Expert fire safety engineering evidence examining professional standards, continuous professional development requirements, and fire safety strategy protocols for existing buildings and refurbishment projects.
00:00:11 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to hear from another one of the expert witnesses instructed by the inquiry
00:00:20 inquiry yes ms grange yes could we have dr barbara lane please
00:00:38 if i could ask you to remain standing but to
00:00:41 but to take the oath you'd like
00:00:46 i swear by almighty god that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you thank you very much dr lane and good morning sit sit down and make yourself
00:00:58 sit sit down and make yourself comfortable thank you
00:01:07 all right oh yeah just get yourself a drink
00:01:10 drink yes
00:01:19 good thank you scrange yes good morning dr lane thank you very much for returning to the inquiry to assist us with our work it's very much appreciated i'm going to be asking you questions today about your fire safety engineering
00:01:32 today about your fire safety engineering report
00:01:33 report which was prepared by for module one of phase two of this inquiry ms grogan will then be asking you questions at some point tomorrow about your cdm construction design management report
00:01:44 management report and your report into compliance with regulation 38 of the building regulations 2010. if you don't understand any of my questions please ask me to repeat the question or put the point in a different way to you
00:01:56 put the point in a different way to you and if you can keep your voice up at all times because there's a lady transcribing to your right he's trying to take a very clear note okay of everything we're saying now so you
00:02:06 you on your fire engineering report you provided to the inquiry a report entitled
00:02:11 entitled the fire safety engineer main report that was initially dated the 30th of october 2019 the reference to that is blarp 6
00:02:23 the reference to that is blarp 6 and there was an appendix to that report as well
00:02:26 as well you then prepared an updated report version 2
00:02:29 version 2 dated the 15th of may 2020 the reference for that is blarp two six zeros uh sorry five zeros ten and then you have very recently provided
00:02:41 and then you have very recently provided us with a further updated report dated the 22nd of october 2020 and the reference for that is blarp zero
00:02:52 if we could just bring that up there we have and that's your your latest report yes and that has an appendix to it which is a
00:03:01 is a blarp 2
00:03:05 blarp 2 5 0's 18 if you just bring that appendix up as well thank you that's appendix a and you've also helpfully produced a corrections and a dender document
00:03:16 and a dender document which sets out exactly what those changes are as between the may and the october reports that's correct for the transcript that's blar p 2 5 0 14. and can you just confirm that in that
00:03:28 and can you just confirm that in that latest version of your report none of the conclusions in your report have changed as between the may and the october version no they have not thank you now unless i specify otherwise when i
00:03:40 now unless i specify otherwise when i refer to your report i'm going to be referring to that third october 2020 version okay and i think you have a hard copy of that in front of you on the desk which is paginated yes if at any stage you want to look at
00:03:52 yes if at any stage you want to look at the hard copy but we'll also bring up any relevant sections on the screen okay thank you now that report focuses on the adequacy of the advice provided by the fire safety engineer x over
00:04:03 by the fire safety engineer x over warrington fire during the primary refurbishment um if we can bring up um that report again blarp2507
00:04:14 that report again blarp2507 and go to page 344
00:04:19 here we can see an expert declaration that you have prepared and we can see a statement of truth at page 345. there we have that there is that
00:04:31 345. there we have that there is that your signature there at the bottom yes it is thank you now any matters of law within your reports will be a matter for the chairman and the panel to decide but can you confirm to us that
00:04:42 to decide but can you confirm to us that the factual matters set out in your report are true to the best of your knowledge and belief yes and can you confirm that your report accurately sets out your true and complete professional opinion on the matters addressed within it yes it does
00:04:54 matters addressed within it yes it does thank you so now um i'm going to ask you just a few questions about your background and experience now we did call you in phase one of the inquiry so i've already covered some of this but just for everybody's benefit i want to
00:05:06 just for everybody's benefit i want to pick up some key points and you've helpfully provided an updated cv for us
00:05:11 cv for us if we can find that and bring that up that's blarp25015 and your cv begins at page four of that
00:05:22 and your cv begins at page four of that document
00:05:26 yes thank you so this is the recent cv that you've provided to us is that correct that's correct thank you and is it right that you're a director of arab which is an independent company of designers planners engineers consultants
00:05:39 designers planners engineers consultants and technical specialists addressing professional services in the built environment yes i am and what post do you currently hold in arab um
00:05:47 arab um at this time i have multiple roles at arab so i sit on the uki mea board in that capacity i'm responsible for arab university which is our
00:05:58 for arab university which is our learning
00:05:59 learning knowledge and skills function i also have
00:06:02 have a safety role in that regard for our staff
00:06:06 staff and premises i'm also an operational group leader so i run a business
00:06:12 business one of the businesses in arab which is a group of about 250 technical specialists one team of which is arab fire and i'm also what's called
00:06:24 arab fire and i'm also what's called a fellow of arab because of my technical experience yeah thank you and and you specialize uh in fire safety engineering in the built environment and
00:06:36 engineering in the built environment and you've over 20 years experience in the construction industry in england and internationally is that correct yes that's correct and you're a chartered engineer and having recently moved to ireland is it right that this is with
00:06:47 ireland is it right that this is with the institute of engineers in ireland that's correct and you graduated from trinity college dublin with a degree in civil engineering yes i did and as you say you're a fellow fellow of arab and is that an
00:06:59 fellow of arab and is that an honorary title awarded to exceptional individuals within the firm yes it is and you're also a fellow of the royal academy of engineering and the royal society of edinburgh yes i am and is it right that you have
00:07:11 yes i am and is it right that you have extensive experience as a fire engineer in drafting fire safety strategies yes i yes i have extensive experience yeah and do you have experience of doing
00:07:22 yeah and do you have experience of doing that for
00:07:22 that for existing buildings refurbishments and new build projects yes i do and in fact if we look um at page six of the cv document here i think what we see is a list of um
00:07:36 i think what we see is a list of um existing building fire strategies yes that you you've given here and we can see that you have experience of drafting such strategies for high-rise buildings is that correct yes i i just gave a few project examples
00:07:49 yes i i just gave a few project examples yeah yeah thank you
00:07:55 and um and then we can see on page seven your experience of drafting fire strategies and other fire safety compliance activities yes on other projects including high-rise residential buildings
00:08:06 high-rise residential buildings including for example elizabeth house in london
00:08:09 london and project neptune a campus in scotland yes that's correct
00:08:16 and were any of those projects involving overcladding of buildings over 18 meters
00:08:26 elizabeth house yes it involved over cladding and my involvement was to do with its proximity to other buildings in that
00:08:37 proximity to other buildings in that context of padding and on project neptune it was not overclouding it was problems with cladding
00:08:48 it was problems with cladding yeah thank you and can you also help as to whether you have experience acting as a fire engineer in design and build projects yes i do and i wanted to just set out
00:09:00 yes i do and i wanted to just set out those numbers in my cv so i have worked on i'm registered on the arab system as having worked on over 480 projects in the last 23 years
00:09:11 the last 23 years yeah 96 of them were what classified as design and build projects 62 of those my client was the
00:09:22 projects 62 of those my client was the principal contractor great thank you that's very helpful now moving on i want to ask you some questions about um fire safety engineering and fire strategies
00:09:34 strategies in the first substantive section of your report at section 2 you have helpfully explained
00:09:39 explained the definitions of certain key terms and concepts relevant to the role of a fire safety engineer and i want to start by just looking at the definition of a fire engineer if we go to page 13 in your report
00:09:52 go to page 13 in your report that's bla thank you someone's there very quickly um we can see there that you have given us at 2.2.1
00:10:03 that you have given us at 2.2.1 the the institution of fire engineers defines a fire engineer as follows and then what we have is it says through education training and experience a fire engineer understands and then we have a
00:10:14 engineer understands and then we have a list
00:10:15 list of things there that a fire engineer will understand including the nature characteristics and mechanisms of fire the spread and control of fire and then if we look to the penultimate
00:10:28 and then if we look to the penultimate bullet point the likely behavior of materials structures machines apparatus and processes as related to the protection of live property and the environment from fire and the last bullet point the
00:10:39 fire and the last bullet point the interaction and integration of fire safety systems and all other systems in buildings
00:10:44 buildings so there we have that definition um now in terms of the institute of fire engineers is it right that they are a registered charity who assess the knowledge of fire
00:10:56 charity who assess the knowledge of fire and professional experience and they award internationally recognized membership grades and fire rated fire related qualifications yes that's my understanding
00:11:07 my understanding and is it also right that through its engineering council license as a professional engineering institution the um ife registered suitably qualified ife
00:11:18 um ife registered suitably qualified ife members as chartered engineers is that correct yes that's correct
00:11:27 now that all those areas there i take it that those are all areas you would expect a reasonably competent fire engineer to have an understanding of as a minimum yeah i understand
00:11:39 as a minimum yeah i understand yeah um now i'm going to ask you a little bit later about competence requirements for fire engineers okay but for now i just wanted to get a sense of what the key areas of knowledge were
00:11:51 were then in terms of the definition of fire engineering um if we can go on page 17 of your report to power 2.6.1
00:12:03 there we've got the institute of fire engineers
00:12:07 engineers definition and it says their fire engineering is the application of scientific and engineering principles rules codes and expert judgment based on an understanding of the phenomena and
00:12:19 an understanding of the phenomena and effects of fire and of the reaction and behavior of people to fire to protect people property and the environment from the destructive effects of fire
00:12:28 of fire you see that there yes
00:12:31 and we can see also the definition of fire safety engineering at paragraph 2.7.1 on page 18 of your report yeah and this is from
00:12:43 of your report yeah and this is from uh the british standard published document
00:12:49 79740 2002. and is it right that the published documents series were a series of documents published by the british standards institute to provide additional guidance in
00:13:02 to provide additional guidance in support of separate british standards yes that's correct and there we get the definition of fire safety engineering from that published document is the application of scientific and engineering principles
00:13:14 scientific and engineering principles to the protection of people property and the environment from fire and now then i want to ask you just a little bit about fire safety methodologies yes you then go on and explain in
00:13:25 yes you then go on and explain in section 2.8 of your report that there are different fire safety engineering methodologies that can be employed
00:13:33 employed yeah um and you highlight a distinction if we can go on page 19 and look at um there we go that page so in particular at 2.8.2 and 2.8.3 on
00:13:46 so in particular at 2.8.2 and 2.8.3 on that page you're highlighting a just a difference between prescriptive based design
00:13:52 design and by comparison performance based design that's the distinction you're drawing isn't it yes and at 2.8.3 you say so 282 you say prescriptive based design
00:14:05 so 282 you say prescriptive based design relies on the prescribed performances requirements recommendations or detailing
00:14:10 detailing as exactly set out in a design code or standard so you follow a prescriptive code exactly whereas by comparison performance-based design models are deemed to be an alternative approach
00:14:21 alternative approach and these are also seem to be derived on a first principles basis yes yeah and you then give us a helpful example
00:14:30 example at the bottom of page 19 on that same page
00:14:33 page we can look at that so you illustrate the difference there um and you say the layout of a building floor with respect to the position of a fire escape called stair core could be designed on
00:14:45 called stair core could be designed on the following basis and you say on the prescriptive design side you could apply the rules on maximum travel distances minimum stair widths
00:14:54 widths as shown in the statutory guidance for that purpose group that would be a prescriptive design is that right descriptive method yes yeah
00:15:02 yes yeah and then you contrast that in b with a performance-based design which would be setting maximum exposure criteria for the desired number of occupants in terms of smoke inhalation visibility
00:15:13 in terms of smoke inhalation visibility and temperature exposure and then quantifying how occupants in the building can be protected for those conditions in any reasonable design basis and formulating a number and width
00:15:25 basis and formulating a number and width of required staircases for the relevant evacuation methods yes so that's your helpful definition of performance-based design yes so trying to show the difference between the two methods yes that's very helpful now you explain in
00:15:39 that's very helpful now you explain in section 2.11 of your report on page 23 that it's also possible to carry out fire engineering analysis and and you tell us that this term
00:15:51 and and you tell us that this term commonly refers to the use of advanced computational tools to quantify the performance of fire and smoke as part of a building design process and the resulting consequences
00:16:02 process and the resulting consequences on people and structures and you give a number of examples there so computational fluid dynamics finite element modeling simulation software um and you tell us
00:16:13 simulation software um and you tell us that methodologies to undertake those analyses are defined in the british standard that you give there yes that's correct 11.2 and you give some examples now with all of that in mind um
00:16:27 now with all of that in mind um at 2.10 of your report you then deal with the definition of a fire safety strategy yeah um and um
00:16:38 um and um you've explained a number of things about that and i'll take you to some of the paragraphs in your report but perhaps you can just help us at this stage can you just explain briefly in your own words what a fire safety
00:16:49 in your own words what a fire safety strategy
00:16:50 strategy is
00:16:53 a fire safety strategy is a document
00:17:00 depending on the stage of the works it's being produced far has a certain quantity of information in it
00:17:09 it um i'll just focus on the final stage and just give by talk about a detailed fire strategy or the final fire strategy it would address in england
00:17:22 it would address in england the five parts of the building regulations the fire safety objectives for the project
00:17:29 project the fire safety goals how those goals were to be met and all the active and passive systems the characteristics
00:17:41 and passive systems the characteristics of the building the characteristics of the people and set out it's almost i i am i say to myself it's a narrative a very detailed narrative of how the
00:17:53 a very detailed narrative of how the building has been created constructed and in the event of a fire
00:17:59 a fire exactly what's provided and why yeah so um and it should be clear enough so that the people who are impacted by fire
00:18:10 fire or who are making plans in the event of a fire once the building is occupied clearly understand exactly what's there why why they need to maintain it how
00:18:23 why why they need to maintain it how they need to educate people on what to do in the event of a fire as well as the fire brigade being able to understand and read the measures provided for them and why
00:18:36 the measures provided for them and why um another important aspect of a fire strategy is being clear where there are risks
00:18:42 risks you have not been able to mitigate or you have you have mitigated them to a certain extent and that's particularly relevant for existing buildings
00:18:54 existing buildings where you're working in you know sometimes very constrained conditions and so you have to be practical and pragmatic um in terms of what protection measures
00:19:05 um in terms of what protection measures are possible yeah thank you that's very helpful um is it right that there is no statutory definition of a fire safety strategy a statute definition so
00:19:18 a statute definition so there is no statutory design guide called the fire strategy and what should be in it no yeah but is it right that we do see a
00:19:29 no yeah but is it right that we do see a definition of a fire safety strategy within published document 7974 2002 if we pull up on page 21 of your report paragraph
00:19:40 on page 21 of your report paragraph 2.10.1
00:19:41 2.10.1 yeah there we see in that published document and that guidance it states this is a reference to paragraph 316 of that published document it defines a fire safety strategy as a combination of
00:19:53 fire safety strategy as a combination of fire safety measures that has been shown by reference to prescriptive codes or a fire engineering study to be capable of satisfying the specified fire safety objectives yes
00:20:04 the specified fire safety objectives yes is that right yes so that's a a shorter definition and then if we could look at paragraph 9.7
00:20:14 9.7 and in the next paragraph 10 sorry stay there
00:20:17 there it's 2.10.2 in the next paragraph we can see that
00:20:21 see that published document also says the fire safety strategy for the building will be based on the successful trial design
00:20:29 design and is likely to comprise a range of physical fire safety measures and management procedures a description of these measures should be provided together with the performance specifications and any recommended deviations from the
00:20:41 and any recommended deviations from the relevant system code yes that's correct at times with with the the more detailed description you've just given i hope so just just give us um some help there where it talks in the first line
00:20:52 where it talks in the first line about it be based on the successful trial design yeah what does that mean there
00:20:57 there well as you understand yeah so when when a project starts there may be some [Music]
00:21:05 [Music] basic concepts for example in the mind of the architect or the client may have some objectives they're trying to meet and um depending on the circumstances there may
00:21:17 depending on the circumstances there may be
00:21:18 be more than one appropriate solution and in the very early stages of the project um i and and others would typically
00:21:29 i and and others would typically set out maybe one two or three potential solutions to a problem and then when you factor in all the other issues in design
00:21:40 other issues in design beyond fire safety and you you know you coordinate and think about all the other objectives of the project one of the potential fire safety
00:21:51 one of the potential fire safety solutions
00:21:52 solutions may also enable other objectives on the project
00:21:57 project so in those very early stages it's a a real
00:22:00 real two and flow two and two and fro sorry excuse me
00:22:04 excuse me between the client or the contractor the design team the fire safety engineer trying to hone in on a set of you know a solution that delivers the
00:22:17 you know a solution that delivers the multiple objectives for the project so that's one part of trial design now trial design means other things in different countries
00:22:26 countries right and just to be absolutely clear for example in america you have to set out multiple sizes of fire and
00:22:37 sizes of fire and analyze all different types of failures of systems and check that your preferred solution
00:22:45 solution is still fit for purpose okay so it can mean two things yeah that's helpful and and we we note in the third line it talks about it's likely to comprise a range of physical
00:22:56 likely to comprise a range of physical fire safety measures and management procedures and again that's a point you made earlier that it's also about how the building's going to be managed
00:23:02 managed yeah that's key in in a fire strategy is that right absolutely because when when the building's handed over its life is just beginning really in terms of fire safety
00:23:13 fire safety and the people who are responsible for managing that building and protecting the people who live and work there must understand what the fire strategy is for and what
00:23:24 what the fire strategy is for and what it's trying to achieve so that connection to the people living and working in the building and what the fire brigade need to be able to do in in
00:23:35 able to do in in various scenarios is a fundamental part of the communication needed in a fire safety strategy document
00:23:44 document yeah yeah and then just in that final line it's referring there to um any recommended deviations from the relevant system code yes can you just give an example of
00:23:56 code yes can you just give an example of what a system code might be could that be
00:23:58 be approved document b for example it could be approved document b it could be a british standard so for example
00:24:05 example at grenfell when max fordham was trying to work out how to deal with the existing physical constraints which is a very
00:24:16 constraints which is a very valid part of working out what to do in an existing building um you know companies like that like ours you
00:24:25 ours you you work through those constraints relative to all different types of british standards when it comes to that level of detailing and you may have to be absolutely clear with the statutory authorities
00:24:37 with the statutory authorities there are certain things cannot happen in that building because of its physical nature yeah and that's what that means so you're very explicit about what can't happen
00:24:49 explicit about what can't happen and so why it's a deviation and what you as a professional company are recommending or offering as an alternative um
00:25:00 offering as an alternative um mitigation of a mitigation as needed yeah
00:25:03 yeah i understand um can you help us was there any i've asked you about a statutory definition of a fire safety strategy was there any statutory requirement to
00:25:14 was there any statutory requirement to have a fire safety strategy for a building like grenfell tower was there any requirement that you had to have an existing fire strategy for example
00:25:22 example do you mean before the refurbishment yes so i think just so there there isn't you know there isn't the approved document for
00:25:33 document for what fire strategy for an existing building yeah but i think that i see that as a bit of an excuse if i may say and i want to call it an excuse
00:25:44 say and i want to call it an excuse because
00:25:45 because hopefully in what you've just heard in the last few minutes it's essential to have a written narrative
00:25:53 narrative about any building so the people responsible for that building know what they need to do the fire risk assessor
00:26:04 the fire risk assessor needs to understand that narrative too when they are going to do their work the building manager needs to understand what to do people have to make emergency plans there's all sorts of activities
00:26:17 there's all sorts of activities that can only be accurate and relevant if there is an understanding of all the different things in that building the active systems the passive systems
00:26:29 active systems the passive systems what's working what's not working so i whilst i
00:26:32 whilst i i accept you know the phrase there is no statutory requirements i personally or professionally don't understand how one
00:26:43 professionally don't understand how one can discharge all the fire safety duties one has in an existing building without a written record of that building and so in my opinion i think you are obliged
00:26:56 in my opinion i think you are obliged to have a fire safety strategy for an existing building yeah and would the same logic apply to a refurbishment project um as well in that it is your evidence
00:27:07 um as well in that it is your evidence that there might not be a statutory requirement to have a fire safety strategy but that uh it is certainly necessary to have a fire safety strategy for any major refurbishment works
00:27:18 refurbishment works yes because you have to understand what what you're dealing with okay you need to understand the baseline in the existing building before the works begin and
00:27:31 [Applause] you see you see that in the evidence i won't talk specifically about by grenfell yet but you you have to understand the baseline so when you're changing something or removing something you need to
00:27:44 or removing something you need to understand the consequences of that in terms of the overall safety standard
00:27:50 standard in the building and and at grenfell the professional design team themselves observed that to be the case
00:27:57 case yeah yeah now is it also right that in your view one important purpose of a fire safety strategy is to identify the fire safety performance requirements
00:28:09 the fire safety performance requirements on which the parties responsible for design
00:28:12 design can draw on and rely sorry could you just repeat that again so is it right that in your view one important purpose of a fire strategy is to identify the fire safety performance requirements
00:28:23 requirements on which those responsible for the design can rely oh sorry yes it is my opinion yeah and i think you go um as far as to say in your report this is on page 48
00:28:35 in your report this is on page 48 paragraph 3.6.8 you say these are the founding source of the required performance criteria for the architects fire drawing information and for other parties responsible for the design of the fire safety system
00:28:47 the design of the fire safety system yeah do you see that there yeah and that's linked to this issue that there may be more than one
00:28:54 one way to solve a problem yeah okay so the fire safety engineer when the tuning and throwing at the early stages of the project
00:29:03 project you know in in that circle of coordination they have to then be clear about the fire safety objectives so then the design
00:29:12 design team understands very clearly exactly which solution is being is proposed and why
00:29:20 why and then they can carry out all their very detailed work over in the future yeah now um if we go to paragraph 3.6.2 of your
00:29:31 um if we go to paragraph 3.6.2 of your report on page 47
00:29:35 in terms of now you're dealing with the content of a fire strategy report and you say there there is currently no formal statutory guidance on what exactly a fire strategy report should contain
00:29:46 contain and then you've gone on in your report to discuss a number of pieces of guidance
00:29:51 guidance including a may 2015 document produced by the fire industry association called scope of works for the fire engineer or the fia guide
00:30:02 engineer or the fia guide um if we can just bring that guide up it's inq
00:30:07 it's inq two one 3011219
00:30:13 so there is that fire industry association guide we can see at the bottom of page two that it's dated may 2015. so so um i think it's right that at the time
00:30:24 um i think it's right that at the time of uh
00:30:25 of uh xover's engagement initially on the grenfell project this wasn't in existence um and um but can you help us why do you
00:30:36 and um but can you help us why do you nevertheless uh review x over's work against this fire industry association guidance note because all this guidance does is reflect
00:30:45 reflect common practice for very many years in the fire safety profession yeah so just to be clear you consider that what's in this guidance is reflective of common industry
00:30:57 is reflective of common industry practice
00:30:58 practice prior to may 2015. well industry practices
00:31:02 practices is a different matter because practice can vary
00:31:07 can vary it reflects
00:31:14 a common appropriate way to conduct oneself during the riba stages so good industry practice sorry yes
00:31:25 so good industry practice sorry yes exactly yeah
00:31:35 and um were there any other equivalent guides
00:31:39 guides um or guidance notes predating 2015 which helped about what fire safety strategies should contain um i i put in i put in that pass from front member of the year sorry
00:31:52 pass from front member of the year sorry i'm coming to that in a moment were there others i mean the 7974 series gives some help but other than that i i'm i'm not particularly aware of any other detailed
00:32:05 particularly aware of any other detailed document
00:32:05 document yeah oh actually sorry the sipsy um sipsig id on fire safety engineering is another one yeah and is it your view that this guide
00:32:17 yeah and is it your view that this guide provides an accurate statement of what can probably be expected of a competent fire engineer um fulfilling obligations uh in 2012 to 2016. oh
00:32:27 2016. oh yes i do and is it your evidence that this guide helps explain in more detail how an ordinarily competent fire engineer would be expected to fill obligations which it was undertaking in
00:32:40 obligations which it was undertaking in that time period yes and that's why it was published to make that clear to the whole profession and just to be clear this guide is not simply your own preferred approach
00:32:51 preferred approach oh absolutely not no i don't i don't want that
00:32:55 want that the absolutely not to be taken as a negative it's it's not a preferred approach
00:32:59 approach it simply reflects certainly what what we have done for a very long time and it's a useful reference for other people
00:33:08 people you know other parties to understand that yeah yeah now as you say you've also referred to uh pass 911 2007. so this past stands for publicly available
00:33:20 past stands for publicly available specification pass um and this one was titled fire strategies guidance and frameworks for their formulation and that was prepared by the british standards institution if we can just go
00:33:31 standards institution if we can just go to that this is bsi 606 6.
00:33:37 606 6. so bsi six zeros six six wow that's a mouthful there we go so that's
00:33:44 that's uh another piece of guidance that you've referred to yeah and can we just have a look at the forward to this report it's a page four this is from 2007.
00:33:56 so we can see it says there in in the orange text that it was prepared by the british standards institution in associated with king fell a multi-disciplinary company and then it says in the second sentence
00:34:08 and then it says in the second sentence it's intended to provide guidance for the preparation and or review of a fire strategy
00:34:12 strategy and then it says it does not provide detailed recommendations or specifications with respect to the application or specification of fire safety and fire protection as this information is normally covered
00:34:23 as this information is normally covered in national codes and standards instead it provides the user with one methodology to take the national guidance and utilize it within a framework
00:34:31 framework the purpose being to ensure that the fire strategy follows a consistent style and covers the main issues do you see that there yeah now before i ask you um more about the contents of this
00:34:43 um more about the contents of this document i just want to ask you about what you said in your first version of your report in october 19 about this um if we go back to that this is a blarp 2 603 at page 34.
00:35:00 and i just want to look at paragraph 3.6.7
00:35:03 3.6.7 yep
00:35:07 there you say uh that document's never been amended nor has it been formally adopted as a british standard i'm not aware that it is in wide use in the uk construction industry and i've never relied on it
00:35:18 never relied on it in my own professional work therefore i will not refer to it here um and then in the the second version of your report
00:35:29 in the the second version of your report if we go
00:35:30 if we go blarp 2 5
00:35:33 blarp 2 5 0 10 at page 30
00:35:40 and if we look at paragraphs 2.22.6 and following right at the bottom of that page
00:35:47 that page yeah there we can see you tell us it's never been amended or formally adopted yeah
00:35:51 yeah and then in the next paragraph i'm not aware of having been widely referred to by the fire safety profession and then you say however the guidance in past 9-1-1 relating to the development of fire strategies
00:36:02 of fire strategies and in particular fire strategies for existing buildings aligns with my own understanding and professional experience and we've got the same paragraphs in your latest report just for the
00:36:13 your latest report just for the transcript that's at page 30 of your latest report now reading those
00:36:18 those two together do we understand from that that although you yourself have never relied on past 9-1-1 in your own professional work it does in fact align with your own professional understanding and
00:36:29 professional understanding and experience yeah so i it's not a document i take out and read all the time and it's not a document i refer to when i'm writing my own fire safety strategies
00:36:42 i'm obliged to listen to evidence as you know and
00:36:46 know and after i listened to the x-over evidence there was a lot of confusion around definitions and i thought it might be better if my
00:36:57 and i thought it might be better if my own
00:36:58 own own opinion wasn't simply on its own that the panel had the opportunity to read a published guidance document and not just rely on my experience yeah and i felt
00:37:11 on my experience yeah and i felt i had to do that when i reissued my report yeah and that's why we see some more references to the past 9-1-1 standard in your later versions of your
00:37:22 standard in your later versions of your report not very many i would like to say just one or two additional references yeah
00:37:28 yeah and at 2.22 8 at the bottom of that page we can see that what you're highlighting particularly is that it gives some useful guidance for existing building fire strategy yeah exactly i mean i think like all
00:37:40 exactly i mean i think like all engineers i'd probably suffer from a difficulty in explaining what i do to other people i think it's a bit of a common feature so sometimes it's better to allow people
00:37:53 it's better to allow people to contemplate it being written in a clearer way yeah and i think the language in that document
00:38:00 document around existing fire strategies i felt it might help yeah now let's just look at some of the extracts you've given us if we go to page 24 of your report
00:38:12 if we go to page 24 of your report we can see you've given us an extract uh here if we can blow that up so this is an extract from section 7.1.3 of that document
00:38:22 document and it's specifically about we can see from the little title then below that fire strategies for existing buildings and is it right that what this does is set out
00:38:32 set out a step-by-step approach to the preparation of a fire strategy for an existing building yeah yeah and we can see uh that for example
00:38:42 example um a we have a planning meeting b research so there's a research step is that right yes all data records documents and relevant codes are subjected to detailed review
00:38:54 codes are subjected to detailed review yeah and then if we jump two down to d we can see it has site activities is that right yes so for existing buildings this will incorporate audits and surveys of the building
00:39:05 building occupants services systems do you see that there yep now i'm going to come back just to be clear and ask you about the site visit that was done okay tower yeah in the context of writing the
00:39:16 tower yeah in the context of writing the existing fire safety strategy yeah at this stage i just wanted to note that we can see here site activities is one of the steps yeah um
00:39:25 um may i say something at this point yes so as a
00:39:29 as a for a fire engineering company doing an existing fire strategy is a much much higher risk professional activity than a new build fire strategy
00:39:40 fire strategy and i think i just would like to explain that now before you go on because you know you have less control
00:39:48 control and knowledge of what you're dealing with if you have a blank piece of paper and you're working with everyone at the time that's you know let's call it that's one level of commercial risk but for an existing building strategy
00:40:01 but for an existing building strategy the the the commercial risk is you miss something you don't know something you're not told something yeah so it's a very different type of professional activity
00:40:13 different type of professional activity and um i would like to be able to refer back
00:40:16 back to that point again later on yes of course of course yeah um and then what we can see from this um
00:40:24 this um outline in past nine one one is that there are then several layers of review we can see a first review
00:40:31 review then we get an outline draft strategy f a second review a final draft strategy so that is envisaging a number of iterations of the report
00:40:40 report is that correct yes if it if it's needed as a function of when you're receiving information and the level of information you receive yeah yeah and then even after that final draft strategy we've got the third
00:40:52 draft strategy we've got the third review
00:40:53 review yes involving meetings with stakeholders yes
00:40:57 yes any final issues need to be corrected and then jay issued the strategy exactly so um that's a helpful guide yes from this published document about what's envisaged for existing fire strategies
00:41:08 envisaged for existing fire strategies thank you and then if we can look at page 25 the next page of your report we can see there that you've extracted for us
00:41:18 for us a process chart for existing buildings and really what that does i think is just put into diagrammatical form what we saw in the earlier table is that
00:41:29 what we saw in the earlier table is that right yeah or the earlier text so we can see those steps there and then if we look um at page 22 of your report you've also exhibited another figure
00:41:40 you've also exhibited another figure from
00:41:41 from the past 9-1-1 document if we can blow that out this is called the design basis um and is it right i think what this
00:41:53 um and is it right i think what this does is it shows seven forms of input into a fire strategy those are the the boxes at the top yes um and then they feed down into the
00:42:04 yes um and then they feed down into the fire strategy yes and then you've got various components of that fire strategy and then it's broken down again in terms of
00:42:13 of the specification arrangement and design of certain things and also policies and procedures yes um and we can see that there needs to be reference to policies and procedures for managing fire safety responsibilities
00:42:26 managing fire safety responsibilities and authorities etc so this is as i understand this is just what all the different inputs are into a fire strategy is that right yeah so it's almost different layers of consideration yeah
00:42:37 consideration yeah and i put this in because again there was confusion regarding the statutory fire risk assessment as opposed to assessing risk in one's
00:42:48 as opposed to assessing risk in one's work as a fire safety engineer and i thought that this design basis explained
00:42:54 explained the role of risk assessment in in fire safety engineering work yeah and it's such a you know a major component
00:43:06 it's such a you know a major component of our work when we're honing in on a solution
00:43:10 solution yes yes now that very topic i want to come to you now which is um the interaction between a fire safety strategy and a fire risk assessment okay um now
00:43:22 and a fire risk assessment okay um now one of the matters you discuss in some detail in
00:43:24 detail in in your report is that interrelationship between those two things yes now just by way of background is it right that the regulatory reform fire safety order 2005
00:43:36 safety order 2005 and this is paragraph 9.1 um requires a suitable and sufficient assessment of risks to which relevant persons are exposed to be carried out by the responsible person
00:43:47 be carried out by the responsible person now that's a short form of that that's correct yeah and that far risk assessment is expected to include the identification of fire hazards is that right yes and the evaluation of the risk and
00:43:59 yes and the evaluation of the risk and the fire precautions designed to reduce risk
00:44:03 risk yes and what your report does and i'm not going to have time to take you to all of the passages in your report but over a number of different passages across your report
00:44:14 across your report you have emphasized the important interaction that there should be between a fire safety strategy and a fire risk assessment is that right yes so
00:44:27 when a project is handed over the the first step then is preparing the risk assessment for the building um
00:44:39 the risk assessment for the building um i mean i'll be covering that outside later on in a lot of detail but in module three in module three but the first step
00:44:50 first step once the project handed over and actually just before is the risk assessment which includes um making sure there's emergency plan for the building
00:45:01 for the building setting up a maintenance program okay so there's
00:45:04 there's other activities that emanate from the risk assessment process and the record of risk assessment so to do that well the
00:45:17 so to do that well the details in the fire safety strategy are needed for formulating that activity so carrying out the risk assessment in the building and setting up
00:45:26 up all the other systems that will be required to manage life safety yeah i understand can i just take you to a couple of examples in your report where you're emphasizing this connection
00:45:37 connection yeah um if we look at page 15 of your report
00:45:40 report paragraph 2.4.5 oh yes here you say that this is early on in your report you say the connection between assessing the risk of fire and the interrelationship with the
00:45:51 the interrelationship with the with the package of fire protection measures in a building and also the fire safety management provisions are explained in more detail in section five of and this is british standard quadruple 9 2008. yeah
00:46:04 quadruple 9 2008. yeah um and i just perhaps wanted to read out the second paragraph of that it says there by carrying out a risk assessment the consequences of fire on people property business and the environment can be highlighted
00:46:16 can be highlighted to the owner occupier operator tenant designer and insurers it should then be clear what the what fire safety systems are required what function they have in relation to the protection of people property business
00:46:28 protection of people property business and the environment and what management responsibilities are required to maintain and operate these systems yeah so that's the assessment of risk which occurs when the fire safety engineers car
00:46:39 car is preparing the fire safety strategy yes so i really really want to keep that totally separate from the statutory risk assessment required by others under the rra under
00:46:50 required by others under the rra under the rrs yes so so you know like i said there's multiple
00:46:55 multiple there's always multiple solutions possible yeah but how one hones in on the solution um is understanding the particular hazards
00:47:07 is understanding the particular hazards to the particular occupancy or other features of the building yes and in assessing the resulting risk yes there will be one or more preferred
00:47:18 yes there will be one or more preferred solutions
00:47:19 solutions so it's a fundamental part of how fire safety engineers formulate a design yes a fire safety decline and does it follow from what you've said that if you're doing a
00:47:31 what you've said that if you're doing a fire safety strategy for an existing building
00:47:34 building yes any fire risk assessment that's been done previously is a very important source of information it should be a very important source of information because it should tell you if
00:47:45 because it should tell you if there are quite frankly problems in the building
00:47:49 building so that are either being repaired or will be prepared sorry repaired or repaired at a later date
00:47:56 date it should tell you any particular characteristics of the people you know people who are vulnerable in the event of a fire so there's very important information
00:48:07 so there's very important information should be
00:48:08 should be in a fire risk assessment about the profile of the people and the the profile of the building itself yes that you would then factor in to your
00:48:19 that you would then factor in to your professional assessment and thinking about the risk you know the the hazards that that building poses yes i hope exactly
00:48:32 yes i hope exactly yes exactly yeah yeah
00:48:36 um and i think you say if we look at um paige
00:48:47 yes in your first report you said that the results of investigations required for the existing building fire strategy
00:48:55 strategy will be significant findings for the purpose of a risk assessment is that correct that's correct now that doesn't appear in the later versions of your report but does that still is that just an error that's a terrible
00:49:07 is that just an error that's a terrible error i apologize yeah no no it's absolutely um yeah so that was absolutely for the transcript that was at 5.4.19 of your
00:49:15 your first round i'd like to put that back in 117
00:49:19 117 um and you've pointed out that past 911 2007
00:49:24 2007 is also relevant here if we can go to bsi six zeros 66 page 10 again
00:49:38 and there at 4.1 point a [Music]
00:49:44 [Music] this is about understanding the purpose of the fire strategy it's saying prior to preparing the strategy it's important to understand those involved fully appreciate and understand the purpose of the strategy the main benefits are and then a is to
00:49:55 the main benefits are and then a is to prompt a full and thorough consideration of the fire safety requirements of the premises in question and of its occupants so that that's the point you were just making i think
00:50:08 so would you agree on the basis of that that
00:50:12 that documents like this this publicly available document suggest that when a body becomes responsible for a building in respect of which there's no existing fire strategy they should procure one in order to
00:50:23 they should procure one in order to facilitate meaningful fire risk assessments yeah yes i agree with that because i can't see
00:50:29 see there's any other way of
00:50:34 you know preparing and managing all the duties you have under the under the the rro the regulated reform order yeah um
00:50:45 the regulated reform order yeah um and i think if we look then at um on page 49 of your report a paragraph
00:50:52 3.6.19
00:51:00 you say that in section 2.5 of my report i set out the need to have a full understanding of the existing fire safety provisions when assessing risk in an existing building
00:51:10 building so overall is it right that you consider that in order to assess the risks posed by fire in a building and determine how they will be minimized it's necessary first to have a full understanding of the condition of the
00:51:21 understanding of the condition of the building
00:51:21 building yes the existing fire safety provisions and its compliance with building regulations relating to fire safety yes and and its uh condition you know it's a building its ability to perform to the required
00:51:33 its ability to perform to the required standard
00:51:34 standard yes yeah and likewise but conversely an understanding of the fire risks posed by a building giving its characteristics and occupants is a fundamental part of developing a
00:51:45 is a fundamental part of developing a new fire strategy yes that right yes it is yeah now just a few questions now on on um fire safety engineering and then the competence
00:51:56 competence and and cpd relating to fire safety engineers
00:52:00 engineers can we turn to a document inq three one
00:52:09 this is a document entitled fire safety engineering that's produced by the chartered institution of building services engineers it's called guide e and it's the fourth edition
00:52:20 guide e and it's the fourth edition dated
00:52:21 dated june 2019 so this is a recent document okay um and i just want to look on page 14 of this at section 2.1.5
00:52:32 at section 2.1.5 in the right hand column and this document is talking about the need for an integrated approach
00:52:40 and i just want to ask you briefly some questions about this so those paragraphs if i'm going to read them first it says fire safety so 2.1.5 on the right-hand side fire safety legislation and guidance
00:52:51 fire safety legislation and guidance thus far has been primarily driven by disasters and architectural trends and has arguably been playing catch-up for a number of years the growth and consolidation of fire engineering as a profession
00:53:03 engineering as a profession fueled by the demand for more complex building and the use of modern construction methods and materials has led to the need for the fire engineer to adopt a more holistic considered approach to design
00:53:14 approach to design rather than simply providing specific technical solutions now just pausing there would you agree with
00:53:22 with the sentiment that's being expressed there about the fact that the growth and consolidation of fire engineering as a profession fueled by that demand for more complex buildings has led to the need for a fire engineer
00:53:33 has led to the need for a fire engineer to adopt a more holistic considered approach do you agree with
00:53:40 that i think there's a lot of very complex points
00:53:45 points in that paragraph and so because of that i can't simply say yes but i don't know that you want to hear anything more about it you see i don't
00:53:56 anything more about it you see i don't agree that fire engineering is simply about
00:53:59 about you know holistic approaches to design i think it's any any form of professional advice regarding fire safety is fire safety engineering yeah that
00:54:11 is fire safety engineering yeah that paragraph
00:54:12 paragraph represents a culture that has been a concern to me and others for a while that fire engineering is something that's done in just kind of peculiar circumstances
00:54:25 in just kind of peculiar circumstances yeah and the rest of the time i'm not quite clear what it is is done so probably best to leave that it is true that legislation is driven by
00:54:37 it is true that legislation is driven by disaster and architectural trends and it is true that there is a more demand for fire safety engineering professionals
00:54:48 professionals when people have complexity on their projects yes yeah okay that's helpful in the second paragraph there it says it's important that in developing the fire safety design for a building the fire engineer gives due consideration to
00:55:00 fire engineer gives due consideration to how the building will be constructed and how it will be occupied and operated as well as how it will be managed and maintained once completed the assumptions about all of these factors should be documented in the fire
00:55:11 factors should be documented in the fire safety strategy that the fire engineer delivers
00:55:13 delivers exactly and you agree with all of that absolutely yeah
00:55:18 and in terms of that does that represent what you would regard i mean this is a 2019 document does that represent what you would regard as um good and industry practice for a fire
00:55:30 um good and industry practice for a fire engineer
00:55:31 engineer between 2012 and 2016. it's what should have been
00:55:35 have been good industry practice in that time period yes yes
00:55:41 now competence and and fire engineers and cpd
00:55:45 and cpd just a few questions about this um do you consider that there was at the time of the grenfell refurbishment adequate definition of the minimum qualifications and competence of fire
00:55:57 qualifications and competence of fire engineers
00:55:58 engineers sorry will you just repeat that yes do i consider that there was at the time of the grenfell refurbishment adequate definition of the minimum qualifications and competence of fire engineers
00:56:11 if you mean through the ife they had a definition yes so i'm going to come to that in a moment and take you through that maybe we just till i just take you through that yeah
00:56:22 till i just take you through that yeah so if we go back to that fire industry association guide the 2015 guide we looked at earlier if we go to inq three zeros one one two one nine at page three
00:56:37 um this is entitled notes on the use of this document but if we look at the penultimate paragraph at the bottom of that page um we can see it says this it's the
00:56:49 um we can see it says this it's the client's responsibility to ensure that any fire engineer that they intend to use on the project is competent and then it says this the only industry-wide competence criteria that exists for fire engineering companies
00:57:01 exists for fire engineering companies has been developed by the fire industry association fire engineering council do you see that there i do that's their opinion yeah
00:57:12 that's their opinion yeah um and if we look at another fire industry association document relevant to this if we go to inq three zeros one
00:57:19 zeros one three nine four eight this is uh something entitled guide for the procurement of fire engineering
00:57:30 the procurement of fire engineering services and it's got a section-headed competence yeah and i just want to look i want to look about five paragraphs down
00:57:42 there's a sentence that begins the fire engineering council of the fia do you see that
00:57:48 see that yeah so and i'm going to read it and and some following paragraphs it says the fire engineering council of the fia have developed a competence assessment process
00:57:57 process as part of their membership criteria that remains the only widely accepted criteria for competence of fire engineering competing companies in the uk
00:58:06 uk the fire industry association competence criteria depends on companies employing chartered fire engineers i.e chartered engineers
00:58:15 engineers specializing in fire safety and it says chartered fire engineers are engineers who've been through a verification process
00:58:22 process to prove that they have the adequate education training and experience to work as fire engineers this procedure is overseen by the engineering council the same body that oversees chartered engineers
00:58:34 oversees chartered engineers within structural engineering and other well-established professions and then it says the fire industry association would therefore encourage anyone who employs fire engineering companies to use one of the companies who are members of the fire engineering
00:58:46 who are members of the fire engineering council
00:58:47 council by doing that clients will have demonstrated that they've taken reasonable measures to ensure the competence of their fire engineers now um i've read that out to you um in full and so was that your
00:59:00 in full and so was that your understanding at the time that um there was this competence assessment process through the charter ship um scheme is that correct yeah so the ife
00:59:12 ife is the only body that produces you know produces chartered fire safety engineers the fia is a trade organization
00:59:23 the fia is a trade organization yeah okay and and their opinion is for companies rather than individuals yeah to register with them i don't want
00:59:35 yeah to register with them i don't want to get those two things i see that makes it mixed up okay so it's a trade organization and to join it
00:59:42 it there are rules yeah okay the ife produces chartered fire safety engineers it's overseen by the statutory body i believe
00:59:52 believe the engineering council is and that's the formal method available of becoming a child of becoming a chartered fire engineer yes
01:00:04 becoming a chartered fire engineer yes okay um that's very sad okay thank you just can you just tell me this what's the makeup of the fia you say it's a trade body but it would help to know roughly
01:00:16 help to know roughly what its membership encompasses um there's a list of companies that are members of it so i probably should say now that arab are not a member of it
01:00:27 are not a member of it right but but what sort of trades fire sorry fire safety engineering companies
01:00:35 companies and others oh i don't i genuinely don't know that's not something i've checked thank you much yeah thank you yeah now you yourself talk about the merits of chartership
01:00:46 chartership paragraph 2.3 of your report can we pull that up now if we go at page 13 on your report
01:00:58 there we can see you've got a section about chartered and you say 2.3.1 an engineer or other building professional identified as being chartered has been registered as a professional in accordance with the
01:01:09 professional in accordance with the requirements of the engineering council and you outline at your section 4.6 and following on page 82 you go through the x over staff
01:01:21 the x over staff assigned to to the both the existing and the refurbishment fire strategy reports sorry yeah
01:01:29 i don't have 4.6 i'm not no perhaps but you will in a minute okay that's all right we can just pull up 4.6 sorry um
01:01:40 we can just pull up 4.6 sorry um have your report on page 82.
01:01:46 um actually i think it starts on the page before yeah um you go through the um the key staff at x over and you tell us whether or not they had chartership or not
01:01:57 not and you state in that section that the only member of staff who was a chartered engineer and therefore subject to some form of regulation as an engineer by a professional body
01:02:08 as an engineer by a professional body was dr claire barker who was the peer reviewer
01:02:11 reviewer of kate cooney's existing fire strategy report that's correct yeah yeah can i just see the next page yes sorry yeah i think that's on the next page
01:02:23 i think that's later it's okay that's fine it's later on i think all right okay sorry wrong reference i'll try and get that reference for you but
01:02:33 but you can recall you said that she was the only one that had chartered status as an engineer and therefore you conclude at paragraph 4.6.17 on page 85.
01:02:45 4.6.17 on page 85. we go to that
01:02:52 i think it's a previous page isn't it
01:02:56 4.6.17 so it might be the next page no previous page i think yeah here we go
01:03:06 um your conclusion is that no one from the uh
01:03:09 the uh xover team working on the refurbishment project was a chartered fire engineer yeah correct that's correct um in your professional opinion would it have been necessary for a chartered fire
01:03:20 have been necessary for a chartered fire engineer to be involved in a project of this scale in nature
01:03:27 so um
01:03:35 i think the best way of answering that question is is that since about 2015 our policy has been that all our work is
01:03:46 our policy has been that all our work is reviewed and certified by chartered fire engineer and i made that decision in 2015
01:03:51 2015 because i was sufficiently worried about
01:03:57 variety of standards in our profession in our organization we have very experienced professionals
01:04:08 very experienced professionals who are not chartered fire safety engineers
01:04:13 engineers and i i think it's very important that an organization has requirements for competency knowledge learning
01:04:26 competency knowledge learning skill to an appropriate standard such that you know whether an experienced person is chartered or not
01:04:37 experienced person is chartered or not what you do as a professional is to the right standard yes in the future i think i would prefer if we can reach a point as a profession
01:04:49 point as a profession where being a chartered fire safety engineer
01:04:53 engineer becomes you know i you know there's other
01:04:57 other say so-called registered professions i think in the future that's something you know i'm thinking about
01:05:03 about in that context but strictly speaking there is no requirement for a chartered fire safety engineer to sign off on a project
01:05:13 project at this time but i think there is a duty on the company to have the persons who are employed and responsible for signing off
01:05:26 responsible for signing off to be at an equivalent at an equivalent level of
01:05:30 level of competency yeah yeah so i think what you're saying is it would have been more important to make sure whoever was assigned to the refurbishment project was competent to carry out that work yes whether or not they were chartered
01:05:42 yes whether or not they were chartered yeah i'm not just going to simply say you're not a chartered fire safety engineer and therefore you you should not x or y yeah um other you know i cannot that that
01:05:54 um other you know i cannot that that could be an opinion but i think if you're very experienced and your company has very clear rules on standards of competency
01:06:06 rules on standards of competency standard of knowledge standards of skill that's very important as opposed to getting through a chartership process yeah i understand now so should we
01:06:18 yeah i understand now so should we understand then that what you say in paragraph 4 6 17
01:06:25 although a statement of the evidence about the evidence that you've seen isn't to be taken as a criticism
01:06:33 criticism of itself of x over so in that sentence it means
01:06:37 it means nothing else right later on well clearly later on and i just wanted to make sure that's just a statement of fact at that moment
01:06:46 moment that x and y are not chartered and nothing more at that stage thank you yeah that's really helpful yeah just briefly to finish off about a charter ship just so we're all clear on
01:06:58 charter ship just so we're all clear on the consequences of if you do have chartership um is it right that as a chartered engineer
01:07:04 engineer dr barker for example would have been subject to the engineering council's regulations and its uk standard for professional engineering competence there's a uk spec from the engineering
01:07:16 there's a uk spec from the engineering council that any chartered engineer including a fire engine chartered fire engineer would be subject to
01:07:21 to yes that's correct yeah and if we could just bring up that engineering council's uk spec um it says inq three zeros one three nine five
01:07:32 inq three zeros one three nine five zero at page sorry bring yeah bring that up
01:07:38 there we have it that's the this is the third edition which was published in january 2014 of the uk standard for professional engineering competence by that
01:07:49 engineering competence by that engineering council and i just want to just look at a couple of references in this document on page 30 of it
01:07:58 uh it's got some um minimum qualifications that are required to have charter ship status is that correct sorry
01:08:09 status is that correct sorry where are you so education um yeah it basically is oh sorry yes it does yeah explains
01:08:18 that knowledge and understanding are important components formal education is the usual though not the only way of demonstrating the necessary knowledge and understanding yes and the following qualifications exemplify the required knowledge and understanding for chartered
01:08:29 understanding for chartered engineers and then it gives some guidance on that and then at page 33 in the bottom half of the page this engineering council document sets
01:08:42 this engineering council document sets out
01:08:42 out um certain codes of conduct which members are obliged to comply with if they have charter ship status is that right that's correct yeah
01:08:53 status is that right that's correct yeah and we can see there are 15 broad requirements of conduct including having a proper focus on fire safety
01:09:00 safety keeping up to date um and also i think whistleblowing is in there as well somewhere number one
01:09:11 somewhere number one yes raise a concern about a danger risk malpractice oh yes affects others blow the whistle yes thank you
01:09:24 now
01:09:29 then i just want to ask you about cpd
01:09:33 in this document um if we look at page 35
01:09:37 35 now
01:09:41 the engineering council if we look in the third paragraph on this page it states that whilst most engineering professionals undertake cpd this is often on a casual basis
01:09:53 cpd this is often on a casual basis without any deliberate planning recording of activities or conscious reflection do you see that there yeah so that's what the engineering council is saying in this 2014 spec about cpd yeah
01:10:06 2014 spec about cpd yeah and it it doesn't require that each institution should specify a set of core criteria which must be met um or studied by their members but if we look at the institute for fire
01:10:18 if we look at the institute for fire engineers now we can see if we go to inq three zeros one three nine four seven
01:10:29 this is a institute of fire engineers guide to cpd and professional development portfolio and we can see it stated april 15 at the bottom
01:10:41 bottom and if you look within this document on page if we go to page seven
01:10:49 we can see it's beginning a heading levels of activity and type of study yeah and then if we go over to page eight
01:11:01 we can see that the the headline message at the end of that section in the in the box recommended level of cpd activity summary is 25 hours per year of formal study
01:11:12 is 25 hours per year of formal study time
01:11:14 time and then informal study time equates to half of the actual time spent and then it gives some further detail there yeah um
01:11:25 so do you agree that at the i mean at the time of the grenfell project there was a a requirement from the institution of fire engineers to be undergoing some cpd each year yes i do
01:11:39 some cpd each year yes i do um in your experience it is that cpd often provided by manufacturers yeah so my experience um
01:11:52 is there's different forms of cpd and training let's say training um so in what what we do so that's my experience 70 of
01:12:05 so that's my experience 70 of your we we adopt the 70 2010 rule if you're into learning that's a kind of a thing
01:12:11 thing so 70 is working on projects with other experienced people who supervise and teach you on the project 20
01:12:24 on the project 20 is you know probably what people would recognize as cpd where we either invite in experts or an expert in our own team would give
01:12:37 or an expert in our own team would give a very detailed training session sufficient to help you actually change what you're doing or get better and then the other form of cpd is
01:12:49 and then the other form of cpd is manufacturers or you know people who sell systems or materials
01:12:56 materials invited in to explain their system and how it's been
01:13:03 made appropriate for the marketplace from a fire safety perspective yeah so um cpd is quite a it's a bit of a generic term
01:13:14 is quite a it's a bit of a generic term but it covers very informal sessions with product people
01:13:18 people yeah more formal sessions with um with other experts and on the project training i think it's a mix of things in terms of
01:13:29 terms of producing competence in an organization i understand yeah but sticking with that that phenomenon of manufacturing yes providing some cpd do you agree that that's a practice which risks
01:13:41 agree that that's a practice which risks the communication of information in a manner that's not wholly objective yeah so i don't know if i'd call a manufacturer coming in to our company as cpd actually yeah so but if one did
01:13:54 as cpd actually yeah so but if one did um it is good to hear these things but you have to apply
01:14:01 apply very specific judgment and open-mindedness and challenge when you're listening if the only cpd occurring in an organization
01:14:12 organization is from someone selling a product i i that is obviously a concern yes you know it's it's not enough yeah now can we just look at some evidence some
01:14:23 can we just look at some evidence some oral evidence from dr pearson dr tony pearson that he gave on the topic of cpd we can look pull up the transcript day 19 page seven i want to look at lines two to fourteen
01:14:38 uh and he says this there um actually let's
01:14:42 let's get the question before we go to the answer so if we can go to the page before
01:14:46 before um so at the bottom of that page i ask him now just thinking back to your time on the grenfell project when you were at ticks over were you carrying out regular continuing professional development cpd
01:14:59 professional development cpd was that part of the regime within x over
01:15:02 over and then he said this at the time there was very little formal cpd within x over they had a regime of regular training days and encouraging people to visit external seminars and whatever training appeared relevant
01:15:13 and whatever training appeared relevant at the time the training budget was somewhat cut in 2008 during the recession
01:15:17 recession and yeah the reinstatement of that budget was rather a slow process should we say and then i uh i say i see and then um i say can you recall
01:15:28 i see and then um i say can you recall anything that you did specific to external fire spread any particular courses or cpd that might have been relevant to that and he says no now um just on the back of that we just wanted to
01:15:40 on the back of that we just wanted to get your opinion um how much formal cpd would you expect a reasonably competent fire engineering firm
01:15:48 firm to have been providing in the years say 2012 to 2014. do you mean the frequency or do you mean like weekly monthly is that what frequency yes but also
01:16:01 what frequency yes but also the nature of it what type of cpd would you have been expecting to be provided by a competent fire engineering firm so i can only tell you
01:16:13 so i can only tell you my own experience and you know what we do
01:16:17 do so we have what i would call when it's not constant but we have weekly
01:16:25 weekly monthly training sessions we have we have a whole program of events
01:16:32 events planned throughout each year for all the different grades of people who work for us
01:16:37 us um so i
01:16:41 um so i and and i'm aware that other fire engineering companies equally have very regular in-house or external
01:16:52 in-house or external knowledgeable persons coming in to give sessions
01:16:56 sessions in their organization i think it's a very important part of being a fire safety engineer um
01:17:06 it's a profession where for example i've been working a long time relative to others in arab fire
01:17:14 fire and i still have to do very detailed learning and training you know to keep up with
01:17:21 up with say changing legislation changing techniques changing materials um it is a a very constant
01:17:32 it is a a very constant part of making sure your knowledge and skill is to the standards required
01:17:39 required yeah if we look back to 2012 which is a few years ago now yeah is it possible for you
01:17:46 for you to give us an idea of what the minimum amount of cpd formal cpd would be for for a reasonably well run fire
01:17:59 i don't know how to answer that question in hours because i've never added them you know i've never added up what we do and thought about it that way but in 2012 the the obligations on people like me
01:18:12 the the obligations on people like me regarding keeping up our knowledge and skill are no different
01:18:18 different to the requirements of us today right okay
01:18:21 okay i mean i asked the question yeah but it might be said well arab is uh going beyond what is uh essential i mean different companies
01:18:33 uh essential i mean different companies no doubt have different standards or different expectations yeah and i was trying to get a feel for whether you are as it were at the top of the scale rather than i i don't you know i don't really actually even want to talk about
01:18:45 actually even want to talk about arap as such but you know we have very healthy competitive relationships with other fire safety engineering companies and i i am very clear
01:18:56 and i i am very clear that they also do detailed and informal training it's just a really important part of the profession they would have to tell you how many hours or the frequency
01:19:08 hours or the frequency but i observe what they do you know where we
01:19:15 were a bit of a collective in terms of sharing knowledge at times so would it be fair to conclude that in any well-run fire engineering concern yes
01:19:28 fire engineering concern yes there would be regular formal cpd in the form of lectures and classes if i can use that yes expression yeah on at least a
01:19:41 yes expression yeah on at least a monthly basis and on a monthly basis well give or take over the course of a year yeah i am
01:19:50 yeah i am [Music]
01:19:53 i think we would do it monthly i can imagine others might do it less less frequently maybe once a quarter but i i you know i kind of feel like i've just made that up in the sense i didn't ask anybody before i came
01:20:06 ask anybody before i came i think it's very helpful though because it's obviously important that we understand uh what is the sort of range of professional education that people might be expected to provide
01:20:18 be expected to provide um so that if any criticism is going to be made of anyone yeah we have some yardstick to go by understood i think i think that's very helpful i think
01:20:30 i think that's very helpful i think cpd means something you know it has a a meaning um and it can be quite informal so
01:20:41 um and it can be quite informal so the clouding guy comes in and it's very interesting okay the most important part of training for fire safety engineers in any company is working on the projects with more
01:20:53 is working on the projects with more experienced people yeah no it's very helpful thank you yeah i'm sorry to interrupt you no no just one question then i think we can break yes um on the back of that would you have expected a reasonably
01:21:04 would you have expected a reasonably competent fire engineering firm to have made available courses relevant to b4 and external fire spread
01:21:13 spread back in 2012. would there have been some specific
01:21:16 specific cpd that would be relevant to that topic
01:21:22 a course do you mean a course on how to read the
01:21:25 read the well it could be anything to do with external fire spread um or b4 um more generally but would you have expected there to have been some component of a a cpd program that would address that
01:21:39 a cpd program that would address that so for b4
01:21:42 so for b4 typically calculations are carried out for the fire spread between buildings rather than up the bill yes that's section 13 of atb um and i would imagine
01:21:53 um and i would imagine you know i if you read xova's fee proposals they offered that numerical analysis so i must assume that they offer training to their staff yeah
01:22:03 yeah in terms of b4 and materials at that time in 2012 yeah i think it would have been unlikely yeah
01:22:14 yeah by 2013 i did go back i wanted i dug out all my old notebooks the other day to see what i was up to by 2013 we were sufficiently worried
01:22:25 by 2013 we were sufficiently worried about materials and certificates that we started to run joint fire and facade
01:22:32 facade seminars together within arab yes all right okay that's very yes thank you mr chairman that's a good moment for a break thank you
01:22:43 a break thank you uh dr lame we're gonna have a short break now um we'll come back at 20 to 12 please
01:22:47 please okay and as i've said to all the other witnesses please don't talk to anyone about your evidence okay thank you very much
01:22:58 [Applause] good 20-12 please
01:39:52 would you ask dr lane to come back in please thank you
01:40:12 all right dr lane ready to carry on yeah i am thank you thank you yes from scratch
01:40:15 scratch yes thank you so i now want to to come on to the appointment of x over by the tmo
01:40:20 tmo and start looking at grenfell specific matters um is it okay if i just clarify something very briefly yes of course i was trying to think of a better way to answer the last set of questions
01:40:32 answer the last set of questions and i think i want to be honest that any company that provides fire safety engineering services i do think
01:40:39 think that it should be chartered fire engineers sign off on that work and therefore the minimum training provision from the employer is the minimum
01:40:50 minimum required by the engineering council that's the minimum in my mind that staff are enabled to do that anything else is beyond above and beyond
01:41:01 anything else is beyond above and beyond well now
01:41:01 well now that's obviously your view as of now would you have taken that view in 2012 yes because the rules have not changed
01:41:11 changed from engineering council about the minimum number of hours so i thank you yeah thank you very much yeah that's helpful um now um you note and
01:41:23 um now um you note and we don't need to turn this up i don't think at paragraph 4.3.12 of your report on page 53 that there was no bidding process you call it for the appointment of a fire engineer to the grenfell project
01:41:35 a fire engineer to the grenfell project and that marcus kiefer of studio e contacted james lee and terry ashton at x over
01:41:41 x over directly and we know that there was an ongoing relationship with xover and the tmo
01:41:45 tmo including xover's work on the calc project
01:41:49 project and i just want to ask you in in your experience would it have been normal in the construction industry at this time for fire engineers uh to be appointed without their heaven been an open tender
01:42:00 without their heaven been an open tender process what was the norm at the time so all different types are the norm right so that we would have to bid on a project you know against other companies other projects
01:42:12 against other companies other projects you're asked to prepare a fee yeah frankly you know if you're in a position where you and the client agree the scope and
01:42:23 you and the client agree the scope and fee obviously that's a you know a nicer position to be in commercially than you know competing against 20 other companies so both
01:42:34 both types are common practice for fire safety engineering companies yep yeah now you explain in your report that x over can be considered a quote top-tier
01:42:45 quote top-tier fire safety engineering consultancy firm we can see that if we go to your report page 55 paragraph 4.3.24
01:42:57 report page 55 paragraph 4.3.24 at the bottom of that page yeah you say worth acknowledging here they can be considered a top tier firm with extensive experience and that's their industry reputation and then um if we go on page 59
01:43:11 and then um if we go on page 59 paragraph 4.3.34 having noted exxon's expertise and qualifications you say this by appointing x over it would be entirely reasonable for the tmo and
01:43:22 entirely reasonable for the tmo and artelia indeed any party to assume that the grenfell tower primary refurbishment project team had access to and could rely on highly competent experts for all aspects of fire safety design and compliance
01:43:35 of fire safety design and compliance and then in the next paragraph you say this because this is not necessarily the case for all projects that are undertaken in the uk i think this is the most important point when considering how the events of the grenfell tower fire came to be
01:43:47 grenfell tower fire came to be now i just want to ask you about that what do you mean when you say because this is not necessarily the case for all projects that are undertaken in the uk not all project teams not all clients
01:43:59 not all project teams not all clients even appoint a fire safety engineer on a project
01:44:03 project yeah okay so this project had the benefit of an app the appointment of a professional fire safety engineering
01:44:14 a professional fire safety engineering company yeah and when you say i think this is the most important point when considering how the events of grenfell tower came to be
01:44:21 be again what do you mean by that i mean that the the team and the client had you know had access to relevant fire safety should have had
01:44:34 fire safety should have had relevant access you know to competent advice yeah okay
01:44:43 now um if we look at the existing fee proposal
01:44:47 proposal and scope of work so if we pull that up this is it
01:44:52 exo401382
01:44:58 this is dated the 11th of june 2012. so what i want to do is i'm going to look at the existing fire strategy work first okay and then we're going to come on and look at the refurbishment work um so this letter's dated the 11th of june
01:45:10 so this letter's dated the 11th of june 2012.
01:45:11 2012. and if we can go to page 2 of this report we can see that the proposed scope of works is a retrospective fire safety strategy report for the existing building
01:45:23 report for the existing building and we can see there that it says in that end of that first paragraph the design of the building will be assessed against relevant design codes relating to the statute requirements
01:45:34 relating to the statute requirements including the rro 2005 and also under the london section 20 of the london building acts at that time as well
01:45:41 well we see that there and then we can see the fee proposal at the bottom of that page
01:45:49 is quoting a sum of uh right at the bottom there under fee proposal is quoting a sum of 2 865 pounds plus vat for that work on the existing
01:46:01 plus vat for that work on the existing fire strategy and we can see that this proposal on page three was written by james lee a consultant at x over
01:46:11 x over and reviewed by terry ashton there we can see that there and we know that tmo accepted the fee on the 27th of july 2012 in an email from apple yards for
01:46:22 2012 in an email from apple yards for the transcript that's one two ex050122 now
01:46:31 um and you've also noted in your report that
01:46:35 that um there's no evidence that anybody queried the fee or kind of had any any difficulties with that fee at the time yeah you note that i think at paragraph
01:46:46 yeah you note that i think at paragraph 4.3.50 of your report on page 62. now um turning to the adequacy of that fee proposal can we pull up page 60 of your report paragraph 4.3.45
01:47:02 what you've done here and correct me if i'm wrong is set out all the
01:47:09 all the tasks which you think would have needed to have
01:47:12 to have been undertaken in order to provide a fire strategy for the existing building is that correct yes so you've listed out here starting with attending site understanding the
01:47:23 attending site understanding the building
01:47:24 building then you've gone through i'm not going to read them all out all of the different
01:47:27 different uh stages of analysis information gathering and then if we go over the page we can look that it goes down to j
01:47:41 we could just pull uh that's great yeah look at the top of that page so we can see understand the existing fire safety risk at g fully document their investigation at h
01:47:53 fully document their investigation at h set out clear gaps in compliance i and therefore establish the need for any mitigation measures which again you discussed that earlier about that's part and parcel of the fire
01:48:04 that's part and parcel of the fire strategy work and then you say at paragraph 4.3.46 you say it is my opinion that it is impossible to do all this in 3.5 days
01:48:15 impossible to do all this in 3.5 days now just to be clear you've got the 3.5 days by applying xover's hourly rate to that fee proposal
01:48:23 proposal yeah of 2865 pounds is that correct yeah approximately so you you've calculated that they seem to be
01:48:31 to be give or take yeah might not be basically so less than a week yeah saying that they will spend that amount of time and it's your opinion is it that
01:48:39 it that that was an inadequate uh period of time to spend on an existing fire safety strategy
01:48:44 strategy yes it is now um i just want to look at the oral evidence of miss cooney on this point um because in in her evidence miss
01:48:55 um because in in her evidence miss cooney was asked about this if we go to the transcript day 14 page 193 lines 5 to 17.
01:49:07 so if we pick it up here um at page on page 12 this is mr millet asking her questions and he says it's 12 on that page how long will it normally
01:49:18 on that page how long will it normally have taken you to prepare a final draft client ready for a fire strategy for an existing building such as grenfell tower and she says a number of weeks
01:49:27 weeks solidly for a good number of weeks i would have thought if it was to meet all the requirements and then he says right just to be clear how long would you take normally to prepare a first draft
01:49:38 normally to prepare a first draft and then she says um again it's dependent on the amount of information we have right okay can i ask you and then she says up to a week i suppose
01:49:49 says up to a week i suppose and then he says i'm sorry i cut across your answer and then if we go on to the top of the next page she says anything up to a week a few days to a week depending on the information we have do you see that
01:50:00 information we have do you see that there
01:50:00 there yeah so her evidence was that um preparing a final draft client ready of an existing fire safety strategy would be a
01:50:11 strategy would be a work covering a number of weeks solidly for a number of work weeks but perhaps preparing a first draft
01:50:18 draft would be she said up to a week a few days to a week yeah um do you agree with with um her estimates first of all of how long a client ready final strategy would
01:50:30 long a client ready final strategy would take
01:50:31 take and then at a draft yeah so i think it's about a week she said for the first draft and was it three weeks or a few she just says um solidly for a good number of weeks a number of weeks she
01:50:43 number of weeks a number of weeks she doesn't give a number of weeks yes so i agree that the first draft you know you would do well to get it ready in a week but it's absolutely possible yeah and then
01:50:54 absolutely possible yeah and then several weeks of tuning and throwing getting all the res for all the information doing all the discussions if you think back to that list of things to do in the past
01:51:05 list of things to do in the past absolutely i can imagine taking several weeks
01:51:09 weeks to produce the detailed existing fire strategy yeah and in your opinion what would a reasonable fee estimate have been remember this was back in 2012 for that work now i'm not
01:51:20 work now i'm not looking at a precise figure just approximately we know they were quoting 2865 plus that so that was for honestly if we multiplied
01:51:32 honestly if we multiplied their weekly fee by four or six i i just haven't done analysis like that i'm afraid about what xover should have charged i think so we could take their hourly rates across a week
01:51:43 rates across a week yeah so that's what that's between four or six weeks of work yeah that's what they seem to do so um
01:51:52 and and in your experience would you have
01:51:55 have did you ever experience um at the time people
01:51:59 people querying fees would it be normal for clients to come back and say well that's too low that's too high would you expected clients in this case to have queried the fees
01:52:10 to have queried the fees that were proposed so we clients do query fees normally particularly in that first half you know 2000 to about 2015
01:52:22 you know 2000 to about 2015 you know it would be why can your fee be lower
01:52:27 lower i think um for i think what was a two and a half it's about two and a half years two thousand eight hundred and sixty five two thousand eight hundred pounds to produce an existing fire strategy
01:52:38 produce an existing fire strategy i suppose you need to understand the scale of what's involved but the fee proposal was actually quite detailed so i would expect an experienced client
01:52:49 so i would expect an experienced client or experienced architect to maybe ask a question you know can you can you get this quantity of work done in that period of time yeah but obviously human nature is if
01:53:02 yeah but obviously human nature is if you're offered a low fee you're going to take it i mean that's not an expert opinion that's just the way things are yeah yeah now i want to come on now to discuss the
01:53:13 now i want to come on now to discuss the the site visit before we look at the existing fire strategy itself um and i want to ask you about the visit that was undertaken now in general terms where you have an
01:53:24 now in general terms where you have an existing building which is the subject of a fire strategy or you have a building that's to be refurbished how important is it in your opinion for a fire engineer to visit the building on which they're writing a report
01:53:38 so as i said earlier the big issue about an existing building is all the unknowns
01:53:45 unknowns yeah so it is very difficult to complete your work or offer robust advice
01:53:52 advice without doing your own inspections now it's absolutely the case sometimes and it's happened to me where you may simply
01:54:02 simply not get paid or allowed to you know go to site and go to the level of detail that you might like that that does happen
01:54:13 does happen but then you have to qualify your advice and explain exactly the limits of your work yeah so my preference would be a
01:54:24 yeah so my preference would be a site visit to really deal with all these unknowns
01:54:28 unknowns where that's not possible for whatever reason
01:54:31 reason you must now set out exactly what it is you need from others yeah so we know in this case that a site visit was possible in your opinion would any reasonably
01:54:43 in your opinion would any reasonably competent fire engineer have visited the building if they were preparing an existing fire safety strategy i've i would very much if you're if you're lucky enough to get paid and given access to the building
01:54:56 and given access to the building it's the optimum set of circumstances so yes i would expect that as a minimum from a fire safety engineer to then go yeah now we know that mr james lee
01:55:07 yeah now we know that mr james lee states that paragraph 3.6 of his witness statement for the transcript the reference is exo
01:55:14 401740 page 3 that he did conduct a site visit on the 29th of may 2012 in order to view the existing condition of the tower
01:55:25 of the tower and he says such a visit would ordinarily involve spending no longer than two hours walking around the site now in your report if we look at paragraph on page
01:55:36 report if we look at paragraph on page 88 of your report paragraph 4.7.14. think it's the previous page
01:55:47 previous page sorry let's go yeah
01:55:55 yes sorry that's the wrong reference um so
01:55:58 so there you say it's my opinion that two hours is wholly insufficient to make a meaningful appraisal of the fire safety features of a building of the scale and condition at the time as grenfell tower
01:56:09 condition at the time as grenfell tower now can you just explain to us exactly why you say that why would you need more than two hours to do what needed to be done you know
01:56:19 you have to have your safety briefing you need to do a walk around to familiarize yourself you need to try and find where the fire safety measures are
01:56:30 safety measures are i i would expect people to take measurements take photos of the smoke control
01:56:34 control system the doors the conditions of the lobbies
01:56:39 lobbies i i just really don't understand i couldn't get that done in two hours and i
01:56:43 i i just can't imagine how anyone could get that done in two hours for in two hours i would do what i would call a cursory walk through the building and i don't consider that to be a site
01:56:55 and i don't consider that to be a site inspection yeah approximately how long in your opinion do you think would have been sufficient if you were preparing the existing fire safety strategy if i was sending fire engineers to
01:57:06 if i was sending fire engineers to a a high rise residential building of that scale i would expect two people to go and just spend at least a day yeah
01:57:17 and just spend at least a day yeah two together
01:57:20 one person to take notes and photos and to cross-check each other's observations yeah on the site and in your opinion would it be appropriate for say miss cooney to rely
01:57:31 cooney to rely upon a site visit conducted by mr lee so in your opinion would it be reasonable at the time for a fire engineer to rely on a site visit that another colleague did if the site visit
01:57:43 another colleague did if the site visit is well documented with notes and photographs yes it is reasonable to rely on you know an accurate record yeah and to talk to that person about what they've
01:57:54 talk to that person about what they've seen
01:57:54 seen yeah and we would do that a lot and and now just for a moment i'll come back to james lee's site visit in just a moment but just thinking about mr ashton for the moment he's we know uh responsible for carrying
01:58:06 he's we know uh responsible for carrying out the refurbishment fire safety strategy
01:58:09 strategy reports in your opinion should he have carried out his own site visit with respect to fire safety as it affected the refurbishment works
01:58:20 as it affected the refurbishment works do you mean after he reviewed what james lee produced
01:58:24 produced so at any stage do you think he ought to have visited the site before he did his work or ever yeah or ever okay so i think that
01:58:35 or ever okay so i think that it it would be reasonable for him to rely on his let's call it the site team who went
01:58:41 who went yeah and if they gave a very accurate record
01:58:45 record which they didn't okay so then he's in a position where you know if he hasn't got good records available i i
01:58:57 available i i it would have been better wouldn't it for xova to send another team to do a site inspection i mean i i just okay i i think that for any engineer
01:59:09 okay i i think that for any engineer to write the refurbishment report they needed to rely on the existing fire strategy which should have been based on a detailed set of site inspection notes
01:59:20 a detailed set of site inspection notes yeah none of those things actually happened at grenfell tower yeah now can we look at this point at paragraph
01:59:27 paragraph page 255 of your report
01:59:39 uh no actually i'm not sorry we're not in the right report i just realized we need
01:59:43 need to be in blarp 2 5 0 17 at page 255
01:59:53 yep so if we can keep bringing up that 17 version of the report that would be great um so if we go there paragraph 8.3.1 you say this you say i've seen no
02:00:04 8.3.1 you say this you say i've seen no evidence in the documentation provided to me
02:00:06 to me that james lee recorded any information relating to his site visit of the 29th of may 2012 either in the form of handwritten site notes photographs or marked up drawings now in fact um it does appear that james
02:00:19 now in fact um it does appear that james lee did take a series of photographs yeah that's correct during his site visits and these are exhibited to his witness statement yeah and that is referred to in my report can we just look at these
02:00:31 report can we just look at these those photographs just for a moment this is ex0401749
02:00:42 um so we see a series of photographs i think it's across 24 pages so we can't show them all but perhaps if we could just
02:00:48 just scroll down a few pages just to get a sense
02:00:52 sense of the photographs
02:00:58 yeah and then we could keep going now i just want to check first thing have you seen these photographs before yes i have so when you've given your
02:01:09 yes i have so when you've given your opinion
02:01:10 opinion about the site visit yeah you have taken these into account yes i have and do you consider that any helpful information would be provided by these
02:01:21 information would be provided by these photographs i can't orientate myself looking at these photos and i struggle to see what they're far so i i would if i had been given these
02:01:33 so i i would if i had been given these photos
02:01:35 photos i would need to have a written description beside it or it pasted onto a drawing
02:01:41 a drawing saying i took the photo here and if you refer to this drawing this this is what we observed in this location yeah and other information yeah i i cannot
02:01:53 and other information yeah i i cannot interpret those photos myself maybe others could so i think you're saying you would need other information sitting side by side with these photographs to be able to make any sensible use of them yeah you
02:02:05 make any sensible use of them yeah you have to understand their location and a written a short even a short written explanation as to the you know what it is
02:02:16 as to the you know what it is is being observed and why um and typically people paste them onto a drawing with some arrows and you have another little text box with some notes so then other people in the future can refer
02:02:29 other people in the future can refer back
02:02:29 back orientate themselves which is absolutely critical
02:02:32 critical yeah and work out the location of the photo
02:02:36 photo and consider the building in that location yeah and would you have regarded that as a minimum standard of competence back in 2012
02:02:43 2012 to produce that from a site visit yes now um i just want to um just take stock of what miss cooney had available to her when she
02:02:54 cooney had available to her when she drafted the existing fire strategy report which she produced and i'm just going to list out what we had we know that she had she had the original plans of grenfell tower on microfiche yes
02:03:06 of grenfell tower on microfiche yes she'd had a discussion on the telephone she said
02:03:09 she said about the layout with james lee who did the site visit she had these photographs which we've discovered she reviewed the then current fire risk assessment that's mr stokes's fire risk
02:03:21 assessment that's mr stokes's fire risk assessment dated december 2010 yeah which she'd been sent
02:03:25 been sent she hadn't we know she had an email exchange on the 10th of august 2012 with mr soon's about issues such as the dry riser and the lift
02:03:34 lift yeah yeah she had some more information about the existing smoke lobby system but we know she hadn't visited sight herself
02:03:44 herself now given what we know about that and the information she had do you consider in your opinion that that was adequate information on which to draft
02:03:56 adequate information on which to draft an existing fire safety strategy i think that it's very limited information to attempt to draft an existing fire safety strategy yeah and professionally
02:04:10 yeah and professionally i would be uneasy right
02:04:14 one could still write a draft yeah okay but there are you know i would want to see
02:04:22 see quite a long list of all the information not available all the things i couldn't work out
02:04:30 work out and sometimes that's all you can do is write a strategy that literally says i just need all this information you know write a report and set out all the information you need
02:04:41 information you need and why even under each part of the building regulations yeah now in her oral evidence she was asked about what information she had
02:04:52 asked about what information she had she was asked about whether there were any farts she had any access to any fire safety policies she said no she didn't think so she was asked whether she had access to any fire safety management policies or procedures
02:05:03 safety management policies or procedures and she said no and she was asked whether she'd requested any maintenance records
02:05:09 records and she said um no but i wouldn't normally ask for maintenance records for a fire safety strategy now in your view would all of those things
02:05:18 things be matters that you would be asking for fire safety policies fire safety management policies and maintenance records yeah so so you
02:05:29 yeah so so you one needs that information because when a fire safety engineer writes an existing strategy one of the critical points is explaining what's performing or not in that
02:05:41 what's performing or not in that existing building you have to know if the fire safety systems are performing to any standard yeah okay and i think something that really strikes me from that time
02:05:55 that really strikes me from that time is that bruce soon told kay cooney the lifts were not firefighting lifts in an email yeah whereas the risk assessment
02:06:08 whereas the risk assessment says the the lifts are our firefighting slash evacuation lifts yeah and and that's a really good illustration about that next step of
02:06:21 about that next step of checking or investigation the fire safety engineering needs to do you now have two conflicting pieces of information it's quite common yeah so now i need those records to establish for
02:06:32 establish for myself independently is bruce soon's correct
02:06:37 correct or is carl stokes and his risk assessment correct or is it something else entirely yeah that's what makes existing fire strategies so complicated yeah and just to be clear for the
02:06:49 yeah and just to be clear for the transcript i think the exchange you're referring to there is an email from mr soon state of the 10th of august 2012. that's at
02:06:57 that's at one exo4015 nine two at page two where he says it's not a firefighting lift yes yes
02:07:04 now if we can now turn up on page 298 of your report and look at in section 10
02:07:16 and look at in section 10 i want to look at 10.1.3
02:07:21 so you say here in this paragraph xava had a contract to ascertain the existing building condition and set out its fire safety condition at that time by means of this work as i have explained earlier they had a duty
02:07:32 have explained earlier they had a duty and the opportunity to understand the condition
02:07:35 condition of the active and passive fire protection measures in grenfell tower both with regard to the original regulations and the current regulations as they saw fit at the time so you're describing it there as a duty
02:07:46 so you're describing it there as a duty and an opportunity can you just help us as to why this was an opportunity to understand those measures and how important was that opportunity well it was an opportunity because the the professional team
02:07:58 the professional team realized very early in their deliberations during stage c that they were making changes to the building
02:08:06 building and that they and they correctly understood that those changes could impact fire safety standards okay so um
02:08:17 okay so um the the existing fire strategy was commissioned and so this was a moment in time where a competent
02:08:24 competent person could understand exactly what condition grenfell tower was in with respect to its active and passive measures
02:08:36 measures and also how um
02:08:42 the people were being protected in the event of a fire and i particularly mean say
02:08:48 say people who may have needed assistance and arrangements being made for them so there was an opportunity to be very open and honest with the client and the design
02:08:58 design team x and y systems are a concern let's get back to the lifts again uh the risk assessment says they're there to enable
02:09:10 there to enable evacuation in the event of a fire is this actually correct so there was an opportunity to properly define the baseline
02:09:21 properly define the baseline safety condition of grenfell tower yeah yeah yeah okay and just to be clear i think you say in your report that that work on the existing fire safety strategy should have fed
02:09:31 have fed directly into the refurbishment fire strategy absolutely yeah and and then the refurbishment brief
02:09:39 brief could then say we're going to fix x and y
02:09:43 y you know we're leaving a and b for example
02:09:46 example and we're going to mitigate it a different way so you take that baseline safety condition and you're absolutely explicit about what the primary refurbishment is going
02:09:57 what the primary refurbishment is going to deliver in terms of a fire safety objective yeah now um
02:10:06 at paragraph 5.7.1 of your report uh if we go to page 157
02:10:20 here is the section where you're setting out your conclusion about the adequacy of the existing building report and you've identified a number of inadequacies you've listed them all out very clearly here in your
02:10:31 them all out very clearly here in your conclusions section um now we're going to discuss some of those uh in more detail shortly but but before we do that i just want to ask you some more general questions if we then go over the page page 158 we
02:10:44 if we then go over the page page 158 we see the rest of the list
02:10:48 and then we can see
02:10:53 at the bottom of that page you say in summary i find the x over is existing fire safety strategy report for grenfell tower to be wholly inadequate for any relevant purpose to which it was
02:11:04 for any relevant purpose to which it was supposed to be put we see that there yeah and if we look over the page at the next two paragraphs top of that next page
02:11:13 next page you say it could not therefore be relied upon as an up-to-date explanation and record of the existing building condition
02:11:18 condition and it could not therefore be relied upon to carry out the statutory fire risk assessment as the tmo had a separate duty to do now did you have
02:11:29 now did you have experience of seeing existing fire safety strategy reports produced by other professionals at around this time because what i want to ask you is was that report surprisingly inadequate or
02:11:42 that report surprisingly inadequate or do you consider that that reflected shortcomings across the industry at the time
02:11:51 i've i've really focused on grenfell tower and all the work i've done for the inquiry so far i understand um
02:12:01 i suppose the best way of putting it is is that as i said right at the start by 2015
02:12:08 2015 i was sufficiently concerned about varying standards that we made our decision about signing off our own work by chartered fire engineers yeah yes i have seen good existing fire
02:12:19 yeah yes i have seen good existing fire strategies and i have seen bad ones yeah i i can't really help you any further than that other than go off and find other strategies and come back here and tell
02:12:30 strategies and come back here and tell you what i found okay i understand yeah um now unknowns and assumptions one of the inadequacies which you have referred to at paragraph 5.7.1 f on page 157
02:12:43 at paragraph 5.7.1 f on page 157 if we just go back to that is that you say at the bottom xavier's report does not adequately identify future investigation actions for xover or others for all aspects of the
02:12:55 or others for all aspects of the building where they define information as not known nor provided any explanation as to how that missing information had been factored into their assessment of the risk at the time yes
02:13:06 assessment of the risk at the time yes yeah
02:13:07 yeah now mr millet um explored some of this when
02:13:10 when miss clooney gave oral evidence and he put to her that there were a large number of assumptions made in the report or unknowns listed within it is it normal in your experience to make
02:13:21 is it normal in your experience to make some assumptions when carrying out a fire safety strategy on an existing building and i think we should take into account that miss cuny said this was a draft strategy she'd provided
02:13:32 this was a draft strategy she'd provided her work was a draft why do we need to take that into account sorry what do you mean by
02:13:37 mean by it sounds like a qualifying remark i see so
02:13:40 so what i would ask you is at that first draft stage okay sorry over fire strategy
02:13:45 strategy would it be normal to make some assumptions when carrying when when writing that first draft so the purpose of a draft is to get more information
02:13:56 is to get more information yeah but is it right that in your opinion although identified assumptions it wasn't
02:14:02 it wasn't clear about future investigation actions no so i would expect to see the information that was required and
02:14:13 that was required and why it was required and by when and even assigned to particular individuals if needs be yeah and you know a clear statement that
02:14:24 and you know a clear statement that until that information is you know is available the report cannot be relied upon right yeah now can we just take some examples
02:14:34 examples and look at some examples um so at pages one two one two one two of your report what you've done is you've reproduced a section of miss cooney's report on the
02:14:45 a section of miss cooney's report on the left and then your comments on the right is that right yeah so we see that and then this is in i think a3 in the original version so we can see that there and if we can go first to
02:14:57 that there and if we can go first to page one two four of your report
02:15:03 and if we could blow up the top of that page
02:15:07 so what you've done is you've helpfully segmented
02:15:10 segmented the sections of their report into little boxes and we can see um that um looking at that introduction box on the left i'm sorry this is so small yeah in the
02:15:22 i'm sorry this is so small yeah in the third paragraph miss cooney's written this existing fire safety strategy covers the fire precautions in place in the existing building as built in the 1970s drawn up from information gathered through
02:15:33 from information gathered through non-invasive site survey a desktop study of the original plans from the microfiche archive and the current risk assessment and then she says in the next paragraph
02:15:44 and then she says in the next paragraph she says
02:15:44 she says it is expected and therefore assumed that the existing building has been built to the prevailing standards of the day
02:15:51 day thought originally to be the building regulations 19 i can't quite read that 65 possibly which did little more than require the structure of the building to have fire
02:16:02 structure of the building to have fire resistance so there she's saying it's assumed that the building has been built the prevailing standards of the day and then in the next paragraph she said
02:16:13 and then in the next paragraph she said it's assumed that the various provisions required
02:16:16 required by the above legislation have been maintained since the building was constructed and subsequently
02:16:24 and subsequent amendments have been carried out with the approval of the regulating authority of the day so she's making assumptions about the existing building being built to the prevailing standards of the 70s and then
02:16:36 prevailing standards of the 70s and then she's saying it's assumed that various any amendments subsequently have been carried out with the approval of the regulating authority of the day yes yeah and then we can see on the right
02:16:49 yeah and then we can see on the right hand side
02:16:50 hand side of that page um sorry it's hard to refer to these but um would it be worth expanding half the
02:17:01 would it be worth expanding half the page
02:17:04 yes if we now expand the lower half of that right hand side of the page if we could do that and and there you can see where you've set out in the fourth paragraph x over state and there's a quote do you
02:17:16 x over state and there's a quote do you see that there
02:17:19 it is expected therefore assume that the existing building has been built prevailing standards of the day and you say this xover do not identify the specific documents that represent the prevailing standards of the day for grenfell tower and neither do they
02:17:31 for grenfell tower and neither do they provide any information on steps that they took to verify that it was compliant with the standards that would have been current at the time of the design and construction of the building
02:17:39 building and then you know in the next paragraph they've assumed it's been maintained since construction and any amendments have been carried out with the approval of the regulating authority and you say in that paragraph xover did
02:17:50 and you say in that paragraph xover did not identify what if any steps they have taken to verify that the building has been maintained and that any amendments satisfy the relevant legislation and guidance i consider it wholly inappropriate for
02:18:01 i consider it wholly inappropriate for an existing building fire safety strategy
02:18:03 strategy to make such an assumption do you see that there yeah now just to be clear on your evidence is it your evidence that both of those assumptions both the
02:18:14 both of those assumptions both the assumption about being built for the prevailing standards of the day and your assumption about how the building's maintained is it your evidence that both of those are inappropriate
02:18:25 inappropriate the whole point of an existing fire safety strategy is to be clear on what is there
02:18:33 so you don't think it's acceptable to assume that it must have been built the prevailing standards and it must have been maintained and had the approval of the regulating authority since i
02:18:44 authority since i if i was given that report i would ask what does that mean to me now in terms of the fire safety you know how i can protect life in that building
02:18:55 how i can protect life in that building what does that actually mean and is that because in your experience it can sometimes be a false assumption to assume that building works have been carried
02:19:05 carried out to the appropriate standards yes now i just want to look at what miss cuny said in her evidence about this when giving evidence the inquiry if we
02:19:17 when giving evidence the inquiry if we can pull up the transcript day 14 page 121 lines 9 to 17.
02:19:28 and she was asked about this assumption at line
02:19:32 at line 7 by mr millet now on what basis did you form that expectation or assumption and her answer is this she says on the basis that the building having been long-standing in the same use as it was constructed
02:19:43 constructed to be used for and the very stringent adherence to acts such as the london act section 20 etcetera and the requirement for a fire risk assessment being in place for several years prior to
02:19:54 to i think it was a reasonable assumption to assume that any works that had been carried out had been done in a workmanlike manner and that there was no significant deviations from the guidance do you see that there yeah and she also
02:20:05 do you see that there yeah and she also explains later in her evidence that she thought there was nothing unusual about its layout at the time now um what the points i want to put to you are this was a on her evidence a first draft
02:20:18 this was a on her evidence a first draft of a report and it was requested within a short time frame
02:20:23 frame um how much work would have been involved if miss cooney had checked those assumptions how do you mean it
02:20:29 mean it sorry what do you mean it was requested in a short time frame um
02:20:36 frame um sorry i just i'm afraid well i think i think we probably have to read that as requested from her within a short timeframe
02:20:43 timeframe right okay i understand within x overs uh
02:20:46 uh in terms of production uh it's not a short time frame exactly so if we can yeah where's that remark i've now actually forgotten what you asked me i'm really sorry no that's all right so i'm asking you um
02:20:58 no that's all right so i'm asking you um the points i want to put to you are it's the first draft of a report how much work would have been involved if she'd had to check those assumptions and was that reasonable to carry out
02:21:12 reasonable to carry out if i understand you correctly so they had been to the site they had some drawings they had access to staff at the tmo who had knowledge of the building
02:21:24 the building even an email or a request for a meeting there's very simple ways to to get another layer of information so your assumptions are
02:21:38 reasonable
02:21:46 sorry which assumptions are reasonable was it i think you're critical of her for assuming that it was built to the prevailing standards and assuming that it was any subsequent
02:21:58 and assuming that it was any subsequent works
02:21:58 works had been approved by the relevant authorities i think what you're saying is it right is that those things should have been checked is that right absolutely because if that's not true
02:22:09 absolutely because if that's not true it has some very significant actions arising yeah and i think i'm trying to say that there's simple ways to
02:22:20 simple ways to explore those two points more yeah so you're not making such a sweeping assumption i see yeah and if you were sending a fire engineer off to do this report you would expect
02:22:33 off to do this report you would expect them to have carried out those checks would you so yes i would so when when they come back from sight with their measurements and photographs
02:22:44 with their measurements and photographs which you know one would then compare with the
02:22:47 with the the prevailing standards of the day remember
02:22:50 remember there were active systems in that building with with well-documented problems at the time
02:22:57 time that needed to be looked into two though those systems did not know significant deviations from the guidance and there's another thing about maintenance that it wasn't
02:23:08 maintenance that it wasn't applicable to everything in the building i see would it be relevant that there was nothing in the material that xover had
02:23:17 had which would suggest that there'd been unapproved works carried out from a planning or building control perspective do you mean with the drawings they had yeah would it be relevant that that in
02:23:29 yeah would it be relevant that that in none of the information they had there was anything to suggest unapproved works had been carried out would that be relevant
02:23:36 relevant so so that's a piece of information but that's why your own independent inspection of the building to make sure
02:23:47 inspection of the building to make sure that that's a valid piece of data still is so important for an existing when you're formulating existing fire safety strategy
02:23:57 strategy yeah now miss cuny acknowledged that at the time her draft report was prepared she did not have all the information required including in part because certain aspects of the building had not
02:24:08 certain aspects of the building had not been addressed in the fire risk assessments provided to ix over and she expected that xavier would receive some feedback in relation to the areas in which assumptions had been made
02:24:19 areas in which assumptions had been made now um do you consider that that was reasonable on her part to put these assumptions in and assume that if anyone's got any evidence to contradict that
02:24:30 got any evidence to contradict that someone will come back to her and say well actually you've made that assumption it's not correct and no i don't think it's acceptable to issue a report and then wait for other people to notice what the problems are why not
02:24:42 what the problems are why not because i think that they need assistance from the competent person in understanding what the issues are and why and what the next steps are yeah okay um i it that
02:24:56 yeah okay um i it that that kind of passive i've you know the report's gone out we're done i i don't agree that that allows
02:25:04 allows uh the report to end up being more than a draft
02:25:07 a draft and any report of fire safety engineer issues the whole idea is it doesn't stay draft for very long it's to become an issue version because that last bit
02:25:19 an issue version because that last bit of work
02:25:19 of work is done or the information is received from others yeah you need to take the next step yeah now can we take another example can we go now to page 131 of your report
02:25:31 of your report [Applause] and i want to focus um at the top of that page
02:25:37 that page first of all on the the left hand side where we see the extract from miss clooney's report at 3.3.4 in the uh there she's dealt with evacuation
02:25:48 there she's dealt with evacuation principles in the residential areas and she's said that
02:25:53 that the recommendations in the current guidance of approved document b support an evacuation strategy which is based on the following assumptions and then in the third bullet there she said
02:26:03 said due to an assumed high degree of compartmentation and therefore a low probability of fire spread beyond the dwelling of fire origin simultaneous evacuation of the building is unlikely to be considered
02:26:14 is unlikely to be considered necessary do you see that there yeah and then if we uh look on the right hand side
02:26:29 you have um in that box uh first of all um set out an extract of what she says there from that third bullet point that's the third line down and then you say this however xover do not identify
02:26:41 say this however xover do not identify what information they have relied upon to make such an assumption or what performance criteria are required for the fire
02:26:48 the fire compartmentation and then you say x over go on to state in their third bullet simultaneous evacuation is unlike to be considered necessary and then you say that follows the form
02:26:59 and then you say that follows the form of guidance in and then you give a reference in adb i know xover provide no direction to the responsible person as to whether any preparation might be required to enable simultaneous evacuation so you're making two points down i want
02:27:10 so you're making two points down i want to focus on the first point yeah so you're saying she doesn't identify what information she'd relied upon to make an assumption about the high degree of compartmentation
02:27:21 compartmentation can you explain why that was so important that she did that so let's take fire doors okay um a very important part of the compartmentation between the flats and
02:27:33 compartmentation between the flats and the lobby
02:27:34 the lobby what did xova do to establish their performance in grenfell tower so you would have expected them to have taken some steps to to identify what the fire performance
02:27:45 to identify what the fire performance was of say the flat doors at levels 4 to 23
02:27:49 23 yes because on the site inspection they will have had opportunity to observe them
02:27:54 them and ask questions about when they were installed or not relevant to the drawings miss cooney had yeah
02:28:01 yeah and can you help us in fact was the assumption of a high degree of compartmentation remember this is for the existing building was that incorrect to make that assumption that there was a high degree
02:28:12 assumption that there was a high degree of compartmentation
02:28:17 well i can say that now yes so the the the the fire doors were installed in grenfell tower in some part by then yes that had been
02:28:29 in some part by then yes that had been in 2011
02:28:30 in 2011 yes and the smoke control system was not operating as it was required to do and that's also part of protecting the firefighting shaft and
02:28:42 protecting the firefighting shaft and escape compartment yeah i see yeah that's helpful
02:28:53 now um sorry finished yeah it's just in a building with the stay put strategy and in an existing building with that strategy
02:29:04 strategy that's why the site visit is so important because because you're so reliant
02:29:08 reliant on those features yeah that it's you know yeah anyway i haven't made the point yeah now just going back to something you say in your report
02:29:20 to something you say in your report on page 147 paragraph 5.4.31
02:29:28 you you say in that this section if there were aspects of the building condition that were not known by the appointed competent person x over as they stated at the time then presumably the responsible person
02:29:39 presumably the responsible person kctmo did not have access to that information either now on what basis have you presumed there that the responsible person wouldn't have access to that
02:29:50 person wouldn't have access to that information either i think what i was trying to say there is
02:29:58 if the tmo were relying on xover to produce an existing building strategy
02:30:08 it's reasonable to expect that the condition of the you know let's say the basic active and pacifier protection features would have been considered by them so if they don't communicate that in
02:30:21 so if they don't communicate that in that report it means the the tmo or the responsible person
02:30:25 person well um
02:30:29 well um won't have the benefit of that information yeah now um turning to a different sub-topic another
02:30:37 another inadequacy that you've set out at this time at paragraph 5.7.1 e on page 157 if we can pull that up actually i think i better just say
02:30:48 actually i think i better just say another thing there just moving quite quickly
02:30:50 quickly sorry um i i was also trying to make the point that i would expect the tmo to also give any other information they had
02:31:03 other information they had to the fire engineer appointed by them to do the existing building condition yeah okay so they have an important role in being open and honest with the fire
02:31:15 in being open and honest with the fire safety engineer who's going to carry out that work for them yeah so it's two specific things yeah yeah yeah so at 5.7.1 e on page 157 you've said that xover's
02:31:27 on page 157 you've said that xover's report doesn't identify the relevant guidance used as a benchmark for x over's assessment and and i just want to look at a couple of examples where you've
02:31:35 you've um highlighted that
02:31:40 now if we go um on look at page 127 again into your table
02:31:50 and when you're dealing with um section 3.2.1
02:31:55 3.2.1 so on the left-hand side sorry we could start on the left-hand side and we can see miss cooney's draft report and it's got 3.2.1 levels one and two
02:32:10 3.2.1 levels one and two and she says it's unknown whether the community areas and nursery are some supported by or something are covered by covered by an automatic fire detection system or a manual system
02:32:23 fire detection system or a manual system this provision of afd would not necessarily have been required at the time of construction
02:32:31 and then it says indeed today it then says a manual system may be the minimum level required by the regulatory guidance
02:32:40 guidance do you see that there as the travel distances to the closest story final exit from the building would comply with current permitted travel distances so she's made an
02:32:51 travel distances so she's made an assertion about compliance there yeah and then if we go to the right hand side
02:32:56 side of your table i think five lines down five paragraphs down so it's just below the middle of that page there's a paragraph beginning the x over fire
02:33:07 paragraph beginning the x over fire strategy does not and it says does not identify which regulatory guidance is being referred in this section yeah further the language used in the statement indeed today a manual system
02:33:18 statement indeed today a manual system may be the minimum level required does not give a clear direction to the tmo as to the requirements for detection and alarm you see that there yeah now this is just an example and
02:33:29 yeah now this is just an example and there are other examples you've given in this long
02:33:31 this long table of where you would expect to see it actually stated what the regulatory guidance is that they're drawing from now can you help us as to why you think
02:33:42 now can you help us as to why you think it was important that that regulatory guidance was highlighted by x over in their report so i would expect them to explain what they had seen installed or not in
02:33:56 what they had seen installed or not in those rooms any requirements from the the you know the
02:34:02 the at from the time the building was constructed and if they thought what was installed in the building at that time remained appropriate yeah
02:34:16 remained appropriate yeah because those rooms before the refurbishment
02:34:24 were part of a single stair building in a residential building and typically you don't share stairs for example yeah we're going to come on to that point yeah um but going back to the point
02:34:36 yeah um but going back to the point about it's not identifying which regulatory guidance is used and the point i want to put to you is we know that these reports are going to be used
02:34:46 be used principally by the architect to help its its design guidance um would you expect architects to be able to read and understand adb for themselves or something like adb for themselves
02:34:58 or something like adb for themselves why do you need to spell out if your ex over
02:35:01 over what the regulatory guidance is how do you know she's referring to the adb there
02:35:08 that that's my problem yeah okay so i i i don't know i can speculate i don't know would i would i should an architect be able to interpret
02:35:20 should an architect be able to interpret that english precisely i i don't know that any person can interpret that without considerable personal
02:35:27 personal inference and i i i just don't i don't agree that that's an appropriate way to communicate i genuinely don't know what document
02:35:38 i genuinely don't know what document she's referring to what it says in there and what i need to now do architect or not
02:35:45 not i should be able to
02:35:49 understand that from a report i see so what you're saying is it should be crystal clear on the face of the report exactly what guidance she's referring to in
02:35:58 in in each part of the report i i think so and then even even if one doesn't list out everything the reader can go to the original source and even read it for themselves then
02:36:10 and even read it for themselves then yeah okay so you don't think it's reasonable to say well
02:36:15 well we know that architects are going to be one of the end users of this report we can rely on architects to know what the regulatory regime is and and to know for themselves
02:36:27 regime is and and to know for themselves which bits i'm referring to absolutely not
02:36:33 now just a small point then on um this part um we can see there that um
02:36:46 you're critical in the next part um so in that same paragraph you've made the point about not identifying regulatory guidance in the first sentence and then you say further the
02:36:58 sentence and then you say further the language used in the statement indeed today a manual system may be the minimum level required you say it doesn't give a clear direction to the tmo
02:37:09 direction to the tmo as to the requirements for detection and alarm on levels one to two it's unclear if a manual alarm system is the minimum permitted version now the point i'm asked to put to you is was a manual alarm system in fact the minimum permitted level of
02:37:21 in fact the minimum permitted level of alarm and detection at the time at this time yes i think i wrote that of bars yeah yeah it is in strictly speaking but if i was giving advice
02:37:35 but if i was giving advice back then i now have to contemplate the fact that this is a high rise residential building with other uses sharing a stair and i would feel obliged to risk assess
02:37:47 and i would feel obliged to risk assess that and maybe give other guidance yeah i see why do you say it was important that she gave clear direction about that rather than using the word may
02:38:00 than using the word may because honestly reading it here and now with you
02:38:04 with you i i don't actually know what she means right
02:38:07 right okay now omissions i want to um deal with that topic now you've highlighted a number of omissions in the existing fire safety strategy and i want to take you to some examples
02:38:19 and i want to take you to some examples of points where you say that items were missing
02:38:21 missing if we can start at page one two four of your report
02:38:30 actually no i think that's actually one so try one two nine
02:38:38 yes and i want to look this time at the box at 3.3.2 on the left hand side miss cooney has described existing arrangements from means of escape from levels
02:38:50 means of escape from levels one to two so i'm not going to read it all out
02:38:53 all out that's what she's done in those paragraphs and um at section 10 of your table on the right hand side if we then now
02:39:04 we then now skip to the right in the final paragraph of that box you've said um of box 10 you've said the existing
02:39:15 um of box 10 you've said the existing fire safety strategy does not identify if the means of escape provisions are suitable to satisfy the requirement of article 14 of the 2005 order therefore this section does not assist the responsible person
02:39:27 not assist the responsible person insofar as no practical guidance is provided
02:39:30 provided now can you just help us as to what more you think ms cooney should have done and said about the rro specifically in that instance well it's more that i would like to have
02:39:41 well it's more that i would like to have read her professional opinion that it it was sufficient or not for means of escape from the existing building
02:39:50 building yeah and then relate that on so um i i don't mean listing out you know text from the rro it's more
02:40:02 you know text from the rro it's more are her observations or are is her text it's gone again um let's go back to her text yeah on the left-hand side 3.3.2 in box 10. yeah
02:40:15 she's describing the escape uh in in yeah first paragraph then she's talking about the boxing club's capacity so then she's saying there's an open void and then at the end of that escape
02:40:26 void and then at the end of that escape can be made away from the void yeah without having to pass within 4.5 meters of the opening i mean i i think i would expect then some professional statement saying and this is sufficient because or
02:40:40 and this is sufficient because or um we you know it's acceptable to leave it
02:40:44 it this way or just some concluding remark so it's clear there isn't any other action
02:40:51 action or any other fire safety measure required
02:40:55 required do you think there might have been reason to believe that the existing arrangements weren't satisfactory for the purpose of the rro at the boxing club in the boxing club that's not something i've learned at that level okay
02:41:06 that level okay yeah no i haven't thought about it that i understand deeply then if we look at paragraph three sorry i probably should say yeah so i i think so you you can't look at just one particular thing and make a big
02:41:19 one particular thing and make a big conclusion about the rro yeah okay in grenfell tower at that time the smoke control system was not operating as it should it was a high-rise residential building
02:41:31 it was a high-rise residential building with with a mixed use the fire doors we've talked about a lot in phase one there was all sorts of complexity
02:41:42 there was all sorts of complexity that needed to be considered when producing the existing fire strategy yeah it's not fair for me here to just point at this one
02:41:53 for me here to just point at this one particular sentence no i understand um if we look below this at paragraph on that same page right there we can see but box 11 below is internal layouts level four
02:42:05 is internal layouts level four and um she deals with that uh issue in the paragraphs there if we could go down the page so we can see the whole of that box
02:42:17 so we can see the whole of that box yes so
02:42:21 yes so level four contains the office accommodation no access to the stair or lift in the central core assumed that afd is present in the entrance lobby and then in the second paragraph if the
02:42:32 in the second paragraph if the accommodation communicates with the firefighting shaft lifts then the core in this area should be protected to two hours and one hour fire doors single escape route from the building the exit should be lobbied to provide a
02:42:43 the exit should be lobbied to provide a minimum of 30 minutes fire existing construction and no combustible materials so she's discussing level four and the requirements there and then she says in the in relation to travel distances in the last paragraph
02:42:56 travel distances in the last paragraph she says travel distances as the layout offers escape in more than one direction back to the entrance lobby provided the lobby is adequately protected this would be satisfactory
02:43:07 satisfactory and then if we go across the page um to look in section 11 of your table where you're addressing this
02:43:17 in the third paragraph down within that box you say x over do not identify if the escape arrangements comply with adb 2010 they simply describe the arrangement without providing specifics such as existing travel distances
02:43:30 such as existing travel distances do you see that there yeah yeah now the point i'm asked to put to you is would the travel distances have been apparent from the drawings so would someone have been able to work out based on the drawings what the
02:43:41 out based on the drawings what the travel distances were do you mean that kay cooney could work it out or the reader of the report i think the reader of the would now take out drawings in a ruler and mark it for themselves yeah i i i i think
02:43:53 i i i i think i i would expect the drawings to have been marked up to um
02:44:01 support the point being made which is kind of some kind of narrative i think around the approved document b rather than an explanation of her views
02:44:12 rather than an explanation of her views on the existing building i see so personally i think that um it should not be down to the reader of the report because that could be all different types of people with different
02:44:23 different types of people with different types of competency that they would now need to take out drawings and do the work themselves again
02:44:29 again no i don't think that's reasonable okay is her conclusion though she says it's subject to adequate lobby ventilation with the ability to escape in multiple directions the travel distance are
02:44:41 directions the travel distance are acceptable were those conclusions a legitimate one for her to have reached
02:44:50 in the context of that one paragraph of the report i i have to keep saying what i'm saying all along is i can't say that one particular sentence
02:45:01 i can't say that one particular sentence is adequate when i've explained what the conditions of grandfather were at that time right okay and if we can just go over the page to see
02:45:13 the page to see what else you say over the page at page 130
02:45:18 you say at the end of that box you say to summarize section 3.3.3 of that existing strategy does not confirm the existing fire safety provisions or what additional measures should be
02:45:30 what additional measures should be provided to allow the responsible person to fulfill their duties under the rro do you see that there yeah can you just tell us why was that information for the responsible person under the rro why was that so important
02:45:41 under the rro why was that so important to be recorded in the existing strategy because they said and their scope of work that's what they were going to do right i see yeah
02:45:51 now if we can now look at page 336 of your report and look at paragraphs 14 1 22-24
02:46:04 so right at the bottom of that page you say here the second major failing with the existing building fire strategy was that it failed to communicate to the tmo what actions they were required to
02:46:15 tmo what actions they were required to take
02:46:16 take as a result of the existing building condition at that time as they were required to under the rra 2005. existing conditions such as the status of the lifts in event of fire the condition of the flat entrance and
02:46:28 the condition of the flat entrance and stair fire doors in the absence of an active lobby smoke control system particularly required tmo's attention and even required mitigation measures from them at that time
02:46:38 time yeah these matters were not dealt with in the existing fire strategy works now i i think you've actually addressed in your
02:46:45 in your evidence running up to this point all of those matters you've talked about the lift yeah the flat entrance doors and the smoke control system yeah so just to be clear those are all matters that
02:46:56 matters that one should have been flagged you say in the report yes um and and then do you actually think it would have been necessary for the tma to take action on the basis of of that if that had been flagged yeah so
02:47:08 of that if that had been flagged yeah so so
02:47:09 so so now we go into the strategy duty to carry out a risk assessment and if you have a high-rise residential building with the stay put strategy
02:47:21 building with the stay put strategy and let's even just say as a minimum fire doors to the lobby unknown lift you know lift to the lobby unknown smoke control system not working
02:47:34 smoke control system not working okay when you're assessing the those hazards to the people living in the building they require a careful assessment and a decision on
02:47:45 decision on is it appropriate to stick with the staple strategy is there something else could be done day to day to mitigate the the risk those
02:47:58 lack of performances are causing yeah that's the whole purpose of the statutory fire risk assessment process yeah okay now if we can now look at page 147
02:48:10 okay now if we can now look at page 147 of your report paragraph 5.4.34
02:48:19 and this i now want to turn to a different subtopic which is the fire risk assessment i know we've touched on this already um in general terms but um you say in 5.3.34 the fire risk
02:48:32 you say in 5.3.34 the fire risk assessment provided to x over from the tmo
02:48:34 tmo dated december 2010 did not include the following areas and you've listed out a number of areas that it didn't include and then you say i've seen no evidence of x over requesting the fire risk
02:48:45 of x over requesting the fire risk assessments for non-residential areas which were excluded from the risk assessment yeah and then in the next paragraph as grenfell tower was a single staircase development with that stairs shared by all uses this
02:48:58 with that stairs shared by all uses this was a piece of significant information they required before forming a final opinion yeah um and then on paragraph five four three seven you say further the statutory risk
02:49:09 seven you say further the statutory risk assessment document provided to xavier by tmo
02:49:13 by tmo didn't include the significant findings and action plan an important outcome of that risk assessment process now just pausing there on that can you just help us as to
02:49:25 just help us as to precisely why the significant findings and action plan from a fire risk assessment would be so
02:49:31 be so um important for the drafter of the existing fire strategy to be aware of because that's where you should get to read
02:49:40 read you know if there's a problem it will be fixed in three months you know three years we can't fix it so instead we're going
02:49:51 we can't fix it so instead we're going to do the following 24 hours a day something like that and that impacts the your assessment of risk when concluding on the overall condition
02:50:04 when concluding on the overall condition of the existing building i don't know why that really important piece of information was not sent to xova because it should have been
02:50:16 have been right yeah and then if we can look at uh paragraph 5.4.39 on page 147
02:50:30 you say xover did not identify within their existing building strategy any of the shortcomings or assumptions made within the 2010 fire risk assessment i've found no evidence of x over
02:50:41 i've found no evidence of x over receiving the significant findings associated with it nor asking for them and then in the next paragraph xavier do not outline the steps they've taken to independently satisfy themselves that the content of
02:50:52 satisfy themselves that the content of the risk assessment was based on an accurate assessment of the condition of grenfell tower i would expect this activity from a competent fire safety engineer yeah now pausing there can you just help
02:51:03 yeah now pausing there can you just help us
02:51:04 us exactly why do you think xover shouldn't have simply taken at face value the fire risk assessment why do you think it was reasonable to go further
02:51:14 further and obtain the missing information or do the independent verification themselves okay so there's lots of questions in that one question sorry and um actually i have my notebook so let's
02:51:25 um actually i have my notebook so let's break it down why do you think they shouldn't have simply taken the fire risk assessment okay
02:51:29 okay face value yes so the whole point so just kind of repeating what i've said a few times already so when you do the site survey when you review the
02:51:41 the site survey when you review the plans
02:51:42 plans when you've reviewed records of how things are being maintained you may realize something that the responsible person is either
02:51:53 that the responsible person is either not aware of or does not think is important so the existing
02:51:58 existing fire strategy i see it as a very important
02:52:01 important it's almost like an independent audit at the time of the existing building and so if you compare your work with the the work of the fire risk assessor and you observed any
02:52:12 assessor and you observed any differences in opinion or approach of what's in the building
02:52:17 building again i it would be very important that you would raise that yeah what was the other two parts so do you think it was reasonable to go further and obtain any missing information themselves
02:52:30 any missing information themselves on the significant action yes or or indeed if the fire risk assessment on its face has missing information like you said you hadn't got a fire risk assessment for the boxing
02:52:42 assessment for the boxing club oh yes or other yes parts of the tower would you have thought it was reasonable forex over
02:52:48 over to ask for that further information yes i would because you can't give a robust professional opinion until you have that information and if
02:53:00 until you have that information and if you never
02:53:01 you never get it you have to qualify your professional opinion yeah it's the you know
02:53:08 you know quite frankly the scary aspect of being a fire safety engineer in your experience would it ever be reasonable to assume that a fire risk
02:53:19 reasonable to assume that a fire risk assessment had been carried out properly previously is it reasonable sorry i actually in your experience would it ever be reasonable to simply assume that you've got a
02:53:30 to simply assume that you've got a proper fire risk assessment that's been carried out properly one is hopeful when one gets any
02:53:41 one is hopeful when one gets any document
02:53:43 document but when you've done your own work if you observe differences or discrepancies you have to raise them yeah and in your experience have you come across that situation where you've been
02:53:54 across that situation where you've been presented with a far risk assessment and you've found that when you've done the analysis there's things in it that you have
02:54:01 you have uh yes we have to raise yes i have and and we have yes and vice versa a fire risk assessor may review an existing fire strategy and say
02:54:14 an existing fire strategy and say actually i have also observed something that you have missed i see it as i don't want to sound as if it's only ex-over it's it's on both sides yeah now
02:54:27 it's on both sides yeah now if we go to page 149 of your report now at table 5.15 here what you've done is you've um in a a table you've list line by line each
02:54:38 a table you've list line by line each provision of approved document b that was applicable to the tower and then you've highlighted in reds that the ones you say weren't addressed in the existing building fire safety strategy and we can see
02:54:49 strategy and we can see you've done that same exercise in relation to a num number of the other pieces of work that xover produced including the refurbishment fire strategies yeah that's right isn't it can i just
02:55:00 yeah that's right isn't it can i just ask you about your methodology here can you just explain why you thought this exercise would be helpful to do it this way i'm just conscious that
02:55:10 that i suppose i feel very self-conscious that i'm very familiar with all of these things
02:55:16 things and i i thought that if i you know if we try to compare the work
02:55:23 work back to the standard number of headings to try and give some kind of quantum to support some of the concerns i've raised
02:55:33 raised i think i was trying to be transparent and just be a little bit clearer yeah instead of just giving lots of you know opinions yeah i understand it's got no
02:55:44 got no further significance can i just be clear though is it your view that all of those points ought to have been addressed or are you using it as a simple tool to show how much was missing i'm using it as a simple tool to show
02:55:57 i'm using it as a simple tool to show what's missing and when one isn't going to incorporate a recommendation or one doesn't think a recommendation is relevant sometimes it can also be very important
02:56:09 sometimes it can also be very important to make clear why
02:56:18 and we can see that you have excluded some sections you've got not applicable like b3 section 11. yeah but are you saying that all of the others would be relevant in principle
02:56:30 others would be relevant in principle in principle they should be considered yeah
02:56:34 yeah mr chairman um the next topic that i want to deal with it's not that long but it's going to be more than just three minutes so more sensible to stop at this point good break at this point yes yes well we're gonna have a break now so we
02:56:46 well we're gonna have a break now so we can all get some lunch talking uh we'll come back at two o'clock please okay and uh once again please don't discuss your evidence with anyone outside thank you thank you very much
02:57:01 [Applause] good to go please thank you [Applause]
02:57:52 you