Dr Barbara Lane, fire safety engineer expert, provides critical analysis of fire safety engineering failures in the Grenfell Tower refurbishment.
00:00:10 yes would you ask dr lane to come back in please
00:00:24 [Applause]
00:00:28 all right all ready to carry on yeah i've brought my glasses on oh these will make a lot of difference good yes it's great great thank you yes i just have a few more questions to ask you relevant to the existing fire safety
00:00:40 you relevant to the existing fire safety strategy and then we're going to move on to the refurbishment xover did can we bring up now exo401279
00:00:54 now if you recall this is an email that you referred to in your report it's from kate cooney to andrew martin on the 17th of august 2012.
00:01:03 2012. and this is an email that we looked at in detail when ms cooney came gave evidence um and it's where uh she says towards the end
00:01:14 end um they're making an existing crap condition worse so it's a matter of working the worst bits out and making the new stuff work do you recall that yes and you've read that email before yes and if we go to paragraph
00:01:27 yes and if we go to paragraph um
00:01:31 4.9.3 on page 113 of your report you refer to that email
00:01:39 they're at 4.9.3 and then if we go on um within page um sorry at page 337 of your report into
00:01:50 um sorry at page 337 of your report into a further section at 14.1.330.
00:01:56 you are referring to that email again and you say there's no justification for making an existing crap condition worse now given the the strong language employed by xover
00:02:07 employed by xover internally about how they saw the nature of the building in in your opinion do you think it was incumbent
00:02:15 incumbent on them to warn their client and the tmo and the design team that the plans for the refurbishment were likely to make the existing condition worse yes i do
00:02:30 now if we go to page um sorry sticking with that page if we can look early at 14.1.26
00:02:43 you say that you say the email seems to reflect a culture regarding the fire safety engineering standards of the x over team
00:02:50 over team and then at 14.1.27 you say i must stress this is not unique this email reflects a culture and behavior i have experienced and observed elsewhere in the construction industry
00:03:01 elsewhere in the construction industry through my own professional work now just briefly can you just explain to us what you mean there by that's a culture that you've experienced more generally in the industry
00:03:12 generally in the industry what do you mean by that
00:03:21 so i think for for me fire safety engineering is about protecting people yeah it's a massive responsibility and i used the word scary earlier and i i mean
00:03:33 used the word scary earlier and i i mean that most sincerely and it's a massive responsibility but when you forget that and you get caught up in the game of
00:03:44 up in the game of you know making things work getting things through you forget about your primary responsibility which is protecting people
00:03:53 people and that has been a problem in the construction industry based on my own experience and i don't just mean
00:04:04 experience and i don't just mean regarding fire safety engineering professionals i want to make that clear because you know fire safety engineering professionals we are one role player in a whole scheme
00:04:16 one role player in a whole scheme of people who have duties um to make things to build things ultimately to build things
00:04:26 things properly and you know so they're you can even say fit for purpose and so the buildings can be operated safely
00:04:35 safely and the only reason for doing that is to protect
00:04:38 protect people in the event of a fire and there are people in the building and the firefighters yeah okay and that ties back to all these other things i've been saying earlier about the definition of fire safety engineering
00:04:50 safety engineering and getting confused about methodologies you know so whether you use a prescriptive methodology or a performance-based methodology whether you're writing an existing fire
00:05:01 whether you're writing an existing fire strategy or a detailed fire strategy the ultimate purpose is to protect human beings
00:05:07 beings yeah okay thank you but um on the back of that would you accept that it is at least a part of a fire consultant's role
00:05:18 fire consultant's role to identify the bits of a proposal that would make the compliance position worse and work out ways to address them i think that is our job yeah now um you refer
00:05:30 yeah now um you refer earlier in your report on page 112 to paragraph
00:05:34 paragraph paragraph 4.9.2 you refer to a separate email
00:05:39 email that miss cooney sent to mr ashton on the 10th of september 2012. yep
00:05:46 2012. yep um and i think if we go over the page so you say i know that there was some crossover sorry no go back to that you said i know there was some crossover between the
00:05:58 there was some crossover between the teams miss cooney provided commentary back to other x over staff on two occasions
00:06:02 occasions presented below regarding the condition of the existing building and therefore the
00:06:05 the how the refurbishments may affect fire safety in the building and then if we go over the page um yeah i think we see it at 4.9.5 right at the bottom of that page
00:06:17 at the bottom of that page reference to the 10th of september email that she sent to mr ashton so we can see you've you've taken that into account in your report yeah can i just take you to that
00:06:28 report yeah can i just take you to that email exo
00:06:32 5038 now this is her email to terry ashton she's it's on the 10th of september 2012 and she's setting out her thoughts on
00:06:44 and she's setting out her thoughts on the possible solution to grenfell tower general fire line markup attached to clarify below and then there's a number of headings and i'm not going to take you through the detail of it but would you accept that what miss
00:06:56 but would you accept that what miss cuny's doing here is identifying the worst bits in the proposals and trying to find ways in which they could be worked out
00:07:10 well i don't know why i don't know the technical reasons kay cooney had for saying the refurbishment was going
00:07:21 for saying the refurbishment was going to make things worse right i i i don't know that i've read i hope i haven't missed some correspondence but i haven't read where she wrote down why she said that
00:07:35 where she wrote down why she said that i see okay okay so i just want because i feel
00:07:38 feel the need to just be very precise because in an inquiry so i don't know that this list she's sending terry is um emanates from things
00:07:50 um emanates from things she saw in the primary refurbishment that was making the situation worse i think okay okay but perhaps i can just ask in giving the opinions in your uh report you have taken into account this
00:08:02 report you have taken into account this correspondence you've seen this email before
00:08:04 before i've seen this email yeah okay but i don't know that this is a list of the things that kay cooney thought made meant the primary refurbishment was making things worse yeah
00:08:15 making things worse yeah i actually don't understand that point at all okay i understand okay so i have read this email and i see it as her giving some advice to terry ashton yeah i don't
00:08:26 some advice to terry ashton yeah i don't know what prompted her to give him that advice
00:08:29 advice yeah and i don't know how it relates to her opinion that the primary refurbishment is going to make things worse yeah i understand okay now just on the existing fire
00:08:40 okay now just on the existing fire safety strategy your conclusions are set out at section 5.7 of your report if we go back to that page one five seven and one five eight
00:08:52 and um i showed you these before and if we can go to the next page um 5.7.2 at the bottom you said it's inadequate for any relevant purpose
00:09:03 inadequate for any relevant purpose yeah and then i think over the page were the other conclusions that i showed you earlier and i just want to check with you have any of those conclusions changed as a result of the oral evidence
00:09:14 changed as a result of the oral evidence you've heard from the ex over witnesses and particularly kate cooney and dr claire barker
00:09:19 barker no no okay the refurbishment work now yeah i want to discuss that with you but before we get to the detail of that i want to just ask you some questions about the riba stages of work yeah now if we look at
00:09:32 stages of work yeah now if we look at page
00:09:33 page 336 of your report
00:09:38 and i want to look at paragraph 14.1.16 you say this you say the significant milestone documents any practicing engineer
00:09:48 engineer fire engineer relies upon as a matter of course such as the stage c d e reports by the architect and mechanical electrical what's mep stand for yeah mechanical and
00:10:01 what's mep stand for yeah mechanical and electrical and plumbing plumbing engineer
00:10:03 engineer were available to them in the exact same way as they were for every other member of the design team yet i found no evidence those documents were ever considered now we're going to come back to this
00:10:16 now we're going to come back to this paragraph of your report later but sticking with the first words you use there about them being significant milestone documents can you explain why you say that yeah so when you're
00:10:29 yeah so when you're working to the reba stages which happened at the primary refurbishment um at the end of each stage the design team
00:10:38 team produces you can really call it a record of what's occurred and what's been done in that stage the the fire safety engineer has a very important role before
00:10:52 has a very important role before those reports are issued because of the coordination exercise that's needed yeah the updating of the strategy and so the final version of each one of those milestone reports so there's
00:11:04 those milestone reports so there's twoing and throwing so that at the end of the stage the architects report the mep engineers report and the fire safety
00:11:15 engineers report and the fire safety strategy
00:11:16 strategy are aligned and coordinated so our strategy reports
00:11:24 have to follow that process and also if you haven't had the opportunity to participate in them which you should have you must have read
00:11:35 which you should have you must have read them
00:11:36 them before you enter the next stage for example if i was appointed during stage d
00:11:41 d which would might happen i would ask to read the stage c report in full so i could understand the thinking
00:11:49 thinking of the professional design team yeah i understand in your view would any reasonably competent fire engineer know that these were significant milestone documents which were important for them to read
00:12:01 which were important for them to read on any project they were involved with yes
00:12:05 yes and are those reports sometimes long
00:12:09 are they sometimes lengthy documents the milestone reports yeah the stage the riba say the stage c report or the stage are they sometimes long yes if long
00:12:21 are they sometimes long yes if long would you still expect a fire engineer to ask for and read those reports yes and read the entirety of them yes i would i yeah yes i do now if we go to page 40 of your report
00:12:34 now if we go to page 40 of your report table 3.1
00:12:39 table 3.1 what you've done here and this is an early in an early section of your report is you have um you fit various parties and the work that they did into the different riba stages yes their appointment status
00:12:54 stages yes their appointment status yes i see you know if my understanding of their appointment status in each stage for those different stages yeah i understand is it fair to say that
00:13:05 yeah i understand is it fair to say that the rib is riba stages aren't in practice always strictly separate stages in practice
00:13:16 do you mean c runs into d without a formal moment or c and d run in parallel yes both could that happen and projects i mean i've worked i've
00:13:27 and projects i mean i've worked i've worked on projects where they come in very quick succession yeah um but is it your evidence that they're always or commonly are distinct stages of the project there
00:13:38 are distinct stages of the project there there is
00:13:39 there is generally an under an understanding in the design team that that we are in a distinct stage yes yeah yeah
00:13:49 yeah and and do you agree that in the design and build arrangement the stage at which a design and build contractor might vary from possibly quite early maybe at stage d or possibly much later
00:14:01 d or possibly much later stage perhaps stage f yeah there's no set rule
00:14:07 which of the stages
00:14:10 yeah contractor may be appointed yeah and i think you yourself and your report acknowledge that um sometimes contractors commence on site as early as stage d
00:14:19 stage d albeit not not in the case of grand prix they may do yeah for the for the transcript that's page 34 paragraph 326 of your report um could it be said that the riba
00:14:31 report um could it be said that the riba stages are just a framework and that what's more important in reviewing any project
00:14:36 project is the substance of who was communicating with whom and when i i don't i genuinely don't understand that question i think um
00:14:47 going back to this table in your report can you explain why it's helpful to divide the work into the rib i stages this part of your in this part of your report
00:14:59 why is it helpful um
00:15:06 i was just trying to be clear about people's appointment status yeah and um
00:15:17 yeah sorry i'm just struggling to i don't really understand i was just trying to be clear about the stages particularly ryden were were around on the project yeah
00:15:30 were were around on the project yeah and um my understanding of xova's appointment status particularly yeah
00:15:36 yeah and i was also trying to show um and i think it's relevant to some of the evidence from ixova that not every party was novated to
00:15:50 that not every party was novated to the principal contractor yeah yeah now in terms of the scope of work for the
00:15:56 for the um the grenfell project uh we know it was set by reference to those riba stages of work is that a common way of setting the fire engineers scope of work yeah do it by reference to those riba
00:16:08 yeah do it by reference to those riba stages if it's a if it's a reba project yes yes it's very common yeah yeah now um are we moving away from the table at 3
00:16:19 are we moving away from the table at 3 313
00:16:20 313 yes i was about to can i just ask a question about that yeah um we can see from your table uh what i think we probably
00:16:30 probably knew anyway that x over were acting for one to contract the tmo throughout this period in my opinion yes
00:16:42 throughout this period in my opinion yes the tmo sorry um some of the witnesses from the tmo gave evidence which might suggest that they weren't aware of that uh have you looked at the well the
00:16:53 uh have you looked at the well the communications between x over and the tmo yeah and if so do you have any comment about them yeah i heard i heard some of that evidence and i
00:17:05 some of that evidence and i produced a table in my october version of the report which hopefully we might get to about who the invoices from exova
00:17:16 about who the invoices from exova were sent to at the tmo and you you might like to look at the names of those persons and i would hope that if one was receiving an invoice
00:17:27 receiving an invoice and approving it for payment one might understand that one had i i'm sorry one might understand that one how to fire a safety engineering company
00:17:39 engineering company and the second piece of information there
00:17:44 there in my ex-over report you will see that the kctmo
00:17:47 the kctmo appointed xova on other projects on their estate so i will leave that with you
00:17:55 with you well i just wondered whether you found it surprising or unsurprising uh that the correspondence between tmo and xover does not seem to have been
00:18:07 tmo and xover does not seem to have been either fuller or
00:18:12 more designed to make the tmo clear about exactly what the relationship was there is correspondence between
00:18:26 there is correspondence between paul dunkerton and claire williams with staff
00:18:29 staff at xova and there is correspondence from janice ray to staff at exova that's what i see all right thank you
00:18:42 that's what i see all right thank you yes that's helpful yeah um we will come back to that uh invoices table later okay um
00:18:51 okay um if we can look at page 46 of your report at paragraph 3.5.12
00:19:02 and this is with reference to the fire industry association guide so when you've assessed the adequacy of the scope of works that were proposed by x over you've benchmarked it against the fire industry
00:19:14 benchmarked it against the fire industry association guide is that correct yes yes and you you've said there that the key point from each of these stages is that at each stage the fire strategy report is expected to be updated
00:19:26 report is expected to be updated in line with the design information that's current at each stage yes so that's one of the key points we get from that um and if we could just look at that
00:19:37 and if we could just look at that fire industry association guide if we go to paragraph 3.5.9 on page 44
00:19:49 there you set out for reba's stage riba stage
00:19:53 stage c now known as stage two what uh the fia guide says about what should be undertaken at that stage and i just want to focus on the second
00:20:04 and i just want to focus on the second paragraph there it talks about liaising with the client and design team attend design team meetings etc on a basis to be agreed specific to the project requirements
00:20:15 project requirements and we see similar language about stage d
00:20:19 d in terms of responding to the design documentation and reviewing that yeah now in the light of that it's clearly a two-way process isn't it
00:20:30 it's clearly a two-way process isn't it as between the design team and the fire engineers
00:20:32 engineers in terms of how the work's progressed um can you confirm whether in practice it's normal that the party leading the design team
00:20:41 team so the lead designer is the one that leads in designing how much liaison there is between with the various consultants and when and in what form
00:20:55 you that may be a limit set upon you as a fire safety engineer but where that's not sufficient um i would always make it clear so so for
00:21:08 i would always make it clear so so for example
00:21:09 example if the lead designer said we want to meet you once in stage c yeah and i had assessed their objectives on the project i might say
00:21:20 say i'm afraid i'm concerned that meeting once isn't enough for this project and we would prefer to have three formal meetings or two formal meetings so again depending on the project
00:21:34 so again depending on the project there may be limits set or there may be a more
00:21:37 a more open quantity of access proposed and the fire safety engineer has to take care
00:21:45 care that it will be sufficient for their own purposes yeah is it also right that the party leading the design team would be in quotes in the driving seat when it comes
00:21:56 quotes in the driving seat when it comes to information being disseminated to the team they they will be in in the driving seat but a competent fire safety engineer where they need
00:22:08 fire safety engineer where they need other information or information at a different time it's important to to ask and to check if that information isn't forthcoming yeah yeah now um if we just pull up just
00:22:21 yeah yeah now um if we just pull up just so we can
00:22:22 so we can remind ourselves of it that the fee proposal for the refurbishment work exo five zeroes one six four
00:22:35 so here we can see it's dated the 9th of may
00:22:38 may 2012.
00:22:40 2012. [Music]
00:22:41 [Music] and you have carefully analyzed that proposal having you in your report now um just looking at the a number of things
00:22:52 just looking at the a number of things you've said about this fee proposal if we could look at page 73 of your report paragraph 4.3.113
00:23:00 4.3.113 on page 73 you say there that the fee proposal sets out the expectation from x over that they would be carrying out their work once on an agreed set of building
00:23:12 work once on an agreed set of building layouts
00:23:13 layouts and you say this is not realistic in the design development phase when layouts change regularly yeah so um just to be clear
00:23:21 clear did you find that surprising in a fee proposal for work of this scale that it said it would be based on one review of an agreed set of building layouts yeah it's surprising
00:23:33 layouts yeah it's surprising but it it it isn't unusual if someone is haggling with you about your fee
00:23:41 your fee okay so you might write a feed proposal and say you want to review the plans formally
00:23:46 formally three or four times and a client may say i'm not prepared to pay for that yeah where you have this you know this opportunity to write your
00:23:58 you know this opportunity to write your own fee proposal and own scope i would expect fire safety engineers to take the opportunity to maybe suggest more than one plan's
00:24:10 to maybe suggest more than one plan's review in a stage i see but isn't it possible that there'd be
00:24:15 be layout changes in the future which might involve significant wasted effort if the fire engineer is reviewing each change of layout or would you expect that to be part of
00:24:26 or would you expect that to be part of the role
00:24:27 the role doing each change of layout well where if there's you know any substantial change in layout impacts the fire safety
00:24:39 change in layout impacts the fire safety design and it requires attention you might agree to do a review for example in early stage c and then a few weeks before the architect wants to submit their report
00:24:51 architect wants to submit their report agreed to do another very detailed check towards the end yeah okay other other people might like you to follow them every step of the way but certainly at the start and
00:25:03 but certainly at the start and you know before the stage c drawings are finalized a detailed review is needed yeah i see now stage c of the fee proposal you're critical of x
00:25:15 of the fee proposal you're critical of x over's scope of work for our iba stage c and if we can look at page
00:25:21 page 64 and what you say from 4.3.58 and following
00:25:30 so you've compared it with the fire industry association guide um and you say um there in the first line it doesn't address some important items and i want to pick up what you say next you say and in particular x
00:25:42 next you say and in particular x overscope fails to address the most important
00:25:46 important life safety duty which was to identify the relevant statutory controls yeah this is a serious omission from the scope of works and you say instead their focus was on
00:25:57 and you say instead their focus was on items that would bring cost impact to the project or would affect a future application under the building regulations 2010. yeah and then you say neither of these are clear about life safety goals but appear instead
00:26:08 instead to be relevant to commercial consequences for their client only so so that's what you said there and you also conclude uh paragraphs three point
00:26:19 three point four three six two so below then that quote
00:26:23 quote and following you say that there was the scope also doesn't identify a compliance check of the design at stage c that's correct isn't it yep
00:26:36 and um you say at 4.3.65 if we go um at the bottom of that page you say it's therefore reasonable for me to conclude that life safety was not communicated effectively
00:26:48 communicated effectively as the primary consideration within the scope of workforce stage c you see that there yeah now i just want to take you back to certain parts of the fee proposal if we go to
00:26:59 fee proposal if we go to page two of it so this exo-50164 page two
00:27:08 at the at the top of that page on page two so just before you get to riba stage c in the second paragraph under proposed scope of work it says that the aim of the fire safety work
00:27:19 that the aim of the fire safety work would be to ensure a high standard of fire and life safety for the occupants of the building whilst highlighting any areas of the building's design
00:27:27 design that may represent an approvals risk do you see that there yeah and and then reading on in that paragraph it then says additionally we will recommend ways
00:27:38 says additionally we will recommend ways to resolve these issues to ensure that the fire and life safety objectives are achieved in the most cost-effective way possible and make sure that the fire strategy does not compromise the architectural concept for the design
00:27:52 now i also want to show you another passage from this fee proposal letter if we look on page three in the final paragraph under stage f
00:28:05 if we could look there yes thank you there it says it should be noted that the paramount objective of the building regulations is the life safety of persons within and around the building
00:28:16 persons within and around the building during a fire and any firefighters attending a fire incident property protection is not specifically covered by the building regulations etc
00:28:27 now if we then go back to um paragraph 4.3.58 on page 64.
00:28:41 this is where you're dealing with stage c you say
00:28:45 c you say in particular in the second line x over scope fails to address the most important life safety duty which was to identify the relevant statutory controls now first can you give me an example of
00:28:56 now first can you give me an example of what you mean by statutory controls then so can you put their fee proposal back up on screen then please yeah i mean i think as you know i acknowledge
00:29:07 acknowledge in the other stages that they are very clear about the building regulations and the other stages this is a review of stage c in isolation yeah you've
00:29:18 of stage c in isolation yeah you've asked me to contemplate it now and you're a very large question in the round yes if we bring the fee proposal back up as you want that's at exo five zeroes yes and if we go the stage c parts on
00:29:31 yes and if we go the stage c parts on page two i think of this so if we focus on that in the middle of that page
00:29:36 that page so is what you're saying that you are critical of this particular section of stage c well i shouldn't say just the language there yes i see and i'm
00:29:47 the language there yes i see and i'm very clear later on that they do refer to life safety
00:29:52 safety i have i have made that point later in the others yes so that's one of the key points i want to put to you that do you agree that the passages i've taken to you too elsewhere in the letter do you expressly
00:30:03 elsewhere in the letter do you expressly refer to the paramount importance of life safety which i've already explained in my report i have seen yeah but going back to your criticism about
00:30:12 about um it fails to address the most important life safety duty which was to identify the relevant statutory controls can we just focus on that point why do you say that identifying the statutory controls was perhaps the most
00:30:24 statutory controls was perhaps the most important life safety duty relevant to riva stage c well i i just see
00:30:29 see language around caste and approval risk not language about compliance with you know the the control mechanism
00:30:42 you know the the control mechanism i i don't know where this question has come from but i think it's over
00:30:49 overstating the intention of my words so in that first paragraph i see an offer to focus on approval risk and cost impact yeah not compliance
00:31:03 and cost impact yeah not compliance i see that's all i meant but there is reference in there to um focusing on future issues that would
00:31:10 would either have an effect under the building regulations 2010. no it has an effect on a future application yeah under the building rugs yes wouldn't it be implicit within that that that those building regulations are
00:31:23 that that those building regulations are part
00:31:23 part part and parcel of providing for life safety would that not be implicit it it yes it could be in yes it could yeah but i see the language of
00:31:35 yeah but i see the language of approval risk and cost yeah and i saw those words more i see okay would it be normal for
00:31:47 i see okay would it be normal for clients to have their own objectives uh for any project like uh design function
00:31:52 function improvements to facilities appearance and economics yes yeah and provided that they're always subordinate to the paramount objective of life safety would you expect consultants to try and accommodate those client objectives
00:32:05 accommodate those client objectives yes and would you also accept that subject to life safety being the paramount objective there's nothing wrong with trying to achieve those
00:32:16 wrong with trying to achieve those objectives in a cost-effective way i do agree with that yes
00:32:26 and just going back to your words that you'd used in 4.3.59 of your report you'd said instead their focus was on items that will bring cost impact or affect a future application
00:32:37 impact or affect a future application under the building regulations yes given the x over state expressly elsewhere in the proposal that their paramount objective is life safety yeah would you accept that you should perhaps modify that opinion
00:32:50 perhaps modify that opinion i i hope that my opi i give my opinion as i go
00:32:54 as i go through each stage i think and i try to be clear at each stage why i'm saying what i'm saying and then at the end of my review of each strategy i give
00:33:05 of my review of each strategy i give a final opinion yeah and i i hope when we get to stage d and on you'll see that i acknowledge what exactly what xover said about life
00:33:16 what exactly what xover said about life safety in those other places yeah would you agree that the one i cost impact does not necessarily exclude the other i.e life safety yeah can we just go back to the the
00:33:27 yeah can we just go back to the the observers
00:33:29 observers words because these questions reflect a slightly different um reading yes so that's what they said in
00:33:37 in that there's there's their proposal for stage c yeah
00:33:43 yeah so what it actually says is the work would focus on issues that would either affect an application or have significant caste impact
00:33:54 yeah so that those those are the words that you're particularly relying on so i i i based on things i've seen i would worry what the meaning of
00:34:06 i would worry what the meaning of significant cost impact is yeah and i think when one is going to raise costs it's important to then you know to state there
00:34:16 there where because i think this is the only stage where they deal with cost impact actually but it will move on you know it would be important to reflect and remind people that in that
00:34:28 reflect and remind people that in that work as you've just asked me it's cost in conjunction with meeting the life safety goals i think okay okay
00:34:38 okay okay now in relation to riba stage d slash e which is dealt with at the bottom of that page um you say in your report that the fee
00:34:49 um you say in your report that the fee proposal doesn't explicitly allow for x over to review the documentation provide prepared by other design team members and you identify that to be a material omission is that correct yes
00:35:02 is that correct yes yeah yeah can we just look at what you say about that page 66 of your report and paragraph 4.3.74
00:35:14 so you're just dealing with that point you've set out what the fire industry association states in the paragraph above about reviewing the design documentation provided by others and then you say this this is
00:35:26 others and then you say this this is relevant because the lack of such a review from a competent fire safety engineer
00:35:31 engineer increases the chance of the building design breaching the requirements of the fire strategy and therefore the functional requirements with respect to life to fire safety of the building regulations
00:35:45 of the building regulations how unusual is it in your experience for there to be such an emission in a scope of works which covers riba stages d
00:35:53 stages d and e
00:35:56 you're asking me to comment on other people's work not you know outside the work i'm doing on grenfell i see and i i just haven't drawn that
00:36:09 i see and i i just haven't drawn that into
00:36:10 into okay here i mean i think so are you asking me that if i think other fire safety consultants not just xova
00:36:18 xova offered to write a strategy without reviewing documentation i'm just i'm afraid to answer the wrong question let's come at it in a different way
00:36:28 way i think you've answered earlier that that fire industry association um guide was good industry practice yeah at the time is that right so yeah it would be good industry
00:36:41 so yeah it would be good industry practice to have as part of the review at stage d that review of the design documentation is that correct yes it is so because you have to check that the principles you've agreed during
00:36:53 that the principles you've agreed during stage c
00:36:54 stage c are being transferred and translated in more detail during stage d yeah there's more drawings there's more information there's more detail so i think
00:37:07 there's more detail so i think if there was any other fire safety engineering company offered to write a stage d report without reviewing the plans yes i would say the same thing yeah okay
00:37:21 now stage f if we go back to stage f of xover's v proposal this is ex050164 this time page three
00:37:33 here we can see in the first and second paragraphs it says during this stage of work we would assist the design team and appointed contractor for the development in addressing the fire safety issues that appeared during the tender review
00:37:45 that appeared during the tender review phase this work is likely to result in further adjustments the fire safety strategies approved during riba stages d and e this work would ensure that the fire safety strategy for the development
00:37:56 fire safety strategy for the development followed the requirements of the building regulations any agreed revisions to the fire safety strategy would be fully documented and submitted
00:38:03 submitted to the building control authority in order to achieve regulatory approval and then they've set out what the scope of work for that stage would include and then we see the line completion of
00:38:14 and then we see the line completion of this scope of services will occur once all the above mentioned goals are accomplished do you see that there
00:38:22 and then on fees in the um in the middle of page four we could go to page four in the middle of page four we get um
00:38:34 in the middle of page four we get um how the fees are broken down we see what's said for rab stages c and d
00:38:40 d and e there and then it said uh this immediately under that it is proposed that charges for work carried out during riba stage f will be charged at our standard hourly rates
00:38:52 at our standard hourly rates a time basis charge has been proposed during this stage due to the difficulty in determining the extent of work during this stage now um do you agree that this document
00:39:04 now um do you agree that this document taken alone appears to envisage over continuing to work on the project after the appointment of the contractor
00:39:12 yes just help us as to what might happen to a fire engineer in a design and build situation
00:39:21 situation when a main contractor comes on board i think
00:39:25 think is it right that you've said in your report that a number of things could happen at that point yes first of all they could stay client-side and carry on being appointed by the client to advise the client is that
00:39:36 client to advise the client is that correct
00:39:36 correct yeah that's correct or they might be novated
00:39:40 novated to the design and build contractor is that right yeah or possibly their work might be terminated is that correct that's correct
00:39:48 correct and and as i understand it you have experience of all of those things yes in your professional expertise yes
00:39:59 now um you've mentioned the fact that this was um you talked about self-instruction how commonplace would it have been in your experience for a fire engineer to
00:40:10 your experience for a fire engineer to develop their own scope of works as opposed to have maybe a member of the design team suggesting to them the scope of works at this time oh the design
00:40:21 at this time oh the design team suggested well another party or the client suggesting a scope of works how how common was it to develop your own scope of work as a fire engineer
00:40:32 engineer it it's common for certain clients they you know rather than setting out a scope that you were to read and comply with and respond to you you draft up your own scope so it's
00:40:45 you you draft up your own scope so it's perfectly common yeah yeah yeah and can we now look at what you say page 70 of your report paragraph 4.3.95
00:40:58 you say this you say additionally the fee proposal includes no text confirming x over would wait for specific instructions from their client before proceeding from stage to stage as more typically occurs on projects
00:41:11 more typically occurs on projects they provide their own requirement to move from state to stage do you see that there
00:41:15 there no where are you reading from oh sorry i'm
00:41:19 i'm three sorry nine five oh sorry yep
00:41:24 so you say the appraisal yes no text confirming they'd wait for specific instructions before proceeding from stage to stage yeah yeah now can you just help us with that just
00:41:36 now can you just help us with that just to be clear are you saying based on your own experience that it would be typical for a fire engineer scope of works to expressly state that the fire engineers should wait for instructions
00:41:48 wait for instructions from the client before proceeding from stage to stage yeah i think um again this is more commercial risk management rather than technical risk management so when you
00:41:59 technical risk management so when you finished
00:42:00 finished your like when you write your fee proposal you would say um review the plans x number of times attend x number of meetings and when we have agreed our report is a
00:42:13 and when we have agreed our report is a final stage d report we would exchange some kind of communication to agree d was completed and e was to start because sometimes a
00:42:25 and e was to start because sometimes a project may go on hold between d and e for example or the architect may say we would like you to hold for two months and then we would like you to commence
00:42:37 and then we would like you to commence your stage stage e works so we manage our commercial risk by reaching those agreements explicitly before we move
00:42:48 before we move on you know we don't we don't just keep going
00:42:51 going yeah i understand in reality isn't it the case that the decision to move from one riba stage to the next rests with the ultimate client in reality
00:43:10 do you mean that i i'm sorry again i just don't understand that question because if i've agreed with you know the architect and they're representing the client that it's time
00:43:21 representing the client that it's time that we move to stage e yeah that is reality i think okay yeah now regulation 38 now yeah fee proposal if you go to paragraph page 72 if we go
00:43:32 if you go to paragraph page 72 if we go to page 72 of your report paragraph 4.3.108. you're this is in the context of a discussion about uh regulation 38
00:43:44 discussion about uh regulation 38 and you say this there omitting this from the part of their scope of works specific specifically identified as being in support of the principal contractor was a major admission yeah this is because the principal
00:43:55 yeah this is because the principal contractor needed to comply with regulation 38 at grenfell tower not just schedule one part b i think that's of the building regulations yeah and the fire strategy needed to make the additional requirements to
00:44:06 make the additional requirements to comply
00:44:07 comply clear at this stage f yeah
00:44:12 now we know that regulation 38 of the building regulations we've got a whole separate report from you on that deals with the handing over of fire safety information by the person carrying out the works that's right
00:44:23 carrying out the works that's right isn't it yeah and it's right that that would include the fire safety information relating to the design and construction of the building and the services its fittings and equipment that will assist with the safe operation
00:44:35 that will assist with the safe operation and management of the building yeah yeah and that had to be handed over no later than the completion of the work is that right yep
00:44:46 and so would that correspond with our iba stage k completion of the work
00:44:53 potentially yes yeah why do you consider that it would have been reasonable to have expected x over to address regulation 38 when any handover would do to be at the
00:45:04 when any handover would do to be at the end of the project so i think as a reputable fire safety engineering company they should raise the duty for others to
00:45:16 they should raise the duty for others to comply
00:45:17 comply with regulation 38 [Music]
00:45:24 regardless of when that's going to happen i think your question might be about timing yes so i'm being clear that the fire safety engineer must must make the parties aware of
00:45:37 must must make the parties aware of their duty to comply with regulation 38 yeah and when you're writing a fee proposal particularly where you're offering to assist the contractor
00:45:49 you're offering to assist the contractor i would expect a fire safety engineer to make clear that's a looming issue for them yeah it's nothing more than that
00:45:59 that i see yeah so even though xover's fee proposal only goes to stage f you still maintain that that was a material admission a mission not to mention regulation 38.
00:46:11 a mission not to mention regulation 38. so my reading of the english under stage f is that it doesn't actually align with what happens in stage f
00:46:20 stage f it actually appears to be more like a stage
00:46:24 stage k set of activities if one is advising any contractor you know beyond stage
00:46:35 any contractor you know beyond stage e it's important to raise this looming issue for them yes
00:46:45 i see and and does the fact that there was no
00:46:48 was no uh specific request for help from x over about regulation 38 at any stage does that affect your opinion about whether or not you think it was implicit that they ought to deal
00:46:59 it was implicit that they ought to deal with that so helping to comply with regulation 38 and raising it as a compliance issue are two very different things um
00:47:11 so the fire safety engineer would only have some specific pieces of information relevant to regulation 38. i see so
00:47:23 relevant to regulation 38. i see so i i i'm not hoping that the readers of this text think i'm saying that xova had the responsibility to fully comply
00:47:36 had the responsibility to fully comply with regulation 38 because that's not what i mean they had a duty to raise it because together with part b they were the relevant fire safety compliance objectives
00:47:48 safety compliance objectives it relies on a lot of other people to get to that state yeah now level of fees in the refurbishment proposal
00:47:59 proposal yeah um at page 74 of of your report if we go to that paragraph 4.3.1
00:48:09 you've said that you've analyzed the fees
00:48:12 fees you've broken down those fees based on the hourly rates that xover were charging at the time yeah and you've concluded that they were um in your opinion wholly
00:48:24 they were um in your opinion wholly inadequate to provide sufficient resources for the primary refurbishment project
00:48:29 project but particularly allow very little time to produce a detailed fire strategy for the purposes of achieving statutory appraisal as they offered in their scope of work
00:48:38 of work yeah now you said the fees were wholly inadequate yeah i mean can you give us an approximate ballpark estimate of what
00:48:49 approximate ballpark estimate of what the fees ought to have been um we know that they were um 3 300 for state c and 5 300 for stage d e
00:49:01 c and 5 300 for stage d e and sorry i just how many days work approximately so that um so that was that broke down into
00:49:08 into um around four days of mr ashton's time at
00:49:11 at stage c and around six and a half to seven days of his time at stages d and e so if it's easier in time you could tell us
00:49:22 could tell us yeah how long so
00:49:26 you know it's not from you know i don't actually
00:49:29 actually okay so i think that to do a detailed fire safety strategy for a building like grenfell tower which had as far as i'm concerned it
00:49:40 which had as far as i'm concerned it actually had quite a lot of complexity i've heard others say that it was a simple building i i don't actually think that it was i would expect with the meetings the exchanges by email
00:49:54 with the meetings the exchanges by email reviewing even one set of architectural drawings very thoroughly and then setting out the the level of detail required in a stage e report just for stage e
00:50:07 in a stage e report just for stage e i would expect it to be maybe 10 plus days
00:50:10 days that's our e yeah yeah that's helpful thank you yeah um so i now want to look at each of the outline fire safety strategies that were produced for the refurbishment
00:50:22 produced for the refurbishment let's go to issue one dated the 31st of october 2012. that's ex050519
00:50:34 we can see the date there on the first page and if we go to the second page we can see it's prepared by mr ashton and reviewed by mr mcelaney there do you see that there yeah
00:50:45 see that there yeah and then we see on page four that we get a description of the refurbishment in the introduction yeah which sets out what the refurbishment comprises but as mr um ashton accepted although he
00:50:59 but as mr um ashton accepted although he knew that the building was to be overcloud at this point he omitted overcladding from this description of the refurbishment works and now i just want to look at what you've said about this
00:51:10 to look at what you've said about this in your report if we go to page 187 and look paragraph 6.5.5
00:51:22 and look paragraph 6.5.5 so you you say it it fails to identify if it applies to the whole building or any of those parts which form part of xover's understanding of the refurb works
00:51:31 works you say the four drawings that he refers to in issue one provide proposed floor plans for all levels of grenfell tower except basement
00:51:43 and then you say in the next paragraph however it does describe the existing single stair serving level four and above as well as the existing smoke control ventilation further it makes provision for emergency lighting and the performance criteria
00:51:55 lighting and the performance criteria for new wall and ceiling line linings but not limited to just the lower full level so i think what you're saying there is the content of what it's dealing with is more than just the lower floors it's dealing with the entire
00:52:06 floors it's dealing with the entire building
00:52:07 building it's it advice in certain parts of the report
00:52:12 report if you want strays into other levels yeah or
00:52:15 yeah or it seems to yeah refer to other levels but that's why it's important in an existing building being refurbished one of the first
00:52:27 being refurbished one of the first things you would explain is where you're going to rely on the existing
00:52:34 existing physical condition where new things are being done old things are being removed it's a very important
00:52:44 um kind of boundary or basis to explain what your advice is based on yeah because it's a mix of things yeah and a mix of locations and that
00:52:56 yeah and a mix of locations and that clarity is important correct yeah now if we keep going down within this section of your report 6.5.7
00:53:07 your report 6.5.7 we'll come back to this in a moment exactly what it said about the entire overcladding of the external walls
00:53:15 walls and then you say 658 it communicated information related to the entire building not just the first floor levels listed in the description of the refurbishment xova did not provide a set of fire
00:53:26 xova did not provide a set of fire strategy drawings to accompany issue one of the outline fire safety strategy nor was a marked up set of drawings by others provided in the report and again would that be something that you would expect of a reasonably
00:53:38 you would expect of a reasonably competent fire engineer at this time to provide a set of fire strategy drawings accompanying that report yeah so some people do their own drawings you know they they get get take the basic card and do their own
00:53:51 get take the basic card and do their own and then some of us mark up someone else's set of plans to reflect our advice
00:53:58 advice so either what's required or something that isn't quite working uh something that's missing and it's part of that exchange amongst the professionals yeah
00:54:10 amongst the professionals yeah and just be clear do you think it fell below the standards of a reasonably competent fire engineer not to include those kind of marked up drawings yeah because it it's very hard you know as you can see you you can
00:54:22 you know as you can see you you can write
00:54:22 write the you know the english that was written say describing the project now we can judge that but if there was a set of plans
00:54:33 there was a set of plans of every floor at grenfell tower just marking up where the advice is being given
00:54:39 given then that's very clear isn't it there's no
00:54:43 no no retrospective judgment can be passed because you set it out very carefully floor by floor yeah and then finally then at 6.5.10 you say critically xava fails to identify that over
00:54:55 xava fails to identify that over cladding the entire building is a part of the definition of the refurbishment works in their report but of more grave concern is that they still go on to provide their advice and
00:55:06 still go on to provide their advice and we're going to come to that in a moment so so that's what you say about um some critical admission omissions from the report that's right isn't it yeah now if we go
00:55:18 that's right isn't it yeah now if we go back to
00:55:19 back to the report itself and look at page five so exo five zeros yeah um and here we can see at 2.1
00:55:32 um and here we can see at 2.1 we get a very high overview of the building regulations 2010 and then um i want to look at what said about b3
00:55:42 about b3 at pages seven to eight we can see b3 there and that goes over into the next
00:55:57 and that goes over into the next page
00:56:01 there's um the end of b3 at the top there and then into b4 this is just to remind everybody what we actually see in this report on b3 and b4 and then we've got that
00:56:13 on b3 and b4 and then we've got that familiar phrase under b4 it is considered that the proposed changes will have no adverse effect on the building in relation to external fire spread
00:56:19 spread but this will be confirmed by an analysis in a future issue of this report
00:56:24 report now you've set out your views about the contents of the report in detail in considerable detail in your expert report and i'm not going to take you through all of that now
00:56:35 at section 6.5 pages 187-189 you summarize your review of that fire safety report i want to pick it up on page 187
00:56:46 i want to pick it up on page 187 paragraph 6.5.10
00:56:53 so we were just looking at that fails to identify the overcladding as a part of the refurbishment works and if we go over the page you say the grave concern is that they still go on to provide their advice that
00:57:04 still go on to provide their advice that this part of the works would have no adverse effect then then you say the next paragraph yet the records show the staff at xova had never analyzed the external wall construction proposals
00:57:15 construction proposals and so we're not in any position to make this statement i provide more detailed evidence in section nine and then you say therefore i conclude this was very serious evidence of professional negligence from
00:57:26 evidence of professional negligence from my perspective as a practicing fire engineer do you see that there yeah now does though do those conclusions remain your view having heard the oral evidence including
00:57:37 having heard the oral evidence including of mr ashton yes then i want to pick it up at 6 5 17 on that same page further down
00:57:51 you say this specific to functional requirement b4 external fire spread x-over provided no guidance or performance criteria for the external wall construction
00:58:03 for the external wall construction and then you say thus no performance standard was defined which the design team could rely upon nor did xover indicate to the design team that the fire performance of the external wall construction was of
00:58:15 the external wall construction was of any importance and then you say this therefore x over's report is not the creation of a detailed fire strategy for the proposed development which will be written in line with the requirements
00:58:26 be written in line with the requirements of the building regulations as their riba stage d scope allowed by reference to my analysis in table 615 the fia guide for reba stage c
00:58:37 the fia guide for reba stage c and their own scope issue one of the outline fire safety strategy that was issued at the very end of stage c did not contain the level of information required for an riba stage c fire safety strategy do you see that
00:58:49 fire safety strategy do you see that there yeah now just pausing there in circumstances where x over did not have
00:58:58 have much information at all about the nature of the over cladding prior to writing this report and and if we can just put aside for a moment the stage c report which they were copied into on
00:59:10 report which they were copied into on the same day that this report was sent so let's
00:59:13 so let's i'm going to take you to the stage the riba stage c report in a moment so leave that aside what would you expect a reasonably competent fire engineer to say about the b4 requirement in that
00:59:26 to say about the b4 requirement in that first report so so first of all to know the building was being overcloud yeah and then to
00:59:37 yeah and then to set out as an absolute bare minimum the statutory guidance for insulation cavity barriers and the
00:59:50 insulation cavity barriers and the external surface with with no if if you're given no drawings whatsoever about the overclouding and that has happened
00:59:59 happened many times the the best thing left for you to do professionally is to simply state the statutory
01:00:11 is to simply state the statutory guidance
01:00:12 guidance minimum requirements yeah okay so yeah
01:00:19 so yeah and what would you say to the point that um
01:00:22 um well the architect is similar point to the one we talked about earlier the architect can read approved document b for themselves uh
01:00:33 for themselves uh is it that difficult for the art for the architect to look at that guidance and apply it themselves what i'm not meant to be putting myself what's your answer grumpy glary face on so it's got nothing to do
01:00:45 on so it's got nothing to do with what the architect can read or not i i just honestly don't even understand why that's being drawn in the fire safety engineer is responsible for their work and communicating
01:00:58 for their work and communicating what they say they're going to do in their fee proposal and it's not for any architect to try to decipher
01:01:07 decipher infer read around you know work out exactly
01:01:11 exactly what another professional person means okay so the very very basic thing you can do either in the absence of information or maybe you don't understand cladding
01:01:23 or maybe you don't understand cladding drawings because you don't feel competent
01:01:26 competent to read them is to simply state make sure you understand the external surface
01:01:33 surface is x insulation is why cavity barriers are required here at least then the other professionals can read that and hopefully decide to do their job too
01:01:45 and hopefully decide to do their job too yeah and just to be clear on cavity barriers would you be saying they're required around openings as well as elsewhere in your external wall would you make that clear i would or or so
01:01:58 i would or or so i would but as a bare minimum refer to the section in approved document b even if you're going to say nothing else yeah at least direct the reader
01:02:09 yeah at least direct the reader to the section and say you need to work this out yeah
01:02:15 and on the external wall section 12 of adb
01:02:19 adb would you be referring them to 12.5 of adb
01:02:22 adb and the different routes that adb suggests
01:02:26 suggests in 12.5 to comply in in in 2012 yes i may not get i you know i may not have got into all the different routes
01:02:37 have got into all the different routes to
01:02:38 to of compliance yeah okay but um like i said just as an absolute bare minimum making clear the performance of each of the components
01:02:49 performance of each of the components even just that is better than nothing yep you yeah now just help me with this if you can yeah
01:03:00 just help me with this if you can yeah my recollection is that mr ashton told us that he hadn't been given any information about the proposals for over cladding yeah and i'm just wondering whether in those circumstances
01:03:12 wondering whether in those circumstances you would
01:03:13 you would find it acceptable for the fire engineer to put in the report i haven't got any information i will deal with this later on when i get it yes just that without any reference to
01:03:25 yes just that without any reference to yes
01:03:26 yes to the adb requirements and so on yes i i agree with that because at least that's a warning sign okay i don't have any information i need
01:03:37 okay i don't have any information i need information and then i will give you some advice well now what happened in this case was that a provisional view is expressed that it wouldn't affect b4 or the requirements of b4 but to be
01:03:51 b4 or the requirements of b4 but to be confirmed in a later report with that i don't understandable i don't understand how you can give a view if you haven't seen any information but at least it's making it clear that
01:04:03 but at least it's making it clear that the view you are giving is only provisional
01:04:08 can we just go back to this go back to the word users if we go back to exo five zeros five one nine and look at page eight
01:04:26 page eight that's it yeah so i think it's important to bring in here the other part of b4 which is to do with fire spread between buildings and it was very common
01:04:38 it was very common to do numeric you know to to do analysis for that part and that's space separation separation it's dealt with in section 13 of adb
01:04:48 of adb now i i can imagine if you had a quick look at the site layout saw where grenfell tower was located i can imagine
01:04:59 can imagine writing then the proposed changes will have no adverse effect on the building in relation to external fire spread because that is external fire spread so you're happy that things
01:05:10 that things look sufficiently far away that you're not worried i i don't agree that without understanding overclouding
01:05:21 that without understanding overclouding that you could immediately assume it would have no adverse effect without information for that
01:05:29 that part of b4 so effectively you're saying he's
01:05:33 he's this comment deals with uh space separation under b4 but is completely silent about um spread of surf spread of flame over
01:05:44 um spread of surf spread of flame over surface
01:05:45 surface so is that is that the point it that that
01:05:49 that that is so mr ashton has to speak for himself my experience and the focus at that time of professionals
01:06:02 the focus at that time of professionals was very much on space separation and those calculations those calculations were very common and getting more advanced as well so it based on my experience and just
01:06:14 so it based on my experience and just reading it this way i would immediately assume it was about space separation not about um
01:06:25 12 section 12 sorry flame over the surface
01:06:28 surface spread of flame through the external wall construction yeah that's what i would say based on my experience of many years right so you would uh read this as we've
01:06:39 right so you would uh read this as we've just discussed yeah dealing with space separation rather than yes yes yes and that would mean that this paragraph says
01:06:52 that would mean that this paragraph says nothing about spread of flame over surface
01:06:54 surface yes that would be correct and is that a serious
01:06:58 serious omission or is it just well neutral i asked because you're quite critical about this passage and i think we need to understand okay because i i think it is a serious
01:07:12 okay because i i think it is a serious omission because in an overclouding project in any overclouding project you're adding materials to an existing building
01:07:23 building and so what those materials will do in a fire for for both the rules if you will
01:07:30 will section 12 and section 13 are can i say equally important one is not more important than the other both must be looked at right
01:07:42 both must be looked at right okay yes thank you yeah yes that's really helpful yes thank you now the stage c report the riba stage t
01:07:53 now the stage c report the riba stage t report you've noted in your report that on the same day that xover send its issue one of the outline fire safety strategy on they sent that on the afternoon in
01:08:04 on they sent that on the afternoon in fact
01:08:05 fact earlier that day at 11 37 11 38 in the morning x over had been copied in on an email sending a link to the studio e
01:08:16 the studio e stage c report um and what i want to do is just go to that email where mr ashton's copied in that's exo
01:08:30 four zeros one five seven five
01:08:36 and it's the second email down on this page
01:08:40 page so it's from adrian jess at studio e it's sent to um david hale allen dawson at apple yards and then mark anderson paul duncan of
01:08:51 and then mark anderson paul duncan of the tmo
01:08:52 the tmo and see seed into it are a number of other professionals including chris churchman that's the landscape architect andrew mcquad max fordham others from max fordham curtins the
01:09:03 others from max fordham curtins the structural engineers twitching lim from artelia terry ashton x over
01:09:09 x over someone from sintegra mark watterson taylor young that's the planning consultants and adrian jess says oh please find attach the studio e
01:09:20 attach the studio e ftp location for the stage c report so a link is being sent to the studio e stage c report and then he asks a couple of individuals
01:09:32 a couple of individuals some questions below you can see yes mark
01:09:35 mark i think that's mark anderson and then david alan mark he asks and if we could just go over the next page just to see the end of that email
01:09:45 and he asked those individuals can you give me a steer okay so he's copied into that email action points are identified for others no action points are identified
01:09:57 others no action points are identified in the text of the email forex over now in spite of that would you expect a reasonably competent fire engineer to download and read that stage c report if sent th this
01:10:10 that stage c report if sent th this email
01:10:11 email can you just go back to the main page please yeah so if my stage c report wasn't finished as it should have been and it should
01:10:24 as it should have been and it should have been included within the main stage c report that's the normal practice you mean x overs yeah so yeah trying to not be yeah so xova were responsible
01:10:36 yeah so xova were responsible for producing the stage c fire strategy yeah it should have been ready on time coordinated and issued with all the other stage c reports that is normal
01:10:48 other stage c reports that is normal bare minimum professional practice yeah if for some reason they were running late
01:10:54 late yeah and they received everyone else a stage c
01:10:58 stage c report
01:11:02 [Music] would i expect them i would hope that they would check to see if there was any other information they needed to finalize their report yeah if they didn't do that
01:11:15 their report yeah if they didn't do that when they went to start their next level of reporting yes i would absolutely be of the view they needed to open the link then yes so just to be clear at some point on
01:11:28 yes so just to be clear at some point on this project whether that day or not if not possible later you are clear that a reasonably competent fire engineer yes would read that stage c report in full
01:11:40 full yeah in full or do a word search for relevant fire safety points if you don't want to read the whole thing but look at it to understand what the point of the project is and what the proposals
01:11:52 of the project is and what the proposals from all the other professionals are because they impact the advice you're giving
01:11:59 giving and i i just you said there was no actions for xova if the stage c report is acceptable can you please sign off in the current layouts we would note that coordination
01:12:11 layouts we would note that coordination work on stage d is likely to be limited until stage c layouts have been approved if i read that i now know i'm entering stage d yeah
01:12:22 stage d yeah and it's time i've you know xov have their scope of work they've set out what they're going to do that is their signal that once these plans are approved it's time to move to the next level of
01:12:33 it's time to move to the next level of detail as well so that email is important for two reasons i see does the absence of any direct instruction for x over to review and analyze this report affect what you
01:12:45 and analyze this report affect what you would have expected of x over no and just to be clear you're aware that they're only cc'd into this email it makes no difference whatsoever
01:12:56 it makes no difference whatsoever there's other people see seeds too now stage c we know is the concept stage within the riba stages would it be fair to say that at that point proposals are often at a high
01:13:07 point proposals are often at a high level
01:13:08 level stage yeah by definition they're yeah and would you expect that stage c report and information might be subject to change
01:13:18 to change absolutely that's why you have to coordinate the whole way through all the stages
01:13:22 stages yeah would it be reasonable to expect x over to analyze the information in the stage c report given that the information might later change
01:13:32 change they needed to analyze the information and the report to make sure their own work was accurate yeah now can we look at that stage c report now this is max50445
01:13:49 and um it was a report that was uh substantial it was 186 pages in its entirety
01:13:56 entirety yeah um in your opinion should a reasonably competent fire engineer have been able to find their way around such a document yeah to be able to extract the key information they needed to be aware of
01:14:09 information they needed to be aware of yes are we allowed to put the table of contents up instead or yes i mean i was going to take you to a number of things within it um sorry perhaps if i can do that and
01:14:20 um sorry perhaps if i can do that and then we can always go back to the table of contents if you need it if we can start on page 27 so that stage c report included a section on the over cladding proposals
01:14:31 over cladding proposals um and that was headed design approach over cladding and then over on page 28 yeah it said in the middle of that page
01:14:43 yeah it said in the middle of that page that at that point it was a zinc composite rain screen cladding is proposed to the upper levels you see that there yeah and we've got a number of uh images and then yeah the advantages of zinc are set out
01:14:55 yeah the advantages of zinc are set out yeah um if we go to page 31
01:15:01 we can see that we have planned sections on that page showing over cladding incorporating composite zinc cladding and a section at the side yes yep and at the bottom
01:15:16 and then at 32 page 32
01:15:21 we can see at the top that isometric sketch at the top is showing that there's going to be insulation
01:15:29 behind the rain screen cladding as one of the layers that's going on to the building yes yes and various cladding options are also considered at the bottom of
01:15:40 are also considered at the bottom of that page
01:15:42 that page if we go out including we see rain screen zinc on the right hand side but we've also got rain screen aluminium there towards the middle of the page do you see that yep and then on page
01:15:54 do you see that yep and then on page 82. so later in the report it incorporates the max fordham stage c report and at the heading 4.0 we've got a heading for um insulation yeah
01:16:07 um insulation yeah and on that page you see the insulation is named in that table on the right hand side
01:16:12 side insulation new celetex fr5000 yeah so we actually know here although we don't know the exact product in terms of zinc rain screen or
01:16:22 screen or other type of rain screen we do have a product for the insulation yes yes and indeed on the next page page 83 under the head in glazing infill
01:16:34 page 83 under the head in glazing infill panels
01:16:35 panels we've got the celetex insulation mentioned again yeah in fact twice there yeah now i've taken you to those um parts of the report where we see information about the over cladding
01:16:47 information about the over cladding would you have expected a reasonably competent fire engineer to have picked out all that information from this report i think the minimum i would expect a fire engineer
01:16:58 fire engineer in that year to notice was some type of surface some type of insulation being applied on every story
01:17:11 and nothing further okay i see do you agree that this stage c report makes clear the scope of the refurbishment project including the extent of the proposed works to insulate
01:17:24 extent of the proposed works to insulate and overcloud the building yes so i think that's where you realize the scale of the overclouding yeah as a minimum yeah do you agree that it also contains some
01:17:35 do you agree that it also contains some specific information about what was proposed including the specific type of insulation and possible outer cladding options yes should that information have fed directly into the b3 and b4 analysis
01:17:49 directly into the b3 and b4 analysis that xover then did in the fire safety strategies so once by by detailed fire safety strategy stage
01:18:03 well
01:18:07 by the time they came to do the detailed fire safety strategy they i'm not sure what you're asking i think
01:18:17 think again the minimum would have been the building is being overclad on every story
01:18:23 story some materials are fixed some materials are not yet fixed yeah here are the performances yeah is a minimum i in 20 in before the grenfell
01:18:37 i in 20 in before the grenfell fire yeah no i would not have expected them to take an any further step regarding satisfying themselves about products i think absolutely clear on that yeah
01:18:48 on that yeah yeah but recognizing the scale and that it's a surface and insulation yeah i would expect all of us andexova to recognize then yeah now at the point
01:19:01 to recognize then yeah now at the point that they get the stage c report they just
01:19:04 just uh or they're just about to issue issue one of their outline fire safety strategy yeah um and it doesn't look like anyone comes back to them and says
01:19:15 to them and says oh by the way we've done our stage c report can you now produce a new version in the light of what the other reports say does that make a difference to your opinion that they were
01:19:26 opinion that they were they weren't asked immediately to go back and have another go
01:19:31 sorry when is it that do you mean that day when there yes nothing comes when it's over then later that day send their report
01:19:42 send their report nobody comes back to them in the following few days and says well hang on a minute we've now done our stage t report you haven't you obviously haven't taken into account please now do that i so
01:19:53 please now do that i so i i i don't know what was going on behind the scenes you know on the project so all i can say is i don't understand why the fire strategy went out after
01:20:04 why the fire strategy went out after everybody else's information and equally i don't understand why that wasn't raised by anybody else so i can't offer anything anything else yeah mr taran i think
01:20:16 anything else yeah mr taran i think that's a good moment for a break good idea yes we're going to take a break now
01:20:21 break now uh dr lane so we'll come back at uh 25 to 4 please yes and usual injunction no talking about your evidence while you're away okay thanks so
01:20:37 right 25 to 4 please
01:36:41 would you ask dr lane to come back in please thank you
01:36:54 [Applause]
01:36:58 all right ready to carry on yes i am good thank you very much yes mr screen yes thank you um now you've mentioned um a couple of times that a question about the timing of x over's work given when its first issue
01:37:11 over's work given when its first issue of its outline strategy is arriving compared with the stage c report can we just look at what you say about that in your written report if we go to page 100 paragraph 4.7.97
01:37:27 you say as i identify in table 4 3 max further fordham first issued their stage t report to the design team for comment on the 9th of september
01:37:35 september this is 2012. with the final issue of that report occurring on the 10th of october 2012 as xover did not issue their stage c report until substantially after the others in the design team
01:37:47 others in the design team there was no time provided for other consultants on the design team to adequately understand the implications of the fire strategy on their own design works
01:37:55 works before all of the stage c reports were issued
01:37:59 issued and then you say additionally the stage t report that was issued by studio e on the 31st of october 2012 was disclosed by max fordham and then you give the references this report contains the stage c
01:38:11 report contains the stage c reports of max fordham studio ian curtins
01:38:14 curtins the formal stage c report only contains the design note issued by xavier on the 12th
01:38:20 12th of september 2012. as i make clear in section 6 this initial design note was issued as an interim measure by x over and knowingly only addresses parts b1 and b5
01:38:30 and b5 it is silent and parts b2 to b4 and then you say therefore x over issued their stage t information too late for it to be incorporated into the formal reporting package for riba stage c
01:38:42 reporting package for riba stage c for the primary refurbishment project so that's your written evidence on that um can you just expand on why it's so important for any work on the fire
01:38:54 important for any work on the fire strategy
01:38:55 strategy to be delivered in good time to allow others to digest that work because it impacts their decision making and the the detailing the
01:39:07 and the the detailing the spec the work that they have to do and um they need to understand the the basic objectives of the fire safety strategy
01:39:18 strategy and then their design enable the max fordham studio e everyone their proposals has to enable that and that's why it's good practice to
01:39:29 and that's why it's good practice to have the fire safety strategy reports out earlier so everyone can coordinate understand critique
01:39:37 critique comment go back and look at their own work
01:39:41 work and the fire safety engineer maybe have to go back and make some changes too yes yeah
01:39:49 yes yeah now issue two of the outline fire safety strategy comes almost a year later on the 24th of october
01:39:57 october 2013. and i now want to move forward to look at that and just in terms of what had happened by that stage we know that in august 2013 studio e
01:40:09 august 2013 studio e issued their stage d riba report stage d being design development of the riba stages
01:40:20 but what we see is that when that report is issued
01:40:24 is issued x over are not even copied into that email so they're not as far as we can tell on the documents they're never either directly sent or indirectly sent a copy of the stage d report now in
01:40:36 a copy of the stage d report now in those circumstances in circumstances where xover were not sent the stage d report by studio e would you expect x over to request that report from studio e
01:40:47 report from studio e or from its client the tmo once they started
01:40:51 started their work again and started to prepare their next version of the fire safety strategy
01:40:59 strategy i would expect them to ask what information was now available at what stage the design you know how developed the design was and i'd imagine the quick
01:41:10 and i'd imagine the quick reply would be please read the stage d report
01:41:13 report and then we'll have a discussion about what's needed next and just to be clear would you expect a reasonably competent fire engineer to ask for and then read the stage d report i would expect them to ask for it if
01:41:25 i would expect them to ask for it if they didn't have it and they were about to start a stage e fire safety strategy and to use it as a reference guide so go in and check the sections that were relevant
01:41:35 relevant yeah and if you'd not been provided with certain information that you felt you needed in order to prepare the next iteration of a fire safety strategy what would you have
01:41:46 safety strategy what would you have reasonably expected a fire safety engineer to do to ask for the information they needed and how proactive would you expect a reasonably competent fire
01:41:57 expect a reasonably competent fire safety engineer to be in getting hold of the information that it needed for its fire strategy reports how proactive reasonably
01:42:08 how proactive reasonably reasonably proactive you know if if when studio e contacted them for the next version of the fire safety strategy the stage d
01:42:19 of the fire safety strategy the stage d report had gone out i don't have all my dates written in front of me here but the stage d report had gone out so they were in stage e so if i'm contacted in stage e
01:42:32 so if i'm contacted in stage e it's detailed fire safety strategy time so i need to know where the proposals are becoming final and the level of detail
01:42:42 detail being finalized by all the other professionals so i can factor that into the advice i'm going to give yeah and what i'm going to record in the detailed fire safety strategy
01:42:54 detailed fire safety strategy yeah so you've to be as proactive as you need to be to get the information that you require yeah
01:43:00 yeah now we heard from a number of times during mr ashton's oral evidence that he was assuming that if he had to consider something he was expecting a direct request of him
01:43:11 he was expecting a direct request of him by the architect to get him to look at a particular aspect of the works now is that your opinion of how a reasonably competent fire engineer should operate on a project like this no
01:43:25 should operate on a project like this no can you help us as to why that that approach so your view isn't good enough so the evidence shows that mr ashton answered questions when he was
01:43:36 answered questions when he was asked yeah if your scope of work is to produce
01:43:40 produce a detailed fire safety strategy the only way you can do that is to ask for drawings ask for information talk to other people
01:43:51 ask for information talk to other people about the where their proposals are yeah and would you expect that a fire safety engineer might need to educate other members of the team about exactly what information
01:44:03 exactly what information they would need on a project well i don't know about they can educate if they want but they need to be clear of what they need and why
01:44:11 why so the other professionals can help them but this team max fordham studio e particularly uh have experience in reba stages
01:44:25 uh have experience in reba stages and the information needed right yeah now let's go to the outline fire safety strategy issue number two this is exo50s fourth
01:44:40 and we can see there it's dated the 24th of october 2013 and we can see on page two that mr ashton has prepared it and this time
01:44:51 ashton has prepared it and this time mr uh dr tony pearson has reviewed it do you see that there yes and then page four we see from the introduction there's
01:45:02 we see from the introduction there's still no
01:45:03 still no reference to the overcladding in this description
01:45:08 um and just to be clear is it your evidence that um certainly by this time i think you said it by the first iteration but that in this iteration over cladding should
01:45:20 in this iteration over cladding should have been mentioned at this point this was an overclouding project
01:45:25 project so the fire safety engineer needed to record that in their reports and then what we see on page eight where we see this the b3 and the b4
01:45:36 where we see this the b3 and the b4 sections
01:45:37 sections together is that this section was these sections were both unchanged yes a year later and it contains exactly the same statement there
01:45:51 exactly the same statement there for b4 under 3.1.4 now can you help us in your view how should x over have addressed the b4
01:46:02 should x over have addressed the b4 issue
01:46:03 issue if they felt they still had limited information as the proposed changes to the exterior yeah so
01:46:11 if they had checked the stage c report they knew the overclouding was extensive so just scale and now we're into detailed fire safety strategy time which means it's all it's
01:46:24 strategy time which means it's all it's it's
01:46:25 it's where it could be the final record of the detailed design proposals by the design team so as again as an absolute bare minimum i would expect to see now
01:46:37 minimum i would expect to see now there's two parts of b4 remember so space separation dealt with with analysis
01:46:44 analysis if needed with the drawing and section 12 regarding the construction of the external wall bare minimum writing down the minimum
01:46:56 bare minimum writing down the minimum performance requirements for each of the layers so that's a bare minimum
01:47:01 minimum not bringing in any post grantful levels of detail
01:47:06 of detail i see but um we know that by this time if they've read the stage t report yeah they they're aware of the proposed insulation yes would you expect any kind of analysis of materials by this stage
01:47:20 analysis of materials by this stage so in that year we're in 2013 now i don't know what analysis of the materials
01:47:27 materials is implied by the english there okay it would be i'm i'm not going to say i think
01:47:34 think they should have automatically read up about celetex because i know that wasn't very common practice at the time
01:47:44 time okay that's why i'm just keeping on saying
01:47:49 saying writing down the the recommendations or the requirements and approved document b is the bare minimum yeah and just to be clear would that have flagged up clearly that under 12.7 of approved
01:48:01 clearly that under 12.7 of approved document b any insulation material needed to be of limited combustibility yes that's correct so just that statement
01:48:09 statement is the minimum piece of professional guidance i would expect written down on the fire strategy if the if the fire engineer had seen
01:48:21 if the if the fire engineer had seen from the stage c or stage d report that the installation proposed was celetex yeah you say you couldn't be expected to
01:48:33 you say you couldn't be expected to investigate the properties of celetex yeah i i
01:48:37 yeah i i then who who would one expect to investigate the properties of celetex if not in the fire engineer yeah so i don't want to say couldn't be expected
01:48:45 expected i said i can imagine you know i can imagine it not happening well i think we have to understand yeah whether something could or couldn't have been expected yeah means whether a reasonably
01:48:56 yeah means whether a reasonably competent person in that position would have done something so the question is whether a reasonably competent
01:49:04 competent fire engineer would first have noticed the proposed use of celetex and secondly would have taken the trouble to find out what were the properties of solitude
01:49:19 by 2013 yes there was sufficient concern in the profession about the description of insulation being class
01:49:30 being class you know categorized as class naught rather than material being being required to be material of limited combustibility the minimum i'd expect is that written
01:49:41 the minimum i'd expect is that written down
01:49:42 down and if one had noticed celetex in the stage c
01:49:46 stage c report it would have been an extra step at that time to explore what that meant some professionals would have done it some professionals would not
01:50:00 and when you i'm sorry to press on this when you refer to some professionals in each case do you mean some reasonably competent professionals would and some reasonably competent professionals would
01:50:11 reasonably competent professionals would not
01:50:17 yes i do thank you yeah although i have to say that still leaves me wondering
01:50:29 me wondering who could be expected to do that well we're at the moment i'm giving my advice at in 2013 and they're doing their report
01:50:39 report later when a very specific matter arises around the data sheet and the cavity barriers i will give you a different opinion yeah so i think you're talking there
01:50:51 yeah so i think you're talking there about when in september 2014 mr ashton is asked questions and sent the seller text so i will you will hear me say different things
01:51:01 things i'm just trying to live in the moment yes that's right as a professional at that time
01:51:09 all i think is fair to say is that they would
01:51:13 would set out the performance requirements and then others would have given a view on any product including celetex and other chartered fire engineers or
01:51:25 other chartered fire engineers or competent professionals would not at this stage yeah and i think what you're describing is that
01:51:35 is that what you reasonably expect from fire engineers at this time is evolving exactly as knowledge is evolving
01:51:42 evolving exactly over these years yeah because things are now changing rapidly in the background yeah okay so that's why
01:51:49 why i don't want to bring future events to here to here yeah and i'm still and i'm not talking about anything after grenfell so in the background things are changing rapidly
01:52:00 rapidly there are some major fires yeah there's known concern in the industry about how insulation is being categorized and discussed
01:52:09 discussed and things are changing yes it is one of those changes br one three third edition which has a number of warnings in it for example about the proliferation of
01:52:21 proliferation of combustible materials being used on high-rise buildings what date is the third edition 2013 yeah exactly so then but it i'm not sure that was the first time sorry i'd need to get them all out if i
01:52:33 sorry i'd need to get them all out if i was
01:52:33 was in the office but i think that was always quite clear wasn't it the other version there's a very specific warning in the third edition yeah that a lot of new materials are coming onto the market yes that are
01:52:44 coming onto the market yes that are combustible and need particular care yes and i and and i think you know for a top-tier consultancy such as xova um
01:52:56 such as xova um and also the very unique and specialized experience their company had around testing i i have to assume they too were aware of how rapidly
01:53:09 they too were aware of how rapidly things were changing around around us at that time it was a very complex time yeah 2013 14 15. yeah and and you referred that
01:53:21 yeah and and you referred that background in terms of what was making people much more aware dangers yeah you've referred to other cladding fires were those international cladding fires or domestic ones
01:53:32 cladding fires or domestic ones i think i again i wish i had all my dates but i think i'm i'm mostly thinking about international years i have to say yeah and and anything else that sticks
01:53:44 yeah and and anything else that sticks out for you in terms of why why people were becoming more aware at this point of this issue else
01:54:00 there was a there were lots of overclouding projects yeah and there was other drivers to use insulation on new build projects and my experiences
01:54:13 on new build projects and my experiences in quite frequently in 2013 was this whole issue of contractors and other parties almost you know beseeching me saying but
01:54:24 almost you know beseeching me saying but but
01:54:25 but but this document says it's class naught and therefore it's acceptable and i was involved in very many conversations even on our own projects at arab trying to explain
01:54:37 projects at arab trying to explain the performance of insulation okay so that that was the backdrop i'm still not going to say uh the the bare minimum from mr ashton
01:54:49 uh the the bare minimum from mr ashton was to
01:54:49 was to take out the celetex brochure get some reports i'm still not going to say that at this moment in time yeah i understand um now if we just look at
01:55:02 i understand um now if we just look at um
01:55:04 um page 341 of your report
01:55:10 paragraph 14.1.75
01:55:16 and following you say that it was xover's primary failing to have omitted b41 and to have said that this will be confirmed by an analysis in a future issue of this report without ever returning to that topic
01:55:28 without ever returning to that topic then you say but it is also important to acknowledge that no member of the design team or the statutory authorities raised any concerns about the information missing in the fire strategy regarding b4
01:55:38 b4 nor indeed did they identify any other aspect of the missing information to support schedule b part schedule 1 part b either when they were provided with the fire strategy or at any other time
01:55:49 at any other time so you make those points clear there yes now i just want to take you to a number of points made in xover's opening submissions some of them are topics we've touched on already but i want to put them directly
01:56:00 already but i want to put them directly to you so you can respond if we go to xover's opening this is
01:56:06 ex0401774 and i want to look at page 12 to start
01:56:12 with in paragraph 4.3 it said there that the building regulations and approved document b and the basic approach they take are the bread and
01:56:24 approach they take are the bread and butter of the british construction industry
01:56:26 industry construction companies need no special advice to be aware of them nor likewise to those involved in designing cladding systems need to be pointed towards the rel the provisions relevant specifically to
01:56:37 the provisions relevant specifically to external far spread so i touched on this point earlier with you but i wanted you to see and we'll take you to another few paragraphs about how this type of point is put
01:56:46 is put by xover what is your response to that um as a justification for why spelling out the performance requirements would have been pointless it's no
01:56:57 would have been pointless it's no justification in my mind because xover wrote a scope of work offered a detailed fire safety strategy were appointed to do so and b4
01:57:09 were appointed to do so and b4 is one of five significant par you know significant requirements and it required information to be provided
01:57:17 provided i i don't understa who gets to decide which parts of the building regulations are so either irrelevant or well known by
01:57:26 by others you don't even need to mention them
01:57:29 them in a detailed fire safety strategy so i i don't agree that that is a valid justification whatsoever and then if we go on to page 30 of this document the paragraph 6.3
01:57:42 document the paragraph 6.3 a and b
01:57:46 and again this is about um directly in response to your criticism that the report ought to have set out the required performance to comply with b4 they make the point in a that the audience for xover's advice
01:57:58 audience for xover's advice comprised expert architects who evidently ought to have been familiar with the requirements of the building regulations and adb and who evidently considered they had sufficient expertise to set out detailed provisions in the employer's
01:58:10 detailed provisions in the employer's requirements without seeking for further specialist input
01:58:14 input now i've already touched on that point with you about architects but yeah i'm very sorry i'm very sorry to read something like that i have to say because it isn't an acceptable enough reason
01:58:25 reason as to why nothing at all was written about either part of b4 in a competent fire safety engineering company's fire safety strategy
01:58:36 safety strategy and i i will just be saying the same thing over and over again and b um they they say that another person who might have referred to xavier's advice later was an experienced design and build contractor
01:58:47 design and build contractor and a specialist cladding contractor harley neither of whom will have needed simply to be pointed to the building regulations
01:58:56 again as the evidence shows that was also incorrect yeah because harley asked some questions later
01:59:06 later and they needed to be answered and they were not
01:59:09 were not yeah and in your experience at the time did organizations like ryden or specialist cladding contractors
01:59:20 ryden or specialist cladding contractors like harley or similar did they require advice from fire engineers to help them understand for example section 12 of adb as it applied to their project
01:59:32 applied to their project did you have experience with that my experience is that
01:59:39 is that principal contractors and specialist cloud clouding contractors needed assistance in understanding what the bill
01:59:50 in understanding what the bill you know what the fire safety requirements were when they were going on to do their part of the job which is you know the really detailed piece of work about materials how
02:00:01 piece of work about materials how they're pieced together their their location so it is my experience that they needed some help and i think yeah
02:00:17 and then um if we can look at um paragraph six point three b um sorry that is this um yes within this paragraph they then say if all that xover was required to do
02:00:29 say if all that xover was required to do for this audience was to remind or repeat the performance requirements set out in the building regulations of which they were individually and collectively well aware then such a requirement was redundant now just breaking that down it will be a
02:00:41 now just breaking that down it will be a matter for the chairman in the panel to consider whether or not those organizations in fact were individually and collectively well aware of the requirements of the building regulations but what's your response to
02:00:53 regulations but what's your response to whether
02:00:54 whether it would be redundant yes i mean if all the professionals on the design team were well aware of the building regulations yeah i i i
02:01:07 of the building regulations yeah i i i it's it's it doesn't kind of counter balance or remove the duty xover had when they offer they offered a detailed
02:01:18 when they offer they offered a detailed fire safety strategy and so a detailed fire safety strategy needed
02:01:23 needed to be provided and i i would like if we can come back to these
02:01:30 these points here yeah when we've got to the end
02:01:34 end of my evidence about what happened in 2014 and 2015 i think um and the guidance that was given
02:01:44 given to ryden and harley okay i understand now you've touched on this the state of knowledge at this time we've been discussing that about the state of a reasonably competent fire
02:01:56 state of a reasonably competent fire engineers knowledge at of this time um would you have expected a reasonably competent fire engineer to have been
02:02:03 have been aware of international cladding fires at the time they were working on the grenfell project yes i would and particularly a company like xova who operate in different countries
02:02:15 who operate in different countries and have testing labs as i understand things
02:02:19 things in different countries yeah they're in quite a unique position would you have expected a reasonably competent fire engineer to have been familiar with industry guidance including say br135
02:02:32 including say br135 or the bca building control alliance guidance or the cwct guidance yeah so br 135 remember is written in to approve document b yes
02:02:43 is written in to approve document b yes yes the bca guidance i mean i don't know if you're asking me to comment on this as a result of no i'm asking you just in a more freestanding way
02:02:54 freestanding way obviously the bca guidance comes out in first in june 14 and then in 15. and it was it was you know it that reflected some of the
02:03:05 you know it that reflected some of the disquiet being raised at the time so the bca guide was issued it was controversial in itself
02:03:13 itself and um i think so substantial companies like exova would have known about that they're also quoted in that guidance
02:03:24 they're also quoted in that guidance so their staff must surely have known about it
02:03:28 about it and then the cwct guidance i think to be fair there i i think it would be more likely you'd be familiar with that if you worked in a
02:03:39 familiar with that if you worked in a multi-disciplinary company rather than a fire safety engineering on its own but it is it is quoted you know it is referenced yeah um quite commonly
02:03:51 referenced yeah um quite commonly would you have expected a reasonably competent fire engineer to be aware of and have read the new edition of vr135 that came out in 2013. yes
02:04:02 yes [Applause]
02:04:07 now if we can go to exo four zeroes one four four four
02:04:17 this is a chain of emails that between terry ashton and tony pearson about that second issue of the ixova fire safety strategy
02:04:29 safety strategy yeah and in this chain of emails mr ashton and dr pearson discussed their different opinions regarding whether the shared stare between the residential and the non-residential parts of the building
02:04:40 building should be flagged as a deviation from standard guidance do you recall that yeah and in the final email at the top of the page mr ashton states um tony i told max to send the report
02:04:51 um tony i told max to send the report out without reading what you'd added had i been able to read it i would not have agreed to the amendment as what you've said highlights the non-compliance with codified guidance but
02:05:01 but more importantly is debatable let's hope that paul hansen doesn't pick up on it terry and if you recall what had happened is dr pearson had peer reviewed it and had said he
02:05:12 had peer reviewed it and had said he would like to add in some text making clear that that was a deviation from i think approved document b he was right to do that yes yeah um
02:05:25 yeah um now what i want to ask you is
02:05:30 if we go back to your report page 99 4.7.81
02:05:42 you say that i do not understand why mr ashton would hope paul hanson a member of rbkc building control would not pick up on a rather fundamental breach of the building regulations and then you say don't consider this professional behavior can you just
02:05:53 professional behavior can you just explain
02:05:54 explain why in your view any reasonably competent fire engineer would have highlighted that departure from
02:06:01 from the relevant guidance in that fire strategy report just like i said the detailed fire safety strategy is a record of the provisions why they're there
02:06:13 of the provisions why they're there any deviations any residual risks you know important information to serve as a record about that building and the work done to create that fire safety design so
02:06:25 to create that fire safety design so that people by being transparent and clear the readers of that report and there will be all different types for all different reasons
02:06:35 reasons should it impact their decision making they have the ability to understand that and factor it into their decision making um mr ashton clearly indicated that he
02:06:46 um mr ashton clearly indicated that he didn't agree with the proposed edition um was that view within the range of valid professional opinion at the time yeah i think did he say it was a minor or
02:06:57 think did he say it was a minor or disputable what i think yeah let's go back to the email exo40144
02:07:06 he said i wouldn't have agreed to the amendment as what you've said highlights the non-compliance but more importantly is debatable yeah okay so there's two things you think it was a debatable issue so i i what may be debatable
02:07:19 so i i what may be debatable is the risk to life it causes he agrees that it's a non-compliance so it's like so any deviation or non-compliance will either pose a risk
02:07:31 non-compliance will either pose a risk to life
02:07:33 to life or there's another mitigation and you're satisfied
02:07:36 satisfied that with that mitigation the deviation in itself
02:07:41 in itself is is acceptable on the project because you've factored it in to all the other protection measures that you're proposing and just to be clear um even though the
02:07:53 and just to be clear um even though the guidance in approved document b isn't compulsory we know they aren't the building regulations they're just the practical guidance is it still your view that the deviation from that guidance should have been
02:08:04 from that guidance should have been flagged up yeah so if you offer to write a detailed fire safety strategy
02:08:09 strategy that's compliant with the building regulations and you rely on approved document b it's important to explain where there's deviations and how you've dealt with that
02:08:19 that in a transparent way so all the different readers as i've said will can factor that into their own work and their own decisions [Applause]
02:08:39 yes now i want to move to it
02:08:44 a different topic now a peer review process just before we look at issue three
02:08:50 three which i'd like to do today with you um just a few questions about the peer review process that's applied at x over um as we've seen x overs reports would be written by one member of the team and
02:09:01 be written by one member of the team and then reviewed by another member of the team
02:09:04 team can you just help us was peer review common in the context of fire engineering okay at this time i i typically associate the phrase peer review with an external party coming into a
02:09:17 with an external party coming into a company and and reviewing our work i am i think in this context well i call it it's like the checking and approvals process the in-house quality assurance process
02:09:29 in-house quality assurance process so in that context in by that definition of peer review it is common in fire safety engineering companies
02:09:40 companies yes um and you tell us in your report that arab such review is carried out by a project director who you define as a chartered professional is that right yes
02:09:51 professional is that right yes and you say that the purpose of such a peer review is to ensure that each deliverable is technically correct accurate and fit for purpose for which the deliverable was to be put yes now um
02:10:04 within x over there's no definition of peer review within xover's main project phase procedure or their overall review procedure um and we see that frequently reports
02:10:16 um and we see that frequently reports are reviewed by somebody junior to the author
02:10:19 author of the report now in your view is that ever acceptable to have a review done by a junior person no because they're more inexperienced
02:10:30 no because they're more inexperienced and you've also noted in your report that there's a divergence in in evidence of the x over witnesses on what the nature of peer review within x over meant yes so we have um james lee saying it
02:10:41 yes so we have um james lee saying it was to check that it was accurate and reasonable we have mr mcelhany saying it's proof reading and checking for clear mistakes we have claire barker saying that you
02:10:52 we have claire barker saying that you review the report alongside the drawings the relevant guidance and adb in order to ensure the report was correct and miss cleaning described it as part
02:11:04 and miss cleaning described it as part of the document control exercise and then we get a much more detailed explanation of exactly what ought to be done in tony pearson's witness statement and and you've commented on some of this
02:11:15 and and you've commented on some of this at pages 97 to 98 of your report um would you agree that in order to be meaningful peer review must entail a genuine evaluation of the deliverable
02:11:26 genuine evaluation of the deliverable document
02:11:28 document viewed in light of a scrutiny of the underlying drawings and the documentation coupled with checking the engineering assumptions and calculations yes i would for the final detailed fire
02:11:39 yes i would for the final detailed fire strategy yes and is it right that you don't consider the peer review exercise either for the existing fire safety strategy or the refurbishment fire safety strategy to have been satisfactory yeah because
02:11:50 to have been satisfactory yeah because i'd expect any other competent person at xova to have noticed if we want to go back to b4 again that the two parts had not been considered yeah and to raise a query as
02:12:02 considered yeah and to raise a query as to why not yeah now i want to turn to issue three of the outline fire safety strategy um
02:12:11 and if we pull that up this is a
02:12:18 ex0401107
02:12:24 so this is dated the 7th of november 2013. so in contrast to the previous version which was the 24th of october 2013 we can see on page two it's mr
02:12:37 2013 we can see on page two it's mr ashton that's written it and then like with issue one it's mr mcelaney who has reviewed it page four we don't have any description
02:12:48 page four we don't have any description of over cladding in the introduction and then the b4 section on page nine
02:12:57 remains uh unchanged yeah and it's got exactly the same statement there that we saw before
02:13:09 and uh just to be clear what do you think should have been said uh under b4 by this time well this was the we're they were now in stage e
02:13:21 the we're they were now in stage e and this was to be the final detailed fire safety strategy recording the detailed proposals for the development so whatever um
02:13:34 so whatever um analysis had been in mr ashton's mind now needed to have been presented in this version yes so you would by now expect to see
02:13:47 yes so you would by now expect to see not just the performance requirements but some and now the analysis if if they offered analysis and this is the detailed fire safety strategy and that's where the analysis goes
02:13:58 that's where the analysis goes yeah now can i take you to some email exchanges that mr ashton exchanges with studio e just before this issue um
02:14:10 this issue um and and it's an email exchanges that occur on the 1st and the 4th of november 2013 so just a few days before this if we go to exo 50586
02:14:24 and i want to pick this up on the bottom of the first page there mr rex says on the 1st of november evening terry can you please confirm that the rain screen cavity fire barriers are to
02:14:36 rain screen cavity fire barriers are to be 60 minute fr to match the compartmentation thank you regards thomas and he then mr ashton then responds if we go up the page
02:14:50 at 905 on the 4th of november and he says this cavity bearers need only have a 30 minute standard of fire resistance kind regards terry
02:15:02 now pausing there do you think that the email from mr wreck ought to have alerted mr ashton to the fact that studio e did in fact need guidance on the
02:15:13 did in fact need guidance on the building regulations and approved document b requirements for the external wall well that's why they contacted exover now what do you think mr ashton ought to
02:15:24 now what do you think mr ashton ought to have done as a reasonably competent fire engineer in response to this request
02:15:30 request can we just put the original request up if you don't yeah it's the bottom of the page
02:15:35 page yeah so um as far as i'm concerned oh can you confirm the rain screen cavity
02:15:43 cavity barriers are to be 60 minutes so the first question is what cavity fire barriers are you referring to and i would want to understand exactly
02:15:54 and i would want to understand exactly what thomas wreck meant okay and and because there's the location of the cavity barriers and then their fire performance
02:16:06 yeah and do you think that this exchange should have affected what mr ashton then included in issue three of his outline fire safety strategy on the 7th of
02:16:18 fire safety strategy on the 7th of november 2013. well yes because his strategy doesn't refer to any guidance on cavity barriers
02:16:29 barriers and the design team clearly needed some guidance that's why they contacted their fire safety engineer
02:16:38 and just to be clear do you think mr ashton should have asked for more information before giving this advice
02:16:49 i mean he said 30 minutes i mean that's the minimum you could say i i think it would have been safer for him to ask the location of the cavity barriers
02:17:00 ask the location of the cavity barriers thomas rec was referring to and then to notice that the design team were unsure
02:17:07 unsure and a quick check of his own report would have shown him it didn't contain any information about cavity barriers yeah do you think this ought to have prompted him to
02:17:18 prompted him to have referenced the locations that cavity barriers ought to have been fitted to comply with section 9 of adb in the next version of his report yes i do
02:17:30 and do you think that the fact that he didn't do all of that fell below the standard of a reasonably competent fire engineer yes i do
02:17:41 on cavity barriers around windows um in your experience was it common at the time for construction professionals in general not to appreciate that cavity barriers around windows were required
02:17:53 barriers around windows were required it was it was cut it was a common defect yes
02:18:01 but was there any reasonable doubt amongst fire engineers about whether cavity barriers were in fact required around
02:18:07 around openings was there was there any reasonable doubt debate oh debate yeah not that i'm aware of no
02:18:14 of no no so you can't imagine any reasonably competent fire engineer uh advising that you could avoid having cavity barriers around the windows if you if for some reason the design was
02:18:26 if you if for some reason the design was struggling to incorporate a cavity barrier around a window then a reasonably competent fire safety engineer would have to come up with the mitigation otherwise insist that the
02:18:38 mitigation otherwise insist that the cavity barriers were installed yeah now as to what information was available about the external wall buildup as at november 2013 can we look at something said in xover's opening submissions
02:18:50 said in xover's opening submissions again if we go to exo401774 page 14 and we look at paragraph 4.12
02:19:02 now here xover are making submissions about that final issue three of the fire strategy yeah and if we pick it up in the fourth line
02:19:14 and if we pick it up in the fourth line having set out what the report said they say at the time the intention appears to have been
02:19:19 have been to use a system comprised of zinc panels with aluminium honeycomb insulation but no detailed specification or design had been set even if the material supplied to xover
02:19:30 even if the material supplied to xover for the preparation of its report has it explicitly indicated as much xova's report could properly have made the same comment and i want to get your response to that
02:19:41 response to that so that they're making the point that at the time certainly the the primary um system that was being considered was the zinc panels with the honeycomb core
02:19:53 zinc panels with the honeycomb core the proteus zinc honeycomb and and they're making the point that in those circumstances even if more material had been supplied to them xover's report could probably
02:20:06 to them xover's report could probably have said the same thing do you agree with that no i don't can you help us as to why yeah so just again to remember this is xover's stage e report their detailed fire safety
02:20:17 report their detailed fire safety strategy
02:20:19 strategy i understand that one of four proposals was the zinc with the aluminium honeycomb
02:20:30 zinc with the aluminium honeycomb and understand the context that they weren't
02:20:35 weren't asked for their opinion about any of those particular products yeah but the insulation performance taken together with the
02:20:46 performance taken together with the external surface is relevant at stage e when you're preparing your detailed fire safety strategy making clear the minimum requirements right
02:20:58 requirements right so that's back to the fact that you say it should have been flagged up that any insulation should have been compliant with 12.7 yes of adb
02:21:06 of adb yes and i think i don't know what date this text was referring to but there were four
02:21:13 were four products in the specification you mean the mbs
02:21:17 the mbs in the nbf specification two of which were zinc
02:21:21 were zinc and the other zinc product was a polymeric
02:21:24 polymeric zinc panel yeah
02:21:32 so you don't agree that it would have been acceptable for xover simply to say that such panels would have no adverse effect but would be considered in a detailed report later no i don't because it's the panel and
02:21:44 no i don't because it's the panel and the insulation and the cavity barriers taken together yeah and i'm still struggling on the analysis
02:21:53 analysis for that part of b4 yeah that is intended here intended now yes having meant been intended so you would expect some analysis by reference to the materials
02:22:06 analysis by reference to the materials that are being proposed of how the b4 requirement is going to be met
02:22:11 met so in in b4 in their report i would expect their analysis for space separation because that was the common analysis at the time yeah and if they did no checking of the
02:22:22 yeah and if they did no checking of the materials
02:22:23 materials which was common practice yeah okay they needed to set out the the required performance in their fire safety strategy
02:22:35 safety strategy because all the different parts of the the five parts are interconnected and interrelated and and xova needed to understand the intention of b4 yeah
02:22:50 the intention of b4 yeah now i just want to look at what you say at paragraph 10 page 101 of your report now
02:22:55 now paragraph 4.7.104
02:23:02 you say there um having considered the the later iterations of of the fire safety strategy however as i set out in section 47 107 x over simply reissued their stage t
02:23:14 over simply reissued their stage t report in both october and november 2013 to be included in the tender documents they did not issue a stage e fire strategy nor any report that could be considered commensurate with stage
02:23:26 be considered commensurate with stage f1 level of detailed information you see that there yeah now we know that mr ashton had some discussions with mr soons
02:23:35 soons over the course of september through to november 2013 yeah on the updating of studio e's fire drawings
02:23:42 drawings yeah you recall that yeah and those were reflected in some changes to xover's report yes and mr sones accepted in his oral evidence that the focus of his discussions with exxova had been on the
02:23:53 discussions with exxova had been on the lower floors yes and the internal works and layouts and for the transcript the reference is day 12 page 1 5 3 lines 13 to 19.
02:24:05 5 3 lines 13 to 19. um so the point i want to put to you is isn't it actually the case that this was an updated report in light of the discussions between mr ashton and mr soon on those aspects of the design that
02:24:18 on those aspects of the design that studio e
02:24:19 studio e had been discussing with x over and it was only later that studio e on their own initiative decided to include that report
02:24:27 report in the tender documents so so you mean that xover failed to deliver their stagey detailed fire strategy entirely
02:24:36 entirely i know that's your evidence but what i'm suggesting to you that it it's in fact their report was amended in issue three to reflect the discussions that mr soones and mr ashton
02:24:49 discussions that mr soones and mr ashton had been having about the lower levels yes was that not enough no because they it was time to write a stagey detailed fire safety strategy
02:25:00 detailed fire safety strategy the architect or other professionals will ring you about their specific issues that's concerning them the fire safety engineers duty remains producing that detailed report
02:25:12 remains producing that detailed report we are responsible for setting out the fire safety design principles in detail at that point yeah now in terms of your conclusions
02:25:23 yeah now in terms of your conclusions about
02:25:23 about issue three you've helpfully summarized your conclusions uh about that issue in section six point nine of your report that's pages two one three two two one six can we just pull those up so
02:25:34 six can we just pull those up so starting on page two one three
02:25:40 i'm not going to ask you about all of these conclusions we don't have time to do that but i want to note at 6.9.12 at the bottom of that page
02:25:55 you say this even in the absence of outline or detailed drawings or specifications for the components forming the external wall construction there was a minimum piece of advice x over could easily have provided and then you say that was the
02:26:06 and then you say that was the performance requirements to comply with b41 and b42 so that's the point you've been making yes just now um and then if we go
02:26:17 um and then if we go on um to page 214. sorry um
02:26:27 yes if we look at 6.9.14 you then say another substantial omission from this final report was it's fairly to identify the works that were required to be undertaken in the lobbies on each of the
02:26:38 undertaken in the lobbies on each of the existing floors of the building to accommodate the improvements to the building services yeah yes um and then you say there at the bottom that works
02:26:49 you say there at the bottom that works for the lobby smoke control system can we just move down on that page
02:26:55 6.9.15 are described in a single note indicating that max fordham was solely responsible for the performance specification and design of the system
02:27:08 and then if we can um look at page
02:27:14 216 6.9.24
02:27:19 6.9.24 you also say ultimately xover did not provide a set of fire strategy drawings to accompany issue 3 of their report in fact specific reference to the studio e drawing numbers for the fire access and fire strategy
02:27:31 for the fire access and fire strategy drawings were removed and no other specific design documentation was referenced so just pausing there you're critical of the fact that there was no set of fire strategy drawings
02:27:42 was no set of fire strategy drawings accompanying that third issue of the report is that correct yes because you you need the detailed information on the drawings with the narrative the detailed narrative in the report
02:27:53 narrative in the report to understand the basis for the fire safety design we we tend to not produce our own drawings
02:28:02 drawings we tend to mark up others drawings other fire safety companies do do a set of fire safety drawings yeah and then um in the next section of your
02:28:13 and then um in the next section of your report 610 you compare the scope of the report with what x over had promised in their fee proposal and you compare it with approved document b and then if we go on page 224
02:28:27 and then if we go on page 224 at section 612 you set out your conclusions on the adequacy of the primary refurbishment fire strategy and you say in 612 2 at the top there based on the evidence
02:28:39 2 at the top there based on the evidence i've prevented it's my opinion that xavier's outline fire safety strategy report was wholly inadequate with respect to providing relevant fire safety design guidance to the design team the client and the contractor
02:28:51 team the client and the contractor and you go through a number of um failings including not dealing properly with b3 and b4 in that next section
02:29:06 and then you're also critical at the bottom of two to six you can go to that 6 12 30 of the fact that there's no reference
02:29:17 of the fact that there's no reference back to the existing fire safety strategy
02:29:19 strategy is that right the two weren't linked together
02:29:23 together there was no reference to that work is that right yes that's correct
02:29:29 and then if you go [Applause] um
02:29:36 um yes so those are your conclusions now i've done that at some speed because you've set out your conclusions in detail there can i ask you whether anything you heard in the oral evidence of any of the x over witnesses or indeed
02:29:48 of any of the x over witnesses or indeed any other witnesses has caused you to change your views in any way about those conclusions sadly not no no so chairman i think that is is that a good moment well it is the
02:30:00 is is that a good moment well it is the moment i'm supposed to stop as well um yes so i i will be carrying on dealing with this topic tomorrow morning and then we will get to the other two reports tomorrow afternoon
02:30:11 reports tomorrow afternoon all right well it is the time of day when we normally finish for the afternoon okay so that's what we're going to do good um and we're going to have to ask you to come back for some more evidence tomorrow but i think you were
02:30:23 evidence tomorrow but i think you were expecting that right i was expecting that
02:30:25 that yeah so we'll resume at 10 o'clock tomorrow okay and the usual injunction please don't talk to anyone about your evidence okay or anything to do with it overnight no problem thank you very much indeed
02:30:48 thank you very much 10 o'clock tomorrow
02:31:01 thank you very much 10 o'clock tomorrow you