Studio E Evidence - Monday 2 March 2020 (1/2)

2 March 2020 · Andre Kachelle - Studio E founding member, Counsel to the Inquiry · 3:02:40
▶ Watch on YouTube Open in interactive viewer

Andre Kachelle, founding member of Studio E architects, testifies about the firm's appointment to the Grenfell Tower refurbishment project. Key themes include Studio E's lack of high-rise residential experience, concerns about limited fees capped at EU procurement limits, inadequate resources, and failure to conduct proper competence checks. The inquiry examines how Studio E was appointed without competitive procurement despite having no experience in over-cladding residential towers.

Key moments

Full transcript

00:00:00 in degree of protection against self-incrimination as is available under the general law in the form of the privilege against self-incrimination as a result no one will be able to justify

00:00:13 a result no one will be able to justify refusing to answer questions on the grounds that to do so would or might expose him or herself personally to a risk of prosecution the undertaking does

00:00:24 risk of prosecution the undertaking does not apply to companies or other corporate bodies which will therefore remain entitled to rely on the privilege against self-incrimination if they give evidence in their own right

00:00:36 evidence in their own right the other matter just to mention briefly is a very hot topic coronavirus we're all very well aware of the outbreak of corona virus and the fact that an

00:00:49 corona virus and the fact that an increasing number of cases have been reported in this country the number may rise and although it's important not to panic we must all take reasonable precautions to avoid spreading infection

00:01:03 precautions to avoid spreading infection please therefore make use of the hand sanitizers when they become available when you enter the building and avoid attending the hearings if you feel at all and well you can of course follow

00:01:16 all and well you can of course follow the hearings on the livestream and it's much better to do that than to risk spreading infection if you have any doubt about your state of health so the

00:01:29 doubt about your state of health so the way I'm going Thank You mr. chairman mr. chairman I now call our first witness to

00:01:40 chairman I now call our first witness to module one of phase two mr. Andre kachelle yes

00:02:14 shall be the truth

00:02:20 thank you very much mr. kosher now would you prefer to sit down

00:02:26 and will you better get them yes definitely

00:02:59 that's quite right don't worry just take a moment to get yourself settled yes do sit down

00:03:16 alright yep good thank you very much yes just a minute mr. kachelle and can you please give the inquiry your full name

00:03:28 please give the inquiry your full name it's Andre Yousef Mario kosher now thank you very much first of all for coming to the inquiry to give evidence today and in assisting us with our investigations

00:03:40 in assisting us with our investigations I'm going to be asking you questions today if you have difficulty understanding anything I'm asking you then please just ask me to repeat the question and I'll put the question either again or in a different way so

00:03:52 either again or in a different way so that you can understand it could you also just keep your voice up so that the transcribers can hear it and say that everybody in the room here can also hear it yeah now you've made a witness

00:04:04 it yeah now you've made a witness statement for the inquiry and it's in a folder on your desk in front of you and it'll also appear on the screen and can I take you to it it is at se a zero zero zero one four two seven one

00:04:18 zero zero zero one four two seven one yeah and it's dated the 9th of November 2018 just looking at the first page there in front of you mr. gazelle is that your first witness statement

00:04:29 that your first witness statement correct

00:04:30 correct can I please ask you to turn to page 21 you'll be taken to that on the screen there's a signature there above the date of the 9th of November 2018 is that your

00:04:42 of the 9th of November 2018 is that your signature it is and you've also provided I believe an exhibit a jk1 if we can please have that up on the screen that is se a zero zero zero one four - seven

00:04:54 is se a zero zero zero one four - seven - yes and there is also an index to the documents that you've referred to in

00:05:05 documents that you've referred to in your statement which is ID x zero one seven two if we could please have that on the screen

00:05:15 yes and that is a document which runs over a number of pages and just confirm with me please that these are just looking at it all the documents that you refer to in your witness statement I

00:05:27 refer to in your witness statement I believe that's correct okay and if you need to see the rest of it we can look at it but it runs it on in a similar way and have you read your witness statement that I've just shown you recently yes and can you confirm or are you able to

00:05:40 and can you confirm or are you able to confirm that the contents are true I can confirm that as far as I can recollect the contents are true thank you now you also provided a witness statement to the Metropolitan Police in 2017 do you

00:05:53 Metropolitan Police in 2017 do you remember that yes I do that is at Emmy t zero zero zero one nine nine eight nine if we could please have that up on the screen yes and it's dated the it is day

00:06:09 screen yes and it's dated the it is day to the 15th if you could look just on the screen there you could see near the bottom of the screen it's dated the 15th of December 2017 yes have you read that statement recently not as recently as my

00:06:22 statement recently not as recently as my witness statement to the inquiry but yes I have read it in the last few weeks thank you and can you confirm that the contents of that statement are true yeah as far as possible that statement was

00:06:34 as far as possible that statement was done very close to the event the tragic event and that was a much broader statement than my direct involvement so

00:06:46 statement than my direct involvement so it was produced based on an information that I actually gleaned way after the event speaking to colleagues and looking

00:06:57 event speaking to colleagues and looking at at various documents because the the police at the time were interested in the the overall rather than my just my specific narrow involvement and the final general question have you

00:07:08 final general question have you discussed with anybody the evidence that you are going to give today in any way prior to preparing it it was my personal

00:07:21 prior to preparing it it was my personal witness statement which was prepared with the lawyers once it was submitted then yes I discussed it with colleagues how recently have you

00:07:32 with colleagues how recently have you discussed that with colleagues gosh that's a difficult question to answer because as you can imagine preparing to

00:07:44 because as you can imagine preparing to attend the inquiry and reading off the various documentation that has been passed from the inquiry which we can well we can't really even keep up with

00:07:55 well we can't really even keep up with it so I think I I certainly didn't sit down with my colleagues to go through my witness statement and and study it sort of page by page but that may have been

00:08:07 of page by page but that may have been references by them to their witness statements and me to mine in that sense we would have spoken to each other yes and when you say colleagues who are you referring to primarily Bruce some neil

00:08:18 referring to primarily Bruce some neil who have continued to work with me right Bruce Bruce scenes and Neil Crawford yes

00:08:26 now at the outset you've said in your statement that you didn't have day-to-day involvement with the Grenville tower project that's what you said in your statement that's it yes and

00:08:38 said in your statement that's it yes and in the light of that I'm not going to ask you any questions about the detail of the project or any technical matters overall I'm going to look at more general matters including I should say the initial brief for the

00:08:50 I should say the initial brief for the Grenfell project selection of the team payment issues and other matters of that nature and also mr. Koo shell just say that you're clear when I refer to Studio

00:09:02 that you're clear when I refer to Studio E I mean studio E LLP but also se al from 2014 only did am i clear about what

00:09:15 from 2014 only did am i clear about what I mean I am clear which means to jury architects Limited we've got someone

00:09:27 architects Limited we've got someone that's nothing to do with you everybody

00:09:34 would you leave them if you can't sit still and listen you'll have to leave the room alright we're going to rise for

00:09:53 the room alright we're going to rise for two minutes and those gentlemen will be asked to leave the hearing and not return

00:17:18 well I'm sorry about that interruption and I was slightly surprised because during the phase one hearings I was very impressed by the way in which everyone

00:17:29 impressed by the way in which everyone listened to the witnesses in a respectful and dignified way and I hope that now we've gotten that little outburst out of the way we can resume the way we've done things in the past you may obviously you may hear things

00:17:41 you may obviously you may hear things that you don't like to hear and people may feel strongly about some of the evidence but it's very important if the inquiry is going to hear the evidence that it needs to hear in order to get to

00:17:52 that it needs to hear in order to get to the bottom of things that the witnesses are allowed to give their evidence as I say the dignity and respect from everyone so all right well you I

00:18:14 everyone so all right well you I recognize most of the faces I see in front of me and I'm very pleased to see you here every day and I know how strongly you feel about all this I didn't recognize those people I may have seen them before I don't know but I'm

00:18:26 seen them before I don't know but I'm sure you will understand that we cannot tolerate that sort of disruption otherwise we should not get the evidence we need don't worry I wasn't going to

00:18:37 we need don't worry I wasn't going to impute them their motives to you I understand yes thank you very much all right well now mr. Koo shell is waiting

00:18:48 right well now mr. Koo shell is waiting he can come back

00:19:08 mr. Schill I'm sorry about that interruption I'm sorry too well we are ready to resume your evidence yes Thank You mr. chairman mr. kachelle first of all I want to ask you

00:19:20 kachelle first of all I want to ask you some questions about your qualifications and your experience you've set out your experience in paragraphs 10 to 12 of your inquiry witness statement and

00:19:31 your inquiry witness statement and you've put up a CV which is at a k aj k one page 32 if we can have that please that's s EA zero zero zero one four two seven two at page 33 se a zero zero zero

00:19:45 seven two at page 33 se a zero zero zero one four two seven two at page 33 that's your CV yes just having a look at it your CV doesn't I think set out your

00:19:58 your CV doesn't I think set out your education but can I ask you this are you a registered architect yes where did you trained as an architect the Polytechnic of central London and when was that

00:20:10 of central London and when was that please it was from 68 to 74 and you are a founding member of studio e which was set up I think in 1994 is that right

00:20:21 set up I think in 1994 is that right correct and where did you work before you set up studio E I worked with a company called farmer and duck and where

00:20:33 company called farmer and duck and where was that

00:20:34 was that in London in London and in what capacity did you work there I was there for 20 years and I rose through the ranks to become a director and in what sort of

00:20:47 become a director and in what sort of sectors were you working during your time there quite varied I worked in one of my first projects with with with

00:20:58 of my first projects with with with practice was a Queen Elizabeth courthouse in Liverpool which is a very large project subsequently I worked on a defense contract which I probably

00:21:10 defense contract which I probably shouldn't say too much about and then subsequently I have went into some commercial development work and finally into education work and do

00:21:24 and finally into education work and do you have any or did you as at 2012 have any personal or professional experience of over cladding residential high-rise buildings no pest Nino were you a member

00:21:37 buildings no pest Nino were you a member of the RI ba between 2012 and 2016 yes now if you look at your CV on the screen please it says in the first paragraph

00:21:48 please it says in the first paragraph that in the second line you have a particular focus on sports stroke leisure design is that that's right is it that is correct and if we look down

00:21:59 it that is correct and if we look down the page a little bit on the screen if you if you can be scrolled down a bit you can see under project experience you can see the projects listed there if you just cast an eye over those projects mr.

00:22:11 just cast an eye over those projects mr. Koo shell they are all sports leisure or education projects aren't they they are yeah as a registered architect you are is this right required to undertake

00:22:22 is this right required to undertake continuing professional development or CPD yes and how many hours or points per year as at 2012 were you required to take offhand I can't quote I did respond

00:22:37 take offhand I can't quote I did respond to the issue of undertaking CPD in a letter to the inquiry to clarify how we undertook it and that applied to all of

00:22:49 undertook it and that applied to all of us in different ways so young architects would undertake it one way senior more experienced in another and partners directors yet are you

00:23:02 partners directors yet are you personally or were you personally required to keep records of your CPD [Music]

00:23:11 strictly speaking yes but but again as I reported in in the letter to the inquiry not all of us were as diligent as we

00:23:22 not all of us were as diligent as we might have been to maintain the records that didn't mean that we didn't actually do the CPD well let me ask you directly did you keep any records of your own CPD yes by diary and note form if they did right did

00:23:36 and note form if they did right did Studio II have a policy of retaining annual CPD record sheets yes it did and we kept a register of CPD talks that

00:23:47 we kept a register of CPD talks that were held in the practice and we also had a format for recording CPD by our stuff yeah and did those rec where those records kept during the years 2012 to

00:24:00 records kept during the years 2012 to 2016 as I mentioned earlier they weren't kept as Authority as I would have liked it was always a struggle to get everybody to complete these records who

00:24:12 everybody to complete these records who oversaw the maintenance of the CPD records at Studio II LLP and after that studio the architects limited we had office management that actually kept an eye on on those and now you should

00:24:24 eye on on those and now you should reminders to everybody to to complete them and who did the office management was a responsible to to eventually added their directors and that included you

00:24:38 their directors and that included you did it and that would have included me I see did you know if those records still exist some days but not in not all because the LLP folded in 2014 and

00:24:51 because the LLP folded in 2014 and therefore at that stage we lost some of the records now I want to move on to studio E Minh paragraph 17 of your statement if we could please have that

00:25:03 statement if we could please have that up its se a0001 for 271 paid for if you just have a look at that you say the

00:25:14 just have a look at that you say the core of the practices work its paragraph 17 yes the core of the both of the practices work has rotated around education sports and leisure recreation and commercial work with sensitivity

00:25:27 and commercial work with sensitivity towards designing buildings that were environmentally sensitive you see that yes does that mean that you had a particular interest in designing greener buildings

00:25:42 if you mean that we were interested in actually making a difference in the environmental impact of our buildings yes does does it follow from that that

00:25:53 yes does does it follow from that that you and and the practice if I can usually loose expression would have some familiarity with product designed to achieve good thermal performance yes

00:26:12 the Grenville tower project had a construction budget of about eight point five million pounds you remember that I recall that that was

00:26:23 you remember that I recall that that was the budget yes it doesn't matter about the exact figure for the moment how did that compare with other projects that your practice was undertaking at the time namely 2012 onwards it would be

00:26:39 time namely 2012 onwards it would be difficult to make a comparison because we we were typically doing projects ranging anywhere between 15 and 30 million on a large number of schools as

00:26:51 million on a large number of schools as well as a smaller number of leisure projects I don't think that that would have given us a gauge to measure the budget for the Grenville tower well let

00:27:07 budget for the Grenville tower well let me ask it slightly differently was the Grenville tower project budget at eight and a half million pounds or so bigger or smaller or about average for the kinds of size of project that Studio II

00:27:19 kinds of size of project that Studio II typically would undertake in 2012 onwards it was probably at the lower end of the we did a wide range of projects we were still doing small projects which

00:27:30 we were still doing small projects which would have been a good deal smaller than grateful but the larger proportion of our work was somewhere between the 15 and 30 million mark thank you now we know that there were two entities Studio

00:27:42 know that there were two entities Studio II architects limited SCAL and Studio II LLP Studio II architects limited that was registered in 94 wasn't it yes and it still exists

00:27:54 94 wasn't it yes and it still exists today yes yes and studio E LLP that was founded I think in 2007 great yes and it started trading in 2011 correct is that

00:28:06 started trading in 2011 correct is that right and it then entered into volunteers volunteers a tion in 2014 correct in air can you remember the month in which it did that right even roughly July July can you tell me what

00:28:19 roughly July July can you tell me what was the purpose of having these two entities side by side the main thrust of it was we took accountancy advice and we

00:28:31 it was we took accountancy advice and we were looking to increase the the [Music]

00:28:36 [Music] directorship partnership level in the practice from the 3 - to a greater number and we were advised that the LLP would be a better vehicle for doing that

00:28:48 would be a better vehicle for doing that I see so it was to extend as it were commercial participations were a wider number of P correct I see can I ask you

00:28:59 number of P correct I see can I ask you to look please at paragraph 16 of your witness statement which is SE a0001 for 271 at page 4 now you say in paragraph

00:29:17 271 at page 4 now you say in paragraph 16 that se al is a smaller as a small company you see that and you say that at 31st of March 2017 we employ 12 staff

00:29:28 31st of March 2017 we employ 12 staff and our net assets were 48 thousand eight hundred and three pounds you see that yes but you go on to say that it had been a larger practice and employed

00:29:39 had been a larger practice and employed up to 45 staff and by way of illustration as at the 30th of June 2008 the net assets of SCAL were 168,000 and 48 pounds yep and wind and why did you

00:29:51 48 pounds yep and wind and why did you start trading as an LLP in 2011 there was a lot of discussion between the directors as to when we sure

00:30:05 directors as to when we sure consider other younger members of the practice being elevated to a directorship and we we spanned quite an

00:30:17 directorship and we we spanned quite an age group the eldest director is is seven or eight years older than me and the younger director was good 15 years younger than me so there were different

00:30:29 younger than me so there were different views about all of this and it was only in 2011 that we concluded that we really ought to be doing something on this front and we launched the LLP I see and was that also for the purposes of

00:30:40 was that also for the purposes of raising capital no you didn't ask the new participants in the LLP to put in an ailing C and what happened to s.e.a.l.s to do a architects limited the company

00:30:52 to do a architects limited the company in the period 2011 to 2014 it's it became not entirely dormant but its trading was ran down and the LLP

00:31:05 its trading was ran down and the LLP effectively took all the new work right and how many are could register darka techs registered architects were working at s Studio e LLP in the period 2011 to

00:31:18 at s Studio e LLP in the period 2011 to 2014 I would need to check our records on that we predominantly employed fully

00:31:30 on that we predominantly employed fully qualified architects and so the vast proportion would have been qualified in the UK or or elsewhere because we architecture typically actually attracts

00:31:43 architecture typically actually attracts [Music]

00:31:44 [Music] employees from all over the world so if you would need the answer to that I would need to check it well let's see if we can get it to it short more shortly a paragraph 16 of your statement which is on the screen yeah you you say that

00:31:58 on the screen yeah you you say that Studio II had been a larger practice and employed up to 45 staff correct during the period 2011 to 2014 were those 45 staffs or maximum 45 staff employed by

00:32:11 staffs or maximum 45 staff employed by Studio E LLP yes I see thank you and when Studio A architects limited the company which had been dormant took over

00:32:22 company which had been dormant took over the grenfell project in 2014 what was the size of the employees of that company as opposed to the LLP I think it

00:32:33 company as opposed to the LLP I think it was nine nine and where any of the studio a employee studio LLP and employees moved over yes mllp too limited in fact I think a whole lot all

00:32:45 limited in fact I think a whole lot all nine moved to my little Peter limited I see okay how many registered architects were working at Studio E architects Limited from 2014 to 2016

00:33:00 again I'd need to check the number they were all architects how many of them were actually registered in the UK again would have to get back to you two to

00:33:11 would have to get back to you two to verify that number right am I correct in thinking that studio II in either of its forms LLP or or limited had never before the Grenfell tower project undertaken a

00:33:25 the Grenfell tower project undertaken a project involving over cladding a high-rise residential tower so did you ask any of the employees or anybody in or the practice well the practice in either of its forms

00:33:37 well the practice in either of its forms no didn't did studio e in either of its forms have any experience of high-rise residential projects at all as the practice no what about refurbishment of

00:33:50 practice no what about refurbishment of tower blocks again no and what about over cladding existing buildings whether or not they were tower blocks yeah we would have had some element of that because we were involved in not only

00:34:03 because we were involved in not only building new schools but also refurbishing old schools and would you agree with this general proposition mr. Cassell that that those types of projects high-rise residential projects

00:34:15 projects high-rise residential projects refurbishment of tower blocks give rise to particular technical considerations or challenges which might differ from those which may arise in when you're building a new school or a sports

00:34:26 building a new school or a sports facility

00:34:28 facility yes I would agree that is a different set of challenges I'm going to turn now to questions about your familiarity with the regulatory regime if I'm a tenant

00:34:40 the regulatory regime if I'm a tenant can I actually add a rider to the the previous thing I'm a founder of the practice and and there was a time when every project that we did was a new

00:34:52 every project that we did was a new project so there was a first extension to a school first small sports facility and we did all our projects to very high

00:35:07 and we did all our projects to very high standard even though they were the first actually receiving huge accolades and a lot of recognition so the issue of whether project poses new challenges is

00:35:18 whether project poses new challenges is not I think if that is the implication that somehow we were not capable of doing the project I think that is false because clearly every project eventually

00:35:35 because clearly every project eventually in your in your experience there comes a point when every project is the first and we had actually been dealing with projects of quite some sophistication and complexity as firsts leisure centers

00:35:46 and complexity as firsts leisure centers are not the tool straightforward projects and I and I and we did them to a very very high standard can I now turn as I was going to to your familiarity with the regulatory regime and I'm going

00:35:59 with the regulatory regime and I'm going to start with the CDM regulations you do you understand what I mean when I refer to the CDM regulations what did you understand as that 2012 that studio ease

00:36:12 understand as that 2012 that studio ease duties were under the CDM regulations our duties were to design buildings in a safe manner and buildings that would

00:36:23 safe manner and buildings that would actually be safe in in the way they were used and as a quotes on quotes designer it's a word used in the regulations yeah we're aware were you that Studio II and

00:36:36 we're aware were you that Studio II and I think this is studio II limited for this purpose owed duties to its client when preparing on modifying a design yes yes and you've mentioned duties to design in a safe

00:36:48 mentioned duties to design in a safe manner is there anything else you wish to add to that yes I mean the the practice is iso 9001 registered it has a health and safety policy that health and

00:37:03 health and safety policy that health and safety policy is is updated as as required and every member of the practice is actually obliged to sign that they've actually read the policy

00:37:14 that they've actually read the policy and understood its contents and who was it with in Studio e at board or partner level as at 2012 who was tasked with ensuring compliance with health and

00:37:27 ensuring compliance with health and safety duties including CDM compliance health and safety in our practice was structured so I was actually the

00:37:38 structured so I was actually the director in charge of health and safety coordination that imposes the structure across the practice so partners and senior management were designated with

00:37:50 senior management were designated with different roles within the health and safety process to ensure that the health and safety policy was performed and what

00:38:01 and safety policy was performed and what were those different roles just exploring that answer a bit more what were those different roles well we split it into two health and

00:38:12 well we split it into two health and safety that was related to the administering of our office and our staff and Health and Safety that was related to project and site safety and who was in charge as at 2012 through to

00:38:25 who was in charge as at 2012 through to 2016 of administering the health and safety relating to projects and site safety my partner at that time Gary Stewart Gary Stewart okay

00:38:37 Stewart Gary Stewart okay and who did anybody supervise Gary Stewart's soup oversight of that aspect of studio is health and safety work well

00:38:49 of studio is health and safety work well I would say that the board had a responsibility to to ensure that things were

00:38:53 were as they should I'm going to turn to the building regulations and I'm going to ask you first some very general questions about your own familiarity with them and the approved guidance in

00:39:07 with them and the approved guidance in 2012 when studio he started work on Grenfell tower were you aware of the requirements of Schedule one Part B fire safety of the Building Regulations 2010

00:39:21 safety of the Building Regulations 2010 yes I would have been aware you would have been aware were you aware of path b3 internal fire spread I was aware yes

00:39:34 b3 internal fire spread I was aware yes and what about Part B for external fire spread yes at the outset of your work on the Grenville tower project did you did

00:39:46 the Grenville tower project did you did you take any steps to familiarize yourself will reefa memorize yourself with the particular requirements of those two parts of the building regulations schedule schedule one part

00:39:58 regulations schedule schedule one part b3 and b4 personally I didn't I I think as you stated at the outset I was not hands-on involved on the project so at

00:40:10 hands-on involved on the project so at that time I was actually involved in the Kensington Aldrich Academy in a much more direct way as well as having various other duties in the practice so

00:40:22 various other duties in the practice so familiarizing myself against specific regulations in relation to the tower was devolved on others in my practice who on whom well the lead was taken by my

00:40:34 whom well the lead was taken by my colleague Bruce sounds right when Studio II secured the Commission for Grenville tower in 2012 does it follow from what

00:40:46 tower in 2012 does it follow from what you've just said that you didn't actually go back and reread schedule one parts b3 and before you left that to mr. soon's correct right and did you anytime

00:40:57 soon's correct right and did you anytime after that look at schedule one parts b3 and b4

00:41:04 and b4 of the building regulations in relation to the tower yes no did it occur to you in 2012 at the time that you got the Commission for the

00:41:17 time that you got the Commission for the Granville tower project that because the project involved an external wall construction on a building over 18 meters in height there were building regulations and

00:41:29 there were building regulations and there was guidance that pertained to that so he can you repeat that question did it occur to you did he go through your mind that because the project that

00:41:41 your mind that because the project that you had won through the Commission involved an external wall construction on a building exceeding 18 metres in height there were relevant building regulations and guidance about it I

00:41:56 guess it would have occurred to me yep do you remember it occurring to you are you you are you just speculating about your memory I'm not really speculating I

00:42:07 your memory I'm not really speculating I think the at the time when we got the Commission which was not a shall we say we won a project which was an academy

00:42:19 we won a project which was an academy and a leisure centre as well as also a piece of residential development and then the Greenville tower into the equation

00:42:35 I recall that my colleague Bruce ants actually texted me or emailed me saying that we would need to actually do some

00:42:47 that we would need to actually do some rapid CPD on the subject of the tower because it was something which was not in our normal experience and I think at that point I would have registered that there were issues relating to the tower

00:42:59 there were issues relating to the tower both in terms of you know regulations and codes that that we had to familiarize ourselves with yes very well we'll cut we will come back to that yeah there's a general question do you agree

00:43:10 there's a general question do you agree that fire safety is fundamental to the work of an architects practice yes do you agree that fire risks are one of the key areas that need to be mitigated so

00:43:23 key areas that need to be mitigated so far as reasonably practicable when you're fulfilling CDM and health and safety obligations yes would you also agree that any competent architect would

00:43:34 agree that any competent architect would have an awareness at least of existence importance and purpose of the fire related provisions in the building regulations and the associated approved documents yes and it's a slightly less

00:43:52 documents yes and it's a slightly less general question a bit more specific when you started work on the Grenfell tower project and making all allowances for the fact that you weren't involved in the in the detail of day-to-day detail did you appreciate that the

00:44:04 detail did you appreciate that the essential objective of schedule 1 Part B of the building regulations is to slow the spread of any uncontrolled fire and smoke and to preserve the integrity of

00:44:15 smoke and to preserve the integrity of the overall structure and compartments of a building I you're asking me a quite a technical question and and I'm hesitating to answer it because I think

00:44:29 hesitating to answer it because I think if I was working on the project I would have definitely been considering the implications of what you've just said but I wasn't working on the project say that is that a question for mr. soon's

00:44:40 that is that a question for mr. soon's rather than for you I think sounds I think it should be for the people who are working the project all right can I ask you to

00:44:53 the project all right can I ask you to look at a proved document B and given your answer so far we needn't take very long in it but it's useful to have it up on the screen it's CLG zero zero zero zero zero so

00:45:06 it's CLG zero zero zero zero zero so five zeroes please - two for CLG five zeroes - two for their art is fire safety approved document b under the building regulations 2010 just looking

00:45:21 building regulations 2010 just looking at the first page of that document was that were you familiar at least even in general terms with this particular version of approved document b at the outset of your involvement in the

00:45:32 outset of your involvement in the Grenfell tower refurbishment yes can you remember ever having attended any courses which educated you on the guidance contained in this document approved document b no i didn't attend

00:45:45 approved document b no i didn't attend any courses specifically training me to apply that document i in the past i would have been trained and and and how

00:45:57 would have been trained and and and how to use a document similar to this but this specific document i did not receive any specific training though right and as a firm or company then we used the

00:46:08 as a firm or company then we used the word practice to cover both entities did studio e have any system whereby when updates to regulations and guidance such

00:46:20 updates to regulations and guidance such as approved document b came into force were published by the government studio e received them and disseminated them among its practicing staff the procedure

00:46:33 among its practicing staff the procedure we followed was that each time a new project entered the practice it would be set up on the system and it would move

00:46:44 set up on the system and it would move in to various work stages so typically in architecture we don't start designing the building on day one we're very very frequently involved in

00:46:56 we're very very frequently involved in developing a brief with the client and appointing a team either directly or on B on behalf of the clients and so information starts to accumulate

00:47:09 information starts to accumulate typically when it comes to fire is very rare for that artists these days to actually be working on the project without a fire consultant and when it

00:47:22 without a fire consultant and when it comes to the fire regulations which have as you can see from this document have become increasingly voluminous and and and actually at times difficult to interpret it's critical to get involved

00:47:36 interpret it's critical to get involved with Building Control as early as possible and when you're dealing with any project which has of any order of complexity than a fire consultant is essential to guide you through right so

00:47:47 essential to guide you through right so I think the answer to my question was no my question is just have to repeat it again it was was that when a document or an update to regulations and guidance

00:47:58 an update to regulations and guidance such as approved document b comes into force does Studio e generally receive them and then disseminate them no and the answer isn't no the answer is that

00:48:09 the answer isn't no the answer is that your familiarity with regulations is only as good as the most recent project you're doing so every project would actually generate an upgrade of the

00:48:20 actually generate an upgrade of the information that was available and so typically that the information would actually go into a central file which was accessible to all people in in the

00:48:31 was accessible to all people in in the practice and of course much of this information is also available online right so so the drill is just to answer the question be clear that on every project we wouldn't assume that because

00:48:42 project we wouldn't assume that because we had read the building regulations the year two years or three years previously that they were so in the regulations we were applying we would be looking to the current regulations similar question in

00:48:55 current regulations similar question in relation to industry guidance and were you at any stage of the Grenville tower project familiar yourself with industry guidance for cladding such as for example and there

00:49:06 example and there as the CWC tea standard personally i wasn't no and with the same apply I suppose it would in relation to the CWC

00:49:18 suppose it would in relation to the CWC tea technical note 73 and BCA technical guidance notes I without looking at them I can't comment alright now I want to

00:49:29 I can't comment alright now I want to turn to the initial brief for the project and start with calc it's right isn't it that studio e1 the Commission for the Kensington Academy and Leisure

00:49:41 for the Kensington Academy and Leisure Centre calc through a competitive procurement process yes and that process had been I think is this right advertised by the Royal Borough of

00:49:53 advertised by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea or rbk see through the Official Journal of the European Union yes yes was that in 2011

00:50:04 European Union yes yes was that in 2011 did you remember yeah yes it was in 2011 do you remember when in 2011 I think we secured the

00:50:18 when in 2011 I think we secured the Commission in September 2011 so we would have been in the earlier part sort of

00:50:29 have been in the earlier part sort of early summer late spring that the whole process started I think it must have been around about I may I could I can't be certain right now do you agree and

00:50:42 be certain right now do you agree and I'm going to ask you three things see if you agree with them do you agree that first the purpose of undertaking a competitive procurement exercise includes securing best value for money

00:50:57 I think you should ask the client that question but I'm asking you it was a experienced architect at mr. Cassell from your perspective and experience the

00:51:10 from your perspective and experience the purpose of undertaking a competitive procurement would include securing for the client best value for money no best value best value for money well you you're adding money and I'm

00:51:22 well you you're adding money and I'm saying best value right is there a difference I think so what is that difference if you believe that the architects you're appointing actually might do something which is that much

00:51:35 might do something which is that much better and maybe costs a little bit more

00:51:40 the second purpose of an undertaking of a competitive procurement exercise is is this right appointing an architect with the level of skills knowledge and

00:51:51 the level of skills knowledge and experience which is appropriate for and suited to the work involved in it do you agree with that yes would you also agree that the purpose of a competitive

00:52:03 that the purpose of a competitive procurement exercise would be compliance with public authority obligations to conduct fair tender procedures you're

00:52:14 conduct fair tender procedures you're asking me here to ask a question on behalf of the client yes well I'm asking you from your experience again the purpose of a competitive procurement exercise would be compliance with public authority obligations assuming the

00:52:26 authority obligations assuming the client was a public authority to conduct a fair tender procedure I would assume that they would have to respect their own procedures yes all right now you say and this is paragraph 27 of your statement if we could just have that up

00:52:38 statement if we could just have that up actually it's se a triple zero one four two seven one at page seven Thank You page seven pay at paragraph 27 yep

00:52:55 page seven pay at paragraph 27 yep you say there that the this is the fourth line that the amongst the selection criteria there was the requirement to have three academies and

00:53:06 requirement to have three academies and three leisure centers completed in the previous five years and you go on to say we were one of the few practices or a few practices who could qualify see that yes and how many

00:53:19 could qualify see that yes and how many others would you say could compete with you before that project calc um on your track record I would struggle to make a

00:53:34 track record I would struggle to make a judgement on that they would have been quite a number right but it's right is it that OB Casey who was the client on that I think we can agree we're looking for a very experienced and highly

00:53:45 for a very experienced and highly specialized architectural practice to undertake the count project yes yes and the selection process for the count project was that very rigorous Samaras

00:53:58 project was that very rigorous Samaras you knew as far as we understood yes it was the ingress and you go on to say that I think this is over the page page eight same paragraph in the third line

00:54:16 eight same paragraph in the third line our win was a major achievement for the practice you see that yes say it's right is it that this was a highly prized project calc was a highly prized project

00:54:27 project calc was a highly prized project yes as far as you were concerned yes now at that stage when you won the tender in 2011 the gren felt our project was not part of the project you had one was it

00:54:40 part of the project you had one was it no would it follow from that that your suitability for undertaking design work on a refurbishment of Grenfell tower did

00:54:51 on a refurbishment of Grenfell tower did not form part of the assessment in the calc procurement no again just to be crystal clear about this it was RB Casey

00:55:03 crystal clear about this it was RB Casey is this right who selected studio E as the architect for the Cal project not the TMO

00:55:13 I couldn't be categoric on that because I wasn't party to any discussions that may have occurred between our bkc and TMO fair enough but from your perspective as far as you understood it at the time again I can't not be

00:55:27 at the time again I can't not be categoric I mean the first tier was mentioned to us was through our bkc right now if you stick with paragraph 27

00:55:38 right now if you stick with paragraph 27 on page 8 of your statement where we are you go on to say following our appointment we were required to procure further services including a fire engineer who did you procure to act as a

00:55:52 engineer who did you procure to act as a fire engineer on calc x over did studio we retain them or did our bkc retain them for for the calc project they were employed to us we say they were employed

00:56:06 employed to us we say they were employed to you yeah they were sub consultants as did you eat I suture meets a studio II entered into a contract today with with X / correct I see do you remember who it

00:56:17 X / correct I see do you remember who it was an X over who was you were negotiating that contract with I mean there'll be a record but I cannot

00:56:29 there'll be a record but I cannot remember okay did you oversee the entry by Studio E into the contract with x over for the Cal project yes I I would

00:56:43 over for the Cal project yes I I would have been involved in their appointment right

00:56:45 right Juna who else would have at studio e would have been involved in X overs appointment as far engineer on the cow project

00:56:54 project [Music]

00:56:58 I would have discussed it with my team probably brief sounds and Neil Crawford who were working closely with you at the time and do you remember who it was at

00:57:13 time and do you remember who it was at xover who produced reports to Studio II for the count project no I can't I mean

00:57:24 for the count project no I can't I mean there's so long ago I cannot recall it I repeat we all have records of all this but I cannot recall do you remember who at Studio II was receiving and examining

00:57:35 at Studio II was receiving and examining x over reports in respect of account project at that time we had several senior people working on on calc and

00:57:48 senior people working on on calc and they would have been liaising with x over on the various measures that were being recommended for the scheme and do you are you able to tell them to tell me

00:57:59 you are you able to tell them to tell me who those several senior people were yes I mean the Neil Crawford was one if I

00:58:10 I mean the Neil Crawford was one if I remember correctly there was an architect Marcus Kiefer who was working on the project at that stage anybody else that was quite a team so right

00:58:27 now you say in the same paragraph before

00:58:39 now you say in the same paragraph before I move on to that can I just ask you were you generally happy with X overs work on the cow project we worked with the mechs over and and and I think they were called Warrington before that

00:58:50 were called Warrington before that Warrington Farmington fire before a quite a long period they had been a consultant of choice on those series of

00:59:02 consultant of choice on those series of schools you say consultants of choice how far back in time what did your or relationship or experience testing the

00:59:15 relationship or experience testing the memory because we're going back into

00:59:19 probably the sort of mid nineties okay we may come back to that in due course now can I move on in your statement st. paragraph just a bit lower down on the

00:59:31 paragraph just a bit lower down on the same page let's look together at the sixth line dan you say in considering the implications of the proposed development it was clearer than in urban

00:59:44 development it was clearer than in urban planning terms the interface with the tower was a very important factor particularly for calc which would be so close to its base you see that yes did you mean when you wrote that that the

00:59:55 you mean when you wrote that that the appearance of the tower would have a detrimental or other effect on the aesthetics of calc I think I meant which

01:00:11 aesthetics of calc I think I meant which which precise part of this paragraph are you referring to okay so it's the it's the second from last sentence the middle of the paragraph where you say in considering the implications of the proposed development you go on to say it

01:00:23 proposed development you go on to say it was clear that in urban planning terms the interface with the tower was a very important factor particularly for calc which would be so close to its base so we're looking at that sentence I'm just focusing on that sentence did you did

01:00:35 focusing on that sentence did you did you mean there that the appearance of the tower would have perhaps a detrimental effect on the aesthetic of calc no what did you mean I meant

01:00:47 of calc no what did you mean I meant that in urban terms there was a sensitivity between a residential tower which already existed and the way you configured a school close by and what

01:00:59 configured a school close by and what were those implications then that you're speaking of here perhaps is best answered by describing the approach we

01:01:11 answered by describing the approach we took in second stage of us winning the project in terms of we had to produce a design in competition with the other

01:01:22 design in competition with the other five practices who were the other five teams and our approach was to adopt a ribbon solution to the school something

01:01:35 ribbon solution to the school something we'd actually done very successfully on other schemes and the reason why we we adopted the ribbon solution was because we knew that we could like a ribbon

01:01:46 we knew that we could like a ribbon maximize the distance between the school building and the tower which we thought was an important thing to do in terms of the sensitivity of the relationship of the two and so that is a good example of

01:02:01 the two and so that is a good example of how we approach the contextual urban equation that was posed by the site on the top did the presence of the tower create any particular design or urban

01:02:14 create any particular design or urban planning problems for calc that wouldn't exist if the tower had not been there

01:02:22 yeah there were quite a few I mean it was a we were placing a school on the site where there had been no school there had been open

01:02:33 there had been open would you use games areas and a cop ugh so so we were creating a new building of some significance on a site which had constraints in every direction you could

01:02:46 constraints in every direction you could look at so so the tower was one of the issues which clearly that is the issue of overlooking potential concerns from the towers perspective of noise generated by the school there are issues

01:03:00 generated by the school there are issues of very complex issues of boundaries because the land ownership had got very complicated in that area so in every boundary there were problems to be resolved by the council that affected

01:03:11 resolved by the council that affected actually our definition of what actually would become the final school site and

01:03:18 and so we write saying in its taps general or summary terms that the tower posed some limitations on what you could

01:03:29 posed some limitations on what you could do with the external surroundings of the Celt scheme yes but that's not unusual in an urban context so would it be right

01:03:44 in an urban context so would it be right to say that Grenville tower was viewed so far as you knew as a problem for calc which needed to be solved I didn't don't think we actually ever

01:03:56 I didn't don't think we actually ever saw it that way okay well how did you see it we saw it as a constraint of the site I we are very familiar in fact I would say that we have a reputation for doing difficult sites well so in the

01:04:12 doing difficult sites well so in the wake constraints generate engine best good solutions if you actually work with the constraints can you please be shown a document TMO one zero zero zero zero

01:04:25 a document TMO one zero zero zero zero nine six five page three TMO one zero zero zero zero nine sixty five page three

01:04:46 now this is an it's not an email that you would have seen at the time mr. gazelle said let me start be fair to you by making that clear it's an email from Jane for through e @ HH a SC housing to

01:05:04 Jane for through e @ HH a SC housing to mark Anderson and others at the TM o subject Grenville tower importance high and in in the second paragraph yeah if

01:05:31 and in in the second paragraph yeah if you go to page 3 you would you just give

01:05:42 you go to page 3 you would you just give me a moment we may have got a slightly different document on the screen no I've got if it's yes if you go well perhaps

01:05:53 got if it's yes if you go well perhaps we'll come back to for this document I'll come back to it in a moment can I ask you to get to paragraph 33 of your statement and go to which is on

01:06:04 your statement and go to which is on page 9 now you say there that a pair of 33 on the 7th of December 2011 I was

01:06:15 33 on the 7th of December 2011 I was approached by Peter Wright of our V Casey regarding potential works to the tower and there's a reference there to an email can we have that please it's se a zero zero zero zero three five five

01:06:27 a zero zero zero zero three five five six

01:06:40 now this is an email from you to Peter right at our bkc subject grenfell meeting agenda yep and you say there and

01:06:52 meeting agenda yep and you say there and this is death of December 2011 and you're referring there to a discussion yesterday do you see that Peter further to our discussion yesterday yes and that

01:07:04 to our discussion yesterday yes and that would be the seventh of December 2011 and you say in that email I've pulled together a meeting agenda which sets out what I think we will need to cover tomorrow yeah and if you go please to

01:07:18 tomorrow yeah and if you go please to the agenda itself we can show that to you that's se a four zeroes three five five seven please se a zero zero zero zero three five five seven yeah and here

01:07:33 zero three five five seven yeah and here it is calc meeting to review potential works to grenfell tower to be held at our be KC Town Hall on Friday nights December at 10:00 a.m. agenda and you see that yes just costing all right down

01:07:44 see that yes just costing all right down it you could see a number of issues or topics for discussion on that day is that agenda based on your on your conversation that you'd had with Peter right no I died at that stage we had

01:07:57 right no I died at that stage we had absolutely no certainty that the tower would be a commission that would come our way we knew that there was there were discussions inside kensington about

01:08:11 were discussions inside kensington about undertaking works to the tower and Peter had approached me for sort of early explorative meeting and I always

01:08:22 explorative meeting and I always preferred to be prepared even for a for exploring to meeting so that agenda was thrown together just to give it some structure right well you take the throne together was it you who as it were

01:08:33 together was it you who as it were through it together correct I see see it was it you therefore who proposed the scope of work outlined in your agenda it was Mayans I I cannot remember how much discussion

01:08:49 I cannot remember how much discussion there may have occurred prior to this but I created a list like a checklist of things that might come up

01:08:56 come up I see if you if you look at item two yeah it says review of work scope windows cladding you see that yes I do so was it you who put those on the

01:09:08 so was it you who put those on the agenda for discussion with mr. Wright I doubt whether I would have said that unless there was an indication from somebody at the council that that's what they wanted to do where would you where do you remember getting that indication

01:09:20 do you remember getting that indication from do you think I attended meetings [Music]

01:09:27 [Music] SRO meetings which was basically a senior executive meeting which overviewed the project and I'm fairly confident that there would have been

01:09:39 confident that there would have been mentioned of the tower as an issue that needed to be addressed at some point remember who first suggested cladding to

01:09:51 remember who first suggested cladding to you such that it turned up on this agenda it could have been Peter it could have been Laura I can't think of anybody else at that time I would have been speaking to who would have had any

01:10:03 speaking to who would have had any knowledge of this so Peter Wright or Laura Johnson yes both at our bkc yes yes so would it be right to say that

01:10:16 yes so would it be right to say that from an early stage late in the year 2011

01:10:23 2011 you knew that over cladding of Grenville tower was likely to form part of any project in respect of that building yes that was the indication that was being given by Kensington do you remember

01:10:35 given by Kensington do you remember where the Peter Wright had mentioned cladding to you on the 7th of December during the discussion that you referred to in your email I know it's a long time again but I don't trigger a recollection

01:10:46 again but I don't trigger a recollection [Music]

01:10:48 [Music] if I didn't have the the notes and the agenda in front of me I wouldn't remember the meeting I'm sorry but so I think I think before we leave this document the work scope also refers

01:11:03 document the work scope also refers - in the last bullet point under item - do you see upgrade of externals yes additional stairs straight lift from raised deck removal of existing de stitches stair real and scraping of deck

01:11:15 stitches stair real and scraping of deck and ground levels above areas of north tower was was that from you or was that again from Peter right at all well it would have been I have to caveat this

01:11:27 would have been I have to caveat this because I was sound trying to recall but we'd been working on the Academy and leisure project for a couple of months at this point and we've got fairly well

01:11:40 at this point and we've got fairly well into trying to analyze all the different boundary conditions and relationships with with all the various adjoining properties so from what I can recollect

01:11:52 properties so from what I can recollect there was discussion about how to improve circulation around the tower so there was there were discussions of foot to provide a new lift which would actually permit pedestrians to come down

01:12:04 actually permit pedestrians to come down from the first floor deck down to the ground level there was a discussion about a disused there and and then there was the issue of how the landscape might

01:12:16 was the issue of how the landscape might integrate with the the deck level now to be blunt about it can I ask you this was there a feeling in your head that the

01:12:28 there a feeling in your head that the appearance of Grenville tower and its surroundings was something of an eyesore next to the proposed project for calc

01:12:40 you're using very subjective and strong terms and I don't think we would have

01:12:53 this was an upgrade of a very large sways of that part of Kensington because they did the new scheme was the Academy the the Leisure Centre than the the

01:13:04 the the Leisure Centre than the the public realm that surrounded it you could see why the council might be thinking that it might be a good idea to upgrade the top and that's the council's

01:13:16 upgrade the top and that's the council's thinking you can see that but what about your feeling that was my question well I clearly could see that that it would be a good idea to upgrade the tower if that was the appropriate time

01:13:29 tower if that was the appropriate time to do it because of the way it looked is what I'm suggesting to you

01:13:42 I think you're trying to put words in my mouth and I don't I'm not prepared to say it I don't think I had a such a strong view of the tower I I repeat we

01:13:53 strong view of the tower I I repeat we work within the constraints that we we find on every given site and if the tower had remained as it was then it would have remained as it was there were other motivators that actually caused the council I think to move on the top

01:14:06 the council I think to move on the top very well can I take you back then to a document that I had tried to show you and failed to show you a moment ago can you please go to TMO one zero zero zero

01:14:17 you please go to TMO one zero zero zero zero nine six five

01:14:27 and can I ask you please to go to page three yep and yeah this is the bottom in

01:14:39 three yep and yeah this is the bottom in the bottom email on that page is the one I wanted to show you which is the one from our bkc from James 4:3 to Laura Johnson and Peter Wright on the 2nd of

01:14:50 Johnson and Peter Wright on the 2nd of November and if you go please to the bottom of the page third line from the bottom it says I've got a device I might

01:15:06 bottom it says I've got a device I might be able to assist you with I was going to help never mind in the last sentence you on the bottom of that page you can

01:15:17 you on the bottom of that page you can see it says this Peter advised that the Calcutta calc architects are very aware of the poor quality of the ground floor frontage do you see that yes that Grenville tower creates for their scheme

01:15:28 Grenville tower creates for their scheme and have been keen to make proposals as to how to improve it now you're you were the calc architect

01:15:39 now you're you were the calc architect mr. mr. gazelle first of all can I ask you did you say to Peter Wright that you

01:15:50 you did you say to Peter Wright that you were aware of the poor quality of the ground floor frontage that the green filter creates for your scheme and we're keen to make proposals as to how to improve it did you say that to him first

01:16:01 improve it did you say that to him first of all I don't think this is my these are my words you're right they're not it and I should have told you this this is an email you didn't see at the time it's just recording a discussion within our

01:16:14 just recording a discussion within our bkc but the answer to your question is that we were working as I've mentioned earlier across a whole series of complex

01:16:25 earlier across a whole series of complex boundaries which required some creative thinking about how to reconcile the new development with everything that had joined it and the boundary around Grenville tower over

01:16:40 the boundary around Grenville tower over and above actually some parts of it being held very dear to the people of Grenville was actually quite fluid I mean there was no physical boundary that

01:16:51 mean there was no physical boundary that I defined exactly what what belong to which property but it was clear that whatever scheme came forward not so much as part of the Academy but part of the

01:17:02 as part of the Academy but part of the public realm development needed to reconcile a lot of issues and this was one of them mystic shell let's just take this a little bit more in stages but my first question is did you or anybody within

01:17:16 question is did you or anybody within studio E to your knowledge tell Peter Wright that you are aware of the poor quality of the ground-floor frontage to Grenfell that Grenaa tall tower creates

01:17:27 Grenfell that Grenaa tall tower creates for the calc scheme did you say that I don't think I really said it exactly those words no well did you give the sense of it I would have given the sense of it in the sense that I've already

01:17:38 of it in the sense that I've already explained to you that when you have a site which has amorphous boundaries and often areas which have been perhaps ill considered or neglected that as part of

01:17:52 considered or neglected that as part of the upgrade of the area you would have considered it in that way and did you say or give the sense of the idea that you were keen to make proposals as to

01:18:04 you were keen to make proposals as to how to improve it I don't think we had a new option but to suggest that because the scheme included the public realm that actually directly joined the tower

01:18:17 that actually directly joined the tower as well as also would form the direct public realm our joining the Academy and Leisure Centre can I ask you to look on in the same email on page 4 if the

01:18:29 in the same email on page 4 if the operator could turn over the page is it's a long email yes and if you look please at the third bullet point down it

01:18:41 please at the third bullet point down it says this the TMO is also keen to investigate the opportunity to clad Grenaa fill tower and replace its windows and will seek to cost this out with a view to investing EPG funds here

01:18:53 with a view to investing EPG funds here do you remember that do you remember that being something the TMO was keen to do can you tell me when exactly this was

01:19:05 do can you tell me when exactly this was written yes this was the second of November 2011 no I wouldn't have been familiar with this correspondence at all I mean I repeat we were the my awareness of the intention to do something with

01:19:19 of the intention to do something with the tower I think almost entirely was based on conversations with Peter and the meetings I attended at Kensington

01:19:30 the meetings I attended at Kensington with Laura Johnson right can I just ask you then taking that noting what you've just said look at the next sentence and that's two sentences in the same bullet point it says this will have the

01:19:42 bullet point it says this will have the advantage of addressing the investment needs of one of its worst property assets and prevent it looking like a poor cousin to the brand-new facility being developed next door there may be an option to have a cladding design that

01:19:54 an option to have a cladding design that links to the design of the Academy so that the visual appearance of the area is significantly improved I've shown you that my question to you is mr. tishell is that something or are

01:20:05 is mr. tishell is that something or are those things that mr. right or mr. Johnson ever discussed with you

01:20:14 I think I can only speculate and try to recall because I don't remember exactly what would have been said at the time these are conversations which were held nine years ago so don't speculate that

01:20:27 nine years ago so don't speculate that do try to recall I am trying to recall and I do know that there were discussions about the reclad of the building and clearly if it was reclad then there would be the issues of consideration of what the reclad would

01:20:40 consideration of what the reclad would be and and how that actually worked with the development alongside yeah I mean did anybody ever say to you that they wanted a cladding design that linked to the design of calc so that the visual

01:20:52 the design of calc so that the visual appearance of the area would be significantly improved I think that the motivator for reclad the building with several I mean I I believe it was as

01:21:04 several I mean I I believe it was as much to do with the thermal performance of the envelope as it was to actually improving the appearance of the building within the context of the new development yes thank you mr. chairman

01:21:17 development yes thank you mr. chairman we've been going for an hour I never had slightly delayed start it may be appropriate to have a break now I'm on the same topic but we're going to move to a different document right yes well

01:21:30 to a different document right yes well thank you so we we have a break during the morning because many people not just the witness find that if we run for three hours it's too long so we're going to take a break now for just over ten

01:21:41 to take a break now for just over ten minutes again you asked you please not now you started giving evidence not to discuss your evidence or even the subject of about which you're speaking to us did anyone else until you've

01:21:53 to us did anyone else until you've finished right and we rise now and we'll resume at twenty five to twelve please

01:36:49 could you ask mr. Cassell to cut back please

01:37:02 straight

01:37:13 ready to carry on mr. kachelle yeah mr. kachelle a couple of questions just to get one or two things from earlier this morning in your evidence you refer to nine employees or staff

01:37:28 you refer to nine employees or staff members at Studio e did that include support staff or were they all registered architects there was one office manager one office manager but

01:37:39 office manager one office manager but the rest were registered architects with it the rest were architects or Nayan architects I need fundamentally the practice the number the people who were with us well I think the office manager

01:37:57 with us well I think the office manager and and one all senior people right now you refer to Gary Stewart this morning as the person in charge of the health

01:38:08 as the person in charge of the health and safety compliance with the CDM regulations just a number of questions about that first was Gary Stewart a registered architect yes he was and was he a registered health and safety

01:38:19 he a registered health and safety practitioner I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean by that he he was a fully trained architect and every architect has an obligation to practice

01:38:33 architect has an obligation to practice responsibly under the health and safety regulations yes but he was he actually registered though as a health and safety practitioner and then no and not to my know did he did mr. Stewart have any

01:38:48 know did he did mr. Stewart have any specific training or education on health and safety issues which would equip him to discharge his duty as a health and safety practitioner he personally would

01:39:01 safety practitioner he personally would not have but we had an organization supporting us Crona who consultants and they in that

01:39:14 Crona who consultants and they in that period actually carried out a review of our health and safety procedures I see could could you spell their name for me please CRO and CRO and ER and you say they did a review

01:39:26 CRO and ER and you say they did a review of your health of safety procedures when when was that please during 2013 2013 and was there a report then yes a written report there was a written report there was a written

01:39:38 written report there was a written report was that who did who did that written report go to within CDA we do you remember it went to all all the board members and and I and I think all the associates and probably even the senior architects I see and you read it

01:39:51 senior architects I see and you read it to you I assume yes and did he give you a clean bill of health or were their criticisms in it it wasn't that type of report they were actually taking a review for an upgrade of systems and and

01:40:04 review for an upgrade of systems and and I remembered that there was a bit of frustration because we felt that whereas it was actually fairly strong on the

01:40:15 it was actually fairly strong on the sort of admin office side of things it was perhaps less helpful on the project side and did Crona have specific construction and design expertise yes he

01:40:29 construction and design expertise yes he did we may come back to revisit that in in due course if we need to can I move on in time from where we were in the emails which we were looking at before

01:40:41 emails which we were looking at before there was a meeting on the 9th of December 2011 with RB Casey and you cover that in your statement to paragraph 34 if we could have that up on the screen please that's s EA zero zero

01:40:53 the screen please that's s EA zero zero zero one four two seven one at page nine paragraph 34 and you say there on Friday night of December 2011 I attended a

01:41:04 night of December 2011 I attended a preliminarily preliminary meeting at our BK's Town Hall with Peter Wright our bkc to review potential works to the tower yes I prepared an agenda for the meeting we've seen that yeah and you go on to say add

01:41:16 seen that yeah and you go on to say add the meeting Peter Wright would have provided an introduction and overview of the rbk C's objectives and reviewed the scope of potential works who else attended the meeting do you remember

01:41:30 I killed could not be certain it may have just been Peter and myself right and do you remember what I'll be Cayce said if anything about the objective that they wished to achieve through the

01:41:43 that they wished to achieve through the works on around Grenfell tower as I recall it they were looking to upgrade

01:41:55 recall it they were looking to upgrade the tower at the same time as the main project was undertaken and did you tell our bkc at that meeting that you had concerns about the appearance of

01:42:07 concerns about the appearance of Grenfell tower which had an effect on the catechol project you keep asking me to sprint and I keep saying that I don't think I was particularly categoric about it I mean I could see the benefit of

01:42:18 it I mean I could see the benefit of having the tower refurbished if that's if the council were mindful to do it it wasn't that I was pushing them to actually undertake the project was there any discussion of over cladding

01:42:29 any discussion of over cladding Grenville tower there may have been there may have been when you say there may have been do you say you call it was on the agenda so I'd be surprised if it wasn't um I think it had been broached

01:42:40 wasn't um I think it had been broached before right can I ask you now please to be shown se a zero zero zero zero four zeros three five six seven at page two

01:42:57 now this is an email from mark Anderson to you mr. kachelle on the 29th of February 2012 you see that yes

01:43:10 February 2012 you see that yes and subject Grenville tower adjacent to calc yes and he sets out the initial description of the project

01:43:23 description of the project no mark Anderson is TMAO isn't he yes how do you come across him before before this email I I cannot recall okay and he

01:43:44 this email I I cannot recall okay and he says good evening Andre I understand the peter has mentioned the generalities of our approach and desire to make use of the services offered by Studio II and he goes on to say there is desire as a

01:43:55 goes on to say there is desire as a desire both on the part of our be Casey and Casey TMO to enhance Grenville tower whilst undertaking the CAO project and then you'll see underneath that he says that the principal objectives of the project are and there are a lot there a

01:44:09 project are and there are a lot there a number of them a - I yes and the first one is to improve the public public realm links around the base of the tower as provided for in the SPD what was the

01:44:21 as provided for in the SPD what was the SPD development plan right and then G you can see two over clad the tower

01:44:32 you can see two over clad the tower providing for significant energy efficiency including the windows yes and a number of other things as as well my question about that list was this the

01:44:43 question about that list was this the first communication that you of goe have had with the TMO in respect of the ground for tower project in at all

01:44:55 I couldn't be absolutely certain but I think so this this communication I think I received when I was on holiday and I

01:45:07 I received when I was on holiday and I recall that briefs at that point stepped into the discussions with the TMO right

01:45:21 they you say you were on holiday is that a specific recollection that you have yes because I I'm a skier so I she was skiing at that point in time I think

01:45:32 was skiing at that point in time I think right I usually go at that time to view I see okay and it then says this work will be separate too but complementing calc

01:45:43 calc it must not in any way compromise the calc project and we will require assurances and a clear delineation demonstrating this what did you understand he meant by assurances I I

01:45:55 understand he meant by assurances I I think there was a concern both in well initially with Kensington that they didn't want the count project to suffer

01:46:08 didn't want the count project to suffer because we were going to dissipate resources on and something else so I think there was a requirement on us to provide people who would be separate to

01:46:20 provide people who would be separate to the stuff that we were using on calc and my understanding was also that they would be separate contracts right I see now going back to the list a - I if we

01:46:33 now going back to the list a - I if we can you can see the first one all the first two a and B is improving public realm and then B to rationalize the ground floor arrangements and then item

01:46:44 ground floor arrangements and then item G we've just seen over cladding when you got this list did you read this list as ranking items in order of importance no and the email goes on to say just

01:46:58 no and the email goes on to say just below

01:47:00 below the list three paragraphs below it additionally it says Commission's will be via kctmapg or oj EU limits do you see that just it's the third paragraph

01:47:16 see that just it's the third paragraph all line

01:47:17 all line yes below the list yes about that that rather suggests that it was the TMO who wanted to use Studio E as the architect

01:47:28 wanted to use Studio E as the architect for the Grenfell refurbishment is that how you read it I think I understood

01:47:39 how you read it I think I understood that notwithstanding the fact that we'd been introduced to this through Kensington that it would be the case ET mo who would be commissioning us and

01:47:51 mo who would be commissioning us and then he goes on to say at the bottom well perhaps I should ask you first before I do subject oh do limits what were those limits at the time do you recall I wouldn't be able to croak

01:48:02 you recall I wouldn't be able to croak what the limits would be I think that's probably a question for KC t mo but we we know that government agencies have to operate within certain limits if they're going to a single entity yes in fact I

01:48:17 going to a single entity yes in fact I think the the limits at that time are 174 174 thousand pounds does that ring a bell with you yeah maybe and then he

01:48:28 bell with you yeah maybe and then he goes on to say just after the 1 2 3 stages we need to rapidly conclude the initial stage and proceed quickly with the project so that we maximize any

01:48:39 the project so that we maximize any opportunities that may arise from joint procurement and construction so did you get the impression from that the that time was of the essence speed was needed yes

01:48:53 and what did you take by the phrase opportunities that may arise from joint procurement and construction what opportunities did you understand there were from that well there were at least

01:49:08 were from that well there were at least two significant opportunities the first would be that by using the same contractor and the same team in fact in

01:49:19 contractor and the same team in fact in a way possibly three by using the same contractor and the same team that had already been pre-selected for the count project that it would actually be a more straightforward procedure for appointing

01:49:31 straightforward procedure for appointing that same team to do the tower second was that there could be commercial advantages of having a team that's already in harness so to speak and

01:49:44 already in harness so to speak and particularly the contractor being on-site that it might actually reduce cost and thirdly because the team and the contractor were already operational

01:49:56 the contractor were already operational this would permit both the tower and the Cal project to be completed at the same time so cheap convenient quick even

01:50:10 time so cheap convenient quick even though Grandville tower was a completely different kind of project with different challenges as it proved it wasn't cheap because the contractor priced higher than the budget convenient yes and and I

01:50:27 than the budget convenient yes and and I could see why the borough would wish to see the whole project completed in its entirety more or less at the same time okay now um is it right that mark Anderson of the TMO made but let me ask

01:50:39 Anderson of the TMO made but let me ask it differently did Mark Anderson of the TMO ever make any inquiries to your knowledge of studio is relevant skills knowledge and experience in over

01:50:50 knowledge and experience in over cladding residential high-rise buildings existing over residential high-rise buildings

01:50:57 buildings I don't recall that as a direct question though what about as an indirect question there was a comment made by somebody in in the borough when we were

01:51:10 somebody in in the borough when we were we were designing as a residential part to the calc development it was something like 30 units at the far end next to the leisure center and we were getting a bit

01:51:22 leisure center and we were getting a bit of stick for the design and somebody and I can't warrant who made a comment that you know studio we aren't exactly um you know residential architects so I mean

01:51:34 know residential architects so I mean that's kind of a very indirect comment that's the only one I can really recall in a sense that you are suggesting was that comment made to you it was made

01:51:45 that comment made to you it was made another don't think it may have been made at Planning Committee or in a large consultation did you respond to it I don't think it was made to me now

01:52:00 don't think it was made to me now the process of appointment of studio e to the Grenville tower project was was rather different from calc and let me

01:52:11 rather different from calc and let me perhaps I can ask you this way did the process of appointment of studio e to the Grenville tower project require you to have any relevant skills knowledge and experience of over cladding an

01:52:23 and experience of over cladding an existing high-rise residential tower block did the prices of appointment to the ground felt our project involve any competitive procurement so far our

01:52:34 competitive procurement so far our studio he was concerned no where else did it involve an interview

01:52:41 not in the sense that I think you mean in a procurement sense no we weren't involved in was there a design competition no was there a competence checked done by the TMA on Studio II

01:52:54 checked done by the TMA on Studio II there was a competence check undertaken by Kensington and how how they shed that with KC team oh I wouldn't be able to

01:53:05 with KC team oh I wouldn't be able to answer when I say competence check I mean competence check for the Grenville tower project as opposed to the cat project no I appreciate what you're asking but they were effectively in discussions with Kensington to take the

01:53:17 discussions with Kensington to take the whole team contractor and all designers as one right as far as you recall Miska so what what was the competence check that our bkc did of Studio II in respect

01:53:29 that our bkc did of Studio II in respect to the Grenville tower project in the specific Grenville time I think that [Music]

01:53:35 [Music] first of all that I if I can answer this in sequence for the calc project I would struggle to recall exactly what they asked but I do know that they would have checked our competence when it comes to

01:53:49 checked our competence when it comes to how that might have been transferred from Kensington to KC TM oh I think I'm probably not in the best position to answer that it may be that my colleague Bruce sands who actually took over the

01:54:00 Bruce sands who actually took over the negotiations at that point in time may be able to add something to this but I can't just let us ask it one more time so that I'm clear you're clear about

01:54:11 so that I'm clear you're clear about what I'm asking do you recall either rbk see all the TMO ever doing a competence check of Studio E for the Grenville tower project in my recollection I

01:54:22 tower project in my recollection I cannot recall that that doesn't mean they didn't

01:54:32 so does that mean that you're not able to help me answer the question whether either our bkc or TM o ever investigated studio ease expertise experience and

01:54:44 studio ease expertise experience and suitability for the grenfell tower project I'm saying that at that point in time when that might have happened I was not in the forefront of these discussions I do not recall a slightly

01:54:59 discussions I do not recall a slightly different question but similar format did anybody T mor bkc ever ask or investigate where the studio II was

01:55:10 investigate where the studio II was appropriately qualified and resourced from a CDM point of view to carry out the Grandville project again I fall into

01:55:21 the Grandville project again I fall into the same category as the previous question from Lansing right and going back to if I can the email we looked at a minute ago which it's still on the

01:55:33 a minute ago which it's still on the screen it should be still on the screen I asked you about the sentence that says

01:55:42 we need assurances this is just after the list you could just get back to that yes you can see that there this work will be separate to but complimenting

01:55:57 you I think we're required and you told me this earlier to ensure that you didn't divert resources away from the calc project correct yes did you understand that that meant that the grenfell project was in some way a lower

01:56:09 grenfell project was in some way a lower priority no calc no not at all was it a lower priority for studio II project not at all what was the size of the calc team within studio E as at 2012

01:56:30 into in all honesty I think that it would be very difficult for me to answer that with any certainty because the team varied in size depending on the stage it

01:56:41 varied in size depending on the stage it was that about I would have expected maybe eight people from the project on couch yeah oh the Academy more specifically because they were there was

01:56:53 specifically because they were there was another firm of architects working on the ledger center right so with that would that be eight out of nine all right Oliver did you save in

01:57:04 nine all right Oliver did you save in 2012 2012 eight out of how many let me ask you that way oh gosh I mean we were a practice of 40-odd at that point at that time so you soon in terms of

01:57:18 that time so you soon in terms of deploying resources if that's where the question is leading is that where you're going with this question I just want to know numbers I try to get a sense of the proportion of staff architect architects

01:57:30 proportion of staff architect architects that you put on the CAO project in comparison with the proportion of architects that you put on the Grenville tower project did you see I'm just trying to get a feel for how that for what those numbers are the problem with

01:57:41 what those numbers are the problem with your question is that it's generalizes and the numbers of staff who work on a project vary through the different stages so it's much lower at the

01:57:52 stages so it's much lower at the beginning and it Peaks when you're doing the detailed technical information yes so calc was shall we say out of sequence

01:58:04 so calc was shall we say out of sequence with the Grenville because grandfer got going much later than calc and so whereas the team on how would have been peeking in the second half of 2012

01:58:16 peeking in the second half of 2012 Grenville was still actually had a very sort of interim planning stage which was which meant that I can't I think Bruce

01:58:27 which meant that I can't I think Bruce answer should answer the question specifically how many people were working on Krenzel because I I would not wish to hazard but it was definitely the appropriate number to do the project what are our

01:58:39 number to do the project what are our IBA state you know anyone I talk about all right yes what are our IBA stage would you normally see a peak for requirement of architects stroke ef ef

01:58:52 requirement of architects stroke ef ef okay and at what stage will rather when was the EF stage for calc for your part in calc it was in the second half of

01:59:05 in calc it was in the second half of 2012 and when was the EF stage for the benefit our project we didn't get to e until the very end of 2013 we you helped

01:59:23 until the very end of 2013 we you helped to say earlier on about the procurement process that had been run for the calc project and for the Grenfell tower project do you accept that had a

01:59:37 project do you accept that had a competitive procurement process been run for the Grenville tower project for architectural services it's unlikely that studio II would have qualified given the absence of any high-rise residential refurbishment experience I

01:59:50 residential refurbishment experience I think that knowing the way procurement works with local authorities I think you're right yeah now we looked at the

02:00:02 you're right yeah now we looked at the og au limit a minute ago it's referred to in this letter or email in passing on the footing that it was 174 thousand pounds at the time take that from me

02:00:13 pounds at the time take that from me would that mean that the estimated value of studio e's contract for architectural services with the TMO would have to be less than 174 thousand pounds the answer is yes but

02:00:29 thousand pounds the answer is yes but the precise figures that were operating at the time again I would much prefer that some briefs answered the question rather than me because I he was much closer to it we'll certainly do that

02:00:41 closer to it we'll certainly do that did you understand at the time and this is late 2012 I'm talking that that the fees for studio II had in

02:00:52 that that the fees for studio II had in essence been capped at the oj EU limit of one hundred and seventy four thousand pounds I knew there was a cap you knew there was a cat we didn't know how much I know there was a figure being quoted

02:01:03 I know there was a figure being quoted and I can't you've mentioned out in 74 thousand I cannot remember the figure but but I do remember and then think there's correspondents in my evidence that's actually between myself and

02:01:14 that's actually between myself and briefs indicating that the feed was low for we were being asked yeah we'll come to that I think did you form the view at the time that case et mo was trying to

02:01:27 the time that case et mo was trying to avoid a competitive procurement process by keeping your fees below the 174 thousand town cap it was certainly my

02:01:40 thousand town cap it was certainly my understanding it was a method to permit them to appoint not just us but others as well to carry out the work prior to

02:01:51 as well to carry out the work prior to being novated to the contractor under the selection process that had been employed for the contractor using the easi framework now this stage do you

02:02:06 easi framework now this stage do you remember that the TMO was planning to use the same design and build contractor for Grenfell that it was using on the Cal project yes Leadbetter yes correct yes and do you

02:02:18 Leadbetter yes correct yes and do you remember was why was that we it was for the same reasons that I mentioned earlier the I gave you the three reasons

02:02:29 earlier the I gave you the three reasons right it's those three reasons is it okay now we know that Bruce sounds emailed you the same day 29th of

02:02:41 emailed you the same day 29th of February 2012 if we could please have up on the screen se a zero zero zero zero three five six seven page one

02:02:53 and here it is email from him to you at 20/20 Andre day not sure if you've received all of the below concerned

02:03:04 received all of the below concerned about the emphasis of working at risk while planning to oje you it it all doesn't add up you see that yes just pausing there was

02:03:17 you see that yes just pausing there was he concerned sorry let me just ask it differently what do you remember in your mind whether he was concerned about studio II not getting paid yes and

02:03:28 studio II not getting paid yes and concerned also perhaps about the level of fees bearing in mind the OGE you limit yes and he then says in the third paragraph i feel first i need to acknowledge receipt asked to meet then

02:03:40 acknowledge receipt asked to meet then walk the site with him to understand the scope described probably with neil we are a little green on process and technicality so i proposed some rapid CDP MMF being my first point of call i

02:03:53 CDP MMF being my first point of call i will hold off circulating this until we understand their thinking on consultants they said to ask you about that final paragraph MF who was at a reference to max Fordham now they were the building

02:04:05 max Fordham now they were the building services engineer on the couch project weren't they yes why would max Fordham been have been able to assist you your firm in obtaining rapid CDP or CPT it should

02:04:17 obtaining rapid CDP or CPT it should have been insured for for the groennfell project that was being I believe they had quite some track record of dealing with refurbishment of

02:04:28 with refurbishment of of residential buildings including towers what would you have asked them what would I have asked them yes well what would you or Studio II have asked them when obtaining CPD from

02:04:41 have asked them when obtaining CPD from em from max Fordham well I think Plus perhaps the better way to start the

02:04:53 perhaps the better way to start the answer to this question would be to remark what brief section meant by rabid CPD well we will ask him about that I'm asking about your understanding as the recipient of this email let me ask a

02:05:07 recipient of this email let me ask a different question as at the date of this email late February 2012 did you feel that Studio II really did have the relevant skills knowledge and experience to provide the architectural services that the Grenfell tower project demanded

02:05:19 that the Grenfell tower project demanded I believed that we had the processes and experience of complex buildings to be able to undertake this commission and it wasn't just my belief it was clearly the

02:05:30 wasn't just my belief it was clearly the belief of all senior members in my practice and but it was clear that there would be a need for CPD and and research

02:05:43 would be a need for CPD and and research around the project to actually establish what the different issues around this project might be so coming back to your question on max Fordham's the practice

02:05:55 question on max Fordham's the practice always took the holistic view of how they how we approached our design work so our belief was always to assemble a team from the earliest briefing stage on

02:06:06 team from the earliest briefing stage on the project because we believed that all members of a team have something to contribute even at those early stages so

02:06:17 contribute even at those early stages so max ordinates who our firm we've worked with a huge amount very successfully on lots and lots of projects knowing that they had a track record in residential it wasn't unreasonable for briefs at the

02:06:30 it wasn't unreasonable for briefs at the time to email me and say I will start my backs Wharton's because he had very good connections with them and it wouldn't have been uniquely just going to them there would be an obvious member to start with did you consider when you got

02:06:44 start with did you consider when you got this email or indeed at any time after that whether under the or in accordance with the CDM regulations 2007 as they existed then studio he was competent and

02:06:57 existed then studio he was competent and adequately resourced to address the health and safety issues likely to be involved on the Grenfell tower project I don't think I had a reason to doubt that we would be able to do it I think if

02:07:09 we would be able to do it I think if something had arisen as as we progressed then we would have reviewed it but but but the practice was doing complex projects and I've already answered the question that in many instances some of

02:07:23 question that in many instances some of those complex projects would have been the first tying project given that mr. sands is saying that you're a little green on process and technicality my question is why didn't you have reason

02:07:36 question is why didn't you have reason to doubt it namely these ability to be competent and adequately resourced to address the health and safety issues that would arise I think if I understand

02:07:50 that would arise I think if I understand your question you're saying did we think that we could actually accumulate the knowledge to do the project properly as

02:08:01 knowledge to do the project properly as we have done past the complex projects and there was no reason to doubt that we we couldn't do it did you give any specific you say you had no reason to doubt it but did you actually give any

02:08:12 doubt it but did you actually give any specific consideration to that question at the time well at the time when I received the email I saw you've already said I was actually on holiday but I I

02:08:24 said I was actually on holiday but I I knew that we had put the project in the hands of one of our most senior and experienced people technically very sound and and I'd had no reason to believe that he wasn't going to do what

02:08:35 believe that he wasn't going to do what he was saying he was going to do notably to start researching the project so does it come to this mr. q7 you didn't actually think about it specifically at the time you just didn't have any reason to think that your firm wouldn't be

02:08:48 to think that your firm wouldn't be competent and adequately resourced to address the relevant the relevant health and safety issues that would arise I had no reason to believe that we wouldn't be able to do right now we know

02:09:00 wouldn't be able to do right now we know from mr. CERN's statement his witness statement to the inquiry that when in this email he said we are a little green on process and technicalities so I propose some rapid EDP or CPD he was

02:09:13 propose some rapid EDP or CPD he was referring to C do E's lack of experience in residential high-rise over cladding projects now he'll be asked about about that but for the transcript rather than for your purposes

02:09:24 for your purposes mr. co-chairs paragraph 64 I want to ask you about the word rapid he uses the word rapid in the paragraph we're looking at did you sense when you got

02:09:36 looking at did you sense when you got this email that there was some urgency to C do e getting up to speed on how to over clad a residential tower block I

02:09:50 think well I got this email you my hunch is the briefs would have written is the email on the hoof and now you are going

02:10:01 email on the hoof and now you are going back on every single word in the email and I'm not sure that your interpretation is correct how doing the best you can with your recollection did you understand the sense of what mr.

02:10:15 you understand the sense of what mr. sands was telling you when he said I proposed some rapid EDP why I understood it to be exactly what he was saying which was that he was going to start researching the various issues that

02:10:27 researching the various issues that surrounded this type of project yeah I mean the impression that one might get from this email is that he thought there was some urgency to the matter and my question is did you get that impression

02:10:38 question is did you get that impression at the time

02:10:42 I don't about how urgent it was I mean the project typically projects go

02:10:54 the project typically projects go through the Rab ei stages which you you refer to earlier and so on every project the first step is actually agreeing the brief then there is the outline stage

02:11:10 brief then there is the outline stage stage C where where the initial ideas are developed usually rotating around the layout issues of a building and its

02:11:21 the layout issues of a building and its appearance and information actually builds up so yes there would have been an urgency to get on with the project and the CPD I keep looking at the CDP so

02:11:34 and the CPD I keep looking at the CDP so sorry

02:11:35 sorry CPD would have been part and parcel of of actually moving on the project can I ask you to look at paragraph 41 of your statement please that's SC a zero zero zero one four two seven one at page 11

02:11:48 zero one four two seven one at page 11 paragraph 41 yes and you are dealing with this email there and you say with regard to continuous professional development CPD to which I understood

02:11:59 development CPD to which I understood Bruce to be referring in this email we have a CPD policy at Studio E which comprises organize talks internal presentations in-house training and site visits and then you go on at the last

02:12:11 visits and then you go on at the last you can look at the rest of you life but I want to ask you about the last sentence here you say given the breadth of work that Studio II had a track record in delivering the size of the

02:12:22 record in delivering the size of the practice the quality and experience of the architects and designers it employs I took Bruce's comments there's nothing more than prudent recognition of needing to do some project specific research right what do you mean there in your

02:12:37 right what do you mean there in your statement by project specific research

02:12:42 every project we undertake has project specific research I mean even even I repeat Commission's require project specific research so in this case

02:12:53 specific research so in this case there's being a a new project to our practice there wouldn't be in specific legwork to do to actually research the issues that rotated around the project

02:13:05 issues that rotated around the project and would that have included looking at the regulations which govern the construction of external walls it would have included going to initially it

02:13:20 have included going to initially it would have gone would have included speaking to various parties who have had dealings with a project of this nature and they those discussions would inevitably steer you towards looking at

02:13:31 inevitably steer you towards looking at some aspects of the regulations it's right isn't it as we've seen that you've just been approached to design the refurbishment and overcrowding of what

02:13:42 refurbishment and overcrowding of what was a an existing residential high-rise tower yes

02:13:46 tower yes yeah and it's right as you told us earlier that your practice had never done a commission of that kind before right yes yes and you personally I think

02:13:57 right yes yes and you personally I think had never done a project like that before

02:13:59 before no and I think am i right in saying Bruce sounds the architect who was going to take the lead on the project had also never done a project like that before no so on what basis did you think that

02:14:12 so on what basis did you think that project specific research is you called it was going to be sufficient

02:14:21 well I think that first of all if it hadn't been sufficient I'm sure that Bruce would have come to me to say Angie I I'm at sea he I don't know what I'm doing so I wasn't directly dealing with

02:14:36 doing so I wasn't directly dealing with the project so I had no reason to believe that the research that would be undertaken was going to lead to any other conclusion and that we could continue with the project do you know what I'm using your expression project

02:14:48 what I'm using your expression project specific research Bruce sounds actually did I think I could try to summarize it for you but but but it would be a secondhand knowledge because obviously

02:14:59 secondhand knowledge because obviously he did the research not me and I think you you probably ought to direct the question to him okay I know he did it but I don't want to fall into an era of

02:15:11 but I don't want to fall into an era of actually quoting things that he may or may not have done fair enough but you say as you just have I know he did it what do you know he did what do you remember him having done I know that

02:15:22 you remember him having done I know that he was involved in the assisting KCT mo to appoint the whole team and I know that he was instrumental in getting them

02:15:34 that he was instrumental in getting them to point the fire consultants I know that he would have been speaking to all those consultants most of whom actually had experience of high-rise residential refurb type work I know he talked to

02:15:47 refurb type work I know he talked to specialists in the field cladding contractors who actually had done hundreds of hundreds but certainly many projects in the past who you say that

02:15:59 projects in the past who you say that you know that he talked to specialists in the field cladding contractors do you know who they were I think I you're asking me to ask answer the questions which I know know at

02:16:10 questions which I know know at secondhand and and I think you should be directing those questions to let me try let me try you if you don't mind do you remember which or who the cladding contractors were that Bruce sounds spoke

02:16:23 contractors were that Bruce sounds spoke to as part of his project specific research

02:16:28 I think we work the way we worked we were all in one studio and Bruce would have been closer than the chariot and so

02:16:43 have been closer than the chariot and so in the general working mode one would hear all sorts of things and and at the moment I have to I hope you will

02:16:54 moment I have to I hope you will appreciate that after two and a half years of hearing all sorts of information your memory can start to play tricks as to what you heard or didn't hear at the time

02:17:05 didn't hear at the time I obviously I'm familiar with the names that he did consult but I'm I'm not inclined to be speaking on his behalf as to precisely who he consulted it's not a trick question right I just don't even

02:17:18 trick question right I just don't even know whether you remember any specific names if you don't remember you don't remember we I really cannot recall her eyes so long ago all right it would have been in the in passing he may have even mentioned it to me but it would have been a conversation

02:17:29 me but it would have been a conversation not a written communication at least if there was a written communication not recalling at this moment in time did you make any checks yourself to see whether Bruce sounds or indeed anybody else that

02:17:40 Bruce sounds or indeed anybody else that Studio II actually did carry out any project specific research did you supervise that exercise I was aware that the research was being undertaken by repeats Bruce was in the same studio as me and and I was aware of the work being

02:17:53 me and and I was aware of the work being undertaken but he was in charge of the project and and I had every confidence that he was very capable of doing what he was doing did you take any steps to ensure that

02:18:06 did you take any steps to ensure that every member of the team that you were supervising or would come to supervise on the grand vitara project had carried out some research or had done any any

02:18:17 out some research or had done any any CPD on for example cladding high-rises I was aware of of people working with Bruce on the

02:18:28 of people working with Bruce on the project and therefore doing that sort of research but but I wasn't involved in any of the detail now who can you identify who you were aware of as having

02:18:39 identify who you were aware of as having carried out that sort of research I could only recall people who worked on the project whether what they specifically were doing on the project is something you should be asking Bruce from your knowledge do you know whether

02:18:52 from your knowledge do you know whether anybody who worked on the project themselves carried out any project specific research about how to over clad a residential high-rise building I know

02:19:03 a residential high-rise building I know now that they were doing it yes right and and do you know what they were doing even now I think I do but I repeat that

02:19:15 even now I think I do but I repeat that you are asking me questions having acknowledged that I actually wasn't hands-on on the project so you're asking me to answer things which were not in my

02:19:28 me to answer things which were not in my direct knowledge within the practice of the size that we were at the time people took control of projects and and and you you only were looking at things which

02:19:40 you only were looking at things which were drawn to your attention and that's how the hierarchy worked now can I ask you we're moving on in time can I ask you to look please at se a zero zero

02:19:52 you to look please at se a zero zero zero zero one four two seven two s is your statement yeah

02:20:02 yep

02:20:12 if you go to page two I'm so sorry I've given you page one I think I need to give you page two and we see there an

02:20:24 give you page two and we see there an email from you to you I'm so sorry it's like to brief sounds from you of Wednesday the 7th of March 2012 Bruce I will give you a call to discuss happy

02:20:35 will give you a call to discuss happy for you to front I seem to remember an aje you limit of around 175,000 pounds but it maybe it has been reduced ninety nine thousand pounds will be problematic for the services they are proposing and

02:20:48 for the services they are proposing and you go on to say we should not look at this as as a poor relative but more as an extension of the Commission I'm sure that I'll be Casey will be looking for something that will complement the calc development and if you you see that then

02:21:07 development and if you you see that then if you go over the page because there's an email that comes lower down but no we've missed it it's but if you go I can find it if you go down the page on page

02:21:19 find it if you go down the page on page two it's immediately below it you get the response from Bruce sounds did you see

02:21:31 response from Bruce sounds did you see that yes

02:21:33 that yes Andre brief update met mark yesterday with Bill Tony and someone else from MF walked around we'll have another walk around next week he thought AGA you limit was 175,000

02:21:44 he thought AGA you limit was 175,000 pounds I did a quick search and found ninety nine thousand and then he goes on to say it's definitely a project but a poor relative compared to calc he mentioned Hunter's arriving at a figure of five to six million pounds

02:21:55 figure of five to six million pounds which sounds too little and then he goes on to say I think you or I need to go back to mark outlining or take and plan of action and fee estimate Apple Yards was discussed but only that they are not

02:22:08 was discussed but only that they are not part of our team and that costumes would be needed left that with mark he's also going to chase what drawings he can find very happy to front this then he goes on to say might be cleaner and provide a

02:22:19 to say might be cleaner and provide a shield for Gary's gripes resourcing wise I'm not sure Marcus's maybe not the right person for sketches massing studies and visuals highlight of the walk around as a boxing club see attached I've read it all to you because I have a number of detailed questions on

02:22:31 I have a number of detailed questions on the email and you've said in your statement and we can we can live it if it if we if we need to that if the oje you limit was ninety nine thousand pounds which what it wasn't then that

02:22:43 pounds which what it wasn't then that would be problematic do you remember saying that in your statement I could share to you if you like its paragraph forty four yes cool right there by that do you mean that ninety nine thousand

02:22:54 do you mean that ninety nine thousand pounds would not cover all of the design work needed in advance of putting the project out to tender for a design and build I think that was the inference yes did you think that one hundred and

02:23:05 did you think that one hundred and seventy four thousand pounds would be sufficient to cover that work you think

02:23:17 sufficient to cover that work you think get that right you think you thought it would does that indicate that there was some indication that you knew that the budget will thought that the budget for

02:23:28 budget will thought that the budget for the architectural services would be tight from the outset

02:23:39 we were we were worried that that as you saw in the previous email there were two issues the first was what were the budget for the fees would be and the second was if we did undertake work at

02:23:53 second was if we did undertake work at risk

02:23:54 risk you know if the project was stopped would we lose out yes and who just lost the question again so not quite sure you know let me put it a slightly different

02:24:05 know let me put it a slightly different way is it fair to say that you thought that the budget for the architectural services that you are being asked to provide for the Grenville tower project would be tight i I think we were worried

02:24:23 would be tight i I think we were worried that that's the Oh June limits that would be imposed on on the KCMO could result in us having to do more work than the fee would cover did that

02:24:35 work than the fee would cover did that affect your enthusiasm for the project no did it did it affect your decisions on how you would resource the project no

02:24:45 mr. sands says in the second paragraph of the email addressed Shanee Hunters arriving at a figure of five to six million pounds that he thought was too

02:24:57 million pounds that he thought was too little did you agree

02:25:05 I think baristas comment there is probably gut reaction to the size of project and the value being put to it to

02:25:16 project and the value being put to it to [Music]

02:25:19 [Music] quantify a figure like that you would need to put in quite a bit of analysis to be accurate did you have any view about what you thought a reasonable figure might be no at that stage no I

02:25:35 figure might be no at that stage no I mean I I think this takes us back to what I I said earlier that in a sense when you develop a project you can start

02:25:49 when you develop a project you can start with a budget and then work out what you want to do or you could go the other way and work out what you want to do and then try to work out how much it costs there's always a budget and there's

02:26:01 there's always a budget and there's always an ambition and striking the balance between the two is what actually happened during those early design stages mr. sands goes on to say in the next paragraph rather the first part of

02:26:12 next paragraph rather the first part of the paragraph we're on it's definitely a project but a poor relative compared to calc is it fair to say that from from the way you understood it that mr. sands

02:26:23 the way you understood it that mr. sands was not particularly enthusiastic at least at this stage about the Grenfell tower project I don't think that reflects on Bruce's view of the project

02:26:37 reflects on Bruce's view of the project I think it was Bruce's reflection on the budget

02:26:44 I see okay but in comparison with the win on the count project for Studio II getting Grenfell wasn't much of a win I

02:26:55 getting Grenfell wasn't much of a win I don't think we would see it that way at all I think this is I would like to show you some respect to the people who who suffered in this tragedy in answering

02:27:06 suffered in this tragedy in answering this question for us it was an important project all right now you then go on to say sorry there's prologue missed a

02:27:17 say sorry there's prologue missed a minute because the reference to being a poor relative was touched on further yes I responded to that and this is the message to which I think mr. gazelle

02:27:28 message to which I think mr. gazelle then responded yes yes yes I'm gonna come come back to to that in a minute but let's look at it now since the chairman has raised to it you say in their in your response we shouldn't look

02:27:40 their in your response we shouldn't look at this as a pall relative but more as an extension of the Commission so is that is that right then in fact you saw the Grenfell turn our project is really an as an add-on to the counter I wish you'd stop using sorry to say this but

02:27:53 you'd stop using sorry to say this but such negative language we were very very proud to win the Cal Commission it I

02:28:04 proud to win the Cal Commission it I know that area of Kensington I don't lived I've never lived there but I know it very well and we could see that this project was going to make a huge difference to that part of Kensington

02:28:16 difference to that part of Kensington which always looks it's at itself as a poor neighbor to the south and it included not just the buildings but a lot of public realm which was being reinvented and and I our ambition was to

02:28:29 reinvented and and I our ambition was to make it as good as it possibly could be within the budgets that are being specified by the clients and I have to say that the tower fitted that absolutely our ambition was to actually

02:28:42 absolutely our ambition was to actually do the best possible job on the tower and that's why is why what I wrote what I wrote because it was an absolute firm belief that we were doing a scheme which

02:28:53 belief that we were doing a scheme which actually in its entirety would lift the area yeah when I use the word I think you seem to have taken exception because it makes it sound like a poor relative and and I'm afraid I see it as a whole

02:29:03 a whole thank you very much I just wanted to get your evidence about what you mean as an extension of the Commission the Commission that let me ask you the Commission you're talking about in this

02:29:15 Commission you're talking about in this email was what the original Commission was to redesign the laser sensor design a new Academy provides some additional residential and also to reappoint a huge

02:29:29 residential and also to reappoint a huge area of space that surrounded these buildings and no joined Grenville yeah can I ask you to go back please to the email we were looking at from Bruce sounds to you to which you were responding in the penultimate paragraph

02:29:42 responding in the penultimate paragraph he says very happy to front this might be cleaner and provide a shield for Gary's gripes and who is Gary is that Gary Stewart yes and what were Gary's gripes at that time do you remember this

02:29:53 gripes at that time do you remember this is early 2012 I think it would be better for you to ask briefs exactly what he meant by Gary's grapes but there was

02:30:09 meant by Gary's grapes but there was some friction in the practice and it may be that some Bruce was referring to that but I think in all honesty he did you ask now we can ask him about that my

02:30:22 ask now we can ask him about that my question was directed what you understood by it well I think you've I've just given you the answer that there were frictions in the practice when you're a practice of 40 or people

02:30:33 when you're a practice of 40 or people you begin to get sometimes it's a normal part of right organization I'm sorry to press you you you received this expression Gary's gripes you didn't did

02:30:46 expression Gary's gripes you didn't did you understand what he meant

02:30:58 looking back on it specific to you because you've tried to pin me down from something which he wrote to me eight years ago and I cannot really recall specifically what he had in mind other

02:31:09 specifically what he had in mind other than what I've already answered right now in terms of staffing if you look at the last line of mr. Sam's email he says just after the reference to Gary

02:31:21 just after the reference to Gary describes resourcing wise I'm not sure Marcus's maybe not the right person for sketches massing studies and visuals and the Marcus referred to is that Marcus Keefer correct why was Marcus Keefer not

02:31:34 Keefer correct why was Marcus Keefer not the right person for those things sketches massing studies and visual I think I think this is to do with again I think it would be better if you asked

02:31:45 think it would be better if you asked Bruce this question as well but but my understanding is it would have been that Marcus was not so versatile in some of the 3d CAD work that one might employ to

02:32:00 the 3d CAD work that one might employ to do early early design studies right moving on can I ask you please to go to lb I zero zero zero zero zero one to

02:32:13 lb I zero zero zero zero zero one to nine

02:32:21 now these are minutes of the residents forum for the cult project yes held in the EMB hall on the 28th of March 2012

02:32:34 the EMB hall on the 28th of March 2012 and we can see from the list of attendees that you were there yes for

02:32:45 attendees that you were there yes for Studio e you see that yes and we can also see a number of other attendees including Laura Johnson the head of housing mark Anderson from the TMO if we

02:32:57 housing mark Anderson from the TMO if we look just above above your name mister kachelle and in the middle of the list we see Edward Devon we see that yes yes and do you remember that he was a

02:33:10 and do you remember that he was a resident of the tower yes I do now if you go to the bottom of page 1 of this document this minute you can see that

02:33:22 document this minute you can see that there was item 3 introduction to architects do you see that yes and at the very bottom in the last bullet point on that page and indeed over on to the

02:33:35 on that page and indeed over on to the next page you can see that you did a presentation of the meeting of the of the project the scheme do you see that yes

02:33:48 and was that the Grenville tower scheme or the calc scheme scheme there was the Celt scheme it looks like the cowl scheme because Granville tower in fact as we look later on is covered under any

02:34:00 as we look later on is covered under any other business at the end of the meeting yep

02:34:02 yep and if you want just to look at that very quickly if you go to page 2 at the very bottom of page 2 if he could be shown that at 9a OB Grenville tower yep

02:34:15 shown that at 9a OB Grenville tower yep and there are some questions and discussion about that which we'll come to in a moment I'll come back to that when you go to your presentation

02:34:28 when you go to your presentation which we see at the bottom of page one if we can return to that please you are recorded as having explained the scheme that's you say the calc scheme did you did you cover studio EES experience in

02:34:42 did you cover studio EES experience in this presentation you remember I can barely I mean if you hadn't showed me

02:34:53 barely I mean if you hadn't showed me the notes I wouldn't have been remembered specifically this this meeting but some so no I can't remember now looking still on page one item three

02:35:06 now looking still on page one item three introduction to architects you can see that in the second bullet point Edie that's Edward Devon says or is recorded as saying concerns were raised about

02:35:18 as saying concerns were raised about input of community into design process yes could you remember mr. Devon saying something about concerns in that respect I can remember Eddie very well because

02:35:33 I can remember Eddie very well because he he was a spoken member of the tower and I think he was concerned about the

02:35:45 and I think he was concerned about the level of consultation that will be undertaken by the borough in doing the development do you remember him making that point at this meeting this meeting there okay do you remember having any

02:35:58 there okay do you remember having any concerns that the community as this note suggests wasn't having input into the design process

02:36:15 our instructions on the project were to [Music]

02:36:20 [Music] only engage with the community as in when the borough wished us to do it

02:36:31 and did did they ever to the best of your regular day there were community exhibitions and there were these engagements which were held at the base

02:36:44 engagements which were held at the base of the tower there was a small conference room and those meetings were always chaired by the by the borough as far as Kalki's concerned I'm not now going into ground-floor the calc was

02:36:55 going into ground-floor the calc was concerned they were chaired by the borough and they were managed by the Baron yeah and when just that came back to the note do you remember this is a context question do you remember whether as this Nate again suggests mr.

02:37:08 as this Nate again suggests mr. deference concerns or mr. Diwan was talking about concerns being raised about community input in respect of the calc project yes yes going to the bottom

02:37:19 calc project yes yes going to the bottom of page two if we can please a ob Grenville tower and then over on to page 3 you'll see that on page 3 the note

02:37:34 3 you'll see that on page 3 the note says Edie that's Edvard the phone again questioned why studio he chosen to do initial work do you see that yes do you

02:37:45 initial work do you see that yes do you have a recollection of mr. Diwan raising that question at this meeting no not saying he didn't but I don't remember we can see just below the

02:37:57 remember we can see just below the bullet point where he's recorded of us as having asked that question counts to the

02:38:04 the Coleridge that is see how there are see councillor Coleridge responds and says very difficult or as recorded as saying very difficult to have different contractors on site when times to

02:38:16 contractors on site when times to different projects going on synergizes across projects design need between school leisure center public realm and grand

02:38:23 grand Phil Tower do you remember can silicone roof saying something like that at this meeting not specifically this meeting but I I do know that that expressed the

02:38:36 but I I do know that that expressed the sentiment that I was aware of on behalf of the council very good

02:38:44 do you remember whether mr. Diwan was satisfied with councillor Claridge's response I know you remember him asking

02:38:56 response I know you remember him asking the question so giving the answer let alone remembering the question I'm sorry but some I I cannot recall do you remember ever answering yourself mr. de

02:39:09 remember ever answering yourself mr. de Fonz question why was studio he chosen to do natural work did you ever advise the TMO of studio e's lack of experience in that kind of

02:39:21 e's lack of experience in that kind of project the Grenville tower project as it was proposed at that stage I think that some I was aware that they knew exactly what skill set was so I had lab

02:39:35 exactly what skill set was so I had lab scene no doubt that they didn't they understood the nature of the work that characterized us to Jimmy did you know

02:39:46 characterized us to Jimmy did you know at this stage and it's we're still very early on that this was that the grenfell tower project was going to be a design and build project no well hmm thank you

02:39:58 and build project no well hmm thank you sorry let's correct that our understanding was that the I that the intention for the council and TMO was to

02:40:11 intention for the council and TMO was to actually employ the established contractor for the project

02:40:19 the way that the design project team was selected and the way the contractor was selected were two different things the contractor was selected under an easy framework

02:40:31 framework independently of the design team the design team of calc had been pre-selected via the ogee process so they're they we were basically a selected contractor through AI easy and

02:40:43 selected contractor through AI easy and and and the design team the intention of and indeed what the bara did was that as soon as calc got planning approval the

02:40:54 soon as calc got planning approval the team was innovated to the contractor so effectively from that point on the contractor was taking full responsibility for all the design work even the design work which proceeded and

02:41:05 even the design work which proceeded and in effect it became from that point a design and build contract because he was actually undertaking the completion of the design and and doing the build and

02:41:17 the design and and doing the build and the intention at the outset on TMO as I understand it was that it would follow the same path surveys would take the contractor and the design team the design team would work up designs and

02:41:28 design team would work up designs and been evaded to the contractor and it was still being a design and build so at this stage this is late March 2012 to the best of your recollection was the

02:41:39 the best of your recollection was the idea that that states-led bitter would come in and be the design and build contractor on the Grantville tab yes and I think it became clear as I mean again

02:41:50 I think it became clear as I mean again I think that I'm now speaking a little bit out of out of turn because because Bruce was in the forefront of all these discussions of appointment and and how things would happen so I think you'll

02:42:03 things would happen so I think you'll need to re asked the same questions of briefs but my understanding was that their intention was to get the team to get it to planning and then to innovate

02:42:14 get it to planning and then to innovate to that better I said do you remember whether Ledbetter had any experience of its own in the design and build of

02:42:26 its own in the design and build of cladding

02:42:28 cladding project overturned on a high-rise building I don't recall what they're I mean they're um I'd be very surprised if they hadn't because they are a massive contractor well I sorry let's just take a step back

02:42:40 well I sorry let's just take a step back Ledbetter

02:42:41 Ledbetter no sooner had they've become successful were taken over by weak and weak is a huge concern multinational company so you know I don't thought they would have

02:42:53 you know I don't thought they would have had experience in this field but but I can't speak on their behalf is it is it fair to say and all the put words in your mouth but is it fair to say that you didn't investigate yourself at this stage whether but with them would put a

02:43:06 stage whether but with them would put a a cladding specialist onto the design and build on when they got the deal not to say that Bruce might might have asked the questions but suddenly I didn't all right can I turn to a different topic

02:43:19 right can I turn to a different topic which is the selection of your of your team in general terms mister Cochet how would architects within studio II normally be allocated to projects you

02:43:35 normally be allocated to projects you would be it would relate to their ability experience availability and would an architect normally work on one

02:43:47 would an architect normally work on one project at a time or more than one project at a time more than one project at a time and how would they be expected to balance actually sorry take a step back on that because you used just a

02:43:58 back on that because you used just a general term architect I think the architects within the team might find themselves actually working solely on one project not always but but

02:44:13 solely on one project not always but but because projects stop and start but more often not they are much more I think whereas by the time you get to an associate or a director than you yes

02:44:25 associate or a director than you yes you'd be working all across project and what about the support staff and assistants well I that's what I

02:44:37 and assistants well I that's what I mentioned earlier on the architects who would be working within the team not senior architects or project architects or even associates now we know that

02:44:54 or even associates now we know that Bruce UN's offered to head up the project in his email to you we looked up at earlier I will happy to front this do you remember that yes and you've told us

02:45:06 you remember that yes and you've told us that he didn't have any personal experience of over cladding an occupied residential high-rise building correct

02:45:17 residential high-rise building correct is it right that and again am you told me if they're the only studio II staff member I use the word employee if you like who had any experience of a project

02:45:28 like who had any experience of a project similar to grant filter was Neil Crawford to my knowledge yes and it's yes and I think it's and you say this yourself in your statement he didn't join the grant field tower project until

02:45:39 join the grant field tower project until July 2014 correct so would I be right in thinking and again please correct me if this isn't right the until Neil Crawford joined the Grenville tower project in

02:45:51 joined the Grenville tower project in July 2014

02:45:52 July 2014 the team of professional architects on the ground felt our project was not experienced in over tiding a residential tower block the team working directly on the project

02:46:05 the team working directly on the project that's correct but um Neil again I would ask Bruce to answer that because we were all in one studio and I recall that

02:46:16 all in one studio and I recall that earlier

02:46:17 earlier piece of Correspondence that you had on the screen you know Bruce was three even suggesting I don't know whether that happened taking Neal to walk around the site when when the inquiry first came

02:46:28 site when when the inquiry first came our way so so there would have been dialogue within the studio briefs Neal and I were working very very closely together as a team so even though we

02:46:39 together as a team so even though we were on other projects there was another dialogue I see

02:46:48 did Studio II have a designated person to carry out a a code evaluation before design work started on this project code

02:47:04 design work started on this project code evaluation is something it's a terminology I think it's come from the states I mean it's more to do with building regs evaluation and we would

02:47:17 building regs evaluation and we would evaluate the project at the different stages of development and particularly critical are these stage reports that we put together as we go through each stage

02:47:29 put together as we go through each stage right

02:47:29 right so are you do I take it from that that as a practice at particular raba stages somebody may be the person in charge of the project would check to make sure

02:47:42 the project would check to make sure that the stage at which the project reached was was code was compliant with for example the building regulations well I think that each party that is involved in the project has to take some

02:47:54 involved in the project has to take some responsibility for their spectrum of work so one of the important factors in the way a project develops is that stage report because it has many contributors

02:48:06 report because it has many contributors so you know typically you would have had sections written by obviously us but also by max forums and curtains and and

02:48:17 also by max forums and curtains and and x over and and maybe others

02:48:29 were you involved in selecting the team that would work on the grain fields our project we did in our office yes I was involved in selecting briefs as the lead

02:48:44 involved in selecting briefs as the lead and once briefs was selected as you can see from the corresponds there was discussion as to which members of staff should don't she back him up at the different stages right now can I ask you

02:48:57 different stages right now can I ask you to look please then at paragraph 23 of your statement that's se a zero zero zero one four two seven one at page six the paragraph 23

02:49:09 seven one at page six the paragraph 23 and you say there that this is under the rubric resourcing and supervision in the middle paragraph little part of the

02:49:21 middle paragraph little part of the paragraph in it a commission with approximately 1 million pound construction value and above would have a director or associate director and project arquette architect allocated to it you see that yes what was Bruce

02:49:35 it you see that yes what was Bruce sounds ease job title at the start of the Grenville tower project he was an associate an indeed he'd in fact describes himself as an associate of studio he is is is that the same as a

02:49:47 studio he is is is that the same as a director or an associate director ah it's an anomaly I think I it was used in the statements but basically Bruce was an associate there were discussions about him becoming a director but but he

02:49:59 about him becoming a director but but he was an associate right can you explain why we've given the size of the grant filter project which on any of you was going to exceed a million pounds in construction value

02:50:10 a million pounds in construction value you decided to put Bruce sounds on it given that he wasn't a director or an associate director

02:50:20 at the time there were three directors in the three partners in the practice and and and four associates and it was

02:50:32 and and and four associates and it was not unusual for an associate to be leading a project on behalf of the practice yes you see in your statement you you say what you say they Commission

02:50:45 you you say what you say they Commission with approximately 1 million pound construction value and above what would have a director or associate director and project architect allocated to it but you know I think to tell us that it

02:50:56 but you know I think to tell us that it wasn't unusual for an Assessor to be leading a project can we see if we can work out how those two fit together given the size of this project was it

02:51:08 given the size of this project was it unusual to put someone who wasn't a director or associate director on it it wasn't unusual and and and can we just

02:51:19 wasn't unusual and and and can we just clarify the associate director we didn't have an associate director we had associates so there were directors or in fact at the time and the project was

02:51:30 fact at the time and the project was meeting for that we didn't even have directors we had partners we just clarify this at the time we're talking about practice being run through nelle LLP is that right yes the partners

02:51:42 LLP is that right yes the partners limited liability partnership correct and so they were partners correct and you've just described mr. sands as being an associate correct which is presumably recognized status

02:51:53 which is presumably recognized status but not a partner correct so director isn't a very helpful description no it's not I'm sorry I apologize for the yeah that's right and accuracy in this thing we understand it clearly that's all yep

02:52:05 we understand it clearly that's all yep so just going back to your statement at the time where you say a commission with an approximately 1 million pound construction value and above would have a director or associate director at a

02:52:18 a director or associate director at a project architect allocated to it what level or status within studio II LLP are you talking about partners or someone

02:52:29 you talking about partners or someone lower than a partner I think because this is written just to explain first of all why the anomaly may have arisen clearly because we're dealing with two entities Studio LLP and

02:52:42 dealing with two entities Studio LLP and CTV Architects limited I think what script in here is the wrong term for the timing that we're describing so there

02:52:53 timing that we're describing so there were poppers in lot directors and there were associates and what it's saying is basically there's above a commission of a million or above we would normally have either a director or an associate

02:53:06 have either a director or an associate and the project architect allocated I think you mean a partner or an associate partner or a 30 embassy and a project architect know who was the project

02:53:17 architect know who was the project architect on the ground floor tower project it's it's it it it it changed so initially at the in the first knockings

02:53:28 initially at the in the first knockings that would have been Bruce on his own actually doing some legwork and research but very rapidly I think he was joined by Marcus Kiefer and thereafter I think really you need to speak to briefs as to exactly what the staff allocations were

02:53:41 exactly what the staff allocations were because the project had it was unfortunately a stop-start project so

02:53:52 unfortunately a stop-start project so that we we got going and then it stopped and you know planning applications submitted then they had to be resubmitted so through that period there would have been a variety of people working at the different stages I mean

02:54:05 working at the different stages I mean we gave a list of all the people who were involved in the project with some performance quite considerable at the outset of the Grand Vitara project who

02:54:16 outset of the Grand Vitara project who was the with what we've talked about Bruce scenes Bruce scenes being the associate was he also the project architect allocated to it or are you saying that Marcus Kiefer was the

02:54:27 saying that Marcus Kiefer was the project architect at that time at that early stage Bruce sounds would have been effectively associate in project architect because he was driving the project and he would have had senior architects to help him

02:54:39 have had senior architects to help him in

02:54:40 in I see now we do know as you've told us an indeed you say in your statement that you assigned Marcus Kieffer to the project why did you do that given that

02:54:53 project why did you do that given that mr. sands have told you that Marcus Kieffer wasn't the right person for the job as we saw in the email exchange earlier do you know you're asking me a question which I really cannot recall what happens next

02:55:05 what happens next and who in the end was deployed one way or another one thing for sure is that that Bruce had the assistance that he needed and if you had a problem with

02:55:16 needed and if you had a problem with assembling the people he required he would have come to me and I there's no correspondence that I can actually refer to that would remind me at the time of what exactly we were doing right and

02:55:28 what exactly we were doing right and we're given that the project as mr. Sam said I think indicated to you in the email we saw earlier was at least five to six million pounds and probably more

02:55:40 to six million pounds and probably more what thoughts do you have about the size of of team that you needed to put on it I I didn't have any concerns about the size of the team we had people coming

02:55:53 size of the team we had people coming free from other projects and and a project doesn't immediately attract a large team I think as I said earlier the

02:56:04 large team I think as I said earlier the the peak of a team is at stage II stroke F at the very early stages of a project you you might not have more than two people working on the project can we go

02:56:15 people working on the project can we go to an email rather later on se a zero zero zero zero eight three five two of page one

02:56:31 now this is an email of the 6th of September 2013 so we've come forward in time a long way or back in time and long way to September 13 and it's an email

02:56:43 way to September 13 and it's an email from mr. sounds to you mr. kachelle mm-hmm

02:56:46 mm-hmm and about four lines down from the start it's the end of the email after I think talking about other projects

02:56:57 talking about other projects it says Grenfell Stage II is quite a lot of fee to earn in a short period I'm a little anxious about the resource your ever receiving that email well yes I

02:57:11 ever receiving that email well yes I mean I remember seeing the email once we assembled our documentation yes indeed and and if you go to your witness statement

02:57:20 statement it's SE a's zero zero zero one four two seven one at page 19 I'd like to show you paragraph sixty-seven page 1967 and

02:57:33 you paragraph sixty-seven page 1967 and you say there at the start of September 2013 studio he was beginning to enter the our IBA stage II of its work on the project

02:57:39 project Bruce was concerned about the amount of work we would have to do and we started to involve other employees in the project including Thomas rec you see that yes so that was your was that was that your response to his anxieties as

02:57:52 that your response to his anxieties as he expressed about the resource yes I mean he was doing what's up what I would expect him to do which is to say that um we were given that relatively short period of time to prepare the stage II

02:58:03 period of time to prepare the stage II and he needed more resource and Thomas rec I think was involved between September 2013 and December 2013 yes was he a relatively junior team member or

02:58:15 he a relatively junior team member or employee he he wasn't the most senior people of people but he was he had a few years experience behind him and he wasn't a very intelligent fellow but I

02:58:29 wasn't a very intelligent fellow but I have to say that that again I would prefer that brief spoke on about him because he didn't work directly to me and

02:58:39 and and and I'm probably repeating what I've heard from others rather than actually my own experience did you allocate anybody else to that into the project at this stage I think there were other

02:58:51 this stage I think there were other people working on the project in response to mr. sands expressed anxiety yes who was that

02:59:02 [Music]

02:59:07 I think I'd needs to go back on files to check whoo-hoo-hoo exactly it was better if being if the intention of that question is to suggest that we under resourced I think that is not correct

02:59:19 resourced I think that is not correct just a few more questions mr. chairman before the break if that's convenient mr. rec says that he was made redundant from studio LLP in December 2013 is that

02:59:31 from studio LLP in December 2013 is that correct I think if he said that then it must be correct well do you remember whether that was due to as to studio ease or studio al LPS insolvency or or

02:59:43 ease or studio al LPS insolvency or or at least the financial difficulties it was experiencing we had there was a

02:59:54 was experiencing we had there was a downturn on on on a large amount of work which had nothing to do with this project and and and so he he was made redundant at the end of that year I

03:00:05 redundant at the end of that year I believe because if you'd asked me the question when he was made redundant I wouldn't have been able to recall that we made a number of redundancies at the end of the year I was going to ask you

03:00:17 end of the year I was going to ask you how many others I mean if you want the numbers I would have to get back okay did did the redundancies affect the

03:00:29 did did the redundancies affect the resourcing um or available resourcing on the ground felt our project no what affected the resourcing on the grounds

03:00:40 affected the resourcing on the grounds of tower was the stop start because it actually we maintain continuity with Bruce but people changed because if you

03:00:52 Bruce but people changed because if you go in your records you'll find that that planning didn't go in until the end of we didn't get planning until beginning of 14 two years after we started the project and there was a hiatus on the

03:01:03 project and there was a hiatus on the project which is never good news for consultant I understand mr. chairman is that a convenient name if I get to move on yes you've different documents well

03:01:15 on yes you've different documents well no mr. we're going to have a break now so we can all get some lunch we'll resume at five past two and ask you to very promptly then yeah for now if you

03:01:26 very promptly then yeah for now if you would like to go to the usher she'll look after you thank you and please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or any of the subject matter that you're being asked about yeah good five thoughts too please

↩ All hearings