Phase 2 opening statements from Counsel to the Inquiry, Studio E Architects, Rydon, and Building Control addressing responsibility, design decisions, and failures in the refurbishment.
00:13:57 good morning the inquiry is about to commence
00:14:02 commence therefore please can you take your seats and remain silent
00:14:08 there are no planned fire alarm test today fall on tests are on Fridays if the alarm sounds trained fire wardens on this floor will direct you to
00:14:20 on this floor will direct you to evacuate you will be directed through the 3/4 exit within this room on the right and left-hand side at the end of the session please remain seated until
00:14:32 the session please remain seated until the chairmen panel member and the witness have left the room also please remember to switch your phones to silence in the hearing room counseling
00:14:43 silence in the hearing room counseling services available both in the hearing room and breakout areas staff will direct you to the appropriate person thank you
00:22:09 well good morning everyone welcome to the start of Phase two of the inquiries hearings I'm pleased to be able to welcome you to the inquiries new
00:22:21 welcome you to the inquiries new premises which I hope are rather more conveniently situated for those of you who live in North Kensington and which provide us with a more spacious hearing room than the one you will recall that
00:22:33 room than the one you will recall that we had at home and bars I'm grateful to the secretary to the inquiry and his team for having identified the availability of these rooms after what
00:22:44 availability of these rooms after what was quite a long search for more convenient and more suitable premises that contry what to what has been suggested by his son our previous base
00:22:55 suggested by his son our previous base at home and bars was not chosen to suit the convenience of the lawyers it happened to be available when needed and it then proved difficult to find other premises which met all our requirements
00:23:07 premises which met all our requirements that we fitted out the space here available to us in a way which I hope meets the many and varied needs of those intending the inquiry as well as the
00:23:18 intending the inquiry as well as the inquiry team itself I don't suppose it's perfect so if you think improvements can be made please speak to a member of the team any constructive and practical
00:23:30 team any constructive and practical suggestions will be carefully considered at this point I'd like to introduce the person sitting on my right who is one of the two people who were appointed by the
00:23:41 the two people who were appointed by the Prime Minister to join me in forming the panel for Phase two of the inquiry Thurio estefan is an architect and a
00:23:52 Thurio estefan is an architect and a registered health and safety practitioner by a professional for the last 23 years she's worked for the internationally respected firm of Foster and partners as a partner and deputy of
00:24:04 and partners as a partner and deputy of technical design she has also served as a construction specialist inspector at the Health and Safety Executive and has contributed to the implementation of the
00:24:16 contributed to the implementation of the construction design and management regulations particular areas of experience and knowledge include fire safety build ability accessibility and inclusive
00:24:29 ability accessibility and inclusive design as you know the other person who pointed to the panel was mrs. Bonita Mira a distinguished engineer her appointment has recently given rise to
00:24:41 appointment has recently given rise to some concern and as a result mrs. Mira decided that in the interest of the inquiry she should not continue as a member of the panel in those
00:24:52 member of the panel in those circumstances she has therefore resigned as an additional member of the panel mr. Hahn joins me in the role of decision maker for the purposes of our
00:25:04 maker for the purposes of our investigations into the various matters that we're going to consider in phase two she will bring to bear her professional knowledge and experience which will assist greatly in evaluating
00:25:16 which will assist greatly in evaluating the technical evidence that will be placed before us over the coming months our decisions will be based on that evidence all of which will be placed in
00:25:27 evidence all of which will be placed in the public domain unless there are overriding reasons for not doing so decisions will not be based on any private knowledge or experience that either of us may have there are many
00:25:42 either of us may have there are many complex questions to be investigated in phase two in recognition of that fact and in order to focus on each area of investigation in the most effective way
00:25:54 investigation in the most effective way we've decided to devise Phase two in two separate modules each concentrating on one aspect of the inquiry or in some cases a group of related questions I
00:26:07 cases a group of related questions I hope that will make it easier for everyone involved to shoulder what will be a very heavy burden of work that phase two as a whole represents I hope
00:26:18 phase two as a whole represents I hope it will also make it easier for those who wish to follow the inquiry to understand our work as we go along in the course of his opening statement
00:26:29 the course of his opening statement counsel to the inquiry we'll describe in greater detail the structure of phase two and the individual modules which make it up
00:26:40 individual modules which make it up during the phase one hearings I heard a great deal of evidence much of it of a very moving kind some witnesses were more controversial than others of course
00:26:52 more controversial than others of course but I was very impressed by the way in which day after day everyone in the room listened quietly and respectfully while the witnesses gave their evidence in
00:27:03 the witnesses gave their evidence in some cases despite obvious difficulties I'm confident that with your help the Phase two hearings will be conducted in the same way thereby enabling us to
00:27:15 the same way thereby enabling us to obtain the evidence we so badly need in order to answer the many important questions facing us I'm going in a moment to invite counsel to the inquiry
00:27:26 moment to invite counsel to the inquiry to make an opening statement when I understand mr. Mansfield that there's something you'd like to say before we do that now would you like to make your way yes if you would please
00:27:51 sir madam may we thank you for this opportunity it'll be very brief to make a situation known to you and to enlist
00:28:04 a situation known to you and to enlist hopefully your assistance in attempting to resolve it it arises directly from the resignation on Saturday of the panel
00:28:16 the resignation on Saturday of the panel member that you have referred to only moments ago the families that I represent and I represent team two of the bereaved survivors and residents are
00:28:28 the bereaved survivors and residents are particularly concerned and anxious that the original objective which was mapped out by Teresa May when she made the appointments in May of last year and
00:28:41 appointments in May of last year and four additional panel members and endorsed essentially by Boris Johnson just before Christmas 23rd of December
00:28:52 just before Christmas 23rd of December using very much the same language namely to ensure that the panel has a breadth of scope and skills particularly with regard to social housing community
00:29:03 regard to social housing community engagement and participate redesign and planning and that is felt to be an essential part of this and of course there is a module devoted to part of it
00:29:14 there is a module devoted to part of it but it spreads across all the modules and therefore it is felt desirable to have the full panel from the beginning if possible so far the Cabinet Office
00:29:25 if possible so far the Cabinet Office and the prime minister for that matter have made no indication to the relatives or the group I represent either on an individual basis because many of them
00:29:37 individual basis because many of them have met with Boris Johnson others have met members of the Cabinet Office others have written to the Cabinet Office solicitors have written to the Cabinet Office there has been a stunning silence
00:29:49 Office there has been a stunning silence not a word about whether there is going to be a replacement now it may be there are all sorts of applications but it would lend considerable force to this venture
00:30:03 considerable force to this venture if you were able to make representations to discover whether they're going to or they're not going to and what the
00:30:14 they're not going to and what the difficulties are so I just give a short example if it's possible within the near future to have an extra panel member as originally envisaged if that's possible
00:30:26 originally envisaged if that's possible without disrupting because none of the families I represent want undue delay and that is certainly not on the agenda but on the other hand to get this right
00:30:37 but on the other hand to get this right and it's not of course their fault in the first place to get this right if it means a short delay in to some of the evidence then we would ask that the matters investigated but at the moment
00:30:49 matters investigated but at the moment we're operating in a vacuum and we don't know the answer to this it's possible today and I think there may be I when I left my seat back there there were
00:31:00 left my seat back there there were apparently I'm told a member of the or a representative of the Cabinet Office may be here today and and I would ask that some sort of indication is given as soon as possible so that we may act upon it
00:31:14 as possible so that we may act upon it in whatever way the families feel it is desirable so may I ask for your assistance on that matter and thank you for allowing me to speak at this moment well thank you very much mr. mention yes
00:31:26 well thank you very much mr. mention yes well in that case mr. miletti I'm going to invite you to make an opening statement on behalf of the inquiry at this stage thank you thank you mr. chairman mr. chairman madam on the 30th
00:31:40 chairman mr. chairman madam on the 30th of October 2019 mr. chairman you published your report forgive you but you don't need to take the child don't really
00:31:51 really [Music]
00:31:54 [Music] you published your report of phase one of this inquiry into the fire at Granville tower on the 14th of June 2017 the subject of phase 1 of this inquiry
00:32:07 the subject of phase 1 of this inquiry was the events of that night you examined in particular the cause and origin of the fire in flat 16 the mechanism by which the fire exited flat
00:32:20 mechanism by which the fire exited flat 16 and entered the cladding on the exterior of Grenville tower how the fire spread around the exterior of the building and re-entered it and the response of the emergency services the
00:32:33 response of the emergency services the council and the tenant management organization on the night it also focused centrally and in detail on the
00:32:44 focused centrally and in detail on the many individual personal experiences of each occupant from flat to flat and floor to floor those appalling and all
00:32:55 floor to floor those appalling and all too often tragically fatal experiences provided the essential narrative for many of the lessons that you mr. chairman were able to draw about among
00:33:07 chairman were able to draw about among other things the conditions within the building and its behavior in that fire those conclusions in turn enabled you on the evidence about those and other
00:33:18 the evidence about those and other matters to make wide-ranging recommendations for future change so the question now is what is phase 2 about if
00:33:29 question now is what is phase 2 about if phase 1 was about what happened to Grenfell tower and at Grenfell tower on the night of the 14th of June 2017 and the immediate causes and effects of the
00:33:43 the immediate causes and effects of the fire on the night phase 2 is an examination of the reasons for why it happened this mr. chairman as you have said is the opening of phase 2 of this
00:33:54 said is the opening of phase 2 of this inquiry and in particular of module 1 I propose to start by explaining in outline the overall shape of phase 2 and the modular structure that you mr.
00:34:07 the modular structure that you mr. chairman have decide to adopt I will then turn to the detailed issues to be investigated in the evidence at module 1 let me begin by explaining an outline the shape of phase
00:34:20 explaining an outline the shape of phase 2 in chapter 34 of the phase 1 report you dealt with looking ahead to phase 2 and indeed that was the title of that chapter in it you identified a number of
00:34:33 chapter in it you identified a number of particular matters with which phase 2 will be concerned those included the remaining evidence relating to the circumstances in which the deceased Smet their deaths the London Fire Brigade the
00:34:47 their deaths the London Fire Brigade the lfb and specifically the cause and origin of the shortcomings of the LF B's performance on the night of the fire as were identified in the phase 1 report
00:34:58 were identified in the phase 1 report the testing classification and certification of certain of the materials used in the external wall at Grenfell tower the design and choice of
00:35:10 Grenfell tower the design and choice of those materials by the professionals involved in the refurbishment fire doors window Arrangements lifts the smoke extraction system and the warnings of
00:35:22 extraction system and the warnings of the local community and the authorities immediate response to the disaster phase 2 has been divided into eight modules in which these and numerous other related
00:35:34 which these and numerous other related issues will be examined let me now set out what they are module 1 will examine the role acts and emissions of the professionals and other
00:35:46 emissions of the professionals and other persons involved in the refurbishment of the tower from 2012 to its sign-off in July 2016 we will be hearing from a
00:35:57 July 2016 we will be hearing from a significant number of witnesses including witnesses for the architect studio II the design and build contractor Ryden the cladding subcontractor Harley the fire safety
00:36:09 subcontractor Harley the fire safety engineer x / the fabricator of the aluminium composite or ACM panels who was CEP as well as the employers agent quantities of
00:36:20 quantities of and CDM coordinator RT Lia and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea z' Building Control Department we will also hear from the Kensington and Chelsea
00:36:32 hear from the Kensington and Chelsea tenant management organization or TM o about their role in procuring the project and what they did as client as I
00:36:43 project and what they did as client as I would explain in due course mr. chairman there will be particular focus on the materials selected for incorporation into the external wall as the project progressed and their compliance or
00:36:55 progressed and their compliance or otherwise with the building regulations and relevant associated statutory guidance and in particular approved document b on fire safety or adb as well
00:37:08 document b on fire safety or adb as well as relevant industry guidance I will return into to a more detailed description of module 1 a little bit later we have timetabled module 1 to run
00:37:19 later we have timetabled module 1 to run until the beginning of April this year module 2 will then examine closely the testing classification certification and
00:37:30 testing classification certification and marketing of key products used in the external wall and specifically the ACM panels used in the rain screen system made and sold by our connick the
00:37:43 made and sold by our connick the polyisocyanurate or PIR and phenolic insulation used behind those ACM panels in the external wall construction principally the RS 5000 made and sold by
00:37:57 principally the RS 5000 made and sold by Celotex which was PIR and the K 15 cool therm product made and sold by kingspan which was phenomena is made and sold by
00:38:10 which was phenomena is made and sold by cider eyes and the AL u glaze window envelope annals we will be particularly interested in first the key tests that these products underwent particularly
00:38:22 these products underwent particularly the our conic ACM panels with the polyethylene core and the Celotex and kingspan insulation second their resultant fire
00:38:34 second their resultant fire classifications third how those tests and classifications were represented by the manufacturers to their markets and to the to certification bodies the LA BC
00:38:46 to the to certification bodies the LA BC and the BBA fourth the relevant certificates issued by the BBA in the case of the ACM panels and Kings bands K
00:38:57 case of the ACM panels and Kings bands K 15 cool therm product and the LA BC in the case of both K 15 cool therm and the RS 5000 insulation and last how those certificates were represented by the
00:39:09 certificates were represented by the manufacturers to their markets their buyers
00:39:12 buyers we have timetabled module 2 to start on the 4th of May with module 2 openings and to hear the module 2 evidence until mid-june we have already provided core
00:39:25 mid-june we have already provided core participants with a provisional and partial list of witnesses for module 2 from manufacturers of the relevant material in the cladding system and from
00:39:36 material in the cladding system and from testing and certification bodies and we expect to be able to finalize that list in the coming weeks module 3 will be divided into three broad topics the
00:39:49 divided into three broad topics the first topic will investigate the complaints made by residents of the tower before the 14th of June 2017 which particularly relate to fire safety and
00:40:00 particularly relate to fire safety and concerns that were raised about doors and the quality of workmanship during the refurbishment we will then examine the responses of the TMO and our bkc to
00:40:11 the responses of the TMO and our bkc to those complaints and a degree of engagement by the TMO in the refurbishment works module 3 will then consider a second topic namely
00:40:23 consider a second topic namely compliance by the TMO our bkc and the London Fire Brigade with their obligations under law namely the regulatory reform fire safety order 2005
00:40:36 regulatory reform fire safety order 2005 otherwise known often as the rro a particular focus of our investigation at this module will be the fire risk assessments carried out by Carl Stokes
00:40:48 assessments carried out by Carl Stokes and their adequacy the final topic of module three will contain the active and passive fire safety systems inside the
00:40:59 passive fire safety systems inside the tower so lifts fire doors smoke extraction system together with the gas supply system module three will run including opening
00:41:10 module three will run including opening statements from the end of June this year until early October when we will have closing statements on all three modules one two and three the inquiry is
00:41:22 modules one two and three the inquiry is intending to provide core participants with a detailed update regarding the structure of module three confirmation of the relevant experts and other administrative matters in the early part
00:41:33 administrative matters in the early part of February in module four we will examine the performance of local and central government in the immediate aftermath of the disaster module four is
00:41:47 aftermath of the disaster module four is currently timetables to run from mid-october to mid-november this year module 5 will consider the adequacy of
00:41:58 module 5 will consider the adequacy of the firefighting response on than fire on the night of the fire important elements of that assessment were addressed by you already mr. chairman in the phase 1 report including the
00:42:10 the phase 1 report including the fundamental question where the stay-put advice could and should have been withdrawn before 247 a.m. there are however matters that require
00:42:22 there are however matters that require further investigation these include the purpose and adequacy of section 7 2d visits the training of firefighters including but not limited to incident
00:42:34 including but not limited to incident command training as well as alternative tactics for fighting fires in high-rise buildings and communications and equipment including the adequacy of
00:42:45 equipment including the adequacy of water supply and pressure module 5 is timetables to run from the end of November this year to mid February next year with a two-week break for the
00:42:56 year with a two-week break for the festive period module six will involve a close study of central and local governments role in the disaster and it will study in
00:43:09 the disaster and it will study in particular the responses by central government and other public bodies to previous incidents and reports coroner's recommendations and things of that
00:43:21 recommendations and things of that nature including in respect of the building regulations and associated guidance and fires and firefighting in addition and following on from the
00:43:33 addition and following on from the evidence which you will hear in module two we will examine in further detail a number of aspects of the existing regime for testing certification and
00:43:44 for testing certification and classification of materials for use in external cladding systems both in general terms and in relation to specific products that examination will
00:43:56 specific products that examination will we anticipate encompass four things at least first the routes to compliance with the requirements for external cladding systems under the building
00:44:07 cladding systems under the building regulations and associated guidance as well as the basis for each such route including the practice of desktop assessments second guidance produced by
00:44:20 assessments second guidance produced by industry associations and standard-setting organizations as to fire safety for the external cladding systems of high-rise buildings and as to the compliance with the functional
00:44:32 the compliance with the functional requirements of the building regulations for individual components of such systems and as a whole third understanding across industry and
00:44:43 understanding across industry and amongst standard setting and certification bodies of the meaning and application of key test results and classifications and fourth the regulation and supervision of testing
00:44:55 regulation and supervision of testing certification and classification of construction products in relation to fire safety and performance in fire including again the role of central government module 6 is timetable to run
00:45:08 government module 6 is timetable to run from the third week of February next year until early May next year including a two-week break for the Easter period module seven will be
00:45:19 the Easter period module seven will be devoted to the remaining expert evidence and will run for a week one week until mid May next year the experts will examine the results from testing of tatting components and their final
00:45:31 tatting components and their final conclusions on the relative contributions of the cladding design and materials to the fire spread at Grenfell tower the adequacy of the testing regime investigated in earlier earlier modules
00:45:43 investigated in earlier earlier modules and the conclusions to be drawn about the Grenville tower fire including the lessons to be learned when comparing the Grenville tower fire with other fires both domestically and internationally
00:45:56 both domestically and internationally module eight is to be for any remaining evidence and all submissions relating to the circumstances in which east each deceased met their death so far as not
00:46:08 deceased met their death so far as not covered in the earlier modules and phase one as to that module module eight the bereaved survivors and residents or be SRS have all been invited to provide
00:46:21 SRS have all been invited to provide written submissions by the 29th of May this year as to the further matters to be covered at module eight the timetable for module eight will await consideration of those submissions other
00:46:35 consideration of those submissions other than modules one two three the closing statements for which will be taken in one go in early October each module will open and close with oral statements from
00:46:47 open and close with oral statements from core participants now mr. chairman this timetable that I have so far sent out is obviously provisional and obviously subject to change that is because this
00:46:58 subject to change that is because this is an inquisitorial process and we must go where the evidence leads us but it bears emphasizing in strong terms that the work of this inquiry is urgent and
00:47:10 the work of this inquiry is urgent and delay if there is to be any must be kept to a minimum there are clear public safety issues at stake which require us all to retain a disciplined and keen
00:47:22 all to retain a disciplined and keen focus on the relevant it Suz say mr. Chanin that is the basic shape of phase two I now turn to module one in a little bit more detail the
00:47:36 one in a little bit more detail the inquiry has received detailed written submissions from three groups of BS RS and 19 commercial and institutional core participants including one individual mr. Kevin Lam each core participant has
00:47:50 mr. Kevin Lam each core participant has been allocated a space in the timetable for this week in which to make oral statements to you and most core participants have taken up their invitation to speak having considered
00:48:04 invitation to speak having considered the contents of the core participants written submissions or statements that they provided in December and in some cases in early January the inquiry decided to give disclosure of each core
00:48:17 decided to give disclosure of each core participant statement to all other core participants it did so a week ago the reason for doing so was so that each core participant could see and consider
00:48:28 core participant could see and consider the position taken by the other core participants where they had put in written statements and if necessary address the panel on any points it
00:48:39 address the panel on any points it wished this week that internal was because with the sole exception of our bkc the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea not a single core participant
00:48:52 Chelsea not a single core participant involved in the primary refurbishment of Grenfell tower has felt able to make any unqualified admission against its own interests with that solitary exception
00:49:05 interests with that solitary exception mr. chairman one finds in these detailed and carefully crafted statements no trace of any acceptance of any responsibility for what happened at
00:49:16 responsibility for what happened at grenfell tower not from the architects the contract managers the main contractors the specialist cladding subcontractors the fire safety engineers
00:49:29 subcontractors the fire safety engineers or the TMO nor with the exception of Celotex who have made certain limited admissions which they assert were not causative do
00:49:40 which they assert were not causative do we find any admission of any kind from those who made and sold the products used in the cladding any member of the public reading these statements and
00:49:53 public reading these statements and taking them all at face value would be forced to conclude that everyone involved in the refurbishment of grenfell Tower did what they were supposed to do and nobody made any
00:50:06 supposed to do and nobody made any serious or causative mistakes now mr. chairman you will recall that in my opening address at phase one of this inquiry on the 4th of June 2018 I
00:50:17 inquiry on the 4th of June 2018 I invited the core participants not to indulge in a merry-go-round of buck-passing regrettably that invitation has not been accepted save for our bkc
00:50:31 has not been accepted save for our bkc who have made clear and welcomed admissions of numerous failings of its Building Control Officers and to a lesser extent Celotex each corps
00:50:42 lesser extent Celotex each corps participant who played a material part in the refurbishment of Grenfell tower has laid out a detailed case for how it relied on the work of others and how in
00:50:55 relied on the work of others and how in no way was the work it did either substandard or non-compliant in every case what happened was edge as each of them would have it someone else's fault
00:51:08 them would have it someone else's fault now at this stage before hearing the oral evidence of the witnesses in this and perhaps also later modules you are of course in no position to determine
00:51:20 of course in no position to determine with whom and in what degree responsibility lies however you can and you should I would suggest be guided as you hear
00:51:32 I would suggest be guided as you hear the evidence in this and indeed later modules by two things first by the conclusion reached by you mr. chairman in your phase one report that the tower
00:51:44 in your phase one report that the tower did not comply with certain key aspects of the building regulations and secondly by the expert evidence obtained by the inquiry and provided to
00:51:55 obtained by the inquiry and provided to core participants as to the first of those chapter 26 of the phase 1 report contains the Chairman's conclusion that
00:52:06 contains the Chairman's conclusion that the building was not compliant with functional requirement B for one of the building regulations requirement B for one required the external walls of
00:52:19 one required the external walls of Grenfell tower two quotes adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls having regard to the height use and
00:52:30 having regard to the height use and position of the building place quakes you mr. Chairman concluded that far from resisting such fire spread the walls actively promoted it whether one
00:52:41 actively promoted it whether one considers the rain screen panels alone the ACM panels or the cladding system as a whole or even the complete external envelope including the concrete structure mr. chairman madam the notion
00:52:56 structure mr. chairman madam the notion that grenfell tower was not compliant with functional requirement B for one without anyone being at fault is unlikely as to the experts reports the
00:53:09 unlikely as to the experts reports the inquiry has been assisted by a very lengthy and detailed report from an expert architect mr. Paul Hyatt and by several further reports from dr. Lane on fire engineering the health and safety
00:53:22 fire engineering the health and safety file and the question of whether regulation 38 of the building regulations which relates to handover of fire safety information was properly complied with we have also received a
00:53:35 complied with we have also received a report from Miss Beryl Menzies on the acts and emissions of our BK C's Building Control Officers those reports which were served on core participants
00:53:46 which were served on core participants at the end of October last year identify a multitude of serious failings and departures from statutory requirements and guidance across a very wide spectrum
00:53:57 and guidance across a very wide spectrum of professional disciplines you will of course bear in mind that those reports have not yet been tested in oral examination and there are certain core participants who reject at
00:54:08 certain core participants who reject at this stage some of the conclusions reached by them the reports of those experts will be published when they come to be examined at the end of module one when they can give their opinions based
00:54:19 when they can give their opinions based on the evidence which has come out at that stage however on the question of accountability it is important that I identify clearly at the outset what the
00:54:32 identify clearly at the outset what the inquiry panel is doing and what it is not doing this module module one and indeed phase two as a whole is not a dress rehearsal for civil claims or any
00:54:45 dress rehearsal for civil claims or any criminal proceedings indeed you are expressly forbidden by section 2 of the inquiries Act 2005 from ruling on or making any determination of
00:54:56 ruling on or making any determination of any person's liability whether civil or criminal your task is to find the facts and to make recommendations it is from the findings of fact based on the
00:55:07 the findings of fact based on the evidence that accountability follows as part of the findings of fact you may decide as between a number of persons who bears responsibility for acts and
00:55:19 who bears responsibility for acts and emissions that will be based in turn on the contractual or statutory responsibilities that they were discharging and the way in which they understood those responsibilities and
00:55:30 understood those responsibilities and sought to comply with them if lessons are to be learned from what went wrong at Grenfell tower and the necessary changes to the construction industry are
00:55:41 changes to the construction industry are to be made it is important that all those who give evidence at module 1 and indeed all witnesses who are called throughout phase 2 provide a truthful
00:55:52 throughout phase 2 provide a truthful and a candid account of what happened during the primary refurbishment so that your factual findings and recommendations that follow from them may accurately reflect the true nature
00:56:04 may accurately reflect the true nature of the problems which arose those who escaped from that burning building with their lives or who lost loved ones and all that they possessed in that fire
00:56:16 all that they possessed in that fire our ode at the very least an honest and a complete account from those witnesses who are in a position to explain why it happened I now turn to the issues for
00:56:29 happened I now turn to the issues for module 1 the issues that we will be examining with the module 1 witnesses broadly encompass the following first the initial decision to undergo refurbishment at Grenfell the reasons
00:56:42 refurbishment at Grenfell the reasons for the decision and the budget second the appointment of the professionals by the TMO criteria roles interface between professionals third the procurement of
00:56:54 professionals third the procurement of the design and build contractor looking at the process adopted and compliance fourth planning fifth the cladding particularly the design and selection
00:57:06 particularly the design and selection decisions compliance with ADB and industry guidance consideration given to fire safety or fire risk with a particular focus on the ACM panels the
00:57:18 particular focus on the ACM panels the rain screen insulation the window infill panels the windows and windows surrounds cavity barriers and the crown sixthly fire strategy pre and post refurbishment
00:57:31 fire strategy pre and post refurbishment development and adequacy including consideration of cladding and seventh building control with the principal focus on the facade so far as witnesses
00:57:43 focus on the facade so far as witnesses are concerned at module one I start with with studio II we'll begin by hearing witnesses from studio II who were the architects who were originally retained by the TMO directly and subsequently
00:57:55 by the TMO directly and subsequently became a subcontractor of Ryden once Ryden had become employed by the TMO as the design and build contractor main contractor in March 2014
00:58:07 contractor in March 2014 under the TMO appointment studio II were the lead consultant lead designer and architects although no signed contract was ever concluded between the TMO and
00:58:20 was ever concluded between the TMO and studio II for the period prior to ride ins appointment as the main contractor between between them the studio II witnesses have accepted it appears that they worked on
00:58:33 accepted it appears that they worked on the basis that their contractual relationship was governed by the RI be a standard conditions of appointment 2010 and Appendix B schedule of services as
00:58:44 and Appendix B schedule of services as to the period when Studio II worked for ridin a deed of appointment and a schedule of architectural services was eventually signed on the 3rd of February 2016 only a few months before the end of
00:58:57 2016 only a few months before the end of the refurbishment together with a deed of collateral warranty in favor of the TMO we will be hearing as witnesses from mr. Koo shell and Rekha shell who was a
00:59:09 mr. Koo shell and Rekha shell who was a director of studio E and one of its original founders who was involved in the early stages of studio e's involvement and in the design review process we will hear from mr. Bruce
00:59:21 process we will hear from mr. Bruce Tunes and architect associate at Studio E who was the most senior professional architect involved in the day-to-day running of the Granatell tower project up to July 2014 supervising the work of
00:59:36 up to July 2014 supervising the work of mr. Neil Crawford and Thomas rec we will hear from Neil Crawford who answered to Bruce soons and who had day-to-day involvement with the project from July 2014 and we will
00:59:49 the project from July 2014 and we will hear from Thomas Rec who also answered to bruce soon's and who worked on the project from September to December 2013 when he left studio E he assisted in
01:00:01 when he left studio E he assisted in sourcing some of the materials used in the cladding and other aspects of the design and specifying them in the NBS specification which formed the basis of
01:00:12 specification which formed the basis of the tender in late 2013 core participants will have seen from Studio EES written opening statement that they have prepared an appendix comprising a
01:00:26 have prepared an appendix comprising a critique of Paul Hyatts experts report we have asked for site of that document so that mr. Hyatt could consider it but it arrived with the inquiry too late to be considered before disclosure to core
01:00:39 be considered before disclosure to core participants of studio e's written statement
01:00:42 statement and we are still considering it I next turn to X over Warrington fire or x over now they were appointed by the TMO early
01:00:54 now they were appointed by the TMO early on in the project indeed in mid 2012 to provide fire safety engineering services they were appointed under two separate instructions the first instruction was
01:01:07 instructions the first instruction was to prepare a fire strategy for the building as it stood the existing fire strategy and that was because no fire strategy existed for Grenfell tower at
01:01:18 strategy existed for Grenfell tower at that time the second instruction was to prepare a fire strategy in relation to the proposed refurbishment works the fire strategy for the existing condition
01:01:31 fire strategy for the existing condition of the building was prepared by Kate Cooney a principal consultant Attucks over and was dated the 16th of August 2012 as to the refurbishment fire
01:01:43 2012 as to the refurbishment fire strategy xover prepared three versions of that the last of which was dated the 7th of November 2013 x overs appointment predated ridings appointment as the
01:01:56 predated ridings appointment as the design and build contractor after write-ins appointment x over did provide further advice to the building professionals on the project on an
01:02:07 professionals on the project on an ad-hoc basis but xover were not it appears engaged directly by Ryden during module 1 we will be hearing from 4x over
01:02:18 module 1 we will be hearing from 4x over witnesses including miss Cooney who prepared the fire strategy for the existing building and mr. Terrence Ashton who prepared the fire strategy for the refurbishment works we will be
01:02:29 for the refurbishment works we will be exploring with those witnesses the scope of services which xover committed to provide on the project and whether that work was delivered as anticipated we
01:02:41 work was delivered as anticipated we will be considering the fire strategies prepared by x over and whether they were appropriate and reliable given the information which had been provided to x over over time
01:02:53 over over time we will also be considering the ad hoc advice provided by x over during the project including the extent to which that assists in understanding the state
01:03:04 that assists in understanding the state of knowledge of the professionals on the project about the likely fire performance of the external wall I then turned to ridin ridin were the TM O's
01:03:17 turned to ridin ridin were the TM O's main contractor on the ground felt our project having won an open tender on the 18th of March 2014 based on studio EES NBS specification
01:03:29 based on studio EES NBS specification and the invitation to tender of the 29th of November 2013 they were engaged by the TMO under a conformed version of the
01:03:40 the TMO under a conformed version of the JCT 2011 design and build contract which incorporates specific amendments which were agreed to the standard JCT terms which was executed on the 30th of
01:03:51 which was executed on the 30th of october 2014 ridin were performing before that date and had signed a pre-construction agreement on the 22nd of May 2014 once ridin was appointed studio he
01:04:04 once ridin was appointed studio he proceeded on the basis that it was a subcontractor of ridin although that was only formalized much later in February 2016
01:04:13 2016 under the deed of appointment I referred to earlier which had retrospective effect there was also as I say a consultant deed of collateral warranty in respect of the Grenfell tower project
01:04:25 in respect of the Grenfell tower project between Studio E the TMO and ridin dated the 25th of April 2016 under which studio ii warranted to the TMO promised the TMO that it had performed and would
01:04:37 the TMO that it had performed and would continue to perform all of its duties arising out of its subcontract with ridin under the deed of appointment we will be hearing from a series of ridin employees who were involved in the
01:04:48 employees who were involved in the project and in particular Simon Lawrence who was the contracts manager for the project for ridin and who helped put the winning bid together and who left ridin in October 2015
01:05:00 and who left ridin in October 2015 before the end of the project from Simon O'Connor who was the project manager for the Granville a project between May 2014 and July 2015
01:05:11 a project between May 2014 and July 2015 David Hughes who was the ride and site manager from October 2015 and Steven Blake who was ridings refurbishment director who took over the role of
01:05:22 director who took over the role of contract management when Simon Lawrence left ridin in October 2015 I turned to Harley Harley were ridin
01:05:33 I turned to Harley Harley were ridin specialist subcontractor they were in contact with studio II in September 2013 long before ridin were involved and indeed before the invitation to tender and at that stage they were producing
01:05:46 and at that stage they were producing pricing information for studio E for the cladding and its component products they were also talking to the suppliers of ACM panels our conic Harley's eventual
01:05:58 ACM panels our conic Harley's eventual contractual relationship was with Rhydon and was governed by an undated letter of intent but which includes a reference to a quotation dated the 11th of July 2014 the Harley letter of intent expressly
01:06:12 the Harley letter of intent expressly incorporated a formal contract the JCT done two articles of agreement and subcontract conditions 2011 as amended for the design of the facade works and
01:06:24 for the design of the facade works and also certain routes right and standard terms and conditions which were attached as Appendix B to the letter of intent the Harley witnesses will include mr.
01:06:35 the Harley witnesses will include mr. ray Bailey the sole director of Harley facades Limited which was the successor company to Harley curtain wall limited from September 2015 of which he had also been a sole director Ben Daley son of
01:06:50 been a sole director Ben Daley son of Ray who was the project manager on the grenfell project from February to July 2015
01:06:57 2015 Mark Harris Harley's sales consultant whose main role was securing Harley's involvement prior to Ryden retaining Harley under a subcontract under the letter of intent and who had a
01:07:10 under the letter of intent and who had a contact at our conic the ACM panel makers namely miss Deborah French Daniel ankertill Jones the designer manager at Harley who was also involved
01:07:23 manager at Harley who was also involved with the grenfell project between June 2014 and May 2015 and mr. Kevin lamb an independently out sourced specialist cladding designer who produced the
01:07:35 cladding designer who produced the detailed design drawings for the external envelope of the tower he is a core participant in his own right and he has his own separate representation in this inquiry he has filed a written
01:07:47 this inquiry he has filed a written opening statement but he will not be making an oral opening statement to you I next turn to CEP CEP was responsible
01:07:59 I next turn to CEP CEP was responsible for the rain screen element of the cladding which had to be fabricated into cassette panels CEP carried out that task they had been involved with the
01:08:10 task they had been involved with the Grenfell tower project since as early as March 2012 when discussions were had with Studio II now CEP had a long-standing commercial relationship
01:08:21 long-standing commercial relationship with our comic it became fully involved with the project in January 2014 when Harley asked CEP to quote for the cladding as part of Harley's tender to
01:08:33 cladding as part of Harley's tender to Ryden in September 2014 CEP quoted for and agreed to supply the window frames for the refurbishment and in February 2015
01:08:44 in February 2015 CEP quoted for and agreed to fabricate and supply the ACM cassette panels forming the rain screen using our comics raina bond 55 polyethylene or PE core
01:08:57 raina bond 55 polyethylene or PE core ACM sheets see ep's supply contract was with Harley but that was then novated were refreshed to Ryden in September 2015
01:09:09 2015 Jeffrey blades who is sieepiess commercial projects manager will be giving evidence I turn next to max Fordham max Fordham was the building
01:09:20 Fordham max Fordham was the building services engineering consultant retained throughout by the TMO to advise on energy strategy and sustainability and in particular on the proposed improvements to the
01:09:33 on the proposed improvements to the thermal performance of the building max Fordham was retained on standard AC e terms it was max Fordham that identified in August 2012 seller texas
01:09:45 identified in August 2012 seller texas FR 5,000 api our product as suitable insulation for use in the cladding system because it could both meet its
01:09:56 system because it could both meet its target thermal performance value and was also thin enough to work within studio e's proposed design dimensions Celotex FR 5000 was specified by studio e in the
01:10:11 FR 5000 was specified by studio e in the NBS specification in November 2013 and Celotex RS 5000 which according to Celotex was the same product was
01:10:22 Celotex was the same product was supplied and put on the building as the main insulation product within the cladding structure max Fordham have chosen not to make an oral opening statement mr. andrew Mercat will give
01:10:34 statement mr. andrew Mercat will give oral evidence I should mention John Roman partners they were the clerk of works who were retained by the TMO whose role included site inspection and monitoring we will
01:10:47 site inspection and monitoring we will be hearing evidence from Jonathan white and ger pal Verde Osborn berry were retained as the building contractors by Harley and fitted the windows and the
01:10:58 Harley and fitted the windows and the cladding system we will be hearing evidence from grey and Barry and mark Osborne about workmanship and inspections Osborn Barry have filed a written opening statement for module 1
01:11:10 written opening statement for module 1 but have chosen not to make an opening oral statement SD plastering Limited where another ride and subcontractor who were responsible for the installation and making good of the window surrounds
01:11:22 and making good of the window surrounds we will be hearing evidence from Mark Dixon a director of SD plastering limited a next turn to our BK C's
01:11:33 limited a next turn to our BK C's Building Control RB say bar-b-que sees Building Control Department inspected the site
01:11:40 the site and signed off on the refurbishment work as compliant with the building regulations as I said earlier our bkc have in their submissions or statement
01:11:55 have in their submissions or statement accepted that Building Control failed to ask for comprehensive details of the cladding system including the crown failed to request an up-to-date version
01:12:07 failed to request an up-to-date version of the fire strategy for the refurbishment failed to identify that the insulation materials or products used in the cladding system were not of limited combust ability and therefore
01:12:20 limited combust ability and therefore did not satisfy the requirements of paragraph 12 point 7 have approved document b and they accept the building control should not have issued a
01:12:32 control should not have issued a completion certificate as it did on the 7th of July 2016 in module 1 we will be hearing from to our bkc Building Control Officers namely John Hoban and John
01:12:45 Officers namely John Hoban and John Allen RT Lea RT Lea was the project CDM orc or construction design and management coordinator employers agent
01:12:57 management coordinator employers agent and quantity surveyor with its services that they were to give set out in various our ICS standard form appointment documents and our ICS mr.
01:13:08 appointment documents and our ICS mr. chairman is the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors RT Lea was retained by the TMO throughout from about April 2012 but formerly contracted from August
01:13:21 2012 but formerly contracted from August 2012 its CDM coordinator role ended on the 5th of October 2015 when a new role of principal designer under the CDM
01:13:32 of principal designer under the CDM regulations 2015 was assumed by the TMO we will be hearing from a number of RT Lea witnesses including Simon cash Philip Booth and Neil read the TMO
01:13:47 Philip Booth and Neil read the TMO finally we will be hearing from a number of witnesses from the TMO in this module a
01:13:53 a about its role in the procurement and oversight of the project the decisions it made and those it left to others and our witnesses at the moment include Claire Williams the full-time project
01:14:04 Claire Williams the full-time project manager for the TMO on the Grenfell tower refurbishment and Peter Madison whose role was to provide strategic overview and the asset management aspects of the project there are some
01:14:19 aspects of the project there are some others so far I have identified the main participants in the matters the subject matter of module 1 and from whom we will be calling factual evidence in addition
01:14:30 be calling factual evidence in addition we have had written opening statements from Jas right they were writings m and E subcontractor based on a letter of intent from writin of the 25th of July 2014 it had very
01:14:44 of the 25th of July 2014 it had very little involvement in the issues the subject of module 1 we do not propose to call any witnesses from J s right in module 1 we will all say there are also
01:14:55 module 1 we will all say there are also involved curtains consulting curtains were retained by the TMO as the structural engineer for the refurbishment on an AC e form on about
01:15:06 refurbishment on an AC e form on about the 12th of February 2012 which was then novated or refreshed over to write and in January 2016 we did not propose to call any witnesses from curtains consulting in module 1 J s right and
01:15:20 consulting in module 1 J s right and curtains consulting have chosen to make no orals opening statements in module 1 finally I should mention mr. chairman that the inquiry has received short written statements for module 1 from the
01:15:32 written statements for module 1 from the lfb the FPU the MH CLG and the mayor the MHC LG has chosen not to address you orally in opening this module and we are
01:15:44 orally in opening this module and we are not calling any witnesses from those core participants at this module 1 finally mr. chairman module 1 experts as I said earlier in my address the inquiry
01:15:56 I said earlier in my address the inquiry has obtained experts reports from Paul Hyatt
01:15:59 Hyatt dr. Barbara Lane and Beryl Menzies for module 1 they will be called to be examined over three days in the law week of the module one time table currently time table as the week
01:16:12 currently time table as the week commencing the 30th of March that is all I was proposing to say by way of opening phase 2 and module 1 to you we have a timetable for opening statements of core
01:16:23 timetable for opening statements of core participants for the rest of this week and the first of those to address you now will be studio e next this morning and the opening statements will end on Thursday with oral statements from
01:16:34 Thursday with oral statements from representatives of the bereaved survivors and residents mr. chairman thank you very much indeed well the next statement on our schedule is due to be
01:16:45 statement on our schedule is due to be given on behalf of studio e architects by I think mr. pop at Queen's Counsel
01:16:54 good thank you I'm sorry I have to ask you to make your way all the way over to the desk here so that you can address everybody and be seen for the purposes of the yes mr. Thapa thank you
01:17:21 mr. chairman madam today I appear before you as a representative of studio II architects Limited I appear before you
01:17:32 architects Limited I appear before you to deliver its opening statement it's opening statement at a public inquiry inquiring into one of the most horrific tragic incidents this country has seen
01:17:44 tragic incidents this country has seen in peacetime a disaster in which 72 people lost their lives and many many more were injured traumatized or had
01:17:55 more were injured traumatized or had their lives ruined by grief or changed forever by the devastating consequences of losing family members and close friends and sir by this opening
01:18:08 friends and sir by this opening statement made after 123 days of hearings in first phase studio E is speaking for the first time at this inquiry and as such the first thing it
01:18:22 inquiry and as such the first thing it says and wants to say is how truly devastated it is that this terrible terrible tragedy okay exactly who and
01:18:34 terrible tragedy okay exactly who and what caused the fire the spread of the fire and its shattering consequences is being and will continue to be discovered by this inquiry and other investigations
01:18:46 by this inquiry and other investigations but this does not preclude the people who make up this small company who felt close to the community for the many years they worked there recording their deep and profound sorrow for the tragedy
01:18:59 deep and profound sorrow for the tragedy that befell the occupants of Granville Tower all those involved in the rescue attempts following the fire all their loved ones and all others affected as
01:19:10 loved ones and all others affected as circles of appalling consequences rippled
01:19:14 rippled outwards from the events of the 14th of June 2017
01:19:20 June 2017 so this disaster will haunt everyone involved in this project to refurbish the tower and in this phase and particularly by module one it is the
01:19:31 particularly by module one it is the inquiries role to question their actions and studio II will do its best to answer the questions that asked of it and it wholly supports the need for a thorough and wide-ranging investigation but I
01:19:46 and wide-ranging investigation but I must make it clear and all the people involved with this company want to make it plain that they have asked themselves searching questions since that fateful night in June 2017 and sought to examine
01:20:00 night in June 2017 and sought to examine what they did and whether they might have done anything differently which could have resulted in a different outcome and this anguish will continue long after the questions posed by this inquiry or any other investigations so
01:20:15 inquiry or any other investigations so what I propose to do next over the course of this opening is to provide a brief summary by way of answers to three questions who is studio e what part has
01:20:28 questions who is studio e what part has it played in this inquiry to date and what part will it play for the foreseeable future and finally the majority of my time will be spent summarizing the answer to the question what role did it play in the
01:20:40 question what role did it play in the refurbishment project I understand the timetable allocated I think one and a half hours for this opening I intend to take up about a third of that time and I think we have notified inquiry team yes
01:20:52 think we have notified inquiry team yes I've been told that you think you'll need about half an hour so let me turn to the first question and give a short
01:21:04 to the first question and give a short introduction to studio E it is a corporate core participant at this inquiry but the corporate description whilst obviously legally correct may
01:21:16 whilst obviously legally correct may give the impression of some large faceless commercial organization with layers of management and teams of employees and if it does give that description then that description would
01:21:28 description then that description would be utterly misleading in the case of studio E it is a close-knit company founded in 1994 originally with three directors two of them still remain as
01:21:39 directors two of them still remain as directors more than 25 years on its height in 2008 it employed up to 45 staff but by 2014 the year it was
01:21:50 staff but by 2014 the year it was appointed on this project by Ryden his staff numbers had reduced by four-fifths so that it had only nine employees it is always practiced forum premises in
01:22:03 always practiced forum premises in London though its work has spread across the country and abroad the core of the practices work has rotated around education sports and leisure recreational and commercial work with a
01:22:15 recreational and commercial work with a particular focus on designing environmentally sensitive buildings it is punched above its weight in many ways and has regularly been recognised within the industry for its work that
01:22:28 the industry for its work that recognition has included the Queen's Award for sustainable development multiple awards from the Royal Institute of British Architects and numerous other awards there's also always sought to
01:22:40 awards there's also always sought to approach its work with integrity and a social conscience as engaged with the local community wherever it is worked for example through career talks at schools and taking numerous students for
01:22:52 schools and taking numerous students for work experience now I mention these matters not to seek to garner praise for studio II but to explain that it regards engagement with the environment and with
01:23:04 engagement with the environment and with the local communities in which it works as central to its existence and way of working and short it is and always has been a conscious interests ethical and responsible
01:23:16 interests ethical and responsible architectural practice so without I move to the next question of studio e's involvement with the inquiry its
01:23:28 involvement with the inquiry its participation inquiry to date has been against a background of limited financial resources the limit has been such that studio has had to make difficult decisions as to how best to
01:23:39 difficult decisions as to how best to deploy those resources as a result it was not legally represented for the phase one hearings of the inquiry and following this brief opening statement
01:23:50 following this brief opening statement will not be legally represented during the phase two hearings either absolutely no discourtesy is intended by the absence of legal representation it is unafraid just a necessary consequence of
01:24:03 unafraid just a necessary consequence of the financial limitations placed upon the company now I know at earlier points an inquiry comment has been made by certain of those involved that studio he
01:24:14 certain of those involved that studio he was choosing not to be involved in this investigation or was not concerned to help the inquiry the studio he did not appear before you and didn't have teams
01:24:25 appear before you and didn't have teams of lawyers speaking on its behalf at public hearings such commentary was perfectly understandable however I do want to try and reassure everyone that nothing could be further from the truth
01:24:36 nothing could be further from the truth the people in this company have been extremely concerned at all stages of these investigations to try and assist your inquiries and to be seen to be doing so it wants to engage it is in its
01:24:49 doing so it wants to engage it is in its interests to engage and it doesn't want to give the impression to anyone least of all the bereaved survivors and residents that it doesn't care or that it's hiding away or that it doesn't want
01:25:01 it's hiding away or that it doesn't want to help it may not be known or evident to everyone in this room but sir as you know as requested by the inquiry studio he has disclosed substantial numbers of
01:25:13 he has disclosed substantial numbers of relevant documents from its project file it is prepared and provided comprehensive rule 9 witness statements totaling some three hundred and forty pages setting out in detail its
01:25:24 pages setting out in detail its involvement in the refurbishment it has also now prepared a substantial return opening submission and appendix of over more than 80 pages and for members of the practice as you've heard
01:25:36 members of the practice as you've heard a director to associates and one previous employee are attending to give all evidence at this phase of the inquiry the decision to provide such
01:25:47 inquiry the decision to provide such detailed documents and to take as open and cooperative approach as possible was in order to best assist the inquiry in understanding studio ease involvement in the refurbishment works
01:25:58 the refurbishment works this in turn it is hope should assist inquire in discharging its terms of reference above all everyone at Studio E just like I expect everyone in this room
01:26:11 just like I expect everyone in this room wants to help the inquiry to discharge its function to identify any and all lessons that need to be learned and to identify and make the changes that need
01:26:22 identify and make the changes that need to be made so that when buildings are constructed or refurbished in the future the risk of a disaster like this ever happening again are eliminated so let me
01:26:37 happening again are eliminated so let me turn now over the next 15 minutes or so to my third question and briefly to explain studio ease involvement in the
01:26:48 explain studio ease involvement in the project now the detail of this involvement is set out in the many pages of witness statements and studio he's opening which I've already mentioned which I understand will be published in
01:26:59 which I understand will be published in due course but before developing this account and hopefully to assist orientation through it let me just set out a few points that were listed at the beginning of studio e's written opening
01:27:12 beginning of studio e's written opening statement this is in order to summarize it's considered position on matters relevant to this phase of the inquiry first having retrospectively examined
01:27:26 first having retrospectively examined and considered it Studio II does believe that the relevant regulatory system was not fit for purpose and appears to have permitted the routine use of unsafe
01:27:37 permitted the routine use of unsafe cladding materials on buildings for many years product manufacturers produce materials and testing data which had the effect of misleading designers to consider that
01:27:48 misleading designers to consider that their products were safe third at the time of the project studio he did not have any knowledge that the products used on the tower were unsafe and there
01:28:00 used on the tower were unsafe and there was no information available to eat or as it understands to other architects and designers which would have reasonably alerted it to any lack of safety and fourth whilst it will
01:28:13 safety and fourth whilst it will continue to examine this question and will listen to and where it should it will accept any criticisms leveled against it from its understanding of the
01:28:26 against it from its understanding of the industry and awareness of the volume of tall buildings at the time with materially similar external surfaces studio he does consider that it acted as would be expected of a reasonably competent arctic in its position so this
01:28:41 competent arctic in its position so this summary is necessarily a preliminary analysis I must stress it is not an attempt to prejudge the evidence to come it is not an attempt to pass the buck
01:28:55 it is not an attempt to pass the buck studio we will listen carefully and it's understanding like everyone else's will deliver over the coming days and weeks as an organization and most importantly
01:29:06 as an organization and most importantly as human beings within that organization everyone associated with this company wants to understand and learn however painful that might be I must also make
01:29:21 painful that might be I must also make it clear that this summary and what's in the written opening is based on the evidence that Studio II has to date to being able to consider the truth is that due to the funding restrictions studio
01:29:33 due to the funding restrictions studio he has not been able to consider with its advisors all evidence disclosed by the inquiry or by the other core participants it and they have focused on the materials that it's anticipated will
01:29:44 the materials that it's anticipated will relate most to studio he's role on this project that has included the report of inquiries appointed expert architect mr. Paul Hyatt mr.
01:29:55 expert architect mr. Paul Hyatt mr. Hyatt report is over 500 pages and studio is primly analysis has identified numerous what it regards as technical or factual inaccuracies in key regards
01:30:07 factual inaccuracies in key regards further studio he does disagree with many of the opinions expressed by mr. Hyatt in that report in order to assist
01:30:18 Hyatt in that report in order to assist hopefully everyone who has to consider this question and the time that has been limited and afforded to Studio II since the disclosure of that report it has responded to that report by aware of an
01:30:30 responded to that report by aware of an opening statement which sets out a detailed but not exhaustive appendix setting out its concerns and where it considers these inaccuracies may impact
01:30:42 considers these inaccuracies may impact on the inquires ability to comply with its terms of reference studio he understands that that appendix will be published at certainly indeed course as
01:30:54 published at certainly indeed course as I've said all of this by way of summary because it is set out in the written opening statement of Studio II however I'll make clear that I have carefully listened to mr. minutes opening
01:31:06 listened to mr. minutes opening statement and particularly his admonishment of the corporate core participants are not making admissions and identifying their own failings mr.
01:31:17 and identifying their own failings mr. millet urged all involved to consider carefully their positions and all witnesses to give truthful full evidence sir I assure you as I have already said
01:31:29 sir I assure you as I have already said that studio we will continue to give that careful consideration and as I have already said it will recognize and accept criticisms leveled against it
01:31:40 accept criticisms leveled against it where it is appropriate to do so and I assure you that its witnesses intend and want to give as much assistance as possible to the inquiry through their
01:31:52 possible to the inquiry through their evidence and there is no question at all but that they will give truthful accounts of their involvement throughout this project
01:32:04 so let me turn to the chronology of studio e's involvement in the project and i'll begin with its appointment but in given this chronology i am aware that
01:32:15 in given this chronology i am aware that the council to inquiry has provided a short summary of that of its own this morning but starting with the appointment studio ease involvement
01:32:27 appointment studio ease involvement arose from its work in 2011 on the kensington academy and leisure center on the site next to Granville tower studio he had been appointed on the academy
01:32:38 he had been appointed on the academy project following an open tender process and during the course of those works the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea informed Studio II of its intention to refurbish Granville tower and the
01:32:52 refurbish Granville tower and the council introduced studio II to the Kensington and Chelsea tenant management organization or the tear mode and the council and the TMO indicated their intention to maximize the potential benefits from appointing the team from
01:33:05 benefits from appointing the team from the academy project on to the gram full child project in early 2012 the TMO provided Studio e with a brief for the tower project which included addressing
01:33:17 tower project which included addressing poor energy efficiency in the tower by amongst other things replacing the existing windows to the flats and over cladding the tower
01:33:31 following this studio II assisted the tier mo in contacting the team involved in the KLC project for the worst regretful tower and this included the fire consultant x over this arose from
01:33:45 fire consultant x over this arose from the initial meeting with the tier MO where studio a raised its view that specialist fire safety advice may be required on the project this recommendation was accepted by the TMO
01:33:56 recommendation was accepted by the TMO and CEO he was instructed to approach x over to provide a quote for the provision of specialist fire consultancy services and the tier may subsequently engage x over as its fire engineer the
01:34:11 engage x over as its fire engineer the tier Mo's agent art Illya was responsible for coordinating the appointment process on the tier Mo's behalf having explained that initial involvement let me turn to the project
01:34:24 involvement let me turn to the project planning which was the next stage in the project during the early part of the project studio E's work mainly included preparing the application for planning
01:34:35 preparing the application for planning permission a priority for the envelope at this stage was to agree the appearance of the tower with all stakeholders and the planning authority this took the form of extensive
01:34:47 this took the form of extensive discussions over an extended period of time involving the planning authority the tier MOU local councilors Studio II and other consultants in selecting the
01:34:58 and other consultants in selecting the materials to be proposed in the planning application and to ensure that all relevant considerations were identified studio we engaged with numerous consultants including xover and
01:35:10 consultants including xover and different suppliers while there as issues were raised which were then considered and resolved such as costs durability method of installation
01:35:21 durability method of installation procurement factors in the light none of these consultants all suppliers raised any queries or concerns regarding the brief to over cloud the tower or the
01:35:33 the brief to over cloud the tower or the compliance of the cladding and its components with the building regulations in fact Studio II was directed to other high-rise residential buildings using similar materials to those under
01:35:44 similar materials to those under Federation for the tower and during this time the chair may was in negotiations with Leadbeater who was the contractor on the KLC project regarding its
01:35:55 on the KLC project regarding its involvement in the refurbishment works the negotiations were unsuccessful and following its initial involvement in the project
01:36:03 project Leadbetter fell away thereby depriving the project team of early contractor advice and indeed causing significant delay once it became clear that led bitter was not going to be appointed the
01:36:15 bitter was not going to be appointed the tier mode took the decision to put the project after tender on a design and build basis and instructed Studio II and the rest of the design team to prepare
01:36:27 the rest of the design team to prepare the tender documents and that's the next stage of the chronology that I address it relates to the preparation of the employees requirements which form an
01:36:39 employees requirements which form an important part of the tender documents the employers requirements provide a description of what the employer in this case the tier mode is looking to achieve
01:36:50 case the tier mode is looking to achieve on the project including the specification for the building the scope of services required from the contractor and an allocation of risk for unknown
01:37:01 and an allocation of risk for unknown items the employers requirements are not a completed design the detailed design was expressly envisioned in visitors to be developed once a contractor was
01:37:13 be developed once a contractor was appointed studio he prepared its contribution to the employer's requirement and other members of the design team responsible for preparing drawings specifications and schedules
01:37:24 drawings specifications and schedules relating to their design packages example mechanical electrical engineering is done by max Fordham structural engineering by curtains fire
01:37:35 structural engineering by curtains fire safety engineering by x over landscaping by churchmen and others - as part of this for instance max Fordham advised on
01:37:49 this for instance max Fordham advised on the thermal performance of the building envelope and proposed the use of saidit x FR 5000 for the rain screen clad insulation to the extent the packages
01:38:03 insulation to the extent the packages had interfaces with each other studio we considered that it did have a coordination role between the preparation of the employer's requirements to Dairy engage with a number of manufacturers fabricators and
01:38:15 number of manufacturers fabricators and installers including Harley in addition to collaborating with the other consultants studio he provided each entity with what it regarded as
01:38:26 entity with what it regarded as sufficient details to identify the necessary requirements for the tower including elevation drawings and some were invited to cite from such inquiry
01:38:37 were invited to cite from such inquiry it would have been self-evident to any manufacturer fabricator and/or installer that its products would need to comply with the relevant regulatory regime
01:38:49 with the relevant regulatory regime again none of the entities contacted by Studio E raised any queries or concerns regarding the brief - over Clair the tower or the compliance of the cladding and its components with the building
01:39:02 and its components with the building regulations indeed and again it was pointed out to studio EE that other high-rise residential buildings use similar materials to those under consideration for the tower studio e
01:39:17 consideration for the tower studio e relied on the advice of the appointed consultants and the suppliers and specialists that it consulted that the products being considered were suitable for the intended purpose and it does consider that it was reasonable and
01:39:29 consider that it was reasonable and appropriate for it to do so had any specialists raise any concerns or even queries its conduct on the project demonstrates that it would have acted upon them safer some limited queries
01:39:43 upon them safer some limited queries which were set out in the studio a rule known witness statements neither xover nor Building Control raised any queries or concerns regarding that briefed or
01:39:54 or concerns regarding that briefed or with compliance of the cladding with the building regulations deed the advice provided by its over in its fire strategy report regarding compliance
01:40:05 strategy report regarding compliance with Part B for of the building regulation was that the proposed changes that is the over cladding proposals will have no adverse effect on the building in
01:40:18 adverse effect on the building in relation to external fire spread now this would be confirmed in a future issue of the report they know future issue of the report was provided the
01:40:30 issue of the report was provided the [Applause] project was a design and build procurement and the products and materials referred to an employer's requirements were not prescriptive the eventually successful contractor Ryden
01:40:42 eventually successful contractor Ryden and its specially subcontractors had discretion to propose alternative products and materials and it was contractually responsible for the entire project including the design of all
01:40:54 project including the design of all aspects turned to that again just in a moment the employees requirements expressly required that the tendering contractors would carry out detailed
01:41:05 contractors would carry out detailed design of the rainscreen cladding system and therefore had discretion as to how to carry out that design and to propose alternative materials to those referred to in the specification the requirements
01:41:19 to in the specification the requirements also require that any materials complied with specified performance standard as I say having mentioned right and let me turn next in the chronology to its
01:41:31 turn next in the chronology to its appointment as the design and build contractor Wyden held itself out as having a speciality in refurbishing affordable housing including a high-rise residential towers upon appointment
01:41:45 residential towers upon appointment right and took on design responsibility for the project and that is an important point that is sometimes overlooked Ryden was responsible for developing the design and specification contained in
01:41:58 design and specification contained in the employers requirements into something that could be built wide an appointed various specialty subcontractors who were responsible for the design of their package of works on the project such as the M&E engineering
01:42:11 the project such as the M&E engineering subcontractors jazz writing Company Limited and the cladding subcontractors Harley Harley was particularly experienced in high
01:42:22 experienced in high residential refurbishments and Studio II understood had worked with Rhydon before such as on the Charcot's estate and FairPoint projects which used was
01:42:33 FairPoint projects which used was understood similar cladding to that used on this project Studio II was appointed by Ryden to provide actual architectural services during the construction stage of the
01:42:44 during the construction stage of the project a significant proportion of T Davies time post contract was spent on the for mixed-use floors below the 20 residential floors which to do we understand aren't relevant to the
01:42:56 understand aren't relevant to the inquiries investigation now at this time in around April 2014 studio E's operation is a partnership under the name studio II LLP cease trading the
01:43:10 name studio II LLP cease trading the studio II architects Limited took over the works the change in entity had no connection to the works at the tower and did not lead to any changes to the staff on the project when bride and a pointer
01:43:24 on the project when bride and a pointer studio heat confirmed that it tended not to use architects to the extent that other contractors might do write in and visit pseudo each role being more responsive with Rhydon maintaining a
01:43:36 responsive with Rhydon maintaining a greater degree of control over the design process than studio we would normally expect from a design and build contractor its appointment with Rhydon
01:43:47 contractor its appointment with Rhydon was only formalized towards the end of the project Harley was ride and specialist subcontractor to which judo he understands ride and had dedicated its
01:43:58 understands ride and had dedicated its design responsibility for the cladding facade pseudo his role included providing comments on Harley's developing detailed design drawings from the perspective of the architectural
01:44:10 the perspective of the architectural intent
01:44:11 intent this included aspects such as sighting spatial arrangements amenity tolerances dimensional coordination appearance proportions colors or finishes of the
01:44:23 proportions colors or finishes of the products Studio II did not consider that the review of these drawings was to check that they were technically correct or necessarily compliant with building
01:44:34 or necessarily compliant with building regulations the subcontract package for which Harley was responsible was specialist in nature the studio II was not responsible for identifying technical errors in the
01:44:45 identifying technical errors in the designs and/or specifications of these specialist disciplines was for ridin and it's special subcontractors to determine whether the materials proposed for
01:44:56 whether the materials proposed for cladding and its fixtures were suitable and met the relevant requirements as set out in the employer's requirements pseudo II was responsible for
01:45:07 pseudo II was responsible for coordinating the building controls approvals process and coordinating between Building Control and the relevant entities to resolve queries to building controls satisfaction studio we
01:45:21 building controls satisfaction studio we carried this out in accordance with building controls specific requirements and resolve this to their satisfaction studio he also now understands that
01:45:32 studio he also now understands that there was direct contact with Building Control and other parties on the project that did not involve studio II of course Building Control ultimately certified
01:45:43 Building Control ultimately certified the works as compliant the studio II does consider that it is of central importance to the inquiries investigations that Building Control departments or approved inspectors
01:45:56 departments or approved inspectors across the country have certified similar buildings according to the MHz LG's update of 14th of November 2019 436
01:46:09 LG's update of 14th of November 2019 436 other buildings above 18 meters have been reported as being clad in aluminium composite materials today we understand that this figure does not include buildings with materials with similar
01:46:21 buildings with materials with similar properties to ACM this appears to demonstrate a systemic issue which has had repercussions across every area of the construction industry for the many
01:46:33 the construction industry for the many residents that find themselves in buildings which are now considered to be unsafe and of course for those connected to the tragedy of Grenville tower the studio II wholly supports the inquiries
01:46:45 studio II wholly supports the inquiries investigations and hopes that these investigations is - why so many professionals and Building Control departments across the country considered these materials to be
01:46:56 considered these materials to be suitable for use on buildings of this kind prior to June 2017 so it's hope that this broad summary is of some
01:47:09 that this broad summary is of some assistance to the inquiry and to those who are not familiar with the background to the project as this inquiry progresses it will be necessary to examine the detail of these events and
01:47:20 examine the detail of these events and it's very much hoped that the rule nine statements and the detailed opening will assist in this regard so that completes
01:47:32 assist in this regard so that completes all I wish to say by way of opening statement I conclude by expressing once again the heartfelt condolences and sympathies of all those associated with
01:47:44 sympathies of all those associated with Studio E and also repeat as I'm instructed - that each person associated with Studio E who will give evidence to this inquiry in the coming days wants to
01:47:56 this inquiry in the coming days wants to assist the inquiry to the absolute best of their ability it wants to work with you and the inquiry team to achieve the stated aims of this phase to examine the
01:48:09 stated aims of this phase to examine the circumstances and causes of the disaster including how Granville Tower came to be in the condition which allowed the fire to spread in the way it did and I assure you that is what it will seek to achieve
01:48:21 you that is what it will seek to achieve at every stage so I thank you Lisa my solutions well thank you very much mr. poppet well that might be a convenient point for us all to have a break and
01:48:32 point for us all to have a break and we're running slightly ahead of ourselves so I'm going to suggest that we break now and resume at quarter to 12 and then we shall hear from the
01:48:45 and then we shall hear from the representative right right right
01:48:50 yes yes right close to 12 and please
02:03:38 hello we are now about to resume so please can you take your seats and remain silent can I remind you to switch your mobile phones to silent and also
02:03:51 your mobile phones to silent and also when the chair rises please can you remain seated until he has left the room many thanks
02:06:30 good well now the next statement is going to be bad but I think by mr. Taverner on behalf of ride mr. Tavernier are you good I'm sorry all of you have a
02:06:41 are you good I'm sorry all of you have a rather long walk to get to the desk but we can't do much about that I'm afraid
02:07:00 yes a stamina good morning madam good morning mr. chairman I appear on behalf of the company riding maintenance limited and I'm instructed on behalf and
02:07:12 limited and I'm instructed on behalf and by mr. Nick Young of DAC B solicitors I will refer to the company as writin Ryan's employees past and present 21 or
02:07:25 Ryan's employees past and present 21 or so in number having gauged separate lawyers Vincent Mason's and TLT as the inquiry embarks on Phase two the
02:07:37 inquiry embarks on Phase two the repeated condolences and sympathies expressed by all those connected with refurbishment of Grenville tower might seem hollow to the bereaved survivors
02:07:48 seem hollow to the bereaved survivors and relatives no one however including those of us who have visited the tower since the fire could feel anything other than deep sorrow and profound regret
02:08:01 than deep sorrow and profound regret that the circumstances which resulted in such a dreadful tragedy Ryden and its representatives repeats its sincere condolences and will
02:08:12 its sincere condolences and will continue to assist the inquiry as fully as it is able the ramifications of the disaster continuing to horn Dryden and their employees and will do so for the
02:08:23 their employees and will do so for the rest of their lives I can assure all absolutely that Ryden is committed to assisting the inquiry in finding the
02:08:34 assisting the inquiry in finding the truth
02:08:36 truth as the assistants so far given to the inquiry by Righton it is disclosed over 91,000 documents it is provided to rule
02:08:48 91,000 documents it is provided to rule nine statements dated the 23rd of November 2018 and the 5th of March 2009 took 19 and the first of which is over 240 pages long during phase one ride and
02:09:03 240 pages long during phase one ride and produced a position statement dated the february 9th of february 18 and a written opening and closing dated the 15th of May 2018 and the 6th of December
02:09:15 15th of May 2018 and the 6th of December 2018 respectively writing has produced a 47 page written opening for this phase 2 module 1 and that can be found at
02:09:26 module 1 and that can be found at relativity ry D triple 0 9 4 3 6 0 ridings employees have provided the inquiry with statements between the 5th
02:09:37 inquiry with statements between the 5th of September 2018 and the 14th of November 2019 15 of those have been released by the inquiry to date the
02:09:49 released by the inquiry to date the quiet inquiry is due to hear from 8 of those individuals in the course of module 1 finally we were responded to the invitation from the inquiry to
02:10:00 the invitation from the inquiry to propose questions which the inquiry council may wish to explore with witnesses turning now if I may to this
02:10:11 witnesses turning now if I may to this oral opening obviously it would be of no great assistance to the inquiry simply to repeat our written submissions and in broad terms what I intend to do is make
02:10:23 broad terms what I intend to do is make some preliminary observations than n briefly highlight certain aspects of our little opening and I estimate that I will be finished well within an hour I
02:10:34 will be finished well within an hour I make three preliminary observations if I may the first involves comments in the written openings of some core participants that the employees
02:10:48 participants that the employees witness statements do not deal either at all or in sufficient detail with all of the criticisms leveled against it may I
02:10:59 the criticisms leveled against it may I say in part response at least that those statements were prepared before the inquiry expert reports were released in October of 31st are on the 31st of
02:11:11 October of 31st are on the 31st of October of last year it is in these reports and in particular that of mr. hires the inquiries architectural expert that specific criticisms arise emerge
02:11:24 that specific criticisms arise emerge the witness statements were prepared well before notice of other matters raised by other Corps participants in their openings released just ten or so days ago how matters unfold during the
02:11:39 days ago how matters unfold during the course of questioning of all witnesses of fact assisting the inquiry and how the inquiry experts respond to issues raised by certain Corps participants with regard to their report all remain
02:11:51 with regard to their report all remain to be seen it is depressingly clear from the core participants written openings that there are differences certainly as to the perceptions as to how certain
02:12:03 to the perceptions as to how certain decisions were made it's also clear that many Corps participants do not accept to varying degrees the reasoning or conclusions of the
02:12:15 the reasoning or conclusions of the inquiries experts for all these reasons together with the fact that important documents are still being released and assimilated we have concluded that it is
02:12:27 assimilated we have concluded that it is not helpful in the course of an opening such as this to either protect or assume what will emerge from the evidence during the course of the forthcoming
02:12:38 during the course of the forthcoming months or indeed to argue a position Ryden and indeed all parties is suggested we'll be in a much better position to assist the inquiry in its
02:12:50 position to assist the inquiry in its closing submissions scheduled for October of this year this approach may also have the added advantage of the inquiry having all of ridings submissions on modules one
02:13:01 submissions on modules one two three all in one place rather than to have them collated from one particular source but of course on that matter riding will be guided and governed by the inquiry my second
02:13:17 governed by the inquiry my second observation relates to the order in which the enquiry is hearing the witnesses of fact writing notes that the first five module 1 key issues are set out chronologically those issues start
02:13:31 out chronologically those issues start is outlined by mr. millet this morning with the decision to refurbish before then moving through the procurement and planning stages to then the consideration the important
02:13:43 consideration the important consideration of the design and selection of relevant products and their compliance with regulatory adv and industry standards briefly in setting
02:13:57 industry standards briefly in setting the context of and for the chronologic the chronology firstly writen only had a peripheral involvement until the publication of the Official Journal of
02:14:08 publication of the Official Journal of the European Union notice and the pre-qualification questionnaire process in September of 2013 Ryden featured more prominently
02:14:19 Ryden featured more prominently following the invitation to tender in November 2013 and Ryden was informed in early March of 2014 by TMO that its bid
02:14:31 early March of 2014 by TMO that its bid had been successful ridin and TMO subsequently entered into an amended design and build contract signed on the 30th of October 2014 and of course we
02:14:44 30th of October 2014 and of course we know the practical completion of the refurbishment works was certified as being the 4th of July 2016 less than a year before the tragedy right and
02:14:56 year before the tragedy right and significant involvement in the project therefore came after decisions to refurbish the decisions made as to the procurement routes and further the
02:15:07 procurement routes and further the initial appointments at least of many of the professionals involved at Grenville tower
02:15:14 tower Ryan's involvement therefore post dated by sometime the involvement of many of the core participants including our bkc and TMO and also our Tilia studio II CEP
02:15:30 and TMO and also our Tilia studio II CEP xover Max Fordham and Harley notwithstanding it is right that some important design decisions were made subsequently by the time of ride ins
02:15:41 subsequently by the time of ride ins appointment significant decisions relating to the refurbishment works had been made which led to what has been described by some as a more prescriptive employers requirements as opposed to a
02:15:54 employers requirements as opposed to a more performance based specification being put out to tender we understand of course the impossibility of calling witnesses to reflect a strict chronology
02:16:05 witnesses to reflect a strict chronology relating to what decisions were made by whom and all importantly why all are integral to the expiration of the module
02:16:17 integral to the expiration of the module one key issues and there are many strands we simply observe at this stage that ride ins personnel are due to be called earlier on in the process and
02:16:28 called earlier on in the process and before many of those who will be giving evidence as to how proceeding decisions were taken
02:16:40 my third and final preliminary observation starts by noting that module 1 and key issue 5 in particular is formulated as follows and I hope mr.
02:16:51 formulated as follows and I hope mr. chairman will forgive me for reading it out the cladding design selection decisions compliance ADB stroke industry
02:17:03 decisions compliance ADB stroke industry standards guidance consideration given to fire safety risk with particular focus on a ACM panels B rain screen insulation the key issue 5 n goes on to
02:17:18 insulation the key issue 5 n goes on to list other aspects of focus the ACM panels installed at Grenville as part of the cladding system was of course our conics rana bond PE polyethylene the
02:17:30 conics rana bond PE polyethylene the rain screen insulation used was Celotex rs 5000 decisions relating to those products were clearly informed by
02:17:41 products were clearly informed by assumptions made by some core participants as to the characteristics of raina bond PE and Celotex Rs 5000 and their understanding right or wrong of
02:17:53 their understanding right or wrong of the meaning of the building regulations and in particular approved document guidance how those products were perceived by those involved in the
02:18:05 perceived by those involved in the refurbishment of Grenville cannot we respectfully suggest be divorced from the manufacturers claims about the characteristics and properties of those products and what are connick and
02:18:17 products and what are connick and Celotex the company wanted the marketplace to believe when making those claims there will therefore in our
02:18:28 claims there will therefore in our submission inevitably be an overlap between the investigations being carried out during the course of the evidence in module 1 and those matters to be considered in module 2 the fact of this
02:18:43 considered in module 2 the fact of this overlap is in fact reflected in many of the parties written in written opening submissions for module 1 and the fact that of course are conic and Celotex have both given written opening submissions and will be heard in
02:18:57 opening submissions and will be heard in the course of this week orally I turn now if I may to address more substantive issues and I do so in the following order first the position of Ryden second
02:19:13 order first the position of Ryden second the position of CEO Ian Harley and thirdly the role of our conic and Celotex in the design selection decisions and the consideration given by
02:19:24 decisions and the consideration given by them to fire safety risk I turn first to Ryden and it's understandable that the focus first falls on writing it being
02:19:39 focus first falls on writing it being the design and build contractor Ryden was first invited to tender as I have said in September of 2013 it was
02:19:50 said in September of 2013 it was effectively engaged in March of 2014 and formally contracted by TMO in October of 2014 it is accepted by writing that it
02:20:03 2014 it is accepted by writing that it took on Express and implicit contractual obligations relating to the quality and standards of the design and construction of the refurbishment works properly
02:20:17 of the refurbishment works properly performing those quality of obligations as is usual in a design and build context required writing accessing the skills and specialist knowledge for many
02:20:28 skills and specialist knowledge for many diverse disciplines on the design side and ratings the cladding in particular ride needed to engage architectural and engineering know-how and also expertise
02:20:41 engineering know-how and also expertise from specialist subcontractors those particular professional skills were not expected to be held in house by a company such as Ryden it is commonplace
02:20:52 company such as Ryden it is commonplace has happened in this case for a design and build contractor to delegate tasks by way of consultant engagements and specialist subcontract
02:21:03 specialist subcontract notwithstanding that delegation it is acknowledged that Ryden still retained a contractual responsibility for the performance of those parties to whom it
02:21:14 performance of those parties to whom it delegated those or indeed any tasks it's important that we emphasize however the delegation in this way should not be viewed as being in any one in any way
02:21:25 viewed as being in any one in any way unusual or atypical in approach also typical in this proach is a design and build contractor will inherit and take on the professionals already involved in
02:21:37 on the professionals already involved in the project being those whom have progressed the design to the stage where it is sufficiently develop for the employer to feel comfortable with what is then to be tendered and there's a
02:21:51 is then to be tendered and there's a good technical reason for that it gives rise to project specific continuity in the design process which should if the process works properly reduce the risk
02:22:04 process works properly reduce the risk of errors or emissions in that design this taking honor of the existing professional team is often done by way of what is called Novation the
02:22:15 of what is called Novation the professionals engagement being transferred in effect from the employer to the design and build contractor in this case it was not strictly an ovation
02:22:26 this case it was not strictly an ovation ride in engage fury on specifics specific and all-embracing terms there's no suggestion from mr. Hyatt the
02:22:38 no suggestion from mr. Hyatt the inquiries architectural expert or indeed as we understand it any of the other inquiry experts that Ryden should be criticized for continuing with or
02:22:49 criticized for continuing with or engaging either Studio E as architects or using Harley as specialist cladding package subcontractors in seeking to fulfill ride ins contractual duties
02:23:02 fulfill ride ins contractual duties indeed mr. Hyatt explores in his report and comes to the conclusion it appears that studio he had a respectable reputation and they appear to have all
02:23:15 reputation and they appear to have all the necessary architectural design and technical as well as organizational and management skills to be needed and required to undertake the project both
02:23:29 required to undertake the project both studio en Harley the last one and on contracted basis had been involved earlier in the process than ridin and had been trusted by TMO and RB KC like
02:23:42 had been trusted by TMO and RB KC like writing studio e's contracts of engagement and Harley subcontractors defined the scope of their obligations it defined their tasks and the standards
02:23:54 it defined their tasks and the standards by which each of studio e Harley and writin should be judged in determining whether they carried out those tasks properly exploring what was delegated to
02:24:07 properly exploring what was delegated to whom and on what basis as an important part we respectfully submit the submit of the fact-finding process by referring to those matters ridin is seeking to
02:24:19 to those matters ridin is seeking to explain what it did and why it did it apart from their contractual obligations ridin also acknowledges here that a
02:24:30 ridin also acknowledges here that a result of what ridin and its employers actually did in seeking to perform its duties under its contract with t mo is a Sur assumed certain duties of care to
02:24:41 Sur assumed certain duties of care to third parties to its contract and in particular to the occupants of Grenville tower below it is not the job of the inquiry to determine civil liability
02:24:53 inquiry to determine civil liability ridin and indeed any other party's legal responsibilities to third parties to the contract and indeed moral culpability must we respectfully suggest be
02:25:05 must we respectfully suggest be considered in the light of the obligations that any particular party took on under their respective contracts and in what that party did or did not do in order to discharge those obligations
02:25:19 in order to discharge those obligations that includes from Ryan's position what it considers was the reasonable delegation of certain tasks to parties such as studio Ian's Harley what tasks
02:25:32 such as studio Ian's Harley what tasks were delegated and whether it was reasonable by the standards then operating at the time to do so is a matter which will it is anticipated be considered carefully by the inquiry we
02:25:46 considered carefully by the inquiry we note that there appears to be an issue a factual issue as to what extent if at all Ryden in fact required less of Studio E than the agreed services set
02:25:58 Studio E than the agreed services set out in its terms of engagement those matters and in particular whether the task of considering compliance with the building regulations of the cladding
02:26:09 building regulations of the cladding system was in any way diluted will need to be considered by the inquiry in its exploration of the evidence in all of
02:26:20 exploration of the evidence in all of this and when dealing with standards I hope it's not too simplistic to say that the skills and standards and experience a professionally qualified architect are
02:26:31 a professionally qualified architect are not necessarily the same as those head held by a specialist cladding subcontractor or indeed an experienced design and build confronted oh can I
02:26:45 design and build confronted oh can I first turn now to look at studio E and what tasks were delegated to studio E we know and has been outlined already this
02:26:57 know and has been outlined already this morning studio he had been engaged in the first instance by TMO there's a lack of clarity as to the terms but it
02:27:08 of clarity as to the terms but it appears to have included incorporation of the Riv a standard conditions of appointment for a consultant 2010 those are our ba standards required only
02:27:20 are our ba standards required only materials which complied with the building regulation to be specified studio II was subsequently engaged by ridin the
02:27:31 ridin the terms of that engagement are set out in the deed executed on the 3rd of February 2016 retrospective in effect assigned by Studio E those terms of engagement can
02:27:44 Studio E those terms of engagement can be found as on the relativity system at se a triple zero one four two seven four underscore triple zero three those terms
02:28:01 underscore triple zero three those terms of engagement included a schedule of architectural services which Studio II agreed to provide that particular document that can be found at the same
02:28:15 document that can be found at the same reference but underscore zero zero one one those particular services included and there are many that are material but
02:28:27 and there are many that are material but for present purposes they included paragraph seven the services allocated to studio E were and I quote
02:28:39 to studio E were and I quote responsibility for coordinating building regulation approval for and on behalf of the contractor the contractor of course being writen and importantly at
02:28:50 being writen and importantly at paragraph eight to seek to ensure that all designs comply with statutory requirements including scheme development standards statutory
02:29:02 development standards statutory requirements requirements includes the building regulations a paragraph 13 of the services studio he was required to
02:29:15 the services studio he was required to coordinate any design work done by consultants specialists sub contractors subcontractors and suppliers and paragraph 15 to the A's with various
02:29:26 paragraph 15 to the A's with various statutory bodies is required including fire authorities and finally by paragraph 17 to examine subcontractors and suppliers drawings and details with
02:29:38 and suppliers drawings and details with particular reference to and I quote performance criteria mr. Hyatt we respectfully suggest
02:29:49 mr. Hyatt we respectfully suggest rightful rightly identifies the responsibility for ensuring that materials specified in the NBS specification form part of the invitation to tender an ultimately part
02:30:01 invitation to tender an ultimately part of the contract complied with the relevant building regulation and statutory guidance
02:30:08 none of the tasks delegated to studio II was in any way unusual by industry norms and practices operating at the time
02:30:25 turning now briefly to Harley they were specifically engaged as the envelope package subcontractor by writing they installed the cladding system including
02:30:38 installed the cladding system including Rayna bond PE Celotex and the fire barriers there is no issue that the a letter of intent and a cover of an email
02:30:51 letter of intent and a cover of an email dated the 25th of July 2014 governed Harley's appointment by Ryden which described the authorized works and again I quote design of the facade works the
02:31:04 I quote design of the facade works the reference there relativity is H a our triple zero one double zero five seven underscore triple zero one a paragraph
02:31:16 underscore triple zero one a paragraph 35 of our written opening submissions we say this as Harley witnesses acknowledge it is normal practice for the facade contractor to consider compliance with
02:31:28 contractor to consider compliance with the building regulations indeed we say Harley was pursuant to Clause two point one point one of the terms and conditions those are the terms and conditions of the dom
02:31:40 and conditions of the dom two JCT 2011 standard form pursuant to that clause required to ensure that its work complied with the building
02:31:51 work complied with the building regulations
02:31:54 it's also to be noted and it was this morning by mr. minutes and it reflects the importance of the roles of studio II and Harley but both those parties and
02:32:07 and Harley but both those parties and again as is not uncommon entered into our collateral contractual relationship with TMO through warranties which were dated the 25th of April 2016
02:32:20 dated the 25th of April 2016 in short both you Joey and Harley undertook to TMO directly that they had or would comply with the duties that they are taken on under the terms of the
02:32:33 they are taken on under the terms of the engagement and contracts that they had entered into with Harley having
02:32:44 entered into with Harley having considered briefly studio in Harley I sure should pause here just to make one particular point if I may and it's one
02:32:56 particular point if I may and it's one point of particular confusion it is an incorrect to conflate the concept of a contractual responsibility which writen undoubtedly held to carry out a
02:33:09 undoubtedly held to carry out a particular task to a particular standard and the actual carrying out of that task
02:33:17 at some stage during core participants written opening submissions it has been said that and I quote studio e ridin and
02:33:29 said that and I quote studio e ridin and Harley designed the cladding system unquote it's absolutely right that ridin took on a contractual liability under the contract with TMO relating to the
02:33:41 the contract with TMO relating to the design of a contractual system that is not disputed it is not right with respect to suggest that ridin in fact designed the cladding system what they
02:33:53 designed the cladding system what they did do we submit was properly and fairly delegate those tasks to others who held themselves out as having the appropriate skills to do so
02:34:04 skills to do so it is an important and fundamental distinction we also say that proper delegation of responsibility cannot be fairly characterized as abrogating
02:34:17 fairly characterized as abrogating responsibility I mentioned briefly here X over the fire specialist X over is criticized at some length in the reports
02:34:30 criticized at some length in the reports of the inquiry experts we note in particular the reports of dr. Lane and mr. Hayat the chronology relating to X overs involvement is long and much of it predates the involvement of Ryden again
02:34:44 predates the involvement of Ryden again what they were asked to do and by whom and what they actually did will become clear over the following weeks and months of the inquiry Ryden did not contract with X over but
02:34:56 Ryden did not contract with X over but are criticized for not appointing them or another fire special specialist after Ryden came on board again those particular matters must be explored with
02:35:07 particular matters must be explored with the witnesses but at this juncture we only seek to highlight that it was never suggested to Ryden by Studio EE or Harley that they needed further input
02:35:18 Harley that they needed further input from X over to enable the self that the safe completion of the refurbishment project at Grenville
02:35:31 consideration may we also have to be given as to how if at all events would have materially altered Haddix over being more involved I turned finally to consider our conic
02:35:47 I turned finally to consider our conic and Celotex both of whom have put in openings to module 1 and are due to make are all openings in the coming days I do so if I may in the context of some
02:35:58 so if I may in the context of some comments with regard to the building regulations at paragraph 20 point 1 page 47 of its opening submissions the BS our
02:36:10 47 of its opening submissions the BS our number 1 team says this ADB is fundamentally not fit for purpose and central government has been aware of that since 2000 this is plainly right it
02:36:26 that since 2000 this is plainly right it is a theme which has been picked up by many in the industry with a degree of unanimity for example we note that in studio EES written submissions it
02:36:38 studio EES written submissions it references the our IBA submissions to the call for evidence by the independent review of building regulation and fire safety and its response to the Dame
02:36:50 safety and its response to the Dame Judith Hackett interim report there is however and respectfully a tension between this recognition and the criticism that Ryden also have been
02:37:02 criticism that Ryden also have been aware or brought to the attention of its professional consultants and its specialist subcontractors employed for the purpose of ensuring compliance with
02:37:13 the purpose of ensuring compliance with the building regulations that the specification of Rana bond and Celotex was contrary to ADP and thus the building regulations what is clear
02:37:24 building regulations what is clear however is that Rana bond and Celotex rs.5000 were with such tragic and catastrophic consequences specified as part of the design of the cladding system Studio II says at paragraph 12
02:37:39 system Studio II says at paragraph 12 point 17 this is page 29 of it's written opening
02:37:42 opening that Studio II relied on the advice of pointed specialists and suppliers that the products were being that we were being considered were suitable for their
02:37:53 being considered were suitable for their intended purpose without trespassing too much on module two matters I and I do so briefly I hope I do ask for the
02:38:05 briefly I hope I do ask for the following matters to be borne in mind when considering the evidence of the module one witnesses as to how and why decisions were made and the first
02:38:16 decisions were made and the first relates to the rainscreen cladding it soft being repeated and rightly so but the inquiry concluded in the phase one report that the principal reason why the
02:38:28 report that the principal reason why the flames spread so rapidly down and around the building was the presence of the aluminium composite material the ACM green-screen panels with polyethylene
02:38:42 green-screen panels with polyethylene calls which acted as a source of fuel decisions were taken during the Grenfell project that ACM would be used and it would be Rayna bond PE in cassette as
02:38:55 would be Rayna bond PE in cassette as opposed to riveted form Ryden was of course aware of those decisions and approval for their use was in effect ultimately given by Building
02:39:07 in effect ultimately given by Building Control I do point out this that mr. this is a an employee of our Connick and his name is mr. Vela spelled w e h
02:39:23 and his name is mr. Vela spelled w e h RL e OCH onyx mr. Vela satan states at paragraph 63 of his September 2019 witness statement that he believes that
02:39:35 witness statement that he believes that cassettes perform more poorly than riveted panels because when the polyethylene core melts due to the heat of the fire it tends to pool at the
02:39:48 of the fire it tends to pool at the bottom of the cassette until it reaches the point of auto ignition and flashes over the reference for that is M et
02:40:01 over the reference for that is M et triple 0 5 3 105 with that in mind it's right to note that a British Board of a
02:40:12 right to note that a British Board of a gram or or BB a certificate was issued on the 14th of January 2008 which certified Rana bond PE it was the only
02:40:23 certified Rana bond PE it was the only BB a certificate ever issued with regards to Rana bond PE and the certificate did not distinguish between Rana bond PE in cassette or in riveted
02:40:36 Rana bond PE in cassette or in riveted form the BBA certificate can be found at a are C 5 zeros 6 7 8 underscore triple
02:40:50 a are C 5 zeros 6 7 8 underscore triple zero 1 on the face of this certificate it states as follows behavior in relation to fire in relation to the
02:41:02 relation to fire in relation to the building regulations for reaction to fire the panels may be regarded as having a class 0 surface in England and Wales and a low-risk
02:41:13 Wales and a low-risk material in Scotland under technical specifications section 1 of the certificate at page 3 on underscore triple zero 3 it says as follows the
02:41:26 triple zero 3 it says as follows the panels are available either plain edged riveted system or flanged cassette system to suit architectural requirements the certificate states at
02:41:37 requirements the certificate states at section 6 point 1 and the only part of the certificate it deals with an on FR or fire resistant panel that a standard sample of the project product with a
02:41:48 sample of the project product with a gray-green euro gloss 5000 coating when tested for reaction to fire achieved a classification of B stroke s to do in
02:41:59 classification of B stroke s to do in accordance with en 1 3 5 0 1 - 1 : 2002 classification B is a
02:42:10 - 1 : 2002 classification B is a European classification no distinction is drawn here or indeed anywhere else in the certificate between the riveted and cassette forms of the Reina bond PE
02:42:22 cassette forms of the Reina bond PE panels and finally at section 6.3 of the certificate as a consequence of 6.1 and 6.2 6.2 deals with the fr version of the
02:42:34 6.2 6.2 deals with the fr version of the panels as a consequence of section 6.1 and 6.2 the products may be regarded as having a class 0 surface in relation to the approved document b of the building
02:42:47 the approved document b of the building regulations mm this final statement nor anywhere in the certificate distinguishes between the fire-resistant
02:42:58 distinguishes between the fire-resistant and polyethylene grades of rena bonds in their revetted or to contrast because cassette forms the
02:43:09 to contrast because cassette forms the BBA certificate is an important document as it is intended to be and is relied upon by construction professionals as it was in the case of the Grenville tower
02:43:21 was in the case of the Grenville tower the phurba Sherman font project to contain accurate statements and information a copy of this 2008 BBA
02:43:32 information a copy of this 2008 BBA certificate was sent to Harley and CEP CEP being Hartley's subcontractor via our conics representative in the UK on
02:43:43 our conics representative in the UK on the 23rd of April 2014 just after the engagement of writing it was also circulated to write I hope I do not miss
02:43:54 circulated to write I hope I do not miss characterize his evidence when I say that mr. Hayat the inquiry inquiries expert is slow in his report to criticize an architect such as Studio EE
02:44:05 criticize an architect such as Studio EE who might have relied on what it was said on the face of the BBA certificate when making a decision to use PE particularly in its cassette form but
02:44:18 particularly in its cassette form but the BBA certificate misrepresented the position in January 2008 when the certificate was issued there was no Euro Class B classification for Rana bond PE
02:44:31 Class B classification for Rana bond PE in cassette form as used at Grenville town by December 2014 Rana bond panels even in their riveted form had been downgraded to Euro Class C
02:44:46 form had been downgraded to Euro Class C Rana bond cassettes were certified as being at that stage Euro Class E the certificate was now at this stage and
02:44:57 certificate was now at this stage and remained misleading with regards to both Rana bond PE in its riveted form and to Rana bond PE in its cassette form the
02:45:09 Rana bond PE in its cassette form the BBA certificate continued to state that Rana bond PE was euro Class B and for that and and that for the purposes of approved document b under the building regulations such
02:45:21 under the building regulations such panels may be regarded as having a class a surface our conic did not notify the BBA the certificate was not altered the
02:45:32 BBA the certificate was not altered the per first purchase order Farina bond cassette PE to be used at Grenville tower was not placed with our conic by CEP until the 18th of March 2015
02:45:44 CEP until the 18th of March 2015 I just sure dad as far as we aware had no time prior to the fire was the product tested the part six is part six and seven of BS four seven six there was
02:45:58 and seven of BS four seven six there was necessarily therefore no test to show that it met the definition of class o contained in Appendix A of approved document b it appears that the reason
02:46:09 document b it appears that the reason why the terminology may be regarded is used in a certificate is that there were no test results showing rana bond PE was class zero and that the conclusion was
02:46:20 class zero and that the conclusion was an assessment based in part at least on the Euro Class B rating our conic nonetheless continued to use the BB a certificate to promote sales of
02:46:32 the BB a certificate to promote sales of Reina bond and did so specifically in the case of Grenville tower it is notable against that backdrop the long and in May 2013 and I refer to an email
02:46:47 and in May 2013 and I refer to an email of the 13th of May 2013 reference CEP triple zero forty nine seven one seven that our conics representative in the UK
02:46:59 that our conics representative in the UK had emailed CEP and Harley subcontractors assuring CEP that as a result of the very close working
02:47:10 result of the very close working relationship between our conic and it's very small group of approved fabricators of which CEP was one our conic would make sure that the right technical
02:47:22 make sure that the right technical support Reina bonds specification and materials are being used and installed on Reina bond projects as already
02:47:33 on Reina bond projects as already mentioned on the 23rd of April 2014 on ik our conic emailed a copy of the BBA certificate to Harley and see EP and we suggest that that could have only been
02:47:44 suggest that that could have only been done to give comfort to Harley and CEP and informed the decisions that they made it's not surprising in that context
02:47:56 made it's not surprising in that context that a paragraph sixty three of its opening submissions Harley says that if he'd had known that Rayna bond PE in cassette form was classified euro class II as it was Harley would not have
02:48:10 II as it was Harley would not have considered it as safe for use finally they were following following further following features of Reina bond PE to have in mind and our conics position
02:48:23 have in mind and our conics position during the refurbishment our Connick knew that the cassette panels were to be used at Grenville Tower they knew that
02:48:34 used at Grenville Tower they knew that Grenville tower was more than 18 metres they knew that Celotex FR 5,000 basically the same product as RS 5000 it
02:48:46 basically the same product as RS 5000 it was to be used our conic had been sent the outlines fester dress--i fication by CEP as early as the 24th of January 2013
02:48:57 CEP as early as the 24th of January 2013 in that regard we refer to an email from CEP to our conic enclosing outline specification dated the 24th of January
02:49:08 specification dated the 24th of January 2013 at CEP triple zero four eight nine sixty two were still we have seen recently information which suggests that
02:49:19 recently information which suggests that our conic knew that Reina bond p/e in general and cassette form in particular was dangerous to highlight what may be just the tip of an iceberg we draw the
02:49:31 just the tip of an iceberg we draw the following to the inquiries attention on the 30th of June 2011 Claude Vela emailed guys I Decker the sales and
02:49:43 emailed guys I Decker the sales and marketing director of our conic stating amongst other things this and I quote the classification obtained for the Reina bond p/e cassettes is the same as
02:49:56 Reina bond p/e cassettes is the same as that of competitors ie F and therefore not suitable for use on building facades m4 in France for example the reference for that is M II T triple zero 53 1 5 8
02:50:12 for that is M II T triple zero 53 1 5 8 underscore po4 underscore double zero to seven a few days later on the 6th of
02:50:23 seven a few days later on the 6th of July mr. Vela wrote an internal report of a meeting it held the previous day with the competitor this report is at M et triple zero 53 161 underscore oo - 1
02:50:38 et triple zero 53 161 underscore oo - 1 under the heading and I quote European fine fire regulation he noted Reina bombed PE in cassette form was classified euro classy
02:50:50 classified euro classy but a a B class is the minimum required for a facade in Europe he went on for the moment even if we know that PE
02:51:01 the moment even if we know that PE material in cassette has a bad behavior exposed to fire we can still work with national regulations who are not as restrictive some countries Spain or it
02:51:13 restrictive some countries Spain or it already working with en1 3501 standards and the PE in cassettes is no more usable there he goes on the evolution of
02:51:24 usable there he goes on the evolution of fire regulation will put the PE out of market in the coming months it is difficult to give a deadline due to the inertia of European Commission's mr.
02:51:35 inertia of European Commission's mr. Thurlow is also recorded on the same document stating that an action point for himself was this analyzed how we can have a D call with PE cassettes maximum
02:51:49 have a D call with PE cassettes maximum class possible and usable in some small buildings it seems quite clear but in 2011 our Connick already considered that
02:52:00 2011 our Connick already considered that Rana bond PE cassettes could only be used in some small buildings some years later on the 29th of June 2015 a year or so before completion of the project and
02:52:12 so before completion of the project and two years or so before the fire in the context of discussing the use of PE and the French national standard NFP 92 mr.
02:52:24 the French national standard NFP 92 mr. Vela said this my opinion PE is dangerous on facades and everything should be transferred to Fr as a matter of urgency the NFP 92 standard the
02:52:39 of urgency the NFP 92 standard the French standard which could be interpreted as allowing its use he said and I quote should have been discontinued over 10 years ago close quotation marks he finishes by saying
02:52:51 quotation marks he finishes by saying this opinion is technical and anti commercial it seems and that document can be found at any tea triple zero five three one five set five eight and the Scorpio five and
02:53:03 eight and the Scorpio five and or double zero one for Harley a paragraph 62 of its opening submissions for this mult module one refers to a narcotic and marketing literate
02:53:14 narcotic and marketing literate literature produced in December 2016 after installation but before the fire which states of Rana bond PE that is only suitable for use in buildings up to
02:53:27 only suitable for use in buildings up to 10 meters in height Harley says that if it had had that advice it would not have used Rana bond with a PE core in the facade of Grenville tower I move if I
02:53:43 facade of Grenville tower I move if I may finally just to consider Celotex Celotex and again I look at this in the context of the analysis of witnesses in
02:53:54 context of the analysis of witnesses in facts decision making the way in which they made decisions Celotex throughout knew that Celotex rs.5000 was the
02:54:07 knew that Celotex rs.5000 was the installation to be used at Grenville town they knew that Grenville tower was over 18 meters they knew that it was to be used with a cm cladding and that
02:54:19 be used with a cm cladding and that appears from Celotex written opening paragraph 108 point 4 it will of course be explored during evidence and there's a total lack of clarity from Sala tanks but there are varying degrees of
02:54:31 but there are varying degrees of suggestion that Celotex knew that the cladding was to be Raina bond that it was rain of ond PE and that it was in cassette form we do know that on the
02:54:43 cassette form we do know that on the 11th of February 2015 Harley provided Celotex with a drop drop box linked to its construction drawings and on the 8th of April 2015 and the 20th of May 2015
02:54:58 of April 2015 and the 20th of May 2015 there were meetings between Celotex and Harley to discuss the installation of Rs 5000 at Grenville tower by that time it was clear that Raina bond P in his
02:55:10 was clear that Raina bond P in his cassette form was in fact to be used the first patch having been ordered by CEP in about
02:55:16 in about 2015 we think if Celotex did not know the details of the cladding it seems they could have easily asked Celotex also knew of course that their rs.5000
02:55:29 also knew of course that their rs.5000 insulation is made of P I R and it was not compliant with paragraph twelve point seven of the approved document and that was because it is not of Limited combust ability and will burn we get
02:55:41 combust ability and will burn we get that from Celotex his opening paragraph twenty point to the inquiry will investigate how in those circumstances it came to be specified for use at
02:55:52 it came to be specified for use at Grenville tower the specific and detailed history of the marketing and certification of Celotex RS 5000 is of course the subject matter of module two but we do point out even at this stage
02:56:05 but we do point out even at this stage that is reasonably apparent from documents already disclosed that in about two thousand and thirteen Celotex set about trying to break into the lucrative above 18 meter market for
02:56:16 lucrative above 18 meter market for cladding insulation it also seems clear that at that stage the market was then dominated by kingspan k15 and Celotex
02:56:27 dominated by kingspan k15 and Celotex sought to break into the market by obtaining a br 135 certificate for an existing pi product of theirs that is the FR 5000 to get that certification
02:56:41 the FR 5000 to get that certification the BR 135 certification they had to submit a complete rainscreen cladding system for testing of which the PIR insulation which would be one element
02:56:53 insulation which would be one element identifying a suitable system to submit to the test proved a difficult task for Celotex given the combust ability of both the PIR insulation and that of the
02:57:05 both the PIR insulation and that of the ACM cladding panels typically being used at that time for rainscreen cladding the Celotex internal email dated the first of november 2013 has been identified by
02:57:19 of november 2013 has been identified by more than one four participants written opening as being relevant the email was written during the course of attempts to obtain BR one-three-five
02:57:31 to obtain BR one-three-five certification and it referred to the difficulties this document of the first of November 2013 can be found at cel-3 rows seven one six but I quote from this
02:57:46 rows seven one six but I quote from this document and this is Celotex we cannot seem to find the design a suitable barrier in which we have enough confidence that it can be used behind a
02:57:58 confidence that it can be used behind a standard ACM panel in brackets which we know will melt and allow fire into the cavity after going on to discuss the options for setting up BR one three five
02:58:10 options for setting up BR one three five tests the email concluded or do we take the view that our product realistically shouldn't be used behind most cladding panels because in the
02:58:21 most cladding panels because in the event of a fire it would burn notwithstanding this assessment of unsuitability Celotex submitted FR five thousand fritz BR 135 certification
02:58:33 thousand fritz BR 135 certification Celotex failed in the first attempt to obtain in BR 135 certification but succeed in the second they did this only by using a combination of cladding panels and other component materials
02:58:45 panels and other component materials that were different from those typically being specified and used in the industry for rainscreen cladding installations we now know that one of the unusual components used in a successful test
02:58:57 components used in a successful test with six millimeter non combustible magnesium oxide board used as reinforcement in the area of the cavity barriers this magnesium oxide board was
02:59:10 barriers this magnesium oxide board was intended by Celotex to improve the performance of the system and contribute to the passing of the test there are three matters arising first the Ahri's
02:59:22 three matters arising first the Ahri's test report made no mention whatsoever the use of the magnesium oxide reinforcement board secondly Celotex took the conscious decision it seems not to ask bre to correct the report by
02:59:34 to ask bre to correct the report by including a reference to the magnesium oxide reinforcement finally Celotex also took the decision not to refer to the fact that magnesium oxide reinforcement board had been used
02:59:46 oxide reinforcement board had been used when describing the test in their marketing material since a br one-three-five test is only valid for the particular combination of materials used in the test omitting reference to
02:59:59 used in the test omitting reference to any of the materials was itself deliberately misleading lycée EGR 130 the BR one three five certification was for Fr five thousand a product which
03:00:10 for Fr five thousand a product which SATA text acknowledged had only ever been marketed for users pitched roofs walls and floors and the like but never for use in a rain screen cladding system in buildings over 18 meters
03:00:22 in buildings over 18 meters I should just pause here to say that the designation FR 5000 does not appear to rate to anything to do with fire related or fire retardant material in august
03:00:35 or fire retardant material in august 2014 however Celotex began to market RS 5000 as being appropriate for use with rain screen padding and on buildings over 18 meters mr. Hayat identifies that
03:00:49 over 18 meters mr. Hayat identifies that FR 500 and RS 5000 are in fact the same material and Celotex in their evidence appears to accept this to be the case in other words it's simply marketed
03:01:00 other words it's simply marketed differently by Celotex with RS being sold as we understand it at a higher price RS 5000 is therefore the same material to which the discussion that we
03:01:11 material to which the discussion that we see ever that we see evidence in the email of the 13th of november 2013 applied in relation to Grenville tower FR 5000 was specified for use in the na
03:01:22 FR 5000 was specified for use in the na NB s specification sent out to tenders including Ryden as part of the invitation to tender process that in November 2013 when Harley first our
03:01:36 November 2013 when Harley first our Celotex on the 10th of June 2014 whether they had an installation material fee use over 18 meters we understand that Harley were told at the time that Celotex could not assist at that stage
03:01:48 Celotex could not assist at that stage RS 5000 had not been launched however following the launch of rs.5000 at the beginning of August 2014 and on the 27th level was 2014 Celotex
03:02:02 the 27th level was 2014 Celotex contacted with Harley with information about rs.5000 which was described as a product for use over 18 metres again as we understand it a Celotex product
03:02:15 we understand it a Celotex product datasheet and that can be found at CEA l7 zeroes 8 provided to Harley in which Harley subsequently emailed to studio a and ridin stated in his headline banner
03:02:29 and ridin stated in his headline banner as follows and again I quote Celotex rs.5000 premium and rainscreen cladding board suitable for buildings above 18
03:02:40 board suitable for buildings above 18 metres in height it continues rs.5000 is the first PIR insulation board to meet the performance criteria in BR 135 for
03:02:51 the performance criteria in BR 135 for insulated rainscreen cladding systems and therefore is acceptable for use in buildings above 18 metres in height it is the first PIR insulation board to
03:03:02 is the first PIR insulation board to successfully test to be SAT for one for meet the criteria set out in BR 135 and therefore is acceptable for use in buildings above 18 metres in height has
03:03:14 buildings above 18 metres in height has class zero fire performance throughout the entire product in accordance with BS 476 under the specification clause it says Rs 5,000 has been successfully
03:03:27 says Rs 5,000 has been successfully tested to be SAT for one four stroke to and meets the performance criteria of BR one three five when considering the evidence of those who made decisions in
03:03:38 evidence of those who made decisions in module one we invite the choir to have in mind the following Celotex was aware that BR 1 3 the BS 1 3 BR 135
03:03:49 that BR 1 3 the BS 1 3 BR 135 classification was applicable only to the very particular system that was tested the datasheet at the back of the document and on its last page stated that fire performance and classification
03:04:01 that fire performance and classification report issued only related to the components the held above the headline banner statements on the front page that it was suitable for us over 18 meetings was unqualified it was misleading
03:04:15 unqualified it was misleading furthermore the reference to class zero via class zero fire performance throughout the entire product as has been pointed out by others including dr.
03:04:28 been pointed out by others including dr. lane it is misleading or could be taken as being misleading since classier only applies to the surface all of linings the fact the description of the specific
03:04:41 the fact the description of the specific cladding system that had been tested was the only system certified in any event deliberately failed to refer to the additional use of the magnesium oxide cord reinforcement the fact is that
03:04:54 cord reinforcement the fact is that despite a very different specification for the cladding system used by Celotex to obtain the VR one three five certification and that specified for
03:05:05 certification and that specified for Grenville tower no concerns were raised by Celotex about the suitability of Celotex rs.5000 for use in the Grenville cladding system I appreciate that I have
03:05:20 cladding system I appreciate that I have trespassed on matters which I know will be considered in the module two aspect but we do consider that when looking at decisions which were made by those
03:05:32 decisions which were made by those during the course of the refurbishing product project that those matters should be at least in the background of the inquiries mind mr. chairman I'll
03:05:44 the inquiries mind mr. chairman I'll finish ridings opening remarks there if I may I thank the inquiry for considering our written opening and for the opportunity for this oral opening well thank you very much well it's just
03:05:58 well thank you very much well it's just after a quarter to one and I suggest that might be a convenient time to take a break for lunch we're getting on very quickly as far as today's program is concerned so I'm going to say that we'll
03:06:10 concerned so I'm going to say that we'll resume at two o'clock when we will hear from mr. Laidlaw on behalf Holly will rise now and resume at 2:00 o'clock please thank you