Building Research Establishment Evidence - Wednesday 16th February 2022 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:00:28 [Music] good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to continue hearing evidence from dr colwell of the building research establishment so could

00:00:40 building research establishment so could you ask dr colwell to come in please

00:00:54 good morning dr cutwell good morning you're ready to carry on yes thank you very much yes i'm strange yes thank you yes good morning dr colwell um if we could go back to the document that we were looking at yesterday uh kin

00:01:07 that we were looking at yesterday uh kin four zeros eight eight four seven so we were in the middle of discussing uh some of the kingspan tests and this was a test that was done on k15 back in 2008

00:01:18 test that was done on k15 back in 2008 together with the metsec sotech um system

00:01:21 system now

00:01:22 now if we go back to page three um we've got the comments from the bre at the bottom that we were looking at the official line and then unofficial comments and i asked you a little bit about that

00:01:34 and i asked you a little bit about that um can you help us with this did you have any discussions with iva meredith either during or after this test do you remember discussing with them discussing this test with him at all i

00:01:46 discussing this test with him at all i don't know as i said yesterday i i remember it being in relation to the metal panels and so tech i don't recall having any conversations around the insulation at all

00:01:55 at all so does that mean you have no memory of talking to either meredith about this test i have no memory of talking to either meredith about this test right and um

00:02:05 and um it's clear that in these comments comparisons are being drawn um between how the product had performed previously in that last line under unofficial comments they stated they did not remember the product performing like

00:02:17 not remember the product performing like that last time which suggested it was somebody who perhaps had seen the may 2005 test

00:02:23 2005 test do you remember at any stage discussing with mr meredith comparisons as i said i i don't recall

00:02:34 having any conversation around this i'm afraid

00:02:37 afraid right

00:02:39 right and you can't recall anybody ever discussing with kingspan why it might be that the product appeared to be behaving differently no i'm i i don't recall any i i

00:02:51 no i'm i i don't recall any i i given the passage of time given um

00:02:56 the information that is available to us i'm not aware of any of those conversations taking place or or being party to them right did you know at the time that those kind of conversations would be inappropriate did

00:03:08 conversations would be inappropriate did you have an awareness at the time that you shouldn't be having detailed discussions with kingspan for example about comparing systems performance or giving advice on that

00:03:19 giving advice on that it would not be part of the testing process to do that right if we turn to page six of this report under section three there's a heading the tested system at the top of the page

00:03:30 the tested system at the top of the page and we can read underneath that it says following much discussion we agreed on a system that we and the bre believed had the best chance of passing now did you ever have any discussions

00:03:41 now did you ever have any discussions with kingspan about what systems incorporating k-15 might have the best chance of passing

00:03:51 there were discussions with kingspan about their test programme they

00:03:56 they came to us and said they wanted to undertake

00:03:59 undertake a wide range of of tests

00:04:05 the discussions were not about what uh what we believed may or may not pass the test the discussions were around how they would program in

00:04:16 how they would program in that number of tests to be undertaken right so are you saying these are purely administrative discussions about timetabling the tests and logistics around associated with them um and

00:04:27 around associated with them um and builds on the rigs right and and how that how that could be fitted together right and just to be clear you never gave advice about what that program might consist of to give

00:04:38 that program might consist of to give kingspan the most benefit from these tests we wouldn't be in a position to do that because it's their products they would be the only people that would know what they were looking to test and how they would behave okay

00:04:49 they would behave okay can you explain why at least according to this document kingspan

00:04:53 kingspan understood that bre had a view about the particular structure having the best chance of passing

00:05:04 the only the any of you i can take in the tone of of of what what's being asked and discussed is when putting together a program of um of

00:05:15 when putting together a program of um of testing

00:05:16 testing then the clients will come to you with a range of products and they will talk about how they wish to to to proceed with those and we would talk about appropriate break points to enable them

00:05:27 appropriate break points to enable them to analyze their data and to come back for different stages of that so whether they um are talking about putting through a series of discrete tests and then

00:05:40 a series of discrete tests and then coming

00:05:41 coming reviewing those and coming back for a second series of tests following that that's that would be my my interpretation but i can't envisage a position why they would believe we could sit and look at a

00:05:52 would believe we could sit and look at a set of their products and know what was going to happen to them because we would have no knowledge or information about how they would behave in practice all right thank you okay thank you so these tests that we were just looking

00:06:04 so these tests that we were just looking at and the write-up were from december 2007.

00:06:09 2007. now um

00:06:10 now um do you have do you remember any tests in january 2008 that the bre conducted to 8414 of the same type of metsec satech cladding system but using a

00:06:22 cladding system but using a non-combustible mineral wool insulation instead of k-15 do you have any recollection of that

00:06:30 i don't recall the test explicitly but i recalled that um

00:06:37 i believe that was the decision that sotek made to move their project forward right to test with a non-combustible insulation and do you remember what the um

00:06:47 um outcome of that 8414 test was

00:06:53 um no i don't i'm afraid it appears to be believed i think by king's fan that that was a failure can you help about that that that's why i say i can't remember

00:07:04 that that's why i say i can't remember explicitly what the the position with that was i i don't remember whether it was passed out i remember the company undertaking um other additional testing as a result of

00:07:16 the the first set of tests okay thank you can we go to another document now kin403693

00:07:26 and the second email down in the chain this is an email sent by iva meredith to you and to phil clark on the 9th of january 2008. the subject of the email is help

00:07:37 the subject of the email is help test possib possibility indicative idea quick thought the quick thoughts needed thanks

00:07:43 thanks and in the first two paragraphs the email reads further to yesterday's viewing of the carnage could you please send the dvd to the address below asap

00:07:54 the address below asap as you can imagine there are many senior persons in kingspan wishing to view it and then it goes on having spoken i think you mean spoken to john he is still keen to work with us however we

00:08:05 still keen to work with us however we need to work out where we went wrong having crossed reference with previous tests it would seem there was more fire spread from the insulin however please don't quote me on that and the cavity barrier may have failed slightly you're

00:08:18 barrier may have failed slightly you're off the record and on the record comments may prove helpful do you see that i do indeed yes now we've got no record of you ever responding to this email in writing do you remember responding to it

00:08:35 i'm sorry i'm trying to to determine the rest of the the email

00:08:43 i there would have been no off the record on the record comments we've provided to them that was a typical email exchange from iva where they are seeking to push us to provide them with additional information additional support

00:08:55 information additional support my

00:08:58 expectation is that the dvd was sent and they were therefore

00:09:03 putting forward

00:09:06 a request for information around around that so that they could undertake the analysis yes because it appears in that that

00:09:14 that his email is suggesting that he has he is he is the one commenting on the additional fire spread well he's clearly saying you're off the record and on the record

00:09:25 off the record and on the record comments may prove helpful it's an invitation for some comments isn't it it's an imp it's a request for comments yes yes which we wouldn't which we wouldn't provide yes because what i'm seeking to get to the bottom of is why

00:09:36 seeking to get to the bottom of is why there wasn't a response immediately either from you or mr clark telling mr meredith that the bre could not and would not provide off the record comments why was that not made crystal clear to him

00:09:51 in a normal normal set of exchanges um that go on a day-to-day basis these are um

00:09:58 um typical types of requests that come from clients and they are just

00:10:03 are just generally batted away we we don't go back

00:10:06 go back um

00:10:08 um in in that way it's not it it's

00:10:14 it's it's it's a kind of understand understood and understanding that the clients will push as far as they can and we will we will answer where we can and where we can't we don't respond yes it

00:10:25 where we can't we don't respond yes it just seems odd that we have quite a lot of correspondence where kingspan are looking for comments from the bre and you'd thought they'd get the message if you weren't able to provide any comments

00:10:34 comments no they were very keen to to to to reapply that pressure right now we know that kingsborn carried out another test to bs 8414 part 2 on the 24th of april 2008

00:10:47 24th of april 2008 again in partnership with sotech and metsec

00:10:50 metsec do you have any recollection of that test

00:10:55 i'm sorry i can't recall them as individual tests i remember the programs going ahead but as individual protests

00:11:02 protests yes

00:11:03 yes no let's see if a document helps this is another internal kingspan report at kin-403698

00:11:11 and if you can look at um so it's a reporting period report by iva meredith if you look at the second bullet point down

00:11:19 down he says this the second attempt to met sex so tech cool firm failed the bs 8414 part 2 test by seconds

00:11:29 seconds to meet br135 the top level thermocouples must not exceed 600 degrees for 15 minutes following the first level thermocouple exceeding 200 degrees

00:11:38 degrees and then he goes on i held a lengthy post-test meeting with just kingspan and the senior fire technicians s colwell n mcdonald and p clark to ascertain whether 160 second

00:11:51 clark to ascertain whether 160 second improvement is possible now who was n mcdonald was that norman mcdonald no mcdonald yes what was his role in april 2008 um

00:12:02 um part of the um

00:12:04 um [Music]

00:12:07 [Music] fire safety group do you remember this meeting it it would appear that it may have been a lengthy one

00:12:14 one i don't recall that no did you give that advice do you remember sitting down trying to work out whether 160 second improvement might be possible i don't know what 160

00:12:25 might be possible i don't know what 160 seconds

00:12:27 seconds is reference to um well i think he's saying that it it failed to meet it by 160 seconds so maybe the temperature went above 600 for

00:12:38 maybe the temperature went above 600 for 160 seconds too long that's how i read it anyway

00:12:44 um yes it's possible that the test data would have been presented to them yes but it looks like you're not just presenting the test data but from

00:12:55 just presenting the test data but from his notes if these were right you're then looking to the future to see whether 160 second improvement might be possible with that system or

00:13:06 might be possible with that system or product

00:13:08 product do you see yes it wouldn't it wouldn't be for us to determine what he could do with his systems or products to to determine that it would all we could do would be present the data to him

00:13:19 data to him so again is it is it your evidence that um that reference to a lengthy meeting to ascertain whether 160 second improvement is possible must be an error on mr meredith's part

00:13:35 the meeting if if there is if it states a meeting took place then the meeting i can only assume took place i have no reconnection of it i have no notes from it we would not have sat with kingspan

00:13:46 it we would not have sat with kingspan to discuss how they could improve their products because we have no

00:13:51 no reference point it's not what we are able to do under our

00:13:56 our um requirements but we we would certainly be able to um

00:14:02 um present the data set to them yes and that that would that would be quite um quite a normal action so if if he was taking from that

00:14:13 action so if if he was taking from that that he then wanted to understand where the failure points had occurred so that he could go away and use that evidence to to rebuild his systems then that

00:14:24 that that may be his his determination but i can't speak for his his report i don't know what that yes what that said i appreciate um and i don't think mr meredith's implying that you would sit and and try and ascertain whether the

00:14:36 and and try and ascertain whether the product itself could be improved what what the implication is this that you're discussing whether there's something about the design of the test or the design of the whole system that might be changed to bring about an

00:14:47 might be changed to bring about an improvement would you have given that kind of advice we couldn't because they're not we're not involved in the design of the systems that's their proprietary knowledge and and understanding and information

00:14:59 understanding and information let's look at some more internal correspondence some internal bre correspondence this time from february 2008 if we could go to bre three zeros one one three two three

00:15:10 one one three two three and if we look at the second email down on page one it's sent to by uh julie braguilla to a number of you um

00:15:20 um sorry it's sent by julia braguilla to a number of people including debbie smith but you are not uh copied in on this

00:15:29 on this but i still want to ask you about it for reasons that will become clear and we can see that the the subject is kingspan meeting today do you see that and then if you go to the second

00:15:40 and then if you go to the second paragraph down of her email she says just wanted to write down the action points and deadlines agreed to make sure we have a record of our discussions with them

00:15:52 discussions with them let me know whether you want to amend any of the points or clarify issues i will incorporate your comments and i will forward the main points over to kingspan for their records and then if we go to page two and look

00:16:04 and then if we go to page two and look at item three of her notes it says this debbie to clarify under three facade testing to 8414 debbie to clarify with sarah colwell and team as to how a

00:16:17 sarah colwell and team as to how a staged testing program could be completed to enable kingspan to maximize resources on facade testing testing schedule of six tests already committed ideally testing configurations

00:16:30 committed ideally testing configurations chosen should be helping to find worst case scenarios and give kingspan as much flexibility as possible with the state of knowledge also with the new standard at the moment do you see that

00:16:43 standard at the moment do you see that yes

00:16:44 yes and then if we turn to debbie smith's reply at the top of page one of this chain

00:16:50 chain we can see that she replies in the second paragraph of that actually it's the first paragraph

00:17:00 sorry no it is the second paragraph she says in relation to item three again i have spoken with sarah and there is no reason why we can't sit down with kingspan and draw up a matrix of

00:17:12 kingspan and draw up a matrix of combinations that are used in their systems

00:17:15 systems and work with them to design a progressive program of testing assuming the systems passed the test however there would be a cost involved in doing this as it would require some effort do you see that yes so it would

00:17:28 effort do you see that yes so it would appear that debbie smith has spoken to you about this and then there's reporting back to this group yes now do you remember those discussions with debbie smith not directly no

00:17:40 do you consider that it was a pro appropriate at the time for the bre to be sitting down with kingspan and working with them including to design a progressive program of testing

00:17:53 design a progressive program of testing it it would be because there was a large scale there were a large number of tests to be to be worked through so we would need to understand the scope that they wanted to test and how that could be fitted into a

00:18:04 and how that could be fitted into a testing program to ensure that they could maximize the amount of time on the rigs effectively and to get the most information from that program

00:18:15 information from that program but it was for them to design the systems and to bring forward the systems they wanted to test right looking at julie baguilla's um notes on item three if we go back to that on page

00:18:26 item three if we go back to that on page two

00:18:27 two she clearly is on the understanding that what's going to happen is uh ideally testing configurations chosen should be helping to find worst case scenarios

00:18:39 case scenarios now is that what was planned that you would sit down with kingspan to help find the worst case scenarios

00:18:51 from a testing perspective it would be a case of taking what they were offering us as the as the systems to draw up the programs and then as i said previously to put the break points in to enable the review of that

00:19:03 in to enable the review of that information to then take place to them to then go forward and develop the next set based on that information so that would take them through being able to identify which would

00:19:14 which would which systems were performing in the ways that they were performing and make decisions

00:19:18 decisions about how they moved forward from that so

00:19:21 so it would be a case of working with them on developing their programs developing how they actually put um the timetables together for that and the information they wanted to know from

00:19:32 information they wanted to know from that yes

00:19:34 that yes that's helpful but i'm still a little unclear on the answer to my question were you sitting down with kingspan in part to try and identify worst case scenarios

00:19:47 their test program would take them to that point we wouldn't be looking at the systems they were presenting to us because they're the only people that know what those systems are and how they work

00:19:56 work what we would be uh we would be doing with them is saying if you test on these and then take the review points at this this stage you can then determine from that data what you need to do next and

00:20:07 that data what you need to do next and if those are performing in that particular way then move your systems forward in a different way right did you ever have a conversation with kingspan about worst case scenarios or best case scenarios in

00:20:19 case scenarios or best case scenarios in the context of this testing i don't recall doing that no i recall being asked to work with them to develop timelines and protocols but i don't ever recall sitting down looking at

00:20:31 recall sitting down looking at specific systems that were going in to be tested no right and in what way was kingspan to be given as much flexibility as possible with the state of knowledge at the moment what does julie beguile mean by

00:20:43 moment what does julie beguile mean by that or how did you understand well

00:20:46 well you may not have seen this at the time but can you help us with what she means by that

00:20:53 my understanding would be as much flex as much flexibility as we could in designing the programs and access to the rigs to let them work through these right i see

00:21:06 if what was involved was a progressive program of testing that would by definition involve kingspan con conducting multiple tests wouldn't it yes

00:21:15 yes do you think at any stage the bre might have been influenced by the financial advantage that this would bring to it during these discussions and perhaps tipped over into actually giving advice because they

00:21:28 into actually giving advice because they wanted to basically keep kingspan happy and get its work

00:21:34 no

00:21:37 when developing these large large programs

00:21:41 programs they are very much based on ensuring

00:21:45 ensuring clarity of what is what is available on the test rigs when they are available and how they can be fitted into that process it these are long term

00:21:56 these are long term programs not short-term

00:22:00 activities right i see and you're absolutely clear that your discussions with them would have never have gone further than that

00:22:10 i'm i'm of

00:22:12 i'm of in

00:22:14 in in so far as my understanding recollection at that time of all of these processes were it was a case of looking at what and asking them what they wanted to test what they felt they needed for

00:22:25 test what they felt they needed for their market activities for them bringing those forward and so then look at how we could best

00:22:31 best address that for them right

00:22:34 right let's look at another piece of correspondence in this same chain if we go to bre three zeros one one three two nine

00:22:41 nine you're not copied into this sorry look at it at page one just to get the context

00:22:47 context this is um julie braguilla going back to debbie smith and others on this subject and she says in the top email that she's marked in red

00:22:57 in red uh where we are with outstanding bits of work and if we go back onto page two and look at item three which is what we were looking at before we'd read the text in black and then underneath in red

00:23:09 text in black and then underneath in red julie baguilla has written thanks debbie for clarifying with sarah and team that this is possible suggested to kingspan that i could set up a meeting for us all to find out how

00:23:20 up a meeting for us all to find out how we're going to go about this they will provide dates and i will try and liaise with you to find the best way forward slightly worried that testing is ongoing now and we might miss the chance to

00:23:31 now and we might miss the chance to influence it to influence in any major way so timing will be crucial debbie if you think this can be dealt with via correspondence even better please let me know how best to proceed

00:23:44 know how best to proceed now

00:23:46 now um

00:23:49 what do you think um or what do you understand julie mcgregor to mean when she says slightly worried that testing is ongoing now and we might miss the chance to influence in any major way

00:24:00 chance to influence in any major way what does that mean i don't know i'm sorry i don't know i'm not party to to to the discussion that

00:24:09 that that's taking place around this is

00:24:13 is is this feeding is this feeding into another piece of work being more widely undertaken by kingspan is there something outside this i can only

00:24:22 only speak to the testing programs that and activities that were were in place

00:24:30 so you never heard anybody um express the sentiment that you you wanted to kind of get in on these tests early or get in on the planning of these tests early so that you might influence how they were to be rolled out and planned

00:24:46 i'm sorry i i i can't i can't speak to i don't know what was behind the commentary that was going on my understanding at that time was as as i've said it out that we sat and we looked at the programs and the systems

00:24:58 looked at the programs and the systems that they were bringing to us and how we could best deliver that work um

00:25:03 um effectively for them so it could be reviewed to see what the consequences of it were so that they could then make decisions about where they went next okay well let's move on to november 2008 and

00:25:15 well let's move on to november 2008 and if we could go briefly to bre 3011809

00:25:20 and to the third email down on page one sent by stephen howard to you and tony baker on the 17th of november 2008

00:25:31 2008 we can see that this is an email or it appeared that the context of this is an email following a meeting concerning amongst other matters loss prevention standard 1181.

00:25:44 loss prevention standard 1181. now

00:25:45 now we can see from the second email on page one that you send uh just above it you've said couple of changes in blue do you see that yes so i think what you've done is then annotate

00:25:57 think what you've done is then annotate in blue

00:25:59 in blue stephen howard's email and if we look further down stephen howard's email into part page two of this

00:26:12 and under the heading um development programmes for this year next year so it's about halfway down that page it's not in bold there's a heading development programmes for this year

00:26:24 development programmes for this year next year there's um paragraph number one

00:26:28 one and it says this lps 1208 and 1181 need to be reviewed and made consistent between the documents it was viewed that efforts spent on this

00:26:39 was viewed that efforts spent on this document plus relaunch etc would bring income into red book areas and fr testing by making the association between

00:26:49 between lps 1208 and fire resistance clearer then we see this it says care needs to be exercised as kingspan have expressed reservations in respect of changes to lps 1181.

00:27:03 in respect of changes to lps 1181. do you see that yes can you remember kingspan expressing reservations about changes to this loss prevention standard

00:27:16 i wasn't working with 1181 so i um i i don't know what those conversations and and reservations would be i'm sorry you can't help us with that no

00:27:28 you can't help us with that no um

00:27:29 um you've put in blue below he's got action is that sac is that you yes that's related to 1208 which was a fire resistance um test right and

00:27:41 fire resistance um test right and talking about en13501 part two which is a classification standard for fire resistance test right so you simply can't help us as to what that sentence means

00:27:51 means no i'm sorry it's not an area i had i was working in i want to ask you now about some of the bba certificates for kingspan k15

00:28:02 bba certificates for kingspan k15 if we go to your witness statement first at page 95 paragraph 637 um

00:28:10 um you're asked about whether you considered or advised on any statements made in the first bba certificate for k-15 at any time between 2007 and 2017

00:28:21 k-15 at any time between 2007 and 2017 and your answer was this you said i contacted brian haynes in early december 2008 by telephone advising that i had been made aware of certificate 084582

00:28:33 084582 and that on reading it had noticed that the description of the bs 8414 test reference was incorrect as it did not set out the full details of the system tested

00:28:43 tested this resulted in an email exchange with george lee beginning on the 11th of december 2008 in which we discussed arranging a meeting this meeting was held on the 22nd of december 2008.

00:28:55 december 2008. this matter was then left with bba to address as part of their internal review processes

00:29:02 processes and then at paragraph 639 a little bit further

00:29:06 further you say

00:29:07 you say that as far as you can recall i became aware of the error on the certificate as it was raised by john raybould one of the fire safety group team in bre

00:29:18 one of the fire safety group team in bre do you see that yes let's look at an email relevant to this if we go to bre 3011803

00:29:26 and we look at the second email down in the chain

00:29:29 the chain we can see that there's an email from mark stevens of kingspan offsite to you

00:29:36 to you on the 17th of november 2008. and he's attaching a kingspan um k15 bba certificate and if we read his email he says sarah

00:29:48 and if we read his email he says sarah please find attach the latest version of kingspan insulation's k15 bba certificate i would be interested in your comments on section 7 in particular with regards

00:29:59 on section 7 in particular with regards to use on buildings with upper floors over 18 meters above ground level clearly if this is a route to approval for us i would be quite pleased if not i

00:30:10 for us i would be quite pleased if not i need to understand the reasons why not from an outside body perspective so that i am better able to communicate the issues and have the message understood so that comes to you

00:30:22 so that comes to you from mark stevens and if we go up the chain to the very top of the email we can see that you forward this email and the attached certificate to uh debbie smith

00:30:35 uh debbie smith on the same day on the 20 on the 17th of november 2008 and um

00:30:42 and um you say could we discuss on wednesday before i respond do you see that yes i do do you remember having a discussion about this k-15 bba certificate with debbie smith yes

00:30:54 debbie smith yes and what did you discuss um

00:30:57 um the action actions that needed to arise from it well what was the problem with the bba certificate that you were discussing with debbie smith can you help us with that yeah as detailed in my witness

00:31:09 that yeah as detailed in my witness statement the the description of the the product was incorrect and what was it about the description that you had a problem with i i can't recall the exact details but it didn't

00:31:21 recall the exact details but it didn't as as my recollection of the of the statement in the certificate it didn't refer to the full specification of the test sample and it referred to i i believe i'm sorry this is trying to

00:31:33 i believe i'm sorry this is trying to recall um

00:31:35 recall um the the document i believe it it had a statement uh around um passing 8414 rather than br135 right okay

00:31:47 br135 right okay um do you think looking at this now that it might have been this email from mark stevens which alerted you to the content of kingspan's bba certificate for k-15 yes

00:31:57 yes and help us with this you tell you told us in your witness statement that you contacted brian haynes at the bba in early december why didn't you do that immediately why did you take from the 17th of november

00:32:10 did you take from the 17th of november until early december to contact the bba about this certificate

00:32:16 i would have discussed with debbie the the course of action and then followed it up

00:32:22 it up i i can't tell you what the intervening time period on that was but i would i would have agreed that that was a course of action to take and would have followed up from there i see now following that um

00:32:33 now following that um following this it was actually george lee of the bba who asked you to meet with him wasn't it it was yes yeah and we've got those emails we don't need them but for the transcript they're at bre 3047593

00:32:48 um did you actually read the bba certificate that was attached to this email from kingspan offsite at the time yes

00:32:58 yes and presumably you read it at some stage before your meeting with george lee which you tell us happened on the 22nd of december 2008 yes yes

00:33:07 yes let's look at that certificate now it's at bre 3011804

00:33:13 we can see towards the bottom of the page the date of the certificate it says date of first issue 27th of october 2008.

00:33:24 um so just a month before mark stevens email to you about it and in his email mark stevens has specifically asked for your comments on section seven and that appears at page

00:33:36 section seven and that appears at page five

00:33:37 five towards the bottom of the page and at section seven one we can see that the

00:33:43 the certificate gives some details of the test to 8414 part one undertaken on a system incorporating k15 and towards the end of that paragraph

00:33:56 and towards the end of that paragraph if we read the last sentence in the last three lines it says within the stated test time the temperature at the level two thermocouples did not exceed 600 degrees therefore displaying limited

00:34:07 degrees therefore displaying limited fire spread away from the fire source and that the product meets the criteria stated

00:34:13 stated within

00:34:15 within bre-135 do you see that yes now

00:34:19 now do you agree that since br135 relates to systems and not products that that is an incorrect

00:34:25 incorrect and misleading statement to be making yes

00:34:29 yes did you notice that at the time that was part of the discussion that raised the discussion yes yes did you raise that specifically with george lee when you met him yes it was with

00:34:41 lee when you met him yes it was with regard to that power that paragraph at 7.1 that the discussion took place and that was the the context of the conversation right yes

00:34:50 yes and do you remember what was his response when um you raised it with george lee at the bba um

00:34:58 um thanked us for raising the the comment and that they would take it away and and follow follow up with kingspan directly right did he seem to appreciate the point you were making and recognize that it was inaccurate to be

00:35:09 recognize that it was inaccurate to be describing it in that way um

00:35:17 potentially not i think we did i did go through it in in some detail with him to explain what the the concern was right

00:35:25 was right um if we look at the very end of page five and going on to page six um 7.2 we can see that it states the product is classified as class naught or low risk as defined in the

00:35:37 naught or low risk as defined in the documents supporting the national building regulations the product therefore may be used in accordance with the provisions of and it's got in england and wales

00:35:49 and it's got in england and wales approved document b paragraph 8.4 volume 1 and paragraph 12.5 and 12.6 and see also diagram 40. do you see that i do yes

00:36:01 i do yes now

00:36:02 now in 2008 paragraph 12.6 of the approved document dealt with external surfaces for buildings with a story over 18 meters

00:36:10 meters and can you help us what would be the relevance of a class naught classification for an insulation product such as k-15 would it ever be used as an external

00:36:21 would it ever be used as an external surface on a building i didn't

00:36:23 i didn't reference beyond the 7.1

00:36:28 context of the of the certificate um the bba's production of the certificates um

00:36:37 um i didn't i didn't review beyond that point it was only the issue around 135 that i looked at i i can't speak to a comment around how they

00:36:46 how they their presentation of of this information um would sit right did you notice that the clear implication of this wording was that k-15 was suitable for use above 18 meters no

00:36:59 so you just simply didn't discuss that part of the certificate with mr lee no 7.1 was the the baseline conversations i was concerned around the issue of

00:37:10 concerned around the issue of 135 right okay and just below that 7.3 it also says in buildings with a floor more than 18 meters above ground level advice should be sought from the certificate holder do

00:37:21 be sought from the certificate holder do you see that i do yes um do you remember discussing that section with george lee and the appropriateness of referring somebody back to

00:37:32 to effectively the manufacturer for advice about 18 meters and above

00:37:37 and above as i say the the the style and context of a bba certificate wasn't something i was um

00:37:43 was um actively involved with i was just looking at the factual correctness of the reference to the 8414 test okay if we go back to page one of the certificate um there's a summary of the product on

00:37:56 um there's a summary of the product on page one and there's a heading um key factors assessed which is now at the bottom of that page and there's a specific section about behavior in relation to fire

00:38:07 behavior in relation to fire it says the boards will not contribute to the development stages of a fire or present a smoke or toxic hazard c-section seven do you remember noticing that um

00:38:18 do you remember noticing that um sentence at the very beginning of the bba certificate no i don't so you don't remember asking yourself well what does that mean no as i say my my concern was with

00:38:30 no as i say my my concern was with regard to the reference on 135 i didn't um

00:38:34 um review the certificate in its totality um i was looking at the potential misuse of the statement regarding the large-scale test right did you come away from the meeting

00:38:45 did you come away from the meeting having any concerns about the bba's understanding of the 8414 test series the criteria in br135 all the relevant sections of approved document b

00:38:58 i um

00:39:01 um i offered as part of that to talk to to come over and do a presentation on uh one three one three five and eight four one four testing just so that they had more background information on it yes

00:39:12 more background information on it yes yes yes that was going to be my next question was it in response to seeing this certificate that led you to offer to john alban a presentation to the bba staff on those

00:39:23 a presentation to the bba staff on those matters in 2009 that's correct yes and you tell us a little bit about that in your statement at 601 of your witness statement on page 89 and you tell us that that was delivered in june 2009 is

00:39:34 that that was delivered in june 2009 is that right that's correct can i just ask you this you obviously will have seen the front page of this certificate yes

00:39:43 yes did you notice anything about the little uh

00:39:46 uh picture there

00:39:50 perhaps we could scroll back up so we can see the the whole picture sorry on the certificate on the front page of the certificate

00:40:04 it's shown as a as a system and not as a board in isolation well that's one thing is it not also shown as a um

00:40:15 a steel frame system

00:40:20 in that particular example it yes it's showing it as a as

00:40:25 as a single leaf system yes and did you did that ring any bells when you looked at the description of the test

00:40:38 no right thank you no um

00:40:43 no um i hadn't noticed that previously thank you

00:40:47 and this presentation that you delivered to the bba in june 2009 can you recall to whom that was delivered to at the bba

00:40:57 uh there were a number of their technical team invited to that i can't remember the exact numbers right present it was a it was a reasonable reasonable size gathering there was probably

00:41:08 size gathering there was probably at least half a dozen present right okay thank you

00:41:11 thank you now in his evidence to the inquiry tony baker told us and i'm paraphrasing that you were aware that kingspan had been trying to pass off indicative tests

00:41:23 been trying to pass off indicative tests as

00:41:24 as um effectively real-world tests is that right

00:41:37 in the context of

00:41:40 the the test data that was being presented here um that was a that was a full test it just had not been

00:41:49 been um

00:41:51 um uh reported correctly in the in the certificate right but i think you agreed yesterday that it was an indicative test in the sense that the outer panel that was used was not a

00:42:03 outer panel that was used was not a panel that you would see on a

00:42:05 on a on a real high-rise building it was a panel that was a a cement particle board or cement fiber board my apologies indicative can have two contacts in testing

00:42:18 can have two contacts in testing yes in in that sense a generic board test yes yes and were you concerned that kingspan was trying to pass off this generic board test to say that it could be used in a wider

00:42:30 to say that it could be used in a wider range of different systems and that's that was

00:42:33 that was part of the conversation around all of this this discussion yeah and that was so you did specifically discuss that with george lee did you at the time yes now after your meeting with

00:42:45 the time yes now after your meeting with george lee in december 2008 did you check to find out whether or not the certificate had been corrected or reissued

00:42:54 reissued uh no i didn't i didn't follow up further from that why not why not why not follow up and check that it had been corrected the offer was open to them to come back

00:43:05 the offer was open to them to come back to us if they they needed any further clarification on it so we we left it with them to to address did you ever read any updated bba certificate for k15 at any time

00:43:17 certificate for k15 at any time thereafter

00:43:20 i don't recall doing so no were you not inquisitive you know did you not want to to know what had happened about this and to understand what language had been adopted instead and and to check that it

00:43:32 adopted instead and and to check that it was accurate in the next version of the certificate

00:43:39 the um

00:43:44 my understanding was that bba understood the issue and that they would uh work with

00:43:49 with to to to rewrite the stuff in the way that they did i didn't um i didn't follow it up no are you aware that no amended certificate was published until july

00:44:00 certificate was published until july 2013 four and a half years after your meeting with george lee i wasn't aware of that no now just looking back at mr stevens email to you this is at bre 3011803

00:44:16 he specifically asked you in this email when he's bringing this certificate to your attention about whether this could be a route to approval for us do you know

00:44:27 do you know whether you ever went back and answered that question we can't find an answer to it

00:44:39 i would suspect i didn't go back because i went back to bba and with the expectation that bba would follow up with

00:44:45 with with them on that on that route of discussion with them right

00:44:52 right do you accept that to the extent that the bba certificate did imply a general suitability above 18 meters for this combustible insulation board that you ought to have told mark stevens

00:45:03 that you ought to have told mark stevens that this was incorrect and misleading

00:45:10 i think in reading the certificate i was more concerned about the issues around the way that 841 had been described and correcting and raising that detail then um

00:45:21 raising that detail then um taking a greater review of um what the bba certificate was actually saying right but did it occur to you you obviously raised a concern with george lee about the certificate did it occur to you that you ought to raise the same

00:45:33 to you that you ought to raise the same concerns with kingspan about the certificate my expectation was that bba would raise those concerns in the internal review and drafting process

00:45:44 internal review and drafting process with them directly right i want to look now at the labc certificate for k-15 if we can look at bre-3012252

00:45:55 this is an exchange of emails from the 14th of may 2009 and at the second email down in the chain there's an email sent by john raybald to tony baker to you

00:46:08 raybald to tony baker to you and to stephen howard and copying in uh debbie smith and norman macdonald and we can see that um

00:46:18 that um john raybald says this hi folks i've managed to get an labc certificate from

00:46:24 from hertfordshire that says the kingspan i think that's actually wrong it should be herefordship anyway that says the kingspan k15 insulation can be used in a mixture of insulation thicknesses

00:46:36 mixture of insulation thicknesses masonry or steel-framed substrates a min cavity gap of with a wide rate with a range of clad rain screen claddings i'm sure that this will be sent to us

00:46:48 i'm sure that this will be sent to us officially by kingspan when mark stevens gets back from the middle east i would like to think we've tried to establish some guidelines like i was proposing so that we could at least give mark some help with this system

00:47:00 mark some help with this system configurations also note that this appears to give automatic acceptance for systems over 18 meters

00:47:09 meters let me know how we want to move forward and then above that email at the top of the chain we can see that you have replied

00:47:19 replied we just look so we can see the full email yes you've replied to debbie smith and stephen howard and only to them saying debbie steve we need to discuss this urgently regards sarah

00:47:32 this urgently regards sarah do you remember this exchange about this labc certificate yes i do

00:47:39 yes i do now attached to john raybald's email was the labc

00:47:43 the labc system approval certificate and certificate summary for k-15 let's go to the summary it's at bre three zeros one two two five three can we take it that you read this at the

00:47:55 can we take it that you read this at the time

00:47:59 i i yes

00:48:01 i yes i would have done to have raised a concern if we turn to page two about halfway down the page there is a heading involved requirement b fire

00:48:12 heading involved requirement b fire safety considerations and it

00:48:15 and it gives a list of um the tests that tafe k15 has been tested in accordance with including 8414 and some 476 tests

00:48:25 tests and then below that it says from the result it can be considered as a material of limited combustibility and meets the criteria for class naught classification for

00:48:36 for class naught classification for surface spread of flame now that's entirely wrong isn't it yes none of those tests could lead to a conclusion that it was a material of limited combustibility could they that's

00:48:47 limited combustibility could they that's correct

00:48:49 um was um was it this which led to you sending that email to debbie smith and stephen howard saying we need to discuss this urgently

00:49:01 to discuss this urgently um it it was that and the relation again the statement around 8414 um and what appeared to be the promulgation of the the comment um on the

00:49:14 the comment um on the um a large scale test what exactly was it in the certificate can you remember that you had a problem with about that there was um no no classifications again it was just

00:49:26 no no classifications again it was just a statement of test of the test of the tests right so you were concerned that there was no br135 classification report referred to here that's correct were you

00:49:38 referred to here that's correct were you also concerned that it was implying that k-15 as a product had been tested and had passed the 8414 test rather than it being a system test yes

00:49:49 it being a system test yes i was i was reading it in the context of the

00:49:52 the 8414

00:49:55 activity

00:49:59 and um

00:50:03 if you look at the labc approval certificate this is at bre

00:50:09 bre one three zeros one two two five four um and if we go to section three of this um

00:50:19 um did it concern you at the time or did you notice that this certificate appeared to rely on the bba certificate it's the last document referred to in section three it's the 27th of october 2008 bba

00:50:31 it's the 27th of october 2008 bba certificate did you notice that and did it concern you that that certificate that you'd already raised a concern about was one of the pieces of

00:50:42 was one of the pieces of test evidence that was being cited in this labc certificate i don't recall that specific point i just recall that i was concerned that there seemed to have been a blanket

00:50:53 there seemed to have been a blanket assumption of um application from or a suitability of application now did you in fact discuss this certificate with debbie smith or stephen howard or indeed both of them did you

00:51:05 howard or indeed both of them did you have those discussions yes and can you fill us in what did you discuss what was the nature of those discussions uh con concern that the certificate

00:51:16 certificate of this labc document appeared to suggest open availability of the product right

00:51:24 right and i mean how concerned was the bre about this certificate i'd say i i raised i raised it as a concern having already had the conversation with bba previously about

00:51:36 conversation with bba previously about it

00:51:37 it that

00:51:39 that there appeared to be a [Music]

00:51:43 [Music] misuse of the of the data and

00:51:48 that we needed to raise that can you help us with this we have no record at all of any further correspondence on this why is that

00:51:59 why is that i don't know i don't know i say i was aware of that time that that um debbie smith had the relation had a working relationship with labc and

00:52:10 working relationship with labc and contacts

00:52:11 contacts and that that was um

00:52:15 that would be followed up from from her i i didn't take it further than that i'd raise my i raised my concerns and left it with them to to to move forward so is the position this that you expected that debbie smith would be the one to follow

00:52:26 debbie smith would be the one to follow up with the labc but you you never actually found out whether she did or not no i didn't follow it right so um but can you help us with this did the bre raise any concerns about the

00:52:37 the bre raise any concerns about the content of this certificate with kingspan at the time i i didn't write any um comments on it no were you aware of any of your colleagues

00:52:48 were you aware of any of your colleagues raising uh concerns with kingspan about the content of this certificate no i'm not uh what about raising concerns about the content of the certificate with trading standards did anybody think about doing

00:52:59 standards did anybody think about doing that it wasn't raised in discussions i was involved with no what about raising these concerns with the department with anthony bird brian martin or anyone else from the department to alert them to the fact

00:53:10 department to alert them to the fact that there was this pretty misleading certificate in circulation about this product um if those discussions took place i wasn't aware of them right

00:53:22 but can you explain why on the face of it at least and we will ask dr smith about this but um it would appear that the bre certainly didn't take any steps that we

00:53:33 certainly didn't take any steps that we can see in writing to raise this with anybody with labc kingspan trading standards the department can you explain that i don't know no

00:53:46 if we can go now to another document bre 403722

00:53:52 at the second email in the chain is an email from alan keila of the cwct to you stephen howard and tony baker on the 9th of september this is now

00:54:04 on the 9th of september this is now 2014.

00:54:06 2014. do you see that yes so this is more than five years after you had wanted to discuss the labc certificate um urgently with your colleagues as we saw in that email

00:54:18 saw in that email now we don't need to read through the whole email but in the opening lines of this he writes um further to our discussion yesterday i attached copies of labc approvals relating to kingspan

00:54:29 of labc approvals relating to kingspan k15

00:54:31 k15 do you see that i do yes now can you help us what discussions had been taking place which had led to copies of these labc approvals being sent by the csu wct to you and the

00:54:44 sent by the csu wct to you and the others in this group

00:55:00 so

00:55:07 i believe around that period there were discussions regarding the 8414 test the 8414 classification

00:55:18 the 8414 test the 8414 classification process and how that how that operated and how that that worked

00:55:23 worked um

00:55:26 i i'm sorry i can't recall directly that um

00:55:33 the the trigger to that particular um or the contents of the meeting that's or discussion that took that took place around that okay

00:55:41 okay in the last paragraph of his email he says this he says the current approval is under the registered details scheme this does not include the statement considering the material to be of

00:55:52 considering the material to be of limited combustibility but comes to the same conclusion that the material can be used where other parts of the wall are non-combustible again there is no reference to cavity

00:56:03 again there is no reference to cavity barriers do you see that i do yes so it appears from this that the statement considering the material to be of limited combustibility was under discussion between this group in 2014 more than

00:56:16 between this group in 2014 more than five years after it had first been published by the labc in their type approval certificate yes

00:56:40 it would suggest that the cwct are making us aware of these these documents yes

00:56:48 yes what was your reaction to the view expressed by mr killer that the more up-to-date certificate for k-15 comes to the same conclusion i that it's a limited combustibility and he says it

00:57:00 a limited combustibility and he says it comes to the same conclusion that the material can be used where other parts of the wall are non-combustible now he perhaps meant where other parts of the wall are limited combustibility

00:57:11 wall are limited combustibility but aside from that he's clearly raising a concern that the current certificate has the same effect misleading effect as the first one did this

00:57:22 did this prompt any action on your part do you remember

00:57:26 remember i don't recall any direct action related to to that information exchange

00:57:35 do you recall anybody discussing or in fact contacting the labc

00:57:41 labc to

00:57:42 to discuss with them whether their current certificate in september 2014 might have been misleading about k-15 i'm i'm not i'm not aware of any of any

00:57:53 i'm i'm not i'm not aware of any of any um

00:57:54 um uh

00:57:55 uh correspondence um from my on my behalf rising from that no steve um stephen or tony would have been taking the lead at that point okay

00:58:06 okay now on the 7th of january 2014 kingspan tested a system incorporating k15 and trespa panels to bs 8414 part 2. that test was terminated

00:58:18 terminated before 30 minutes due to flames above the top of the rig and it did not meet the criteria in br 135 for temperature and i want to ask you about a particular

00:58:29 and i want to ask you about a particular email from that period if we go to bre

00:58:35 three 3015033 and the second email down in the chain it's sent by iva meredith to phil clark debbie smith and you on the 16th of january 2014

00:58:46 the 16th of january 2014 and the email reads this he says further to our recent test programme we were advised that if the flames exceeded the wall height on the external on the external even if the top level

00:58:57 on the external even if the top level thermocouples did not exceed 600 degrees in 15 minutes this would be a test fail however reading through br135 and this document we cannot see this criteria can

00:59:10 document we cannot see this criteria can you please clarify this is an important question to us thus if you could come back to us at your earliest convenience it would be appreciated do you see that yes

00:59:21 appreciated do you see that yes so in other words kingspan were seeking to challenge this result do you remember that

00:59:27 that they were seeking to

00:59:30 challenge the uh termination criteria yes yes and why why were you sent this email what was your involvement in that test or

00:59:39 test or in this whole episode um as part of the

00:59:45 british standards activities um and the drafting of the standards

00:59:50 standards right i see now if we go to the email at the top of the chain we can see that you write to tony baker just the two of you on the 16th of january on the same day you just say you were right and then dot

01:00:03 you just say you were right and then dot dot dot

01:00:04 dot dot what did you mean by that we were aware that they were

01:00:11 challenging the determination conditions and this was just confirmation of that right that expected um

01:00:21 um position i see and then if we go to another document bre three zeros one five zero three six we can see that

01:00:31 in fact it's you who draft a suggested response

01:00:35 response we can see from that email second email down

01:00:38 down you send an email to phil clark debbie smith tony baker copying in others including stephen howard and you say hi suggested response do you see that yes and your response reads um

01:00:50 and your response reads um hi iva annex b was updated and is now included in the third edition of bl-135 which was published in 2003 one of the updates was to clarify the point that a system cannot be classified if it has

01:01:01 system cannot be classified if it has not met the full bs8414 test period either test was terminated early clause 8.5 of that test standard were you aware that kingspan went on

01:01:13 were you aware that kingspan went on following another test to bs8414 part 2 on the 19th of march 2014 to appeal on the basis of the termination criteria

01:01:25 i'm not aware specifically of that no did you have any involvement in kingspan's challenge to that result or the subsequent appeal no

01:01:34 no okay

01:01:35 okay now i want to turn now to some brief questions about the third edition of br135

01:01:41 br135 which was published in 2013 and was written by you and tony baker yes yes if we turn to your witness statement first and look at page 58 paragraph 368

01:01:53 first and look at page 58 paragraph 368 you tell us this you say tony baker and i worked collaboratively on the development of the third edition together we reviewed the text of the second edition that formed the basis of the draft for the third edition

01:02:04 the draft for the third edition updated the guidance on the external fire performance for the materials and technologies used in the construction of external cladding systems and included annex b

01:02:15 and included annex b and then at paragraph 369 you explain that the final draft of the third edition was subject to consultation with industry stakeholders the bsi joint working group and

01:02:26 the bsi joint working group and government and you explained that you and tony baker managed that consultation process is that right yes and then at page 59 paragraph three seven seven and three seven eight you

01:02:37 seven seven and three seven eight you explain that the fundamental purpose of the document was for this the same as for the second edition uh which we know had been published in 2003 yes yes

01:02:49 2003 yes yes if we just go to the third edition of br135 this is at cel four

01:02:55 four here we go yeah five zero five eight four page one um i just want to ask you a few questions about the basis for certain sections of this text

01:03:06 sections of this text um if we go within this to page nine we can see that there's a new introduction section here and if we go to the bottom of the left-hand column of text

01:03:17 left-hand column of text we can see that there's a reference to the nosley heights fire and if we pick it up three lines down in that paragraph it says suggested this nosley heights fire in 91 suggested that a full-scale fire test

01:03:29 suggested that a full-scale fire test method was necessary to fully understand the overall fire performance of the complete system as installed in these applications using a representative fire scenario rather than relying solely on

01:03:41 scenario rather than relying solely on an elemental approach to try to control the overall fire performance of the system

01:03:47 system and on page 10 there's an overview of bs 8414 parts one and two now

01:03:54 now can you help us was there an intention in this edition to make it clearer that 8414 was a full system test and could only apply to the system as

01:04:05 and could only apply to the system as tested

01:04:10 it was not an explicit um uh position in in the document no

01:04:20 sorry what do you mean by that it wasn't i'm not aware that it was um a consideration made at that time though i see so so you didn't set out to make

01:04:33 i see so so you didn't set out to make that clearer in this edition you don't remember having that intention

01:04:38 intention no the the um presentation of of that um was always that it was a system test

01:04:49 system test i see um

01:04:51 i see um the reason we ask is because if you look at page 27 which is the text of annex a as well

01:05:02 um you can see if you look in the left hand column first paragraph underneath those bullet points we can see similar text repeated here it says the classification applies only to the

01:05:13 classification applies only to the system as tested and detailed in the classification report do you see that yes and there's similar wording as well um

01:05:24 elsewhere at page 33 um

01:05:28 um which is the new annex b the similar wording in the right-hand column underneath the bullet points yes and the reason we ask is because tony baker was asked about this in his evidence and he said that the predecessor to this

01:05:40 and he said that the predecessor to this document i the second edition wasn't quite as clear that as it could have been

01:05:45 been so we inserted those clauses just to clarify

01:05:49 clarify i clarified that it was a system test okay and he says in fact we actually put that wording into the classification report as well now

01:05:58 now do you does that help you do you remember having that thought process now i don't but i wouldn't disagree with tony

01:06:05 tony if that was his recollection right yes um because he was asked whether that was done because of a concern that the industry wasn't fully appreciating that the classification only applied to the

01:06:16 the classification only applied to the system as tested and in in his response in evidence he said well clearly the message wasn't getting through previously so we felt that it was prudent to put that sort of wording into

01:06:27 prudent to put that sort of wording into br135

01:06:29 br135 so i think what you're saying is you wouldn't disagree i wouldn't i would not describe that no okay thank you um now if we go back to page 11 of this document and paragraph 2.1

01:06:51 we can see um in the third paragraph down

01:06:55 down uh in this page and again this is a new section that came in in the third edition

01:07:00 edition this section is drawing attention to the rapid development of the market for cladding systems um if we just read that paragraph it says these potentially conflicting requirements are highlighted in the area

01:07:11 requirements are highlighted in the area of innovative materials and designs which are being driven by the need to construct more energy efficient and sustainable buildings in order to meet these design challenges the range of new

01:07:22 these design challenges the range of new and innovative materials and designs of systems being offered as potential solutions has also increased the volumes of potentially combustible materials being used in external cladding

01:07:33 being used in external cladding applications do you see that yes now um

01:07:39 now um was this a a matter it would appear that it was that this was a matter of concern to the bre is this right the the use of potentially combustible materials in these external cladding applications as

01:07:51 these external cladding applications as a way of constructing more energy efficient and sustainable buildings yes it was something we were aware of and and

01:08:00 and and and yes in in that sense highlighting that there needed to be um the

01:08:07 the consideration of that taken taken on board right and what did that where did that awareness stem from was it from the type of tests you were seeing being carried out to 8414 or was it a wider

01:08:19 carried out to 8414 or was it a wider knowledge of what the industry was doing help us with that um

01:08:26 in the run-up to this particular second edition the majority of the work being undertaken on 8414 testing was in relation to integrated renders and the

01:08:39 and the thicknesses that we were being asked to address were increasing significantly so you could see that the volumes of material in the insulated render systems were increasing right yes and if we go to page 22 of this document

01:08:52 and if we go to page 22 of this document um

01:08:54 um under um 6.4.1 um but in the right-hand side there's a heading external panels and finishes do you see that on the right-hand side sorry we need to go back up a little bit

01:09:07 sorry we need to go back up a little bit yes there's a heading external panels and finishes do you have that yes and um there's then a heading underneath that non-combustible materials and materials of limited combustibility

01:09:20 materials of limited combustibility and there's a heading about that but then it goes on to warn about the potential risks from metal panels um

01:09:30 um and if we pick it up halfway down um that page it's saying there's a potential risk of injury to people or damage to property if spooling material is expelled from the system during a fire

01:09:40 fire the panels may also generate large pieces of falling debris if the integrity of the fixings to the railing system is lost during the fire metal panels may fall from the system if the strength of the fixings is affected by

01:09:52 strength of the fixings is affected by the local fire source they may also melt generating molten metal debris if exposed directly to the sustainable flame envelope or other combustible materials in the system do

01:10:04 combustible materials in the system do you see that yes so is that talking well help us with this what was the evidential basis for that that statement about metal panels can fall and melt generating molten metal debris

01:10:17 and melt generating molten metal debris that's talking about solid um metal products right not not laminates not composites no that's that single um single metal sheets yeah and again the

01:10:28 single metal sheets yeah and again the evidential basis for that was what at the time uh experience of um testing um metal-based systems right um

01:10:39 um and then we see below that a a a new paragraph and it says this combustible panels are typically based on vinyl or glass reinforced plastic

01:10:51 glass reinforced plastic although various new products are being developed in this area some of which also contain insulation materials these products generally have good surface spread of flame characteristics to prevent rapid fire spread across the

01:11:03 prevent rapid fire spread across the surface of the system but once the panels become involved in the fire they have the potential to generate falling debris add to the overall fire load and provide a route for fire to propagate up the

01:11:14 a route for fire to propagate up the outside of the building now on what basis were you stating that these combustible panels in 2013 were typically based on vinyl or glass reinforced plastic how would

01:11:26 or glass reinforced plastic how would you come to understand that again the type of materials we were um working with at that time that you were testing we were just part of 8414

01:11:37 and on what basis did you state that such products generally have good surface spread of flame characteristics was that because normally you would as well as testing for 8414 do bs476 tests as well that was generally

01:11:49 bs476 tests as well that was generally the programs that were associated with them yeah

01:11:55 why not flag the dangers of acm pe in a paragraph like this given the work that you'd done in 2001 that we looked at in detail yesterday

01:12:11 at that point um

01:12:16 we genuinely didn't recognize that acm was being widely used we hadn't seen it as a as a product um and

01:12:27 um and i hadn't picked and picked that up as part of this

01:12:32 review process so

01:12:37 so we were talking here about the characteristics of composite type panels where um

01:12:44 where um if there is a potential combustible material included they have a route to to provide additional fire load so that would be composite panels including

01:12:56 composite panels including sandwich panels and acm and any of the other in that type we didn't specifically include that one particular class of material yes but it was included in the testing program as we

01:13:07 included in the testing program as we established yesterday because it was something the industry were interested in and typical costings were obtained from the architect's journal so

01:13:16 so why did you know then that the panel might be in use but think by now that it wasn't what could you possibly base that on that we hadn't seen we hadn't seen it

01:13:28 that we hadn't seen we hadn't seen it being bought to us and we weren't aware of

01:13:30 of of it um

01:13:33 of it um being raised again

01:13:35 again i said we were aware this this

01:13:38 this this uh paragraph is talking about um delamination of of those types of panels so that would have included at the time of writing a view that um as we talked about

01:13:50 a view that um as we talked about sandwich panels and any other type of panels acms would would all be in that in that type of category right were you aware of this at this point of any international cladding

01:14:01 point of any international cladding fires that had used acm pe uh there were fires around that time yes yes and did you know that they involved acm with a pe corps at that time yes yes

01:14:13 acm with a pe corps at that time yes yes wasn't that another reason why um it would have been good to have had a warning in this section of br135 about such panels with hindsight it would have been appropriate to have included a

01:14:25 been appropriate to have included a direct description of acm and sandwich panels in there but at that time you know that wasn't um something that was in

01:14:33 in uh

01:14:34 uh in view when we did this i see

01:14:37 i see [Applause] and can you help us with this why isn't why isn't more emphasis placed as a whole in this edition of br135 on the dangers posed by the

01:14:48 on the dangers posed by the combustibility of the panels themselves again there's a lot of emphasis on fire barriers fire barriers that might mitigate performance but there's very little attention given to the risk of

01:14:59 little attention given to the risk of fire spread through the panels themselves now given what we know from noseley heights from garnet court by this point and we'll come to it in a

01:15:10 by this point and we'll come to it in a moment you've done you've looked at the fire at the edge in salford why isn't there more attention given to the risks posed by the combustibility of the panels themselves

01:15:30 um

01:15:35 i'm not i'm not quite sure um we talk about panel combustibility i'm not quite sure um

01:15:45 what more we at that point we felt that that covered the effect the comment that the the panels were um

01:15:55 of varying types and had varying characteristics and therefore needed to be considered as part of that yes i see can we just look at some feedback and

01:16:06 can we just look at some feedback and that you received on this document if we go go to bre 3012390

01:16:12 and to the very bottom email on the chain at the bottom of page one is an email from mark stevens on the 26th of june 2009 at 13 17

01:16:27 on the 26th of june 2009 at 13 17 and the opening lines if we go over to the top of page two

01:16:35 page two he says thank you for the draft of the br135 rev 3 document that you posted to me yes

01:16:43 me yes so he's obviously seen a draft of this third edition um can you help us with this it looks therefore like the the third edition was being drafted in 2009

01:16:54 being drafted in 2009 yet it wasn't published until 2013. can you help us as to why such a delay between the drafting and the the publication

01:17:06 no i i don't i don't i don't recall why there was was a delay in that in that period of time and he goes on to say that he's attached the draft with his comments

01:17:17 the draft with his comments and in the final paragraph he said should you require clarification on any of the issues raised please do not hesitate to contact me if it would be of benefit to me to discuss any of these issues i'd be pleased to visit bre to do so

01:17:30 pleased to visit bre to do so do you remember him ever visiting to discuss these issues with you sorry no i don't know if we go to the document he attached this is at bre three zeros one two three nine two

01:17:41 three zeros one two three nine two what he's done is he's commented paragraph by paragraph on the draft

01:17:46 draft and on page one under item two there's a comment and he writes additional item four there needs to be a section in this document on the decision-making process

01:17:57 document on the decision-making process to determine how a test samples parameters are set this should identify or give a methodology for identifying the critical features of a system there also needs to be a section on the

01:18:09 there also needs to be a section on the scope of application for the test result or results from a test series based on this methodology the reason this is important is that the bs84 standards allow for the adjustment

01:18:20 bs84 standards allow for the adjustment of parameters but do not allow indicate or

01:18:24 or how or for what purpose and he goes on uh the requirements of adb2 and br135 are for a system approach

01:18:35 for a system approach but there is no clear definition of what comprises a system at its simplest system appears to refer to a collection of parts as defined by a designer for a specific building this is in its own right not as sim as

01:18:47 this is in its own right not as sim as simple as it may sound since that collection of components is likely to be configured in numerous ways on that single building it is still not clear from this draft how the test should be configured for a given building or

01:18:59 configured for a given building or indeed whether a test conducted for a previous smaller build similar building with minor parametric changes could be considered or assessed to be applicable neither is the route to achieve this

01:19:10 neither is the route to achieve this assessment clear and underneath that there's a comment he says it's vital that the spirit of the test and its interpretation is identifiable this test procedure is very

01:19:21 identifiable this test procedure is very costly without a clear process to determine the test configuration a method of assessment of scope of application and a clearly interpretable spirit of the test the method will be

01:19:32 spirit of the test the method will be either ignored or abused now did you think that the concept of a system in this test was sufficiently clear

01:19:42 clear bearing in mind that that you received these comments

01:19:47 yes because the system is identified in the um

01:19:52 um classification right and the classification is only applicable to that system as tested what i think was being sought here was

01:20:03 what i think was being sought here was the development of

01:20:06 extern extended application activities

01:20:13 right i see um

01:20:16 um were you concerned by the suggestion that the test might be open to abuse

01:20:23 unfortunately it's a regular um comment that is made around all testing um that

01:20:30 that they are uh open to abusal to be ignored right so it was a a fairly um regular and understood comment

01:20:41 comment sam i'm conscious of the time i'm just going to finish off this document and then we'll break if we go to page two against paragraph three

01:20:51 um we read um it's the second comment on paragraph three he says this and and we'll come back to this theme later today he says with regard to combustible

01:21:02 he says with regard to combustible materials the approved document refers to combustibility and therefore the applicability of br135 etc in clause 12.7

01:21:11 12.7 this falls under the heading of insulation materials products not materials generally if the reality is that any combustible materials may influence this risk there is an inconsistency here that needs to

01:21:22 is an inconsistency here that needs to be dealt with and he goes on under the current guidance in adb2 it is feasible to have a wall with us with substantially more fire load available from the facing

01:21:33 fire load available from the facing material than would be provided by a combustible insulin and for it not to require the test to be applied if the insulin is a material of limited combustibility or better this situation does not appear to meet the

01:21:45 situation does not appear to meet the spirit of the message in br135 and then he goes on this could possibly be dealt with by clarifying the interpretation of clause 12.7 of adb2 with particular reference

01:21:58 12.7 of adb2 with particular reference to the

01:21:59 to the and similar and the etc in the first sentence the scope of this first sentence is pivotal to interpreting whether the test is applicable or not now we're going to come back to 12.7 and

01:22:12 now we're going to come back to 12.7 and the definitions in some detail in your evidence but did you pick up on the fact at this time that mark stevens said this is 2009 was

01:22:23 that mark stevens said this is 2009 was raising some pretty serious questions about the interpretation of clause 12.7 and whether the limited combustibility requirement was limited only to insulation materials

01:22:35 insulation materials no

01:22:36 no i was looking at it in the context of uh 135 um

01:22:40 135 um at that point um and his discussion around the interpretation of 12.7 would uh would have been one that i wouldn't really have taken on board at that point right i see

01:22:53 that point right i see if we go to page eight and the final paragraph of his um

01:23:00 of his note um he says in the very final paragraph at the bottom of that page the test specimen is installed to represent typical end-use applications these types of statement occur

01:23:11 these types of statement occur throughout this document with no qualification on how this is determined who is the judge of whether it is representative on what basis this judgment is made this document needs to

01:23:22 judgment is made this document needs to deal with this in a specific manner now

01:23:25 now did you agree with that comment that it needed to be clearer in the document what was a representative system who is the judge of whether it's representative

01:23:37 the judge of whether it's representative and on what basis that judgment's made

01:23:53 the statement regarding uh end-use application is

01:23:58 is um

01:24:00 um regularly and clearly used within the testing environment as the test bodies have no relationship to the actual systems and the test data that is applied to site so they can only define

01:24:12 applied to site so they can only define what was tested

01:24:15 and um

01:24:18 um make a description of that who interprets that and how that is then applied to the structures and the suitability of it can only be determined by those that are actually using that data to

01:24:31 support their uh

01:24:35 requirements for that building right i see mr chairman thank you um that's an appropriate moment for the bridge right i think it's time we had a short break uh dr colwill will stop now we'll resume teaser 20 to 12.

01:24:48 we'll resume teaser 20 to 12. and as before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence over the break all right thank you

01:25:03 thank you very much 20 to 12.

01:41:10 would you ask dr coldwell to come back in please thank you

01:41:25 all right dr colwill are you ready to carry on yes thank you very much thank you from scratch yes just a few short questions now about some 8414 testing points

01:41:34 points um

01:41:35 um do you or can you tell us anything about um

01:41:38 um a test that the bre did to 8414 on the 27th of october 2016 comprising an aluco panel euroclass a2

01:41:49 comprising an aluco panel euroclass a2 acm and rockwool mineral fiber rated as a1 insulation and non-combustible insulation can you help us with anything to do with that test

01:42:03 i

01:42:05 don't recall it in huge detail i believe steve howard may have made me aware of it right and what did stephen howard tell you about it can you help us with that

01:42:17 about it can you help us with that that he was being asked to undertake the test and had i any um

01:42:24 thoughts um

01:42:27 um i believe

01:42:28 i believe it was being undertaken for it was i think it was unusual because it had a

01:42:37 an overseas um client for it i think was there was something in the background too that right okay and and were you told anything about the results of that test

01:42:49 i don't recall the results of that test no no no you can't help us on that um leaving aside pe called acm systems did you have any experience of other

01:43:00 did you have any experience of other 8414 tests of cladding systems incorporating non-combustible insulation which may have failed to meet the br-135 criteria

01:43:09 criteria did you ever have an experience of that

01:43:16 sorry

01:43:18 the just the insulation or the

01:43:23 did you have any experience of other 8414 tests of cladding systems incorporating non-combustible insulation which might have failed to meet the criteria in bl-135 did you ever have any

01:43:35 criteria in bl-135 did you ever have any experience of that yes yes and can you help us with um what you can remember about those um

01:43:44 um there were um

01:43:47 um there were system tests of varying um types and manufacturers where the

01:43:55 the [Music]

01:43:56 [Music] external

01:43:58 external [Music]

01:44:00 [Music] face

01:44:02 face with mineral in

01:44:04 in wool installation uh didn't meet the requirement for varying reasons right and one can give us a flavor of what those reasons were thought to be the the uh

01:44:16 the the uh the criteria would either have been um claps or

01:44:25 failures to stay on the rig for the duration of the test right or

01:44:32 or fire spread internally or externally right yes

01:44:35 right yes and following the fire we know that mhclg commissioned the bre to undertake a

01:44:40 a series of 8414 testing of pe called acm cladding systems combined with both combustible and non-combustible insulation were you did you play any part in those tests i um reviewed the

01:44:54 part in those tests i um reviewed the some of the test results and and reports um of after the after testing programs yes right and who did you report back to debbie smith okay thank you

01:45:06 debbie smith okay thank you now um just a few short questions now about

01:45:09 about our conic and involvement in the rainer bond certificate i'm going to turn to the first issue of the rainer bond certificate if we look at arc

01:45:20 at arc 50687

01:45:28 we can see that this is um the certificate zero eight four five one zero for rayna bond architectural wall

01:45:37 wall cladding panels um and at the bottom we can see that it was issued on the 14th of january 2008. now um are you familiar with this certificate have you looked at it uh

01:45:49 certificate have you looked at it uh previously as part of your professional work

01:45:53 work no no

01:45:54 no no um did you ever give any advice in relation to this or any similar certificate relating to the rainer bond panels

01:46:02 panels no

01:46:04 no if we could go to the bba technical file for the first issue of this certificate it's at bba 4080

01:46:12 4080 and we're looking i want to look at page 505 of this file yes thank you second email down is from you to hammer gregorian at the bba

01:46:25 you to hammer gregorian at the bba copying in brian haynes on the 29th of november 2007 and

01:46:30 and um it follows a request from mr gregorian about a point of the on the fire performance of rayna bond now we know that mr gregorian was a project manager at the bba

01:46:42 bba and brian haynes is copied he was a technical manager at the bba did you know either of these people did you have a any kind of professional relationship with them with brian yes through work on

01:46:53 with brian yes through work on professional standards committees um but with hamono right

01:46:59 right and you say to hammer your email says we would need to see the test data to be able to make any meaningful comment on the potential product performance if you would like us to complete a review we'd

01:47:10 would like us to complete a review we'd be happy to look at this for for you and provide a proposal if necessary for any additional work or formal assessment do you see that yes and above that we can see another email from mr gregorian attaching some

01:47:21 from mr gregorian attaching some classification documents do you see that yes and he says sarah i was not able to contact you by telephone hence email the attached documents are classification reports for the standard

01:47:33 classification reports for the standard and fire retardant versions and then he carries on and he gives he says if you need to have a chat this is the second line from the bottom please give me a call when you are free do you see that yes

01:47:45 are free do you see that yes and if we could go to another document bre 30 4759

01:47:52 at the very top of the page is an email that follows on from this chain it's from mr gregorian again to you on the 7th of december 2007 and he says sarah

01:48:05 and he says sarah we've just received an independent classification report from the client having reviewed the document brian and i are happy that the back face of the panel can also be regarded as having a class naught surface

01:48:17 class naught surface um as the assessment was quite straightforward we will no longer require your help on this apologies for any inconvenience and is it right that it's on the basis of this email that you believe that you

01:48:28 of this email that you believe that you didn't advise at all about the rainer bond bba certificate that's correct now

01:48:35 now mr gregorian told the inquiry in evidence last year that he recalled distinctly being in the room when brian haynes spoke to you on the telephone about the rainer bond certificate that

01:48:46 about the rainer bond certificate that was at day 105 pages 70 and 73 of the transcript do you have any recollection of speaking to brian haynes on the telephone

01:48:57 to brian haynes on the telephone about the content of this certificate informally before this time no i don't i have no recollection until this was raised

01:49:06 raised with me um as part of this the inquiry i have i had no recollection of this at all right mr gregorian said it wasn't a long conversation but brian

01:49:17 it wasn't a long conversation but brian was advised um as to the suitability of this particular material for fire performance you can't help us about that it would

01:49:28 it would as the email change shows we wouldn't offer it as an informal advice it's not it's not practice it and from a organization responsibility there would

01:49:39 organization responsibility there would be no audit trail if there was no formal record

01:49:42 record of that

01:49:44 of that yes did you but did you have the kind of relationship with mr haynes you said you sat on committees with him such that he might just be able to pick up the phone to you to informally discuss fire performance matters no did that ever

01:49:55 performance matters no did that ever happen that was not that that type of relationship yeah

01:50:02 now um we saw in your email and you've just mentioned it again that you you um said that you could do a proposal and a formal assessment um is it right that at this time the bre

01:50:14 um is it right that at this time the bre would always require a formal contract to be entered into before providing any guidance or advice on fire performance yes

01:50:24 can we take it from your email to mr gregorian that at this time there was no our overarching or framework agreement for the bre to be providing ad hoc advice or guidance to the bba on matters

01:50:37 advice or guidance to the bba on matters of fire performance that's correct so you're not aware of any such overarching framework agreement no my my understanding was for this type of activity there would need to be a formal

01:50:49 activity there would need to be a formal contract in place to to undertake that yeah

01:50:52 yeah mr alban um also gave evidence on behalf of the br bba to the inquiry last year he was he is now the chief scientific officer for the bba he said that he became aware that the

01:51:03 he said that he became aware that the color of a coating could make a difference in terms of the fire performance for example of acm and he said he checked that with the bre and the bre confirmed that color could

01:51:14 and the bre confirmed that color could make a difference he said that on day 110 page 26 he was unsure exactly who at the bre advised him about that but he identified

01:51:25 advised him about that but he identified that it may have been you as you were his

01:51:28 his usual contact again that's day 110 page 26. do you recall having any discussions over the telephone with john alban

01:51:39 over the telephone with john alban about general fire matters such as this and whether for example a

01:51:45 a color of a coating on a metal panel in principle could make a difference to its fire performance i don't recall that conversation or a conversation around that but that would that would be

01:51:56 around that but that would that would be a perfectly normal conversation if you talk about fire characteristics and things that might potentially influence them yes right and do you remember ever from you know from time to time having conversations with the bba about those

01:52:09 conversations with the bba about those kind of principled points no i mean my only recollection of of working with bva on any of these issues was the presentation in 2009 talking about

01:52:20 in 2009 talking about um

01:52:21 um the five principles and whether that may have come up as part of the questions and answers as part of that activity i i really don't recall it as a as a request or in a conversation piece yeah did you

01:52:33 or in a conversation piece yeah did you have a relationship with john alban such that he could check technical points like that with you on fire performance

01:52:42 um no it wasn't it wasn't something that happened on a on a regular i can't even say it happened on an ad hoc basis so you would disagree with you with his description of you being the usual

01:52:53 description of you being the usual contact

01:52:55 contact for fire performance matters in in so far as i was probably the contact he had then yes that would that was probably the the usual in that in that term but i wouldn't say there was a dialogue of of

01:53:08 wouldn't say there was a dialogue of of queries or questions around that no right i see and mr olben told us that on the basis of the bre's view that i that color could change fire performance that the bba changed its policy and required

01:53:20 the bba changed its policy and required a caveat to be added certificates such that they only applied to the particular color of the product that was tested were you ever aware that that kind of advice that you'd given might be impacting in terms of the way they were

01:53:32 impacting in terms of the way they were writing their certificates no

01:53:38 did you ever form a view and i appreciate your saying your your dealings with them were limited but but nevertheless did you ever form a view about the

01:53:47 about the ability or competence of personnel within the bba to be forming judgments about fire performance and the performance of materials for the purposes of preparing

01:53:58 materials for the purposes of preparing bba certificates uh i obviously didn't i didn't have enough

01:54:04 enough interaction with them to be able to form that

01:54:07 that that professional um view right in that sense no they were um they were present at uh clients requests from time to time

01:54:18 from time to time for testing um and uh

01:54:23 uh they were um [Music]

01:54:25 [Music] obviously the contacts through the committee work and and

01:54:30 and um general conversations so that was really the extent of the the professional knowledge and understanding that

01:54:37 that i had of their activities yeah so does it follow that you didn't ever have concerns about their abilities or their competence to be assessing fire safety matters i had had no evidence to to to question that no okay thank you

01:54:49 question that no okay thank you right i want to move on now to ask you some questions about amendments to approve document b which were made in 2005 and 2006 leading to the publication of the 2006 edition

01:55:01 to the publication of the 2006 edition of adb in april 2007 now um let's bring that version up it's clg

01:55:09 clg 1607

01:55:22 and we can see from the bottom right hand corner that this is the 2006 edition of approved document b and if we go to page 96

01:55:34 and look at clause 12.7 we can see that that reads it's got a heading insulation material slash products

01:55:43 products in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level any insulation product filler material not including gaskets sealants and similar etc used in

01:55:54 gaskets sealants and similar etc used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility see appendix a this restriction does not apply to masonry cavity wool construction which complies with diagram 34 in section 9.

01:56:06 complies with diagram 34 in section 9. yes yes now can we take it that you um are familiar with that paragraph yes i'm aware of that paragraph and can we agree that one of the amendments that that occurred in this version

01:56:18 that occurred in this version was the addition to the text as against the 2002 edition of the wording filler material and also the etc so before the words in parenthesis

01:56:31 so before the words in parenthesis there was an addition of filler material and etc was also added immediately after those words in brackets in the fourth line yes yes

01:56:43 and can we also agree we did look at it yesterday that the previous wording the equivalent wording in adb provided that this restriction applied to insulation material used in ventilated cavities in

01:56:56 material used in ventilated cavities in the external wall construction yes yes

01:57:00 yes yes whereas in this version it was just amended to read in the external wall

01:57:09 do you see that yes i don't know it's lying down so it's no longer saying it's insulation in ventilated cavities that has to be limited combustible combustibility but any insulation in the external wall construction yes

01:57:22 external wall construction yes yes so

01:57:24 yes so in any building over 18 meters is this right all insulation products had to be of limited combustibility yes that's my understanding of that yes save where the masonry cavity exception applied at the

01:57:36 masonry cavity exception applied at the bottom yes now if we can turn to your witness statement at page 55 just above paragraph 352

01:57:48 you were asked in your statement what was your understanding of the meaning of this paragraph this is 12.7 in this version of adb and your answer at paragraph 3.2 right

01:58:00 and your answer at paragraph 3.2 right at the bottom of that page you say i considered that the paragraph was self-explanatory yes yes

01:58:08 yes yes now can we take it from that answer that you considered the meaning and scope of the amended text at paragraph 12.7 to be clear and unambiguous

01:58:19 clear and unambiguous yes

01:58:21 yes and if we go on to page 56 of your statement and paragraph 353 you're asked specifically about the meaning of the word filler and you tell us you say

01:58:32 us you say i considered filler to refer to materials that are used in systems to fill voids and gaps but which are not gaskets sealants and similar yes

01:58:44 sorry on my apologies i i missed the paragraph 353 yes yeah let me let me read it again yeah sorry so you're saying is referring to materials that are used

01:58:55 is referring to materials that are used in systems to fill voids and gaps yes yes what kind of voids and gaps are you referring to there so um any any void that would have

01:59:06 any any void that would have existed in the um

01:59:09 um in in within a system right

01:59:12 right and asked at 354 below that how you'd come to that understanding you say this was based on my knowledge and experience of the systems which had been subject to bs 8414 testing up until this time yes

01:59:24 bs 8414 testing up until this time yes yes

01:59:25 yes now just help us to to understand that answer what was it about your experience of testing systems to 8414 which had helped you to understand the meaning of the word filler so clearly

01:59:37 meaning of the word filler so clearly so

01:59:39 so composite panels and the

01:59:43 the render systems right so take composite panels how did your experience of testing those systems in 8414 tests um

01:59:53 um assist you with what the meaning of the word filler was the the material between the um in the makeup of the panels themselves

02:00:04 panels themselves i see so do you regard that material as filling a void in a gap yes

02:00:11 how in that the it fills the faces of the panels but it's a it's a single solid composite panel isn't it

02:00:22 panel isn't it it doesn't the panel doesn't have any gap in it that's been filled does it i'd say that was my that was my interpretation that's how i had taken that that that paragraph to

02:00:34 that that that paragraph to to to be read right if we look um back at page 55 of your witness statement at 3 4 6 this time um

02:00:47 just above that the wording of paragraph 12.7 is set out and you're asked when it was that you first became aware of that paragraph when your answer at 347 you say i became aware of the inclusion

02:00:59 you say i became aware of the inclusion of paragraph 12.7 of b4 of the approved document when the consultation document was published yes yes and you were asked um

02:01:11 and you were asked um below that had you been aware prior to publication that this wording would be introduced no

02:01:17 no the drafting of the text contained in approved document b is the responsibility of mhclg the process is managed by mhclg i was not therefore aware of the wording of the draft prior to publication yes that's correct

02:01:30 to publication yes that's correct i just want to pin you down on this um are you saying that you weren't aware of it prior to a consultation document coming out or are you saying you weren't aware of it

02:01:41 aware of it until the final version of it was published

02:01:50 it would have been in that period i can't i can't tell you directly whether it was the consultation that i first became aware of it i suspect it would have been the consultation document because that would have been circulated yes well let's look at that that

02:02:02 yes well let's look at that that document um if we could go to clg 6022

02:02:09 this is the draft of the 2006 edition of approved document b which was sent out for public alongside consultation detailed consultation questionnaire which was sent out in july 2005

02:02:22 which was sent out in july 2005 and um we can see it says the proposed new edition of approved document b and if we just scroll through some of the early pages for example if we look at um there the bottom of page three

02:02:34 at um there the bottom of page three the way it's been presented in this document is that any new text is it written in blue and any old text that's being deleted has got a blue line through it do you see that yes

02:02:45 through it do you see that yes and if we go to page 147

02:02:50 and we look at the fourth paragraph down on that page we can see the proposed draft for consultation of then what was paragraph 11.7 and what

02:03:02 of then what was paragraph 11.7 and what became paragraph 12.7 and we can see it says in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level insulation material used in and ventilated cavities has been deleted

02:03:14 ventilated cavities has been deleted so anything in the external wall should be of limited combustibility this restriction doesn't apply to masonry cavity do you see that i do yes so the filler etc

02:03:25 so the filler etc didn't form part of that process no no so you can't have seen this at the time of the consultation can you no absolutely not let's say that my right that's my recollection of that that period

02:03:40 yes now going back to your understanding of the term filler as set out in your witness statement um

02:03:51 can you just be absolutely clear i think you've confirmed this already that you understood the words it was it the words filler material etc meant that this clause now applied

02:04:02 meant that this clause now applied to the core of a composite cladding panel yes

02:04:06 panel yes and that it hadn't applied to the core of a composite plan or before this is that right because it was the introduction of that word that you're relying on yes

02:04:16 that was my my understanding of that introduction was to to to bring that to the fore yes to make that clear yes so i think what you're saying is that um

02:04:29 that um the core of a composite cladding panel would now be covered by the words filler material would be covered by those words yeah and it was it the filler material or the etc or both that signified that

02:04:41 or the etc or both that signified that to the reader it was the sense that in in my reading of that it was the sense of

02:04:47 sense of of that sentence of that paragraph right

02:04:51 right and you said that it brought it to the fore

02:04:54 fore what do you mean by brought it to the fore because the previous version of a pre-document b was silent on the core of a composite panel wasn't it as i say it it it made it

02:05:07 as i say it it it made it for from my my reading made it clear i see

02:05:15 did you understand the words filler material etc to apply to any other parts of an external wall system in addition to the core of an external cladding panel

02:05:27 of an external cladding panel yes

02:05:30 so so what what did you understand it extended to to the makeup of the external wall system the whole of the external wall system yes

02:05:40 yes every single element of it had to be of limited combustibility yes yes unless it was of sealant or gaskets so small small elements right

02:05:51 elements right and it was the words filler material etc that conveyed that to you was it yes

02:06:02 when so when you saw this edition and you were looking at this wording

02:06:07 wording did you consider that the limited combustibility requirement also extended to the external surfaces of a composite cladding panel as well as to the core of those panels

02:06:19 to the core of those panels so the the build up of the it was the build up of the system as i understood it needed to be limited combustibility yes

02:06:26 yes so the elements in that so is the answer to my question yes that it would apply to say the aluminium skins or the equivalent of the aluminium skins in a composite panel as well as to the core

02:06:37 composite panel as well as to the core yes

02:06:38 yes right

02:06:41 and and what told you that about the word filler how did the word filler tell you that it would apply to the outside of a composite panel as well as the inside of

02:06:52 composite panel as well as the inside of it because it talks about the materials so it was in products so it's installation materials and products well let's get let's just go back to um

02:07:04 um 12.7 so we've got it up on the screen clg one six zero seven

02:07:12 just help us what was it in this definition that told you that

02:07:18 that the outer skins of a composite panel also had to be of limited combustibility so i'm i'm i'm i was reading that um as insulation materials and products

02:07:31 um as insulation materials and products 18 meters above um needing to be of uh limited capacity of the external wall construction

02:07:42 but as i i

02:07:45 i and i i go back to this point i'm and i'm sorry if it if i'm repeating what i said previously my work with this was to re was was not interpreting this in in the built

02:07:56 interpreting this in in the built environment i'm i'm looking at this in light of the work that i was

02:08:04 currently involved with so when when i'm reading that i'm using that on the basis of as i said my knowledge and experience of what was going on with the 8414 testing and

02:08:15 was going on with the 8414 testing and therefore i'm reading that and saying if it's not compliant with

02:08:21 with that clause it needs to be tested to 8414. yes

02:08:25 8414. yes just leave aside for a moment the role that you played in relation to any of this because i am going to come on to that and we'll look at quite a few specific documents relevant to that i'm just really trying to sorry pin you down

02:08:36 just really trying to sorry pin you down on exactly what your interpretation of this was and what it extended to can you help me again with this what was it in this language that told you that this limited combustibility requirement

02:08:48 this limited combustibility requirement applied to the outer skins of a composite panel as well as the core

02:09:05 that was my understanding of that that paragraph i i can't give you an exact word i'm sorry i don't yes when you were interpreting it what what weight did you place on the fact that there's a heading there insulation materials slash

02:09:18 there insulation materials slash products

02:09:19 products and that that was my reading of it was insulation materials and products and that they needed to be materials of limited combustibility that's right that's how i was reading that paragraph yes but where

02:09:31 reading that paragraph yes but where does that leave diagram 40 in the provisions for external surfaces in diagram 40 if you're right about that wouldn't that render certainly for above 18 meters

02:09:41 18 meters the provision of diagram diagram 40 completely others as surface finishes paints and and decorative coatings that's how i was interpreting that

02:09:53 interpreting that so

02:09:54 so your interpretation was that the paint coating

02:09:57 coating had to comply with diagram 40 yes and so be national class naught or european class b yes um the paint coating had to be european

02:10:08 um the paint coating had to be european class b it was there as a finish as a as a finishing coat not the not the external wall surface right and then every other layer beyond the paint coating anything else in the wall unless

02:10:20 coating anything else in the wall unless it was these tiny details gaskets etc had to be of limited combustibility yes yes and you always read it that way yes that's why that's what i believed when that was brought in was was there was

02:10:31 that was brought in was was there was there to do right

02:10:36 um do you

02:10:39 do you know can you help us as to why the word filler was not defined in the approved document when it was introduced did you ever

02:10:46 ever ask about that or discuss that with anybody i'm sorry no i didn't did you consider that the absence of any definition might make the term unclear or

02:10:54 or ambiguous

02:10:56 ambiguous at the time no

02:11:01 now you've told us in your witness statement

02:11:03 statement um

02:11:04 um page 55 paragraph 348 you said the drafting of the text containing approved document b is the responsibility of mhclg process is managed by mhclg i was not therefore

02:11:16 managed by mhclg i was not therefore aware of the wording of the draft prior to publication now

02:11:21 now can we agree that in fact actually contrary to that evidence in 2005 the amendments to approve document b were drafted by the bre under contract from the department and that

02:11:34 contract from the department and that you had some involvement in that work

02:11:40 it i could well be i have no recollection of having um involvement in that and i have no recollection of that part of the of the process it was

02:11:51 of the process it was i i've always understood it to be mhclg who were the ultimate authors and therefore ultimately responsible for the contents of that document right let's look at a document at bre 401953

02:12:03 look at a document at bre 401953 this is bre's proposal to the department at the time and that was the adpm at the time the office of the deputy prime minister for the framework contract

02:12:14 minister for the framework contract to provide support for the revision of approved document b and the procedural guide do you see that at the top yes i do it's dated the 23rd of march 2004

02:12:25 do it's dated the 23rd of march 2004 yes and we see that from the bottom right hand corner and we can see from page three that this was prepared by brian martin and approved by peter field on behalf of the bre

02:12:36 on behalf of the bre and peter field in march 2004 was the fire safety framework service manager at the bre is that right i believe so yes and if we scroll down to page five of the proposal we can see

02:12:48 to page five of the proposal we can see that certain objectives of this work are set out

02:12:53 and under the heading

02:12:57 task one if we go to the top of page eight

02:13:02 eight here we've got the project objectives it says that they're clearly identified under four separate but interrelated tasks

02:13:09 tasks and task one says as a part of the revision of adb odpm initially wished to undertake a survey of the relevant stakeholders to identify further issues that they consider may be

02:13:21 further issues that they consider may be important to include in the revision of adb

02:13:24 adb yes

02:13:26 yes and then specific objectives are set out below

02:13:30 below they are to conduct a forward look exercise with stakeholders by means of a questionnaire to have workshops and other innovative techniques going on

02:13:41 techniques going on the second objective specific objective is to collate all responses into a report including your i that's the bre's

02:13:52 including your i that's the bre's view on merits of suggested changes do you see that in the last few lines of little two yes

02:14:02 yes so the department's looking for the bre's view on the merits of changes that are suggested as part of this process

02:14:10 process and then on page nine if we look at the first heading task three we can see that the tasks involves

02:14:21 and um it says this part of the contract involves the provision of technical support to officials in the drafting issuing for consultation collation of responses and further drafting of the

02:14:33 responses and further drafting of the new adb including associated diagrams and then it goes on other documents that require drafting are and it gives some other

02:14:43 other examples of documents and then below that it says in addition the support would include the provision of technical secretariat to cover all the various brac part b

02:14:54 to cover all the various brac part b working party meetings required to facilitate the effective revision of adb do you see that yes i do

02:15:03 yes i do do you remember being aware of this contract

02:15:07 at the time no in march 2004 no if we go down then to page 21 we can see from the table that brian

02:15:18 we can see from the table that brian martin is there as the project manager in the first line do you see that yes and then at line eight you are listed as the technical expert for reaction to fire do you have that

02:15:30 for reaction to fire do you have that yes

02:15:32 yes did you know that you were being put forward in this um bre proposal for this drafting of adb as the technical expert on reaction to fire

02:15:44 technical expert on reaction to fire i have no recollection of that no

02:15:49 it would have been um

02:15:51 um a normal

02:15:52 a normal um

02:15:55 um uh reference point if if it was a framework document of that type that if support was needed those would have been the named individuals who would have been there i wouldn't necessarily well i wouldn't have

02:16:06 wouldn't have been necessarily involved in the drafting or or site of that document when it went forward right but you can't remember anyone discussing it with you and saying we're bidding for this uh this is what it involves and and we'd like you to be the technical reaction to

02:16:18 like you to be the technical reaction to fire expert

02:16:21 i have i don't recall it in that i don't recall that no yeah if we go down to page 23 to the task resource table so what someone's done in this table is

02:16:32 so what someone's done in this table is outline which staff and at what daily rates

02:16:35 rates will be involved in each part of the project objectives and we can see that you are listed in task one at line six yes yes we just looked at that that was effectively like a wider consultation

02:16:47 effectively like a wider consultation process

02:16:48 process and task three which is the task we just looked at about the drafting issuing for consultation collation of responses and the further drafting of atb

02:16:57 atb we can see that you're listed at line five yes that's 3a yes yep

02:17:04 now in the light of this can you recall any aspect of your involvement in the process by which the approved document was amended in the period between 2004 and 2006.

02:17:18 i can't you can't i'm i'm i'm sorry i'm looking at this i'm looking at this thing called i i apologize i really have no recollection of this that's okay well let's come to some more documents which

02:17:29 let's come to some more documents which might help you um we'll come back to that specific topic but i want to ask you some questions now about a fire that occurred on the 6th of january 2005 on the external face of a part partially

02:17:41 on the external face of a part partially occupied block of flats named the edge in salford in greater manchester um now that was during a period of operation of this contract to support

02:17:53 operation of this contract to support the department with revisions to approve document b and if we can turn to your witness statement at page 44 and paragraph 269 you were asked about your involvement in

02:18:04 you were asked about your involvement in the investigation of this fire and you say there at 269 i provided technical support to the fire investigation team on matters relating to mechanisms of fire spread

02:18:15 fire spread i had no involvement in the drafting of the report yes correct and at 270 in terms of the roles of others at the bre you explain that sam greenwood was the

02:18:26 you explain that sam greenwood was the designated fire investigation lead for this investigation and i attended the site with him i cannot recall who else from the fire investigation team was involved and i've not identified any documentation that

02:18:38 not identified any documentation that will aid my recollection now what was sam greenwood's role in the bre at this time

02:18:47 uh i i i

02:18:51 he as part part of the fire investigation team i can't think why else he would have been the person i would have attended with okay did you know sam greenwood i mean was he a colleague that you come across before this this this investigation

02:19:06 he was a co-worker but not somebody i'd work with regularly no right

02:19:11 right um

02:19:12 um paragraph 272 when asked to give details of the investigation if we go over the page

02:19:17 page you tell us i was only involved to the extent of providing technical support to the fire investigation team and so i'm not aware of the steps that were taken to carry out the investigations and subsequent work

02:19:28 subsequent work now but it's right isn't it that you attended the scene at the edge fire with sam greenwood yes that's correct yes what was the purpose of that visit presumably it was to carry out some

02:19:40 presumably it was to carry out some investigation into the fire yes so um

02:19:44 so um the reporting was there had been what appeared to be unusual fire spread and i was asked to have a look at the um path of the external fire spread as

02:19:55 path of the external fire spread as i don't i wasn't aware of what the team were doing in terms of the other issues that they investigate as part of that yes so but you were helping to investigate this unusual fire spread

02:20:06 investigate this unusual fire spread that's why you were there yes yes yes yes

02:20:11 and and you say you provided technical support what did that actually mean in practical terms what did you do in relation to this fire so um the

02:20:21 the the the interest was why the fire had spread in the way that it had um where it spread to and the roots and mechanisms by which it had actually spread so that was the role i took was

02:20:32 spread so that was the role i took was looking at um

02:20:35 um the

02:20:37 the information that was available about how it had traveled where it had traveled to right and how long did you spend on that task

02:20:45 task i think we were on site for for one day right and did you provide any um advice back to the team about the mechanisms for fire spread

02:20:56 mechanisms for fire spread and the roots and mechanisms by which it actually spread yes um we we looked sam and i went um went through the through the um development of the fire

02:21:07 through the um development of the fire the route the fire had taken and um where it has had traveled to right and did you carry out any further work after that day

02:21:15 that day um analyzing that flat fire spread or were you able to provide conclusions there and then um i i was able to provide feedback at that point yes right

02:21:27 provide feedback at that point yes right now you you've told us that you had no involvement in the drafting of the report um we know that this fire was the subject of an investigation of real fires report dated the 18th of january

02:21:38 fires report dated the 18th of january 2005 but it was also the subject of a client report for the years for the year april 2005 to march 2005 and that report was dated the 31st of march 2005.

02:21:50 31st of march 2005. so there were two bre reports which dealt with this fire when you said you had no involvement in the drafting of the report do you mean you didn't you weren't involved in either of those reports i the the fire investigation

02:22:02 reports i the the fire investigation teams wrote them up in a particular style that they used um for reporting their their fires the the sites they attended um so i i wasn't

02:22:13 sites they attended um so i i wasn't actually i didn't actually uh draft the feedback for them for for that for either of them right

02:22:23 right i see but did you actually input in terms of wording into these reports did you provide some draft wording to them no

02:22:31 no no

02:22:32 no what did they do just write up your verbal comments we wrote yeah we wrote up the comments that um we discussed on the day and then i i believe one of them was

02:22:43 believe one of them was may have been sent to me for comment um but i don't don't explicitly recall that right

02:22:49 right and that information that you mean you communicated verbally was that on the same day on the day of the site visit yes right

02:22:57 yes right let's go to the first report which is at bre

02:23:00 bre 3035368

02:23:02 3035368 this report it's data we can see at the top of the page um

02:23:07 um it says report completed a few lines down 18th of january 2005 and we can see on page one at the fifth line

02:23:18 on page one at the fifth line that you are listed it says frs investigator sam greenwood and sarah colwell do you see that yes do you remember reading this report before it was finalized

02:23:31 not explicitly no i don't remember it i may well have done but i don't remember now looking further down page one at the section-headed type of building there's a bold heading in the middle of the page

02:23:43 a bold heading in the middle of the page we can see it tells us that the building comprised a 19-story concrete frame block of luxury apartments some parts of the building were clad for decorative purposes with sandwich panels

02:23:54 decorative purposes with sandwich panels manufactured from expanded polystyrene core with aluminium skins the building was partially occupied whilst part remained under construction yes yes

02:24:07 remained under construction yes yes and we see from the next paragraph down location and cause of fire it tells us that the fire started on a balcony at second story level in an area that was still under construction the cause isn't known but whilst

02:24:18 the cause isn't known but whilst careless discarding of smoking materials or malicious causes are possible it's known that hot works were carried out in the vicinity of what later became the point of origin for the fire and then in the final paragraph on that

02:24:29 and then in the final paragraph on that page

02:24:31 page under the heading the fire it says

02:24:37 the fire started in the balcony area of the second floor and burnt across the timber balcony but did not break into the flat

02:24:43 the flat this part of the building had scaffold erected full height and this was also this also became involved in the fire the burning timber caused the sandwich panels to delaminate and once the expanded polystyrene core became

02:24:55 expanded polystyrene core became involved the spread of the fire up the building was extremely fast some reports indicated that the fire spread up the remaining 17 floors in less than 10 minutes

02:25:05 minutes once the fire had reached the top of the building it then spread across the top of the roof and in places had began to burn down the pitch of the roof on the adjacent side of the building this downward fire spread is unusual and

02:25:18 downward fire spread is unusual and probably as a result of being driven by the prevailing wind so is it right that the specific mechanisms of external fire spread in this event included very rapid vertical

02:25:31 this event included very rapid vertical fire spread up these polystyrene panels yes

02:25:35 yes but also some downward fire spread down the pitch of the roof on the other side that's correct who is it that had observed that that downward fire spread was unusual was

02:25:47 downward fire spread was unusual was that you yes how are you able to give that opinion given you've told us in your statement you're not a fire investigator and that you had very very limited involvement in

02:25:58 you had very very limited involvement in fire investigations so um fire spread is typically um an upward process the dynamics take take that

02:26:12 process the dynamics take take that characteristic so to see downward spread is unusual right i see so you're doing that for first principles yes not based on what you'd seen in other buildings no um and who was it that concluded that

02:26:23 um and who was it that concluded that the downward fire spread was probably as a result of being driven by the prevailing wind um being

02:26:30 um being located on the roof of the building looking at the action and the course that the fire had taken

02:26:38 taken um

02:26:39 um it

02:26:40 it it would suggest that there was quite um a high

02:26:45 a high propensity for wind loading on that on the structure right and given and given that downward spread is not used it's not a usual principle um

02:26:56 um a

02:26:57 a potential cause is to have an external force such as the wind driving the fire load for five right

02:27:04 right so again that that that conclusion there that the downward spread was probably as a result of being driven by the wind was that your um conclusion yes were any other potential causes of the

02:27:15 were any other potential causes of the downward fire spread considered in relation to this fire given the materials that were available and the um

02:27:25 the course of the fire as it as it spread that was the most probable cause right it's given did anyone ever consider whether the downward spread might be due to the flow

02:27:37 downward spread might be due to the flow of melting burning expanded polystyrene foam originating from the core of the the sandwich panels they they as it as it says are part of

02:27:48 they they as it as it says are part of are part of that process but the actual spread beyond the um

02:27:54 um downward movement of the material would would would need an additional uh driver to it right so are you saying that one mechanism for the downward fire

02:28:05 that one mechanism for the downward fire spread was probably molten polystyrene material but that the wind also was a big factor is that what you're saying or are you saying that both both

02:28:15 both both both elements are called our routes by which fire spread right but there's no specific mention is there of

02:28:23 there of um

02:28:23 um anything to do with downward fire spread caused by the polystyrene um core is there in this description no because this is talking about the um

02:28:34 because this is talking about the um the roof pitch not the sandwich panel vertical faces i see i just i just want to be absolutely clear um you've got the vertical flame spread

02:28:46 you've got the vertical flame spread going up the first face of the building which has been being carried by the polystyrene sandwich panels yeah but was there ever any suggestion that the polystyrene panels on the other side

02:28:57 the polystyrene panels on the other side of the building might be involved once the fire had spread over the top of the roof

02:29:01 roof in terms of melting dripping polystyrene the

02:29:08 the the description of the fires is reported there was

02:29:11 there was my understanding of the fire fire course itself

02:29:15 itself so you can't help us with whether or not melting dripping polystyrene could have been occurring on the other side of the building from where the fire first started

02:29:25 started i'm not where there was any evidence of the other the other face being involved right

02:29:33 right if we could go to page two there's a heading external fire spread second heading down and it tells us the sandwich panels were fixed to the building leaving a cavity between the panels and the structural

02:29:45 between the panels and the structural walls

02:29:46 walls it was not possible to establish during our visit if this cavity had been installed with cavity barriers at floor level

02:29:52 level in accordance with the approved document b but fire and rescue service sources believed at the time of our visit that the floor level cavity barriers had been in place

02:30:02 in place so it would appear that there'd been some attempt to put cavity barriers in at least at floor level yes yes

02:30:10 yes and then um it says this below that however it is clear that there was no attempt to provide barriers within the core of the panels

02:30:19 panels and as such fire spread through the panels themselves was not restricted do you see that yes and then um there's some quotes from paragraph 13 7

02:30:31 there's some quotes from paragraph 13 7 of approved document b which states so this would be the 2002 version of approved document b the external envelope of a building should not provide a medium for fire spread if it's likely to be a risk to health or

02:30:42 it's likely to be a risk to health or safety the use of combustible materials for cladding framework or of combustible thermal insulation as an over cladding or in ventilator cavities may present such a risk in tall buildings

02:30:53 such a risk in tall buildings and then below that in a building with a story over 18 meters or more above ground level insulation material used in ventilated cavities in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility so that's noted

02:31:07 combustibility so that's noted and then

02:31:08 and then it goes on whilst the first general statement warns against the use of combustible materials the subsequent more specific guidance refers only to insulation material used

02:31:19 refers only to insulation material used in ventilated cavities in the case of this building however the polystyrene core was not primarily used for its insulating properties but rather

02:31:30 for its insulating properties but rather as a low-cost filler to provide stiffness to the decorative aluminium cladding

02:31:35 cladding the polystyrene core was also not exposed to the cavity it is conceivable therefore that the designers of this building may have taken the view that this restriction was

02:31:46 taken the view that this restriction was not applicable and then below that it says it may be advisable to revisit this guidance and consider if more explicit guidance could be given to avoid any confusion in the

02:31:57 be given to avoid any confusion in the future

02:32:04 now can you just help us i'm just going to take this in stages that second paragraph down under external fire spread where it says there was no attempt to provide barriers

02:32:15 attempt to provide barriers within the core of the panels and as such fire spread through the panels themselves what's that what's meant by that what what's that referring to

02:32:28 the um

02:32:30 um the panels themselves are stacked um as part of their construction and there is therefore a continuous run of material within that within those panels

02:32:41 material within that within those panels do you happen to know how large these panels were individually

02:32:50 typically and i can't i can't recall explicitly on these but typically the panels are about um

02:32:59 a meter to a meter and a half in in height

02:33:03 height um and um the other dimension in that particular case i can't remember how how wide that decorative feature was that the typical of the type of

02:33:15 that the typical of the type of material you might see on the outside of industrial warehousing the where they're stacked to create um insulated walls right thank you

02:33:26 insulated walls right thank you right

02:33:27 right and the way it's written there was no attempt to provide barriers within the core of the panels themselves are the authors of this report and we can see you were involved are they trying to convey that there was a

02:33:39 trying to convey that there was a requirement to provide barriers within the core of the panels themselves no it was a statement that there was no they they were they were not stopped

02:33:50 they they were they were not stopped they were continuous yes i see um

02:33:54 um now

02:33:56 now can you help us with this how was it concluded if we go to the paragraph below the quote from approved document b how was it concluded that the

02:34:07 how was it concluded that the polystyrene core and picking this up three lines down it said however the polystyrene core was not primarily used for its insulating properties but rather as a low-cost filler to provide stiffness to the

02:34:18 filler to provide stiffness to the decorative aluminium cladding how was it concluded that that was the case

02:34:25 case they they were a design feature on the outside of the structure they were not

02:34:32 were not integral to the building envelope

02:34:39 it says the polystyrene core was not primarily used for its insulating properties had you asked somebody in terms of whoever designed this building what the purpose of the core was what

02:34:50 what the purpose of the core was what was it used because it was an insulating core or was it used for some other purpose i'm just seeking to understand how

02:34:58 how how you've written this and and why it's written in this way

02:35:03 because it was a

02:35:07 a patch of material as a decorative feature and not a continuous part of the process

02:35:16 it was um

02:35:18 um not viewed as being um part of the

02:35:24 uh weather tightness or building envelope

02:35:28 envelope for the for the for the system it was there for its aesthetic um

02:35:38 i see so are you saying that looking at the system you could tell immediately from looking at it that this was just a mere mere decorative feature this panel it wasn't

02:35:49 decorative feature this panel it wasn't an integral part of the wall system yes so you could tell from that that it wasn't there as an insulator but then help me with this you then say

02:36:01 but then help me with this you then say but rather as a low-cost filler to provide stiffness to the decorative aluminium cladding did you talk to anybody on site about about that and there's the choice of words there no

02:36:14 there's the choice of words there no so were those your words or sam greenwood's words that would have been um our view of that so you took the view did you that um

02:36:25 um you could describe the core of those panels as a low-cost filler to provide stiffness to the decorative aluminium cladding yes

02:36:35 that was my interpretation or the interpretation that sam and i agreed yeah for for the um applicability of that product yeah and how was with this why was the word villa

02:36:46 how was with this why was the word villa chosen what what was it about the word filler that enabled you to describe the core there

02:36:55 i don't know i don't know why that particular phrase was used i don't know where that particular detail came from did you ever ask anybody

02:37:06 anybody either he was involved in the the construction of that building or or just who was involved more generally in industry

02:37:13 industry whether that word filler had a particular meaning a particular connotation a conventional use in terms of construction i think it was inappropriate at the time

02:37:26 i think it was inappropriate at the time that that was drafted that was an appropriate word that was was used it wasn't used i'm not aware of being useful in any any other context is the answer to my question no i didn't

02:37:38 is the answer to my question no i didn't ask anybody else about how that word filler would be interpreted in the industry i just thought it was an appropriate word is that is that what you're saying yes

02:37:51 now in the penultimate sentence you say that um it is conceivable therefore that the designers of this building

02:38:02 building may have taken the view that this restriction was not applicable so that's at the end of that paragraph we were looking at it is conceivable therefore that the designers of this building may have taken the view that this restriction was not applicable either

02:38:14 restriction was not applicable either the limited combustibility restriction um

02:38:17 um by the words use of the words it is conceivable can we take it that neither you nor sam green would actually discuss the matter with the designers of the building that's correct

02:38:28 that's correct did anyone at any stage attempt to establish why it was that these panels had been used and whether the people installing it thought it was compliant with the approved

02:38:39 it was compliant with the approved document at the time i i certainly doesn't i don't know whether um it was followed up by the fire investigation team

02:38:49 i see

02:38:52 so that was just simply being suggested as a possibility as to what the building designers might have thought yes yes

02:39:01 did you give any thought at this time to whether or not the sandwich panels were national class naught or alternatively european class b as they would have been recommended to be

02:39:12 recommended to be above 18 meters according to diagram 40 of approved document b 2002.

02:39:19 i don't recall investigating that point further no why not wasn't that quite a key piece of information that it would have been very useful for you to have understood and

02:39:30 useful for you to have understood and anyone else reading this report to have understood

02:39:35 typically metal face panels were

02:39:41 were placed on the market as um

02:39:45 as um as class o but

02:39:49 it was not necessarily a given no did you give any consideration during this work with sam greenwood um on the adequacy or otherwise of national class naught

02:39:59 naught which was then stipulated in diagram 40 of approved document b for external cladding panels on buildings over 18 meters

02:40:17 not explicitly as detailed in this no what why why not i mean you're obviously thinking about the approved document in this section of

02:40:28 the approved document in this section of the report why is there no consideration to the adequacy of what the of the existing guidance in terms of diagram 40 as well as the paragraph 13.7

02:40:39 diagram 40 as well as the paragraph 13.7 you've got there i i don't know

02:40:45 and just going back to your earlier answers you knew from 2001 that something which was on the market as class naught and manif and and marketed as class naught might not

02:40:56 marketed as class naught might not actually mean class naught yes

02:41:00 so wouldn't it have been useful to have checked whether these panels were in fact class naught and to have included that information in the report

02:41:16 with hindsight further investigations of of these types of fires

02:41:21 of fires could could have taken could have taken different um different approaches and different details yeah

02:41:30 now this report was written for the department um that's right isn't it uh i believe so yeah um

02:41:39 um now if we look at the third paragraph up from the end of that page and

02:41:45 and it says there it may be advisable to revisit this guidance and consider if more explicit guidance could be given to avoid confusion in the future and

02:41:55 and did you in fact consider that it would be advisable for the department to do that

02:42:02 yes and what did you consider needed to be changed to avoid confusion in the future the the um

02:42:13 the the um details as as they're presented there um that the

02:42:20 that the they they needed to consider it yes it's it's just that you told us yesterday and and um i'm going to ask you about this you told us yesterday that you thought

02:42:31 us yesterday that you thought that the approved document was already clear that all external wall materials needed to be of limited combustibility if that was already clear before this point

02:42:42 point why recommend this change or looking at this now do you think that actually you weren't clear before this point that all the external raw materials needed to

02:42:54 all the external raw materials needed to be of limited combustibility

02:42:58 i i and that was my understanding because i understood that that was the point of having 8414 in what was being seen here and what was being reported back was

02:43:11 being reported back was that

02:43:12 that if others weren't seeing it in that way then they needed to consider the guidance

02:43:16 guidance yes it's just what we don't see is you saying in this report it's clear that all materials in the external wall have to be of limited combustibility and you setting out which

02:43:27 combustibility and you setting out which provisions you rely on for that purpose because if that had been the case and that was your understanding then there would have been no need to tell government to revisit the guidance

02:43:38 tell government to revisit the guidance would there because it would have already been clear that everything needed to be of limited combustibility

02:43:52 in in the drafting of of these and the way in which they're drafted this was

02:43:58 this was as i say

02:44:00 as i say um

02:44:02 um a

02:44:06 an indication to government that if our suggestion was that the designers hadn't followed that that they may need to be more explicit in their guidance right

02:44:17 right so are you saying this that you were clear in your own mind before this time and up to this point that all materials in the external wall needed to be of limited combustibility

02:44:28 needed to be of limited combustibility but what you were doing here was pointing out that perhaps others might not see it that way is that what you're saying that that was trying to highlight that that was we were we were concerned that that they may not

02:44:40 we were concerned that that they may not be understanding it in the way that we and we understood it i think let's look briefly at another bre report which deals with this fire this is at clg 3019455

02:44:53 we can see from page one that this is the investigation of real fires report uh on the period april 2004 to march 2005

02:45:01 2005 and if we go down to page two we can see that this report was written it says prepared by martin ship carol rock and sam greenwood and it's approved by peter field and it's

02:45:12 it's approved by peter field and it's prepared for anthony bird so you're not named there did you have any aspect any involvement in any aspect of the preparation of this report

02:45:25 i don't recognize it if it and if i was asked i have no recollection right if we look at page 76 we can see the

02:45:36 if we look at page 76 we can see the report on the edge fire it's that big paragraph there beyond the middle of the page and the first paragraph gives various details of the circumstances of the fire

02:45:47 details of the circumstances of the fire which we've been through already in the earlier report and i want to look at that last paragraph on page 76 with you where it said it was not possible to establish if the cladding system had

02:45:58 establish if the cladding system had been installed complete with cavity barriers at floor level in accordance with the approved document b but fire and rescue service sources believe that this was the case however the fact that the fire burned so

02:46:10 however the fact that the fire burned so readily through the core of this type of sandwich panel means that even if the construction complied with current guidance the rapid fire spread through the panels themselves would not be restricted

02:46:22 restricted as such the fire and rescue services have

02:46:26 have if we go over the page have grave

02:46:32 grave concerns that when the building becomes fully occupied a fire of this nature could quickly become out of control and put the lives of occupants at risk

02:46:43 of occupants at risk do you see that there yes were you aware at the time of the fire and rescue services grave concerns no

02:46:51 no were you concerned by this fire event at the time that you were looking at it with sam greenwood yes

02:46:59 were you concerned by the fact that it had been established that even if the construction complied with the guidance then in force fire spread would have been rapid unrestricted and would have put lives at risk

02:47:14 if if it was in compliance and that was the case then yes did you or as far as you were aware anyone else at the bre consider that this fire and the findings we've just discussed might need to be communicated

02:47:26 discussed might need to be communicated to fire and rescue services designers builders and others immediately as a matter of some urgency

02:47:36 it would have been reported to mhclg who would have used their um normal dissemination routes to advise right

02:47:46 right so

02:47:47 so we we bre would not have undertaken that no right so is the position this that you were satisfied that the information could safely remain in the hands of the department

02:47:58 the department and that it was for them to decide what to do with it yes did you express any view to the department that

02:48:08 that the findings from this fire and the conclusions that had been drawn ought to be shared more widely

02:48:15 i i personally know i don't know what the conversations with um the fire investigation team and department were around that right in your witness statement uh we don't need to turn it up page 45

02:48:26 uh we don't need to turn it up page 45 paragraph 277 you say i don't recall having any conversations with anthony bird

02:48:31 bird or brian martin specifically about this fire

02:48:35 fire anthony burb would have been in the department brian martin was still in the bre at this point um

02:48:40 um and you also tell us that you don't recall any discussions with any official any official at mhclg in relation to any aspect of this fire yes i don't i don't recall um

02:48:51 recall um speaking directly to anyone around this as it was done through the fire investigation right um approach

02:48:58 approach do you remember having discussions about changes to the approved document which had been suggested as a result of this fire at the edge in january 2005.

02:49:10 in january 2005. there would have there would have been conversations um resulting from from that yes let's look at a document um clg 3018832

02:49:23 we can see this is an email from brian martin

02:49:26 martin at the bre to anthony bird sent on the 18th of january 2005 and it copies you in

02:49:34 in together with martin ship sam greenwood peter field do you see that and um brian martin's email reads as follows having reviewed the recent cladding fire

02:49:45 having reviewed the recent cladding fire in manchester and having received a number of technical inquiries on this issue

02:49:50 issue sarah sam and i have come to the conclusion that the guidance in adb on external wall construction is in need of clarification this appears to be as a result of

02:50:01 this appears to be as a result of changes in construction practice whereby the intent of the original guidance has been circumvented now just pausing there do you remember this email being sent by brian martin i

02:50:12 this email being sent by brian martin i don't know the recent cladding fire that he refers to in manchester that must be the the fire at the edge in salford yes can we agree that oh yes i would agree and

02:50:23 agree that oh yes i would agree and reading that it would suggest that um brian had been made aware of the findings from that that report but i don't i don't recall having a conversation with him directly about it

02:50:34 conversation with him directly about it yes this email is in fact dated the same day as the fires of special interest report that we've looked at 18th of january 2005. and it would appear clear from brian martin's email that you

02:50:47 martin's email that you had discussed or reviewed that fire with both brian martin and sam greenwood before this email was sent to anthony bird yes

02:50:56 bird yes as i say it it would appear that i have i have been i have had a conversation with him around that i i don't recall that but if that's i say um what's what's stated than that

02:51:08 i say um what's what's stated than that that's obviously the case yeah and it looks like the three of you have come to the conclusion that the guidance in adb is in need of clarification which is which is as was suggested in the um

02:51:20 which is as was suggested in the um findings of that report yes so so far from you not getting involved in adb you've clearly had discussions haven't you at this time about whether or not that guidance is in need of

02:51:31 or not that guidance is in need of clarification i've

02:51:33 i've i've had a conversation i've been to the fire that i've seen what has occurred and i'm

02:51:39 and i'm i'm being asked my opinion and i've made and i've i've made my opinion in that report yes right and and

02:51:46 and and just being more specific what was it that you considered needed to be clarified can you help us with that do you have a memory of what it was you thought should be clarified in adb the

02:51:57 the it would have been as the details in the um

02:52:01 um the client report so paragraph 13.7 and the reference to limited combustibility and what materials that applied to yes if that's what the

02:52:12 if that's what the the context of that previous the fires investigation report were i apologize i haven't got it in front of me to refer back to right this email also goes says at the end of that first paragraph this appears to be

02:52:23 that first paragraph this appears to be as a result of changes in construction practice can you help us what was

02:52:29 what was meant by changes in construction practice

02:52:33 i believe that's referring to the description in the text around the use of the um secondary uh decorative panels right so

02:52:46 secondary uh decorative panels right so i'm really sorry but yeah this is 2005. i'm really struggling to to go back i'm sorry if this isn't as clear as it could be

02:52:53 be that's okay no you understand we want to try and understand clearly this is an important change that comes to approve document b and and we're trying to establish how that

02:53:05 we're trying to establish how that change came about and who was discussing what certainly if we go on to the second paragraph of the email um brian martin writes

02:53:13 writes he says i've i have attached some proposed changes to the current version 12 draft for consultation this still needs some work as in its modified form this would prohibit

02:53:26 modified form this would prohibit timber-framed buildings over 18 metres high exclamation mark however we do feel it is important that something on this matter is included within the consultation to ensure that

02:53:37 within the consultation to ensure that this matter is given due consideration happy to discuss brian yes yes now

02:53:45 now do you remember working with brian martin

02:53:51 and sam greenwood on some proposed wording

02:53:55 wording setting out changes to approve document b

02:53:58 b in the aftermath of this fire i don't but if there's correspondence to that then

02:54:04 that then there is i have no recollection of of being involved in that part of the process okay if we go to the attachment this is at clg3018833

02:54:15 so this is the document that mr martin um attaches and looking at the proposed changes if we go to paragraph 11.8

02:54:25 at the towards the bottom of the page perhaps we could blow that up we can see that he's deleted the words ventilated cavities so that it

02:54:36 the words ventilated cavities so that it reads in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level insulation or any other material used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility do you see

02:54:48 of limited combustibility do you see that yes and you can't tell that from this draft but the words or any other material

02:54:53 material have been added in

02:54:58 so insulation or any other material used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility yes

02:55:11 is this is this provoking any kind of memory in terms of looking at this i'm really sorry no it's not yeah um

02:55:20 um do you agree that the effect of those proposed changes had they been adopted would have been to make clear that any material used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility

02:55:32 combustibility i'm i'm really sorry i

02:55:35 i i can't compute all of this at the same time read it understand it's i have no direct recollection of this period of what is what is happening at this time okay well i think i think the

02:55:47 this time okay well i think i think the only question you're being invited to consider is whether the words or any other material used in the external wall construction would cover everything used in the

02:55:58 would cover everything used in the external wall construction

02:56:06 uh yes yes yes yeah thank you now in mr martin's email we we know from that email that he was considered that these proposed

02:56:18 was considered that these proposed changes still needed some work and the reason he said that is is he said in its modified form this would prohibit timber frame buildings over 18 meters high so it would appear that mr martin was

02:56:30 so it would appear that mr martin was concerned that this initial formulation that was was arrived at might prohibit the use of timber in the external wall because timber's not of limited combustibility is it

02:56:42 of limited combustibility is it correct

02:56:44 correct so if you have those words in it would prevent timber frame buildings yes

02:56:52 um well over 18 meters high it would mean that

02:56:56 mean that timber frames couldn't be used unless they were of limited combustibility and and it looks like he was aware that they weren't yes yes do you remember having that discussion not necessarily at this time but at any

02:57:07 not necessarily at this time but at any other time about the balance between trying to strike the wording such that it caught what you were worried about in the edge fire

02:57:17 fire but perhaps didn't catch say timber which wasn't of limited combustibility do you remember having those discussions

02:57:26 i i'm afraid i don't i don't don't recall this this period

02:57:33 do you recall having any discussions after this time about this change in the light of the the edge fire at salford

02:57:48 [Music]

02:57:58 now we know that the final published version of paragraph 12.5 was different to this we've looked at that already it had the words filler etc in

02:58:08 in can you help us with who proposed the filler wording in approved document b do you have any any memory of who who it was that said well we'll put the word filler in

02:58:19 well we'll put the word filler in instead

02:58:20 instead can you help us with that

02:58:27 given that it's the wording used in the other document maybe it was transferred across from one to the other i i yeah you can't help i i'm um

02:58:38 yeah you can't help i i'm um i don't have a direct recollection of that and you can't help as to why that version of the paragraph containing the words filler material etcetera was not consulted upon

02:58:49 etcetera was not consulted upon no as i said in my which say i thought it was

02:58:53 it was but i'd say um

02:58:56 can you see looking at this now that the wording that was was in fact used filler etc is a lot less clear than this wedding here uh yes

02:59:09 now we don't need to go to it but anthony bird tells us in his witness statement this is at clg 3019461 page 13 paragraph 31

02:59:20 3019461 page 13 paragraph 31 he tells us that that it was in response to this advice given to him by brian martin

02:59:25 martin that amendments were made to paragraph 12.7

02:59:31 12.7 now were you involved in any discussions with anthony bird directly about these changes do you remember that

02:59:40 i don't recall directly having um meeting or conversations around that if if they took place they were probably through through brian who was

02:59:51 through through brian who was leading on on that activity right

02:59:55 right and um

02:59:57 and um where you were aware of uh brian martin providing advice to anthony bird on this matter

03:00:03 matter i would have expected brian to be providing advice yes right okay mr chairman i think that's an appropriate moment yes thank you very much well we'll we'll break there dr conwell uh so we can all get some

03:00:15 dr conwell uh so we can all get some lunch we'll resume please at two o'clock and as before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out of the room all right thank you thank you very much would you go with the usher though please

03:00:37 thank you very much for strange two o'clock in teasers