David Metcalf, salaried director of CWCT, gives evidence about CWCT guidance on fire safety, understanding of Approved Document B paragraph 12.7, and industry knowledge of 'filler materials'.
00:00:25 um
00:00:30 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing
00:00:33 hearing today we're going to hear evidence from a witness from the center for window and cladding technology yes yes mr chairman good morning and good morning to you members of the panel i now call mr david metcalfe please
00:00:55 good morning mr metcalfe morning i understand that you're going to make the affirmation correct would you then please read the words on the screen in front of you i do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence i
00:01:06 declare and affirm that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you very much please sit down make yourself comfortable then all right
00:01:21 yes yes when you're ready thank you can i start mr metcalf by welcoming you to the inquiry and thanking you very much for coming to give your evidence and for assisting us in our investigations we're very grateful to you
00:01:33 very grateful to you uh if you have any difficulty understanding my questions i'm happy to repeat them or put the question in a different way just say can i also just ask you please not to nod or shake your head
00:01:45 not to nod or shake your head you can do that but you have to accompany the gesture with either a yes or a no because otherwise it doesn't go down on the transcript can i also ask you to keep your voice up so thank you very much um if you need a
00:01:56 so thank you very much um if you need a break at any time other than our scheduled breaks which will be mid morning and mid afternoon then just say and we can we can take a short break thank you um now i should just ask you have you um seen your witness statements
00:02:09 have you um seen your witness statements you've given to the inquiry i have yes it's at cwct 4050 115.
00:02:16 4050 115. sorry cwct40115 is that it that is my witness statement can we go please to page 24 there's a signature above the name david metcalf and the date 20th of october
00:02:28 metcalf and the date 20th of october 2021 is that your signature yes it is uh have you read this witness statement recently yes i have are the contents of this statement true they are true have you discussed this statement or the
00:02:39 you discussed this statement or the evidence that you're going to give with anybody before coming here today i've discussed it with my my solicitor i've also discussed certain aspects of cwct's work with a with a colleague and i've given a statement to the
00:02:50 and i've given a statement to the metropolitan police i see it who's the colleague alan keeler right now um the metropolitan police statement we have one statement from you it's met3080673
00:03:04 can we please put that up on the screen there it is is that your police statement that you've signed yes it is it is and uh it's it says david metcalf and there's a date to the right uh which says the 24th of
00:03:17 to the right uh which says the 24th of june 2021 you can see that there yes yes yes can you confirm that that statement is true yes thank you very much now i'm going to ask you first about your background your previous employment
00:03:28 your background your previous employment and your role at cwct um first cwct that stands for center for window and cladding technology doesn't it it does yes and what is it
00:03:39 it it does yes and what is it cwct is an industry-funded research and technical organization uh established to provide training and improve standards in the facade industry is it a private
00:03:51 in the facade industry is it a private company yes uh is it a not-for-profit company in the sense that it retains its profits and puts them back into the business that is correct that is correct it doesn't distribute its profits correct
00:04:02 doesn't distribute its profits correct um now if we can go please to your witness statement your inquiry witness statement paragraph six please on page two you say that cwct was established
00:04:14 you say that cwct was established over 30 years ago with a simple mission statement to improve the cladding industry
00:04:19 industry the formation of cwct was in effect a collaboration between industry and academia the key roles identified were to provide guidance and training in all areas of facade engineering
00:04:30 areas of facade engineering was there anything specific to your knowledge that prompted the formation of cwct my understanding is that there was a a nedo report national economic
00:04:42 nedo report national economic development office uh report in the uh 1980s that looked at the the construction industry and and i believe looked at the the facade industry or the cladding
00:04:53 the facade industry or the cladding industry
00:04:54 industry and they concluded that there were a lack of standards there was a lack of training
00:05:01 training a lack of guidance and
00:05:04 and on the the back of that report cwct was formed who are the founding members do you know i don't know what was the gap in industry or academia
00:05:15 what was the gap in industry or academia that the cwct was intended to fill you know
00:05:20 know there was at that point um in the late 1980s there was little if any guidance specifically related to to what we might call modern building envelopes so it was to to fill that gap
00:05:32 to to fill that gap and um why was academia involved rather than just industry do you know so my again my understanding is that there was a professor at the university of bath professor ted happold who established
00:05:43 professor ted happold who established the consultancy firm bureau hapold he was a
00:05:47 was a a professor at the university he recognized the the significance of the facade and and was quite an influential person and he was able to persuade uh some
00:05:58 and he was able to persuade uh some companies to provide some funding to establish the centre
00:06:03 and and was looking at industry on the one hand and academia on the other was one group or other group more or less influential than the other in respect of the training and guidance
00:06:16 i wouldn't say either i i think the the guidance we provide is is is very is balanced and always has been
00:06:27 is very is balanced and always has been and do you know it was before your time i think uh but do you know before cwct was formed who which body provided the training that you refer to in relation to facade
00:06:39 you refer to in relation to facade engineering i i don't think there was uh any organization that did that right during your time looking back on it so far would you consider that the cwct considers that it
00:06:50 consider that the cwct considers that it has any competitors in the facade industry
00:06:55 there are various trade associations that provide specific guidance for that for their members
00:07:03 members the likes of the the council for aluminium and building the the glass and glazing federation the the metal roofing and cladding association we our membership is very broad so we
00:07:15 our membership is very broad so we provide more more general guidance rather than guidance specifically related to a particular part of the industry
00:07:26 part of the industry yes
00:07:28 yes now in paragraph 7 it's still on your screen
00:07:31 screen you'd say that the cwct is a small organization with a broad membership base made up of about 350 companies and you say that it includes architects
00:07:42 and you say that it includes architects main contractors specialists contractors suppliers and manufacturers are there two categories of member sponsors and ordinary members that's correct um and
00:07:53 correct um and just broad broadly what's the difference
00:07:57 sponsors are able to attend um board meetings and technical committee meetings so they have a a greater role in in the organization
00:08:10 i see and ordinary members but by default they don't have access to board meetings or technical committees and what does it take to be a sponsor how do you qualify to be a sponsor
00:08:21 how do you qualify to be a sponsor sponsors are our companies who are are willing to to pay a bit more money to be a sponsor and and to generally they want to actively participate in the work that we do right
00:08:32 participate in the work that we do right and
00:08:34 and during the period 2013 to 2017 um were the sponsors mainly from industry or mainly from academia all from industry all from industry and were there any particular
00:08:45 there any particular industry
00:08:47 industry members
00:08:48 members manufacturers designers who
00:08:53 who were particularly influential as sponsors
00:08:58 i i couldn't name one particular organization there's no one who stands out in your head as somebody who would lead the charge for manufacturers for example no it didn't
00:09:09 manufacturers for example no it didn't really it just doesn't really work like that all the sponsors they come together we meet six times a year and and we have a
00:09:16 a an open discussion about the any issues that might um that they might be facing whether it's from a consultant or a manufacturer and we we aim to try and
00:09:27 we we aim to try and um respond to that now if you scroll down please a little further down page two you will see paragraph eight our primary objectives are to produce guidance carry out research and provide training in the area of facade
00:09:39 training in the area of facade engineering and can you give us some examples of the research that cwct has carried out and how it was funded so we we've carried out research on on
00:09:50 so we we've carried out research on on various different topics including um on security on thermal performance on um on automated facades and
00:10:02 on automated facades and various other topics some
00:10:05 some funding has been from from government from um the dti as they were and various iterations of of that and and some research is self-funded
00:10:19 and and some research is self-funded and
00:10:20 and has there or had there been any particular research carried out in relation to the fire safety of facades no
00:10:27 no never
00:10:29 never not by cwct no right we've produced guidance on the subject but not not carried out research has anybody any sponsor or ordinary member ever suggested that cwct do so
00:10:42 suggested that cwct do so since grenfell some
00:10:45 some one or two organizations have have suggested that we we do that um and we haven't done that as yet right but not before grenfell not that i recall um paragraph nine foot of the page there
00:10:58 um paragraph nine foot of the page there you say
00:10:59 you say that the cwct has a sponsors board and a technical committee that approves all written guidance that's produced um the sponsor's board is that a board comprised only of sponsors or is it the
00:11:10 comprised only of sponsors or is it the general board on which sponsors sit it's the general board which sponsors it so four name directors and and our sponsors right
00:11:19 now you say that the sponsors pay a bit more money you told us earlier this morning how much more percentage-wise uh sponsors pay three thousand pounds a
00:11:30 uh sponsors pay three thousand pounds a year um
00:11:32 year um ordinary members pay between six hundred and fifty and one thousand three hundred depending on what type of organization they are i follow and was that always the position in the years 2013 to 2017
00:11:47 i mean the figures may have changed a bit but that sort of that sort of proportion um excuse me previously the sponsored sponsors paid um slightly more they paid 6 000 pounds we decided to reduce that
00:12:01 6 000 pounds we decided to reduce that number in around 2014 2015 i think to encourage more companies to be sponsors
00:12:09 right and why did you want to encourage more companies to be sponsors we wanted um more involvement from from the industry right
00:12:20 and the benefits that they get in return for
00:12:23 for the extra payment is involvement in the intern is this right in the internal workings management hierarchies um budgets of cwct and its and its
00:12:34 um budgets of cwct and its and its strategies they are there to provide strategic direction for the company so to uh inform us of of things that they they think that we should be should be looking at the sort
00:12:45 should be should be looking at the sort of guidance that we should be providing the sort of events that we should be running and so on just exploring that a little bit more would a sponsor have a right
00:12:53 right to appoint an executive director to the board no
00:12:57 board no would a sponsor habitually do so or try to do so no were executive directors drawn from sponsors
00:13:04 sponsors or were they or drawn from ordinary members
00:13:08 members or elsewhere
00:13:11 elsewhere was there a um an internal set of principles about who should be directors executive directors
00:13:24 directors executive directors not that i'm aware of right and who would decide who should be executive directors so that there are three long-standing directors who've been
00:13:36 directors who've been named directors for as long as i can remember um are the previous chairman of cwct
00:13:42 cwct stepped down a number of years ago and the the board decided um that we would like one of the sponsors to to become a director um it was a
00:13:54 director um it was a a group decision effectively who was that
00:13:57 that he was the sponsor who was the sponsor who became an executive director um siberia
00:14:04 i'm sorry i i didn't catch that and i'm not sure
00:14:07 not sure transcriber did severio passetto siberia pasetto and what organization he is uh head of facade for skanska uk
00:14:19 and when was he appointed as a director
00:14:24 in around 2000 16 17
00:14:30 16 17 was that the first time an industry member sponsor had become a executive director no no we we've had directors
00:14:41 no we we've had directors drawn from our sponsors before right before 2016. yes and who were they which organizations did they come from
00:14:51 there were various directors from arab
00:14:57 arab from
00:14:57 from [Music]
00:15:01 [Music]
00:15:01 uh pilkington i believe um
00:15:06 um i i i forget the rest now i'm afraid do
00:15:11 do sponsors
00:15:13 sponsors have representation on the technical committee yes they do and uh again during the period 2013 to 2017 can you identify any particular sponsors who who had representative members of the
00:15:24 had representative members of the technical committee all of our sponsors are eligible to to be a part of the technical committee and they all take up that position um you say all of them are eligible um
00:15:37 um you say all of them are eligible um is it is qualification for the technical committee
00:15:40 committee sponsorship so our technical committee comprises our sponsors and then invited industry experts
00:15:50 experts i see and is expertise in some area of facade engineering a requirement to sit on the technical technical committee in in respect of those sponsors obviously where they're experts clearly but where they're sponsors
00:16:02 but where they're sponsors no they have no there are no specific requirements for a sponsor to sit on the technical commitment i mean for example stuart taylor winteck he was on the technical committee wasn't he no no he wasn't no right
00:16:15 no no he wasn't no right did did the technical committee ever have somebody from nhbc on it no do you know why that is the case i don't know
00:16:27 know now turning the page please to page three
00:16:30 three you explain in paragraph 11 um
00:16:35 um there
00:16:36 there uh that
00:16:38 uh that the cwct is funded by membership subscriptions sale of documents and income from training can you just give us an idea of the total funding per annum of the cwct it's gross it's gross revenue
00:16:50 gross it's gross revenue and take take the years 13 to 17.
00:16:56 off the top of my head
00:17:00 a gross income of around 800 000 perhaps right and does the cwct seek
00:17:08 seek to remain independent from industry in the training and the guidance that it delivers yes how does it do that by having a very broad membership and a
00:17:19 by having a very broad membership and a broad set of sponsors so we we can provide um objective guidance right so breadth but did the cwct have a a set of principles
00:17:32 did the cwct have a a set of principles governing impartiality which would prevent meetings being unduly influenced by one particular industry member for example
00:17:43 industry member for example a manufacturer of non-combustible insulation or a manufacturer of a combustible insulation i
00:17:52 i we don't have any written rules that i'm aware of but i'm i'm also not aware of that situation ever ever arising right now you also say in the same paragraph last sentence the
00:18:04 in the same paragraph last sentence the cwct is also involved in delivering a university qualification in facade engineering is that the degree in facade engineering from from bath university
00:18:15 from from bath university that was the degree in cyber engineering from bath university that course has now moved to the university of the west of england
00:18:21 england right and how well and is cwtc still involved in that degree course yes i see how how is it involved
00:18:29 involved we uh we establish the the curriculum and we do the majority of the teaching do you personally or have you personally delivered any courses yes
00:18:40 delivered any courses yes and on what subject on
00:18:43 on on various subjects including thermal performance uh glass and glazing acoustics fire materials so you've delivered lectures
00:18:54 materials so you've delivered lectures to students on that course on the far performance of external cladding yes
00:19:01 yes and in what years did you do that
00:19:05 two thousand and
00:19:10 17 onwards after grenfell yes right
00:19:17 now um it's right i think to say that the cwct has no
00:19:21 has no at least no formal regulatory standing it's not a regulator is it no it's not but it has been involved in the development of british and european standards by representatives sitting on its
00:19:33 by representatives sitting on its committees yes yes um do you know which british and european standards the cwct was involved with we've been involved in the british
00:19:44 we've been involved in the british standard
00:19:45 standard committee for for windows and doors um i've
00:19:50 um i've i'm not going to try and remember that all the numbers of the various committees now um a european standard for
00:19:56 for covering curtin walling um
00:20:00 um a british
00:20:02 a british standard committee on working at height on general building codes and i believe one on um one of the fire committees
00:20:14 one of the fire committees for
00:20:15 for non-non-load-bearing walls i think was
00:20:18 was and this may have been before your time mr metcalf but was the cwct involved with the harmonization of the reaction to fire standards of products
00:20:30 of products which was carried out in the early 2000s not that i'm aware of right in paragraph 14 if we scroll down please page three to the bottom you can see that you
00:20:39 that you described there um what you say is limited involvement with the mhclg
00:20:46 what was the nature of that involvement limited though you say it was
00:20:52 to my knowledge it's as as i say in in my witness statement we were involved in discussions around thermal performance prior to the revision of patel in 2006.
00:21:04 revision of patel in 2006. so um just to be clear then the the nature of the limit of the involvement is
00:21:09 is limited by the matters that you then go on to set out yes right i see uh
00:21:16 uh now
00:21:18 now was the cwct ever involved in any aspects of the guidance and approved document b relating to external fire spread no no now you
00:21:27 now you describe also in your statement and we'll come on to it in more detail later but you described brian martin from what was dclg and then became mhclg
00:21:38 what was dclg and then became mhclg attending two cwct fire group meetings one in july 2014 and one in march 2016. were there any other occasions on which
00:21:50 were there any other occasions on which mhclg was involved with the cwct
00:21:57 not that i certainly know other no other meetings that i can i can think of um
00:22:04 of um we've had some there's been some email communication particularly since since grenfell um but no nothing else specific i mean during the period 2013 to 2017
00:22:16 during the period 2013 to 2017 was mhc it was mhclg or was cwct involved with mhclg in relation to the fire related guidance
00:22:27 in relation to the fire related guidance that cwct was putting out
00:22:31 i'm sorry can you could you yeah maybe try differently were there occasions on which mhclg was invited to participate in the guidance in relation to the fire performance of
00:22:42 in relation to the fire performance of facades that cwct was publishing uh only the two meetings that you just the two meetings
00:22:47 meetings referred to yes right now i want then to go back to your witness statement please at page one and look at your background and qualifications and your role
00:22:58 and your role uh and at paragraph three on page one you say i am the salary director of the cwct i joined the cwct after graduating from university in 2003 my full relevant
00:23:09 from university in 2003 my full relevant qualifications are bsc physics from birmingham university in 2003 and an msc in facade engineering from bath university in 2005. i'm also a member of the society of facade engineering sfe and an sfe board
00:23:22 facade engineering sfe and an sfe board member
00:23:23 member and paragraph four at the foot of the page you say you became a director of cwct in january 2014. i've held the roles of graduate engineer engineer senior engineer and director
00:23:34 engineer senior engineer and director i've been involved in the cwct technical committee since around 2008. do you hold any specialist fire qualifications no uh in relation to the master's degree that you obtained in facade engineering
00:23:46 that you obtained in facade engineering how how
00:23:48 how how detailed
00:23:49 detailed is that degree in relation to the fire safety of facades in particular at that time i don't think fire was covered in any specific detail
00:24:02 fire was covered in any specific detail this is 2005. yes so this is before the amendments to approve document b published in april 2007. yes
00:24:13 published in april 2007. yes have you had any first-hand experience of small-scale testing in relation to the individual components of facades such as insulation cladding panels no have you any first-hand experience of
00:24:24 have you any first-hand experience of large-scale full-system tests under bs8414 to the br 135 criteria i've witnessed one um one eight four one four test as as a as a
00:24:36 test as as a as a guest um and that's that's as far as that goes and which was that which product was that or products
00:24:48 it was a it was this it was after grenfell it was i think mineral fibre insulation and and aluminium cladding as far as i can
00:25:00 and aluminium cladding as far as i can remember right was that part of the government's testing no right and where was that test but it was at bre right and who was this test sponsor
00:25:09 sponsor i believe my invitation came from nick jenkins of boom murray has he done that better but then
00:25:18 then it may have been your euro card at that point or
00:25:21 point or yeah right how would you describe your knowledge of the building regulations and associated guidance in relation to external fire spread
00:25:30 spread during the period 2013 to 2017.
00:25:35 reasonably reasonably good we were asked to produce
00:25:40 produce or to consider producing some additional guidance in relation to fire and the external wall in in 2013 so from certainly from that point onwards i would have spent a lot of time looking
00:25:51 would have spent a lot of time looking at approved document b and and i think i understood the requirements quite well right and what kind of work did you undertake for the cwct in your role as engineer and senior engineer
00:26:02 senior engineer so my my early roles were focusing on on building physics as my background is in physics as i've as i progressed and became more experienced um i
00:26:14 experienced um i took on other roles as well what other roles so i i wrote a document on on built-up walls for example and and other technical guidance documents the technical notes that we've produced and
00:26:25 technical notes that we've produced and what involvement did you have in those positions engineer and senior engineer in relation to the fire safety of facades over 18 meters particularly nonetheless i can recall right
00:26:37 nonetheless i can recall right now you're i think presently one of four directors at cwct so no i'm i'm i'm not a i'm not a i'm not a director i am the director if that
00:26:48 not a director i am the director if that makes sense um so i'm not a director in terms of company sites i'm the company secretary but i am my my position is director i see i follow
00:26:59 but your company's secretary yes and there are four directors yes in the company's house sense yes yes um and who are they they are
00:27:09 they are excuse me uh richard white who's our finance director uh clive burch barry smith and severio poseto
00:27:20 barry smith and severio poseto and um
00:27:22 and um mr white mr burch and mr smith are they have they come from sponsors
00:27:31 no um no i don't think that they they were they were in position as director before i
00:27:38 i i think was even involved in cwct so that they are long-standing directors right and how did your role and responsibilities at the cwt ct change if they did change when you became
00:27:51 they did change when you became the salad salary director in 2014
00:27:55 in 2014 essentially at that point i'm i'm responsible for the the day-to-day running of the right of the company and and our training and publications
00:28:06 now i want to ask you some questions about the technical committee uh responsible for guidance if you go please to page three of your statement again and look at paragraph 13 you say this as stated our guidance is overseen
00:28:19 this as stated our guidance is overseen by our technical committee comprising cwct sponsors and invited industry experts we collaborate more widely where specific expertise is required we have been involved in various british and european standards committees over the
00:28:31 european standards committees over the years
00:28:32 years is it right that only sponsors and not ordinary members can sit on the technical committee so our technical committee comprises sponsors who have a a a right to be there as part of their sponsorship and
00:28:44 there as part of their sponsorship and invited um experts they may be from from member companies that they're most likely to be from member companies right but ordinary members don't have a right as it were to sit on the technical committee that's correct uh i see so
00:28:56 correct uh i see so in essence the sponsors buy the right to sit on that committee yes and do these industry experts do they sit on the technical committee permanently or do they only um as it
00:29:09 permanently or do they only um as it were attend by invitation generally it's a permanent appointment right and have there been occasions when you've collaborated more widely um
00:29:20 um than
00:29:21 than simply with these invited industry experts on a particular topic yes
00:29:26 yes so for example the the meetings we had in 2014 and 2016 looking at providing guidance on in relation to fire we invited
00:29:36 invited people with specific expertise to those meetings now i'd like to look please with you at the 2008 cwct guidance uh we will um pull that up in a moment
00:29:49 uh we will um pull that up in a moment let's let's let's uh have it up just to say that we can see what we're looking at cwct six sorry five zeros 46 please cwct five zeros four six
00:30:03 now that's the first page of it and you'll note part six deals with fire performance i put it on the screen really to prompt your memory um were you in in an engineering role at the cwct when this
00:30:15 engineering role at the cwct when this document was published yes
00:30:19 yes and i think you were part of the cwct technical committee from around 2008 but not i think is this right involved in drafting this document that's correct
00:30:30 drafting this document that's correct but you're familiar with it are you yes do you know who was its intended audience
00:30:38 anyone who has a role in in specifying the performance of a building envelope so anyone from a main contractor down to a subcontractor architect
00:30:49 subcontractor architect designer correct and was it was it aimed also at uh other uh bodies such as government or um
00:30:59 um fire and rescue services no not not particularly now alan keeler tells us in his statement and i don't think we need to turn it up just for reference purposes it's
00:31:10 just for reference purposes it's paragraph eight page two in his statement which is at cwct40119
00:31:17 he says that he was responsible for producing the draft of this document and
00:31:22 and wished to ensure that it was consistent with the guidance in the 2006 version of approved document b published in the april of 2007. do you agree with that yes
00:31:34 do you agree with that yes you say in your met statement again they need to turn it up it's page seven um that the cwct ran courses on this document including a presentation on fire is that correct yes were you in
00:31:46 fire is that correct yes were you in involved at any time in delivering those courses no no who was i believe that would be alan keeler and dr steven ledbetter who was director of
00:31:58 dr steven ledbetter who was director of cwct before me and how regular were those courses they would have been once a year and who were they delivered to anybody who wished to attend
00:32:11 anybody who wished to attend so any one of our anyone from our membership and and indeed the wider industry non-members could could attend courses as well i see and they would have to pay presumably yes but members
00:32:22 have to pay presumably yes but members would would get get the service for free members
00:32:27 they would get a discount as part of that discount right as part of their membership yes yes i see now let's look at the guidance uh and uh see what recommendations it made for external cladding
00:32:38 made for external cladding um we can see as i've shown you already on the first page there part six fire performance it's got nine different parts including a part naught
00:32:48 naught uh which is specified checklist and certification can we go to page three please
00:32:55 on page three it says at the top of the screen this document was written by representative members of the center for window and cladding technology and at the bottom of the page you see at the bottom
00:33:07 the bottom you can see the sponsors of the document are listed and it includes companies such as arab pilkington two you've already mentioned wintec and the university of bath yes yes
00:33:18 university of bath yes yes and also cornea uk limited who are they cornea
00:33:24 cornea uk are
00:33:25 uk are manufacturers of aluminium windows doors and and curtain walling the glazed facade systems manufacturers and do they have a sales role too
00:33:37 they will sell their products to to the industry yes will they sell other people's products no
00:33:43 no right um if we go to page four um you see that it says uh this document was written under the guidance of the center for window and cladding technical committee comprised
00:33:54 cladding technical committee comprised of
00:33:56 of and then
00:33:57 and then standards and then there's a pretty long list of those contributing and you could see alan keeler and stephen ledbetter listed there along with members of the bre arab
00:34:08 there along with members of the bre arab winter and a number of others yes yes um say this document was is it fair to say um
00:34:15 say um pretty broadly considered before it was published
00:34:18 published yes if you go then to page 13 of this document please at the top of that page you'll see paragraph 6.4.2
00:34:30 paragraph 6.4.2 surface spread of flame
00:34:33 uh and under 6.4.2.1 it says external surface spread of flame the external surface of the envelope shall satisfy the requirements for class naught when tested in accordance with bs
00:34:45 naught when tested in accordance with bs 476 parts six and seven national class or
00:34:48 or class b s3 d2 or better in accordance with bs en 15301
00:34:54 15301 1 european class for rain screen panels this requirement applies to both the visible external surface of the panel and the surface of the panel facing the cavity
00:35:05 cavity now the time that this guidance was published in 2008 as i think you've confirmed the 2006 version of adb was current
00:35:17 current and do you agree that it said in paragraph 12.6 and diagram 40 we can look at them if you like um that the external surfaces of walls were required to be class naught or euro class b s3 d2 or better
00:35:31 naught or euro class b s3 d2 or better if above 18 meters yes yes
00:35:35 yes yes so the cwct just helped me the cwct guidance here is essentially is it a repetition of the guidance contained in paragraph 12.6 of approved document b
00:35:47 paragraph 12.6 of approved document b the guidance here goes
00:35:52 goes further i think how does it do that so the guidance here says that the external surface of the envelope shall satisfy the requirements for class zero that that applies regardless of
00:36:05 regardless of the height of the building or distance to the boundary so it differs from the requirements of 12 6 and diagram 40 which has different requirements depending on the height of the building and
00:36:14 and position relative to the boundary i see so
00:36:25 you say this guidance was going to apply to a building that wasn't a high rise as well as those that were
00:36:34 that's that's my understanding of it yes
00:36:38 yes right
00:36:42 now at any event these were paragraphs were not advising were they that external cladding the rain screen materials or product when used over 18 meters was required to
00:36:54 when used over 18 meters was required to be
00:36:55 be a material or materials of limited combustibility no no
00:37:00 no no if we go to page 15 final paragraph on that page paragraph 6.6.2 at the foot of the page you can see it says this with the heading insulation materials insulation in walls of buildings with a
00:37:11 insulation in walls of buildings with a story more than 18 meters above ground level should be of limited combustibility so is this right looking at this document and your understanding of it
00:37:22 document and your understanding of it although cladding panels were required to be class naught national or class euro class b i'll use a shorthand yes uh insulation by contrast had to be materials of
00:37:34 by contrast had to be materials of limited combustibility when used in a building with a story more than 18 meters above ground level yes but that's how you always understood it is it yes yes let's look at page 16 paragraph 6.6.3
00:37:49 let's look at page 16 paragraph 6.6.3 composite components
00:37:52 and it says this when one of the cladding elements is a composite of two or more materials mechanically jointed bonded or fused together the elements as a whole
00:38:02 a whole must demonstrate the appropriate fire performance similarly it must be demonstrated that the composite will remain reasonably whole and not become prematurely separated from the building or framework
00:38:13 separated from the building or framework now looking at the first sentence together mr metcalf can you explain what was intended by it
00:38:22 not just by looking at the first sentence i think the the final sent the final paragraph in blue italics i think describes what was
00:38:34 blue italics i think describes what was meant by that paragraph so it's referring to to composite insulation panels rather than composite panels more generally
00:38:45 panels more generally is how i
00:38:46 is how i understand that that paragraph
00:38:51 composite composite insulation panels yes you say why do you say that the the final paragraph in blue says that those metal faced insulated panels designed for use in
00:39:02 insulated panels designed for use in building envelopes can normally demonstrate satisfactory performance so my understanding of this is this is referring to composite insulation panels that might be used as a support as a back wall or a support for a rain screen
00:39:14 back wall or a support for a rain screen cladding system on the outside
00:39:18 um
00:39:20 right
00:39:22 just two things first of all the blue italics
00:39:27 italics for those reading this document are intended to be essentially guidance is that right yes that's correct so this is guidance about the guidance
00:39:38 about the guidance yes yes
00:39:39 yes yes um
00:39:40 um secondly you say that um
00:39:44 um that that second paragraph there where it's referring to metal-faced insulated panels
00:39:50 panels uh you're referring there to foil foil-faced panels of insulation material which are p-i-r-p-u-r or phenolic no so that this would be
00:40:01 no so that this would be uh
00:40:02 uh panels like that metal-faced panels so skins of of aluminium or steel with with insulation between them that are designed to form the the wall structure
00:40:13 the the wall structure the wall structure which part of the wall structure so if if we're referring to a range screen it would be the the back wall the the part of the wall that supports the outer cladding
00:40:28 so an alternative to an sfs system for example i see now the guidance goes on as you've just pointed out to identify metal-faced insulated panels
00:40:39 metal-faced insulated panels where you refer to well where it refers to metal-faced insulated panels you've just said it's the it's the part of the wall that supports the outer cladding
00:40:51 supports the outer cladding i'm just trying to get that clear in my mind um
00:40:53 mind um is that referring to the rain screen panels or is it referring to some other part of the external wall buildup my understanding is it's not referring to the to the the rain screen panels
00:41:04 to the to the the rain screen panels because they're not they're not insulated
00:41:07 insulated right it's it's the supported structure for the the range green cladding i think it might help perhaps other people listening or watching this if you could just explain the distinction between what you referred to
00:41:18 distinction between what you referred to as sfs panels and some other form of structure sure okay so sfs
00:41:26 sfs uh
00:41:27 uh stands for steel frame system so it
00:41:31 so it it is used to typically as an infill wall between floor slabs so you'll have steel
00:41:40 steel steel studs and they will be lined on either side with a board material and on that board material you attach your brackets your insulation and and your rain screen cladding on the outside so that that's a typical way of
00:41:52 that that's a typical way of constructing now you could also form that back wall with bricks or blocks or masonry or indeed insulated composite panels i see and so where if where it is an
00:42:03 i see and so where if where it is an insulated composite panel uh it may itself have a metal facing like a foil no it would be a a thicker gauge of metal it wouldn't it wouldn't just be a
00:42:14 metal it wouldn't it wouldn't just be a foil it would be an aluminium or steel sheet
00:42:20 is there or was there any specific guidance in this document well i'm sorry before i asked that question where it says um in the blue italics can normally demonstrate
00:42:31 italics can normally demonstrate satisfactory performance what do you mean by what is meant by that
00:42:37 that performance in what sense
00:42:43 i assume that to mean that
00:42:47 that those
00:42:48 those panels can be designed so that they don't
00:42:52 don't don't delaminate and don't unduly spread fire i mean is that reaction to fire or some other fire performance standard inherent or expensive rules
00:43:05 inherent or expensive rules my understanding my understanding is that would be reaction to fire but i believe in this standard we don't cover fire resistance was there any specific guidance in this document which advised that there ought
00:43:16 document which advised that there ought to be limitations on the use of acm panels over 18 meters no this document take it from me does not mention the word filler
00:43:29 mention the word filler or the phrase filler material or the phrase filler material etc anywhere does it no no
00:43:37 no no do you know from your own knowledge whether the authors of this document were
00:43:43 were aware and i use the word aware advisedly
00:43:47 advisedly let me try differently do you know whether the authors of this document thought
00:43:52 thought that the
00:43:54 that the 2006 version of adb uh contained the word filler in 12.7
00:44:04 uh for a particular reason i don't know now we know as you've confirmed that the 2006 version of the proof document b came into effect in april 2007
00:44:16 came into effect in april 2007 so before this guidance let's
00:44:20 let's let's look at that that clg-1607
00:44:27 page 95 please
00:44:44 and if you look at 12.6 at the very bottom right hand side it says external wall construction is the title to the part of this section of adb and external surfaces at the very
00:44:55 of adb and external surfaces at the very bottom 12.6 the external surfaces of walls should meet the provisions in diagram 40 and then if we go back to page 96
00:45:07 uh sorry stay on stay on page 96 and go go on please to the next paragraph it says 12.7 insulation materials stroke products
00:45:17 products in a building with a story more than 18 with a story 18 meters or more above ground level any insulation product filler material brackets not including gasket sealants and similar clothes
00:45:28 gasket sealants and similar clothes brackets etc used in the external wool construction should be of limited combustibility see appendix a this restriction does not apply to masonry cavity wall construction which
00:45:39 masonry cavity wall construction which complies with diagram 34 in section 9. now there's nothing in the cwct document that advises that anything other than insulation
00:45:50 insulation should be of limited combustibility in external walls over 18 meters is there no no
00:45:56 no no and in the cwct's view this document is this right this document was consistent with the guidance that we've just looked at in approved document b at the time of his publication
00:46:08 publication yes yes
00:46:14 i mean to your knowledge did you ever hear anybody say but this is before 2014 that the 2008 cwct guidance was inconsistent
00:46:26 inconsistent with approved document b generally or specifically paragraph 12.7 no no
00:46:34 no no now let's turn to cwct technical note 73 this is 2011. let's start with that mr metcalf with your statement please at page four
00:46:47 your statement please at page four paragraph 15 yes and you say uh there under the heading insulation materials and products and the proof document b paragraph 12.7 i understand that the inquiry is
00:46:58 i understand that the inquiry is considering approved document b and in particular paragraph 12.7 approved document b volume 2 2006 edition and to give a reference for that um i cannot say for certain when i first became
00:47:09 say for certain when i first became aware of this paragraph but i suspect it was in 2010 2011 when cwct were preparing a technical note tn-73 fire performance of curtain walls and rain
00:47:20 performance of curtain walls and rain screens published march 2011. my understanding of this paragraph was that it required insulation and filler materials to achieve class a2 s3 d2 when used in an external wall of
00:47:32 used in an external wall of a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground the term filler in the paragraph was not defined and was not a term commonly used in the facade industry its meaning was therefore not
00:47:43 industry its meaning was therefore not obvious
00:47:44 obvious from the list of materials given that were excluded from this requirement gasket sealants and similar it could perhaps be assumed but a filler was a material that was used to fill a gap between components or elements
00:47:56 gap between components or elements however this was not clear from the wording of the clause this issue is at the heart of much of this statement now your colleague alan keeler says
00:48:07 says in his witness statement if we go to that please at cwct40119 page three paragraph five i'll just have it up in front of you
00:48:25 uh and at six to seven uh he explained summarizing that he drafted the cwct guidance that you've referred to namely technical note 73
00:48:38 namely technical note 73 is that right yes yes
00:48:41 yes yes and he also says that it was reviewed by cwct's technical group and selected fire experts before it was published is that right too yes yes do you know who was on the twct technical group at the time
00:48:53 the twct technical group at the time of the publication of technical note 73 who reviewed it not off the top of my head i don't know and do you know who the selected fire experts were i believe
00:49:05 i believe we had comments from um
00:49:08 um from aecom who are
00:49:12 who are consultants and have uh fire engineering uh knowledge from uh from pilkington from
00:49:20 from rockwool
00:49:22 rockwool and
00:49:23 and um
00:49:26 there's another company whose name i forget i'm afraid right now our expert the inquiries expert jonathan sacula who is the facade engineering expert
00:49:37 expert who's given evidence to the inquiry um has said this in his experts report i'll just show you it's jos
00:49:45 it's jos 701
00:49:47 701 page 5
00:49:49 page 5 paragraph 18.
00:49:54 he says this the center for window and cladding technology cwct based in bath uk is the main technical umbrella organization for facade technology in the uk i would expect all cladding
00:50:06 the uk i would expect all cladding contractors to have been aware of the contents of the cwct standard for systemized building envelopes in detail and to have been aware of the subjects covered by the cwct technical notes reading specific notes as required for
00:50:18 reading specific notes as required for example technical notes 73 fire performance of curtain walls and rain screens was published in march 2011 it gives an important summary this applies particularly to those contractors who were members of the cwct
00:50:32 contractors who were members of the cwct do you agree with what mr saculer has said there yes so you accept that this was important guidance the 2011 guidance relied upon by industry or at least
00:50:43 relied upon by industry or at least guidance that should have been relied upon by industry in his opinion yes
00:50:47 yes now let's look at it let's look at technical note 73 it's at cwct5019
00:50:58 and that's the first page it says at the top technical note 73 fire performance of curtain walls and rain screens and uh
00:51:08 and uh the
00:51:09 the opening words say curtain walls are normally used for areas of the building envelope that are not required to be fire resisting but they still require appropriate detailing to limit the spread of fire this technical note reviews the aspects
00:51:20 technical note reviews the aspects relating to fire performance that generally need to be considered in the design of facades that are not required to be fire and resisting where the facade is required to be far resisting additional requirements
00:51:31 additional requirements will apply now if we go then to page six please left hand column you'll see a heading use of combustible material do you see yes and it says as in the second paragraph
00:51:43 and it says as in the second paragraph down to satisfy the recommendations in adb
00:51:46 adb insulation and filler materials in walls of a building with a floor more than 80 metres above ground level are required to be of limited combustibility this requirement does not apply to sealants and gaskets and there is an
00:51:59 to sealants and gaskets and there is an exception for insulation in the cavity of masonry walls similar requirements supply in scotland and northern ireland and the next paragraph dan says the scottish handbook also requires every
00:52:10 scottish handbook also requires every part of an external wall not more than one meter from a boundary to be constructed of non-combustible products was it your understanding when cwct was preparing this technical
00:52:22 when cwct was preparing this technical note that in england and wales the only materials that were required to be of limited combustibility in order to satisfy approved document b were insulation and quotes filler materials
00:52:34 insulation and quotes filler materials unquotes
00:52:35 unquotes yes yes
00:52:37 yes yes and that was in contrast was it with the scottish regulations which required every part of the external wall to be constructed of non-combustible products yes
00:52:48 did did that difference strike you at the time
00:52:53 the time at the time no no so can we take it that you didn't yourself at least turn your mind to why that difference might be there no to your knowledge did anybody discuss
00:53:02 discuss or
00:53:03 or consider this potential difference i don't recall any discussions of that nature
00:53:08 nature now there's no definition given in the technical note or any um hint or guidance in it about what filler materials are is there no why is that
00:53:20 materials are is there no why is that we didn't know what filler materials were
00:53:23 were did anybody raise the question internally at least
00:53:30 i don't recall
00:53:32 recall any
00:53:33 any discussions i'm sure we we would have discussed it um and i i don't know what what we would have just discussed right
00:53:44 what we would have just discussed right when it says filler materials in walls of buildings can you help us about what the cwct was intending by that phrase
00:53:56 that phrase this was essentially just copying what was in um approved document b
00:54:03 b paragraph 12.7 right without turning your mind to what it actually meant as i said i'm i'm sure we we did discuss the meaning of filler materials um but i
00:54:15 the meaning of filler materials um but i don't know what what was discussed i don't i don't recall
00:54:21 recall doing that now you just to be clear you don't recall any specific discussions within the cwct about the meaning or intent
00:54:29 or intent of the phrase filler materials at that time no no
00:54:37 uh do you know whether it was intended that the phrase filler materials in walls of buildings would inc at least include the core of an acm panel
00:54:49 of an acm panel so that at least the core of an acm panel would have to be a material of limited combustibility if used over 18 meters
00:54:55 meters that wasn't our interpretation you said that wasn't your interpretation did you turn your mind to it did cwct turn its mind to that question at that point i don't know because you say that
00:55:07 point i don't know because you say that wasn't our interpretation does that tell us that you did have an interpretation but that wasn't it as i said when this was written in 2000 and 2010 published 2011 i don't i don't
00:55:18 and 2010 published 2011 i don't i don't recall those discussions subsequently we subsequently we discussed it at great length in preparation of our um technical note 98. but that was that was later yeah it was later that was
00:55:29 later yeah it was later that was to be clear i think april 17 but there were previous discussions in fact in 14 and 16 will come to
00:55:38 do you know whether anybody within the cwct membership took this phrase or any part of the phrase filler materials etc to denote that the entire external wall buildup had to be
00:55:51 buildup had to be of materials of limited combustibility i'm not aware of anyone having that interpretation do you know whether there were any discussions with officials from government dclg in particular this time
00:56:03 government dclg in particular this time about the meaning of the term filler before this guidance was published in march 2011. i don't think there was you don't think there was so
00:56:14 you don't think there was so cwct didn't discuss it with with dclg as far as i'm aware no no and after the publication of this guidance do you remember whether any queries were received by cwcet about the
00:56:27 queries were received by cwcet about the meaning of the term filler materials in this note and what it applied to
00:56:35 i don't recall any specific enquiries around the time of the publication of this note
00:56:42 this note although
00:56:43 although as i'm sure we'll talk about later on when it came to our further guidance then then there were issues around that that definition but let's keep with this document for the time being if you look
00:56:55 document for the time being if you look at the final paragraph on the left-hand side on page six you can see that there's a heading alternative approaches and it says for rain screen walls adb
00:57:06 and it says for rain screen walls adb allows fire testing in accordance with bs8414
00:57:09 bs8414 to be used instead of providing cavity barriers and non-combustible insulation as described above is that section correct in your view
00:57:24 yes i think so adb i think paragraph 12.5 says you either follow the prescriptive requirements given in the in the
00:57:35 requirements given in the in the following paragraphs or you can carry out a test in accordance with eight four one four and classify an importance of br135 is testing to bs8414 an alternative to the provision of cavity
00:57:46 alternative to the provision of cavity barriers
00:57:48 barriers it could be now the reference to non-combustible insulation is not in line with the guidance in 12.7 is it no 12.7 refers to limited combustibility
00:57:59 no 12.7 refers to limited combustibility indeed
00:58:00 indeed exactly
00:58:01 exactly can you explain that
00:58:05 that discrepancy
00:58:10 i
00:58:12 can't explain that
00:58:16 the only thing i can say is my understanding is that non-combustible in in scotland non-combustible was was considered to include materials of limited combustibility so we we may have
00:58:28 limited combustibility so we we may have fallen into that trap i don't know d do you sitting there now except that that indicated that the existence of that discrepancy
00:58:37 in a document in respect of which a lot of experts had had input
00:58:42 had input indicate that even the best industry experts didn't fully grasp some basic concepts and terms in approved document b no i don't accept that why not
00:58:53 why not i think this is this is an oversight i don't know why that wasn't picked up but i don't think that means that we weren't aware of the issues and those people reviewing this document weren't aware of the issues so
00:59:04 document weren't aware of the issues so it's an oversight and not picked up it's quite an important one isn't it to fudge the difference between non-combustible and limited combustible i i can't explain why why that's
00:59:15 i i can't explain why why that's happened i'm afraid looking at the top of the right hand column
00:59:20 column it goes on and we'll have to scroll back up to the top of the page where testing is carried out in accordance with bs8414 the test applies to the complete cladding system including insulation rain screen flashings and cavity
00:59:32 rain screen flashings and cavity barriers changing any of these components may affect the ability of the wall to resist the spread of fire now can you help us how well that particular point was understood in the
00:59:43 particular point was understood in the in the industry specifically whether the industry really grasped the fact that a large-scale 8414 test
00:59:51 test applied only to the specific system tested
01:00:00 i i don't know i i think it's we make it quite clear there i think the standard makes it
01:00:05 makes it quite clear evidence that you've heard suggests that the industry didn't understand that the reason i ask you is because it appears that the
01:00:15 that the uh
01:00:17 uh second edition of br 135 published in 2003
01:00:21 2003 did not at least in turn spell this point out whereas the edition published in 2013
01:00:26 in 2013 the third edition did but uh can you help whether the industry knew
01:00:32 knew uh that principle notwithstanding that it wasn't
01:00:36 it wasn't written in expressly into br135 i don't know you don't know no we we say it very clearly in this note you do did you ever become aware of anyone
01:00:47 did you ever become aware of anyone within the cladding industry not understanding that
01:00:52 not at this time no when did you first realize
01:01:00 i think only since
01:01:02 since grenfell
01:01:03 grenfell right
01:01:04 right now let's turn then to 2013 and i want to ask you about two cwct board meetings in that year one on the 24th of july and one on the 18th of september
01:01:21 we can see that the topic of combustible insulation was brought to cwct's attention on two occasions in there yeah let's look at the first of the meetings cwct
01:01:33 look at the first of the meetings cwct 5037
01:01:35 5037 and we can see this was the meeting of the 24th of july 2013 and those who are present is listed are listed chris macy of wintec was there as well as brenda rapted of cwct
01:01:47 there as well as brenda rapted of cwct stephen ledbetter and you yes yes and some industry people too um
01:01:57 were always in attendance members of the cwct board by which i mean um brenda raptor had led stephen led better than you
01:02:11 yes
01:02:14 well brenda apted was some office manager so she was there to take notes and take minutes stephen ledbetter was the director i was taking
01:02:25 ledbetter was the director i was taking over from stephen as director so i attended as well now we can see the other names you've mentioned you can see barry smith of atkins he was one of the i think the long-standing directors yes yes and we're getting if you look at the
01:02:36 yes and we're getting if you look at the apologies list we can see clive burch from bureau four yes yes he was the other long-standing director his name you gave us but there are others there who are also present so jeff mann phil
01:02:49 who are also present so jeff mann phil king from arab and uh um john stamp from cornea were they directors
01:02:54 directors but they were sponsors but not directors jeff mann was a was a director right um and the others were uh were sponsors and uh we can see other
01:03:08 uh were sponsors and uh we can see other names under the apologies stephen wilde ellis
01:03:11 ellis mcshane stuart moxen and jim raleigh were they directors or were they sponsors entitled to be present they were sponsors right and was their role at the board of one
01:03:22 and was their role at the board of one of observer to take notes and know what's going on um perhaps to contribute to the discussions or were they actually there to make decisions on behalf of cwct
01:03:33 to make decisions on behalf of cwct services limited the company whose board meeting this was sorry can you rephrase that please yes um as directors or are those present at board meetings
01:03:45 or are those present at board meetings were those people who were not companies house directors um was their role to attend observe and contribute or were they there to make corporate decisions
01:03:56 corporate decisions they were there to to contribute in whatever discussions we were having right did they ever make any decisions as members of the board on behalf of cwct services limited
01:04:12 not specifically i don't think that they they would advise
01:04:17 advise as i said before they would bring potentially bring ideas and suggestions to the board for discussion and if it was deemed within the group that those
01:04:28 was deemed within the group that those issues required further discussion or further clarity then then we would we would take that away from the meeting and um and and consider it further now we
01:04:39 um and and consider it further now we can see that chris macy of wintec was there can we go to page two of this document
01:04:43 document point seven any other business cm that's chris macy ray's concerns about misunderstandings regarding insulation as class naught does not meet fire regulations srl i think that's stephen
01:04:55 regulations srl i think that's stephen ledbetter yes agreed to look into this
01:04:59 and you told us steven ledbetter was a director
01:05:03 director um was this the first occasion on which you personally became aware of concerns about the use of combustible insulation and fire performance yes
01:05:13 yes do you recall whether others at the meeting
01:05:16 meeting were previously aware or was this the first time for them to so far as you could tell
01:05:23 i don't recall anybody necessarily agreeing with with what chris macey said or or disagreeing chris brought this issue to the board's attention and we agreed to look at it
01:05:35 attention and we agreed to look at it further right just help me with the the words here misunderstandings regarding insulation as class naught does not meet the fire regulations
01:05:50 does that mean that the concerns that were well you told me what were the concerns
01:06:00 i believe
01:06:02 believe that
01:06:04 that we were told that
01:06:08 that certain materials that didn't achieve limited combustibility but were instead class zero were being used
01:06:17 used in tall buildings thank you
01:06:20 thank you do you know what steven ledbetter did by way of looking into this as he agreed to
01:06:27 went back and and discussed the issue at the office in bath and then we took the issue to our technical committee
01:06:40 the issue to our technical committee later in the uh introduced it to our technical committee later in the year i think right now if we go is that the cwct board meeting in september
01:06:53 or was it a separate meeting separate technical committee meeting i don't know if
01:06:59 if i don't know if it was discussed at the september technical committee meeting or the november technical committee meeting i see i thought and what was the outcome of stephen ledbetter's investigation
01:07:10 of stephen ledbetter's investigation it was simply that we would we would discuss it with the technical committee to to try and understand the issues better and to see what guidance we might need to provide yes now let's go to the
01:07:22 need to provide yes now let's go to the minutes for the september 2013 board meeting cwct 5028
01:07:31 you can see the date 18th of september 2013
01:07:35 2013 the list of those present includes you apologies from various people
01:07:40 people and if you go into that list of apologies you can see that neither stephen ledbetter nor chris macy were were there because they're apologizing for not being there yes yes now if we look at
01:07:53 being there yes yes now if we look at the heading under paragraph three please on the on that page towards the bottom of your screen matters arising the matter of fire performance raised by chris macy is to be referred to the technical group building control has a huge problem with insulation materials
01:08:05 huge problem with insulation materials and we should perhaps write a technical update
01:08:08 update can you recall who in particular spoke about this at the meeting if neither chris macy nor steven led that of a present i don't know who was it who believed that building control had a quotes huge problem
01:08:20 control had a quotes huge problem unquote with the far performance of insulation materials do you know
01:08:26 i don't know i i can only assume that that was what chris macey told us right previously were you aware of this problem at the time yourself from other sources no now given that two months had elapsed since the problem was first brought to
01:08:37 since the problem was first brought to the attention of the cwct board and stephen ledbetter had agreed to look into it can you help about what it was that had been discovered if anything by this time
01:08:48 discovered if anything by this time september 2013
01:08:52 nothing specific that i'm aware of as i said i think we
01:08:58 we agreed to to raise the issue with our technical committee yes and uh who was on the technical committee
01:09:06 committee to whom this problem was referred to the group as as a whole we would have put together a a short paper
01:09:17 a short paper outlining
01:09:18 outlining some
01:09:19 some issues we would have presented that to the technical committee and invited discussion and comment and was anything achieved on this problem this difficulty issue before the
01:09:31 this difficulty issue before the cwct meeting in july 2014. my understanding is that the the conclusion of discussions with the technical committee was that
01:09:43 technical committee was that this was a complex issue and we needed to we needed to talk to to fire experts as well as facade experts and we should arrange separate meetings to to do that
01:09:55 arrange separate meetings to to do that and and that's where the july meeting in 2014 came about right now just exploring that a little bit you said this was a complex issue
01:10:06 this was a complex issue what precisely was the complex issue that needed uh
01:10:11 uh the the
01:10:12 the the assistance of fire experts and facade experts
01:10:21 i believe
01:10:23 believe it was the the interpretation of the the prescriptive route to compliance in in general so not just insulation but cladding and um the cladding panels and what exactly
01:10:37 um the cladding panels and what exactly approved document b said with respect to those materials used in the in the external wall because we're looking at the two board minutes we've seen in 2013 the breadth of the problem you've just
01:10:48 the breadth of the problem you've just identified is not is not apparent is it no i mean it looks as if all that is being discussed at that stage is the class what i might call the class
01:10:59 is the class what i might call the class naught problem namely the industry thought that class naught meant limited combustibility is that is that fair i think
01:11:09 i think the problem that was brought to our attention was associated with insulation
01:11:16 with our our knowledge and understanding of other issues around fire performance we then
01:11:23 we then wanted to look at other issues as well including the cladding and not just the insulation right to tell me if this is unfair or wrong but does it did it work like this that chris macy brought the problem
01:11:33 problem to you as a specific problem namely that people think that people are misunderstanding class naught and then the more you looked into it with the proof document be the more you
01:11:44 with the proof document be the more you thought there were questions that needed to be investigated that seems reasonable is that a is that a fair characterization of the history as far as i'm i'm aware yes right
01:11:55 as far as i'm i'm aware yes right uh mr chairman um i'm going to turn next to the july meeting um this is a little bit early uncharacteristically to take ask for the break but we're making good progress so would it be a convenient
01:12:06 progress so would it be a convenient moment yes all right well we we're going to have a break during the morning anyway we normally have it a little bit later but
01:12:12 later but that doesn't matter we'll take it now um and we'll stop now we'll resume at half past 11 please and i have to ask you now you've started giving your evidence please not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything to do with it yeah well you're
01:12:24 anything to do with it yeah well you're out of the room okay all right thanks so much would you give the usher thank you
01:12:38 thank you mr billy how about 11.
01:31:51 you ask mr metcalf to come back in please
01:32:10 all right mr mikkoff all ready to carry on yes thank you thank you very much yes just a minute yes mr german thank you mr metcalf i want to ask you now about a meeting of the cwct which took place a year later on the 2nd
01:32:21 which took place a year later on the 2nd of july 2014. and the minutes of the meeting are please at clg3019336
01:32:40 now uh there they are fire group is the heading uh you say in your statement it's paragraph 21 at page five no need to look at it unless you want to that you do say that this
01:32:51 this uh minute is an accurate representation of the meeting but doesn't record that brian martin of dclg
01:32:58 dclg uh wasn't present for the entirety of it is that fair that's correct right you say that your recollection is that he was present at the start of the meeting but left before the end i think
01:33:09 meeting but left before the end i think that's is that right yes could it have been the other way around that he arrived late uh
01:33:16 uh and did stay till till the end rather than arriving at the start and leaving early
01:33:21 early no he originally that that was originally what was going to happen um but he
01:33:27 but he i think sent me an email shortly before the meeting saying his plans had changed so he could now attend the first part but would have to leave before the end i followed now if we look at the minutes we can see
01:33:38 now if we look at the minutes we can see at the top that the meeting took place at 2pm at the offices of arab in fitzroy street central london uh
01:33:47 uh at that time that was of course before zoom or any other sort of platform like that so am i right in saying that many of the attendees would have had to have traveled
01:33:57 traveled at least possibly some distance for this meeting yourself included yes i mean you would have had to have come up from bath yes yes
01:34:04 yes yes can we take it from that that the meetings weren't generally convened by cwct with attendees from dclg and bre unless it was considered necessary and important
01:34:15 necessary and important yes
01:34:16 yes whose decision was it to convene that meeting
01:34:22 it this is the result of the discussions that we had with the cwct technical committee in late 2013 it was decided at that point that we needed to
01:34:33 that point that we needed to convene a meeting specifically to talk about fire um and this is this is the result of that discussion right and we can see underneath the list of those who attended that it included brian martin
01:34:44 attended that it included brian martin of dclg
01:34:45 of dclg sarah colwell of the bre yes yes um it also included either meredith of kingspan didn't it yes yes and uh luke bisbee and dr barbara lane as well
01:34:57 barbara lane as well yes
01:34:58 yes from their respective institutions and i think you chaired the meeting yes now um did you take minutes i took some notes um
01:35:10 i took some notes um my colleague alan keeler also took some notes and then we we combined them when we got back to the office to to form them to form the minutes right and did you send the minutes in draft to the attendees to confirm that the contents
01:35:23 attendees to confirm that the contents of the draft was correct we we sent the minutes to the
01:35:30 the attendees and those who sent their apologies and and asked the comments yes yes uh i see and what did you did you get back from those people any comments and corrections which led
01:35:42 any comments and corrections which led to
01:35:44 to any changes not that i'm aware of right
01:35:48 now if we look at point two background to the bottom of your screen it says this cwct receives inquiries about fire performance of facades and a number of issues have been raised recently this
01:36:00 issues have been raised recently this meeting has been convened to explore some of these issues and determine what actions cwct should take to assist the industry
01:36:09 industry now you say in your statement and it's paragraph 24 page six no need to see it unless you want to but you can't recall any specific inquiries does that remain the position as that today yes yes so
01:36:20 the position as that today yes yes so you don't you can't remember what specifically had been raised before this meeting i i don't recall specific inquiries however the the discussions that we had and the the
01:36:31 the discussions that we had and the the the agenda that we put together for this meeting would have reflected those inquiries that we had received in terms of the broad topics that were discussed right and are the broad topics reflected in the heading
01:36:42 in the heading headings that we that we see yes i believe so combustibility cavity barriers fire stops and so on well let's look at your statement at page six please paragraph 22
01:36:54 please paragraph 22 top of page six you say prior to the second july 2014 i recall there being some general uncertainty over the word filler and exactly what it referred to but i do not recall any specific
01:37:05 but i do not recall any specific discussions or examples
01:37:09 now
01:37:12 was that uncertainty over the meaning of the word filler a reference to the word filler in 12.7 yes of adp it was and was that uncertainty over the meaning of the word filler in 12.7
01:37:24 meaning of the word filler in 12.7 one of the issues that had been raised before this meeting i believe so when did you first become aware of that issue
01:37:37 i i don't know i ask you because we don't see it at least specifically in the minutes of the 24th of july 2013 board meeting
01:37:48 board meeting or the board meeting of the 18th of september in both cases 2013 do we no so did
01:37:55 so did can we take it from that that the issue problem uh controversy if you like about the meaning of the word filler was something that arose in cwct's mind
01:38:06 arose in cwct's mind between
01:38:07 between september 2013 and july 2014. that's a possibility um we
01:38:14 we may it's it's very difficult to say exactly as as we discussed previously that the issue raised at our board meeting was specifically about insulation and then
01:38:26 insulation and then as it was deemed that we we needed to uh discuss these issues further we we put together additional um issues that we wanted to discuss i don't have a timeline for those um
01:38:39 have a timeline for those um those inquiries i'm afraid can you remember whether there was a particular person or group or member of cwct who had raised this problem no
01:38:51 no was the
01:38:53 was the problem about what filler meant one of the reasons if not the reason the meeting was convened
01:39:00 it was one of the issues that we wanted to try and establish it certainly wasn't it wasn't the only issue but it was it was a i think a key discussion point a key discussion point
01:39:13 discussion point a key discussion point now let's look please at clg3031072
01:39:20 this is an email run from the april of 2014
01:39:26 2014 and if we look at page one towards the foot of the page or middle of the page it's an email from brenda rapted to brian martin at dclgs it then was of the 24th of april 2014
01:39:36 2014 and she writes as uh follows mr martin cwct currently provides guidance on fire performance in technical note 73 fire performance of curtain walls and rain screens copy
01:39:48 curtain walls and rain screens copy attached this explains the requirements of the building regulations and suggests how these requirements can be satisfied we have had numerous inquiries inquiries in recent months regarding fire and facades issues that have been raised
01:40:00 facades issues that have been raised include and there's a long list of bullet points you can see the first one use of combustible insulation in facades particularly rain screens this is causing problems due to the greater thickness of insulation that is required
01:40:12 thickness of insulation that is required if limited combustibility materials have to be used and then you see the fourth bullet point down performance of composite panels such as acms you see that yes
01:40:24 you see that yes and then there are others as well right and then you go on to say we propose to hold a meeting to discuss the issues of fire and facades to get a wider industry view
01:40:33 view establish the adequacy stroke appropriateness of its existing regulations establish whether alternative solutions are available establish what actions cwct should take depending on the
01:40:45 cwct should take depending on the outcome of the meeting we will propose to establish a working group to oversee the development of cwc2 ct work in this area the working group would be drawn from those present at the initial meeting but may include others with
01:40:56 meeting but may include others with specialist knowledge if appropriate and then if we turn the page we would like to invite you to our initial meeting a half day meeting in central london we would be grateful if you could let us know you would like to be involved by monday 12
01:41:07 would like to be involved by monday 12 may and we can then go ahead and arrange a meeting
01:41:12 a meeting now does that jog your memory about the issues that had been raised with with and within cwct that were intended to be addressed at the meeting it highlights the issues yes
01:41:23 it highlights the issues yes and do you remember any discussion with brenda apted or involving brenda rapture that led to that list being created i would have drafted the this email that brenda sent um so i i put that list
01:41:36 brenda sent um so i i put that list together right so does that tell us we look back at page one please that the um
01:41:45 disc the full discussion points towards the foot of the screen uh were based on the longer list of bullet points above it were all issues
01:41:57 were all issues of which you were aware by that time april 2014 yes right including combustible insulation for in facades and the performance of composite panels such as acms yes yeah and can you remember what
01:42:11 acms yes yeah and can you remember what was it
01:42:12 was it about the performance of composite panels such as acms that had arisen which prompted you to put that as one of the items
01:42:19 the items uh as an issue in the list i think by that point there had been fires particularly in in the middle east where acms had been
01:42:33 suggested as a cause of fire spread and we wanted to understand those issues understand if they were issues here as well and and see what what guidance
01:42:45 well and and see what what guidance needed to be needed to be provided had that come from within the cwct or had it come from a sponsor or group of sponsors or any particular sector of industry my
01:42:56 my recollection is that in a meeting of a a separate
01:43:02 separate group um looking at other work that we were doing the the issue of acms was mentioned to us by
01:43:09 us by nick jenkins of then of of booth murray sometime in mid to late 2013 i think yes
01:43:18 yes i see so it was building on that as well right
01:43:22 right were you aware at this time that there were different types of acm panels in
01:43:27 in uh the context of fire performance some having a polyethylene core but something advertised as fire resistant panels fr
01:43:36 i don't recall
01:43:39 recall exactly what i knew at that point but i certainly would have done some research prior to this meeting and
01:43:45 and likely found out those things yes right can you remember whether there was a consistent industry view about the safety the relative safety of fr panels as opposed to 100 percent pe called acm
01:43:57 as opposed to 100 percent pe called acm panels
01:43:58 panels i don't think we'd really had those discussions at that point do you remember whether there was any discussion about what proportion of mineral content was required
01:44:09 was required before an fr panel could be considered acceptable to meet the functional requirement in [Music]
01:44:16 [Music] regulation b4 of the building regulations no were you familiar with the dangers that acm with 100 pe cord panels posed on tall buildings before this meeting
01:44:27 tall buildings before this meeting as i said that there had been fires around the world
01:44:33 where it had been reported that acm polyethylene called acms had been used and
01:44:41 and we didn't know any specific details about those buildings other than what was recorded in in the press and and we wanted to to understand those those concerns um by discussing them with
01:44:52 them with with industry and experts you refer to fires in the middle east uh what about fires before that for example the mermos tire in ruby in uh may 2012.
01:45:04 in uh may 2012. yes we were aware of that fire as well and then the fires in the middle east those the uae fires yes yes and there i think there are five of those between january 2012 and april
01:45:15 those between january 2012 and april 2013.
01:45:17 2013. i i don't know the exact details but there were a number of fires at that time yes okay now going back to brenda raptor's email looking at the second bullet point please if we can um under the list of this is to discuss
01:45:28 um under the list of this is to discuss establish the adequacy or appropriateness of existing regulations which regulations were you referring to there
01:45:36 there i think that was really referenced to the the statutory guidance the the guidance given in a proof document b was there any particular problem with the adequacy and appropriateness of approved
01:45:48 adequacy and appropriateness of approved document b raised by any member of cwct before this meeting or before you penned or drafted this email
01:45:57 i don't recall any specific examples again but there i
01:46:03 i believe there were concerns around clause 12.7 and exactly what what it included and what it didn't right
01:46:14 so that second bullet point just to summarize your evidence is this right it was directed to the in your mind emerging controversy about what filament
01:46:26 emerging controversy about what filament yes
01:46:27 yes and perhaps more broadly the ambit of 12.7 yes yes and let's get back to the minutes of the second of july meeting if we can please page one item four
01:46:41 page one item four you'll see that there's an open discussion
01:46:46 if we go please to page one item four open discussion foot of your screen comments have been grouped under relevant headings and are not necessarily in the order in which they were made
01:46:59 if we look at page three in the light of that general um
01:47:03 um caveat page three we can see in the middle of the page there's a heading combustibility of insulation you see that yes and it says this limited combustibility insulation should be used above 18 meters
01:47:15 above 18 meters when following the prescriptive requirements of adb clause 12.7 but other materials principally for replacement foam are often used in rain screen walls there is a degree of
01:47:26 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 clouding consultants to enforce the
01:47:37 clouding consultants to enforce the requirement for limited combustibility insulation now
01:47:43 now first can you remember who it was who explained that foil-faced phenolic foam was often used in rain screen walls i think that that was our experience
01:47:55 i think that that was our experience from
01:47:57 from inquiries that we'd received from from members and that's our understanding of of what was being done at the time do you remember whether a specific product was mentioned in relation to that
01:48:10 i don't recall a specific product
01:48:15 was everyone at the meeting clear that phenolic foams were not materials of limited combustibility yes yeah
01:48:25 was it ever made clear exactly who it was
01:48:28 was who was confusing class naught with limited combustibility
01:48:37 you say some people who are people i think there was a
01:48:42 a general
01:48:43 general confusion i don't think i could say it's a any particular group of people within the industry i think there was general confusion around the the different
01:48:54 the the different terminology that was used the different tests that were used to establish the performance of different materials were you with your expertise in this field to that date
01:49:05 to that date surprised that some people were confusing class naught with limited combustibility yes
01:49:12 yes did the some people include building control officers
01:49:21 i don't think we had heard that directly right
01:49:30 just pausing here in the discussion do you remember whether i have a meredith who was there from kingspan as i pointed out to you did he join in the discussion on this
01:49:40 this i don't recall any specific uh inputs from from either meredith i mean to be clear did he agree with you that there were some people confusing class naught with limited combustibility
01:49:52 combustibility i don't recall going on with the next paragraph it says this
01:49:56 this higher standards of thermal insulation are requiring greater thicknesses of insulation and in some cases this can only be achieved within the designated wall zone by use of combustible insulation architects are unaware of the
01:50:08 insulation architects are unaware of the problem and need to allow a wider wall zone to accommodate the greater thickness required with limited combustibility material now looking at those paragraphs that's exactly the same issue isn't it
01:50:19 that's exactly the same issue isn't it that was raised with the cwct board in the july and the september of 2013 wasn't it
01:50:26 wasn't it yes yeah that issue would have would have been raised by um at the board meeting yes can you help about why no progress
01:50:33 progress had been made or appears to have been made in relation to these topics so confusion
01:50:37 confusion between class norton limited combustibility and the use of combustible insulation in contravention or apparent contravention of 12.7 of adb
01:50:48 it took time to arrange
01:50:52 arrange this meeting i became
01:50:56 i became cwct director in january of 2014 so there was personally a lot of stuff going on at that time as i got to grips with that role and therefore it took
01:51:08 with that role and therefore it took uh slightly longer than planned to to arrange this meeting right
01:51:15 you've said in your statement let's go to it paragraph 26 on page seven and we'll come back to this note in a moment let's just look at across at this you say there
01:51:25 say there i did not have any specific recollections of this section of the meeting
01:51:29 meeting the section we've just been referring to the use of combustible insulation had previously been raised by chris macy at a cwct board meeting and this discussion was intended to help us gain a better understanding of this and to other
01:51:40 understanding of this and to other potential fire related issues i do not think that brian martin was present during this discussion as he did not attend the whole meeting i did not recall who specifically stated that quotes other materials principally foil
01:51:52 quotes other materials principally foil face phenolic foam are often used in rain screen walls i did not know if combustible insulation was being widely used however i would not have reason to doubt what we were being told
01:52:03 doubt what we were being told foil-faced phenolic foam was principally a reference to kingspan k15 my understanding was that foam-based insulation products in general were combustible this would include foil facade phenolic foam
01:52:15 facade phenolic foam so does that help you with your recollection about whether specific products were mentioned in the context of foil-faced phenolic foam
01:52:24 yes
01:52:26 to be clear kingsman k-15 they were the market leader yes any others
01:52:32 others uh
01:52:34 uh i i don't recall if i don't recall if the likes of celotex were mentioned at the time right i mean to help you with the chronology celetex didn't launch rs 5000 until the august
01:52:45 didn't launch rs 5000 until the august the same year the following month okay but um had cwct looked into the use of combustible insulation after the warnings raised by chris macy of wintec in the july of the previous year
01:52:56 in the july of the previous year no no why is that is it was it again just lapse of time yes given that members of kingspan were present at the meeting including either meredith who um
01:53:07 um had had a role in the large-scale fire testing of k-15 historically do you remember whether any comments were made by him or um anybody else about k-15 and its widespread use
01:53:18 about k-15 and its widespread use no i don't recall were you yourself clear at the time of this meeting that any insulation product used over 18 meters was required to be of limited combustibility
01:53:29 of limited combustibility that was clearly the requirement if following the prescriptive route to compliance yes and the alternative to following the prescriptive route compliance was what testing the facade system in accordance
01:53:40 testing the facade system in accordance with the s8414 and classifying it in accordance with br135 or i think alternatively fire engineering in more general terms was mentioned as a route an alternative
01:53:52 mentioned as a route an alternative route to compliance as well was either meredith himself asked any questions about the fire performance of k-15 not that i recall so he wasn't asked to clarify what instances it could be used
01:54:06 no i as i said it was to us it was clear when it could and couldn't be used right i mean there's all this discussion about foil based foil face phenolic foam happening in front of
01:54:17 happening in front of either meredith i mean can you remember any contribution one way or the other that he made to the debate no right
01:54:25 right now um
01:54:28 was there any discussion at all
01:54:33 about the exception in 12.7 which accepts the use of insulation in cabin cavity masonry walls do you remember that i don't
01:54:43 i don't i don't recall that being discussed right this this was about insulation in in rain screen cavity so that that wasn't really relevant to the discussion we were having
01:54:54 discussion we were having right thank you now um
01:54:57 um it would have been possible wouldn't it to
01:55:01 to add a warning about the inappropriate use of combustible insulation in tall buildings into the technical update 1773
01:55:14 i don't think well we
01:55:20 we could have done that i think technical note 73 made it clear that limited combustibility insulation was required and mineral fiber insulation was the only commonly used material that met that requirement
01:55:32 requirement was there a specific consideration of adding a rider or amendment to technical note 73 to make it crystal clear that um
01:55:42 that um only materials of limited combustibility could be used above 18 meters no that that wasn't discussed the
01:55:54 it was fairly quickly established that a new technical note would be would be written that would cover these issues oh i see so this was inc that was a that was in contemplation as
01:56:05 that was a that was in contemplation as a result of this meeting was it yes i follow
01:56:09 now um
01:56:14 looking back please at the note of the minutes the notes of the meeting the minutes of the meeting under the heading combustibility of insulation which is where we were you see
01:56:25 you see that there's a comment there about building control offices allowing the use of class naught materials when those of limited combustibility were required was any reason for that
01:56:36 was any reason for that given at the meeting
01:56:41 my understanding is that this relates to
01:56:45 to the
01:56:47 the labc
01:56:49 labc certificate or approval that referred to i believe referred to k-15 as being
01:56:57 as being equivalent to a class there are a limited combustibility material or if i forget the exact wording i see was there a specific discussion of the labc approval for k-15 i don't
01:57:08 the labc approval for k-15 i don't recall specific discussion at that particular this particular meeting no right
01:57:13 right right
01:57:16 so just to be clear though your personal understanding was that the reason is this right that the reason why building control officers were permitting the use of class naught materials
01:57:27 materials uh
01:57:28 uh above 18 meters as insulation materials was because of the labc approval for k-15 that that had been suggested to me yes who by whom i believe chris macy
01:57:40 who by whom i believe chris macy winter highlighted that to me yes right
01:57:46 what did you think what was your reaction to the to discovering that
01:57:54 i didn't really understand the basis for like the claim in in that certificate i didn't understand how it could say a combustible material was
01:58:07 it could say a combustible material was of limited compatibility was the labc a an ordinary member or even a sponsor member of cwct no
01:58:15 no right
01:58:17 right did
01:58:18 did cwct have any links formal or informal with nabc no
01:58:26 at this point did you yourself investigate what what the abc approval actually said about k-15 to get to get to the bottom of why it was that bcos were permitting the use of
01:58:38 was that bcos were permitting the use of class normal materials i think i had a copy of the certificate um and i
01:58:45 um and i read the certificate and what did you make of it when you read it
01:58:50 read it as i said
01:58:51 as i said it was difficult to understand how they were saying that a combustible product could be treated as if it was limited investability did you raise
01:59:03 raise that thought with anybody
01:59:09 not ex well with colleagues at cwct and potentially this meeting but not external you know
01:59:19 you say potentially at this meeting did did
01:59:22 did did was brian martin present at this point in the discussion do you remember i don't think so right did you given that he wasn't but had been at least there for part of the time did you think to yourself make
01:59:33 the time did you think to yourself make a mental note of going back to brian martin and alerting him specifically to this
01:59:40 to this general problem namely that building control officers were i think as you say relying on the labc approval for k-15 i didn't do that no but brian martin would have received a copy
01:59:52 brian martin would have received a copy of these minutes where it's well that's highlighted right
01:59:57 he may have done but he may not have realized that that that last sentence was
02:00:01 was referring to the labc approval on which building control officers relied as i said i don't i don't specifically recall if we discuss the lab certificate at this meeting but that we had had
02:00:13 meeting but that we had had discussions about it
02:00:19 [Music] you say brian martin wasn't present for this part of the discussion how do you remember that
02:00:29 that's that is that is my recollection of the meeting i have no uh i have no proof or evidence of that but that is my recollection of the meeting no i understand that um
02:00:43 the reason i ask the question and i know it's difficult is that is is there anything you remember specifically about him getting up and leaving before you got to the 12.7 point no
02:00:53 no right
02:00:54 right did you have any discussions in front of brian martin at this meeting about 12.7 it's ambit in general all the meaning of filler materials etc in particular
02:01:06 filler materials etc in particular i don't think so right did you oh had you spoken to brian martin about that question all those questions before the meeting no what about afterwards
02:01:19 we thought the conclusion of the meeting in terms of 12.7 was quite reasonable um it was
02:01:26 it was agreed that an faq would be written that would be agreed with with brian martin and dclg in order to clarify clause 12.7 yeah well and we'll come back to that in
02:01:37 well and we'll come back to that in interview course um before before we go on to that can i just ask you was this the first time you've met brian martin yes i think so right um
02:01:48 um if we go down to the heading underneath that on page three you'll see a new heading
02:01:52 heading which says use of acm on high-rise buildings
02:01:55 buildings and it reads as follows acm refers to aluminium composite material the normal material consists of two skins of aluminium approximately half a millimeter thick separated by a
02:02:06 millimeter thick separated by a polythene sorry polyethylene core two to five millimeters thick this material generally
02:02:13 generally achieves a reaction to fire classification of class naught or class b s 1 d naught there are versions available with a mineral core which can achieve a 2 s 1 d naught there are also
02:02:24 achieve a 2 s 1 d naught there are also similar materials available with other materials such as copper used for the facing
02:02:29 facing there have been major fires in buildings in various parts of the world including the middle east and france where acm materials have been used for the cladding with the acm responsible for external fire spread
02:02:41 for external fire spread you address this section of the meeting minutes in your statement at paragraph 31 if we can go to page eight of your statement please at the very bottom
02:02:52 uh and over to page nine but picking up the last line of page eight you say i do not recall who stated that this material generally achieves a reaction to fire classification of class naught or class
02:03:04 classification of class naught or class b s one d naught i did not recall researching the specific performance of p e acm in 2014 see that yes
02:03:16 see that yes and then uh you say
02:03:20 you say um
02:03:21 um i believe at this time i was aware that combustible acm cloudy was being used you see that yes this understanding would have come from general discussions with industry colleagues but don't recall any specifics i did not know how
02:03:33 recall any specifics i did not know how widespread their use was i did not know if mhclg was aware of their use you see that yes
02:03:39 that yes um
02:03:40 um now if we go back to the bottom of page eight
02:03:43 eight please that is all prefaced by what you say um at the beginning of that paragraph i do not have any specific recollections of this aspect of the meeting uh and then you go on to say you were
02:03:55 uh and then you go on to say you were aware of fires involving polyethylene called acm and you don't think brian martin was there for that discussion either and then you say this i assume that by the normal material we were referring to standard grade polyethylene called acm
02:04:07 standard grade polyethylene called acm can you recall whether any particular person's led those parts of the discussion at that meet at the meeting
02:04:18 i believe myself and alan keeler would have introduced the the topic of discussion and and opened it up to the meeting to
02:04:29 and opened it up to the meeting to to hear views and opinions of of what we were discussing right and this would come purely from the uae and french experience had it yes not from not from particular people in the
02:04:40 from not from particular people in the industry as i said nick nick jenkins um
02:04:44 um raised it the year before um and
02:04:49 and yeah there were fives overseas we may have had questions at cwct regarding their their use and this was to better understand the issue now you say i do not think brian martin
02:05:00 now you say i do not think brian martin was present for this discussion again is there a specific reason for remembering that he wasn't there no the the only thing i can can add is that
02:05:11 that our our meeting started with a a general discussion my recollection is that went on for for quite a long time because there was quite a lot to discuss and as i said brian martin wasn't able to attend the whole meeting and i think
02:05:24 attend the whole meeting and i think by the time we got on to talking about combustibility of materials and so on he had left right now you refer to the normal material consisting of two skins of aluminium
02:05:35 consisting of two skins of aluminium separated by a polyethylene core and was the normal material 100 percent pe
02:05:43 you say you say standard grade but by that do you mean 100 by standard grade yes we would be in 100 polyethylene cord i see now
02:05:52 now does that mean that that was the normal usual grade specified for high-rise projects in england and at the time
02:06:05 probably yes when you say probably the word normally uh or normal appears in the note and in your you explain it in your statement
02:06:16 your you explain it in your statement can you do better than probably it could be normal as in it was the the normal as in the standard grade and then there were alternative grades that
02:06:27 there were alternative grades that achieved different levels of performance i i don't
02:06:30 i i don't i don't know and what was the basis on which you'd understood that the normal specification for high-rise projects in england and wales was for 100 polyethylene called acm panels
02:06:43 polyethylene called acm panels but that can only have come from
02:06:47 discussions with with industry colleagues we're not we we don't specify specific material we're not involved in specific projects so that that would have come from our discussions with with colleagues and
02:06:58 discussions with with colleagues and inquiries that we would have received right
02:07:02 did you know at the time you read these minutes
02:07:05 minutes or drafted them i should say whether or not acm 100 pe chord panels have been installed on high-rise buildings historically in england and wales our understanding is that they had been
02:07:18 our understanding is that they had been used yes yeah now if we go please to your statement at page 9
02:07:24 page 9 paragraph 32 top of the page you say i believe that at the time i was aware that combustible acm cladding was being used on high-rise residential buildings this understanding would have come from general discussions
02:07:36 would have come from general discussions with industry colleagues but i do not recall any specifics i did not know how widespread their use was and then you say i did not know if mhclg was were aware of their use um
02:07:47 um now were any specific brands of acm panels discussed at the meeting not the type recall was it your understanding uh
02:07:57 uh well let me ask you this way what was your understanding as of july 2014
02:08:02 2014 about what class
02:08:05 class where the national or euro norm
02:08:09 euro norm acm 100 pe call panels achieved
02:08:15 i can only go on what was written in in the minutes i don't recall as i said as i said my statement i don't recall doing any specific research prior to that meeting i almost certainly would have done in
02:08:26 i almost certainly would have done in order to prepare myself for that meeting so
02:08:29 so i
02:08:30 i i was highly likely that i would have looked at
02:08:34 looked at aggramar certificates and another literature to try and establish the performance but i said i don't recall specifically doing that right
02:08:44 was it your understanding as it early july 2014 that national class naught or euro norm class b external cladding panels were allowed for use on buildings over 18 meters
02:08:55 for use on buildings over 18 meters yes
02:08:56 yes was it your impression at this meeting that it was that it was generally known that acm panels with 100 pe core were being used over 18 meters i believe so yes
02:09:07 meters i believe so yes did those present at the meeting appear to you at least to be aware of the fact that acm
02:09:13 that acm was responsible for major fires in the middle east and france that you've mentioned
02:09:17 mentioned yes yes
02:09:19 yes yes so that came as no surprise to those at the meeting did it i don't think so no do you recall anybody expressing concern at the meeting that a major fire could occur in the uk in england and wales particularly
02:09:31 the uk in england and wales particularly because of the use of acm with a 100 core uh in an external wall build up over 18 meters nobody said that specifically right
02:09:44 now we i think have seen this in your statement of paragraph 31 the top of page nine you say you didn't research the specific performance of peacm
02:09:54 of peacm in 2014. why was that i said i don't recall researching i i almost certainly did in preparation for this meeting but i don't recall specifically doing that
02:10:07 i see that's not quite what you've written there well i've written i don't recall researching the specific performance and i don't recall doing that but i i would have res i would have done some research prior to the meeting to to
02:10:20 research prior to the meeting to to better understand the topic and that may well have included looking at the performance of these products but i don't remember doing that so in fact your evidence is uh you you are likely to have done so but don't
02:10:32 are likely to have done so but don't specifically recall doing so yes and why would you say you were likely to have done so did you have a practice of doing so well yes i i would have prepared for that meeting the best way
02:10:43 prepared for that meeting the best way that i could have done which would have been looking at the requirements in approved document b looking at material performance where appropriate yes
02:10:52 yes do you remember whether
02:10:56 there was any pressure or lobbying from sponsors or members of cwct about how how the cwct should approach this question no absolutely not right
02:11:09 this question no absolutely not right now if we go back to the minutes of the meeting please uh
02:11:13 uh at the top of page four we can see there um
02:11:20 um that there's a link this is in the um in italics there's a link given to a seminar on the fire safety of facades from paris in the previous year
02:11:32 facades from paris in the previous year which had been given by nathan white michael delicatosis marty aarons and amanda kimball yes yes
02:11:43 that link
02:11:46 was that something that you expected your
02:11:49 your members to be able to access easily we'll be familiar with
02:11:56 it it was a publicly available record of that conference so we
02:12:03 we i think we found it just by searching for it can you in a sentence tell us what the message of that uh that paper was i don't recall right
02:12:16 and if we go on underneath that in normal type it says this it was stated that clause 12.7 of adb is intended to prohibit the use of polyethylene called acm in buildings over 18 meters as they are not classed
02:12:28 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 material stroke products which implies that it only applies to insulation the wording of the
02:12:40 applies to insulation the wording of the main text refers to filler materials which could be taken to include the polyethylene core but this is not clear now you tell us about this in your statement and let's go to that back to
02:12:51 statement and let's go to that back to your statement please this time page 10 paragraph 36 and there at the top of the page you say this i believe that the person who quotes stated on quotes that clause 7 of
02:13:02 quotes stated on quotes that clause 7 of clause 12.7 of adb is intended to prohibit the use of polyethylene called acm in buildings over 18 meters close quotes was sarah colwell of bre however this was not my interpretation
02:13:14 however this was not my interpretation of clause seven caused 12.7 of adb which referred to requiring
02:13:19 requiring quotes insulation products and filler materials to be of limited combustibility i did not consider this to apply to cladding materials in general or more specifically the core material of an acm panel
02:13:30 material of an acm panel and i recall that the general view of those present echoed my view as described i did not recall specifically if anybody shared the view put forward however i believe that the general view of those present was that clause 12.7
02:13:43 of those present was that clause 12.7 required clarification this meeting was taking place in july 2014 as indicated i did not consider that the wording of 12.7 was clear and unambiguous and this view was shared as
02:13:55 unambiguous and this view was shared as recorded in the minutes whilst the guidance related to insulation products was clear the term filler materials was not defined nor was it a commonly used term in the facade
02:14:06 it a commonly used term in the facade industry
02:14:07 industry it was therefore unclear what materials were considered to be quotes filler materials as stated in the meeting minutes the title of clause 12.7 was also confusing as it implied that it
02:14:18 also confusing as it implied that it only applied to insulation material stroke products rather than materials more generally this section of the minutes therefore reflects the discussion that took place
02:14:29 and then um if you uh go on please to page 11 i'm sorry to read chunks of this to you but there are questions that do follow you say this on page 11 of paragraph 40. by
02:14:41 say this on page 11 of paragraph 40. by way of further explanation clause 12.7 refers to requirements for insulation products and filler materials and not specifically cladding panels a rain screen panel is considered to be
02:14:53 a rain screen panel is considered to be neither an insulation product a rain screen panel has a drained and ventilated cavity behind and therefore doesn't contribute to the thermal performance of a wall or a filler material adb provides a list of filler
02:15:04 material adb provides a list of filler materials that were excluded such as gasket sealants and similar examples of what were considered as filler materials were not given and therefore there was uncertainty over the meaning of filler however my understanding was that it did
02:15:17 however my understanding was that it did not apply to a rain screen panel furthermore the title of the clause was insulation material stroke products and therefore it was thought to only apply to insulation material when i used the term current view i was
02:15:30 when i used the term current view i was referring to what appeared to cwct to be the accepted view of the industry it is not possible to list all the people or organizations in the industry but prior to the meeting in july 2014 i
02:15:42 but prior to the meeting in july 2014 i did not recall discussing this with anyone who had an alternative view the term confusing arises because of the uncertainty over the definition of a filler material quite some quote but i'm
02:15:54 filler material quite some quote but i'm not aware of anyone who considered this to include rain screen clouding panels for example now
02:16:01 now was this meeting in july 2014 the first time that it had been suggested to you that clause point was 12.7 of adb applied to the external panels used on
02:16:12 applied to the external panels used on facades above 18 meters yes did sarah colwell actually say that it was the word filler or the phrase filler material
02:16:23 phrase filler material or perhaps etc in 12.7 that meant that it extended to all elements in the external wall panel or at least to the core of an acm panel
02:16:37 a logical explanation wasn't really given
02:16:40 given there were two
02:16:43 some were saying that filler referred to to the core uh i don't recall sarah carlwell saying that
02:16:54 sarah carlwell saying that she said that the intention of the clause was that it applied to the whole of the external wall system i don't recall her giving a a
02:17:03 a a logical explanation for that interpretation based on what was written so
02:17:10 so you say you don't recall her giving a logical explanation do you recall her explaining to the meeting what word or words within 12.7 led
02:17:22 led to the clause applying to the whole of the external wall system no it wasn't clear right
02:17:30 so she i'd take it from that answer that she didn't say at the meeting it's the word filler or it's the phrase filler material which does it which it means that
02:17:41 which it means that the requirement of a material of limited combustibility applies to the whole of the external wall buildup
02:17:49 i don't recall anything that specific being said so the term filler was suggested by some to apply to as i said
02:18:01 suggested by some to apply to as i said the core of an acm or more generally to the cladding but it wasn't clear from what was written it wasn't clear from what sarah was saying that that was actually what the that was the situation
02:18:13 that was the situation we've seen what you've said in your statement at some length but what was your reaction to sarah colwell's suggested interpretation of clause 12.7 at the meeting it was very different to to the view
02:18:24 it was very different to to the view that cwct had right did anybody at the meeting agree with her interpretation or her expression of the intention i don't recall anybody agreeing with it right do you remember how others reacted to what
02:18:36 you remember how others reacted to what she was saying in that respect i think there was an element of surprise i think
02:18:45 i think the cwct view and that had been formed by our reading of of the guidance and also discussions with with industry colleagues was that 12.7 didn't apply to
02:18:59 colleagues was that 12.7 didn't apply to the cladding so to be told that the intention of that clause was to include everything i think was a surprise for most people is that why then the minute records that it wasn't
02:19:10 then the minute records that it wasn't clear yes
02:19:15 what was the position that there was
02:19:18 there was because there was it was now apparent that there were two possible interpretations this lack of clarity had arisen
02:19:30 i think that there just there was the wording used insulation products filler materials etc it simply wasn't clear i don't think to
02:19:41 simply wasn't clear i don't think to anybody exactly what that meant other than insulation products that was the simple bit the filler materials and what that applied to it just wasn't clear right was there any discussion
02:19:52 right was there any discussion at a meeting about what specifically would meet the definition of the word filler or phrase filler material no no
02:20:03 did sarah colwell explain any of the background about why the word filler or phrase filler material had been introduced into adb in 2006 not that i recall in this meeting no
02:20:18 now in your statement let's just look at it it's page 15 please paragraph 54
02:20:26 you say there
02:20:28 say there i believe
02:20:30 i believe i had first read bca technical guidance note 18 issue naught in july 2014. i cannot now recall when i first read issue one
02:20:39 issue one i do not know who authored bca technical guidance note 18. neither i nor cwct were involved at all in bca technical guidance note 18. now i think it's right that there's no
02:20:51 now i think it's right that there's no mention at all of bca technical guidance note 18 issue naught in these meeting minutes is there no there isn't it was at this meeting that i first became aware of
02:21:03 that i first became aware of bca technical guidance no 18 issue nord right
02:21:07 right certainly
02:21:08 certainly i would have read that technical guide technical guidance note after this meeting do you remember who it was who pointed you in the direction of bca technical guidance note 18. i don't right
02:21:19 right if it was a matter of record you will have then learned that it had been published the previous month june 2014 yes
02:21:27 yes was there any any discussion at the meeting do you recall of the fact consistent with the colwell view of 12.7 that the bca had the previous month put
02:21:39 that the bca had the previous month put out technical guidance note 18 which said that all elements of the external wall build up including external facings had to be materials of limited combustibility i'm sorry can you can you rephrase that
02:21:51 i'm sorry can you can you rephrase that question yes was there any discussion do you remember anybody discussing at the meeting
02:21:56 meeting the fact that the bca had put out guidance the previous month which was consistent with what i might call the colwell view of 12.7
02:22:07 we had a a short discussion about the bca technical guidance as i recall but having not read it it was difficult to contribute to that significantly so we
02:22:18 contribute to that significantly so we we
02:22:19 we i took upon ourselves to go away and read that meeting read that technical guidance note and and try and sort of work it all out were you surprised to learn that the bca had itself put out guidance which was consistent with the
02:22:31 guidance which was consistent with the view expressed by sarah colwell at the meeting
02:22:35 meeting about 12.7
02:22:38 yes
02:22:41 were any of those present at the 2nd of july 2014 meeting members of the bca to your knowledge
02:22:51 not that i recall someone from nhbc was invited to our to that meeting but couldn't attend that's right dave white yes
02:23:02 that's right dave white yes uh yes
02:23:03 uh yes and he couldn't attend
02:23:09 uh was nhbc
02:23:11 was nhbc a
02:23:12 a habitual attendee at technical meetings such as this at the time no why was nhbc invited
02:23:24 i think we we wanted to to get the views of as many different people and organizations as possible and obviously they have an important role to play in in the approval of of materials
02:23:35 play in in the approval of of materials and systems so it seemed appropriate to invite them to that meeting right um did you have a contact at nhbc dave white was our our main contact as far as i'm aware right
02:23:47 far as i'm aware right you say our main contact who was the individual within cwct who knew dave white or was familiar enough with him to invite him i think
02:23:56 i think i think we we'd all met him at various times
02:24:01 times was there any discussion at the meeting that you can recall about how the
02:24:06 the if i can use a shorthand the colwell bca view
02:24:10 view of all elements of the external wool buildup had to be materials of limited combustibility including external facings was consistent with diagram 40 and the
02:24:22 was consistent with diagram 40 and the requirement in there that panels need only achieve either national class nought or euro class b it's not consistent and that was part of the problem that that was why
02:24:33 the problem that that was why we wanted
02:24:35 we wanted to get that clause if you like officially clarified because we were being offered an interpretation a review that that didn't appear consistent with what was written and
02:24:47 consistent with what was written and also appeared to contradict another clause within the document did anybody at the meeting challenge sarah colwell and point out the anomaly that i've just you've actually just pointed out i i i suspect we did i i
02:25:00 out i i i suspect we did i i as i said we we excuse me we we were surprised to hear what sarah called how sarah carwell had to say and we would have certainly
02:25:11 to say and we would have certainly questioned um how you reached that conclusion because it didn't seem logical to us did she
02:25:18 did she do you remember whether she gave any answer when asked about i i don't recall the specifics i'm afraid
02:25:26 afraid if we go back to the minutes please uh page four third paragraph down it says clg3019336
02:25:36 it says this it was suggested that clarification could be achieved by means of an faq
02:25:41 of an faq approved documents can be downloaded from the government planning portal details of which are set out there the page for each approved document also has an faq section related to that approved
02:25:52 an faq section related to that approved document sarah cole will agree to raise this with brian martin
02:25:58 and going back to your statement then looking at that please page 10 paragraph 37
02:26:04 37 you say there uh
02:26:08 uh in the third line i think it was sarah colwell who suggested the idea of an faq and my view was that this was a good suggestion as i felt that 12.7 required clarification for the reasons outlined above the need for clarification also
02:26:20 above the need for clarification also reflected the consensus of the meeting and i consider this an appropriate course of action in the absence of reissuing an amended adb providing official clarification via the planning portal where the approved documents are
02:26:31 portal where the approved documents are available seemed reasonable this suggestion was generally well received and my recollection is that sarah colwell said she would discuss the usc with brian martin to agree a way forward i'm sure that brian martin had
02:26:42 forward i'm sure that brian martin had left the meeting prior to this discussion i cannot recall sarah colwell's specific reaction to this discussion but the consensus was to seek clarification so just to be clear is this right the
02:26:53 so just to be clear is this right the consensus at the end of the meeting was that clarification should be sought not that it had been decided and accepted that the term filler in 12.7 did include the core of an acm panel
02:27:05 the core of an acm panel yes we wanted that to be officially clarified
02:27:10 clarified one way or the other yes right was any was there any discussion about an actual amendment to approve document b rather than an faq
02:27:21 an faq there wasn't because as i said brian martin had had left the meeting by that point so
02:27:28 point so at this meeting there was there was no discussion about uh an amended version of approved documentary being produced were you yourself aware of any other faqs having been published which clarified approved document b or other
02:27:40 clarified approved document b or other similar statutory guidance documents i i was i think i was aware of them in general yes but not i can't give you a specific example right did anybody at the meeting to the best of your
02:27:51 the meeting to the best of your recollection express the view that the that adb wasn't keeping up with modern methods of construction
02:28:01 i think i i don't think that was i don't think we had a conversation that went along that lines but that but that is what this clause is really about i think it's it's
02:28:15 clause is really about i think it's it's it's about recognizing that materials have changed and whether the guidance has kept pace with those materials
02:28:26 uh if we uh
02:28:29 uh continue in the minutes please at page four
02:28:33 you could see that there's a heading breather membranes uh and just above that there's some words in italics how would this affect other materials used for rain screen panels eg high
02:28:45 used for rain screen panels eg high pressure laminate obviously that's referring to what's above it
02:28:49 above it um do you remember whether there was any discussion about that at the meeting i think
02:28:56 i think that note in italics kind of highlights the the lack of clarity that that we still had it still wasn't clear to us whether or not
02:29:08 whether or not 12.7 was being said to apply to everything or whether the core of an acm was to be considered a filler and therefore they fell into clause 12.7 and therefore this was raising and what
02:29:19 therefore this was raising and what about other other panels that may or may not be covered by that clause the words in italics are is this right are your
02:29:27 are your sort of notes to self or questions to self rather than a record of what was discussed at the meeting yes that's correct
02:29:34 correct was there any consensus do you remember about whether materials such as high-pressure laminates uh were subject to the limited combustibility recommendations in 12.7 i don't think we discussed them in
02:29:46 i don't think we discussed them in in any great detail right i mean it looks as if nobody at the meeting was ever able to offer any kind of explanation because the matter was left yes the question yes yeah now let's look at uh
02:29:58 look at uh something from kingspan can we please go to kin triple zero two six three zero zero
02:30:09 this is the witness statement of david cookson
02:30:12 cookson of kingspan and if we go to page 19 in that please we can
02:30:18 we can see what he recalls of this meeting this is a paragraph 2.106
02:30:25 and he says
02:30:27 he says this one one thing that does stand out in my mind from the cwct meeting is that when brian martin left the meeting he said something along the lines of quotes there's going to be a major fire
02:30:39 there's going to be a major fire close quotes my recollection of this comment is that it related to the quality of installation and the issue with cavity barriers which is referred to under the heading rain
02:30:50 is referred to under the heading rain screen cavity barriers at page 3 of the cwct minutes rather than simply the use of acm however i cannot fully recall
02:30:59 is mr cookson right in his recollection i don't recall brian martin saying that we we had a discussion uh prior to talking about combustible
02:31:12 uh prior to talking about combustible combustibility of materials we did discuss fire stopping and and range screen cavity barriers and there were suggestions that they weren't always installed
02:31:23 always installed properly um so so that part of mr cookson's statement is i think accurate but i don't recall brian martin saying those words you don't recall him saying those words
02:31:36 don't recall him saying those words now we touched on this before a little bit were you contacted by brian martin or anybody else that what was then the dclg after this meeting as a follow-up to what was discussed as
02:31:47 discussed as visible from the minutes no did you think yourself about contacting brian martin after the meeting to make sure he was fully up to speed with those parts of the meeting he missed given particularly what would come as a
02:31:58 particularly what would come as a surprise to you from sarah colwell about the ambit of 12.7 we didn't
02:32:04 we didn't no we
02:32:07 no we we felt that the the approach that had been agreed at the meeting that sarah caldwell would draft an faq that would then be
02:32:15 then be sent to brian martin for approval seemed to be an appropriate course of action so we we at that point we left it at that
02:32:22 at that i follow
02:32:23 i follow now i want to take you back in time to 2002
02:32:28 2002 um
02:32:30 at bre 30 42031
02:32:35 i appreciate of course this was at at a time before you joined cwct but i want to show it to you and ask you about it it's a letter dated the 15th of
02:32:46 about it it's a letter dated the 15th of august 2002 to sarah colwell from alan keeler as you can see from the bottom of the screen and it's uh it says dear dr colwell and the topic is revision of br135
02:32:58 the topic is revision of br135 fire performance of external thermal insulation for walls of multi-storey buildings
02:33:03 buildings dr ledbetter has asked me to respond to your letter concerning the above
02:33:08 and then he says this and ventilated rain screens are a cost-effective form of construction used widely throughout europe through the generic data supporting the revision of br135 show
02:33:20 supporting the revision of br135 show that all the rain screen systems tested failed to meet the test criteria we are concerned that the use of the proposed test will lead to the abandonment of this method of construction without any guarantee that
02:33:32 construction without any guarantee that alternative forms of construction are available particularly for multi-story buildings where weight is an important consideration if this occurs there could be economic consequences for the building industry
02:33:43 consequences for the building industry and the uk as a whole it was emphasized at the outset of the work of the bsi committee that it is necessary to take account of the needs of industry and the use of energy in buildings
02:33:54 energy in buildings the data presented would tend to suggest the use of rendered systems at the expense of rain screen systems there is no there is general concern at the durability of these systems particularly when used for new construction
02:34:08 now were you ever made aware of this letter
02:34:12 letter and the consultation to which it related no it was it was before i joined cwct did was there a time when you became aware of the competing views about the impact of large-scale fire testing on
02:34:23 impact of large-scale fire testing on the use of rain screen systems
02:34:30 no i don't think so had it ever been the case to your knowledge that the cwct had lobbied against the introduction of large-scale fire tests no we had not you hadn't
02:34:42 no we had not you hadn't did the fact that rain screen systems were failing large-scale fire testing ever come to your knowledge only
02:34:49 only since
02:34:51 since i've been aware of of this letter and and the background to it so since does that so this letter was i believe this letter was mentioned in the opening
02:35:02 this letter was mentioned in the opening statement um before christmas i see so in preparation to give evidence in the inquiry right i see
02:35:10 do you know what the views of cwct were at the time about how industry could ensure rain screen systems were safe in relation to external fire spread if large-scale testing was undesirable
02:35:25 my understanding of this is that we we were asked by bre to comment on on the test method we had been
02:35:36 we had been cwct had been provided with with limited data of the systems that had been tested and the results that had been achieved and
02:35:46 and those results showed that all the rain screen systems failed the test our concern was that by this point
02:35:58 was that by this point range screen systems were a commonly used
02:36:01 used system in the uk and across europe and
02:36:06 and publishing a test where it wasn't clear if rain screen could
02:36:12 could meet
02:36:12 meet the requirements of that test would would clearly cause an issue and with the limited data that we had available it wasn't clear to us whether whether the test was inappropriate whether the right combination of
02:36:24 whether the right combination of materials had had not been assessed to establish whether or not it could pass so our view was that further testing should be carried out in order to
02:36:36 should be carried out in order to establish the validity of the test do you remember when it was that the cwct had been provided with the limited data of the systems that had been tested i i
02:36:46 i i it would have been some presumably sometime in 2002 but i don't know you don't know okay was the cwct or any of its members represented on the bsi committee that's
02:36:57 represented on the bsi committee that's referred to here
02:37:00 i think dr stephen ledbetter was involved in that committee but i don't know that for certain do you remember do you know whether the cwct saw any economic consequences for
02:37:11 cwct saw any economic consequences for the building industry after br 135 as it was
02:37:15 was i say introduced was was republished in um in 2003. no
02:37:24 were the views of the cwct members reflected in this in the concerns expressed here i don't think so i think that the information provided to us was
02:37:36 information provided to us was confidential and therefore we were not able to
02:37:40 able to to disseminate it to to our members so it was they were our comments to your knowledge did the cwct ever take any steps to prevent bs8414 and br135
02:37:51 any steps to prevent bs8414 and br135 becoming part of the guidance in approved document b as we know it did in in
02:37:57 in 2006. no
02:37:59 2006. no so we had no we have no issue had no issues with a test method being
02:38:06 being produced as a means of demonstrating compliance the issue that we raised here was that the limited amount of testing hadn't shown whether rain screen systems could pass that test or not and
02:38:17 could pass that test or not and therefore further testing was required turning to a different topic you've referred earlier in your evidence this morning and indeed in your statement as we'll see to a meeting or discussions with nick jenkins
02:38:29 with nick jenkins of booth murray in 2013. can we please look at your statement page 9
02:38:36 page 9 paragraph 34
02:38:40 you say that it had also been suggested to us in a meeting in june 2013 by nick jenkins then of booth murray that there had been instances of polyethylene called acms failing in the event of a fire in the
02:38:51 failing in the event of a fire in the middle east i did not have sufficient knowledge to conclude that the combustible acm were responsible for external fire spread there appeared to be enough evidence emerging at the time to suggest
02:39:02 emerging at the time to suggest combustible acm were a concern i do not know if sarah colwell or brian martin were also concerned about this one of the key issues as far as we were concerned was that the guidance given in adb clause 12.7 did not appear to
02:39:15 adb clause 12.7 did not appear to prohibit their use and for this reason it was suggested at our meeting that are at our meeting that this clause be clarified
02:39:23 clarified now the reference to the end of the paragraph there to our meeting is that a reference to the meeting with nick jenkins in 2013 or a reference to the second of july 2014 cwct meeting that's
02:39:34 second of july 2014 cwct meeting that's a reference to the second of july 2014 meeting i see what had caused you to meet nick jenkins in 2013 so in
02:39:43 so in 2013 and and before we were drafting a document on built up walls so a document covering rain screen systems and render systems the components used
02:39:55 and render systems the components used the materials used the different forms of construction and so on and also some of the performance characteristics that they needed to to meet and we had a steering group
02:40:06 and we had a steering group meeting of that built-up walls group in in june 2013 uh which was attended by nick jenkins and and others and
02:40:15 and i think at that meeting we were discussing some of the performance characteristics including fire performance who else was present at the meeting do you remember
02:40:27 we had no i i no i don't i can't give you a complete list of names sorry do you remember what action nick jenkins wanted cwct to take to address the concerns he
02:40:39 cwct to take to address the concerns he had about the use of pe called acm panels
02:40:44 i don't think that
02:40:49 there was anything specific that came out of this meeting other than it was information for us which later combined with the information from chris macy and
02:41:00 the information from chris macy and others led to the formation of our fire group
02:41:02 group after the meeting with nick jenkins in june 2013 that you refer to did you investigate the claims he made about pe called acm panels and the fires in the middle east
02:41:13 middle east i think we were aware of fires in the middle east at that point as i said before we didn't have any specific knowledge of the different materials or systems that had been used on those buildings so it was very difficult for
02:41:24 buildings so it was very difficult for a non-fire expert to conclude exactly what the the issues were right did you look into what precise um ingredients in the external wall buildup had been involved in those middle east
02:41:36 had been involved in those middle east fires
02:41:37 fires we all we knew was what was reported in the in the construction press could you could you get no further than that
02:41:47 can we take it that you were well aware of the
02:41:50 of the dangers of the use of acm with a polyethylene core from june 2013
02:41:57 at the at the latest
02:42:01 it was certainly becoming clearer at that point that there were concerns over these products yes yes
02:42:09 yes yes now i want to ask you about an email chain in
02:42:12 chain in july 2014
02:42:14 july 2014 after the cwct meeting on the second july
02:42:18 july if we go please to bre 3016101
02:42:25 [Music] uh and the uh email chain begins on the 7th of july 2014. so five days or so after the cwct
02:42:36 2014. so five days or so after the cwct meeting
02:42:38 meeting on the second and just to paraphrase for you the start of the chain stuart taylor wintec
02:42:43 wintec is querying advice given by your colleague alan keeler about the use of career panels over 18 meters wind tech have taken the view i think
02:42:54 wind tech have taken the view i think the 12.7 includes planning panels and aquila disagrees and stuart taylor's sending his answer to you for your thoughts
02:43:02 thoughts and uh just to be clear you'll recall that stuart taylor had been at the second of july meeting yes right now let's start then at page three with your response to stuart taylor on the
02:43:13 your response to stuart taylor on the 7th of july 2014
02:43:17 uh at as you can see at 13
02:43:21 at 13 11. yes yes it's just about visible and you say this hi stuart
02:43:27 hi stuart uh i've just had a chat to alan about this and we stand by his original response to career dated 19th june 2014 based on what is currently written in adb it would appear that the career rain
02:43:38 adb it would appear that the career rain screen panels comply for use over 18 meters the panels achieved bs1d naught in accordance with en 13501 and our class north and therefore would meet the
02:43:50 class north and therefore would meet the requirements for external surfaces given in cl in clause 12.6 straight diagram 40. yes
02:43:57 40. yes then it goes on clause 12.7 makes no reference to cladding panels etc and the current view note those words current view is that it does not apply to such materials where it gets
02:44:09 apply to such materials where it gets confusing is that the discussions we had last week went a lot further and suggested that the materials referred to in clause 12.7 include panels and membranes etc we still do not do not
02:44:20 membranes etc we still do not do not know if this is the intention of that clause if it is it is very poorly written and misleading and needs clarifying asap now just pausing there when you make reference to the current view at the
02:44:32 reference to the current view at the beginning of that third paragraph there whose current view was that that was
02:44:38 that was the view of cwct
02:44:42 cwct and and our view of
02:44:48 the in the industry perspective on that clause um
02:44:52 clause um prior to the discussions that we had on the second of july right so it was it was cwtt's continuing opinion but also from what you could tell the opinion of those others at the
02:45:03 the opinion of those others at the meeting who heard sarah caldwell yes is that is that right it was our general understanding of the industry view of clause 12 points so can we take it from that i think it would follow that in
02:45:14 that i think it would follow that in this email you are reflecting the fact that the cwct at least had not accepted sarah kohler's interpretation of 12.7 and were awaiting clarification from the government we
02:45:25 clarification from the government we wanted clarification yes
02:45:31 uh indeed asap in fact yes um how were you aware that these career panels achieved b s one d naught
02:45:42 i can only assume that we were sent information that gave the
02:45:49 gave the reaction to fire classification or otherwise i would have done some research and and find that out myself right i see were you aware of any large-scale full-system tests that have been done with carrier panels no
02:46:03 been done with carrier panels no right
02:46:06 so at the time you wrote this email you weren't aware of any 8414 tests done to br 135
02:46:13 br 135 which uh had had succeeded so far as career panels were concerned i wasn't aware of any any 8414 tests with did you have any concerns in recommending the use of career over 18 meters given the
02:46:24 use of career over 18 meters given the matters that have been discussed at the second july 2014 meeting
02:46:30 we weren't recommending their use we were providing an interpretation of the
02:46:36 the guidance given an approved document b and what consideration did you give to the functional requirements of the building regulations when you wrote this email
02:46:44 email namely that the requirement in b41 that the external wall should quote adequately resist close quotes the spread of fire over the surface of the walls
02:46:55 walls our view that the cwct view was that you generally met the functional requirements by following the guidance given in the
02:47:07 following the guidance given in the the paragraphs um in that section of approved document b so paragraphs 12.6 to 12.8 and diagram and diagram 40 is referred to in
02:47:18 diagram and diagram 40 is referred to in 12.6 yes
02:47:22 why didn't you give more cautious advice on the acceptability of these panels given the views that sarah coleman had put forward at the meeting a few days previously
02:47:38 i didn't i don't know as you've pointed out stuart taylor was at that meeting so he was aware of the discussions that had taken place and he would have been aware of the
02:47:51 would have been aware of the the faq that we hoped to that we hoped would be produced that would clarify this issue we were responding based on what was currently
02:48:03 responding based on what was currently at that time written in in approved document b
02:48:13 korea are a member of cwct aren't they yes
02:48:17 yes were the cwct ever put in any put under any kind of pressure by career to recommend their products for use not that i'm aware of now right
02:48:30 can we take it from your email to stuart taylor that you had advised and were advising members of the construction industry that buildings over 18 meters which used class b or
02:48:41 or class naught external panels met the guidance
02:48:44 guidance in a proof document b specifically 12.6 and diagram 40.
02:48:54 such materials
02:48:56 materials did meet the guidance in 12.6 and diagram 40 the most those that clause in that diagram referred to class 0 and class b
02:49:07 diagram referred to class 0 and class b not and you were doing so notwithstanding the views of sarah colwell bre at the meeting that in fact all elements of the external wall build up uh should be materials of limited combustibility including the external
02:49:19 combustibility including the external wall panels i think at this point as you pointed out this was five days after our second july meeting we were still trying to
02:49:34 work out exactly what the requirements were
02:49:37 were based on what we've been told and our view of it so at this point we were still
02:49:44 providing guidance based on what was actually written in um in a proof document b that
02:49:52 that view changed um after this um in subsequent uh cwct events and training material we highlighted the the inconsistencies
02:50:04 highlighted the the inconsistencies around 12.7 and the use of combustible clouding materials how did you read the bca guidance the bca technical guidance nate 18 by the time of this email so between the
02:50:16 by the time of this email so between the 2nd of july when you learned about it in the 7th of july when you wrote this email
02:50:20 email i assume i would have done yes so
02:50:23 so can we take it that when you set your new rate this email you were aware of two
02:50:28 two authoritative voices in the industry sarah colwell's of the bres and the bca's
02:50:34 bca's uh telling you that all elements of the external wall construction including things like carrier panels had to be materials of limited combustibility yes yes but notwithstanding that you still
02:50:47 yes but notwithstanding that you still as it were rode the other horse and were pushing the narrower view at this particular point very soon after the july second meeting
02:50:58 very soon after the july second meeting yes that's that's clearly what we did yes
02:51:06 uh now going back to the email if you can on the page uh in the last line it says i hope this is of some use i'm very sorry that i cannot give you a definitive answer the more we look into the fire regulations
02:51:17 more we look into the fire regulations the messier it becomes what is clear is that further guidance is needed and i hope cwct will be able to provide this soon
02:51:25 soon when you
02:51:26 when you said the more you looked into the fire regulations the messier it becomes what did you mean i can only assume that this again this relates to to clause 12.7 and and the different
02:51:38 different views that have been expressed whether it
02:51:41 it whether the intention of that clause was to apply to all materials in the cladding system whether the intention was that the the core of an acm was considered a filler material those were
02:51:52 considered a filler material those were two different views that would lead you to different conclusions about what was acceptable and what wasn't yes when you said soon what time frame did you have in mind
02:52:02 in mind at this point we
02:52:06 we hoped that an faq would be published very quickly if if it was as straightforward as we're being told that the intention of clause 12.7 was to include all materials
02:52:19 12.7 was to include all materials there seemed no reason to ask why that couldn't be done very quickly published on as an faq on the planning portal website and that would have cleared it up
02:52:29 up did you think at the time that anyone was
02:52:31 was actually leading that effort either within government or pushing government other than perhaps sarah colwell's suggestion
02:52:42 suggestion well
02:52:43 well our
02:52:45 understanding well the the commitment made by sarah carwell at our second july meeting was that bre would draft an faq and
02:52:56 bre would draft an faq and discuss it and agree with brian martin that that was an action from that meeting we we assumed that would happen quickly did you think at the time i said that would happen quickly and you say
02:53:07 that would happen quickly and you say quickly can you give us a time frame days weeks months
02:53:13 weeks would have been nice right well
02:53:16 well it would have been nice and certainly with hindsight because of course at the time this is july 2014 bond pe55 acm panels with a 100 call
02:53:27 bond pe55 acm panels with a 100 call were being examined for use at grenfell tower
02:53:30 tower so nice would have been but uh why did you expect that the faq would have been published on the website within weeks was that your experience
02:53:41 was that your experience we we had no experience of faqs being produced for the planning portal
02:53:50 but i think we assume that if if it was clear that the intention of clause 12.7 was to include everything there would be no reason
02:54:01 no reason no desire to not get that published as quickly as possible did
02:54:06 did or do you recall any internal discussion within cwct about putting something out to your members at least and on your website that
02:54:17 that there was now a
02:54:21 a serious controversy about the meaning and ambit of clause 12.7
02:54:28 12.7 and that those specifying at the very least 100 percent polyethylene acm panels in high-rise buildings needed to take advice
02:54:39 to take advice and be very careful before they did say in the light of that controversy i don't think we had any discussions about
02:54:46 about putting anything on our website but at this point we had
02:54:51 we had already
02:54:54 already committed to having an afternoon session at our
02:54:59 our upcoming
02:55:01 upcoming members meeting which was to be in in uh october of 2014 the afternoon session was dedicated to fire and these issues would be discussed with
02:55:12 would be discussed with those in attendance at that meeting some months down the track now isn't it yes i mean did any was any thought given to put to putting out an urgent message to your members
02:55:25 message to your members whether in a mail shot or on your website
02:55:28 website that they needed now to be extremely careful before specifying acm pe cord panels certainly with 100 pe core above 18 meters uh pending clarification from government
02:55:39 uh pending clarification from government no we didn't do that why is that
02:55:44 i honestly it it did not it wasn't something we considered because
02:55:52 because as i said before we simply assumed that the faq would be written
02:55:57 written promptly and that would clarify the issue
02:56:01 issue officially right well let's see how this continues can we go up the email chain to the bottom of page two please
02:56:10 this is an email from stuart taylor forwarding the chain to sarah colwell copying you in you see that yes
02:56:19 yes uh and says hi sarah there still appears to be great confusion regarding adb clause 12.7 in the recent fire group meeting we briefly discussed the scope of 12.7 in
02:56:30 briefly discussed the scope of 12.7 in particular whether it includes all components within the facade construction i.e not just insulation products it has been wintek's understanding for many years that all elements of the facade construction
02:56:42 elements of the facade construction including range screen panels etc should comply with clause 12.7 when the building has a story over 18 meters above ground level following the fire group meeting you stated you would speak with brian martin regarding this topic
02:56:53 with brian martin regarding this topic with the intention of providing further clarification within the f and q section of the abd adb portal in the meantime i'd be grateful if you would review the short email trail below and provide your interpretation regarding this matter
02:57:07 interpretation regarding this matter when you saw that were you uh
02:57:10 uh troubled that wintek's view had been as they say for many years different from that of the cwct
02:57:20 that was the first that i heard of wintec's view i think was it
02:57:27 was it were you troubled by that i was surprised right i think if we go up to the next email in the chain it's the 6th of august 2014
02:57:38 chain it's the 6th of august 2014 so now a month or so later uh and it's from stuart taylor who writes to you you see that copy to sarah colwell
02:57:47 colwell yes
02:57:48 yes uh sorry we don't know we it it may not be but certainly the one above it is but he says this david i've just spoken with sarah she has proposed that cwct wintec and bre meet to discuss this issue
02:58:00 and bre meet to discuss this issue further with the intention of formulating the wording for the proposed fmq section within the adb portal it's proposed that this wording is then presented to brian martin for his sign off
02:58:09 off sarah is currently away until september and it is suggested that we meet around 8th or 9th september a venue for the meeting is not set however we can meet at bre or cwct sarah also proposes that we can discuss
02:58:21 sarah also proposes that we can discuss any other questions straight queries regarding adb at the meeting can you please confirm if this is acceptable was there any response from sarah colwell to stuart taylor's first email
02:58:32 colwell to stuart taylor's first email that you were aware of in other words explaining that there was confusion over 12.7 and seeking guidance on the use of the carrier panels not the time aware of
02:58:42 now we get we get to the possibility of a meeting not till september which is now
02:58:47 now uh two months on from the july meeting so we're getting beyond weeks into month still no faq were you concerned by this stage this is now august uh that there wouldn't be a resolution
02:58:58 uh that there wouldn't be a resolution to this until september
02:59:02 no i don't think we were overly concerned if a meeting was being proposed in september and that would agree the wording as suggested by stuart taylor
02:59:14 wording as suggested by stuart taylor then
02:59:15 then that seemed right a little longer than was ideal but that still seemed uh sufficient right so asap three months is still asap so far as you're concerned it's it would have
02:59:26 as you're concerned it's it would have been better had it been quicker
02:59:31 now the rest of the email chain concerns the setting up of the meeting uh and i think um you and alan keeler attended on the 8th of september 2014 didn't you no i didn't attend you you didn't
02:59:43 didn't excuse me alan keller attended i didn't you're quite right uh and you tell us in your statement that you understood that it was confirmed at the meeting that sarah colwell or the bre would draft the faq and send send it to cwct for comment yes
02:59:56 and send send it to cwct for comment yes yes that was our understanding did you go back to carrier with this information no
03:00:01 no why is that
03:00:05 i don't know we did you think to retract the advice that you'd given to the uh carrier or about the acceptability of the carrier panels while waiting for the faq to be
03:00:16 panels while waiting for the faq to be finalized no we didn't why is that it didn't
03:00:21 it didn't i can only say that it didn't occur to us i don't know now mr chairman we're in the middle of the of of the run of points but going to a different document oh are we going to a meeting next uh
03:00:33 going to a meeting next uh no we're going to an email next this will take about five minutes to finish off and then we can turn to it turn to
03:00:40 turn to if you mean five minutes we'll go yes i think so i think i do now let's go to breu four zero three seven two two please
03:00:51 this is the day after the meeting between wintec bre uh at which alan keeler was present 8th september uh and this is an email from alan keela uh halfway down your screen to sarah
03:01:03 uh halfway down your screen to sarah colwell stephen harden tony baker at the bre copy to you and stuart taylor re fire performance of facades and he says this dear all further to our discussion yesterday i attached copies
03:01:14 discussion yesterday i attached copies of labc approvals relating to kingsman k-15
03:01:17 k-15 the 2008 approval which is presumably lapsed assumes that k15 can be considered a material of limited combustibility and can therefore be used for walls greater than 18 meters high it
03:01:28 for walls greater than 18 meters high it does require other parts of the wall to be non-combustible but makes no reference to cavity barriers a number of questions arise as this approval makes reference to bsa414 tests is it justified to apply
03:01:40 bsa414 tests is it justified to apply the results to a stud back wall as the approval makes reference to bsa414 tests should cavity barriers be provided as in the test configuration as the approval makes reference to bsa414
03:01:51 the approval makes reference to bsa414 tests should there be limitations on the thickness of insulation the current approval is under the registered details scheme this does not include the statement considering the material to be of limited combustibility but comes to
03:02:03 of limited combustibility but comes to the same conclusion that the material can be used where other parts of the wall are non-combustible again there's no reference to cavity barriers now do you remember seeing this email at the time you certainly were copied in on it i can see that i was copied in on it
03:02:16 it i can see that i was copied in on it i
03:02:17 i and therefore i would have read it i don't recall any any of the details did you look at the labc registered detail for k15 stating that it was a material of limited combustibility before alan
03:02:29 of limited combustibility before alan keeler attached it here
03:02:33 here yes i think i'd seen that before we touched on it earlier you think you've seen it before i think so so did you did you notice at that time or only at this time the historic assertion about k-15's
03:02:46 assertion about k-15's uh combustibility
03:02:50 i think i i had seen that previously as we discussed this morning right and you you had questions about it put it at its lowest did anybody from the bre respond to alan keela's email
03:03:01 respond to alan keela's email i don't know uh and we can see uh
03:03:05 uh if you go above this what happens to it within the um
03:03:09 um within the bre it just seems to be sent without reference to philip carney but you don't respond you don't recall a response no mr german is that a convenient moment
03:03:20 mr german is that a convenient moment yes i think it is thank you very much well we'll have a break now so we can all get some lunch mr metcalfe we'll return please at five past two and uh while you're out of the room
03:03:31 and uh while you're out of the room please remember not to speak to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it all right thank you thank you very much all right you'd like to give the usher please
03:03:50 thank you very much just a minute five past two please
03:04:43 you