Simon Lawrence, Rydon contracts manager, gives evidence about the company's reliance on Studio E for design expertise, drawing control systems, and due diligence on the facade project.
00:00:17 i'd gather you had a little local difficulty just a minute uh mr chairman i'm still having a little bit of local difficulty but i'm glad to say it is only local personal to me and that's why i thought it would be better
00:00:26 better it's going to be all right for you to carry on yes it will it will we'll work it out as we go i don't just don't want to hold things up any further right thank you very much well would you ask mr lawrence to come back please
00:00:51 well then mr honestly ready to carry on yes i'm sorry that we kept you waiting a bit
00:00:56 bit a little bit of technical difficulty in the in the room because we are ready to go now yes i am mr chairman yes i apologize mr lawrence it was just so everybody knows a problem with my own personal um uh electronic works here
00:01:09 um uh electronic works here um just a couple of questions if i may to go back over some things we talked about before we raised for lunch you mentioned the website a construction website to which you uh referred and it's at page 92 of the
00:01:20 uh referred and it's at page 92 of the transcript from this morning what is the name of that construction website uh i think it's ihs ihs is that inside housing or is that something else
00:01:31 something else uh no i wouldn't have thought so okay did you ever access that yourself that website
00:01:36 website uh i probably did from time to time yeah you did do you know how frequently you did roughly during the grenfell tower refurbishment
00:01:44 no very infrequently i would suggest what would you use it for um any technical documents that we needed to check every now and again um
00:01:55 again um probably to look at building rigs right um but not as a as a reference um but yeah very infrequently but it was a service that was available thank you and can i ask you to be shown if it's
00:02:08 and can i ask you to be shown if it's possible page 69 of this morning's transcript and you'll see on that page page 69 at line
00:02:16 line 4 that we were discussing the linear route you in the answer to one of my questions you said we had only ever
00:02:24 ever i had only ever experienced what is now being termed as the linear route can i just ask you was the expression linear route an expression that you were familiar with at the time of your
00:02:35 familiar with at the time of your involvement on the grenfell tower project
00:02:37 project no it's something that has come subsequent i follow
00:02:44 can i ask you in relation to your knowledge of approved document b please to be shown a document ryd triple zero four nine seven
00:02:55 ryd triple zero four nine seven zero eight
00:02:59 and i'm asking you this because i want to just explore a little bit more about what you knew of approved document b at the time of the project this is an email dated the 19th of
00:03:10 this is an email dated the 19th of august 2015 from you to mr hoban and mr hanson at rbkc building control and the subject is grenfell tower fire stopping between
00:03:21 grenfell tower fire stopping between floor slabs hi john thanks for attending site today to have a look around our works further to our discussion regarding the fast stopping through the communal floor slabs
00:03:29 slabs i would appreciate your interpretation as to the level of permissible penetration allowed as shown in document b volume 2 section 10 table 14. i've attached a plan drawing of the lift lobby areas to the existing residential
00:03:41 lobby areas to the existing residential levels which we viewed the slab penetrations are located within the new riser cupboard which we have constructed opposite the lift following table 14 do you deem this area to be one structure or three any other situation this will help us
00:03:53 any other situation this will help us understand the maximum permissible penetration size and material etc uh i i'm showing you that as a really to ask you a general question um would you accept that here at this
00:04:06 um would you accept that here at this time you are engaging directly with building control and asking them questions which appear to be quite informed questions about building control and seeking their interpretation of fire
00:04:17 and seeking their interpretation of fire stopping
00:04:18 stopping in this context yes because we've been talking to um it might be following a site visit from john hogan about the new yeah new communal riser
00:04:30 about the new yeah new communal riser cupboards um and there was um fire stopping needed to be done where we brought some new pipe work up yeah um so yes so in that instance i'll say we've looked at it whether it
00:04:42 i'll say we've looked at it whether it was myself that found that table and um went to document b and searched through it to find it or whether we were guided there by somebody else whether it be design team
00:04:54 somebody else whether it be design team or within
00:04:54 or within in my team i can't be sure but that would be an example of where we would you know we know the documents are there um i wouldn't know what was contained in
00:05:05 um i wouldn't know what was contained in them but if someone said to me there's fire stopping in document b then and it would be easily interpreted then that's you know that's the sort of scenario where we would do that actually
00:05:18 where we would do that actually sorry i wouldn't take that upon myself to
00:05:22 to understand that table hence the conversation with john hogan on the face of it this email suggests that you had some detailed knowledge of approved document yes it would
00:05:33 approved document yes it would you accept that and would it also be the case that in some cases you were taking direct
00:05:38 direct responsibility for assessing whether parts of the project complied with the proof document be i don't think i was assessing no i wasn't i wasn't able to interpret the
00:05:50 i wasn't i wasn't able to interpret the document
00:05:51 document in enough detail i see can i then go to a topic i was going to start this afternoon which is reliance on studio e now in your statement
00:06:04 on studio e now in your statement you say uh that ryden didn't have in-house design expertise and it's something you confirmed to us this morning in your evidence
00:06:15 evidence can i ask you to look at the ryden company statement which is ryd triple zero nine four two three six at page one five three
00:06:26 three and ask you to look please at page one five three para 390 on that page and you say they're set out above rml i'm so sorry it says that
00:06:36 that this is not your statement rml would rely on harley and following the novation of its appointment to rml studio e to advise on the appropriate design for the facade including for cavity barriers
00:06:50 including for cavity barriers was that your understanding yes did you understand that what was actually involved in ensuring compliance with the building regulations when assessing the appropriate design for the facade
00:07:02 for the facade words used there
00:07:06 sorry what was the question did you understand what was actually involved in the process of ensuring compliance with the building regulations when assessing
00:07:17 assessing the appropriate design for the facade
00:07:22 i would understand that to be that it goes through the relevant parties that we've contracted to or employed
00:07:31 employed um so i harley's producer drawings it goes to studio studios i will comment and then it will go to
00:07:38 go to a final sign off with building control i see
00:07:42 see did you ever yourself consider what expert what kind of expertise was required
00:07:47 required uh in order that studio you would be able competently to advise on the appropriate design for the facade
00:07:56 uh well harley's would do the the um fabrication and and technical part of that um
00:08:04 that um studio and when when their drawings and information went to studio e i would expect them to be able to highlight any obvious failures
00:08:15 highlight any obvious failures or obvious obvious issues within that
00:08:21 and anywhere that they weren't sure about to check with building control let me see if i can get this another way the the company statement says that rlm rml we're relying on studio e
00:08:32 that rlm rml we're relying on studio e to advise
00:08:33 to advise on the appropriate design for the facade what
00:08:37 what precise expertise did ryden expect studio e to have in order to be able to in order to enable them to give competent advice on that subject they were a
00:08:51 on that subject they were a competent architectural practice is that it
00:08:55 it yes what
00:08:59 due diligence did you do into studio e's expertise in respect of the appropriate design for the facade
00:09:10 the appropriate design for the facade for this building i did personally but let's start with you personally um i think i would have taken on this the assumption that they've been involved for the last
00:09:23 involved for the last two years working for the client working the design up
00:09:30 like i said earlier we knew that they were contracted to a much larger contractor on a much larger project next door that also had facade and cladding works all but not high rise
00:09:44 next door being calc yes calc wasn't a high-rise building was it no that's right that's why you're sitting there and it wasn't a residential high-rise building it wasn't neither the head-cladding on it
00:09:55 head-cladding on it do we take it from your answer that you've just given us that you would have taken it on the assumption that they've been involved that you didn't actually investigate studio e's
00:10:07 studio e's expertise to be able to advise on the appropriate design for the facade but merely assumed by virtue of the novation and their prior involvement that they
00:10:18 and their prior involvement that they did have the expertise
00:10:23 uh yes
00:10:26 what steps well did you take any steps to verify the quality of studio e's pre-novation work
00:10:37 by the fact that our our trusted specialist
00:10:43 supply chain had seen and were and would comment on or we would expect to comment on if there was any
00:10:52 any any obvious issues and the fact that they were taking that design forward who was your trusted specialist supply chain in the context of that
00:11:03 supply chain in the context of that last answer holy cow morgan
00:11:08 from the point at which you became involved in the project indeed ryden became involved in the project what
00:11:18 examination or investigation had hardly done
00:11:22 done into studio e's pre-novation work on the design of the facade well they'd have had all the details
00:11:33 well they'd have had all the details they'd have all the tender documents that have had all the tender drawings so did we specifically ask them that question
00:11:42 question um probably not probably not as directly as that no were you aware that studio e had never previously been involved in projects involving a high-rise residential uh
00:11:56 involving a high-rise residential uh and over cladding project not specif no i wouldn't have been aware of that no
00:12:04 you would say you wouldn't have been aware of it why wouldn't you have been aware of it because because we didn't answer the question as directly as you've just
00:12:16 the question as directly as you've just put it
00:12:16 put it was it not important to you uh taking over the project and becoming the design and builder and having
00:12:27 having taken over the architectural expertise as it were from studio e to satisfy yourselves that what studio he had done so far was not only competent but something
00:12:38 was not only competent but something which they were they had the relevant experience to do but it well it wasn't a fully developed design and i sorry apologies for repeating myself but it was we had a specialist subcontractor that
00:12:50 we had a specialist subcontractor that would be looking at that design and would be finalizing that design did you ever ask harley at the start of the project to investigate what studio he had done
00:13:03 to investigate what studio he had done check its quality and report to you on whether or not that quality of the work up to date was satisfactory not any question like that no
00:13:12 that no no why is that uh it would probably be assumed
00:13:17 assumed i see
00:13:21 i see did you take any steps to satisfy yourself that studio e had the right people
00:13:25 people fully qualified with experience in overcladding a high-rise residential building
00:13:31 building uh no why is that because for the same reasons i've stated previously they've been working on the project for the last several years they've been appointed by the client so you would
00:13:42 appointed by the client so you would expect a
00:13:45 expect a due diligence there they're also working with
00:13:48 with again a much larger contractor on a much larger project next door i think to ask for a specialism in residential high rise over cladding i i i don't know but i would imagine there
00:13:59 i i don't know but i would imagine there were very few and far between architects that specialise in that would it follow from that mr lawrence and everything you've been saying before that that that you
00:14:11 saying before that that that you personally or ryden generally never took any steps
00:14:14 any steps to investigate and satisfy yourselves that studio e were fully conversant with the statutory requirements and related industry guidance about cladding uh we wouldn't have asked that question
00:14:25 that question no we wouldn't have asked that question but you would expect a an architect to have an understanding of the products that they are specifying
00:14:36 of the products that they are specifying and design
00:14:41 was there ever a time when you came to understand exactly what experience in overcladding high-rise residential buildings studio e
00:14:52 high-rise residential buildings studio e did or didn't have uh not that remember recall now can i just ask you one or two questions about iso 9001
00:15:02 iso 9001 uh have you heard of iso 9000 yes
00:15:07 did ryden take any steps to ensure that studio e
00:15:11 studio e as opposed to studio e llp so i'm talking about the limited limited company was iso 9001 registered uh i don't know you don't know
00:15:23 do you know whether ryden took any steps to to ensure that the protocols of iso 9001 were applied to studio e i i don't know did ryden's can i sorry can i
00:15:36 don't know did ryden's can i sorry can i just say on that i think and i think i recall that ryden held that iso and if they appointed um
00:15:48 and if they appointed um a contractor that wasn't iso accredited that they would work in the guidelines of ryden's i believe
00:16:00 did ryden have a quality assurance and inspection regime for dealing with subcontractors or novated contractors consultants there's not a recall a specific regime for that no
00:16:11 specific regime for that no was there a system at all in place within ryden for ensuring that subcontractors or consultants had their own systems in place for quality control
00:16:21 control um
00:16:25 i don't recall the precise one then there may have been a there may have been a process a sort of a qualification questionnaire
00:16:37 sort of a qualification questionnaire but i don't really recall to be fair if a studio you were not iso 9001 registered at the time of their post novation appointment by r by ryden
00:16:51 you have expected them to tell you
00:16:55 uh yes i was i would i suppose but there was yeah there was i think there was a quite a lot going on at the time i don't think we were
00:17:06 at the time i don't think we were um by that i mean today when they changed from limited to llp or vice versa i can't remember which way it is
00:17:17 were already starting working with them i think we was i think it came about when um scheduled services and and contracts were being discussed i think that's how it how it sort of came about
00:17:31 how it sort of came about if studio e were not iso 9000 registered at the time of their post novation appointment by ryden wood would ryden have appointed studio at all
00:17:41 you'd have to look at writing process i can't remember write this process right did you have any concerns at the time of uh the innovation about studio e's solvency
00:17:50 solvency uh no i don't think did you look into that we had the understanding was that the um the senior directors the the partners associates um were sort of
00:18:04 the partners associates um were sort of part in company um something to do with the building for schools
00:18:09 schools works that they were prominent in um and and bruce and several others i think sort of split off from the the other main
00:18:21 split off from the the other main directors so as far as i was aware we were employing the same characters the same people um that started the project did you have any concerns about studio
00:18:32 did you have any concerns about studio uh solvency i don't believe we didn't know did you have any concerns about their change of entity
00:18:38 entity during the project midstream uh i don't believe so i think it i think anything contractual and legal went to our
00:18:47 our um our legal department so you've told us what investigations you did or didn't do into into studio e's expertise yourself did you undertake any investigations
00:19:00 did you undertake any investigations into
00:19:01 into the tmo's own due diligence process to understand on what basis the tmo had originally retained studio e
00:19:12 i'm going to turn next to ryden's appointment of studio e and its schedule of services uh is it right that the original intention had been to novate
00:19:23 had been to novate the llp but because of studio e's insolvency you appointed the limited company
00:19:28 company correctly instead right and was that under bespoke terms not i'm aware of no let's look at i think sorry i think there might have been one
00:19:39 been one um clarification on the um or discussion about one of the clauses or terms in the uh schedule but well that's been dealt with by myself generally
00:19:50 by myself generally yes okay let's look at art four zeros two two five five
00:20:00 this is the record of the contract induction meeting of the 1st of april 2014 this is a document to which we're going to return a number of times during our
00:20:12 to return a number of times during our evidence
00:20:13 evidence mr lawrence it took place at the hub the network hub and uh it took place between noon and 2 15 on that day first of april
00:20:24 2 15 on that day first of april and you were present as well as some individuals from the tmo and mr blake stephen blake was provided with these minutes for information can you please turn to
00:20:35 for information can you please turn to page four
00:20:36 page four and let's look together at paragraph 5.1 under novation of designers under 5.1 it says it was confirmed that studio e and curtins have been novated to ryd
00:20:48 curtins have been novated to ryd ryden bruce sones and stefano stratzollo are the main contacts respectively and then it says under 5.2 sl advised that he will meet with bruce sainz to
00:21:00 that he will meet with bruce sainz to confirm the schedule of services that studio e will provide did you meet mr sones yes i had an introduction racing and did you confirm the schedule of services
00:21:12 you confirm the schedule of services it would have been something we would have discussed but we wouldn't have gone through line by line it's something that we would
00:21:20 produce our standard scheduler services i would expect bruce probably took the way
00:21:28 way check that they were acceptable or not um and returned to us let's go to ryd 3064706 please
00:21:41 i'd like to look at the email at the bottom of the chain this is an email chain of the 17th of april 2014
00:21:50 and at the bottom there this is the email
00:21:53 email that you sent to sea limited and with it a draft schedule of services you see that yes and if bruce please see attach the
00:22:04 yes and if bruce please see attach the draft of the scheduler services document that we are proposing to send you we can discuss further next week you see that and then on the 30th of april 2014 at the top of this page uh he comes back to you hi simon i could
00:22:17 uh he comes back to you hi simon i could have returned this almost immediately apologies i've highlighted my comments it needs to go to our insurer and they will
00:22:22 will need to see the warranty as well and if we can go to the attachment to that please
00:22:27 please which is at ryd 3014215 at page three i just want to ask you about that the attachment you'll see there schedule
00:22:39 the attachment you'll see there schedule of architectural services
00:22:44 are you familiar with this document yes and you can see that mr sones has made comments in the comments box on the right right hand side and if you look at item
00:22:57 right hand side and if you look at item 7
00:22:58 7 it says obtain building regulation approval for and on behalf of the contractor you see that yes and
00:23:07 yes and mr sones proposed that it should instead say responsibility for coordinating building control submissions you see that yes um
00:23:19 and there were other changes as well proposed by mr sones but they relate to issues we're not con concerned with such as things like acoustics
00:23:29 acoustics my question is why wasn't an agreement signed at this stage 30th of april 18. because bruce has come back with comments he's checking with his insurers
00:23:40 comments he's checking with his insurers this document coming back to myself would go to our in-house legal contracts officers for them to take forward and agree any changes or
00:23:51 changes or or not yeah what happened next you got this document his revision that would have gone to our in-house legal in our solicitors ryden had in-house listeners at the time
00:24:03 had in-house listeners at the time that would uh that would deal with the contracts officers you could call them that would deal with the contracts such as this
00:24:11 as this and any amendments that are needed to be
00:24:15 or any change that needs to be amended yes and
00:24:18 yes and after that what would what what happened do you know it generally would go to it it generally would stay in that department and then they would pick up the comments backwards and forwards between studio
00:24:29 backwards and forwards between studio rather than it come back to me for me to pass as judy lee to come back again and so they would then talk directly to whoever we were contracting with do you know when it was that ryden
00:24:41 do you know when it was that ryden finally entered into a binding contract in writing with studio e uh only from the
00:24:48 the the hearing documents well we'll look at the document in the moment but it was the third of february 2016. and my question is can you explain why notwithstanding the fact that mr sainz had come back to you on the 30th of april 2014 with his
00:25:00 on the 30th of april 2014 with his comments on the draft schedule of architectural services that the process of finalizing and agreeing that in formal terms was not
00:25:11 not finalized until more than a year later i can't tell you why he's two years later you've gone to the contract's offices
00:25:19 offices was it not your job as contracts manager for this project to pursue the terms of ryden's
00:25:23 ryden's agreement with studio e down to a conclusion
00:25:30 we would be but i would be i still would be reliant on my my legal team to be agreeing these terms yeah and and providing that wasn't affecting
00:25:42 affecting um progress payment or you know architects saying we're not going to continue working then um then
00:25:53 um then sometimes it takes a long time given that you were the person who was negotiating personally with mr sanes on the terms of this agreement why did you sorry i wasn't negotiating personally i was i was doing on behalf of ryden and i
00:26:05 i was doing on behalf of ryden and i would then pass the document onto my legal team in-house legal team i i couldn't change any of these clauses in the schedule services it's a standard
00:26:16 in the schedule services it's a standard writing document it was down for them to accept or not accept or change or negotiate the terms given that you were the person at riding right and taking personal uh responsibility for negotiating the
00:26:29 uh responsibility for negotiating the terms
00:26:30 terms with studio e why didn't you see that to a conclusion i don't know thank you were you satisfied
00:26:42 were you satisfied in and after april 2014 that even though you hadn't arrived at a formal binding set of contract terms with studio e studio you were clear on their
00:26:54 studio you were clear on their responsibilities yes and
00:27:02 does this document in front of us schedule of architectural services tell us
00:27:06 us what those responsibilities were yes i'd like you to look then at studio e's
00:27:13 e's finalized deed of appointment the third of february 2016 which is at ryd-3094228
00:27:26 now the first thing i should show you on this document is the date third of february 2016 i i think it's right isn't it that you had actually left
00:27:37 had actually left ryden in the october of the previous year correct so can i take it that you would never have seen this well you never did see this document until preparing for this not not the finalists i
00:27:48 finalists i i've not really seen this either i see
00:28:00 now uh this isn't probably a question for you but
00:28:07 but mr sones in his evidence before the inquiry had said that in relation to the contractual negotiation of this document uh uh it had been agreed by studio e under duress
00:28:18 under duress uh can you comment on that or is this after your time it's after my time thank you uh i just want to ask you although i know
00:28:29 i just want to ask you although i know you hadn't seen this document some questions about whether what's in it might reflect your understanding while you were involved so that's why i'm asking you about it can you go please to page 3 and clause
00:28:42 can you go please to page 3 and clause 2.2
00:28:44 2.2 it says under 2.2 services without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing the consultant acknowledges that it is responsible for all
00:28:55 all and any design and other work undertaken by the consultant its employees servant subcontractors or agents in relation to the site
00:29:01 the site before the date of this deed
00:29:05 during your role as contract manager on the grenfell tower project until you left in october 2015 does that provision reflect your understanding through that period
00:29:17 understanding through that period of who was responsible as between studio e on the one hand and ryden on the other for design work on the grenfell project yes it does reflect how did you organize division of design
00:29:30 how did you organize division of design work between studio e on the one hand and harley the cladding subcontractor on the other well studio a did the
00:29:39 did the initial outline design harleys would then take that obviously check that and then do the technical fabrication details of exactly how that was to be
00:29:52 built how did you understand studio e's responsibility to ryden for design to interrelate or correlate with ryden's ultimate responsibility to the tmo
00:30:04 ultimate responsibility to the tmo for design uh i understood it that we were
00:30:08 were delegating the design responsibility
00:30:12 can you look at page three of this document please and let's look at clause 2.3
00:30:18 2.3 i think we're still on page 3 in fact 2.3 the consultant warrants it has exercised and will continue to exercise reasonable skill care and diligence in the discharge of the services to the standard reasonably to be expected of a competent
00:30:30 to be expected of a competent professional experienced in the provision of professional services for work similar to the size scope complexity quality and nature of the development now for the definition of services
00:30:42 for the definition of services that we go to pages eight to nine can we just look at those before i ask the question about this annex a schedule of services and i think
00:30:53 annex a schedule of services and i think you need to look at nine which actually sets out the services themselves and there is a long list running into the 30s you see that
00:31:05 running into the 30s you see that uh my question is during your time at ryden on this project did you see any document like this which set out exactly what studio he was supposed to do
00:31:17 what studio he was supposed to do yes i would i'm assuming that was in the draft
00:31:20 draft information that i'd have sent to bruce in the first place okay let's then look at
00:31:24 at uh page four clause five
00:31:30 of the document itself and we'll come back as
00:31:34 back as as you say we'll come back to this because there was a draft of this at the time
00:31:38 time we'll come back to it but looking at clause 5 deleterious materials uh it says that the consultant warrants to the contractor that in carrying out the services it does not
00:31:49 carrying out the services it does not and that it will not specify for use or knowingly permit to be used in relation to the design of the development any materials or substances which the consultant knows or exercising reasonable skill and care ought to know
00:32:01 reasonable skill and care ought to know at the time of the specification save where the consultant has an ongoing involvement in the development uh including without limitations supervision or inspection of the development in which case at the time of use are not
00:32:12 in which case at the time of use are not in accordance with british or european standards and codes of practice or their equivalent or which are generally known within the consultant's profession to be deleterious to health or safety or to the durability
00:32:23 to health or safety or to the durability or integrity of the development now was that an obligation that you understood
00:32:35 understood had been assumed by studio e at the time of your involvement yes i think that's standard within the industry so yes
00:32:46 industry so yes can i ask you to look at page five clause 8.1
00:32:51 cdm regulations the consultant is aware of the cdm regulations 2015. now those are the ones that came in in october 2015 so by the
00:33:02 that came in in october 2015 so by the time of this deed and acknowledges that in relation to the services it is a designer as does as defined in the cdm regulations and will use reasonable skill
00:33:12 skill care and diligence to comply with its obligations and duties as a designer as defined and specified within the cdm regulations my question there is do you agree that those obligations uh
00:33:23 those obligations uh making all allowances for the change in the uh from 2007 to 2015 regulations did those obligations include in general terms the continuing provision of design
00:33:35 continuing provision of design information to ryden as principal contractor yes and that that would have been applicable during your time as contract contract manager on the grenfell tower project yes yes
00:33:47 project yes yes can i now turn to a different topic which is does drawing review if we look back at the schedule of services well we've still got the document open page 8 please and go straight to page 10
00:34:00 page 8 please and go straight to page 10 starts on page 8 we go to page 10 we look at paragraph 27 here is one of as we can see the long list of architectural services to be provided by
00:34:12 provided by studio e and under paragraph 27 studio we were obliged to and i quote examine
00:34:18 examine subcontractors and suppliers drawings and details with particular reference to tolerances and dimensional coordination finish durability appearance and performance criteria and report to the contractor
00:34:32 on the basis a document similar to this well let me just ask a different way what did you understand studio e's obligation to unders to examine subcontractors and suppliers drawings and details
00:34:43 drawings and details to entail in practice well they were they were the lead designer so i'd expect them to be taking sub-contracts and suppliers drawings and making sure they
00:34:54 drawings and making sure they are coordinated with their their own design and their own design intent and basically everything fitted together and in answering that question do i take it that's your expectation and was your
00:35:05 it that's your expectation and was your understanding throughout the time your time as
00:35:07 time as contract manager on this project that they were lead designer yes yes and that they had those obligations yes
00:35:15 yes is it fair to say that in circumstances whereas you've told us ryden didn't itself have any in-house design
00:35:22 design expertise to undertake the task of examining sub-contractors and supplying suppliers drawings and details as we've as we see here
00:35:33 as we see here it was essential that studio e performed that task
00:35:36 that task competently yes was that your expectation yes i would expect to do it competently and did if studio e wasn't going to
00:35:48 and did if studio e wasn't going to perform that task competently who was
00:35:54 well it should have been studio e right there was no one else you were looking to was there to do that job no they were lead designer so yes and do you accept that in turn ryden
00:36:07 and do you accept that in turn ryden was responsible to its client the tmo to make sure that studio e undertook proper and professional drawing reviews as they promised under that paragraph yes
00:36:21 and do you think that in order for studio e to fulfill the obligations we can see in paragraph 27 studio you would need to have timely access to all the up-to-date drawings yes
00:36:33 to all the up-to-date drawings yes and then and ryden needed to be in control of that information we needed to coordinate and put the parties together
00:36:44 parties together i wouldn't necessarily expect all the information to come to us for us to then pass it straight up to studio e i would expect
00:36:55 straight up to studio e i would expect us to be
00:36:56 us to be copied in but i would expect the designers to liaise directly as well you wouldn't expect them to liaise without you being informative generally we would make sure that we were we were
00:37:07 make sure that we were we were copied in so if there was anything obviously um
00:37:13 anything obviously wrong or you know one contractor was going in a different direction to another or the studio we were instructing something that that
00:37:22 that that we didn't feel was correct um [Music]
00:37:26 [Music] then then yes we'd say so but otherwise i would expect um harley's to be talking to studio e directly i think they need to because their
00:37:36 their designs are are connected can i ask you to look at a rt408645
00:37:47 and on page one here at the top is an email from mr booth philip booth of artelia
00:37:52 artelia on the 11th of june 2014 they sometimes use american dating there and the email chain is mainly chase discussing payment of studio e's invoices but please
00:38:03 invoices but please just focus on the last line uh i will speak to claire about the cda role as as we should implement a formal design approval process led by ourselves and my question is did you understand at
00:38:15 and my question is did you understand at that time that formal design approval process
00:38:19 process would be led by writing
00:38:24 i think what he's saying there is that
00:38:28 by ryden or one of their designers so the same principle if studio e had drawings that needed to be checked or approved by the client and i wouldn't expect them to be sending them
00:38:39 wouldn't expect them to be sending them to me
00:38:40 to me solely me and not including the client well you've introduced a qualification by ryden or one of their designers that's not something that mr booth was proposing was it
00:38:51 well when you're saying led by yourselves is he not talking about ryden as a as a whole well you tell me mr lawrence it says uh a formal speak to clara about the cda
00:39:04 uh a formal speak to clara about the cda roles we should implement a formal design approval process led misspelt but doesn't matter led by yourselves my question is at the time you got that email from mr boo did you understand that he was proposing
00:39:17 did you understand that he was proposing that a formal design process would be led by ryden
00:39:22 yes but when he meant brighton i would assume by i would read by that that studio e and the supply chain but studio e particularly as lead designer
00:39:33 studio e particularly as lead designer would be
00:39:33 would be integral in that process it wouldn't just be ryden and the tmo studio we are integrating that process they need to be part of that process
00:39:45 i don't sorry i don't understand quite where you what you're well i'm just trying to i'm just trying to ask you to explain what you understood by this email and particularly the words led by yourselves and i think you're
00:39:56 led by yourselves and i think you're telling us that your cells doesn't only mean ryden but it means ryden and all its subcontractors yes well it led by ryden but ryden in terms of design would look to studio e to fulfill that for us
00:40:09 e to fulfill that for us so you're telling us are you that if the decision were taken to implement a formal design approval process led by ryden in fact it would be led by studio e
00:40:21 studio e yes because they were the lead designer and they were best placed to
00:40:27 handle and move the drawings to the client for the approval process that's not what mr booth is suggesting though is he he's suggesting that the design
00:40:35 design approval process is led by ryden as in you
00:40:41 i don't think you can determine that from i don't read that the same way as you are unfortunately i read that as ryden and its and its contracted parties and if i'd
00:40:54 and its contracted parties and if i'd i would read that as that we would speak to studio e and studio e would be part of that process now i want to move to uh something that mr crawford has
00:41:05 uh something that mr crawford has said to the inquiry about this topic can i ask you to look at his witness statement
00:41:10 statement it's sea three zero is one four two seven
00:41:15 seven five at page sixteen and i'd like us to look together carefully please at what he says at paragraph 37
00:41:27 and he says this and i'll show you the whole paragraph in terms of how studio e worked with ryden post contract we were its appointed architect i had expected that this would involve
00:41:39 i had expected that this would involve providing the usual services set out in the riva plan of work i.e workstages jk and l as they were known at the time specifically with the role of lead designer and architectural designer
00:41:51 designer and architectural designer however simon lawrence ryden said to me in an informal conversation around the start of my involvement in the project that ryden tended not to use its architects as much as it might do
00:42:03 architects as much as it might do as such he envisaged studio e's role being more responsive with ryden maintaining a greater degree of control over the design process than i would normally expect
00:42:13 expect from a design and build contractor in that regard i had less to do for ryden than i expected [Applause] now in his oral evidence to the inquiry
00:42:24 now in his oral evidence to the inquiry mr crawford told us that your conversation with him that he's recording here in his witness statement
00:42:31 statement took place on site around august or september 2014
00:42:40 do you recall such a conversation no mr sones told the inquiry that he recalled you telling him was to the effect that on more than one occasion
00:42:51 effect that on more than one occasion long before the work started on site uh uh that this is what the effect was and as a result studio e
00:43:02 the effect was and as a result studio e saw their involvement from that point as being limited to responding to specific queries do you recall a conversation with mr sones the only the only conversation i recall with bruce that may be
00:43:14 with bruce that may be loosely interpreted um was in my initial meeting with bruce my introduction meeting with bruce so i went to studio e's um a place of work sat down and had a
00:43:27 um a place of work sat down and had a meeting just me and bruce as an introduction you know hello we're riding et cetera et cetera and bruce having some concern um or us discussing a concern
00:43:38 discussing a concern about whether we wanted a full snagging inspection role
00:43:48 and and then we very loosely discussed
00:43:53 works in and around occupied residence properties as in i wouldn't expect him in an occupied refurbishment project
00:44:04 in an occupied refurbishment project um there are so many different scenarios in in people's homes that i wouldn't expect
00:44:13 an architect as part of the occupied refurbishment section of the building to be coming into every single property checking every single property snagging
00:44:24 checking every single property snagging it for us
00:44:26 it for us picking up any slight nuances in whether a boxing went to the left to the right etc so that's the only thing i can think that they're referring to but i do not recall any conversations with neil
00:44:37 recall any conversations with neil on site okay i don't think that's in your witness statement um it may not be after that probably so why
00:44:43 why how come you're remembering that now is that just because because this has come up and i've had to try and recollect what this might be referring to it's not obvious i see do you recall
00:45:02 um is it correct sorry that ryden tended not to use its architects as much as it might do
00:45:10 might do no i wouldn't have said i would have said it was any different to now specifically mr sands re recalled that it was his impression that as a result of what you told him
00:45:21 that as a result of what you told him that studio he could expect and i'm quoting from his transcript and it's day 7 page 116 line 7 just for our purposes and perhaps yours if you want to be sure about it but he could expect quotes
00:45:33 sure about it but he could expect quotes less queries less requests for drawings or details than it would otherwise expect
00:45:39 expect now if he had that impression as he says he did can you explain how come no i don't no i can't was it your impression that he had that impression or understanding nice
00:45:51 impression or understanding nice i think the i think the um the the consultant deed he's setting out what we're expecting him to do um if he thought he was doing something
00:46:03 um if he thought he was doing something less than
00:46:05 less than a he was being paid for and be what the deed was setting out
00:46:12 i think it would be very unusual that he wouldn't query that but so i i can't unders i don't know it must be a misinterpretation i don't know we've seen what mr crawford
00:46:23 i don't know we've seen what mr crawford has said about the conversation and it's still on the screen paragraph 37 of this statement mr lawrence did you ever tell mr crawford
00:46:32 crawford or anybody else at studio e that you uh either personally or or ryden as a company
00:46:40 company had no design capability itself and was going to rely on its appointed subcontractors and sub-consultants
00:46:50 um
00:46:53 i'm not sure we no i'm not sure would have been as direct as no i'm not sure we've been as direct as that now did an occasion ever come up in informal conversations with mr sainz
00:47:05 in informal conversations with mr sainz or mr crawford when you could have said to them or did say to them that you had no design uh capability yourself and was relying entirely on them
00:47:17 i'm sure occasions may have come up but we didn't i don't recall having that conversation
00:47:23 if mr crawford is correct in his recollection and you're incorrect in your recollection would that suggest that ryden did indeed have an in-house design capability
00:47:35 an in-house design capability but i don't know because we didn't have
00:47:40 mr crawford also told us and this is day 9
00:47:44 9 page 102 line 121 that he was hounding you a bit
00:47:49 you a bit at the time do you remember that sorry mr crawford was helping mr crawford yes he said that he was handing you a bit at the time of the conversation which he put it about august or
00:48:00 put it about august or september 2000 don't recall the conversation at all right is it possible that you made the comment to mr crawford that he says you did in order to get him off your back
00:48:13 uh i think it would be very unlikely that
00:48:16 that um that mr crawford knowing knowing him and his personality he's not
00:48:26 i can't imagine that i would just be getting off my back with him hounding me because i don't see that's how the relationship was so so no
00:48:34 so no i don't think that's possible and i don't recall the conversation okay in the next paragraph of mr crawford's statement uh paragraph 38 same page uh in the middle of that paragraph he says
00:48:45 of that paragraph he says although i find simon lawrence quite hands-on drawing control was more informal than i was accustomed to perhaps
00:48:51 perhaps as i had previously been involved in larger projects with drawing control protocols
00:48:57 would you agree that you were quite hands-on
00:49:02 hands-on that's probably yeah probably fair and was the drawing control system managed by ryden on the grenfell project informal it was
00:49:14 on the grenfell project informal it was more informal than my experience now a lot of others now will use online systems and drawing control specific systems where
00:49:27 drawing control specific systems where ryden were very much of sort of old school should i say
00:49:35 so it wouldn't be as formal as what would my experience would be now and would it be as formal as what your experience was from other projects at the time
00:49:44 the time from 2014 to 2016. you've been in line with
00:49:49 with previous projects i see
00:49:53 when drawings were issued by subcontractors such as harley can you explain the process which then occurred which enabled studio e to assess and ultimately to approve those drawings
00:50:04 ultimately to approve those drawings so someone like harley would send their drawings directly to studio like i say we would be copied copied into those drawings as well
00:50:16 into those drawings as well studio we would then take them would then
00:50:19 then comment them and give them a status for harley's two mend if required or or or not if they were acceptable for
00:50:31 or not if they were acceptable for construction
00:50:35 and what was ryden's role exactly in that process coordinated to two parties i see making sure the flow of information between the two parties was happening when you say line 11 as you just have we
00:50:47 when you say line 11 as you just have we would then comment on them and give them a status what was the nature in general of your comments of ryden's my comments yes our comments
00:50:58 of ryden's my comments yes our comments would only be about buildability and if there was anything obvious about buildability i see and you say you'd g you would give them a status what's sort of i wouldn't give them a status studio you would give them a
00:51:10 status studio you would give them a status
00:51:11 status oh i see would you say you you've told us that studio e would take them we would comment on them and give them a status for heart studios
00:51:20 that's not my i see all right document on the screen that's your studio ease belief i think that's neil crawford isn't it i i i i was reading from the transcript
00:51:32 i i i was reading from the transcript did you expect studio e to approve drawings produced by harley uh yes i think proof is uh he's a he's a term that's probably going
00:51:43 he's a he's a term that's probably going to come up with some question but yes yes i did did you regard their approval as final or do you regard ryden's approval as final i regarded their their approval as
00:51:56 i regarded their their approval as final um save for the fact of building a truck building control yes right what about buildability what if they
00:52:07 they said something was approved but you thought it wasn't buildable what would that happen then we'd have a conversation between the three parties as to what element wasn't buildable there would be less a lot just stress on the
00:52:18 the harley's works
00:52:22 we would it wouldn't take less of a role necessarily but we would um harleys were not only designing they were also building their own design
00:52:35 they were also building their own design so buildability in this sense for harley was less of a concern for ryden myself
00:52:47 for ryden myself who did you consider was an ultimate control
00:52:50 control or had ultimate responsibility for the drawing control process well ultimately ryden are responsible for the design but i would expect the lead architect or
00:53:02 but i would expect the lead architect or the lead designer to take control of that process
00:53:07 given your understanding of studio e's obligations to ryden and ryden's obligations in terms of the tmo did you take any steps to ensure that all drawings were distributed to studio
00:53:18 all drawings were distributed to studio e
00:53:22 all the drawings that came that i'm aware of came in and went to studio yes yes what steps did you take to ensure that that happened every time uh well harleys wouldn't
00:53:34 every time uh well harleys wouldn't proceed unless drawings were approved they'll be drawing issue sheets on record um
00:53:47 what steps did you take to ensure that records were kept of what drawings had been provided to studio e
00:53:55 studio e they were drawing because harley's and others would issue drawing issue sheets that would that we would keep on file that would show what drawings were issued when the numbers the revisions and who to you
00:54:07 the numbers the revisions and who to you didn't keep your own drawings register uh we
00:54:10 uh we we did and i think they're on file okay yes
00:54:15 what steps did you take to ensure that records were kept of drawings which
00:54:22 you had seen but hadn't yet been given to studio e uh it would be very unusual for me to be copied into a drawing only and studio e not to be
00:54:32 not to be right copied in so i i think the thrust of what you're telling us is that every time harley issued a drawing it would come to you at the same time studio e yes i'll be copied right either myself or
00:54:42 myself or simon o'connor or one or the other it generally would be myself no now sticking with mr crawford's statement i'd like to go to page 26 please
00:54:51 please and look at paragraph 67 he says there that you see that at the bottom of page 26 he comments on the drawing
00:55:02 26 he comments on the drawing management system and he describes it as as ad hoc you see that in the middle of the paragraph uh he says the smaller project it's not uncommon to have an ad hoc drawing
00:55:14 uncommon to have an ad hoc drawing control system as was the case here which is inhabited sorry to interrupt those that's what i was explaining earlier with yeah and then he goes on however with the project this size i would have
00:55:26 the project this size i would have expected ryden to have implemented an electronic drawing control system which i had often used on previous projects i do not know why ryden did not implement such a system for the project
00:55:41 is it right that ryden hadn't implemented such a system for the project
00:55:45 project correct and why is that
00:55:50 in my experience that wasn't with writing that wasn't a usual type of system that they they used
00:56:01 usual type of system that they they used who
00:56:02 who who's the day studio e uh no ryden
00:56:07 i'm not sure i understand your last dance you're sorry you're you're asking me
00:56:11 me why we didn't have an electronic drawing control system yes well understanding of that you you there are online portals is probably
00:56:22 you there are online portals is probably the best way of describing it as document control which quite often large contractors use ryden didn't use such a portal it's
00:56:33 ryden didn't use such a portal it's probably the yeah and one we would i don't know it wasn't a riding process it wasn't one that i'd seen used in ryden previously i follow now um on day seven of his evidence
00:56:46 now um on day seven of his evidence page 89 at line one mr sones said uh that common practice in the industry with a
00:56:52 with a contract of a reasonable size is for the contractor to manage their documents on an
00:56:56 an online platform and at line 15 on the same page he confirmed that it was his view
00:57:01 view that an electronic drawing control system was good practice would you agree with that i think it's in my experience since ryden i think it's
00:57:10 it's definitely very helpful i don't think it's definitely more commonplace now but that's not what ryden used at the time
00:57:17 time no but would you do you agree with him that it was good practice at the time um at the time i wouldn't have known because i'd not used one previously
00:57:28 previously but i have done since and yes they are definitely useful very useful right do you know can you explain why ryden departed in its practice from what mr sands described as common practice
00:57:42 mr sands described as common practice at the time i can't also right i think from what you're saying that ryden didn't use electronic drawing control systems on any other projects
00:57:53 control systems on any other projects is that correct not as far as i'm aware of that at the time at the time yes so no they didn't at the time is that right not at the time though
00:58:01 though did you ever tell studio e that you had no drawing control system
00:58:07 uh i don't think we'd have been that specific right did you ever tell studio either you you expected them to run a drawing control system uh again i don't think we'd have been that specific in a
00:58:19 that specific in a we're directing a statement no what steps did ryden have in place to review the ongoing performance of the drawing control systems that was that were being used so that if
00:58:30 that was that were being used so that if you needed a more formal one uh you could put you could introduce it if needed
00:58:38 well i wasn't used to a more formal one because in my experience at ryden we hadn't used a more formal one and i believed we were acting
00:58:49 as was my experience of ryden can i ask you to look at paragraph 38 of mr crawford's witness statement on page 16. back back to page 16. i think we looked at this a minute ago
00:59:00 at this a minute ago uh i don't think i showed you the last part of the paragraph it says three lines up from the bottom of paragraph 38 ryden did not involve studio e in all
00:59:11 ryden did not involve studio e in all the site meetings which took place or the design decisions and we were not copied into all emails this meant that studio e was often left to respond to ryden's specific design queries as they arose
00:59:23 specific design queries as they arose is that correct is any of that correct i don't know what emails they're referring to they weren't copied into so is it correct that ryden didn't involve studio e in all the site meetings which took place
00:59:37 no i wouldn't think it was correct um it depends how far you go down if we were having a an m a specific meeting then studio we probably wouldn't be there but no i would expect them to have been
00:59:49 but no i would expect them to have been involved in in all of it is it correct that ryden didn't involve studio e in all design decisions think i think we did
01:00:02 design decisions think i think we did mr crawford says that studio e were not copied into all emails was that your experience not as far as not as i recall no he then goes on to say this meant that
01:00:13 he then goes on to say this meant that studio e was often left to respond to writing specific design queries as they arose
01:00:18 arose is he right about that not as far as i'm aware but
01:00:23 was it ever your understanding the studio you were relying on ryden to come back to them if ryden thought that there was anything wrong with the drawings
01:00:34 sorry can you say that again yes did was it your understanding yes the studio we were relying on you to come back to them if you thought there was anything wrong with the drawings
01:00:44 um
01:00:49 yet they might have been yes i say they may have been was that what was you i'm after your understanding at the time was it your i would expect i would expect us to contact studio if we've if we um if there was anything
01:01:02 if we've if we um if there was anything obvious in the drawings that we weren't happy with for whatever reason then i would expect us to raise that studio yes yes i see okay mr chairman i i i'm in the middle of
01:01:14 mr chairman i i i'm in the middle of quite a long uh topic which i hope to be able to shorten if i have a break now if we don't have a break now we shouldn't get one shall we i think it's probably right i think we all have a break and i'm sure it'll shorten things
01:01:25 break and i'm sure it'll shorten things no no mr lawrence would like a break now so we will have a break now mr lawrence we'll come back if i say 25 past will that give you enough time just over 10 minutes yes absolutely you need more 25 past perfect
01:01:37 need more 25 past perfect thank you all right 25 past no talking to anyone when they're out of the room please
01:01:42 please we're not about this all right you let go of the usher right 25 false thank you
01:15:44 yes would you ask mr lawrence to come back please
01:16:01 all right mr lawrence happy to carry on yes thank you mr lawrence uh can i uh ask you please to go uh to your own witness statement now
01:16:14 ryd triple zero nine four two two zero at page and i want to show you paragraph 51
01:16:22 51 on the fifth line in the fifth line there
01:16:26 there you say
01:16:29 although i have no expertise or qualifications as a designer my experience as a construction manager meant that if i saw something that was obviously wrong then i would challenge that and i would
01:16:40 then i would challenge that and i would have expected the rest of the ryden team and indeed all of those involved in managing the project to do the same see that
01:16:47 see that yes when you say obviously wrong does that mean
01:16:51 that mean obviously wrong with studio e's design could be with any design so studio e's harley's any design yes what would you count as an obvious
01:17:02 yes what would you count as an obvious error
01:17:04 error um if you showed a cladding panel with no brackets um
01:17:13 yeah anything sort of obviously wrong wrong yeah how about showing a material on the as built drawings that was not actually on the building as built
01:17:24 built would that be an obvious error uh i hadn't seen the has built drawings so no but but but if you had seen the as built drawings if if it wasn't yes if it was
01:17:35 if it wasn't yes if it was obvious then yes that would be you'd expect to pick out yes
01:17:44 out yes what i'm really asking you is is obvious to a specialist architect or designer or obvious
01:17:49 obvious to you or you either you personally or you
01:17:54 you at ryden you you as ryden uh well the degrees of obviousness would obviously be different from a architect to ryden precisely if you
01:18:06 architect to ryden precisely if you yes i think if you saw an as built drawing and there was something that was on there that wasn't on the building or vice versa and it was obvious then then yes of course you'd like mr lawrence maybe i'm a bit naive about
01:18:18 lawrence maybe i'm a bit naive about this but
01:18:19 this but i understood you to mean whatever your precise choice of language this that if you saw something which you thought was wrong you would raise it yes is that really what you're trying to do that's a much
01:18:30 what you're trying to do that's a much better way of putting it thank you
01:18:33 so if you saw something that wasn't compliant with the building regulations you'd raise that if you realize yes of course yes
01:18:43 what about errors that were not obvious as in obvious to you was there anybody at ryden who would pick up such errors but ryden no no in the light of
01:18:56 but ryden no no in the light of that how did you expect ryden's ongoing review of design to spot deficiencies beyond those which could be called obviously wrong as you've just explained it in other
01:19:07 as you've just explained it in other words obviously wrong to you i wouldn't expect it to be able to do that you wouldn't nice can i ask you then to look at mr crawford's witness statement again s e a triple zero one four two seven
01:19:20 five page 17 paragraph 41 and he says uh in the second line
01:19:31 and he says uh in the second line a key concern for me through the construction phase was to maintain the integrity of the architectural intent established at planning and tender stages this did not necessarily involve
01:19:42 this did not necessarily involve commenting on the finer detail or technical aspects of designs or the selection of materials but was from the point of view of architectural intent
01:19:50 intent which covered aspects such as sighting spatial arrangements immunity tolerances dimensional coordination the appearance proportions colours or finishes of the products
01:20:00 products i would comment as to whether drawings provided by others were compatible with the architectural intent and address or highlight any implications or clashes that might need to be considered to ensure the architectural intent was preserved
01:20:14 architectural intent was preserved now i i i quote that to you at length mr crawford was asked about that passage in his oral evidence and we don't need to look at it but just for our note it's day 9 page 91 lines two to six
01:20:26 lines two to six what he did say was that it was standard industry practice that comment that architects would comment only on architectural intent and he believed that ryden understood that
01:20:38 that now that's what he said to what extent is what he says in his statement i've just read to you an accurate reflection of what you understood
01:20:49 understood the scope of studio e's role to be
01:20:54 i would say that was his
01:20:58 primary
01:21:02 purpose for looking at drawings and reviewing drawings would be to make sure it is
01:21:08 in accordance with his overall or their overall
01:21:11 overall design but i would also expect
01:21:16 an overview of compliance where he again probably was obvious i would expect him to have a basic or
01:21:27 i would expect him to have a basic or architects have a basic knowledge of the building regulation so again if there was something that was obviously wrong
01:21:35 wrong then i would expect it to be picked up before it went on to building trump
01:21:41 had you ever heard the expression architectural intent before your involvement on the grenfell project uh yeah i probably have yeah what was your understanding about what that meant
01:21:52 your understanding about what that meant it means that they're they're doing the overall um architectural intent means the overall sort of
01:22:00 sort of picture and um design intent so the the you know we want a building to look gray and be over clad um or whatever it be had you ever had
01:22:13 or whatever it be had you ever had experience of the subcontracted architect on a project
01:22:18 project saying that their role was limited to checking where the drawings conformed with architectural intent no i don't recall sir so is this the first time uh that that would be yes i don't did it
01:22:31 uh that that would be yes i don't did it come as a surprise to you when mr crawford
01:22:37 well did what did mr crawford ever tell you
01:22:40 you in terms that studio e's role was limited to checking drawings for architectural intent no not i'm aware of that he goes on in the same paragraph sixth
01:22:51 he goes on in the same paragraph sixth line from the bottom he says if i spotted a clear and obvious error when reviewing drawings for consistency with architectural intent i would raise a comment for the designer
01:23:02 would raise a comment for the designer to address an architect may not have the know-how to identify technical errors in the designs and or specifications of a designer
01:23:08 designer of another specialist discipline unless the error is of a kind that would be manifest to an architect now mr same's evidence was that studio e was not engaged to confirm compliance on
01:23:20 was not engaged to confirm compliance on anything and that's day seven page one two two at line six do you accept that i no because i don't think that's in accordance with their share to the services
01:23:34 whether they'd be able to do that in-house or whether they would use um a building control or a another um that that may be a different
01:23:46 um that that may be a different a different matter looking back at what mr crawford says in those last six lines of his
01:23:51 of his witness statement where he says if i spotted a clear and obvious error etc was that your understanding of the time of how he saw studio e's role
01:24:03 of how he saw studio e's role i understood that if i didn't understand that he was he only thought he was looking at architectural intent and thereby implying that he wouldn't look at any compliance
01:24:14 look at any compliance well that's how i'm reading that um but i also think it's fair to say that on a specialism such as cladding
01:24:26 on a specialism such as cladding um he would look at you know he would look at the obvious stuff that it was in place but he would be relying on the specialist
01:24:37 specialist designer to have greater knowledge than him did studio he ever tell you or say anything to you to to to make you think that studio e did not have the expertise to examine
01:24:48 did not have the expertise to examine any of the subcontractors drawings and details on this project no did they ever tell you or say anything to make you think that they couldn't comply in any respect with paragraph 27 of the schedule of architectural
01:24:59 of the schedule of architectural services we looked at earlier on uh did they ever tell you or say anything to make you think that their services set out in that schedule of services
01:25:10 set out in that schedule of services were in
01:25:11 were in practice to be limited in any way no i think the only comment from from what i'm aware um is about the comment about the um builder control
01:25:22 builder control sign off just to avoid any ambiguity on on our part and your part when i say that schedule of services i mean the one that was attached to the 17th of april 2014 email
01:25:34 2014 email which mr sainz commented on in on the 30th of april 2014 rather than the one necessarily signed later but says the same thing well it's the same thing but he also we've sent him a
01:25:46 thing but he also we've sent him a schedule of services that he's uh riding his template he's made comment and
01:25:52 and disagreed and want some words changed on one particular element so um but the rest of it i'm assuming stayed the same yes and i think you're agreeing with me that he
01:26:04 think you're agreeing with me that he never told you anything and nobody had asked you he ever told anything to the effect that they didn't have the the wherewithal to carry out those obligations that's correct does it follow from that
01:26:15 that's correct does it follow from that that you expected studio e to have the design expertise to review subcontractors drawings and report to you yes throughout the project yes can we look at paragraph 54 of mr
01:26:28 can we look at paragraph 54 of mr crawford's statement page 23
01:26:33 and he says in relation to studio e's involvement in assessing harley's drawings from time to time harley asked me to comment on a drawing
01:26:44 harley asked me to comment on a drawing or set of drawings i discussed this in the context of specific drawings further below
01:26:48 below but in summary i would then usually send back some observations commenting on the architectural intent i would then record my comments on any particular drawing using a stamp describing the documents as status a b or c reverse status the meaning of
01:27:01 b or c reverse status the meaning of status a b or c is a convention which is widely used and commonly understood in the construction industry it essentially meant what was stated in the wording on the stamp and then he goes on to explain what was on the stamp a
01:27:12 on the stamp a conforms to architectural intent b conforms to architectural intent subject to incorporation of comments revise and resubmit
01:27:19 resubmit for a status c does not conform with architectural intent revise and resubmit now under item 27 of studio e schedule of services that we
01:27:30 of studio e schedule of services that we looked at earlier we can look at it again if you like um studio e was obliged to examine subcontractors and suppliers drawings and to report to the contractor because we
01:27:41 we take it from me it says that but if you'd like to look at it again before i ask you the question we can is it fair to say that the management of that process fell within the remit of your role as contract manager the
01:27:53 of your role as contract manager the management of the of the process of examining subcontractors and suppliers drawings and reporting to the contractor in other words as contract manager you were
01:28:04 manager you were it was your job to make sure that studio e did what it said it would do and report to you on those matters uh yes that's what i would expect yeah yes to me or the team but yes
01:28:16 yes to me or the team but yes how did you manage that process uh by by communication with studio e and harley and others design team meetings other than the emails that we've seen
01:28:28 other than the emails that we've seen and we can look at in detail what records did you keep of the reports made to you pursuant to that contractual obligation i think the report i think reports would come
01:28:38 come by exception so we would only get comments emails um if there was anything wrong
01:28:46 wrong rather than confirmation that everything was right every week month or otherwise when mr crawford used
01:28:54 used the a b or c stamp and sent the drawings with those markings on them back to you did they come back from studio e to you in the first instance or
01:29:05 in the first instance or did they come to you for onward transmission to harley in other words were you a conduit no i think i gen i think generally in this case i was um and would be normal especially
01:29:16 and would be normal especially sub-contract to take my design um i would be probably copied into the emails
01:29:22 emails as with the site team i would imagine um but it would be copied in it would be a it'd be a free flow of information between
01:29:31 between harley's and studio e you saw presumably when these drawings came through the a b or c stamp on them did you say yes i would have done it i've opened
01:29:42 yes i would have done it i've opened every drawing probably not but no yes was that was this project the first time you'd ever seen a stamp applied like that by an architect no you've seen it before a b and c is in my experience common practice
01:29:54 in my experience common practice necessarily the words that they've put behind that would be different from practice to practice i think given the terms of the schedule of services which
01:30:07 terms of the schedule of services which had passed between you and mr sainz in the april of 2014 mr lawrence did it occur to you at the time that using the abc stamp was a very limited exercise simply certifying whether the drawings
01:30:19 certifying whether the drawings that mr crawford had seen conform to architectural intent
01:30:25 uh no i think obc stated his common practice
01:30:29 practice yeah but did it occur to you that this was actually a very limited exercise no you thought it was not a limited exercise
01:30:37 exercise correct
01:30:42 did you address your mind to the question of whether in judging the drawings a b or c and applying the parameters that the stamp says that that studio e were
01:30:55 the stamp says that that studio e were not reporting to ryden as contemplated by paragraph 27 of the schedule of services which required them to examine the suppliers drawings and report to the contractor i didn't
01:31:08 to the contractor i didn't i didn't pick up on the reporting part all right
01:31:12 all right saying no
01:31:15 does it follow that in fact it didn't occur to you that in not asking studio e to to go wider than a b and c and wider than architectural
01:31:26 architectural intent certification ryden themselves might be at risk of failing in its obligations to the tmo no i didn't notice that i think abc is standard practice mr crawford goes on at
01:31:39 standard practice mr crawford goes on at paragraph 55 on the same page to say paragraph 55 page 23 in my opinion it was technically incorrect for harley to ask me to approve a drawing specialist specialist packages such as
01:31:51 specialist specialist packages such as cladding lift stairs etc would be completed by and the primary responsibility of specialist subcontractors we comment on their drawings only from the perspective of architectural intent
01:32:02 of architectural intent it was it your understanding at the time of the project that studio e had no responsibility to check a drawing from any of your specialist subcontractors beyond ensuring that it complied with architectural intent
01:32:14 complied with architectural intent no i would expect them i'd expect them to look at architecture intent i expect them to look at coordination with other contractors if there if there was any um
01:32:26 any um and pick up any deficiencies in compliance did you ever have a conversation with mr crawford about the limitations on the scope of his role
01:32:37 his role as an architect in examining subcontractors drawings only for architectural intent in this way no did you ever agree with him that the abc stamp approach was all that you needed
01:32:48 needed i don't think we had the conversation right so
01:32:52 right so the answer i think is no not one way or the other correct
01:32:56 did you expect that studio e would ensure that all aspects of the design comply with all relevant regulatory requirements i would expect them to yes i would
01:33:07 i would expect them to yes i would expect them to highlight um any obvious deficiencies if all that studio e was doing when looking at
01:33:18 that studio e was doing when looking at drawings was marking them a b or c for architectural intent would that not have indicated to you uh that they were not checking the drawings and designs for compliance with relevant regulatory
01:33:31 for compliance with relevant regulatory requirements i'm not sure i picked up on the wording behind the a b and c you when you say you didn't pick up on the wording behind it do you mean the
01:33:42 the wording behind it do you mean the wording within the stamp within the stem so going back to paragraph 54 just chased that up for a moment in his statement
01:33:50 statement he explains what a b and c each means there are you telling us that you didn't understand or didn't address your mind to the meaning of each of those
01:34:01 mind to the meaning of each of those i don't recall specifically looking at the stamp and saying the words behind i is exactly what we need or not exactly what we need no i don't recall doing that right would it follow then that you didn't address your
01:34:13 follow then that you didn't address your mind to whether or not the limitations involved in studio e using the stamp meant that they weren't checking the drawings or designs for compliance with regulatory requirements
01:34:25 compliance with regulatory requirements no i didn't pick that did was it ryden that was approving all drawings for construction
01:34:39 no studio i see okay i wonder if we can chase through an example of this to see how this works in practice
01:34:49 i'm going to use the example of a harley drawing
01:34:53 drawing c1059200 and this was a drawing of the windows of grenfell tower can i ask you to turn to s e a triple zero one two seven five six
01:35:08 and i'd like
01:35:11 both pages next to each other if it's possible to do that this is an email i wonder if we can have pages one and uh two next to each other if it's
01:35:23 uh two next to each other if it's possible to say that it's easier to see thank you done it um uh at the bottom of page one kevin lam of harley sends you a version of this drawing on the 17th of february
01:35:35 of this drawing on the 17th of february 2015. you see that yes uh and it's copied to bruce sowns and others within harley bruce at studio e and some people
01:35:48 harley bruce at studio e and some people at harley
01:35:49 at harley and he says please find attached revised type 10 windows now with symmetry as requested
01:35:54 requested please approve and forward your official instruction for us so we can proceed with remakes of those in manufacturing in manufacture and so this is kevin lam asking you mr
01:36:07 and so this is kevin lam asking you mr lawrence
01:36:08 lawrence to approve the drawing for construction isn't it
01:36:13 uh he he is yes and in turn neil crawford
01:36:18 crawford picks up the comments regarding the drawing
01:36:23 which i would expect him to do because i would have only forwarded that to nil had it have come to me only but instruction for manufacture would come from
01:36:33 come from ryden so i would expect neil crawford to be saying yes this is what we want yes this is correct and then if they needed a separate instruction
01:36:44 instruction for harley's to proceed with the remakes then i would expect that instruction to come from ryden i mean on the face of it mr
01:36:55 from ryden i mean on the face of it mr lam is asking you mr lawrence to approve and forward your official instruction so as to proceed with manufacture i think that's just email etiquette i think he's he's put me in there as
01:37:07 think he's he's put me in there as effectively his client but he's copied everybody else in well it would only go to all i would do if they had come to me only would pass that straight to my lead designers to check the design
01:37:19 my lead designers to check the design but he was asking you to approve the drawings for construction wasn't he that's what the email effectively asked you personally or not personally in your personal capacity but you personally at ryden to do
01:37:31 ryden to do correct yeah so when you said earlier uh that that
01:37:35 that that ryden wasn't approving all drawings for construction it was studio e do you think that was quite right looking at this as an example i think this is a i think this is a
01:37:46 i think this is a i think this is a the way the email was put together from kevin i don't i don't think that takes anything away from what i said earlier
01:37:55 well let's have a look page one shows mr crawford's reply of the same day attaching a drawing with his comment on on it you see that he says hi kevin please see attached comment regards neil
01:38:07 regards neil now you can't see that there is an attachment to that but there is and it's sea403093 please uh and this is a when we see it a
01:38:18 uh and this is a when we see it a drawing which from the bottom right hand corner if it's blown up a bit you'll see his date of the 20th of august 2014 and from the middle box it's revision g 17th of february
01:38:29 17th of february 2015 do you see that yes and mr crawford has added the studio rubber stamp on the right-hand side and ringed b there yes
01:38:41 and ringed b there yes meaning that the drawing was only approved in relation to design intent subject to incorporation of comments and that the drawing should be revised and resubmitted for category a status yes yes that's what it says and he's
01:38:54 yes yes that's what it says and he's also added a comment uh the right-hand window in the middle of set of three windows should open in the opposite direction and he marked the amended direction in red can you see that correct
01:39:06 and then it says approved for construction do you know who added the stamp or put the stamp on approved for construction uh i think that's part of a harley i
01:39:17 uh i think that's part of a harley i think that's a harley drawing uh sorry i know it's a hardy drawing i think that's a stamp harley put on their drawing i see and is that a stamp that hardly put on their drawing habitually before or after
01:39:28 drawing habitually before or after you wouldn't think it would be before i would say that's an error but there's obviously not been picked up so customarily with the approved for construction stamp go on before or after the crawford
01:39:39 before or after the crawford architectural intent stamp you would expect it to go on after you would that's logical but i'm asking you for what happened as a routine practice on this project i
01:39:50 as a routine practice on this project i recall
01:39:50 recall right can you explain how come approved construction went on in this instance before mr crawford's architectural intent stamp i i can't tell you why you'd have to
01:40:01 i i can't tell you why you'd have to let's chase the emails through going back to it later the same day going back to sea
01:40:05 to sea three zeros one two seven five eight let's flip back to that
01:40:12 sca three zeros one two seven five eight mr lam
01:40:19 uh mr lam comes back to you
01:40:24 and says hi simon sorry it doesn't say hi importance hi simon the window mods are now approved by neil
01:40:33 by neil as attached so all we need now is your official go ahead to proceed now the email attached another drawing the next
01:40:42 the next revision can we look at that please it's sea triple zero one two seven six
01:40:48 zero
01:40:51 uh and
01:40:55 that's revision h dated the 17th of february 2015. if we look at the box in the middle at the bottom yes correct and we can see that it's been
01:41:06 correct and we can see that it's been updated to reflect his comment that we saw about the windows turning the other way
01:41:13 and we can see your response at sea triple zero one two seven six one
01:41:31 so from you to mr lam 17th of february 2015 later in the day hi kevin neil has completed his comments and is happy so you can proceed
01:41:42 and is happy so you can proceed thanks simon now i've shown you that is it fair
01:41:46 it fair to say looking at all of those that these documents show the general procedure followed for the approval of design revisions and just tracing it through the relevant subcontractor would contact
01:41:58 the relevant subcontractor would contact you
01:41:59 you and possibly studio e as the first stage uh yes okay yeah and if studio e hadn't been included on that communication then then the drawing would be sent on by you
01:42:12 then the drawing would be sent on by you to studio e correct and then the next thing is this right that studio e was then left to comment on the drawing as it saw necessary
01:42:21 necessary correct with the architectural stamp yes correct
01:42:24 correct and then once circuit studio e's comments had been accommodated so the architectural stamp in any comment such as the changing of the direction of the windows as we see here ryden then would consider that the design had been approved for
01:42:35 design had been approved for construction and confirmed that to the relevant subcontractor no i don't think that's i don't think that's typical that's not typical i think that's something that probably kevin and maybe some from
01:42:46 probably kevin and maybe some from harley's did they are expecting a um i read that they're expecting a instruction over and above the architect to cover themselves i would suggest in
01:42:59 to cover themselves i would suggest in that one
01:43:00 that one but we wouldn't be instructing them to [Music]
01:43:03 [Music] there would be no instruction
01:43:08 unless there was a you know instruction under the contract to change something that they were already deemed to do so as in the windows
01:43:19 deemed to do so as in the windows the windows were changed at a point in time um
01:43:23 time um and this may have been a drawing relating to the new complete new winder design um and therefore needing a contractual instruction to um
01:43:34 to um you know provide more money or or whatever so just in in simple terms what what made what in this run of emails was what was exceptional
01:43:45 exceptional yeah i wouldn't expect i wouldn't expect a drawing to be sent to me oh sorry i wouldn't expect a drawing to be approved by studio a come back to me for me to issue an instructional instruction to the
01:43:56 instructional instruction to the subcontractor to proceed no i wouldn't expect to be doing that
01:44:02 so what so who would give the instruction to the subcontractor to proceed
01:44:07 proceed if not you the the stamp from studio e is the instruction that is fit for purpose so therefore the
01:44:20 fit for purpose so therefore the subcontractor in this case harley's should proceed on that basis but the forgive me mr lawrence that doesn't quite work does it unless i'm misunderstanding you because the stamp from studio e in this case
01:44:31 the stamp from studio e in this case didn't wasn't a conforms it was b which b says b generally is revised generally well generally it will be
01:44:44 generally well generally it will be fit for construction providing the comments are included so are you saying that one studio e
01:44:56 that one studio e stamped a drawing b for example yep and sent it back to harley you would simply expect harley to make the change to the drawing and proceed directly
01:45:07 directly to to construction without without any approval from ryden yes without any formal approval ron yes unless there was a complete change to their contract and we were asking them
01:45:18 their contract and we were asking them to do something completely different to what they were employed to do who would oversee
01:45:26 whether the changes that were made to the design by harley were those which which actually did uh meet with studio's approval given that studio e in this instance were
01:45:37 that studio e in this instance were asking for a change
01:45:42 we wouldn't be expecting studio e as as lead designer to approve the harley design but would the drawing go back to studio e once the chain drawing had been changed in order to bring it in line with architecture yes i
01:45:53 bring it in line with architecture yes i would expect that to happen did you see that i'd expect be i'd expect be
01:45:58 expect be as industry standard or my experience of industry standard to mean continue you can continue in construction providing you take on board the comments that were made in
01:46:10 board the comments that were made in that
01:46:10 that in that drawing i wouldn't expect to be issuing an instruction riding to be initial instruction myself any of my teammates instruction every time a drawing has been issued no
01:46:22 time a drawing has been issued no so who supervises the instruction to proceed
01:46:26 proceed to construction if ryden doesn't
01:46:34 studio e studio e but all studios are approving or approving the drawings saying they're fit for construction that's that's the general practice with
01:46:45 that's that's the general practice with the
01:46:45 the abc on a drawing no miss lawrence forgive me maybe we need to look at it again the stamp doesn't say anything about fit for construction it just says whether or not it can conform to design it does and going back
01:46:57 conform to design it does and going back to my earlier comment the wording on studio ease which i i don't recall um and whether i noticed at the time i don't recall
01:47:08 don't recall but and if you look to other architects comments
01:47:11 comments they would have different wording they'd still have the abc but they'd have different wording against it
01:47:19 but the practice is that the lead designer
01:47:23 designer would approve the drawing that is fit for construction and then the subcontractor would take that as approval and would then construct after let's
01:47:34 and would then construct after let's just see if we can chase you through without the ryden involvement after the stamp had gone on to the drawing and it was sent to harley to amend effectively to bring it within architectural intent
01:47:45 within architectural intent and after harley had amended it what would then happen to that drawing would it come back to studio e or would it or would hardly then simply proceed to construction
01:47:56 to construction i would expect both i'd expect hardly to proceed to construction but i'd expect the copy to be updated so there was a um a revised copy back studio e so in that instance
01:48:07 instance who was giving the instruction to harley to proceed to construction was it themselves it was gue studio we've been around this board
01:48:16 board before but studio we don't give an instruction to proceed they simply certify the drawing as compliant with architectural intent by doing that they're saying that it's fit for construction please proceed that's was that your understanding of it
01:48:28 that's was that your understanding of it yes that was it yes did you ever have any discussion about that with mr crawford or anyone at harley
01:48:35 harley no because because if if everybody hadn't have been cognizant of that
01:48:42 that process then nothing would have got built everything would have just sat there and harley would not have proceeded at all until they got a formal instruction for every single element of works which was not the case
01:48:55 works which was not the case so was it your understanding that once an amended drawing had been done by
01:49:02 done by harley in response to studio e's stamp they would automatically proceed to construction without any further input from you
01:49:11 from you yes and without any further input from studio e
01:49:15 studio e yes
01:49:22 mr chairman i'm going to turn to a similar topic but a few questions on specific issues with drawing control which i i could probably finish in 10 or 15
01:49:34 i could probably finish in 10 or 15 minutes
01:49:34 minutes and then get on to another topic and understand your desire and know doubt other people's desire to keep this moving but um i have another matter to deal
01:49:46 but um i have another matter to deal with
01:49:46 with fairly soon i wonder are you making good progress
01:49:50 progress i mean i was i'm i've gone slightly off pissed a little bit but but we can get back on peace very firmly if i continue and i wonder if you don't continue because i don't want to find i'm cramped up
01:50:01 i don't want to find i'm cramped up against time no to deal with something else
01:50:03 else well let's let's i mean if we were to stop
01:50:06 stop now yeah um is that going to put you in difficulties no no not at all and i think i prefer to do that
01:50:13 do that very good yeah um mr lawrence i'm going to call a halt there for the day um
01:50:20 day um we won't be sitting tomorrow so we'll have to ask you to come back on monday to resume your evidence please i know that gives you a lot of time to talk to people about what's been going on here but
01:50:31 on here but resist the temptation to talk to anyone about
01:50:34 about your evidence or anything to do with the grenfell tower refurbishment and um we'll look forward to seeing you back here at 10 o'clock on monday okay thank you thank you very much
01:50:58 right i'm sorry to um stop you at that point but i think it's the wiser course yes no mr chairman i don't think it doesn't cause any difficulties i don't believe so and it may be that i can i can shorten things a little bit every night
01:51:09 shorten things a little bit every night does sometimes happen sometimes it does it's not very often all right thank you very much 10 o'clock on monday then please
01:52:12 you