Cross-examination of Bruce Soanes from Studio E Architects about insulation selection decisions, thermal performance targets, and fire safety considerations for the Grenfell Tower overcladding project.
00:00:25 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing you may remember that some time ago now we started hearing evidence from mr sones one of the architects from studio e
00:00:36 studio e we had to break off his evidence at that time but i'm glad to say that we're going to be able to resume it this morning so could i ask mr sands to come to the witness box for you
00:00:55 yes do sit down mr now before we begin i i think it's right that i should remind you publicly that you took an oath to tell the truth when you started giving your evidence
00:01:07 giving your evidence and that continues to be the case you are still on earth all right and the other thing i think i should mention because a lot of times past since you were last here now you're in the course of giving
00:01:18 here now you're in the course of giving your evidence it's very important that you don't discuss your evidence or anything relating to it with anyone else right and that includes mr kuchel
00:01:27 mr kuchel who i see is back sitting in the room so don't talk to anyone else either in person or by phone or anything else about your evidence until you've completely finished all right understood good thank you very
00:01:39 all right understood good thank you very much yes mrs grinch yes thank you yes good morning mr sands so when we broke off last time which was on the 11th of march 2020
00:01:50 on the 11th of march 2020 um we'd started looking at the topic of insulation the insulation that sat behind the rain screen panels and we were part way through a detailed
00:02:01 and we were part way through a detailed consideration of the documents and the chronology and how celetex fr 5000 came to be in the employer's requirements in the nbs specification do you remember yes i did
00:02:13 specification do you remember yes i did yeah
00:02:14 yeah um so what i'm going to do is i am going to just pick up where we where we left off um on that topic and i want to start by looking at an email which is at sea404737 at page
00:02:34 two yes so just to orientate yourself within this this is an email from uh matt mr smith is it matt smith
00:02:45 uh matt mr smith is it matt smith of yes max fordham to you on 18th of june 2012 and the subject is grenfell tower wall build up and he says afternoon bruce do you have
00:02:56 and he says afternoon bruce do you have an idea on the likely wall cladding build up yet what you value are you targeting and then he talks about some early indications from the acoustics uh survey so he's asking you what you value
00:03:09 survey so he's asking you what you value are you
00:03:10 are you targeting do you see that there yes now do you agree that it was for studio e
00:03:17 e as the lead consultant and the lead designer
00:03:24 studio e would have all the necessary information to make an assessment as to what the target u value would be um
00:03:37 i knew that the u-value target would be governed by pardell yeah that i knew yes i knew i could look it up yeah that's answer your question i think
00:03:49 yeah that's answer your question i think um the reality is in most of my experience and particularly with max fordham which goes back a long way
00:03:59 way we tended to look to them to propose a year value i see yeah do you agree in this email he seems to be asking you what you value you are targeting yes
00:04:11 you what you value you are targeting yes yeah
00:04:11 yeah and is that how you understood it at the time that he was looking to you to give some
00:04:16 some indication from your perspective as what you were targeting yes he's look he's asking us i knew even then i think that he had only recently graduated yeah so i can understand why he might
00:04:28 yeah so i can understand why he might yes
00:04:30 would you agree with this that while a building services engineer like max fordham
00:04:35 fordham might recommend a u-value target that actually it was ultimately studio e's responsibility as the architect and lead designer with all the information that you had to
00:04:46 all the information that you had to decide actually what you value was feasible
00:04:49 feasible and appropriate on the project
00:04:54 um i think we could have overruled something that was put forward by max fordham as the lead designer yes yeah i agree with that
00:05:05 yeah i agree with that um we would have to have a good reason not to go with it yeah in other words as you say it would not be feasible and in that case yes we would overrule
00:05:17 and in that case yes we would overrule it
00:05:17 it yes yeah
00:05:21 do you agree that when you were developing the the design to the concept stage that's riba stage c you'd have had to have considered lots of aspects of the external
00:05:32 of aspects of the external uh wall design up to that point yes and and that would include the the cloud
00:05:40 cloud the type of cladding to use it would include the depth of the existing walls and the columns and also the type and thicknesses of the insulation that would sit behind the
00:05:51 insulation that would sit behind the rain screen do you agree that all those kind of factors will feed into the concept design stage i think the zone particularly of the insulation was the most critical so
00:06:04 the most critical so yeah you've just described the build up which is insulation cavity and cladding the clouding is relatively nominal in terms of
00:06:13 terms of build-up but the insulation is significant and on on grenfell tower the the diamond columns were very significant because they
00:06:22 they butted the windows yeah so the thickening um offsetting of the cladding from the face of those columns potentially could impact on the windows yeah sizes so
00:06:33 yeah sizes so yes yeah so i think what you're saying is that particularly the the outer rain screen element is very thin
00:06:40 thin relatively then you have a cavity and that but then you potentially have quite a thickness of insulation so that's a key consideration when you're looking at that build up is that correct
00:06:51 that build up is that correct yeah do you agree that studio e would have to take into consideration a range of
00:06:57 of factors including things like the clients budget the client's overall requirements the planning requirements any technical issues
00:07:06 issues such as buildability and regulatory compliance when they were looking at that external wall buildup i'd say that's correct that's yeah it's the context we're working in yeah
00:07:19 would you agree that all that information would potentially feed into an assessment of what an appropriate u-value should be for the project
00:07:28 project um yes
00:07:34 and would you agree in that way and i think you've confirmed it new earlier answer that you said you could overrule if necessary on a u value in that way studio e was ultimately responsible for coordinating the design strategy as
00:07:46 for coordinating the design strategy as a whole
00:07:47 a whole of the external wall we were responsible for coordination yes
00:07:54 would you agree that in contrast the building services engineer might not be aware of certain bits of information that would be relevant to that ultimate choice
00:08:04 choice as to how you build up that wall
00:08:10 um it wouldn't be their interest but i you know we did discuss things and they were
00:08:18 they were aware of what would happen they've experienced engineers i i think to say that they wouldn't know is maybe not correct
00:08:29 not correct but they might not be as familiar as you for example with the client's budget requirements and they wouldn't be as interested yeah
00:08:40 they wouldn't be as interested yeah can we turn to um a design some minutes from the design team meeting that was held on the 25th of june 2012 this is the sca404864
00:08:53 um we can see that date at the top there monday the 25th of june and we can see you're there and present as part of that list and if we can go on to page two and look
00:09:05 and if we can go on to page two and look at the final paragraph under services
00:09:11 yes so it's at the bottom of that page it's the final paragraph before acoustics if we could just blow that up
00:09:20 and if we just read that paragraph it says mf so that's max fordham yes yes indicate target u values for walls there's 0.15 watts per meter squared kelvin and
00:09:33 watts per meter squared kelvin and 0.22 for windows subsequently corrected to 1.6 and then it says
00:09:40 it says limiting u values given in part l 1 b are 0.3 0 and 1.8 respectively do you see that there yes um so did you
00:09:52 do you see that there yes um so did you read this
00:09:52 read this as max fordham saying target view values for the walls were 0.15 but the limiting u value given in part l was actually higher than that it was
00:10:03 was actually higher than that it was 0.30
00:10:05 0.30 is that how you read that at the time and understood that discussion i believe i clarified that after the meeting i think there's an email where i clarified that when you say
00:10:17 where i clarified that when you say clarified that what do you mean clarified that it was 0.15 no that it was 0.13 the limiting value was 0.13.3 sorry at one point in other words what what the upper bound we needed to work to was
00:10:31 what that it wasn't that is that what you're saying no what i'm saying is that the meeting the 0.15 figure was was put forward yeah and i
00:10:43 was put forward yeah and i either at the meeting or after sought clarification as to what the limit would be
00:10:48 be under part l i see and does that mean that the
00:10:52 that the the the parts in brackets went in after the meeting well obviously as a result i obviously wrote the minutes after the meeting but yeah i can't recall when i clarified it i see it
00:11:04 did you have any thoughts at the time about the
00:11:08 about the um appropriateness of that u value as a target figure did that did that say anything to you in terms of how ambitious that was for example i think i used the word somewhere aspirational or yes it was
00:11:20 aspirational or yes it was quite low yeah did you ever check approve document l
00:11:32 did you ever check approve document l during your time on the project to see what you value that guidance required for the thermal performance i don't recall doing so no yeah
00:11:43 i don't recall doing so no yeah were you aware that as per this advice from max fordham and the words in brackets
00:11:49 brackets approved document l recommended that in circumstances where the entire wall at grenfell was to be insulated a u-value of at least 0.30
00:12:00 a u-value of at least 0.30 watts per meter square kelvin was to be adopted
00:12:03 adopted that was the guy that's that's what's that
00:12:06 that bracketed phrase confirms so that means doesn't it that it's a more generous um piece of guidance in approved
00:12:17 um piece of guidance in approved document l the 0.3 if it's higher it's a less efficient thermal insulator the principle being under l1b is that it's a refurb and therefore
00:12:29 it's a refurb and therefore there are less expectation of meeting the current requirements yeah yeah
00:12:35 yeah so yeah max fordham were proposing the current requirements build it to bring the building up to current standards whereas the guidance didn't require that no and in fact were you aware at the
00:12:47 no and in fact were you aware at the time that there was even more flexibility uh in the approved document l guidance in the if it was not technically and functionally feasible to achieve the 0.3
00:13:00 functionally feasible to achieve the 0.3 then it just had to be upgraded to the best standard that's technically and functionally available did you know that was even more flexibility in those circumstances
00:13:10 i can't remember specific knowledge of that
00:13:16 so i think we've established that in meeting the requirements of part l there is in fact considerable latitude in terms of the u value that's adopted or that at the time there was
00:13:28 or that at the time there was considerable latitude in terms of the u value that could be adopted on this project
00:13:33 project to meet the requirements of pardell yeah yeah
00:13:40 and were you aware when you were having these discussions about target you value i mean you've mentioned the 0.3 in the meeting but in your mind did you think to yourself well i know ultimately we've got some
00:13:51 well i know ultimately we've got some flexibility on this if that becomes necessary was that something that occurred to you um well there it is 0.3 yeah it's it's double
00:14:04 0.3 yeah it's it's double that
00:14:07 let's um just turn we're going to keep going
00:14:10 going chronologically through the sequence of events so so now i'm going to turn to um an email of the fifth of july that you sent to rockwool if we can pull this up this is a sea
00:14:21 if we can pull this up this is a sea four zeros four nine six seven okay yeah and i just say that point three is double 0.15 in terms of performance yes it's in retrospect it has occurred
00:14:35 yes it's in retrospect it has occurred to me that max fordham were equally aware of the flexibility yes of that margin i see okay yeah it
00:14:46 i see okay yeah it and that it probably would have tolerated a change in insulation spec i see yeah and so i i think they would have been aware of that at this time yeah okay i i'm primarily interested in
00:14:59 yeah okay i i'm primarily interested in whether you had that awareness of the flexibility of it i was aware of the flexibility i wasn't aware that it would allow us a straight switch between foam insulation and mineral wall i see
00:15:10 foam insulation and mineral wall i see okay which i think it would
00:15:14 so let's turn then to that email sca404967
00:15:20 sca404967 so um this is an email that you sent on the 5th of july 2012. to tech dot inquiries at rockwool dot co dot uk
00:15:29 dot uk do you see that at the top yeah um and it's about the grenfell tower regeneration the subject matter and i think you've sent a couple of drawings um
00:15:41 drawings um and you say we're looking at overcladding an existing 1970s residential tower block in london it's 24 storeys the services engineer have indicated a target u-value
00:15:52 engineer have indicated a target u-value for walls of 0.15 the existing building has pre-cast concrete spangles 250 millimeters thick and then you go into
00:16:03 and then you go into some detail about the drawing and then in the next paragraph you say please could you advise the appropriate insulation type and thickness for this application and to achieve the desired you value
00:16:15 achieve the desired you value do you see that yeah and then you've got a last comment about the the roof area which we don't need to look at um so um you seem to email a general inquiry's
00:16:30 um you seem to email a general inquiry's email address within rockwool at that point does that mean that you didn't have any specific contact yourself at rockwool at that time
00:16:39 time so that that was the logical place to be asking
00:16:43 asking i every company has their own approach um that email address is tech dot inquiries i think that i was aware of or i phoned
00:16:55 i think that i was aware of or i phoned and discovered that they would like an email
00:16:58 email sent yep no if you're asking us some companies might have individuals that area managers that's not the way rock will actually tend to work not for
00:17:09 will actually tend to work not for your value inquiry yeah that's helpful yeah yeah
00:17:13 yeah yeah okay um so we can see that you've sent off that
00:17:18 off that email can we then look at another email on the 5th of july this is
00:17:29 sea404973 um so this is you emailing mr mcquatt and mr smith and mr watts at mac max fordham
00:17:41 fordham um and you attached something called rockwall duo slab um and then you say you're disappointed in the first line that a meeting didn't happen today don't worry about that
00:17:52 don't worry about that let's look at the last paragraph you say there we've sent off inquiries to rockwell and kingspan on the insulation and await their reply the 0.5 0.15 u value you've asked for
00:18:07 the 0.5 0.15 u value you've asked for looks to me a bit in aspirational c attached which suggests approximately millimeter plus of insulation do you see that there so i think that's the email you were
00:18:19 think that's the email you were you were prefacing earlier in your evidence that where you say it looks a bit aspirational and what you do is you have attached um something to this email it was a spreadsheet
00:18:30 spreadsheet i just want to turn to have a look at that so this is a
00:18:40 sca401334 and it appears to be an analysis i think of of the thickness that would be required of the rockwool to achieve the u-value
00:18:51 the u-value required can you can you remember did you put that attachment together i did yeah yeah you're slightly glimmer singing
00:19:00 singing no no sorry um do you want to say something about that before i ask you some questions about it well i'll explain what i was doing and i never got a response to it so i don't know if anyone looks at it
00:19:12 know if anyone looks at it the figures with the orange background are taken direct from what would have been the pdf brochure or of the rockwool duo slab product in
00:19:23 or of the rockwool duo slab product in other words the thickness and the u-value
00:19:25 u-value yeah for that assembly and i think the assembly
00:19:28 assembly included the wall and the lining and it's clear it only went down to um 0.2 yep which
00:19:39 um 0.2 yep which is short of the the target so i graphed it
00:19:43 it and because
00:19:49 although the installation has the biggest impact on the u value it's it's not a linear relationship as the graph demonstrates so what i was trying to do is well if i extrapolated the line yeah where would that leave me yeah
00:20:02 yeah where would that leave me yeah exactly yeah sort of amateur detective yeah that this is really helpful so you effectively put the dotted line on to to try and work out to get to 1.5
00:20:13 to to try and work out to get to 1.5 roughly what thickness would you end up with and that was your analysis that wasn't an analysis you'd got from somebody else i was aware that they published these figures and that the
00:20:25 that the ratio was not linear yeah
00:20:31 just thinking back to the language that was used in that covering email you say the u-value you've asked for looks to me a bit aspirational
00:20:42 looks to me a bit aspirational um so you say the value you've asked for to max fordham did max fordham actually ask for that you value
00:20:50 you value what do you mean by asked for at the meeting they put forward a value of 0.15
00:20:57 of 0.15 so ask that was their proposal i see
00:21:04 in your witness statement at paragraph 43.7 if we can just turn that up sca 3014273
00:21:15 page 20 yes you say
00:21:20 the level of insulation on the building was originally proposed by max fordham at the project meeting on the second 25th of june 2012. they proposed a u-value of 0.15 watts per meter square kelvin so we see
00:21:33 watts per meter square kelvin so we see that there
00:21:36 what i want to put to you is that at the time it was it was merely a suggestion rather than something they were actually requiring
00:21:44 requiring it was a a suggested recommendation by them
00:21:48 them is that how you interpreted it at the time
00:21:54 or did you think that they were being more definite with you that it had to be that
00:22:03 there was nothing in a sense mandatory about their request i mean it was aspirational and an aspirational
00:22:15 and an aspirational for the sake of the project to maximize the thermal efficiency of the building yeah i didn't see it's clearly not required
00:22:26 it's clearly not required but i've done a lot of work with max fordham and and this is very much a feature of their work and our work with them yeah had been to
00:22:38 i mean aspirational
00:22:42 doesn't mean you're responsible it just means trying to do the best you can yeah i understand now um sorry can i ask did they ever say at that meeting
00:22:54 at that meeting what the basis of the 0.15 was or did they just i i think i knew it was mentioned that that is that was the current requirement for a new build
00:23:05 for a new build i think i was aware of that at the time yes thank you yeah now mr smith of max fordham responds um the same day can we look at that email next so this is sea404978
00:23:21 that email next so this is sea404978 so you've sent him your analysis of the build up and you've said it looks a bit aspirational um and if we
00:23:30 look at the first paragraph he says in the second sentence it would be good to discuss your proposed cladding window system at the same time that's at a meeting and then he says those thicknesses of rockwool seem a bit
00:23:42 those thicknesses of rockwool seem a bit high
00:23:43 high does that also include the thermal bridging from fastenings frame etc and a ventilated cavity for a glass fiber slab excluding fastenings etcetera we'd expect to be able to achieve 0.15 u
00:23:56 expect to be able to achieve 0.15 u value
00:23:57 value with approximately 180 millimeters material only do you see that there yeah and then he goes on a phenolic foam insulation would give greater insulation for the depth
00:24:08 give greater insulation for the depth hopefully the response from kingspan may be closer to target and then he says something in the final paragraph about windows which we don't need to worry about and so when you got this do you agree
00:24:21 and so when you got this do you agree that
00:24:22 that mr smith of max fordham does seem to be questioning whether there really was a need
00:24:27 need for 450 millimeter depth of rock wool he thinks that's a bit high yes did you ever go back and and clarify that with max fordham
00:24:41 and say well can we can we do something more precise to to have a look at what the thicknesses would be no no i don't think there's any evidence that i did
00:24:53 that i did he's raising in his email the question of thermal bridging from fastenings and frame etc and he's saying that that could have a significant influence
00:25:02 influence on the thickness of the product that would be needed can you explain why he was saying that was relevant
00:25:11 did you understand that at the time why it might be relevant yes i i think it reflects you didn't look at my my email um um the the rockwell figures would have accounted
00:25:24 rockwell figures would have accounted for the thermal bridging of the brackets um it is the point that if you use um firmly bridged brackets that there's
00:25:35 firmly bridged brackets that there's less heat transfer or heat loss through the bracketry so they can help you
00:25:42 you keep your insulation narrower while still achieving the u-value that you want is that the point no i think in any calculation the the brackets have to be
00:25:54 brackets have to be affected as a thermal bridge even with any thermal um
00:26:02 sort of neoprene thermal spacer i think they still represent a bridge which that would be factored into any calculation but did you think at this time about what he might be suggesting is that if
00:26:14 what he might be suggesting is that if you use
00:26:14 you use thermally broken brackets that that thermal bridging can be improved i think standard thermal thermal um thermally broken brackets
00:26:27 thermal um thermally broken brackets were standard i think i see okay so your analysis did think about that did it i believe the rockwool figures reflect that
00:26:35 that because it showed a full buildup yeah now you you've got a response from rockwool on the 24th of july 2012. if we can turn that up this is a
00:26:48 sea405276 and i want to look at the top of page two
00:26:55 so we see this is from a mr pritchard at rockwool to you on that day 24th of july 2012.
00:27:04 2012. and he says this yes sir please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in getting back to you further to your email we would normally recommend the use of our rain screen duo slab for these types of construction
00:27:16 duo slab for these types of construction however
00:27:17 however due to the low specified u-value the thickness needed would be exceptionally high
00:27:22 high probably beyond the point of sensible building practice and then he goes on and talks about the roof in the last paragraph
00:27:33 and just before i ask you some questions about this can we scroll then up to the top of page one
00:27:42 and what we see is that you then forward that email from rockwool to mr smith and mr mcquatt at max fordham
00:27:51 fordham and you say andrew matt i asked rockwall about achieving 0.15 u values and this is their response below we have been working on a maximum of 250
00:28:02 we have been working on a maximum of 250 millimeter build up to the spandrel zones
00:28:05 zones the decision on the final system is pending but assume a 50 millimeter panel vent zone leaving you 200 millimeters for insulation the geometry at the columns results in a reduced buildup of approximately 200
00:28:17 reduced buildup of approximately 200 millimeters 150 millimeter insulation at high level and then at low level you then say what you're thinking about and then you say this in the next
00:28:28 and then you say this in the next paragraph pushing the cladding line any further out will probably have build ability
00:28:33 ability below and aesthetic issues do you see that there yeah
00:28:40 now just just on that can you explain how you arrived at the geometric specification of between 150 millimeters and 200 millimeters for the part of the cavity in which the
00:28:52 for the part of the cavity in which the insulation would sit that's what you're saying in that email how we came up with those figures yeah how did you arrive at that can you remember i can't remember exactly how we came up with those figures
00:29:03 came up with those figures no did you ever consider increasing the size of the cavity in order that a mineral wool insulation could be used within the cladding system
00:29:15 i think based on that response from rockwell and if you if you do try and draw on
00:29:25 what becomes more than half a meter of projection it starts to become unfeasible um the the just the projection of the brackets i
00:29:36 just the projection of the brackets i think i think the reason i believe the um rockwell we're advising against it is
00:29:44 it is the product itself is it's not that rigid
00:29:47 rigid so it would require i think support of some sort yeah so i think they recognize it as not being feasible for their product i see yeah
00:29:59 feasible for their product i see yeah in that that third paragraph that single sentence where you say pushing the cladding line any further out will probably have buildability below and aesthetic issues can you just explain exactly what you meant by
00:30:10 explain exactly what you meant by buildability issues i'm referring to the comment from rockwell
00:30:17 rockwell that it there wasn't a means sort of putting a frame up to support the installation of that depth that's the buildability as it says it's not practical
00:30:28 not practical for that depth for that product now here i'm
00:30:32 i'm that's my interpretation of what he said yeah yeah
00:30:39 how could you be confident that there were any build-ability issues if you hadn't confirmed that the 450 millimeter thickness of rockwool would in fact be required to achieve the the target
00:30:50 the target u-value of 0.15 i'm sorry how would i how could you be confident that there would be build ability issues if you hadn't actually confirmed that 450 millimeters
00:31:01 450 millimeters of rockwool would in fact be required to achieve the 0.15 u value
00:31:11 is that email from rockwell confirm both both the thickness and the let's go back to the email from rockwell just so you've got it in front of you fca four zeroes five two seven six at page
00:31:24 four zeroes five two seven six at page two
00:31:29 so he says further to your email we would
00:31:33 would normally recommend the use of it however due to the low specified u-value the thickness
00:31:38 thickness needed would be exceptionally high do you agree that he doesn't actually give a thickness so he's not said to you it's going to be 450 millimeters
00:31:49 450 millimeters that that was your extrapolation on that that graph i think do you agree what he's just saying is in general terms he thinks the thickness would be exceptionally high
00:32:00 would be exceptionally high yes beyond the point of sensible building practice i'm not obviously sure what he meant by that
00:32:07 that and what i'm asking is um whether you ever
00:32:10 ever got that definitively confirmed where they got someone to do an analysis to check would it in fact be 450 millimeters i didn't but of course i guess i might
00:32:22 i didn't but of course i guess i might have
00:32:25 no i didn't okay yeah um and you also in your email you said that there might be buildability issues and aesthetic issues with having
00:32:37 issues and aesthetic issues with having that
00:32:38 that a greater thickness of mineral will what did you mean by aesthetic issues um
00:32:43 issues um [Music]
00:32:47 i wasn't sure how that was going to work around these diamond columns yeah for instance on the corners it would look um
00:32:59 it would look um probably something you would want to avoid i think i see yeah so i saw that as whether it was feasible we didn't know well we've just been told it's not feasible but i think
00:33:10 it's not feasible but i think aesthetically it would have been undesirable yeah yeah and is that because the the columns are already a kind of a thickness out from the
00:33:21 thickness out from the the i think it's so that the columns already stick out the concrete column so if you're putting then a big thickness onto that you're worried how it might look at the corners at the corners yeah i think the bigger
00:33:32 at the corners yeah i think the bigger issue is how that would impact on the windows next to the columns
00:33:37 columns but you wouldn't know exactly how it would play out in terms of aesthetic issues
00:33:41 issues would you if you haven't done the precise calculation you wouldn't have known exactly what it would be
00:33:47 would be no but 450 did sound excessive i mean it's half a meter once you've added the cavity is it the case that following the
00:33:58 is it the case that following the exchange of these emails studioe gave up on the possibility of using rockwool as an insulating material in the building
00:34:10 that's implying we should have pursued it
00:34:13 it well let me put it more neutrally was there any
00:34:17 there any thought given after this these exchanges of emails
00:34:20 of emails to using rockwool were there any further investigations about that that you did or
00:34:28 or you know anyone else did i think after following this email and following the which i think you'll come to the one from kingspan i did pass on a glass wool
00:34:42 pass on a glass wool product to max fordham i think after that i did not pursue any other alternatives because
00:34:52 because it would appear the the
00:34:57 thermal conductivity of of the foam products rockwell or any other fiber couldn't compete with yeah
00:35:09 compete with yeah did you think at all about simply abandoning the 0.15 target in favor of a more relaxed target
00:35:23 as i said we've done a lot of work with max fordham and they pride themselves as a aspirational engineer and we've we've gone with them
00:35:34 gone with them when i think and with them we've participated in numerous designs where they have
00:35:45 they have exceptionally sustainable buildings and by and large that sustainability is driven by passive passive measures so we
00:35:58 passive measures so we we and we supported that so we where possible we would for instance in our school work we we would try and naturally ventilate classrooms rather than mechanically ventilate and so that this
00:36:12 mechanically ventilate and so that this this emphasis on passive sustainability was something that we shared with max fordham over a number of years
00:36:21 so without good reason at that point had no i couldn't see any reason to abandon 0.15 it was it was in the project's
00:36:33 0.15 it was it was in the project's interest
00:36:33 interest to try and achieve it thank you
00:36:38 given that reliance on max fordham uh to provide specialist advice about the thermal performance um did you ever think about asking them to run the calculation
00:36:50 to run the calculation as to precisely what thickness would be required of the rock wool i didn't think of it because i i didn't yeah no
00:37:02 but do you agree that you given the ambiguity in mr smith's email um you could have actually confirmed what
00:37:13 you could have actually confirmed what the thickness actually would be with max fordham you could have actually asked them to run that calculation you would have got a precise figure back from them they did eventually do one um
00:37:24 they did eventually do one um with the rock wall not with the rock well no but with the um with the celotex yeah i'm just asking they could have done that calculation for the rock well if you'd asked them to couldn't they
00:37:38 i guess i was challenging them by that little exercise that i did yeah but i didn't necessarily expect them to
00:37:46 them to i mean i i don't know what they thought of it but they didn't they weren't prompted to to disprove it yeah can we just look at in at something in
00:37:58 can we just look at in at something in the inquiry's expert report mr hyatt's expert report can we go to p h phyr 603 at page 19.
00:38:10 now i don't know whether you've had a chance um to consider this but mr hyatt has
00:38:16 has run the calculations to see what thickness of mineral wool could be achieved and what you
00:38:23 you value you would get and his calculations are that with a mineral wool it's possible for the spandrel condition to produce a 0.14
00:38:35 condition to produce a 0.14 u value so that's under the 1 5 against a 250 millimeter mineral wool insulation buildup so it's perhaps thicker than you were envisaging in your
00:38:46 thicker than you were envisaging in your email
00:38:47 email of 200 but it's 250 and for the column it would be a 0.17 so this is a slightly worse view value than the 0.15 against
00:39:00 value than the 0.15 against a thickness of 180 millimeters mineral wool for the columns um have you considered those before giving evidence i think our um
00:39:15 giving evidence i think our um opening statement pointed you to the rockwell website i beg your pardon say that studio is opening statement or perhaps it was the appendix that pointed you to the rockwell website
00:39:26 pointed you to the rockwell website right
00:39:27 right there's online calculator okay which came up with the same figure of 450
00:39:34 450 to achieve 0.15 i see so you're still saying you think it would be 450 i wouldn't be so presumptive to think that my
00:39:44 that my calculation
00:39:48 is better or more accurate than these figures published by the manufacturer i see mr hyatt's calculations just for completeness appear at page 20 and 21 if we could just briefly look at those
00:40:04 so this is the calculation that he's done
00:40:08 done there for the columns and it gives you the 0.17
00:40:14 there and the 180 millimeter mineral will build up and then i think over the page at 21 we get the 0.14 and the 250 millimeter
00:40:27 we get the 0.14 and the 250 millimeter mineral wool thickness for the spandrels um and both of those u values would be within
00:40:36 within the higher level of 0.30 that was in approved document l
00:40:43 is it possible that the difference between mr hyatt's calculations and the information which you were looking at the time by a rock wool is that i'm going to put this to you again that
00:40:54 this to you again that he has used thermally broken brackets which can make a difference in terms of the thermal efficiency and explain why a smaller thickness of insulation is required on his calculations
00:41:06 required on his calculations is that possible that that might explain the difference i expect that rockwell gave some thought to the figures they
00:41:18 some thought to the figures they published
00:41:20 published and whether
00:41:23 the figures seem excessive because they've allowed for haven't allowed for thermal breaks maybe one factor there may be others
00:41:35 maybe one factor there may be others that's obviously a question for them yeah but i in the first instance i in researching the installation i i certainly gave
00:41:47 certainly gave greater priority to the figures that were published by the suppliers than a spreadsheet that i could have done myself i see okay can we go on and look at another email this is sea
00:41:59 this is sea three zeroes one four three six this is an email from mr wreck to you dated the 25th of october 2013. so this was later in time
00:42:11 was later in time than the exchanges we just looked at and it's an email the subject is briem do you see that there is it right that briam
00:42:22 briam means the bre building research establishment environmental assessment method is that right yes and is it right that that's an established method of assessing rating and certifying the
00:42:33 assessing rating and certifying the sustainability of buildings yes and mr wreck attaches his potential scoring assessment comments against brienne
00:42:47 and then if we go to page two under the heading mat one environmental impact of materials
00:43:02 he says talks about some assumptions about what's been achieved and then there's this comment i just want to ask you about
00:43:11 you about it's in black as distinct from the blue text he says it also seems mf max ford and went for ott you values to achieve maximum credits
00:43:23 values to achieve maximum credits available
00:43:24 available for thermal performance criteria which come to force if green gride rating credits do not manage to achieve the top 25 credits available do you see that there yeah and i just
00:43:35 do you see that there yeah and i just wanted to ask you about that what you understood to to be the phrase ott
00:43:40 ott you values is that do you think he's saying over the top you values well i i did follow his evidence yes i believe he confirmed that
00:43:52 confirmed that did you ever discuss at the time with mr wreck that he thought the max fordham u values were over the top um i i i must be honest
00:44:03 um i i i must be honest the whole subject of brienne wasn't one that i was much involved during the project forget brienne for a moment
00:44:14 moment at any time during the project did you have a discussion with mr rec about max fordham's u-value and in particular the 0.15 for the external wall and whether that was over the top do you remember
00:44:26 that was over the top do you remember ever discussing that with him
00:44:32 over the top it's got a pejorative sense which i
00:44:35 which i do not recall no
00:44:40 so you don't recall having a discussion in those terms do you recall having any discussion with him about
00:44:47 him about how ambitious that new value target was
00:44:52 it it wasn't ambitious it was what the standard was for a new build it wasn't it wasn't super insulated it was
00:45:00 was just trying to match new build i see did you ever go back to max fordham and discuss the possibility of increasing the u-value
00:45:11 the u-value at any stage on the project
00:45:16 no yeah
00:45:20 and can you help us as to why why that discussion didn't happen what why you never went back to them and discussed increasing it
00:45:30 well with hindsight obviously no one challenged the insulation
00:45:39 now um if we can bring up um so i'm picking back the chronology back up in in july 2012 now okay and i want to look at
00:45:51 sea404986
00:45:58 and we can see that on that date you emailed mr smith of max fordham copying and a number of others including at max boredom and you say matt kingspan have come back
00:46:09 and you say matt kingspan have come back with two
00:46:10 with two 200 millimeter phenolic to achieve 0.15 u value c
00:46:15 u value c attached and then you say i've attached a data sheet for glass fiber product i'm rusty on calculations but i interpret this product as having twice
00:46:26 interpret this product as having twice the thermal conductivity of phenolic and therefore needing twice the thickness do you see that and again i think you anticipated we come to this uh earlier in your evidence
00:46:37 come to this uh earlier in your evidence can we just have a look at the glass fibre insulation product data sheet that you attached to this email
00:46:45 email we can look at that at sea four zeros one
00:46:49 one three three seven so this is headed superglass april 2012
00:47:01 so this is headed superglass april 2012 cladding matt 37 and we see in the smaller text just underneath that heading
00:47:06 heading it says cladding mat 37 is a resilient mineral wool insulation mat with a high tensile strength for use in the walls and roofs of profiled metal clad buildings
00:47:17 of profiled metal clad buildings do you see that there yeah so it also appears to be a form of mineral wool insulation and if we look in the bottom of page one in that little green bubble yes thank
00:47:29 in that little green bubble yes thank you we can see from the first bullet it's saying fire performance fire classification a1 non-combustible [Applause]
00:47:41 [Applause] now you said in your covering email that you were rusty on calculations did you ever think to check your calculations in respect
00:47:52 calculations in respect of the rockwool product with max fordham or with rockwool themselves
00:48:00 it's not just a repeat of your earlier question it is but i it was with specific reference to you having said in that email that you were rusty on calculations well i was comparing the k value there
00:48:11 well i was comparing the k value there 0.037
00:48:12 0.037 with the um
00:48:16 the kingspan because i knew that the installation has the biggest impact on the u-value so you could just look at those figures and yeah see roughly
00:48:27 yeah see roughly where they sit next to each other when you
00:48:31 you were looking at this product did you note the fire performance of this product that wasn't something you looked at and i think you said earlier back in
00:48:42 and i think you said earlier back in march that you wouldn't have understood what the a1 meant is that right the european classification method what it actually
00:48:51 actually specifically means no i can't say i know now but
00:48:55 now but non-combustible means non-combustible
00:49:01 now if we can turn to sea405818
00:49:09 this is an email of the 15th of august 2012.
00:49:15 and i want to pick up on what you say so this is to mr maquot of max fordham and it's about the external wall and briem and i want to pick up in the last paragraph you say we need to discuss
00:49:28 paragraph you say we need to discuss you value insulation spec i found a u-value calculator here and you give the link for that and made a stab at insulation thickness to achieve the 0.515 u value
00:49:41 achieve the 0.515 u value attached is from the website i'm not sure how to make allowances for the brackets
00:49:47 brackets remember we have an issue with the insulation around the columns and i don't want you advertising something we a aren't showing and b we can't achieve can we discuss do you see that there
00:50:01 now can you recall what those calculations showed in terms of the thickness of insulation that was needed no i haven't revisited this
00:50:12 no i haven't revisited this you say that i'm not sure how to make allowances for the brackets could that be not sure how to how to make allowances for thermally broken brackets that we were discussing earlier no for the thermal bridging that the
00:50:23 no for the thermal bridging that the brackets represent i see you have to allow that a certain amount of heat is going to find its way through the brackets and you weren't sure how to do that calculation is that right using that online calculator yeah i see
00:50:36 using that online calculator yeah i see i see now mr mcquatt of max fordham replies to this on the 16th of august the following day can we go to that sca 405840
00:50:54 can we go to that sca 405840 and he says this bruce i've done the following calculations to work out how much insulation that we would need to achieve 0.15 overall
00:51:03 overall the celatex fr 5000 is a solid pir board data sheet attached i think this is the only type of product that will give us the required performance kingspan also so a version of this
00:51:18 kingspan also so a version of this and then he says can you comment on the spandrel panel etc so
00:51:26 etc so he provides at this point the data sheet the product data sheet for the celetex fr5000 product is that right yes now did you know uh
00:51:40 now did you know uh what pir board was referring to in that second line he says it's fr 5000 is a solid pir board did you know what pir was yeah yes well i knew what it stood for
00:51:53 yeah yes well i knew what it stood for polly i said sign your age yeah and i think i mentioned previously that i had been aware of it for some time and what was your reaction when you received this
00:52:04 received this email about the suitability of the celetex fr5000 product for use in the overcladding system
00:52:12 i can't recall did you have any concerns about the reference to pir board in this email did that ring any alarm bells for you no
00:52:28 no i think going back pir and phenolic had become a little bit standard you know every project
00:52:39 project this time when you say standard for every project can you be clear what you mean every project you'd worked on every project that i had worked on there were exceptions but
00:52:51 were exceptions but invariably some form of foam board was used
00:52:56 used in the facades and on the roof i think we clarified at the very beginning of your evidence you hadn't done a
00:53:03 done a residential overcladding above 18 meters before is that correct yes yeah so these other projects were low-rise projects five stars is that
00:53:15 low-rise projects five stars is that right
00:53:15 right yeah now i just want to pick up at this point something that you've said in your witness statement if we can look at that at this point this is sea three zeroes one four two seven at page
00:53:28 three zeroes one four two seven at page 55
00:53:32 and i want to look at the very last sentence at the top of that page on 116.2
00:53:41 this is where you're discussing the celetex fr5000 and you say this none of max fordham cep x over or any other specialist
00:53:52 cep x over or any other specialist i had discussed the project with had raised this as a technical design issue and i think you mean this as in its fire performance is that right it's classified performance yeah so
00:54:03 it's classified performance yeah so you're saying none of those bodies on the project had raised the celetex fr 5000 being a technical and it's class not five performance as a
00:54:14 and it's class not five performance as a technical design issue that's what you're saying yes [Applause] is it your evidence that because neither max fordham nor cep nor indeed x
00:54:26 neither max fordham nor cep nor indeed x over ever raised the question of compliance of fr 5000 with you that studio e had no reason to think that it was non-compliant with the building regulations or the guidance
00:54:38 the building regulations or the guidance in adb
00:54:47 is that the only reason i can't believe it's the only reason i think the products these types of products were widely used yeah can you tell me
00:54:58 were widely used yeah can you tell me with this you you say that these foam boards had become
00:55:03 become quite common on projects that you dealt with
00:55:07 with there had been a distinct um with the tightening of the part l requirements
00:55:16 over five ten years yeah what i'm really interested in now is this you obviously knew about those boards from what you've told us
00:55:27 boards from what you've told us and i suspect you knew that they were quite efficient your first instinct on the other hand was to reach for the rock wall yes why was that
00:55:38 um
00:55:45 it's the safest there was a time when um bre
00:55:52 um briem assessments would only give a class a sorry would only give rockwell
00:56:04 would only give rockwell category a status maximum points could only be achieved with rockwell um when i started as a young architect that's that's all we used
00:56:14 so yeah yeah
00:56:17 all right thank you can i just be completely clear when you say it's the safest
00:56:23 safest do you mean the safest in terms of fire performance or the safest in terms of its thermal performance and no i'd say safest in terms of fire but also in terms of its
00:56:34 but also in terms of its sustainability in a broader sense the embodied carbon recyclability it was always regarded as the safest choice yeah
00:56:45 the safest choice yeah did you have any awareness once the rockwool
00:56:48 rockwool fell out of the picture that what you were looking at with other products was less safe from a fire performance point of view did you have any awareness of that at the time
00:57:02 i'd have to agree that you can't put them side by side and say the mineral wool isn't less likely to burn obviously it's less it's not going to burn
00:57:15 but at the time i i was of the view which i think i've said that the the celtics didn't burn it just charred other words the whole
00:57:27 it just charred other words the whole history of polyurethanes had been solved and
00:57:31 and it was safe to use in cavities yeah that was yeah my understanding at the time
00:57:38 did there ever come a time when you asked max fordham before the nbs specification was prepared
00:57:45 prepared whether the use of fr 5000 was compliant with the building regulations and the guidance in approved document b were they were they ever asked that question
00:57:56 now we've looked and we looked in detail in your evidence last time at the advice and the written advice produced by x over
00:58:03 over is it right that there was never any written advice from x over about the suitability of fr 5000 before the mbs specification was prepared no
00:58:15 prepared no or any verbal advice from x over did you ever
00:58:18 ever discuss the suitability of fr 5000 before
00:58:21 before you put the mbs together i i personally did not know
00:58:29 did it ever occur to you that it might be a good idea to ask x over to comment specifically on the suitability of using the celetex fr 5000 product
00:58:41 no it didn't and
00:58:45 why i say personally i it never occurred to me is
00:58:50 to me is adrian jess and thomas rick had independent conversations with x over
00:58:57 over so i don't personally know of any discussions with exo of i'm not aware that they had any conversations with xavin and i'm aware that i didn't have any conversations
00:59:08 that i didn't have any conversations with it's over
00:59:10 we did not i know you're coming to this but we did not put forward a proposal takes over because
00:59:17 because we as i saw it didn't have a firm scheme for them to assess yeah
00:59:26 i mean whether it was one form of board or another i knew that it's just a board it's just his own sages c okay
00:59:37 sages c okay turning to cep and thinking about them for a moment did you ever specifically raise the proposed use of fr 5000 with them i don't recall
00:59:51 now turning then to your witness statement can we go on this is sea3014273 at page 114 and i want to look at
01:00:03 at page 114 and i want to look at paragraph 270
01:00:07 and you say here i got in touch with harley on the 11th of september 2013 and we arranged to meet on the 27th of september 2013. we arranged to meet near london bridge
01:00:18 we arranged to meet near london bridge station and the meeting took place at a coffee shop in hayes galleria and you say it was ray bailey mark harris both harley thomas and me and then you say before
01:00:30 thomas and me and then you say before the meeting thomas wreck emailed mark draft elevations details wind load calculations and you value targets now i'm going to come back to ask you about this hayes galleria
01:00:41 to ask you about this hayes galleria meeting when we're talking about the aluminium composite panels because we're going to look at that in detail in a moment but i just want to focus
01:00:50 focus for a minute on the insulation
01:00:54 you then say paragraph 271 just below that
01:00:58 that in your statement if we can read it out you say
01:01:01 you say i was of the understanding that pir products were generally safe to use in cavities
01:01:07 cavities this was based on my general awareness that it had been widely used in the construction industry in the last 20 years during which time i had not heard it constituted a fire hazard
01:01:18 hazard my understanding was that it would only char when subjected to a flame and it had also been marketed with certification from the loss prevention certification board as part of steel composite panels which
01:01:30 as part of steel composite panels which are very widely used when i met harley i believe i had a lingering uncertainty about pir because this was a high-rise and i had not been involved in a high-rise before
01:01:43 not been involved in a high-rise before i believe but i cannot say for sure that i asked ray bailey a question about the acceptability of using rigid foam insulation on a high-rise building probably at the end of the meeting if i
01:01:56 probably at the end of the meeting if i did
01:01:57 did i don't recall he provided a definitive response
01:02:00 response do you see that there yes
01:02:07 now you've set out your understanding about pir products at the beginning of that paragraph and what your general awareness was was that your understanding at the time you met harley on the 27th
01:02:20 at the time you met harley on the 27th of september 2013. yes yep
01:02:28 and where you say that you thought they were generally safe to use was that your expectation was that that would also be in high-rise buildings as well
01:02:39 well prior to that meeting
01:02:42 given that it had been put forward by max ford and that had been my understanding but i believe i did ask the question
01:02:52 where did your understanding come from that pir products only char when subjected to a flame what was that based
01:03:00 on um i'm having deja vu i i remember in my previous practice would have been 98 to 99
01:03:11 98 to 99 the celetex representative visiting and presenting their products and part of that presentation
01:03:22 and part of that presentation honestly it wasn't it wasn't a c it wasn't a cpd it was a around the table discussion which covered the the polyurethane fires
01:03:34 covered the the polyurethane fires um and i i have looked it up i believe he did refer to the sun valley fire where it was unders prior to that sorry prior to the the
01:03:45 prior to that sorry prior to the the reduction in use of polyurethanes they represented a hazard because they could burn within cavities they could smolder long distances and the message i was an understanding
01:03:57 and the message i was an understanding that i had over 20 years was polyurethane doesn't do that sorry polyisinate doesn't do that um if you check wikipedia there's a
01:04:08 um if you check wikipedia there's a video which gives you an illustration of what i understood okay yeah
01:04:14 you then go on and you're set you're talking about how you believe a lingering uncertainty about pir because it was a high rise was the lingering uncertainty in relation to
01:04:26 lingering uncertainty in relation to fire safety or some other lingering uncertainty no it was it would have been its fire it would have been its fire do you have
01:04:37 it would have been its fire do you have any recollection of discussing insulation with mr bailey of harley at that meeting can you actually recall discussing the insulation as distinct from the
01:04:48 insulation as distinct from the the rain screen panels i believe i asked him about the acceptability of using a rigid foam and i might not have
01:04:59 a rigid foam and i might not have mentioned it as celatex
01:05:05 we did discuss installation in the round because we discussed the assembly of the facade sequence
01:05:18 how it would all be supported so in a general sense we did discuss insulation um on on reflection i believe
01:05:29 one of the reasons i might have been prompted to ask not just the any kind of lingering uncertainty but i think we were shown several pictures of the farrier point
01:05:41 farrier point tower under construction and those in progress construction you could quite clearly see where the the insulation was mineral yeah yeah
01:05:55 the the insulation was mineral yeah yeah that's in hindsight those pictures have been
01:05:59 been disclosed by the inquiry but we didn't receive digital copies until six months later
01:06:05 later i believe do you know now exactly which pictures you're referring to do you want me to have you got have you got a ref um
01:06:25 three four nine seven is that is that a studio e document sorry seo yes yeah sca okay let's just i'll can't i i take i'll take
01:06:36 let's just i'll can't i i take i'll take you to that in a moment um can i just pick up on something you said
01:06:40 said you said you asked him about the acceptability of using rigid foam insulation on a high-res building what did you mean by acceptability
01:06:57 i think probably as a regulatory question as to whether the regulations would accept it
01:07:09 would from recollection would mr bailey have
01:07:13 have understood it oh sorry i can't ask you that but is that how you meant him to understand what you were asking him were you clear that he'd understood you were asking about
01:07:23 about the compliance with the building regulations or is it possible i mean can you actually remember using the word acceptability
01:07:35 no i i can't remember what words i used
01:07:40 is it okay yeah i i can't i can't i mean i'd speculate i can i cannot recall let me say is it okay is that you saying what you might have said to him i might have said that
01:07:52 said to him i might have said that but i can't remember i i the reason why it wasn't minuted i in my mind i didn't think it was a key issue you know i did a set of notes from from this meeting
01:08:05 notes from from this meeting i didn't minute this i didn't think it was
01:08:09 was something i needed to report back on um and i i don't even think i necessarily asked it while we were sitting down i think i might have said it after we'd stood up it was an
01:08:22 after we'd stood up it was an afterthought and is your best recollection now that you might have said is it okay
01:08:29 um that's a bit of guessing but that might be might have been what i said
01:08:36 so does it remain that your evidence that you believe but you can't say for sure
01:08:41 sure that you raised a question with mr bailey at the end of the meeting i can't say for sure but i believe i did okay do you have any recollection of discussing fire safety any more generally at this meeting
01:08:54 generally at this meeting with the harley representatives
01:09:06 with the harley representatives i'm trying to think if there was anything that may have had a bearing but i can't think of anything no
01:09:18 if you were going to ask mr bailey a question because you were concerned about compliance would you agree that you'd probably have asked is pir safe to use on a high-rise building
01:09:29 safe to use on a high-rise building you'd have put the question that way if i had any serious concern i would have asked that first yeah as i said it was an afterthought it was a
01:09:41 it wasn't a serious concern an army to understand that the reason it was an afterthought it's because of exactly what you said in the beginning of this paragraph that your general understanding was that it was safe to
01:09:53 understanding was that it was safe to use
01:09:54 use yes because of what you'd understood before this yes and i think i think i was aware that it was used on high rises i think
01:10:05 it was used on high rises i think i mean i don't can't point or anything firm but
01:10:08 firm but but you see the building's going up yeah insulation's sometimes exposed you do see it
01:10:18 did you ever raise that lingering uncertainty with x over the fire safety specialist at any time
01:10:28 well i know if it was if it was a genuine concern i would have raised it directly
01:10:35 directly but you know you didn't ever do that no in this context i think it was because of all the mineral that was used on ferry point i think i prompted just to mention it because that was the big one of the
01:10:47 because that was the big one of the differences between fairy point and grenfell was the insulation
01:10:55 and did it ever occur to you that it might be sensible to get written advice from x over addressing this specifically and the the compliance of using a pii product
01:11:14 um pointed to provide a fire strategy
01:11:20 at this stage and even thereafter i i did not look at them as as being a necessarily providing detailed checking of of
01:11:32 detailed checking of of specification i mean that that doesn't feature in their um outline fire strategy that's not that's not the focus of their work yeah
01:11:44 at this point i promised you i'd take you to the document that you've just referred me to let's do that now this is
01:11:52 sea403497
01:12:00 so is is what you're saying that this is one of the images that you were shown at that meeting i can't be sure i was showing that image but i believe that there were a handful of of which
01:12:13 there were a handful of of which inquiry has okay showing the construction of the tower with the um the panel's half on yeah and that was at that hayes galleria
01:12:27 yeah and that was at that hayes galleria meeting
01:12:27 meeting yes you're sure about that pretty soon i've asked you about x over did you um
01:12:40 i've asked you about x over did you um ever go back and seek a definitive response from elsewhere for example from max fordham about the acceptability of using the pir and a high rise
01:12:52 and a high rise no because that wouldn't really fall to them
01:12:56 what about with building control do you have any recollection of ever asking building control whether they were content for a pir insulation to be used on a high rise
01:13:08 insulation to be used on a high rise i i'm not sure i i do not recall
01:13:16 does that mean you can't remember or you can't recall having that specific discussion with building control
01:13:27 um same thing i don't recall any conversations on the subject myself with building control the conversation with building control um as it was covered
01:13:38 um as it was covered in all of exxon's testimony really did focus on the inside yeah and particularly the smoke and the escapes now
01:13:49 and the escapes now as you've mentioned you've said candidly that there is no written record of you querying the pir insulation with harley and ray bailey at this meeting
01:14:00 harley and ray bailey at this meeting mr bailey um doesn't refer to any such question having been posed to him in his statement although it will and do course be able to ask him about this but i want to put it to you is it not more
01:14:12 i want to put it to you is it not more likely
01:14:13 likely that you actually didn't raise this issue at all with harley given you had this confidence in the use of pir
01:14:21 of pir no i think if you look at that secret i mean i asked tom thomas wreck if he remembered anything he couldn't remember anything sorry i i don't expect ray bailey to remember it um but if you look at all the pictures
01:14:32 um but if you look at all the pictures together
01:14:33 together i i think yeah you might ask the question because what you're saying is all the pictures together definitely clearly showed some insulation as well as though
01:14:45 insulation as well as though yeah yeah it showed lots of mineral wool specifically yeah these pictures show a tower which is a similar height to grenfell and it's it's all mineral wool are you saying that that's what
01:14:56 are you saying that that's what mineral wall that we can actually see there now yes yes sorry sorry yeah that yellow so the yellow
01:15:03 yellow substance to yes yeah but you can tell immediately what that is so you can tell from looking at that that that's mineral wool as distinct from a pir board which has got the phone there's
01:15:14 got the phone there's salvage some because it's not got the foil with the product logo on the outside yes i see yep mr chairman i think that would
01:15:25 i see yep mr chairman i think that would be a good moment for a break yes all right if that's okay yeah well we're going to have a break now mr sands um we take slightly longer breaks than we did in the past to give other people the chance to feed
01:15:37 to give other people the chance to feed questions into council so we're going to break now until
01:15:42 until 25 to 12 and you can go and stretch your legs maybe get a cup of coffee but please remember not to talk to anyone else about your evidence or anything to do with studio he's
01:15:53 anything to do with studio he's involvement in this matter all right well you're while you're out of the room thank you thank you very much like to give the
01:16:04 usher
01:16:10 right 25-12
01:31:08 you