Evidence from Mark Anderson, TMO Director of Assets and Regeneration 2011-2013, on his qualifications, training gaps regarding fire safety and cladding, awareness of Lakanal House fire, competency checks on consultants, and relationship with RBKC.
00:00:15 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to hear from another witness from the tenant management organization yes sir thank you may i call mr mark
00:00:26 yes sir thank you may i call mr mark anderson
00:00:28 anderson thank you
00:00:47 i do solemnly sincerely and truly declare
00:00:50 declare and affirm that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you very much mr anderson do sit down and make yourself comfortable thank you
00:01:12 thank you yes good morning would you please confirm your name mark anderson uh thank you very much for attending to give evidence today if during the course of examination you have any difficulty understanding
00:01:24 have any difficulty understanding anything i ask please say so and i'll repeat the question
00:01:28 question or put it differently so it's comprehensible if at any time you feel the need for a break please don't hesitate to say so and finally would you please keep your voice up so the transcribers can record
00:01:40 voice up so the transcribers can record your words now you have made two statements to the inquiry and could i please take you to them they're in a folder on your desk and they will also appear
00:01:51 on your desk and they will also appear on the screen the first statement is dated the 12th of february 2019 and the reference is tmo 100 48968 and the second is dated the 5th of
00:02:04 48968 and the second is dated the 5th of november 2019 and the reference is tmo double zero eight four seven double three four have you read each of those documents recently i have and can you confirm that their
00:02:16 i have and can you confirm that their contents are true they are thank you have you discussed your statements or your evidence with anybody before coming here today no and for the avoidance of doubt all the
00:02:28 and for the avoidance of doubt all the exhibits are taken to have been formally added to the inquiry record mr anderson to start off with i'd like to ask you a few questions about your background
00:02:39 background and your qualifications and your experience now am i right in understanding that you studied architecture at university and worked in private practice in london until 1992.
00:02:50 until 1992. correct did you successfully complete all parts of the architect's qualification parts one two and three yes
00:03:00 and when did you start work in private practice
00:03:05 practice i believe you'll recall that that was around 1987. and whilst you're in private practice what type of work did you specialize in was it residential or commercial or whatever it was very
00:03:17 or commercial or whatever it was very much a mixture residential commercial office retail uh leisure parks et cetera and whilst in private practice were you
00:03:28 and whilst in private practice were you a member of reba no um during your time just on that point i was a member of the royal incorporation of architects in scotland
00:03:39 scotland was that during your time in private practice yes now during your time in private practice what experience did you gain of social housing refurbishment projects um i had or i worked with
00:03:52 um i had or i worked with a number of um as they were at the time housing association clients predominantly within london
00:04:02 and during your time in private practice what training did you receive on asset regeneration projects
00:04:10 i i can't recall specifics i i do have a however recall that i i worked on a number of projects that were to do with housing regeneration
00:04:23 were to do with housing regeneration i'd attended various seminars and conferences and did various cpd type courses and since leaving private practice have you kept up your cpd as an architect
00:04:36 you kept up your cpd as an architect privately so i probably do around 50 hours a year am i right that when you left private practice in 92 you moved into the social social housing
00:04:48 you moved into the social social housing sector also to work as an architect i didn't move into the social housing sector to work as an architect and what was your role sorry but i did move into the social
00:04:59 sorry but i did move into the social housing sector and what was your role your first role in the social housing sector uh initially that was as a development manager and what did that involve uh that
00:05:10 and what did that involve uh that involved
00:05:12 involved putting together bids to the housing corporation for funding for the construction or refurbishment of housing and also pulling together a program
00:05:24 and also pulling together a program of work or projects and overseeing their delivery through consultant teams and contractors before you
00:05:32 you started the tmo did you receive any training regarding fire safety requirements for high-rise residential buildings
00:05:39 buildings over the course of my career i've had various cpd type courses or seminars that relate to fire safety the building regulations
00:05:51 regulations british standards etc and did you receive any training about cladding on high-rise buildings the risks arising from their use on high-rise residential buildings and the relevant fire safety considerations not in relation to
00:06:03 considerations not in relation to cladding itself specifically it was more in a broader context around fire safety can i now turn to ask questions about any training you received whilst you're at the tmo
00:06:14 at the tmo certainly now at any time did you think you required any training to perform your job on the calc or grenfell projects um in terms of a shortfall of training
00:06:27 um in terms of a shortfall of training or
00:06:27 or or did you think you needed any supplemental training no i i believe that the kctmo was very supportive of any training requirements that i identified and
00:06:39 and was willing to either allow me or any of my team members to pursue those did they provide you with any training in relation to the the tasks and responsibilities you
00:06:51 the the tasks and responsibilities you fulfilled in relation to the grenfell project
00:06:54 project uh not specifically no
00:06:58 when you were appointed as the interim director of asset investment and engineering in 2010. um were you then aware of fires in the uk involving cladding on high-rise buildings
00:07:08 buildings noseley heights garnet court uh i was aware of the most recent one which would have been lachenal house in 2009.
00:07:18 were you aware of the potential risks that had been identified following the investigation into the lachnal house fire
00:07:25 fire i had a general overview of the risk that related to lachnal house fire not not the specific details of it were you aware of the involvement or possible involvement of cladding in that fire
00:07:36 involvement of cladding in that fire i am aware that there was a form of cladding as well as the internal construction arrangements that had compromised the compartmentation of the flats around the stairwell and
00:07:49 of the flats around the stairwell and did you receive any specific fire safety training or advice on lessons to be learned from the latino house fire during your time at the tma i don't recall any do you remember picking up any such training via
00:08:00 picking up any such training via your informal cpd yes there were a number of courses uh or seminars
00:08:07 seminars uh immediately following the latin ways and the findings from that that were run by
00:08:16 by consultancy specialists in that sector and just be clear you signed up to and digested the contents of those seminars
00:08:26 seminars yes
00:08:30 were you aware either via training or informal cpd or fires abroad involving cladding on high-rise buildings in dubai and elsewhere um i had i had an awareness of them but i didn't
00:08:43 awareness of them but i didn't um look at the detail in relation to those because the the regulations and the construction methods that we used were slightly different to those that apply in the uk were you aware that they'd involved
00:08:55 were you aware that they'd involved a form of cladding yes and when cladding had been identified as a feature of the refurbishment of grenfell did you think about lachnal or any other fire uh
00:09:06 fire uh involving cladding on high-rise buildings
00:09:09 buildings in general terms yes although i would point out that at that point in time there wasn't a definitive what will that cladding be when you say in general terms can you
00:09:20 when you say in general terms can you give us a bit more detail as to the level of awareness that you brought to the grenfell project as a result of knowledge of lachlan fires elsewhere
00:09:31 knowledge of lachlan fires elsewhere i think the main issue for me was that we needed to be compliant with regulations and legislation and in particular we needed to ensure that
00:09:42 that health and safety and fire safety were thought through by the pre-construction professional team
00:09:50 team thank you now i'd like to turn to your role and responsibilities whilst at the tmo
00:09:57 the tmo and paragraph five of your witness statement we don't need to turn up to it unless you'd like to you say that from 2010 to january 2013 you were the interim director of asset
00:10:08 you were the interim director of asset investment and engineering at the tmo and the job title changed at some point to the director of assets and regeneration first of all can you remember when in 2010 you started working for the tmo
00:10:23 in 2010 you started working for the tmo yes i can and it wasn't 2010. since making those statements i've had the opportunity of establishing exactly which dates they were
00:10:33 were i was interviewed or approached and interviewed by sasha jevons and robert black in late november early december 2010 i met with them
00:10:45 with them to discuss their requirements unfortunately i wasn't able to progress that at that time i was subsequently reapproached by them and actually started working with them
00:10:56 and actually started working with them on a part-time basis from the 21st of march
00:11:00 march 2011 um all the way through until the 8th of january 2013. thank you and between march 2011 and june
00:11:10 june 2011 i slowly moved from one day a week through to full time
00:11:18 thank you was the tmo role your first as a director of assets no it wasn't
00:11:25 wasn't and how many previous times did you fulfilled that position
00:11:34 from recollection three
00:11:40 and can you remember now when the interim part of your title was dropped would it have been june 2011 on the
00:11:50 on the evidence you've just given um from uh no i was always there as an interim member of staff i wasn't part of the permanent establishment although i performed those functions
00:12:03 was there any change in your substantive role or duties when the title changed from director of assets investment and engineering to director of assets and regeneration
00:12:14 to director of assets and regeneration uh
00:12:14 uh the change occurred from recollection it was on the 1st of april 2012 and at that time it changed because there'd been a recognition
00:12:25 there'd been a recognition or an understanding between kc tmo and rbkc about the incorporation of housing regeneration and i i suppose the change in the role
00:12:37 and i i suppose the change in the role would just be the addition of the housing regeneration functions
00:12:46 now you've just uh indicated earlier on that you were initially approached by sasha jevons and robert black how did you know those two individuals saturday evans i'd previously worked
00:12:59 saturday evans i'd previously worked with
00:13:00 with at both the london borough of havering and housing group uh robert black i knew of primarily through the sector um
00:13:13 primarily through the sector um and just an awareness of his role at kctmo and were they professional acquaintances as opposed to social acquaintances yes did you submit a formal application
00:13:25 yes did you submit a formal application um for the job of interim director in late november or december 2010 as i said i was i was approached by them they did ask me for
00:13:36 for a most recent cv um so
00:13:42 um so to me it was a form of application but probably not in the sense that you're referring to okay so was there a formal application when you were reapproached in 2011. no no
00:13:54 was there any form of interview yes and who interviewed you uh both sasha jevons and robert black no one else
00:14:02 one else i believe there was a subsequent meeting where
00:14:05 where it was robert black and anthony parks
00:14:09 and when you say subsequent meeting that was before you joined on a part-time basis on the 21st of march 2011. and can you remind us what the position
00:14:20 and can you remind us what the position was that anthony parks held he was director of finance
00:14:26 um during the interviews either with sasha jevons and robert black or mr black and mr parks were you asked about any relevant experience working on regeneration projects
00:14:37 regeneration projects at that stage that wasn't their particular focus so i don't recall any specific questions about
00:14:44 about regeneration projects at that time although it was covered in my cv and did regeneration become more prominent
00:14:53 prominent as a corporate requirement in the run-up to the change of your title in april 2012. yes it did my understanding is that
00:15:04 yes it did my understanding is that at the time i'd been approached um kc timo was going through a degree of change
00:15:10 change and there was also um a desire on the part of kct mode to do more for rbkc and similarly for rpkc to have kct mode do more
00:15:20 do more and part of that was moving towards one a stable property services function but it was also looking at what they could do more broadly around the housing assets and housing
00:15:31 around the housing assets and housing regeneration part of that now just looking at your answer first of all can you give us a bit more detail as to the nature and extent of the change kc tmo was undergoing
00:15:44 kc tmo was undergoing my understanding when i was first approached and also subsequently approached and when i first started was that the property services function
00:15:56 was that the property services function um hadn't been delivering or hadn't been performing to the standards that either kc tmo or rbkc wanted if i can stop you there apologies what were the principal deficiencies that had
00:16:07 were the principal deficiencies that had been identified um i think that one was to do with the way in which that particular department directorate was structured
00:16:20 department directorate was structured the other one was the skills experience and competencies that were within the team
00:16:26 team um and i think the third one uh would have been around what they were required to deliver going forward
00:16:34 forward looking at that what skills and deficiencies were thought to be lacking
00:16:42 my initial view was that the um the the management tier or my management tier
00:16:49 tier to be strengthened so executive director level uh
00:16:53 level uh no i'm talking about um managers okay now you mentioned rbkc there had these deficiencies been identified to the best of your knowledge
00:17:04 to the best of your knowledge by the tmo or had they been pointed out as well
00:17:08 as well by rbkc
00:17:12 to the best of my knowledge it was probably a combination of both
00:17:17 and you know within rbkc who had expressed these concerns regarding skills and experience at managerial level
00:17:25 uh on the basis of my experience of rbkc i would um historically i would have thought that would have come through laura johnson
00:17:36 would have come through laura johnson um certainly laura johnson and i had conversations about that and can you just whilst we're dealing with this topic can you just give us an idea or gist of the criticisms that laura johnson
00:17:50 of the criticisms that laura johnson had of the skills and training expertise at managerial level at the tmo i need to clarify this isn't executive directors and it isn't assistant or directors
00:18:03 assistant or directors this was about um so within the property services function uh one of the things that that was responsible for was delivering the capital investment
00:18:14 was delivering the capital investment program um so this is money invested in the housing stock to
00:18:19 stock to maintain stroke improve it and my understanding was that for a number of years
00:18:26 of years the the program had not been delivered in its entirety so there was an under performance in that regard and certainly from when i went to kc tmo and in advance of that um i felt there
00:18:39 and in advance of that um i felt there was a lack of management or correct level of management within the organization one to have the focus to drive that
00:18:50 one to have the focus to drive that forward
00:18:51 forward and two to ensure that it was delivered thank you
00:18:54 thank you now before i started interrupting you asking about skills and training you said one of the other um drivers for change had been a desire on the part of the tmo to do more for
00:19:06 on the part of the tmo to do more for rbkc
00:19:07 rbkc can you flesh out that in more detail for us please uh i i think that was more about the social housing environment local authority housing environment at that
00:19:19 authority housing environment at that particular point in time kctmo was effectively an arm's length management organization for a lot of local authorities they initially set those
00:19:30 initially set those up just to do the the management and the maintenance however over time the sector had evolved and it became much more about what could we do around community regeneration
00:19:42 we do around community regeneration housing stock of regeneration asset management and that was very much what what kctmo was looking to deliver and it was certainly something that rbkc had an appetite for
00:19:55 something that rbkc had an appetite for were these matters the matters upon which you were questioned by mr parks when he was interviewing you jointly with mr black yes
00:20:05 and equally those the matters upon which you were interviewed by sasha jevons and robert black they were some of them but not all
00:20:14 now i'd like to move on to paragraph eight of your witness statement we don't need to turn up to it turn it up unless you'd like to but there you say that as interim director of asset investment and engineering
00:20:25 engineering you were quotes responsible for the strategic planning and delivery of the tmos business capital investment planned maintenance and asset management in respect to property assets to meet existing
00:20:36 property assets to meet existing and future needs could you help us briefly
00:20:40 briefly what did strategic planning and delivery involve
00:20:44 involve that was predominantly looking at the housing stock which was owned by rbkc what were its future investment needs what standards did we want to
00:20:56 what standards did we want to bring that to over the next 30 years what were the funding requirements around that how could we potentially deliver that uh with the local government finances that were likely to
00:21:07 government finances that were likely to be available okay thank you so effectively a business plan thank you i'd now like to turn to the relationship between the tmo and rbkc
00:21:19 between the tmo and rbkc now were you aware that the relationship was governed by the modular management agreement
00:21:23 agreement i was and were you familiar with the general substance of that agreement yes and were you familiar with the particular provisions governing major works
00:21:35 yes now could we turn up the modular management agreement which is dated the 12th of june 2006
00:21:42 june 2006 and the is rbk treble zero one nine double zero six
00:21:52 and if we could turn to page 35 and if i might ask them excuse me mr guinea
00:22:02 guinea i've got 34 showing yeah don't worry the pagination is different you'll see there's an internal pagination then just below that there's a 35. thank you and the base number is what we go by and if i might ask the opus
00:22:13 go by and if i might ask the opus operator to amplify paragraph 6.1 to start off with
00:22:21 now just to clarify for you mr anderson there were variations this agreement and a new mma thereafter but clause 6 remained the same now 6.1 says the bwtmo agrees to enter
00:22:32 now 6.1 says the bwtmo agrees to enter into contracts for agreed major works and supervise such works if the council has included a sufficient amount within the allowances for the bwtmo to carry out such
00:22:43 such works now first of all did you read clause 6.1 before the detail of the projects
00:22:49 projects that's calc and grandfault were submitted to the tmos operations committee i wouldn't have read it in specific relation to grenfell tower but i did read it
00:23:00 but i did read it prior to that
00:23:05 as the person responsible for strategic planning and delivery did you know that the tmo could enter into major works contracts and supervise those works yes
00:23:16 were you directly in charge of supervising major works carried out by the tmo
00:23:21 the tmo no who was that would have been members of my team
00:23:28 when you say that you mean subordinate members of your team yes
00:23:34 and you were responsible for monitoring them presumably uh i was responsible for monitoring them and through them they were responsible for
00:23:42 for monitoring any appointed consultants etc and you were responsible and accountable to whom
00:23:46 to whom directly um i understand that the reporting structure was through sasha evans but in practice i
00:23:57 sasha evans but in practice i predominantly reported through to the executive team now did the obligation to supervise include making sure that those selected to carry out major works
00:24:09 to carry out major works were suitably qualified and competent sorry could you repeat that of course did the obligation to supervise include making sure that those selected to carry out major works were suitably
00:24:20 to carry out major works were suitably qualified
00:24:21 qualified yes
00:24:25 did the obligation to supervise include making sure that major works were carried out competently safely and successfully yes now in respect of major works how did
00:24:36 now in respect of major works how did you or the tmo satisfy itself that those it had instructed were qualified and competent for the jobs they were asked to fulfill that would uh that would vary um so it
00:24:48 that would uh that would vary um so it would very much depend on the nature of the
00:24:50 the project that was at hand um it would also vary in terms of the individuals which i or my head's a service allocated to
00:25:01 to a particular project and it was also very much depend upon which consultants external consultants we'd engaged on a particular project as well would it be fair to assume that the larger and more complex the
00:25:14 that the larger and more complex the project
00:25:15 project the greater degree of scrutiny that we'd be brought to bear to ensure that contractors were competent um i i think we may have gone to
00:25:26 i i think we may have gone to a broader degree of interrogation
00:25:30 however i think that smaller projects can
00:25:34 can carry the same weight of risk as a larger project well we'll come on to consider the broader degree of interrogation later but um could i look at this stage
00:25:46 later but um could i look at this stage how the relationship between the tmo and rbkc
00:25:49 rbkc in relation to grenfell tower was intended to work in practice and for this purpose could we look please at the hidden homes meeting minutes from the 13th of march 2012 and these can be found at tm0120122
00:26:08 and just a double check you're there listed as number three on the list of attendance grenfell is discussed at page number five
00:26:18 and if we might amplify paragraph 5.5 which states this m a so yourself is reviewing how the works between calc and
00:26:29 reviewing how the works between calc and grenfell are divided in cost and how to take the respective elements forward it has been agreed that peter wright will have an overview of both projects
00:26:37 projects though his main focus will be calc the tmo will provide an assistant pm project manager with primary responsibility for grenfell now first of all was the hidden homes
00:26:48 now first of all was the hidden homes forum where you kept rbkc appraised of what was going on with grenfell it was one of the forum what were the other fora there was
00:26:59 what were the other fora there was a um an sro calc meeting which was chaired by laura johnson
00:27:06 johnson there were quarterly financial review meetings
00:27:11 meetings and then there were various other
00:27:15 interested or stakeholder meetings i'd say
00:27:19 say does various interested stakeholder meetings mean in practice would it be say for example bilaterals between you and laura johnson uh that would have been one avenue um
00:27:30 uh that would have been one avenue um some of them the portfolio holder would have been there as well um was the intention that peter wright would have an overview function report back to rbkc
00:27:41 back to rbkc that was the original intention but it was a dual role of reporting back to rbkc
00:27:46 rbkc and to uk ctmo
00:27:51 was peter wright discharging an overview function because tmo was supervising the works for rbkc was that the rationale
00:28:00 i wouldn't say it was because we were supervising it was because we were delivering or we've been asked to deliver a regeneration project which was in close proximity to calc
00:28:11 which was in close proximity to calc and you've been asked to deliver by rbkc is that fair yes and in that sense was rbkc the client that would be my reading yes
00:28:24 that would be my reading yes now there was the reference in paragraph 5.5 of the minutes to providing an assistant project manager the assistant to whom uh that would have been an assistant to
00:28:35 uh that would have been an assistant to peter bright
00:28:39 now in your view did the structure of hidden homes and the other four you've identified do you think it was effective in allowing you to keep rbkc fully informed of progress on the grenfell
00:28:51 informed of progress on the grenfell project
00:28:53 yes it evolved over time and my understanding and certainly the feedback from my experience of the meetings that only attended was that rbkc felt informed
00:29:06 now can we look next an email chain sent in july 2012 arising out of a complaint by tunde awaderu
00:29:14 awaderu now mr aodero's email begins at rbk treble zero four five six four three internal page five
00:29:34 there we go i'll just let if ollie if you wouldn't mind scrolling down so that mr anderson can acquaint himself with the originating complaint
00:29:45 complaint i'll just let you familiarize yourself with that mr anderson
00:29:50 and this is from tunde i aberdero area yes in july 2012. thank you
00:30:17 thank you now if we could scroll up to page four to an email that jane trethaway sent to you and others at the tmo on the 16th of july
00:30:30 others at the tmo on the 16th of july now first of all can you help us who was jane tretherway she worked rbkc but can you help us what her particular role was she was one of the managers within the housing department and reported to laura johnson who was the director of
00:30:42 laura johnson who was the director of housing
00:30:43 housing now in that email miss strathway seeks an understanding of tmo's communication strategy for grenfell residents you respond on the same day and if we could go up to page three
00:31:02 and there you set out the various strands
00:31:05 strands of the communication strategy and now if we can move up to the bottom of page one to an email sent by miss tretherway on the 17th of july
00:31:16 the 17th of july 1307. now i doubt you would have seen this before mr anderson so i might i ask you just a familiar to read it and then i can ask you some questions about it
00:31:30 certainly
00:32:03 okay now looking at that email was there an issue
00:32:06 an issue insofar as you were concerned with keeping rbkc informed with grenfell updates
00:32:11 updates i'm not aware of one
00:32:16 uh can you explain why you had not provided an update to jane trathaway uh jane tretherway wasn't a named point of contact prior to that time who was laura johnson
00:32:30 do you accept her view that the tmo then believed rbkc should take it quotes on trust
00:32:35 trust that they will do a good job and not be questioning them in this kind of detail
00:32:41 i don't recognize that comment it was never made to me um i'm not aware of it having been made known to
00:32:48 known to any of the executive team either and certainly
00:32:52 certainly certainly at that particular point in time there was a communication and engagement strategy in place and it had been agreed with rbkc and when you say agreed with rbkc do you mean agreed with laura
00:33:03 rbkc do you mean agreed with laura johnson
00:33:04 johnson yes now staying with this email chain can i
00:33:08 can i ask the opus operator to take us to the top email
00:33:11 top email which is from amanda johnson back to jane trethaway and there's an email of the 17th of july 1424
00:33:19 1424 again you would not have seen this i think so i'll let you read it before i ask you questions
00:33:52 okay now um you see in the third paragraph of that email um amanda johnson says quotes i've also spoken to celia that'd be calliston we do not think the mma covers this type of project sufficiently
00:34:03 of project sufficiently first of all were you aware of that concern regarding the scope of the mma at the time admittedly broadly expressed here no i wasn't
00:34:15 do you have any idea as to why rbkc might have thought the mma wasn't sufficiently engaged with the grenfell project no i don't and flowing from those
00:34:28 no i don't and flowing from those questions just for the avoidance of doubt it would seem fair to say that this
00:34:31 this this concern was not raised with you expressly or otherwise uh not this particular one no can you remember being asked by anyone on the executive team at the tmo about uh issues regarding the scope of the mma
00:34:43 uh issues regarding the scope of the mma in so far as it applied to grenfell um no i don't now amanda johnson went on to say that given the ongoing concern should we
00:34:54 given the ongoing concern should we start to treat them either tmo as we would an external contractor in relation to any major cattle program where we are providing the funding now after july 2012 so after this chain of
00:35:05 after july 2012 so after this chain of correspondence did you notice rbkc exerting its rights as client more robustly
00:35:15 no i i don't recall that
00:35:21 do you remember anyone on the executive team uh
00:35:26 team uh mentioning anything along the lines of rbkc
00:35:29 rbkc taking a more robust stance no um can i now move away from this email chain and can we turn to minutes of the tmo's
00:35:40 we turn to minutes of the tmo's executive team meeting in september 2012 and they can be found at tm00848729
00:35:57 and if we can turn to paragraph 1.12 on the second page
00:36:05 it says there in relation to grenfell project to be monitored by the programme board and governance arrangements be considered at the meeting on 20th of september first of all who were the members of the programme board at this stage
00:36:18 programme board at this stage my recollection at that time i was a member of the programme board and the executive team members were as well okay
00:36:26 well okay now in relation to grenfell what were the programme board's roles and responsible role and responsibilities
00:36:35 in terms of the programme board it was receiving
00:36:38 receiving progress reports on the grenfell tower regeneration project
00:36:44 to what extent did the board influence decision making in relation to grenfell
00:36:50 program board didn't have decision making
00:36:54 making powers at that point that's why there's a reference there to the governance arrangements and the government arrange the governance arrangements were subsequently submitted to
00:37:05 subsequently submitted to the board the kctmo board
00:37:10 thank you and if we look at the programme board minutes for the 18th of october 2012 and they're at
00:37:20 five tm00848758 and we see that uh you're first of all listed as number two on the list of attendees and if we could turn to page eight of
00:37:31 and if we could turn to page eight of this document which is the last page grenfell was discussed and the last paragraph
00:37:37 paragraph under that heading states this if von burch had attended a consultation meeting on 17th of october when queries had been raised by rbkc however laura johnson would be getting the project program and associated
00:37:49 the project program and associated documents as sro senior responsible officer and the project would also continue to go to the programme board um first of all can you help us what was yvonne burch's role
00:38:03 she was one of the executive directors and i believe her scope was performance and policy um did yvonne burch report back to you
00:38:14 um did yvonne burch report back to you following that meeting sorry did she report back to me personally
00:38:25 and can you help us sorry that he was i'm sorry asking you if johnson was asking you to confirm whether she you were asking if she'd reported back no i just asked yeah reporting back to
00:38:36 no i just asked yeah reporting back to you personally to me personally sorry um not me personally but she did it through program board and certainly through program board can you help us what was the role and
00:38:48 can you help us what was the role and function of the sro that's the senior responsible officer so that was laura johnson she was the senior responsible officer for the kensington academy and leisure
00:38:59 for the kensington academy and leisure center project otherwise known as calc and did the sro have decision making power regarding the project regarding which project grantful
00:39:10 beyond the fact that rbkc were the funder of that project no
00:39:18 and would laura johnson in her capacity as the sro be given the same information as the tmos programme board yes
00:39:29 yes and do you know why laura johnson held the role of sro was it because of her position at rbkc i i don't know why she'd been appointed as sro
00:39:44 could we now turn to the role in relation to the grenfell tower refurbishment itself and could i ask you to turn to paragraph 20 of your first witness statement which is at tmo one double zero four
00:39:58 which is at tmo one double zero four eight nine six eight internal page four now there you described your involvement in the early stage of the refurbishment project thus i was involved in the very
00:40:09 project thus i was involved in the very early stages of the planning of the refurbishment from the introduction of the project in january 2012 through to my departure from the tmo in january 2013. this may be summarized as reba works the
00:40:21 this may be summarized as reba works the stages a to d of the reba outline plan of work 2007 as amended november 2008 now the first point that arises is from earlier evidence is it right to say that
00:40:35 earlier evidence is it right to say that you your involvement started in january 2012.
00:40:39 2012. my uh my understanding of the project was that that was when the refurbishment project started proper there had been discussions late part of
00:40:50 there had been discussions late part of 2011.
00:40:53 2011. about the housing assets more broadly and also what might be done on the lancaster west estate which included grenfell town i'm sorry it's
00:41:03 it's we're looking at your involvement in it and given that you started as i understood your evidence in march 2012
00:41:13 21st of march 2011 2011 i'm so sorry i apologize i was mixing my years there now you refer to involvement covering reba
00:41:21 reba stages a to d a b appraisal b design brief c concept and d design development were you the person within the tmo who is responsible for
00:41:32 within the tmo who is responsible for ensuring that each of those stages was satisfactorily achieved
00:41:37 i was responsible for ensuring that the pre-construction professional team delivered each of those stages and making those recommendations to
00:41:48 and making those recommendations to program board operations committee and ultimately board
00:41:53 board now at paragraph 21 you summarized your involvement in the project as follows my primary involvement in the grenfell sorry grenfell tower refurbishing project
00:42:02 project was seeking the necessary approvals from the rbkc securing the funding consultant team appointment and management community and resident communication and engagement integration of the proposals with the
00:42:14 integration of the proposals with the calc project developing the planning application securing planning permission and obtaining the tmo board approvals required to commence the project in those early stages i attended consultant team project meetings
00:42:26 consultant team project meetings programme board meetings design team meetings evening meetings with community groups
00:42:31 groups and residents the rbkc calc project meetings
00:42:34 meetings the rbkc finance team meetings and meetings with the rbkc cabinet members regarding funding requirements now during your time at the tmo is it correct that you had close involvement
00:42:45 correct that you had close involvement with each of the seven listed elements of the early planning stage of the refurbishment project yes i had oversight of those and what had been your specific role in relation to the calc project
00:42:57 to the calc project it was peripheral and it was more to do with the
00:43:01 with the interface between the calc project and lancaster west estate or more particularly grandfather tower and how one would impact upon the other
00:43:12 impact upon the other now were you asked whether you had the qualifications and experience to fulfill the role in relation to the grenfell project before it started or before your involvement started rather
00:43:23 started rather asked by who robert black sasha jevons yes we had a discussion executive team and myself had a discussion around grenfell tower
00:43:34 grenfell tower my capacity my experience competency etc were you satisfied that you had the relevant qualifications and experience
00:43:45 relevant qualifications and experience to uh manage a large refurbishment project of a high-rise building with residents in situ with appropriate support yes had you managed a similar project before
00:43:56 managed a similar project before i had how many times i don't recall
00:44:04 more than once yes sorry i'm just thinking
00:44:08 thinking sorry four or five times
00:44:15 high rise that is and did when you were having the conversations with sasha jevins and robert black did either or both of them raise any concerns about your experience or qualifications to manage the project
00:44:27 or qualifications to manage the project at all
00:44:27 at all no nor did rbkc
00:44:33 did anyone at tmo ask you how you would manage your responsibilities on the ground for project whilst maintaining your role across the tmos housing stock that was part of the discussion we had
00:44:45 that was part of the discussion we had at executive team and subsequently a programme board was about what resources were actually required
00:44:54 required and that subsequently led on to securing a pro project manager an internal project manager client side time did you have yourself did you have
00:45:05 time did you have yourself did you have any concerns about balancing the two aspects of your job uh there were occasions where it was a juggling act and that was what prompted that conversation
00:45:16 it's always a difficult question to answer and i apologize in advance for asking it but are you able to give the panel an idea rough and ready percentage terms of how much of your time was devoted to grenfell and how much time was devoted to
00:45:28 how much time was devoted to other aspects of your job i'm no i'm not able to to extract that i can't recall specifics in to that level of detail we
00:45:39 specifics in to that level of detail we are talking eight ten years ago um all i can say is that
00:45:44 that there was a point at which i i i'd established myself that the the amount of time required on grenfell was increasing and i could see that there would come a point where i couldn't service that
00:45:56 point where i couldn't service that now in relation to that could we turn to paragraph 33 of your witness statement your first one which is at page eight and then you state there that uh on the 18th of
00:46:07 state there that uh on the 18th of april 2012 at a joint management team meeting with rbkc it was decided that a project manager would be appointed for the grenfell tower project in order to free up some of your time and you refer to the minutes of the
00:46:18 and you refer to the minutes of the meeting and they can be found at tmo one treble zero double one six zero
00:46:40 if we can't get them don't worry until this point is it fair to say that you had
00:46:44 had there we go
00:46:48 do you remember this meeting
00:46:51 i don't remember it specifically i do recall having attended joint management team meetings now until that point um is it fair to say that you had primary responsibility within the tmo
00:47:03 primary responsibility within the tmo for the day-to-day planning and oversight of the grenfell project
00:47:08 uh yes now um mr duncan was retained as the project manager within your team is that right that's correct yes
00:47:21 is that right that's correct yes yesterday he described his role during your time as essentially administrative would you agree with that characterization that that's not how i would have described his role all the duties that
00:47:32 described his role all the duties that he carried out can you help us what would you describe his role in duties as says
00:47:39 he was effectively performing the duties of a client-side project manager so there was a i believe we've described them as a pre-construction professional team
00:47:51 team which comprised external consultants working on the project they would have information requests it was for paul in his role to ensure that those information requests were met
00:48:02 information requests were met as best as possible it was also to ensure
00:48:05 ensure that they held regular progress meetings they adhered to the program and to update that project team in relation to um our requirements
00:48:17 in relation to um our requirements around the outputs that were expected
00:48:22 now did he have any decision-making responsibilities in relation to the budget
00:48:27 budget no did he have any responsibilities for maintaining that the project was on time yes
00:48:35 yes and what and those responsibilities would be reporting back on progress baseline anything beyond that reporting function
00:48:44 function uh relaying to uh the pre-construction professional team what the
00:48:51 what the any changes to the timeline or to the program requirements so again that has the impression of a reporting function as well is that fair
00:49:03 as well is that fair uh yes monitoring and reporting predominantly at this point in time what decision-making responsibilities would you say that mr duncan had you've
00:49:14 would you say that mr duncan had you've said he didn't have any relation to budget but what response decision-making responsibilities would he have um i would have uh i would expect a project manager and
00:49:27 i would expect a project manager and more particularly paul duncan to have decision making responsibilities within
00:49:33 within headline parameters that he and i had agreed um
00:49:36 agreed um what were those headline parameters so for example it would be finalizing the the terms of engagement of the pre-construction professional
00:49:48 of the pre-construction professional team
00:49:49 team um agreeing the detail of the program of delivery and the key stages within it against a headline program
00:50:01 program would he have responsibility for example for agreeing fee arrangements for contractors
00:50:11 no
00:50:16 um he also indicated in evidence yesterday that he would attend meetings when you
00:50:20 when you were not able to do so is that uh accurate that's correct yes
00:50:29 mr clear may i just go back to your previous questions in terms of you asked about contractors fee arrangements for all contractors what do you mean by contractors well
00:50:40 what do you mean by contractors well take for example studio e uh right the only reason i asked that to me they're a consultant and the contractor is a constructor of a well would he have any decision making
00:50:51 well would he have any decision making in relation to finalizing fee arrangements for uh consultants yes and what would those responsibilities be mr anderson so those responsibilities would be a
00:51:02 those responsibilities would be a delegation of finalizing um the fee arrangement within so for example
00:51:11 example uh let's say that studio e were to say right now
00:51:14 right now our fee is five percent of an eight million pound construction cost um i i would take i would review the five percent um if it
00:51:26 i would review the five percent um if it was agreeable and i and i had that approved internally um i would then leave it with paul to finalize the detail around that so you'd review and approve the
00:51:39 so you'd review and approve the substantive arrangement what detail would be outstanding for mr duncan to finalize so the five percent has been agreed for example
00:51:49 example for the project manager it would have been
00:51:54 been what percentages paid at what phases of um so what would be paid at the end of stage a
00:52:00 stage a stage b stage c stage d so the subordinate details from the principle uh would he put proposed subordinate details back to you for approval before
00:52:11 details back to you for approval before they were agreed he he made him yes or did he i do believe he did at certain stages yes i do recall that he did at certain stages
00:52:22 stages and so the impression is that you had the ultimate say on the substance of for example fear arrangements um certainly in terms of the what the quantum was
00:52:34 quantum was um i think in terms of the subordinate detail as you put it uh it was more a case of him keeping me informed if he had concerns about those then obviously he would raise those with me and discuss them
00:52:48 did mr duncan report to you or to mr gibson
00:52:54 my understanding is mr gibson was subsequent to my departure paul duncan reported to me in respect of grenfell tower project from your perspective how much of mr
00:53:05 from your perspective how much of mr duncan's time was spent on grenfell
00:53:09 paul was working on grenfell tower he was working on some hidden homes projects grieves home field
00:53:21 grieves home field and he was also assisting the kctmo health and safety team with finalizing the fire door replacement program
00:53:33 program i would say that initially he so in february march 2012 he probably started off with about 10 to 15
00:53:44 15 of his time and that would have increased
00:53:47 increased over time through to october november of uh perhaps 60 70 of his time
00:53:58 uh perhaps 60 70 of his time now given you're able to estimate mr duncan's time will be on a crude percentage basis having gone through that are you able to assist us with
00:54:08 with an estimate of how much of your time you spent on grenfell going back to a question i asked earlier on no i'm not um because the and and the reason for that with paul it's it it's much simpler he had
00:54:21 it's it it's much simpler he had some very specific discrete projects for me i had a much broader remit across kc tmo could i go back to your first statement
00:54:36 tm010489 six eight
00:54:43 and page five internally and you say paragraph 22 that mr duncan's involvement was to be reviewed by mr madison
00:54:57 uh in advance of a contractor being appointed to carrick the refurbishment work
00:55:00 work uh why was that review due to take place can you remember the the initial intent with grenfell tower regeneration project excuse me uh was to
00:55:14 excuse me uh was to deliver stages uh so the riba outlined planner work work stages a through to d possibly e
00:55:24 and the role of project manager had been engaged to support that process the the issue about peter madison reviewing
00:55:35 reviewing uh paul's role or or even that project management role uh was simply a fact that it was expected to stop at stage d stroke e
00:55:46 stroke e and it was what would the requirements be beyond that
00:55:51 now i think it's fair to say although you had some administrative support from mr duncan
00:55:56 mr duncan is it fair to say that you remained primarily responsible within the tmo for setting up and managing the refurb project during your time at the tmo i certainly set out the strategy for it
00:56:09 i certainly set out the strategy for it i
00:56:11 i dealt with the stakeholders primarily rbkc
00:56:14 rbkc but also with the resident groups uh there were a number of those and ensuring that internally we we were keeping the pre-construction
00:56:25 we were keeping the pre-construction professional team to account in in terms of the targets and the outputs and obviously say so over consultant contractors fees
00:56:37 i would recommend those to program board operations committee and the board ultimately mr duncan said at paragraph 12 of his first witness statement and we can go to
00:56:48 first witness statement and we can go to if needs be that quotes the early stages of the project were managed by you that's a fair summary would you agree i think that is because paul wasn't engaged until after we'd
00:57:01 paul wasn't engaged until after we'd we'd probably got to the end of stage a possibly into stage b taking the step back now do you think you had sufficient administrative and other support and resources from the
00:57:12 and other support and resources from the tmo to perform your role in relation to the grenfell project yes i do now we're moving on to a separate topic now which is the decision to refurbish the tower itself
00:57:25 decision to refurbish the tower itself now if we can go to paragraph 16 in for your first witness statement you state that grenville was among the properties identified as having significant investment needs and that because of the tensions created
00:57:37 and that because of the tensions created by calc
00:57:37 by calc it was felt fair to regenerate lancaster west starting with grenfell tower would it be fair to say that had it not been for the calc project
00:57:48 project the decision may not have been taken to refurbish grenfell tower at this time i i can't say whether that was an influencer
00:58:00 for rbkc it certainly wasn't an influencer for kctmo in the latter part of 2011 we'd carried out um an assessment
00:58:11 we'd carried out um an assessment of asset investment requirements um and lancaster west estate in actual fact
00:58:19 fact was the estate that came out number one as highest investment requirement and on that estate rental tower was the higher amongst the four built assets
00:58:32 the higher amongst the four built assets on the estate would tmo have decided at this stage to have overclad grenfell if calc
00:58:40 if calc had not happened let's ask you a more specific question
00:58:46 i don't know uh i mean the issue about uh
00:58:50 uh over cladding uh grenfell tower came about through dialogue with residents
00:58:57 residents about their experience of living within the tower
00:59:00 the tower and one of the one of the points they were very keen to make was that the thermal efficiency was extremely poor okay could we now turn to uh
00:59:11 okay could we now turn to uh tmo one quadruple zero nine four zero into internal page four
00:59:24 now this is an email chain that begins on the 24th of october 2011. it started with an email from jane tretherway to you and others at the tmo which is at the bottom
00:59:35 the bottom of that page might i ask you to read that email the 24th of october center 1142
00:59:46 the 24th of october center 1142 i don't have the full email on my well it's green yes if you shout once you've reached the end then the opus operator will scroll down for you to see it all uh yes thank you
01:00:14 okay now you'll see that jane tretheway requested a meeting to discuss amongst other matters the wider upgrade of grenfell would you agree uh yes but perhaps not in the context of
01:00:26 uh yes but perhaps not in the context of the resulting project if we can scroll up to page one of this chain
01:00:35 um in email of the 24th of october 2011 center 1651 we see that a meeting was set up for the first of november 2011. do you remember that meeting i recall
01:00:47 do you remember that meeting i recall having a meeting i couldn't recall which date it was could we now go to tmo 1 quadruple 0 965
01:01:04 and internal page 3. which is an email
01:01:15 to you from jane trethaway forwarding an email which sets out a summary of the discussion she says you had the day before
01:01:27 and the first bullet point states and if we go to page four
01:01:35 mark would like to meet with peter and the architects to get an understanding of the way that their proposal would link to grenfell what did you understand at that time was being proposed
01:01:48 being proposed at that time the concern as i understand it from both studio e and rbkc was in relation to the external
01:02:00 was in relation to the external environment arrangements so it was effectively that bit about how calc
01:02:06 calc abutted grenfell tower and i believe there was an earlier reference in this string to the play area the outside area
01:02:18 and when you say external environment did that include cladding or not no now the third bullet point of that email says this the tmo is also keen to investigate the opportunity to clad grenfell tower
01:02:30 opportunity to clad grenfell tower and replace its windows and will seek to cost this out with a view to investing epg funds here this will have the advantage of addressing the investment needs of one of its worst property assets
01:02:40 assets and prevent it looking like a poor cousin to the brand new facility being developed next door there may be an option to have a cladding design that links to the design of the academy so that the visual appearance of the
01:02:51 so that the visual appearance of the area is significantly improved first of all can you help us epg
01:02:55 epg stands for elm park gardens thank you who first suggested cladding grenfell can you remember we didn't talk about cladding in the context of
01:03:06 context of what was actually done it was about improving thermal efficiency potentially i note that she has described that as clad
01:03:17 clad that wasn't a term i used what term did you use
01:03:21 you use i i believe we the discussion that we had or my recollection of the discussion we had
01:03:27 we had was in relation to improving uh the thermal efficiency of the building and what options would there have been in addition to cladding so improving the
01:03:39 in addition to cladding so improving the thermal efficiency of the building in your view
01:03:42 your view um there are essentially two options uh one is to do something with the exterior facade the other one is to do something internally within residence homes
01:03:54 and at that stage did you have a preference or a provisional view as to which option was practicable or preferable no and that's why i
01:04:02 why i say that cladding wasn't something that i'd referred to in our conversation can you help us who considered that if grenfell weren't refurbished it would be the poor cousin to calc
01:04:15 it would be the poor cousin to calc i i i've heard that reference a number of times
01:04:20 of times i don't mean through the inquiry i mean prior to this and they predominantly came from either the studio e team or from rbkc itself
01:04:32 the studio e team or from rbkc itself and you say from within the studio e team
01:04:36 team can you help us who particular made that point
01:04:39 point i remember that um on my first meeting with uh andre kushel that he made reference to something along those lines i can't remember the specific words you used
01:04:51 remember the specific words you used and rbkc i don't recall who it was at harvey casey that said it um can you remember who suggested the option of a cladding design to enhance the visual appearance of the area
01:05:02 the visual appearance of the area um that was something that was subsequently developed but as i said at this particular point in time
01:05:11 in time it wasn't something that i or kctmo had put forward did rbkc suggest grandfather should be overclad to prevent it being an eyesore for calc next door
01:05:23 for calc next door i i don't recall that can we go next to um rbk quadruple zero two double three five which is an email from you to laura johnson sent on the
01:05:35 from you to laura johnson sent on the 12th of december 2011.
01:05:40 i'll just let you reread that and refresh your memory mr anson
01:05:58 okay okay you appear to have obtained indicative costings from hunters for that purpose is that a correct assumption to make correct yes what brief can you remember what brief
01:06:09 what brief can you remember what brief did you give them i didn't give them a written brief i actually met with them and explained to them that uh i was looking
01:06:20 looking for some indicative costings uh we talked through uh the situation um they put forward a number of scenarios
01:06:32 number of scenarios there was no firm decision around it but what was required by rbkc was an indicative budget cost for
01:06:44 an indicative budget cost for the overall scope of a project so by the 12th
01:06:48 12th of december 2011 the position regarding cladding as the means of
01:06:55 means of ensuring improved thermal efficiency seems to have firmed up to use an inelegant phrase is that a fair summary i wouldn't say firmed up uh but yes it
01:07:06 i wouldn't say firmed up uh but yes it was
01:07:07 was the first real mention from the kct mode to rbjc of cladding or rainscreen looking at the assumptions in that email
01:07:19 looking at the assumptions in that email mr anderson can you help us who formulated that list of assumptions that came from uh hunters the basis of the information provided by you on on the basis of that discussion
01:07:31 you on on the basis of that discussion yes um and it would have been there for you
01:07:35 you that suggested rain screen cladding at least for this purpose no who suggested that hunters and equally was it hunters who suggested
01:07:46 and equally was it hunters who suggested that rain screen should incorporate an insulated panel or did that come from someone else uh all of the assumptions so in relation to the external facades all of the assumptions there are literally transcribed straight from
01:07:57 are literally transcribed straight from hunters
01:08:01 did anyone rbkc have any involvement in the substance of the brief that you verbally gave to hunters for this purpose um
01:08:13 my my recollection is that um and i can't recall when it was or whom it was with i'd had a conversation with rbkc they
01:08:24 i'd had a conversation with rbkc they had suggested having a discussion with hunters because hunters had done some equivalent refurbishment work for hammersmith and fulham
01:08:36 on the back of that i i arranged to meet with hunters um we we had a discussion um and this is what they came up with
01:08:47 um and this is what they came up with you said you had a discussion with rbkc can you remember now with whom at rbkc no i don't
01:08:55 now you report to the tmo operations committee on the proposals in january 2012. we'll come to that meeting in a moment but can we look at in the meantime minutes of the rbkc
01:09:07 the rbkc housing digest meeting that you attended on the 9th of february of 2012. and that's rbk trouble zero double three seven three nine
01:09:24 move on a page
01:09:28 there we go i'll just let you re-familiarize yourself
01:09:37 can we scroll down please
01:09:42 we'll be coming on to item three in the meantime but first time can you help us what was the purpose of the housing digest meeting mr anson my understanding of the housing digest meeting was that it was an opportunity
01:09:55 meeting was that it was an opportunity for rbkc to meet with kctmo about key issues
01:10:00 issues um in in relation to our delivery of their housing strategy and housing investment and the meeting was the portfolio holder
01:10:12 and the meeting was the portfolio holder which
01:10:13 which in this instance was councillor coleridge
01:10:16 coleridge and the director of housing which was laura johnson now we see on page two there that grenfell's discussed under item three under the heading elm
01:10:27 under item three under the heading elm park gardens capital receipt and we'll see at the bottom of page two a detailed discussion took place on grenfell
01:10:34 grenfell and the main points were minuted and the first minuted point is that the new windows and cladding should reflect or complement calc was that a concern of councillor
01:10:45 calc was that a concern of councillor coleridge i.e that it should complement calc
01:10:51 i wouldn't say it was a concern [Music]
01:10:55 [Music] it was a desire to make sure that whatever was done with grenfell tower
01:11:03 reflected well on the broader community and is it right to assume that given that cladding is mentioned in the first point
01:11:12 point that by that stage at least a decision had been made that cladding was the route to achieve greater thermal efficiency
01:11:20 yes however caveat in this context cladding shouldn't be read
01:11:27 read as rain screen system how should it be red can you help us uh there hadn't been a defined view about what that cladding would comprise
01:11:38 comprise so for example at that stage there was still the prospect that it could be
01:11:45 could be a rendered finish over a thermal insulation
01:11:52 now the fourth bullet point on this page says
01:11:55 says in respect of the estimated cost of the project of 5.5 million officers are planning to appoint studio e to draw up a detailed design plan this will provide economies of scale benefit and also ensure the works
01:12:07 benefit and also ensure the works complement and reflect calc now that's the second reference we've seen to the need to complement and reflect
01:12:13 reflect calc was that need the main or at least an important driver of the project as far as rbkc were concerned there was certainly a genuine desire from rbkc's perspective
01:12:26 from rbkc's perspective one to improve lancaster west estate and more particularly grenfell tower but also to ensure that there was synergy between what was done
01:12:38 synergy between what was done to grenfell tower and the calc project you talked there about synergy between the two projects
01:12:47 one project was concerned a leisure center
01:12:52 center the other project concerned a high-rise residential building with residents in situ can what similarities were there that would allow
01:13:03 similarities were there that would allow a synergy to be beneficial just to clarify one point you made there is that it was a a school academy a leisure center and
01:13:14 a school academy a leisure center and i was using shorthand but you get the point i think mr anderson uh yes and certainly i think from the discussions at that particular point in time my recollection was that could we generate synergy through
01:13:25 could we generate synergy through appointing the same consulting team so the pre-construction professional team could we gain synergy through appointing the same contractor
01:13:36 the same contractor could we gain synergy through carrying out the projects in tandem [Music]
01:13:43 [Music] and potentially as you were alluding to earlier
01:13:47 earlier could we get synergy through having us having a similar aesthetic finish to both the academy the leisure center and grenfell tower thank you
01:14:01 and grenfell tower thank you can you remember when the replacement of the smoke extraction system became part of the grenfell refurbishment project i'm sorry it's a specific point of detail but
01:14:13 detail but interesting to have your evidence on it i i can't remember when that specifically became [Music]
01:14:21 [Music] um a detailed topic within the refurbishment project um but it would have always featured there because
01:14:33 there because there was an existing system um and our proposals or the ultimate proposals would have touched on that at some point
01:14:45 and would its replacement have been something that you would have reported back to rbkc
01:14:54 whether specifically or as part of general briefings i don't think it's replacement i wouldn't have expected any element of the
01:15:02 the uh the grenfell town refurbishment project to be reported back at that level of detail um uh
01:15:09 uh for rbkc um the information that they appeared to be wanting at that time and throughout my involvement was much more high level general
01:15:20 was much more high level general okay um could we now turn to a separate document which is a s e a quadruple zero three double five seven
01:15:35 now this is an agenda of a meeting held on the 9th of december 2011 at rbkc town hall between studio e
01:15:46 or with studio e rather can you remember it's difficult with this passing of time but can you remember attending that meeting
01:16:00 i recall attending some initial preliminary meetings that were facilitated by peter wright of rbkc with studio e
01:16:13 of rbkc with studio e um i i thought they were much later on than this
01:16:18 than this as in later on in december looking at item two and the second bullet point cladding was that something
01:16:29 at the time that was being proposed by rbkc or
01:16:33 rbkc or someone else or if so and so whom my my reading of this is that this appears to have picked up on the hunter's initial budget scoping
01:16:45 hunter's initial budget scoping um and transferred that into an agenda
01:16:54 thank you mr anderson um so it's slightly
01:16:57 slightly earlier than i would well is that a convenient it is moment in terms of your line of questioning it will be about to start um the decision to join your procurement so very clear thank you yeah
01:17:08 very clear thank you yeah it's translated we take a break during each session and this is a convenient time to take one so we're going to stop now we'll resume 25
01:17:15 25 to 12 please and i must ask you while you're out of the room not to talk to anyone
01:17:20 anyone about your evidence or anything to do with it all right thank you if you go with the usher now she'll look after you thank you [Music]
01:17:41 twenty five to twelve please thanks
01:35:27 would you ask mr anderson to come back in please
01:35:45 right mr anderson are you ready to continue yes thank you good thank you yes mr king here thanks sir before you joined the tmo what was your experience of the public procurement rules and procedures
01:35:58 rules and procedures i i'd had fairly extensive exposure to requirements around public procurement rules
01:36:08 rules and so you're familiar with the concept of the thresholds by the thresholds do you mean the financial thresholds oj eu thresholds the financial thresholds
01:36:19 eu thresholds the financial thresholds prescribed at that time under the public contract regulations 2006. yes and what are they in relation to public services contracts can you remember at the time what the threshold was
01:36:29 was uh depending on which category you're in they're either 90 i recall them around 99 000 or just below 174 000
01:36:38 174 000 and it was the latter that would apply in respect to a pre-construction professional team on grenfell town and do you remember the threshold for public works contracts
01:36:50 threshold for public works contracts uh it was
01:36:54 uh it was uh i
01:36:57 uh i i recall it was somewhere around seven million
01:37:02 and what was your understanding of the function served by public uh publication of a notice in the official journal of the european union
01:37:13 the european union it was essentially putting the market on notice that there was an open and competitive tender opportunity available to them
01:37:25 and are you familiar with the general principles of procurement law
01:37:31 i'd like to think so and can you summarize for us what you think the principal obligations imposed on a contracting authority are an open fair competitive process
01:37:45 the obligation to act transparently yes
01:37:50 equal equal treatment does that ring a bell equality yes now in your role as the interim director of asset investment and engineering at the tmo and later as director of assets and
01:38:01 and later as director of assets and regeneration what experience did you have of public procurement and rules and procedures other than grenfell
01:38:08 grenfell there had been a number of procurement
01:38:14 i was going to use the term exercises but they're not exercises they're procurement actions that have been carried out um whilst i'd been there
01:38:24 all caught by the public contract regulations or were they under the relevant financial threshold some were over somewhere under
01:38:35 can you explain to us your role in the procurement of the grenfell tower refurbishment project um
01:38:47 i'm not sure were you responsible for ensuring that procurement rules and procedures had been complied with that would have been one of the requirements yes and what was paul duncan's role in
01:38:58 and what was paul duncan's role in relation to the procurement ex process uh he wasn't involved in the initial procurement exercise for the pre-construction professional team
01:39:07 team was involved in any later stage beyond that during your time at the tmo uh he was involved in the as it was at the time
01:39:18 in the as it was at the time during my engagement by kctmo in respect of lead bitter
01:39:27 i can't answer to what he was responsible for post of course 8th of january 2013. and can you help us with a little bit
01:39:38 and can you help us with a little bit more detail you say that he was involved during engagement by casey timon respectively bitter can you give us a bit more detail as to what his involvement was according to your recollection
01:39:49 recollection he he predominantly liaised with apple yards who were the employed as the employer's agent uh who oversaw
01:40:01 oversaw the commissioning of ledbitter through what is known as the iese
01:40:09 iese framework now can we turn to paragraph 17 of your first witness statement which is at tmo10048968 page three and you note there that there
01:40:21 page three and you note there that there were significant benefits to be achieved by regenerating grenfell tower alongside the calc project
01:40:26 project and you say this and the third line significant benefits of bringing the two projects together was that there could be a sharing of consultancy work minimization of any periods of
01:40:37 minimization of any periods of disruption to residents and the community
01:40:39 community and the potential for greater efficiency through a combination of the project's scope and scale now first of all what were the particular efficiencies that you were thinking of
01:40:50 thinking of we touched on those earlier on but they were
01:40:53 were a shared pre-construction professional team
01:40:57 team a shared constructor or contractor it was potentially about a a sharing of components or elements
01:41:08 components or elements across the academy the leisure center and grenfell tower and also the fact that the parties involved
01:41:19 parties involved were all working together understood the governance arrangements etc and that would deliver or potentially deliver
01:41:28 deliver a timing efficiency as well you say that that it was potentially about a sharing of components or elements across the academy the leisure center and grenfell tower
01:41:37 tower um what do you mean by that what components and elements are you referring to it could have been the heating systems the energy efficiency arrangements it could have been down to
01:41:50 arrangements it could have been down to external facade treatments as well you say could have been was it at that particular stage that hadn't been defined the detail hadn't been defined to that level
01:42:01 level was there also a drive for efficiency in relation to the budget to be achieved by bringing the two projects together
01:42:08 my recollection and this is a general observation is that budget is is always an imperative for any client but there wasn't an underlying
01:42:20 but there wasn't an underlying imperative to drive down the budget
01:42:26 can you now look at rbk trouble zero one nine
01:42:30 nine zero one two
01:42:38 now this is an email from penelope tollett the head of policy and design and the planning department at rbkc the email is dated the 10th of january 2012
01:42:47 2012 and in its fourth paragraph it deals with grenfell and says this the tmo are looking how to engage studio e to do the work they are looking to do on the tower which is double glazing
01:42:58 the tower which is double glazing cladding and new heating as well as new housing
01:43:02 housing units in the vacant lower floors and possibly a new floor on the top they understand the tie up with calc my first question is this when did tmo decide to engage studio e to do the work
01:43:14 decide to engage studio e to do the work on grenfell tower um my recollection is that we formally did that in february 2012. and why did tmo want studio e in
01:43:27 and why did tmo want studio e in particular to do the works described uh there was very much a drive from rbkc that we should optimize the use of the calc team which comprise to dewey
01:43:44 can you help us how did that decision to engage studio e tie in with the procurement process generally
01:43:52 generally um so um rbkc had expressed a a strong desire that we make use of the pre-construction professional team which comprise studio e apple yarns curtains max fordham
01:44:07 apple yarns curtains max fordham and a number of others [Music]
01:44:10 [Music] and the challenge then was to look at how could we engage them could we legally engage them on what those options were for myself
01:44:22 on what those options were for myself um i recall having conversations with peter wright at rbkc along with a discussion at one of the sro
01:44:32 sro calc meetings that then led on to a meeting between myself peter wright and someone from rpkc procurement and legal
01:44:46 procurement and legal at which they expressed a view that kctmo may rely upon the prior notice and procurement exercise
01:44:56 exercise or action that rbkc had carried out for calc that resulted in the appointment of that pre-construction professional team okay now you say that there was a drive
01:45:09 okay now you say that there was a drive from rbkc to optimize use of the calc team
01:45:12 team from whom did this drive emanate uh my recollection is that that was across the board um it ranged from
01:45:25 across the board um it ranged from uh the portfolio holder through to all of the officers that i had dealings with
01:45:32 with was the drive expressed in the imperative i.e they were directing you to do it or did you have any say choice or discretion in the matter
01:45:47 rbkc never specifically said you must my interpretation of the direction i was receiving was that
01:46:04 we kctmo that is um would have been challenged had we not done it thank you now can we sorry can you just explain a little bit
01:46:16 sorry can you just explain a little bit more what you mean uh kc tmo uh was going to engage these
01:46:24 consultants is that's right isn't it correct and it may or may not have had its own view as to who would uh make the best appointee
01:46:35 uh make the best appointee uh or whom it would like to choose a point he's from now how did that fit in with the message you were getting from rbkc certainly mr chairman
01:46:48 rbkc certainly mr chairman um as i said rbkc never said you must do this
01:46:53 this but the there was a very strong message that that was their desire um at that particular point in time it was very much about
01:47:04 was very much about you know will we be below those thresholds could we rely upon their prior
01:47:11 prior uh procurement exercise which was uh an og eu compliant process forgive me for interrupting you but isn't the first question do we actually want to
01:47:22 question do we actually want to instruct these professionals or do we need to look around and find other people at least consider other people again mr german thank you i think
01:47:34 again mr german thank you i think that at that stage there was nothing to indicate we wouldn't want to use them um i'm i i'm sure mr caneer will come on to it but
01:47:45 to it but um there was a process which i went through to satisfy myself from both kc tmo
01:47:52 tmo that the pre-construction professional team
01:47:55 team were appropriately suited to a project of that nature
01:48:01 and because of the time imperative that those two processes run in tandem uh
01:48:08 uh from january through until about march uh possibly even into april of 2012. yeah all right thank you very much yes mr good thank you sir um flowing on from that what steps did
01:48:22 um flowing on from that what steps did you take
01:48:22 you take to satisfy yourself that studio e had the requisite expertise and experience to carry out the work on grenfell so my initial approach there was to go
01:48:34 so my initial approach there was to go back to our bkc and to look at the procurement that they had carried out in relation to calc so this was where not only studio e but the
01:48:46 where not only studio e but the remainder of the pre-construction professional team uh came from um rbkc had carried out an oj eu compliant process
01:48:57 an oj eu compliant process or at least that was my understanding of it
01:49:01 it through that process they they conducted a fairly rigorous assessment and interview process it had happened in
01:49:13 interview process it had happened in from recollection it was in the summer of 2011
01:49:17 of 2011 that that had been carried out
01:49:21 so i'd reviewed that i uh engaged with rbkc's legal and procurement advisors which was a matter that kctmo
01:49:33 which was a matter that kctmo had a long-standing arrangement with rbkc over
01:49:38 rbkc over in addition to that i'd had peter wright organize a meeting between myself and the principal designer
01:49:47 designer which was studio e or was intended to be studio e
01:49:51 studio e um that was with anja kushel there was then a subsequent meeting at one of the sro calc project meetings
01:50:02 one of the sro calc project meetings where prior to the meeting we we effectively had a question and answer session with them um or i should say with on j cushion um in addition to that uh
01:50:14 um in addition to that uh we i'd ask that we did some research of studio e along with the other pre-construction professional team members
01:50:22 members as to their standing in their sector their experience um their competency client base all of those types of things
01:50:34 all of those types of things [Music]
01:50:35 [Music] and ultimately we got to the position of i made a recommendation internally so internally kctmo that i saw
01:50:46 internally kctmo that i saw i saw no reason for us not to engage studio e
01:50:50 studio e at that point in time we were very much looking at studio e uh being engaged along with the other pre-construction professional team to undertake stages a b c d for definite
01:51:02 to undertake stages a b c d for definite uh potentially going into e miss anderson i'm sorry to interrupt you've given a very lengthy explanation of the steps you took
01:51:13 explanation of the steps you took did you ever ask the question of studio e
01:51:17 e have you ever been involved in cladding of a high-rise residential building before
01:51:22 before no i didn't why not it's an obvious question isn't it it is now i i don't know why i didn't ask that
01:51:34 i don't know why i didn't ask that question with respect mr anderson it was an obvious question then have you been involved in cladding a high-rise residential building that's what you're asking them to do um at that stage the type of cladding had
01:51:46 at that stage the type of cladding had not been
01:51:47 not been determined um the questions that were asked of studio e or more specifically andre kushal by myself and others was have you done
01:51:59 by myself and others was have you done residential refurbishment projects the response to that was that they hadn't as a practice but individuals employed within the practice had done that they'd also done cladding
01:52:13 that they'd also done cladding as in over cladding projects as a practice
01:52:17 practice and individuals within the practice did you ask whether mr soons had been involved in an overcladding exercise before
01:52:24 before it wasn't until later on that mr soones and
01:52:29 and mr crawford were introduced as possible leads on the project and yes at that point i did ask about their background what came first mr anderson was it the pragmatic
01:52:41 first mr anderson was it the pragmatic benefits of using studio e because of their connection with calc or looking at their qualifications expertise and experience
01:52:51 i think it was a combination of both could we turn to paragraph 18 of your witness statement please
01:53:06 and you refer there to a report to the tmo operations committee and at 0.3.6 of the minutes of that committee meeting which can be found at tmo
01:53:17 found at tmo 1 treble 0 1 0 1 internal page 1 1 0.
01:53:32 and you'll see there at 3.6 it says and if i
01:53:36 if i might be amplified rbkc recognizes that the calc project will have a significant effect
01:53:42 effect upon the residents of grenfell tower and to a lesser extent other parts of the estate is minded subject to approvals to fund a legacy project on the estate now if we could turn over the page to
01:53:53 now if we could turn over the page to 0.3.9
01:53:54 0.3.9 it states that rbkc is desirous that the legacy project be reflective the design proposals for calc benefits residents of the estate and is delivered efficiently now breaking that down reflective of the
01:54:07 now breaking that down reflective of the design proposals did that mean look good next to calc or putting it another way not look bad next to calc
01:54:16 that's not my recollection of the conversations in the run-up to this report my recollection of those conversations were much more about modernizing the estate or more
01:54:27 modernizing the estate or more particularly grenfell tower improving its thermal efficiency improving the homes of the residents delivered efficiently does that mean for the lowest possible cost
01:54:39 the lowest possible cost that's certainly not my understanding what well what was your understanding of what it meant um
01:54:47 efficiency is um in my view is very much about getting the maximum output for your available budget so cost plays a role there doesn't it
01:54:58 a role there doesn't it yes it does but it's not necessarily turning to prime driver turning to point 4.5
01:55:11 the tmo has additionally confirmed that grenfell tower is a priority investment within the estate and that overclouding and new windows would address the identified investment needs
01:55:22 investment needs who within the tmo decided that overcladding would address the investment needs
01:55:34 um that was my recommendation uh on the basis of the information that we'd uh ascertained from the asset data so your decision then is that right it wasn't my decision it
01:55:46 is that right it wasn't my decision it was my recommendation when did you make that recommendation that recommendation is here in this report
01:55:54 report so at this date so namely january 2012 well there would have been discussions uh prior to this but yes this this would have been the first formal
01:56:06 formal so this is the formal recording of your recommendation for over cladding at grenfell and it was in january 2012 is that an accurate summary to the operations committee which would then subsequently go to the
01:56:18 which would then subsequently go to the board
01:56:19 board um and again in the context of overcladding here um we we should uh be reminded that this could have been a rendered insulation
01:56:32 a rendered insulation or it could have been a rain screen system as was subsequently installed okay now is it your evidence then flowing from
01:56:43 is it your evidence then flowing from that that in january 2012 there was no preference on your part for what type of overcladding would be put on the tower no there wasn't a preference and in fact
01:56:55 no there wasn't a preference and in fact subsequent to this there were a number of different renderings and uh finishes uh types of cladding that were explored by the pre-construction professional team
01:57:07 professional team could we now turn to point 4.7 on this page
01:57:14 and the last sentence says quotes to be procured in tandem with the calc project can you help us what precisely did you or how did you envisage the tandem
01:57:26 or how did you envisage the tandem procurement taking place apologies could you just point out which paragraph 4.4.7 4.7 penultimate thank you and you look
01:57:39 4.7 penultimate thank you and you look and they talk about timo develop detailed proposal overclouding the tower and the provision of additional residential properties the low levels of the tower as a legacy project to be procured in tandem with the calc
01:57:51 to be procured in tandem with the calc project
01:57:52 project yes can you help us explain precisely how you envisage this tandem procurement exercise being carried out [Music]
01:58:02 [Music] on reading that my my understanding is that we're talking about the construction element of the project as well as the pre-construction professional team
01:58:15 the pre-construction professional team the pre-construction professional team was the
01:58:18 was the the item we discussed uh and i responded to earlier the construction element of it was in relation to lead bitter um which had additionally been or the
01:58:31 um which had additionally been or the potential was there to procure lead bitter
01:58:34 bitter through an ojeu compliant iese framework and that we were looking to utilize that to bring ledbitter on board as the
01:58:46 to bring ledbitter on board as the constructor now could you could i invite you to turn over the page to point 5.2
01:58:55 if that might be amplified thank you and it says this rbkc through an odu compliant and competitive process
01:59:03 process has appointed a design team studio e for the calc project and is proposed that the tmo subject to due diligence and legal compliance appoint the individual
01:59:14 compliance appoint the individual members of this team to undertake detailed design proposals initially
01:59:18 initially through to the planning stage and then subsequently to the tender stage now looking at each element of that is it correct to say that studio e had
01:59:29 is it correct to say that studio e had won the commission for calc through a competitive procurement process that's my understanding and is it right that the process had been advertised by
01:59:40 that the process had been advertised by rbkc
01:59:41 rbkc in the official journal of the european union that's my understanding as well first
01:59:49 would you agree that a purpose of undertaking a competitive procurement is to secure best value for money that's certainly one of the elements second another
02:00:00 second another purpose of conducting a competitive procurement here would be to appoint an architect with the level of skills knowledge and experience appropriate to the work involved would you agree with that
02:00:09 that yes and finally a further purpose of conducting a competitive procurement would be to ensure that the procuring public authority complies with its obligations under the procurement rules would you agree with
02:00:21 procurement rules would you agree with that
02:00:21 that yes now it appears here fairly clear that it was rbkc who selected studio e for calc
02:00:30 for calc not the tmo is that right that's correct yes
02:00:33 yes and when studio e won the tender for calc in 2011 is it right that grenfell did not form part of that tender or procurement award that's not my understanding what's your
02:00:45 that's not my understanding what's your understanding my understanding is that the ojeu
02:00:49 the ojeu notice included housing regeneration
02:00:58 did it specifically refer to grandpa can you remember no it didn't
02:01:06 what you proposed was that tmo would use individual members of the calc team on a separate and different project namely the grenfell refurbishment is that a fair summary correct
02:01:18 we touched on this earlier but can you help us as to what the principal differences were in your view between calc and grenfell and the substance of the two projects
02:01:30 i think the immediate difference is that one was a school academy one was a leisure center one was a
02:01:41 one was a leisure center one was a residential refurbishment however when you look at the detail sitting behind it in terms of what we were looking to achieve we were very much focused on
02:01:53 achieve we were very much focused on stages a through to e at most uh which is predominantly the uh the design
02:02:00 design principle rather than the detailed design
02:02:05 design and that studio we if if we are to focus on studio e had experience either through individuals within the practice
02:02:17 through individuals within the practice or as a practice themselves of undertaking a variety of cladding projects
02:02:23 projects of a complex and complicated nature and the individuals within the practice had also worked upon residential refurbishment projects
02:02:36 upon residential refurbishment projects now when we touched on this earlier on and you've covered it again in your evidence
02:02:41 evidence when did you ask studio e about their experience of overcladding high-rise buildings was it before
02:02:52 january 2012 or after january 2012. as i said to you i didn't ask studio e about
02:02:59 about cladding a high-rise building their expertise or experience i asked them about their expertise of cladding and of residential refurbishment and
02:03:11 and of residential refurbishment and when did you ask those questions um the earliest stage at which i recollect that would have been january in january 2012.
02:03:24 are you sure about that it may have been december 2011 but it was certainly one of those two um did anyone at the tmo ask you what
02:03:36 um did anyone at the tmo ask you what steps you've taken to satisfy yourself that studio e had the relevant skills knowledge and experience sorry would you repeat that please yes did anyone at the tmo
02:03:45 tmo ask you how you'd satisfied yourself that studioe had the relevant skills knowledge and experience uh we had discussions about it at
02:03:57 uh we had discussions about it at operations committee we also had discussions about it at the subsequent board meeting and i'm fairly certain we also had discussions
02:04:08 discussions at executive team as well
02:04:15 and is your evidence just to be clear that during the course of those meetings that you have identified that you were asked expressly to confirm that you were satisfied that studio e had the skills for the job
02:04:28 that studio e had the skills for the job i wasn't asked that specific question uh but in the in the context of those various meetings we did discuss the pre-construction professional team
02:04:41 the pre-construction professional team and their suitability to the project now just going thinking about an answer you gave earlier on when you said at this stage you were looking at the principle of design
02:04:52 looking at the principle of design not the design itself
02:04:56 was it envisaged therefore that once the principle of the design had been settled that you would commence a separate and fresh procurement for architectural services at that stage
02:05:10 for architectural services at that stage the the intention or the thinking at this particular point in time and even all the way through 2012 was that the pre-construction professional team were there to take the
02:05:22 professional team were there to take the project to stage e by stagey i mean the riba ripa outline planner works day g um at that point lead bitter
02:05:34 um at that point lead bitter would have been engaged through the iese framework arrangement to take forward the detailed design and
02:05:45 to take forward the detailed design and could potentially take the novation of the pre-construction professional team now looking at the appointment of studio e to the grenfell tower project
02:05:56 e to the grenfell tower project it's fair to say that it didn't involve any element of competitive procurement did it beyond that which i've outlined already no was there an interview i would say there
02:06:08 was there an interview i would say there was an interview and when did you say that interview took place
02:06:13 place my recollection of that interview was um in actual fact it's more than one so my recollection is that there were what i would class as interviews with
02:06:24 what i would class as interviews with andre kugel facilitated by peter wright now they could have been pre-christmas 2011 certainly into january 2012.
02:06:37 2011 certainly into january 2012. and that in addition to that what i would class to be an interview as well was a session in the immediately prior to one of the sro
02:06:46 sro calc meetings and that latter one actually had representatives from rbkc as well as kctmo there did you interview
02:06:57 as well as kctmo there did you interview anyone else no was there a design competition no was there a competence check expressly
02:07:11 could you define expressly well did you expressly ask for confirmation documentary evidence of experience of dealing with other designs involving cladding whether
02:07:22 other designs involving cladding whether you want to describe that as cladding or over cladding mr anderson for all of the pre-construction professional team uh i obtained um
02:07:33 uh i obtained um almost a um a resume brochure from each of the pre-construction professional team members uh that was january february 2012.
02:07:50 when you were having your various discussions with studio e um did you ask them or interrogate them in relation to their qualifications and resources
02:08:01 resources for discharging their obligations under the construction design and maintenance regulations yes and what can you give us a detail as to what the type of questions were that you asked and the answers you received
02:08:12 received um so again uh that that initial process started with uh andre kujo um which was very much a high level discussion about um
02:08:24 discussion about um their experience of dealing with uh refurbishment projects building regulations uh cdm acop l144
02:08:34 acop l144 um how they approached it their responses or his responses around that initially were
02:08:45 responses around that initially were in respect of iso 9001 their quality management system their track record
02:08:55 later when he'd introduced bruce soon and neil crawford as a potential um i met with bruce soons
02:09:06 as a potential um i met with bruce soons it was originally intended to be bruce soon's and neil crawford but i ended up in a meeting with bruce again um i was quite impressed with bruce um
02:09:18 um i was quite impressed with bruce um if i may mr chairman i i think the brief suits that you had here in march is a very different individual to the one that i had experience of he appears to have lost his confidence
02:09:29 he appears to have lost his confidence and his enthusiasm and drive but that was certainly how he came across he came across as very knowledgeable and experienced and i can't recall whether it was bruce
02:09:41 and i can't recall whether it was bruce or it was onjay but they were talking about having a team of
02:09:46 team of circa 30 people within their offices that they could draw upon they talked about the structure of the team
02:09:54 team so that bruce would be the associate and neil crawford would be the project architect and that um initially there would be a small
02:10:06 that um initially there would be a small number of people working on it but as they move forward in time that team will build up and grow thank you mr anson can we look back at power
02:10:14 power point 5.7 on the screen where it says the procurement of the calc project and the grenfell tower project will be procured gen uh jointly now
02:10:25 uh jointly now um you mentioned earlier on that you relied upon the fact that the oju notice referred not only to calc but also to housing regeneration but not grenfell in particular as part
02:10:38 but not grenfell in particular as part of your
02:10:39 of your exercise in verifying the procurement processes carried out for calc did you examine the pre-qualification questionnaire and the invitation to tenderers
02:10:48 tenderers to see what information had been sought in relation to the housing regeneration element
02:10:55 element of the odu notice i can't recall the specific details that i i went through
02:11:03 through what i did do was through peter wright is review the documentation that went out to
02:11:11 out to market the tender submissions from the pre-construction professional team and also had the conversation with peter wright
02:11:21 wright and their legal and procurement representatives about the suitability for a project of that nature and whether or not um kctmo could rely
02:11:32 and whether or not um kctmo could rely on that process uh to appoint them and when did you do that um
02:11:39 that um the that would have been over towards the latter part of december 2011 january 2012 february 2012 possibly even into march 2012.
02:11:51 2012. and given that the housing regeneration element of the og notice seemed to have been important to you and looking at the the compliance with the procurement rules of jointly procuring the grenfell project
02:12:03 project did you look at can i ask you specifically did you look first of all at the pq
02:12:07 at the pq to see to what extent that addressed housing regeneration i i don't recall uh specifically seeing the pqq
02:12:16 the pqq it may well have been in the pack that um peter wright but did you can you remember looking specifically for it because that is the tag if i can put it that way upon which you were hanging the legality
02:12:27 upon which you were hanging the legality of the joint procurement as you put it uh the
02:12:30 uh the the conversation i had with rbkc at that point
02:12:34 point in time was about um and this was based upon the guidance that had been provided by legal and procurement at rbkc that we could rely upon their procurement
02:12:45 rely upon their procurement action was to see uh all of the the evidence uh that they had received in relation to that tender action can i just understand
02:12:57 that tender action can i just understand to what extent did you carry out a separate consideration you referred there to relying upon advice from legal department et cetera rbkc but what was the precise extent of the review you carried out of
02:13:09 extent of the review you carried out of the procurement documents i.e the owed you notice the pqq and the itt to see whether housing regeneration was covered and to what extent um i i certainly evidenced with my own
02:13:22 um i i certainly evidenced with my own eyes
02:13:23 eyes that housing regeneration was included as part of the ojeu notice mr anderson just tell me with this that
02:13:35 mr anderson just tell me with this that oju notice was um published by rbkc the council that's correct
02:13:42 correct so the council had gone through whatever process it was tmo is a separate body a separate client looking to instruct its own professionals
02:13:53 professionals correct what and what led you to think that you could rely on someone else's ojeu notice to justify your choice um because kc timo is an arms length
02:14:05 um because kc timo is an arms length management organization of rbkc and it's what led me to ask that asked the legal
02:14:12 the legal and the procurement representatives from rbac
02:14:16 rbac as to whether or not we could rely upon that procurement action in order to appoint that pre-construction professional team and at that point in time the guidance
02:14:27 and at that point in time the guidance from them was that they saw no reason why we couldn't my response to them was could they please confirm that to me in writing
02:14:38 and the reason um i subsequently put in the limit um was because at a given point in time i didn't have that confirmation from rbkc in writing
02:14:50 confirmation from rbkc in writing i had to chase rbkc a number of times and there was a point in time where rbkc's guidance to us changed all right thank you
02:15:03 can i ask you now to turn to point 6.2 um in the minutes that we've been looking at and it says just mind bearing women of
02:15:20 course
02:15:29 thank you and look at point 6.2 the project is challenging and internal management and governance arrangements need to be enhanced to facilitate its delivery
02:15:38 delivery can you help us why did you consider the project to be challenging
02:15:44 one scope and scale two the impact that it was
02:15:48 it was going to have upon the residents and the community
02:15:53 community three i think even at this particular point in time the local animosity toward the calc project
02:16:05 toward the calc project was and had the potential of spilling over
02:16:08 over into the grenfell tower project um i think the the timeline that was involved
02:16:17 involved because we were at this particular point in time we were effectively having to catch up on a design solution with the calc project in order to
02:16:29 with the calc project in order to achieve the aim of procuring a constructor to deliver both projects at the same time what internal management and
02:16:40 time what internal management and governance arrangements needed to be enhanced to facilitate delivery that was very much um i i suppose at a low level i was very keen to ensure that
02:16:52 keen to ensure that uh there was there's a appropriate transparency around how the project was going to be governed
02:16:59 governed and delivered separate to that probably the bigger bit around that was actually the governance arrangements that came with the iese
02:17:11 with the iese framework um can we now turn to a minute of the tmo board dated the 15th of november 2012 which you exhibited to your first witness statement um it can be found at
02:17:26 tm0120176
02:17:32 and if we go to internal 91
02:17:38 and section 5.3 if i might ask that to be amplified it says here novation of the grenfell tower regeneration project design team to lead bitter
02:17:49 to lead bitter following the planning stage of the procurement process falls within the iese framework and this was procured under an eu compliant process by rbkc
02:18:00 compliant process by rbkc with the grenfell tower regeneration project been included as part of the adjoining kensington academy and leisure center calc project official journal of the european union
02:18:11 union odu notice
02:18:15 now looking at that statement it gives the impression that grenfell had been expressly included as part of the odu notice
02:18:26 included as part of the odu notice on the basis of what you've said today that wouldn't appear to be correct would it
02:18:30 it um this this is november 2012 um and one of the challenges i faced was that rbkc
02:18:40 that rbkc at the beginning of 2012 uh indicated that we could rely upon their prior procurement for the pre-construction professional team some time after that they advised that
02:18:52 some time after that they advised that they didn't think we could rely upon it which is why the 174k threshold was introduced um and subsequent to that they then came back when pressed again and indicated that we could rely upon it
02:19:07 and indicated that we could rely upon it okay so the question i asked was that that gave the impression that grenfell was expressly referred to in the relevant owed you notice when
02:19:19 in the relevant owed you notice when that is not correct there was simply a generic reference to housing regeneration would you agree that it's a misleading impression to give that grenfell was expressly mentioned i'd agree that's one interpretation
02:19:31 interpretation that wasn't my intent and it wasn't the interpretation taken could we now turn to your second witness statement which is at tm0084734
02:19:46 witness statement which is at tm0084734 page two and a paragraph eight and on the fifth line of that paragraph you say that it made sense for the tmo to utilize the pre-existing iese procurement framework and
02:19:59 iese procurement framework and pre-contract professional team for calc as this would reduce the procurement time frame by up to nine months which would mean improvements to residents homes would be delivered earlier in line with the calc prod in
02:20:10 earlier in line with the calc prod in line with calc project reducing the length of disruption to residents can you help us on what basis you concluded that using the pre-contract professional team for
02:20:21 the pre-contract professional team for calc
02:20:21 calc would reduce the time frame by nine months or so
02:20:28 had we have gone had kctmo uh pursued its own ojeu notice and process the likelihood would have
02:20:42 and process the likelihood would have been six
02:20:44 been six to nine months of time frame where we were out of sync with
02:20:50 with kensington academy in leisure center and was time your principal consideration for using the same project team as the calc
02:21:02 calc i wouldn't say it was the principal consideration but uh in 2012 it was certainly a significant influencer thank you
02:21:13 a significant influencer thank you could we now go to tm0084731 which is an exhibit to your second witness statement
02:21:24 witness statement and it's a report presented to the rbkc cabinet by laura johnson on the 2nd of may 2012
02:21:33 and if i could ask the opus operator to take us to paragraph 6.3.6 which is at page 10.
02:21:45 and if the paragraph could be amplified thank you the tmo has appointed the same design team as that for calc to assist in the project management of detailed matters such as the coordination of design
02:21:56 such as the coordination of design consultations public realm site access and works the tmo also anticipates employing the same contractor and this is intended to ensure that the two projects were able to deliver
02:22:08 two projects were able to deliver cost savings where possible and produce schemes that are complementary in their appearance and function for this reason and subject to the cabinet's approval there is a need to ensure that the
02:22:19 there is a need to ensure that the grenfell tower project is permitted to proceed without the delay
02:22:25 delay now the report refers to cost savings and complementary schemes expressly in using the same contractors
02:22:33 going back to something we touched on earlier was your view that using the same project team for designing contractors would produce a significant financial saving [Music]
02:22:44 [Music] that wasn't one of my drivers that said if you have a pre-construction professional team working on one project and then add to that i.e
02:22:57 and then add to that i.e a separate project you would expect to realize some efficiency through that would you agree that the impression given certainly by this minute is that cost savings was a
02:23:09 this minute is that cost savings was a significant consideration in using the same design team i can't answer to that this is an rbkc uh cabinet report what role or rather can i put it differently
02:23:22 role or rather can i put it differently was there pressure from within tmo first of all to keep the budget to the lowest possible minimum price
02:23:33 price i think with any project that you carry out
02:23:36 out you you want to deliver your outputs for the lowest possible cash sum and was that consideration equally applicable to rbkc
02:23:51 i think that applies to any client that doesn't mean to say that the driver was cost alone because that certainly wasn't my impression that's not what i said what
02:24:03 impression that's not what i said what this minute expressly says is cost savings and complementary schemes which gave the certainly the impression that cost savings were a significant factor
02:24:14 factor my my reading of uh the the quote regarding cost savings is that you would deliver cost savings if you ran both projects in tandem rather than
02:24:25 ran both projects in tandem rather than independent okay can we now turn to
02:24:33 tmo10040977
02:24:36 another exhibit but this time to your first witness statement which is email correspondence between yourself rbkc and studio e
02:24:46 and i think in your email of the 29th of february
02:24:51 february sent at 1959 at the bottom of that page to studio e copying in rbkc you say this there is a desire on the part of our bkc and kctmo
02:25:02 and kctmo to enhance grenfell tower whilst undertaking the calc project you ask for fee proposals from studio e and its subcontractors and state that we need to rapidly
02:25:13 and state that we need to rapidly conclude the initial stage and proceed quickly with the project so that we maximize any opportunities that may arise from joint procurement construction where was this pressure
02:25:24 construction where was this pressure to rapidly conclude coming from
02:25:29 apologies i'm still reading oh sorry thank you i think that's a a reflection
02:25:42 thank you i think that's a a reflection of what i mentioned earlier on that um in design terms we were behind the program for calc and we needed to progress the
02:25:55 and we needed to progress the design as quickly as possible thank you catch up as it were could we go to paragraph 12 sorry paragraph 11 of your second witness statement
02:26:06 witness statement which is at tm0084734
02:26:16 and it states there the cost of the calc project was 58 million pounds which was significantly greater than the cost of the grenfell tower refurbishment project
02:26:25 project this gave me assurances that the pre-contract professional team were competent to carry out the grenfell tower project it is my understanding that the board also took comfort in this
02:26:36 also took comfort in this what cost your only evaluation of their competence for the project i've outlined previously my evaluation of
02:26:43 of studio e cost wasn't the only factor on what basis is cost and assurance of competence um i believe if you look at
02:26:54 um i believe if you look at an architect an architectural practice that is delivering a complex complicated project that has a value in excess of 50 million pounds
02:27:05 pounds you can take some assurance from that that they
02:27:09 that they should have the expertise skills experience and competencies to deliver a 10 million pound project you say that it was your understanding that the board also took comfort
02:27:21 that the board also took comfort in this uh what was the basis of that understanding my recollection is that when we had board
02:27:29 board meetings and i put papers to board in relation to grenfell tower regeneration project uh was that there's quite a lot of challenge from the board um
02:27:40 challenge from the board um around the use of the pre-construction professional team and the contractor um the the the cost aspect of it was only one element
02:27:51 one element of that dialogue thank you now if i could ask you to turn back to paragraph
02:27:57 paragraph 31 of your first witness statement which is at tm01048968 internal page six
02:28:13 internal page six uh you stated that you attended on the 13th of march 2012. a hidden homes meeting in which you advise those in attendance of the use of studio e architects for grenfell
02:28:25 studio e architects for grenfell had been agreed and that you had met them on site to discuss proposals first of all are you aware of any notes minutes or other records being kept of the site meeting with studio e that
02:28:37 of the site meeting with studio e that you refer to there i would have kept notes in my day book which i don't have possession or access to
02:28:46 to um i do recall that bruce soon was taking notes and photographs etc
02:28:57 what happened to your day book i left it with the tmo upon my departure were you aware of studio e
02:29:04 studio e ever having informed the tmo either the site meeting or any other time that studio e had not previously been involved in a high-rise residential heating renewal or over-cladding of an
02:29:15 heating renewal or over-cladding of an occupied building project
02:29:20 i i recall conversations with anjay and with bruce um they um
02:29:31 they um it was bruce who had mentioned that a previous employer he had been involved with residential projects
02:29:39 projects they both assured me that they had individuals who they would call upon who had done high-rise and residential refurbishment work the
02:29:50 and residential refurbishment work the matter of cladding that they as a practice had done on numerous projects and those individuals had also done as well and heating renewal heating
02:30:03 as well and heating renewal heating renewal i didn't specifically ask them that question because it's a mechanical electrical services predominantly and that would have primarily fallen under the remit of max fordham's
02:30:15 under the remit of max fordham's who did have a lot of experience in that area
02:30:19 area did mr suns articulate any initial uncertainty as to whether to accept the appointment with you um he didn't express
02:30:31 any concerns or refusal to me um can i ask you now to turn to paragraph nine of your second witness
02:30:43 paragraph nine of your second witness statement
02:30:44 statement which can be found at tm0084734 internal page two and you say on the first lines that the iese framework did not meet the full
02:30:57 framework did not meet the full requirements of the tmo procurement standing
02:30:59 standing orders first of all how did the framework fail to meet the requirements of the standing orders in relation to grenfell
02:31:08 grenfell the iese framework was a pre-tendered
02:31:13 framework arrangement and the kctmo requirements as written excluded the use of frameworks
02:31:26 can you remember the reason why frameworks were excluded uh i don't think there was a particular reason um certainly on inquiry with uh colleagues within kctmo they weren't aware of a reason
02:31:40 they weren't aware of a reason um were you aware of the extent to which the iese framework met the requirements of the standing orders in respect of calc
02:31:52 only through the dialogue that i had with
02:31:56 with um colleagues within rbkc
02:32:02 and were you aware of any difference between the projects and their impact on compliance with standing orders that might have been relevant
02:32:11 my understanding is that the iese major works framework
02:32:21 was a compliant process sorry met with rbkc standing orders thank you can we now turn on to the topic of the instruction of studio e
02:32:34 topic of the instruction of studio e and can we go to an email sent to you on the 29th of february by andre kushul s e a quadruple zero
02:32:46 s e a quadruple zero treble zero seven
02:32:57 and you'll see your email at the bottom half of that page had you spoken to andre before you'd sent that email so this is february 2012 um
02:33:11 so this is february 2012 um as i said i'd certainly had conversations with anjay in january 2012. now you set out the desire of tmo and rbkc to enhance grenfell
02:33:22 grenfell while undertaking calc and you list the objectives including at over the page
02:33:29 page g
02:33:32 to overclad the tower do you agree correct
02:33:36 correct and was this the first communication between you and studio e in relation to the detail of the objectives my recollection is that this is the first formal
02:33:49 first formal communication that set out requirements now bruce soon's in his evidence inquiry said that he received the email with some surprise because you were so advanced in your
02:34:00 because you were so advanced in your thinking in terms of the scope of the project first of all would you agree that the work advanced in term with that namely that the work
02:34:09 the work was advanced in terms of the scope of the project i find that surprising and the reason i find it surprising is because there had been prior conversations certainly between myself and andre
02:34:22 certainly between myself and andre and even with peter wright present [Music]
02:34:26 [Music] and also the prior conversations that rbkc had had with onjay separately about the aspirations the intent um so i
02:34:39 um so i i'm finding that a little difficult to understand so you're surprised at his surprise yes going back to this email you then say under the various itemized objectives
02:34:53 under the various itemized objectives this work will be separate too but complementing calc it must not in any way compromise the calc project and we will require assurances and a clear delineation demonstrating this
02:35:05 clear delineation demonstrating this what did you mean by not compromising calc first of all rbkc had made it very clear to us that they didn't want any of the work whether that be design work or construction work
02:35:17 that be design work or construction work on
02:35:19 on grenfell tower to impede the work particularly on the academy and did that mean in practice that grenfell was a lesser priority than calc
02:35:33 lesser priority than calc it certainly wasn't for me and i never got that impression from rbkc or anyone else in kctmo what assurance is a message what sorry what assurances and measures did you
02:35:44 what assurances and measures did you have in mind to ensure that calc would not be compromised by grenfell probably the principal one was that each member of the pre-construction professional team
02:35:55 professional team would have a separate designated team of individuals working on each project as a distinct team so the clear delineation you're referring to was in terms of personnel primarily is
02:36:07 was in terms of personnel primarily is that fair yes you then go on in this email to say this additionally commissions will be via kc tmo and subject to odu limits
02:36:18 subject to odu limits first of all what did you mean by that sentence
02:36:22 sentence that they would be appointed by kctmo and the second bit which is about the ojeu limits i can only deduce that sometime
02:36:35 i can only deduce that sometime prior to this it was one of those occasions where rbkc had come back and said we're not sure you can now rely upon
02:36:42 upon our pre-procurement so just as rbkc were giving you
02:36:53 so just as rbkc were giving you direction in certain regards were you giving direction here to studio e to produce a fee estimate that came below the odu threshold for public services contracts
02:37:04 services contracts that was the intention at this point in time yes was that their fee proposal and i saw no reason why their fee proposal wouldn't
02:37:15 be above the ojeu limit and so to put it even more bluntly there would be a cap namely the oju limit on their fees is that a fair summary um i i didn't view it as a cap
02:37:28 summary um i i didn't view it as a cap at that point in time i think on the basis of what they'd been asked to do which was uh through to stage d certainly
02:37:37 certainly possibly stagey uh on the basis of the uh the project budget as known at that time
02:37:44 time or the construction budget as known as that time i should say um was that their fee percentage and thereby
02:37:50 thereby their cash sum fee uh would be below that limit and that would apply to uh the other pre-construction professional team members as well
02:38:01 professional team members as well did you have any just flowing on from that did you get any indication from studio e that they thought their services
02:38:06 services might or would cost more than 174 thousand pounds uh no
02:38:16 was there ever a discussion between yourself and anyone at studio e about the odu limit and
02:38:24 its effect on the fees that you would expect them to be charging you uh there were discussions much later on in 2012
02:38:33 in 2012 um we're dealing we're just to fix you in time your 29th of february 2012 now when you're sending this email does that help you there were no
02:38:45 does that help you there were no discussions of of that nature there were no issues raised by any of the pre-construction professional team at this stage or immediately after this you then go
02:38:56 you then go on to say further down the page we need to rapidly conclude can you see that
02:39:04 that yes we need to rapidly conclude the initial stage and proceed quickly with the project so that we can maximize any opportunities that may arise from joint procurement and construction were the opportunities that you referred
02:39:15 were the opportunities that you referred to there the opportunities you were referring to earlier in your submission to the tmo board they are
02:39:21 are the ones about closing down that time frame gap
02:39:25 frame gap between the calc project and where it was at this particular point in time and us getting to that position fairly quickly could i now ask you to turn to s e a treble zero
02:39:39 s e a treble zero one four two seven two
02:39:48 and page two within and hopefully this is an email from bruce soon studio e to andre kushil sent on the 7th of march
02:39:59 to andre kushil sent on the 7th of march 2012
02:40:01 2012 and the second email on that page states met mark yesterday with bill tony and someone else from mf walked around
02:40:10 around and we'll have another walk around next week he thought odu limit was 175k i did a quick search and found 99k now do you recall this meeting obviously
02:40:22 now do you recall this meeting obviously assuming that you are the mark in question
02:40:25 question um i i do recall meeting with bruce and others uh at grenfell tower and i'm not sure of the specific date but
02:40:35 but and do you recall discussion at least of the odu limit uh yes i believe there was or i recall there was
02:40:47 or i recall there was and so can you help us uh explain why you considered that point to be relevant at this time
02:40:55 as in the uh ojeu limit yes um primarily because we back in january we've been guided by rbkc that we could rely on their uh oju
02:41:08 that we could rely on their uh oju procurement um subsequent to that we were informed that they didn't think we could
02:41:13 could um so in order to continue uh with the pre-construction professional team um their fee proposals and i didn't see any reason why they wouldn't be
02:41:25 any reason why they wouldn't be uh needed to fall within that limit again i'd suggest that gives the impression that the odu limit was an effective cap on studio e's fees would you agree with
02:41:36 on studio e's fees would you agree with that
02:41:37 that i agree that it may have resulted in there being a cap but at this point in time there was no indication from studio e or any other any of the other members of the pre-construction professional team
02:41:49 pre-construction professional team that they saw that as a cap or that they would be near it isn't the more important fact that you were sending a clear message to studio e as to your expectation
02:42:00 to studio e as to your expectation regarding the level of their fees i think my my primary driver to all of the members of the pre-construction professional team at this point in time would have been more
02:42:11 this point in time would have been more about
02:42:12 about i don't want you abusing the fact that because you have been appointed on calc and are now doing grenfell tower that you can just write your own check
02:42:24 going back to this email and you say in the third substantive paragraph first line apple yards was discussed
02:42:36 first line apple yards was discussed but only that they are not part of our team that costings would be needed left that with mark um can you help us understand what was meant by that sentence i don't know
02:42:48 sentence i don't know to be perfectly honest fine could we now go to a minute of a meeting on the 8th of march 2012 of the tmo operations committee and that minute can
02:42:59 operations committee and that minute can be found at tmo 1 0 1 2 4
02:43:06 5.
02:43:11 and if we just scroll sorry if we can just scroll down we can see that you're an attendee there penultimate entry on the schedule of attendees and if we just scroll down
02:43:25 further over the page
02:43:29 and go to item five
02:43:34 sorry page i'll go to page five
02:43:40 we've got the grenfell tower project there
02:43:43 there just let you read that so you familiarize yourself with it again
02:44:01 okay now would you agree there is no uh reference there to any discussion regarding odu limits and studio ease fees is there oh
02:44:13 limits and studio ease fees is there oh no i do agree that there's no reference to it in the minutes can you remember whether that topic was discussed or not i i know it was discussed a number of times at
02:44:22 times at operations committee but you can't i'd say
02:44:26 say given the reflection of time presumably i couldn't say whether it was specifically discussed at this particular meeting i'd be surprised if it wasn't um
02:44:37 be surprised if it wasn't um at this time given that you're surprised that odu limits weren't discussed at this stage had you discussed the importance of oju limits and its effect on studio e's fees with anyone else at the tmo
02:44:50 with anyone else at the tmo uh we had discussed um og limits [Music]
02:44:56 [Music] as i mentioned earlier on there was no indication from any of the pre-construction professional team that that the application of that limit
02:45:07 that that the application of that limit would impact or impede their ability to deliver service i think when you say we can you give us more detail as to who with whom you discussed at the tmo so
02:45:19 with whom you discussed at the tmo so we in in that context would have been program board and the attendees of program board executive team and it would have certainly been at operations committee and the board
02:45:40 now
02:45:45 if i can ask you to go to the minutes of a hiddens home meeting on the 13th of march 2012 which is at tmo one trouble zero double one double two
02:45:59 and if i might ask the opus operator to go to page five
02:46:09 thank you and might i invite you to amplify item 5.5 and i'll just let you reread that mr
02:46:22 anderson
02:46:41 okay would you agree that there's no reference there to og thresholds yes was that one of the meetings where it was likely that the odu thresholds would
02:46:52 was likely that the odu thresholds would have been discussed in their effect uh yes i would um i certainly recall having had conversations about uj thresholds at
02:47:04 conversations about uj thresholds at both operations committee and um the board and with rbkc at a variety of meetings that this would have been one of them so is this another instance of a meeting
02:47:17 so is this another instance of a meeting where og thresholds were discussed but not minuted uh i think the yes and i think the other issue that's absent from here is uh the um fairly recent procurement
02:47:28 the um fairly recent procurement guidance from rbkc as well when you say guidance is that do you mean advice from their legal department on the extent to which you could rely upon the calc owed you notice yes now on the 28th of march 2012 a
02:47:40 yes now on the 28th of march 2012 a residence forum um was held in relation to the calc project and we can find the minutes at lbi
02:47:49 treble zero double zero one two
02:48:00 nine we can see from the list of attendees that you were there the penultimate entry could i ask you to turn to item three
02:48:12 could i ask you to turn to item three which is
02:48:13 which is introduction to architects
02:48:22 and you'll see there the minute refers to in the second bullet point ed concerns were raised about
02:48:30 about input of community into design process uh
02:48:34 uh edi is uh ed de farm would you agree uh that would be my recollection yes do you recall his concern that the community
02:48:43 community was denied the opportunity to contribute to the
02:48:46 to the to the design process my recollection from this meeting is that eddie defan [Music]
02:48:57 [Music] express views that on the calc project there had been limited opportunity for residents in the community to input into the design process he wanted to do
02:49:07 to do excuse me he wanted to ensure that the same didn't happen on grenfell tower
02:49:14 tower thank you now if we can go to page two of these minutes and the bottom of the page under aob
02:49:26 of the page under aob and if we go over the page
02:49:30 we see at the top your minute is presenting options for the regeneration of the tower
02:49:37 tower stating that initial work would be with studio e
02:49:42 studio e can you remember what you told the meeting about the options for grenfell at that time
02:49:51 i i can't um what i do recall is that there were some illustrative uh drawings uh that we talked through
02:50:04 drawings uh that we talked through now the second excuse me the second bullet point from the top under the heading issues sets out a number of matters can you remember were those issues raised by you
02:50:15 raised by you local residents or both apologies where where are you looking at the top of the page you've got first bullet point mark anderson second bullet point issues
02:50:29 all right yes you got them yep okay i invite you to read those now you see in relation to those issues did you raise them
02:50:40 did you raise them or residents or both um i believe that's just a method of following through what was shown on the drawings was what it might look like
02:50:50 look like looked like externally number of options what the windows might look like externally what we were looking to do with the void areas what we might do around rationalizing the office space and then also around
02:51:02 the office space and then also around the heating did you mention cladding or over cladding at that meeting can you remember
02:51:07 remember i can't recall we'd have certainly talked about it because external fenestration is on there and at this stage in the design development
02:51:18 development there were a number of options that were presented
02:51:22 presented um did you present those options to this meeting
02:51:26 meeting yes and what options can you help us what they were in in terms of the external fenestration well
02:51:33 well my question related to cladding uh that would be external fenestration so uh that would have ranged from um a render finish on uh an insulated panel
02:51:46 a render finish on uh an insulated panel beneath
02:51:47 beneath all the way through to some form of rain screen
02:51:54 now we can see there under the fourth bullet point another ed entry and mr defan has recorded as saying questioned why studio
02:52:06 recorded as saying questioned why studio e chosen to do initial work and then councillor coleridge appears to answer that question very difficult to have different contractors on site when two different
02:52:17 contractors on site when two different projects going on synergies across projects design needs between school leisure center public realm and grenfell tower
02:52:25 tower do you remember whether you gave any further response yourself over and above councillor coleridge's answer i didn't
02:52:33 did you or anyone else mention joint procurement to the attendees of this meeting
02:52:40 i i'm i'm sure that was part of our presentation discussion because that was the intent at that time
02:52:49 you're sure yes okay um can you help us dwight the counsellor as opposed to you answered that question
02:53:00 he was quicker than i was
02:53:07 setting aside my flippancy i believe that eddie defan actually directed his question to councillor coleridge
02:53:21 coleridge sorry cancer coleridge refers to the difficulty of having two or having different contractors on site was it your understanding at this point that's to say late march 2012 that you would not only use studio e but
02:53:33 that you would not only use studio e but also ledbit of the grenfell project uh that was the intention at this stage yes and
02:53:39 yes and intention had that always been the intention or had a decision been made
02:53:46 it was uh no i'd say that was always the intention leading up to this point and certainly for the immediate future after this
02:53:55 this now on the same day as that meeting on the afternoon of the 28th of march 2012 a client meeting took place uh we have the minutes of that meeting which are which are at sea trouble zero one four
02:54:07 which are at sea trouble zero one four two seven two
02:54:11 internal page three
02:54:19 and we can see you're there plus a representative max fordham and mr suns
02:54:26 suns and if we scroll down to item one which summarizes the brief
02:54:33 is it safe to assume that you set out that brief um i believe this brief was based upon the
02:54:42 the email communication i'd had uh earlier that month with studio e but this was very much their document so
02:54:53 document so would you say that the various items identified in the brief were the result of
02:54:59 of collaborative discussions between yourself and studio e yes now if we could turn on to the second
02:55:07 second page
02:55:12 under two which is headed program the second para says this that tmo would like to submit a planning application to demonstrate to tenants the council's commitment to the project
02:55:24 the council's commitment to the project this would be in advance of complete stage d
02:55:30 stage d is it right to say that there was a rush to ease rbkc's relations with residents of the tower um i didn't get that impression and that certainly wasn't one of my objectives
02:55:42 certainly wasn't one of my objectives um now looking under section three under the heading appointments
02:55:49 i'll just let you refresh your memory
02:55:55 yes the attention appears to be to mirror what had been done with calc in terms of not just the design team but the contractor as well is that a fair summary yes so whichever
02:56:06 is that a fair summary yes so whichever contractor that was appointed under the competitive process for calc would be used for grenfell that's correct isn't it that was the intention
02:56:25 under 0.4 additional consultants as a post-meeting note if we could scroll down
02:56:36 penultimate entry fire safety advice may be required was that discussed immediately after the meeting and if so who raised it first
02:56:47 it first can you remember my recollection is that studio e raised the issue of fire safety advice
02:56:56 at this stage in the design development i don't recall anything more specific than that thank you
02:57:05 so i'm about to start a new topic so it's slightly earlier than well we can forgive you two minutes thank you
02:57:12 thank you um i think if you're going to move to something else this is the time to thank you thank you mr anderson we've reached just about time when we would stop for lunch in the ordinary way so we
02:57:23 ordinary way so we are going to stop now we'll come back at 2 o'clock and resume your evidence then again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it while you're out of the
02:57:35 relating to it while you're out of the room all right thank you mr chairman and uh if you'd like to go with the usher she'll look after you thank you very much thank you very much
02:57:51 very much thank you turtle and thanks thank you
02:58:54 you