Expert witness testimony on cladding contractor responsibilities, facade engineering standards, and technical compliance requirements. The evidence establishes expectations for competent cladding contractors regarding design checks, material selection, and regulatory compliance.
00:00:23 yes would you ask mr secular to come back in please
00:00:40 [Music] hey mr sackler ready to carry on yes thanks thank you very much yes it's great yes great yes good afternoon mr tacular um i just want to return to one passage in the
00:00:51 want to return to one passage in the transcript this morning um just to check one of your answers if we go to page 105 lines 10 to 16. i was asking you a series of questions about whether
00:01:03 series of questions about whether a cladding contractor would take comfort from the fact that they'd used a material like acm for many years on many buildings
00:01:10 buildings and that they those materials were manufactured by ostensibly reputable companies and um if we look at 10 to 16 i said
00:01:22 um if we look at 10 to 16 i said in your view do these considerations in any way lessen the need for the reasonably competent cladding contractor to conduct rigorous and exhaustive compliance checks each time they use the products is that what you would expect of the
00:01:33 is that what you would expect of the reasonably competent cladding contractor and you answered yes i just want to be clear on your answer
00:01:40 answer are you answering yes because you're answering it's my fault for the poor way i've put the question that you would expect the reasonably competent cladding contractor to conduct rigorous and exhaustive compliance
00:01:52 rigorous and exhaustive compliance checks each time they use the product is that right could i just read this yes of course i'm so sorry re-read this i just
00:02:17 yes i'm saying yes to the question would those considerations lessen the need for them to conduct rigorous and exhaustive compliance checks
00:02:29 checks so you think that you wouldn't need to conduct such rigorous and exhaustive checks
00:02:34 checks if you've if you've used the products for many years on many buildings is that what you're saying
00:02:41 saying no i don't think i'm saying that um
00:02:47 yes because i thought you were saying the opposite of that that you would still need to conduct rigorous checks and compliance checks even if you've used the materials that's what i intended to say great
00:02:59 that's what i intended to say great yes yes that that you each case has to be looked at on its merits yes thank you so really i think you're saying previous experience cannot be relied on
00:03:10 previous experience cannot be relied on uh for future purposes yes because every building is different yeah i think yes yes that's helpful so we just had a a request to clarify that on the tournament so yes just moving to a short topic
00:03:23 so yes just moving to a short topic now the the means of disseminating knowledge
00:03:26 knowledge within the cladding industry if we can look at paragraph 7.2.1 on page 29 of your report
00:03:36 you you tell us there that most companies in the construction industry subscribe to some sort of library service whereby they have online access to code
00:03:45 to code standards and other technical information such services would require at least one named individual within the company
00:03:52 company who would be the main correspondent the service would usually provide regular notifications when new documents are published
00:03:59 published on receipt of such a notification the correspondent would be expected to inform those within their organization who would need to know about the new publication or update to an existing publication
00:04:13 to an existing publication now would you expect therefore the reasonably competent clouding contractor to have a system for disseminating updates to those within the organization to whom they were applicable for example
00:04:24 to whom they were applicable for example in relation to design would you expect there to be a system for disseminating technical design
00:04:31 design updates to those within the organization who were responsible for the design of cladding systems yes yes
00:04:39 now i'd now like to ask you some questions about the potential role which a specialist facade engineer or specialist facade consultant
00:04:50 consultant could play if appointed and just to be clear no such specialist was appointed on the grenfell project either at the pre-novation stage or at the post novation stage once ryden
00:05:02 or at the post novation stage once ryden were appointed as the main design and build contractor but you very helpfully set out some history surrounding the role that a specialist facade engineer or contractor can play
00:05:16 engineer or contractor can play and if we can start by looking at page 23 of your report
00:05:22 now at 6.1.1 and following i'm not going to read it all out you have explained that there was this evolution of this role of
00:05:33 there was this evolution of this role of the specialist facade engineer or consultant and you say at 6.1.1 during the 1970s and 80s people with experience in the facade industry began to offer services as consultants
00:05:44 services as consultants typically to building owners and architects initially these were individual consultants but by the early 1990s the larger multi-disciplinary consultancies in the uk
00:05:55 in the uk began to recognize the value of providing facade consultancy as a new specialized service and then you explain certain um terms
00:06:06 and then you explain certain um terms um in 6.1.2 and picking up halfway through
00:06:10 through that paragraph you say like other kinds of engineering this service either service a facade engineer implied a more hands-on approach involving for example structural and thermal calculations and detailed design
00:06:22 thermal calculations and detailed design and specification this is distinct from a pure consultancy role involving for example the review of architects drawings and you you tell us in 6.1.3 that you use
00:06:34 you you tell us in 6.1.3 that you use the term the single term facade engineer for brevity um and at 6.1.4 and follows you you provide a little bit more about the history
00:06:45 history of how the architectural and other construction professionals have evolved and i'm not going to read all of that out but you talk about the evolution for
00:06:57 but you talk about the evolution for example of building services engineers in the middle of the 20th century
00:07:02 century and at 6.1.6 at the bottom of that page you say
00:07:06 you say similarly the growth of facade engineering during the last quarter of the 20th century was driven by the need for building owners and architects to receive sound technical facade advice
00:07:17 sound technical facade advice independent of any commercial interests and that you say the people coming into facade engineering were from a variety of backgrounds and if we go over the page
00:07:27 page from the design and technical departments of facade contractors themselves from architects with a technical bent from product and industrial designers from building physics specialists and from structural engineers
00:07:40 from structural engineers and then at 6.1.9 you go on to explain that the advice given by such facade engineers reflected the increasingly complex technical nature of facades in the
00:07:51 technical nature of facades in the second half of the 20th century and generally both building owners and architects welcome this advice at the pre-contract stages of the project but you then explain later in that
00:08:03 but you then explain later in that paragraph that as well as providing services at that stage many main contractors also have the appointment of specialist facade
00:08:12 facade contractors and at 6.1.10 if we can scroll up we can see the new service was generally welcomed
00:08:23 the new service was generally welcomed by other professionals in the field as it was recognized that the facade of the building was the part that had historically given rise to the largest proportion of building problems such as rainwater penetration
00:08:34 such as rainwater penetration condensation breakages and so on most architects in particular saw the role of a facade engineer is helpful to them in minimizing potential future liabilities with regard to the facade so that's the background um and the
00:08:47 so that's the background um and the genesis of facade engineers and if we look at page 25 of your report you
00:08:54 you you tell us at 6.2.3 that in 2004 the society of facade engineering the sfe was founded jointly by the royal
00:09:05 was founded jointly by the royal institute of british architects the riba the institution of structural engineers and the chartered institution of building services engineers and you tell us at the end of
00:09:17 engineers and you tell us at the end of that paragraph the s f e is a growing professional society and acts as a qualifying body for facade engineers however there is currently no requirement in the uk for a
00:09:28 currently no requirement in the uk for a facade engineer to be a member of the sfe in order to practice and just to be clear
00:09:35 clear it's right isn't it that that facade engineer and facade consultant are not protected
00:09:40 protected titles by what and what i mean by that is those terms are not legally restricted to use by particular persons who've completed specific training or education
00:09:50 education that's correct yes and you note in your report that there's no current requirement for a facade engineer to be a member of the society of facade engineering that's right isn't it
00:10:02 facade engineering that's right isn't it yes
00:10:04 yes and is it also right that there's not a minimum qualification level for any grade of membership of the sfe oh i i think there probably is yes
00:10:15 oh i i think there probably is yes i see yes
00:10:20 i see okay um if we turn now to paragraph 6.5.1 of your report on page
00:10:30 27 you tell us there um going back to the early 1990s it would not have been common for a facade consultant to be appointed for an overcladding
00:10:41 to be appointed for an overcladding project of this type however it was not unheard of and i give in paragraph 6.6 below an example
00:10:50 example however by 2012 in my experience it would have been normal for a facade engineer to be appointed for any large or complex project
00:10:59 project the over cladding of a high-rise residential tower is a large project but it may not be complex the situation in which a facade engineer would not be appointed for this kind of project would be where the architect had
00:11:10 project would be where the architect had enough technical knowledge and relevant experience not to require the additional expertise or with the building owner did not wish to pay for an additional consultant now just to be clear that the example
00:11:22 now just to be clear that the example that you give that you're referring to in three lines down in that paragraph of someone a project where a facade consultant was appointed
00:11:34 a facade consultant was appointed pre-2012 was the the hackney east london project you were referring to earlier is that correct yes yes
00:11:44 and you tell us that the over cladding of a high-rise residential tower is a large product and we touched on that earlier but it may not be complex
00:11:55 earlier but it may not be complex um would you agree that the appointment of a facade engineer or consultant is necessary on a large or a complex cladding project
00:12:07 well i it's a as i've said here um i i wouldn't use the word necessary i i've been careful not to say that it has to be required it depends on the
00:12:20 it has to be required it depends on the capabilities of the architect yes some architects are comfortable with their technical knowledge and feel that they don't need the services as a facade engineer
00:12:32 the services as a facade engineer yes others welcome it and would rather have a facade engineer on board yes
00:12:41 in terms of grenfell tower was that a complex
00:12:44 complex project in your opinion not really no not from a facade point of view in reaching that view have you taken into account not simply the selection of materials but also the geometrical
00:12:56 materials but also the geometrical challenges presented by grenfell tower itself for example the configuration of the columns and the relationship between the spandrels and the windows for example as highlighted by mr hyatt
00:13:08 highlighted by mr hyatt in the presentation that he did with his his physical model right i mean it's got some geometrical complexity but it's nothing compared with some buildings i
00:13:20 nothing compared with some buildings i can
00:13:21 can think of by comparison with really stated cutting-edge buildings it it's not
00:13:28 it's not especially complex in my view i think so you maintain your view that grenfell tower was a large project but not a particularly complex project in terms of facade design yes yes
00:13:46 and is the main consideration to be taken into account when deciding whether a facade engineer is necessary for a large project um the capability of the existing professional team
00:13:59 professional team effectively yes yeah yes now in terms of the pre-novation stage so the potential appointment of a facade consultant by the client in this case that would be the tmo um
00:14:11 in this case that would be the tmo um if we look at paragraph 6.6.2 on page 27 of your report
00:14:17 we can see that you're asked the question
00:14:21 question um sorry just before 6.6.2 in the in italics you're asked the question would you expect consideration to have been given
00:14:28 given to the appointment of a facade engineer or consultant to advise a local authority on a project such as the refurbishment of grenfell tower if so by whom would you expect such an appointment to have been considered
00:14:40 considered and you say at 6.6.2 in the case of the grenfell tower refurbishment i would expect such an appointment to have been considered by the tenant management organization in dialogue with studio e during the
00:14:52 in dialogue with studio e during the pre-novation phase the dialogue would have needed to address whether studio e had the required experience and or technical expertise in overcladding a tall residential building so that's what you
00:15:05 residential building so that's what you told us you would have expected so does it follow that you would have expected the client the tmo to have been aware of the availability of facade engineers and facade
00:15:16 of facade engineers and facade consultants as a potential resource to assist with the design and specification of the overcladding system i wouldn't be sure if if the tmo would
00:15:27 i wouldn't be sure if if the tmo would have
00:15:27 have um been aware of it but i i'm sure that studio e would have been aware of that possibility i see so do you is it your opinion that it the person initiating the
00:15:40 that it the person initiating the discussion about whether a fire engineer should have been appointed was the should have been the architect in this case probably yes yes yes
00:15:52 um did you mean the fire engineer facade sorry
00:15:55 sorry i didn't mean funny to come up in the trenches sorry i meant facade engineer facade consultant yes thank you can we just look at mr hyatt's expert report for a moment this
00:16:07 hyatt's expert report for a moment this is a p
00:16:07 is a p h y r 5 0 27 page 17.
00:16:17 he says at 2.5.14 he says accordingly it's my opinion that at the time of the appointment studio studio e would rightly have considered themselves well able to
00:16:29 considered themselves well able to undertake a project of this of the type size and complexity of the grenfell tower refurbishment and overcladding albeit i would expect that they should have recognized that their then current levels of knowledge and skill
00:16:41 current levels of knowledge and skill would need to be expanded this could have been done by undertaking research into the discrete characteristics of the project that they were about to undertake and if necessary making some strategic
00:16:53 necessary making some strategic hires such approaches are common amongst architects when undertaking new commissions so with reference to mr hyatt there
00:17:04 so with reference to mr hyatt there saying that that they perhaps ought to have thought about supplementing its knowledge
00:17:09 knowledge by making strategic hires would you also suggest
00:17:13 suggest that they should have considered obtaining advice from a facade consultant or engineer well i'm not making a comment i haven't made a comment on studio e's capabilities i've only said that
00:17:24 capabilities i've only said that it would have been normal to have the diet the discussion yes um i i have to assess as part of my brief
00:17:31 brief studious capability for this um so i i i would wouldn't answer your question yes they should have considered it
00:17:42 should have considered it um but if they had doubts about their capability to do this and that's a question they needed to consider themselves then they should have considered appointing a facade engineer yes that's
00:17:55 appointing a facade engineer yes that's helpful
00:17:57 if we assume hypothetically that a facade engineer or consultant had been appointed at the pre-innovation stage i
00:18:04 stage i prior to the appointment of ryden as design and build contractor in your experience would such a facade engineer
00:18:12 engineer have had a role in selecting or specifying products for use in the facade
00:18:20 pre-contract you mean yes
00:18:24 in my experience um products were rarely specified by their specific product name but more generically yes or um by
00:18:35 but more generically yes or um by performance characteristics so it's quite unusual in my experience to specify a particular product i mean i have been involved in one project where we did do that that was highly unusual
00:18:49 we did do that that was highly unusual uh it's not normal yes
00:18:54 yes that's helpful the point being that it's usually left to the contractor to propose a product and then the consultant reviews its
00:19:05 and then the consultant reviews its acceptability yes yes and would you anticipate that there would be design development meetings between the architect and any facade engineer to look at the
00:19:16 and any facade engineer to look at the development of the design for the facade oh absolutely yeah yeah now you've picked up in your report the fact that for the grenfell tower project
00:19:26 project the structural engineer curtains consulting wrote a specification for the overcladding work which did address more than just structural matters
00:19:37 structural matters if we can look at where you deal with this in your report if we go to page 27 and look at 6.6.3
00:19:46 i just want to read what you've put there you say i note however that the appointed structural engineer curtin's consulting wrote a specification entitled structural performance specification for the design supply and application of
00:19:58 the design supply and application of overcladding systems to grenfell tower dated march 2013. section 7.0 of this document is called overcladding and addresses more than just structural considerations
00:20:09 just structural considerations for example weather let me go over the page
00:20:19 where the performance and fire matters are also covered although not covered by my present brief i note the following extracts and then you've
00:20:27 you've uh put in a couple of extracts one where it says the system should comply with br 135 document and then an extract where it says the system
00:20:38 then an extract where it says the system shall not be a fire risk at any stage of installation nor shall it constitute a fire hazard after completion if for any reason the insulin
00:20:47 insulin becomes exposed and you say in the following paragraph i mentioned the above because it appears that curtains consulting covered both structural and non-structural issues in connection with the over cladding and that fact may have contributed to
00:20:59 and that fact may have contributed to the tmo's decision not to appoint a facade
00:21:02 facade engineer now in your experience was it unusual for a structural engineer to write a specification for a facade which went beyond purely
00:21:13 for a facade which went beyond purely structural matters yes very unusual right so this was an unusual situation yes in this instance and um you then go on in the next
00:21:25 and um you then go on in the next paragraph 6.6.5 you say the issue of who would pay the fees for a facade engineer would always be a factor in the discussion some building owners consider that they are already paying the architect to design and specify the start of the
00:21:36 design and specify the start of the building
00:21:37 building and they do not see a need to pay another consultant to do this in cases where the building is large or of a complex nature the architect may nevertheless convince the building owner that the appointment of a facade
00:21:48 that the appointment of a facade engineer is necessary
00:21:52 now in circumstances where the architect at the pre-innovation stage did not raise the appointment of a facade engineer and did not flag any difficulty with carrying out the design
00:22:03 difficulty with carrying out the design would you still have expected the client to consider the appointment of one no i think it should have been considered and but if the architect
00:22:16 but if the architect satisfied the client that they had the necessary technical expertise and experience then i can't see the client insisting on it
00:22:25 it right so so you're clear that it should have been
00:22:29 have been thought about and discussed at that stage yes yes now a paragraph nine in the summary of your report if we can go to page four this is where you're summarizing your
00:22:41 this is where you're summarizing your your opinions
00:22:45 just okay so have we left that topic or no no i'm still in the topic of a facade engineer pre-novation i'm going to look at post notation so paragraph 9 in this summary you say
00:22:57 so paragraph 9 in this summary you say the advantage of a facade consultancy or engineering for the building owner or architect is that the technical advice given is not attached to any commercial interests the engineers involved are expected to have detailed technical knowledge of the
00:23:09 have detailed technical knowledge of the construction industry and thereby to act as a trusted intermediary between the architect or building owner and the industry now can you just help us
00:23:18 us as to what it is that protects a facade engineer from being linked to commercial interests as you've indicated there
00:23:27 there yes what i mean is um if you're talking about
00:23:30 about getting advice from a manufacturer for example
00:23:34 example it's in the manufacturer's interest to sell their products so of course it's hard to say that they won't be
00:23:41 won't be biased in their opinion because they've got a direct commercial interest in selling product a or product b yes whereas um in the case of a facade engineer who presumably is not a
00:23:53 facade engineer who presumably is not a shareholder in a manufacturing company um then the advice given is based on purely technical considerations and they don't stand to gain or make profit from uh from
00:24:05 or make profit from uh from from from their advice yes what about advice
00:24:08 advice given at an early stage by a specialist cladding contractor would you have reasonably expected that to be attached to commercial interests or
00:24:18 or would you expect that to be independent in the same way that the facade engineer would be
00:24:25 would be they're they're in a halfway stage probably between the manufacturer and the
00:24:31 the the consultant but inevitably a contractor is in a position where they have to build something for a certain sum of money and it's in their interests to
00:24:44 and it's in their interests to use products which satisfy the specification um but not pay over the odds for those products so that they maximize their their return yes
00:24:55 maximize their their return yes so yes there are commercial interests yes
00:24:58 yes so if if at the pre-novation stage gdoe or anyone else including the tmo went
00:25:05 went only to cladding contractors or manufacturers there's a danger that the advice that you're getting is going to be influenced by those commercial interests yes yes now just moving on to think
00:25:18 yes yes now just moving on to think about the post novation stage so imagine we're in a design and build context a design and build contractor is appointed as occurred on grenfell tower
00:25:30 grenfell tower at that stage and once the principal contractor is on board would you expect that principal contractor itself to be first of all aware of the existence of facade consultants as a potential resource yes
00:25:45 consultants as a potential resource yes would you have expected a design and build contractor on a project like grenfell tower to have at least considered the appointment of a facade engineer or consultant yes
00:25:57 engineer or consultant yes what about a specialist cladding contractor themselves so i those akin to harley facades are there ever circumstances in which they may consider appointing a facade consultant directly
00:26:10 appointing a facade consultant directly for advice i i i can't see it being necessary in this context no the sort of situation would be where the specialist contractor did not have their
00:26:23 specialist contractor did not have their own design office and typically they might hire an outside engineer to do the detailed structural design for example or sometimes
00:26:34 or sometimes an outside drafting company to do the the detailed drawings and so on but i i as i understand it on this particular uh project that that that wasn't needed
00:26:45 uh project that that that wasn't needed the they had in-house capability as i they did understood it but that subcontractor had that capability yes
00:26:56 capability yes does the fact that harley didn't have anyone with a completed qualification in facade engineering nor anyone formally appointed to the role of technical manager at the time of the grenfell tower
00:27:07 at the time of the grenfell tower refurbishment have any bearing on on this question i don't think having a technical qualification in facade engineering per
00:27:18 qualification in facade engineering per se
00:27:20 se had a bearing on it and what was the second part of your question yes uh nor was there anyone appointed to the role of a technical manager at the time of the grenfell tower
00:27:32 refurbishment i'm not quite sure about what the role of that technical manager would have been
00:27:40 been yes they certainly needed someone who was a technical uh design person yeah who would have been
00:27:49 been reviewing and reviewing technical submissions and drawings and preparing information to send to the architect and so on for a review and would that technical design person need to be able to make an assessment of
00:28:03 need to be able to make an assessment of fire performance and fire safety as well as
00:28:06 as structural performance and structural safety yes that would have been one of the
00:28:11 the many things they had to consider yes yes um if we can turn to section 6.3 on page 25 of your
00:28:23 page 25 of your report
00:28:27 you'll ask the question you can see in bolden italics if a facade engineer or consultant was not instructed on a project who would you expect to undertake that role or perform the duties
00:28:38 perform the duties ordinarily carried out by such a person and at 6.3.3 at the bottom of that page you say
00:28:45 you say if however the facade engineer would have been appointed by the main contractor and they were not so appointed their role would have to be carried out by the main contractor's own design office
00:28:57 main contractor's own design office or by an architect appointed by the main contractor as a sub-consultant and then you say if none of these sources of expertise were available
00:29:08 so if we go over the page if none of these sources of expertise were available the specialist facade contractor would have to be relied upon to provide the necessary design and
00:29:20 to provide the necessary design and technical
00:29:21 technical expertise so that's your evidence there
00:29:26 is it your opinion that if a facade engineer was not appointed and such expertise was not available elsewhere
00:29:34 elsewhere the reasonably competent specialist cladding contractor could be relied upon to have such design and technical expertise in-house yes if they were reasonably competent
00:29:46 yes if they were reasonably competent yes
00:29:47 yes so any reasonably competent cladding contractor in the absence of someone else being appointed ought to have had the relevant design and technical expertise
00:29:58 expertise yes yes i if i could just add yes i have experienced in my own career um situations where i i the
00:30:09 situations where i i the main contractor wanted to vet the information being provided by the specialist subcontractor and uh therefore wanted to appoint a
00:30:21 and uh therefore wanted to appoint a facade consultant to review the subcontractor's work yes that's that's not that uncommon yes i've had a few cases like that um so i i think
00:30:34 um so i i think it wouldn't happen if if they if the main contractor was comfortable enough with the technical technical expertise of the subcontractor they didn't feel they needed to review it yes then
00:30:46 it yes then that wouldn't happen but if they felt that they had some concerns about it then they would appoint a forsyth engineer to be a sort of intermediary yeah that sounds like there ought to have been
00:30:58 like there ought to have been some assessment by the main contractor of the technical expertise and competence yes of the cladding subcontractor is that right yes yes
00:31:09 right yes yes and can you give us an example what's the nature of that assessment how would you find out that information about whether you're cladding subcontractor had the necessary design and technical expertise
00:31:21 expertise to mean that you didn't need another resource or another checking exercise to be carried out probably i would imagine through through a process of interviewing meeting the md
00:31:34 interviewing meeting the md and the chief technical person and just getting a sense of what the capabilities were yes
00:31:42 now you say on on page 22 of your report if we can go to that at paragraph 5.2.2
00:31:53 you say um it therefore follows so if we could just blow that top paragraph up to make it a bit bigger on the screen
00:32:02 it therefore follows that a reasonably competent cladding contractor would be expected to have a person or people in their technical department who had the expertise necessary to deal with the
00:32:13 expertise necessary to deal with the design and technical matters that were likely to arise such people would be expected to recognize where there were gaps in their expertise and to know how to go about filling those gaps
00:32:25 those gaps either through research or by consulting others with appropriate expertise now um would you expect this
00:32:36 um would you expect this in in take the kind of average uk cladding contractor a reasonably competent one would you expect it to be one individual within that organization with the necessary technical
00:32:47 with the necessary technical and design expertise or would you expect there to be a team of people who would all have that expertise it really depends how large the contractor is yes um if it's a small contractor you
00:32:59 yes um if it's a small contractor you might have just have one person and you know large contractors have several yeah and can you give us an idea of precisely what experience and qualifications you would expect such a
00:33:10 qualifications you would expect such a person or such people to have obtained in order to be competent
00:33:16 competent to deal with design and technical matters
00:33:20 matters i wouldn't necessarily say they had to have a particular academic qualification i mean some people have degrees
00:33:27 degrees other people don't but that but they may be perfectly capable of of doing the work it's probably experience uh is is is more as important
00:33:39 uh is is is more as important if not more important yes so experience of designing facades and dealing with all aspects of the facade design including fire performance yes
00:33:50 yes yeah um
00:33:53 yeah um just some further questions about um the obligations of a design and build subcontractor um if we look at page 26 of your report paragraph 6.4.2
00:34:09 we see um well let's start with the question that you're posed there we can see
00:34:15 see from the question at 6.4 responsibility for designing the facade that you're asked the question how would that person's role relate to the role of the architect if both were
00:34:26 the role of the architect if both were appointed which of them would normally take primary responsibility for designing the facade so here you're being asked a question which touches on this
00:34:38 which touches on this the division of responsibility between an architect who may have been appointed at the pre-innovation stage as well and then a cladding contractor um the facade and at 6.4.2
00:34:52 the facade and at 6.4.2 you explain that it it may depend on how the contract is written in terms of responsibilities and you give us some specific examples i'm not going to read this all out in the context of what the grenfell
00:35:03 in the context of what the grenfell contract says and you say um in that paragraph that there was a a general obligation on the main contractor which was passed on to harley in relation to the facade works
00:35:16 in relation to the facade works and that included the design of the facade
00:35:23 is it right that it wouldn't be possible to complete a design of a facade without first considering and accepting or rejecting the basic premise of the design
00:35:36 the basic premise of the design that the cladding contractor was inheriting based on the work of the architect at the pre-nevation stage yes um
00:35:47 there's an interaction really on the one hand the
00:35:50 hand the s the specialist contractor would take it that the architect had done a reasonable job in producing a design which was technically sound and
00:36:03 design which was technically sound and compliant
00:36:04 compliant with regulations on the other hand the subcontractor took on that responsibility and therefore had to satisfy themselves that it was
00:36:15 satisfy themselves that it was technically competent in compliance they couldn't just rely on the architect having done it but had to satisfy themselves independently that it it did in fact do the job yes that's very helpful
00:36:29 now in your experience and in circumstances where and i know you said this on is unusual but in circumstances where product selection had occurred yeah in the architect specifications so
00:36:41 in the architect specifications so they've not just done a performance specification you've actually got some products selected would you expect a reasonably competent cladding contractor responsible for the design of the facade to have
00:36:53 for the design of the facade to have reconsidered that product selection as part of its design obligations and its design work yes i think uh it had a duty of care to to
00:37:08 uh it had a duty of care to to satisfy itself that the products met the specification and regulations yes yes so you wouldn't just take a product that was in the spec yes say well it must be compliant it
00:37:19 yes say well it must be compliant it must be fine and we'll work with that and just move forward to deal with fixings etcetera you would actually ask yourself the question afresh whether that was the right product for this job
00:37:31 that was the right product for this job yes yes yeah
00:37:38 and can you help us as to how it would work in practice in terms of how much weight would be placed on the design work of an architect
00:37:47 architect what kind of factors would influence how much weight you would place on that design if you were the design and build subcontractor coming in with design responsibility
00:38:03 in the sense of weight in the sense of confidence in that design you mean yeah what what factors would influence how confident you were in that design and the extent to which you would place
00:38:14 and the extent to which you would place any
00:38:14 any weight on it if that makes sense yes i i suppose it it would have to depend to some extent on the experience and reputation of the architect
00:38:23 architect and what one felt about them um
00:38:28 if if one had a let's say a small inexperienced architect the cladding contractor would probably look at it more closely in practice
00:38:41 look at it more closely in practice or on the other hand if you had a big international experienced architect they might look at it a bit less closely but
00:38:48 but to be honest my feeling is their duty of care is the same in both cases yes thank you let's take the example of cavity barriers for a moment in circumstances where
00:39:00 circumstances where some work had been done on a cavity barrier scheme and design by the architect in your view would the reasonably competent cladding contractor have checked that those cavity barriers
00:39:12 have checked that those cavity barriers were in fact compliant with relevant guidance including approved document b it's interesting um if you go back to the previous page in answering your question yes page 25
00:39:25 in answering your question yes page 25 of your report yes uh oh sorry no sorry we're in a different section um
00:39:37 i'm sorry i've i thought we were in a different um section of the room don't worry if you if you can tell us which section you want to be in yeah it was um when we were talking about the uh appointment of
00:39:50 the uh appointment of the cladding contractor and the appointment of the architect post contract um the architects the cladding attractors appointment said
00:40:01 the cladding attractors appointment said something quite specific which was they have detailed design responsibility yes i don't recall that being said in the architect's appointment but it did say in the architect's appointment
00:40:13 say in the architect's appointment that they had responsibility for coordinating compliance i think something like that those words so if you go back i think to page 26 of your
00:40:25 you go back i think to page 26 of your report
00:40:25 report yes um you're doing it with a 6.4.2 yeah yeah is that the bit you wanted yes um is it 6.4.3 by contrast right here's
00:40:36 um is it 6.4.3 by contrast right here's contrast
00:40:37 contrast much more specific and referred you just scroll down a bit
00:40:47 um yes you see it refers to coordination of building regulations approvals yes that seemed to be studio e's responsibility to their contract
00:41:02 on the other hand
00:41:05 harlow's responsibility seems to be they remain fully responsible for the design including relevant compliances so there's a bit of an overlap there yes um
00:41:15 um and it's difficult you know i i i think it's tricky when both an architect and a clowning subcontractor are both appointed to have some design responsibilities
00:41:26 responsibilities it's a bit tricky to know who's really ultimately responsible they both are really yes could coordination of building regulations approvals be effectively the coordination and the
00:41:37 effectively the coordination and the communication with building control leaving the cladding sorry cutting subcontractor to be fully responsible for the design
00:41:48 for the design yes it yes it could be read like that yes
00:41:52 yes um well before you go on with scrange i i would find it helpful to have an answer to the question that miss grange actually asked you before that little diversion which was this that in a case where some work had
00:42:05 this that in a case where some work had been done on cavity barrier scheme and designed by the architect would the reasonably competent cladding contractor have checked that the cavity barriers were in fact compliant with adb
00:42:18 were in fact compliant with adb in other words would he regard himself as under an obligation yes to check the architect's work yes the answer is yes thank you yes thank you
00:42:32 if the reasonably competent cladding contractor had subcontracted the installation itself of the cavity barriers to another company
00:42:42 company would you expect that cladding contractor to themselves to carefully supervise and regularly check the installation to ensure it was compliant
00:42:53 yes yes now if we go to page 27 of your report now in 6.6.3
00:43:05 now in 6.6.3 this is where you're discussing the curtains consulting specification that was prepared for grenfell tower that we've just discussed and we can see that this curtains
00:43:17 and we can see that this curtains specification expressly states that the system should comply fully with the br135
00:43:24 the br135 document and i think you see that over the page if we look one page over there at 7.1.3 the system should comply fully with the bre
00:43:36 should comply fully with the bre document
00:43:38 document in those circumstances and assuming for the moment that this curtain specification was incorporated into harley's subcontract for the cladding work would you have expected someone within harley to have
00:43:50 expected someone within harley to have read br135 in full yes yeah and the curtain specification to which you refer there also incorporated two further cwct
00:44:03 also incorporated two further cwct documents
00:44:04 documents um it's the two cwt documents that we discussed
00:44:08 discussed earlier the older ones the standard for walls with ventilated rain screens from 1998
00:44:14 1998 and the guide to good practice for facades from 1996. and again the same question in those circumstances where you've got express incorporation of particular guidance
00:44:25 incorporation of particular guidance documents
00:44:26 documents in the subcontract do you consider that the reasonably competent cladding contractor should have read those documents as well yes yeah um just briefly um if we turn to that
00:44:41 um just briefly um if we turn to that cwct standard the standard for walls with ventilated rain screens first published 1998 at cwct five zeros 53 page 45.
00:44:59 if we look at um in the middle of that page paragraph 20. sorry 220.4 there's a section ventilated cavity
00:45:10 there's a section ventilated cavity it says the cavity behind the rain screen and in front of the air barrier should not include materials which can significantly promote flame spread within the unseen cavity in general this zone may contain a timber aluminium or
00:45:22 zone may contain a timber aluminium or other metal vertical framework and an appropriate non-combustible insulation do you see that there yes [Applause] and the notes to on the right of this
00:45:33 and the notes to on the right of this section in in slightly smaller typeface you can see it says on the right the use of any non-com of any combustible material for the cladding framework and insulation within the cavity may need to be carefully considered as
00:45:45 may need to be carefully considered as the building height increases it is often necessary for the purposes of ventilation to subdivide the building into compartments etc and then at 2.20.8 on page 46
00:46:01 and then at 2.20.8 on page 46 we can see in under the heading insulation in the cavity it tells us where it is necessary to provide insulation in the cavity fixed to the outer face of the air barrier for the purposes of thermal insulation
00:46:12 for the purposes of thermal insulation and condensation control then the insulation shall be of a non-combustible type um and then on the right it says in certain conditions insulation with
00:46:23 certain conditions insulation with appropriate surface spread of flame characteristics may be considered however the use of a separate fire barrier not incorporating or incorporating the combustible insulation should always be specified
00:46:34 should always be specified so we've got those excerpts there and then if we look at the the other cwct document from 1996 which is at cwct 5055
00:46:46 which is at cwct 5055 page 13. this is the guide to good practice for facades
00:46:53 on page 13 we can see at paragraph 4 10.1
00:47:01 under thermal insulation it says thermal insulation shall be inert durable rot and vermin proof and should not be degradable by moisture or water vapor
00:47:11 vapor attention is drawn to the fire performance of some insulating materials as set out in the relevant standard so we can see that there was guidance within those cwct documents about
00:47:22 about the need for non-combustible or inert uh insulation now taking those exits just to be clear i mean inert doesn't mean non-combustible just just to be so we're not no i
00:47:34 just just to be so we're not no i understand that i do understand that um but taking those excerpts into account
00:47:40 account would you agree that if the curtains performance specification uh was followed which incorporated ref express reference to these two documents it would have led a reasonably competent
00:47:51 it would have led a reasonably competent cladding contractor to select non-combustible or limit at least limited combustibility insulation
00:48:01 yes however i'd like to qualify that yes as we discussed earlier the approved document b
00:48:12 the approved document b uh would have been considered in together with these documents and i think uh cladding contractor probably would have looked at proof document b
00:48:23 have looked at proof document b and said well approved document b allows me to do this so i'll follow that because it would have had a greater weight yes i see yeah
00:48:36 yes now fire strategy reports now i want to ask you some questions about cladding contractors obligations in relation to fire strategy
00:48:48 in relation to fire strategy reports if we go to page 62 of your report
00:48:58 this is under the the heading relationship between cladding contractor and
00:49:02 and the fire engineer this time we can see that you're asked the question
00:49:08 question um to what extent this is at little a below that to what extent was it the practice
00:49:14 practice for fire safety or fire strategy reports prepared by fire engineers to be considered by specialist cladding designers or contractors and and you tell us at
00:49:26 or contractors and and you tell us at 18.1
00:49:28 18.1 you say fire safety and fire strategy reports contain much information relevant to their subject matter i would expect a cladding contractor to have read these reports
00:49:39 contractor to have read these reports and to take note of any matters which affected their work particularly with regard to materials and design detailing and then you go on
00:49:50 detailing and then you go on to say sorry sorry just pausing there when you say their fire safety and fire strategy reports contain much information relevant to their subject matter
00:50:02 relevant to their subject matter can you just expand on that for us and explain what information a cladding contractor would typically expect to find in a fire safety strategy report which would be
00:50:14 safety strategy report which would be relevant to their work well it would it might contain information about um the requirements for cavity barriers for example you
00:50:25 for cavity barriers for example you might say
00:50:26 might say cavity bearer should be provided at so many centers or or having a capability of so many minutes or something information that could be got from the approved document but
00:50:38 approved document but the fire strategy report might have set out that information just to make it easier yeah um it might show
00:50:49 um it might show where means of escape routes were sometimes
00:50:53 sometimes parts of the facade have to be breakable so that means of escape can be achieved some occasionally uh or breakable so that
00:51:06 occasionally uh or breakable so that fire brigade can get into the building in emergency um what else
00:51:14 there might be situations where parts of the building had to be fire resistant because they were near for example a railway line or something and therefore they had to have a
00:51:26 and therefore they had to have a two-hour fire rating or something like that
00:51:29 that so that sort of information yes thank you
00:51:32 you now in circumstances where these fire strategy reports or report had not been provided to a cladding
00:51:40 cladding contractor would you expect the reasonably competent cladding contractor to ask whether such fire safety reports existed
00:51:49 existed for a project like grenfell tower
00:51:57 if they weren't provided as part of their contract
00:52:06 i would expect them to ask the question whether they existed if an issue arose that would have been covered by such a report
00:52:17 would have been covered by such a report you know if there was some question mark about something or other and and i can imagine the contractor asking well
00:52:24 well what does the fire strategy report say yeah you know but in the absence of such a question i i wouldn't imagine they would ask for such a report right so they're not such
00:52:35 not such um important documents or documents that are so routinely provided to cladding contractors that you would expect in the abstract
00:52:44 abstract at least the question to be posed is there a fire strategy report for this building
00:52:50 building no no
00:52:56 the point being is that a cladding contractor would be expected to provide all necessary documentation by the main contractor yes and and if there was no such
00:53:07 there was no such fire safety strategy available to the cladding contractor at the point in a project when the cladding was being designed would you expect a question to be raised at that stage
00:53:19 at that stage well we're at the clouding design stage is there a fire strategy report that we need to be taking into account sorry at the pre-contract stage well at any point when the cladding is
00:53:30 well at any point when the cladding is being designed let's assume it's harley and they've come in as ryden's subcontractor yes they're they're going to take studio e's design work and carry it forward to carry on designing the facade would
00:53:43 to carry on designing the facade would you expect them to ask ryden whether there was a fire safety strategy for the building well as i said it's really the same answer
00:53:55 it's really the same answer i wouldn't expect them to ask for it unless there was a specific issue that had arisen which suggested that they needed it
00:54:06 yes at paragraph 18.2 of your report it's there on the screen we can see you've been asked the question if a fire engineer had been appointed
00:54:16 appointed to what extent was it the practice for there to be collaboration between the fire engineer and the cladding designer or contractor and then you answer 18.2 following on from their reading of the fire strategy
00:54:28 from their reading of the fire strategy or fire safety reports or related risk assessments the cladding contractor might have questions and seek clarification on some issues so that that's the evidence you were just giving
00:54:39 that's the evidence you were just giving you go on you say during the course of a contract i would therefore expect them to raise these issu these questions with the appropriate party contractually this would normally be via the main
00:54:50 this would normally be via the main contractor but in practice the cladding contractor might address the architect on this
00:54:55 on this or even the fire consultant directly provided that all correspondence is copied to the main contractor if the cladding contractor were to deal with the fire consultant directly in this way they would
00:55:06 this way they would need to have been authorized to do so by the main contractor
00:55:13 in your experience what kind of questions or clarifications would a cladding contractor typically raise having reviewed the fire safety strategy reports
00:55:29 well a good one is because i believe it's come up in evidence in the inquiry um has been what fire rating did the cavity barriers need to have
00:55:42 did the cavity barriers need to have yes um and i noted that issue went round and round several times before it was resolved um so that's the sort of thing that they
00:55:54 um so that's the sort of thing that they might have addressed yes or queried if a fire strategy was provided but it it wasn't complete if it said for
00:56:05 but it it wasn't complete if it said for example that a particular analysis would be confirmed in a later issue of the report would you expect the reasonably competent cladding contractor to
00:56:16 contractor to pick up on that and ask whether there was a final version of the fire strategy yes i would expect any member of the project team to pick up on that yes
00:56:29 yes now i'm i'm going to ask you some questions now about the bba certificate for the rayner bond 55 at acm panels
00:56:43 just as a general proposition to what extent would you expect the reasonably competent cladding contractor to rely on information in a bba certificate
00:56:55 on information in a bba certificate about say the fire performance of a particular product i would expect them to rely on it to a great extent because the bba is is considered a
00:57:06 bba is is considered a reputable body and their certificates generally to be trusted yes so
00:57:13 yes so if you could just encapsulate for us what was the reputation of the bba and their certificates within the cladding and
00:57:20 and industry during the relevant period 2012 to 2017
00:57:25 to 2017 how would you describe the reputation that bba certificates had it was a good reputation yeah if we look at page 49 of your report paragraph
00:57:38 12.1 want to look at the first four lines of that
00:57:44 you're being asked sorry you're being asked about um the understanding by the cladding industry of fire test evidence and to what extent was it common within the cladding industry to be
00:57:56 the cladding industry to be requesting fire test evidence from manufacturers or suppliers of cladding products
00:58:01 products and at 12.1 you say specialist contractors or their cladding designers would
00:58:06 would normally have referred to the manufacturer's technical literature and and or relevant certification for the products they were considering
00:58:18 and you say such certification would have included for example bba or labc certification now you say that specialist contractors
00:58:29 now you say that specialist contractors would normally have referred to the manufacturer's technical literature and or relevant certification if the reasonably competent clouding contractor was aware that a product held certification from the
00:58:41 certification from the bba or the labc for example would you expect them to review those certificates as part of its assessment of the product
00:58:52 yes i think i've said elsewhere in general i would expect the contractor as a whole to accept that certification but i would expect their technical department to look at it
00:59:04 their technical department to look at it a little bit more closely yes yes so um
00:59:11 yes so um just to examine the details of the certificate that's what i mean yes yes just staying with this paragraph and carrying on picking up in the fourth line you say
00:59:22 picking up in the fourth line you say these so this is 12.1 these certificates in turn
00:59:25 in turn may have given relevant bs en or fire test references and strictly the cladding contractor or their designers should have looked at this background information however in my view most cladding
00:59:36 however in my view most cladding contractor designers would have regarded the bba or labc as an authority and they would have been content to rely on the certificates without going back to the source data provided of course that they
00:59:48 provided of course that they the contractors were mindful of any caveats
00:59:51 caveats included in this certification
00:59:56 now in in section 13 of your report we don't need to turn to it you've identified a number of important features concerning the bba
01:00:07 important features concerning the bba certificate from 2008 for the rayna bond panels i'm just going to summarize some of the features you've identified for example you've identified that the first page of
01:00:19 you've identified that the first page of the certificate gives the impression that the product has class naught without qualification that's one of the points you've made but you go on to explain that section six of the certificate
01:00:30 six of the certificate on fire performance contains much technical detail which requires significant analysis in order to obtain a clear understanding of what exactly the fire properties are
01:00:41 of what exactly the fire properties are of the product is that fair offense summary yes and you know i've still got i've still got section 12 up on the screen here yes sorry we can just turn to section
01:00:52 yes sorry we can just turn to section 13.
01:00:54 13. um so i think it's the next page or the page after if we go to page 50 yes here it is
01:01:04 um and you've also said that it was not clear exactly what was covered by the certificate and whether that included the whole cassette system or the subframe supporting it and you have
01:01:16 the subframe supporting it and you have said that at the very least that ambiguity about whether the certificate covered the cassette panels should have led accounting contracted to raise that question with arconic yes yes yes now in those circumstances
01:01:28 yes yes yes now in those circumstances and particularly given what you've said about the important limitations contained in section 6 of the certificate would it have been necessary do you think to consider the the underlying source tests and and test
01:01:41 the underlying source tests and and test data
01:01:43 data in order for someone to fully understand the fire performance of the product and in order to understand the certificate and its limitations i think i think the question should have been asked i'm not saying that the
01:01:55 been asked i'm not saying that the cladding contractors should themselves have necessarily interrogated the test data but at least they should have had a dialogue with the manufacturer to find out what information for what
01:02:06 to find out what information for what background information there was to the certificate yes yes so that the true the true nature of the products fire performance could be ascertained yes yes
01:02:21 yes yes now if we go now to paragraph 13.3 of your report at page 50.
01:02:29 i think this is where you're dealing with the point about who should have read
01:02:33 read which bits of the certificate and you say in my opinion most members of a cladding contractor staff would have been content to see that a product was covered by a bba certificate and would probably not
01:02:44 bba certificate and would probably not have read the details on that certificate but the but then you go on however those members of the cladding contractors staff with technical or design responsibility would be expected to be
01:02:55 responsibility would be expected to be more familiar with the details of the certificate and i would expect them to have read it in greater detail now just to be absolutely clear is it
01:03:06 now just to be absolutely clear is it your opinion that the reasonably competent
01:03:08 competent cladding contractor would ensure that somebody
01:03:11 somebody with technical or design responsibility had read
01:03:15 had read any relevant bba certificate in detail to ensure that the product was appropriate for its intended use on a project yes and that would involve reading the whole of the certificate in
01:03:27 reading the whole of the certificate in its entirety not just any summary on the front yes yes
01:03:33 and then you go on to say at 13.5 on that same page
01:03:43 you say um in my opinion it's mislead you're talking about the certificate is misleadingly drafted in that it gives the impression that the product has a class naught rating without qualification however on turning to section six it's
01:03:54 however on turning to section six it's apparent that this contains vital information about the details and limitation of the fire testing carried out and you say i consider that a reasonably competent clouding contractor should have read section 6
01:04:05 have read section 6 in full had they done so they would have been alerted to the fact that the bba certificate was very specific in its scope
01:04:16 now in your opinion would it be incumbent upon those members of staff with technical or design responsibility to alert other employees within the
01:04:27 to alert other employees within the cladding contractors staff about the certificate's limited scope if they
01:04:32 they had appreciated that yes would it also be incumbent upon the reasonably competent cladding contractor to alert
01:04:41 to alert other third parties to the limitations of the certificate if it had been read properly yes for example sorry yes um for example the main contractor on the project
01:04:52 the project yes the architect yes the fire engineer
01:05:00 well they would yeah um
01:05:04 i would imagine not so much alerting the fire engineer but they might have been brought
01:05:07 brought into the discussion of what to do about it yes
01:05:11 it yes yes what about the building control officers responsible for for approving the project
01:05:19 yes although one would have thought that they'd resolve it as a team in-house first before going to the building control yes yeah but assume let's assume they haven't resolved it in-house
01:05:30 resolved it in-house but then someone realizes the certificate has these limitations in those circumstances would you expect it to have been raised with building control and the question asked what building control thought about
01:05:42 what building control thought about those limitations yes well can i start would you expect the
01:05:47 the cladding contractor to do that himself or would you expect him to alert you know that another member of the team who could be expected to approach building that's that's a fair
01:05:58 approach building that's that's a fair point i mean i'm not talking about the logistics of this so much um i i think the way this sort of thing would have happened is that a discussion would take place between
01:06:09 a discussion would take place between the specialist contractor and the main contractor and the architect and they'd come to a conclusion about what to do and they'd decide which of them should approach who and and that's how it would
01:06:21 approach who and and that's how it would go and it wouldn't necessarily be the specialist doing that approach you're right i mean it would probably be if it's building control it'd probably be the architect then there could be an interesting question if the
01:06:33 question if the uh line that the main contractor wanted to take was not one which the subcontractor was entirely happy with exactly
01:06:42 exactly so yes that's why they'd have to agree as a team first before they made any approach to building control yes all right thank you very much yes thank you
01:06:54 thank you now sticking with the bba certificate if we go to page 51 just one page on within section 13 to 13.8 one of the specific points
01:07:07 to 13.8 one of the specific points you've picked up on is that clause 6.4 of the certificate states that these performances may not be achieved by other colors of the product and goes on to say that if another paint finish is used the designations for a
01:07:19 finish is used the designations for a particular color should be confirmed by test or assessment in accordance with approved document b appendix a clause one you say this clause broadly requires further testing
01:07:31 clause broadly requires further testing and assessment by suitably qualified specialists now is that an example of the kind of detail that you would have expected um members of a of staff with technical
01:07:43 um members of a of staff with technical or design responsibility within the cladding contractor to pick up on
01:07:48 up on yes i would imagine they would have gone back to the manufacturer and said well what does this mean and we're planning to use color x and the certificate is for color y what are
01:08:00 the certificate is for color y what are the implications yes
01:08:05 yes so and those are the steps you think are reasonably competent cladding contractors should have taken once they realized and appreciated that the color panel they were proposing was
01:08:17 the color panel they were proposing was not covered by the certificate yes yeah it's by the way it's not only about color it's about the paint type as well yes yeah yes um and you say at paragraph 13.9 of
01:08:28 yes um and you say at paragraph 13.9 of your report on that same page you say i also note that the mention in section 6.2 of the bba certificate of the existence of
01:08:39 bba certificate of the existence of the fr chord acm panels which appears to achieve national class naught as required would at the very least have informed a cladding contractor that an fr
01:08:50 cladding contractor that an fr rated version of the product was available
01:08:54 available now would you agree that the reasonably competent cladding contractor during the relevant period should have been aware in any event that many major manufacturers
01:09:05 manufacturers for example a luca bond were manufacturing fr variants as at 2013 2014. should they have known that in any event
01:09:16 should they have known that in any event regardless of of what was said in this specific bba certificate i i don't know i'm sorry no that's fine
01:09:27 did there come a time when fr metal composite panels were widely known to be available in the uk market
01:09:37 uk market so i missed the first part of that yeah did there come a point when fr metal composite panels were widely known to be available in the uk market i i i can't give you a date for that
01:09:49 i i i can't give you a date for that i'm afraid are you aware that in the middle of 2013 some cladding panel manufacturers stop promoting acm panels with an unmodified polyethylene core and
01:10:01 with an unmodified polyethylene core and or
01:10:02 or more actively promoted their acn panels with a fire resistant core in response to safety concerns generated by the uae cladding fires yes
01:10:14 given the functional requirement in b41 and the fact that the pe panel did not on a close reading of the bba certificate in fact achieve national class nord do you agree that
01:10:27 national class nord do you agree that the reasonably competent cladding contractor should have been considering an fr panel as a minimum level of fire performance in any event
01:10:45 in any event i'm just trying there seem to be two questions there yes i'm sorry i think yeah um let me make it more simple so let's take the functional requirement given the functional requirement do you agree that the reasonably
01:10:57 do you agree that the reasonably competent cladding contractor should have been considering an fr panel as a minimum level of fire performance in any event
01:11:08 in answer to your question as far as i understand it the bba certificate showed that within certain constraints the fr panel achieved class zero yes um
01:11:22 achieved class zero yes um although for particular colors and it wasn't a cassette but that's another yes um and in that sense to achieve class naught
01:11:32 naught uh the only thing that the bva's difficult cover was to require was to use a an fr rated core yes
01:11:43 rated core yes yes i understand that that's the only thing that complied with class naught as directly tested yes yes
01:11:56 would you agree that even if uh it was proposed that an fr cladding panel might be used any reasonably competent cladding contractor would still need to verify the actual
01:12:07 would still need to verify the actual fire performance of any fr product yes now
01:12:16 yes now um a paragraph 310 of your report there you say furthermore i note that clause 1.1 of the certificate states that the panels are available either
01:12:28 the panels are available either plain-edged riveted system or flanged cassette system to suit architectural requirements and then figure one shows illustrations of both systems and we've looked at that many times where you can see the rivet system and the
01:12:40 you can see the rivet system and the cassette system in your view would a reasonably competent cladding contractor expect any significant difference in fire performance between these two systems
01:12:51 performance between these two systems i cassette versus ribbit would they expect that to be highlighted in a certificate that refers to both type of system
01:13:01 i'm not sure would they expect it would i expect it would a reasonably competent clouding contractor expect that any significant difference in fire performance between the two systems would be highlighted
01:13:12 would be highlighted in the certificate yes i think i think that would be reasonable for them to expect that yeah now if we turn to section 16 of your report on page 57
01:13:28 now in this in this section of your report you are explaining the factors which might lead to the use of acm panels
01:13:39 of acm panels uh with a with a pe core and and you tell us in 16.3 the acm panels are relatively stiff panels and that stiffness was an important property to enable it to
01:13:51 important property to enable it to resist wind pressure and damage impacts and you also tell us that the stiffness creates a flatter panel which is architecturally more acceptable and you go on to tell us
01:14:02 acceptable and you go on to tell us at 16.4 that acps contain roughly one-third
01:14:07 one-third the aluminium of aluminium panels of the same stiffness and the as aluminium is relatively more expensive than the pe core and acp will therefore be
01:14:18 core and acp will therefore be relatively cheaper than a panel of the same stiffness just using just aluminium and then in the next paragraph 16.5 you say
01:14:30 say also because pe has lower density than aluminium and acp is also lighter in weight having about two-thirds the weight of an aluminium panel of the same stiffness this makes the panel easier
01:14:42 stiffness this makes the panel easier for operatives to handle on-site which is a useful property particularly when working at height
01:14:50 now so those are some of the reasons that you've explained why these aluminium composite panels may be selected
01:14:59 selected in addition to those reasons in a competitive environment is another reason that acm with a pe core might be used is that it's cheaper than any other
01:15:08 any other composite cladding for example it's usually cheaper than a zinc composite product
01:15:14 product is that correct i would imagine yes yeah and it's usually cheaper than any fr
01:15:21 fr cord product yes i believe so yeah now in the next paragraph 16.6 you then give technical factors
01:15:33 16.6 you then give technical factors why which would lead to the acp not being selected for use and the first point you've made there is one
01:15:43 one the pe core is combustible and then two you've said the panels require careful detailing to avoid unsightly edges being visible
01:15:54 unsightly edges being visible [Applause] and then three the method of forming tight corners requires milling the inner inner aluminium sheet along the fold lines thus exposing the combustible core
01:16:06 lines thus exposing the combustible core and then for some architects have a preference for materials which are homogeneous and are not keen to consider composite materials
01:16:15 materials now just going back to that first point if we go back a page to the the reason the technical reasons why you might not select
01:16:25 select the aluminium composite panels and number one you've got the pe core is combustible can you help us here and it might sound like a very simple point but would you expect the reasonably competent cladding
01:16:37 expect the reasonably competent cladding contractor to understand that pe was a thermoplastic and therefore would be combustible
01:16:48 and therefore would be combustible i i'm not sure that they would understand it from the point of view of chemistry as you've expressed i think the understanding would have come from the fact that there were some known fires using this material
01:17:02 known fires using this material which apparently according to the press at least was started off by people's cigarettes being discarded right i don't know if that's true or not but yeah clearly the material was quite easily
01:17:13 easily ignited yeah so that much should have been understood that it was easily ignited and combustible yes
01:17:21 yes um should the potential dangers of exposing the combustible core along the fold lines have been foreseen in your opinion by the reasonably competent
01:17:32 the reasonably competent cladding contractor
01:17:38 no i don't think so in the sense that um i mean it may be that
01:17:45 that if a fire engineer might say that's that's a a big problem and and there are certain characteristics but i don't think a cladding contractor would have known that no uh and with the same answer sorry
01:17:56 no uh and with the same answer sorry just
01:18:00 once you're aware if you are aware that the material in the center of the panel
01:18:07 panel is combustible i might even say highly flammable
01:18:13 flammable it's not a very big leaf is it to see that is the more of it you expose the greater the risk of either it catching fire or if it does catch fire the fire propagating at
01:18:24 the fire propagating at greater rate yes i i'm thinking didn't want to get too involved but when the
01:18:33 the you you mill away part of the uh the line on inside the panel right and then fold it um the two aluminium inside faces come
01:18:44 um the two aluminium inside faces come together
01:18:45 together they do do they they they do come together therefore not it's a question of what amount of the polyethylene core is exposed and it may be that a cladding contractor
01:18:57 and it may be that a cladding contractor not being
01:18:57 not being a fire engineer might have looked at that and said well it's not exposing much of the core so it's probably all right i i i i
01:19:09 all right i i i i or if they were not sure because they could have sought help but it wasn't i i wouldn't say it was um
01:19:17 automatically the case self-evidently the case that it was going to be a problem
01:19:23 problem it would have needed specialist advice yes sorry thank you what about the exposed edges around around the edges of the panel so with these cassettes even if we
01:19:34 so with these cassettes even if we ignore
01:19:35 ignore the the routing and the folding of the panel you've got exposed edges all the way around the cassette box and the same with the riveted panels would you expected the reasonably
01:19:46 would you expected the reasonably competent cladding contractor to understand the risks of exposing those edges where you have exposed pe where it's a flat sheet you mean
01:19:57 sheet you mean and yes the core is exposed yes i i i would have thought that understandable if the core was combustible um then
01:20:08 um then the exposed core would be it would be a danger yes yes yes but as i say i i don't think that understanding came so much from a consideration of the geometry of the
01:20:19 consideration of the geometry of the chemistry
01:20:20 chemistry as the fact that there had been some perfectly clear examples of where it had caught fire yes right mr chairman i think that's a very good moment for them yes we're going to have a short break
01:20:32 yes we're going to have a short break now
01:20:32 now exactly we'll come back at 25 to 4 please
01:20:36 please and usual requests please don't speak to anyone about your evidence
01:20:50 all right 25 to 4 please
01:36:03 yes would you ask mr sackler to come back in please
01:36:19 all right mr sackler ready to carry on a hip yes thanks thank you very much yes strange yes thank you now um staying with the acm cladding panels i now want to ask you some more questions
01:36:30 now want to ask you some more questions about the selection and use of those cladding panels and if we look at page 60
01:36:36 60 of your report in section 17.
01:36:41 i want to look at paragraph 17.5 um so you say there the industry's understanding of class naught has been discussed in section 14 of the present
01:36:52 discussed in section 14 of the present report
01:36:53 report i consider that a reasonably competent cladding contractor would have interpreted paragraph 12.6 of adb and diagram 40 as containing all the requirements for
01:37:04 as containing all the requirements for fire performance of the cladding namely a class nor national classification or the related euro norm e n classification shown on diagram 40.
01:37:15 diagram 40. i do not consider that they would have thought that other aspects of fire performance of the cladding needed to apply so that's your interpretation of paragraph 12.6
01:37:27 paragraph 12.6 and diagram 40 of approved document b so does it follow from this that it's your opinion that a composite panel with a combustible core
01:37:38 combustible core could comply with paragraph 12.6 and diagram 40 of approved document b provided the panel complied with national class naught yes yes
01:37:54 now we touched on this earlier and i think you agreed but wouldn't a reasonably competent cladding contractor have been aware that the class naught rating
01:38:04 rating only applied to the external skins and not the core i what was being tested in national class naught was really testing the surface or the outside of the
01:38:15 the surface or the outside of the product and not the core yes and a reasonably competent clouding contractor would have understood that yes yes
01:38:25 and in that regard can we look again at the cwtc
01:38:29 the cwtc well before we do can i just pursue this a little bit further yes because as i think everyone's agreed adb is only a guidance document
01:38:43 how does uh what about the actual regulation b4 that says the exterior wall must not promote the propagation of fire
01:38:54 propagation of fire almost adequately resist i think of the actual words yes um doesn't that come into play yes it does um
01:39:07 i mean the reason i ask the question is because i find it rather difficult to see that one can say as a cladding contractor well i so long as it's class naught
01:39:19 so long as it's class naught on the outer surface i don't have to worry about anything else is that is that what you're saying
01:39:28 i imagine that i've been asked what they would have thought right and so i imagine that's what they would have thought because i think that the issue is
01:39:40 because i think that the issue is i understand what the building regulation says
01:39:46 in the industry adb2 would have been considered as the document which sets out an interpretation of how the regulation should be complied with
01:39:57 the regulation should be complied with and
01:39:58 and adb-2 was the document that probably that
01:40:01 that building control officers would have referred to
01:40:06 so that would be considered the source document and i but i agree with you about what the regulation actually says and i in fact bring it up later
01:40:16 later that the spirit of the regulation is something different
01:40:21 but i what i'm saying is that in terms of what they think they needed to do what they thought they needed to do i think they would have looked at adb2 and
01:40:31 and and felt that that's top that told them what they needed to do without otherwise why have adb too well it's not just that is it but if it
01:40:44 well it's not just that is it but if it might be said that if you understand class naught correctly that it is limited in its scope to the outer surface
01:40:55 which leaves open the question of the nature of the material between the two in this case the two aluminium skins and i'm just wondering whether you're
01:41:06 and i'm just wondering whether you're saying that in your view a competent cladding contractor at the time worth discussing would have felt that he could ignore that
01:41:19 ignore that well i my view is that adb2 didn't really acknowledge the existence of composite materials it was silent on it and
01:41:33 it was silent on it and probably should not have been but it was silent on it and therefore it didn't really cover it it was a it was an omission and um so i i
01:41:44 and um so i i i think people tried to use adv 2 to the best of their ability to cover the a case for which it probably wasn't written um you see
01:41:57 um you see so what does the competent contractor do does he just not worry about the substance of what he's planning to put on the building
01:42:11 and it seems rather inconsistent with things i've read elsewhere in your report that's all
01:42:22 sorry is your question about should they have considered something in addition to the requirements of adb2 well sure i suppose my question is should a competent
01:42:33 question is should a competent contractor at the time have asked himself about the nature of the
01:42:40 the core of the acm panels not just their surface and as a result have thought about the dangers
01:42:51 dangers inherent in using that material on certainly a building of this kind
01:43:09 yes i think they should have thought about it
01:43:12 about it and then they would have thought well i'm required to satisfy class naught and what do i need to do to satisfy it and they would have subjected their material to it the problem
01:43:24 material to it the problem i have with it is that if one is to consider the core what test would one apply it's not set out anywhere and that's the
01:43:38 it's not set out anywhere and that's the question that the cladding contractor would have raised
01:43:43 well um
01:43:46 the test might be a common sense test particularly in the light of the fires in the middle east
01:44:04 so is that a question well um i i formulated in a different way if you like i mean mr chairman if it helps i'm going to come to the very bit of mr sakila's report that deals with this particular
01:44:15 report that deals with this particular question
01:44:15 question in just a moment all right well perhaps i better let you take it i wonder whether
01:44:19 whether it might help mr secular to be reminded of what he's got in his written report and then
01:44:23 and then we ask supplemental questions as usual mrs secular it's better than instead of jumping in and asking questions i let ms grange come to it in their own
01:44:32 their own we'll we'll let her do that right now yes for screens only yes so just to recap you've given your interpretation just purely looking at 12.6 and
01:44:43 purely looking at 12.6 and diagram 40. but you've also um acknowledged that a reasonably competent cladding contractor would have been aware that the class naught rating was testing mainly the exterior of
01:44:54 exterior of the panels um can i just look at a couple of passages in the cwct standards
01:45:03 standards if we look at the cwt standard for walls with ventilated rain screens at cwct 5053 page 45.
01:45:15 5053 page 45. we go to 220.3 at the top it um it states there under rain the rain screen cladding the outer skin sorry if we could just blow it up
01:45:29 the outer skin of a wall of rain screen construction shall have a surface spread of flame of class naught rating on both faces in accordance with the building regulations the two faces of the
01:45:40 regulations the two faces of the external
01:45:41 external panel surface and the internal panel surface
01:45:44 surface so that's telling you about the the class naught for the external and then on page 46 220.6 under the heading composite materials
01:45:56 under the heading composite materials it says when one of the rain screen cladding elements is a composite of two or more materials mechanically jointed bonded or fused together the individual elements including adhesive must demonstrate the
01:46:08 including adhesive must demonstrate the appropriate fire performance similarly it must be demonstrated that the composite will remain reasonably whole and not become prematurely separated from the building or
01:46:19 from the building or framework so we've got those passages in that standard and then if we look at the cwct standard for systemized building envelopes the main sub cwct standard from 2008.
01:46:31 standard from 2008. i'd like to come back to 226 though after you've done this if you don't um well why don't we deal with it now do you want to make a comment on on that section yes and and that's
01:46:43 too common i mean i'm sorry because you haven't actually asked the question so no no no no say what you were going to say about your interpretation of this 226 i i've read this and and um
01:46:56 i i've read this and and um what i find i have a couple of difficulties with this is it says the adhesive master individual elements must demonstrate the appropriate fire performance i'm not
01:47:07 appropriate fire performance i'm not quite sure what the appropriate fire performance means yes in that context what is the appropriate fire performance is not specified yes the second point is that the
01:47:18 yes the second point is that the it says demonstrated that the composite must remain reasonably whole and not become prematurely separated from the building or framework and if one reads bs 476
01:47:29 and if one reads bs 476 part 7 which is the spread of flame test it actually similarly says that any mechanical delamination or disintegration should be
01:47:42 delamination or disintegration should be recorded
01:47:43 recorded but it makes a point of saying that this sort of
01:47:46 sort of disintegration does not affect the fire classification it specifically says that
01:47:53 says that yes um so it distinguishes between mechanical disintegration of a of a composite
01:48:01 composite and the fire classification so that's why i find this a little bit unclear yes i understand okay yes if we look at that cwtt standard for
01:48:12 if we look at that cwtt standard for systemized building envelopes at cwct 5046 page 13.
01:48:24 here we see at 6.4.21 we've got something on surface spread of flame an external surface spread of flame
01:48:32 flame it says the external surface of the envelope shall satisfy the requirements for a class when tested in accordance with bs476 part six and seven national class or class b in accordance
01:48:43 national class or class b in accordance with the european class and then it says for rain screen panels this requirement applies to both the visible external surface of the panel and the surface of the panel facing the cavity so again it's
01:48:55 cavity so again it's talking about the two surfaces and then at 6.6.3 on page 16
01:49:06 it talks about composite components and it says when one of the cladding elements is a composite of two or more materials
01:49:14 materials mechanically jointed bonded or fused together the elements as a whole must demonstrate the appropriate fire performance so that's the same wording and your point there is well what is the appropriate fire performance
01:49:25 appropriate fire performance yeah and similarly it must be demonstrated that the composite will remain reasonably whole and not become prematurely separated from the building or framework now i think the point here is that even if it's not telling you what the
01:49:36 if it's not telling you what the appropriate fire performance is if you read these standards isn't it getting you to think about the fire performance of each component of your composite panel
01:49:47 your composite panel isn't it at least getting you to ask that question or inviting you to ask that question would you agree
01:49:54 yes um
01:50:00 and going back to paragraph 12.6 and diagram 40 if we go back to page 59 of your report paragraph
01:50:11 back to page 59 of your report paragraph 17.4
01:50:15 you say there clause 12.6 of adb requires that the external surfaces of walls should meet the provisions of diagram 40. diagram 40 shows that surfaces on
01:50:26 diagram 40 shows that surfaces on buildings should meet class naught for floors above 18 meters i am aware that there are differing views on how external surfaces is interpreted in this context my
01:50:37 is interpreted in this context my opinion is that a reasonably competent practitioner in the cladding industry would have would have and it goes on
01:50:49 an everyday interpretation of this and would consider that a panel that met class naught when tested would satisfy this clause i do not consider that they would have
01:51:00 i do not consider that they would have considered this to apply separately to the core of an acp so that's how you read just 12.6 in diagram 40 taken on its own
01:51:11 just 12.6 in diagram 40 taken on its own is that correct yes yes and can you just explain what you are aware of in terms of the differing views on how external surfaces is interpreted you say you're
01:51:22 surfaces is interpreted you say you're aware that there are different views on how the phrase external surfaces is to be interpreted can you just explain how you became aware of that was that something pretty greenful or post-grantful uh
01:51:34 pretty greenful or post-grantful uh post-grantful yeah um i can't remember whether it's in uh mr hyatt's report but i know it's in dr lane's report
01:51:47 but i know it's in dr lane's report a view on this subject right yes um
01:51:54 yes um and you say at the end of that paragraph i do not consider that they would have considered this to apply separately to the core of an acp can you just be clear what exactly you mean by that
01:52:06 mean by that when you say this to apply what are you for
01:52:09 for referring to do you mean there wasn't a separate class naught or euro class requirement for the core of the panel
01:52:21 sorry i need to look at the beginning of that paragraph yes sorry if we go back to
01:52:26 to 17.4 on the bottom of page 59.
01:52:32 um
01:52:37 go back again then
01:52:42 yes they they in that case refers to the contractor yes uh would you consider this to apply separately yes and when you're talking about this
01:52:54 yes and when you're talking about this to apply
01:52:56 to apply sorry
01:53:00 in the in the very last sentence you say i do not consider that they either reasonably competent contractor would have considered this to apply separately to the core of an acp do you mean
01:53:10 mean the fire performance requirement to meet um
01:53:15 um well what i mean is uh my understanding is that the class naught test would have had to be applied the testing
01:53:26 would have had to be applied the testing to reach class naught would have to be applied to both the internal external faces of the panel but there was no test specified for the core of the pattern yes so i i i couldn't see how you could
01:53:38 so i i i couldn't see how you could apply a class naught test or a as any kind of surface spread of flame flesh to the core of the panel yes now just moving on to 12.7 of adb which is the
01:53:51 moving on to 12.7 of adb which is the next provision which we find i just want to read that we if we bring this up within adb at clg 50224 at page 97
01:54:10 [Applause] clg 50224 at page 97.
01:54:18 sorry i think it's actually at 96. go back one page um yeah there we have um 12.7 insulation materials products and it says in a building with a story 18 meters or more
01:54:29 building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level any insulation product filler material not
01:54:33 not including gaskets sealants and similar etc used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility and then see appendix a and if we look at what you say about
01:54:45 a and if we look at what you say about this
01:54:46 this in your report at page 47 at paragraphs 11.5 and 11.6
01:54:56 you say this you say i consider that a cladding contractor would have considered paragraph 12.7 to refer to insulation used as part of the external facade system
01:55:08 external facade system the term filler material in clause 12.7 is however unclear i would consider that it was intended to refer to gap fillers such as expanding foam fillers i do not think it was
01:55:21 foam fillers i do not think it was intended to refer to the core of an acm panel which i have never heard referred to as filler i also think that a reasonably competent cladding contractor or product
01:55:32 competent cladding contractor or product manufacturer pack factor would have had a similar view
01:55:40 so and and can you just help us as to when you formed the view that the term filler was unclear when did you reach that view was it when looking at the inquiry's
01:55:51 inquiry's questions uh
01:55:57 yes although i probably looked at it certainly when i looked at the inquiries of questions but i probably also looked at it
01:56:04 at it previously in recent years um and uh i've always found it a little bit odd that phrase yes and as your um interpretation of
01:56:15 yes and as your um interpretation of of the term filler material in that clause is that solely based on the wording and the language used in paragraph 12.7 of approved document b or have you been influenced by anything
01:56:26 have you been influenced by anything else
01:56:27 else in terms of your view of that particular wording
01:56:31 wording um
01:56:36 well could i answer that question slightly in a roundabout way i'm aware of the fact that the i think the
01:56:45 the ministry of local government issued some post-grainfell information which seemed to imply that filler
01:56:56 filler was uh included the core of an acm panel yes i believe which i thought frankly i don't agree with that um i think that was uh
01:57:09 um i think that was uh i don't know try it sort of i i just think that was um a bit of a stretch a linguistic stretch
01:57:17 stretch really since clause 12.7 was about insulation yes about cladding
01:57:25 as far as i believe there may have been
01:57:32 a conference in oxford 2019 which where there was a presentation given and i i probably referred to that
01:57:43 referred to that um which also discussed this topic but uh that view was all all went towards what informed me my
01:57:54 all went towards what informed me my view
01:57:54 view yes yes can i just sorry to keep interesting please do um of course it's very interesting for us to know how you would interpret this but
01:58:05 to know how you would interpret this but i think what we would really benefit from is your evidence if you're able to give any about what about how this provision was widely understood in
01:58:17 this provision was widely understood in the cladding industry at the time are you able to help from that yes i think so i i i sincerely believe that the the term filler material in the context of clause 12.7 would have been
01:58:30 of clause 12.7 would have been interpreted as uh insulation or things acting as insulation and i've mentioned foam fillers for example you know sprayed out of a can yeah
01:58:43 you know sprayed out of a can yeah but not to extend to the core of a composite panel thank you very much yes so to encapsulate your view your view is that clause 12.6
01:58:56 your view is that clause 12.6 is silent about the fire performance of the acm
01:59:00 the acm core and your view is that paragraph 12.7 doesn't help on that question either
01:59:07 either because that's not dealing with the core of an acm panel is that correct yes yes now if we then go to page 59 of your report
01:59:19 if we then go to page 59 of your report um and look at section 17. um this is headed sufficiency of class naught in selecting reinaborn acm pe panels but you were asked a key question
01:59:31 panels but you were asked a key question here
01:59:32 here and i'm just going to read the question so the inquiry would be grateful if you would answer the following question as part of your discussion of diagram 40 and adb
01:59:40 and adb at the time the cladding was being selected for the grenfell tower project was class naught enough to select rain upon acm pe panels assuming there was a bba certificate which clearly confirmed they
01:59:52 certificate which clearly confirmed they were class naught now we know your evidence is there wasn't a bba certificate that clearly confirmed that um but leaving that aside was class naught enough and then you're
02:00:04 was class naught enough and then you're asked was it enough given one that a reason what a reasonably competent cladding contractor should have understood class naught to relate to two given what is said in paragraphs 12.5 to 12.9 of adb
02:00:17 said in paragraphs 12.5 to 12.9 of adb including the warning in 12.5 and what is said and shown in 12.6 in diagram 40 3 given what was said in other industry guidance
02:00:28 guidance and we've looked at some of that and four given what should have been known about pe
02:00:33 about pe and its properties and its role in international cladding fires so it's really asking you you know aside from what you see in adb given other factors um
02:00:44 given other factors um to what extent was class naught enough and i just want to be clear what you said in writing about that if we go to paragraph 12.5
02:00:56 paragraph 12.5 at 17.5 sorry on page 60 and pick it up there
02:01:04 you say um you've told us in that paragraph
02:01:08 paragraph and we've just looked at it what a reasonably competent cladding contractor would have interpreted paragraph 12.6 of adb and diagram 40 to mean and then at 17.6 you've said
02:01:21 and then at 17.6 you've said relevant other industry guidance during the period in question has been discussed in section 10 of the present report
02:01:28 report of these documents the most relevant will be bca technical guidance note 18 published in june 2014 and issue 1 in june 2015
02:01:37 june 2015 and then it's 17.7 it is of note that both versions of technical guidance note 18 give a broader interpretation of the applicability of limited combustibility materials than that
02:01:48 combustibility materials than that stated in adb2 while limited combustibility is stated in paragraph 12.7 of adb2 to apply only to insulation materials technical guidance note 18 states that the term
02:02:00 guidance note 18 states that the term applies for all elements of the cladding system if the linear route to compliance is being followed
02:02:07 followed this would have precluded the use of acps for cladding buildings with a floor higher than 18 meters above ground level unless a successful fire test or desktop study were carried out
02:02:18 study were carried out and then you go on tgn 18 technical guidance note 18 provided guidance to building control offices on others and how the requirements of adb should be interpreted
02:02:29 should be interpreted at the very least you would expect a building control officer to be aware of its contents and then if we go over the page
02:02:40 you you say this
02:02:44 sorry can i go back a page i didn't want to miss out i think i might have missed the bottom of that page yes sorry picking up at 17.9 you say it is clear that there was a mismatch between what was stated in adb
02:02:56 what was stated in adb and what was stated in technical guidance note 18. both of these documents act as guidance and in the end the building regulations themselves carry the greatest weight
02:03:07 greatest weight 17.10 with reference to earlier clauses 8.1.1 and 9.4 of the present report i consider
02:03:14 consider that a reasonably competent cladding contractor or manufacturer would have been aware of the combustibility of pe called acps particularly after the uae fires however
02:03:25 particularly after the uae fires however in my opinion they would nevertheless have deferred to the guidance given in adb
02:03:29 adb therefore while adb section 12 remained unchanged and was silent about the use of acps
02:03:35 of acps a cladding contractor would have interpreted this that the use of ap acps was still allowed and then you go on over the next page i
02:03:46 and then you go on over the next page i note however that adb is not itself the building regulations and that the 2010 building regulation b4 itself
02:03:54 itself states the external walls of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls and then the final paragraph 17.12 therefore i consider that the use of pe
02:04:07 therefore i consider that the use of pe called acp for cladding a building with a floor higher than 18 meters above ground was unwise given the known combustibility in such circumstances i consider that
02:04:18 in such circumstances i consider that failure to consider adequately the combustibility of the materials would fall below the standard expected of a reasonably competent practitioner in the cladding industry
02:04:30 in the cladding industry this would apply even more so to a situation where such materials were being proposed as a cost-saving measure where it would be essential to verify whether the cheaper product
02:04:42 whether the cheaper product would perform adequately by comparison with the product for which it was being submitted now focusing on that last paragraph for a moment where you say that the use of pe called
02:04:55 where you say that the use of pe called acm
02:04:56 acm for use on a building above 18 meters was unwise and that the failure to consider adequately the combustibility of the materials would fall below the standard expected
02:05:05 expected of a reasonably competent practitioner in the cladding industry can you help us what in your opinion would constitute adequate consideration of the combustibility of the panels
02:05:17 combustibility of the panels in your view
02:05:24 that was a very long question so i mean but
02:05:27 but the the you said that if you failed to consider adequately the combustibility of the materials that would fall below the relevant standard yes what would adequate consideration look like can you help us with that
02:05:41 look like can you help us with that yes i think
02:05:45 my view is that i just don't think it was sensible to use these kind of acm on on a built on on on the the on a tall building
02:05:57 on the the on a tall building and um i i think what they should have done is thought well let's look in more detail at fire retardant uh core variant of the acms if we're
02:06:10 uh core variant of the acms if we're going to use acms yes so i think what you're saying and to go back to the chairman's question just a few minutes ago is that regardless of what we see in adb and the fact that
02:06:22 of what we see in adb and the fact that that's
02:06:22 that's silent and perhaps on one view allows you to use those panels a common sense sensible approach would be not to use those panels given
02:06:34 would be not to use those panels given everything else that was known at this time including their role in those international cladding fires is that is that your evidence yes yes
02:06:49 so can we be clear therefore that a reasonably competent cladding contractor should have carefully considered whether acm pe cladding panels were suitable for use
02:07:00 suitable for use on a high-rise residential building given the combustibility of such panels and their
02:07:05 and their propensity to propagate the spread of fire
02:07:10 yes and i would add to that it not only the cladding contractors responsibility this issue it's all parties involved yes so the
02:07:21 it's all parties involved yes so the architect the main contractor the building control officer yes the manufacturer and do you agree therefore that a reasonably competent cladding contractor should have ensured that other
02:07:33 should have ensured that other construction professionals involved in the project were aware or were made aware of the combustibility of pe called acm panels
02:07:42 panels and the hazards of using such panels
02:07:47 so your question is were they made aware no should a reasonably competent cladding contractor have made other construction professionals aware of those hazards
02:07:59 so not only that they appreciated them but should they have then made others aware of those hazards yes and again would that include the
02:08:11 yes and again would that include the telling the main contractor the architect
02:08:15 architect the building control officer yes but i'm not only talking about who they should have told uh what i was implying
02:08:21 implying i i understand your question but it it's also
02:08:25 also i would say it wasn't only the clanny contractor's responsibility to do this there were many people involved yes i understand do you agree that it would be especially
02:08:37 do you agree that it would be especially important for a cladding contractor to make other construction professionals aware
02:08:42 aware of the combustibility and hazards of pe called acm panels if the cladding contractor was itself proposing that such panels be specified and used on the project
02:08:53 be specified and used on the project i'm sorry i need to hit could you repeat this so
02:08:57 this so on the assumption that it's the cladding contractor that is actually proposing the use of acm pe panels would you agree that it was particularly important that that cladding contractor
02:09:09 important that that cladding contractor informed others of the hazards of using those panels yes because they it was they who were proposing it as a cost-saving alternative yes yes and do you agree that any
02:09:20 yes yes and do you agree that any reasonably competent cladding contractor carrying out such an overcladding product should have been project should have ensured that the building control offices responsible for approving the
02:09:31 responsible for approving the construction works knew of the nature and make of the panels used so as to be in a position to satisfy themselves about the suitability of those panels
02:09:44 that who should be resp uh so i got the last side of the question but then contractor have been responsible for making sure that the building control officers were
02:09:55 that the building control officers were aware of the nature and the make of the panels
02:09:58 panels yes i think so yes but uh as we were talking about earlier i i understood that it was the architect's responsibility to coordinate
02:10:09 architect's responsibility to coordinate building control approvals so it wasn't it was they had responsibility to to do that yes yeah taking into account what was known about the risks associated with pe
02:10:20 associated with pe called acm do you think that a reasonably competent cladding contractor ought to have sought confirmation or verification about the use of such panels from a suitably
02:10:31 use of such panels from a suitably qualified
02:10:32 qualified professional such as a facade consultant or facade
02:10:36 or facade engineer
02:10:41 yes except i would also say that they there were parties involved in the team who could have provided similar advice for example
02:10:52 for example uh there was a fire consultant although their appointment was a little bit ambiguous
02:10:56 ambiguous yes um by that point but there was a fire consultant on the project who they could have asked it wasn't only of facade engineer or they could have raised it further and more forcefully with the main
02:11:08 and more forcefully with the main contractor or the architect yes
02:11:15 do you agree that where the specification or contract for a cladding project
02:11:20 project expressly required compliance with fire performance with a standard that went beyond the requirements of adb any reasonably competent clouding contractor would comply with those
02:11:31 contractor would comply with those additional or more strenuous
02:11:36 requirements it's a difficult one because it comes back to this question of the hierarchy and
02:11:43 and which requirements carry more weight well let me give you a specific example if we look at the cwct standard for systemized building envelopes the main cwct standard
02:11:56 envelopes the main cwct standard and if we can go to that at cwct 5046 at page 11.
02:12:07 page 11. at 6.2
02:12:14 we can see fourth paragraph down under general
02:12:18 general we can see it says the building envelope shall not be composed of materials which readily support combustion add significantly to the fire load and or give off toxic
02:12:29 or give off toxic fumes now focusing on the first parts of that sentence let's assume that that cwct standard is part of
02:12:40 part of the contractual um requirements
02:12:46 then in that case do you think that in those circumstances this effectively should have overridden anything that was contained in adb
02:12:58 anything that was contained in adb and meant that you didn't use acmpe materials it does read like that and it does
02:13:05 does appear to override yes yes
02:13:11 because can we agree that as demonstrated by the uae cladding fires it was apparent to the cladding industry that pe called acm cladding panels did readily support
02:13:22 cladding panels did readily support combustion and would add significantly to the fire load in any fire involving a cladding facade constructed of such panels yes yeah
02:13:36 so again just to be clear can we agree that any reasonably competent cladding contractor um carrying out a project which required compliance with this particular standard
02:13:47 compliance with this particular standard would have appreciated that pe called acm should not be specified or used on that project
02:14:02 yes
02:14:06 and in in addition to reaching that conclusion um
02:14:11 sorry let me start again um would reading that that part of the cwct standard have led the reasonably competent cladding contractor to instead use fr chord panels
02:14:24 to instead use fr chord panels to ensure that it didn't contribute to the far load yes
02:14:31 the can i just make an observation it's interesting because this statement made um seems to imply all building envelopes regardless of the height of the building
02:14:42 height of the building so even if you had a single story building this this would apply yes which which seems ever slightly onerous but right um because we are talking about a
02:14:54 are talking about a tall building here and
02:14:57 adb2 would suggest that different considerations apply but this seems to apply
02:15:02 apply for any height of building including a garden shed so yeah so yeah there we are now you talked in your report and we read we read it a moment ago about this mismatch
02:15:13 read it a moment ago about this mismatch between cwct technical note 90 technical note um 17.
02:15:22 um 17. and um adb and you also refer if we go to page 43 of your report now paragraph 10.49
02:15:34 you also refer to a later cwct note from april 2017 which updated sorry it's technical note 73 not 17. um and that was technical note 98 which
02:15:47 um and that was technical note 98 which as you've explained there was even more specific
02:15:50 specific than technical note 73 and it's statements about combustibility and you've
02:15:55 you've set out there the relevant clause which includes the phrase um or the last sentence of that therefore where a building has a story 18 meters
02:16:03 18 meters or more above ground level all significant materials should be of limited combustibility so you've made the point that that was even clearer
02:16:14 even clearer that there was this mismatch between adb and this technical note
02:16:21 so just to be clear there was also a mismatch between the cwct technical note 98 and adb wasn't there
02:16:30 correct now considering your view that the building regulations themselves are the functional requirements carry the greatest weight
02:16:41 the greatest weight we saw that in section 17 of your report do you consider that the reasonably competent cladding contractor taking into account that functional
02:16:52 taking into account that functional requirement taking into account the warnings in industry guidance including br135 and the cwct and taking into account the uae fires
02:17:03 and taking into account the uae fires would have considered that p e chord acm panels
02:17:06 panels complied with the functional requirement b4
02:17:10 b4 or did not comply
02:17:18 i think they did comply with the functional requirements of b4 but they didn't comply with other industry guidance why did it comply with functional requirement b4i
02:17:31 comply with functional requirement b4i the requirement to adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls because as i said earlier i believe that statement
02:17:39 statement in b4 in 12.5 is an introductory statement which is then fleshed out by further detail and i think that further detail would have been given more weight than the
02:17:50 have been given more weight than the original introductory statement but i think there's a difference between what you see in b um in b4 the functional requirement itself from the building regulator i'm sorry you're talking about the the the
02:18:01 you're talking about the the the building regulation not the ada so yes could you ask the question yes of course
02:18:07 course of course so considering your view that the building regulations carry the greatest weight that's the functional requirement adequately resist the spread of fire across the walls and given um the warnings we've seen in
02:18:20 and given um the warnings we've seen in other industry guidance and the uae fires would a reasonably competent cladding contractor have considered that pe
02:18:28 pe called acm panels complied or did not comply with that functional requirement no i think they should they would have they should have considered that it did not comply yes
02:18:42 and and should the reasonably competent cladding contractor have gone further than just considering the combustibility of acm panels and in your view also concluded that
02:18:54 and in your view also concluded that acmpe was
02:18:55 acmpe was unsafe to use on high-rise buildings
02:19:02 what was unsafe to use ac acmpe was unsafe and safe to use on high-rise buildings
02:19:09 buildings so in your report you've said that a reasonably competent clouding contractor would have um considered the combustibility of acm yes at least thought about it what i'm
02:19:20 yes at least thought about it what i'm suggesting is that in fact would a reasonably competent cladding contractor have gone further and concluded that acmpe was unsafe to use on high-rise buildings
02:19:31 unsafe to use on high-rise buildings yes yes can you help me with this are you actually aware from your own experience or from your involvement in in the industry
02:19:41 industry the situations in which acm panels with the peace corps were rejected because they were thought not to comply with
02:19:51 with building regulation b4 no um i'm not aware of any situations like that
02:19:58 like that and i have to say my i haven't had experience of specifying or using these panels so uh i i'm not really
02:20:09 so uh i i'm not really so much involved in that part of the industry so i'm not aware of that right thank you
02:20:19 mr chairman thank you i've come to the end of my prepared questions so if we have the usual break at the end of the day just to see if there are any other questions um
02:20:30 questions um that would be great well no mr schulich you may
02:20:34 you may know this but when we get to the end of council's questions we have to have a bit of a pause so that she can check whether there's anything been left out and also in case those who were taking
02:20:45 and also in case those who were taking part remotely want to suggest further questions to put to you so we'll we'll break now until 25 to 5. and then we'll see if there any more questions for you thank you thank you very much
02:21:04 all right
02:21:09 look twenty-five to five please
02:36:32 would you ask mr sackler to come back in please
02:36:46 well now mr secular we'll find out if there are any more questions for you yes it's great mr chairman no we have no further questions for mr sacular so it just comes to
02:36:58 so it just comes to the point where we have to thank you immensely for the hard work you've put into this report and all the assistance you've provided us with so thank you and certainly i'd echo that on behalf of all of us on the panel it's
02:37:10 on behalf of all of us on the panel it's it's been a long day and i hope you haven't found it too tiresome but we found it very interesting and very helpful to hear what you have to tell us and of course we have the benefit of your report for which we are very grateful as well so thank you very
02:37:22 very grateful as well so thank you very much indeed for making yourself available to help us and that's all we have for you at least today
02:37:29 today thank you thank you very much
02:37:45 good thank you very much for strange thank you well that's it for today yesterday tomorrow we have another witness from the tmo i think i think that's right and module three yes thank you all right thank you very much
02:37:55 much uh 10 o'clock tomorrow
02:38:04 you