Brian Martin (DCLG/MHCLG) gives evidence on the interpretation of Approved Document B 12.7, industry confusion over 'filler material', his unhelpful responses to NHBC queries, and failure to escalate concerns about combustible cladding.
00:00:31 yes just a minute uh if you're ready to continue would you like to ask the usher to call mr martin back in please yes mr chairman thank you may we please have mr martin back in the hearing room
00:00:42 martin back in the hearing room thank you
00:00:54 all right mr martin are you ready to carry on yes sir i'm grateful for the the longer break i'm sorry for the inconvenience it's there's no great inconvenience we'll just get on a bit longer as i said
00:01:06 we'll just get on a bit longer as i said earlier on to uh make up the time but i'm glad it was helpful right um when you're ready just a minute please yes thank you um mr martin i don't i want to revisit something with
00:01:17 don't i want to revisit something with you if i may emerge from this morning can we please have backup on the screen technical guidance note 18 which is at zeros cel
00:01:25 zeros cel seven two five
00:01:36 now um there it is uh if we go please to page two option one uh i read it to you this morning and i'm not gonna read it to you again unless you'd like me to
00:01:48 you'd like me to um but can i ask you this question when you first saw option one as set out on the screen there
00:01:56 there did you think that the bca had interpreted adb 12.7 as having that effect in other words restricting
00:02:08 restricting
00:02:08 elements of the cladding system including external facing materials to materials of limited combustibility or
00:02:16 or did you think that the bca had deliberately tightened the material of limited combustibility restriction by way of departure from 12.7
00:02:32 i think they've done it deliberately in your your second of the the two options right um i don't think i had any evidence of that that's just what i assumed right perhaps i was wrong okay
00:02:45 and can we take it that you never had a discussion with steve evans or diane marshall or john lewis for that matter on that question whether they thought that option one reflected adb as it
00:02:56 that option one reflected adb as it stood in the say the way you saw it or whether they understood it your way but had chosen to make it tighter no i haven't had that conversation no nothing um
00:03:07 nothing um that's helpful can we then go please too nhb402792
00:03:19 what i'm showing you here now is an email chain from the middle of june 2015.
00:03:24 2015. can we go please to page four at the foot of that page
00:03:30 and we can see
00:03:34 there
00:03:40 that at the
00:03:44 forgive me
00:03:47 we need to go to the to the top i'm afraid of yes and what i want is the top of middle of page three apologies
00:04:00 and here we have an email from steve evans to you 15th of june 2015 at 15 35 and he says this and i'm going to read this to you at some length so bear with me uh i write to request the
00:04:12 me uh i write to request the department's view regarding the need for limited combustibility external cladding finishes on buildings with a floor level exceeding 18 meters in height assessed in accordance with paragraph 12.7 have
00:04:23 in accordance with paragraph 12.7 have approved document b together with the associated paragraphs 12.5 to 12.9 as i understand it section 12 paragraph 12.2 explains that there is a need to
00:04:34 12.2 explains that there is a need to slow down the rate of fire spread across the external faces of the building this is elaborated upon in para 12.5 which states that the external envelope of a building should not provide a
00:04:46 of a building should not provide a medium for fire spread if it is likely to be a risk risk to health and safety and the use of combustible materials in the cladding system and extensive cavities may present a risk in tall
00:04:57 cavities may present a risk in tall buildings
00:04:58 buildings i should say such a risk generally a tall block of flats with the defending place policy would be considered a high risk to health and safety
00:05:08 safety at this point therefore it is assumed that the entire wall buildup is at issue and so the following parts of the external wall construction should not assist with fire spread and then there are a number of bullet points set out
00:05:20 are a number of bullet points set out the first two of which are external cladding material and backing board if appropriate and then insulation and then after the bullet points he continues however the wording of power
00:05:31 continues however the wording of power 12.7 of adb-2 then goes on to state that in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level any insulation product filler material not including gaskets sedans and similar etc used in
00:05:44 gaskets sedans and similar etc used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility sea appendix a this restriction does not apply to masonry cavity wall construction that complies with diagram 34 in section 9.
00:05:56 complies with diagram 34 in section 9. whilst this paragraph is clear that insulation products are a risk to fire spread firstly it is unclear as to the meaning of filler products and secondly
00:06:07 meaning of filler products and secondly it is unclear whether it is intended that these recommendations apply to the external cladding finishes use of the word etc implies that the major components of the cladding system need to be considered
00:06:19 to be considered whilst many cladding finishes fall within the table 7 a7 guidance for materials of limited combustibility we've come across a large number which do not and so even with a class naught
00:06:30 do not and so even with a class naught surface spread of flame rating and when used within a mulk insulation material of limiting combustibility insulation the objectives of section 12 may still
00:06:41 the objectives of section 12 may still not be met even though the guidance in paragraph 12.5 has been met
00:06:54 now just pausing there if we can in the email i've read it all to you thus far
00:07:02 thus far looking at the section of the email where he says while this paragraph is clear i think we need to turn back to page the previous page end of line four
00:07:15 you see that whilst this paragraph is clear he then goes on to point out two aspects of 12.7 which are not clear namely one filler and two whether the malk requirement in
00:07:26 and two whether the malk requirement in 12.7 of adb applies to the external facing
00:07:30 facing now
00:07:31 now i think you would agree wouldn't you that that this is not the first occasion on which the lack of clarity of this section of adb 12.7 had been raised with you
00:07:43 of adb 12.7 had been raised with you correct yes nor was it the first time that you'd been made aware that the intended meaning of filler material was unclear trey yes
00:07:52 trey yes now given the nhbc's position and status as you've explained to us this morning did it concern you at all that adb did not appear to be clear to mr evans in these two respects
00:08:04 to mr evans in these two respects despite what at least appears on its face to be careful consideration of its content by him i think as i recall um
00:08:15 i think as i recall um the reason mr evans sent this message bearing mind this is after the bca guidance note had been produced
00:08:21 produced um
00:08:22 um was that i think nhbc were in dispute with a developer i don't know who um
00:08:30 um and
00:08:31 and they wanted um wanted something they could show the developer that they were correctly applied that the bca guidance note was was the right approach
00:08:42 note was was the right approach um so i think they wanted something from me which supported what they were telling the developer so it wasn't that he didn't understand it he fully understood it and that's why that's why the bca guidance note was
00:08:53 that's why the bca guidance note was written the way it was but the developer was disputing that and
00:09:00 and they were asking for something for me to try and help um
00:09:04 um well first how did you know that how did you know the background he doesn't refer to that to it in here i think i may have spoken to him right well before you sent before he sent you
00:09:16 well before you sent before he sent you this email or before you responded to it or what um i i can't remember the exact timing but that's i think that's what happened
00:09:23 happened whether or not he was in a state of confusion or whether or not a developer was in a state of confusion
00:09:31 confusion were you not troubled to read the fact that there was a debate on this very topic
00:09:37 topic namely about the lack of clarity or scope of 12.7 and the need for all elements of the cladding system to be material of limited combustibility given that as you told us this morning you thought that problem had been
00:09:49 you thought that problem had been settled by the publication of bca technical guidance note 18 the previous summer
00:09:54 summer um i i guess i was disappointed to some extent that they were still having these problems yes right and what did you say you were disappointed what did you learn what did you
00:10:06 what did you learn what did you what why did you think that they were still having these problems
00:10:10 problems um i think it's it's the nature of working in building control is that some developers are not particularly keen to do what the building control of body thinks they should do
00:10:21 should do was it not rather that in fact although the bca guidance had to as you told us as you'd understood it departed from 12.7 there were at least in some quarters of the the construction
00:10:32 in some quarters of the the construction industry developers who um thought it was going too far thought it wasn't required and wanted to rely as they thought they were entitled to of course on adb as it stood
00:10:49 yeah i was disappointed that was happening and and wanted to do what i could to try and help nhbc well did it not occur to you that they were bound to be developers who would say to building control officers who had read the bca
00:11:00 control officers who had read the bca guidance well that may all be very well but that's not what adb says and i'm going to stick with adb and if you don't like it i'll challenge you in court
00:11:17 i suppose for me that's not an unusual experience for a building control body um
00:11:22 um getting into a dispute with a developer is but not it's not uncommon no maybe but the point i'm really putting to you is that um there are now there's now a divergence isn't there there's the
00:11:34 divergence isn't there there's the statutory guidance out there which means one thing and there's the bca guidance which as you understood it at the time was a departure from the statutory guidance wasn't that a thoroughly undesirable
00:11:46 wasn't that a thoroughly undesirable situation
00:11:47 situation it was clearly undesirable yes but it was it it could only be for central government to cure that problem by bringing uh 12.7 in line with option one of
00:11:59 uh 12.7 in line with option one of technical guidance note 18. which is what i wanted to do once we revised adb months years down the line at the um when is the date of this email i think it's 2015. yes june 2015.
00:12:11 it's 2015. yes june 2015. um
00:12:15 i i thought i was about to start work on a review of adb at that time i think
00:12:22 let's go on with the um message if we go please to
00:12:29 please to uh the
00:12:31 uh the the final paragraph of this email if we go please to page uh four
00:12:38 he says this
00:12:43 uh and if you want to read any more of it i'm happy to do that i should just to be fair to you tell you at the top of the screen he identifies bs 9991
00:12:52 bs 9991 which says combustible materials should not be used in cladding systems and extensive cavities and there's a citation from that that's set out and then a reference to
00:13:04 that's set out and then a reference to br135 and then in this paragraph at the end he says this if we scroll down to the foot of at page four our own view is that there is little point in ensuring that an insulation product meets with mlc
00:13:16 insulation product meets with mlc requirements malk requirements which can when it can then be faced with a cladding finish which whilst achieving a class naught surface spread of flame requirement becomes a contributory factor in the
00:13:27 becomes a contributory factor in the spread of fire up the building when acted upon by a flame plume from a flashed over fire however there appears to be a difference of interpretation across the industry and so your opinion stroke steer would
00:13:38 and so your opinion stroke steer would be very welcome thank you for your time now when you received this email uh did you have any reason to doubt what mr evans was telling you namely that there was a difference in interpretation across the industry
00:13:51 well my understanding was is that they they drafted this email um deliberately to get something from me that would help them in the argument with with a developer
00:14:03 in the argument with with a developer that they were dealing with so
00:14:06 what they're talking about in that last paragraph is is showing a building control body giving consideration to the functional requirement which is good practice for a building control body well let's be a
00:14:18 building control body well let's be a bit more precise when you saw this did you think that steve evans was telling you the truth that there was or there appeared to be a difference in interpretation across the industry
00:14:35 um well they've definitely been one and and and the um the bca guidance note was trying to address that um and
00:14:45 and as i say i think there'd been a disagreement so a disagreement there's a difference of interpretation depending on how you want to consider it i mean did you think that he was telling you the truth that there was a difference in interpretation across
00:14:56 a difference in interpretation across the industry as he says or simply that there was a tricky developer out there who was being
00:15:05 controversial heterodox
00:15:10 i'm not sure i thought about it in those terms at the time well let's take taking it at face value then and assuming that mr evans was telling you the truth um on seeing that statement did you not recall the assurance that you'd given
00:15:21 recall the assurance that you'd given peter holland back in the february of that year 2015 that a fire like the torch fire in dubai um could not happen here without guarantees of course because of 12.7 i
00:15:32 guarantees of course because of 12.7 i said should not should not quite right should not happen here no guarantees because of 12.7
00:15:42 but this is this is the point that i was making in the email is that there are no guarantees because people interpret the guidance differently um and um you're relying on the building control system to try and address that no you didn't you didn't tell mr holland
00:15:55 no you didn't you didn't tell mr holland did you
00:15:56 did you that there was a difference in interpretation of 12.7 across the industry did you and that some people interpreted it as as catching the core of an acm panel and some people didn't no i didn't tell you no
00:16:09 no i didn't tell you no and
00:16:10 and we've covered that yes
00:16:16 and can we take it that you didn't immediately realize that if evans was right and there was as he says a difference in interpretation across the industry then
00:16:27 interpretation across the industry then the assurance that you'd given to peter holland was baseless and a repeat of the torch fire could certainly happen here
00:16:41 i didn't think of it in those terms but i i
00:16:44 i i i can i can see the point you're making i i just saw this as an opportunity to help a building control body um address um a problem and when you saw this email did you not have cause to reconsider
00:16:56 did you not have cause to reconsider the conclusion you'd reached in your worry list on the 29th of april we saw earlier which was that the issue of combustible cladding need not be included because it would have been adequately addressed by the bca
00:17:07 adequately addressed by the bca technical guidance note 18. i think again we've covered that already um my viewers that at the first opportunity i was going to change approved document b to try and address that point
00:17:18 the first opportunity being when the review of approved document b which at this time i thought i was about to start
00:17:32 the bca's guidance names as i think the history shows us had been on the vca's website from about mid-august 2014. certainly that's when you'd seen
00:17:43 2014. certainly that's when you'd seen it yes yes yes uh and yet here we have uh one of the individuals uh responsible for the drafting the original drafting of the bca guidance
00:17:56 original drafting of the bca guidance namely steve evans who oversaw as we know john lewis's original drafting of it
00:18:01 it still asking you about the meaning or intended application of the very sections of the approved document that the guidance was intended to deal with yes
00:18:13 yeah i think he was doing it not because he didn't understand because he wanted something from me to confirm it back to this problem developer why did you what did you ask him
00:18:24 why did you what did you ask him did you ask yourself why does this problem developer want something from me me mr martin as opposed to taking it on trust from
00:18:35 as opposed to taking it on trust from steve evans um i think it's one of the problems that occurs with building control bodies having to treat um developers as clients is that they find it difficult sometimes
00:18:47 is that they find it difficult sometimes to
00:18:48 to deal with the arguments they have sometimes did it yeah i mean i appreciate that but given the context that you've placed upon the circumstances in which this email
00:18:59 the circumstances in which this email came to you namely a difficult developer wanting
00:19:05 wanting your
00:19:05 your word for it did it not occur to you that actually government had a very important part to play
00:19:14 play because it was only government who could spell out with authority the intention behind its own statutory guidance
00:19:23 guidance and not
00:19:24 and not mr evans
00:19:31 that's kind of the problem with the system i think no mist mr martin it isn't to be colloquial the problem developer wanted it from the horse's mouth
00:19:39 mouth and you were the horse did you not understand that
00:19:45 yes that's that's that's part of the problem and the well but the you say part of the problem is it was a problem of your making because all you had to do was step up to the plate
00:19:57 step up to the plate act
00:19:58 act within the authority that you had and provide an official government view or line or statement of the secretary of state's intention rather than leaving it
00:20:10 state's intention rather than leaving it to industry bodies influential they they may have been like the nhbc um i think you assume i've got had more freedom to do that than i had um
00:20:21 freedom to do that than i had um i still felt that the building control alliance guidance note was that
00:20:27 was the best best approach to take at this time did you
00:20:32 did you consider
00:20:34 consider that
00:20:36 that in this paragraph here that i've read to you mr evans had put his finger on an anomaly
00:20:44 anomaly within approved document b that you hadn't addressed namely that 12.7 meant that all elements of the clouding system had to be mulk materials of limited combustibility
00:20:55 materials of limited combustibility then how could it be faced with a panel the surface of which only needed to achieve national class naught surface spread of flame or euro class b which by definition is not malk not
00:21:06 which by definition is not malk not material of limited combustibility
00:21:20 i guess that's the point that we've been talking about i i didn't see that as as a new issue well did you not did you not wonder to yourself what a developer would do when
00:21:31 yourself what a developer would do when confronted with option one and approve document b would it not be perfectly reasonable for the developer to say to the building control officer well you're requiring my external facings
00:21:43 external facings to be
00:21:44 to be class a1 or a2 of limited combustibility but it says here in diagram 40 that it only needs to be class naught or class b
00:21:56 did you think about that as an anomaly as a problem that a building control officer using option one would face i think in the context of this message what i i was thinking of the the
00:22:07 what i i was thinking of the the principle as a classo surface but um used in isolation there's the risk that something immediately below the surface might
00:22:17 might become a contributory factor i i think that's how i read this paragraph and that's the point that we've been discussing already well when you read option one
00:22:28 when you read option one and understood that it was a departure as you told us from approved document b a tightening up of approved document b did you not also ask yourself or ask nhbc
00:22:38 nhbc well if this is going to work what do we what is the reader what is the developer what is the building control officer to make
00:22:45 make of class naught or of diagram 40 of 12.6 i think i took the view at the time when i was looking at the bca guidance note is it had been
00:22:57 the bca guidance note is it had been written by
00:23:00 several building control practitioners including some fire safety engineers from from nhbc and
00:23:11 and they concluded that was the best way to address the issue they were looking at construction projects every day which i wasn't so they were using an approach which they felt would work
00:23:22 an approach which they felt would work in the industry that they were dealing with
00:23:26 did you didn't not occur to you to ask even yourself the question i'm really repeating the question but if the bca is going to insist or building control officers are going
00:23:38 or building control officers are going to insist
00:23:40 to insist uh that all elements including the external facings in an external will build up be of limited combustibility if following the linear route they are going to be met with an obvious challenge which is
00:23:53 with an obvious challenge which is that can't be right i'm entitled to use class naught or class b because diagram 40 and 12.6 say so did that not occur to you um i'm not sure if it did i certainly
00:24:05 um i'm not sure if it did i certainly occurred to me the question of timber frame building and and the fact that there would be situations where the designer might say to the building control body look this isn't allowing me to do something which i think should be
00:24:17 something which i think should be allowed um and then
00:24:21 and then that would put the building control body in a position where they can talk through the actual risks associated with the specific form of construction so i saw that as being a good thing that involves devolving down but beyond
00:24:34 that involves devolving down but beyond the department down to the actual building control officer not just what meets the functional requirement but what what what
00:24:45 constitutes the linear approach it's all up in the air it's all a matter of taste judgment compliance with building regulations is is something that is judged by the building
00:24:57 something that is judged by the building control body yes but following the linear route isn't is it the linear route is the linear route it's as a set of standards uh proven by scientific testing
00:25:06 testing which can be followed which if followed presumptively allow you to satisfy the uh functional requirement and you'd still expect the building control body to be thinking about the functional requirement
00:25:19 but not as i suggest to you not to fill in blanks
00:25:28 i think to some extent that is the case because building control officers get presented with forms of construction that didn't exist at the time we were writing the approved document that's one of the problems you have with
00:25:40 having a fixed document if you like is that
00:25:43 that construction practice changes and and people come up with innovative approaches so building control offices are regularly faced with that question um
00:25:52 um looking at the paragraph then coming back to the point um what is the answer to mr evans's question
00:26:00 question in the first sentence
00:26:04 well rather their view which is that there's little point in ensuring that the insulation product meets with malt requirements when it can then be faced with the cladding finish while it will which whilst achieving a class naught
00:26:15 which whilst achieving a class naught surface spread a flame requirement becomes a contributory factor in the spread of fire up the building etc well he's right isn't it fairly obvious yeah he's right doesn't did that not reveal to you that
00:26:27 doesn't did that not reveal to you that if option one of the bca guidance was to be followed there would just be there would be this anomaly
00:26:39 well if they followed the bca guidance they'd be using entirely materials and limited combustibility so they wouldn't be an anomaly
00:26:46 they'd be an anomaly wouldn't as between the bca guidance approach on the one hand and what the statutory guidance required on the other yes so they'd need to consid consider
00:26:58 yes so they'd need to consid consider whether it was appropriate to allow a particular cladding panel in the situation they were looking at
00:27:05 and you mentioned timber flame cladding um what was your view timber frame buildings not timber frame cladding
00:27:14 what was your view about timber framed buildings we we saw as you told us earlier that one of the reasons you didn't want to do an option one so to speak in 2006 was because
00:27:26 in 2006 was because of the need to preserve timber-framed buildings
00:27:31 buildings why had that now become something that was less of a concern
00:27:36 um it's the same answer to the one i've just given you is that somebody would look at the the bca guidance and say well does this apply apply to my structure um and that
00:27:49 um and that and that was something they'd need to go back to the building control body and say look does this apply to my structure and the building control body would need to have a look and see what the actual form of construction was and take it and take a view on it i'd
00:28:00 and take it and take a view on it i'd i'd rather we had more detailed guidance available um but that was the best we could do at the time all right let me try this differently it's my fault i'm sure if we're not asking it clearly enough in 2006 as you told us and we saw
00:28:13 enough in 2006 as you told us and we saw from the
00:28:13 from the 18th of
00:28:15 18th of january 2005 email uh that
00:28:19 uh that if you tightened up 12.7 in the way you had
00:28:23 had it would it would catch timber-framed buildings and you didn't want to do that yes
00:28:27 yes i think you would accept that option one in the bca guidance in
00:28:33 in 2014
00:28:34 2014 nine years later does catch or exclude timber frame buildings um it would do if you followed it yeah it would do if you followed it yes so
00:28:46 it would do if you followed it yes so what why was it acceptable in 2014 to ban film of timber framed buildings if you followed the bca guidance whereas it hadn't been acceptable to do so uh when it came to the statutory guidance nine
00:28:58 it came to the statutory guidance nine years before what had changed nothing um i i think i've answered this question three or four times now um i'm sorry i apologize for repeating it but it's my fault i'm sure for not understanding that perhaps it's mind for
00:29:09 understanding that perhaps it's mind for not understanding the point you're making um
00:29:13 making um the way i looked at it is you would have a starting point which was
00:29:20 which was perhaps more onerous than we'd intended but it it sort of shifted for one of the better term it shifted the balance of power to the building control body to say look
00:29:32 building control body to say look this is what the building control alliance guidance note is saying um what what's your approach to complying with requirement b4 with that in mind and that would that would
00:29:44 result in the the people designing the building and giving this due consideration
00:29:54 um let's go to your response to this email at page
00:30:00 at page two
00:30:03 uh the foot of page two we can see that you
00:30:06 you come back to mr evans the next day 16th of june
00:30:10 of june 2015 and you say this hi steve
00:30:14 hi steve i can't offer a formal view as such specific projects are a matter for the relevant building control body now why did you say you couldn't offer a formal view as such
00:30:25 view as such um
00:30:27 that's the nature of the position we were in we weren't allowed to give um an official um
00:30:35 um as as a as an individual official i can't issue categorical guidance as to what does or doesn't comply the duty the the decision on whether something complies or not rest with the
00:30:46 something complies or not rest with the building control body um i think you've asked nearly all of my ex colleagues the same question that's what we were always told
00:30:54 told um to be very cautious of when we were um talking to building control bodies and other people in the industry um
00:31:02 um is that um whilst trying to be helpful we couldn't directly tell people what did or didn't comply
00:31:11 comply would that not then make it even more important for the department to put out an official announcement that which wouldn't be individual officials offering their own opinions which you were cautioned against about
00:31:23 which you were cautioned against about the department uh producing government's statement
00:31:31 that would have been desirable this is 16th of june it's immediately after a general election um it would have been months before i could have done anything then we at that time i thought we were about to update approved document b so
00:31:44 about to update approved document b so um
00:31:45 um this was clearly something i'd need to address then right but in the in the meantime i was being as helpful as i could and trying to support nhbc
00:32:00 but what steve evans was doing was was asking for the department's position
00:32:07 position on the meaning and scope of its own guidance
00:32:09 guidance yes
00:32:13 yes people often ask for that and we were always told to be very cautious uh in in the way that we did that and that's why i've used that introductory text um
00:32:24 as i say i think you've you've asked this question and most of my colleagues and you've got the same answer that's something that we're always told to do well that's a matter for us to decide what we've got by way of evidence i'm asking you for
00:32:35 by way of evidence i'm asking you for your recollection you can't offer a formal view as such what kind of view could you offer if not a formal view as such um
00:32:45 um so what i'm saying is i i
00:32:48 what i can't give is something which has some kind of status beyond um a bit of advice from a an official in the department
00:32:59 and then you say specific projects are a matter for the relevant building control body
00:33:04 body uh why did you say that for the same reason is it is um we were always um
00:33:12 always um warned against um making a decision about a project um
00:33:20 when that duty rested with the building control body but you remember because i showed you that in january 2013 you had not only advised daniel turner of ipswich
00:33:31 daniel turner of ipswich building control about compliance of specif a specific kingspan product on the specific project but they've gone so far as to give him some advice but oblique
00:33:42 to give him some advice but oblique though it was but it would be better to use a different product remember i showed you that yes i saw that and i thought to myself at the time i'd let slip and and not follow the um
00:33:54 i'd let slip and and not follow the um rules that we were meant to and i imagine i've probably done that a few times over the years but um
00:34:01 no doubt because i was aware that this particular email was definitely going to be used by nhbc in conversation with the developer i needed to be cautious about the words
00:34:12 i needed to be cautious about the words i used
00:34:17 it's right to think that mr evans isn't actually asking you about any specific project
00:34:24 is he uh not in this email he isn't but i think i think it did relate to a specific project but i could be wrong and in fact if we look at your response if we go back to it please
00:34:36 if we go back to it please isn't that the reason we go to back to page
00:34:42 yes thank you very much a third of the way down page three if you look at the last sentence you ask him you say do you have some examples of specific constructions you've come across why did you ask him that question
00:35:13 i think i was just trying to be helpful trying to understand um if there was something new
00:35:23 and it's clear isn't it that he's not asking you in the email about a specific project and it is for that reason isn't it that you ask him to give you some examples of specific constructions
00:35:41 i'm not sure if i understand the question i i this just seems doesn't seem like an unreasonable question to ask him
00:35:50 now this query was effectively wasn't it the same query that tony baker had raised with you
00:35:57 you in november 2013 that we looked at on i think tuesday morning yes yes and
00:36:05 and looking at your answer i'll share it all to you before i ask the question uh if we go i think you can start at the top of page three as you say the overarching objective is that the external envelope of a building
00:36:16 that the external envelope of a building should not provide a medium for fire spread and this is particularly important for a block of flats people do sometimes try to play games with definitions and where this happens one should refer back to this objective we came across one incident where an eps
00:36:28 we came across one incident where an eps foam was used to fill a void behind some aluminium sheeting because it was not included specifically for its thermal properties the designers had concluded that it wasn't insulation and thus its use was okay when it caught fire the
00:36:39 use was okay when it caught fire the flames could be seen across the city that's why the reference to fillers etc was included in the ad text do you have some examples of specific constructions you've come across maybe we could revise the text again or maybe test some of it
00:36:56 now uh why didn't you just tell mr evans the 12.7 didn't extend by way of answering his question and indeed tony baker's
00:37:08 question and indeed tony baker's question
00:37:09 question why didn't you tell him the 12.7 didn't extend to the external facings but technical guidance note 18 did and therefore
00:37:20 and therefore under his own guidance the answer the question was answered
00:37:28 i'm not sure why i didn't refer to the building control alliance guidance note that would have been a useful thing to do
00:37:34 do um i think the points he'd made in his email um
00:37:41 i was supportive of and and the point i'm making here is is that you need to think about the objective
00:37:52 think about the objective when it when in doubt go back to the objective of the regulations
00:38:00 but why didn't you just give him an answer which is under adb you can still have a class naught surface spread of flame because of diagram 40 and 12.6
00:38:12 because of diagram 40 and 12.6 but under your guidance you can't i mean it's very simple isn't it um i didn't think about it at the time um i i think as i said you before sometimes you assume that these this i spent my
00:38:24 you assume that these this i spent my whole life just thinking about cladding systems and diagram faulty that wasn't the case i was working on lots of different things and
00:38:31 and perhaps it didn't come to mind which i'm sorry but that's
00:38:39 let's just take this carefully you've received this email in the afternoon of the 15th of june and it's a long and i think you would agree with me a well-crafted uh
00:38:49 uh email
00:38:50 email on which it appears that mr evans had taken some care yes
00:38:55 yes i mean that looks that way yes it looks that way i mean it's a value judgment i'm just just inviting you to agree with it
00:39:03 it uh and you didn't respond immediately you left it today and went back to him the following morning uh and we can see we've read together what you say there
00:39:14 what you say there [Music]
00:39:16 [Music] can you just help me what message were you
00:39:20 you seeking to impart in answer to his question
00:39:33 i think i'm just uh agreeing that they should focus on on the objective of the regulations how would a developer the the difficult developer that you tell us lay behind all these questions
00:39:46 all these questions what did you intend that difficult developer to take away from your
00:39:51 from your message
00:39:53 message at the top of page three there that you shouldn't just focus on the words in the approved document you should um take responsibility and and consider the objective of the regulations
00:40:10 well what did you mean then what did you intend by telling the little story about the edge and using that as the reason why the reference to filler etc was included in the ad text what was the point you were
00:40:22 the ad text what was the point you were making there the point that if you don't consider the objective you can you can do something which you think meets the words in the approved document but clearly doesn't meet the objective
00:40:36 and what do you mean in the last paragraph there by uh after asking for specific examples it may be that we could revise the text again or test some of it what were you
00:40:47 again or test some of it what were you seeking to what message were you telling the difficult developer there who would read this message um that wasn't for the developer that was clear to me just asking mr evans what's going what if if
00:40:58 asking mr evans what's going what if if right
00:41:02 and what did you mean by revise the text was that revise the text of adb adb yes and what do you have in mind by by suggesting a revision to bring it in line with
00:41:12 line with option one or what
00:41:15 what right this doesn't include a proposal to say i'm just saying is this we just i'm probably because i knew that was about to start review of adb i was probably asking him if there was something we should take
00:41:27 there was something we should take account of in drafting it
00:41:37 now just just help us what was the answer to mr evans question in the final paragraph would a cladding finish with a class naught rating
00:41:48 naught rating but which was not a material of limited combustibility meet
00:41:52 meet the guidance in approved document b um
00:41:57 um as i've said before my view is is that if
00:42:00 if it was a solid panel a homogeneous panel that was class naught then it would in my view meet the objective um but if it was something which had
00:42:12 it was something which had layers in it such as a composite panel then you want to consider the um the core of that panel
00:42:21 so in june 2015 just so i'm clear about this did the limited combustibility criteria in 12.7 apply to the whole of an external cladding panel including any finish
00:42:32 cladding panel including any finish uh
00:42:33 uh or not
00:42:35 or not i think not is the answer isn't it yes it's the same answer same answer
00:42:48 before you sent this answer to mr evans email on the 16th of june had you shared his email or discussed any part of it with anybody in the department no
00:42:59 no why is that
00:43:02 it's a it's a routine email um and certainly at that time there was no one else in the team that had any interest in fire safety so um
00:43:12 um i'm not sure there's anyone i could have shared it with that would help much
00:43:22 you if you go back to the email please at the top of the screen you say that the overarching objective is that the external envelope of a building should not provide a medium for fire spread and
00:43:33 not provide a medium for fire spread and this is particularly important for a block of flats people do sometimes try to play games with definitions and where this happens one should refer back to the objective and what people had sometimes tried to as you put it play games with
00:43:44 as you put it play games with definitions
00:43:48 my experience as a building control officer is is um
00:43:52 um people play games with definitions but the overarching objective as you describe it is in fact the section um that evans had quoted to you from paragraph 12.5 isn't it
00:44:06 yes yes and and that particular section is simply a reiteration of the principle yes
00:44:17 yes yes and we've covered that before the outcome which the functional requirement in b4 is intended to achieve is reflected in 12.5 isn't it
00:44:30 yes that's the objective yes but that's not the guidance as to how to achieve the objective it's the end point that you have to arrive at isn't it yes i think that's the point i'm trying to make in that first paragraph is that
00:44:42 to make in that first paragraph is that that's the thing that you should con that you should have in your head when you're
00:44:46 you're looking at a particular aspect of the design of a building well indeed and my question to you is do you accept that simply referring back to the objective the end point the
00:44:57 to the objective the end point the outcome was no answer to mr evan's specific question as to the meaning of how to get there and the interaction of these parts of the approved document is it i think it's demonstrated they knew how
00:45:08 i think it's demonstrated they knew how to do that and just um i i would say i was trying to be supportive in saying that you should focus on the objective so if that's what he's doing that's a good thing
00:45:19 he's doing that's a good thing well he's right i'm just trying to understand this um i know this sounds a little simplistic but you understood i think at the time that there was a difference between
00:45:31 difference between the the destination which is
00:45:34 which is satisfying the functional requirement on the one hand and the routes to the destination yes
00:45:42 yes yes and what we were being asked about is
00:45:45 is what is the route to the destination not what is the destination yes
00:45:57 and the point i'm making is if there's any uncertainty about the route to the destination ask yourself from first principles do you think you're getting to the destination that's the point i think i've tried to make for the last week
00:46:09 i've tried to make for the last week well i mean that's great respect circular isn't it it's like saying there are two routes to london the a21 and the a23 i'd like to understand the difference between them you don't answer that question by saying well you've got to end up in london
00:46:25 and it's a simple i'm not sure if that an
00:46:29 all right what definitions did you mean that people sometimes try to play games with um
00:46:37 um my time as a building control officer and and
00:46:40 and and my experience of building regulations is is that it's a um across the across the board of building regulations is you often get problems with designers or that
00:46:51 problems with designers or that um
00:46:52 um trying to do something that the regulations are designed to stop them doing building control officers often find people throwing
00:46:59 throwing um
00:47:02 you know trying to play games with the language rather than focusing on designing a safe building what language in approved document be 12.7 did you
00:47:14 in approved document be 12.7 did you think people were playing games with people play games of nearly all of it from my experience but did you have you come across instances of people playing games with the word filler or filler material or the word etc not personally because i
00:47:26 the word etc not personally because i hadn't been a building control officer since then texts had been drafted
00:47:34 and indeed i think would you accept that it was the very lack of a definition of the word filler or for the material that had led to the problem in the first place
00:47:43 place possibly but you could well find we'd have written a definition and people have played games with that that's the problem with definitions
00:47:51 and let's go to
00:47:56 um looking at paragraph three which i've read to you which is the the edge story
00:48:03 story um i should ask you first of all i'm assuming you're referring to the edge incident in that paragraph yes
00:48:15 where had you learnt
00:48:19 learnt these facts about the edge what did you read about it to be clear just to help you i showed you i think um three reports or two sorry two reports about the edge fire and then the
00:48:31 reports about the edge fire and then the nhbc filler response to the consultation where had you got just to remind you of those things but where had you got this
00:48:40 this text from about what had happened to the edge well this was from memory uh and it's incorrect i think
00:48:49 my memory was is that the designers had actually considered that the the core of the sandwich panels that had been used on the edge wasn't insulation
00:49:01 wasn't insulation when i think in fact it was conjecture on behalf of my colleagues at the time bre that that could have been what happened did you receive a response from mr evans to your responsive email
00:49:12 from mr evans to your responsive email to him i don't know did you follow it up with him uh i doubt it why do you doubt it oh you didn't i don't think we don't have a record of it but right um
00:49:23 but right um right as i say we get dozens of emails like this and you try and be as helpful as you can but
00:49:33 but you know
00:49:35 i think from the time i started in the department um i remember i think the the the header division at the time i think was shona dunn
00:49:45 dunn and
00:49:47 and the team had shrunk quite considerably over the years and she was concerned that the team was spending too much time assisting people with general inquiries and so we we've
00:49:59 and so we we've been encouraged to spend less time on general inquiries and focus more of our time on the project work that we were doing so i think that become the way so we were
00:50:11 that become the way so we were as a matter of routine tended not to put a lot of time and effort into dealing with
00:50:16 with general inquiries like this now let's go up the chain to page three
00:50:26 uh what's going on sorry i'm so sorry forgive me um
00:50:37 uh yes i'm so sorry it's page two i apologize page two and you can see um that steve evans sends the email that you sent him to john lewis
00:50:48 john lewis uh on the 17th of june uh he says john not a very clear answer indeed not an answer at all regards steve evans you see that yes and
00:50:59 yes and then if you go up
00:51:04 to the top
00:51:07 john lewis at the bottom of page one says yes a clearer answer would have helped
00:51:11 helped and then he interprets the response are you surprised to hear that the nhbc considered your response to be unsatisfactory yes i mean i knew them quite well they
00:51:22 yes i mean i knew them quite well they could have contacted me and if they wanted i mean my email asks them some questions so i'm clearly inviting them to come back to me if they felt it was necessary and so i'm surprised they didn't um
00:51:33 didn't um didn't do that well why are you surprised they didn't do that given that this was your um
00:51:41 um non-non-formal steer
00:51:46 well i'm surprised they didn't do that given the email i'm now looking at from john lewis um and and mr evans well
00:51:56 well you're surprised given that it was as you as you've told us your position not to not as an official to offer any view about the about the meaning of or content of adb
00:52:12 um i've invited them to reply and they've chosen not to um despite the fact that they're not happy with the response reply um
00:52:24 but looking at this they've decided to do something else i mean mr evans is right isn't he in fact this isn't an answer at all it it it's just a a a lot of
00:52:36 a lot of rather vague story-based experiences um it's an indirect answer because as i say that's
00:52:42 that's what we were encouraged to to use where where where we could um because we weren't meant to be telling building control bodies what to do not directly um i think
00:52:54 directly um i think that
00:52:55 that looking back at that email it's probably more unhelpful than i think i would have intended
00:53:05 but these are these are capable people if they wanted more help they could have asked for it i think it's right that after june 2015 you had no further contact with steve evans or john lewis in relation to this
00:53:16 evans or john lewis in relation to this query
00:53:17 query or the specific subject of the meaning of the guidance in 12.7 i think that's right
00:53:26 and let's move on then to
00:53:31 the um the second edition issue one as it's called of uh bca technical guidance note 18
00:53:37 note 18 um in june 2015 which i think you deal with your in your statement can we turn to that please at page 47
00:53:47 paragraph 134
00:53:53 and what you say in paragon three four uh it's quite long because it goes over the page but but can we summarize it um you say that the note was issued in june 2015 and included option four
00:54:05 2015 and included option four which was the holistic fire engineering approach
00:54:08 approach yes
00:54:09 yes and if we turn the page you can i think you can see that yes let's do that yes thank you
00:54:14 thank you uh and you then as you can see set out the section of approved document beyond which the option was based now you don't say anywhere in your statement whether you read technical guidance note 18 issue one june 2015 at
00:54:26 guidance note 18 issue one june 2015 at the time
00:54:27 the time did you do you think
00:54:31 i would have thought so right do you remember when you first read it no
00:54:35 no it was sent to richard harrell at the time so
00:54:39 time so can we take it that it was it was about that time june 2015 or so probably i i don't remember do you remember why it was updated
00:54:50 no did you not want to know
00:54:56 um i i don't know very much recollection of it to be honest um i i think i remember seeing the fact that they'd introduced um the additional
00:55:07 that they'd introduced um the additional option which was fire safety engineering which
00:55:09 which um was a valid point because that's always an option yeah indeed and it always i think it had been in the in adb for well a long time a long time yes but you weren't interested to know why
00:55:21 but you weren't interested to know why only a year after the first edition the second edition was coming out
00:55:30 not at the time i don't think so can you explain why that is given the importance that you appear to play have placed on the on this document the previous year in carrying
00:55:41 previous year in carrying a message which you were happy with but didn't feel the department that could uh circulate itself why were you interested in seeing exactly what it was that had changed my
00:55:53 exactly what it was that had changed my recollection is the only fundamental change was the introduction of the fire safety engineering option
00:56:00 right then let's see how we go with my questions um can we please look at the
00:56:07 at the two editions side by side i'd like
00:56:11 cel403070 play please page two which is the june 2014 issue naught first edition of technical guidance note
00:56:23 first edition of technical guidance note 18.
00:56:25 18. and at the same time please page two of nhb402440
00:56:43 so on the left hand side or right hand side is the case may be cell403070 page two and nhb402440
00:56:55 and nhb402440 h2
00:57:14 that's not it
00:57:29 right um there is a a problem i'm afraid um
00:57:33 um i don't know why that was the case
00:57:52 um
00:57:57 mr chairman something has gone quite seriously wrong with a reference and i need the reference it might be inappropriate maybe to take the break well it would help you out but if we
00:58:08 well it would help you out but if we gave you a bit of time though yes well it would yes it would i could i could speed things up i'm sure we've only been going for an hour and i'm conscious of that but i need the document and for reasons i'm not sure i understand i don't have the reference
00:58:19 understand i don't have the reference right
00:58:20 right well then we probably ought to take the break at this point um mr martian something has uh gone slightly wrong with mr miller's references so i think we'll give him a chance to sort it out we'll take the
00:58:32 chance to sort it out we'll take the break now
00:58:33 break now uh we'll come back please at half past three
00:58:36 three and uh usual uh usual orders don't speak to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to anyone in the room please all right yes sir
00:58:46 sir thank you very much would you go to the usher then please
00:58:57 well all right mr miller three and uh i hope you can sort it out in the middle and we will be able to i'm sure it's my fault entirely but thank you i'm grateful
01:16:39 yes mr millet now have you managed to solve your problem with the references mr chairman i have i'm glad to say uh and we can then i think have the
01:16:50 uh and we can then i think have the witness back i i was i just as i was close but no cigar never mind another occasion perhaps can we please have the word bring mr marshall please thank you
01:17:13 all right mr martian yes sir i think mr militz got his uh references sorted out so if you're ready to go on i'll ask him to continue yes thank you very much mr chairman mr martin what i
01:17:24 very much mr chairman mr martin what i wanted to show you was the two technical guidance notes side by side and i'd always succeeded but let's try it again can we please have cel403070
01:17:35 page two and page two of cel402440
01:17:42 on the screen
01:18:04 now um here they come that's right yes thank you now can we please have page two of each
01:18:16 right thank you now on the left hand side
01:18:23 you can see the 2014 version which has three options and on the right hand side the 2015 version which has four options and what i want to do is to compare and contrast
01:18:33 contrast a little part please of option three now on the left hand side and just after halfway down page two option three says if no actual third test data exists for
01:18:46 if no actual third test data exists for a particular system the client may instead submit a desktop study report from a suitable independent ucas accredited testing body brackets bre chilton fire or warrington fire stating whether in their opinion br 135 criteria
01:18:59 whether in their opinion br 135 criteria would be met with the proposed system that was the 2014 version that you were happy with you told us now if we look at the right hand side of the screen under option three it now says if
01:19:12 screen under option three it now says if no actual fire test data exists for a particular system the client may instead submit a desktop study report from a suitably qualified fire specialist stating whether in their opinion br135
01:19:23 stating whether in their opinion br135 criteria would be met with the proposed system
01:19:26 system the report should be supported by test data from a suitable independent ucas accredited testing body bre chilton fire or warrington fire so you can see
01:19:37 fire or warrington fire so you can see that
01:19:38 that there's a difference can't you yes yes and the difference is that the suitable independent ucas accredited testing body was bre chilton fire or warrington fire
01:19:49 was bre chilton fire or warrington fire but that's been replaced by a suitably qualified fire specialist so the opinion is now to come only for simply from a suitably qualified fire specialist and not from a suitable independent ucas accredited
01:20:00 suitable independent ucas accredited testing body bre chilton fire or warrington fire yes yes yes
01:20:07 and the reference to um bre chilton fire or warrington fire has now been moved down so that it only qualifies the source of the test data now my question having had rather a long
01:20:19 now my question having had rather a long run up to it which i apologize is did you notice that difference in wording of option three
01:20:26 three in 2015
01:20:28 in 2015 when you saw issue one
01:20:39 and i'm aware of the change but i can't remember precisely when when i spotted it i may have may have picked up on it at the time um but i can't be 100 certain right do you remember having any thoughts or
01:20:51 remember having any thoughts or questions in your own mind about what might constitute a suitably qualified fire specialist
01:21:11 i i recognize the problem they've got in in in that there isn't a convenient um
01:21:19 um way of describing a person suitable for this job um
01:21:26 um so i can see why they've used that language
01:21:29 language um and probably thought that was reasonable at the time if if i did pick it up at the time which i think i may have done but i'm not sure right was there any definition of a suitably qualified spy fire specialist either in
01:21:40 qualified spy fire specialist either in the building regulations or approve document b or or elsewhere um
01:21:45 um no i mean that's one of the challenges that you have with this is is that um
01:21:52 there isn't a convenient um
01:21:55 um sort of bad jaw or certificate you can point at um
01:22:01 in my own mind i'd be thinking of somebody that that that does this that has the right sort of familiarity with this kind of work so
01:22:10 so most of those people at that time would have worked at one of the ucas labs but i was aware
01:22:21 there's an organization called international fire consultants which had done
01:22:29 a fair bit of assessments in lieu of tests
01:22:34 tests over the years and they had a number of people working for that organization which had the right kind of experience they'd had a lot they'd had a background in fire testing and and understood
01:22:46 and and understood um
01:22:47 um the way materials behaved and so on so um
01:22:51 um i suspect it might have been a ifc or somebody like that um that said to them hang on a minute the way this is drafted you're excluding us from this from this work um
01:23:01 work um which i know had happened in the past on on some other um similar documents i think um the association of specialists it was even no i think it was the passive fire
01:23:13 even no i think it was the passive fire protection federation um had um
01:23:18 um for some years had a document which talked about um assessments in lieu of tests
01:23:24 tests and i think they did the same problem in trying to identify the the level of competence required to do an assessment
01:23:31 what level of competence or experience did you think at the time would be required
01:23:36 required to produce a reliable and robust desktop report
01:23:43 i think with any assessment and you need somebody that has a good experience of um fire testing in general and the fire test in particular
01:23:54 test in particular and i think that's essentially what the pacifier protection federation guide says
01:24:03 the
01:24:05 accredited testing bodies bre chilton fire warrington via fire if they'd done the tests of course would have wouldn't they
01:24:13 they uh
01:24:14 uh the uh knowledge of the test itself and the and what it showed um yes yes and particularly things like mechanical failure which might not show
01:24:25 mechanical failure which might not show up in the past fail yes yeah i mean you you couldn't you if you were doing an assessment you'd need to look at the you shouldn't just be looking at a classification report you'd need the
01:24:37 classification report you'd need the the data from the from the tests that you're using in your assessments
01:24:46 so whilst that might work fine for us
01:24:50 us independent ucas accredited testing body bre chilton fire or warrington fire did you have any concerns at the time that that requirement had been downgraded or widened perhaps is a better word
01:25:02 widened perhaps is a better word from suit to suitably qualified far specialist in circumstances where putting your finger on who was suitably qualified
01:25:10 qualified was something of an uncertain endeavor
01:25:16 i don't think i was concerned about it at the time um as i say i i knew it had been a topic of debate before because of the fact that there was at least one there might have been
01:25:29 was at least one there might have been two organizations that did this kind of work and to be fair to them they were um
01:25:35 um competent and that the issue with issuing an assessment and it's a it's a duty that falls on somebody as a professional is that um you should only do work you know that
01:25:46 um you should only do work you know that you're competent to do yes we go to your uh statement all right please uh page 45 of your
01:25:58 all right please uh page 45 of your statement um paragraph one two seven
01:26:04 uh you say uh there um and you've set out option three in terms and you can see that there's a footnote 83 next to warrington fire if we go to the footnate
01:26:15 warrington fire if we go to the footnate at the bottom of page 45 you can see that you say this if we scroll to it scroll down to the page to the bottom of the page you say under footnote 83 br
01:26:25 br bre chilton fire and warrington fire are highly reputable and i was pleased to see reference to them in the 2014 bca guidance note did you notice that the 2015 bca
01:26:37 did you notice that the 2015 bca guidance note had removed those references and replaced them with the generic description i think you'd you say you might have done but can't recall i i can't be certain um i i don't if if i did pick up on it i didn't think i
01:26:49 i did pick up on it i didn't think i don't think i thought it was that significant do you agree that the effect of that removal at least and the substitution um with the word suitably qualified fire specialist in the 2015 version
01:27:00 specialist in the 2015 version in place of bre chilton and warrington as in the 2014 version significantly widened the pool of potential authors of desktop studies did you at least spot that at the time
01:27:20 i might have done i'm sorry i can't i can't remember this distinctly it clearly it does yes
01:27:26 yes and i think you'd been told to correct me if i'm wrong but we get this from your statement of paragraph 131 but you'd been told by steve evans in april 2015 that the nhbc were
01:27:37 in april 2015 that the nhbc were receiving at that time submissions from builders mainly following option three you remember that i can show you yes were you aware in 2015 or any time after
01:27:48 were you aware in 2015 or any time after that time that according to steve evans the purpose of this particular amendment to the bca note in 2015 was specifically to increase the pool of people who could
01:28:00 increase the pool of people who could produce desktop reports because those test houses bre chilton fire and warrington fire had capacity problems i don't think i was aware of that
01:28:17 were you aware that the bre had told nhbc in november 2014 that there was a problem an issue dealing with the volume of option three requests
01:28:29 option three requests and only three testing houses to deal with them
01:28:31 with them and the labc had also had similar feedback
01:28:35 feedback now aware of that no i wasn't
01:28:39 and did anybody at the bre mentioned that to you no did you have any and any awareness during the period between june 2014 and june
01:28:50 june 2017 the three-year period about how frequently option three desktop reports were being sought by developers or building owners uh or produced by so-called suitably qualified
01:29:02 so-called suitably qualified fire specialists no i think it's it's as i said that the building rigs policy team didn't have a mechanism for monitoring what was happening in the industry so i wouldn't have known d have you any awareness of
01:29:15 have known d have you any awareness of even roughly how many desktop reports or combined option three stroke option four reports were issued in that period do you know roughly did you ever make any inquiries no
01:29:26 no what is that um
01:29:31 i wouldn't have had reason to
01:29:34 well might you not have had reason to i mean wouldn't the fact that developers were
01:29:42 were because of difficulties following the bca guidance option one which was tight as
01:29:47 as and tighter than adb have had good reason to revert that to option three because uh it was easier to do uh in order to get a combustible
01:29:58 uh in order to get a combustible insulation or other product onto a high-rise building now we as i say we didn't actively um interrogate what
01:30:09 we didn't actively um interrogate what was happening in the industry that's not how the division was structured to operate
01:30:17 before june 2015 when the revision to the bca guidance note was published were you aware of any concerns over the quality of any desktop reports
01:30:33 um there was um i can't remember what point in time it was but there was a point in time when when i'd spoken to a building control officer who was concerned that um some of the quality of some of these
01:30:45 some of the quality of some of these um assessments wasn't as good as he thought they should be um
01:30:50 um and that's something i did eventually um raised with nhbc when was that i i i imagine you probably know better than i do um
01:30:59 do um it um but
01:31:00 it um but they asked me to speak at a seminar and um i raised it with them then
01:31:10 are you thinking of the july 2016 seminar an hbc seminar probably yes something else yeah sorry um
01:31:22 um it's a very long time period and and um my memory for dates is not good at the best of times no i understand all right well we'll only ask you because we will come back to that yes are you aware that janet murrell
01:31:35 are you aware that janet murrell of x over has told the inquiry in her witness statement that she falsified an aspect of the desktop reports published by xover by declaring on the face of 15 of her reports that
01:31:48 on the face of 15 of her reports that each had been peer reviewed or approved by named xova employees who had not in fact carried out any review of such review or approval and weren't qualified to do so
01:31:59 to do so i wasn't aware of that now
01:32:08 was there any regulation or informal oversight of the practice of option three desktop assessments at any time
01:32:18 any time um
01:32:19 um no and the the whole system of if you can call it a system of classification of products is essentially industry driven and always has been
01:32:34 the practice industry driven as you say it was was not regulated in any way was it
01:32:41 it um essentially it was self-regulated i suppose um i think originally it was um the practice of assessments um was something which had developed um
01:32:53 was something which had developed um initially amongst the test laboratories in the uk
01:32:57 in the uk um
01:32:58 um by um
01:33:00 by um a group they called i think it was the fire test study group so um the five test laboratories in the uk they're less now than they used to be and they were probably about five of them
01:33:10 them um
01:33:11 um they um
01:33:14 they um worked together to ensure that they were applying the relevant test standards consistently and they developed a code of practice for assessments
01:33:25 for assessments and
01:33:26 and i think as a result of the introduction of the construction products directive they found that difficult to do because um they became part of the european test
01:33:40 um they became part of the european test world which was um sort of regulated in a different way so that sort of best practice guidance for assessments was handed over to the pacifier protection federation right i
01:33:53 pacifier protection federation right i see sorry that's a long history but no it's helpful are you referring to i'm going to show you something and just see if we can put it down can we look at bca6070 please
01:34:09 yes that's it thank you that dates i think from 2000 doesn't it um that would make sense yes um where did you first become aware of the existence of this document um well as i say it used to be um the
01:34:21 um well as i say it used to be um the fire test study groups document and then got passed on to the pfpf so it's been around
01:34:28 around um
01:34:30 um as long as as long as i've been involved in building control and and i imagine it's probably its history is probably well back into the 1970s for all i know right i don't know when it when it was first drafted
01:34:44 did you ever have a conversation with nhbc
01:34:46 nhbc about whether the desktops coming to them through option three had been assessed in accordance with this guide or any later emanation of it
01:34:57 or any later emanation of it i don't think i had that conversation i may well have presumed that right now before i move on i want to just want to ask you about something else that janet murrell said in her statement she says that you were a member of the
01:35:08 she says that you were a member of the warrington certification impartiality committee that's what she says in um in on page five in paragraph d we can see it if you like but that that is essentially now it's a fact
01:35:19 essentially now it's a fact right when did you sit on that committee um very rarely so um the way that i inherited that from um i think mr bird had had that um role when
01:35:31 think mr bird had had that um role when he was in the the part b post and i imagine somebody's been doing that for a while
01:35:35 while um
01:35:37 um the certification companies um have to meet
01:35:41 meet you've probably got the references there's a european uh an iso standard um for certification companies um
01:35:49 um and i think there are a number of different ways that they need to show ucas that they are
01:35:57 acting impartially and
01:36:01 and the way warrington was constituted they had this committee
01:36:09 committee of it's a cross-section of people from industry um that would talk about the different um
01:36:17 um certification schemes that ucas that um that warrington were running and
01:36:24 and i was i was my name was on the list i think i probably only attended three or four meetings because they tended to clash with other things i needed to do when i did go to them it was a useful
01:36:36 when i did go to them it was a useful place to meet other meet people from the sector
01:36:40 sector um which period um or in which period did you sit on that committee
01:36:48 i think it was probably listed on there all the time i was in in the posters of policy league for part b but i i can't say for certain it was to say i didn't go to many meetings because um they tended to clash with
01:37:00 because um they tended to clash with other things and uh
01:37:04 and uh it's called the certification impartiality committee does that involve signing product certificates or overseeing the signing of products no it's it's um it's specifically about this the certification schemes not
01:37:16 this the certification schemes not specific certificates were you remunerated for that role no were you a member of any other such similar committees in other private organizations such as the bre or chilton fire or be the bba no i say it's
01:37:28 fire or be the bba no i say it's something i inherited i think there were a couple of times when i talked about withdrawing from it that the problem was is that the way warrington certification was um
01:37:39 warrington certification was um and constituted is
01:37:42 is um without the committee they couldn't operate as a certification body um and it
01:37:48 it they were an important certification body in the industry and i saw it as um when i could go to the meetings an opportunity to
01:37:58 see what was going on um by meeting other members of the um sort of construction industry um and learning a bit about warrington did as a certification body it didn't really
01:38:09 certification body it didn't really carry any great responsibility um they present different schemes to us and talk through the approach they were taking to different schemes and how is sitting on
01:38:20 sitting on a a committee ironically one entitled an impartiality committee itself consistent with your own impartial impartiality of as one of
01:38:31 impartial impartiality of as one of government's public servants i thought was entirely consistent with it how come um
01:38:44 because it was helping the industry operate
01:38:47 operate appropriately but warrington uh
01:38:50 uh xava was a is this right it was not a government department or um
01:38:56 um a public body it was a private organization wasn't it yeah i mean the way certification bodies are constituted that um
01:39:07 i can't remember the exact phraseology but they are set up to to some extent for the for the common good um i i can't remember the exact phrasing of the terms they use but
01:39:18 they use but right i didn't i didn't see it as a as a conflict i mean it's certainly something i think i'd discussed for somebody um must have been mr harrell maybe um about whether whether
01:39:29 whether whether i had time to stay to
01:39:32 to be involved and whether i should withdraw but i think warrington had a lot of problem getting people to turn up to the meeting so where i could i did go um i i don't think it was in conflict with
01:39:44 i don't think it was in conflict with my role as a public servant did you ever think about the question how is membership of an impartiality committee of only one of the major market participants the others
01:39:55 the others being bre or chilton fire or bba
01:40:00 or bba or
01:40:01 or others um consistent with your obligations of the highest standards of impartiality and property expected of a government servant did you ever ask yourself that question
01:40:14 um i i didn't say there was any question of the property about it um i think i did ask myself is it okay to only support one of them but the others i think they're
01:40:26 but the others i think they're constituted differently and didn't have a similar group and so it didn't cause them a problem um but if if all of them had asked me to to join i think i would have had to have withdrawal from the warrington one and
01:40:39 withdrawal from the warrington one and i think in the end i did withdraw from it i can't remember now um
01:40:44 but i i didn't there wasn't a question of probity there um it was just and they needed some independent observers to
01:40:56 review their schemes definitely not their certificates we never looked a specific product
01:41:03 product now i'd like to turn to january 2016 and
01:41:08 and start with the fire at the address downtown in dubai that happened on new year's eve 2015 31st december now you'll remember that the address downtown in dubai was a 63-storey hotel
01:41:21 downtown in dubai was a 63-storey hotel wasn't it
01:41:22 wasn't it um i don't remember but i remember it being a tall building yes right well let's look at the correspondence that there was within the department about it
01:41:33 hom3043106 please
01:41:39 and can we go to the bottom of the chain and there at the bottom of the chain which i think if we can have it expanded would be
01:41:46 would be helpful uh it is an email from bob ledson to you copy to richard harrow on the 4th of january 2016 at 08 54 in the morning uh brian anything we need to be aware of
01:41:57 uh brian anything we need to be aware of stroke worry about for part b bob see that yes and your response just up the screen up the page at 9 19
01:42:08 copying in others including richard harrell and louise upton
01:42:14 upton is as follows might get some questions raised nothing new here the fire is most likely to be similar to several others that have hit dubai over the last couple of years it relates to a
01:42:25 the last couple of years it relates to a cladding product which is a laminate of aluminium and polyethylene or similar this stuff is very rigid and makes nice shiny buildings now did you have any knowledge when you sent that email about whether or not acm
01:42:37 sent that email about whether or not acm polyethylene panels polyethylene cord panels have been installed on any high rises in england and wales at the time
01:42:47 i didn't know that any been installed in england no did you suspect that some might have done not least given the reference to them in the 2nd of july 2014 cwct meeting minute
01:43:09 i don't think so i i don't remember thinking that at the time
01:43:13 time now
01:43:15 now by january 2016 and following that meeting in july 2014 had you taken any steps to find out anything about the way in which acm panels with a pe core might be being
01:43:28 acm panels with a pe core might be being used in the uk specifically england and wales no
01:43:37 if we continue with your email it says this sadly when it gets exposed to a fire the aluminium melts away and exposes the polyethylene core whoosh
01:43:50 now the whoosh there is that a that's another remark or observation about as you might have called in the past the awesome power of such fires which is i think how you described the tam wheel tower
01:44:00 tower in dubai in november 2012. yeah i think this is obviously a shorthand for saying that the put polyethylene um once it gets exposed um acts as a mechanism of fire spread um
01:44:13 acts as a mechanism of fire spread um it's not a term i would have used publicly of course no but it's it's graphic enough yes and certainly clear enough now going back to your email you say this requirement b41 is designed to prevent this kind of
01:44:24 is designed to prevent this kind of thing
01:44:25 thing para 12.7 says in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level any insulation product filler material not including gaskets sealants and similar used in the external wall construction should be of limited
01:44:36 construction should be of limited combustibility and then you say this the polyethylene core of the offending product would be considered as a filler material so should not be used over 18
01:44:48 material so should not be used over 18 meters
01:44:50 meters by whom would the pe core of the offending product as you put it be considered as you put it as a filler material
01:45:01 it as a filler material um well by then we did conversations with cwct and the building control alliance and as far as i was aware everyone understood that was what what it was intended to
01:45:12 it was intended to to me so
01:45:13 to me so when you say would be considered you mean by everybody
01:45:20 universally considered i think at that time i thought it was yes
01:45:27 did you not at this point though recall steve evans lengthy email of
01:45:32 email of the 15th of june 2016 and his reference in there to a difference of interpretation across the industry and his request for an opinion or steer
01:45:41 or steer on the meaning and scope of 12.7
01:45:46 uh what was the date of mr evan's email sorry
01:45:49 sorry 15th of june 2015. thank you
01:45:53 thank you six months before
01:45:59 because it wasn't at the forefront of my mind at the time six months had gone by
01:46:05 instead of um pinging back 25 minutes later with your response did you take the care to dig into your emails and look back at the earlier exchanges six months
01:46:17 at the earlier exchanges six months previous and seek to
01:46:20 seek to find out what question it was that steve evans had asked you then and your response to him um
01:46:27 um no i mean six months worth of emails is a lot of emails um i i don't know why i would have i don't think i'd have been able to do that well
01:46:39 that well would you not have been able to think i think i had a conversation about 12.7 with somebody in the summer of last year or thereabouts and put 12.7 into your
01:46:50 or thereabouts and put 12.7 into your search or steve evans or nhbc into your search and throw something up along those lines i suppose i could have done but it didn't occur to me at the time
01:47:12 you now i think had knowledge of quite a history of fires in the region uae 2012 and 13. you had lacrosse in 2014 you had the torch
01:47:25 2014 you had the torch in 2015 and now at the end of 2015 you've got another acmp called fire at the address downtown dubai this is now
01:47:38 downtown dubai this is now a a a history of repeat experiences and you're being asked about it by your your boss's boss did you not think it worth just digging
01:47:49 did you not think it worth just digging into your own emails and looking back at perhaps the correspondence you had with mr evans or something in your own archive to see what best information you could give him
01:48:06 no clearly i i probably answered this quite quickly um
01:48:14 and that's probably as much detail as as i would normally expect mr ledson to want why did you answer it quite quickly
01:48:30 i don't know my boss asked me a question so i tried to respond quickly to it i think that's probably just i i don't think there was anything in that i feel bound to put this to you miss mr martin but we've seen a lot of
01:48:43 martin but we've seen a lot of your emails in the period from 2013 where you're asked questions particularly questions about adb 12.7 and almost without exception
01:48:54 and almost without exception they are
01:48:55 they are responses which come back within a matter of minutes and a short and don't bear the hallmarks of any consideration or any research
01:49:06 consideration or any research now that's a as a generalization but is it a fair generalization of of the way you worked i can see why you think that um i think um
01:49:21 most of my time would be focused on whichever project i was working on at the time um although to be fair i think at this point we were in that we were in the
01:49:29 the um
01:49:31 um this is post the 2015 election so we were um struggling to get anything done at the time um so perhaps at this time i could have spent more time on it
01:49:43 spent more time on it now we know and i don't want to go overall ground at all but we know that the lack of clarity in 12.7 was brought to your attention in the minute of the second of july 2014 meeting
01:49:54 second of july 2014 meeting and we know because we've seen the lengthy email sent to you in mid-2015 from steve evans that there was an unresolved controversy in the construction industry about the interpretation of 12.7
01:50:05 interpretation of 12.7 and we've also seen that you never gave him a final final firm position about the government stand on that
01:50:14 that's right
01:50:19 what had happened between in between the six months between june 2015 and early january 2016 for you to be confident that your interpretation of the word
01:50:30 that your interpretation of the word filler or filler material in 12.7 was now settled and accepted in the uk construction industry
01:50:47 i guess it's because we've had those conversations with cwct and the building control alliance so i thought that had been disseminated through building control well house builders through nhbc
01:50:59 house builders through nhbc and the cwct were passing the message on to the cladding industry so i i
01:51:07 i i thought that that was a well understood point
01:51:10 point but you had been told by mr evans in june 2015 that it wasn't a well understood point because you still had the difficult developer
01:51:19 developer standing on adb
01:51:23 standing on is that that's i didn't take it as that at that time but it says so it said so in terms it says there is the difference of opinion across the industry
01:51:34 across the industry now as we
01:51:35 now as we explored before that mr evans was telling you the truth about that then there'd been nothing had there to have occurred between the june of 2015 and the early january of 2016 to
01:51:47 2015 and the early january of 2016 to resolve that cont that industrial controversy say that a universal understanding of the word filler uh was now held by the industry now i think i probably should have said to mr ledson that
01:51:59 should have said to mr ledson that there's some there's some disagreement over this um and i regret that i didn't do it why didn't you do that i don't know moving up the chain we can see if we go
01:52:10 moving up the chain we can see if we go up uh that louise up and then emails you can we please scroll up uh to the top she says thanks brian but from the uh news reports are four news reports i
01:52:23 uh news reports are four news reports i think it is i heard it seems there was no fire detection stroke alarms or sprinklers fitted or working could that be right to fit it rather than the working bit will pop up when you are in and you'll reply if you scroll up
01:52:36 and you'll reply if you scroll up further than that which is the top email in the chain i'm in and this is three minutes later i'm in i heard bad things from people about the quality of maintenance in these buildings in dubai big buildings need to be looked after properly it
01:52:48 need to be looked after properly it might be that the sprinklers were overrun if the cladding was on fire then the sprinklers wouldn't be able to get at it you'd then get multiple secondary fires all over the building the sprinklers can only handle one fire at a time so game over
01:52:59 time so game over b
01:53:01 b uh what does the quality of maintenance have to do with the straightforward and clear risk posed by the installation of polyethylene called aluminium composite material on the outside of a tall building
01:53:12 building she's asking me about the fire detection and sprinkler system and whether they were working or not and that's the point i'm making is is that um
01:53:21 i'd spoken to um some uk engineers that done some work in in the uae uh and they'd experience problems with main
01:53:33 they'd experience problems with main maintenance of fire protection systems over there um and i'm just relying it's it's rumor and hearsay it's not a fact
01:53:43 fact and that's why i'm saying it might not be that there were no sprinklers other sprinklers weren't maintained it might be that this the sprinklers have been overrun and then i described what they said it's a term that's used in sprinkler right well to describe a fire
01:53:57 sprinkler right well to describe a fire which gets bigger than the sprinkler system can handle before the sprinkler system is able to control it does one take from this exchange between you and ms upton a rather more fundamental point which is
01:54:08 a rather more fundamental point which is that if you are going to use aluminium pe core
01:54:11 pe core panels on a tall building at all
01:54:16 at all then you are going to have to have a very
01:54:19 very uh
01:54:20 uh serious and well-organized set of redundancies fire protection and prevention measures um so that if there is such a fire uh
01:54:30 uh people can escape easily and there is no loss of life or personal injury or injury to property um
01:54:39 um you might argue that i don't think that's what this these emails are saying we're just talking about the fact that there was a there was a fire and in the news report which is probably inaccurate news reports of fires are usually inaccurate um that suggested
01:54:51 usually inaccurate um that suggested that there was no um fire suppression system and which would be unlikely in dubai that most of the high-rise buildings do have fire suppression systems in them
01:55:03 i think we can take it that at the time of this exchange you hadn't brought the the existence of the
01:55:09 the lack of clarity in twelve point seven to the attention of either richard harrell or bob ledson and you didn't do sugar either as we can see
01:55:18 see no i think um mr harold and i had discussed i think as we spoke about i think yesterday um mr harold
01:55:27 mr harold was that early this morning sorry difficult to remember when i was giving evidence
01:55:33 but i think it might have been another fire in the uae where um mr harold had asked me about this and reviewed the guidance for himself
01:55:47 you didn't i think you've accepted this but just to say that we're completely clear at this time go to either of them and say you should know that there is this
01:55:56 this um
01:55:58 um enduring nagging controversy out there in the industry um in some quarters about what 12.7 means and whether or not it extends to the core of a rain screen panel
01:56:10 of a rain screen panel no i didn't no why did you keep that to yourself and not
01:56:15 and not not escalated i don't know i think i should have done
01:56:23 yes but is there can you can you help us what the reason was why you didn't
01:56:43 i know in particular mr harold was under a lot of pressure at that time um it that might have been the reason but i i'm guessing
01:56:52 what about mr ledson i think they were both for to some extent um they were having a lot of difficulties um
01:57:01 trying to bring the building rig's work program forward um with with the new government um so
01:57:09 so i think they were quite distracted at the time that might be why um i didn't bother bother them with it but i'm i'm guessing i can't remember what was going through my mind on that day
01:57:20 was going through my mind on that day let's move uh further forward into the month of january 2016. i want to ask you now about a conference which was hosted by siderise and the bre on the 13th of january
01:57:32 on the 13th of january 2016 which was entitled facades to tall buildings routes to compliance now
01:57:38 now correct me if i'm wrong about this but i think you did not attend that conference that's correct did you know anything about it at the time no so you weren't aware it was taking place do you know whether any other official from the apartment uh attended
01:57:51 from the apartment uh attended we don't have anything very much doubt it if it was about fire there was no one else in the department that worked on that
01:57:57 that right thank you now there was a q a session during the conference uh and um the inquiry has seen some evidence about that and in particular that a gentleman called nick jenkins of
01:58:08 that a gentleman called nick jenkins of booth murie or euroclad i think it's the one in the same at the time expressed grave concern about the use of acm panels and in particular acm handles with the polyethylene core
01:58:19 handles with the polyethylene core at that conference
01:58:22 and he told the panel the conference panel that is um
01:58:28 um having referred to an ambiguity that in 15 years
01:58:32 15 years of fabricating aluminium composite material panels for supply into the uk market
01:58:38 market his company had only supplied two projects with a2 grade panels did you know that no
01:58:50 now i'm going to show you a little bit of what happened at this conference um can we please go to the uh transcript at inq 3014949
01:59:01 uh transcript at inq 3014949 and i appreciate that you weren't there so i'm not going to ask you questions on the footing that you were but i want to show you what's been what's being said inq 3014949
01:59:13 inq 3014949 page 11 please
01:59:17 and uh he
01:59:21 says i think we probably need the foot of page 10.
01:59:28 page 10. if we go to footer page 10. yes he says
01:59:38 halfway down the screen i think there's a lot of ambiguity at the moment as to what is acceptable as being non-combustible and does the b classification s 1 d naught sit within the required or the limits of what is considered of limited combustibility or
01:59:51 considered of limited combustibility or does it have to be a2 if it's of a2 then it's of a concern because in the past 15 years we've only supplied two projects where the a2 grade material has been used
02:00:03 material has been used so we talk about substitution of materials there's a real concern there that actually perhaps none of the materials supplied in the uk with the exception of two projects to my knowledge actually meet the requirements
02:00:15 knowledge actually meet the requirements of the definition of limited combustibility now then the chair of the panel um
02:00:25 uh then uh if we go to page 12
02:00:30 12 we can see that he directs a question
02:00:37 uh
02:00:42 and he
02:00:48 no i'm sorry we're going to need i think page
02:00:51 page 13 for this
02:01:39 yes and if you go to page 11 stick on page 11 uh you have a question uh
02:01:47 uh from stephen howard if we go to the top of page 11. so your question right the question is whether a euro class b is limited combustibility yeah a bs 1d naught that's not that's
02:01:59 yeah a bs 1d naught that's not that's not limited combustibility and nick says in which case you only have two projects and stephen howard says the other thing to remember is that approved document b is not the regulation approved document b is guidance and there are other means to
02:02:11 guidance and there are other means to demonstrate compliance with the building regs other than approved document b but what i would say is if you take approved document b is the absolute requirement which i caveated then it's limited combustibility for buildings with a story above 18 meters
02:02:23 story above 18 meters and then andrew k asks a question uh if you look at that he says this i mean in view of what the gentleman was outlining there does the panel feel that potentially we are sitting on a time
02:02:34 potentially we are sitting on a time bomb as well as in terms of some of the material the materials that are installed or do we have a level of confidence that the ones that have been installed in the past
02:02:45 that have been installed in the past will perform in a fire anyone want to come back on that one see that
02:02:52 now did you know that that question the question posed by andrew k the chair of the panel was a question the cladding industry was asking itself at the time
02:03:05 no
02:03:08 how come you didn't know that that question was being asked within the industry
02:03:19 and
02:03:22 we didn't have a mechanism to know what was going on in the industry unless some somebody raised some with something with weird
02:03:27 weird that's that's the
02:03:30 what's clearly the fundamental gap in in the way the system was constructed so um
02:03:38 i didn't know that
02:03:47 and would you accept that if there was this uncertainty or controversy within the industry then that made and rattle rendered
02:03:57 rendered the the
02:03:58 the the guidance documents extremely unstable
02:04:08 i'm not sure if i understand what you mean sorry
02:04:13 well andrew k puts it on the basis uh that
02:04:18 that there's a question at least does the panel feel that potentially we are sitting on a time bomb was that not a a a critical question for government to
02:04:29 a a critical question for government to know that was being asked
02:04:35 yes it's clearly a critical point yes
02:04:41 and therefore essential surely for government to have some means of being able to
02:04:48 able to at least know was being asked
02:04:52 well i don't disagree the government should know i i think i mean that's that's as i say that's the the
02:05:00 the 1984 building act was designed to minimize government intervention um our division had shrunk considerably over the years because they
02:05:10 they they didn't want us to interfere with the industry that's why we didn't have any mechanism to know what was going on unless someone brought it to our attention and even then we had quite limited options to do something about it
02:05:22 and then if you go back to the transcript of page 12
02:05:29 you can see steve evans you'd have to ask our builder customers taking that the polyethylene type panel obviously if the building has doesn't have a habitable floor over 80 meters there's no restriction on that nick i understand
02:05:41 no restriction on that nick i understand that but i could name tens of projects that have and then there's over speaking by steve evans but over 18 meters i mean it is there's an anomaly in the approved document if you follow the guidance within the approved documents you are
02:05:52 within the approved documents you are deemed to have met the performance criteria okay so the approved documents if you follow the elemental method if you use a non-combustible insulation material and your external cladding meets diagram 40
02:06:04 your external cladding meets diagram 40 which is a class naught surface spreader flame you're deemed to have complied
02:06:10 just pausing there is that right
02:06:16 it's not entirely right um but
02:06:19 but it's a
02:06:21 it's a shorthand way of explaining what the point is making well it's a dangerously inaccurate shorthand because it conflates compliance with following the linear route with compliance with the functional requirements
02:06:32 requirements it does
02:06:34 it does did you think did you understand at the time that people are senior in the industry
02:06:38 industry nhbc steve evans were using this dangerous shorthand conflating following the linear route in approved document b with meeting the functional requirement no
02:06:52 then he goes on
02:06:55 so there could be instances could be where we have this polythene filled panel on buildings over 18 meters
02:07:06 now just pausing there how come
02:07:09 how come if people had understood your filler to mean core how come
02:07:19 well i think i think we all know that clearly that's what was happening but that's not something that we understood at the time and he goes on but the when we talk to dc we have highlighted this with dclg
02:07:32 dc we have highlighted this with dclg and they're looking at part b at the moment in terms of looking at other areas of the regulations they need to examine and part b is one of those and then he says this we've submitted evidence
02:07:46 to say well actually return the page this is something we've found as the building control industry we're just pausing there is that correct
02:08:00 not sure about the phrase we've submitted evidence and
02:08:05 i guess he's talking about the conversations that that we've had that you've we've been talking around today yeah i don't think it was an evidence document per se that i'm aware of
02:08:20 right so he he isn't correct that he's submitted evidence to the dclg when he says well actually this is something we found as the building control industry [Music]
02:08:31 [Music] we've seen his 15th of june 2015 email uh
02:08:38 uh is there anything else beyond that question that he had asked you about or brought to your attention
02:08:48 not i'm aware of let me read on the when you talk to them it's you know yes you've got a combustible what could be a combustible cladding external cladding
02:08:58 cladding but if you then couple that with a combustible or insulation material which is not a material with limited combustibility actually you are increasing the risk as well
02:09:12 is that i mean you weren't there and these aren't your words but how are we to understand what he's talking about if you are the person he talked to
02:09:24 if you are the person he talked to about this problem i know it's not very clear is it
02:09:34 he then goes on
02:09:42 well let me ask you this was the nhbc in conversation with the department about part b
02:09:48 part b in or shortly before january 2016
02:09:54 not i'm aware of and and if it was about fire there wasn't anyone else so right then if you scroll down to the foot of 13
02:10:03 13 nick says nick jenkins says so to be clear
02:10:06 clear if you have a non-combustible insulation a mineral will insulation of one brand or another in conjunction with a classification of external cladding that has a class naught surface spread of fire
02:10:16 fire that's acceptable under the current regulations question mark it was a ques and it's a question and steven says this it means
02:10:24 it means it would meet the building regulations but as your building control body i would perhaps be talking to you in light of my knowledge because my knowledge is not too bad yeah minimum levels of compliance with
02:10:35 yeah minimum levels of compliance with building regulations but we as an industry should be talking to our customers about that as well and we should be talking to government about that
02:10:42 that and nick then says yeah my personal view is that certainly should that certainly should change because it's you could have exactly in that scenario you could have an exact repeat
02:10:53 have an exact repeat of the due by fire in any number of buildings we supply products to in london
02:10:59 london and to boot many of those will also have a foam-based thermal insulation now were you aware that it was still the view of nhbc in january 2016 that there
02:11:11 view of nhbc in january 2016 that there was an anomaly in the approved document on this matter
02:11:18 no i i thought that they were applying the approved document in the way we intended right
02:11:26 if anything i thought they were applying the building control alliance guidance note so they were applying it more onerously than yes we intended yes indeed yes do you accept looking at what i've shown you the exchange here at this conference
02:11:39 the exchange here at this conference exposes in stark terms the danger posed by the long-running ambiguity or lack of clarity in the relevant guidance yes
02:11:50 yes which you had failed to resolve despite more than two years of discussion about it
02:11:59 and in january 2016 we have a senior employee
02:12:03 employee of england's largest provider of approved inspectors turning a room of delegates at a specialist conference that the use of acmpe core panels on high-rise buildings complied with the building regulations yes
02:12:17 yes i don't understand that given um
02:12:21 um what had been done with the building control alliance guidance note i don't i don't understand why he's approaching it that way well it comes to this question why didn't you tell mr evans when he asked you about it
02:12:32 tell mr evans when he asked you about it in june 2015 that the correct interpretation of the guidance in 12.7 of approved document b by dint of the word filler was that the use of acm pe over 18 meters was effectively banned
02:12:53 i think i was trying to give him um
02:12:57 an answer that was in line with the way the department liked to stick of answers but i i don't think it was a very good answer looking back at it
02:13:11 so i don't understand why he's not just why they're not talking about the building control alliance guidance note at this point do you accept that whatever guidance of one kind or another
02:13:22 whatever guidance of one kind or another was produced by industry clarification clear words as to the intended meaning and scope of the guidance in 12.7 could only have been provided by government and that's
02:13:33 been provided by government and that's the department and in the department that was you as the owner and indeed author of 12.7 do you accept that i was one of the authors of 12.7 um i
02:13:47 i was one of the authors of 12.7 um i yes the other didn't work there anymore
02:13:53 do you accept that yeah and at the time i was desperately trying to get work moving so that we could revise approved document b
02:14:06 do you accept that as part of your job as bob ledson told us was what he called horizon scanning made me to ensure that government was aware of what was happening out there in
02:14:18 aware of what was happening out there in industry on the horizon so far at least as the building regulations and approved documents were concerned insofar as was is possible given that we had no resources to do so
02:14:30 given that we had no resources to do so so we could only do that where the opportunity arose but you didn't need resources because you had the question you knew what the answer was it's just you just chose not to
02:14:41 was it's just you just chose not to provide it no the answer was in the building control alliance guidance note that's not a government document though is it as we've established no because i didn't have an opportunity to produce a
02:14:52 didn't have an opportunity to produce a government guidance no guidance document and that's what i was trying to get started
02:14:56 started at this time and it was impossible to get anything done at that point in government it was ridiculous
02:15:12 do you accept that you should have known that there were voices such as those belonging to nick jenkins expressing the view that the dubai fires could certainly happen here in the uk
02:15:24 here in the uk a view which nhbc did not dispute
02:15:29 i think i wish i had a better understanding of of that and and the hazard they presented which i don't think i fully understood now let's moving on to the next month in
02:15:40 now let's moving on to the next month in 2016 we've already looked at the questions posed by nick jenkins to the panel of the facades conference i now want to turn to the emails between you and mr jenkins in february 2016. now you deal with these uh these
02:15:52 now you deal with these uh these correspondence in your statement but i want to turn to the the emails first from mr jenkins and we find those at clg 4031093
02:16:02 mr chairman i i should just say i'm quietly taking advantage of the extra 15 minutes to run until 4 45 if that's acceptable that was what was intended
02:16:14 that was what was intended yeah very good um now if we turn in this email run please to page five
02:16:26 uh we can see towards the top of page five
02:16:30 five an email sent by nick jenkins to you on uh
02:16:34 uh the 16th of february at 1 36 p.m uh do you see that yes yes and he says hi brian i'm forwarding this query to you as recommended by sarah colwell of the bre
02:16:45 recommended by sarah colwell of the bre as you will note from the correspondence below sarah advises the dclg of the body with responsibility for adb2 this matter is currently the topic of much discussion in the construction industry and if one thing is evident
02:16:57 industry and if one thing is evident that there is much confusion and misunderstanding your soonest review of the matter would therefore be most welcome
02:17:05 i look forward to hearing back from you with some clarification now it's important that i show you what lies below this because there's a long run up to it and if we go to page 10 what we see is the
02:17:16 if we go to page 10 what we see is the start of this email run on the 20th of january 2016 uh when nick jenkins writes to sarah colwell at the bre you see that now i it's a long email but i i need to show
02:17:27 it's a long email but i i need to show it to you
02:17:28 it to you he says this i hope this finds you well we haven't met however i understand you might be the best person to help me with some clarification i'm seeking in relation to my understanding of the current uk regulations as they apply to
02:17:39 current uk regulations as they apply to wall constructions for buildings over 18 meters featuring rain screen panels formed from acms last week i attended a sidereel stroke bre facades conference on the topic of fire safety during the
02:17:50 on the topic of fire safety during the day i asked some questions of the panel relating to the permissible use of rain screen cladding panels formed from various grades of acm aluminium composite materials when used as part of multi-layered wall systems for buildings
02:18:01 multi-layered wall systems for buildings over 18 meters there was some ambiguity in the answers provided by the panel i believe this ambiguity stems from some people making the assumption that in the absence of bs 8414 part 2 2005 test
02:18:13 absence of bs 8414 part 2 2005 test evidence
02:18:14 evidence or a fire engineering analysis of walls featuring acm rain screen panels that compliance can be achieved for such wool systems by either in bold one meeting the guidance given in paragraphs 12.6 to
02:18:26 the guidance given in paragraphs 12.6 to 12.9 of adb2 by restricting insulation product filler material not including gaskets sealants and similar etc used in the external wall construction to materials defined as being of limited
02:18:37 materials defined as being of limited combustibility as defined in table a7 or
02:18:42 or providing cladding in accordance with diagram 40 of adb2 this stipulating that if a boundary exists less than 1000 millimeters away and or the building has a height of over 18 meters then a cladding material
02:18:53 18 meters then a cladding material meeting class national class or bs3d2 or better european class is required my on in my understanding compliance is not achieved he says
02:19:08 either one or two are satisfied scenario rather only via an if one and two are both satisfied scenario i think this is illogical
02:19:18 illogical especially following the recent evidence of fire spreading up the facade of a number of buildings in the middle east with combustible cladding panels a simple read through the approved document however
02:19:29 through the approved document however would not tell you this
02:19:33 when he says a logical he means a logical not illogical just for those listening
02:19:38 listening if my understanding is correct and the scope of 12.7 extends to also include the external cladding and the three millimeter thick core is associated with four millimeter acm is
02:19:50 associated with four millimeter acm is to be considered a filler material then as far as i'm aware the only acms available to the uk market that meet the adb2 definition of being materials of limited combustibility are alpolic a2
02:20:01 limited combustibility are alpolic a2 and alucobond a2 both of these products are classified as a2 s1 d naught in accordance with bs en 13501 part 1 2007.
02:20:13 2007. in our experience of supplying fabricated acm rain screen panels to specialist cladding contractors in the uk market we are rarely asked to provide such a2 rated acm materials the vast
02:20:24 such a2 rated acm materials the vast majority of acm panels we are asked to provide for architectural application are either a luca bond plus alcolic fr or larson fr products all of which are classified as bs one d naught in
02:20:35 classified as bs one d naught in accordance with bsen 13501 2007 and whilst they can be classified as products that are hard to burn are not accepted as being of limited combustibility in accordance with table a7 appendix a of adv 2. in many
02:20:48 a7 appendix a of adv 2. in many instances it's not even the bs 1 d naught rated acm panels we are asked to supply but standard polyethylene core material acm that burns quite efficiently what's more i'm aware of many tall residential buildings recently
02:21:00 many tall residential buildings recently constructed in the uk where such panels are installed in combination with various foil-faced rigid fame thermal insulation boards which are also not accepted by as being of limited combustibility in accordance with table
02:21:11 combustibility in accordance with table a7 appendix a and adb2 as a responsible supplier boosmuri eurocloud would like to put a guidance note out to the market written specifically on routes to compliance in
02:21:23 specifically on routes to compliance in relation to the use of acm range screen cladding panels and associated thermal insulation products used as part of multi-layered built up wall systems before we publish any such guidance we are ensuring that we have our facts
02:21:35 are ensuring that we have our facts straight with that in mind i would very much appreciate your thoughts on my understanding of the current regulations i look forward to hearing back from you best regards nick jenkins executive director
02:21:48 now there's a lot i've read to you there but
02:21:53 first i think as we've seen do you agree and it's by way of comment that this is exactly the approach that mr evans of nhbc had advised in his response to mr jenkins at the seminar namely that
02:22:04 mr jenkins at the seminar namely that the installation was to be of limited combustibility but the external padding panels only had to achieve class naught isn't it
02:22:13 isn't it um well he's asking the question his view is that we should take the alternative yeah approach do you accept that a simple read through the approved
02:22:24 that a simple read through the approved document doesn't or didn't in 2016 tell you that external cladding panels had to be of limited combustibility on the contrary they were only class naught or class b
02:22:37 or class b to my mind it was clear that you needed to to look at both provisions um
02:22:44 but i accept that um
02:22:46 um there was some debate over that that's evident and he's right isn't he that only a2 rated panels would meet the definition of limited combustibility in the approved document yes although he says most of the material he was
02:22:58 says most of the material he was supplying was the the fr the fire retardant type
02:23:06 now say that i've set out the full context before coming to the emails you got
02:23:12 got and there's a follow-up email and if we go to page eight halfway down page eight and he sends a further email to sarah colwell on the 1st of february 2016
02:23:23 and says hi sarah regarding my email of 20th of jan i got an auto reply and then he says this i have received feedback from steve evans of the nhbc bca and also david metcalf of cwct who have both confirmed
02:23:37 metcalf of cwct who have both confirmed that they think my interpretation of the building regs in relation to the use of combustible materials in high-rise buildings is correct i.e to meet the requirements paragraphs 12.6 to 12.9 and diagram 40 need to be
02:23:49 12.6 to 12.9 and diagram 40 need to be followed and then if we turn the page to page 9 the question still remains however as to which materials stroke components have to meet the requirements of paragraph 12.7 previously 12.7 was interpreted to mean
02:24:01 previously 12.7 was interpreted to mean simply the insulation had to be of limited combustibility although this was not always adhered to from recent meetings and discussions the general understanding is now that the scope of 12.7 extends to also include the
02:24:13 12.7 extends to also include the external cladding the bca guidance agrees with this david's thoughts are that this is logical especially following the recent evidence of fire spread up the facade of a number of buildings in the middle east with combustible cladding panels a simple
02:24:25 combustible cladding panels a simple read through the approved document however would not tell you this and he's right about that isn't he a simple read through the approved document wouldn't tell you that for reasons you and i have discussed at length today earlier yeah yes now did
02:24:38 length today earlier yeah yes now did when it came to the email you got which i've shown you did you read both of the emails which had been sent to sarah colwell the one on the 20th of january uh and this one i believe so you did
02:24:49 i believe so you did now let's go to um your the response you get and it's page four please
02:24:58 the response you give i'm so sorry um and you say this is this is sent on the 16th of uh february uh later in the afternoon and you say this
02:25:09 this hi nick it's for the designer and the building control body to consider if requirement b4 has been met
02:25:16 met adb give guidance on this by saying that the external wall should not provide a medium for fire spread in tall buildings it then offers two approaches a set of rules or a full scale test in the rules we deliberately added the word filler to
02:25:28 we deliberately added the word filler to address things that form part of the cladding system that are not insulation but could provide a medium for fire spread
02:25:34 spread i think the core of an acm an acp panel could reasonably be considered to be a filler so unless the core material meets the rules then the ads suggest a full
02:25:45 the rules then the ads suggest a full scale test however if the designer and building control body choose to do something else then that's up to them the page i'm on the road at the moment so drafting this from memory
02:25:56 so drafting this from memory now did it occur to you on this occasion that rather than simply responding to say this isn't a matter for me i can't advise
02:26:05 advise this is up to the designer and the building control body uh that you needed to think a little bit more about that about whether or not in the face of what mr jenkins was telling you about his own supply into the market
02:26:17 you about his own supply into the market of these these products there might be a widespread problem with designers and building control organizations getting this wrong
02:26:26 i think it was something i was worried about and but i
02:26:31 i tried to respond as helpfully as i could given the constraints that we worked with here did you think at the time that if designers and building control bodies were interpreting the guidance incorrectly then that wasn't a matter
02:26:43 incorrectly then that wasn't a matter that they could themselves resolve you needed government to set the record straight did you not think that that was the case that's something i'd been trying to do in whichever way i could um i'd work with the building control
02:26:54 i'd work with the building control alliance thinking that guidance would would help to resolve it and i was desperately trying to get a review of adb started at this time well
02:27:04 well why not go on receipt of this email to richard harrell or bob ledson and say we're on a ticking time bomb or words to that effect there's a
02:27:15 or words to that effect there's a problem i've discovered which is that acm pe is out there it's in the uk built environment and that contrary to what i thought before there is a very real risk that a
02:27:27 before there is a very real risk that a dubai type fire could happen here we need to act now
02:27:33 i think i i underestimated the the scale and and the hazard of this issue which is something i deeply regret
02:27:46 i deeply regret why did you say i think the core of an acp panel could reasonably be considered a filler
02:27:52 a filler i i think i'm just using um the language that
02:27:57 that taking into account the fact that we weren't encouraged to be direct in the way that we interpreted the approved documents because that was a matter for the building control body so that was i guess it became customer practice to
02:28:08 i guess it became customer practice to use that kind of language um but um
02:28:14 um but um what i'm setting out is my in my view that um
02:28:18 that um the core of an atp panel is filler and and
02:28:23 that's that's what's going to meet and the functional requirement i mean
02:28:27 i mean did you also mean that the opposite interpretation was also reasonable that it could reasonably can be considered but to be something else no i didn't mean that at all so why not
02:28:39 no i didn't mean that at all so why not just tell nick jenkins what you intended back in 2006 that the word filler covers the core full stop and that is clear
02:28:48 clear uh and unambiguous or at least if it isn't that is how it should be read yeah as i say i'm i'm
02:28:57 we we've been encouraged always to be very cautious about being direct in in our advice on um
02:29:05 and our interactions with industry and being um
02:29:08 being um and so we always tended to use this kind of language and and i appreciate that it appears unhelpful but that's the approach we were encouraged to take and is there a deeper
02:29:19 encouraged to take and is there a deeper truth here that in fact the one of the reasons or the reason you didn't do so is because you knew the word filler had not only not been defined but that hadn't been checked with industry at the time in 2006
02:29:31 time in 2006 it had been snuck in under the radar at the last minute and now you realize it was controversial and and had created a legacy of non-compliant dangerously non-compliant dubai style buildings here in the uk i
02:29:43 dubai style buildings here in the uk i don't think that's what i was thinking now but you were scared of pronouncing an outright ban of a pe called acm because it would upset industry and cause a row no i've already answered that question i'm using the language that i was that we've
02:29:56 using the language that i was that we've been encouraged to use as officials which is not to be direct in our advice on compliance but if that's right and you felt constrained to give him this sort of mealy-mouthed argument
02:30:08 him this sort of mealy-mouthed argument based on reasonableness as opposed to a direct answer to a direct question did that not make it all the more urgent and important to get out an faq at the very least so that government's position
02:30:19 least so that government's position was clear and that everybody from the from the nhbc senior echelons down to the to the the um jobing architect could understand what government's
02:30:30 could understand what government's position was as opposed to leaving it to individual industry components to work it out for themselves and keep bombarding you with questions i i think by this point i probably would have agreed with you but it was almost
02:30:41 have agreed with you but it was almost impossible to do anything in government at the time
02:30:47 is that a good point mr minute yes mr chairman it is right thank you very much hello mr martin it's time we uh drew a call for the day
02:30:58 drew a call for the day we're going to finish at that point i'm afraid i'm going to have to ask you to come back
02:31:02 come back on monday to answer some more questions so
02:31:06 so uh 10 o'clock on monday we're from resume
02:31:08 resume again with the weekend intervening it's very important that i emphasize that you shouldn't discuss your evidence or anything relating to it with anyone once you leave the room i
02:31:19 with anyone once you leave the room i hope that's clear yes sir um if you get a bit of a break over the weekend and we'll look forward to seeing you on monday morning yes sir all right thank you very much would you go with the option then please
02:31:39 thank you very much mr miller nothing else we need deal with this afternoon i take it no mr chairman there is not uh and um i hope we will see you here in person at bbr on monday morning
02:31:51 person at bbr on monday morning thank you well i certainly hope to be back and um i wish you well over the weekend thank you look i look forward to that and uh right we will end there then and resume at 10 o'clock on monday
02:32:02 and resume at 10 o'clock on monday morning thank you very much
02:32:25 you