Grenfell Tower Inquiry - Studio Architects Evidence - Wednesday 15th July 2020 (2/2)
00:00:18 now before we resume can i just say for the benefit of those watching this on the live stream that we've had a certain amount of
00:00:24 amount of difficulties this morning with the running transcript um i've had a chance to speak to the technical people and they're confident that they've identified the problem
00:00:36 that they've identified the problem and we are able to resume now with everything working
00:00:43 and indeed it does appear to be working i apologize for the difficulties that that's caused but i'm reasonably confident that we can now resume in the normal way so i'm going to ask
00:00:54 in the normal way so i'm going to ask yahshua to bring mr sainz back please
00:01:11 it sounds i think for the second time today you've been kept waiting longer than you might have expected i'm sorry about that we've been having some technical difficulties but we are ready to carry on can i just
00:01:22 but we are ready to carry on can i just ask you this though um it may be that we might want to run a bit longer than usual this afternoon we'll see how we go would that trouble you in principle no that's right all right well we'll see how we get on anyway shall we yes
00:01:33 how we get on anyway shall we yes yes yes it's great thank you very much yes if i can start with some follow-up questions from topics we were discussing this morning and on cavity barriers can i go to
00:01:45 and on cavity barriers can i go to a section of mr hyatt's report again p h y
00:01:48 y r 6 0 4 at page 67 and look at figure 4.44
00:01:57 and i want to look at the the plan that's at the bottom of that page and what this is is an extract from the drawing that we were looking at one two seven nine
00:02:08 seven nine zero six one one oh proposed typical bay that was a drawing that formed part of the employer's requirements now i don't think we looked at this uh plan section this morning but the
00:02:19 uh plan section this morning but the short question that i've got for you is when
00:02:21 when you looked at this drawing at the time what did you think the little hatched area was right at the junction between the window frame and the column
00:02:35 i i i can't confirm what i thought it was
00:02:39 was at the time um that's your question yeah all we see on the labels is there's a label coming down from it the middle label that says window edpm
00:02:50 the middle label that says window edpm lapped over existing structure so that's that the edpm membrane that's providing the weather seal behind yeah direct onto the common you can't help us as to what that hatched area is there
00:03:02 there i think it's a recognition that it would need to be insulated and that it um no i can't i think it's indicative okay thank you
00:03:13 i think it's indicative okay thank you on resident consultation um i took you to a document that i now want to just go back to
00:03:19 back to this is tmo 1003758
00:03:30 and what i want to do is start at the bottom of page one this is an email from mr peter martindale now we've been helpfully told that he was a resident of the tower
00:03:41 that he was a resident of the tower at the time um and he's sending you an email on the 20th of august 2012. do you see that
00:03:47 see that yeah and he's raising a number of points and if we go on to page two it's item four that i just want to ask you about he says here as expressed at our last meeting i am
00:03:59 as expressed at our last meeting i am concerned that the implications of choices are not being fully explained to residents
00:04:04 residents who for example when asked to choose a design for the windows have not had explained that it is not just the window but the entire vicinity of the window will be substantively
00:04:15 of the window will be substantively affected
00:04:17 affected what they think they are opting for and what they will discover they are getting when work starts could lead to some very disgruntled people do you see that there yes um
00:04:29 yes um can you can you recall receiving this email from mr martindale
00:04:36 now that i know he lived in the tower i can possibly place him but i'm not sure i i don't i'll be honest i don't recall this email what was your reaction to the criticism
00:04:47 what was your reaction to the criticism that appears to be made here that the implications of choices are not being fully explained to residents
00:04:58 sorry repeat that what is mine what was your reaction to the criticism that appears to be made here that the implications of choices are choices for the design are not being fully explained to residents
00:05:13 i did not i would have passed this on to tmo
00:05:21 i suspect at the time i would not engage in a one-to-one with a resident does that mean you didn't
00:05:28 didn't kind of think substantively about the the complaint that seems to be being raised there
00:05:34 i would have if it wasn't
00:05:40 i don't think it wasn't discussed with residents what the implications of the proposed changes were right it would have required a conversation i think he's suggesting that we're not explaining it explaining it adequately
00:05:51 explaining it explaining it adequately yeah
00:05:52 yeah that's how i read that in other words there's a
00:05:56 there's a it's not been communicated but is it right from what you just said that you didn't think that was a valid criticism um well he's he i think it's all prefaced by residents might not be
00:06:07 prefaced by residents might not be understanding the full implications
00:06:12 yeah we can see at the top of page um one that mr martin uh mr duncan appears to respond to this
00:06:23 uh mr duncan appears to respond to this see seeing you in saying thank you for your comments and thank you for taking the time to attend our presentation um do you recall whether you ever responded
00:06:33 responded no i wouldn't respond directly okay um then on design responsibility just picking up a different topic you
00:06:45 just picking up a different topic you said very candidly this morning that you did not
00:06:48 did not look at adb in carrying out the design of the cladding on grenfell tower because you said it was only guidance and you found it difficult to interpret is that correct difficult to reach definitive
00:06:59 difficult to reach definitive interpretation yeah so can i ask you how did you as lead consultant and with coordination responsibilities proposed to ensure that the cladding
00:07:10 proposed to ensure that the cladding design that you proposed was sufficient to satisfy the building regulations if you weren't complying with the guidance in approved document b
00:07:20 i think i think i take issue with that phrase comply with guidance you can comply with a clear set of requirements but complying with the approved document
00:07:33 complying with the approved document requires an insight which
00:07:37 i believe we had a employed x over to input on and b the contractor had employed a specialist facade subcontractor to input on and ultimately building
00:07:49 to input on and ultimately building control would agree the whole but i'm asking with you how you sought to comply with the building regulations themselves the
00:08:00 building regulations themselves the functional requirements if you weren't following
00:08:02 following the practical guidance in adb what were you following i believe it's those steps that we took so engaging those those entities to support us we sought to comply
00:08:16 to support us we sought to comply i see so because i i've since come across alternative forms of um
00:08:27 um regulation so so i i feel that referring to the guidance is somehow definitive is is inaccurate it requires a higher level of interpretation
00:08:39 interpretation we're not saying that guidance is somehow definitive but i think the point i'm putting to you is that if you're not going to follow that practical guidance shouldn't you have been following something else that that gave you a route to
00:08:50 route to compliance with the functional requirements including the functional requirements under part b of the building regulations now i don't understand because xover's
00:09:02 now i don't understand because xover's fire strategy report refers specifically to part b
00:09:06 to part b building controls specifically refer to part b
00:09:09 part b so does it so the judgment as to whether something meets the requirements um is a judgment it's it's not something that the
00:09:20 it's it's not something that the approved document can give you categorically i see okay um now if as you suggested this morning you did not think
00:09:31 you did not think uh diagram 33 of approved document b was applicable to the cladding as opposed to being applicable to conventional construction to what guidance did you as project
00:09:42 to what guidance did you as project leader for studio e direct the members of your team to in order to comply with the building regulations
00:09:55 the approach we took was to confer with with others both in industry and consultants and this
00:10:08 largely post states the the um period of my intense involvement in the project and i don't believe we ever sought to comply against some other
00:10:20 comply against some other code of practice okay or proof talk or um system of approval okay thank you windows i've got some
00:10:32 okay thank you windows i've got some brief questions for you on windows um now in terms of the design of the windows i think we can agree that the new windows at grenfell tower lay outside and forward of the plane of
00:10:44 lay outside and forward of the plane of the original masonry fabric and structure
00:10:47 structure is that correct yes um and as such the windows were no longer sealed against the concrete solid concrete surround is that correct
00:10:58 solid concrete surround is that correct yes
00:11:00 yes now it's correct isn't it that changes in in the size and placing of the new windows created gaps as a result of moving the windows outwards
00:11:09 outwards of that plane of the concrete structure yes can we look at um a drawing that helps with this if we can bring up inq3011312
00:11:23 bring up inq3011312 at page seven now this is one of the harley drawings that was um approved for construction we see the
00:11:34 approved for construction we see the studio east stamp as well there um and i've brought this up because it's helpfully got some green at the gap between the
00:11:46 at the gap between the column and the window frame do you see that green gap and there's actually some text with a little note and it says note this varies 35 to 90 as
00:11:59 and it says note this varies 35 to 90 as columns not plumb however all windows align vertically do you see that there yes so um is it right and where you were aware at the time
00:12:10 aware at the time that that gap between the window frame and the column might vary between 35 and 90 millimeters i i wasn't aware of the scale of the tolerance but i
00:12:21 tolerance but i i would on every project there's tolerance
00:12:26 what i want to know is did that gap concern you at all during your time on the project was that something that you gave any attention to
00:12:36 um
00:12:40 we knew that there would need to be a gap to accommodate the tolerance that that was something we were aware of
00:12:49 it's really the size of the gap did that ever concern you the size of it and the potential variation in it
00:12:59 in itself no that didn't concern me do you remember ever discussing it specifically on the project with anybody no
00:13:07 no and does it follow that you didn't ever think about the potential fire risks that might be posed by that gap
00:13:18 i i think you can only ask that question with hindsight if you were to see that gap in isolation [Music]
00:13:27 [Music] you would want to know where the risk was and
00:13:30 was and there is i mean it should be obviously packed with insulation but you would not expect it to be a fire hazard sitting within the um the clouding zone
00:13:44 the um the clouding zone okay in other words i'd be if if i heard your question um someone had asked me that before i'd i'd be thinking rather of
00:13:53 rather of the the um you know where's the hazard i can't see where the hazard is now did you know that the edpm membrane was to sit
00:14:05 membrane was to sit in that gap as part of the final design of the window um it largely closes the gap for the sake of weatherproofing
00:14:16 weatherproofing so does that is the answer yes that you were aware that an edpm membrane was going to be across that gap i think it's it's indicated here in the dotted line i think that is quite a
00:14:27 think that is quite a typical detail okay i knew it would be a membrane
00:14:32 membrane did you know at the time of the grenfell project that edpm rubber membrane is a combustible material and will burn quite rapidly if ignited no but i knew it was based on with
00:14:43 no but i knew it was based on with rubber based on rubber okay so the fact it was based on rubber it is combustible yes yeah but that's not something you gave any
00:14:55 but that's not something you gave any specific attention to on the project yourself again i i was not aware of there being any hazardous zone to be concerned of combustibility of
00:15:06 to be concerned of combustibility of components of that nature which is quite an isolated item okay i now want to just ask you a few short questions about the insulation products that were used at the interface
00:15:18 products that were used at the interface between the window frames at the head jam and sill of the windows can we look at something in mr hyatt's report to start with this is phyr
00:15:29 report to start with this is phyr 602 at 39
00:15:33 602 at 39 and it's figure 2.13
00:15:38 now this is a diagram adapted by mr hyatt of harley the harley drawing har four zero eight eight eight zero and we can see the area
00:15:49 can see the area he's outlined in the drawing in in red that's the line of the original concrete column
00:15:55 column do you see that there yes and at the top of the diagram to the right of the red we can see running parallel with the red line it says window board and soft joint by
00:16:08 it says window board and soft joint by others
00:16:09 others do you see that yes it's writing sitting on its side and this indicates the new internal window reveals that would be installed as part of the indo
00:16:20 as part of the indo the internal window reveal is that correct
00:16:23 correct yes now above this uh we can see the markup it says existing frame remaining in most cases removed by others where necessary do you
00:16:34 removed by others where necessary do you see that
00:16:35 see that yes so that's the old existing wooden door frame no that was aluminium that's not a minion frame okay exactly sorry okay sliding windows
00:16:46 exactly sorry okay sliding windows um and then below the outline of the original metal window frame we can see insulation indicated and the markup says insulation by others do you see that there yes
00:17:02 now if we look at the employers requirements and the nbs specification if we can go sea five zeros 169 to page 249
00:17:22 sorry it's actually i think it's at page 243.
00:17:31 there's their reference to compressible insulation and gaps do you see that at item 235 at the bottom yes do you see that there and it says manufacturer rockwool limited do you see
00:17:42 manufacturer rockwool limited do you see that
00:17:44 yes and we've discussed what rockwool is now i want to look at one of the employers requirements drawings um if we go again i think it's the same drawing we looked
00:17:55 i think it's the same drawing we looked at this morning sea four zeroes two four nine nine and it's the offline version
00:18:12 and i want to go to the very bottom left sketch
00:18:16 sketch um the plan at the bottom left
00:18:25 yeah that's great
00:18:30 and then we can see various tags there where the window frames frames meet the existing reinforced concrete wall and it says existing reveal cladding to
00:18:41 and it says existing reveal cladding to be retained and new cladding fixed through it add new lipping to cover new and existing cladding edge do you see that there it's about it's the
00:18:51 the third tag down um in that drawing yes
00:19:00 and then in the middle at the existing internal partitions it states cut back existing plasterboard partition to allow window installation install new timber
00:19:13 window installation install new timber reveal
00:19:13 reveal cladding
00:19:17 yes can you see that
00:19:22 yes that's in the middle that's in the middle label cut back existing plasterboard so away from the column and at the bottom there's reference in the
00:19:34 bottom there's reference in the second tag up to window edpm lapped over existing
00:19:37 existing structure now would you agree that there's no indication in this plan here of any packing material to the internal window lining
00:19:54 i i don't think the scale of drawing really permits that no and what i want to put to you is is it right that while studio e specified compressible rock wool
00:20:05 specified compressible rock wool insulation in the nbs neither mineral wool nor rock wool is specified on the tender drawings
00:20:17 correct but tender spec takes precedence over the
00:20:21 over the drawings i see so um i i wanted to ask you whether you agreed that studio ought to have identified on the drawings the type of insulation product that should be used
00:20:30 be used in this application do i take it you don't agree with that no i i the reason for the code is is to point to the specification
00:20:46 i see i don't think we see any labels here that are referring back to that bit of the specification no no um
00:20:58 no no um on the window infill panels just some short questions about those if we look again at the nbs specification this is sca50169
00:21:09 specification this is sca50169 and if we go to page 145 within that
00:21:20 that item this is item 332 it's within the section l10 and it's under the heading aluminium windows fixed unit there and what it's talking about is a under
00:21:33 and what it's talking about is a under the panel
00:21:34 the panel facing type so that's the second little bullet down it says aluminium faced insulated panel comprising core insulation aluminium lining panel
00:21:45 core insulation aluminium lining panel and integrated channel profile around perimeter do you see that there
00:21:51 can you see that it's the second little dot down there's a dot that says finish as delivered polyester powder coating and then there's a dot that said panel facing
00:22:02 there's a dot that said panel facing type
00:22:04 type do you see that yes and it says aluminium faced insulated panel comprising core insulation did you see that yes and that's what we understand to be the the win we call them the window infill
00:22:16 the win we call them the window infill panels
00:22:17 panels yes yes and i think we can see there an insulated core has been specified but no specific product is identified for that
00:22:29 specific product is identified for that yes item now what i want to put to you is that at this tender stage studio e should have at least specified that that insulation product
00:22:41 specified that that insulation product should be of limited combustibility in accordance with the guidance in paragraph 12.7 of approved document b
00:22:49 would you accept that
00:22:53 no because that that um
00:22:58 that would be subject to the um method of demonstrating compliance so does it follow that you left that to the
00:23:06 the contractor and any relevant subcontractor to determine exactly what type of panel they provided there yes okay
00:23:16 [Applause] now i'm going to come on to ask you some questions about building control in a minute
00:23:22 minute which is perhaps the main topic for this afternoon
00:23:25 afternoon um but i just want to pick up just a few other
00:23:29 other points that i think are logical to pick up at this point um some of them relating to x over mr ashton's evidence so first of all i want to pick up a point arising from mr ashton's oral
00:23:42 point arising from mr ashton's oral evidence
00:23:43 evidence he said that at the first meeting with the design team which he attended he said he made the point fairly forcefully that the proposals that had been drawn
00:23:54 that the proposals that had been drawn up by studio e were not acceptable in terms of getting building control approval and therefore he says he said we needed to do some serious work to get to a
00:24:05 to do some serious work to get to a situation where we could go forward with kensington and chelsea confident that a scheme would be approved
00:24:12 approved and that was on day 17 page nine lines four to twelve now he couldn't give an exact date of that meeting but he says he thought that was the first time
00:24:24 was the first time he attended with all of the team there and the client there and we know the first meeting he attended was a design team meeting on the 6th of september 2012. now what i want to ask you is whether
00:24:36 now what i want to ask you is whether you recall mr ashton saying something to that effect either at that meeting or maybe at a later meeting that he made the point forcefully that the
00:24:47 made the point forcefully that the proposals at that stage were going to need some serious work in order to go forward with confident with building control i obviously prepared the notes to that
00:24:58 i obviously prepared the notes to that meeting yeah which you have i when i
00:25:04 i when i take a note of course i am focused on the action probably uh over any kind of record
00:25:16 uh over any kind of record of the meeting i'm more focused on what needs to be followed up
00:25:22 i can't say i didn't hear him say that i i remember him talking but i can't remember i can only obviously point to my notes okay and the meeting that we had subsequent that we had a meeting
00:25:33 subsequent that we had a meeting [Music]
00:25:35 [Music] i think was on the monday um but i i can't deny that he said something to that effect so so i can't it's too long ago to be sure what i remember him saying okay but
00:25:47 sure what i remember him saying okay but you don't have a memory of him being very forceful in that first meeting about
00:25:51 about effectively the uphill struggle he thought you were going to have i don't i don't think he quite said that no he didn't say we were gonna i don't
00:26:02 no he didn't say we were gonna i don't think in his evidence he says he said we needed to do some serious work to get to a situation where we could go forward confident that a scheme would be approved those were the words he used
00:26:16 yes as i say i can't i can't contradict that because i can't remember what he did say so he might well have said that he might as well we'll have said something to
00:26:27 as well we'll have said something to that effect and whose work is it his work or our work
00:26:31 work i mean did that time with a general awareness you had at that time that you were going to have to do some serious work to
00:26:37 work to be confident in any building control application
00:26:45 i think it's consistent throughout that we understood the issue with a single stair building without um well with a very limited
00:26:57 um well with a very limited smoke exhaust to the smoke lobbies um that it was sensitive and would need attention that that i think is
00:27:08 attention that that i think is consistent throughout okay just staying with mr ashton for a moment and thinking back to exactly this time period um we know from
00:27:20 exactly this time period um we know from emails and i previously discussed this with you that there was a meeting that you and mr ashton had on the 10th of september 2012 after that and you previously said in your evidence that you remembered
00:27:32 that you remembered elevations being on the table showing cladding
00:27:35 cladding and you said this that you were almost sure we discussed it that was day eight page 40 48 uh from 9 23 onwards now mr ashton said to us last week that
00:27:46 now mr ashton said to us last week that he didn't recall seeing any elevations of the building at that meeting and that they certainly weren't discussed in any way shape or form he also said there'd been no discussion
00:27:58 he also said there'd been no discussion about cladding at that meeting that was day 16
00:28:01 day 16 on page 154 now i want to come back to this because you said before you were almost sure and i want to ask you how sure are you first of all how sure are you
00:28:13 are you first of all how sure are you that there were elevations on the table when you discussed when you had the meeting with him my memories as it was and i i can give you another reference okay if that helps yeah okay have you
00:28:26 okay if that helps yeah okay have you got it with you i do and of course i've had to think about this but it's it's roid yeah triple zero yeah two six two yeah three zero
00:28:39 yeah two six two yeah three zero okay yeah let's bring that out the reason why i say elevations on the table is
00:28:46 table is it was um a large meeting room
00:28:51 um and i believe at the end of the meeting i asked one of the
00:28:58 the assistants to bring out the a1 consultation boards that we had prepared right that summer just to show terry what we were doing yeah so i don't i
00:29:12 yeah so i don't i i do agree with him we didn't discuss it in any detail but i believe i showed him say this because i believe it was sitting in a folder in our office am i right this looks quite similar to some of what we
00:29:24 looks quite similar to some of what we see in the stage c report that you then put in at the end of october 2012 is that correct yes yes so you had that so i i have this recollection and yes i'm not sure i know i'm disputing what
00:29:37 i'm not sure i know i'm disputing what terry says but i believe i showed him what we were doing yeah
00:29:42 yeah and can you recall any form of discussion about these elevations at that time no we were showing them what we were doing and can you recall any substantive discussion about the cladding
00:29:55 discussion about the cladding specifically at that meeting
00:29:59 i can't remember anything substantive okay
00:30:04 now um we know that mr jess sent a link to mr ashton and the design team
00:30:12 team the stage c report i looked at that with you previously and i looked at that with mr ashton
00:30:18 mr ashton and that was on the 31st of october 2012 the same day that you then got issue one of the fire strategy and it was just cc'd in to mr ashton he
00:30:29 and it was just cc'd in to mr ashton he wasn't one of the main recipients but he was a cc
00:30:32 was a cc um can i just ask what were your expectations of x over if you had any when that link was sent to them
00:30:45 i think at that point it was a record stage c is a record did you expect mr ashton to open the link and have a look at the stage t report in order to inform himself about where you were on the design of the
00:30:57 where you were on the design of the project
00:31:01 not per se it was obviously circulated as a record so i would i i'd expect certainly the the other designers to have downloaded it as a record
00:31:14 it as a record but not him you wouldn't know that i i don't recall having any thoughts about what he might do i just circulated it by the time it came to his issue too of
00:31:26 by the time it came to his issue too of the outline fire safety strategy the following october would you have expected him to have absorbed the contents of that report by then
00:31:42 i think we circulated drawings direct at that
00:31:45 that point right
00:31:51 and i don't think we circulated the full stage c report with the elevations and the
00:31:58 engineers sections do you agree it would have been prudent for studio e to have asked over if they'd seen the stage c document at some point
00:32:15 at some point i wouldn't i think prince i am
00:32:23 implying there's some risk of something getting missed which i wouldn't have expected there to be is that because to cut to the chase are you saying that you
00:32:35 cut to the chase are you saying that you were sending drawings separately and it was those drawings you expecting him to look at
00:32:42 look at and that you had no expectation of him looking at the stage c report
00:32:52 i can't i can't say that i expected him to look at the stage he report no
00:32:59 as to whether it's prudent for him to have looked at the stage c report well that's
00:33:04 that's prudent for you to have checked that he looked at it that's a difficult question in hindsight um
00:33:15 um chasing people to look at documents is
00:33:19 would be endless right yeah so how did you think he was learning about the external wall at the time if he wasn't reading for example the stage t report
00:33:31 example the stage t report if it was pertinent i'd expect him to raise it i see so you were expecting a request from him i would say further details any consultant if they needed to know
00:33:42 consultant if they needed to know something
00:33:43 something would ask right
00:33:47 and then just finishing this short topic on xavier and then i will ask you more about building control did you believe that x over remained engaged throughout the project
00:34:00 um sorry can you just decide did you believe that xover remained engaged we know they were engaged by the tmo initially the fee proposal was accepted did you believe at the time that they
00:34:12 did you believe at the time that they remained engaged throughout the project beyond ryden's appointment no i i well when i said not engaged i thought that was a subject between
00:34:23 thought that was a subject between xover and tmo did you think there was a point where nexova stopped working on the project pursuant to that appointment
00:34:35 i i believe with the issue of their third
00:34:39 third revision of their outline strategy that they had concluded their input on the report on us that phase of the work
00:34:51 and then that the fee that they had tendered
00:34:54 tendered i believe covered that right didn't have a clear
00:34:58 a clear idea at the time of the scale of the fee but i knew it wasn't a big fee were you aware at the time that they were providing ad hoc advice for example on the cladding in september
00:35:09 for example on the cladding in september 2014
00:35:10 2014 in march 2015 were you aware of that i believe i was and i think i was copied in to some of these yeah you were yeah and on what basis did you think they were providing that advice
00:35:27 in terms of an appointment or in terms of did you ever consider on what basis they were giving that advice that ad hoc advice
00:35:45 advice that ad hoc advice i'm sorry on what basis you're playing on what terms yes who was their client for the purposes of delivering that advice
00:35:56 purposes of delivering that advice what were the terms of their engagement did you ever think about that i think it was that i think about it i think i
00:36:06 think i understood that they were tying up the loose ends or the there are some outstanding queries on on the original fire strategy
00:36:18 the original fire strategy right or obviously because it was discussing detail it was it was very ad hoc and it was checking to see if they could advise okay rather than being done on any
00:36:30 okay rather than being done on any formal basis okay thank you so building control i now just want to ask you about some interactions with building control we know that the first meeting with building control took place on the 7th
00:36:42 building control took place on the 7th of november 2012. um can we go and look at the notes of that this is sea406526
00:36:58 now we looked at this before in the context of um insulation these are mr jess's notes of that meeting and
00:37:09 of that meeting and when you look at the email and all the subtopics it would appear that the focus was on means of escape issues and there's no reference in the notes of this meeting to any discussion about the overcladding
00:37:20 overcladding is there no i believe not now the next meeting with building control was on the 17th of september 2013.
00:37:33 so and can we go with reference to that to sca50121
00:37:45 this is an email that you send if we can just blow that up a bit uh you send to john allen and paul hanson of rbkc building control dated the 25th of october 2013 in which
00:37:57 the 25th of october 2013 in which you're reporting back following a meeting with them now your statement says that the meeting had been on the 17th of september 2013. that's paragraph 292.
00:38:09 that's paragraph 292. but actually the first line of the email here says
00:38:13 here says further to our meeting at rbkc on the 17th of august um can you help us as to which month it was
00:38:20 was yeah whether it was august or i think sometime
00:38:28 now either way i mean in terms of the chronology the stage d report uh was uh issued i think by studio e in um
00:38:39 uh issued i think by studio e in um august 2012. i think that was right
00:38:44 and so stage d yeah the stage d report 13 i think yes july or august 30th 13 exactly this is in 13 as well
00:38:55 in 13 as well so you've done the stage d report and you're working towards the nbs specification and tender documents by october 2013 is that right
00:39:09 we're working towards submitting by november
00:39:12 november yeah 13 yes now can you explain why nearly a year had passed between the meetings with building control
00:39:28 meetings with building control why i think there was a delay yeah why why so long between the two meetings you've had the first one in november 2012 but then there's been no meeting until
00:39:41 there's been no meeting until it's either september or august 2013 i think my my witness statement a large bulk of it covers the the ex the series of events which
00:39:52 the ex the series of events which resulted in such a delay to the project um a combination of switch procurement yeah and
00:40:05 sort of planning impasse on the appearance of the tower as well as a change in management at the tmo
00:40:13 tmo right yeah i think yeah all contributed to
00:40:17 to to the delay now you say in your statement that you don't recall what was discussed at this meeting just for the transcript that's at paragraph 318 of your statement on page one two nine
00:40:29 your statement on page one two nine um in light of the focus that there had been
00:40:32 been on b1 and b5 uh fire safety issues up to that point would you agree that it's unlikely you discussed overcladding or the b4 requirement
00:40:43 requirement at this meeting
00:40:46 i think it is unlikely given given the the conversations that um
00:40:55 followed this between building control and x server yeah your email at the end just in fairness to you does say we see some of what was discussed and then it says
00:41:06 then it says right in the last paragraph there are a number of other issues in dealing with this refurbishment that need to be discussed and this is probably best done in person once you've had a chance to study the documents do you see that there
00:41:19 documents do you see that there now did any of those issues concern the over cladding i can't recall what i was thinking of at that point
00:41:29 now but i know that at this meeting the focus on this smoke was the primary issue i seem to recall at the expense of
00:41:40 i seem to recall at the expense of anything else
00:41:46 yeah in the attachments to this email we can see that there are some drawings attached
00:41:53 attached and an outline fire safety strategy is attached do you see that there yes um but the drawings we've checked
00:42:04 yes um but the drawings we've checked those drawings they don't include any drawings of the proposed cladding
00:42:10 does that sound right yes yeah now a few days later on the 29th of october 2013 you emailed claire williams can we go to that this is a sea
00:42:22 can we go to that this is a sea four zeros nine five one zero
00:42:28 and i want to go to the second email at the bottom of the first page
00:42:37 um this is an email that you've sent blue students to duncan campbell of max ford and matt smith of max fordham and then claire williams of the tmo
00:42:50 the tmo and you're addressing them and then can we go to the top of the next page top of the second page we can see what you said to claire
00:42:57 to claire in that email and you say this you say claire i followed up the fire strategy submission we made to building control on friday i managed to get through to paul hanson
00:43:09 i managed to get through to paul hanson yesterday john allen was on leave he initially didn't want to offer any time frame for a response saying he was very busy
00:43:16 busy and there were other very urgent jobs needing his attention i pressed him reminded him of the issues and why we needed to get needed london fire brigade input and
00:43:27 needed london fire brigade input and that they had offered to pass it on for a quick reply at that he said he would get onto it next week do you see that there so you're reporting back to her um
00:43:40 so you're reporting back to her um and then we can we look two lines down from that
00:43:44 from that you say this you say i wondered if you had
00:43:47 had ann leveraged i think you might mean any leverage yeah
00:43:53 any leverage to ensure we get the critical feedback we need to inform the tender do you see that there yes can you explain what you meant by that asking her if she had any leverage
00:44:07 that asking her if she had any leverage as an rbkc employee whether she could speak to him direct as a third-party consultant he may not feel as
00:44:18 inclined to be responsive if and what were you exactly what you were expecting her to do when she spoke to rbkc building control nothing more than
00:44:29 rbkc building control nothing more than what i had um communicated already he's indicated that he would come back i just thought it's urgent i might ask yeah is it fair
00:44:41 it's urgent i might ask yeah is it fair to say at this time you felt under pressure
00:44:43 pressure to finalize the tender documentation all projects have deadlines and we had been given a deadline
00:44:55 were you hoping for a quick sign off from building control at this stage no this issue is specifically centered on the smoke exhaust to the lobbies
00:45:08 exhaust to the lobbies right i want to put to you were you reluctant to raise the cladding at this stage because you didn't want to create any further delays on the project is that why cladding wasn't raised no i
00:45:19 is that why cladding wasn't raised no i think i've explained before [Music]
00:45:24 [Music] the cladding was not seen as a critical element to the viability of the scheme
00:45:30 scheme at this point so you didn't think you needed to have any discussions with building control about the cladding no that's
00:45:40 okay now can we go to sca409805 this is an email from john allen of rbkc building control to you dated the 11th of november 2013.
00:45:55 and in this email we can see from the first few lines that john allen is saying that the information submitted so far
00:46:06 information submitted so far is not adequate to enable an effective consultation with the fire authority do you see that there yes and it's clear from the remaining email that his concerns appear to be related to the
00:46:18 concerns appear to be related to the smoke control system is that correct that was how i understood it at the time yeah and there's no reference to cladding
00:46:25 cladding here again is there no now you say in your statement that you were frustrated that things weren't resolved before going to tender for the
00:46:36 resolved before going to tender for the transcript that's paragraph three two three of your statement on page one three one can we just go to an email you sent at the time this is sca409809
00:46:54 and if we can blow up the top this is you to claire williams on the 11th of november 2013. and in that first paragraph you say claire apologies if that was the impression and importantly you say this i'm
00:47:06 and importantly you say this i'm frustrated that the fire strategy principle has not been agreed prior to tender
00:47:11 tender and i would expect expect the tmo to be as well
00:47:14 as well i thought you needed to know given the magnitude of design risk associated with fire
00:47:20 fire and then you say these are strictly m e items and i don't see as achieving resolution before the end of the week do you
00:47:26 you do you see that i think you need to show the preceding email too yes see the content sorry i don't think it's on this if we go down the page yeah
00:47:38 if we go down the page yeah um
00:47:43 she's saying to you you sound like fed up of hammersmith and i think you're what you're doing there
00:47:50 there and you can see it from there the blue text is
00:47:53 text is uh she's extracted a bit of uh paul hanson's email on the smoke control system and you were all discussing that does that previous email to this which she responds to okay
00:48:07 which she responds to okay that's the context fine can we go back up to the top of the page in your email when when you say i thought you needed to know given the magnitude of design risk associated with fire can you just
00:48:19 risk associated with fire can you just explain
00:48:20 explain what you meant by that in this email
00:48:25 the context was discussing the meetings that we'd had to discuss the um to try and agree the smoke strategy yeah
00:48:37 the smoke strategy yeah that was the original email and claire had picked up a from my tone which i hadn't intended to portray
00:48:48 portray but i was frustrated yeah
00:48:53 was there any sense in which you were pushing for building control to endorse the proposals at an early stage because you yourself didn't feel confident in your own ability to spot
00:49:04 confident in your own ability to spot problems is that any part of your thinking
00:49:07 thinking i'm sorry you you're completely taking it out of context the original email discussed the the meetings we'd had between building control and max fordham to discuss the
00:49:18 control and max fordham to discuss the smoke
00:49:19 smoke exhaust strategy bearing in mind that had been flagged by x over from the very beginning as as a significant significant concern
00:49:30 as a significant significant concern and from my position as a lead designer i saw it as having a potentially huge knock-on to to the feasibility of what we were
00:49:42 to to the feasibility of what we were doing okay do you accept that potentially due to your inexperience on projects like this it just didn't occur to you that there might be compliance issues with the cladding
00:49:53 compliance issues with the cladding proposals
00:49:56 proposals again i can't see the context pardon i can't see the context for that question well we've looked at several emails and there's been no discussion with building control about the cladding
00:50:08 control about the cladding and what i'm putting to you is is do you think that perhaps due to your inexperience it simply wasn't occurring to you that there might be compliance issues with the cutting proposals
00:50:19 proposals i don't think we had planning approval yet for the for the scheme as a whole so we weren't yet i mean yes we we were trying to finalize our our
00:50:30 we were trying to finalize our our scheme but i don't think we had am i confusing myself no at this point we were concentrating on
00:50:39 on the critical items and you didn't see cladding as a critical item for the point of view of building control approval
00:50:48 no it is of course it is but to see it as a
00:50:54 as a strategic issue at this point i don't agree is it's true okay now claire williams responds to you the same day can we look at that this is
00:51:06 same day can we look at that this is sea zeros nine eight one four
00:51:17 and she says this don't worry i was only teasing
00:51:20 teasing i'm not sure if the building regulations chap is being lazy or maybe has had a run-in with firebots and so wants to make sure they won't bat it back
00:51:31 it back you are right it's a major part of the scheme and we are being held back by this procedural glitch do you see that there yes was it your view did you share her view that building control
00:51:43 building control uh was being lazy i mean to be fair she says i'm not sure if he is but she raises that as a possibility did you think that no
00:51:55 now if we go keep following the chronology of what was going on with building control you then provided some further information relating to the fire strategy plans to building control on the 3rd of december
00:52:07 building control on the 3rd of december 2013. that's a paragraph 324 of your witness statement and then you receive feedback from paul hansen on the 31st of december 2013.
00:52:18 hansen on the 31st of december 2013. um can we look at your statement with this
00:52:21 this this paragraph 339 of your statement sca 3014273 at page 139
00:52:35 um so there's a heading there building control fire safety and smoke ventilation between december and march 14 and you say building control provided feedback
00:52:45 feedback on bcp1 on the 31st of december 2013 and then you say what that included and it included
00:52:52 included b1 means of escape observations and then a copy of a fire strategy drawing with comments
00:52:57 comments in blue and copy of the far access plans do you see that yes the bcp-1 the p1 submission to building control
00:53:09 the p1 submission to building control can you just explain what p1 means
00:53:12 um that was the name given by paul henson to his markup yeah okay so that's like a code he's um
00:53:22 he's um used for that particular submission to him yes um and we can see from your paragraph below that
00:53:32 that um that you've summarized the feedback that you were getting and in summary building control was still saying it didn't have enough information to consult the lfb
00:53:44 information to consult the lfb and this is in relation to the smoke control system is that correct yes that was my understanding yeah
00:53:52 now paragraph 341 just a little bit further on you say sorry let's just bring that up you say that i was surprised by the level of detail and effort that building
00:54:03 level of detail and effort that building control had gone to which in my experience was unusual we'd not yet made the formal application and you say building control's engagement gave me comfort that from a fire perspective and on the level
00:54:15 from a fire perspective and on the level of detail provided there was nothing that might pose a risk to the project prior to the tender being awarded do you see that there yes but we've been through the documents
00:54:27 through the documents and we've agreed that the detail you'd provided by that stage did not cover the cladding did it no so is it right that from a fire perspective you couldn't take any
00:54:38 perspective you couldn't take any comfort from building control scrutiny on that aspect of the proposals could you
00:54:44 could you why not i i didn't um i didn't see them as separate departments on different sections how would building control even know that over cladding was
00:54:56 control even know that over cladding was part of your proposals at this point
00:55:01 i can't evidence it but i cannot i would expect that at every introductory every engagement the introduction would describe
00:55:13 introduction would describe the nature of the project which would include a description of the new windows and the overclouding but you hadn't provided any specific detail had you to building control by this point no so there were no you're asking me
00:55:25 no so there were no you're asking me whether they ought to have known and i or whether they how they would have known and i'm
00:55:33 i believe i would have told them at the first meeting the overcladding was part of the proposal was part of the overall scheme
00:55:43 would you accept that your main concern at this point seemed to be maintaining momentum
00:55:48 momentum on the project
00:55:55 [Music] this was new year new year's eve tenders have been issued what's the concept for your question sorry
00:56:06 sorry well um i'm asking you whether you thought your main concern by this point was to
00:56:12 was to maintain momentum on the project the project was out to tender we were
00:56:20 awaiting tinder returns okay now we know that these comments from paul hansen that he gave on the 31st of december 2013 they were passed from mr crawford to ryden much later
00:56:32 crawford to ryden much later in september 2014. um do you know had those comments been passed to ryden any earlier than that
00:56:44 passed to ryden any earlier than that i can't offend i can't remember no so let's move forward in time to february 2014
00:56:52 would you agree that during this period and up to the submission of the full plans application your dealings with building control focused almost exclusively on the smoke ventilation system and means of escape
00:57:10 i think i can only point to that p1 summary from paul henson those are the issues i think i covered a bit more than that
00:57:20 that can we look at a document let's go to
00:57:24 exo50621
00:57:32 if you can blow up the top top of that page this is an email from you to claire williams on the 14th of february 2014 and you say there
00:57:43 2014 and you say there please see attached our fire strategy drawings
00:57:46 drawings both the originals and the documents received from building control and then you say this i would hesitate sending these as is they have taken a very conservative line and we haven't begun further
00:57:57 line and we haven't begun further negotiations i'm copying terry in he may have an opinion so you've copied terry ashton in there do you see that yes now um
00:58:09 yes now um on what basis were you saying there that they'd taken a very conservative line
00:58:17 why did you say that i'm afraid i'm going to just rely on my memory here which which isn't um i haven't got it in front of me what was
00:58:29 i haven't got it in front of me what was on the attachment but i i think in my report i discussed the the marking of a and b that paul hanson had
00:58:38 had given to various service risers and cupboards
00:58:41 cupboards off the
00:58:44 central lobbies suggesting he didn't want us to to to use them
00:58:52 and i thought that that may pose a problem for us in routing service new services up the building okay i want to put to you that that seems to be quite a dismissive comment
00:59:03 seems to be quite a dismissive comment about the building control response would you accept that
00:59:10 dismissive yeah they've taken a very conservative line no why would it be dismissive um we we have to respect building control i see so you're just
00:59:22 building control i see so you're just stating as a matter of fact your belief that they had taken a conservative line is that right i knew that we had to find roots for the new heating pipes and water
00:59:34 the new heating pipes and water supply pipes and that detail hadn't been fully resolved yet and that may require some
00:59:42 enclosures to be created or existing enclosures to be reused and in principle i couldn't see why that couldn't be done okay as was done
00:59:55 couldn't be done okay as was done okay in the event now keep moving forward with the chronology on the 29th of june 2014 you submitted an application to rbkc planning department
01:00:06 planning department for their approval for cassette fixed acm panels um we don't need to go go to that but after that you were in discussions with rbkc planning about the finish and color of
01:00:18 planning about the finish and color of the acm panels and the method of fixing that's correct correct isn't it yes
01:00:26 now i want to go to an email at towards the end of july if we can bring up
01:00:40 sca50175
01:00:45 yes so this is an email from you dated the 24th of july 2014 to john allen of rbkc building control copying in neil crawford and simon lawrence informing him that studio e
01:00:57 lawrence informing him that studio e would be leading on building control do you see that in the the second paragraph yes so you say we understand the client's
01:01:08 so you say we understand the client's budget is 8.5 million the application will be made by the design and bill contractor ryden who are on site
01:01:15 on site studio e's appointment has been evaded to ryden and we will be leading on gaining approval that was leading on gaining building control approval is that correct yes
01:01:28 so was it your understanding at the time that it was studio e's responsibility to liaise with building control at that time yes yeah now in the next paragraph
01:01:38 paragraph you say this or the last sentence of that email you say the fire strategy was a tricky subject and we would like to engage on this as soon as possible can you recall what you what you meant
01:01:49 can you recall what you what you meant by that the fire strategy was a tricky subject
01:01:54 i can't remember exactly what i thought at the time that i believe i would have been referring to the
01:02:02 the the outstanding smoke exhaust issue which still presents at risk right now on the 4th of august 2014 you then submitted the full plans
01:02:13 then submitted the full plans application form to rbkc uh if we can go and look at the email which accompanied that this is a ryd three zeros one four three seven eight
01:02:32 so this is you to john allen and it's headed grenfell tower refurbishment full plans application and you say please see attach the
01:02:43 and you say please see attach the completed full plans application form for grenfell tower and then you say hard copy
01:02:48 hard copy and drawings to follow do you see that there yes
01:02:52 there yes did you mean hard copy of the form and drawings to follow
01:03:01 that sounds like what i meant yes and hard copies of the drawings also to follow yes do you know whether hard copies of the drawings were ever submitted
01:03:12 drawings were ever submitted to the building control department of rbkc
01:03:16 rbkc um i'm not sure you're not you're not sure i didn't submit them okay was that because it was neil crawford who was dealing with it at that
01:03:27 crawford who was dealing with it at that point
01:03:29 point do you know whether studio e kept a record
01:03:33 record of exactly what drawings were submitted with
01:03:36 with uh associated with the full plans application
01:03:41 the way we conventionally do is we we would
01:03:44 would for a significant issue create a folder and put
01:03:48 and put all the documents in it so that you had a snapshot of that submission so we normally would yes and i think we did do you agree that it was important to
01:04:00 do you agree that it was important to keep a record so that you could check what information the building control body had been supplied with yes now let's just look at the form itself this is a
01:04:11 itself this is a three zeros one four three seven nine
01:04:21 so this is the form that goes in and i believe it's signed but not dated
01:04:33 is there another page to this document no sorry if we go back i've just seen where i meant yes so um can you see you've signed it in the middle and there's your signature
01:04:45 in the middle and there's your signature but there's no date on it yes do you know why there was no date i understood that it would be
01:04:56 understood that it would be enclosed with the check and the drawings as a hard copy okay so i didn't date it now you've said here um in the box below that the date the work will start
01:05:09 that the date the work will start this is your handwriting is it yes yeah the date the work will start is the week commencing the 18th of august 2014. do you see that there yes but it's right isn't it that some work did start on site as early as the
01:05:21 work did start on site as early as the 2nd of june 2014 is that correct i can't recall exactly what work was being undertaken i think some demolition and mobilizing
01:05:32 i think some demolition and mobilizing work had started earlier than that so you can't explain for us
01:05:37 for us why the 18th of august was picked as that date
01:05:43 no i can remember discussing this with simon and him asking me to complete it but i can't remember the how the dates were arrived at do you agree on large projects it's
01:05:55 at do you agree on large projects it's common for information and drawings to be supplied to building control as the project progresses my understanding is there's usually a
01:06:07 my understanding is there's usually a upfront
01:06:08 upfront submission of drawings to establish the principles and thereafter the detail the finer detail of different elements is issued over time yes
01:06:22 is issued over time yes yes and and what i'm going to put to you is that that's in fact what happened on the grenfell tower project that um drawings and information were issued piecemeal after that form had gone in
01:06:34 piecemeal after that form had gone in is that correct
01:06:37 um
01:06:41 piecemeals suggests incomplete but i believe that is typically how building control applications are dealt with
01:06:50 did you keep a tracker of which drawings and information had been submitted to rbkc
01:06:56 rbkc no i didn't no can you help us as to why not
01:07:08 the person managing the application is usually the one who who would um may i mean the option of a tracker is is it's a management
01:07:19 management device and even discussing it makes it sound like it's inevitable it's not but it is commonly used as a way of tracking the the items that building
01:07:31 tracking the the items that building control have agreed it's right isn't it that there was no tracker kept by studio e of which buildings which drawings have been submitted to building control well the tracker doesn't track the
01:07:42 well the tracker doesn't track the drawings it tracks the the sections of the the approved document which are relevant and the dates of sign off and okay
01:07:55 and the dates of sign off and okay in other words so it's um you're looking to take yeah all the rows that that you've agreed all the items but you didn't studio didn't operate one of those did they did they did studio e keep any other form of
01:08:07 did studio e keep any other form of record
01:08:08 record that would allow you to check what have been submitted
01:08:15 we do keep drawing issue sheets and that would typically apply on on this issue as well we would we would record an issue on a drawing sheet
01:08:27 drawing sheet okay we're going to come back in a little while and just have a look at what was on the drawing issue sheet for building control but what i want to ask is if you didn't have a tracker
01:08:36 tracker or another formal record how are you going to ensure that rbkc had all of the relevant information to be able to decide whether the works complied with the building regulations
01:08:48 i repeat i don't think the tracker is focused on the documents as much as it is focused on the sections of the proof document
01:09:03 so for instance you may require very little to satisfy certain aspects and a lot more on others each project will vary
01:09:13 and those drawings and that information would come from various sources but without that kind of tool whether it was as you describe um how was studio e going to
01:09:25 um how was studio e going to satisfy itself that all the relevant information had been provided to building control i think this overlaps with neil's um
01:09:37 i think this overlaps with neil's um evidence
01:09:39 evidence and and i think he does comment on on his engagement with bill and control and how they wanted to handle
01:09:48 handle the flow of information okay
01:09:52 now um do you think we always be having a break soon yes i do and i'm very conscious of that i was wondering whether i might be able to get to the end of this topic and then break but if you'd rather break
01:10:03 break but if you'd rather break see well we've been running an hour in 10 minutes yeah and um i think probably this is a good moment yes could we say 10 minutes um i'm just conscious that we are very
01:10:14 um i'm just conscious that we are very careful about length of breaks don't we i i think it would be unwise to try and shorten them too much okay 15 minutes mr stones we're going to have a break now um we'll come back at 20 to 4 please
01:10:27 um we'll come back at 20 to 4 please and no talking about the your evidence or anything to do with it when you're out of the room all right thank you very much
01:10:46 twenty to four of them please
01:25:26 still working yes would you ask mr sons to come back please
01:25:43 all right mr sam's ready to get on yes good yes
01:25:46 good yes yes thank you um just picking up again on the topic of the full plans application that went in on the 5th of august 2014 can we turn up a document sca 3011398
01:26:12 now um this is an email i think at the bottom of the page
01:26:21 from um john allen to rbk to you thank you for your summary of the costs and the point i'm asked to put to you is that can you confirm that mr allen
01:26:32 is that can you confirm that mr allen rbkc had asked you to submit a set of drawings
01:26:36 drawings with the full plans application form
01:26:45 sorry you're asking me if it's not mentioned there no i can see it's not mentioned there is the second page to this email
01:26:56 no can we go back to the first page
01:27:03 yes i think you get it actually from your response um to ryden do you see you then forward this on to zach maynard and simon lawrence of ryden in that last
01:27:15 simon lawrence of ryden in that last paragraph you say he wants a set of drawings to accompany the submission but it probably makes sense to hold on the drawings until we've got confirmation on the flats and ground floor changes do you see that yes so can i just confirm that it was
01:27:28 yes so can i just confirm that it was your understanding at the time that building control had wanted a full set of drawings to accompany the submission
01:27:37 i think they would expect drawings yes yeah
01:27:41 yeah now just before we get to the the first big pack of drawings that were submitted can we look at sca50189
01:27:57 and this is an email if we just blow it up
01:28:01 up from simon lawrence to john hoban copying you and others in and this is where he is introducing
01:28:12 and this is where he is introducing himself mr lawrence is the ride and contracts manager he says we haven't been introduced properly yet but i am ryden's contract manager for the grenfell tower project and then he says i understand that you
01:28:23 and then he says i understand that you dropped into our site office recently and had a brief introduction to the project and drawings from our project manager simon o'connor do you see that there yes and then in that final paragraph he says studio er
01:28:34 that final paragraph he says studio er our architects lead designers who will forward all relevant drawings etc in the future i believe you already know them from your work on the project next door so hopefully this will make things easier
01:28:46 hopefully this will make things easier i'll ask them to arrange a meeting with yourself on site shortly do you see that yes
01:28:54 um and um it's suggesting that in that first paragraph that john hoban had popped into the site office and seen some drawings on site
01:29:05 some drawings on site were you aware of that at the time um not before i i can't recall being aware of it before this email
01:29:18 and um he's saying in that last very last sentence i will ask them that's you studio e to arrange a meeting with yourself
01:29:25 yourself on site shortly with john hogan did you have a meeting with him on site after this i i didn't personally i wasn't confronting it at
01:29:36 personally i wasn't confronting it at that point now sticking with the chronology then on the so the full plans application goes in on the 5th of august 2014 and then that's the form and then
01:29:47 2014 and then that's the form and then on the 24th of september 2014 neil crawford sends a pack of drawings to rbkc building control can we just look at that this is
01:30:04 ryd3018742
01:30:11 so this is um we can see from the top neil crawford to john hoban now you're not copied into that had you had a discussion with mr crawford about which drawings would be sent to building control
01:30:24 it's too long ago to remember a specific conversation okay were you aware that this first big pack of drawings that went still had the cladding panels labeled as zinc
01:30:37 again i
01:30:41 i wasn't um thinking of it at the time so um i wasn't aware of what was or wasn't on the drawing
01:30:52 what was or wasn't on the drawing although i would have expected neil to submit the tender set at this stage the tender step set set of drawings yes so that would have shown zinc but
01:31:03 so that would have shown zinc but events had moved on hadn't it i mean by this stage the acm had very clearly been selected hadn't it um
01:31:13 we didn't have planning as yet approval for the
01:31:18 sorry i can't remember the exact date of hand now for the material submission but it i don't think it was fully confirmed and and in a um first submission you you you would
01:31:30 first submission you you you would expect to follow up with more detail so a general arrangement even if it's not sorry a section or elevate detail section and elevation even if not um entirely accurate would still be
01:31:43 um entirely accurate would still be valid as a to show the scope
01:31:48 i see um did you know that these drawings did not include details of the insulation that was going to be used on the columns or behind the spandrels
01:32:02 i wasn't sure what what was submitted and
01:32:05 and if it's not in the drawing in the form of
01:32:09 of explicit notes which wasn't our customer customers to use mbs codes i i guess i didn't know no okay had you known
01:32:22 i didn't know no okay had you known those things that it was still labeled zinc and it didn't show what insulation was to be used is that something you would have asked mr crawford to correct before the drawings went in not necessarily i i think typically
01:32:38 individual items are are considered in turn
01:32:42 turn and insulation was one of them so just because it wasn't um annotated on every drawing it doesn't suggest there's a something missing but
01:32:54 suggest there's a something missing but in terms of my question was also about the zinc wasn't it important to send building control accurate information so that they could do their job properly
01:33:07 in the context of the first submission or in context of subsequent submissions because i i can't disagree with that statement
01:33:14 statement but this first um as is usually the case the the first um set of drawings is to provide the specifically the fire strategy and an
01:33:26 specifically the fire strategy and an overview of the project i see so you didn't think it was important to be providing all the up-to-date details in that first submission
01:33:39 i don't think we were at the point of detailed design of the envelope at this point i'm not talking about detailed design i'm talking about the selection of the materials to be used
01:33:52 i think those would in building control's mind as in our mind to some extent were deferred so no i don't think it was essential that your submission was um
01:34:05 essential that your submission was um 100 consistent with what you were going to build okay now in fact we we can see from the documents so that that pack of drawings goes on the 24th of september 2014 and on the 25th of september 2014 the
01:34:18 and on the 25th of september 2014 the very next day the planners approved the smoke silver acm panels they'd previously been going towards the champagne color and then on the 25th of september it was the smoked silver acm panels
01:34:30 smoked silver acm panels that were approved for the transcript that's at ibi401802 now that was clearly an important milestone in the project wasn't it
01:34:41 milestone in the project wasn't it yes the approval of those acm panels did it occur to you at the time that studio e would need to update building control of the change from zinc to acm
01:34:56 i repeat i think each item is considered in turn
01:35:00 in turn and they would need more detail than what was provided on our ga set i believe to confirm to confirm their agreement okay
01:35:13 to confirm their agreement okay did you ever tell building control that there had been a change from zinc to acm
01:35:21 i can't recall having conversations now and and by this stage we know you'd received a copy of the bba certificate
01:35:33 received a copy of the bba certificate do you agree that the bba certificate should have been sent on to building
01:35:40 control we the elements of the construction are usually considered in turn um so for instance whether it be a mechanical
01:35:51 mechanical aspect um
01:35:55 aspect um obviously the cladding the windows and each would be submitted with relevant details to building control to confirm agreement yes and i'm asking was the bba certificate ever submitted to building
01:36:07 certificate ever submitted to building control because we can't see any record that that ever happened i'm not aware obviously i was not and you never checked with any colleagues that that had been done no
01:36:20 um during his oral evidence mr crawford said that he understood from conversations with you that building control
01:36:28 control were aware of the facade design and the materials specified to be used within it before the full plans application was made in august 2014. he said that on day 11 at page 141
01:36:40 2014. he said that on day 11 at page 141 now is that right
01:36:44 had you told mr crawford that building control were aware of the facade design and the materials specified to be used within it
01:36:52 within it before the full plans went went in
01:36:56 i'd the only comment which i've just made is that i believe i would have explained the nature of the refurbishment but i can't recall any instance where i'd discuss the
01:37:08 any instance where i'd discuss the materials okay building control now we know that following the submission of the full plans application you handed over responsibility for liaising to neil crawford did you retain any oversight of what he
01:37:19 oversight of what he was doing on building control issues
01:37:25 [Music]
01:37:29 no not on not an ongoing basis no i was i was monitoring as in i was copied in but i wasn't checking no okay
01:37:43 checking no okay did you personally ever meet with mr hoban
01:37:47 hoban to discuss the cladding for the project with him
01:37:52 no i think i had the one meeting with john hurban
01:37:59 i can't remember the date now but it was well in advance of the application so you can't recall ever discussing the cladding with mr hoban you personally no
01:38:11 or approved document b you didn't have any discussions with him about that i think it was a meeting with um matt smith from max fordham one of the early
01:38:22 smith from max fordham one of the early meetings i believe i met with john obama i think i do not recall the contents apart from what's noted in minutes
01:38:31 minutes and emails i can't remember okay specific now mr crawford said in his oral evidence that he had workshops on site with building control to discuss the cavity barrier strategy
01:38:45 to discuss the cavity barrier strategy he said there had been one of these workshops before christmas in 2014 and one in mid-february 2015 and he thought another one in late march april 2015. that was at day 11 page 14
01:38:58 april 2015. that was at day 11 page 14 line two and following did you attend any such workshops with building control no do you recall mr crawford attending them
01:39:08 them were you aware that he was attending workshops with building control in those times i can't be precise i knew he was visiting site but i can't be precise
01:39:19 precise can you help us as to why there might be no written record of any such workshops with building control having taken place on those occasions
01:39:28 occasions no now just before i finish this topic i want to turn to one specific issue about the rating of the cavity barriers we've already been through some questions about harley's query in march
01:39:40 questions about harley's query in march 2015 about the cavity barriers whether they should be 120 minutes or 30 minutes
01:39:46 minutes and now on the 6th of march you were ceced into some further emails from neil crawford where he was trying to find out the answer to harley's queries and i want to look at
01:39:59 queries and i want to look at an email you sent so this is sea three zeros one
01:40:02 zeros one two nine one five
01:40:14 yes if we can look at that email at the top of the page this is you in march 2015 to neil crawford and simon lawrence and you're saying there that you went to eco build yesterday and stopped at the
01:40:25 eco build yesterday and stopped at the stand of phil mettelbaugh and you say they had a large picture of great arthur house on their wall
01:40:33 wall um and then in the second
01:40:38 paragraph you say also quite prominent on the wall was a uk rezzy tower over cladding project he explained that mullally had screwed up and kier i think it was had called phil metelbau
01:40:49 phil metelbau in to replace every panel and make good on a time charge basis and then he said franz made several disparaging comments about mullally workmanship and you see there and the last bullet
01:41:00 and you see there and the last bullet point you've got there is no fire stops do you see that yes and you say i'm sure paul hansen is going to be very particular about fire stops at grenfell tower do you see that yes
01:41:12 that yes um what did you mean when you said this about
01:41:15 about paul hansen being particular about fire stops wasn't it john hoban who was leading on the cladding
01:41:23 no um most of the meaningful engagement i'd had up to that point was with paul henson i see i i thought he he led
01:41:35 i see i i thought he he led that department that was my impression right was this email intended by you as a strong prod to neil crawford and simon lawrence to
01:41:48 to neil crawford and simon lawrence to get it right in terms of the fire stopping within the overcladding what was the purpose for you sending this email
01:42:03 i actually think it may have something to do with the great arthur house
01:42:10 and that's where i think it might have started i think ryden had bid for that project with harley
01:42:19 and i think i had learned that by then
01:42:26 um and of course i was just relating some of the information from
01:42:33 from um and of course milali were one of the tenders on on the contract on the grenfell tower and that that was really the extent of
01:42:45 and that that was really the extent of the interest of the email in the light of that email did you ever check what information had been provided to rbkc building control about cavity barriers at this point no
01:42:57 at this point no okay so i want to move on to some different topics and just very quickly um the building control alliance did you know that at the time of the grenfell
01:43:08 know that at the time of the grenfell project the building control alliance the bca
01:43:11 the bca had issued guidance documents for the construction industry did you know that and did you ever read a bca guidance document entitled technical guidance note 18
01:43:22 technical guidance note 18 use of combustible cladding materials on residential buildings was dated june 2014 no no okay hand over to mr crawford
01:43:33 no okay hand over to mr crawford uh there's my next topic you've said that from july 2014 neil crawford began to take on the role of the studio a day-to-day contact on the project that's correct isn't it yes
01:43:45 the project that's correct isn't it yes why was it that you became less involved in the project
01:43:50 hmm i obviously moved on to other things so i'm sorry i can't give you more detail i haven't tried to and focus on that
01:44:04 tried to and focus on that did it reflect a decision made within studio e to allocate more junior resources to the project and divert more senior resources to other work
01:44:15 no um neil had to a large extent perform my role on grenfell from the beginning on the
01:44:26 on grenfell from the beginning on the calc project so he he had um with andre front of the academy project and he had seen it through to completion
01:44:40 i wouldn't regard niels jr so i don't agree with your statement okay now mr crawford has told us um in paragraph 25.1 of his statement
01:44:51 um in paragraph 25.1 of his statement that according to his outlook calendar on the 13th of august 2014 you and him had a handover discussion meeting regarding the project do you recall that meeting
01:45:03 recall that meeting possibly um but not most conversations i can't recall
01:45:12 do you recall um planning what you were going to say to mr crawford at that handover meeting about what remained to be done on the project
01:45:28 no i mean there would have been a point at which we sat down but but here i'm i'm trying to reconstruct it
01:45:37 it okay there would have been a point do you recall anything about the content of that handover meeting no no do you think you might have told mr crawford that there was relatively
01:45:48 mr crawford that there was relatively little left to do on the project
01:45:54 i don't think that was my impression at the time
01:45:59 the time was there a standard procedure within studio e for how these handovers happened or was it done on an informal basis
01:46:06 basis i would i would say it was informal because
01:46:11 because it took place over a period and there was no
01:46:16 was no sudden um handover that i didn't disappear i was always available
01:46:24 so does it follow that you can't really tell us anything now about what was included as part of that handover and what you discussed
01:46:34 i no i can't remember anything in detail
01:46:39 just one specific point did did you instruct mr crawford that x over would need to update their outline fire strategy analysis do you remember having that conversation with him i don't believe i did
01:46:51 don't believe i did you don't believe you did have that no did you ever tell mr crawford what the bespoke terms were which ryden had proposed in 2014
01:47:04 do you remember discussing the terms of the ryden appointment with mr crawford
01:47:09 i might have done but i can't remember so you don't recall going through the terms and checking that mr crawford understood what he was to do in the schedule
01:47:20 schedule the schedule of services that was attached to that no i don't think i did
01:47:34 okay can we go to an email this is sca3013741
01:47:50 can we go to an email this is sca3013741 this is an email to you from daniel banks
01:47:54 banks on the 14th of december 2015. and he says to you thanks for your email i'm conscious we have outstanding appointments and warranties for the following
01:48:04 following jobs and he's got leebridge road frognal place grenfell towers and he says you previously commented on the form and warranty of the deed of appointment those are the projects that are being
01:48:15 those are the projects that are being mentioned there for ryden lee bridge and frognal place project can you remember how big those projects were
01:48:30 lee bridge was quite a substantial project but i [Applause] and i i won't hazard a guess as to the value but it it was um
01:48:42 in walthamstow a police station or police station was being converted into a
01:48:49 into a hostel with two new build blocks next um either side
01:48:56 from a place like it was um change of use and alter in turn mostly internal alterations to a series of units yeah but i can't i
01:49:07 to a series of units yeah but i can't i wouldn't hazard a value of that if it helps these other projects on ryden's websites were said to be seven million pound and 6.1 million pound projects respectively
01:49:18 6.1 million pound projects respectively so they're not small projects are they but i didn't realize frognal was that scale
01:49:26 scale what i want to ask you is did studio e's work on these other projects affect the extent to which it was able to devote resources to the grenfell project there were different people involved
01:49:37 there were different people involved completely
01:49:41 was that the reason why mr crawford appears to have been effectively the sole
01:49:45 sole studio e professional engaged on the project from july 2014 onwards
01:49:53 i don't connect the lee bridge and frogmo
01:49:56 frogmo place projects with grenfell um had neil required resource he would have got it to assist okay so you don't think that resourcing
01:50:08 okay so you don't think that resourcing within studio e uh affected the extent to which you were able to service the grenfell project after july 2014. okay
01:50:19 after july 2014. okay quality assurance and document control um iso 9001 are you familiar with bs iso 9001
01:50:31 bs iso 9001 on quality management systems i'm not very familiar with it but i know of it i see do you know if during your involvement on the project a quality management system was in place in accordance with iso 9001
01:50:45 accordance with iso 9001 within studio e we had a system which was
01:50:50 was audited
01:50:52 audited which i think includes what you referred to okay i want to ask you some questions about documentary control processes
01:51:02 processes and output um do you agree that a quality assurance system compliant with the standards of iso 9001 would demand a structured
01:51:13 9001 would demand a structured accessible and well-maintained document control system
01:51:18 yes and are you familiar with um the re riba handbook of practice management ninth edition um
01:51:29 ninth edition um can we can we have a look at that uh this is a inq3011309
01:51:41 and i want to look on page 135 at paragraph 11.2.3 under the heading project related risks
01:51:56 and i in that second paragraph this is what i wanted to to draw your attention to it says particular attention should be paid to establishing a good document storage and retrieval system which will make documents easy to find
01:52:08 which will make documents easy to find should suggestions of breach of duty be made and that a clear record is maintained showing exactly what was issued to whom and when do you see that there yes would you agree that that was important
01:52:19 you agree that that was important yes and were you aware of that at the time you were working on the grenfell project
01:52:25 project i can't say i was aware of that paragraph but the principle is is certainly one i was aware of i think we touched on it earlier do you agree that through the life of an
01:52:37 agree that through the life of an architectural project all documentation issued to clients consultants and statutory authorities should be recorded on a drawing issue register that's the convention i wouldn't say it's some requirement but
01:52:50 i wouldn't say it's some requirement but that's
01:52:51 that's a convention which goes back a long way to recording issues and do you agree that it should contain the the names of recipients of those drawings and the dates that they were sent
01:53:03 were sent that's usually what's contained on the joint sheet yes yeah can we then look at the document sea three zeros one three five one two and i need the offline version
01:53:16 offline version it's a document entitled document register and issue
01:53:24 advice
01:53:38 now if we look um on the right hand side at the top we can see this is a studio e document and it has a number of dates on the top right hand
01:53:49 a number of dates on the top right hand side
01:53:51 side um and we can see the register runs from the 12th of september 2013 through to the 29th of october 2014 and actually it goes if we go to page
01:54:03 and actually it goes if we go to page four
01:54:04 four it goes beyond that to the 6th of july 2015
01:54:11 yes if you can see that at the top so it's running through to 2015. now if we scroll down to the bottom we can see the distribution list on page two
01:54:25 do you see that there yes
01:54:29 and it appears from the face of this document that there is no record of any information issue being made to either x over
01:54:38 over or rbkc building control they are outlined here on this distribution list do you see that yes so it doesn't seem to record that at
01:54:50 yes so it doesn't seem to record that at any time throughout that period september 13th to july 2015 what information was issued to building control orex over
01:55:00 now is it right that the document register and issue advice this should have recorded key my milestones in terms of the issue of documents yes and do you agree that it should have
01:55:12 yes and do you agree that it should have recorded those drawings issued to x over and to building control for example that the pack of drawings that were sent on the 24th of september 2014 following the full plans application
01:55:25 plans application yes would you agree that the failure to record what drawings were issued to building control on x over is is a serious omission on studio's part
01:55:36 it would be on a mission if there was no record but i believe there are records i see so so it is it is not good practice
01:55:45 practice to not maintain a drawing sheet but there is a record do you mean there's records because we can look back at emails and piecemeals i see but you're accepting that it
01:55:57 i see but you're accepting that it wasn't good practice because good practice would have meant including it in this kind of register yes yeah that's fair thanks
01:56:09 and so do you agree that it's not it's not possible to determine by looking at this register whether building control or xover might have been missing any particularly key documents
01:56:20 documents yes now quality assurance and technical reviews
01:56:25 reviews um i want to ask you some questions about studio e's system of internal reviews and if we look at your witness statement this is sea
01:56:34 sea three zeroes one four two seven three at page 62 and i want to look at paragraph 130
01:56:45 so you say here i should also note that studio e has an internal technical review process which involves a design review and a technical review by studio e employees not otherwise involved in the
01:56:57 employees not otherwise involved in the project
01:56:58 project internal reviews are part of our iso 9001 quality assurance process they're conducted at key stages in the project and are intended to be a peer review of the work in progress to share thoughts and cross-check that
01:57:10 to share thoughts and cross-check that all relevant issues are being considered i carried out a technical review for the project after neil became involved this is discussed further below do you see that there yes so you're talking about
01:57:23 yes so you're talking about both design reviews and technical reviews
01:57:27 reviews um and is it correct that a technical review will focus on technical considerations such as the choice and arrangement of materials and components to achieve the performance objectives
01:57:39 to achieve the performance objectives such as thermal insulation weather protection and fire safety
01:57:45 the design review would normally [Music]
01:57:49 [Music] i'm talking about the technical reviews so the technical review would obviously occur when the project is ideally approaching um site so yes it would it would
01:58:01 um site so yes it would it would include an overview of any technical aspect and do you agree that such reviews would seek to ensure that the construction documentation either drawing schedules specification are all
01:58:13 drawing schedules specification are all in
01:58:14 in are in all respects functional and fit for purpose and fully compliant with the relevant standards and statutory requirements that's that's a massive ask i i wouldn't
01:58:27 that's a massive ask i i wouldn't i don't believe our qa was quite so extensive okay do you agree that technical reviews might be informal taking place at short
01:58:38 might be informal taking place at short notice to discuss a particular aspect of the work
01:58:43 there wouldn't necessarily be a short notice or or even duration they may focus on specific issues which
01:58:56 specific issues which one or other party thinks is more relevant than others i see do you agree that they could also be formal
01:59:03 be formal scheduled events which are documented that they were meant to be documented yeah yeah
01:59:10 yeah yeah is it fair to say that without any formal technical review process there's no way of monitoring the quality of the work that's produced
01:59:20 that's that's a bit blanket i think everything
01:59:28 any architects office produces is monitored day by day
01:59:34 the technical reviews is um or the qa is a way of
01:59:38 a way of making sure that something hasn't been missed
01:59:42 missed and that everything has been done as expected
01:59:47 let's see now if we look at paragraph 131 of your witness statement three lines down from the beginning you say there based on our quality management system i believe that our
01:59:59 management system i believe that our internal design and technical reviews for the project took place in february 2013 and october 2015 respectively do you see that yeah and then you say however there was likely to have been
02:00:10 however there was likely to have been some discussion of the project at the calc design and technical reviews held in
02:00:15 in september 2012. do you see that yeah so is it right that there was only one technical review on the grenfell tower project and that was in october 2015.
02:00:27 was in october 2015. yes
02:00:30 and um you discussed the october 2015 review
02:00:35 review at paragraph 470.6 of your statement this is at page 182 we can just look at that
02:00:44 and you say on the 28th of october 2015 i took part in an internal technical review of studio e's work on the project neil crawford studio issued the internal report the next day using the office
02:00:55 report the next day using the office template document which we would have both used as a checklist to discuss and agree whether there were any areas that needed to be investigated further
02:01:03 further i note it contained a comment regarding design standards and that it was designed to current housing approved document building regulations and british standards do you see that there yes
02:01:17 what i want to do is just look at the contemporaneous record of that review that's at sea three zeros 13508
02:01:29 now if we look at the top of the document
02:01:34 you are there recorded as the assessor in the middle of the page and mr crawford
02:01:41 crawford is recorded as the project architect can you explain why no one more senior at studio e was involved
02:01:49 involved in that technical review
02:01:56 the only ones more senior were andre or
02:02:01 david lloyd jones but i don't i think that's that was agree that's an acceptable level of seniority
02:02:13 you think that's an acceptable level of seniority to be doing the technical review is that what you're saying was it common at studio e for no more senior person to conduct them for example a partner or director
02:02:28 not necessarily no
02:02:34 now as october 2015 we know from other documents that the work to the external facade was 60 complete approximately and so this first technical review appears
02:02:45 so this first technical review appears to be undertaken when the construction of the external facade was 60 complete does that sound about right i can't dispute that
02:03:00 about right i can't dispute that now mr kushel said in his witness statement
02:03:04 statement paragraph 24.2 that a technical review usually occurs at riba stages e f would you agree with mr kushal that that's normally the stage where a technical review would be
02:03:15 where a technical review would be carried out yes so that would have been in late 2013 early 2014 before studio e was appointed by ryden is that correct
02:03:26 is that correct yes
02:03:29 yes would you agree that if the technical review
02:03:32 review meeting and we've i think we've agreed it was the first such review the meeting on the 28th of october 2015 then it's been carried out far too late in the project
02:03:44 in the project it is late yes were you aware of that at the time you were doing it yes now if we go back uh to this technical review and look at page two
02:03:55 page two under the heading project documents
02:04:02 states in relation to building regulations assessment sorry page two
02:04:16 you can see there under building regulations assessment it says um building control sign-off drawings have been issued and incrementally signed off agreed on site do you see that
02:04:28 site do you see that yes would you agree that that's in fact incorrect and that there had not been any
02:04:35 been any sign off of drawings by building control by this stage had there
02:04:44 i don't think that building controls issue anything until the final certificate so you may be justified in thinking you
02:04:55 so you may be justified in thinking you have had something signed off without a document so what do you mean there by building control sign-off drawings have been issued and incrementally signed off agreed on site what does that
02:05:06 signed off agreed on site what does that mean
02:05:12 i think sign off drawings is the hyphen is confusing i read that as
02:05:22 the drawings that have been submitted to building control incrementally and have been signed off stroke agreed on sight
02:05:32 does that clarify it not entirely what i want to put to you is that it's that's a misleading um summary of the the statutory approval process
02:05:44 process that building control hadn't been signing off drawings agreed on site
02:06:00 to the extent that you wouldn't get a signature for a drawing from building control i agree it's true but i think it is accurate to say that as an incremental
02:06:12 accurate to say that as an incremental procedure
02:06:13 procedure and it was ongoing at this stage okay so you really think there's some kind of implicit sign off by building control is that what you're trying to say yes
02:06:26 trying to say yes now at the bottom of the page we've got design standards and there's a comment there it says designed to current housing approved document building regulations and british standards where applicable
02:06:37 and british standards where applicable do you see that there yes now you've said approved document building regulations did you mean it's been designed in accordance with the approved documents
02:06:48 accordance with the approved documents and also it meets the building regulations that would be my understanding yes now but i think you've told us earlier today that in terms of compliance with part b
02:07:01 in terms of compliance with part b it hadn't been designed in accordance with approved document b
02:07:06 for fire no i thought it had i think that's that's accurate we believed that we were designing in
02:07:17 we believed that we were designing in accordance with i'm a proof document b you certainly told us in the context of the cavity barriers today that you found the guidance confusing and that you hadn't used it
02:07:28 that you hadn't used it for that aspect of the works no i disagree i i don't think the approved document can be used so literally that was my point
02:07:41 so literally that was my point okay well again i'm going to suggest that um in the light of what you've told us today that it's not correct to have recorded there that the design standard included the approved document if in fact you knew
02:07:52 approved document if in fact you knew that for certain aspects of the work you hadn't followed that that practical guidance
02:07:58 guidance no i i i'll repeat that there is no specific guidance
02:08:06 guidance in the proof document dealing with a rain screen over cloud or rain screen cladding it requires some degree of interpretation
02:08:20 right now as matt has stood the latest advice you'd had from x over was in issue 3 of the outline fire safety strategy wasn't it
02:08:35 by this stage we had obviously subsequent emails but formerly yes but did you look back and and
02:08:42 and and think about the fact that on b4 xover's work was still incomplete because there was due to
02:08:49 to be an analysis and a future issue of their report no because xover had been asked to prepare a strategy document
02:09:00 so on what basis did you think in in this technical review that terms of fire there had been compliance with
02:09:07 with the building regulations and the approved document
02:09:19 but it's you're asking me again
02:09:23 how can we believe that it's compliant if we haven't determined it ourselves and i repeat it that i did not believe was our role i see so what are you actually doing in this technical review what
02:09:35 this technical review what what's the process by which you're
02:09:39 commenting there it's a summary of the design standards that we believe were applicable okay turning to page three under the heading technical performance there's a
02:09:51 technical performance there's a section fire detailing
02:09:58 and it says their far detailing comment completed
02:10:01 completed do you see that there yes do you know what that comment relates to
02:10:12 um
02:10:18 i i can only point to the column the left hand box which says fire detailing
02:10:25 detailing and that would cover internal and external
02:10:31 external fire sealing and cavity barriers now by this time the detailing of the cavity barriers was not complete was it we've seen that there were
02:10:42 was it we've seen that there were october 15th i think i think we believed it was i see okay what about any more informal technical
02:10:53 what about any more informal technical reviews
02:10:54 reviews um were you aware of any such informal technical reviews occurring
02:11:03 um
02:11:06 no i can't remember anything offhand just on in terms of what documents you had to hand when you were working um i think there was mention in mr
02:11:18 um i think there was mention in mr crawford's evidence the fact you worked on a paperless basis you work predominantly electronically is that correct
02:11:31 um i think we're certainly i don't think anyone's paperless
02:11:34 paperless but i tried to ensure that there was always a digital record yeah would you ever have had any hard copy documents to hand like really key documents on the project
02:11:45 documents on the project um for example the outline fire safety strategies by xover or the nvs specification would you ever have those in hard copy
02:11:55 yes you usually you would i would keep hard copies of documents that i would might need with me at meetings that's usually
02:12:08 now i've just got mr turner i've got two very short comments at topics very short yes um before i finish my questions perhaps i could be permitted to finish those
02:12:20 could be permitted to finish those all right then we'll see where we've got and then see where we are um in mr kushal's evidence that he gave on the 2nd of march he told the inquiry that a company called croner had carried
02:12:31 that a company called croner had carried out a review of studio e's health and safety procedures in 2013 do you recall that review ever having taken place
02:12:42 i i have to say yes i recall conversations surrounding krona i was not familiar with what they did in detail so you don't know what that review
02:12:53 know what that review covered not in detail no can we look at an email this is sea405 at page two
02:13:23 sca405947 at page two
02:13:40 no there's no page two
02:13:46 i'll come back to that email in a moment um
02:13:50 um it's an email in which i don't know you recall it you are you contact croner as the point of call for cdm related issues and ask for some input on the issue and
02:14:01 and ask for some input on the issue and then
02:14:01 then crona come back to you and basically say they can't give cdm specific advice for projects that's not what they do and then you appear to be rather annoyed
02:14:12 and then you appear to be rather annoyed about that do you recall that exchange yes
02:14:20 and is it right that you felt that croner had failed to perform for studio e
02:14:24 e at the time in terms of not giving advice on cdn related issues no i don't think my annoyance was with croner
02:14:35 who were you annoyed with i understood that we were
02:14:43 we had appointed somebody to provide cdm advice and that was um there's an obligation on
02:14:54 and that was um there's an obligation on us to do that and on the grenfell tower we we knew we had an issue with opening windows
02:15:03 and i wanted to get some input on on that specific issue of safety and opening windows right
02:15:14 safety and opening windows right residential context and they weren't prepared to give it
02:15:19 give it in terms of the cdn regulations do you accept that as a designer studio e was responsible for design and complying with the cdm regulations 2007 and liaising with the appointed cdm coordinator
02:15:32 appointed cdm coordinator yes on the project and do you accept that studio es designer was responsible for ensuring that a design risk assessment was compiled and reviewed revised updated as
02:15:43 compiled and reviewed revised updated as and when appropriate yes
02:15:48 now we can see that studioe did a design risk assessment can we look at that this is at
02:15:57 tmo1303944 it's dated the 23rd of october 2013.
02:16:12 and if we look at the first entry at the top
02:16:15 top fire risk during works do you see that there yes
02:16:20 do you agree that there's very little detail there about the fire risk during the work
02:16:27 in terms of us identifying the potential risks
02:16:37 there's not much detail i agree yes and if we look at page three section for fire 15 c d and 16a
02:16:53 there's a reference there firefighting strategy review do you see that there yes do you know what that was referring to
02:17:05 i can only assume that's i can't assume but i think that would be referring to the fire appliance access to the tower do you know whether this risk assessment schedule was ever
02:17:16 risk assessment schedule was ever updated during the project
02:17:24 i can't recall no did you ever think to update it when the cladding changed from zinc to acm or when the insulation changed from fr 5000 to rs 5000
02:17:38 5000 to rs 5000 no there's i don't think there are any products
02:17:42 products mentioned in the risk assessment did anyone ever ask you to update it no
02:17:50 just going back to those krona emails um if we go this is sea four zeroes five four four nine it's the second email down
02:18:09 so you've emailed him martin summerfield of krona saying i understand you're our point of call for cdm related issues i hope you're able to give us some input on this one
02:18:20 on this one and then if we can go upper the email to the next one up
02:18:26 he says hello brees i'm actually on holiday at the moment for some reason my auto reply is not working i did point out to catherine that i cannot give specific cdm advice for projects that's not what we do
02:18:38 projects that's not what we do do you see that there yes you should refer any design issues to the cdm coordinator for the project and the principal contractor
02:18:51 and then um
02:18:56 sorry i think we're still missing there's an email at the top of the page then where you express some annoyance of that response can you recall that yes yes i think i've
02:19:08 can you recall that yes yes i think i've i found it i just outlined it i i thought that that was the sort of advice that we were getting from kroner it wasn't my rotation wasn't directed at
02:19:21 it wasn't my rotation wasn't directed at kroner
02:19:22 kroner it was directed at who um studio e i see because you were frustrated that they hadn't engaged croner to give you that kind of advice
02:19:34 croner to give you that kind of advice no i thought that's what we were getting um
02:19:37 um but it appeared we hadn't got specific cdm advice maybe i'd been misled as to what chrono we're going to offer
02:19:48 as to what chrono we're going to offer i see
02:19:52 since the last question i want to ask you is we've been now through an awful lot of the contemporaneous material from the project over a number of days um in the light of all
02:20:03 a number of days um in the light of all that
02:20:04 that i want to ask you and give you the opportunity to say whether you would have done anything differently if you'd had the chance to do it again
02:20:12 um i've said a long time to think about this
02:20:17 this i think
02:20:20 i think it's a very cruel question
02:20:29 i said i i sat through and i watched all of the um
02:20:33 of the um fire experts evidence
02:20:38 and then much in fact quite a bit later i
02:20:41 i i studied the dclg tests
02:20:49 and
02:20:53 in a sense that was more revealing
02:20:59 but i had no idea yeah and i don't believe anyone involved in the project would have not acted had they known
02:21:10 would have not acted had they known okay yeah thank you for that
02:21:16 mr chairman that concludes my questions yes
02:21:19 yes um no actually sorry i'm terribly sorry sorry there is one there was one more question that i said i would ask sorry can i can i just finish that uh
02:21:31 sorry can i can i just finish that uh one more question i mean maybe we should discuss this now we're going to have to have a break as this customer just to see where we're going now mr stones i think you probably understand because you've been following our work
02:21:44 been following our work from time to time that when a witness gets to the end of his evidence we have to have a break that's reasonable length some allow people who are following the inquiry from other places
02:21:55 inquiry from other places to put questions for consideration by our own council now um in the situation we're in now that would have to be about 15 minutes and then we often find that
02:22:07 15 minutes and then we often find that another
02:22:08 another series of questions should be asked and that
02:22:11 that could take another 15 minutes now i sense you've had a long day already and one of the options that we must consider is whether it would be wise to
02:22:22 consider is whether it would be wise to stop now
02:22:24 stop now but ask you to come back tomorrow morning just to field any additional questions that might have cropped up over the interim now you could do that it wouldn't shouldn't take
02:22:36 shouldn't take very long it would obviously be inconvenient for you to come back again tomorrow morning on the other hand you might feel slightly more robust having had a break overnight
02:22:47 overnight so i had already told ms crane that i thought we should finish a quarter to five at the latest because i was concerned about um you're becoming rather tired to deal
02:22:58 um you're becoming rather tired to deal with other questions mr chairman tell me how it strikes you would would you be content to come back tomorrow morning
02:23:09 very much like to finish i'm sure you would but just bear in mind that this could go on a bit mr chairman i understand there may be some operational uh issues that we need to consider about
02:23:20 uh issues that we need to consider about whether it's feasible to have mr stones back tomorrow and also cover what
02:23:26 what what was next in the program could we perhaps just have a very short break now to just consider what the best uh right is it's clear i'm concerned about mr satan's position
02:23:38 about mr satan's position yeah i understand that he's had a long day giving evidence and um it takes its toll on anyone in this position when you say a short break do you mean five minutes yes
02:23:50 five minutes yes right mr says you've been following what we've been saying we're gonna have a short break now to consider the implications of where we go and you can do the same while you're out of the room um and then when you come back you can
02:24:03 um and then when you come back you can tell me
02:24:04 tell me uh how you see things and then we'll decide what we do all right okay course to five then
02:24:12 please
02:24:22 right close to five
02:33:26 right would you ask mr sanders to come back in please
02:33:39 now mr says first of all my apologies the five minutes turned into 10 as it so often does but there we are um i'm going to ask miss grange if she's got any idea how much
02:33:51 got any idea how much how many more questions there might be and then we'll take it from there mr grange you've got one question just one question is that all you've got on the plate at the moment that's correct right now as i explained
02:34:02 that's correct right now as i explained to you earlier um the normal course now would be to break for about 10 minutes right to give other people the chance to feed questions into miss grange and then depending on what
02:34:14 miss grange and then depending on what comes in
02:34:15 comes in and we might be here for another 10 or 15 minutes dealing with them i have no idea at the moment whether there'll be many or few now as i said to you earlier it's been a long day
02:34:26 long day and i'm sure you are tired i'm also sure you want to finish your evidence if you can but i don't think it's fair to you to push you along unless you feel up to doing it you
02:34:38 unless you feel up to doing it you understand that i do right now how do you feel about it i'm very happy to continue i'm very happy i would like to continue rather than even though you might be
02:34:51 rather than even though you might be here for another 20 minutes or thereabouts yes all right now mr strange do you want to put your last question for your ex yes that makes sense yeah and then we'll break ms granger's
02:35:03 yeah and then we'll break ms granger's got one final question i'm sorry before we go on i should have asked the shorthand writer if she's happy to go yeah i'm grateful thank you um it's about the there being a
02:35:15 um it's about the there being a firefighter lift it's a very discreet question um if we can go to a document this is
02:35:24 five exo401592 two
02:35:29 and i want to start by looking at page three of this
02:35:35 so at the top of that page we see an email from kate cooney to you on the 9th of august 2012. do you see that there yes and uh she's asking you a number of
02:35:46 and uh she's asking you a number of questions
02:35:47 questions and in the third question she says is there a firefighting lift do you see that there yes and then if we can go up the page on the 10th of august 2012
02:35:59 the page on the 10th of august 2012 page two of this
02:36:05 um we can see there sorry she perhaps just see the top of the email first
02:36:14 yes it's a response back to her on the 10th of august 2012. and if we can go down the page again you can see there you've put firefighting lift no do you see that there yes and it's
02:36:27 no do you see that there yes and it's really just to find out from you can you recall why you told kate cooney that there was no firefighting lift in the tower can you recall on what basis
02:36:38 you recall on what basis you um came upon that information and then gave it to her
02:36:45 i i understood a firefighting lift was a firefighting shaft with its own lobby and stair yeah so this was not it
02:36:53 not it yeah so you'd work that out yourself from looking at the design drawings of the tower yes although i i believe it was referred to as a firefighting lift
02:37:04 firefighting lift i'm not sure yeah but it's not a firefighting shaft and maybe i confused it too right thank you mr chairman that was all i wanted to ask about
02:37:13 about thank you very much well now we will take the break now then mr stones and if you're
02:37:17 you're confident that you are okay to carry on um
02:37:21 um little time has passed i'm going to say five past five and then we'll put it all together all right thank you very much
02:37:35 all right five plus fives please
02:50:57 yes would you ask mr sands to come back
02:51:02 please
02:51:10 right mr sands this is the last lap yes no that's great have you got some more questions yes just a few but just very few um mr suns can we just
02:51:21 just very few um mr suns can we just look in the context of building control um at a document sca50154 and i think this is an email that you
02:51:33 and i think this is an email that you send to paul hanson of building control on the 3rd of december 2013
02:51:41 um and it's about the the smoke control system
02:51:47 system yes and you state in this email that system is the single biggest risk to the proposals
02:51:58 biggest risk to the proposals at that stage does he know
02:52:04 that's the reference i've been given i'm sorry i'm i'm having to respond to questions that are coming in at the very last minute um in an email to paul hanson you state
02:52:16 in an email to paul hanson you state that the smoke ventilation system is the single biggest risk of the proposals and this is the reference i've been given is there any more can we just look is there any more emails further down from
02:52:30 yes there we go thank you so it's on page two
02:52:35 page two and in that second paragraph we can see you say there we believe that agreement
02:52:41 agreement on the smoke ventilation to the tower is the single biggest risk to the proposals but we don't think it's reasonable to leave the existing system in place do you see that there yes can you just explain to us why you
02:52:53 yes can you just explain to us why you thought that that was the single biggest risk to the proposals do you mean the building control proposals
02:53:03 no it's it's the proposals that involve the dramatic alterations to the lower floors creating new accommodation
02:53:15 right i would say if that was going to be assessed fresh against current guidance
02:53:27 against current guidance that presented a potential risk to the overall scope of the work i see so what was cladding in your mind
02:53:39 i see so what was cladding in your mind when you
02:53:40 when you you made that statement there no no and um is it right that in in in the end your understanding was that advice was sought from building control
02:53:51 sought from building control on the proposed system the proposed smoke control system yes i believe that yeah went on for some time
02:53:59 time and then if i can look at um another related email this is exo
02:54:07 five zeroes two one four zero
02:54:28 try four zeroes i think this might have been a typo in the document i've been sent
02:54:35 sent four zeros ex0402140 is that working
02:54:45 it's an email to max fordham and x over in which you state i think we need to formulate our argument for the smoke vent as soon as possible in relation to building control comments do you recall saying that
02:54:58 possibly yes do you recall what you were trying to argue in relation to the smoke control system
02:55:09 i believe i was following up the the first meeting with paul hansen where he had asked for justification
02:55:21 right yes thank you for the
02:55:27 for the works to the smoke um system to to
02:55:35 keep it his argument as i recall was you can't make anything worse the non-worsening principle yeah and
02:55:46 yeah and he wanted something in writing or some kind of um
02:55:51 argument to demonstrate how what was there would be improved yeah and there's no worse there was no worse and i was
02:56:03 there was no worse and i was i think i was chasing um duncan and i think drunken particularly rather than terry fall for this input
02:56:14 this input yeah i've been asked to ask you about that the use of the the term their argument um and to put to you that shouldn't you've been taking their advice
02:56:25 you've been taking their advice rather than formulating arguments it seems like quite a kind of adversarial process but like that
02:56:35 no i again i think that's taken out of context if you if you pre what he was asking for was this analysis of what was there or what was designed and then provide a comparison
02:56:46 comparison yeah um to compare it so to show i think we expected an improvement that that i
02:56:55 that i i had used the word argument to describe that comparison okay yeah and then my my final topic is about
02:57:04 about um leaseholder consultation do you remember we had a look at that in the context of that engagement document yes um did you appreciate at the time that there are additional legal duties
02:57:17 that there are additional legal duties pursuant to the landlord and tenant act 1985 to consult with leaseholders on major works project was that something you were aware of at the time
02:57:27 not not the detail of any statutory requirements but it makes sense yeah did anyone at tmo or rbkc ever make this clear to studio e did you have that discussion with them
02:57:40 have that discussion with them no
02:57:43 did you think it was the responsibility of studio e to be engaging with leaseholders no no thank you so chairman those are
02:57:54 no thank you so chairman those are all of the questions yes thank you very much
02:57:58 much well mr sands those are all the questions
02:58:01 questions um and thank you very much for coming to give your evidence i know it's been extended over rather a long time i'm sorry for that and i'm sorry that we've kept you very late today but at least we have finished
02:58:12 late today but at least we have finished we're grateful to you for coming to help us thank you very much you're now free to go
02:58:17 to go thank you all right
02:58:29 good and that's it for the day it is 10 o'clock tomorrow yes mr millett will be um dealing with mr simon lawrence tomorrow right first of the ride in witnesses yes thank you very much good 10 o'clock tomorrow please thank
02:58:44 you
02:58:56 you