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

Full transcript

00:00:24 would you ask dr coldwell to come back in please okay

00:00:40 all right dr colwell yes thank you you'll carry on thank you yes yes thank you yes good afternoon dr carl well um we were in the middle of discussing um amendments to approve

00:00:51 discussing um amendments to approve document b in 2006 and if we could pull up another document clg-402685

00:00:58 this is an email dated the 17th of august 2006 from brian martin to you to tom lennon debbie smith copying in

00:01:09 to tom lennon debbie smith copying in peter field and sam greenwood

00:01:14 and we can see that the email reads please find attach the latest drafts of the adb volume 1 dwelling houses and volume 2 other buildings both documents

00:01:25 volume 2 other buildings both documents should be treated as confidential and then it goes on the drafts are beginning to be finalized i've set out below what i need each of you to do

00:01:36 you to do please feel free to look at any other bits that take your interest and then there are names below that um

00:01:44 um and he says at the end of this email can you please get back to me with comments revised text by the 8th of september book your time to the dcld support contract

00:01:55 contract and if we go down to the bottom of the page we can see your name and he says this sarah

00:02:01 sarah can you take another look at the stuff on cladding and cavity barriers do you see that yes i do so it does appear from this email chain that you were involved in these revisions to the

00:02:13 were involved in these revisions to the approved document and were being asked to check the sections on cladding and cavity barriers yes that would appear to be the case yes and when brian martin says can you take another look

00:02:26 can you take another look in the covering email

00:02:35 so i'm just looking for that

00:02:38 i've said that below what i need each of you do please feel free to look at any other bits that take your interest can you get back to me with comments i apologize i'm not sure he does say take another look um do you know what the stuff on

00:02:50 um do you know what the stuff on cladding and cavity barriers was that he wanted you to look at i'm really sorry i don't know okay now i want to move on to some questions now about queries or debates within the

00:03:01 now about queries or debates within the industry about the meaning of the word filler material etc and if we turn first to your witness statement page 106 paragraph 720

00:03:13 statement page 106 paragraph 720 you were asked by the inquiry about any concerns you had in relation to the approved document on external fire spread and at 7 20 just reading the first two lines you say i was becoming increasingly concerned by

00:03:25 i was becoming increasingly concerned by 2016

00:03:27 2016 that the guidance in approved document b in relation to external fire spread was causing discussion over interpretation and i have addressed this in my responses to the relevant questions above

00:03:39 above and you say i felt that the matter was understood by mhclg and that the revision of approved document b would address this now when was the first time that you became aware that the guidance

00:03:50 that you became aware that the guidance was causing discussion over interpretation it would have been around 13

00:03:55 13 around 2013 yes right but not before 2013 do you think

00:04:04 i'm i'm not aware of it becoming a a

00:04:07 a a a debating point in in the way that it was from that period in 13 onwards right and if we look at page 107 the next page paragraph 728

00:04:19 paragraph 728 and you say this you asked whether you were at any stage approach for advice on this subject by any organization or individuals and you say yes i receive numerous requests for advice from organizations

00:04:31 requests for advice from organizations such as bba and individuals over this period i've set out and my answers to the questions above however as bre is a testing and approval body we would not have discussed interpretation of the building

00:04:42 interpretation of the building regulations regarding the suitability or otherwise of the use of combustible materials on buildings with a habitable story over 18 meters in height instead we would have explained that interpretation could only be provided by

00:04:54 interpretation could only be provided by mhclg and building control as this role sat with them the re's only substantive engagement would have been in response to a direct request for testing

00:05:05 request for testing the specification of the testing required would have been the responsibility of those seeking to have the test undertaken so that's what you say about it there in your statement now is that right is that is it right that you did not

00:05:17 that is it right that you did not discuss or provide any advice on the interpretation of the building regulations because that could only ever be provided by mhclg so

00:05:26 so people would ask there would be a discussion around what their their views might be but the ultimate interpretation could only come from mhclg it was not ours to to interpret

00:05:38 mhclg it was not ours to to interpret colony so one could share one one uh

00:05:42 uh one's view but that would not be um the definitive position i appreciate that but um i think what we're seeking to understand is did you share your view yes um about what you thought the

00:05:53 yes um about what you thought the appropriate interpretation was yes yes thank you

00:05:57 thank you now let's look at the witness statement of stuart taylor of wind tech if we could go to win 702 page 55 and we look at paragraph 1 2 4.

00:06:09 4. now um

00:06:11 now um did you know that wintec were a firm of facade consultants yes yeah and what about stuart taylor did you know him did you have a relationship with him professional relationship with him when

00:06:22 professional relationship with him when you were working around this time at the bre i recognized the name i have probably exchanged correspondence with him but i wouldn't um know more than that yeah

00:06:34 know more than that yeah so he tells us this at paragraph one two four he says i became aware of paragraph 12.7

00:06:40 12.7 in adb to in 2007 probably shortly after the document came into effect when i became aware of adb the first clause that i turned to was clause 12.7

00:06:51 clause that i turned to was clause 12.7 and then he goes on in the next paragraphs to outline his thought processes as he read this amended version of 12.7 and i want to pick it up at page 56 and

00:07:02 and i want to pick it up at page 56 and paragraph one two seven he says this because i was responsible for the upkeep of the specification clauses that wintec used in their performance specifications

00:07:13 performance specifications i felt that it was important to fully understand what the full meaning of clause 12.7 was and he says i knew that sarah colwell at the bre was involved in the drafting of adb too so i called her by telephone to

00:07:26 adb too so i called her by telephone to speak to her about that about clause 12.7 when i spoke to sarah i explained that i had read clause 12.7 but i did not fully understand what it meant

00:07:37 not fully understand what it meant sarah told me that the intention of clause 12.7 was to include all elements of the wall including external panels she told me that the clause was not restricted to requiring only insulation

00:07:48 restricted to requiring only insulation to be of limited combustibility this explanation from sarah colwell was the basis of my understanding of clause 12.7 this remained my understanding of that clause from that point onwards do

00:08:00 that clause from that point onwards do you see that yes i do do you recall having a conversation specifically with stuart taylor of wind tech about the meaning of paragraph 12.7 no i don't so you can't help us as to whether that

00:08:11 so you can't help us as to whether that did take place in 2007. i'm afraid i can't know

00:08:18 and you can't help us as to whether this is an accurate summary of what you said to him

00:08:25 given that that is my my understanding as we've already discussed of 12.7 if if there was a conversation that would probably have been the um the some

00:08:36 would probably have been the um the some summary of that but i i have no recollection of of a conversation along those lines or of putting anything that would have been as definitive of that in place right

00:08:49 definitive of that in place right do you remember um being concerned that if a facade engineer was calling you to try to fully understand the meaning of paragraph 12.7 there may well be other readers of the

00:09:00 there may well be other readers of the approved document who were also unsure of the meaning of that clause as i can't recall the context of the conversation i i'm sorry it doesn't follow that that i thought any more of it at

00:09:12 that that i thought any more of it at that point no right following this call do you do you remember at any time discussing the meaning of the word filler material etc in clause 12.7 with anyone else at

00:09:23 etc in clause 12.7 with anyone else at the bre

00:09:28 it would have been a conversation with people like tony and steve howard and debbie in general in general terms of that that type of conversation um around that but

00:09:40 type of conversation um around that but i don't recall it being a direct conversation that we sort of sat down and reviewed right just before we move on i just want to touch on another point that stuart taylor raises in his statement if we go

00:09:52 taylor raises in his statement if we go to page 30 and paragraph 64 of his statement and just look at the first three lines he says this he says wintec knew that organizations within the industry were incorrectly using or proposing k-15

00:10:05 incorrectly using or proposing k-15 on new projects with a story equal to or greater than 18 meters above ground level sometimes on the basis that kingspan had undertaken a single test in accordance with vs8414 part one

00:10:18 in accordance with vs8414 part one and in the last four lines of that paragraph he says i believe that win tech requested the letter from the bre to help us inform others within the industry that test

00:10:29 others within the industry that test report dated 8th of december 2005 was not sufficient to justify the use of k15 on projects which had different cladding designs

00:10:39 designs now so that's the context the use of k15 over 18 meters and a letter requested from the bre about that and then if we look at paragraph 65 below that

00:10:50 below that he says i do not believe that in-person meetings between wintec and the bre occurred in relation to this in the period from 2007 to 2013 i discussed this matter with sarah colwell of the

00:11:02 this matter with sarah colwell of the bre on a few occasions by telephone however i cannot recall when these discussions took place now do you recall any of these conversations in which you were discussing the suitability of k-15 over

00:11:15 discussing the suitability of k-15 over 18 meters with for example stuart taylor of wintec

00:11:21 of wintec i don't know um we wouldn't have been in a position to discuss

00:11:26 discuss um single

00:11:28 um single um

00:11:30 um single company products um

00:11:34 um that have been tested by us um if there were discussions they would and could only be discussing sort of the generic matters around that but i don't recall having a conversation with stuart on those matters in that period right

00:11:46 on those matters in that period right did you remember having sufficient concerns about the use of k-15 over 18 meters

00:11:52 meters to discuss it i mean i know you said you shouldn't generally do that but do you remember being sufficiently concerned that you did have the conversation about i don't recall that because

00:12:05 the the concern would have been in around 2008 with the bba certificate and

00:12:16 from that point onwards i i'm not aware or i have no recollection of discussing it beyond that at that time yes i mean he's saying it's in the period 2007 to

00:12:27 he's saying it's in the period 2007 to 2013. i appreciate that i mean are you saying he's simply wrong about that

00:12:38 i i cannot recall discussing with with stuart uh the use of k15 over 18 meters period at all i'm sorry i have no regulation on that let's move then i'm going to move to november 2013 now and

00:12:51 going to move to november 2013 now and we're going to look at a series of emails between brian martin and your colleague tony baker at the bre into which you stephen howard and debbie smith were copied yes um first of all can you help us what was tony baker's

00:13:03 can you help us what was tony baker's role in 2013 which team was he part of then pacifier right

00:13:10 right now if we go to the emails this is at clg one triple zero five eight nine five and i want to start here we are at the bottom of this chain which is at bottom of page two this is mr baker's email to

00:13:22 of page two this is mr baker's email to brian martin on the 25th of november 2013 and your we can see you and others are copied in and tony baker writes hi brian i hope you are keeping well i hope you can help

00:13:34 you are keeping well i hope you can help with the following we are seeing an increasing number of inquiries in which we are being asked for our opinion slash interpretation of diagram 40 and adb b4 clauses 12.6 and 7 in

00:13:47 40 and adb b4 clauses 12.6 and 7 in relation to the build-up of systems using board finishes and we would like to reach a general understand it means understanding so that we can respond to all parties in the same way

00:13:58 the same way do you see that yes and then there's some bullet points first bullet points systems with board type outer layers the boards are typically 15 to 20 millimeters thick and achiever class b

00:14:09 millimeters thick and achiever class b s3 d2

00:14:11 s3 d2 clause 12.6 guidance references diagram 40 in relation to the classification of the finish which would be acceptable over 18 meters as being b s3 d2 but 12.7 talks about

00:14:24 as being b s3 d2 but 12.7 talks about insulation or filler materials which make up the wall being limited combustibility and then the third bullet as the minimum maximum surface finish is not defined a debate has opened up within the industry

00:14:36 debate has opened up within the industry as to whether or not the boards can be called the finish or the filler and then over the page

00:14:52 he says at the top there of page three based on our experience from the original pii program we would suggest that the definition of the surface finish thickness and filler

00:15:03 finish thickness and filler would assist in clarifying this point and would therefore be grateful for your thoughts best regards tony so that's tony baker's email um

00:15:14 um can you remember discussing this matter with your colleagues with stephen howard debbie smith tony baker and deciding that you needed to send an email to brian martin over it yes

00:15:27 brian martin over it yes and was it the case that the bre themselves had not managed to reach a general understanding on this point by november 2013.

00:15:36 the uh it was it was of concern that we had um an understanding and therefore as

00:15:45 as um

00:15:46 um others were starting to debate around that the uh arbiter of that conversation needed to be mhclg it was not for us to speak on their behalf or to or to work beyond that so we referred back to them

00:15:58 beyond that so we referred back to them to say

00:15:59 to say we're aware of this you need to to intervene at this point yes but as amongst the four of you were you all clear on what the interpretation of those clauses meant or

00:16:11 interpretation of those clauses meant or was there a disagreement even between you and your colleagues as to what it meant i believe we were all clear of that understanding which is what we were sharing in the um in the email in terms

00:16:22 sharing in the um in the email in terms of what we understood and what we were being or was being suggested to us right but i'm not sure um tony baker is actually putting forward a settled position is he he's just saying we'd like to reach a general

00:16:34 just saying we'd like to reach a general understanding about these matters he's not saying this is how we understand it's interpreted do you agree is he no um he

00:16:44 um he it was he was asking the question in in that way yes yeah to to seek the

00:16:51 the opinion from brian right but if you had all been agreed and you all felt it was clear wouldn't the email have been written very differently wouldn't the email have gone along the lines of we're all clear we think it means this do you

00:17:03 all clear we think it means this do you agree industry doesn't seem to but but instead what we get is a series of quite interesting questions being raised about the interpretation of it

00:17:14 about the interpretation of it i think they summarize the questions that are being asked of us i see

00:17:19 i see so your your your evidence is that you at the bre were clear on the interpretation of those clauses yes my my my understanding was we were clear yes

00:17:30 clear yes yeah um you were asked about this in your witness statement if we could look at that page 64 paragraph 410 and you're being asked the specific question did you consider

00:17:43 the specific question did you consider that a definition of the surface finish thickness and filler would assist in clarifying this point if so how would it do that

00:17:49 do that and you respond you say it seemed that this was a matter in respect of which definitions might assist the industry given that bre was being asked about this by the industry as exemplified by

00:18:02 this by the industry as exemplified by the email from andy bester at exhibit and then you give the exhibit reference now we're going to come back in a moment to the email from andy bester

00:18:12 so are you saying that the bre didn't need any clarification but the industry did

00:18:21 i was saying by that that point there needed to be a clear statement because

00:18:27 because there was and there there was um debate

00:18:32 debate ongoing around that yes and and as that debate increased that then obviously uh leads to everyone questioning their understanding and interpretation of it hence the reason we refer back to the

00:18:43 hence the reason we refer back to the department to say are we right or are we wrong yes but are you saying that the bre didn't need any clarification but industry did i believe at that at the point that this

00:18:54 i believe at that at the point that this was being written we had an understanding and that we were seeking to determine given the questions that were being asked of us whether we were correct in that

00:19:05 that and i say

00:19:06 and i say i can't

00:19:08 i can't i can't speak for those for for the other members of the team but my understanding was that we were all at the at that time of a a similar mind and therefore

00:19:20 a similar mind and therefore when asking this question it was a case of

00:19:24 of we're being asked this are we wrong right but just going back to the email that tony baker sends let's look at the bottom of page two of that email string that we were just looking at

00:19:36 looking at so it's clg one three zero five eight nine five page two

00:19:48 he says at the end of that first paragraph we would like to reach a general understand so we can respond to all parties in the same way

00:19:58 same way they're not saying um you're not saying we're being asked this are we wrong in this interpretation are you no no

00:20:06 no no now paragraph 398 back to your statement page 62.

00:20:13 um

00:20:17 sorry page 62 of your statement yeah 398.

00:20:21 398. and you're asked the question did you agree with tony baker that there was a need to reach a general understanding of the position and you said yes in light of the number of inquiries received regarding the

00:20:32 of inquiries received regarding the interpretation of approved document be it seemed that it would be useful to have an understanding of mhcld's interpretation given that it was an mhclg's document and on those inquiries which the bre had

00:20:44 and on those inquiries which the bre had been receiving if we look at 379 back on page 60. you tell us prior to this email general discussions had taken place within bre about the fact that bre was being asked

00:20:56 about the fact that bre was being asked these questions despite approved document b not being a bre document and that the queries should be referred to mhclg

00:21:03 mhclg and then at paragraph 382 you explain you say the discussions would have been with within the passive fire team i was not working in this team on a day-to-day basis and so i was not aware of the full

00:21:14 basis and so i was not aware of the full extent of the discussions within the team but from memory i believe that tony baker stephen howard and debbie smith were aware of these discussions yes yes and then you also say at 387

00:21:27 and then you also say at 387 on page

00:21:28 on page 61. you say from discussions with tony baker and stephen howard i understood that the number of inquiries received by bre began to increase from 2013 onwards is that right yes

00:21:40 is that right yes and asked why the volume of inquiries have begun to increase at 392 at the bottom of that page you say i do not know and i do not recall any specific events at this time in the construction

00:21:51 events at this time in the construction industry that might have prompted the increase in inquiries and you also tell us at 394 um on page 62.

00:22:02 62. look at 62 please um

00:22:06 um you tell us that as far as you understood it the inquiries were being dealt with by the passive fire team so that was tony baker and stephen howard yes yes

00:22:14 yes yes but that you and debbie smith would become involved if partic particular technical queries were raised is that right that's correct now if we could go to the fourth witness statement of tony baker now at bre

00:22:27 statement of tony baker now at bre 3043700

00:22:30 and look at page three paragraph 13. his answer was this he said so he was asked the question in the period prior to 25th of november 2013

00:22:41 period prior to 25th of november 2013 how were those inquiries being handled or responded to by the bre and he says this questions regarding the interpretation of adb with reference to cladding were generally directed to dr

00:22:52 cladding were generally directed to dr sarah colwell due to her experience in this area

00:22:56 this area now is mr baker wrong about that were these inquiries being directed to you at the time because of your experience in the area

00:23:07 i i don't know the volume that we're coming through to tony and steve so if they were if they were directing them to me um

00:23:15 me um then that would have been on the basis that they felt i could i could address them better than they were able to yes perhaps because of your very long experience in this area dating right

00:23:27 experience in this area dating right back to the connelly tests yes now if we go to um bre 3047583

00:23:35 3047583 i promised we'd come back to that this is the email exchange between you and andy bester of trespa which you would exhibit to your witness statement it's in november 2013. now trespa are manufacturers of cladding

00:23:46 trespa are manufacturers of cladding panels including high-pressure laminate boards yes yes and you tell us in your statement we don't need to go to it page 60 paragraph 384 that it was inquiries such as this

00:23:59 384 that it was inquiries such as this one which prompted discussions between you

00:24:01 you and your colleagues within the bre and eventually led to the email to brian martin

00:24:06 martin now if we go down to page three and look at the bottom email on that page sent from

00:24:11 from andy bester to you on the 25th of november 2013 we can see that the subject heading is interpretation that should read of b2 clause 12.7

00:24:24 b2 clause 12.7 and he writes as you are aware i sent you an email on the 18th of october read the above issue and subsequently spoke to you on the 30th since then i've heard

00:24:35 to you on the 30th since then i've heard nothing whilst i appreciate that these things can take time it is becoming very frustrating as more potential clients surmise that trespa meteon fr grade is unsuitable for their

00:24:46 fr grade is unsuitable for their application it appears that there are more and more differing stories developing in the industry and i would like to think that a suitable solution could be forthcoming soon i look forward to hearing from you

00:24:57 soon i look forward to hearing from you so this email is this right was about whether or not the product that andy bester refers to trespa meteon fr grade was suitable for use on the external walls of buildings over 18 meters do you

00:25:08 walls of buildings over 18 meters do you remember that yes

00:25:12 now did you understand trespa meteon fr to be a high-pressure laminate board yes

00:25:19 yes and that

00:25:20 and that was that a material of limited combustibility no no

00:25:26 no no um

00:25:27 um and we can see that you've obviously spoken to andy bester at the end of october about this and this is a chaser email isn't it that's correct why had you not immediately referred andy bester to mhclg given

00:25:40 andy bester to mhclg given what you've told us in your witness statement about the bre's role as a testing house and that all matters of interpretation rested with the department at that time that was when these were

00:25:51 at that time that was when these were increasingly uh coming to the fore and it was a conversation that i had with um tony and steve to see if we could um then engage with the department right

00:26:02 then engage with the department right forward yes so if we move up this chain on page three sorry how do you finish your answer yes yeah if we go at the page on page three we can see from the email above this that you respond

00:26:13 email above this that you respond one minute later at 13 25

00:26:17 at 13 25 on the 25th of november you say i will try and follow this up again this week um now can you help us who are you following her up with uh the discussions internally as to um

00:26:31 uh the discussions internally as to um how to take it to the department is this in fact the reason for tony baker's email to brian martin later that same afternoon that would that was part of that yes yeah

00:26:42 of that yes yeah and if we go up to page two we can see that on the 4th of december 2013

00:26:49 2013 at 14 20 it's at the bottom of that page so it's right at the bottom andy bester follows up again asking anything to report please and in the next email chain you respond

00:27:01 and in the next email chain you respond that day saying um you can see at the top of the page yes there's currently an active dialogue on this topic taking place and a meeting to discuss and agree a conclusion is being arranged yes yes

00:27:14 being arranged yes yes what was the active dialogue that was taking place arranging the meeting with the mhcrg right so that was a meeting between the bre and mhclg yes yes to make them

00:27:27 the bre and mhclg yes yes to make them aware of what was being said

00:27:31 said i see

00:27:32 i see and and you said it was a meeting to discuss and agree a conclusion is being arranged what was your expectation about what that meeting would be doing uh the mhclg would be um aware of that and an

00:27:45 mhclg would be um aware of that and an agreed course of action arising from that yeah

00:27:48 that yeah now if we go to the bottom of page one in the next email sent to you on the fourth of december at 16 42 we can see sorry 1549

00:27:59 at 16 42 we can see sorry 1549 and right at the bottom andy bester basically says any idea on a time scale as i've got clients awaiting the outcome and the next email up you respond and

00:28:10 and the next email up you respond and you say i should have a better idea tomorrow and we'll try to push for a time scale yes yes and why would you have a better idea tomorrow what was happening on the 5th of december 2013

00:28:24 i don't know i don't recall you can't help us on that and and when you say we'll try to push for a time scale push who for a time scale mhclg right

00:28:46 yes and and we don't see it in these emails do we we don't see you you saying either this you're not saying sorry we're a testing house go to the department we can't help

00:28:57 department we can't help nor are you saying well 12.7 is perfectly clear to me let me explain it we don't see either of those things do we no

00:29:05 we no so can we take it from that that in fact you did think at this time that there was something that lacked clarity that the department needed to address

00:29:14 address yes hence the request to meet with them yes

00:29:18 yes and at the top email in this chain just to finish off uh andy bester chases again on the 12th of december 2013 if we look right at the top of page one

00:29:32 hi sarah anything for me please trying to keep the wolves from the door exclamation mark did you ever respond to that email

00:29:42 i don't recall responding to that email directly no do you know why not i mean he was clearly anxious to get an answer about whether his product was meeting the guidance or not

00:29:54 meeting the guidance or not i don't know whether it was followed up with a phone call rather than an email i i really don't recall yeah

00:30:01 yeah and you accepted a moment ago that there was something that lacked clarity that the department needed to address what was it at this point that you felt lack clarity the

00:30:12 the um

00:30:14 um the fact that the industry appeared to be as exampled here interpreting in a in a different way suggested that there needed to be a

00:30:25 there needed to be a statement from the department of what the interpretation of that was yeah and the fact that the industry was reacting in that way suggested that the clause wasn't clear yes yeah the the the industry were obviously

00:30:37 yeah the the the industry were obviously interpreting it in different ways yes

00:30:42 yes let's go back to the chain of emails between tony baker and brian martin this is clg one three zero five eight nine five at the top of page two we can see brian martin's response

00:30:53 we can see brian martin's response it was sent at 15 47 that was just over half an hour after tony baker's email to him

00:31:01 to him and it reads as follows hi tony i see where you are coming from the problem we have with class b is that you can have a thin surface that gives

00:31:12 you can have a thin surface that gives you the performance and back it with something less desirable so there's no such thing as a class b material

00:31:19 material the word filler was introduced because of a particular incident where a polymeric foam was used to keep an aluminium panel stiff the foam was not used for thermal reasons so it wasn't insulation

00:31:31 reasons so it wasn't insulation it's still burned of course exclamation mark exclamation mark exclamation mark sarah will remember the details i'm sure i'm thinking out loud here but i think a homogeneous class b board would be fine

00:31:45 homogeneous class b board would be fine effectively a class b material but a lamination of board with something else should revert to the limited combustibility criteria does that make sense don't quote me on

00:31:57 does that make sense don't quote me on this yet what do you think brian so that was his response what was your reaction to this response we can see you're copied in

00:32:13 i was that was that was not the response i was expecting right what response did you expect um

00:32:20 um a confirmation of the statement as we understood it um

00:32:26 um but as say the the the sense of it didn't quite uh follow through right

00:32:34 right were you concerned that having gone to brian martin because you thought it would be useful to have the department's interpretation he appeared to be undecided on the point and was thinking out loud

00:32:45 and was thinking out loud back to you uh

00:32:47 uh it was it was a slightly odd email to receive yes yes and in fact we can see he was asking for tony baker's input back to him yes yes

00:32:58 tony baker's input back to him yes yes were you aware at the time that tony baker considered brian martin's response to be unsatisfactory that was what he told us in his fourth witness statement

00:33:08 three seven bre zero page nine uh yes so it didn't answer the it didn't give the clarity or direction we were we were seeking

00:33:19 we were we were seeking and was that um in your experience typical of mr martin when you raised these kind of questions with him or was he normally clearer about

00:33:29 about the interpretation of the approved document

00:33:32 document um

00:33:37 it was not always um a definitive statement no no

00:33:41 no so did you quite often get a lack of clarity when you wanted clarity from mr martin at times yes right

00:33:51 and did you have any kind of understanding of why that was that you were often getting a lack of a clear response from him um no um

00:34:05 um no um the

00:34:07 the the feedback um

00:34:12 wasn't necessarily always answering the question as asked

00:34:17 now the particular incident that brian martin was referring to here did you understand that to be the edge fire at salford from january 19 2005. yes i did yeah

00:34:30 now in this email did you understand that brian martin was positing that anything other than a homogeneous class b board should somehow be caught by 12.7 of adb

00:34:42 should somehow be caught by 12.7 of adb and should therefore be of limited combustibility

00:34:47 is that what you understood him to be when he says i'm thinking out loud he says i think a homogenous class b board would be fine do you understand him to be suggesting that that didn't

00:34:58 him to be suggesting that that didn't need to be limited combustibility class b would be fine if it was a homogeneous board

00:35:04 board yes so

00:35:06 yes so yeah on the basis that that um

00:35:09 um i think he's he's implying that the the finish would be the class b board well i think i think the important bit about that sentence isn't it is that it

00:35:20 about that sentence isn't it is that it is a homogenous class b board so what he's saying is a non-composite a board that is a solid a single material doesn't vary yes if that board is tested to class b

00:35:32 to class b he seems to be suggesting that's fine it doesn't need to be of limited combustibility yes yes but he seems to be suggesting in the next sentence but a lamination of board so something which is a composite with

00:35:44 so something which is a composite with something else that needs it needs to be of limited combustibility yes yes

00:35:52 and have had you ever thought about 12.7 in that light before uh yes we were beginning to think about it in that light given the questions that were being asked around it so that was very much where the thought

00:36:04 was very much where the thought processes

00:36:05 processes were um in at that period yes now if we go to another email string bre 3047584

00:36:15 3047584 we can see from the second email in the chain sent at um 1356 on the 25th of november 2013 that before sending his initial email to brian martin tony

00:36:26 his initial email to brian martin tony baker had sent a draft to you um and you can see that he says sarah can you confirm if this is what we're being asked this probably goes a bit further tony and he set out the text of

00:36:37 further tony and he set out the text of an email to you below do you see that yes i do

00:36:43 and we can see from the top email that you send it back to him 25 at 14 50

00:36:50 at 14 50 so

00:36:52 so not long after about an hour later with quite a lot of amendments although they're not marked up

00:36:58 up if one did a comparison you've changed quite a bit in tony baker's draft you can take that from me now we're not going to pick through all your changes but i just want to ask you about what one

00:37:09 about what one in

00:37:12 tony baker's email so second down in the first bullet point

00:37:18 if you go he'd included the words um or the question whether a cladding system with a board type outer layer which is not of limited combustibility

00:37:29 which is not of limited combustibility but with a non-combustible insulation requires classification to bl-135 yes now going up the email and looking at the top of the chain your your redraft

00:37:41 the top of the chain your your redraft those words have been removed and they don't appear to have made their way into the final email which tony baker sent to brian martin can you help us with this just looking

00:37:52 can you help us with this just looking back at what tony baker had drafted in that first bullet point why did you remove that bullet point we go back to sorry back to looking at the bottom part of the page

00:38:15 so that first bullet point there can you help us as to why you didn't ask that question of brian martin

00:38:40 which is

00:38:49 what

00:38:52 i i can't no i i i don't recall why why that i would have taken that question or suggested that question was removed yeah did you know what the answer was at the time to that question because it's quite

00:39:03 time to that question because it's quite a difficult question isn't it so you've got a non-combustible insulation but you've got outer layers in respect to it which is not of limited combustibility i think what's being

00:39:14 combustibility i think what's being asked is is that okay or does that need to go through the full system test in br135

00:39:20 br135 can you help us with what the ants what the bre thought the answer to that was um no um i i'm

00:39:28 i'm could you scroll back up to the yes of course sorry to the redraft

00:39:50 so

00:39:56 i'm sorry no i don't i don't know what where

00:39:59 where my um

00:40:03 redraft right is written in that way okay um

00:40:08 okay um no okay

00:40:10 no okay if we go on to um a different document bre 3047586

00:40:18 where we can see from the second email down

00:40:22 down that on page one you were copied into brian martin's response to tony baker um

00:40:32 yes there um

00:40:35 um and then if we look at the top of the chain

00:40:39 chain we go to the top page you send an email to tony baker and

00:40:48 you send a proposed basically what you do is you send tony baker a proposed reply

00:40:54 reply to send back to brian martin okay and you can take it from me that this email that you send back to tony baker is identical to the one

00:41:05 is identical to the one then that tony baker sends on to brian martin

00:41:09 martin so looking at that email it says hi interesting one euro class b has the potential to propagate flame etc

00:41:17 flame etc the pii and dclg cladding products you use board systems looking at the data and then you go on this would suggest to me that a class a clause 12.6 enhanced diagram 40 is

00:41:29 clause 12.6 enhanced diagram 40 is appropriate for surfaces coatings in the context of a decorative render finish with the remaining system as limited combustible as 12.7 as you say thinking out loud we probably

00:41:41 as you say thinking out loud we probably need to discuss in order to fully resolve sarah colwell and then if we look at clg clg1305895

00:41:52 you can see tony baker's email there on that page copied to you is basically the email that you sent to tony baker yes yes

00:42:07 it's exactly the same email now

00:42:12 now what was the purpose of this wasn't a bit of a waste of time to have tony baker sending your emails why did you not simply email brian martin yourself to ask him these questions

00:42:27 uh tony tony was making the direct contact tony and steve were the lead in that that area at that time um and

00:42:38 i was basically asked for my view i provided that back as a draft response for tony to then work with if he'd if he wanted to update draft or change right so

00:42:49 so i wasn't expecting necessarily a verbatim copy of my email to be sent to brian i would have that if you like was my interpretation of a response that i would have sent to him

00:43:00 would have sent to him i understand um now going back to that correspondence between tony baker and brian martin clg-1305895

00:43:11 we can see the second email from the top

00:43:17 sent on the 3rd of december 2013 by tony baker

00:43:23 baker and

00:43:24 and bearing in mind that you wrote this let's just look at it a little bit more carefully so you say it's an interesting issue and one that we need to resolve one way or the other yes and then euro class b s3 d2 has the

00:43:37 and then euro class b s3 d2 has the potential to propagate flame either as a surface coating or as a homogeneous product and more so if both services are exposed which in the case of systems with these boards can be the case as

00:43:48 with these boards can be the case as they invariably have a cavity between the board and insulation and you go on the pii and dclg cladding products use board systems

00:43:59 products use board systems looking at the data the systems appear to have achieved a range of indicative b and c euro classes depending on substrates and fixings etc when these systems were tested to bs 8414 and the five tests

00:44:12 8414 and the five tests none met the performance criteria in br135

00:44:17 br135 and

00:44:18 and you and tony baker say this would suggest to me that clause 12.6 and hence diagram 40 is appropriate for surface coatings in the context of a decorative render finish i a

00:44:29 finish i a non-substantial component scenario burns off doesn't propagate flame through the system

00:44:35 system with the remaining system requiring limited combustible materials as 12.7 or the system to meet br135 as 12.5

00:44:45 12.5 as you say thinking out loud we probably need to discuss in order to fully resolve would it be possible to arrange a meeting to discuss further

00:44:57 so is this right that according to your assessment of the approved document at the time the sections should be read to mean that certain surface coatings on the very external face of the

00:45:08 on the very external face of the external wall arrangement um need only meet the requirements in diagram 40 yes yes but that the remainder of the system used should meet the limited combustibility criteria in

00:45:19 the limited combustibility criteria in 12.7 yes

00:45:56 sorry sorry

00:45:58 sorry oh i'm so sorry i missed the answer um

00:46:02 um if we move to the final paragraph of tony baker's email to brian martin um

00:46:08 um tony baker is suggesting a meeting to discuss in order to resolve yes yes and if we look at brian martin's response at the top of the page on the same day he says happy to have a chat probably not

00:46:19 says happy to have a chat probably not this side of christmas this is on the 3rd of december 2013. i think it's important to remember that we never expected the adb rules to result in a system that would always

00:46:32 result in a system that would always pass the br135 criteria do you see that i do

00:46:38 what did you understand the final sentence of that email to mean we can see you are copied in

00:46:45 i'm not sure i don't i don't um

00:46:52 i don't quite follow the um the understanding of of the point that was being made in that final uh final sentence no i mean on one reading what it means is

00:47:04 i mean on one reading what it means is that the what we've come to know is the linear route that the the if you follow the the prescriptive guidance in approved document b that that was never expected to result in a system which would always pass

00:47:17 in a system which would always pass the large-scale fire test yes that's one reading of it one reading of it yes i don't agree that's an extraordinary proposition isn't it i would agree yeah

00:47:29 i would agree yeah given that we've already as we've already discussed given the extent of flaming that you can get even on a successful 8414 test i

00:47:39 i i i don't understand that comment no do you remember having a reaction to it when it was sent

00:47:50 uh not particularly i i i think i looked at it with happy to have a chat and and sort of result that we would discuss whatever the comment was i i didn't

00:48:02 whatever the comment was i i didn't um

00:48:04 reading it again now in the context of of where we are that that reads in a uh in a way that i didn't recognize it at that time yes do you remember did anyone go back to

00:48:16 do you remember did anyone go back to him immediately and say what do you mean the adb rules really also result in a system that would always pass the bl-135 criteria i don't believe anybody went back now no

00:48:28 back now no wha why not can you help us with that i

00:48:31 i i think it it was probably read and

00:48:38 and left to

00:48:39 left to to when we met to discuss right now thinking about that meeting do you remember attending a meeting with brian martin

00:48:47 martin which we've seen it was being discussed in december 2013 for this issue to be fully resolved do you remember that meeting yes i do can you remember what was discussed uh the

00:49:00 points raised in the in the email um and how that would be um be addressed did you make any notes of the meeting i'm not aware of any notes no right

00:49:14 i'm not aware of any notes no right and how was the matter resolved how was it left at the end of the meeting my understanding was that um brian was looking to pick that up as the next resolution of the um

00:49:28 next resolution of the um a.d

00:49:29 a.d which was being discussed at that time that the um there was an expectation that it would be

00:49:36 be uh moving to to review

00:49:40 to review and that would be picked up as one of the items in that right he said that to you at the meeting today that was my understanding from that meeting that we would move from with it from that point and did the bre

00:49:51 and did the bre express these points as concerns to brian martin that you were concerned that industry was confused about this and you had concerns about it yes how did you express those concerns can

00:50:02 how did you express those concerns can you help us we basically explained to him what was happening what we were being asked and it was

00:50:08 it was um

00:50:10 um whilst we we were able as said to to discuss

00:50:14 discuss the aed with people it was not we weren't in a position to make a definitive um

00:50:20 um interpretation of it because that was outside the role available to us but um our

00:50:26 our our understanding was as as we set out and that if we were wrong we needed to know that right did anybody discuss what the potential uh wider public safety

00:50:39 potential uh wider public safety implications might be if this matter were not clarified quickly

00:50:46 given that we'd raised it with them i i i'd taken the assumption that they would they would undertake the necessary steps to to do that having been made aware of it

00:50:57 it i see

00:50:58 i see and did did mr martin appear to be taking your concerns seriously at this meeting

00:51:04 meeting uh yes

00:51:06 uh yes he understood the point that was being made and um had um

00:51:12 um appeared to to take on board that that was the sort of the next steps and actions arising arising from that right and did he give you any idea during that meeting about when any review of

00:51:23 meeting about when any review of approved document be but might be in which he would pick this up as an item unfortunately not and with hindsight that's

00:51:31 that's probably one of the biggest areas of of concern that we never really pushed for for that clarity yes um

00:51:40 um and just to be clear who else was at this meeting um as well as you and brian martin tony baker yeah

00:51:47 yeah um

00:51:49 um we we see there's a an a meeting invite um if you go to clg one three zero five nine five three we do have a meeting invites very short

00:52:05 clg one three zero five nine five three uh it appears to be a meeting invite being sent uh by brian martin for a meeting at ellen house

00:52:16 ellen house ellen house was where mhcld were based yes at this time yeah and the required attendees are tony baker and yourself and then an optional attendee is stephen howard are you clear that stephen howard

00:52:28 howard are you clear that stephen howard didn't attend i don't recall him attending right and we can see the title at the bottom of the page a discussion over the application of re adb clause 12.6 and 12.7 yes yes

00:52:41 re adb clause 12.6 and 12.7 yes yes we don't need to go to it but mr martin tells us in his witness statement paragraph 116 that he does not have any recollection of the meeting nor any record of it um tony baker in his fourth witness

00:52:54 um tony baker in his fourth witness statement to the inquiry confirms that a meeting did take place at ellen house with you and him and brian martin um but he's unable to recollect anything of substance about what took place

00:53:05 of substance about what took place and the only other thing tony baker does tell us at paragraph 78 of his statement is that it was quite an informal meeting do you remember it being informal uh

00:53:15 uh me

00:53:16 me meetings as that type with uh brian tended to be of a fairly informal nature yeah and just describe that what does that mean informal um it was very

00:53:27 does that mean informal um it was very much a case of what was the problem what was the concern and what were we what were the steps to to move that forward and it was a sort of an information exchange rather than a

00:53:38 than a formally minuted noted meeting right yes because it would appear that there's no written record of this meeting no notes i mean wasn't it quite an important meeting that the bre ought to

00:53:51 important meeting that the bre ought to have been taking notes from it with hindsight yes

00:53:58 and at the end of the meeting did you consider that the matter had been resolved or did you consider that you just opened a dialogue and there would be further developments

00:54:09 there would be further developments that i

00:54:10 that i i unders my understanding was that it was um

00:54:15 it was um going to be taken forward as part of the the review when the review was forthcoming and they were aware of that right but whether they were going to take any intermediate action ahead of

00:54:27 take any intermediate action ahead of that that wasn't discussed in or or agreed yeah at that meeting did mr martin accept that the clause was unclear

00:54:38 that the clause was unclear he accepted that it could be better written yes yes yeah and did you indicate to him that it was causing a discussion a consternation within industry we were we we took the example cited that was the

00:54:50 cited that was the as we had for um andy uh best of from the transfer um

00:54:56 um as an example of of of what needed um all the conversations that were going on at that time yeah and did you find out for example whether a homogenous class b material would be

00:55:08 a homogenous class b material would be fine

00:55:09 fine but a composite material would not be did you did you get answers or any answers to your questions we didn't get definitive answers to the questions right

00:55:24 um and tony baker also tells us in his fourth witness statement in paragraph 83 he says my recollection is that the issue was not resolved at the meeting but that dr sarah cole and i hope that

00:55:36 but that dr sarah cole and i hope that brian martin and hence mhclg would be better informed of the confusion surrounding these paragraphs of adb that's 12.6 and 12.7 so they could take it into a

00:55:47 so they could take it into a consideration in future guidance or faqs yes yes

00:55:52 yes yes now was the possibility of putting an faq a frequently asked question response out there

00:56:00 out there for industry discussed at this meeting i don't recall it being discussed at that meeting no right you can't recall anybody raising that no um

00:56:11 that no um my

00:56:12 my my recollection is as as tony's that it would take be taken forward as a um

00:56:18 um as a revision right

00:56:20 right now i want to go now to some correspondence from april 2014. if we go to bre three zeros four seven four five nine

00:56:28 nine and if we look at the bottom of page two and the first email in the chain it's an email from someone called brenda apted um at the cwct

00:56:40 um at the cwct it's sent to you on the 24th of april 2014

00:56:44 2014 and she writes she says dear sarah cwct currently provides guidance on fire performance in technical note 73 fire performance of curtin walls and rain screens copy attached

00:56:55 screens copy attached this explains the requirements of the building regulations and suggests how these requirements can be satisfied and then she goes on we have had numerous inquiries in recent months regarding fire and facades

00:57:07 regarding fire and facades issues that have been raised include and then she sets out a list of subjects over on if we go to page three of this string

00:57:18 string a list of those inquiries that they've had

00:57:22 had first bullet point is the use of combustible insulation in facades particularly rain screens this is causing problems due to the greater thickness of insulation that is required if limited combustibility materials have

00:57:33 if limited combustibility materials have to be used and at the fourth bullet point you can see performance of composite panels such as acm is also on their their list yes yes and directly under that first list

00:57:45 yes and directly under that first list of bullet points we can see that she writes we propose to hold a meeting to discuss the issues of fire and facades too and then she says the aims are get a wider industry view

00:57:56 wider industry view establish the adequacy adequacy and appropriateness of existing regulations establish whether alternative solutions are available establish what actions cwc should take so the cwct is clearly one

00:58:10 should take so the cwct is clearly one thinking about that maybe it should take some action in relation to these issues yes yes

00:58:15 yes yes um

00:58:17 um and then she goes on depending on the outcome of the meeting we would propose to establish a working group to oversee the development of cwct work

00:58:26 work in this area the working group would be drawn from those present at the initial meeting but may include others with specialist knowledge if appropriate and then in the final paragraph she invites you

00:58:37 invites you to their initial meeting do you see that yes let us know if you'd like to be involved by their date in may um do you remember this correspondence

00:58:49 um do you remember this correspondence yes

00:58:50 yes had you been aware prior to this that the cwct was receiving inquiries on these subjects before you actually got this email had people talk to you about this before

00:59:02 people talk to you about this before i believe then there may have been some um some correspondence but i can't remember any specific detail to that

00:59:12 to that had you had any discussions with brian martin about the fact that the cwct as well

00:59:17 well was receiving queries about these topics no not at that point if we can bring up um another document clg 3031072

00:59:36 clg three zeros three one zero seven two

00:59:44 so here we can see from the bottom email in the chain that we've got the same email from brenda aptid which you'd received on the 24th of april

00:59:56 april but sent by her to brian martin earlier that day do you see that yes his response to the cwct on the same day if we go to the top email on page one

01:00:11 we can see that he's copied you and somebody called neil butterworth of arab into this email and he says this hi brenda i'd be happy to help where i can

01:00:23 to help where i can you might also wish to contact neil butterworth at arab and sarah colwell at bre both copied in they both have an interest in this subject and i think they have been looking into some of these issues quite

01:00:34 looking into some of these issues quite recently do you see that yes and was it fair for mr martin to say that you had an interest in these topics yes

01:00:43 yes when had you last before this email discussed any of those matters listed in brenda apted's email with brian martin at the meeting at helen

01:00:54 at helen house so the meeting that we were just discussing yes on the 30th of january 2014 yes right

01:01:07 so and brian martin was he right to say that you've been looking into some of these issues quite recently

01:01:15 i've i'm assuming he's referencing the january meeting right if we look at her list we can see it at the bottom of the page so the first bullet is use of combustible insulation and facades

01:01:27 combustible insulation and facades particularly rain screens causing problems due to the greater thickness of insulation that's required if limited combustibility have to be used how do you be looking into that

01:01:42 we were looking into the queries that were arising around the

01:01:51 the questions of of of the different types of systems so um weren't looking at each of those individual points as rays no right i see what about the performance of composite panels such as acms had you been looking

01:02:03 panels such as acms had you been looking into that

01:02:04 into that no and the performance the one one before that the third bullet the performance and location of cavity barriers in rain screen walls

01:02:14 there was no specific activity going on looking into those individual bullet points right but you had as we know had these discussions about 12.6 and 12.7 of adb yes yes

01:02:27 now going back to the earlier email string if we go back to bre three zeros four seven four five nine and we go up the chain to the middle of page two

01:02:37 page two there's an email um

01:02:40 um sent on the 24th of april 2014 that you send to stephen howard david gall and tony baker yes yes

01:02:51 gall and tony baker yes yes who is david gall can you help us with that uh he's a member of uh bre staff in which team um not part of the fire group

01:03:00 group right so why was he being copied in uh

01:03:06 there was i think they were referred to building technology group at that time were involved with cwct so it was just an information okay exchange and we can see

01:03:18 information okay exchange and we can see debbie smith is also copied in yes and was debbie smith your line manager at this point this is april 2014 yes and you write um this is something we

01:03:29 and you write um this is something we need to be aware of and should consider being involved with because of the increasing number issues similar to those identified below which we are being asked by industry it also follows on from the discussion

01:03:41 it also follows on from the discussion tony and i have with brian earlier in the year which suggested that dclg would be keen to see this type of document produced and then referenced in the faq area

01:03:50 area on the dclg website now just looking at that last part does that help you as to whether or not you might have discussed an faq

01:04:00 an faq with brian martin when you met him in january 2014 yes that that that may well have been a trigger

01:04:09 trigger for

01:04:10 for for brian to be able to reference an industry document yeah um

01:04:16 um and you refer in the first um paragraph to the fact that you had been there was an increasing number of issues similar to those identified below which we are being asked by industry

01:04:28 being asked by industry can you just help us what were those similar issues you were referring to so again it refers back to the type of questions being asked by transfer right

01:04:36 right yes

01:04:40 and

01:04:43 you say we are being asked by industry so it was it was by people like trespa you're talking about there yes anybody else in industry who were asking those questions of you um

01:04:56 questions of you um there were questions um i

01:05:01 the timelines are a little um

01:05:04 um chronologically maybe slightly incorrect but um

01:05:08 but um there were requests from some of the consult uh consulting specifiers for discussions around um 8414 and how it was used yeah and it was there was just a lot more

01:05:21 it was there was just a lot more noise in the industry around the around the whole activity yes and um following the meeting with brian martin on the 30th of january 2014 who at the bre had been dealing with those

01:05:32 at the bre had been dealing with those queries were they still being directed to you i think they were they were being mixed within the team right and if we move now in your email on page two

01:05:48 sorry no i've covered that we've seen that there's talking about the faq and what did you understand in relation to that faq about who might be responsible for producing any such

01:05:59 responsible for producing any such document

01:06:01 document dclg right so you think now that you did discuss it at that meeting but that it was left with dclg to draft my my recollection around that the meeting

01:06:13 my recollection around that the meeting um at that time was that we had left it with them to determine

01:06:19 determine what they were going to do with it the

01:06:22 the number of that conversation was around revision in the next a.d i don't

01:06:29 i don't explicitly recall how the

01:06:32 how the how the the faq part came to to be but if that's what i've written which was much closer in timelines to to that meeting then that would have been being part of that conversation yeah

01:06:45 being part of that conversation yeah and and you're saying it follows on from the discussions you'd had with brian um earlier in the year which suggested that dclg would be keen to see this type of document produced yes

01:06:57 of document produced yes um

01:06:58 um so is it right that brian martin had been keen earlier in the year for a document detailing the types of matters listed in brenda actor's email to be prepared and published on the department's website

01:07:11 on the department's website i

01:07:12 i i think brian was looking for um

01:07:19 some form of

01:07:22 reference point if um

01:07:27 if um that was identifying the concerns in the way that we had

01:07:33 when you say he was looking for some form of reference point do you mean some form of guidance to be able to point people to

01:07:39 people to that would answer these questions i'm not sure i can't really speak for him in terms of what he he expected that reference document to contain um i

01:07:51 i it was

01:07:52 it was as as we've i said a very loose conversation around what options solutions might be there to to to present that and as i say

01:08:04 and as i say my

01:08:05 my my interpretation was that some form of document that could then be called up might be one that was suitable for dcrg's use right i see

01:08:16 right i see now if we go um to page one in this string of emails and we look at the third email down on page one

01:08:30 sorry we need to go to a different string

01:08:32 string we return to bre three zeros four seven four five nine that's it and we can see debbie smith sends an email at uh on the 24th of april 2014

01:08:45 email at uh on the 24th of april 2014 and 1842 to to you and stephen howard copying in david

01:08:51 david tony baker and someone called irene st george who was irene george debbie's secretary right i see and we can see she writes this whoa

01:09:02 and we can see she writes this whoa exclamation mark this looks very dangerous we need to discuss our strategy to ensure that we don't end up handing the fire safety mantle to cwct

01:09:15 fire safety mantle to cwct a competitor losing the need for br135 bs8414 etc etc etc

01:09:23 etc i will get irene to set up a meeting thanks debbie do you see that yes i do that's quite a strong reaction would you agree it was yes yes

01:09:36 would you agree it was yes yes what was your reaction at the time to receiving that email from debbie smith i was um i was a little surprised yes

01:09:45 yes i mean we've been through the issues that brenda acted had set out in her email to you can we agree that all of those are important fire safety matters yes

01:09:58 important fire safety matters yes and many of them are extremely important in terms of public safety yes yes what did you understand when you got this email debbie smith to mean by this looks very dangerous

01:10:14 i'm i'm i'm not sure in in in the context of

01:10:25 in in in the context of um

01:10:26 um whether she meant of what danger she was referring to um

01:10:31 um [Music]

01:10:34 the

01:10:37 when in responding i sort of set out what i understood the position to be in case she had perhaps taken a different reading of the of the document below yes we'll come we'll come to your

01:10:48 below yes we'll come we'll come to your response in a moment and but it's fair it's fair to point out how you responded and

01:10:53 and did you agree at the time that cwct was the bre's competitor no

01:10:59 no no

01:11:00 no i'm sorry no my apologies no i i that's why i responded in the way that i did because cwct were

01:11:12 body at that point and um i can only assume that there was a concern that they would write some form of

01:11:21 of documentation that might overarch the um

01:11:28 or in some way um take a route that was different to ad the adv i don't know about yes

01:11:35 about yes i'm surmising that yeah i didn't discuss it with her specifically at the time yes that they might possibly put out some guidance in this area and fill the space

01:11:46 guidance in this area and fill the space yes

01:11:47 yes um what did you understand how to mean by the word fire safety mantle she says we've got to ensure that we won't end up handing the fire safety mantle to cwct what did you understand how to mean by that

01:12:01 i um

01:12:04 um i'm unclear i i'm not sure what what the scope of that mantle was that she was was she was thinking right did you perhaps think it meant um the bre's reputation its standing its

01:12:18 the bre's reputation its standing its um

01:12:19 um activity in this space in terms of external wall guidance that she was referring to [Music]

01:12:29 [Music] i wouldn't i wouldn't have thought thought that because cwct already had a position in that in that space so it wasn't as though they were stepping into anything beyond that um

01:12:40 stepping into anything beyond that um [Music]

01:12:41 [Music] well she's obviously worried isn't she she's she's she is concerned abs absolutely yeah and she seems to be concerned about losing the need for br135 and bs8414 yes

01:12:54 br135 and bs8414 yes yes

01:12:57 so um doesn't it appear that she might have been concerned that whatever guidance they might put out would somehow lose the need for br135 classification

01:13:09 lose the need for br135 classification and 841 for large-scale testing yes that yes that could could well be an interpretation of that statement

01:13:21 yes did you understand how the establishment of a working group made up of individuals with specialist knowledge to discuss action to be taken about important matters of fire safety life

01:13:32 important matters of fire safety life safety

01:13:33 safety might lead to the loss of the need for br135 and bs8414 did you understand that no i didn't but in 2014 the bre was the only

01:13:44 but in 2014 the bre was the only organization in england capable of carrying out full-scale testing to 8414 wasn't it at that time yes do you think there was a concern at the bre that there might be a suggestion that

01:13:55 that combustible materials be restricted or even banned for use over 18 meters which would

01:14:01 would make testing to 8414 redundant

01:14:05 redundant um i wasn't aware of that that type of discussion taking place now right did you

01:14:13 did you think that the concerns she was expressing in this email were were really commercial ones rather than concerns about anything else to do with safety

01:14:29 i honestly didn't review it in that much detail

01:14:33 detail um

01:14:35 um at that point right

01:14:39 right but but the danger she's warning of appears to be about losing bre income streams ibr135 and bs8414 yes

01:14:58 that that that may well that may well be one route

01:15:03 route now in the final sentence she says that she's going to get uh irene who you've said with her pa to set up a meeting um

01:15:12 a meeting with who did a meeting actually go ahead i don't recall one

01:15:20 one directly going ahead no she talks about we need to discuss our strategy

01:15:27 strategy did you ever discuss with debbie smith or anyone else at the bre having a strategy

01:15:33 strategy in respect of this cwct initiative no i don't

01:15:38 don't were you ever given any instructions or direction from debbie smith or anyone else about how you should engage with the cwct going forward

01:15:49 going forward no

01:15:53 so um did it just fizzle out this this suggestion of a strategy meeting

01:16:02 i don't recall a strategy meeting taking place

01:16:09 place around around this point i think we continued the email exchange right so if we move up the chain

01:16:21 right so if we move up the chain we can see your reply which you sent um that evening you said um this document has been around for several years and was focused on curtin wall issues the problem is now the

01:16:33 wall issues the problem is now the issues we are seeing in the industry and that are not clearly defined in adb hence our meeting with dclg earlier in the year and their suggested faq route

01:16:44 the year and their suggested faq route this cwct revision would fit with that approach

01:16:48 approach we used to have good links to cwct via btg but i'm not sure who's taking it on now i'll follow up with julie do you see that yes

01:16:59 that yes now and so in fairness to you this response doesn't suggest that you thought there was anything dangerous about cwct's plans does it no you just don't pick up on that comment by her do you no

01:17:11 by her do you no and when you talk about this document in the first line this document's been around were you referring to cwct's technical note 73 from 2011 yes um was that a document you were familiar

01:17:23 um was that a document you were familiar with at this time i was aware i was a very apologetic i was aware of his existence i was not familiar with it right and in in the last lines of your email

01:17:35 and in in the last lines of your email you refer to we we used to have good links to cwct via btg who's btg building technology group right and what was that building technology group there was

01:17:46 building technology group there was another group within uh bre right and um the reference to julie i'll follow up with julie is that julie bragula that's correct director of fire sciences when smith uh

01:17:58 director of fire sciences when smith uh debbie smith became managing director in 2016 yes yes now um so you're saying there the problem is now the issues we are seeing in industry and that they're not clearly

01:18:10 in industry and that they're not clearly defined in adb so it does appear at this point that you felt that there wasn't clear definition within adb yes yes this is building on the conversations that we'd had with

01:18:21 the conversations that we'd had with the department yes

01:18:25 yes and was one of those issues the interpretation of 12.7 and the meaning of the word filler it was that to do with uh 12.6 and 12.7 yes

01:18:36 yes right and when you write when you refer to their faq route and their suggested faq route

01:18:43 faq route looking at the wording does that suggest that um consistent with what you've told us just earlier that it was the department's suggested faq route

01:18:52 faq route yes yes

01:18:54 yes yes now moving up the chain we see a last response from debbie smith to you at the top of the chain on page one sent the following morning if we could just look at that

01:19:04 at that and she says um there's sarah i suspect that no one has picked up the links and that is another reason why it could be a threat

01:19:12 threat we need to consider what we are going to do is we don't want everyone going to cwct with their fire issues in the future

01:19:19 future i recall we'll need to check that we had a draft ihs publication in this area depending on where it is could that be reviewed to address a number of these issues question mark

01:19:32 issues question mark now um

01:19:33 now um did you agree with what she'd written there she says i suspect no one's picked up the links and that's another reason why it could be a threat did you agree that it was a threat

01:19:45 picked up the links i'm not sure what the links

01:19:56 just picked up links

01:20:17 i'm i'm i'm a little um i'm a little confused by what she's um suggesting in that yes it sounds like you don't understand what she means by no one has picked up the links is that right that's correct yeah so you can't

01:20:30 right that's correct yeah so you can't help us with what she means or what you think she meant by that no i think i suggest i didn't pick up the link yes no

01:20:38 yes no um

01:20:39 um did you share debbie smith's view that we don't want everyone going to cwct with their fire issues in the future did you share that view

01:20:48 i i wasn't aware that fire issues were that the industry that we were working with were going to see wct for their fire for their fire issues so that's why i was

01:20:59 was perhaps a little confused by the response that was was coming from this right yes i see and she's referring to this draft ihs publication in this area do you know what she's referring to

01:21:11 do you know what she's referring to there

01:21:12 there what was that

01:21:15 i think there was an outline document that was um

01:21:22 um being produced for the trust at one time that was um that was never published because uh the third edition of

01:21:34 the third edition of 135 was produced right and do you ever remember discussing with her afterwards whether or not the bre could pick up that publication that draft

01:21:45 publication that draft and refresh it and and maybe use it to address a number of these issues was that ever discussed

01:21:53 it may it may well have been discussed but i don't ever remember any action taking it forward coming from that okay thank you mr chairman is that a good moment forever it is yes thank you very much

01:22:03 much we'll have a break now dr coldwell we'll come back please at 20 to 4 and then we'll see what's left then all right thank you and as i said before please don't talk to anyone about your

01:22:14 please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're at the room thank you

01:22:32 right thank you 24 please

01:39:55 would you ask dr colwell to come back in please thank you

01:40:10 all right dr caldwell thank you yes mr screams yes thank you now we know that following the invitation that you received from brenda apted you did attend the cwct's fire group meeting on the 2nd of july 2014

01:40:23 group meeting on the 2nd of july 2014 yes that's correct um and in the period between the email exchange we've just read through between you and debbie smith in april 2014 and the meeting on the 2nd of july um did you go on to consider with debbie

01:40:35 um did you go on to consider with debbie smith

01:40:36 smith anything about what you're going to do to stop everyone at the cwct going sorry stop everyone going to the cwct with their fire issues was there any further discussion about that i don't recall

01:40:47 discussion about that i don't recall anything

01:40:48 anything no um let's bring up the minutes of the meeting on the second of july it's at clg three zeros one nine three three six

01:41:07 here we have the minutes of that meeting on the 2nd of july and a list of those that were present and we can see that you are third in the list do you see that sarah colwell bre that's

01:41:19 do you see that sarah colwell bre that's correct and if we go down to page three under the heading combustibility of insulation

01:41:26 we can see on page three

01:41:31 we go down to page three

01:41:48 is there a problem with the system

01:41:52 i think the system's going very slowly

01:41:57 here we go so there's a heading in the middle of that page combustibility of insulation and it says below that if we could just blow that up a bit bigger

01:42:08 blow that up a bit bigger limited combustibility insulation should be used above 18 meters when following the prescriptive requirements of adb clause 12.7 but other materials principally foil face phenolic foam are often used in rain screen walls there is

01:42:21 often used in rain screen walls there is a degree of ignorance with some people confusing class naught with limited combustibility in other cases building control officers are permitting the use of class naught materials making it difficult for cladding consultants to enforce the

01:42:33 cladding consultants to enforce the requirement for limited combustibility insulation and then it goes on higher standards of thermal insulation are requiring greater thicknesses of insulation and in some cases this can only be

01:42:44 and in some cases this can only be achieved with the designated wall zone within the designated wall zone by use of combustible insulation architects are unaware of the problem and need to allow a wider wall zone to accommodate the

01:42:55 a wider wall zone to accommodate the greater thickness required with limited combustibility material now

01:43:01 now you were asked about this in your statement

01:43:03 statement and at page 72 paragraph 475 you said you didn't have any particular recollection of this part of the meeting and so cannot add to what's set out in the minutes is that still the case today

01:43:14 the minutes is that still the case today that's correct um if we look at your statement at page 73 paragraph 479 you say yes i did agree in july 2014

01:43:26 you say yes i did agree in july 2014 that other materials principally foil face phenolic foam were often used in rain screen walls yes yes and then at paragraph 480 below that you say foil faced phenolic foam is a

01:43:38 say foil faced phenolic foam is a generic description of a product manufactured by a number of companies and as such i did not take it to be referring to any particular product is that right yes and you confirm at paragraph 481

01:43:51 and you confirm at paragraph 481 that you were a whale that aware that foil-faced phenolic foam was a combustible material yes yes and then immediately below that h you were asked whether you considered in july 2014 that

01:44:04 whether you considered in july 2014 that a phenolic foam insulation material could or should be used in an external wall arrangement of a building over 18 meters

01:44:12 meters and you said i considered that it could be used as part of a system tested to bs 8414 and classified using br135 yes yes

01:44:21 yes yes now in july 2014 as far as you were aware had very many different systems which incorporated phenolic foam insulation being tested successfully to 8414 and

01:44:33 being tested successfully to 8414 and classified to be r135 uh

01:44:37 uh there there were not many that i was aware of no no can you give us an indication of how many even roughly no i'm sorry i can't

01:44:49 so did you understand at the time that every building being discussed here over 18 meters using phenomenal foam in a rain screen system would have had to have been tested

01:44:59 tested in that specific system in the same configuration to that in the 8414 test my my understanding is if it was being used over 80 meters it would have to

01:45:10 used over 80 meters it would have to have

01:45:10 have had a suitable 135 certificate with it did you assume that that was what had been done for every such high-rise building

01:45:18 building i assumed that there would be 135 classification evidence yes right and did you check with any of your colleagues whether there were lots of other systems which could provide that

01:45:29 other systems which could provide that test evidence

01:45:32 at the time of that meeting no i i didn't um

01:45:37 didn't um uh

01:45:38 uh i i didn't have any reason to go back and check right i see you've told us already that you were not aware before this point of any confusion or of there being a degree of ignorance

01:45:50 or of there being a degree of ignorance about class norton limited combustibility yes uh no i wasn't aware that the the classo was being confused with limited combustibility um in the way that it was

01:46:01 combustibility um in the way that it was being uh discussed in that meeting right and were you surprised when you learned about this at the meeting yes you're relaxing i was were you concerned about it yes

01:46:13 and if we go back to the minutes at clg three zeroes one nine three three six and to the final heading on page three we've got use of acm on high-rise buildings

01:46:23 buildings and we can see it says acm refers to aluminum composite material the normal material consists of two skins of aluminium approximately 0.5 millimeter thick separated by a polyethylene core

01:46:34 thick separated by a polyethylene core two to five millimeters thick this material generally achieves the reaction to fire classification of class naught or class b s1 d-naught there are versions available with a

01:46:45 there are versions available with a mineral core which can achieve a2 s1 d-naught there are also similar materials available with other metals such as copper used for the facing do you have that yes i do

01:46:56 you have that yes i do now pausing there and just thinking about the date on which you read these minutes um you were already aware of the existence of acm panels of the type being described here yes yes we could

01:47:07 being described here yes yes we could have seen that from the use of that type of product in the tests carried out in 2001 under contract 1924 yes for which you were the project manager yes

01:47:19 now in your witness statement you tell us at page 75 paragraph 499 that you can't specifically recall this part of the meeting and you've not identified any documentation

01:47:30 any documentation to assist

01:47:31 to assist um and you also tell us that you can't recall whether brian martin was present at this part of the meeting what acm product was being discussed as the normal material

01:47:42 the normal material you can't help help us as to who it was who stated that the material normally achieved class naught you can't tell us whether or not you agreed that the material didn't normally achieve class naught

01:47:55 achieve class naught etc so um does it remain the case that you have simply no recollection about this discussion i have very um limited recollection of this this meeting taking place and the

01:48:07 this this meeting taking place and the minutes um are my my reference point to the discussions that were held around it right

01:48:15 right um

01:48:16 um you said in your witness statement as well that you weren't able to give any examples of acm pe products which could achieve

01:48:22 achieve class naught or euro class b but what about the acm product you tested in july 2001 as part of your work for the department that would be an example of an acm pe product which achieved class naught yes

01:48:35 product which achieved class naught yes i

01:48:36 i but i was unable to chase the um actual manufacturer of that so in in terms of it exampling the the product i wasn't able to do so do you remember mentioning to the meeting and

01:48:47 remember mentioning to the meeting and saying ah well we do have some some experience of doing a large-scale test on acmpe

01:48:54 on acmpe it passed class naught but it was a disaster on the rig do you remember saying that to the meeting um no i don't and um i i don't um i don't recall that

01:49:08 i i don't um i don't recall that right that that that being part of the com the conversation in the way that the minutes are are reflected either right isn't it odd that you didn't volunteer that knowledge

01:49:20 that you didn't volunteer that knowledge given that that knowledge was so pertinent

01:49:22 pertinent to these concerns being raised by this group

01:49:30 in the context of the meeting i can only assume it wasn't something that was was a discussion point that was was was

01:49:40 was being raised right were you ever told by the department that you couldn't discuss the results of that 1924 contract with anybody

01:49:47 anybody outside the group that were involved at the time

01:49:51 the time um no i don't think there was ever an edict to to to not refer to that right if we go to page 76 of your statement and look at paragraph 506

01:50:05 and look at paragraph 506 um you were asked um in july 2014 as far as you were aware were acn products with a pe or otherwise combustible core being used in the external wall arrangements of buildings over 18 meters and your

01:50:17 of buildings over 18 meters and your answer was i was not aware that these products were being used in such arrangements now thinking back to your work on contract cc 1924

01:50:28 contract cc 1924 if acm pe products were in use in 2001 and selected by the industry then why would you think that they would not have been in use in 2014

01:50:42 i i wasn't

01:50:47 i wasn't seeing i wasn't aware that these types of products were were being used or being offered for tests

01:50:55 tests um

01:50:56 um in

01:50:57 in in the 135 scenarios or in in general and so it was of the assumption that they weren't

01:51:09 of the assumption that they weren't being used in these in these scenarios well can we be clear about this i are you

01:51:14 you saying whatever you say in your statement

01:51:16 statement you may have had chance to reconsider things since you wrote it are you saying that you were not aware in july 2014

01:51:25 july 2014 that acm products with the polyethylene core were being used in the construction industry in 2014 i was not i was not aware that

01:51:36 in 2014 i was not i was not aware that they were being used as high-rise um uh panels and products well that was a slightly different one slightly different question were you aware that those panels were being used

01:51:47 aware that those panels were being used in the construction industry

01:51:56 no i was not aware that they were being used in the construction industry all right thank you very much right and just to be clear no warning had been issued about the use of acm pe products on high-rise buildings after

01:52:08 products on high-rise buildings after your testing program in 2001 had it no those test results had not been released into the public domain had they they hadn't no

01:52:16 hadn't no and no one else from that list of attendees at the cwct meeting would have known about those would they if we go back to the list of attendees clg 3019336

01:52:28 was any of those individuals apart from say brian martin but we understand he may have left by this point in the meeting but anyone else in that list have been aware of the results of that

01:52:39 have been aware of the results of that testing that you've done in 2001 without checking against the membership of the iag no i couldn't tell you right but does anyone stick out as someone where you think ah i remember they were involved

01:52:51 involved no

01:52:54 did it occur to you looking at the minutes again at page three that the reference to this being the normal material acm and the normal material consisting of these two skins with pa in the middle

01:53:06 of these two skins with pa in the middle might mean that acm with a pe core was being used on high-rise buildings otherwise why refer to it as the normal material

01:53:16 material referring back to this yes do you remember reading the minutes of this meeting afterwards

01:53:23 uh i remember yeah

01:53:27 yeah reading through them right and in terms of the versions available it says um five lines down there are versions available with a mineral core again did you understand that to mean

01:53:39 again did you understand that to mean available on the uk market

01:53:45 i [Music]

01:53:46 [Music] i

01:53:48 i i took no particular overview of that right

01:53:52 right how concerned were you during this part of the meeting when you were learning that this group was concerned about the use of these pe acm panels how concerning was that to

01:54:03 acm panels how concerning was that to you

01:54:11 in that they were discussed they were discussing the panels and i've um

01:54:16 um i was i was learning their experience and knowledge then that was i was gaining a concern that that was what was happening yes

01:54:25 yes and did you in july 2014 at this point think back to that test and did the subject of the use of acm panels with a pe core triggering you a

01:54:36 panels with a pe core triggering you a memory of the performance of that particular material given how catastrophically it had performed in those tests um

01:54:45 um but it was not only the um 1924 work we were aware of acm fires that were happening elsewhere at that time so

01:54:57 time so the

01:54:59 the the the knowledge that aced the acm was a

01:55:02 was a uh a problem was was there and understood yes did you consider in 2014 or any other time that the use of a composite metal panel with a polyethylene core

01:55:14 panel with a polyethylene core in the facade of a high-rise building would present anything other than a grave risk to the life of the occupants in the event of fire i'd

01:55:23 i'd i would i i would have been very concerned

01:55:26 concerned with with the use of ac on the outside of a building yes yes let's look at that final paragraph we can see it says there have been major fires in buildings in various parts of the world including the middle east and

01:55:37 the world including the middle east and france where acn materials have been used for the cladding with the acm responsible for external fire spread yes yes now i'll come on to what you knew about those fires in a moment but if we

01:55:49 about those fires in a moment but if we just go on with the minutes onto page four just want to pick up paragraph two where it says it was stated that clause 12.7 of adb is intended to prohibit the use of

01:56:01 intended to prohibit the use of polyethylene called acm in buildings over 18 meters as they are not classed as limited combustibility this is not clear from the wording of the current clause the current clause is preceded by a heading insulation

01:56:13 preceded by a heading insulation material products which implies that it only applies to insulation the wording of the main text refers to filler materials which could be taken to include the polyethylene core but this

01:56:24 include the polyethylene core but this is not clear yes yes

01:56:27 yes yes now

01:56:28 now in relation to this section of the minute you tell us in your witness statement you can't recall who made the statement that paragraph 12.7 of the approved document was intended to prohibit the use of acm pe

01:56:40 intended to prohibit the use of acm pe products over 18 meters and you can't recall the reaction of others to it now is that still the case do you have no memory as to who was um

01:56:50 um who was contributing to this part of the discussion i i don't i don't recall the the participants um in in terms of their um

01:57:01 in in terms of their um engagement with this with this part of the meeting or any part of this meeting right at this stage now from amongst the other attendees david metcalf has told the inquiry in his witness statement and also in his oral evidence that he

01:57:13 also in his oral evidence that he believes that the announcement that clause 12.7 was intended to prohibit the use of these panels was made by you and he's also told us that that interpretation was very different to the

01:57:24 interpretation was very different to the view that the cwct had stuart taylor of wind tech also recalls it was you who made this statement at the meeting and simon hepworth of lake smear also

01:57:35 and simon hepworth of lake smear also thought it was you who said this but couldn't say for certain those are from their witness statements to the inquiry now um do you think that mr metcalf mr taylor and mr hepworth

01:57:47 mr metcalf mr taylor and mr hepworth might be right that it was you who told the others that 12.7 was intended to prohibit the use of acm pe on buildings over 18 meters could could well have been

01:57:59 could could well have been absolutely it could it could have been i i can't say that i didn't i can't say that i didn't if that's their recollection then that would be the the

01:58:08 the the position yes because looking at the list of attendees

01:58:14 attendees um it's only really you and brian martin at that meeting who we know had been involved in discussing and formulating the wording of 12.7 of a pre-document b back in 2005 after the edge fire

01:58:27 back in 2005 after the edge fire um

01:58:28 um so wouldn't that suggest that it's likely to have been either you or mr martin

01:58:33 martin potentially yes yes do you remember mr martin not being present for part of this meeting i i recall him leaving leaving the meeting at some point yes

01:58:44 leaving the meeting at some point yes yes

01:58:49 um

01:58:54 now thinking back to that section of the minutes we've just read it records in two places this is not clear do you accept that the view that it looks like you held about the clarity of

01:59:05 looks like you held about the clarity of paragraph 12.7 was not shared by the majority of those at the meeting yes yes

01:59:12 yes mr metcalf has told us that there was an element of surprise for most people about this view and that no one else agreed with the interpretation of 12.7 that it did

01:59:23 interpretation of 12.7 that it did prohibit the use of pe called acm can you remember that that the the weight of opinion at the meeting was that 12.7 didn't catch these panels

01:59:35 was that 12.7 didn't catch these panels no i don't remember that

01:59:39 do you remember others reacting with surprise to the news that paragraph 12.7 was intended to apply to anything other than insulation i don't i i don't recall that

01:59:52 i don't i i don't recall that um that set of discussions was it a matter of concern to you that there appeared to be at least as recorded in the minutes a general consensus amongst the attendees

02:00:03 general consensus amongst the attendees that the interpretation and relevance of the word filler was not clear was that of concern to you yes because these were all very experienced professionals and and some academics

02:00:14 professionals and and some academics weren't they um they were pretty eminent group of people to be discussing this with yes yes

02:00:22 did it occur to you in 2014 that if um as expressed in these minutes it was not clearly understood by this group of people that it was highly unlikely it was well understood

02:00:34 highly unlikely it was well understood by industry more generally it suggested that would be the case yes yes and did it occur to you that there was a clear risk that parts of the industry

02:00:44 industry might have been considering that to be the case for many years

02:00:50 that would that would be the natural conclusion yes yes

02:00:56 yes now i don't think we need to go to it but david cookson who was also present at this meeting and that was the time he was an employee of kingspan tells us in his statement this is at page 17 paragraph 2.93 he

02:01:09 this is at page 17 paragraph 2.93 he says to the best of my memory there was concern in the meeting with the use of standard pc acm due to fires abroad and that they may similarly have been used in high-rise applications in the uk

02:01:22 in high-rise applications in the uk that was plainly a concern of those who were present during that section of the meeting do you agree i don't recall that that discussion taking place i recall

02:01:35 what it i'd say as it's as inside i can't um i can't speak to to to detail of conversations that took place in in that meet in that meeting

02:01:46 place in in that meet in that meeting right

02:01:47 right we can see in the final sentence of this section of the minutes just just above the part that says breather membranes in bold in the middle there's a question how would this affect other materials used for rain screen panels eg high

02:01:59 used for rain screen panels eg high pressure laminate um do you remember that question being raised at the meeting no was there an answer to that question at this time were you clear in your mind

02:02:11 this time were you clear in your mind how for example high-pressure laminate panels fitted with clause 12.7

02:02:21 i had the view that um previously presented but we had gone back to the department earlier

02:02:30 earlier in the year and asked asked for their definitive interpretation of that because there was discussion around that right

02:02:40 right now we can see um if we go to the paragraph above that above that question it says it was suggested that clarification could be achieved by means of an of a faq

02:02:53 achieved by means of an of a faq approved documents can be downloaded from the planning portal dot gov dot uk the page for each approved document also has an faq section related to that approved document

02:03:04 approved document sarah colwell agreed to raise this with brian martin do you see that yes i do and

02:03:12 and you say in your witness statement this is page 82 paragraph 547 you said i'd not used this approach before so i was not familiar with it but i was happy to raise the matter with brian martin is

02:03:23 raise the matter with brian martin is that right that's correct so you hadn't used the faq route before is that right that's correct you know familiarity with that no it was it was something that um brian had

02:03:34 brian had um

02:03:36 um raised and weird

02:03:39 weird and

02:03:39 and would take forward yeah now um

02:03:43 now um help us with this did you ever raise the specific matter of an faq on this subject with brian martin after this meeting no

02:03:54 this meeting no no no i didn't why not um at that point um

02:04:00 um i

02:04:02 i looked to um do some development of of of a document and

02:04:08 and in discussion then with other colleagues with uh tony with debbie with bryant um with steve the introduction of the um

02:04:20 um revision of the adb was was coming through and it was um assumed that as we'd already had that conversation earlier in the year that it would be taken up with that and

02:04:32 and so i didn't pursue that conversation with brian which with hindsight is something i should have done right i see so you say that in discussion with other colleagues because

02:04:43 discussion with other colleagues because there was this review of adb coming up and as it was assumed you'd had that conversation earlier with brian martin that it would just be taken up with that

02:04:54 that it would just be taken up with that were you happy with that position where you content to take that line at that point that seemed the most appropriate way to to address it because the level of confusion seemed quite

02:05:05 the level of confusion seemed quite um

02:05:07 um it looked that the whole of that section 12 was would need to be re reconsidered and therefore an faq would as a single point would not necessarily address the whole range of the questions that were

02:05:18 whole range of the questions that were being being asked and addressed i see that was your view was it that was my view when i sat to try and look at the faq it was something that was a more complex piece of

02:05:29 complex piece of um activity than just a single set of lines

02:05:32 lines i see so um you remember sitting down to draft the faq yes yes and realizing that actually it was a total rewrite that might be necessary yes

02:05:43 might be necessary yes if if you were to use the approach of the faq it wasn't an faq type approach it needed

02:05:49 it needed the document a larger document to go to go with that right and did and you specifically discussed not raising this faq route with

02:06:00 not raising this faq route with debbie smith yes yes and stephen howard yes and tony baker and tony baker and all of you agreed that it was acceptable not to raise it with him yes

02:06:11 not to raise it with him yes it was

02:06:12 it was yeah that it was a follow-on from the conversation that had taken place in earlier in the year was there any dissent amongst you about that was anyone saying no come on we we need to raise this with brian martin

02:06:24 need to raise this with brian martin this has been raised in the meeting we've suggested an faq we at least need to go and have another conversation with brian martin we were aware that brian would have been in receipt of the um

02:06:36 receipt of the um the minutes and we were aware that brian was

02:06:39 was aware that there was a need for this work to be undertaken so we didn't pursue it again did you think that the other people at the meeting who were expecting you to go back to brian martin to solve the problem in

02:06:50 brian martin to solve the problem in that particular way would feel perhaps rather let down yes on reflection i is something that i should have followed up with um

02:07:02 should have followed up with um the the cwct people with directly i um i fully acknowledged that that was a lapse on my part of not keeping them informed of that thought process right and and how long was it after this

02:07:13 right and and how long was it after this meeting that you came to this realization that it wasn't going to be possible to do this by the faq route in your view uh probably around the september time we

02:07:24 uh probably around the september time we um we'd had a look at the at drafting it in in july and then um followed up again with debbie around uh august september time

02:07:38 right i see so by august september 2014 you at the bre had all decided had you that you weren't going to raise this yes we weren't going to pursue it yeah no

02:07:49 we weren't going to pursue it yeah no why is none of this in your witness statement to the inquiry can you help us with that

02:07:56 my apologies i thought i'd address the the points i i'm sorry if if the witness statement hasn't been this clear right

02:08:07 now in terms of international cladding fires

02:08:11 fires um we were looking at the section of the minutes if we go back one page at the bottom of the page the specific reference in the the minutes of these meetings to international cladding fires and we saw that it said there'd been

02:08:22 and we saw that it said there'd been major fires including in the middle east and france where acm materials have been used for the cladding now can we turn to your witness statement

02:08:33 statement and paragraph um page 77 paragraph 516

02:08:40 where you're asked about any major fires that you were aware of at this point and you say

02:08:45 you say yes i was aware of the fire in the tan wheel tower in dubai and several reported fires in sraja involving acm materials now as well as that tan wheel tower fire

02:08:57 now as well as that tan wheel tower fire in dubai that was in november 2012 there was in fact a spate of external cladding fires which took place in the uae in 2012 and 2013 and which were widely reported

02:09:09 widely reported were you aware of others at the time as well yes those are the sharjah fires that are referred to in that yes so there's the al baker tower 18th of january 2012 the al taya tower 28th of

02:09:22 january 2012 the al taya tower 28th of april 2012. the safe belhassa building 6th of october 2012. the al hafiz tower 22nd of april 2013 yes yes

02:09:34 22nd of april 2013 yes yes so you knew about those fires what did you know did you know that they involved acmpe

02:09:40 acmpe yes

02:09:41 yes and how did you come to learn about those fires um

02:09:46 um because of um working relationships with um the uae um i was aware of the incidents that had taken place and also that the uae were rewriting

02:09:58 and also that the uae were rewriting their fire safety code at that time and were

02:10:01 were looking to use um eight four one four as the um test methodology right and you say because of working relationships with the uae who are those working relationships with um civil defense

02:10:14 relationships with um civil defense right

02:10:15 right and i think you tell us and i was going to come on and ask you about this but i'll ask now so you were involved in working with the uae in helping rewrite their fire safety codes is that right yes did you go out

02:10:28 codes is that right yes did you go out to the uae yes yes how many times did you go out there

02:10:35 several a number of times over what time period did you go out there i work out there quite regularly so um

02:10:45 so um i would probably be going two to three times a year right and when you went out there did you gain a very good understanding of what happened in those acmp fires um

02:10:57 um no

02:10:57 no they um were not always very forthcoming with the fire investigation details of them right so the knowledge was from um press reports

02:11:08 press reports right i see but you specifically worked with the authorities in the uae was it within any particular jurisdiction within the uae that you worked the

02:11:19 the uae set up a fire safety committee to look at um external fire spread right so as part of that particular group which was being run through the

02:11:31 run through the activities in abu dhabi

02:11:34 abu dhabi right i see and for how many years were you part of that group it sounds like over a prolonged period yes probably around two years that work was was ongoing and and

02:11:45 years that work was was ongoing and and when was that um

02:11:49 um probably around 12 2012 2013 i would imagine around the time of the fires

02:11:58 right i see and had you attended the uae and discussed those fires out out there before you attended the cwc meet team meeting in july 2014 i think it follows

02:12:10 meeting in july 2014 i think it follows that you had yes yes did you tell anybody at the meeting that you had worked out in dubai and you knew knew something about those fires i think that's what the reference in the

02:12:21 i think that's what the reference in the minutes are to the other fires overseas that came from you i i um i can

02:12:28 i can only assume that that was it or if it didn't come from me i would have commented

02:12:33 commented around them yeah and what about the fire at the mermat's tower in rue bay france on the 14th of may 2012 um

02:12:46 i can't i can't recall if that was was acm or another external cladding material right i would need i would need to check yeah

02:12:57 i would need i would need to check yeah having worked in dubai on these matters or in the uae did you ever consider trying to find out whether acmpe was in common use at height in this country

02:13:09 i with regret believed that the requirements of 12.7 were actually there to prevent it being there and i didn't look beyond

02:13:20 being there and i didn't look beyond that and that's something that i'd say with with reflection in hindsight is it's good

02:13:28 it's good but you can't have thought that 12.7 was preventing that once you've attended this cwct meeting could you at that point know that as i say

02:13:39 say up until that point my aunt that was my my position and having shared that at that that meeting with everybody those present were um obviously aware of that

02:13:50 present were um obviously aware of that position

02:13:51 position um

02:13:54 that in itself then um to say that that went that window was was not used did you ever recall at this time coming

02:14:05 did you ever recall at this time coming away from that meeting and thinking crikey you know i've been working out in dubai i'm aware of these acmp files and now i'm being told no one's clear here

02:14:16 now i'm being told no one's clear here about whether these panels are covered or not do you remember thinking that was a pretty serious situation yes

02:14:26 and what did you do about that that's where i started to look at the options for re for that for that re-drafting um on the the faq

02:14:38 um on the the faq did you

02:14:39 did you aside from the faq did you discuss your concerns more generally with anyone with the within the bre yes the uh debbie

02:14:49 debbie uh would have been aware right so you remember having conversations with her what about being concerned that the uk might have an acmpe problem no as i say um

02:15:04 as we now know my

02:15:06 my understanding of that position was um that

02:15:11 that we had the regulation in place to to prevent it but obviously we didn't

02:15:20 right but but once you've attended this meeting at the cwct

02:15:26 cwct you can't have possibly have been saying to debbie smith it's okay we've got the regulations in place to deal with it because you'd been told by some pretty important figures within industry

02:15:37 industry that

02:15:38 that that's not how they were seeing it no and that that that was the the um requirement was in place but the interpretation appeared to be not um as

02:15:50 not um as as we'd follow as we understood or as i understood it yes and when you discussed this with debbie smith what was her response again that was around

02:16:02 again that was around the need to review and revise the um the guidance did you ever discuss whether more urgent action ought to be taking place

02:16:12 no we didn't can you give a reason for that now

02:16:19 at that time i

02:16:22 i genuinely don't believe we understood the extent of which to which the material was being used did you ever discuss this more generally with the department again put aside the faq point an adb

02:16:34 faq point an adb did you ever have a discussion with brian martin or anyone else at the department where you said hey i've been working out in in the uae they've had all these fires this is a problem you need to make sure we don't have that

02:16:46 you need to make sure we don't have that problem here because people are telling me

02:16:48 me that they're unclear about how acmpe fits into adb and whether it's precluded or not did you ever have that broader conversation with the department that was the january conversation that was

02:17:00 was the january conversation that was there is some there is a lack of understanding it was not specific around acm

02:17:05 acm but it was around questions that were being asked around that so no i don't recall having a direct conversation right well no

02:17:17 i would have there would have been conversations purely on the basis that the work was ongoing in the uae

02:17:26 the uae um so as such that's where that interpretation of 12.7 would have would have come from but as you say post the july 12 uh 2014 meeting

02:17:39 the july 12 uh 2014 meeting then

02:17:40 then that needed to to have been ramped up right at that january meeting do you remember discussing with mr martin the dubai cladding fires from 2012 and 2013.

02:17:53 dubai cladding fires from 2012 and 2013. they would have come up in conversation as examples of fire spread that was going on right and and you said you don't think you discussed it specifically with reference to acm pe why not if those cladding

02:18:06 to acm pe why not if those cladding fires were clearly being caused by acmpe why wouldn't you have had that discussion i think at that at that stage that there there was

02:18:17 there was there was an understanding in that discussion that that was what 12.7 was there to do but that as i say was needed needed to be addressed more widely and

02:18:29 needed to be addressed more widely and why it was identified that there needed to be a redraft right once you've decided amongst yourselves in the bre that the the faq approach wasn't going to be the right one

02:18:40 wasn't going to be the right one why not do something at that point have a a conversation with the department or think about the bre itself putting out some kind of statement to industry about the dangers

02:18:52 statement to industry about the dangers posed by acmpe panels at that at that point the my understanding was those conversations were taking part with the place with the department as part of that redrafting

02:19:04 department as part of that redrafting process of when that was going was was taking place i

02:19:13 i agree with with hindsight that that stop gap should have been filled by by some some route be that either the

02:19:23 the department making a statement or beginning that work earlier right and can you explain why the bre itself didn't do something to warn industry about the dangers given

02:19:35 to warn industry about the dangers given you knew about the lack of clarity in adb

02:19:39 adb in

02:19:40 in in

02:19:41 in general terms at that at that time those would have been referred back to the department to address we wouldn't have stepped into that space that wasn't something we we did

02:19:52 something we we did even if there was a real life safety issue

02:19:57 issue the

02:19:57 the the vehicle for dissemination and and the authority of those types of statements were

02:20:05 were expected to come from the department right

02:20:08 right from um from mhclg as the authority making that that view known but but you advised the department on fire safety matters yes and having asked i mean having raised

02:20:19 and having asked i mean having raised that particular issue with them for them to action that through their their dissemination routes yes you mean you raised it in january 2014 yes right

02:20:30 you raised it in january 2014 yes right and and you talked about the fact that you understood that there were conversations like about the dubai cladding fires going on between bre and the department who did you understand those conversations were happening between

02:20:42 conversations were happening between uh i had flagged them with brian in um

02:20:46 um at the time

02:20:49 involved in in that period what you mean you talked to brian martin about the dubai cladding fires in 2012 2013 is that what you're saying that um

02:21:00 2013 is that what you're saying that um i

02:21:01 i i don't recall specific incidents but i i would find it difficult to imagine that there were not conversations that were had about that at that time okay

02:21:11 now if we go to page 78 paragraph 517 of your statement you say in relation to the tamriel tower fire and the fires in shraja

02:21:22 fire and the fires in shraja um

02:21:23 um at 517 you say the video clips which were available on the internet at the time showed that the fire propagation was via the external cladding material as the fire was clearly on the external

02:21:34 as the fire was clearly on the external surface of the building yes yes and a page further down page 78518 you say yes it was of concern to me that this material was being used and i was

02:21:45 this material was being used and i was working with the local authorities in the middle east on behalf of bre to help them develop their understanding of bl-135 and 8414 testing yes yes and you've described to us your your

02:21:56 and you've described to us your your work

02:21:57 work as part of that

02:22:00 yes

02:22:10 um

02:22:12 now just some more questions about the faq as had been proposed at that meeting um

02:22:19 um in your witness statement this is at page 84 paragraph 564

02:22:27 you say at 5 6 4 in the end no final faq was prepared as ongoing discussions in this period referred us to the upcoming review of approved document b

02:22:40 approved document b now what do you mean by ongoing discussions in this period referred us to who who are you referring to there dr

02:22:48 dr smith

02:22:50 smith and and the um uh release of the contracts to um provide the technical support right so what did dr smith say to you

02:23:02 right so what did dr smith say to you about that that the approved document review was um that

02:23:08 that was was it was expected and that um the

02:23:13 the technical ground work was being released to do that i see so it's on on the basis of that information you had from dr smith that you understood that there were ongoing discussions about the upcoming

02:23:24 ongoing discussions about the upcoming review of approved document b that's correct yes right um

02:23:30 um did it was a draft ever prepared when you sat down did you actually put a draft of the faq together and then decide that wasn't going to work did you actually ever draft something i yes i

02:23:43 actually ever draft something i yes i sat and

02:23:44 sat and prepared a series of bullet notes um around

02:23:48 around around the topic and took that to discussion with um steve and tony with stephen howard and tony baker yes

02:23:59 with stephen howard and tony baker yes wasn't the question actually a very simple one i mean

02:24:04 i mean however precisely you formulated what you

02:24:07 you need to know is whether a combustible panel with a class naught surface complies with paragraph 12 7 and diagram 40. isn't that the

02:24:18 12 7 and diagram 40. isn't that the question

02:24:19 question i think by that stage there were a number of questions that were arising including the ones that had but that was the key question that people

02:24:27 people were in a disagreement about wasn't it um

02:24:31 um there seemed to be a number of key questions that were in disagreement that was that was part of the problem when i sat to try to do that i'd raised the the points originally with um the

02:24:42 the points originally with um the department on those three bullet points that have been picked up and then obviously the cwct had raised a number of other points in their meeting call as well and the the list of questions was

02:24:55 and the the list of questions was becoming so large

02:24:58 large that it wasn't um a single a single response right thank you okay do you know what happened to that draft i mean it hasn't been disclosed to us it

02:25:09 i mean it hasn't been disclosed to us it was a it was a hand it was a handwritten set of

02:25:12 set of of notes that i just took to a to a meeting with with the uh with tony and um and steve i didn't i didn't have a a typed up it was it was no more than a

02:25:24 a typed up it was it was no more than a a set of aim of notes to to talk through right i see yes because at 565 you say in the second sentence several

02:25:35 you say in the second sentence several outlines of the faq were discussed between bre staff and cwct representatives but nothing was finalized yes yes so these were just what handwritten little outlines handwritten comments notes and direction

02:25:47 handwritten comments notes and direction of what might or might not be included and over what period were those outlines discussed uh from the july to the september right and they were discussed with debbie

02:25:58 and they were discussed with debbie smith amongst others yes and if we look at page 83 of your statement in paragraph 555

02:26:07 you say i recall that i discussed the matter with colleagues at bre stephen howard tony baker and debbie smith and cwct drafting options were discussed which could be used either as an faq or

02:26:20 could be used either as an faq or alternatively as part of the upcoming approved document b consultation process my understanding in this period was that approved document b was under review and there were ongoing discussions with mhclg around the issues that may need to

02:26:31 mhclg around the issues that may need to be covered as part of the review this matter form part of those discussions with mhclg now

02:26:40 now um who was it first of all at the cwct that you discussed drafting options with there was a set of conversations in early july

02:26:52 i believe ian keller may have been part of that right

02:26:57 right and

02:26:57 and looking at the last line there when you say this matter formed part of those discussions with mhclg what are you referring to there

02:27:07 there the

02:27:09 the inclusion of the

02:27:13 review of of section 12 in in the upcoming adb revision right now we don't need to go to it but in his witness statement brian martin tells us

02:27:25 witness statement brian martin tells us he says at paragraph 119 page 42 he says i do not recall being contacted by dr caldwell in relation to posting an faq on the planning portal

02:27:36 posting an faq on the planning portal so is he right about that yes he is yeah

02:27:45 so you never thought when you were sketching out these outlines and these drafting options you never thought that it might be appropriate to speak to brian martin about that

02:27:56 not at that point because we already had the conversation with him back in january around um

02:28:02 um the

02:28:03 the the content of of that and also the um taking a a formulation and a shape for the for the document at that point right and did

02:28:14 document at that point right and did nothing you heard at the meeting in july 2014 did nothing there make this a more urgent matter to raise with brian martin

02:28:26 given that brian had been at the meeting and was aware of the minutes from that meeting i didn't choose to to discuss that further with him how did you know he was aware of the minutes from that meeting they were they were

02:28:38 from that meeting they were they were circulated to everyone who had attended right

02:28:41 right so you just assumed he was aware and and what he would follow it up urgently if he thought appropriate to do so yes i didn't i didn't i didn't chase him on that okay mr chairman um i know at the time yes um

02:28:55 mr chairman um i know at the time yes um i am i'm afraid still um a few pages out from finishing with this witness and i think even if we sat a little bit late i'm afraid um i think that could be very

02:29:06 i'm afraid um i think that could be very late um i'd i'd probably want to have another hour with this witness yes

02:29:12 yes um

02:29:14 um and i know everyone wanted to see if we could finish today but i was rather anxious to try and finish this witness today and i'm wondering whether some of the ground we're covering now is really very helpful but uh well i don't know

02:29:25 very helpful but uh well i don't know what the ground is yet to be yes i mean there are i'm afraid there are still important exchanges and meetings to go through and i can't i couldn't do those in half an hour it would take me certainly longer than that to do um

02:29:37 than that to do um and

02:29:38 and um it's it's been a long day and and i i do appreciate the witness wanted to get away but i would rather start again at 10 o'clock yes well

02:29:49 10 o'clock yes well uh dr colwill i was really um anxious to try and finish your evidence today

02:29:55 today and i've already made explain to council and others that uh i i personally was willing to sit late in order to do that but by late i had in mind five o'clock or thereabouts

02:30:07 had in mind five o'clock or thereabouts the difficulty is that if we sit too late

02:30:10 late all of us but particularly you will get too tired to do yourself justice thank you so i'm sorry i think in the light of what council told me um we will stop at that point because there's no point

02:30:21 that point because there's no point going on for half an hour getting tired and not finishing no absolutely thank you for your consideration i'm sorry about that so um we'll stop there we'll resume tomorrow please at 10 o'clock i

02:30:33 resume tomorrow please at 10 o'clock i think you may have been warned that that was

02:30:35 was a possibility and i'm sorry that it's come to that and then we'll try and make sure you're out in an hour or so all right that's very kind thank you very much for your consideration thank you very much please don't talk to anyone about your

02:30:46 please don't talk to anyone about your evidence overnight and we'll look forward to seeing you tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock thank you very much thank you very much [Music]

02:31:05 like this great 10 o'clock some more of them please thank you very much

02:31:22 you