Building Research Establishment Evidence - Thursday 10th February 2022 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:00:25 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to continue hearing evidence from dr david crowder so would you ask mr crowder to come back in please

00:00:44 good morning dr crowder morning all right ready to carry on yes thank you very much yes it's great yes thank you yes good morning dr crowder good morning so when we broke off yesterday we were part ways through discussing

00:00:56 we were part ways through discussing your work investigating the lachenal house fire that had occurred in july 2009

00:01:03 2009 can we turn up um a document bre 405878 and look at page 195

00:01:15 now this is um the text of the bre's fosi report is that fires of special interest yes report la canal house dated the 3rd of july

00:01:27 la canal house dated the 3rd of july 2009

00:01:28 2009 now this is uh this was appended to one of your investigation reports for the mps which is why it's here as an appendix yes you see that now

00:01:39 now is it right that this was the report that was prepared for the department in line with the objectives that we looked at yesterday in your second witness statement i.e to

00:01:49 to advise the department on whether there was a problem with the regulations and guidance or whether there had been non-compliance with the regulations and guidance is that correct yes correct yeah

00:01:59 yeah now if we look about halfway down the page under address of fire there's a bold heading address of fire for lachen or house we can see

00:02:10 we can see just below that it says bre fire and security investigators and you are there as the first name alongside mr ship

00:02:19 mr ship miss cullinan and mr chitty yes yes now in your um second witness statement we'll come on to that you give a date for the submission of this report to the

00:02:30 for the submission of this report to the department as the 10th of august 2009 is that correct yes and

00:02:37 and um

00:02:38 um here we can see underneath where we were just reading under report completed there are two dates given one is the 16th of july 2009 and one is the 10th of august 2009.

00:02:52 and one is the 10th of august 2009. now you tell us in your second witness statement for the transcript that's paragraph 78 on page 22 that you do believe that this report was first sent to brian martin on the 10th of august 2009 is that right

00:03:07 sorry daddy sorry um sorry you tell us in your second witness statement

00:03:13 statement that you believe it was first sent to him but then actually in your third witness statement you explain that at paragraph 91 page 24 that you submitted an initial

00:03:24 that you submitted an initial report to brian martin on the 16th of july 2009 and a final version on the 10th of august 2009 is that correct yes that sounds correct thank you my third statement so it's as as

00:03:37 my third statement so it's as as set out in your third witness statement yes yes thank you

00:03:42 now before this final report was submitted to brian martin on the 10th of august 2009 can you help us what information had been given to the department about the

00:03:53 been given to the department about the possible causes of this fire in particular the external fire spread

00:04:07 i'm sure we talked in broad terms around the performance of the cladding i don't recall it being a huge concern at this time and that was based on

00:04:17 based on um

00:04:19 um uh what's what i'm looking for the um accounts from the firefighters the firefighters that attended the building obviously had noted the external fire spread

00:04:27 spread the initial concern had been that an arsonist was making their way around the building and setting fires in different parts of the building hence the pattern of fires that had emerged

00:04:38 the pattern of fires that had emerged but they hadn't expressed a particular concern about the speed of the external fire spread merely this it had taken place

00:04:44 place um

00:04:44 um [Music]

00:04:46 [Music] we flagged up that it had occurred that downward fire spread was a very unusual thing to have occurred that it's not something that had been encountered commonly um prior to lacking all that at

00:04:57 commonly um prior to lacking all that at all i don't think martinship wasn't aware of previous instances of this having taken place and that it needed further

00:05:08 consideration right and who did you flag that all up with brian martin at the department i see and had any testing

00:05:19 and had any testing on for example samples of the window panels taken place by this time so by the end of july 2009 no no now um if we go on within this report to page 196

00:05:31 page 196 um and then in the first paragraph um fifth line down it's identified it says um if you look on the right hand side about five

00:05:42 look on the right hand side about five lines down from the top it says on odd floors the external wall to each bay consists of a full height painted aluminium window frame assembly with layered polymeric panels forming the

00:05:54 layered polymeric panels forming the lower halves of these sets do you see that yes now are those the darker coloured blue green window panels which we looked at in the photograph yesterday

00:06:05 photograph yesterday they incorporate those darker green panels whether it's a reference to the whole wall but yes i see

00:06:12 i see so you're saying on odd floors it consists of a full height painted aluminium window with layered polymeric panels for in the lower halves of these sets so you're not just referring

00:06:23 sets so you're not just referring specifically to the window panels there are you referring to the balcony panels as well no sorry the so the sentence as a whole is referring to the full story height wall assembly yeah aluminium frame

00:06:34 frame um glazing in the top two thirds and then at the end your reference to um or sorry the reference in here to the layered polymeric panels yes it agreed that's the dark green yeah it's in the lower

00:06:45 the dark green yeah it's in the lower third of those great and then further down on page 196 um at the end of the fourth line up from the bottom of that paragraph we can see it says

00:06:56 says um sorry no it's the top paragraph um but i'm reading and the last four lines

00:07:02 lines it says on even floors a block work half wall with door and window set leaves room for a narrow balcony on each side of the building providing additional means of escape to the main stairwell

00:07:13 means of escape to the main stairwell this is described in more detail later balconies have steel guard rails and polymeric panels fitted to them so those are the balcony panels yes the lighter green panels we saw on the building yes

00:07:25 green panels we saw on the building yes yes they are yeah now what's meant in this report by the word polymeric how did you think that would be understood by the readers

00:07:36 that would be understood by the readers um that

00:07:37 um that we had been able to ascertain that there was some form of plastic but we didn't hadn't fully established the composition at that time simply they were not metal for instance they've got timber yeah

00:07:49 timber yeah and would it be right to say that polymeric or plastic material would generally be a combustible material yes so within this short space of time then you you and the investigation of real

00:08:00 you you and the investigation of real fires project team you have identified polymeric materials on the external wall of latino house yes yeah and then if we go down to page 202 of this report

00:08:13 this report and look in the third paragraph down on this page

00:08:17 this page we can see it says this falling burning debris from flat 79 and 65 most probably from both the window facade assemblies and the contents of flat 79

00:08:29 flat 79 ignited materials in flats 37 and 53 located on the fifth and seventh floors respectively it has not been possible to determine which source of falling debris was

00:08:40 which source of falling debris was responsible for each flat that was ignited

00:08:43 ignited footage from channel 4 confirmed reports that these two flats happen to have windows open these windows appear to be open in such a way as will enable them to collect falling debris into the flat

00:08:55 falling debris into the flat and then you say flat 37 appeared to become involved shortly before flat 53

00:09:03 flat 53 so we have that description there and then on page 203 if we could go to that about halfway down the page

00:09:13 there's the first heading in bold is potential implications for building regulations do you have that yes and it says underneath that the following issues are of note with

00:09:24 following issues are of note with respect to building regulations and approved document b and then third paragraph from the bottom of that page we can see a heading external file spread and it says external fire spread yes

00:09:37 and it says external fire spread yes fire initially spread up externally from flat of origin fire spread down due to burning material falling

00:09:45 falling wind may also have been significant in blowing the fire through the corridor so we've got both upward and downward external fire spread being reported here

00:09:57 external fire spread being reported here yes yes

00:09:59 yes yes but there's no further commentary provided in this report is there on the possible reasons for the observed external fire spread either up or down is there

00:10:09 is there no

00:10:10 no this um

00:10:11 this um this report was as much as could be prepared from the initial investigation um

00:10:19 well as has been exhibited with my one of my witness statements apologies i forget which um the department ultimately made the decision to discontinue the investigation i would have liked to have

00:10:31 investigation i would have liked to have continued well i'm just going to come to that

00:10:33 that what i'm seeking to do at this stage is ascertain what you had worked out at this point yes and then i'm coming to the fact that we can see the department shuts down the investigation yes um and

00:10:44 shuts down the investigation yes um and i'm going to ask you about that so i'll come to that in a moment but let's just focus on where you'd got to in this report

00:10:51 report so no specific information is given in this report on the specific makeup of the external wall products is it other than the fact we've got polymeric i.e a plastic panel that's all we've got

00:11:03 i.e a plastic panel that's all we've got yes agreed yes and so no information is given about the compliance or otherwise of the materials used in the external wall either with the building regulations or with the

00:11:14 the building regulations or with the guidance contained in adb agreed yep and i think as you've just pointed out it's fair to say that those matters are emitted is this right because there was simply not enough information by the

00:11:25 simply not enough information by the 10th of august 2009 to provide that that detail agreed

00:11:33 and you say in your third witness statement you describe this report as having presented itself as nothing more than an incomplete investigation is that right that is correct yeah that's at paragraph 153 of your third statement

00:11:47 now did the observations that you made in this report and your understanding at the time did that raise concerns for you about the downward fire spread

00:11:58 about the downward fire spread were you concerned about that at this point

00:12:02 um i certainly wanted to better understand what had happened and why um

00:12:11 um and i did i forget whether it was although i could probably find out from from when photographs were taken i did try and figure out what the particular items were that were responsible for the

00:12:22 items were that were responsible for the flats on the lower floors having been ignited though ultimately wasn't possible to determine from the physical evidence but it was certainly an area of interest that i thought warranted um

00:12:34 that i thought warranted um further work yeah and were you also interested in in understanding how the upward the vertical fire spread had happened

00:12:42 happened um

00:12:42 um in terms of going up to flat 79 and the the mechanism for that i was although that was um a more traditional direction of fire spread so there was less of um

00:12:54 spread so there was less of um an intrigue i suppose into a better word in terms of why that had occurred it was just um it was i wanted to understand more about the the particular timing of that whereas

00:13:06 the particular timing of that whereas with the downward fire spread um it was to develop a more fundamental understanding of what had occurred in the first place given it wasn't a phenomenon that was commonplace at that time yeah yeah and when you talk about

00:13:17 time yeah yeah and when you talk about the timing did you have any idea at that at this early stage how quickly the fire had spread upward to flat set 79. no um as i said we had asked

00:13:29 said we had asked the attending fire firefighters for some sort of view as to how they felt the incident had progressed in terms of speed and so on which is always difficult because fires are obviously high stress events and people's timings can differ in terms of

00:13:42 people's timings can differ in terms of their views um but they they hadn't expressed a particular concern as i said about timing but i did still want to understand um

00:13:50 um what the timing was yeah but if that had happened very quickly they might not have

00:13:55 have seen all of it is that correct yeah

00:13:58 yeah now um

00:13:59 now um so it was not possible at this stage was it to give any indication about what the implications for the building regulations and the guidance uh might be certainly on external fire spread

00:14:10 certainly on external fire spread no i mean as i said what is written in this report is as much as we were able to ascertain at that stage of the investigation yeah can you help us as to why this report doesn't identify anywhere within it that

00:14:23 doesn't identify anywhere within it that approved document b is silent on downward fire spread in terms of providing any specific guidance wasn't that something obvious to flag to the department given that you are

00:14:34 to the department given that you are pointing out that they've been fire spread down due to burning material falling

00:14:43 i don't think i'd even gotten to the stage of

00:14:47 stage of stopping and and doing if you like a review a comparison of approved document b versus the findings from the investigation by this point right um i agree it you know it's something that

00:14:58 agree it you know it's something that ought to have been flagged but um

00:15:01 um i was

00:15:02 i was you know the the the contents of this report i'd only just gotten prepared in time to to issue this that that was as far as i'd gotten yes yeah and it's predominantly just just focused on trying to get the facts

00:15:14 just focused on trying to get the facts down in terms of you know the way the building was put together and the sequence of events that occurred as far as could be attained at this time yes i see

00:15:23 yes i see if we look at the two headings underneath external fire spread communications and guidance to occupants can you see that under communications it's written yes communication between nfv and building

00:15:34 communication between nfv and building occupants may require further investigation outside scope of this report guidance to occupants yes fire safety advice given to occupants by the landlord prior to the incident may require further investigation

00:15:46 require further investigation outside the scope of this report do you see that there was it considered that external fire spread would also require further investigation

00:15:58 [Music] well i suppose all of it required further investigation as i said the the work wasn't complete i suppose that the point with communications and guidance

00:16:10 communications and guidance it was clear from a very early stage that there were issues with advice that had been given to residents both via 999 calls and in terms of what residents understood about the means of escape

00:16:21 understood about the means of escape that were available to them yeah so that the purpose of putting those in under communications and guidance was to flag that

00:16:28 that these were clearly problems and significant problems yes but you've also said there was clearly an unusual pattern of downward fire spread so what i'm seeking to understand is why don't we see similar language

00:16:39 is why don't we see similar language under that heading saying this requires further investigation or at least may require further investigation that's what i'm seeking to understand

00:16:51 i again i've sort of i think i know that it's probably a poor choice of language the further investigation point is that it's not within the scope of the investigation of real fires project to look at 999 communications it could

00:17:03 look at 999 communications it could probably have been phrased better but

00:17:05 but i would make the overarching point that this was a fundamentally incomplete investigation i see and all ev everything that is in it ultimately warranted further investigation this was about

00:17:16 this was about the scope and what the department decided to do with it as opposed to the state of the investigation as a whole yeah now if we can turn to um some emails now

00:17:27 now if we can turn to um some emails now if we go to bre three zeros four three seven four two we can see there's an email here dated the 28th of july 2009.

00:17:38 the 28th of july 2009. so that's before mr martin has received the final version of this report on the 10th of august yes yes but probably um after he has

00:17:49 yes yes but probably um after he has received a first version of this report on the 16th of july 2009 yes yes and he would have received um telephone updates and so on those we discussed yesterday after the various visits yeah so this is

00:18:02 after the various visits yeah so this is mr martin to mr ship but you are copied in there together with others yes and he says uh this he says martin for the purposes of the fire investigation contract you have with the department

00:18:13 contract you have with the department i'm satisfied that there will be no need for you to revisit lachen or house any further visits will need to be funded by a third party and he goes on i've raised this with

00:18:24 and he goes on i've raised this with colleagues in the frd do you know what the frd is is that the fire resilience directorate that sounds correct yeah and they are happy for you to step away now

00:18:36 happy for you to step away now clearly if the police or london fire brigade want to commission you to carry out further work then we would have no objections best regards brian now can you help us what was your

00:18:47 now can you help us what was your reaction to receiving that email from mr martin at this stage

00:18:54 um

00:19:00 i don't think yeah i doubt i was pleased um

00:19:07 it was a time i suppose i would describe it as a time of uncertainty because i yeah it was an investigation that i thought needed to be progressed and it wasn't going to be um

00:19:18 and that's well as a result of that you know attention switched i think we'd had some discussions with the police prior to this time but i don't think there was any substantial

00:19:29 any substantial dialogue with the police at that time so i

00:19:31 i i suspect at that time i was expecting quite a significant possibility that that would be it and it wouldn't go any further

00:19:39 further yes i think earlier when you were preempting where my questions might go you said you were disappointed is that fair to say you were disappointed yes to receive this email shutting down the investigation

00:19:50 email shutting down the investigation yes now did you have discussions with mr martin about his decision that you should step away as he puts it in this email

00:20:00 email no at that time it wouldn't have been for me to have such a discussion it would have been between martin shipp and brian and can you help us are you aware whether those discussions did take place

00:20:11 whether those discussions did take place between mr ship and mr martin i don't know sorry you don't you can't recall do you remember what martin um ship's uh reaction was to being told that you were to do no

00:20:22 to being told that you were to do no further work um

00:20:28 probably the best description i put that put his resigned he sort of it was what it was i don't think he was particularly pleased about it either but it's a decision that they're entitled to make i think was his was his take on it

00:20:40 make i think was his was his take on it yeah so you can't recall whether there was any pushback from the bre saying hang on

00:20:46 hang on we haven't even got to base one yet we're just we're just starting to understand some of what's gone on here this needs further work do you remember that occurring no i don't but i mean at this time those sorts of conversations

00:20:58 this time those sorts of conversations would have been above my pay grade frankly um i was still a junior member of the team at this time i see so you didn't suggest to mr ship that you should push back um

00:21:09 um i would i don't think i would have suggested pushing back i probably would have expressed my disappointment right and what was your understanding at the time about the basis on which mr martin was making this decision did you have

00:21:21 was making this decision did you have any

00:21:22 any um conversations with him in which um or via mr ship in which that was explained to you

00:21:29 to you um i didn't but then i i hadn't been

00:21:36 i didn't have a previous case of equivalent significance to benchmark against it's not you know i didn't have a point of reference in terms of whether this was an appropriate course of action or one

00:21:48 an appropriate course of action or one equally that you know had been taken um commonly on previous such major incidents or whether this was different to the course of things but you clearly understood at the time yes

00:21:59 you clearly understood at the time yes that the objective of this project was to work out whether there had been a failure in the regulations or a failure of compliance yes and you clearly understood that you hadn't got anywhere near establishing

00:22:10 hadn't got anywhere near establishing that

00:22:13 that so but but no no reason was provided to you as to why this was being halted at this early stage

00:22:23 no i mean probably

00:22:30 sorry i'm just trying to reconcile timings in my head [Music]

00:22:35 [Music] the police investigation was not of interest interested eclg but i think from the point that

00:22:44 that the police was sort of taking primacy because there was a belief that that there was a criminal case to be had um

00:22:52 um that was certainly presented as justification for it not therefore falling within the remit of this project but i can't say whether that

00:23:01 that had happened prior to this date or sometime after this date but i do remember that that link being made yeah did mr martin have any other

00:23:09 any other information so far as you were aware um which might form the basis of his decision to halt this investigation was he getting information from any other sources

00:23:20 other sources um not to my knowledge i know there was some work

00:23:25 some work done i think it was around this time so martin ship had been separately i don't know if he'd had meetings with or simply been in correspondence with sir ken knight and equally brian martin separately about the government response

00:23:37 separately about the government response to to lacanal um and what if anything needed to be disseminated in the short term

00:23:43 term but i wasn't party to any of that right okay

00:23:47 okay by this date can you help us how do you make brian martin aware that the relevant edition of the approved document for the purposes of assessing the refurbishment work was the 2002 edition

00:23:59 edition had you made him aware of that probably not

00:24:06 now if we can turn to an email that you weren't copied into i just want to ask you about this this is at clg one triple zero three nine one five

00:24:26 so you weren't copied into this email it's an exchange between brian martin and someone called glenn horton at the time of look carey who we believe are a fire service consultancy and the

00:24:38 fire service consultancy and the exchange occurs on the 13th and 14th of july 2009

00:24:43 july 2009 and if we look at the first email at the bottom of the page from mr horton um sent on the 13th of july 2009 we can see that in summary he's offering his assistance to the department in relation

00:24:55 assistance to the department in relation to the fire at lakinal house and in the final line of his email he says if there's anything i can help with please feel free to shout so and and in the email above that in the sorry paragraph above that he says

00:25:07 the sorry paragraph above that he says i'm just dropping you a note to let you know if there's anything i can do to support clg at this time or during any fire safety review and then if we go to mr martin's response at the top of the page sent the

00:25:18 response at the top of the page sent the next day on the 14th of july he says this he says hi glenn it has been a bit lively here i even worked last sunday exclamation mark thanks for the offer of help bre have

00:25:30 thanks for the offer of help bre have been on scene and we are waiting to see what they've found based on the snippets of info i've had so far i don't think there's any need for changes to adb although people may be a bit more

00:25:42 although people may be a bit more thorough when doing risk assessments if there's an inquiry they may be looking they may be looking for independent experts i'd be happy to put your name forward regards brian now

00:25:52 now can you help us with how brian martin could have come to the view this is just 11 days after the fire that there would be no need for changes to approve document b

00:26:03 approve document b can you shed any light on that for us no i'm afraid not i again at that point in time my work was was still just focused on

00:26:14 my work was was still just focused on gathering

00:26:15 gathering evidence and compiling it and establishing what had occurred and when

00:26:22 changes to adb i think that would have been a discussion between martin ship and brian martin at that stage but were you aware of them having had those discussions i was aware there were lots of discussions that were ongoing right um

00:26:34 discussions that were ongoing right um but i wasn't party to them yeah because he's clearly suggesting in this email that bre are on the scene and he's had some snippets of info suggesting it's from the bre that these snippets of info have come yes

00:26:45 have come yes um

00:26:46 um so was it only mr ship that was receiving that was providing brian martin with their updates other than you on this project i believe so yes yes so i was again updating on what i was finding when i

00:26:59 updating on what i was finding when i found it and martin ship would have been providing the overlay in terms of significance right yeah and can you help us as to um what brian martin is meaning there when he says people may be a bit more thorough when

00:27:11 people may be a bit more thorough when doing risk assessments can you help us with

00:27:14 with what might have been said about that at this stage

00:27:19 um i suspect

00:27:23 suspect well i don't know i mean that was probably more focused on the internal um fire safety defects that were present throughout the building so there were various things

00:27:35 which because this was fairly it was fairly early on in the life of the the regulatory reform fire safety order and

00:27:44 and there had been

00:27:47 quite a bit of interest sort of ongoing debate about um

00:27:53 um how one applies the fire safety order two blocks of flats and the extent to which risk assessments need to be carried out and so on

00:28:03 and in light of the wealth of

00:28:08 wealth of deficiencies that we found within the building

00:28:11 building it seemed clear that more thorough risk assessments that went intrusively into the building's fabric right would be necessary

00:28:18 necessary because

00:28:19 because some of the failings frankly ought to have been patently obvious to any fire safety professional had they looked in concealed spaces in the building yeah now we know that you established at a

00:28:30 now we know that you established at a later stage many months later through testing various samples of the panels to bs 476 part 7 yes the surface spreader frame test

00:28:41 frame test that the window panels could not achieve national class naught and in fact were a class three in that test yes yes not a class one which they would need to get well as part of the way to

00:28:53 to get well as part of the way to getting to national class north yes agreed yes now that was many months later it was in around november 2009 yes yes before we go on um

00:29:04 before we go on um those tests to bs 476 part 7 were carried on out on three types of the foam cored panels removed from lachen or house one with a pale yellow

00:29:15 lachen or house one with a pale yellow core one with a pink foam core and one with an orange core can you just help us why was that why was a test carried out on three different foam core colours

00:29:26 different foam core colours well simply we identified three different foam colours through the investigation so so a number of windows were disassembled um initially simply as a result of

00:29:40 um initially simply as a result of standard evidence taking if you like in terms of trying to get some representative samples from the building that we could then decide what to do with later um it then became apparent and i forget which but we started out with the yellow

00:29:51 which but we started out with the yellow phone call then

00:29:54 then either the pink or the orange was found and as a result of that we then conducted a more extensive check of all of the window panels to see how many different phone calls were present

00:30:06 different phone calls were present and once we we'd arrived at the three as as being the end result then the view was taken that we would need to see whether the different phone calls might lead to a different outcome in terms of the performance under the

00:30:18 in terms of the performance under the test i see okay now can we turn to some short emails between you and mr martin in november 2009 if we go to bre three zeros four

00:30:29 2009 if we go to bre three zeros four three seven four four

00:30:37 now the first email is the second one down on

00:30:40 down on this page it's dated the 18th of november

00:30:43 november to in 2009 and it's from mr martin just to you and we can see the subject is lacking our house

00:30:52 our house and you say brian would you mind giving me a call as soon as convenient desk or mobile thanks dave and then his response above that on the same day is i'm out and about

00:31:03 on the same day is i'm out and about i'll call in the morning now can you remember what was the urgency why did you want mr martin to call you at this point

00:31:13 um the short answer is i don't because i was trying to get to the bottom of this when i was preparing my statements um

00:31:22 i did i mean given the timing of this i did wonder whether it was the testing and the um because the part seven tests revealed that the panels did produce chunks of burning embers

00:31:34 chunks of burning embers um

00:31:36 um but i'm not well from the test reports so certainly the dates of the test reports

00:31:41 reports indicate the testing was largely carried out after this this call um

00:31:46 um but it's not impossible that some of the early runs might have been carried out beforehand and that's what prompted this call yeah but i've been trying to piece this back from memory a long time ago yeah so you think it might have had something

00:31:57 so you think it might have had something to do with that part seven testing yes but um i mean we've come to the same conclusion quite a lot of the test reports are updated after this date um okay yeah i i

00:32:10 um okay yeah i i okay having reflected on this i couldn't think of another reason why it would have been an urgent call to him um but the timing doesn't quite sit well enough i'm afraid i've not been able to bottom out how that all

00:32:22 bottom out how that all ties together can i just look at what you said about this in your second witness statement at bre three 30 43716 page 22 paragraph 78 um

00:32:34 um picking it up um in that top line in second sentence you say i believe the fosi report was emailed to dcld on the 10th of august 2009 i also contacted

00:32:45 10th of august 2009 i also contacted brian martin via email on the 18th of november 2009 requesting a telephone call

00:32:50 call this was around the time when the bs 476 part 7 tests were being carried out and then you say this you say i do not recall the specific nature of the phone call but i do recall it being made clear

00:33:02 call but i do recall it being made clear to me at some point that the issue with the panels was one of non-compliance not that the panels were somehow compliant and had produced burning debris in in spite of being compliant

00:33:15 debris in in spite of being compliant and you go on you say in addition it remained the case that it was not possible to confirm whether the panels were in fact responsible for the burning debris which had ignited flat 37 and 53 or whether it

00:33:27 had ignited flat 37 and 53 or whether it was simply the contents of the flats that had produced the burning debris now

00:33:33 now um

00:33:36 just to be clear by this date the department was no longer funding any investigation into the fire at lacanal house is that right correct yes at this stage you were now acting on

00:33:47 at this stage you were now acting on behalf of the metropolitan police and the lfb is that correct yes

00:33:54 and you tell us in your second witness statement we don't need to go to it that it was on the 17th of november that you were commissioned by the lfb to carry out some standard tests on sample panels um taken from nakano house yes yes so

00:34:08 um taken from nakano house yes yes so that was the day before your this email that the email that we looked at yes

00:34:17 um now

00:34:17 now looking at what you say there in that paragraph

00:34:20 paragraph you very clearly say i do recall it being made clear to me at some point that the issues with the panel was one of non-compliance are you saying that brian martin

00:34:31 are you saying that brian martin communicated that to you

00:34:37 probably yes this is the point earlier i i'm not 100 sure that it was brian martin or it might have been martin but the point that was made to me was broadly along the lines that

00:34:50 had the panels been class o and bearing in mind the performance that's needed for classo then by extension you wouldn't have had them burning to such an extent that they would have then

00:35:03 would have then produced these fragments of burning material

00:35:06 material in the same way yes but but if the part seven tests hadn't yet been carried out yeah no i'm not sure of the timing of that when when that was communicated to me or the point right simply making is

00:35:18 me or the point right simply making is that i do recall that being that point being made to me i see so are you saying that that point was not necessarily made clear to you in that call

00:35:27 that call but it was made clear to you at some time and sometimes yes correct i see but why were you you were the person investigating the fire why were you being told that the issue was

00:35:39 being told that the issue was one of non-compliance rather than any other problem why wasn't that something that you were investigating and then communicating back to the department

00:35:49 um because so in the

00:35:54 in the context of the criminal investigation the burning debris [Music]

00:36:01 [Music] what's the word i'm looking for it it wasn't relevant because that because there was no um potential offence associated with the production of burning debris so even even if the panels were the source of

00:36:13 even if the panels were the source of the burning debris the fact that this

00:36:18 this wasn't

00:36:18 wasn't controlled or had relevant recommendations in approved document b meant it would be incredibly difficult if not impossible to achieve a prosecution to the standard

00:36:29 to achieve a prosecution to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt so i understand that about the criminal investigation i understand you're saying i'm coming back okay the so the point is and this is why i've been struggling

00:36:41 and this is why i've been struggling with what was discussed during that phone call

00:36:45 it was fed back i'm sure that

00:36:49 that the

00:36:50 the the panels were producing burning embers which fell out of the the test rig on the part seven tests when conducted

00:36:58 conducted um

00:36:59 um and that was fed back because you know it wasn't something that could be covered by the criminal investigation but it was something that the dclg needed to be aware of

00:37:10 but the view was put back to me as to what would have been the outcome had the panels been class owned that it they wouldn't therefore have produced the burning debris

00:37:21 burning debris right

00:37:23 right and this view was put back to you by who again i'm not sure but i believe it may have been bright martin or martinship right it was a again it was the logic that was put to

00:37:34 again it was the logic that was put to me because because to achieve class one um the flame spread across the specimen has to be

00:37:42 has to be i'm really gonna get the numbers wrong but some something over 65 millimeters across the sample the rest of the specimen is therefore unaffected by the test in effect so you wouldn't have substantial quantities of the specimen becoming a light and

00:37:54 the specimen becoming a light and therefore producing burning debris which could then have these other knock-on implications for the incident and so what

00:38:03 what what was believed by what was put to me was that

00:38:07 was that the burning debris simply wouldn't have occurred had the panels been glass home right i see but i'm still puzzled as to why that's not something we see in a report from the bre to the

00:38:18 in a report from the bre to the department formally saying we've done those tests um

00:38:23 um you know you might want to be aware that this is how they performed it shows this about the regulations or that about the regulations why don't we see that

00:38:34 um

00:38:37 i i don't know i mean i probably well there would have been an element of restriction placed upon what could be released from the police investigation

00:38:48 released from the police investigation i don't think they would have prevented this kind of issue being fed back

00:38:57 and it would probably have ultimately been a decision for martinship as to whether and in what form it should go back separately to to the department um

00:39:05 um but it was flagged i believe it was flagged at least informally yes you see i believe it was flagged at least informally is this all going on in verbal conversations is that what's

00:39:16 verbal conversations is that what's happening here um yes what i've described there is yes verbal conversations yes so

00:39:25 yes so you've got an ongoing contract haven't you under the investigation of real fires contract to be reporting back on fires yes yes um

00:39:35 and you've got an obligation to well you're supposed to be communicating to dclg whether or not there's been a failure in the regulations or just a failure to comply

00:39:47 comply and yet what seems to be happening is a series of verbal conversations are going on based on tests done by the met by the lfb

00:39:55 lfb in which it's decided that we don't need to look any further and it's just a question of non-compliance is that is that what happened um

00:40:06 um yes probably but i was only partially involved in the conversations with dcr so i would occasionally get a phone call with brian martin if i felt it was particularly um

00:40:19 warranted or relevant to do so um

00:40:22 um but i you know as a junior member of staff at the time i wasn't encouraged to speak directly to brian martin most of the communication was supposed to go through

00:40:31 through either martinship as the project manager or even debbie smith as the framework manager yeah and can you help us were you told that that it was an issue of non-compliance with the regs before the results of the part seven

00:40:43 before the results of the part seven tests or after can you help us with that

00:40:47 the sorry the the point about the non-compliance yes

00:40:52 yes you said it was communicated to you that it was a non-compliance with the reg with with adb that was the problem here not a problem with the regulations was that communicated to you before the results of the part seven tests were in

00:41:05 results of the part seven tests were in or after

00:41:06 or after can you help us with that probably after right

00:41:11 right and and when you say you were only partially involved is it your evidence that martin ship was leading this from the bre at the time not you well he was leading the investigation of real fires project

00:41:24 investigation of real fires project he was overseeing my work for the met as well i mean the intention certainly at this time was not for me to be the expert witness on the lack of investigation i was just the

00:41:36 investigation i was just the the the junior staff you know doing the work and martin was ultimately going to be the person that took this forward to a trial or anything similar so um

00:41:45 um [Music]

00:41:47 [Music] yeah right did you mention your concerns about downward fire spread to the department and to mr martin at this stage

00:41:59 on the sorry sorry in november 20 2009 yeah uh yes i mean the link would have been made that

00:42:05 that there was the downward fire spread that's already been reported and now we have these test results that that confirm that the panels themselves are producing debris right you considered that that downward spread

00:42:16 you considered that that downward spread was unusual still at this point yes let's just go to your second witness statement again at uh page 18 paragraph 61

00:42:28 and you're answering the inquiries questions here about the reconstruction that you carried out of the lachen or fire at a later stage and you explained there that the reconstruction did not and was not

00:42:40 reconstruction did not and was not intended to address any aspect of the downward uh spread of fire at lachnal house that's right isn't it yes that's correct

00:42:47 correct and that uh reconstruction was uh you say focus squarely on matters which could lead to a criminal prosecution is that right yes correct and in the final line of 61 lines of paragraph 61 you say

00:43:01 line of 61 lines of paragraph 61 you say this you say downward fire spread was not addressed by the provisions in approved document b at the time so offered no prospect of prosecution yes yes now

00:43:13 yes now i understand that in relation to a prosecution you can't prosecute someone if if

00:43:18 if if well this is what you say you can't prosecute someone if adb didn't give guidance saying you should avoid downward fire spread and regulate the droplets that should be produced by these products i understand that point

00:43:31 these products i understand that point but just thinking back to this broader ongoing contract that you have with the department to identify potential safety issues and regulatory issues under the investigation of real fire fires project

00:43:43 investigation of real fire fires project why did you not raise the matter of downward fire spread with brian martin as part of that wider context of reporting on matters of public safety

00:43:58 do you mean at the time of the reconstruction or at what point do you mean just generally well let's have a look at it and let's look at an investigation of real fires

00:44:09 look at an investigation of real fires report that was dated the 17th of november 2009. this is at clg 3019142

00:44:18 this covers the period of the lachenal house fire dated the 17th of november 2009 in the bottom right hand corner now this doesn't contain any recommendations about changes to adb or

00:44:30 recommendations about changes to adb or further work that ought to be carried out following the lachnal house fire if we go to page three of this report

00:44:42 we see at the bottom of the page uh it's their yeah penultimate paragraph we get the familiar phrase the findings from this project have reaffirmed the overall effectiveness of the building

00:44:53 overall effectiveness of the building regulations and adb in providing for the safety of life in the event of fire and most of the significant issues that have been identified during this study fall outside the scope of these regulations

00:45:05 regulations now on page 16 if we go to to that

00:45:12 we can see in the middle of the page in the last bullet point we see something said about lacknow house it says the fatal fire at lachnal house camberwell has focused attention

00:45:24 house camberwell has focused attention on blocks of flats and the responsibilities of the owners of the properties to satisfy the requirements of the fire safety order this incident is still subject to a metropolitan police investigation

00:45:37 metropolitan police investigation more information from this incident of relevant to communities and local government will become available once this investigation is completed so it does say that about the the police investigation that it's ongoing

00:45:49 investigation that it's ongoing um but it doesn't say anything about

00:45:53 about downward fire spread or about the fact that adb doesn't provide for anything in relation to that or the fact that that ought to be investigated further

00:46:04 can you help us as to why that is

00:46:09 uh no i i just well i doubt i was involved in writing this report at this time well let's look at page two of this report

00:46:26 sorry page two

00:46:30 you are one of the authors listed at the beginning it says prepared by martin shipp

00:46:36 shipp calvin annable david crowder yes no absolutely i would have well i did i i'm sure i wrote up various of the um the appendices so the the fires that

00:46:47 the appendices so the the fires that were attended and and um

00:46:50 um written up as far as the special interest reports but i don't think i was involved in in compiling the overall report and producing the front-end findings at this time right

00:47:01 time right is it your evidence that if you had been more involved that there was more you would have said on that topic at this stage because we've we've agreed i think that it was

00:47:12 we've we've agreed i think that it was unusual to have this downward fire spread

00:47:16 spread it had serious consequences didn't it the downward fire spread at lachnal house

00:47:20 house yes why is it not flagged in this report and and would you have flagged it if you'd written it

00:47:33 i would

00:47:39 how do i put this if i were then

00:47:43 then in the position i was i became i came to hold later on than yes i would but

00:47:49 but i don't you know even if i had been involved in them i may well have been involved in discussions around the conclusions um

00:47:57 um it wasn't ultimately my decision how they were drafted and what was ultimately submitted and whose decision was that martinship

00:48:08 and whose decision was that martinship do you remember discussing with martinship the fact that you perhaps ought to be flagging in this report that downward fire spread was something which needed to be investigated which

00:48:19 which needed to be investigated which wasn't addressed in approved document b and ought to you know be the subject of some further work um i remember discussing the the burning debris with martin shipp uh whether it

00:48:31 debris with martin shipp uh whether it was in specific context of this report i can't recall but certainly had conversations about the debris yes you made the point several times in your statement that it wasn't possible to tell from the incident whether it was

00:48:45 tell from the incident whether it was burning debris from the contents of someone's flat or burning debris from the panels which entered the flat but when you did the part seven tests

00:48:56 but when you did the part seven tests there was burning debris from those panels observed wasn't there yes i'm going to take you to some of the observations in those tests surely the fact that it might have come

00:49:07 surely the fact that it might have come from the contents or it might have come from those panels once you know those panels are producing burning debris isn't that no longer a good reason not to take things further

00:49:22 sorry take take things further in what way sorry i'm not being clear enough you seem to say in your statement that the reason why this downward fire spread wasn't looked at further or some of the reasons you give is because

00:49:33 reasons you give is because in the incident it simply wasn't possible to tell from a causative point of view

00:49:38 of view which type of debris it was but once you know these panels are producing that kind of debris why does it matter whether in that particular incident you can

00:49:47 can kind of deal with the causation problem why aren't you investigating it nevertheless and advising government to investigate it nevertheless

00:50:04 i mean i think i did flag it as something that needed looking at um but it wasn't ultimately my decision whether or not it was um and when you said i did sorry

00:50:16 and when you said i did sorry i did

00:50:17 i did try

00:50:18 try to i went as i said i went to all the various flats on that elevation to try and establish try and identify what kinds of debris had fallen in through windows where they're you know

00:50:30 through windows where they're you know where things had caused scorching to the the window surrounds but hadn't actually quite been sufficient to to cause fires to be ignited within those flats yes i understand that and i understand

00:50:41 yes i understand that and i understand that was

00:50:43 that was a relevant part of the investigation to see if you could establish definitively what had actually caused the downward fire spread but my point is this once you know those panels are producing

00:50:54 you know those panels are producing burning debris isn't there a real problem there that you need to be flagging to the department regardless of whether in fact at lachnal that was the piece of debris that set fire

00:51:06 that set fire to that flash okay so well yes that was flagged um how was it so during for my part it was during the discussions with brian martin i can't

00:51:17 discussions with brian martin i can't speak to what other discussions took place

00:51:21 place but the view was

00:51:24 a the panels were not compliant and had they been they wouldn't have been burning debris b the other view that was put forward was well the flats themselves were producing loads of debris and this would always be the case anyway you

00:51:38 there was push back want a better word it wasn't it wasn't something that was being taken particularly seriously not by me but by those i was talking to i see so just to be clear you did flag

00:51:49 see so just to be clear you did flag this issue with brian martin yes this issue of downward fire spread and debris coming from the panels and you're saying that it wasn't being taken seriously is that your evidence

00:52:01 taken seriously is that your evidence it was

00:52:02 it was sorry i'm not taking seriously probably the wrong turn of phrase it was

00:52:07 it was considered by them that there were other explanations for this that didn't go back to a fundamental problem with the approved documents i think is

00:52:18 approved documents i think is the impression i get right

00:52:20 right and and who gave you that impression um brian martin right and did you push back on that and say well you know that doesn't matter

00:52:32 well you know that doesn't matter we clearly have a problem with burning debris with these kind of panels and you've got a problem because approved document b doesn't say anything about burning debris that's a that's a gap that's a problem

00:52:45 that's a that's a gap that's a problem we at least need to do some further work to to investigate this further did you push back in that way a little but again we were into conversations that were above my

00:52:56 conversations that were above my position at that time

00:53:00 yes i mean i again i flagged the issue i went back to brian when i thought it you know resurfaced but there's only so far i could go in circumstances where again junior staff were not encouraged

00:53:12 again junior staff were not encouraged to talk directly to dclg right i see so were did mr ship actually tell you not to talk directly to dclg about these kind of matters um no but there was a

00:53:23 there was a email from debbie smith

00:53:28 i think it was during the new framework so i'm sorry not at the time so in the years preceding this when the

00:53:36 apologies it's in my i think it's in my third witness statement the

00:53:41 the one of the frameworks and i think it's the framework that immediately proceeded lacking all there was an email sent out by debbie smith that specifically made clear that

00:53:52 that specifically made clear that we the fire safety staff generally were not to discuss matters directly with dclg unless they were within sort of formal meetings with debbie smith and and or other you know senior staff

00:54:03 and or other you know senior staff um as the framework managers right we were discouraged from having sort of um

00:54:10 um sidebar conversations with dclg right okay

00:54:16 okay and tell us this in the years later when you did become your senior why did you not flag it then in a formal report to the department as part of this ongoing investigation of real fires

00:54:27 ongoing investigation of real fires contract well in the years later it had been flagged in the inquest to which

00:54:33 to which brian martin was a witness and we'd had those discussions um i mean

00:54:41 there is a point what what are you saying had been flagged in the inquest downward fire spread and the burning debris you'd had that conversation with brian martin then had you sorry i mean the the the findings from

00:54:53 sorry i mean the the the findings from the inquest themselves included the issue around external fire spread that there needed to be work done on external fire spreads because the point was made i think in the fires of special interest

00:55:04 i think in the fires of special interest report that once the investigation was completed

00:55:08 completed um

00:55:09 um you know there might be a further information there might be a further update to the report um but ultimately once the inquest was concluded and there was a a very you know a formal and i would argue

00:55:20 know a formal and i would argue a stronger set of recommendations made to dclg under the um the powers of the rule 43 letters issued by the coroner what was needed had then been formally

00:55:31 what was needed had then been formally communicated to dclg i see

00:55:35 i see now

00:55:37 now if we go to your second witness statement again and look at paragraph 69 on page 20.

00:55:53 that's bre 3043716

00:55:59 page 20.

00:56:07 in the first line there at paragraph 69 you say this you say i raise the unusual nature of the downward fire spread on every occasion that i gave a

00:56:18 every occasion that i gave a presentation on nakano house see my previous witness statement now can we just look at the um what we think is the bre lacanal master presentation that's at bre 405884

00:56:38 so um

00:56:41 um the the title of this document was the bre lacanal master presentation and this seems to be like a template presentation it's quite long um if you look at if we look at page 51 we see the

00:56:54 look at if we look at page 51 we see the conclusions is this a familiar presentation that you can see yes i prepared it lucknow house yeah

00:57:02 yeah and um so starting with these conclusions actually on 51 we can see it says building considered state of the art when built featured in architects large number of issues crept in over a

00:57:13 large number of issues crept in over a number of years overall worsening conditions through years of neglect no one single factor sufficient to have caused death in isolation do you see that yes so there was nothing in these conclusions about downward fire spread

00:57:25 conclusions about downward fire spread or its unusual nature was there no but this slide didn't cover any of the fire safety issues in detail they're in the preceding slides yeah let's have a look at page 11 where you

00:57:36 let's have a look at page 11 where you deal with the cladding you've got flat 65 fire development um and you can see in the final bullet point there it says fire damage extending up external facade to flat

00:57:48 extending up external facade to flat above flat 79. if you look at page 18

00:57:55 there you're dealing with the standard test is that a photograph from the part 7 testing that you did yes so

00:58:03 so we can see it says preliminary modeling and testing standard tests bs 476 part 7 spread of flame window panels door panels balcony panels and then some of the other tests that you did on spread of flame and smoke

00:58:14 you did on spread of flame and smoke toxicity

00:58:16 toxicity so we see that on page 18 we go to page 24 there's a

00:58:23 there's a slide on the composite panels compressed resin outer layers and foam insulation core class 3 no fire resistance ignited under flame impingement from burning flat below burnt through in 45

00:58:35 burning flat below burnt through in 45 minutes

00:58:37 minutes you see that and if we go to page 25 there's something on balcony flat doors about when they were introduced and if you look at page 38

00:58:49 and if you look at page 38 there's a timeline of fire spread to flat 79 and downward to flat 37 and 53.

00:58:58 yes do you see that but we can't find any mention in this master presentation any specific mention of downward far spread of the unusual nature of downward

00:59:09 spread of the unusual nature of downward fire spread of falling burning debris or molten burning debris from the panels why not if this was such a big focus of these presentations

00:59:20 these presentations is it not mentioned on the slides relating to flat 79 37 and 53 you you went to the the slide on flat 65 but you didn't cover the slides

00:59:31 but you didn't cover the slides concerning flat 79 37 and 53. okay well i'll tell you what we'll have a look at that in the break and we'll come back to it if it's mentioned there okay um

00:59:44 actually if we look at page 16 is it flat 37 and 53 you're wanting is that is that what you're referring to yes

00:59:53 yes yeah so

00:59:57 i mean i talk so so with these presentations um and it's a you know presentation style that i have i i as i got better at giving presentations

01:00:09 as i got better at giving presentations during my career i moved very much away from

01:00:11 from um being a presenter that just reads the slides to to the audience because i don't think that's a particularly good way of giving presentations so i try and give

01:00:20 give very succinct slides that are sort of visually interesting to the audience and then i talk i mean i'd quite happily talk for anywhere between five and 15 minutes on any one of these

01:00:32 five and 15 minutes on any one of these slides about the the issues that surrounded these points so the the content that i delivered and equally

01:00:39 equally the amount of content was somewhat dictated by how much time people would make available for these presentations but the content was much broader than what is simply contained on the slides

01:00:50 what is simply contained on the slides yes

01:00:51 yes so um is the answer no there isn't any express reference in these slides to downward fire spread but you think you might have said something orally i mean i i do believe there is a reference in

01:01:02 i i do believe there is a reference in here somewhere but i would definitely have discussed this orally during the presentations yes

01:01:09 yes not least i mean the the specific point if you like in terms of the patter that i had when i went through these was going through the timeline at the end the point about you know flat 37

01:01:21 the end the point about you know flat 37 and 53 igniting as a result of the debris that's coming out of the fires and then the impact that has on the firefighting operations that was all part of

01:01:30 part of the story that i got very used to telling um with this presentation yes i see yes can we just have a look at the the contract that you were the

01:01:41 the the contract that you were the investigation of real fires contract that you were operating under at this time bre 50951

01:01:56 so this is the october 2012 version of this contract um and if we look at page 44

01:02:09 in the second paragraph down do you see that there's a sentence that reads second paragraph down from the top bre will maintain informal direct and regular contact with dclg policy officer

01:02:21 regular contact with dclg policy officer and project contract manager as appropriate during the course of the contract yes yes so can we be clear that um even after there's this restriction on you making

01:02:33 there's this restriction on you making policy recommendations that we discussed yesterday

01:02:36 yesterday there was this obligation to maintain informal direct and regular contact with dclg policy officers yes yes now it's what you've just said a moment

01:02:47 now it's what you've just said a moment ago about the email you say you got from debbie smith saying you can't have informal contact safer in formal meetings

01:02:56 meetings does that mean that you weren't having informal direct and regular contact with dclg policy officers

01:03:03 officers after this point in order to raise points about say the adequacy of adb um

01:03:10 um it means that i wasn't it doesn't mean that bre wasn't i mean again over time i

01:03:18 i as i became more senior then it was more accepted that i was having regular contact so it's it's more a reflection of seniority within the organization and the

01:03:26 the organization as a whole i believe others um and again so early during my career martin chip and debbie smith would have been the ones having the regular informal contact and as i

01:03:37 informal contact and as i made my way up through the ranks and my contact increased right

01:03:43 can you help us with this did you ever offer or ask to prepare a separate policy implications report on downward fire spread no

01:03:55 now looking again at your third witness statement this is at bre 3047668

01:04:03 and on page 37 paragraph 156 yes there we can see that you say

01:04:14 in the last four lines by the time the mps investigation had been abandoned in may 2012

01:04:21 may 2012 there was an express requirement by dclg for bre not to make any policy recommendations do you have that yes

01:04:31 now can i just tease out something about the timing of this though can we agree that in fact the previous contract with the dcld remained in force until july 2012 were you aware of that

01:04:43 2012 were you aware of that so the contact which didn't say anything about not making policy recommendations that was in force until july 2012. agree though so apologies that's my mistake the

01:04:54 so apologies that's my mistake the [Music]

01:04:56 [Music] prior to that new july contract um there had been this shift albeit that it wasn't because the the old contract was three years old it wasn't recognized within the contract

01:05:07 it wasn't recognized within the contract but there had been a shift by may 2012 that they they didn't want us to be providing policy recommendations that wasn't then formalized in the contract until a couple of months later but the

01:05:19 couple of months later but the the direction of travel if you like was was very much well understood by that stage

01:05:23 stage i see

01:05:24 i see because what we're seeking to understand is why

01:05:27 is why um

01:05:28 um even if you had to wait until the end of the mps investigation being abandoned why after may 2012 there couldn't have been a recommendation to to to make a policy recommendations

01:05:40 to to to make a policy recommendations report a policy implications report on downward fire spread why that would have happened

01:05:46 happened everything from that sort of time um

01:05:52 yeah there was this unwillingness to to hear policy recommendations um from dclg and so

01:06:02 and so not i mean not in may 2012 but not very long thereafter um the focus shift towards the inquest given that that would provide um

01:06:11 um you know outside of the contract a clear route by which recommendations could be made i see yeah can i just look at your third statement now um at page 39

01:06:24 your third statement now um at page 39 paragraph 162 and i want to pick it up in the second line

01:06:29 line you say this as explained in my second statement the reconstruction was funded and carried out to support a criminal investigation there was nothing to be gained from trying to replicate the burning debris in terms of establishing whether

01:06:40 in terms of establishing whether offenses had been committed and then you say this in any event even if this had been a piece of government research the fact that the panels were capable of producing burning debris had

01:06:51 capable of producing burning debris had already been established by the bs 476 part seven tests carried out a month prior to the reconstruction now

01:06:59 now do you accept that the mere fact that the panels were capable of producing burning debris did not take the understanding of the phenomenon of downward fire spread any further

01:07:15 i'm not sure i'm sorry i'm not sure i follow the question um so what i'm really seeking to tease out is that you've established that these panels are capable of producing some

01:07:27 panels are capable of producing some burning debris but actually understanding in detail what the mechanism would be for any downward fire spread how that would happen is it that you know a melting and dripping of the

01:07:38 you know a melting and dripping of the plastic

01:07:40 plastic how does that occur how does it pool is are there pool fires all of that complication which

01:07:47 which can be looked at when you analyze carefully something like downward fire spread

01:07:51 spread that that hadn't been gone into at all had it

01:07:55 had it not as a broader topic in terms of lacking all it had been established because what what the test showed was that there was no melting these were panels which um formed a char um so effectively what you ended up with

01:08:06 um so effectively what you ended up with was embers like you get from a fire that were were falling off of the panels as they burned so as far as lacking was concerned the downward fire spread was well understood

01:08:17 well understood and

01:08:19 and that in combination with some of the computer modelling that was conducted in relation to the fire led us to understand that you know whatever the burning material was whether it was fragments of burning panel or

01:08:32 fragments of burning panel or fragments of burning material from inside the flats it was a very peculiar set of air currents that occurred on the day of the fire that happened to result in um debris

01:08:42 debris falling into the flats below and therefore igniting them and what transpired as a result right where you say there was no melting these panels formed a char so effectively what

01:08:53 panels formed a char so effectively what you ended up with was embers like you get from a fire why don't we see that written up anywhere by the bre in a formal report so that others can understand what the mechanism of the

01:09:05 understand what the mechanism of the downward fire spread was i believe that's in the reports for the standard tests in the 476 part 7 test yes i believe so i see

01:09:17 now is it right that the window panels used in the refurbishment of lachnal house which were found not to be able to achieve national class naught were identified eventually as being formed of

01:09:29 identified eventually as being formed of two

01:09:30 two three millimeter outer skins of trespa meteon a high pressure laminate yes yes and we know there was this foam core sandwich between them yes yes

01:09:41 sandwich between them yes yes if we go to your second statement at page 12 paragraph 35 we can see that you're responding to the inquiries question just above paragraph

01:09:53 inquiries question just above paragraph 34

01:09:54 34 and the question is this did you or anyone else from bre take any steps to identify the phone calls do you have that yes

01:10:02 that yes and your response below that uh paragraph 34 and 35 is this so at 34 you say

01:10:10 say i sought out the information which was available in the witness statements taken by the metropolitan police which indicated that the panels have been manufactured by at least two companies and you name them and you say i made a request for further

01:10:22 and you say i made a request for further information concerning the insulation used in these panels but none was found prior to the decision by mps to discontinue its criminal investigation and then you go on you say in terms of laboratory activities conducted at bre

01:10:35 laboratory activities conducted at bre then

01:10:36 then other than visual inspection no steps were taken to identify the phone calls as previously set out doing so would have been of no value in terms of

01:10:47 have been of no value in terms of whether or not the panels were compliant had information been obtained from the manufacturers then i believe it would have become necessary to conduct chemical analysis to match the panels to manufacturing information

01:11:00 manufacturing information and then if we look at paragraph 37 at the bottom of that page you say

01:11:05 you say um

01:11:07 um so you're being asked to describe steps in detail

01:11:10 in detail and

01:11:11 and the answer you give is as above the specific chemical composition doesn't affect whether a material is compliant legal non-compliant legal illegal it is the fire performance which

01:11:22 it is the fire performance which determines this establishing the exact chemical composition of the cause would have added no value in terms of whether or not the panels used were compliant and or gave rise to any criminal offences

01:11:34 or gave rise to any criminal offences having been committed so is this right that in your view the chemical composition of the phone was not relevant to compliance or non-compliance the fire performance

01:11:45 non-compliance the fire performance would be the determining factor yes yes but can we agree that the fire performance of the foam cores wasn't established clearly either was it

01:11:57 uh i'm not sure we can agree that and in what sense i'm afraid you'll have to explain so

01:12:04 so no specific tests were carried out on that foam core itself where there you did a four seven you did a 476 part seven test on the composite panel yes

01:12:17 on the composite panel yes but you didn't do any kind of testing did you on the phone core itself at any stage there were no performance requirements specific to the foam core as an isolated

01:12:28 specific to the foam core as an isolated material

01:12:29 material but did you not want to understand what the fire performance of that phone call was

01:12:37 as an individual material no we wanted to understand the performance of the composite panel as a whole

01:12:50 if we look at page 14 of your second witness statement you're asked at d uh by the inquiry did you give consideration to the performance in fire and or the combustibility or otherwise

01:13:03 and or the combustibility or otherwise of the foam cores of the panels and you say this you just say see previous responses the performance of the foam was necessarily affected by it being sandwiched between two sheets of trespa just as the trust performance was

01:13:15 trespa just as the trust performance was affected by the insertion of the foam testing the foam in isolation would not have yielded a result that could support a criminal prosecution as there was no performance requirement recommendation

01:13:26 performance requirement recommendation specific to the foam core given that it was insulation not within a ventilated cavity and the building work in which it was installed was subject to approve document b 2000 edition consolidated with 2000 and 2002

01:13:39 edition consolidated with 2000 and 2002 amendments now i understand that what you're saying is

01:13:44 is if you tested it in isolation that wouldn't have supported a criminal investigation but weren't you as the bre interested in understanding what the fire performance of this phone call was

01:13:55 fire performance of this phone call was regardless of whether or not that was useful in a criminal investigation

01:14:03 the re might have been but i'd certainly at that time i wasn't at my discretion to go spending money on those sorts of things absent a contract to cover it um

01:14:16 did it ever occur to you that that might be a useful piece of research to recommend to the department that they carry out

01:14:30 probably not not as just establishing the performance of the individual phone core

01:14:35 core um

01:14:37 um i mean i did various times try to think of you know what further areas of research might um be derived from lachenal

01:14:49 be derived from lachenal it was something in fact that i started putting my mind to when the fire safety prosecution was finally concluded um but that obviously never happened because it was only a few months later that the fire at grenfell occurred but

01:15:01 that the fire at grenfell occurred but um

01:15:02 um now at that time i wasn't in a position to be thinking about what other things that bre could be doing um say funded by the bre trust um to further investigate this

01:15:15 um to further investigate this now it was your view wasn't it that the insulation in these panels was likely to have been polyurethane or a similar material is that right yes that was the evidence you gave to the coroner at the inquest in in march 2013. yes

01:15:28 inquest in in march 2013. yes polyurethane is a combustible material isn't it yes can we look at your report to the metropolitan police now at bre 4058

01:15:39 4058 so this is your expert witness report 11th of may 2012 the dates right in the bottom right hand corner now the insulation product used as the

01:15:50 now the insulation product used as the foam core is addressed in this report if we go to page 97

01:15:58 in this section of the report what you're doing is commenting on the witness statement if you look in the middle of the page you can see there's paragraph 541 it says s-250 symphony windows manager

01:16:11 it says s-250 symphony windows manager nick coop yes yes and what you appear to be doing is commenting on a witness statement that this

01:16:18 this individual nick coop had provided of symphony windows and if um

01:16:25 and if um we go to page 99 paragraph 550

01:16:33 one so right in the middle of the page as an indented paragraph paragraph 550.1

01:16:42 and in the second line you you say um

01:16:48 thermal performance of insulation materials is becoming increasingly important with the current drive towards sustainability however this does not diminish the requirements with respect to fire safety

01:17:01 to fire safety do you see that yes

01:17:03 yes and then staying on that page and going down to paragraph 552 we can see that nick keep has explained in his witness statement there's some text in italics

01:17:15 text in italics he said this at paragraph three he said with reference to the infill panels it would be unusual for us to deviate from the sandwich panels but we may if for example a backup panel was required on the inside

01:17:26 the inside the insulation in the panel is a high density polyurethane board which is commonly used in the industry and i am not aware of any alternatives for this type of installation

01:17:37 type of installation although i believe polystyrene is still used in some installations but it's not a product we would consider and then he goes on

01:17:51 it is my understanding that polyurethane insulation meets recognized standards of fire safety do you see that yes

01:17:59 yes and you comment at paragraph 552.1 at the bottom of that page you say this you say the fire performance of polyurethane is variable and dependent upon the way in which it

01:18:11 and dependent upon the way in which it is manufactured the term polyurethane refers to a family of plastics rather than an individual plastic polyurethanes most commonly vary either through their core chemistry

01:18:23 through their core chemistry i.e within which ingredients are used to actually produce the polymer of the plastic or through the overall formulation of the plastic i using additives which are mixed into the formulation but do not chemically react

01:18:36 formulation but do not chemically react with the polymer when it is produced fire retardants can fall into either of these two categories do you see that yes now just with reference to that can we

01:18:48 now just with reference to that can we agree that the fire performance of the particular polyurethane foam used in the panels that lachenal house was not examined at any stage was it great yes thanks

01:19:04 and

01:19:08 before we move away from this document if we turn to page 117 and to paragraph 653

01:19:18 we can see there's a heading there above that letter from the principal construction professional at dcld now this is a letter that the police had received from brian martin at dclg

01:19:29 received from brian martin at dclg and you tell us at paragraph 653 of this report i've reviewed a letter from the principal construction professional at dclg

01:19:38 dclg in response to questions that were posed by london fire brigade in relation to the requirements of the building regulations and the recommendations of approved document b this letter has been provided to me by mps and can be identified within their

01:19:49 mps and can be identified within their document management system do you see that yes

01:19:53 that yes now we'll go to that letter in a moment um

01:19:57 um that's a letter from brian martin moving down this page we can see it paragraph 656 you say

01:20:05 you say the provisions for external walls of buildings where walls are above 18 meters are confirmed as being as follows insulation in the external walls should be either of limited combustibility or

01:20:16 be either of limited combustibility or the entire wall system should be tested to bs 8414 so you appear is this right to be confirming to the metropolitan police information which had been given to them

01:20:28 information which had been given to them about guidance in approved document b by brian martin yes yes

01:20:35 but that information was not correct was it that um the insulation at la canal house needed to be either of limited combustibility or the entire wall system tested to eight four one four

01:20:48 um no i'd yeah i don't know why it doesn't include the reference to ventilated cavities i think i think that's the point yeah precisely it's a point you yourself make at paragraph 44 of your second

01:20:59 make at paragraph 44 of your second witness statement you make the point that there was no performance requirement or recommendation specific to the phone call because it was the 2002 edition of approved document b

01:21:11 edition of approved document b which applied and which only required insulation in ventilated cavities to be of limited combustibility yes yes and lacking house was not a ventilated

01:21:23 and lacking house was not a ventilated cavity system was it no

01:21:26 now were you aware of this at the time you prepared your report for the police in may 2012

01:21:33 yes i think so i mean there's an entire section in this report devoted to approve document b 2000 which i think includes

01:21:40 includes those provisions i think it's section three of this report deals with legislation and guidance

01:21:48 guidance but can you explain why you appear in this section to be endorsing the letter from brian martin about approved document b which says that the walls the insulation should be of limited

01:21:59 insulation should be of limited combustibility this section of the report is not concerned with endorsing things it's a review of documents and what they say

01:22:08 i mean there may be a transcription error in i don't you say you'll bring up d 371 um later but

01:22:16 but um

01:22:17 um this part of the report is not concerned with endorsing that view it is about gathering the information and then the conclusions and the implications

01:22:28 the implications um

01:22:29 um in terms of the you know potential for trial and so on come later i see

01:22:38 mr chairman i i'm going to go to that letter but i think let's break now and we'll do that after the break right dr crowder we'll have our morning break at this point we'll stop now we'll resume please at 20 to

01:22:51 stop now we'll resume please at 20 to 12. and as i said to you on previous occasions please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while it's into the room right thank you thank you very much

01:23:07 thank you very much 20 to 12 please

01:40:51 would you ask dr crowder to come back in please thank you

01:41:04 all right dr kreider all ready to carry on i hope yes thank you thank you very much yes it's great yes thank you just picking up on the first point from this morning's evidence um in the light of your answers we've rechecked that presentation that you

01:41:17 rechecked that presentation that you gave on national house the slides and there is no reference to downward fire spread anywhere else in the slides we can see fine i thought there was but i mean as i said earlier i would have

01:41:28 i mean as i said earlier i would have discussed the points while giving the presentations anyway yeah then going back to the point uh we were on just before the break about your report to the metropolitan police and what you were telling them about the relevant

01:41:40 were telling them about the relevant provisions were within the approved document

01:41:43 document um if we look at page 179

01:41:46 179 of that

01:41:47 of that report

01:41:50 sorry i probably need to give the reference again for it so

01:41:55 so [Applause]

01:41:59 yeah bre four zeros five double eight one

01:42:14 yes so if we look at page yes 179 and paragraph 995 when you're going through the regulations we can see at 995 you've

01:42:25 regulations we can see at 995 you've stated that paragraph 13.7 of adb states that the external envelope of a building should not provide a medium for fire spread it was like to be a risk to health or safety and then the use of combustible

01:42:37 and then the use of combustible materials for cladding framework or of combustible thermal insulation as an overcladding or ventilated cavities may present such a risk in tall buildings even though the provisions for external surfaces in diagram 40 may have been

01:42:49 surfaces in diagram 40 may have been satisfied do you see that there yes so you've got reference to that part of adb and the fact that it's um in ventilated cavities that the in the

01:43:00 in ventilated cavities that the in the combustible insulation is a problem yes but um if we go back to the page i was on which was page 117

01:43:14 the way this part of your report reads to us is that you're confirming information that brian martin has given in his letter about the relevant provisions of adb

01:43:26 relevant provisions of adb and

01:43:27 and the reason for that is if you look at say paragraph 654 do you see it you start that paragraph the letter confirms that do you see yes and then at six five six you've got

01:43:39 yes and then at six five six you've got the provisions for the external walls where the walls are above 18 meters are confirmed as being as follows insulation should be either limited combustibility or entire wall system

01:43:50 entire wall system so

01:43:51 so help us with this why if you had if you did clearly understand that it was only insulation in ventilated cavities that needed to be of limited combustibility why when you're reviewing this letter

01:44:04 why when you're reviewing this letter don't you correct that or make reference to the other paragraph in your report and say

01:44:10 and say well actually he's got this wrong these aren't the right provisions in approved document b can you help us with that

01:44:22 um i don't i mean so in terms of the the meaning of the word confirm i think and we'll go to the document i believe you said but i that was what the response is provided

01:44:35 that was what the response is provided by the principal construction professional confirmed the following that's what confirmed means in this context

01:44:40 context um

01:44:43 as to it being correct or not um

01:44:49 i don't know i'm thinking back i it probably didn't jump out off the page at me that it was a fundamental incorrect point to make i mean

01:44:58 mean the point was that i was um

01:45:02 i was um aware of what the relevant um performances ultimately were that needed to be achieved and that was then set out in relation to um the

01:45:12 the the ultimate findings of the report but it's crucial for you to be clear on the in the report about that for the met isn't it i whether there was a requirement for the phone call to be of

01:45:23 requirement for the phone call to be of limited combustibility or not

01:45:27 yes agreed but i believe the end conclusions of the report do address that properly let's go to the letter from brian martin that you'd reviewed in this part of your report is it clg one triple zero four

01:45:38 report is it clg one triple zero four six eight four we can see from page one that the letter is dated the 23rd of february 2011

01:45:47 and it's um to the assistant commissioner of fire safety regulation at the london fire brigade headquarters do you see that yes and

01:45:59 if we go to the second paragraph on page one

01:46:03 one halfway through the third line so so let's just read the whole second paragraph he says you'll appreciate that i cannot give a definitive determination of the law as it is a matter for the courts however i hope the following

01:46:14 courts however i hope the following responses to your questions are of assistance i have answered your questions in relation to approved document b volume 2 buildings other than dwelling houses based on the current 2006 edition

01:46:26 houses based on the current 2006 edition which took effect in april 2007 you may need to check that this edition is relevant to any building work that may have taken place do you see that yes so he is making clear that he's based

01:46:39 so he is making clear that he's based his answers on the 2006 edition yes but help us with this this letter is from february 2011. so more than 18 months after the fire at la canal house are you help us can you help us to

01:46:51 are you help us can you help us to understand why brian martin is asking essentially asking the lfb to check that the addition he's referring to is the one that's relevant to the building work that took place at black and house

01:47:03 work that took place at black and house how come he doesn't know that by this point

01:47:10 um i don't know why he doesn't know that by this point i

01:47:17 i would have thought he didn't know that by this point although i'm just returning to your earlier questions i mean

01:47:24 i mean this now makes sense to me in that he was asked to confirm things so i've i've recited what he confirmed and the reason why i wouldn't have corrected him is because in safaris he's commenting on the 2006 edition of adb

01:47:36 commenting on the 2006 edition of adb there is nothing incorrect about the information he provided but i still drew my own conclusions in terms of the expert witness report that ultimately it was the 2000 edition that applied and

01:47:47 was the 2000 edition that applied and therefore we weren't interested in in limited combustibility for the insulation but why he chose to rely upon the 2006 edition i do not know

01:47:58 edition i do not know can you help us how could brian martin have decided that there were no problems with adb itself that's arising from the lack of house prior when he doesn't appear to know what edition of the

01:48:09 appear to know what edition of the approved document is relevant to it

01:48:13 as i said i think he did no i don't know why he chose to refer to that edition but as we discussed before the difference between the 2002 edition and the 2006 edition

01:48:25 and the 2006 edition made a big impact didn't it in terms of the core of the the phone panel at lachnal because on the earlier version it didn't need to be of limited combustibility on the later version it

01:48:36 combustibility on the later version it did yes

01:48:46 now if we go to the second your second witness statement to the inquiry uh page 14 paragraph 44

01:49:07 we read this earlier and and i want to just ask you some more questions you seem to be explaining in this paragraph that the basis for the decision not to identify or assess the fire performance of the insulation

01:49:19 fire performance of the insulation was that the in the absence of any performance requirement for that material the results whatever they were couldn't support a criminal prosecution yes yes that and that ultimately

01:49:32 that ultimately what was of interest in terms of performance was was the composite panel as a whole not the insulation in isolation and equally not the trespa in isolation

01:49:41 isolation yes why do we not see that fact the absence of a performance requirement for the insulation very clearly set out in your report to the police

01:49:54 because

01:49:57 it would have been a very long report if i'd identified everything that wasn't required

01:50:03 required i identified the things that were required

01:50:07 required the police to their credit they don't do fire safety prosecutions very often um

01:50:14 um they wanted a report that was as succinct as possible so i told them what things were that were required

01:50:21 required and that therefore might give rise to to you know further investigation and prosecutions but i wasn't going to list out to them all the things that ultimately weren't relevant to them

01:50:32 the lack of any fire performance requirement in the relevant edition of approved document b for the foam insulation was also not mentioned at any time during your evidence at the inquest into the deaths of lack of house was it

01:50:45 into the deaths of lack of house was it no because i wasn't asked any questions on the subject

01:50:51 do you consider that the fact that the polyurethane insulation used in the external wall arrangement of lachnal house was compliant with the provisions of approved document b in terms of its combustibility exposed an obvious flaw in the 2002 edition of

01:51:04 an obvious flaw in the 2002 edition of the approved document yes

01:51:08 now why is that not flagged up somewhere in any of your reports

01:51:18 um well i mean it there wasn't a vehicle in terms of so the the the fire special interest report was closed off

01:51:29 special interest report was closed off prior to it being fully fleshed out with these kinds of issues the police investigation as i said was was concerned with what things were required and therefore what

01:51:40 were required and therefore what potential offences had been committed um

01:51:44 um i don't know why it wasn't raised during the inquest but just just as i am here responding to your questions today i can't just speak at will on subjects that i'd like to cover

01:51:55 to cover the same is true of the inquest it was for um council to the inquest and indeed the various uh interested parties to decide what topics they wanted to ask me about but do you ever remember discussing that obvious flaw with with the department

01:52:07 obvious flaw with with the department with brian martin um

01:52:11 um yes i think we i couldn't say exactly when but i'm sure it did come up and and the the point that was immediately made was well this isn't an issue anymore we've we've corrected that in the 2006 edition

01:52:21 edition i do remember having that conversation but as i say i couldn't say exactly when

01:52:28 now i just want you to step back a minute um you answered a number of detailed questions in your witness statement about the fire performance of these panels

01:52:38 panels and and what the the questions were really directed at was whether or not you ever gave any real consideration to the effect on the fire event of the fact that the insulation was a combustible

01:52:50 insulation was a combustible polyurethane material it is the answer that that simply wasn't ever the subject of any detailed consideration um yeah i think that is correct so just

01:53:02 um yeah i think that is correct so just as a for instance you mean if if the insulation had instead been some sort of mineral insulation with the same trespa facings is that yes so for example did anyone ever consider the likely impact

01:53:13 anyone ever consider the likely impact on the fire had the insulating cause been of limited combustibility no

01:53:19 do you accept that identifying whether the panel was national class naught or class three and the 476 part 7 test was never going to tell you anything about the fire performance of these

01:53:31 about the fire performance of these composite panels as a whole

01:53:37 no i don't accept that because the tests were conducted on composite panels as a whole

01:53:42 whole yes four seven six part seven tests were conducted to look at um and they look at surface spread of flame yes yes it's a limited test yes yes can you help us as

01:53:53 limited test yes yes can you help us as to why we don't ever see any suggestion of any other tests being carried out whether they are standard tests or just bespoke tests to seek to understand in

01:54:04 bespoke tests to seek to understand in better

01:54:05 better detail what the fire performance was of these particular panels right so that was covered in detail by the reconstruction and indeed i remember some some back and forth during the inquest about the peculiar way in which

01:54:17 inquest about the peculiar way in which the the aluminium frames softened because the performance of the aluminium was also relevant to the the overall external wall construction and the point was made um

01:54:30 i'm sorry by one of the the barristers one of the qcs um it was about the way that the the panel once it was a light would start to

01:54:40 start to deform physically um as a result of the action of the burning and the aluminium frame

01:54:46 frame at some point would be incapable of of the panel in its original shape and you start to get the panel pulling away from the frame which provided a direct route for fire into

01:54:57 route for fire into the building behind so that was looked at in quite some detail i see but i think we agreed earlier can we agree this that the reconstruction didn't seek in any way to look at the phenomenon of downward fire spread did

01:55:09 phenomenon of downward fire spread did it no but it did look at how well the panels burnt how quickly the fire was able to get through them and as i said their mechanical behavior when undergoing

01:55:20 mechanical behavior when undergoing burning

01:55:21 burning it was never established was it whether the core of the panel was a thermo setting or a thermoplastic insulin was it

01:55:29 it well it was by not specifically as a standalone test but the fact that the panels charred and form burning embers means they were thermoplastic

01:55:40 means they were thermoplastic sorry they were thermo setting on wood they were thermosetting because had they been thermoplastics they would have melted right i see you never did a four seven six part six

01:55:51 you never did a four seven six part six test on the panels did you no one was proposed but the um once the the part seven result was in it was established that the panel could not achieve class 0 and there was a

01:56:03 not achieve class 0 and there was a concern raised i believe by colleagues in standard testing that there might be a risk to the part 6 apparatus given how badly the panels had performed because the part six is a much more

01:56:15 because the part six is a much more severe exposure than the part seven tests you have both direct flame impingement and some electric heating elements within that furnace

01:56:24 furnace and that could have resulted in a severe reaction with these particular products yeah there was never any bomb calorie calorimetry test done there was never any testing under any of

01:56:35 there was never any testing under any of the european tests done no because the european test so particularly the the sbi sorry the bsen 13823 test

01:56:46 bsen 13823 test uh was deemed a more severe test and for the criminal investigation we were aiming at the the lower end i should clarify though your mention of the bomb calorimeter test we did conduct the cone calorimeter

01:56:57 test we did conduct the cone calorimeter test

01:56:58 test to try and assess the amount of energy that was produced right

01:57:04 right do you accept that identifying the precise materials and products used and their fire performance in detail would have been hugely beneficial to the industry as a whole in understanding how these panels

01:57:16 in understanding how these panels performed

01:57:19 um

01:57:25 you mean if it if this had been taken further under the fires of special interest report yes yes and it would have been hugely beneficial to the industry as a whole yes yes

01:57:36 to the industry as a whole yes yes we saw nick coop's evidence that you reviewed in your met police report that this particular insulin insulation was commonly used in the industry do you remember seeing that yes so this wasn't

01:57:47 remember seeing that yes so this wasn't a

01:57:48 a a one-off core was it it was something you knew

01:57:51 you knew was commonly being used yes the polyurethane yes but i don't believe it's used in combination with the transport was common what did you base that belief on how did you know that

01:58:03 you know that um

01:58:09 sorry there was something that uh

01:58:18 it was something in the the mets inquiries in terms of the the companies that have been manufacturing this stuff they didn't have a particularly um

01:58:27 positive view of the because so nick coop of symphony windows wasn't manufacturing the panels themselves they had gone to these other companies and they were listed in in their statements

01:58:39 they were listed in in their statements and

01:58:40 and effectively what what i see from being fed back was that they were sort of fly-by-night companies that were set up to to just cheaply manufacture these panels for

01:58:51 panels for short order processes and and they weren't

01:58:55 weren't um well established enterprises in the industry

01:59:00 industry so you deduced from that did you that these panels were unlikely to be commonly used on other buildings um not

01:59:09 um not unlikely per se but it wasn't apparent to me that they were common

01:59:14 common or highly common did you ever mention to brian martin that it would have been beneficial to industry as a whole to investigate this further

01:59:25 um well yes i wanted the investigation to go on further i don't think i used to industry as a whole but yeah yes because we've looked at the objectives of the real fires project some of those

01:59:36 real fires project some of those objectives included improving understanding of how unusual fires develop and grow particularly in domestic and other residential properties and identify and indicate the need for research arising out of specific problems highlighted in fire

01:59:48 specific problems highlighted in fire investigations yes yes but at no stage was it suggested to brian martin that there ought to be further investigations done either on the panels as a composite or on the core

02:00:01 um no i don't believe it was but again they took the decision to shut down the investigation and we did get to a point later on where we expected things to be

02:00:12 later on where we expected things to be fed back to government via the inquest let's have a look at the bre um the test reports on the sample panels that were done under part seven the part seven testing this is at bre four zero five

02:00:24 testing this is at bre four zero five eight seven 5878 and i want to look at page 242.

02:00:31 so so this is from uh one of the test reports on the um the panel the 476 part 7 surface spread of flame test reports and we can see there's some observations

02:00:42 and we can see there's some observations um underneath the test report now first question did you ever personally observe these tests these four seven six part seven tests yes you did how many of them

02:00:53 seven tests yes you did how many of them all of them or just some of them um

02:00:57 certainly most of them whether or not to all of them i don't know but and who would have written these observations up the test technician i had no inv i was

02:01:08 the test technician i had no inv i was effectively witnessing as the customer as far as as they were concerned and everything that's in the report is is completed by the test technician yeah and we can see at line one it says

02:01:19 and we can see at line one it says incandescent spooling was visible throughout all test runs yes yes and then

02:01:25 and then three lines down specimens were flaming strongly at the end of all test runs yes yes

02:01:31 yes four lines down flaming debris was observed burning on the floor for a maximum of five seconds each yeah yes

02:01:41 now to help us with this we can't see in any of these reports some of the observations you gave earlier about the fact that this material charred it didn't melt and drip it charred and

02:01:52 it didn't melt and drip it charred and then little pieces of char fell off where do we find that either in these test reports or in any other bre reports

02:02:03 test reports or in any other bre reports apologies i thought it was in the test reports um

02:02:11 if it's not in uh well it may not be in any reports then if it's not in here but i'm sure i've got photographs of the the chara and the embers that were formed

02:02:22 it was out sorry no no that was it it was evident from just this standard test wasn't it that this was a pretty dangerous combination of materials yes yes

02:02:34 did you ever consider that the the combination of these materials and the potential common use of these products might be a topic which ought to be identified to the department as one that ought to

02:02:46 to the department as one that ought to be further investigated

02:02:53 um

02:03:00 no because it wasn't

02:03:03 it wasn't while these may have been common materials

02:03:06 materials i don't think at the time there was any reason to believe they were being used commonly

02:03:12 commonly above 18 meters where they were non-compliant they were only being used commonly

02:03:17 commonly on buildings which had no restrictions in terms of the use of these materials i'm still really struggling to understand what the evidential basis was for that assumption

02:03:30 for that assumption can you help us with not an assumption that that an absence of evidence so as part of the wider project there was a watching um review an ongoing review of media

02:03:44 um review an ongoing review of media articles

02:03:46 articles external fighters by their very nature tend to gather a lot of major interest you get news reports when there really is you know cladding systems heavily involved in fire those are the kinds of visually

02:03:57 those are the kinds of visually impressive incidents that the media get interested in we would have known if there were lots of other buildings that were also suffering significant fires like this and that these panels were therefore

02:04:09 and that these panels were therefore responsible for that that simply was not occurring i understand you haven't got that information you haven't got other fires

02:04:17 fires with these particular materials although i think as we established yesterday you often wouldn't know what the materials were in a fire because the investigation wouldn't get past the summary stage agreed

02:04:29 summary stage agreed agreed though wear a again a cladding fire that really does involve the cladding would by its nature probably end up being escalated there is the point about the fires we discussed yesterday that

02:04:41 discussed yesterday that for whatever reason the fires didn't get very far and therefore didn't take those boxes

02:04:45 boxes but had

02:04:47 but had performance of these kinds of panels led to significant story to story fire spread then it probably would have ended up being investigated and followed up isn't the truth of it that there was just a complete absence of evidence

02:04:58 just a complete absence of evidence about how widespread the use of these panels were

02:05:04 um well i don't know because again that's then drifting from investigation of fires to

02:05:13 to somehow having an overview of all the different construction types that exist within the uk um and that that wasn't part of our work and i you know i don't

02:05:24 part of our work and i you know i don't know how we would have i mean maybe there are mechanisms for for reviewing all the different types of construction that gets put onto buildings in the uk but that wasn't what we were being asked to do

02:05:34 to do wasn't that a recommendation you could have made to brian martin you ought to find out mr martin how commonly used these panels are because what we can tell you

02:05:43 tell you is when we tested them to 476 part 7 it was a disaster was that a conversation you ever had with him

02:05:54 no but again this is a

02:06:03 the belief at the time was that

02:06:06 was that in general compliance with the regulations and the guidance was being achieved there wasn't evidence to say that this wasn't being achieved at lacanal was a a very you know it was a tragic event but it was a

02:06:18 know it was a tragic event but it was a a one-off in terms of what occurred at the time

02:06:23 there wasn't this um there wasn't what resulted from grenfell in terms of you know this realization that this was occurring as a widespread matter across the uk and i still think

02:06:35 matter across the uk and i still think to this day there hasn't been a i'm not at least i'm not aware that these materials these products have been identified as being widespread across buildings in the uk not not the composite panels that ron lacking off

02:06:49 composite panels that ron lacking off yes but can we agree this you would only know if it was a one-off in terms of what had been used if somebody i appreciate it might not have been you but somebody went and looked to find out

02:07:00 but somebody went and looked to find out yes if you wanted to establish how widespread it was in the uk you'd need to do a uk wide survey to find this out well weren't there organizations that either the bre or others were in contact

02:07:11 either the bre or others were in contact with for example the cwct or other such industry organizations where inquiries could have been made and and red flags put up to say we've tested this panel as pretty bad

02:07:22 we've tested this panel as pretty bad results on even on some limited testing how commonly used is it any can anyone give us any information about that you don't have to do a uk-wide survey to start that investigative trail do you

02:07:37 to start that investigative trail do you no true um

02:07:41 those i mean i certainly wasn't even aware of cwct at this time so that would have been for others to do but i take your point i see let's look at what you say in your second witness statement on page 28

02:07:54 second witness statement on page 28 and paragraph 88 h which is at the very bottom of the page

02:08:01 now for context you'd been providing some information about the emails you sent to brian martin in may and june 2010 before that 20 yes 2010 about the fires of special interest report that's

02:08:12 fires of special interest report that's in g

02:08:14 in g and you say this following this period i believe that i had very little contact with brian martin regarding lachnal house until the time of the inquest my general impression was that the view

02:08:25 my general impression was that the view of dclg at this time prior to the inquest was simply that

02:08:30 that lacanal had occurred as a result of non-compliance with a previous edition of approved document b the 2000 edition consolidated with 2000 and 2002 amendments whereas the current edition

02:08:41 amendments whereas the current edition was the 2006 edition amended 2007. matters concerning the adequacy of guidance for firefighting were not within brian martin's remit and i predominantly dealt with peter wise in this regard

02:08:53 this regard and then going on in the next subparagraph little i you say note that i was in regular contact with brian martin throughout the above period regarding the investigation of real fires project generally but not in

02:09:05 fires project generally but not in respect of lack of house in particular my general impression as previously stated was that lack of house was not of particular concern to dclg in terms of potential updates to approve

02:09:17 in terms of potential updates to approve document b given the volume of non-compliances with approved document b that had led to its tragic outcome

02:09:25 now

02:09:28 was that your impression from the 28th of july 2009 onwards when brian martin shut down

02:09:35 shut down any further investigation of lachnal house or did you begin to have that impression in terms of the department's view at some later stage

02:09:46 department's view at some later stage um

02:09:48 um i think it was around the time of july 2009

02:09:51 2009 i say i mean yeah around the summer of 2009.

02:09:55 2009. and looking back at um if we go back a page um to what you said in 88 h at the bottom of the page you said my general impression was that

02:10:07 you said my general impression was that the view of dclg at this time was simply that lack of had occurred as a result of non-compliance from whom specifically did you get that impression brian martin and what specifically did he say to you

02:10:19 and what specifically did he say to you which led you to form that impression

02:10:24 um

02:10:29 but probably something very similar to those words that you know there was clearly a lot wrong with the building it was non-compliant in lots of different ways

02:10:37 ways um

02:10:38 um therefore it is not a problem with the guidance that such is that people hadn't followed it

02:10:45 what was your view of the fact that the fire at la canal house was not of particular concern to the department what did you view did you take at the time you became aware of that

02:10:57 um [Music]

02:11:01 i suppose i understood the um the point that was being made um wasn't necessarily for me to you know at that point

02:11:12 that point i don't know whether i'd have had the

02:11:16 the confidence to to disagree with it um from that point on i very much turned my focus on to the criminal investigation because you know if if

02:11:28 you know if if if it isn't the guidance that's the problem you know if i look at this

02:11:33 there needed to be some

02:11:40 something positive drawn out of lack they had you know i wanted because as with you know every fatal fire that you attend as an investigator is a

02:11:50 is a it's a personal tragedy you don't want to see it again um so if the department was of that view in terms of what it might do with the guidance

02:12:00 guidance then for me and you know and the argument was well this this occurred as a result of non-compliance as soon as you know i was given the opportunity to be involved in the

02:12:11 opportunity to be involved in the criminal investigation then i became keen to pursue that and try and

02:12:15 try and do the utmost with it because if the guidance isn't the problem then clearly compliance with the guidance is a problem and you hope that you know having industries see that

02:12:27 you know having industries see that there are teeth in the system that if the guidance isn't followed there will be consequences you hope that that might increase the level of compliance did you get the impression at the time

02:12:38 did you get the impression at the time that mr martin was resistant to the idea that there was any problem with the guidance

02:12:46 um i'd say resistance probably a bit strong but certainly dubious yes

02:12:55 yeah did you consider that there were any aspects of the fire at lachnal house which didn't result simply from non-compliance with the regulations and guidance

02:13:05 guidance but which

02:13:07 but which potentially showed up problems with the regulations and guidance and at least were worthy of further attention from the department

02:13:17 um

02:13:23 no i think all the things all the significant causes of the fire spread i mean you know they did ultimately arise from non-compliances whether

02:13:36 non-compliances whether with

02:13:38 with the approved document in time at the 2006 7 refurbishment or with the guidance that are preceded because there were there were earlier refurbishments in the 1980s and 90s which had impacted on various internal

02:13:51 which had impacted on various internal aspects of fire protection in the building also um

02:13:55 um so i'm just trying to think through my head all the various forms of defects that existed because there are quite a few

02:14:00 few um

02:14:01 um [Music]

02:14:02 [Music] no i think everything was covered there was

02:14:05 was something that took a bit of of uncovering around the um the 13 layers of paint that were present in the corridors which isn't directly addressed in approved document b but i later discovered that there is a an approach

02:14:18 discovered that there is a an approach to testing that's been agreed by the standard testing laboratories called blue board which is around how you assess whether a paint can improve uh wall covering to class or not

02:14:31 wall covering to class or not um

02:14:33 um but no i think i think all the you know all the serious issues did ultimately flow back to non-compliance yes can we just look at your third witness statement again page 54

02:14:44 54 paragraph 215. you say this you say the composite panels used at lacking our house were not class naught the circumstances at lacanal house did not indicate there was a widespread issue with cladding on

02:14:55 a widespread issue with cladding on high-rise residential buildings which has been revealed by the grenfell tower inquiry

02:15:00 inquiry others may take a different view though i suggest that is with the benefit of hindsight

02:15:07 now i think can we agree that what the circumstances of lacking our house told you was simply that the external carrying panels were not class naught and you wouldn't know whether that was a

02:15:18 wouldn't know whether that was a widespread issue or not without further investigation yes um

02:15:25 um yes

02:15:25 yes that would be repeating our earlier um discussion around whether you know there was the point about what we knew as a result of fire investigations and there's a separate point as to what might might be known about uk industry

02:15:37 might might be known about uk industry at large yeah did you ever become aware of any efforts made by the department to establish whether or not the non-compliance of the external cladding panels installed at lucknow was a situation which had been

02:15:49 lucknow was a situation which had been replicated on other high-rise residential buildings

02:15:58 there i believe there were letters sent to local authorities whether they were asking about composite panels or what i don't know um there was some correspondence i believe with certainly with london

02:16:10 believe with certainly with london boroughs around blocks of flats at the time right and that was from the department was it i believe that was from the department at this time i was um this is because this was very early on in the

02:16:21 this was very early on in the weeks following the incident so i wasn't directly involved in those yeah can we look at some minutes if we go to bre three zero four three seven two four

02:16:32 bre three zero four three seven two four these are minutes from a meeting on the 23rd of november 2009 and we can see from page one that you are in attendance you're the fir the fourth name up from the bottom in that list do you see that

02:16:46 the bottom in that list do you see that and there seems to be this appears to be an lfb meeting about lachen or house and if we go on page two to the fifth paragraph beginning discussion

02:16:59 yes so um it's under the jb2 issues uh there's a paragraph beginning discussion and it says discussion on whether sufficient information to determine whether this issue

02:17:10 whether this issue was confined to lachen or there is a wider public safety issue agreed that there is a potential public safety issue further information is required but in view of the potential public safety issue it must be obtained

02:17:22 public safety issue it must be obtained quickly

02:17:24 quickly and so if we go back up i think it's clear that they appear to be discussing the um the panels does that make sense do you see that yes

02:17:37 does that make sense do you see that yes these composite panels

02:17:42 and you can see that from the very first paragraph underneath the names purpose of the meeting is to discuss the panels taken from lachen or house bre were asked to do a full british standard test of the panels the outcome

02:17:53 standard test of the panels the outcome of those tests led to this meeting so that's the outcome of the four seven six part seven tests yes yes so going back over the page to the bit i just read it does appear

02:18:04 does appear that uh certainly in this lfb meeting someone's raising the question do we have sufficient information to determine whether this issue is confined to lack law there's a wider public safety issue

02:18:15 law there's a wider public safety issue agreed there is a public wider public safe a potential public safety issue further information is required but in view of the potential public safety issue it must be obtained quickly now can you just help us as to um

02:18:29 now can you just help us as to um whether you're aware of what happened in response to that minute on the nfb side are you aware of that i believe there was again communication

02:18:40 i believe there was again communication with the london boroughs via lfb i again wasn't directly involved in in their activities in that regard and was that separate to the letters you

02:18:51 and was that separate to the letters you just talked about a moment ago from the department yes so that didn't involve the department not to my knowledge no do you know whether um any of the steps

02:19:02 do you know whether um any of the steps that were taken after this meeting related to whether or not other high-rise residential buildings had been clad in panels which could not achieve class naught

02:19:13 sorry could you repeat the question do you know whether any of those investigations looked into whether there were other high-rise residential buildings

02:19:20 buildings clad in panels which could not achieve class naught

02:19:27 i believe that yes that's something that became an area of interest for lfb um and that they pursued for some time thereafter again i didn't get involved in in the detail of that but yes

02:19:41 so you told us in your third witness statement that your view was there was no indication of any widespread issue in with cladding in high-rise residential buildings but

02:19:52 high-rise residential buildings but the lfb appeared to be taking a different view in this meeting minute well they were they were concerned that it could be an issue but i don't think um

02:20:04 think um again well it was never it was never reported to me that there ultimately was a widespread um issue i'd like to think i'd have remembered if that had been reported back to me but i don't recall it ever being said

02:20:16 don't recall it ever being said actually having done these checks there is a widespread problem right but you don't know what the next steps were or what the outcome was no i wasn't involved in that

02:20:29 involved in that i want to turn now um to some more detailed questions about your involvement in the inquest uh interlaken house in 2013. you gave expert evidence to the coroner on various aspects of the fire over the

02:20:41 on various aspects of the fire over the course of three days in total didn't you yes you gave evidence initially for two days on the 18th and 19th of february 2013 and then you returned for a third day

02:20:51 day on the 5th of march 2013 after you had provided written answers to the coroner on the 1st of march 2013 to certain questions that she'd asked you to answer yes yes

02:21:04 now your evidence which covers three full days was long and very detailed and i obviously can't go through all of it with you

02:21:11 with you i want to concentrate with you on some specific parts relating to your evidence about the fire performance of the external panels yes

02:21:21 now before we move on i just want to look at some correspondence between you and brian martin this is at clg one triple zero five five three one

02:21:32 yes we can see from the top email in the chain it's dated the 4th of march 2013 so that's the day before you return to give evidence for your third day at the

02:21:44 give evidence for your third day at the inquest on the 5th of march 2013 isn't it yes

02:21:48 it yes now we don't need to go through the whole chain but we can see at the very bottom of page one and on to page two that the first email is from brian martin on the 4th of march 2013 it's just the header to it is right at the

02:22:00 just the header to it is right at the bottom and then this on page two is what he says he says dave in answer to c

02:22:05 to c you imply that the panels fire resistance properties contributed to the fire spread from flat 65 to flat 79 whilst this is no doubt true

02:22:16 whilst this is no doubt true it does suggest that compliant panels should have been fire resisting which isn't true this only applied to the balcony panels i know you had to produce this in a hurry so i thought i'd flag it to you do

02:22:29 hurry so i thought i'd flag it to you do you see that yes now is that right did you have to produce your answers to the coroner's questions in a hurry um

02:22:37 um yes i think i had to produce them in an evening for the following day right yeah now your response if we move up to page one to the next email in the chain it's

02:22:48 one to the next email in the chain it's at the bottom of that page

02:22:52 at 11 31 you say hi brian yes i'm aware of this but i was told to assume david walker's report was correct exclamation mark

02:23:00 mark i think that assertion is on the basis that the same panels were used to cover the external and to separate the escape from the flats therefore it should have done both of course they could have used two different panels for each of the

02:23:11 two different panels for each of the areas but they didn't dave now david walker he was another expert who gave evidence in the lachnal inquest yes yes

02:23:21 yes yes he was a chartered building surveyor and a member of the royal institute of chartered surveyors yes yes and the chain goes on this email chain with brian martin um

02:23:33 with brian martin um at 11 34

02:23:34 at 11 34 [Music]

02:23:35 [Music] um

02:23:37 um on the 4th of march 2013 11 34 he says okay i'm not sure if that's clear in the second power of your sup report does dave w's report say that and then he's got fr along the length of

02:23:48 and then he's got fr along the length of the balcony and then he says are you making it confusing just so they call me exclamation mark i would

02:23:56 and then at the um the next email up you say i think he goes into more detail than that etc and then you say i'm not trying to encourage anyone to call you honest i'll

02:24:07 encourage anyone to call you honest i'll call you later about the report and he says okay yes i've read it once thought it was quite good yours are better do you see that yes now you were asked about this correspondence and you deal with it at

02:24:19 correspondence and you deal with it at some length in your second witness statement

02:24:23 statement um and if we can go to that at page 29 paragraph 89 you'd been asked there if you called brian martin to discuss matters we've just seen and your answer was probably

02:24:34 just seen and your answer was probably yes

02:24:37 i mean and then if we go to page 31 of this statement into paragraph 93 you say in the first few lines there regarding the contents of my own report to the coronet i remember at some point

02:24:49 to the coronet i remember at some point having a discussion with brian martin concerning the fire resistance of the composite panels at lacanal house mr martin was keen to clarify that there was no need for the external wars at lacanal house to be fire resisting a

02:25:01 lacanal house to be fire resisting a point on which he and i were in agreement

02:25:04 agreement my opinion on this point having previously been recorded in section 14 9 of and then you've set out some exhibits and you go on if we look at paragraph 103 on page 33

02:25:18 if we look at paragraph 103 on page 33 to explain that your evidence was entirely your own you say my evidence was my own as i was and remain acutely aware of my duties as an expert witness under the various procedure rules

02:25:31 procedure rules and you were aware of your duties to consider a range of opinions etc yes yes

02:25:37 yes now um my question is this why were you discussing the details of your expert evidence to be given to the coroner with brian martin at all at this point how did that come to be

02:25:52 um he asked a question and i answered it i mean

02:25:57 mean i didn't

02:26:02 i didn't alter my evidence as a result of those discussions as i said and as i've explained in my statement my evidence was my own

02:26:13 he expressed a view and i responded yeah there wasn't a detailed discussion now it appears that you had a discussion about this question about whether the panels needed to be fire resisting

02:26:25 panels needed to be fire resisting can i summarize it in this way david walker

02:26:29 walker who um was one of the other experts had given evidence in the lateral inquest and had

02:26:35 and had perhaps incorrectly indicated that the panels needed to be have a fire resistance like a like a fire door needs to have a fire resistance yes yes resistance to the passage of heat and

02:26:47 resistance to the passage of heat and flame through it yes and then one of the things that happened is you then had to deal with that but actually it was brian martin that came along and explained to the coroner why the

02:26:58 the the space separation rules in adb meant that for this building there didn't need to be any fire resistance requirements is that an accurate summary in short i think so yeah yeah so you clearly were

02:27:09 think so yeah yeah so you clearly were discussing this question of whether the panels needed to be fire resisting with brian martin did you discuss any other aspect of your evidence about the external wall

02:27:20 external wall no that was the only point he was interested in he was [Music]

02:27:24 [Music] as i said he was keen to make the point that the external walls didn't generally need to be fire resisting because for for him for dclg

02:27:35 for him for dclg it's a big issue you know if if the extern and let me explain what i mean by that

02:27:40 that if

02:27:41 if there is a need for the external walls of a building to be fire resisting in totality that includes the windows fire resisting glazing fire existing windows are an extremely expensive thing

02:27:52 windows are an extremely expensive thing to have they also mean you can't open your windows because an open window isn't fire resisting so then there are run-on costs with that in terms of having to air condition buildings because people can't open their windows

02:28:03 because people can't open their windows to manage the temperature and so it the point and i think it was probably made clear to me at the time was that there are lots of implications to this if this stands in the inquest

02:28:15 if this stands in the inquest and i understood that but my evidence was still

02:28:18 was still my evidence and and i i wasn't expressing an opinion in relation to the windows for instance that was david walker that had gone into that sort of territory my opinion was simply look

02:28:30 my opinion was simply look they chose a product this this composite panel and they decided to put it in all these various locations and for that one product to have achieved its its role in all these

02:28:41 achieved its its role in all these various locations it did need to be both fire resisting and have the relevant reaction to fire properties right i see did brian martin say anything else to you uh i mean you said that he was keen

02:28:54 you uh i mean you said that he was keen to make the point that the external walls didn't generally need to be far resisting was he keen for any other points to be made no no that was the only area of concern that he had i think

02:29:05 only area of concern that he had i think did you have any discussions around that time about class naught because your evidence was well they weren't class naught they should have been

02:29:14 been we'll see in a moment you say had they been class naught this is how i would have expected them to perform yes did you have any discussions with brian martin at this time about the adequacy

02:29:25 martin at this time about the adequacy of class naught as a

02:29:29 as a metric for the assessment of fire performance no the focus at that time was simply on establishing what should have been in place for acknowledge and whether or not it was

02:29:40 acknowledge and whether or not it was achieved and what the implications were for the deceased yeah

02:29:46 yeah now

02:29:47 now we've seen from the correspondence and um you we can see you explained to brian martin that you had been told to assume that the expert report of david walker was correct yes

02:29:58 david walker was correct yes when you were preparing your answers to the coroner in writing so you were told to assume that the panels should be fire resisting

02:30:06 resisting yes as well as anything else about their reaction to fire performance yes yes let's look at your responses to the coroner's questions this is at bre405886

02:30:21 this is your letter to the coroner date of the 1st of march 2013 and in the second paragraph you write

02:30:30 i've been asked to respond to these questions whilst considering paragraph 329 of david walker's report this paragraph states that the composite panel should have been fire resisting to

02:30:41 panel should have been fire resisting to 30 minutes to a height of um

02:30:45 um 100 millimeters above floor level along the length of the balcony in addition these panels which were 18 meters or more above ground level should have had a surface spread of flame performance of class naught for the internal surface

02:30:56 class naught for the internal surface should have had a spread of flame class 3 as defined in bs 476 part 7. for the purposes of the questions asked below i have been asked to assume that the composite panels should have complied

02:31:07 composite panels should have complied with these requirements for ease of reference panels which comply with the requirements of the above paragraph shall simply be referred to as compliant panels so that was the introduction to your letter

02:31:19 your letter i think you've told us just a moment ago is this right that you didn't agree with david walker that the composite panels needed to be fire resisting certainly those that were in the window sets is that right

02:31:30 that right i agreed yes if there had been specific products for each of those locations then then the ones in the window sets would not have needed to be fire resisting yeah they only needed to be class naught according to the

02:31:41 be class naught according to the guidance in approved document b yes

02:31:49 now even though you've been told to assume that david walker's correct in his assessment that the panels did need to be fire resisting can you explain why in this letter you

02:32:01 can you explain why in this letter you didn't make it clear that you fundamentally disagreed with that that these panels only needed to be classified and not fire resisting why wasn't that something you dealt with at the beginning and said well i know you've asked me to assume this but can i

02:32:13 you've asked me to assume this but can i just make clear there isn't a requirement in approved document b for the external wall panels in those window sets to be fire resisting to 30 minutes why don't we see that in this letter

02:32:25 we see that in this letter i think i did flag it with council to the inquest and i was instructed to proceed on the basis of this assumption i see

02:32:37 now if we look at the first question that you're asked you're asked to a on that just below the paragraph we read did the presence of the composite panels in flat 65 have any impact on the fire development within

02:32:50 impact on the fire development within flat 65 beyond the fact that they form part of the material that burned within flat 65. do you see that yes and your answer in the first sentence is the composite panels in flat 65 burned

02:33:03 the composite panels in flat 65 burned through

02:33:04 through compliant panels would have taken much longer to burn through now can you help us with this was that conclusion based on the assumption that the compliant panels were just class naught

02:33:17 compliant panels were just class naught or that compliant panels were both far resisting to 30 minutes as well as class naught file resisting and class not right

02:33:27 and would you have given the same answer if when you were referring there to compliant panels you were just referring to them being class naught

02:33:39 so would you have said compliant panels are those that are class naught would have taken much longer to burn through would that have been your answer at the time

02:33:49 probably a similar but different answer that it would have been a qualified answer um because

02:33:57 because class naught doesn't necessarily prevent a material from failing to provide a barrier to fire spread but um

02:34:06 but um i would have so the answer would have been that i would have expected compliant ie class naught panels to have taken longer to burn through probably not much longer as is written in in response to these fire resisting

02:34:18 in in response to these fire resisting and class not panels

02:34:22 so you would have expected them to take longer to burn through but not much longer

02:34:26 longer no so in fact let me explain if the because this i think came up in the um exchanges in the inquest as well with the interested parties

02:34:37 the interested parties so even if the panels had been class north

02:34:42 north there was still a point of weakness if you like on the external walls in terms of the aluminium frames which once once you get a severe fire and flames coming up from from the

02:34:53 fire and flames coming up from from the flat below that's on fire the aluminium will start to soften and and fail to retain the class in even a non-combustible panel if it's surrounded by an aluminium frame will

02:35:04 surrounded by an aluminium frame will ultimately at some point fail and fire will get through what i was i think i did express several times during the inquest was what i was interested in was the fact that the panels themselves did ignite

02:35:16 that the panels themselves did ignite and i believe their their combustibility led to them positively introducing a flame into flat 79 as opposed to

02:35:27 79 as opposed to mere deformation or the creation of a hole allowing flame from below to get into flat 79. i see

02:35:34 i see well let's let's look at some of the transcripts of your evidence um in the inquest um i want to go um this is day 34 on the 5th of march 2013. so this is

02:35:45 34 on the 5th of march 2013. so this is the last occasion you gave evidence after you've provided the letter we looked at

02:35:49 looked at this is to be found inq here we go three zeros one five zero six four and if we look on page six you are being asked by council to the

02:36:00 you are being asked by council to the inquest about the definitions of various fire performance classifications and other terminology and if we look at lines 3 to 10 we can see that you're being asked

02:36:12 to 10 we can see that you're being asked about the definition of class naught and then about surface spread of flame so

02:36:19 so if we look at line 3 it says on the first page of tab 22 at the bottom we see a definition of class naught and you answer yes and then the question is posed does this

02:36:30 and then the question is posed does this relate to surface spread of flame performance and then you answer yes it does and then

02:36:37 and then at line eight it says um in which case before going to it in more detail let's go to page three for a definition or explanation of surface spread of flame now it's right isn't it that in lachnal

02:36:48 now it's right isn't it that in lachnal there was a glossary of terms that was prepared

02:36:52 prepared yes that sounds familiar i think you can take it from me there was we've seen it um

02:36:57 um and

02:36:58 and you're being told the definition that we see there is the propensity for a material or product to allow the spread of flame or fire across its surface do you see that yes

02:37:11 and then you say yes and then

02:37:17 the next question starting at line 14 is this

02:37:20 this so bearing that in mind we then go back to class naught on page one

02:37:26 one we see that it is a product performance classification for amongst other things wool linings it's the highest national product performance classification for lining materials

02:37:37 lining materials and it relates to a concept of limited combustibility is that right and you say yes do you see that yes now looking at that now

02:37:50 now looking at that now and i appreciate we're putting some of these answers under the microscope i do understand that that's not correct is it class naught does not relate to a concept of limited combustibility does it

02:38:02 it um

02:38:04 um no i think the point council was driving at was there's limited combustibility is is referred to within the definition of class naught in approved document b but it yeah it's the

02:38:15 approved document b but it yeah it's the heat of a hearing yes

02:38:19 yes um

02:38:21 well if we go on to page seven we can see potentially what the effect of that answer is because if we go to line 13

02:38:29 line 13 in this he's going through the the glossary you can see the glossary being referred to at line 9 and then if we look at line 13

02:38:40 and then if we look at line 13 he says then above that limited combustibility capable of burning but not liable to burn unless under an imposed heat source do you see that

02:38:51 do you see that so council is pointing out what the definition of limited combustibility is and you say yes that's correct and then at 17 the question is so when we're thinking

02:39:04 the question is so when we're thinking about something with characteristics of class nought we are talking about something which is capable of burning but is not liable to burn unless under an imposed heat source and we are looking at its ability to

02:39:16 and we are looking at its ability to allow or prevent the spread of flame or fire across its surface is that right and you say yes that's correct

02:39:27 and then you you go on and you say can i just elaborate briefly please do and then you say answer in the context of a composite product it is possible and then you go over the page that you

02:39:38 and then you go over the page that you might have a combustible component to that product somewhere within a number of layers

02:39:43 of layers the tests for class naught relates specifically to the surface and then you say this so the surface should be of limited combustibility and there are test criteria that they

02:39:54 and there are test criteria that they use to determine that but it is possible that you might have a combustible layer somewhere within that product but that it is protected to a sufficient extent by that layer that's of limited combustibility or that surface that's of

02:40:06 combustibility or that surface that's of limited combustibility do you see that yes

02:40:11 now if we go back to line 17 on the page before

02:40:22 we can see that having read out the definition of limited combustibility council is conflating the characteristics of what what our class

02:40:34 characteristics of what what our class naught with the definition of limiter combustibility and his question to you do you see that

02:40:41 um yes i see that

02:40:46 can you help me understand this i'm just looking at lines 18 to 20

02:40:54 18 to 20 in which council seems to be suggesting that

02:40:57 that the material of limited combustibility is one

02:41:01 is one that is capable of burning but not liable to burn unless under an imposed heat source what does that mean so

02:41:11 so and this is where similarities get drawn between classo and limited combustibility as a

02:41:20 as a in general in practice when when you're [Music]

02:41:24 [Music] saying you're running experiments and you've got materials that achieve either of these

02:41:28 of these if you say apply a blow lamp to the surface of that material then you will see not just the blow lamp flame but there are flames that are rising off of the

02:41:39 are flames that are rising off of the surface but the moment you take that blow lamp away this surface will invariably self-extinguish so you mean so he's you mean a continuously imposed heat source yes

02:41:51 continuously imposed heat source yes yes because the words used here suggest it could apply to a piece of paper yes i understand yes yeah no but i think i think what is meant is it continuously imposed right that makes better sense

02:42:03 imposed right that makes better sense thank you very much but you see at 17

02:42:08 at 17 council says so when we are thinking about something with characteristics of class naught we are talking about something which is capable of burning but is not liable to burn unless under

02:42:19 but is not liable to burn unless under an imposed heat source do you see that yes now that's not right is it

02:42:25 he's conflated class naught with the definition above of limited combustibility he has somewhat but there was a um

02:42:36 there was this point about the glossary was trying to

02:42:42 trying to make things as readily understandable as possible for the for the jury about the various performances and the key point that i think council was keen to get across

02:42:53 i think council was keen to get across was that we have this this category of materials that are not non-combustible but that will only burn under particularly severe conditions and from the moment those conditions are

02:43:05 from the moment those conditions are taken away a fire is extinguished or whatever they're not going to continue burning under their own steam i see and is that how you understood a class naught material to perform invariably at

02:43:16 naught material to perform invariably at that time no not invariably but again this was

02:43:22 this was that you know there's the full complexity of issues as you understand them as as an expert and you know if if i were um discussing this with a fellow fire safety expert or a

02:43:34 with a fellow fire safety expert or a fire scientist there's one form of language that i would use but when you're trying to convey these concepts to a lay jury you you know you try and work out ways of making sure

02:43:45 try and work out ways of making sure they understand the key concepts sufficiently to enable them to reach a conclusion and this was you know not just myself this was in consultation with council how how best

02:43:56 consultation with council how how best to try and convey these concepts wasn't it crucial to make clear to the jury that class naught and limited combustibility were not the same they're very different aren't they

02:44:08 they're very different aren't they um

02:44:09 um not in the context of lachenal because the difference between the two didn't arise in terms of whether or not lacanal was compliant

02:44:19 i don't think there was any aspect to the building which

02:44:25 which would have been compliant in terms of one but not the other well we'll see that you are asked to address the question what difference would a class naught material have made we'll come on to that in your evidence

02:44:36 we'll come on to that in your evidence in those circumstances isn't it important that you're very clear what the difference is between a class naught material in terms of its fire performance and a limited combustibility

02:44:48 performance and a limited combustibility material

02:44:49 material not in the context of those answers because again this goes back to the earlier point that i made which is well it's this fundamental separation between fire resistance on the one hand the ability of something to provide a

02:45:00 ability of something to provide a barrier to fire and to remain a continuous barrier to fire for a length of time

02:45:05 of time versus whether or not something burns and the point which

02:45:11 which what the issue turned on with lacanal was on the one hand these panels were combustible and were therefore capable of introducing a flame inside the flats even though the fire was external in

02:45:23 even though the fire was external in nature and then was therefore able to ignite things and then on the other hand there was the point that the external walls

02:45:30 walls um

02:45:34 opened up the openings would form in them at some point during the incident and whether or not they were burning flame either the external fire plume would enter the flat and would ignite

02:45:45 would enter the flat and would ignite things typically the curtains that were nearest the window and so the distinction and the various debates that were

02:45:53 that were surrounding lachenal were around this this the difference between fire resistance and reaction to fire but there wasn't a debate about whether limited combustibility or class o

02:46:06 limited combustibility or class o would have made a substantial difference yes but thinking about the coroner's wider duty to make recommendations wouldn't it be quite important for the coroner to understand how a class naught material would

02:46:18 how a class naught material would perform and to understand clearly that it would perform differently from a material of limited combustibility

02:46:31 i don't think it would have performed differently so again this goes back to the the earlier point and it was the point raised by um i think we'll come back to me at some point one of the the qc's

02:46:44 point one of the the qc's as soon as the aluminium frame so in terms of fire resistance the aluminium frame is one of the key weaknesses that you can get distortion of the panels and they start to pull away from the building and from that moment on the

02:46:55 building and from that moment on the fire plume can get into the flats and ignite the contents that same mechanism would have been true if the panels had limited combustibility components but we're still only

02:47:07 components but we're still only formed of materials that would not retain their rigidity under fire attack because limited combustibility does not lead to a material suddenly being rigid in in the face of

02:47:19 suddenly being rigid in in the face of fire attack it just means it doesn't release a great deal of energy it doesn't you know cause the um the barrel furnace that's used for the test to increase in temperature by more than

02:47:30 to increase in temperature by more than 25-35 degrees but that does nothing for the mechanical properties it doesn't need it doesn't lead directly to a change in the mechanical properties of the wall right

02:47:42 right let's go back over the page again to look at page eight and lines two to four of your answer you say the tests for class naught relates specifically to the surface

02:47:53 relates specifically to the surface fine

02:47:54 fine and then you say so the surface should be of limited combustibility and there are test criteria that they use to determine that now again that's that's wholly incorrect

02:48:05 now again that's that's wholly incorrect isn't it yeah that's a mistake

02:48:09 simply the surface might be of limited combustibility that might be one route to satisfying class naught but if you've gone via the four seven six part six and part seven tests that surface might not be of limited combustibility yes

02:48:22 combustibility yes so the problem here with your answer is that you are although you are just drawing a distinction between the performance of the core and the performance of the surface you're you're implying that the surface

02:48:34 you're you're implying that the surface will be of limited combustibility and that really might not be the case can we agree yes no i again i mean i think there's a mistake in there i was it was

02:48:45 in there i was it was using the way that it's defined in approved document b it was trying to i was trying to illustrate that the concept

02:48:52 concept that you might well have a a composite material which has readily combustible layers within it but that they are protected by something on the outside and yet as you know in spite of that combustibility within you will still

02:49:05 combustibility within you will still achieve class naught yes but they might not be protected that's part of the problem with class naught isn't it yes

02:49:14 yes now if we go on to page 11 in this transcript and to line five you're asked another question so if the composite panels in place had been class nor what effect in

02:49:26 place had been class nor what effect in your opinion would that have had on whether and if so when they would have ignited so you are asked that question directly what difference is class not going to make here

02:49:37 here and you say this you say if the panels had been classed naught then i would i would have expected them maybe to char or blister to a limited extent under the effect of the flames from flat 65

02:49:49 from flat 65 i would not have expected them to ignite and burn in their own right so if flaming seaster was even intermittent from flat 65 i would not have expected sustained flaming at those panels

02:50:02 sustained flaming at those panels now

02:50:04 now do you accept that the whole of your answer there appears to be based on the wholly false assumption that class naught meant something that was of limited combustibility or even that it was non-combustible the way you've expressed it there

02:50:16 you've expressed it there no i don't accept that it's simply not correct to state is it that products which are class naught would char or blister to a limited extent but would not ignite and burn in

02:50:27 extent but would not ignite and burn in their own right i think it is correct to say that because that is the outcome of the part seven and part six tests is that with

02:50:37 with e so

02:50:39 e so the

02:50:42 had these panels been class naught then even under the imposed heat flux from the part seven test which peaks at the numbers given in

02:50:53 given in the exhibits to my statement because there's a graph that says that there's a very high heat flux i think above 50 kilowatts per square meter nearest the the radium panel on the part

02:51:04 nearest the the radium panel on the part 7 test

02:51:05 7 test and the point is that the test specimen cannot undergo flame spread of more than i think 65 millimeters during the course of the test

02:51:16 test in spite of that extreme heat flux so given the amount of heat flux you might actually get from the flaming that's emitting from below i would not expect a great deal of um

02:51:28 i would not expect a great deal of um self-sustained flaming from the panels there remains the point about fire resistance and whether the panels would fall away but had the panels been class o then i wouldn't have expected them to

02:51:39 then i wouldn't have expected them to cause a great deal of flaming in their own right

02:51:43 own right i see so that that was your understanding was it of the effect of passing the 476 and part 7 tests in terms of fire performance yes yes

02:51:55 yes and did you ever check that understanding with any of your colleagues at the bre um

02:52:02 um well it would have been explained to me i mean i you know i wasn't born with that knowledge um at some point i will have had input from someone about part six and part seven

02:52:13 about part six and part seven did you ever ask sarah colwell whether it's right that a class nor product can be expected to char or blister to a limited extent on the effect of flames but would not be expected to ignite and

02:52:24 but would not be expected to ignite and burn in their own right

02:52:27 um i don't think that's a conversation i've had with sarah colwell or with um dr debbie smith did you ever ask her that question

02:52:42 i don't recall asking her that question is not impossible i might i may have done but i don't recall a question like that

02:52:48 that because

02:52:49 because one of the difficulties with this is that you don't appear in this answer or indeed in any other to take account of the combustibility of the core of the product in terms of the likely fire performance

02:53:01 in terms of the likely fire performance of the panel even if it had achieved class naught

02:53:06 right i i understand the point um

02:53:13 not directly no because i wasn't asked that specific question but there was a question

02:53:21 question at some other points during the inquest around the exposure of the edges of the panels

02:53:26 panels and the fact that the underlying insulation i think that there is flaming that occurs once the foam core is exposed during the course of the reconstruction which was discussed during inquest

02:53:37 which was discussed during inquest and that that same phenomenon i agree would could have occurred with in the case of a class o panel yeah let's look at page 20 please and your answer at line 18 onwards

02:53:50 so the coroner let's pick it up at 11. the coroner says it's a lot to take in i wonder if you could perhaps in just a couple of sentences give us a summary answer you've helpfully given us the background to it and i appreciate it's a

02:54:01 background to it and i appreciate it's a more complicated answer than you would perhaps want to summarize but i think it would be helpful if you could just summarize it in a couple of sentences and you say okay at its simplest a composite panel that was class naught

02:54:12 composite panel that was class naught but was not fire resisting i would not expect it to have ignited and it sustained flaming in the way that the composite panels did but it would be entirely reasonable for

02:54:23 but it would be entirely reasonable for that panel not to be expected to provide a barrier to fire spread from one side to the other and that relates back quite nicely to the glossary actually in that it shouldn't have burnt

02:54:34 in that it shouldn't have burnt if it was

02:54:36 if it was class naught but it wouldn't necessarily maintain that barrier across the window facade

02:54:42 facade now that that phrase it shouldn't have burnt if it was class naught looking at that now can you see how that might have been misleading given

02:54:52 given actually what class naught tests a product for

02:55:03 to a point it goes back to this i mean i was attempting to summarize an awful lot um but it goes back to this point about whether there's an imposed heat flux or not and yeah i mean i take the point regarding the phone call although that

02:55:14 regarding the phone call although that had been discussed but i i was attempting to summarize a lot in a very short number of words yes

02:55:24 um you make a similar statement about national class naught in your report to the police that was the report we looked at earlier if we could go to bre 40 5881

02:55:39 at page 18. now here admittedly you're dealing with the corridor walls but you're nevertheless looking at the national class naught recommendation

02:55:50 national class naught recommendation and

02:55:51 and we can see that three paragraphs down under that heading corridor walls reaction to fire you say this the class naught recommendation effectively means that walls in common and circulation

02:56:03 that walls in common and circulation spaces should be a very limited combustibility now paul's there you're mixing up class naught and limited combustibility aren't you in

02:56:14 limited combustibility aren't you in this report uh yeah it's a poor choice of words i don't think i i'm that's very limited combustibility is an odd um thing to say in hindsight um i don't think i meant

02:56:26 in hindsight um i don't think i meant to conflate the two but i can see it's a poor choice of words and then you say a class naught surface in my opinion would not have contributed to the spread of the fire it may burn but it would not be expected

02:56:38 it may burn but it would not be expected to contribute to the size and spread of the fire do you see that there yes now again

02:56:44 again do you stand by that now would you say that now about class naught uh in the context of the walls to this corridor yes i would stand by that

02:56:55 corridor yes i would stand by that why is it any different you're describing i appreciate it's you're talking about different location but it's nevertheless the class naught test why are you describing a class naught material as one

02:57:07 material as one which may burn but it would not be expected to contribute to the size and spread of the fire in my opinion the surfaces of the walls of the common corridors

02:57:15 corridors did contribute to the spread of the fire etcetera

02:57:18 etcetera because it goes back to the point about the expectation that clarkson will self-extinguish once you take away the heat source and the corridor these were concrete or block work corridors

02:57:31 block work corridors and layers of paint that had been applied to them and had there been a class of naught paint or a number of layers of glass not paint applied then i wouldn't have expected them to contribute significantly to the fire

02:57:42 contribute significantly to the fire they obviously they would have burned where they were under direct flame impingement from the fire emitting from flat 79 but i wouldn't have expected the entire corridor to become engulfed in the way that it did i see

02:57:55 that it did i see mr chairman would that be a good moment for our lunch break i know it's a couple of minutes early but we're we're doing okay for time that's right yes i think it would be a good point um dr crowder we'll stop there so we can all have some lunch and we'll resume please at two

02:58:07 lunch and we'll resume please at two o'clock

02:58:08 o'clock and uh please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out of the road of course all right thank you very much

02:58:25 thank you very much two o'clock please thank you

02:58:35 you