Afternoon session examining Kevin Lam on facade design work for Grenfell Tower refurbishment. Key focus on regulatory compliance, cavity barriers, and understanding of fire safety requirements for external walls above 18 meters.
00:00:21 yes would you ask mr lam to come back in
00:00:28 please
00:00:39 all right mr lam ready to carry on yes certainly am very good thank you yes ms strange
00:00:43 strange yes thank you mr lam just going back to that first meeting that you had with ray bailey and daniel ankartal jones on the 12th of august 2014. was there any discussion at that meeting
00:00:55 was there any discussion at that meeting about the fact that your main experience prior to that had been in glazing and curtain walling rather than in cladding was that discussed at all no no there was no discussion to that point now did you understand that they knew that
00:01:07 did you understand that they knew that that they were aware that that had been predominantly your expertise i don't think it was important because i was being engaged as a a drafting resource
00:01:18 engaged as a a drafting resource yeah rather than a cladding specialist i see
00:01:21 see okay now we were we were looking at um or topic i was exploring was kind of quality control processes internally within harley in relation to your work and the supervision of your
00:01:33 your work and the supervision of your work
00:01:34 work um certainly at the beginning how would you describe the division of responsibility between yourself and mr anchor
00:01:41 anchor jones um
00:01:44 jones um well as i said we would have uh around the table
00:01:48 the table concept design meetings yeah following those meetings i was entrusted to
00:01:55 to carry out instructions and then for expedience the drawings would be sent straight out to the client but they would be copied into dan and ray
00:02:06 ray yeah for their input should they see fit yeah did you understand that daniel anchor james was your line manager on the project yes yes yeah
00:02:19 were there ever any um formal or informal design reviews held internally within the harley design team
00:02:30 internally within the harley design team did you ever kind of draw a line in the sand and say right let's just take stock where is the design got to where are we going what's next did that ever happen on this project um well as
00:02:41 on this project um well as as i said you know the weekly or or ever other weekly um round-the-table design workshops would uh would cover that wouldn't they
00:02:53 when you say the weekly or other weekly design workshops do you mean these discussions with dan and ray yeah but those weren't held later in the project were they no but by then the
00:03:04 then the um the concept was all um secured i see so there were no design opportunities for design review later there was opportunities if we felt it necessary
00:03:13 necessary but you didn't but no okay what about um any formal or informal design reviews with
00:03:21 with the wider team with studio e or anybody at ryden
00:03:24 at ryden the design team to ensure that the design was progressing correctly well we did have a few few team design team meetings on site yeah yeah and that's what you thought that was an
00:03:35 and that's what you thought that was an opportunity during those meetings to take stock of the design yes with studio e
00:03:43 if we can turn to a document har har403634
00:03:56 so this is if we look at the top email here
00:03:59 here this is an email from daniel lancaster jones to you on the 22nd of september 2014.
00:04:05 2014. and he says kev could you make one change detail 304 change it to two angles in the shadow gap to allow for tolerance these can be issued then do you see that
00:04:16 these can be issued then do you see that there yes i do yeah so it appears certainly at this stage that daniel anchored jones is reviewing your drawings making comments and then approving them is that correct certainly in this
00:04:27 is that correct certainly in this particular case yeah yeah when he was doing that certainly at the beginning of the project what did you understand he was checking for
00:04:36 um he was checking that i was following the harley remit i see i was instructed by harley to to provide a particular design yeah he was checking that was okay you were
00:04:47 was checking that was okay you were following that did you think he was doing any wider form of checking for example checking with building regulations or relevant guidance
00:04:56 guidance i wouldn't have expected him to be doing that i would expect him if he knew that there was an obvious departure from conformance to regulations to bring that up but i i
00:05:08 regulations to bring that up but i i don't think that was his primary job function now but would you have expected him to have been aware of the regulatory requirements surrounding the design of facades
00:05:19 the design of facades the building regulations requirements and other i never i never
00:05:29 what i know now yeah at the time didn't have any reason to to consider any of that no but i think you've confirmed that if there was something obvious in your drawings that wasn't compliant you would
00:05:41 drawings that wasn't compliant you would have expected mr anchor jones to pick that up
00:05:44 that up yes as with any other member of the team that sees the drawings yeah so that the same would apply for ray bailey if he reviewed one of your drawings
00:05:51 drawings you would have expected him to have picked up any obvious non-compliances with requirements it's obvious yeah now you say in paragraph
00:06:03 now you say in paragraph 32 of your witness statement let's go to this so har3010419 at page nine
00:06:13 so if we look at paragraph 32 and i want to look the fourth line down at the top of the page we read this earlier you said later on if there was a significant change or an issue came up i would speak to ray bailey about this
00:06:26 i would speak to ray bailey about this and you say in the next sentence that you recall daniel becoming less involved quite early on in the job as he was working on other projects yes yes can you help us as to how soon exactly in the project did
00:06:38 exactly in the project did mr anchor jones become less involved at what point um i would be guessing it would be easy to check back on emails and see when i stopped issuing emails to him and
00:06:49 when i stopped issuing emails to him and favored mark stapley but i would guess in the early early couple of months of 15 right and were you told at that point that another design manager
00:07:01 that another design manager was um supervising your work at that stage
00:07:05 stage there was a point at which i was told no longer to send the drawings through dan to send them through mark stapley i think and um but you can't help us as to exactly when
00:07:16 but you can't help us as to exactly when that when you were told that not without having to look through um all the files now do you think that would be on an email or were you told that verbally oh no i would have been told that verbally i see
00:07:29 verbally i see is it right that as the project progressed you were increasingly left to issue drawings without having had direct supervision uh yes because the level of drawings um
00:07:40 uh yes because the level of drawings um it was basically comments from the architect that i was dealing with yeah so the concept had already been agreed um with my client being harley yeah so there was no need
00:07:51 there was no need yeah so you weren't concerned by that no no
00:07:56 no no just an example of that if we turn to sea
00:07:59 sea three zeroes one three three five zero
00:08:08 if we can blow that up so um this is um from you to simon lawrence on the 18th of august 2015. so fairly late on in the project yeah
00:08:20 so fairly late on in the project yeah you're still copying um daniel anchor jones in there as well as mark stapley we see that in a copy list
00:08:28 copy list so does that mean this was at a time when you did understand daniel was still having some involvement yes he must have been so that does put the date back a little bit further doesn't it yeah and we can see a large number of
00:08:40 and we can see a large number of drawings here and you actually um address the body of your email to neil crawford i think you say neil please find attached curtain wall drawings all
00:08:51 find attached curtain wall drawings all now issued for construction based on your comments 7th of august 15 the only item that has deviated do you see that there yes yes we're going to come in a little while to drill down and try and
00:09:03 while to drill down and try and understand the exact process for approving drawings and and whether it was riding approving them or hardly approving them um but at this stage um
00:09:15 um but at this stage um i just wanted to to note that you seem to be issuing a large number of drawings here
00:09:22 here to ryden and studio e without having run them past harley first but these are revisions i see so you can
00:09:33 but these are revisions i see so you can see by the fact after the three the final three um numbers
00:09:37 numbers there's a letter yeah revision a in most cases so you can see they're all revisions
00:09:44 revisions so is the point that given the only revisions they didn't need to go back internally within harley they could go straight out again to ryden and studio e directly yeah of course they were copied into the team for
00:09:55 into the team for review at their leisure i see
00:09:59 if we turn to another email
00:10:03 three har40435
00:10:09 this is an email from ray bailey to you this is the 16th of august 2015 so again quite late on in the project and we just have ben bailey there copied
00:10:21 and we just have ben bailey there copied in
00:10:22 in do you see that there yes yep
00:10:26 and um we can see him saying in the beginning of that email hi
00:10:32 email hi kevin i've been looking at grenfell and i'm extremely concerned about getting completed
00:10:37 completed the completion date is 23rd of october which is just nine weeks away this means that we have to start removing mass climbers in six weeks as i understand it there is still a large amount of fabrication details to
00:10:48 large amount of fabrication details to be issued
00:10:49 be issued once these are issued the material has to be manufactured then installed and then he has a number of topics that he goes through which we don't need to look at in detail
00:11:00 look at in detail no no one of those is the crown do you see that there yeah crown details need to be released and would it be usual to still be issuing fabrication drawings only nine weeks before completion yes
00:11:13 only nine weeks before completion yes yeah quite common yeah that's common on projects is it yes yeah so there was nothing unusual about this occurring
00:11:22 occurring no no not at all no would you agree that mr bailey does seem concerned he says extremely concerned about getting completed i would imagine he suddenly realized
00:11:31 realized um there was a date for the mass climbs to be removed yeah and that's probably focused him to speak to all members of the team to make sure everyone's going to make it get their works completed in time yeah
00:11:44 get their works completed in time yeah was this a project looking back on it that became rushed as the project neared its end from your perspective no i don't believe so so you don't think that
00:11:53 that affected the quality of the designs that were produced
00:11:58 now i want to come on to the kind of the general regulatory requirements and look at a number of topics relevant to that um first up can we just consider your cv briefly this is har405325
00:12:18 so this is your cv do you recognize that there
00:12:22 there yeah yeah and we can see in the role that
00:12:26 that you say your designer of curtin walling and associated facade elements to include ga is that general arrangement design proposals fabrication drawings and materials
00:12:37 fabrication drawings and materials scheduling what does material scheduling mean that's lists of quantities and sizes of materials that need to be ordered i see yeah and site meetings and surveys
00:12:50 i see yeah and site meetings and surveys undertaken liaison with internal external design teams and specialist understanding of commercial implications so we've got all that there and in that beginning of that paragraph
00:13:01 and in that beginning of that paragraph i know
00:13:01 i know we've got um designer of curtin walling should we note the emphasis on curtin walling there as opposed to designer of curtin walling and cladding
00:13:12 and cladding well um it's not exclusive but that is my main line of business yeah
00:13:21 is it fair to say that you presented yourself as having a range of skills that one would expect from a main designer of a facade yes as a
00:13:32 yes as a professional designer of facades um do you agree that it was important that you kept up to date with relevant changes
00:13:40 changes in the industry including industry practice and guidance um not specifically as a lead designer i would say yes but i was never purporting to be a lead designer i was a drafting resource yeah
00:13:53 i was a drafting resource yeah so does that mean you didn't think it was
00:13:57 was necessary for you to keep up to date with
00:14:00 with industry guidance on facades not specifically but that's not to say i didn't in certain areas no
00:14:10 can you recall what steps did you take when you were working on the grenfell project
00:14:15 project to ensure that you understood what the relevant regulatory requirements were um again it wasn't my responsibility to um to provide this sort of backup for
00:14:27 um to provide this sort of backup for harley
00:14:27 harley however during the course of grenfell i did take recourse to refresh myself for certain areas of adb
00:14:35 adb adb yeah anything else that you looked at
00:14:38 at um i had a brief look at the use of celatex
00:14:42 celatex over 18 meters yeah and uh and a brief look at cwct um the guidance for i can't remember the title but basically it's the very um cladding yeah
00:14:56 very um cladding yeah yeah so you knew at the time that there was guidance that you could access out there
00:15:01 there oh yeah if you wanted further detail in a particular area and including on fire performance and the fire performance of facades was did you have an awareness of that fire performance of facades yeah that
00:15:13 fire performance of facades yeah that there was
00:15:14 there was industry guidance out there that would provide guidance on the design of facades
00:15:21 facades from a fire i was aware of things like br 135
00:15:25 br 135 yeah um but again my role wasn't to investigate or this to the nth degree
00:15:32 degree yeah i was i was part of a technical team
00:15:36 team yeah in practice did you ever in fact analyze the design as provided in studio ease drawings to check for compliance with relevant
00:15:47 check for compliance with relevant regulatory requirements um not in general but when we got to the uh the question of cavity barriers i did put a little bit of effort in yes yeah
00:15:59 yeah when you received the full set of studio e drawings i think you sent the first big pack in august 2014. did you undertake any interrogation or investigation of those designs
00:16:10 investigation of those designs before you yourself began work in developing that design no nothing jumped out at me as as requiring any um any concern
00:16:21 as requiring any um any concern so would it be fair to say that you adopted the work that they had already produced
00:16:26 produced that's correct yes and of course this is a work that um harleys had already signed up to before i was even employed
00:16:36 employed when you say it's work that harley's had already signed up to do you mean that your understanding with it was that harley would have looked at the studio e drawings and satisfied themselves
00:16:48 drawings and satisfied themselves before they engaged you that the designs were compliant with relevant requirements maybe not fully compliant but they certainly spent um a lot of time um looking at these
00:16:59 um a lot of time um looking at these designs so as they were able to provide a competitive quotation and you would have expected them as part of that process would you to have picked up any compliance issues not necessarily no no but any obvious
00:17:13 not necessarily no no but any obvious compliance issues obvious ones yes yeah now we know you were also sent some preliminary design work that sam ancatel jones and ray bailey had been working on do you recall that yes yes i do did you
00:17:26 do you recall that yes yes i do did you analyze their work for compliance with relevant regulatory requirements um i there was nothing to analyze okay
00:17:36 were you sent either the whole of or parts of the nbs specification that had been drafted by studio e um i certainly had some of the mbs whether i had all of it i don't know
00:17:48 whether i had all of it i don't know let's just have a look at that um so if we go to sca
00:17:58 50169 that was the front page of the mbs spec it's a very long document because it had lots of different work packages in it but if we go to the rain screen cladding
00:18:09 but if we go to the rain screen cladding part that's at page 64. so there's a an h92 section i think um it's just disappeared from the bottom
00:18:20 um it's just disappeared from the bottom of the page it's around 11 pages um this section do you recall seeing this h92 section of the nbs um i don't recall specifically but i would have imagined this was part
00:18:32 but i would have imagined this was part of my um
00:18:34 of my um part of the the information that was issued to me generally
00:18:40 elements of the mbs spec would be issued to the subcontractor that apply to their works so you might get the h11 the l10 the l20 h92 yeah
00:18:53 the l20 h92 yeah because they all refer to different elements on the project product uh project but they wouldn't be getting elements referred to groundworks or internal yeah that would just be too confusing
00:19:04 just be too confusing yeah so looking at this now do you think it's likely that you were provided with some
00:19:09 some aspects of the h926 yes quite probably yeah
00:19:13 that bit there on the screen shows that contractors had to submit alternative supply and install costs for different rain screen materials this was
00:19:24 different rain screen materials this was at tender stage yes yeah way before i was
00:19:27 was involved yes yeah
00:19:30 um mr anchoral jones has said that he didn't review the nbs specification would you expected him to have done that
00:19:41 um what review for com compliance well read it and and understood it he's said that that wasn't part of his role harley as an entity would have yeah
00:19:53 harley as an entity would have yeah without the doubt now different members may have read different elements um certainly mike alberston would have had a
00:20:01 had a read elements to ensure he was pricing the right elements um mark harris would have probably done the same
00:20:08 the same ray may have read other areas but um yeah i it would have been red yes but just my question was whether you would have expected mr ankartal jones as
00:20:21 would have expected mr ankartal jones as design
00:20:21 design manager to have read this h92 section
00:20:28 i wouldn't necessarily i wouldn't i wouldn't say one way or the other to be honest
00:20:33 honest um can we turn onto page 68 within the nbs spec
00:20:38 nbs spec and i want to look first at item 210 so here we get the general requirements in preparatory work in h92 and it says design in 210
00:20:51 in h92 and it says design in 210 and it says rain screen cladding system and associated features and the and then it says complete detailed design in accordance with this specification and the preliminary design drawings and submit before commencement
00:21:04 drawings and submit before commencement of fabrication do you see that there yes so this seems to be envisaging that detailed design work would be done by either ryden or subcontractors
00:21:15 by either ryden or subcontractors yeah and then at 220 on the same page just down specification we can see it says compliance standards the center for window and clouding
00:21:26 the center for window and clouding technology standard for systemized building envelopes did you see that there
00:21:29 there yeah it was quite normal yeah and it talks about it again just below and i think that's a standard that's mentioned a few times in this mbs spec were you aware at the time you
00:21:40 mbs spec were you aware at the time you were working on the project that the facade had to comply with that cwct guidance
00:21:47 guidance yes yes you were yeah we know that was dated march 2008 so um do you think you looked at that cwct guidance
00:21:58 cwct guidance during the course of the grenfell project i certainly did yeah
00:22:04 so does it follow that you did consider how you would ensure that your design complied with the cwct standard um i was i was not really looking to
00:22:16 um i was i was not really looking to that degree um it was when we got to um the discussion around cavity barriers yeah that i looked at this for guidance and
00:22:27 and this combined with adb didn't really point me in a very positive direction so just to be clear you wouldn't have looked at this guidance before you had recourse to look at it in the in the context of cavity barriers
00:22:40 in the in the context of cavity barriers no no
00:22:42 no no now the building regulations at the time of the grenfell project were you familiar with schedule one to the building regulations and in broad terms the functional requirements that it set out broadly yeah
00:22:56 can you explain what you understood by a functional requirement um how do well no i can't work did you understand that that set effectively a performance
00:23:08 effectively a performance that say an external wall would need to to meet
00:23:12 to meet yes i can understand that yes rather than a prescriptive standard and what about part b fire safety and schedule one were you aware that
00:23:23 aware that um part b broke down into functional requirements b1 to b5 yes yes and were you aware that there was requirement b4 relating to the external wall that is
00:23:35 relating to the external wall that is very
00:23:36 very pertinent to what we were doing there yes yes
00:23:39 yes yes and can you help us as to what your understanding was of what the b4 requirement was at the time um worst requirements to protection against
00:23:48 against fire protection against fire yes yes on the exterior of the building what about that the external wall shall adequately resist the spread of fire that's correct across the walls and from
00:24:00 that's correct across the walls and from one building to another yes you understood that yes yeah can we look then approve document b this is clg five zeros two two four
00:24:25 so this is approved document b it's the 2006 edition which incorporates various amendments and this one has the 2013 amendment so this would have been the version of approved document b
00:24:37 the version of approved document b at the time you were working on the grenfell project yeah um what was your understanding of the purpose of adb of this document to ensure compliance
00:24:49 of this document to ensure compliance to ensure compliance yes did you understand that it was intended to give practical guidance on how to meet the obligations under the building regulations um yes i understand that's what the intention was yeah
00:25:00 intention was yeah and at the time of the grenfell project um so let's take when you start working in august 2014 how familiar were you with adb um it was it was a document i would
00:25:13 um it was it was a document i would refer to
00:25:15 refer to occasionally on on many jobs over the years yeah um i wouldn't know it explicitly no i would just use it to refer to yeah and when you would refer to it how would you look at it would you have a
00:25:26 would you look at it would you have a card copy would you look at it electronically i would look electronically yeah
00:25:34 had you ever attended a course or any similar training that um provided education on adb and its requirements no
00:25:46 when you were working on the design of a facade
00:25:50 facade would it normally include some element of checking approved document b was that a commonplace thing to do um if i was in doubt about anything or if the
00:26:01 if the architectural information provided seemed
00:26:04 seemed um poor yeah then i may refer to this yeah just as just as a process so that i could return to the architect and say
00:26:14 and say have you done your designs yeah this in mind
00:26:17 mind yeah so would you say that was a common occurrence on jobs you've been involved in before grenfell or was that the exception
00:26:24 exception a common occurrence that i would refer to it yeah but um relatively rare that i would put it back to the architect that i feel is not complying yeah now if we go on within this
00:26:36 yeah now if we go on within this document to page 93 we see the the b4 requirements set out
00:26:45 so there we have the functional requirement b41 which we were just discussing adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another having regard to the height use and position of the building do you see that
00:26:57 position of the building do you see that there yeah um and then those aspects are dealt with in section 12 construction of external walls of adb and if we turn to page 95
00:27:10 if we look at the bottom half of that page in the right hand column external wall construction 12.5 the first paragraph reads the external envelope of a building should not provide a medium for fire
00:27:21 should not provide a medium for fire spread if it is likely to be a risk to health or safety the use of combustible materials in the cladding system and extensive cavities may present such a risk in tall buildings
00:27:32 buildings do you see that there yes now is that something you were aware of at the time of the grenfell project um in general anyway yes yes in general anyway so
00:27:41 anyway so that was just something you yeah you felt was obvious did you that's right yes
00:27:46 yes and that the use of combustible materials in the cladding system might present a risk in tall buildings were you specifically aware of that yes yeah and then it says this in the next paragraph external rules should either meet the
00:27:58 external rules should either meet the guidance given in paragraphs 12.6 to 12.9
00:28:02 12.9 those appear below or meet the performance criteria given in the bre report for our performance of external thermal
00:28:10 thermal insulation for walls of multi-storey buildings br135 for cladding systems using full-scale test data from bs8414 do you see that there yes yep
00:28:21 there yes yep so it's it's providing here two routes either a route through paragraphs 12.6 to 12.9 or the br135
00:28:32 br135 route right is that do you agree yeah yeah i agree with that and did you understand that at the time of the grenfell project um i don't think i gave it a second thought to be honest because
00:28:43 thought to be honest because i was given the build up of the construction from my client as an experienced cladding company i had no reason to doubt
00:28:53 doubt that it would be compliant anyway i see so does that mean that you didn't know on the grenfell project whether the route to compliance was
00:29:04 whether the route to compliance was through
00:29:05 through the paragraphs 12.96 to 12.9 or through br 135 you didn't know that at the time and that wasn't something that would have occurred to you to to check
00:29:17 have occurred to you to to check and not at all no
00:29:20 paragraph 12.6 then that starts at the bottom of that page says the external surfaces of walls should meet the provisions in diagram 40. do you see that there yes yeah
00:29:36 now at grenfell that talks about external surfaces of walls which aspect of the external wall at grenfell did you think was classed as the external surface
00:29:48 external surface it was the cladding the cladding yes the rain screen cladding that's correct yeah so the outer panels that's right
00:29:57 were you familiar at the time of the grenfeld project with diagram 40 of adb yes yes the one where it shows the different heights of buildings and different proximities yep it's on the next page let's go to
00:30:08 yep it's on the next page let's go to that so this is at page 97 there it is yeah did you know which of these sketches applied at grenfell yes it was bottom right
00:30:23 and were you aware therefore that any dimension over 18 meters needed to be class
00:30:29 class national class or class b s3 d2 or better
00:30:33 better yes were you familiar with national class naught as a classification for building materials yes yeah what did you understand national class naught to mean it means a product that
00:30:44 naught to mean it means a product that does not promote the spread of flame across its surface did you understand what testing a material would have had to have undergone to meet the class naught classification um i didn't need
00:30:55 naught classification um i didn't need to know that i would rely on documentation if it came to it so does it follow that you didn't know that
00:31:02 know that it was the bs 476 part 6 and 476 part 7 tests
00:31:07 tests that fed into the class north classification
00:31:12 in your mind what was the significance of a material having class naught it's not going to promote fire and what materials did you think class
00:31:23 and what materials did you think class naught was relevant to in an external wall i think in the case of grenfell and any other cladding project it would be from the concrete face of the existing building
00:31:35 existing building outwards so all those elements in the external wall that's right you thought class naught was relevant too there are exceptions that you're allowed to use but um the major elements yeah it would all
00:31:47 the major elements yeah it would all have to be class zero and would you ever check that each element of the wall had class naught um no because i would be um i was provided with the materials
00:32:00 i was provided with the materials and that had been selected yeah and i had no reason to doubt that they were classo
00:32:04 classo or otherwise yeah was that a phrase you were aware of that was used regularly in the construction industry at the time class nord yes yeah
00:32:17 had you undertaken any form of professional development or training in relation to the testing and classification of building products no was it ever your practice
00:32:28 no was it ever your practice to examine the testing evidence that you were presented with in order to ensure it complied with the guidance in approved document b no no not at all that was not part of your job no no
00:32:40 now in approved document b um we'll come back to section 12 in a moment i just want to look now at what the definition is of class naught at page 122
00:32:53 and this is in paragraph 13 which is halfway down on the left hand side of that column and it says the highest national product performance
00:33:04 performance classification for lining materials is class naught this is achieved if a material or the surface of a composite product is either and you've got two routes to getting class naught
00:33:15 class naught either it's composed throughout of materials of limited combustibility or it's undergone certain other testing do you see that there yes yeah and that second part is referring to the bs 476
00:33:26 referring to the bs 476 part six and seven testing but you weren't you wouldn't have been aware of that but but looking at that first part
00:33:34 part saying it's the highest national product class performance classification for lining materials is that something you were aware of that the class naught was primarily a
00:33:45 that the class naught was primarily a classification that was concerned with lining materials um no no no you weren't aware of that
00:33:58 did you think that class naught meant a material couldn't burn
00:34:05 um i don't think i considered its flammability i did know that it wouldn't promote flame across its surface okay
00:34:22 um then if we can go back within section 12 of adb
00:34:27 12 of adb to look at paragraph 12.7 on page 96. and we see here there's a heading insulation materials
00:34:38 insulation materials slash products do you see that there yeah and it says this in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level any insulation product filler material
00:34:49 any insulation product filler material not including gaskets sealants and similar etc used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility see appendix a do you see that there yeah
00:35:00 yeah now at the time of the grenfell project were you familiar with that paragraph of approved document b um i couldn't say one way or the other you couldn't say no no had you heard at
00:35:13 you couldn't say no no had you heard at the time of the grenfell project of the term limited combustibility yes yeah
00:35:19 yeah what was your understanding of what limited combustibility meant um well it's limited the amount of um flame it would promote i see so
00:35:30 flame it would promote i see so your understanding was it that limited combustibility was like a description of how much combustibility there was that's right yeah did you understand at this time that for a material to be of limited
00:35:41 a material to be of limited combustibility it had to have achieved certain passes in certain tests oh well i would imagine so yes yeah
00:35:54 if we look um it refers to appendix a i want to look at table a7 page 132.
00:36:03 so this is table a7 use and definitions of materials of limiter combustibility do you see that there yeah so this is a guide to when something is going to be of limited combustibility
00:36:16 going to be of limited combustibility and what we get down the left-hand side is
00:36:20 is various references in adb where limited combustibility is said to be needed and if you look at item eight down that list do you see that
00:36:31 list do you see that yeah it's got insulation material in external wall construction referred to in paragraph 12.7 do you see that yeah now did you ever look at this table a7 um
00:36:43 table a7 um during or prior to the grenfell project um
00:36:47 um if i did it wasn't in depth i would have just glossed over it what we see is that the definition of materials of limited combustibility for insulation material and external walls
00:36:59 insulation material and external walls is either
00:37:00 is either something that you get classified under the national class system and it's usually involving tests under bs470
00:37:08 bs470 part 11 or under the european class system it's any materials in a and b above which are basically a1 or a2 materials
00:37:19 materials do you see that there yeah on the european classifications were you familiar with a1 a2 b c d did that mean anything to
00:37:30 a1 a2 b c d did that mean anything to you
00:37:30 you no no
00:37:34 so in diagram 40 which we looked at earlier there was reference to class b but yes but it was also classified uh mentioned in class zero it was so it was it was that's the point that would jump
00:37:45 it was that's the point that would jump out and
00:37:46 out and um uh imply conformity would it be fair to say that at the time of the grenfell project you weren't aware that insulation
00:37:57 you weren't aware that insulation products needed to be of limited combustibility if following this guidance and that that had a special definition yeah i knew they had to be class o but i didn't specifically know
00:38:09 class o but i didn't specifically know there had to be limited compatibility
00:38:16 so if you were told um well this insulation product is class naught would you think that was all you needed to know
00:38:22 know in terms of whether it could be used in an external wall above 18 meters it's kind of immaterial because i wasn't my remit wasn't to consider the materials that were specified for
00:38:33 the materials that were specified for the job
00:38:35 the job sure but we'll come on and look at it in due course and i think you confirmed in your evidence that you did have a look at the celetex specification guide for the insulation and i'm just keen to understand exactly what um
00:38:48 keen to understand exactly what um you had understood about adb prior to that
00:38:51 that is that okay that's fine
00:38:57 um br135 can we just turn that up this is bre-405554
00:39:07 and it's page two that we want
00:39:11 now this is the second edition of br135 that was dated from 2003. does that look familiar to you um i i think i saw the previous edition to
00:39:24 i i think i saw the previous edition to be honest
00:39:25 be honest the first edition yeah okay well this was the second edition um
00:39:33 i just want to run through a few passages in this guidance to see whether you were aware of some of the concepts it's referring to um now on page seven
00:39:44 um now on page seven there's a reference to and a picture from the garnet court fire do you see that there yeah i see that um it was a multi-story block in scotland and there was a fire in the summer of 1999.
00:39:56 summer of 1999. now i think you said earlier that you weren't aware of any um high-rise cladding fires prior to grenfell
00:40:04 grenfell um we can see this one is dealt with here so would that suggest that maybe you didn't read this document prior was this in the previous version we'd have to check that we'll we'll have
00:40:15 we'd have to check that we'll we'll have a look at the first edition i mean by saying that i wasn't aware um it doesn't mean to say there weren't cladding fires no then so no i wasn't aware it's a simple yeah um on page nine then we get the
00:40:29 yeah um on page nine then we get the mechanisms of um rapid fire spread spelt out in a in a diagram yeah and you see you've got rapid fire spread restricted fire spread is that diagram
00:40:40 restricted fire spread is that diagram or something similar familiar to you definitely
00:40:45 so do you agree that you understood that cladding systems can create the opportunity for rapid unseen flame spread
00:40:53 spread yes yes and for flame spread to keep breaking back in as the flames go up that the tower blocks yes definitely hence the need for compartmentation yeah then on page 10
00:41:06 yeah then on page 10 under paragraph three and under the heading
00:41:10 heading cavities i just want to look what's said under cavities it says um if we pick it up in the third line it says if flames become confined or restricted by entering cavities
00:41:21 or restricted by entering cavities within the external cladding system they will become elongated as they seek oxygen and fuel to support the combustion process this process can lead to flame extension of five to ten times of the original flame
00:41:33 five to ten times of the original flame length regardless of the materials used to line the cavities do you see that there yes yeah and it may enable fire to spread rapidly unseen through the external cladding system now that concept there of flame
00:41:46 now that concept there of flame elongation of five to ten times were you aware of that kind of information yes i always knew that as chimney effect chimney effect yeah so you knew that was a risk in the
00:41:58 yeah so you knew that was a risk in the design of tall buildings yes any building and again um on that page under paragraph
00:42:07 paragraph five if we go to the bottom of this page
00:42:13 it warns there that um if we look at the second half of that four lines down where the external cladding system is contributing to the fire propagation rate the prevent the potential exists for the
00:42:25 the prevent the potential exists for the fire to affect multiple stories simultaneously thus making
00:42:29 making firefighting more difficult again were you aware of that um yeah i was aware of it but it seems a nonsensical statement because you
00:42:40 nonsensical statement because you shouldn't be using cladding systems that contribute to the fire yeah
00:42:51 i see on page 17 under the heading system specific details ventilated cavities do you see
00:43:02 details ventilated cavities do you see that in the middle um in the third paragraph down we it says once the fire is within the cavity it may propagate unseen through the system if adequate fire barriers
00:43:14 the system if adequate fire barriers are not employed this may result in significant risk of system collapse or fire breakout at significant distances from the fire origin yeah do you see that there yeah and so
00:43:26 yeah do you see that there yeah and so this guidance um warned that close attention should be paid to the installation of cavity barriers
00:43:38 you can see that in the paragraph below and then if we go immediately below that performance of materials in fire we see insulation it says
00:43:49 says the performance of insulating material when subjected to this type of fire scenary has been outlined in the previous section typically non-combustible materials are used in these systems as it is difficult
00:44:00 used in these systems as it is difficult to prevent fire entering the cavity and spreading through the insulating material do you see that there yeah again were you aware at the time of the grenfell project that
00:44:11 at the time of the grenfell project that typically non-combustible materials were used as the insulation in such systems yes yeah and what would you take that to mean non-combustible materials can you give us an example of that
00:44:24 can you give us an example of that um well certainly rockwool but the implication was that the the pirs
00:44:32 pirs were suitable also well we'll come on and look at what was said about the pir
00:44:39 um in a moment um now just at the bottom of this page under the heading external panel
00:44:52 it's got a heading there non-combustible materials and materials of limited combustibility do you see that there yeah were you aware that there was a distinction between materials that were
00:45:03 between materials that were non-combustible and those that were limited combustibility yeah yeah you were
00:45:10 but i thought you'd said that you weren't aware of that there was a technical meaning of limited combustibility no but it's quite clear this is either non-combustible or it's limited
00:45:22 non-combustible or it's limited combustibility that's just language isn't it and again are you asking me if i knew the particular materials
00:45:30 materials well because it says as defined in tables a6 and a7 have approved document b
00:45:35 b yeah no i don't i don't know which materials were which no
00:45:43 um and then if we look at the top of page 18 and still in this section headed external panels
00:45:51 there's a discussion about metal panels
00:45:58 and just picking it up in the fourth line up from the bottom of that section it says
00:46:02 it says metal panels such as aluminium may fall from the system if the strength of the fixings
00:46:07 fixings is affected by the local fire source they may also melt generating molten metal debris if exposed directly to the sustained flam flame envelope do you see that
00:46:18 flam flame envelope do you see that there yeah now did you understand that about metal panels such as aluminium
00:46:26 well normally the fixings would be um stainless steel
00:46:32 which wouldn't melt but did you understand that they might melt generating molten metal debris if exposed directly to the sustained flame envelope
00:46:41 envelope it's saying that the metal panels may fall
00:46:45 fall if the strength of the fixings is affected not the panel yes and but in the next sentence it says they may also melt generating molten metal debris if
00:46:56 generating molten metal debris if exposed directly to the sustained flame envelope i say yeah you see that i agree with that yeah yeah yeah now the guidance that was available in terms of br135 for the majority of the period of the grenfell refurbishment and
00:47:08 period of the grenfell refurbishment and certainly during your time on it was the third edition of br135 right now this is if we can bring this up at c e
00:47:15 up at c e l four zeros three three six four
00:47:26 so that's the third edition it's by sarah colwell and tony baker do you see that there yeah does that front page mean anything to you that looks more familiar to be honest more familiar so do you think it might have been this version yeah that you saw
00:47:45 now um if we go on sorry can we just look at the first few pages of this if we just scan through the next few pages
00:47:56 yeah and the next one and the next one and the next one and the next one no i'll do it i'll look for it overnight
00:48:08 no i'll do it i'll look for it overnight but let's pick it up at page 11. paragraph 2.1
00:48:19 paragraph 2.1 there's a discussion there about um the building regulations in the first paragraph
00:48:28 paragraph and that the regulations and supporting guidance set out acceptance criteria in the next paragraph and then it says this these potentially conflicting requirements are highlighted in the area of
00:48:39 are highlighted in the area of innovative materials and designs which are being driven by the need to construct more energy efficient and sustainable buildings in order to meet these design challenges
00:48:50 in order to meet these design challenges the range of new and innovative materials and designs of systems being offered
00:48:54 offered as potential solutions has also increased the volumes of potentially combustible materials being used in external cladding applications do you see that there yeah
00:49:06 applications do you see that there yeah so would you agree that this guidance is warning and drawing attention to the rapid development of new products
00:49:17 to the rapid development of new products on external walls it appears to be yes containing potentially combustible materials
00:49:22 materials yeah is that something you remember being aware of either as a result of reading this guidance or more generally in the industry now as i said before this was a document i would have flicked through
00:49:34 i would have flicked through to look for guidance when we were discussing cavity barriers um but but no i would definitely not have read it in that detail
00:49:45 have read it in that detail and if we can look at another part on page 22 under paragraph 6.4.1 under the heading installation
00:49:56 so it's in bottom half of that page there we go we see 641 performance of materials in fire insulation and it says this as it can be difficult
00:50:07 and it says this as it can be difficult to prevent fire entering the cavity and spreading in these systems the selection of the insulation materials used and the design of the fire barriers to close these cavities are particularly important do you see
00:50:19 are particularly important do you see that there yeah again were you aware that there was guidance such as this warning
00:50:28 warning that the selection of the insulating materials to be used was particularly important um well we know from adb that all the materials it's important to select those materials
00:50:39 it's important to select those materials properly
00:50:41 properly so i don't see this as anything groundbreaking i see so you don't think this was adding to what you've been told by adb no but just to be clear i think you said
00:50:53 no but just to be clear i think you said you weren't familiar with paragraph 12.7 of adb on insulation i was never reviewing the materials no
00:51:04 and then just one more reference in this document if we look at 641 sorry staying with page 22 under the heading external panels and finishes
00:51:17 um yes sorry it's that last paragraph they're beginning combustible panels are typically it's at the bottom right hand corner of that page can you see that
00:51:27 see that yeah and if we can read that it says combustible panels are typically based on vinyl or glass reinforced plastic although various new products are being developed in this area
00:51:38 developed in this area some of which also contain insulation materials
00:51:42 materials these products generally have good surface spread of flame characteristics to prevent rapid fire spread across the surface of the system but once the panels become involved in the fire they have the potential to
00:51:53 the fire they have the potential to generate falling debris add to the overall fire load and provide a route for fire to propagate up the outside of the building do you see that there yeah
00:52:04 see that there yeah now were you aware of of that guidance there that various new products were being developed some of which are containing insulation materials so this is under the heading external panels and finishes yeah were
00:52:16 external panels and finishes yeah were you aware of that and i was aware there were new products but um
00:52:21 but um i wasn't aware that we were necessarily using anything new that hadn't been um certified as safe were you aware that some of these new products
00:52:32 some of these new products generally have good surface spread of flame characteristics but once they become in a fire they have the potential to generate falling debris add to the overall fire load and provide a route for fire to
00:52:43 and provide a route for fire to propagate up the outside of the building were you aware of that no no
00:52:55 now in terms of other guidance documents um if we look at paragraph 50 of your statement this is har3010419 page 13.
00:53:10 so if we look in the yes in the middle of that page paragraph 50 you say i recall consulting the following when considering the requirement for cavity barriers and you put one approved document b to
00:53:24 and you put one approved document b to the cwct standard for systemized building envelopes part six fire performance three cwct technical note tn 73 fire performance of curtain walls and rain screens
00:53:36 curtain walls and rain screens and four the sci ciderise technical literature for rh and rv cavity barriers we see that there yeah so you clearly told us what you consulted there when considering the requirement
00:53:48 there when considering the requirement for cavity barriers and did you ever consider these documents in respect of any other elements
00:53:55 elements of the external wall design not at all
00:54:03 if you looked at them when you were considering the cavity barrier requirement why not look at them more generally in terms of the external wall we seem to have a lack of guidance on
00:54:15 we seem to have a lack of guidance on cavity barriers um there seem to be doubt from the performance of the barriers so as a matter of diligence
00:54:26 so as a matter of diligence i sought some some further information and really didn't get very far yeah so that's because a specific issue had come up on the project which you needed to drill down further into that's right so that caused you to
00:54:38 into that's right so that caused you to look at these documents yeah yeah normally i wouldn't um i wouldn't concern myself and in the course of looking at them did you consider them more generally in terms of what they were telling you about external walls combustible
00:54:50 about external walls combustible materials
00:54:52 materials it was specifically looking for guidance on cavity barriers right and none of them really well they conflict each other right and
00:55:03 right and the bca the building control alliance were you familiar with that organization not at the time now no can i just show you um a piece of a guidance note produced by them
00:55:15 guidance note produced by them uh if we go to cep3057294
00:55:25 this is technical guidance note 18 it was issued in june 2014 so just a few months before you were engaged on the grenfell project
00:55:37 you were engaged on the grenfell project yeah now looking at that now does that help as to whether or not you might have been
00:55:42 been familiar with that document at the time or read it at the time no i definitely didn't see that
00:55:56 can we just look at just a couple of pieces of this guidance underneath um key issues if we go scroll down the page
00:56:11 we see in the beginning there that it talks about fire spread via the external wall medium is exacerbated by the use of combustible materials and extensive cavities
00:56:20 cavities we've looked at that already and then if you look
00:56:24 you look two paragraphs down from that it starts a surface spread of flame classification does not refer any resistance to combustibility it is solely a measure of the surface the spread of a flame across the surface
00:56:36 the spread of a flame across the surface do you see that there yeah now was that something you were more generally aware of at the time that a surface spread of flame classification didn't refer any resistance to combustibility
00:56:47 combustibility you were aware of that yeah so does that mean you were aware that class naught didn't tell you anything about the combustibility of the product um yeah yeah
00:56:58 um yeah yeah true you knew that and then it says thermosetting insulin do not meet the limited combustibility requirements of adb b2 table a7 do you see that there yeah
00:57:12 b2 table a7 do you see that there yeah was that something you were more generally aware of
00:57:18 um no never considered
00:57:28 and um
00:57:34 if we go to this the second bullet point there in that same section it says the br 135 bs 8414 tests deals solely with the spread of fire
00:57:45 deals solely with the spread of fire once it's entered the cavity hence the requirements for cavity barriers in accordance with section 9 of adb
00:57:51 adb are required in all cases including around openings in the facade did you see that there i do now were you aware more generally that cavity barriers were required
00:58:02 that cavity barriers were required around all openings in the facade um i was aware that in some instances this was a requirement um but through various routes to compliance
00:58:13 compliance i understood there were it wasn't always applicable so you didn't you understood through different routes to compliance you didn't always have to provide cavity
00:58:24 didn't always have to provide cavity barriers around the window that's correct yeah what route to compliance would you be following not to include cavity barriers around the windows i didn't have question to doubt the architect's
00:58:35 doubt the architect's drawings does that mean that you'd been involved in some projects prior to grenfell where cavity barriers hadn't been included around the windows yes yeah you had which project was that
00:58:47 yes yeah you had which project was that below
00:58:48 below 18 meters though below 18 meters but but which project was that um that would
00:58:57 and that would be the devonshire church in uh in brighton i think given that your experience was predominantly in curtain walling and glazing would it be
00:59:08 curtain walling and glazing would it be fair to say that you hadn't had much experience of cavity barriers in cladding systems prior to grenfell that's true yeah
00:59:24 now um there's a later edition of this bca guidance from june 2015 we just look at this cel402347
00:59:42 this document is dated june 2015. can you see
00:59:45 you see that at the top right so it came out during the time you were working on the grenfell project um again is your evidence that you weren't aware of this and didn't read it no no
00:59:59 and didn't read it no no do you see if we go down under key issues
01:00:02 issues again
01:00:05 and we look at that last paragraph beginning
01:00:08 beginning a surface spread of flame classification we can see in that first bullet point that it's given
01:00:15 given more examples in brackets this time of thermo-setting insulins which do not usually meet the limited combustibility requirements do you see that there yeah
01:00:26 requirements do you see that there yeah and we see that polyisocyanurate has been added and is in there yeah now i appreciate you didn't read this guidance but were you aware
01:00:38 were you aware of an issue to do with whether or not poly isocyanurate insulation could be used in buildings above 18 meters were you aware that that was a
01:00:52 an issue that you needed to be alive to no
01:00:55 no no i wasn't aware now
01:01:03 i've not read this document
01:01:08 so i think you'd said you'd use mineral wool on
01:01:11 wool on previous projects that right as the insulation yes yeah had you ever used a poly isocyanuit not on insulation board not on a building over 18 meters what about a
01:01:24 building over 18 meters what about a phenolic
01:01:25 phenolic insulation board have you ever used that previously oh i don't know the difference you wouldn't have known the difference
01:01:32 [Applause] and then in terms of the cwct now you've told us in your statement that you did consult some of the cwct
01:01:44 that you did consult some of the cwct guidance when you were looking at cavity barriers
01:01:47 barriers on the project um can we look at cwct technical note 73
01:01:59 which is one of those documents you refer to this is a cwct five zeros 19.
01:02:14 so can you see that there technical note 73 fire performance of curtain walls and rain screens yeah do you see that and we we know i don't think it's on this document but it was dated march it came out in march
01:02:26 it was dated march it came out in march 2011.
01:02:27 2011. okay and we know this is one of the documents that you looked at now at the bottom of page one and over to
01:02:38 at the bottom of page one and over to page two if we can just look at that
01:02:46 we can see under the heading building regulations i want to pick it up in the third paragraph it says in england wales and northern ireland materials may be described as non-combustible then if we go to the top
01:02:58 non-combustible then if we go to the top of
01:02:58 of limited combustibility or class naught using definitions given in adb do you see that there yeah yeah um do you remember reading that at the time you were involved in the grenfell
01:03:09 you were involved in the grenfell project not specifically were you aware that this was drawing a distinction between class naught and limited combustibility materials it
01:03:22 and limited combustibility materials it appears to me but again i was i wasn't selecting materials so it was not um on the forefront of my focus
01:03:32 focus at this time
01:03:35 now moving on to page four under the heading cavity barriers in range screen construction in the right hand column do you see that there
01:03:46 it says this fire and smoke spread in rain screen cavities is particularly dangerous as it may be more rapid than on the outside face of the cladding due to the creation of a flu and it may
01:03:57 due to the creation of a flu and it may be undetected by building users or firefighters it is therefore often necessary to incorporate incorporate cavity barriers in rain screen cavities to limit the spread of fire and smoke you see that there yeah
01:04:09 fire and smoke you see that there yeah so that's a general statement yeah and then
01:04:12 then right at the end of that um column under regulations it says this for rain screen walls adb requires that cavity barriers are provided
01:04:22 provided and if you then go to the top of the next column and it says there to close the edges of cavities including around window openings
01:04:31 openings do you see that there yeah now you've said that you did consult this guidance at the time you were considering the requirement for cavity barriers do you remember noticing that it talks about closing the
01:04:43 noticing that it talks about closing the edges of carrots around it window openings not specifically but i knew at the time i was looking for some more guidance about cavity barriers
01:04:54 some more guidance about cavity barriers around windows and and such
01:05:01 does that mean is what you're trying to say that you were looking some for some very specific guidance about the the rating for cavity barriers that's right yeah and is it your
01:05:13 that's right yeah and is it your evidence that therefore you weren't concentrating on anything more general about cavity barriers is that what you're saying um no i mean the architect showed um the cavity barriers which we've
01:05:25 um the cavity barriers which we've replicated um and there was talk about cavity barriers around window openings and his details didn't seem to require it
01:05:35 it it was at this time that we started considering do we need this extra cavity barrier okay let's just take that in stages so you say the architect showed cavity barriers which we replicated i'm going
01:05:47 barriers which we replicated i'm going to come back to that and we're going to look carefully at what the studio e drawings showed and then what your drawings showed so let's part that for the moment but then the next bit you say there was
01:05:59 but then the next bit you say there was talk about cavity barriers around window openings
01:06:02 openings can you just tell us when there was talk about cavity barriers around window openings
01:06:08 openings around the table at harley and and who did you have those discussions with um by this point it may well have been ben certainly ray
01:06:23 and can you help us as to what was discussed about cavity barriers around windows
01:06:29 windows only the broad requirement whether there was a requirement and it was deemed that the architect's drawings
01:06:36 drawings showed explicitly what was required and our drawings were issued for him to comment upon which he approved fully
01:06:49 when you say about the broader requirement whether they were required were you solely looking at whether they required looking at the studio e drawings
01:06:58 drawings or did you ever have a broad discussion about whether they were required under the regulatory requirements now because there's roots to compliance the assumption is the architect may have
01:07:09 the assumption is the architect may have come up with an alternative route to compliance so as he only needed what he showed on his drawings
01:07:21 when you talk about routes to compliance can you help us with what you mean by routes to compliance in the context of cavity barriers um well there are different
01:07:36 this is a bit outside my sort of field of expertise but the architect had the use of a fire consultant and they must have considered this
01:07:47 and they must have considered this cavity barrier design
01:07:51 yeah now between them they must have considered this design to be compliant
01:08:06 the last thing the architect wants is to say oh i forgot to put cavity barriers around the windows and then the subcontractor would be asking the client for more money
01:08:17 asking the client for more money because they've um they've not provided these items i see putting aside for a moment what the architect did or did not show on drawings about cavity barriers
01:08:30 on drawings about cavity barriers were you aware at the time of the grenfell project that there was guidance such as the guidance we're looking at here now from the cwct which indicated that as part of the regulatory requirements is under the
01:08:42 regulatory requirements is under the heading building regulations one was required to close the edges of cavities including around window openings were you aware of that yes yeah if you were aware of that
01:08:55 yes yeah if you were aware of that did you never think to say when you were having discussions with ben and ray well i know they're not shown on the drawings but there is guidance yes well on the 3rd of march we started an email trial
01:09:07 an email trial querying the whole um scope of uh the cavity barriers i see so you think that was enough in terms of flagging that you needed guidance on that
01:09:18 needed guidance on that yeah did you ever say to studio e or ryden um by the way there aren't cavity barriers around the windows but there is guidance
01:09:29 around the windows but there is guidance that suggests there should be why don't you have another look at that did you ever say that maybe not specifically but there was many uh
01:09:38 many uh many emails regarding this
01:09:49 now in respect of combustible materials this piece of guidance if we look at page six under the heading use of combustible material in the second paragraph
01:10:03 in the second paragraph this piece of guidance says to satisfy the recommendations in adb insulation and filler materials in walls of a building with a floor more than 18 metres above ground level are required to be of limited
01:10:14 are required to be of limited combustibility do you see that there
01:10:19 when you looked at this piece of guidance for the purposes of checking on cavity barriers do you know whether you would have read a section on the use of combustible material
01:10:32 um i don't recall to be honest you don't recall and then if we look on page six
01:10:44 if we look on page six right at the bottom of that column if we can just move the page up so immediately above the heading alternative approaches there's a paragraph beginning the only commonly do you see that there
01:10:57 commonly do you see that there oh yes and it says the only commonly used insulation material that will satisfy the definition of limited combustibility is mineral wool it is sometimes argued that thermoset
01:11:09 it is sometimes argued that thermoset insulation materials with non-combustible facings may be regarded as satisfying the requirement noting that their decomposition in fire will release smoke do you see that there yeah
01:11:20 yeah do you know whether that was something you noticed at the time that it's telling you the only commonly used insulation material that would satisfy the definition of limited combustibility is mineral wool
01:11:31 limited combustibility is mineral wool no no you didn't look at that
01:11:38 and then at the top of the right hand column on page six
01:11:44 it says there where testing is carried out in accordance with bs 8414 the test applies to the complete cladding system including insulation rain screen flashings and cavity barriers
01:11:55 barriers changing any of these components may affect the ability of the wall to resist the spread of fire do you see that there yeah was it ever suggested to you on the grenfell project that a bs 8414 test
01:12:07 the grenfell project that a bs 8414 test was relevant to the insulation materials that had been selected um that was way above my remit i was given the materials that we were going to be used
01:12:19 to be used and so i had no there was no need for anyone to discuss this sort of thing with me
01:12:26 mr taran i think that would be an appropriate moment for a break right well then we'll have a break now mr lam will have a break now we'll come back at half past three okay please
01:12:37 come back at half past three okay please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it while you're out of the room exactly and uh you gave her the uh show she'll look after you thank you very much
01:12:52 right first three please
01:30:18 bye yes would you ask mr lam to come back in please
01:30:35 back in please right mr lam ready to carry on yes yes very good thank you yes it's great yes thank you so um just to quickly go back we looked at the third edition of br135 the 2013 edition if i can just pull that up again
01:30:49 cel403364
01:30:58 do you remember seeing that this afternoon and you said that that might well have been the version you were thinking of yeah at the time that you read and then i was kind of fumbling around at the beginning trying to find some uh images of previous cladding
01:31:10 some uh images of previous cladding files that i thought i'd seen and i've now had some help with where they are so if we go to page nine
01:31:19 we can see here we have a fire that's being highlighted called knowlesley heights do you see that there yeah and in the text above it's talking about the nolsley heights fire in 1991
01:31:31 about the nolsley heights fire in 1991 in liverpool do you see that there at the bottom of that first column yeah during this period of fire occurred in a refurbished block of flats in liverpool
01:31:42 liverpool suggested that a full-scale fire test method was necessary to fully understand the overall fire performance of the complete system did you see that there and then at page 10
01:31:51 10 over the page there is a picture relating to the garnet caught fire in irving
01:31:58 irving do you see that there yeah i think you told us you weren't aware of any domestic cladding fires no so does that mean that if you read br135
01:32:08 br135 you perhaps didn't look at these early introductory sections of it um i scanned through it i didn't read it um i was looking for some kind of diagram
01:32:19 diagram that could help me out yeah lacing cavity barriers yeah so it would have passed over it okay now just um finally on guidance before i
01:32:30 now just um finally on guidance before i turn to some more detailed questions about the drawings on grenfell um another piece of guidance that you do say in paragraph 50 of your statement that you
01:32:38 that you consulted when you looked at cavity barriers was the cwct standard for systemized building envelopes part six fire performance and um that was from 2008 if we can just pull
01:32:51 that was from 2008 if we can just pull that up cwct five zeros 46.
01:33:00 there it is and it was this standard that i think we saw was mentioned in the nbs
01:33:04 nbs specification do you remember yes yes now i just want to look at just one part of this
01:33:12 of this on page 14 and i want to look at clause 6.4.4.2
01:33:19 6.4.4.2 little two right at the bottom of that page
01:33:23 page in the black text you see it says their cavity barriers shall be provided to close the cavity around penetrations through the rain screen
01:33:31 screen for windows and doors do you see that there yes
01:33:34 there yes so consistent with the other cwct guidance that we saw um we can see it's making clear that cavity barriers should be provided around windows yeah
01:33:47 around windows yeah and again my question is were you aware that that was something that was said in this piece of guidance um not specifically no
01:33:57 so if you'd been asked at the time
01:34:02 is it a requirement to have cavity barriers around windows in rain screen systems what would you have said i had a hunch that it was required
01:34:14 so now a different topic i want to ask you um
01:34:18 you um about some of the design work on the project and the we're going to come to
01:34:24 come to a detailed run of questions about the process for approving drawings yeah on the project so let's start let's turn up paragraph
01:34:36 so let's start let's turn up paragraph 20 of your witness to statement this is har3010419 at page
01:34:44 five and i just want to read what you say there in paragraph 20. you say the key aspects of the external facade design came from studio e drawing
01:34:56 facade design came from studio e drawing 127906 110 revision zero zero proposed typical bay plans section and elevation date of the 24th of september 2013.
01:35:07 date of the 24th of september 2013. this drawing showed what the architects wanted to achieve specifically the panel and window layout location of gaps or grooves sloping sills and recessed joints on the columns it also provided proportions for the
01:35:19 it also provided proportions for the external facade it had been decided prior to my involvement in the project that the cladding was going to be cassette and the acm was the material to be used do you see that there yes yeah can we just turn up that drawing this is
01:35:33 har3010447
01:35:41 and if we could just blow that up a little
01:35:45 so this is that drawing yeah and i mean earlier in your evidence you said that the information you got from studio e was very detailed yeah is that what you mean by something
01:35:56 yeah is that what you mean by something like this yes yes you regarded this as very detailed did you yeah
01:36:04 i would suggest that this isn't in fact very detailed and that on a project like this you ought to have had drawings including one in five drawings
01:36:15 drawings including one in five drawings showing for example the detailing around the window oh you're dead right but it was uncommon for
01:36:22 for that level of detail to come out of an architect i see so is it your evidence that yes it would have been best practice for the architect to be providing you
01:36:34 for the architect to be providing you with something more detailed but compared to what you got often got in other projects this was actually quite good is that what you're saying yes definitely yeah yeah if you zoomed in on a pdf you
01:36:45 yeah yeah if you zoomed in on a pdf you can zoom in and you can see a considerable amount of detail now if we zoom in on the proposed section typical bay actually sorry we are going to need the offline version of this sorry i should
01:36:56 offline version of this sorry i should have said that it's my fault
01:37:41 there we go so if i can zoom in on the top right hand propose typical bay yeah is that the offline version
01:37:52 yeah is that the offline version my memories we have a better
01:38:00 sorry
01:38:05 now what i was wanting to show you maybe i'll just explain while we're waiting what i was wanting to show you is that i think in the offline version you should be able to see that
01:38:15 see that in the labels on the right hand side annotated h92 it says zinc cladding yeah in these drawings do you remember noticing that yes but i was told we were not using
01:38:27 yes but i was told we were not using zinc as per as per the drawing it was to be acm i see so does that mean that didn't affect your work in any way you just
01:38:36 you just carried on designing but with a different material that's correct i see
01:38:42 can we now then look at har3010423 at page three
01:38:59 page three this is an email from you dated the 22nd of august 2014. so 10 days after you've been appointed um on the project copied into so it's to
01:39:11 um on the project copied into so it's to simon lawrence at ryden copied into daniel anchor jones neil corford bruce soon and you say simon please find attached some preliminary drawings to prove the basics of design and set
01:39:22 to prove the basics of design and set out
01:39:23 out prior to us producing a full design package
01:39:26 package it would be useful for us to discuss these principles as our meeting on tuesday morning do you see that there yes can you just help us as to what you meant by prove the basics of the of design and set out what did that mean
01:39:39 of design and set out what did that mean things like the um the depth of cladding zone yeah placement of windows um the size of the window relative to the opening
01:39:50 the opening in the wall and joints in the cladding maybe without seeing the actual drawings that were attached i couldn't be sure but but it's so that we could do um some
01:40:04 but it's so that we could do um some full design on the the main carrier angles which were going to be the long lead time items i see yeah so if you if you say yeah this is roughly it
01:40:15 this is roughly it then we could develop those as a point of urgency i see and cavity barriers uh weren't on those
01:40:21 those basic drawings were they no no would it be usual to leave those items until much later they weren't part of the the um the lead time risk i see
01:40:33 um the lead time risk i see so was your design and the progress of your design to some extent driven by the lead times for fabrication of the
01:40:44 the lead times for fabrication of the components definitely yes and would that be normal in your experience on a project certainly on a large project yeah can we also then turn to another email around this time
01:41:02 har3010417 and this is an email from you this time to daniel anchor jones 29th of august 2014
01:41:14 and what you appear to be doing in this you've attached certain drawings
01:41:23 you appear in this email to be asking him to look at certain drawings you say in the second sentence the only drawings that really need your consideration are and then you've given some
01:41:34 are and then you've given some explanation with some detail about what you want him to look at do you see that yes and then after um 305 two-thirds of the way down
01:41:46 after um 305 two-thirds of the way down there you say i just want to get these basic principles wrapped up before steaming into the rest of the detailing do you see that there yeah yeah so is it right that at this stage we can see you working with daniel ancatel
01:41:58 see you working with daniel ancatel jones assistance and supervision in order to get the basic principles of the detailed design right yes yes yeah
01:42:10 and would these establishing these basic principles ever extend to any discussion of the composition of the cladding system and its compliance with the building regulations and other relevant
01:42:21 building regulations and other relevant guidance
01:42:22 guidance not from me to him no but from him down to you would you um anticipate that there might be comments back from daniel which would pick up
01:42:33 which would pick up issues relating to the building regulations or relevant guidance if he felt there was obvious um departure from
01:42:45 compliance and i'm sure he would yeah and you would have expected him to have come back to you yeah so now that the process for approving or signing off on drawings
01:42:58 for approving or signing off on drawings can you just explain to us in general terms
01:43:01 terms the process by which drawings were issued by you and then checked and signed off by either studio e or ryden can you assist us with that okay well normally drawings
01:43:13 okay well normally drawings the first issue of drawings would be developed around the table with the harley design team the technical team um i would go away i would produce those
01:43:25 i would go away i would produce those drawings
01:43:27 drawings and then they would be issued to um rydens and also to the architect for comment they would be copied in to
01:43:38 for comment they would be copied in to the rest of the team at harley for comment uh at their leisure
01:43:45 and then we would expect a response from ryden's or from the architect giving us marked up drawings with their their full comments on
01:44:00 now what did you expect the architect to be doing when drawings were issued to the architect during that process check everything everything for design intent compliance
01:44:13 everything for design intent compliance um it's his his design we need to be complying to his design to expect the whole thing to be being checked by the architect that's right yes and when the architect
01:44:25 that's right yes and when the architect comes back and we'll look in a moment at um the stamp that this architect was using if you came back and there were no comments
01:44:32 comments what did you think that meant in practice it's fully approved fully approved yes approved for construction yeah would there be a separate procedure with ryden the building contractor in terms
01:44:44 ryden the building contractor in terms of them approving the drawing no no sometimes they make comment but um it was very rare i think uh studio e were working as their agent and as far as kind of drawings would you
01:44:56 and as far as kind of drawings would you agree with me that studio e is an architect couldn't be approving drawings for construction it could only be the main contractor approving for construction
01:45:07 construction uh that's a contractual point between studio and ryden's i see
01:45:15 as far as you were concerned if you got approval by the architect was there a need to go through a separate checking process with ryden no because all the drawings were issued
01:45:27 no because all the drawings were issued through ryden's and copied to the architect
01:45:29 architect i see yeah now let's look at an example and just follow through some drawings if you can bear with me there's a bit it's a bit fiddly this but okay um and if we can turn to sea three
01:45:41 um and if we can turn to sea three zeroes one two seven five six
01:45:49 this is actually an email to begin with and if we look at the first at the email at the bottom of page one and over onto page two
01:45:57 page two we can see that you send a drawing at 1104 to simon lawrence we see simon's name at the bottom there can you see that
01:46:05 that and then over on the top of the next page please please find attach revise type 10 windows now with symmetry as requested please approve and forward your official
01:46:16 please approve and forward your official instruction for us so as we can proceed with remakes of those in manufacture to see that there yeah so in this example you are addressing the email to simon lawrence at ryden and asking for
01:46:30 simon lawrence at ryden and asking for his approval you copied it in to neil crawford and others yes yes just bear in mind this isn't the normal root for comments yes that's what we're
01:46:42 root for comments yes that's what we're gonna i'm gonna ask you in a moment whether this was an exceptional case yes um okay let's follow this through but um i take take the point um so if we can go up the email chain on page one now we
01:46:55 up the email chain on page one now we can see that neil crawford then responds hi kevin please see attach comment do you see that there yeah yeah
01:47:06 and then um so let's just turn to what neil crawford then attaches this is
01:47:20 sca403093
01:47:30 so on on this drawing here we've got some red annotations yeah it's to your understanding is that mr crawford's handwriting there yes and he's put better to hinge this way as per
01:47:41 he's put better to hinge this way as per sketch of email 13th february 15. do you see that there yeah yeah and we've got the studio e architect stamp yeah on the right hand side
01:47:51 side there do you see that there yeah yeah status b
01:47:55 status b and he's given its status b which we think reads conforms to design intent subject to incorporation of comments revise and re-submit for category a status do you
01:48:07 re-submit for category a status do you see that there yes now was it your understanding that if the drawings had that category b status they did have to be resubmitted after incorporation of mr
01:48:19 resubmitted after incorporation of mr crawford's comments um not immediately the i think what is meant by status b is you can read this drawing
01:48:32 by status b is you can read this drawing as a status a as long as you incorporate all of the comments
01:48:37 comments that he's put on that drawing where did you get that from who told you that that's how you should read status b that is how the industry um actually reads that
01:48:49 um actually reads that have you got a a more legible copy of that
01:48:53 that stamp i'm sure we can find one because i think it does say something to that state well we think it says conforms to design intent subject to incorporation of comments
01:49:05 subject to incorporation of comments and then it says revise and you can see resubmit
01:49:09 resubmit for category a status do you see that in a second it's got two sentences yeah so that's why i'm asking you
01:49:20 yeah so that's why i'm asking you why you didn't understand that you had to revise and resubmit it and get category a status so i think what you're saying now and i think what you're saying in your witness statement is that in practice
01:49:31 in practice when you've got the b you interpreted that as the green light to go provided you incorporated the comments yeah strange i'm sorry to interrupt you i think you may have a message
01:49:42 i think you may have a message about the transcript oh i'm sorry apparently the external transcript has stopped working my my first question is is yours working my mine is working yeah it's running too
01:49:53 my mine is working yeah it's running too i don't the council's running yours is stopped oh that's interesting um is yours running i wonder if we could look into this
01:50:04 i wonder if we could look into this because it's quite important for the people who are not in the room and mike have you ready
01:50:17 okay all right do are they able to give you any
01:50:21 you any idea of how long it might take to resolve it
01:50:45 yes all right um that's great i'm rather disinclined to keep going regardless
01:50:56 keep going regardless should we take it should we take a short break i think that might be better mr lam i'm sorry about this week it's fine very occasional technical glitch as i'm sure you'll understand we're doing fine for time so i i'm i'm
01:51:08 we're doing fine for time so i i'm i'm not troubled yeah i think what we'll do is to have a short break now until it can be sorted out so would you go to the usher please and of course we'll tell you when it's been fixed all right thank you um
01:51:21 been fixed all right thank you um we'll rise and someone will come and tell us as soon as it's working again okay thank you very much
02:04:03 well i understand that the problem has been resolved so could you ask mr lam to come back in please and we'll see if we can get going again
02:04:21 well mr lam sorry about that anyway i think they're ready to go again right right yes was grinch yes so we were looking at this um drawing which studio e have marked
02:04:32 which studio e have marked status b there um and i want to ask you now about the approved for construction the black stamp that we see underneath the the architect
02:04:43 the the architect stamp yeah you see that there who would apply
02:04:46 apply that stamp i would and can you explain why it's you've stamped it approved for construction when you've issued it but
02:04:57 construction when you've issued it but we can see that studio e have then commented on it and marked it status b because the drawing was issued for construction at revision e consequently the architect
02:05:09 revision e consequently the architect decided to make further changes
02:05:14 i see but are you saying that you'd had a status a before revision e yes yes and you'd assumed you'd got to the end of
02:05:25 you'd assumed you'd got to the end of the chain and then you actually get a status b that's correct yes i see we'll check that so are you clear that you wouldn't ever apply that approved for construction
02:05:37 apply that approved for construction unless you've got a status a not intentionally no not intentionally no is it possible that on the grenfell project we might see some
02:05:45 some examples of where you put approved for construction but it hasn't got spotted two drawings so far that actually you're right on yes yeah okay
02:05:57 and what was meant when it did get the approved for construction what was meant by
02:06:02 by that it means that harley can proceed with manufacture of this item i see
02:06:09 see and i think we'll see an example in a moment sometimes what we see is a dotted stamp instead we've issued for approval correct yes and was that the prior stage
02:06:21 correct yes and was that the prior stage to this yes exactly yeah and were those the only two stamps you were using on um the grenfell project yes yes and the stamp issued for
02:06:32 yes yes and the stamp issued for approval
02:06:33 approval approval by who the architect right yeah mr lam i can understand why you'd use a stamp saying issued for approval because you're sending it out for
02:06:44 because you're sending it out for approval or at least for consideration yes yes but why is it your role to stamp it approved for construction and not harley's role because i'm the one being addressed with
02:06:55 because i'm the one being addressed with the comments from the architect yes thank you
02:07:01 now um if we go back we were following the story of this drawing through if we go back to sca three zeroes one two seven five eight sorry not back this is a new document
02:07:14 sorry not back this is a new document this is a further email from you
02:07:18 again it's dated the 17th of february 2015
02:07:23 2015 and it's you to simon lawrence but cece in neil crawford and others yeah and then you say simon the window mods are now approved by neil as attached so all
02:07:34 now approved by neil as attached so all we need now is your official go-ahead to proceed do you see that there yes so you do seem to be addressing this to simon lawrence and asking for his official go-ahead to proceed do you see that there
02:07:45 proceed do you see that there that's right but as mentioned before this isn't normal and this particular drawing was approved for construction at revision e um and those items went
02:07:56 at revision e um and those items went into manufacture right so for the architect to make changes at this late stage meant um potential costing i see program yeah delays so that's why it was more
02:08:09 yeah delays so that's why it was more important to address it to simon he was the one that had to authorize costs and program delays yeah that's very helpful i think the transcript is playing up just about to tell you that yes
02:08:20 tell you that yes yes um i can see it is yours flashing it mine's flashing and keeps coming back and forth
02:08:24 and forth okay um mr chairman we're doing fine for time
02:08:28 time so um i am happy to say we could stop today
02:08:33 today and pick up again tomorrow rather than having
02:08:36 having another break and coming back yeah are you confident that you can finish mr lamb's evidence tomorrow yes i am stop now
02:08:42 now yes i am well mr maybe that this is a case for the early afternoon um because my transcripts playing the thing up and uh i think others people are as well so
02:08:53 are as well so i think we'll take that opportunity call a halt for today um i have to ask you to come back for some more questions tomorrow and we'll sit at 10 o'clock for that purpose okay
02:09:05 purpose okay um again please don't talk to anyone overnight about your evidence or anything to do with it yes i understand that
02:09:11 that all right and we'll look forward to seeing you tomorrow morning right right thank you very much will you go with the ashley
02:09:27 well miss grange we'll call it and call it a day there thank you yes resume at 10 o'clock tomorrow thank you very much thank you very much