RBKC (Building Control) Evidence - Thursday 1st October 2020 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:00:14 hmm good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing we're going to continue today taking the evidence of mr john hoban so would you ask mr hogan to come back in please thank you

00:00:27 in please thank you yes mr chairman while mr hoban is resuming his seat at the witness don witness box can i just say that we now intend to take most of the day if not all of the day with him and that as a result john allen has now

00:00:39 and that as a result john allen has now been put back to monday morning yes thank you so that other people not in this room can make necessary arrangements yes thank you that's very helpful thank you very much good morning mr haven good morning do sit down make yourself comfortable thank

00:00:56 you

00:01:10 so

00:01:15 good morning yes yes mr chairman thank you good morning mr hoban now yesterday evening we left off uh in the middle of a discussion about the acm panels and i want to take you now to some drawings that were provided to you

00:01:28 some drawings that were provided to you after the full plans application can we start with ryd3024038 please

00:01:39 this is neil crawford's email to you of the 18th of november 2014. it responds to yours telling him that the application decision would be made shortly and you

00:01:50 decision would be made shortly and you can see that just below halfway down the page on page one there

00:01:54 one there and you go on as we've seen to give you to give him uh the detailed views of yours about the b1 and b5

00:02:01 and b5 requirements that paul hanson had sent to you on the 10th of november say the previous week that's the background and we can see that neil crawford

00:02:12 we can see that neil crawford asks you in that top email of the 18th of november some questions about the proposed reduction to the window openings and he attaches a drawing and you can

00:02:23 and he attaches a drawing and you can see that as the attachment there you see that yeah yes yes now let's go to that drawing it's sea

00:02:32 sea 50225 please

00:02:38 now it's dated as we can see right at the bottom right hand corner the 4th of november 2014 so it's quite a recent drawing and it's

00:02:49 so it's quite a recent drawing and it's for the proposed west elevation yes and in the top left hand corner if we scroll out and then back in again at the top left please uh we can see there's a materials key

00:03:02 uh we can see there's a materials key do you see that yes and if you look at the key

00:03:05 the key you can see uh that uh the cladding and i'm summarizing will be aluminium composite material rain screen panel you can see that in three four

00:03:19 you can see that in three four and five uh with six being aluminium cassette

00:03:23 cassette uh lower down um first of all did you when you received this email from mr crawford did you open the attachment and look at this plan um i can't recall i would have thought i

00:03:35 um i can't recall i would have thought i would have but uh i can't say with absolute certainty but it would have been your practice would it it would it would have been and and therefore you would have noticed that it was different from the south

00:03:46 that it was different from the south elevation drawing that we looked at yesterday which formed part of the pack which had been sent to you by neil crawford on the 24th of november 2014. yes yes yes so can we take it that you

00:03:59 yes yes yes so can we take it that you did spot the difference that there had been a change in the product or the material at the very least forming the rain screen uh

00:04:10 forming the rain screen uh i i can't say with absolute certainty now as i say it's it's this is six years ago psych as i said would have opened it and and looked at

00:04:22 would have opened it and and looked at the drawing uh and obviously read the email as well yes and do you think that this may have been the first time that you became aware

00:04:32 aware that aluminium composite material was being proposed for use on the facade maybe maybe right moving forward in time there are emails sent to you in march

00:04:43 there are emails sent to you in march 2015 on the subject of fire stopping cavity barriers and you referred to those in your evidence yesterday now i'm not going to ask you about cavity barriers yet in your evidence we'll come back to that later

00:04:55 we'll come back to that later but i do want to look at one of those um emails that are that was sent to you can we go to sea 50252 please

00:05:08 this is an email from neil crawford to paul hanson copied to you and others including simon lawrence at ryden

00:05:15 ryden and kevin lam and simon o'connor 6th of march 2015. do you remember receiving that email do you think

00:05:32 to put it in its context it follows on or forwards to you as a copy party yes kevin lam's email to simon lawrence attaching some drawings

00:05:43 attaching some drawings and you can see the attachments that are attached to neil crawford's email which he sends on to you do you see that yes yes do you remember whether you opened the attachments um i can't some sometimes uh

00:05:59 when they're forwarded on sometimes we don't for some unknown reason the the drawings don't come through but uh

00:06:07 uh if we look at the text of the email it's hi paul yeah following our conversation this afternoon this reminded me of another issue

00:06:14 issue where are we over cladding what fire rating do we need to allow for within the wall build up between apartments see below and attached so that was the context and the question that was being

00:06:25 context and the question that was being raised

00:06:26 raised with paul hansen copy to you so it was something on your radar can we yes yes it was now one of the attachments included in that email and it's just so you know it's it's

00:06:37 it's it's a 855 c1059 ga model 33 100 a so

00:06:44 100 a so it was one of those in the in the in the pack as you can see was the harley specification and we can see that if we look at that

00:06:54 har-403955 please do you remember seeing this document at that time

00:07:05 that time as attached to this email i can't recall does it look familiar to you ah yes and you can see if you zoom in on the bottom half of the

00:07:16 if you zoom in on the bottom half of the left hand side i think it's clear enough actually you can see there that there's a heading cladding r1 do you see that and it says aluminium composite panel

00:07:27 and it says aluminium composite panel smoke silver metallic duragloss 5000 satin so again you saw did you that here is a specification from harley saying that the cladding

00:07:38 from harley saying that the cladding proposal was an acm panel yes yes so can we take it that by this point in time at the latest early march 2015

00:07:47 2015 you knew that acm panels were going to be used as the rain screen material on the outside of the building yes

00:07:56 now it looks from the email that we've seen

00:08:00 seen a moment ago that um when neil crawford sent you these documents both in november 2014 as we've just seen and now in march 2015 he showed you

00:08:12 march 2015 he showed you uh drawings that showed that zinc panels had now become aluminium composite panels

00:08:19 panels but he didn't tell you expressly in his emails of that change my question is did you notice the change by looking at the drawings that i i i can't say unfortunately i

00:08:31 that i i i can't say unfortunately i can't remember now you haven't mentioned in in your statement to the inquiry that you knew at the time that acm panels

00:08:40 panels were being used as par as the product or material on the outside of the building it's it's it's difficult to remember as i say is there a reason why you

00:08:53 as i say is there a reason why you didn't

00:08:53 didn't put in your statement the fact that by march 2015 you knew that the rain screen was going to be composed of acf i didn't have access to information when i was when i was given

00:09:06 when i was when i was given or asked that question i don't believe i was waiting for information from from kensington i believe right to come through

00:09:19 looking at these emails now i did have as i say oh sorry i have given some emails that i have uh in my own records to to the inquiries so i did

00:09:33 records to to the inquiries so i did have those do we take it from that answer or those answers that the fact that there was a change from zinc

00:09:41 zinc cladding to aluminium composite material cladding

00:09:44 cladding was not something that you remembered independently no no no at the time and what documents would you

00:09:51 would you would you be looking at or need to look at in order to trigger the recollection that you were told

00:09:58 told uh i i don't know the answer to that question

00:10:02 question as i say those obviously this was very important job but i had

00:10:10 as i mentioned yesterday i had

00:10:15 a number of quite a number of jobs so unless something really a particular event that would uh

00:10:28 event that would uh trigger my my mind would would i would be able to recall that as i say there's there's particular of events

00:10:39 of events uh that occurred i cite for certain site visits i i can recall because i can remember certain people being at

00:10:50 i can remember certain people being at them

00:10:51 them but drawings

00:10:54 i look at so many drawings over the process of doing my job it's very it's it's sometimes difficult to actually recall actually looking at a particular

00:11:08 recall actually looking at a particular particular drawing well let's go back to your first witness statement please uh just to refresh the memory of the reference it's

00:11:19 refresh the memory of the reference it's rbk3033934 at page six if we can just look at that i'd like to go to paragraph 57 where you say

00:11:26 say in answer to the question was the ex was the exterior of the building including the cladding insulation fixings

00:11:34 fixings and windows compliant with relevant building regulations fire regulations other legislation building standards including testing requirements guidance and industry practice your evidence wasn't is

00:11:46 practice your evidence wasn't is based on the information i had at the time it was my understanding that it was compliant

00:11:50 compliant yeah and then you say however the cladding has now been shown not to be compliant as a result of the cladding that was specified would be used was not in fact used now we looked at that evidence yesterday and i want to

00:12:01 i want to revisit it in this context we've now heard from you that you did know looking at the drawings that the cladding originally specified i.e zinc was swapped for acm

00:12:13 zinc was swapped for acm yes um your statement rather suggests that that wasn't something that you knew at the time that's not the case is it i i couldn't say right

00:12:22 say right now you told us yesterday i think several times that you checked the bba certificate for the reyno bond acm cladding and just for

00:12:30 for an example of that day five day 45 page 32 at line 17. i'm not going to take you back to that but you remember giving that evidence i think

00:12:38 think again mr hogan why didn't you mention that fact in either of your witness statements to the inquiry

00:12:50 i just i i didn't all i can do is apologize

00:12:53 apologize it was an important matter there wasn't um

00:12:57 um as i say when when i first came in um

00:13:05 i felt that my some of my answers were weren't in great detail when i answered my statements all right well let's look at your second statement then this is

00:13:18 zero four one rbk304050416 three zero is five

00:13:22 five zero four one six page thirteen please i'd like to look with you at paragraph thirty eight e and you're asked the direct question

00:13:34 e and you're asked the direct question there what information were you given about the materials for the exterior cladding

00:13:39 cladding including the insulation material on grenfell tower if you were given different information over time please explain and your answer there was other than that outlined in para 37b and d above

00:13:51 and d above i cannot recall and 37 b and d above um you um you you refer to reports on television and given in the press and evidence given

00:14:02 press and evidence given to the inquiry by inquiry experts and your reference to the understanding of limiting combustibility to air

00:14:15 going to 37b to start with um there's a reference uh if we could just go back to page 12 we just look at that

00:14:26 we just look at that look the question uh the question there uh says in paris 61 this is your first statement you state that the cladding

00:14:37 statement you state that the cladding installed did not follow sorry sorry just wait for you to get back power 38. sorry 37 i'm sorry 37 yeah two thirds of

00:14:48 sorry 37 i'm sorry 37 yeah two thirds of the way

00:14:49 the way a third of the way down page 12. in paris 63 i'm sorry i started on the wrong one in paris 63 an answer to a question who was responsible for any failures in compliance with the regulatory regime you state

00:15:00 with the regulatory regime you state that the person straight persons who chose to change the specification without notifying building control using materials that did not comply with prescribed standards please explain and if you look at b um

00:15:12 please explain and if you look at b um what notification was given to building control about the materials that would be used for the exterior cladding and then you say as outlined in the drawings referred to in power 26 above

00:15:23 drawings referred to in power 26 above and in emails that you then refer to and the drawings mentioned in those emails and that includes particular emails that you've referred to now you then um

00:15:36 now you then um you you you you refer to the emails and the drawings but you don't refer to the bba certificate or any conversations on site at all as to what the clowning panels

00:15:48 at all as to what the clowning panels were so you're quite specific about the drawings in the emails you don't refer to the bba certificate the question is why is that it's something i i never wrote at the time

00:15:59 time as i say

00:16:02 but why didn't you think it was important enough to mention it in your witnesses it didn't come in into my memory at the time when i was answering these questions what's triggered the recollection now

00:16:13 what's triggered the recollection now while you're giving evidence that you did look at the bba certificate no it's it's something that i've always always

00:16:19 always done but i just didn't put it in my answers yes i just want to know why that is

00:16:24 is sorry to press but i would like to know why you didn't think it was important enough to put it in your evidence

00:16:30 i i can't answer that question i i really don't that say i should have as i say i mentioned before that my answers were

00:16:42 mentioned before that my answers were were brief and not out or not in detail as much detail

00:16:54 if we if we go back please uh to page 10 of this same document and then over to the top of page 11

00:17:05 page 11 we can see that at the um uh the third part the middle of page sorry middle of page 10 paragraph 34 you say in paris 57 of your witness

00:17:16 you say in paris 57 of your witness statement you state on the information i had at the time as my understanding that it the exterior of the building has refurbished was compliant and then under b here's the question

00:17:27 and then under b here's the question what was the method of compliance which was being adopted in respect of the b4 requirement and your answer here was from the meetings i attended it was my understanding that the method of compliance that was being adopted in respect of b4 was that

00:17:40 being adopted in respect of b4 was that shown in approved document b now we went over that yesterday and we'll come back to it shortly in relation to the insulation but over the page i'm sorry looking at d

00:17:52 but over the page i'm sorry looking at d i'll show you the question before i show you the answer to which i want some more explanation did you ever request details of the materials which were proposed to be used as part of the exterior clad re-cladding hang on if so and

00:18:05 re-cladding hang on if so and when and to whom did you make that request that's the question you're asked and if we talk if we go to the top of page 11 the answer

00:18:13 answer you give is the details were submitted in the initial submission i also discussed the material with the harley's engineer who had informed me that the cladding system had been fitted to many buildings throughout england and wales to

00:18:25 throughout england and wales to buildings of a similar height and construction now we'll come back to what you said there shortly but in terms of what's not there you don't mention the bba certificate

00:18:36 mention the bba certificate and my question again is why is that i just didn't i didn't con i didn't answer the question completely no but why not um

00:18:47 no but why not um as i say i that's the answer i gave at the time

00:18:53 the time the time all right well let's look at the bba certificate that you now say that you did read at the time um can you doing the best you can with your recollection

00:19:04 recollection give us any kind of point in time when you did look at the bba certificate in relation to the reyno bond pe acm panels to be used on grenfell it

00:19:15 acm panels to be used on grenfell it would have been when uh i knew that it was run upon being used i can't i can't give you a time unfortunately right you that

00:19:27 right you that would be by latest then march early march 2015 when you saw the harley specification we just looked at i i couldn't i couldn't confirm that sorry right

00:19:38 sorry right um well let's look at the vba certificate

00:19:43 uh we'll look at it at bba 6047 please

00:19:55 and it's a grammar certificate zero eight

00:19:58 eight slash four five one zero and the date of it if we look at the bottom of the page is the 14th of january 2008 as the first issue

00:20:06 issue and were you familiar with bba certificates generally in your practice yes and what was your general view the time of the grenfell tower project about

00:20:18 project about the reliability of bba certificates it was something that we we accepted as a standard right accepted without

00:20:29 as a standard right accepted without question yes i would say so did you make a habit of reading these sorts of certificates in detail i i would in not in detail

00:20:41 i i would in not in detail pick out the points that concern me you would pick out the points that concerned you

00:20:46 you right now

00:20:50 right now did you have a particular way of going about interpreting them did you take them with a pinch of salt did you examine every word or do you just

00:20:56 just just well i've taken it if i i'm looking here

00:21:00 here on this particular page uh the thing that stands out is behavior in relation to fire yes and let's just look at that uh key

00:21:11 yes and let's just look at that uh key factors assessed behavior in relation to fire and it says in relation to the building regulations for reaction to fire the panels may be regarded as having a class naught surface in england and

00:21:22 a class naught surface in england and wales and a low-risk material in scotland

00:21:25 scotland c-section six i just and i know we looked at this yesterday but i just want to ask you in the context of that statement what did you understand uh the statement

00:21:38 what did you understand uh the statement in the certificate that the panels may be regarded as having a class naught surface to mean uh but that achieved a clock a notion or is

00:21:49 but that achieved a clock a notion or is it national standard classo as as mentioned in in a proof document uh b you say notional or is it national

00:22:02 b you say notional or is it national i i did you mean national or do you mean notional uh it's the if we can go to approve document b and i can read it from there sorry well

00:22:14 and i can read it from there sorry well i can't that's a bit of a tall order for anyone respond to um let's see how well what do you understand a class naught surface to mean uh that

00:22:25 naught surface to mean uh that that it achieved the the standard as specified in approved document b when it goes to it external surface spread of flame now let's go to page three under the

00:22:38 now let's go to page three under the heading general

00:22:41 and you can see there in the third paragraph it says it is important

00:22:49 important for designers planners contractors and or installers to ensure that the installation of the cladding is in accordance with the certificate holders instructions and the information given in this certificate

00:23:02 did you read that when you examined this certificate in the context of the grenfell tower project i don't know what did what if you did read it what did you understand it to mean or would you have

00:23:14 understand it to mean or would you have understood it to meant to mean sorry could you repeat the question yes if i did read reading well what what what did you understand

00:23:25 what did you understand or what would you have understood that statement to me

00:23:32 yeah as per the words in in the in the statement there right so you would have taken them at face value i think what steps can you remember you took to check

00:23:44 took to check that for this project uh those instructions had been carried out i don't think i had taken any any steps

00:23:55 i don't think i had taken any any steps i i would have as i say first page perhaps

00:24:02 you know it said classo and maybe i didn't

00:24:06 didn't i didn't read read the other pages well i was going to ask you let me like my next question when you did look at this certificate did you only look at the first page or did you look into it maybe i just looked at the first page

00:24:18 maybe i just looked at the first page but the first page under fire which is something that you were particularly concerned with as a building control officer told you to examine section six did you i i can't say well let's see um we'll

00:24:31 i i can't say well let's see um we'll come to it in a minute um but a little bit below this statement um

00:24:36 um under the technical specification there's a description do you see that and it says that the certificate also provides uh some details about what the panels

00:24:47 uh some details about what the panels comprise

00:24:48 comprise uh and it says uh that they comprise just reading off the first line two 0.5 millimeter thick aluminium alloy sheets and they're specified bonded to either

00:25:01 and they're specified bonded to either side of a core of low density polyethylene ldpe the panels are available either plain edged riveted system or flanged cassette system

00:25:11 system to suit architectural requirements see figure one just pausing there you can see if you cast your eye down the page towards the bottom of page three that there is figure one which says rainer bond architecture panels and

00:25:23 rainer bond architecture panels and typical fixing systems and on the left hand side there's riveted system and the right hand side cassette system then if we go back to paragraph 1.1 under description

00:25:34 under description mr hoban together it says a jira gloss or pvdf coating available in various colors protects the exposed face

00:25:42 face a polyester primer protects the unexposed face the products are also available in a fire retardant grey fr you see that now at the time of the

00:25:51 the grenfell tower refurbishment did you appreciate that these panels were available with a polyethylene core and also with a fire retardant core

00:26:02 i couldn't say sorry i don't believe i would have considered that at all

00:26:13 i would have considered that at all i may have considered at the time but i just i just can't recall so if you'd read this certificate at all carefully you would have understood that there were two different products one with a pe core and one with an fr core

00:26:25 an fr core what can you recall about knowing that i can't recall sorry standing back from this document for a moment did you understand that there was a difference

00:26:36 understand that there was a difference between a pe chord acn panel and an fr chord acm panel

00:26:42 sorry could you explain the question in other words yes uh certainly ignoring this document for a moment at the time of the grenfell tower project did you understand

00:26:53 tower project did you understand that when acm panels came with a pe car core they were different from those which would come with an fr core if i'd known yeah yes but as i say i can't recall

00:27:04 can't recall did you have any understanding of what polyethylene was no no no

00:27:11 no no no did you therefore you didn't understand that it was a plastic no and does that tell us that you knew nothing of the fire performance of the

00:27:22 nothing of the fire performance of the polyethylene core of these acn panels for the building no

00:27:32 so i i think i can take it therefore that you never explored why it was that everybody involved on this project had not investigated the use of fr panels as opposed to pe

00:27:46 the use of fr panels as opposed to pe panels

00:27:48 panels and yes

00:27:53 now going back to this question about face fixed and cassette systems as we can see in figure one when you read this certificate did you

00:28:05 when you read this certificate did you have any thoughts about whether the certificate applied to panels regardless of whether they were in a face fixed system or a cassette system

00:28:16 or a cassette system um it was for both you say it was for both and we can read that on the page

00:28:23 the page but my question is did you have any thoughts at the time did it go through your mind well i wonder if this applies to both systems

00:28:33 it's not something that comes to mind right

00:28:36 right then if we go to section six on page five please you can see that here is some detail behavior in relation to fire and just to remind you from page one

00:28:47 and just to remind you from page one this is where you are supposed to go for the detail about behavior in relation to fire that's where you're directed let's look at paragraph 6.1 together it says a standard sample of the product

00:28:59 it says a standard sample of the product with a gray green euro grass 5000 coating when tested for reaction to fire achieved a classification of bs2 d-naught in accordance with en 13501 of 2002 a fire retardant sample

00:29:14 13501 of 2002 a fire retardant sample of the product with a gold-colored duragloss finish when tested for reaction to fire achieved the classification bs1 d-naught in accordance with en 13501 of 2002.

00:29:26 in accordance with en 13501 of 2002. um do you recall reading that i i can't recall

00:29:32 you can't recall you can't recall one way or the other or you have no recollection of of ever being i i i don't want to i don't want to mislead you in any way uh

00:29:42 uh and i i'd only be guessing as i say it's uh

00:29:46 uh right

00:29:51 did it ever occur to you the the finish of this document of this product based on this document that the finish of the product would have made a difference to its fire

00:30:06 classification

00:30:10 the phoenix as far as far as i was aware it was uh rainer bond was classo

00:30:18 classo and that was it that was my understanding at the time i i i think what you're telling me is that you looked at the bba

00:30:29 is that you looked at the bba certificate you looked at page one you saw it was class naught and you didn't look into it further

00:30:35 further most probably well so i i don't know if it works in your mouth yeah i i don't want to spend a lot of time on this document if you can't give me any useful effort i can't give you any for further uh comments on that one

00:30:51 further uh comments on that one um were you aware at the time that adb requires you to examine

00:31:02 requires you to examine and substantiate the fire resistance rating of constructions against the tests

00:31:12 it's not something that springs to mind uh well let me let me be a bit more specific

00:31:16 specific can you go please to clg224 and go to page 122.

00:31:39 um that's a class naught or rather that is the provision seems to have gone

00:31:50 that is the provision seems to have gone yes 13. this says the highest national product

00:31:55 product performance classification for lining materials is class naught this is achieved if a material or the surface of a composite product is either composed throughout of materials of limited combustibility or

00:32:07 limited combustibility or a class one material which has a fire propagation index i of not more than 12 and a sub-index little i

00:32:14 little i one of not more than six note class naught is not a classification identified in any british standard test were you familiar with that provision at the time

00:32:28 the time it would be something that i would have read when when we had the original uh talks about uh about the new uh approved document when it came out

00:32:40 uh approved document when it came out it's not something that would have come to mind

00:32:43 to mind uh was this statement uh in in original documents as well we we didn't have uh we didn't have uh on ongoing

00:32:54 uh on ongoing uh tutorials or or

00:33:02 to refresh of refresher courses on part b

00:33:06 b right just coming back to the certificate then and what you're supposed to do with it can i just take you then to page 119 of this version of a proof document b

00:33:18 version of a proof document b and i'd like you to look at appendix a performance of materials products and structures and let's look at note 2 in the right hand column just near the top top there can you see note 2 yes and it says any test evidence used

00:33:30 yes and it says any test evidence used to substantiate the fire resistance rating

00:33:32 rating of a construction should be carefully checked to ensure that it demonstrates compliance that is adequate and applicable to the intended use small differences in detail such as

00:33:43 small differences in detail such as fixing method joints dimensions and the introduction of insulation materials may significantly affect the rating my question is were you aware of that note in this guidance

00:33:55 of that note in this guidance at the time of your involvement on the grenfell tower project it's not something i considered at the time i don't believe you may not have considered it at the time were you aware of it at the time

00:34:13 [Applause]

00:34:22 could you repeat the question again sorry yes were you aware of this note at the time

00:34:27 the time right as i say it's

00:34:32 uh it's not something that would just come out of me at the time that that answers your question very well

00:34:41 well can i then turn to the topic of infill panels next and uh we saw the harley specification you were sent in early march 2015 6th of

00:34:52 you were sent in early march 2015 6th of march

00:34:53 march 2015. can we then go back to that document please that is

00:35:01 three har40395 five five

00:35:07 and i'd like to look on the left hand side of that document

00:35:13 document please at glazing p1 and p2 do you see that

00:35:17 that yes and looking at p1 to start with you can see that the insulation material specified there is styrofoam you see that yes when you got this document as you did on the 6th of march 2015 mr hoban

00:35:29 2015 mr hoban did you notice that the material being specified for use there was

00:35:35 was styrofoam i don't believe i did you didn't

00:35:38 didn't right why is that maybe i'm i must have not read the drawing properly at the time likewise with the king spam

00:35:52 right how can you account for not reading the drawing properly at the time when you were sent by mr crawford on the 6th of march

00:36:07 it just didn't focus when i was looking through the information was this the first time you'd actually seen written down in black and white the specification of the materials and products to be used

00:36:18 of the materials and products to be used in the cladding system i can't recall sorry was it not a particularly important document for you to focus on given that this was a complex project and a high-rise building

00:36:30 and a high-rise building with people living in it yes

00:36:35 and that's why i really asked the question have you any explanation to give us as to why you didn't focus on the materials that were being proposed for this structure

00:36:50 the the only answer uh could give is that it was my understanding that uh xover were also dealing with

00:37:01 uh xover were also dealing with with the project uh as i said i mentioned that i was dealing with with a number of uh considerable number of projects at the time and perhaps i didn't spend as much time

00:37:13 and perhaps i didn't spend as much time as i should of looking at the documents at that time but as a building control officer can i just understand this as a building control officer

00:37:24 control officer your job wasn't was to ensure that the statutory requirements of the building regulations were complied with yes and in the

00:37:36 were complied with yes and in the discharge of your responsibilities and functions in that role am i are you telling us that you thought it was appropriate to rely on the presence of a fire engineer in the project no as i said just didn't pick it up it

00:37:49 no as i said just didn't pick it up it does register okay sorry now do you agree that styrofoam is not a material of limited combustibility yes and that using styrofoam as

00:38:01 yes and that using styrofoam as insulation on grenfell tower would not comply with the guidance in um 12.7 of approved documentary you have to look at the bba certificate on on styrofoam

00:38:14 so right you don't know one way or the other i think and that's because you didn't check yes right

00:38:22 right now looking at the p2 panels we can see just a bit lower down we can see that they are to be comprised of an outer and an inner skin of aluminium

00:38:34 of aluminium 1.5 millimeters in each case and then the core was to be 25 millimeters of kingspan tp10 rigid insulation again do you agree that kingspan tp10 was not a material of limiting business

00:38:47 was not a material of limiting business again the same answer yes and

00:38:52 again you didn't check i think i don't believe i did no and therefore it would follow that you never queried the use of these materials

00:39:01 materials even though the specification was sent to you with either studio e or ryden or for what it was worth harley yes correct right do you accept now that you should have done

00:39:13 you should have done yes yes can we then turn to insulation now we've seen mr haben and you may have picked this up from watching the inquiry up to date

00:39:24 up to date but looking at other documents with witnesses that the drawings and the information submitted to you don't mention that celetex rs 5000 insulation was to be used in the cladding system

00:39:37 used in the cladding system now you have said though in your statement

00:39:40 statement uh your first and second statements both of them actually that you looked up details of the celetex insulation on the manufacturer's website

00:39:49 website let me just go specifically to where you say that can we go to rbk30504 please

00:40:00 at page 16 [Music]

00:40:04 [Music] and i want to look at paragraph 43 um you're referred back to paragraph 67 of your first statement i don't think we

00:40:15 of your first statement i don't think we need to go to that and you're asked please state and here's the question a what information you looked up on the insulation and your answer was i looked at the celotex website

00:40:27 was i looked at the celotex website to see the information they had in respect of the material i may have looked at other information shown on other sites but i cannot be certain

00:40:35 certain how did you become aware that celetex was to be used in this in the cladding system when i saw it on on site i i i

00:40:46 on site i i i may have been told before but i as i say certainly

00:40:49 certainly when it arrived on site i could see that it

00:40:52 it it it has a marking on it it had a marking on it did it on the full panel it has the the the the company logo and and the

00:41:04 the the company logo and and the material that's to be used right do you remember when you looked up the cellotex website to look and

00:41:12 and see was it immediately after you saw that celetex was to be used most probably but i can't absolutely be

00:41:23 most probably but i can't absolutely be absolutely certain right what was it that prompted you to look up celetex and actually go and look at the details of what was being used

00:41:37 i wanted to check to see see if it was suitable for use on a building of that height

00:41:42 height right

00:41:47 did you have any discussions with ryden or studio e or harley about that product before you looked up celetex on the website i couldn't say

00:42:00 celetex on the website i couldn't say did you ask them at all to provide you with any evidence that would satisfy you that celetex used in this cladding system was an appropriate system to be used

00:42:11 was an appropriate system to be used i remember asking for details of of of the work

00:42:16 the work as i say i mentioned about about about about the calculations that i i can't specifically remember

00:42:29 can i ask you why you didn't uh ask them for clear information in terms which would support their application

00:42:40 which would support their application for building control approval i was asking them for information and they said yes we'll get that to you

00:42:49 it was difficult getting information from them

00:42:53 from them i wish i'd had been more formal but i was trying to work with them

00:42:59 them well yes why did you never say to them look i need clear information and data so that you can prove to me that this insulation can be used on this building

00:43:11 insulation can be used on this building dealing with the consultants on on the previous project i had a good working relationship uh with them

00:43:20 with them and i i felt confident that they knew that they were knew what they were doing do you agree with me

00:43:31 with me i think you did yesterday that your role as a building control officer required you to investigate and rigorously test what you were being told regardless of the relationship

00:43:44 told regardless of the relationship yes when you looked at the celetex website to see the information they had in respect of the material as you say here at paragraph 43a on page 16 of your second statement

00:43:57 43a on page 16 of your second statement what product did you look up if you remember

00:43:59 remember i can't recall did you have the nbs specification in your hand or in your memory even when you

00:44:08 you when you decided to look up sex i'm sorry i i cannot recall

00:44:17 if all you had to go on was what you saw on site

00:44:21 on site how did you know what it was to look up well it would say the product i see so you you had a mental picture of what the product was did you well no we've noted the particular

00:44:33 well no we've noted the particular brand of product i see where would you have noted that in my notebook

00:44:46 now you told us yesterday that you looked up the labc certificate i think you don't mention

00:44:57 certificate i think you don't mention that in your statement you don't say i also looked at the labc certificate why is that when i was filling in this statement i did i

00:45:08 statement i did i it i just

00:45:11 it i just it's not something that came to mind at the time

00:45:16 the time as i say there's it's it's not in detail right and and and as i wish it was in more detail yeah to be fair to you i just wonder

00:45:27 yeah to be fair to you i just wonder whether when you went to the celetex website you saw the labc certificate or did you go to a separate labc website to look for the celetex entry i

00:45:38 i i cannot give you a firm answer on that

00:45:44 right you say in the statement here that i looked at the celetex website uh let's see if we can prompt a

00:45:55 uh let's see if we can prompt a recollection of what document was on it and we'll start with the labc certificate because that's what you told us

00:46:01 us yesterday and just for our purposes that's day 45 page 39 lines 14 to 15. this is cel uh

00:46:13 this is cel uh six zeros 10 first of all

00:46:18 and and this is the labc i'll just wait for it to come up

00:46:27 cel six zeros ten

00:46:42 cel six zeros ten this is the labc registered system registration certificate and the date you can see from the bottom left hand corner is the 21st of august 2014

00:46:51 2014 and the registered detail is rs 5000 pir insulation born board rain screen application and there's a little less asterisk next

00:47:02 and there's a little less asterisk next to it

00:47:03 to it and if you look down the page the asterisk says with limitation is that a document you saw when you went onto the celetex website i i can't i can't say i i

00:47:15 i can't i can't say i i i sh i showed you uh me another document uh that i had in my possession

00:47:26 uh that i had in my possession i don't know whether it's been passed to you

00:47:30 uh well

00:47:36 i just want to see what in the record we have that triggers a recollection

00:47:42 and we'll come back to that in in due course does this trigger a recollection it doesn't it doesn't uh well let's try a different document can we then go to

00:47:55 cel709

00:48:04 this is the uh labc register details drawing and document list for this product rs 5000 and you can see that there are some

00:48:15 and you can see that there are some supporting documentation reference numbers there in the third box down and then the fourth box down limitations of use

00:48:22 of use so this is a reference to the limitations that we saw in the registration document for use in range screen wall construction including above 18 meters height

00:48:30 height the required thickness of board for a particular construction must be established with the use of the celitex online calculator did you see that at the time do you think i i can't

00:48:42 think i i can't say

00:48:45 and then you can see the advice notes celetex rs 5000 can be used with a variety of cladding systems including masonry or rain screen systems and can be fixed back to a structural steel frame with a sheathing board or direct back to masonry celatex 5000

00:48:58 direct back to masonry celatex 5000 rs5000 has successfully tested to bs 8414 2005

00:49:03 8414 2005 meets the criteria set out in br135 and therefore is acceptable for use in buildings with stories above 18 meters in height

00:49:11 in height subject to the board being fixed to a non-combustible substrate alternative clients to adb this the product has been tested and achieves a class naught spread of flame

00:49:21 flame is i know you say you don't remember seeing this document but do you remember seeing a document that has that statement or the gist of that statement in it yes that's

00:49:33 statement in it yes that's as far as i can right well uh

00:49:48 sorry it's so difficult to remember as i said

00:49:51 said it's a moment in time that was dealing with

00:49:58 with 120 jobs uh to say looking at a particular page of something on a particular day to a another document on a particular day

00:50:09 particular day it it it's it's difficult to to remember something six years back back

00:50:20 and that's the that's the only answer i can give did you have a system of recording

00:50:27 recording formally so that everyone in the department could see on this project what materials were being used we didn't have a system in in the office did you note in a in your own records

00:50:40 did you note in a in your own records what materials were being used and what i believe yes i believe so you do just just looking at this statement and i

00:50:49 i i appreciate that you don't remember seeing this document did you realize that um the only basis on which rs 5000 could be used on buildings

00:50:59 buildings taller than 18 meters was because it had passed an 8414 test as the alternative route to compliance with adb and not because it was a material of limited combustibility

00:51:10 limited combustibility and well i know it was a material limited combustibility my understanding was it was suitable for use in buildings over over 18 meters

00:51:24 in buildings over over 18 meters provided it was attached to [Music]

00:51:28 [Music] but it's a masonry and concrete similar material

00:51:33 material just before we leave this document i just want to ask you whether you had any understanding of this the statement or a statement which says the product has been tested and achieved a class naught spread of flame

00:51:45 a class naught spread of flame what would be the relevance of the fact that the insulation had achieved a class naught surface spread of flame

00:52:06 could you repeat the question please sorry yes and as i say i appreciate you didn't read this document at the time but what would be the relevance of a manufacturer or a certificate like this saying that an

00:52:17 this saying that an insulation product had been tested and achieved a class naught surface spreader flame classification

00:52:31 um

00:52:34 if if that was a standard you needed to achieve

00:52:38 achieve what for an insulation product and no if they if

00:52:44 if they were uh using it right

00:52:50 if that's the only reason that they they wanted to use it sorry what was the reason if they wanted to use that insulation material as a as a finish on the wall

00:53:01 a finish on the wall for example had you ever come across insulation material like this being used as a finish on a wall no no so have you any explanation to give us as to why a

00:53:12 explanation to give us as to why a manufacturer would be or a certifier like labc would be saying that an insulation product had a surface um

00:53:21 they did many tests when they were most probably testing the material right let's try a different document then

00:53:28 then um which is a celetex document

00:53:34 when you went on the celetex website to have you any recollection of what even visually the documents look like what colors they had i i can't recall well let's see how far

00:53:45 i i can't recall well let's see how far we get

00:53:45 we get can you please be shown cel five zeros four one two

00:53:59 now just visually looking at this it's quite a striking looking document because of the colors that cell effects have elected to use does this document just on the face of it on the look of the thing trigger recollection it doesn't it

00:54:11 trigger recollection it doesn't it doesn't right well again i'm going to have to see how far we go with this um

00:54:20 it says celotex at the very top celatex rs 5000 premium rain screen cladding board suitable for buildings above 18 meters in height do you remember seeing a document on the celotex website that said that

00:54:35 i'd only be guessing as i say i would you know look up products from time to time on

00:54:42 time on on all sorts of projects right

00:54:53 projects right uh

00:54:58 you see you say in your statement that you looked at the celetex website to see the information that they had in respect of the material i mean just going back to that do you remember when you came away from that exercise

00:55:09 when you came away from that exercise being satisfied that the setup that rs 5000 which was the product you were looking up was suitable for use on a building above 18 meters yes yes so you must have seen something on

00:55:20 yes so you must have seen something on the website that told you that uh yes yes right um this is uh the um

00:55:31 is uh the um the data sheet that celetex put out in respect of rs 5000 when it was launched in the august of 2014

00:55:39 2014 and uh i'm going to proceed on the basis that this was something that you would have seen

00:55:44 have seen um do you remember whether you would have read

00:55:48 have read what you looked up fully and carefully

00:55:55 i can't say right sorry well let's see how we go again the first paragraph in the last three lines

00:56:06 three lines says that rs 5000 is the first pir insulation board to meet the performance criteria

00:56:11 criteria in br135 for insulated rain screen clouding systems and is and therefore is acceptable for use in buildings above 18 meters in height just pausing there was that an

00:56:23 just pausing there was that an impression was that statement a statement of something which formed an impression in your mind when you looked at the celetex website um maybe as i say okay

00:56:34 um maybe as i say okay as i say i would would go to uh other sources as well

00:56:43 if we go down to the bullet points the five bullet points in the middle of the page you can see that the third one there

00:56:49 there states in terms has class naught fire performance throughout the entire product in accordance with bs476 now again i appreciate that you may not have read this document

00:57:03 that you may not have read this document or at least you can't remember whether you did or not what did that statement mean or what would it have meant to you had you read it

00:57:11 it had been tested to bs-476 part six and part seven but what does class naught fire performance throughout the entire product mean

00:57:25 um i i would wouldn't know how how that that would be tested sorry uh obviously it's a test that's done

00:57:35 done i'd just be looking at the standard i don't have a detailed knowledge of of

00:57:44 well i i understand what the tests are uh

00:57:48 uh how how the test is done sort of in layman's terms i don't have a uh as it were a detailed knowledge of

00:58:06 um for example fire engineering would it have occurred to you that the concept of a product having a class

00:58:17 a product having a class naught fire performance throughout uh was nonsense it's not something that would have come

00:58:28 come out to me at the time right

00:58:34 did it strike you at the time that the only reason why this product could be used on a building taller than 18 meters was because it had as it was said

00:58:47 was because it had as it was said passed an 8414 test in accordance with the performance criteria under br135

00:59:05 the performance criteria under br135 i could i i couldn't i couldn't say say as i say with a document that i i

00:59:16 document that i i i i have in my possession so that it's suitable for use on buildings over over 18 meters provided it's it's

00:59:28 over 18 meters provided it's it's [Music]

00:59:29 [Music] fixed to masonry or non-combustible backing

00:59:33 backing did you know at the time what a bs 8414 test was

00:59:38 test was no you didn't no right can we just look on then to page

00:59:48 three of this document

00:59:56 under certification and i'll just take you through it it says celetex rs 5000 and again i should just point out in fairness to you this is underneath a big

01:00:07 fairness to you this is underneath a big pink banner that says suitable for buildings above 18 meters in height so to be fair to you that's there as well but it goes on to say under certification

01:00:18 certification celetex rs 5000 is a premium performance solution

01:00:21 solution and is the first pir board to successfully meet the performance criteria set out in br135 for rain screen clouding systems and then it gives you the elements of the system tested and

01:00:32 the elements of the system tested and you can see that there and it includes 12 millimeter fiber cement panels and then other things as well including a 12 millimeter non-combustible sheathing board

01:00:43 sheathing board and plasterboard and then underneath that it says this in bold the fire performance and classification report issued only relates to the components detailed above

01:00:55 detailed above any changes to the components listed will need to be considered by the building designer

01:01:02 were you aware of that qualification in this data sheet or in any materials that you saw when you went on to the celetex website

01:01:11 website that i can't recall looking at it now it's clear isn't it that the only basis on which the rs 5000 could ever be used in a building taller than 18 meters

01:01:22 than 18 meters as if it was used in exactly the same rain screen clouding system as that which had it is said past the 8414 test do you agree with that

01:01:31 that i too but it's not something you spotted at the time no if you if you look at the uh the labc uh documents

01:01:43 uh documents uh that i i have it doesn't it doesn't it doesn't clearly state that right so just to summarize where we've got to i think by early march you know that

01:01:54 i think by early march you know that there are

01:01:55 there are acm panels going on the building yeah [Music]

01:01:59 [Music] and at some stage you discover that there's rs 5000 going on the building you look up rs 5000 on the celotex website

01:02:07 website but you don't get any further than seeing that it's uh suitable for buildings above 18 meters yes and you don't examine why precisely that was so no correct right

01:02:20 no correct right would you accept that that was a serious failing

01:02:23 failing on your part

01:02:35 on your part at the time i felt that was at the time i thought that was except okay uh i see now that's not very well can i take you then

01:02:49 very well can i take you then to a document um a little bit earlier in time at rbk3059350

01:03:00 this is an email

01:03:07 from paul hanson to john allen on the 31st of december 2013 which as we saw yesterday is exactly the same day that you first get involved in the project or at least tell studio e that you're now involved

01:03:19 tell studio e that you're now involved in the project now you're not copied in on this so to be fair to you i'm not suggesting that you saw this email at the time but i just want to ask you about about it and its contents you can see

01:03:31 about it and its contents you can see that

01:03:31 that um paul hanson sends john allen a document

01:03:35 document uh and the attachment is bsi don't be a flaming liability and it says hi john refired doors claims i've attached an old bsi document which goes through some of the misleading

01:03:46 goes through some of the misleading claims

01:03:47 claims manufacturers sometimes make although it is pre-en standards it is still relevant please circulate if you feel it is useful to surveyors now let me just show you the document

01:04:03 rbk3059351 please

01:04:11 um it's called don't be a flaming liability

01:04:16 liability and there's a graphic attached to it memo to manufacturers does your product literature unwittingly imply that your product is safe as if exposed to fire now just looking at that first page do

01:04:28 now just looking at that first page do you remember whether mr allen did circulate that to surveyors including you i i couldn't say you couldn't say do you remember ever seeing this document i couldn't say well we might be able to

01:04:41 i couldn't say well we might be able to say if we look on a little bit in it um when you say you couldn't say do you mean you don't recall ever seeing it before or you might have seen it before but can't remember i i as i say i i i don't want to mislead you

01:04:54 as i say i i i don't want to mislead you uh

01:04:55 uh it it's not something that that comes to mind

01:04:58 mind okay if we let's just see how far we go with it then if we look at page two and i should just tell you this this document um

01:05:11 document um it is old we think it's dated back to the late 1980s and it was published by the

01:05:16 the bsi so it's from the british standards um groups

01:05:22 um groups um and on page two if you look at the column on the right hand side under the heading interlocking cladding this is under the wider heavy heading examples of misleading copy

01:05:35 heading examples of misleading copy cladding it's fireproof grade naught you see that and then it goes on to explain what national class naught means you see that yes and were you aware at

01:05:47 you see that yes and were you aware at the time

01:05:47 the time of a confusion in the construction industry

01:05:52 industry about what national class north actually meant

01:05:55 meant it's not something that

01:05:58 i may have been as i say it's uh were you aware at the time that uh manufacturers were putting out

01:06:09 manufacturers were putting out misleading statements in their manufacturing literature about class naught and its effects

01:06:22 do you remember yourself having at the back of your own mind a lingering doubt about whether you really understood national class north

01:06:48 so

01:06:57 it's it's something that may have may have come up but as i say uh from memory now it's not to say it's it's not something that stands out it

01:07:08 it's not something that stands out it may have at the time

01:07:11 do you remember there being any discussion in the office with your colleagues or with paul hansen or john allen in particular about class naught whether it was clear

01:07:22 about class naught whether it was clear or whether it was confusing no i can recall do you remember any discussion in the office or in the wider industry about

01:07:32 about whether manufacturers were putting out misleading copy in relation to class naught that needed to be scrutinized carefully by those buying their products

01:07:44 those buying their products again it's not it's not something i can recall at the time or can recall now right do you know what prompted

01:07:51 prompted uh paul hansen to send john allen this document

01:07:55 document for circulation among no building control officers such as you no no

01:08:09 no i think you told us yesterday that grenfell tower was the first high-rise over-cladding project you'd ever been a building control officer in respect of yes yeah

01:08:19 was was this the first time you'd ever thought about class naught no

01:08:27 what other projects or contexts had led you

01:08:30 you to examine class naught as a standard which had to be complied with in order to be able to pass compliance onto the building regulations generally extensions

01:08:41 generally extensions and new buildings just generally where they were doing external external works

01:08:52 external external works you know roof works saying uh new buildings

01:08:56 buildings right so

01:09:00 right so you were familiar with class naught is this right even though not in the context of buildings in in excess of 18 meters so you were still i think new to the idea of class naught in the context of a

01:09:11 of class naught in the context of a building over 18 meters yes so this was the first time you'd ever had to think about uh section 12.6

01:09:22 uh section 12.6 and diagram 40 of approved document b uh is that right no i also say uh when when when uh when

01:09:34 when when when uh when dear dealing with um let's say either new buildings

01:09:42 as regards uh space distances what materials they were allowed to to use on

01:09:50 use on on the surfaces in relation to boundaries

01:09:57 right is that section 9.20 of the of adb can i have a look well it doesn't trigger a recollection we don't need to go to it um

01:10:08 don't need to go to it um can we then um go please to inq three zeros one four zero eight five

01:10:27 now this is a blog post dated the 15th of march 2017. just um help me how do you resigned or resigned was your word actually from rbkc's building control

01:10:38 rbkc's building control department by this point uh yes i wasn't i wasn't actually uh i had i had quite a bit of holiday left

01:10:49 i had i had quite a bit of holiday left so i actually all that i resigned uh the week before christmas

01:10:54 christmas and then uh and then i i worked up until sometime in february that i came in at weekends right up until when i finished that on the

01:11:07 up until when i finished that on the on the end of march that year right and the blog post is one posted on the labc's website on that date and its title is what's the difference between fireproof and fire resistance

01:11:18 fireproof and fire resistance far resistant now you've said that the labc

01:11:22 labc was your principal reference body for information about performance standards and you said that yesterday day 45 at page 66 at line 10. um do you remember whether you looked at

01:11:34 um do you remember whether you looked at this blog post no i haven't seen that right now did you yourself ever have calls to ask yourself what is the difference between fireproof and fire resistant uh yes sometimes uh

01:11:47 uh yes sometimes uh sometimes builders or

01:11:53 sometimes people would say that something was fire retardant as opposed to fire resisting yes which is a difference uh as i say you would get people that

01:12:04 uh as i say you would get people that would say a particular product was was uh uh was fire resisting in fact it was just fire retardant so it's not actually fire resisting

01:12:16 actually fire resisting if we look at the first paragraph here you can see that there's a reference here to the don't be a flaming liability leaflet published by the bsi

01:12:26 and it goes on to say it was aimed at encouraging manufacturers to use correct terminology when describing their products to avoid misleading prospective purchasers terminology plays an important role in

01:12:37 terminology plays an important role in our industry 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

01:12:48 and could result in fatal consequences i know you'd say you didn't see this blog post at the time and indeed it post dates the completion certificate uh and your role in the project by some

01:12:59 uh and your role in the project by some months

01:13:00 months my question is whether the issue here about the misuse of common phrases was one which you were alive to during your

01:13:09 your role as building control officer on the grenfell tower project um sometimes as i say i may mention that [Music]

01:13:19 [Music] people would use a for example with doors they would use a particular material that was fire retardant

01:13:30 material that was fire retardant and say that it was a fire resisting door

01:13:35 and we we would correct them now if you go to the top of page two you can see that it says the misuse of terminology can be split into two

01:13:46 terminology can be split into two categories one using terms that have no real meaning and two using the correct terminology in the wrong context in the first case there are terms commonly used which have no defined performance based upon tests for example

01:13:58 performance based upon tests for example fire retardant fireproof fr in the second case a product may have a genuine fire related test result but the context in which it is applied isn't right occasionally the tests relating to fire

01:14:09 occasionally the tests relating to fire resistance and those relating to surface spread of flame are confused but they relate to different properties and aren't interchangeable and again i just just looking at that was that issue

01:14:21 was that issue and the misuse that's described there something you were familiar with in your experience as a building control officer at the time of your involvement on the grenfell tower project as i say the re retardant

01:14:32 project as i say the re retardant and fire resisting uh

01:14:37 certainly that that was something that came up quite quite often right what about in relation to class naught

01:14:47 i can't recall sorry about as i say it was

01:14:50 was let's just say fire retardant and fire resisting was something that come up on a regular basis yes

01:14:57 basis yes when uh in dealing with projects

01:15:02 you said earlier on in your evidence just now on class naught that you were familiar with it in its context of space separation is that is that have i got that right yes and

01:15:15 have i got that right yes and in in that in its use because it and obviously space separation obviously height as well yeah and that's just to be clear section

01:15:26 yeah and that's just to be clear section 13 i think of the of adb yes yes so not then in the context of use in an external wall construction on a building taller than 18 meters

01:15:39 on a building taller than 18 meters so sorry could you so your your experience of class naught and your knowledge of class naught would would be in the context of space separation under section 13 of adb but not in the context of an

01:15:52 of adb but not in the context of an external wall construction uh under section 12.6 and diagram 40 in respect of buildings taller than 18 meters

01:16:02 meters that was your experience was it sorry it caught

01:16:06 caught it calls up uh clark class so in that document

01:16:10 document in that diagram which diagram uh sorry diet is it diagram 14 diagram 40. yes

01:16:17 40. yes but given that this was your first high rise as we've established you've never come

01:16:20 come across into class naught in that context only in the context of space separation um as regards buildings over 18 meters that was the

01:16:31 buildings over 18 meters that was the first time yes thank you sorry

01:16:43 and then if we go

01:16:50 to the heading fr at the foot of page two of this blog post

01:16:56 um i i just want to show you the second of those paragraphs it says although the manufacturer specifier and installer each have a responsibility to ensure the

01:17:08 each have a responsibility to ensure the correct product is used for the correct application it commonly falls to the building control surveyor to spot that the wrong product is being used for the wrong application and that's right isn't it that was

01:17:19 right isn't it that was your job i i mentioned about about the fire people using a fire retardant material and and saying well we've got a

01:17:30 well we've got a a board here that's fire retardant therefore it's we can make uh use it as a fire resisting material that's yes and then it goes on to say

01:17:45 that's yes and then it goes on to say uh in the second sentence of the last paragraph

01:17:49 paragraph which i think in fairness i should read in its entirety having said this it must also be recognized that there are many manufacturers who are responsible and do provide valuable knowledge to the industry

01:17:58 industry the key to considering any claim of product performance is to match the stated claim with the test standard quoted

01:18:04 quoted if the test standard is for something different to that claim then the product is not suitable for the intended application now as a principal were you aware of of that at the time of your involvement

01:18:15 of that at the time of your involvement on the grenfell tower project

01:18:34 i think you need to look at the top of sorry

01:18:38 sorry yep we've lost the last we've lost oh yes i've just been told i think we've lost the

01:18:41 lost the bottom part of page two i think you need to look at the top of page three as well

01:18:48 and the top of page three says if the test standard is for something different to that claim then the product is not suitable

01:18:53 suitable for that intended for the intended application yeah yes

01:19:01 my question again as a principal were you aware of that at the time of your involvement on the grenfell tower project

01:19:08 project yes you were yeah

01:19:13 and you didn't i think spot though that the class naught statement

01:19:20 statement was in opposite in respect of the insulation and its proposed use in this rain screen cladding system well as i say

01:19:31 well as i say uh insulate class so is for surface spread of flame yeah and then moving on if a term is used such as fr fire retardant or fire proof that are

01:19:42 fire retardant or fire proof that are not defined by a test be very suspicious

01:19:47 and again that's a principle is it that you were alive to at the time of your involvement on the project

01:19:55 yes yes yes but again i didn't think you were very suspicious i know in this particular case now as i say

01:20:02 say with certain products as i say i mentioned

01:20:06 mentioned uh i bought up types of boarding that we would come across from uh from time to time uh that people would would propose to be used as as fire

01:20:20 would propose to be used as as fire resistant construction uh which was fire retardant and not fire resisting yes my question was actually more related to the use of class naught and the 8414

01:20:32 the use of class naught and the 8414 test references you were not i think acting with the relevant degree of requisite degree of suspicion when when looking at whether celetex was suitable for use of 18 meters

01:20:43 for use of 18 meters do you accept that looking at this principle which you've accepted

01:20:51 it's not something that stood out at the time looking at the last paragraph here it says so almost 30 years on

01:21:00 years on do you see the third paragraph on the top of page three so almost 30 years on the sentiment of the bsi leaflet remains just as relevant don't be a flaming liability it

01:21:11 don't be a flaming liability it frequently falls to the last link in the chain

01:21:14 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

01:21:24 team and again were you aware at the time of your involvement in the grenfell tower project that you were the last link in the chain to spot a problem or spot the inappropriateness

01:21:36 a problem or spot the inappropriateness of the use of any particular product on this building yes i would say

01:21:44 and you couldn't assume that the design team had thoroughly checked whether the materials used in the cladding system so the celetex the acm were in fact suitable for use in the grenfell tower

01:21:55 suitable for use in the grenfell tower cladding rain screen system

01:22:02 sorry could you yes sorry i i will uh maybe

01:22:05 maybe you couldn't break you couldn't simply proceed let me try it you didn't have a break in just yeah

01:22:12 you couldn't simply proceed on the assumption that someone else had done the job the designing team had done that correct

01:22:17 correct thank you mr chairman i think that that probably would be an appropriate move for a break not not least given the time thank you um mr hoban

01:22:26 hoban we shall have a break now all right thank you and uh we'll come back at 20 to 12 right thank you and

01:22:33 and again don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out of the room thank you

01:22:48 20 to 12 please thank you

01:39:10 all right ms tobin do yes do sit down please and make yourself comfortable again

01:39:21 good all right to carry on yes thank you thank you yes mr million thank you mr chairman um mr hoban you've referred to conversations that took place on site about the compliance of the cladding

01:39:33 about the compliance of the cladding system and your evidence can i go to your second statement please at page 10.

01:39:42 and i'd like to look with you please paragraph 34 and the question that's being asked here is in paragraph 57 of your witness statement that's your first witness

01:39:53 statement that's your first witness statement

01:39:54 statement you state on the information that i had at the time it was my understanding that it

01:39:58 it the exterior of the building has refurbished was compliant and i just want to examine your answers a little bit more closely than we have so far and point a paragraph a

01:40:10 point a paragraph a the question is what submissions drawings documents led you to believe that the proposed design was compliant

01:40:18 and you say all of the material submitted to me at the relevant time and discussions on the topic led me to form this view and no concerns were raised by any of the fire experts stroke consultants and

01:40:29 the fire experts stroke consultants and no application was made to indicate that they were not using material of class naught standard as per para 6 12.6 of section b4 of approved document b and including diagram 40. and just to be

01:40:41 and including diagram 40. and just to be clear the applicant was who uh the applicant would be who who was stated on the on the

01:40:53 the applicant would be aren't mentioned on the form yes but in your answer here sorry they say no application was made who was the application who was the applicant in that answer

01:41:06 applicant in that answer who are you intending to identify oh sorry uh

01:41:10 sorry uh but that would have would have come from the architect

01:41:27 with the building regulations they would have set out we're not we're not following the guidance in in and such and such and here's our our submission

01:41:39 submission were you relying on the architect then to tell you if they were proposing something that wasn't compliant with the building regulations well i was doing my checks

01:41:51 well i was doing my checks but i would expect them to do their checks as well

01:41:58 yes but the answer you're giving to the question which is what led you to believe that the proposed design was compliant

01:42:04 compliant was that that no application was made to indicate

01:42:08 indicate that the materials were not of class my question is were you relying on the architect as the applicant to tell you if they were proposing something that was not compliant no no no right

01:42:25 and when you say not using material of class naught standard as per paragraph 12.6 what do you mean there what material are you referring to uh the ace

01:42:35 the ace or the actual cladding panels themselves right

01:42:40 right so does this mean that your approach was that unless the applicant alerted you to their proposed use in this case of acm panels um above 80 meters that were not class

01:42:53 um above 80 meters that were not class norm

01:42:53 norm you would assume that it was class naught no

01:42:57 naught no so can you just help us what you do mean i would do my checks and they would do their checks but we get the sense from this paragraph that you are relying on the result of

01:43:08 that you are relying on the result of their checks informing your own views about compliance is that right no that's not the case right can we just look i'm still on the same point page 16

01:43:19 point page 16 and i'd like to look at paragraph 42g with you

01:43:26 and you say there

01:43:33 and this is in relation to uh discussions with with harley it had no relevance to the role i was performing and then you say however that information coupled with the fact that i

01:43:44 information coupled with the fact that i was not aware of any concerns raised by the fire expert stroke consultants and no application had been made to not use class naught material reinforced my view that the cladding proposed at that time was compliant

01:43:55 proposed at that time was compliant and again are you saying there that because no one had said to you we're not using class naught material you thought it was class nord no no i did two checks sorry right as i say it's

01:44:06 say it's misleading enough um can we go back to paragraph 34 then on page 10 and look at paragraphs b and c or points b and c on that page b

01:44:20 b and c or points b and c on that page b the question is what was the method of compliance which was being adopted in respect of the b4 requirement and the answer you give there is from the meetings i attended it was my understanding that the method

01:44:32 it was my understanding that the method of compliance that was being adopted in respect of b4 was that shown in approved document b and then in c the question is did you ever inquire as to the method of

01:44:43 ever inquire as to the method of compliance for the b4 requirement and your very short answer is yes i did i don't think you say anything more than that taking b and c together there mr hoban you say

01:44:55 and c together there mr hoban you say you inquired about the method of compliance with the building regulations you understood from meetings that the method of compliance with requirement b4 was following adb guidance

01:45:07 was following adb guidance now when did those meetings take place do you remember well i mentioned about uh

01:45:15 one that stands out is that first meeting real where uh paul hansen and myself attended site and there was there was numerous uh consultants there

01:45:26 there was numerous uh consultants there uh and i believe uh i don't know who said like the question was asked

01:45:33 was asked what method or we went through the various methods and this and it was my understanding from

01:45:40 from from that they were using adb and if they weren't using that that they would

01:45:48 would come up with another solution but subsequent from that i got i i got information from time to time

01:45:59 i got information from time to time and through through site visits and right do you have a specific recollection of discussing the method of compliance the route to compliance

01:46:10 compliance with approved document b and no it was my understanding that that all my

01:46:17 my my understanding that they were going to use

01:46:20 use uh adb now when you say use adb we looked at this yesterday morning

01:46:26 morning quite early on in your evidence and i think you explained that that meant using materials of limited combustibility so far as concern the insulation have i got that right yes

01:46:37 got that right yes but i was aware that they were using uh to say uh

01:46:46 celetex what what i should have or i should have done is ask ask for a further submission who told you that the

01:46:59 further submission who told you that the method of compliance would be following adb as you put it as i say it was a

01:47:05 was a a general meeting at that uh at that first meeting or that was my understanding how did you sorry i'm so sorry i cut

01:47:17 how did you sorry i'm so sorry i cut across you there yeah that was your understand what when you say adb as you said yesterday and again just now that meant limited combustibility did anybody at that meeting

01:47:29 that meeting say we are going to be using an insulation of limited combustibility i i i don't believe they did so what gave you to understand that that

01:47:40 so what gave you to understand that that was the but i didn't have i didn't have any information i gave the four methods uh or i believe i discussed the four methods with them and yeah and they said yeah we'll be

01:47:51 and yeah and they said yeah we'll be doing that

01:47:55 right i think in your police statement you you say that you actually went through at some stage yeah or the four methods at that meeting i believe

01:48:06 believe that's why i that's why i asked for uh if there were any minutes of that particular meeting right

01:48:17 so let's just to be trying to be clear about your recollection is your recollection that that took place a meeting at which the four routes to compliance with approved document b were discussed

01:48:27 discussed yes do you remember where that meeting was it was on site on site do you remember whether that was early in your revolt early on in your involvement yeah was that as i say as far as um

01:48:40 as i say as far as um as i can recall it was at that and that we were discussing the the smoke venting uh system it was and so there was a number of consultants there

01:48:52 number of consultants there uh uh and the contractor and i believe that the client was there or not the client the uh the uh somebody from uh tmo

01:49:04 uh somebody from uh tmo but i can't be absolutely certain and we went through that at a stage

01:49:13 are you sure it was four routes to compliance or three the reason i ask is because the no as i say there are as far as there's adb uh

01:49:24 as far as there's adb uh desktop study fire engineering solution or br135

01:49:30 or br135 or a limited combustibility

01:49:34 well that's a proof document right

01:49:41 in his oral evidence to the inquiry neil crawford referred to some workshops that he said would take place after design team meetings and he said that that would um those would involve building control on

01:49:53 those would involve building control on occasions

01:49:54 occasions and just for our references reference purposes that's day 11 of the transcript pages 14 to 15. my question for you mr hogan is do you remember attending

01:50:05 remember attending any workshops with neil crawford as regards this project yes yes indeed as regardless see

01:50:16 yes indeed as regardless see uh it's it's hard to just distinguish between one and the other because they're meetings that i'm dealing with that particular architect at that time

01:50:27 at that time as i say

01:50:31 so from memory i can't distinguish the the academy and

01:50:42 the the academy and grainfell right his evidence was that there was a workshop which took place before christmas 2014 uh and then one in the middle of february and late march

01:50:55 february and late march early april 2015. does that trigger a recollection with you i i can't record and his evidence uh is to be found at day 11

01:51:06 uh is to be found at day 11 page 15 just for our purposes so we can look back at it mr lawrence also gave evidence simon lawrence of ryden and he said that he could remember building control coming to sight and sitting around a table to discuss plans

01:51:18 sitting around a table to discuss plans designs etc and again for our reference purposes that's day 25 page 166 line 16. do you agree with that that he came to site and sat around the table and discussed plans designed

01:51:29 discussed plans designed i can't i can't recall right and he also said that the meetings were arranged with building control as a way of resolving issues with the design of the cladding package

01:51:40 design of the cladding package the day 25 page 169 line 7. do you remember that as i say it would have uh we could find out whether that definitely happened by

01:51:52 out whether that definitely happened by by by looking at i i would have to sign in

01:51:55 in to the site we had a visitors book or they would have a visitor's book but i as i say it's not something that

01:52:06 but i as i say it's not something that stands out all right well we'll come to look at each of the site meetings that you had

01:52:10 you had later today in your evidence mr hogan and if anything stands out at that stage on this question the discussion of the cladding um we can pick it up at that stage in general do you remember discussing

01:52:21 in general do you remember discussing the materials to be used in the cladding system

01:52:24 system at meetings on site as i say with uh uh ben bailey the initial meeting

01:52:38 and i may have looked uh as i say looked at drawings on site i do recall seeing uh an elevation and plan drawing stuck

01:52:50 uh an elevation and plan drawing stuck on the wall showing the side rise uh cavity barriers right um just to be clear you say with ben bailey the initial meeting we know from the record we looked at yesterday

01:53:01 from the record we looked at yesterday that your first site visit was in late august 2014. ben bailey didn't become project manager until early february 2015. so when you say initial meeting do you

01:53:13 so when you say initial meeting do you what do you mean by that in in the context of meeting ben bailey of harley well he was in when they came on site uh or when they uh the

01:53:25 uh or when they uh the contractors came on site i believe it was ryden that arranged for for me to meet with him to just discuss

01:53:38 what they were doing now if we go to point d

01:53:42 point d on page 10 which is should be still on the screen i think it's over at that's at the bottom it's cut off but i think we need to go right to the bottom of page

01:53:51 of page 10. we can see the question did you ever request details of the materials which were proposed to be used as part of the exterior claddic recladding if so when and to whom did you make that request

01:54:02 request and if you go to page 11 we can see the answer

01:54:05 answer that you looked at we looked at uh earlier on this morning i'll just repeat it because i want to ask some detailed questions about what you say

01:54:13 you say you say the details were submitted in the initial submission i also discussed the material with the harley's engineer who had informed me that the cladding system had been fitted to many buildings throughout england and wales to buildings of a similar height and

01:54:25 buildings of a similar height and construction and just for reference purposes you say the same thing at paragraph 66 of your first

01:54:32 first statement we don't need to go back to that

01:54:35 that can you remember who the harley engineer was

01:54:41 he was introduced to me as the harley engineer

01:54:46 engineer who was the person i met was uh so i believe i describe him in in in my my police statement as a

01:54:58 in in my my police statement as a young person in mid uh mid twenties to late 20s right would that be ben bailey uh i i believe so but i can't be certain what

01:55:11 believe so but i can't be certain what what led you to think that he was an engineer

01:55:13 engineer that's what how he was introduced to me who introduced you um

01:55:20 that would have been the contract i believe simon lawrence right and not simon lawrence simon o'connor simon o'connor he was he was the project manager at that time at that time

01:55:31 at that time did he use the word engineer that's the word i i

01:55:34 word i i i as i said [Music]

01:55:37 [Music] that was my understanding of of his role when you say i also discussed the material with the harley's engineer was that on one occasion or on

01:55:48 that on one occasion or on on a number of occasions i know i definitely did then it it may have come up in conversations at other times what materials in particular do you remember discussing

01:55:59 particular do you remember discussing with

01:56:03 i asked i'm sorry excuse me i asked if this

01:56:07 this this system had been used before on on buildings of of similar heights high-rise buildings and i was told that the system had been

01:56:18 and i was told that the system had been used elsewhere you say i asked if the system had been used before what system were you

01:56:28 you asking about the cladding system yeah would were you asking about acm with celetex or were you asking about us right well that that that's the understanding i i have of

01:56:42 that's the understanding i i have of the system right

01:56:49 can we go to your first statement please the page

01:56:54 seven

01:57:00 uh and under the question of paragraph 64

01:57:03 64 what advice you're asked what advice or information was available and what assessments were made about the components that comprise the exterior of the building their fire safety fire resistance and compliance with safety standards

01:57:14 compliance with safety standards including information or advice from manufacturers of relevant components and at 65 you say i was provided with initial drawings and details and discuss the works with the architect and his specialist consultant

01:57:26 and his specialist consultant dealing with fire matters i also had a brief discussion with the engineer from the contractors installing the cladding system to the exterior of the building at the commencement of the works to the exterior just uh

01:57:38 exterior just uh focusing on that we'll come to paragraph 66 in a moment um was that um brief discussion that you refer to and indeed the discussion with the architect was that in

01:57:49 the architect was that in or around september 2014 i couldn't say sorry right

01:57:59 when you say that i had a brief discussion with the engineer from the contractors again who was that that was the person that was referring to in in what what i said previously right

01:58:10 in in what what i said previously right so the young person yeah right and then if you look at paragraph

01:58:16 paragraph 66 of your first witness statement you say that the you say this during that discussion i recall that i was advised by the engineer the tests had been carried out to the metal framework supporting the cladding

01:58:29 metal framework supporting the cladding i also recalled that i was advised that the system had been fitted to many buildings throughout england and wales to buildings of a similar height and construction

01:58:39 did he this engineer give you any more detail about the tests that were carried out we were talking about proof testing of

01:58:50 we were talking about proof testing of the

01:58:51 the of of the fixings what what relevance would those tests have to compliance with b4 not with b4 but structure so that the clothing system don't

01:59:03 clothing system don't doesn't come off the building

01:59:09 i see do you did you had no discussion therefore with him about tests in relation to the combustibility of the materials to be used in the range i am as i said i i don't recall that but

01:59:21 i am as i said i i don't recall that but i can't

01:59:22 i can't whether that happened or not but i i saw the uh the thing that stood out was for me when when writing this was we talked about

01:59:33 talked about proof testing the the the the framework because we looked at we looked at the fixings uh as i say because it was that was the stage of

01:59:44 stage of works at that particular time

01:59:50 while we're on this page you can see that

01:59:54 that you say that he assured you that the system had been fitted to many buildings

02:00:01 buildings throughout england and wales to buildings of a similar height and construction did that assurance lead you to conclude that you didn't need to exercise any further scrutiny no what what did what effect on on your

02:00:14 no what what did what effect on on your mind did that assurance have um the system had been used before it was not

02:00:21 was not a bespoke system it was a system that had been used elsewhere from a building control perspective what relevance did that have

02:00:34 perspective what relevance did that have as i say that it was it was a system that been

02:00:37 that been used throughout the country and have been approved by by uh other of our building control authorities that it wasn't something that was new

02:00:48 wasn't something that was new but to put it bluntly mr hoban so what so what

02:00:55 so what sorry

02:01:01 sorry uh well so what if other authorities are done yeah well your job was to exercise as well yes and therefore did you think that this assurance might have led you to some complacency

02:01:14 might have led you to some complacency given that as you were being told it had been used elsewhere and passed by other building control

02:01:20 officers

02:01:27 done with the complacency it gave me an insurance

02:01:30 insurance assurance that the system had been used elsewhere

02:01:38 if you go back to point e please at paragraph

02:01:43 paragraph 34 of your second statement we can just go back to to that

02:02:03 you say in answer to the question did you request sight of any fire test reports in relation to the cladding answer no

02:02:12 why not when we're not uh referring to that

02:02:17 that that's the actual a fire test report is a specific uh document that that lays out how the test is done indeed

02:02:29 lays out how the test is done indeed uh i i've felt that bba certificate and labc registered plans

02:02:40 labc registered plans uh registered details was an acceptable uh standard as i say generally uh fire test report is

02:02:51 generally uh fire test report is is many pages it's it's set up out how the testing is not something that i would have understood

02:03:02 that i would have understood fully just do we take it from that that you were never trained to carry out any kind of exercise to substantiate the fire

02:03:14 exercise to substantiate the fire resistance rating of a construction in order to check that to make sure it demonstrates compliance no no that's not not the case as regards test certificates uh

02:03:26 test certificates uh themselves

02:03:30 that's sort of very very specialist subject that a fire engineer would would understand as a building control officer i

02:03:42 officer i it's not something i would have have that knowledge at this point whenever it was yeah either late 2014 or

02:03:54 whenever it was yeah either late 2014 or early 2015 had you already looked up uh the um bba certificate i i can't i i just say i can't recall and the same i

02:04:05 just say i can't recall and the same i suppose but apply in relation to the seller

02:04:07 seller rs 5000 right

02:04:14 you also i think failed to ask for or didn't ask for comprehensive details of the cladding system including the crown did you

02:04:21 did you we we got some detail uh some details but not not comprehensive details

02:04:28 details now if you um go a little bit further down

02:04:32 down this page 11 you can see f is the question what contemporaneous records if any did you make which reflected your understanding that the exterior of the building would be compliant with the building

02:04:43 would be compliant with the building regulations and you say there i cannot say for certain whether such notes were made but had i made such notes they would have been on file and most probably weeded

02:04:54 been on file and most probably weeded out

02:04:55 out do you agree that the question of whether the facade complied with the building regulations was an important one

02:05:00 one yes and so should have been recorded somewhere

02:05:05 somewhere well i i had i had recorded them in in my notes but uh as i say uh it may have been weeded out at the end right do you remember making a

02:05:16 end right do you remember making a record

02:05:17 record of your views about whether or not the rain screen cladding system and its parts complied with the proof document b i cannot recall

02:05:29 if we go to

02:05:33 the system for granting uh building control approval probably contemplates some formal recognition of that fact doesn't it and you can prove that full plans

02:05:44 and you can prove that full plans educational whatever it might be there's there's no actual requirement to get the plans

02:05:50 plans approved or fully approved and make an application you can you can build it's not not a it's not

02:06:03 build it's not not a it's not it's not a requirement that the regulations that you actually get full written approval well i'm just wondering whether there ought not to have been some formal

02:06:14 have been some formal record of the fact that you were satisfied that the exterior would comply with the

02:06:21 with the regulations there was we didn't have uh in place i was at war there was that sheep that i mentioned but it was as i say it's

02:06:31 say it's uh it it would have been good practice for

02:06:36 for for for the the contractor to do that but

02:06:39 but it's not a requirement of the regulations i couldn't say you must you must get formal approval well i see that but i was just looking

02:06:50 well i see that but i was just looking at it from your point of view whether the building control officer wouldn't need to record

02:06:58 to record in some formal way his satisfaction with something that's important well as i said

02:07:06 it would have been on on on that sheet i mentioned all my notes all right thank you

02:07:13 you yes mr hoban can i ask you to go to

02:07:20 rbk30339434 your first statement and go to page 8 within it to paragraph 67. and this is at the top of that page

02:07:32 and this is at the top of that page and you say i also looked up information on the insulation

02:07:38 and then you say in the third line i was also advised at the initial meeting on site

02:07:44 site by the specialist consultant that the cladding would comply with the standards set out in approved document b

02:07:52 and i just want to show you what you then say in your second witness statement about that can we please have your second witness statement up at page 14. i'm sorry to jump around between your

02:08:03 i'm sorry to jump around between your two statements but i think it's important you see what you do say there and in paragraph 40 the question is with reference to paris

02:08:12 paris 65 please state sorry where are we page 14 yeah and at the top it says under para 40 with reference to para65

02:08:23 para65 that's the statement i've just shown you please state and then under b yeah the question is with reference to the statement that you discussed the works with the architect

02:08:34 discussed the works with the architect and the specialist consultant dealing with fire matters and then little roman 3 where you're being asked about paragraph 65 of your first statement

02:08:45 statement you say paragraph 40b there the main meeting where this occurred was the 24th of november 2014 yes yes now you say i think that the specialist consultant

02:08:56 specialist consultant was employees from max fordham x over and siderise you see that yeah and you can't recall the specific individuals is it your evidence that those three

02:09:07 is it your evidence that those three companies were represented at a meeting on site on the 24th of november 2004. there was a number of people there i can't i can't i can't actually recall that that's why

02:09:20 i can't actually recall that that's why i asked for uh uh records of of uh who who those persons were at that particular meeting right now x over

02:09:32 that particular meeting right now x over didn't go to site in 2014 didn't they so would you be prepared to accept that you're mistaken about xavier's presence at that rate now mr ashton of x over gave evidence

02:09:43 now mr ashton of x over gave evidence and he

02:09:44 and he said and this is day 17 page 121 of page 12 in answer to questions from ms grange that he categorically didn't advise you or anyone else from rbkc

02:09:56 or anyone else from rbkc building control that cladding the cladding would comply with the standards in approved document b that's what he said do you accept that you weren't given any assurances of that kind by x

02:10:07 kind by x over um as i say it was my understanding that

02:10:11 that there was somebody from x over there it certainly wasn't mr ashton because i know mr ashton i worked with him when i first went into local government

02:10:23 when i first went into local government um so who else from x over do you do you recall

02:10:29 recall but i knew mr pearson right but uh as i say it's a meeting a long time ago there was quite a number of people at that meeting

02:10:41 quite a number of people at that meeting uh

02:10:45 and who who those companies were i can't i can't recall uh all of those it was my understanding that x over

02:10:56 that x over were there or you know it was a a full list of the consultants but uh i may have been mistaken right that's my memory

02:11:07 memory who else would the specialist consultant have been then sorry i mean who would who would the specialist consultant be that you're referring to dealing with fire matters that you've

02:11:18 dealing with fire matters that you've referred to well as i say uh well dealing with the the cladding and the insulation um well sidewise are a company i don't know whether as i say uh

02:11:31 i don't know whether as i say uh whether they they were there as i said i was

02:11:36 and max fordham would have been dealing with the the insulation uh uh

02:11:43 or would have would have had an in input into it well let's see if we can just get to the bottom of this a little bit more closely could you please go to max404666

02:11:57 could you please go to max404666 please and just look at page one

02:12:03 this is the first page of a an email chain and if we look at page one at the bottom we can see that this is an email exchange between matt smith of max fordham

02:12:14 max fordham and claire williams of the tma on the 24th of november 2014. and this is then sent replied to you by claire williams

02:12:28 sent replied to you by claire williams the next day as you can see from the top email and in the email from matt smith he says evening claire one we had a meeting this morning with building control

02:12:37 control regarding the proposed smoke extract system with ryden js wright studio e and the smoke extract system supplier psb you see that yes and the email doesn't

02:12:47 doesn't say that siderise was there do you think you might be mistaken about that i i i may have as i say there was a number of people quite a number of people at that meeting

02:13:00 you can also see and we can look at the whole of the email if you like but you can see that the meeting was about the aov system the smoke extract system

02:13:07 system and not about the cladding cl cladding was brought up at that meeting it may have been brought up but it wasn't it wasn't the subject of the meeting

02:13:17 meeting no it wasn't it wasn't and if we go to the notes on accolade this is at rbk3052478

02:13:29 this is at rbk3052478 page five please

02:13:42 you can see there that uh here is your note of that meeting notes meeting on site with myself paul hansen of various persons from the design team to go through their

02:13:53 design team to go through their proposals

02:13:54 proposals with particular regard to the fire strategy for the scheme see below and then there's an email that's uh cut and pasted into this document hi paul further to our telephone conversation regarding the proposed aov

02:14:06 conversation regarding the proposed aov system at grenfell tower i'd like to meet with yourselves to present the proposed design and it's from david bradbury at js right as you can see

02:14:15 can see so looking at that again it's right isn't it i think that the subject matter of the meeting was the aov system and not the cladding yes but as i say was that was the principle

02:14:25 principle uh point we did well these notes don't record any confirmation of any kind from any consultant that the cladding system would comply with the guidance of approved document b do they i

02:14:36 approved document b do they i i um

02:14:40 i um i i recall uh saying yes we will do that at the meet or whether it's the contracts or what that that they would provide that

02:14:52 what that that they would provide that information sorry what information sorry we went through the four schemes of the four four methods of of uh complying with b4

02:15:07 uh complying with b4 i said yes we'll do that yes we'll who said

02:15:10 said yes somebody at the meeting that that's my

02:15:14 my my recognition at the time

02:15:19 when you say in your statement the specialist engineer what specialist consultant can you recall what specialism no i can't sorry

02:15:32 and i said a moment ago putting to you that these notes don't record any confirmation from any consultant of any specialism that the cladding would comply with the proof document b

02:15:47 if a statement to that effect had been made

02:15:50 made i have to suggest to you that you would have recorded it in your note as seen here on the document in front of us

02:16:00 that that's my recollection at the time i didn't i didn't put it in the nose right

02:16:08 are you quite sure it was the four routes to compliance as opposed to three the four the four as i mentioned they those

02:16:15 those those other four in in mentioned improved documents the reason i ask is because the bca guidance

02:16:23 guidance that came out in june of 2014 referred to three routes of compliance to compliance and it was only in the revision one in june of 2015

02:16:35 june of 2015 that there were four options referred to so could we have a look at the approved document please yes indeed clg

02:16:52 i don't know see when i when i was uh responding to to that particular question

02:17:00 question i had had the approved document that i had at home

02:17:08 and whether that was the the the the approved document that i was using at the time it may have superseded that if you can

02:17:19 it may have superseded that if you can uh i was using uh it could have been with with the amendments um all right well don't get bogged down in

02:17:30 all right well don't get bogged down in this were you aware at the time that in fact

02:17:32 fact the bca guidance of june 2014 referred to three options and it wasn't until june 2015 that four options were introduced

02:17:59 if that's the case that's the case okay uh uh

02:18:02 uh uh as i say i i'm i can't um can't recall when when those moments obviously i

02:18:13 obviously i i i when the amendments come in we look at them

02:18:17 at them but as as documents progress i i wouldn't be able to say yes that's on that particular date that's on that particular gate

02:18:28 particular gate as regards to approve document b right now

02:18:38 right now can we go please to ryd three zeros one eight nine one eight nine eight nine this is a exchange of emails we saw earlier on in your evidence

02:18:51 and it's the exchange in late september 2014 uh which culminates with neil crawford sending you uh the current x over study uh as it was

02:19:03 uh the current x over study uh as it was then

02:19:05 then and remained which is issue 3 of the ofss

02:19:10 and if you look at the second email down second paragraph down this is the 24th of september email mr crawford says to you uh i believe

02:19:21 mr crawford says to you uh i believe yourself and paul hanson sat down earlier in the year and did an initial appraisal of the proposed layout changes to the lower levels with bruce sainz from our office i've included paul's initial markups of the fire strategy from this time as well

02:19:32 the fire strategy from this time as well as a new set which shows that there's been some simplification to the arrangement on these flaws so these flaws relate to the lower levels

02:19:42 now when you describe the purpose of that meeting as being to discuss the fire strategy for the scheme do you mean the fire strategy for the lower four floors

02:19:51 floors which then became the outline fire safety strategy prepared by x over

02:19:57 could you repeat that sorry [Applause] yes

02:20:07 at this time yeah let me put it slightly differently were you focusing on the fire strategy only for the lower four floors no no it's been the whole building

02:20:17 building right

02:20:21 would it be likely that if you were told by a specialist consultant at the meeting in in november that the proposals would comply with adb i have to suggest to you that it's more

02:20:33 i have to suggest to you that it's more likely that that was a reference to the lower flaws or the smoke extract system and not to the cladding system it wasn't my understanding at the time all right

02:20:45 all right now in your second statement you referred to the 24th of november 2014 meeting as the main meeting i think we can go back to that if you

02:20:56 i think we can go back to that if you like to look at it but you remember referring to it as a main meeting yes yes so it was uh introduced uh let's say we had obviously we had

02:21:06 we had uh meetings but there was uh as i say there was

02:21:10 there was uh and a number of consultants at that particular meeting meeting yeah is it your evidence that you discussed the fire performance of the

02:21:21 the fire performance of the the works at site meetings other than the 24th of november 2014. it would yes it would have come up in part yes

02:21:31 part yes in passing in passing do you have any recollection of when those meetings other than the 24th of november meeting took place

02:21:42 um no as i say what would happen when i when i go in into site i would uh sign in and then get the ppe and

02:21:56 then get the ppe and uh either somebody would collect me from from the heart or the the office at the front of the building or i go up to the office myself and

02:22:09 go up to the office myself and usually would would stop and and look at various drawings find out what was going on and then somebody would would collect me

02:22:21 and then somebody would would collect me yeah it was primary uh

02:22:25 jack sullivan or jason north that would usually take me out on site but uh simon lawrence took took took me out uh we would paul on one

02:22:38 took me out uh we would paul on one occasion to uh uh or or simon simon lawrence right i'm going to cut through this i'm sorry let me just my question was a simpler one do you have any recollection of when

02:22:49 have any recollection of when meetings other than the 24th of november meeting

02:22:52 meeting happened when the far performance of the cladding took place

02:22:59 um i can't give you pacific right do you remember having any discussion at all about the fire performance of the cladding system specifically

02:23:16 um it doesn't stand out sorry okay

02:23:26 i'm then going to turn to a different topic and

02:23:29 topic and we're going to look at cavity barriers if we may now going back to the full plans application would you expect the cavity barrier strategy to have been decided upon by the time the full plans application

02:23:40 by the time the full plans application was made yes that being said would you expect cavity barriers to be shown in the drawings which accompanied the full plans application

02:23:54 uh i would but they they didn't indeed and and given that they would but they didn't did you think to

02:24:08 would but they didn't did you think to chase up

02:24:09 chase up some plans which did i i did ask for information yes that's not quite an answer to my question given that the norm would be that the full plans application would have drawings which did show

02:24:21 would have drawings which did show cavity barriers my question is given that the drawings you saw didn't did you think to chase up drawings which did show

02:24:28 did show cavity barriers yes i think right you say yes you did think about it but yes i do believe i did you did

02:24:39 but yes i do believe i did you did right let's see how we go with this in the early part of 2015 do you remember that you were provided with some further drawings further to those you've been shown in november september and november 2014

02:24:52 september and november 2014 showing the location of cavity barriers do you remember that in general i got some details some details yes and i'm going to take you to true drawings and then ask you some questions at the end

02:25:02 end so let's start with um the email we saw before

02:25:06 before this morning ryd30 is 34134 this is neil crawford's email to you of the 6th of march 2015.

02:25:18 i say it's to you it's to paul hanson but it's copied to you and it enclosed or attached some drawings as well as the harley speck that we looked at earlier this morning

02:25:29 that we looked at earlier this morning and you can see that he neil crawford had received these drawings from kevin lamb working for harley on the 3rd of march so you see that just below it now one of

02:25:40 so you see that just below it now one of these drawings was c1059201 rev d and we can find that at ryd303413

02:25:54 can we just go to that

02:26:04 this one is uh revision d dated the third of march 2015 and we can see on it that if you look at the top right hand side

02:26:15 the top right hand side there is a cavity barrier in line with the compartment floor there you see towards the bottom of the picture

02:26:23 do you see there's a cavity barrier running in line with the compartment floor

02:26:27 floor yes yes and at the bottom left we can see a cavity barrier in line with the compartment wall you see that they're running up yes sorry is that a yes yes thank you when

02:26:40 sorry is that a yes yes thank you when you received these drawings in copy uh under the crawford 6th of march email did you did you open them and look at them do you think

02:26:49 you think um

02:26:54 i i i i can't recall i may have as i say a car i believe i would have uh i can't can't say for certain

02:27:05 i can't can't say for certain was the 6th of march 2015 the first time do you think that you had been provided with details of the cavity barrier strategy for the external wall

02:27:17 strategy for the external wall um

02:27:21 i can't be certain

02:27:25 did you did you actually study this drawing

02:27:29 drawing do you think or something like it which showed cavity barriers in these positions there were there was there was a number of drawings sent to me with some sections as well

02:27:40 me with some sections as well i think i i think the question was in relation to far fire times on the fire breaks wasn't it

02:27:48 it is that correct

02:27:51 we'll come we'll come to that um if you on the assumption that you did look at what you were sent did you notice um from

02:28:03 did you notice um from this drawing that there were no cavity barriers indicated at the head jam or sill of the windows it was my understanding that the framework supporting the windows

02:28:14 framework supporting the windows would act as the cavity barrier well let's look at a different document sea402499

02:28:22 this is an email sent to you later in march by neil crawford and he sends you a typical bay drawing

02:28:31 and again we can see the cavity barriers in line with the compartment floor and walls can't we yes and looking at this one

02:28:41 this one did you notice that there were no cavity barriers indicated at the head jam or sill of the windows it was my understanding that the framework supporting the window would act as a cavity barrier what was

02:28:53 would act as a cavity barrier what was the basis of that understanding mr hogan if if you look at a proof document b it calls up that a still frame framework over a certain thickness

02:29:05 framework over a certain thickness connect as a cavity barrier

02:29:10 yes i don't want to argue with you but that's right isn't it only if it's made of a particular material like steel steel yes yeah steel not aluminium yeah my understanding it

02:29:22 not aluminium yeah my understanding it was

02:29:23 was was steel yeah not aluminium no so given that

02:29:27 that these were not steel how could they have acted as a cavity barrier um i my understanding that it was steel who told you that um i can't

02:29:38 who told you that um i can't i can't say it was always it was always my understanding that the framework supporting the the window was

02:29:49 the window was uh or thicknesses still could act as a cavity barrier well it could as a matter of theory under adb my question is did you ever see any drawing any plan any note or have any discussion

02:30:01 any plan any note or have any discussion about

02:30:02 about let me finish the question please about steel being the material used in those positions to act as a cavity barrier that was my as i say my my understanding but i want to get to the bottom of the

02:30:13 but i want to get to the bottom of the source of your understanding um i i i can't can't answer that i can't recall

02:30:20 recall right but it's right isn't it i think you have to accept that there isn't a single drawing um certainly that you were ever sent that showed that steel was to be used in that location

02:30:33 was to be used in that location if if we look at the sections some of the notes

02:30:37 the notes there's always as i say um if we look through the sections that were sent to me

02:30:50 well are you saying that there are drawings that you saw which said that steel has to be used at the head jam and sill of the windows to act as cavity barriers it was as i

02:31:02 to act as cavity barriers it was as i say it was my understanding that uh it was a still frame that was right supporting but i'm trying to get to the bottom and perhaps you can't help me any further but i'm trying

02:31:13 can't help me any further but i'm trying to get to the bottom of the basis or source of your understanding i can't give you any

02:31:21 any other did you i'm sorry i'll wait for you to have a drink

02:31:32 [Music]

02:31:40 sorry do you agree that there ought to have been cavity barriers in those locations so head of the window jam and sil to comply with the proof

02:31:51 jam and sil to comply with the proof document b yes particularly diagram 33 of approved document b yeah and i uh as i mentioned in my my my email i i highlight

02:32:02 my my email i i highlight that that particular diagram in some of my emails

02:32:07 my emails well we'll come to that but but did you ever

02:32:11 ever say to a studio e or to ryan or to harley

02:32:15 harley at any time there are no cavity barriers shown on these drawings at the hell head sill or jam of the windows what are you going to do about it i can't recall did you ever discuss the

02:32:28 i can't recall did you ever discuss the cavity barrier strategy with mr crawford on site

02:32:36 that's a sack i can't recall sorry

02:32:43 did you check on site to see if cavity barriers were installed around the windows

02:32:49 when i went to site the windows were generally in uh they were either not in or they were in and covered in

02:33:01 not in or they were in and covered in that's yes and my question is did you ever make a check to see whether cavity barriers had been installed around the windows where they were

02:33:10 were where they were already i couldn't i couldn't see did you not ask to see to check

02:33:18 so that does say uh do you agree that checking on site is one of the primary functions of a building control officer i i saw the other cavity barriers going in

02:33:29 barriers going in which were exposed the windows were were enclosed at the time did you not ask for a window to be removed so you could check what was behind it to make sure

02:33:39 sure that the window opening as an opening under diagram 33 was adequately protected by a cavity barrier

02:33:47 barrier i didn't ask why um i saw the other ones and i saw the the the other works going on inside the building and

02:34:00 inside the building and they were doing the fire stopping in the other areas and in the cavity barriers and i just felt it at the time i didn't ask in hindsight yes i can see that that i

02:34:14 in hindsight yes i can see that that i should have but at the time i didn't consider it necessary

02:34:19 necessary did you give did you give conscious thought to whether it was necessary and decide that it wasn't or did you just not consider it at all i perhaps didn't consider it at all at that time

02:34:30 that time as i said i saw saw the the other works going on

02:34:34 going on which i was happy with and i saw the let's say it

02:34:40 the the works that i saw were at all what i saw of an adequate standard

02:34:49 standard so i didn't feel it to take it any further

02:34:54 further so you're telling us that because of what you did see was to an adequate standard

02:34:58 standard you didn't check this this particular compliance requirement no i didn't as i say they would cover when i would go on site there either the windows were in or the windows

02:35:10 or the windows hadn't been done do you accept that your failure to identify missing cavity barriers generically around the windows on this building was a fundamental failing on your part

02:35:25 i i should have checked i as i said i saw saw the other ones um i didn't feel it was necessary uh to have a window exposed

02:35:37 uh to have a window exposed i i i'm bound to put it to you mr that failure

02:35:41 failure to check the window openings for the presence of cavity barriers fell below the standards of a reasonably competent building control inspector do you accept that

02:35:58 as i say in hindsight yes but i didn't see it as an issue at the time

02:36:10 now going back to the

02:36:17 all right question of uh steel can i just show you uh one

02:36:29 steel can i just show you uh one drawing har406598 please

02:36:40 um this is

02:36:44 a drawing that was an email actually the first instance um

02:36:52 which provides revised rails and full set out information attached for w1 and cladding and here's a here's a a drawing that was sent to you

02:37:04 a drawing that was sent to you and that shows if we look at l i'm afraid it's going to be blown up but if you look at the right hand side of this

02:37:11 of this drawing and it may be difficult to see it

02:37:16 you can see on the right hand side um perhaps it's too difficult to see that the framework is composed of aluminium

02:37:25 aluminium it's item l10 uh and it may not be easy to see it but um

02:37:39 no i can't see it no it's difficult to tell but

02:37:45 if you um it is difficult to tell but if you can

02:37:49 you can um would you accept i think this much that the the drawings you were sent showed that the framework was aluminium and not steel

02:37:58 sorry i can't i can't see it first you should scroll down to the bottom of the drawing

02:38:06 oh okay right here yeah now um what i want to look at is the right hand side with item l10 if you go down a bit further

02:38:19 l10 if you go down a bit further with there it is um you can see our l10 ppc aluminium louvre with apertures

02:38:27 apertures and new double glazed ppc aluminium central you see that yes no reference to steel to steel there at all if you check this drawing you would have realized that the framework was not steel with aluminium wouldn't

02:38:39 was not steel with aluminium wouldn't you no that's referring to the window

02:38:44 yes but there's no other reference to anything around the windows to show that there was a steel steel bracket or an angle which would operate as a cavity barrier my reading of the drawing

02:38:55 my reading of the drawing is that that there's a uh an angle there that's just still where do you see that how do you get to that well there's an angle supporting

02:39:06 well there's an angle supporting underneath

02:39:09 it's not it's not no there's no notes no there's no node so why do you think it was steel that's that was my understanding at the time

02:39:24 at the time did you ever have any discussion or did you ever check either by looking at drawings or discussions on site about whether there were cavity barriers installed at the junction between the crown and the cladding at the top

02:39:37 the cladding at the top i i looked at that and my understanding of of of uh of the

02:39:47 uh of the requirement for for cavity barriers it wasn't

02:39:50 wasn't it wasn't required under that particular aspect what was the reasoning that led you to that conclusion because it wasn't a concealed space

02:40:02 a concealed space i see so the crown wasn't a concealed space yeah i see and but it was it and it describes in in in the in the table where where where where

02:40:16 in the table where where where where where they're to be provided and it doesn't call out that particular area

02:40:27 did you not understand from diagram 33 that the top of the cavity had to be closed

02:40:36 closed uh it is uh closed

02:40:41 you say it is closed if we close by what a cavity barrier if if we scroll down we'll scroll up i should say all right let's go to the top of this

02:40:52 let's go to the top of this i'm not sure this yeah yes that that we can see we can scroll up a bit yes which bit are you referring to this sorry if we scr uh can we scroll up a

02:41:04 sorry if we scr uh can we scroll up a bit more please

02:41:08 i think you need to scroll down just scroll down right right my my understanding was that the cavity barrier at the head would act as that

02:41:23 cavity barrier can you can you point out on this drawing ah given that this shows where the crown do you mind if i come over what can you describe now right so there we go all right where the roof is where the

02:41:35 all right where the roof is where the roof is

02:41:36 roof is there's a cavity barrier directly above the window

02:41:43 head at roof level i see are you referring to the small cross-hatched box yes immediately above the window yes and you say that

02:41:56 yes and you say that is the that closes the space adequately for the purposes of diagram 33 is that what you're saying that's yes right i follow

02:42:05 follow it was that was that a decision or conclusion you reached at the time when looking at this drawing yes believe so

02:42:15 i'm now going to turn to a different topic or a sub-topic of cavity barriers which is the question of the type of cavity barriers used at grenville tower and i want to begin with your exchanges with studio e about that subject in

02:42:26 with studio e about that subject in march 2015 can we start with sea 50252

02:42:36 this is an email addressed to paul hanson from neil crawford copied to you 6th of march 2015 and uh it's the one we've now seen i think three times this morning in the

02:42:48 think three times this morning in the course of your evidence um because it encloses the diagrams and indeed the harley spec as well and he says this reminded me of another issue

02:42:58 issue and again i've read this to you before but i'll go back to it where we are over cladding what fire rating do we need to allow

02:43:03 allow for within the wall build up between apartments see below and attached now we can see here that neil crawford was going straight to paul hansen rather than raising a query via you

02:43:14 via you and that was contrary to your request at the beginning of your involvement as we saw yesterday was that quite so you wanted to say something yes my question was was that quite a common occurrence on this project

02:43:27 occurrence on this project no i uh it happened from time to time because

02:43:31 because uh again uh there were times where i wasn't available and maybe they had difficulty contacting me

02:43:40 me as i say i was

02:43:43 i was attending a couple of hospitals at the time

02:43:47 the time and also uh looking after my mother so there may have been times where it was difficult to get get in contact with me so

02:43:58 did you think that this was something about the

02:44:02 about the uh external wall construction say the cladding system or something about internal walls in other words walls between compartments i i think there was some confusion they

02:44:15 i i think there was some confusion they used

02:44:16 used used the word fire breaks and and and the approved document uh goes on about cavity barriers and fire stopping indeed

02:44:27 stopping indeed and that's where i believe there was some confusion just focusing on this email when you received it where neil crawford states the issue did you it's a simpler question than that did you think this was something to do with

02:44:38 you think this was something to do with the external wall construction or something interior to the building

02:44:44 um i'm not certain at this stage as i say because there was some confusion at the time right let's go to sca3012927

02:45:01 at the time right let's go to sca3012927 this is paul hanson's reply to neil crawford of the 10th of march 2015. copy to you

02:45:07 to you and he says this is really your area because it's a b3 matter and it goes on but effect but effectively if you mean fire resistance the walls between apartments are compartment walls so the construction should achieve the same

02:45:19 construction should achieve the same fire time as the elements of construction for the building fire time depends upon the height of the building as described in 1a table 2 of adb first of all did you agree with that

02:45:30 first of all did you agree with that response

02:45:35 [Music]

02:45:39 i think paul was just giving them guidance to us he was referring to a a a particular area but i still believe there was some confusion

02:45:50 there was some confusion in the answer all right but as far as the answer goes did you in your own mind did you agree with it uh as regards fire times for the building yes yes okay you could see from this that uh

02:46:03 yes okay you could see from this that uh it was being put onto your desk as a b3 mata

02:46:06 mata yeah from that and we can then see mr crawford's reply the next day at sca50260

02:46:13 sca50260 this is the 11th of march 2015 now and he then makes it clear in

02:46:20 this email which we are waiting for um you say he says hi paul john so this comes to both of you to clarify what we're trying to understand

02:46:31 clarify what we're trying to understand here was the requirement for fire stopping within the wall build up where the cladding cassettes are mounted over the old cladding are you saying they should mirror the internal compartment i 60 minutes and

02:46:42 internal compartment i 60 minutes and 120 minutes 60 minutes horizontally at floors now following that email did you now understand his query to be relating to fire stops or to cavity barriers what did you think

02:46:55 or to cavity barriers what did you think at the time i thought it was to do with fire stopping right at that time why was that

02:47:04 um i i can't

02:47:10 i i can't i think my understood standing was that it was

02:47:13 it was faster or fire stopping uh in inside side or or it was as i say there were i think there

02:47:24 it was as i say there were i think there was some confusion at the time right did you ever have any experience of advising on cavity barriers in an external external wall construction

02:47:38 well let's start with buildings of of a height below 18 meters i'll put the question again yeah as a building control officer oh yes yes you did

02:47:47 did and what about buildings over 18 meters this first this is the first so uh you thought there was some confusion

02:47:54 confusion let's let's move on then um go to rbk 30s 48732 please

02:48:05 this is paul hanson's email to you having received this email from neil crawford and he says hi john i'm not sure what's being referred to it may be that he means the external enclosure to the building

02:48:16 external enclosure to the building therefore it is a b4 matter can you deal with

02:48:23 regards paul hanson did when you received that email uh did you agree with his interpretation of the question that was being asked of both of

02:48:34 question that was being asked of both of you

02:48:40 sorry could you repeat the question yes when you receive that email uh where and where he says it's a b4 matter did you agree with him that it was a b

02:48:47 was a b formatter i at that time i i felt it was could have been a b3

02:48:55 been a b3 b3 or a formatter i believe right because when when considering um

02:49:06 when considering um when considering part part b you've got to take into account other other parts part b were you clear in your own mind about what neil crawford was asking

02:49:17 what neil crawford was asking at by this point no i don't think i was did you and paul hansen this apart from this email here discuss the requirements for compartmentation in the external

02:49:28 for compartmentation in the external wall yeah i i believe i got some guidance from him at this point at this point or soon after right was that guidance in writing

02:49:39 right was that guidance in writing or on the telephone or no it would paul and i would have discussed it right do you remember what he told you um no i think we we taught her as

02:49:53 we taught her as as the emails uh change transpires i i ask for one standard then i i agree agree for a standard of 30 minutes

02:50:05 agree for a standard of 30 minutes right just as a side question mr crawford in his evidence suggested that this this issue had been discussed on site before the 3rd of march 2015. do you recall that i don't recall right

02:50:17 do you recall that i don't recall right can we move on then to sca 3012953

02:50:26 this is an email from ben bailey the harley project manager who was now in charge on the 18th of march 2015 to neil crawford and simon lawrence

02:50:37 lawrence and it's copied to others within harley but also to you mr hogan as we can see and he says

02:50:48 uh the firebreak supplier and this is to neil crawford hi neil the firebreak supplier who it seems was involved with grenfell at the specification stage has made a comment and i'd like to clarify what fire breaks

02:50:59 and i'd like to clarify what fire breaks are required could you confirm what the vertical and horizontal requirement is please the spec and supplier technical rep say very different things did this help you clarify the issue that

02:51:10 did this help you clarify the issue that had arisen earlier no now he's referred here to the specification i think you hadn't seen that had you

02:51:22 uh no um i don't i don't believe i had did you ask i don't think we've seen you do this but don't think you ask to see the specification at that point

02:51:33 the specification at that point no no why is that i i i as i said just i may have just uh i was copied in on it i as i said just

02:51:43 just really right

02:51:48 we can then see that this is discussed there's a

02:51:52 there's a um an email at sea3012963 if we go there this is an email from you to neil crawford on the 20th of march so two days later

02:52:04 on the 20th of march so two days later after mr bailey's question which he copied you in on and you say to neil crawford

02:52:12 thank you for returning my call this morning further to my conversation with you today i would confirm that the fire time for the new elements of structure new columns being sections of compartment floor et cetera in grenfell tower is 120 minutes

02:52:23 in grenfell tower is 120 minutes as specified in section 1a of table 2 appendix a approved document b i would also draw your attention to diagram 33 of approved document b and highlight the detail between compartment floors and external cladding

02:52:35 compartment floors and external cladding in the meantime should you wish to discuss any other aspects of the project neil then please do not hesitate to call me my direct line contact number is

02:52:45 um in the first part of that email you've referred to his returning your call that morning morning of the 20th of march 2015. can you recall what you discussed during

02:52:57 can you recall what you discussed during that call

02:52:59 that call no i can't so did he clarify for you that the query was about cavity barriers as opposed to fire stops maybe i can't be certain right now you refer

02:53:10 i can't be certain right now you refer refer here to two things don't you you refer first to the fire time for new elements of structure which had to be 120 minutes for grenfell tower

02:53:20 tower was that what you discussed with neil crawford that morning do you think it was one of perhaps one of the items but i can't be served all right the other thing you refer to is diagram 33 and you

02:53:31 33 and you highlight as we see the detail between compartment floors and external cladding you could see that what were you seeking to tell neil crawford

02:53:42 to tell neil crawford by giving him this information he should look at that particular uh diagram right and how was that relevant to the issue that you were addressing did you think at the time maybe that some of the drawings that

02:53:53 maybe that some of the drawings that were sent to me didn't show or showed very little detail as regards right i mean you certainly don't spell that out in your email to him do you no why is that by destroying his

02:54:05 no why is that by destroying his attention

02:54:05 attention uh i would expect him to to understand that requirement and i'm just highlighting uh that that particular it's just the

02:54:17 uh that that particular it's just the way i've

02:54:17 way i've actually gonna gonna gone about right drawing his attention to it can we then move to sea three zeroes one three zero three four

02:54:28 one three zero three four this is uh an email run uh which starts or rather ends as these things tend to at the top of page one but the

02:54:37 but the email i want to show you is the second email down on page one um where neil crawford emails you on the 27th of march 2015 copy to terry ashton and paul hanson and he says

02:54:48 he says hi john there has been a lot of conversation on site about the cavity fire barrier requirements to be fitted between the existing concrete external wall panels and the new external rain screen aluminium cassettes can you please see

02:55:00 aluminium cassettes can you please see the proposal by the cladding contractor below and confirm if this is acceptable to you

02:55:05 to you you see that yeah and now if we look down um to the email immediately below it

02:55:14 you can see that there's an email from a gentleman called ricky k at siderise sent the day before 26th of march 2015 to ben bailey so this is now coming on to you and he

02:55:26 so this is now coming on to you and he mr k

02:55:27 mr k tells mr bailey hi ben apologist for the delay please find below extract from a proof document b and if you go over the page to page 2 you can see there's an extract from table a1

02:55:39 where he says having set it out here you can see that it clearly states that 30 minutes fire integrity and 15 minutes insulation is all that is required from a cavity fire barrier you see what he says there

02:55:50 says there and goes on to say and i'm summarizing that they're offering 90 minutes integrity and 30 minutes insulation which exceeds the requirements and in this in the next paragraph he says 120 minute fire

02:56:01 next paragraph he says 120 minute fire rating is generally the industry standard for curtain wall to concrete slab h fire stopping where the fire stop is located on the inside of a building and is considered to be a continuation of the floor slab

02:56:12 to be a continuation of the floor slab now after that email comes i i think you speak to neil crawford again do you remember that after you see this email

02:56:22 email i don't recall it as okay we can pin that down in a document sca3013022 please

02:56:35 this is an email from neil crawford um also on the 27th of march 2015 and he reports the conversation that he

02:56:46 and he reports the conversation that he has he's had with you to simon lawrence if you look at the top of that page can you see he says hi simon have spoken with john and he wasn't happy with harley's email

02:56:58 harley's email as we were talking about fast stopping as opposed to cavity barriers and the harley email is the one that you saw

02:57:07 saw earlier which is ben bailey's to simon lawrence

02:57:11 lawrence where he says see below the email from the fire break supplier and i know it's it's a complex email chain my question is do you remember having a conversation with with um

02:57:23 having a conversation with with um neil crawford again after having received what siderise had sent i had a number of conversations with him do you remember telling him that you

02:57:34 do you remember telling him that you weren't happy with harley's email because the issue was about fire stopping and not cavity barriers um maybe as i say

02:57:47 it's so long ago as i say i had a number of conversations with it with him it's you know it looks on the face of these emails that as at the 27th of march your view

02:58:00 that as at the 27th of march your view was that fire stops were required in the cladding and that those should be 120 minutes

02:58:05 minutes i i think there was as i say there was still some confusion that i think they used the word fire breaks or there was some some confusion uh and then i went and had a conversation with paul and we had some other drawings

02:58:17 paul and we had some other drawings sent to us and then that's our latest stage uh we got to the end of it because i think there's some more emails that come

02:58:28 there's some more emails that come there are we're going to go to them but it'll probably be after lunch but just to be clear about this are you saying that you had a conversation with paul hansen at this stage late march 2015. i believe i i did

02:58:40 late march 2015. i believe i i did we had had discussions at this stage in the office yes right i mean the reason i ask is that we've seen that this conversation starts on the 6th of march and this confusion is

02:58:52 of march and this confusion is it lasts for a number of weeks and still it seems hasn't been cleared up by the 27th yeah

02:58:57 27th yeah when they haven't come back to they started started originally with paul uh back on the 6th of march and then i as i said i got involved at a what what

02:59:10 as i said i got involved at a what what date did i start getting in my emails start the 6th of march yes yes so are you saying that this confusion

02:59:18 confusion really i had gone on right and during that time neil crawford never made it clear to you precisely what it was he was asking um i think that as i say there was was

02:59:30 um i think that as i say there was was still confusion mr jones i think that's the convenience well it's a it's a moment anyway um i'm afraid i am in the middle of this run um well i think it'd be better any

02:59:41 run um well i think it'd be better any of that

02:59:42 of that mr hoban i think it's time we all had a break for some lunch so we'll stop now we'll come back at two o'clock please all right and again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything to do

02:59:53 about your evidence or anything to do with it

02:59:53 with it all right thank you

03:00:00 thank you thank you

03:00:08 thank you o'clock two o'clock please thank you

03:00:34 you