Grenfell Tower Inquiry - Building Research Establishment Evidence - Thursday 10th February 2022 (2/2)
00:00:26 would you ask dr crowder to come back in please thank you
00:00:41 right dr crowder you ready to carry on yes thank you thank you very much yes it's strange yes thank you yes good afternoon dr crowder let's look at your third witness statement just i'm just going to finish off on the lachnal topic
00:00:53 going to finish off on the lachnal topic now we go to your third witness statement at page 55 paragraph two one nine please
00:01:01 please that's bre three zeros four seven six six eight
00:01:17 so at paragraph 219 you say this you say well i do not agree with professor bisbee's report concerning the lack of house fire investigation i am in total agreement with him that more should have been done to learn the
00:01:28 more should have been done to learn the lessons from the fire although i consider that this ought to have been on the full range of issues and not just cladding
00:01:36 cladding now
00:01:37 now focusing on the cladding and the external wall for a moment and leaving aside all the other matters and i know there were many that arose from the lack of house fire what more do you consider should have been done
00:01:48 should have been done to learn the lessons from the fire um in relation to well it cuts across everything really um
00:01:58 but the the clarification of the guidance it became clear particularly during the inquest
00:02:04 inquest that
00:02:05 that it was possible to hold different views as to what the the guidance meant and there was a need to ensure that the clarity existed so that there would be a common understanding among industry as to what
00:02:17 understanding among industry as to what needed to be done um that would then result in the functional requirements being met and by the guidance you're talking about the guidance and approved document b are you yes and in what respect where you
00:02:28 you yes and in what respect where you say it became clear that there was this lack of charity can you be more specific in what areas did you come away from that inquest thinking that's clear that's unclear that's unclear that's
00:02:39 that's unclear that's unclear that's unclear were there multiple areas or just one
00:02:42 just one um
00:02:43 um so
00:02:44 so it was in relation to external walls there was this sort of um
00:02:51 what's the word i'll use the word conflation there's a better word but um about how the external wall fulfills these these interrelated functions around limiting
00:03:03 interrelated functions around limiting fire spread across the face of the building limiting fire spread between buildings
00:03:08 buildings not compromising the compartmentation scheme
00:03:13 and yes making sure that there was clarity around that i see so are you talking about clarity about the difference between fire resistance and reaction to fire that was one of the elements of that yes
00:03:25 that was one of the elements of that yes yeah what were the other elements of adb that required clarity after the lack of fire um
00:03:42 how do i put this i suppose that the the way in which
00:03:48 the build up as a whole so there's there are the individual test
00:03:54 test standards that are referred to in relation to whether it's the surface or the the underlying construction and so on but there the guidance didn't really address how different
00:04:07 didn't really address how different forms of wool build up [Music]
00:04:09 [Music] in reality when you're looking at a wall system depending upon the makeup of the wall aspects of performance for individual components differ so it might become
00:04:20 components differ so it might become very important for one component to have a level of performance but less important for another component you might pick on say rain screen for example as opposed to a curtain wall um
00:04:30 um and that
00:04:32 and that you know there isn't a great level of detail particularly within section 12 of adb as is now what's section 13 for a phallacan house but it's not broken down in the same way that say the other
00:04:43 in the same way that say the other sections are where we have fairly explicit guidance around say lengths of corridors and the specific types of alarm system that you need to provide in buildings to ensure that
00:04:54 provide in buildings to ensure that people are alerted um it's a
00:05:00 it's a fairly broad brush set of guidance in relation to external wall construction right i see so were those the particular lessons you came away with um in relation to cladding yes i see
00:05:11 um in relation to cladding yes i see and who did you think specifically should have considered should have done more about those issues in government right
00:05:21 now i want to turn to a different topic now this is some research that you carried out with others at the bre in 2014 and 2015 concerning external fire spread
00:05:32 spread which you addressed in detail in your second witness statement to the inquiry now if we turn first to bre three zeros four three seven five one
00:05:43 four three seven five one so this is a report it's um
00:05:47 it's um called investigation of real fires external fire spread in multi-storey buildings you can see that as the the title do you see that on the right hand side yes and it was prepared for brian martin
00:05:59 and it was prepared for brian martin it's dated the 9th of january 2014 we see that in the bottom right hand corner yes
00:06:05 yes now
00:06:06 now is it right that in effect the research set out in this report was carried out with some funds which had already been allocated to the investigation of real fires project for that year and were left over is that correct yes right
00:06:19 left over is that correct yes right we'll come back to that and we can see from page one the date and at page two we can see that the report was prepared for brian martin by a number of you
00:06:30 for brian martin by a number of you including you nathan cole kyra holland and martin ship yes yes and it was approved by dr debbie smith on the 14th of january 2014. yes yes
00:06:41 of january 2014. yes yes now should that date can you help us with this and the date on the front page actually read 2015. or is that an error i ask because
00:06:52 or is that an error i ask because in your second witness statement for the transcript this is page 34 paragraph 108 you explain that um this work arose following a telephone call to you from
00:07:03 following a telephone call to you from ronnie king of the all party parliamentary fire safety group in july 2014.
00:07:10 now is it possible that this report therefore this that there's an error and this should have read 2015. probably yes and i note the copyright notice at the bottom says 2015 yes yes
00:07:22 bottom says 2015 yes yes so um
00:07:24 so um we think it's probably 2015 and someone's just carried over the wrong date now if we can look at your second witness statement bre 30 43716 page 33
00:07:36 witness statement bre 30 43716 page 33 paragraph 104 you um
00:07:41 you um explain that the documents that are listed in some bullet points above that so at paragraph nine you were asked by the inquiry the inquiry understands that you co-authored
00:07:52 inquiry understands that you co-authored two reports commissioned by mhclg both dated april 2016 entitled um external fire spread part one background and research external fire spread part two
00:08:04 external fire spread part two experimental research yes yes and
00:08:10 and you tell us in paragraph 104 you say please note that these are not reports they're articles the second of which was produced following the production of a research report yes yes
00:08:24 now just so we have the order of this correct is it right that after the report we just looked at the first page of it was submitted to the department in january 2015 the two articles here
00:08:35 january 2015 the two articles here were uh produced is that correct yes let's go to that part one article the background and research one that's the clg three zeros one nine four four five
00:08:47 clg three zeros one nine four four five and we can see from page one that you are one of the authors together with kira holland and martin ship yes yes and if we look at page two we can see
00:08:59 and if we look at page two we can see that
00:09:00 that this is dated in the top very top right hand corner sorry we've just lost it in gray we see it's date of the april 2016.
00:09:11 it's date of the april 2016. yes
00:09:12 yes and then if we just orientate ourselves briefly on the part 2 article the experimental research article this is at clg
00:09:21 clg nine 30194 four four
00:09:24 four four do you have that yeah and then um again we can see you're an author together with keira holland martin ship and nathan cole and on page two again we can see it's
00:09:35 and on page two again we can see it's dated april 2016. so they were both finalized over a year after the research report was submitted to the department is that
00:09:46 was submitted to the department is that correct yes can you help us what was the reason for that delay between that first report and then these articles
00:09:57 um i've
00:10:00 i've a feeling and i don't know if it's covered in my statement i've got a feeling they would spend a long time with debbie smith who would tend to be
00:10:11 with debbie smith who would tend to be involved in approving articles uh there may have also been a delay in identifying um journals publications or prepared to take them on right
00:10:22 take them on right and help us you you uh pointed out as we saw in your second statement that these were articles rather than research reports what difference did that make in terms of the content of them does that
00:10:33 terms of the content of them does that make any difference articles are generally
00:10:35 generally restricted by the publication in terms of word count so you end up having to try and
00:10:40 try and fit sometimes shoehorn the information into a smaller number of words than you'd like yes i see and did the part two article which covered the experimental research reported originally in january 2014 did
00:10:53 reported originally in january 2014 did that sorry january 2015 does that contain any information or reach any different conclusions from the information provided or the conclusions reached in the research report
00:11:05 sorry i may have misheard you usually is there a difference between the articles in the report yeah question um i think the reports contained a bit more granular detail as to what was done and why
00:11:16 why um
00:11:17 um i don't think the findings did not fundamentally change yeah were these two articles published and placed into the public domain can you help us with that uh yes i believe so i cannot recall where they're probably listed somewhere
00:11:31 now if we go within your second statement at page 34 paragraph 106 you explain in the first few lines i believe the very first discussions regarding the possibility of conducting
00:11:43 regarding the possibility of conducting a piece of work dealing with these issues occurred around the time of the inquest at lachnal yes yes now how did those discussions take place between
00:11:55 place between uh i think myself and brian martin um after
00:11:59 after that so that third final day of my evidence um and after probably his evidence as well actually um there was an initial discussion then
00:12:10 an initial discussion then and was that in march 2013 yes yeah so can you tell us what was discussed at that stage about this work nothing in detail it was just that if if this becomes an issue you know that this
00:12:23 this becomes an issue you know that this um confusion um around what are the relevant requirements then it might need to be addressed i see it wasn't much more than a passing remark without that was the very earliest that i could recall this sort of topic having arisen
00:12:35 recall this sort of topic having arisen yeah and can we be clear the confusion you're talking about is that about whether or not external walls need to be fire resisting as well as having a reaction to fire performance yes for the purpose of um
00:12:48 performance yes for the purpose of um spread across the external wall yeah setting aside space separation yeah and if we look at paragraph 108 below that
00:12:56 that you explain this you say at the beginning of that paragraph the issue resurfaced on the 4th of july 2014 when i was contacted by ronnie king by telephone regarding a presentation he
00:13:07 telephone regarding a presentation he wanted to give me he wanted me to give to the all party parliamentary fire safety and rescue group and you say i immediately emailed debbie smith following the call and provide
00:13:19 smith following the call and provide this email and debbie smith's response as one of your exhibits yes now let's go to that email it's at bre 3043752
00:13:30 and looking at that second email in the chain
00:13:33 chain sent by you to debbie smith on the 4th of july 2014 at 11 33 subject is ronnie king you say hi debbie i've just had a phone call from ronnie
00:13:44 call from ronnie apparently he and others are pushing dclg on the next adb following la canal there are two issues external fire spread and cladding you can guess the sprinkler argument
00:13:56 you can guess the sprinkler argument though it's interesting to note apparently dclg have said they won't consider research they didn't pay for given how little they're commissioning on the external fire spread issue they want to use la canal to push for fd30
00:14:09 want to use la canal to push for fd30 spandrel panels based on my evidence i said to him i couldn't see a case for uk wide change based on one incident but could understand the need for it to be
00:14:20 could understand the need for it to be properly followed up to quantify the variables etcetera one thought that occurred to me was adapting the cladding rig to look at window and spandrel panel assembly in a generic way with an established standard
00:14:33 generic way with an established standard fire which could be a nice project for us dot dot dot anyway ronnie wants me to attend a meeting at the houses of parliament on the 22nd of july which i need to check with lfb given the prosecution could we
00:14:44 with lfb given the prosecution could we discuss on monday please now
00:14:49 now you say in the first paragraph there that there were two issues arising from your call with ronnie king external fire spread and cladding and you go on to give some detailed comments on the external fire spread
00:15:01 comments on the external fire spread matter which we will come on to what was it that ronnie king mentioned to you in relation specifically to cladding
00:15:13 uh i'm sorry i thought so i think there's a i've missed typed in this email i think the two issues were sprinklers and cladding or sprinklers and external wall construction i said
00:15:26 and external wall construction i said as soon as it popped up on screen i realized there's a mistake there because external fire spread and cladding amount to the same thing i've almost certainly meant sprinklers and external fire spread or cladding yeah i see
00:15:38 spread or cladding yeah i see and um
00:15:39 and um focusing on that paragraph on sprinklers you say that um it's interesting to note apparently gcld have said they won't consider research they didn't pay for
00:15:51 consider research they didn't pay for um do you know who at the department had said that to ronnie king
00:16:00 um [Music]
00:16:02 [Music] i
00:16:03 i well i can't recall i probably he probably did tell me um it's not impossible it may well have been brian martin but i honestly can't recall okay and was that about research on
00:16:15 and was that about research on sprinklers which had been commissioned by the chief fire officers association
00:16:22 it may have been although ronnie was also involved with the national fire sprinkler network and i think they might have commissioned some research there was also the business sprinkler alliance which at the time i believe was
00:16:34 which at the time i believe was conducting research there were various pieces of work that were going on around that time um around you know what types of buildings ought to be provided sprinklers yeah and why was it
00:16:46 sprinklers yeah and why was it interesting for you to know in this email that dclg had said they won't consider research they didn't pay for you say specifically it was interesting it's me trying to be diplomatic
00:16:57 it's me trying to be diplomatic expressing my frustration that clearly dclg aren't listening to anyone in terms of research that others are going to the trouble of paying for given dclg themselves aren't
00:17:08 given dclg themselves aren't commissioning any research if you're neither going to commission research nor you know read up on someone else's it doesn't bode very well yeah did i mean did you think that was a reasonable
00:17:20 mean did you think that was a reasonable position for the department to be taking at this time um no but that's yeah that was the situation at the time now focusing now on the third paragraph
00:17:31 now focusing now on the third paragraph just just help us there's a reference there to fd30 spandrel panels does that mean panels resisting fire for 30 minutes yes that should probably have been fr-13 rather than fd30 right thank
00:17:43 been fr-13 rather than fd30 right thank you
00:17:45 you um and by my evidence do you mean the evidence you gave to the coroner at the lack of inquest yes
00:17:54 yes and in terms of your comment to ronnie king that you couldn't see a case for uk wide changed based on one incident can you just explain briefly what you meant by that
00:18:04 by that um so i think ronnie made the point though sorry mr king made the point that um you know the inquest had happened and he
00:18:15 you know the inquest had happened and he felt that their flowed from it a need to to amend the guidance in this way um and i you know i remained of the opinion that i'd expressed in terms of the separation of the two
00:18:26 the separation of the two but i could see the merit in in doing a piece of work and seeing if outside of the bounds of of lack and all there might be a case for making a change right so it was that that you considered
00:18:37 right so it was that that you considered needed to be properly followed up yes
00:18:42 before this call from ronnie king on the 4th of july 2014 had you ever suggested to brian martin or any other official from the department that this matter needed to be followed properly followed up
00:18:53 up no that was just the exchange immediately at the end of the um the inquest
00:18:59 inquest now if we can turn to bre 304 3756
00:19:05 3756 this is an email from mr king to you three days later on the 7th of july 2014. so as we know he invited you to a meeting of the all party parliamentary
00:19:18 meeting of the all party parliamentary group in order to um in paragraph one he wanted you to give some clarification um so he said further to our
00:19:29 um so he said further to our conversation with the group would be pleased if you could attend at the next meeting and then the third line he says to give some clarification on the issue which we discussed relating to the
00:19:40 which we discussed relating to the spandrel panels under the windows of flat 79 at la canal house having only a surface spread of flame classification rather than a degree of fire resistance
00:19:51 rather than a degree of fire resistance as was required at the time of a previous fire at latino house before the windows and panels had been replaced yes yes
00:19:59 yes and in the final paragraph on page one he says this meanwhile could you please let me know if you have any further information on the possibility of any tests
00:20:09 tests which might be able to be undertaken and which could be used to confirm that a class naught surface spread of flame would not have made any significant difference to the speed at which the
00:20:21 difference to the speed at which the fire entered catherine hickman's flat when compared to the fire resistance classification previously required under section 20 of the london building act yes
00:20:31 yes yes i see that so he he's saying quite specifically that he'd like to understand what difference the class naught surface spread of flame would have made yes
00:20:42 would have made yes um well he's looking for a better understanding of the difference between the a a class o panel versus a fire resisting panel yes
00:20:53 resisting panel yes and then if we turn to um bre three zeros four three seven five eight there's a long chain of emails here between martin ship and ronnie king
00:21:05 here between martin ship and ronnie king on this subject into which you were copied on the 21st of july 2014. uh we can see for example from the top email that you're copied in
00:21:16 email that you're copied in um we're not going to go through the whole of this chain but i want to just look at some of of of it if we could go to page eight on the second paragraph down this is in ronnie king's email he writes
00:21:28 ronnie king's email he writes the all-party party parliamentary all-party group has asked clg minister with responsibility for building for the building regulation stephen williams mp
00:21:39 building regulation stephen williams mp if he will take immediate steps to correct the obvious weakness in the current approved document b in so far as the requirement for the spandrel panels under the windows of flat 79 at lachnal house needing only to
00:21:51 flat 79 at lachnal house needing only to have a surface spread of flame classification rather than a degree of fire resistance as was required at the time of a previous fire at lachnal house before the windows and panels had been replaced
00:22:03 the windows and panels had been replaced yes
00:22:04 yes yes
00:22:05 yes and we can see from the third paragraph down of this email that he's concerned that your evidence to the at the inquest into the deaths at lachnal house
00:22:16 the deaths at lachnal house was that the panels burned through within four and a half minutes and he wanted to know for certain whether your evidence that class naught panels would have made a difference was correct so he says firstly david's report to the
00:22:28 so he says firstly david's report to the coroner's inquest confirmed that the spandrel panels underneath the bedroom windows of flat 79 at lachen or house burn through within four and a half minutes having no fire resistance and only class three surface spread of flame
00:22:39 only class three surface spread of flame at the inquest he gave an opinion that at a previous fire at lakin or house before the windows and panels had been replaced that it is highly likely that these panels were able to survive a fully flashed over fire for some time
00:22:52 fully flashed over fire for some time possibly 30 minutes or more do you see that yes
00:22:57 now moving up to page three of this long chain
00:23:02 chain um in the first full paragraph of
00:23:05 of this email starting
00:23:09 starting down
00:23:10 down right down in line seven it's actually four lines up from the bottom there's a semicolon
00:23:15 semicolon and it begins he says so we are no clearer now whether panels to a class naught surface spread of flame as specified in the regs would have prevented that fire spread so rapidly
00:23:27 prevented that fire spread so rapidly i believe it would have made very little difference to the speed at which the fire entered catherine's flat do you see that yes
00:23:38 so he's very clearly making the point that if there'd been class naught panels as recommended by approved document b he doesn't think it would have made any difference yes
00:23:49 difference yes agreed yes and
00:23:52 and therefore he's concerned that the guidance given an approved document b is ineffective yes uh yes
00:24:01 and then if we go down to the second paragraph on page five
00:24:07 page five it's a paragraph in blue just above the red text
00:24:11 red text he says for example there are four thousand
00:24:14 thousand other older tower blocks in the country potentially needing to undertake building works involving the outside walls windows sets and panels under the guidance of the approved document would this not be sufficient evidence for
00:24:26 this not be sufficient evidence for action to be taken now rather than wait until 2017. do you see that yes what were your views on on that kind of sentiment at the time i you know there's many many buildings
00:24:38 i you know there's many many buildings that are going to undergo refurbishment we need to act now to change the approved document rather than wait until 2017.
00:24:47 2017. oh i'm in agreement that the approved document needed to be updated because yeah it's
00:24:52 yeah it's you know
00:24:53 you know the more time passes with outdated guidance in effect the more risk there is that things will be done to that guidance which
00:25:04 which aren't done until you know at a higher standard
00:25:07 standard yes and i think you told us yesterday that for a long time certainly from i think you said 2008 onwards you did have concerns that class naught was far from ideal yes yes
00:25:22 had you met ronnie king before or during the lachenal inquest
00:25:28 um i'm not sure i'd met him before the inquest i did meet him at the inquest had you discussed ronnie king and his views with brian martin at any stage
00:25:41 um
00:25:44 yes at one point or two i mean ronnie king was um again he was very strongly associated with the sprinkler industry prior to his tenure at the all party parliamentary group
00:25:54 group um
00:25:56 um and so i know that ronnie had been involved in lobbying government in relation to sprinklers um
00:26:04 that's probably about the extent of it though it's yeah i've known of him for a very long time in relation to sprinklers yeah
00:26:11 yeah so are you saying that you did discuss uh ronnie king's views about sprinklers with brian martin um yes not at length but yes i would have done and in a nutshell what were
00:26:22 have done and in a nutshell what were what were brian martin's views about what ronnie king was saying about sprinklers um
00:26:28 um that ronnie king was part of the you know the sprinkler establishment that wanted to
00:26:34 wanted to get sprinklers into as many buildings as possible and you know
00:26:42 what's the word i'm looking for they they
00:26:44 they they say sorry government would and i think they did on various occasions conduct these sort of regulatory impact assessments and the point that was made to me was
00:26:55 point that was made to me was you know ultimately the sums don't stack up in terms of the the value to uk plc of
00:27:01 of broadening the scope of uh sprinkler uh did you get the impression that um mr martin was listening to ronnie king's arguments on sprinklers
00:27:12 arguments on sprinklers um
00:27:17 my impression was yes but i think he'd sort of grown um tired i think brian brian martin felt he was sort of piggy in the middle he was
00:27:28 was sort of piggy in the middle he was always on the receiving end of these approaches about increasing sprinkler coverage
00:27:36 but was ultimately always going to end up providing the same answer in return on behalf of government did you ever discuss with brian martin mr king's concerns about external fire
00:27:48 mr king's concerns about external fire spread class naught fire resistance cladding did you ever have that discussion with mr martin um
00:27:57 um i don't think so i mean i kept
00:28:00 kept at arm's length from these discussions from fairly early on um albeit that i did obviously become involved again with the experiments later um but i
00:28:09 um but i yeah because of my involvement in the um fire safety prosecution um i kept arm's length from this can we agree though that the research and experiments that you went on to
00:28:21 and experiments that you went on to conduct for brian martin in 2014 and 2015
00:28:25 2015 following this exchange of correspondence were undertaken in part to provide an answer to ronnie king's concerns yes can we agree that they were undertaking to appease ronnie king and any others
00:28:36 to appease ronnie king and any others who were or might have been seeking to challenge the retention of class naught as a metric for the fire performance of the external surfaces of high-rise buildings
00:28:48 um no because i don't think ronnie king was challenging the retention of class naught he was challenging not reintroducing fire resistance
00:29:00 as well but he's clearly querying the value of having class naught which he describes as a surface spread of flame test as the relevant performance metric isn't he
00:29:10 isn't he he may be saying and i want fire resistance instead but there's a first part to his argument which is class naught's flawed yes no i don't that's not my interpretation of what he he was writing he said
00:29:22 of what he he was writing he said we have a reaction to fire performance metric here which is doing a job but we also need a fire resistance metric
00:29:32 metric to do another part of the job but he wasn't saying that class naught is an inadequate performance metric in relation to reaction to fire
00:29:45 well we've read we've read his emails i'm not gonna go back over them um let's turn to your witness statement your third witness statement at bre 3047668
00:29:57 and page 47 paragraph 186 so this is your most recent statement and in this statement you say i accept the work carried out for the
00:30:08 i accept the work carried out for the external fire spread reports was flawed however the work i believe should be seen in the context of the extremely limited resources in terms of budget people and time that were available for
00:30:20 people and time that were available for the team to complete it now before we go on to some more detailed questions about this work can you just tell us in your own words why you're saying in this later
00:30:32 why you're saying in this later statement that you accept the work was flawed
00:30:38 um
00:30:41 because i you know with appropriate resources a more a better piece of work could have been carried out i mean everything i set out in the second witness statement amounted to the
00:30:52 second witness statement amounted to the same statement and i was um
00:30:56 um providing it because this third statement was largely in response to professor bisbee's report so this was a a short more succinct response to the relevant section of his report
00:31:08 relevant section of his report yes
00:31:09 yes we don't see any such statement in your second in your second statement um i'm seeking to understand from you now in what way you're saying that the work carried out
00:31:20 you're saying that the work carried out for the external fire spread reports was flawed what do you mean by that
00:31:26 in that we
00:31:31 that they were a basic set of experiments that were conducted using basic materials homogeneous materials we didn't have the opportunity to consider composite materials for instance um
00:31:46 and you know there wasn't the time available apart from anything else to to give the the work particularly the research work the attention that it ought to have had
00:31:57 that it ought to have had and is that a view you had at the time you were doing the work that it was flawed in that way um
00:32:03 um [Music]
00:32:06 [Music] to be honest i don't think we had time to stop and think about it at the time it was a um
00:32:14 you know the the need arose uh as a result of discussions set out in in this and then um
00:32:23 um the work was priced up in a proposal we had to figure out what we actually had left to work with in terms of budget and then you know it was approved and then we realized as in my team realized that we only had
00:32:35 as in my team realized that we only had a very narrow window opportunity to get the work done within the financial year which was another constraint but the point being that the the cladding walls were fully booked on the standard testing work
00:32:46 the standard testing work until the end of the financial year we had a week to work with and we just got it done um i would not say it was a piece of work that we were we had a lot of time to reflect on right either before or during
00:32:58 reflect on right either before or during so when can you help us when was it that you appreciated that this work was flawed when did you come to that realization
00:33:06 um
00:33:12 probably i mean yeah my most acutely post grenfell um because i've you know i've seen the sort of the various ways that it's been um
00:33:25 not misconstrued unfair but people have sort of drawn different conclusions from it because the work for various reasons it wasn't a complete piece of work equally we weren't able to fully
00:33:37 equally we weren't able to fully contextualize the background to the work so people have read into the research different intentions and findings which aren't um accurate but that again those those
00:33:49 accurate but that again those those those are due to limitations that were imposed on the work when you say people have sort of drawn different conclusions from us from it help us with that what do you mean by that which people and what conclusions have they drawn
00:34:01 have they drawn um
00:34:02 um sorry i struggled i mean on
00:34:05 on social media and in in news articles post grenfell i've seen various opinions i've afraid i can't name names off the top of my head but there have been
00:34:16 there have been um
00:34:17 um inferences drawn for instance that it was about
00:34:21 was about for instance the retention of class o whereas in fact the whole purpose of the piece of work was this question whether to add fire resistance or not and both the classo and the timber
00:34:32 and both the classo and the timber panels that were used in the experiment were essentially the baseline benchmarks to see what the different outcomes might be right but that wasn't properly explained because particularly in terms of the research we
00:34:45 particularly in terms of the research we you know we were specifically into what i was because of my role within the latino prosecution instructed not to make reference back to lackadal which was the source of the entire exercise i
00:34:56 was the source of the entire exercise i see
00:34:56 see and can you help us with this why don't we see
00:35:00 we see anywhere in your second statement um any any statement like this that we see in your third statement that the work carried out in these reports was flawed
00:35:16 i mean well the simple answer is that you know that there wasn't a question my second statement was a responsive statement so i answered all the questions including you know setting out
00:35:28 questions including you know setting out various flaws they are set out within that statement but there wasn't a point within that statement as a responsive statement for me to make these overarching points so this was one
00:35:39 these overarching points so this was one of the reasons why i felt it's appropriate for me to to prepare and submit this voluntary third statement was to try and um
00:35:48 um set my position out in you know in my own
00:35:51 own words in a um what's the word i'm looking for just in in an open-ended way rather than in responsible yes i see because as we read your second statement we didn't
00:36:02 read your second statement we didn't read you as accepting that there were flaws in it but um let's leave that for the moment when you did realize that this work was flawed did you immediately contact the department for whom that the research had been uh
00:36:15 for whom that the research had been uh submitted
00:36:18 um
00:36:24 probably not no because um well i mean they had
00:36:28 they had they were dealing with the post grenfell response and i was dealing with the met police investigation by then and i really wasn't in contact with the department because of being full-time within grenfell tower
00:36:39 being full-time within grenfell tower itself have you ever at any stage sought to correct any flaws in the work as far as possible
00:36:54 when you i asked you the question before when when did you realize when you realized the work was flawed did you immediately contact the department for whom the research had been submitted and you said
00:37:02 you said probably not no isn't it a yes or a no did you contact the department and say this work is flawed
00:37:11 the reason i say probably not is to say an awful lot happened post grenfell would be an understatement i've you know my recollection of the early days and weeks after the grenfell fire
00:37:24 days and weeks after the grenfell fire is not brilliant at this point given how much stress was involved at that time um you know i remember being called by brian martin i think it was about you know attending the there was a first
00:37:36 know attending the there was a first meeting i think that was to be held on saturday
00:37:39 saturday um which i think was the precursor to the expert panel and so on and having to work out where i stood in relation to everything and ultimately realizing that my role was going to be within the meta investigation
00:37:51 investigation um
00:37:52 um hence why i say probably it's not impossible that i did but even if i did it wouldn't have been much more than a passing comment because of how much was going on at that time i see but but subsequent to that i mean you know
00:38:04 but subsequent to that i mean you know obviously that was an intensive time in the aftermath of the fire but i mean in in the years since the fire uh have you thought to contact the department and inform them that of your
00:38:15 department and inform them that of your view that the work was flawed um i think we've had that conversation uh i haven't formally contacted them but that conversation has been had between who between you and
00:38:26 between you and who um almost certainly brian martin i would think right so you think you've had a conversation with him in which what you both agreed that the work was flawed yes
00:38:37 it goes back to the you know the point i made i think it was yesterday of trying to do the best that you can but with very limited resources and and
00:38:50 i think well it is for him to say ultimately i think he recognizes that as well but that we've had those conversations about what was trying to be achieved pretty grenfell and where we've ended up and what was his response did he already
00:39:02 what was his response did he already appreciate it was flawed or was he surprised to hear that that was your conclusion now um i don't think he was surprised no has anyone ever sought to withdraw the articles and the research report
00:39:17 i don't know presumably you were aware that the department would continue to rely on it and less informed by the authors that it was flawed yes
00:39:34 i suppose so i mean i don't think that the department had much intention of relying on it to be honest but i take the point well let's look at brian martin's witness statement to this inquiry
00:39:44 inquiry if we can go to clg 3019469 at page 50 and look at paragraph 141 he says this in april 2016 i received
00:39:55 he says this in april 2016 i received the results of some research i had commissioned bre to undertake on the concerns regarding fire spread over the external walls of multi-storey buildings i had commissioned this research in november 2014 to address the issues that
00:40:07 november 2014 to address the issues that had been raised previously by the aappg in their letter of the 5th of august 2014
00:40:13 2014 the findings were that there is a clear demonstrable need to ensure that buildings are designed and constructed so that fire spread across the external face and within the
00:40:24 the external face and within the external facade is inhibited as required by the building regulations there is adequate guidance available in the public domain to allow this to be achieved do you see that yes
00:40:36 achieved do you see that yes and then he goes on he says paragraph 142 below that on the basis of this bre research i was satisfied that not only did the building regulations adequately cater for
00:40:48 regulations adequately cater for external fire spread but also that there was adequate guidance available in the public domain the bre research was then published in two parts the april may editions of the building engineer
00:40:59 editions of the building engineer magazine the journal of cave this is another publication that is read widely across the industry do you see that yes now it will be a matter for mr martin to
00:41:10 now it will be a matter for mr martin to be asked about this um and we will be asking him about this but um he's clearly relying on this research in his uh statement to the inquiry and
00:41:21 his uh statement to the inquiry and there's no acknowledgement that it's flawed
00:41:24 flawed um do you understand that that's a recent revelation that mr martin has come to
00:41:31 come to or have you understood him to have that view for a long time
00:41:37 um [Music]
00:41:42 i understand he's had well it's not in the last six months let's say that he's had the view
00:41:50 or that he's come to the view um
00:41:56 yeah he mean he may well have been satisfied at the time the research was provided to him but i believe his view has changed since then i see and that's based on oral conversations you've had with him yes
00:42:08 conversations you've had with him yes yes
00:42:11 now let's um let's look at the part one article in more detail this is at clg 3019445
00:42:21 now this is the background and research article
00:42:25 article and then we saw there was a separate article that we'll come to which is writing up the experimental tests yeah so this was background and research prior to that now um
00:42:36 now um what aspects of this particular work do you consider to be flawed any of it
00:42:44 any of it um
00:42:45 um i'd i'd
00:42:51 i don't have as many concerns about the well not sure i'd have any specific concerns about this although i wasn't hugely involved in its drafting my
00:43:00 my my concern around the floors are more in relation to the experiments right yeah let's go to page two there's a section headed scope in the middle of the page
00:43:11 middle of the page and we read at the beginning of that section it says part b section 12 of appro document b volume 2 is concerned with the construction of external walls of buildings the aim of this article is to clarify the
00:43:23 this article is to clarify the background to these recommendations their objectives and intended outcomes the requirement of part b schedule one of the building regulations is as follows and then you set out the functional requirement in b4
00:43:38 so that was the aim yes to clarify the background to the recommendations in section 12 of adb is that right yes do you consider now that the article achieved that aim
00:43:57 to an extent yes it did um whether it you know well i don't think it addressed um
00:44:06 um every aspect of it but it provided a degree of clarification to the background's functional requirement yeah
00:44:14 yeah let's look at page three in the second paragraph down you're dealing with the 1991 fire at noseley heights and um
00:44:25 and um in the first line it says one of the most significant of the historical fires is the 1991 fire in noseley heights a residential block of flats which had been refurbished with the addition of
00:44:36 been refurbished with the addition of thermal insulation to the external walls of the blocks
00:44:42 and then it goes on it says the fire started externally to the block and ignited the combustible cladding system resulting in extensive fire spread across the face of the building
00:44:53 the building mostly upwards and then it goes on although this was not the first incident of its kind it raised many concerns and resulted in a change to the test methods used for
00:45:05 change to the test methods used for external cladding systems namely the introduction of a full-scale fire test similar to the 8414 test series do you see that there yes now just helpers it says that this was one of the most
00:45:17 it says that this was one of the most significant of the historical fires in the first line can you help us what did you understand to be the significance of the fire at nosley heights
00:45:28 um
00:45:34 i mean it was a fire that from when it was
00:45:38 was when i first learned of it when it was first presented to me as part of my development of bra was was presented as one of you know the major fires in terms of understanding um
00:45:49 um external fire spread um it was i believe mostly related to the understanding of the need for cavity barriers i think pre-pre-nosely heights
00:46:00 pre-pre-nosely heights in the
00:46:01 in the first edition of br135 there had been a recommend or they've been among its recommendations a belief that with rain screens that achieved class o with non-combustible substrates you could
00:46:12 non-combustible substrates you could forego cavity barriers to a degree whereas the heights made clear that that wasn't the case you would still get significant external fire spread and so it resulted in the change which i
00:46:24 and so it resulted in the change which i think also came into the 1992 edition of adb that
00:46:28 adb that made clear that um rain screen cavities aren't some sort of special cavity that need not have cavity barriers you need cavity barriers in all forms of cavity including in rain screens yes did you understand the
00:46:40 screens yes did you understand the system at nosley to be non-combustible um no not the entire system i understood it to be
00:46:49 it to be classo i think
00:46:53 although i say the timeliness was written no i probably did know it was clark classo and a non-combustible insulation right i think what about the
00:47:04 right i think what about the combustibility of the the panels you say class naught are you talking about the the the panels that were used at noslee you're saying your understanding was that they were class nor what about
00:47:15 that they were class nor what about their combustibility
00:47:18 as in whether they were non-combustible or limited combustibility well yeah anything about their combustibility because class naught doesn't tell us anything about that um
00:47:31 i don't know i forgot sorry they're the only headlines that stick out in my mind about them are the class naught rain screen and and the mineral will insert and you talk about um you say it was not the first incident of its kind this is
00:47:43 the first incident of its kind this is four lines down it raised many concerns what were those many concerns you talked about cavity barriers were there other concerns relating to external war arrangements that this fire
00:47:55 external war arrangements that this fire raised
00:47:56 raised i don't know that the cavity barrier point was the one i'm aware of um i mean this i believe was written by martin ship he would and he would have been around at the time so he would probably be more aware of
00:48:07 be more aware of the range of concerns that resulted from it
00:48:10 it let's go down to page three there's a section headed sorry on that page there's a section headed existing guidance do you see that yes and the first sentence under that
00:48:21 and the first sentence under that heading
00:48:23 heading reads
00:48:24 reads approved document b recommends restriction on the combustibility of external walls to reduce the danger from fire spread up a building's external face and also to reduce the susceptibility of
00:48:37 and also to reduce the susceptibility of the surface to ignition from an external source
00:48:41 source it's considered that the use of combustible materials and or extensive cavities in cladding systems in tall buildings can pose a route for fire spread and hence the danger to life as shown by the case studies
00:48:52 shown by the case studies now help us with this where does the approved document recommend limiting the combustibility of materials used in the external face of the building
00:49:04 of the building with external walls of the building
00:49:10 there's a there's an ongoing it's not an active debate but various people have different views as to whether you use the term reaction to fire spread of flame combustibility
00:49:21 combustibility i would
00:49:22 i would expect and again not having written this the reference to combustibility probably also is intended to mean reaction to fire properties i.e class o and class b and so on
00:49:38 well i don't really follow that the specific words used here it says approve document b recommends restriction on the combustibility of external walls
00:49:49 external walls now what clauses of approved document be is that referring to
00:49:56 i would presume clause is 12.6 12.7
00:50:04 12.7 but again i didn't write this text well clause 12.6 refers you to diagram 40 yes yes you know that and for walls above 18 meters it
00:50:15 and for walls above 18 meters it requires either class naught or a euro class b
00:50:19 class b yes yes
00:50:21 yes yes how is that restricting the combustibility of the external wall of the building because class naught so
00:50:34 the com this goes back to the point i made earlier the whether you call whether you use the umbrella term reaction to fire or combustibility it all relates to [Music]
00:50:44 [Music] what so the time i prefer to use is reaction to fire performance and i i would prefer combustibility to see it to be seen as a subset of reaction to fire performance is when when you impose a fire onto a
00:50:55 is when when you impose a fire onto a material what does the material do in response
00:50:58 response whether that is flame spreading across its surface whether it's the release of energy ultimately the material is responding in some way
00:51:10 class naught you know
00:51:13 you know if you achieve class nor as compared with say class three or four class naught is less combustible than class three or four in that scale of classes
00:51:23 classes but it's not testing the combustibility of the product is it it's testing the surface spread of flame over the product yes
00:51:30 yes that's what class naught is doing well there's also fire propagation which is about how much energy is given off by the it's only testing the surface of the product nonetheless is it but it's an
00:51:42 product nonetheless is it but it's an aspect of the external wall construction
00:51:46 let's move on to page four there are a number of case studies which are set out in this report and they're headed up uh fires since the introduction of bs 8414 test series
00:51:59 introduction of bs 8414 test series now
00:52:01 now i want to see if i can take this shortly do you accept that one of the flaws in this work is that these are not really case studies at all in that they don't contain
00:52:09 contain any information on the basis of which it could possibly concluded that the existing regulations and guidance in relation to external fire spread were adequate
00:52:25 sorry could you repeat that because i've understood you correctly you're saying that that them not meeting an objective makes them not case studies yes so that what these case studies
00:52:37 yes so that what these case studies don't do
00:52:38 don't do is give you any information about the extent to which the regulations and guidance are adequate and i'll come to some examples of it
00:52:49 i just want to know whether you agree with that proposition or not well the detail between it within each case study simply tells you what happened in the case study so to that extent i agree it doesn't
00:53:00 so to that extent i agree it doesn't then within the case study there is no commentary on the extent to which the guidance is appropriate yes let's look at case study 2 for example at the bottom of that page that reads july 2010
00:53:12 that reads july 2010 a fire started on the balcony of a 12-foot flat of a 16-story residential block of flats constructed in the 1960s as can be seen from figure 2 the fire spread from the balcony of origin to the 15th floor on the roof of the building
00:53:25 15th floor on the roof of the building several features of the building were attributed to the extent of fire spread including combustible insulating panels which were clad onto the underside of all the balconies cladding panels which had been unstalled onto the outer
00:53:36 had been unstalled onto the outer surface of the exterior wall and composed a mineral fibre board face supported on timber batons behind behind which there was a fibrous combustible insulation material and
00:53:47 combustible insulation material and plastic drain pipes which were installed at each corner of the building and passed through the concrete floor slab on each floor there was no evidence of any fire stopping proprietary seal or sleeve where the pipe passed through the
00:53:59 sleeve where the pipe passed through the floor slab and which should have been provided to maintain the level of fire resistance afforded by the concrete floor slab do you see that there yes now why does this description for example not identify the materials and
00:54:11 example not identify the materials and the products to which the extent of fire spread was attributed we're told these were cladding panels in the middle of that paragraph
00:54:21 paragraph and that they'd been installed on the outer surface and comprised a mineral fibre board face supported on timber battens why aren't we given more information about the cladding panels
00:54:32 information about the cladding panels and the combustible insulating material you mean the identity of the products they're well what materials they comprised
00:54:45 well i'm not sure the identity of the materials was fully established within the investigation itself not for case study too there was um
00:54:55 um a level of detail um that could be ascertained within the one day investigation that occurred but it wasn't you know an ordinary fire of special interest report doesn't go anywhere near the
00:55:07 report doesn't go anywhere near the level of detail that say lacking was investigated to
00:55:12 there aren't any comments in this case study in respect of the time scales over which the fire spread is there no because i mean we
00:55:22 we didn't know we didn't have a factual record of how long it took for the fire to spread because what we had um particularly with this well these both of the fires on this page
00:55:33 both of the fires on this page was
00:55:34 was a building that had suffered a fire and we had some some vague accounts as to you know
00:55:41 you know whether people felt that things occurred quickly or slowly the sort of descriptors that you get from witnesses of a tragic event such as this but we didn't have any quantification of the
00:55:52 didn't have any quantification of the speed of fire spread so what what did this example demonstrate to you for the purposes of this report
00:56:00 um
00:56:10 as set out here i mean it it details the extent to which
00:56:19 there was a route provided for fire spread i mean one of the peculiar issues with this particular fire was the penetration of drain pipes through balconies on the outside of the building that provided a route for fire
00:56:30 building that provided a route for fire spread
00:56:33 in the more
00:56:35 more detailed fire special interest report i believe there was some information around the extent to which stairwells became smoke logs before people were able to leave the building which then goes to it again it doesn't
00:56:46 which then goes to it again it doesn't quantify the speed of fire spread but it goes to the extent to which external fire spread presented a a risk to life
00:56:56 but in terms of what's recorded here i believe it's limited to the materials and indeed this this feature that permitted fire to bypass the floor slabs at the balconies but what do we learn from this case
00:57:07 but what do we learn from this case study in respect of the adequacy or otherwise of the building regulations and guidance relating to external fire spread
00:57:15 spread one issue is that the
00:57:19 guidance around
00:57:23 balconies was lacking and that was looked at as part of another piece of work um in relation to this project or carried out under this project
00:57:36 aside from that there was the recognition that the materials that were involved in this building albeit an older building um had permitted fire spread i think up four stories um
00:57:50 to the roof in your second witness statement i don't think we need to turn it up at page 54 paragraph 181 you give some more detail about this case study and you say for example that there was a sharp contrast
00:58:02 example that there was a sharp contrast in fire development between the areas of the building which were cladding combustible materials versus those that were not for example the concrete now we don't see that stated anywhere in this case study do we no
00:58:17 so why not if that's one of the things that that case study was telling you why isn't that written up in the report i don't know i didn't write to the case study
00:58:31 and were you aware that at the time of this fire
00:58:36 fire then you've told us in your statement this is the fire at the maddingly block kingston upon thames did you know that at the time of this this fire the building had an architectural crown constructed using a glass reinforced polymer product a grp
00:58:49 glass reinforced polymer product a grp product as had been used at noslee and ghana did you know that um
00:58:55 um certainly not in those terms i remember seeing some the remains of fibrous material when i examined the edge of the roof but i certainly hadn't had it described to me as a crown
00:59:06 hadn't had it described to me as a crown before
00:59:07 before the fire had progressed laterally around the top of this architectural feature were you aware of that
00:59:16 no and i would disagree with that characterization my side
00:59:21 side i've got a recollection of what the tower looked like from the ground and there was a v-shaped um fairly traditional v pattern of how the fire had spread up up the tower but it's not as though there was a
00:59:34 as though there was a you know a substantial lateral spread around the crown which hadn't occurred below
00:59:39 below i see but why is there no discussion at all about that feature of the building in this case study as i said
00:59:50 i wasn't aware i mean well maybe it's a terminology i would the
00:59:56 would the i would not at the well i did not at the time describe it as a crown to the building and it
01:00:04 it had it resulted in a band say of of horizontal fire spread around the top of the building then it would have been identified as something that had fundamentally altered the fire spread
01:00:15 fundamentally altered the fire spread um and we'd have looked further into it but i don't recall that feature actually promoting substantial horizontal fire spread any more so than the basic v
01:00:26 spread any more so than the basic v pattern arrangement that you get from a fire i see if we move on to page five and look at the first paragraph of text underneath the photo
01:00:35 the photo that reads as follows while external fire spread has been an issue as outlined by these case studies the authors would also like to acknowledge that there have been successes
01:00:46 that there have been successes as can be seen in case study three do you see that yes now i don't quite follow that is it intended to mean that case studies one and two were incidents which were not
01:00:57 and two were incidents which were not successes
01:01:01 yes yeah case studies one and two were definitely not what you'd like to have as an outcome i see
01:01:09 i see but um
01:01:11 but um where is it pointed out and if we go back a page
01:01:18 that these are our failures failures of what
01:01:21 what where does it tell us what's gone wrong in these case studies
01:01:28 well i suppose it's the multi-story fire spread i understand the point it's implicit as opposed to being explicit but there was multi-story fire spread in both of those case studies
01:01:42 and why was it on that following page that you were wanting to present something that you say was a success it was something that so the the um
01:01:54 it was something that so the the um the use of successes as opposed to just failures was something that we were encouraged to do there was um and i think it came from dclg and there might also have been some internal bre
01:02:07 might also have been some internal bre um side to this but there was a view that all we ever did was complain about things not being quite right and they wanted there to be a bit of balance that we were showing where the system was
01:02:19 we were showing where the system was working occasionally and who did that come from within dclg uh well brian martin's only person it would have come from right
01:02:31 i think well it might have first been introduced by stephen kelly when he worked with brian martin i think that it was that particular contract which would have been the 2012 i think what the contract meeting we had
01:02:43 i think what the contract meeting we had was where we first started talking about um trying to present successes as well as failures and was there a particular um
01:02:52 matter that the bre had reported on that had led the department to say we want you to report more on successes no i don't think so um i think in part it was driven by
01:03:06 it was driven by funny enough sprinklers so that the sprinkler industry has always done a very good job and it is a good job of identifying successes you know making the point that sprinklers are an effective tool
01:03:18 sprinklers are an effective tool um in
01:03:19 um in you know mitigating the effects of fire um and it's credited to them because you don't generally hear about fires that don't go anywhere it's quite hard to find information about that sort of thing
01:03:30 thing so
01:03:32 so the point i think was driven by the need to try and make the case back to industry that look if if you do the right thing if you make an effort and try and do more then in spite of you know fire starting it may
01:03:45 spite of you know fire starting it may not lead to these sorts of severe consequences i see
01:03:50 i see let's look at page five again and case study three so one of these successes so what's said here is it said a fire occurred in a flat on the 11th floor of a 22-story block of flats built during
01:04:02 a 22-story block of flats built during the 1960s and refurbished in 2006 7. this refurbishment included the fitting of a new cladding system to the exterior of the building which comprised an insulated render the insulation for
01:04:13 insulated render the insulation for which was mineral and had been tested to and passed bs-8414 part one the fire developed to fully involve the flat of origin and broke out of the windows the damage to the facade was
01:04:25 windows the damage to the facade was localized to the immediate vicinity of some of the windows but beyond this the damage appeared to have been limited to surface charring and sooting and then you refer to figure 3 the photograph
01:04:37 you refer to figure 3 the photograph below
01:04:39 now
01:04:42 you you say in that part of the case study that the insulation was mineral wool
01:04:48 wool and had been tested to and passed bs 8414 part one yes yes and if we go to paragraph 187 of your second witness statement on page 57
01:05:02 second witness statement on page 57 you say this you say my understanding at the time was that the entire system installed on the building had been tested to bs 8414 and classified to bl-135
01:05:12 bl-135 i attended this investigation as a junior member of staff accompanying dr sarah colwell i'd only been working for bre for 18 months and at the time i had no prior experience of external wall systems that had been tested to 8414 or
01:05:24 systems that had been tested to 8414 or classified to bl-135 i recall that dr colwill was contacted by the refurbishment team for the building following the fire given that the system had been tested to bs 8414 and or classified to bl-135
01:05:37 classified to bl-135 i asked bre for further information concerning this fire in order to prepare this witness statement including a request for dr colwell to provide whatever information she has but i understand that she's been unable to recall anything further
01:05:49 recall anything further so is it right at the time you understood that the entire system had been tested to 8414 and possibly classified to br 135 but you weren't sure yes yes correct
01:06:03 if we go back to page five we can see figure three that the cladding system is described there as non-combustible do you see it says figure three block of
01:06:14 do you see it says figure three block of flats showing limited damage to the non-combustible cladding system after a fire yes yes now
01:06:22 now if the cladding system was non-combustible there would have been no point in doing a test of bs8414 yes agreed did that occur to you at the time when
01:06:33 did that occur to you at the time when you were reading this report
01:06:37 um sorry when you say reading this report do you mean in preparation of my witness statement or do you mean i meant before that when you were helping prepare it i mean you're one of
01:06:48 helping prepare it i mean you're one of them no i i hadn't appreciated what you know that that particular point at the time that the article was being prepared that yes that and i agree there would be no need to um
01:06:59 no need to um to test the bs8414 for a non-combustible system
01:07:03 system what i now understand is that the the render itself was an acrylic yes so
01:07:08 yes so in fact you've carried out some work to answer the inquiries questions and that's led you to discover that the description at figure 3 is wrong yes yes in if we go to your second witness
01:07:19 in if we go to your second witness statement page 56 paragraph 186 you tell us this you say it was predominantly non-combustible as the insulation within the etic
01:07:30 insulation within the etic etics system was mineral rule however in light of the additional information i have sought to prepare this witness statement i can confirm that the render layer in the system was
01:07:42 that the render layer in the system was combustible as it was an acrylic render yes
01:07:46 yes yes
01:07:47 yes so it was not a non-combustible system as described in the report yes great
01:07:54 and the case study in the report doesn't tell us that the render in the system was combustible does it
01:08:01 no but i don't think um having sought out the fire especially interest report i don't think that was recorded in there either so martin shipp would have been reliant upon the fire
01:08:12 would have been reliant upon the fire special interest report which was written by sarah colwell in preparing the article yes if we could look at paragraph 182 of your second statement
01:08:23 your second statement you say this case study three demonstrated that fire spread could be confined to a floor of origin even if an unusually severe fire were to take hold the evidence from the fire and rescue service was that the wind-driven fire
01:08:34 service was that the wind-driven fire was difficult to extinguish to the extent that its personnel suffered injuries in addition damage to the compartment of fire origin which was fully consumed by fire indicated a significant duration however in spite of this and in spite of
01:08:46 however in spite of this and in spite of the use of an acrylic render the fire did not spread to any stories above as it did not take hold on the external wall construction this demonstrated the potential success of br135 classification at paragraph
01:08:58 of br135 classification at paragraph 12.5 of the then recently made effective 2006 edition of approved document b now the case study presented in the report does not tell us any of that does
01:09:09 report does not tell us any of that does it
01:09:11 it what you told us there in your statement about
01:09:14 about the evidence from the fire and rescue service was that the wind-driven fire was difficult to extinguish in spite of this and the use of an acrylic render the fire didn't spread to any other stories
01:09:25 stories none of that's in the description in the report is it not to that level of detail but i think it does make the point that there was a severe fire and it was nonetheless contained so the case study in the report doesn't
01:09:36 so the case study in the report doesn't tell us that the fire was unusually severe
01:09:40 severe no it doesn't tell us that the wind-driven fire was difficult to extinguish
01:09:46 doesn't tell us that the fire and rescue officers often suffered injuries
01:09:52 agreed doesn't tell us the aspects of the fire indicated a significant duration
01:10:00 uh no i don't believe it does doesn't tell us that an acrylic render had been used in the external cladding system no
01:10:09 it doesn't tell us that the authors of the report considered that this demonstrated the potential success of br135 classification
01:10:19 um i think it does mention the br135 classification does it not
01:10:25 not let's go back to it so it's um bre four
01:10:32 bre four three zeros four three seven one page 55.
01:10:36 55. i don't think it tells us anything about br135 classification no but it mentions bs8414 which is the substantive requirement for br135
01:10:48 substantive requirement for br135 well it's a separate process isn't it classification to br 135 well
01:10:53 well 135 is simply the interpretation of results from what 8414. it's not as though there are substantial other processes to carry out in order to do the 135 classification
01:11:04 in order to do the 135 classification the two go hand in hand
01:11:07 let's go to page six of the report clg three zeros one nine four four five page six in the second paragraph down under common misconceptions the report states
01:11:18 common misconceptions the report states this it says a further confusion arises since many elements required for fire safety in buildings are recommended to be fire resisting to demonstrate that they satisfy performance criteria as
01:11:29 satisfy performance criteria as determined by bsen 13501 part 2 or bs 476 fire resistance tests fire resistance tests subject a test specimen to a fire exposure that is
01:11:41 specimen to a fire exposure that is similar to a fully flushed over compartment fire such an exposure is appropriate for interior elements of a building and load-bearing elements however it is not evident that such exposure conditions are appropriate for
01:11:53 exposure conditions are appropriate for the exterior of a building further as mentioned above the class b or naught recommendation and the other recommendations above are intended to limit the rate of fire growth and the
01:12:04 limit the rate of fire growth and the fire spread and there is no evidence to date to suggest that these recommendations are inadequate
01:12:12 do you see that now
01:12:15 now just with reference to that did you consider that it was evident that the exposure conditions for testing to bs 476 part 6 and part 7 to achieve class naught
01:12:26 naught were appropriate for the exterior of a building
01:12:32 um
01:12:35 i think i think this goes back to some responses i provided yesterday and my understanding is that that the severity of exposure at the window head had been looked at
01:12:47 at the window head had been looked at and was deemed to be similar to what you would get within the relevant compartment that was on fire so
01:12:53 so the exposure condition is probably about correct although i not don't have personal experience of checking that the issue is around the manner in which the specimen is
01:13:05 the manner in which the specimen is exposed
01:13:08 right i see if we go on with that paragraph on page six the last three lines say um
01:13:17 um further as mentioned above the class b or naught recommendation and the other recommendations above are intended to limit the rate of fire growth and fire spread
01:13:30 now can you help us um what are the other recommendations above
01:13:38 we can't work out what that's referring to
01:13:41 to we can work out that class b and naught recommendation is probably referring to diagram 40 but the phrase and the other recommendations above can you help us with what that means not
01:13:53 can you help us with what that means not off the top of my head i'd have to go back through the article and then
01:13:57 and then there's the phrase and there is no evidence to date to suggest that these recommendations are inadequate so that appears to be referring to the class b naught diagram 40 recommendation
01:14:09 class b naught diagram 40 recommendation and
01:14:10 and other
01:14:11 other unspecified recommendations no evidence to date to suggest these recommendations are inadequate now did you consider that to be correct at the time this report was written
01:14:28 um i mean assuming for a moment that other recommendations it also includes limited combustibility and paragraph 12.7 then
01:14:39 combustibility and paragraph 12.7 then i would say that those recommendations probably were or did not appear to be inadequate at that time
01:14:48 time okay but help us with this why does this report say there's no evidence today to date to suggest that these recommendations are inadequate
01:14:59 um on the basis that where they are adhered to
01:15:05 to then the
01:15:07 then the the outcomes of fires haven't been disproportionate fire losses
01:15:16 are we to read this as saying that there was no evidence to suggest that the class naught recommendation in diagram 40 was inadequate is that how that was
01:15:27 40 was inadequate is that how that was meant to read
01:15:31 not as an isolated comment i think again i think the point is that it's seeking to make is in the round that the combination of provisions all together are not inadequate
01:15:43 are not inadequate i see but it doesn't single out clause 12.7 anywhere does it no well certainly not on this page i don't know if it does elsewhere can we agree that a reasonable reading
01:15:55 can we agree that a reasonable reading of this might be that what it's saying is that the provisions for class b and naught class naught in diagram 40 that there's no evidence to date to suggest that these are inadequate
01:16:07 inadequate can we agree that's a that's one reasonable reading of this it's one reasonable reading yes can we agree that that would have been a false assertion for
01:16:19 would have been a false assertion for the bre to be making in this report um
01:16:26 in relation to class nought but not in relation to class b i'm personally i think class b is a good class in terms of the the performance that it requires from a a product
01:16:39 that it requires from a a product it tests fundamentally because the tests are different class b looks for different things as compared with say class a2
01:16:47 class a2 but certain i'm aware that certain assemblies of external wall construction that achieve class a2 have still been proven to have shortcomings when you expose them to the class b tests
01:16:59 expose them to the class b tests yes but it doesn't say does it in this paragraph that the class b recommendation is okay but the class naught recommendation is not agreed so let's stick with the class naught recommendation can we agree that
01:17:11 naught recommendation can we agree that for example the fire at nosley heights showed that a class naught recommendation was inadequate
01:17:20 not in and of itself because again the big issue with noslee heights was the absence of cavity barriers and
01:17:27 and had noseley heights had cavity barriers and in venice also given the the the the broad form of construction but had it had cavity barriers then i'm pretty
01:17:39 it had cavity barriers then i'm pretty confident that it wouldn't have resulted in what it did i see
01:17:44 i see were you aware of the work of dr raymond connolly at the bre in 1994 and the 10 full-scale tests he carried out and his conclusions about the appropriateness or otherwise of class
01:17:57 otherwise of class um naught
01:17:57 um naught don't think i was when this was drafted no
01:18:00 no were you aware of the recommendations made by the parliamentary select committee examining the external fire spread at garnet court one of those recommendations being that all materials in the external wall
01:18:12 materials in the external wall arrangement of high-rise buildings should either be non-combustible or should satisfy effectively a large-scale fire test
01:18:20 fire test again not when this was written you weren't aware of that no i am now were you aware of the full-scale testing that had been carried out by the bre in 2001
01:18:33 2001 under something called contract contract cc 1924 for the department on various cladding systems including one incorporating an acm pe product no
01:18:45 no were you told that that acm pe product had achieved class naught but that it had performed disastrously in full-scale fire testing no
01:18:56 in full-scale fire testing no you weren't told that no i was not told that you weren't aware of that no
01:19:05 and were you aware that others at the bre and we see this from for example dr debbie smith's witness statement to the inquiry considered class naught as an inadequate metric
01:19:16 inadequate metric because the small scale testing undertaken to achieve class naught could not be relied on as a means to predict or control the fire performance of an external cladding system were you aware
01:19:27 external cladding system were you aware of that
01:19:29 of that certainly not in those terms no mr chairman is that an appropriate moment for our break yes i think it is it will have another break now dr crowder will resume please at 25 to 4
01:19:42 resume please at 25 to 4 and again please don't discuss your evidence with anyone while you're out of the room all right thank you very much
01:19:55 thank you very much 25 to 4.
01:36:55 would you ask dr crowder to come back in please
01:37:08 all right dr crowder ready to keep going yes thank you yes ms grange when you're ready
01:37:14 ready yes so just some follow-up questions um from this last session's evidence um we talked about the fact that you'd had a conversation with brian martin where you both reckon or acknowledged between
01:37:26 you both reckon or acknowledged between the two of you that this work was flawed in certain respects and mr martin's witness statement to the inquiry is dated the 23rd of november 2018.
01:37:37 2018. can you help us as to whether or not your conversations with him about that are likely to have been before that point or after
01:37:46 um sorry given that data it may well be after um probably not very long after but it may well be after and when you say probably not very long after what makes you say that
01:37:59 after what makes you say that um
01:38:01 um because i think it's a conversation i would have had when i was still at bre um which i left bra in may 2019. so um mrs green i'm going to interrupt you because in my case at least the
01:38:12 because in my case at least the transcript isn't running is yours i've just got i've noticed it's not flowing
01:38:37 so
01:38:49 um
01:38:58 is do you think this is going to take more than a couple of minutes right i think sorry uh doctor crowds this these things happen from time to time um i think the best thing is we'll rise for as long as
01:39:09 best thing is we'll rise for as long as it takes to get this sorted out so could you go back with the russian please
01:39:20 ms grange thank you very much we'll retire and we'll wait to be told when things are ready thank you thank you very much
01:49:53 would you ask dr crowder to come back in please
01:50:05 well dr crowder i think we've solved the problem so we'll keep going and hope for the best right right thank you yes yes thank you let me re-put the question uh that i put uh before we discovered the transcript wasn't working um
01:50:17 transcript wasn't working um so i'm interested to know when it is that you had this conversation with mr martin about the work on these external fire spread reports being flawed his witness statement to the inquiry is dated the 23rd of november 2018
01:50:30 dated the 23rd of november 2018 was it before or after that time you had those conversations with him yeah so during our unscheduled break i was having a think about this i suspect it was
01:50:41 it was one of the conversations i had with him after i decided to leave bre and just sort of reflective chats about um
01:50:50 about um my time at bra and the reasons for me going and pressures and so on and that came up as part of that okay so that would be after november 2018. yes that would yes
01:50:59 would yes now help us with this um we saw that it it is stated in in the the first part of the the report the article we looked at that
01:51:10 the report the article we looked at that there was no evidence that clas the class naught recommendation was inadequate yes that text is there yesterday you told us that in around 2007 2008 you had decided in your own
01:51:23 2007 2008 you had decided in your own mind that it wasn't really a fit for purpose metric for external walls you explained to us that you'd had a conversation in around 2008 with brian martin that it wasn't appropriate
01:51:35 martin that it wasn't appropriate and you've also told us that in 2015 you gave evidence to the singapore supreme court on the appropriateness of otherwise of class naught and you said you weren't a fan of of class nor now in the light of all of that and what you
01:51:47 the light of all of that and what you told us yesterday can you explain how we get that statement in the report that suggests that there's no evidence that the class naught recommendation is inadequate i
01:51:58 naught recommendation is inadequate i cannot i mean all i can say is again i did not write that particular part of the article admittedly i read it but i hadn't picked up on the the dual sighting of both class b and class nord
01:52:09 class nord i see
01:52:10 i see so you would have only been happy with it saying that the class b recommendation is that would certainly have been my preference yes your preference but you don't recall raising that at the time no
01:52:21 raising that at the time no if we look at page six of the report if we could go back to the report clg three zeros one nine four four five and look at page six the conclusions
01:52:32 the conclusions it stated in the second line of that first paragraph with the exception of one or two unfortunate but rare cases there is currently no evidence from these investigations to suggest that the
01:52:43 these investigations to suggest that the current recommendations to limit vertical fire spread up the exterior of high-rise buildings are failing in their purpose do you see that yes now help us with this what are the one or two
01:52:54 with this what are the one or two unfortunate but rare cases referred to there
01:53:00 um
01:53:06 i'm not sure sorry was this not asked of me in my witness statement well it may have been but um struggling a clear answer um
01:53:18 a clear answer um clearly states there with the exception of one or two unfortunate but rare cases there's currently no evidence from these investigations to suggest that the current recommendations are failing and their purpose can you help us here today
01:53:29 their purpose can you help us here today as to what those unfortunate rare cases were i mean i would imagine one of them might have been lacking all the house itself right beyond that i don't know um it would
01:53:40 beyond that i don't know um it would have been in the mind of probably martin ship as the person that was primarily writing this at the time why aren't they named i mean if you're saying there's unfortunate but rare cases
01:53:51 cases in the conclusion section why isn't it clear to the reader what those are well lacking isn't named because we were asked not to mention lacking we were asked not to
01:54:02 we were asked not to discuss this discuss it in relation to this further work that was being carried out for risk of it prejudicing the criminal prosecution i did specifically raise it with london
01:54:13 i did specifically raise it with london and fire brigade that i wanted to mention lacking in relation to this work and that permission was not granted right so you specifically said you wanted
01:54:24 wanted to say that lachnal was an example oh sorry let me correct that at this because this is the first report isn't it this is part one so
01:54:34 so at this stage the the request was to for me to keep my distance from it with an implication that like and was not to be drawn into it the specific instruction not to mention that came later after the
01:54:46 not to mention that came later after the part two research but ultimately that was there right so you could have named lachnal here if that was one of the unfortunate but rare cases which suggested that the current recommendations were failing
01:54:59 recommendations were failing um
01:55:01 um i don't think there was a specific don't mention luck and although i say that i'm not 100 sure but there was an email exchange with london fire brigade and they did not want me in particular associated and they
01:55:13 me in particular associated and they didn't want lacking all associated with this work
01:55:16 this work right and we see in the paragraph below in the um
01:55:22 in the um so the penultimate paragraph the final sentence reads a number of significant fires such as those discussed previously have demonstrated the potential risks the potential risks are not identified
01:55:35 the potential risks are not identified anywhere in this report can you help us as to why that is
01:55:41 no i mean again i can refer back to the general point about the case studies one and two clearly involved multi-story fire spread involving i think six and four stories
01:55:53 involving i think six and four stories respectively but no the specific risks are not identified and i can't help with why that is right let's go to part two of the research now this is at bre three zero is four three seven five one
01:56:05 zero is four three seven five one now this paper is this right presents results from three full scale experiments which were carried out on modified bs 8414 test rigs is that right yes and i think you said earlier that it
01:56:16 yes and i think you said earlier that it was more this aspect of the project that you felt was flawed is that correct yes do you accept that this research was so fundamentally flawed as to make the conclusions drawn from it completely
01:56:29 conclusions drawn from it completely meaningless um i wouldn't say they were completely meaningless but i would say they were very difficult for the uninformed reader to follow i mean from a practical perspective or not
01:56:40 from a practical perspective or not practical but um
01:56:44 brian martin as the client and having been involved in the inquest and the discussions of ronnie king he would have understood what it meant and and what it was trying to look at and what it was
01:56:55 was trying to look at and what it was the question it was seeking to answer in terms of fire resistance but i fully accept that you know to an uninformed reader it would have been very difficult to follow right we can see on the first page the reports dated the 9th of january 2014
01:57:09 the 9th of january 2014 um
01:57:10 um sorry i think we we've established this should read 2015 yes yeah um now if we go to page six under the subheading 1.2 project objectives there it's below the middle
01:57:22 objectives there it's below the middle of the page it tells us the aim of this project was to carry out a limited series of experiments to assess the performance of different external facades including non-fire rated double
01:57:33 facades including non-fire rated double glazing when exposed to a fire from below representative of the external face of a building and to provide a report of findings from the experiments to inform dclg building regulations and
01:57:44 to inform dclg building regulations and standards division yes yes and if we go back up to the executive summary on page three
01:57:50 three we can see in the fifth paragraph down
01:57:57 there there's a paragraph beginning three full-scale fire experiments do you have that yes it says three full-scale fire experiments were carried out on a fire resisting
01:58:09 were carried out on a fire resisting demonstrates resistance to fire for a specific period of time class three national fire classification and class b s 2 d naught european fire classification spandrel panel with
01:58:21 classification spandrel panel with double glazing above the test method used was similar to bs 8414 but the test rig was modified to address the aims of this particular study the fire scenario represented a
01:58:32 study the fire scenario represented a fully flashed over fire breaking out of a compartment and spreading up the external facade yes yes
01:58:39 yes so the purpose of this research in summary was to ascertain the respective fire performances of a euro class b panel yes yes a fire resisting panel yes
01:58:50 panel yes yes a fire resisting panel yes yes and a class three panel is that correct
01:58:53 correct yes although i think and i suspect it's deliberate um the reference to class three was via the um not exactly the notional fire
01:59:05 not exactly the notional fire performances table so effectively we use a timber panel because timber is deemed to be class three in untreated form well we'll come back to that in a moment and answered this for me why euro class b
01:59:17 answered this for me why euro class b rather than national class naught why didn't you have a national class naught panel as one of the three experiments
01:59:28 probably simply because we the panel we sourced um was a class b panel well given the concerns that had been raised by mr king and we saw those in
01:59:39 raised by mr king and we saw those in his emails about the difference that a class naught panel not a class b panel the class naught panel would make why not select a national class naught
01:59:50 why not select a national class naught panel wasn't that of particular importance for this experiment
01:59:56 um
01:59:59 well the class b panel is also well
02:00:03 well it would achieve class naught if it were tested accordingly um
02:00:09 but i presume what you're implying is a a panel that achieves class naught but somehow fails to achieve class b yes and we do know there are many of those now
02:00:19 those now but that again that wasn't a concern that was actually raised by ronnie king his concern was the absence of fire resistance not whether or not class o was actually adequate
02:00:29 adequate well we've gone through his emails and i'd suggest to you that actually his concern was that a class naught panel wouldn't have made any difference at lachnal given the limitations of class
02:00:40 lachnal given the limitations of class naught being effectively as he put it a surface spread of flame classification i appreciate he was wanting it replaced with a fire resisting panel but he was clearly concerned about national class
02:00:52 clearly concerned about national class north do you not accept that i don't agree no that's not my my interpretation of the way he put his his views across he was concerned that reaction to fire combustibility however
02:01:03 reaction to fire combustibility however you want to term it that metric of performance was not sufficient in isolation right what particular aspect of fire performance was being assessed in these tests help us with that
02:01:16 um well again it was whether or not the
02:01:20 the addition of fire resistance would make a difference so in terms of the way the instrumentation was set up it was to try and and
02:01:29 and and [Music]
02:01:30 [Music] reach a view as to whether these differing these three levels of performance would lead to different outcomes in terms of the the likelihood or speed
02:01:41 terms of the the likelihood or speed with which this fully developed fire emitting from underneath would likely spread to the story above right
02:01:48 right now we're not going to go through the whole report line by line but just summarizing is it right that you modified the 8414 test rig in the burn hall at bre's watford campus yes yes
02:02:00 hall at bre's watford campus yes yes that was in line with the suggestion you'd made to debbie smith in your email back in july yes that we looked at earlier
02:02:06 earlier was it you who designed the rig um
02:02:11 um in broad terms but not i didn't do the detailed design though a timber crib fire source was used in dimensions similar to those used in bs8414 tests yes yes
02:02:23 bs8414 tests yes yes sorry help us with this who did do the detailed design of the of the rig then um it wasn't used probably as between nathan cole and kira holland right
02:02:34 nathan cole and kira holland right and a non-fire resisting double glazing unit was used within the test rig yes yes
02:02:39 yes let's go to page six and to section two methodology um
02:02:49 you say there bre global has carried out a series of large-scale experiments in the bre burn hall using three different types of external facade systems of types used in residential properties that incorporate both non-fire rated
02:03:01 that incorporate both non-fire rated double glazing units and spandrel panels of varying combustibility now what was actually known about the combustibility or otherwise of these
02:03:12 combustibility or otherwise of these three panels
02:03:15 in terms of whether they were limited combustibility or not i believe the fire resisting panel was either non-combustible or limited combustibility but again this goes back to the point as to whether you deem
02:03:27 to whether you deem combustibility to be strictly limited to non-combustible limited combustibility or not or whether you deem it to to include reaction to fire classes more broadly right
02:03:38 broadly right now if we go to page 10 under the section headed materials we're told in the first line at 2.2 that the following items were sourced by bre global global and installed into the
02:03:49 global global and installed into the experimental flame frame sorry who selected these three types of panels to be tested
02:03:58 um
02:04:01 it was a somewhat opportunistic selection i believe um so in effect the the
02:04:06 the the broad
02:04:07 the broad classes in terms of you know let's aim for a a class three or they're about say a class o class b or thereabouts and fire something fire resisting
02:04:17 resisting stop there sorry you just said a class naught or class b or thereabouts well we're sorry not over there about class model class b so let me narrow that apologies
02:04:28 let me narrow that apologies but did you consider those two to be equivalent at the time you were selecting these panels is that why we only see a class b panel and not a class naught panel no the reason we have a
02:04:39 naught panel no the reason we have a class b panel and would you mind if we go back to the page that references class b i believe what has been it's not the class b that is listed in this
02:04:50 the class b that is listed in this report is not class b uh s three d two it is not the the class that is actually specified in adb the class that is there is class b s
02:05:02 the class that is there is class b s two s two d naught yeah so it's a specific reference to the class of performance that was on the panel that was obtained right so the
02:05:12 the and then this goes back to my answer to the question that you have just asked which was around the selection of these panels um i mean in the time that was available there was frankly a bit of a rush i think on the part of the team to simply
02:05:24 part of the team to simply go to suppliers and see what panels could be sourced in the time available to use in the experiments so where were they sourced from just what local suppliers in watford um i don't know whether it would have been in watford
02:05:35 whether it would have been in watford but yes local suppliers and who arranged for the purchase and delivery of those materials uh would have been nathan cole or cure holland
02:05:46 and if we look at the bullet points at section 2.2 on page 10 the first bullet point describes the spandrel panel you've described in the executive summary as class b s 2 d
02:05:57 executive summary as class b s 2 d naught is that right yes
02:06:01 and if we look at the note so so the bullet point says it's a compressed stone fiber spandrel panel with an organic binding agent this panel as part of a specific system
02:06:12 this panel as part of a specific system for external facades demonstrates a reaction to fire performance of class b s 2 d naught now
02:06:20 now so what we learned there is that this panel tested as part of a specific system
02:06:27 system has achieved the class b s2d naught rating yes uh yes
02:06:35 and and we see in the note below it says no for the purposes of this experiment only the spandrel panel a single component part of the system and not the complete system was used therefore the reaction to fire performance for this
02:06:47 reaction to fire performance for this panel has been assumed as class b s2d naught but this was not confirmed as part of this program of work yes yes in other words you did not establish that the panel you described as class b was
02:06:59 the panel you described as class b was actually capable of achieving that european fire classification yes correct although i mean based on my own experience i would be quite comfortable that a panel of that composition
02:07:11 of that composition would probably achieve class b but that would be an assumption yes it's not just an assumption it's based on expert opinion why not use a panel which you could actually confirm had been
02:07:23 actually confirm had been classified itself to class b not as part of a system i presume because the team were not able to find
02:07:32 to find a panel which had a standalone classification moving on to the second bullet how do you finish what you want to see not quite no sorry carry on
02:07:43 not quite no sorry carry on it is
02:07:44 it is so
02:07:45 so for the the proper testing of panels such as this to the european classes requires that they are tested in a representative end use condition that is part of the european test standard yeah
02:07:56 part of the european test standard yeah it requires that they have a substrate yes that the panels are tested upon a substrate or it may require a cavity to be fitted behind the panel within something else beyond the cavity the
02:08:08 something else beyond the cavity the point is that has to be representative um i mean i can't say sitting here now whether it was a cavity arrangement or whether it was fixed directly to a substrate
02:08:20 but i that sorry the point i'm coming to is
02:08:24 is it would be potentially unusual for a panel to be tested
02:08:30 tested somehow in a standalone arrangement because
02:08:33 because the manufacturer would then struggle to sell their product legitimately for an end-use condition because it hadn't been tested for an end-use condition okay
02:08:46 moving on to the second bullet point there is it right that this text gives detail of the fire resisting panel described in the executive summary yes this was a cement fibre board yes
02:08:57 yes this was a cement fibre board yes yes
02:08:58 yes and we learned from the third line of that second bullet point that it says this board can achieve a 60 minute fire resistance rating when installed in accordance with the details in the relevant bs 476 test report
02:09:11 relevant bs 476 test report and then it goes on for the purposes of reporting this panel will be referred to as fire resisting from here on herein do you see that yes and then the note underneath says no this board was intended for internal use
02:09:23 intended for internal use as bre global was not able to source an off-the-shelf fire resisting external board the panel is capable of achieving 60 minutes fire resistance when installed within a complete system and
02:09:35 installed within a complete system and tested to bs 476 part 21 however for the purposes of this program of work the panel was not installed as per the test report now help us as to this why was the bre
02:09:48 now help us as to this why was the bre not able to source an off-the-shelf fire resisting external board again lack of time
02:09:57 now the panel may have achieved 60 minutes fire resistance when tested to 476 part 21 as part of a complete system but do you accept that that tells us nothing about the fire resistance or
02:10:08 nothing about the fire resistance or otherwise of the board when used outside of that tested system
02:10:16 it well it tells you a limited amount of information it depends on the system that it was allied to so if for instance it was tested on a
02:10:27 on a substrate which itself contributed to the fire resistance then i agree it wouldn't tell us anything um
02:10:33 um i would
02:10:35 i would hope and again i had i wasn't involved in selecting the boards but i would expect the team to have
02:10:41 have identified whether there was a you know if if it was backed up with say very chunky mineral wool i would expect that to have been identified that it wasn't actually telling you the whole a close to whole story about the panel
02:10:53 close to whole story about the panel right but we don't know that from this report do we not from this report no do you accept that calling it a fire resisting panel is potentially inaccurate and misleading given the note and the qualification
02:11:05 given the note and the qualification that's made there um
02:11:09 um no i don't think it's misleading because it still is a panel which provides a fire resisting function i'll take the point that we we don't have an absolute quantification of the period of fire resistance
02:11:20 resistance but it is there to to provide a function of fire resistance when it is used in construction can we agree that a nine millimeter cement fibre board for internal use
02:11:31 cement fibre board for internal use would never be used as an external cladding on a building agreed do you agree it's certainly not representative of the external face of a building which is what this report
02:11:42 building which is what this report describes in both the executive summary and in the publishable summary
02:11:50 to a point but fire resistance the fire performance is what it is i mean we didn't need for instance the the boards to be able to keep the rain out or to withstand wind loadings we simply
02:12:02 or to withstand wind loadings we simply needed to see how a fire resistance performance would withstand the the fire scenario
02:12:11 i see so you don't accept that describing this board as representative of the external face of a building was potentially misleading well not given the specific caveat that
02:12:22 well not given the specific caveat that we've made that it is a board that is for internal use that was acknowledged so we're not misleading in that way
02:12:30 that way the third bullet on this page uh gives details of the class three panel that was selected is that right yes and if we look at the note it says no there was no evidence available of the
02:12:41 there was no evidence available of the fire rating of this panel hence class three is only assumed based upon guidance provided in approved document b for the purposes of reporting this panel will be referred to here in as class 3
02:12:53 will be referred to here in as class 3 and we can see it was a sheet of structural hard hardwood plywood of certain dimensions do you see that yes so this paragraph in this scientific
02:13:04 so this paragraph in this scientific research report is telling us that there's no evidence that this board was actually class three but we're going to call it class three is that fair well again it was based on the um
02:13:16 well again it was based on the um there's a performance table in approved document b which is based on historic data about the the general performance of timber
02:13:23 of timber timber is a pretty reliable material in terms of fire performance but why not use a class 3 panel one that you know had actually achieved class 3 and only class 3 in
02:13:34 class 3 in a bs 476 part 7 test
02:13:39 probably because there wouldn't have been any class 3 timber panels available because no one tests timber to prove that it's class three it's it's taken as being its performance and again within the time that was available
02:13:50 again within the time that was available i think there was only a week between this being accepted and the experiments taking place the team would not have been able to find a tim a timber panel that had been specifically tested to class three
02:14:03 tested to class three but why why didn't the bre test it so you knew before you carried out these tests that you were right to make that assumption because there wasn't a the resource available in the project
02:14:16 now it's right isn't it that the three tests resulted in drastically different fire durations burning rates and imposed heat fluxes being generated by the notionally
02:14:28 being generated by the notionally identical timber cribs that were used yes
02:14:33 yes um yes although there are there are reasons for those one involved glass falling onto the crib and the other involved a tim crib that it appeared had not been properly conditioned yes so it
02:14:44 not been properly conditioned yes so it was thought is this right that due to the moisture content of the timber cribs having varied across the three experiments that explained why you got drastically different fire durations burning rates and imposed heat fluxes
02:14:57 burning rates and imposed heat fluxes imposed by the crib yes um not quite that the moisture content only varied in the final test well we believe it only varied in the final test i see that's that's another problem with
02:15:09 i see that's that's another problem with these tests isn't it that you weren't imposing the same fire load on the three samples the the intention certainly was to impose the same fire load so the first test
02:15:20 first test the there was a large pane of glass that fell onto the crib which obviously wouldn't occur during an eight four one four test because they don't normally include glass um but that that sheet of glass
02:15:31 um but that that sheet of glass restricted the ventilation to the crib um and so it altered the way in which it burned and the way that it imposed heat onto the the um structure but aside from that i'm confident that that test one
02:15:43 that i'm confident that that test one and two
02:15:44 and two the crib was was notionally the same um the issue as i say was was test three where it became apparent i think during the test you know i was watching it and it didn't look
02:15:55 i was watching it and it didn't look right and
02:15:56 right and um
02:15:57 um it became apparent that something something had gone awry with that grip so why not rerun that test or try and make sure the glazing didn't hit the crib in another test i mean why report that up if you've had that
02:16:09 why report that up if you've had that problem why didn't you say well that that undermines what we're doing we need to do more to get this consistent across the three the problems were reported in in the report
02:16:22 in in the report there was no inclination to enable the test to be rerun and as i said that this project was run on extremely limited resources let's go to page 15 and section 3.1.1
02:16:35 let's go to page 15 and section 3.1.1 at the bottom of the page under temperature data in the final paragraph it says this due to the severity of the fire the fixings for the thermal couples on the front of the glazing and the spandrel
02:16:47 front of the glazing and the spandrel panel did not hold and i think this is for the fire resisting panel this allowed for the thermocouples to move around in the plume and this explains the sporadic temperature variances as seen in figure 12
02:16:58 variances as seen in figure 12 to help rectify this in the remaining experiments the thermocouples were more firmly secured with staples into the spandrel panel so the thermocouples came loose from their fixings during the test yes yes
02:17:10 their fixings during the test yes yes and that would essentially invalidate the test yes it would invalidate those temperature measurements why not say that in the report
02:17:21 well this does it says the the temperature there are sporadic temperature variances which i mean it may not say it in in the words you've you've said
02:17:32 words you've you've said but it is effectively saying there are big temperature variances so don't rely on these temperature measurements or this data plot why wasn't this test repeated to ensure that valid thermocouple data was
02:17:43 that valid thermocouple data was actually obtained no resources to do so let's look at the conclusions of this testing on page 35 it says in the first paragraph three
02:17:54 it says in the first paragraph three full-scale fire experiments were carried out on a fire resisting a class iii and a class naught spandrel panel all with double glazing above the experiments were based on the
02:18:05 the experiments were based on the methodology used in bs8414 but the test rig was modified to assess the aims of this particular study the fire scenario represented a fully flashed over fire breaking out of a compartment and spreading up the external facade
02:18:19 now
02:18:22 you say there three full-scale experiments were carried out on a fire resistant class three and a class naught spandrel panel that's not right is it no so why did that not get picked up
02:18:34 so why did that not get picked up i don't know
02:18:39 that's a pretty significant error isn't it to describe the panel as class naught when um it wasn't class naught it was a class b
02:18:48 class b panel or well possibly a class b panel i would be more concerned in the other way around if we'd only used a class naught panel that could not achieve class b and then declared it as being class b that would worry me
02:18:59 would worry me a class b panel i'm very confident will achieve class naught and i know that three paragraph two paragraphs down it does revert to class b and i i take your point it's it's a typo that shouldn't
02:19:10 point it's it's a typo that shouldn't have been in there well there's another typo in the second paragraph of that conclusion the fire resisting and class naught panels remained intact for the duration of the fire it's a typo that's repeated twice yes yes and it might lead
02:19:21 repeated twice yes yes and it might lead readers to think that you had actually tested a class naught panel yes um it might if these were the only two paragraphs being read but there are as i said there's a reference below to class b and its class b is used earlier in the
02:19:33 b and its class b is used earlier in the report
02:19:35 report moving on to the third paragraph the report says in those conclusions in terms of the performance of the fire resisting and class b panels they behaved in a similar manner as mentioned
02:19:46 behaved in a similar manner as mentioned above the glazing failed in both experiments but both panels remained intact
02:19:51 intact and
02:19:52 and but the glazing failed in all three experiments isn't that right
02:19:59 yes i think this was in specific reference to whether there was a a differentiator to be c to e
02:20:10 c to e sorry
02:20:11 sorry in terms of the original question posed as to whether there is a a different outcome to be
02:20:19 gained from whether you have simply the reaction to fire performance or the fire resistance performance the point is there was no difference there because whether you have the class b or the fire
02:20:30 whether you have the class b or the fire resisting panel the point of failure remains the window
02:20:35 can you explain why in that sentence that's comparing the performance of the fire resisting and class b panel and saying they behaved in a similar manner why aren't the drastically different fire durations burning rates and imposed
02:20:47 fire durations burning rates and imposed heat fluxes generated by the notion the identical timber cribs mentioned in these conclusions
02:20:55 because the the analysis and indeed the the length of time for which experiment three was allowed to go on for that
02:21:04 that we we sought as far as we could to take into account what went differently particularly with experiment three so that we could still provide a finding that was useful it wasn't ignored but the conclusion was
02:21:17 it wasn't ignored but the conclusion was the conclusion it wasn't the conclusion um
02:21:21 um how do i put this it wasn't a conclusion save for the fact that the experiments or the last experiments had occurred differently it was a a conclusion that took account of the fact that the third
02:21:33 took account of the fact that the third experiment had behaved differently
02:21:38 do you agree with this that no conclusions from the tests presented in this research can be drawn other than the self-evident fact that a class iii spandrel panel is likely to
02:21:49 class iii spandrel panel is likely to result in windows above the fire but becoming more rapidly compromised which he would have already known and would not have needed to carry out any tests to establish
02:22:00 to establish um
02:22:01 um no i disagree with that because what the class iii panel did was burn through it goes back to the the point um during the lack and link quest the the class iii panel physically burned through and
02:22:12 panel physically burned through and physically introduced flames into the compartment above back inside the building
02:22:17 building where someone might be above a compartment that's on fire whereas the the class b and the fire resisting panels both um
02:22:26 both um held up to that attack they did not introduce flames into the room above and the point of failure was ultimately the glazing and not the panel itself so
02:22:37 itself so what finding from this research was useful
02:22:40 useful in terms of regulating external fire spread
02:22:44 spread that there wasn't a need to introduce fire resistance as a requirement for external wall fire spread and in light of the
02:22:55 spread and in light of the government position at the time there wasn't a need to go looking for two other safety provisions to delete to make room for that
02:23:07 how did this research show that there was no need to do that i'm not quite following
02:23:12 following because the the outcome for the the class b and the fire resisting panel was the same there was the same point of weakness which is the glazing
02:23:22 whereas with the class three panel the weak the weak point actually occurred within the panel itself right i see now let's turn to the published version of this article from april 2016 which is
02:23:33 of this article from april 2016 which is at clg 3019444
02:23:41 and let's look at page nine here where the conclusions are set out those are identical to the conclusions in the research report we've just looked at say for the final paragraph
02:23:52 for the final paragraph above the heading references which says this overall the findings from this research show that there is a clear and demonstrable need to ensure that buildings are designed and constructed
02:24:04 buildings are designed and constructed so that the fire spread across the external surface and within the external facade is inhibited as required by the building regulations there is adequate guidance available in the public domain to allow this to be
02:24:15 the public domain to allow this to be achieved
02:24:17 achieved now how on the basis of these experiments and the information provided in the part one article that we've looked through could the bre possibly have drawn that conclusion
02:24:31 well again this so
02:24:36 we were unable to specify that
02:24:40 that again so
02:24:41 again so going back to the objectives even of this of this document we were unable to specify that the objective was to address an issue that had arisen during the lack in linquest we were therefore trying to
02:24:54 set out findings without a point of reference that we would have liked to have had
02:24:59 have had there wasn't a need to introduce fire resistance to external walls demonstrated by this piece of work and to that extent the the guidance didn't need revision
02:25:11 the the guidance didn't need revision the the
02:25:13 the the the reaction to fire aspect of the guidance on external fire spread was deemed to be adequate
02:25:22 it's a very broad statement there isn't it it doesn't say specifically in relation to fire resistance there's adequate guidance available it's a a very broad reaching statement
02:25:33 it's a a very broad reaching statement isn't it yes i accept that and too broad given the nature of the experiments and the extent to which as we've explored there were a number of problems with the tests you carried out
02:25:44 problems with the tests you carried out agreed
02:25:46 agreed why did that conclusion appear in the published article but not in the earlier research report
02:25:53 um i don't know i i mean i wasn't around uh much when when these were turned into articles i don't know why this rip appeared here
02:26:05 page two of this article if we scroll up to that under objectives the report notes
02:26:14 in the second paragraph it says it should be noted that this work did not test the performance of specific product systems and was not a comprehensive research study but rather a scoping study and as such the results need to be
02:26:25 study and as such the results need to be considered within this context yes yes now
02:26:29 now in your
02:26:30 in your second witness statement you say um at paragraph 105 page 33 you say this piece of research this piece of work was not researched in the
02:26:42 piece of work was not researched in the true sense it was a scoping study carried out using what little funding was available so as to try and gauge whether a full programme of research was actually warranted bearing in mind the level of justification
02:26:54 justification that would likely be needed given the constraints being placed upon any form of development of fire safety at the time
02:27:01 time yes
02:27:02 yes now is it your evidence that throughout your work on this project you were under the impression that the scoping study you produced might lead to a full program of research
02:27:14 um
02:27:18 i certainly would have liked it too um
02:27:22 i'm not sure how optimistic i was that it would actually occur but i would have liked it too
02:27:30 appreciate you might have liked it too but i'm i'm not interested in what your your hope was or i'm interested in whether
02:27:38 whether you actually understood at the time that it was a scoping study that might well lead to further research
02:27:48 in the fullness of time yes but i think realistically there was a for that to occur there would need to be a change in attitude
02:27:59 a change in attitude in terms of funding of research but having this done as in having this piece of work done and having it on file if you like was seen as advantageous because at
02:28:10 was seen as advantageous because at least it's there it's setting out the scope and you know when if when funding becomes available it would be there as something to return to
02:28:19 to right
02:28:20 right can we just look at a document bre 3043796
02:28:27 we can see this is a document which is a copy of the final research report for brian martin this one is dated the 31st of march 2015. and if we scroll down to page 4 of this
02:28:39 and if we scroll down to page 4 of this document
02:28:41 document we can see that brian martin has commented on this draft you can see the comments in the right hand side you see the little comment bubble next to the text that's highlighted yes
02:28:52 highlighted yes yes and we can see on the right hand side there's a comment written by brian martin
02:29:01 and
02:29:04 we can see he said um not keen on this it's under the heading common misconceptions i'd suggest deleting it or moving it and distancing yourselves from it
02:29:15 distancing yourselves from it by adding it has been suggested that some
02:29:18 some but deleting it would be better as it doesn't add to the content of the article
02:29:23 article and what's said the biddy once deleted is guidance is presented in section 12 of adb which states that external walls are elements of structure and the period of fire resistance depends on the use height and size of the building concerned yes
02:29:36 concerned yes and if we go down to page seven we can see two comments here
02:29:46 sorry there was that comment not keen on this under the heading common misconceptions sorry i think that the part that i meant to read was under the heading common misconceptions
02:29:57 misconceptions that's highlighted there do you see that to mobilize the resources necessary for their building stock and or in carrying out a fire safety risk assessment are unable to determine whether or not the cladding on the building conforms to
02:30:09 cladding on the building conforms to guidance do you see that there yes and that wording was deleted from the final draft of the report wasn't it uh yes
02:30:20 uh yes and
02:30:21 and the second comment relates to the heading conclusions
02:30:27 um sorry just to be clear this is the article
02:30:30 article this is an article i beg your pardon this is the article and then under the heading conclusions there's another yellow passage that's highlighted where um the text had read it was agreed with dclg to carry out a new
02:30:41 with dclg to carry out a new experimental investigation of external fire spread yes yes and he says in his comments i think he should say that the further work is a scoping study this suggests something
02:30:53 scoping study this suggests something more substantial yes yes so calling this work a scoping study was in fact brian martin's suggestion yes
02:31:03 um
02:31:07 i well
02:31:11 i see he's making the point here and this is what in 2015 but i i always thought of it as i never thought of it as a full program of research i would not deem the piece of work and wouldn't have at
02:31:23 the piece of work and wouldn't have at the time deemed it to be a full program of research and again brian martin and the team were all well aware of the fact that we were making the best that we could of of the resources that we had right a full
02:31:35 resources that we had right a full program of research on this sort of topic
02:31:38 topic would have taken at least one if not two or three years and funding of the order of 150 200 000 pounds rather than the 17
02:31:49 150 200 000 pounds rather than the 17 that we had to work with right
02:31:52 right but but
02:31:53 but but the author the original author had described the further work as a new experimental investigation and brian martin wanted that describing as a scoping study yes yes well that's his suggestion is a more accurate
02:32:04 his suggestion is a more accurate description and it's my understanding of the work and was always my understanding of the work yeah now in your second witness statement you're at pains to emphasize the extremely limited amount of time
02:32:15 extremely limited amount of time available to conduct the experiments and the budgetary constraints that you were under for example you tell us in your second statement a paragraph 232 on page 66
02:32:27 a paragraph 232 on page 66 that
02:32:28 that bs 8414 tests at the time were normally charged around 12 000 pounds per test but you did these three ad hoc experiments within a week for around 17 000 pounds is that correct yes
02:32:41 000 pounds is that correct yes and you you say in your statement at paragraph 278 on page 74 that you did the best you could under difficult circumstances yes why did you accept these difficult circumstances why
02:32:53 accept these difficult circumstances why not say no this is impossible this is not proper scientific research this is
02:32:59 this is not being funded properly not being given the time properly why didn't you say that to the department um because i know this is actually linked to a question you asked me yesterday which
02:33:10 question you asked me yesterday which i've since had time to reflect on it it wasn't in my gift to tell dclg no this was under the broader framework and the expectation was that the work would be done
02:33:21 the work would be done right mr chairman i'm conscious of the time yes but i lost some time due to the transcript i think i'm going to be about another 10 minutes before i finish my questions am i okay to carry on just
02:33:33 questions am i okay to carry on just give me a moment it's going to embarrass you
02:33:36 you you're right okay you okay yes very well you carry on thank you um
02:33:43 um now you tell us in your second witness statement
02:33:46 statement if we go to page 38 paragraph 120 four lines up from the end of that paragraph you say my understanding from discussions with brian martin was it was highly unlikely any funding would be
02:33:58 highly unlikely any funding would be secured for a stand-alone research project on any subject so the work would have to be carried out within the budgets available from the investigation of realfire's experimental budget yes
02:34:10 budget yes yes
02:34:13 so you had discussions with brian martin that it was highly unlikely any funding would be secured is that right certainly at the time the project was undertaken yes
02:34:22 yes right
02:34:25 and did you consider at the time that it would be better to carry this out this workout in difficult circumstances under severe time constraints and on a shoestring budget than not carry it out at all was that your view
02:34:38 at all was that your view i think so i am [Music]
02:34:41 [Music] and again this i know this was a point you put to me yesterday but i would sooner try and make the best of a difficult situation than simply walk away and do nothing i don't agree with
02:34:53 away and do nothing i don't agree with the principle of just you know let's just not bother let's just declare it's too hard i did want to try and do something
02:35:00 something and again i'd you know acknowledge the work was flawed but
02:35:06 you know i've been through many years during my career of trying to make the best of less than ideal situations and yeah i think you do the best that you can with what you have yes
02:35:17 you can with what you have yes if we look at paragraph one two two of your statement on page 39 you're speaking there
02:35:25 about the negative political drivers behind this project and you say this you say given the above the need which arose from lack of house was to establish whether or not existing provisions were adequate
02:35:37 adequate this was particularly important because if they were not and there was a recommended change to guidance dclg effectively brian martin would be tasked with finding up to three other life
02:35:48 with finding up to three other life safety provisions more if there was more than one recommendation to delete to make room for it
02:35:55 for it do you see that yes now
02:36:01 where did you get that understanding from that um the government would have to find um at least three other life life safety provisions to delete if one was going to
02:36:12 provisions to delete if one was going to be added a positive one was going to be added
02:36:16 added so discussions with brian martin i also knew more generally about the government's red tape challenge at the time
02:36:25 time but yes i mean it was
02:36:30 understood between us that you know if if there is a need to do something if there really is a need for change then we'll get the change made you know they do his best to try and make a case for it
02:36:41 it but equally
02:36:44 everything in approved document b is therefore securing life safety if you know the government policy of what was one in one out then one in two out and so on that meant very difficult decisions
02:36:57 that meant very difficult decisions would have to be made if you were going to introduce something new something else was going to have to go and that's not something anyone wants to have to do but it it means that you you it
02:37:08 it and i don't know whether this was deliberate or not on on the part of those that set up that policy but it does focus the mind in terms of how decisions might be made on what changes to be made well i
02:37:19 made on what changes to be made well i have to say i find that puzzling is isn't it the task of the advisor to tell in this case the government what needs to be done and and maybe to give the government an
02:37:30 and and maybe to give the government an order of priority as you see it and let them decide what to do yes i mean well and don't get me wrong the work was done and the findings were provided it's just that i understood the
02:37:42 provided it's just that i understood the parameters that were sitting around that well i'm suggesting it wasn't for you to worry about the parameters maybe not i don't okay i understand
02:37:53 maybe not i don't okay i understand all right thank you did you consider at any time it to be a matter of professional integrity to alert mr martin or the dcld to fact to the fact that this work could not be done properly without proper time and
02:38:05 done properly without proper time and proper funding
02:38:08 um well again on on the proviso that it was a scoping study and that when the op you know when when the opportunity arose when there was funding available more could be done
02:38:22 it was
02:38:24 as i said it was it was a step in the right direction it wasn't anything more than a step it wasn't a conclusion but it gave us an indication of of the issue um
02:38:33 um so to that extent no i i don't agree with your proposition right i want to turn to a final very short topic now which is about some emails you received from mr
02:38:45 about some emails you received from mr martin after the grenfell tower fire can we turn to clg three zeros three six four zero eight
02:38:56 there's an email at the bottom of that page from mr martin on the 16th of june 2017 where he says um debbie dave sarah so this is going to debbie smith to you and sarah colwell
02:39:09 debbie smith to you and sarah colwell i've been asked to prepare a rebuttal of the assertion that pe called acm panels comply with the guidance in adb i've also been asked if an independent expert would be willing to say this or something similar in public
02:39:22 something similar in public and then over the page
02:39:26 he says can you consider the attached and let me know please and there's an attachment entitled rebuttal of times article and if we have a look at the prepared rebuttal this is a nhb four zeros one four five
02:39:39 this is a nhb four zeros one four five eight
02:39:43 here we can see um the draft text that mr martin is sending of a rebuttal to be sent to the times about whether the cladding at grenfell
02:39:55 about whether the cladding at grenfell tower was or was not precluded by the guidance in approved document b um
02:40:02 um now
02:40:04 now was this your first direct contact with mr martin post fire do you know um so it's the 16th of june yeah no well i would have been in contact with him on
02:40:16 would have been in contact with him on the 14th of june because our initial attendance to grenfell was under the investigation of real fires contracts before we were requisitioned by the police so
02:40:26 so [Music]
02:40:27 [Music] yeah so my first contact with him would have been on the 14th of june i don't well and then i probably would have contacted him again to let him know we had been requisitioned by the police and then this would have been the first
02:40:38 and then this would have been the first contact after that right were you surprised to have received this approach for mr martin
02:40:46 um i don't know to be honest i i um on the 16th of june uh i was probably
02:40:56 not really thinking in in terms of surprise or i was probably quite emotionally numb at that point um yeah did you did you read his proposed rebuttal
02:41:07 did you read his proposed rebuttal statement
02:41:09 statement um
02:41:10 um [Music]
02:41:11 [Music] i'm not sure that i did i don't know and sorry just returning to the the email yeah let's go back to the emails because on the so on the 16th of june so
02:41:22 because on the so on the 16th of june so cld 3036408
02:41:30 and again i do apologize my memory of these days is a bit fuzzy at this point um
02:41:35 um but i did have to speak to debbie on the 16th of june which was the friday because
02:41:41 because that was when and obviously for reasons that are now a lot clearer than they were then
02:41:46 were then the met wanted to um do a due diligence check on bre over the weekend which is why i'd been speaking to debbie
02:41:54 to debbie and
02:41:56 and i would guess that i attempted to look up the article and couldn't hence the point it's no longer live we can see um from the email above from debbie smith to brian martin
02:42:08 debbie smith to brian martin copying you in she says hi brian just spoken to david it's my understanding that this is now no longer live if this is wrong and you need to discuss please let me know and then above he says hi debbie i still need an expert
02:42:19 need an expert but it can't be an employee of bre that's the approach i agree with the met police see you in the morning do you see that yes
02:42:26 that yes um had you spoken to brian martin about this
02:42:30 this i don't think i had no but that this again was around the time when it was becoming clear there would be a strict separation between my team's work as part of the met
02:42:41 my team's work as part of the met investigation and then whatever else was going on
02:42:44 going on in the wider sphere i know that um colleagues including debbie smith and julie bragula were deployed within other bits of government in response to grenfell
02:42:55 government in response to grenfell i
02:42:56 i i was kept very much siloed from that mr chairman thank you for that time um i've finished uh all of my pre-prepared questions if we could perhaps have a a
02:43:08 questions if we could perhaps have a a short break perhaps 10 minutes yes well um
02:43:12 um dr crowder you may know this but when council gets the end of her prepared questions we have to have a short break so that she can take stock and others can perhaps suggest further questions that we need to put to you so
02:43:24 questions that we need to put to you so we'll break now we'll come back at five to five would that give enough time that would be great thank you we'll come back at five to five and then we'll see whether there are any more questions for you okay thank you thank you very much
02:43:44 right thank you very much five to five please
02:55:56 would you ask dr crowder to come back in please
02:56:07 all right doctor let's see if there's any more questions for you yes yes thank you um two two questions or two quick questions you mentioned in your evidence um yesterday that um at one point
02:56:19 yesterday that um at one point in relation to the investigation of real fires project you had a call saying that the department wants you to shave 20 percent of your fees yes can you give us any kind of time frame for when that was
02:56:32 any kind of time frame for when that was uh i think it was after i became project manager so it would have been 2015 or later
02:56:39 yeah the call was directed at me because i was the project manager thank you and can i take you to something in dr lane's phase one report if you go to blas
02:56:52 if you go to blas 5027 at page 62.
02:56:59 so this is about your understanding of what the external wall surface is yes so we had long debates yesterday about the definition of class naught in
02:57:10 definition of class naught in um
02:57:12 um paragraph 13 of appendix a of adb and i just want to understand from you three different options are given here option one two and three about what is meant by the external surface of the
02:57:24 meant by the external surface of the walls or the external surface in diagram 40 and 12.6 of adb can you help us with what your understanding of it is currently
02:57:34 currently or as the guidance applied previously um
02:57:39 um is it option one that the external surface is just that red external surface shown on the far left in red so that's the say the composite panel and the external
02:57:50 say the composite panel and the external surface is just the far left is it that the external surface in option two does extend around the bottom say of composite panels or the top of them if there's an
02:58:02 panels or the top of them if there's an opening or does the external surface extend as in option three all the way around the panel
02:58:10 panel can you help us as to uh what your understanding was i'll try and i'll try to be succinct though it's a well it's not even a simple question it does come with a complex answer i'm
02:58:21 does come with a complex answer i'm afraid um
02:58:23 afraid um so
02:58:24 so there's a limitation imposed in terms of the test methods let's start with that so so we're picking on diagram 40 makes reference to external surfaces needing to be class o
02:58:35 external surfaces needing to be class o yeah or class b if you go down the national route then pretty much by definition you you are restricted to option one as well
02:58:47 restricted to option one as well you're restricted to option one as it applies to the external surface because the test test methods preclude assessment of what is going on at the edge of the test specimen yes um but you would where there is a need for the the
02:58:59 would where there is a need for the the cavity surface to be classed so you you'd repeat the test on on the back side but you would not fundamentally understand what's going on at the edge of those panels right um what about the european test test b
02:59:11 um what about the european test test b for classification b that doesn't necessarily only test the surface does it it could be a a mounted riveted panel or a cassette on a substrate with exposed
02:59:22 cassette on a substrate with exposed edges yes agreed yes and in that instance you are you're actually somewhat going beyond option three where in the the method of exposure
02:59:31 exposure particularly with the the single burning item test of the bscn13823 test yes
02:59:37 test yes that leads to exposure of the front face the exposed face what is going on at the the junctions the back face potentially and indeed
02:59:48 and indeed if you've if your test specimen requires a cavity and and your substrate needs to be representative you may end up exposing that representative substrate as well right so are you saying that depending on which route to compliance
03:00:01 depending on which route to compliance you go down in diagram 40 national class naught or
03:00:05 naught or class b
03:00:06 class b depending on which route you go down the definition of external surface changes
03:00:13 changes is that your evidence [Applause]
03:00:20 as as the i mean it's not my evidence as to what the external surface of a building actually is but in terms of the way the guidance in approved document b addresses the external surface yes and the surface provisions then yes that is
03:00:32 the surface provisions then yes that is my evidence okay thank you one final question looking back and we've gone through a lot in the last two days what would you have done differently if you had the
03:00:43 have done differently if you had the chance to do it
03:00:46 um it's
03:00:50 it's so i've obviously taken time to reflect on things not least post the fire itself and having witnessed first hand what happened um
03:01:03 i might so what's done is done to a large extent and and um you know i've worked within these various constraints and obviously i've had to set them out in my statements in
03:01:15 had to set them out in my statements in my evidence um
03:01:18 um but it's difficult to see how i would be where i am if i had acted differently um you know
03:01:24 you know we've been talking about simply refusing to do things um for what it's worth going forward um i have reached a conclusion that i'm fundamentally not not prepared to be
03:01:36 fundamentally not not prepared to be beholden to a particular employer or client or
03:01:41 client or to work within those sorts of constraints that i'm going to be wholly independent going forward and that's the ethos that we've had um in the company since it was formed
03:01:52 um in the company since it was formed um because as has become clear to me there are
03:01:57 potential weaknesses to be had when you you know you think you're working alongside colleagues but you don't necessarily understand all of what is going on or the information that you you ought to be privy to
03:02:09 ought to be privy to i see
03:02:10 i see thank you very much mr chairman just now comes to me to thank dr crowder for the last two days and i'm very sorry we've had to sit late tonight but i'm very grateful uh for for you giving us your
03:02:23 grateful uh for for you giving us your answers thank you very much well dr graduates right and i should thank you on behalf of all members of the panel for coming along and giving us two days of your no doubt valuable time to
03:02:33 to tell us what you know about all these things it has been really helpful to us to hear from you i'm sorry it's gone on longer than you might have wished this afternoon but i think you'd prefer that to coming back on monday yes indeed
03:02:45 to coming back on monday yes indeed so um
03:02:47 so um the the exercise is over you're free to go and you go with our thanks thank you very much indeed
03:03:00 and uh before we finally rise i'd just like to say thank you to the stenographer and the document manager who also have been kept later than usual and no doubted inconvenience to them as
03:03:11 and no doubted inconvenience to them as well so thank you both very much indeed yes thank you ms graham thank you for uh today's evidence we are now
03:03:19 are now uh finished for this week yeah we shall resume on monday morning at 10 o'clock when there will be another witness yes we have dr sarah colwell thank you thank you very much
03:03:30 thank you very much 10 o'clock on monday please thank you