John Allen (RBKC Building Control Manager) gives evidence about supervision of John Hoban. Admits he didn't know what materials were being used on Grenfell, never checked how often Hoban visited site, and says the fire engineer resource was 'fully used on b1 and b5' but not external fire spread (b4). Defends flat supervision structure.
00:00:10 yes would you ask mr allen to come back please
00:00:12 please thank you
00:00:22 all right mr allen ready to carry on yes thank you good thank you yes mrs cruz
00:00:28 mr allen we were um discussing mr hoban uh just before the lunch adjournment um mr hoban has said in a witness in his witness statement that he decided that
00:00:40 witness statement that he decided that he would endeavor to conduct site visits about once a month and we've checked the records and between his first visit on the 29th of august 2014 and his last
00:00:51 on the 29th of august 2014 and his last visit on the 7th of july 2016 he did on average visit site once a month albeit there was a gap in summer 2015 and we think another gap in 2016 as the job was nearing completion
00:01:03 job was nearing completion um so we've established that from the records i'm interested in your recollection of events did mr hoban ever say to you that he wished to visit site more frequently but was not
00:01:14 visit site more frequently but was not able to do so at grenfell no did you ever form the view that mr hoban needed to visit site more frequently no did you ever check how often he was visiting site no
00:01:25 visiting site no did you ever refer to accolade to look i can't recall doing so did mr hubert ever say to you that he did not have the time to undertake comprehensive site visits at grenfell tower no
00:01:37 tower no um were you aware that he did not visit site between the 15th of may 2015 and the 17th of august 2015 because he was prioritizing other projects that had recently been allocated to him
00:01:48 that had recently been allocated to him i wasn't
00:01:49 i wasn't away he didn't attend that time and i wasn't aware that he um was doing that because he was prioritizing other projects so that didn't come up at any of your
00:02:00 so that didn't come up at any of your weekly or monthly chats with him at the time no did you ever consider reassigning the grenfell project to another surveyor after you had assigned it to mr huben i don't believe so uh did he ever say to
00:02:12 i don't believe so uh did he ever say to you that he did not have enough time to check the compliance of the documentation he was sent relating to the refurbishment
00:02:20 mr huben said uh that he resigned from rbkc because he had had enough and he was finding it impossible to do the job that he was trained to do were you aware at the time that mr hogan felt this way
00:02:32 felt this way not that but i could have um wanted to retire and so i was i didn't want him to retire because uh there was a shortage of building control officers it's very difficult to get new people in
00:02:43 people in of the you know the sort of level of competence that you need but if that was his wish i was talking to him for over a couple of years because he did want to retire before that time
00:02:54 want to retire before that time so i did for example send it there's a preparation for retirement course so he can get the best out of his retirement
00:03:03 you say you knew he wanted to retire did you know the reason that that was one of the reasons why they no never explained john was a very private person so it's for if he wanted to retire obviously i knew about his mother but other than that i
00:03:15 about his mother but other than that i wouldn't
00:03:16 wouldn't some people wish to speak about more personal things but that's their personal life and as a manager you can't you go as far as the person wants you to go into their personal life
00:03:28 and i'm going to ask you about the means of escape group within rbkc building control we know that there was a means of escape group that could be consulted by building control officers and we heard from john
00:03:41 control officers and we heard from john hoban that historically there was a fire regulations group that would deal with all part b matters but that this changed at some point prior to the restructuring in 2013 is that correct i think there's
00:03:52 in 2013 is that correct i think there's a long way before that actually and i wouldn't say the other group it was a group of um they called themselves what do they call themselves it's a group called breg which is building regulations
00:04:03 which is building regulations engineering group so i wouldn't say it was necessary all part b matters but there was a group um in existence that dealt with like mechanical type stuff
00:04:14 mechanical type stuff did it deal with fire safety in the context of building control for it was a building control group and they dealt with the mechanical engineering emergency lighting ventilation
00:04:27 emergency lighting ventilation you know that kind of stuff uh do you know when the change took place i don't it was i so i joined in 1996 and we was in another building away from the town hall at the time so i can
00:04:38 the town hall at the time so i can picture where they were and i can remember some of the people in the team i think it was it would there would be a matter of record on this but i know some of the people that was in
00:04:49 i know some of the people that was in the group and once i know them i knew them through work but i think it was the time that terry ward was the district surveyor so that was the leader of building control before
00:05:00 control before john jackson so some sometimes that would be my estimation yeah sorry sometime before well before 2013. yeah i'd
00:05:11 yeah i'd i would probably say around the millennium i would say but i've got to clear my head at the moment in 2012 the means of escape group comprised paul hansen and dave gammon is
00:05:22 comprised paul hansen and dave gammon is that right yeah there was a as i mentioned there was a time when celia burke was being trained to help with that group with the view
00:05:30 view i think that was for succession reasons that was what i was looking for earlier was she a trained fire engineer no after the restructuring um is it correct
00:05:42 after the restructuring um is it correct that the means of escape group was only paul hansen i believe so yeah he was a qualified fire engineer wasn't he i'm not actually sure to be honest with you he i know he
00:05:54 you he i know he did do
00:05:57 did do some of the parts of his qualification before i believe i was the building control manager so you might need to check that but he was dealing with fire engineering matters
00:06:09 dealing with fire engineering matters was he full-time yes um is it correct that he
00:06:12 that he also worked on projects for other boroughs so it wasn't exclusively rbkc work
00:06:17 work yeah but he's full time for rbkc what i would say is just to expand a little it's quite unusual to have a specialist group in building control most local authorities in the country
00:06:29 most local authorities in the country wouldn't have a specialist um to consult some london boroughs do including that break group that i was talking about earlier so clearly with a smaller team
00:06:41 so clearly with a smaller team that role still needs to justify both by workload and income its position so with the ebbs and flows of work that was coming in and larger projects
00:06:52 projects we would offer this facility to other building control departments to check their projects and to fill those gaps and justify the
00:07:04 and to fill those gaps and justify the role
00:07:05 role so the work for other building control bodies was a bit of a money maker not necessary money maker it might be more just occupying that role and utilising it we wouldn't want to make a loss on it
00:07:16 it we wouldn't want to make a loss on it but we weren't probably that detailed about it but it was about generating income for the service but not
00:07:25 not to justify the role as well so then we had the benefit of someone like paul and he was expected to do that work outside of his contractual hours was he no no no
00:07:33 no no no that's cool contractual fully and over the years
00:07:37 the years the surveyors didn't have to use paul um if they did um obviously you'd help give advice on b1 and b5 matters as you know b1 is mean to
00:07:49 and b5 matters as you know b1 is mean to escape and b5 is you know access for firefighting and the like um and there were times and it's minuted in team meetings but i asked that minor inquiries come to me or jose
00:08:01 minor inquiries come to me or jose because um paul was had a lot of that time a lot of larger projects in and sometimes with the workflow on those larger projects it might be that he's made a lot of put a lot of points out
00:08:12 made a lot of put a lot of points out then suddenly all the amendments coming in one time to review so it's cases like managing that workflow were you his line manager yes they all direct after the when i took over i had all direct reports there was no no but
00:08:25 all direct reports there was no no but there was no line it was me and all the others so it's very flat is there a reason why the resource for qualified fire engineer was not used more widely for example for b4 issues as well
00:08:36 issues as well but it was fully used on b1 and b5 there is some history it was mainly around the the consultation with the fire authority you're probably aware there's a standard
00:08:48 you're probably aware there's a standard form that's used between the ldsa and the london fire authority and that only relates to b1 and b5 there may be some history why there was a separation further back than that but i'm not aware
00:08:59 further back than that but i'm not aware of it but to my knowledge it was always b1 and b5 although it's like um complicated things there are sometimes other aspects that cross over
00:09:08 over so for example if you're dealing with means of escape there may be issues to do with ventilation or fire dampers across the means escape route and that could arguably cross into say b3
00:09:19 b3 or b2 so the answer there is that you don't know why he wouldn't not used for bt
00:09:26 for bt i do know why because he was fully used utilized for b1 and b5 and that was his role and that was his error of expertise and he didn't necessarily have expertise in those other areas
00:09:37 other areas so he was at capacity just doing b1 capacity and that was his area of expertise not in b2 b3 and b4 he didn't have experience in that
00:09:45 in that if we could go to rbk3036051
00:09:54 this is a job description for a senior building control surveyor brackets fire regulations um i've given you sorry i've given you
00:10:05 um i've given you sorry i've given you the wrong reference there can we start with 36050 first of all
00:10:14 and so this is the email accompanying it um
00:10:17 um we zoom in it's from you to paul hansen dated 19th of may 2015. um paul first draft attached to revised job description for your post i've incorporated the information you
00:10:29 i've incorporated the information you sent to me and then you say you afford it for evaluation and if we could now go to 36051
00:10:36 36051 that was the attachment um it says that the purpose of the job is to provide expert technical advice to clients and building control staff on fire related regulations to provide
00:10:48 on fire related regulations to provide advice to clients on major projects utilizing fire engineering techniques and if we go on to page two so this is under the main responsibility section we see their top bullet
00:11:00 section we see their top bullet to generally advise and assist building control surveyors in respect to fire safety matters and one below to keep aware of and investigate new products systems and methods and formulate policies for them
00:11:12 methods and formulate policies for them was the idea that uh mr hansen's rule would be expanded to cover all aspects of part b not at this time why were you uh revising mr hansen's job
00:11:23 why were you uh revising mr hansen's job description in may 2015. it's not necessary mr hansen's job descriptions the job description that will is for the post you know clearly and the purpose of it was to
00:11:34 purpose of it was to seek to get a pay rise for paul hanson he was doing work of a level of and complexity that was above the remuneration that he was receiving
00:11:45 was receiving and i wanted to reward him for what he was doing
00:11:48 was doing and also then retain him the in the industry
00:11:52 industry he could earn a lot more than he was doing working for us and he was underpaid if we just go back to the first page
00:12:02 and i'll just let you look at that
00:12:06 to yourself and if you just let me know when you finish reading that and then i'll have to um to zoom in a bit yeah colleague over here we'll zoom it in but i can't read at the moment
00:12:33 yeah and just on to the next page so you can finish reading
00:12:47 [Music] yeah so it doesn't say there that the rule is limited to giving advice on b1 and b5
00:12:54 and b5 correct uh was it the intention that he was to be giving advice on more than b1 and b5 after this not changing other than i said previously in relation to you mentioned
00:13:05 previously in relation to you mentioned here smoke vents and matters do we have like
00:13:07 like smoke dampers as far as they relate to b1 and b5
00:13:11 b1 and b5 why in particular did the role include keeping aware of new products and systems
00:13:17 systems partly to make sure that the role fitted the pay grade that i was seeking to pay him at
00:13:26 and also because it did reflect um some of the work that he was doing in relation to more than probably smoke venting and things like that but some of the work he
00:13:38 things like that but some of the work he was doing
00:13:40 was doing it doesn't mean from that that he's given advice on every single fire related product to building control he was the source for that and i can't think of many situations at all where they've actually done that so it wasn't the attention that poor
00:13:51 so it wasn't the attention that poor hanson would be used as a resource um if a product was being proposed on any project that he would check it
00:14:01 was his role ultimately amended to reflect this job description i believe so we did manage to secure the pay rise which was good
00:14:13 do you agree that it was a failure on the part of our bkc not to have used the resource of a qualified fire engineer for the benefit of the building control department as a whole the the way you phrased the question i
00:14:24 the the way you phrased the question i agree that we had an expert in the department and we used him appropriately on the projects that he worked on do you agree that the working relationship between the means of escape
00:14:35 relationship between the means of escape group and the other parts of the building control department were undefined and unclear to those involved no
00:14:42 no and do you agree that this way of working did not necessarily support project surveyors reaching the most appropriate decisions in relation to part b schedule one of the building regulations well i don't agree with the question i
00:14:56 well i don't agree with the question i agree that part of the question in relation to b1 and b5 and those other aspects that i mentioned um they did help surveyors do that but clearly his role what
00:15:06 role what to me the role wasn't for b2 b3 and b4 so he wasn't there to support them for that
00:15:16 and was it the case that b2 b3 and b4 um were less complicated or difficult to understand so that you felt you could entrust them to surveyors to implement on their own no i think it's more to do
00:15:28 on their own no i think it's more to do just with the historic history of that group to start with and it could have been uh you know with time it may have evolved differently and as i mentioned at the start having a
00:15:40 and as i mentioned at the start having a i've worked in three different authorities and two of those had a means of escape group on the same basis as this
00:15:49 as this um i joined another one that didn't have one
00:15:52 one and then i was then the expert for me to escape and then when i went back to the authority i worked at before they then lost the means of escape group so it was back for the surveyors to do it
00:16:04 so it's not it'd be very a very small percentage of ability control offices in the country that would have a specialist the means of escape in-house i would say what probably five percent
00:16:17 i would say what probably five percent max i would say uh if we could now go to rbk
00:16:21 rbk zeros
00:16:28 so this is an email from paul hanson to you dated 31st of december 2013 and it says hi john refire doors claims i've attached an old bsi dock which goes
00:16:39 i've attached an old bsi dock which goes through some of the misleading claims manufacturers sometimes make although it is pre-en standards it is still relevant please circulate if you feel it is useful to surveyors um
00:16:50 if you feel it is useful to surveyors um can you recall why he sent that to you at the time just it was a culture in the department to share information with colleagues did you circulate it on to other surveyors you'd need to check
00:17:01 surveyors you'd need to check i may have done i i have since and i may have obviously i would have seen the document at the time i believe as part of the evidence i've i think you may have shown it previously it's actually
00:17:12 it's actually it's more for lay people this document than building control staff we're used to people that aren't special issues in
00:17:21 issues in correct terms they use words like fireproof and things like this which doesn't mean anything and that's what the purpose of it was but it's more to kind of general public awareness and sometimes manufacturers
00:17:33 awareness and sometimes manufacturers may
00:17:34 may use the wrong terms because they're just through ignorance but so it's really wasn't aimed at building control but i may have i i would knowing how i work i would say i would have circulated it but i'm sure
00:17:45 would have circulated it but i'm sure you could find an email trail for it if we go to the guide it's rbk3059351 and we see it there um
00:17:57 and we see it there um do you read that document in december 2013 when it was sent to you probably and i've i've read it since i did see it in some of the evidence that appeared
00:18:06 appeared so when you say you read it since it must have been you read it over the weekend after seeing mr hoban's evidence yeah i think it was produced i can't recall
00:18:12 recall it's all getting a bit of a blur but i did read it at some point um if we go to page two please
00:18:20 at the column on the right if we zoom in on the interlocking cladding paragraph
00:18:27 um so there it says under the heading interlocking cladding it states a claim it's fireproof grade naught and then goes on to explain what national class not means um were you
00:18:38 national class not means um were you aware of confusion in the industry around what national class not actually meant at the time well as an example not wishing to be patronizing in the industry it's known as classo as an example and i know in the choir we
00:18:49 as an example and i know in the choir we refer it's class naught that would be an example why this document's important it's exactly because of that because people use terms incorrectly so you were aware at the time of a confusion
00:19:01 confusion within within lay people it's not really for building control would know this is the whole point of people trying um industry and people trying to justify something as i use the example of fireproof
00:19:11 fireproof so are you saying there was no confusion within the building control professionals about what correct um which is why things like fire stop and cavity barriers is clear for bully
00:19:22 cavity barriers is clear for bully control people it's in there and fire resistance and external you know spread of flame and these kind of things are clear terms whereas the term here is something that
00:19:34 the term here is something that manufacturers or lay people use what about in the construction industry so construction professionals were they confused
00:19:41 confused did you experience it it's a
00:19:45 that's a big that's a big question and we're talking of thousands of people that i've dealt with so there's some really good people in construction um top builders some really good people but there's really some bad people even
00:19:56 but there's really some bad people even with top builders so there's a whole cross-section so some confusion sometimes depending on well there would be yeah clearly um can we now go to inq3014085
00:20:10 we now go to inq3014085 now i expect you have seen this before if you were paying close attention to mr hoban's evidence um this is a blog post from labc website dated 15th of march 2017
00:20:21 dated 15th of march 2017 titled what's the difference between fireproof and fire resistant uh did you see that blog post at the time not probably at the time the first paragraph there if we zoom in
00:20:33 the first paragraph there if we zoom in on the text
00:20:36 says um it refers the flaming liability document that we've just discussed and then the second paragraph terminology plays an important role in our industry however the misuse of common phrases can
00:20:48 however the misuse of common phrases can lead to a complete misunderstanding regarding the suitability of products for a particular application and could result in fatal consequences if we go over the page
00:20:59 and we then see that it goes on to explain the difference between fireproof fire retardant and fr and under the heading fr
00:21:11 it says this is something used particularly by architects and building control surveyors are shorthand mean fire resisting um it's acceptable provided all parties understand that fr means fire resisting um to the relevant test although the
00:21:24 um to the relevant test although the manufacturer specifier and installer each have a responsibility to ensure the correct product is used for the correct application it commonly falls to build and control surveyor to spot that the wrong product is being used for the wrong application do you agree with that it's what i was
00:21:36 do you agree with that it's what i was saying earlier about the function one of the things is to check to make sure you look at the building regulations work out what particular properties or functional materials got to be used and make sure it's exactly that test that
00:21:47 make sure it's exactly that test that the
00:21:48 the product data or um you know the product and the test that's all outlined in regulation seven about fitness and materials it gives a
00:21:59 about fitness and materials it gives a whole sequence of acceptability of products and then also then of workmanship yes so in regulation seven it just runs through all of that it says you could use past experience in there it says where if you know the products
00:22:11 it says where if you know the products as well but that's laid out in the regulation uh and you would agree it's also referred to in adb um that you need to interrogate products and materials as i said yeah agree um
00:22:24 as i said yeah agree um now so this blog post didn't tell you anything you didn't already know at the time
00:22:29 time but you definitely see where it circulated the blog post probably went it was probably meant for the labc i've worked for the last two years that would be for the industry and for you know residents and
00:22:40 industry and for you know residents and clients
00:22:41 clients householders and those kind of people i could ask my question again your evidence is that this blog post didn't not that you saw it at the time but it's
00:22:52 not that you saw it at the time but it's not saying anything that you didn't know at the time correct and if we just go over the next page to the last three paragraphs
00:23:03 um it says right at the top if the test standard is for something different to that claimed then the product is not suitable for the intended application if a term is used such as fr fire retardant or fireproof that are not
00:23:15 retardant or fireproof that are not defined by a test be very suspicious so almost 30 years on the sentiment of the bsi leaflet remains just as relevant don't be a flaming liability frequently falls to the last link in the chain the building control surveyor to
00:23:26 chain the building control surveyor to spot the problem however this just confirms the valuable contribution that a diligent surveyor can bring to the design and construction team
00:23:35 uh so we could take it then based on your evidence that you knew that as at december 2013 bcos should not take manufacturers claims about fire performance at face
00:23:46 claims about fire performance at face value
00:23:47 value correct mr hoban had never done a residential high-rise before we know that
00:23:52 that he'd never done a high-rise rain screen project before how did you feel comfortable with him making assessments about product information and compliance of products with the building regulations at the time
00:24:03 building regulations at the time it's a long question the start of it you said he's never done a high-rise residential before um a residential high-rise project before yeah well he has done high-rise residential what do you regard as high-rise what's
00:24:15 what do you regard as high-rise what's the definition i may have missed summarized his evidence he'd never done a high-rise rain screen project before thank you okay um that's not controversial um thinking about mr hoban specifically
00:24:27 um thinking about mr hoban specifically so not building control surveyors generally what gave you confidence that he was able to interrogate manufacturer's information to the requisite level of skill and care because he's the senior builder control
00:24:39 because he's the senior builder control surveyor i had every faith and confidence in his ability it's a core function to first of all look in the building regulations and work out what is the requirement that applies
00:24:50 that applies in the particular circumstance and then looking up the data and making sure that element of it is
00:24:59 as the building regulations whatever certificate you're looking at and it's outlined as well in um regulation seven you know it's a standard part of building control life
00:25:10 standard part of building control life can you explain then how it is that celetex ended up on this building i don't know at all what the um the reference and it's quite a wide
00:25:21 um the reference and it's quite a wide question that you're saying so how and that's very complicated
00:25:29 question that you've asked as simple as i i wouldn't know how the cellotex has come to be on the building
00:25:39 i mean going through it so presumably a builder's put that put it there that's responsible for to the people carrying out the work the builder and architect the responsibility for compliance the first stage is they need to make
00:25:51 the first stage is they need to make sure that it complies with the building regulations
00:25:55 perhaps i can put my question a different way it's quite vague well how is it that
00:26:03 mr hoban did not as you said at the beginning of your evidence um go back and say to the design team and the um and ryden this insulation
00:26:16 and the um and ryden this insulation doesn't comply with 12.7 of adb can you account for how that happened well
00:26:23 well i can't but other than the what we've already said it's for the builder control officer to look at the workout requirements the building regulations and then
00:26:34 regulations and then if he's been given the information and i've i i don't i mean i've been trying to follow the previous hearing so if he's been given the information
00:26:45 if he's been given the information about what products going to be used and then he's had the test data then he should be checking that so if i don't know when when was he given the information uh if mr hogan's evidence was that he looked
00:26:56 mr hogan's evidence was that he looked up information about celetex online and i can go to the two documents we think he may have seen although he was unable to help us um with whether he did in fact see them the first one is cel
00:27:07 first one is cel 6010
00:27:15 this is the labc registered system detail for rs 5000 pir insulation board and you'll see at the top there it says pir insulation board brackets rain
00:27:26 pir insulation board brackets rain screen application and then there's an asterisk
00:27:29 asterisk that leads to the words with limitation at the bottom if you have been the building control surveyor looking at this would you have gone on to investigate what those limitations were well this is a registered system first
00:27:40 well this is a registered system first of all i'd probably seen as well if there is a actual test certificate for the product as well and had you seen a test certificate would you have looked to make sure that the context in which
00:27:52 the context in which the insulation was being constructed matched what had been tested as as we said before absolutely can you account for why mr huben did not do that i can't i know you've asked him
00:28:05 i can't i know you've asked him [Applause] do you accept that that's a failure of supervision on your part
00:28:12 i the supervision i carried out and i could talk about the my experience both when i was a special projects manager at any time it's very much about the
00:28:25 it's very much about the it's just a single building control surveyor would be inspecting the works on site and checking the plans it's not usual in any place i've worked to have a second check
00:28:36 to have a second check or somebody like going out in twos or checking the plans that's not usual some and that's the case still today as far as i understand it but i know you have experts that could ask that of building control
00:28:48 control there are some that now do a second check but it wasn't the place when i was being managed and when i was managing mr allen the evidence you've given is that you think this is all very clear
00:28:59 that you think this is all very clear and it's something that you were certainly aware of and and knowledgeable about at the time can you explain why mr hoban whose training you were in part responsible for was not aware of any of these things
00:29:11 these things well you said i was part responsible for his training i was his i didn't have that in my job description about training the staff as far as i remember but as we spoke about training at length
00:29:22 spoke about training at length the surveyors were responsible for their project
00:29:26 project if they and i had every confidence in their ability if they had any doubts they was doing something new hadn't done it were unsure then they could ask me i may not have known the answer
00:29:37 not have known the answer to all the questions they come with but if i didn't know i knew a lot of people that i could ask that may know including around london and nationally or as i did i would
00:29:48 and nationally or as i did i would contact the clg the building regulations division which i had the names of all the uh the people there for different parts of the regulations to ask them for their interpretation and
00:30:00 to ask them for their interpretation and that's how because not people can't know every single thing [Applause] could we go um to the next celetex document
00:30:10 document uh which is cel that's five zeros sorry just finding the
00:30:20 reference
00:30:29 four sorry six you know five zeros four one two
00:30:38 so this is the product data sheet um for celetex rs5000 um just out of interest had you ever had calls to look at this data sheet in
00:30:49 had calls to look at this data sheet in your work um between 2013 and 2016. i i may have done i can't recall what i saw then and what i've known now you know it all blurs in
00:31:01 know it all blurs in so probably and if we zoom in on the first paragraph
00:31:11 it says celetex rs 5000 is our premium performance pir solution for use in rain screen clouding systems developed specifically to enhance the thermal performance and it goes on there to say that
00:31:24 and it goes on there to say that it is the first pir insulation board to meet the performance criteria in br135 for insulated rain screen cladding systems and therefore is acceptable for use in buildings above 18 meters in height
00:31:35 18 meters in height had you read that at the time would you have gone on to ask yourself i wonder what system has been tested i should check that it matches of course mr hoban's evidence is that he
00:31:46 of course mr hoban's evidence is that he did not do that and again is that not a failure on your part to make sure that he was competent to be able to scrutinize documents like this well the the answer is the level of
00:31:58 well the the answer is the level of supervision there in my experience we've never had accompanied visits i was there as a resource i would have monthly meetings uh times weekly
00:32:09 monthly meetings uh times weekly meetings
00:32:10 meetings and i'll be there to to help them and the system in place both in our procedures for dealing with full plans applications which i think you mentioned in previous evidence
00:32:21 evidence the procedure we had wasn't for a second check
00:32:24 check or sign off and that was the procedure that i was following and also followed when i was being managed um before i was the builder control manager
00:32:38 mr hobin also didn't interrogate the claims on the bba certificate in respect of the acm panels um you were his line manager do you accept that you failed to ensure that he
00:32:49 accept that you failed to ensure that he was sufficiently aware of the need to check the test evidence in respect of all materials used on grenfell towers cladding system well as i said the the first thing is for the building control officer to check the requirements building
00:33:00 check the requirements building regulations in part b in this case and then to check whatever the product is against their test certificate and make sure that's the case did you even know what materials were being used
00:33:11 even know what materials were being used in the clouding on grenfell at the time at the time i i didn't know the detail of the project because i wasn't responsible in
00:33:23 project because i wasn't responsible in dealing with that project apart from the period when i was looking at the pre-application meeting and as i said there wasn't a process at the time of second checking so you didn't know it was acm i i
00:33:35 so you didn't know it was acm i i wouldn't have known uh you didn't know it was celetex i wouldn't have known you wouldn't or you didn't i don't think i know i
00:33:43 i know i i didn't have a recollection of knowing because i i wouldn't check the detail i wouldn't have checked the plans on the grenfell projects it wasn't the project i was looking after at that time
00:33:54 project i was looking after at that time uh but you would obviously have expected mr hoban to check and to know what materials were being used yes i don't know if we are we going to talk about inspections or we'll get onto site visits later
00:34:21 uh so moving on to the full plans application and do you agree that a bcb so building control body would not generally accept a full plans application as being valid without the
00:34:32 application as being valid without the fee and or information being attached the the term you've used in this case it isn't a building control body it's only local authority it's only local authorities that full plan applications go to it's not
00:34:43 go to it's not approved inspectors but for a local authority which of crp crpkc is i would expect them the question said would you expect a validation and an acknowledgement that
00:34:54 validation and an acknowledgement that you when the application comes in
00:34:59 but would you expect it to be valid when it comes in in paper if which drawings are not attached so if it comes in paper with no drawings would you validate that well there's you need to look what the
00:35:10 well there's you need to look what the requirement is of a to put in a there's guidance about full plans applications in the building regulations and it's not like a planning application where all the information necessarily
00:35:21 where all the information necessarily needs to be there right at the start so predominantly you need an application i think the only minimum legal requirement and you'd need to check is to have an application form
00:35:32 application form obviously the correct payment and site plan there's usually some information to start with often on design and builds you may have structural calculations for example
00:35:43 structural calculations for example so if there's just a form and no information at all is that of in your view a valid application if they provided they had the correct fee yes because the environment is such that
00:35:54 yes because the environment is such that you want to receive the application it may have been an application particularly it's a sizable project that you've probably been speaking to them pre-application for a couple of years so you may have that pre-application
00:36:05 so you may have that pre-application some pre-application information which is if we're going back to this one in to grenfell there was some pre-application information in advance of that you say the environment is such that you would want
00:36:16 environment is such that you would want to receive the application is that a reference to the competition between of course approved inspectors you may have been seeking we're talking generally you may have been seeking that application for a number of years so getting the check in the application
00:36:27 so getting the check in the application is is the kind of means you've then won that project and then obviously you can request the information through time as it becomes available um so on the grenfell project
00:36:41 um so on the grenfell project um if we go to ryd30143 can you just help me mr i was under the impression that a full plans application required as the name suggests full plans
00:36:53 required as the name suggests full plans and the regulations had some reference to this am i am i wrong about that i'd need to see the regulation but i believe that's not the case there's a terminology full plan there's
00:37:04 there's a terminology full plan there's a different process to building notice or regularization certificate so it just talks more about the different process full plans is more around by the time it's approved there's a full
00:37:15 by the time it's approved there's a full body of information and then there's a requirement to check that within a statutory time period and issue a formal decision that's not the case on the building notice it's unlike planning in planning you need to have all the information
00:37:26 need to have all the information if it's not there it's rejected it doesn't go any further that's not the case we
00:37:32 case we try and work with the applicants and to get the application in and then get the information all the way through to when it's finally built
00:37:43 through to when it's finally built all right thank you sorry mr scruggs
00:37:48 if we go now to uh rbk sorry ryd3014378 um that's an email from bruce sohn's uh to you
00:37:58 to you dear john further to your email last tuesday please see attach the completed full plans application for grenfell hardcopy and drawings to follow um was that receipt of the form sufficient
00:38:10 was that receipt of the form sufficient to start the statutory time limit so the statutory time period running you need the
00:38:15 need the fee you need the application fee as well so once the fee is paid that's what starts the clock ticket the fee and the application formula
00:38:25 if we can now go to paragraph 14 of your statement
00:38:29 statement it's rbk three zeros 3
00:38:40 and paragraph 14 which i think would be on page three and zoom in there and you say
00:38:51 and zoom in there and you say starting with the second sentence in recent years with design and build project information often arrived in stages throughout the build statutory time limits regarding approval or conditional approval or rejection
00:39:02 or conditional approval or rejection were not usually adhered to in practice in theory if no decision was made the application would be deemed approved but in reality no applicant ever took this point
00:39:11 point were you aware that on grenfell the drawings accompanying the full plans application were not sent to building control
00:39:17 control at all during the five-week period um i wasn't aware that it was in the five-week period but i i do believe drawings were sent at some point
00:39:28 point was it common on projects at this time that you would receive the application form the fee and then drawings would be delayed by weeks beyond the statutory time it could
00:39:39 weeks beyond the statutory time it could be
00:39:40 be why not reject the full plans application at that stage um you could have done there's a the process
00:39:48 process while i was building control manager and before my time was building control manager there was a system in place for ensuring that applications received a decision within the statutory time period which as you know is
00:40:00 period which as you know is five weeks or two months if the applicant agrees and this was before my time as well but for larger projects that time process just doesn't fit with the way that their information comes through
00:40:12 information comes through so there's no benefit in rejecting i'll explain
00:40:15 explain a little bit more about why there's no benefit in rejecting the application but there's no benefit in sending a rejection because it doesn't really achieve too much and the reason why there's not too much benefit in doing
00:40:26 there's not too much benefit in doing that
00:40:27 that is because unlike planning you're probably aware that you can build on a rejected plan so the upshot of saying you're going to reject it
00:40:35 reject it is that they can still build on a rejected plan and you can still issue a completion certificate and a rejected plan whereas you know in the planning process
00:40:42 process as far as i'm aware it's not a planner you can't start work until you have a planning permission
00:40:51 is the need to secure work in competition with approved inspectors related to this practice of not rejecting no not at all it's more about
00:41:02 all it's more about just trying to work with people and get to the
00:41:05 to the the best solution as quickly as you can and try and help people through the process
00:41:10 process i'm throwing a look at them sorry would it be uncharitable then to conclude that no one's really following the regulations as far as the administration's not for for larger projects the time
00:41:21 not for for larger projects the time just doesn't fit the information isn't available so you for example on other projects you may just have for example pilot if it's a new build you might just have the piling calculations say first up there's very much there's
00:41:33 say first up there's very much there's not a process of they don't need to people generally don't wait to have all the information some years ago it may have been like that they don't wait to have all the information absolutely now down before they then
00:41:46 absolutely now down before they then make the decision clearly if i was building myself building in my own house i'd want something approved and done before i started but they take a view on risk and just get on with
00:41:57 take a view on risk and just get on with it so i think what you're telling us is that
00:42:00 that the regulations haven't kept up with building practice and so they are not complied with well they there isn't been we could reject
00:42:11 they there isn't been we could reject and some
00:42:11 and some building controls do reject and what i would say in many years ago there was the process when i first started i wasn't the head where they were rejected so the process you had plan would come in it'd be rejected
00:42:22 rejected they'd send some more information and it'd be rejected or you end up doing a part application it's okay we're just going to change the description we're just going to put the application just for the piling sometimes you had a situation where the client wanted to
00:42:34 situation where the client wanted to withdraw the application before the rejection because they didn't want the rejection so you had this resubmission of full plans applications resubmission resubmission resubmission and the process just becomes
00:42:46 process just becomes all around for everybody laborious so it's just a practical way that's helpful i just wanted to understand what the position is and i think you've made that clear okay thank you sorry you've referred to the
00:42:57 thank you sorry you've referred to the application being deemed approved if there's no response within five weeks uh what do you mean by deemed approved this
00:43:05 this these first two pages as you know for the inquiry there was a number of questions that were asked and this two pages was just a kind of supplement just to kind of try and explain it and help you that was the purpose of it
00:43:17 that was the purpose of it the deemed approved is why it's in speech marks is um
00:43:25 is um first of all it's under section 36 of the building act if you either have approved if building traffic either approved an application or failed to give a decision in time
00:43:38 or failed to give a decision in time the applicant is allowed to build in accordance with those plans and if you then decide you basically can't take action under 36 although you could take an injunction against them now on all those counts if
00:43:50 against them now on all those counts if anyone
00:43:51 anyone in my experience has ever if the period's gone over five weeks or two months no one's ever actually claimed that but you could still take an injunction but with the injunction
00:44:02 but with the injunction if it was found that the work was then okay it's the local authority then we'd have to pay the costs of doing that as far as i understand it so the deemed approved was just a term just which i'd heard in the past as well
00:44:14 just which i'd heard in the past as well when i was training just to i was just trying to explain it to you and help if we could go to rbk30
00:44:24 and i'm just looking at the dates here of these documents so if you zoom in on the email at the top
00:44:32 um it's an email from mr hobin to mr hanson dated 29th of september 2014 and he's asking there in the context of the full plans application for mr hanson's observations under part
00:44:44 for mr hanson's observations under part b
00:44:45 b um we can then see paul hanson's reply at
00:44:49 at three three rbk30338 nine five
00:44:56 if we try three three eight nine four um sorry back to the date is there i
00:45:07 um sorry back to the date is there i missed that um three three eight nine five
00:45:13 the date is on the front 10th of november 2014 um can you explain why it took paul hanson over a month to respond to john hoban so that's his response well allied to what you're asking me and
00:45:25 well allied to what you're asking me and i'd give the example with grenfell and the time limits um building control i've got an excellent relationship with the fire authority in the fire service and we hold them in high regard
00:45:37 we hold them in high regard there are statutory time limits for the fire authority to deal with building control applications which from memory is either two weeks or three weeks for most large projects it is several months
00:45:49 large projects it is several months three months six months that kind of time so it's just not possible
00:45:54 possible to do a satisfactory consultation and get it back within five weeks and two months
00:45:59 months is not possible ideally if all the information was in you sent it off to the brigade they got back in two weeks you know there was a lead possible but their lead times are something like well they were when i was involved on
00:46:11 well they were when i was involved on larger projects that order three to six months which is one grenfell uh there was a from me i think i've seen it in
00:46:19 it in i've in the evidence for him we arranged to do a consultation on the smoke vent but that was all kind of to try and help them that was all pre-application
00:46:30 them that was all pre-application technically you shouldn't do it pre-application but that was just trying to move something forward to help everybody you know
00:46:38 um that doesn't quite answer my question which is can you explain why paul hansen took over a month to reply do you know or do you not know well it would be it would be in his workflow
00:46:50 would be it would be in his workflow as far as the complexity of the information he had and the projects he had at the time but that wouldn't seem like an unreasonable length of time for the complexity of the response that he's given i'm sure you've seen his
00:47:02 given i'm sure you've seen his uh the level of response that he gives
00:47:07 moving on now to your involvement with grenfell tower yeah um you said in your statement that you had some very limited involvement in a pre-application inquiry concerning the smoke control system and for the transcript that's paragraph
00:47:19 and for the transcript that's paragraph 20 of your statement and that you think john jackson asked you to conquer to contact terry ashton from mcsilva warrington um did you contact terry ashton at that stage i think that was my recollection
00:47:31 stage i think that was my recollection i believe that terry ashton may have worked in a district surveyor's office that john was working in so may have known him and i he may have made contact but that could be totally wrong as well but i think that was the starting point
00:47:42 but i think that was the starting point somebody
00:47:44 somebody contacted me or i contacted them because they
00:47:47 they wanted a pre-application some pre-application advice can you recall uh what you discussed with terry ashton we
00:47:54 we well i'd have put me in contact with my colleagues um which was either dave gammon or
00:47:58 gammon or paul hanson they there was a question i believe about the smoke ventilation system
00:48:06 system at that time so this is 2012 were you aware that the grenfell project was going to involve recladding no when did you become aware i believe when the full plan application
00:48:20 i believe when the full plan application come in
00:48:21 come in so up to that point you didn't know i don't believe so the cladding was involved so i think the um
00:48:28 um you may have that there's some um when i said pre-application there was a number of pre-application meetings i think might be a demolition and all of that was recorded in accolade we wanted
00:48:39 that was recorded in accolade we wanted a you know hard record of all this stuff so um there was it would be a description on the accolade database of whatever the project was and i don't believe that cladding was mentioned on the
00:48:50 cladding was mentioned on the application form or we mentioned it anyhow until you know we repeated it for the full plan application
00:48:59 now we know there was a meeting between you and studio u studio e and xova on the 7th of november 2012. um we do have minutes of that meeting but we don't need to pull them up i'm
00:49:11 but we don't need to pull them up i'm just interested in your recollection at that meeting when you were meeting to discuss the project was cladding ever referred to i don't believe so there are minutes of the meeting i can't actually recall the meeting at all
00:49:23 meeting at all um you then received two versions of the xova outline fire safety strategy i'm only going to ask you about version two but for the transcript you receive the first version
00:49:34 transcript you receive the first version on the 31st of october 2012 and the reference for that is ex0401368 [Applause] in 2013 so we've moved forward in time
00:49:46 in 2013 so we've moved forward in time you receive version two and that's sca409805 um and if we go to page two of that that
00:49:57 um and if we go to page two of that that document
00:50:10 sea409805 page two and this is dear john and paul further to our meeting at our bkc on the 17th of august we're now in position to forward you our proposed fire strategy
00:50:22 proposed fire strategy thank you uh for grenfell tower for comment
00:50:25 comment please see attached faster again it wasn't large it looks fine but it was the first paragraph there just saying that they've attached the fire strategy for comment and you'll see the attachments there
00:50:37 and you'll see the attachments there include the grenfell tower ofss
00:50:45 if we now go to the ofss which is
00:50:53 three ex050430
00:50:58 do you recall reading this document at a time i
00:51:01 time i can't recall at all um if we look at page four
00:51:05 page four of that document now in fairness you cladding proposals are not mentioned there
00:51:10 there um in the list of what the refurbishment comprises
00:51:14 comprises um and at this point in time can you help us on whether you knew even in broad terms whether cladding was involved
00:51:23 involved and if we could go on to page eight
00:51:30 under 3.1.4 compliance with b4 it says it is considered that the proposed changes will have no adverse effect on the building in relation to external fire spread but this will be
00:51:42 external fire spread but this will be confirmed by an analysis in a future issue of this report did you read that at the time i may have done i can't call did you note that a future analysis was to be forthcoming
00:51:53 to be forthcoming i can't say i did i just can't recall i'm afraid um looking at that document now assuming that you read this passage at the time would you have noted
00:52:05 the time would you have noted to check with ixova at a later date um that they had provided this updated analysis of course but not necessarily on this vehicle you'll be doing a check of the building regulation having a schedule
00:52:18 building regulation having a schedule and an amendment letter and then working through through that so if then
00:52:23 if then cladding was added to the application then
00:52:26 then clearly that would be item if you didn't have the information for it that complied in all the ways that we've spoken about earlier then you'd obviously ask them for the information it's not necessarily
00:52:37 information it's not necessarily the fire engineer whoever the applicant is you'll be right into because it's their application that's one of their consultants and maybe the information will come from somebody else
00:52:49 [Applause] now moving forward in time again we've heard that john hoban took over from you in december 2013 and he said to the inquiry in his oral
00:53:00 he said to the inquiry in his oral evidence that you sent him some emails but there was no handover meeting do you have a specific recollection of a handover meeting taking place i can't it was pre-application at this stage the building regulation
00:53:11 stage the building regulation application hadn't been deposited so if i would have afforded them emails um they would be the correspondence that chief leaves from the means of escape
00:53:22 chief leaves from the means of escape group and the correspondence such as this
00:53:24 this do you think it's right then that there was no hand over meeting there's probably nothing to hand over because it wasn't that it was an application to hand over once john hoban took over and before the
00:53:36 once john hoban took over and before the site visit that you carried out on the 24th of march what involvement did you have with grenfell tower i can't call any saying that there was um there was some
00:53:48 saying that there was um there was some email exchanges with janice ray i think um but i can't recall the timing of that to do some gas rises or something that was after was it after the iconic time it was checkman notes
00:53:59 time it was checkman notes and there could be people asking me things but i haven't got any recollection of it did john hoover never discuss the specifics of grenfell tower with you
00:54:09 with you no in our meetings she spoke about just progress
00:54:13 progress so there is an odd note saying how's grenfell or something in my planner in relation to checking it and those
00:54:24 in relation to checking it and those kind of things
00:54:27 were you aware of how often he was visiting site no um did he ever tell you that he'd been informed that the cladding had been used on other buildings of a similar construction as a building control surveyor yourself
00:54:38 as a building control surveyor yourself would you have taken comfort if someone had told you that no it does mention in regulation seven you can use past experience if that's the case but generally speaking you wouldn't
00:54:49 generally speaking you wouldn't trust what anybody's saying to you even if they've said they've used it and i could give it other examples if you wish but you would pursue those other examples um and often people actually lie
00:55:02 um and often people actually lie and that's not the case you know they it's normally different scenario and i'd say i can think of at least two examples where things have asked for someone said that's unfair we've done it somewhere else and you look at that case and it's
00:55:13 else and you look at that case and it's just a
00:55:13 just a different case or they've lied about it um you went to site then on the 24th of march 2016. what steps did you take to re-familiarize yourself with the project
00:55:24 re-familiarize yourself with the project before this site visit i can't say i can't i can barely remember the inspection and i can't recall the context of why i was going there it come out in some evidence in the last couple of days or
00:55:36 couple of days or sometime that um i was requested to look at the
00:55:40 at the nursery i think it's there was some evidence saying they wanted me to so it was requests from the builder to look at the nursery but i can't recall the the time frame or how long i had
00:55:52 how long i had and why i went there and john hogan hadn't gone there i presume he was on leave or in a meeting or on a course or something uh we'll go to your notes at the site visit uh in a moment
00:56:01 moment just to say about the time frame then it depends so if somebody and it does happen there may be a book of calls that somebody's got and they phone in the morning say i'm sick so it's
00:56:11 so it's 9 30 and the first visit's 10 so you just go out and look at it as you do so i don't know in this particular situation whether i had time to look at any of the information but generally speaking if i
00:56:23 information but generally speaking if i did
00:56:23 did i probably would have looked at the site inspections i would say in advance if i could by this stage um this is well after the full plans application you knew
00:56:33 you knew that the project involved cladding well i would have done it was on the application form and if i um checked it would have been booked in you know so it would have said cladding yeah
00:56:44 yeah um but you didn't at that stage ask mr hoban or look for any records to see what the cladding actually comprised of uh when you went on site
00:56:56 uh when you went on site uh how long did you spend there i don't know
00:56:59 know most sites you have to sign in and out i don't know if you've been able to get a record of
00:57:04 record of how long i was there i'm interested in your recollection um i would recall how long you spent there i would recollect probably a couple of hours certainly between one and two hours i would say
00:57:15 between one and two hours i would say do you think you looked at the hard copy file
00:57:19 file back at rbkc before you went well we know now there wasn't too much of a hard copy file
00:57:24 copy file and you wouldn't necessarily take the drawings on site we wouldn't want people to do so
00:57:29 to do so because the files are too large and moving around london apart from things like climbing ladders it's just not practical to walk around with drawings mr allen we don't know what state the hard copy file was in
00:57:40 what state the hard copy file was in because it's oh sorry um that's what i'm saying yeah so i yeah but what's your recollection did you look i i may have looked at paul hanson's means of escape file i can't recall looking at if you ask me
00:57:52 i can't recall looking at if you ask me i can't recall looking at a hard copy file did you speak with anyone on site when you went i can't recall i would have done you can't make visits
00:58:03 can't make visits on your own on building sites because of the safety restrictions you're always accompanied by and large can we look at your notes then it's rbk3052478
00:58:16 and it's page three
00:58:20 so this is a printout or summary of what the notes on accolade are all in one place
00:58:26 place and you'll see that's your visit there in the second box and it says notes clanding nearly complete did you go up mass climbers to look at the cladding
00:58:37 mass climbers to look at the cladding i don't believe so it's this is march 2016
00:58:42 2016 looking at the other correspondence i think it was finished was it in june or july
00:58:46 july sometime if we went up it's probably june or july um presumably as people have got photographs to show whether there was mass climbers in position at this point
00:58:57 position at this point i can't i wouldn't have gone up the mast climb i can't recall doing it i don't know if the master climbers are in position or not but you could probably look at some photographic evidence and do a timeline when you observe the cladding which you
00:59:09 when you observe the cladding which you obviously did because you've noted it's nearly complete and did you say to yourself that looks like acm
00:59:15 like acm i i wouldn't be aware how to externally differentiate the difference i'm not sure many people could so um did you ask anyone on site what the cladding was made up of i didn't it
00:59:26 the cladding was made up of i didn't it was
00:59:27 was i it may be that the this is an area where maybe the master climb has been taken down and there was just some isolated you know gaps that just you know clearly need to be filled
00:59:38 you know clearly need to be filled you say you did ask um no in the transcript or did you mean to say you didn't no no i've asked here by saying that um ensure thermal insulation completely
00:59:50 um ensure thermal insulation completely fills voids well that's not an answer to my question which is did you ask what the cladding was made no i didn't did you ask what the insulation was made of no you observed the insulation did you form any view about what it might be
01:00:02 you form any view about what it might be made
01:00:02 made i can't recall what it was at all um when you say there ensure thermal insulation completely fills voids what was that in reference to
01:00:13 was that in reference to i it was from the ground i could see there was some gaps in the cladding or the insulation and i was making sure that the thermal envelope is complete
01:00:27 uh so you yourself weren't interested at all in
01:00:30 all in whether the sound itself was compliant with the building regulations i didn't say that well you didn't ask what it was so you weren't going to be able to form a view were you no but that's not the the um the
01:00:43 no but that's not the the um the question you asked was i interested in whether the facade is could you repeat the question you said sorry well i asked you you yourself weren't interested at all in whether the facade
01:00:54 interested at all in whether the facade itself was compliant with the building regulations well as a as a whole of course you're interested in relation to that particular visit i was asked to come and look as it turns out the nursery
01:01:06 out the nursery and i was as i was passing there was it was obvious that the cladding because there were some gaps in it from the ground level looking up there were some gaps which clearly need to be to filled
01:01:17 to be to filled then you're asking me whether i was interested well of course you're interested because the building's there it doesn't mean then you go and check every single element on each inspection you do
01:01:27 you do for example structure you know the floors that new floors were put in i wouldn't suddenly start unearthing those or
01:01:37 did you take any steps at all to satisfy yourself in any way whether the facade was compliant well that wasn't i don't believe the purpose of inspection and as i was trying to say there's other elements that are
01:01:49 elements that are life safety in relation to the building such as the concrete floors fire you know dry risers fire alarms smoke ventilation
01:02:01 dry risers fire alarms smoke ventilation emergency lighting all of these things and it doesn't mean each time you do a visit
01:02:04 visit you go over and check all those elements again
01:02:08 again why didn't you check the compliance of the insulation for yourself well it's not the time to do it there as i said as i just said you wouldn't go and each time a visit is requested that you do a audit
01:02:21 visit is requested that you do a audit of each element that's been looked at previously you don't think you checked the file you don't think you had a conversation with mr hoban
01:02:31 mr hoban about what was being installed on the tower
01:02:34 tower um and so you come to site and you don't ask anyone or ask yourself whether or not the facade complies with part b four of the regulations why is that each time you do
01:02:46 regulations why is that each time you do an inspection it is an order to the whole building and just to repeat what i said
01:02:51 said for example there was new new uh concrete floors put in so obviously the structure would be important as well it doesn't mean then you unearth the reinforcement and start going through the structure and there wasn't too many notes about
01:03:03 and there wasn't too many notes about the
01:03:03 the structural flaws in the notes or any other element you see as it is at the time yeah i'm strong i was going to ask you this you obviously noted that the
01:03:15 this you obviously noted that the cladding was nearly complete because you included that in your yeah note so something struck you worth noting
01:03:25 well that's my question what did you can you remember what you did notice about the cladding not so
01:03:32 i mean what did you were there panels missing was there insulation exposed do you
01:03:39 you recall this is looking from the ground and i can't even recall you know i've got a picture in my head now of where i was i can't even picture how we got i got into the building you know i
01:03:50 got i got into the building you know i just can't i've got no recollection so i'd be i'd be guessing to fill in the gaps as far as what those notes say
01:03:59 notes say all right thank you um go to rbk3018811 please
01:04:11 and that's a copy of the completion certificate with your signature on it were you involved at all in the decision to issue a completion certificate now the
01:04:19 the the process is laid out and in the full plan procedure that i think you've now referred to previously were you involved no we're not sorry certificate
01:04:30 certificate no because it was saying it wasn't an hour full plan procedure there wasn't a process for me to be involved in the signing off of the completion certificate so as in all cases in this case
01:04:41 cases in this case that's an electronic signature that's all
01:04:44 all that's generated once the surveyor is happy
01:04:47 happy that the uh works comply with the building regulations so it's in your name but you didn't have anything to do with it that's correct um mr hoban described a
01:04:59 that's correct um mr hoban described a process
01:05:00 process um where bio surveyor would check with those on site whether regulation 38 of the building regulations had been complied with um
01:05:11 complied with um and he described a practice in your department whereby surveyors would seek an oral assurance from the contractor that regulation 38 had been complied with but they didn't check independently um
01:05:23 but they didn't check independently um is that an accurate description of the practice within rbkc yeah you'll be aware that regulation 38 to do with fire safety information it was regulation 16 b prior to that which is referred to in
01:05:34 prior to that which is referred to in the approved document that was valid at the time
01:05:37 the time 16b and there was an appendix um at the back of the approved document i don't know if we've got time to go to it but appendix g i think it is and it outlines the fire safety information but regulation 38 as you know it's quite
01:05:49 regulation 38 as you know it's quite short regulation but and i've got the words here have you got regulation 38 on screen so i could summarize anything it's a short question mr allen was there a practice within your department that's just asking it's
01:06:00 department that's just asking it's important i explain that the context the regulation 38 is about the person that's has carried out the work has got to hand fire safety information to the kind of owner or occupier that's
01:06:11 to the kind of owner or occupier that's what it basically says it doesn't say building control kind of in the loop on that what would typically happen and i do agree with john hoban typically on site
01:06:21 on site you would make sure there's like usually they call them o m manuals with all the operational and maintenance manuals you normally make sure particularly if the client was there bear in mind this was the tmo you would usually have some conversation
01:06:32 you would usually have some conversation in the site office have you had the information it wouldn't be a forensic examination to make sure
01:06:38 make sure for example as you know building control don't get as built drawings at the end of a job
01:06:43 of a job but as built drawings one of the things in the fire safety informations you wouldn't kind of have the drawings and friends
01:06:48 friends look at it to make sure it's exactly as the
01:06:51 the was built necessarily that's you know but it's making sure that one has passed it to the other and if and if he's done that i'd say that was adequate uh compliance with regulation 38 is a prerequisite for a completion
01:07:04 38 is a prerequisite for a completion certificate pursuant to regulation 17 being issued yes
01:07:09 why not ask for a statement in writing from the contractor that they'd done it you could there is a requirement to do that but asking for statement as we know what information you're provided
01:07:21 provided it doesn't mean that's been done you know i would say i don't know the context i'll usually check with the the clients if there was on site which they often are told the end of a job have you received the
01:07:32 the end of a job have you received the information and clearly i mean did they on this particular project you know if the tmo did receive the fire safety information is this a is it theoretical is it say did it happen
01:07:42 happen is the question did the tmo get the fire safety information or are we just is it a theoretical question
01:07:49 question following the grenfell tower of fire was any internal investigation ever carried out by the building control department into how and why building control approval had been granted for the refurbishment works i don't believe so the there would be a
01:08:01 i don't believe so the there would be a legal review by the legal team but you'd have to speak to rbkc's legal team about that can you account for how a completion certificate was issued in circumstances where it is
01:08:13 was issued in circumstances where it is uh
01:08:14 uh now accepted that the cladding did not comply with b4 the building regulations well because the building control officer at the time i believe that worked as far as he could ascertain complied with the building
01:08:25 ascertain complied with the building regulations and as i've mentioned previously the responsibility for compliance to the building regulations remains with the people
01:08:32 people carrying out the work which is usually the builder the architect in some cases can be the owner
01:08:38 owner can you account for how mr hogan made some fundamental errors whilst on your watch
01:08:46 i've saw mr hoban's evidence yesterday he carried out his work to the best of his ability and he believed the work complied with the building regulations
01:08:57 building regulations [Applause]
01:09:03 just have one final topic to cover with you mr allen and then we'll take a pause to see if there are any further questions that need to be asked and we talked before about the culture within rbkc and
01:09:15 about the culture within rbkc and building control department are you aware of any occasion when a building surveyor raised issues with an unmanageable workload in the department prior to the grenfell fire
01:09:25 back before my time as building control manager it was often a thing between surveyors around as you mentioned before about job numbers and or he's got these projects and he's got
01:09:36 or he's got these projects and he's got those and
01:09:37 those and he completes his records he doesn't and that was well before my time um as the manager it wasn't even in the section i was in so it's something that's happened you know
01:09:48 it's something that's happened you know now and again over the years but the main point would be that the workload was manageable definitely as an example which i was thinking about during the break there was times where we had i had to establish a late cover
01:10:00 we had i had to establish a late cover because people used to go home so early so it's more about trying you know to have somebody there to answer the phones and things that was more the issue people didn't do more hours than it was needed to
01:10:12 more hours than it was needed to what about safety concerns are you aware of anyone having raised safety concerns no i was at various times i was the health and safety manager for the hold of planning and borrower development is something i was very very keen on
01:10:23 something i was very very keen on so we had health and safety briefings tool back toolbox talks i made sure the ppe was up to date i've mentioned some health and safety things today i think in the given of the evidence
01:10:34 evidence were you aware uh that it had been said that there was a culture of bullying and surveillance surveyors concerns were not taken seriously when raised i'm going to show you a document it's
01:10:46 i'm going to show you a document it's rbk3014152 and if we zoom in on the top half please
01:10:56 this is an email from robert albrow dated 16th of june 2017. i'm not suggesting that you saw this particular email at the time it's to graham stalwart and he says dear graham private and
01:11:08 and he says dear graham private and confidential um following the tragic events at grenfell tower i wish to offer my unconditional support to the building control officer concerned i worked for rbkc as a senior building control surveyor for many years and mostly had a positive
01:11:20 for many years and mostly had a positive time
01:11:21 time it is however with regret that i feel the need to repeat the concerns i had with management team at the time all of which are well documented and he goes on i sincerely believe surveyor's concerns were never taken
01:11:32 surveyor's concerns were never taken seriously
01:11:33 seriously on one occasion i utilized the council's whistleblowing policy even then the management team failed to follow the panel's recommendations and acted contrary to the published guidance i even recall being told if a corporate manslaughter charge was to be brought it
01:11:45 manslaughter charge was to be brought it would be the head of building control who'd be liable not myself and then we move on to the next paragraph
01:11:51 paragraph which is now at the top i am also in possession of documentation whereby i specifically asked a builder to open up an element of work to later find john allen undermined my decision and approved the work without speaking to me about this issue
01:12:04 speaking to me about this issue at the time i asked john to make a side note to this effect which he failed to do
01:12:07 do to cover my back i sent an email the response i got was that it was inappropriate to enter an email dialogue when he sat in the next room i read this to mean no paper trail needless to say the note never got
01:12:18 needless to say the note never got recorded and then you will also observe i question workloads across the department [Applause] and a little further down at the bottom of the page
01:12:29 of the page at the last paragraph that we can see on screen it says be under no illusions i believe the department is afflicted by a culture of bullying
01:12:36 bullying and surveillance concerns are not taken seriously when raised um were you aware of those issues being raised at the time i well i disagree with the whole essence
01:12:48 i well i disagree with the whole essence of it i was aware of this correspondence or something like it i could talk personally about rob woolbrow if you wish me to and quite a long there were
01:13:01 and quite a long there were various disciplinaries and grievances and things went over with personnel when for quite a long time i could give you some
01:13:07 some background i was i did employ him to start with as part of the management team and i was um helping him at one stage when he'd come from another team into the team that i managed so i could talk at length
01:13:18 that i managed so i could talk at length about that if you wish but the statements say that the context i refute
01:13:23 refute absolutely i would just like you to answer my questions um were you aware prior to the restructuring of concerns about um safety not being taken seriously absolutely not
01:13:34 seriously absolutely not um were you aware of concerns with workload before the restructuring uh other than what i've said it's uh an office and their swings you know there's times work ebbs and flows the patch systems that got the nature of
01:13:45 the patch systems that got the nature of that the reason worked the patch system is because clients wanted the one point of contact all the time but then there's pros and cons about that but we tried to manage the work when it did ever flow prior to your appointment as head as
01:13:57 prior to your appointment as head as manager of building control was there a culture of bullying in the department i don't believe so thank you mr allen those are all the questions i have for you but
01:14:06 you but we have to take a pause now as there may be some more from others right mr adam well as you've heard council reach the end of the questions she had for you but we need to take a break now to just make sure nothing's
01:14:18 a break now to just make sure nothing's been overlooked and to consider any questions that may have come in from other sources so we're going to stop now until 25 to 4. okay and then if you come back then we'll see
01:14:30 then if you come back then we'll see whether there are any more questions or not understood thank you thank you so
01:14:40 much
01:14:46 25 to 4 please
01:30:41 yes would you ask mr allen to come back in please
01:30:55 all right strolling thank you thanks greg and did you find some questions i did
01:30:58 did uh mr chairman just a few um yes so starting at first we've heard some evidence that um mr hoban was not provided with
01:31:09 provided with a copy of the nbs specification um for the project and i think you referred to that earlier in your evidence as well that you'd never seen the mbs specification is it standard practice for building
01:31:21 is it standard practice for building control not to have the nbs specification on a project i don't know what the nbs specification is
01:31:27 is does it stand for is it national building standard specification or something what does it stand for yes so that's the specification that lists out what products are being installed so the short answer
01:31:38 are being installed so the short answer is probably no what often people do on projects because you don't need often to know incredible detail and phone numbers and manufacturers and things like that you may be given the
01:31:49 things like that you may be given the plans
01:31:50 plans and then often architects will do a kind of supplementary statement explaining how they've kind of complied with regulations that would often be the case and then go into detail as needed but going through a very
01:32:02 as needed but going through a very detailed
01:32:03 detailed the submission can be plans or specification drawings it can be anything so we'll take whatever people are going to offer to us and ascertain whether it complies with the building regulations or not
01:32:12 or not if it doesn't ideally write a schedule in the absence of a complete list of the materials
01:32:17 materials that are being used for example on a facade yes how is the building control um surveyor supposed to assess a full plans application well it would be difficult too but you would ask for it
01:32:28 would ask for it that's the thing so in your schedules you'd ask for the information if it wasn't there
01:32:34 going back we um just before the break we were discussing the email from mr albrow if we could go to another email which is rbk3032518
01:32:58 so this is another email
01:33:03 which if you go on to page two
01:33:07 uh you'll see there another email from him dated the 7th of july 2017 and you are copied in if we zoom in so that you can see it
01:33:18 that you can see it uh do you recall receiving that email at the time
01:33:22 the time i i can't i know there were and i said i'm happy to go into some detail if you wish over many years with um
01:33:30 um various involvement i had but um do you mean just read it um i just have one question for you so he says um if i just
01:33:42 he says um if i just find the right part of the email
01:33:48 we could go down to the next paragraph please
01:33:52 please so what dates this one so seventh of july okay
01:33:58 uh and it's the third paragraph down um and a few lines down it says i have asked that my statement be accepted that many related to a previous grievance which had not been actioned
01:34:10 which had not been actioned safety concerns raised under the whistleblowing policy and the department's view to take a direction contrary to published guidance and finally your rule and he's referring to you there to undermine my decision when i gave an instruction for defective work to be
01:34:22 instruction for defective work to be opened up
01:34:23 opened up uh this includes correspondence between us in which you failed to enter a site note to that effect indeed you said if i wanted to talk to you to go to your office rather than send an email i maintain the view this was to avoid
01:34:33 avoid accountability um is it correct that you instructed mr albrow to raise matters orally with you rather than in writing
01:34:44 in part but i can explain the context that he
01:34:47 that he was in another team and there was a disciplinary being taken um against him by management which they asked me to lead um so i was doing that and it was kind of dropped
01:34:58 of dropped at one point but i welcomed him into one of the teams that i managed at the time this was before i was building control manager i was a assistant district surveyor then he was still pursuing some grievances he
01:35:12 he was still pursuing some grievances he had with the previous manager and in the end i said okay we will give you one day a week to deal with the grievance but you can't be dealing with it all the time
01:35:23 be dealing with it all the time in the office and often at that time i did have my own separate office and i found
01:35:27 found it just uncomfortable where you're sitting there and someone's sending you an email and they're only the other side of the office and i just said if you've got an issue please come and talk to me about it it was just mainly to help him um
01:35:40 it was just mainly to help him um what i would say is without the decisions some people in building control sometimes find it difficult to make decisions and robert was one of those so on
01:35:51 and robert was one of those so on certain jobs it's not about overruling him
01:35:53 him i'm a senior manager and sometimes if i just feel that the element complies then obviously i can just pass it um even that may be against what he's
01:36:04 um even that may be against what he's advised which in my opinion was incorrect and not in accordance with knowledge i had at the time so i would rob had his issues i tried to help him as much as i possibly could he did leave the council
01:36:16 possibly could he did leave the council in the end i can explain the circumstances of that but i don't actually know all of that but it was more a lot above my in level context of rep record keeping on
01:36:26 on a job which is what he's referring to here
01:36:29 here did you say to him um that he should just talk to you about this site note issue rather than email
01:36:36 email no not on no no no it's about site notes i was talking to him about if he's got an issue with me or a problem don't email me come and talk to me about
01:36:44 me about it because he'd be sitting there all day long doing it as i said we tried to okay you just have a day a week dealing with your grievances which seemed a reasonable amount of time you know
01:36:55 a reasonable amount of time you know um going back uh to some evidence we heard from you this morning i asked you um whether the core of an acm panel um would be thought of as filler under
01:37:07 um would be thought of as filler under 12.7
01:37:08 12.7 um of adb and you replied with reference to
01:37:11 to um the insulation uh that be installed behind the panels um could you just tell us what did you understand at the time the word filler to mean in 12.7 of adb
01:37:22 the word filler to mean in 12.7 of adb well as i mentioned my understanding was the filler is anything then that's going to be
01:37:28 to be in the line of the insulation anything that's going to fill it it could be there are various intumescent mastics foam those kind of things that maybe there's small gaps
01:37:39 there's small gaps on the on the line of the insulation and as i mentioned that it's been qualified both by the extra in the latest approved document b volume one there's a note been added that now says
01:37:52 there's a note been added that now says in the opinion of the government that they did mean filler to include the including the um you know the material between the acm so that's cleared it up now but that wasn't my understanding at the time
01:38:04 my understanding at the time um we also discussed your knowledge of the proposals um in that pre-application stage for grenfell tower if you go to sca4044
01:38:23 uh and you'll see at the bottom of the page
01:38:26 page uh there's an email from bruce stones to you dated 6th of june 2012 and it says john further to our conversation please see attached an initial estimate of the work
01:38:37 initial estimate of the work um you'll see it exceeds the budget um but it does give you an idea of the scope of the work so that's mr soon sending you an email with some details so that you can come up with a fee
01:38:48 up with a fee [Music]
01:38:49 [Music] do you recall that i don't that the fees would have been tied in with a project quotes if you look at the pre-application on accolade was pa it kind of makes sense and
01:39:00 kind of makes sense and project quote was pq so i would have recorded the project quote in accolade if you go up to the top of the page we can see your response
01:39:11 and there you advise on the fee and you say you've excluded items such as demolition that are not controlled under the building regulations so can we take it that you went through the budget cost estimate to work out what the building control fee
01:39:24 work out what the building control fee would be
01:39:26 would be uh yes i'm not sure what he sent through you wouldn't want a you know bill of quantities or full specification but if someone gave you outline budgets you'd just say like landscaping out
01:39:38 landscaping out you know anything to do with the building in that kind of level i'm not sure what was included so if you go to art 6053 this is what he sent you
01:39:59 and we go to page four please
01:40:03 under item r
01:40:11 which we see there says option one new cladding including installation allows a vm zinc rain screen um or option two new render so having looked at this for the
01:40:22 so having looked at this for the purposes of preparing the building control fee uh you were told at the time that cladding was going to be involved as part of the refurbishment project yeah i can't recall i can't recall the
01:40:35 yeah i can't recall i can't recall the document
01:40:36 document um if it was sent and i've read all of it then i would have known that i i didn't know at the time so that didn't jump out at you at the time and would cladding works have featured
01:40:47 and would cladding works have featured in the calculation of a building control fee
01:40:50 fee it would be included that 1.124 million would have included in the um in the whatever the figure was was it 4 million was it
01:41:01 figure was was it 4 million was it so you likely would have read it noted the cost and that would have featured in your assessment i believe so yeah so at the time you did know that cladding well from what you've shown me now i can't recall the document but
01:41:14 [Applause] final set of questions um this is relating back to your site visit um now we know that you did see some of the insulation in the cladding on site
01:41:26 the insulation in the cladding on site that was your evidence before the break now you're an experienced building control officer you've gone on site and you see being installed hardboard insulation
01:41:37 being installed hardboard insulation not mineral wool i i couldn't recall at all what the installation was i just couldn't
01:41:43 couldn't i haven't got any recollection of it now but you noted it's in your site reports that you saw it so we know you saw it at the time the insulation in the cladding and what you would have seen
01:41:54 you would have seen is insulation board rather than mineral wool would that not have piqued your interest at the time to ask well what is this i can't call honestly i've got no recollection of what
01:42:03 what i saw if i say something now i can't it'll be guessing i can't say i don't have a recollection at this time
01:42:16 um that's all i have mr chairman right thank you very much well mr allen that is the end of the questions nothing else to ask you thank you very much just remains for me to thank you very much for coming to give your evidence
01:42:27 much for coming to give your evidence it's been very helpful and useful to hear what you have to tell us thank you and now you're free to go thank you very much i'm sorry we've taken
01:42:34 taken longer by the way over your evidence than we'd first hope but i'm afraid that's how things sometimes go until it's going to help right thank you very much thank you
01:42:54 well now we have another witness waiting but we need to ride to the moment i think for a bit of housekeeping isn't that right we do that's right and then mr miller will be taking over someone could come and find us as soon
01:43:05 someone could come and find us as soon as it's uh it'll be done thank you very much
01:50:34 yes mr miller is your next witness mr chairman we now have the first of the artelia witnesses mr simon cash can i please call mr cash
01:51:00 [Music]
01:51:05 i do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you very much mr cash sit down make yourself comfortable thank you
01:51:17 make yourself comfortable thank you um i i think you've probably been here quite a long time waiting to give evidence
01:51:21 evidence i have i'm sorry that we've uh kept you waiting so long but i'm afraid these things sometimes happen but at least we're able to start this afternoon
01:51:28 afternoon thank you thank you very much yes mr mr chairman thank you mr cask good afternoon
01:51:33 afternoon and can i start by thanking you very much for coming to the inquiry and help helping us with our investigations we are very grateful to you my questions are intended to be short and simple they don't always turn out that way so
01:51:44 they don't always turn out that way so if you want me to repeat a question we'll put the question in a different way i'm very happy to do so um also if you could please keep your voice up so that the person who is sitting to your immediate right the transcriber can get
01:51:56 immediate right the transcriber can get your
01:51:57 your evidence down on the transcript we'd be very grateful and by way of a tip it also helps to say yes or no
01:52:03 yes or no rather than nod or shake your head as appropriate because that doesn't go down onto the transcript okay we today we will finish i think at half past four subjects of the chairman but normally we will take a break in the
01:52:14 but normally we will take a break in the morning and in the afternoon but if you need a further break just let us know and we can take a short break thank you uh now you've made three uh witness statements for the inquiry i think and your first one is art406544
01:52:29 and your first one is art406544 yes and that one is dated the 11th of october 2018. could you go to page 74 please
01:52:34 please there's a signature there is that yours yes it is i'm going to call that your first
01:52:38 first statement or first witness statement you have a second witness statement that's art407399
01:52:47 art407399 there's a signature on page 25.
01:52:51 is that your signature yes it is thank you that's dated the 13th of september 2019 and i'll call that your second witness statement you also made a third statement a
01:53:03 rt409416 and if you can go to page 20 of that there's a signature is that your signature yes you do that's above the date of the 10th of march i'll call that
01:53:14 date of the 10th of march i'll call that your third witness statement have you read each of these witness statements recently yes i have and can you confirm that their contents are true yes i can thank you and have you discussed your statements or the
01:53:25 discussed your statements or the evidence that you're going to give today and
01:53:27 and tomorrow with anybody before coming here to give evidence no i haven't now i'm going to begin with your background and work history you're a quantity surveyor by training i believe that's correct yes
01:53:38 believe that's correct yes and i think you have more than 40 years experience in project and cost management correct and is it right that you are a fellow of the rics correct and i think past chair of its
01:53:49 correct and i think past chair of its construction faculty correct but i think you're also a past member of its building engineering services
01:53:56 services business group is that right correct now before the grenfell tower project have you ever before been involved in projects uh involving a refurbishment of a high-rise residential building uh not i cannot
01:54:10 residential building uh not i cannot specifically remember although in my career i've worked on many many projects some of which i can recollect easily and others not quite so easily and can you recollect any of them which involve refurbishment of a high-rise
01:54:22 involve refurbishment of a high-rise residential building dude particularly no right
01:54:26 no right now in very general terms i think your role
01:54:29 role as at artelia during the grenfell tower refurbishment was as project director for that project yes yeah for that project yes what was your role in general at artelia
01:54:40 what was your role in general at artelia outside
01:54:41 outside the grenfell tower project i was a director of cost management i see and artely's involvement spanned the years
01:54:51 years really from march 2012 through to the end of the project correct from 2012 was your involvement throughout that entire
01:55:02 involvement throughout that entire period
01:55:02 period or was were you involved for a shorter period i was involved throughout that period with the exception of a small portion of time when i was absent for an operation
01:55:12 operation yes and in general project director is that the senior most role within artelia on a particular project correct
01:55:21 correct and in general is it right that to be a project director on a particular project you would have to occupy a pretty senior role within artelia overall generally yes yes and can you
01:55:33 overall generally yes yes and can you just briefly explain to us what your role as project director on the grenfell tower project involved it was to be primarily responsible for the delivery of the service
01:55:43 service to the project that we had signed up to with the client and did you have anybody within artelia that you would report to
01:55:52 report to yes i had a co-director who is my senior co-director that i reported to and i also reported to the main board right who was that uh who was that senior co-director that you reported mr philip balcott right
01:56:07 could you repeat the name i'm sorry mr philip balcott
01:56:12 b-o-u-l c o u t t thank you now uh
01:56:20 is it right that as a project director or as project director you weren't necessarily involved in the detail of the refurbishment project correct uh and if there is any detail um then
01:56:31 uh and if there is any detail um then just
01:56:31 just you can remember in any of my questions and please just say yes or add to them now some of the documents that we will look at in the course of
01:56:39 course of your evidence have the name apple yards on them
01:56:42 on them and it's right i think that apple yards was an entity which was acquired by artelia or the artelia group that's right
01:56:50 right uh and i believe that was in march 2012 was it
01:56:53 was it yes i see uh now apple yards was trading i think as artelia uk for some time wasn't it
01:57:00 wasn't it correct and uh when i talk about artelia or apple yards and i use the word artelia i'm going to include apple yards in that just so that we're clear can i start then by looking at the role
01:57:12 can i start then by looking at the role of artelia which would include apple yards
01:57:14 yards as a name during the primary refurbishment works and i want to look first if we may at artelia's contracts which were relevant to the grenfell tower project
01:57:25 to the grenfell tower project um in in general we can see from the documents that artelia proposed a contract to the tmo on the rics standard form remember that yes i do and that was in may 2012 yes
01:57:37 yes i do and that was in may 2012 yes yes and can we go to art406259 please
01:57:44 this is an email from mark anderson of the tmo
01:57:48 the tmo of the 21st of august 2012 to alan dawson
01:57:53 dawson and i think alan dawson was artelia's employer's agent on this project until march 2013. is that right correct yes and alan dawson is an artelia or apple yards
01:58:05 dawson is an artelia or apple yards person at the time wasn't he yes he was yes um is this uh email we'll look at the text of it good afternoon i confirmed that kctmo wishes to appoint apple yards limited
01:58:17 wishes to appoint apple yards limited as outlined in the proposal dated 2nd of may 2012
01:58:21 may 2012 under standard rics terms of engagement was that the acceptance by the tmo of the may 2012 proposal yes it was now it looks from other documents there
01:58:33 now it looks from other documents there were
01:58:33 were formalities of signing this contract which were overlooked at that time is that right yes yes do you know why that is
01:58:40 that is no i don't but in any event regardless of the formalities is it your understanding that artelia was contracted on the grenfell tower project uh from
01:58:52 on the grenfell tower project uh from at the latest uh august 2012.
01:58:59 yes i believe so yeah yes in in terms of uh the acceptance by the tmo yes yes now do you remember that in july 2014
01:59:10 do you remember that in july 2014 there was a formal contract that was signed
01:59:14 signed yes yes um and if we can go to that that's at art 405742 please now we'll look at the first page this is
01:59:25 now we'll look at the first page this is a letter a formal letter which is sent by lisa de jesus on behalf of jenny jackson at assets and regenerations for kensington and chelsea
01:59:36 regenerations for kensington and chelsea tmo to you at artelia uk on the 9th of july 2014. dear mr cash grenfell tower enhancements please finding close the contract as signed by kensington and chelsea tmo
01:59:48 signed by kensington and chelsea tmo apologists for the delay and we can see on page two if we can just go to that that the contract is on the rics standard form of consultants appointment
01:59:59 standard form of consultants appointment do you recognize this document as having received it as the 2014 contract yes i do and it's right isn't it that in the racs
02:00:10 and it's right isn't it that in the racs standard form consultant the word consultant means artelia and client means tmo correct yes and just for clarity's sake if you want to see that that's page six we can just flash that up so everyone
02:00:22 we can just flash that up so everyone can see it there it is now just just for again a little bit more detail is it right that artelia for the grenfell tower project had a
02:00:34 for the grenfell tower project had a number of subcontractors um including ads associates he was i wouldn't say he was a subcontractor he was a freelance quantity surveyor who worked for the
02:00:45 quantity surveyor who worked for the business uh occasionally i see and working on grenfell to provide quantity surveying services for the emini elements he had some input but not specifically
02:00:56 he had some input but not specifically dealing with that solely i see what other elements did ads associated well he didn't deal with any other elements he was brought in only to deal with a couple of specific elements of the m e but otherwise it was
02:01:07 elements of the m e but otherwise it was all dealt with by in-house employees right and and just for dates can you remember the dates when uh ads associates were brought in not specifically no i don't remember they were all
02:01:17 were all they were both pre-contract uh be both pre-construction contracts right we have him as october 2013 would that be about right it sounds about right right then there's also re or re solutions
02:01:31 also re or re solutions and is that right that was neil reed who left i think artelia into july 2015 but
02:01:38 but came back into the project through his own service company correct yes and i think he continued to work on the grenfell tower project throughout but in those latter months as
02:01:49 throughout but in those latter months as re solutions correct i see can we next turn to uh that the role of artelia set out in in the rics form if we can go please in
02:02:00 in the rics form if we can go please in this
02:02:01 this um document to page 10 first of all i want to show you the part dealing with lead consultant and um this is as i say page 10 of the
02:02:12 and um this is as i say page 10 of the rics form
02:02:14 rics form sent to you on the on the 9th of july 2014 and here at clause 3 we can see consultants obligations and then under that performance of the
02:02:25 then under that performance of the services and then at 3.4 about a quarter of the way down the page it says if the consultant is designated as lead consultant in the appendix the consultant
02:02:36 in the appendix the consultant coordinates the activities of the professional team and gives instructions to the professional team as necessary as lead consultant the consultant schedules the activities so as to comply with the program and
02:02:47 so as to comply with the program and informs the client of any failure by any member of the professional team to comply with the program now i've read that out in full because because i have some questions about it can we next go to page 34
02:03:02 do you recognize this as the appendix to the contract yes i do and at the bottom half of the page you can see there are clauses 3.4 and 3.5 and they
02:03:13 there are clauses 3.4 and 3.5 and they refer back to the terms we've just been looking at under the heading lead consultant do you see that yes i do and it says the consultant is not the lead consultant so that means
02:03:24 not the lead consultant so that means doesn't it that artelia was not the lead consultant correct right now we can see the box has been ticked with a little well or rather crossed
02:03:32 crossed you do you see that yes okay that's an option
02:03:35 option um to say that artelia was not taking on the role of lead consultant am i right about that correct and then we go on
02:03:44 we go on and i'm sorry to take this at a piecemeal
02:03:47 piecemeal pace but it's important below that the lead consultant is bruce sowns the studio e
02:03:53 studio e the uh the consultant is the lead consultant underneath that and that box isn't ticked so that tells us that that bruce says the studio he was the lead consultant and in that role
02:04:06 was the lead consultant and in that role was the lead consultant to undertake a scheduling or program role
02:04:12 i don't know what uh the studio's scope of service was but other than they were identified within this particular appointment as lead consultant i see what well in general terms what did you
02:04:24 what well in general terms what did you understand the role of lead consultant to
02:04:27 to involve or include effectively leading the design team and making sure that they delivered what they were required to under the their scopes or services in accordance with the program that was
02:04:38 accordance with the program that was developed by the team right was it not your job as a consultant artelia to at least to understand what the scope
02:04:49 to at least to understand what the scope of services to be provided by the lead consultant was to be no we were not involved in the appointment of the consultants that's something that was specifically not ticked within our scope of service
02:05:03 not ticked within our scope of service well let's let's look on um if you go to page nine i should just show you the definitions here because some of the questions i'm going to ask you may depend on them so i'll just show you
02:05:14 may depend on them so i'll just show you this first at page nine um you can see that in fact i think it's page eight actually
02:05:23 actually um you can see the definition of professional team and the professional team there yes thank you means the consultant which is artelia the professionals
02:05:35 which is artelia the professionals listed in the appendix and any other professionals engaged by the client in relation to the project and which the client notifies to the consultant they just have that definition in mind at the time of signing this document
02:05:49 at the time of signing this document july
02:05:50 july 2014 what was your understanding of who it was
02:05:53 it was who was to be in charge of the professional team as defined
02:05:59 in charge i'm i'm not sure in terms of uh lead consultant studio we were identified as lead consultant yes they were all right well
02:06:11 yes they were all right well let me come back to that question given that answer a little bit later now we know that artelia was contracted directly to the tmo as we've seen did artelia at any stage answer
02:06:23 did artelia at any stage answer to studio e uh or otherwise to anybody who was in charge of the professional team or was artelia independent of the professional team and acted solely as
02:06:35 professional team and acted solely as tmo's
02:06:36 tmo's consultant we acted independently sorry as tmo's consultant right i next one to turn following this questioning line generally through to
02:06:47 questioning line generally through to the next point which is design responsibility can we look at page 11 of this document
02:06:54 and on page 11 we can see the bottom half of the page clause 4.4 design responsibility and this is under the bigger heading just a little bit further up health and safety
02:07:05 safety statutory requirements and prohibited materials
02:07:08 materials and if you look at clause 4.4 under the heading design responsibility it says the consultant is only responsible for the design of the project or any part of it
02:07:16 it and or for specifying and approve or approving materials for the project or any part of it if and to the extent that it is designated as having such responsibility in the appendix so that's the starting
02:07:28 in the appendix so that's the starting point for 4.4 design responsibility and if we can go next to page 35 of this document we come into the appendix and we can see
02:07:39 we come into the appendix and we can see at the top of that page under or by reference to 4.4 design responsibility it says the consultant is not responsible for the design of the project and that project is is uh is marked
02:07:52 and that project is is uh is marked across through do you see that yes i do um and uh the contrary terms you can see that below the consultant is responsible for the design
02:08:03 the design etc are crossed through and you can see that that is so in relation to that part and also the part immediately below it about specifying and approving materials yes
02:08:14 specifying and approving materials yes correct
02:08:15 correct so um is it for that reason that you say that
02:08:18 that because of that artelia wasn't responsible for the design or the materials on this project correct right who did you understand to have responsibility for the design
02:08:29 to have responsibility for the design and for the selection of materials on the grenfell tower project
02:08:35 project studio e max fordham and curtins
02:08:44 and who do you recall or did you think at the time was responsible for coordinating the design team studio e as lead consultant and what about coordinating m e and
02:08:56 and what about coordinating m e and structural design the studio e lead consultant would also be coordinating them as well in the overall aspect of the design
02:09:12 and who did you understand had responsibility for design studio a overall and the same question in in respect to specifying or approving materials was that studio e
02:09:24 materials was that studio e yes right as as well as curtains and max fordham as well i see
02:09:32 i see now let's look on to further services that artelia did agree to provide if we can go
02:09:38 can go back please in the same document to page 23
02:09:42 23 we can see the middle of the page this is under schedule 1 services the basic services to be performed by the consultant that's artelia are those indicated in the
02:09:53 the attached schedules as identified below and there's a whole set of services uh which are deleted under rics building surveyor services and then we have
02:10:04 and then we have racs cdm coordinator services that's ticked yes and then our aca rics employs agent services again there's a cross in that box
02:10:16 there's a cross in that box rscs project manager services are deleted rscs project monitor services are deleted but rscs quantity surveyor services are crossed
02:10:26 crossed correct so um we see that that there are there for three services that artelia as the consultant were taking on cdm coordinator employers agent uh and
02:10:38 cdm coordinator employers agent uh and quantity surveyor uh but two that they weren't taking on project manager and project monitor have i got that right correct yeah now let's talk first about the cdm coordinator role
02:10:49 the cdm coordinator role that we can see from that document artelia assumed now cdm just to delve into that a little bit
02:10:56 bit that stands for construction design and management regulations doesn't it correct uh and the applicable regulations for most of the grenfell tower project were those set out in the 2007 regulations weren't
02:11:07 set out in the 2007 regulations weren't they
02:11:08 they yes and they then changed in 2015 and we'll come to that in detail later on in your evidence that's that's correct isn't it correct and is it right that the project was required
02:11:17 required under those regulations to have a cdm coordinator or cdmc as we call it yes yes um and i want to look at the role of the cdm coordinator under those regulations
02:11:29 cdm coordinator under those regulations first question is who was appointed initially to be cdm coordinator for the grenfell tower refurbishment is uh an individual it was keith bushel
02:11:40 is uh an individual it was keith bushel yes and then i think later it was this right colin james and paul barrows paul burrows the burroughs quite right from from march april 2015 through to october of that year
02:11:52 year and in general terms what was your understanding at the time of what a cdm coordinator did but his role was to specifically look at the
02:12:03 look at the [Music]
02:12:05 [Music] design with respect or look at the design
02:12:08 design the design risks in terms of making sure that the work could be carried out safely on site in terms of both those operatives on site and the public and that the final works could be also
02:12:19 and that the final works could be also maintained safely in terms of carrying out any maintenance works or anything that might be of risk to the public and identifying that with the design team
02:12:30 identifying that with the design team in design risk assessments health and safety design risk assessments were you familiar with the approved code of practice or acop
02:12:41 of practice or acop for the 2007 regulations i was aware of the acop but i wasn't familiar with it what they what they contain no right did you know that they were also known as l144
02:12:52 known as l144 no right um well let's um let's have a look at it uh it's inq3013936 please
02:13:01 please there it is um just looking at it you say
02:13:04 say you um were aware of it but not familiar with it have you ever had you ever seen it
02:13:08 it before the grenfell tower project and your involvement in it i can't remember all right well let's let's see how we go with it um page 25 please and i'd like to look with you at paragraph 90.
02:13:22 yes under the top of the page is what cdm coordinators should do and it says cdm coordinators must a give suitable and sufficient advice
02:13:33 a give suitable and sufficient advice and assistance to clients in order to help them to comply with their duties in particular one the duty to appoint competent designers and contractors and two the duty to ensure that adequate
02:13:44 the duty to ensure that adequate arrangements are in place for managing the project were you aware at the time that those duties applied to artelia i was
02:13:55 those duties applied to artelia i was aware of those duties in terms of applying to artillery with respect to the designers the designers were already had already been brought on board prior to our two years involvement in the
02:14:07 to our two years involvement in the project
02:14:09 project but it wouldn't necessarily have stopped um keith buschel from making sure that the client the tmo were aware of their obligations under the cdm regulations i see so you're saying the studio he had
02:14:21 i see so you're saying the studio he had had already arrived onto the grenfell tower project before artelia were involved in that project
02:14:26 project correct but nonetheless you that those obligations still maintained as applicable yes yes now if we go to the what the contract
02:14:37 now if we go to the what the contract says
02:14:37 says about cdm cdmc at page 61 of the contract that's a rt40 5742 please at page 61 back to that into page 61.
02:14:49 back to that into page 61. here is a part of that which deals with the services relating to the cdm regulations 2007 and i just want to uh just pick up the part in bold italics at the st
02:15:00 part in bold italics at the st at the top for context really the services which are summarized below derived from the duties laid on the cdm coordinator by the regulations and other related requirements of the regulations
02:15:11 related requirements of the regulations those listed are mandatory for the cdm coordinator reference should be made to the regulations for the precise scope of each service and this schedule must be read within the context of the regulations as a
02:15:22 the context of the regulations as a whole
02:15:23 whole and then we see under item three advise and assist the client in appointment of competent designers and contractors did you understand at the time that
02:15:34 did you understand at the time that artelia had that obligation to the tma yes i did you did did artelia provide advice on the appointment of competent designers on the project i i'm not sure uh as to whether they did
02:15:46 i i'm not sure uh as to whether they did or not but as i say the designers were already on board prior to our appointment uh there may have been but did at any time after artelia's appointment into the project did you ever give advice as
02:15:57 the project did you ever give advice as to whether or not studio e were competent
02:15:59 competent not me particularly and i'm not sure what keith bush uh advised the client when he came on board to the project did we look at the word competent there
02:16:10 did we look at the word competent there what was your understanding of the word competent
02:16:13 competent the the designers were competent in their profession how would artelia normally go about assessing the competence of designers
02:16:24 assessing the competence of designers for the purposes of discharging their obligations under the cdm regulations and and indeed under this part of the contract specifically i'm not sure because i'm not a cdm coordinator that would be something that i would uh
02:16:35 that would be something that i would uh expect keith bushel to deal with yes but as a project director you must have had some understanding of how it was that artelia would go about discharging those obligations i'm interested in what it was my
02:16:46 i'm interested in what it was my expectation would be that it would uh look at the the types of projects that they had been involved with whether there
02:16:52 there had been any particular health and safety issues in relation to the work they had done whether there were any outstanding um claims for negligence against them and what their track record was in terms of
02:17:04 what their track record was in terms of performance and producing designs in relation to program and level of detail that they would produce any feedback from from other sort of uh sources as well in
02:17:15 from other sort of uh sources as well in their general health and safety record right i see so if it turned out that studio e had never done an overcloud of a high-rise residential building before would you still say that they were
02:17:26 would you still say that they were competent given the definition that you've just given us yes because that wouldn't necessarily impact on their competency as designers would it not no they never had any experience in
02:17:37 experience in designing an overcloud of a high-rise residential building if they've never done it before why would that not impact on their competence can you help because the the project itself was not just overcladding it was
02:17:48 itself was not just overcladding it was refurbishment and bringing up to standards there were m e enhancements that were being made there were structural alterations being made at the bottom there were landscaping changes so the overclouding was just one part of the project
02:18:00 part of the project and therefore just saying that because they've not done an overclouding project wouldn't necessarily impact say that they were
02:18:08 incompetent i see so you'd look at the you look at the question of competence in the round is that right correct yes uh and are you saying that even though in fact the uh particular architect it needn't
02:18:19 the uh particular architect it needn't be studio e it could be any architect for the purposes of your understanding of the definition of competent um even though the particular architect might not have had experience at all of one
02:18:28 one uh element of the project that might be outweighed by experience of others is that what you're saying yes i see as a matter of fact did that analysis that i've just articulated to you
02:18:39 articulated to you ever get done by artelia in respect to studio e i don't know right can we go to page 63 of the contract this is still in the cdmc scheduler services and on
02:18:50 in the cdmc scheduler services and on the top half of the page under generally there's not much left in the rest of the page admittedly but it says generally a second bullet point work with the project team with a proactive approach
02:19:01 project team with a proactive approach to ensure that schemes are designed and delivered incorporating all relevant requirements to achieve statutory compliance what did you understand that to mean do you think
02:19:20 basically as a cdm coordinator that they should be proactive in working with the design teams to ensure that uh their designs complied with whatever requirements would be necessary with particular
02:19:32 would be necessary with particular relation to the cdm regulations statutory compliance uh means what it says would did you understand that at the time as a matter of fact to have included the building
02:19:44 to have included the building regulations yes because though as part of their they would have been ensuring that there would have been a sign off or a review of building regulations but not necessarily looking at it in detail and in general terms and i'm not talking
02:19:56 and in general terms and i'm not talking about specifics at the moment but what steps did artelia take to satisfy itself that the grenfell tower scheme was compliant with all applicable statutory obligations
02:20:08 all applicable statutory obligations including the building regulations it wasn't part of our role to ensure compliance overall in terms of detail because we weren't responsible for design
02:20:17 design it was ensuring that the the design team were actually making sure that they were doing those things rather than actually looking at the detail of it i i follow that
02:20:27 that so you're accepting that your job wasn't to ensure compliance but it was to ensure
02:20:32 ensure that the design team were making sure that they complied correct and what would that supervisory or insurance role as you expressed it involved
02:20:41 involved well at design team meetings we would review progress and we would review what actions had been taken place uh in between the meetings right and that what actions were still
02:20:52 right and that what actions were still to
02:20:52 to be carried out to achieve a design that could be then submitted either for planning or that could be then used for preparation of tender documents etcetera at design team meetings would you review
02:21:04 at design team meetings would you review not only progress and actions but also to do something to ensure that the designs themselves were compliant with the building regulations we wouldn't neces we wouldn't look at the detail of
02:21:16 neces we wouldn't look at the detail of the compliance we would ask the questions as to whether the pro what progress had been made so your questions would be limited actually to progress and uh to um
02:21:28 uh to um to carrying out of actions which have been promised to be carried out at the last meeting correct i see well we may come back to that in due course can we just stick with
02:21:39 course can we just stick with this then i just want to look at the use of the term designer in the cdm regulations next can we please go to page 34 in the
02:21:50 can we please go to page 34 in the contract that's back to page 34 and on that page we see at the bottom of the page clause 4.2 cdm regulations and we can see that
02:22:01 cdm regulations and we can see that there's a deletion of the part that says the consultant is not a designer for the purposes of the cdm regulations and
02:22:09 and the part that says the consultant is a designer for the purposes of the cdm regulations is as it were ticked you see that yes i do
02:22:21 now we saw earlier uh because i showed it to you on page 35 is the next page that artely was not contractually responsible for the design of the project do you
02:22:32 for the design of the project do you want to see that again it's page 35 it's probably just convenient to do that do you see that yes i do and just flipping back then to the page before we can see here that even though artelia
02:22:44 we can see here that even though artelia was not contractually responsible for the design of the project the consultant artelia is a designer for the purposes of the cdm do you see the do you see the the point i'm putting to you yes i do thus far
02:22:55 i'm putting to you yes i do thus far now you've addressed this in paragraph 38 d of your third witness statement can we just have that up please it's page 17. and on page 17 you can see there that at
02:23:09 and on page 17 you can see there that at paragraph 38 d at the bottom of the page you say that my understanding is that as a technical matter because auk was involved in preparing a contract some
02:23:20 involved in preparing a contract some analysis
02:23:21 analysis and collating the employer's requirements which are documents that refer to the designs produced by others on the project auk that's artelia uk needed to be identified as a designer for the purposes of the cdm regulations in its
02:23:32 purposes of the cdm regulations in its appointment auk did not however produce any designs just go over the page itself on the project and as i say above had no responsibility for the
02:23:44 above had no responsibility for the design of the project indeed this is something which miss williams appeared to accept in her email of the 20th of july 2015. see paragraph 15 above in which he stated that artelia are an unlikely
02:23:55 stated that artelia are an unlikely designer
02:23:55 designer in my view ms williams understood at the time that auk had no design responsibility under its appointment now we'll come back into course to to what happened in the summer of 2015
02:24:06 what happened in the summer of 2015 on this question um but can i just ask you
02:24:10 you um where you say artela didn't do any design work itself on the project um can you explain why artelia should be a designer for cdm purposes
02:24:21 designer for cdm purposes because at the time i understood that because we were producing documents that had cross references to technical documents with specifications in that we would have to be identified as a
02:24:33 that we would have to be identified as a designer
02:24:35 designer i know that there are different views in that respect and that since then i'm aware that actually we should not have been identified as a designer
02:24:44 designer i see the cdm regulations so at the time did you understand that there was a difference between a designer for the cdm regulations and a consultant who was responsible for the design of the project the
02:24:55 the design of the project the the cdm regulations have a definition of what they call a designer which is not in particular relation to designing
02:25:03 designing the full design for a building an architectural design or an engineering design
02:25:06 design i follow so in summary was it that you thought that you were a designer not you personally but but artelia was a designer within the definition of the cdm regulations
02:25:17 definition of the cdm regulations but as consultant not actually responsible for design correct i see mr chairman it's half past four yes it's going to turn to a sub-topic it's probably a convenient at the moment as anybody probably as
02:25:28 at the moment as anybody probably as good as ellie yes thank you well mr cash i'm sorry you're just getting into your stride but we do finish the day at half past four i think for most of us it's long enough
02:25:37 enough so we're going to break at that point we'll come back and resume please at 10 o'clock tomorrow and may i ask you please not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything
02:25:48 anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it overnight yes i'll make sure i don't good thank you very much would you like to give the usher then please thank you
02:26:10 right mr minute that's it for the day and we'll resume at 10 o'clock tomorrow thank you mr chairman thank you