First witness statement of: T Rek Filed on behalf of: Studio E Architects Limited Statement date: 9 November 2018 Exhibit no: TRl IN THE MATTER OF THE INQUIRIES ACT 2005 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE INQUIRY RULES 2006 THE GRENFELL TOWER INQUIRY FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF TOMAS REK ON BEHALF OF STUDIO E ARCHITECTS LIMITED I, Tomas Rek, formerly architect at Studio E LLP (dissolved), WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS: 1. This witness statement is divided into the following areas: Tomas REK A Introduction B My experience and qualifications C Overview of my work on the Project D Rainscreen cladding E Fire strategy report F Windows, smoke vent and kitchen extract G Cavity barriers H Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) I Insulation - 1 - SEA00014278_0001 SEA00014278/1
Transcript
First witness statement of: T Rek Filed on behalf of: Studio E Architects Limited
Statement date: 9 November 2018 Exhibit no: TRl
IN THE MATTER OF THE INQUIRIES ACT 2005
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE INQUIRY RULES 2006
THE GRENFELL TOWER INQUIRY
FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF TOMAS REK ON BEHALF OF STUDIO E ARCHITECTS LIMITED
I, Tomas Rek, formerly architect at Studio E LLP (dissolved), WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS:
1. This witness statement is divided into the following areas:
Tomas REK
A Introduction
B My experience and qualifications
C Overview of my work on the Project
D Rainscreen cladding
E Fire strategy report
F Windows, smoke vent and kitchen extract
G Cavity barriers
H Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment
Method (BREEAM) I Insulation
- 1 -
SEA00014278_0001 SEA00014278/1
A INTRODUCTION
2. I am currently an architect at Vilhelm Lauritzen Arkitekter A/S, Pakhus 48, Sundkaj
9, l.tv. Copenhagen, Denmark (VLA). I have provided this information for
completeness only, as to the best of my knowledge VLA has absolutely nothing to do
with the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower (the Tower) in London between 2011 and
2016 (the Project) or the circumstances surrounding the fire at the Tower on 14 June
2017 (the Fire).
3. This is the first witness statement that I have made to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry (the
Inquiry). I understand I was asked to make it by the Inquiry, in its request for
evidence from Studio E Architects Ltd (SEAL) under rule 9 of the Inquiry Rules 2006
dated 5 June 2018 (the Request). I have not seen the Request itself
4. During my work on the Project, I was not an employee of SEAL. I was an architect at
Studio E LLP (SELLP) between December 2011 and December 2013, when I was
made redundant. I understand that in summer 2014, which was after I left SELLP,
SELLP entered insolvency and its work on the Project was continued by SEAL.
5. I have been provided copies of a selection of SEAL's contemporaneous documents,
including the emails that I sent and received that SEAL has disclosed to the Inquiry.
In this witness statement, I refer to various documents primarily in two ways. Where I
understand the document will be made available on the Inquiry's electronic platform, I
have referred to it by its "Unique ID" on the platform, in bold curled brackets in the
format {XXXOOOOOOOO}. For other documents, I have annexed them at exhibit TRI.
References to pages in this exhibit are given in bold curled brackets, in the format
{TR1/pagenumbers}. In the preparation of this witness statement, including annexed
documents, I have been assisted by SEAL's solicitors.
6. English is not my first language, however I confirm that I am confident making this
statement in English.
Tomas REK -2-
SEA00014278_0002 SEA00014278/2
B EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS
7. I obtained a degree in architecture from the University of Technology, Brno, The
Czech Republic, in 2005 and qualified as an engineer architect in architecture and
urban planning. I have practiced as an architect for 8 years.
8. During my time at SELLP, I was a project architect. An example of the sort of
projects I worked on was a school project, known as Ormiston Bolingbroke Academy.
That concerned a predominantly render and brick building with Metsec walls.
Tomas REK -3-
SEA00014278_0003 SEA00014278/3
C OVERVIEW OF MY WORK ON THE PROJECT
9. I worked on the Project for a short period of time, for about three months, between
September 2013 and December 2013. I recall visiting the Tower during my time
working on the Project, and note for the purpose of this witness statement that it was
essentially divided into two parts, a lower podium of four floors including a nursery
and boxing club, which was being reconfigured as part of the Project (the Podium)
and an upper 20 floors of existing residential flats (the Existing Floors).
10. I was available to work on the Project as the project I was previously working on had
been completed and handed over. I believe SELLP appreciated my work and wanted
to keep me on should another project come up, so I could work on that. In that sense,
my involvement in the Project was for me, to my understanding, filling the gap until
another project came up. I reported to Bruce Sounes at SELLP. Bruce was my
supervisor at SELLP.
11. During this time I assisted with the preparation of SELLP's NBS Specification
{SEA00000169} (the NBS Specification) and architectural drawings for the Project.
The NBS (National Building Specification) is a standardised system of specification
published by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA). It is used by designers
to describe the materials, standards and workmanship that the client requires and it
forms part of the tender documents along with the architectural drawings for the
building contractor to price the Employer's Requirements. It then usually forms part of
the building contract.
12. I was first briefed on the Project on 18 September 2013 by Garry Stewart, as Bruce
Sounes had been called into meetings that day, and I started by reading the Stage D
documents and reviewing the draft drawings and sketches {SEA00008470}. The
design was at the pre-tender stage and the drawings and documents had been
developed up to RIBA stageD (Design Development).
13. In addition, Bruce introduced me to the Project and relayed further information about
it to me as and when required. For example, when I started on the Project in
September 2013, I remember Bruce briefing me on how the fa<;ade would look and
that the planning authorities would prefer a zinc cladding scheme over a colourful
cladding scheme which used High Pressure Laminate (HPL) cladding.
Tomas REK -4-
SEA00014278_0004 SEA00014278/4
14. I was tasked by Bruce with developing the NBS Specification and drawings further so
that the NBS Specification, architectural drawings and the tender documents could be
completed and issued as part of the pack of documents for tenderers. Usually, the
successful tenderer (or specialist subcontractor for the successful tenderer) would use
these documents as a starting point for their further detailed design development.
15. In this witness statement I explain, by reference to my contemporaneous email
correspondence, how I assisted in sourcing and specifying some of the materials in the
NBS Specification from various manufacturers and suppliers; in particular:
15 .1.1 The rainscreen cladding;
15 .1.2 Cavity barriers;
15 .1. 3 Smoke vents; and
15 .1.4 Windows.
16. Some of the materials and products had been selected prior to my involvement, and I
would add that this was a team effort, rather than me making decisions individually.
Smoke detectors, for example, would have been specified by a specialist engineer, and
the thermal insulation was specified prior to my involvement, as discussed in further
detail below.
17. At the time of my involvement I recall that the internal SELLP team consisted of
Bruce and me. Another employee at SELLP, Paddy Glennon, who had been working
on the Project, was involved only in returning matters that he had been involved with
prior to my involvement.
Tomas REK - 5-
SEA00014278_0005 SEA00014278/5
D RAINSCREEN CLADDING
18. In the NBS Specification, Studio E specified Proteus HR honeycomb ramscreen
panels for the columns and external envelope of the main entrance canopy, and for the
spandrel panels. I understood from Bruce that the client, KCTMO, wanted to include
options in the tender for Aluminium Composite Material (ACM) cladding, so we also
required tenderers to provide for alternative ACM materials (Reynobond, Alucobond
and Quartz Zinc) (see from {SEA00000169 _ 0063} ).
19. My recollection is that the Proteus HR cladding panels were the most expensive
cladding option we looked at. I remember that the focus at the time was on the
stiffness and robustness of the cladding panels and the avoidance of oil-canning
(moderate deformation or buckling of sheet material, particularly common with flat
sheet metal surfaces - it is seen as waviness in the flat areas of the metal roof or wall
material) on the pillars, which is why we deemed single sheet interlocking zinc panels
inappropriate for the Project. I set out the materials I was involved in considering
below.
20. On 24 September 2013 Bruce Sounes (Studio E) emailed me a list of actions on the
Project that he wanted me to follow up, which included obtaining samples of a zinc
fa<;ade cladding material he referred to as "Nedzinc" and issuing drawings to, and
meeting with, two specialist curtain walling contractors, Paneltec Services Limited
(Paneltec) and Harley Curtain Wall Limited (Barley) {SEA00008637}.
21. The same day, I spoke with Paul Cousins, the Business Development Manager at SIG
Roofing Supplies Limited (SIG), a specialist distributor of roofing and cladding
related products. SIG is a supplier of hard metal products for roof and fa<;ade cladding
such as the NedZink proprietary range of zinc cladding. I had no previous dealings
with Paul or SIG, and recall that either Bruce mentioned SIG to me, or I found them
as a result of a "Google" search.
22. Following that initial conversation, I emailed Paul Cousins (SIG) and confirmed that
we were looking at using titanium zinc fa<;ade cladding, and that I would therefore
like to see some samples of SIG's products, specifically NedZink Naturel, NedZink
NOVA and NedZink NOVA STRUCTURE. I asked him to send me samples of these
Tomas REK -6-
SEA00014278_0006 SEA00014278/6
products {SEA00008644}. My email states I attached two drawings to my email to
Paul:
22.1 A drawing showing the elevation measures for the Tower, called "SK 019" (I
believe it may have been either this drawing or similar {SEA00001578}); and
22.2 A drawing showing the plan, elevation and section of a typical bay of cladding
on the east and west elevations, showing draft details of the rainscreen
cladding to the cills of the ribbon windows and to the pillars (the Typical Bay
Drawing) (I believe it may have been either this drawing or similar
{SEA00002155}).
23. The following day, 25 September 2013, I sent a newer version of the Typical Bay
Drawing that I had prepared to another cladding specialist, Paneltec, and I asked it
about its rainscreen cladding products {SEA00008683}. In addition to some minor
changes the drawing included the addition of cavity fire barriers in line with the
compartment structures. A colleague of mine at SELLP, Paddy Glennon, had already
had a meeting with Paneltec the previous week and he had provided them with draft
elevation drawings and details showing windows and cladding, wind load calculations
and U-value targets.
24. On or about 26 September 2013, I had a meeting with Paul Cousins (SIG) about SIG's
cladding products. I do not recall the details of our conversation and I do not believe I
took a written note of the meeting. However, on 27 September 2013 I sent Paul a brief
email summarising the matters that we had discussed at the meeting as follows:
Tomas REK
"Current detail design?
1 am looking forward to receive your advice on feasibility of our detailing
depicted on the Typical Bay drawing we supplied
Visual appearance?
Can you please advise on the most appropriate product for this job bearing in
mind that for us there is no issue with oil canning effect especially on the
spandrel panels between the window strips. The column cladding may actually
-7-
SEA00014278_0007 SEA00014278/7
look better if it is of crispier appearance and therefore some sort of backing I
stiffening to the panel might be appropriate.
Fixing system?
How would a hook-on cassette system (speedy installation vs. expensive
fabrication) compete in practicality/ affordability with interlocking (secret fix)
screw-fixed panels?
Panel material?
How severe the oil canning would be on the currently designed under-window
panel size if we were to use 1.5mm single sheet ofTiZn?
Can you please send us a bigger sample of the NOVA COMPOS1TE panel?
The colour/ texture on the 'bendy' sample you gave me seems lighter/
smoother than the flat prepatinated sample which seems to have rougher
texture. Does the NOVA finish come in two different 'styles', one slightly more
polished than the other?
1 am also curious about price comparison between your Polyethylene based
composite vs. KME 's aluminium honeycomb mesh based one! As discussed
you will be getting some design feedback from KME and their quotation."
{SEA00008806}
25. Regarding polyethylene based composite panels:
25.1 From what I can recall, polyethylene core composite panels had already been
considered for the cladding for the Project before my involvement on the
Project and I do not think my enquiry about these types of panel was the first
time that they were considered. For example, polyethylene core composite
panels appear in drawings that were prepared before I became involved in the
Project, for example, Studio E's drawing RE 140 dated 11 September 2012
{SEA00001586} and SK085 dated 17 September 2013 {SEA00002135} both
show the cladding annotated as "composite zinc".
Tomas REK - 8-
SEA00014278_0008 SEA00014278/8
25.2 I do not recall discussing the fire rating or fire performance of polyethylene
based composite panels while I worked on the Project. I also do not recall
discussing whether these panels came with fire retardant cores or whether any
investigation on compliance with Part B of the Building Regulations 2010
(Building Regulations) had taken place. I may have assumed that compliance
with Building Regulations had already been confirmed prior to my
involvement, since I had simply been asked to obtain samples of these
materials and the focus appeared to be on the appearance and cost of the
product.
25.3 In any case, I note that the NBS Specification contained certain fire
performance requirements for the rainscreen cladding {SEA00000169 _ 0071},
including that:
(i) The fire resistance of the backing wall of the rainscreen cladding to
achieve BS476-21, and a minimum period of fire resistance of 60
minutes (clause H92/480);
(ii) The internal surface spread of flame of the backing wall to BS476-7
was to achieve fire rating Class 0 (clause H92/485); and
(iii) The cavity fire barriers in the rainscreen cladding were to resist the
passage of flame and smoke for not less than 30 minutes (clause
H92/490).
25.4 Furthermore, Studio E included the standard NBS design and performance
specification for rainscreen cladding at clause H92/310 of the NBS
Specification {SEA00000169 _ 0069}, which required the building contractor to
comply with the "CWCT Standard for Systemised Building Envelopes", among
other criteria, including Part 6, which related to fire performance.
26. On 27 September 2013 I attended a meeting with Bruce Sounes (Studio E), Mark
Harris (Commercial Manager at Harley) and Ray Bailey (Managing Director of
Harley), at a coffee shop or restaurant at Hays Galleria near London Bridge station,
which Bruce had arranged to discuss the cladding specification {SEA00008685}.
Tomas REK -9-
SEA00014278_0009 SEA00014278/9
27. In preparation for the meeting, I sent Mark Harris (Harley) {SEA00008692} copies of
our scope elevation drawings series (05), a draft proposal of the design intent for the
cladding of a typical bay {SEA00002163}, wind load calculations, and an excerpt
from the mechanical and electrical engineer's report specifying targeted U values
{SEA00002096}.
28. The extract was from Part 4 of Max Fordham LLP's (Max Fordham) "Sustainability
and Energy Statement report" dated 5 September 2012, titled "Refurbishment
response to existing energy and environmental issues", which contained proposed U
values for the Tower. The extract states that improving the insulation levels of the
walls was the "top priority of this refurbishment" and the "chosen strategy is to wrap
the building in a thick layer of insulation and then over-clad with a rain screen to
protect the insulation from the weather and from physical damage". In tables 4.2 and
4.3 in the report, Max Fordham listed the build-ups of the proposed spandrel wall
panels and columns, and stated that the spandrel wall panels and columns would be
covered with 3mm thick "Zink" rainscreen cladding, the spandrel wall panels would
be covered with 150mm thick Celotex FR5000 insulation, and the columns would be
covered with 1 OOmm thick Celotex FR5000 insulation.
29. I cannot recall the details of the discussion and I did not take a note of the meeting. If
I received any hard copy material at the meeting it is probably lost. I cannot recall
whether or not we discussed the suitability of PIR (polyisocyanurate) or rigid foam
insulation.
30. As I have stated above, I cannot recall discussing the fire rating or fire performance of
any of the cladding panels that I investigated and sourced from suppliers and
manufacturers while I worked on the Project. However, I have reviewed my email
correspondence at the time and it is clear that we must have discussed the different
types of cladding at the meeting with Harley; although I think it was more to do with
the appearance and price of the various materials and not their fire performance or fire
rating.
31. After the meeting, Bruce Sounes (Studio E) sent an email to Mark Harris (Harley) and
said:
Tomas REK - 10-
SEA00014278_0010 SEA00014278/10
"We will follow up early next week with a quantity take-off from our model.
I've communicated your "back of a fag packet" figure to the QS and it is over
budget- which is to be expected- but some firmer budgets will help focus
everyone 's minds. We 're looking seriously at Nedzinc 's composite panel. The
small sample we have in the office looks like Alucobond but is apparently
zinc." {SEA00008809}
32. The next day, on 28 September 2018, Mark Harris (Harley) copied me into his email
reply to Bruce Sounes (Studio E):
"I have already started putting a budget cost spreadsheet together, and will
insert the quants from your measure as soon as received, and will return along
with our notes and observations." {SEA00008811}
33. On 9 October 2013 I received an email from Paul Cousins (SIG) saying he had spoken
to KME Architectural, which I believed was a supplier of this type of panel, about the
Proteus HR cladding panel {SEA00009019} and he believed that it was the most
suitable for this application as this panel construction would offer a very high level of
flatness and stability. Paul told me there were two other options: NedZink NOVA
Composite and Interlocking panels. He said a wind loading study would however
have to be carried out to confirm suitability of these panels, but he believed the
Interlocking panel would not provide the flatness required. Paul also told me he could
only provide me with 'supply only' prices for the panels and that I would have to
obtain an installed price from a specialist fa<;ade contractor.
34. Paul Cousins (SIG) provided me with prices for three types of cladding (although they
would vary depending on the external finish and detail levels):
Proteus HR NedZink Panel
NedZink NOVA Composite
NedZink Interlocking Panel
£130-180/m2;
£90-150/m2; and
£70-120/m2.
35. Paul Cousins (SIG) attached to his email an axonometric drawing of the panel
showing the construction method for the panel featuring the NedZink product (which
may have been these drawings: {SEA00001981} {SEA00001982}).
Tomas REK - 11 -
SEA00014278_0011 SEA00014278/11
36. On 9 October 2013, I emailed Paul and told him that I would discuss his feedback
with the SELLP design team {SEA00009019}. I also asked him whether the sample
made of the composite sheets had been dispatched and how big it was, to confirm that
the detailing depicted on the drawings that I had sent him was appropriate for both
single 1.5mm sheets and composite material, and whether, in principle, the fixing
method, bending radiuses, etc. were appropriate. I asked him about the visual
appearance of the interlocking panels and whether he had a photograph of an
installation where interlocking panels had been used of a similar size under window
panels (900x1150mm), as we would like to judge the severity of oil canning in this
size when 1.5mm thick sheets were used.
37. I also asked Paul Cousins (SIG) what experience he had had with cassette systems,
('speedy installation vs. expensive fabrication') compared with interlocking systems
('secret fix') screw-fixed panels which are easier to fabricate but more laborious to
install. I asked him which one, in his opinion, turned out to be more economic
{SEA00009019}.
38. I do not believe that Paul Cousins (SIG) was considering or commenting on the fire
rating or fire performance of the Proteus HR panel, or whether or not it was suitable to
use above 18m, when he told me, on 9 October 2013, that he believed that the Proteus
HR Panel was the most suitable for this application {SEA00009240}. I imagine that
his concern at the time was whether the panel was flat and rigid enough. I think Paul
wanted to avoid, as a supplier, negotiations with us, the architect, and I or the client on
the level of acceptable 'oil canning' effect, as this could be rather subjective and
contentious.
39. On 15 October 2013, Paul Cousins (SIG) contacted me concerning the samples of
cladding material that I had requested from him {SEA00009240}. He apologised for
the delay in coming back to me and said the sample of the Proteus HR cladding
material that I had requested would be with me towards the end of the week (i.e. by
Friday, 18 October 2013). However, he told me that no samples of the NedZink Nova
Composite panels were currently available as they were waiting for a new batch to
arrive from Holland. He said SIG had samples of the NedZink Interlocking panels in
l.OOmm only and that they were approximately 600x600mm in size. He said SIG
could manufacture panels from thicker material but this could not be profiled and had
Tomas REK - 12-
SEA00014278_0012 SEA00014278/12
to be brake pressed which would increase the costs from approximately £45Im2 to
approximately £65Im2 for the supply of the panel only. He said a thicker material
would decrease the 'oil canning' effect but the additional 50% material cost would
reduce the cost effectiveness. He said he would organise images of the l.OOmm panels
to be forwarded to me under separate cover {SEA00009144}.
40. In his email to me, Paul Cousins (SIG) said:
"In theory you can use all three products, subject to wind loadings, this would
have to be established by a suitably qualified engineer".
41. Paul said the speed of installation was in direct relation to the panel size, "the larger
the panel the quicker the installation".
42. I forwarded Paul's email to Bruce Sounes (Studio E) {SEA00009144} and commented
that "1 had always understood that we would be getting the polymer-core composite
sample panel-but below states that we are getting the most expensive one ... "
43. I asked Bruce Sounes (Studio E) whether I should ask Paul Cousins (SIG) when
polymer-core composite sample panels would be available. Although I have no
recollection of the details, we likely had a verbal discussion about it.
44. Again, I do not recall any discussion regarding the fire rating or fire performance of
polymer-core composite cladding panels or any discussion regarding any potential fire
safety issues that might arise from the use of such a panel.
45. I also do not recall whether the NedZink Composite product's reaction to fire was
discussed.
46. I thought Paul Cousins (SIG) was trying to put forward a more expensive cladding
option (perhaps the oil-canning-safe Proteus HR instead of the NedZink NOVA
Composite) so I emailed him {SEA00009240} and said:
Tomas REK
"Strange, I always thought we talked about the Nova Composite sample panel,
as this is the one we would like to pursue the most. A lot based on
affordability. Can you please advise when you would be able to supply a
sample panel made of Nova Composite sheet?"
- 13-
SEA00014278_0013 SEA00014278/13
47. On 18 October 2015, I emailed Paul again and asked him to provide a quotation for
the supply of the Zinc NOVA Composite panels "in line with our design intent
drawings issued previously" {SEA00009240}.
48. I added that:
"We are under pressure from the client regarding the costs with suggestions
flagged of using aluminium. We (and the Planners) would much rather see
zinc up there. I'll be expecting your quote by Tuesday next week as discussed -
Arrange for a sample of the NO V A Composite sheet? A 4 size as minimum for
the beginning although full under window spandrel size panel with returns will
be preferable in near future. Please let me know if I should give call to
Netherlands and ask for A 4 size sample to be put in the envelope. We need it
asap as a tool for negotiations. - Ask KME about the honeycomb sample
arrival. Though as it seems at the moment the cost of this product might
prohibit it from being specified" {SEA00009240}
49. I am not able to recall the details behind this correspondence but I think that I
requested the sample primarily for aesthetic reasons since the email correspondence at
the time was about the appropriate size of the sample.
50. On 22 October 2013 I received a telephone call from a person promoting a
honeycomb composite cladding panel solution. This person, who I later found out,
was Simon Walker, a director at SIG, said Paul Cousins had asked him to
communicate with me directly.
51. I contacted Paul Cousins (SIG) by em ail on 23 October 2013 (picking up on my em ail
to Paul of 18 October 2013, which I understand Paul sent to Simon that day), and
asked him to advise me about this person and give me his details. I also asked Paul to
check whether he had received my request for more information and whether
somebody was looking into the Nova Composite solution {SEA00009352}.
52. On 24 October 2013 I had a telephone conversation with Simon Walker (SIG) and I
sent him an emaillater the same day {SEA00009414} in which I provided him with a
brief summary of the points that we had discussed, including:
Tomas REK - 14-
SEA00014278_0014 SEA00014278/14
"(new) NOVA composite sample was unavailable due to NedZink's decision
not to produce new panels before current (old) NOVA panels were out of
stock.
KME 's sample panel should arrive in w le 28 October 2013
Simon expressed concerns about the stability of interlocking panels (Jmm
thick single sheet) at the heights (66m tall building)";
53. I asked Simon to consider surface fixed NOVA Composite panels for cost and
structural suitability reasons; and whether we should abandon the interlocking panel
idea {SEA00009414}.
54. I attached to my email the information that he had requested, namely wind loads and
an updated detail design intent for the rainscreen 1279 _SEA _(06) 110 _Typical Bay
DRAFT 131024 {SEA00002323}.
55. I told Simon that in the latest cost plan I had included a full ramscreen (incl.
insulation) supply and install figure of £835,900.00, which was arrived at by applying
a rate of £260 to 3,215m2, and I asked him to advise on the costs for the whole job
{SEA00009414}.
56. Simon had suggested a different width Proteus panel (15mm instead of 25mm) and I
told him I would be interested to hear about this panel, subject to the budget
allowance stated above {SEA00009414}.
57. I also confirmed to Simon that I had received from Paul Cousins (SIG) a sample of a
new weathered zinc sheet (llOxllOmm) as part of the 'big brochure'. I said this
looked a bit duller and more textured than the (old) NOVA Composite sample but it
would still be visually acceptable. I asked him whether he could supply a bigger
sample, say A4 size {SEA00009414}.
58. On 25 October 2013 I emailed Simon Walker at SIG, and copied in Mark Harris
(Harley). I told him that we were liaising with Mark Harris at Harley regarding
rainscreen cladding, and that they were envelope installers. I gave Simon Mark's
contact details and I told him that Mark was putting together a quote for the whole
envelope element of the Project (including windows, curtain, wall, etc.) and that he
Tomas REK - 15 -
SEA00014278_0015 SEA00014278/15
would like to ''precise their quote" (by which I think he meant 'refine') based on SIG's
rates. I asked him to copy Mark into his response {SEA00009435}.
59. Simon Walker at SIG responded, copying in Mark Harris (Harley) and Matthew
Irving at KME Architectural. Simon said Matthew Irving had made contact with Mark
Harris and would provide budgets to Harley the following week for the rainscreen
cladding {SEA00009437}.
60. On 1 November 2013 I emailed Bruce Sounes (Studio E) the information that I had
obtained from another cladding specialist CGL Facades regarding the impact results
for the proposed cladding for the base of the Tower {SEA00009567}. The information
concerned zinc panels, not aluminium panels, which was what we were at the time
considering using for the proposal for the Podium. {SEA00009567}.
61. On 4 November 2013 I emailed the sales department ofBCM GRC Limited, which is
a leading supplier of high grade Glass fibre Reinforced Concrete (GRC), and sought
its advice on the feasibility of using GRC cladding for 14 lower level columns, up to
2x2600mm in height (i.e. ground to first floor) {SEA00009636}.
62. On 4 November 2013 I also emailed Mark Harris at Harley and asked him whether he
had had any luck contacting Matthew Irving at KME Architectural regarding budgets
for rainscreen cladding {SEA00009648}. Mark said he hadn't.
63. I therefore emailed Bruce Sounes (Studio E) and told him that, "as you said", Harley
had confirmed that they could not get hold of KME Architectural who did not appear
to want the business {SEA00009658}.
64. On 7 November 2013 Mark Harris (Harley) emailed me, copying in Ray Bailey and
Mike Albiston at Harley, and Bruce Sounes (Studio E), and he said:
Tomas REK
"A re:-,ponse has been received at last from KMH, although I'm not sure it tells
us a great deal. All that has been provided is a base m2 rate for panel only, ex
works. That must have taken all of I 0 minutes to think about, so quite why it's
taken them 2 weeks to provide it, is a mystery to me! All I have been able to do
with this extremely limited information, is take a best guess at wastage,
- 16-
SEA00014278_0016 SEA00014278/16
transport, and support rail costs (in additional to design, installation etc.), and
input into our spreadsheet to give an end figure, on the wall. The result was:
Proteus HR Composite - £282m2.
Quite what finish this is based on, I have no idea (due to lack of information). I
have to say, from a Harley selfish point of view, our preference would be to
use AC'M It's tried & tested (on many Harley projects), and we are confident
in the cost base. That said, we are of course an envelope contractor, and
would be happy to clad the build in the material of choice." {SEA00009736}
65. As I have already said, I do not recall any discussion about the fire rating or fire
performance of the different types of cladding, or the cores or the use of ACM
cladding specifically, or having any discussion about whether they complied with
Building Regulations. I do, however, seem to recall that Harley had mentioned
another high-rise tower project that they had carried out at a development called
Ferrier Point in Canning Town, at which they had used ACM cladding. ACM
cladding was widely used in the industry at the time (i.e. in 2013), and my
understanding was that architects, and the building industry more generally, appeared
to be content with its suitability for buildings over 18m in height.
66. Later that same day, 7 November 2013, Bruce Sounes (Studio E) told Mark Harris
(Harley) that we shared his concerns about the reliability of KME Architectural as a
supplier but "we set out to do zinc and budget permitting it will be a fantastic result".
Bruce, however, said we were "challenged to achieve a 'natural' non-coated cladding
look" and he asked Mark about various different types of cladding and how they
would affect costs {SEA00009764}.
67. Bruce told Mark that our client "is going to want to include options in the tender for
ACM', but that "the standard finish [of ACM] is unfortunate". Bruce said a planner
had told him that the ACM that had been used on a building in Croydon looked like
plastic. Bruce asked Mark to provide rates in his spreadsheet for various different
types of ACM finishes {SEA00009764}:
"(Reynobond- I 'm assuming Duragloss 5 000)
Tomas REK - 17-
SEA00014278_0017 SEA00014278/17
o Metallic std & non-std (Satin gloss)
o Brushed aluminium
o Chameleon
o Anodised Look
( Alucobond)
o Spectra, Sakura 917.
We needn 't consider concealed fixings. More important is achieving the shadow gaps we've detailed
VMQUARTZ KME
EASURE: RATE: VMQUARTZ RATE TOTAL 266 £105.00 £27,930 0 omitted
316 £296.00 £93,536 282 £89,112
1822 £315 £573,930 282 £513,804
832 £160 £133,120 160 £133,120
2367 £425 £1,005,975 425 £1,005,975
968 £390 £377,520 390 £377,520
2144 £315 £675,360 282 £604,608
64 £200 £12,800 200 £12,800
8500 £30 £255,000 30 £255,000
NIA NIA £95,000 £95,000
£3,250,171 £3,086,939
68. These ACM materials, together with Quartz Lime composite polyethylene panels
manufactured by VM Zinc, were included in the NBS Specification as alternative
materials in addition to the Proteus HR panels that were specified in clauses 120 and
123 of the NBS Specification.
69. I do not recall us discussing the Reynobond and Alucobond products, or which type of
ACM core we should use (i.e. polyethylene (PE), Fire Resistant (FR) or A2 (i.e. a
non-combustible core) while I worked on the Project. We included Reynobond and
Alucobond as alternative cladding materials in the NBS Specification but I cannot
recall exactly how this decision was made. I think it may have been made before I
became involved in the Project, or following Bruce's conversation with the planner, as
referred to at paragraph 67 above.
Tomas REK - 18-
SEA00014278_0018 SEA00014278/18
70. I understand from Bruce that our client, KCTMO, wanted to see a comparison with
potentially cheaper ACMs. Mark Harris (Harley) responded that he would contact
Reynobond and Alucobond and obtain rates for the colour choices that Bruce had
selected {SEA00009776}.
71. I received a sample of the Proteus HR panel from Matthew Irving at KME
Architectural, who, according to his email signoff, worked in partnership with
Proteus, in or about 11 November 2013 {SEA00009837}. I don't think I ever actually
met Matthew Irving and I think he merely sent me a sample of the Proteus HR panel
in the post. I remember seeing a physical sample of the Proteus HR panel and I think
this must have been the sample that I received from Matthew.
72. On 15 November 2013 I forwarded Bruce Sounes (Studio E) a copy of the email
correspondence that I had had with BCM GRC Limited regarding the cladding for the
bottom part of the existing reinforced concrete columns using GRC. {SEA00009943}
and he asked me to obtain samples of GRC cladding {SEA00009953}.
73. On 21 November 2013 I forwarded Bruce Sounes (Studio E) the email
correspondence that I had had with Mark Harris at Harley regarding the robustness of
cladding panels and fixing methods and I told him that "I guess this would be further
developed with the contractor later when preferred material is chosen"
{SEA00009996}.
74. In November 2013 I was aware of the looming deadline for the finalisation and issue
of the tender documents which we were preparing and I wanted to get agreement from
Harley that the level of detail currently shown in the design intent was sufficient for
the tender submission.
75. The building contract for the Project was going to be a design and build contract so
there was always a possibility that the building contractor would choose a different
cladding product to the Proteus HR material that we specified for the rainscreen
cladding and the contractor may have decided to use one of the alternative materials
(i.e. Reynobond or Alucobond). I thought that the building contractor was ultimately
responsible for the development of the detailed design and we I SELLP would then
have been able to comment on the building contractor's design proposals.
Tomas REK - 19-
SEA00014278_0019 SEA00014278/19
E FIRE STRATEGY REPORT
76. I was not copied into this email (although I was later copied into the chain), but I note
that on 15 October 2013, Bruce Sounes (Studio E) copied, the fire engineer, Terry
Ashton (Exova) into an email attaching Studio E's latest drawings for the floor plans
of the Podium and asked him if he had any comments on them {SEA00009134}.
77. Part of the fire strategy for the Podium included a smoke ventilation system using
automatic opening vents (AOVs). I understand this was separate to the smoke
ventilation system for the Existing Floors, as set out in Exova's Outline Fire Safety
Strategy. Studio E's drawings {SEA00002497} and {SEA00002603} show the logic of
the AOV ventilation for the Podium, and the location of the four AOV vents it
required, as during the period I was working on the Project.
78. We specified those four AOVs at clause 691 of the NBS Specification, titled
"Automated Opening Vents for Hot Smoke Release" {SEA00000169_0148}. I
understand Bruce Sounes (Studio E) was liaising with Terry Ashton (Exova)
regarding the AOVs, and I also contacted him with some queries as part of our
product investigations:
78.1 On 22 October 2013, I asked Terry Ashton whether the AOVs were required
to discharge hot or cold smoke- he replied either {SEA00009436}; and
78.2 On 25 October 2013, I asked Terry Ashton how the free area requirement for
AOVs should be measured- he replied "compliance with ADB would suffice,
in my view" {SEA00000130}.
79. On 5 November 2013 Bruce Sounes (Studio E) emailed me and asked me to follow up
with Terry at Exova a query which he had raised with him regarding the fire strategy
drawings.
80. Terry emailed me the amended draft fire strategy report with changes highlighted and
with annotated copies of the drawings with fire ratings colour coded {SEA00000134},
{SEA00000135}, {TRl/1} and {TRl/2}.
81. Bruce Sounes (Studio E) provided Terry Ashton (Exova) with his comments on
Exova's fire strategy and pointed out that there were some discrepancies on travel
Tomas REK -20-
SEA00014278_0020 SEA00014278/20
distances. Bruce also pointed out to Terry that he needed his final run through on the
fire strategy drawings. Bruce told Terry that time was running out and we needed to
finalise the fire strategy within a week {SEA00009716}.
82. Terry responded that he was amending the fire strategy report "to marry up with the
fire strategy drawings that you attached to your email" and he needed clarification on
two points in order to be able to complete this task:
82.1.1 "Are the drawings the latest ones?; and
82.1.2 Are the apartments at mezzanine level new or existing apartments?"
{SEA00000133}.
83. I emailed Terry Ashton (Exova) copies of the latest drawings and confirmed that the
apartments at mezzanine level were new. I also confirmed that the nursery resided
there now {SEA00009716}.
84. Terry queried the information which I had sent him ("The drawings are significantly
different to the ones Bruce sent me earlier today but I assume these are the correct
ones!") and I confirmed that the drawings had been discussed and submitted to RBKC
Building Control on 25 October 2013 {SEA00009682}.
85. Also on 5 November 2013 Terry Ashton (Exova) sent the revised fire strategy report
and annotated copies of the drawings with the necessary fire ratings. Later that day, 5
November, Bruce sent Terry further comments on the fire strategy, in particular
including comments on the separating wall and AOV {SEA00009716}.
86. On 6 November 2013 Terry Ashton (Exova) responded with further comments,
including on the AOVs. On the same day I also provided Terry with my comments on
his fire strategy proposal and said:
Tomas REK
"Thank you for the revised proposal. We prefer this one. Can you please
advise:- Whether steel structure supporting the gallery connecting the Boxing
club stair and the existing lift lobbies on Mezzanine and Walkway level need
fire protection. And if yes, then how many minutes. - Can the door connecting
the Community meeting room and the Boxing Club stair be retained when the
meeting room has AOV's and the door is fire rated? -Does the ground floor
- 21-
SEA00014278_0021 SEA00014278/21
office corridor need to be smoke ventilated? Or an AOV for the stair only
would suffice?" {SEA00009716}
87. Terry responded to my queries on the 7th November 2013 {SEA00000143}.
Tomas REK -22-
SEA00014278_0022 SEA00014278/22
F WINDOWS, SMOKE VENT AND KITCHEN EXTRACT
88. I also assisted with the sourcing of materials and the preparation of the NBS
Specification and drawings for windows. I also obtained input from specialist smoke
vent manufacturers and contractors on integrated ventilation systems and kitchen
extract ventilation products.
89. On 2 October 2013 I sent Matt Smith at Max Fordham, the building services
engineering consultants on the Project, a copy of a brochure for a kitchen extract
system and asked him to advise me whether he thought it would be a satisfactory
alternative to the fan that they had proposed. I also asked him to advise on price
comparability {SEA00008858}. Matt Smith emailed me back on the 4 October 2013
and said the system appeared to be a "neat solution" for the kitchen extract, although
he queried how noisy it would be and how easy it would be to repair I replace in 5-10
years' time {SEA00008991}.
90. On 3 October 2013 I emailed a company which specialised in smoke and climate
control and external louvres, the Colt Group, and asked them about one of their
products, a Kameleon Natural Facade Ventilator. I explained that as result of a
reconfiguration we needed to smoke ventilate some of the new lobbies and rooms to
the external space of the building through new openings in the fa<;ade. I told them
that we would like to specify their Kameleon Natural Facade Ventilator because of its
unobtrusive facade appearance and its ability to provide daylight when glazed. I also
asked them a number of questions and for a cost comparison with another of their
products, Coltlite Louvre windows {SEA00008961}.
91. On 15 October 2013 I sent Bruce Sounes (Studio E) a CAD (Computer Aided Design)
file with an elevation drawing marked up with the AOV based on the Colt's system's
tilting outward opening flaps {TRl/3}.
92. In October 2013 I started drawing up the window design using Schueco products. On
18 October 2013, I emailed Gavin Snowdon at Schueco UK Limited (Schueco)
regarding curtain walling for the Podium. I told him that I wanted to start drawing up
the design using their products and needed his assistance in selecting the right
solutions {SEA00009245}. I also told him that I would leave the windows which he
had started looking into with my colleague Paddy Glennon for another day, and I
Tomas REK -23-
SEA00014278_0023 SEA00014278/23
asked him whether the Kameleon Natural Facade Ventilator and Coltlite Louvre
window were compatible with Schueco products.
93. At this time I was also obtaining further information and quotes from the Colt Group
regarding smoke vents and Schueco windows, and from Smoke Control Solutions
regarding AOVs which were to be located in the curtain walling for the Podium.
94. On 22 October 2013 Gavin Snowdon (Shueco) provided me with more information,
including preliminary static calculations for the fa<;ade, with recommendations for
high traffic doors, access control solutions, and smoke and heat exhaust ventilation
systems (SHEVS) vents. He said that Schueco had their own range of SHEVS vents
and he asked me whether my query was about a hot smoke, cold smoke or purely
ventilation set up. I told him that the vents would need to be able to vent hot smoke
out of the Tower and I attached a draft mark-up of the elevation drawing number
1279-SK094 {SEA00002314} showing the AOV on elevations showing the
distribution of the smoke vents. I included some dimensions on the drawing,
including:
94.1 530mm xl985mm, which were the dimensions of the vent set between
mullions and transoms of the curtain wall.
94.2 905mm x 580mm & lOOOm x 1325mm, which were the dimensions of the
window vent outer frame.
95. I also asked Gavin Snowdon (Shueco) to confirm the maximum opemng angle
considering the actuator capability and the size of the vent. I thought chain actuators
would be preferable as linear ones would take up too much space internally. I asked
Gavin whether the indicated required free areas (0.4m2) were achievable with the
current design {SEA00009342}.
96. On 23 October 2013 Peter Lawrence from the Colt Group contacted me and he
confirmed that the Kameleon Natural Facade Ventilator was not available anymore.
He recommended the Coltlite Louvre instead. I asked him for the 'free' area and cost
calculations for seven vents {SEA00009353}.
Tomas REK -24-
SEA00014278_0024 SEA00014278/24
97. On 25 October 2013 I emailed Stuart Pollard, the specification manager at Hydro
Building Systems Limited (Hydro) and asked him about the dimensions and hanging
options for a proprietary window called "Technal EVO 65". Technal is a Hydro brand.
I also asked him for brochures, samples and options for the window with ironmongery
and whether he would be able to advise on "the feasibility of our smoke vents
proposal" and provide us with further input on a range of technical questions, and for
a quote {SEA00009429}.
98. On 28 October 2013 Bruce Sounes (Studio E) forwarded me a copy of the following
email query that Claire Williams, Project Manager at KCTMO had sent to Chweechen
Lim (Senior Cost Consultant) at Artelia UK, and he asked me to respond:
"We met Carillion yesterday, talking about grant funding for various energy
efficient schemes. It seems to be that you need to have the insulation and
windows higher than building regs rating to get grant. I am clear that our
cladding is an enhancement to attract grant, but the windows need to be 'B' or
'A ' rated to get the additional funding. Can you please confirm this is in the
performance spec?" {SEA00009465}.
99. The following day, 29 October 2013 after I had checked the detail with the window
manufacturer, Schueco, I emailed Chweechen Lim at Artelia UK and confirmed that I
would include BREEAM Domestic rated B windows in the NBS Specification.
{SEA000094 7 4}.
100. On 30 October 2013 I also emailed Stuart Pollard (Hydro), and asked him for advice
on AOV vents and mullion sizes for curtain walls, and for a NBS specification for the
windows and for the curtain wall {SEA00009495}.
101. On 30 October 2013 I emailed Bruce Sounes (Studio E) and circulated a summary of
the comments that I had received from window and AOV manufacturers. I suggested
we abandon Schueco windows and instead go with Technal openable windows. I also
confirmed that I had corresponded with the Smoke Ventilation (SHEV) Company,
AOV Systems and Colt Info regarding smoke vents {SEA00009493}.
102. On 4 November 2013 I also contacted Matt Smith at Max Fordham about the
BREEAM rating at the Project. I told him that smoke detectors were not due to be
Tomas REK -25-
SEA00014278_0025 SEA00014278/25
fitted to the flats on the Existing Floors and queried whether this was contrary to
BREEAM Hea 06 Safety {SEA00009659}.
103. On 5 November 2013, Matt Smith at Max Fordham, responded to various queries I
had raised regarding ventilation and smoke detectors for BREEAM ratings and he
provided me with his comments on certain of the queries that I had raised. Matt stated
that the flats on the Existing Floors would obtain a first credit under BREEAM Hea
05 Ventilation if a kitchen extract was installed (the existing bathroom extract system
for the Existing Floors was being retained). He said new smoke detectors were a
requirement under Hea 06 Safety, and as this wasn't currently allowed for the credit
would not be achieved {SEA00009684}.
104. On 6 November 2013 I emailed Bruce Sounes (Studio E) a short summary of the
progress I had made with Hydro and I set out when they were due to provide further
information regarding a window sample, curtain wall details and a NBS specification
for the windows and for the curtain wall {SEA00009689}.
105. On 6 November 2013 I also emailed Laurence Ward, an architectural advisor at
Renson Fabrications Limited, a manufacturer of louvre panels, ventilation and solar
shading products, and asked him about the specification of Loggia louvre panels fixed
over the openable window vents {SEA00009690}.
106. I also sent Arthur Lewis Nunes at Max Fordham a drawing (drawing 1279 _SEA_(06)
113 _Plan Detail) showing windows and asked him:
"You will see that the position of the adjacent windows limits the length of the
wall. I have returned the insulation. Would this be satisfactory in lieu of your
recommendation?" {SEA00009717}.
107. Later that day, 6 November 2013, Arthur Lewis Nunes (Max Fordham) confirmed that
the proposed detail would be suitable {SEA00009719}.
108. On 6 November 2011, Stuart Pollard (Hydro) sent me an NBS specification for
windows and curtain walling {SEA00002422} and further information on curtain wall
solutions {SEA00001952}. He suggested the curtain walling material should be
"WICONA WICTEC 50 Capped curtain walling" and he attached a brochure for this
Tomas REK -26-
SEA00014278_0026 SEA00014278/26
material to his email {SEA00009815}. He also suggested that the aluminium windows
should either be "WICLINE 65 evo" or "WICLINE 75 evo". I included Stuart
Pollard's draft specification for windows and curtain walling into our draft NBS
Specification and on 11 November I asked him to double-check that the curtain wall
mullions sizes.
109. On 7 November 2013 Bruce Sounes (Studio E) copied me into his email to Bruce
Inker at Specialised Panels, who were suppliers of plywood and timber. Bruce asked
Mr Inker to forward him the specification and indicative costs for "15&18 mm Birch
faced ply, pressure impregnated Class 0" {SEA00009768}, which he said we were
considering using for the window reveals and cills (see P20/240A Plywood Window
Reveals and Cills).
110. On 8 November 2013 Bruce Inker (Specialised Panels) responded:
"Thank you for the enquiry for Birch Plywood FR Treated, I have assumed the
panels will long grain.
Birch Throughout WBP Plywood BlEB FSC or PEFC, FR treated with
Osmose FirePro to Euro Class B to EN ISO 11925 (Ignitability Test) & BS EN
13823:2002 (Single Burning item Test).
The above specification will cover both the ply and the FR treatment, I am not
sure what finish you require on the face, but would 1 would suggest it is
lacquered in the factory with a water based coating, so you could also add;
Coated to one side with a water based clear (Or if shade is needed please add)
Lacquer, to achieve a (Matt, Satin or Gloss) finish. As a price indication based
on a 2440 x 1220 panel treated to Huro Class B 15mm@ £65.00 Each 18mm
@ £78.00 Each Add £20.00 mt2 for Lacquering" {SEA00009790}.
111. I included the plywood panelling in NBS Specification {SEA00009894}. We
ultimately ended up specifying a Class 1 (using the UK testing methods) or Class C
s3, d2 (using the European testing methods) 15 mm thick Birch faced plywood for the
window reveals and cills.
Tomas REK -27-
SEA00014278_0027 SEA00014278/27
112. On 11 November 2013 I emailed Stuart Pollard at Hydro and thanked him for the
NBS specification for windows and curtain walling. I confirmed that I had included
his suggestion in our specifications {SEA00009815} and I asked him to 'double check'
the size of the curtain wall mullions.
113. The same day, I also discussed the details of the smoke vents with Stuart Pollard at
Hydro and I sent him a number of drawings and I referred him to a number of
outstanding queries. I told Stuart that we were looking at issuing tender
documentation by the end of that week (i.e. Friday, 15 November 2013) and I needed
"a coordinated solution by then". I asked Stuart whether he would be able to come in
with a sample during the week {SEA00009810}.
114. On 12 November 2013 I told Bruce Inker (Specialised Panels) that "We are thinking
of specifYing treated plywood for the window cill and reveal cladding". I sent him a
draft drawing 1279 SEA (06) 110 Typical Bay DRAFT 131112 and told him that we
intended to retain the existing timber cladding and fix the new one over it. I also
asked Bruce about the thickness of the birch plywood:
"- 12mm -do you reckon this would be sufficient? - can the boards be factory
finished (with lacquer on top surface and edges)? - can the edges be 2mm
chamfered ? - would brad head nails be sufficient way of fixing? - The surface
will need pass Class I (using the UK testing methods) or Class C-s3, d2 (using
the European testing methods)" {SEA00009876}.
115. On 13 November 2013 I also emailed Bruce Sounes (Studio E) and I confirmed that I
had included plywood panelling in NBS Specification clause K13/120A for the
window reveals and cills {SEA00009894}.
116. On 14 November 2013 I emailed Bruce Sounes and Paddy Glennon (both Studio E)
regarding a window mock-up for the resident presentation in the NBS Specification,
saying that Stuart Pollard (Hydro) was able to bring along a sample of the window by
the following Tuesday {SEA00009916}.
117. On 27 November 2013 I also contacted Ben Campbell at Armstrong World Materials
about using their ceiling system for the external ceilings of the undercroft and I
Tomas REK -28-
SEA00014278_0028 SEA00014278/28
included these materials in our draft NBS Specification at clause 116, K40
demountable suspended ceilings {TRl/4-5}.
118. Stuart Pollard (Hydro) also advised me that it was possible to have a hole in the glass
panel to take an extract vent but that both panes would need to be toughened glass.
Stuart told me the position of the hole would be important and that the best option was
to put it further into the glass and not near the edge. He said Hydro would however
need to know the position and size of hole and get it checked fully by the glass
supplier. If the glass was insulated on the back face then this would be cut to allow the
extractor to fit with necessary clearances {SEA00010080}.
119. On 29 November 2013 I sent the internal team at SELLP copies of my chain of email
correspondence regarding the window dimensions, U-values and smoke vents
{SEA00010079}.
120. On 11 December 2013 Mark Harris at Harley told us that it had started receiving
formal tender enquiries from the main contractors tendering on the Project.
121. Mark said he had noticed that in our NBS Specification we had specified Wicona
windows and curtain walling. He said Harley was happy to supply a Wicona system
but that it was not a system it was particularly familiar with. He said over the past
few years Harley had used Schueco or Metal Technology windows and that it had
used Metal Technology windows on the Ferrier Point development.
122. Mark asked whether we would have any objections to it pricing an alternative to
Wicona. He said he appreciated that he should request this information via the main
contractor but he thought a quick email to us would be much quicker as he needed to
start sending out pricing enquiries before Christmas {SEA00010147}.
123. On 11 December 2013 Bruce Sounes (Studio E) explained that "It's a straightforward
question and answer but it will need to be circulated via the standard channels. I
might not be able to respond direct" {SEA00010148}. Mark Harris (Harley) said this
wasn't a problem {SEA00010149}.
Tomas REK -29-
SEA00014278_0029 SEA00014278/29
G CAVITY BARRIERS
124. In the NBS Specification we specified Lamatherm CW-RSH60 cavity barriers, which
were manufactured by Downer Cladding Systems Limited. I do not recall how Studio
E sourced these cavity barriers but my drawings show cavity barriers at the floor and
party walls. I think I discussed cavity barriers with Harley but they may have been
included in our drawings before Harley and Studio E were in contact in autumn 2013.
125. I do not recall discussing the fire performance of the cavity barriers and where they
should be located. I also do not remember whether the fire engineer informed us that
the cavity barriers at the lines of compartment walls and floors should have the same
fire resistance as the compartment element itself The name of the Lamatherm product
that we specified, namely CW-RSH60, suggests that it has 60min fire resistance
('RSV60') but in the NBS Specification we only required 30 min fire resistance
('30/30 to BS476, Part 20:1987 and BS EN 1366-4:2006'). I cannot explain the reason
for this discrepancy. I do not recall discussing the fire resistance of cavity barriers
with Harley, the SELLP design team or anyone else. That, of course, does not mean it
didn't take place.
126. My drawing of a typical bay window {SEA00008683} suggests cavity barriers at the
windows reveals. 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 manner also below the window, in the so called spandrel panel. I also do not
recall whether a continuous steel angle supporting the cill of the windows was deemed
as a cavity barrier. I have had a look at my drawings and this detail may have been an
inherited geometry from drawing RE 140 dated 11 September 2012 {SEA00001586}
and SK085 dated 17 September2013 {SEA00002135}.
Tomas REK -30-
SEA00014278_0030 SEA00014278/30
H BREEAM I INSULATION
127. BREEAM is an established method of assessmg, rating, and certifying the
sustainabili ty of buildings.
128. Before I was involved in the Project, Syntegra Limited (Syntegra) had produced a
BREEAM pre-assessment report and Max Fordham had produced a Sustainability and
Energy Statement. During my involvement in the Project, I liaised with Syntegra and
Max Fordham to obtain further information to assist Studio E in preparing the NBS
Specification (eg. to ensure the BREEAM requirements were met) and also to ask
them to update any materials we needed to issue with the tender documentation ( eg.
the BREEAM pre-assessment document).
129. Before I contacted Syntegra, on 25 October 2013, I familiarised myself with some of
the BREEAM draft pre-assessment scoring comments, and emailed Bruce Sounes
(Studio E) a number of comments to check my understanding given his experience
with the BREEAM considerations for the Project {TRl/6-7}. One of my comments
was "Are we challenging (reducing) amount of insulation?" as it seemed "MF went
for 'ott' U values to achieve maximum credits available for Thermal Performance
Criteria". I assume that I discussed this with Bruce, but I do not recall what we
discussed specifically.
130. Later that day, I contacted Neelam Paranjpe (Syntegra) and asked him about
Syntegra's existing BREEAM pre-assessment and whether they had assumed that
"twice as much new insulation than existing" would be installed {SEA00009440}.
131. Neelam Paranjpe (Syntegra) responded on 29 October 2013, and said regarding the
insulation "if we can make sure that all new insulation in the build (insulation in
walls, roofs etc. as well as the building services insulation is A+ rated we will achieve
the required credits)". He also asked to see the tender documents being created, so he
could have a quick skim through "to make sure all BREEAM requirements are
included' as "we are very much at the brink of the GOOD rating and so we need to
make sure we do not lose any credits" {SEA00009475}.
132. On 17 November 2013 Bruce Sounes (Studio E) asked me to chase Neelam Paranjpe
at Syntegra for an update for the tender {SEA00009955}. On 19 November 2013
Tomas REK - 31-
SEA00014278_0031 SEA00014278/31
{SEA00010012} I sent Neelam a summary of BREEAM categories and scoring as
shown in the draft NBS Specification at that time and asked him for comments. At
that time my summary of the NBS Specification for the external wall was as follows:
Tomas REK
Mat 01 Environmental Impact o[Materials
Roof"
No alterations are proposed to the existing roof
External Walls - rainscreen cladding:
Type: drained and back ventilated
Backing wall: Reinforced concrete, brickwork, SFS
Thermal Insulation: Zero ODP rigid polyisocyanurate insulation board
ERE Green Guide rating A+. Celotex FR5000 aluminium foil faced both
sides. Conductivity: 0.021WimK. 100mm thick for columns. 150mm thick
for walls/ spandrel panels.
Secondary support/framing system: Aluminium vertical rails with fixing
brackets on thermal break spacers.
RAINSCREEN CLADDING: TO COLUMNS & EXTERNAL ENVELOPE
OF MAIN ENTRANCE C'ANOPY:
PROTEUS HR honeycomb rainscreen panel by KME Architectural
Solutions
RAINSCREEN CLADDING: [GENERALLY FIRST FOUR FLOORS
ELEVATIONS & INTERNAL ENVELOPE OF MAIN ENTRANCE
C'ANOPY & C'ANOPIES IN GENERAL:
Pvdf paint finish coil-coated aluminium CGL Wallplank System
rainscreen cladding Alternatives to be considered:
Reynobond- Duragloss 5000:
o Metallic std & non-std (Satin gloss)
o Brushed aluminium
o Chameleon
o Anodised Look
Alucobond:
0 Spectra, Sakura 917
-32-
SEA00014278_0032 SEA00014278/32
133. On 25 November 2013, Neelam Paranjpe (Syntegra) responded that he would get an
updated assessment report sheet to us by the next day {SEA00010012}.
134. I included the standard NBS specification precedent H92 for rainscreen cladding
which required the building contractor to comply with the "CWCT Standard for
Systemised Building Envelopes". I did not specify bespoke design or fire performance
requirements for the thermal insulation.
135. Paragraph 6.6.2 (Insulation materials) of the CWCT Standard provides:
"Insulation in walls of buildings with a storey more than 18m above ground
level should be of limited combustibility."
136. Therefore, I would have expected tenderers to have ensured that insulation in walls
above 18m complied with the specified CWCT performance requirements (i.e. were
material of limited combustibility), before submitting their tender returns.
137. As far as I can recall, the decision to use Celotex FR5000 product was made before
my involvement on the Project. For example, the Max Fordham Sustainability and
Energy Statement, submitted to planning and dated August 2012, refers to Celotex
FR5000 in tables 2-2, 2-3 and 2-4 {SEA00006006}. The build-ups shown in these
tables are similar to the final NBS Specification that we issued for thermal insulation
which was 150mm thick Celotex FR 5000 insulation foil faced both sides and 80mm
Celotex FR 5000 insulation for the columns (see Clause 776 of NBS Specification
{SEA00000169}).
138. I do not recall any conversations or discussions with SIG, Celotex, Wicona or anyone
else in the office on the fire performance of Celotex FR5000 insulation or about
whether it complied with Part B of the Building Regulations and should be used
above 18m. That does not of course mean I did not discuss this with them but, if I
did, then I simply cannot remember having this discussion.
139. As I have said, I think the decision to specify Celotex FR5000 insulation had been
made prior to my involvement since it figured in Max Fordham's Sustainability and
Energy Statement which was prepared in 2012.
Tomas REK -33-
SEA00014278_0033 SEA00014278/33
140. After I left SELLP I was involved in the design of a high-rise building where Celotex
FR5000 was also specified. On that project Exova had produced a desktop study
comparing the rainscreen fa<;ade cladding with Celotex' s tested sample and they had
concluded that it complied with BR135.
Tomas REK -34-
SEA00014278_0034 SEA00014278/34
Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I am willing for this witness
statement to form part of the evidence before the Inquiry and to be published on the Inquiry's
website .
Signature ............... \..::: ................... ~ ............... ........................................ . Name TomasRek
![Rek Service Recognition[1]](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/55d1d8c5bb61ebd3128b45cc/rek-service-recognition1.jpg)
