Ray Bailey (Harley MD) continues evidence on cladding design decisions. Admits insulation was never specified in Harley drawings, explains Celotex vs Rockwool decision was about U-values not fire safety, discusses cavity barrier confusion, and reveals Ben Bailey aged 25 was appointed project manager with limited experience.
00:00:29 all right yes would you ask mr bailey to come back in please thank you
00:00:47 all right mr bailey you're ready to go on yes thank you yes mr millet mr chairman mr bailey uh i just want to revisit her one or two answers you gave us this
00:00:58 one or two answers you gave us this morning on the subject of assurances given by mr room to harley um you i think referred earlier this morning and it's page 62 lines 12 to 13 and again at page 66 at
00:01:11 lines 12 to 13 and again at page 66 at line 22 an email to celetex saying along the lines of you need to convince us this stuff is as good as rock or we won't be using it yeah i just want to explore that a little bit more
00:01:22 to explore that a little bit more can you please be shown c e l cel-6019
00:01:35 now this is an email from jonathan room at to daniel alcatel jones on the 21st of january 2015
00:01:46 on the 21st of january 2015 and mr room says i've attached the 12-page bs 8414 report showing the build-up
00:01:53 build-up and components used in addition i'm sending you the thermocouple graph showing the temperatures at each level of the test i'm not able to send you the bs 476 test document as this is confidential
00:02:05 this is confidential now you're not copied in on this email uh
00:02:09 uh but just looking at it is this the email do you think that you were referring to in your evidence this morning uh i don't know i've not seen this no but you referred to it you referred
00:02:20 no but you referred to it you referred to an email or an email that daniel sent to um yes tell the text asking for clarification
00:02:30 yeah if you well all right fair enough if you scroll down then to the question mr ankle jones asked
00:02:37 asked it's a room on the 20th of january just to scroll down a bit more let's just have a look at that email in full perhaps we can go to the bottom of that email chain actually just follow it up
00:02:53 i think i i think that's the uh that's it 16th of january daniel anchoratel jones 16th of january to jonathan room warning john sorry i've got a headache
00:03:05 warning john sorry i've got a headache for you we're being asked by one of our clients to see the test results and certificates for the rs 5000 insulation they want to know exactly how it was installed when tested to bs 8414 who carried out the testing how
00:03:16 bs 8414 who carried out the testing how it was fixed what it was covered with what cladding was used what support structure etc and most importantly the results drawings and or photos of the test setup would help show how it was installed but i imagine these form part of the test
00:03:27 i imagine these form part of the test results anyway they also want to see the certificate and results for the to bs 476 part 7 showing the index rating achieved during the test could you sort this out
00:03:36 this out for us please we're hoping to put this forward on most of the cladding jobs so having this information to hand would be most useful now obviously there'll be questions from mr angel jones about this about this evidence or email but to your
00:03:50 about this evidence or email but to your knowledge
00:03:51 knowledge was this series of questions or was the client
00:03:54 client asking this series of detailed questions uh
00:03:57 uh any of those working on the grenfell tower project um i don't know do you remember which client it was that had asked these detailed questions
00:04:09 detailed questions uh about rs 5000 i don't know you don't know did you remember having a discussion with mr anton jones till they affect that a client whoever it was was was asking headache
00:04:20 whoever it was was was asking headache giving questions about rs 5000. no okay can we just scroll up then to the next uh page
00:04:32 uh and then we see there's an email from from daniel and actual jones on the 20th of january 2015. if you can scroll down you can see that the message is uh morning
00:04:47 that the message is uh morning uh well there's a message before that on the 19th morning down i hope you had a good weekend i'm checking the test report i will check the test reports and what we're allowed to send out and then danny anchorville jones back to
00:05:00 then danny anchorville jones back to uh back to um jonathan room and you can't quite see i'm afraid the top of that email but if you
00:05:08 you scroll up to the bottom of page one top of page two we can see here is jonathan
00:05:14 jonathan uh here is daniel and carl jones going back to jonathan room on the 20th of january that's bottom of page one top of page two fingers crossed you can get this for us i'm worried that
00:05:25 you can get this for us i'm worried that if this can't be cleared up then we will have to change to rockwool duo slab as this has the necessary backup to appease the specialists and just pausing that is that the message or email that you were referring
00:05:36 message or email that you were referring to this morning when you say you need to convince us this stuff is as good as rock or we won't be using it i think it must be yes it must be do you do you remember having a conversation with daniel and jones about this message no how did you
00:05:49 jones about this message no how did you know then
00:05:50 know then when you were giving evidence this morning that there was an email to celetex
00:05:54 celetex saying words along the lines of and your words this morning you need to convince us this stuff is as good as rockwell or we won't be using it i think i've seen an email bundle i see uh then we we then look at the
00:06:07 i see uh then we we then look at the document i started with um the email i started with at the top of this page
00:06:16 top of page one i should say this is the final message from in this email string from jonathan roon and i've read you the first paragraph i'll just go back to the second i'm not
00:06:27 i'll just go back to the second i'm not able to send you the bs 476 test document as this is confidential i'd be surprised if you were able to get this or any other report from the manufacturer to be honest in lieu of this i've attached the data
00:06:38 in lieu of this i've attached the data sheet showing confirmation of the products having bs 476 part six and seven
00:06:42 seven which gives this client class north performance in addition to the bs8414 test
00:06:47 test i would ask that these documents are not shared outside of the network of you and your specialist advisor for this project please give me a call uh when you have a moment to discuss
00:06:57 uh did you know that this was the response or the the tenant of the response
00:07:03 response that celetex had given to mr ankle james in response to his request no we don't see anything in here about any assurance from celetex that
00:07:16 from celetex that rs 5000 was safe to use on buildings in excess of 18 meters in height do we no
00:07:28 can i then ask you well did you have a conversation with mr anchor jones about this email and what he was sent by celetex do you think i
00:07:42 by celetex do you think i don't recall there if the email that we looked at before about if we can't clear it up we'll have to change to rockwell duo slab is not the email you were referring to earlier
00:07:53 the email you were referring to earlier would you agree with me that the reply from mr room cannot be read as any kind of assurance that rs 5000 was safe to use at grenfell looking at this email now i would agree
00:08:04 looking at this email now i would agree with you yes can i then turn to the statement of jonathan roon this is cel three zeros one triple zero three
00:08:16 cel three zeros one triple zero three one
00:08:18 and i'd like to look at page 22 please paragraph 73
00:08:34 that's cel three zero is one double zero three one
00:08:44 now that's page one if we can go to paragraph 73 on page 22 please
00:08:57 uh he says there and i'll read it all to you on the 11th of february 2015 i had an email exchange with ben bailey of hcw holly curtin wall which i exhibit as jwrr 34
00:09:11 which i exhibit as jwrr 34 c page 24. in relation to grenfell tower i asked for the construction section drawing so that celetex technical team could replicate the thermal calculations you value previously modeled by daniel at
00:09:22 at hcw ben sent the drawings via a dropbox link
00:09:25 link celetex prohibited the use of dropbox facilities therefore i had to forward to my personal email account to download and view the drawings i identified two relevant drawings which i exhibit as jwrr 35 page 4456
00:09:39 i exhibit as jwrr 35 page 4456 and exhibit 36 and page 457 and sent them back to my work email address these drawings were then emailed to the technical team and asked if they could see if a u-value of of 0.15
00:09:50 of of 0.15 with 150 millimeters for rs 5 000 i think i should say should be it could be achieved i explained that there was a 150 millimeter existing concrete wall
00:10:01 millimeter existing concrete wall and 150 millimeters to stroke 160 millimeters rs 5000 this email exhibit as jrwr jwrr 37-8724
00:10:13 as jrwr jwrr 37-8724 now just looking at that do you agree from what mr room says there uh that celetex
00:10:21 celetex were only asked to check you values and not
00:10:24 not the fire performance of rs 5000.
00:10:30 on that um date yes i would
00:10:36 and it appears that the drawings weren't sent by ben bailey with a comment please check or confirm that your product was suitable for using this build up as set out in attached drawings
00:10:49 no i think this one was um to do with insulation yes to do with insulation to do with you values yes yes thank you
00:11:00 values yes yes thank you now can i turn to a different topic um which is uh specification of the insulation product in the harley spec can we go please to ryd 3046822
00:11:16 now
00:11:22 this is a document entitled specification notes this particular version as you can see is revision d
00:11:33 as you can see is revision d dated the 15th of july 2015 and you can see that in fact it was originally created on the 15th of january 2015 as you can see from the
00:11:44 you can see from the date at the very bottom yes correct let's say there are earlier versions of this
00:11:52 this is as late as july if you look at the document on the left hand side you can see the specification for the things going on to the building we don't see anywhere there any
00:12:04 we don't see anywhere there any reference to any insulation
00:12:09 looking at it do you agree with that i agree with you um we've never seen a version of the specification that does contain any specification of the insulation product to be used at
00:12:20 the insulation product to be used at grenfell
00:12:22 grenfell is that right it appears so yes why is that
00:12:26 that i can't answer that d do you know why the insulation product was emitted from
00:12:35 well do you know who might be able to tell us why the insulation product was emitted from the harley system specification uh i would you need to ask kevin
00:12:47 if we look at
00:12:53 ryd3046822 please
00:12:56 at page four and five
00:13:01 the same document pages four and five we can see
00:13:07 can see there that despite showing uh insulation you can see the wiggly lines
00:13:15 lines which are a legend or mark for insulation we don't see any reference to an insulation type or insulation product that's correct isn't it
00:13:23 it it is again do you know why these drawings omitted any identification of the insulation product to be used in that location the the specification drawing you referred to is
00:13:34 referred to is basically a key um so that the notes are not put on all of the drawings right so that's that's why there's a specification drawing it it is just to reference
00:13:46 drawing it it is just to reference um the materials being i can't understand why the insulation wasn't shown on that drawing would that be normal not to have the insulation shown
00:13:57 normal not to have the insulation shown on either the drawing or in the specification no i don't think it would be can you explain why there was a departure from normal practice in the case of this specification for grenfell tower then no i can't ex
00:14:09 then no i can't ex except it it wasn't um that nobody knew what he insulation was
00:14:22 well it wasn't that nobody knew what the installation was which means they did know
00:14:27 know and therefore you can't explain why it wasn't everybody knew what the inflation was i can't explain why it wasn't written on the drawing
00:14:37 we can see from this document if we go back to page one again perhaps it's even clearer that studio e had stamped
00:14:51 that studio e had stamped this document as a conforms to design intent
00:14:55 intent and i think harley had it stamped it issued for approval
00:15:01 did harley to your knowledge flag up the omission
00:15:04 omission of the identification of the insulation product to studio e or anybody else sorry yes did they flag it up that it wasn't
00:15:15 yes did they flag it up that it wasn't on the drawing yes no i think if if we realize it really should have put it on and not in the spec
00:15:24 did anybody flag up the fact that it wasn't in the spec no no um can i just ask you one or two questions
00:15:31 questions about rockwool um
00:15:36 is it right that you would usually use rockwool
00:15:39 rockwool as your insulation product in a rain screen planning for a high-rise building uh yes it was used at chalcott's i think we know that i think it was also used at ferrier point correct was it or was it used at little
00:15:52 correct was it or was it used at little venice
00:15:53 venice yes
00:15:57 did you ever consider on the grenfell tower project whether rockwool would be a more appropriate insulation product for use at grenfell than
00:16:06 than either fr or rs 5000. given the thermal requirements um and the cladding zone that
00:16:17 um and the cladding zone that we had it was the only product which would achieve the u value
00:16:31 did you yourself get into the calculations to see whether or not the u-value was appropriate or the measurements which for the cladding system which the
00:16:44 which for the cladding system which the product was to fill were appropriate and compare those with rockwool and what would happen if rockwool were used
00:16:55 used no i i didn't the the cladding zone was set out by the architect so the the area that we had to put insulation in was
00:17:07 was determined long before we were involved
00:17:13 and given the desire of the client to produce a warm building for the residents that was the product we
00:17:24 we and let's say the design was handed down to us
00:17:27 to us and we had at that point no concerns with it because we expected until we received it it to be fully compliant did you know that rockwool could have been used
00:17:38 that rockwool could have been used and achieved similar u-values and similar dimensions and thicknesses uh no
00:17:47 uh no do you accept that that was possible
00:17:51 sat here i don't all right now can i ask you to look at paragraph 44 of your statement page 11.
00:18:04 you say that as regards the use of rockwool as an alternative to celetex i am now aware that rockwool had contacted the project client with a view to consideration being given to the use of their products
00:18:16 use of their products the product client then appeared to have passed this inquiry straight on to ryden ryden at least initially appeared to have been interested in the use of rockwool because it may have opened up some eco funding for the project contact was made it may have been by
00:18:27 contact was made it may have been by mark harris with rockwell who explained that funding may only be available become available if rockwell had provided the complete system that is cladding panels rails and insulation by this relatively late stage all the
00:18:38 by this relatively late stage all the bids have been based on the request for celetex
00:18:40 celetex with raniban panels and furthermore celetex offered a higher insulation rating
00:18:46 rating it's for this reason as i understand the position
00:18:49 position that rockpool was not used at grenfell both cellotex and rockwell had the same british class naught rating is this paragraph i've read it to you in full is it telling us what you knew at the time or is this a commentary on the
00:19:00 the time or is this a commentary on the documents that you've been shown when preparing your statement
00:19:07 i i think it's tough i knew at the time you knew this at the time did you did you yourself have any role in deciding not to use rock hall at grenfell tower no who was the person who ultimately
00:19:20 no who was the person who ultimately made that decision
00:19:28 i think because the um eco funding fell away
00:19:36 the stellar text was used as per the specification did you or anyone else at harley to your knowledge consider whether rockwell would be a preferable insulin from a fire safety perspective
00:19:49 insulin from a fire safety perspective uh no did you or anyone else would hardly seek any information about the fire performance of rockwell insulation in comparison with rs-5000
00:20:07 we carried out the um
00:20:12 analysis of celatex as we spoke about earlier
00:20:16 earlier and as far as we concerned that was compliant and performed we knew from past experience that rockwell was performed as well
00:20:37 when you say we carried out the analysis of celetex as we spoke about earlier is that a
00:20:41 that a shorthand for the evidence that you were giving us this morning about discussions with celetex yes
00:20:51 is it fair to say that rockwell was only considered from an eco-funding perspective as opposed to a fire safety perspective as
00:21:02 as far as yes
00:21:05 i then want to turn into a different topic which is the resourcing of the harley team on this project can i start with
00:21:12 har406092 please now this is an email from mark harris to rob maxwell and you on the 19th of june 2014
00:21:24 and you on the 19th of june 2014 and he says uh rob to keep you in the loop
00:21:28 loop contract stuff is starting to hit us now on the grenfell tower front some of the items below and attached over estimating however there are many items which need looking at by our proposed grenfell house construction team
00:21:39 team and therein lies the problem we don't [ __ ] have one to say i'm concerned about this is an understatement can you explain why mr harris his concerns
00:21:50 concerns were only being raised at this stage in mid-june 2014 which was long after harley had already been involved in significant discussions with studio e and ryden about the design of the cladding system
00:22:01 cladding system i can't understand why it was raised at that stage now
00:22:08 when you received this email did you have any discussion with mr maxwell mr harris about it yes afterwards after after after receiving the email right what was the and what did you discuss
00:22:20 discuss how we were resourcing the project okay let's see how we proceed but in a nutshell can you just tell us what did you decide to do as a result of mark harris's concerns has expressed to
00:22:31 mark harris's concerns has expressed to you
00:22:32 you the initial rob is the contract manager and he needs
00:22:39 to start controlling it as we uh picking up the order this the date here is
00:22:46 here is the 19th to the sixth i think we got the order for the job in july so the first elements that we deal with
00:22:54 deal with are the design and daniel then took over as project lead because he was designing the project
00:23:05 yes what was the immediate decision that you made
00:23:10 you made in the hours minutes days after receiving mark harris's email on the 19th of june that we need to put daniel in charge of the design i think um can i uh ask you
00:23:24 um can i uh ask you to look at the next email down in the chain which is was the precursor to mark harris's email to you
00:23:31 to you this is from zach maynard at ryden to mark harris not copy to you but you saw it the next day of the 18th of june
00:23:41 and he says mark apologies for the delay i've been writing the belay for the last two days and keep getting dragged off into other things over i'd a copy and paste it into this email and he then sends out a list
00:23:52 email and he then sends out a list if you go over to page two of about 26 items well not about it is 26 items which he wanted to see in
00:24:03 it is 26 items which he wanted to see in the costs build up can you help me what items in that costs build up list could hardly not quote for without a construction team in place
00:24:15 we not quote yes it's a long list um but i mean just casting your eye down it are there any of any are there any items in that 26 item list
00:24:26 list which harley couldn't quote for without having a construction team in place no no
00:24:32 no the estimators would have picked this all of this up right
00:24:37 then why did it come as a surprise to mr harris then uh that he was being asked all this now and there was a there was a problem which needed a resolution no i think what he was saying in the
00:24:48 no i think what he was saying in the email is
00:24:50 email is about to place an order with us as soon as the order is placed that we want someone to jump on it
00:24:57 on it so i think he was forewarning that uh in a couple of weeks time he's going to start running is that what he says
00:25:07 well no to be frank it isn't if you go back to page one can you please look at the paragraph i read to you some of the items below he says and attached after estimating
00:25:18 he says and attached after estimating however there are many items which need looking at by our proposed grenfell house
00:25:22 house construction team and therein lies the problem we don't [ __ ] have one so my question is given that 26 item list
00:25:30 item list uh what what what in that list were they what were the many items which needed looking by the non-existent grenfell house construction team can you roll it back up yes
00:25:45 sorry i'm sorry could you go to page two please thank you
00:26:25 only item 16 but the the estimators are capable of filling that in anyway right so
00:26:36 are you saying that in fact a part possibly from item 16 all of those
00:26:44 those well the remaining 25 items were items which could be managed by the ex the existing grenfell house team
00:26:55 grenfell house team and that mark harris is wrong when he says there are many items which we need looking at by our proposed grenfell house construction team yes i see
00:27:08 now if you go to the third paragraph down in his email on page one he says there is no doubt that this job is starting to gather pace ryden are fully on board with the client and will start setting up on site in the
00:27:19 and will start setting up on site in the next few days they will issue a contract here shortly which will underwrite initial design once we have that in our possession i guarantee that the architect will expect our design to commence in addition we need to install the
00:27:30 in addition we need to install the mock-up on site in the next two weeks and would it be usual for harley's design work um not to have commenced at all by this stage
00:27:41 yes we didn't we had no contract no letter of intent so we wouldn't have started any design so when mark harris says to you contract stuff is starting to hit us now on the con
00:27:52 is starting to hit us now on the con on the grenfell tower front what did you understand he meant
00:27:57 uh again if you go to the the next page of course it's it's all this stuff is starting to come through this is a precursor
00:28:08 through this is a precursor to um
00:28:11 to um design being started right i i mean to be fair to you mr bailey you are right that the letter of intent discussions did not take place until
00:28:21 until july and into august and september this year
00:28:25 year but it looks very much from this as although mark harris has called it contract stuff um there was a need for urgency in terms of getting on top of
00:28:36 urgency in terms of getting on top of the design and my question is how did it all happen so quickly would that be usual um not unusual we're waiting for an order then we'll start the design and
00:28:49 an order then we'll start the design and did it did it take you by surprise that suddenly you had to start doing all these things no right um mr harris then goes on to say in the final main paragraph the last thing i would want i want to do
00:29:01 the last thing i would want i want to do is to walk away from the job believe me i have invested many months of time into this not least because it would severely damage our relationship with brighton and worse still would potentially leave the door open for tim loveland co
00:29:12 the door open for tim loveland co however unless we can gear up and service it we are doomed to fail we need to have an honest and frank team chat about this job on friday what did you understand by um the
00:29:23 what did you understand by um the reference to tim lovell there they're one of our competitors right he was an employee at harley wasn't he in 2012.
00:29:31 2012. he was and he's left and set up on his own in competition with harley is that it
00:29:34 it correct okay um was there a team meeting on friday um do you remember i i can't recall where the cool weather been what plans did harley put in place after
00:29:46 what plans did harley put in place after this to ensure that there was sufficient resource on the project in order to be able to
00:29:52 meet these matters and make estimates for them
00:29:56 for them well the estimates uh will be taken care of by the estimating department which is which are in which is mike alveston basically in place and on the um
00:30:08 place and on the um design side daniel took over that and we looked at recruiting uh some additional design resource to the system was that done more quickly than would be normal
00:30:19 done more quickly than would be normal due to the pressures of this job that according at least to mark harris's email you suddenly found yourself under
00:30:26 i wouldn't have said it it was particularly unusual
00:30:35 can i ask you to look at uh har406153
00:30:40 this is rob maxwell's reply to mark harris's email we've just been studying and this is the same day he says mark we need to get an external
00:30:52 he says mark we need to get an external design team on this now i can pull in a project stroke site manager within a couple of weeks we could use neil or ben to attend a meeting in the next couple of weeks for my discussion on monday in the
00:31:03 for my discussion on monday in the office about this job it would be a shame to let this go if i'm honest it would be better to let karma go as we know the client and our risk is less as a consequence let's talk on friday to try and find a way to cope
00:31:16 to try and find a way to cope i don't need the last line there um first what's the reference to letting karma go
00:31:27 at the time there were two projects that we were looking at um karma and grenfell tower and we had a choice of which one to
00:31:38 and we had a choice of which one to accept
00:31:39 accept we couldn't take both we didn't have the capacity to take both right so we decided that let karma go
00:31:49 and what was karma a high rise over cladding in wembley right in wembley
00:31:56 wembley why would it why was it better to let karma go and do grenfell
00:32:02 i think
00:32:06 the karma was actually it was it's overclocking it's a new build and refurbishment is actually better um project to be involved in for us why is that
00:32:17 that because if it's an existing building it's there and there's usually less delays on site if it's if it's a new build we're waiting for concrete to be poured
00:32:28 we're waiting for concrete to be poured and
00:32:28 and there's lots of things that can go wrong and is it also fair to say that because you knew the client
00:32:35 it was better to go with grenfell we knew the client for karma as well well he says does rob maxwell and as we as we know the client they'll be ashamed to let this go if i'm honest it would be better to let karma
00:32:46 honest it would be better to let karma go
00:32:47 go as we know the client and our risk is less as a consequence so did the fact that you knew the client uh play in the decision to opt to do the grenfell project both the fact that we knew the client
00:32:59 both the fact that we knew the client handy was that it wasn't a new build right the client being ryden yes yeah does this also tell us that in fact
00:33:10 does this also tell us that in fact within harley although an awful lot of involvement and work had been done in the months and indeed years prior to the june of 2014 harley had not actually decided
00:33:23 harley had not actually decided to commit to being the cladding subcontractor on the grenfell tower project until june 2014.
00:33:31 we wanted to do it but until ryan pointed us they could always go with somebody else right
00:33:44 when you say you wanted to do it did you also want to do karma i mean would did you have capacity to do both we didn't have capacity to do both right but you were you were running both yes because we don't know which one's
00:33:55 yes because we don't know which one's going to drop i see at what point would one drop and one stand up well whichever one whichever everyone they gave us the all four first right
00:34:09 they gave us the all four first right now uh mr harris refers to the need for a construction team
00:34:16 uh in his email to look at zach maynard's proposal and rob maxwell as we can see here says in response we need to get an external design team on this now do you agree that the terms of mr harris's mr maxwell's emails
00:34:28 harris's mr maxwell's emails here we've seen suggest a single additional recruit was insufficient to deal with what was appearing to emerge as a problem
00:34:39 emerge as a problem no why is that
00:34:46 the initial design details need to be dealt with first and that's one person can deal with that and then we start moving into the
00:34:57 we start moving into the productionization of the design once it's
00:35:01 it's once it's been signed off by the architect
00:35:05 architect on granville on a high-rise building the lower floors are usually different the top is different but the middle or so floors are the same
00:35:18 or so floors are the same so in terms of design once we design one floor
00:35:22 floor it repeats up so we don't need a whole design
00:35:27 design team on this the the two guys working on it
00:35:31 it is sufficient particularly the initial stages if we need additional additional design throughout the project we can bring them in
00:35:42 the project we can bring them in later or transfer people across in fact mark stapley
00:35:50 assisted on occasion with the design why was it necessary to bring in an external design team as opposed to using your existing in-house design capabilities
00:36:03 in-house design capabilities because we it gives us flexibility in our capacity it was bringing in kevin lam as a designer your solution yes it was he brought him because
00:36:17 yes it was he brought him because harley lacked the design expertise itself or
00:36:21 itself or no not the expertise the actual uh we needed to increase our design resource
00:36:27 resource right that stage i see so this was about numbers of designers right just on kevin lam it's right i think that he'd only worked for harley once before
00:36:39 for harley once before yes and that was on a job doing design details for a project proposal wasn't it yes what was that project i can't recall how familiar with his work were you
00:36:53 how familiar with his work were you he'd worked um personally i wasn't he worked with daniel for uh i think two or three years prior to daniel joining us i see so he was a
00:37:05 to daniel joining us i see so he was a contact of daniel anchored james's is that how he came to be context i think he was
00:37:08 he was daniel's boss eventually right i see did harley look at any other external designers for the grenfell tower project other than kevin lam yes i had a meeting with a designer that
00:37:21 yes i had a meeting with a designer that i knew
00:37:22 i knew and we also although we didn't talk to them about it considered using
00:37:29 wintec wintec had done other design work for us on the previous project
00:37:36 project as you mentioned yesterday who was the designer that you did meet a chap called jerry clutterbuck jerry clatterbuck which was his firm or did he have a firm he was
00:37:46 he was i commented his firm it was basically him
00:37:49 him and what was your experience of him i'd worked with him a number of years ago and he's been a freelance designer on high rise buildings for 20 30 years
00:38:01 high rise buildings for 20 30 years which projects that i work with so i'm so sorry you're right yeah which of the harley projects did you use jerry clutter not with not with harley there's three days
00:38:11 days oh prior to harley yes right looking at um chalkets and ferrier point who were the designers on that does that
00:38:22 who were the designers on that does that was that a harley design team or did you have externals on on those two i think daniel who did ferry a point and mark's typically did childcare right so you didn't have
00:38:34 childcare right so you didn't have externals well at chalcott we actually had a chat called
00:38:45 sorry about my brain's gone not not to worry um
00:38:54 did you have an external designer on child cuts we did to assist mark haywood mark haywood yes
00:39:04 right
00:39:08 is mark hayward connected with cep he is yes his name is familiar so so did is that how you got the cladding design or cladding designer
00:39:20 the cladding design or cladding designer through cep for that project he wasn't through
00:39:23 through cp he was what he works with cp's independent of them so he did some design work on that for us um
00:39:38 is it fair to say that between june and august 2014 harley was pretty desperate for some immediately available design expertise
00:39:47 expertise extra expertise and you took kevin lan on for the want of anyone better no i wouldn't say that [Applause]
00:39:59 [Applause] can i just ask you one or two questions about ben bailey or son you told us yesterday that he's 31. does that mean that in 2013 he would
00:40:10 does that mean that in 2013 he would have been
00:40:10 have been about 25. yes 24 or 25. yes yes at that at that point
00:40:21 uh how much well let me try this way around he was formally appointed to the role of project manager the harley project manager for the grenfell tower project in the february of 2015 wasn't it
00:40:32 of 2015 wasn't it who preceded him
00:40:36 but the role of project manager at that point was
00:40:40 point was being carried out by rob maxwell the contracts manager i see and at the point of ben bailey's appointment as project manager for harley
00:40:50 harley in february 2015 aged 25 how much site experience had he had
00:40:59 um he just finished being a project manager on a high-rise curtain wall project the value which was
00:41:11 project the value which was probably double that of grenfell which was that project that's a project called merit house merit house and when did he start as
00:41:22 merit house and when did he start as project manager on merit house it would have been two years before that age 23 yes
00:41:35 two years before that age 23 yes and before merit house did he have any experience of project management
00:41:42 he has worked for the company um during his school university holidays since two
00:41:53 holidays since two thousand and
00:41:57 nine so he's very familiar with project management merit house 2013
00:42:08 merit house 2013 that was his first project management manager role was it it was 13 no it was before
00:42:17 [Music]
00:42:22 when did ben bailey become project manager on the merit house project that meets with 2013
00:42:32 and he would have been 23 years old at that stage and that was his first project manager job yes yes so he had never been a project manager before being appointed project manager
00:42:42 manager to merit house no he he he was a project coordinator yes so he stepped up from the project coordinator to be project manager yes
00:42:54 did you or anyone else with harley conduct a recruitment exercise to look for a project manager within harley for grenfell tower no how did ben bailey get the job
00:43:08 no how did ben bailey get the job then he when he completed merit house we moved him on to renfelter
00:43:18 i see did he get the job because he was your son
00:43:22 your son no how can you account for appointing a 25 year old whose experience of project management had started when he was 23
00:43:33 was 23 on a prior project for the position of project manager on the grenfell tower project his experience working on merit house all right
00:43:45 working on merit house all right i'm going to ask you some questions now about cavity barriers now could you please go to your statement at page 16.
00:43:56 i'd like to look at paragraph
00:44:01 excuse me i'd like to look at paragraph 62.
00:44:06 you describe the email discussions relating to cavity barriers in march 2015
00:44:11 2015 and i've i'll just show you that i'm not going to read it out to you but is it right that this paragraph is is a summary of what you read in the documents
00:44:19 documents or do you actually have a recollection of these emails
00:44:26 it's difficult to remember now what i knew
00:44:30 knew then and what i read in between but so i can't remember what i knew when that's fair enough um can i then go to ryd3037117
00:44:46 now this is an email from you on the 27th of march 2015 to simon lawrence neil crawford and ben bailey
00:44:54 bailey copy to simon o'connor kevin lam and daniel jones and it there is a context to this quite a lengthy context to this so just i just want if i can just to scroll to the bottom of this email and
00:45:06 scroll to the bottom of this email and scan up to this email can we please go to the um bottom email in this chain
00:45:14 i just want to show it to you first of all that's it starts at the bottom with an email from ricky k on the 26th of march he's side arrives to ben bailey uh copper de lam and dap you didn't see this and it
00:45:25 you didn't see this and it it it it's all about it he includes an extract from approved document b on the subject of um
00:45:36 trying to summarize it fire integrity and insulation in relation to cavity barriers and then if we look at the next email up on page two please there's an email
00:45:47 on page two please there's an email from ben bailey to simon lawrence again you don't see that sorry you are copied in on this one actually um simon has discussed please see the email below from the fire break supplier
00:45:57 supplier quite a large cost difference between what siderise and the spec recommend and upgrading to the 120 minute barriers we discussed on thursday can you forward this to the client's representative for approval please and then
00:46:09 for approval please and then simon lawrence sends this to studio e copy to simon o'connor on the 27th of march and then at the very top of that page neil crawford of studio he comes back to simon
00:46:22 simon lawrence saying he'd spoken with john
00:46:25 john that's john hoban and he wasn't happy with harley's email as we're talking about first stopping as opposed to cavity barriers i've explained again the specifics of our scenario and he will have a conversation with paul hanson to see if there's a reduced spec they
00:46:36 to see if there's a reduced spec they can agree to and then speak with holly's direct
00:46:39 direct and then if we look at the next page up simon lawrence and neil crawford and you're copied in thanks for checking neil ben c neil's response it doesn't look promising and then you come in with your email the
00:46:51 and then you come in with your email the top of that to simon lawrence neil crawford and ben bailey etc hi simon reading the email from the specialist suppliers facade manager that's ricky k as we saw at the bottom it should be
00:47:02 as we saw at the bottom it should be fairly straightforward a fire stop is required to stop fire spreading between floors or party walls if it's inside the building i.e inside of the window or curtain wall the cavity barrier is required to stop
00:47:13 the cavity barrier is required to stop fire spreading inside the cavity 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
00:47:24 have a cavity barrier as opposed to a fire stop
00:47:28 does that email reflect your understanding at the time of the distinction between cavity barriers and fire stopping correct where have you got that understanding from i'm not saying it's wrong i just
00:47:39 from i'm not saying it's wrong i just want to know where it's from
00:47:43 experience i suppose it was at your conclusion that the facade was required to contain cavity barriers rather than fast stopping to prevent the fire from entering the cavity
00:47:57 um
00:48:01 in the cavity barrel cavity don't stop entering the cavity they still be traveling around the cavity yeah were you alive to the importance of effective cavity barriers
00:48:13 effective cavity barriers around windows particularly around these windows
00:48:17 windows to prevent fire from progressing into a cavity between the external wall and the rain screen
00:48:24 this comes back to the
00:48:32 industry practice that if you've got a single window in a
00:48:39 a [Applause] compartment it's not always regarded as necessary
00:48:46 necessary except according to proof document b that is an incorrect assumption
00:48:56 just i understand what first of all where does this industry practice that you're referring to come to come from where is your understanding of that come from on a number of projects that we've done
00:49:08 a number of projects that we've done where we have this situation the building control will decide whether or not the cavity barriers aren't necessary around the windows and
00:49:23 so again with this this is why we always ask
00:49:27 ask with county barriers we ask the architects building control where they want them what do they want so we've gone along with that
00:49:45 so we've gone along with that in your answer before last you also said it's not always always regarded as necessary except according to approved argument b that is an incorrect assumption that i accept that right okay well we
00:49:56 that i accept that right okay well we that may
00:49:56 that may shorten things i just want to be clear about it
00:50:01 by way of a little build up to that just looking
00:50:04 looking at the email i showed you at the top of page two about john hoeven not being happy with harley's email what was your impression of the professionals understanding of the differences between first stopping and
00:50:16 differences between first stopping and cavity barriers i thought you'd made a mistake did it surprise or concern you that there appeared to be a significant level of confusion or mistake as you put it
00:50:28 mistake as you put it among the professionals in this chain even at this late stage of the project um
00:50:41 project um yeah i suppose it did it did concern you it surprised me it surprised you all right given that surprise
00:50:50 surprise did you
00:50:55 did you well what did you do i suppose it's the best question i can ask you given the fact that you had felt surprised about the degree of confusion
00:51:03 confusion i think the email that i said was try to clarify the position
00:51:11 position as we understood it
00:51:15 um did you check the guidance in approved document b before reaching the view that only cavity burials were were required or were you already familiar with
00:51:26 were you already familiar with the provisions of approved document b in relation to cavity barriers i was familiar with provision of cavity barriers and what they need to do
00:51:38 cavity barriers and what they need to do in their fire on their performance is necessary now i think you say now that you've accepted that there was there was a it was an erroneous understanding and you do need cavity barriers
00:51:49 you do need cavity barriers around windows because they're an opening except that i think i accept that yes i see so i don't think we need to look at it um
00:51:58 can i then take a step out from the topic for a moment and ask you about um the chalcott's fire yes um i think we could take this quite
00:52:09 yes um i think we could take this quite shortly but you remember that there was a fire in 2012 at calcutts yes yes and just to clear up one or two things about childcare the cladding
00:52:20 things about childcare the cladding system in childcare was a ryden harley job wasn't it it was uh it had mineral wool insulation yes correct it had reyno bond pe 55
00:52:31 correct it had reyno bond pe 55 face fix not cassette correct correct uh and there was a fire there in 2012 um was one of the lessons that you learned from that fire
00:52:42 learned from that fire that it was immensely important to stop the fire exiting the compartment of origin
00:52:51 origin and into the cladding system that there should be extensive fire breaks around the head and cell of each window at camden the window system
00:53:04 at camden the window system was different it was there weren't um individual windows they were stripped windows running from the bottom of the building to the top as such they effectively
00:53:17 as such they effectively were a curtain wall and therefore the barriers of the head and the sill of the window were not cavity barriers they were fire stopping
00:53:29 they were fire stopping well let's just have a look then
00:53:34 can we look at the harley incident report form for the chocolates fire this is har3010169
00:53:49 and this relates to the fire that was
00:53:53 uh that broke out on the 16th straight 17th of january 2012. and this is a report dated the 17th of january we can see um that you were on the distribution
00:54:06 um that you were on the distribution list of the report even though you weren't i think at the investigation correct uh and the purpose of the report is to record the initial findings can i um i could take it that you saw
00:54:20 can i um i could take it that you saw the you saw this report at the time yes yes if you go to the bottom of uh page two please you can see that there are some photographs
00:54:31 just pick this up that was what the fur looked like on the outs on the outside of the building just on that while we're there um did you learn from this experience that when acm catches fire and and burns on
00:54:44 when acm catches fire and and burns on the exterior of the building um the acm would burn and drip downwards no we we saw that it would that it would
00:54:55 we we saw that it would that it would burn
00:54:56 burn or presume there would be some dripping if it's aluminium
00:55:05 um if we go to page four
00:55:11 uh there are two photographs uh above the first one it says the fire had caused extensive damage to the living room the windows and building structure
00:55:21 structure has all have been subject to extensively high temperatures and there we see the photograph of who turned in the end out to be steve blake pointing at the windows and it says underneath that it was evident
00:55:32 underneath that it was evident that despite the fire and the amount of flammable items in the flat such as paper etc
00:55:37 paper etc the fire breaks were still intact and prevented the fire spreading between flats
00:55:40 flats the hardly designed fire break system is visible
00:55:43 visible now the surrounding fabric is melted under the extensive heat did you understand or do you understand what was meant there by fire breaks in the context of this photograph it was it was it was fire
00:55:56 photograph it was it was it was fire stopping
00:55:58 stopping so not cavity barriers were these uh brakes um behind the cladding or was there far stopping elsewhere
00:56:11 stopping elsewhere this this fire stopping was from the concrete slab to the back of the uh i'll call it it's not a the curtain wall right
00:56:22 it's not a the curtain wall right do you know why harley constantly used the expression fire breaks i i think that as opposed to far stops i think it's just a generic term that's used within the industry and it covers that it covers cavity barriers and fire
00:56:35 that it covers cavity barriers and fire stops
00:56:36 stops cavity barrier is not interchangeable with a fire stop but the overall term is fire breaks it has the potential therefore would you accept to cause confusion as to whether
00:56:47 accept to cause confusion as to whether anybody using the term fire breaks is referring to cavity barriers or fire stops
00:56:52 stops yeah possibly they're not it's not if if you're doing what we do who designed the highly designed fire brake system
00:57:03 on there it may be marked stately right do you know whether it was used at grenfell tower no we had no fire stopping all fire breaks
00:57:13 breaks no we had cavity barriers not around the windows
00:57:18 windows cavity barriers on the on the slope and on the uh party wars yes right well my question is why weren't harley the harley designed fire break system why wasn't that used around the windows at grenfell tower in
00:57:30 around the windows at grenfell tower in the way that it had been used at chalcott as i explained earlier because there was one window within the compartment for the fire to spread between flats it had to go
00:57:41 spread between flats it had to go past a cavity barrier and this this sorry did let me just go back to this
00:57:49 to this this was the design handed down by the architect we have we accept we have a responsibility it was signed off by x over before we
00:58:00 it was signed off by x over before we started
00:58:02 started during this many discussions we had about the cavity barriers increasing it to to our fire stopping which wouldn't work
00:58:12 side arise the cavity barrier manufacturers did not show the cavity barriers around the windows
00:58:23 the cavity barriers around the windows down the jambs all tied to the head so we have a raft of um people looking at this and not picking up there
00:58:34 looking at this and not picking up there is
00:58:34 is a problem that is it doesn't comply so we put our hands up for our part in it but there is there are five or six levels of
00:58:45 there are five or six levels of supervision to pick these things up well mr bailey never mind about others i'm asking you and you were you were involved in the taplayer experience as was writing for that matter but did
00:58:57 as was writing for that matter but did did the taplow house experience not teach you that the failure to place cavity barriers or fire stops a fire break in your paths around the windows
00:59:06 windows create a serious risk of the spread of fire from the compartment of origin to the cladding that because they are different um those serve different
00:59:17 different um those serve different functions
00:59:19 functions so what happens at camden is a different situation from what we were faced at grandfather and my question again is given the lessons that you
00:59:31 given the lessons that you had you harley had learned at tableau house why didn't those lessons
00:59:39 cause you to bring them to bear when examining
00:59:42 examining precisely what was going to go around the windows at grenfell
00:59:48 and we accept that's an error can we look at approved document b
00:59:54 which i think will crystallize the error um
00:59:58 um page 82 please paragraph 9.1 and i want 1.9 1.
01:00:04 1.9 1. 9.1 9.2 and 9.3 please there if you
01:00:14 if you it's clg three five zeros two two four
01:00:24 yes that's page one if we go i'm so sorry my fault page 82 i should have told you
01:00:28 told you if we look at paragraph 9.1 on page 82 let's start with that i want as i say 9.19.2 and 9.3 but 9.1 concealed spaces or cavities
01:00:41 but 9.1 concealed spaces or cavities in the construction of a building provide a ready route for smoke and flame spread this is particularly so in the case of voids in above and below the construction of a building for example walls floors ceilings and roofs as
01:00:52 roofs as any spread is concealed it presents a greater danger than with a more obvious weakness in the fabric of a building that's 9.1 which just pausing there would you agree with me that here adb is drawing a drawing specific
01:01:04 here adb is drawing a drawing specific attention to fires within a cavity where flame spread is less obvious we agree with that and that would include behind a facade or behind a rain stream looking at diagram 33 on page
01:01:18 looking at diagram 33 on page 82 just below it you can see provision provisions for cavity barriers are you familiar with this diagram or were you at the time um yes
01:01:31 um yes um if we look at it closely we can see that it shows a window and specifically instructs designers to close around openings do you see that i do yeah
01:01:44 openings do you see that i do yeah so it would have been possible wouldn't it at grenfell to comply with the requirements of diagram 33 by putting cavity barriers in all the locations
01:01:55 cavity barriers in all the locations required by diagram 33. i think we've accepted that yes
01:02:02 now 9.2
01:02:08 gives you provision of cavity barriers for specific locations
01:02:16 and that refers to diagram 33 which we've looked at but also extensive cavities and then it goes on to say consideration should also be given to the construction and fixing of cavity barriers provided for these purposes and the extent to which
01:02:28 purposes and the extent to which openings in them should be protected at c913 and 916 and then 9.3 over the top of page 83 it says cavity barriers should be
01:02:41 it says cavity barriers should be provided to close the edges of cavities including around openings and then it goes on to add to that so i think but i think you accept
01:02:52 you accept that as a result of 9.1 9.2 diagram 33 and 9.3 cavity barriers should have been provided around the windows of grenfell in accordance with the guidance yes now going back then to the email chain if i
01:03:03 going back then to the email chain if i can please har 406585
01:03:09 he says this is an email to two daniel anchorator jones
01:03:14 which you forward to him seeking his input you say dan do you have any comments you see that halfway down and then
01:03:27 that halfway down and then he comes back to you the top of that page
01:03:30 page same day 27th of march 2015 just that it's ridiculous there's no point in fire stopping as we all know the acm will be gone
01:03:41 as we all know the acm will be gone rather quickly in a fire the whole point is to stop unseen fire spreading spreading in the cavity and moving to other parts of the building who is john and who is paul are we working to the nbs spec by studio
01:03:52 are we working to the nbs spec by studio e
01:03:53 e now um were you did you understand that the acm cladding panels would melt and fall off the building rather quickly in a fire
01:04:04 the building rather quickly in a fire in the cwct guidance there is no fire performance for a cladding system or
01:04:11 system or a it has no ability to resist fire and it is recognized that the
01:04:18 the cladding whatever it is um would not be expected to last more than 10
01:04:25 10 to 20 minutes and dan's point there i think
01:04:29 think is you can't fire stop for two hours against
01:04:34 against a panel that will be gone in 10 or 20 minutes
01:04:38 minutes does that tell us that you were aware and certainly he was aware that the acm uh proposed was combustible no well how would you explain what he's saying
01:04:50 how would you explain what he's saying then as we all know the acm will be gone rather quickly in a fire why would it be gone if it wasn't combustible because it may melt glass is not combustible and that wouldn't last two hours with
01:05:02 and that wouldn't last two hours with fire stopping against the back of it aluminium is non-combustible that wouldn't last two hours with firestopping against it so it's no different
01:05:15 than those products the fact that it may be gone quite quickly i think dan's talking a quarter of an hour does not mean that
01:05:26 a quarter of an hour does not mean that it is combustible
01:05:41 did you
01:05:44 share his understanding that acm would be gone rather quickly in a fire
01:05:52 with who i'm sorry well did you agree in your own mind with daniel anchorville jones that acm would be gone rather quickly in a fire
01:06:03 a fire i agree with daniel that any cladding product in rain screen will be gone
01:06:11 gone rather quickly or rather quickly it's not it's not a good phrase but it will not last two hours typically a cleaning panel will last 10 20 minutes
01:06:23 a cleaning panel will last 10 20 minutes well there's nothing about two hours rather quickly is rather quickly no this is in response to shall we put a tower
01:06:31 tower fire stop against the back of it i see did you understand mr anchorage jones to be indicating that there was no point installing fire resistant products specifically
01:06:44 fire resistant products specifically cavity barriers within the cavity of the rain screen because they wouldn't have anything to expand against to resist the spread of fire because the rain screen would have fallen off very quickly
01:06:56 quickly the if we go back to fire stopping in two hours time there would be no panels there
01:07:03 there in 20 minutes time there will be no panels there the cavity barriers are supposed to stop the the chimney
01:07:14 the the chimney effect and and the spread of smoke around the building if the panels aren't there we no longer
01:07:25 the panels aren't there we no longer have a chimney and therefore the draw of the fire up the inside of the cavity will
01:07:32 will will stop so there was no point effectively having any effective cavity barriers within the marine screen system no the half hour cavity barriers
01:07:43 no the half hour cavity barriers will do that will stop the spread within the cavity until such time as the cavity disappears
01:07:55 cavity disappears do you reconcile your or his and your understanding that acm would be gone rather quickly in a fire with what you understood to be its fire performance qualities
01:08:07 performance qualities as communicated to you by the bba certificate that we were discussing this morning
01:08:14 the fire performance
01:08:19 certificate was that it wouldn't actually ignite
01:08:26 as far as i so so it was your understanding that the acm would either melt or would somehow remove itself from the building but wouldn't ignite
01:08:38 building but wouldn't ignite yes what would be the mechanism for that
01:08:43 what to do with melt well what would be the mechanism for
01:08:48 melting but not igniting well if it's if there's a fire with the heat it will melt
01:08:55 melt it may and it has a gel coat it burns away was it your understanding that the tests which the bba certificate had said that the panels had passed
01:09:10 nonetheless allowed it to melt and fall off the building
01:09:16 yes really okay [Applause]
01:09:34 given what you told us about class naught this morning which which was the class naught um meant that the material was of limited combustibility throughout as you told us
01:09:45 combustibility throughout as you told us how does that reconcile with the idea that acm would be rather gone quick gone rather quickly in a fire i said that class who throughout indicated to me that it
01:09:57 who throughout indicated to me that it was of limited combustibility and that ordinary class o was just class o so that would uh
01:10:09 was just class o so that would uh translate that up
01:10:13 i'm not sure i understand to be honest can we try it a different way given your understanding i think mr bailey was going to explain i'm sorry did you want to explain mr bailey yes i think the confusion
01:10:25 bailey yes i think the confusion uh with regards to class so is if class 0 it
01:10:32 is not of limited combustibility but if it's classo throughout is what i took as a to be of limited compatibility so the rentable
01:10:45 of limited compatibility so the rentable panels are just class o the assertion was made in the celetex literature the product was classo throughout and that was the distinction that i was making
01:10:55 making right thank you
01:11:07 did you think that the point about acm would be
01:11:11 would be being gone rather quickly in a fire was something that needed to be escalated to the attention of uh building control or x over or ryden or studio e for that matter no i
01:11:26 studio e for that matter no i thought it was a well understood um result of a fire be it be an acm or aluminium or glass if there's fire on it it will break
01:11:40 it will break so you assumed that each of studio e ryden x over and build a control would have known what you knew namely that acm would be gone rather quickly in a fire and you didn't need to take that up with them or tell them about your your knowledge or
01:11:52 tell them about your your knowledge or concerns about that it's not just acn now i understand what you're saying but i think the answer to my question is no you didn't because you assumed that they would know the same as you did
01:12:03 they would know the same as you did and yes i think um certainly that time and i and looking at uh i think it was neil crawford's evidence he he was well aware of immune panels
01:12:15 he was well aware of immune panels wouldn't melt
01:12:19 can we look at har409 6596 please
01:12:28 this is an email chain
01:12:34 on the 1st of april 2015 from simon lawrence to ben bailey and to you which is the end i think the end result of this exchange
01:12:45 of this exchange building control officer now in agreement with the fire protection in the clouding being a cavity barrier rather than fast stoppers first thought good news
01:12:53 good news did you when you got this did you read the email chain below it including john hogan's first april email to neil crawford at studio e copper to simon lawrence as we can see there i can't recall can you can you bring it
01:13:04 i can't recall can you can you bring it up it's it should be on oh yes you quite right it's not on the screen it is just below it page one over to page two
01:13:13 no it's still page one but still on the screen yes you can see there that he refers to some drawings
01:13:20 drawings does john hope and in the third in the second paragraph yes he says i've got no he said i have no adverse comments to make on the cladding proposals shown on your drawings 1279 uh 120
01:13:33 1279 uh 120 121 harley's drawing c1059 325 rev c and then he refers to another drawing in the next paragraph 12796 121 rev 0 to that standard
01:13:46 12796 121 rev 0 to that standard did you yourself review the drawings referred to in john hoban's email at the time um i don't think so no did simon lawrence tell you that john holman had not commented on
01:13:57 holman had not commented on a set of harley drawings that studio e had provided to rbkc building control on the 6th of march 2015. and those drawings which have been sent by kevin lam of harley
01:14:08 by kevin lam of harley to simon lawrence on the 3rd of march
01:14:13 i i can't recall for our reference purposes they're sca50252 just for the transcript did you seek to clarify with ryden or studio e whether rbkc's building control
01:14:24 studio e whether rbkc's building control had any comments to make on harley's drawings that studio he had sent to it on the 6th of march no the the the the procedure is that we passed the
01:14:35 the the procedure is that we passed the drawings
01:14:36 drawings to um potentially to ryden but practically two the architects and they deal with building control in my experience
01:14:51 building control in my experience subcontractors almost never talk direct to building control
01:15:02 just just on that then can i just come to a point i was going to come to you later did you ever have a discussion with john hoeven yourself no whether on site or offsite no did you ever have a discussion with anybody at rbk so
01:15:13 rbk so rbkc building control no right can just going back to this did you or anybody else that hardly to your knowledge
01:15:20 knowledge assume on receipt of simon lawrence's email of the first of april that we can see there that building control had nowhere no adverse comments to make uh on the drawings that studio e
01:15:32 drawings that studio e uh had sent to rbkc right were you aware looking or having seen those four drawings if you had looked at them that there
01:15:44 if you had looked at them that there were no cavity barriers around the windows
01:15:48 it wouldn't have been when you say they wouldn't have been i think we've established earlier that there should have been no you said why was i aware that
01:15:59 no you said why was i aware that those drawings didn't show that correct and the answer was yes thank you uh now can i ask you to look at h.a.r.403947
01:16:12 h.a.r.403947 this is ben bailey's email to you 30th of march 2015 and 15. as well as kevin lam and mark stapley and he's forwarding to you an email he
01:16:24 and he's forwarding to you an email he had got the same day from chris mort at siderise which attached some drawings now can i just um look at the first paragraph of that email just below it halfway down
01:16:38 the screen
01:16:43 he says hi ben i've reviewed the drawing sent over and sketch a proposal to alleviate
01:16:49 alleviate the issues raised by the bco building control officer also on the second page of the attachment i have highlighted the weak link so to speak in terms of fire and i think the bco would also
01:17:01 would also would have also noticed this now let's look at the drawing um where he identifies the weak link this is har
01:17:12 this is har 403948 please
01:17:20 and if you look please at the second drawing down there you can see
01:17:28 where he has put a pink or orange squiggly
01:17:32 squiggly cloud around the bracket and said weak link for fire
01:17:44 bracket and said weak link for fire did you look at that drawing when it was forwarded to you
01:17:50 you by ben bailey on the 30th of march uh i'm not sure if i saw it on the 30th march
01:17:57 march i've seen it subsequently but did you see it subsequently before the before the end of the project yes
01:18:03 yes you did and did you note what chris morton said in his email which was being forwarded to you namely that he's highlighted the weak link
01:18:13 weak link uh yes you did now um you do say in your statement and it's paragraph 69 i don't think i need to show it to you that you believed you would have read this email but had already seen the email
01:18:25 email but had already seen the email chain of the 1st of april by the time you read chris mort's email does that mean that you did notice or didn't notice the drawing which at that stage
01:18:36 the drawing which at that stage identified a weak link for fire at the head of the window i i'm not sure i saw it at the time but maybe a little bit later right if you did notice the weak link
01:18:51 right if you did notice the weak link for fire
01:18:52 for fire even a little bit later on the drawing what did you do in response to being told that there was a leak weak link for fire in that location the bracket at the head of the window well when i read that
01:19:05 well when i read that it was in the context of we were trying to board
01:19:09 to board that there was going to be a uh two hour fire stopping required and if we only had a cavity
01:19:20 required and if we only had a cavity barrier then everything to do with the two hour fire stopping actually ceased to be an issue looking as you're looking at this
01:19:31 looking as you're looking at this drawing here what's not clear on the drawing to
01:19:38 chris mort is whether that is a continuous shelf angle at the head or individual brackets
01:19:45 brackets one of which would be a weak link and the other wouldn't did you seek to bring this email and the
01:19:57 did you seek to bring this email and the drawing to the attention of studio e no we didn't why is that because as i've explained it was read in the context
01:20:07 context of achieving a 120 minute fire stopping as opposed to
01:20:15 a 3015 cavity barrier
01:20:23 so did you just ignore what mr moore was saying no i don't think i thought he had the wrong end of the stick
01:20:34 stick you thought he got did you go back to chris moore to ask anybody else at harley
01:20:37 harley such as ben to go back to chris morton tell him that he got the wrong end of the stick
01:20:42 the stick no i didn't why is that i don't know did you bring this to the attention of rbkc building control that the manufacturer's representative was of the view that
01:20:53 was of the view that there was a weak link in this location for fire
01:21:00 for fire this isn't well
01:21:05 no we didn't you see mr mort as i've shown you from his email was of the view that the building control officer would also have noticed this so if um
01:21:16 so if um mr mort was telling you that why not just verify with mr hoban and say look the manufacturer has picked this up he thinks you might have picked it up what's the position
01:21:27 have picked it up what's the position that would have been um
01:21:33 a better thing to do yes well it would have been a better thing to do if you were reliant on mr hoban i suppose but given that this was something that which had been flagged by the manufacturer wasn't it the only sensible thing to do
01:21:54 yes would it be normal on a construction project for a specialist external facade contractor like harley to be made aware by a manufacturer of a
01:22:05 to be made aware by a manufacturer of a weak link for fire in the external facade
01:22:08 facade and not then bring that to the attention of the building control body
01:22:22 i don't think we've ever had it uh this situation before no if br if harley were reliant as i think you have said to some extent yesterday on building control
01:22:35 yesterday on building control how could john hogan ever have given an informed final decision in relation to what was installed at least here so far as fire safety was concerned if he wasn't fully apprised of the potential risks
01:22:46 potential risks as identified by the manufacturer
01:22:57 building control have the drawings um
01:23:03 i'm not sure that this is actually a weak link if there is a continuous aluminium angle along
01:23:14 aluminium angle along the head of the window
01:23:19 mr german is that a convenient moment yes i think about it thank you and we'll have another break now mr bailey okay um we'll just come back at 20 to four please
01:23:29 please okay i'll give you a bit of time and uh no talking again please about your evidence all right thank you very much you gave the usher
01:23:44 thank you thank you 20-40
01:40:55 yes would you ask mr bailey to come back in please
01:41:09 right i'm ready mr bailey i am thank you yes mr mr chairman mr bailey i would like to ask you now some questions about infill panels on this project
01:41:18 project can i ask you to go please to your statement at page 29 paragraph 115.
01:41:28 and you say there as explained previously the windows were formed from aluminium profiles and were double glazed with units of toughened glass between the glazed units were insulated
01:41:39 between the glazed units were insulated in-fill panels as far as i was aware or i am aware these were suitable for use in grenfell tower and
01:41:45 tower and are used on buildings across the uk now can i go please to har 40886
01:41:56 this is an elevation drawing produced by kevin lam as we can see dated the 22nd of september 2014
01:42:08 dated the 22nd of september 2014 this is revision d of the 3rd of march 2015. do you see that yes and it was stamped approved for construction
01:42:21 just is that of interest who would normally stamp a proof of construction on a harley drawing approved for construction stamp is an internal stamp so
01:42:33 is an internal stamp so that when it arrives on site the guys are only working to the latest revision i think um who would apply it normally uh kevin
01:42:45 who would apply it normally uh kevin kevin i see so would he do the drawing and then
01:42:48 and then stamp it a proof of construction once once he's been through the approval process
01:42:53 process um he'd actually put that on that was the norm wasn't it now he um shows here two areas of infill panel
01:43:01 panel identified as p1 and p2 can you see those
01:43:07 i'll take you where i can't read them if i can help p1 we may be able to blow this up a bit more if we can um that would be great um if you can see
01:43:19 um that would be great um if you can see there are hatched areas there big ones and a small one looking at the left-hand side you can see the big square hatched area is p1 top left-hand corner
01:43:30 corner there and p2 is the smaller hatched area yes
01:43:33 yes yes now the big the big one p1 is the big panel that sits between the windows of the kitchen and the bedroom isn't it it is and p2 is the little panel within the window itself which
01:43:44 panel within the window itself which housed the kitchen extract fans is that right correct yes now those panels are also marked on the window schedule for the upper floors which you forwarded to cep the
01:43:56 which you forwarded to cep the fabricators can we to see a document cep50493 please
01:44:12 this is an email from you to jeff blades of cep 4th december 2014 and you attach a drawing and you say window scheduled for upper floors and did do you know why you were sending
01:44:25 and did do you know why you were sending mr blades
01:44:26 mr blades that drawing and not daniel nakato jones or kevin lam
01:44:31 ah i can't recall well let's see if we can look at the drawing and see if it helps
01:44:35 helps cep 50494
01:44:40 this comes from cep's documents and we can see there that there are a different number of different types of drawings
01:44:49 drawings each identifying p1 and p2 panels we see that do you remember looking at this
01:44:57 this drawing and similar drawings
01:45:00 uh yes yeah did you ever make any investigations into
01:45:08 into what materials made up p1 and p2 uh no
01:45:15 uh no from the specification of the key drawing
01:45:19 drawing there was a makeup shown on that yes
01:45:26 the specification on the key drawing let's see how we go um we may come to it can you please go to har403882
01:45:46 this is an email
01:45:49 well it isn't an email um this is a meeting note actually of
01:45:56 january 2015. i'm not sure you can see the date on the first page but it's progress meeting number one
01:46:04 of 2015 and in attendance were mr maxwell
01:46:08 maxwell you mr stapley and kevin lam you see that yes do you remember the meeting not a fan no no let's um look down to page three
01:46:19 look down to page three and look at item eight
01:46:23 uh item eight sandwich panels ral9010 source from new supplier who was the original supplier do you know i don't you know why you had
01:46:36 do you know i don't you know why you had to find a new supplier i don't
01:46:51 just on there while we're on it there's also a reference to a luca bond panels to be ordered at item 13.
01:46:58 13. can you explain that i think i said yesterday that luke bond he is to acm what hoover is the vacuum cleaners that's
01:47:09 hoover is the vacuum cleaners that's what you mean right so that meant acm yes in fact they were random bond yes right just to clear that up um now can you please go
01:47:16 please go to har403866 this is a the january version the first version of a document we looked at
01:47:27 version of a document we looked at earlier on the harley specification notes do you remember earlier today mr bailey we looked at the july version of this we did a revision this is the very first one as we can see 15th of january 2015.
01:47:40 as we can see 15th of january 2015. and if you look please with me you can see on the left-hand side that mr lam
01:47:47 mr lam if you ignore the red annotations specified
01:47:51 specified uh under glazing p1 outer two millimeter aluminium skin rao ten zero one zero matte
01:48:02 ten zero one zero matte and then core 24 millimeters kingspan tp10 rigid insulation and then inner again the aluminium rail 9010 and then
01:48:14 9010 and then the p2 uh was had also had a core of 24 millimeters kingspan tp10 rigid insulation
01:48:25 insulation and first of all did you see this document when it was first produced in january 2015 um no now looking at the red
01:48:36 no now looking at the red annotations and they amended uh the dimensions of the aluminium skins on both p1 and p2
01:48:48 skins on both p1 and p2 as you can see but they also amended the core from kingspan tp10 rigid insulation to 25 millimeters of styrofoam
01:49:00 to 25 millimeters of styrofoam can you explain when that decision was made
01:49:05 uh what's the date of the drawing the date of the draw the date of the document is the 15th of january 2015. you can see that from the bottom right hand corner if we just
01:49:17 hand corner if we just do we know what date the uh revision a was we can off hand uh we can go to another document
01:49:28 uh we can go to another document uh
01:49:33 if well we can i'll try and answer your question by showing you
01:49:40 ryd3046822
01:49:48 i don't want to go around in circles but you could you can certainly see that from this document this is revision d of 15th july 2015 and the first that tells us from the box
01:49:59 and the first that tells us from the box that the first revision revision a is the third of march 2015. so uh answering your question it was
01:50:10 so uh answering your question it was between those two days yeah exactly right fine do you know who who came back if we can then to the red annotations uh on har403866
01:50:25 do you know whose red annotations those were
01:50:30 were i i don't know who's there but they
01:50:35 look like might be mark stapler's writing right now do you know why styrofoam was to be substituted for kingspan tp10
01:50:49 was to be substituted for kingspan tp10 as the core of these infield panels i don't
01:50:56 now if we just move on a little bit can we go to har403869
01:51:04 you can see that
01:51:11 this is the version uh dated 26th of january 2015 i'm sorry dated the 15th of january 2015
01:51:24 i'm sorry dated the 15th of january 2015 but now marked by studio e architects with a b you can see that um but if you look at the rev box there are no revisions
01:51:37 are no revisions so we can narrow our time frame down to the changes i think to between the 15th of january and the 26th of january 2015. can't we yes yes because we can then see if we pan out
01:51:48 because we can then see if we pan out again that the uh
01:51:54 uh the core for glazing for p1 had by then been changed in the printed form of this document from tp kingsman tp10 to styrofoam you see that
01:52:04 see that yes can you explain uh how that came about or why that decision was made i can't during that time frame between 15th of january and 20s you can't 26th of january all right um
01:52:17 26th of january all right um do you know why mr lam as it appears adopted that change for p1 but not for p2
01:52:23 p2 as you can see the core there for p2 remained kingspan tp10 rigid insulation i don't know this version as you can see went to
01:52:34 this version as you can see went to studio e who approved it as conforming to design intent but subject to a comment that i don't even need to get into you can't explain why for p1 but not p2 did you or kevin lam to your knowledge
01:52:47 did you or kevin lam to your knowledge tell the author of the red annotations who may have been mark stapley that his prescription of styrofoam was being followed for p1 but not for p2
01:53:00 now can we look at your witness statement page 23 please
01:53:13 statement page 23 please you say at night paragraph 92 all the materials used in the building envelope were specified within studio e's
01:53:21 e's nbs specification and that's not correct is it
01:53:25 is it because the p1 and p2 materials were specified by harley not by studio e in the nbs spec
01:53:38 that may be correct well we we can't find anywhere in the nbs spec where we find
01:53:43 find either styrofoam or uh or tp 10 as the material to be used in the core of the sandwich panels and there's no annotation on their
01:53:55 and there's no annotation on their design drawings
01:54:02 so well can you help us
01:54:07 if it's not actually in the envious spec it may be in the original pack of drawings
01:54:11 drawings but we haven't been able to find it you can't find it we haven't been able to find anything at all specifying um the material for the core for p1 or p2 in field
01:54:22 for the core for p1 or p2 in field panels anywhere in the in the in the in the nbs spec all the drawings
01:54:28 drawings so we've we have taken we are proceeding on the assumption that that came from harley and i'm interested to know whether you agree and if so why that is
01:54:39 without the
01:54:42 looking at all the documents i can't disagree with you and you can't i think help us why it is that the infill panel at p1 became styrofoam but p2 remained
01:54:53 p2 remained tp10 styrofm is the trading name for extruded polystyrene insulation material or xps isn't it it is
01:55:03 is do you know why a named product was not specified at this point in the design process
01:55:10 sorry yes do you know why um
01:55:15 a named product was being specified at this point no i think again styrofoam is a
01:55:28 commonly used trade name for that type of product right so so
01:55:36 given that styrofoam is a trade name well a bit like hoover i think is your example
01:55:39 example before given that styrofoam was the hoover
01:55:42 hoover of extruded polystyrene do you know then why a name product wasn't specified and the way the tp10 was for that material
01:55:55 now do you accept that styrofoam is an insulation product it is and do you accept that it was not a material of limited combustibility
01:56:06 a material of limited combustibility i do do you accept that it should not therefore have been specified for the p1 panel
01:56:18 i think there's a there is a debate on that because it is bonded to two skins of aluminium
01:56:29 to two skins of aluminium so because so it can be classed as a um classo product because it's in a window
01:56:37 window rather than a
01:56:40 rain screen cladding i don't believe that that's covered um by adb2 did you believe that at the time yeah
01:56:51 did you believe that at the time yeah windows are always a bit an oddity with regard to this was it your view at the time that the p1 panel was not part of the
01:57:03 that the p1 panel was not part of the external wall construction for the purposes of approved document b yes was that a view that you discussed with anyone at studio e at the time no was it a view you
01:57:15 at the time no was it a view you discussed with anybody at the time no it's it is just one of those oddities that um
01:57:22 that um the windows seem to fall outside of the cladding now you say it can be classed as a class naught product did you know of any tests or any certificates in
01:57:33 of any tests or any certificates in relation to these panels which could have shown you that it was class naught no i'm i'm just looking at the ad uh b2 which has two skins of aluminium
01:57:45 uh b2 which has two skins of aluminium with a bonded core that's integral to it it can be it can be a classic product did you know of any tests or certificates which showed you
01:57:56 tests or certificates which showed you that it had passed that there was either a limited
01:57:59 a limited material of limited combustibility or it passed a bsa414 test no because it's um [Applause]
01:58:12 yes it's not a product that we believe was of limited combustibility now can i turn to uh
01:58:23 the p2 panel we saw earlier that that was specified as being kingspan tp10 and remained kingspan tp10 throughout the harley spec from january
01:58:36 throughout the harley spec from january to july 2015. did you know that kingsman tp10 rigid insulation was in fact a pir insulation product sold for use as a
01:58:47 insulation product sold for use as a roofing insulation i didn't can we look at the bba certificate for it which is a k i n 4 5 0 2 7 6.
01:59:02 5 0 2 7 6. this is the bba certificate for tp10 kingspan thermopitch tp10 and its dated or dated first issue
01:59:15 and its dated or dated first issue 30th of january 2009
01:59:20 and on page one we can see that the product is described under the heading product scope and summary of certificate you see
01:59:27 you see it says this certificate relates to kingspan thermopitch tp10 board a warm roof insulation system using rigid polyisocyanurate pir
01:59:38 using rigid polyisocyanurate pir board faced on both sides with aluminium foil for use in pitched roofs in new and existing domestic and non-domestic buildings
01:59:50 can i assume that you didn't read this bba certificate at the time of the grenfell tower project i've not seen this do you know whether anybody of harley did i would suspect
02:00:01 did i would suspect that kevin has read it you suspect that he has read it did you do do you know that i i don't you need to ask kevin okay uh and kevin because he was the one
02:00:14 okay uh and kevin because he was the one who pulled together the harley speck is that why yes are you saying that you wouldn't have expected kevin lam
02:00:21 kevin lam to have specified kingsman thermopitch tp10
02:00:26 tp10 in that document unless he had read the certificate is that what you would have expected of him
02:00:34 i would have expected i know he's used this on
02:00:37 this on other projects not for us but for other people he works for us he's a product he's familiar with you know that on those other projects which you say he's
02:00:46 he's used it on where did you think or know that he had used it i don't know which projects they were where in the building where about where in the building do you think kevin lam
02:00:57 in the building do you think kevin lam had previously used or specified thermopitch tp10 on other window infield panels i see how did you know that
02:01:08 how did you know that because he told me he was familiar with him
02:01:12 him in what context did he tell you that when we were [Music]
02:01:18 [Music] i said why why have we got what is this um and this is after the fire but not a lot of the time what's the difference and he said i specified tp
02:01:31 difference and he said i specified tp tanks i used it all the time i see so this is the conversation after the fire it was yeah not during the project
02:01:36 project no i thought um
02:01:39 looking at the description it's quite clear that it was a pir insulation product for use as a roofing insulation
02:01:47 do you know why kevin lam specified this product for use in the external wall construction or or if not in the external wall construction nonetheless as a window in fill panel when it was a
02:01:59 as a window in fill panel when it was a product intended for use in pitched roof constructions no
02:02:06 looking at the certificate now are you surprised that kevin lam thought it appropriate to use thermopitch tp10 as a window panel or infill panel material
02:02:17 material um
02:02:22 now later down page one on the certificate the certificate gives a summary of the
02:02:33 certificate gives a summary of the product's fire performance
02:02:37 and it says the product will not contribute to the development stages of a file or present a smoke or toxic hazard when tested to bs 476 the product achieved a class one rating c section seven
02:02:51 is it fair to say that there was no evidence that this product met the definition for limited combustibility i would agree with that yeah and hadn't been tested to achieve any combustibility rating
02:03:03 combustibility rating under either the euro classes uh or the uk combustibility class classification system no it was at the use it was bonded to two
02:03:14 it was at the use it was bonded to two sheets
02:03:15 sheets of aluminium so i believe that actually uh given that both the sheets of aluminum are of limited combustibility in that configuration it counts as class
02:03:27 in that configuration it counts as class o
02:03:30 but it didn't achieve class a class naught did it by by
02:03:38 by by doing to the fact it was bonded to two sheets of uh limited compostability material the the product itself as i understand it
02:03:52 the product itself as i understand it conforms to class o well it tells you if you look at the certificate that it was tested under four seven six seven uh and the product achieved a class one rating not not doesn't say the class
02:04:03 rating not not doesn't say the class naught
02:04:04 naught no that's that's just the um insulation itself
02:04:12 well i think maybe across purposes i think if i've understood you correctly mr bailey what you're saying is you take this tp10
02:04:19 this tp10 yes which doesn't test the class naught but then you encase it in aluminium yes and then viewed overall the resulting product can be regarded as class lord that's my
02:04:30 can be regarded as class lord that's my understanding
02:04:36 yes
02:04:42 who produced the panels which inc include which included the thermo pitch tp10 as the insulation material or the
02:04:53 the the middle if you like
02:04:57 i may be wrong but i think it was panel systems
02:05:01 systems did you ever see any certificate in relation to the product the panel systems provided no i didn't
02:05:18 now
02:05:27 i want now to turn to some questions about the selection of harley's subcontractors and i want to look at osborne berry in particular can i please go to your
02:05:42 uh go to your statement to page 19 please
02:05:45 please paragraph 75
02:05:56 you say that from harley's perspective work began on site in around october 2014 and was completed in around may or june of 2016. the stages of work were
02:06:07 or june of 2016. the stages of work were as follows one erection of mass climbers two commencement of installation of brackets and rails and insulation three window installation and four the final stage which would have been the cladding installation the installation work was carried out by
02:06:18 the installation work was carried out by osborne berry installation limited supervised by mark osborne and graham berry with whom harley had worked on a number of previous projects so is it right to say that the installation of the brackets and rails
02:06:30 installation of the brackets and rails and insulation windows and cladding were not carried out by harley employees but by a subcontractor called osborne berry correct but do you know why harley didn't undertake the installation works itself
02:06:42 undertake the installation works itself we don't employ uh installers it's right i think that there was no written contract with osborne berry in relation to the grenfell tower works that they were to carry out what's there build no
02:06:54 what's there build no why is that um it is not uncommon practice for us to employ subcontractors um on an agreed price and not actually have
02:07:07 on an agreed price and not actually have a written contract
02:07:10 right uh if you look at paragraph 97 of your statement on page 24 you say
02:07:22 the installation of the external facade was sub-contracted to osborne berry with whom harley had worked for many years on a number of large projects the directors of osborne berry are mark taff osborne and graham bez berry both of whom are highly
02:07:33 berry both of whom are highly experienced in installing external facades did you or anyone else at harley
02:07:41 at harley look for any installation subcontractors other than osborne berry
02:07:52 we have a list of four or five subcontract glazing
02:08:00 companies that we use and we've used over the years on this particular project we decided
02:08:11 project we decided that osborne berry were probably the right team to use
02:08:16 so it was a negotiated contract with them
02:08:21 how did you decide that osborne berry were as you put it probably the right team to use they were finishing up another project becoming available at
02:08:33 another project becoming available at the time
02:08:34 the time that the project was due to start
02:08:41 what processes did harley have in place to ensure that its subcontractors were competent to undertake the works for which they were to be subcontracted that's the reason that we have a list of
02:08:53 that's the reason that we have a list of uh four or five subcontract companies that we work with
02:09:01 and only those guys who we've worked with them for with osborne berry iv
02:09:09 i've known of 30 years and they've worked on some other large large projects for harley of a similar nature right what what do or did subcontractors have to do to
02:09:20 or did subcontractors have to do to become
02:09:22 become approved by harley to be able to get onto harley's list normally if a new a new subcontractor we would take on if um
02:09:37 we had a new contracts manager came to work for us for example who had a good relationship with a subcontract fixing company
02:09:49 with a subcontract fixing company and we would start them off on one project and if they were successful we would move them to other projects
02:10:00 we would move them to other projects uh did price play a role in your selection of osborne berry for this project no um price is obviously important
02:10:11 no um price is obviously important but the fixers actually have a pretty standard installation rate per square meter for putting so and then they're all very much the same how do you use osborne
02:10:23 much the same how do you use osborne berry
02:10:25 berry on chocolates no who do you used on shell kids w kenny yeah
02:10:32 yeah and what about on the ferry point w kenny had done that what other high-rise projects had you used osborne berry on prior to grenfell tower six blocks in
02:10:43 prior to grenfell tower six blocks in little venice right clements court in heath rowe and uh
02:10:51 it's not city road another project in east london okay
02:11:17 can i just ask you then to look at slightly slightly different topic and an email at ryd30 nine six eight three
02:11:27 this is an email the 2nd of february 2015
02:11:34 sent by simon lawrence to rob maxwell into which you were copied
02:11:42 and he says rob i've asked simon to arrange meetings on site this week with yourselves to go through the program deliveries etc
02:11:53 program deliveries etc unfortunately you seem to be a hard man to get in contact with this means we are getting information from your subcontractors on site this is not ideal as far as i'm concerned we need harley supervision permanently on site as
02:12:04 supervision permanently on site as promised from now on to ensure the program is achieved and that we have clear contactable lines of communication also we have major concerns about your current labor levels all mass climbers should be running full
02:12:16 all mass climbers should be running full tilt from now on but they aren't please call simon urgently to remedy this situation
02:12:20 situation before it gets out of hand um how frequently were harley employees attending the site at this time february 2015 i would i would say twice a week
02:12:34 i would i would say twice a week so it's mr lawrence was right wasn't he then
02:12:38 then that there was no harley person permanently on site at this time no we had no um we wanted a site cable we had no
02:12:46 we had no site facilities on-site so it was difficult for us we asked for site facilities but they weren't available who did you ask for site facilities simon lawrence and what does he tell you there's no room
02:12:58 there's no room where did he tell you that at when we started on site probably uh october time did you press him after that we did but
02:13:10 did you press him after that we did but they would only allow there's a small play area to the west of the building and that was full of cabins and they we weren't allowed so
02:13:23 of cabins and they we weren't allowed so i'm told
02:13:23 i'm told to stack the cabins could you share one with another subcontractor all with ryden
02:13:31 ryden there just wasn't room the best we ever got was
02:13:36 got was sitting at the end of a riding desk if no
02:13:39 no if one of the guys was out on site then they had quite a lot of people on site at the time after this email
02:13:47 email did harley uh implement full-time site supervision no we never had full-time site supervision see it looks from this email that
02:13:54 that mr lawrence is telling harley and you as a copy on this email that he was concerned that he needed harley's supervision permanently on site
02:14:06 supervision permanently on site as promised who had promised that there would be
02:14:10 would be harley's supervision permanently on site as he records here that would have been raw
02:14:14 raw how could rob promise rob maxwell that is promised permanent supervision on site
02:14:20 site if as you say uh mr lawrence had kept telling him there was no room
02:14:26 that's a good question well what's the answer to that i have no idea why you said that after this email given what he was after did mr lawrence
02:14:38 given what he was after did mr lawrence get the satisfaction of having harley's supervision permanently on-site not permanently but more frequently more frequently
02:14:46 how is harley supervising the works both before and after this email to ensure appropriate workmanship by its subcontractors if it didn't have
02:14:57 by its subcontractors if it didn't have operatives constantly on site
02:15:02 when we have mast climbers we can't have people
02:15:06 people permanently going up and down in the master climbers so when work reaches a certain stage there is
02:15:13 is a series of handover sheets uh produced to check the quality of the work but it's not in the first stage
02:15:27 osmond berry will check their own work so they're happy with it and offer it to us we'll carry out a check
02:15:34 check um it's not 100 every not bottom screw checked
02:15:39 checked once we're happy with the quality of work that's coming to us um we'll check it and then hand it over to
02:15:46 to ryden's to inspect and when they're happy with it they pass it over to the clock who works to inspect so there's a four stage checking on the works after this email how frequently did
02:15:59 after this email how frequently did harley attend site i think i said would be on site three four times a week three or four times a week after this email but before this email
02:16:11 email but before this email twice a week i see and who was after this email who was the um harley uh operative most frequently on site most frequently would be
02:16:21 would be uh ben bailey right and in fact i think we know that ben bailey was appointed harley's project manager in february about february 2015 was that in response to this message
02:16:34 to this message it was happening anyway right and when therefore
02:16:37 therefore after that ben bailey would attend site three or four times a week i see
02:16:44 can i um then go to
02:16:48 an another topic which is um standard of work and residence complaints um can i just ask you to look at ryd three four
02:17:06 this is an email from simon lawrence to steve blake in dated the 22nd of june 2015. now you're not copied in and you would not have seen this email
02:17:17 and you would not have seen this email before i don't think if you look at the second paragraph it says at the moment we have a poorly performing site which is mainly but not totally caused by poor surveying and cheap incompetent subcontractors
02:17:29 and cheap incompetent subcontractors were you ever given the impression by mr lawrence that he thought that there were cheap and incompetent subcontractors on site no did he ever
02:17:42 no did he ever uh accuse you of being cheap and incompetent no or at least incompetent if not cheap no
02:17:51 did harley have a process in place for ensuring that its work and those of its subcontractors such as osborne berry was carried out appropriately into proper standards we had check sheets
02:18:04 we had check sheets and carried out handover inspections did you have a system in place that if concerns
02:18:11 concerns were expressed about the quality of the workmanship by osborne berry those would be escalated to you and you would handle them
02:18:20 yes what was that system
02:18:26 oh if if there is an issue with the quality
02:18:31 quality it it's returned back from ryden's and we put it right if it's not per right then rydens will call me and tell me
02:18:47 so ryden was the root was it if well it will come back through us through harley and if we don't deal with
02:18:58 through harley and if we don't deal with it
02:18:58 it ryden will get involved and call me
02:19:05 can i then ask you to look at ryd3085661
02:19:12 this is an email into which you were copied
02:19:16 copied uh later on in the project it's dated the 12th of uh january 2017 from emma kelly at ryden to ben bailey and you copy to david
02:19:28 to ben bailey and you copy to david hughes
02:19:29 hughes urgent update grenfell tower windows and emma kelly sets out a large number of defects relating to windows open on our system and then she sets them all out
02:19:40 out just looking at this email do you recall it
02:19:43 it i i'm not sure that i recorded but i i've obviously seen it all right now she
02:19:50 she she says as i've said there are a large number of defects relating to windows open on our system some of which have been open as long as august and she says this is not acceptable and we are not receiving any response from
02:20:01 we are not receiving any response from our chaser email calls or emails or calls we must ensure that defects are closed out within the target rectification time provided please ensure that we're provided with a thorough update by close the play today
02:20:13 the play today failure to do this will result in the issue being escalated then you can see that there are a number of um
02:20:24 open items or open defects relating to windows set out there and some of them as you can see go back to august and september 2016 if you look at the dates in the second column you see that
02:20:35 column you see that yes had you been notified prior to this by ryden of these defects or was this all news to you at the time there are um defects
02:20:48 there are um defects in inverted confidence notices that come through and we will deal with them as swiftly as practically possible what i
02:20:59 swiftly as practically possible what i mean by that is that a lot of these tilt turn windows which don't work are where they've gone out of operation so when you open the tilt and turn window um
02:21:12 window um turn the handle through 90 degrees to tilt it and then turn it through another 90 degrees to open it if during the process you try to pull the
02:21:23 during the process you try to pull the window
02:21:23 window when the handles half open it will disengage
02:21:27 disengage that is a very very simple um thing to put right by pressing the reset button and closing it so a lot of these when they're saying
02:21:38 so a lot of these when they're saying there's a defect with a window it's simply that well do you say that in fact the first one is a tilt and turn window sticking um but the rest of them don't appear to be anything to do with the tilt and turn mechanism
02:21:49 tilt and turn mechanism let's look at them well you'll find the vast majority and we've also been called back for
02:21:56 back for for um a leaking wind sorry a window to find actually when turned up to the champs flats he had a leaking tap in his kitchen so these are not um
02:22:12 these are not all basically what they seem
02:22:16 seem and we've also attended a number of these flats to find there's no one no one's in when we get there so this is isn't quite as
02:22:27 so this is isn't quite as black and white as it appears how can you account taking the first item which is a tilt and turn complaint how can you account for
02:22:35 for a delay of some five months between the 23rd of august and the 12th of january to deal with that
02:22:45 without the specific um details of it i we could have been back three or four times to get in there and not being able to get in it looks
02:22:57 and not being able to get in it looks from this email that the defects were being notified to ryden by residents in the tower not as a result of inspections by
02:23:03 by by you or anybody else well this is 2017 where we left site yes i see so would it be normal then to have this number of complaints
02:23:15 have this number of complaints are open and undealt with often as long as five months afterwards uh some months after practical completion
02:23:24 uh i think we've got 3 000 opening windows on the job so this isn't a big
02:23:31 a big but if we what we want to do when we go back is
02:23:35 back is batch them so
02:23:40 if we have five windows to do we want to do five windows in one visit rather than one visit five times
02:23:48 were you caused by this email to be concerned about some of the quality of the work on site or some of the quality of the material no i think the bulk of these is to do
02:24:00 no i think the bulk of these is to do and and the report of what they are kids when they're not closing when it doesn't these these are to do with a mechanism that probably
02:24:11 to do with a mechanism that probably nine times out of ten to do with the window being operated incorrectly and what did you do to remedy these defects do you remember
02:24:22 remedy these defects do you remember well we went there we remedied them there's probably half a dozen windows on the job where the top arm is connected and broken which is
02:24:34 is connected and broken which is probably because they've been dropped when the window's been out of out of mode so we needed new parts to change those the rest of them are pretty much resetting the handle
02:24:45 pretty much resetting the handle mechanism
02:24:48 yes thank you mr chairman mr bailey i've come to the end of my questions um it's now custom really for us to take a a short break just to see whether there are any sweep up questions i've missed or there are questions from
02:25:00 i've missed or there are questions from elsewhere
02:25:01 elsewhere that i should be putting as a result of follow-up
02:25:05 follow-up do you think 10 minutes be enough i think
02:25:08 think for the time being and if i need a little bit more may i you can come and fly through the usual channels thank you mr bailey as uh mr minutes explained he's got to the end of the questions he's prepared but he needs to take a
02:25:19 he's prepared but he needs to take a moment or two to check there aren't any more things he needs to cover so we're going to break for 10 minutes and then we'll see if he's got some more questions so if you'd like to go to the usher
02:25:29 usher remember the no talking rule yes and we'll come back at 25 to 5. okay right thank you very much
02:25:44 right twenty-five to five please
02:35:41 well have you found some more questions mr villain just one or two right thank you could you ask mr bailey to come back please
02:35:58 right mr bailey i think mr millet has one or two questions but okay well we'll see yes mr bailey uh i took you earlier to chris mort's he's a sidearized chat and his warning about the weak link for fire
02:36:11 warning about the weak link for fire do you recall that evidence from this afternoon and you told us that you thought he had the wrong end of the stick
02:36:17 stick and you also said that you didn't think that it was actually weak link if a continuous aluminium angle along the head of the window was used do you remember that i just just for our purposes it's that's a page 142 line 16 and page one four
02:36:29 a page 142 line 16 and page one four four line
02:36:30 four line five just so we have it in the transcript um can i ask you to look please at adb at
02:36:40 adb at clg 50224 page 86
02:36:49 and you'll see here paragraph 9.13
02:36:59 and you can see under the note there cavity barriers met provided around openings may be formed by the window or
02:37:10 openings may be formed by the window or door frame if the frame is constructed of steel or timber
02:37:15 timber of the minimum thickness in a or b above as appropriate and there you can see a steel would have to be at least half a millimeter thick and timber at least 38 millimeters
02:37:27 and timber at least 38 millimeters thick there's nothing in there which permits
02:37:30 permits a cavity barrier to be formed by a continuous aluminium angle or any other aluminium material is there
02:37:37 there no and i and again i think there's a slight misconception here can you bring the drawing back up can i do what bring that
02:37:48 drawing back up can i do what bring that drawing back up the drawing by mr mort yes yes i can
02:38:02 and i will show it to you it is at
02:38:13 uh h a r four zero is three nine four eight
02:38:22 and it's the second drawing down
02:38:26 weak link for fire yes we're not suggesting at that point that the
02:38:32 the aluminium angle is a cavity barrier what what we have here on the inside
02:38:46 what what we have here on the inside on the inside is the internal finishes by others which should provide a
02:38:57 provide a fireproof seal to the back of that angle so and the reason that
02:39:08 and the reason that i think that he thought perhaps it was weak
02:39:11 weak is if it's a individual brackets there's gaps in the uh aluminium and if it got past the uh the
02:39:22 the uh the barrier on the inside which should have been two skins of plasterboard um then it would enter the cavity but we didn't consider it as an issue because the angle was
02:39:34 as an issue because the angle was continuous it wasn't acting as a cavity barrier
02:39:40 so you say it wasn't a problem because of the presence of an aluminium object in the way to put it in very it's not that angle is
02:39:51 to put it in very it's not that angle is not the cavity barrier it's not its function to be the cavity barrier but because it's continuous it actually has a beneficial effect
02:39:57 effect compared to having individual brackets which would lead would need a gap there but if you weren't permitted to use anything other than wood or steel than the relevant thicknesses
02:40:08 thicknesses as a cavity barrier
02:40:13 let me finish the question if as 9.13 as i've shown you says you can only use as a cavity barrier in those locations steel or wood to the relevant
02:40:24 locations steel or wood to the relevant thicknesses how could you rely on aluminium as a functional
02:40:32 equivalent it wasn't the um the thing which prevents the fire entering that zone is provided
02:40:44 the fire entering that zone is provided by the internal lining
02:40:51 so in what way had chris mort got the wrong end of the stick then i don't think he's taking into account the lining and that's why i think he's got the wrong end of the stick your explanation as i
02:41:03 end of the stick your explanation as i understand it was that it wasn't a weak link
02:41:05 link if there was a continuous aluminium angle along the head of the window yeah if it's far far better to have a continuous angle along the
02:41:16 continuous angle along the along the head well that's not something that's recommended or even suggested by adb is it
02:41:22 adb is it no we're not suggesting that it's a cavity barrier
02:41:28 no i have a final question for you mr bailey
02:41:31 bailey we've been through a great deal of evidence over the last two days and we are very grateful for your assistance looking back on all of that evidence and looking back on your involvement in general in the grenfell tower project as
02:41:43 general in the grenfell tower project as a whole
02:41:44 a whole is there anything that you would have done differently
02:41:52 i've been asking myself that for the past three years
02:41:57 looking back to what we knew then um certification that we had the industry practices that are used throughout the uk
02:42:10 throughout the uk if we looking if we were faced with the same job now i suspect i'm pretty certain that would have done it exactly as we did back then
02:42:22 as we did back then there's no one i got me for a second anybody
02:42:25 anybody in the construction team
02:42:29 working on grenfell or on the hundreds of other buildings that have been similarly constructed across the uk nobody thought for one minute but anything we were doing was unsafe
02:42:43 but if i could go back in time armed with what i know now with the certification the testing regimes the caveats the misinterpretation of the
02:42:54 caveats the misinterpretation of the pudding regulations that are not just you know restricted to us but the whole industry this stuff to rename celetex kingspan
02:43:07 this stuff to rename celetex kingspan none of it would be on the wall
02:43:12 the legislation is complicated to use it's not very clear um i think any form of combustible
02:43:23 um i think any form of combustible insulation or planning should be banned immediately that's that's not my place to say that if the building rings banned it
02:43:34 if the building rings banned it um it wouldn't be classo when i sort of understand how that came to be
02:43:41 to be was some industry self-interest body uh created this fourth
02:43:48 fourth uh class and it's clouded everybody's judgment
02:43:52 judgment and belief that over the past 40 years so yes we would do some sort of parenthesis no you you say what you want to say please no it's
02:44:02 no it's not
02:44:05 not no yeah things need to change all right mr bailey thank you very much thank you i have no further questions
02:44:16 thank you i have no further questions for you mr chairman i have no further questions
02:44:18 questions well mr bailey it's been quite a long period for you to give evidence and it may not have been a very easy task for you to undertake but we are very grateful to you for coming to tell us what you know and it's been very helpful to hear from
02:44:30 and it's been very helpful to hear from you so thank you very much indeed it's all over now that these are all the questions we have for you so you are now free to go thank you thank you very much
02:44:51 right thank you very much mr millet thank you for the day i take it that's it for the day and tomorrow we have another witness we have another witness mr mark harris who will be giving evidence from a roommate location yes
02:45:03 roommate location yes good thank you very much at 10 o'clock tomorrow please
02:45:50 you