yeah that it a wasn't evacuation lift so if a fire safety engineer was going to check
02:23:49 safety engineer was going to check all the active safety measures now you need to bring a checklist with you to site for
02:23:55 site for visible features of the lift shaft doors the buttons the interiors to try and work out if it is the evacuation lift slash
02:24:07 is the evacuation lift slash firefighting lift as it was categorized in the fire risk assessment yeah yeah
02:24:18 yeah yeah i i can't really speculate on you know xover didn't do that so i can't speculate on what they might have done in something that they didn't do i'm sorry i just don't have just tell me this if you go to visit a building of
02:24:30 this if you go to visit a building of this kind
02:24:31 this kind yeah let's say even just for a couple of hours
02:24:34 hours yeah i imagine you spend a bit of time in the lifts don't you don't walk up and down all the stairs that right yes so i mean you are
02:24:45 that right yes so i mean you are actually in the lift and you get a chance to see yes but anyway you you don't think that's enough to tip you off to whether it's
02:24:52 it's uh one sort or another oh it may not be you'd hope so
02:25:01 you know i don't think you're very confident don't you oh and i i just i i if you're in the lift i would hope that you would notice
02:25:12 that you would notice okay well what would you notice if you noticed it at all
02:25:18 do you mean if i was standing in the lift yes if you were just in you you were in the lift yeah now of course you might take the opportunity to chat to anyone who's with you yeah doing the surveys
02:25:30 who's with you yeah doing the surveys i may not look up i mean i just you know what i mean i may not look up now if you sent me to site and said um barbara you're not to come back here without telling me if this is a firefighting lift or not
02:25:41 if this is a firefighting lift or not i'll have my checklist with me so i don't want to yeah you know all right over over i think we've stretched pursued that as well
02:25:51 just finally on this topic um i just want to ask you if british standard triple 9 1 2011 might also be relevant to the question of to whether or not the
02:26:02 to the question of to whether or not the evacuation of disabled occupants or occupants that require assistance to escape ought to have been considered yeah can i pull that up this is lfb 3024106.
02:26:19 this is that british standard fire safety in the design management and use of residential buildings code of practice
02:26:25 practice and if we go within that to page 128
02:26:31 at 52 their evacuation of disabled occupants or occupants that require assistance to escape it says they're providing an accessible means of escape should be an integral part of the fire
02:26:43 should be an integral part of the fire safety management in all residential buildings
02:26:46 buildings fire safety management should take into account the full range of people who might use the premises paying particular attention to the needs of disabled people it's important to note that it's the responsibility of the premises
02:26:57 responsibility of the premises management to assess the needs of all people to make a safe evacuation when forming evacuation plans um was that guidance also potentially relevant to whether this topic ought to have been expressly
02:27:09 this topic ought to have been expressly addressed
02:27:10 addressed in the two different fire safety strategies yeah because there are the recommendations it i think that's the 2011.
02:27:17 2011. there are the recommendations published at the time yeah and it they don't say there's nothing to do in high-rise residential buildings
02:27:29 residential buildings this is this is the high right this is the residential british standard yeah so um just now to finish off a couple of
02:27:40 so um just now to finish off a couple of very short topics um gold standard um what would you say to the suggestion that your approach represents a gold standard which is not
02:27:51 represents a gold standard which is not realistic as a benchmark for fire engineers more generally i would say how rude and then i would ask
02:27:58 ask what is gold standard okay because the only benchmark i've used on this work are all the published guidance documents and absolutely nothing else if i was to draw
02:28:12 absolutely nothing else if i was to draw in anything else i think my report would be classified as even more critical than it's been
02:28:20 it's been so i have expressly and deliberately only relied on published guidance documents and referred to them every single time and if there are people out there who think that's a gold
02:28:31 people out there who think that's a gold standard well shame on them is all i've got to say okay now your overall conclusions about x
02:28:38 x over's work um they are set out at section 14 of your report i just want to pull those up if we go to page 335
02:28:50 pull those up if we go to page 335 they're at 335-341
02:28:57 this is a summary so you're very helpful at the end distilled down your conclusions yeah about x-over's work here and we can see you deal with x-over scope and fee and then
02:29:09 scope and fee and then if we look at page 338 and following
02:29:16 you've got there at 14 1.39 the conclusions about xover's fire safety strategy reports for the primary refurbishment and there's your conclusions there yeah
02:29:27 and there's your conclusions there yeah and then at page 340
02:29:31 you've got
02:29:35 your conclusions about exo's advice relating to cladding and you set out their
02:29:39 their your core conclusions including your conclusions about the 18th of september exchanges which we dealt with this morning
02:29:45 morning yep and overall your conclusion on page 341
02:29:51 341 of that at paragraph 14.1.80 you say overall i conclude that the advice provided by the fire safety engineers was entirely inadequate
02:30:02 engineers was entirely inadequate now um do those conclusions do they still remain your opinion having heard all the oral evidence yes they do
02:30:11 mr chairman those are all of my questions
02:30:15 questions um it probably makes sense to have perhaps a 10-minute break just to sweep up anything yes final questions about x-overs work okay um and then it might be sensible then
02:30:27 um and then it might be sensible then perhaps to take an early lunch well let's see how we're going should we but i think you're right i think it would be sensible now to have a
02:30:33 a yes short break to sweep up any yes additional questions so if i say 10 minutes or longer if you find it necessary but otherwise we'll come back at 20 to 1. okay and see whether anything yeah no
02:30:45 okay and see whether anything yeah no problem
02:30:46 problem okay thank you thank you very much
02:30:51 thank you right twenty to one then please but if you need longer we'll say thank you tell us thank you
02:41:08 yes did you ask dr lane to come back in
02:41:14 please
02:41:19 [Music] right well we'll see if there any more questions no strange where are we so we've got no further questions but literally about 30 seconds ago an email's pinged into my
02:41:30 email's pinged into my inbox from um somebody at team two for the residents asking whether they could have another 10 minutes to draft a question
02:41:38 question 10 minutes to draft it um all right maybe what we should do is because i'm keen to give miss grogan as much time as possible this afternoon and we could break for lunch now and i can consider the question over the lunch break
02:41:50 the question over the lunch break and if it needs to be put i can quickly put it at
02:41:54 put it at quarter to two and then let miss grogan carry on yes well that sounds sensible and then whoever's drafting the question won't necessarily feel under too much pressure no
02:42:05 all right i think what we'll do we'll stop now and have some lunch okay uh we'll start a bit earlier than we usually do in uh after lunch we'll start again at quarter to two okay that's fine uh usually injunction
02:42:16 okay that's fine uh usually injunction please don't invite yeah okay and then we'll see if there's a question that needs to be put to you and we'll sweep it up then yeah okay
02:42:24 okay thank you thanks so much
02:42:32 right of course the two then please thank you
02:42:46 you