Studio E architects provide evidence about their role in the Grenfell Tower refurbishment design, including facade and cladding decisions.
00:00:38 thank you could you ask mr. Cassell to come back please
00:00:54 right mr. gazelle have you got some lunch thank you ready to carry on anyway yes Thank You mr. chairman mr. Cassell
00:01:05 yes Thank You mr. chairman mr. Cassell thank you can I just ask you now about the circumstances in which mr. Crawford Neil Crawford took over from mr. sands in July 2014 and did that mean that
00:01:17 in July 2014 and did that mean that there was a if one coughs one mind back to the redundancy of mr. wreck and perhaps others in the December of 2013 does that mean that there was a seven
00:01:28 does that mean that there was a seven month gap between mr. wreck being made redundant and mr. Crawford taking over from mr. tooms the first correction I
00:01:40 from mr. tooms the first correction I would make his the term takeover which suggests that Bruce sound stopped acting on the project which wasn't the case all right fair enough fair qualification
00:01:51 right fair enough fair qualification yeah before July 2014 and let me see if I can approach it in stages before July 2014 we know we had mr. sounds on the
00:02:02 2014 we know we had mr. sounds on the project yes yes and there were other people on it as well including mr. reg yes who else was working on the grant entire project prior to July 2014 I was
00:02:14 entire project prior to July 2014 I was I say it responded before they there's a long list of people who worked on the project over a period of in excess of
00:02:25 project over a period of in excess of four years I cannot reliably here without reference to the list or even if I could refer to list tell you exactly who worked on the project when if you
00:02:37 who worked on the project when if you want accurate questions to that you need to ask Bruce who I'm sure will recall much more clearly who was working when on the project I can reassure you that it wasn't just Thomas wreck and Bruce who were working on the project so if I
00:02:51 who were working on the project so if I wanted that part of the question what's the next part of the question sorry - that's when mr. wreck let's see where mr. wreck was made redundant in December 2013 did anybody take over the role that
00:03:05 2013 did anybody take over the role that mr. wreck was playing I'd like to just qualify you you are actually asking me about a period of the project when I was not actually directly hands-on involved in the project okay so
00:03:17 hands-on involved in the project okay so that is why I'm actually promising you with shall we say a lack of a sort of clarity that you're seeking so because
00:03:28 clarity that you're seeking so because there were so many people and and and and and I don't want to give you a misrepresented name for this stage but my understanding of the project at that point in time was it had gone out to
00:03:39 point in time was it had gone out to tender which is usually a quieter period for us because other than responding to tender queries and maybe tidying up some
00:03:50 tender queries and maybe tidying up some information it's a period of lesser activity than one would have immediately preceding it so the fact that Thomas Rec was no longer on the project I don't think is the be-all and end-all at that
00:04:01 think is the be-all and end-all at that stage as that December 2013 to take a step back what was your role on the ground felt our project my role was in
00:04:12 ground felt our project my role was in the background I mean I had handed over the management of the project to to Bruce and if there was an issue that briefs felt that I needed to be involved
00:04:24 briefs felt that I needed to be involved in I would get involved in it but but see if you raise something with me that is somewhere in the evidence that shows that Bruce was requiring input from the Outlands of that we're just focusing on
00:04:36 Outlands of that we're just focusing on that at that point in time what were you supervising mister soon's management of the rental tower project I
00:04:47 management of the rental tower project I wasn't supervising it I was I was a director available to Bruce if he had any queries I mean we were working flat out on on on the count project and my
00:05:00 out on on on the count project and my role in the cap project was much more hands-on and and there were other issues that I had to deal with as a director within the practice so the whole point
00:05:11 within the practice so the whole point of having somebody as senior as as Bruce was because that he could actually manage the project and that we had a reliable working
00:05:22 and that we had a reliable working relationship which which had evolved over at that point in time twelve twelve thirteen years and I relied on him entirely to come to me if there was an issue I see so would it
00:05:35 there was an issue I see so would it follow from that that there was there was and correct me if I'm wrong here when I summer I try and summarize your evidence I'm not trying to put words in your mouth next want to see if I've understood it yes that there was nobody at Studio E who was supervising mr.
00:05:49 at Studio E who was supervising mr. sounds work on the project but that essentially you and perhaps other partners or available as a resource as and when he needed it it's not a fair is
00:06:01 and when he needed it it's not a fair is that a fair summary of what you've told I've done about a resource because Bruce was leading the project and and he had resource beneath him to resource the project as was necessary if any issues
00:06:14 project as was necessary if any issues arose either inside the practice or outside the practice that warranted me to get involved I would get involved so I would say that if anybody in the
00:06:25 I would say that if anybody in the client organization for example wanted had a concern about you know what was happening on the project they would come to me as the director that they knew was associated with the project at a higher
00:06:37 associated with the project at a higher level during mr. sands management and take December 2013 as a convenient moment for the question was was anybody
00:06:49 moment for the question was was anybody regularly looking at mr. sands his management of this project and making sure that it was going well and properly
00:07:00 sure that it was going well and properly and safely I think that um it would be one thing if Bruce was in an entirely different office and remote from me and
00:07:11 different office and remote from me and others in the practice but that wasn't the case we were actually in the same studio I could actually overhear any single conversation and I'm sure those
00:07:22 single conversation and I'm sure those people have worked in an open studio environment you are aware when there is any issue arising so I think you say that in that sense there was
00:07:34 say that in that sense there was constant supervision of what was going on let me ask the question in a slightly different way then that was who if anybody was formally mr. sands line manager in respect of the Grenville
00:07:46 manager in respect of the Grenville tower project if he had to come to anybody above him he would come to me and and and then it would be effectively me and the board you answered the question may I just I think really mr. Q
00:07:59 question may I just I think really mr. Q settled a question that mr. Miller is asking you to focus on could be put in a slightly different way which is did you regard yourself or anyone else as being responsible for checking on the way that
00:08:13 responsible for checking on the way that mr. sands was running the project I think that's your point is name is really the way we we operate when when a
00:08:24 really the way we we operate when when a project is with any director or associate in the practices that there are moments when project information is reviewed and there are ISO 9001
00:08:38 reviewed and there are ISO 9001 procedures so both at the design stage and and the technical stage there are reviews that are held and in a sense they are a check point but I yeah does
00:08:56 they are a check point but I yeah does that kind of answer thee well I think it does like what I'm understanding from what you're saying is that mr. sands was left to run the project but that there were these points at which there were
00:09:07 were these points at which there were there are always black checks within the practice but I mean I I have to tell you that when when by the time you are an
00:09:19 that when when by the time you are an architect in in your sort of early to mid 40s
00:09:23 mid 40s you are arguably at your most experienced and most powerful you could argue that people who get into my age are beginning to wane a little bit so to
00:09:35 are beginning to wane a little bit so to suggest that actually Bruce was in some shape or form requiring my supervision on his daily activities I think is a travesty of the reality how many if design reviews do you recall
00:09:48 how many if design reviews do you recall taking place on the Chronicle tower project I call one design review which involved me and and one of my Co that
00:10:01 involved me and and one of my Co that stage co-partners prior to the appraisal panel which is the architects appraisal panel when we sat down to review the project it was a quite a broad review in
00:10:15 project it was a quite a broad review in terms of the overall project status but with a focus for what was likely to arise in front of the architects appraisal panel I'm also where because there is a
00:10:27 I'm also where because there is a central register that we maintain as part of our procedure that there was another review held in early 2013 which was also a design review which I didn't attend the date of the first review was
00:10:42 attend the date of the first review was when I think it was November 12 right immediately before they appraised so there is this right there were two design reviews and respective Grenfell project November 2012 and early 2013 is
00:10:55 project November 2012 and early 2013 is that I think one was I'm pretty certain it was November 12th because that was where the AAP occurred and I think the
00:11:07 where the AAP occurred and I think the second review was early on in in 2013 and apart from that any other design reviews no there were two design review design reviews and what about a technical review was there a technical review there was a technical review much
00:11:19 review there was a technical review much later when was that do you remember it was in October 15 so do I take it from your evidence that apart from the two
00:11:30 your evidence that apart from the two design reviews in November or so - 2012 and early 2013 and a technical review into October 2015 mr. sounds was basically left to get on
00:11:42 mr. sounds was basically left to get on with it
00:11:46 not entirely because you did ask about Neil Crawford joining him which he did in the summary of the 14 right so up to
00:11:57 in the summary of the 14 right so up to the summer of 2014 with that with that qualification am I right in saying that mr. sands was was basically left to run the project he was running the project with as many team members as he required
00:12:10 with as many team members as he required now when mr. Crawford took over I say took over when he came into the project let me try and use their less yea provocative expression in July 2014 he
00:12:24 provocative expression in July 2014 he do you remember whether there was any kind of handover process as between mr. sands and mr. Crawford from what you recall I recall that there were discussions between them and there was
00:12:38 discussions between them and there was no question of Bruce just stepping aside he was still very much engaged in the project well Neil was shall we say getting across with a project whose
00:12:49 getting across with a project whose decision was it to bring Neil Crawford into the ground felt our project it was a joint decision between Bruce and myself by the summer of 2014 the
00:13:05 myself by the summer of 2014 the Baldrige Academy was nearing completion and it was a question of what how we would redeploy Neill and we both thought
00:13:19 would redeploy Neill and we both thought that Neil was the best candidate to come in to help because first and foremost he actually had experience of working on high-rise buildings with his previous
00:13:30 high-rise buildings with his previous practice second he actually knew the context of the project having worked on the or Dragic Adam II and he was coming available so given his experience which
00:13:44 available so given his experience which was considerable and and the nature of the project he was did you take any steps to find out satisfy yourself
00:13:56 steps to find out satisfy yourself whether Neil Crawford had any I had sufficient technical competence to take over we'll take the role on such as grand thoughts such as he had on Greenville tower knew had been working
00:14:10 Greenville tower knew had been working within my group since he joined the practice and he came to our practice having been made redundant at Foster's but had actually
00:14:24 redundant at Foster's but had actually been an associate for a number of years that Foster and partners we were jolly lucky to get him he was an extremely competent individual you immediately
00:14:39 competent individual you immediately recognizes one of our better and more experienced people in the practice so you've made associate fairly quickly and I had actually no doubts that he had the
00:14:50 I had actually no doubts that he had the ability to make a significant contribution to the project to be more specific when you decided you and mr. sounds together decided to bring mr.
00:15:01 sounds together decided to bring mr. Crawford into the project did you investigate what experience mr. Crawford had in an over cladding of an existing high-rise residential I don't think he had experience of an over cladding of a
00:15:15 had experience of an over cladding of a existing building but he definitely had high-rise design experience on both commercial and residential type buildings now can you help me mr.
00:15:28 buildings now can you help me mr. Crawford I think was not an RI be a qualified architect was he he didn't finish his part three no can you explain why mr. Crawford who had not finished
00:15:41 why mr. Crawford who had not finished his raba part 3 was allocated to the day-to-day management of Grenville tower as he was in the summer of 2014 well first of all the fact that he
00:15:53 well first of all the fact that he wasn't qualified part 3 I think doesn't reflect on his ability and skill as I said to you I think I've can see by the
00:16:05 said to you I think I've can see by the white hair how long I've been practicing I've met a lot of architects through the years
00:16:11 years I would rank him in absolutely the top 5% of people I've actually worked with so I I have seen no embarrassment to say that we would have confidence in him however recognizing that he hadn't
00:16:24 however recognizing that he hadn't finished his parts really you know ages ago he was working to Bruce and Bruce was there and in a direct supervisory position so just as you were asking
00:16:37 position so just as you were asking whether I was a supervisor to Bruce I don't think I really was I do think that Bruce was a super supervisor to Neil and without putting words in Bruce's mouth I
00:16:48 without putting words in Bruce's mouth I think the respect for Neil is considerable as mine did you consider at the time whether appointing did you specifically consider at the time
00:16:59 specifically consider at the time whether appointing mr. Crawford to the job that you did in the summer of 2014 was consistent with Studio e's iso 9001 procedures I'm not aware of any
00:17:13 procedures I'm not aware of any procedure offhand without referring to the you know voluminous document but but I I don't think I have any reason to believe that we couldn't have used to
00:17:24 believe that we couldn't have used to Joey on the project if Bruce remained on the project did my question release did you think about it at the time in all honesty no because because our confidence in him was really quite
00:17:35 confidence in him was really quite considerable
00:17:42 now can I ask you a different set of questions about studio ease financial position
00:17:50 position we know that in August 2014 Studio E LLP was placed into creditors voluntary liquidation and you've confirmed that before yes yes and studio he limited
00:18:02 before yes yes and studio he limited then took over the grant felt our project was it the case that there was a limited staff available to work on the grünfeld project after the insolvency of
00:18:14 grünfeld project after the insolvency of LLP or a more limited staff perhaps no not really I think we had the numbers that were required to actually manage the project and I mean in fact I mean given that the
00:18:27 and I mean in fact I mean given that the two seniors remained with us and I from memory again I'd ask Bruce to confirm that when you speak to him I seem to remember we had one other member of staff we'd also Grenville prior to that
00:18:41 staff we'd also Grenville prior to that yeah don't try and try and do it this way at the moment when studio LLP went into voluntarily creditors liquidation how many available fearing staff did you have again I'd need to refer to
00:18:57 have again I'd need to refer to documents because there had been some redundancies at the end of 2013 so if you want an accurate answer to that just in general terms I just would need to
00:19:09 in general terms I just would need to check that you want the wrong answer we want to ride up see if you want the right answer I really cannot tell you I mean we would have been probably been around about thirty at the very least
00:19:20 around about thirty at the very least right my question was really a general question
00:19:23 question do you remember to the best of your recollection whether the staff employed by limited after the LLP went into liquidation was smaller than the staff
00:19:35 liquidation was smaller than the staff employed by an LP it had nothing to do with the liquidation the the issue of how many staff we had was more to do with the character of the work that we
00:19:46 with the character of the work that we had to undertake yes I'm just trying to get a feel really for a comparison of the sizes I think you're good are you able to help me with that yes I think you're trying to get
00:19:58 that yes I think you're trying to get sizes for a project that goes through different stages demanding different level of resource so I think it would
00:20:10 level of resource so I think it would have peaked at the point of tender and and I'm pretty sure that no it wasn't just Thomas wreck we are working with briefs we did maintain staff after that in preparation for the construction
00:20:21 in preparation for the construction start and we maintained the right level of staff for the project once it moved into 2015 let me ask this question one
00:20:34 into 2015 let me ask this question one more time because maybe you misunderstood it I'm not asking about the project I'm asking about Studio II you know practice yes when studio ELP went into liquidation what were the same
00:20:49 went into liquidation what were the same numbers where the staff that you had at that moment transferred over no limited no right what happened to the staff room were made redundant how many well again
00:21:00 were made redundant how many well again you're asking me specific number questions and I really cannot recall if I'd had prior knowledge of the question I would have checked for you but I cannot tell you these numbers offhand it was six years ago and and and it's
00:21:15 it was six years ago and and and it's difficult to remember such numbers now
00:21:20 the insolvency process itself was that time-consuming for you for me it would
00:21:31 time-consuming for you for me it would have occupied a considerable amount of my time yes what about mr. sounds did that occupy no it's much much less it was mainly the fate of the partners and
00:21:42 was mainly the fate of the partners and directors to to sort it out I see
00:21:48 and fund - do we take it from that but in fact the insolvency itself didn't call didn't have any adverse impact on any particular project if you're asking
00:22:02 any particular project if you're asking whether it had an impact on on Grenville I don't think it did any other project [Music]
00:22:10 [Music] projects that went with us to to limit it with the agreements of the client organizations no in fact it really the
00:22:21 organizations no in fact it really the truth is that they wouldn't have run with us unless we were going to resource the project I'm going to ask you a number of questions about iso 9001 yes are you familiar with iso 9000 yes the
00:22:33 are you familiar with iso 9000 yes the quality assurance is a yes yes can I ask you to look please at paragraph 23 of your statement that's at se a zero zero
00:22:45 your statement that's at se a zero zero zero one four two seven one at page six piece and you we look at this before you say in the first sentence there the
00:22:56 say in the first sentence there the practice is an ISO 9001 quality management system and iso14001 environmental management registered company these management systems set
00:23:07 company these management systems set down procedures under which the practice operates both for managing the practices operation and its project design work so just to be clear and the question is at the date of your statement studio a
00:23:20 the date of your statement studio a architects Limited was I think just to be clear iso 9001 registered yes it was and that is that a standard against which any quality management system can
00:23:31 which any quality management system can be measured visa vie third-party accreditation the question was the
00:23:42 accreditation the question was the standard we were being measured by an AI and I understand that a lot of organizations will establish an ISO 9001 system
00:23:53 system usually using an outside agency to help them set the thing system up and a third party to accredit it well yes in our case I think but I can't be absolutely
00:24:04 case I think but I can't be absolutely certain because it was set up in 2005 whether we had the same people auditing us throughout but it was ordered to that annually yes and would it be right to
00:24:15 annually yes and would it be right to describe the iso 9001 standard or the purpose of the standard to help organizations whether they're architects or any other organization to meet the
00:24:26 or any other organization to meet the needs of customers well Stahl say meeting at the same time the statutory and regulatory requirements related to the product or services that yes I and as a registered practice is it right
00:24:39 as a registered practice is it right that studio II Limited would have been required to set up a quality management system which was appropriate to its operation if we were operating under iso 9001 we would have a system in place and
00:24:52 9001 we would have a system in place and we do have a system yeah you say you do did you in the period 2012 to 2016 yes and turning to LLP I think that was also registered wasn't it yes when when we
00:25:06 registered wasn't it yes when when we moved from trading from Jujuy architects limited to LLP effectively the system was transferred obviously there had to be some modifications but not major basically the system was the
00:25:19 not major basically the system was the same and so LLP continued under the iso 9001 and the 14001 right and when I see
00:25:33 9001 and the 14001 right and when I see itwhen LLP ceased to trade as we've just discussed was the registration then transferred back to studio he corrected it was and will you personally involve
00:25:45 it was and will you personally involve in that transfer process no at the time my colleague partner director was in charge of coordinating the registration
00:25:59 charge of coordinating the registration and
00:26:00 and he together with our office manager notified the the auditors that we were transferring back from the LLP to Jujuy architects limited and and then they
00:26:12 architects limited and and then they continue to audits to do we architects limited and who is your colleague partner director that you just referred to David Lloyd Jones David or James and do you have any involvement in that
00:26:24 do you have any involvement in that mechanical process yes sir the actual transfer at the time I don't think so I think it was mainly David at that stage but obviously we are all involved in
00:26:35 but obviously we are all involved in 9001 somehow so do you remember when the ISO 9001 registration was transferred back to studio architects limited.we well clearly the ll piece suspended
00:26:49 well clearly the ll piece suspended activities in July 14 yes the system that we continued to use obviously in those first days would have been the same system as LLP but it was rapidly
00:27:04 same system as LLP but it was rapidly adjusted to respect the fact that it was back to the GE architects limited we elect she also move premises so we had to H adjusted for the new premises there was some one or two other adjustments
00:27:16 was some one or two other adjustments and then I think it was audited and there was prior knowledge the auditors actually knew that we were doing this and then they ordered to this I think in January 15 I see was there a gap in time
00:27:28 January 15 I see was there a gap in time between studio ELQ LLP ceasing to trade and Studio EE architects limited taking back the ISO 9001 no not really I I mean
00:27:40 back the ISO 9001 no not really I I mean and bar about one person all the other eight had been with the practice for at that stage ten more ten or so years Anil
00:27:55 that stage ten more ten or so years Anil was a little bit shorter and they had been familiar with using the ISO 9001 and 14001 prior to it becoming LLP during it being LLP and then reverting
00:28:07 during it being LLP and then reverting back to studio a architects limited so there wasn't exactly a learning curve you understand what the iso9000 are
00:28:18 you understand what the iso9000 are required and and indeed the you know the way projects were set up and everything was the same yes now can I just go back to something we talked about earlier on this afternoon and that's internal reviews if
00:28:31 afternoon and that's internal reviews if you go please to paragraph 24 of your statement that's at se a zero zero zero one four two seven one page six we could just have that up on the screen please page six you say and it's their each
00:28:45 page six you say and it's their each project at Studio E usually goes through a number of internal reviews as part of our quality management process including a design review and a technical review and you've given us the dates of those
00:28:56 and you've given us the dates of those earlier on in your evidence do you mean to say here that a project would normally go through one design review and one technical review yes you do and
00:29:12 and one technical review yes you do and ordinarily would you have expected the Glanville tower project given its size and its complexity perhaps to go through more than one Design Review and one technical review well they went through
00:29:23 technical review well they went through two designer of years which obviously also included the AAP review and it went through a technical review at the point when the team working on it felt that
00:29:36 when the team working on it felt that review was appropriate and do you agree that as part of a quality management system which complies with the standards of iso 9001 the a series of both design
00:29:49 of iso 9001 the a series of both design reviews and technical reviews needed to be conducted throughout the course of studio e's involvement in the project the Grenville tower project i think the process we follow is that every project
00:30:02 process we follow is that every project that we do is set up on a central register soon so we know whether it's been reviewed at a given stage or not at
00:30:15 been reviewed at a given stage or not at the time when we got the project we had a lot of stuff and we under David there was an assistant who issued reminders to the project teams as to whether their projects were weren't
00:30:27 whether their projects were weren't ready for review but ultimately the decision as to when a project should be reviewed and whether indeed it needs to be reviewed more than once will come from the team because they will either
00:30:38 from the team because they will either feel uncomfortable that for another review now if you go please to paragraph 24 two of your statement yep
00:30:53 you see top of the page their page seven a technical review usually occurs you say what was previously our IBA stage II F technical design and PS information the senior technically experienced
00:31:05 the senior technically experienced member of staff will review a more detailed information pack against the checklist covering all aspects of a plot of a project from status of project information through to its technical content and including such aspects as building regulation compliance and fire
00:31:17 building regulation compliance and fire strategy now I've read that all - you said you've got the full context would you accept that it's part of the architects role to consider compliance with the building regulations yes and
00:31:31 with the building regulations yes and that would be would it checked as part of studio e's internal design review yes it would be checked and and they
00:31:44 yes it would be checked and and they would be looking at only yets their own design but also checking off such things as whether you know inputs have been made by others yeah now we know that the grenfell tower project was put out to tender to built
00:31:58 project was put out to tender to built to potential design and build contractors in late 2013 yeah remember that and that was on the basis of stage ii information but and to be fair I
00:32:09 ii information but and to be fair I think mr. sands thinks that it was more like stage F 1 do you agree that at that stage the the design work on the project had reached at least stage II if not
00:32:22 had reached at least stage II if not stage F 1
00:32:24 stage F 1 I think I'd be more comfortable for you to ask that of Bruce because I wasn't hands-on in terms of the exact status of the information I think the there were
00:32:38 the information I think the there were different packages of information and they would have been at different stages of development I am very aware from what Bruce and Neil indeed have reported to me that there was a lot of design actually going on both by us and by
00:32:51 actually going on both by us and by others once the contractor was appointed just just focusing on this point for the moment if mr. sands is right that the
00:33:02 moment if mr. sands is right that the design work for Grenfell had reached staged II and probably more like stage one as mr. sands may say if that's right
00:33:17 the design work carried out by Studio II should have been as this right should have been checked internally for building regulations compliance once the
00:33:29 building regulations compliance once the tender documents had been completed
00:33:36 the again the timing of all of this I think you really should ask of Bruce but some from from memory we actually
00:33:50 some from from memory we actually produced the stage D report in the second half of of 2014 and then tender information was prepared to different
00:34:03 information was prepared to different stages of developments at the end of that year
00:34:07 there had been reminders issued about a technical review actually earlier in the year but the question was whether the project was actually ready to be
00:34:18 project was actually ready to be reviewed because on the whole you do what she want to review the project that's going to be built as opposed to the project that might be built you told us earlier that there had been a design review in November 12 and the further
00:34:30 review in November 12 and the further design review in early 2013 yes and my question is why wasn't a design review conducted in late 2013 at the point at
00:34:41 conducted in late 2013 at the point at which the tender documents were ready to go out the purpose of the design review is to highlight strategic issues on on a
00:34:54 is to highlight strategic issues on on a project and the fact that there were two reviews held over a period of I guess 15 months would have given the team the
00:35:06 months would have given the team the stairs that they required for the stage D design if the if they had felt that they wanted a further review they would have approached myself and asked for
00:35:17 have approached myself and asked for another review it's not to say that there wasn't an awareness and the practice as to what was going on with the project during the period from early 2013 when the second design reviews held
00:35:30 2013 when the second design reviews held and when the stage D report was prepared
00:35:35 and you say that a technical review came back to your statement usually occurs of what was previously our IBA stage II and f OE stroke F yes technical design of
00:35:47 f OE stroke F yes technical design of product information if mr. sands is is correct that that stage had been reached by to that late 2013 at the time when the project was put out to tender and
00:35:58 the project was put out to tender and I'm asking you to make that assumption with me if you would mm-hmm if that's right can you explain why net where there was no technical review at that stage I can only discern from that that
00:36:12 stage I can only discern from that that the project was still in flux in many areas and therefore the technical review was not held do you remember whether there was a technical review or a design review
00:36:23 technical review or a design review based on the documents and drawings which were being sent out to tender they would have been reviewed by by Bruce at a senior level-2 to ensure that the
00:36:35 a senior level-2 to ensure that the package was correct but it didn't at that stage request we know it wasn't
00:36:47 that stage request we know it wasn't warranty a technical review does that mean that at that stage preparation completion of the attended documentation and being sent out to contractors there
00:36:59 and being sent out to contractors there was no technical review which covered building regulation compliance and far strategy other than within the team
00:37:10 strategy other than within the team itself no thank you
00:37:35 right Oh can I ask you then to look please at and occupant se a zero zero zero zero six oh four seven page three
00:37:55 now this is an email from David Lloyd Jones this is the gentleman you mentioned earlier to you on the 29th or 31st of August and I meet it responds to
00:38:08 31st of August and I meet it responds to an email from you just a bit lower down the page the day but two days before you see that yes and you say to David and Katherine at scattering Biermann and it
00:38:21 Katherine at scattering Biermann and it says copy to Bruce sands and indeed Neil Crawford we would like to shed you'll in a technical review calc stroke Grenfell next week you see that yes and then
00:38:33 next week you see that yes and then moving up the paid mr. Lloyd Jones comes back to you and he says are you looking for a design review or technical audit we have no record of a design review for calc stroke Grenfell so at what stage
00:38:44 calc stroke Grenfell so at what stage had the Grenville tower project reached which meant that there should be a technical review I think that this was part of the reminder process that I mentioned earlier the assumption that
00:38:56 mentioned earlier the assumption that Kalkan Grenville were at the same stage in August 2012 was incorrect because Grenville was hadn't even at that point I didn't even gone into planning let
00:39:08 I didn't even gone into planning let alone them reached a technical review stage so can you explain why you linked the two together like that by saying technical review Celt grenfell
00:39:22 [Music]
00:39:27 I think that probably in hindsight was a misunderstanding on my part because it was clear to me from knowing where the
00:39:38 was clear to me from knowing where the projects were that calc would have been at a stage where it could be technically reviewed by grandfa wasn't it could have been considered for a design review which actually did occur a little bit later so are you saying that the calc
00:39:52 later so are you saying that the calc project was ripe for a technical review that Grenville wasn't correct can you explain perhaps you can't what what what it was in your mind that linked the two in that way
00:40:05 linked the two in that way retrospectively I can't because it's manifestly obvious that Grenville was not that developed stage and then if you
00:40:16 not that developed stage and then if you go to the the next email up to page one we have no record of a design review I
00:40:28 we have no record of a design review I need to move up to page one I'm so sorry it's page two and its your email back to mr. Lloyd Jones I'm sorry I keep losing
00:40:41 mr. Lloyd Jones I'm sorry I keep losing it there it is at halfway down page two and you say David I think we might have a combined session or at least follow one closely by the other the technical
00:40:52 one closely by the other the technical review is particularly important at this stage as it's hands-on it's Neal and myself so we could do it within the group with Bruce that's because it's referring to well I was just going to
00:41:04 referring to well I was just going to ask it but the heading and the subject of the email is calc straight grenfell technical review you're referring to calc only and we can see Neal's involved
00:41:15 calc only and we can see Neal's involved in it does that tell us does that give us a clue
00:41:17 us a clue well Neal was involved in calc exactly so did a technical review of Grenville tower take place at that stage no no now
00:41:28 tower take place at that stage no no now if you go to your statement please page 15 paragraph 54 it's SE a zero zero zero one four two seven one page 15
00:41:39 you can see a paragraph 54 now you say in the first line I was involved in the design review for the project alright this was undertaken between me David Lloyd Jones and Bruce sands and
00:41:52 David Lloyd Jones and Bruce sands and then you go on to refer to an email of the 7th of November 2012 a little bit later on
00:42:00 later on can I have you've seen that but but what role did mr. Lloyd Jones play in the Grenfell project he had a negligible wrote on the ground field project but he
00:42:14 wrote on the ground field project but he as a design review it was actually good to have him giving his sort of fresh fresh fresh eye on the project right and
00:42:25 fresh fresh eye on the project right and is this the design review that you referred to earlier this is the Grenfell design review which would you say and it did take place in in late 2012 correct I see and David Lloyd Jones his role was
00:42:37 I see and David Lloyd Jones his role was what to be essentially an independent and objective peer reviewer yes I see let's look at the email I think looked at it earlier it's se a1 I'm so sorry s
00:42:56 at it earlier it's se a1 I'm so sorry s EA
00:42:56 EA zero zero zero one four two seven two at page 34 it's in your exhibit
00:43:09 and if you up right we need page 34 that's right it's on the screen if you go to that yeah it's the one from Bruce
00:43:21 go to that yeah it's the one from Bruce UN's to David Lloyd Jones I think copied to you and it says grenfell reviewed you see that yes and David have you got time tomorrow to do a design review for Heston we'd like to do
00:43:33 design review for Heston we'd like to do it today but stage C is dragging on while we wait for the others to move forward their material I'm several eyes in debt to sleep for Monday and Tuesday it this it looks as if this is a different project Heston was a different
00:43:44 different project Heston was a different project can you explain how this model happened in subject his grenfell review but this is about history I think I think it's a challenge beyond me I think you probably ought to ask that question
00:43:56 you probably ought to ask that question from briefs because he obviously had a design review on Heston in mind well I'm asking you because you respond to it if if you see just above it you say yes what time you didn't say which which
00:44:07 what time you didn't say which which project are you talking about what did you understand he was talking about was it the design review well I can tell you is that that we probably did hold a
00:44:18 is that that we probably did hold a design review of Heston more or less at that time but it wasn't that much before the review on Grenville and the AAP okay at the stage you did as you told us the
00:44:29 at the stage you did as you told us the design review for grenfell in late 2012 whether or not this emails and string refers to it did you review any any technical elements of the project on
00:44:41 technical elements of the project on Grenville did I review any technical elements of the project I
00:44:53 I remember that briefs did a presentation he probably was relying on material that had he had
00:45:07 was relying on material that had he had prepared to be presented to the AAP which would have actually shown the planning and of the building the surrounds of the building and studies for the building exterior did was any
00:45:20 for the building exterior did was any consideration given to compliance with the building regulations of that stage this was would have been a much broader and strategic review of the project it
00:45:32 and strategic review of the project it wasn't getting into the technicalities of it so is the answer to my question no no did you was any consideration given to CDM compliance at that stage at that
00:45:46 to CDM compliance at that stage at that stage if we felt that there was something which was going to be problematic it would be raised so I give you a an example of the sort of issue
00:45:57 you a an example of the sort of issue that could arise we would have thought about the building surrounds landscaping we would have thought about I think we
00:46:11 we would have thought about I think we may have talked about the apron that was protecting people at the low level as to because there was some discussion about emitting it and we were anxious about that being emitted so so the CDM
00:46:23 that being emitted so so the CDM dimensions would have come in in some shape or form yes can I ask you please to give back to paragraph 21 of your statement which is an SE a zero zero zero one four two
00:46:35 an SE a zero zero zero one four two seven one at page six
00:46:38 yeah you say there that a Design Review usually occurs of what was previously our IBA c/d concept and design development and we looked at this before
00:46:50 development and we looked at this before and you go on to say that the project lead presents to one or more senior people at Studio E who will consider the proposed design against the checklist of issues with a focus on conceptual aesthetic and strategic issues question
00:47:04 aesthetic and strategic issues question or two about that was in the case of the Granville tower project
00:47:10 project was there any checklist of issues with a focus on conceptual aesthetic and strategic issues in either the design review in November 2012 or early 2013
00:47:21 review in November 2012 or early 2013 that you've referred to the the review in November was in the context of preparing for the appraisal panel yes so we would have covered some of the
00:47:32 we would have covered some of the headers but I think the review earlier in the following year would have been against a checklist there are checklists in the in the practice manual I see so
00:47:44 in the in the practice manual I see so you're saying no for the November but yes for the early 2000s as I remember it we sat down and and went through the project with Bruce in the context of the AAP panel whether we have the checklist
00:47:56 AAP panel whether we have the checklist out in front of us at that time I cannot recall right now you referred earlier in your evidence to a technical review in October 2015 yes we go to se a zero zero zero one
00:48:09 yes we go to se a zero zero zero one three five zero eight we can see if once we get it that it's dated the 28th of October 2015 what is this what you were referring to
00:48:21 what is this what you were referring to earlier in your evidence yes and this is the I suppose note our minute of the meeting on that date and the project
00:48:34 meeting on that date and the project title is Grenville tower assessor Bruce soons
00:48:37 soons associate project architect Neil Crawford and the technical review stage is four to five which is F stroke G H J and K
00:48:49 am i right in thinking that there was no equivalent set of notes for the design reviews in either late 2012 or early 2013 that you referred us to earlier not
00:49:01 2013 that you referred us to earlier not that we can locate we we had a big office move in 2014 and I think a
00:49:13 office move in 2014 and I think a critical notebook that belonged to Bruce sounds like she was lost at that time okay now looking at this document if we look at page two you see it says design
00:49:38 look at page two you see it says design standards this is the very foot of page two do you see that yes comment designed to current housing approved document building regulations and British standards were applicable first question
00:49:51 standards were applicable first question is did you see this note when it came out when it was produced I received a copy of this once it had been completed I see so your your
00:50:04 been completed I see so your your involvement in the technical review this technical review was was not the review itself for just receiving a record of it correct I see let me just see how far we can gave them with it because maybe for
00:50:15 can gave them with it because maybe for mr. sands himself but if you look at the bottom of page two I've pointed out it says design standards and you could see what said in the comment there yes did did you understand at that time that the
00:50:28 did you understand at that time that the technical review reviewed whether the design of the Grenfell Tower refurbishment that CDO II was involved in complied with the approved documents
00:50:41 in complied with the approved documents under the building regulations I would have understood that yes did you investigate with mr. sands or mr. Crawford who was involved of course at
00:50:54 Crawford who was involved of course at this point what they did I didn't put it this way I think if if one of the benefits of Neal actually joining the
00:51:06 benefits of Neal actually joining the project with Bruce was that Neal was actually a fresh set of eyes on the project fresh set of experience size so in many ways he was actually
00:51:19 in many ways he was actually backstopping Bruce because he was acquiring knowledge and questioning what was happening on the project so between them they actually carried out this review and I think if that note had said
00:51:33 review and I think if that note had said I posed a question mark then yes I would have been alerted that there was something to infer from this but but the way it's put I had no reason to believe
00:51:44 way it's put I had no reason to believe that there was an issue and if you just help me with this if you look at the document as a whole and then it's difficult for you but if you could be scrolled down it generally yes is this a
00:51:55 scrolled down it generally yes is this a standard form at that studio he has on its system it is so you would just you would then just fill in as per a proprietary project yes fine okay
00:52:07 proprietary project yes fine okay now the only correct me if I'm wrong but am i right in thinking that if you go to page 3 under technical performance you can see in the in the second from last
00:52:19 can see in the in the second from last entry fire detailing comment completed action blank is fire detailing the the only reference or the only place in this
00:52:30 only reference or the only place in this document we would find any review or review report about I think there are performance from I think there are parallel documents that actually give
00:52:44 parallel documents that actually give you some guidance but I think the important point here was that I this is my understanding that we had a fire consultants on the project he had set
00:52:57 consultants on the project he had set down these strategic issues that had to be addressed and and that had been completed either by us or by others well you say that now mr. mr. gazelle but when you read this when
00:53:08 when you read this when did you look first of all at this entry I'm directing your attention to fire detail Ling fire detailing common completed I would have scanned the document yes of course and by completed what would you have
00:53:20 and by completed what would you have taken what did you take from that that there were no issues that were outstanding on the fire front I mean I know that you know you know with hindsight now we you would you would look at it much more carefully but at
00:53:33 look at it much more carefully but at the time there was every reason to understand that nothing untoward had been discovered I see is there anywhere else on this standard full document that
00:53:45 else on this standard full document that if there were problems or issues which are at which were outstanding at this stage about fire safety on the project you would find it if you've got a
00:53:58 you would find it if you've got a comment and you're you're unhappy with any aspects of the project you would write more than just complete it in the box so it's that's the box you'd come you would fill in if you had a problem
00:54:10 you would fill in if you had a problem well to be honest you'd need to I can't remember the whole document but but for sure that's Co the fiery fire side of things yes right
00:54:23 all right well if there are any other difficult issues with that or difficulties with that document we can ask other witnesses can I ask you please to go to a document are yd 0 0 0 5 6 9 5
00:54:38 to go to a document are yd 0 0 0 5 6 9 5 6 bearing in mind the document I'm taking you away from is dated the 28th of October 2015 15 the document I'm now taking you to is a ride and site
00:54:51 taking you to is a ride and site progress report dated October 2015 yes you see that yes have a look at it is this a document do you think you would have seen at the time no not if you look at the bottom of the page in
00:55:04 you look at the bottom of the page in the in the activity table you could see there's a box at the bottom that says activity table do you see it says I do external facade works plan progress 100%
00:55:15 external facade works plan progress 100% actual progress 60 percent you see that yes say would it be right to say that the design sorry the technical review that we saw which produced the report of
00:55:27 that we saw which produced the report of the 28th of October 2015 was done when construction of the external facade was already 60% complete yes now you told us
00:55:41 already 60% complete yes now you told us in your statement that a technical review usually happens at our iba stages e to F we saw that at paragraph 24 yes point two of your statement it would it follow from that that the does the
00:55:53 follow from that that the does the Grenville tower that technical review took place well after stages East Road F I don't know about well after but if I've spoken to both Bruce and Neil since
00:56:07 I've spoken to both Bruce and Neil since and and I'm now aware that the project was still under very serious design resolution through the first part of
00:56:18 resolution through the first part of 2015 so both by us and by others so the question really ought to be asking at Bruce annual is at
00:56:30 ought to be asking at Bruce annual is at what point did they feel confident that they were reviewing the final final package well we can ask them lots of questions mr. mr. Rochelle I'm asking you as a senior person in studio at the
00:56:42 you as a senior person in studio at the time if mr. sands is correct that the project had reached stage E or F 1 at the point of tender if he's correct about that then the gren felt our
00:56:55 about that then the gren felt our technical review took taking place as it did in October 2015
00:57:01 took place a very long time afterwards I prepared to accept that yes it was after good yeah and it was more than a year after the submission of the full plans
00:57:12 after the submission of the full plans application to Building Control yes but that's actually that in itself doesn't really mean too much because it took us two years to get planning approval would
00:57:24 two years to get planning approval would it be normal for a technical review to take place when construction of an important element of the project was already 60 percent complete I think that
00:57:37 already 60 percent complete I think that the question of what is normal in the circumstances is rather difficult to define different projects followed different processes and and therefore
00:57:48 different processes and and therefore the timing and the completion of design occurs of different stages so I think the what is important is at what point was the project at a had had the project
00:57:59 was the project at a had had the project being developed to the point where you would be reviewing the final technical equation do you know I'll help you if you don't that the design the
00:58:13 you don't that the design the specification at least for the ACM the rainscreen took place latest in September 2014 did you know that I wouldn't be wouldn't
00:58:26 you know that I wouldn't be wouldn't have been able to give you give you that date and the cavity barriers at the end of April 2000 in April 2015 right know that again these are dates that would
00:58:38 that again these are dates that would not be familiar to me right and the products that you mentioned and the final detailing of those were being undertaken by others and that let me see if you agree with with me that a
00:58:50 if you agree with with me that a technical review taking place in late October 2015 after the ACM had been specified and and
00:59:02 after the ACM had been specified and and the cavity barriers have been designed many months earlier would be happening far too late sorry I
00:59:13 would be happening far too late sorry I technical review that happens in October 2015 when the ACM had been specified more than a year before and the cavity
00:59:25 more than a year before and the cavity bearers had been specified in April that year was happening far too late at the proposition I'm just inviting your comment on that I'm saying that after
00:59:38 comment on that I'm saying that after the contractor was appointed a lot of things were changed and a design continued under the auspices of specialists do you know of any reason why the Technical Review did not happen
00:59:49 why the Technical Review did not happen any earlier than October 2015 I think that my response earlier still stands
01:00:00 that my response earlier still stands that ultimately my duty at that stage would have been to remind the team working on the project that a technical review was due and it was their judgment
01:00:15 review was due and it was their judgment being hands on on the projects as to exactly when they held the technical review right I wonder if we can just then in the light of that go back to the minutes of the technical review we were looking at earlier on that's se a zero
01:00:26 looking at earlier on that's se a zero zero zero one three five zero eight yep
01:00:31 October 25 28th October 20 2015 and I showed you this at the when we looked at the document but let's just get back to it again
01:00:41 it again the Assessor did you see at the top is Bruce sounds and the project architect is Neil Crawford yes yes given that mr. sands was essentially
01:00:54 yes given that mr. sands was essentially the professional at Studio E in charge of running the Grenville tower project was mr. sands not marking his own homework in conducting this technical
01:01:05 homework in conducting this technical review I think this is a hard to call really because as I said to you earlier Neel had actually joined the project in
01:01:16 Neel had actually joined the project in 2014 and he was the fresh eyes but by the time we get into 2015 actually Neal is closer to the daily workings of the
01:01:28 is closer to the daily workings of the project and Brisas is the one who's actually now checking what is actually happening during the construction stage so so the truth is a review was actually carried out between the two of them and
01:01:41 carried out between the two of them and and in fact that is the only way that a review could be undertaken so normally when we do reviews you have one party
01:01:53 when we do reviews you have one party who isn't hands-on and the other part of you is a hands-on obviously the hands-on party actually is there to answer questions to - to the party who isn't thoroughly hands on these were the two
01:02:05 thoroughly hands on these were the two most experienced people in our practice and and and and they carried out the review do you know why well let me ask the questions slightly more staged way
01:02:17 the questions slightly more staged way would it follow from that that there was no peer review of the technical review stage four to five by somebody at Studio e who was not already involved in the detail of the project no that is true is
01:02:32 detail of the project no that is true is there any reason why you for example or mr. Lloyd Jones for example could not have been involved or could not have conducted the technical review yes I don't think that I think that we wouldn't have been as technically
01:02:46 informed as Bruce knew were to actually carry out that review so I mean in effect we had Neel who actually worked on the tall high-rise buildings and Bruce who had actually done all the
01:02:57 Bruce who had actually done all the legwork to research the project they were to our most knowledgeable people would you accept that adopting
01:03:08 people would you accept that adopting that approach that would mean that the only people who were best qualified to carry out a technical review of the work at the studio we were those who had carried it out well at different stages
01:03:22 so who would bring in any independent I to bear on the work that mr. sands and mr. Crawford had done on the ground felt
01:03:35 mr. Crawford had done on the ground felt our project as at late October 2015 well I would say that the independent I that came to the project was at the end of 2014 which was Neil because he actually
01:03:46 2014 which was Neil because he actually was totally fresh hand on the project forgive me mr. kachelle I will ask the question again and I'll try and repeated verbatim who would bring any independent
01:03:57 verbatim who would bring any independent eye to bear to the work that mr. sands and mr. Crawford had done on the ground felt our project as at late October 2015 when this technical review was done I
01:04:10 when this technical review was done I think that the events that occurred between 2014 and 15 were summarized in the report that was produced between the two of them but I repeat that Neal came
01:04:21 two of them but I repeat that Neal came as a fresh set of very experienced eyes who didn't know the project so he would have actually looked at it so key afresh and the fact that the project then continued to evolve under his fresh eyes
01:04:34 continued to evolve under his fresh eyes was I think a good thing but he wasn't very fresh was he by October 2015 he'd already been involved in it for 16 months in a good position to judge whether the technical ins and outs of
01:04:48 whether the technical ins and outs of the project at that stage yes mr. kachelle but not independently I would suggest to you not in the sense that you mean it yes
01:04:58 22
01:05:10 yes mr. kachelle I've come to the end of my questions but I have one more for you looking back on the ground felt our project and doing the best you can with your recollection and what you know of
01:05:22 your recollection and what you know of what you've seen of the evidence is there anything that you would have done differently in respect of the Grenville tower project I think that some the
01:05:45 tower project I think that some the response to this shows a lot of respect to the BS ours who who suffered in this tragedy I would just wish to reflect
01:05:57 tragedy I would just wish to reflect since it was the last question that was on the list prior to this that some the technical review however you feel you
01:06:09 technical review however you feel you want to interpret it but it didn't actually reveal anything untoward at that stage and hindsight now comes into play we've all lived two and a half
01:06:21 play we've all lived two and a half years since the tragedy and doubtless absolutely every one of us would wish to turn the clock back and the truth is that through those two and a half years
01:06:33 that through those two and a half years a lot of information has come out some of it through our evidence but there's also other information has come out through various sources I have to say
01:06:45 through various sources I have to say that if we had understood that building regulations were not robust if we had understood that
01:06:57 understood that we can't trust a certification if we had understood that advice that was being given from parties who were either
01:07:09 given from parties who were either specialists or marketing products with that unreliable and misleading I this is so sad to say but I don't think this tragedy would have happened and it
01:07:21 tragedy would have happened and it really cracks me up because it shouldn't have happened it really shouldn't have happened I'm really really sorry for all of you and everybody else who was involved in the
01:07:32 everybody else who was involved in the project because I I can only say to you from from my heart that we really wanted to do the absolute best project we could and that's why I didn't enjoy having the
01:07:44 and that's why I didn't enjoy having the project described as an add-on because in our hearts it wasn't an add-on at all so it's it's horrendous and the only thing that we can wish for now is that
01:07:56 thing that we can wish for now is that actually we we contribute as best we can we've said absolutely everything with you to finding a way forward which prevents this ever happening again
01:08:13 mr. Kajal I've come to the end of my questions but there may be on reflection one or two further questions which my team might want me to ask you so I'm going to ask the Chairman to rise for a few minutes would it be sensible to
01:08:26 few minutes would it be sensible to combine this with the afternoon break yes how long do you think you might need the length of the afternoon break which would normally be 10 10 minutes we said
01:08:40 would normally be 10 10 minutes we said 25 past three yes that's very convenient action the other 10 minutes thank you we're keen to get on to the next witness mr. chairman yeah this afternoon say that's convenient yes mr. tishell we
01:08:51 that's convenient yes mr. tishell we found in the past that it's necessary to have a break at the end of a witness evidence says that counsel can review what he's asked the witness and and consider whether there are further questions that it is to put we also have
01:09:03 questions that it is to put we also have a break in the middle of the afternoon in any event so we're going to have that break now I'm going to ask you to return with the usher to the witness room will come you'll come back at 25 past three
01:09:14 come you'll come back at 25 past three and then counsel will tell us whether there were any more questions he tried to put to you fair enough all right we'd like to go to the arson
01:09:31 right 3:25
01:21:43 right yes good we have mr. Koo Selma
01:22:00 Thank You mr. mr. millet do you have some I have one or two yes chairman in the usual usual way mr. Koo mr. Cassell you said earlier in your evidence this
01:22:11 you said earlier in your evidence this afternoon that there was no technical technical review other than within the team itself at the tender stage do you know what review was carried out within the team itself at the tender stage at
01:22:28 the team itself at the tender stage at the tender stage no package of information would go out without actually seen your eyes on it which would normally be the associate or Project Architect lead but you say
01:22:39 Project Architect lead but you say normally but normally that what normally that is the policy of the practice yeah I mean we as a practice we have always had a large Bank of senior people in the
01:22:54 had a large Bank of senior people in the practice we to to become an associate isn't a decision that's taken lightly in the practice effectively you're putting your trust into somebody at a
01:23:06 putting your trust into somebody at a very senior level to undertake the work so they would be proven all-rounders project architects similarly are not
01:23:18 project architects similarly are not entrusted in our practice to take a lead on a project unless we believe they've shown enough a work experience preferably under our auspices and and
01:23:32 preferably under our auspices and and that we understand from that experience that they can actually take the project lead for the type of or scale of a project that is required mr. Kishan I lost the question again because I'm not
01:23:44 lost the question again because I'm not confident you've answered it in the case of the grenfell tower tender do you know whether a team review was carried out a
01:23:56 whether a team review was carried out a technical review was technical review in the sense that you're asking was not carried out to that stage it was carried out later but a review of the package that was going
01:24:07 that was going - Tendo would have been reviewed by briefs and maybe a colleague I thought I can't be sure you need to ask him and do you accept that that more frequent
01:24:20 you accept that that more frequent technical reviews should have happened on the Tigran felt our project done in fact happened
01:24:32 the reason I'm hesitating is that when you have a project that gets its full technical resolution in such a graded
01:24:43 technical resolution in such a graded way it's a fine judgement when you call the technical review in hindsight you could argue that maybe a technical review could have been held at a tender stage but it would have been in the
01:24:55 stage but it would have been in the knowledge that you would have to do a further technical review because a lot with change or indeed even some areas have not been fully resolved there would be no difficulty with there in having a technical review more than once no you
01:25:07 technical review more than once no you could have mr. gazelle thank you very much mr. chairman I have no further questions for this for this witness mr. Desjarlais only remains for me to say thank you very much for coming and
01:25:19 thank you very much for coming and giving evidence to the inquiry today
01:25:23 certainly very grateful to you for coming to give you our evidence and it's all over now and you're free to go thank you thank you very good to actually stay well you're welcome to stay if you want yeah Thank You mr.
01:25:37 stay if you want yeah Thank You mr. chairman we're now going to have some
01:25:43 loot movement on the council's bench miss Grange is now going to take the next witness which means that I'm going to step away from the podium for the moment ever it is for the moment just
01:25:54 moment ever it is for the moment just arise well I did it's a matter for You mr. chairman but I probably more appropriate if you did because there's some electronics that have to know I see moved around if it's not inconvenient would you mind will rise from moment we
01:26:05 would you mind will rise from moment we keep two minutes possible yeah absolutely thank you
01:28:54 yes for screaming yes mr. chairman we're now going to call our second studio we wit witness that's mr. Bruce sounds if he could be brought in yes thank you could you ask mr. sands to come in
01:29:18 I do solemnly I do solemnly sincerely and truly sincerely and truly declare and affirm declare and affirm I shall
01:29:30 and affirm declare and affirm I shall give at the evidence that I shall give shall be the truth shall be the truth the whole truth whole truth thank you very much mr. son sit down make yourself
01:29:42 very much mr. son sit down make yourself comfortable yes can you please give the inquiry your full name it's um Bruce Alexander sones thank you
01:29:56 it's um Bruce Alexander sones thank you thank you very much for coming to give evidence today and to assist the inquiry with its investigations I'm going to be asking you questions today and for the next few days if you have any difficulty
01:30:08 next few days if you have any difficulty understanding anything I'm saying please ask me to repeat the question or put it in a different way is that okay and can you please keep your voice up so the transcribers can hear you for the
01:30:19 the transcribers can hear you for the transcript now you've made a lengthy witness statement for the inquiry that should be in a folder in front of you on your desk can you open that up and if we
01:30:30 your desk can you open that up and if we can take the screens to it so it's an se a triple zero 1 4 273 if we could bring that up thank you and it's we see your name there and if
01:30:45 and it's we see your name there and if we could go to the very last page of the statement at page 187 we can see your signature and it's dated the 9th of November 2018 is that correct yes and you've also provided Exhibit B s1 which
01:30:59 you've also provided Exhibit B s1 which we don't need to bring it out but it's at se a triple zero one four to seven for now have you read your statement recently yes and can you confirm that the contents of it a true yes I can and
01:31:13 the contents of it a true yes I can and have you discussed your evidence with anyone before coming here today yes yes can you explain in what context you've had those discussions many without legal
01:31:26 had those discussions many without legal advisors
01:31:26 advisors we don't need to go into those with anybody else and with my colleagues but it's not just not really the statement itself not about the same in itself okay
01:31:38 itself not about the same in itself okay so I'm going to start by asking some questions about your qualifications and your experience and you've set out your experience at paragraph 17 of your witness statement I'd like to go to that
01:31:50 witness statement I'd like to go to that that's se a three zeros one four two seven three at page seven so if we can
01:32:01 seven three at page seven so if we can just look at that so you say you've worked at studio E since 2000 and you were made an associate of the practice in 2005 and then you say my early experience at studio E involved a range
01:32:12 experience at studio E involved a range of educational and sports and leisure projects and then you say further details are set out in your CV well we'll come to your CV in just a moment and focusing just a moment on the second
01:32:24 and focusing just a moment on the second sentence of that when you say that your early experience at studio really involved educational and sports and leisure projects do you mean before the ground floor tower project
01:32:35 ground floor tower project what do you mean there by your early experience these are my experiences at studio E from 2000 so all your experience from 2000 onwards prior to
01:32:46 experience from 2000 onwards prior to Grenville was that in education and sports and leisure projects I think there was some diversity of it yes diversity over what kind of projects
01:33:00 diversity over what kind of projects [Music]
01:33:01 [Music] remember
01:33:04 remember we did some work abroad 2010 would it be fair to say that educational and sports and leisure projects were your main area
01:33:16 and leisure projects were your main area of work at Studio E can we go then to your CV we find that at se a triple zero 147 four at page two if we can look at
01:33:34 147 four at page two if we can look at the top half of that screen thank you so there it says at the very top that you have a PG dip B arch does that mean you've completed part 1 and part 2 of
01:33:45 you've completed part 1 and part 2 of the architects qualification I graduated Durban South Africa yep and I'm moving to the UK I to do part 3 I had to get my
01:33:58 to the UK I to do part 3 I had to get my qualification accredited by the ARB so yes they were accredited as part 2 equivalent I see yep and you're a registered architect does that mean
01:34:09 registered architect does that mean you've completed I think you just said this part three of the architects qualification yes you have completed that now your CV doesn't state where and when you trained as an architect but I
01:34:21 when you trained as an architect but I think you may have just alluded to that and where did you undertake your architects training was the University of Natal German and when was that
01:34:33 of Natal German and when was that when did you undertake that training my first year was 89 my family I was 94
01:34:43 and we're you remember of Reba between 2012 and 2016 when you were working on the ground floor project were you a member of any other professional
01:34:55 member of any other professional associations or bodies at this time relevant to your work just just therapy just the ARB now we can see and from
01:35:07 just the ARB now we can see and from your CV there on the very left that before you worked at studio AE you worked at an organization called Arco Tec between 1995 and 1998 did you work
01:35:20 Tec between 1995 and 1998 did you work for them as an architect yes I'm hesitating because here of course it's a protected terminus I seem to recall a
01:35:31 protected terminus I seem to recall a protected term there as well but I did get the equivalent qualification but I can't remember where somewhere is there is there in South Africa in South Africa so you work for architect in South Africa and then we've also got here KSR
01:35:46 Africa and then we've also got here KSR Architects between 1998 and 2000 and where was that in Camden Camden so did
01:35:57 where was that in Camden Camden so did you begin working in the UK from 1998 onwards yes and again the KSR architects were you working as an architect in that firm
01:36:09 determine is used as architecture assistant before you've got your part three I got my part three towards the end of my talents okay so some time
01:36:23 end of my talents okay so some time before 2000 you got your part three to do I think it was between 99 and 2000 yes
01:36:32 yes and before we come on to that what kind of projects did you work on at those companies so this would be architect and ksour architects I could take primarily
01:36:47 ksour architects I could take primarily a refurbishment of a Victorian building that had been converted turned the
01:36:58 that had been converted turned the previous century into the post office as a large protected heritage building which the post office who occupied it
01:37:10 which the post office who occupied it making large changes and I was involved in that for three years and did you just work on that one project during that time primarily and @ks air architects in
01:37:22 time primarily and @ks air architects in Camden what what kind of projects did you work on there I think a bulk of my time there was working on a residential
01:37:34 time there was working on a residential or a hotel I think a part hotel for quite a big building in st. Paul's
01:37:45 quite a big building in st. Paul's churchyard which was a new build but it was essentially recreating the mass of the historic buildings plus I did work
01:37:59 the historic buildings plus I did work on a religious center towards the end of my time there and we know that you've worked at Studio E since 2000 so how do you completed your part three before you joined Studio E or did you complete it
01:38:11 joined Studio E or did you complete it after that I think they more or less consign coincide hundred percent sure but I I think I started to do he has a registered
01:38:22 started to do he has a registered architect and when you were first hired did you work for Studio LLP or did you work for studio II architects limited it
01:38:35 work for studio II architects limited it was limited and in what capacity did you first start working for them as an architect
01:38:42 architect and you were made and associate you're saying that says in 2005 is that correct yes can you explain in your own words how senior is the an associate position
01:38:53 how senior is the an associate position within studio II I think I've mentioned the assistant below an assistant you
01:39:06 the assistant below an assistant you would have give you a sense of hierarchy yeah below an assistant you would have a student and you'd have the product or an architect someone who has achieved part
01:39:19 architect someone who has achieved part 3 and registered they can be called an architect a project architect is someone who's been given the role of fronting up a project senior architect may your
01:39:34 a project senior architect may your project architect well they may not be they might be they might move between projects and an associate sits one above them and it's rather just designation of
01:39:52 them and it's rather just designation of them of course as a director so yeah is it so it's one director or partner I mean would you have referred to them while it was now up here as a partner or a director you were not well I don't
01:40:05 a director you were not well I don't come on to that but I was erroneously registered as a few months but you never were no and have you heard of the phrase
01:40:18 were no and have you heard of the phrase associate director I mean the way you just described it sounded like was an associate and then it went straight to director have you heard of the phrase associate director and it wasn't someone
01:40:32 associate director and it wasn't someone in your position did you ever perform the role of associate director
01:40:40 and would an associate normally fulfill the role of a project architect on a plot on a on a project not necessarily no so who might be the project architect
01:40:52 no so who might be the project architect somebody beneath the associate level I wouldn't want to put any restriction to
01:41:04 wouldn't want to put any restriction to who could be a project architect I think an associate couldn't can be a project architect presumably I mean we looked at the hierarchy a moment ago you wouldn't have a student as your project architect so at what level would have Project
01:41:16 so at what level would have Project Architect come in anyone who has qualified fully qualified and what do you mean by fully qualified completed at part three and registered so Project
01:41:30 part three and registered so Project Architect would be someone that's completed their part three yeah now you've also given some details of your previous experience elsewhere in your witness statement I just want to take
01:41:41 witness statement I just want to take you to a couple of key passages if we can look at paragraph two seven one of your statement this is se a triple zero one four two seven three at page one one
01:41:53 one four two seven three at page one one four
01:42:02 so in paragraph two seven one it's about eight lines down in a sentence in the middle of the page which begins when I
01:42:13 middle of the page which begins when I met Harley if we can just read that together when I met Harley I believed I had a lingering uncertainty about PIR because this was a high rise and I had not been involved in a high rise before
01:42:24 not been involved in a high rise before do you see that yeah now we're going to come back to Harley and we're going to come back to PIR much later but I just want to focus on the last part that you say there so is it right that you had
01:42:35 say there so is it right that you had not done a high-rise residential project before Graham full and would it also be fair to say that you were not familiar with modern cladding materials prior to
01:42:46 with modern cladding materials prior to working on the ground floor project
01:42:52 would you say I think all the products that we investigated I was familiar with all the projects that we're investigated you were familiar with yeah
01:43:04 you were familiar with yeah can we just look at something you say about this in your statement if we go to paragraph 2 7 7 on page 116 of your statement if we look in the very last
01:43:16 statement if we look in the very last lines of that paragraph you say there we just pick it up half with me although at the time I would not have spent time analyzing the data sheet and I had no
01:43:27 analyzing the data sheet and I had no experience with PE composites so is it right that before the Graham full project you hadn't come across PE composites but you're saying you had
01:43:40 composites but you're saying you had come across other products that were used on the ground full exterior um no experience in studio a or for that matter
01:43:49 matter my working experience I hadn't come across
01:43:54 I'm in composite material in my professional experience I had however come across it as a student as a student I see okay that is somewhere in my
01:44:09 I see okay that is somewhere in my statement
01:44:10 statement had he been involved in an over cladding project before the ground floor project
01:44:17 [Music]
01:44:21 in other words a building that has been over crazy yes you remember which project that might have been we refurbished and extended view watford wood side leisure center which was
01:44:32 wood side leisure center which was finished in 2008 which used a combination of composites kingspan panels an insulated render right was
01:44:45 panels an insulated render right was that your only experience of over cladding before the ground floor project and that's the one that comes to mind its most recent yes many others can we
01:44:59 its most recent yes many others can we now move to the topic of continuing professional development um is it right that is a registered architect you're required to undertake continuing professional development be honest I
01:45:12 professional development be honest I thought the requirements for CPD
01:45:18 fell to RIBA members I think I think my correct me on that but that was my understanding so your understanding is it's RIBA members that have to do the CPD obliged to under their terms of
01:45:31 CPD obliged to under their terms of their membership but as a registered architect with the ARB was your understanding that you had to do any CPD I'm not sure I wasn't sure so I was
01:45:44 I'm not sure I wasn't sure so I was about to ask you how many hours or points of CPD per year were you required to do you don't you don't know were you
01:46:00 to do you don't you don't know were you required to carry out CPD as a as an associate of studio II did they require to carry out CPD activities so did you
01:46:18 to carry out CPD activities so did you actually carry out let's take the year's 2012 to 2016 did you actually carry out any CPD activities during that time CPD was organized by the officers
01:46:32 CPD was organized by the officers lunchtime seminars which I think it's quite common and I certainly intend to do many of those we're gonna come on to those in a minute because we've got some details of those from Studio II so but
01:46:44 details of those from Studio II so but apart from those lunchtime seminars that were organized by Studio E did you do any other kind of continuing professional development any other training seminars courses I can't think
01:46:56 training seminars courses I can't think of anything offhand
01:47:00 so studios solicitors have disclosed a list of seminars that were organized and we have that for the years 2011 to 2013
01:47:11 we have that for the years 2011 to 2013 2016 and 2017 the inquiries been told by ste dairies solicitors that no training seminars were organized in 2014 and 2015
01:47:22 seminars were organized in 2014 and 2015 now does that reflect your understanding thinking back can't disagree can you recall the fact that was no seminars at
01:47:34 recall the fact that was no seminars at all during 2014 and 2015 I don't 2015 yeah I don't recall I think 2014 I can believe that okay let's let's see what
01:47:54 believe that okay let's let's see what we can then look at to help your memory so I'm going to show you a list of those seminars can we go first to se a triple zero one four four two four and this is
01:48:09 zero one four four two four and this is as we can see from the title of the document
01:48:11 document CPD seminars list for 2010 and if you just cast your eye down we see the provider on the left hand side and a description in the middle of the CPD
01:48:24 description in the middle of the CPD activities yeah now do you agree just looking at their titles of days that there aren't any seminars there which would have been relevant to either over cladding work or fire safety do you
01:48:37 cladding work or fire safety do you agree and if we move on to the next list from 2011 SCA triple zero one four four
01:48:49 from 2011 SCA triple zero one four four to seven
01:48:54 so we see these are the seminars for 2011 and there is a seminar there three lines down called fire safety management
01:49:05 lines down called fire safety management and BS quadruple nine on the stand we see that on the seventh of September between 1:00 and 2:00 p.m. so it's an hour-long seminar can you remember who gave this seminar
01:49:20 can you remember who gave this seminar it says here that the CPD provider it's called King fell do you know of an organization called King fell is it possible that could be a typo for King
01:49:32 possible that could be a typo for King span do you recall attending a seminar that Kings band were involved in did you
01:49:46 that Kings band were involved in did you actually attend this seminar I don't recall attending it now so you can't illuminate us on anything about the contents of that seminar let's look at
01:50:00 contents of that seminar let's look at the next one for 2012 this is se a triple zero one double four two three
01:50:12 yeah thank you I'll just give you a moment just to look down those seminars now we can see three up from the bottom
01:50:24 now we can see three up from the bottom that there is a seminar called using Celotex to meet part l 2010 can you see that yeah thanks to Celotex 12th of
01:50:35 that yeah thanks to Celotex 12th of september between 1:00 and 2:00 p.m. okay can you recall attending that seminar no I don't so you can't help us on the content at all and can you help
01:50:48 on the content at all and can you help us part L of the Building Regulations deals with what conservation of heat and power yeah let's go now to 2013 this is
01:50:59 power yeah let's go now to 2013 this is SC a triple zero one double four to zero
01:51:08 and if you just have a look down the descriptions of those seminars we see it item two there's a seminar entitled building regulations update by Butler
01:51:21 building regulations update by Butler and young did you attend that seminar
01:51:26 can you recall I don't recall but I know but very young and that would have been one I should have targeted so we skip
01:51:40 one I should have targeted so we skip now to 2016 because we we know there were no seminars in 2014 and 2015 and we go to an se a triple zero one double four one nine
01:51:59 now looking at those we can see it the in the first entry there's a seminar called new CDM regulations 2015 do you recall attending that seminar I
01:52:12 do you recall attending that seminar I do and can you give us an idea of the content of that seminar
01:52:19 it was giving our view to help designers understand their duties under the new CDM and regulations do you recall much about look at the content of it
01:52:35 recite here I know they left us documentation you can't recall any particular takeaway points about what your obligations would be under the 2015 CDM roads
01:52:48 I think this seminar was very useful to me to understand their changes so just
01:53:02 me to understand their changes so just be discussing what I understand the changes were okay finally let's just turn to 2017 we have se a triple zero one double four to two
01:53:22 and then if you look down that list fifth line down we've got a guide to detailing of interfaces on Windows and facades 21st of June for an hour and a
01:53:34 facades 21st of June for an hour and a half by trim lo le Brook trunk oh yeah camco sorry do you recall attending that seminar I do yeah and can you recall the content I
01:53:51 do yeah and can you recall the content I think I can yes I think I suggested it what was it about important Remco [Music]
01:54:00 [Music] manufacturer supply various products to assistant artist has to seal up around
01:54:12 assistant artist has to seal up around windows in masonry metal openings just as a way of meeting the requirements for air tightness and thermal insulation was
01:54:27 air tightness and thermal insulation was there anything about fire protection fire safety in relation to openings dealt with in that seminar not that I can recall
01:54:48 this seminar was held not long after the rental tower fire do you think that's why this seminar was requested or would it have been in the diary parties that
01:55:01 it have been in the diary parties that lined up I think now prior to ordering your work on the ground for tower project did you ever attend training on
01:55:12 project did you ever attend training on part 4 of Part B 4 of schedule 1 - the building regulations for all of the building regulations I've said you're one know a predock ument be on fire
01:55:25 one know a predock ument be on fire safety how to design a rainscreen cladding system did you undergo any kind of training in relation to that or any
01:55:36 of training in relation to that or any kind of professional I can't recall anything for my knowledge and it goes
01:55:47 anything for my knowledge and it goes back quite a ways okay but you can't recommend specific okay I now want to turn to consider the initial contact
01:55:58 turn to consider the initial contact with studio a about the ground floor power project can we go to se a seven zeros seven at page one and I want to
01:56:10 zeros seven at page one and I want to look at the email at the bottom of the page so if we can highlight that so we can see this is an email of the 29th of
01:56:21 can see this is an email of the 29th of February 2012 from Mark Anderson to mr. Cadell your colleague can you just read that to yourself and then if the transcriber can just go over the page and show you the rest of the email we're
01:56:34 and show you the rest of the email we're going to come back to this email a number of times and I want to ask you a few questions about it so if you just read it
01:57:05 [Music]
01:57:32 okay thank you now this is an email you would have seen because if we go back to the top of the first page of this document and if we look at the top of the first page yes we can see that you
01:57:46 the first page yes we can see that you are sent this email on the 29th of February by Mark Anderson of the TMO in mr. Cruz Elle's absence do you see that yeah so in his absence would you please
01:57:57 yeah so in his absence would you please review my request below and make contact with me now was that the first communication that to your knowledge studio he had had with the TMO in
01:58:09 studio he had had with the TMO in respect of the ground floor tower project yes so you're not aware of any earlier communication about that project I think Andre may have discussed it with
01:58:21 I think Andre may have discussed it with me prior but I don't think it really registered not in the form that it appeared what he might have said to you before this point I'd be honest he may
01:58:38 before this point I'd be honest he may have done but my recollection is was I received this email with some surprise why he surprised well they were so advanced in their thinking and time to
01:58:49 advanced in their thinking and time to the scope of the project now we saw amount ago the main email states that additionally Commission's will be viable
01:59:01 additionally Commission's will be viable case et mo what did you understand that to mean had you heard of the TM oh did you know who the TMO were
01:59:13 I might have been because of my involvement on calc I might have been aware that the Greenville tower was managed by a different organization but I recall
01:59:24 I recall exactly if you can thinking back to this point as at February 2012 what was your understanding about which organization would be leading on commissioning the grant for our project KC TMO who did you
01:59:41 grant for our project KC TMO who did you consider to be your client at this point
01:59:50 he did you initially consider to be your client on the project the approach was from Mark Anderson and director of assets investment in engineering he was
02:00:02 assets investment in engineering he was office point of contacts yeah can we now go we'll come back to that email again in a moment but can we now go to se a four zeros three five six seven which is
02:00:14 four zeros three five six seven which is the email you sent to mr. kachelle on the 29th of February 2012 after receiving that initial brief for the project now we looked at this with mr. kachelle in detail this morning I think
02:00:26 kachelle in detail this morning I think you were present at that time and you say in the final paragraph of this email you can see it in the second sentence we are a little green on process and
02:00:38 are a little green on process and technicality so I suppose some Rapids CDP EMF being my first port of call and then you say you'll hold off circulating this and I want to ask you some questions about that what did you mean
02:00:51 questions about that what did you mean by a little green to start with you appreciate that email or after 8 o'clock and I responded at 20 past 8:00 I was on
02:01:02 and I responded at 20 past 8:00 I was on a train coming back from I should
02:01:07 the proposal to over clad and renew the heating and the extent of works described in that you know it's considerable and as I thought that was
02:01:19 considerable and as I thought that was suddenly given that the building would be occupied not something I could initially and appreciate how that could be done so process and technicality I at
02:01:34 be done so process and technicality I at that point I will definitely think about how you replace windows replace heating completely reconfigure a building which
02:01:46 tenants in place yeah soon as can you just keep your voice up just so we can hear and so focusing in on that word process green on process but we what
02:01:59 process green on process but we what were you specifically thinking I appreciate you were on a train and this was an initial email you sent back but thinking about what was in your mind at that point what do you mean Green on process how you actually the logistics of
02:02:12 you actually the logistics of undertaking that work with an occupied building yeah it's me seemed quite daunting at the time that's why I thought I'd ask someone who may have done it before yeah we'll come on to that and green on technicality again
02:02:25 that and green on technicality again what did you have in mind when you wrote that I think it was probably more thinking of the mechanical and
02:02:36 thinking of the mechanical and electrical services if you were to ask me at that point I think that's what I would have answered but of course a moment ago you just mentioned the over
02:02:48 moment ago you just mentioned the over cladding is something which was pretty significant did you did he notice the over cladding being part of the proposal at this day and what did you think about that I thought
02:03:04 that I thought that's overcrowded building with tenants inside poses a bit of it turn architects who's used to working on a site that's
02:03:15 who's used to working on a site that's free of any anyone who's not involved on construction itself it struck me as a challenge were you also thinking about
02:03:26 challenge were you also thinking about studio ease lack of experience on over cladding projects well your lack of experience whenever trading projects I
02:03:40 didn't think the other cutting itself was the issue I really thought it was the residents in place which was going to pose the biggest challenge and as you missed mentioned you say MF being my
02:03:52 missed mentioned you say MF being my first port of call does MF they refer to max boredom it does yes no can we just look at what you've said about this comment at paragraph 64 of your witness statement this is a se a triple zero one
02:04:05 statement this is a se a triple zero one four two seven three at page 32
02:04:19 so you say there in the internal email I express my view that I felt studio was a little green on process and technicality because Studio II as a practice had not previously been involved in high-rise
02:04:30 previously been involved in high-rise residential heating renewal nor the over cladding of occupied buildings I said I would speak to max for them to develop my understanding of the process so we
02:04:41 my understanding of the process so we know from gmos email that we just looked at that the principal objectives included both the overcrowding of the tower and to rationalize the heating and hot water systems that's correct isn't it and in those circumstances you
02:04:55 it and in those circumstances you proposed rapid CDP did you mean CPD continuing professional development and what sort of CPD did you have in mind at
02:05:07 what sort of CPD did you have in mind at the time that you wrote that email I think nothing more than a consultation to understand the what do you mean by
02:05:20 to understand the what do you mean by consultation to understand were these abilities with max Fordham someone at McFarland who I I may have known I don't know I can't recall that I thought that
02:05:31 know I can't recall that I thought that they would have most likely had done the project of this kind before and by a consultation do you mean speaking to someone the phone call will come to the
02:05:44 someone the phone call will come to the discussion with max Fordham just in a moment did you have any other CPD in mind at this time did you or the team undertake any CPD at this time by CPD of
02:06:00 undertake any CPD at this time by CPD of something that's accredited in some way No
02:06:06 or any other form of seminars or research did you do anything like that at this time I think at that point the
02:06:18 at this time I think at that point the research came later I think I would have wanted to understand from someone like Mike Gordon that the project proposed if
02:06:29 Mike Gordon that the project proposed if we could just have a connection just go back to the email so you've got it right in front of you it's se a four zeros three five six seven
02:06:40 the words you use there or I proposed some rapid CPD in the final paragraph there what did you mean by rapid the
02:07:00 there what did you mean by rapid the next day or two and you also say just before that that you need to acknowledge
02:07:12 before that that you need to acknowledge mostly receipt after meet then walk the site with him to understand the scope describe probably with Neil is that referring to Neil Crawford it must be I can't think you are soldier yes did you
02:07:25 can't think you are soldier yes did you in fact walk the site with Neil Crawford at this time not not on subsequent site visits so we know that you spoke to max
02:07:38 visits so we know that you spoke to max Fordham and who at Max Fordham did you speak to I don't know I don't know I cannot recall do you actually recall
02:07:49 cannot recall do you actually recall having a conversation with max Fordham about the ground floor tower refurbishment and what was involved
02:07:57 pretty sure I did that recipes remember who or where I I'm not sure I can speculate but I'm not sure can we just look at what you say
02:08:08 sure can we just look at what you say about this in your witness statement so if we look at paragraph 64 of your witness statement that's SE a triple zero one four two seven three at page 32
02:08:21 and if we look for lines down you say I said I would speak to max Fordham to develop my understanding of the process and then you say I learned that they had
02:08:34 and then you say I learned that they had indeed been involved in similar projects before and despite my initial uncertainty I was comfortable that Studio II had the experience and expertise to take on the work being discussed at this stage do you see that
02:08:48 discussed at this stage do you see that when you wrote this statement did you have a recollection of a conversation with max Fordham as I said I'm pretty sure I did but the recollection of a
02:08:59 sure I did but the recollection of a conversation I cannot remember the particulars or who I spoke to and it could have been a number of individuals so I'm not sure so we don't know who you spoke to do you know you've given us an
02:09:12 spoke to do you know you've given us an indication here you learned that they have been involved in similar projects before what else did you learn from speaking to max Fordham do you recall
02:09:30 I'm afraid all I can recall is that the process of acquiring and renewing the heating was something that they had been
02:09:41 heating was something that they had been involved in before why did you think that max Fordham would be of help in that area given their breadth of experience and the fact that they were
02:09:55 experience and the fact that they were sub consultant to us on calc and it sounded like they would involved on the projects and the fact that I'd been working with them since I'd started its govt we know that they are there
02:10:08 govt we know that they are there building services engineers yes and so they would have expertise in the heating system is that correct yes and expertise around thermal performance of a building
02:10:19 around thermal performance of a building is that correct yes yes but would you agree that they would not be able to explain to you what was required of an architect when designing an over
02:10:30 architect when designing an over cladding project yeah and you say they're looking back at paragraph 64 or in the final lines I learned that they
02:10:44 in the final lines I learned that they had indeed been involved in similar projects before and despite my initial uncertainty I was comfortable that studio II had the experience and expertise to take on the work being discussed at this stage can you explain
02:10:55 discussed at this stage can you explain how this conversation made you comfortable going back to the email that concern was just the feasibility of undertaking that extensive work on an
02:11:08 undertaking that extensive work on an occupied building at that point that was the concern
02:11:17 thereafter the at that stage it was it was a design exercise to take on okay
02:11:28 was a design exercise to take on okay now you'd recommend it to the director mr. kachelle that there would be rapid CPD and I think we've established that you personally didn't do anything other
02:11:39 you personally didn't do anything other than speak to max for him is that correct that comment was to understand the feasibility of that type of project
02:11:52 thereafter after the meeting after we got going I did more research which is obviously covered further on what kind of research did you do there after I
02:12:06 started online and I said I can't recall exactly what I found but I found that this type of project was a bit of a
02:12:19 this type of project was a bit of a niche in the market for cladding
02:12:24 residential high-rises and I came across the company CEP I think that was a month or so later yeah so you did some online
02:12:35 or so later yeah so you did some online research you found you found CEP and we know and we'll come back to this that you have contact with CEP rates down the line did you do any other form of
02:12:48 line did you do any other form of research either at this point or in the few weeks after think of anything
02:13:03 so can you explain how it was that you were able to conclude that Studio II had the experience and the expertise to take on this work the project was certainly
02:13:20 on this work the project was certainly for the first year was really a planning application primarily and I felt that given that our involvement on calc and
02:13:32 given that our involvement on calc and previous experience that that was something well with an R and my ability to take on negotiating the detail the
02:13:44 to take on negotiating the detail the detail of the plans and the appearance of the building making a submission coordinating the consultants that was there's all things I thought I felt was
02:13:56 there's all things I thought I felt was within my experience and ability did you in fact decide that it was possible for you to learn on the job as you went through the project yes did you ever
02:14:11 through the project yes did you ever advise the TMO that Studio II wasn't experienced in high-rise projects all over cladding I can't recall doing that well what about Apple Yards he later
02:14:24 well what about Apple Yards he later became art Elia did you ever advise them in their role that you weren't experienced in high-rise projects or overcrowding
02:14:36 I don't think we hold ourselves out as anything other than who we were I can't remember any conversations or anything written that set up to confirm that but
02:14:48 written that set up to confirm that but did you ever say to them by the way just so you know and you need to understand this we aren't experienced in high-rise and we aren't experienced in overcutting did you ever say that to them I can't
02:14:59 did you ever say that to them I can't recall doing that but I say I didn't think we have ourselves artists as if we had do you mean by that that you think it would have been obvious to those who
02:15:10 it would have been obvious to those who are appointing you and using you that you didn't have that experience I believe so your knowledge was studio II
02:15:21 believe so your knowledge was studio II LLP already in financial difficulty at this time so we're talking 2012 very early 2012 were there financial difficulties in the firm at this time
02:15:37 was it the case that Studio II was eager to retain lucrative projects despite not having the expertise was that part of the motivation
02:15:53 fit unfair question I think architects are up there too the architects and project comes along in your experience
02:16:04 project comes along in your experience at Studio II have you ever said actually we can't do this project this is too much for us or we're not we're not right for this project actually should think about using X or Y because that ever
02:16:15 about using X or Y because that ever happened I think it's usually on smaller projects but that's not something that occurred to you to say in the context of the Graham field project can we look at
02:16:29 the Graham field project can we look at paragraph 63 of your statement next we go se a triple zero one four two seven three at page 32 now we're going to come back to the oje you limit point in a
02:16:42 back to the oje you limit point in a moment and look at some emails around that but for now I want to look at what you say two to three lines from the bottom of paragraph 63 so you say and
02:16:55 bottom of paragraph 63 so you say and studio we may not be able to qualify in a bid process do you see that we looked at that with mr. kosher this morning why do you think studio e may not have been
02:17:06 do you think studio e may not have been able to qualify in a bid process at this time
02:17:11 [Music]
02:17:15 rereading that email she doesn't mention a bit process it just mentions the OG threshold yes but you said in your I responded perhaps sorry you said in your
02:17:28 responded perhaps sorry you said in your statement the reason I felt that this email did not add up was that I believe the overall fee to deliver the project would be higher than the Oh je u threshold and Studio II may not be able to qualify in a bid process it's that
02:17:40 to qualify in a bid process it's that bit I want to ask you about why did you think that they wouldn't qualify in a competitive tender process that would be relevant experience yeah the process is
02:17:51 relevant experience yeah the process is either in two stages or it's broken down into quality and commercial sections and a good deal of of that qualification
02:18:03 a good deal of of that qualification moment with relevant experience usually yeah did you was it anything to do with studio ease financial standing as well at that time would it have been about
02:18:15 at that time would it have been about its experience that led you to write that in your statement what about exposing ourselves to working at risk
02:18:26 exposing ourselves to working at risk possibly but no more about qualifying in a bid process would you have been concerned that studio ease financial position may have been seen to be precarious at that time no no I think it
02:18:38 precarious at that time no no I think it was mentioned on calc they asked for two or three alleged full size ledger centres and full size academies both in the last period for five years I can't remember yeah it was quite a high
02:18:50 remember yeah it was quite a high threshold and and they do that to try and
02:18:55 Whittle down the field yeah so if they've done that here and they said give us an example of two or three overcutting high-rise type projects that you've had in the last X many years studio wouldn't have been able to put
02:19:06 studio wouldn't have been able to put that down right and given that you were aware that studio we might not be able to qualify in a bid process did you have
02:19:17 to qualify in a bid process did you have any views at that stage about the expertise and resources that you would need to engage on this project if you
02:19:31 need to engage on this project if you referring to consultants or either whether whether additional consultants or additional expertise in other ways did you have any views at that stage as to what it was going to take for studio
02:19:42 to what it was going to take for studio each of be in a position to deliver this project properly and in accordance with the clients objectives having strong
02:19:56 the clients objectives having strong suite of consultants was critical for us to be able to deliver the project yes so you're thinking about external consultants were you ever thinking about hiring anyone else at Studio E getting
02:20:10 hiring anyone else at Studio E getting any additional expertise into the firm
02:20:19 did the TMO ever questioned whether studio e was appropriately qualified and resourced to carry out the gramm full project I don't recall any of it any any
02:20:30 project I don't recall any of it any any questions from the team oh all our bkc for that matter did they ever query this not not that I can recall there was
02:20:42 not not that I can recall there was discussion this morning about a competence check for the gram flour project your knowledge was a competence check ever carried out by the TMO or RB kc in relation to studio a suitability
02:20:54 kc in relation to studio a suitability for the project what you described sounds like a formal process I don't
02:21:05 sounds like a formal process I don't recall anything like that what about the CDM coordinator on the project that was our Tea Leoni pulled yards up to 2015 when the CDM regs changed
02:21:16 when the CDM regs changed did they ever questioned whether studio a was appropriately qualified and resourced to carry out the project and
02:21:27 resourced to carry out the project and were you aware that the residents had questioned why studio he had been chosen for the project it's too long ago you
02:21:38 for the project it's too long ago you were in the hearing room this morning mr. Kershaw was shown the minutes from a Kensington Academy and Leisure Centre residents forum on the 28th of March do you remember that this morning and mr.
02:21:50 you remember that this morning and mr. Cadell was present and there mr. dafonte stack uestion why was studio he chose to do the initial work do you recall being made aware of that at the time
02:22:10 and just to finish off on these question where you ever asked to justify studio ease suitability for this project to anyone okay can we go now to paragraph
02:22:23 anyone okay can we go now to paragraph 65 of your statement that's se a triple zero one four 273 at page 32 and I want
02:22:34 zero one four 273 at page 32 and I want to look about eight lines down at the sentence beginning the knowledge that Ledbetter so there you say the knowledge that Ledbetter weeks a large design and
02:22:46 that Ledbetter weeks a large design and build contractor would be engaged on the project was reassuring as we could expect specialist subcontractors to be involved from the outset we felt more than able to take on the lead designer
02:22:57 than able to take on the lead designer role as we had on calc I believe that case et MOA to enter into some form of agreement with Ledbetter cetera et cetera so just focusing on what you've said there and you refer to taking
02:23:10 said there and you refer to taking comfort in the fact that Ledbetter and queex
02:23:13 queex would be engaged in the contract and that they would appoint subcontractors specialists subcontractors was it therefore your intention from the outset to rely on the expertise of specialist
02:23:24 to rely on the expertise of specialist subcontractors for these works I think my experience is that on virtually all
02:23:36 my experience is that on virtually all public funded projects the project is taken through a design and built route
02:23:50 which transfers or responsibility onto a main contractor design responsibilities
02:23:59 so were we relying on that knowledge I guess we were to some degree yes I'm gonna come back to what you just said in
02:24:10 gonna come back to what you just said in a moment about design and build but the question I asked you was was it your intention from the outset to rely on the expertise of specialist subcontractors for these works I couldn't say we would
02:24:28 for these works I couldn't say we would we certainly would have expected a specialist subcontractors to be engaged by Ledbetter as soon as they were appointed but whether that was our intention or the contractors intention I
02:24:41 intention or the contractors intention I don't think an accident when you've said here in your statement that it was reassuring the knowledge that you were going to get Ledbetter a large design and build contractor on the project can
02:24:52 and build contractor on the project can you just help us in what way was that reassuring for you
02:25:01 a large contractor obviously has a large number of specialists experience to draw on certainly more than I would we would
02:25:12 on certainly more than I would we would single firm architects and back to your question yeah it was it was why it was
02:25:23 question yeah it was it was why it was reassuring that you've got the Ledbetter obliques engaged on the project why was that reassuring to you at this stage it's reassuring that we
02:25:35 at this stage it's reassuring that we wouldn't be expected to design all the detail so you'd be looking for them or their subcontractors to help with the design of the detail yes that's how they
02:25:48 design of the detail yes that's how they chose to do it and at that stage would you have thought of the overcutting as design detail yes you would
02:25:59 so did you think you were going to be doing any design of the overtrading yourselves by that I mean we designed
02:26:11 yourselves by that I mean we designed from from the get-go but if you're referring to final designer the fine design that you do towards construction we would not expect
02:26:26 towards construction we would not expect to be doing that right and you referred early sorry carry on I think that would be true on most projects even even
02:26:37 be true on most projects even even traditional projects I think we would sort to have the the envelope as contractors designers contractors design
02:26:48 contractors designers contractors design portion so it's a bit off topic does that mean that you are expecting them effectively to take the ultimate responsibility for the design of that element of that element and you not have
02:27:00 element of that element and you not have responsibility for it just that it was reassuring that they would have that complete the design you expect these
02:27:11 complete the design you expect these subcontractor to take that on okay and you talked earlier about design and build and you've talked about it here and you've said in almost all public
02:27:22 and you've said in almost all public procurement contracts it the expectation is it would be a design and build at the outset of your involvement in the ground floor tower project did you think it was likely to be a design and build procurement yes yeah so that was always
02:27:40 procurement yes yeah so that was always in your thinking yes mr. chairman if I can just finish this run of questions about two minutes max only two minutes
02:27:54 about two minutes max only two minutes of course thank you do you agree that studio II was under an expressed duty to ensure that the firm organized itself effectively in terms of the preparation and resourcing for what was for the
02:28:06 and resourcing for what was for the practice and new and challenging type of project I'm sorry questions do you do you agree that studio II was under a
02:28:17 you agree that studio II was under a duty to ensure that the firm organized itself effectively in terms of preparation and resourcing for what was for the practice a new and challenging project so second phrases did you think
02:28:33 project so second phrases did you think you had to organize yourself effectively and and to resource properly for what was effectively a new and challenging project that you'd not done before yes I agree with that for any project
02:28:49 can we just go to the Reber handbook of practice management this is the ninth edition that's it inq triple 0 1 1 309
02:29:01 and if we go within that this is the the May 2013 edition of the RIBA practice management handbook and if we go to page
02:29:13 management handbook and if we go to page 37 and have a look at paragraph 2 point 1 point 1 can we is there a way of blowing that up yeah can you read that
02:29:24 blowing that up yeah can you read that on the screen can you see that if you look at the right-hand side of the page and you look at principle 2 competence in the blue box there we go yeah and can
02:29:38 in the blue box there we go yeah and can you see there it says in the performance of their work members shall act competently conscientiously and responsibly members must be able to provide the knowledge the ability and the financial and technical resources appropriate for their work do you see
02:29:50 appropriate for their work do you see that there and can we look over at page 38 at paragraph 2 point 2 on the left hand side if we can zoom in a little bit
02:30:03 hand side if we can zoom in a little bit on the lower half of that left hand side of the page we see there at 2.2 members should ensure so members should realistically appraise their ability to undertake and achieve any proposed work
02:30:14 undertake and achieve any proposed work they should also make their clients aware of the likelihood of achieving the clients requirements and aspirations if members feel they're unable to comply with this they should not quote for or accept the work now did you any stage on
02:30:30 accept the work now did you any stage on the ground foot project and in accordance with those guidelines conduct a realistic appraisal of studio ease ability to undertake the work involved
02:30:42 sorry Studio B or myself Studio E
02:30:53 do you remember any kind of appraisal taking place as to whether or not Studio II could undertake and achieve the work
02:31:08 [Music]
02:31:13 frederica I can't think of any document that's okay with the Constitution appraisal or any kind of informal appraisal I think I think I just have to
02:31:31 appraisal I think I think I just have to go back to another statement I think we as a group felt that it was within our ability to service the budget okay let's pause there thank you all right yes well
02:31:43 pause there thank you all right yes well mr. Soames we're going to break now for the day I'm gonna have to ask you to come back tomorrow to continue giving your evidence and I'm also gonna have to ask you please not to talk about your evidence or the subject matter of your
02:31:54 evidence or the subject matter of your statement at all with anyone else while you're in the course of giving evidence all right yeah and we'll resume at 10 o'clock tomorrow right if you like to go
02:32:05 o'clock tomorrow right if you like to go with the artists you look after
02:32:16 Teno talk tomorrow then please