Phase 2 Opening Statements - Tuesday 28th January

Full transcript

00:00:33 if the alarm sounds trained fire wardens on this floor will direct you to evacuate you will be directed through one of the three fire exits within this room which are to be used in case of

00:00:46 room which are to be used in case of evacuation at the end of session please remain seated until the chairmen panel member and the witness have left the room no photographs are allowed to be

00:00:58 room no photographs are allowed to be taken in the hearing room and please switch your phones to silent the toilets including disabled toilets are located in the reception area if you have

00:01:10 in the reception area if you have mislaid any property please go to reception where all the lost property is taken counseling services are available both in the hearing room and breakout areas if you have any questions please

00:01:23 areas if you have any questions please approach one of the ashes many thanks

00:04:10 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing at which we're going to hear opening statements from some more of the core participants and the first person ok to hear from is mr. Douglas on behalf

00:04:24 ok to hear from is mr. Douglas on behalf of x over so mr. Douglas when you're ready make your way up to the table please Thank You mr. chairman madam I

00:04:50 please Thank You mr. chairman madam I represent it's over and I'm here to provide you with my all opening submissions can I just begin by this that's in your phase 1 report you said

00:05:02 that's in your phase 1 report you said this no one who was present at the commemoration hearings or who read or heard their evidence to the inquiry could fail to be impressed by their courage their resilience and their regard for their neighbors together they

00:05:14 regard for their neighbors together they formed a vibrant community with a strong sense of identity and considerable social cohesion xover wholeheartedly agrees with that tribute and having

00:05:26 agrees with that tribute and having through a number of senior personnel and representatives attended every day of the memorial hearings found them to be deeply moving and inspirational in equal measure x over wholeheartedly supports

00:05:39 measure x over wholeheartedly supports the purposes of this inquiry and intends to assist it to the fullest extent in this second phase with a search for answers to the many questions which arise it is obvious that something or

00:05:52 arise it is obvious that something or perhaps an accumulation of things went tragically wrong for a small fire in the kitchen of a relatively newly refurbished block to result within 30 minutes in an inferno 20 stories high

00:06:04 minutes in an inferno 20 stories high which then wrapped itself around the whole tower over the next two hours causing the deaths of 72 people it is the purpose of Phase two to the inquiry to ascertain why this happened like

00:06:18 to ascertain why this happened like others before me I respectfully agreed until a wide-ranging evidence in all of the first three modules has been given it will be impossible to approach the

00:06:29 will be impossible to approach the matter in a holistic way and that once those pieces of evidence have been given everybody will be better informed in the whole picture will then be much better understood counsel to the inquiry

00:06:41 understood counsel to the inquiry yesterday spoke of the importance of having at phase two truthful and candid accounts of what happened during the primary refurbishment said that your factual findings and recommendations may

00:06:53 findings and recommendations may accurately reflect the true nature of the problems with that we absolutely agree counsel also criticized the corporate CPS collectively for what he described as a merry-go-round of

00:07:05 described as a merry-go-round of buck-passing it is a memorable phrase but xover suggest with respect that any defense or explanation or mitigation of a particular party's actions should not be

00:07:18 particular party's actions should not be criticized simply as buck-passing of course the inquiries task is to identify the errors the wrong decisions that led to the facade being in breach of the building regulations but if a

00:07:30 of the building regulations but if a party has a bonafide a defense or an explanation for an alleged error or omission then it must be entitled to advance it since the object of this process is to arrive at the truth and to

00:07:42 process is to arrive at the truth and to find the real facts on the basis of which reliable findings can be made and important recommendations for the future formulated of course the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence are for the

00:07:53 be drawn from the evidence are for the panel but exhibit participates fully and willingly in this process its willness bits witnesses will cooperate with the inquiry in a truthful manner the

00:08:04 inquiry in a truthful manner the principal criticism of xover is that it failed to detect or advise adequately on the non-compliance of the proposed exterior cladding system and insulation in the period of its engagement as far

00:08:17 in the period of its engagement as far Services Consultant however an analysis of the evidence which I will take you through in not over great detail but some the most striking and persistent

00:08:29 some the most striking and persistent feature of the history is attics over was more or less left out of any communications or informational details of the proposed cladding system

00:08:40 of the proposed cladding system originally XO burr was appointed by TMO as far safety consultant appointed to report to Studio II as is stated in Casey TMS opening statement in the early

00:08:54 Casey TMS opening statement in the early period of the engagement between August 2012 and 26 November 2012 xover produced an existing fire strategy a design note and issue 1 of an outline

00:09:06 a design note and issue 1 of an outline fire safety strategy relating to the proposed refurbishment it needs to be remembered that although this these hearings concentrate in for obvious

00:09:18 hearings concentrate in for obvious reasons on the cladding the reversion also involved a considerable complicated work to the lower 4 floors and that was

00:09:30 work to the lower 4 floors and that was a vitally important part of the refurbishment and was the aspect of works with which xover was primarily involved and just to recapitulate the refurbishment comprised the creation of

00:09:41 refurbishment comprised the creation of a new reception area and office at ground story level the reciting of in nursery the creation of new residential apartments in the mezzanine over the ground story the reciting of the boxing

00:09:53 ground story the reciting of the boxing club the creation of a common community office at walkway level the creation of new residential apartments in the mezzanine and improvements to the building services and these included

00:10:04 building services and these included also a significant glazed atrium type of enclosure to what had previously been external staircases so those works and the work which was involved in them must

00:10:16 the work which was involved in them must not be forgotten during this early period mr. Aston of X / was also occupied in advising on and marking up studio YZ general arrangement drawings

00:10:27 studio YZ general arrangement drawings for the lower floors of the tower discussing an advising max Fordham in connection with the extension of the smoke ventilation system to the lever floors discussing with Studio a the reconfiguration of the mezzanine and

00:10:39 reconfiguration of the mezzanine and walkway levels firefighting access to Grenfell tower means of escape and attending

00:10:45 attending a meeting with Building Control mr. Ashton was busy in providing a responsive and helpful service a

00:10:56 responsive and helpful service a planning application and early planning application was issued by studio he in August 2012 and revised in October of 2012 we know from the disclosed

00:11:07 2012 we know from the disclosed documents that the planning application generated lengthy discussions both internally with and with Kasey TMO and with the planners which were concerned with matters such as color appearance

00:11:18 with matters such as color appearance texture and aesthetics of the proposed new building xover was not asked to and did not participate in any of these discussions and was not included in them

00:11:30 discussions and was not included in them or in any communications about them building regulation compliance is not a planning issue as such and no attention appears to have been paid to it by Studio E or others involved the first

00:11:44 Studio E or others involved the first issue of the outlined fire safety strategy on the 1st of October 2012 produced by mr. Ashton provided by way of introduction details of the

00:11:55 of introduction details of the refurbishment being dealt with by x over which I had more or less recited a second ago plus it gave details of what plans had been considered for the purposes of the report the report is

00:12:06 purposes of the report the report is based upon discussions held with the design team and on drawings numbered and certain numbers are given produced by Studio E LLP it is not disputed that

00:12:17 Studio E LLP it is not disputed that none of those drawings contained any reference whatsoever to cladding they were spots called general arrangement drawings and they were concerned with the lower floors so when and this is the

00:12:29 the lower floors so when and this is the first time it occurred mr. Ashton stated compliance with B for external fire spread it is considered that the proposed changes will have no adverse effect on the building in relation to

00:12:40 effect on the building in relation to external fire spread but this will be confirmed by an analysis in a future issue of this report that would have been understood by studio he unknown

00:12:51 been understood by studio he unknown because of the drawings which had been referred to and the discussions which had been conducting that would have been a reference to the works described in the introduction that was what the report was about I daresay as the hearing goes on there may

00:13:04 daresay as the hearing goes on there may be investigation of the precise wording of that but what was being said was perfectly clear in our submission that these works which I've considered here with reference to these drawings do not

00:13:16 with reference to these drawings do not appear to give rise to an adverse effect on the building in relation to fire spread but will be confirmed in a later issue of this report the next thing that

00:13:29 issue of this report the next thing that happened more or less on the same day and which mr. Hyatt and to certain extent dr. Lane lay emphasis on is that Studio II provided X over via email with

00:13:45 Studio II provided X over via email with a link to a design team stage C Report x over zone report formed part of the stage C submission that document said

00:13:57 stage C submission that document said nothing else about it it was a hundred and eighty two we know now it's a hundred and eighty two pages long and included a concept proposal originating from Max Fordham the M&E services

00:14:08 from Max Fordham the M&E services engineer to provide insulation to the building with less depth than rock wall with the same thermal qualities Celotex was put forward this was a very early stage it was not a design is not

00:14:22 stage it was not a design is not believed mr. Ashton will answer this but did not believe that mr. Ashton operated the link and there's no particular reason why he should have he'd completed his first stage report there'd been no

00:14:33 his first stage report there'd been no suggestion or conversation with him about cladding he had talked to max Fordham about about smoke ventilation and the fact of the matter is also that

00:14:45 and the fact of the matter is also that that is probably the only reference six not even a direct reference and a reference where you could if you chose to obtain some information about one part of a potential very early design

00:14:56 part of a potential very early design and it's far far far too far in advance of the axial choice of the axial system in late 2014 for it to be really calls are they connected a failure to do that

00:15:07 are they connected a failure to do that and

00:15:08 and that's what we submit almost two years before the actual decision for the actual cladding which was what caused the fire in this case took place then between November 2012 in August 2013

00:15:21 between November 2012 in August 2013 almost nothing happened which involved X over at all this was partly because the planning process was proceeding very slowly but also because for a significant part of that period the project was effectively put on hold this

00:15:34 project was effectively put on hold this in turn was the result of cost issues and the project running over budget RT Lea also were becoming increasingly unconvinced with Leadbeater as a contractor and there were significant

00:15:46 contractor and there were significant differences between them on the issues of price cost and value for money although at this stage only Emery on eclis ACM became a live issue in March

00:15:57 eclis ACM became a live issue in March 2013 13 when CEP met with Studio E after discussion with Alcoa now iconic and suggested that there might be scope to switch from zinc to the cheaper ACM

00:16:09 switch from zinc to the cheaper ACM cladding option so for the first eight months of 2013 xover were effectively redundant whilst discussions about cost and appearance dominated TMS time and

00:16:20 and appearance dominated TMS time and thinking and also arti Lea's one means of generating value or reducing costs was the opportunity for saving money by using a cheaper alternative to zinc

00:16:31 using a cheaper alternative to zinc xover were not involved in any of this kush ins on cost or appearance they were not involved in any discussions about the potential merits of changing to ACM they were not copied into any

00:16:43 they were not copied into any correspondence about these matters nor were they provided with any details about the still early stages of a cladding design in or about August or

00:16:55 cladding design in or about August or maybe a little earlier as a consequence of RT Lea's and TM o--'s increasing dissatisfaction with Ledbetter t mo decided the project should be put out to tender to select a contractor for a

00:17:07 tender to select a contractor for a design and build contract in August 2013 before the tender was drafted studio e issued its RI be a combined stage D

00:17:18 issued its RI be a combined stage D report this still referred to zinc rain screen panels but also to folded metal shingles on steel substrate and PIR Celotex FR five thousands on existing columns the

00:17:30 thousands on existing columns the reports also included pictures of alternative cladding options including ACM the stage D report was never sent to x over nor was any link to the documents

00:17:41 x over nor was any link to the documents applied to x over nor is there any evidence that x over was told anything at all about the proposal for the cladding and insulation system over the following months after August there were

00:17:53 following months after August there were a few interchanges between studio E and X over dealing with layouts compartment ation drawing markups and what it was believed are bkc required to approve the

00:18:04 believed are bkc required to approve the design from as far safety point of view there was also a good deal of correspondence with terry ashton moth max Fordham RB Casey TMO about the smoke ventilation system and those discussions

00:18:17 ventilation system and those discussions continued into 2014 none of the correspondence involving Terry Ashton contain any details of the cladding design or materials in October

00:18:29 cladding design or materials in October 2013 x / put forward its second issue of the outlined outline fire services strategy safety strategy forgive me it

00:18:43 strategy safety strategy forgive me it followed the same approximate course as the one I read earlier so I won't go the summary of the refurbishment was more or less identical in this occasion the

00:18:56 less identical in this occasion the plans referred to was slightly updated but they were still far strategy drawings produced by Studio E and contained no details of cladding and

00:19:09 exactly the same phrase was again left in the report it is considered that the proposed changes will have no adverse effect etc again it was clear that what

00:19:24 effect etc again it was clear that what was being referred to was the works which were being described in the drawings which were being referred to in the earlier part of the report and we would say that studio E must be we're from what is going on in from what

00:19:36 we're from what is going on in from what it said that that is what was intended the final issue three was submitted on the seventh of November 2013 about two

00:19:50 the seventh of November 2013 about two or three weeks later and this did have a few changes but they were more in the way of updating areas of the interior of the buildings that were being referred

00:20:01 the buildings that were being referred to again there was at the introduction the proposed development was again referred to slightly differently because some of the details of what had gone on below had altered in the meantime again

00:20:14 below had altered in the meantime again the report was based upon discussions held with the design team the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and on fire axis and fire strategy drawings produced by stage studio II LLP and far

00:20:27 produced by stage studio II LLP and far excess and fire strategy all drawings were not drawings to do with cladding and then there were some more detail about fire detection alarm systems means of escape new stairs smoke ventilation

00:20:40 of escape new stairs smoke ventilation of lobbies and again the exact same expression it is considered that the proposed changes will have no adverse effect on the building etc but this will

00:20:51 effect on the building etc but this will be confirmed by an analysis in a future issue of this report so again we say it was clear what was being referred to back to the beginning the plans and the

00:21:04 back to the beginning the plans and the refurbishment of the lower floors it was conditional and made it clear that a further report would be expected that subject to various matters to which I shall come in a moment before not at

00:21:20 I shall come in a moment before not at this point I should just mention a point that was raised by mr. poppet in his submissions yesterday or two points in relation to the latter document the stage of issue three report he said this

00:21:34 stage of issue three report he said this yesterday at page fifty line 14 of the transcript he quoted it he said it and he quoted what I've just read and he said indeed the advice provided by X over in its fire strategy for thought

00:21:45 over in its fire strategy for thought regarding compliance was part for was that the proposed changes that is the over cladding proposals will have no effect on the external fire spread

00:21:56 no effect on the external fire spread and that is with respect to have no doubt inadvertently wrong that is not what it was saying and it's not a proper interpretation of the document he also said little earlier perhaps not

00:22:07 he also said little earlier perhaps not as seriously but he did suggest that in relation to the earlier planning applications studio he engaged with numerous consultants including xover and different suppliers and none of these

00:22:19 different suppliers and none of these consultants or suppliers raised any queries or concerns regarding the brief to over cloud the tower we say that is not right studio he did not engage with X over in selecting materials for the cladding system was not directly

00:22:31 cladding system was not directly involved in the application for planning permission and that therefore that too was erroneous if we then resumed the history very shortly after almost alongside the studio is that the the

00:22:44 alongside the studio is that the the stage D report a much more significant document was generated and that was the

00:22:55 document was generated and that was the national building specification which became part of the employers records and I will just maybe a minute or so or

00:23:06 I will just maybe a minute or so or minute or two refer to what it said we know that it became part of the employers requirements for the purposes of the tender it specified rainscreen cladding as aluminium honeycomb core

00:23:19 cladding as aluminium honeycomb core structurally structurally bonded between two lightweight zinc sheets it said that in addition to the cladding specified tenderers would also be invited to

00:23:30 tenderers would also be invited to submit comparative supply and install costs for a number of alternative materials rana Bundoora Kloss and Luca bond court zinc composite and separately the NBS specified thermal

00:23:42 separately the NBS specified thermal insulation Celotex FR 5000 and what is also of significance is that it set out a number of general requirements which included compliance standards the center

00:23:55 included compliance standards the center for window and cladding technology standard for systemized building and notes information typically provided during detailed design proposals to support outstanding applications for

00:24:06 support outstanding applications for Building Regulations consent and relaxation and information to be provided before commencement of testing or manufacture of rainscreen cladding system detailed calculations to prove

00:24:17 system detailed calculations to prove compliance with design performance requirements those design performance requires then again refer to the CW CT standard and said that unless specified or otherwise agreed they must comply

00:24:30 or otherwise agreed they must comply with part six far performance which again says the building envelope shall also comply with Building Regulations or local Building Code the building

00:24:41 local Building Code the building envelope shall not be composed of materials which readily support combustion adds significantly to the fire load and/or give off toxic fumes if ignited then the design performance requirements also specifically requires

00:24:52 requirements also specifically requires fire resistance of the backing wall 60-minutes integrity 60-minutes insulation internal surface spreader flame of backing wall class 0 cavity

00:25:04 flame of backing wall class 0 cavity Farber fire barriers to resist the passage of flame and smoke for not less than 30 minutes integrity now the significance of that is twofold namely that when the tender documents including

00:25:18 that when the tender documents including this employers requirements were accepted by Brydon who succeeded they took on these obligations the second point is also this and I'm not going

00:25:29 point is also this and I'm not going further than just to make this point that these specifications were drawn up by Studio II and they were drawn up by Studio II without any consultation or

00:25:40 Studio II without any consultation or reference to xover studio he must have felt that they were sufficiently skilled to be able to put forward a series of

00:25:51 to be able to put forward a series of quasi regulatory requirements on to support the passing of building regulation approval and to support the

00:26:02 regulation approval and to support the necessity of providing calculations and information and details which would demonstrate that the cladding system would comply and not be dangerous

00:26:16 system would comply and not be dangerous and that is quite an important point winners looking at the skills of the various parts

00:26:36 as he considered obviously that they didn't need or want input from xover no questions were asked and no drafts circulated there was no exuberant in the

00:26:47 circulated there was no exuberant in the selection of materials and thus it was that xover were not using word excluded exclusiva was simply not involved in

00:26:59 exclusiva was simply not involved in that process of drafting the NBS specification approving it or making comments on it specification was there

00:27:10 comments on it specification was there in March 2014 KC TMO having received a number of responses to the tender decided to appoint Ryden as DnB contractor this changed the project fundamentally Ryden

00:27:22 changed the project fundamentally Ryden as is accepted agreed to accept design responsibility for all aspects of the project including compliance it entered into a contract which specified zinc cladding with a honeycomb core provided

00:27:34 cladding with a honeycomb core provided that alternative materials might be used but only in accordance with provisions requiring compliance with prevailing regulations and other specific provisions pursuant to appointment Ryden

00:27:45 provisions pursuant to appointment Ryden created its own design team the design team comprised Ryden PLAs studio e Harley

00:27:52 Harley curtains and Jas right all of these were now subcontractors to Ryden to whom they had either been novated in the case of curtains and Studio E or appointed as ride ins new specialist subcontractor

00:28:04 ride ins new specialist subcontractor system the case of Harley and Jas write critically xover were not novated at an introductory meeting on the 1st of April 2014 ridin tolls TMO that it would

00:28:18 2014 ridin tolls TMO that it would contact x over with the view of using them going forward it never did indeed mr. Lawrence had told Mr soon's about a week before the meeting that ridin typically did not engage fire

00:28:29 typically did not engage fire consultants he regarded it as building controls responsibility to raise any concerns and satisfy themselves with the details of the submission and mr. Crawford relates that recalls mr.

00:28:44 Crawford relates that recalls mr. Lawrence stating to him in a discussion about xover mr. Crawford I think had put in a phone call to them mr. mr. Lauren said so if you're getting some free advice then great otherwise we'll need to look at

00:28:55 great otherwise we'll need to look at this he would have course have been open to riding to see another fire specialist to advise but it did not so this is an important issue that Suber were not part

00:29:06 important issue that Suber were not part of the design team after mid March 2014 there any function thereafter whether it was a function whether it was something simply that mr. Ashton was happy to do was to respond to ad hoc inquiries from

00:29:19 was to respond to ad hoc inquiries from contractors or in a very few occasions studio he when they were passing on questions by contractors after being

00:29:30 questions by contractors after being appointed and after the design team had been established Ryden Katie CMO dartie Leah almost immediately began discussions about saving of money on the cladding if ACM

00:29:41 saving of money on the cladding if ACM was selected and the figure of four hundred and fifty four thousand pounds was calculated by Harley as the saving achievable for using a cassette ACM system by the end of July 2014 TMO had

00:29:54 system by the end of July 2014 TMO had decided to proceed with Rayna bond in at that stage of champagne color right and then stated the full design can now start and the design team meeting should start final approval for the new facade

00:30:06 start final approval for the new facade with the slightly different color was obtained in early October 2014 xover is not aware that any of the design team appointed by Wright and including ride

00:30:17 appointed by Wright and including ride in itself took any steps either themselves or through taking specialist advice to verify whether the detailed fire performance requirements set out in the employer's requirements were being compliant with the decision to design

00:30:30 compliant with the decision to design the claddings assist system the cladding system that was actually used using ACM was taken after xover had been removed from the design team and was a decision in which xover were not invited to and

00:30:42 in which xover were not invited to and did not play any part nor were xover informed of the decision

00:30:50 so in summary ex / was at no stage involved in discussion or development of the design of the cladding system with anybody in the design team either before

00:31:01 anybody in the design team either before after the DMV contract was awarded it was not involved other than by the issue its own fire safety strategy reports in the development of the RI be a staged scene stage D reports for a significant

00:31:13 scene stage D reports for a significant part of 2013 the project was on hold and exhibit was not really utilized at all EXO a was not involved in the compilation or approval of the tender

00:31:24 compilation or approval of the tender documents of the NBS was not involved in any design team meetings after November 2013 whilst the tender was awaiting resolution took no part and was not

00:31:35 resolution took no part and was not invited or expected to in discussions about materials to be selected for the exterior cladding was not novated to Ryden and was not part of the divide design team after mid March 2014 and was

00:31:48 design team after mid March 2014 and was there thereafter effectively sidelined and did not receive information or involvement about the cladding system did not select the materials did not have any say in the design or choice of

00:31:59 have any say in the design or choice of materials and has never asked for advice except in very small and specific ways after Ryden became the main contractor and main designer for these reasons in

00:32:18 and main designer for these reasons in summary we submit that criticism of EXO as conduct he's unjustified and insofar as statements which you know are described

00:32:30 statements which you know are described as egregious our concerns are simply unjustified question of cavity bearers

00:32:41 unjustified question of cavity bearers I'll deal with this very briefly xover came into the picture twice in September and September 2014 and March 2015

00:32:52 and September 2014 and March 2015 yep in September 2014 xover was asked by neil crawford pursuant to a request for information from harley about horizontal karate barriers at floor seating level and

00:33:04 barriers at floor seating level and advised that they were required that was correct mr. eshton commented consistently what we have been saying today that he'd never seen details of what was being done to the external walls in march ik sober was asked by

00:33:18 walls in march ik sober was asked by neil crawford whether the cavity barriers were in fact required to be fire stops and advised that they were not that also was correct now quite a

00:33:30 not that also was correct now quite a lot of mileage is sought by mr. Hyatt and dr. Lane about cavity barriers and I think that it is important just to

00:33:41 think that it is important just to recollect first of all that in relation to the cavity barriers which formed part of the external rainscreen cladding system it was agreed by mr. / professor

00:33:53 system it was agreed by mr. / professor Bisby professor taught to torero and dr. lane that if the exterior if as it were one of the sides of the cavity barrier became enveloped in flames it would then

00:34:06 became enveloped in flames it would then either bold or fall away and the cavity barrier would play no sensible cause purpose so far as the cavity barriers around the windows were concerned professor torero dr. Lane and professor

00:34:21 professor torero dr. Lane and professor Bisbee all said I either that normally cavity bearers were not designed to prevent the a file and secondly in any event they could not see how such barriers could

00:34:34 could not see how such barriers could effectively be designed in this building because of the complexities of the way in which the windows were put together now mr. Hyatt in his report appears think to suggest not only his words that

00:34:46 think to suggest not only his words that he's cracked it I don't know whether that we'll have to look into that whether or not anybody at the time of normal skill would have been able to do that it's quite a different matter but will happen we'll have to see whether in fact he's successful or not in what he

00:34:58 fact he's successful or not in what he puts forward and how long it took him to do it and etc one it is the history I've

00:35:10 do it and etc one it is the history I've given is quite extraordinary and what one needs to understand that perhaps I mean I actually understand those PSR submissions that talk about fragmentation and slipping between the

00:35:22 fragmentation and slipping between the floor sitting between the gaps where something has happened in this case to have almost two parallel streams one people one set of people talking about planning and and and cavities and

00:35:37 employers requirement and another not looking at the work going on at lower floor levels but it does seem that in some way so the fact that the planning application was made and the intense

00:35:50 application was made and the intense very prolonged discussion about the appearance of the thought of that would dominated thought then distracted by the cost budgets change of contractor and

00:36:02 cost budgets change of contractor and desire in some way to lessen the cost even by changing materials then by the expectation that the new tenders tenderers would take over responsibility of developing the design with its own

00:36:14 of developing the design with its own team in some way to design arrangements were not properly coordinated and it is a fact that and again I'm not simply not

00:36:25 a fact that and again I'm not simply not trying to pass the park but it's a question worth looking into is how is it the studio II never actually said to X oh excuse me we're planning a cladding system would

00:36:36 we're planning a cladding system would you like we you said you'll do it and we're now about to do it will you please advise us

00:36:41 advise us update your report that never happens how is that and then when Ryden became became involved we know they didn't they didn't they didn't prolong our we'll

00:36:52 didn't they didn't prolong our we'll continue our engagement so how come they went to the next phase without ever saying hey somebody we need to have somebody to advise us whether this is and that didn't happen in either case

00:37:04 can I finally deal briefly although I think it could be more of an issue with dr. Lane who's written a 262 page report

00:37:18 dr. Lane who's written a 262 page report so far as I can see basically dealing with two individuals one in particular mr. Ashton and the other mr. Cooney and

00:37:31 mr. Ashton and the other mr. Cooney and we have a number of objections we've taken some objections in our written opening and we feel that there are criticisms to be made because her approach appears also she uses a thing

00:37:45 approach appears also she uses a thing called an FIA template her approach appears to be not what would what alternative possible approaches could a competent fire consultant take to some

00:37:56 competent fire consultant take to some of the issues in this case just like in all forms of walks of life something like Terry Ashton he's obviously the sort of chap who likes to talk through changes with individuals on the spot rather than writing lengthy reports

00:38:08 rather than writing lengthy reports there's no there's no analysis of that at all in fact what's put forward is what we submit is a slightly dogmatic approach this is how I do it and this is that's what's right and if you didn't do

00:38:20 that's what's right and if you didn't do it that's wrong it's also quite theoretical and legalistic there's quite a lot of law some of it over some of it concealed right some of her views depend

00:38:31 concealed right some of her views depend on her particular view of the interpretation of our agreement she then and I know art Elia complain about this as well I think expands duties beyond a contract and says it

00:38:42 duties beyond a contract and says it will never let you walk to have done this that and the other to do with the regulatory reform fire service order regulations 38 even though she concedes that regulation 38 wasn't expressly

00:38:53 that regulation 38 wasn't expressly used addressed in our contract fails to deal in a lot of expanded ways about things which could or shouldn't have been done as to whether they are actually relevant to any equalization so

00:39:05 actually relevant to any equalization so we take significant issue with some and we also take significant issue with that approach also with the dismissal of the notion that xover might reasonably

00:39:16 notion that xover might reasonably expect to be asked to advise or when when when the decision is approaching would somebody please tell me and then we'll do that we'll do the report that that she seems just to disregard that on

00:39:27 that she seems just to disregard that on the basis that we make our own scope scope and therefore we've got to do what we said without any regard to practicality whatsoever the scarcely a passing mention of the fact that Righton

00:39:38 passing mention of the fact that Righton became design and build contractors and they're scarcely any mention or discussion of the significance of the

00:39:49 discussion of the significance of the fact that there was no communication with each sober about the design of the exterior so we're not going to go further than this today which is we

00:40:01 further than this today which is we agree obviously that that evidence has to be tested and we're not making any application be concerned about that at least for the moment but we do think that some consideration is going to have

00:40:13 that some consideration is going to have to be given on our to the possibility on our part of seeking to ask questions of dr. lane ourselves but I'm leaving that for today I appreciate that's not always being popular but there might be

00:40:25 being popular but there might be differences so that is the conclusion of my submissions on behalf of X over well thank you very much mr. Davis in a

00:40:40 thank you very much mr. Davis in a moment we're going to hear submission an opening statement by Connick but the practical reasons we're going to have a short break at this point against say

00:40:52 short break at this point against say ten minutes but that will take us to something like 10 47 so rather than play around with odd minutes I'm going to say in 10 10 to 11 right thank you very much

00:41:04 in 10 10 to 11 right thank you very much 10 Twitter please

00:52:46 hello we are about to resume therefore please can you take your seats and remain silent may I remind you no photographs are allowed to be taken in

00:52:58 photographs are allowed to be taken in the hearing room and please switch your phones to silent many thanks

00:54:09 now mr. Hoffman for iconic thank you in its letter to core participants dated the 30th of October 2019 the inquiry

00:54:22 the 30th of October 2019 the inquiry identified compliance as being within the scope of module 1 such matters clearly affect the interests of our client and we have therefore submitted

00:54:34 client and we have therefore submitted as you know a relatively short written opening which we trust you will have read and we are grateful for the opportunity to make this likewise relatively short oral opening this is

00:54:47 relatively short oral opening this is clearly not the moment however for me to outline let alone give full details of the evidence which you may hear from persons in our employment at the

00:54:58 persons in our employment at the material time since such witnesses will be called in module 2 I am therefore deliberately deferring any remarks which I might make by way of opening in

00:55:09 I might make by way of opening in relation to such evidence until the week commencing the fourth of May which has been identified as the time period for all openings in relation to module 2 it

00:55:21 all openings in relation to module 2 it follows that I shall resist the temptation to respond to every one of the comments which have been made about our employees by other core participants in their written and oral openings since

00:55:35 in their written and oral openings since I've just referred to the openings of other core participants I would like in these introductory remarks to add this further observation relating to those

00:55:46 further observation relating to those openings speaking generally some of those openings share the characteristic that they seek to allocate blame upon others usually other core participants

00:55:57 others usually other core participants as a means of exculpating or seeking to exculpate themselves other openings share the characteristic that they complain precisely about the tendency of

00:56:10 complain precisely about the tendency of some core participants to proceed by blaming others I hope that you will observe that we have adopted neither of these

00:56:18 these two approaches in particular one of the features of our case which differentiates it from others is that we do not seek to allocate blame as between

00:56:29 do not seek to allocate blame as between others certainly not at this stage if there are criticisms to be made then we have little doubt that your team will be astute to identify them where it

00:56:40 astute to identify them where it considers them to be justified in the presentation of our case by contrast our primary focus will be to identify the roles which we play and the limits and

00:56:52 roles which we play and the limits and parameters of that role and we submit with emphasis that it is essential for you and your team to understand those limits and those parameters if you are

00:57:03 limits and those parameters if you are to make a fair judgment in your phase-two report as to the acts or omissions of our client it follows that the first part of these oral submissions

00:57:15 the first part of these oral submissions will be concerned to identify the role of aap SAS whom I shall call the company acknowledging that we have dealt with this already not only in our written

00:57:27 this already not only in our written opening for this phase 2 module but in our openings and closings written and oral for phase 1 given that in this module as well as no doubt in later

00:57:39 module as well as no doubt in later modules the inquiry will be concerned with the regulatory regime which prevailed at the time and applied to the work that was carried out at Grenville it will then be necessary for me to make

00:57:51 it will then be necessary for me to make some comments about that regime about its significance in the context of the role which are in which our clients played this will form the second and predominant part of my submissions then

00:58:05 predominant part of my submissions then thirdly and lastly I will discuss briefly how the regime appears to have operated in relation to the works at Grenville so I start with a section on

00:58:17 Grenville so I start with a section on the company's role as we indicated in our phase 1 opening statement the company carries on business of mercs time in eastern France where it

00:58:28 time in eastern France where it manufactured a range of architectural products including a CMP II the company was a relatively minor participant in the UK market

00:58:39 minor participant in the UK market supplying a CMP for use to a small number of customers within the UK comparable panels have also been supplied in greater volume by many

00:58:50 supplied in greater volume by many others indeed as you heard this kind of a cm cladding panel was in widespread use for many years in the United Kingdom and abroad the position statement by the

00:59:03 and abroad the position statement by the Department noted that advice has had been given to owners of 457 high-rise buildings relating to the use of a cm cladding panels turning to a CMP itself

00:59:18 cladding panels turning to a CMP itself this had been available on the market for many years it comprises a polyethylene core sandwiched between outer sheets of aluminium we do say that

00:59:31 outer sheets of aluminium we do say that it would have been obvious to anyone professionally involved in the construction of the building that by reason of the polyethylene core this product was not of limited

00:59:42 product was not of limited combustibility now module 1 will not be the occasion for detailed scrutiny of the way in which ACM panels were marketed but it will in due course

00:59:53 marketed but it will in due course become clear that the products which were marketed by the company included not only ACM PE but also ACM F are the

01:00:05 not only ACM PE but also ACM F are the the f are standing for fire retardant and this was a further very clear indication of the combustible nature of the PE product in order for the ACM

01:00:20 the PE product in order for the ACM panels to be attached to a building it was necessary for them to be fabricated into the desired size and shape a process undertaken by others following

01:00:32 process undertaken by others following supply by the company

01:00:37 in relation to such processes we would add the following points a the first step in the process is for an architect designer or other construction

01:00:49 designer or other construction professional to decide how to decide to approve the use of the product on a specific project and to determine exactly how it is to be used it is at

01:01:01 exactly how it is to be used it is at this stage that building regulation compliance has to be considered the next step is to purchase the product from the manufacturer then the product must be

01:01:12 manufacturer then the product must be fabricated by suitably competent professionals into the shapes specified by the designer those fabricated panels would then need to be fixed

01:01:23 would then need to be fixed by suitably competent installation professionals and by means of rails or in some other way which would safely support those panels as part of the cladding system the overall cladding

01:01:37 cladding system the overall cladding system which includes the ACM panels as fabricated and fixed to the railing system as well as the insulation and other materials used on the external

01:01:48 other materials used on the external facade should have been designed and installed according to applicable regulations so as to be sufficiently robust to withstand external fire

01:01:59 robust to withstand external fire exposure without causing significant acceleration of fire spread or prejudicing the structural integrity of the cladding system ultimately however

01:02:12 the cladding system ultimately however specifying the profile methods of fabrication and installation are matters of choice for those responsible for the design and construction of the relevant

01:02:23 design and construction of the relevant building the last thing I'd like to mention in connection with the company itself is this that in 2015 the translucent a CMP core was substituted

01:02:37 translucent a CMP core was substituted with a carbon black core and that was achieved by adding a small amount of carbon black material to the existing core which provided greater ultraviolet protection for the core at exposed panel

01:02:50 protection for the core at exposed panel Edge's the change was not related to fire performance both translucent and black core were to be found at Grenville and dr. Lane actually suggests that the

01:03:02 and dr. Lane actually suggests that the black core may give rise to improved fire performance that he's in her supplementary phase one report in appendix oh now I come on to deal with

01:03:16 appendix oh now I come on to deal with the regulatory regime and this will be a rather longer section of my remarks in our written opening we gave a fairly full description of the relevant regime

01:03:29 full description of the relevant regime including reference to the Building Act 1984 the building regulations 2010 and of course approved document b but let me make this preliminary and rather

01:03:41 make this preliminary and rather important point it's important to remember that the relevant regulatory regime applied to the construction or refurbishment of Grenville tower it did

01:03:53 refurbishment of Grenville tower it did not apply to the sale of one component of the cladding system those professionally involved in the construction or refurbishment of a

01:04:05 construction or refurbishment of a building are expected to ensure that the combination of materials chosen for a particular project will enable compliance to be achieved the supplier of an individual product product would

01:04:19 of an individual product product would be entitled to assume that this would be done now we have summarized the effect of the regime as follows and I need to go into a little bit of detail here as

01:04:32 go into a little bit of detail here as you will see we have said that the guidance proffers in broad terms two routes to compliance when designing a cladding system the first is that

01:04:46 cladding system the first is that external walls meet the guidance given in paragraphs twelve point six to twelve point nine and paragraph twelve point six jests that the external surfaces of

01:04:58 six jests that the external surfaces of walls should meet the provisions in what is called diagram 40 insofar as the external wall is over 18 meters diagram 40 suggests that the external

01:05:11 diagram 40 suggests that the external wall surface classification could be national class 0 or European class B in addition and of importance paragraph 12

01:05:23 addition and of importance paragraph 12 point 7 suggests that in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level any insulation product should be

01:05:35 level any insulation product should be of limited combust ability now this route to compliance the first route is sometimes described as the linear route and this is the route which requires the

01:05:49 and this is the route which requires the insulation to be of limited combust ability the second route is that the external walls should meet the specified performance criteria using full-scale

01:06:01 performance criteria using full-scale test data from British Standards and it is of course the responsibility of builders architects and specifiers on a particular project to ensure that the

01:06:12 particular project to ensure that the requisite systems testing has been carried out now pausing there having mentioned those two routes we would observe that the linear route to

01:06:23 observe that the linear route to compliance would clearly not have been available here because the insulation was on any view not of limited combustibility in consequence it follows that the

01:06:37 in consequence it follows that the compliance of the new cladding system at Grenville tower could not have been determined by the fire rating of any individual product but had to depend on

01:06:49 individual product but had to depend on an assessment of the cladding system as a whole those concerned in the design and construct construction of the refurbishment must have been aware of

01:07:01 refurbishment must have been aware of this requirement it's a basic element in an approved document b and of the absence has already stressed this

01:07:12 absence has already stressed this morning by mr. Douglas of any such as assessment irrespective of their exact state of knowledge of the combust ability of the ACM panel I'll just say

01:07:24 ability of the ACM panel I'll just say that again those concerned in the design and construction of the refurbishment must have been aware of the requirement for assessment of the cladding system as

01:07:35 for assessment of the cladding system as a whole and of the absence of any such assessment irrespective of their exact state of knowledge of the combust ability of the ACM panels now approved

01:07:49 ability of the ACM panels now approved document b did not intend the two two options which i've already mentioned to be exhaustive routes to compliance with the regulatory requirement b for two

01:08:02 the regulatory requirement b for two other methods of compliance with regulations have been recognized within the industry and that is evidenced by technical guidance note 18 produced by

01:08:13 technical guidance note 18 produced by the Building Control Alliance one of those further routes to compliance identified by the Building Control Alliance in technical guidance note 18

01:08:26 Alliance in technical guidance note 18 involves a so-called desktop study but we've seen their evidence that those responsible for the design and refurbishment of Grenville Tower conducted a desktop study of the

01:08:38 conducted a desktop study of the particular configuration of ACM material and insulation installed on the building finally the fourth route finally in

01:08:50 finally the fourth route finally in appropriate circumstances compliance may be shown through what is called a holistic fire engineering assessment such an assessment must take into

01:09:01 such an assessment must take into account the design features of the building as a whole including effective compartment ation active and passive fire prevention mechanisms egress

01:09:12 fire prevention mechanisms egress options for residents and more it is plainly not enough simply to look at the performance of the cladding system let alone any one particular element in it

01:09:29 approved document b itself supports the proposition that a holistic fire engineered route is an alternative but nonetheless legitimate route to

01:09:40 nonetheless legitimate route to compliance it confirms our description as to what was required when opting to employ a holistic fire engineering approach to compliance and indeed in

01:09:52 approach to compliance and indeed in some circumstances this will be the only way to achieve the statutory objective and in our written opening I think we quote a paragraph in the general

01:10:05 quote a paragraph in the general introduction section of approved document b under the heading fire safety engineering which reads as follows fire safety engineering can provide an

01:10:16 safety engineering can provide an alternative approach to fire safety it may be the only practical way to achieve a status a satisfactory standard of fire safety in some large and complex

01:10:28 safety in some large and complex buildings and in buildings containing different uses fire safety engineering may also be suitable for solving a problem with an aspect of building design which otherwise follows the

01:10:41 design which otherwise follows the provisions in this document and I might add that the four routes to compliance that I've just described were recognized in a government consultation paper dated

01:10:52 in a government consultation paper dated April 2018 the very consultation paper which led to the more recent changes in the regulatory regime of which you are aware now there's no information

01:11:07 aware now there's no information available that those responsible for the refurbishment of Grenville Tower employed this holistic fire engineering approach and indeed the many deficiencies in the building would seem

01:11:20 deficiencies in the building would seem to make clear that no such approach was adopted

01:11:23 adopted moreover the inquiry itself in its phase 1 report has found that a functional requirement in the regime was not met however as we've already explained

01:11:37 however as we've already explained this company's row was essentially to supply a product which required fabrication before installation it was the responsibility of others to decide

01:11:48 the responsibility of others to decide whether or not to choose that project for a particular to choose that product for a particular project how to specify and utilize the product in the

01:12:00 and utilize the product in the construction or refurbishment of the tower how to carry out the detailed design how to fabricate the product how to fit it to the external surface of the tower

01:12:11 tower what other components to combine it with and in every other respect how to carry out the refurbishment the regulatory regime as I've already emphasized applied to the constructional

01:12:24 applied to the constructional refurbishment of the tower it did not apply to the sale of one component of the cladding system and moreover those professionally involved in the

01:12:35 professionally involved in the constructional refurbishment are expected to ensure that the combination of materials chosen will enable compliance to be achieved the supplier of an individual product not only cannot

01:12:49 of an individual product not only cannot do that but would be entitled to assume that it would be done as I indicated in my earlier introductory remarks it's not

01:13:00 my earlier introductory remarks it's not my intention at this stage to address questions such as the extent to which those employed by our client most of whom were based in France were aware or

01:13:11 whom were based in France were aware or could or should have been aware of the details of the regime which I've set out it was not their responsibility to decide whether the product was appropriate to use in a particular

01:13:23 appropriate to use in a particular configuration for a particular project however a key element in the criticisms made by a made by others relates to the

01:13:34 made by a made by others relates to the so called BBA certificate issued by the cup issued to the company in 2008 by the British Board of Agrabah a private sector organisation which essentially

01:13:47 sector organisation which essentially provides information about the prod to the marketplace again we deal with the BBA Certificate in some detail at detailed in our written openings and my task now is to summarize the position

01:14:01 task now is to summarize the position and to do so as far as I can in non-technical language by way of background a product such as a CMP could

01:14:14 background a product such as a CMP could be tested either under a set of national criteria or under a set of European criteria of course we are dealing with a period of time when the United Kingdom

01:14:26 period of time when the United Kingdom was still unequivocally part of the European Union it's interesting to note that in her written opening submissions on behalf of some of the bereaved

01:14:37 on behalf of some of the bereaved survivors and residents my learning trend was bar wise comments at her paragraph 7.2 that when the European criteria were introduced into approved

01:14:49 criteria were introduced into approved document b in the year 2000 national class zero should have been abolished and that it is an out dating and concede and confusing classification which has

01:15:02 and confusing classification which has created a completely false sense of security

01:15:05 security amongst industry at large however the fact that the two sets of criteria continued to exist the fact is that the

01:15:16 continued to exist the fact is that the two sets of criteria continued to exist side by side and indeed approved document b as I said earlier through the use of a particular diagram known as

01:15:27 use of a particular diagram known as diagram 40 advises that above 18 metres the external wall surface classification should be class zero national class or

01:15:40 should be class zero national class or Class B European class and it was therefore perhaps entirely understandable that the BBA having before them evidence that the product

01:15:51 before them evidence that the product was capable of achieving European Class B confirmed that it could also be treated for the purposes of compliance with the guidance

01:16:02 with the guidance as achieving also national class zero now I hope it will be carefully noted that both in our written opening and in

01:16:13 that both in our written opening and in what I have just said orally we say that the product was capable of achieving the requisite European class namely Class B to explain the importance of this I need

01:16:26 to explain the importance of this I need to say a word about the way in which a product such as an ACM panel is tested for the purposes of establishing the European class in particular Class B

01:16:39 European class in particular Class B it's important to recall as anyone professionally involved would be aware that this testing of a product such as an ACM panel because that's what was

01:16:51 an ACM panel because that's what was supplied by the company that this testing of a product is carried out for the purpose of European class testing in

01:17:02 the purpose of European class testing in the context of a system and that systems may vary the fact that under particular test conditions Class B can be and has

01:17:14 test conditions Class B can be and has been achieved necessarily cannot be a guarantee that Class B will be achievable in every in any and every set of circumstances for example in approved

01:17:28 of circumstances for example in approved document b itself in Appendix A paragraph 16 it is emphasized that small differences in detail such as thickness

01:17:40 differences in detail such as thickness substrate in this case the insulation color form fixings etc may significantly affect any fire rating and therefore

01:17:54 affect any fire rating and therefore this is still quoting from approved document b appendix a paragraph 16 therefore any reference to the surface spread of flames should be carefully

01:18:05 spread of flames should be carefully checked to ensure that it is suitable adequate and applicable to the construction to be used so it will be submission that the very nature of the

01:18:17 submission that the very nature of the testing process makes it impossible for those professionals involved to treat a particular test result as applicable in all circumstances that is why we use the

01:18:30 all circumstances that is why we use the phrase capable of achieving the requisite European class now against that background I want to draw attention

01:18:41 that background I want to draw attention again in very general terms to a further important aspect of the BBA certificate and I say that the BBA certificate might

01:18:52 and I say that the BBA certificate might be described in the context of this case by the phrase much-maligned although one wonders whether the reason why it is much maligned is simply because its

01:19:04 much maligned is simply because its contents have not been fully absorbed among the points which are relevant to this submission are these that the BBA certificate certified and certified

01:19:16 certificate certified and certified nothing other than the surface of a none fabricated panel that it contained a range of appropriate caveats as to the

01:19:29 range of appropriate caveats as to the far performance of a fabricated panel in a particular cladding system the certificate on its front page describes

01:19:40 certificate on its front page describes the panel as aluminium polyethylene composite which is a clear signal to any professional that the core is plastic

01:19:51 professional that the core is plastic and combustible the certificate is also explicit that the performance is which it certifies may not be achieved by all colors and that in any event it does not

01:20:05 colors and that in any event it does not apply to the fire resistance of a wall a complete platings cladding system incorporating the product which must be determined by further tests this is all

01:20:18 determined by further tests this is all entirely consistent with what I've said previously about the testing regime moreover the certificate stresses two important things the certificate

01:20:31 two important things the certificate stresses that particular attention should be paid to preventing the spread of a fire within a building breaching the cladding system through windows and

01:20:44 the cladding system through windows and door openings and that cavity barriers should be incorporated one might say that those who criticize the BBA

01:20:55 that those who criticize the BBA certificate should instead be acknowledging that it should be seen in the context of the present inquiry as tragically prophetic it will be apparent

01:21:09 tragically prophetic it will be apparent from what I've already said therefore that a number of the complaints which you heard yesterday are entirely lacking in substance for example as already mentioned it would have been obvious to

01:21:21 mentioned it would have been obvious to anyone professionally involved in the refurbishment who read the first page let alone the full document who read the first page of the BBA certificate that

01:21:32 first page of the BBA certificate that the core of the panel was combustible it would also been obvious to anyone professionally concerned with fire safety that thermoplastic polymers such

01:21:43 safety that thermoplastic polymers such as PE present particularly challenging behavior as regards reaction to fire and it would also have been obvious that

01:21:54 it would also have been obvious that different forms of fixing remember paragraph 16 that I mentioned refers to the form and fixing different forms of

01:22:06 the form and fixing different forms of fixing whether rivet or cassette might not achieve the same rating and that specific testing in the course of an assessment ought to have been carried out moreover let me emphasize once again

01:22:19 out moreover let me emphasize once again that this responsibility cannot possibly be said to have lain upon the supplier of an individual product and as to knowledge without entering into the

01:22:30 knowledge without entering into the extent if any of our clients knowledge as to the other components of the cladding system at Grenville such knowledge if any did not remotely fit

01:22:41 knowledge if any did not remotely fit then with a responsibility to intervene in relation to the choice of those components and take upon themselves a responsibility which it was for others

01:22:52 responsibility which it was for others to fulfill so we shall in due course be inviting the inquiry to reject any criticism of our client based upon its adoption of the BBA certificate as to

01:23:07 adoption of the BBA certificate as to the suggestion that knowing that the Corps was combustible we should have attached some form of warming to the sale of the product we will be

01:23:18 sale of the product we will be addressing in due course more detailed submissions to you on that suffice it for present purposes to say firstly that

01:23:29 under clear Authority in this jurisdiction matters obvious to the user do not need to be warned against but in any event the BBA certificate itself was

01:23:43 any event the BBA certificate itself was the clearest possible signal as to the features of the product and as to the need for due care to be taken so I come

01:23:55 need for due care to be taken so I come to my third and last heading which as I said here earlier will be relatively brief and it's just to see how the submissions I've made apply in the

01:24:09 submissions I've made apply in the context of the tragedy at Grenville tower as we pointed out in our phase 1

01:24:20 openings and closings and as we have reflected here there was and still is no evidence that anyone conducted an appropriate fire engineering assessment

01:24:32 appropriate fire engineering assessment before deciding to utilize our product in the in the context of Grenville tower in combination with other materials and in a particular format or system on the

01:24:44 in a particular format or system on the contrary there is now positive evidence or at least a very clear inference that any perusal of the BBS do whose content I have outlined to you was

01:24:59 whose content I have outlined to you was that best superficial and not the careful and holistic assessment which would have led to a very different outcome the outcome might have been a

01:25:11 outcome the outcome might have been a different choice of material or it might have been to fabricate and configure the materials in a different way as illustrated by the Camden example

01:25:24 illustrated by the Camden example mentioned yesterday by mr. Laidlaw those are our submissions in opening to you this morning of course we look forward

01:25:35 this morning of course we look forward to assisting both of you in greater detail as your work on Phase two Billy proceeds thank you thank you very much mr. Hoffman now the next statement is to

01:25:52 mr. Hoffman now the next statement is to be made by I think mr. or Queens Council on behalf of sulla Dix I hadn't picked

01:26:04 on behalf of sulla Dix I hadn't picked up your particular spot in the room but take your time

01:26:38 sir madam I appear for Celotex together with mr. patrick hennessey we are instructed by Linklaters I wish at the

01:26:51 instructed by Linklaters I wish at the outset to reiterate seller Texas deepest sympathy both to the families of those who lost their lives as a result of the fire at Grenville tower and to everyone

01:27:03 fire at Grenville tower and to everyone who has been and remains affected by that devastating and tragic event Celotex endorses the paramount need to

01:27:15 Celotex endorses the paramount need to ascertain what caused the fire and to ensure that no such tragedy occurs again Celotex is and has from the outset been

01:27:27 Celotex is and has from the outset been committed to providing its full cooperation and assistance to this inquiry to that end Celotex has undertaken an extensive collation and

01:27:40 undertaken an extensive collation and review exercise to identify and disclose relevant documents in response to the inquiries disclosure requests Celotex submitted a detailed position paper in

01:27:53 submitted a detailed position paper in phase 1 and has provided a substantial written opening submission for this module of phase 2 Celotex as legal team

01:28:04 module of phase 2 Celotex as legal team has submitted detailed lines of questioning to assist the inquiries legal team with their examination of witnesses to be called in this module

01:28:16 witnesses to be called in this module Celotex has also sought to respond to the fullest extent possible to the inquiries requests for witness evidence from Celotex none of Celle texas current

01:28:31 from Celotex none of Celle texas current management were involved in or have direct knowledge of the supply of insulation products that were used at Grenville tower or of the launch or

01:28:44 Grenville tower or of the launch or prior testing of RS 5000 which was used as one component of the rainscreen cladding

01:28:52 cladding to Mont Grenville tower all of the decision-makers responsible for the testing and launch of rs.5000 and the supply of Celotex products to Granville

01:29:03 supply of Celotex products to Granville tower are no longer employed by the company Celotex is current managing director mr. Deano Sullivan only joined the company in May 2016

01:29:17 the company in May 2016 after Celotex insulation had been supplied to Granville tower Mr O'Sullivan had no involvement in and has no personal knowledge of the supply of

01:29:30 no personal knowledge of the supply of that insulation to the tower or of the testing and launch of Rs 5000 he nevertheless has provided a detailed witness statement giving first-hand

01:29:41 witness statement giving first-hand evidence of relevant matters where that was possible and where it was not the appendices to his witless statement provide a detailed and frank account of relevant events from a review of

01:29:55 relevant events from a review of documents disclosed to the inquiry in addition in response to the inquiries requests for evidence from responsible decision-makers Celotex has liaised with

01:30:06 decision-makers Celotex has liaised with relevant former employees to facilitate the provision of witness statements from them to the inquiry all of these former employees are separately represented and have provided in their witness

01:30:18 have provided in their witness statements their own independent accounts of relevant events sir/madam throughout this inquiry Celotex has

01:30:33 throughout this inquiry Celotex has sought to engage with the inquiry in an open constructive and transparent manner it has acted throughout this process with complete candor not only towards

01:30:47 with complete candor not only towards the inquiry but also as regards the disclosure it has made to regulators and the market in the course of reviewing Celotex as business processes in the

01:31:00 Celotex as business processes in the aftermath of the Grenville tower fire Celotex is current management learned that there were differences between the cladding system that had been tested to british standard BS eight

01:31:14 been tested to british standard BS eight four one four in may 2014 and the description of that system in the test reports produced by the building research establishment and the marketing

01:31:26 research establishment and the marketing literature for RS 5000 that was not previously known to current management at Celotex as soon as it was discovered

01:31:37 at Celotex as soon as it was discovered Celotex as current management set about investigating the matter it promptly disclosed the matter to the market by a public announcement on Selat x's website

01:31:48 public announcement on Selat x's website it drew the matter specifically to your attention as well as the attention of among others the bre relevant regulators

01:31:59 among others the bre relevant regulators and distributors whom Celotex knew had purchased RS 5000 in addition Celotex commissioned a full retest of the system as described in the

01:32:12 retest of the system as described in the 2014 test reports and the RS 5000 marketing literature that system met the relevant standards Celotex as current

01:32:26 relevant standards Celotex as current management is determined to engage with and learn from the past to that end a new technical director has been appointed and a number of other new

01:32:37 appointed and a number of other new appointments have been made to senior positions within the company including that of marketing director new quality control processes have been and are continuing to be introduced across the

01:32:50 continuing to be introduced across the business under the oversight of a new Quality Assurance Manager in addition the company's intent on improving training and skills across its workforce

01:33:01 training and skills across its workforce and is engaging with all employees to promote adherence to appropriate standards and values the company is

01:33:12 standards and values the company is committed to continuous improvement in these and all other areas of its business turning to the issues to

01:33:25 of its business turning to the issues to be examined in module 1 Celotex has summarized its position on those issues in its written opening submission Celotex has noted in that written

01:33:36 Celotex has noted in that written opening submission the myriad of failings on the part of the designers contractors consultants and building control inspectors that have been

01:33:47 control inspectors that have been identified by the inquiries own experts in their expert reports by reference to the contemporaneous documents disclosed to the inquiry Celotex has identified in

01:34:00 to the inquiry Celotex has identified in its written submission the key matters that it believes need to be investigated by the inquiry in module 1 none of the failings identified by the inquiries

01:34:11 failings identified by the inquiries experts were known to Celotex at the time of the refurbishment they have only become known to Celotex as a result of the work conducted by the inquiry sir

01:34:26 the work conducted by the inquiry sir madam I know that you have read Celotex is written opening submission I do not propose to repeat the points made in that submission the appropriate time for

01:34:37 that submission the appropriate time for me to revisit those points in detail will be in closing submissions after the evidence has been heard I also do not propose at this stage to take up undue

01:34:49 propose at this stage to take up undue time dealing with matters that are to be investigated in module 2 that includes issues concerning the manufacture testing and promotion of Celotex as

01:35:01 testing and promotion of Celotex as insulation products those matters are to be examined in module 2 and the appropriate time to address them will be in submissions to be delivered in that

01:35:12 in submissions to be delivered in that module Celotex will at that stage address in full and in proper context the criticisms that have been leveled against it by other core participants

01:35:26 however in the light of comments that have been made in the course of this opening hearing I wish to make the following brief observations at this

01:35:38 following brief observations at this point first Celotex rs.5000 was promoted

01:35:50 point first Celotex rs.5000 was promoted and sold on the basis that a it was combustible and B could only be used in a rainscreen cladding system that met

01:36:02 a rainscreen cladding system that met the alternative route to compliance under paragraph 12.5 of approved document b that paragraph permitted the use of combustible insulation in a

01:36:14 use of combustible insulation in a rainscreen cladding system in a building over 18 metres provided the system met the performance criteria in the bre report entitled fire performance of

01:36:27 report entitled fire performance of external thermal insulation four walls of multi-story buildings known as BR one three five those performance criteria

01:36:38 three five those performance criteria required the system to pass the BS eight four one four test rainscreen cladding systems incorporating Rs 5000 did meet

01:36:52 systems incorporating Rs 5000 did meet the performance criteria under BR one three five as was demonstrated by the rainscreen cladding systems that were successfully tested by Celotex two BS

01:37:03 successfully tested by Celotex two BS eight four one four in May 2014 and in April 2018 compliance by RS 5000 with the perform performance criteria of BR

01:37:16 the perform performance criteria of BR one three five was also demonstrated by the tests conducted by the ministry of housing communities and local government in the summer of 2017 after the

01:37:27 in the summer of 2017 after the Grenville tower fire those tests showed that a rainscreen cladding system containing PIR insulation and ACM

01:37:38 containing PIR insulation and ACM cladding panels with an A two core past the BS eight for one test and consequently met the requirements of BR 135 an approved document b now so far

01:37:53 BR 135 an approved document b now so far as specification of Rs 5000 for the cladding system on Grenville tower is concerned any construction professional involved in the design and construction

01:38:04 involved in the design and construction of a rainscreen cladding facade at the time of the Grenville tower refurbishment would or should have known that BS 8 4 1 4 is a system test and

01:38:16 that BS 8 4 1 4 is a system test and applies only to the particular system tested that is made clear in BR 1 3 5

01:38:27 tested that is made clear in BR 1 3 5 the relativity reference for br 135 is bre zero zero zero zero five five five five that states at page 19 the

01:38:41 five that states at page 19 the classification of a system tested to be s eight four one four applies only to the system as tested and detailed in the classification report the classification

01:38:52 classification report the classification report can only cover the details of the system as tested it cannot state what is not covered when specifying or checking a system it is important to check that

01:39:03 a system it is important to check that the classification documents cover the end use application that clear and specific warning about the need to check the system being designed and installed

01:39:14 the system being designed and installed against the system tested and detailed in the classification report was again repeated on page 23 of BR 135 the same point was spelled out in clear terms in

01:39:28 point was spelled out in clear terms in Celotex as product literature that can be demonstrated by reference to any of the RS 5000 product guides but by way of

01:39:40 the RS 5000 product guides but by way of example one can look at the rainscreen cladding compliance guide produced by Celotex that is relatively relativity reference see el0 zero zero

01:39:54 reference see el0 zero zero 0:04 1:6 that guide made clear on pages 3 & 4 that a rainscreen cladding system

01:40:05 3 & 4 that a rainscreen cladding system containing RS 5000 would only be compliant with the requirements of BR 135 and hence with the requirements of approved document b if the system

01:40:18 approved document b if the system matched the system described in the marketing literature the compliance guide replicated in full the warning from BR 135 to check that the system

01:40:31 from BR 135 to check that the system being designed and installed matched the system detailed in the classification report and that is clearly stated on page 3 of the document at the top of

01:40:45 page 3 of the document at the top of that page on the right hand side it is again repeated on page 4 again on the top of the page

01:40:56 top of the page on the right-hand side the bottom paragraph in in the column on the right-hand side above the diagram that

01:41:07 right-hand side above the diagram that is a warning to which the designers and contractors involved in the design and construction of the cladding facade on Grenville tower should have been particularly alert to because it is also

01:41:20 particularly alert to because it is also spelled out in approved document b we don't need to turn this up but the the reference is appendix a paragraph 1 of

01:41:32 reference is appendix a paragraph 1 of approved document b in note 2 and that states in terms that any test evidence used to substantiate the fire resistance

01:41:43 used to substantiate the fire resistance rating of a construction should be carefully checked to ensure that it demonstrates compliance that is adequate and applicable to the intended use small

01:41:56 and applicable to the intended use small differences in detail may significantly affect the rating

01:42:02 this is a particularly important point in the context of Grenville tower because it is abundantly clear that the cladding system designed and installed

01:42:14 cladding system designed and installed on Grenville tower or no resemblance to the system described in Celotex as marketing materials the evidence shows

01:42:26 marketing materials the evidence shows that the designers and contractors had copies of seller Texas product literature at the time of the refurbishment they also obviously had or had access to approved document b and b

01:42:40 had access to approved document b and b are one three five despite that none of them explain whether in their witness evidence or their written submissions

01:42:52 evidence or their written submissions how they satisfied themselves that the rainscreen cladding system they designed and installed was compliant with the requirements of approved document b they

01:43:05 requirements of approved document b they knew or should have known that the linear route to compliance under paragraph twelve point six and twelve point seven of approved document b was not available because the insulation

01:43:16 not available because the insulation there chosen was not of limited combust ability however none of them explained what if any consideration was given by

01:43:27 what if any consideration was given by them to achieving compliance of the rainscreen cladding system with paragraph twelve point five of approved document b and the requirements of br 135 demonstrating such compliance was i

01:43:41 135 demonstrating such compliance was i emphasize a matter for the designers contractors and consultants it was not a matter for which Celotex was or can sensibly be said to have been

01:43:53 sensibly be said to have been responsible Celotex manufactures insulation Celotex is not a designer architect or building contractor Celotex does not install insulation on buildings

01:44:04 does not install insulation on buildings and did not do so a Grenville tower nor does Celotex manufacturer supply or install cladding systems and it did not do that at for tower responsibilities for the

01:44:18 for tower responsibilities for the design and construction of the cladding facade lay with the designers contractors and consultants involved in the Grenville tower project it did not

01:44:29 the Grenville tower project it did not lie with Celotex Celotex as sole role was as a manufacturer and supplier of insulation products those products were supplied through third-party

01:44:40 supplied through third-party distributors Celotex does not as a general rules sell direct to end-users and it's only contractual relationships are generally with distributors that was

01:44:54 are generally with distributors that was the case for the Grenville tower refurbishment sir/madam in these circumstances the stance which ridin harley and studio ii have adopted

01:45:06 ridin harley and studio ii have adopted whereby they seek to blame Celotex to the exclusion of themselves for the selection and design of a rainscreen cladding system that was not compliant

01:45:17 cladding system that was not compliant with the requirements of approved document b all the building regulations is in our submission misplaced and unfounded as I have said Celotex

01:45:31 unfounded as I have said Celotex acknowledges and accepts that there were differences between the cladding system that have been tested by Celotex to be SAT for 1/4 and the description of that system in celle texas marketing

01:45:43 system in celle texas marketing literature however in the context of Grenville tower those differences in our submission made no difference indeed

01:45:55 submission made no difference indeed none of the designers or contractors suggest that they relied upon the description in celle texas marketing materials at all that is unsurprising

01:46:10 materials at all that is unsurprising since the rainscreen cladding system on Grenville tower was so substantially different to the system described in celle texas marketing literature that no

01:46:22 celle texas marketing literature that no reliance could sensibly have been placed by any construction profession on the system described in the marketing literature to show compliance by the very different system on Grenville tower

01:46:34 very different system on Grenville tower with approved document b indeed dr. Lane has said in her phase one report in terms that the BRE certification of

01:46:46 terms that the BRE certification of rs.5000 was irrelevant to the external wall construction of Granville tower that is dr. lanes phase one report at paragraphs eleven point two two point

01:46:59 paragraphs eleven point two two point eleven to eleven point two two point one to sir Madame when considering the claims made by the designers and contractors that they are not to be

01:47:12 contractors that they are not to be blamed for selecting the products used on the cladding facade one must have regard to their knowledge at the relevant time of the fire safety hazards posed by those products and in this

01:47:25 posed by those products and in this regard the evidence suggests that all of Studio E Harley X over and writen knew at the time of the refurbishment that

01:47:36 at the time of the refurbishment that the cladding panel specified for use on rental Tower would fail in the event of a fire where external flaming occurred

01:47:47 a fire where external flaming occurred now that appears from an exchange of emails involving those entities in March 2015 that exchange is referred to in

01:48:00 2015 that exchange is referred to in paragraph 65 of Celotex as written submission it arose out of a debate with Building Control about whether cavity barriers or fire stops were required in

01:48:11 barriers or fire stops were required in the rainscreen cavity and I would like to spend a few brief moments just identifying the key features of that exchange and this requires looking at

01:48:24 exchange and this requires looking at four documents the first is a document the reference for which is har zero zero zero six five eight five that

01:48:37 zero zero zero six five eight five that is an internal email on the 27th of March

01:48:40 March 2015 from mr. Anker tell Jones of Harley to mr. ray Baily of Harley and in that email mr. Anker tell Jones states in the

01:48:54 email mr. Anker tell Jones states in the second line there is no point in fire stopping as we all know the ACM will be gone rather quickly in a fire

01:49:05 gone rather quickly in a fire exclamation mark the next email in this train of emails is at se a zero zero

01:49:16 train of emails is at se a zero zero zero one three zero four nine this is an email on the 31st of March 2015 from mr. Crawford of Studio E to mr.

01:49:30 from mr. Crawford of Studio E to mr. Ashton of X over and in the course of that email and one needs to go to the

01:49:44 that email and one needs to go to the middle of the document for this sorry just forgive me a moment come these documents are going to be published on the inquiry website yeah I'm sure you

01:49:56 the inquiry website yeah I'm sure you did but I just thought I'd make that clear because I think it's right to be photographing stuff on the screens but it will get public later on today yes I'm sorry mr. aw yes sir so in in the

01:50:09 I'm sorry mr. aw yes sir so in in the middle of that document of of that page is an email from mr. Ashton of X over to mr. Crawford of Studio E and in in the

01:50:20 mr. Crawford of Studio E and in in the final sentence of easy his email mr. Ashton says this even if we were to agree with our bkc it is difficult to

01:50:32 agree with our bkc it is difficult to see how a fire stop would stay in place in the event of a fire where external flaming occurred as this would cause the zinc cladding to fail and mr. Crawford's

01:50:44 zinc cladding to fail and mr. Crawford's response to mr. Ashton the same day is was as follows hi Terry sang this was my point as well metal cladding

01:50:57 this was my point as well metal cladding always burns and falls off so the next document we need to look at is reference

01:51:10 document we need to look at is reference e x o0 0 0 0 1 3 4 7 and this is a an internal email within exeter from mr.

01:51:23 internal email within exeter from mr. Pearson to mr. Ashton in this email mr. Pearson expressed the same point made by mr. Ashton in slightly different terms and he said in

01:51:37 slightly different terms and he said in the middle paragraph of that email we would not rule out that fire could enter the cavity if there's flaming through the windows however if significant

01:51:50 the windows however if significant flames are ejected from the windows this would lead to failure of the cladding system the final email to note in this

01:52:04 system the final email to note in this train of emails is that SE a zero zero zero one three zero five one and here we

01:52:17 zero one three zero five one and here we can see towards the the middle of the document is an email from mr. Crawford to mr. Lawrence of riding on the 31st of

01:52:30 to mr. Lawrence of riding on the 31st of March and mr. Crawford emails mr. Lawrence and says hi Simon this is the response I got back from Exeter below so he draws specific attention to Exeter's

01:52:44 he draws specific attention to Exeter's email below seems like no one really agrees with John that is john hoeven the building inspector so let's see what he comes back with after my last email

01:52:57 he comes back with after my last email and mr. Lawrence at the top of the page responds to mr. Crawford having been directed to mr. Ashton's email saying excellent

01:53:07 excellent that looks positive sir madam whilst expressed in slightly different terms each of Harley studio e x over an Dryden

01:53:21 each of Harley studio e x over an Dryden was openly acknowledging in these emails that the cladding would fail in the event of a fire with external flaming that tragically is what happened on the

01:53:34 that tragically is what happened on the night of 14th of June 2017 this email exchange shows that the risk which eventuated on that night was expressly

01:53:47 eventuated on that night was expressly foreseen by the designers contractors and fire safety consultants responsible for the Granville Tower refurbishment

01:53:58 for the Granville Tower refurbishment this email exchange is also directly relevant to the claim made by Harley yesterday that they had no idea and no reason to believe that the principal

01:54:11 reason to believe that the principal materials used in the cladding facade would behave as they did in the event of a fire the email exchange suggests the

01:54:22 a fire the email exchange suggests the contrary Harley it appears knew that the cladding would fail indeed would fail rather quickly in the event of a fire with external flaming none of the

01:54:36 with external flaming none of the individuals involved in that March 2015 email exchange have yet sought to explain how their knowledge that the cladding would fail in the event of a

01:54:49 cladding would fail in the event of a fire with external flaming can be reconciled with their responsibilities as designers contractors or consultants as the case may be to ensure or exercise

01:55:01 as the case may be to ensure or exercise reasonable care to ensure that the rainscreen cladding system on Grenville tower complied with the requirement in the building regulations that the external walls of the building should

01:55:12 external walls of the building should adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls this we suggest will be an important matter to be examined in the course of

01:55:24 matter to be examined in the course of the evidence to be given in module 1

01:55:29 sir/madam the final point I wish to make in this oral opening concerns timing sir Celotex

01:55:40 oral opening concerns timing sir Celotex and its legal team respectfully commend the care and diligence with which you and your team undertook the phase 1 report it will be necessary and indeed

01:55:53 report it will be necessary and indeed vital we submit to ensure that the next phase is conducted with equal and equivalent care and diligence in module

01:56:04 equivalent care and diligence in module 1 in particular a large number of issues fall to be investigated with numerous witnesses those include issues of both a factual and expert nature many of them

01:56:16 factual and expert nature many of them are complex and will take time to be explored with the witnesses the legal teams for the bereaved survivors and residents have themselves identified

01:56:28 residents have themselves identified that establishing the facts in module 1 will not be a straightforward exercise given the quantity of material involved and will require careful questioning of

01:56:40 and will require careful questioning of the witnesses they have also complained about the fact that in their view the witness statements from the key players in module 1 say very little that makes

01:56:56 in module 1 say very little that makes it all the more important for the inquiry to conduct the careful questioning that the bereaved survivors and residents seek it is crucial we submit that this process is not rushed

01:57:08 submit that this process is not rushed or truncated we did not invite delay however like the bereaved survivors and residents we wish the inquiry to establish the truth and to formulate

01:57:21 establish the truth and to formulate recommendations in which those affected by the fire the construction industry the emergency services and society as a whole can

01:57:30 whole can full and complete confidence that has we respectfully suggest been achieved by your phase one report if adjustment needs to be made to the current

01:57:41 needs to be made to the current timetable to ensure that it is also achieved in Phase two that must we submit being the interests of all concerned

01:57:53 sir madam as Celotex stated in its written opening submission it stands ready to assist the inquiry in relation to Phase two on behalf of Celotex as

01:58:06 to Phase two on behalf of Celotex as legal team I confirm that I and the rest of Celotex as legal team will do the best we can to assist you and your team

01:58:17 best we can to assist you and your team thank you thank you very much mr. all well we're making very good progress for the morning I think at this stage it

01:58:28 the morning I think at this stage it would be sensible to have another short break so we're going to rise now and sit again at five past twelve please

02:07:30 [Music] hello we are about to resume therefore please can you take your seats and remain silent please can I remind you no photographs are allowed to be

02:07:42 you no photographs are allowed to be taken in the hearing room and your phone should be switched to silence thank you

02:09:07 no again here from mr. Christie on behalf of CEP yes Chris Thank You mr. chairman

02:09:14 chairman madam as you are aware I appear on behalf of CEP architectural facades limited instructed by Clyde & Co mr. chairman madam I'd begin by repeating

02:09:26 chairman madam I'd begin by repeating that CEP and all of its employees extend their sympathy to all those affected by this tragedy and its condolences to all of those who have been bereaved we

02:09:39 of those who have been bereaved we appreciate as was said yesterday that those might sound like hollow words but they are sincerely meant this was a dreadful tragedy and it has caused much

02:09:51 dreadful tragedy and it has caused much suffering to many people for it for which everyone feels immense sympathy can I also reiterate that c.a.p CEP remains committed to providing its full

02:10:02 remains committed to providing its full cooperation to inquiry to assist with Phase two

02:10:06 Phase two to date it has provided comprehensive and extensive disclosure of documents and for the purposes of this inquiry it has provided a total of four witness statements from two of its employees or

02:10:18 statements from two of its employees or former employees these are mr. jeff blades its commercial projects manager prior to his retirement in 2018 and to witness statements from

02:10:29 in 2018 and to witness statements from mr. Neil Wilson who is currently the company's general manager mr. blades is as you know scheduled to provide oral evidence to inquiry in due course and we

02:10:40 evidence to inquiry in due course and we can assure the inquiry that he would endeavor to do so honestly and conscientiously to the best of his ability and recollections mr. Chan were grateful to the inquiry for the opportunity to make

02:10:51 the inquiry for the opportunity to make oral opening submissions and for the allocation of half an hour at which to do so in fact I'm only I'm going to address you only for a part of our

02:11:02 address you only for a part of our allotted time probably only about 10 minutes or so I'm going to cover four topics first I'm going to make a few comments about CEP as a business and a company secondly I'll provide an

02:11:15 company secondly I'll provide an overview of CPS involvement in Grenville Tarr thirdly I want to look at the key issues which have been identified in relation to this module and consider sieepiess potential

02:11:27 module and consider sieepiess potential involvement in respect of each of them and fourthly and lastly I want to make some general submissions about CEP s position starting with my first point then some short observations upon CEP as

02:11:41 then some short observations upon CEP as a company CEP is a small to medium-sized manufacturing company based in st. Helens in Merseyside up to 2017 it had

02:11:53 Helens in Merseyside up to 2017 it had about 25 employees at its premises there and a turnover of about 4 million pounds it manufactures fabricates and supplies materials to the construction industry

02:12:04 materials to the construction industry principally cladding and windows the process of fabrication of cladding panels and windows is described in the first witness statement of mr. blades at paragraphs 12 to 13 but if I can just

02:12:18 paragraphs 12 to 13 but if I can just summarize it briefly as follows as regards the fabrication of cladding the process was typically as follows CEP would receive an order from a purchaser

02:12:30 would receive an order from a purchaser to supply cladding panels of a specified type and with specified dimensions the type of material would have been pre-selected by the designer when the

02:12:41 pre-selected by the designer when the dimensions of the panel's would have been set out and design drawings supplied by the customer CEP would then have ordered the specified materials from the cladding

02:12:52 specified materials from the cladding manufacturer and cut them according to the required dimensions folding them into the required shape where necessary the fabricated panels would then have been dispatched to site and the same

02:13:04 been dispatched to site and the same process roughly applied as regards the fabrication of windows that would have been in an order by purchaser to CEP to fabricate and supply windows of a

02:13:16 fabricate and supply windows of a specified type and dimension CEP would in turn have ordered the requisite window bars from the manufacturer and it would then have assembled them into a window frame at

02:13:27 assembled them into a window frame at its

02:13:28 its Factory before dispatching them to site so in the typical case of an order for the fabrications of live materials and that was the extent of CDP's involvement

02:13:39 that was the extent of CDP's involvement that's true that on occasions CEP also provided a service Rob I would not only fabricate and supply material but also designed the overall cladding system as

02:13:50 designed the overall cladding system as well but it didn't have the expertise to carry out design work internally and so where it did take on any design responsibilities it had to subcontract

02:14:01 responsibilities it had to subcontract the design work out to a subcontractor although there was some discussion involving CEP studio II and Ledbetter in

02:14:12 involving CEP studio II and Ledbetter in 2012 and 2013 about sieepiess potential involvement in designing manufacturing and supplying a cladding system and the discussions referred to the use of Reina bond in

02:14:25 referred to the use of Reina bond in fact it never came to anything at all and as you're aware that um in fact Ledbetter dropped out of the picture entirely equally

02:14:36 entirely equally although Harley asked CEP to provide a quotation for the design and supply of a full cladding system in January 2014 again

02:14:44 again that was never to sued so I move on to my second topic and that is to summarize CEP s involvement in Grenville tar I can do so shortly because we've summarized

02:14:55 do so shortly because we've summarized the relevance events which took place in 2012 and 2013 in paragraphs 24 to 30 of our written submissions the short point is and I'm talking about that point in

02:15:07 is and I'm talking about that point in 2012-13 at the moment the short point is that CP was not engaged at any time during that period to design or supply anything at all that in relation to

02:15:19 anything at all that in relation to ground for town as regards the events from the beginning of 2014 these are summarized in mr. blades with the statement at paragraphs 14 to 26 in

02:15:34 statement at paragraphs 14 to 26 in January 2014 as I've indicated CEP was asked to provide a quotation for the design of the cladding system but that came to nothing following the appointment of ridin in

02:15:46 following the appointment of ridin in early 2014 CEP was copied into discussions about cladding however this was in the context where CEP was being considered as a potential fabricator and it was in this

02:15:59 potential fabricator and it was in this context that honor about the 23rd of April 2014 are Connick circulated the BBA certificate for Reina bond plant panels which Harley had requested our connect to provide in September 2014

02:16:15 connect to provide in September 2014 CEP was asked by Harley to supply a quotation for the fabrication supply of window frames the type of window frame was specified by Harley it was a

02:16:26 was specified by Harley it was a specific type of frame manufactured by metal technology CEP provided a quotation and Harley sent a purchase order in November 2014 CEP fabricated the windows and they were

02:16:39 CEP fabricated the windows and they were delivered to site between February 2015 and August 2015 so far as where they were installed by Osborn Barry the

02:16:50 were installed by Osborn Barry the position as regards the cladding panels is that in February 2015 CEP was asked by Harley to provide a quotation for the fabrication and supply of raina bond ACM

02:17:01 fabrication and supply of raina bond ACM panels smoked silver metallic dura gloss 507 CEP supplied quotations in March 2015 and the panels were ordered by

02:17:13 2015 and the panels were ordered by Harley thereafter CEP obtained the materials from our conic and the panel's were fabricated and delivered a sight as

02:17:24 were fabricated and delivered a sight as you've had the original Harley Company went into administration and CEP made further supplies of raina bond ACN panels to Harley facades during 2015 in summary that was the scope and extent of

02:17:37 summary that was the scope and extent of sieepiess involvement it fabricated and supplied metal technology windows and rayna bond panels as requested by Harding

02:17:49 miss jam the scope of this model was very helpfully set out in annex B to the inquiries letter that date of the 30th of October 2019 and consoles the inquiry

02:18:00 of October 2019 and consoles the inquiry has addressed unit yesterday but it is our submission that of the seven key issues identified six do not concern CEP at all just taking those very quickly

02:18:12 at all just taking those very quickly but in turn CEP had no involvement in the initial decision to undergo refurbishment CEP does not know the reasons why that decision was taken and

02:18:23 reasons why that decision was taken and cannot assist the inquiry on that point at all by the same token CEP was not appointed by the TMO and had nothing to do with the appointment of other professionals nor of the procurement of

02:18:34 professionals nor of the procurement of the design and build contractor it did not have any responsibility for planning or fire strategy nor did it have any responsibility for Building Control now

02:18:45 responsibility for Building Control now that leaves of course the very important issue of issue 5 which concerns the cladding and the design and selections taken in relation to it CEP was of

02:18:56 taken in relation to it CEP was of course as I've indicated involved with the fabrication and supply of one part of the overall cladding system namely the cladding panels and it also fabricated and supplied the windows but

02:19:08 fabricated and supplied the windows but it had no involvement with any other part or parts of the cladding system including insulation and cavity barriers further it had no involvement in the

02:19:19 further it had no involvement in the selection or supply or window infill panels or window surrounds so its involvement was restricted to the fabrication and supply of the component parts which I've indicated carrying

02:19:31 parts which I've indicated carrying panels in the windows themselves it did not go any further than that at all importantly CEP did not have any design or advisory responsibilities so can I

02:19:43 or advisory responsibilities so can I move on to my fourth and final section we say there are seven points which are critical to understanding the scope of CDP's role and the nature of its

02:19:55 CDP's role and the nature of its involvement as I met him in making these submissions we are not trying downgrade the involvement or seat of CEP or to deflect responsibility on to any

02:20:08 or to deflect responsibility on to any other parties at all we are simply trying to identify and delineate the involvement of CEP and say my seven brief points mr. chair matam are these

02:20:20 brief points mr. chair matam are these first CEP was never instructed or retained to design the cladding system or any part of it or to advise on the suitability of any part of it much less the whole in the

02:20:33 part of it much less the whole in the past it had provided design services for some cladding systems but where it had done so it had to subcontract design to an outside design specialist that did not occur in relation to ground for tar

02:20:45 not occur in relation to ground for tar and CEP had no design responsibility at all in respect of any part of the refurbishment works secondly CEP was

02:20:56 refurbishment works secondly CEP was requested by Harley to fabricate and supply specific cladding panels and specific window frames from the tower in accordance with the terms of harness purchase order the purchase order

02:21:08 purchase order the purchase order stipulated that CEP was to supply Renault bond smoke solar panels and metal metal technology windows as detailed on certain drawings that is what he did thirdly CEP had no design

02:21:22 what he did thirdly CEP had no design responsibilities whatsoever in relation to the selection of those materials and it was no part of the responsibility of CEP to advise about the suitability of the products which it was requested to

02:21:33 the products which it was requested to supply fourthly the BBA certificate in relation to the panels which CP was requested to supply stated that it was

02:21:44 requested to supply stated that it was class owned and sieepiess employees knew that it was so classified it would have been reasonable for any supplier to rely upon that certificate as was said

02:21:55 upon that certificate as was said yesterday by mr. Taverner for riding the DBA certificate was intended to be relied upon by construction professionals on the basis that it contained accurate statements and information and notwithstanding

02:22:08 information and notwithstanding observations just made by mr. Hoffmann there was no reason for any supplier to go

02:22:14 go behind it on the contrary it was reasonable for a supplier to rely upon it and it was entitled to do so fifthly after the fire CEP learnt that in 2015

02:22:27 after the fire CEP learnt that in 2015 an organization called CST be French organization had classified riveted and cassette Reina bond PE panels as being Euro Class C and E respectively

02:22:39 Euro Class C and E respectively CEP was unaware of the existence of those certificates prior to the farm sixthly having been requested to supply the panel CEP procured them from our

02:22:51 the panel CEP procured them from our conic and then fabricated them according to the dimensions stipulated by Hari that involved cutting the panels to the dimensions required and in some cases folding them but critically it had no

02:23:04 folding them but critically it had no further or more extensive obligations it was the same with the windows CEP obtained the relevant parts for the window bars and it fabricated the windows at 7th land finally CEP supplied

02:23:19 windows at 7th land finally CEP supplied the panels as requested by Harley and they were Julie installed by another subcontractor CEP had no involvement in that part of the process at all miss gem

02:23:31 that part of the process at all miss gem madam that in a nutshell is sieepiess position plainly it had involvement in the fabrication and supply of the panels and the windows but it had no design responsibility no responsibility for

02:23:44 responsibility no responsibility for selection of materials and no responsibility of advising on the suitability of component parts much less the whole I needn't elaborate any further at this stage but it's important

02:23:55 further at this stage but it's important from the outset that it is clear we submit that C EPS role was extremely limited this is not to point the fingers at Etna finger at anyone else at all

02:24:07 at Etna finger at anyone else at all it's simply to identify the scope and limits of sieepiess role mr. chairman those are my submissions thank you very much indeed

02:24:18 much indeed well the programme for today did include provision for an opening statement to be made

02:24:26 made Osbourne berry the contractor which actually fixed the panels the building but Osbourne berries decided that it doesn't wish to make an oral opening and so we've reached the end of the program

02:24:38 so we've reached the end of the program for today rather more quickly than I had thought we might but perhaps one should never complain about that sort of thing say we're going to rise now for the day

02:24:50 say we're going to rise now for the day and we're resumed tomorrow with some further opening statements at 10 o'clock and look forward to seeing you all there thank you