Paul Hansen, Senior Building Control Surveyor for Fire Regulations at RBKC, provides evidence about the smoke control system proposals for Grenfell Tower. He explains building control's role, the means of escape team structure, and challenges in establishing how the existing smoke ventilation system worked.
00:00:35 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to hear evidence from mr paul hansen
00:00:42 hansen of rbkc building control mr hanson is going to be examined by miss grange unfortunately it's not possible for miss grange to be here in person today so we've made
00:00:54 in person today so we've made arrangements for her to examine mr hansen from a remote location that means that the view you have of the proceedings will be slightly different
00:01:05 proceedings will be slightly different from the one that you're used to but we hope that the system will work well
00:01:10 well and that things will go without a hitch the first thing i must do however is to make sure that we have contact with ms grange
00:01:18 grange i see her on the screen good morning miss grange good morning mr chairman good morning members of the panel good it sounds though you can see us and hear us perfectly well is that right i can thank you good thank you and
00:01:29 i can thank you good thank you and you're going to call mr hansen yes can we call mr paul hanson please good thank you mr hansen could come in
00:01:38 please
00:01:44 good morning mr hanson good morning uh i understand you're going to make the affirmation uh the words i think should appear on the screen in front of you are they there if not could they be put
00:01:56 are they there if not could they be put up yet no no will we just wait a moment
00:02:02 i do solemnly sincerely and truly declare
00:02:05 declare and affirm that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you very much do sit down
00:02:15 now mr hansen for your benefit i can say this that
00:02:19 this that i know the mornings are quite long we shall have a break in any event about halfway through the morning usually around 11 15 or thereabouts but if you feel at any stage you need a break just
00:02:31 break just tell me and there's no difficulty you can have one whenever you need it all right thank you very much good all right now you know that you're going to be
00:02:38 be uh questioned by miss grange and i think you know already that she is going to do that from a remote location um
00:02:45 um i hope that'll work well we'll just have to see how we go all right okay thank you very much thank you ms grange when you're ready yes thank you yes good morning mr hansen can you hear me clearly
00:02:56 can you hear me clearly yes i can good morning good morning can you give
00:02:59 you give the inquiry please your full name paul derrick hansen now thank you very much for coming to give evidence today and assist the inquiry in its investigations it's very
00:03:10 inquiry in its investigations it's very much appreciated i will be asking you the questions today if you have any difficulty understanding anything i'm asking you please just ask me to repeat the question or put the point in a different
00:03:21 question or put the point in a different way
00:03:22 way if you feel you need a break at any point just let us know and please keep your voice up so the transcribers can hear you
00:03:29 hear you now you've made two witness statements for the inquiry can i take you to the first statement it's rbk three zeros three three eight nine four
00:03:53 so this is your first statement and if we go
00:03:56 we go on and look at page 31 of it we can see it's dated the 21st of november 2018 is that your signature that is my signature yeah
00:04:07 signature yeah and have you read that statement recently i have yes and can you confirm that the contents are true to the best of your knowledge and belief yes they are true to my best belief yeah
00:04:18 yes they are true to my best belief yeah thank you
00:04:19 thank you and can i now take you to your second statement that's rbk3033903 if we look on page two this is just a
00:04:30 if we look on page two this is just a short statement we can see that this is dated the 21st of november 2018 and again is that your signature it is my signature yeah and have you also read that statement
00:04:41 and have you also read that statement recently i have yeah and can you confirm that the contents are true to the best of your knowledge and belief i can and can you help have you discussed your evidence that you're going to give today with anybody
00:04:53 going to give today with anybody before coming here no i haven't no thank you now i'm going to start by asking you some questions about your background including your qualifications professional memberships and experience
00:05:06 professional memberships and experience now you've helpfully provided a copy of your cv to the inquiry that's exhibited to your first witness statement if we go to that now at rbk3033899
00:05:18 if we go to that now at rbk3033899 and i want to look at page two
00:05:33 says rbk three zeros three three eight nine nine here we have the cv that you provided and we can see in that top section that you are a
00:05:46 in that top section that you are a corporate member of the chartered association of building engineers and you're also a corporate member of the institution of fire engineers so we can see that there
00:05:57 fire engineers so we can see that there that those are your qualifications and professional body membership um just just briefly what do you need to do to become a member of those associations um both of those were membership was
00:06:08 um both of those were membership was gained by
00:06:09 gained by a mature entry membership so the process is quite similar to both organizations whereby you basically submit
00:06:22 submit descriptions of projects that you've dealt with how you dealt with them that the fire engineering one is probably the easiest way
00:06:28 way you describe projects that you've um where foreign solutions have been used and how you've evaluated them et cetera et cetera
00:06:37 et cetera yes i see and then sorry so and also there is then i think it was the ab had an interview process as well right so you had to do an interview with them yeah
00:06:49 them yeah does ongoing membership of those associations require you to under undertake continuing professional development or cpd yes yes and do you have to keep a record
00:07:00 yes yes and do you have to keep a record of that
00:07:00 of that yes yes and what other professional qualifications do you hold i don't hold any other professional qualifications apart from those okay just those now looking down on your
00:07:13 okay just those now looking down on your cv if we can go back to that page you give us a history of your your work experience and we can see
00:07:24 experience and we can see that um under that section that you were employed by the greater london council the glc's building regulations division
00:07:33 division on a range of work involving fire precautions and that was from 1979 to 1984
00:07:39 1984 is that correct that's correct and then just a bit lower down on page two we can see that you work for westminster district surveyor's office between 1984 and 1988
00:07:52 between 1984 and 1988 covering the building regulations but with your interest and experience more focused on means of escape and fire engineering is that correct um you say that at the end of that first
00:08:04 um you say that at the end of that first paragraph
00:08:05 paragraph under that section
00:08:09 you say although the variety of work was interesting my experience and interest were more suited to the field of means of escape and fire engineering that's correct yeah the reason i said that is to explain
00:08:20 that is to explain the next um the move to
00:08:25 i rbkc so really i was i was acting in the role
00:08:28 the role as a building trial surveyor after the abolition of the glc for effectively a year um and then an opportunity arose at rbkc building control where they needed a specialist so that's that's
00:08:40 needed a specialist so that's that's really my
00:08:41 really my and what i'm saying there yeah thank you i understand and if we go over to page three we can then see your employment for rbkc there you tell us um from october 1988
00:08:54 there you tell us um from october 1988 to the present you've worked for rbkc um building control and you say that you've concentrated on means of escape and associated fire engineering is that
00:09:06 and associated fire engineering is that correct that's correct yes and then if we turn on to page four of this cb we can see that you've also sat on a number of committees responsible for developing standards for
00:09:19 responsible for developing standards for fire safety including the british standards institute
00:09:24 institute the association for specialist fire protection the asfp the smoke control association at the bottom of that page and then over to page four the london district
00:09:36 to page four the london district surveyors association fire committee now um was membership of these committees by invitation were you invited to join those committees um yes i all of them were basically
00:09:50 um yes i all of them were basically yeah yeah and and in brief what did membership of those committees involve um right um
00:10:01 if you just go back a page just to remind me
00:10:04 remind me of the um yeah so really it's split into two kinds of organizations there is um the british standards where basically what you're doing is
00:10:15 what you're doing is part of a committee writing standards british standards so you have a range of people from different backgrounds in the industry and i i was invited on the british
00:10:26 and i i was invited on the british standard committee really to have a building control input um yes and and the other organizations were at the asfp
00:10:34 the asfp are a trade association who they sort of champion good site fire safety practice and they really were looking for a building control person to help them um on their committees um so they're
00:10:47 um on their committees um so they're invited i think they know as i had an interest in in the particular subjects of duct work basically that was really my involvement there yeah so it's kind of that it's a you you meet within this industry
00:10:58 it's a you you meet within this industry and then they kind of put you forward as someone who might be useful on a committee that's how that comes about yes thank you
00:11:05 you and on that british standards institute section you tell us that you were involved in the development of both bs 9999 2008 and 2017 edition um that's the code of practice
00:11:19 edition um that's the code of practice for fire safety and the design management and use of buildings yes um that's not quite what i say actually
00:11:26 actually so the first two british standards i was a committee member but then what i say is whilst i'm not a committee member i've contributed to the development an illustration of standards published in so what happens is when um the committee
00:11:39 so what happens is when um the committee decide to revise a british standard they invite
00:11:41 invite people to submit proposals for changes to the standard so therefore i submitted the proposals and some of those ideas were taken on board by the committee but i wasn't actually
00:11:51 actually part of the committee so i didn't attend their meetings um i think i see you were a console team basically well i wouldn't say i was a concert but yeah i suppose
00:12:03 concert but yeah i suppose um i don't knock controversy because the way the british standard system works is when they decide to revise a british standard they invite public comment so you can
00:12:16 they invite public comment so you can make submissions to you know we think this could be written in a more clear way or we think something could be addressed and then they take on board the comments um and decide whether they're appropriate or not so that that was my
00:12:28 appropriate or not so that that was my involvement so i wasn't actually asked to contribute directly it was a the normal process of submitting proposals i see so that's 991 and 999.
00:12:42 see so that's 991 and 999. so yes the other yeah the the um the other committee um regarding focus i did sit on i see okay thank you for that clarification yes and as you just said
00:12:54 clarification yes and as you just said it also included you put in observations about bs triple nine one both 2011 and 2015 that's the fire safety and the design
00:13:05 that's the fire safety and the design management and use of residential buildings code of practice yes yes that's great yeah are you still a member of any of these committees now um yes um
00:13:17 um yes um actually could you put it back on the screen so i could just
00:13:24 right the first one is the um the actually falcon barriers um that committee is sitting again because it's the five-year review so i'm involved in that at the moment
00:13:38 so i'm involved in that at the moment the asfp committees are really a constant
00:13:41 constant um the constant work on those so currently i am member of the isfp committee is relating to duct work
00:13:52 committee is relating to duct work yes i see and um your cd records that as part of being on these committees that you were involved in writing some pieces of published guidance is that right so for example the smoke control
00:14:04 so for example the smoke control association's 2015 guidance if we look on page five
00:14:10 yeah what normally happens is that you are
00:14:14 are as part of a team um work is distributed um to write certain sections yes yes so with that particular guidance can you help us as to exactly what your
00:14:25 you help us as to exactly what your involvement uh comprised of um in particular there's an illustration in that guide to help um users of the guide understand how
00:14:37 um users of the guide understand how lobbies
00:14:38 lobbies are configured
00:14:41 and you contribute to just to that illustration in the guide yeah i contributed that illustration there's there's some text associated with it
00:14:48 with it um so i think that that was the part that i directly wrote
00:14:53 wrote [Music]
00:14:56 [Music] during the committee process you you tend to get in discussions about the way to approach certain things so you you know you make suggestions so that kind of thing happens as during the process
00:15:05 process so you're sitting there making comments um
00:15:09 um forming ideas really but the direct writing of the god was in fact related to this staircase lobby arrangement diagram but presumably given that involvement you are um very familiar with that version of
00:15:21 um very familiar with that version of the sca guide and the earlier version the 2012 version yes yes thank you now if we go to a different document now
00:15:33 rbk3052249 this is a document which uh records your continuing professional development so we can see it's your continuing
00:15:45 so we can see it's your continuing professional development record for the period september 14 to december 17. um now can you help us you've itemized over a number of pages different training
00:15:57 a number of pages different training that you underwent over time did any of that training relate to specifically to smoke control systems for example at the bottom of page four if this might
00:16:09 at the bottom of page four if this might help
00:16:12 we can see the penultimate entry talks about the association for specialist fire protection ducks and dampers committee meeting was that to do with smoke control systems at all um it
00:16:26 control systems at all um it it does yeah what the docu the answer is yes actually yeah it's specifically about fire existing duct work and their application um so there is the section in that there
00:16:38 um so there is the section in that there was a fire resistant ductwork yeah yeah that's the only training that we can pick out of this look that seems to relate directly to smoke control is there any other specific continuing
00:16:49 is there any other specific continuing professional development that you can recall on that topic
00:16:54 unless i've cited it down there then no no
00:16:57 no because remember this is also part of a committee so although obviously actually meeting with professionals and this is all also manufacturers
00:17:09 manufacturers it kind of is a training exercise in itself really because you learn practical um problems they have but it's certainly not what i would call training i understand thank you
00:17:20 training i understand thank you i i now want to turn to your role at rbkc
00:17:24 rbkc now you tell us we don't need to turn up in paragraph one of your first statement that you are a senior building control surveyor for fire regulations correct yes when did you become a
00:17:37 correct yes when did you become a senior building control surveyor within rbkc
00:17:43 i'll have to make an estimate of the time i
00:17:47 time i i suspect i would say the early 90s yes so we know you joined rbkc in 1988 so you think within a few years do you
00:17:59 so you think within a few years do you that you became a senior building control surveyor yes and if we can look back at page three of your uh cv that we had up before rbk three zeros three three eight nine nine at page three
00:18:16 you tell us i think in this section that your job changed from building control survey or senior building control surveyor
00:18:24 surveyor to principal fire engineer
00:18:31 do you see that at the very very bottom yes yes 2018 my job title changed from building control survey of fire regulations presumably that was senior building survey of fire regulations was it
00:18:43 survey of fire regulations was it to principal fire engineer yeah there was a really yeah yeah so it was a
00:18:50 was a um it was a promotion to the the term principal
00:18:54 principal is a managerial role basically but but there's two things happening there interestingly is that the the definitions at the time
00:19:05 the the definitions at the time um were looked at and it was felt that boon trust of our far regulations didn't really describe properly what my role was and it was felt better to use the term fire engineer
00:19:16 engineer i see and are you still employed by rbkc i am yes and what is your role now is does that remain critical yes it remains principle um for
00:19:28 critical yes it remains principle um for andre
00:19:30 and and in your cv you also tell us that you in addition to working directly for rbkc
00:19:35 rbkc itself you carried out some work outside the borough under a local authority building control partnership scheme can you help us roughly how much of your work say in around 2015 to 2017
00:19:49 say in around 2015 to 2017 was for buildings in rbkc and how much was for outside the borough um it would probably need to be an estimate
00:19:58 estimate [Music]
00:19:59 [Music] it wasn't a high proportion [Music]
00:20:03 [Music] i guess um 10 possibly yes um and in your cv and in your witness statement for the
00:20:15 and in your witness statement for the transcript this is at paragraph 32-34 you describe something called the means of escape team at rbkc and if we look on page 3 of your cv
00:20:26 and if we look on page 3 of your cv again
00:20:33 and we look at the third paragraph from the bottom there's a paragraph there beginning when i joined you say when i joined rbkc the means of escape group consisted of five
00:20:44 group consisted of five persons including a mechanical and electrical engineer do you see that yes now just generally to your knowledge how many other london boroughs
00:20:55 many other london boroughs uh had a means of escape group was this a unique thing or something that was quite common um it was
00:21:06 it was common in the early days after the abolition of the glc some boroughs did have a means of escape team
00:21:15 team um because it was really bringing the function of the way the glc dealt with means of escape as a as a separate group really
00:21:23 really but to directly answer your question um that there are a few um it's different we say how many um okay can you i mean a good example is
00:21:34 um okay can you i mean a good example is when i joined westminster um which was directly after the abolition they didn't have a means of escape team so what they then did
00:21:42 did recognizing the there can be complexities with means of escape we had a kind of an in-house little committee if you like in westminster um who dealt with means of escape issues
00:21:53 um who dealt with means of escape issues broadly across the borough um but where rbkc took an approach where they focused a group on dealing with mean and escape so it was early days after the glc and the boroughs were
00:22:04 after the glc and the boroughs were finding their feet really um and some boroughs didn't have a means of escape section at all so yes yeah can you confirm that before a 2013
00:22:15 a 2013 restructure the means of escape group comply comprise three offices david gammon yourself and celia burch is that correct yeah and by
00:22:26 is that correct yeah and by 2017 now how large was the means of escape group um 2017 was just me yes you tell us in your cv that
00:22:39 just me yes you tell us in your cv that it you say it effectively became me alone does that mean that there were technically others working with you or in fact was it just you no it was me yeah just me it's just you
00:22:53 and can you confirm that following the 2013 restructure and until the fire you were line managed by john allen at rbk that's correct yeah
00:23:03 if we look at um paragraph 14 of your first witness statement for a moment if we bring that up rbk3033894 page three
00:23:19 at paragraph 14 you're talking about the section 20 at this point of the london building acts um you talk in the second line about a specialist group then known as the fire
00:23:30 specialist group then known as the fire regulations group which continued to deal with section 20 buildings directly yeah it was that the same group that became known as the means of escape groups yes it was yeah yeah
00:23:41 it was yeah yeah yeah and to your knowledge obviously we've seen this means of escape group reduce in size from five to three to then you by 2017 why was the means of escape
00:23:53 by 2017 why was the means of escape group reduced can you help us um some of it was due to people moving on to other jobs in other boroughs um some of it was
00:24:06 jobs in other boroughs um some of it was retirement um and then of course when people leave the decision is then made by the management whether they should re-employ um so i think it just ended up a point where
00:24:17 where um the i mean a good example is at one point we used to is looking for people who are suitable for the team really
00:24:26 really so we had a period where we were employing ex-fire brigade officers who had done fire safety um work but when you're employing some at the end of their career where they've moved on to a sort of a second career
00:24:38 moved on to a sort of a second career they don't have long before they actually retire so we had a couple of fire brigade officers who come to us with their done great work but then they retired and it was a cycle of really um it's a
00:24:49 and it was a cycle of really um it's a difficult
00:24:50 difficult cycle to fill the post actually um so part of it is natural wastage um and it's it's not an easy role to find a suitable candidate yeah there's all that mixture of things
00:25:01 yeah there's all that mixture of things really exciting to your knowledge were budget two reasons
00:25:07 reasons behind that yes so the very last um case was um my understanding is that the reshuffle was based upon the need to reduce the cost of building
00:25:18 the need to reduce the cost of building control okay now if we can look at um your first witness statement again paragraph 17 and 18.
00:25:37 17 you're talking about a change to the law that occurred in in 1987 um you say that sections of the london building acts dealing with construction were repealed from section 20. and then
00:25:50 were repealed from section 20. and then it said
00:25:51 it said paragraph 18 you say internal external fire spread formally dealt with under section 20 passed to the area surveyor by the building control officer and were dealt with under b3 to b4 of
00:26:04 and were dealt with under b3 to b4 of the building regulations and then you say the fire regulations group so that then became the means of escape group continued to deal with the remnants of section 20 control and continue to act as a consultant to
00:26:17 and continue to act as a consultant to the area surveyor for means of escape in case of fire under b1 of the building regulations and then you also tell us that at paragraph 21 if we go over the page to
00:26:28 paragraph 21 if we go over the page to page four
00:26:33 it's um towards the end of that paragraph you do also confirm there that for functional requirement b5
00:26:44 that for functional requirement b5 you would also consider b5 for new buildings
00:26:47 buildings is that correct that's correct yeah now just stepping back for a moment is it right that the responsibility for ensuring compliance with all of the functional requirements ib1
00:27:00 all of the functional requirements ib1 to b5
00:27:01 to b5 those related to fire safety was ultimately that of the area surveyor are you the building control officer it was yeah yeah i mean it might be helpful
00:27:14 yeah yeah but is it right though that you were the expert on b1 and b5 and could also provide some observations on the b2 to b4
00:27:25 observations on the b2 to b4 requirements is that right yes that was the intent yeah it might be helpful to if i explain a bit of background about why that occurred um at a right job yes
00:27:38 um at a right job yes yes yeah so in the glc days prior to 87 you had effectively two um two sectors who dealt with fire safety
00:27:49 two sectors who dealt with fire safety so the district surveyor under the bylaws used to deal with internal external fire spread yes and where i worked was the other sector
00:28:00 sector of the glc um i called them fire specialist group um in my statement and we dealt with means of escape across a range of legislation and section 20 buildings
00:28:12 legislation and section 20 buildings and section 20 of tall buildings where it was regarded that the standards of the bylaws needed to be upgraded because of the size of the building so therefore the function of internal and external
00:28:24 the function of internal and external fast spread for the taller buildings then fell
00:28:26 then fell to our team rather than the district surveyor
00:28:30 surveyor yes so that's how that worked so therefore when the abolition happened and we all amalgamated and section 20 was repealed so the part dealing with internal and external fast
00:28:42 dealing with internal and external fast spread then effectively i lost the job in dealing with that because that legislation no longer existed so we continued dealing with means of escape so therefore the logical um process that rbkc
00:28:53 the logical um process that rbkc followed was to as the area survivor was used to deal with internal and external fire spread under the by-laws they then continued to deal with it under the building regulations as renamed
00:29:04 regulations as renamed b3 and b4 so just a little jump to that that might help understand why they could ask us advice is that the the head of our team at that
00:29:15 is that the the head of our team at that time
00:29:16 time he felt that it might be a good idea if we offered to do all of part b right um i think he was lamenting the loss of section 20 to be honest with you
00:29:28 section 20 to be honest with you so we then had a meeting with the deputy district surveyor and put that proposal to him however he felt
00:29:36 felt that as the area surveyors were experienced in dealing with into an excellent fire spread under bylaws and we effectively weren't because we only dealt with all buildings under section
00:29:47 dealt with all buildings under section 20.
00:29:48 20. um it was better to continue for the areas i've had to deal with into an external fire spread but what he but what he did say is that just to get that point what he did say was that what we could do is
00:30:00 did say was that what we could do is create a scheme whereby if the aeris van needs assistance under b
00:30:05 b um two into an excellent fire spread um they can ask you and this this was really sorry do you want to continue i i'm yeah because i'm just going to come to that
00:30:16 just going to come to that yeah no that's all very happy sorry i'm just going to come to how that works in practice okay on that this meeting at which you proposed that actually you could deal with
00:30:26 with all of b1 to b5 when was that meeting roughly
00:30:30 roughly i regard that as being early 90s i would say
00:30:33 say that's it yeah okay um and to what extent in fact were you familiar with the b3 and b4 intel and lexter external fire
00:30:44 and b4 intel and lexter external fire spread requirements while you were working for rbkc despite being part of the means of escape group the awareness was really a broad awareness so
00:30:55 awareness so it's important to understand um read the approved document understand exactly what it's saying but in terms of dealing with a particular project um we didn't deal with any projects um
00:31:09 we didn't deal with any projects um there were cases where this consultancy part worked whereby if an applicant was proposing for example a fire engineered solution to a b3 or b thor mata
00:31:20 to a b3 or b thor mata then that would send to us i can give you an example if that will help i don't think you need to at the moment carry on then yeah let me carry on because i think i can i'm going to ask you a little bit about how the
00:31:31 to ask you a little bit about how the chain of decision making works in practice
00:31:33 practice and i think this will help us so in your with your first witness statement from paragraph one two four onwards you explain how this chain of decision making worked
00:31:44 making worked now could you just answer these questions is it correct that your role within the means of escape group was to respond to requests from the area surveyor
00:31:53 surveyor in this case this was from john hoban yes and you say this was the only role would the means of escape group have had any other role on a project
00:32:04 any other role on a project like grenfell tower any other role other than responding to other than to respond to requests from mr hoban no that is the only role
00:32:16 from mr hoban no that is the only role yeah in practice would you be in direct contract contact with applicant building contractors and professionals working on the project
00:32:27 and professionals working on the project yeah yeah
00:32:28 yeah yeah due to the process you do end up discussing with the architectural team um because it's easy we don't act as a the observation is a
00:32:39 we don't act as a the observation is a written observation but when you actually
00:32:41 actually need to to help them
00:32:47 understand the regulations then you will get into direct contact with the the applicants yeah yes i understand so is it fair to say this that whilst you reported
00:32:56 reported to say mr hoban it wasn't the case that all your interactions went through mr hogan you could have direct interactions on a project yes absolutely yeah so the observations
00:33:08 yes absolutely yeah so the observations that were the written observations went back
00:33:09 back back to the area survey and then he sent them out to the applicant um yeah because i'm actually his consultant but when he come to the the architect for example responding to these then he
00:33:20 to these then he could contact me directly um so it's easier to do that yeah yeah now you tell us this is a paragraph 130 of your statement for the transcript
00:33:31 of your statement for the transcript again we don't need to turn it up you tell us that your observations would be requested by say mr hogan by him filling out a form and the area surveyor ticking b1 or b5
00:33:44 and the area surveyor ticking b1 or b5 as required is that correct yes that's correct yeah but you've said also that if the request was for assistance with b1 only that's means of escape only
00:33:56 b1 only that's means of escape only that a form did not need to be filled out and simply a request made is that right that's correct yeah this was really attempting to get rid of a bit of bureaucracy um because if does that mean sorry i carry on
00:34:10 if does that mean sorry i carry on does that mean that simply an oral a verbal request would be made by mr hogan if it was only functional requirement b1 on which your observations were required is that right um well it wouldn't be
00:34:23 is that right um well it wouldn't be oral because they would it would need to be in some and at that time it was email so therefore
00:34:29 therefore um it would need to be an email requesting our observations um i mean theoretically in the days before the use of electronic communications ie mouse then
00:34:40 communications ie mouse then they would bring the drawings around um but they wouldn't then need to fill in the form if it was b1 only yeah the reason that would change it might help to elaborate why that was
00:34:51 it might help to elaborate why that was changed okay yes the so you had this form you filled out b1 to b5
00:34:56 b1 to b5 tick the but the boxes that they they'd like to give the observation on the reality was most jobs they were looking for observations on b1 so it almost become a a chore if you like to fill out this form
00:35:07 like to fill out this form and i think during the management process they felt well they should just eliminate the form um if it's b1 basically so that really explains
00:35:14 explains at that point really i see thank you now who was it though that made the final decision on whether the works were compliant with
00:35:25 on whether the works were compliant with b1 with means of escape was that you or was that the area surveyor i.e mr hogan ultimately was the area of survey because we were giving observations and
00:35:36 because we were giving observations and they had the option to um effectively disagree with our observations if they wish to so they did have the final say um i think it was rarely done but there are occasions see there may be
00:35:48 there are occasions see there may be occasions where we've made observations and there is an aspect of control that might mean that they couldn't ask for something we've mentioned that we may not be aware of so yes it was for that reason really
00:35:59 so yes it was for that reason really yes so you tell us in your statement this is at paragraph 133 for the transcript that the area surveyor could choose whether to follow the advice given or not but that normally the advice was
00:36:11 but that normally the advice was followed is that correct yeah that yeah that's really what i'm saying yes that's great but i think what you're saying is that um on some occasions rare occasions is that right your advice might not be followed
00:36:23 might not be followed yes yes i mean that has happened yeah yeah
00:36:27 yeah now can we look at paragraph 41 of your first statement now this is on page six
00:36:43 you say this you say requests for observations under b2 to b4 are extremely rare so that would include
00:36:50 include internal and external fire spread under b3 and b4
00:36:54 b3 and b4 you say they are extremely rare and since working at rbkc the means of escape group has received one request other than b1 and b5 in 30 years and that was a football pitch
00:37:05 that was a football pitch on a roof yes um now can i ask you this do you agree with mr hoban
00:37:14 mr hoban that it was a failure on the part of the department not to have used the re use the resource of a qualified fire engineer iu for the benefit of the building control department as a whole
00:37:26 building control department as a whole i.e to more regularly advise on b2 to b4 issues as well no i i would disagree with that actually and can you just briefly say why you would disagree yeah the
00:37:38 would disagree yeah the the way the proof documents are written that they're not written that you need a fire engineer to interpret them the idea is that an architect can pick up the approved document and if they design to the approved document
00:37:49 they design to the approved document they should be able to provide a satisfactory solution and also the way the improvements are written um for or the other way around actually the the the type of
00:38:01 the the type of um officer who is used to administer the building regulations is a surveyor and therefore they're written so he could understand the process you don't need foreign to get involved in that where we
00:38:13 get involved in that where we become involved and i'll give you a good example say for example um there is another example i've now remembered since that statement actually there's quite a good one um so under b3
00:38:24 there's quite a good one um so under b3 we look at fire time of buildings basically
00:38:26 basically and if an applicant is following the approved document there is a table where they look up what is the use of the building how high is the building and it tells you in the table what the fire time is
00:38:37 fire time is so that's a relatively simple process and you don't need a fire engineer to help the aris of our understand that however
00:38:45 however on this one project the applicant was proposing a fire engineered solution so rather than following that table they were following a calculation procedure which gave you the fire time of the
00:38:56 which gave you the fire time of the building so that then come to me to look at the calculation procedure and then you need the skills of a fire engineer
00:39:02 engineer to analyze the calculation decide whether they've been carried out suitably
00:39:06 suitably for the proposal yeah i understand you're saying that um you don't necessarily need a fire engineer to interpret b2 to b4 and i understand you're also saying that on rare occasions you were
00:39:17 saying that on rare occasions you were consulted on those issues but i think that the point is is this that having you in the department as a qualified fire engineer
00:39:26 engineer wasn't it a waste of a resource not to use you more frequently to deal with for example um internal external fire spread issues well not if the approved document was
00:39:38 well not if the approved document was being followed it's really a case where alternative solutions are offered but one good example is actually b1 the reason why we get involved in b1 a lot is because
00:39:50 is because um the way b1 is written that there are a lot of scenarios that people want to build in buildings that b1 doesn't allow you to
00:39:57 you to um to do and the typical example is your residential building connecting to a basement very desirable to have a car park in a basement so you so the residents can come down in the lift to their car
00:40:09 the lift to their car but a proof document b b1 says you can't actually do that you have to go to your car park um go outside in the rain to connect to your car park so what you generally offered um for
00:40:20 so what you generally offered um for residential buildings today is a fire engineered solution to enable the staircase and the list to connect to a basement so then you need a fire engineer to help uh analyze the proposals that have been
00:40:31 uh analyze the proposals that have been put forward um the idea is the proof documents are intended sorry i'm going to stop you then
00:40:37 then go for it yeah we need to stay focused on my story yeah okay we're probably going to overrun um i i appreciate your time to be helpful but um if we can just try and
00:40:48 but um if we can just try and yes okay sure yeah and in his evidence to the inquiry and his oral evidence mr hoban accepted that the working relationship between the means of escape group and
00:41:00 between the means of escape group and the other parts of building control within rbkc could have been a lot clearer
00:41:05 clearer do you agree with that no no i think it was very clear it was very important for the department to have
00:41:12 to have a very clear line about which parts of b we dealt with i think that was very clearly defined hence the reason we had the form they could fill in so it was very clear what was being
00:41:24 so it was very clear what was being asked for
00:41:25 asked for and you'll note on my observations that the head of all the observations are clearly stated what the control was be one
00:41:32 be one that my observations related to as requested by the area of survivor i see now you've recently all your legal representatives are very recently provided to the inquiry two memos from the deputy district surveyor
00:41:44 memos from the deputy district surveyor if we can pull up the first one from 1992 that's rbk three zeros six four two nine five
00:42:02 nine five and i want to look at that final paragraph it's helpfully um highlighted there at the bottom um and if we pick it up three lines down it says the means of escape group when
00:42:14 it says the means of escape group when dealing with b1 we'll assume that parts b2 to b5 are being fully complied with now were you aware of that memo when you were working on the blendful tower
00:42:26 were working on the blendful tower project
00:42:26 project i was aware of that memo yes and was that memo still current yes at the time so did that mean that when you were working on
00:42:37 you were working on means of escape b1 you had to assume that parts b 2 to b 5 are being fully complied with yes absolutely yes there's a following
00:42:48 yes absolutely yes there's a following paragraph that that that helps us if that wasn't the case
00:42:54 when you say paragraph i mean the rest of the paragraph so it reads where this is not so for example if an applicant was provided a higher standard of surface spread of
00:43:06 a higher standard of surface spread of flame
00:43:06 flame to permit greater travel distances or vice versa then you must inform the means of escape group yes yeah yeah and then the second memo is from 1994 if we look at rbk3064294
00:43:25 we can see on the third paragraph down from the top it talks about new arrangements for means of escape this is from july 94. and the third paragraph down we get the
00:43:36 and the third paragraph down we get the gist of it it says from monday the 18th of july 1994 means of escape will be undertaken by the area surveyor in line with the progression criteria as outlined below
00:43:47 outlined below do you see that there yeah so so that means that the equivalent of well mr hoban and his equivalent were to be dealing with means of escape from
00:43:59 be dealing with means of escape from this point yes yeah prior to this the um the evil survivors dealt with what we we call in the industry small premises so they had a role in
00:44:10 small premises so they had a role in dealing with those and the idea was that as really explained in this memo was to make sure area suppliers were were exposed to means of escape um
00:44:24 means of escape um because really boone charges they need to be well-rounded and deal with it so we were really a specialist team dealing with the
00:44:29 with the um there are site awkward jobs or ones that needed specialist consideration um yeah and this was really a process to um get everyone up to speed with
00:44:40 to um get everyone up to speed with dealing with different types of projects different sizes as you will see based upon their pay grade effectively um
00:44:46 um progression can we go to an email now from the grenfell project this is
00:44:53 rbk3048682
00:44:59 this is an email at the top we can see from mr hoban to simon lawrence of bride and simon o'connor also of ryden 5th of september
00:45:10 o'connor also of ryden 5th of september 2014. and what mr hogan is doing is explaining his role as the building control surveyor and yours as the building control surveyor for fire regulations
00:45:21 surveyor for fire regulations and he says um if we read the two main paragraphs further to neil crawford's email concerning the grenfell tower refurbishment i would confirm that i am the building control surveyor charged with dealing with all building regulations matters
00:45:33 with all building regulations matters for the project paul hanson is the building control surveyor fire regulations for the scheme and he will provide me with technical advice and observations on the proposals
00:45:44 and observations on the proposals submitted under parts b1 that's means of escape and b5 that's facilities for firefighters in schedule one of such regulations as that is his reference for this project
00:45:55 that is his reference for this project do you see that there and then he says should you have any proposals and or issues that you desire technical advice on from this office under parts b1 and b5 of the building regulations
00:46:06 regulations i would be grateful if you would contact myself in the first instance so that i'm aware of these matters as they may impact on other parts of the building regulations so he's making clear that he still wants to be contacted about b1 and b5
00:46:19 to be contacted about b1 and b5 um now do you agree with that summary of how your work divided up on the grenfell project
00:46:27 project yeah it might be worth just explaining the b5 aspect because during the process there was discussions about the smoke control system and this is really why i got involved in the project because there was that
00:46:38 the project because there was that complexity so although the process by which john hogan requested the observations for me is the you don't use the form um i did point out to him actually there is
00:46:49 i did point out to him actually there is a b5 reference here for the smoke control system um so i think that's why this was put in i think to be quite frank what we ought to have said is b5 insofar as it relates to the smoke
00:47:01 is b5 insofar as it relates to the smoke control system i see because i think you know outside of that that was basically as i understood the b5 involvement generally b5 on an existing building is is an existing
00:47:12 existing building is is an existing situation that uh mustn't be made any worse basically so that's normally why the airsoft dealt with it
00:47:18 with it so i think that we'll come back to that okay yeah
00:47:21 okay yeah we'll come back to that if we move down this email below in this email thread there's an email dated the 2nd of september 2014 at the foot of page 1.
00:47:32 the foot of page 1. there's an email this is an internal email
00:47:35 email between the project team from neil crawford to simon lawrence and simon o'connor
00:47:39 o'connor um actually sorry and you're you are sorry
00:47:43 sorry in on this email as well and um mr crawford provides your contact details to ryden and he says this paul is a fire engineer and best place to answer questions regarding
00:47:54 answer questions regarding dry riser and aovs john hoban won't be able to provide any answers on his own and tends to refer to paul all the time which can be frustrating when you want answers the contact details for paul ah do you
00:48:06 the contact details for paul ah do you see that there i do now would you agree that this suggests that while john hogan had the overall responsibility in practice he deferred to you on b1 and
00:48:18 b5
00:48:25 i think what i think i mean this is really
00:48:28 really um neil crawford um making a few assumptions here isn't it really um i i think i understand that but i'm asking you oh okay yeah yeah yeah so my expectation
00:48:40 oh okay yeah yeah yeah so my expectation would be right that although he had john hogan had the overall responsibility in practice he did defer to you on b1 and b5
00:48:49 and b5 well my expectation is if there was a proposal under b5 that he needed device on he would have sent it to me for advice
00:48:56 advice basically you know we already i was dealing with smoke control system the the what the term aov there is is not necessary but we know what they mean the smoke ventilation system um yes i i understand he would have
00:49:08 yes i i understand he would have referred to you for advice but in practice
00:49:11 practice do you accept that he was heavily dependent on you for b1 to b5 advice
00:49:20 uh it depends on the subject really depends on if there's a particular issue um that he wouldn't be able to deal with then he would come to me basically
00:49:32 then he would come to me basically um he said is it difficult is it it's a very broad the way you put it is very broad so it's very difficult to say yes or no to that but
00:49:40 but um we could only look at it in the context of the job really because remember he didn't tick he didn't take b5 on the observations there wasn't a broad i look at everything the idea of the form was that
00:49:51 everything the idea of the form was that if they took b5 then idea of everything b5
00:49:54 b5 basically but he didn't do that so that tenses yesterday there weren't any proposals that were significant under b5 yes mr hanson just just watch how fast you're speaking so i suspect the
00:50:06 you're speaking so i suspect the transcriber may be struggling to get down right i'll slow down i'll slow down some of what you're saying if you can just
00:50:12 just slow down a little okay um john hogan in his evidence to the inquiry in his oral evidence said that as well as you being the go-to person for b1 and b5 he said he would also
00:50:23 for b1 and b5 he said he would also occasionally come to you with technical questions on b2 b3 and b4 i think from what you said you agree with that yes no i don't agree with that so you don't agree that which bit don't
00:50:36 so you don't agree that which bit don't you agree with but you were the go-to person for b1 and b5 didn't you mention um i'd have to hear what you just said um i thought you mentioned
00:50:49 um i thought you mentioned b2 to b4 didn't you or did you sorry yeah
00:50:52 yeah there was two parts to that question let me break it down um do you accept as mr hogan described you
00:50:58 you that you were the go-to person for b1 and b5
00:51:04 and b5 um i'm not quite sure what go to means but
00:51:08 but he certainly i was definitely dealing with b1
00:51:11 with b1 because the idea is that that if if the reason
00:51:15 reason if i just clarify because it might help
00:51:18 mr hansen i think i think we understand broadly what you're telling us the question i think ms grange is wanting you to comment on did uh mr hansen come to you from time
00:51:29 did uh mr hansen come to you from time to time with questions about b 2 3 and 4. that's what i thought the question was yeah yeah no he didn't right i mean i can tell you what the process would have been right let's look at this
00:51:40 would have been right let's look at this actually yes carry on okay that's fine now we heard in his evidence in module one in his oral evidence that mr hoban said he was struggling with his workload in around the summer of 2015.
00:51:52 around the summer of 2015. do you recall being aware that mr hoban was struggling at that time um it's very difficult for me to make any
00:52:02 any comment he seems to be running around a lot i i would say uh if that's an indication um you know i'm in the we're in the same office so you can see people um but it's almost impossible for me to
00:52:13 um but it's almost impossible for me to um
00:52:14 um you know without being his manager and seeing what work ladies got you know you can't answer you can't answer the question yes or no whether john hogan appeared to be struggling with his workload in 2012
00:52:25 struggling with his workload in 2012 i can't really know no because i've got no way of knowing so you just don't know yeah i wouldn't confirm or deny i don't know okay
00:52:38 did you ever experience any difficulties in working with mr hoban on projects you were involved with no no not at all how did you find his
00:52:49 no no not at all how did you find his approach to record keeping
00:52:52 um the problem really is i i i wouldn't monitor his record keeping um so i wouldn't i wouldn't be able to
00:53:03 so i wouldn't i wouldn't be able to um comment on it i see you just wouldn't know because what we in our team we had our own little section of record keeping where we kept
00:53:11 we kept um our material then passed on to him our observations so therefore um it was very important to us that we kept all of our records so we knew what had been sent to us what we sent back so really
00:53:22 sent back so really our ability my need to model his record he wasn't
00:53:27 he wasn't necessary for me to know basically my process
00:53:31 process mr hoban he also gave evidence that he felt that he wasn't able to speak up and ask for more help about the difficulties he was experiencing due to the culture in the office at the time
00:53:42 the culture in the office at the time did you ever experience anything similar no i didn't no to be honest i found the opposite
00:53:50 opposite i see were you aware that mr hoban felt that way
00:53:54 that way i wasn't known
00:53:59 now we heard we also heard in the evidence during module one that the building control department reduced in size from 2013 in terms of the number of surveyors and then again in 2015 when surveyors left
00:54:12 then again in 2015 when surveyors left or passed away and were not replaced did you notice due to that any impact on the department's ability to discharge its functions at that time i i think i i mainly
00:54:24 at that time i i think i i mainly noticed
00:54:25 noticed my own workload um and also what happened to your own what happened to your own workload well effectively um i was the only person dealing with the borough then
00:54:36 person dealing with the borough then um bearing in mind that as we've established i deal with the the jobs that are sent to us that are the larger more complex or fire engineer jobs
00:54:44 jobs so i'm not dealing with every to be clear i'm not dealing with every fire safety aspect of b1 um but obviously my work load effectively um because there was as you've established there was there was three of us a
00:54:56 there was there was three of us a trainee plus um my colleague so i i then needed to deal with
00:55:00 deal with their work as well so it effectively doubled i suppose you could say yeah and we also of course lost a mechanical electrical engineer yes i'm coming on to that in just a moment between 2012 and 2016 did you
00:55:13 moment between 2012 and 2016 did you ever experience a time when you felt you were unable to carry out your duties properly
00:55:18 properly due to workload pressures
00:55:24 i certainly felt the pressure yeah absolutely um and yeah i i did yeah you did and did you feel that that was potentially impacting on on
00:55:35 potentially impacting on on the quality of the work you were able to produce
00:55:38 produce um yeah it's bound too isn't it yeah yeah i mean at the end of the day where you have quite a heavy work like you have to make a decision how to deal with it
00:55:46 with it and sometimes what happens is um if you are you're aiming to achieve the same level of
00:55:52 level of um critique or consideration time times will then extend to be able to do it so it did cause some time at times to extend my response times
00:56:05 at times to extend my response times if we can look at paragraph 61 of your first statement on page 11 that's rbk3033894
00:56:20 you here you say i cannot confirm compliance on site as inspections are not my reference or responsibility and then you say this certification
00:56:31 and then you say this certification without any further inspection was the practice for mechanical and electrical smoke control systems following the loss of rbkc's employment of the mechanical and electrical
00:56:42 of the mechanical and electrical engineer
00:56:44 engineer now can you help us when did that mechanical electrical engineer leave the team
00:56:50 team i think it was 2012.
00:56:55 and before that m e engineer left the team
00:56:58 team can you just help us briefly what was the usual practice for inspecting and approving smoke control systems right well the the details that were sent in regarding the mechanical and
00:57:09 sent in regarding the mechanical and electrical kit as we call it in the industry would have been looked at by the mechanical electrical engineer and they would have similar to my observations they would make observations that would be sent to the area survey who would then
00:57:21 sent to the area survey who would then send it to the applicant so that was the review process of information would the mechanical and electrical engineer carry out uh inspections as well to look at where
00:57:33 inspections as well to look at where they would work yeah they would yes they would yeah so they would then um and significantly attend commissioning and witness the system and then look at
00:57:44 and witness the system and then look at the system and obviously they have their own um checks um so yeah they were inspectors as well yeah so when the m e and the engineer left
00:57:57 so when the m e and the engineer left the team
00:57:58 the team is the difference it made that then you went to this system of certification without
00:58:03 without further inspection as your default practice
00:58:07 practice for smoke control systems yes and the certification being the issue of a commissioning certificate yes so you would basically look at the
00:58:18 yes so you would basically look at the documentation including the issue of a commissioning certificate but not carry out any inspection is that correct that's correct yeah
00:58:29 and so did that make you reliant on the quality of the information that was provided to you by the designers about any smoke control system it was reliant on their professionalism
00:58:40 it was reliant on their professionalism to design the system and install it correctly so can i just make sure we've understood this
00:58:47 you received from whoever was in charge of the commissioning a report telling you that it had been the commissioning had been carried out right and and you effectively accepted
00:58:59 right and and you effectively accepted that at face value without any further physical checks no i did look at the commission certificate and i as best as i could being a mechanical electrical engineer
00:59:10 being a mechanical electrical engineer you know in particular because i i'm ideal with the um effectively the um the intent of the system
00:59:21 system so i i would check if flow rates were what was intended in the design but when it come down to um other aspects that might the mechanical engineer might have
00:59:32 engineer might have an awareness of that i wouldn't and obviously the commission certificate um is something that i couldn't interrogate as well as a mechanical electric
00:59:39 electric engineer could do so all right thank you very much
00:59:43 very much yes yes that's no that's very helpful that's my next question so that's good thank you
00:59:57 thank you i now want to just ask you um some questions about the um the building regulations and the approved document b um and this is partly just to orientate ourselves you're the first witness that
01:00:09 ourselves you're the first witness that we've dealt with on this topic so i'm going to use you as a bit of a vehicle just to introduce some of the key
01:00:15 key parts particularly of approved document b
01:00:18 b um now can you just explain thinking specifically about the grenfell tower smoke control system which of the functional requirements in the building
01:00:29 functional requirements in the building regulations in schedule one did you consider when you were approving the system right the functional requirements
01:00:41 i think you may have to refer me to the functional requirements well i'm talking about b1 b2 bc oh i see right okay okay okay thinking back to the grenfell tower yeah
01:00:52 the grenfell tower yeah okay right which of those which of those functional requirements were you
01:00:59 you did you have in mind when you were assessing the smoke control system right b1 and b5
01:01:04 b1 and b5 right okay i thought you meant the context of it and can i just check does that mean that you didn't give any consideration to b3 that's internal fire spread
01:01:16 b3 that's internal fire spread when it came to the smoke control system and its ability to maintain compartmentation um that's correct yeah so you didn't look at that at all no
01:01:29 now um when you review the proposals for the smoke control system and i'm going to come on in a minute to take you through chronologically what those proposals were over time when
01:01:40 what those proposals were over time when you reviewed the proposals to what extent did you actually consider the practical guidance in approved document be um sorry could you just repeat repeat the question
01:01:52 the question when you were reviewing the smoke control proposals for grenfell tower to what
01:01:55 what extent did you actually consider the practical guidance in approved document be
01:02:01 be um so are we speaking about all of the proposals that were put forward or the very last one that was fitted in the building well if there's a difference um
01:02:14 well if there's a difference um there's a difference as in did you look at a pre-document b only for the last proposal or did you look at it throughout your consideration of the system ms
01:02:25 your consideration of the system ms granger i'm sorry to interrupt you before mr hanson answers but um perhaps what we
01:02:30 what we really need to know is the extent to which he had in mind approved document b when um considering the final version of this proposed specification because that's
01:02:42 proposed specification because that's the one that was ultimately followed yes that's fine yes would that be sensible yes so mr hansen the question is um
01:02:53 yes so mr hansen the question is um thinking in particular about the third version i think of the proposed specification to what extent did you have approved document be in mind when you were looking at that
01:03:04 mind when you were looking at that right proposal right well approve document b provides um a couple of generic solutions um that were not used
01:03:15 um that were not used so therefore what the applicant did they followed an alternative solution to approve document b for the smoke control system i understand in fact the building as it existing had um
01:03:26 existing had um a um a mechanical system that um you know it doesn't follow the guidance of approve document b or for runners either um yeah so that's why i difficulty answering your first
01:03:37 why i difficulty answering your first question you see because there was an attempt by the applicant to establish what this the existing system provided in terms of the smoke control system
01:03:46 system and whether that would be suitable to carry on using for the new work that we could control which was adding the new flats um yes can we just look at the guidance that we do get in the proof document be
01:03:58 that we do get in the proof document be i appreciate the point you're making is that there's limited guidance within it but i would like to actually look at what we did in there if we can bring up clg five zeroes
01:04:07 zeroes two two four and i want to start by looking at page 17. so just to help you this is the 2006 edition incorporating 2007 2010 and 2013 amendments so it
01:04:21 2007 2010 and 2013 amendments so it would have been the version that was applicable during the time you were considering the smoke control system and we can see that this is uh guidance from the secretary of state
01:04:32 from the secretary of state on requirement b1 that's the means of escape functional requirement and if we look at b and e uh on the list it says in the secretary of state's view
01:04:44 it says in the secretary of state's view the requirement of b1 will be met if and if we look at b it says the roots are sufficiently protected from the effects of fire where necessary and then at e there are appropriate
01:04:56 and then at e there are appropriate facilities to either limit the ingress of smoke to the escape routes or to restrict the fire and remove smoke do you see those yup so those are the the performance
01:05:08 the performance requirements that the secretary of state has set out in this guidance and then if we go over to page 18
01:05:18 i just want to read roman numeral 9 at the bottom penultimate point in that left-hand column
01:05:26 column it says this protected stairways are designed to provide virtually far sterile areas which lead to places of safety outside the building once inside a protected stairway a person can be considered to be safe from
01:05:37 person can be considered to be safe from the immediate danger from flame and smoke
01:05:39 smoke they can then proceed to a place of safety at their own pace to enable this to be done flames smoke and gases must be excluded from these escape routes as far as is reasonably
01:05:51 escape routes as far as is reasonably possible
01:05:52 possible by fire resisting structures or by an appropriate smoke control system or by a combination of both these methods
01:06:02 methods do you see that there yeah so we've got that guidance there and then if we turn on page 30 again within this same b1 section
01:06:14 and we look at paragraph 2.24 of common escape routes it says to reduce the risk of a fire in a flat affecting the means of escape from other
01:06:25 affecting the means of escape from other flats and common parts of the building the common corridors should be protected corridors
01:06:30 corridors do you see that there yes yeah i do yeah and um if i just want to read 2.25 just below that
01:06:41 below that it's then headed smoke control of common escape routes and it says this despite the provisions described in this approved document it is probable that some smoke will get
01:06:52 it is probable that some smoke will get into a common corridor or lobby from a fire in a flat if only because the entrance door will be opened
01:06:59 be opened when the occupants escape and then if we could go over the page to the top of the next page it says this there should therefore be some means of
01:07:10 there should therefore be some means of ventilating the common corridors slash lobbies to control smoke and so protect the common stairs this offers additional protection to that provided by the fire doors to the
01:07:22 that provided by the fire doors to the stair
01:07:23 stair and then in parenthesis it says the ventilation also affords some protection to the corridors and lobbies and then below that it says this can be achieved by either
01:07:34 achieved by either natural means in accordance with paragraphs 2.26 or by means of a mechanical ventilation as described in paragraph 2.27
01:07:46 as described in paragraph 2.27 now can we take it that you were aware of these parts of the approved document yeah at the time of your consideration of the smoke control system at grenfell tower
01:07:54 tower i was yes and can we agree that that section there at the top that top paragraph in that left column is drawing attention
01:08:03 attention to the need to ventilate the common lobbies
01:08:07 lobbies so as to protect the common stairs yes
01:08:12 and also to avoid some protection to the corridors lobbies themselves yes yep because is this right one would need to provide some protection to the entire escape route compatible
01:08:25 to the entire escape route compatible with the overall functional requirement for means of escape yes yes yes and we can see that a predocument b essentially identifies two general kinds
01:08:37 essentially identifies two general kinds of smoke control system that's a natural smoke ventilation system that's detailed in 2.26
01:08:45 in 2.26 or a mechanical smoke control system that is addressed in 2.27 yes yes that's great yeah can you just briefly describe the difference between
01:08:57 briefly describe the difference between those two
01:08:58 those two very briefly what's the difference between a natural and mechanical right yeah so briefly the idea of the natural system is whereby you have a natural ventilator
01:09:10 is whereby you have a natural ventilator it's normally an automatic ventilator that's located in the lobby to the staircase and bear in mind the flats open into this common lobby yeah and then in order for the system to
01:09:22 yeah and then in order for the system to perform its function well as as a smoke control system you need some inlet air to replace it that's being effectively removed
01:09:32 removed by the natural system so you the staircase is the path for inlet air at the head of the staircase that then leaks through to the lobby so that effectively is a natural system
01:09:43 effectively is a natural system so smoke from a finer flat will will naturally go into the lobby and the natural event will provide some degree of
01:09:51 degree of ventilation um to the the lobby and the intent is to protect the stairway and it's a system
01:10:02 protect the stairway and it's a system that we've used for since the 60s basically and the mechanical smoke control system in contrast to that can you just describe that very briefly well in the approved document they refer
01:10:14 well in the approved document they refer to a specific type of mechanical smoke control system which is um there's two types of systems that are described in that
01:10:21 in that in that standard one is a pressurization system
01:10:27 system and the idea of a pressurization system you're actually pumping air into both the staircase and the lobbies with the idea that smoke would not then
01:10:38 with the idea that smoke would not then drift into the lobby and also would not affect
01:10:43 affect the staircase yes there's another type of system that's really used in buildings known as the depressurization system whereby the idea of this system is whereby you provide ventilation not in the lobbies
01:10:54 provide ventilation not in the lobbies or the stair but in the accommodation so you're actually then venting away and the the basements are the only real place you can use them because you get a lot of losses anyways going it's going
01:11:05 lot of losses anyways going it's going down to a rabbit yeah i know that's helpful and if we look at section 2.27 now which is the section which deals with mechanical
01:11:18 we can see it says this as an alternative to the natural ventilation provisions in paragraph 2.26 mechanical ventilation to the stair and or corridor lobby may be provided to
01:11:29 or corridor lobby may be provided to protect the stairs from smoke and then guidance on the design of smoke control systems using pressure differentials is available in bs en 12101
01:11:40 is available in bs en 12101 part 6 2005. yes
01:11:45 so can we agree that approved document b doesn't provide any further definition of a mechanical ventilation solution agreed yeah and the the only one that's referred to there is
01:11:57 the only one that's referred to there is in uh
01:11:57 in uh one using pressure differentials in bsen 12101 part six yes agreed yeah i just go back um to page 30 again
01:12:08 i just go back um to page 30 again within this section and look at 2.23 so we we looked at that um it said escape routes in the common areas should
01:12:20 escape routes in the common areas should comply sorry we didn't look at that and i want to take you to it now escape routes in the common areas should comply with the limitations on travel distance in table one however there may be
01:12:31 in table one however there may be circumstances where some increase on these maximum figures will be reasonable and then we can see just to the left of that we've got table one it's headed limitation on
01:12:42 table one it's headed limitation on distance of travel in common areas of blocks of flats and we can see that it's saying that the maximum
01:12:49 maximum travel distance from a flat entrance door to the common stair or stair lobby in one direction only is 7.5 meters do you see that yes so that's the
01:13:00 do you see that yes so that's the maximum travel distance albeit in 2.23 it does say that there may be circumstances where some increase on these maximum figures will be reasonable do you see that as well yeah
01:13:12 well yeah and were you aware of that maximum distance
01:13:15 distance of travel 7.5 meters when you were considering the smoke control system at grenfell tower yes i was yeah
01:13:25 now further guidance on smoke control systems is set out in a number of other british standards and guides and i just want to look at a couple of those now perhaps mr
01:13:36 a couple of those now perhaps mr chairman i can just do this and then we'll break yes very well um so bs triple nine one two thousand and eleven that's fire safety and the design management and use
01:13:47 safety and the design management and use of residential buildings code of practice if we can look at that at bsi 50621
01:13:55 50621 page seven sorry let's look at that first bsi 5062 there we can see the front page of that publication and if we go to page 73 and look at
01:14:07 and if we go to page 73 and look at clause 26.2.5 we can see it says in the second paragraph
01:14:14 paragraph a mechanical smoke ventilation system should demonstrate equivalent or better conditions in the lobby or corridor and stairs than the natural ventilation
01:14:25 and stairs than the natural ventilation system that it replaces do you see that i do and it says in note 1 immediately below this is usually shown by a comparative computational fluid dynamics analysis do
01:14:37 computational fluid dynamics analysis do you see that i do yeah were you aware of that guidance
01:14:41 guidance at the time i was aware of that guidance yeah
01:14:45 yeah okay sorry can i just ask a question on that
01:14:48 that that paragraph that's just been read to you which refers to the natural ventilation system that it replaces
01:14:56 replaces what is that referring to right that refers to
01:15:00 refers to the the um this is an alternative code of practice but the principles that we did we saw in the proof document b which was the lobby ventilation system the natural lobby ventilations that
01:15:12 the natural lobby ventilations that system that i was asked to describe that is the system that that would replace i mean i asked a question
01:15:19 question because it seems to contemplate a comparison between the natural ventilation system that's identified and the proposed
01:15:31 that's identified and the proposed mechanical system yeah and how do you identify what natural ventilation system is the comparator
01:15:43 right okay yeah so the the performance of the two systems effectively is what you're saying um hansen is the reason why they're talking
01:15:54 hansen is the reason why they're talking about replacing a natural ventilation system but in many buildings that are existing buildings they would have originally had a natural ventilation system and what this british standard is
01:16:05 and what this british standard is talking about doing is then upgrading that to a
01:16:08 that to a mechanical system
01:16:12 um
01:16:15 almost what you say is correct but if a few qualifications um so the way the industry is developed i'll try and keep this short that originally we had these natural ventilation systems that go
01:16:27 ventilation systems that go way back um and were placed in buildings and at the time the the analysis of the the systems um was not as great as we were able to do today so basically
01:16:39 we were able to do today so basically they decided that a a lobby ventilation system with a natural event to say 1.5 meters squared in the wall to a corridor was considered appropriate um for the circumstances um and that
01:16:52 um for the circumstances um and that really was the standard so what this is really saying is that if you're using a mechanical system what you need to do is make sure you're at least achieving what that system would have achieved well that i can understand yeah um i think if i've
01:17:05 understand yeah um i think if i've understood you correctly you're saying it assumes that there is an existing natural system which is going to be replaced by the mechanical system no it's not saying that it's really saying that
01:17:17 saying that it's really saying that when you're using a mechanical system there is actually no defined extract rate
01:17:24 rate or because that's really what we end up with an extract rate that you could apply to a mechanical system
01:17:32 system right well i'm going to do this yes i'm sorry yeah so therefore um you're really saying does this achieve the same objective as the natural system um did did achieve i can see where
01:17:45 um did did achieve i can see where you're coming from yeah i think i've i think i've yeah i think i understand what i'm telling you okay
01:17:49 okay i'm a bit concerned that i shouldn't um interrupt miss granger's line of questions
01:17:54 questions seriously so i'm gonna let her get back onto it
01:17:59 onto it if we can look at page 160 within this document
01:18:03 this and look at paragraph e2 of annex e in this
01:18:07 in this bs triple nine one
01:18:20 so it's bsi five zero six two one page 160.
01:18:36 yes so but paragraph e ii it's describing two main methods of smoke control
01:18:42 control natural and mechanical and it notes that um mechanical can take the form of a pressure differential system you see in b yeah
01:18:54 differential system you see in b yeah mechanical smoke control systems this can either take take the form of either a pressure differential system or a mechanical smoke ventilation system and i think you explained that earlier in your answer
01:19:06 explained that earlier in your answer that either you have a system typically which would pressurize the stairs and the lobbies or you have some kind of mechanical extract system yes no no let me just qualify that so when
01:19:19 no no let me just qualify that so when we were
01:19:20 we were looking at proof document b they only give you one option for the mechanical system which is a pressure differential system and there are two types of pressure differential systems so that's what i
01:19:32 differential systems so that's what i explained the pressurization the depressurization now what this is um now doing after the word or
01:19:38 word or or a mechanical smoke ventilation system this is a different system i see yeah so you've now actually got three
01:19:47 three three forms of system you've either got a natural system you've got a pressure differential system and you have a
01:19:58 have a mechanical smoke ventilation system there's a slight complication because of the term they use for pressure differential system because because it's a code that deals with two types of system a pressurization system
01:20:09 types of system a pressurization system and a depressurization systems they call it pressure differential so they used to call it pressurization but uh there we go is believe that's clear let's see and if we look at paragraph e6
01:20:22 let's see and if we look at paragraph e6 of annex
01:20:23 of annex e um
01:20:27 at page one six one
01:20:37 this um sets out considerations for the selection
01:20:41 selection of a mechanical smoke ventilation system so an msvs mechanical smoke ventilation system so this this sets out how to consider selecting
01:20:53 this sets out how to consider selecting performance objectives for such a system is that correct that's great yeah and this code then points itself to the sca guide as further guidance on such
01:21:05 guide as further guidance on such systems
01:21:06 systems we can see that's there in the note at the end of page 162. do you see that it says no there are numerous different
01:21:17 it says no there are numerous different types of fan assisted system including a mechanical extract natural inlet and a mechanical extract mechanical inlet system further information on these can be found in the smoke control association publication
01:21:29 association publication yes so that's the sda guide that you were involved in yes yes
01:21:36 and if we go uh back one page and back to e6 on page 161 we can see in the fourth paragraph down
01:21:54 it says this it says it is important that the ventilation rate of a mechanical smoke ventilation system is decided through an assessment of any specific risks within the building and verification through a computational
01:22:06 and verification through a computational fluid dynamics analysis or a mathematical calculation do you see that i do
01:22:11 that i do yeah and were you aware of that guidance at the time of grenfell i was yeah
01:22:20 and then if we can look at this stage and we'll come back to some other passages in this later at the sca guide that we've seen referred to there in this british standard
01:22:31 there in this british standard and i want to look at the guide for 2015 which we find at
01:22:37 two nine rbk40293 two
01:22:40 we can see this is revision two it came into force on the in october 2015. and it's right isn't it that the previous version was the 2012 version
01:22:49 version yes it was yeah and we can see your name in the list of contributors at page two of this smoke control association guidance
01:23:00 that's correct yeah three from the bottom paul hanson rb royal borough of kensington and chelsea and i i want to look at paragraph 5.1 of this guidance on page 11.
01:23:14 this is under chapter 5 this is objectives and performance criteria and i want to read what's in the box and in the paragraph below it
01:23:25 in the paragraph below it so it says this it says where the building design and the ventilation system
01:23:29 system are in direct conformity to adb to the building regulations or equivalent outside england of wales there is no requirement to consider objectives or performance criteria
01:23:41 objectives or performance criteria as the ventilation system is deemed to be suitable by virtue of its prescription to the relevant document this section then does not apply
01:23:52 this section then does not apply and then immediately below it says in other cases it is necessary to consider the objectives and performance criteria for the system depending on the design of the common escape routes this can either take the
01:24:04 escape routes this can either take the form of an assessment to ensure that the proposed design provides equivalence to the prescriptive systems or a detailed
01:24:13 detailed engineering analysis now i take it you were aware of that at the time of the grandfather yes so is it right that what this is saying is if if you're putting in a ventilation
01:24:24 if you're putting in a ventilation system that's in direct conformity with adb or the building regulations and we know that adb only really refers to well it only refers to one british standard
01:24:36 refers to one british standard where you're talking about a mechanical system that's bs 12101 part 6. where you're doing that there's no requirement to consider objectives or performance criteria as the ventilation
01:24:49 performance criteria as the ventilation system is deemed to be suitable by virtue of its prescription to the relevant document yes yeah correct yeah so if you're following a british standard to the letter it's deemed to be suitable
01:25:02 to the letter it's deemed to be suitable but underneath that is this right that it's saying in other cases it's necessary to consider the objectives and the performance criteria for the system yes yes that's great yeah so if you're going
01:25:15 yes that's great yeah so if you're going outside of that and you're doing an alternative system is this right that you've got to make sure you're clear on what the objectives are and the performance criteria are for the system yeah that's great
01:25:26 are for the system yeah that's great yeah
01:25:28 yeah and it makes clear that depending on the design of the common escape routes this can either take the form of an assessment to ensure that the proposed design provides equivalence to the prescriptive systems
01:25:40 equivalence to the prescriptive systems so so
01:25:41 so so one possibility for doing that is that you work out what what is it that a prescriptive system is giving you in terms of performance and you try to
01:25:53 in terms of performance and you try to provide equivalence yes yeah or you do a detailed engineering analysis yes to ensure that your objectives and your
01:26:04 to ensure that your objectives and your performance criteria are met is that correct that's correct yeah and you understood that at the time of the grenfell project yes i did yeah
01:26:14 and can we just look finally the time is marching on and i think uh yes there's just one more paragraph on this guidance and then i move on to a different topic so if i could just look
01:26:25 different topic so if i could just look at that paragraph go on then um if we can look on page 10 of the sca guide so just one page
01:26:38 before that
01:26:42 sorry it's actually it's 5.3.1 of the sca guide um i apologize i seem to have a wrong
01:26:53 i apologize i seem to have a wrong reference
01:26:58 i tell you what mr chairman i'll find that reference in the break and why don't we break now right and then we'll we'll pick that up um before we begin yep yes that's that's that's fine we'll do that
01:27:09 that's fine we'll do that right well mr henson we're going to have a break now not before time perhaps i think i don't know
01:27:16 know we'll break until course to 12 please and
01:27:19 and i have to ask you please not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it while you're away from the room all right good thank you well if you'd like to give the usher she'll look after you
01:27:37 thank you very much ms grange course the 12th please thank you thank you
01:45:36 right let's just make sure we have contact with miss grange again
01:45:42 hello mr terman can you hear me hello miss grains yes very nice to see you again you ready to continue i hope yes i am right well in that case we'll get mr mr hanson back in please
01:46:07 all right mrs hansen ready to carry on i'm here good thank you very much yes ms grange when you're ready yes thank you if we could bring up the the 2012 sca guidance uh this is lfb3059241
01:46:32 and there we see the front page and the date
01:46:35 date from june 2012 and if we look at page 10 of this at 5.3.1 we can see there a section on
01:46:47 we can see there a section on performance criteria and commentary about
01:46:49 about setting performance criteria in the steps that need to be carried out and if we look at the bottom of that page it says this design conditions and performance criteria should be agreed with the
01:47:00 criteria should be agreed with the approving authority as part of the approval process preferably in advance of detailed calculation or modelling do you see that and were you aware of that
01:47:11 that guidance that design conditions and performance criteria should be agreed with
01:47:16 with the approving authority is building control yes yes yes and as part of the approvals process yes yeah now i want to ask you now about some more specific questions about the
01:47:27 some more specific questions about the grenfell project starting with your initial involvement if we can look at paragraph 91 of your first witness statement on page 18.
01:47:41 so here you you explain that your involvement with the grenfell tower project started in 2013 and on the 17th of august 2013
01:47:52 of august 2013 uh you and john allen the rbkc special projects manager met with bruce soon and neil crawford of studio e and duncan campbell of max fordham yes and
01:48:05 yes and you tell us at night of paragraph 94 that during that meeting i asked about the existing lobby protection system in relation to ventilation to stairway lobbies providing protection to the
01:48:16 lobbies providing protection to the single stairway do you see that there yes sure do you now
01:48:21 now um what were you told about the existing lobby protection system at that meeting
01:48:28 they they said it was the existing system
01:48:32 system [Music]
01:48:34 [Music] and i mean my recollection was they it was probably probably my questions by me actually do you know how the system works effectively was my question to them
01:48:45 effectively was my question to them and they apart from it being a form of extract system um they didn't seem to know how i see now in paragraph 95
01:48:57 how i see now in paragraph 95 you say that you expected it to be a natural ventilation system but that you were told that it was a powered
01:49:05 powered ventilation system and they were not sure how it worked yes yeah that's the app yeah yeah now would you agree that in fact it's correct to refer to the existing system
01:49:18 correct to refer to the existing system um not as a powered ventilation system but as a natural ventilation system but with a mechanical override function for the fire brigade if necessary
01:49:29 for the fire brigade if necessary um the problem is we never were able to establish what was how the system was designed
01:49:35 designed um so there's quite a bit does that mean you didn't know that it was a natural ventilation system but with a mechanical override function as necessary for the fire brigade
01:49:47 necessary for the fire brigade i didn't know that no no if we can go to rbk three zeroes three three
01:49:53 three nine zero
01:50:05 this is an email string if i look at page two
01:50:12 no it's sorry rbk3033907
01:50:24 no it's sorry rbk3033907 what you suggested is an unusual idea but anyway
01:50:30 if we look at page two of this document so rbk3033907 yes there we have an email from the of the 25th of october
01:50:41 the 25th of october 2013. um
01:50:44 2013. um and this is an email from bruce soon at studio atu and john allen copy to terry ashton of x over and duncan campbell of max fordham and he says dear john and paul further
01:50:55 and he says dear john and paul further to our meeting at rbkc on the 17th of august we're now in a position to forward you our proposed fire strategy for grenfell tower for comment please see attached fire strategy drawing strategy document from x over
01:51:08 drawing strategy document from x over and a description of the proposed upgrade
01:51:11 upgrade to the smoke exhaust system and he says as discussed you will forward this to london fire brigade so that the tmo may receive a response as soon as possible we believe that agreement on the smoke
01:51:23 we believe that agreement on the smoke ventilation to the tower is the single biggest risk to the proposals but we don't think it's reasonable to leave the existing system in place now
01:51:35 in place now what was your understanding of the phrase biggest risk to the proposals the smoke ventilation is the single biggest risk to the proposals what did you understand that to mean well they really needed to make a
01:51:47 well they really needed to make a decision on what to do about the system because prior to this they were thinking of retaining the existing system but didn't seem to be able to establish how it worked and then
01:52:00 how it worked and then they then made the decision to replace it with the system i see significa to answer i'm trying to answer you it was obviously a significant part of
01:52:11 it was obviously a significant part of the project to make sure this um works basically whatever yeah he's understood and by all parties
01:52:19 parties yeah and had you communicated that it was the single biggest risk to the proposals
01:52:24 proposals was that something that either you said or john allen said i don't think we put it in those words but what we tend to do with projects is identify
01:52:35 identify the key elements that are important to being resolved in any project so um you know i don't think we'd have said it in those terms but i suppose the inference um is that this
01:52:48 i suppose the inference um is that this is something that needs to be considered um as early as possible really
01:52:53 really i see if we can go to um max max50867 this is one of the documents that bruce soon
01:53:03 soon attached in that email to you this is called smoke control proposals revision a produced by max fordham and dated the 25th of october 2013.
01:53:14 dated the 25th of october 2013. do you recall reviewing these proposals
01:53:19 and what was your overall assessment of the proposal at this stage did you think in principle it was acceptable no because why just in short in short the the system proposed was
01:53:31 in short the the system proposed was based on
01:53:32 based on an air change rate which doesn't follow any of the known guidance for lobby ventilation systems they were really basing on the idea of
01:53:44 really basing on the idea of a generic value that's used in car parks and without going into too much detail um it would not work for a lobby system because
01:53:53 because it's just the wrong idea i see um if we go to max306475 at page 34.
01:54:11 this is a later document and this is um from the max fordham employers requirements for mep services it's dated the 28th of november 2013 there's a tiny date in
01:54:24 of november 2013 there's a tiny date in the bottom right hand corner and under the heading existing system it explains this it says the system comprises
01:54:33 comprises a fresh air shaft and a smoke extract shaft
01:54:37 shaft serving all of the lift lobbies on the residential levels of the building the system is designed to work as a natural ventilation system but supply and extract fans are also
01:54:48 but supply and extract fans are also included to enable the fire brigade to provide additional mechanical ventilation if they consider that to be advantageous in dispersing smoke you see that yeah now
01:55:01 you see that yeah now i think you said earlier that you were never made aware of how the existing system was intended to work does this mean that you you never saw this explanation no i'm sure i did
01:55:12 sure i did it's just that it's difficult to know
01:55:16 whether this is how the system was intended to work
01:55:21 because there's no re there's no reference to why they believe that was the case you see so there's lots of speculations on um how the system was used um yes i see and just to orientate
01:55:34 um yes i see and just to orientate ourselves in terms of that existing system can we just look at that in diagrammatic form if we can go to a helpful diagram that dr lane produced at phase one this is bla 405481 and i want slide 173
01:55:51 this is bla 405481 and i want slide 173 of dr lane's presentation
01:56:03 so this is a presentation that dr lane gave at phase one of the inquiry's work and this is the operation of the original smoke control system and we can see from this diagram that
01:56:15 and we can see from this diagram that what she's showing is that an airflow is going into the tower at low level
01:56:21 low level uh is then going up the south shafts and then smoke naturally is drawn up the north shafts and extracted to the outside do you see that
01:56:34 outside do you see that yeah i mean from the diagram i would say isn't a natural exhaust is it
01:56:42 it is the symbol um the propeller symbol is that intended to show a fan at the top yes i think so the way it seems to be described in in that matt fordham diagram that we
01:56:53 in that matt fordham diagram that we look document that we just looked at is that those fans are there as an override for the fire brigade to trigger if they felt they needed more power into the system
01:57:04 the system but that principally the system was designed as a natural ventilation system does that make sense he could have yeah they're very narrow shafts though for it to work as a natural system
01:57:15 to work as a natural system i would say yes i think um it's right isn't it the shafts were 0.48 meters squared i mean that's right yeah i mean at the time with the glc i
01:57:26 yeah i mean at the time with the glc i uh you know char shaft systems were this is very early almost experimental work really the the bre done a study many many years later about shafts but a
01:57:37 many many years later about shafts but a lot of people were experienced with them but just looking at the size of the shafts it wouldn't have worked very well as a natural system to be quite frank i see because there's not enough um you know that the shaft is just not big
01:57:48 know that the shaft is just not big enough
01:57:49 enough right can we go now forward in time just this is tracing back to the stages that occurred on the project if we go to sea four zeroes nine four nine four
01:58:06 four nine four this is an email from mr soon to mr campbell duncan campbell of max fordham copied to mr croft smith at max fordham and also terry ashton of x over
01:58:18 x over and mr soon um says this he says duncan i've spoken to matt but in brief these are the points paul hansen discussed with me earlier today when he called so
01:58:30 earlier today when he called so it would appear that you had a telephone call with mr soon in which you communicated a number of uh pieces of feedback about the smoke exhaust
01:58:40 exhaust submission yes yeah and if we look just down they're only on one page if we can just look there's these points before the diagram and then if we look down the page
01:58:52 if we look down the page there's some more points at the bottom
01:58:56 do you see those now i'm not going to ask you to read them in detail but does that appear to be um a list of the key points you were raising with him on the telephone
01:59:21 i mean it was a long time ago to be honest with you but yeah where what the problem was with this i was trying to establish what the principles of this existing system were
01:59:32 system were and i thought there was there was it was difficult for the team involved um to do this so what i was doing is really raising questions um i thought i knew what the other
01:59:44 um i thought i knew what the other system could possibly work but i could be wrong
01:59:46 be wrong you see so um yes i see in the third bullet um if we just look back at the top of that page
01:59:57 it's recorded here by mr stones it says it's designed as a natural ventilation system
02:00:02 system is followed by a mechanical supply and extract system which does not rely on natural ventilation his initial response is that this reads like we are omitting a compliant natural vent shaft
02:00:14 vent shaft can you recall why you made that comment i mean to be honest i'd have to see what i was responding to okay i could give you a broad view of
02:00:25 okay i could give you a broad view of what i remember there's a couple of ways this system could have worked and the way they described it wasn't something that i thought
02:00:36 something that i thought would it wouldn't be the way they're describing it so i thought this might be what is generally known as a push-pull system whereby you've got a mechanical inlet the way smoke ventilation systems work just
02:00:47 smoke ventilation systems work just broadly i don't want to distract but you need the smoke to extract in some way
02:00:54 way to go out of the lobby but for that to function you need to supply air to replace what's being removed this looked to me like a mechanical extract system with a
02:01:05 extract system with a powered supply yes and this seems to make sense because where you've got these narrow shafts you actually need mechanical assistance to get the shaft to vent the smoke
02:01:18 to get the shaft to vent the smoke and this was very in the 70s to do this in the 70s it was very early days so but this description of a natural system
02:01:27 system doesn't make sense to me because it
02:01:30 i can't see how that would would work but it's very difficult to to understand because we we lost the records unfortunately which would have helped us yeah
02:01:41 which would have helped us yeah so it's a little bit confused is the is the easiest way to describe this whole discussion process i think it was a little bit confusing i was trying to what i was trying to do is trigger questions
02:01:52 questions um yeah that's really what i was trying to do yeah yeah can i pick up on something you said at paragraph 100 of your first statement on page 19.
02:02:11 you say that it is to be noted we could not require the applicant to make the existing smoke control system any better than it was as we have no power under the building regulations
02:02:22 regulations now i think there you're describing the non-worsening principle is that correct that's correct regulations can you just explain to us in practice how that non-worsening principle would apply
02:02:33 non-worsening principle would apply if the existing system was in fact broken
02:02:36 broken would that affect your consideration of non-worsening right yeah so yeah so take the extreme case then that we've we have a building that has a non-functioning system
02:02:48 non-functioning system so under the building regulations we could not go into an existing building and ask them to repair the system upgrade the system there's other legislation that deals with that basically
02:03:01 with that basically so what you've raised you raised two matters really so if if under building regulations they are
02:03:08 are doing work and you have an existing system in there then what you've got to make sure is they don't make the system any worse so that's sort of one aspect of it now if you had a system that wasn't
02:03:19 if you had a system that wasn't functioning then that's really a maintenance issue and really is an rro matter yes so when you look at non-worsening would you ignore the fact that it's not working absolutely oh yeah yeah yeah
02:03:30 working absolutely oh yeah yeah yeah absolutely what it was what it would be capable of doing it had it worked yes absolutely yes that's helpful now going to paragraph 107 of your first statement now you explain that the next
02:03:42 statement now you explain that the next development was that you received some more information from max fordham if we can look at paragraph 107 on page 20.
02:03:53 you say we received information on the mechanical ventilation system from max fordham
02:03:59 fordham the mechanical engineers of the architect unfortunately their description did not explain how it worked i discussed with john allen how to respond and there's an email chain which explains what we needed
02:04:10 needed this was intended to be a clear explanation of how the system worked so that the fire authority could comment under the rro for the existing building and if we can go to sea
02:04:22 building and if we can go to sea 5014
02:04:30 this is an email from duncan campbell of max fordham to you dated the 7th of november 2013. it's copied to mr sims at studio e terry ashton at xova and also mr cross
02:04:41 terry ashton at xova and also mr cross smith at max fordham and mr campbell attached attaches a schematic diagram of the smoke ventilation system prepared by max fordham
02:04:51 fordham and we can see that if we look at tmo
02:05:04 1003980
02:05:16 yes so that is the schematic that was attached to that email um and that's the further information that you refer to in your statement as
02:05:27 that you refer to in your statement as receiving from max fordham yes
02:05:30 to be quite frank now i can't um specifically remember okay to be honest i i don't actually recall this drawing
02:05:41 recall this drawing um are we sure this was sent to us because that email but my writing this was the schematic that was attached to that email you may be right you may be right i
02:05:53 you may be right you may be right i can't um now recall so do you remember when this email was sent that max fordham was proposing a new mechanical ventilation system for grenfell tower
02:06:06 grenfell tower um can we just go back to the email yes
02:06:14 it's difficult in time um
02:06:18 if i tell you what my recollection is in the sequence of events that's probably the best thing um there was there were some correspondence um where we were trying to establish
02:06:29 um where we were trying to establish how the existence system worked and the last
02:06:33 last piece of concept i believe was the email that john allen wrote myself and john allen wrote just to explain to them what we're really looking for for them to explain the system
02:06:44 so i don't know how that links with the emails you're speaking about but that kind of
02:06:48 kind of ended as far as we were concerned the discussion about the existing system we didn't hear anything since then i believe from memory and then we received the proposal for the 10 air change system
02:06:59 air change system so that's my recollection of the events if we get back to the email um sea 50149 if we look at 0.5 on page two of the
02:07:11 if we look at 0.5 on page two of the email
02:07:16 there's a query about flow rates and air changes
02:07:21 it says having discussed this with xavier we've been unable to find a ventilation standard which could be directly applied to the existing system we suggested 15 air changes per hour as a reasonable criteria based on the
02:07:32 a reasonable criteria based on the building legs etc um and then it says as the system would be only venting one level the flow rate would be relatively small of the order of 0.4 meters cubed per
02:07:44 of the order of 0.4 meters cubed per second it would be possible to increase the ventilation rate if that was felt to be beneficial now can you recall that in layperson's terms
02:07:54 terms this kind of mechanical system was intended to have one set of fans blowing new air into the lobby and the other sucking air out so that smoke in the lobby gets taken out of the building
02:08:05 lobby gets taken out of the building that way do you recall that
02:08:10 um
02:08:15 to be honest with you at this stage i can't remember i specifically remember the
02:08:19 the the ten air change criteria and that's the thing that sticks in my mind can you explain just briefly what the 10 a air change criteria was
02:08:30 a air change criteria was yeah yeah so um a little bit history um the as i explained though the way the building rings are written is that so you don't need a fire
02:08:41 is that so you don't need a fire engineer to assist you with um you know an architect with a design with car parks
02:08:48 car parks um you could do a fire engineer calculation to work out smoke clearance from car park to assist the fire brigade fighting fires in car parks
02:08:57 parks to make it easy for people designing car parks
02:09:01 parks a value of 10 air changes was derived i think from glc history that that would provide an adequate level of ventilation
02:09:12 adequate level of ventilation and it's a figure that the mechanical engineers will understand ten air changes
02:09:16 changes rather than an extract rate so it's quite a clear figure the the problem with using 10 air changes is that the 10 air changes is not actually an
02:09:27 the 10 air changes is not actually an extract rate it's it's a relative size based on the size of the space so the easy way to explain if you have a car part they're quite big
02:09:34 quite big therefore if you applied a 10 air change calculating to a car park and certainly a car park over about 3 000 meters squared you would get quite a decent extract rate if you applied 10 air changes to a
02:09:47 rate if you applied 10 air changes to a car park
02:09:48 car park less than 3 000 meters squared you would start finding the smoke will will go lower onto the onto the ground mr heyman i'm going to stop you there i think i think we need to kind of stick to just my questions
02:10:00 to just my questions just make the because i'm nearly finished because it will help understand this
02:10:03 this so the point i'm really making is that um if you apply 10 air changes to a small space you get hardly any ventilation at all a large space you get a massive amount of ventilators and it changes
02:10:14 ventilators and it changes so therefore it isn't appropriate to apply ten air changes to a lobby because you would get very little ventilation based on that criteria hence the reason we felt that the pros wasn't um suitable i think
02:10:28 um suitable i think now in relation to the condition of the existing system were you aware at this time or indeed thereafter that there had been a fire at grenfell tower in april 2010 at which time the existing smoke control
02:10:41 at which time the existing smoke control automatic opening vents had failed to operate
02:10:45 operate no i wasn't aware of that and and were you ever made aware that there had been an lfb deficiency notice served in march 2014
02:10:56 deficiency notice served in march 2014 in which the lfb had notified the tmo of its concern that the aov ventilation units were not being maintained in effective working order no i was not aware of that
02:11:07 order no i was not aware of that had you been aware of those matters would that have affected your approach to looking at the proposals you were being presented with
02:11:18 um
02:11:23 i don't think it would really because they're two separate matters aren't there so
02:11:27 there so so the fabricated deficiency was really about maintenance existing system but i'm looking at the performance of the new system and attempting to understand how they intend the system
02:11:38 intend the system to achieve the objective really well one thing to note is that when we had the first initial primary meeting
02:11:48 meeting the there was a discussion regarding getting the fire brigade involved at an early stage normally our process is we receive an application a proposal
02:11:59 application a proposal we're happy with it we will consult the fire brigade that's the normal process in this case there seems to be a concern from the um the design team to to have the fire brigade satisfied at an early stage so
02:12:10 brigade satisfied at an early stage so we thought we would help that process and therefore with the existing system if they can provide information for the existing system we could certainly feed it through the fabric through the
02:12:21 feed it through the fabric through the consultation process to help everyone understand what's going on it also enabled go to understand from the rro how the system worked but i wasn't aware at the time
02:12:33 wasn't aware at the time the brigade were already involved basically
02:12:36 basically okay anyway there we go if we can go to
02:12:42 max403916 now this is an email dated 11th of november 2013 from john allen responding to mr soon's email of the 25th of october 2013.
02:12:57 and so this is the formal response that came back from building control and it said um you're copied into this bruce we do not feel that the information submitted so far is adequate to enable an effective consultation
02:13:09 to enable an effective consultation with the fire authority and this email then lists a number of requirements that need to be added to the proposal um and if we look at the bottom of the
02:13:20 and if we look at the bottom of the first page we can see effectively a shopping list of what needed to be included in the proposal
02:13:29 proposal and it includes confirmation of the design of the existing system is it natural ventilation or mechanical or a combination method of activation of natural powered system and the fire brigade control
02:13:40 system and the fire brigade control size of natural vent shaft powered ventilation extract rate in meters cube per second etc so a list of requirements are being set out
02:13:51 set out um can we just clarify was this information required for your building control's own consideration of the proposal or was building control asking for it
02:14:03 or was building control asking for it just to pass on to the fire brigade
02:14:07 um basically it was both really um i'm just trying to think this was was this at the stage where they were talking about keeping the existing system
02:14:19 i don't think so i think this is at the stage when they've proposed max warden have proposed an upgraded system um if we then look
02:14:32 um if we then look if we look at the second and third paragraphs at the top of the page says under the building regulations provided it can be shown that the new system is no worse than the old system this will be acceptable if there's no data on the existing system a way forward might be to measure
02:14:44 system a way forward might be to measure the flow rates of the present situation and provide information about the proposed system the question that needs to be proposed to the brigade is whether the replacement smoke extract system to the residential parts
02:14:55 the residential parts will be acceptable
02:14:58 um i think it was both a little bit right is it right that at this stage of the project building control was anticipating that compliance with the building regulations
02:15:10 compliance with the building regulations would be demonstrated through a comparative analysis of the new system versus the existing one
02:15:17 one um it would have been a consideration that the problem is because this is such an unusual system i think we were trying to understand um how good the system was really
02:15:29 um how good the system was really and all these questions were there triggers
02:15:32 triggers because i think that the point you made earlier is quite interesting the natural ventilation um kept being mentioned and i found that quite difficult to understand how the system could work as a natural
02:15:44 system could work as a natural ventilation system so we're trying to trigger them so you see the first one confirmation of design of existing systems is it natural ventilation or mechanical or a combination so it was clearly unclear from our point
02:15:56 so it was clearly unclear from our point of view how the system worked this was really trying to establish and help them
02:16:01 help them um explain to us how the system worked i see let's go to rbk403014 now this is a memo from you
02:16:13 now this is a memo from you to john allen
02:16:22 it's dated the 6th of december 2013 and it's setting out your means of escape observations for compliance with b1 we can see that from the top
02:16:35 and on the first page picking up from the second paragraph you say at a preliminary meeting it was proposed to replace the existing powered ventilation system
02:16:47 existing powered ventilation system with a new system using the existing riser ducts and therefore the performance of the system would be determined by the constraints of the size of the existing riser shafts and then
02:16:58 riser shafts and then underneath it says it is understood that it was not proposed to redesign the system to a modern standard of performance as this is likely to require larger riser shafts the incorporation of which falls outside
02:17:09 the incorporation of which falls outside the intended scope of the proposals and then it's you go on rbkc indicated that in the case of any existing building
02:17:17 building provided that the performance of the existing system is not made any worse the building regulations would not require the system to be upgraded details of the performance of the existing and proposed systems was requested to be submitted
02:17:28 requested to be submitted to enable rbkc to be satisfied that the system would not be adversely affected by the intended work so i think that summarizes what you just said about the information that you were
02:17:39 about the information that you were looking for and then on page two of this memorandum if we can go to that we can see a bullet point list of information that
02:17:51 a bullet point list of information that you were requiring in order to consider the proposed details including existing extract rate inlet air supply proposed extract rate confirmation of
02:18:02 proposed extract rate confirmation of design of existing system etcetera
02:18:07 and then if we move on um if we can go to sca50160
02:18:23 if we look at the email at the bottom of the chain halfway down page one we can see on the 14th of january there's an email from duncan campbell at max fordham to philip booth of artelia
02:18:36 artelia copied to others including mr stones of studio e and terry ashton of it's over and he says this as you're aware we've been trying some time to produce a ventilation strategy for smoke venting
02:18:47 ventilation strategy for smoke venting of the lift lobbies at each of the residential levels which would be acceptable to rbkc building control
02:18:52 control and also for them to feel confident about presenting this to the fire brigade
02:18:57 brigade bruce centers on the 8th of january 2014 a copy of the memo he received from building control copy attached which summarizes their abuse that's the memo we just looked at essentially rbkc are asking for test siting of the system
02:19:09 asking for test siting of the system to establish air flow rates achieved by the current system for a cfd computational fluid dynamics study
02:19:17 study to be carried out to predict what a reasonable airflow rate would be we've tried to be we've been trying to satisfy them by offering what we and xavier consider to be a reasonable airflow rate but they seem to be insistent that we take the
02:19:29 seem to be insistent that we take the measurement or cfd route in order to establish the required airflow rate and then if we go over the page
02:19:40 he says while in theory it should be relatively straightforward to take measurements from our visual exp inspections of the system it's likely that some problems may arise the system is very old and appears to be not well maintained indeed tender
02:19:52 not well maintained indeed tender documents for replacement of the system produced by aecom in october 2011. we anticipate that site measurement may be difficult in the alternative of providing a cfd model is outside our scope of works and
02:20:04 model is outside our scope of works and not within our expertise maybe x over could provide it and then he says this it's rather frustrating that we can't seem to persuade
02:20:11 persuade building control that our proposals are reasonable and would provide a better and more reliable system than what's there at present however we need to move things along and decide how to proceed as the intention was to resolve this and reach agreement with rbkc building
02:20:23 reach agreement with rbkc building control on the fire brigade before appointing a contractor so that's what max fordham was saying um and we could see what building
02:20:34 um and we could see what building control was insisting upon at that stage and if we move to the email thread at the top of the chain we can see a response from terry ashton on the 15th of january
02:20:45 terry ashton on the 15th of january 2014.
02:20:49 he says duncan it would be possible to carry out a cfd analysis which compared a base case i code compliance scheme with an automatic opening event 1.5 meters in area located on one side
02:21:00 1.5 meters in area located on one side of the lift lobby with what we are proposing but we haven't budgeted for this analysis and the cost might be more than measuring the flow rates provided by the existing system he then goes on and says this given that
02:21:12 he then goes on and says this given that what we are proposing is a significant improvement over what exists i think rbkc are being unreasonable however we still need to satisfy ourselves that the lfepa
02:21:23 ourselves that the lfepa won't reject the system under the rro therefore it's imperative that rbkc consults the latter for review so we can see that was mr
02:21:34 so we can see that was mr ashton's um
02:21:39 he's of course talking about the 10 or 12 air change system isn't it when he says the reasonable um yes now um in your experience was it
02:21:51 yes now um in your experience was it unusual for building control to be asking for the information that it had asked for
02:21:58 um
02:22:02 i mean the question really would suggest that i
02:22:07 that i we we have a lot of existing buildings that have
02:22:10 that have a a very unusual system in place so the answer is that it it it's um i'm just trying to understand what you asked the question um we had a system in this building
02:22:23 um we had a system in this building where
02:22:23 where um it was designed to some kind of idea um and we were trying to understand how it worked
02:22:32 it worked i don't think i've ever had a job where that has ever been the case before so just to cut through this did you think mr ashton clearly thinks that you were being unreasonable
02:22:43 were being unreasonable in asking for the information that you were would you agree with that looking back i always take your point yeah okay you see what what was happening here that they were there was a little bit of
02:22:52 bit of can you just sorry can you just answer that question right just answer the question again were you being unreasonable in asking for the information definitely not no definitely not it was critical basically
02:23:06 now um
02:23:09 if we can go then to rbk3014957 what we see is a further memorandum
02:23:20 what we see is a further memorandum regarding b1 means of escape
02:23:29 this is a further memorandum of the 10th of november 2014 and this is from you to john hoban on b1 means of escape observations
02:23:43 and just to note that in your statement for the transcript it's paragraph 112 of your statement you say that these observations include the type of information that would be
02:23:54 the type of information that would be needed to write a letter that rbkc could pass on to the fire authority as part of the statutory consultation process
02:24:03 process and on page two of this memorandum at the third paragraph down
02:24:12 we can see that you say the current submission has not put forward any new proposals for the powered ventilation system so just to be clear were you saying there
02:24:23 just to be clear were you saying there that you hadn't received any new proposals as distinct from the ones you'd already seen in 2013.
02:24:31 um the ones that previously been submitted
02:24:34 submitted um this this was we're dealing with this is s1 is it submission one just to clarify i think it may be
02:24:45 just to clarify i think it may be because basically there was a couple of preliminaries what we call them p for preliminary just to just make the distinction so i think um my memory is p there was two preliminaries so really what we're
02:24:56 preliminaries so really what we're saying from preliminary two we hadn't received any uh additional information that would be requested to help understand the system yeah yes then and if we look at the second
02:25:10 yes then and if we look at the second paragraph of page two um the the the rate of ten air changes per hour um is being discussed there by you and you were just explaining
02:25:22 by you and you were just explaining about that um did you at any stage yourself suggest that an alternative performance standard perhaps ought to be
02:25:36 adopted um no
02:25:41 and um you conclude at page two in the second paragraph under the heading new non-residential access to residential stairway
02:25:52 access to residential stairway go back to the memo page two
02:25:59 second paragraph of this you say therefore i'll be casey are not in a position to approve the proposals at this stage due to the need for the design team to establish an acceptable extract rate for the powered
02:26:10 for the powered lobby ventilation system and the provision of ventilated lobby protection to all stairway connections to residential and other uses
02:26:21 to residential and other uses yeah so you were still waiting at this stage on the design team establishing an acceptable extract rate for this powered ventilation system is that correct
02:26:34 ventilation system is that correct and then on pages four to six of this memorandum you provide comments to be read in conjunction with marked up plans
02:26:44 plans and the comments indicate what would satisfy building control including at section three on page four the ventilation system we look at section three on that page
02:26:57 section three on that page and importantly you say uh here in that second paragraph you say rbkc building control would be satisfied under the building regulations if either a the performance of the existing
02:27:09 either a the performance of the existing system
02:27:10 system is maintained details of the performance of the existing and proposed systems are requested to be submitted to enable rbkc to be satisfied that the system would not be adversely affected by the
02:27:21 not be adversely affected by the intended works or b the ventilation extract rate is justified
02:27:28 justified to be suitable for the purpose so you're giving those two options uh in this memo
02:27:41 and then if we can go to rbk rbk403789
02:27:48 this is a drawing of the floor plans at grenfell tower dated the 24th of october 2013 with comments added into it in blue now those comments were yours is that
02:27:59 now those comments were yours is that right yes the right yeah the blue ones yeah
02:28:01 yeah um we can see it i don't know it's possible to zoom in but but that's confirmed in the little tmo heading in the bottom right above that tmo heading
02:28:13 right above that tmo heading in tiny text i'll tell you what it says it says comments in blue by rbkc building control
02:28:20 and if we go over to the center of the plan
02:28:25 plan just below the round a we can see some blue comments in a section entitled common lobbies
02:28:36 in a section entitled common lobbies and that includes comments on the existing powered ventilation system and has question marks next to it i'm afraid this is not very clear but what it had was question marks next
02:28:47 but what it had was question marks next to it with the existing extract rate and existing supply querying what those were and it says you'll have to take it from me it says no details of existing extract supply rates are given therefore
02:28:59 extract supply rates are given therefore no consideration could be given of adverse effect on existing system if system designers wish to redesign the system without consideration of adverse effect
02:29:09 effect justification for the proposed extract rate needs to be submitted including performance modeling
02:29:18 um and then if we can go to rbk rbk403787
02:29:30 yes sorry there we can see slightly clearer the wording that you just i've just read out about the common lobbies
02:29:39 and in this plan we can see some more blue annotations from building control again were those yours annotations yes they were yeah
02:29:49 did you regularly mark up the plans that have been provided to you as part of the exercise of building control providing comments on submissions we did yeah yeah and was that common
02:30:02 we did yeah yeah and was that common practice in your experience to do that um it was common practice for us
02:30:07 us it was it was really a case of um
02:30:14 in the old days you didn't have the ability to mark information on plans to assist the applicant understanding where the issues lie in the building so once electronic submissions become
02:30:26 so once electronic submissions become the norm
02:30:27 the norm we thought it would be a good idea as a communication aid to add comments on drawings because it can be sometimes difficult just to describe in text because there's a significant issue with this building relating to
02:30:39 this building relating to lobby positions and
02:30:43 the drawing of lobbies on plans to assist the applicant understanding how lobby should work and assist them and understand the process really it's really about communication really
02:30:54 it's really about communication really yes
02:30:55 yes the inquiry's expert on building control miss menses has observed this was you taking it upon yourself to effectively redesign the fire strategy and saying if you do it like this it
02:31:06 and saying if you do it like this it will be okay do you accept that that's what you were trying to do no no no no so i mean the term redesign the fire strategy the building was a staple policy with ventilated lobbies so what i was
02:31:19 with ventilated lobbies so what i was seeing on the submitted plans for the new levels that were added with flats they had omitted the lobbies so you ended up with a situation where flat's running directly onto the exit path from
02:31:30 running directly onto the exit path from the staircase and this this can be a common uh misunderstanding for architects because the the layout of the building on the upper level and the lower level suddenly becomes different because
02:31:41 suddenly becomes different because you've got to consider the exit route from the staircase um to communicate that in words um can be difficult i see when we actually
02:31:51 actually so what i was doing i i i said well actually you need the lobby change to say so i drew on the lobby this is the idea of the lobby so it helped so they they understood it then the officers understood how this works so it's really
02:32:03 understood how this works so it's really a communication method it's not redesigning the fire strategy because what we're saying is to follow the guidance this is what you're missing effectively from your application
02:32:15 from your application would you accept that this oversteps the line in terms of the proper function of building control to be providing such detailed comments as you've just described the whole idea is to assist the design
02:32:29 the whole idea is to assist the design team in coming to a suitable solution i mean any modern communication methods that we have i think are very useful you know the
02:32:40 i think are very useful you know the architects are communicating to us visually
02:32:42 visually so if we can communicate to them back in a simpler way than um using text only then i think that just benefits the um the whole design team yes i see
02:32:54 um the whole design team yes i see okay now moving on i i now want to discuss the change of system design proposal
02:33:01 proposal if we go to um paragraph 115 of your first statement page 21
02:33:15 in this paragraph you tell us that studio e the architects then advised that they had decided to replace the existing smoke control system and would be appointing specialist smoke
02:33:26 and would be appointing specialist smoke control
02:33:27 control control installer j s wright co this would then enable us to exercise control as this would be new work do you see that yeah
02:33:39 um now you don't refer to psb there you're referring just to js right were you aware
02:33:47 you aware at this time that the architects were advising that not only were they getting in js wright would also psb as specialist designers of the smoke control system it is possible this is an error in my
02:33:59 it is possible this is an error in my statement actually because if psp were the designers it really should have um it she probably just write probably ought to have been psb yes so it may be an error mark i
02:34:11 yes so it may be an error mark i apologize okay thank you for that um if we go to jsw402761 and we look at the email halfway down
02:34:23 and we look at the email halfway down that page 17th of november 2014. this is from mr bradbury he's at jsright to you and various others he's seeking a meeting
02:34:32 meeting for j.s wright to present the proposed design for the aov system at grenfell tower and he says this um further to our
02:34:44 and he says this um further to our telephone conversation regarding the proposed aov system at grenfell tower i'd like to meet with yourselves to present the proposed design in order for us to incorporate any comments you have into the final design this will then be submitted for
02:34:56 design this will then be submitted for approval
02:34:57 approval and he says this he says the proposal is split into two phases first phase natural system new dampers new smoke detectors and controls second
02:35:08 new smoke detectors and controls second phase
02:35:09 phase fully mechanical ventilation system including pressure sensors and reprogramming of installed controls installed in phase one the reason we
02:35:20 installed in phase one the reason we have split the system is to allow us to get some form of working system installed as soon as possible with the intention of getting the second phase done in line with the original construction program so did you understand from that
02:35:34 program so did you understand from that that the first phase was basically a temporary
02:35:37 temporary solution to get the smoke control system back up and working yeah yeah and then the second phase this fully
02:35:48 the second phase this fully mechanical ventilation system including pressure sensors and reprogramming of all installed controls
02:35:56 controls that would be effectively the the work carried out as part of the refurbishment yes
02:36:01 yes yeah and if we go to paragraph 116 of your first statement on page 22.
02:36:11 there you recall a meeting that you had on site
02:36:14 on site on the 24th of november 2014 with neil crawford of studio e you say the new specialist smoke control system installer david bradley of
02:36:25 system installer david bradley of j s wright and co the area surveyor john hoban a representative of max fordham david hughes that's the ryden site manager and myself
02:36:36 manager and myself and you say js write and co have experience of installing smoke control systems in residential buildings which was encouraging
02:36:45 so now can you help us first did you keep any notes of this meeting on the 24th of november 2014. no i didn't no can you help us as to why
02:36:56 no i didn't no can you help us as to why why not wasn't that a pretty important meeting
02:36:59 meeting in which notes needed to be taken well if was taking minutes then you you wouldn't
02:37:05 wouldn't normally take separate notes of the meeting
02:37:09 meeting who did you understand was taking minutes of this meeting i believe it was the architect and it was uh neil crawford i see do you recall psb being at that meeting
02:37:22 do you recall psb being at that meeting this may actually be now i've realized with the other um paragraph this may be an error then if psp were present that was probably psb then who i met rather than
02:37:33 rather than well you say you say if ps we were present
02:37:36 present just thinking back to this meeting were you conscious at the time that there was somebody from psb at this meeting
02:37:46 meeting um there were certainly as i say recollections of time and who was who um there was certainly a representative of the smoke control designer
02:37:57 the smoke control designer there he was describing what they're intending to do it might be i've mixed them up actually it might be at the time did you think it was js wright that was designing the smoke control system
02:38:10 smoke control system this this was me attempting to to recollect um who i met et cetera so it may be that um i'm not sure actually whether it was jazz right or psb it's possible it was psp in retrofit
02:38:22 psb it's possible it was psp in retrofit do you have any recollection of what you understood at the time um what whether it was psp or you do you have a recollection of
02:38:35 psp or you do you have a recollection of being in a meeting with representatives oh i definitely remember the meeting very well yeah absolutely what what do you remember somebody from psb
02:38:45 psb being there um there was certainly someone there who was describing the system they intended to install it may well be it was from psb
02:38:57 it may well be it was from psb and i've made an error in my statement in suggesting it was from the um jazz right is it correct that at this meeting psb and js wright proposed an alternative
02:39:10 and js wright proposed an alternative design proposal in the form of a pressure
02:39:13 pressure differential system no definitely not
02:39:19 what is your recollection about what design was being proposed at that meeting it was a smoke extract system
02:39:26 system i extract from the lobbies
02:39:31 there was some time complaining in your own words how you understood that system to work
02:39:37 to work right smoke would be extracted from the lobbies
02:39:42 lobbies and then inlet air provided from the staircase
02:39:46 staircase i see so you understood that to be a smoke extract system yes just just to confirm when you say it would be extracted from the lobbies do you mean
02:39:53 you mean powered extraction power extraction yeah right yeah if i could just explain there is
02:39:58 is some confusion in the industry regarding um
02:40:02 um the deep did you say depressurization system just to clarify no i said pressure differential system pressure differential system right okay so
02:40:12 so we're back to either a pressurization system or a depressurization system so what was what was suggested at the meeting was neither of those so it wasn't a a deeper association or a
02:40:24 so it wasn't a a deeper association or a pressurization system it was an extract system that's what i understood was proposed
02:40:28 proposed so you didn't understand it to be a depressurization system either definitely not no no because as i explained earlier depressurization means you're extracting um from the floor area not the lobby
02:40:42 what i was just about to understand you didn't understand it to be a depressurization system which depressurized the lobby relative to the stair
02:40:54 i mean that that's the the there's a mixing up of of ideas is there well what just to qualify something there is sometimes a misunderstanding in the industry that an extract system that extracts
02:41:07 that an extract system that extracts from the lobbies is is called a depressurization system there is a misunderstanding in the industry the correct um naming of a depressurization system is
02:41:18 naming of a depressurization system is as defined in the um bsn1211 part six that we previously discussed
02:41:24 discussed so my to avoid confusion um it is best to keep those definitions too if you're using the depressurization system you're dealing with to the british standard if you're dealing with an extract system
02:41:36 dealing with an extract system then it's an extract system and the term depressurization is is muddies the waters too much did you understand that it would be extracting from
02:41:47 extracting from down the south shaft and up the north shaft simultaneously
02:41:56 at the time i don't recall to be honest with you um
02:42:02 so you can't recall whether it was an extract system which was taking air down and out of the south shaft at low level and up the north shaft and extracting at high level
02:42:16 i don't recollect um what you're describing is a push pull system but where you're no i'm not i'm not describing a push-pull system a push-pull system would be pushing air in at the south at the lower level again
02:42:28 in at the south at the lower level again what you said there pulling it out i'm i'm describing extracting from both the south vent and at lower level and the north at high level yeah i i i if you talk
02:42:41 at high level yeah i i i if you talk about my
02:42:41 about my my recollection i can't specifically remember that that that but that's what they would would need to do basically because there were two shafts [Music]
02:42:52 [Music] and the shafts were quite small so therefore they probably needed to use both shafts in order to extract um it doesn't seem unreasonable that's probably was the discussion actually
02:43:04 probably was the discussion actually well i don't want you to to speculate do you actually have a memory of the meeting and being told how the system would be extracting smoke from the lobby do you have that memory now
02:43:21 i don't think the meeting described not my recollection of the media didn't describe
02:43:25 describe that the the issues were other things really um
02:43:29 really um rather than the route um did you understand that a new proposal was being put to you at this meeting oh absolutely yeah yeah yeah i think we're getting into a difficulty here
02:43:40 we're getting into a difficulty here whether i specifically remember the two shafts being used as extract or not um
02:43:45 not um i don't have a specific memory of that but the reality is is they had two shafts which i was aware of and you know they are the path for extract
02:43:54 extract um the email that we just left forgive by interrupting can i just check mr hansen you we would normally go on until one o'clock are you comfortable going on for another quarter an hour or
02:44:05 another quarter an hour or um yeah i'm happy yeah no problem don't you all right thank you very much yes i'm sorry mr scrange yes no the email that we just looked at referred to pressure sensors as part of the system
02:44:17 the system why would there be pressure sensors if it was just an extract system can you help
02:44:22 help right the pressure sensors were related to door opening speeds
02:44:30 yeah just to explain so basically um all the doors open away from the lobby so if you're extracting from the lobby
02:44:42 so if you're extracting from the lobby you could get a case where if your extraction is so great the person couldn't open the door so therefore what the pressure sensor does it adjusts the flow rate of the extract to enable a
02:44:55 the flow rate of the extract to enable a person to open the door when it senses a change in state when the door's open
02:45:01 so it's merely functional to make sure that people can open the doors basically i see can we just go to mr cross smith's statement at the moment he worked for max fordham under the direction of mr mcquart it's
02:45:13 under the direction of mr mcquart it's at max 3017304 at page 17. and i want to look at paragraph 49
02:45:38 this is his recollection of that same meeting he says on the 24th of november 2014
02:45:44 2014 we attended a meeting with building control psb js wright studio e and the tmo to discuss the smoke ventilation system the svs
02:45:53 svs the meeting was held in the estate office in the tower it was at this meeting that psb and jsw put forward the pressurization system along the lines of the one that hugh
02:46:04 along the lines of the one that hugh mahoney had spoken to me about in may 2014.
02:46:08 2014. this also removed the need for a fresh air inlet at the glazed level and extension down of the smoke ventilation system
02:46:16 system that studio e was proposing this was a constructive meeting which i recall was led by psb js wright in which the proposed works to the smoke ventilation system were
02:46:27 to the smoke ventilation system were discussed in detail with building control who in principle accepted the pressurization system that psb jsw were putting forward this was a development of the design
02:46:38 this was a development of the design that had first been proposed by hugh mahoney at psb at the end of april 2014. do you see that there do you agree do you agree with mr cross smith
02:46:49 smith about what occurred at that meeting i don't agree with him in his use of terminology could you just remind me who whose statement this is this is mr
02:47:00 whose statement this is this is mr matt cross matthew cross smith who worked for max fordham right okay um when you say you don't agree with the terminology is that because you don't agree with it
02:47:12 is that because you don't agree with it being a pressurization system which is what he's describing yeah and just terry cohen just to be clear why don't you agree with that well because
02:47:23 with that well because the meeting wasn't about a pressurization system it was about an extract system from the lobbies the reality of a pressurization system in the existing building would really be
02:47:34 in the existing building would really be quite difficult to do so it seems that it's almost not practical that wasn't the discussion at all it was an extract system but what it might be is that the person who wrote the statement may
02:47:45 the statement may not may be i don't know that's the right term i should say um about terminology um yes you do suffer from this in this industry unfortunately is terminology
02:47:56 industry unfortunately is terminology being misunderstood which can lead to beliefs that are not and were not the case okay thank you do you recall that it was in fact psb
02:48:07 fact psb and js wright that led the meeting that's what mr macrosmith says i think now we've established it probably was psb who were there despite my error in the statement um they did yes and
02:48:21 they did yes and do you agree that in principle building control
02:48:24 control accepted the pressurization system that psb and jsw were putting forward um at that meeting the short answer is um
02:48:33 um because the terminology is incorrect then we didn't accept the pressurization system but but you want me to clarify what actually happened
02:48:42 happened did you actually accept the system that was being proposed to you
02:48:47 well not you can't accept at that stage because there was a discussion about establishing the extract rate so there was discussion about how that would be
02:48:58 was discussion about how that would be done
02:49:00 so how do you want me to carry on with one more so i think what you're saying is are you saying that building control did not
02:49:08 did not in principle accept the psw psb js right system that was being put forward
02:49:16 forward i think we have to careful about terminology because you attend a meeting to um assist people um following the right path so the path they were proposing to fit a
02:49:28 so the path they were proposing to fit a new extract system um was the right path what we needed to establish is what the extract rate should be so as i say i can
02:49:37 say i can explore and explain well ms hanson just just help me with this is it possible that what went on was that you
02:49:45 that you indicated that in principle an extract system would be acceptable but that would be dependent on being satisfied about the extract rate you've got absolutely
02:49:57 extract rate you've got absolutely correct
02:50:00 i see okay thank you um were you clear at this stage about the route that the designers were taking
02:50:11 designers were taking for the system to comply with the building regulations and the guidance given in approved document b no i mean broadly speaking it was a system in accordance with the sca
02:50:23 a system in accordance with the sca guide
02:50:25 guide because that's the only guide that's available for extract systems so the question was is how they established the extract rate so you say broadly speaking it was a system in accordance with the sca guide
02:50:38 system in accordance with the sca guide was that actually said at the meeting that this was a system being designed in accordance with that smoke control association guide i i can't actually recall whether that was specifically mentioned
02:50:51 was specifically mentioned you see we'll come on to it later but none of the documentation that was produced for the system said that it had been designed in accordance with the smoke control association guide um
02:51:06 so can you help us as to why that was if that was your understanding of what the design basis was
02:51:15 um what wasn't mentioned um yes if your understanding was it was designed broadly in accordance with the smoke control association guy can you help us as to why none of the design documentation
02:51:26 documentation that's produced refers to that sca guide um
02:51:34 i can't really it's really a case of um there is only one design guide for extract systems so therefore you know
02:51:44 know you the confusion about the pressurization you wouldn't be using the pressurization guide um adb doesn't mention it they've got no
02:51:51 got no prescriptive standards there so the sea guide is the route
02:51:58 to follow so that was an assumption that you made was it that it was being designed in accordance with that guide but also looking at the details that were submitted so everything followed the route of the
02:52:10 so everything followed the route of the fca
02:52:12 fca guide the applicants don't always state um
02:52:16 um you know they don't say well we're following approved document they send it in and you look at the proposal does that follow a proof document be and that's a common practice
02:52:24 practice um i think there has been some confusion during this process about pressurization depression etc etc anyone who works in the industry clearly
02:52:35 anyone who works in the industry clearly knows that an extract system is an extract system um so therefore the seo a guide is the route to follow um there's no confusion in the industry
02:52:46 um there's no confusion in the industry about that at all and from my view anyway and those i know in the industry okay can we just look at an email now this is jsw40
02:52:59 this is an email from mr bradbury at jsright
02:53:03 jsright to simon lawrence and simon o'connor at ryden this is dated the 5th of january 2015
02:53:08 2015 now so we're going forward in time again
02:53:13 and um mr bradbury attaches a copy of the technical submission for the new system and uh he says looking at the third
02:53:26 and uh he says looking at the third paragraph
02:53:27 paragraph this design has verbally been agreed in our meeting with building control but it will require formal acceptance i'll issue a copy of the technical submission to max fordham for comment
02:53:38 for comment and then submit it for formal building control approval so he too mr bradbury is saying that this proposal had been verbally agreed in our meeting with building control
02:53:51 in our meeting with building control again is that your recollection that this new system had been verbally agreed no
02:53:59 no no so meetings i mean what one of our elaborate meetings are to help the applicant follow a process that
02:54:08 that is to the right result basically that's what the meeting is about and exactly what you said to read about the extract rate that was critical so you couldn't accept a system where you didn't know what the x-ray rate was
02:54:19 didn't know what the x-ray rate was and also because there's lots of details that need to be submitted you can't um you can't accept something at a meeting
02:54:29 if we then go to max seven nine 404795
02:54:40 this is an email from mr cross smith of max fordham to terry ashton of x over on the 6th of january 2015 and this is the following day and he
02:54:52 and this is the following day and he says to mr ashton looking at those two paragraphs at the bottom afternoon terry can you look over and provide comment on the smoke extract proposals put forward by psb on behalf of js wright it looks
02:55:05 on behalf of js wright it looks acceptable and i believe the principle of it has been verbally accepted by building control but it may be wise to get your view as it falls slightly outside our area of expertise and then he goes on to say
02:55:17 expertise and then he goes on to say this
02:55:17 this it's fundamentally different to what we specified in that it's now a pressure differential system rather than
02:55:25 than simple smoke clearance details can be found below if you have any questions then please give me a call so again i think it follows from what you've said that you don't accept that
02:55:36 you've said that you don't accept that the principle of this had been verbally accepted by building control yes
02:55:44 and it's being sorry can i carry on it's being described here as a pressure differential system rather than simple smoke clearance again is that something you were told in
02:55:56 again is that something you were told in that meeting no it's so again it was an extract system um
02:56:02 system um so the terminology here in this email is is just wrong basically um i saw aov mentioned earlier and aov is the wrong term to use relating to these systems as well
02:56:16 i see and if we go to jsw403149 we can see there's an email to you and mr hoban from mr bradbury
02:56:31 fjsri dated the 19th of january 2015 so this is an email to you and paul john further to our meeting and ongoing discussions regarding the aov
02:56:43 ongoing discussions regarding the aov system at grenfell tower we have the pleasure of submitting the technical submission from our specialists psb do you see that yeah
02:56:53 and he
02:56:56 we can see then that's that he's putting and this is technical submission revision one is being provided and then if we go to ryd3034397
02:57:12 provided and then if we go to ryd3034397 we can see that you reply on the 10th of march 2015 so some weeks later
02:57:23 march 2015 so some weeks later second email down you say hi david could we arrange a meeting to discuss the spec i can do tuesday the 17th or wednesday the 18th both at 2 30 pm at our offices
02:57:37 2 30 pm at our offices and
02:57:40 it looks then if we go to the top of this page like a meeting did then occur because mr bradley says i can confirm myself hugh mahoney from psb
02:57:52 hugh mahoney from psb simon lawrence ryden will be at your offices
02:57:55 offices tuesday the 17th that's of march at 2 30 p.m
02:57:59 p.m now can you recall that meeting taking place yes i can yeah so can you help us as to what was said at that meeting about the design basis for the system
02:58:11 i think at that stage we were still looking for them to put forward a proposal for the extract rate so you're still looking for an extract rate
02:58:23 because you said you say you understood it was going to be a mechanical extract system
02:58:28 system yes yeah absolutely yeah can you recall if mr mahoney of psb was actually at that meeting or was it someone else from psb mr bradbury says it was in fact somebody
02:58:39 bradbury says it was in fact somebody called bob hill can you help with that
02:58:45 i can't confirm a deny but he's probably correct
02:58:49 correct um and again can you help us as to why we don't see any notes of that meeting that you prepared no i didn't so again generally speaking
02:59:01 no i didn't so again generally speaking minutes are taken by the applicant as as in this case um and then we comment on any any minutes so you don't accept that
02:59:13 any minutes so you don't accept that notes should have been taken by yourself and uploaded onto your um accolade electronic document management system as a record of what have been discussed it's not normal practice to do that in meetings no
02:59:26 okay mr chairman it's one o'clock and or perhaps even one minute passed now that's a good moment i think for the lunchtime break yes thank you very much well we're gonna have a break now
02:59:37 have a break now against hanson so we can all get some lunch we'll come back please at two o'clock
02:59:41 o'clock and in the meantime please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it all right thank you thank you very much would you like to give the usher please
02:59:59 thank you miss grange two o'clock and
03:00:08 please
03:00:23 you