Harley Evidence - Thursday 17th September 2020 (2/2)

Full transcript

00:00:15 all right would you ask mr lam to come back in

00:00:28 please

00:00:32 all right ready to carry on mr lam certainly good thank you yes mrs grange yes thank you just to pick up on a couple of points from this morning before we carry on with the cavity barrier story so i'll just get my

00:00:44 cavity barrier story so i'll just get my transcript working um would you agree with me that in in general the specification takes precedence over the drawings so when you're coming to approach design

00:00:55 so when you're coming to approach design work

00:00:57 work um it's the specification that's a of higher importance in terms of telling you what to include in a design would you agree with that i think if it's a performance specification i would agree

00:01:08 specification i would agree but not necessarily prescriptive but here on grenfell take cavity barriers we didn't get a prescriptive specification did we no no we had something more like a

00:01:19 no no we had something more like a performance specification yeah yeah but we know that the wall had to comply with cwct guidance it had to comply with the building regulations there's express

00:01:30 building regulations there's express reference to fire breaks in accordance with adb yeah so it's a performance specification isn't it

00:01:37 isn't it uh to a degree yes on cavity barriers yeah

00:01:41 yeah and it's not until harley come along that the siderise cavity barriers are specified

00:01:46 specified is it no that's right so the point i want to put to you is that even if cavity barriers weren't shown in particular locations by the architect on the drawings why didn't the specification the nbs

00:01:59 why didn't the specification the nbs specification take precedence in terms of what harley should have been designing um i don't think you could convey the requirement for positioning cavity barriers

00:02:11 for positioning cavity barriers adequately in the nps i think you would generally rely on the drawings to show you where they went why wasn't it adequate to say fire stopping or fire breaks in

00:02:23 fire stopping or fire breaks in accordance with approved document b why wasn't that more than adequate because it was the architect that was ensuring compliance document b surely it's his place to interpret

00:02:35 surely it's his place to interpret document b and then show them on his drawings but in terms of cavity barriers around the windows you don't need any interpretation of approved document b do you approve document b is clear i think you accepted paragraph 9.3 was

00:02:46 think you accepted paragraph 9.3 was crystal clear that cavity barriers are required around windows yes but as we've we've noted before there are many

00:02:55 are many routes to compliance and this may well have been a fire engineered solution yes but we've looked at emails haven't we mr lam we've looked at emails very recently

00:03:07 lam we've looked at emails very recently in the context of the cavity barrier discussion where people are referring to diagram 33 of adb

00:03:14 adb yes but that comes from a supplier it doesn't necessarily correlate that's what the architect's after but you don't ever see an email from anybody on the project saying of all very nice what's in adb but that's not what we're

00:03:26 what's in adb but that's not what we're following you don't see that do you nor do we have a very precise email saying exactly what is required okay well we'll keep going with the story and let's see what we find

00:03:38 story and let's see what we find just just one more question though before i pick that up um we talked about the raising of the cavity barrier up at the head of the window did ray bailey tell you to move it

00:03:51 did ray bailey tell you to move it or was it your idea to move it oh no it would be part of the team's opinion yes what does that mean part of the team's opinion well whether it was

00:04:02 the team's opinion well whether it was actually ray bailey i mean it would have been i would have been instructed to do it

00:04:06 it but um i wouldn't i wouldn't recall if ray actually said you must put it here um it might have been one of the other members of the team saying we ought to put it there to ensure

00:04:17 we ought to put it there to ensure adequate ceiling against the structure i recall can you recall whether it was your idea to raise it up oh no it certainly wasn't my idea i see so what you're saying is that must

00:04:29 i see so what you're saying is that must have come from somebody within the highly designed team yes to instruct you to do that yes and you wouldn't have done it otherwise no no this was again as we've mentioned before there was certain key

00:04:40 mentioned before there was certain key concept details that were discussed around the table and i think it's not beyond the realms of

00:04:48 of its expectation that this was a key concept well can we be more precise you say it's not beyond the realms of expectation that this was a key concept

00:05:00 expectation that this was a key concept are you speculating as to whether no no no this

00:05:03 no this is a key concept right it would have been discussed around the table and do you have a memory of it actually being discussed vaguely but not in in specific terms

00:05:14 vaguely but not in in specific terms okay

00:05:19 now let's just pick up where we were in the thread um we'd looked at um some concerns about from the building control officer john

00:05:30 from the building control officer john hoban that the fire integrity of the cavity barriers ought to be 120 minutes um and i want to pick up if we go to sea three zeroes one three zero zero one

00:05:47 this is on the 25th of march you send an email to simon lawrence copying in the team again saying simon further to our meeting yesterday please find attached details for the fire breaks

00:05:59 attached details for the fire breaks all now upgraded to 20 minutes do you see that there yes yes and these are general arrangement drawings and our understanding is that that upgrading of 120 minutes that you did at

00:06:11 upgrading of 120 minutes that you did at that point was to the fire breaks um at levels 3 to 23 or 4 to 23. it wasn't that's where they are then yes but i do recall being asked to change them

00:06:23 being asked to change them um and you'll find that there was a quotation supplied to ryden's to actually upgrade them because it was never expected at the beginning of the project yeah so we've got that and then

00:06:37 yeah so we've got that and then if we looked now at ryd3037117 on page one

00:06:50 here we see ray bailey to simon lawrence neil crawford ben bailey on the 27th of march 2015 see seeing

00:06:58 seeing you and others hi simon reading the email from the specialist suppliers it should be fairly straightforward a fire stop is required to stop fire spreading between floors or

00:07:09 stop fire spreading between floors or party walls if it's inside the building i inside of the window or curtain wall a cavity barrier is required to stop fire spreading inside the cavity for the fire to enter the cavity it has

00:07:21 for the fire to enter the cavity it has to have gone through the window or curtain wall in our situation the cladding is outside of the windows and therefore it should have a cavity barrier as opposed to a fire stop i would ask neil to make this

00:07:33 fire stop i would ask neil to make this point

00:07:33 point best regards ray do you see that there yes so harley haven't given up at this point they're maintaining their position that it should be a cavity barrier not a fire stop that's right

00:07:45 stop that's right i think this was following um the email trial

00:07:49 trial clearly showed there was some confusion amongst parties i think ray was involved to try and explain

00:07:57 explain how he understood um yes the terminology yes that's that sounds fair um now turning to the email briefly at the bottom of page one

00:08:09 bottom of page one going on to the top of page two

00:08:15 from neil crawford on the 27th of march

00:08:21 just have a look at that on the top of the next page simon i've spoken with john and he wasn't happy with harley's email as we're talking about fire stopping as opposed to cavity barriers i've explained again the specifics of our

00:08:32 explained again the specifics of our scenario

00:08:33 scenario and he will have a conversation with paul hansen to see if there's a reduced spec they can agree to and will then speak with harley's directly do you see that there yeah so that's what the architect was saying

00:08:45 saying um and can we now go to har403947 this is another part of the same

00:08:57 this is another part of the same exchange that was occurring at this time on the topic of cavity barriers

00:09:02 and i want to look at the email at the top of the page first this is ben bailey to you sorry to ray bailey to you to mark stapley

00:09:14 stapley it's on the 30th of march 2015. yeah do you see that and he's saying still going around in circles best

00:09:25 still going around in circles best regards ben yes yeah that's just highlighting the fact that we're still not getting any closer

00:09:31 closer a final solution to a resolution on this issue

00:09:34 issue yes now in terms of this chain here if we go to the bottom of page seven some of these chains are very long i just want to look at the bottom of page seven

00:09:47 to look at the bottom of page seven we can see ricky k sends an email on the 26th of march 2015 at 1342

00:09:56 to ben bailey copying in you mark stapley sue shepherd and he says hi ben apologies for the delay please find below extract from the approved document

00:10:08 below extract from the approved document b of the building regulations yeah and then on to the next page here you can see that it clearly states that 30 minutes fire integrity and 15 minutes insulation is all that's required from a

00:10:19 insulation is all that's required from a cavity fire barrier this is reference to rain screen cladding applications where the cavity barrier is deemed to be on the outside of the building our rh 25 90 30 will offer 90 minutes

00:10:31 our rh 25 90 30 will offer 90 minutes fire integrity and 30 minutes fire insulation therefore exceeds minimum requirements 120 minute fire rating is generally the industry standard for curtain wall to concrete slab edge fire stopping

00:10:43 concrete slab edge fire stopping where the fire stop is located on the inside of a building and is considered to be

00:10:47 to be a continuation of the floor slab please get in touch if you need anything else from us

00:10:52 from us to enable you to progress with your order many thanks ricky k now we note there don't we that he's got an extract from approved document b do you see that there that's right yes

00:11:04 do you see that there that's right yes from siderise yes um and if we go to the email immediately above this

00:11:16 neil crawford we see neil crawford to john hoban hi john there's been a lot of conversation on site about the cavity fire barrier requirements to be fitted between the existing concrete external

00:11:27 between the existing concrete external wall panels and the new external rain screen aluminium cassettes can you please see the proposal by the cladding contractor below and confirmative if it is acceptable to you you see that

00:11:38 if it is acceptable to you you see that there

00:11:38 there yeah yeah now mr crawford doesn't say does he in response to mr kay's email

00:11:46 email no no no you've got this wrong we're not following approved document b we've got a fire engineered solution now fire engineers looked at this and we're doing something different he doesn't say that does he he doesn't no

00:11:57 that does he he doesn't no and in forwarding to mr hoban that ricky k email with the extract from approved document b would you agree with me that it would appear from this and you would have understood at the time

00:12:09 you would have understood at the time it's my suggestion that the professionals on this project did think they were following approved document b as their route compliance no i think that's that's your interpretation but i don't

00:12:19 don't uh i don't think you could necessarily interpret it one way or another not to this instance you couldn't no so the fact that neil crawford is saying to the building control officer

00:12:31 saying to the building control officer can you please see the proposal by the cladding contractor below and confirm if it is acceptable to you and that cladding contractor is setting out

00:12:41 out an extract from approved document b his interpretation and saying we exceed these minimum requirements you don't think that's an indication that neil crawford thought they were following approved document b

00:12:54 following approved document b i think it's a useful bit of documentation but i certainly wouldn't have interpreted that interpreted that one way or the other

00:13:03 i suggest when you put emails like that together with what you say in your witness statement about consulting approved document b in relation to the cavity barrier requirement yeah that it was obvious that at the time

00:13:17 that it was obvious that at the time that was

00:13:17 that was the route to compliance you all thought you were following no i don't agree with that okay i think there's no other way to seek any information in the in the climate

00:13:29 any information in the in the climate where there seems to be very little um actual action as to what was required well i put the point one more time that

00:13:40 well i put the point one more time that we don't see any email do we or any communication where anyone is saying we are not following approved document b on this project we don't find that do we no no then we

00:13:51 we don't find that do we no no then we don't say we are

00:13:54 i think we'll leave the point there

00:14:01 now mr k goes on to request a drawing of the build-up of the cladding to send to his technical officer if we look at the bottom of page four of this chain and the top of page five

00:14:17 this chain and the top of page five so ricky k on the 30th of march 2015 it's in the same chain if we look at what he says at the top of page five or please can somebody forward over a drawing of the build up of the cladding so that my technical officer can

00:14:29 so that my technical officer can evaluate and forward an official response with a siderise product specification many thanks ricky k don't forget at this stage i don't seem to be coppered into these

00:14:39 these emails i understand that um i'm just trying to build up to what we do see shortly which is an email sent by mr mort at

00:14:52 which is an email sent by mr mort at siderise so let's go i want to go to the second email now on page one

00:15:05 so this is from chris mort to ben bailey and ricky kaye just before we read this email if we go to the top of the chain

00:15:18 it's this that you're forwarded on the 30th of march when ben bailey says still going around in circles yeah do you see that and there's a number of attachments there yeah

00:15:29 number of attachments there yeah to that so you're forwarded this email from

00:15:33 from chris mort cideriser's technical officer and if we go back to that email i wouldn't necessarily have read all the way down and in in-depth well it's the email immediately

00:15:47 in-depth well it's the email immediately below

00:15:48 below the very short email you're sent from ben bailey are you saying you wouldn't have read

00:15:53 have read this email here from mr moord the fact that the email starts we're still going around in circles implies to me there's still no resolution so i'm still waiting for an answer

00:16:03 answer as far as an instruction from harley as to what i should be doing i see um

00:16:12 i see um i mean by this stage ben has clearly picked up the baton and he's running with this

00:16:17 with this i've taken a step back at this point just waiting for his instruction well let's just see what this email says and i will then ask you some questions about it

00:16:25 it he says hi ben i have reviewed the drawing sent over and sketch a proposal to alleviate the issues raised by the bco

00:16:34 bco building control officer yes yes also on the second page of the attachment i have highlighted the weak link so to speak in terms of fire and i

00:16:45 link so to speak in terms of fire and i think the bca would have noticed this and then he says the proposal requires the installation of rh25 9060 product in two layers

00:16:56 rh25 9060 product in two layers one of the head of the window aligning with the compartment floor and the other at the top of the existing up stand therefore two layers of 60 minutes protection that overall would provide if tested over 120

00:17:08 overall would provide if tested over 120 minutes protection at the window locations

00:17:11 locations please note that without specific details of the overall construction of internal linings and or site of the fire strategy for the project i can only offer the proposal above and as this is a refurbishment i would

00:17:22 as this is a refurbishment i would imagine that the internal linings will remain in situ and made good to openings only which does not aid the fire strategy at the sheer wall locations i cannot see any justification for anything other

00:17:33 any justification for anything other than a cavity barrier at 30 15 rating so subject to bco approval you may be able to downgrade in these locations now if you can just go over the page i

00:17:44 now if you can just go over the page i hope this helps in resolving the design detail for the compartment on this project you see that yes i say that if we can go back to the main part of that email then i've just helped familiarize yourself

00:17:56 i've just helped familiarize yourself with it

00:17:58 with it did you read this email when you afforded it on the project i'm sure i would have scanned it but as it's a as i've said before further down the trail uh of an email

00:18:09 further down the trail uh of an email that's headed that we're not any closer the solution it would have just been a an element of scanning did you notice at the time

00:18:20 the time that in the very first paragraph of that email mr

00:18:23 email mr mort is saying that on the second page of the attachment he's highlighted the weak link so to speak in terms of fire did you notice that at the time um not at the time no did you notice

00:18:35 um not at the time no did you notice that at any point during the grenfell project

00:18:38 project uh i don't believe so no you don't believe so because i would suggest that what we see in this email is he's doing two things he's saying he's highlighted the weak link

00:18:48 link in terms of fire and then he's trying to offer a solution of how you get the 120 minutes protection with his products and he's saying you could use it in two layers one at the head of

00:18:59 use it in two layers one at the head of the window aligning with compartment floor and the other at the top of the existing up stand

00:19:04 stand but that's to provide 120 minutes yes i understand that what he's trying to do is help if if 120 minutes is required he's trying to explain how you could do it

00:19:14 it do you yeah yes by adding an extra clarity barrier in yes yes but i would suggest he's also in the first paragraph making clear that he's a highlighted the weak link so to

00:19:25 he's a highlighted the weak link so to speak in terms of fire so he's doing two things in this email

00:19:30 email he's highlighting a weak link for fire and we're gonna look at the attachments in a moment and he's trying to help as to how you can get 120 minutes yeah i i think that's interpretation i

00:19:41 yeah i i think that's interpretation i would struggle to read it one more the other but

00:19:45 other but i would never have read that with any in any great depth so you're saying you you agree with me looking at it now but you would never have read this email in any

00:19:56 would never have read this email in any great depth at the time no i don't agree what i'm saying is you could interpret that to highlight a weak link yeah but you could also interpret it

00:20:07 could also interpret it that it's a weak link bearing in mind we're trying to achieve 120 minutes i see do you recall opening the attachments that were forwarded to you at this time were they on the top page

00:20:20 at this time were they on the top page yes i may well have done so if we look at the top page

00:20:28 we can see that a number of attachments are

00:20:31 are sent with this and what i want to do now is look at that attachment this is har403948

00:20:49 that attachment this is har403948 so this is the first page and we can see that what mr moore appears to have done is on the far right hand side in particular

00:21:00 on the far right hand side in particular we've now got some blue and orange sketches that he's done coming out from the window and what we can see is he's got two

00:21:12 and what we can see is he's got two cavity barriers in there to get to your do you see that yes this actually clarifies that this is a solution to achieve 180 or 120 minutes yes so

00:21:23 to achieve 180 or 120 minutes yes so here he's got one above the head of the window and one further up what he calls the upstand that's right below the sill of the window not immediately below it but

00:21:34 window not immediately below it but further up it yes yeah yeah just so he can reach a rating that was never required in the end yeah no you didn't end up having that second one did you no but if we look at the second page

00:21:47 no but if we look at the second page of the drawing

00:21:50 this is a drawing of the window head it's a drawing we were looking at in detail earlier yeah and you see he's put a big orange bubble

00:21:59 bubble around the interface between the window frame

00:22:04 frame and the head of the cladding system there

00:22:08 there yes yeah and he's put weak link for fire do you see that there yeah yeah did you see this drawing um at the time you were working on the grenfell project no i didn't

00:22:22 so you didn't look at the attachments that ben bailey sent to you in that email in any detail no no would you agree that it's

00:22:33 no would you agree that it's highlighting a weak link for fire which is exactly the weak link we were discussing earlier and whether that was a weak link for fire that ought to be addressed with a cavity barrier at the head of the window

00:22:44 head of the window no i don't agree with that because he hasn't shown a cavity barrier at the top of the window on his previous

00:22:52 drawing no what i would suggest to you is he's highlighting something separate from that really he's he's giving you a cavity barrier solution but he's also

00:23:03 he's also saying there's a weak link for fire here and

00:23:06 and checking that someone's thought about that is that not a fair interpretation of the email and that drawing um he's got a concern um now if you didn't look at it at the

00:23:19 um now if you didn't look at it at the time do you ever just recall discussing this weak link for fire with ben bailey or anyone else at harley

00:23:26 harley who might have had it drawn to their attention no no no to be honest i don't recall seeing the first drawing either

00:23:37 the first drawing either so you don't remember ben or ray or daniel or anybody um saying to you well cider eyes have highlighted a weak link for fire we obviously need to look at that you don't recall that no at this stage we're quite a way into

00:23:49 no at this stage we're quite a way into the design at this stage i'm just waiting for instruction from ben he's not going to say

00:23:55 say oh we've had an email oh it's inconclusive he's only going to instruct me once it has been concluded do you mean you were waiting for an instruction as to what rating

00:24:07 instruction as to what rating to put the cavity barrier no no above the window waiting for an instruction from ben what drawing worked still needed to be done i see he was actively searching

00:24:21 i see he was actively searching the requirements for cavity barriers once he had that fulfilled then it would be translated to me and i would add it to the drawings is it

00:24:32 and i would add it to the drawings is it possible that what happened is everyone thought well it's too late now we've decided on the positioning of the cavity barriers

00:24:37 barriers this is coming too late we're not going to think about that i would be amazed if anyone thought that

00:24:44 okay so you didn't discuss these annotations with anybody on the project no no no these came to light after the event

00:24:59 and the this drawing

00:25:05 i think this drawing gets to revision f but we're not aware of any further revisions

00:25:12 revisions made to the drawing in the light of um these comments by mr moore so can you confirm that there was nothing that changed in terms of that configuration that's in

00:25:24 in terms of that configuration that's in the orange bubble nothing changed subsequently no but don't forget this is a comment from a subcontractor or a supplier that wasn't necessarily in full

00:25:36 that wasn't necessarily in full knowledge of the circumstance

00:25:41 but it's not just any old supplier is it it's cider eyes who um wouldn't you expect them to know quite a lot about cavity barriers how they operate how they're tested

00:25:52 they're tested certainly but i think he does say in his email disney uh earlier on that he hasn't got full information you're right he does say that and that's why i read that part of the email to you but it's ciderises technical officer

00:26:05 but it's ciderises technical officer isn't it yeah but if he hasn't got the information he can't give um constructive advice he's concerned maybe he's thinking i don't know maybe he's thinking that internal board is a

00:26:17 he's thinking that internal board is a flammable board maybe he's thinking the um

00:26:19 um the bracketry isn't continuous i don't know

00:26:23 know i don't know what he's thinking isn't it likely that he was aware of approved document b aware of lots of industry guidance at this time that

00:26:32 time that cavity barriers around windows were required definitely and was highlighting that at the head of the window there ought to be some form of cavity barrier no i don't think he says that in his email

00:26:45 going back to the comments you made earlier about your concern about the integrity of a barrier fixed against

00:26:53 against the bottom of that concrete yes degraded etc

00:26:58 etc did you ever think about whether you could include something different there perhaps not mineral wool but a steel angle so do you agree with me that approved document b does envisage that other materials

00:27:11 does envisage that other materials could form proper cavity barriers including steel yes it certainly does however if the proposal that we made was acceptable there's no need for any of that

00:27:22 of that well um forget for a moment what studio e did and

00:27:27 e did and whether they picked this up just in terms of your own work was it ever considered that there could be a different solution to a cavity barrier in this location if if

00:27:38 cavity barrier in this location if if you were worried about putting something like a ciderised cavity barrier in that location as shown by mr hyatt was there ever any consideration to for example putting a a metal angle as

00:27:51 for example putting a a metal angle as per

00:27:52 per section 9 of adb um it could you could have put a metal angle or a z section on the

00:27:58 the inside of the extruded aluminium angle yeah i guess that would um be something that could be proposed yeah but no consideration was ever given to that

00:28:09 to that not as far as i'm aware no

00:28:22 i just want to um i'm going to put to you a few other of the diagrams from mr hyatt's report on cavity

00:28:29 on cavity barriers we've looked a lot at the head position

00:28:33 position but i want to look at a couple of other of the window positions incidentally on the email i think he implies

00:28:40 implies that the cavity barrier at the head should align with the slab anyway with the compartment floor yes yes let's go back was in the position of hyatt

00:28:51 position of hyatt wouldn't be aligning yeah let's go back um in fairness to you let's go back to the

00:28:57 the email so it's har403947 at the bottom of page one

00:29:11 that is what he says in the second paragraph he says it's aligning with the compartment floor yeah yes yeah and i think that's why we see when we go back to his first sketch

00:29:22 see when we go back to his first sketch where he's offering his solution of 120 minutes

00:29:27 minutes if we go back to har 403948

00:29:34 [Applause]

00:29:39 i think what you're saying is that when he's offering his solution on the right hand side

00:29:43 hand side the the lower cavity barrier the orange cavity barrier is in line with your cavity barrier above the head of the window yes um i think that's actually confusing that

00:29:55 think that's actually confusing that doesn't

00:29:56 doesn't follow what i understand his email to mean

00:30:00 mean ah because what you're saying is his email should mean lower than that because he's showing the concrete floor is lower than that yes yeah yeah but he's shown it slightly

00:30:11 yes yeah yeah but he's shown it slightly higher

00:30:12 higher yeah my suggestion to you about this is this is really him trying to show how you can put two of the barriers in to get 120

00:30:22 get 120 and that perhaps the more important sketch from your point of view was the second sketch with the wheat link for fire

00:30:31 do you agree with that maybe i don't think you can i think that's a little bit out of context without understanding his thinking why is it a

00:30:42 understanding his thinking why is it a weak link

00:30:43 weak link i think it's really difficult to um be sure of what he meant there

00:30:49 um because it appears that this sketch shows exactly that lower cavity barrier exactly where we've placed it he's just added an additional one to get the 120

00:31:01 added an additional one to get the 120 minutes

00:31:02 minutes yes at the window sill yes so by virtue of that does that not mean he's happy with the position of it well we may be able to ask him um i

00:31:13 well we may be able to ask him um i think he may be coming to give evidence into you cause that would be yours but the point i'm putting to you is that the second sketch the weak link for fire ought to have

00:31:25 the weak link for fire ought to have set in train a process of examination and investigation within harley and within the scope of your design i think it's quite clear

00:31:36 your design i think it's quite clear that it was already in motion what was already in motion the the the fact of clara requirement of clarification of these cavity barriers but what they

00:31:48 of these cavity barriers but what they were seeking clarification of was the rating of the cavity barrier and whether or not it should be 30 minutes 15 minutes 60 minutes 120 minutes

00:31:58 minutes they weren't debating exactly the positioning of the cavity barriers were they

00:32:06 um i don't know i find that it's difficult to be sure what's going on because it's where this seems to be or possibly a lack of clarity throughout

00:32:19 or possibly a lack of clarity throughout these emails of what is required what is being asked and what is being given right okay well i think we have your evidence about whether you looked at that sketch and

00:32:31 that sketch and had any discussions about it um so i'm going to take you to look at mr hyatt's

00:32:37 hyatt's some of mr hyatt's diagrams before we do i just want to show you we were talking this morning about cutting cavity barriers around cladding rails yes yes and um in the time available we found an

00:32:49 and um in the time available we found an image it may not be the best image available but we'll have a look at it um it's b l a r

00:32:57 703 a page 53

00:33:05 so if we can blow up that image on the bottom left the photograph with the two circles now i think having blown that up am i right that the

00:33:16 having blown that up am i right that the the black line down the middle is the rail

00:33:20 rail for the cavity for the railabon panels correct and they are hooked on to that little

00:33:26 little bolt that we see at the top aren't they that's right that's right and if we look at the bottom of that page

00:33:34 page mainly what we're seeing there behind the rail

00:33:37 the rail is the quantity of insulation it was two layers

00:33:41 layers of 80 millimeters either celatex rs 5000 or kingspan k15 do you see on there

00:33:48 there yes the spandrel and then below that we can see the cavity barriers yeah do you see that there yeah we've got silver on the top they've got a black

00:33:59 got a black face which is the intumescent strip that's correct on the side and the point i was putting to you and was asking whether anyone discussed it within harley whether you thought about it

00:34:11 harley whether you thought about it was that the cavity barriers and this is consistent all across the building they they don't carry through the cladding rail there's no solution within the cavity rail to

00:34:24 solution within the cavity rail to replicate the cavity barrier they're cut around it

00:34:27 around it no no that's right

00:34:30 and that's why i'm asking whether anyone ever thought about whether or not that was an unsatisfactory arrangement and that

00:34:38 and that there ought to be some consideration of well i feel like that vertical gap through the cavity barrier in my experience it's not something that is

00:34:49 experience it's not something that is ever

00:34:51 ever done you don't fill it with a an insulation but maybe the argument is that the cavity barriers are to stop the

00:35:02 the cavity barriers are to stop the spread the unseen spread of flame if the flame gets into that that black zone

00:35:09 zone yeah you can see it from between the gaps

00:35:12 gaps in all the panels from outside really yes i see what if you're what if you're firefighters at an angle to that

00:35:23 firefighters at an angle to that to that rail or what if that rail's on the 23rd floor or the 22nd floor i can't answer that all i'm saying is is in my experience it's not normal to try and put a cavity barrier inside

00:35:36 to try and put a cavity barrier inside that

00:35:37 that um that rail i see so that's just something that everybody does is it i would say so i mean that's in my experience with my limited experience harley with their far greater experience

00:35:49 harley with their far greater experience didn't concern those them to um to fill those gaps no so you never have had a discussion with anybody at harley about that no and it never occurred to you that

00:36:00 no and it never occurred to you that that might somehow defeat the logic of putting a cavity barrier

00:36:07 and your your justification is that firefighters would be able to see through the gaps in the sides of the panels and see that the fire was there is that your justification i wouldn't say it's my justification all

00:36:18 i wouldn't say it's my justification all i can assume is that may be one of the industry reasons why it's not considered but you can't you can't give us any authoritative evidence on that can you because you're not experienced in this area

00:36:30 not experienced in this area no now

00:36:34 no now paul hyatt in his um report we've looked at the head of the window he's also addressed cavity barriers at the window jams and the sills let's look

00:36:46 the window jams and the sills let's look at the jams first phyr

00:36:51 603 at page 64.

00:37:01 and if we could blow that up this is figure 3.28 from section 3 of his report what he's done is with the solid red line he's shown the position of the cavity barrier as indicated on the

00:37:13 cavity barrier as indicated on the harley drawings yeah and then in the dotted red line he has shown the cavity barrier position at window jam in order to meet adb section 9 paragraph 9.3 do you see

00:37:25 adb section 9 paragraph 9.3 do you see that there yeah and we can see it's an irregular shape it's not a easy shape there and i think he he acknowledges that in his report and his evidence and

00:37:38 and his evidence and to be clear he will be giving evidence on this and he will be asked about this is that you could either ask for a bespoke

00:37:46 bespoke cavity barrier to be made to deal with that gap

00:37:50 that gap or you could use compressible mineral rock wool to pack it in to that shape so that you've got protection at the jam of the window yes yeah makes sense and my question to

00:38:02 yes yeah makes sense and my question to you is why was no consideration ever given by harley or yourself in your design work to protecting that the sides of the windows the jams with some kind of arrangement either of

00:38:14 with some kind of arrangement either of that nature or something similar that would

00:38:16 would achieve what adb and other regulations other guidance requires which is cavity barriers around the windows i was working on instruction from harley

00:38:29 i was working on instruction from harley and the architect clearly saw all of our drawings uh and approved them um and they were based on his details so i appreciate that about the architect

00:38:41 so i appreciate that about the architect but

00:38:42 but if we just put that aside for one moment i appreciate your saying the architect should have picked this up and that your position is it was his role but in terms of harley we know that it

00:38:53 in terms of harley we know that it wasn't

00:38:54 wasn't a prescriptive specification for cavity barriers

00:38:58 barriers it was a performance specification or more of a performance specification you said you were aware of the relevant regulatory requirements can you explain why there's no cavity barrier in this

00:39:10 why there's no cavity barrier in this location was that ever discussed within harley and the design team at one of our round tables it was discussed that we would provide cavity barriers as shown by the architect

00:39:22 so then you just went away and you interpreted the drawings yeah drawings we saw before yes and you produced i produced exactly what you see now yeah

00:39:33 what you see now yeah okay yeah with the full approval of harley

00:39:38 harley and you didn't ever have a conversation with anybody at studio e to check and say why aren't we putting cavity barriers along the jams of the windows

00:39:48 windows no no but we did make a clear drawing approval request for the drawings showing these okay and if we go um within this to page

00:40:01 okay and if we go um within this to page 65 the next page of mr hyatt's report here we can see the sill of the window and there's no cavity barrier in in

00:40:13 and there's no cavity barrier in in a red block here because no cavity barrier was indicated in this location on either the studio e or the harley drawings that's correct isn't it correct and so he is saying

00:40:24 isn't it correct and so he is saying in the dotted line it's his evidence that a cavity barrier ought to have been provided at the sill location per the guidance in adb section 9 paragraph

00:40:35 paragraph 9.3 you see that there yeah and again in terms of that sill location can you help us as to whether that was ever discussed within the harley design team

00:40:46 design team i say what i said before you know the whole scope was discussed around the table

00:40:54 so nothing specific about still location versus jam location just the scope discussed more generally and you were told to do what was on the studio drawings that's correct yes one horizontal

00:41:06 that's correct yes one horizontal barrier around the whole building on each floor level and one vertical cavity barrier on each party wall column okay

00:41:20 column okay can we just turn up um some of the transcript from mr ankital jones as evidence this is day 37 page 52 line 5.

00:41:39 so actually let's pick it up at the top of that page um where mr uncle anchored jones is asked

00:41:48 asked i appreciate what you've said about the architects but can you help us as to why nobody at harley picked up that there ought to be cavity barriers around the windows you see that there yeah yeah it's a sense of deja vu

00:42:00 yeah yeah it's a sense of deja vu um in terms of the question and then mr anchoral jones said this talking from hindsight and looking back there were lots and lots of projects that didn't have cavity barriers around

00:42:12 that didn't have cavity barriers around the windows i don't think that it was known within the industry or appreciated because of the conversation from cavity masonry walls to rain screen cladding i think that a lot of people thought

00:42:24 i think that a lot of people thought that it was something you did for cavity walls rather than the rain screen cladding

00:42:28 cladding so i don't think that anyone at harley knew that and it doesn't appear that anybody further up the design team knew that as well do you see that there yeah so

00:42:39 yeah so um he appears to say that no one at harley knew that cavity barriers were required around windows in a rain screen facade

00:42:47 facade that's what he says yes now did you know at the time that approved document b and other guidance did

00:42:56 did require cavity barriers around wind windows in rain screen facades not explicitly

00:43:08 was is it your evidence that you knew that they were required for masonry walls but not for rain screen cladding i wouldn't concern myself with masonry walls but

00:43:19 walls but i was well aware of many routes to [Applause] compliance did you ever check for example the cwct technical guidance that you refer to in

00:43:31 technical guidance that you refer to in your witness statement or any other industry guidance to see whether cavity barriers were required in a rain screen systems around windows no that was going

00:43:44 systems around windows no that was going beyond my remit although as i've said before i did actually look at these documents to see if there was obvious recommendations there seemed to be very little that could be taken from these

00:43:56 little that could be taken from these documents

00:43:59 documents and of course i was reliant on harley telling me their requirements if we go back to cwct technical note 73 just briefly want to look at this again

00:44:11 just briefly want to look at this again with you see so cwct five zeros 19 at page four

00:44:19 and i want to look at the foot of page four and onto page five

00:44:25 this guidance was from 2011 and it's guidance that you confirm you did consult in paragraph 50 of your statement yes and i want to look at the foot of page

00:44:37 and i want to look at the foot of page four and onto page five and it says there for rain screen walls adb requires that cavity barriers are provided

00:44:47 provided to close the edges of cavities including around window openings do you see that there

00:44:51 there yes yes it's very clear in that guidance isn't it

00:44:54 isn't it yes yeah and just to be clear what is your evidence about whether you knew about that at the time of the grenfell project yes i had um i was kind of aware of it

00:45:07 yes i had um i was kind of aware of it yes you were kind of aware of it yeah well as i've said before there are routes to compliance if an architect is part of a professional team

00:45:18 professional team deem it's not necessary i've got no reason

00:45:22 reason to doubt that i see now um the chalcott project you've told us that you worked very briefly on that project for harley

00:45:36 briefly on that project for harley that was in the transcript we don't need to turn it up day 37 page 69 lines 6-21 and we know that when you came to work on the grenfell project you were provided with some drawings on the

00:45:48 provided with some drawings on the ferrier project that's right now when you came to work on the grenfell project were you provided with any information in relation to the telcotz project and the cladding design there not at all

00:45:59 and the cladding design there not at all now

00:46:00 now were you told that there had been a fire at taplow house on the chalcott's estate no can we turn up a report that was prepared into that chalcott's fire by harley this is cep

00:46:12 fire by harley this is cep five cep503223

00:46:20 this is a fire damage report that was um prepared by harley do you recognize this at all no it's never shown that you were never shown that no

00:46:32 and page two of the report

00:46:37 in the last sentence we see it talks about damage to fabric of the building structure following the fire and then it says in the last sentence there however the fire was

00:46:48 last sentence there however the fire was contained from spreading to over floors by the extensive fire breaks located at the head and sill of each window do you see that there yes

00:46:59 and if we go to page 20 what we can see in this report is there are two window jam details yeah from the drawings at chalcott

00:47:10 yeah from the drawings at chalcott and if we can blow up the left hand diagram

00:47:20 what we can see here is that there's a label

00:47:24 label on on that that says hundred millimeter rock will duo slab insulation to face of structure returned at window jams to act as fire barrier do you see that there yes

00:47:38 do you see that there yes this appears to suggest that in a previous harley project rockwell duo slab insulation had been returned at the window jams to act as a fire barrier yes

00:47:49 fire barrier yes it looks like it yeah yeah but that's not something you were ever made aware of

00:47:54 of no during your time discussing fire barriers with the harley team no

00:47:59 no [Applause] moving on then um cavity barriers around the crown

00:48:08 the crown um paragraph 35 of your witness statement

00:48:12 statement i don't think we need to turn this up you say that the design of this feature was left until quite late on as you were focused on the the 20 floors of the cladding zone is that right that's correct

00:48:25 did you ever during the time you were looking at the design of the crown consider compliance of the crown with the building regulations or approved document b the crown was designed based on very

00:48:39 the crown was designed based on very brief drawings from the architect and a design team meeting on site so again are you saying that you were reliant on what the architect had done and what the

00:48:50 the architect had done and what the design team at harley were telling you that's correct yeah did you ever consider

00:48:56 consider whether there ought to be cavity barriers in the location of the crown to deal with flame spread up at the top of the building um yes there's always a

00:49:08 um yes there's always a consideration at the top in my experience if the top of a building is inhabited then you would have a cavity barrier at the very top in this case it wasn't so it wasn't

00:49:20 in this case it wasn't so it wasn't necessarily required however the architect's drawing does clearly show one

00:49:26 but i think that was another item that we discussed the drawing was issued without the architect to comment upon i see are you talking about

00:49:38 comment upon i see are you talking about the

00:49:39 the cavity barrier here at the head of the cladding system yes yeah the very last one now you deal with this i think in paragraph 36 of your witness statement if we can go to that this is at page 10

00:49:56 and at paragraph 36 you say in so far as the positioning of a cavity barrier beneath the crown is concerned the typical bay drawings many list those show cavity barriers above all windows

00:50:09 show cavity barriers above all windows the crown drawings and then you list those do not show cavity barriers above the windows nor does the specific detail correct a screenshot from the cad model for the project representing

00:50:21 model for the project representing drawings

00:50:23 drawings 330 to 332 shows a blue annotation stating

00:50:26 stating fire break i made this note to remind myself to consider the requirement this did not happen because i never revisited the drawings to revise further or raise for construction as i

00:50:38 further or raise for construction as i had expected to to be clear the annotation does not appear in printed copies of the drawings it only appears on screen when you're working on cad because it's on non-printing layer yeah do you see that

00:50:51 non-printing layer yeah do you see that there yeah so is what you're saying that when you were first working on these drawings you made yourself a little blue annotation stating fire break at the head of the

00:51:02 stating fire break at the head of the building

00:51:03 building to remind my yourself to consider that requirement yes what it was this was after our discussion um my discussion at harley

00:51:14 they felt that there was no need for cavity barrier at the top and i had no reason to doubt that but the um the reason i put a note on my

00:51:23 on my uh cad drawing was to just check when we had comments back from the architect it was so that i just double checked if he'd made a comment as far as a fire break requirement we're just taking that in stages you say

00:51:35 we're just taking that in stages you say that after our discussion your discussion at harley yeah they felt there was no need for a clarity barrier at the top yeah who was they um i don't know ryan and ben maybe can't be

00:51:49 i don't know ryan and ben maybe can't be exact and you haven't can you have any recollection as to when in the project you were having that discussion about no need for a cavity barrier at the top of the building probably days before this drawing was issued

00:52:01 this drawing was issued right um if we go to that exhibit there kl 23 and we find that at

00:52:16 har3010427 this is i think the cad drawing that you're referring to and and this and so this is the electronic version where you can see your blue annotations is that correct

00:52:27 your blue annotations is that correct that's right yes and are we looking at the the head the very top of the cladding system at grenfell

00:52:33 grenfell that's correct yes and is the annotation that you're referring to the word firebreak in blue on the left yes yes so you made this blue annotation saying firebreak you say you

00:52:45 annotation saying firebreak you say you expected to come back and revisit this drawing later but in fact you never revisited it so that fire break was never included is that correct no no that's not correct this drawing was issued for comment it

00:52:57 this drawing was issued for comment it came back from the architect status a yes um but for whatever reason it was overlooked we never reissued the drawing as construction issue i see however we could take it as a

00:53:08 i see however we could take it as a state to say is acceptable i see so there was another opportunity to pick this up but it just wasn't picked up that's right yeah

00:53:22 and there was no checking process or quality control process in place that might have meant that that was picked up in in practice

00:53:33 well no the architect approved the drawing without a fire break

00:53:40 but you yourself had noticed that it was likely to be required yeah and you put a note for me no no no there's there's confusion when um when you do the final fire break

00:53:51 when um when you do the final fire break at the top of a cladding is considered generally considered in the industry if there was say a penthouse above here where people were living yeah that should have a fire break right

00:54:02 yeah that should have a fire break right or a cavity barrier yeah and if it's a just a flat area with nothing up there then there's no need to put a fire break

00:54:13 right now this was an uninhabited area all it had was a lyft overrun building so at the time you made this little note to yourself did you know that there was going to be nothing at the top of the building

00:54:24 the top of the building yes yes but you nevertheless thought that a fire break was required at this point no no no no that was just to remind myself to check if the architect had sent his drawings

00:54:35 if the architect had sent his drawings back

00:54:35 back with a comment that we had to have a fire break yeah i mustn't forget to put it in because then

00:54:42 then the team on site may not put it in i see so it was only if the architect came back and showed it that you needed to put it in that's correct

00:54:53 that's correct window infill panels we can go to that topic which is our last main topic um

00:55:00 topic um now if we pick it up at paragraph 63 of your statement on page 16.

00:55:11 you say this you say in relation to the infill panels i was told that we were using products from panel systems yeah as can be seen from drawings and then you list some drawings the two

00:55:22 then you list some drawings the two panels used in the window system within a typical bay from floor 4 to the top of the building are referred to as p1 and p2 yes that's correct yes now

00:55:35 yes that's correct yes now just focusing on that you say i was told that we were using products from panel systems

00:55:40 systems do you recall who told you that you were using products from panel systems ben ben you clearly remember that do you without a doubt yes how come you're so

00:55:52 without a doubt yes how come you're so clear on that when in relation to other discussions you can't be sure who it was that told you

00:55:59 you um because he was doing purchasing yeah and at the time um what what they would do is products would have to come from suppliers that they use so as they can

00:56:11 suppliers that they use so as they can get credit and and what have you so i remember asking ben where are we getting these panels from yeah he says go to panel systems there's no one else in the company at that point

00:56:22 in the company at that point yeah that or maybe mark stapley but i know i didn't uh talk to mark you know you didn't talk to mark didn't talk to mark stapley no no okay and on your understanding was it

00:56:35 okay and on your understanding was it ben who specified these panels for use he said we would go to panel systems right and all they offered were single color panels with a styrofoam core

00:56:48 with a styrofoam core i see so is it your evidence that you were told you had to go to panel systems and when you went to panel systems you only had one choice which was aluminium skinned with a styrofoam core

00:56:59 aluminium skinned with a styrofoam core that's correct yes

00:57:02 now if we look at the nbs specification sea 50169 at page 145.

00:57:22 here at item 332 we we get aluminium windows fixed unit do you see that there yes yes and

00:57:33 yes and under panel facing type so that's the second bullet down it says aluminium faced insulated panel comprising core insulation aluminium lining panel and integrated

00:57:45 aluminium lining panel and integrated channel profile around perimeter fully air seated sealed at edges to achieve a minimum u-value of 0.15 to see that there yeah

00:57:57 do you remember reading that in the nbs specification that that was what had been specified yes yes but there is no specification for the course no so this wasn't a prescriptive bit of the

00:58:09 so this wasn't a prescriptive bit of the specification was it was a performance specification no i think that was overlooked overlooked by who by whoever drew up the

00:58:20 overlooked by who by whoever drew up the mbs

00:58:22 mbs well they're aren't they giving some flexibility as to what's used there um well maybe maybe that is their that is the

00:58:32 is the reason for that which is why we would put what we were proposing on a drawing for them to approve actually to be fair i may have been wrong we look and there is a manufacturer

00:58:43 we look and there is a manufacturer there

00:58:45 there yeah wikona is that the manufacturer of the windows or that's the manufacturer of the aluminium window yeah i see so that's not telling you who the manufacturer is for the insulated panel

00:58:56 manufacturer is for the insulated panel composing the core insulation and just out of interest that isn't the window system that was used on yes correct there are holes and if we can look on elevation drawing

00:59:11 har408886

00:59:17 just want to be clear exactly which panels we're talking about with p1 and p2 if we blow up that the window part of that drawing we can see on the the big

00:59:30 drawing we can see on the the big hatched panel in between the windows in the top left-hand corner we've got p1 yes

00:59:35 yes yes two large panels which are p1 and one small panel which is a p2 and p2 is in the kitchen windows isn't it

00:59:43 it that's correct yeah and it housed the kitchen extract fan uh yes yes

00:59:50 now when you were considering what materials to put in your specification that you listed out did you ever go back and consult the nbs to see what studio

01:00:02 and consult the nbs to see what studio he had recommended uh i believe i did and there's nothing in there well as we've just read do you ever recall any discussions with anybody at any stage about fire safety

01:00:13 anybody at any stage about fire safety in respect of these window infill panels no no no just went and said whose panel what panels are we going to put in here and that's when i was directed to bend to um or ben directed me to panel

01:00:26 to um or ben directed me to panel systems

01:00:27 systems did you yourself ever consider the fire performance of the window infill panels no not of the p ones no now um we can see in january 2015 you

01:00:39 now um we can see in january 2015 you attended a meeting at which this was discussed so if we go to h a r

01:00:43 to h a r three sorry four zeros three eight eight two

01:00:53 so this is a meeting a progress meeting number one and we see maxwell ray bailey mark stapley kevin lam you're all in attendance on the right hand side

01:01:04 all in attendance on the right hand side yes and then if we look onto page three item

01:01:08 item eight

01:01:11 eight it's we see sandwich panels ral-9010 source from new supplier yes yeah

01:01:22 and the action is said to be for all do you see that there yeah can you help us was that referring to the material for the window infill panels

01:01:31 panels that was that's referring to the p1 panels yeah

01:01:36 and here was the original supply it says spelt wrong but it says source from new supplier who was the original supplier i don't know who they used to buy their panels from

01:01:48 and you don't know why they needed to find a new supplier no i wasn't aware of that now shortly afterwards on the 15th of january

01:02:01 january if we look at document har

01:02:05 eight 40386 six

01:02:13 if we blow up this specification note on the left hand side and look at the p1 and p2

01:02:23 and i just want to look at the the main black text to start with yeah for the glazing p1 panels it says outer aluminium skin rao

01:02:35 it says outer aluminium skin rao 9010 and then core 24 millimeter kingspan tp10 rigid insulation did you see that there yeah and we see the same for the p2 panel below it

01:02:47 the same for the p2 panel below it yeah that's right so is it right that based on this you initially had tp10 specified for the p1 and p2 panels

01:03:00 specified for the p1 and p2 panels this was never issued outside of harley this was issued internally for comment yes and i understand that but um yeah yeah that was a standard product that i've used over many years so

01:03:12 i've used over many years so i put it on there for us to discuss yes so

01:03:15 so you that's what we're just trying to get to the bottom of it was you who put the tp10 in and was that off your own back you didn't have that suggested to you by anyone at harley no no it was just a suggestion to

01:03:27 harley no no it was just a suggestion to be discussed and why why did you select that tp10 product to start with um because it's a classo panel that i've used many many many times over the years

01:03:40 a class o panel correct yeah now we saw in the

01:03:45 in the mbs spec that this was an insulating panel yeah did you check with approved document b or any other piece of guidance

01:03:57 or any other piece of guidance what any insulating material in an external wall had to be in terms of compliance

01:04:03 um not specifically to this no

01:04:09 so you didn't check for example in section 12 of adb and come across 12.7 that makes clear that any insulating material

01:04:17 material for a wall in a building above 18 meters needed to be of limited combustibility that wasn't something that you checked i think i mean with hindsight now

01:04:27 now i think is is quite clear that there's doubt whether this actually applies because it's in a panel it's i think the the documentation is more referring to

01:04:38 documentation is more referring to the product which is screwed to the wall

01:04:42 rather than as a core of an insulated panel when you say you think it's quite clear that there's doubt whether this actually applies what do you mean what do you mean by this doubt about what applying

01:04:55 what applying um

01:04:58 well adb does that not just mean the material the insulation itself when it's used on its own

01:05:07 this is comprised of a product with an insulin core so here's what you're saying because it was because it was wrapped in aluminium and it wasn't

01:05:18 aluminium and it wasn't like just a board insulation on its own yeah

01:05:21 yeah your understanding was that you didn't have to worry about those parts of adb is that was that actually a thought process you went through at the time i was i've been told all these years

01:05:35 i was i've been told all these years i've been led to believe that this configuration gives you a class o panel

01:05:43 yes but what i'm asking is whether you checked in adb whether class naught was enough for this kind of panel or whether you needed something else now when you look at diagram 40 it implies

01:05:55 when you look at diagram 40 it implies that classo is okay to be used over 18 meters

01:06:02 what i want to know is whether you checked in adb where the class naught was enough for this kind of panel did you do that no no no this was offered to the team for comment yeah which is why we're here

01:06:14 for comment yeah which is why we're here now and did you ever think about paragraph 12.7 of adb no that makes clear that an insulating material

01:06:21 material within an external wall above 18 meters must be of limited combustibility no no

01:06:31 no no and just to be clear when you were specifying these panels were you thinking well this is class naught that's okay i wasn't specifying i was suggesting them to the team okay

01:06:43 them to the team okay when you were suggesting them to the team did you think well this is class naught so that should be okay i was suggesting them as a class naught panel i wouldn't have thought further than that

01:06:53 than that yes so class naught was in your mind yes

01:06:59 now can you help us as to who then applied the red annotations that we see to the right on p1 i believe um that was mark stapley yeah

01:07:12 um that was mark stapley yeah and can you help us as to why that insulation material was amended by mark stapley um well i would guess he's checked this with the manufacturers and that they could offer

01:07:24 manufacturers and that they could offer styrofoam cores the styrofoam this would be a cheaper product

01:07:32 product a styrofoam with thinner skins of um of aluminium rather than what i've shown cheaper than the tp10 that's correct yes and from those annotations did you understand

01:07:45 annotations did you understand that the as above for the p2 panel meant that styrofoam was also going to be used for that panel as well yes but we did discuss that wasn't possible because panel systems

01:07:56 possible because panel systems could only supply a panel with the same color on each side of the panel the p2 panels had a different color inside to outside so what happened about the p2 panels

01:08:07 so what happened about the p2 panels they were happy to go with what was shown there the tp10 yes our experts on site have found some kitchen extract panels with a styrofoam core

01:08:21 can you help us understand why that was why that might have been i don't follow the quality control of i do my best to put things on the drawing

01:08:32 drawing if the uh if the team purchased something else i've got no no control over that at all now we can see if we go to a further

01:08:43 now we can see if we go to a further version of these specification notes this is har403869

01:08:55 so this is a further version we don't have any anything in the table in the middle below but we've got a studio e stamp

01:09:06 studio e stamp on the right yeah and if we blow up the left hand side there the p1 panel has been changed to styrofoam

01:09:15 styrofoam but the p2 panel hasn't correct can you help us as to why why we see that in this version of the specification notes because this is following that

01:09:26 because this is following that discussion and the marked up drawing so this is typical of one of our round-the-table discussions where we said

01:09:33 said okay change it to this change it to that we'll send it out so this is our internal changes i see put out to the rest of the team yeah so is the sequence of events that

01:09:44 yeah so is the sequence of events that you specified tp10 for both then mark stapley tried to say let's have styrofoam for both yes then you realized after that that you couldn't have

01:09:55 you couldn't have the styrofoam for the p2 panel correct so that stayed as per your suggestion that's correct yes

01:10:04 yes so would you accept that you did specify tp10 for the p2 panel i suggested it to the team yeah and that ended up being accepted yes

01:10:17 and that ended up being accepted yes yeah hardly by happy and so is the architect

01:10:22 before you specified the tp10 you've said why you why you specified it you used it before you thought it was class naught did you have any um discussions with anybody at harley before you put

01:10:34 anybody at harley before you put tp10 on the original version of this spec

01:10:39 spec no i would have just put something down on paper so as we could discuss and as it's a product that i often put down on paper it went down there as a starting point did you undertake any

01:10:51 a starting point did you undertake any checks

01:10:52 checks before you suggested the tp10 product for use on the grenfeld project no no i had been assured that was a classic product many many years ago

01:11:03 classic product many many years ago who had you been assured by that it was a class naught product many years ago um it was from a fabricator via a um a client of mine did you take any steps to investigate

01:11:15 did you take any steps to investigate the fire performance of tp10 before you put it on the spec notes no

01:11:23 had you ever prior to the project seen any bba certificates for these panels no

01:11:31 did you investigate whether it was an appropriate product for use on buildings over 18 meters no no all i knew that it was a classo assembly

01:11:43 assembly did you appreciate at the time that the building being over 18 meters might make a difference in terms of what insulation products were compliant yeah

01:11:54 insulation products were compliant yeah yes maybe

01:11:55 yes maybe but to the point is i put this to the harley team as a class-o product and they were happy as was the architect yeah can i just repeat my question did

01:12:06 yeah can i just repeat my question did you appreciate at the time that the building being over 18 meters might make a difference in terms of what insulation products were compliant possibly yes possibly

01:12:18 possibly yes possibly yeah can you be any more specific as to whether or not you knew that over 18 meters might make a difference to an insulation product

01:12:35 you're saying i've got to be positive about something that might be i'm asking you whether you not you had an awareness that the building being over 18 meters might make a difference to what

01:12:47 might make a difference to what insulation products you were using in the external wall

01:12:58 can you put that a different way i i think the point from them being put to you is at the time when you considered this matter did you say to yourself well wait a minute this building is over 18

01:13:09 wait a minute this building is over 18 meters in height that might affect what can be put on it did that process go through your mind well well yes yes certainly

01:13:18 certainly certainly right but i did put this to harley as a class o product

01:13:26 thank you and let's look at the bba certificate for the kingspan thermopitch tp10 this is kin 50276.

01:13:43 so here we have the bba certificate we can see at the bottom um in the paler blue box that the date of first issue was the 30th of january 2009

01:13:55 2009 so this certificate significantly predated

01:13:59 predated the grenfell project do you think you ever saw this certificate prior to the grenfell project uh i don't believe so no

01:14:10 believe so no and if we look behavior in relation to fire it says the product will not contribute to the development stages of a fire or present a smoke or toxic hazard

01:14:20 hazard when tested to bs 476 7 1987 the product achieved a class 1 rating do you see that there the product in its own form yes

01:14:32 yes we weren't using it in that particular form

01:14:37 i see so are you saying that when you specified tp 10

01:14:44 and you're saying it had a class naught rating yeah you're referring to something different to just tp10 are you that's it's it's it was an assembly

01:14:56 that's it's it's it was an assembly so we started with these the manufacturer starts with the insulation and then they pressure bond two thick pieces of aluminium one to each face so it's now a sandwich

01:15:08 one to each face so it's now a sandwich so that in the properties of that material

01:15:11 material may be different as an assembly are you saying that you knew that the surface of that assembled product

01:15:20 product attracted class nord yes you did yes and how did you know that well i'd never checked that any documentation but i've been told that yes

01:15:29 yes told it by it was a client from many many years ago right would you agree with me though if we're just looking at the tp10 itself as an insulation product

01:15:40 an insulation product here what we're seeing is it's achieved a class one which would not be sufficient but it wasn't used in this form so i see it's irrelevant

01:15:51 it's irrelevant so what we don't see in this bba certificate do we just to be clear is it's saying that the tp10 was class nord no

01:16:04 immediately below um product scope and summary of certificate if we can go back up to the top of this

01:16:16 it says this this certificate relates to kingspan thermopitch tp10 board a warm roof insulation system using rigid poly isocyanurate pi

01:16:27 using rigid poly isocyanurate pi board faced on both sides with aluminium 4 for use in pitched roofs in new and existing domestic and non-domestic buildings do you see that there

01:16:35 there yeah so were you aware that in its raw form

01:16:39 form albeit um it's got aluminium foil foil on both sides it was an insulation product for use in roofing insulation um not specifically

01:16:51 roofing insulation um not specifically for but it was for roofing but i was aware that it was a general building product

01:16:57 product and why would you specify this product for your core of these aluminium panels why do that well as i said this is a product that

01:17:08 well as i said this is a product that was offered to me many years ago once the manufacturer takes this and combines it with the aluminium skins he's creating another product so i'm not provide i'm not suggesting that we use a roof insulation

01:17:21 suggesting that we use a roof insulation i'm suggesting that we use a sandwich panel but did it ever occur to you that once the aluminium melts or delaminates inside there you have

01:17:32 delaminates inside there you have combustible insulation the aluminium is compressed first of all it's pressure bonded

01:17:39 bonded but the aluminium and the insulation is all held together within the rebates of the window so it couldn't couldn't be laminate so are you saying

01:17:50 couldn't be laminate so are you saying that in a fighter the aluminium skins of these panels couldn't come off correct that's not what happened at grenfell is it i don't know okay i mean don't forget this is different to the p1s

01:18:03 this is different to the p1s there was none of this on the north and south elevations and the the panels that were involved there were only uh tiny panels about 400 millimeters square

01:18:15 so don't get confused i'm going to put my question in a simpler way did it ever occur to you that there was combustible insulation inside this product and you ought to at least

01:18:25 least check that that was something that was appropriate to put on an external wall of a tall building above 18 meters no no i didn't consider that

01:18:34 that and it was offered to the team as a suggestion [Applause] harley's got far more experience with this sort of thing than myself as is the architect and would you agree

01:18:45 as is the architect and would you agree that you had no evidence at the time that these panels were of limited combustibility no no

01:19:05 now paragraph 39 of your witness statement

01:19:09 statement on page 11.

01:19:17 you say in the second sentence my remit did not involve choice of materials or specifications for the cladding or insulation do you see that there correct would you agree with me that the p2 panel is an example

01:19:30 p2 panel is an example of where your remit did involve maybe not specifying it yourself if you're drawing a distinction between who specifies it but certainly you were involved in the choice of that

01:19:41 you were involved in the choice of that material weren't you yes my remit didn't um

01:19:45 um didn't require that i specified anything but trying to be helpful i suggested that

01:19:50 that for the team to consider yeah

01:19:53 now on the p1 panel if we go back to that

01:19:57 that and we go back to the specification

01:20:02 sca403060 mr chairman i've not got long to finish my

01:20:07 my question so if if you're happy um i'd quite like to finish this topic and then break alongs well i've got two pages of questions so

01:20:18 well i've got two pages of questions so i'm not sure five minutes in five minutes so that's right if we go back to that specification the design of the infill panel at p1 was going to be styrofoam yes yes once

01:20:29 was going to be styrofoam yes yes once it was changed and you reflected that here

01:20:32 here were you aware at the time that styrofoam is a trading name for extruded polystyrene insulation material otherwise known as xps

01:20:41 xps oh no

01:20:48 do you know why a specific product was not specified at this point in the design process it just says coarse styrofoam you haven't actually specified a product have you

01:21:00 actually specified a product have you i was well you saw the markup from the previous pages you've just taken i've taken what mark stapleton said and i've put it down but i don't think it would have needed any more than

01:21:11 more than just styrofoam i don't think at the time there were any grades of styrofoam that performed differently i see to what extent did you consider or

01:21:22 i see to what extent did you consider or did you discuss with anyone at harley whether the use of styrofoam in the p1 panel

01:21:26 panel was compliant with the building regulations and associated guidance in adb

01:21:31 adb i didn't need to i was told what product to use

01:21:34 to use did you ever consider whether those panels as insulating panels fell within 12.7 of adb and therefore needed to be of limited combustibility no never considered that oh and just

01:21:46 no never considered that oh and just a point could i go back apologize yes um you say that the p2 panels did actually burn

01:21:57 did actually burn the the panels around the kitchen extract fan yeah yes i mean we saw a good example of that outside flat 16 when the fire broke out did that one have king span core or the styrofoam core

01:22:08 styrofoam core i'm not sure there was much left of the call to know so it's difficult to know if they're the ones i specified or not yep i don't think we can take it any further sorry turned around no no that's

01:22:19 further sorry turned around no no that's fine

01:22:22 when you added styrofoam i appreciate you saying you were acting on mark stapley's instructions were you aware of its fire performance no were you aware that it's not of limited combustibility

01:22:33 limited combustibility no no but again as a as a sandwich panel i

01:22:38 i i i would assume the properties to be slightly different from the core

01:22:44 did you take any steps to assess whether that panel was suitable for use on buildings above 18 meters not at all that was outside my remit

01:22:54 were you aware of warnings within approved document b about insulating core panel systems including extruded polystyrene no

01:23:07 including extruded polystyrene no so you weren't aware that in appendix f it warns that these types of panels can be particularly dangerous including for firefighters no you weren't aware of that was it actually saying you shouldn't use them

01:23:20 actually saying you shouldn't use them let's look at that clg five zeros two two four

01:23:24 two four page one four seven

01:23:37 so this is appendix f fire behavior of insulating core panels used for internal structures insulating core panel systems are used

01:23:48 insulating core panel systems are used for external cladding as well as for internal structures you see that in paragraph one yeah and that's how you were using these wasn't it insulating core panels for external coding yes and then

01:24:00 yes and then if we go down the most common use of insulating core panels when used for internal structures is x it says that in the next paragraph these panels typically consist of an inner core sandwich between and bonded

01:24:12 inner core sandwich between and bonded to facings of galvanized steel often with a pvc facing for hygiene purposes

01:24:17 purposes the panels are then formed into a structure by jointing systems usually designed to provide an insulating and hygienic performance the panel structure can be free standing but it's usually attached to the building structure by lightweight

01:24:28 building structure by lightweight fixings or hangers and then it's got the most common forms of insulation in present use are and you can see polystyrene and extruded polystyrene are in that list do you see that there

01:24:40 are in that list do you see that there yes yes and then if you look on the right hand side under the heading firefighting it says this when compared with other types of construction techniques these

01:24:52 types of construction techniques these panel systems therefore provide a unique combination of problems for firefighters including hidden fire spread within panels with thermoplastic cores production of large quantities of black

01:25:03 production of large quantities of black toxic smoke and rapid fire spread leading to flash over hidden fire behind lining systems these three characteristics are common to both polyurethane and polystyrene cord panels

01:25:15 cord panels although the rate of fire spread in polyurethane is significantly less yeah so that's a pretty clear warning isn't it i think it's fair to say it's strange that's really all directed to

01:25:26 strange that's really all directed to the use of these panels as internal dividing walls isn't it that's the whole context of what's been said here well it says it's in paragraph one on the left hand side at the top i know what it says up there but if you

01:25:37 i know what it says up there but if you read on the whole context of the following paragraph seems to be directed to [Music]

01:25:45 [Music] the use of these panels as internal dividers and that's why they're a problem for firefighters well who will have to go into the building well i'm not sure that was the

01:25:56 building well i'm not sure that was the evidence of dr lane at phase one but anyway i think you may find it was um if we go to the next page

01:26:12 we see their

01:26:16 specifying panel core materials where where at all possible the specification of panels with core materials appropriate to the application will help ensure an acceptable level of performance when involved in fire conditions do you

01:26:27 when involved in fire conditions do you see that there yes yes

01:26:31 but were you aware of these warnings in approved document b about these types of panels

01:26:38 of panels no i wasn't but it it indicates to me that it should be considered but it's not saying you shouldn't use these

01:26:48 materials just above sorry just above i'm being told just above this at the top of the page

01:27:00 yes the ins um my attention is being drawn to the in summary the performance of the building structure

01:27:08 structure including the insulating envelope the superstructure the substructure must be considered in relation to their performance in the event of fire do you see that there yes yes but there's insula as sandwich

01:27:20 yes yes but there's insula as sandwich panels to be used as infill panels i don't think it quite

01:27:25 quite applies you didn't think that was no well on the previous page it says that um special care has got to be taken

01:27:32 taken to the fixing of these back to the building

01:27:36 building but in our case the the panel is self-supporting within a window frame right so it shouldn't fall away and but i think it was your evidence

01:27:47 think it was your evidence just a moment ago that you weren't aware these panels were extruded polystyrene is that correct i'd never considered what um styrofoam was i knew it was a a rigid insulation of some sort

01:27:59 a rigid insulation of some sort and you didn't give any consideration to the fire performance of those panels i didn't need to know on the external wall no are you aware that anybody within

01:28:07 within harley we can see that it was mr stapley that suggested these styrofoam panels are you aware of whether

01:28:15 whether there was any discussions within harley about

01:28:18 about the appropriateness of these panels i would assume it was a product that they'd used many times before i'm sure their product projects over the years must have incorporated sandwich panels so i see but that's an

01:28:30 sandwich panels so i see but that's an assumption mr chairman i've come to the end of my questions right that would be good yes it would thank you very much well now we'll have a break at this point okay mr lam um ms grange thinks she's

01:28:42 okay mr lam um ms grange thinks she's got to the end of her questions but so we always alive a short time so that council can just check that there aren't further things that need to be covered okay um how long do you think you might need scringe um

01:28:57 scringe um 15 minutes yeah right we'll come back a quarter to four please okay i don't suppose you'll have much chance to talk to anyone about your evidence but if you do don't take it please

01:29:07 please okay all right thank you very much

01:29:14 thank you

01:49:28 yes would you ask mr lam to come back in please

01:49:41 all right mr lamb yes yes ms grange did you find some more questions just a few very short questions yes thank you um first question on the

01:49:52 thank you um first question on the styrofoam

01:49:53 styrofoam and the switch from tp10 to styrofoam did you get the impression that styrofoam was being selected because it was cheaper i had no reason to consider that it's a very common

01:50:05 very common core for insulated panels so i don't think that was a prime motive to be honest

01:50:10 honest but would it in fact have been cheaper um

01:50:13 um i to be honest i don't believe styrofoam is a cheap product right okay um were you aware in october 2014 that panel systems did offer an

01:50:26 2014 that panel systems did offer an fr version of their insulated core panel an a1 version with a mineral fiber core no it wasn't now we talked about the the head of the building and that annotation you made in

01:50:38 building and that annotation you made in blue on your cad drawing yes headed fire break can you explain why did you not raise that issue directly with studio e and ask them

01:50:49 directly with studio e and ask them whether or not they required cavity barriers at the at the very head of the building um we didn't generally or i wouldn't generally raise any issues

01:51:00 or i wouldn't generally raise any issues generally the drawing speaks for itself it's there for full checking i see so that that's the way you left it just

01:51:10 just if it's not there on the drawing they can check that yes yeah and you didn't think to have a direct conversation with them about it no no no but i mean to be honest we didn't have much success

01:51:21 didn't have much success when discussing the uh the fire breaks at the earliest stage i can't imagine we would have got anywhere with this i see mr lam we've gone through a lot of questions about the project and

01:51:32 questions about the project and your role on it what would you have done differently knowing what we know now well without the luxury of hindsight

01:51:43 without the luxury of hindsight and just considering i was a design resource a freelance design resource i don't think that there was anything different i could have done however it's quite clear from a lot of

01:51:56 however it's quite clear from a lot of our

01:51:56 our conversations that there's there's a total lack of clarity in the regulations that everyone's supposed to adhere to and i really think

01:52:07 and i really think something needs to be done just to take the ambiguity out of the documentation that everyone's expected to conform to

01:52:18 expected to conform to i think okay thank you good well thank you very much for coming to give your evidence mr lam it's been very useful to hear from you i'm sorry it's taken up quite a lot of your time but that can't be helped

01:52:30 your time but that can't be helped yeah anyway it's all over now you're free to go thank you very much indeed

01:52:38 [Music]

01:52:42 cheers

01:52:48 well miss granger take it that's it for the day that is it for the day and another harley witness on monday good thank you very much well we'll stop at that point and resume at 10 o'clock on monday then thank you very

01:53:10 much