Studio E Evidence - Wednesday 11 March 2020 (2/2)

Full transcript

00:18:42 would you ask mr. rep to come back please

00:19:04 all right miss trick really sorry on yes thank you very much thank you mr. chairman mr. Rhett can I ask you please to be taken back to paragraph 126 of your statement on page 30 and you say

00:19:18 your statement on page 30 and you say there in the second sentence I am however not entirely sure whether I was specifying cavity barriers as they are not annotated on the drawing and they seem to be filling the gap in the same

00:19:29 seem to be filling the gap in the same manner also below the window in the so-called spandrel panel that being so how would you expect a contractor or specialist scanning subcontractor to

00:19:41 specialist scanning subcontractor to read this drawing or the drawing you refer to and identify where all of the cavity barriers are supposed to be I I

00:19:54 cavity barriers are supposed to be I I wouldn't expect them to detective work um assuming here in my statement you wouldn't expect them to detect what you're assuming so how would a

00:20:06 you're assuming so how would a specialist subcontractor read this drawing so far as cavity barriers are concerned I think that would just read those which are annotated which are in lineman compartment Wilson force right

00:20:18 lineman compartment Wilson force right shouldn't you have labeled them if that was my intention for those to be cavity Barristan yes right but you didn't as we've seen I didn't but is that because you didn't

00:20:31 didn't but is that because you didn't intend that they should be cavity barriers there that I can recall and and this paragraph which I'm reading now as is an assumption of my thought process

00:20:42 is an assumption of my thought process but I don't have a recollection still sticking with paragraph 126 of your statement you say I also don't recall whether a continuous steel angle supporting the sill of the windows was

00:20:53 supporting the sill of the windows was deemed as a cavity barrier you see that deemed by whom

00:21:02 I think that was me trying to dig into my thought process back then looking at it from perspective of my knowledge now

00:21:15 it from perspective of my knowledge now so I see the element of hindsight is there in that it's more speculation of my thought processes could be right by

00:21:26 my thought processes could be right by seeker well let's just have a look a little bit further about this angle because others have made something of it and I just want to explore it with you can I ask you to please to go to CLG

00:21:38 can I ask you to please to go to CLG zero zero zero zero zero two two four page 86 and I want you to look please at

00:21:50 page 86 and I want you to look please at paragraph nine point one three of Part B three of a DB instructions and fixings for cavity barriers you see that yes and you can see we could take this quickly

00:22:01 you can see we could take this quickly you can see that in the second paragraph it says cavity barriers and a stud wall or partition or provided round openings may be formed of a steel with a

00:22:12 may be formed of a steel with a thickness B timber with a thickness C polythene sleeve mineral wool or mineral wool slab in either case under compression when installed in the cavity or caste calcium silicate cement based

00:22:24 or caste calcium silicate cement based all chips and baseboards at least 12 millimeters thick you see that yes and then note cavity barrier has provided round openings maybe formed by the window or door frame if the frame is

00:22:36 window or door frame if the frame is constructed of steel or timber of the minimum thickness in a will be above as appropriate you see that yes is this the paragraph that you had in mind when

00:22:48 paragraph that you had in mind when drafting paragraph 126 of your statement yes when you refer it was right at the time did you think to check this detail with anyone or as is it as you are

00:23:00 with anyone or as is it as you are telling us now this is really just a hindsight observation

00:23:09 that statement the statement is just a speculation of what my thought processes could be but I cannot recall that I I was familiar with this paragraph at the

00:23:21 was familiar with this paragraph at the time of the Grenville project that knowledge might have come after I follow

00:23:29 slightly different question did anybody ask you to produce one in five drawings showing cavity barrier detailing if

00:23:40 showing cavity barrier detailing if somebody had asked you and I appreciate this as a hypothetical question mr. ray and with the detail of where the cavity barriers were to go be shown on such drawings clearly

00:24:03 we discussed earlier on your exchanges with mr. Ashton in November 2013 and we looked at some of the emails before you remember those from this morning yes when you had those exchanges with mr.

00:24:16 when you had those exchanges with mr. Ashton

00:24:16 Ashton at that time what cladding drawings did you believe xover had

00:24:31 I believe that they would have the the overall elevations I'm not sure where the booze would have shared the typical

00:24:44 the booze would have shared the typical Bay drawing I was working on or whether Silva had the previous version I don't know I don't know did we take that in

00:24:55 know I don't know did we take that in stages did you have any discussion with mr. Ashton about what cladding drawings he did have at that time I don't recall that did you have any discussion with mr. stones about what drawings mr.

00:25:07 mr. stones about what drawings mr. Ashton had at that time it's on the corner that's okay

00:25:17 if they had no drawings no cavity barrier drawings or cladding drawings how could X over give advice in relation to cavity barriers did you think

00:25:33 [Applause]

00:25:41 that's a good question I don't know an answer to I'm sticking with X over for a moment you saw when we looked at the email of the 5th of November 2013 this

00:25:54 email of the 5th of November 2013 this morning and we can get back to it if need be that you received X overs most recent outline fire safety strategy you recall that yes did you read it at that

00:26:05 recall that yes did you read it at that time I don't have a specific recollection do you remember that it said that in relation to requirement

00:26:17 said that in relation to requirement before external fire spread that the proposals would not be affected by external fire spread and I'm paraphrasing but that a few but this

00:26:29 paraphrasing but that a few but this would be confirmed in a future analysis of the report well my recollection is really overshadowed by several occasions I've

00:26:40 overshadowed by several occasions I've seen it afterwards so I write doing the best you can with your recollection misdirect who was it with in Studio e at the time who was responsible for liaison

00:26:53 the time who was responsible for liaison with X over and getting any further future advice from them I assume there'll be the role the

00:27:04 I assume there'll be the role the project architect so Bruce Bruce Jones and anybody else well then Bruce would ask me on an ad-hoc basis to Lee a some

00:27:18 ask me on an ad-hoc basis to Lee a some specific matters like those fire plans and something he wouldn't manage to do himself

00:27:29 himself do you recall ever being asked by mr. stone specifically to chase our Peck sofa in relation to a future report or future analysis in relation to the

00:27:41 future analysis in relation to the impact of the proposed cladding on external fire spread

00:27:52 oh no no I'm to be fair to you you left in December 2013 and the report itself and it came was dated the 7th of November 2013 so the question has a

00:28:04 November 2013 so the question has a limit necessarily limited timeframe but I think the answer is no no I'm going to turn now to a different topic namely insulation and I get to ask you about the insulation specified in the overt

00:28:15 the insulation specified in the overt adding system which you address in your statement from section H onward in paragraph or page 31 in the statement can we please turn to the NBS

00:28:28 can we please turn to the NBS specification se a zero zero zero zero zero one 69 at page 73

00:28:43 now we can see there at paragraph 776 thermal insulation you can see that the material is specified as zero

00:28:55 material is specified as zero OPD rigid polyisocyanurate insulation board BRE green green Guide rating A+ and if you cast your eye down you can see manufacture of Celotex see that yes

00:29:07 see manufacture of Celotex see that yes and then a little bit below that after the web mail web site reference product reference FR 5000 aluminium foil face both sides you see that yes

00:29:19 both sides you see that yes thickness not less than 150 millimeters for spandrel panels and 80 millimeters for columns required performance refer to Clause 4 30 was it you who inputted that data into the NBS specification do

00:29:31 that data into the NBS specification do you think I'm not entirely sure but a that might have been in the spec already right and again doing the best you can

00:29:43 right and again doing the best you can with your recollection where do you think you might have got that information from when inputting it into the NBS specification if I put it in there it would have come from the stage

00:29:54 there it would have come from the stage D report I know now I was probably exposed to a reference to it in max forums report let's go to I and Q 0 0 0

00:30:09 forums report let's go to I and Q 0 0 0 1 1 3 3 3 this is a another screenshot from the NBS software to November 2013 version we can see it there on the screen you can have any blown-up h92

00:30:22 screen you can have any blown-up h92 rainscreen cladding you see that yes and you can see that within it there's a section 7 7 6 which we've covered talked surrounded with a dotted blue line you see that yes if we put an arrow in h92

00:30:34 see that yes if we put an arrow in h92 rainscreen cladding cloth 776 thermal insulation that user is editing now we've added that there just to ask you the questions about it it's right isn't it that there are insulation details

00:30:45 it that there are insulation details which are left blank for the compiler of the specification to fill in correct yeah

00:30:51 yeah and when you select that section 776 is it right that on the right hand side a tab pops up gee guidance and a tab h manufacturers such as you see on the

00:31:04 manufacturers such as you see on the right hand side of the screen shot we've got there on the screen yeah I don't know but it pops up automatically over a year to call it but yeah I'm aware it exists okay all right

00:31:15 yeah I'm aware it exists okay all right focusing on the H manufacturers you can see a list of manufacturers under Tab H can't you yes and this list of manufacturers is this right is derived from the NBS plus database at the time I

00:31:27 from the NBS plus database at the time I believe so yeah yes if we turn then to inq 0 0 0 1 1 3 6 6 we can see that list a little bit more

00:31:40 we can see that list a little bit more clearly and mr. operator you could expand them thank you very much and we could see four manufacturers in there we can see kingspan insulation there with

00:31:51 can see kingspan insulation there with their cool therm k15 rain screen and we see now rock wool and cider eyes you see those yes now take this from me please mr. Rick but we've been told by NBS that

00:32:02 mr. Rick but we've been told by NBS that this was a list of the manufacturers which featured in the NBS box 4-h manufacturers as at November 2013 for the age 92 7 76 section do you recall

00:32:16 the age 92 7 76 section do you recall seeing that list at the time you put the NBS specification together don't record out you can see from it we can look together there that there is no Celotex

00:32:28 together there that there is no Celotex product listed there there's no reference for example 2fr 5000 is there correct when you filled in and again if

00:32:39 correct when you filled in and again if you filled in to the best of your recollection this part of the NBS specification dealing with with insulation did you notice that fr 5000 wasn't on the list I didn't notice

00:32:58 can you explain how the Celotex FR 5000 came to be in the NBS spec if it wasn't in the list of manufacturers that would appear in the in the pop-up or screen

00:33:10 appear in the in the pop-up or screen that would appear when you clicked on it well somebody would have manually taps it in right okay let's proceed can I ask you then to look at inq 0 0 0 1 1 3 4 2 that when it comes up is the

00:33:25 1 1 3 4 2 that when it comes up is the screenshot of a message that appears if you are within the h92 section of the NBS and you try and add FR Celotex FR 5000 to that section by clicking on that

00:33:37 5000 to that section by clicking on that product that is what appears do you recall ever seeing a message like that when you put the NBS specification together not exactly this one I remember

00:33:51 together not exactly this one I remember seeing a similar notice when you were trying to actually alter the the closest which were prefilled I think if you have

00:34:07 which were prefilled I think if you have the option of clicking on the arrow and typed something in and right

00:34:16 I don't think this would appear ok then this is I should earn and then take this from meal they know that we can be corrected as an inquiry if we're wrong

00:34:29 corrected as an inquiry if we're wrong about this but this is the screenshot of the message that appears if you try and put Celotex FR 5,000 into the section by clicking on that product or manually entering it you get told that you're

00:34:40 entering it you get told that you're attempting to add the product at age 92 and it's been authored to section P 10 my question is is at the time do you ever do you remember being told by the

00:34:51 ever do you remember being told by the system when putting it FR 5,000 or trying to into age 92 that that product had been authored for section P 10 are you sure you want to add it to this

00:35:03 you sure you want to add it to this section

00:35:03 section I don't recall this screen my last question I've been corrected I added the

00:35:14 question I've been corrected I added the word manually entering it but if you click on rephrasing my question then if you click on the product that message pops up but you don't remember seeing

00:35:25 pops up but you don't remember seeing that all right now um can I ask you to just we'll check out pip P 10 if you go to I in Q 0 0 0 1 1 3 4 1

00:35:44 that's p10 insulation fitted fitted between rafters you see that yes and do you recall ever being told that the

00:35:57 you recall ever being told that the insulation you were attempting to insert into the NBS specification was one for insulation fitted between rafters does this ring a bell with you no it doesn't

00:36:09 this ring a bell with you no it doesn't right

00:36:10 right can I ask you go - can I ask you please to go to the inq zero zero zero one one three five six these are notes that

00:36:22 three five six these are notes that appear under the age 92 70 76 section of the NBS can you just look at material with me please insulation attached to

00:36:34 with me please insulation attached to the outer face of a backing wall and facing the cavity should be non combustible combustible insulation may have an appropriate spread of flame rating but must only be used with the inclusion of a separate fire barrier see

00:36:46 inclusion of a separate fire barrier see that mm-hmm yes do you recall reading that guidance at the time you were preparing the NBS specification no at the time did you

00:37:01 specification no at the time did you consider whether the insulation that you were specifying namely Fr 5,000 was combustible or non combustible I don't like all that you don't can I ask you to

00:37:14 like all that you don't can I ask you to go to inq zero zero zero one one three five one this is a close up of seven seven six

00:37:24 now am i right in thinking going back to manual manual entry am i right in thinking that it's possible simply to type into the blue boxes that we see they're a product that you want yes it

00:37:38 they're a product that you want yes it is yeah that's my recollection right so is it right that you can insert manually an insulation which is different to the four products listed in the pop-up screen for age for it 484 you saw that

00:37:50 screen for age for it 484 you saw that yes right is that what you did do you think as far as you can remember when you compiled the NBS specification when FR 5000 went in as i said that but not

00:38:06 FR 5000 went in as i said that but not entirely sure it was me typing it in but the person who did would do it this way who would that have been other than you

00:38:17 who would that have been other than you do you think

00:38:24 I I don't know who worked on the specification before me would be a question for Bruce well when you came to develop the specification do you remember whether or not the

00:38:38 do you remember whether or not the specification for insulation in the rains in the cladding system had already been specified as FR 5,000 that's what I don't remember do you remember ever

00:38:51 don't remember do you remember ever seeing the little drop-down box which is shown here under manufacturer you just look at it with me you can see there's a little drop-down box that says mineral wool to be Sen one three one six to that

00:39:04 wool to be Sen one three one six to that yes do you remember ever seeing that when you were entering the insulation product into the NBS specification not specifically at this close by a node up

00:39:16 specifically at this close by a node up to feature existed where it prompts you to select them right some pre-selected

00:39:30 to select them right some pre-selected current now the moment the transcript of your last answer has an inaudible over what you said but can I just get it right I think you said you know that the feature existed because it prompts you

00:39:42 feature existed because it prompts you to select from it is that is that right hey it gives it gives you a choice as it does here but I'm I don't have a specific recollection about this clause

00:39:55 specific recollection about this clause right I mean generally general indented specification program when you click on that arrow as my recollection allows me to remember it it sometimes gives you

00:40:09 to remember it it sometimes gives you gives you a list which you can select from or you can type over right um just

00:40:20 from or you can type over right um just so I've got your evidence clear the little words in the Box mineral rule to be Sen one three one six to do they appear automatically when you open up this part of the NBI specification in

00:40:32 this part of the NBI specification in blank

00:40:33 blank I think you need to click on that arrow you need to click on the arrow very good so if you click on the arrow does it mean that that those words in the box or

00:40:44 mean that that those words in the box or a prompt to specify mineral wool to that BS standard I believe so okay thank you so does that mean the if mineral world

00:40:58 so does that mean the if mineral world to be Sen one three one six to was not in the specification somebody whether it was yuan or somebody else must have decided that it should not be mineral wool and have overridden it manually yes

00:41:10 wool and have overridden it manually yes yes thank you now you say at paragraph 136 of your witness statement you say

00:41:25 136 of your witness statement you say therefore I would have expected tenderers to have ensured that insulation in walls above 80 meters complied with the specified CW CT performance requirements ie were

00:41:36 performance requirements ie were material of limited combust ability before submitting their tender returns

00:41:52 it's right isn't it that either you or somebody else at Studio II specified that a particular product was to be used namely Celotex FR 5000 yes yes so are

00:42:08 namely Celotex FR 5000 yes yes so are you saying that you would have specified FR 5000 or Studio II would have specified FR 5000 but left it to

00:42:19 specified FR 5000 but left it to tenderers to check that the FR 5000 complied with the CW CT performance requirements I mean it was their

00:42:32 requirements I mean it was their obligation under specification you included that clause about compliance with CW ct2 safeguards compliance with standards and well just help me with

00:42:48 standards and well just help me with this it may be the decision to use FR 5,000 was before your involvement we don't know you can't recall but this is the effect of your evidence that you or

00:42:59 the effect of your evidence that you or somebody else at studio e put FR 5,000 into the NBS specification but didn't check that it complied with the seat CW CT standard which is the very standard

00:43:11 CT standard which is the very standard that you were also specifying

00:43:17 I haven't done it I haven't I haven't checked a compliance I understand that but is the effective what you're saying is that you specify a product you

00:43:28 is that you specify a product you specify a standard but you don't check whether the product complies with the standard and you leave that to tenders

00:43:48 yeah I think the wording in this paragraph is a little bit confusing well how would we how would you like to rephrase it so it's not confusing that I

00:44:02 rephrase it so it's not confusing that I would expect the tenders to yeah I don't it it to adhere to the specification

00:44:13 it it to adhere to the specification which included the reference to compliance with CW City

00:44:32 but what if the material you had specified did not comply with CW CT standard

00:44:45 then a conflict with the rice and that will have to be resolved how that be resolved

00:45:04 well by checking against that standard

00:45:09 see what I'm trying to get at mr. wreck is how it does it come about that you specify an insulation material you specify a standard the CWC t standard

00:45:22 specify a standard the CWC t standard but you don't your self check that the material you're specifying complies with the CWT standard how does that come about

00:45:42 I mean as I said the selection of the insulation material has been done before my involvement and I as I said I didn't

00:45:57 my involvement and I as I said I didn't check its performance against the standard what going to give overall ground who would it have been or who was it who would have inserted the

00:46:09 it who would have inserted the specification of Fr 5,000 into this NV s specification before you came on the scene

00:46:23 a member of a team in in Studio AE who was working on the specification before me it could have been me I can't recall well let's just press your little them

00:46:35 well let's just press your little them afraid when you came into the project you have a new you were told to do some pre reading by mr. Stuart yes did he tell you who it was who had been inputting specifications into the NBS

00:46:47 inputting specifications into the NBS specification which he'd asked you to develop before you came on the scene he might have done wreck or did you not make it your business to find out who it

00:46:58 make it your business to find out who it was who had been developing the NBS specification up to the point you took over

00:47:16 maybe I knew at a time I have just done the call it would be logical wouldn't it if you were given a task to develop an existing specification to talk to the person who had developed it up to that

00:47:27 person who had developed it up to that point find out what they'd done yeah see what more you needed to do yes you agree with me that that would have been logical yes yes yes so my question is do

00:47:38 logical yes yes yes so my question is do you remember who it was you would have spoken to that being logical in order to find out where that person had got to

00:47:52 I would definitely have a discussion with Bruce then there were other two members of the team playing and petty I

00:48:04 members of the team playing and petty I don't know what I spoke to them right so without laboring this am I to take you away from your evidence that you

00:48:16 you away from your evidence that you can't explain how it came about the fr 5000 was specified and the CWC T standard was specified but you certainly

00:48:27 standard was specified but you certainly didn't check whether fr 5,000 satisfied the requirements of the CWC t standard that's correct

00:48:42 when you drafted if it was you the insulation section of the NBS specification do you remember whether you sent it to X overall max Fordham so

00:48:54 you sent it to X overall max Fordham so that they could comment on that aspect of the specification don't record at do you remember consulting any of the product information regarding Celotex FR

00:49:05 product information regarding Celotex FR 5,000

00:49:14 No let me give you a prompt and see if something triggers a recollection can you look at cel-3 zero zero sorry five

00:49:27 you look at cel-3 zero zero sorry five five zero is 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 1 please this is a data sheet from Celotex for our 4 FR 5000

00:49:49 does it ring a bell with you it does now at the time do you think

00:50:03 I'm not entirely sure right

00:50:09 now I want to get back if I may to the Hayes Galleria meeting of the 27th of September 2013 can I take you back to paragraph 26 of your statement please at page 9

00:50:31 and you say at the bottom of the page there that the meeting had been arranged by mr. stones to discuss the cladding specification you see that yes now if you go forward in your statement

00:50:47 now if you go forward in your statement page 10 you could see paragraph 29 and that says I cannot recall the details of the meeting and I did not take a note of

00:50:58 the meeting and I did not take a note of the meeting if I received any hard copy material at the meeting it's probably lost I cannot recall whether or not we discussed the suitability of PIR polyisocyanurate or rigid foam

00:51:09 polyisocyanurate or rigid foam insulation see that yes do you remember how developed the NBS specification was at that date I think we touched on this earlier just just just asking that

00:51:20 earlier just just just asking that question again I don't know I think I've provided these two gentlemen with just

00:51:31 provided these two gentlemen with just the drawings I forward a meeting so I don't have any evidence showing to what state that specification was developed no indeed and it was early on or

00:51:45 no indeed and it was early on or reasonably early on in yes yes was do you remember whether there was any discussion of fire safety or performance at that meeting I don't have a recollection about that do you remember whether there was any discussion at that

00:51:56 whether there was any discussion at that meeting with Harley in which you asked Harley to advise on the suitability of Fr 5,000 so far as you recall was there

00:52:08 Fr 5,000 so far as you recall was there ever a discussion whether or not at the Hays galleria meeting where you asked Harley to advise on or comment on the suitability of Fr 5,000 it's on the corner right so does it come to this

00:52:20 corner right so does it come to this that you or somebody within studio he was happy to insert Fr 5,000 into the NBS specification without taking the opportunity to ask a specialist facade designer for their comments on the

00:52:34 designer for their comments on the suitability of that product

00:52:37 can you repeat a question yes certainly does it come to this that you or somebody within studio II was happy to insert FR 5,000 into the NBS

00:52:48 happy to insert FR 5,000 into the NBS specification without taking the opportunity to ask parley the specialist sub facade designer who had had the meeting with you for their comments on

00:52:59 meeting with you for their comments on the suitability of that product well I I don't recall whether we discuss it or not right so I can't make a statement on

00:53:15 not right so I can't make a statement on that did you ever discuss the fire rating or fire performance of Fr 5,000 with anybody at studio E or anybody

00:53:26 with anybody at studio E or anybody outside studio E leaving aside Holly

00:53:32 again my recollection is overshadowed by a later experience on the other project where we had the same insulation okay

00:53:47 going back to the meeting at Hays Galleria and can I just ask you look again at mr. sands witness statement this time paragraph 2 7 1 this is se

00:53:59 this time paragraph 2 7 1 this is se a0001 for 273 at page 1 1 4

00:54:10 and he discusses that meeting I think we looked at this a little bit before let's get back to it he says this is para 271 he says two thirds of the way down that

00:54:26 he says two thirds of the way down that paragraph he says 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 I believe that I cannot

00:54:37 high-rise before I believe that I cannot say for sure that I asked Ray barely a question about the acceptability of using rigid foam insulation on a high-rise building probably at the end of the meeting if I did I don't recall

00:54:48 of the meeting if I did I don't recall he provided a definitive response just do you recall what he says there trigger in you a recollection about him asking

00:55:00 in you a recollection about him asking mr. Baily a question about the acceptability of using a rigid foam insulation or a high-rise building no right he refers to him having a

00:55:14 right he refers to him having a lingering uncertainty about PIR did he ever voice that uncertainty to you not that I recall

00:55:40 [Applause] do you remember mr. sones ever expressly discussing with you the history of the reasons for the insertion of Fr 5000

00:55:54 reasons for the insertion of Fr 5000 into the NBR specification or as the selection of Fr 5000 for the use in this project

00:56:09 don't believe so I can recollect can we look please at se a 0 0 0 1 4 3 4 6 this is an email from you to mr.

00:56:25 6 this is an email from you to mr. stones date of the 25th of October 2013 copy to Paddy Glennon and the subject is Brianne you see that yes and if you go

00:56:38 Brianne you see that yes and if you go to the second page of that it's quite a long but it's an email at the top and there's some details at the bottom of it this is the second page of that if you

00:56:50 this is the second page of that if you look at Matt zero one environmental impact of materials you see the third entry down you see that yes yeah there's some blue italic writing question is

00:57:03 some blue italic writing question is there any record supporting the statement above which is about 19 credits and then underneath that it says

00:57:15 credits and then underneath that it says it also seems MF went for ot tu values to achieve maximum credits available for thermal performance criteria which come to force if green Guide rating credits

00:57:26 to force if green Guide rating credits do not manage to achieve the top 25 credits available see that yes that I think is something you wrote in the email isn't it yes it's your it's your view your expression there MF is max for

00:57:39 view your expression there MF is max for them I think yes what did you know about the criteria or the instructions given to max Fordham on which they were to suggest a target you value

00:58:05 in a repeater question yes what did you know about the criteria or the instructions given to max Fordham upon which they were to suggest they target you value I didn't know anything about a

00:58:21 you value I didn't know anything about a criteria

00:58:22 criteria I might have suspected retrospectively by reading that a brilliant document

00:58:31 that they were there was a

00:58:43 potential requirement to to achieve a lot of credits by having a very low you value yes but you have said that MF went

00:58:58 value yes but you have said that MF went for ott you values what did you mean by OTT over-the-top yes I thought you meant say if you didn't know what the criteria

00:59:10 say if you didn't know what the criteria or instructions given to me max Fordham were but what was the basis for your saying that you thought they'd gone OTT I think I would make a reference to pod l was it your view that max Fordham had

00:59:28 l was it your view that max Fordham had set the U value

00:59:37 I don't know what my opinion was it was them or somebody else maybe the briam consultant I don't know I see and when

00:59:54 consultant I don't know I see and when you say that you thought that max Warner had gone for OTT you values first of all went for you say they went for OTT you

01:00:06 went for you say they went for OTT you values do you what do you mean by that

01:00:31 they I assume they try to maximize the gain of priam credits right and when you say that they were ott or over-the-top

01:00:43 say that they were ott or over-the-top what did you mean by that the you values of TT I think I was making reference to required you values under a pardon when you express the view

01:00:59 under a pardon when you express the view that max Fordham's view values were OTT did you check what the necessary will require you values were by reference to

01:01:10 require you values were by reference to a DB l or sorry a DL I assume so you seem so do you recall doing that I think otherwise wouldn't be able to make that

01:01:21 otherwise wouldn't be able to make that statement I see did you rub do you remember having a discussion with mr. stones about your view that max forums you values were over the top I think we

01:01:37 you values were over the top I think we had a discussion to details of it I John the caller do you remember what mr. Sain said during that discussion perhaps you don't recall let me ask it this way did mr. Sainz do you recall respond to your

01:01:49 Sainz do you recall respond to your concern that max forums you values were you thought over the top that don't recall his response

01:02:00 recall his response we don't recall his response did you appreciate at the time that the specification of the target you value was a fundamental determinant of many of

01:02:12 was a fundamental determinant of many of the design decisions that followed as to the over or about the over cladding scheme did you appreciate that my dictated thickness of the insulation yes

01:02:24 dictated thickness of the insulation yes therefore a dictated the offset of the cladding from the backing wall

01:02:33 wall the bracket area system yeah it had an effect yeah having expressed your concerns about max Fordham's OTT you

01:02:46 concerns about max Fordham's OTT you values to mr. stones did you take any other steps to address your concern that the you values have were over the top at any time prior to your departure from studio II I think I was explained that

01:03:00 studio II I think I was explained that it was a requirement under the Briand target and therefore do you value was as slow as practically possible I guess

01:03:14 slow as practically possible I guess you you you say that but my question is different my question is having expressed your concerns as you did to mr. sands in the email that we've just looked at did you take any other steps

01:03:26 looked at did you take any other steps to address those concerns not not further than this yes thank you very much mr. Reg mr. chairman I've come to

01:03:39 much mr. Reg mr. chairman I've come to the end of my questions yes for this witness but it would be appropriate just to take a short break just to make sure that I've covered everything that I need to cover in the usual way right

01:03:50 to cover in the usual way right well mr. wrecker it sounds as though counsels reach these questions but sometimes it's necessary to have a short break so they can review the position so I'm going to ask you to go with the

01:04:01 I'm going to ask you to go with the usher yes back to the witness room I don't think for very long but they'll call you back soon okay sure right yeah

01:04:19 how long you've been required mr. chairman as long as it takes me to review my notes and discuss and the matter with others no so if we said and

01:04:32 matter with others no so if we said and said ten minutes and if we need longer I can very good thank you

01:12:15 Oh missed a minute do you have some one or two mr. chairman in the usual way could we ask mr. Rifkin

01:12:37 mr. Rick I understand that council has a few more questions for you okay mr. Rick I wonder if I could just clarify something on the transcript which arose out of the discussion we were having

01:12:49 out of the discussion we were having about the

01:12:49 about the u-values just before we finished your evidence can the witness please be shown page one to eight of today's transcript at lines 16 to 80 I asked you a question

01:13:03 at lines 16 to 80 I asked you a question at line 12 if you just look at it with me I asked you having expressed your concerns about max Fordham's ATT you values to mr. stones did you take any

01:13:15 values to mr. stones did you take any other steps to address your concern that the you values were over the top at any time prior to departure your departure from Studio E and then you say I think I explained that it was a requirement

01:13:26 explained that it was a requirement under the BRE am target and therefore the u values you value was as low as practically possible and then in brackets

01:13:33 brackets I was explained I was explained so you'd had it explained to you is this right that it was a requirement under the Breen yes I see who explained that to you I believe don't be Bruce I see and

01:13:50 you I believe don't be Bruce I see and was that after the email you'd sent to him that we were looking at on the 25th of October 2013 little bit logical yes

01:14:02 of October 2013 little bit logical yes it would be but what is your recollection

01:14:07 I don't have a recollection okay just one or two more questions do you know how you were selected by others at

01:14:21 know how you were selected by others at Studio E to work on the grenfell tower project how was I selected I don't know do you know how your qualifications made

01:14:34 do you know how your qualifications made you suitable to work on this project and given that you've never been involved in an over cladding of a tower tower block before

01:14:46 I don't know how many people had that experience in Siri and I I was a project architect on a previous job being

01:14:59 architect on a previous job being exposed to technical detailing of buildings so but I come I can't speak on behalf of Bruce and untrue or whoever

01:15:13 behalf of Bruce and untrue or whoever made the decision all right finally do you you remember casting your mind back to the Hays galleria meeting 27th of september 2013

01:15:24 september 2013 whether anybody at that meeting took a note of the meeting whether anybody took a note yes again I don't have a

01:15:36 a note yes again I don't have a recollection but it would be logical to scribble down notes right so the studio Eastside we know that you were there mr. Sainz was there yes again rather than

01:15:47 Sainz was there yes again rather than focusing on logic I'd rather work with your recollection even though it may look it may not be as perfect as logic who would it have been or who was it of the two of you who would have made a

01:15:59 the two of you who would have made a note perhaps both of you

01:16:09 I I don't recall I can repeat what would be logical how long did the meeting last do you remember I think there would be

01:16:26 less than an hour right did you have a project notebook that you used for the grant felt our project and note things down if you did want to I think I would have a notebook right yeah

01:16:43 well thank you very much mr. reck I have no further questions for you okay I think you just want to say thank you very much for coming to the inquiry and helping with helping us with our investigations we're very grateful to you so thank you well you know we're

01:16:56 you so thank you well you know we're grateful to you mr. it cuz I gather you flew in from Denmark for the purpose is that right yes well thank you for taking the trouble and the time to do it and we for evidence you're now free to go thank

01:17:07 for evidence you're now free to go thank you thank you very much yes mr. mowett mr. chairman we now come to mr. stones

01:17:19 mr. chairman we now come to mr. stones again and this Grange will now take up the baton yet where she left off we probably don't need to have another break at the state no we don't we might have one part ways for mr. stones

01:17:31 have one part ways for mr. stones evidence very good mr. chairman if you'll just forgive us moving yes of course

01:17:47 [Music]

01:18:10 we're ready you yes yes thank you could you ask mr. sands come in please

01:18:45 good afternoon mr. Satan good afternoon good see you back can I just remind you that you're still under oath and Miss Granger is going to take up the question we'll have we'll have a break partway

01:18:59 we'll have we'll have a break partway through the afternoon just to ensure that the periods aren't too long to find a suitable moment okay yes yes thank you

01:19:11 a suitable moment okay yes yes thank you so mr. stones we were on the topic of X overs work on the project when we broke off last time you'll recall that yeah and what I want to do first up is to pick up and finish

01:19:23 to do first up is to pick up and finish off that topic today and and we just been discussing an exchange between mr. rec and mr. Ashton that took place on

01:19:34 rec and mr. Ashton that took place on the 1st and the 4th of November 2013 about cavity barriers in the rain screen system do you recall that yes yeah and indeed mr. Rex just been being asked about that just before your evidence

01:19:46 about that just before your evidence just now so three days after that exchange with mr. work on the 7th of November 2013 x over send issue three of

01:19:57 November 2013 x over send issue three of their outline fire safety strategy so this was prepared within two weeks of issue two of that strategy which had been dated the 24th of October 2013

01:20:10 been dated the 24th of October 2013 so can we turn up this issue three that so that's at EXO four zeros one one zero seven

01:20:22 so we can see here Granville tower outline fire safety strategy and then on the right hand side at the bottom date 7th of November 2013 and do you see their issue 0-3 yes yeah now can you

01:20:38 their issue 0-3 yes yeah now can you recall which are IBA stage did this report relate to reduced AG Stage II yeah and we know that you're the studio

01:20:52 yeah and we know that you're the studio II stage D report had been served in August 2013 and so is it right that you were now in the process of preparing the employers requirements the project now

01:21:06 employers requirements the project now if we can go on to page 2 of this document we can see there next to issue

01:21:17 document we can see there next to issue 3e in the box at the top with each one we have a reason for revision do you see that yeah and it says third issue revised to take into account comments from the design team do you see that yep

01:21:29 from the design team do you see that yep and it's right isn't it that in the days before issue 3 was finalized studio he had had various exchanges with xover particularly about the fire strategy for

01:21:41 particularly about the fire strategy for the lower levels of the tower is that correct

01:21:44 correct I seem to recall that that's primarily what we were discussing yes did you have any discussions during that time about the external walls to the tower at

01:21:55 the external walls to the tower at levels 4 and above I can't recall any no there's there's no documents we can find that have any such discussions so I just

01:22:06 that have any such discussions so I just want to be cleared do you have any any recollection of any discussions about the external walls with its over before this issue 3 arrived

01:22:19 and then if we can within this report sorry just a note before we leave page 2 we can see that it's prepared by mr. Ashton and reviewed by mr. McKellen II do you see that yeah so let's go to page

01:22:35 do you see that yeah so let's go to page 4 of this document and if we can blow that up so here we see it's familiar now the introduction to this report and if

01:22:49 the introduction to this report and if you just cast your eye down the bullet points about what the refurbishment comprises do you see those yeah and do you agree that there is still no mention

01:23:00 you agree that there is still no mention of the overcutting in this summary no no there's no mention and can you give us an explanation as to why that might have been no did you ever go back to mr.

01:23:15 been no did you ever go back to mr. Ashton and query that omission in this final version no I don't think there's anything on record and do you remember noticing at the time that the cladding

01:23:27 noticing at the time that the cladding was omitted from the description of the project no now in the very last part of this an introduction at the bottom of

01:23:38 this an introduction at the bottom of that page we see a new entry it says the report is based on discussions held with the design team our bkc and on the fire access and fire strategy drawings

01:23:49 access and fire strategy drawings produced by studio e ll page you see that yes and in this version the drawings that the reports based on are not set out there are they no so would

01:24:01 not set out there are they no so would you agree that for any readers of this report in the future they wouldn't be able to understand precisely what drawings information this report was based on

01:24:18 correct him do you recall ever checking with mr. Ashton that he had the necessary drawings and details and specifications that he needed to provide

01:24:30 specifications that he needed to provide the advice which had been sought and was dealt with in the fee proposal by X / I

01:24:39 do not recall if I asking and I would have expected him to have asks if he felt he needed anything I see so can we go on within the report

01:24:50 I see so can we go on within the report to page 9 of it and look at the B for section so it's at the top of this page if we can play that up and we can see

01:25:03 if we can play that up and we can see exactly the same wording as appears before in issues 1 & 2 it is considered that the proposed changes will have no adverse effect on the building in relation to external fire spread but

01:25:15 relation to external fire spread but this will be confirmed by an analysis and a future issue of this report do you see that yes now you've discussed this in your witness statement I want to take you to some of the things you've said in

01:25:27 you to some of the things you've said in your witness statement about this can we go within your witness statement to se a 3 0 is 1 4 273 at page 12 and look at paragraph 28 point 4 now that's quite a

01:25:45 paragraph 28 point 4 now that's quite a long paragraph and what I want to do is pick it up it's 9 lines down and there's a sentence that begins regarding the outline fire safety strategy on the right we just read it together

01:25:57 right we just read it together so regarding the outline fire safety strategy xover issued the final version of it that I have seen in November 2013 shortly before finalization of the tender documents from studio e's

01:26:09 tender documents from studio e's perspective the outline fire safety strategy should have identified the fire related issues which could have potentially undermined the development of the plans for the project to ensure a

01:26:21 of the plans for the project to ensure a high standard of fire and life safety for the occupants of the tower whilst highlighting any areas of the towers design that may represent an approvals risk

01:26:29 risk including determination of any external fire spread issues that there may be and the impact this may have on the architectural design did you see that yes and just taking that in stages so is

01:26:42 yes and just taking that in stages so is it right that issue three dated the seventh of November was the final outline fire safety strategy that was ever produced by x over yes it was now you say in this part of your witness

01:26:54 now you say in this part of your witness statement that that strategy should have identified the fire related issues which could have potentially undermined the development of the plans for the project yes yes did you think that the over

01:27:06 yes yes did you think that the over cladding work could have potentially undermined the development of the plans for the project not not in a generic

01:27:22 for the project not not in a generic sense cladding in in over of itself could be at risk but that's that's I think it's any issues that might be related to the crowding if I understand

01:27:36 related to the crowding if I understand your question so what I'm really getting at is whether you thought that the over cladding work had the potential to undermine the development of the design for the project

01:27:53 as I said in a generic sense there wasn't any suggestion that there was a risk is that because of the very simple sentence we see in the report yes and

01:28:06 sentence we see in the report yes and you assume therefore that what Xavier telling you no risk at all with the cladding certain no risk that they thought was worthy of raising what about

01:28:18 thought was worthy of raising what about you yourself it seems did you think in your own mind that there might be potential risks associated with the cladding that you were keen to resolve

01:28:32 there was nothing at this point that I was concerned about which I hadn't raised or things over as I recall there

01:28:44 raised or things over as I recall there were quite a lot of correspondence with things over before this report which dealt with a lot of issues but they're all internal issues they didn't really deal with the facade so at the time I

01:28:58 deal with the facade so at the time I don't think we had any knowledge of any concerns did you think about going back to X over at this point and asking them to address the over cladding work in

01:29:10 to address the over cladding work in detail no

01:29:17 can we then look at paragraph three to two of your witness statement this is paragraph 130 within the same statement so I paid 130 I want to look

01:29:31 statement so I paid 130 I want to look at three to two so if we read that on the 7th of November 2013 x over emailed me version 3 of the outline for our safety strategy to the best of my knowledge this was the last version that

01:29:42 knowledge this was the last version that xover prepared for the project I note that Neal Crawford emailed a copy of this version on the 29th of September 2014 although they may have had a copy before as with versions 1 & 2 of the

01:29:55 before as with versions 1 & 2 of the strategy X / addressed among other things compliance with Part B have schedule 1 - the Building Regulations 2010 by stating and then we have the quote and then you say in the last line

01:30:07 quote and then you say in the last line I believe they would have been aware of the proposal to cloud the tower do you see that yes now I want to pick up on that left line I believe they would have

01:30:18 that left line I believe they would have been aware of the proposal to clad the tower what do you mean by you believe they would have been aware

01:30:34 at the time I it was my understanding my knowledge to the best of my knowledge that it had been communicated to X / by email or verbally or by drawing that the

01:30:46 email or verbally or by drawing that the one of the key aspects of the project was the overtime was there any doubt in your mind about that at this time as to their knowledge

01:30:57 their knowledge yeah of the over cladding no you were clear where you in your mind that X / knew about the over padding and it had

01:31:08 knew about the over padding and it had sufficient details to be able to advise

01:31:19 I believe that had our stage reports but thought that was enough I think we looked at this earlier we can certainly see them being sent a link to the stage

01:31:30 see them being sent a link to the stage see report we haven't been able to find as a any document which shows they were sent the stage D report in yeah August 2013

01:31:55 but just to be clear you're saying that there wasn't any doubt in your mind that they knew about the proposal to over cut the tower and what those proposals were in my mind yes I thought I really

01:32:08 in my mind yes I thought I really thought that was some headline item on any discussion would you agree with me based on the advice we've seen you got

01:32:20 based on the advice we've seen you got in that one sentence that the external fire spread issues arising from the overcrowding proposed scheme and compliance with b4 of schedule one of the building regulations was never

01:32:31 the building regulations was never analyzed in writing by x over or any specialist fire consultant not in detail

01:32:42 specialist fire consultant not in detail no that was all you ever got just that one sentence yes and I believe they had

01:32:53 one sentence yes and I believe they had seen some of the proposals so I think the nature of the proposals I think I was understood do you agree that studio II never received any written analysis

01:33:05 II never received any written analysis or advice on the fire safety implications of the proposal to insulate and over cleared the tower sorry did you today do you agree that studio II never

01:33:18 today do you agree that studio II never received any written analysis or advice on the fire safety implications of the proposal to insulate and over clad the tower

01:33:33 that that sentence that there was no adverse effects all that there is that's the analysis yeah but it's not an analysis that's the advice yeah now when

01:33:47 analysis that's the advice yeah now when you hand it over to mr. Crawford in the summer of 2014 did you point out to him that xover had promised an analysis of the b4 requirement in a future issue of their report no well no I don't recall doing

01:34:02 report no well no I don't recall doing that do you know why you wouldn't have done that in that handover

01:34:16 at the time I actually thought like so had finished their work and I I think I had assumed that the future she was a

01:34:29 had assumed that the future she was a future commission was a future Commission yeah what does that mean well it's to follow in other words when someone comes back and asks us

01:34:40 someone comes back and asks us I see so did you take this to mean that the changes would have no adverse effect

01:34:52 the changes would have no adverse effect but if you commissioners to look at this again in the future we would then advise on that is that what you're saying I think it's saying that in generic terms

01:35:04 think it's saying that in generic terms that they have they see no concerns with it but they will look at it when we revert what about the words but this

01:35:15 revert what about the words but this will be confirmed by an analysis in a future issue of this report did you think that that was contingent on a further commission

01:35:30 but that's what it says this will be confirmed when you talk about a future commission a commission by it by who you

01:35:41 commission a commission by it by who you did you think would Commission that further I well we had that that conversation before as to whether if a

01:35:53 conversation before as to whether if a consultant would be retained yes by the contractor by the crank yeah I'm gonna actually come on to that so that was that's what I felt we needed and that's

01:36:06 that's what I felt we needed and that's what I think that was referring to can you explain why no one at Studio II ever requested that further analysis for Amex

01:36:18 requested that further analysis for Amex over well at this point this is a tender the project is is less to a desirable

01:36:31 the project is is less to a desirable contractor and the desirable contractor seems responsibility for the design and compliance of the design I see so you thought that the appointed design and

01:36:43 thought that the appointed design and build contractor would have responsibility for picking this up where it left off is that what you're saying for confirming compliance or any resolving any issues fire related issues

01:36:55 resolving any issues fire related issues yes was there not a danger that the contractor would read the first part it is considered that the proposed changes will have no adverse effect on the

01:37:07 will have no adverse effect on the building in relation to external fire they're a danger that contractors reads that and thinks well there's nothing left to be done mm-hmm

01:37:24 it's it's not the same as confirming compliance I see so are you saying they haven't confirmed compliance that's clearly outstanding and that's something

01:37:35 clearly outstanding and that's something for the design and build contractor to address they've confirmed that they see no adverse effect so compliance should

01:37:47 no adverse effect so compliance should be straightforward that was that's my reading of that sentence are you taking adverse affect and compliant to mean something different no did anyone at

01:38:04 something different no did anyone at Studio E ever advise the TMO client that this analysis was outstanding and would need to be addressed in the future I think there were conversations and there

01:38:17 think there were conversations and there is a record of recommending that further fair advice was required yeah was it

01:38:28 fair advice was required yeah was it ever said specifically to the TMO not just do you need fire advice in a general sense but look here we can see this bit of the analysis is not complete

01:38:39 this bit of the analysis is not complete you the TMO is current need to make sure that that's covered off was that ever said to the TMO

01:38:53 I think if we put some well when I put that forward out I think it was the detail that I was thinking of and that detail would include the planning but

01:39:05 detail would include the planning but the detail would have been the detail of everything now in their fee proposal that we looked at before xover had

01:39:17 that we looked at before xover had promised that they would provide a detailed fire strategy at our IBA stage D and E hadn't they do you remember that yeah so at stage C it explained that you

01:39:31 yeah so at stage C it explained that you would get a preliminary fire strategy and then at stage de the words that we use was a detailed bio strategy yeah did you ever compare issue 1 of X Ava's fire

01:39:45 you ever compare issue 1 of X Ava's fire strategy with what you got at issue 3 no when you say compare I mean we've been discussing it with them so it's a year

01:39:59 discussing it with them so it's a year apart but the project had evolved the design had changed and we've been discussing it I don't recall comparing them would you agree that they are very

01:40:11 them would you agree that they are very similar in length if we just looked at the length of the reports we have nine pages for issue one and ten pages for issue three yes yeah did you ever give

01:40:22 issue three yes yeah did you ever give consideration to whether issue three satisfied the commitment in the fee proposal to provide a detailed fire strategy

01:40:34 and no I didn't go back to the original quote is there a reason why I think the

01:40:52 quote is there a reason why I think the absence of reason we won't consider that there's clearly no concern raised as to what need further input in the report

01:41:05 what need further input in the report ins the strategy report fire safety report the reason for suggesting that a fire consultant might be necessary is

01:41:20 fire consultant might be necessary is there's a lot of detail to work through once it once once you do get into the next stage under construction so you didn't ever think you know specific to

01:41:31 didn't ever think you know specific to be four well we haven't had a lot of detail or guidance on that what was promised was a detailed fire strategy and UX over ought to be providing us

01:41:43 and UX over ought to be providing us with something a bit more detailed on the B for common sorry I you you're asking me if I thought the report was

01:41:55 asking me if I thought the report was deficient in some way at the time I didn't okay let's move on in the chronology and go to 2014 if we can turn to se a three zeros 107 oh six and look

01:42:09 to se a three zeros 107 oh six and look at the email at the bottom of page one

01:42:13 so just have a read of that yourself for a moment

01:42:33 okay yes so this is an email from Claire Williams of the TMA to you on the 1st of April 2014 in and the subject is Graham for fire strategy and we can see that

01:42:46 for fire strategy and we can see that she says we had another meeting with the fire brigade the next quarterly warned and there was a fire engineer liaison chat there you see that in the first line and then she says I want to get our fire strategy onto their radar

01:42:57 fire strategy onto their radar particularly in terms of understanding any issues they may have over the smoke venting system to the lobbies do you see that yes and she also asks to send

01:43:09 that yes and she also asks to send studio each ought to be sent studio ease drawings can we then see your response which is at the top of this page so this

01:43:20 which is at the top of this page so this is your response to her the next day 2nd of April 2014 and you say hi Claire attached is x over spar strategy and RB Casey's markup of our fire strategy plan

01:43:34 Casey's markup of our fire strategy plan when you say RB Casey's markup do you mean RB Casey building controls markup yes yeah of the fire strategy plan and then you say this I would not show this to the lfb they are likely to support

01:43:47 to the lfb they are likely to support the severe interpretation of the regulations which Xavier unnecessary because this is in an existing building it is to be superseded to and then was

01:43:58 it is to be superseded to and then was there something else you were thinking of do you see that yeah can you just be clear what is it that you're saying should not be shown to the lfb a

01:44:10 should not be shown to the lfb a recollection it was the mark-up that we had received that I think News New Year's Eve I think it was and can you

01:44:22 Year's Eve I think it was and can you explain why you didn't want the mark-up of the fire strategy plan by Building Control to be shown to the lfb well the one reason it was to be needed to be the

01:44:33 one reason it was to be needed to be the strategy plans needs to be updated it's as I recall the markup headed

01:44:43 highlighted can requirements for fire proofing the the rises off the central lobby which I hadn't had a opportunity

01:44:56 lobby which I hadn't had a opportunity to discuss with our bkc but which I thought could um could pose a problem for the new services I see and was it

01:45:08 for the new services I see and was it that work which exhale believed was unnecessary just looking at the next bit of your email I think so I mean that's that's my recollection the the comment

01:45:20 that's my recollection the the comment which I I thought needed to be discussed just just that one item so had you had separate discussions with X over over this my email implies that I had I don't

01:45:32 this my email implies that I had I don't recall you can't recall instead of keeping that information from the lfb why not provide the mark-up of the fire

01:45:45 why not provide the mark-up of the fire strategy plan and indeed x overs fire strategy to the l FB and asked for their comments i didn't some i mean if it was

01:45:59 comments i didn't some i mean if it was going to be a problem i wanted to be sure in a sense you don't get many opportunities to speak to the fire brigade I see so you wanted to be clear

01:46:12 brigade I see so you wanted to be clear yes what proposal we were actually doing yes

01:46:16 yes would you agree that that might suggest a less than transparent attitude to liaison with the LFP at this point in

01:46:28 liaison with the LFP at this point in the event I don't I'm not sure they even looked at no not at all I think the service of strategy was what was still

01:46:39 service of strategy was what was still not clearly resolved the the strategy fire strategy was still what the plans were still evolving I thought it best to be sure of what we

01:46:53 thought it best to be sure of what we were proposing before we did say to a brigade was it your view at this time that it was in the clients interests to

01:47:04 that it was in the clients interests to get through the building control process with the minimum possible requirements no minimum possible sorry keep clarify what you mean well was it did you think

01:47:16 what you mean well was it did you think it was in your clients interest to try and get through the building control process without too many issues being resolved by but raised by building control somehow role as an architect of

01:47:36 control somehow role as an architect of devious I'm sorry you say in this email the last sentence of that first paragraph it is to be superseded - yeah

01:47:47 paragraph it is to be superseded - yeah so just to be clear is that the the mock-up of the fire strategy plan was to be superseded or X overs fire strategy was to be superseded because you're referring to both at the beginning of

01:47:59 referring to both at the beginning of that email no it would be the first strategy plan because the plans had changed or were changing and we're agreed that in fact the Specsavers fire strategy was never updated was it no can

01:48:14 strategy was never updated was it no can we then turn to your witness statement again if we look at se a three zeros 147 3 at page 1 5 2 and I want to look at

01:48:27 3 at page 1 5 2 and I want to look at paragraph 370 which is at the top of that page if I can just read that out so you say around this time and it's clear from the previous paragraph in your

01:48:38 from the previous paragraph in your statement you mean around March 2014 now so you say around this time I believe I asked Simon Lawrence whether Ryden would extend X overs appointment or appoint

01:48:51 extend X overs appointment or appoint another fire consultant Simon said that Ryden typically did not engage fire consultants on the basis that the strategy was established by the clients team and as contractor it was

01:49:03 team and as contractor it was responsible for executing it he regarded it as building controls responsibility to raise any concerns and satisfy themselves with the details of the submission do you see that yeah so I

01:49:15 submission do you see that yeah so I want to ask you some questions about that conversation with mr. Lawrence so did you take mr. Lawrence to be saying that it was not intended that xover or indeed any other fire consultant would

01:49:26 indeed any other fire consultant would be engaged on the project after Novation

01:49:33 it wasn't riding typical practice - that's did I hear your question did you understand from him that he simply wasn't going to be instructing either

01:49:46 wasn't going to be instructing either xover or another fire safety consultant

01:49:52 yes and that was as her explained that that's not what they normally did they did not normally expect to engage a fire consultant do you agree that at this

01:50:04 consultant do you agree that at this point in time the fire strategy had not been established by the clients team so far as the cladding design was concerned had it

01:50:18 you knew based on three iterations of the outline fire safety strategy that xover had deferred consideration of the functional requirement before until a

01:50:29 functional requirement before until a later stage didn't you yeah well they would need full details to be able to do that yes

01:50:38 that yes and is it also right that as lead consultant you also knew that the clients team had not considered the compliance of the facade materials and products with the building regulations

01:50:49 products with the building regulations at that point had they correct now in light of the indication given to you by

01:51:00 light of the indication given to you by mr. Lawrence as you've reported here who did you understand would be taking steps to establish the fire strategy for the cladding design specialist consultant

01:51:11 cladding design specialist consultant math specialist contract subcontractor so do you mean Harley yeah I think by the stage I might have known it was Harley

01:51:20 Harley yes did you expect that Harley would be able to establish a fire strategy for the cladding design is that our expectation it was my expectation yes

01:51:35 and when you had this conversation with mr. lawrence did you raise any concerns with him about the approach he intended to take

01:51:50 I remember discussing it with him I don't remember at the time having concerns or communicating them to him

01:52:01 concerns or communicating them to him I mean it's just he was clear where the responsibilities were going to lie and that was since that was the contractors

01:52:13 that was since that was the contractors wrong to decide who was taking responsibility for what can you you say you recall the discussion with him can you recall what you were saying back to him when he was saying this we don't

01:52:25 him when he was saying this we don't typically engage for our consultants what what was your response I think I queried it I just queried one would there be and

01:52:38 I just queried one would there be and and that was that was all did you ever press him on the point no I think it can I think it came up more than once but I think I don't remember pressing him on

01:52:50 think I don't remember pressing him on it

01:52:51 it at the time did you believe that Xavier or an another fire consult consultant should be appointed by writing no

01:53:03 should be appointed by writing no otherwise I would have pressed on yeah did you tell mr. Lawrence that the analysis of the implications of insulating and over cladding the exterior facade on fire safety was still

01:53:16 exterior facade on fire safety was still awaited from xover no did you tell him that xover had promised an analysis of the b4 requirements in a later issue of

01:53:27 the b4 requirements in a later issue of their report but that this had never been provided No

01:53:35 did you not think it was important to tell mr. Lawrence that our fire safety consultant needed to be retained to deliver that analysis um no that was the

01:53:49 deliver that analysis um no that was the point it was for the specialist to follow through analysis did you ever bring mr. Lawrence's view about not

01:54:01 bring mr. Lawrence's view about not appointing a fire consultant did you ever bring his view to the attention of the TMO the client I can't recall doing so but I might if I can't recall but I

01:54:14 so but I might if I can't recall but I think it would have been a bit out of line to do so at this point I think just

01:54:25 line to do so at this point I think just to be clear we're you aware that xover had not been appointed by Ryden post Novation was that something that was clear to you that right and hadn't appointed them yes before I leave this

01:54:38 appointed them yes before I leave this topic I want to turn back in time and look at something you said earlier on this on this subject can we turn to se a for zeroes 7 3 1 8

01:54:55 so we can just blow the top of the page up this is an email from you to mr.

01:55:08 up this is an email from you to mr. Dawson of Apple yards this is the 5th of February 2013 so I'm taking you back a year to see what you were saying at that stage and you say in this short email

01:55:19 stage and you say in this short email Allan comments below in red do you see that not regards Bruce so what you've done is he sent you an email that we see at the bottom of that page and you've

01:55:30 at the bottom of that page and you've put your comments on on different topics in red and if you look at that email from mr. Dawson the bit that we want to look at is you can see the second red

01:55:44 look at is you can see the second red paragraph you say we believe the following will will need to be included in the post Novation team and then where we've got Landscape Architect far consultant acoustics do you see that yes

01:55:58 consultant acoustics do you see that yes and then you say I think you are proposing to leave these out of the Novation agreement and that they would be kept client-side this is confusing because ledbetter have asked us to get

01:56:09 because ledbetter have asked us to get prices for all three to complete stage E and F one with the intention that the whole team a sub consulted two hours through to completion do you see that yeah so it was clearly your view wasn't

01:56:25 yeah so it was clearly your view wasn't it in early February that F our consultant would need to be included in the post Novation team this isn't that some purely sort of called the stand

01:56:36 some purely sort of called the stand down where ledbetter brick was still in the frame is the potential design-build contractor yeah we hadn't done a stage

01:56:47 contractor yeah we hadn't done a stage II and the intention was to innovate us I think there and then I see wasn't so it does it wasn't visiting a slightly

01:57:02 it does it wasn't visiting a slightly different structure yeah in structure and contractual structure but at but I I stuff our consultant needed to be in involved yeah

01:57:13 consultant needed to be in involved yeah you see the reason I've taken you to this is that this is the only time that we can see in the written documents and you recommending to art Elia or to

01:57:25 you recommending to art Elia or to anyone else that a fire consultant should be engaged post Novation and and what I'd like to ask is why in mid-2014

01:57:38 what I'd like to ask is why in mid-2014 did you not repeat that advice to the TMO to ride in at that stage took to heart Elia under design and build all

01:57:54 heart Elia under design and build all the responsibility gets passed on to the contractor and at this point when we hadn't done a stage II certainly

01:58:07 recommending it I felt we needed we would need a consultant 2014 it was for

01:58:20 would need a consultant 2014 it was for the contractor

01:58:23 I see I think we just established that you still did think in 2014 that there ought to be fire advice I remember asking clearing it as you say I didn't

01:58:34 asking clearing it as you say I didn't think I put it to anyone in writing and can you just be clear why at that stage you didn't press it you didn't repeat the advice in writing at that stage you

01:58:47 the advice in writing at that stage you said that because there was a design and build contractor but can you can you just give us a bit more information about why you didn't think it was your responsibility at that point to be emphasizing that further advice was

01:59:00 emphasizing that further advice was needed

01:59:08 I'm sorry I'm let me put it a different way

01:59:12 way wasn't it appropriate to repeat that advice to ride it in the TMO post Novation particularly given what you knew about how detailed its overs work

01:59:25 knew about how detailed its overs work had been

01:59:35 I don't know comment I think they bit from my witness statement is here's all I can think is it I remember discussing it with Rhydon and I think it was an

01:59:48 it with Rhydon and I think it was an affair until until later okay now it's clear that it's over remained available to assist and Studio a on it as an when

01:59:59 to assist and Studio a on it as an when or ad-hoc basis isn't it did you ever raise any concerns regarding the nature of X overs role during the construction phase no concern I don't think so yeah

02:00:19 phase no concern I don't think so yeah concern about the the the clarity of the X overs engagement or the nature of X overs engagement did you ever say we're getting ad hoc advice but it's really

02:00:32 getting ad hoc advice but it's really not clear precisely on what basis XO for advising I think this should be clarified

02:00:45 today I don't recall doing so sorry that was your question yeah would you agree that retaining X over to provide advice on an as and when or ad-hoc basis was

02:00:57 on an as and when or ad-hoc basis was inappropriate on a project like this and

02:01:03 comment on that as to whether it was appropriate um I thought up until then

02:01:16 appropriate um I thought up until then and beyond X ever had been quite responsive to to our queries and I and I

02:01:27 responsive to to our queries and I and I understood that they were quite willing to respond to queries on their report wasn't there a danger that by using them on an ad-hoc basis that they wouldn't

02:01:38 on an ad-hoc basis that they wouldn't have a full picture of the project they wouldn't have full details of the project wasn't that a risk in doing it that way

02:01:48 [Music]

02:01:57 I'm afraid that's that's

02:02:03 that's not that's not the thoughts that that I was thinking at the time no mr. chairman I want to move on to a

02:02:14 no mr. chairman I want to move on to a different topic now so that might be a good point right it we if we're going to take a break that would be the appropriate moment yeah mr. Soames we normally sit until half-past four perhaps you would like a break at this

02:02:26 perhaps you would like a break at this stage would you come back

02:13:45 yes would you officers descends to come back please

02:14:05 for rent mr. Simms Rhian yes yes yes thank you yes mr. Sains so we're moving to insulation and I'm now going to ask you some questions about the envelope

02:14:16 you some questions about the envelope insulation first I'm going to ask you some questions about what those materials were and their compliance with the building regulations and other relevant guidance and then I'm going to ask you some questions which go through

02:14:27 ask you some questions which go through the chronology really of how these products came to be used within the overcutting system at ground floor tower so starting with materials and their compliance and we can see from the

02:14:39 compliance and we can see from the documents that mr. McCourt of Max Fordham provided you with a product datasheet for Celotex FR 5000 on the 16th of August 2012 now we're going to

02:14:51 16th of August 2012 now we're going to come back to that email later but for the moment I just want to focus on the datasheet that he sent to you now it's right isn't it that Celotex F R 5000 was

02:15:03 right isn't it that Celotex F R 5000 was the insulation product for the spandrel panels and columns which studio we included in the NBS spec is that correct yes now can we look first at your

02:15:15 yes now can we look first at your witness statement at se a three zeros one for 273 at page 54 and I want to

02:15:28 one for 273 at page 54 and I want to look at paragraph one hundred and sixteen point two

02:15:35 and so your this is the paragraph in which you refer to max Fordham and Rima court sending you it's kind of halfway

02:15:47 court sending you it's kind of halfway down the paragraph that we can see on the page sending you the information for the Celotex FR 5000 and that the very bottom of that page you say he also attached the product data sheet for and then if we

02:15:59 product data sheet for and then if we can just go over the page for Celotex FR 5,000 and then and then you say this i do not recall what i noted from the data sheet at the time but i now note that

02:16:12 sheet at the time but i now note that it's states Celotex FR 5000 has class naught fire performance throughout the entire product in accordance with vs 476 none of max Fordham CEP xover or any other

02:16:26 of max Fordham CEP xover or any other specialist I had discussed the project with had raised this as a technical design issue do you see that yeah yeah so with that in mind and what you've

02:16:37 so with that in mind and what you've said in that paragraph I want to look at the data sheet can we go to that that's a se a four zeroes five eight four one

02:16:49 and if we can blow up just the top of that for the moment so this is the Celotex product datasheet for FR 5000 dated we can see the date on the top

02:17:00 dated we can see the date on the top right hand side issue to January 2012 do you see that yeah and this is the data sheet that mr. McCourt sent to you and

02:17:11 sheet that mr. McCourt sent to you and we can see there's an introduction to it there it's their premium performance PIR solution and then I want to look at the bottom of that first section at what it

02:17:24 bottom of that first section at what it says in the bullet points so we can see it says with Fr 5,000 you are specifying an insulation board that and then do you

02:17:35 an insulation board that and then do you see the fourth bullet point down it says has class naught fire performance throughout the entire product in accordance with BS 476 do you see that yes

02:17:51 now first question can you recall reading this datasheet at the time you worked on the ground floor project the

02:18:06 worked on the ground floor project the answer's no but I strangely remembered something different and I and I can't be sure where I saw it okay we're going to come to a few data

02:18:18 okay we're going to come to a few data sheets and so it may be that another one jogs your memory more but and so this is the fr 5,000 data sheet the one I was

02:18:29 the fr 5,000 data sheet the one I was thinking of all these I thought the first one that we had received us didn't have any more faithful coloring on the document but I could be wrong about that I see okay well can we just stick with

02:18:41 I see okay well can we just stick with this one for the moment can you see you a little bit further down under applications at the bottom of where we've got two on the page it says Celotex fr 5,000 can be specified in a

02:18:53 Celotex fr 5,000 can be specified in a variety of applications including pitched roofs walls floors do you see that yes now do you agree with me on the base of what we can see here that the

02:19:05 base of what we can see here that the datasheet makes no reference to the product being suitable for use within a rainscreen cladding system not explicitly no and would you also agree

02:19:17 explicitly no and would you also agree that the datasheet makes no reference to the product being suitable for use on buildings with a story above 18 meters

02:19:29 I'm drawing some attention but no I think I mean you can take it from me it's not it's not on this page and this is just a two-page product datasheet perhaps the operator can just show us

02:19:40 perhaps the operator can just show us the second page there's a more detailed technical data on that second page on

02:19:51 technical data on that second page on physical properties you can see at the bottom of that section fire propagation BS 476 part six paths surface spread of flame B

02:20:00 flame B 476 part 7 class 1 do you see that there but there's nothing about 18 meters in this datasheet now as we can see from

02:20:13 this datasheet now as we can see from this page and if we can go back to the first page the datasheet confirmed that the product was kath note we saw that in

02:20:24 the product was kath note we saw that in the fourth bullet point didn't we yes and you agree that it doesn't say there that the product is of limited combust ability no now Celotex FR 5000 was a PIR

02:20:40 ability no now Celotex FR 5000 was a PIR polyisocyanurate insulation product wasn't it

02:20:43 wasn't it yes now we're you aware during your time on the ground floor project that PIR was a combustible insulation product

02:21:00 I understood it chard when subjected to flame in other words if that was my understanding of the product where did you get that understanding from what was

02:21:11 you get that understanding from what was that based on my practice I worked in before I started it's goe so this is

02:21:23 before I started it's goe so this is going back to I would have either been 1998-99 I remember a Celtics rep coming in and discussing the benefits of

02:21:34 in and discussing the benefits of polyisocyanurate as against polyurethane and specifically addressing fire dress women specifically addressing its fire performance and that's where you were

02:21:47 performance and that's where you were told it chars is that right well that's my recollection that's how old my recollection is of what I understood the the properties of kr were did you know

02:22:02 the properties of kr were did you know when you were working on the project that PIR products don't meet the criteria for materials of limited combust ability as defined in a predock ument be sorry to Anna now or do I did

02:22:18 ument be sorry to Anna now or do I did you know then I didn't as we discussed I wasn't aware of a requirement at the time so

02:22:28 during your time on the Granville project can you explain why you thought Celotex fr 5,000 was suitable to be used within the ova cladding system why did I

02:22:40 within the ova cladding system why did I think it was yeah

02:22:51 it had been put forward by max Fordham who I knew had who I understood had undertaken this sort of project several

02:23:04 undertaken this sort of project several times many times and I'm I guess I made an assumption that they had used this before in some of the circumstances so it was based rather on inferring its

02:23:18 it was based rather on inferring its acceptability from previous experience by Max Fordham yeah that's a that's a bit of hindsight on my part but just

02:23:40 repeat your question yeah no well I've asked you why did you think Celotex FR 5000 was suitable to be used within the ova cladding system i had no reason to

02:23:51 ova cladding system i had no reason to believe it wasn't i think is probably more accurate at the time yeah during your time on the project did you ever give any consideration to whether the product was compliant with the building

02:24:02 product was compliant with the building regulations and associated guidance the only one occasion was that a meeting

02:24:17 only one occasion was that a meeting with Harley many months later is that there Hayes gallery yeah I think that's the only recollection or evidence okay

02:24:30 the only recollection or evidence okay we'll come back to that meeting now you've referred to class naught in your witness statement with reference to the installation we just looked at that you said I've got no memory of reading this

02:24:43 said I've got no memory of reading this datasheet but I now note that it has class naught fire performance do you remember saying that yeah insofar as you understood it at the time what was the relevance of the class

02:24:54 time what was the relevance of the class naught fire performance in the Celotex datasheet to the selection of that product at Greville Tower

02:25:11 I'm struggling a bit to understand exactly what you're asking me what was the relevant math yeah what was the relevance of the fact it had class naught fire performance to the course

02:25:23 naught fire performance to the course selection of that product for use cost no it's fire performance and class naught you wouldn't want to use a

02:25:36 naught you wouldn't want to use a hazardous material does it follow from that that you thought if it was class naught it wasn't hazardous yes yes do

02:25:50 naught it wasn't hazardous yes yes do you have a memory a recollection of noting at the time that it had class naught fire performance

02:25:58 I can't specifically remember that that detail from so long ago no you don't remember checking any of the product datasheets and looking for the fire

02:26:13 datasheets and looking for the fire performance information I mentioned that I'd been aware and use this product over many years I suspect on you that I see

02:26:25 many years I suspect on you that I see so you think because you'd used it on other projects you would have been aware of its class not fire performance or that it had a performance that made it acceptable for use in the external

02:26:37 acceptable for use in the external construction but just to be clear none of those product projects were high-rise residential whether everyone

02:26:49 did you understand that class naught relates principally to linings lining materials it's related to something on a

02:27:04 materials it's related to something on a surface yes so it could apply to paint but it could also apply to a panel so just going back to my earlier question how would class nor be relevant to an

02:27:16 how would class nor be relevant to an insulation product in a rain screen system given that's going to sit behind the rain screen in the cavity well

02:27:30 the rain screen in the cavity well whether it's a lining or an insulation sitting within a cavity you you would not want it to support the spread of a fire so I see those as relevant in both

02:27:45 fire so I see those as relevant in both contexts I see did you know that a class naught rated product doesn't infer any resistance to

02:27:57 product doesn't infer any resistance to combust ability I thought it did I thought that essentially a resistance to combust ability as resistance what car

02:28:09 combust ability as resistance what car so is let's now look at and see el6 zeroes 13 now this is an updated product

02:28:31 zeroes 13 now this is an updated product datasheet for the product Celotex RS 5000 dated august 2014 mr operate if we

02:28:42 5000 dated august 2014 mr operate if we can just go one page on within this I

02:28:48 was just looking for the date but I think you'll have to take it from me in the moment that it's August 2014 do you recall reading this RS 5000 guide

02:29:00 do you recall reading this RS 5000 guide at the time of that you worked on the ground floor project no I'm not sure we have it well we received it may have done but I don't recall seeing it you

02:29:12 done but I don't recall seeing it you don't recall seeing it if we look at page 5 of the document we can see in the

02:29:25 page 5 of the document we can see in the top left hand side under rained fire performance rain screen installation it says there Celotex RS 5000 is a class naught fire rated as described by the

02:29:37 naught fire rated as described by the National Building Regulations having achieved both and then it explains that it's got a pass to BS 476 part 6 and then classification as class 1 in accordance with BS 476 part 7 do you see

02:29:50 accordance with BS 476 part 7 do you see that yes did you understand at the time that in order to achieve class naught there were two separate tests where the data would be relevant to whether you've got class naught

02:30:03 no I at the time I wasn't aware of the

02:30:12 the route to you to achieving okay and then we can see that the product sheet

02:30:25 then we can see that the product sheet goes on to say under the heading building above 18 meters you see just below that yes it says that Celotex rs.5000 has been successfully tested to be s 8 4 1 4 2 2005 do you see that yes

02:30:41 be s 8 4 1 4 2 2005 do you see that yes and then slightly later in that and meets the criteria set out in BR 1 3 5 and is therefore acceptable for use in buildings above 18 meters in height do you see that yes do you recall

02:30:53 do you see that yes do you recall reading that in said Celotex product literature during your time on the ground floor project no this was 2014 I know as I said I don't think I don't

02:31:06 know as I said I don't think I don't think we have this receive this document ever on the project do you recall ever I think we would have I identified a pan

02:31:17 think we would have I identified a pan out I don't think so no if you had read that and you'd seen reference to be s 8 4 1 4 and B are 135 would you have understood what that meant

02:31:45 just below that it gives details of the system tested to achieve the BS eight four one four it says the system tested was as follows again can you recall reading anything like that at the time

02:31:57 reading anything like that at the time you worked on the ground field project no I mean I should add that by 2014 my involvement at yeah let's go back

02:32:08 studying dirty shoes I'm just gonna show you one more data sheet for the Celotex rs.5000 this is C el6 zeros 12 again

02:32:26 rs.5000 this is C el6 zeros 12 again this is dated August 2014 as per the earlier document part for rs.5000 and this is a rainscreen cladding compliance guide when specifying Celotex rs.5000 in

02:32:39 guide when specifying Celotex rs.5000 in buildings above 80 meters do you see that yeah again do you have any recollection of seeing that document at the time you worked on the ground floor project no in which case I'm gonna skip

02:32:51 project no in which case I'm gonna skip on in my questions and and talk about a different product called K 15 so as at July 2012 Studio II was in possession of

02:33:03 July 2012 Studio II was in possession of a product datasheet for the product kingspan cool therm K 15 can we just call that up that's an se a four zeros one zero zero nine

02:33:20 so there we have the Kings Barbarossa that we know is in studio studio ease possession at the time we've seen that in your documents did you know at the

02:33:32 in your documents did you know at the time of the Granville project what type of insulation k15 was I I can't recall but I think the my witness statement

02:33:45 but I think the my witness statement implies that I did I think because as I recall an jimick watch

02:33:56 recall an jimick watch mentions it as a phenolic that's correct he does yeah so if I remember that but I can't be sure yet I was gonna check whether you understood that it was a phenolic insulation product yeah

02:34:09 phenolic insulation product yeah were you aware that k15 was a combustible insulation product at the time you worked on grandfather was less

02:34:24 time you worked on grandfather was less sure of its properties I think not had this the equivalent experience with a technical representative discussing

02:34:35 technical representative discussing against fire properties however I had hurt seen it recommended and that does appear in certainly the correspondence

02:34:46 appear in certainly the correspondence that we've we've we received through 2013 I think yeah we will pick that up do you recall ever specifically researching its fire performance k15 no

02:35:01 researching its fire performance k15 no now where you were where during your time on the ground for project that some k15 had been used as insulation within the building envelope you never made

02:35:12 the building envelope you never made aware of that

02:35:19 just one more question under this topic before we come to look at the chronology and precisely how the rs.5000 came to be suggested thinking back to 2012 and 2013

02:35:32 suggested thinking back to 2012 and 2013 when you were involved in the selection of the products in the employers requirements were you aware of any industry guidance which warned about the combust ability of insulation products

02:35:43 combust ability of insulation products and the need to ensure that they were at least limited combust ability No okay so we're now going to turn to a more

02:35:54 we're now going to turn to a more detailed consideration of the contemporaneous documents to see how it came about the fr 5,000 came to be in the NBS specification just some general

02:36:06 the NBS specification just some general questions to start with is it fair to say that the main objective of the overcutting was to improve the thermal performance of the building and was

02:36:20 performance of the building and was another objective to improve the appearance of the building so we just take one step back um I thought the the

02:36:31 take one step back um I thought the the need to upgrade the heating replace the windows and the cladding were in a sense or integral scope I wouldn't try and put

02:36:42 or integral scope I wouldn't try and put one above the other yep yep sorry Angela no no your next question was would you agree that another objective was to improve the appearance of the building

02:36:54 improve the appearance of the building yes now I want to focus for a moment on the consideration given to the firm or performance of the insulation and we're

02:37:05 performance of the insulation and we're going to see shortly that some of the correspondents on the project refers to something called au value it's at correctness now just to educate everyone do you agree with me that au value is a measure

02:37:17 agree with me that au value is a measure of heat loss through a building element such as through a wall heat transfer heat transfer there and do you agree that it's measured in

02:37:28 and do you agree that it's measured in watts per meter square Kelvin yes so you see the W dash meter square K you see that it's per square meter Kelvin Kelvin yeah do you also agree that the lower

02:37:41 yeah do you also agree that the lower the you value the better I the lower the value the better than materials performance in insulating against heat loss in winter and heat gain in summer correct

02:37:55 now can we turn to se a for zeros forty-nine five these are the minutes of

02:38:06 forty-nine five these are the minutes of the design team meeting that was held on the Thursday the 24th of May 2012 and we can see that you're present at that

02:38:17 can see that you're present at that meeting you're the last name on that present list and I want to go to page two under the heading services yep so if

02:38:29 two under the heading services yep so if we can zoom in exactly and look at the second paragraph under services we see this it says design team need environmental design criteria you values ventilation openings etc to progress

02:38:40 ventilation openings etc to progress caddying design do you see that yes options discussed over cladding internal lining fixed windows with acoustic louvers and then we see MF is noted in

02:38:52 louvers and then we see MF is noted in the action column on the right did you see that yes and that would refer to max Fordham is that correct yes and then I just want to look at what you say about this in your witness statement that's at se a three zeroes one for 273 at page 39

02:39:11 and I want to look at paragraph 81 so there you say with reference to those minutes the minute state that the design

02:39:22 minutes the minute state that the design team needed environmental criteria such as you values to progress the cladding design this was an action for max Fordham as I believe their design of the heating system was based in part on the

02:39:34 heating system was based in part on the performance of the external envelope of the building do you see that yes so do you mean by that that it was your understanding that max Fordham would provide environmental design

02:39:47 would provide environmental design criteria which would include you values

02:39:52 yes yes it would and are you saying that because max Fordham was designing the heating system they were also required

02:40:03 heating system they were also required to determine a suitable measure of thermal efficiency for the entire building they would be the ones to to initiate the process yes of determining

02:40:17 initiate the process yes of determining the the appropriate designs standards design criteria yes mr. chairman if I

02:40:28 design criteria yes mr. chairman if I turn up the next email that's probably gonna take me about five minutes to do so I'm happy to stop there if that's convenient or I can do that next it doesn't really make sense to suggest

02:40:41 doesn't really make sense to suggest that things take longer than I think they should so would it be sensible to stop those I think it would yes well mr. Soames we're going to stop there for today I'm afraid I'm going to have to

02:40:52 today I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to come back again tomorrow for some more questions and just remind you not other people about your evidence or anything related to what we're discussing overnight all right okay well

02:41:04 discussing overnight all right okay well thank you very much would you go to the ocean and she'll look after you

02:41:15 mr. cage before we rise are you expecting to be able to finish for us to say I would hope so but it will be tight

02:41:26 say I would hope so but it will be tight because there's quite a few topics still to cover with him so I'm not going to make that promise but I will use yes it would be best endeavors you would be I do appreciate that

02:41:38 do appreciate that I fully I fully appreciate that we will absolutely do our best to try and finish gnomes said I have to do a lot to ask yeah thank you right well we'll get back to him at 10 o'clock tomorrow then

02:41:49 to him at 10 o'clock tomorrow then please can I talk tomorrow