WITNESS STATEMENT...Paul Hanson was also a senior surveyor in my department and was the fire...

RESTRICTED (when complete) MG11C

WITNESS STATEMENT

Criminal Procedure Rules, r 27. 2; Criminal Justice Act 1967, s. 9; Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, s.SB

URN

Statement of: John Hoban

Age if under 18: Over 18 (ifover1Binsert 'over1B') Occupation: Senior Building Surveyor

This statement (consisting of 13 pages) each signed by me) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false, or do not believe to be true.

Witness Signature: .. oo .oo. 00 0 00000.000 00000 .oo o ooooo oo ·· 00 0 00 .oo. 00000000 .oo. 00000 .oo ......... oo . ............ oo .. Date:

This statement relates to the fire which occurred at Grenfell Tower on the Tuesday the 14th June 2017 in the

Royal London Borough Kensington and Chelsea. During this statement, I will be discussing the position I held

within the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Council as a Senior Building Control Officer, and my

duties at the time of the regeneration project of Grenfell Tower.

During my statement, I will be mentioning a number of colleagues. John Alien who was the Head Building

Control and also the person I reported to. Jose Anon, who acted as John Alien's deputy when he was not in.

Parvinder Verdee and Amir Fardouee were also senior building control officers and worked in my department.

Paul Hanson was also a senior surveyor in my department and was the fire regulations surveyor for the council

in Building Control. All of the afore-mentioned surveyors were on a higher grade than myself.

I started my career in building control in 1979 with the Greater London Council, and then I transferred to the

Royal Borough on 1st of April 1986. For the first 12 years of my employment with the council I was dealing with

the Chelsea area of the borough, and then I was transferred to deal with various other districts as instructed by

the head of building control when directed to do so. I have provided a map of the Royal Borough of Kensington

and Chelsea to assist with my description of my areas I covered, which I exhibit as JEH/01. I shall make

reference to this map during my statement. I was responsible for administering various sections of the borough.

My final area was from approximately the Cromwell Road and then Northward up Victoria Road the Eastern

boundary of my area, which is Queens Gate wWard, half way along there, and then I travelled Northwards all

the way up to West Way. I dealt with everything, building regulation matters, from Victoria Road and the

boundary with Westminster, all the way up to the West Way on one side, and the boundary with Hammersmith,

from the Cromwell Road all the way up to the West Way,. tThat was my final area.

There was a major restructuring within my department about four years ago, in 2013, when the department was

restructured and there was a reduction of staff as a consequence. My area just prior to that changed, it was

approximately from Kensington High Street and it tied in with the borough of Westminster and then as far as

the Camden Ward, which is approximately up to Holland Park in the Camden Ward. I was also doing the

Pembridge Ward and Colville Ward, and then once that happened John Alien, who was the major projects

surveyor, became the head of building control so he was dealing with major projects in the borough and when

John Allan was not in I reported to his deputy Jose Anon.

Witness Signature: .. 00.00. 00.00. 00.00. 00.00. 00.00 00 •• 00.00. 00.00. 00.00. 00.00. 00.00 . ...... . ............ oo ........... .. oo ..................... 00 .... ..

Signature Witnessed by Signature: .. oo. 00 .oo.oo. 00000.00.000 00000. ooooo oo · .oo . ooooo . 00 .oo . oo .00 . 00. ooooo oo ...... .. oo . ................... .. ..

Page 1 of 13

99/12 RESTRICTED (when complete)

HOB00000219 0001 HOB00000219/1


Continuation of Statement of: I started working for the council in 1986 as senior building control officer the Royal Borough of Kensington and

Chelsea, and resigned as a senior building control officer a week before Christmas in 2016. I had to give three

months' notice, my last official day at work was the 31st March 2017. I had five weeks' holiday owed to me, but

I went back to hand in my telephone and card after that date, I can't remember when I handed my computer

back.

I resigned because I had enough, I was finding it impossible to do the job the way I was trained to do. lt was the

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea who paid my salary. I worked in a senior role but didn't have anyone

working for me, the exception being 'Qas' Waqaas Rashid please note that Qas's full name is Waqaas Rashid

and Qas is an abbreviation of his first name, which people including my-self would use when addressing him

and/ or referring to him in conversations, who was a graduate, who I took out to explain things to, and also the

mentoring I did with junior members of staff. Parvinder and Amir were also senior building control officers, but

they also dealt with dangerous structures and so got paid more than me. Jose was a principle and was a team

leader. The structure changed when John Allan was head of building control.

My qualifications are, an Ordinary certificate in Building Studies, Higher certificate in Building Studies, a member of

The Charted Association of Building Engineers but only an associated member, I am not a full member as I am not

fully qualified. When I first joined the Greater London Council I was on a training programme for about nine months

where I attended training seminars covering regulations two or three times a week. I had interview boards and had a

mentor and acted like his PA in the early stages of my career, and then when I joined Kensington we had seminars

and I would attend training courses from time to time. Prior to the demise of the GLC (Greater London Council) there

were separate regulations for Inner London called the London Building Acts and constructional by-laws. When that

was abolished we then went to the national regulations and then universal guidelines for England and Wales, but

there were still parts of the London Building Act that was in force.

I and the other surveyors dealt with perhaps the not so big projects, and then in November 2013 John Alien gave me

the Academy and the Leisure Centre and also please note that the fu ll names for Academy and the Leisure Centre [

afore-mentioned] is the Kensington Aldridge Academy and Kensington Leisure Centre Kensington Albridge Aldridge

Academy and Kensington Leisure Centre. John had been working on it and contractors had commenced the actual

building works at that stage, and I was instructed to deal with them. Grenfell Tower came along at a later stage. John

Alien and Paul Hansen did the initial meetings regarding Grenfell Tower. My area was there and I had those projects

to deal with at that stage. Later on Hilary Wyatt who was the person was dealing with Netting Dale and Norland

Wards left, and I was instructed to deal with her area at a later stage at that time, I can't give you a date, those

records can be found with the council. And then as time progressed the person that was dealing with Holland Ward,

Celia Burt, left and again I was instructed by John Alien to deal with that area, plus my other area. John Alien's

deputy, Jose', was dealing north of West Way and there was a gentleman in our office that dealt with this area. I'll

explain the wards, Jose would have been dealing with part of the Brompton and Hans Town, Queens Gate and

Abingdon Wards, and Parvinda Verdee dealt with the rest of Brompton, Hans Town, Courttfield, Redcliffe and Earls

Court. And Amir Fardouee dealt with Stanley, Royal Hospital and the Chelsea riverside area. At that stage I believe

John was still dealing with a number of major projects, but he handed those over to various people as time

progressed. Then unfortunately Colin Ryan passed away, he was quite a young man, and his area was divided up

and that's when I got that final bit of the area, which was half of Queens Gate. I can't remember if Adbingdon Ward

was given solely to me or whether it was divide up between Amir, Parvinder and myself, but I was certainly doing

projects along there as well as my other duties. I dealt with projects in Netting Dale, Norland, Colville, Pembridge,

Holland, Camden and parts of

Witness Signature: ............................... ..................... ............ ............ .. ........................ ...... .... .......... .. ..... .

HOB00000219 0002 HOB00000219/2

Signature Witnessed by Signature: ........... .. .................. . ........... . ..... . ................................ ...................... .. Page 2 of 13


Continuation of Statement of: Abingdon, I may have dealt with all of it but I'm not certain. Colin passed away and we shared out his work and

I had part of Queens Gate area.

I would now like to discuss my main duties, which I take from my statement, exhibited a JEH/02.

My main duties comprised of dealing with building regulations applications within the designated area of the

borough, for which I have been instructed to administer. My responsibilities include vetting of applications,

attending meetings both on site and in the office, as is necessary to discharge the Councils obligations and

functions under the Building Act and Building Regulations and other applicable statutory instruments, for which

the building control officer was responsible for administering. These involved writing reports, schedules, site

notes and emails, taking telephone conversations and attending meetings and training seminars, in order to

carry out my duties as a senior building control officer.

My duties also included giving general and specific advice and guidance in relation building regulation matters

and other associated matters relating to building projects, and that advice was given to residents, architects,

surveyors, Councillors, builders, solicitors and other members of the general public.

I also gave advice and guidance to junior members of staff within the building control office and in the past, I

mentored a number of surveyors, I trained them. I also gave guidance and advice to other colleagues within the

Planning Office and other officers in the council when requested to do so. For example, if a planner was dealing with

an application and they were concerned about the layout of the building, and it was in my area, they would come and

asked for general advice if there were any building regulation implications when they felt it was necessary.

Sometimes if there was other people carrying out work that worked for The Tennant Management Organisation or

council projects and they wanted some general advice on building regulation matters, they would ask to see me, and

we would go through the scheme and I would give them general advice and this would even include how to make an

application in some cases because certain types of building required you to complete a Full Plans application, and

other applications you go the Building Notice route. I was aware certain buildings may have particular interest to the

planning department and I would advise those particular people to say please consult the planners. The Tennant

Management Organisation, were the managers of Grenfell Tower.

I also dealt with complaints and inquiries from architects and surveyors, builders, solicitors and other members of the

public. To explain that in a greater detail architects may phone up and may have a particular question about the

regulations or a resident could and say they were concerned about building work at a property or a cracked wall or

something like that. Or they may be thinking of doing some work to their house and wanted to know if they needed to

make an application under The Building Regulations. I would give them advice and go through the process with

them, for example if I got a question about knocking two flats in to one, and I would explain the process of contacting

the planners to see if it was necessary to get a planning application and then I would point out the documents for

those particular regulations. For example, material change use or if they were changing a window in a house I would

explain the process of how you could about that and whether you would need to contact the council or an approved

inspector. I shall explain a bit further with regards approved inspectors, they are an alternative to the local authority

for dealing with building regulations applications. I also carried out discoveries of unauthorised works, say for

example there was somebody building work and they hadn't made an application I would go in and see what they

were doing and do the appropriate paperwork. Towards the end of my career at the council they actually employed

one of my colleagues, Afshan Mirza that worked in administration Witness Signature:

Signature Witnessed by Signature: ........... .. .................. . ......................................................................... . Page 3 of 13

HOB00000219 0003 HOB00000219/3

1 99/12 RESTRICTED (when complete)

Continuation of Statement of: to become an enforcement surveyor, so he was going out and doing discoveries. He wasn't actually dealing

with the construction side but he was finding out and going and checking the Initial Notices where the works

had started. Initial Notices are where a private building control company are dealing with the works and they

are required to submit the application form Initial Notice in at least 5 days before works commence on site. My

colleague would go and see if the works had started and if so he would do the appropriate paperwork and send

it back to them and they would have to come to the local authority.

I also investigated dangerous structures in the normal working day and took the appropriate action in

accordance with my conditions of service because I chose not to become a Dangerous Structure Surveyor. At

one stage, it was surveyors with a certain status that were obliged to do that.

Further duties included liaising and consulting with other colleagues, departments, authorities, and other

statutory bodies when required under the building regulations applications and other associated matters.

The Building Regulations and Building aActs are there to ensure health and safety of persons in and around

buildings, and there are various approved documents that deal with various aspects of construction. For

example, Part A was structure, which deals with foundations. Part B is Fire Safety, which deals with means of

escape and warning, internal fire spread of lining and structure and then B4 covers external fire spread and

finally B5 covers access and facility for the fire services. Part C deals with moisture penetration into the

building. Part D deals with toxic materials. Part E deals with sound, part F is ventilation, part G is sanitary

accommodation, H deals with drainage, J deals with Heat Producing Appliances, K deals with Protection and

Stairs which is protection from falling. Each part of these particular approved documents provided one way of

complying with the substantive requirements of the regulations. These could be used to show compliance has

been met, or alternative methods could be used such as British Standards or using a Fire Engineering solutions

such as for fire. There are many ways to show compliance, but there are various British Standards and guides,

for example with part K the Approved document could be used to show compliance or use various British

Standards codes of practice in order to meet requirements.

Further to my duties. After John Alien gave me the job I was charged with the building regulations application. This

meant I would attend meetings with our fire surveyor, Paul Hanson, in our office and then the work started. We would

have drawings and then we would vet them, and then give advice and schedules as well of observations on the

drawings sent in. These would then go back to the architect who submitted them. The meetings we attended would

have the contractors present and various consultants. Originally John Alien and Paul Hanson attended the meetings,

I'm not sure how many. While at a meeting I met a gentleman by the name of Bruce who was the an architect for

Studio E, I can't remember his surname but it began with an S. Paul Hanson and I had a meeting and then provided

a schedule of what we felt were the important points, and then Bruce went further and discussed that with whoever it

was he needed to. Following on from that Paul Hanson and myself had a number of meetings, I can't remember how

many, with Neil Crawford who works for Studio E Architects and various consultant specialist dealing with fire. We

went through all the various documents, but with particular reference to Part B Fire Safety. I then visited the site

during the demolition because we had received the application. I had emails from time to time containing queries and

if they related to Part B or B5 I would send them to Paul Hanson for his observations and then write back. I would

also liaise with the Fire Authority and update them that council had vetted the scheme and what we considered

acceptable and our conditions, in order Witness Signature:

Signature Witnessed by Signature: ........... .......................... .. ................ .............. .. ........ .......................... . Page 4 of 13


HOB00000219 0004 HOB00000219/4


Continuation of Statement of: to get their observations. There were a number of consultations with the Fire Authority on these matters as a

result of the scheme changing from time to time. The council and building control would provide marked up

drawings of certain matters and would then send them back to the architect, who would then pass them around

accordingly. I would use those drawings at the end as a template to check the means of escape. In relation to

the drawings, in particular for a big a scheme, I would check them in a paper format and initial and date them

when I have checked them and would use a highlighter to areas I wanted to draw attention to. I would them

look at all the draws as necessary.

The application in relation to Grenfell Tower was for refurbishing a certain amount of the building. This included

putting in a new boxing club, a number of new flats at the lower levels, a nursery, in the main stairway and new

cupboards were added that contained services. New cladding system added to the outside of the building,

there was also a new smoke vent and ventilation system and in the existing flats new hot water systems.

The process of the application is that once it had been submitted I would have vetted the scheme and provided

a schedule to be processed by the administration team. I then have completed a consultation form in order to

hand that over to Paul Hanson to deal with. The structural aspect was not submitted until the work was on

going. Generally, the structural application should be submitted before but there it is not a requirement.

In relation to the structural application submission, this was done by a firm of consultancy engineers, which will be

recorded on the Councils system when that was submitted, I can't remember when that was? The information was

sent on a disc format and then I completed a particular form, after which it was sent out to the councils checking

engineers in order to review the scheme and provide observations. They would then consult with the consulting

engineers directly and provide a copy of their observations to the council so that I was aware of it.

The structural application would include the design calculations and drawings of what the refurbishment works were.

lt detailed that they wanted to take down walls and wanted to introduce steel works in various areas, which altered

the structure of the building in accordance with the approved documents I have previously mentioned.

In relation to the cladding we had a meeting and went through what the Approved Document said and it was

stated the contractors would follow the guidance of Approved Document B. However, if this was not the case

then they would have to make a separate application to the council saying they are not using that document,

instead we are doing a desk top study by, which would be completed by the manufactures or the architects or

the installers. If this is what the contractor wanted to do, they would then put a case forward us or the council

and then I would review it and make observations. Or, if the contractors used the Fire Engineering Solutions

then the Fire Engineer would submit an application to the office, alternatively they can use BR135 Code of

Practice which covers the four choices for the cladding

I shall explain the four choices. Option 1. Approved Document B sets out the standards that the materials used are in

accordance with that Document B. Option 2. This is to be considered when a desk top study is completed. This is

when an architect, the manufacturer or the installer completes or produces a report stating what is going to be used

which is then sent to Building Control through me, I would then get observations from our Fire Surveyor. Option 3. If

they had decided to go down the Fire Engineering solution route they would put a report together which would have

been submitted to me and I would then send it on to Paul Hanson and then we both looked at, but I'm not sure if we

would have consulted with the Fire Brigade or not, I will have to ask Paul Hanson

Witness Signature: ....... ............ ......... ... ......... ............ . ........... . ......... ........... ............. .. ....................... ..... ..

Signature Witnessed by Signature: ........... .. .............................. ...................... ............. ............... .. .......... . Page 5 of 13


HOB00000219 0005 HOB00000219/5

MG11C

Continuation of Statement of: or John Allan. Option 4. BR135 Code of Practice is another route of showing adequate evidence that it

complies with the Building Regulations which is referred to in Approved Document B.

In relation to the cladding and what information was given to the council, I would have to research the records

to find out what information was given in terms of the material and the changes. We were given certain

information, which are within emails. I remember receiving one email that went to Paul Hanson first which came

via the architect. I believe Paul answered the question which was to do with the fire time in relation to

compartmentation and then I confirmed it again. Harleys was the installers or of the curtain walling and I

cladding who submitted a question relating to that which went through the architect to our office. On site,

remember seeing drawings showing fire breaks.

Fire breaks was another consideration. A fire break is a barrier to stop fire from transferring from one place to

the next, for example it can be put in the floor so that fire doesn't travel up. This is dealt with in Part B3 and B4

which discusses the cladding. lt states that a fire break material has fire resistance to prevention it from going

up. I recall seeing an elevation drawing showing the fire break in the edge. The fire breaks were put in and

divided up by the flats going horizontally and vertically.

In relation to what material the council was told was being used for the fire breaks and the cladding, the council

would have been told it was in accordance with Approved Document B. The insulation for example would be of

limited combustibility, the actual external envelope would be Class 0 0, that is a fire test which I don't know the

ins and outs of the fire test, but it tests for all sorts of things. There is a diagram for the Class 0 standard in

relation to tall buildings in Approved Document B. I don't recall if at that stage that they listed what they were

doing but it would have been following the guidance in Approved Document B.H

When the application was submitted to the council to make the changes to the building it was in a file which came to

my desk. I would then have sent an applicable set to Paul Hanson to deal with and to obtain his observations. I then

vetted the drawings and provided a schedule for the administration section to put on the system.

In terms of the vetting, I would look at the drawings and write a list and then type the list and put it in a basket

for of the administration people to put on the council's system.

When I saw the application to make the changes, I provided a list and a schedule. To be honest there wasn't a lot of

detail to start off with. For example, the toilets in the boxing club and down stairs on the ground floor there was what

is known as Part M Compliant, which is to do with having toilets at a particular height and rails and also a mirror. I

can't remember everything, so in this particular case I would attend the site with copied pages of the Approved

Document in order to physically measure to make was a particular height and that a rail and cord was there. it was a

physical inspection similar to the sure the toilet fire doors where I would check it they had a self-closing device, that it

had the appropriate number of hinges where required and intermittent strips and also the lock was the right type. I

wouldn't actually report back that the fire door had a particular self-closing device and see if it had the appropriate

certificate. However, during my visual inspections of the fire doors, I went around and checked every one of them and

that every screw was in, whether it was the right type of screw or not I cannot say as it is physically impossible to

check them all. Likewise, if the contractor used a standard of steel that was not in accordance with the British

Standards I would not be aware of that, it is the responsibility of the contractor to get the right materials as they work

to specifications. In relation to the fire doors I would check they have the right number of hinges and the smoke seals

are the right size. check all the fire doors which were included in Witness Signature:

Signature Witnessed by Signature: ........... .......................... ...... ............ .............. .. ........ ..... .................... .. Page 6 of 13


HOB00000219 0006 HOB00000219/6


Continuation of Statement of: the new works, I did not check the all pre-existing ones that were there previously, however I did conduct a dip

sample of the doors on the upper levels. The cupboards had been built for services so I checked those doors,

but I didn't check every single one. On the lower levels, I checked every single door.

At the actual application phase Paul Hanson marked up a set of drawings saying where the fire lines were where the

detection should go and we had a number of meetings with the fire consultants where we discussed how the

ventilation system would work. I don't recall having particular discussions until the work started regarding the

cladding. I met an engineer from Harleys on site when they were doing the works at Grenfell Tower.

I would now like to talk about the ventilation. This was a very complicated system and was beyond my

knowledge. I went to meetings with Paul, our Fire Engineer, to be aware of what was going on in order to have

a full picture on site. Paul would lead the discussions on this, they would present their case and provided

information and some correspondence going backwards and forwards about the actual system. Grenfell Tower

was built some time ago and part of the package was to renew the mechanical ventilation, the smoke extract

system. At these meetings, I was impressed as they seemed to know what they were talking about and Paul

said he was impressed with their presentation. I would listen and have an input on certain matters. We used to

go together to these meetings as Paul is a specialist in this field, he is also on a number of committees that

deal with various documents and he said in his opinion they seem to know what they are talking about. They

talked about air changes the type of equipment that was going. We weren't physically shown a piece of

equipment but they talked about how the system would work, what the fire rating of the equipment was. I can't

remember everything, it was one of a number of jobs I was dealing with at that time.

At the end of the application process it is not a requirement to have all the paperwork signed off and have it in writing,

such as a conditional approval or approval if all the information is there. it is the work on site, for example if it had

been stated that one particular toilet was going to used it can be another one provided it meets with that standard. In

terms of the changes made to Grenfell Tower it was not a requirement to have someone sign it off and get a full

passing of plans under the Building Regulations before works commenced. There is no statutory obligation for

anyone to get approval prior to starting work and this is nationwide, which means they technically didn't need any

permission or approval from my office whether they needed it from somewhere else is another matter. This means

they could put an application in 48 hours before starting work and then start work, they would have to make the

appropriate application. In relation to Grenfell Tower they had to make a full plan application to the council, but they

could start work without getting written approval just as long as the application was submitted. it is worth including

here that the contractor can make changes to the application because that's the way the law works, it is the worked

competed on site that has to comply. Sometimes on small jobs there wouldn't even be drawings, for example a new

bathroom or a new window, they would just complete the Building Notice. A lot of the development I dealt with was

housing mainly, but when I was working on the school and leisure centre I used the plans as a reference point for

when I did the final survey.

Although the contractor was working to the structure, it was a good while before the information sent to the

council officially in order for it to be sent away for checking.

I don't know the exact date the contractor submitted the application but they submitted one and as far as I can

recall they started doing demolition work after that stage and we had number meetings. We had a detailed

meeting with Bruce, I believe he is either Neil Crawford's boss or a college of his who worked at Studio E. He

Witness Signature: ........................................... .. ....... ................. .... ............. .. ......................................... .

Signature Witnessed by Signature: ........................................... ............ ...... . ........ .. .......................... .. .... .. Page 7 of 13


HOB00000219 0007 HOB00000219/7


Continuation of Statement of: came and met with Paul Hanson and myself and then Neil Crawford came and saw Paul Hanson and myself.

Neil Crawford and Studio E are the same architects who dealt with the Academy that dealt with Grenfell Tower,

so I had a working relationship with them.

My involvement in the refurbishment once work had commenced was that I would attend the site from time and

complete a physical inspection, for example I would take physical measurements of the steel the dimensions,

but I wouldn't check the weight of the steel. Generally, I would look at the drawings before I went to the site so

that I knew what the steel was and where it was, alternatively I would check afterwards just to make sure the

steel sizes corresponded with the drawings they were working to. However, I would not do that with all aspects

of the work, if I was looking at masonry I would check to see the mortar joints were not too big and explore to

see if the mortar went through all of the actual brick work and that they were putting in wall ties. I also inspected

the common areas, there was a power cable that they needed advice so I went there with Paul Hanson and

looked at it. I checked the cupboards and fire stoppings on the new cupboards that went in the various new

lobby areas. There were also two clerk of works who worked there who were employed by the council to look at

the building work and the services, but I'm not sure how many days they were there. I believe the building clerk

was a gentleman by the name of Jon White, he dealt with building construction matters, which covered such

items a fire stopping, the doors, the standard of workmanship that would or may have been higher than the

building regulations. There may be specific requirements for using a particular item, so he may recommend

using a certain self-closing device or a different toilet or a particular make of fire door. All I would be concerned

about is that it would be done by a physical inspection for a fire door.

The process of my site inspections is that I would attend the site and sign in via the site hut which is by the

entrance. I would get a safety helmet and High Vis jacket and then I would go to the office and meet whoever

was going to come around with me that day, which could take an hour or two so it was just a snap shot of what

is happening at that time. Sometimes things are altered after we look at it so we are only record what we are

seeing at that particular time. For example, if the contractor started punching holes in a fire wall after a visit, I

wouldn't be aware of that.

We would walk round the site and I would measure the steel and witness that the steel was being painted with

intumescent paint. I would record that the contractors were working on services and that there was a detector

present, emergency light fitted and smoke detections as some areas had them, but that particular inspection would

be later in the job. Some of these were already existing and some were the result of old works, for example the fire

alarms, barriers and fire lifts we did not do an audit of these. During the new works, new fire safety measures were

enhanced such as the smoke venting on the lower level fire doors, fire breaks, fire stopping of services, new linings

and a new lock on the entrance door. These were the main features. I am not aware of any of the old fire safety

measures in the building, but there are standards and audits, which is all to do with the fire risk assessment. I did not

look within the flats as I didn't have the rights to do that as in this case it wasn't controlled under the Building

Regulations for the works being carried out under this application. I was not aware of any defective fire safety

measures. While conducting my inspection of the refurbishment I can't be certain if there was any difference in the

work that had been previously laid out in the plans. At the end of the job I reviewed the plans because the route out

was quite complicated at the lower levels, so I used the plans as a guide to check against. I can't remember the

details of everything, for example the disabled toilets and the heights of door Witness Signature:

Signature Witnessed by Signature: ........... .. .............................. ...................... ... .. ................................... . Page 8 of 13


HOB00000219 0008 HOB00000219/8


Continuation of Statement of: handles. When I am working a lot on certain documents and regulations every day I can remember them because

there are some I work on all the time, but when I am dealing with things that I don't usually deal with on a regular

basis I would reviewed those particular documents and copy the parts that I needed in order to check.

While walking around the site I would also record any demolition taking place. Another area I inspected was the

drainage. Below drainage has to be at a certain standard, when I would inspect this I would generally look at the

colour of the plastic pipes as these are brown in the ground. There are standards for the pipework, but I did not

actually check that or ask for receipts. I was looking at the way the drains were laid out and if they were the right

material. lt was the same with damp proof membrane, I would check for any holes or defects in the material before

the concrete was laid, if it was damaged after I inspected it then the contractor had an obligation to change it. The

clerk of works was on site so they should be aware of any issues. If, for example, there were issues with the drains

and they weren't being laid correctly I would return a number of times to check the work was correct. However, as

time progressed there became less and less of us at the council, there was 47 of us at one time.

In relation to any issues I identified. At the end of the project I complied completed a 'letter of comfort' of what the

outstanding matters were in order to issue the certificate. I walked around with the contractors and pointed out things

that needed attention, for the example things like the fire stopping needing attention or that something had been

damaged. I remember that some of the cladding panels had been damaged and I pointed that out to them. I did two

inspections with Qas, when he joined us, he was a young graduate employed by the council. I recall that I did a joint

inspection with the clerk of works. I looked around the site first and then looked specifically at the cladding, which

involved going on the hoist and going up and inspecting it externally and point out any issues I wanted changing, like

any clips that needed putting back. During my trip in the hoist I did notice some damage and dents to the cladding

from where they had been fixing it. I even went up on to the roof on one trip in the hoist. From the hoist, it was just a

visual inspection to see if there was any physical damage to cladding units. I did not go back and check that any of

the issues I had pointed had been fixed, I just expected it to be done as I don't have the authority to instruct, but I did

have the clerk of works with me when issues were identified.

I believe the design was changed in terms of the layout. I was not aware of any changes made to any material

used during the regeneration project, as far as I can recall I'm not sure if I missed an email. If a company made

changes to materials that had already been agreed the council would have to be made aware of that.

I will now explain the four routes of choosing cladding. Approved Document B is one document that can be used

showing a way of complying with Part B of the Building Regulations Fire Safety. Or you can use a Desk Top study

which is when the architect or the manufacturer or installer compiles a report saying they are not following Approved

Document B but are going to do something else, they would then submit a report with their submission show it is

acceptable and that it complies with that part of the regulation. Another option is the Fire Engineering Solution, who

would put a report together who would do fire test independent at the fire testing stations to show the system they

were using was compliant. And the last option BR135 is used if it not found within Approved Document B, a report

would be submitted to us and I would send it to our fire regulations section, Paul Hanson, in order to get observations

on the scheme, we may ask for additional information or evidence before giving a decision. In relation to Grenfell

Tower, the chosen route for the cladding was Approved Document B.

Witness Signature: ....... ... ......... ................................. ............ ........... .... ...... .... ............ .. ............ .... ...... .... .

Signature Witnessed by Signature: ........................................... ............ ...... . ........................................... . Page 9 of 13


HOB00000219 0009 HOB00000219/9


Continuation of Statement of: Within Approved Document B there is a table which illustrates the installation material of limited combustibility,

which shows there are various tests it has to achieve to a certain standard. Also within Approved Document Bit

covers fire breaks and barriers in certain places in accordance with it. There is an anomaly in the Document

which I can show you, I also mentioned the external envelope being Class 0.

As far as I call recall there wasn't a specific material shown in terms of the cladding on the drawings as it is all

about performance standards. There are various publications and information that says this product achieves

the necessary standard. lt is the installers responsibility to comply, which is stated in the Approved Documents.

lt was my understanding that the materials used did comply with the required standard, we did not ask for a

certificate. Had they used any of the other options I have previously mentioned then we would have asked for a

certificate. The material used would have been discussed in the early stages as part of the package.

Information is channelled through the architect and then through me and then I would send it to various people

to get observations. lt the responsibly of the architect or the installer or the designer to ensure that the material

which has been discussed and agreed is the actual material that has been installed. Under the Approved

Document B it is my understanding that the cladding does not need to be tested as there is no requirement. lt is

not the responsibly of one sole person to ensure this is done. As I said there is the clerk of works also checking

the job. The clerk of works, as far as I can recall, is employed either by the TMO or by the council, he is a

separate person acting on behalf of the client. He would have had a small number of jobs to deal with, I had

maybe one of a hundred jobs I was dealing with.

The difference between my role and the clerk of works is as follows. I attended the site from time to time getting

snaps shots of the works, whereas the clerk is on site, I can't remember how many days, and issues

instructions and has power to get things opened up. So, if he wants to see a particular item that is covered he

has the power to have it opened up. If I for example I wanted something opening up I would have to be certain

that what had been done and covered over did not comply with Building Regulations and then I would have to

serve an Opening up Notice, which isn't something I do often.

Once all the works had been completed we conducted a final survey and I checked off the items on the

outstanding works letter. Then there are certain certificates we required before signing the job off, however we

don't get certificates on everything as it would be physically impossible because there are so many for example

the toilets are manufactured to a certain standard, however in this case the Council did not require a certificate

to show that it achieves that standard. Those certain certificates which are required are for the fire alarm,

emergency lighting, the commissioning certificates for smoke venting system, electromagnetic lock, sound

testing, energy performance certificates, these are the main ones but there are a number of them. The person

who checks all these before issuing the certificate is the person who is responsible for installing the system.

However, I don't know about the commissioning of the vent, but I did receive a certificate and additional

information which was sent to Paul Hanson about Aair volumes and he looked at.

There is a fire regulation that states all the information goes to the responsible person, I just have to know that

it has gone to them. The responsible person, who could be the employer or the owner, then go to the person

doing the risk assessment under The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) oOrder.

Once the certificates have been issued and are received in my office a certificate is then issued confirming we,

the council, are happy with the work. I believe I actually issued the certificate at completion, I had other things

going on at the time but I do believe it was me. However, prior to me signing the certificate I would have to be

Witness Signature: ..... 0 0 . 00.00 .... 00 . 00. 00.00 ... 00 0. 00.00 ... 00 0 •••• 00 . 00 .... 00.00 . 0 .................. .... .......... .. .. ...... .. o ............ .. .. .. .

Signature Witnessed by Signature: .. 00.00. 00 . .. . 00.00. 00 .... 00.00 . 00.00 .... 00 . 00. 00 .... 00.00 ....... 0 .. .. ................................... .

Page 10 of 13


HOB00000219 0010 HOB00000219/10


Continuation of Statement of: happy any outstanding work had been completed for example it included notices missing on doors, minor

things like smoke seals missing. There should be a letter on file detailing a number of items I would have gone

around and checked. On the upper levels, I didn't see each individual cupboard, it is just physically impossible

to do that, but I looked in detail at the lower levels where the major works were carried out. In the boxing club,

there were vents on the ground floor which needed adjusting, in order for the system to work it needed an air

inlet system to work properly. Paul Hanson and I witnessed a test of that system, everyone was invited during a

meeting but for some reason only myself and Paul Hanson went, I think it was due to the two of use having

hospital appointments which meant we went without everyone else.

I was aware new windows were being fitted as this came under the external envelope that had been proposed.

They were double glazed windows, which I checked to make sure they closed properly. I did not notice

anything about the workmanship around the windows, because it was an on-going exercise. As far as I can

recall I went up on the hoist on three occasions. The first time Qas went up, the clerk of works was there, I

remember because it was when Qas had just joined us and he was there. I met with the Harleys engineer who

was a young man in his early twenties to thirties. He explained the system to me. I went up and down on the

hoist and looked at other things externally. I believe I looked at the west and east elevations, and it was all work

in progress it wasn't the finished article. When I was inspecting the windows, I was making sure none of them

were cracked, and the seals where the glass is fitted and the gasket. I remember one window was broken

which had to be changed. With regards to how the windows had been fitted I did not see that aspect of the

work, I was just seeing the finished article how they had been fitted into position. I did not have sight of that. I

also did not see any gaps between the windows and the frame. When I was in the hoist my distance to the

windows was that of the distance from the hoist to the window. I did not conduct an internal inspection of the

windows, it may have been completed by the clerk of works but it was not conducted by me. During my site

visits, no one spoke to me about concerns relating to the windows.

While conducting my site visits if I identified any issues I would report it to the site manager or a gentleman

called Jason, I can't remember his job title, but he was part of the project team. I started dealing with a Simon

O'Connor and then a Simon Lawrence, they both left the company and then I dealt with David Hughes and

Jason, I can't remember his name but he had a shaved head. There was also a young man called Jack, who

played semi-professional football.

There are no specific guidelines for this Counci l's building control surveyors that need to be adhered to when

completing inspections. The government changed the regulations and there are only two statutory notifications,

the start and finish of the job, however the council have a charter where we look to do visits every 90 days, but

I would visit more than that. There is a document called the Performance Standard Review I believe [The name

of the document is Building Control Performance Standards, by the Building Control Performance Standards

Advisory Group] that contains details, which I was aware of. However, at work I don't believe there was an

actual statement saying this on the Council's website, but John Allan would be able to confirm this. We would

like to see foundations as they were a priority and the drains. Previously I mentioned the Statutory Notifications,

this covered foundations and excavation, damp proof membrane all of which were written into the regulations

together with the commencement and finish of the job. I would go and try to see the structure and get there as

much as I could. I am not sure how many times I visited the site but I am sure it was more than ten times from

the start of the refurbishment to the end.

Witness Signature: . .............................. ................ .. .. .... .... ... .. ....... ....... .................... .. ........ .............. .. .... ..

Signature Witnessed by Signature: .............. ....... .. .. ............ ..... .. ........... .......... ........ ...... ................... ...... .. Page 11 of 13

HOB00000219 0011 HOB00000219/11


Continuation of Statement of: The council had a team of professionals dealing with this project and a clerk of works. lt is rare to have a clerk

of works on a job. I can recall previous projects where the workers could have killed themselves because the

excavations were too big and the ground could have collapsed around them.

There was a call out to a dangerous structure one weekend, which should be in the police records I believe the

police called out the council and Parvinder Verdee dealt with it. I was told about this and mentioned it to the site

manager at the time that a colleague had been called at the weekend. The call related to the cladding coming

offthe building.

My role did not involve any of the procurement of any of the material used on Grenfell Tower. In relation to the

fire safety, risk assessment and management of the building, I had no involvement in that. I am not certain of

this but the council would have employed a person to do a fire risk assessment of the whole building including

the new works under The Regulatory Fire Safety Reform Order 2005. I don't want to assume but this person

would be required to be given all that information and would have completed a survey of the building to make a

judgement on that. At the time, we had two people in our office who conducted fire risk assessments, but I don't

believe they did the fire risk assessment for Grenfell Tower, services were offered by our office but I didn't have

the training to do it. The fire safety manager was the responsibility of the council, or if they had nominated the

TMO. The council are the owners of the building, whether they nominated someone to take on that role it would

be a fire risk assessor, who would do a report but that would depend of the relationship between and the

council and the TMO and the contract for running the estate.

The consulting engineers structure were Curtins Consulting, web address is www.curtins.com. I do not have

the details of the Councils checking engineers for the structure segments of the scheme. Those may be found

on the Councils Acolaid records for the project.

While I was on site I did not speak to any residents, apart from to say hello. In relation to complaints, none were

made to me personally but I was aware from the site manager that they and TMO had an on-going dialog but I

don't know specifics, there was a liaison officer. I do not recall receiving any emails or phone calls directly

relating to those matters. Had there been any I would have obviously look at them and then report it to whoever

I felt it necessary in order to deal with those matters. lt would depend on the nature of the complaint. I did not

have any major concerns over any of the work carried out. I can confirm I am in possession of some material

relating to Grenfell Tower and I am willing to share that with the police.

Witness Signature: ....... ............ ............ ............ ......... . ........... . ......... ........... ... .......... .. .. ...... ............... ...... .

Signature Witnessed by Signature: ........... .. .............................. ...................... ... .. ........ ............... .. .......... . Page 12 of 13


HOB00000219 0012 HOB00000219/12


Continuation of Statement of:

Please clarify the following:

The correct year and who gave John Hoban the Academy? Was it in November 2014 John Alien gave No. The correct year was 2013. This amendment may be found on page 2, first line of the last paragraph of this witness statement.

John Hoban the Academy and the Leisure Centre? lt is unclear on the audio. Please note that I have amended this witness statement in blue ink on page 2, last paragraph, to try to make clearer this segment of my statement.

John sates that "the person that was dealing with Netting Hill and Norland ward left, and I was instructed to deal with her area" Please confirm who this person is. That person is Hilary Wyatt. Her name may be found on line 7 of the last paragraph of page 2 of this witness statement.

Please confirm the name of the contractors. Rydon

Surname of Colin. "Col in passed away and we shared out his work and I had part of Queens Gate area" Col in Ryan

Please confirm the name of this person "Towards the end of my career at the council they actually employed one of my colleagues that worked in administration to become enforcement surveyors, so he was going out and doing discoveries" That person is Afshan Mirza.

When discussing The Building Regulations and Building Acts, Part 'I' was missed out. Please confirm what this part covers. There is no Part I in The Building Regulations. There are other Parts of The Building Regulations which I did not mention during the course of my interview. They are :-Part L, Conservation of fuel and power; Part M, Access to and use of buildings; Part P, electrical safety dwellings; Part Q, Security dwellings; Part R, Physical infrastructure for high speed electronic communications networks and Regulation 7 Materials and workmanship.

Please confirm the name of the consultancy engineers. Curt ins Consulting

Please confirm who is 'they'. "If they had decided to go down the Fire Engineering solution route t hey would put a report together which would have been submitted" Rydon or the consultants they would appoint to produce such a document for the Councils building control office to consider. Please note that were various consultants dealing with the Fire Safety segment of the works, which Paul Hanson, John Alien and myself met at meetings and on site during the course of the project.

Please confirm who is 'they'. "Paul would lead the discussions on this, they would present their case and provided information and some correspondence going backwards and forwards about the actual system" Rydon or the consultants they would instruct to deal with such matters. I prefer for information to come through one person to myself, so that I am dealing with one point of contact and they in turn are responsible for co-ordinating information and forwarding any observations and decisions made by the Councils building control office, to the appropriate persons and for action by them.

Please confirm who is 'they'. "This means they could put an application in 48 hours before starting work and then start work, t hey would have to make the appropriate application" The owner of the property or the person they instructed to carry out the 'Building Works'.

HOB00000219 0013 HOB00000219/13

Date post:	21-Jan-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times