David Metcalf of CWCT gives evidence about the 2014 meetings on clause 12.7 interpretation. Describes frustration waiting for FAQ clarification from Sarah Colwell/BRE, CWCT adopting view that 'intention was all significant materials should be limited combustibility' after October 2014, and teaching NHBC that ACM PE core 'couldn't be used above 18 meters'.
00:00:27 would you ask mr metcalf to come back in please
00:00:43 all right mr metcalf ready to carry on yes thank you thank you very much yes it's submitted yes mr chairman thank you mr metcalf before we continue can i take you back to something you said this morning on the transcript please at page 70. if you could be showing page 70 of
00:00:55 70. if you could be showing page 70 of the raw transcript uh and you say uh at uh well that lines one and following i'm halfway through a question from me about the text of the second of july
00:01:08 about the text of the second of july 2014 meeting and the reason behind quotes online two why building control officers were permitting the use of class naught materials above 18 meters was because of the labc approval for k15
00:01:20 was because of the labc approval for k15 that was a question answer that had been suggested to me questioned by whom answer i believe chris macy question win tech answer highlighted that to me yes uh now can i ask you please to be shown
00:01:33 uh now can i ask you please to be shown win705
00:01:46 this is the first page of chris macy's statement to the inquiry of the 3rd of november 2021. can we please go to page 25 in that document paragraph 73
00:01:57 25 in that document paragraph 73 under the heading the labc system type approval straight registered detail certificate for k15 73 says the inquiry has asked me a series of questions regarding these labc certificates i was not aware of these
00:02:09 certificates i was not aware of these certificates and therefore did not have any concerns or views about their content i did not discuss these certificates with any of my colleagues i did not know whether any of my colleagues at wintec were aware of them now that's
00:02:20 now that's chris macy's recollection in his witness statement to the inquiry bearing that in mind would you like to reconsider uh your recollection the accuracy of your recollection that you
00:02:31 accuracy of your recollection that you told us this morning that that it was chris macy who had brought the labc statement in its system type approval to your attention that i've shown you
00:02:46 no i don't that that that was my recollection can i then move on to the presentation that took place on the 7th of october 2014
00:02:56 2014 this is a presentation given by alan keeler to cwct members on that date cwct cwct-5026 please
00:03:15 there's the first page and just looking at that document do you remember who drafted this was it alan keeler or did you have any input into it
00:03:23 into it it would have been put together by alan keeler we we would have discussed it but alan would have put the uh put the presentation together now let's look at page four please slide four
00:03:33 four two boxes at the bottom of the page you can see that green box uh which is a question does building contain a floor more than 18 meters above ground yes
00:03:44 yes you see that yes and then you move to the to the move box
00:03:49 move box uh on the right materials to be limited combustibility euro class a2 external surface above 18 meters to be class b you see that yes now is the move box a
00:04:00 you see that yes now is the move box a reference to 12.7 for insulation and diagram 40 for external surfaces yes
00:04:07 yes right
00:04:08 right let's go then to slide 13. page 13.
00:04:14 page 13. combustibility of materials and that says i'll read all three bullet points
00:04:20 points intention of clause 12.7 was to require all significant materials in facade to be of limited combustibility extensive fires have occurred around the world where combustible cladding notably
00:04:32 world where combustible cladding notably polyethylene called acm has been used cwct and bre are in process of obtaining clarification through faq's section of building regulations website
00:04:44 building regulations website now how had cwct come to understand that the intention of clause 12.7 was to require
00:04:51 require all significant materials in facade to be of limiting combustibility so this follows the the discussion we that we had at our meeting on the second of july well
00:05:02 well at that meeting as you've told us this morning
00:05:05 morning uh it was sarah colwell who came up with that yes if i can put it this way against the run of play yes yes and and that remained the position at the end of the meeting
00:05:18 position at the end of the meeting in the sense that she didn't persuade everybody that that interpretation was correct and everybody left the meeting thinking that that will so we didn't have any issues
00:05:30 issues with
00:05:31 with that being what clause 12.7 was meant to say if if clause 12.7 was was intended to say that all significant materials should be of limited combustibility we didn't have a
00:05:42 limited combustibility we didn't have a problem with that our issue was that's not what it actually said in our our interpretation of that clause so then can we please have keep this side on the screen but let's
00:05:54 keep this side on the screen but let's have 12 point i'm sorry slide four next to it you have
00:06:00 you have this fly 13 on the left hand side if we can get it there and
00:06:05 and slide four on the right and let's compare the two
00:06:11 now looking at the two and looking at the
00:06:15 the um bottom two boxes on the right hand side the greenish box in the move box how were those two boxes consistent with the first bullet point on the left
00:06:26 the first bullet point on the left that's
00:06:28 as far as we were concerned that that's the whole dilemma that's that's the difficulty that that we get into with being being in in being told that clause
00:06:41 being being in in being told that clause 12.7 applies to everything that seems to contradict what was in 12.6 and that's what's highlighted there oh i see so i'm sorry to interrupt you but i'm a bit puzzled about one aspect
00:06:53 but i'm a bit puzzled about one aspect of this
00:06:53 of this as i understand it you had the meeting early in july at which for the first time uh the notion that stores 12.7 was intended to
00:07:05 stores 12.7 was intended to uh
00:07:06 uh require all significant materials to be of limited combustibility was raised for the first time as far as you were concerned yes and sarah coldwell was the one who raised it yes there was discussion
00:07:17 discussion she does not appear to have been in the majority
00:07:20 majority and the mata was left on the basis that she would contact brian martin yes no by october mr keeler is putting
00:07:31 no by october mr keeler is putting forward in this presentation that the intention of clause 12 7 was to require limited combustibility all through yes
00:07:42 through yes did his understanding change and if so why
00:07:45 why no i i don't think our understanding did change we
00:07:50 we assumed as i said before that the faq would be published and would clarify they're getting ahead of us so that i thought you told me that at that at the meeting early in july
00:08:02 at that at the meeting early in july you heard for the first time the suggestion that limited combustibility applied to everything yes so you can't have thought that there was an intention that it should do that i assumed before that
00:08:14 should do that i assumed before that meeting
00:08:15 meeting correct
00:08:16 correct and presumably since you probably spoke to mr keeler quite often you had no reason to think that he thought that was the intention before the meeting is that right
00:08:26 right correct right no um i don't know whether sarah caldwell was able to persuade you that she knew
00:08:34 she knew what the intention was behind the draft or behind the words did she did she sort of speak with an authoritative view about that did you accept
00:08:45 we
00:08:48 a a logical explanation wasn't really given but
00:08:53 given but considering sarah colwell's expertise and bre's relationship with mhclg in terms of fire research and guidance
00:09:04 fire research and guidance the fact that she said it it it held it was that was she was an important person as far as this was concerned so if she was saying that we couldn't just ignore it we our
00:09:15 that we couldn't just ignore it we our argument was that what was written didn't
00:09:18 didn't tie in with that as i just said we had no issue if that was the intention we had no issue with that being the intention and the idea of behind um alan keeler's
00:09:29 idea of behind um alan keeler's presentation to our members was to kind of inform people that this debate was going on
00:09:34 going on this is the this is what we're currently being told we hope this will be clarified by an faq as noted in the final point right well i was just puzzled by the fact that you seem to
00:09:45 puzzled by the fact that you seem to have adopted the view that that was the intention of 12.7
00:09:50 12.7 um and i wasn't quite sure why you'd adopted that view i don't i can't recall exactly what alan keyler said when he put this slide up it could well
00:10:01 when he put this slide up it could well have been
00:10:01 have been we have been informed that the intention of clause 12.7 was to include all significant materials we are trying to clarify that by means of an faq
00:10:13 all right i i don't think our position had
00:10:15 had changed but we weren't against that position and and this was an opportunity to inform our members of of this change
00:10:26 members of of this change right thank you very much just building on that a little bit um coming to october 2014 this was a presentation document so it was it was presented presumably it was
00:10:37 it was presented presumably it was spoken to yes who spoke to it alan keller to whom to people who attended our agm and members meeting that particular year right
00:10:48 right now were you there yes you were do you remember
00:10:52 remember how these two slides were presented together
00:10:57 together more specifically do you remember whether alan keeler told the meeting that although looking at the left-hand side first bullet the intention
00:11:08 bullet the intention of clause 12.7 was to require all significant materials in facade to be of limited combustibility looking at the right hand side there's an anomaly because diagram 40
00:11:19 there's an anomaly because diagram 40 requires the external surface above 18 meters only to be class b i don't recall exactly how alan
00:11:28 alan handled that so the intention of this presentation was to inform the members of what we were doing in this area the discussions that we had that had taken
00:11:39 discussions that we had that had taken place and
00:11:41 place and and update people on on the the new requirements i mean do you remember that whether anybody at the meeting asked the question
00:11:49 question well hold on a minute uh slide four you told us that external surfaces only needed to be class b above 18 meters but here you are telling us that the intention was that all significant materials in the facade should be of
00:12:00 materials in the facade should be of limited combustibility how do you square the two did anybody ask that question at the meeting not that i recall right and was the intention was your
00:12:11 was your cwct's intention to spell out the fact that there was this anomaly or would be if the intention was um
00:12:21 um was was the case or
00:12:24 or or not
00:12:28 i don't know exactly what alan said during that presentation i'm afraid i think the the
00:12:35 the the the slide on the right hand side of the screen
00:12:39 screen the idea behind this came from our meeting in in july 2014 and and the idea put to us that we should have a simple kind of flow chart going through the various different
00:12:51 going through the various different performance requirements for the external wall and and giving guidance on what the different materials and components needed to do and
00:13:02 and as written in approved document b you we do end up with this this anomaly as you put it what you yeah
00:13:10 yeah yes but the question is that really this when this slideshow was being put together was the purpose to identify the anomaly and and uh invite invite discussion about it
00:13:21 uh invite invite discussion about it or did nobody spot the fact that clause um that slide four uh at the bottom where i've shown you was actually inconsistent with the first bullet point in slide 13. i don't know you don't know no um
00:13:34 i don't know you don't know no um looking at the first bullet point and second bullet point uh on the left-hand side slide 13 that's a different view isn't it to the view that you had expressed in the august
00:13:46 that you had expressed in the august of 2014 about the compliance of the career panels
00:13:57 yes we we were asked by stuart taylor of wind tech on the i think it was the 7th of
00:14:04 of july so very soon after the meeting that we'd had on the 2nd of july where we this was raised for the first time and as i said before at that point we were still we were still
00:14:18 we were still we were still uncertain as to exactly where we were going with this well i think you say you were uncertain uh in fact you were saying that the current view was not the colwell view in other words
00:14:29 other words uh external surfaces above 18 meters only needed to be class b that was
00:14:34 that was the view
00:14:35 the view you know that was our view of the industry interpretation of that clause yes
00:14:41 yes right
00:14:43 did this did cwt start telling its members and anybody who asked that
00:14:50 that to quote the left-hand bullet point the intention of clause seven was to require all significant materials in the facade to be of limited combustibility we did do that yes when did you start doing that
00:15:01 doing that i
00:15:02 i suspect that this was the first time that we did it in public if if that's the right term to use
00:15:10 use at our agm we then incorporated that requirement into subsequent um presentations within within courses and if if asked that's the view we would
00:15:21 if if asked that's the view we would have given right when did you change your mind
00:15:25 your mind from the current view as expressed in the career email run we saw
00:15:34 over the summer of 2014 i suppose what made you change your mind
00:15:42 we were
00:15:45 were not opposed to the view that sarah caldwell was putting forward we assumed that an faq would be published
00:15:52 published quickly that would confirm officially confirm that view and therefore we were happy to to put that interpretation forward because we assumed it would be clarified
00:16:03 assumed it would be clarified you say to confirm that view in answer to a question from the chairman a moment or two ago you said that the basis of her authority was was bre's relationship with mhclg
00:16:15 bre's relationship with mhclg what did you know of that
00:16:20 bre used to be government owned and and my understanding was that they they still had a good relationship with
00:16:31 they still had a good relationship with government in terms of guidance and advice and testing when it came to fire performance what led you to think that sarah colwell spoke with any degree of authority
00:16:42 spoke with any degree of authority and knowledge about what the original intention of government had been as a fact
00:16:48 fact back in
00:16:49 back in 2005 to six when the word filler material etc was inserted into 12.7
00:16:57 12.7 i
00:16:58 i assumed rightly or wrongly that bre
00:17:05 bre had been involved in in the drafting of the new version of the 2006 version of approved document b i don't know if that's correct or not i assume that was the case and was it for that reason that you thought not only that she spoke with
00:17:17 you thought not only that she spoke with authority at the meeting but that you assumed that the faq would clarify the meaning of 12.7 consistently with what she was telling you yes and therefore consistently with
00:17:29 you yes and therefore consistently with that first bullet point yes i see
00:17:38 you see the words all significant materials in your first bullet point there what was meant by that
00:17:51 in probably in very simple terms we would be talking about the cladding the insulation support rails and brackets the sheathing board perhaps membranes
00:18:03 the sheathing board perhaps membranes and and those sorts of materials right did that apply also to the core of a composite panel yes that that would be included as part of the cladding yes and what if it was a timber
00:18:15 cladding yes and what if it was a timber exterior panel if it wasn't limited combustibility above 18 meters it couldn't be used uh right did you come across timber that was
00:18:24 was material of limiting combustibility no no what about hpl high pressure laminate same
00:18:32 same my understanding is that
00:18:37 hpl is not of limited combustibility although there are different grades of the material but i don't think any of them achieve limited combustibility and then finally just back on on the slides uh you we've looked at
00:18:48 uh you we've looked at uh the first bullet point did you conti looking at the right hand side side four did you continue to advise your members to follow diagram 40 and 12.6 and accept class b panels
00:19:00 40 and 12.6 and accept class b panels or did you tell them in fact now they have to be class a1 or a2 materials of limited combustibility we would said they would have to be materials of limited commerciality let's move on in the year to december
00:19:11 let's move on in the year to december 2014 i'd like to explore with you some meeting minutes from a meeting that you had with nhbc on the 3rd of december 2014. nhb
00:19:22 on the 3rd of december 2014. nhb 402862 please
00:19:33 now we can see it's an email in fact from dave white today to graham perrier steve evans and john lewis so it's internal to nhbc uh dated the 5th of december 2014 but if
00:19:46 uh dated the 5th of december 2014 but if we scroll down please to item 2 you can see meeting the cwct 3rd december 2014 present for cwct was you alan keeler and stephen ledbetter and foreign hbc graham
00:19:57 stephen ledbetter and foreign hbc graham perry and dave white uh you're described as ceo of cwct do you know why that might be that's not correct right um if we go to the second bullet point down just the
00:20:09 the second bullet point down just the foot of the page it says this however the opportunity was taken by both cwct and nhbc to explore the current issues with with the use of phenolic foam insulation in cavities of buildings over
00:20:20 insulation in cavities of buildings over 18 metres cwct are fully aware of the issues but from general discussion were not able to take immediate action by way of published guidance however they have set up a technical committee to consider aspects of fire performance in building
00:20:32 aspects of fire performance in building invalid design the first task from the initial cwct fire design committee was to produce a route map that outlined key issues relating to current regulations standards and key compliance requirements for fire performance
00:20:43 requirements for fire performance this is not yet this has not yet been done and it will be necessary for cwct committees to meet again for further discussions involving both their principal technical committee
00:20:54 both their principal technical committee and the subcommittee set up specifically for fire prevention stroke performance design issues nhbc are represented on this subcommittee via dave white
00:21:05 this subcommittee via dave white the meeting concluded with nhbc agreeing to keep cwct up to date with any progress made concerning our decisions affecting fire performance and building envelopes
00:21:16 envelopes now why were you not able to take immediate action by way of published guidance
00:21:23 as you can see in the third line from the top there we
00:21:26 we were still still
00:21:29 still waiting for
00:21:32 this faq
00:21:35 we felt that was really important and when was the technical committee set up
00:21:41 the technical committee has been around as long as cwct has been around as far as i know well if you're just sorry which i should be showing you the first page if we go to the foot of the first page in the third line it says
00:21:52 first page in the third line it says however they have set up a technical committee
00:21:55 committee to consider aspects of fire performance in building envelope design do you see that just above the box yes um when was that committee set up i assume that is referring to the
00:22:06 i assume that is referring to the the fire group that first met on the second of july 2014. i see and it's is it right that it's aims to draft compliance guidance for fire safety
00:22:17 it's
00:22:20 as we discussed before the aim of that first meeting was to better understand the issues that people were were facing in terms of materials and
00:22:31 in terms of materials and cavity barriers and fire stops and so on the
00:22:35 the conclusion of that first meeting was that further guidance should be
00:22:40 should be published
00:22:42 published probably in the in the form of a technical note as as we do quite frequently and what was happening at this time
00:22:49 this time uh in re towards that end towards publishing further guidance we were still waiting for this faq to be written
00:22:59 written and this is now december 2014. yes so this is five months on from the first suggestion almost exactly five months yes yes so this is not weeks but a number of months
00:23:10 number of months what was the feeling within cwct about why it was that government was not producing this apparently simple faq and putting it on its website
00:23:22 its website it was frustrating
00:23:27 and we
00:23:31 i don't know it was frustrating that it was taking so long
00:23:36 long we at this this time of the year or that time of the year we have an awful lot of teaching commitments and
00:23:45 and they were taking priority i suppose at that particular point in time and now did you at this point in time which is now as you can see end of 2014
00:23:57 which is now as you can see end of 2014 give any thought to chasing sarah colwell up given her
00:24:02 given her apparent so you believe connections with government and asking her to take this forward as a matter of urgency given the five months of now and that at that point i didn't as i'm sure we'll
00:24:13 at that point i didn't as i'm sure we'll come to i did that in march of 15. yes we will come to that next but before we do have you an explanation for why you didn't take that forward yourself with her at that time
00:24:24 her at that time no uh other than other than we were focusing on on our other activities at that that particular point let's go to that cwct
00:24:36 let's go to that cwct 5040 please this is an email chain between you and sarah colwell in march 2015 as you've just referred to and if we go to the foot of page one we
00:24:47 and if we go to the foot of page one we can see
00:24:48 can see the very foot of page one um there is uh the
00:24:53 the very beginnings of an email from you of the 13th of march 2015 and over to page two we can see the rest of it it's to sarah colwell the subject of fire and facades and the text says this
00:25:04 fire and facades and the text says this dear sarah around september last year alan keila met with you and a couple of your colleagues to discuss some points that are raised from our meeting in july in particular the issue around the use of combustible materials in the facade
00:25:15 of combustible materials in the facade and the wording of clause 12.7 of adb it was my understanding that you agreed to draft a note clarifying the intent of this clause which was to be sent to us for discussion has any progress been made on this i have a cwct board and
00:25:27 made on this i have a cwct board and technical committee meeting on 25th of march where i have to report on our activities so i'd be grateful for a quick response and if we got the next email in the chain we can see a brief response from sarah colwell the same day
00:25:38 response from sarah colwell the same day 13th of march 2015 and she says hi david
00:25:45 yes a note has been drafted and revisited it's still a draft hopefully it'll be closed out soon and then if we look a little bit further up the page please to the top of page one
00:25:55 one we can see you respond same day later that day hi sarah thanks for getting back to me it was my understanding that we would have the opportunity to comment on the draft is that still your intention we are
00:26:06 is that still your intention we are still receiving numerous enquiries from our members on the subject so it would be useful to see what is being proposed so we can give the correct advice and she finishes off at the top of the page same day
00:26:18 page same day an hour or so later saying hi david yes we will circulate now what was the nature of the numerous inquiries that you were receiving from your members that you refer to there
00:26:29 your members that you refer to there i can't give you any any specifics i'm afraid were they were they on the matter of the meaning and scope of 12.7 i would assume so yes right
00:26:40 when you say numerous can you give us an approximation an idea of how many i can't i'm afraid i could have been exaggerating to try and make a point i
00:26:51 exaggerating to try and make a point i don't i really don't know i have no specific examples i can give sarah colwell as we see responds by saying hi david yes we will circulate but it's correct isn't it that you never in fact ever received any draft from her
00:27:04 ever received any draft from her that was the last contact i had from sarah despite repeatedly chasing her later in the year in indeed in fact as you say in your statement and you've exhibited the emails
00:27:15 you've exhibited the emails page 14 paragraph 48 i don't think we need to go to them just confirm for us please you chase sarah colwell on this point no fewer than on five occasions
00:27:26 point no fewer than on five occasions 18th of august 2015 14th of october 2015 2nd of november 2015. and i and then uh one of her colleagues i think on the
00:27:37 one of her colleagues i think on the 10th of november 2015. does that sound right to you yes and i also i also phoned and left a couple of voicemails and didn't get any response indeed and your email to dandy mckay as we've seen
00:27:50 your email to dandy mckay as we've seen sandy mackay should be
00:27:52 should be right
00:27:54 right so despite all that chasing throughout 2015 is it right you never received any further response from sarah caldwell yes did you ever find out what happened to the note that had been drafted and why
00:28:05 the note that had been drafted and why it wasn't sent to you no
00:28:10 now this is now a period of time between early july 2014 and
00:28:19 and november early november 2015.
00:28:24 during that period and certainly after october
00:28:28 october 2014 and the slide presentation we saw earlier
00:28:33 earlier what advice were you giving to cwct members about the scope of paragraph 12.7 of adb
00:28:41 we were telling people that 12 points at the intention of 12.7 or rather we we had been told that the intention of 12.7 was
00:28:52 intention of 12.7 was that it applied to all materials in the external cladding system and that's what people should um should take into account and what were you telling them about diagram 40 of approved document b and
00:29:04 diagram 40 of approved document b and specifically the reference there to class naught or euro class b if if we were asked about that we would agree that there was an apparent contradiction and
00:29:15 contradiction and just say
00:29:17 just say ignore that and and use materials of limited combustibility
00:29:23 and what about the use of aluminium composite panels with a pe core the standard as you've referred to it they wouldn't be limited combustibility so they wouldn't be appropriate for use
00:29:34 so they wouldn't be appropriate for use on a building with a story 80 meters more background level so is it your evidence that from and after in and from october 2014
00:29:46 from and after in and from october 2014 cwct's position was that acm panels with a pe core should not be used above 18 meters yes
00:29:54 yes as highlighted in alan keela's presentation that was available to our members via our website from october or november 2014. right
00:30:05 october or november 2014. right were you basing that only on the presentation document or was there a as if i could put it this way a clearer message
00:30:12 message to the effect that acm with a pe core should not be used above 18 meters it was only in that presentation we were still waiting for confirmation
00:30:23 we were still waiting for confirmation from
00:30:25 from via this faq before producing any clearer guidance
00:30:33 did there come a time in that in those long months from let's take october 2014 to november 2015
00:30:43 2015 that you began to think to yourself i'm not going to get anything we should now go firm on this and make a public statement about the use of acm with pe core above 18 meters
00:31:00 we yeah it became clear towards the end of 15 that we we weren't going to get a response and hence why we continued
00:31:12 continued working on the the road map as we called it and then we convened another meeting of our fire group in
00:31:20 group in early 2016 to discuss that and hopefully get that
00:31:24 get that signed off yes we'll come to that shortly
00:31:28 shortly in your
00:31:31 statements you refer to a meeting of the cwct technical group in july 2015. let's just go to that it's cwct 5023
00:31:45 let's see the first page of that there
00:31:49 there long list of those present as you can see
00:31:53 uh including you alan keeler uh and others uh no
00:32:02 no brian martin not not not presumably invited why was that why not think to invite brian martin you've invited him to the second of july 2014 meeting why not invite him to this meeting this was a a general meeting of
00:32:15 meeting this was a a general meeting of our technical committee rather than a a smaller working group on a on a particular topic if we go to page three you can see on page three there's a heading use of combustible insulation
00:32:26 combustible insulation and it says cwct is still awaiting developments from bre on clarification of the requirements from approved document b in relation to the use of combustible materials in the walls of tall buildings why are you waiting for
00:32:38 tall buildings why are you waiting for the bre for clarification and not mhclg as explained sarah caldwell from bre agreed to write that faq and
00:32:52 get approval from from brian martin at mhclg right so that was the status quo reflected in the emails from march that we'd seen yes um given that she promised this document in march but
00:33:04 she promised this document in march but nothing had happened and here we are in july 2015. did you think about now going to brian martin sending him an email picking up the phone and asking him what's going on i didn't why is that i don't i have no idea
00:33:16 don't i have no idea now by this time i think you were aware of the news relating to a fire which had happened in melbourne uh the la crosse building 24th of november 2014. yes yes so you were aware at that point that uh here was a fire in
00:33:28 at that point that uh here was a fire in a residential block which had spread via the external cladding which was an acmp cord material yes yes how much did you know about that fire by this time this is now mid
00:33:40 this time this is now mid uh mid 2015. i don't know at that point it's very difficult to say what i knew about that particular fire yeah i do
00:33:51 yeah i do no do you remember any particular discussion about this fire at this meeting
00:33:56 meeting i don't remember any specific discussion no
00:34:01 given the position as you'd understood it at the time that industry had not at least before
00:34:07 before july 2014 considered that 12.7 uh
00:34:13 uh extended to the external panels did the lacrosse fire raise any further concerns for you
00:34:23 it was another example of of the dangers if we go to the next meeting please this is 11 november 2015. cwct 5039
00:34:35 page one another long list of attendees page three use of combustible insulation so it looks like a standing item cwct is still awaiting developments from bre on
00:34:46 awaiting developments from bre on clarification of the requirements of approved document b in relation to the use of combustible materials in the walls of tall buildings that that's exactly the same sentence as we saw in the july version isn't it
00:34:57 we saw in the july version isn't it yes yes yes and then it adds this however building control alliance guidance note 18 provides clarification the version of this note that is currently available on the bca website dated june 2014 refers specifically to
00:35:10 dated june 2014 refers specifically to residential buildings but there is a more recent version dated june 2015 which is not limited to residential buildings
00:35:18 buildings now it looks as as if a sentence has been added to the minute
00:35:24 to make reference now to bca's technical guidance note 18 in its um second edition is c1 yes
00:35:32 yes yes um would you know why that was added then november 2015 and not in not to the july meeting note given that that uh update to that technical guidance data happened in june 2015.
00:35:47 i actually we didn't discuss the bca technical guidance note in our june meeting but must have done um at this meeting right
00:36:00 i mean do you know why there's no reference until this time to to the building control alliance guidance note 18 either in its june 14 or june 15 versions given that option one in that note
00:36:12 note stated in terms that all elements of the external wall build up including external facings had to be material of limited combustibility
00:36:24 we made reference to bca guidance now 18 in our teaching material fro from 2015 onwards um when we became
00:36:38 fro from 2015 onwards um when we became essentially when we became aware of it yeah so i just i just wanted to know why those documents those two issues of that document only make an appearance in your cwct
00:36:48 cwct um notes at this point well these are notes of our of our technical committee um and we obviously didn't didn't discuss that document with our technical committee was your technical committee nonetheless aware of those documents
00:37:03 i assume they would have been why why do you make that assumption given that there's no reference to those documents until now
00:37:12 november 2015.
00:37:16 we may
00:37:18 may i don't know we we probably mentioned them in passing when giving an update on the work on fire that we had done previously it
00:37:29 it wasn't minuted as we saw previously but we we may have discussed it i don't know who does that who at the cwct decided that technical guidance note 18 provided clarification as it as it's put
00:37:43 provided clarification as it as it's put well that
00:37:44 well that that was our view
00:37:47 technical technical guidance no 18 option one said all significant material should be of limited combustibility and we felt that whilst it was frustrating that
00:37:59 whilst it was frustrating that it was taking so long for us to get clarification on the the true intent of clause 12.7 the if you like the pressure was
00:38:11 the if you like the pressure was slightly
00:38:12 slightly removed because there was already freely available guidance that had been published in 2014 by the the bca yes i mean if this was clarification
00:38:23 clarification can you explain why it only came now or you were only discussing it now in november 2015. so long after its original publication in june 2014. as i
00:38:34 original publication in june 2014. as i said
00:38:35 said this
00:38:36 this these are minutes from a particular technical committee meeting we i know we did discuss technical um bca technical guidance now 18 in in teaching material that we provided and gave to industry
00:38:49 that we provided and gave to industry before this time so we we were getting that message out now if we go to page 15 of your statement please paragraph 52
00:39:07 you you say there
00:39:10 that tga 18 provided clarification and you say in the absence of clarification from bre stroke mhclg i agreed with this statement
00:39:23 how did technical guidance note 18 provide clarification on the topic of composite products including acmpe panels because it said all significant
00:39:34 because it said all significant materials in the facade system or the external wall should be of limited combustibility if you're following the prescriptive route to compliance so do we take it from that that you read and indeed your colleagues at cwct read
00:39:46 indeed your colleagues at cwct read option one is including the core of a composite panel it includes the whole panel yeah whether it's got a core or not can i just ask this um when you talk about qualification
00:39:59 talk about qualification i assume what you had in mind was some some sort of authoritative statement to clarify the position yes bca would not be authoritative any more
00:40:10 bca would not be authoritative any more than you would we weren't involved at all in the drafting or any of the discussions around bca technical guidance note 18 so we had no idea what
00:40:21 guidance note 18 so we had no idea what what information they had what discussions they'd had with other people whether
00:40:26 whether somebody had had clarified the intention of clause 12.7 to them we didn't know well you just had the bca guidance load yes but we don't know what went on behind it no no but you had no reason to think that it had
00:40:39 you had no reason to think that it had the imprimatur of uh
00:40:42 uh the government okay so to say that it provided clarification perhaps is putting it a bit too high what it provided was a another view to the same effect yes maybe yeah
00:40:54 the same effect yes maybe yeah confirmation of of the view that was given to us in our 2014 meeting yeah all right thank you yes
00:41:03 yes and given
00:41:05 and given that fact as the chairman has and you have just established or discussed
00:41:11 discussed was it not now crystal clear to you that there was an urgent need to get clear guidance
00:41:17 guidance from government to clarify adb so that these two views one the colwell view to the bca view
00:41:27 bca view could have the imprimatur of government rather than letting controversy and speculation linger yes
00:41:35 yes and that's that's why we wanted this faq to be written and i know i keep coming back to this but we felt that was really important because that would give the official clarification that we were after
00:41:51 now you tell us a paragraph 23 of your statement on page six just just to be clear
00:41:55 clear i think you've really given us the answer to this before but just pin it down in your statement page 6 paragraph 23 you say that the cwct ran a series of courses in 2015
00:42:07 the cwct ran a series of courses in 2015 and 2016 and fire performance was discussed
00:42:12 what advice during those courses were you giving your students about whether external wall panels which were class b or class naught met the requirements of approved document b
00:42:23 approved document b sorry are we referring to paragraph 23 of my statement yes this is referring to courses that we ran for for nhbc yeah specifically rather than our general industry courses
00:42:34 than our general industry courses you're quite right i'm sorry i should have made that qualification yes in those courses what were you telling nhbc students about
00:42:45 about uh class b and class naught the same thing as alan keeler included in i think it's slide 14 of of the presentation that he gave to our agm in
00:42:58 presentation that he gave to our agm in 2014 that
00:43:00 2014 that the
00:43:01 the our understanding of the the intention of clause 12.7 was that it included all materials and all significant materials in the cladding system so to be crystal clear
00:43:10 clear were you telling your nhbc students during those courses that acm panels with a with a pe core 100 peak or solder standard were not permitted to be used
00:43:22 standard were not permitted to be used in buildings above 18 meters yes you were yes did you have any reason to think at the time that your students either did not understand what you were telling them or did not accept it
00:43:34 i had no reason to to believe that in terms of these particular courses these were courses that nhbc asked us to run for them there were a handful of people my understanding um
00:43:47 handful of people my understanding um each time we ran the course so it was to their sort of their senior surveyors i think right um and did you ever get the impression that their senior surveyors did not understand what you were teaching them
00:43:59 understand what you were teaching them i think it was it was very clear the intention of clause 12.7 is to include all materials all significant materials in the climbing system and there would have been a discussion around that and
00:44:10 have been a discussion around that and i don't know but i
00:44:13 but i can
00:44:14 can be fairly certain that that acm would would have been mentioned so does it come to this that even without the faq that have been long promised you were content
00:44:25 content to teach your students that an acm panel with a 100 pe call couldn't be used above 18 meters that that was the message that we we were putting out in events and meetings and courses
00:44:38 in events and meetings and courses from
00:44:39 from the october 2014 agm yes or did you tell your students that that was the cwct view but there was a tenable contrary view
00:44:50 contrary view sorry can you rephrase that well did you teach your students that did you teach your student the only nhbc students
00:44:57 students the acm with 100 pe call couldn't be used above 18 meters or did you tell them there was an argument to that effect but an argument the other way as well and it was all very controversial and you were waiting for government
00:45:10 and you were waiting for government i suspect
00:45:12 i suspect in
00:45:13 in delivering the
00:45:15 the the information around this topic because it was a it was a controversial topic at the time there would have been discussion about the the the potential contradictions in in approved document b
00:45:27 approved document b but the message would have been clear our understanding of the intention of that clause was that it included all significant materials in the cladding system and that would include pe called acm
00:45:41 now let's look at the email run that you have nick jenkins in the early part of 2016.
00:45:47 2016. um do you remember this correspondence it came after a siderise correspondent conference on the 13th of january 2016. yes i think you were at the conference i was you were
00:45:58 was you were uh
00:45:59 uh now had you spoken to nick jenkins on this topic before he made his comments at the conference i don't know if i'd spoken to him before then or after then i'd certainly had conversations with nick about
00:46:12 conversations with nick about the intent the meaning of clause 12.7 yes now we've the inquiry has seen the video uh and the transcript of the um
00:46:20 of the um of the interaction the quick question and answer session at the conference on that day
00:46:25 that day do you remember nick jenkins asking a question in the q a session about acm panels and their use on high-rise buildings i do yes you do did you speak to him at the conference or after the
00:46:36 to him at the conference or after the conference about that
00:46:39 i probably spoke to him on the day um
00:46:44 i don't know well six days later he writes to you uh let's look at it blm 50836
00:46:50 50836 page two please his email to you of that date 19th january 2016. now on this version of the email run the the email addresses aren't there but
00:47:02 the email addresses aren't there but um
00:47:05 halfway down the screen it starts nick jenkins wrote good afternoon steve and david
00:47:10 and david and can you confirm that the david there is you
00:47:14 it continues i hope this finds you well you may recall we met last week at the siderise strait bre facades conference
00:47:22 i assume it's me i i i had correspondence with with nick jenkins i've i've spoken to nick um
00:47:31 as you said it doesn't have an email address so i can't confirm one hundred percent but yeah i certainly had no correspondence with it i mean it's a very slightly flimsy question because we know you respond to this email all right that case yes but uh but just to confirm
00:47:43 that case yes but uh but just to confirm that now um it's a long email uh and i'm not sure i want to read it all out to you the inquiry's already been shown it at some length but it extends over pages two and three
00:47:56 pages two and three i'll read you the first paragraph you may recall we met at the last week at the siderise bre facades conference steve after your presentation i asked some questions of the panel relating to the permissible use of rain screen
00:48:08 the permissible use of rain screen clouding panels formed from various grades of acm aluminium composite panel materials when used as part of multi-layered wall systems there was some ambiguity in the answers provided by the panel and then he goes on and explains what
00:48:20 and then he goes on and explains what the ambiguity is and then at the foot of the page page two says in my understanding compliance is not achieved via if
00:48:27 via if if either one or two are satisfied scenario rather only via an if one and two of both satisfied scenario if my understanding is correct and the three millimeter thick core associated with four millimeter acm
00:48:40 with four millimeter acm is to be considered a filler material than the only acms on the market that meet the adb2 definition of being materials of limited combustibility are alpolic a2 and alucobond a2 both of
00:48:51 alpolic a2 and alucobond a2 both of these products are classified as a2s1d naught in accordance with bsen 13501 2007.
00:48:59 2007. and then he goes on to give his experience uh and
00:49:05 uh and uh
00:49:06 uh then says in the penultimate paragraph in many instances uh it is not even the bsa b s one d naught rated acm panels we are asked to supply but the standard polyethylene
00:49:18 supply but the standard polyethylene core material acm that burns quite efficiently what's more i'm aware that of many tall residential buildings recently constructed in the uk where such panels are installed in combination
00:49:29 such panels are installed in combination with various foil face rigid foam thermal insulation boards which are also not accepted by as being of limiting capacitability in accordance with table a7 appendix and adb2 and then they said they want to put out
00:49:41 and then they said they want to put out a guidance node now i've scampered through that at some speed um just to refresh your memory of it um your response to him can be seen on page one above it please if we go back to
00:49:53 one above it please if we go back to that uh next day 20th of january 2016. and you say hi nick i agree the current situation is unclear and unhelpful
00:50:03 unhelpful uh i think your interpretation of the building regs is in relation to the use of combustible materials in high-rise buildings is correct to meet the requirements 12.6 to 12.9 and diagram 40 need to be followed
00:50:15 12.9 and diagram 40 need to be followed and then you say this the question still remains as to which materials stroke components have to meet the requirements of paragraph 12.7 previously 12.7 was interpreted to mean simply that insulation had to be of
00:50:27 simply that insulation had to be of limited combustibility although this was not always adhered to from recent meetings and discussions that we've had our understanding is now that the scope of 12.7 extends to also include the
00:50:38 of 12.7 extends to also include the external cladding the bca guidance agrees with this i think this is a logical
00:50:43 logical especially following the recent evidence of fire spread up the facade of a number of buildings in the middle east with combustible cladding panels a simple read through the approved document however would not
00:50:54 the approved document however would not tell you this we've asked bre to clarify the position however after initially agreeing they have not come forward with anything
00:51:01 anything it was very interesting to hear your comments straight questions regarding your experience of the use of acm panels over recent years in light of what the approved document actually says i do not think that the use of combustible acm
00:51:12 think that the use of combustible acm panels in previous projects is unexpected given the ambiguity of the paragraph 12.7 and the accepted practice at the time given that the bca have now published a guidance document that
00:51:23 published a guidance document that presumably all building control officers will follow the use of acm panels of limited combustibility should become accepted best practice in the absence of test evidence straight fire engineering
00:51:34 test evidence straight fire engineering in terms of the requirement for class naught this will generally be met when using a product of limited combustibility it should be noted that the paint finish will likely not be of limited combustibility however can be
00:51:45 limited combustibility however can be class naught and manufacturers should have test evidence to demonstrate this
00:51:52 i hope this is useful if you have any further questions please don't hesitate to ask when you've written your guidance note i'd be happy to take a look at it if that would be helpful now number of questions arise from that and which is why i read it to you in
00:52:04 and which is why i read it to you in full
00:52:05 full first when had you come to the conclusion that external wall panels had to satisfy both 12.6 and diagram 40 and 12.7 of adp
00:52:16 12.7 of adp that is what excuse me that is what is written in in the approved document paragraph 12.5 says
00:52:26 gives a general introduction and
00:52:29 and then effectively says to mitigate the risks identified follow the guidance in 12.6 to
00:52:35 12.6 to 12.8 or 12.9 or test in accordance with the s8414 oh because i thought you told us earlier that certainly after october 2014 the view was within cwct that all
00:52:47 the view was within cwct that all significant elements of the external wall build up had to be materials of limited combustibility
00:52:54 yes yes
00:52:56 yes including the external wall panels yes yes yes so so how could you be uh
00:53:04 uh how could you be or how could the requirement be to satisfy both given that there is an inconsistency between them as you've accepted
00:53:11 accepted well i think i make that i think i say something similar in this response oh i see so are you saying here that actually you satisfy both by being a material of limited combustibility yeah and and also
00:53:24 limited combustibility yeah and and also the i think on the previous page it talks about having to meet the requirements and then highlights the the issue and the ambiguity around clause around clause 12.7 what would happen
00:53:36 around clause 12.7 what would happen what would you say uh to somebody who came along with diagram 40 and a class b panel and said well it says class b in diagram 40. here's a class b panel why can't i use
00:53:47 here's a class b panel why can't i use it
00:53:47 it at this stage we would say our understanding is that clause 12.7 requires the cladding as well as the insulation and other significant materials to be limited combustibility and therefore
00:54:01 combustibility and therefore you can ignore 12 point you
00:54:04 you you meet the requirements of you exceed the requirements of diagram 40 by having a limited combustibility panel
00:54:12 uh if you go back to page one you start the third paragraph of your email to him saying the question still remains you see that yes um
00:54:23 yes um why was there still a question given the advice you were at this point giving to your members and indeed had been giving since october 2014. the question still remained
00:54:35 the question still remained because we still hadn't received clarification via this faq despite
00:54:43 despite as we saw the email correspondence earlier in march of 2015 we're told that a
00:54:49 a an faq has been drafted and is nearly ready for for circulation and for comment so we assumed that was happening and then it it didn't and then we question
00:55:01 it it didn't and then we question why that is what what is if if the intention can't be simply clarified by an faq if that's not forthcoming what's the issue here right now looking at the third line in that paragraph you say from recent meetings
00:55:13 paragraph you say from recent meetings and discussions that we've had our understanding is now that the scope of 12.7 extends to also include the external cladding what were the recent meetings and discussions you were referring to there i assume
00:55:26 referring to there i assume by that i am referring to the july
00:55:29 the july 2014 meeting and discussions from from that point onwards i see
00:55:36 i see now the inquiry has seen the footage of nick jenkins asking questions at this conference and his evident concern uh
00:55:45 uh given that he worked for a manufacturer that was supplying these panels and you say in your response to him that you didn't think that the use of combustible acm panels in previous project was unexpected given the ambiguity of 12.7
00:55:58 ambiguity of 12.7 and the accepted practice at the time when you say the accepted practice at the time
00:56:04 the time what do you mean
00:56:08 i think by that i mean the
00:56:14 let me just help you to turn to turn the page because full context i'm sorry second paragraph on to page two you can see at the end of that there
00:56:23 there that's where you refer to the ambiguity of paragraph 12.7 and the accepted practice at the time if i accepted practice i mean the the accepted interpretation of clause 12.7
00:56:35 12.7 that 12.7 applied to to the insulation it didn't apply to the cladding was it your view that the use of combustible acm panels with pe core over 18 meters
00:56:46 acm panels with pe core over 18 meters was due to the confusion caused by the ambiguity and the guidance as you saw it yes yes
00:56:52 yes yes were you surprised to learn that booth murray a manufacturer wanted to provide guidance to to industry
00:57:01 i i wouldn't say i was surprised i was pleased that they were wanting to to provide guidance and having having spoken to nick before no i was aware that he wanted to do that
00:57:13 no i was aware that he wanted to do that now if we go to page one and look at the second email down we can see that nick jenkins responds to you the same day 20th of january 2016 uh saying thank you for your prompt
00:57:24 uh saying thank you for your prompt feedback much appreciated i'd like to put my questions directly to the bre could you please advise to hear who i should direct this and also provide their contact details and you then go back to him with sarah
00:57:36 and you then go back to him with sarah colwell's email address suggesting you contact he contacted her and you say if you managed to find out any information from her i'd be grateful if you could let me know um can you tell us why didn't you
00:57:47 um can you tell us why didn't you suggest to him that he should also put the question directly to brian martin
00:57:53 it obviously didn't occur to me he he asked for the contact detail of someone at bre and and that's what i provided right
00:58:01 right does this reflect the fact that in your mind this was really sarah colwell's leading this and the person with responsibility for this rather than government
00:58:13 i don't know i don't know if i would i would agree with that um as we've discussed already it was sarah carwell who offered this view to us
00:58:24 carwell who offered this view to us regarding the intention of 12.7 we assumed that she knew what she was talking about and and had been involved in in discussions that that led to that
00:58:37 in discussions that that led to that that view and therefore she seemed an appropriate person to talk to now if we go
00:58:42 go it was obvious i think at this point that you still hadn't had any feedback from from sarah colwell have you given up chasing her by this point
00:58:50 point uh yes i had and your last chaser was november 2015 and here you have nothing it's now mid-2016 you've got industry expressing concerns at a major conference yes i think
00:59:02 conference yes i think the the last time i tried to chase uh chase sarah caldwell was prior to our technical committee meeting in november of 2015 i think at that meeting
00:59:15 of 2015 i think at that meeting we decided that we were going to give up and just carry on and produce a draft guidance note which we would then discuss with our fire committee right now let's um let's look across and see what uh
00:59:26 what uh nick jenkins does you send this email to him at 1310 on the 20th of january 2016. yes yes right now let's go to blm 6067 because we there see what nick nick
00:59:37 because we there see what nick nick jenkins does about
00:59:41 about 50 minutes later here is his email to sarah colwell second email down i'm so sorry uh page
00:59:52 i'm so sorry uh page six we want actually
00:59:56 page six uh and second email down on that page 1348
01:00:02 1348 this is his email to sarah colwell and
01:00:06 and the first paragraph introduces himself and the second paragraph onwards is essentially the same as he wrote to you and steve evans but with some of your comments added
01:00:19 but with some of your comments added now
01:00:20 now running it through he doesn't receive a response if we go up to the next email on the chain at the bottom of page five you can see that he writes to her again on the first of february to at 1342
01:00:31 on the first of february to at 1342 and
01:00:32 and if you look at the second paragraph he says there i've received feedback from steve evans of the nhbc bca and also david metcalf of cwct who have both confirmed that they think my interpretation of the
01:00:43 they think my interpretation of the building regs in relation to the use of combustible materials in high-rise buildings is correct i.e to meet the requirements paragraphs 12.6 to 12.9 and diagram 40 need to be followed
01:00:54 diagram 40 need to be followed and then over the page the question still remains however
01:01:00 and he continues in that vein and then he says the bca guidance agrees with this and then he says this david's thoughts are that this is logical especially following the recent evidence of fire spread up the facade of a number
01:01:11 of fire spread up the facade of a number of buildings in the middle east with combustible cladding panels a simple read through the approved document however would not tell you this we're awaiting feedback and confirmation from the bre as this is a perquisite i
01:01:22 from the bre as this is a perquisite i think he means prerequisite to us issuing straight publishing any much-needed guidance nate to the industry
01:01:28 industry now the feedback that he refers to there is your email of the 20th of january isn't it essentially there's nowhere else it could have come from yes yes did you also discuss these issues at the time with steve evans of
01:01:40 issues at the time with steve evans of nhbc
01:01:43 not that i recall now we've seen that even after the cwct meeting in july 2014 you were not convinced that 12.7 was intended to exclude the external cladding of a facade because we saw the
01:01:54 cladding of a facade because we saw the carrier correspondence where you said it was the current review was not that did don't we yes yes
01:02:02 but we see here in your response to nick jenkins on the 20th of january and how this is reflected in his message to sarah colwell that you now thought it was logical that
01:02:13 that you now thought it was logical that 12.7 should extend to to the external cladding does that change um is that changed what you told us earlier reflected by the changing view in the autumn of 2014
01:02:26 the changing view in the autumn of 2014 reflected by the slideshow we looked at yes right
01:02:30 yes right now nick jenkins says that steve evans confirmed his view do you recall steve evans response to nick jenkins in the q a
01:02:40 i have
01:02:43 have i looked it i've followed some of steve evans
01:02:47 evans evidence before christmas and and i saw some of some of his his responses yes yes and we can go to it there's particularly the transcript which we can look at but let's see if we can take it more shortly do you remember or perhaps
01:02:59 more shortly do you remember or perhaps having seen that material have your recollection refreshed by his statement to the
01:03:05 to the um
01:03:07 um to the conference that there was an anomaly in the building regulations yes i i
01:03:13 yes i i i seem to recall that a particularly clear answer wasn't given no indeed but that's a matter of comment i suppose but my question is as a matter of fact did you discuss with steve evans
01:03:24 of fact did you discuss with steve evans his own view about that anomaly and how it could be cured not directly i don't think i think i think in in relation to fire
01:03:36 think in in relation to fire the only
01:03:38 the only sort of contact i've had with steve evans is in in emails such as this where we've both been copied in right now let's moving forward swiftly um
01:03:49 let's moving forward swiftly um if we go up the email chain i'll summarize this to you uh nick jenkins chases sarah colwell top of page five and then she replies bottom of page 4
01:04:01 and then she replies bottom of page 4 on the 9th of february 2016 apologizing for missing his correspondence and saying she'll come back to him she then responds on the 12th of february 2016 middle of page four
01:04:12 middle of page four dear nick you see that yes we've now had a chance to look at your email and i would suggest that you contact brian martin at dclg with regard to this request as they are the body with responsibility for this document and
01:04:23 responsibility for this document and therefore any interpretations associated with it
01:04:26 with it the response from brian martin is on page three in the middle 16th of february 2016 at 1709 you see it there yes and i'm just going
01:04:37 you see it there yes and i'm just going to tell you that on page one you afford this help forwarded this whole email string
01:04:42 string two days later 16th sorry 18th of february 2016 by nick jenkins let's look at brian martin's message and i'm going to ask you about it hi nick he says it's for the designer and
01:04:54 nick he says it's for the designer and the building control body to consider if requirement b4 has been met adb gives guidance on this by saying that the external walls should not provide a medium for fire spread into all buildings it then offers two approaches
01:05:05 buildings it then offers two approaches a set of rules or a full-scale test in the rules we deliberately added the word filler to address things that form part of the cladding system that are not insulation but could provide a medium for fire spread i think
01:05:16 provide a medium for fire spread i think the core of an acm panel could reasonably be considered to be a filler so unless the core material meets the rules then the ad suggests the full scale test however if the designer and building control body choose to do something else then that's up to them
01:05:28 something else then that's up to them i'm on the road at the moment so drafting this from memory brian now if we just go to the top of page one we see there that you will afford this whole email chain by nick jenkins
01:05:41 whole email chain by nick jenkins gents please find below latest communications with the dclg you see that
01:05:47 that yes so can we take it that you were familiar with brian martin's response yes what did you make of it at the time
01:05:56 i think it
01:05:59 it added to the confusion so
01:06:01 so as we've discussed at our meeting in july 2014
01:06:06 july 2014 we are told that the intention of clause 12.7 was to include everything
01:06:13 all significant materials should be of limited combustibility when following the prescriptive route of compliance and then in brian martin's email to nick jenkins he he doesn't make reference to that
01:06:25 he he doesn't make reference to that view he is the view he's putting forward is that the core of an acm could be considered a filler and therefore
01:06:33 therefore comes under 12.7 as being a filler material
01:06:37 material rather than the the wider interpretation that 12.7 applies to to all materials including cladding panels whether they have a core or not
01:06:49 have a core or not this was the from our point of view this was the heart of the problem it wasn't clear if the intention of 12.7 was to include everything or if the core of an acm was considered
01:07:00 or if the core of an acm was considered a filler material and therefore fell into 12.7 and that's what we wanted clarifying because you get a different answer depending on those two views um
01:07:11 when you saw the email chain did you note the fact that sarah colwell simply put nick jenkins on to the dclg brian martin as opposed to sending her the name she had she had
01:07:22 sending her the name she had she had said was ready to be circulated yes did you think of going back to her at that stage and saying well hold on where's the note i i didn't i i think by that point we'd given up trying to get any information
01:07:34 given up trying to get any information out of her yeah uh and did you think to go yourself to brian martin and say well where's this faq you when you read the minute of the 2nd of july 2014 at some almost two years
01:07:47 of july 2014 at some almost two years ago it was 18 months ago where is it i'm not entirely sure of the time scale but we
01:07:52 we had
01:07:54 had another meeting of our fire group which may already have been set up
01:08:00 set up because i think it was i think it was march of 2016. this is mid-february yes so
01:08:08 our intention would be to take these issues to that meeting that both sarah carwell and brian martin were going to attend and and we could try and
01:08:19 attend and and we could try and figure it out once and for all yes just looking at brian martin's response please page three again if we can just go back
01:08:25 go back to that he says uh in the
01:08:29 uh in the pre-penultimate paragraph i think the core of an acm acp panel could reasonably be considered to be a filler
01:08:39 filler were you surprised at the time that he wasn't able to to offer more definitive guidance
01:08:44 guidance yes
01:08:45 yes now
01:08:47 now there's a response from nick jenkins uh same day page two hi brian manny thanks for your prompt response
01:08:55 in light of the files that have taken hold
01:08:57 hold of a number of buildings planned in acm panels in recent years i also think that the core of acm panels should most definitely be considered as filler some acm cores meet the rules of adb however the ones commonly used in the uk at
01:09:09 the ones commonly used in the uk at present don't to the best of my knowledge there have been no full scale 8414 tests carried out to date of any wall constructions featuring any type of acm panel i'm aware that two manufacturers of acm have plans to have
01:09:20 manufacturers of acm have plans to have such tests carried out this however unfortunately means that no existing buildings in the uk over 18 metres tall that feature acm panels currently meet the b4 requirements there are many such
01:09:32 the b4 requirements there are many such buildings and their numbers are growing
01:09:36 whilst i appreciate it for the designer and building control body to consider if requirement b4 has been met i do think the current situation is of grave concern surely this justifies the
01:09:47 concern surely this justifies the requirement for a less ambiguous statement of the rules with the above in mind do you think it would be worth setting up a meeting with the relevant bodies and experts represented to review the current presentation of the rules regards nick
01:09:59 presentation of the rules regards nick and you read that because it's in the email string were you fully aware of the scale of the problem as nick jenkins outlines it there
01:10:08 no i don't think we were we had no
01:10:13 knowledge of what testing had been carried out or or hadn't been carried out did this bring it home to you
01:10:21 i think so yeah he said he described the current situation as one of grave concern
01:10:27 concern when you read this message particularly in the context and the history and the attempts of getting clarification did you agree that the current situation was one of grave concern
01:10:39 was one of grave concern yes i think i did and i think the the brian martin's response to to nick before this shows the the issues that we had
01:10:50 shows the the issues that we had it was very difficult practically impossible to get anyone to clarify
01:10:56 clarify what was meant by clause 12.7 did that cause you to consider that there might be an urgent problem that needed to be addressed urgently as i said we had a meeting lined up in
01:11:09 as i said we had a meeting lined up in in march and and our view that was that this was this was close enough so we could discuss these issues at that meeting in march and try and get the situation clarified once and for all and agree
01:11:21 for all and agree a way forward in terms of the guidance that we were going to publish yes um mr chairman i've got about seven or eight minutes of questions on this run of emails would you rather complete that i think i would but then we'll come to the
01:11:32 think i would but then we'll come to the the march meeting yes right um if you then go up in the next email in the chain to page two you can see brian martin's response the next day 17th of february
01:11:42 february 2016
01:11:44 2016 and he says thanks nick i'm not sure the text really is all that ambiguous given that it must cover all forms of construction people often argue that it isn't clear when they're trying to justify doing
01:11:55 when they're trying to justify doing something that's clearly wrong i'm not entirely sure that even the acm products that have flame retardant cause would meet the rules of thumb and a.d so it'll be interesting to see if any any of them get through an 8414 test but that's just
01:12:06 get through an 8414 test but that's just my opinion we've recently commissioned a survey of part b users with a view to feeding into the next revision in the first instance it might help if you put your views into that please and it gives you a
01:12:17 you a website there's a meeting of the cwct group to talk about cladding and fire safety it's run by bath university maybe you could ask them if you can get involved brendar acted details below is organizing things and there we see the
01:12:29 organizing things and there we see the email address cwct and just focusing on the first sentence i'm not sure the text is really all that ambiguous
01:12:37 ambiguous did that surprise you when you read it yes
01:12:41 yes our view
01:12:43 our view as we've discussed is that it was ambiguous that was that was the view of our meeting in in july 2014
01:12:55 we stated very clearly that we wanted claus 12.7 clarified because it just wasn't clear brian martin would have
01:13:07 brian martin would have did receive the minutes of those meetings
01:13:10 meetings of that meeting rather and
01:13:12 and to say that it's not ambiguous i don't i don't think that is correct
01:13:20 now you can see from the last paragraph that brian martin is directing industry could prove murray nick jenkins back to cwct
01:13:31 nick jenkins back to cwct and the cwct zone meetings what did you make of that
01:13:40 i don't think i've really thought of anything of it at the time as i said
01:13:47 as i said this was all going on when we had a meeting
01:13:49 meeting a few weeks away so whilst it would have been preferable for brian martin to give a clear
01:13:59 answer to nick's question i suppose this was the next best thing that we we can all sit around the table and discuss it right
01:14:07 now if we go to page one please at the foot of page one you can see that nick jenkins responds to this and in the third paragraph he says to brian martin
01:14:19 he says to brian martin i have completed the survey and also spoken to david metcalf of the cwct reformed inclusion in the cwct group to talk about cladding and fire safety i've already been in discussion with david regarding this matter i think that
01:14:31 regarding this matter i think that perhaps the most straightforward way to better communicate the rules in any amended document would be by the inclusion of some annotated illustrations of commonly used multi-layered wall constructions now what does he mean when he says that
01:14:43 now what does he mean when he says that he'd spoken to you re forward inclusion in the cwct group to talk about cladding and fire safety i helped i i'd had various conversations with nick i can't be
01:14:56 with nick i can't be entirely sure of the timing so whether nick phoned me after
01:15:02 after brian martin's previous email to talk about the work that we were doing or whether he's referring to other conversations that we'd had in terms of the the guidance note that
01:15:14 in terms of the the guidance note that that nick was writing on behalf of booth murray i i don't i don't know exactly if we go to the top of page two he also says
01:15:22 says in the meantime we intend to construct a guidance note stroke's statement of bhuv murray's interim position which will er on the side of caution it's our hope that in publishing this guidance note and diagrams perhaps jointly with the
01:15:33 and diagrams perhaps jointly with the bca that we can educate and provide clarity of the rules as they specifically relate to the commonly used multi-layered wall buildups featuring acm cladding panels
01:15:44 acm cladding panels were you aware before you saw this email that booth murie were intending to construct a guidance national statement erring on the side of caution i think so had cwct given consideration to doing
01:15:55 had cwct given consideration to doing the same thing
01:16:00 no we wanted to keep saying this we wanted to get the issues
01:16:07 issues clarified before we published any guidance and our guidance wasn't just wasn't just about um combustibility of materials we all we were also looking looking at other issues so it wasn't a single it
01:16:19 other issues so it wasn't a single it wasn't a single issue um case for us that there was other guidance to be provided as well but given
01:16:26 given the dubai cladding fires and given the dangers and the life safety risks that 100 p e called acm presented and the as you
01:16:36 you call it the ambiguity in the
01:16:39 in the wording
01:16:42 wasn't this a topic which called for strong guidance from cwct and urgent as i said we had a meeting lined up in in a few weeks after this where we would
01:16:53 in a few weeks after this where we would have
01:16:54 have discussed this in the hope of actually clarifying our the official position and from that we could publish our guidance that was the that was the view we took
01:17:06 we took now the booth murray guidance drafted by nick jenkins uh
01:17:10 uh as hinted at here um came to you for comment didn't it yes i commented on you commented on it in fact i think it also went to arab and dclg and kingspan for that matter
01:17:22 and kingspan for that matter did you know that i didn't know that you didn't know that i think right it was published on the 10th of march and we can look at it it's five zeroes twenty four sorry six zero twenty four
01:17:34 twenty four let's have a look at it
01:17:41 uh and it's called boov murray's guide to designing approved document b2 compliant multi-layered walls featuring rain screen panel systems formed from aluminium composite material
01:17:52 aluminium composite material you see that and
01:17:55 and cutting a long story short it basically takes the position that um acm
01:18:00 acm the pe core needs to be a material of limited combustibility or basically can't be used above 18 meters for that because it is never going to be a material of limited combustibility
01:18:11 combustibility yes
01:18:15 yes yes so that's the effect of option one there are a number of options in it uh
01:18:21 uh uh and
01:18:22 uh and the the division into four options essentially reflects the bca guidance note
01:18:27 note um do you know why nick jenkins was able to draft and release guidance to the industry based on uh
01:18:34 uh consultation including government before the cwct was able to do anything
01:18:43 do we know if if boos murray received any comments from government on on this document well i i i'm asked just asking you a
01:18:55 well i i i'm asked just asking you a timing question uh
01:18:57 uh we know that questions were asked for the views of dclg were sought but my question to you is why was nick jenkins able to get
01:19:08 why was nick jenkins able to get guidance out uh including after some consultation before cwct was able to because we we were waiting for official confirmation of the intention of clause 12.7 mr chairman
01:19:20 the intention of clause 12.7 mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes i think it is we'll have a short break now we'll come back
01:19:25 come back at 20 to four please and as before please and talk to anyone about your evidence when they're out of the room thank you all right thank you very much
01:19:43 thank you very much 24 please
01:36:07 would you ask mr metcalf to come back in please
01:36:25 all right mr very cool ready to carry on yes thank you thank you very much yes yes thank you mr chairman um mr metcalfe i want to move on now to the cwct meeting of the 17th of march 2016. can we go please to cwct 5029
01:36:50 this is a minute of the meeting on that day uh again did you compile this minute
01:36:59 uh alan keeler would have written the minutes
01:37:03 minutes probably based on on the notes that we both took right we can see who was present
01:37:08 present there's a cast from arab sarah colwell was there nick jenkins was there and aquila was there brian um david metcalf was there brian martin was there was brian martin there for the whole meeting yes
01:37:20 whole meeting yes um and there are others too including adrian pargeter there as well chris mort stuart taylor familiar names uh and apologies from some other quite familiar names too
01:37:32 familiar names too held in london so a journey for many um was there anything specific that prompted this meeting or was this simply the time for the next meeting with the fire group to take place
01:37:42 place this was the time for the the next meeting of that fire group to take place we
01:37:46 we had
01:37:48 had given up on trying to get official clarification via an faq and therefore we took the decision to call another meeting to discuss the the road map that we had produced in the hope that we
01:37:59 we had produced in the hope that we could get that confirmed and published right well i was going to ask you why there was such a long gap between the meetings july 2014 march 2016 was that because of the months of effort to try to get an faq
01:38:11 months of effort to try to get an faq out of government through sarah colwell yes now we can see that she attended did you ask her at the meeting why she hadn't responded to your many emails and voicemails the previous year
01:38:23 voicemails the previous year i don't
01:38:24 i don't i don't know i i would like to think i thought i would have done but i don't recall
01:38:30 recall doing that um maybe i didn't think it was appropriate i don't know right were you shy of doing so
01:38:40 i'm just i'm not sure it was appropriate to
01:38:42 to to
01:38:43 to raise that issue during the meeting i could have raised it separately but as i said i think we'd given up on trying to get
01:38:49 get anything out of here i mean you had an opportunity outside the meeting perhaps before or
01:38:54 before or afterwards or during a break just to collar her and ask her politely well have you did you not get my five emails and two voicemails i don't recall doing that no why is that i don't know
01:39:06 i don't know uh now we i've shown you who the attendees were if we go to point three on page one we can see there's a heading the foot of your screen now in the middle of your screen road map to prescript prescriptive compliance
01:39:18 prescript prescriptive compliance under that heading it says the previous meeting of the group concluded that there was a need for a simple road map which summarizes the measures that need to be taken for a facade to meet the prescriptive rules of approved document b
01:39:29 b apk that's alan keeler presented a draft roadmap it's acknowledged that it needs to be supplemented by further information however there is limited scape for additional information within the target of a two-page document and
01:39:40 the target of a two-page document and either the document will have to be extended all reference made to supporting documents the roadmap was generally well received however it was agreed to provide some clarification of the terminology also
01:39:51 clarification of the terminology also more complete listing of standards was requested cwct will revise the roadmap based on the comments received and later discussion now you address this in your statement we can go to that please page
01:40:02 statement we can go to that please page 20 paragraph 69 you say this i do not recall any individual reactions to the draft roadmap following the first meeting a short roadmap was suggested as a
01:40:14 short roadmap was suggested as a possible publication and this is what was presented at the second meeting the general consensus was that whilst good the guidance needed to be expanded to provide additional detail and to make it as clear and useful as possible all of
01:40:25 as clear and useful as possible all of which cwct agreed to undertake cwct tn 98 included a revised roadmap with annex's reference from the roadmap giving that additional guidance following updating by alan keeler and
01:40:36 following updating by alan keeler and myself
01:40:37 myself now this road map which cwc undertook to draft was in fact is this right the basis of the cwct's technical note 98 yes it's the flowchart that is contained
01:40:48 yes it's the flowchart that is contained within tn 98 and tn 98 was published in april 2017 wasn't it correct now we'll look at that shortly but for now staying with these minutes if we go to page two we can see towards the
01:40:59 to page two we can see towards the bottom of the page a heading combustible combustibility of material in yellow highlight
01:41:06 highlight it says this approved document b clause 12.7 requires insulation and filler material in the external walls of tall buildings to be of limited combustibility
01:41:17 of limited combustibility bca guidance note 18 extends this requirement to all material in the wall it was accepted that clause 12.7 was poorly written and open to interpretation the title of the clause
01:41:28 interpretation the title of the clause is also misleading insulation materials stroke products and this will be changed in the next revision of adb now just to be clear do you remember was there any objection
01:41:40 do you remember was there any objection or disagreement expressed at the meeting with the two propositions that are expressed in that first paragraph namely the clause 12.7 was poorly written and open to interpretation
01:41:53 written and open to interpretation and
01:41:54 and in the second paragraph that the title was also misleading i don't think anybody disagreed with that and and i believe
01:42:05 that and and i believe brian martin said that the the title would be changed in the revision of it next revision of adb
01:42:13 was there any discussion of the exception in 12.7 for cavities in masonry walls not that i recall that our focus was on on rain stream cladding and insulation in ventilated
01:42:24 cladding and insulation in ventilated cavity so i don't recall discussing um cavity block levels and masonry walls right was that a relevant consideration
01:42:36 it wasn't we weren't aware of any issues there it hadn't hadn't been raised as something that we needed to discuss can i start this the first of those
01:42:48 can i start this the first of those highlighted paragraphs um suggests that a clause 12.7 is limited to insulation and filler rather than
01:42:59 rain stream panels and the guidance note 18 extends it was there any discussion about that did people accept that was the correct position
01:43:10 position i think so i i don't recall anybody
01:43:19 having a different different view to that
01:43:22 that what we've written there is is correct clause 12.7 requires insulation and filler material in the external walls of tall buildings to be of limited combustibility it's the bca note that says actually
01:43:34 it's the bca note that says actually it's not just insulation it's it's everything i think people generally accepted that anyway mr martin didn't say as far as you can recall at least
01:43:43 least well that's not quite right because it always extended to include the panels i don't recall anything that explicit no all right thank you
01:43:56 by using the word extends there and we may come back to this was to your knowledge was the draft of this note intending to suggest that bca guidance note expanded the requirement
01:44:07 guidance note expanded the requirement to the material all material in the wall or merely that it applied the requirements to all material in the wall
01:44:16 or is that not a distinction i don't see any distinction in the two things that you said to be honest all right
01:44:22 right well
01:44:23 well let's see how we go with that uh if anywhere um you addressed this part of the meeting in your statement to page 21 paragraph 71. let's look at that together you say this
01:44:34 this brian martin was also present during this part of the meeting it was the consensus of the group the bca guidance note 18 extended you put the word in bold the requirement has
01:44:46 put the word in bold the requirement has described i agreed with this consensus because as noted above bca technical guidance nate 18 interpreted insulation products and filler materials to apply to all materials in the external wall this went significantly beyond the
01:44:59 this went significantly beyond the previous interpretation which was the clause 12.7 only principally applied to insulation materials the group consensus was that 12.7 was poorly written and if it intended to include all the materials
01:45:11 it intended to include all the materials that the title was also misleading i do not recall brian martin's exact response to this
01:45:17 to this now it looks from that paragraph as if your understanding and that of the group was that the bca guidance note did
01:45:26 did expand extend in the sense of expand the requirement in other words it applied the requirement beyond the natural meaning of the language of the of the of the paragraph is that what you
01:45:37 of the of the paragraph is that what you meant yes right and that was the consensus of the meeting and you say i think it's halfway down it went significantly beyond the previous interpretation which was that the clause 12.7 early principally applied to
01:45:49 12.7 early principally applied to insulation materials so you chose the word extended i think or whoever drafted the minute did consciously because that was the understanding of how the bcaa guidance
01:46:01 understanding of how the bcaa guidance note worked yes yes
01:46:04 yes yes now you say i do not recall brian martin's exact response to this
01:46:10 i'd like to understand what you mean do you recall whether he agreed with the group consensus or disagreed with the group consensus or didn't express a view one way or the other
01:46:21 one way or the other i think
01:46:23 i think that
01:46:26 that probably
01:46:27 probably there were some people who who didn't entirely agree with the view that we've put forward there i think what everybody did agree was
01:46:39 was clause 12.7 was poorly written and if it was meant whether people thought it included some things or not that's one point but every i think everybody agreed that it
01:46:50 every i think everybody agreed that it was it was poorly written and could have been clearer and that was that was important did brian martin express himself one way or the other about that
01:47:01 i think so because in in the minutes of the meeting it stated that the the title of that clause will change in the next revision of adb and only only brian martin could have could have
01:47:12 only brian martin could have could have said that because nobody else would have any knowledge of what was potentially going to be in the next version of adb to be clear did he say that he didn't think that 12.7 was all that ambiguous
01:47:24 that ambiguous as he had told nick jenkins the previous month
01:47:33 i i don't recall exactly what you said i'm sorry at any rate i think you would recall it if nick jenkins had pointed a finger at brian martin and said well this is not what you told me a month ago
01:47:44 this is not what you told me a month ago yeah so can we take it that that did not happen i i yes very well now who was it that told the meeting that 12.7 would be changed in the next
01:47:53 the next version of adb i think that must have been brian martin presumably because only he could give that assurance indeed was any indication given by him as to when that might be
01:48:06 no although he he may have said that a review was underway or they they we saw from from the email to nick jenkins that they'd a survey had been commissioned a user's
01:48:18 survey had been commissioned a user's survey had been commissioned on uh regarding adb so obviously work was underway but we weren't given a time scale
01:48:25 scale was there any discussion about the faq on clause 12.7 that had been discussed in july 27 at 2014 but as yet not materialized
01:48:37 yet not materialized by march 2016.
01:48:44 i don't i don't recall whether
01:48:49 whether that was specifically discussed or not i mean
01:48:52 i mean was brian martin or sarah colwell asked about why the promised faq had not materialized
01:49:05 there was nothing minuted so on that basis i have to say no because i don't recall can can you explain why that is given that the faq was the one thing
01:49:16 that the faq was the one thing that would provide authoritative clarification to this problem
01:49:21 problem and that you had been it was important to cwct and you'd been asking for it for many many months
01:49:31 i can't i i
01:49:33 i i i assume that it was discussed but i don't remember specifically discussing it and we didn't minute it so i have to i have to say
01:49:44 i have to i have to say we didn't we didn't do it i don't know was there any discussion at the meeting about the consequences about not having that clarification from government for so many months
01:49:57 government for so many months we would have expressed our frustration well did you i'm sure we would have done did anybody provide you with an explanation or a pacification for your frustration
01:50:08 or a pacification for your frustration perhaps not not that i'm aware of did anybody raise any concerns about the number of existing buildings out there at the time which had acm pe on them and the risks to public safety that that
01:50:20 the risks to public safety that that posed
01:50:21 posed not that i recall did nick jenkins reiterate his grave concern to the meeting that he'd expressed to you and steve evans in the private email we saw i don't remember him doing that though did you
01:50:38 not that i'm aware of why is that
01:50:47 i don't know
01:50:50 if we go back to the minutes page uh
01:50:54 uh three please cwct five zeros 29 page three combustibility of material it says this at the top of the screen that the term filler material was intended to be a catch-all as it was not
01:51:05 intended to be a catch-all as it was not possible to list all the materials that should be covered by the claws in addition there were people arguing that certain materials used in a facade build-up such as expanded polystyrene in some instances were not there for their
01:51:16 some instances were not there for their insulating properties but to pad out the facade and were therefore excluded from the clause this requirement should be applied taking into account clause 12.5 of adb and then there's it there's a quotation
01:51:28 and then there's it there's a quotation from that the external envelope of a building should not provide a medium for fire spread if it's likely to be a risk to health or safety the use of combustible materials in the cladding system and extensive use of cavities may present such a risk in tall buildings
01:51:40 present such a risk in tall buildings and then it goes on note that this clause refers to bold combustible materials in the cladding system rather than specifically insulation etc conclusion of the discussions
01:51:52 conclusion of the discussions dash
01:51:54 dash the cladding should not contribute to the spread of fire and that the combustibility clause is intended to include quite bold all materials in the external wall an exception may be made for small
01:52:05 an exception may be made for small isolated components that would not contribute to fire spread now you address this section of the minute of the meeting in your statement at page 21 and if we can look please at
01:52:16 at page 21 and if we can look please at paragraph 72 you say this my recollection is that brian martin stated that filler had been included as a capsule in brian martin's explanation the term filler was intended
01:52:27 explanation the term filler was intended to cover materials some had argued were included to pad out the facade or otherwise to fill a gap rather than for their insulating properties an example an example of such a filler would be can applied expanding foam in this context
01:52:40 applied expanding foam in this context the explanation of a filler material made some sense based on this explanation of course it did not follow that the original intention your italics original intention of the clause was to cover all materials
01:52:52 cover all materials now did brian martin actually say that at the meeting did he say at the meeting the term filler was intended to cover materials some had argued were included to pad out
01:53:03 some had argued were included to pad out the facade or otherwise fill a gap rather than for their insulating properties yes he did yes and and he i think referred to a a building he didn't give any details but referred to a building where
01:53:15 but referred to a building where um as we say in the the notes of the minutes of the meeting that um it's some expanded polystyrene had been included to quote pad out the facade
01:53:26 quote pad out the facade people had argued it wasn't there for its insulating properties therefore it wasn't an insulation material therefore it didn't come under clause 12.7 now looking at your paragraph 72 i'd like to know what what in that is you
01:53:39 know what what in that is you recording or recollecting what brian martin said did he say an example of such a filler would be can applied expanding foam i believe so did he say in that context the
01:53:51 did he say in that context the explanation of the filler mate's material made some sense
01:53:56 that that that's my that's you yes that's me i see so just to be clear the the second the the first three sentences of paragraph 72 is your recollection of what he said at the meeting yes
01:54:09 what he said at the meeting yes first three sentences but the last two sentences are your is your understanding yes thank you
01:54:18 did byron martin mention the particular incident which had led to the inclusion of the term filler in 12.7 i think he i think he referred to a particular building but i can't be certain about
01:54:30 building but i can't be certain about whether that's something i've i've found out since this meeting right and there you may have found out since this meeting that there was a fire in salford yes in 2005 at the edge did he refer to that by name i don't recall right him
01:54:43 that by name i don't recall right him referring to anything by naomi um he referred to a a project where this has happened did he come across as clear to you at least about the meaning of the guidance in 12.7
01:54:57 in so much as the example he gave made sense that a filler was something to to pad or
01:55:04 to pad or fill out or fill in a gap within the facade it didn't follow that the intention of of that clause was to include all materials right i see so can we take it from that that
01:55:17 i see so can we take it from that that he gave you the explanation for the origin of the introduction of the word into 12.7
01:55:22 into 12.7 uh
01:55:23 uh and you thought your reaction was that um
01:55:27 um that didn't mean that 12.7 should be taken as applying to all external wall materials including external panels yes
01:55:36 yes yes it's difficult to reach that conclusion from from the explanation that we were given yes i see now go back to the minutes please um i've read it to you already but page three
01:55:46 three um
01:55:49 at the very top in the second line where there's a reference there were people arguing that certain materials used in a facade build up such as expanded polystyrene in some instances were not there for their
01:56:00 instances were not there for their insulating properties but to pad out the facade and were therefore excluded from the claws
01:56:05 the claws it sounds it sounds from paragraph 72 and your evidence just now is that that is what brian martin said yes yes
01:56:14 uh and then you see underneath that this requirement should be applied taking into account 12 clause 12.5 of adb did brian martin say that yes and then if we look at the last paragraph
01:56:26 paragraph the conclusions um uh you say this in your statement if we can go to page 18 at the bottom paragraph 65 please you say
01:56:38 uh in the second line i do not think that the minutes we have are accurate in this instance in so far as i do not think that the final
01:56:49 as i do not think that the final paragraph of the section on combustibility of material is entirely accurate it refers to the intention of clause 12.7 being to apply to all materials i think a more accurate description would be that it was
01:57:00 description would be that it was concluded that 12.7 should apply to all materials this is discussed further elsewhere in this statement i believe brian martin was present for the head of this meeting now to be clear are you saying that it
01:57:11 now to be clear are you saying that it was decided at the meeting of the 17th of march 2016 that clause 12.7 ought to be read as applying to all materials in the external wall
01:57:22 to all materials in the external wall but didn't on its true reading and and that for future reference it should be understood to apply in that way yes yes
01:57:33 yes yes as i said the the explanation given on the the origin of the introduction of filler material clearly
01:57:42 clearly didn't
01:57:43 didn't imply that the original intention was that it should include everything right did brian martin say that 12.7
01:57:52 that 12.7 was always intended to include external cladding
01:58:02 i don't think so right
01:58:04 right did he say that 12.7 was always intended from the word go to have the extended or broadened application that the bca technical guidance note had
01:58:16 that the bca technical guidance note had said and that sarah colwell had told you in july 2014.
01:58:22 i don't recall if he explicitly said that but even if he did his explanation of the word filler would go against that right
01:58:36 did he confirm that the the interpretation to be used for future reference namely the 12.7 ought to apply to all materials in the external wall
01:58:47 in the external wall was new
01:58:54 i don't i think we were all happy with the conclusion that had we had reached the clause 12.7 should apply to everything i don't recall individual responses to that was there
01:59:06 individual responses to that was there any discussion about all the buildings that had included combustible external panels
01:59:10 panels before this new consensus no
01:59:17 can you explain why that is or might have been so we we were focusing on providing guidance for the industry as what they should be
01:59:28 for the industry as what they should be doing
01:59:30 doing from that point onwards this wasn't a discussion about historic uses of materials that that's a huge issue obviously but that that wasn't the scope of this meeting this
01:59:41 wasn't the scope of this meeting this was about trying to establish the guidance going forward yes now just to finish this off covering a little bit of the same ground in the next question but if you look please at your
01:59:52 question but if you look please at your statement at page 21 a paragraph 73 you say this
01:59:59 excuse me four lines down doubt still remained over the original intention of the clause especially after the explanation of the term filler given by brian martin personally i had my doubts over the original intention of the
02:00:10 over the original intention of the clause however i was happy with the conclusion of the discussion which was that the consensus of the meeting was that 12 clause 12.7 should apply to all materials in the external wall i do not recall the reaction of any individual
02:00:21 recall the reaction of any individual present at the meeting however my understanding was that this was not the widely held interpretation of the clause and indeed this had not been our interpretation of the clause and then you put this in italics as it was
02:00:32 you put this in italics as it was written
02:00:35 the doubt you referred to there did that relate only to your own views or did others at the meeting express doubt that the original intention of the term filler was to cover all materials in the external world
02:00:46 all materials in the external world build up including external panels i i think
02:00:50 think i think everybody had doubts as to the the original intention and as we've discussed before if if the intention was to include all materials including the cladding
02:01:02 materials including the cladding then why have why you have a contradiction with 12.6 which doesn't make any sense so again all these things you put them together and it doesn't appear as if the original intention was
02:01:13 appear as if the original intention was to include everything not least because of the reference to class b and diagram 40. yes did anybody actually look brian martin in the eye and ask him that very point
02:01:26 i don't know we we we would have questioned
02:01:32 anything that we were told and if if told
02:01:36 told that 12.7 included the cladding we would have we would have raised the issue of clause 12.6 in diagram 40. so cause it's such an obvious contradiction
02:01:47 cause it's such an obvious contradiction does it does it come to this that you were content with the approach to be taken going going forward for the future that that is how 12.7 should be read
02:01:58 that that is how 12.7 should be read namely as applying to all elements or significant elements in the external wall build up including external panels yes yes but that is but you were skeptical of brian martin's historic historical explanation that
02:02:10 historic historical explanation that that was always the intention of 12.7 yes
02:02:13 yes yes thank you um they're going slightly further down in paragraph 73 over on page 22 you say
02:02:22 in fact i think we need the top of page 22.
02:02:25 22. this position also aligns with the guidance given by the building control alliance i think the brian martin said changes would be made in the next revision to adb and i think brian martin was happy with the conclusion reached i certainly did not recall brian martin
02:02:37 certainly did not recall brian martin disagreeing with the decision nor were there other objections to the conclusion nor were there alternative suggestions was any indication given as to when the next revision of adb was due
02:02:48 next revision of adb was due no
02:02:49 no and what about a consultation on that next revision was that was that discussed i believe
02:02:57 i believe it may have been mentioned
02:03:00 mentioned in in passing but i don't think any any particular details were given and what gave me the impression that brian martin was happy with the conclusion reached at the meeting i think we we were all happy with the
02:03:11 i think we we were all happy with the conclusion that was reached we all
02:03:16 i think we all had but lots of people had had
02:03:20 had had concerns over clause 12.7 there was enough evidence around to indicate that combustible cladding was a problem and therefore i think we we were
02:03:33 problem and therefore i think we we were happy that we reached the conclusion that we reached that everything should be of limited combustibility to try and reduce that risk if the change to adb to explain the 12.7 was to apply to all
02:03:44 explain the 12.7 was to apply to all materials in the external wall buildup including external panels wasn't going to be made until the next revision of adb then how were the members of the construction industry who were not at this meeting meant to be
02:03:55 who were not at this meeting meant to be aware of the change we would publish a a technical guidance note we would still have preferred it to be clarified officially as i've said many
02:04:08 clarified officially as i've said many times before but we we were all happy with
02:04:12 with the conclusion that had been reached the fact that brian martin was present for this part of the discussion whereas he hadn't been present for the discussion on combustible materials in our previous meeting
02:04:23 meeting gave us
02:04:24 gave us confidence that gave us the confidence that we we needed to to go ahead with the guidance that we we published yes i mean did anybody at this stage of the meeting having
02:04:35 at this stage of the meeting having reached this conclusion or on the margins of it afterwards discuss the potential life safety implications of clause 12.7 having been so poorly drafted and misleading for so long thereby leading the construction
02:04:47 long thereby leading the construction industry to think that if for example acm panels had national class naught then they could be used on external walls above 18 meters
02:04:58 i can't talk for anybody else but we that wasn't something that we were focusing on again the fact that people like brian martin officials from dclg were were
02:05:10 martin officials from dclg were were present at this meeting they were
02:05:13 they were present
02:05:14 present to hear the concerns that were being raised about ambiguity of about the guidance that they were providing now that should have made people look at these things in more
02:05:26 made people look at these things in more detail
02:05:27 detail or was there a sense and you were at the meeting tell us was there a sense in which the historical legacy of this poorly drafted clause was to some extent an elephant in the
02:05:39 was to some extent an elephant in the room
02:05:41 room to be honest i i don't think it was because that simply wasn't what we were focusing on we were focusing on writing guidance that could be published to to help people from from that point
02:05:53 to to help people from from that point onwards
02:05:55 onwards that was our focus at this point no one thought to examine the elephant we'll see if there was an elephant and ask themselves the question well if this clause had meant to extend
02:06:08 if this clause had meant to extend to all elements in the external wall buildup since 2006 there's a 10-year legacy of misunderstanding by the uk construction industry what are the life safety implications of that did nobody ask
02:06:20 implications of that did nobody ask themselves that question
02:06:24 i don't know i don't know you didn't we
02:06:30 we no
02:06:31 no why not
02:06:33 why not our as i said our focus was about trying to provide guidance and clarity for for the industry that that's our role
02:06:45 role let's go to cev
02:06:49 708 please
02:06:54 this is the minute
02:06:59 cev 708 yes thank you this is a minute uh of a cwct board meeting that took place on the 6th of april 2016 at which you are present
02:07:13 and this is about three weeks after the fire group meeting of the 17th of march if we go to page two please fifth paragraph down we can see the minutes record the following
02:07:25 record the following there are still concerns do you see there are still concerns on the issue of fire and these will be discussed at the afternoon technical group meeting brian martin dclg who wrote most of the government document and sits on the
02:07:36 government document and sits on the cwct5 group has indicated that there may be consultation on a revised approved document starting soon is that right i had brown martin actually told you that there would be a consultation on the revised approved
02:07:48 consultation on the revised approved document starting soon i have to assume that's the case because that's that's what we've minuted here as i said before he mentioned a revision uh at our
02:08:00 he mentioned a revision uh at our meeting
02:08:01 meeting the previous month i don't recall exactly
02:08:04 exactly what he said at that point but i have no reason to doubt the the minutes here i see the word indicated does that refer to the fact that what you wrote here about what he said
02:08:15 you wrote here about what he said he said at that meeting yes i see so you didn't have a later conversation with ryan martin no on this subject right i see
02:08:22 see um let's then turn to the to technical note 98 of 2017 uh which is the roadmap outlined at the 2016 meeting um if we go to uh
02:08:34 um if we go to uh your statement please at page 22 paragraph 74 as the starting point you say there um
02:08:44 um i had no knowledge this is halfway through the paragraph i had no knowledge of when adb would be revised but as agreed during the meeting cwct revised the roadmap to include further detail and this was published for cwct tn 98
02:08:56 and this was published for cwct tn 98 fire performance of facades are you saying that it was agreed that the cwct
02:09:01 the cwct at the cwct meeting on the 17th of march 2016
02:09:05 2016 that the extension made to 12.7 to include all elements of the external wall should be disseminated to industry via cwct guidance rather than a revised version of adb
02:09:19 rather than a revised version of adb no we had no say in any revisions to adb we it had been agreed at that meeting what
02:09:28 what should
02:09:30 should what clause 12.7 should apply to we were happy with that we were comfortable with the conclusion that had been reached and therefore it was our decision to publish guidance in the way that we do so
02:09:42 that we do so was the was the decision to publish guidance
02:09:45 guidance a decision arrived at as a result of hearing brian martin at the 17th of march 2016 uh
02:09:52 uh and his non-objection as it were to the characterization of 12.7 as poorly drafted and misleading yes and requiring of revision yes i see so that's the change is it yes i thought that that gave us the
02:10:05 that that gave us the the confidence that the views being put forward were correct we were comfortable with that we we felt that at this time there was enough evidence to
02:10:16 evidence to to to demonstrate that all materials should be of limited combustibility and and that's what we published in our in our technical note 98
02:10:25 98 now
02:10:26 now the note eventually technical notice 98 was published in april 2017 wasn't it it was yes so does that tell us that there was no clarification given to industry in the period between the discussion at the meeting on the 17th of march 2016
02:10:40 the meeting on the 17th of march 2016 and
02:10:41 and uh 13 months later there would have been discussion during cwct courses where fire was
02:10:49 fire was uh was discussed and by that
02:10:53 by that by that point we would have been more more confident about the the information that we were providing it's not fair to say that we didn't provide any information but there was a delay in our technical note yes
02:11:04 delay in our technical note yes right why was that why was there a delay in your technical note mainly because of the the feedback that we received at the meeting in march of 2026
02:11:16 2026 the
02:11:17 the 2016. sorry 2016. the
02:11:22 the the conclusion of our 2014 meeting was that the group wanted a short one or two page
02:11:30 two page simple flowchart roadmap type approach to highlight the issues
02:11:37 issues that's what we took to the meeting in 2016
02:11:40 2016 and whilst feedback on that flowchart was very positive
02:11:46 positive people then decided actually no we want more information it's no good just saying you need to provide cavity barriers actually we want a section on cavity barriers and a section on fire stopping and a section on various other
02:11:57 stopping and a section on various other things and that all took
02:12:00 took time to
02:12:01 time to to draft and approve with the fire group and our technical committee um in addition to the other things that we were doing at that time
02:12:12 i mean 13 months is a long time given the pre-existing delay that had already happened between 2014 and march 2016 isn't it it is i mean looking at almost three years of
02:12:23 i mean looking at almost three years of delay yes
02:12:25 delay yes um and
02:12:26 um and can you explain that i think i've explained it already we we desperately wanted official
02:12:35 official approval
02:12:37 approval of the the view that was that was given to us
02:12:40 to us and
02:12:41 and once we had that we were happy to proceed with drafting our guidance it turns out that more guidance was was required and
02:12:52 was required and and when
02:12:53 and when we have to approve things via working groups and technical committee it all takes time unfortunately we have we have limited resources and other
02:13:05 we have limited resources and other pressures on our time and and it took longer than we would have liked well let's look at technical note 98 shall we cwct 5024 please
02:13:25 that's the page one it's entitled fire performance of facades guide to the requirements of uk buildings right building regulations and just above it it says it supersedes technical late 73 which was march 2011.
02:13:38 technical late 73 which was march 2011. and if we go to page 13
02:13:42 at the top of the page it says this under combustibility of materials limits on combustibility of materials are given in clause 12.7 of adb clause 12.7 specifically refers to insulation
02:13:54 12.7 specifically refers to insulation materials and filler materials but is now being interpreted more generally see bca guidance nate 18 therefore where a building has a story 18 meters or more above ground level all significant materials all in bold should be of
02:14:06 materials all in bold should be of limited combustibility class a2 in accordance with en13501.1 this includes but is not limited to first bullet range screen panels standard acm panels do not meet
02:14:17 panels standard acm panels do not meet these requirements limited combustibility acm panels are available insulation materials the only commonly used insulation material that will satisfy the definition of limited combustibility is mineral wool
02:14:29 combustibility is mineral wool and then you go on sheathing boards and backing wall plaster boards these requirements apply to the full height of the wall both above and below 18 meters i.e in a high-rise building materials below 18 meters would also have to be of
02:14:41 below 18 meters would also have to be of limited combustibility and is that the clarification that you had been wanting to make um or rather had been asking for since 2014
02:14:51 2014 yes
02:14:53 yes uh and which i think you'd named since june 2013 had been desperately needed by industry
02:14:58 industry yes
02:15:00 yes yes we wanted claws 12.7 clarified was the cwct ever placed under any under any pressure from its sponsors or members not to make this clarification by way of published guidance no
02:15:12 by way of published guidance no did you take any steps at this stage to go back to the members who previously queried the acceptability of class b and class naught materials over 18 metres such as wintec and tell them about this
02:15:24 such as wintec and tell them about this new guidance and the significance of it we
02:15:27 we would have excuse me we would have emailed all of our
02:15:31 our contacts and members to inform them this technical note had been published right was there an adverse reaction from the construction industry to it not
02:15:43 from the construction industry to it not that i recall no right and at this stage we're now in april 2017 was it was there any consideration by cwct to your knowledge of the legacy history
02:15:55 of the legacy history of buildings in the uk which had been built over 18 meters using rain screen panels comprising standard acm no that wasn't something we we considered
02:16:07 considered or insulation which was not material of limiting combustibility no not
02:16:13 not even at that stage you didn't consider the legacy we we would have considered it it's something we would have have discussed internally um
02:16:23 um but
02:16:24 but we weren't the people to
02:16:28 to deal with that that's a building control a government an nhbc issue we have we didn't approve any of those materials in any buildings we we had no no input into that
02:16:39 had no no input into that thank you
02:16:40 thank you um mr metcalf uh you'll be pleased to know that i've come to the end of my prepared questions mr chairman it's just after twenty past four um i would like to be able to release this witness this
02:16:51 to be able to release this witness this evening yeah stay overnight even though he was scheduled to do so if i was to ask for a break until twenty twenty five to 5. is that would that be inconvenient i think that would be very
02:17:02 inconvenient i think that would be very convenient i'm sure mr metcalf would like to get away her get away this evening mr mick i've just said you understand what's going on you may or may not know this but when council gets to the end of his questions we have to
02:17:13 to the end of his questions we have to have a short break to enable him to take stock and others who are uh watching the proceedings from elsewhere to suggest questions that perhaps we ought to put to you so we'll have a short break now we'll only have
02:17:25 have a short break now we'll only have 10 minutes i'm going to say 25 to 5 yes if it turns out that little long is required well so be it and we'll see how we go and then when you come back we'll see if there are any more questions for
02:17:36 see if there are any more questions for you okay all right so thank you and you're not going to have a chance to talk to anyone about your evidence but should the opportunity arise don't take it all right i'd like to give the usher please
02:17:57 right mr miller we'll say 25 to 5. and if it turns out that you need a bit longer you can ask the ocean to come and tell us thank you very much thank you very much
02:34:04 would you ask mr metcalf to come back in please
02:34:19 right mr mcgovern i'm sorry it took a little longer to get things organized but uh we're ready now and we'll see if there are more questions for you mr chairman i'm in the curious position of being promised a question by 4 40
02:34:32 being promised a question by 4 40 and you coming in at 4 39 therefore i'm going to stand here for another 20 seconds uh passing the time of day with the panel see if the much promised question does emerge and if it doesn't then i'm going to um
02:34:45 and if it doesn't then i'm going to um ask you to call an end to mr metcalf's evidence yes and uh those behind me are waiting
02:34:51 waiting with baited breath for the question to arrive and you're going to entertain us for another 30 seconds not entirely sure what it is that i can do um but uh it is now
02:35:00 now the time given and i'm going to common sense i think and deference to the witness and the the proceedings requires me i think to say that there are no further questions
02:35:11 that there are no further questions for this witness mr metcalf it remains for me to thank you very much indeed for coming to the inquiry and assisting us with your evidence we're extremely grateful to you
02:35:23 evidence we're extremely grateful to you thank you
02:35:23 thank you and i have no further questions for you
02:35:28 um you've noted the screen have you uh i have
02:35:33 uh i have no i haven't well there we are there he goes to show um there is a supplemental question i'm now going to have to i'm sorry mr metcalf but uh this can happen
02:35:44 this can happen i have to revoke my invitation
02:35:52 looking at the question i i i it is a question which i think i have covered generically with the witness before and therefore i don't need to ask it and to detain him any longer mr chairman i'm grateful thank
02:36:03 longer mr chairman i'm grateful thank you very much mr metcalf for your patience thank you well mr metcalf first there was a question then there wasn't anyway um
02:36:09 anyway um it's right that i should thank you very much on behalf of the members of the panel as a whole for coming to give your evidence i think i can speak for all of us when i say we've found it very interesting and very useful
02:36:21 very useful and we're very grateful to you for giving up the time to come and tell us what you know so thank you very much and i'm very glad we've managed to finish you today so you can get away great thank you very much
02:36:32 get away great thank you very much indeed
02:36:46 well thank you very much mr millet that must be it for today and tomorrow we shall
02:36:51 shall look forward to hearing another witness yes mr chairman uh it is that's that's it and tomorrow morning uh we then have mr david crowder of the bre who will be examined by ms grange of
02:37:03 who will be examined by ms grange of leading council thank you very much thank you talk tomorrow morning then please thank you