Testimony from BR 135 expert Brian Martin about the development of fire safety guidance, inadequate warnings about combustible cladding, and the failure to address Class 0 limitations after the Edge fire in Manchester.
00:00:30 afternoon mr millet are you ready to continue yes i am mr chairman thank you very much
00:00:35 very much thank you would you actually bring mr martin back in yes thank you
00:00:57 you just checking you can see me and hear me all right all right you ready thank you i'll ask mr millett to uh continue then thank you very much yes mr miller thank you very much mr chairman and mr martin we were on the subject of
00:01:08 and mr martin we were on the subject of br 135 second edition 2003 i want to return to that please now we know that the process of reviewing br135 which had originally been published in 1988 came about as a
00:01:21 been published in 1988 came about as a direct result of the 1999 select committee recommendation that we looked at on thursday that's correct yes and that was the purpose of the survey the literature review and the 2001
00:01:34 the literature review and the 2001 experimental testing that we've now covered under cc 1924 yes yes yes so it all led to that now we know i think also and correct me if i'm wrong about this that you and dr colwell conducted the review of the
00:01:47 colwell conducted the review of the first edition of br135 when preparing the second edition yes yes what was your specific role in that process
00:02:02 in reviewing the original yes um
00:02:07 um i don't recall producing a commentary or anything i think it was just familiarization with the the old document
00:02:13 document what did you conclude from your review of the 1988 original
00:02:23 i'm not sure i can remember but the conclusion i came to at the time i remember it being not a very user friendly document and
00:02:32 and it's advice in terms of using combustible insulin insulation materials um
00:02:41 i mean it had a kind of rule of thumb by which it said that you you might it might be reasonable to use combustible insulations beneath um
00:02:52 beneath um rendered insulation materials where cavity barriers were installed so it had a kind of quite simplistic rule of thumb but it was it was not that clear to to the reader
00:03:04 it was not that clear to to the reader now is it right that during your review uh of
00:03:09 uh of the 1988 version you and dr colwell um
00:03:13 um speaking for yourself you became familiar with its contents um i guess so at the time i'm not sure i i can remember much of it now
00:03:26 uh now sarah colwell told us in her statement
00:03:29 statement uh you don't need to go to it it's page 30 paragraph 192 that as part of the development of the second edition you and she agreed that the first edition could be used as a suitable basis for
00:03:40 could be used as a suitable basis for that second edition is that correct
00:03:49 i i don't remember that conclusion um my recollection is is that
00:03:57 we tried to structure br135 so that it broke down into an introduction of of the objectives of um controlling external walls and and
00:04:10 external walls and and and the general hazards associated with external fire spread
00:04:15 spread and then to talk about in general terms the different phenomena and and
00:04:24 those factors that a designer ought to consider and then the back of the document was the um the pass fail criteria right now when you were considering whether the first edition the 1988 edition of
00:04:35 the first edition the 1988 edition of br135 was a suitable basis for the second edition what factors did you take into account i'm sorry i don't recall looking at it in those terms so i'm not sure i can answer that question well let's look at
00:04:46 answer that question well let's look at and see what sarah caldwell says if we go please to her statement it's bre three zeros four seven five seven one page thirty one paragraph 196 please
00:05:02 she says this brian martin and let me just wait there brian martin and i worked collaboratively on the development of the second edition together we a reviewed the text of the first edition
00:05:13 reviewed the text of the first edition that formed the basis of the draft for the second edition b updated content based on developments in the testing of external clouding systems and mechanisms of fire spread including principles for
00:05:24 of fire spread including principles for the design of fire barriers arising from the mhclg sponsored research program underpinning the development of fire note 9 and bs 8414 part 1 and c included annex a which was taken from the
00:05:36 annex a which was taken from the assessment of performance section of fire note 9 which had previously been published
00:05:42 published how did you go about conducting the review of the first edition which um you just which is described here in paragraph
00:05:50 196a sorry can i go back to the yes certificate back to page 31 quite right review of the first of the text of the first edition you see that's what she says you and she worked collaboratively on
00:06:03 worked collaboratively on how did you go about conducting that review
00:06:11 and what did you do i don't
00:06:14 i don't that's not how i recall the the process that that we we went through or the the work that i did i i remember to say
00:06:24 we felt that we could give more helpful advice than was or more generic advice that was than was in the uh than the original well let's break it down see if we can take it step by step she says
00:06:37 by step she says together we reviewed the text of the first edition etc now did you or didn't you review it together is she right about that
00:06:46 i'm sorry probably depends on what you mean by the word review we would have looked at it um there wasn't a systematic exercise of of
00:06:56 considering which items of text were worth retaining or not i don't remember doing that anyway well what okay um even more simplistically when you started work on the second edition
00:07:08 the second edition did you read the first edition yes did you make any comments on the first edition
00:07:15 a general conclusion that i didn't think it was very helpful to the reader so you read it you understood it presumably you analyzed it did you did you discuss it with sarah colwell did you share your views about
00:07:27 share your views about about the first time we must have done yes well you must have done she says you did what i'm asking you is what do you what do you recall of that process um
00:07:36 um very little i i as i i remember as discussing how a new um br 135 should be structured structured so as to be most useful to his reader
00:07:49 right did you have any substantive input contribution to make in the review of the text did you go through it and go i don't think that's any good we think
00:08:00 i don't think that's any good we think that's misleading we think that's good it should be retained did you bring any qualitative judgment to the text to make a decision about whether it should be changed
00:08:14 i think it was more fundamental than that i think it was more about restructuring it well that's just index
00:08:21 index shape
00:08:22 shape moving things around what i'm interested in is whether you brought your mind to bear with all your experience that you've told us about so that you could add
00:08:34 so that you could add value
00:08:35 value to the new addition based on a judgment that you were making about the adequacy of the first edition or am i
00:08:45 or am i making assumptions
00:08:49 i find it difficult to remember exactly what we did because it's a long time ago um
00:08:56 the bit i remember most was was that there are sections in the old document where it set out um
00:09:04 um an approach to designing an acceptable approach for using combustible insulation in certain cladding systems um
00:09:11 um and that was if you like contrary to the approach that we were now taking which was if you were using a combustible insulation material you should be using the full scale test
00:09:22 scale test so the new 135 removed those provisions
00:09:33 right i may come back to that in a moment but just on the process of do you remember when reviewing the first edition do you remember how you and sarah colwill decided which parts would be retained which what which parts would
00:09:44 be retained which what which parts would be deleted which parts would be amended
00:09:50 how did you get about that
00:09:55 i don't remember did anybody supervise your
00:09:59 your work
00:10:00 work your contribution to the editing of br135
00:10:08 i think dr cole and i talked through how we thought it should be presented ultimately we presented that to the advisory group i think i know it's a long time ago but normally
00:10:20 i know it's a long time ago but normally when one writes a publication particularly a publication that is then woven into the very fabric of the approved document you might remember something about the process of how you went about that
00:10:31 went about that i'm sorry i don't you don't let's go to br 135 in its first edition br
00:10:44 401077 um and i want to show you the first page first of all there it is and it was it was entitled fire performance of external thermal insulation for walls of multi-story buildings so it
00:10:56 for walls of multi-story buildings so it was about insulation and if you go to page four please um i want to show you the right hand column towards the bottom of page four and there's a little heading regulatory
00:11:07 and there's a little heading regulatory aspect can you see that yes
00:11:10 yes and it says this control over the external surface of walls of buildings particularly those of multi-storey flats to avoid ignition and flame spread which might endanger the lives of residents above by breaking
00:11:22 lives of residents above by breaking down effective compartmentation and that's defined is currently controlled by reference to tests specified in bs 476 parts six and seven
00:11:32 seven however
00:11:33 however these tests only provide information on surface fire behavior the overall fire performance of a ventilated cladding system or insulated assembly incorporating independently supported weathering finishes and complicated
00:11:44 weathering finishes and complicated reveal details can only be investigated under actual fire conditions on a full-scale building facade i think i can pause there
00:11:53 there now it was still i think the case as you've confirmed that in in 2000 that those
00:11:59 those matters
00:12:00 matters were controlled by reference to the bs476 part six and seven tests weren't they
00:12:05 they yes
00:12:06 yes and in 2003 when the second edition of br135 was published that remained the case yes
00:12:12 case yes yes yeah
00:12:13 yes yeah by 2003 as we've seen i think a decision had been taken not to follow the select committee's recommendation to substitute the full-scale fire test in place of diagram 40 but instead only to pose that
00:12:26 diagram 40 but instead only to pose that test as an alternative option in adb we've seen that yes yes yes now take it from me that the paragraph i've just read to you from the first edition here
00:12:38 from the first edition here does not appear in the second edition of 135 nor anything like it can you explain why that is
00:13:02 well it really goes to the heart of the purpose of bl-135 to some extent which is what
00:13:07 is what um to provide a full-scale approach to
00:13:13 testing the behavior of a cladding system
00:13:20 well why does it why does the absence of the words i've just read to you as you put it go to the heart of the purpose of br135
00:13:40 i think to some extent i'm trying to think back to that to that time um
00:13:48 bre taken the view that the large-scale testing was the the best option um perhaps
00:13:55 perhaps we didn't consider it was necessary to to spell that out um given that the select committee's recommendation to replace
00:14:06 replace the class naught with non-combustibility and an alternative of a full-scale test if you're going to use anything that
00:14:17 use anything that isn't non-combustible can you explain why these sentences that i've read to you on this page here of the first edition were removed in the second edition in
00:14:28 were removed in the second edition in 2003.
00:14:35 i don't remember a conscious decision to remove them i think as i said i think the approach was to to some extent to start from scratch well there must have been a conscious decision to remove them
00:14:46 decision to remove them given that you were rev she says reviewing the first edition uh updating it and amending it and deleting parts of it there must have been a conscious decision surely
00:14:59 decision surely if there was i don't remember it
00:15:06 do you accept looking at what is said here that the tests and conclusions from the cc 1924 project as we've seen this morning demonstrated in fact stated in terms
00:15:17 in terms that bs 476 part 6 and its class naught designate were unreliable and unsatisfactory tests for external fire spread
00:15:37 i think we were drafting the document at that time
00:15:40 that time thinking that someone was coming to br135 because they'd already come to that conclusion and were looking to try and pass a large scale test
00:15:54 so
00:15:58 was it your understanding that the purpose of br 135 was to provide criteria for a full-scale test
00:16:08 test to
00:16:11 those people who were provided who were producing products that couldn't achieve class naught and therefore wanted in a different way
00:16:22 and therefore wanted in a different way of getting their products above 18 meters was that your understanding
00:16:29 i think so at the time i think that's what that's what we were thinking yes so your thinking was was it to design a test where you could badge certain products
00:16:39 products because they passed the criteria here for use above 18 meters in circumstances where they couldn't achieve it through the linear route is that is it i think they were focused it was mostly focused on systems where the
00:16:50 was mostly focused on systems where the insulation material would be um combustible in some way which is really where most of this the focus was so just i understand this was the
00:17:01 so just i understand this was the purpose of this to produce a test and criteria for on a pass fail basis which if passed meant that
00:17:10 that um you you could you could put
00:17:14 insulation which was not of limited combustibility above 18 meters was that the purpose of it
00:17:22 yeah i think so yeah i think that it was it which is is to some extent what the what the original bl-135 was doing is um it provided guidance to people who wanted to use um
00:17:34 um polymeric um insulation on taller buildings it gave her an approach to doing that well we've seen i showed you the the title to this uh this document which is about
00:17:46 uh this document which is about insulation but nonetheless the then authors thought it appropriate to draw attention under regulatory aspects here to the limitations of bs476
00:17:57 aspects here to the limitations of bs476 and 477. limitations which you and the at least the bre and government knew full well by 2003 had been proven in full-scale tests and bench scale tests
00:18:08 full-scale tests and bench scale tests so my question again i'd like an explanation if you could give me one as to about why it was that the passage i've read to you disappeared and did not reappear in br135 second
00:18:19 and did not reappear in br135 second edition
00:18:20 edition i don't remember a conscious decision to remove it was it because you and the bre or you and government did not want to draw industries attention to the limitations of class naught
00:18:31 naught even though you knew what they were no i don't see why we would want to do that because industry would make a fuss if you did
00:18:38 you did no that wouldn't be a motivation would it not no was it not a motivation as we've seen behind coming to class b as the equivalent transition point or transposition point for class naught when it came to the
00:18:49 for class naught when it came to the harmonization program the need to keep the market unrestricted no it's a completely different question i think the same question because it's about not upsetting the
00:19:00 because it's about not upsetting the market
00:19:01 market so i'm asking you again was one of the reasons why these words disappeared from here the need to preserve class not to keep your uk market suite absolutely not that's a trenchant answer we'll come
00:19:13 that's a trenchant answer we'll come back to that then in due course but let's just um see what dr smith says in her statement bre four zeros five six two four page eight i think we've seen this before i'll show
00:19:25 i think we've seen this before i'll show it to you again
00:19:31 it's a theme i'm going to keep coming back to
00:19:33 back to but here dr smith says and this harks back to the nosely fire in 1991
00:19:42 in 1991 in the middle there this was a clear recognition that it was not possible to rely on small scale fire test data on individual elements materials or components in a cladding system as a means to try to predict and thereby
00:19:54 means to try to predict and thereby control the fire performance reliance on small-scale fire tests had been tried and had been shown to be inadequate now that was her view that was always her view
00:20:04 her view was was
00:20:07 was was uh was this the section i've shown you on the limitations of testing to bs 476 part six and seven that we see in the first edition 1988 emitted from the second edition so as
00:20:18 emitted from the second edition so as not to draw attention to the limitations which dr smith identifies here no
00:20:25 no why are you so sure about that um
00:20:30 i've never been asked to suppress a piece of information and i never would do such a thing but it does though doesn't it in effect suppress the information by its effect the outcome is that you end up with a
00:20:41 the outcome is that you end up with a second piece of guidance in it second edition in 2003 which does not contain the clear warnings about the defects and inadequacies of class naught that appeared in the first edition i accept that it's in the mission but it's
00:20:52 that it's in the mission but it's certainly not a deliberate attempt to hide something so what what what else could it be accidental i think so yes i think i don't think we probably at the time we didn't think that text was necessary or we just missed it i don't know as that got
00:21:04 missed it i don't know as that got missed it
00:21:05 missed it so that's another a a second occasional which the dangers of class naught got missed by you and dr colwill yes it's not something i'm proud of but
00:21:17 something i'm proud of but the idea that we deliberately suppressed information is just something i can't possibly entertain all right now um
00:21:25 now um it's right i think isn't it that the second edition of br135 was the subject of a consultation process and dr colwell has told us that both you and she manage that process is that
00:21:37 and she manage that process is that right
00:21:38 right yes yes was the work split evenly between you or or was it did you take some parts and did she take others um i wish i could remember in detail i can't i imagine we would have talked through it
00:21:50 talked through it who supervised or approved the work you were carrying out on the consultation responses
00:21:57 well dr caldwell was a project leader so ultimately it was it was her um responsibility i guess um and we would have reported to dr smith i
00:22:08 and we would have reported to dr smith i think right and what was your role in the consultation she was leading it what were you doing um i i wish i could remember in detail but i imagine we would have talked through the comments and how did you go about addressing the
00:22:20 and how did you go about addressing the comments and the feedback received do you remember i'm sorry i don't remember can you explain how the process worked i mean given that the vr vr135 was not going to be a british standard did the bre basically run and
00:22:31 standard did the bre basically run and manage the process itself or was there more collaboration i can't remember the structure we adopted did the department play any role in the in the consultation process
00:22:42 i'd be surprised if it didn't but i don't i don't i wish i could remember more detail but i can't following the consultation do you remember who had the final say or final sign-off in relation to the
00:22:53 in relation to the the content of the second edition of br135 as published
00:23:01 um well it would have been signed off by dr smith um and given that it was funded by the department i would assume that we would have um
00:23:12 would have um run the draft past the department before publication do you remember whether dr smith and you ever discussed any elements of the text before it was published i don't
00:23:24 the text before it was published i don't remember
00:23:26 remember who supervised your work on br135
00:23:35 i think it would have been dr smith right do you remember what she did by way of supervising you no did she ever spot check your work did she come and talk to you about your draft what did what did she do
00:23:48 and so i have very little recollection of that of that piece of work now
00:23:58 did the do you remember this whether the consultation process revealed any concerns or resistance from any quarters of the industry
00:24:10 or stakeholders more widely perhaps i don't remember any big pressing issues i'd like just to ask you then some questions about the detailed criteria in
00:24:21 questions about the detailed criteria in br135
00:24:23 br135 can we turn to the document please it's bre405554
00:24:34 excuse me now
00:24:38 now it still bears the same title fire performance of external thermal insulation for walls of multi-storey buildings
00:24:45 and if we go to page two we can see
00:24:50 uh your name uh with uh dr caldwell and if we turn please to page 22 we can see annex a
00:25:03 and um this is the performance criteria and classification of bs8414 part 1 2002. i just um for chronology's sake there was no annex b until 2013 because
00:25:15 there was no annex b until 2013 because at this time 2003 only part one had been adopted as the british standard yes so um and you look at the performance criteria you can see
00:25:26 criteria you can see they're set out and in the paragraph break and then three bullets it says this the performance of the system under investigation is evaluated against three criteria
00:25:36 criteria first bullet external fire spread second bullet internal fire spread third bullet mechanical performance and if we go on to page 23 we can see the failure criteria set out and there they are
00:25:48 and there they are uh
00:25:49 uh external fire spread uh and i i can summarize i think it's right that failure is assessed if or is adjudged to have happened if an external thermocouple at level two
00:26:01 external thermocouple at level two exceeds 600 degrees for 30 seconds or more within 15 minutes of the start of the test yes yes yes and and internal fire spread failure is adjudged if an internal thermocouple at level 2 exceeds
00:26:13 internal thermocouple at level 2 exceeds 600 degrees for 30 seconds or more within 15 minutes of the start of the test same yes and
00:26:19 and and the mechanical performance no failure criteria have been set yes yes but it says that details of any system collapse spalling delamination or flaming debris should be included in the
00:26:31 flaming debris should be included in the test report the nature of the mechanical failure should be considered as part of the overall risk assessment when specifying the system c a7 and then a7 set out below now before we move on to some more detailed
00:26:43 before we move on to some more detailed questions about those criteria um some very very basic questions um i asked this before but in the light of what i've just shown you here more specifically what was the purpose
00:26:54 specifically what was the purpose of br 135 on in this second edition
00:27:02 it was to provide password criteria for a bs8414 test and provide general guidance to designers of cladding systems right now on the second part of that answer just break that open
00:27:14 part of that answer just break that open a bit what risks precisely was br 135 getting at in this edition second edition
00:27:26 it was the risk of vertical fire spread on the external surfaces of the building spreading to other parts of the building
00:27:35 uh and what are the objectives of the large-scale testing referred to
00:27:43 um it's measuring the potential for fire to spread to other parts of the building now
00:27:50 now in the light of that i think you'll you'll agree but correct me if i'm wrong that br 135 and the large-scale testing that that it refers to are addressing what one might call the generic risk of
00:28:01 what one might call the generic risk of flame spread across the surface and in cavities
00:28:04 cavities but leaves it to the competent professional to assess the nature and acceptability of that risk in relation to any particular fire safety strategy is that is that correct
00:28:15 insofar as br1351 is only concerned yes i suppose
00:28:20 can you explain why or on what basis the performance criteria that we can see here under external and internal fire spread were selected
00:28:34 as i understand it i think they were they reflected the past failed criteria that had been adopted for the fire note 9
00:28:42 9 test
00:28:43 test um
00:28:45 um as i recall the 600 degrees c is regarded as a proxy for
00:28:51 for the presence of flames so if you're measuring 600 degrees c it's likely that there are flames present at that height um so it's a it's a more reliable source
00:29:04 um so it's a it's a more reliable source than asking a technician to observe flames and they won't be able to see internal flame spread so that's why 600 degrees c was adopted i think well what's the rationale behind
00:29:16 think well what's the rationale behind the failure criteria uh 600 degrees for 30 seconds within 15 minutes of the start time
00:29:26 what was the ration of for those timing figures
00:29:33 i think the 30 seconds is something that there's probably a pragmatic
00:29:39 approach when you look at again i'm not an expert in fire testing um but um when you look at fire test data you find the thermocouple readings um fluctuate
00:29:50 the thermocouple readings um fluctuate quite violently um and so um you could get a very small peak which might
00:29:58 might not be spotted or um
00:30:02 so so they're looking for a if you like something reliable that they can put in the past failed criteria so if the temperatures are over 600 degrees for 30 seconds then you've got a definite um reading if you like so
00:30:15 definite um reading if you like so that's a kind of pragmatic laboratory um sort of approach i think the 15 minutes related to the time at which you'd expect the fire
00:30:26 the time at which you'd expect the fire in the
00:30:27 in the source room to
00:30:29 to be
00:30:30 be experienced intervention by the fire service
00:30:34 service do you know why the pass fail criteria in br135 in this edition and second edition were not specifically and expressly linked to the issues addressed in the main body of the document
00:30:50 i think they are i'm not sure why you think they're not well they're just hanging there in the in the annex there's no cross-reference here to the kinds of risks or things which these criteria are addressing
00:31:04 which these criteria are addressing do you accept that maybe you don't i i i i think i understand where you're coming from i think the the the annex with the past fail criteria was drafted in the form of a standard
00:31:16 was drafted in the form of a standard that a laboratory would use so it's it's um
00:31:21 um it's drafted in those terms whereas the rest of the document is attempting to be a helpful advisory document to people designing planning systems now i'd like to show you the evidence
00:31:33 now i'd like to show you the evidence debbie smith dr smith gave us about this can we look please at the transcript for day 236
00:31:39 day 236 at page 112 112. day 236 page 112.
00:31:51 and uh at line one i'll just read this to you just down to line ten question did you ask your colleagues what is it that tells me that 600 degrees is the limit for adequacy as
00:32:02 degrees is the limit for adequacy as opposed to 500 degrees and i should just say the context of this was in addressing the functional requirement in b41 answer okay so when you look at the body of evidence and i mean i'm i
00:32:13 the body of evidence and i mean i'm i don't recall the precise discussion but they looked at lots the basic the outputs from the tests that were carried out and we're looking to specify the criteria that would ensure that products you didn't want to pass didn't pass
00:32:26 you didn't want to pass didn't pass and those that should have passed did pass
00:32:29 pass now that last part of that answer the outputs from the tests that were carried out and were looking to specify the criteria that would ensure that products that you didn't want to pass didn't pass and those that should have
00:32:41 didn't pass and those that should have passed did pass do you agree with that do you agree that that's what was being looked at
00:32:58 in terms of the 600 degrees so
00:33:02 so the way it had been explained to me is the 600 degrees was there as a proxy for the presence or otherwise the flames um
00:33:11 um i guess one of the things that um dr carlwell and the and the experimental team were doing was looking to see whether that was working in practice well do you agree with what she says here
00:33:22 here that
00:33:23 that the outputs were looking to specify the criteria that would ensure that products that you didn't want to pass didn't pass and that and that those that should have passed did pass do you agree with dr smith
00:33:33 smith in her evidence there
00:33:45 i mean that's that's clearly one of the things that you would have been considering is is i are you content that this test is rejecting those things that you think are a problem well what were the products that you as you put it thought were a problem
00:33:58 you put it thought were a problem um
00:33:59 um that that's the the side of the work that dr caldwell led on really well you just
00:34:04 just i think agreed with dr smith my question for you is let me try it differently what were the products that you didn't want to pass
00:34:14 um i don't think i held a view on that i think because i wasn't involved in the experimental work
00:34:22 right so can we take it you cannot agree or disagree is this right that the criteria we're looking to filter out desirable products from undesirable products even though that was what
00:34:33 products even though that was what doctor well but that's that's clearly what criteria are for um that's the function of a criteria um but um i that's not the i wasn't involved in a thought process as described by dr smith there um i
00:34:45 as described by dr smith there um i remember talking to dr caldwell and and she explained that the 600 degrees was adopted as a proxy for um the position of the presence or otherwise the flames and that seemed
00:34:57 otherwise the flames and that seemed logical and sensible to me so to your way of thinking it wasn't a a set of criteria that was designed to to weed out those kinds of products that have been pre-selected as desirable as
00:35:09 have been pre-selected as desirable as against those products which had been pre-selected as undesirable oh i see i i don't not aware of any pre-selection i'm not sure that would have been possible did you ever go to government and ask them the following question we're designing a new full-scale test for
00:35:21 designing a new full-scale test for external fire spread but we need to know what you think or you understand or propose by the word adequate in the functional requirement so that we can design a test that meets it
00:35:33 i think that's the conversation that was probably had when they were developing fine note nine i i i certainly wasn't involved in a conversation like that did you when you wrote this with dr colwell did you make
00:35:44 wrote this with dr colwell did you make the assumption that if the criteria that you had designed or you had selected with her and put your name to were met with a pass that would meet the functional
00:35:55 that would meet the functional requirement
00:36:08 i'm not sure if i thought of it in those terms i think it was it had already been decided to adopt fine note 9 which became bs 8414 and these were criteria which had
00:36:18 which had essentially already been established i think we looked at them again and concluded that we thought they were reasonable um
00:36:24 um reasonable for what purpose though
00:36:28 as a an acceptability criteria for an external wall construction for what purpose
00:36:36 for achieving reasonable standards of safety
00:36:40 safety well what about the functional requirement well that is what the functional requirement is what i'm really trying to get at here is what at the time did you think when you put your name to this document was the relationship between passing
00:36:52 relationship between passing satisfying the criteria and
00:36:55 and meeting or achieving the functional requirement based on what i'd seen i took the view that passing this test would deliver compliance with a functional requirement
00:37:06 compliance with a functional requirement right generically
00:37:11 yes
00:37:14 so without regard to the height use and position of the building
00:37:22 i think deciding whether you imposed these criteria would be linked to those things having imposed them um
00:37:28 um at no point did we ever discuss the potential for multiple classifications um i know that's been discussed since is whether the test could deliver more than
00:37:39 whether the test could deliver more than one classification so you've got the 600 degrees limit or maybe a more onerous one or a less onerous one depending on what you were looking to achieve but at the time um the fire note 9 test delivered a
00:37:52 um the fire note 9 test delivered a single
00:37:54 single classification and that was considered to be the right thing to do at the time
00:38:02 why not tell the reader that the fact that a system achieves a pass under br135 and therefore meets the alternative guidance does not of itself mean that
00:38:15 guidance does not of itself mean that the functional requirement is met for any given building
00:38:30 i suppose to some extent that's what that third criteria is saying where it says it needs to be taken into account in the for the risk assessment for the project ultimately ultimately whatever test data you've got as a designer you
00:38:42 test data you've got as a designer you should still be asking yourself whether whether there aren't other factors you need to consider well that's third criteria is mechanical performance where there wasn't a criteria
00:38:53 where there wasn't a criteria yes
00:38:54 yes so that's not that can't be what you've just said can't be right can it with respect
00:39:00 i think it generally is i think as a as it is
00:39:03 it is it's a it's the nature of all via tests is it is that um you ought to consider them in the round is that there's a danger of
00:39:14 in the round is that there's a danger of getting a test result and and just accepting it without using your own understanding and intelligence you can there's there's a risk that you might miss
00:39:25 miss a hazard
00:39:26 a hazard there's no warning in this document as we know there came later to be in the third edition of br135 in 2013 that as a the results
00:39:37 of br135 in 2013 that as a the results of a full system test on a cladding system could not be used to support the design and use of any different system it's not there do you know why that is
00:39:53 probably took that as red it's a it's a
00:39:56 it's a it's a fact isn't it well it's a fact isn't it i mean it doesn't seem to have been a factor quite a lot of people um until it got spelt out
00:40:05 out in 2013 and even then questionable as we've seen over the many months of this phase do you know why i'm asking you for your explanation as one of the authors of this document there was no warning in
00:40:16 of this document there was no warning in it as there came later to be a decade after
00:40:20 after the the result that the past results of a full system test on planning system a could not be transposed to cladding system b
00:40:29 system b i think we just took that as read i read from what it just it's just
00:40:34 it strikes me as obvious um what
00:40:42 the test of any one thing can't tell you the answer to test of something else and if i pass a driving test next week it doesn't mean to say that somebody else in the room's passed it too it's just it seems
00:40:55 is that a thing you need to write i don't know um in hindsight clearly there'd been enough problems that people have decided to write that but i think at the time we were working on this i've got a construction system and i
00:41:07 i've got a construction system and i want to
00:41:08 want to get a classification for it you assume that that's for the system that you're testing and not some other system and you're the way you're telling me this sounds as if it's extremely obvious so my question is
00:41:20 it's extremely obvious so my question is stupid now that may be the case but but um what is so curious about this is the fact that i needed to ask you that question at all given what we know i i agree
00:41:32 i i agree right
00:41:33 right well let's see how that goes later but um
00:41:36 um coming back to this document what useful information for a fire engineer assessing the performance of the external wall system in relation to external fast spread does the a414 test actually give you
00:41:56 it gives you an indication of the propensity for fire spread along on the outside of the building
00:42:05 i mean in reality it's a pass fail test based on some very limited measurements isn't it
00:42:11 isn't it single a single temperature and a couple of time parameters that's all yes
00:42:18 yes we can see the criteria um i mean if you were a fire engineer wanting to do something more sophisticated then you'd want more data do you accept that
00:42:29 do you accept that during an 8414 test a fire directly capable of penetrating the compartment above the seat of a fire can be established on the face of the facade and then spread vertically
00:42:41 facade and then spread vertically and yet the system tested could still pass the test if the temperatures stayed below 600 degrees
00:42:53 i'm not sure it could because you'd have flames at the level two so it would fail
00:43:02 do you know why br 135 in this edition focuses almost entirely on the threat of fire propagation through cavities but says
00:43:09 says very little about flame spread over or through the external panels themselves
00:43:26 i think i mean i think my recollection is when we were looking at what advice we could give to designers
00:43:33 designers um
00:43:35 um we looked at the various mechanisms that were
00:43:40 that were known to occur so far spread through cavities um i certainly remember having a lot of discussion about cavities that might not be there when the wall was constructed but would occur
00:43:53 but would occur during a fire incident so either the cladding system distorts and creates a cavity or if you've got a thermoplastic
00:44:04 or if you've got a thermoplastic insulation it would melt and create a cavity so that was something that we we addressed and alerted the reader to there is some discussion about
00:44:16 there is some discussion about the reaction to fire properties of the um the external cladding panel or external surface or the materials that are on the surface
00:44:27 are on the surface of a cladding system um
00:44:29 um not as much um and
00:44:33 i deeply regret that we didn't um mention the issue of composite panels and i still don't really understand why that didn't find its way into the document well that's a big question and
00:44:44 document well that's a big question and you can't answer it is that right given what you knew now i say i remember sitting down with dr colwell and we talked through
00:44:55 talked through those different phenomena and and mechanisms that we thought the reader ought to be aware of
00:45:02 aware of um
00:45:06 and the the composite cladding panel wasn't something that that came up and i don't understand why not given the the results of the testing that we were talking about earlier today right well that that's my next several questions
00:45:18 that that's my next several questions given the results of the testing we looked at earlier today given ghana given noseley given the select committee's recommendations
00:45:28 [Music] what is the reason and given also the warning as we've seen in the 1988 version of this very document what is the reason why there is nothing
00:45:39 what is the reason why there is nothing about the risks of external flames spread on panels on class north panels
00:45:49 i think
00:45:52 the document was drafted on the presumption that you would you were going to carry out the full scale test so it
00:45:59 so it that i think that's why reference to the strengths or weaknesses of small scale tests wasn't included in there
00:46:07 there but it's not just the strengths and weaknesses of the small scale tests which is something identified certainly in the 1988 edition it's also the actual performance of an
00:46:18 it's also the actual performance of an actual full-scale test incorporating actual acm of the pe core as one product uh among others that might have achieved class norton behave similarly
00:46:28 similarly i mean it's a yawning gap in this guidance isn't it um knowing what i know now yes absolutely and we're all searching for the reason and we're asking the author and the author can't tell us why is that
00:46:40 and the author can't tell us why is that why can't you tell us i wish i had a better answer i think
00:46:49 i was doing my best to interpret what i was hearing from dr colwell and the experimental team and turn that into language that would be useful for people in construction and for some reason which i don't
00:47:01 and for some reason which i don't understand
00:47:04 the issue of composite panels didn't come out in that conversation i until this day i wish i knew why that didn't happen
00:47:16 and we know there's no classification system or even failure criteria given in relation to the third performance requirement mechanical performance do you know why that was
00:47:28 do you know why that was um i think it's not uncommon in fire tests to
00:47:32 tests to have a clause like that particularly for things like mechanical failure because it's so difficult to measure it in a in a precise way if you want the classification you need to have a number that you can
00:47:44 you need to have a number that you can put against in in the way that there's um
00:47:47 um for the temperature limits there's a clearly defined temperature height and mechanism for measuring it so you can be quite precise about the past failed criteria
00:47:57 criteria for mechanical failure um it's pretty much impossible as far as i'm aware to to measure that in a objective way so that's why it's left to being recorded
00:48:08 recorded we know that the lps i take it you've heard of the lps standards yes the loss prevention standards published by the lost prevention council 1189 i think that's the right number from
00:48:19 i think that's the right number from recollection contained not only external and internal fast bread criteria but also mechanical failure criteria you know that
00:48:28 know that um i'm not sure i was aware of that really
00:48:33 really i'm surprised um because the bre certainly were and dr colwell certainly knew about those at a later stage but are you telling us you know you were never aware of the existence of
00:48:44 you were never aware of the existence of mechanical failure criteria that had been put about by the lps in order to support the insurance industry for a psa for one for test no
00:48:55 for a psa for one for test no for not no because it's not in the bsa414 test that's the point my question is did you not know that there were criteria you said it was impossible to identify them am i putting to you that it wasn't because the last
00:49:06 to you that it wasn't because the last prevention council had come up with some i'm not familiar with them right okay
00:49:13 okay how much attention or how much time did you devote yourself
00:49:18 yourself to your co-authorship of this publication
00:49:24 um it wasn't a big piece of work as far as i was concerned and dr caldwell had done the
00:49:30 done the the lion's share of this project um i worked with her on the drafting what drafting did you work on with her mostly it was the
00:49:42 mostly it was the the introduction to the um to the documents are the sections that talk about the objectives of the regulations um and i think we discussed the
00:49:53 and i think we discussed the s
00:49:54 s structuring the document to set to go through the process of describing the different mechanisms
00:50:09 [Applause]
00:50:13 so can we take it that your role despite your name as co-author but your role in this was limited to the shape of the document the restruck the structure of it
00:50:24 the structure of it and those parts of which which referred to the regulations and the guidance
00:50:29 guidance yes so the the diagrams at the front that explain the objectives of trying to um
00:50:36 um avoid the hazards of external fire spread and so on um i drafted most of that section
00:50:46 were you was it your role because well let me be clear in 2003 were you still working two to three days a week at the bre in two to three days a week of government
00:50:57 government yes
00:50:58 yes right
00:50:59 right and
00:51:01 and did you have a government mandated role in relation to br 135
00:51:07 no i wouldn't because that would have been me reviewing my own work so that would have been something that um officials at the department would have done did you ever discuss with the officials at the department
00:51:19 officials at the department this document when either before it was published or after it was published
00:51:25 and we must have done i don't remember a specific conversation though did you have or did you hold any brief for the government about what this document should or shouldn't have in it
00:51:36 document should or shouldn't have in it no
00:51:37 no you you sure you never had any conversations with anthony bird about what this document should say or not say or what it might show or might not show
00:51:48 show or might not show even in outline terms no
00:51:53 no so you're completely sure are you that your work your input into this document was completely free from any actual or implicit
00:52:04 from any actual or implicit instruction or brief from government
00:52:10 yeah we're free to within the the terms of reference of the task that we were set yes
00:52:16 i'd like next to turn to something different which is the amendments to approve document b in 2005 to 2006 leading to the publication
00:52:27 publication of approved document b in its 2006 edition in the april of 2007 that's where we're going now can we start this topic please with bre 401953
00:52:45 uh and uh this is the proposal support for the revision of approved document b in the procedural guide proposal proposal number one one two one four four revision four prepared for the
00:52:56 four four revision four prepared for the odpm and it's dated as you can see 23rd of march 2004 and
00:53:02 and if we go to page three we can see that it was prepared by you
00:53:07 by you see that yes and signed off for the bre by peter field yes same date 23rd of march 2004 and if we go down to page eight of the proposal we can see the objectives of the work they're set out a
00:53:19 objectives of the work they're set out a number of tasks and if you look under task one near the top of page eight um it says as part of the revision of adb odpm initially wished to undertake a survey of the relevant stakeholders to
00:53:31 survey of the relevant stakeholders to identify further issues that they consider may be important to include in the revision of adb and then there are some specific objectives set out there and in summary they are first to conduct
00:53:43 and in summary they are first to conduct a forward-look exercise with stakeholders by a questionnaire and face-to-face workshops and whatever other innovative techniques are referred to and secondly to collate all responses into a report
00:53:54 into a report including the bre's view uh of on merits of suggested changes yes yes exactly agreed is looking at that that the guidance in adb was supposed to
00:54:06 that the guidance in adb was supposed to state the secretary of state's intention in clear terms which everybody can understand yes yes that was the aim i think um and if it was misleading or open to interpretation do you accept that the
00:54:18 interpretation do you accept that the secretary of state's intention in this project was at risk of being misunderstood or undermined
00:54:29 sorry can you rephrase the question if adb as a result of the amendment remained misleading or open to interpretation then the secretary of state's intention
00:54:42 here would be confounded yes yes
00:54:48 and that risk given that adb as you told us last week was all about life safety was a potentially lethal risk wasn't it yes
00:54:59 yes was there any reason at this stage march 2004 for you to think that any part of adb was at that time misleading or open to interpretation
00:55:13 fire safety is a very subjective subject and
00:55:21 all the time i've worked in building regulations um as a building control officer or a bre and in the department there have always been times where there's been debates over interpretation
00:55:32 there's been debates over interpretation or application of the rules i suspect there always will be it's the nature of the subject is very difficult to be categorical about everything um so
00:55:43 so i don't think i don't think here we're focusing on a particular issue this is just a general good practice objective to try and improve the quality of the guidance wherever possible
00:55:55 right
00:55:58 at this time did you have any particular part of adb in mind that might be misleading or open to interpretation this is march 2004
00:56:12 i don't think so no let's go to page ten
00:56:17 section three method statement uh it says there bre will establish a project team consisting of a project manager brian martin who will oversee all tasks
00:56:30 martin who will oversee all tasks working closely with the technical secretariat sam greenwood and a team of technical experts as required drawn from the fire safety framework register experts
00:56:41 experts now um can we take it that you understood that the role described there was your role yes yes now if we go then to clg 401527
00:56:54 what i'm showing you mr martin now is the forwards look report that was produced in the july of the same year second of july 2004 for anthony bird yes
00:57:07 for anthony bird yes yes and if we go to page two we can see that the report was prepared by sam greenwood
00:57:13 greenwood for anthony bird and signed off by the bre
00:57:17 bre by peter field yes yes did you have any involvement in preparing this report
00:57:24 yes what was that involvement
00:57:28 um i'm pretty sure i reviewed the draft um and would have discussed discussed it with mr greenwood right
00:57:39 with mr greenwood right and and when you did that you were were you uh having in mind the objectives we've seen already in the contract yes yes can we
00:57:50 already in the contract yes yes can we go to page seven please second paragraph down we can see there that
00:57:56 that a series of regional workshops were held in may and june 2004. did you attend any of those i think we attended all of them right watford manchester and cardiff you attended all of them now when we
00:58:10 them now when we go to page seven paragraph five we can see
00:58:14 see what the what happened what the what the delegates were given and they were given a number of of topics
00:58:22 topics you look down the page you can see the long paragraph just up from the bottom of the screen the morning breakout session you see that yes and they were given i think this is right a number of topics to discuss in various groups and
00:58:34 discuss in various groups and brainstorming sessions yes i'm summarizing yes and if you look at the bottom of page nine we can see the total list of topics suggested uh
00:58:44 uh and it says the total list of topics suggested are as follows and it starts means of escape for disabled people warehouses sprinkle residential sprinklers phased evacuation et cetera et cetera
00:58:54 et cetera do you know who by whom those topics for discussion were suggested
00:59:02 oh the way the way this um the way the events were structured is we initially asked the
00:59:08 asked the the
00:59:09 the delegates at the event to put forward subjects that they felt needed to be considered in a review of adb
00:59:17 adb so they brainstormed a extensive list of different issues um having done that we then asked each group
00:59:27 group to i think in the form of a vote to identify their top 10 issues from that list um which was a way of identifying those
00:59:38 um which was a way of identifying those things that stakeholders for adb thought were most important to be looked at right i mean it's more than a top ten it's more like a top hundred uh well this this the the so the initial
00:59:49 uh well this this the the so the initial list was unlimited in its in its number um and then we asked the groups to try and prioritize those uh because each group was made up of a cross-section of um there were firefighters and building
01:00:01 um there were firefighters and building designers and a big cross-section of different sorts people with different um professional backgrounds um
01:00:08 um and so it was then to try and find where the consensus was of what were the most important things i see
01:00:16 what input did you have yourself into considering what topics ought to be discussed at these workshops or or putting forward topics for discussion and we left it to the delegates so i see so you just left it to them and
01:00:28 so i see so you just left it to them and then you collated their responses yes we may have we may have had some other issues that we discussed during the day and tried to remember now but i know a key part of the exercise was to try and
01:00:41 was to try and um
01:00:43 um get some
01:00:44 get some feedback from some actual users of the document um about where the priority should lie for a review right now if we look down let's look at the list it starts at the
01:00:55 let's look at the list it starts at the foot of page nine the total list and
01:00:59 and we kick off with means of escape for disabled people warehouses etc was this listed in order of priority
01:01:08 if it doesn't say in the report i can't remember right okay we can see the first one is means of escape for disabled people that might or might not give one some sense of the importance of that but if you turn to page 10 please turn
01:01:20 if you turn to page 10 please turn to page 10 and then run your eye down then scroll down you can see about two-thirds of the way down you can see buried away uh insulation issues around polymeric
01:01:31 uh insulation issues around polymeric insulation materials and their behavior in fire
01:01:35 in fire yes yes you can see that and then scroll on down you don't see anything though that we can see about
01:01:42 about surface spread of flame or class naught or diagram 40 or
01:01:49 or anything like that is it because it didn't come up if it had come up it had been on this list right now
01:01:58 now in light of the select committee's recommendation five years earlier december 1999 did you get yourself give any consideration
01:02:09 consideration um at this stage in your work on the project the possibility of discussing or putting up as a subject for consultation the retention or not of the national classification methods
01:02:21 of the national classification methods in the approved document and particularly approved diagram 40 of approved document b
01:02:27 b no this this exercise was all about asking our stakeholders what they thought we should be doing right
01:02:36 do i take it from the answer you gave us this morning that
01:02:41 that the select committee's recommendation to substitute the full system test for class naught was water under the bridge hadn't been logged for being revisited when it came to this round and was basically a thing
01:02:54 to this round and was basically a thing of the past
01:02:59 i think at this stage that's the approach that we were taking is that that
01:03:03 that that piece of work was done and it was we'd be we'd be updating the references to to the appropriate test standard rather than making any fundamental changes
01:03:13 changes now let's go to page
01:03:17 page 36 of this document please which is appendix a and this is a list of comments and suggestions for the review of a proof document b
01:03:29 and if you go to page 48 within that appendix
01:03:34 appendix towards the top of the page you can see there's a section b4 external fire spread you see that and then it says paragraph 14 9 14.9 the
01:03:45 and then it says paragraph 14 9 14.9 the text was discussed at a recent seminar it causes confusion can the class not be on combustible material
01:03:53 material now
01:03:54 now i don't think we need to go to it but for clarity's sake paragraph 14.9 of the version of adb being discussed related to the status of combustible
01:04:05 related to the status of combustible surface materials as an unprotected area for the purposes of space separation if you want mr martin we can look at that but do you remember that that was that is in fact was in fact the case
01:04:18 that is in fact was in fact the case 14.9
01:04:20 14.9 was about space separation um i'd need to look at the paragraph i can't remember well let's look at clg one four zeroes
01:04:30 seven four zero
01:04:34 page ninety four
01:04:37 this is the 2002 amendments to the 2000 edition which was then current and you were revising or consulting on and if we go to page 94 in it please we can see
01:04:47 can see 14.9
01:04:53 age 94
01:05:06 90 yes 94. um
01:05:22 that's clg three clg one four zero seven four zero
01:05:27 four zero there it is thank you and it's uh it's 14.9 under the heading status of combustible surface materials as unprotected area and you can see the text there yes yes
01:05:41 yes that that relates to fire spread between buildings exactly surface space operation exactly so that that's right so that's for clarity's sake
01:05:52 clarity's sake um were you in going back to the recommendation or rather to the the point that came out of the consultation back at page 48 of
01:06:01 48 of clg401527 please if we can skip back to that
01:06:05 that you can see what
01:06:08 is said there it causes confusion can the class not be on combustible material now were you involved in or aware of the discussions which had led to this matter being recorded no
01:06:21 did this trigger any wider discussion about the concept of class nought or its adequacy or the interaction of that classification with the limit the definition of limited combustibility at all no i don't remember talking about
01:06:32 all no i don't remember talking about this were you aware at the time of any confusion between class naught and limited combustibility no
01:06:40 can we agree if we go through the document
01:06:42 document perhaps you can take it from me that there is absolutely no recorded comment or discussion about what were at the time paragraphs 13.5 13.6 and 13.7
01:06:54 13.5 13.6 and 13.7 external fast bread external surfaces and external wall construction that's right right and no discussion at all about whether class naught was an opposite standard
01:07:05 class naught was an opposite standard for diagram 40 and
01:07:08 and the meeting of the functional requirement b4-1
01:07:13 yep no one raised it as far as i'm aware no one raised it at all right now then let's then go on to a fire in manchester in january 2005. we'll come back to this
01:07:25 2005. we'll come back to this consultation once we've done that but i'm going to ask you about the edge fire you'll remember that that occurred on the 6th of january 2005. yes yes and it happened on the external face of a partially occupied block of flats called
01:07:37 partially occupied block of flats called the edge which was in salford yes and that was during the currency of the contract to support the department with with uh
01:07:45 with uh with this review yes that's correct and some six months or so just looking at the chronology after the forwards look report that we've just seen with july
01:07:55 july 2004 report yes did you have any involvement in any aspect of the bre's investigation of or reporting on the edge fire
01:08:07 reporting on the edge fire no i remember the people that went came back and discussed it with me but i didn't do any of the reporting who were the people who came back and discussed it with you uh i'm pretty sure mr greenwood um attended um i
01:08:20 mr greenwood um attended um i won't remember who else was there when he came back and discussed it with you was that as a with your bre hat on or with your government hat on
01:08:31 probably with my bra hat all right and what did he tell you remember
01:08:39 what i remember is the conversation about whether um it was a
01:08:47 it was a an aluminium faced cladding system um
01:08:51 um with i think a polystyrene um
01:08:58 let's call it a core material i think essentially it was a sandwich panel so two layers of aluminium with polystyrene um in the center and
01:09:07 and um
01:09:09 um but the polystyrene you'd normally expect to find polystyrene in the walls of a building because you're putting it there to provide thermal insulation it's a good good thermal insulator
01:09:21 good thermal insulator but in this case its location in the wall meant that it wasn't delivering any thermal benefits to the building
01:09:32 so essentially what it was doing was making the panels stiff and
01:09:37 and polystyrene is a useful material because it's rigid and very very light and i think the concern was that here was a
01:09:49 was that here was a um a material that most people would consider to be an insulation material but actually wasn't being used as insulation and we needed to take that into account now this fire was the subject of an investigation
01:10:00 investigation of real fire's special interest report or fosse
01:10:03 or fosse um date of the 18th of january 2005. uh you'll remember that i think yes yes it was also the subject of a client report for the department for that period april 2005 to march
01:10:16 for that period april 2005 to march 2005.
01:10:18 2005. sorry um
01:10:19 sorry um april 4 to march 2005. dated 31st of march 2005. there are two reports have you read them both i can show them to you um i've read them recently right in
01:10:31 um i've read them recently right in preparation let's go to the first one bre 30 is 35368 please
01:10:41 this is the report date of the 18th of january 2005. as you can see under the date report completed you can see the investigators were greenwood and colwell dated the first 6th of january and then
01:10:52 dated the first 6th of january and then type of building you can see 19-story concrete flame block of luxury apartments some parts of the building were clad for decorative purposes with sandwich panels manufactured from expanded polystyrene core with aluminium
01:11:04 expanded polystyrene core with aluminium skins building partially occupied now just looking at that do you recall seeing this
01:11:10 um it's difficult to say whether i remember seeing it at the time or or more recently but i i certainly remember the discussions about it right did you discuss the fire before you saw this
01:11:21 discuss the fire before you saw this report or on seeing it or did you discuss this report with sam greenwood or sarah colwell remember i remember discussing the incident um probably with both of them but i don't remember the document and if
01:11:32 but i don't remember the document and if we look at the next paragraph down location and cause of fire it started on the balcony at the second story level in an area still under construction and then if you look at the last paragraph on page one which which gives
01:11:45 paragraph on page one which which gives the details of the fire um it uh says in the second let's second line this part of the building had scaffold erect full height and this also became involved in the
01:11:56 and this also became involved in the fire
01:11:57 fire the burning timber caused the sandwich panels to delaminate and once the expanded polystyrene core became involved the spread of fire up the building was extremely fast some reports
01:12:08 building was extremely fast some reports indicated that the fire spread up the remaining 17 floors in less than 10 minutes once the fire had reached the top of the building it then spread across the top of the roof and in places had begun to burn down the pitch of the
01:12:20 had begun to burn down the pitch of the roof on the adjacent side of the building this downward fire spread is unusual and probably as a result of being driven by the prevailing wind and then over the page potential
01:12:31 potential implications for building regulations at the top of the page there now um
01:12:39 um just on what i've read to you so far if we go back to the foot of page one can we do that
01:12:47 when you saw where it said this downward fire spread is unusual and probably as a result of being driven by the prevailing wind what did you what did you make of that and in particular the observation that the dam would fire spread is
01:12:58 that the dam would fire spread is unusual i said i don't remember this particular document um
01:13:07 i'm not sure if i remember a conversation about the downward finer spread in particular did you ask sam greenwood or sarah colwell about downward fast bread or why they might have thought that it was a result of being wind driven as this set here
01:13:22 i mean it sounds plausible um it's not unusual for the wind to affect the way flames
01:13:28 flames lean and that can affect the way the fire might spread well let's look at page two
01:13:33 page two more closely if we go to it please and under the heading external fast bread there
01:13:39 there it says
01:13:40 it says this the sandwich panels were fixed to the building leaving a cavity between the panels and the structural walls it was not possible to establish during our visit if this cavity had been
01:13:51 our visit if this cavity had been installed with cavity barriers at floor level in accordance with the approved document b but fire and rescue service sources believed at the time of our visit that the floor level cavity barriers had been in place however it is clear that there was no
01:14:04 however it is clear that there was no attempt to provide barriers within the core of the panels and as such fast bred through the panels themselves was not restricted and then it sets out paragraph 13.7 of approved document b
01:14:16 approved document b and then underneath that it goes on whilst the first general statement warns you see that after the quotation whilst the first general statement warns against the use of combustible materials
01:14:28 against the use of combustible materials the subsequent more specific guidance refers only to insulation material used in ventilated cavities in the case of this building however the polystyrene core was not primarily used for its insulating properties but rather as a
01:14:40 insulating properties but rather as a low-cost filler to provide stiffness to the decorative aluminium cladding the polystyrene core was also not exposed to the cavity it is conceivable therefore that the designers of this building may
01:14:51 that the designers of this building may have taken the view that this restriction was not applicable it may be advisable to revisit this guidance and consider if more explicit guidance could be given to avoid any confusion in the
01:15:02 be given to avoid any confusion in the future
01:15:04 future now
01:15:05 now my next question assumes you've read this but what did you understand in the second paragraph that by the words there was no attempt to provide barriers within the core of the panels
01:15:15 panels we need to scroll up i'm afraid to the top of them
01:15:22 the second paragraph under external fast spread you can see it says no attempt to provide barriers within the core of the panels
01:15:28 panels what does that mean you know um this this goes back to the the this i was talking about that we flagged in br135 is so this was a polystyrene um
01:15:40 um i would say insulation but it's not been used as an insulation so it it's um it's a
01:15:46 the core material of the panel was polystyrene polystyrene is a thermoplastic which means when it gets hot it melts um so in this case the a cavity
01:15:59 um so in this case the a cavity presents itself appears as a result of the polystyrene melting and running away you're left with a gap and that then provides a route for fire to spread throughout that gap
01:16:10 throughout that gap and
01:16:12 and at the time
01:16:15 was this the issue of fire spread in sandwich panels mostly in industrial buildings was a topic of of debate
01:16:24 of debate and the best advice was that where you were using this type of one of the approaches to resolving this potential risk would be to put what's essentially a cavity barrier in a location where a cavity would be
01:16:37 in a location where a cavity would be once the polystyrene melted away um and so they're just reporting here that
01:16:41 that in this case the
01:16:44 the the gap between the two layers of of aluminium was a continuous run of polystyrene did you read this report at the time i just need to be clear about that i don't know for sure i
01:16:55 i don't know for sure i it seems likely that i would have done but i can't remember no likely that you would have done all right um can we take it the paragraphs that i've read to you from 13.7
01:17:06 i've read to you from 13.7 um are those in the relevant sections of the 2002 edition of approved document b which was at that stage in force yes that must be the case
01:17:14 the case and do you agree that that what is said set out there is an accurate summary indeed a quotation from that guidance now as far as you are aware how was it concluded
01:17:24 concluded by the authors that in this building the polystyrene core had been used not primarily for its insulation properties but quotes as a low-cost filler to provide stiffness to the decorative
01:17:36 provide stiffness to the decorative aluminium cladding how was that conclusion arrived at um i given the form of construction um and
01:17:48 and the description that that's included here
01:17:50 here is that the sandwich panel has been installed in front of a ventilated cavity and behind which is the actual thermal envelope of the
01:18:02 thermal envelope of the building
01:18:03 building so because that cavity is ventilated it's at the same temperature as the outside world so
01:18:11 so the polystyrene isn't keeping that space warm
01:18:16 warm because
01:18:17 because outside areas on both sides of it so does that make sense it's quite difficult
01:18:23 difficult to describe without drawing it it makes sense within it's you're asking me a question about whether your answer makes sense and my question again was was
01:18:31 was do you know how the conclusion was arrived at that
01:18:37 that the core was not being used for its insulating properties but as a low-cost filler to provide stiffness do you know how that conclusion was arriving how they came how they came to that conclusion i don't know i thought at the
01:18:49 conclusion i don't know i thought at the time they'd ask the designers but reading this it doesn't say that so i don't think they did did you know at the time what the word filler was likely to mean to those involved in the construction industry and particularly the facades part of it
01:19:07 um it wasn't a widely used term i don't think it's just a way of describing something between something else what did it mean to you at the time
01:19:22 in the context of this document
01:19:25 document it means something they put between the two layers of aluminium to keep the panel stiff
01:19:33 it's a filler in that it's not serving any other function i think that's why they've used that term yeah you and i can both read the document and draw those conclusions as complete strangers to the whole topic
01:19:44 complete strangers to the whole topic but did you have a particular view about what the word filler meant at the time no
01:19:50 no mr chairman we are absolutely mid-topic but we are also slightly late for the break and i'm conscious that the witness and the transcriber have been at it for slightly longer than was not is normal is this a convenient time for the break
01:20:01 is this a convenient time for the break do you think it probably is but just tell me how much longer you think this time i'd have to write well beyond the reasonable boundaries for a tea break
01:20:14 well that's um that says it all then mr miller well i think at that point then we should have our break in case we find we've gone on far too long um
01:20:24 um yes mr martin we'll have a break at this point
01:20:27 point we'll come back please at 25 to 4 and um
01:20:33 and um resume the questing at that point and again as i've i said to you before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out of the room all right i understand would you like to go with the usher then
01:20:44 would you like to go with the usher then please yes
01:20:53 good mr minute before we rise there was a question about whether we should seek to make up any of the time we lost earlier on today yes mr chairman there
01:21:04 earlier on today yes mr chairman there is um
01:21:05 is um would that be well um
01:21:09 well um we don't need to decide it now but um
01:21:13 but um we should need to decide before too much longer shall we well yes if if i come back to you at 25 to 4 with an answer i i will ask
01:21:24 25 to 4 with an answer i i will ask uh for i'll ask the witness if if that's acceptable i'll have the witness asked whether that's something that is all right with him and i will also ask the transcriber whether that's possible for her and all the other team members as well
01:21:36 team members as well but may i ask whether you mr chairman are comfortable given your as far as i'm concerned i'm i'm happy to consider going on until i would think five o'clock to be the
01:21:47 would think five o'clock to be the absolute deadline yes it would make it up that would make up the half an hour we lost this morning that would be very good i can't speak with fellow panel members because i haven't had a chance to talk to them about it but no
01:21:58 to talk to them about it but no but i cannot yes well i'm very grateful we'll report back in in for 15 or 14 minutes 25 to 40. thank you very much thank you
01:37:31 yes mr military ready to continue mr chairman we are um we can have the witness back in please
01:37:39 thank you
01:37:51 yes hello mr martin are you ready to continue yes sir thank you very much yes mr militant when you're ready um mr chairman thank you i've had a word with um what you might call stakeholders in for the rest of the
01:38:03 call stakeholders in for the rest of the afternoon about about uh continuing till five o'clock i think people are broadly happy but it may be sensible to have a perhaps a five-minute rest rather than a full break at about 4 20 or something
01:38:15 full break at about 4 20 or something like that if that's acceptable to you of course yes well if everyone's willing to continue until five o'clock that's what we'll do i do want to make it clear to mr martin though that it does make
01:38:26 to mr martin though that it does make the day long particularly for the witness
01:38:29 witness and if he gets the stage which he feels he can't really carry on and do himself justice he ought to say so and we'll obviously stop at that point all right mr martin yeah i understand so
01:38:40 all right mr martin yeah i understand so i'm happy to carry on thank you very much indeed all right well then we'll do that mr millett uh and i should express my thanks to this sonographer at the same time yes and
01:38:51 sonographer at the same time yes and i'll leave it to you to find a convenient point for a short break around about uh 20 past four whenever it's coming i'm grateful thank you mr chairman and and thank you thank you mr martin and thank you madam
01:39:03 you mr martin and thank you madam transcriber can i then go back please to bre 3032 35368 which is where we were bre
01:39:11 bre three five three six eight page two bottom part of the page please in the last
01:39:16 last uh sentence of the main paragraph there just above fire service considerations at the end of this paragraph before that it says it is conceivable therefore that the designers of this building may have
01:39:28 designers of this building may have taken the view that this restriction was not applicable um and the restriction is the reference um to insulation in used
01:39:39 the reference um to insulation in used in in ventilated cavities now by the use of the words it is conceivable did you know that as sarah colwell told us neither she sarah colwell nor sam greenwood had
01:39:52 she sarah colwell nor sam greenwood had actually discussed that question with the designers of the building i know that now um
01:40:01 up until recently i thought they had discussed it with the designers but i may have had no reason to do that it may just be something i presumed right
01:40:10 now um it's in fact correct isn't it that the restriction referred to in that penultimate sentence was indeed not applicable was it
01:40:19 it's not in a ventilated cavity and arguably it's not insulation correct but it's
01:40:24 it's it
01:40:25 it it's a material i think the point they were making it's a material that you would logically you would normally expect to be treated in insulation and and i think they were presuming that that's something that
01:40:37 that's something that the original authors of approved document be at that time were trying to control i think that's the point they're trying to make well if
01:40:45 if let it be assumed the designers of this building had taken the view that the restriction was not applicable that they were correct in that yes
01:40:56 yes insofar as the guidance in the approved documents concerned yes yes
01:41:01 yes now
01:41:03 now in 2005
01:41:05 in 2005 given that the polystyrene core of these panels was not insulation there was no requirement for
01:41:13 for that core to be a material of limited combustibility was there well there was the functional requirement which set the the principal objective which you would hope that the designers would have taken
01:41:24 hope that the designers would have taken into consideration all right but my question wasn't about that my question was that let me put it by reference to adb in 2005 there was no requirement or
01:41:36 in 2005 there was no requirement or guidance in adb for the polystyrene core of these panels to be of limited combustibility that's correct yes they were they were simply
01:41:47 correct yes they were they were simply required to have a surface reaction to fire standard of national class nord or euro class b weren't they that's right yes
01:41:59 now when you
01:42:03 first read this report if you did at the time or at any time afterwards did you yourself consider whether the panels used at the edge were in fact
01:42:14 in fact national class naught or european class b
01:42:17 b s3 d2 or better
01:42:23 i don't remember thinking about that i remember thinking about the fact that there was a material we would normally recognize as an insulation material in a place that you wouldn't necessarily presume you'd find one but did you think about diagram
01:42:35 find one but did you think about diagram 40 though
01:42:36 40 though is my question
01:42:41 not that i recall i think we were more interested in the paragraph that covers insulation materials do you know why you didn't think about class nor diagram 40. what made you think that that didn't
01:42:52 think that that didn't bear on it
01:42:56 um i'm trying to guess what was in my mind at that time and i'm not sure i can do reliably um but i think i would have seen it as a as the question was more about what we
01:43:07 as the question was more about what we should do with the the guidance in what eventually became 12.7 on the insulation materials do you know whether the bre carried out any inquiries to check whether these panels were in fact
01:43:20 panels were in fact class naught or said to be class naught i doubt it that would have been quite difficult to do within the scope of the investigation of real fires contract why is that um they would have needed
01:43:32 is that um they would have needed several samples to take from the site which they've got no authority to do could they not ask they could have done um and again they would have needed to come back to the department and so permission to get the material tested
01:43:44 permission to get the material tested and i think i suspect their view was that the key question here was the polystyrene um which the fire behavior of polystyrene was well known does that tell us that you at least were very focused on
01:43:57 you at least were very focused on the regulation of the core but
01:44:00 but not at all focused on the regulation of the external surface and its relationship with the core
01:44:11 i think so yeah i think i think we were thinking about the core material at the time yeah
01:44:15 time yeah did it occur to you at the time or to your knowledge anybody at the bre that the edge building might not be the only high-rise residential building on which ac acm panels with a polystyrene core had been installed
01:44:32 it was an acm did you say it was icm well a composite panel it's what we would call a sandwich panel because it's right um
01:44:42 now i think we i think at the time we thought it was unusual
01:44:46 as you say what we would have called a sandwich panel sandwich panel was that a like a term in the industry at the time um it was a recognized term in in the industry at
01:44:57 recognized term in in the industry at the time um sandwich panels um
01:45:03 were used mostly in industrial applications um for either internal arrangements internal petitions in in cold stores or um on the external envelope of an industrial building um
01:45:16 envelope of an industrial building um they tend to be quite thick so they'd be um
01:45:21 50 millimeters plus and some of them are much thicker than that um so
01:45:27 so quite a you know a thick sheet which is why you wouldn't normally expect someone to use it in a place where you're not relying on the insulation because you're you're using up space to
01:45:39 you're using up space to to no benefit
01:45:42 yes we'll come come back back to that topic in a moment uh but my question was about its use at height
01:45:50 height um
01:45:51 um my question was did it occur to you that this might not might not be the only high-rise residential building on which a composite panel with a polystyrene core had been used at height for cladding
01:46:06 it wasn't something we discussed i think our focus tended to be on on on looking at the how the guidance in approved document b could be improved right
01:46:18 could be improved right so it wasn't a matter you discussed um let's go to the second report i mentioned to you about the edge fire clg3019455
01:46:33 this is the bre's investigation of real fires report april 2004 to march 2005 dated the 31st of march 2005 prepared for anthony bird and if we go to page two we can see
01:46:44 two we can see that it was written by martin shipp carol rock and sam greenwood and approved by peter field for the bre did you have any any involvement into any aspect of the preparation of this report
01:47:00 i don't think so i did get involved in some of the investigations during that period i think so it might be that a note that i'd drafted found its way into this report i'd have to look through the report and see if i recognized any of
01:47:12 report and see if i recognized any of the incidents well let's look at page 76 where we can pick up the fire at paragraph 4.1.148
01:47:21 this is the edge fire here and it's got some detail um and you can look at the long paragraph there which contains the detail
01:47:30 detail about the
01:47:31 about the fire itself and the circumstances two-thirds of the way down the burning timber caused the sandwich panels to delaminate and once the extended expanded polystyrene core became involved the spread of fire up
01:47:42 became involved the spread of fire up the building was extremely fast some reports indicated that the fire then spread up the remaining 17 floors in less than 10 minutes and then there's a reference to the unusual downward fire spread again there
01:47:53 unusual downward fire spread again there and then it says this it was not possible to establish if the cladding system had been installed complete with cavity barriers at floor level in accordance with the approved document b but fire and rescue service sources
01:48:04 but fire and rescue service sources believe that this was the case however the fact that the fire burns so readily through the core of this type of sandwich panel means that even if the construction complied with current guidance the rapid fire spread through
01:48:16 guidance the rapid fire spread through the panels themselves would not be restricted as such the fire and rescue services have grave concerns that when the building becomes fully occupied a fire of this nature could quickly become out of control and put
01:48:28 quickly become out of control and put the lives of occupants at risk were you aware at the time of the fire and rescue services grave concerns as expressed here
01:48:39 concerns as expressed here i don't remember that no were you concerned by this fire event at that time mr martin yourself
01:48:53 i'm not sure if i put it in anywhere else
01:48:58 identified it as being any different to any any other fire that
01:49:02 that spread in a way that was undesirable well let's turn back to the foot of page 76 if we can please and look there where it says even if construction the
01:49:15 where it says even if construction the construction complied with the current guidance the rapid fire spread through the panels themselves would not be restricted was that something that you knew or picked up from this report at the time
01:49:34 must have been something we talked about yes
01:49:37 yes and
01:49:41 i don't remember specifically talking about that paragraph right it must have been something we talked about
01:49:46 about uh would it not have caused you some degree of concern to learn that even if the construction complied with the guidance in force nonetheless you would have this rapid fire spread unrestricted
01:50:01 yes it must have been something we were concerned about at the time now the relevant sections of the guidance then enforce for external cladding panels as i think we've established with the provisions in diagram 40 yes
01:50:13 diagram 40 yes yes you're not but um no diagram 40 just talks about the surface yes the relevant sections of the guidance enforce for external cladding panels
01:50:25 panels were was diagram 40. there wasn't anything else in the guidance was there which addressed products or the surface of the products in the 2000 edition no there was only
01:50:36 in the 2000 edition no there was only the insulation exposed to the cavity exactly yes yes and the same in the 2002. you have you have diagram 40 i think 36 as it was um yes
01:50:47 um yes now did you or anybody else at the the bre so far as you could tell consider that this fire and the findings that we've just looked at needed to be communicated to the fire and rescue services or to designers or
01:50:59 and rescue services or to designers or to builders or others straight away
01:51:07 at that time that wasn't something that we took as our role uh and fire and rescue services have their own mechanism for sharing risks that they've identified and they've uh
01:51:18 that they've identified and they've uh used to be called fines it's probably called something else now but they have a
01:51:22 a secure communication system so fire and rescue services can share
01:51:29 problems that they've identified in fire ground
01:51:39 so the answer i think to my question is no neither you nor anybody at the bre thought it appropriate to tell fire and rescue services that even though
01:51:52 that even though this type of construction complied with current guidance there was a risk here of rapid fire spread unrestricted through these panels no one thought to tell the fire and rescue services no i don't think we consider that to be our role at the time
01:52:04 consider that to be our role at the time well
01:52:05 well whether or not it was your role was it not a sensible and prudent thing to do
01:52:12 it might be i don't know what conversation they'd had with the fire and rescue service as i say that it's likely that the fire and rescue service may well have raised that with their colleagues anyway and when you say our role who do you mean um
01:52:23 role who do you mean um right what about government you are two and a half days a week on average at at in martian street was it not your role
01:52:31 role in government seconded there as you were to tell anthony bird to say whatever you need to do you need to get whoever it is to tell the fire and rescue services
01:52:42 to tell the fire and rescue services um that there is this regulatory problem
01:52:49 i didn't at the time he would have received this report was do you remember any discussion along those lines with him no
01:52:58 were you satisfied that the information in this report could safely remain in the hands of the vre and the department only given the clear risk to life that this regulatory defect presented
01:53:14 i think at the time we were just working within the scope of the
01:53:19 the project that we were working on but the whole point of the real fires project was was it not to alert government to risks and defects in the regulatory regime isn't that the point of it
01:53:32 and with the focus on amending the guidance rather than identifying risks in the existing building stock what about designers and other stakeholders why not tell them immediately that you discovered that
01:53:44 immediately that you discovered that there's a kind of sandwich panel out there that can that complies with the current guidance but which promotes rapid fire spread up a whole building in less than 10 minutes
01:53:55 less than 10 minutes isn't that something that would be pretty important for people designing buildings or building owners who might have this stuff on them to know um i think in hindsight yes i think that as i say the the way that we reported to
01:54:08 as i say the the way that we reported to the department at the time was very much we are we've reported to the department and left the department to decide what to do with that information but why in hindsight and what was it that you didn't know then that you now know which makes you
01:54:19 then that you now know which makes you wise after the event
01:54:27 i think if i've learned anything over the last four years is that when you identify something like this you should shout but i don't think at the time that was the way we worked
01:54:37 did you give any consideration at the time after this fire and while working on the revisions to the approved document to the adequacy or inadequacy of national class naught in and of itself
01:54:51 now the the issues the debate about class wasn't something that arose extensively in in my time
01:55:02 you see did it not occur to you that one of the reasons why the designers of this building thought that this sandwich panel
01:55:10 panel might meet the guidance was because it might have had a class naught badge or might even have been tested to class north and achieved it did that not occur to you
01:55:22 i don't think that's the way we were looking at we're more concerned about how how do you deal with the internal construction rather than the the controls on the surface
01:55:33 the controls on the surface so all the other high-rise fires that we've looked at in the history up to this point noslee garner
01:55:41 are all fires where at least some of the reports scrutinized class naught and and the question whether class naught was achieved can you explain why that topic didn't arise in the context of this fire
01:55:53 didn't arise in the context of this fire given the product that was under examination
01:55:57 i suspect because it's a material that we normally found as being used as an insulation so you looked at the is this how it worked i'm just trying to understand the actual thinking here
01:56:09 understand the actual thinking here you thought polystyrene polystyrene is normally used for insulation therefore it's all about insulation therefore we need to cater for that rather than thinking what is this product
01:56:20 this product how has it got onto this building what is the thinking by which people thought it could meet the guidance let alone the functional requirement
01:56:29 i can't remember what was going through my mind or anybody else's mind at that time
01:56:34 time but i i think
01:56:37 we were focused on that question as to how do you control that internal layer i mean the the subject of sandwich panels had been something that had been um
01:56:47 um debated quite extensively um in the industry
01:56:51 industry um and this was a facet of that i guess right can we then go back to page
01:56:58 page four please in this document sorry i'm looking at the reference yes page four in this document uh and to the paragraph directly under the list of bullet points there and you can see there's a long list of bullet points which are issues in
01:57:11 bullet points which are issues in in the real fires and they're all there a wide range of topics there and then in the third line down in the next paragraph down it says a fire in a block of flats highlighted the need for fire
01:57:22 of flats highlighted the need for fire breaks or cavity barriers in the core of a sandwich panel cladding systems you see that
01:57:27 see that yes that's a reference isn't it to the edge fire it must be yes yes and if we go to page three and the penultimate paragraph on that page we can find the following
01:57:39 this is the principle paragraph longish paragraph middle of your screen the findings from this period have reaffirmed the overall effectiveness of the building regulations and adb in providing for the safety of life in the
01:57:50 providing for the safety of life in the event of fire most of the significant issues that have been identified during the study fall outside the scope of these regulations now
01:57:59 now the first sentence that i've just read to you there that was demonstrably not the case was it
01:58:08 the second sentence that begins most no the sentence the findings from this period have reaffirmed the overall effectiveness of the building regulations an adb in providing for the safety of life in the event of fire i'm
01:58:19 safety of life in the event of fire i'm putting to you that was demonstrably not the case was it when it came to the edge when it came to the edge yes i i i don't remember i don't think i had anything to do with the drafting of this paragraph but i'm guessing they're
01:58:33 paragraph but i'm guessing they're the second sentence is um supporting the first and say that the vast majority of the fires that they looked at it wasn't the issues with the guidance that was the problem
01:58:46 well leave aside the second sentence the second sentence we can read and understand whether it falls outside the scope of the regulations or not doesn't mean doesn't tell you that the regulations are themselves adequate that's a
01:58:58 are themselves adequate that's a different question i'm putting to you and i think you accept that it is it is quite plainly not the case uh that the findings from the edge fire being findings from this period reaffirm the overall effectiveness of the building
01:59:09 overall effectiveness of the building regulations and adb in providing for the safety of life in the event of fire the edge proved the opposite surely i think it's a fair point so can you explain how and i know you weren't the author of this to be fair to you but how on earth
01:59:20 this to be fair to you but how on earth it could be that the bre could report to government in that way given what was now known about the edge fire no i think as i i suspect they're referring to the general generality of
01:59:32 referring to the general generality of all the other fires where they hadn't found a problem but i think it's it's probably not the best phrased sentence yes
01:59:40 yes and in fact do you accept that the edgefire
01:59:43 edgefire showed
01:59:46 that the aid that adb was ineffective because it didn't restrict the core or regulate the core of an external wall panel
01:59:55 panel to
01:59:56 to material of limited combustibility but only regulated the surface to class naught or class b which is not material of limiting combustibility that's right now we looked at the detailed section of
02:00:07 now we looked at the detailed section of the report page 76 which warned of the danger of rapid unrestricted external fast bread and a risk to life even in a compliance system did you do you agree looking at it that
02:00:19 did you do you agree looking at it that the fire at the edge raised obvious questions regarding the effectiveness or otherwise of the guidance in approved document beyond external fire spread yes
02:00:29 yes so do you can you explain how why that wording came to be in this report here reaffirming the overall effectiveness given that the authors were plainly aware of the circumstances of the edge fire and what they showed
02:00:43 no i can't explain it and if we go back to the bre's 18th of january investigation report please bre 3035368
02:00:52 which we looked at before page two at the third paragraph up from the bottom of the page it says
02:01:01 it says just above fire service considerations it may be advisable to revisit this guidance and consider if more explicit guidance could be given to avoid any confusion in the future can we take it that given the amendments
02:01:12 can we take it that given the amendments we're about to look at that you agreed with that that it was advisable to revisit the guidance
02:01:20 guidance yes yes now there's a reference to any confusion did you what specifically did you understand to be the confusion referred to here um again it's probably not the right word really um i i think um
02:01:35 it's it's avoiding the situation where somebody's using um
02:01:41 a insulation that's not material in limited combustibility in a location where it's likely to present a risk of fire spread right before we leave the
02:01:53 before we leave the um
02:01:54 um the reports for the edge and looking at what we can see on the screen here where it says it's conceivable the designers of the building may have taken the view that this restriction wasn't
02:02:05 the view that this restriction wasn't applicable did that not ring an alarm bell in your mind that designers were reading the guidance in a proof document being as if it were the regulation and taking their eye off the need always
02:02:19 and taking their eye off the need always to meet the functional requirement regardless of whether the guidance had been followed or not
02:02:28 i think that's been a constant problem since the system was introduced is is
02:02:33 is is certainly i remember as a building control officer having to raise issues with designers where they were taking a very um
02:02:44 pedentic at the guidance without giving it
02:02:48 it without actually considering the objectives themselves and they'd even recognize that something wasn't right but we
02:02:55 but we using the guidance as a defense right two things from that in a way repeating the first question and did this incident not bring that home
02:03:05 home but here are designers which take the view that the restriction not applicable and put a product on the uh the external build-up of a of a building above 18 meters
02:03:17 building above 18 meters and clearly you're not taking into account the functional requirement did they not bring that dissonance home to you at the time i don't remember thinking that at the time but it probably would have done the
02:03:28 time but it probably would have done the other thing that would follow from what you said it was a constant problem did that not mean that whatever else approved document needed to spell out in big red letters
02:03:39 big red letters to the reader was that even if you met the guidance you cannot be assumed to have met the functional requirement
02:03:54 i don't remember thinking that at the time but it's a it's a fact it's a fact but it's also a fact to which all your experience in your nine years as a building control officer led you isn't it yeah i mean i work with
02:04:06 led you isn't it yeah i mean i work with designers that certainly did understand that um and and others that um
02:04:14 for whatever reason either didn't understand it or used it as a way of um arguing a particular point yeah but given
02:04:24 given your own experience and given that you're by this time positioning with a foot in both the bre and government why was this not something that you made it your business to stamp out
02:04:35 your business to stamp out this
02:04:37 this this carder of designers who thought that by complying with the guidance they were ergo complying with the functional requirement i think in general where i could i did
02:04:48 i think in general where i could i did try to apply that approach right well we'll see that's good please next to clg three zeros one eight eight three two
02:05:04 uh now this is an email to you uh
02:05:08 uh from anthony bird and i'm sorry it's an email from me too it is from you too anthony bird you're quite right 18th of january 2005 copying in sarah colwell martin ship sam greenwood and peter field and this is as you can see from
02:05:21 field and this is as you can see from the date some two or so weeks after the fire and the same date as the investigation report we've just been looking at yes yes and your email reads as follows anthony having reviewed the recent clouding fire in manchester and
02:05:32 recent clouding fire in manchester and having received a number of technical inquiries on this issue sarah sam and i have come to the conclusion that the guidance in adb on external wall construction is in need of clarification this appears to be as a result of
02:05:43 this appears to be as a result of changes in construction practice whereby the intent of the original guidance has been circumvented i've attached some proposed changes to the current v12 draft for consider for consultation this still needs some work
02:05:55 consultation this still needs some work as in its modified form this would prohibit timber frame buildings over 80 meters high however we do feel it is important that something on this matter is included within the consultation to ensure that this matter is given due
02:06:07 ensure that this matter is given due consideration happy to discuss brian now the recent cladding fire there is it was the edge clearly wasn't it yes what was the issue on which you had a number of as you put it technical
02:06:18 number of as you put it technical inquiries uh i don't remember the inquiries would probably have gone to um dr colwell if it was to do with cladding right see did you receive the or did she receive them i don't remember did you
02:06:29 receive them i don't remember did you discuss them with her i don't remember do you know where they were from
02:06:34 were from i don't remember right do you not even have an inkling now
02:06:38 now no right
02:06:40 no right do you know how long the bre had been receiving those inquiries no i i must admit in in preparing for the inquiry um i came across this email and i don't remember sending it
02:06:52 i don't remember sending it but clearly i did well it's not about sending it so much as the content and the absolutely but you don't remember now do you know why external fire spread hadn't been suggested as a topic for discussion and consideration by stakeholders at the
02:07:04 consideration by stakeholders at the forwards look workshops in those three locations in the summer of 2004 the previous year sorry could you say the question again well i had external fire spread not been
02:07:15 well i had external fire spread not been suggested as a topic for discussion and consideration by stakeholders at the various forwards look workshops that we saw you attended indeed organized at the summer of 2000.
02:07:27 indeed organized at the summer of 2000. i have no idea why they didn't i i think because none of them considered it to be an issue at the time
02:07:36 so is this it was completely off radar was it at that point i think it was yes i mean that's that's why we hadn't considered it
02:07:44 it at up until this stage now before this email had you you raised the fact that queries
02:07:51 queries technical queries or inquiries were being received by the bre with anthony bird or anybody else at the department um
02:08:00 um there's a wide range of subjects that people get technical inquiries about i don't think this was well on this issue it says on this issue a recent cladding fire in manchester
02:08:11 a recent cladding fire in manchester number of technical inquiries on this issue my question is have you discussed the inquiries on the issue with anybody in government anthony bird in particular uh not as far as i'm aware right what
02:08:23 uh not as far as i'm aware right what were your discussions with sarah colwell and sam greenwood which led to this email do you remember those even in outline um i can't remember indeed but i think it was a discussion about what they'd found at the edge fire and a
02:08:34 they'd found at the edge fire and a concern that the approved document um allowed
02:08:38 allowed that form of construction right um
02:08:41 right um so so as you're saying you're relying on the functional requirement for something which might well occur more often and what was it that was in need of clarification precisely
02:08:53 um i i can't remember from from there's a there's a proposed draft i'm guessing that was my suggestion about how to approach the problem and what what were the changes in construction practice whereby the intent of the
02:09:05 practice whereby the intent of the original guidance has been circumvented what was that um again i'm guessing rather than knowing for sure what was in my mind at the time or in our minds at the time but i i think it's using a sandwich panel in
02:09:17 i i think it's using a sandwich panel in on high-rise building is something we might not have seen before and [Music]
02:09:21 [Music] how had you come to learn about those changes in construction practice
02:09:29 by mr greenwood and dr caldwell visiting manchester and seeing the uh the edge oh i see
02:09:37 oh i see and whatever queries they got i don't know what their queries that the queries were as they say the recent the changes in construction practice is what a reference to the use of this particular sandwich panel at height i think that's
02:09:48 sandwich panel at height i think that's what i'm getting at there yes okay and you say whereby the intent of the original guidance has been circumstances is circumvented what was the intent of the original guidance in that respect
02:09:59 original guidance in that respect and to avoid um unreason
02:10:03 unreason unreasonable to avoid fire spread on the external surfaces of the building such that it would put people at risk
02:10:12 and how is it being circumvented
02:10:16 um i think you're you're analyzing a sentence that i can't remember writing and i'm thinking i'm getting to the point where i'm guessing now and i'm not sure particularly i can't answer did you have any awareness at the time
02:10:29 have any awareness at the time of any other cases where you thought that the original intent of the guidance as you put it was being circumvented as you put it
02:10:39 not that i can remember no did you or as far as you remember the department make any further inquiries of greater manchester fire and rescue services about their own investigation into the fire
02:10:53 no you know why not
02:10:59 i think our focus would have been on the um um
02:11:03 um um the approved document and its guide yes yeah but um in in order to focus on the approved document and what changes you needed to make in order to preserve
02:11:15 in order to preserve the intent of the original guidance as you've described it did you not want to know a little bit more about how it came about that this panel was selected and what was in the designer's mind in doing that
02:11:27 designer's mind in doing that which you would get you might get from the fire and rescue services investigation report um i think if they'd found anything they thought was useful they would have raised it with us i i think we looked at it as having
02:11:39 i i think we looked at it as having identified this as an issue with a a single building the question was what you could do generically to improve the guidance
02:11:47 guidance yes you say
02:11:50 if they found anything they thought was useful they would have raised it with us but
02:11:54 but this was a contract job for the department about about amending or revising approved document b did you not want to have all the relevant information at your fingertips including whether this was a one-off and
02:12:07 including whether this was a one-off and if not what if not why not and if so what the thinking was which enabled this product to be on a high-rise building rather than just leaving it to the fire
02:12:18 rather than just leaving it to the fire and rescue service to tell you if they thought fit
02:12:27 not sure we had the time or resources at the time to do much more than what we'd done
02:12:31 done and
02:12:32 and the thing we were focused on was what can we do to make this guidance more more robust well you see i haven't got the time or the resources there are three of you working on this what was wrong with a phone call or an
02:12:44 what was wrong with a phone call or an email to the the uh greater manchester fire and rescue service fire investigation departments to ask for their special fires report or their sai you could have
02:12:55 fires report or their sai you could have done that why was that expensive or time consuming i need lots of people
02:13:01 if there was one they probably would have shared with it with us already i i wasn't directly involved in that investigation now let's go to gmf 708
02:13:18 um this is a letter from russ james uh at greater manchester fire and rescue services
02:13:27 services dated the 1st of december 2006 to sheila o'reilly at the bsi yeah
02:13:36 yeah and
02:13:39 uh if you go to page three that's that's the end of the invest the end of the correspondence run if you go to page three please you can see that there's an earlier letter the 23rd of
02:13:50 there's an earlier letter the 23rd of november 2006 from greater manchester to debbie waddington and steve scanlon
02:13:59 in relation to the fire at the edge and you can look at the first line of the first paragraph and they say that they are writing to them waddington and scannell as the managing agents for the
02:14:10 scannell as the managing agents for the above property which is the edge clues street salford yes yes right now have you ever seen this letter before no right now if you look at the second paragraph it says this you will be aware
02:14:21 paragraph it says this you will be aware of the serious file that took place within the above building in january 2005 that fire has since been fully investigated and a number of potential risks have been identified associated with the insulation panels that have
02:14:33 with the insulation panels that have been used to externally cloud the staircase enclosures so that's the context and if we go to the third paragraph on this page um it starts the word with the word the hazards do you see and it says this the
02:14:45 hazards do you see and it says this the hazards caused by the combustion of polystyrene is well documented in literature coupled with this is the condition of delamination in which the bonded faces of the cladding separate from the material infill of the panel
02:14:56 from the material infill of the panel when such fires occur within these systems they are extremely difficult to extinguish and it's likely that another fire would again result in a total loss of the complete cladding there is also a
02:15:07 of the complete cladding there is also a proven risk of fire spread in this type of construction showing that the resulting fire could spread to other fittings such as the timber decking of the balconies thus allowing potential fire ingress to dwellings via the patio
02:15:18 fire ingress to dwellings via the patio doors and vents now did you agree well i'm sorry first of all you've never seen this before but do you agree that there was a proven risk of fire spread in this type of construction
02:15:29 yes evidently yes um
02:15:32 um okay
02:15:33 okay now turning to page four and the third paragraph that says
02:15:41 that says oh also over the lifetime of the building the possibility of an outbreak of fire within any of the flats adjacent to the paneling cannot be eliminated a flat fire unless extinguished early will
02:15:52 flat fire unless extinguished early will inevitably breach the patio doors and lead to direct flame impingement on the external surface of the panels differential expansion leading to external skin warping will expose and allow ignition of the insulating layer
02:16:04 allow ignition of the insulating layer you see that yes
02:16:08 and then it goes on it'll acknowledge it is acknowledged that the sandwich panels have a class naught surface spread of flame rating and it's accepted that the building meets the requirements of the building regulations but for the reasons
02:16:19 building regulations but for the reasons outlined above greater manchester fire and rescue service have a strong residual concern over the impact that this cladding could have on resident safety should affirm occur again
02:16:30 safety should affirm occur again and then you can see there's a table where which contains a recommendation that the building should be re-clad using non-flammable core insulation panels
02:16:40 panels now um were you aware of any of this in november 2006 which is the date of the letter
02:16:53 aware of their them contacting the the building owner or the risks that they're describing when i say this that the sandwich panels have a class naught surface spreader flame rating
02:17:05 naught surface spreader flame rating and the acceptance that the building met the requirements of the building regulations were you aware that that was so all that being said to be so um
02:17:19 not into many words i think i would have wouldn't have surprised me that you that it would have been a you would have got a classo classification on a metal face panel um
02:17:30 so i guess i would have known um known that if you would have known that then did that not send an alarm signal to yourself
02:17:41 to yourself that even though these sandwich panels met class naught and therefore the linear route through diagram
02:17:52 diagram 36 as i think it was at that stage nonetheless they would have failed spectacularly to meet the functional requirement
02:18:03 i think so as the letter says that the risks associated with polystyrene were quite well documented and was this not yet another uh chapter in the long and sorry history
02:18:15 uh chapter in the long and sorry history of class naught which indicated to you both at bre and government foot in each camp
02:18:20 camp that class naught was dangerous well i think that's why we wrote that email to to mr bird
02:18:28 well i don't think there's anything in the email about class naught being dangerous
02:18:33 dangerous in the email to mr bird is there
02:18:39 don't get back to this
02:18:48 do you want to get back to it no no i didn't mention class naught in there but we mentioned that we thought that we need we needed to make that guidance more restrictive you see had you had anyone made any inquiry of manchester
02:19:00 anyone made any inquiry of manchester fire and rescue services you would have learned
02:19:02 learned very quickly that these panels had class naught
02:19:05 naught and that would have led you not only to wonder about the core but also have led you to wonder about whether class naught remained fit for purpose and in fact whether the special committee's recommendation should not actually now be
02:19:16 be met in this forthcoming review no
02:19:23 potentially to some extent these two sides of the same coin i think why'd you say that um well both manchester and ourselves are concerned about the use of
02:19:34 concerned about the use of insulation called panels in that location and needed to ensure that people stopped doing it
02:19:40 doing it two sides of the same coin but but it does that tell us that in addition to thinking about how to regulate the core of a composite panel you also needed to think about whether the class naught classification for its surface was also
02:19:52 classification for its surface was also fit for purpose i suppose if you've controlled the core the class naught question becomes less less of a problem was that your thinking at the time
02:20:02 i can't really remember what i was thinking i'm sorry i don't want to guess what i was thinking at the time mr chairman can we take our five minute rest
02:20:11 rest yes um
02:20:13 yes um and i think we ought to say five minutes this time because it's just long enough for people to stretch the legs on the transcriber to stretch your fingers so um we'll stop the wheel resume at
02:20:24 um we'll stop the wheel resume at 25 past four mr martin i'm sorry that doesn't give you very long just long enough to walk out of the room and back in again i suspect but anyway we'll do that now and don't take the
02:20:35 we'll do that now and don't take the opportunity to speak to anyone should it should it arise which i think is extremely unlikely all right thank you would you get very much please okay
02:20:55 and i would suggest that maybe the panel themselves might like just to stretch their legs and uh come back in five minutes time very good mr chairman thank you very much we'll
02:21:06 mr chairman thank you very much we'll we'll we'll do that but anyway we need to go off there we probably do and you could
02:26:35 all right mr millett if you're ready to continue are you yes mr chairman thank you very much can we please have the witness back in thank you thank you very much
02:26:53 all right mr martin are you ready to carry on yes sir thank you very much yes mr miller yes thank you mr chairman mr martin we're still on the subject um did you recommend to anthony bird or anybody
02:27:06 recommend to anthony bird or anybody anybody else at the department at this time or indeed any other time that the department might like to carry out inquiries into whether or not the use of these kinds of products being national class naught on high-rise
02:27:17 national class naught on high-rise buildings was already widespread
02:27:22 no why not why not
02:27:30 just don't think that was that just wasn't the way that we tended to operate we were just focused on trying to think about how the guidance for new buildings was drafted
02:27:41 drafted i mean here you have an example of a compliant but dangerous building was it was i'd just like to understand why you or your colleagues in the department's first thought was not
02:27:52 first thought was not well is this a one-off why is that
02:28:05 i'm not really sure i think most of the time we were looking at where incidents did occur um
02:28:12 um we
02:28:19 we were as i said we were thinking about the the design guidance and it
02:28:25 there wasn't an obvious broader hazard um i don't know why we didn't talk about that more on on this
02:28:37 as i say i think the the focus of the project and all of our work was on what we can do with with the guidance rather than thinking about what the
02:28:47 broader societal risk would be i guess we
02:28:51 we regularly found defects in buildings um and um
02:28:57 and um i think that was just regarded as a as a almost as a residual risk in that there would always be some buildings that were defective in some way but i'm not sure we thought about that
02:29:09 but i'm not sure we thought about that consciously i mean you seem to be drawing a distinction between the guidance and broader societal risks is surely the point of the guidance which is to guide people
02:29:21 which is to guide people to meeting the functional requirement was all about the broader societal risks namely the risks of dying in a fire in your own home yes um but
02:29:31 but i think we were focusing on how you can improve the guidance to improve the design of buildings in the future rather than considering the risk of the existing building stock
02:29:44 can we go to page five of this letter please
02:29:54 and you can see the very foot of the screen
02:29:58 screen and say sorry it's gmf 708 page five
02:30:07 there um just below the signature you can see that the the letter is copied to richard lewis at nhb bcs limited do you remember yourself have ever
02:30:18 do you remember yourself have ever having any discussions with
02:30:21 with mr lewis richard lewis in this case or anybody else at nhbc about the edge fire no
02:30:30 all your recommendations to the department that the guidance in adb be clarified okay no right can we then go back to your email
02:30:39 email of the 18th of january 2005 please at clg3018832
02:30:47 and in the second paragraph we've read the first in the second paragraph you say this i've attached some proposed changes to the current version 12 draft for consultation this still needs some work as in its modified form this would
02:30:58 work as in its modified form this would prohibit timber frame buildings over 18 meters high exclamation mark however we do feel it is important that something on this matter is included within the consultation to ensure that this matter is given due consideration happy to
02:31:10 is given due consideration happy to discuss
02:31:11 discuss now the attachment is at clg3018833
02:31:17 if we can look at those please look at that it says this and here what we've got just help me this is i think the 2002
02:31:28 this is i think the 2002 version of adb isn't it which has got some amendments on it that's right the way the way we were working on this amendment to adb was to try and
02:31:40 this amendment to adb was to try and produce a consultation paper that took the old approved document and showed where we were changing it yes and here you can see um b4 external walls external surfaces it was 13.5 amended to 11.5 at the top
02:31:54 it was 13.5 amended to 11.5 at the top yes yes um you take out the note to whanau 9 because that's going to be changed and then you have external wall construction 13.7 becomes 11.7 yes
02:32:05 construction 13.7 becomes 11.7 yes yes
02:32:06 yes and
02:32:07 and note while you're there the second sentence of 13 of 13.7 as becomes 11.7 note it the use of combustible materials for
02:32:18 the use of combustible materials for clouding framework or of combustible thermal insulation as an overcladding or in ventilated cavities may present such a risk in tall buildings even though the provisions for external surfaces in diagram 40 deleted 28 may have been
02:32:31 diagram 40 deleted 28 may have been satisfied now i just want you to note that but then if you look underneath that 11.8
02:32:37 that 11.8 you have the original words in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level insulation or any other material used in ventilated cavities in the external wall construction should be of limited
02:32:48 construction should be of limited combustibility sea appendix a and the words ventilated cavities in have been deleted yes yes that was that your deletion your
02:33:00 yes that was that your deletion your suggested deletion i believe so yes
02:33:06 and after the word insulation in the second line of paragraph 11.8 the words
02:33:12 the words any other material or any other material have been added haven't they that's right yes yes or any other material used because that's new too
02:33:23 that's new too now do you agree that looking at this document attached to this email that the effect of these proposed changes you were putting forward at this time would have been to make crystal
02:33:35 time would have been to make crystal clear that any and all material in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility yes that's what this draft does yes yes it's what that draft does
02:33:47 it's what that draft does and preserves the warning in the last in the second sentence of 11.7 as well yes yes yes
02:33:54 yes yes now if we go back to your email we've seen it i think i've read it to you twice um the second paragraph where you refer to the proposed changes you say still needs some workers as it's
02:34:05 you say still needs some workers as it's in modified form this would prohibit timber frame buildings over 18 meters high now timber is combustible isn't it yes can we take it from that and your exclamation mark that you did not intend
02:34:17 that you did not intend did not intend to prohibit the use of timber in this way um i was i think at the time i would have been aware the department would not have wanted to prohibit the use of timber frame
02:34:28 prohibit the use of timber frame construction above 18 meters right you're drawing a distinction between you and the department why um
02:34:36 i guess i wasn't i didn't didn't have a particular desire to retain or
02:34:43 um banned timber con construction over 18 meters high but i was aware the department had an interest in it i see so you were take you were is this right um you were proposing uh a draft taking into account of what
02:34:56 uh a draft taking into account of what the department wanted
02:35:02 yes yes i see and who told you that the department wanted to wanted not to prohibit the use of timber frame construction over 18 meters um
02:35:14 frame construction over 18 meters um there'd been quite a lot of work
02:35:17 work um there was a project called timber frame 2000 um which was looking at trying to
02:35:26 essentially it was it was working out how you could build a
02:35:31 build a safe high-rise timber frame building
02:35:37 and that was something the department had been supportive of
02:35:43 right but who what was your source of information on that was it anthony bird was it somebody else at the department
02:35:54 i think it was just it was just a thing that the department had talked about for some time timber frame 2000 was quite a big project right um and um the timber frame industry were keen to promote the use of timber frame construction
02:36:06 use of timber frame construction um
02:36:07 um in buildings above 18 meters i think the approved document had been amended it was probably 1992 and it had been amended which had made that
02:36:19 been amended which had made that easier to do and this project was really facilitating that so there'd been a um
02:36:26 um a kind of long running history of the department seeing the potential benefits of using timber frame in taller buildings
02:36:35 buildings so i was conscious that this that would be a contentious point
02:36:40 i see and was your desire not to prohibit
02:36:44 prohibit the use of timber frames over 80 meters in your drafting the reason why you considered that more work was required on your draft that's the i think that's the point i'm making here is is i recognize that um the department
02:36:56 recognize that um the department probably wouldn't be able to live with that draft in in its form right so so just to be clear is this right that you wanted to introduce a restriction on the combustibility of materials other than insulation in the
02:37:08 materials other than insulation in the external wool arrangements but to exclude some combustible materials from that proposed prohibition or restriction i think that's the universal challenge with drafting building regulations
02:37:19 with drafting building regulations guidance is that there are always exemptions to the rule and it's trying to find
02:37:26 to find a form of words that does that but is the answer to my question yes i think so yes
02:37:36 now you told us a few moments ago i think that the the core of the panels used at the edge is this right should have been of limited combustibility on the basis of the guidance in the
02:37:48 on the basis of the guidance in the approved document
02:37:52 or do you accept that in fact there was nothing regulating the core of the panels at the edge and something needed to be put in
02:38:02 um there was nothing in the guidance at the time that would have prohibited clearly prohibited that so
02:38:12 so we needed to put something in there but timber would already have been prohibited by the guidance wouldn't it
02:38:20 not timber framing no timber frames we're talking about the structure of the building rather than the external surface right so so how just explain how your amendment
02:38:32 how just explain how your amendment which is simply the deletion of the words ventilated cavities in could have affected or could have operated to timber framed buildings over 18 meters
02:38:43 timber framed buildings over 18 meters high i think it's or other materials included in the wall is the phrase that would have been the problem
02:38:54 right i think in the original draft that would have been in color it would have been blue
02:38:59 been blue i see so were you essentially telling anthony bird in this email that the approved document needed to be revised to cover circumstances encountered at the edge fire but without
02:39:10 encountered at the edge fire but without imposing a general requirement that all material all elements of the external wall build up above 18 meters must be of limited combustibility
02:39:22 that's that's the the discussion i'm trying to prompt with this email and the draft yes
02:39:27 draft yes all right
02:39:29 all right all right and if we turn then to the 2006 edition let's let's cut to the chase and go to the end of the end of the line here this is at clg one zero
02:39:39 one zero you can see from page one i'm showing you
02:39:42 you that this is the april 2007 published version of the 2006 edition of the approved document b gaming coming into effect that month if we go to page 96 please paragraph 12.7
02:39:55 we go to page 96 please paragraph 12.7 i'll show you the whole thing insulation materials stroke products this is 12.7 in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level any insulation product filler material not
02:40:07 insulation product filler material not including gaskets sealants and similar etc used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility see appendix a this restriction does not apply to masonry cavity wall construction which complies
02:40:18 cavity wall construction which complies with diagram 34 in section 9. now can we take it mr martin that you are very familiar with that paragraph i am now yes well were you not at the time i'm more so now right now
02:40:30 at the time i'm more so now right now can we agree that one of the amendments the addition to the text as against the 2002 edition was the introduction of the wording filler material not including gaskets sealants and similar etc yes and
02:40:43 gaskets sealants and similar etc yes and can we also agree that the previous wording that that restriction applied to um insulation material used in ventilated cavities in the external wall construction
02:40:54 construction um yes the thought yes and that got amended in this edition to read only in the external wall construction in other words the words ventilated cavities were removed
02:41:03 removed yes yes
02:41:05 yes yes now after you so that's where we end up and we've got we've now got clearly from you what what the changes were after you've sent the email of the 18th of january to 2005 to anthony bird did you have any
02:41:16 anthony bird did you have any discussions with him about the proposed modified text you had attached to that email
02:41:24 again i'm struggling to remember exactly the the chronology of the conversations we had
02:41:30 we had i think when i sent him that email
02:41:36 that the consultation draft of a pre-document b was
02:41:42 b was in a very late stage of preparation um there was a draft impact assessment that sat alongside that a lot of other um documents have been produced to get
02:41:54 um documents have been produced to get it through the the approvals process um and so i think um the department had to decide how far did it think it
02:42:05 had to decide how far did it think it could go in terms of adjusting that draft in the consultation without having to
02:42:11 to pulls the entire project and and go back and do more work um
02:42:17 um so
02:42:18 so well did you have any conversations with anthony bird about the contents of your email and you sent it we did but i can't remember is when they were all right well can you remember what they were
02:42:29 what they were uh what was just saying i think it is is that
02:42:33 that the
02:42:35 the it was quite it was bad timing in terms of raising this issue at that point because the consultation draft was nearly ready to go
02:42:47 nearly ready to go and
02:42:48 and to add a significant change would have delayed the project extensively i think why was it a significant change
02:42:59 in order to cater for the edge problem if i can put it that way
02:43:05 way um well i think i think that that was the challenge is how far do you go is is weights we suggested something quite significant i.e all materials in the external wall should be non-combustible um
02:43:18 non-combustible um and that would have been i think quite controversial at the time and we would have needed um probably to do some more work on the impact assessment and that would have been needed to have been raised in the
02:43:30 been needed to have been raised in the in the clearance documents and so on that had already been prepared as i recall so
02:43:36 recall so we certainly made some change some additional changes to the consultation draft but it couldn't go quite as far as perhaps we'd recommended right now you said in the emails we've seen that the proposed text still needed more work
02:43:48 proposed text still needed more work your words more work did you or anybody else at the bre do any more work
02:43:55 um
02:43:58 in that respect
02:44:01 i've really great difficulty remembering exactly who did what and when um all i can say is if you look at the consultation draft we there were some some changes in relation to
02:44:15 that i think it was taking out the ventilated cavities section
02:44:21 section uh the the text where it says ventilated cavities
02:44:24 cavities well
02:44:25 well yes let's let's look at that what i want to do next then is explain is explore the origin of the changes with you and what
02:44:33 what uh you intended and understood by them at the time and we may not finish this exercise this evening mr martin but bear with me we've looked now at the 18th of january 2005 letter email and
02:44:45 18th of january 2005 letter email and the attached draft we've seen and the proposed deletion of the words ventilated cavities in and the addition of all materials we've seen that
02:44:56 of all materials we've seen that can we then go to clg
02:45:01 clg far um sorry six zeros 22
02:45:08 and this is the proposed new edition of approved document b volume one dwellings consultation document dated july 2005 and this is the draft of what became
02:45:19 and this is the draft of what became the 2006 edition sent out for public consultation in july so seven months six months later yes
02:45:28 yes yes yes no can we take it uh that
02:45:32 uh that you saw this at the time given your role in the project absolutely yes yes and and if we scroll gently down through pages three four and five we can see that the document shows the deleted
02:45:43 that the document shows the deleted sections in blue if we scroll to three and then down to four and five can you see that the deleted and and replaced sections are in blue yes
02:45:56 are in blue yes and new text is in grey yes um
02:46:00 yes um [Music]
02:46:01 [Music] it's crossed out deleted text is crossed out in blue and the new text is in blue uh well it's that may be a matter of uh irrelevant that's that's how we printed it and that's how it looks on my screen
02:46:13 it and that's how it looks on my screen i appreciate yours might be different all right um now um we we can see um
02:46:20 um for example that page three section three uh
02:46:26 uh flats and masonettes have been deleted and apartments have been put in instead yes yes yes if we go down to page 147 we find the heading external wall
02:46:37 we find the heading external wall construction now then
02:46:39 now then um
02:46:41 um note that the old 13.7 has now been renumbered 11.6 yes yes
02:46:50 but it's otherwise identical isn't it to the old 13.7 yes
02:46:58 um yes it's it still contains the final part of the sentence even though the provisions for external surfaces in diagram what was 40 may have been satisfied yes
02:47:09 what was 40 may have been satisfied yes yes so can we take it that before this document went out to consultation you at least were content that this paragraph
02:47:19 paragraph 13.7 as becomes 11.6 unchanged should remain unamended with the even though words remaining yes yes the key point here is that is that we
02:47:29 that we brought
02:47:30 brought external wall construction the heading to the front of that section indeed it's trying to envelop both the surfaces and and the materials that might be within the wall itself it's been
02:47:41 within the wall itself it's been restructured but this is it's the same language it's the same text isn't it um yes yes now if we go then to page 147 uh fourth paragraph
02:47:53 uh fourth paragraph we can see 11.7 circulated for consultation and that reads as follows in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level insulation material used in ventilated cavities in
02:48:05 material used in ventilated cavities in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility see appendix a and then there's the last sentence about masonry cavity walls so you could see that it was proposed
02:48:17 so you could see that it was proposed here in the consultation version that the words in ventilated cavities be removed but there are no other changes proposed to that section so the all materials doesn't appear there yes right yes
02:48:29 there yes right yes so as it well that came in but went out again as a process of the drafting before it went out to consultation yes yes
02:48:36 yes the wording filler material not including etc was not in the published consultation draft was it that's right and nor was the proposed
02:48:47 it that's right and nor was the proposed amendment as i think you've confirmed or any other material after the words insulation yeah correct
02:48:57 now let me just put up alongside this the final published version we saw a moment ago clg1607 page 96.
02:49:16 so on the right hand side we have what was published and on the left hand side we can see what went out for consultation and if you compare 12.7 as published with 11.7 as consulted
02:49:28 12.7 as published with 11.7 as consulted on
02:49:30 on you can see that the words filler material not including gasket sealants and similar etc do not appear in the consultation
02:49:41 do not appear in the consultation version
02:49:45 do you know why those words were not the subject of consultation um
02:49:52 um so as my my recollection of this particular aspect of what was a very large and complex project was that um
02:50:03 was that um the issue that we raised following the edge fire was quite late in the day the department um wanted to was
02:50:13 was didn't want to delay the publication of the consultation paper by doing an extra section of work on this subject so
02:50:23 so instead of the changes that we'd originally that bre had proposed it was decided just to strike out the ventilated cavities text
02:50:32 text um with the potential to revisit this question after the consultation what do you mean with the potential to revisit this question so something that we after consultation is something that
02:50:43 we after consultation is something that we could
02:50:44 we could um the
02:50:45 um the the department and us as their advisors could
02:50:49 could could look at again and see if there's not something we could do to make it better
02:50:53 better um well
02:50:55 um well sorry
02:50:56 sorry and continue i
02:51:02 i remember having a conversation i can't remember all the people that were in the room certainly mr bird was there um where we discussed whether we thought we could do more with this paragraph um
02:51:13 um the intention was to try and the challenge the challenge we had was that what we wanted people to do was to think more broadly um so that when they were looking at
02:51:24 um so that when they were looking at this provision they weren't reading it too pedantically and that we were trying to get them to think about well it might be insulation or it might be something like it that's presenting a
02:51:35 be something like it that's presenting a similar risk and
02:51:39 and eventually we landed on this language i think to some extent the term filler had cropped up in some of the consultation responses
02:51:49 as being one that was used we deliberately used the word etc to try and get people to think more broadly
02:51:58 and um so we we were trying to get people to think about um insulation materials and other and other
02:52:09 insulation materials and other and other components of a modern wall that that might be proposed that um a designer should think about and consider whether they should be um materials of limited combustibility or
02:52:20 materials of limited combustibility or not it was trying to get people to think more broadly so it wasn't intended to be a categorical list of rules it was intended to try and get people to
02:52:32 it was intended to try and get people to think beyond um just insulation
02:52:39 well we'll unpick that answer when we come to the relevant point in the chronology my question was a different question and i think i'd like an answer to it please unless you've already given
02:52:50 unless you've already given me the answer which is why
02:52:54 why were the words we see in the final version filler material not including gasket sealants and similar etc not in the july 2005 consultation and because we hadn't come up with those
02:53:05 and because we hadn't come up with those words at that time and why is that um
02:53:15 sorry this sounds like a clip answer there was something that we came up with after the consultation having looked through the consultation responses um but well just pause you you knew there was a problem at the edge and you knew two weeks
02:53:27 at the edge and you knew two weeks afterwards that there was a problem yes which needed to be addressed um six or yes six and a half months then elapsed before the consultation version then went out
02:53:37 went out why during the course of that six and a half months could you not come up with some wording that you thought
02:53:44 thought might
02:53:45 might address the problem that the edge posed and
02:53:51 and i think i have said but the the in terms of getting the draft consultation paper cleared i think our suggestion that changes was quite late in the day
02:54:03 late in the day um
02:54:04 um i think you've probably heard from some of my other colleagues is that sometimes the internal government machine can slow things down some sometimes and i think in this case
02:54:15 i think in this case um
02:54:16 um the draft
02:54:17 the draft was considered to be ready to go um and
02:54:22 um and that's why the department didn't want to put
02:54:26 put make significant changes at that time well
02:54:30 well this is very general i mean let's just break it up into strict chronology okay so we've got the 18th of january 2005. okay more work needed what was the latest date
02:54:41 what was the latest date which you and mr bird to which you and mr bird had to work in order to get the final
02:54:46 final consultation draft ready so that it could then go through the process of clearance and publication my recollection is it was very close to the time when we raised this issue with him i know it's i
02:54:58 raised this issue with him i know it's i know there's a quite a delay between publication but i think that delay happened after it had gone for
02:55:06 for through the clearance processes i i can't remember all the detail of hand all right now but let's just work it through a little bit harder um you told him that more work was needed given that you had a looming deadline
02:55:17 that you had a looming deadline [Music]
02:55:18 [Music] whatever it was you don't remember why not just work a bit harder and come up with
02:55:24 up with a form of words which you have satisfied would do the job of addressing the the edge problem on which um just all stakeholders could then be asked for their views rather than
02:55:36 be asked for their views rather than just leaving it i think ultimately that was a decision for the department what i want to know is the reason for the decision what's the rationale for just letting it drift off rather than
02:55:47 letting it drift off rather than actually sitting down at a desk thinking it through what wording will work and putting it out there i think it was this was the quickest way to get the consultation draft moving
02:55:58 to get the consultation draft moving what not do anything about filler material not including gasket sealants and similar and just leaving it simply to deleting the words ventilated cavities in i think that's what was
02:56:09 cavities in i think that's what was decided but i know it was clearly but the question is why
02:56:15 i as i say i think it was a timing thing but i can't i can't remember the detail now and was the thinking also that you needn't consult on this because you could always come back to it and slip something in unconsulted on later
02:56:27 something in unconsulted on later was that the thinking
02:56:37 to some extent yes it's not not desirable it's much better to have a clear set of proposals with an evidence base behind them and set out and address it that way but i think
02:56:49 but i think because external wall construction hadn't arisen as part of our initial sort of um agenda setting exercise when we did the forward look work
02:57:01 forward look work um we hadn't had the the time to um work up proposals examine the evidence base do the research and so on to come up with some proposals so this was what can we do at the 11th hour
02:57:14 was what can we do at the 11th hour so what is it the 11th hour isn't it have you noticed so garlic june
02:57:19 june 2 june 1999 just too late for that consultation which led to the 2000 amendments the edge 2005 just too late for the consultation for the 2006 amendments there seems to be a patent
02:57:31 amendments there seems to be a patent developing here mr martin i think in relation to external wall construction i think you've got a point i mean the 2006 edition the project we did on the 2006 edition we made a lot of detailed changes and we did a lot of work
02:57:43 changes and we did a lot of work um and improved i think the approved document in many ways not in the aspect which which could which saved lives i can't disagree with you more we did a
02:57:54 i can't disagree with you more we did a lot of work in relation to improving safety it's external wall construction um didn't get picked up in that forward look or the exercise that had been done
02:58:05 look or the exercise that had been done by another contractor which was backward look looking at the approved document it wasn't an issue that got identified as being something we should look at if it had we would have done a lot more work on it
02:58:17 have done a lot more work on it what what was it that made it acceptable to your way of thinking that you would leave
02:58:23 leave a potentially important amendment to 12.7 over until after the consultation so that you would then make a change with no evidence base to back it up
02:58:36 i'm not sure it was acceptable it's what we that's that was the option we were given
02:58:40 given by whom um the department i became i was working as a contractor the department makes those decisions not me who made the decision in the department that it wouldn't go in for the july consultation but would be shifted off and met later
02:58:52 but would be shifted off and met later unconsulted um
02:58:54 um i don't know how many officials were involved in that it would have been communicated to me by mr bird but i imagine you would have talked to other officials right now um
02:59:05 other officials right now um it's almost five o'clock uh
02:59:09 uh we are mid-topic we will certainly not finish it this evening mr chairman uh but it's been a long day for everybody i think uh including the witness and you mr chairman i think and um this is probably as good a moment
02:59:21 and um this is probably as good a moment as any to call a hold i think that it's right mr miller i think we've caught up pretty well haven't we oh we have oh yes absolutely we've done very well i'm very grateful grateful to everyone
02:59:33 i'm very grateful grateful to everyone who's uh agreed to sit late and help us to do that so thank you all very much um yes and that includes madame transcriber who i didn't think in my list of um
02:59:44 um of course of course it includes as well as mr martin himself and you and your team
02:59:51 your team right well mr martin we're going to stop at that point we'll resume please at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning and um as i've said to you every time now please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything related to it
03:00:04 your evidence or anything related to it over the break all right yes we'll see tomorrow and um now perhaps we'd get the usher please okay thank you thank you very much
03:00:20 thank you very much mr millet um 10 o'clock tomorrow then please thank you very much mr chairman thank you good night
03:00:44 you