Civil servant Brian Martin gives evidence on the Department's handling of combustible cladding issues and regulatory oversight from 2014-2016.
00:00:29 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to hear more evidence from mr brian martin so mr millet if you're ready to begin perhaps you'd ask the usher to call mr
00:00:42 perhaps you'd ask the usher to call mr martin into the room thank you mr chairman
00:00:45 chairman may we please have mr martin back in the hearing room
00:00:58 good morning mr martin monitor um i hope you're well and i hope you're ready to continue yes sir good thank you very much indeed uh yes mr miller yes mr chairman good morning
00:01:09 mr miller yes mr chairman good morning to you good morning to members of the panel mr martin good morning to you now and just to remind you where we got to in chronological terms when we finished yesterday evening we had arrived at the
00:01:20 yesterday evening we had arrived at the summer of 2014 and i'd like to pick up this morning's evidence with you in the august of that summer can we please go to clg3019253
00:01:53 now this is an email from steve evans to you date of the 15th of august 2014 copy to diane marshall and neil smith and uh it
00:02:04 and uh it is as you can see from the foot of your screen
00:02:07 screen at the top of the string which
00:02:11 which ended in july on the 11th of july with your message to steve evans asking him to keep you informed of any further developments following his long email of the 11th of july we looked at yesterday in some detail
00:02:23 in some detail does that so that just to help you where we are now he that he then says this to you hi brian nhbc have had a further meeting with kingspan and they've confirmed that they have had two further tests carried out at bre the
00:02:36 two further tests carried out at bre the test utilized kingspan k15 in steel framed cladding systems the tests were carried out to bs 8414 part 1 2002 and king's spanning are encouraged by the preliminary results they have confirmed
00:02:48 preliminary results they have confirmed that the full results should be available in the next two months kingspan are then to engage arabs to carry out a desktop assessment using the three sets of results for tests carried out for kingspan k-15 and provide an
00:03:00 out for kingspan k-15 and provide an assessment detailing the conditions that any cladding system should provide to allow k-15 to be used over 18 meters without further justification the agreed time scale for all this to happen is three months although we are
00:03:12 happen is three months although we are encouraging them to get it done sooner in the meantime we're seeking a letter of comfort from the bre through kingspan confirming the tests and bre's initial view of the results they will be issuing
00:03:23 view of the results they will be issuing we have also asked for a similar undertaking from arabs we are also liaising with labc and other bcbs through the bca to keep them up to date with the progress being made
00:03:35 with the progress being made and uh
00:03:36 and uh mr evans also attached to that email a copy of the bca technical guidance note 18 issue naught which we're going to come to shortly uh
00:03:47 uh now the information that you received in this email i think was is this right just two further tests have been carried out under bs8414 yes that's what you get from line one
00:03:58 from line one yes yes yes and being system tests just tell me how did you anticipate when you saw that message that those two tests if classified as a pass under br135 could
00:04:10 classified as a pass under br135 could or would assist with all of the 18 meter plus buildings perhaps up to 100 or say previously containing k15 in their external wall buildups which you learned about from mr evans on
00:04:22 which you learned about from mr evans on the 11th of july um i think that would depend on what those the construction of those buildings were um i think i was expecting that the implication is that they were planning to do more tests
00:04:34 planning to do more tests um and um
00:04:37 um and um and
00:04:38 and i i assumed the constructions were probably very similar right but two further tests wouldn't retrospectively validate the safety of k-15 on the 100 or so blocks on which it had been previously applied with it
00:04:49 previously applied with it um it might depends how they were constructed well all right when you say it depends how they were constructed what construction would validate
00:05:00 would validate the use of k-15 on a large number call it 100 or so of previously completed blocks on which k-15 had been present um if if they were all very similar
00:05:12 um if if they were all very similar constructions um and and um you've got tests that are indicative of those then i think it would be reasonable for a competent fire engineer to conclude to
00:05:24 competent fire engineer to conclude to assess whether there was a problem or not
00:05:26 not if they were all very similar constructions first of all was that likely um
00:05:33 it could have been yeah i mean you have to have
00:05:36 to have a sort of out of the box don't you off the peg one size fits all type of external cladding system to your knowledge at the time did those exist
00:05:47 um i didn't have detailed knowledge of what um constructions were being used um across the industry um but arab and nhbc would have done
00:06:00 right and when you say very similar how close
00:06:05 how close would the similarity in your mind at the time have to be in order to be able with confidence scientific confidence to be able to extrapolate the safe use of k15 as tested
00:06:18 the safe use of k15 as tested in to a system which hadn't been tested
00:06:24 um they'd have to be quite representative of of the um
00:06:29 of the um the construction you're looking at it probably depends on the outcome of those tests as well that's the sort of thing that you'd expect the fire engineer to consider
00:06:37 consider and if they weren't satisfied they had enough data they they would have asked for more tests to be carried out yep were you aware at the time of any science any methodology any research
00:06:49 science any methodology any research which a fire engineer would look at to be able to identify what was sufficiently similar to be able safely to make the assessment
00:07:01 to be able safely to make the assessment or not
00:07:02 or not um
00:07:04 um no
00:07:05 no no
00:07:07 no what did you understand him mr evans to mean by preliminary results third line
00:07:15 i can't say what i was thinking at the time but it looks to me like they're expecting to do more tests and if we go now to your statement please page 45 paragraph 128
00:07:26 i want to pick it up halfway through line seven and you say this
00:07:32 uh
00:07:34 it's it's just below halfway down the paragraph on your screen you say i considered that in instructing arab the nhbc were taking a proportionate and technically sound approach to assessing the safety of the relevant product and
00:07:45 the safety of the relevant product and its use it should also be noted that mr evans asserted in his email of 15th august that he anticipated the issue being clarified within three months which is far faster than the department would have been able to facilitate any
00:07:57 would have been able to facilitate any kind of investigation now in relation to instructing arab and what mr evans had told you if we go back to his email please
00:08:08 clg3019253 paragraph one paragraph lines three to four there we've just looked at it what he told you was that it was kingspan who were to instruct arab not the nhbc wasn't it
00:08:21 instruct arab not the nhbc wasn't it yeah i see that yes yes so would you like to revisit and perhaps qualify what you say in your statement about in instructing arab the nhbc we're taking a proportion
00:08:32 arab the nhbc we're taking a proportion note
00:08:32 note i guess you could replace it with kingspan but i think at the time what i was thinking is arab are involved they were very reputable fire engineering practice with a lot of expertise in this field right
00:08:43 a lot of expertise in this field right they're more expert than i am certainly right
00:08:50 now kingspan as the email says were to ask arab
00:08:54 ask arab based on three tests i think the original 2005 test and the two new ones to perform an assessment
00:09:02 you see that detailing
00:09:05 detailing the conditions that any cladding system should provide to allow k-15 to be used over 18 meters without further justification you see that in the last line or two of the first paragraphs yes
00:09:18 line or two of the first paragraphs yes now on what basis did you think that that was a technically sound approach to assessing the fire safety of the relevant product and its use again it's difficult to know what i was thinking at the time um but it's not
00:09:30 thinking at the time um but it's not unusual where people are carrying out assessments to take a collection of tests
00:09:38 tests and from that derive um
00:09:42 um a kind of um kind of
00:09:46 kind of set of rules to say constructions that are like
00:09:50 are like this or like that would be okay constructions like this we don't think the evidence supports it you'll need to do more testing that's something which is certainly commonplace for fire existing doors
00:10:01 commonplace for fire existing doors um because there are so many different options for fire resisting doors it's quite common for the certification bodies um to
00:10:12 bodies um to i think they call it a global assessment where they look at a wide range of test results and say for this door system there's a range of different things you can do which will meet the
00:10:23 things you can do which will meet the meet the criteria that's um set out right
00:10:26 right yeah i note that you've picked the example of a door system of we're going to come back to look at desktops in some detail and become to option three in the tga
00:10:36 tga um
00:10:37 um in the bca technical guidance mate 18 document shortly but in your answer i'm interested in just pursuing a couple of things first of all you say um that
00:10:49 things first of all you say um that it's not unusual where people have assessments to take a collection of tests and derive a set of rules when to the best of your recollection mr martin did that practice begin
00:11:01 martin did that practice begin the the practice of carrying out assessments based on a collection of tests oh um
00:11:09 oh um as far as i'm it's been going all the time i've ever worked in building control and it was pretty well established then so i imagine it's decades
00:11:16 decades decades and and my question was directed not to door sets or small components but a whole building envelope on a tall building
00:11:28 building that's probably a new i would have said that was a newer concept um when did it start to the best of your recollection um i don't think i can answer that with any accuracy um
00:11:40 any accuracy um but
00:11:42 but it wouldn't surprise me if it arrived at the same time as bs8414 right um i guess there might have been assessments carried out um in relation to the linear route prior to that
00:11:53 route prior to that um
00:11:54 um for instance if you've got a product which
00:11:59 which comes in
00:12:00 comes in with multiple different colored finishes
00:12:06 sometimes the manufacturer may carry out a number of tests and then somebody will do an assessment to say that an entire color range might be acceptable based on
00:12:17 acceptable based on their understanding of the formulation of the
00:12:19 of the the decorative finish so that kind of thing's been going on since before i joined the building control world i would have thought can i just be a bit more precise
00:12:30 thought can i just be a bit more precise uh
00:12:31 uh to the best of your recollection when did you first learn that desktop assessments using sets of data generated by the s8414 tests were used to extrapolate generic results
00:12:44 were used to extrapolate generic results do you remember probably never gave it any consideration until the day i got this email i imagine right okay now um
00:12:53 now um did you think at the time you did get this email that three sets of results for kingspan k15 won done
00:13:03 done back in 2005 with the components that we saw yesterday set out in the bba certificates plus two new ones was a sufficient
00:13:14 plus two new ones was a sufficient database to be able to allow
00:13:18 to allow kingspan and nhbc to think that k15 could be used over 18 meters
00:13:24 meters on any cladding system without further justification i think at the time i was presuming that they were planning to do more tests yeah i know that's right that's clear but that's not the answer to the
00:13:35 but that's not the answer to the question i was asking so i'll ask it again i'm sorry do you think at the time you got this that that three sets of data was enough to provide a safe assessment um with the result that any cladding
00:13:47 um with the result that any cladding system should should provide to allow k15 to be used over 18 meters without further justification um not any cladding system no no not any cladding system
00:13:59 not any cladding system which though um cladding systems which are sufficiently similar to the systems that have been tested right but you didn't have in your mind any kind of objective yardstick with which to
00:14:11 objective yardstick with which to measure similarity now that would be a judgment for um the competent person doing the assessment did you know or think that such yardsticks existed
00:14:22 yardsticks existed um
00:14:25 no that would be that would have been a judgment for the fire engineers so no you didn't no you didn't okay now did you check at any stage whether arab had actually agreed to produce any kind
00:14:36 had actually agreed to produce any kind of report
00:14:38 of report no
00:14:39 no now you've been in a meeting i think with arab just a month or so before that as we saw 25th of june 2014 we looked at that yesterday do you remember whether either barbara lane or neil butterworth who were at
00:14:51 lane or neil butterworth who were at that meeting mentioned anything about producing an assessment report based on no more than three tests on the bs8414 which would allow a combustible
00:15:02 which would allow a combustible insulation product to be used on buildings over 18 meters without further justification um they didn't mention anything like that as far as i recall no no and no report ever materialized did it
00:15:14 report ever materialized did it none that you ever seen and none of that not the one that i i saw um but i i saw this as as being um um
00:15:24 you know initially positive and they were taking appropriate steps yes but did you ever follow up did you ever follow up with steve evans and say um do you know whether kingspan did
00:15:35 um do you know whether kingspan did engage arabs where are the desktops
00:15:39 um i i was leaving it for nhbc to work with kingspan and arab um as i say at that time we were heavily engaged in the work relating to
00:15:50 heavily engaged in the work relating to the housing standards review um and
00:15:55 um and it was a very small team which was designed to focus on on the policy project we were dealing with at the time so um i i saw this as the relevant people taking the
00:16:06 this as the relevant people taking the right steps and we focused on the work that we were doing
00:16:14 now
00:16:18 what i think mr evans told you is that he had agreed with kingspan that within three months kingspan would provide their 8414 tests and some sort of desktop report from arab
00:16:31 of desktop report from arab yes
00:16:34 um that's what it says there yes so then can we go back to your statement please a paragraph one two eight
00:16:49 and if we look at paragraph 128 on page 45 there
00:16:53 45 there you say in the third line from the end that he anticipated as mr evans anticipated the issue being clarified within three months
00:17:04 months what what did you mean by that what wasn't clear um i guess perhaps resolved is a better word um is the the the question that comes back to the question is is is this a
00:17:17 the question is is is this a problem that needs some kind of direct action or can we say can our nhbc satisfied that the buildings that have been built are safe right now it may as you say there may or
00:17:29 right now it may as you say there may or may not be right that it wouldn't have been a particularly fast process for you to facilitate any kind of investigation through the department as you say in the last line there but i think it's right isn't it
00:17:40 there but i think it's right isn't it that nhbc itself wasn't actually carrying out any investigation at all was it it was leaving it to kingspan to sort out with arab
00:17:54 i remember i i can't remember the timeline but i remember talking to nhbc and they explained that they were reviewing the projects that they were dealing with right we say reviewing the projects they
00:18:06 right we say reviewing the projects they were dealing with what reviewing the ones that were in build or the ones that had been completed i understood they were looking at all of them
00:18:15 them what gave you to think that um
00:18:22 it was the having spoken to them that's the impression that i got now in august as we we are here in 2014 i think you knew based on what nhpc had
00:18:33 i think you knew based on what nhpc had told you that there still existed no satisfactory test data to support the use of k-15 over 18 meters if it was going to come it was going to come in the future yes yes yes
00:18:44 yes yes yes and as far as you knew and based on what the nhbc had told you there was this unknown number of high-rise buildings possibly up to 100 including residential buildings clad in k15
00:18:55 buildings clad in k15 as you told us yesterday that did it occur to you that a similar situation might be unfolding with other combustible insulation products
00:19:12 i don't think it did at the time no i i i i think
00:19:20 having discussed this with mr deletum and mr harrell we concluded that the best thing to do would be to let nhbc work through this right um and um and depending on what they found
00:19:31 and depending on what they found um
00:19:33 um that would give us an indication of whether we need the department needed to take any further steps right i mean did you have any idea at the time of uh what kind of market share k-15 had so
00:19:45 uh what kind of market share k-15 had so far as
00:19:46 far as concerned um insulation on high-rise buildings and we know it was substantial uh but did you have any idea about how much it was um a kings band was a
00:19:58 um a kings band was a well-known manufacturer of insulation but i didn't have any um details to handle no so for all you knew kingspan k15 was in use on let's call it a majority of buildings but not 100
00:20:10 a majority of buildings but not 100 yes
00:20:11 yes but i didn't know no that's the point you didn't know how much it was uh and therefore the question i have is why did you think that this problem was limited to k-15 and k-15's test
00:20:24 limited to k-15 and k-15's test and not more generic
00:20:36 i'm not sure i can answer that honestly um i can't remember what i was thinking at the time um we this seemed like um
00:20:47 nhbc were working with kingspan and and looking into the issue they were talking to other
00:20:53 to other uh they talked to the building control alliance and so on so and this was the sector um looking into a potential problem which
00:21:03 which sort of aligned with the way the department was working at the time right does that answer tell us that in essence
00:21:10 essence you were
00:21:11 you were aware of the problem but left it to the sector as you call it to work it out so that the department could get on with the projects on its desk
00:21:22 the projects on its desk such as the buildings say the housing standards review yeah i mean that's that's pretty much how the the department had been structured for some time um the
00:21:35 the department had shrunk considerably over that period um and
00:21:42 the leadership of the department was um
00:21:47 saying to all of us really is that as a department there are less of us we need to do less things
00:21:54 things in order to
00:21:57 focus on the priorities of the ministers so
00:22:00 so this was this fitted into um that that principle of of the way the department would operate
00:22:10 but did can you uh can you tell us why you didn't immediately take steps at least to try to ascertain how many buildings might be affected
00:22:20 affected uh with ca with k15 or other insulation products which were combustible above a15 given that you had yourself described it as we saw yesterday in the correspondence with john alvin at the
00:22:32 correspondence with john alvin at the bba
00:22:33 bba as a serious safety situation
00:22:39 i took the view that the work what nhbc doing we're doing was um the right thing to do um
00:22:48 and and we decided to to wait and see what what they found but they what they weren't doing and although they could have done it with their own projects what they weren't doing was a retrospective audit to work out how many
00:23:00 retrospective audit to work out how many of these buildings and how many thousands of occupants were living in these buildings which were clad with an insulation product which was combustible
00:23:13 they weren't doing that and nor were you no one was doing it is that right
00:23:21 at the time we thought that they were um doing the work that would lead to giving us an indication of whether this was a problem that we should take more interest in or not
00:23:31 now after your email to mr ledson and mr harrell on the 11th of july we looked at yesterday where you alerted them to this situation was there any further discussion between
00:23:42 was there any further discussion between you and either of them about it perhaps following the update that you got from steve evans on the 15th of august
00:23:50 august um
00:23:53 um from from time to time i discussed it with mr leadsome yes right did you tell mr ledsome what mr evans had told you that uh the kingspan were doing two more tests
00:24:04 tests and
00:24:05 and going to get an assessment from eric
00:24:10 i still my recollection is thinking that that was that was there were more tests in the pipeline and i may have misunderstood that at the time did you update mr larry i would have done yes i can't remember the
00:24:22 have done yes i can't remember the detail of a conversation i had in 2014 but that's that's i remember talking to him about it right do you remember them thinking that you should do something a little bit more proactive or a little bit more urgent
00:24:33 proactive or a little bit more urgent than simply leaving it to the nhbc to leave it to kingspan to do tests and get an assessment from arabs um i think the conclusion we came to is the
00:24:44 i think the conclusion we came to is the best thing to do at the time would be to wait and see what an hbc found now let's get back to your statement um you
00:24:51 um you you say please at page 46 next page paragraph 129 as follows top of the screen on 4th december 2014 i emailed mr evans to ask
00:25:02 december 2014 i emailed mr evans to ask whether the nhbc had any more information it could share the issue having arisen again recently i'm unable to remember in what context he responded the next day stating that he had a meeting with bca on the monday
00:25:14 he had a meeting with bca on the monday and that he would let me know now the email um i'm not sure we need to see it it's at clg 3019264
00:25:24 but looking at your statement um you say in the second line the issue having arisen again recently what was the issue that had recently
00:25:36 what was the issue that had recently arisen
00:25:38 i don't as it says in a statement i don't remember probably mr ledson asking me for an update i imagine right it was the issue the use of k-15 over 18 meters or
00:25:49 the use of k-15 over 18 meters or the the generic use of combustible insulation over 18 meters um i don't know i can't remember now and here we are in as you rightly say december early december now given
00:26:01 say december early december now given that mr evans had told you in mid-august 2014 that his time scale for these final test results from kingspan and the arab report was three months
00:26:12 three months um
00:26:13 um can you remember was it simply the fact that you'd heard nothing by the end of november that prompted you to make your inquiry
00:26:23 i can't remember but that's that's a possible reason for him no mr evans you're you i think you recall that the lacrosse building fire in melbourne
00:26:35 lacrosse building fire in melbourne had happened on the 24th of november 2014.
00:26:39 2014. [Music]
00:26:41 [Music] did that have anything to do with your writing to mr evans
00:26:48 i don't think so by i can't be sure do you remember having any discussion about that fire at the time within the department late november 2014
00:27:04 i'm not entirely sure when i first became aware of that that fire i think it was some time after the event but i i i couldn't i couldn't be certain right now we know that
00:27:15 that you
00:27:17 you had seen the minutes of the cwct meeting and the discussion about the clarity or otherwise of 12.7 of adb
00:27:25 of adb when you did hear about the lacrosse fire did it raise any concerns in that respect
00:27:30 respect did you put two and two together um as i i don't remember when i first heard of the lacrosse fire um i i don't think i can answer that question now going back to your
00:27:41 question now going back to your correspondence with steve evans in december as you say in your statement he told you that he would respond to you after a forthcoming bca meeting the next week
00:27:50 week and why would he need to wait did you think at the time for a bca meeting before telling you the final results of these two tests and what are thought about them all of which he would have got from kingspan or could have done
00:28:07 i don't know it might have been that he was planning to update me on the um on the bca guidance note did the department at the time receive papers
00:28:16 papers from the meetings of bca's technical groups
00:28:24 i don't think so right steve evans told us that
00:28:28 us that you did the the department was a papers only member was that not right was that the technical group or the the the there's different
00:28:37 different um groups there i i think i think the department was papers only for the
00:28:43 for the main meetings i don't know about the technical groups right um well let me given that you've drawn that distinction let's
00:28:50 let's see if we can be more precise can we please have steve evans statement this is nhb403020
00:28:57 page sixty
00:29:03 uh and let's look at paragraph one six five
00:29:07 five b
00:29:08 b uh
00:29:09 uh he this is mr evans steve evans of nhbc says this mhclg was a papers only member of the technical group it would be copied into emails in minutes
00:29:20 minutes do you see that is that is that right
00:29:27 i remember seeing documents from the bca from time to time but i don't i don't remember the arrangement right
00:29:36 if we go then to clg three zeroes one four
00:29:41 four this is an email run
00:29:45 before the bca meeting and if we go to the top email in the chain
00:29:49 chain here is an email to you from steve evans on the 5th of december 2014 hi brian i have a bca meeting on monday and should be able to come back to you with a response after that meeting i've
00:30:00 with a response after that meeting i've checked the bca website and it hasn't been placed onto it yet i have chased and it will hopefully be put online early next week and that that i think is a reference to what you'd asked him about which is the
00:30:11 what you'd asked him about which is the bca technical guidance note now we see that that email was sent on the 5th of december 2014 which was a friday and so the bca meeting was was going to
00:30:23 and so the bca meeting was was going to be on the following monday maybe the 8th of december 2014. did you receive the minutes or any other documents from that meeting
00:30:33 i don't know i can't remember seeing them right
00:30:38 uh you you can't remember seeing them let me show you something labc 302812
00:31:03 labc three zeros two eight one two no right uh then let me try something else um clg one triple zero six eight eight four
00:31:22 um here is an email from steve evans to a number of people in the bca namely adam healey barry turner doug bason
00:31:35 adam healey barry turner doug bason etc
00:31:36 etc but you can also see that richard harrell and tony edwards are the recipients of this email it's dated the 15th of april 2015
00:31:47 it's dated the 15th of april 2015 and
00:31:48 and it's about a technical working group meeting coming up during all papers for tomorrow's meeting 11 30.
00:31:58 and what what are what is attached to that email uh is the minutes from the 8th of december meeting which i want to show you those are at clg one triple zero six eight eight nine
00:32:16 and this is the note of the bca technical liaison committee 8th of december 2014. you can see who was in attendance steve
00:32:27 you can see who was in attendance steve evans in the chair you see that yes another item two point naught eca guidance notes and
00:32:36 and just above the end of that section the penultimate paragraph proposed changes to gn18 use of combustible cladding materials on residential buildings were discussed under item xx comments to be
00:32:47 discussed under item xx comments to be passed by se by 12 december 2014 do you remember seeing this document when it was sent to richard harrell in april 2014 2015.
00:32:59 richard harrell in april 2014 2015. i don't remember it now have you ever seen this document before i don't think i have right but let's to see if what i'm about to show you
00:33:08 show you prompts a recollection can we go to page four please
00:33:14 and look at item twelve point naught it reads as follows use of combustible materials and cladding systems to buildings over eighteen meters se outlined the work carried out to date and identifying possible solutions
00:33:27 and identifying possible solutions to allowing poly polyurethane type insulation materials to be used in clouding systems over 18 meters you see that yes sebt to discuss further outside of the
00:33:38 sebt to discuss further outside of the meeting
00:33:39 meeting confirmation of any actions to be fed back to the group sc tabled an amendment to gn 18 which clarifies the standing of br135 assessment and the considerations that need to be made in respect to the
00:33:50 need to be made in respect to the mechanical performance of the materials as part of a bs 8414 test and br135 assessment by the building designer comments to be passed to sc by 12th december 2014.
00:34:02 december 2014. i just want to focus on the second element of that little paragraph essie outlined the work carried out to date in identifying possible solutions to allowing
00:34:12 allowing to allowing polyurethane type insulation materials to be used in cladding systems over 18 meters do you remember seeing that at any time before no
00:34:24 that at any time before no looking at it now would you agree that it indicates that far from carrying out any investigation the bca were working with
00:34:33 with nhbc on
00:34:35 nhbc on solutions to allowing the use of polyurethane type insulation materials to be used on 18 meters
00:34:43 i can see why you're asking that question i'm not sure if you should read that much into that word but i i can see where you're asking right in other words looking for ways to get combustible insulation onto 18 meter plus buildings
00:34:54 insulation onto 18 meter plus buildings as opposed to investigating how many buildings already had combustible insulation above 18 meters without having met the br 135 criteria
00:35:05 having met the br 135 criteria i'll take your point i didn't see this document at the time i'm not sure if i'd have picked up on that word now i understood my question given that you didn't see this at the time which i understand is is were you aware that what nhbc at
00:35:17 is were you aware that what nhbc at least look according to this
00:35:20 this language of this note were about was not investigating a historical problem about the presence of k-15 on potentially tens if not hundreds of residential
00:35:32 tens if not hundreds of residential blocks
00:35:34 blocks but
00:35:35 but looking for ways to allow combustible insulation on into cladding systems over 18 meters were you aware of that activity um
00:35:47 were you aware of that activity um i think that was a compo this meet this minute is obviously appears to be focused on the bca guidance note which is um the bca
00:35:59 um the bca um trying to reinforce or or and provide more detail around um
00:36:09 the provisions relating to um the use of external
00:36:15 external this type of insulation um so that doesn't mean they weren't talking about other things but that's clearly what this minute says but as i said i don't remember seeing it i mean
00:36:26 said i don't remember seeing it i mean what you've just told us is your interpretation of the minute sitting there now is that right i guess it is yes because i i've never seen it all right do you recall having any conversation with richard harrell either before or in april 2015
00:36:41 either before or in april 2015 about
00:36:42 about what nhbc were about here maybe looking for solutions to allow polyurethane type insulation into cladding systems above 18 meters no
00:36:53 into cladding systems above 18 meters no i don't think i remember i'd be surprised if we would have been talking about that but i don't have any recollection of that
00:37:02 did it occur to you at any time that nhbc
00:37:07 nhbc having revealed to you that its approved inspectors had specifically approved k-15 above 18 meters on high-rise buildings over a period of a number of years might have some
00:37:18 a number of years might have some motivation to do work to legitimize the use of 18 of
00:37:25 of k15 above 18 meters or any other polyurethane type insulation above 18 meters
00:37:33 meters uh retrospectively um the people that i'd got to know at nhbc um i regarded them as being responsible professionals um and
00:37:44 professionals um and and i took the view that they would take
00:37:48 an appropriate approach to this question um
00:37:54 um that's
00:37:56 that's what i knew of them then um i thought they were decent people doing their best to get something right
00:38:04 now you had that
00:38:08 approach that mindset does that tell us that you never actually approached what nhbc were telling you critically you never scrutinized them never read
00:38:20 you never scrutinized them never read between the lines well
00:38:23 well you just trusted them i i think i did yes
00:38:30 now that's right i think that mr evans never came back to you after that meeting to tell you anything about what had happened did he
00:38:39 not i remember why didn't you follow up um
00:38:47 i may have spoken to him like i i it's very difficult to remember that the timeline of when when i did speak to them but eventually the the building control alliance guidance note was completed and published yes yes we're
00:38:59 completed and published yes yes we're going to look at that in a moment but before i when i do you want to finish this off
00:39:04 this off i think it's right that you didn't hear from nhbc again after early december 14 until the 2nd of april 2015. and we're going to come to
00:39:15 and we're going to come to that email but um let me show it to you so to be fair to you you can see the document clg three zeros one nine two six seven
00:39:27 if we look at this this is an email
00:39:38 from steve evans to you
00:39:41 uh and in the second paragraph he says i'm conscious that we have not provided an update on our progress with the manufacturers of combustible insulation materials that are marketed as being suitable for use in buildings over 18 meters for some time and i must
00:39:53 meters for some time and i must apologize for this and he goes on to say it was extremely complicated now uh in in fact it's
00:40:02 it's right isn't it that this is about seven months
00:40:05 months after mr evans assurance to you in the august of 2014 we saw earlier this morning 15th of august that the nhbc would have the much needed test data from kingspan within three months isn't
00:40:16 from kingspan within three months isn't it
00:40:18 it um yes i think it is did you do anything to chase the nhvc during the period from the 4th of december 2014 when you had contact with him
00:40:29 2014 when you had contact with him and the 2nd of april 2015 four months later
00:40:40 i i can't remember for certain i i think i may have chased him by telephone but i can't remember right and we have no documents at all to suggest that you did and your statement doesn't suggest that you did given that this was as you put
00:40:52 you did given that this was as you put it yourself a matter of serious fire safety concern why didn't you chase the nhbc we'll just ask them politely at any time after the expiry of the three-month period where an hbc had
00:41:05 the three-month period where an hbc had got to with kingspan
00:41:14 i think at the time we were just very focused on trying to complete the housing standards review i think but was the housing standards review a matter of a matter of life safety
00:41:25 a matter of life safety um it was a big project and we were um working to very tight deadlines so i think that it just swallowed up all of our thinking time did you not think of going to richard harrell and saying i'm
00:41:36 going to richard harrell and saying i'm very busy on this housing standards review but i've got a problem um
00:41:40 um which is that nhbc uh either nhbc or kingsman are dragging their feet i've been promised test data and a report from arab it was months ago um there's a problem which i've already
00:41:51 um there's a problem which i've already brought drawn to your attention we need to get on top of it and i haven't got the resources can i please have help
00:41:57 have help did you have a conversation like that at all with richard harrell no i think i think all of us were distracted on that that project um and
00:42:08 and didn't give this the consideration we probably should have done very well
00:42:12 very well now um let's go then to the technical guidance note 18 issue nought issued by the bca can we please go to your statement of
00:42:23 can we please go to your statement of paragraph 127 page 44.
00:42:32 and you say there
00:42:37 and you refer to the 15th of august email that we've looked at
00:42:43 and about uh just halfway down the paragraph you say attached to the email was a copy of a document that had been produced by the building control alliance guidance note 18
00:42:54 18 which you then defined as the 2014 vca guidance note 18. yes
00:42:59 18. yes and and
00:43:01 and and i think you say in paragraph 127 that this was the first time you'd seen it yes you see that yes yes yes
00:43:11 so can we take it that although it was issued i think in the june of that year you hadn't read it until it was sent to you in
00:43:24 mid-august i think that's the first time i've seen it yes and to be fair to you there is some question mark about precisely when it was put on the bca's website yes
00:43:36 now did you know it was coming before august 2014
00:43:45 i think so yes i'm pretty sure i've discussed it the the intention to produce some guidance and i thought that was a um
00:43:54 um that was a positive thing um that
00:43:59 that getting the bca to engage in this when did you first have a discussion do you remember about the bca's intention to produce some guidance i i i can't remember for sure at some point during
00:44:11 remember for sure at some point during that period but i currently right and who did you have that discussion with i think mr evans right and in the what was it in the context of i i can't remember of sufficient detail
00:44:22 i i can't remember of sufficient detail to answer that accurately right now if we go to um
00:44:29 uh page 45 of your statement this is parrot127 continued and if we go to the top of page 45 you can see that um you record there the three options
00:44:40 you record there the three options contained within technical guidance note 18 issue naught yes yes um we don't need to go through those um but then paragraph one two eight if we go to page 45 towards the bottom
00:44:51 45 towards the bottom you say this i review the 2014 bca guidance note 18 and found no reason to disagree with its contents it seemed to me to be a useful document for industry in meeting the particular functional requirement of the
00:45:03 particular functional requirement of the building regulations i responded to mr evans later that day asking if the note had been published he responded indicating that it was intended that it would go on to their website shortly on that basis i was
00:45:15 website shortly on that basis i was satisfied that appropriate guidance was being given to the industry as to how to comply with the regulations from a leading industry body i considered that in instructing arab the nhbc were taking
00:45:26 in instructing arab the nhbc were taking a proportionate and technically sound approach to assessing the safety of the relevant product and its use etc and i have read this too before i don't think i need the rest of it
00:45:37 i don't think i need the rest of it now you refer that to in the third line the particular functional requirement of the regulations is that b4 specifically b4 1 external fire spread
00:45:50 specifically b4 1 external fire spread yes
00:45:51 yes now when you say you found no reason to disagree with its contents can we
00:45:57 can we take it that you agreed with the contents of the note
00:46:03 um i think my reading of it is that to some extent it went further than we'd originally intended um in the the note said
00:46:12 said uh something along the lines of um all the components of a cladding system should be a material limited combustibility um but i think given the various conversations i'd had up until that
00:46:23 conversations i'd had up until that point i felt that that was um
00:46:28 was um a positive thing and in that it it
00:46:33 it it started the building control bodies and other people reading that would start from the basis that if they need if they were doing anything other than using materials of limited combustibility um that they would need to be talking to
00:46:44 um that they would need to be talking to their building control body and and and
00:46:48 taking more consideration so i i it to some extent delivered what we've been trying to achieve when we drafted that paragraph in 2005 or six when it was
00:47:04 right so were you satisfied that it gave well were you satisfied that its interpretation and application of the statutory guidance in approved document b was correct
00:47:19 um it was less nuanced than the guidance in a proof document be and i saw that as being um a positive thing um
00:47:28 um at that time would you say it was less nuanced what do you mean um go back to the the wording um and that we'd come up with for uh which in introduced the term filler and the
00:47:40 introduced the term filler and the things that we've been discussing over the last few days um
00:47:44 um and
00:47:45 and the bca decided to drafted some text which was much more
00:47:52 much more direct if you like and i think
00:47:58 i i saw that as being helpful given the conversations i'd had with cwct etc right let's explore that then in the context of the wording itself
00:48:09 context of the wording itself um
00:48:10 um before i do can i just ask you was there anything in the language of
00:48:15 of the
00:48:16 the of the three options that you disagreed with that you thought was not reflective of a proof document b no i thought it was a good thing you may think i thought it was a good
00:48:27 you may think i thought it was a good thing
00:48:28 thing but did you think it accurately reflected the intentions of the secretary of state contained or reflected it in turn by the language of approved document b
00:48:40 approved document b subject to what i've just said um in that it was um it was probably going further
00:48:47 further than um approved document b did you see when you said going further you mean it was more restrictive yeah it was more strict yeah it was drafted to be um
00:48:58 yeah it was drafted to be um more restrictive than adb which i thought was a good starting point given that um the the discussions we've had with cwct it seemed like a it would um
00:49:10 drive a a more a safer approach then perhaps um
00:49:19 we would we did we'd achieved with the text we drafted in 2006.
00:49:26 right then thank you let's then look at the uh provisions of technical guidance note 18 issue nought it's at cel403725
00:49:41 now first can i take it that you're familiar with this document um yes yes and just for the perhaps the the benefit of others you can see it's heading as
00:49:52 of others you can see it's heading as bca technical guidance note 18 issue naught 2014 purpose bca technical guidance notes are for the benefit of its members and the construction industry to provide
00:50:05 construction industry to provide information promote good practice and encourage consistency of interpretation for the benefit of our clients they are advisory in nature and in all cases the responsibility for determining compliance with the building regulations
00:50:17 compliance with the building regulations remains with the building control body concerned
00:50:22 and then if you look under introduction in the second paragraph down it says this where a building exceeds 18 meters in height adb 2 recommends for the entire wall area both below and above 18
00:50:35 entire wall area both below and above 18 meters either the use of materials of limited combustibility for all key components all to submit evidence that the complete proposed external cladding system has been assessed according to the acceptance criteria in br135
00:50:48 acceptance criteria in br135 for performance of external thermal insulation for walls of multi-storey buildings this guidance note outlines both procedures in more detail and addresses common misconceptions relating to combustibility and surface spreads of
00:51:00 to combustibility and surface spreads of flame ratings now
00:51:05 now do you agree uh with what is stated in that paragraph i've just read to you
00:51:15 um
00:51:25 it says all key components depends what you mean by key components i guess well so
00:51:29 so it's open to interpretation well
00:51:33 well what this document what's open to interpreter this paragraph that you've just asked me to come up with how did you interpret it when you read it when you first read it
00:51:49 from recollection i thought it probably went further than than um
00:51:56 than a proof document b but i didn't see that as being a bad thing no okay uh did you when you read the words adb adb2 recommends either the use of combustible used
00:52:08 either the use of combustible used either the use of materials of limited combustibility for all key components when you read that did you think that it was correct that atb two recommends that
00:52:19 was correct that atb two recommends that all key components should be of limited combustibility and i think that that was wrong
00:52:24 wrong i i thought it was um more onerous than we'd intended when we drafted it i think as a said over the last few days is
00:52:35 as a said over the last few days is that wasn't what we had in mind when we drafted that paragraph but this provided a much more straightforward um and
00:52:47 straightforward um and safer approach to the question yes i i'm not asking you about
00:52:53 the result i'm asking you about whether it is factually correct that
00:53:00 that adb
00:53:01 adb 2
00:53:02 2 recommends that all key components be of material of limited combustibility
00:53:14 so that very precise question you've asked me the answer is no it's not correct
00:53:18 correct no
00:53:20 no so is it the case that when you read it you thought well adb2 does not recommend all key components but
00:53:28 but that the misreading of adb2 in this more restrictive way is safer and therefore a good thing
00:53:38 yes i see
00:53:42 coming back to the question of key components and i apologize for repeating the question if i am but what did you understand the bca to have intended by the words
00:53:53 the bca to have intended by the words all key components
00:54:08 i'm not sure if i know what i was thinking at the time but i was thinking that's it that's extending to the majority of the construction of the wall let's go to the top of page two
00:54:20 where we got a little bit more on this issue
00:54:23 issue under option one
00:54:27 and you know there are three options here options one two and three uh option one it says this the use of materials of limited combustibility for all elements of the cladding system
00:54:38 all elements of the cladding system both above and below 18 meters this includes the insulation internal lining board and the external facing material
00:54:49 and the external facing material smaller gasket parts and similar low-risk items can be excluded from this requirement the definition of mulc material of limited combustibility is stated in table a7 of adb-2
00:55:04 now just i want to focus on two phrases in that option all elements of the cladding system uh including uh external facing material
00:55:16 facing material now
00:55:18 now were you when you read this
00:55:22 uh content that that reflected
00:55:26 reflected approved document b um as i've said um i i think felt it went further than my interpretation of the text that we drafted
00:55:38 drafted in that
00:55:39 in that as i've you asked me on several occasions over the last few days whether my whether our intention at the time was to control all elements of the cladding system
00:55:50 system when we drafted it we thought that we were
00:55:54 we were the actual surface of the material might be class o but the core material to be caught by the
00:56:01 the material limited combustibility provision this is a much simpler way of saying it um it's probably more onerous than we intended um
00:56:10 um but i saw that as a safe thing right and i apologize for pursuing this in the light of that and you may we maybe you give me the same answer but do you remember that in your emails to daniel turner of ipswich building
00:56:22 daniel turner of ipswich building control we looked at uh two or so days ago from the june of 2013. it's only a year or so before the publication of this document
00:56:32 document um you told us that the approved document b did not preclude the use of timber or timber frame over 18 meters because the evidence had not supported
00:56:44 because the evidence had not supported that restriction remember that yes and also that in your discussions with tony baker at the bre in november 2013 as we saw you'd
00:56:55 the bre in november 2013 as we saw you'd suggested that a homogenous class b board might be fine but anything else should revert to limited combustibility criteria yes yes now the bca guidance says otherwise doesn't it
00:57:06 doesn't it it's it's a it's a more onerous safer approach
00:57:10 approach um but it's much more straightforward and and i thought um
00:57:18 this provided a good starting point for building control bodies um as it was clearer and simpler right
00:57:29 so just to be clear does it remain did it remain your understanding of adb
00:57:36 that it didn't extend to the external facings or timber frames but the the nhbc had decided uh
00:57:47 uh to
00:57:48 to take a far tougher safer more restrictive line on the linear route um well this is a bca guidance note so it's not an hbc that decided it's the bca that decided it but yes it is but it as we know it it
00:58:01 it but yes it is but it as we know it it was generated in draft by nhbc and driven by the nhbc we've been through that
00:58:06 that it doesn't matter yes i think it's an important point if you're attributing it to nhbc when it's a bca publication that was cleared by their technical committee i'm not
00:58:17 i'm not disagreeing with that at all um but uh
00:58:23 can we be clear
00:58:27 in your own mind is it the case that your interpretation when you when you saw this and were happy with it your interpretation or understanding of adb had changed or was it the case that
00:58:38 adb had changed or was it the case that adb hadn't changed it was much more more much less restrictive and much more open-ended but it was simply that the bca guidance was far more constrained and therefore different from
00:58:50 and therefore different from and tougher than adb
00:58:54 yeah this was different from and tougher than adb um but i saw that as a positive thing right
00:59:06 and then let's just finish this point off a bit can we go please to your statement page 49 paragraph 138
00:59:21 and this is in the context of a later meeting at the cwct fire group in march 2016 which we'll come to later
00:59:30 later but at the moment i just want to ask you about this this part of your statement halfway through line five you say the minutes go on to note that the 2015 bca guidance note 18
00:59:43 the 2015 bca guidance note 18 and
00:59:44 and take this from me this is it's the same in the 2015 guidance as the 2014 guidance yes had extended the limited combustibility requirement to all material in the wall of a tall building
00:59:56 of a tall building and then you say this was not an objectionable clarification
01:00:02 and why was it a clarification um it's probably a poor choice of words um
01:00:10 um i think as we've just discussed it's not clarifying it it's it's proposing a more onerous but simpler approach to the question um so it wasn't objectionable but it's a
01:00:22 um so it wasn't objectionable but it's a poor choice of words not clarification no
01:00:25 no indeed not and then looking at the language in the previous sentence when you say that the guidance note had extended the limited combustibility requirement
01:00:36 requirement uh when you say extended uh did you think people saw technical guidance note 18 as an expansion of the scope of the requirement in adb
01:00:47 of the scope of the requirement in adb for material of limited combustibility i think that was that that was that was what was being discussed at that meeting was that it did go that people
01:01:01 as we discussed with them before people had read
01:01:04 had read the approved document in different ways and people saw the bca guidance note as being more onerous i saw the fact that this was causing problems as a positive thing and it
01:01:15 problems as a positive thing and it meant that people were looking at it right
01:01:18 right so can we does it come to this that uh adb remained unchanged with it much more limited in its scope and as you've said before this um
01:01:29 and as you've said before this um wasn't a clarification of that it was an extension an enlargement of the restriction in terms of the way the guidance note was written um but i was expecting in
01:01:41 was written um but i was expecting in practice that where for instance someone planned to build a high-rise timber frame building um they would be looking at the bca guidance note and saying hang on a minute um how does this apply to our
01:01:52 minute um how does this apply to our building and then that would cause the building control body and the designers to to look into the matter in more detail so i saw that as
01:02:05 an improvement in standards so that's sort of a good thing you saw it as a good thing you've said that a number of times and the ques that then raises this question why was it a good thing in 2014
01:02:18 question why was it a good thing in 2014 to have this expanded restriction covering all elements of the external wall including external facings but not in 2005 or 2006
01:02:32 but not in 2005 or 2006 when you added the words filler material etc
01:02:39 um
01:02:45 i guess you learn things over time and and things change over time so in tooth when the text was originally drafted um
01:02:53 um we were working within the constraints that that um applied at the time and we gave what we thought was the best advice we could um
01:03:04 advice we could um from 2014 where we'd been the feedback we were getting from cwct and the conversations that we'd had with nhbc showed that you know we did need something needed to improve
01:03:16 something needed to improve um and this was um a step in that direction you say
01:03:23 you say you learn things over time and things change
01:03:27 change what was it that had changed between your inserting the words filler material etc not including gaskets sealants and
01:03:38 not including gaskets sealants and similar etc between
01:03:41 between the 22nd of november and the 18th of december 2006 on the one hand and the summer of 2014
01:03:51 of 2014 on the other which allowed you now to embrace this tougher and wider restriction
01:04:01 what we've learned in in 2014 from nhbc and from the cwct
01:04:13 so the matters that you'd learnt to be clear is this right between the 25th of june 2014 meeting with
01:04:24 2014 meeting with arab and be and uh uh and the bre and the 11th of july or perhaps 15th of august
01:04:35 of july or perhaps 15th of august 2014.
01:04:36 2014. yes
01:04:37 yes um yes i suppose
01:04:43 so does it come to this that you thought that the cure for the lack of clarity in 12.7 that had been brought to your attention when you read the note of the
01:04:55 attention when you read the note of the meeting of the 2nd of july 2014
01:04:59 was cured by this tougher wider more onerous restriction that the bca had put into option one
01:05:12 yes i saw this as as addressing the concerns that that come to my attention yes right
01:05:19 right did it occur to you at the time if you had thought those thoughts that this would of course apply to those reading the bca guidance in other words the members of the bca
01:05:30 the members of the bca but not the entire industry i i believe that bca guidance notes had a
01:05:36 a um
01:05:38 um a very broad reach um and any work that any um overclouding work or new building would be subject to building regulations um the bca um
01:05:50 um the bca um guidance notes but used by all the building control bodies so this would be something that you couldn't avoid coming to your attention i honestly believed that i thought it was a very effective way of
01:06:01 thought it was a very effective way of getting
01:06:02 getting information and where it needed to be so did you effectively rely entirely on the content of bca technical guidance note 18 option 1 to disseminate what you considered to be
01:06:15 to disseminate what you considered to be the cure for the problem about the lack of clarity in 12.7
01:06:21 at that time yes i mean i was ex at that time i thought we were about to start work on on a review of approved document b so this was something which got that message across
01:06:32 message across um sooner than i was able to in terms of any kind of change to the approved document
01:06:37 document um
01:06:40 so it seemed
01:06:44 um a good a good way of addressing the issue quickly but given that the bca guidance note was for bca members and that's certainly the effect of mr evans evidence
01:06:55 effect of mr evans evidence unless your department took charge of disseminating this clarification how else was industry as a whole to be aware of it still less to understand it by which i am including
01:07:07 understand it by which i am including designers builders cladding subcontractors like harley fire safety professionals fire and rescue services how are they supposed to know
01:07:18 supposed to know um
01:07:19 um because they'd be dealing with a building control but there's no way you can do this work without dealing with a building control body and all of the building control bodies were members of the bca
01:07:27 the bca and the guidance note was drafted for the use of other people but it was it don't
01:07:32 it don't initially circulate into all the building control bodies but it would i i believed that it would become
01:07:39 you know a widespread reference document i thought it was the most effective thing we could do but your experience as a building control officer surely would have led you to understand that there would be building control officers
01:07:50 there would be building control officers hard pressed in local authorities who might just not have had the chance to see insulation or to examine the core of a rain screen panel
01:08:03 or any other elements all the facing
01:08:08 in circumstances where this material was on the building
01:08:13 so what wasn't it essential to get the message through to the people actually designing
01:08:19 designing and building these buildings rather than leaving it until building control came for their inspections well building control deal with the project from from its inception um
01:08:31 project from from its inception um in terms of checking the plans so it's not it's not that they turn up at the project when the work's in hand they'll review the design in advance of the work starting yeah but we know that but things change don't they materials get
01:08:43 things change don't they materials get substituted and unless the designer and the builder of different knows
01:08:50 knows the 12.7 when it says filler material not including gaskets sealants or similar etc extends to all means or should be taken as extending to
01:09:02 means or should be taken as extending to all
01:09:03 all elements
01:09:05 elements or all key elements in the external wall build up
01:09:09 the built environment is at risk of containing these materials because the designer doesn't know their band
01:09:17 now at the time i thought this was the most effective way of getting the message across
01:09:23 across and what it what happens would you accept that by not disseminating it right across the industry to include those professionals who are involved in design
01:09:35 you allow a risk a real risk that there are buildings on which the presence of combustible materials get missed because you're leaving it too
01:09:46 missed because you're leaving it too much in the hands of the building control officer
01:09:51 no i didn't see that um at the time i don't really have a mechanism to disseminate it across the entire industry um and i thought the building control alliance guidance notes were well known it all comes back then
01:10:03 well known it all comes back then doesn't it to the only safety net the only thing the only person standing
01:10:09 standing between
01:10:10 between the presence of safe materials above 18 meters and dangerous materials above 18 meters from a fire safety perspective is the building control officer
01:10:21 is the building control officer is that what you intended no i was expecting this document to to reach more people than that um i just want to ask you something about
01:10:32 what it does and doesn't do can we please go to cev 701
01:10:41 and what i'm showing you i'll show you the first page of this document uh it's an a witness statement from a a gentleman called clive everett uh who as he explains in his statement
01:10:52 uh who as he explains in his statement was
01:10:53 was present at the march 2016 cwct meeting and at the time he worked for a firm called europa facade consultants and if we go in this statement please to page 30 paragraph 128
01:11:06 30 paragraph 128 he says this in my opinion whilst the bca technical guidance note 18 had gone some way to clarify some of the confusion it had not clarified all the points in addition it was not a document that was well circulated beyond its
01:11:18 that was well circulated beyond its target audience building control professionals and in terms of hierarchy it carried less weight than adb 2006 because it carries less contractual weight eg contract documents will regularly refer
01:11:29 contract documents will regularly refer to the requirements of the building regulations and the guidance provided by the approved documents very few contracts will specifically reference bca guidance this is sometimes contractually captured in a catch-all
01:11:40 contractually captured in a catch-all phrase such as and all other relevant standards and guidance but not always now do you have any reason to believe that mr everett is wrong to say that the bca guidance notes were not well circulated beyond building control
01:11:52 circulated beyond building control professionals
01:11:57 no i thought i thought they would have a wide um
01:12:01 wide um wider impact than just landing on building control officers desks but i didn't have any evidence for that right and in any case do you agree that the bca guidance does not have the same status as statutory guidance
01:12:15 that's a that's a legal fact yes yes and does it surprise you to hear that stewart winter at taylor of wintec who was also a desire a facade designer and consultant had not either in 2014 or
01:12:28 and consultant had not either in 2014 or 2015 even heard of the bca let alone read these guidance
01:12:34 notes and that did surprise me when i heard that yes i mean i think you would accept that the bca guidance technical guidance notes are not an equivalent or not a substitute for
01:12:46 equivalent or not a substitute for government guidance
01:12:49 um no but the problem we had is that it it it was
01:12:52 it it was you can't we didn't have a mechanism for changing the approved documents um very quickly and and the way we worked was such that um
01:13:03 was such that um we tend to wait until we had the opportunity to do a review of an approved document before we made any changes
01:13:10 changes so this was something that became the way we worked on a range of issues where we tried to get industry guidance to
01:13:21 industry guidance to resolve problems that might have arisen in between reviews but given your evidence this morning that you thought that option one was a good thing as
01:13:30 as expressed why not simply take the text contained in option one uh paste it unchanged
01:13:41 unchanged into
01:13:42 into an faq
01:13:43 an faq and put it on the department's website
01:13:51 i didn't think of it at the time i'm not convinced i would have got any greater reach with an faq on their website than than the bca's circulation system themselves well why would you why do you say that
01:14:11 i often used to get asked questions that where the answer was on the faq so i wasn't convinced people found them that easily no but of course you can't regulate the activities of every single individual in the industry but but at
01:14:23 individual in the industry but but at least
01:14:24 least on the faq people knew the faq existed that's why it was referred to in the cwct meeting minute for the 2nd of july and at least you would have an official public statement contained in an easily
01:14:36 public statement contained in an easily accessible and part of the department's website about what the department's position was and that could be done easily so the question is why wasn't it
01:14:48 so the question is why wasn't it it didn't occur to me at the time that was something that needed to be done i could
01:14:52 i could you're right we could we could have taken that forward um i i guess i came to the conclusion the only evidence i did have was the meeting at cw in 2016 with cwct which
01:15:04 meeting at cw in 2016 with cwct which was
01:15:05 was reporting the fact that the the guidance note was having some impact yes so that's a positive thing well seeing things as a positive thing is one thing given that the cwct itself had actually
01:15:16 given that the cwct itself had actually uh
01:15:17 uh given that at the meeting an faq had been suggested and was therefore out there as a possibility uh and given that when you then see only
01:15:28 uh and given that when you then see only a matter of weeks later option one why wasn't it the simplest thing in the world to put two and two together and say well there we go that's a that's a very good text the job's been done for me by beast the
01:15:39 the job's been done for me by beast the bca they've passed it through their technical committee uh and so the easiest thing in the world is just to take the text and put that on the the faq part of the website
01:15:50 faq part of the website i'm not convinced it was the easiest thing in the world to do it was certainly something we could have done and um it
01:15:55 and um it i didn't think of it at the time right i'm really just one today why that didn't occur to you given that the faq the three letters were spelled out in the minute that we
01:16:06 were spelled out in the minute that we saw
01:16:17 i'm not sure i mean it may have been to the general thrust of the way that we've been working um under that administration was very much let the sector resolve its own problems
01:16:29 let the sector resolve its own problems that's the way that
01:16:33 the leadership of the department was approaching things um so i saw an industry body dealing with something and
01:16:45 right if they'd have asked us to do an faq i probably would have progressed that but that i wouldn't blame them for that
01:16:51 that but
01:16:53 but having not been directly asked to do it um
01:16:55 um given that we were focused on other work i think i
01:16:59 i think i decided that the guidance note was probably sufficient
01:17:03 right um
01:17:05 um mr chairman is that a convenient moment for the morning break yes thank you i think it is um mr martin we'll take a morning break at that point we'll come back please at 25 to 12.
01:17:18 we'll come back please at 25 to 12. and uh as before i have to ask you not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it while you're right in the room all right yes sir 25 to 12 please
01:17:32 take three minutes
01:17:36 thank you very much mr millet uh 25 to 12. please thank you
01:36:59 oh
01:37:06 yes mr millet if you're ready to continue perhaps you'd ask the usher to call mr martin back into the room yes thank you mr chairman can we please have mr martin back in the hearing room
01:37:27 mr martin are you ready to continue our help yes sir thank you very much when you're ready mr william thank you thank you now we may come back to uh technical guidance note 18
01:37:38 18 uh well we will um in due course but for the moment i want to move forward in time please to february 2015 and look at some correspondence between you and peter holland at that time in
01:37:50 you and peter holland at that time in the immediate aftermath of a high-rise fire in dubai the torch fire first can you just remember remind us please or tell us from your recollection what was mr holland's role
01:38:02 recollection what was mr holland's role in 2015
01:38:04 in 2015 um
01:38:08 i think thinking at that time he would have been
01:38:15 i majes it's called the chief fire and rescue advisor yes um they worked in i've lost track of whether that was in home office or mhclg at the time well i think they
01:38:27 mhclg at the time well i think they moved to home office in 2016. yes but let's go to clg 3031073
01:38:37 and if we go to the bottom email in the chain please we can see an email from right to the bottom an email from peter holland
01:38:46 holland on saturday 21st february 2015 uh to a number of people including you and louise upton you see that yes and this subject is dubai by
01:38:57 yes and this subject is dubai by high-rise fire and it says the fire last night in the badly named high-rise torch building appears to have spread rapidly up the outside of the building due to inadequate or non-existent fire
01:39:08 inadequate or non-existent fire resistance in the external elements of the structure they've had previous fires in dubai where this has been a similar problem thankfully it appears that the internal fire precautions have worked well enough to enable the circa 2000
01:39:21 well enough to enable the circa 2000 occupants to escape safely brian martin will be able to confirm that this shouldn't be a problem in this country
01:39:29 country peter
01:39:30 peter were you aware of the fire at the torch in dubai before you received this email from peter holland i think so yes now let's look at your response higher up in the chain a little later that morning
01:39:45 you say as peter says they've had a few similar incidents in dubai there are provisions in the building regulations designed to prevent this kind of problem so this shouldn't be a problem in the uk there are of
01:39:56 be a problem in the uk there are of course no guarantees now what were the provisions you were referring to requirement b4 requirement b4 anything else well in the associated guidance right
01:40:08 well in the associated guidance right anything in that have you had in mind uh all of it all of it um you say there are of course no guarantees why no guarantees
01:40:19 guarantees why no guarantees um
01:40:21 no no regulatory systems perfect so you can't guarantee that there isn't a problem somewhere now we looked at the second of july 2014 cwct minute yesterday
01:40:34 cwct minute yesterday it's right isn't it that as you let me suggest to you knew at the time that far from there being no guarantees acm panels with a pe core a combustible core
01:40:44 core were normal material in the uk market no
01:40:53 i don't think i picked up on it in those terms at the time so when you were signaling no guarantees what were you not guaranteeing uh just the the general nature the fact
01:41:05 just the the general nature the fact that um
01:41:08 non-compliance is a um a thing that occurs in in any regulatory system and that would include the building regulation so you couldn't be certain that there wouldn't be a problem
01:41:20 a problem or problems in the uk building stock and you never can be was
01:41:25 was one of the things you were not signaling by
01:41:28 by no guarantees the fact that adb 12.7 was not clear and in need of clarification
01:41:47 i guess at this time i think the building control alliance guidance note had been published so i probably thought that we
01:41:53 that we addressed that issue you say weed you hadn't
01:41:57 hadn't had you
01:42:02 oh in terms of publishing something no about i
01:42:05 about i i mean we collectively as in with working with the bca
01:42:12 right so we'd be clear about something then
01:42:15 then is it the case that once you'd seen the bca technical guidance note 18 issue north in the summer august 2014 you you thought that the
01:42:28 you you thought that the clarification the clarity of 12.7 the lack of which had been drawn to your attention a few weeks before had been solved once and for all and that you now needed to do nothing more about it
01:42:40 needed to do nothing more about it um at that time i was expecting to start a review of approved document b and that would clearly be one of the things that i'd need to work on well you say clearly one of the things you need to work on we're going to come back to that but i
01:42:51 we're going to come back to that but i think you will accept as a general proposition that that
01:42:56 that that revising adb in order to bring it in line with the language used in option one of the technical guidance note 18 was not something signaled to
01:43:08 something signaled to any of your seniors uh let alone any minister in any of the documents preparatory to that review
01:43:17 that's right isn't it um but the the preparations that review the the general need to clarify the whole document and to carry out a review of the whole document was what i was expecting to do at the time
01:43:29 was expecting to do at the time now let's look at your statement please page 46 paragraph 130
01:43:36 uh you you deal with this point uh here and if you uh go down halfway having covered the email in the first
01:43:47 having covered the email in the first part of that paragraph uh you say there are provisions in the building regulations designed to prevent this kind of problem so this shouldn't be a problem in the uk i went on to note that there were no guarantees
01:43:59 there were no guarantees my understanding of adb remains the same today as it did on 21st february 2015 applied correctly the regulations should prevent a fire like that which happened in dubai
01:44:10 in dubai to the torch from happening now
01:44:15 now applied correctly is what you say based on your understanding of adb as it stood
01:44:23 but your understanding of adb as it stood was that the expression filler materials not including gaskets sealants and similar etc was
01:44:34 was open-ended and not tough and restrictive as option 1 of the bca guidance note was yes
01:44:43 yes yes i suppose yes
01:44:48 and therefore applied
01:44:52 applied correctly
01:44:54 correctly would mean what
01:45:02 well in the case of um an acm would be that you'd use um a um
01:45:08 a um a core material that was a material limited combustibility or you would have carried out a bs8414 test on the basis that the word filler material covered the core
01:45:19 word filler material covered the core whatever else it covered or didn't cover that that was my view at the time before you sent this response what information did you have about the cause and spread of the fire and the makeup of the torch's external wall
01:45:32 i think i knew that it was acm did you have a report of some kind of or some kind about what the external elements were that i don't remember at the time right you say you think you
01:45:43 the time right you say you think you knew it was acm can you remember what the source of that information was might have been a news report i don't know right
01:45:56 can we look at um
01:46:02 well i mean in fact your response as we've seen to peter holland was that it was
01:46:08 it was it couldn't happen here wasn't it it was a bald and unverified statement that it couldn't happen here but no i said there's no guarantees because there aren't any guarantees and there never will be there's always the potential for something
01:46:20 potential for something to go wrong but yes but was your potential for something to go wrong based on the potential of a misunderstanding of 12.7 or just the potential
01:46:32 or just the potential uh for a building designer or building control officer just to miss something even though they understood 12.7 the way you did i'm not sure if i thought about it in that level of detail can we look at the statement of mr
01:46:44 can we look at the statement of mr harrell please clg3019487 page 19 paragraph 64.
01:46:53 final three lines in that paragraph he says
01:46:56 says i spoke to brian after the fire and i remember that there was a process of sense checking what we knew of the events in dubai against our own regime and knowledge and evidence base is he right about that
01:47:09 is he right about that um i remember us talking about it well
01:47:13 well uh is he right that there was a process of sense checking against our own regime and knowledge and evidence base as he says
01:47:25 says i suppose it depends how you define process of sense checking i think we talked about it and and um i know from his evidence he said that he separately read it and satisfied himself
01:47:36 separately read it and satisfied himself yeah what did you do by way of sense checking what we knew of the events in dubai against our own regime and knowledge and
01:47:47 against our own regime and knowledge and evidence base i can't remember um i i would have tried to find out what information i could about the fire what knowledge and evidence base did you have that formed part of that sense checking process
01:48:01 i don't know i think i i remember talking about it and thinking about it wasn't like there wasn't a formal procedure or process that we followed i think it was just a
01:48:12 we talked it through
01:48:20 one of the knowledges or evidences which formed the base was what had been said at the cwct meeting on the 2nd of july 2014 was it
01:48:30 was it not um i guess so yes yeah did you make mr harrell aware at that stage during that discussion about the warnings that you had received
01:48:41 about the warnings that you had received at that meeting second of july 2014 of um that
01:48:47 um that paragraph 12.7 of approved document b was not clear at least to a cross section of the industry
01:48:56 i don't remember the detail of the conversation
01:49:04 given the email that you'd sent
01:49:10 why did you not tell mr harrell that there was a risk that people had misunderstood what you had intended what you and mr bird had intended
01:49:21 what you and mr bird had intended by the revision to paragraph 12.7 in 2006 for some years that you'd learnt that in july
01:49:30 in july 2014
01:49:33 2014 and that that should be taken into account
01:49:37 when are answering the question could it happen here i'm sorry i can't remember what i did or didn't say to him at the time did you think i i could i i would have thought i would have mentioned it but i don't know for sure
01:49:51 did you think of warning others on the email chain at that stage of the warnings that you yourself had received through the cwct meeting in july 14 that the provisions of approved document
01:50:02 that the provisions of approved document be paragraph 12.7 were not clear and needed to be clarified through an faq or some other means
01:50:10 means evidently not no why not um i i can't i can't remember i think i'm just trying to think what was happening at february 2015 um
01:50:25 i think that i i was just
01:50:30 i'm not sure what i was thinking and i think you'd accept wouldn't you that you you knew by this point that the guidance about how to meet the functional requirements of regulation b4 was not being correctly understood in
01:50:41 was not being correctly understood in the sense you intended it by at least some
01:50:44 some at least some of its intended audience yes
01:50:49 yes you'd known that from july um yes yes and that therefore you knew that there was a clear risk that the guidance couldn't be applied correctly as you put it in your statement by at least that
01:51:01 it in your statement by at least that group of readers yes
01:51:05 yes yes yeah that therefore there was a clear risk that the fire just like that at the torch building might well not be prevented because people in the industry for some years beforehand had not understood 12.7 in
01:51:17 beforehand had not understood 12.7 in the way you'd intended it i think that's a fair point i think at the time
01:51:24 the time it was one of a number of um
01:51:29 issues that could have arisen i guess so i don't think i'd treated it differently and we'd still had no faq
01:51:38 by february 2015.
01:51:43 no we never did produce one did you consider alerting peter holland who was the as you rightly say your majesty's chief fire and rescue advisor
01:51:54 majesty's chief fire and rescue advisor to the potentially widespread lack of consensus about the interpretation and intended meaning of paragraph 12.7 of approved document b of which you have been aware for eight months or so
01:52:09 i didn't at the time no and why not um
01:52:19 i don't really know his role had been had been reduced quite considerably from um so the first chief um fire and rescue advisor was sir ken knight um
01:52:31 um and he had quite a broad remit i think when
01:52:34 when mr holland took over the job the remit had become quite narrow
01:52:40 maybe that's what i had in mind i don't know
01:52:44 if we can go back please to your witness statement paragraph 1 through 130
01:52:52 which is on page 46 there you say as i've read to you in the last sentence my understanding of adb remains the same today as it did on 21st of
01:53:04 the same today as it did on 21st of february 2015 applied correctly the regulation should prevent a fire like that which happened in dubai to the torch from happening and we'll come to this later in your
01:53:15 and we'll come to this later in your evidence but i think you later came to accept in march 2016 that the relevant section of the guidance in 12.7 of the approved document was poorly drafted and
01:53:27 document was poorly drafted and misleading didn't you i don't think i used those words i think they're in the minutes of the cwc team meeting um i doubt i would have used that phrase but
01:53:38 that phrase but as i've said um over the last few days i wasn't particularly happy with that text when it was first produced so it's something that i've wanted to change
01:53:51 on on what basis do you say that today or at least the date you wrote your statement
01:53:59 statement that the guidance had been applied correctly should have been should have prevented a fire like the torch if in fact it was poorly drafted and misleading its readers perhaps what i'm saying
01:54:09 saying maybe after you've chosen the wrong words um applied as intended um
01:54:15 taking into account all the information when you wrote your statement i thought you told us when you started to give evidence that not only had you read it but you'd chosen your words you know with care
01:54:27 chosen your words you know with care and
01:54:29 and this was a full and candid account of what you could tell us so is it the case that you still today or at least the date of your statement remain of the view
01:54:40 view that
01:54:44 given that it was seen by many at least as poorly drafted and misleading it might be quite difficult to apply it correctly in the way in which you mean here
01:55:11 i still think uh somebody reading that having the option of the different materials available um if they took care over what they were
01:55:22 if they took care over what they were doing having read that guidance um i don't see why they would use um a polyethylene cord panel because perhaps because they didn't understand the word filler to extend to the core of
01:55:33 the word filler to extend to the core of a rain screen panel mr martin um
01:55:39 um clearly um that that's something that must have happened i still find that hard to understand if you look at the um
01:55:50 um there are three types of acm available um
01:55:53 um if you're designing a high-rise building you've got to consciously choose the one that hasn't got a fire retardant for core or filler to it which
01:56:04 i'm surprised someone would do lightly making allowances for the risks non-compliance though your statement to the chief fire and rescue adviser that it couldn't that the torch fire couldn't happen here
01:56:16 couldn't happen here was an assurance that you gave him with your fingers crossed knowing very well that there were there was at least a significant portion of um adb readership who did not understand 12.7
01:56:27 who did not understand 12.7 to extend
01:56:29 to extend the requirement of material of limiting combustibility to the core of a rain screen panel and i didn't say it couldn't happen i said it shouldn't happen and i said that there were no guarantees that's hardly sending the message is it
01:56:41 that's hardly sending the message is it to peter holland that there is a sizable chunk of the building industry who does not think or did not think for some years
01:56:49 years that a core of a composite rain screen panel needed to be of limited combustibility
01:56:58 is it i accept it would have been better to raise the raise more to
01:57:03 to bring that more to the front than perhaps i did at the time but it's worse isn't it because by not doing that do you accept that you lulled him and others reading this into a full sense of security
01:57:17 um i don't know mr holland was a very experienced firefighter so he would have been well aware that um non-compliance and would have an impact on
01:57:29 would have an impact on fire safety from time to time he would have experienced fires where
01:57:35 where fire had spread as a result of non-compliance with building regulations but he wasn't at the meeting and he wouldn't have necessarily understood the controversy about the meaning of 12.7 no no unless
01:57:47 about the meaning of 12.7 no no unless you'd alerted him to that to that there's nothing that he would have known uh to to say that he could understand that uh the building regulations were controversial or the adb was controversial
01:57:59 controversial and so therefore that's why i suggest to you
01:58:01 you you gave him uh an answer which which lulled him and others on the email chain into a full sense of security you went candid with them and told them up front what the problem was
01:58:14 um i i think that's perhaps a fair accusation or criticism all right now let's move on to april 2015. uh nhb401057
01:58:31 and this is an email you got from steve evans nhbc we looked at it earlier this morning because i showed you the first paragraph
01:58:43 the first paragraph when asking you about the gap between the 4th of december 2014 and this date now um
01:58:50 now um i i don't want to reread the first paragraph to you but let's just pick it up uh where he says and explains that
01:59:03 that after his apology he says this has been an extremely complicated process in ensuring that the information we provide to our builders is correct and allows them as much flexibility to demonstrate compliance as is possible
01:59:16 compliance as is possible what did you understand when you received that email to have been extremely complicated about the process mr evans was describing
01:59:29 i don't think i read much into that at the time i'm not sure what he's getting at now
01:59:33 at now no indeed and what could have been extremely complicated it was a simple process wasn't it of getting the test and asking aaron for a report
01:59:47 and if you describe it like that it sounds simple i imagine i'm not sure the point he's making now when you had last corresponded with mr evans
01:59:55 mr evans uh in any substantive way when we saw this before 15th of august 2014 he had told you that he was waiting for final test results from kingspan about the two further tests um but the
02:00:07 about the two further tests um but the kingspan had been encouraged by the preliminary results you remember that from this morning yes yes now there's nothing in this email at least so far as i've read to you and we can look at the rest um but there's nothing in this email about the results
02:00:20 nothing in this email about the results of those tests is there perhaps we should check turn the page to be fair to you and have a look at the rest of it um rather than taking it from me but there's quite a lot in it but we haven't been able to find any results
02:00:33 been able to find any results uh
02:00:34 uh in there
02:00:35 in there did you wonder to yourself why that was why
02:00:38 why nhbc we're not coming back to you with the final results kingspan had achieved
02:00:47 i know at some point um i went and spoke to
02:00:51 to nhbc and so that's probably why there's no record of that
02:00:59 when was that i can't i i can't
02:01:04 be certain when that was be probably around this time what did they tell you about the kingspan results
02:01:16 i wouldn't be able to repeat word for word what they said but i came away with the understanding that they'd reviewed um a large number of buildings i understood that to include buildings
02:01:27 i understood that to include buildings that they dealt with in the past and it
02:01:32 and it was satisfied that
02:01:35 um the vast majority of those buildings were were fine i think they decided there were a couple that maybe they decided to do something with but they i came away with the conclusion they
02:01:46 i came away with the conclusion they were satisfied that there was nothing to be concerned about
02:01:55 right and who did you have this conversation with um i think it was steve evans and diane marshall right and do you remember when you said it was around this time [Music]
02:02:08 do you remember that i think so i i i could be wrong it's it's very this is a it's a quite a long period we've been talking about and it's very difficult from memory to place these particular conversations but
02:02:23 the impression i got was that they'd carried out an extensive review and was satisfied that there was not a significant concern
02:02:35 did they tell you in this conversation what it is they'd reviewed it looks from your answer just now that they've done a historic review looking back at buildings which have been completed
02:02:47 been completed that was the impression i got um i i've heard their their evidence and i get and and it appears that that wasn't what they did um
02:02:58 um what i can't say for certain is whether um
02:03:02 um i
02:03:03 i we were talking across purposes and i'd misunderstood them or i'd been misled i can't say for certain i wish i could no okay now mr evans had also been waiting back in august 2014 for an
02:03:15 waiting back in august 2014 for an assessment report from arab we've seen that yes yes now again there's nothing in this email here on the 2nd of april 2015 about that assessment from arab um take that from
02:03:26 assessment from arab um take that from me or
02:03:27 me or take it yourself if you can glance at the screen you'll see nothing there about it did you wonder at the time why
02:03:34 time why there was no assessment from arab
02:03:43 again the understanding that i that i came away with um was that arab had been involved in the process um again i understand from
02:03:56 evidence that um i think mr evans gave is that arab actually refused to be involved which um i wasn't aware of no indeed did you not think to ask though when you received
02:04:08 think to ask though when you received this email not only where are or what are the kingspan results please uh which have this curative effect but where is the arab report um which underpins
02:04:20 um which underpins the confidence that these tests had a curative effect
02:04:27 um i didn't think of that at the time i wish i had and again why not was this again another example of you just leaving it to nhbc and the manufacturer to sort out between themselves
02:04:41 i suppose so yes right but
02:04:45 but again i mean we've had this a number of times and it's a i suspect a theme that may
02:04:49 may crop up again but but why the in curiosity in this matter of life safety you've got 100 possibly 100 buildings possibly thousands of occupants living in
02:05:01 thousands of occupants living in buildings with kingspan k15 on them without having gone through an 8414 test there's clearly a public safety problem about that because you'd raised that with mr alban in the previous summer
02:05:14 with mr alban in the previous summer why weren't you concerned about this sufficiently to make it a top priority
02:05:25 i think at the time i was too quick to accept um their assurances um and i think it's a perfectly valid criticism i should have
02:05:36 criticism i should have pressed them harder but at the time
02:05:41 they convinced me that they'd carried out
02:05:45 out quite an extensive piece of work and satisfied themselves that there wasn't a problem
02:05:50 problem and that the bca guidance note would ensure that we wouldn't get a problem going forward
02:05:58 if you go back to the email please but go back to page one at the foot of the page uh
02:06:09 uh you can see that and i've read this to you but i'll come back to it and read it to you again [Music]
02:06:15 [Music] he says to you that it's been an extremely complicated process in ensuring that the information we provide to our builders is correct and then he says this and allows them as much flexibility to
02:06:28 allows them as much flexibility to demonstrate compliance as is possible
02:06:33 did when you read that did you think that that was an appropriate approach for a company engaged in providing building control services to adopt
02:06:44 building control services to adopt i think it reflected government policy on how the government wanted regulators to work
02:06:50 to work um
02:06:52 there was um i think some years prior to that there was a thing called the enforcement conclude that
02:07:00 that which
02:07:01 which encouraged um enforcers to be more flexible and
02:07:09 cons and and helpful in in the way that they operated
02:07:13 operated um
02:07:14 um and i think that was reinforced over time by other other guidance to enforcers so that that was in line with what government policy was for for enforcers
02:07:25 government policy was for for enforcers to be more flexible right is that what other people in this inquiry have called working with industry
02:07:31 industry working in partnership with builders i think so yes um as i say that the
02:07:37 the the document that springs to mind is a thing called the enforcement con called that
02:07:41 that um and i think i think it may have been replaced by something
02:07:47 something called a regulator's code or that there are a number of different documents but um the
02:07:53 um the most of these came i think directly from the department for business and were directed at all um
02:08:01 um enforcement type bodies which would include building control bodies um and it was encouraging them to be more flexible and and constructive in the way they worked um
02:08:13 the way they worked um and i think um on the first day of evidence and the chairman asked me the question about um the challenge that presents the building control officers when you're both acting
02:08:24 control officers when you're both acting you're trying to be helpful but you're also needing to be an enforcer um so that didn't surprise me that this text was
02:08:32 was in this email that's how you'd exp you'd expect building control bodies to be thinking at the time
02:08:39 was there no hint to you or anyone else in your department in other words the government that
02:08:47 by allowing building control officers to help builders comply as opposed simply to making sure that what was built did comply that might introduce
02:08:59 comply that might introduce a health and safety risk
02:09:08 i think it was a concern in the building control profession and and that and and something that that would have been something we talked about um within our team it's something that
02:09:19 within our team it's something that um was a challenge for building control bodies
02:09:22 bodies but that was government policy and and as far as i'm aware still is now moving on with paragraph 131 of your statement
02:09:32 statement uh if we go to page 46 please you
02:09:36 you um say if we go to the end of can we scroll down please to see the rest of it thank you very much um you say
02:09:44 say uh
02:09:46 uh there after the reference to the email about flexibility this was not a statement that concerned me insofar as builders who built a build over 18 metres would almost invariably have technical directors and a design team
02:09:57 technical directors and a design team who would be experienced and expected to understand the functional requirements of the regulations then you go on his email noted that following guidance the nhbc had issued it had quote begun
02:10:09 the nhbc had issued it had quote begun to see submissions from builders mainly following option three the desktop study option
02:10:14 option i was not perturbed by this statement as the 2014 bca guidance note 18 made clear that it was only appropriate where there existed test data from reputable testing organizations
02:10:26 to his email mr evans had attached a copy of the final text for communication with nhbc builders which set out this position given nhbc's position in the uk construction industry i was pleased to
02:10:37 construction industry i was pleased to see this note the contents of which i would have agreed with had i been asked to comment on it during its preparation had you been aware before receiving this email and its attachment that any building control organization had begun
02:10:49 building control organization had begun to receive submissions from builders mainly following option 3 desktop
02:10:56 don't think anyone had communicated that to me before no in april by april 2015 had you read any desktop studies no
02:11:07 let's look at the attachment clg3019268
02:11:16 this is what you say you agreed with or would have agreed with had you been asked to comment and it's entitled final text with for communication with nhbc builders this this i can take it you read at the
02:11:28 this this i can take it you read at the time yes
02:11:30 time yes i think so yes um [Music]
02:11:33 [Music] and it's entitled the use of combustible materials within the external wall construction of buildings over 18 meters in height
02:11:44 i'm going to assume mr martin that you're familiar with this document having commented on it in your statement but what can you tell us why were you pleased to see it as you say in your statement
02:11:57 um it's another communication with the construction industry reminding them of what they need to do to comply with building regulations right then if we look at the first paragraph
02:12:08 paragraph under the heading background in bold it says we are aware that some builders are specifying combustible components within the external wall construction of buildings with a floor level 18 meters or more above ground
02:12:20 level 18 meters or more above ground level
02:12:22 level did that not immediately alert you to the fact that combustible materials were still in april 2015 being used in buildings with a habitable story over 18 meters
02:12:36 yeah that's the point of this document isn't it is to address how that should be done
02:12:41 be done the fact that there's a combustible component in itself isn't necessarily a problem
02:12:48 well
02:12:52 it isn't necessarily a problem it's not allowed is it uh well it is in so far as bs8414 is concerned and it's a and and you can certainly achieve compliance with a
02:13:04 certainly achieve compliance with a functional requirement with combustible components yes well you cut across my question i was going to make an exception for 8414. but let me try this slightly differently did that statement then not immediately alert you
02:13:15 statement then not immediately alert you to the possibility that the nhbc was still struggling struggling to control the use of combustible materials on high-rise buildings despite your understanding in august
02:13:27 despite your understanding in august 2014 that the matter would be clarified within three months as you've been told
02:13:36 i didn't read it that way i just i just saw that as a an inter introduction to say that combustible components were being specified and here are some is some guidance on on
02:13:47 some guidance on on how you should do that but were you not concerned to learn that combustible materials were still in april 2015 being specified for use in external wool buildups over 18 meters
02:13:59 external wool buildups over 18 meters despite
02:14:00 despite uh the guidance in technical guidance note 18
02:14:03 note 18 let alone despite what you believed paragraph 12.7 to mean no because the guidance note was explaining how to do that in a way that complied
02:14:23 i don't understand i'm sorry
02:14:27 i'm sorry why would builders be specifying combustible components above 18 meters if they'd understood either the build the approved document be the way you intended it or
02:14:39 intended it or the tougher more restrictive requirements in option one of the bca guidance note published six months previous because there's the option of using bs8414
02:14:52 well that wouldn't be a problem which would then require a note to builders would it
02:14:57 would it if bil if all builders were doing were specifying combustible components within an external wall construction which would pass the br 135 test on that system
02:15:06 system you wouldn't need a circular
02:15:10 so that can't be right
02:15:15 i'm not sure i understand the point you're making this is a circular alerting people to the right so the correct way of applying building regulations so i think we can take it from your answers just now that
02:15:27 take it from your answers just now that that first sentence did not alert you to a problem
02:15:30 a problem great
02:15:36 going down to the second bullet point on page one under the heading what do the building regulations require it says this paragraph 12.7 dealing specifically with
02:15:47 paragraph 12.7 dealing specifically with the use of insulation materials stroke products
02:15:51 products says that in a building with a floor level 18 meters or more above ground level
02:15:55 level any insulation product filler material not including gaskets sealants and similar etc used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility however this restriction does not apply
02:16:06 however this restriction does not apply to masonry cavity wall construction which complies with diagram 34 in section 9 of the approved document
02:16:15 did you read that bullet point i don't remember doing so but i must have done that yes now just just just tell me um you say in your statement we've we've seen this at paragraph 131
02:16:27 we've we've seen this at paragraph 131 at the top of page 47 just now that you would have agreed with the contents of this note yes
02:16:35 yes did you agree when you read it in april 2015 that section 12.7 of adb was to deal specifically with the use of insulation
02:16:47 insulation materials stroke products as this note says i think we go back to the problem is that you can read insulation materials stroke products different ways um i don't think i picked up on that at the
02:16:58 don't think i picked up on that at the time right
02:17:04 did this not signal to you that
02:17:08 that nhbc had not understood 12.7 in the way that you had originally intended it when drafting it in 2006 namely that it would extend the limited combustible ability
02:17:19 extend the limited combustible ability criteria to apply to the core of a composite exterior panel i don't think i read this document that
02:17:31 i don't think i read this document that way i read this as a
02:17:34 a way of flagging the bca guidance note to um
02:17:38 to um and hbc members which is nearly every house builder in the country right
02:17:50 would it not also though have flagged to every house builder in the country or nearly how it was that nhbc understood 12.7 of of adb
02:18:02 namely the 12.7 was specifically dealing with the use of insulation materials straight products as it says i think i was looking at this and seeing that it was flagging the bca guidance note
02:18:13 guidance note um and
02:18:16 so that's now circulated to every house builder in the country have a look at bca guidance 18. what about builders who were not nhbc builders and therefore
02:18:27 who were not nhbc builders and therefore did not receive this communication um i say that's pretty much every house builder in the country you've now got everybody that supplies every house builder in the country being affected by this so this is
02:18:41 i believed at the time would ripple across the industry um quite quickly so this was a really you know it's a positive thing to get the guidance note
02:18:53 the guidance note um
02:18:54 um circulated to say all the house builders and if all the house builders are reading it and anyone providing those house builders with
02:19:02 with materials
02:19:03 materials is going to be impacted by that so you've pretty much reached everyone i would have thought at the time i now know that that's not the case but that's at the time i thought that was um
02:19:15 that's at the time i thought that was um probably the most effective way of um bringing it to lots of people's attention well if that is correct then do can we take it that at the time you thought that given the reach and influence of nhbc and this document
02:19:30 influence of nhbc and this document the readership would have understood the 12.7 the built that 12.7 of approved document b specifically dealt with the use of insulation material straight products
02:19:43 insulation material straight products and not
02:19:45 and not the core of a composite panel i saw this as being alerting people to the bca guidance note
02:19:55 so what did you think the point was of setting up what the building regulations require
02:20:02 require um it's a summary document they've circulated to all the house builders telling them what it says in in the um
02:20:09 in the um regulations what it says in the approved document and how to comply and it says demonstrating compliance use the bca guidance note so that's how i read it i think
02:20:29 there's nothing in this document is there and we can look at it as in in its entirety but there's nothing in it in its entire anywhere which says that the nhbc standards
02:20:40 nhbc standards uh
02:20:41 uh are tougher and more restrictive so far as the linear route is concerned option one
02:20:46 one than the building regulations is there
02:20:54 not in this document no no indeed under the heading what do the nhbc standards require all we see is nhbc standards require compliance with the building
02:21:05 require compliance with the building regulations and also the materials provide satisfactory performance there's no hint in there that the building regulations are slacker
02:21:14 slacker [Music]
02:21:16 [Music] vega if you like than the tougher and more restrictive option one
02:21:23 now i think in the point they're making here is they're referring to nhbc standards so that's this that they're talking about the standards that the um the warranty half of nhbc
02:21:35 the warranty half of nhbc imposes on um house builders um so what it's saying here is the building regulations um
02:21:45 um include
02:21:46 include provisions to risk to ensure that you don't have a medium for fire spread um and the nhbc standards which you need to meet in order to get your warranty um
02:21:56 um require the same thing then at the bottom it says demonstrating compliance once you're at the bca guidance you're right you're right and let's look at that demonstrating compliance an acceptable method of demonstrating
02:22:07 acceptable method of demonstrating compliance is by providing evidence in accordance with bca technical guidance note 18 and then it sets out the three options
02:22:15 options that would lead the reader to think wouldn't it that
02:22:19 that bca technical guidance note 18 option 1 was what was required by
02:22:27 by the building regulations or perhaps they might have thought they having set out the building regulations 12.7 that that is how they should read option one which was it
02:22:40 i know you didn't draft this but you read it at the time and approved of it which was it the guidance note was attached to the document it says here so you
02:22:48 you they'd need to turn the page wouldn't they
02:22:51 they and they could read the guidance note themselves which was clearly the point of this document was to bring it to the attention of all the house builders yes but do do do you see the point i'm putting to you there's a there's a
02:23:02 putting to you there's a there's a tension
02:23:03 tension between what the building requirement regulations require as stated in the second bullet point and
02:23:10 and the
02:23:12 the document attached the bca guidance note 18 option one and yet
02:23:18 and yet this net this document is saying that you can comply with the building regulations by complying with the guidance note when they are actually different you see the point
02:23:31 i suppose if you look at this document forensically you can come to that conclusion i just see this as a document that says um house builders there's a building building control alliance guidance note which explains how to comply with these provisions right
02:23:44 comply with these provisions right let's then look at your response please nhb-401057
02:23:57 and here is an email 7th of april 2015. and if you uh look at what you say you say thanks for this steve if there are common solutions that people are using
02:24:08 common solutions that people are using for the engineered approach i'd be interested to hear about them it might be we could adopt them in future editions of the ad there does seem to have been some confusion in the market whether some polymer insulation materials are combustible or not i guess
02:24:19 materials are combustible or not i guess i shouldn't be that surprised anything you can do to raise awareness has got to be a good thing is nhbc content that the existing projects you've dealt with meet these principles i understood that there
02:24:30 these principles i understood that there had been some questions raised now just looking at the first and second paragraphs of that email and particularly there does seem to be having some some confusion in the market
02:24:42 having some some confusion in the market etc
02:24:43 etc and can we take it looking at that that you were well aware at least by april 2015 that there was confusion in what you call the market about whether or not certain types of polymeric insulation were combustible
02:24:56 polymeric insulation were combustible um i guess that's what um we were hearing from um people at cwct so um
02:25:04 um as i've said to mr evans anything we can do to remind people of this is is a positive thing
02:25:12 i don't see how you cannot know that a polymer insulation is a isn't a material limited combustibility but um it had been suggested that some people didn't understand that and what did you think
02:25:23 understand that and what did you think at the time might have caused that confusion
02:25:33 i don't know i don't think it is confusing um it
02:25:42 i guess i'm just to some extent i'm expressing despair here that i don't see how you can get that wrong but that's what people were telling us i see so it's not it's not confusion it's
02:25:53 it's not it's not confusion it's ignorance i think would that be a better word perhaps
02:25:59 perhaps and
02:26:01 did did you wonder did you ask yourself why are people ignorant about what is obvious everyone knows that polymer insulations
02:26:12 everyone knows that polymer insulations burn they are combustible why are people ignorant of that did you ask yourself that question
02:26:19 i suppose to some extent that's the point i'm making when i said to um mr evans that i shouldn't be that surprised um i was going to ask you what did you mean by i imagine you would um
02:26:31 by i imagine you would um mr evans was an experienced building control officer um we've been working in building controlling different aspects for some time and the construction industry is is a
02:26:42 the construction industry is is a difficult animal to deal with and
02:26:46 and there are lots of people working in the industry that um as not as competent as you would hope they'd be
02:26:53 they'd be well that's a pretty this
02:26:57 this aspect of incompetence is would you accept profound and potentially fatal
02:27:10 evidently i think that i think we were all trying to address that wherever we could
02:27:20 did you in your mind link the confusion or perhaps as i think you agree a better word was is ignorance to what you'd learnt in the summer of 2014 namely that there were two previous
02:27:31 2014 namely that there were two previous certificates for kingspan's k15 insulation issued by both the bba and the labc which appear to have approved the product generically for use over 18
02:27:42 product generically for use over 18 meters
02:27:45 i don't know if i made that direct connection at the time i i i've got to be careful not to put ideas into into my head in 2015. i can't remember what i was thinking then all right now
02:27:57 what i was thinking then all right now you also say uh at the end of the third paragraph anything you can do to raise awareness has got to be a good thing so
02:28:04 so you you thought it was good for nhbc to raise awareness what about other organizations did you take any steps to ask any other organizations to assist in as you put it raising awareness
02:28:16 as you put it raising awareness um
02:28:17 um it was probably around this time i think i did a talk at the um local authority building control annual conference
02:28:25 i think it was one that was attended by all the chief building control officers um and i used that as an opportunity to remind them all of the provisions of b4 um i think that was around this time
02:28:36 um i think that was around this time right
02:28:43 would it not have been a good thing for the department to take steps to raise awareness a public safety campaign an faq
02:28:52 an faq um
02:28:57 well this is april 2015 so we're probably just about to go into a general election which means we wouldn't have been able to do anything during for some time anyway um but that's just not the way the department was functioning at the time
02:29:09 department was functioning at the time um
02:29:12 the i can't think of a better word the mentor of the department um was was very much about localism it was about saying um it should be the industry and local local bodies
02:29:23 local bodies that
02:29:24 that you know lead on these issues um with minimum government intervention so the department um had been progressively um
02:29:33 um behaving right across the board um because of the the fact that we you know we had less people less resources and less money so
02:29:44 money so that was how the department was working so
02:29:47 so getting other organizations to do this kind of thing is exactly what they wanted us to do
02:29:56 right but
02:29:59 but is it the case
02:30:03 that you
02:30:07 you as a result of that culture didn't know didn't think that you were the custodian of public safety and that these other organizations the nhpc the bca even the manufacturers
02:30:20 nhpc the bca even the manufacturers should take that off your hands is that was that your thinking
02:30:25 i think in part yes i think that was that was how we were encouraged to work is that you should wherever possible get the industry or other organizations to to take the lead
02:30:37 other organizations to to take the lead on things and that's what nhbc were doing
02:30:42 but nhbc are a private organization who at least so far as their building control division is concerned profit from fees
02:30:55 profit from fees derive from the activities of approved inspectors they're a private sector organization why leave it to a private company to ensure the universal dissemination of
02:31:08 to ensure the universal dissemination of a public safety message one as simple as polymeric insulation is combustible and should not be used above 18 meters unless tested to be r135 simple message
02:31:20 unless tested to be r135 simple message um
02:31:21 um they would they were disseminating that message effectively as far as i could see
02:31:25 see and
02:31:27 and that that's that's the the approach the department was taking across the board they
02:31:31 they we as i say we had considerably limited resources um so and the structure of our team was designed to work on policy projects um and so
02:31:43 projects um and so we didn't have mechanisms in place to simply
02:31:48 simply do the kind of thing you're talking about it would have been it would have been difficult to persuade the department to start
02:31:57 start um
02:31:58 um some kind of information campaign but all you needed was an faq or a circular just put something on the website saying for those of you who happen not to know this fact polymeric insulation is combustible
02:32:11 polymeric insulation is combustible please remember that when designing a building or or approving it for building control purposes
02:32:20 i'm not sure that would have been particularly effective why not um
02:32:26 putting something on a government website as unless people go looking for is unlikely to impact on them this this was being disseminated direct to house builders um nhbc had a very effective
02:32:38 builders um nhbc had a very effective mechanism of directly contacting house builders we didn't have that all we could do would be make some kind of statement on a website that probably no one would notice
02:32:50 and that would have been out outside the the approach that um the department was was taking across the board
02:33:03 the nhpc would say well we're not government it's not our job to make sure the entire industry understands things we are only interested in our membership what would be wrong or unfair about that as an approach
02:33:17 um if they'd said that then i guess so but actually they they've taken some really positive steps to try to try and help and i think nhbc um consider it considered itself to be
02:33:28 um consider it considered itself to be more than just um a um
02:33:34 a um a commercial enterprise it considered itself to be um a body set up to try and improve standards in the house building sector
02:33:43 now in the last paragraph of your email you say or you ask is nhbc content that the existing projects you've dealt with meet these principles i understood that there had been some questions raised
02:33:55 from whom had you understood that there had been some questions raised
02:34:02 i i can't remember it might have been the conversations i'd previously had with them
02:34:06 with them what were the questions which had been raised
02:34:11 i suppose i'm i'm asking them to confirm whether
02:34:14 whether they have looked at their existing project and like projects that they've dealt with in the past it's quite a bleak isn't it
02:34:24 is nhbc content that the existing projects you've dealt with meet these principles were you squarely or you intending squarely to ask them what about your legacy of high-rise buildings
02:34:35 legacy of high-rise buildings uh approved by your inspectors after 2007 or six um which contain kingspan k15 or any other polymeric insulation above 18 meters
02:34:48 insulation above 18 meters is that the question you were actually driving at that's what i remember yes
02:34:55 why were you asking it because you knew yourself in july because he told you in his 11th of july email we saw yesterday yesterday that as he put it several high-rise buildings had been clapped
02:35:06 high-rise buildings had been clapped with k-15 without test evidence to support them and you remember you alerted mr harold and mr led some to that fact the same day yes yes so why were you asking steve evans whether or not the projects nhbc had dealt with met
02:35:19 not the projects nhbc had dealt with met the principles in the note that he'd sent you
02:35:21 sent you when you knew that several projects didn't
02:35:31 i think i'm asking him to confirm that having reviewed um all of their buildings and and the work that they've done and with kingspan um and as i thought at the time arab um
02:35:43 and as i thought at the time arab um that
02:35:44 that they considered those buildings why not simply ask him straight up where the kingspan had provided satisfactory test results for the two tests that have been promised and whether arab had provided their promised
02:35:55 whether arab had provided their promised desktop
02:36:01 i guess that's what i was trying to do um i um
02:36:04 um i um so you
02:36:05 so you look back at things forensically and and ask yourself is that the best language to use at the time um perhaps not but at the time that's what i thought i was doing well it's not really
02:36:16 thought i was doing well it's not really a question of language it's a question of what your eye is on and your eye does not seem to be on pressing an hbc for some empirical data which has been promised
02:36:26 promised my question is why did instead of ask instead of asking about existing projects which was a question you'd asked previously why not ask him what he promised you where is where is the test data and
02:36:37 where is where is the test data and where is the interpolation of that test data that you told me kingspan were going to be getting from arab um i don't think i was pressing them for the technical data i was pressing them for the result of that review
02:36:48 for the result of that review um
02:36:49 um they're
02:36:51 they're um
02:36:52 um again and hbc have got um fire safety engineers working there that are probably better qualified than me to review what arab had provided assuming arab had provided it which i now understand they didn't um so i was
02:37:06 understand they didn't um so i was asking for the outcome of what they'd looked at not the actual data at what point in this hist in the history did you realize that the promised two tests from kingspan and the promised
02:37:19 kingspan and the promised uh arab report were no longer going to be forthcoming
02:37:24 i assumed that the report existed the conversation i had with them is that they've been been through the next i don't think i don't know for sure that they
02:37:35 don't know for sure that they deliberately misled me and and i wouldn't want to to say that um
02:37:40 um having spoken to um don marshall and steve evans i walked away with the impression possibly wrongly um that they'd looked
02:37:52 possibly wrongly um that they'd looked at their
02:37:54 at their um
02:37:55 um the projects they had on the books and their back catalogue that they'd worked with arab and kingspan and was satisfied that um there wasn't a problem and that's
02:38:03 that's probably why i
02:38:07 and i think that's what i reported back to mr ledson that i was
02:38:12 was that nhbcc was satisfied that um there wasn't a problem here there was no basis for you to make that report to mr ledson uh not in writing no well
02:38:22 well well
02:38:23 well you're not in writing at all but do you remember steve evans or anybody else at nhbc telling you yes we've got the data yes we've now got an arab report
02:38:36 we've now got an arab report and
02:38:37 and the arab report says that not only does the data
02:38:40 the data support the use of kingspan k15 on the tested structures but generally across the entire built environment retrospectively
02:38:51 did they ever tell you that
02:38:55 i can't remember the words they used but i came away thinking that they'd done an extensive piece of work and they'd looked at um
02:39:08 their back catalog of buildings and the buildings they um that they were dealing with um that was still on their desk so to speak
02:39:16 to speak um and
02:39:19 the evidence they'd seen was
02:39:22 was sufficient to satisfy them that there wasn't a problem with existing buildings that's that's the impression i got whether they directly said that or not i can't say for certain but that's the impression i'd got um
02:39:34 impression i'd got um and
02:39:36 and again in hindsight i think i should have asked them for um copies of reports and so on um i'm not sure why i didn't um but at the time i think we decided
02:39:49 um but at the time i think we decided that this was something that we could let nhbc run with they were satisfied that it was um okay and and so i took that as red
02:40:08 but if they told you that as you have a vague recollection of that that would have been false wouldn't it apparently can you think of any reason why
02:40:19 can you think of any reason why or only motive behind why steve evans or dan marshall would lie to you about that
02:40:34 i'm not sure my best place to answer that question uh um
02:40:40 well i i believe them to be honest people so i i i assume that
02:40:46 that perhaps we were speaking at cross purposes and and i misunderstood what they said
02:40:51 they said um
02:40:53 um i can't say for certain let's move then to a little bit later in april 2015 clg one triple zero six nine seven zero
02:41:06 and if we go please to the middle of page two in that email run this is an email sent by steve evans to members of the bca technical liaison group on page
02:41:17 on page two yes there it is thank you uh 28th of april 2015.
02:41:24 you see that yes as a large group uh and um
02:41:33 you can see that he attaches to it his report from the bca technical guidance group
02:41:39 group yes yes yes now if we go to up the chain please to page one we can see that the report goes um from sandra simone
02:41:50 to guy bampton
02:41:55 yes yes yes
02:41:57 yes yes you can weave your way up to that and then what happens is that guy bampton uh responds to sandra simoni
02:42:10 uh uh and shane coulson yes but he says brian do you see that yes
02:42:19 yes and he says this brian we had a discussion recently about fire classifications and ce marking against ends which could strength should be used by suppliers to
02:42:30 strength should be used by suppliers to show how clouding systems perform was i right thinking back to that discussion to be a little surprised that there is no mention of that option in this document which might be considered de facto regulatory in impact
02:42:43 and
02:42:46 i think what he's asking you is this right is what is why it is that the bca document steve evans had attached made no reference to that option if i got the sense of that correct
02:43:06 um it may not matter very much yeah that's rather fringe as a topic but have i understood it so i could put the context to you properly
02:43:17 properly i i think what he's picking up on is that um there's not a direct reference to a european classification in the guide
02:43:29 in the guide right
02:43:30 right uh well um you respond anyway if you look at the top email please on page one on the 30th of april to guy bampton and sandra simone and shane coulson and you say hi guy
02:43:43 and shane coulson and you say hi guy there are moves afoot to produce a harmonized test similar to bs8414 part two but that is stalled while the commission finds the huge pile of money needed to develop it in the meantime the bca are just reiterating what's in adb
02:43:54 bca are just reiterating what's in adb you may ask why they need to do that something to do with people believing that the polymer foam full stop
02:44:00 full stop etc now the what i have the question i have for is for you is something to do with people believing that a polymer foam what
02:44:19 well i'm assuming i'm referring to the fact that the same comment that i made to mr evans that some people believed that pollen foam was a material limited compassibility um i'm explaining why the bca have
02:44:30 um i'm explaining why the bca have reiterated um
02:44:34 adb i think the the question mr bampton's raising here is is i think the way that the bca guidance note was written it talks about a material
02:44:45 written it talks about a material limited combustibility and actually there is a the definition of material limited combustibility does use the european um tests but that's probably not on the face of the bca guide
02:44:56 not on the face of the bca guide so he's probably picked up on that um and said is this um essentially contravening the construction products um regulation in that we're um or here's a
02:45:09 regulation in that we're um or here's a document that's saying to people you must use a british classification when in fact we were required to allow people to use european classifications and
02:45:22 i'm also pointing out that the bs8414 test was that's a british test there were plans in in europe in europe to produce something very similar
02:45:33 europe to produce something very similar and when that was produced we would have been required to adopt it at the time now you say uh in the meantime bca are just reiterating what's in adb is that what you
02:45:45 is that what you you thought um i'm i'm simplifying um mr benton doesn't wouldn't wouldn't have been interested in the in the the nuances of um interpretation of adb he's interested in
02:45:57 interpretation of adb he's interested in whether we're breaching um the construction products regulation well i know but
02:46:02 know but it's completely wrong isn't it given with all the evidence we've been through this morning to say that the bca were just reiterating what's in adb they weren't they were doing two things they were making it tougher and tighter so far as option one was concerned at least
02:46:15 far as option one was concerned at least and uh
02:46:17 and uh and
02:46:18 and to your way of thinking clara
02:46:21 clara extending uh the scope of 12.7 to all elements in the external wall they're very far from reiterating what's in adb yeah i'll take your point i don't think you should read anything into this email this is just um i'm giving a simplistic
02:46:34 this is just um i'm giving a simplistic answer to address the question that mr bampton would have been interested in rather than the those issues which weren't really relevant to his area of work right and to be fair to you is it in fact the case
02:46:46 to be fair to you is it in fact the case that what you were focusing on when you said that bca were just reiterating what's in adb that they were iterating option in option two a description of what is in adb so far
02:46:58 a description of what is in adb so far as the
02:46:59 as the full system test is concerned yes i think that's the point i'm making is is that adb gives you the option of either
02:47:07 either the what you what has become known as the linear route odd using the bs8414 test that's that's the point i'm making um and it's the linear route that recognizes the european
02:47:18 that recognizes the european classifications and therefore meets the uk sort of responsibilities um in relation to the construction products regulation it might have been directed at regulation then right why would people's
02:47:29 regulation then right why would people's ignorance about the combustible nature of polymeric foam would be relevant to why bca was reiterating what's in adb whether it's
02:47:40 reiterating what's in adb whether it's option one or option two i think i'm just explaining why the bca have produced a guidance note
02:47:49 now this is the 30th of april 2015. um do you remember that the day before you had drafted something called a worry list at the request of bob ledson
02:48:02 list at the request of bob ledson um i remember the wiry list i didn't know when i've done it yes it's the day before this email um let's go to it uh we'll leave the native format for this document please it's at clg3019271
02:48:13 [Music]
02:48:27 and if we start at row 7 we can see that under part b we have a number of issues row 8. you see that yes sprinklers domestic and commercial
02:48:39 domestic and commercial and then row 9 fire spread in timber frame stroke mmc 10 is extra care housing fire safety and then 11 adb infraction risk
02:48:53 and then 11 adb infraction risk but if you go to row 9 fire spread in timber stroke mmc mmc i think means modern methods of construction doesn't it if you look at column b it asks what's the issue that's the general heading
02:49:06 the issue that's the general heading and under
02:49:07 and under in row nine the answer changes in technology relating to thermal performance driving wider use of combustible materials
02:49:16 materials and across the page column c where's the pressure coming from answer insurers fire brigades etc also manufacturers of non-combustible products and then column d what is or could be
02:49:28 and then column d what is or could be done
02:49:30 done and then if you look at row nine again introduce a gateway for new tech viable question mark or just keep an eye on things amending adb as we go and then
02:49:41 and then e column e what happens if we don't act row nine bigger building fires exclamation mark mostly economic loss but there are some safety concerns too
02:49:52 but there are some safety concerns too is that the section of this worry list that you wrote um i wrote a number of sections of this but i did write the part b one yes yes
02:50:02 yes now in your statement if we go to it please at page 47 paragraph 132
02:50:10 this is what you say about the about the worry list you'd compiled starting three lines up from the end of the paragraph and about halfway through that line you say
02:50:23 i did not include any specific reference to combustible cladding as i was content that it had been adequately addressed by industry guidance in the form of bca guidance note 18.
02:50:36 note 18. what was it that had been specifically addressed as you say adequately addressed as you say by the bca technical guidance note 18.
02:50:52 i think at that time it was it would it provided clearer simpler guidance or simpler guidance that
02:51:02 would achieve compliance with a functional requirement but what had been adequately addressed
02:51:08 was it combustible cladding that you say had been adequately addressed i suppose so yes
02:51:16 but bca
02:51:18 bca technical guidance note had on your own account i think extended the interpretation of the relevant guidance further than the meaning extended intended for it in 2006 yes
02:51:30 2006 yes yes in a way that made it safer yes yes
02:51:39 now
02:51:42 but as i think you you've told us of course bca technical guidance note 18 did not have the same status as
02:51:50 as an approved document did it
02:51:55 nope
02:52:00 now the worry list that you've prepared for mr ledson was a list that you say of the
02:52:06 of the priority policy issues for part b you say that a little bit higher up the paragraph and then you say and what i felt should be fed into the next review of approved document b
02:52:17 of approved document b yes
02:52:19 yes a very high level yes yes all right of course and these are this is clearly a high-level document but was it because of the existence of the guidance in vca technical guidance note 18 that you decided not to include combustible
02:52:31 decided not to include combustible cladding on the list
02:52:45 i think so i mean that's what i've said in my statement and and
02:52:53 at the time at the time i wrote my statement i thought that was what was in my mind i can't remember it's four years ago i wrote the statement so what i'm really seeking to get at is whether you overlooked the combustible
02:53:06 whether you overlooked the combustible cladding problem or whether you considered it and thought to yourself well that isn't a worry anymore i don't need to include it on my worry list as a priority policy for part b because it's been sorted out
02:53:17 been sorted out by the issue of bca technical guidance note 18. i i think you may be going i might have not explained myself very well there um so
02:53:27 so there are some fundament when you're looking at things like timber frame construction some of the other um modular modern methods of construction there's some quite complex
02:53:38 some quite complex um
02:53:40 um questions to try and address and that and
02:53:43 and it's no longer my area of responsibility but i know that my ex-colleagues are still
02:53:48 still um that's that's something that they um working on um
02:53:56 whereas
02:53:59 there wasn't a fundamental policy question about external wall cladding there was clearly a task to update the guidance and
02:54:11 so it was definitely my intention that when we came to the review of adb that we'd be looking at the external wall guidance because of all what we've been through up until
02:54:22 all what we've been through up until that point but it wasn't a fundamental policy question um whereas these are the things on that list probably are
02:54:39 so just to be clear do you mean to say here in your statement and indeed in your last answer the the the problems and questions surrounding
02:54:51 and questions surrounding the combustible cladding which had been addressed by technical guidance note 18 were not to be fed into the next review of approved document b as a result of
02:55:04 of approved document b as a result of your satisfaction with the bca no that's not that's not what i'm saying um i'm saying there wasn't a fundamental policy question we clearly needed to update the guidance
02:55:19 what do you mean by a fundamental policy question
02:55:22 question um
02:55:23 um the sort of thing where um the government's got to make a big decision about which how it deals with a a challenge um i can explain the policy questions for those for those different issues but i
02:55:34 those for those different issues but i think that's probably more than the inquiry we want to hear you say we clearly needed to update the guidance and therefore i think you're saying that it was to be fed into the next review of the proof document b
02:55:45 next review of the proof document b yes yes yes can you explain then why the discussion document that eventually emerged in the march of 2017 made no reference
02:55:58 2017 made no reference to
02:55:59 to the issues surrounding combustible cladding which had been addressed by technical guidance in 818. um because the
02:56:05 the view i took is that we were we were
02:56:09 that would be part of the clarification and updating of the text rather than a big policy question which is what the discussion document was mostly focused on we haven't seen any
02:56:20 on we haven't seen any any communication at all between 2013 and 2017 which remotely touches on the question of combustible cladding as whether it's part of the technical review or work streams or
02:56:32 review or work streams or or as part of the simplification or clarification process as a matter of plain english why is that if indeed you had on you had intended that the problem surrounding combustible
02:56:43 that the problem surrounding combustible cladding be fed into the next review um i guess i didn't write it down but that's exactly what i was intending to do
02:56:50 do it wasn't a big policy question it was a
02:56:56 a task amongst many others that would have been picked up as part of the sort of
02:57:01 sort of general improvement of the the text that's that's as i saw it at the time but only if you put it on a list or a schedule for people to to do or was it the position that the bca
02:57:12 or was it the position that the bca technical guidance note having sorted out the problem as you saw it nothing further needed to be done no i was expecting to change the guidance in some way in your three document right
02:57:24 now we're going to turn next to some further correspondence between you and steve evans in june 2015. um mr chairman that's quite a long document and there are a number of
02:57:35 document and there are a number of questions on it which i certainly wouldn't finish before one o'clock um i'm looking at the clock in the room which says three minutes to one
02:57:45 one might it be proven to take a take the lunch break now i think it would and so we will do that mr martin
02:57:53 mr martin i'm gonna stop now so we can all have some lunch um i understand that you might find it congenial to have a slightly longer break over lunch today so that you can
02:58:04 break over lunch today so that you can have an opportunity to get out and at least see some of the outside world is that right yes sir i'm afraid yesterday i i was starting to struggle to give you good answers to your questions um and
02:58:15 good answers to your questions um and and
02:58:17 and i'm doing my best to try and help you in every way i can well i understand that and as i said to you yesterday i think we all understand how difficult it is answering questions at
02:58:27 at greater lengths and and in some detail so um we can certainly have a longer lunch hour um but i hope you wouldn't mind if we sat a bit later in the afternoon so that
02:58:38 sat a bit later in the afternoon so that we
02:58:39 we pick up the time at the end of the day would that be acceptable to you um if that works for you yes please sir but if at the end of the day because this can sometimes happen if you get tired and you feel you really can't keep
02:58:51 tired and you feel you really can't keep going well you just indicated there will uh will act accordingly all right just a minute there's no reason why that should cause difficulty as well um no there's no practical difficulty um one must
02:59:02 no practical difficulty um one must remember though to be of course consistent across the whole of the body of the witnesses but of course if mr martin feels that uh he can only give his best evidence by a
02:59:13 he can only give his best evidence by a short a slightly longer break at lunch um so long as we can make it up at the end of the day then i think from my perspective that would be acceptable that's what i'm suggesting and he has given evidence i think uh for longer
02:59:25 given evidence i think uh for longer than any other witness and it's quite detailed
02:59:28 detailed and material you're putting to him all right we'll break now then uh we'll resume please at 2 15
02:59:36 2 15 and we will expect to continue in the afternoon until course to 5. thank you mr chairman thank you very much thank you mr martin 215 please and please don't discuss with anyone while you're away from the
02:59:48 with anyone while you're away from the room thank you sir all right thank you very much would you like to give the usher please
03:00:03 thank you very much mr millet um 2 15 then please yes thank you mr chairman thank you