Expert evidence on Fire Risk Assessment practices and smoke control systems in Building Control, examining regulatory compliance and technical standards for high-rise residential buildings.
00:00:28 would you ask mr todd to come back in please
00:00:37 [Music] right mr todd all ready to carry on oh yes sir good thank you very much yes yes mr chairman thank you mr todd um i want to ask you
00:00:49 thank you mr todd um i want to ask you some questions uh now arising out of your witness statement and particularly in relation to the lga guide oh yes sir thank you yes now can we go to your witness statement please at cta
00:01:00 witness statement please at cta uh six zeros 12 we we looked at it at the very start of your evidence formally i recall sorry yes the page 15 can we look at paragraph 71
00:01:13 and at 71 you say uh
00:01:17 uh and this is in the context of the consultation on the draft lga guide yes that
00:01:23 that in the second line in addition to providing detailed comments on specific clauses of the draft we were we asked seven overarching questions under five headings as follows yes and on page 16
00:01:36 headings as follows yes and on page 16 you see question six under the heading of diversity yes
00:01:41 yes and the question was do you think that the guidance deals adequately with vulnerable people such as people with disabilities who need assistance with evacuation in the event of a fire yes sir and then you go on to say in your
00:01:53 sir and then you go on to say in your statement of paragraph 75 if you could please go uh to that on page 17 uh
00:02:00 uh you say in this connection only about around 50 of the respondents addressed the question on vulnerable occupants a number of these were seeking only clarification of responsibilities others highlighted the importance of
00:02:12 others highlighted the importance of compartmentation for the safety of disabled people so enabling them to stay put in the event of fire in terms of the definitive question as to whether or not the question of disability was adequately covered respondents were
00:02:24 adequately covered respondents were almost equally split in the affirmative and the negative that's correct sir yes now um
00:02:30 now um did any responses identify the problems that could face a disabled resident seeking to evacuate a fire or evacuate from a fire in their own flat or on their own floor um in their own flat
00:02:43 um in their own flat or their own floor i'm not
00:02:46 i'm not sure whether [Music]
00:02:49 [Music] they did or not they a number of respondents talked about the need for assistance to disabled people a number of respondents said um the the guidance was fine
00:03:03 um the the guidance was fine i think one did i mention one complained that he was the the the fire authority were asking for uh assistance to be provided by the rp
00:03:14 uh assistance to be provided by the rp for evacuation of disabled people or peeps peeps to be prepared peeps to be prepared it was um so um there was it was a bit of a accurate egg of of response
00:03:25 of of response is the nutshell answer sir um now let's go to hom four zeros two six six zero at page seven
00:03:40 this is the response
00:03:44 response from the chief fire officers association oh yes uh and it answers your question six under diversity as follows the document as stated earlier tends to avoid any
00:03:55 stated earlier tends to avoid any reflection on the effect of occupancy on the adequacy of provision over and above stating the minimum required for building regulation or benchmark compliance experience shows us that the stay put policy is adopted in many
00:04:07 stay put policy is adopted in many situations to overcome difficulties with disabled evacuation with the building failing to meet the standards required for stay put many providers have taken great effort to provide access for disabled persons and fail to appreciate
00:04:18 disabled persons and fail to appreciate the difficulties in a fire situation when the measures they've provided cannot be used in a fire situation additionally the document states that where
00:04:27 where fire may start in common areas then occupants in these areas should make their way out of the building to ignore and eliminate advice on disabled access and evacuation is a fundamental error of the document and is recommended that it
00:04:39 the document and is recommended that it must be included yes sir in particular focusing on that last sentence how did you uh respond to that view um well that was one of the
00:04:52 um well that was one of the uh i mentioned somewhere in the affirmative somewhere in the negative that that obviously falls into the category of in the negative others expressed a completely different
00:05:03 others expressed a completely different view
00:05:04 view one particular fire and rescue authority said there is no need for you to give any consideration further consideration to disabled people because it's adequately covered in
00:05:15 adequately covered in other documents now in considering uh the answers uh did you well rather in asking the questions did you seek the views of uh
00:05:27 questions did you seek the views of uh organizations representing disabled persons
00:05:31 persons not as i recall sir i'm not sure of lgid might have done but i don't think we as a practice particularly did why
00:05:43 we as a practice particularly did why was that um probably because uh we were focusing on the fire and housing sectors and it may not have even occurred to us so if i'm honest did i i was going to ask you did
00:05:54 honest did i i was going to ask you did you actually think about it we we we thought about disabled evacuation i think i produced the document for you sir that showed within two days of being awarded the contract we had a list of um
00:06:06 awarded the contract we had a list of um show stoppers if you like that we wanted to address and one was disabled evacuation uh and i think we said evacuation or not uh in our note internal note on on that
00:06:19 uh in our note internal note on on that and then we wanted to get the the uh the public view on this so so this consultation was open to to everyone uh we invited uh through certainly far
00:06:30 uh we invited uh through certainly far journals uh and through the profession contact
00:06:34 contact from our consultation from as wide an audience as possible we put on three public road shows but lgid did the invitations to those so i'm
00:06:45 lgid did the invitations to those so i'm not sure
00:06:46 not sure who they invited and who they didn't sir right can we then look at hom 45964 the
00:06:54 45964 the guide itself the lga guide itself yes 120.
00:06:58 120. and i just want to show you two paragraphs in there yes
00:07:02 yes page 120
00:07:04 page 120 you will see 79.9 at the top of your screen and it says this in general needs blocks of flats it can equally be expected that a resident's physical and mental ability will vary it is usually unrealistic to
00:07:17 will vary it is usually unrealistic to expect landlords and other responsible persons to plan for this or to have in place special arrangements such as personal emergency evacuation plans yes such plans rely on the presence of staff
00:07:29 such plans rely on the presence of staff or others available to assist the person to escape in fire yes i just want to ask you about the process whereby those statements came to be included in your in this guide um
00:07:40 um first do you remember that you were separately made aware that in september 2011 it had been suggested to a gentleman called simeric cockell late i think at that time of rbkc but
00:07:51 late i think at that time of rbkc but then of the lga that the guidance in respect of dealing with disabled persons was unlawful and you were tasked by him with providing us a response do you remember that
00:08:02 do you remember that this was after it was published was it well it's september 2011. so it would be after it's published uh i don't recall i don't recall that off the top of my
00:08:14 i don't recall that off the top of my head sir no let me see if i can help can we go to hom three zeros one nine eight four four
00:08:31 uh this is a letter from uh an organization called triple consult oh yes to simeric cockell who was chairman of the lga
00:08:42 was chairman of the lga and if you scroll down to the end of the letter at page four you can see that it comes from somebody called elsmith grant yes i know elsewhere who's the director yes are you familiar with this letter
00:08:54 yes are you familiar with this letter uh it doesn't ring a bell with me right um but uh
00:09:00 um but uh it may well have been shown to us sir okay
00:09:02 okay uh
00:09:06 it's a long letter i'm not going to to to read it all to you but the the gist of it
00:09:11 of it um is that 79.9 that i've read to you yes and also 79.11 that i haven't but i think you're familiar with yes which says it's not realistic to expect such an approach to
00:09:23 realistic to expect such an approach to be adopted where disabled persons require assistance in a general needs block um the complaint if we go to page two at the top of the letter says i'll show it to you these clauses
00:09:34 i'll show it to you these clauses reflect you see these clauses reflect an outdated
00:09:38 outdated viewpoint which is highly discriminative and not in line with uk legislation relating to equality or fair safety yes furthermore the wording is directly contrary to the legal advice given in department of communities and local
00:09:49 department of communities and local governments fire risk assessment for sleeping accommodation and the supplementary guide means of escape for disabled people lake horse housing fire safety guidance and bs quadruple 9 2008.
00:10:00 safety guidance and bs quadruple 9 2008. if this guidance is not amended the lgg is at risk also at risk of legal action as a result of publishing advice it's contrary to the law and there's some relevant legal background set out under that yes and then it goes on um
00:10:12 that yes and then it goes on um in a similar vein and the conclusion at the end on page four
00:10:20 is as follows if this guidance is not amended building managers and landlords who follow this advice will continue to discriminate in the area of fire safety against disabled people who represent one-fifth of the population and indeed
00:10:31 one-fifth of the population and indeed we'll be able to criminal or civil prosecution given the current approach to disabled evacuation and lack of enforcement in this area it is of little surprise that the fire and rescue service equality and diversity strat
00:10:42 service equality and diversity strat strategy states the impact of fire is greatly disproportionate on some communities for example 39 of fatal fire deaths are people with disabilities yes i hope this letter has explained the
00:10:53 i hope this letter has explained the issues and look forward to your response before the guidance leads to an unnecessary tragedy because plans were not in force yes now
00:11:02 now uh having me am i having read that conclusion to you and it's uh
00:11:07 uh quite stark terms does that ring a bell with you
00:11:10 with you it doesn't but it may well be i i would have thought lgid probably would have sent it to us for for comment or well and or to clg to be honest it was
00:11:23 well and or to clg to be honest it was sent to lga was it uh well it was sent to merrick cockell as yes exactly so
00:11:30 so i would have thought they would have uh sent it to us and clg at the time so i would think it's quite likely that this would have been sent to us well we can i think we'll see this
00:11:41 us well we can i think we'll see this probably from the next document can we go to clg one triple zero four nine zero seven
00:11:48 seven uh because this is an email help me with it i think it shows that your practice was sent this email um if we go to uh the second email down
00:11:59 um if we go to uh the second email down on the page it's a letter from the csta office
00:12:03 office that's you oh yes caroline bosdet is it boss dad i think so yes yeah uh copy to louise upton and brian martin yes uh dear caroline please find
00:12:14 martin yes uh dear caroline please find attached the basis of a response to this person's letter you may feel like it you may feel this bit on the long side but you know what we're like oh yeah so we did see it you did see it and uh if you then
00:12:25 and uh if you then um i don't i don't know that i was whether i saw the response uh i probably did but i'm so sorry partly my fault actually can i go to page two because i think we can fit we could that's the
00:12:36 think we can fit we could that's the response okay from stephen dawes the letter the email that comes from caroline bossed it is uh on the top of the next page 29th of august 2011
00:12:47 29th of august 2011 to you
00:12:48 to you out to your office and she says hello colin i'm not sure this organization took part in the consultation but it would be good to check if there was a response from them simeric cockell is the new chairman of lg group our equivalent of the minister
00:13:01 lg group our equivalent of the minister i'm currently off after a knee operation and can't log in properly hence the forward the emails hope that that is attached are you able to provide a response to her points as i'll be expected to provide a full response on this i will say copied in glg colleagues
00:13:13 this i will say copied in glg colleagues who will who will also who also will be able to provide views many thanks caroline it looks like you got it yes it looks like it and um
00:13:23 you we've seen stephen dawe's response to that was the response by uh
00:13:30 by cs todd a joint effort by your practice um i honestly don't know because i don't recall the letter what i can see can you go back to the the reference sir go back to the reference
00:13:41 reference sir go back to the reference yeah down the bottom of the um
00:13:43 um the bit about you know what we're like yes go to page one go to page one second email down right so
00:13:52 right so um you see the reference there sir so sd means the letter was generated by stephen dawes and mh means that it was peer-reviewed by malcolm hoare but it
00:14:03 peer-reviewed by malcolm hoare but it may well be i i certainly don't um devolve myself of responsibility it may well be they ran it by me but it looks as though it was dealt with by by
00:14:14 as though it was dealt with by by stephen
00:14:15 stephen right well my next question was did you have any hand in drafting yeah and that's what i don't know uh i can i can probably find out well let me show you the draft response yes okay because
00:14:26 you the draft response yes okay because i don't want you to go and find out i want i want us to do this together yes of course yeah clg one triple zero four nine zero six
00:14:41 and you can see it's it's clearly clearly uh a draft
00:14:46 a draft uh
00:14:48 uh and we will come to see that it's in fact just so you understand it's significantly different from the version has finally sent okay and just for our reference that is at clg one triple zero four nine three two but if we look at
00:14:59 four nine three two but if we look at page one and look a little lower down on the screen if you go to the fifth paragraph down would you mind if i just read the paragraphs before it of course please do thank you
00:15:11 thank you and tell me when you got to the fifth paragraph of
00:15:24 course yes
00:15:30 yes i certainly agree with the first four paragraphs uh whether i whether i saw it or not i agree with what's in the first four i'm now at paragraph five sir thank you and it starts we would agree with your view that the fsa applies to
00:15:42 with your view that the fsa applies to purpose-built blocks of flats yes and there's there and there is an obligation on a responsible person to carry out a fire risk assessment indeed one of the main purposes of the guide is to explain in detail the application of the fso to purpose-built
00:15:55 application of the fso to purpose-built blocks of flats and to guide readers on the process of carrying out a fire risk assessment you will find this in part c and d of the guide however as i am sure you are aware the fsa only applies to the common parts of blocks of flats and
00:16:06 the common parts of blocks of flats and not the individual flats which domestic premises therefore the safety of residents in their own flats is clearly outside the scope of the fso and do you remember
00:16:17 and do you remember seeing that and approving that statement there
00:16:21 there i don't remember but uh as i say there there's it may well be that i was uh i i don't know why stephen did the reply that's
00:16:33 know why stephen did the reply that's what's
00:16:34 what's slightly confusing me as to whether i wasn't available or whether because he led the drafting team i gave it to him but if i was around uh i'm sure i would have looked at this
00:16:46 uh i'm sure i would have looked at this was it the view of your practice at the time that the fso did not apply to the evacuation of disabled persons from their flats i think our view was if they had a fire
00:16:58 i think our view was if they had a fire in their own flat that was outside the scope of the fire safety order and as we've discussed sir that's by far the most likely place for them to have a fire or to be affected by
00:17:09 them to have a fire or to be affected by yes and we covered that a little bit earlier in your evidence yes as at the date of this exercise so this is september 2011. uh did your practice consider whether there
00:17:21 did your practice consider whether there were any duties owed to a disabled person
00:17:24 person once they were in the parts used in common
00:17:28 common in a high-rise residential block i'm not sure that we i'm not sure that we would have thought of it in in these terms we
00:17:37 we um i think you're aware from other evidence i've given you sir that we
00:17:44 we uh identified the fact that there was
00:17:48 there was no consistency in the views expressed to us in consultation and so we took the matter to the project group for a decision as to what they wanted us to say
00:17:58 say yes and we'll come to that in a moment of course but i'm just interested in the views of your practice at the time the time i don't really recall with any clarity as to whether we had
00:18:10 with any clarity as to whether we had whether we had sat down and actually said what happens when a person goes into the common parts you see a person in the common parts is a relevant person yes uh and uh that
00:18:21 is a relevant person yes uh and uh that would include a disabled resident yes a disabled relevant person wouldn't it yes indeed and therefore um my question really is did your practice consider whether there were any duties owed
00:18:33 whether there were any duties owed by the responsible person under the fsa to a disabled person standing in what you call the common part i would honestly answer that question candidly if i knew the answer to it but
00:18:45 candidly if i knew the answer to it but uh here we are uh
00:18:48 uh 10 years later i have no idea really what are now if we go to page two please of this letter and look at the second last paragraph did you need me to read the bits in between i don't think i do but if you
00:19:00 between i don't think i do but if you don't we can well i'd rather if you don't mind of course for context i'm not going to read it out loud if you don't mind no no no tell me when you've read the second page if we can turn to the second page
00:19:13 if we can turn to the second page uh can we go back to where five was again yes that's where i left off thank you
00:19:19 you then tell me when you reach the bottom of page one okay
00:19:37 yes could you turn the page please sir
00:20:17 if i did read it i missed the typo on rationale but it was a draft and as i say not the version that was sent right
00:20:33 i'm continuing to read where where where do i alert you uh at the bottom of uh page two okay i'm not there yet
00:21:16 uh yes i'm at the bottom of page two now sir yes thank you um if you'd like to read onto page three we can we'll do that together in the penultimate paragraph on page two you see it says this you will appreciate
00:21:28 you see it says this you will appreciate that in the vast majority of blocks of flats no one is employed to be present to perform any form of assistance to residents in the normal use of the building let alone in emergencies we therefore can see little value in
00:21:39 therefore can see little value in preparing peeps when no one is available to implement them we're sympathetic to the suggestion which you and others have made about holding information on vulnerable and disabled people that can be accessed by the fire and rescue
00:21:50 be accessed by the fire and rescue service while we are aware of organizations that have put this in place
00:21:54 place then turn the page we do not consider it reasonable and practical to recommend that this is adopted by way of default in all blocks of flats it would place a significant burden on those managing blocks of flats to continuously update
00:22:06 blocks of flats to continuously update the information indeed we have emphasized that inaccurate information might be more harmful than no information now um what is what i've just read aloud to you was that the view of your
00:22:18 to you was that the view of your practice at the time yes i think that's probably a fair comment on what basis did your practice arrive at that view reasonable practicability sir as a result was that as a result of some
00:22:30 as a result was that as a result of some sort of research or some sort of empirical data collection consultation with housing sector sir and the fire sector and this was quite an extensive consultation right so did members of
00:22:41 consultation right so did members of that sector tell you about the burdens of man of those on those managing blocks of flats in the uncertain terms right did you did your practice uh interrogate
00:22:54 did you did your practice uh interrogate them about that or did you just take that at face value well
00:22:58 well we
00:22:58 we [Music]
00:23:00 [Music] realized that this was no different from the situation over the past half century and the the quirk of blocks of flats coming within the scope of the fire safety order wasn't to
00:23:13 scope of the fire safety order wasn't to actually change the status quo it was for the purpose of rationalization of fire safety legislation and the purpose of including blocks of
00:23:24 and the purpose of including blocks of flats was
00:23:25 flats was their possible
00:23:30 consideration as a workplace or that europe might possibly consider them to be a workplace so so it it wasn't terribly surprising that the housing sector or certainly
00:23:41 the housing sector or certainly many people in the housing sector said well we don't have staff and we can't arrange for people to uh assist with evacuation of disabled
00:23:53 uh assist with evacuation of disabled people as you do in all other premises and so
00:23:57 and so there was nothing as we saw it untoward or surprising about the reaction of many people to
00:24:05 to the the whole subject but as i say we then took it to the ref the project group and said there is this contention i think i've shown you
00:24:14 shown you a document sir as as an attachment to the witness statement in which we had a list of contentious issues in which we said you will need to decide on this because views are mixed yes indeed um
00:24:26 because views are mixed yes indeed um but
00:24:28 but was the real driver here not the precise legal scope of the fso but the
00:24:34 but the in the practicabilities namely the undesirability of imposing on landlords or those managing uh residential uh residential blocks the burden of collecting and maintaining information
00:24:45 collecting and maintaining information about their individual tenants disabilities yes i think there was concern expressed in the project group about the hazards of doing that because you could be presenting to the fire and
00:24:57 you could be presenting to the fire and rescue service information that was in accurate and would therefore divert firefighters to
00:25:08 divert firefighters to flats
00:25:09 flats in which there weren't disabled people but
00:25:12 but the
00:25:13 the peep in the in the premises information box might imply that there or would imply that they're aware with the views expressed in this letter that you've read so far as you've read it and those i've read out to you
00:25:24 it and those i've read out to you particularly uh discussed with civil servants at the dclg at the time uh the dclg were part of the reference the project group sir indeed and and that's why i asked and indeed at the sorry to i
00:25:35 why i asked and indeed at the sorry to i just cut across you sir do you want to finish well i'm just asking where the views that i've read out to you actually discussed do you recall well they absolutely were and in fact at the at the
00:25:47 fact at the at the project group meeting in which we took these points along uh and said let's discuss these but ultimately we'll need a steer on this there was representation from both dclg and the
00:26:01 representation from both dclg and the chief fire officers association incidentally and with whom at the dclg did you discuss this point those who represented the dclg on the reference group
00:26:12 reference group who was that please uh is that uh confidential information or should that be revealed uh chairman i wouldn't have thought it was no that's okay it's just i i can remember some of the people
00:26:24 just i i can remember some of the people in the project group in fact at the meeting in question i could actually draw you a picture of the table and where they sat but i can't remember everybody who was there so i wondered it was out of context
00:26:36 wondered it was out of context to cite the names of particular people if you can remember the ones that were there yes so there was peter wise from the
00:26:45 from the uh inspectorate there was andy cloak from the chief fire officers
00:26:50 officers association uh
00:26:53 uh there was louise upton from dclg
00:26:59 from dclg and the only reason i'm citing those is i'm picturing in my mind going round the table at the end of the table at which i sat
00:27:08 sat what i can't remember is who would have been further down the table but i remember i remember peter wise andy cloak louise upton
00:27:21 there was someone from lgid and i can't remember who else was there can you tell us the gist of their views or their responses
00:27:33 views or their responses uh
00:27:34 uh well
00:27:35 well you can see the outcome of the the meeting sir in what's written in the lga guide right so
00:27:42 so that is that the answer is is that is it the the the the gist of their views was as seen in 79.9 and i've read a lot yes i mean i remember
00:27:53 read a lot yes i mean i remember and i think of being appropriate to possibly say who's who said what because this is quite a long time ago but i i think i remember who said uh how would you keep this information up
00:28:05 how would you keep this information up to date
00:28:06 to date in some ways you're better giving no information than giving misleading information and taking firefighters to to flats possibly above the fire where there isn't a disabled person
00:28:17 there isn't a disabled person the practicalities of it are very difficult
00:28:21 difficult and
00:28:22 and the view was that the important thing was to make sure the compartmentation was right so that stay put was safe for everybody
00:28:33 put was safe for everybody there then remained the much more common issue which i've referred to several times of
00:28:39 times of disabled people who have a fire in their own flat which was
00:28:44 was if anything well not just if anything was much more of our concern and
00:28:50 and this comes back to what i said was a very salient question asked by the chairman what do you do about a disabled person who has a fire in their own flat and the answer is that the answer is and
00:29:01 and the answer is that the answer is and i'm not going to go through all the things you can do but there's a massive amount you can do and should do and the view was that was a matter for uh community fire safety not legislative
00:29:13 uh community fire safety not legislative fire safety uh now were the views expressed in this letter so far as i've read them to you talked to fire risk assessors on your lga guide training courses in 2012 and
00:29:24 lga guide training courses in 2012 and 2013
00:29:25 2013 [Music]
00:29:27 [Music] i can't remember whether we would have got you see blocks of flats i come back to the fact blocks of flats were not high profile and so
00:29:38 and so i could
00:29:40 i could i could disclose the powerpoint slide presentation if you wish from some of these courses probably because i know it dealt with disabled evacuation uh and it dealt with it very robustly
00:29:54 uh and it dealt with it very robustly in terms of commercial premises and by robustly we were very intent on dispelling the myth that you can leave people in a commercial building for the fire and
00:30:05 commercial building for the fire and rescue service and
00:30:08 and i do know that every examination paper on that course every examination paper had a question on disabled evacuation and
00:30:20 i can i won't take up your time with telling you what the sort of questions where unless you want to know but now and what about your fire risk assessment courses that you ran in those years 2012 2013 with the views
00:30:31 with the views set out in this draft letter talk to candidates on those courses i come back to what i just said sir we we probably never really focused on blocks of flats because
00:30:43 blocks of flats because the vast majority of those attending courses were interested in non-domestic premises so so there was quite a lot of discussion about disabled evacuation about considering all
00:30:54 evacuation about considering all different types of disabilities the concept of refuges communications and refuges etc etc assistance for disabled people how you can provide it but it was
00:31:05 can provide it but it was it as far as i can recall on those courses it was all related in all honesty to commercial premises now in your role as chairman of the fia do you remember i'm not chairman of the face no
00:31:16 remember i'm not chairman of the face no you no no but do you remember attending a meeting on the 9th of march 2012 where a decision was made that somebody called martin duggan should write to the
00:31:28 called martin duggan should write to the ifsm the institute of fire safety managers
00:31:31 managers to make it clear that the fia's council's view was that peeps weren't required in general needs housing and that the fra council could not support another event
00:31:42 council could not support another event under an fia banner where the contrary view was expressed do you remember that i don't but i i was the the what i'm chairman officer is the fire risk assessment council of the fia right and
00:31:53 assessment council of the fia right and what i do recall was dealing with complaints from members uh after a seminar in which
00:32:02 in which uh views were expressed that were by
00:32:06 by in the mind of those complaining contrary to the understanding of the sector and mark to me if martin may have responded because of
00:32:18 martin may have responded because of those complaints i see do you remember him doing so no not off the top of my head no now let's go look at the final version of the caroline sorry of the el smith the letter sent to el smith grant in
00:32:30 the letter sent to el smith grant in response to hers of the 23rd of august 2011. this is a clg one triple zero four nine three two
00:32:39 we looked at the draft in some details yes this is the final version which is rather different it's it's undated unfortunately uh but it comes from caroline bosdette of rga
00:32:52 it comes from caroline bosdette of rga who as you've told us the reference group just casting your eye down what's on the screen do you recall whether you or your company had a hand in drafting it
00:33:05 your company had a hand in drafting it i would very much doubt that we would but given that i have a only vague recollection of this whole episode
00:33:17 whole episode i couldn't say one way or the other but i would have thought in the circumstances we would have sent the draft letter to lga i mean that was the purpose of drafting it i imagine
00:33:29 drafting it i imagine and the lga then as it said consulted with members of the project group and
00:33:36 and dclg uh and that they then produce their own version but i'm surmising as to what is likely to have happened sir very well that's that's helpful now um let's just
00:33:47 that's that's helpful now um let's just note the second paragraph uh where the author says i have ensured that careful consideration has been given to the points you've made in your letter this included first bullet seeking
00:33:58 included first bullet seeking clarification from the original drafting team cs todd and associates appointed as expert consultants in the field of fire safety second bullet consulting with members of the project group including key officers from the department for
00:34:10 key officers from the department for communities and local governments dclg who funded the production of the guidance
00:34:15 guidance and then if we turn to page
00:34:19 page one paragraph four at the very bottom it says
00:34:26 uh
00:34:30 if paragraph four it says the development of the guidance was overseen by a stakeholder reference group the composition of which is listed on page nine of the guidance significant breadth of interest and
00:34:42 significant breadth of interest and expertise was represented on the reference group the reference group signed off the guidance at its final meeting on first july 2011 the process of developing the guidance involved extensive public consultation through the lg group website which was widely
00:34:54 the lg group website which was widely publicized in addition several road shows were held to canvas views on what should be included in the guidance and on
00:35:00 on the proposed content a project group was responsible for managing the consultation responses through the wider reference group of major stakeholders yeah and i think you've disclosed the lists of attendees um
00:35:12 lists of attendees um and and we can look at those uh let's have this cta uh six zeros twenty one
00:35:19 one six zero twenty two and six two zero twenty three if we can just have a look at each of those in turn six zeros 21 22 and 23.
00:35:36 looking at the first of those this is the delegate booking form for
00:35:42 for the meeting 11th of may 2011. i think this is the road this is one of the road shows um
00:35:48 um i'm not sure if it's relevant but more people turned up at the road shows than had actually pre-booked uh
00:35:55 uh because often people phoned us and said could we come along so so that would not be necessarily all the attendees but those but those that pre-booked right uh and if we look at that just looking down the
00:36:07 if we look at that just looking down the list there we don't see i don't think help me any uh specialist in disability evacuation or stakeholders representing residents with disabilities is there a second page so there is and if we can go
00:36:18 second page so there is and if we can go to the second page we'll see the second page same question again there's a third page too but long list of people my point is a sim is really a simple one i want to ask you about do you remember
00:36:29 i want to ask you about do you remember seeing anybody on the on that list all the other lists of attendees at these road shows who were specialists in disability evacuation or stakeholders representing residents with disabilities i wouldn't
00:36:41 residents with disabilities i wouldn't remember who were attendees sir i mean one of the road shows had over 100 people i think 80 boots and over 100 attended so um i wouldn't know who was who's there and
00:36:52 i wouldn't know who was who's there and who wasn't can we go back to the letter then please it's clg one triple zero four nine three two clg one triple zero four nine three two look one moment sir um
00:37:05 look one moment sir um you couldn't just go back to the bottom of that could you yeah cta six zeros 21 please page one um
00:37:13 um is lambeth living
00:37:17 living do they not specialize in
00:37:22 housing for vulnerable people i may be wrong lamb is living where do we see that please i saw two people from llamas living too age two there may just be a
00:37:33 living too age two there may just be a housing association uh it's just i happened to see the name of tony upfold who i knew and i dealt with them over some problems in sheltered housing but they may just
00:37:44 in sheltered housing but they may just be
00:37:46 the organization that managed the what was the council stock in lambeth i'm not sure
00:37:52 sure i know they did have specialized housing as i recall
00:37:57 can we then go back to the final version of the letter sent to elizabeth grant clg one triple zero four nine three two yes
00:38:09 and can we go to page one penultimate and last paragraphs on that page and then we'll go over the page yes i've read you the penultimate paragraph the last paragraph says well
00:38:22 paragraph the last paragraph says well the project group did not receive your comments at the consultation stage there was considerable feedback on the issue of fire safety of people with disabilities and the vulnerable living in flats with the purpose built within a purpose-built block and the extent to
00:38:33 purpose-built block and the extent to which the guidance should and could address this this was one of a small number of contentious issues that was specifically highlighted to the wider stakehold reference group and i can reassure you that the particular needs
00:38:44 reassure you that the particular needs of people with disabilities and vulnerable people have been taken into account throughout the guidance there were no practical solutions offered to address the issue of evacuation of people with disabilities from
00:38:56 people with disabilities from purpose-built blocks of flats
00:39:00 um first did the reference group itself contain any disability specialists or any representatives of organizations representing disabled person not that
00:39:11 not that i recall the project group didn't the reference group was a much wider group
00:39:18 group and i can't remember who was on it but i know the project group didn't right
00:39:23 right why did the project group not that would be a matter you'd have to put to lgid we didn't choose the members of the project project we were we were given them as it were i understand that do you have any insight you can offer
00:39:34 do you have any insight you can offer assistance whatsoever right and do you know whether the consultation actually consulted with any disability experts or representatives of that section of society
00:39:48 i can't recall i i know we we invited comment from as wide a group as we uh white
00:39:59 a group as we uh white a group of members of the public as we possibly could by
00:40:04 by advertisements in fire and housing magazines
00:40:11 we we certainly invited comment uh right from the start from anybody who wanted to comment and as i recall the invitation went out to
00:40:22 to through inside housing uh and a number of fire journals i think who were kind enough to put in our appeal as it were for comment as to
00:40:33 our appeal as it were for comment as to what the guide should cover uh so there was a very wide uh consultation uh
00:40:41 uh but sitting here i can't tell you whether any specialist groups concerned with disability were consulted right i mean do you remember whether since it had become such a contentious issue that
00:40:52 had become such a contentious issue that was specifically highlighted to the wider stakeholder reference group any thought was given by anybody you know or by yourself to making sure that there was somebody on the wider stakeholder reference group who was a
00:41:03 stakeholder reference group who was a specialist in disability well membership of the reference group was beyond our gift
00:41:09 gift and at the stage at which we flagged it up as a contentious issue on which we needed a steer at that stage the reference group was already well established
00:41:21 already well established and was about to finish its job as it were
00:41:24 were similarly the project group did
00:41:27 did uh anybody on the reference group or the wider the wider group sorry the project group or the wider reference group uh or yourselves take an illegal advice
00:41:38 uh or yourselves take an illegal advice about whether uh you or or they ought to be consulting such persons given the potentially discriminatory nature of the approach that
00:41:47 that ms grant had highlighted in her 23rd of august 2011 letter do you mean before the guide was published or after well at any stage at any stage the um the whole guide was read by
00:41:59 um the whole guide was read by government lawyers to check that it would comply with all legislation right
00:42:04 right and and in fact comments came back from government lawyers as i recall through on on specific matters such as
00:42:13 such as i seem to recall government lawyers had a view on leaseholder doors and whether leaseholders could really be article 5 3 persons so so the whole document was
00:42:25 persons so so the whole document was scrutinized by government lawyers right do you remember do you remember without telling me what the content of the advice was but do you remember as a fact whether once elsewhere granted raised the the legal challenge uh based on the
00:42:36 the the legal challenge uh based on the equality act and other uh pieces of guidance or legislation and community law uh anybody within the government specifically gave legal sort or gave legal advice on those questions that
00:42:48 legal advice on those questions that would really be beyond our our knowledge we our our project was completed in july uh when the guide was was published in july 2011
00:42:59 july 2011 i can see here that lgid or lga whichever it was by then consulted with dclg whether dclg internally consulted with lawyers or who
00:43:12 internally consulted with lawyers or who they consulted with they would they wouldn't necessarily have told us and i i certainly don't know okay now now would you mind just reading the rest of this letter of course because i i've got a general question
00:43:23 question you've read the first page i think completely would you read the rest of it i know i hadn't finished the first i'm sorry
00:43:30 sorry the page that's on the screen at the moment i haven't read yes we're at the top no exactly that's what i'd like you to finish reading certainly sir
00:43:39 uh i think i would just wish to draw attention to the last sentence of the first paragraph and that's absolutely true no one had any practical solutions lots
00:43:50 no one had any practical solutions lots of people
00:43:52 of people to use the modern idiom uh talk the the talk about disabled evacuation but when you ask them to walk the walk and ask what is it you would like us to do uh they have no answers well since
00:44:04 uh they have no answers well since you're on since you've picked that up yes let me ask you a question about it you say well it says there were no practical solutions offered had you or the
00:44:15 had you or the project group actually asked any stakeholders for any quotes practical solutions on quotes no but one or two people raised the subject of disabled evacuation but they they didn't offer
00:44:28 they they didn't offer they only offered fairly high level comment
00:44:32 comment about you'll need to make arrangements for people with disabilities but nobody offered to tell us what these arrangements might be and that remains quite a problem today actually now my point really is that the
00:44:43 actually now my point really is that the uh no one was actually asked were they in the consultation exercise nobody was actually asked for practical solutions to overcome the perceived practical problem
00:44:53 problem no we invited we invited comment as to whether the guide adequately addressed people with vulnerabilities we asked that specific question yes but you didn't ask them the question
00:45:04 yes but you didn't ask them the question would you like to tell us how to uh organize a peep for disabled people no we didn't
00:45:09 we didn't um shall i finish reading yes please
00:45:48 yes the the wording's been changed i i doubt that we actually had a hand in that but whether it was run by us or not i can't say now you having read it down to the
00:46:01 now you having read it down to the signature caroline bosdet uh i haven't come to her signature yeah that's right it may be just off the screen yes it's just off the screen yeah thank you
00:46:11 you right now i've shown you the draft yes i've shown you the ascent response yes and you've read them i hope thoroughly and we can go back to them again if you like but having read them do you accept that the as sent version of the letter
00:46:23 that the as sent version of the letter makes no reference whatever to the perceived practical problems for landlords in gathering and maintaining the information on disabled residents instead what it does is it focuses on
00:46:34 instead what it does is it focuses on the benefits of stay put and the scope of the fso can you and we can read that difference can you explain why the lga guide um sorry the lga didn't tell elsa grant
00:46:47 um sorry the lga didn't tell elsa grant in its response that the underlying rationale
00:46:50 rationale for the lga's guide's position on peeps was to avoid imposing disproportionate burdens on landlords i have no idea sir right that would be a
00:47:01 i have no idea sir right that would be a matter for lga and and and dclg as was right
00:47:08 did you have any discussion within your practice or with the project board about whether to set up a consultation workshop
00:47:15 workshop with resident disability specialists to consider the consequences of the then uh draft advice not as far as i can recall sir
00:47:27 do you do you think that it might have been a shortcoming in the consultation process for the sector to reach a view about the practicality of not having peaks or practicality of difficulties of having them in
00:47:38 difficulties of having them in purpose-built blocks of flats without consulting disability specialists
00:47:46 we what i would say again is that we invited
00:47:50 invited comment from as wide a group as we could possibly access
00:47:56 access i've been in in fire safety for 45 years sir
00:47:59 sir it would be no exaggeration to say i cannot think of any guidance published ever that i've been involved with that was subject to such massive consultation
00:48:11 consultation a british standard wouldn't go out for example to the public with three road shows have a couple of hundred people invited along to to have their say uh so so and and we
00:48:23 so and and we we
00:48:24 we undertook our own consultation with colleagues in the sector uh the lgid uh
00:48:31 uh defined who was to be involved in the the project group and the reference group so
00:48:37 group so we thought and it'll be for the chairman to decide as to whether we were wrong all of us including government and lga we thought we had consulted
00:48:48 we had consulted as widely as we possibly could and we went to great efforts to that answer now can i come back to your statement i want to ask you one or two questions next about the project board and the reference group yes sir uh if we go to
00:49:00 reference group yes sir uh if we go to your statement cta six zeros 12 please at page 12. let's look together at paragraph 55
00:49:09 yes you say there uh
00:49:13 uh in the third line
00:49:19 yes at this stage i would note that one of the areas identified was where the peeps would be appropriate for purpose-built blocks of flats our view was that peeps in the sense that the term is normally used whereby staff on premises assist
00:49:30 used whereby staff on premises assist with evacuation of disabled people were not practicable however we referred the matter to the project board for advice and a decision on this i can recall the discussions on the matter at the project board including some of those present at
00:49:41 board including some of those present at the meeting in question the consensus opinion of the project board was that the lga guide should acknowledge that peeps were not practicable that's correct so now we've discussed the you remember people sitting around the
00:49:52 you remember people sitting around the table
00:49:53 table some of them did some of them yes did you do you remember did the project board consider how peeps could be made to work in the general in general needs housing
00:50:03 housing in other words did anybody around the table actually turn their minds to how it might be made to work i think it was all part of the the discussion you see peeps as understood at the time sir
00:50:16 peeps as understood at the time sir were
00:50:17 were procedures that were adopted in buildings with staff
00:50:23 and i come back to the distinction between evacuation and rescue evacuation being a routine procedure whereby if there's a fire everybody in
00:50:36 whereby if there's a fire everybody in the building evacuates whether there's if you like well there's a need to or not it's a simultaneous evacuation strategy and in those buildings you need peeps for disabled people
00:50:48 for disabled people and that's what you get um
00:50:52 um in
00:50:53 in so so
00:50:55 so so it's not an evacuation if i i think i know i'm repeating what i said before but i think this is really important uh chairman in a block of flats
00:51:07 in a block of flats if disabled people are having to leave their flats something is wrong unless the fires on their own flat so there's something very wrong
00:51:15 wrong and when there's something very wrong it becomes a rescue an abnormal situation
00:51:22 situation and and that's without being flipping that's what the rnfrs is for for rescue uh so it's not really an evacuation so the term is a misnomer
00:51:33 the term is a misnomer and
00:51:34 and furthermore to
00:51:37 to deal with the chairman's question which i keep coming back to how do you deal with people who are disabled and have a fire on their own flat one of the first things you do is put telecare enabled smoke detection in throughout the flat
00:51:50 smoke detection in throughout the flat that that's how can that be called a personal emergency evacuation plan it's not uh you
00:51:58 uh you sometimes give them fire retardant bedding because they may want to smoke in bed and they should be as entitled to smoking bed as your icer so if that's how they want to
00:52:09 so if that's how they want to is that if that's the lifestyle they want
00:52:11 want you don't tell them you've got to stop smoking because you're disabled you work around how the disabled person wants to live their life and you give them fire retardant bedding you give them fire
00:52:22 retardant bedding you give them fire retardant night wear sometimes you give them
00:52:26 them what's called a smoking apron which i can display if you need me to and so you kind of work around their their lifestyle and the ultimate when all else fails
00:52:37 when all else fails and you're still not happy that you've protected this person against the fire in their own flat you put in some form of suppression and i've done that myself taylor making it for a disabled person
00:52:48 taylor making it for a disabled person the block of flats was a chaotic lifestyle and we said we can't do enough for this person they're still going to die from fire they need a suppression system you
00:52:59 they need a suppression system you wouldn't call a suppression system a personal emergency evacuation plan and so that was why i said earlier my evidence sir that providing a peep for a disabled person
00:53:12 for a disabled person to cater for a fire elsewhere in the block
00:53:15 block is putting a superficial scratch on fire safety for disabled people well mr todd just help me because when i asked that question
00:53:26 me because when i asked that question i had in mind let's assume a disabled person uh maybe who relies on crutches or walking frame or whatever yes
00:53:38 whatever yes whose flat is affected by a fire in the kitchen yes which gets out of control yes so he or she has to leave the flat yes
00:53:49 yes and there he or she is standing in the lobby all right over buildings such as grenfell tower yes on let's say the 17th floor yes with a lot
00:54:00 let's say the 17th floor yes with a lot of steps yes uh what if anything can be done for them well that comes back to the fire brigades union's point that tell these people they can use the lift don't tell
00:54:13 people they can use the lift don't tell them they can't use the lift because you're forcing them down in your case uh 17 flights of stairs when every other resident in the block is perfectly free and able to use the lift
00:54:25 and able to use the lift i mean that might argue for the conclusion that in that case and each case would no doubt depend on its own facts but in that case the somebody should have thought about it
00:54:37 somebody should have thought about it and the personal evacuation plan would say if nothing else use the lift yes and that is why sir i said that a peep
00:54:48 and that is why sir i said that a peep is a subset of something much more important which i call the person-centered fire risk assessment yeah because the the very the very salient point you've made sir is that there's a variety of
00:55:00 is that there's a variety of disabilities and we have to cater for the worst case scenario in which the person is bedridden but you make a very good point there's a range of abilities between able fully
00:55:14 range of abilities between able fully able-bodied and someone who's bedridden and the only way to deal with that is a tailor-made person-centered fire risk assessment and from that might fall out a peep
00:55:25 might fall out a peep it might fall out to peep or a personal rescue emergency plan by which i've penned the name more recently for it prep which i notice people have latched on to but but
00:55:36 on to but but you tailor make it and it's important that you do that sir and we don't do it enough because remember 180 people have died in blocks of flats since grenfell
00:55:48 in blocks of flats since grenfell and many of these will be older people fire is classist and ageist it picks on old people it picks on vulnerable people it picks on poor people
00:56:01 it picks on poor people and don't take this wrong way sir but but high court judges and qcs don't die in fires
00:56:06 in fires people who die in fires are those who are the the most vulnerable in society and the most impoverished in society and what we should be doing
00:56:17 what we should be doing is making sure that we have arrangements that we look after all disabled people and we don't just scratch the surface and say if there's a far else where
00:56:29 and say if there's a far else where friends and neighbors will get you out we we
00:56:32 we we there's masses you can do sir i mean i mentioned telecare enabled smoke alarms but that's just for starters uh well i think i get the picture and that's helpful i think
00:56:43 that's helpful i think i'm sorry if that was one of my longer answers sir that's all right i encouraged you thank you yes now do you remember whether at the project board the concerns of the chief fire
00:56:54 board the concerns of the chief fire officers association that we looked at earlier at home four zero two six six zero page seven were noted um
00:57:03 um i don't recall that sir um but i wouldn't wish to do the service to c4 as was
00:57:10 was so if you tell me that they well you're not telling me where you're asking me the question um c4 we're on the project board i know for a fact
00:57:22 i know for a fact um
00:57:24 um but
00:57:25 but whether they i can't remember them uh
00:57:29 uh strongly disputing the consensus opinion but we're going out now into the granular detail of discussions and so i i don't want to do them a disservice you don't recall i think is the answer i
00:57:40 don't recall i think is the answer i don't recall sorry um can we go to paragraph 78 of your statement please yes sir cta 6012 page 17 and you say there
00:57:50 uh you recollect very clearly the subject of peeps being discussed at the project group and then you go on to say this the consensus opinion of the project group was that it should be acknowledged in the lga guide that peeps were
00:58:01 the lga guide that peeps were impracticable because of the difficulty of collating information and keeping it up to date what were the practical difficulties in collating
00:58:09 collating information and keeping it up to date about
00:58:13 about disability or vulnerability if the resident was willing to provide it um okay so it's not so difficult in social housing but remember this guide sir is written
00:58:25 but remember this guide sir is written for all blocks of flats so can i give you the hypothetical situation of a block of flats posh block of flats in west london if i
00:58:36 posh block of flats in west london if i can put it that way all lease holders and the leaseholders have bought the freehold so there's now a residence management company running the block so the residents are
00:58:48 running the block so the residents are the owners the managing agents and the residents
00:58:52 residents so
00:58:53 so first of all is identification so when one leaseholder sells their flat it's not incumbent on them to tell the other residents that they've introduced a disabled person into the
00:59:05 introduced a disabled person into the block
00:59:07 block if they have introduced a disabled person into the block you have the difficulty that this disabled person if i'm say i'm bedridden i buy my flat in this block
00:59:21 bedridden i buy my flat in this block and i kind of say to their other residents hello i'm disabled sort me out a peep
00:59:28 how how would they actually do that uh is the rhetorical question um so collecting them for and many leaseholders sublet so you don't actually know who's in each
00:59:41 so you don't actually know who's in each flat
00:59:42 flat uh
00:59:43 uh and so you've got the difficulty of
00:59:46 of identifying the disabled people that's only half the problem maybe only 40 percent because you now have to keep it up to date
00:59:56 date and how often do you need to review that because it will become very rapidly out of date and and one of my own personal horrors which i share with
01:00:07 personal horrors which i share with some colleagues in the fire and rescue service is that you have a fire in a block of flats perhaps not in london perhaps a nip switch and
01:00:18 and you open the the pib and it tells you that there is a bariatric person on the 12th floor and the fire's on the fifth floor
01:00:30 and the fire's on the fifth floor but the officer in charge wants more people to come out a bariatric person chairman is a minimum of four firefighters and a basket stretcher
01:00:39 stretcher so we're now committing four firefighters many floors above a fire which you would never want to do because you're putting them at serious risk
01:00:50 you're putting them at serious risk firefighters will always put themselves at risk if it's necessary to save life always but so so they will go to the 12th floor and you've lost four firefighters
01:01:02 and you've lost four firefighters uh in a shire county's brigade that's probably half of your firefighting resources that you'll have in the first 10 minutes and
01:01:12 and in the meantime you find that this bariatric person was taken into hospital last week or they moved out of the block six months ago so you
01:01:22 so you you check it every six months okay they moved out five months ago and you've now diverted firefighters from a disabled person who does need assistance
01:01:33 assistance and from dealing with the fire so the problem is keeping the information up to date now as it happens and i don't want to digress into this sir because you'll cut
01:01:44 digress into this sir because you'll cut me off i know but for the past 18 months chairman i've personally been working on a technological solution to this so that firefighters can be presented with real-time information about disabled
01:01:57 real-time information about disabled people who are actually there uh and i have funding uh for that not not for for my practice this is we're doing this on a non we're not charging for this but to fund a couple of trial
01:02:09 for this but to fund a couple of trial installations and we have funding from the fire industry association scottish government the scottish fire and rescue service british approvals for fire equipment
01:02:18 equipment uh and it's underwritten by a company called aco who said uh we believe this is really right and we'll give you up to ten thousand pounds if you can't get it from anyone else
01:02:29 from anyone else uh and we are poised to to run a trial installation one in london one in edinburgh and we're just forming
01:02:40 and we're just forming a stated group on which there will be disability groups represented to see if we can actually solve this problem once and for all and give firefighters
01:02:51 firefighters real-time information that can be easily kept up to date i'm not going to bore you with why but they will actually have accurate information but that of course is still sir for the purpose of rescue
01:03:03 is still sir for the purpose of rescue uh because because it is rescue that probably arises does that help sir well it would prompt another question all right why could i not have been done or developed or
01:03:15 not have been done or developed or investigated in 2011. probably because the technology wasn't around for time and attendance technology as it's called was it investigated uh no it wasn't sir
01:03:26 was it investigated uh no it wasn't sir why is that because no one thought of it sir was it the grenfell tower fire that prompted these thoughts which have given rise to oh
01:03:32 oh absolutely that you've just described absolutely
01:03:37 so had the fire happened in 2015 the thinking would have started then or 2013 the thinking would have started then how can i say sir it came to me it came to me one day and and i decided
01:03:49 it came to me one day and and i decided to progress it in my own time as a little hobby and i've been doing that for 18 months with funding from a lot of supportive people in the fire sector did anybody consider carrying out an
01:04:00 anybody consider carrying out an equality impact assessment on the guide at the time that wouldn't have been a matter for us that would have been a matter for lga or dclg indeed it would have it would but my question is really i can't tell you the answer
01:04:12 i can't tell you the answer right now finally can i come to uh bs that the bs 999 one guidance which is 2015 yes sir this is at bsi
01:04:23 yes sir this is at bsi uh six zeros 59.
01:04:28 now it's 2015. so it clearly post dates the completion of the guidance as you can see from the top right hand corner
01:04:39 is it a standard i don't think it is isn't it a standard applicable specifically to fire safety in the design management and use of residential buildings yes it is it's for the design of new buildings well management and use
01:04:51 of new buildings well management and use after design yes in indeed and it's a code of practice first question do you have any role yourself in the formulation of this standard none at all no now um
01:05:02 no now um in recognizing as a general principle that in some circumstances fire services will need to decide to evacuate a building
01:05:09 building can we look at bsi um can we look at this document page 59 sorry page 15
01:05:18 and look together at 0.2.1 and it says general principles yes the means of escape from a flat or a major net of limited height is relatively simple with increasing height more
01:05:29 simple with increasing height more complex provisions are needed because emergency egress through upper windows becomes increasingly hazardous yes the provisions for means of escape for flats and maisonettes are based on the assumptions that and then there are four set out um
01:05:42 set out um b there can be no reliance on external rescue for example a portable ladder and then uh if you look at uh
01:05:52 uh if you look at d sorry c flat or mason that will have a high degree of compartmentation and therefore will be a low probability of fire spread beyond the flat or major net of origin so in most fires simultaneous
01:06:04 of origin so in most fires simultaneous evacuation of the building is unlikely to be necessary yes sir and then if we go uh to page 20.
01:06:16 i'm sorry i i do apologize i'm so sorry can we go back to page 15. there's a passage you should should just pick up i want to pick up with you um under the note
01:06:26 note uh it says towards the bottom of your screen whilst a simultaneous evacuation is normally unnecessary ca one regarding stay put strategy there will be some occasions where operational conditions are such that the fire and
01:06:38 conditions are such that the fire and rescue service decide to evacuate the building
01:06:41 building in these situations the occupants of the building will need to use the common stair sometimes whilst firefighting is in progress as such the measures in this british standard for protection of common stairs are designed to ensure
01:06:52 common stairs are designed to ensure that they remain available for use over an extended period yes sir now
01:06:58 now if we then go keeping that in mind please to
01:07:02 please to page 20
01:07:03 page 20 at the bottom of the page we can see there effective management of fire safety can contribute to the protection of the building occupants in many ways
01:07:14 building occupants in many ways and then d by being aware of the types of people in the building such as disabled people elderly people children pregnant women etc and any special risks or needs
01:07:25 etc and any special risks or needs yes and then if we go to page 33
01:07:31 page 33 paragraph 4.6
01:07:36 inclusive design is the heading of this section and the second paragraph says special management procedures might be required where it is reasonably foreseeable that the proportion of disabled persons in a building will be
01:07:48 disabled persons in a building will be relatively high recommendations for building management are given in section nine yes and then underneath that you'll see that
01:07:55 see that attention is drawn to the equality act 2010 yes
01:07:59 2010 yes which places a duty on all employers and service providers not to discriminate against disabled people yes it is vital to ensure it goes on that when making plans for the fire safety and management
01:08:10 plans for the fire safety and management of buildings the requirements of disabled people are properly taken into account at all times yes now
01:08:18 now then finally well penultimately in this document page 145 if we can go to that page please and look at the second paragraph below 54
01:08:29 look at the second paragraph below 54 there's a note 1 do you see it says and this is underneath the heading evacuation of disabled occupants or occupants that require assistance to escape note one in the second paragraph
01:08:40 escape note one in the second paragraph says it is the responsibility of the premises management to assess the needs of all people to make a safe evacuation when formulating evacuation plans an evacuation plan should not rely on the
01:08:52 evacuation plan should not rely on the assistance of the fire and rescue service this is an important factor that should be taken into account in the building design yes then finally page 175 and i'm sorry to give you such a long shopping list no i'm managing so it
01:09:04 long shopping list no i'm managing so it builds up to a question uh on page 175 uh there is a heading management of additional needs and disabilities yes and there's a reference annex e
01:09:15 and there's a reference annex e informative and general if you look at the second paragraph information for disabled people needs to be noted in fire action notices and in the fire management plan assumptions cannot be made about the willingness of
01:09:26 cannot be made about the willingness of individuals to remain in their flats even where a staple strategy is in place it is also possible that some residents will not be inside their own dwelling at the time a fire occurs they might for example be in the presence of using lifts or stairs to reach their home
01:09:38 lifts or stairs to reach their home visiting a neighbor or in a common area such as terrace or communal garden in which case returning to their flat might not be appropriate or possible yes and then in the last two paragraphs under that the the uk has an aging
01:09:50 under that the the uk has an aging society with increasing levels of independence into late later years and there are therefore many people living in standard residential accommodation who have a range of impairments which could affect their ability to evacuate or follow procedures fire safety
01:10:02 or follow procedures fire safety management needs to take into account the full range of people who might use the premises paying particular attention to the needs of disabled people with permanent or temporary impairment yes
01:10:13 permanent or temporary impairment yes and then e2 deals with people with mobility impairments etc and it goes on in that vein and one can cover the next two pages everyone looks at the next two pages scrolling down to page 176
01:10:25 pages scrolling down to page 176 with different impairments cognitive and learning hearing yes vision dogs etc
01:10:32 dogs etc now
01:10:33 now in i've shown you a lot of that probably not all of it it's relevant to this question but in the light of what i've just shown you in this british standard of 2015 did anybody you included ever
01:10:45 you included ever suggest a reconsideration of the content of paragraph 79 to 7911 of the lga guide i don't recall anyone suggesting
01:10:58 i don't recall anyone suggesting any revision of the
01:11:02 of the of the lga guide not off the top of my head
01:11:05 head do you accept that a situation arose in and after 2015 whereby the lga guide at least on the subject of vulnerable occupants was out of step with this british standard
01:11:18 um this is a design guide primarily for new buildings this is this is about how you go about designing and managing new buildings really
01:11:29 new buildings really it's an alternative to approve document b
01:11:36 the title of the document is is also about management and use yes it is is it limited to new builds after 2015 it's how it would be regarded sir as uh
01:11:49 it's how it would be regarded sir as uh as a new building design guide people people do design to it sometimes and we come across that because they don't want to use approved document b there will be stuff in here that is
01:12:00 there will be stuff in here that is useful in general terms for existing buildings no question but
01:12:06 but i'm not sure anybody would have thought well now that bs trouble 91 is published do we need to revise the lga guide and certainly uh that would have been a matter for the
01:12:18 uh that would have been a matter for the lga and or or government departments and i don't think i may be wrong there's anything in this british standard which says that it's limited to new builds i think you'll find something probably
01:12:29 i think you'll find something probably in the scope that says it's primarily about new builds but you might use it as guidance
01:12:35 guidance similarly would i be writing thinking that the lga guide was not only about existing buildings
01:12:42 you mean it was about new buildings was it not no only about existence actually says that in it so now the first edition of this bsi in fact was published on the 31st of december 2011. that's correct and it too
01:12:54 december 2011. that's correct and it too contained at section 9 a section on evacuation of disabled occupants or those occupants who require assistance to escape do you remember that vaguely remember that sir let's say when the lga
01:13:05 remember that sir let's say when the lga guide was put together in 2011 and then republished i think in may 2012 um do you remember whether bsi 9991 in the 2011 iteration was considered at all it
01:13:16 2011 iteration was considered at all it wasn't it wasn't revised in 2012 i think what they did was there was a paragraph in the 2011 that shouldn't have been there
01:13:25 there it was a paragraph that we had in
01:13:30 the project group wanted it taken out so we took it out and replaced it with another paragraph but
01:13:38 but the lgid accidentally put the new paragraph in but didn't take out the previous paragraph so there were two paragraphs that directly conflicted
01:13:50 that directly conflicted and
01:13:51 and they hadn't implemented uh the
01:13:54 uh the what the project board asked us to do it was about doors so so the the the corrected that in 2012
01:14:04 subject to that then let me let me re-ask the question so that you answered my question when the lgi lj guide was was put together in 2011 yes
01:14:16 and then it having been put together in 2011 before the 31st of december 25 2011 when the first edition of this bsi came out did anybody thereafter when it came to
01:14:28 did anybody thereafter when it came to revising it in the may of 2012 ask themselves well should we now say something to reflect or bring it in line with the newly published bsi
01:14:38 bsi 9991
01:14:41 9991 i'm sorry this will probably appear so i'm contradicting you sir but but it wasn't revised i thought i said that uh no i appreciate that so it wasn't a revision had there been a revision
01:14:52 revision had there been a revision where you a revision of a document is so i'm teaching my granny to suck eggs but but in in guidance parlance you revise a document by sitting down with it and going through it caused by clause
01:15:03 it and going through it caused by clause and saying is it still up to date do we want a revision there was no revision i think that's important to understand that probably answers my question but uh when the lgi guide was republished yes in may 2012 not revised
01:15:16 republished yes in may 2012 not revised but republished was any thought given to
01:15:20 to revising it to take into account what the uh recent then recently published first version of this bsi uh had said on the subjects i've shared
01:15:31 uh had said on the subjects i've shared again that would be a question for lga but my answer would be not as far as i'm aware very good thank you very much
01:15:39 uh now mr todd i've come to the end of my prepared questions you'll be pleased to
01:15:44 to hear
01:15:44 hear uh it's customary at this point to take a shortish break uh to see whether there are any follow-up questions that i need to ask you from my own side or from the core participants of course outside this
01:15:55 core participants of course outside this uh this this process this building uh or even in it um so we're going to take a short break now mr chairman if we may yes well mr todd as mr millet has indicated we we need to take a break now
01:16:07 indicated we we need to take a break now uh and indeed i think it's time we had a break during the afternoon anyway so we'll start until 25 to 4
01:16:15 25 to 4 and then when you come back we'll see if there any more questions for you that's fine sir thank you very much thank you very much we'd like to go with the usher please
01:16:30 mr miller we're going to have slightly less than 15 minutes so if you need a bit more time just let the usher know yes very good mr chairman thank you
01:32:26 yes would you ask mr todd to come back in please
01:32:38 yes please mr take a seat well now we'll see if there any more questions for you thank you sir mr millet yes uh mr chairman there are no further questions for this uh this
01:32:49 further questions for this uh this witness
01:32:50 witness uh having considered them carefully but the um the questions that have been put to us maybe very pertinent questions for others coming later in this inquiry right
01:32:58 right very well thank you very much so um mr todd it remains for me on behalf of my team to thank you very much indeed
01:33:07 indeed for coming here and giving us your opinions uh in oral evidence we're very grateful to you so thank you very much indeed thank you chairman can i just uh wish you your panel and the legal team
01:33:18 wish you your panel and the legal team well for the rest of the inquiry can i just express my condolences as well to those who lost loved ones at grenfell tower and assure them that virtually no week goes by but
01:33:31 virtually no week goes by but many of us are involved in initiatives and committees and activities to try and prevent it happening again yeah well thank you very much mr todd it's right that before you leave i should
01:33:42 that before you leave i should uh thank you very much on behalf of all three members of the panel and indeed the inquiry as a whole for all the time and effort that you've devoted to our work
01:33:51 work because it's not just a case of coming here
01:33:54 here for actually rather longer than i think you were originally led to believe it to give your evidence orally but um you've produced reports for us and i'm sure that a lot of time and trouble has gone into that part of your
01:34:07 trouble has gone into that part of your work as well and we are extremely grateful for your help in all these different respects so thank you very much indeed and um it's been a pleasure to hear from you thank you more than welcome sir i hope it's
01:34:19 you more than welcome sir i hope it's been of some help yes certainly thank you very much indeed thank you goodbye sir goodbye
01:34:31 thank you mr miller now we have another witness waiting but we need to rise for a couple of minutes just to make the appropriate arrangements yes please mr chairman it'll be miss barrel menses who'll be taken by miss miss rose grogan for
01:34:44 taken by miss miss rose grogan for um yes for the rest of the afternoon uh well we'll rise now and you can uh invite josh to come and infect us when you're ready or when miss grogan is ready at least right thank you very much
01:39:59 yes mrs grogan now you have another witness for us yes we do we have ms beryl menzies thank you
01:40:15 good afternoon i gather you were going to make the affirmation i am the words are there on the screen would you care to read them out please i do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and
01:40:26 solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and to nothing but the truth thank you very much do sit down make yourself comfortable
01:40:38 before we start may i just apologize for keeping you hanging around for some time i
01:40:42 i we don't we don't always quite manage to run to the timetable so i apologize for that no problem right yes was great thank you
01:40:51 thank you good afternoon miss menzies thank you very much for coming to give evidence today and for assisting the inquiry again with its work i'm going to be asking you questions today about your supplementary expert
01:41:02 today about your supplementary expert report which was prepared for module three of phase two of this inquiry covering the building control body's assessment of the smoke control system if you don't understand any of my questions please ask me to repeat them
01:41:14 questions please ask me to repeat them or to put them in a different way and also please keep your voice up so that the transcriber can hear you can we go first to bmer 607
01:41:35 this is the supplementary report you've produced for the inquiry dated 20th of april 2021 and it covers the smoke control installation that form part of the building regulations application
01:41:47 building regulations application associated with the refurbishment of grenfell tower can we go to page 5 of that report please
01:41:57 and here at paragraph 10 you explain which is just at the bottom that this report should be read in conjunction with your main report on the application for building regulations
01:42:08 application for building regulations approval in relation to the grenfell tower refurbishment as amended in april 2020 and for the transcript the reference is bmer 604
01:42:19 reference is bmer 604 plus that reports appendix bmer 605 and errata sheet bmer 606. can i just now take you to the last page of this document which is page 71.
01:42:37 we see there a declaration and statement of truth and a signature is that your signature it is can you please confirm that the facts set out in your supplementary report are true to the best of your knowledge and
01:42:48 true to the best of your knowledge and belief i confirm have you provided this report in the same way as you would have provided a report to the court yes and does your report represent your true and complete professional opinion
01:42:59 true and complete professional opinion on the matters addressed within it it does
01:43:02 does when asking questions today i may refer to the supplementary report as your report and if we need to go to your first report prepared for module one i will make that clear
01:43:15 i'd like to start with some questions about your qualifications and background you were asked about these in module one so we can take this reasonably swiftly but just as a reminder if we could go to page three of this document
01:43:31 we can see that here you've set out your professional qualifications and experience and starting with your professional qualifications you are a fellow of the chartered association of building engineers yes uh
01:43:44 association of building engineers yes uh and you told us in module one that you've been a fellow of the cab since it became chartered about four years ago yes
01:43:50 yes uh you were president of the association of building engineers between may 2009 and may 2010 yes and you're also a member of the royal institution of chartered surveyors
01:44:01 institution of chartered surveyors correct
01:44:03 correct going on to your experience and we see just at the bottom of that page so from the bottom working back up uh you were your first role in the industry was within the greater london
01:44:14 industry was within the greater london council in the building's regulation division between 1973 and 1985 yes after that you moved to the london borough of tower hamlets and became a chief engineer
01:44:24 engineer implementing the building regulations and the london building acts with responsibility for specialist officers dealing with innovative new buildings under construction correct and since 1991 you've been an
01:44:36 and since 1991 you've been an independent fire consultant and you're a director of menses partners limited correct can you just remind us what it is that menses partners does um we are building surveyors and fire safety consultants
01:44:48 consultants moving on to the next page that's page four
01:44:52 four can you confirm uh that you have previously been a member of the review panel of the building regulations advisory committee for approved document b yes
01:45:04 for approved document b yes and can you confirm that you're currently a member of the building control performance standards advisory group of the brac i am it hasn't met for some considerable time but as far as i'm aware it still
01:45:16 time but as far as i'm aware it still exists
01:45:19 and can you briefly outline your experience with smoke control systems first as
01:45:24 first as uh working on the building control side at tower hamlets and before and then as an independent consultant my experience relates to many new developments within the docklands area
01:45:36 developments within the docklands area of town hamlets where we
01:45:39 where we look to pressurization systems and other smoke control systems or more of late i was a technical adviser to tower hamlet in respect of
01:45:51 adviser to tower hamlet in respect of very tall residential blocks and the smoke control systems i also visited north america in the 1980s to look at their
01:46:01 their forms of smoke control mostly pressurization where it was more common at the time than it was in this country and do you have experience of
01:46:12 and do you have experience of refurbishment projects of the nature of grenfell tower or similar not
01:46:19 not no i don't it was mostly new build refurbishment of such systems is
01:46:28 not common in that they buildings of that age didn't normally have smoke control systems that were mechanical in part
01:46:39 moving on to the relevant legislation regulations and standards then um
01:46:45 um [Music]
01:46:46 [Music] can we look at the section of your report beginning on page 8 please
01:46:53 so here and in the following pages you've set out the relevant legislation and guidance which includes the pre-refurbishment guidance the guidance and approved document b relevant british standards and the
01:47:04 relevant british standards and the guidance provided by the smoke control association and in relation to proof document b if we go to page 10 please paragraphs 51 and 52
01:47:17 you say there that adb set out that the aim of a smoke control measures for escape was to ventilate the smoke that will pass through a flat entrance door when the occupants escape and that it recommended that the common
01:47:29 and that it recommended that the common lobby was ventilated to control smoke and so protect the common stairs the ventilation was in addition to the recommended fire resistant self-closing doors to a flat entrance and the common stair
01:47:40 stair and then paragraph 52 recommendations for natural mechanical ventilation were given stating that mechanical ventilation may be provided to the stair and or corridor
01:47:51 be provided to the stair and or corridor lobby to protect the stairs and that guidance on the design of smoke systems using pressure differentials is available in bsen 1201-6 2005
01:48:02 2005 and we know as as you've just mentioned the grenfell tower had a smoke control system installed when it was first constructed can you explain how the building regulations and guidance in approved
01:48:13 regulations and guidance in approved document b would apply to a refurbishment project where there was an original smoke control system already in place
01:48:20 place as with any refurbishment of an existing building the legislation is set out that the situation should be made no worse it's
01:48:31 it's excuse me there is no retrospective legislation that requires a building to be brought up to current building standards in as much as the building control
01:48:43 in as much as the building control standards refer to various forms of legislation it would be any upgrade shall we say would be
01:48:53 would be dealt with under the regulat regulatory reform fire safety order for
01:48:59 for an assessment to say that if it did say that the the system was what not fit for purpose for the use it was being put to in the particular occupied building
01:49:11 in the particular occupied building and we can look at the non-worsening principle if we go to clg 3019897
01:49:20 page six that's the building regulations there if we go over the page sorry which is regulation so onto page seven
01:49:41 at we see their regulation for
01:49:44 for subparagraph three which is at the bottom of the page it says building work should be carried out so that after it has been completed a
01:49:54 a any building which is extended or to which a material alteration is made or be
01:49:58 be any building in or in connection with the controlled service fitting is provided extended or materially altered or any controlled service or fitting complies with the applicable requirements of schedule one or where it
01:50:10 requirements of schedule one or where it did not comply with any such requirement is no more unsatisfactory in relation to that requirement than the before the work was carried out yes and that reflects the explanation you've
01:50:21 and that reflects the explanation you've just given us i hope she's and so in simple terms the no more unsatisfactory positions or the second option there that's often referred to as the non-worsening principle
01:50:33 the non-worsening principle yes if the works you were looking at the situation we're looking at did not comply with current standards there was no means of going back and
01:50:44 there was no means of going back and making it comply it just had to be made no worse even if it complied at the time but was not up to current standards or it didn't actually comply at the time and for some reason it came into
01:50:56 and for some reason it came into existence
01:50:57 existence it's rather
01:51:00 an imprecise criterion that isn't it no more unsatisfactory has it given rise to difficulties of interpretation and
01:51:12 and yes in as much as it's down to the individual to interpret it you would have to establish what the situation was and then look at the proposals to see if
01:51:23 and then look at the proposals to see if the end result was any worse than existing it's a comparison of the practical functioning that one's looking at
01:51:34 that one's looking at it's what the existing situation achieves
01:51:38 achieves in very simple terms if he achieved four air changes and they were proposing three then
01:51:45 then that would be worse yes yes thank you following on from that is is it right that non-worsening relates to the functional requirements of schedule one
01:51:56 functional requirements of schedule one so when you look at whether or not something is no worse it's no worse in terms of satisfying b1 or b5
01:52:06 or b5 the no worse situation would be the function of requirements requires reasonable means of escape under b1 if the existing situation provided reasonable escape then you couldn't make
01:52:19 reasonable escape then you couldn't make it any lesser standard than existed if it didn't provide reasonable escape in your opinion but existed you still could not require an upgrading
01:52:30 you still could not require an upgrading of it but you could tell the fire brigade that they might want to go and look at it under the rro
01:52:37 and in practice how would a building control body go about considering if each of the functional requirements was either met or not made any worse it would be a case of
01:52:48 it would be a case of hopefully looking at their records unfortunately in this case it wasn't possible
01:52:53 possible or
01:52:54 or getting details provided by the applicant to indicate what the existing situation was if necessary go visiting the premises itself
01:53:06 at paragraph 43 and 45 of your report which is on page nine of bmer 607.
01:53:17 uh you refer there to the guidance at the time the original grenfell tower system was installed yes and if we go to those paragraphs we see you say there um in the absence of
01:53:28 you say there um in the absence of information regarding what was originally approved in my opinion it would have been good practice for the bcb
01:53:33 bcb to refer to the guidance applicable at the time of the construction of grenfell tower
01:53:39 tower and paragraph 44 you say
01:53:42 you say whilst a review of cp3 would not have provided information regarding the grenfell tower smoke control system it would have given an understanding of the fire safety protocol at the time of construction and would have assisted the bcb in
01:53:54 and would have assisted the bcb in ascertaining if the initial refurbishment proposal was a material alteration uh and where the bcb control was limited to ensuring that the existing situation was made no worse
01:54:06 was made no worse or if it was building work that should be regarded as requiring compliance full or part with the applicable standards current at the time of the application um can you explain how a building control authority would approach a
01:54:17 control authority would approach a situation where an existing system was not
01:54:21 not in accordance with the guidance in place at the time it was installed
01:54:29 in initially i would suggest they would ask the person carrying out the works to provide any information they had on the building one would expect somebody owns
01:54:40 building one would expect somebody owns a building to have some background to that building
01:54:46 if that wasn't available ask for details of existing layouts etc or go down to the site and have a look and ask them to demonstrate
01:54:58 have a look and ask them to demonstrate what was there and to show what the layout was etcetera it it's difficult which is why records should always be kept
01:55:09 kept um to do so but it's down to the person carrying out the works to provide that information to the building control body and the inquiries heard evidence that
01:55:20 and the inquiries heard evidence that the existing system at grenfell terra had been malfunctioning or broken down well ahead of the refurbishment would you expect a building control body to carry out a non-worsening assessment as
01:55:31 carry out a non-worsening assessment as against the existing system in a fully functioning state or in its state um as it was at the time so broken down or
01:55:39 or or malfunctioning if you would assess it in against
01:55:45 against this the system working or how you would believe it would work the malfunctioning aspect was not a building rig's matter it was for the rro
01:55:56 building rig's matter it was for the rro and presumably in a building like grenfell tower you would be able to assess the extraction rate from
01:56:07 from a single lobby by reference to the size of the shafts and the capacity of the fans in so far as there were fans working on the system is that right
01:56:18 working on the system is that right an assessment could be made by a competent engineer the issue then comes to the leakage from the building in an existing building is always difficult no
01:56:29 existing building is always difficult no matter how much you survey a building you
01:56:33 you you won't know every crack void etc that does exist so the proof would be actually running the system but if it wasn't functioning
01:56:44 if it wasn't functioning that's where the difficulty comes so
01:56:47 so assume the worst and take it that they need to my approach would be that if you can't prove what's there then show me something that is
01:56:58 then show me something that is adequate in what you're proposing but you could presumably do um i won't call it a hypothetical calculation but you could do a calculation based on the configuration
01:57:09 calculation based on the configuration of the building and such information as you have about the plant
01:57:15 the plant incorporated within the system you could but it wouldn't necessarily because of the unknown leakage factors it may it would give an indication
01:57:26 it may it would give an indication but may not be the actual result you would get a perfect figure which wouldn't actually allow for the leakage into the system from not necessarily yes thank you yes sorry um we will come back
01:57:38 thank you yes sorry um we will come back to this in more detail but um you said your approach would be that if you can't prove what's there then show me something that is adequate in what you're proposing is that in the context of non-worsening
01:57:50 is that in the context of non-worsening or would you in those circumstances or we should say would a reasonable building control body in those circumstances say you have to therefore comply with the functional requirements of
01:58:01 of the building regulations as they are now i was always trained to assume control until somebody proves that i don't have control as a building control officer in the interest of public safety
01:58:12 the interest of public safety therefore if they can't show me what they have i can't say it's not a worsening or it is a worsening so i would take the safe route if you
01:58:23 so i would take the safe route if you like
01:58:24 like and ask them to prove it or to in their proposals show me something was adequate in replacement for that system as it existed
01:58:35 for that system as it existed and adequate in relation to to the functional requirements or adequate in relation to something else it's always in relation to the functional requirements
01:58:46 functional requirements those functional requirements are assisted um supported by current guidance which is where your reference point would be if they didn't want to adhere to current
01:58:59 if they didn't want to adhere to current guidance then we would ask them to employ an engineer to do a fire engineering assessment a fire engineer proposal and that would then be reviewed in that context
01:59:12 if we could go to um dr lane's phase 2 report
01:59:17 report which is blarp2
01:59:21 5035 at page 44.
01:59:28 so this is dr lane's smoke control report and here she concludes that the original smoke control system did not comply with the recommendations of cp3 1971
01:59:40 1971 and the reference for the transcript is 3.3.28 to 3.3.4 um
01:59:47 um at paragraphs 3.3.29 to
01:59:50 to 3.3.31
01:59:52 3.3.31 and at 3.34 she
01:59:55 she states that in natural ventilation mode the aggregate area of the smoke shafts on each side of the lobby was 0.48 meters squared
02:00:05 squared the aggregate area of the dampers on each side of the lobby was 0.28 meters squared
02:00:10 squared these values are both significantly lower than the equivalent free area recommended by cp3 1971 of 1.5 meters squares when automatically opening and then at the bottom you see there she
02:00:22 and then at the bottom you see there she says therefore the system did not comply with the requirements of cp3 1971 due to the aggregate area of the dampers being lower than the equivalent free area recommended
02:00:33 recommended of 1.5 meters squared when automatically opening
02:00:36 opening do you agree with her assessment there i agreed that the system did not comply with cp3
02:00:43 with cp3 but it didn't have to it was a system uh
02:00:48 uh that was accepted under section 34 of the london building acts amendment act 1939
02:00:54 1939 and under section 20 of that act which was permissible the authority having control the glc administers that administered that legislation
02:01:05 administered that legislation and
02:01:06 and accepted the proposal which i would imagine was
02:01:12 the result of a discussion between the developer
02:01:16 developer the building regulations division and the fire service and perhaps even the glc scientific branch at the time but from the few documents that i have seen
02:01:27 seen there was a system that was accepted that reflected what well i can't say did reflect what was in in existence because the paperwork wasn't there but there is an indication
02:01:39 wasn't there but there is an indication there was a system that involved mechanical smoke control in grenfell tower
02:01:45 tower on those two documents that the fire brigade i think provided eventually and just going back to um the paragraphs we looked at in your report before we don't need to pull them up but you've
02:01:56 don't need to pull them up but you've said
02:01:57 said um that in the absence of information regarding what was originally approved so
02:02:02 so as you've just said we don't know quite what was approved but you say you know it would have been approved um it was reasonable and good practice for the bcb to refer to cp3
02:02:14 for the bcb to refer to cp3 um how in practice would that have worked where you knew the system doesn't comply with cp3 but when looking at non-worsening it would be reasonable to look at cp3 this is where the problem
02:02:26 to look at cp3 this is where the problem arises
02:02:28 arises you would ask them to demonstrate to prove what was there if they couldn't then it was either a case of well we're not going to accept any proposal from you which would be totally unreasonable on part of a building control body or
02:02:42 on part of a building control body or ask them to provide a proposal they wanted to do refurbishment works that they wanted to change
02:02:51 change the system they couldn't maintain the existing system in other words they weren't prepared for instance to go and get 3d modelling of the existing fans and everything else and
02:03:01 and have one-off components replacement components made plus spares which would be very costly and unreasonable proposal anyway but
02:03:12 but it was down to them to convince the building control body that what was there would be adequate in terms of b1 and b5 it couldn't be demonstrating
02:03:24 demonstrating no worse no worsening because they couldn't prove what was there but from an experienced point of view anything that was automatic would likely
02:03:35 anything that was automatic would likely be better
02:03:36 be better than a natural system in terms of the speed at which it would operate and the fact it was a mechanical extract as opposed to a natural extract
02:03:48 as opposed to a natural extract because the mechanical would be better in terms of dealing with downwinds etc would be positive and it would be activated
02:03:56 activated as the fire brigade were on route so it was working for people as they were escaping and protecting the building of course it's all part of a system that
02:04:07 of course it's all part of a system that is balanced by all the other aspects of part b of the building regulations
02:04:14 moving on to the approach that was then taken by the parties involved in the refurbishment staying in your report so back to bmer 607 page 8 now
02:04:31 paragraph 35 to 38 you explain that in relation to the new smoke control system at grenfell tower initially the bcb's control of the works as described in the full plans
02:04:42 as described in the full plans application was limited to ensuring the proposals resulted in a smoke control installation on completion that was no worse
02:04:50 worse slash provided no less protection that it had existed prior to the alterations being undertaken you then say the design of the proposed installation changed significantly as the designer developed and it became a
02:05:02 the designer developed and it became a fully mechanical extract system new information was provided regarding the working of the existing system and as such it was not demonstrated that the various amended proposals would result in a no worse situation
02:05:14 in a no worse situation and this in your opinion extended the control under the building regulations to require compliance with current guidance as far as was reasonable and practical to do so and the bcb appears
02:05:25 practical to do so and the bcb appears to have adopted this approach yes
02:05:29 yes um so we're clear when you say guidance current at the time does that mean at the time of the refurbishment yes is that just adb or would it include other guidance such as the smoke control association guidance
02:05:41 association guidance it would be to the person proposing the works to adopt the guidance you should not cherry pick from multiple codes to make it suit your
02:05:53 codes to make it suit your proposal because it would make it work but you can take aspects of
02:05:59 of different forms of guidance because the guidance is published at different times and more recent guidance may have better guidance
02:06:09 guidance than say adb 2013 subsequent 2015 guidance double nine nine one for instance more guidance more technical guidance to assist people designing
02:06:21 assist people designing installations you say the bcb appears to have adopted that approach on what basis did you reach that conclusion in as much as they
02:06:32 reach that conclusion in as much as they asked for
02:06:33 asked for information regarding the existing system they didn't appear from what i've seen on the disclosures they didn't appear to receive that information and they then proceeded to review a proposal
02:06:46 they then proceeded to review a proposal that developed over some considerable time and changed from what was originally proposed
02:06:55 and what do you mean when you say um a reasonable and practical extent of compliance i suppose in simple terms it's getting as near to the recommended standard as
02:07:07 as near to the recommended standard as possible
02:07:08 possible and recommended standard being guidance or being b1 and b5
02:07:14 fulfilling the functional requirements under b1 b5 having reference to and regard to
02:07:20 regard to print published guidance in the absence of a fully engineered proposal
02:07:27 so would it be fair to summarize that as following the guidance as best you can but always ultimately aiming to
02:07:36 aiming to achieve compliance with the functional requirements in terms of b1 does it provide reasonable and adequate means of escape b5 facilities to assist firefighters in fighting the fire
02:07:51 dr lane's view is that the parties involved in the design of the system and the submission to building control did not adopt a non-worsening approach and therefore the only other option
02:08:02 and therefore the only other option available to them was to identify an alternative design approach to comply with the functional requirements the reference for that for the transcript is blarp25036
02:08:13 transcript is blarp25036 [Music]
02:08:15 [Music] page 5 at paragraphs 10.2.11 to
02:08:20 to 10.2.13. um would you agree with that on the basis that they couldn't prove what the existing was therefore they could not prove it was better or worse
02:08:33 and in circumstances where it's not possible to comply with guidance how would a designer demonstrate compliance with the functional requirements of the building regulations
02:08:44 requirements of the building regulations presenting a scheme that
02:08:46 that would
02:08:48 would adopt criteria and in terms of performance um
02:08:56 um by reference to [Music]
02:08:59 [Music] accepted guidance a performance level in a code of some sort or demonstrate it by a modeling or cfd
02:09:09 cfd computational fluid dynamics programming
02:09:15 in his evidence mr humani of psb described the approach ultimately adopted as a betterment exercise and the reference for that is day 155
02:09:26 and the reference for that is day 155 page 110 line 22 and we can see that in a different place in the transcript for day 155 page 24 line 14.
02:10:08 i'm just checking that that's the right reference
02:10:15 yes so he says there um so it's line 19 not line 14 uh what happened was that max fordham reviewed the information that we provided them with to say you couldn't install a compliant system it
02:10:26 couldn't install a compliant system it was impossible and that therefore in order to find a solution which entered to the spirit of the guidances not compliant we've put forward a suggestion of a system this was not taken
02:10:38 of a system this was not taken up
02:10:39 up and then on to the next page please so page 25 um
02:10:49 what they then did was to take the volumetric flow rate that we had specified and put it forward as an improvement to the existing system and that was how the project went forward it was on developing improvement not a
02:11:00 was on developing improvement not a design and they did a document that they sent through for approval by building control who approved the betterment what do you understand the concept of an improvement or betterment exercise to be
02:11:11 improvement or betterment exercise to be i've never heard the term betterment used in this context an improvement over and above what was existing i understand betterment is usually dealt with in terms of leases and
02:11:23 terms of leases and dilapidations and the like but it's it's in the dictionary and it just means better than before can't say any more than that really
02:11:34 can't say any more than that really having heard the evidence how do you understand that this betterment exercise relates to the two options we've discussed so either non-worsening or compliance with modern standards
02:11:46 compliance with modern standards it was a move towards the latter in as much that it took a performance criteria
02:11:53 criteria which was a wreck of a recognized standard bid from a different approach i.e the pressurization depressurization code but it was a flow
02:12:04 depressurization code but it was a flow that was recognized in that document as being adequate to hold back smoke from the staircase during escape and during fire fighting
02:12:15 during escape and during fire fighting so
02:12:16 so it was
02:12:18 it was and i agree it was better likely to be better than existed
02:12:25 so it was an improvement on the existing but because of the
02:12:33 the approach that was taken it couldn't be pointed to in any specific code as fully complying with that code so it required judgment on the parts of the building control body
02:12:45 building control body to consider whether that would adequate in the circumstances and again when you say adequate you mean adequate with reference to b1 and b5 entirely yes
02:12:57 entirely yes so
02:12:58 so would it be fair to say that your understanding of this betterment concept is that it's not some halfway house between
02:13:05 between non-worsening and full compliance with b1 and b5
02:13:09 b1 and b5 it's a species of the latter yes
02:13:16 what kind of analysis would you expect a reasonably competent bcb to ask for to justify that kind of betterment proposal it would be calculations or modelling in
02:13:28 it would be calculations or modelling in the form of built models computer models or in cfd
02:13:38 the calculations would be acceptable the issue with calculations it doesn't give the designer 100 confidence because particularly in
02:13:49 100 confidence because particularly in an existing building the day you turn it on and what you've done doesn't actually arrive if you like is not demonstrated then it can be because you weren't aware of
02:14:00 can be because you weren't aware of something and did not take it into consideration in your calculation but it's a risk that is taken with
02:14:08 with safeguards so building in extra leakage factors etcetera which is what was done in this small calculation admittedly that was done by psb which i'm not sure that
02:14:21 which i'm not sure that building control ever saw we'll come on to that topic um probably tomorrow
02:14:27 tomorrow uh
02:14:29 uh different individuals giving factual evidence have referred to the design approach in different ways so as we've discussed mr mani referred to it as betterment and given what we've heard from the oral evidence and also your review of the the
02:14:41 evidence and also your review of the the underlying documentation uh can you help us on whether you think that psb and the bcb had a common understanding of the basis of the design
02:14:54 from what i've seen as the close disclosures there would appear to have been but there is no documentation to substantiate my
02:15:05 my con
02:15:06 con perceiving that to be the case so your assessment of what happened was that everybody was working towards compliance with modern standards towards it in the context of an existing
02:15:18 towards it in the context of an existing building and the limitations that imposed but at all times seeking compliance with b1 and b5 yes
02:15:28 if we go now to page 68 of your report
02:15:37 at paragraph 290 you say there the proposed design of the smoke extract installation incorporated the adoption of
02:15:47 of the recommended velocity of at least two meters per second at the open lobby stairwell door for the class of system appropriate for means of escape and firefighting in bsen12101-6
02:15:59 bsen12101-6 class b
02:16:00 class b and you say in my opinion the adoption of this flow rate as a design principle was reasonable in the circumstances however whilst readings established the design flow was being attained i've not seen any disclosure that indicates that
02:16:12 seen any disclosure that indicates that the bbcb
02:16:14 the bbcb sought confirmation of confirmed or witnessed the physical path of the air brackets smoke movements away from the stair and that there was no significant inflow from other leakage paths such as the fire flat
02:16:25 the fire flat and if we go to page 51 so it's like earlier in your report paragraph 182 you say there there's no specific
02:16:36 you say there there's no specific explanation or justification for the adoption
02:16:39 adoption of the two meters per second within the technical submission can you explain why in the absence of explanation or justification you consider that the proposal of two meters per second velocity was nonetheless
02:16:51 per second velocity was nonetheless appropriate in the circumstances it was a well recognized code that is
02:16:56 that is 12101-6 was a well-recognised code of achieving a high standard of safety to deter smoke spread everybody appeared to know it but nobody
02:17:08 everybody appeared to know it but nobody actually wrote it down for the record so to speak
02:17:13 to speak and was it acceptable to take that particular criterion from bsnen121016 without explaining precisely why that was done why other criteria weren't chosen for
02:17:25 why other criteria weren't chosen for example in the technical submission
02:17:31 on reflection in the absence of records for future reference to it was not and building control should have said why have you adopted this particular criteria
02:17:43 particular criteria i think it was almost a familiarity and therefore
02:17:50 a mission to record it i can't think of any reason why it could not be recorded but it just wasn't as far as i can ascertain but the probability i suspect
02:18:01 ascertain but the probability i suspect is the answer would have come back because it's we've taken it from the standard in question yes that would have been acceptable to building control i believe it would yes
02:18:13 building control i believe it would yes and how would building control know that the resulting design actually worked and in what circumstances it actually worked without that justification or explanation
02:18:24 explanation the only time you'll know it works is when you test it and the offence under the building regulations unless it's a procedural matter is on site so if
02:18:36 so if if
02:18:37 if he had shown not to have the two meter per second flow minimum then it would be in the case this doesn't comply and then
02:18:47 and then enforcement could have been taken enforcement action could have been taken
02:18:56 in his evidence the inquiry mr mani said that the new system's route to compliance was based on it generating a greater extract rate than the existing system
02:19:06 system the existing systems extract rate had been calculated by max fordham on instruction from the tmo and mr mani's evidence was that they took the volumetric flow rate and put it forward as an improvement to
02:19:18 and put it forward as an improvement to the existing system and that's how the project went forward and
02:19:23 and the reference for that we don't need to go to it is day 155 page 25 lines one to seven
02:19:31 mr macros smith of max fordham said on day 157 page 175 line 4 the building control came back and said we don't think that you're adequately
02:19:42 we don't think that you're adequately providing your proposal is an improvement and they laid out what they would like to see in order to satisfy them that it was an improvement and that the outcome was that they could go away and do either what they termed a
02:19:53 go away and do either what they termed a hand calculation or cfd and it was decided that the hand calculation would be the way that they would go
02:20:00 would go just pausing there you referred earlier in your evidence to calculations as being one way of demonstrating is that what you're referring to a hand calculation um
02:20:10 um you've looked at that hand calculation if we pull it up it's
02:20:15 two max three five on page two
02:20:22 and if we just zoom in on the top um also the middle section two existing system
02:20:31 and then scroll up a little bit we can see the rates there so it has flow rate of existing system 1.1 to 1.2 meters cube per second and
02:20:42 1.1 to 1.2 meters cube per second and flow rate of proposed system five meters cube per second you've said in your report that you're unable to ascertain whether it was seen by the bcb and you've mentioned that again just now
02:20:54 again just now um
02:20:55 um in those circumstances are you able to assist us with whether the max fordham hang calculations represented a sufficiently reliable basis for comparison against the intended performance of the
02:21:06 against the intended performance of the new system um
02:21:12 would it result in it no i can't because there's no there's no description of the likely losses leakage via the fabric etc
02:21:28 and if the max fordham document wasn't part of the review by the bcb on what places could they have approved the final scheme as being an improvement if they never saw this
02:21:42 the proposal was to achieve a two meter flow
02:21:48 as to what was actually seen by the bcb the disclosures as far as i can recall do not indicate that they saw
02:21:59 that they saw any
02:22:00 any calculation however
02:22:02 however ultimately they couldn't have stopped this proposal going forward i know they said it was satisfactory they couldn't stop the proposal going forward because the they couldn't stop the work so it was
02:22:14 they couldn't stop the work so it was the testing that proved it would achieve the two meter flow they said it would be satisfactory on the basis of
02:22:25 on the basis of it achieving that as i understand it from the available documentation on achieving that flow whether they said it would be satisfactory on the basis of the calculation which they may or may not
02:22:38 calculation which they may or may not have seen and they had several discussions that were not minuted no notes are available it may have been discussed there does that answer your question
02:22:50 does that answer your question yes i think that helps um mr hansen's evidence
02:22:55 evidence on day 154 page 117 lines 10 to 12 was that the path that they were proposing to fit a new extract system was the right path what we needed to establish is what the
02:23:07 we needed to establish is what the extract rate should be
02:23:11 is it correct to say that establishing the extract rate is a different approach from setting the open door velocity as a performance criterion of two meters a second so the extract rate from the
02:23:22 second so the extract rate from the dampers and the lobby is different from the velocity although there will be a link there's a link in the the extract achieves the flow
02:23:32 flow does that statement that he wanted to establish the extract rate materially affect your review about the approach taken to achieve compliance no but i don't really understand his question
02:23:43 question why he wanted to what it would all been part of the calculation um so it's almost case of working backwards to achieve what size fan do i need to achieve that flow
02:23:55 need to achieve that flow in that particular situation
02:23:59 the existing system had a mechanical boost function which was operable by the fire brigade do you share dr lane's view uh that this means that the existing system had both a means of escape and
02:24:10 system had both a means of escape and firefighting performance features yes it allowed the fire brigade on arrival to increase the extract by boosting it mechanically if they
02:24:21 by boosting it mechanically if they needed it or as it was often used and is still often used after the event to get rid of the smoke and does that mean that both of these features required consideration during the refurbishment
02:24:34 the refurbishment the
02:24:35 the purpose of the smoke control system was b1 for means of escape and b5 firefighting so yes it was a consideration and now we've heard the evidence regarding the comparison of extract
02:24:47 regarding the comparison of extract rates does that in any way affect your view
02:24:49 view regarding whether it was appropriate to adopt the two meters per second velocity flow rate no i think it was reasonable to adopt that in these circumstances
02:25:02 and was it good enough to just look at overall extract rates or would you have expected to see a more detailed analysis being submitted to the bcb
02:25:14 it i think i'd have to say the bcb couldn't prove it would not work
02:25:21 it would have been better to have more analysis
02:25:24 analysis of the proposal but there were so many unknowns in an existing building if it didn't work when it was tested then that would have been catastrophic for the
02:25:35 for the for the people undertaking the work because it would have had to have been changed and that being cost money time etc so it was almost as if people were willing to take the risk of it not working but on the basis if they've done
02:25:47 working but on the basis if they've done some work
02:25:49 some work by calculation to establish what they thought they would need to achieve that rate so they put it to a specialist with experience
02:26:01 experience at a level they thought would be adequate for them to design a system that would achieve that performance criteria
02:26:14 would i be right in thinking that if the primary possibly not the soul but it's the primary
02:26:22 primary purpose of the system is to stop smoke getting into the stairs then provided you get the right airflow across the door from the stairwell into the lobby
02:26:34 from the stairwell into the lobby the volumetric extract rate through the shafts is of secondary importance that's the way i would look at it yes thank you
02:26:45 thank you thank you mr chairman that's a convenient moment for us to do the afternoon i've reached the end of this topic and i'll be moving on yeah another one
02:26:52 one well yes that sounds like it's a convenient point this man says we're going to stop there for the day that means i'm afraid that i'm going to have to ask you to come back tomorrow but i suspect you'd factor that in to your
02:27:03 suspect you'd factor that in to your arrangements i hope so anyway um so we'll resume please at 10 o'clock tomorrow
02:27:09 tomorrow and as with all the other witnesses i have to ask you not to discuss your evidence with anyone um overnight right certainly good thank you very much we'll look forward to seeing you again tomorrow thank you if you'd like to give the
02:27:20 thank you if you'd like to give the ashoshu look after you thank you very much
02:27:33 well thank you ms grogan so we'll resume at 10 o'clock tomorrow and um
02:27:39 and um see where we go then thank you thank you very much 10 o'clock
02:28:20 you