Grenfell Tower Inquiry - Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Evidence - Tuesday 22nd March 2022 (1/2). Brian Martin gives testimony on the 2005-2006 changes to Approved Document B, the introduction of the word 'filler' into paragraph 12.7, and the department's response to international cladding fires.
00:19:35 uh
00:19:42 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing
00:19:46 hearing today as yesterday i'm taking part in the proceedings from a remote location because i'm afraid i've tested positive for covid
00:19:55 for covid today we're going to continue hearing evidence from mr brian martin so
00:20:00 so if mr milit is ready i'm going to ask him to invite the usher to call mr martin back into the room please yes thank you very much mr chairman uh could we please have mr martin back in
00:20:11 could we please have mr martin back in the hearing room
00:20:26 good morning mr martin good morning you can obviously see me and hear me judging by your response yes sir good thank you very much uh you're ready to continue i hope yes
00:20:39 to continue i hope yes in that case i'm going to invite mr millet to uh put some further questions to you yes mr miller yes thank you very much mr chairman good morning to you good morning members of the panel mr martin good morning to you now you may remember last night when we
00:20:51 now you may remember last night when we finished with your evidence yesterday we were examining the 2005 consultation which led
00:20:57 which led to the 2006 amendments to adb published in april 2007 can i go back to that topic please and start with clg 6025
00:21:16 this is the proposal for amending part b fire safety of the building regulations consultation document dated july 2005. uh what was your role in putting this
00:21:27 uh what was your role in putting this document together
00:21:34 i guess a coordinating role um bringing
00:21:38 bringing various
00:21:39 various draft texts together drafting some of the text myself
00:21:45 managing the managing the process of discussing various proposals with the bank working party
00:21:53 party and really bringing all the various bits of evidence together and eventually developing this draft which parts did you draft from recollection
00:22:10 i had a role in drafting and in at least looking at all of the various draft bits of text in there i see but was there any part of the text for which you had a primary role which you drafted from
00:22:21 primary role which you drafted from scratch
00:22:28 [Music] difficult it was a very big project and lots of different pieces people were contributing to it i think i did quite a bit of work on um means of escape guidance for care homes is a bit i particularly remember drafting right and who else
00:22:41 drafting right and who else in principle did the drafting when i say in principle who mainly did the drafting work
00:22:46 work other than perhaps you um it was a collaborative exercise between myself officials in the department and other colleagues at bre
00:22:57 colleagues at bre dr colwell had completed
00:23:00 completed a contract that the department had commissioned reviewing the guidance on cavity barriers
00:23:06 barriers to try and improve the clarity of that so
00:23:10 so she
00:23:11 she contributed a significant chunk of work to
00:23:14 to to that um i think another colleague at bre had done some work on fire dampers and again they produced some draft text which i then edited into the main draft who did the
00:23:26 edited into the main draft who did the main work on what became section 12 external wall construction
00:23:34 probably myself and mr bird would have been in the main paper working on that right anybody else
00:23:42 not that i recall uh now can we go to page nine in this document please paragraph fifteen
00:23:51 uh and it says that it says here the most significant changes the government intends in bold to make include and then you can see some seven bullet points and if you cast your eye down
00:24:03 and if you cast your eye down they comprise smoke ventilation of common access areas in apartment buildings
00:24:09 buildings additional smoke alarms a suitable system of smoke alarms cavity barriers
00:24:15 barriers inclusive design national maximum unsprinkled compartment size for warehouses and compartment walls to take account of deflections during a fire you see that yes
00:24:29 during a fire you see that yes it's not an exhaustive list because it says it includes but it doesn't include any
00:24:33 any reference to the provisions in b4 relating to external fire spread does it that's correct no and if you look at paragraph 16 we can see a list of the provisions the government is minded to
00:24:45 provisions the government is minded to introduce
00:24:46 introduce as it says in bold there and again there's a long uh long-ish list below that sprinkler protection fire protection of corridors in self-storage warehouses fire fighting
00:24:57 in self-storage warehouses fire fighting shafts dry rising mains phased evacuation procedures and removing separate guidance on loft conversions and then finally self-closing devices
00:25:08 and then finally self-closing devices within apartments and dwelling houses accepting garages and common escape routes again no reference there to the provisions in b4 relating to external fire spread is there that's right why
00:25:20 there that's right why do
00:25:21 do does neither of these paragraphs contain any reference to b4 external first bread um
00:25:32 i think the changes that we did make in the draft um
00:25:37 draft um we didn't think were significant as i said last night they were
00:25:43 we arrived at them probably later in the day than perhaps um most of these other bullet points you're looking at here were
00:25:51 were quite large pieces of work so they'd been research and and cost benefit analysis extensive discussions with um the working party and and other industry stakeholders to try and get the
00:26:03 stakeholders to try and get the the drafts right and that had taken a number of years to get to that point whereas the the work that we've done on external wall construction was something that we'd done um much later in the day um as we said
00:26:16 um much later in the day um as we said yesterday um the primary reason we looked at it was because of the issues that arose from the
00:26:23 the the edge fire so and that was much later in the day so it wasn't something that we'd identified as a significant change can we go back briefly to your email to anthony bird of the 18th of january
00:26:35 anthony bird of the 18th of january 2005. that's at three zero is one eight eight three two we looked at this yesterday in some detail
00:26:43 detail but if you look at the second paragraph uh you can see that in the last sentence uh in the second paragraph you say however we do feel it is important that
00:26:54 however we do feel it is important that something on this matter that's the edge fire
00:26:57 fire is included within the consultation to ensure that this matter is given to you consideration do consideration by whom um anybody responding to the consultation
00:27:09 responding to the consultation right
00:27:10 right looking at that it's clear isn't it that you as the author of this email
00:27:16 email were expecting to consult on any proposed change leading from what you had learned at that point from the edge fire yes um yes
00:27:28 that point from the edge fire yes um yes yes why didn't that happen um
00:27:31 um i think as i said yesterday uh i think the problem the department had is this the point at which the project had got to it was
00:27:40 to it was difficult to insert a new piece of subject matter without
00:27:46 without falling foul of various government processes which would have delayed the publication of the consultation yes you did i just want to explore a bit a bit more with you the process by which that that occurred
00:27:59 that occurred would it be right in thinking that you sarah colwell and sam greenwood
00:28:05 greenwood had concluded that it was important that something about
00:28:11 about the core of an external panel was consulted on that that seems to be what you're saying in that last sentence yes yes
00:28:19 yes yes um
00:28:20 um did you yourself come to the view after that that in fact it wasn't important to consult on it or did you stick with your did you remain off the view that it was
00:28:31 remain off the view that it was important to consult on it um i'm not sure if i can remember what i was thinking at the time um but i think
00:28:40 we raised it with the department and and uh it was meant for the department to decide how it wanted to respond to that right what i'm really seeking to get at is whether your view changed and you decided in fact it wasn't quite as
00:28:51 decided in fact it wasn't quite as important as you had said here or whether you were overruled
00:28:56 um
00:29:01 my honest answer is i can't remember exactly how the conversation went no but can you remember the gist of what happened
00:29:07 happened did you stick did you remain of the view that it was important that it be consulted on and were overruled or did somebody persuade you that in fact it wasn't quite as important as all that and could
00:29:18 and could could wait until after the consultation if ever
00:29:24 um i i wish i could remember more detail of this i appreciate how important it is um but i'm loathe to guess
00:29:35 guess what happened i'm not asking you to guess i'm asking you to give us the gist of your recollection and you did say that
00:29:46 it was the department uh you raised it with the department and the matter for the department to decide how it wanted to respond who at the department did you raise it with um well it would
00:29:58 did you raise it with um well it would have been mr bird yes and
00:30:01 and did he decide that notwithstanding your view that it was important to include this question within the consultation nonetheless it should not be and wasn't
00:30:13 nonetheless it should not be and wasn't did he make that decision um i don't know whether he consulted with anyone else but that's that's my recollection is that that was the decision that was made was it was
00:30:24 made was it was wanted to get the consultation paper to progress um and at the stage it was at there was a limit to what um we were able to do without having to do
00:30:35 we were able to do without having to do a lot more preparatory work so it was decided until to wait until after the consultation to look at the question again right
00:30:45 let's go to your statement please uh which we haven't seen for a while it's clg three zeros one nine four six nine page 37 paragraph 110
00:31:01 and you say there now you're dealing i should say with a slightly different matter here in this statement which we're going to come back to later this is sometime later on but um
00:31:12 but um i want to look with you at the fifth line down and if we start in the middle of that line you say this my recollection you see it says my recollection is that the lessons from the fire at the edge in manchester had been taken into account when the
00:31:24 been taken into account when the revisions were made to adb leading to the 2006 edition by way of including the word filler in what became paragraph 12.7 i'm unsure why mr greenwood stated that the fire had quote
00:31:35 greenwood stated that the fire had quote signaled the end of rain screen cladding rain screen cladding continues to be used to this day now
00:31:42 now leave aside the last sentence there which we'll come back to um you refer there to the lessons from the fire at the edge what specifically were
00:31:53 what specifically were the lessons from the fire at the edge
00:32:00 um i guess it's the um the issue of an insulation material um in a location that perhaps hadn't been
00:32:11 in a location that perhaps hadn't been envisaged in the original in the 2002 edition of the approved document um
00:32:18 and when you say an insulation material do you mean a material commonly used for insulation purposes yes so so the the the use of the the poly
00:32:29 the the poly polystyrene foam um in a location perhaps you wouldn't have expected to find it at that point um
00:32:36 um and um
00:32:38 and um so and
00:32:40 so and the conclusion was that you should be concerned about that um whether it's a ventilated cavity or not um and that you ought to be thinking about similar materials even if they're
00:32:52 about similar materials even if they're not being used as insulation the issue is the materials um fire behavior not the fact that it's an insulator
00:33:01 that's it the issue is it's fire behavior not the fact that it's an insulator now that distinction you've just identified was that one in your mind at the time in 2005
00:33:13 in 2005 i think so yes right okay um and when you say here that the lessons from the fire at the edge in manchester had been taken into account when the revisions were made to adb
00:33:26 revisions were made to adb i think you've accepted that they were taken into account in the final draft which went to press but not taken into account
00:33:34 account in the public consultation exercise i think we struck out the ventilated cavity line in the consultation draft was that as a result of the edge fire
00:33:48 was that as a result of the edge fire um
00:33:49 um all the lessons i think i think in in general yes and the
00:33:53 the the other issues that had written from arisen from um polystyrene that had been used in sandwich panels in in in other buildings right but other than the striking out of the reference to ventilated cavities i
00:34:06 the reference to ventilated cavities i think you would accept given your evidence so far that um the lessons from the edge fire so far as finding combustible material in places you might not expect it was concerned were not
00:34:17 not expect it was concerned were not taken into account in the consultation process but only in the final draft yes i think it's fair yes thank you now you say here that it was taken into account when the revisions were made to
00:34:29 account when the revisions were made to adb
00:34:30 adb leading to the 2006 edition by way of including the word filler in what became paragraph 12.7 now by way of including the word filler now
00:34:41 now when
00:34:42 when can you remember between the date of the fire at the edge on the 6th of january 2005
00:34:49 2005 and the publication of the revised version of approved document b
00:34:55 b in
00:34:56 in well in bit to press in december 2006 between those dates had it been decided that the word filler would be the appropriate way to take account of the lessons from the edge
00:35:07 account of the lessons from the edge fire
00:35:08 fire um i can't remember the exact date but it was after the consultation had closed and by whom had that been decided um
00:35:17 um i have a vague recollection of a conversation between myself mr bird um i think some of the other team members at um the department i can't remember if mr green was it was
00:35:28 i can't remember if mr green was it was involved or not who might have been the other
00:35:31 other team members at the department um so
00:35:36 i think tracy cole was one of the the team that worked with mr bird
00:35:42 mr bird um and what was her experience expertise and she was a policy advisor so uh um not not a specialist civil servant but a a policy adviser right
00:35:53 a policy adviser right tracy cole yes anybody else um i'm not sure if darren hobbs was involved i can't remember where when he but he was a policy adviser as well uh darren was a a specialist in what
00:36:05 darren was a a specialist in what uh
00:36:06 uh he's had a background in building control so similar to mr bird and myself right
00:36:13 do you know can you remember when those discussions took place how do you say you have a vague recollection i i can't answer more accurate i know it was after the consultation but i can't remember when
00:36:24 consultation but i can't remember when when you had those discussions after the consultation was your proposed draft text from the 18th of january email discussed
00:36:30 discussed was it looked at what or did you have another form of words in front of you
00:36:41 i don't remember i just i i remember that i can't even remember who came up with the idea of the word filler i know i know it was a word that was used by some of the um respondents to the consultation
00:36:53 respondents to the consultation um
00:36:55 um so what we were looking for was some text which was um
00:37:01 trying to get people to think um more broadly given that there are a range of different ways that you could construct an external wall so we anything that was very prescriptive and very specific
00:37:14 prescriptive and very specific you'd get the same problem that people might um
00:37:17 might um read it in a very prescriptive way and say well i'm using polystyrene here or polyethylene or whatever um it's not one of those three words and therefore it doesn't apply to me whereas
00:37:28 therefore it doesn't apply to me whereas what we wanted the readers to do would be to look at the materials they're using in the wall and think for themselves as to whether or not they felt that that might present a risk to fire spread you
00:37:39 present a risk to fire spread you mentioned that yesterday the idea of getting people to think standing back from that as a concept was it your experience now after what 12 years in building
00:37:50 now after what 12 years in building control that building designers uh building control officers builders would think for themselves using fire safety as the absolute
00:38:01 using fire safety as the absolute priority was that your experience um
00:38:06 um my experience from building control would be that what you'd want as a building control officer is some text that you could refer a designer to and say look you've not taken account of this um and so
00:38:19 not taken account of this um and so the idea was being less prescriptive it allowed a building control officer to to say to a designer this is important i think in these circumstances you've got a problem here
00:38:31 got a problem here wouldn't it lead to as you say um more people thinking and more people debating and disputing greater doubt rather than isolating and identifying with precision what was
00:38:43 identifying with precision what was allowed and what wasn't allowed by way of guidance i think the problem was is that we found it very difficult to do that
00:38:48 that well i'm going to come to that answer later
00:38:51 later but because um i'm not sure that
00:38:57 that it was as difficult as that but let's see before we do can we can i just ask you why was the text that you proposed in your 18th of january email which simply deleted the reference to
00:39:09 which simply deleted the reference to ventilated cavities but said other material not used in the final version that would have done the trick wouldn't it
00:39:16 it um i think as i said in the email i think the problem for the department would be that it probably went too far that the challenge is um in a generic way trying to
00:39:28 in a generic way trying to identify those things that are a risk and those things that aren't and that's and that was something that we we struggled to do well the risk was simply combustible core of a external wall
00:39:39 combustible core of a external wall panel why not say that the
00:39:42 that the core of
00:39:43 core of an external wall panel should be a material of limited combustibility in the same way as insulation well that addresses that problem but not all the other potential places that someone might use a combustible material in a modern wall
00:39:55 combustible material in a modern wall but you went addressing that you were addressing a specific problem at the edge which was that somebody had put a combustible core inside an external wall panel um i think the problem we were trying to address is that
00:40:08 an overly prescriptive piece of guidance would allow a designer um
00:40:14 um to
00:40:15 to ignore what might otherwise be an obvious risk so what else were you seeking to require to be a material of limited
00:40:24 to some extent the things we hadn't thought of that was that was the point we were trying to to address is that there are
00:40:31 there are um a lot
00:40:33 um a lot the construction of external walls was becoming much more complex and there were lots of different approaches that that were cropping up we wanted something which
00:40:44 which um
00:40:45 um wasn't tied to a particular form of construction because that to some extent has been the the problem in the past
00:40:54 so you were trying to go further than the edge fire but not as far as everything and picking some kind of vague ground in the middle um yes that's where we landed yes right
00:41:04 right let's look at the source then of the word filler having
00:41:09 having now i think established where you landed let's see how you approach the landing i think we can start with this with anthony bird's statement clg3019461
00:41:19 and i'll put this on the screen page 12 i mean he addre where he addresses this in three paragraphs 29-31 and he's given evidence about this so i think i can summarize it
00:41:31 can summarize it and in summary he says that it was nhbc who raised the matter in the consultation that's paragraph 29. and um we'll come
00:41:42 and um we'll come to the response in a moment he can you can see that he quotes from it there a paragraph 30 he says that the bre had reported in the investigation of real fires on the edge fire and used the word
00:41:53 fires on the edge fire and used the word filler there as we saw yesterday and then he had consulted with you and that's paragraph 31 over the page after which the edition was made now i i've given you a very broad summary of his recollection does that
00:42:06 summary of his recollection does that accord with your recollection yes yes now let's then look at the nhbc's consultation response um it's at two four one clg402410
00:42:18 clg four zero two four one zero uh and you can see that it's it's uh it's it says response form for the consultation on proposals for amending adb
00:42:29 proposals for amending adb and then in the right-hand side of the box please return by 18th november 2005 to part b review at the bre now we know that the metadata tells us
00:42:41 now we know that the metadata tells us that it's dated the 8th of november 2005. take that from me it's not clear from the screen and if we go please to page 24 under paragraph 24 under any other issues
00:42:56 it says this
00:42:59 this uh clause 11.8 clarification is required within clause 11.8 as to whether insulation material includes sandwich panel core material whilst the removal of reference to ventilated cavities is
00:43:10 of reference to ventilated cavities is helpful currently there is confusion as to whether metal cladding panels that use polystyrene as a filler can be used on buildings over 18 meters in height typically these panels are faced both sides with aluminium and as such may be
00:43:22 sides with aluminium and as such may be considered by designers to be non-combustible now now do you remember reading that consultation response at the time it was received
00:43:30 received so early to mid november 20 to 2005. i don't remember it but i must have seen it presumably it was part of your role
00:43:41 it presumably it was part of your role under the contract with the department to read and analyze uh these responses yes mr greenwood and myself went through all of the responses right
00:43:50 right now
00:43:51 now two things about this do you agree that it suggests that not only was there confusion about whether these sorts of sandwich panels were permissible but but also that there was a belief held by designers
00:44:02 held by designers that metal-faced cladding was non-combustible you see that um it suggests them that it may be considered by designers yes
00:44:16 now the inclusion of the word filler doesn't resolve does it or didn't resolve the problem of manufacturers and designing designers not understanding what type of cladding panels were permissible
00:44:27 panels were permissible does it
00:44:32 well at the time we thought it was the the
00:44:34 the the best guidance we could give well
00:44:37 well but the word filler doesn't answer the problem about what type of cladding panels can we use
00:44:47 you accept that well it doesn't give you a list of which forms which products you can and can't use well it doesn't doesn't refer to panels at all is it the word filler doesn't connect panels
00:45:00 doesn't connect panels does it
00:45:04 um
00:45:06 i think at the time we were thinking of products such as the core of a sandwich panel
00:45:15 yes was there a risk here that in fact as has eventually has eventuated that designers and manufacturers builders and others might regard the cladding panel itself
00:45:26 regard the cladding panel itself as being judged solely on its outer face and not by reference to its core
00:45:33 i think that was the risk that we were trying to address why not use the word core
00:45:54 um i i don't know we
00:46:00 in the room decided came up with some words that we thought would be correct and use them i'm calm today core material is something that's used fairly regularly i'm not sure if it was at the time
00:46:11 was at the time um
00:46:12 um and
00:46:13 and i think
00:46:14 i think we'd seen these responses and and thought that filler was a more generic term well
00:46:22 well whose idea was it first of all to use the word filler i i can't remember where did the word come from you say it's a a more generic term explain what do you mean
00:46:35 explain what do you mean um i i mean arguably they both could mean the same or something else well yes and was that thought you just articulated something that went through your head at the time you decided to pick the word it could mean that it
00:46:47 pick the word it could mean that it could mean something else
00:46:50 as i said we were trying to come up with something which was
00:46:55 broader to try and generate that kind of conversation between the building control body and the designer so that they thought these things through but why would you want to do that why would a why would the department who was
00:47:06 a why would the department who was responsible for adb providing guidance to the industry want to provoke conversations what's the point of conversations
00:47:17 conversations i suppose that's our functional system of building regulations work is the designer and the building control body decide what they think meets the functional requirement
00:47:27 by reference in part to the approved document which gives guidance yes yes in part yes so why would you want to have a conversation about the guidance as
00:47:38 conversation about the guidance as opposed to clear guidance which might provoke a conversation about the functional requirement um i think at the time we didn't think we could come up with some specific some text that was as as
00:47:53 specific some text that was as as specific as that that wouldn't then um result in something that was too narrow
00:47:59 narrow and we'd end up with some other form of construction that would create the same problems
00:48:05 what was the risk of coming up with some other kind of construction which would cause
00:48:09 cause the same problem if you'd simply pick the word core and said the core of an external panel shall be material of a limited combustibility that would be
00:48:20 limited combustibility that would be crystal clear and you wouldn't need some conversation um if you were thinking about the if all you were thinking about was the core of a external panel but we were concerned that there were a lot of different forms
00:48:31 that there were a lot of different forms of construction um
00:48:34 um that were emerging and so we tried to use something more generic well what other form of construction were you reaching for with the word filler that would cover not only the core of a rain screen panel but
00:48:47 only the core of a rain screen panel but some other element of the external wall build up
00:48:52 could have been some of the sheet materials that are used
00:48:58 that provide stiffness to the steel frame of an infield type construction
00:49:07 well you say it could have been was that a thought at the time the sheet materials that are used to provide stiffness to the steel frame i can't remember exactly what was going through our minds at the time but at that time we thought this was that the
00:49:19 that time we thought this was that the best we could do
00:49:24 and what the the edge fire being the catalyst for this problem what what else at the edge led you to think that you needed to go broader than the polystyrene core of an
00:49:35 broader than the polystyrene core of an external wall panel such as for example some of the sheeting materials used to provide stiffness in the steel frame of an infill construction why go what was it about the edge that pushed you
00:49:46 the edge that pushed you wider
00:49:48 wider i think we were trying to avoid picking on specific products because
00:49:56 you tend to find that that makes people not think about what they're doing well there are only two specific products you call them products two specific elements of
00:50:06 of the external wall construction apart from cavity barriers do that on one side that are regulated at all there's the insulation and there's the external external wall surface yes
00:50:19 external wall surface yes what became 12.7 what's regulated is the fire performance of the wall and modern walls were becoming progressively more complex
00:50:27 complex right so
00:50:28 right so in addition to the insulation and in addition to the core of a rain screen panel call it that what
00:50:35 what other element of the external wall build up were you seeking to cover with the word filler so to some extent we were trying to trying to cover things that
00:50:46 trying to cover things that that we weren't aware of that we thought that could emerge and
00:50:52 and to say
00:50:53 to say our experience was that we where where in the past people have been very prescriptive in their guidance um that's where the the risk of
00:51:04 that's where the the risk of people would just read it pedantically and say i've got i've got a material which isn't one of those three words therefore doesn't apply to me um and
00:51:15 um and at that time we were thinking that it would be better to try and get the designers and building control bodies to to think about the issue more broadly that's how the structure of that section
00:51:27 that's how the structure of that section was designed to work as it were then for them to work out themselves to fill in filler in other words to take this broad portmanteau expression and just work out for themselves what fell within it was that the idea
00:51:39 was that the idea um yes i think to some extent that's what we were trying to do yes right did you discuss the meaning of the word filler with anthony bird before it was inserted into the text
00:51:52 and we yes we there
00:51:55 there i think there were three or four of us that sat down and talked this through try to try to decide what we could do to improve on the text that we consulted on um respond to the the comments that we'd
00:52:06 um respond to the the comments that we'd received um and and try and try and address the problem as best we could do you recall whether it was you who spotted the word filler in the nhbc response and said let's use that and anthony bird agreed or was it
00:52:18 and anthony bird agreed or was it anthony bird who spotted the word filler and you agreed i don't remember it's a word that emerged in the conversation anthony byrd recalls it that it was you who approached him
00:52:28 him saying that you hadn't suitably covered off the filler situation from the nhbc in the edge and his recollection and i i use that word in the context of the evidence he
00:52:39 word in the context of the evidence he actually gave is that it it was you or probably you who approached him with that word have you could you i i don't remember it could have been do you remember discussing the word with the bre and
00:52:51 discussing the word with the bre and asked them whether they'd come across it in common parlance or whether it was had a technical overlay or something like that not that i recall is it a word you'd come across in any technical application yourself before
00:53:03 technical application yourself before it was inserted
00:53:10 i don't think so no did you discuss the word philo at any stage with nhbc no
00:53:17 no did you discuss it with anybody outside the department um not while we were drafting it now at all ever
00:53:27 years later when when the question question arose but but not not not between the conversation where we came up with this draft and the publication approved document thank you do you remember when the word came to be
00:53:39 do you remember when the word came to be inserted into the text of approved document b um
00:53:44 um sometime after the consultation again i think it was it was later on but i'm not sure yeah no you're right and and i just wanted to test your memory to see if you could remember now um let's let's go through we've seen
00:53:55 now um let's let's go through we've seen the bre's investigation uh uh in the um fozzy uh the fires of special interest report we've seen the nhp's consultation response of november 2005.
00:54:08 response of november 2005. let's jump then a year later to clg 1302082
00:54:14 what i'm showing you uh here is draft version 15 of the new edition of adb and you can see that from the words at the very top right hand corner draft 22nd november 06
00:54:28 right hand corner draft 22nd november 06 2006 slash 15. can you see that yes yes and it says b you can see um now if we go please to page 129 in this document we can see that here is
00:54:40 this document we can see that here is the relevant text of what is now
00:54:44 is now and then became 12.7 now this is a
00:54:50 the new text it's the same uh when you look at um 12.7 it's the same isn't it apart from the changes to the references as the 2005 consultation version
00:55:03 yes yes i'll read it aloud it's insulation materials that's the heading and the text says in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level any insulation material used in the external
00:55:15 insulation material used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility see appendix a yes yes there's no reference there to fill up
00:55:21 up so that's where you are in november and the heading of 12.7 is insulation materials
00:55:27 materials now if you look above that to 12.5 you can see that the final part of the sentence
00:55:36 uh referring to uh
00:55:39 uh 12.6 to 12.9 and
00:55:44 and i'm sorry
00:55:45 i'm sorry the final sentence that referred to diagram 40 has gone and it now simply ends by saying may be present or may present such a risk in tall buildings do you see yes
00:56:00 and we can see let's compare that with the consultation version clg 6022 page 147
00:56:18 that's the consultation version we saw yesterday and you can see the second sentence at 11.6 which which ends may present such a risk
00:56:29 which which ends may present such a risk in tall buildings even though the provisions for external surfaces in diagram 40 now 30 may have been satisfied and you see it was there but when we go back please to the document we were just looking at
00:56:42 the document we were just looking at draft 15 clg one triple zero two zero eight two page one two nine if we just have that at the screen at the same oh it doesn't matter it's gone you can see that that second part of the
00:56:53 you can see that that second part of the sentence
00:56:54 sentence referring to diagram 40 has disappeared yes yes
00:56:59 yes yes do you know why that caveat that had been in the previous version of adb and the consultation version as sent out was removed
00:57:11 as i remember it um because we'd restructured the order of these paragraphs so that it was a section talking about external wall construction the intention was is that
00:57:22 the intention was is that um you would read 12.5 point seven token eight two point nine as a collective discussion about the construction of an external wall
00:57:34 the construction of an external wall um and therefore that caveat
00:57:38 was no longer necessary because it was saying
00:57:41 saying you need to do all of this stuff to satisfy um that requirement be full so it was a deliberate decision was it to remove that caveat i think so i think we
00:57:52 remove that caveat i think so i think we decided that the caveat wasn't necessary because the
00:57:58 whereas the old guidance um had it split ex external surfaces and construction
00:58:08 in a different way we felt by having a section that talked about external wall construction um it addressed all of the issues associated with external wall construction in one place
00:58:21 external wall construction in one place so they didn't need to be that caveat anymore
00:58:24 anymore that's what i remember whose idea was it to remove that caveat was it yours was it anthony birds anybody else's
00:58:35 i suspect it was mine i'm not sure but i think so what consideration did you give to the effect of that of the removal of that express warning that the use of combustible materials might present a risk
00:58:47 might present a risk notwithstanding compliance with diagram 40.
00:58:54 i think i took the view that the second paragraph 12.5 where it says look at all of the guidance would was doing the same job
00:59:06 but it isn't is it it's the one thing it's not doing to the extent that it did before but certainly now not doing is telling the reader that even though you can pick up a panel and have it
00:59:18 you can pick up a panel and have it comply with diagram 40 and 12.6 nonetheless you might not meet the functional requirement for the given building given its height use and position
00:59:30 position it's gone
00:59:32 it's gone yes yes and therefore somebody reading the guidance might think that if they've met the guidance in 12.6 and diagram 40
00:59:44 and diagram 40 they had at least presumptively met the functional requirement as well the warning that they might not have done has gone
00:59:55 done has gone yes did you think about that not at the time no why's that i think at the time um we took the view that the um
01:00:06 the introduction in 12.5 which says the use of combustible materials in the cladding system may present a risk and that second paragraph that makes it clear that you need to address
01:00:18 clear that you need to address external surfaces and the subsequent layers
01:00:22 layers needed to be considered
01:00:28 but the first part of 12.5
01:00:32 of 12.5 has two sentences the first is a very general warning or piece of guidance external envelopes should not provide a medium for fire spread if it's likely to
01:00:44 medium for fire spread if it's likely to be a risk to health and safety that's a statement of the obvious isn't it
01:00:50 yeah yes yeah it is and looking at the second sentence the use of combustible materials in the cladding system and extensive cavities may present such a risk until buildings but that's also a statement of the obvious
01:01:01 statement of the obvious isn't it
01:01:06 i suppose yes and what's critically missing here isn't it is
01:01:11 it is is the caveat that even though you're using
01:01:14 using materials or products which meet the guidance nonetheless you might not meet the functional requirement given this particular building its height use and position
01:01:26 yes i i think um at the time we thought that whether it's way or myself i'm not sure but i um
01:01:34 but i um came to the conclusion that that line wasn't necessary anymore because of the way that we'd structured the guidance say referring people to say you need to look at all of it um
01:01:45 um and therefore it was an unnecessary sentence i think in hindsight i wish we'd left it in did you go to brack with that and that amendment the decision to delete the caveat which we see in the second part
01:01:57 caveat which we see in the second part of the second sentence of the old uh 13.7
01:02:01 uh 13.7 and in draft in the consultation 11.6 i don't think we raised it with them specifically and we may well have circulated a late draft with them um which would have had the
01:02:12 which would have had the would have shown where the various edits had taken place but it's a very large document so they may not have picked it up
01:02:19 up you don't recall them picking it up with you i don't i don't remember a conversation with brac on that subject no
01:02:24 no and did you um did you did the jennifer tell me what the content was if you did but did you think to take legal advice on that amendment
01:02:36 on that amendment um
01:02:38 um a draft approved document is always reviewed by the department's lawyers but i don't think we would have specifically pointed them at this particular change at what stage did the
01:02:49 change at what stage did the department's lawyers review the final draft before it went to press or did what did they i should sorry that that was a prior question did the department's lawyers review the final version
01:02:59 version of adb and draft before it went to press um
01:03:05 i i don't know for sure but they have done on every other draft approved document i've ever worked on so i assume they would have done on this right but did you draw this change specifically to their attention i i wouldn't have done that would have
01:03:16 i wouldn't have done that would have been a conversation between mr bird and the department's lawyers i think do you know if you're for a fact whether that conversation took place or are you respected i i can't say that for a fact now
01:03:27 now um let's go then next please to uh
01:03:32 uh clg one triple zero two zero seven zero we've looked at various drafts disclosed to us and all the versions we've identified up to the 22nd of november contain the same wording now what i'm
01:03:44 contain the same wording now what i'm showing you is a one-page document here uh which
01:03:49 uh which is the relevant part of section 12. and this was modified take this from me this was last modified on the 22nd of november 2006 in other words the same date as as version 15 we were just
01:04:01 date as as version 15 we were just looking at and if we look at 12.7 here we can see a number of things first we can see
01:04:09 can see the introduction of the words filler material etc do you see in any insulation filler material etc used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility yes
01:04:21 should be of limited combustibility yes so that's gone in yes and we can also see the heading has changed it's now insulation materials stroke products whereas before same day before it was insulation
01:04:34 same day before it was insulation materials with no stroke products after it yes yes so those are the main changes now we've had the changes now the document properties take this from me show the author as martin
01:04:45 show the author as martin now i'm assuming that's you yes did you draft this document um i must leave them right
01:04:52 right now how did you come to insert the word filler for the first time on this date um it would have been following the conversation i'd had with um mr bird and his colleagues
01:05:05 mr bird and his colleagues right
01:05:07 right and it says it's not just filler it's the phrase filler material etc was that of a phrase that you and mr bird had agreed before you typed it in i believe so yes right
01:05:19 i believe so yes right and again can we take it there were no discussions that you had about that phrase outside the department bre brack anybody else that's right i think i think that the timing was such that um this wasn't given the same um extensive
01:05:32 this wasn't given the same um extensive considerations as the what at the time we considered to be the big policy changes which were those listed in the consultation draft and going to the heading you can see the addition of the word slash products
01:05:43 addition of the word slash products in the heading there did you discuss that with anthony bird too i think we discussed all of it at the same time right so again but a bit like filler material etc the slash products went in as an
01:05:55 etc the slash products went in as an agreed form of words that you had discussed with anthony bird before you typed it in is that is that right yes i see
01:06:01 see now what was your purpose in adding
01:06:04 in adding the
01:06:05 the um phrase slash products after insulation materials
01:06:11 as i say from memory that what we were trying to do was to get people to think beyond just looking at the term insulation when there could be
01:06:20 be um
01:06:21 um other
01:06:22 other combustible materials being introduced into the wall construction what do you think people would understand by the phrase insulation materials slash products
01:06:32 products as opposed to insulation materials um
01:06:37 um i mean i can't i can't remember exactly what's going through our minds at the time
01:06:40 time other than to say that was the our objective was to try and broaden
01:06:46 broaden um the the target that this paragraph was addressing well why did you put the word well the phrase filler material etc under the heading insulation materials slash products
01:06:58 slash products if you were trying to broaden the target that this pyrograph was addressing i think at the time we thought that putting slash products in there would show that it was going beyond just
01:07:10 show that it was going beyond just insulation materials but not further than insulation products um
01:07:18 having spoken having spoken to lots of people about how they read this paragraph at various points over the years it's clear that that can be read in two different ways at the time um i think we thought it was doing the
01:07:30 i think we thought it was doing the right thing doesn't that just demonstrate the dangers of not consulting on even a small change in language in the
01:07:40 the guidance yes and i think it's something we would have rather avoided um but the nature of the timing and how it fitted with the rest of the project
01:07:51 fitted with the rest of the project meant that we came to this issue too too late in the day
01:07:59 if you intended
01:08:02 the text of 12.7 to apply to materials any materials or products other than insulation why did you put it under
01:08:13 under a paragraph heading headed insulation materials slash products
01:08:22 i i wish i could remember what was exactly in our minds at the time other than that that general statement that we were trying to be more broader um looking back at it i wish we'd been able
01:08:35 looking back at it i wish we'd been able to spend more time on it and talk to more people right i mean did you intend to slip this in under the radar at the last minute and hope people wouldn't notice
01:08:47 i think there was a problem for the department in that this in the the further we extended this the
01:08:54 the less it would have aligned with um what had been cleared um through the sort of policy process well why does that matter why not just have a stand-alone paragraph that dealt with the core of an
01:09:05 paragraph that dealt with the core of an external panel with a heading to match send it out unconsulted on but with very clear
01:09:12 clear industry information about what precisely it is intended to apply to and make up for the absence of consultation that way
01:09:26 i think at the time we thought this was the the right thing to do um within the constraints that mr bird and the team are working and i think you accept that this phraseology and heading had at least
01:09:39 and heading had at least the obvious potential to be understood as applying only to insulation um i didn't think that at the time um it's something i recognize later on and there's nothing in there that would lead a reader to conclude that this
01:09:50 a reader to conclude that this particular wording is to apply to anything other than insulation whether it's a material or a product i think the final text includes the the phrase not including gaskets and sealants
01:10:01 including gaskets and sealants yes we'll come to that it does
01:10:03 it does but just taking it in stages before we get to that do you accept what i'm saying that there's nothing in there to lead a reader to conclude that this particular wording at this stage in the drafting was to apply to anything other than
01:10:15 was to apply to anything other than insulation whether a material or a product um the fact that it says any insulation product come up fill a material act so it implies that filler material isn't an
01:10:26 it implies that filler material isn't an insulation product so why put it in under insulation materials straight products as a heading i think because we thought that the slash products meant things that weren't insulation how could you possibly thought that
01:10:38 how could you possibly thought that that's what we thought at the time well so insulation materials and all other products in the external wall is that what you meant i think so yes we were trying to say we were trying to
01:10:49 we were trying to say we were trying to get people to consider all the various components that they might include in a in a wall
01:10:56 in a wall modern walls are quite complex there are lots of different components in them well there are two components aren't there which matter no definitely not there are lots of different material well very interesting so just let me finish my
01:11:08 so just let me finish my my question so there are two components that matter which are picked up specifically here if you ignore cavity barriers one is the external surfaces and the other is the insulation
01:11:19 and the other is the insulation so what other what what where else in the external wall build up were you aiming
01:11:24 aiming by by attacking the word slash products onto the end of insulation materials um
01:11:29 um so those things that that could have been included in the wall that weren't insulation so for instance the the core material of the um of a sandwich panel in the case of the edge
01:11:41 sandwich panel in the case of the edge um vapor barriers that get included in cavities sometimes um and the the sheet material that gets used to stiffen um some types of wall
01:11:52 used to stiffen um some types of wall construction um when you get to a timber frame building again you get other bits of component in there so what that's what we were trying to do um i
01:12:03 um i it's evident that it didn't work so i can see why anyone looking at me now thinks what were you doing but at the time
01:12:10 the time that's what we were trying to do
01:12:16 it wasn't the simpler approach
01:12:20 simply to have a new paragraph which
01:12:25 which was perhaps headed core of external panels
01:12:28 panels and
01:12:29 and required
01:12:31 required those to be of limited combustibility what was the problem with doing that
01:12:43 it was something i don't think
01:12:47 i think there was a concern that by identifying a specific product um in a very prescriptive way that might fall foul of of having not consulted specifically on that and that there's a risk of
01:12:59 that and that there's a risk of manufacturers challenging the department and you find yourself dealing with the judicial review right so this was really more about keeping it sotto voce keeping it under the radar making a change
01:13:11 the radar making a change but sufficiently quietly but people wouldn't make a fuss about it
01:13:19 i wouldn't say that's more of it but that's i think there was a component of that in the thinking yes
01:13:26 our main thinking was trying to come up with something that was broad in its impact
01:13:34 some might say vague
01:13:37 um some might say vague but what we were thinking was broad
01:13:42 can we then go to clg one triple zero two one nine six
01:13:54 you referred to gaskets sealants and similar a moment ago and i just want to have a look at that
01:14:00 that please next now this is an email run um in december 2006 and if you go down please to the email
01:14:11 and if you go down please to the email uh on page two well i think it's foot of page one is where we want to go right at the foot there's an email from steve bergner who uh anthony bird described as the intelligent client i think he was
01:14:22 intelligent client i think he was responsible for um taking this to press you told me if that's wrong um that sounds right right now it goes to tempo gdl uh and john saunders uh copy to
01:14:34 gdl uh and john saunders uh copy to anthony bird and others not you and the subject is read first thing on monday 18th please adb hi and then if we turn the page please to page two the second paragraph he says this
01:14:46 second paragraph he says this the changes made to this document on friday
01:14:50 friday were minimal so this should be straightforward the client however wants a last check rather more changes were made to volume one we've received this safely thanks
01:15:03 one we've received this safely thanks now did you make any last minute changes to adb
01:15:08 to adb section 12 on the eve of it going to press at this time
01:15:18 it's possible i don't remember right now the version of proof ran by anthony bird for publication on the 18th of december 2006 we can find at clg one triple zero two two zero zero please
01:15:32 triple zero two two zero zero please and if you go to page 96 in that we can see
01:15:35 see the formulation of 12.7 which we're now i think familiar with and it says insulation materials stroke products 12.7 in a building with a story 18
01:15:47 12.7 in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level any insulation product filler material not including gaskets sealants and similar clothes brackets etc used in the external wall construction should be of
01:15:59 external wall construction should be of limited combustibility c appendix a now was the phrase in brackets not including gaskets sealants and similar etc added by you on the friday
01:16:12 similar etc added by you on the friday before publication i don't know how else did it get in there um mr bird might have added it or one of his team
01:16:22 his team do you
01:16:25 can you be sure as soon as you can that you didn't at it i can't be sure did any discussions take place between you and anthony bird
01:16:37 you and anthony bird after the 22nd of november 2006 but before the 18th of december 2006 about further modifications to the draft paragraph that you you sent which didn't
01:16:49 paragraph that you you sent which didn't include the words in brackets
01:16:53 i would have thought that if mr bird or someone and his team had suggested a change at that stage that we would have discussed it as a group right you don't recall very last-minute editions of this
01:17:04 very last-minute editions of this qualifier
01:17:06 qualifier yourself
01:17:07 yourself not this particular paragraph no the difficulty we have is that we have absolutely no documentary record from the department on this so we are entirely reliant on your and mr bird's recollection you'll appreciate
01:17:18 appreciate um
01:17:19 um do you remember thinking or having thoughts or discussions about the need to reduce the scope of the expression filler material etc
01:17:32 i don't remember do you remember thinking about gaskets
01:17:39 i don't remember thinking i can see why you would include if on the grounds that you're thinking this is applying in a much broader way you'd be concerned that you wouldn't want to
01:17:50 be concerned that you wouldn't want to prohibit the use of um
01:17:53 um rubber gaskets and silicone sealants and so on because there isn't really a material there isn't an alternative that's a material limited combustibility so i can see why someone would have said perhaps we need
01:18:05 someone would have said perhaps we need to put this um
01:18:07 um additional information in there to so that we don't prohibit people using water proofing products
01:18:14 products did you
01:18:16 did you yourself think or have any discussion about the relationship between the concept of filler material and the concept of gaskets or sealants or what was similar to those things
01:18:31 i don't remember did anybody did you think
01:18:35 think that by
01:18:36 that by expressly excluding gasket sealants and similar that might have an impact on how people read the words filler material
01:18:49 i don't remember i mean i think you you don't have gaskets and sealants in insulation products so i think it it confirms that this is intended to apply beyond insulation nor do you have gaskets sealants and similar in the core
01:19:02 gaskets sealants and similar in the core of an external rain screen panel uh you haven't ran the perimeter of them sometimes
01:19:06 sometimes well
01:19:07 well yes maybe but not in them so
01:19:10 so the edge problem the polystyrene filler in the sandwich so to speak uh
01:19:18 uh wouldn't be addressed by excluding or clarified by excluding gaskets and sealants would it
01:19:28 i think i think i'm guessing but you could well have a a sandwich panel system which is sealed at its joints with gaskets um and
01:19:40 with gaskets um and whilst you'd want the designers to address the core material of the panel and the surfaces of the panel um you have to accept that there might be a rubber or
01:19:50 rubber or silicone gasket let me try this slightly differently it may be my fault for not putting the question with greater precision do you accept or did you think at the time that by specifically excluding the work
01:20:02 that by specifically excluding the work the excluding gaskets sealants and similar
01:20:07 similar people who read the phrase filler material might think well whatever else it applies to it doesn't apply to the core of a composite external rain screen panel
01:20:15 panel because they don't have gaskets or sealants and similar in them
01:20:22 i certainly didn't think of it at the time and i'm not sure i accept it now
01:20:27 did you
01:20:30 discuss with anthony bird coming back to the word filler what that word might mean to industry
01:20:40 we would have discussed it when we came up with the that form of words did you just did you when coming up with that form of words think that there was an accepted and settled industry understanding of the
01:20:52 settled industry understanding of the term filler or the phrase filler material
01:20:54 material i i can't remember the detail of the conversation
01:21:02 did you suggest to anthony bird or did anthony bird suggest to you that the department should ask industry whether that term would readily be understood
01:21:13 be understood as applying to the core of a composite metal panel that's not something we thought of at the time i think and to put this in context is this is one paragraph in a large document we'd
01:21:25 one paragraph in a large document we'd changed nearly every paragraph so this was a big project and and whilst clearly now it's a fundamental issue at the time it was one of hundreds of paragraphs that we'd
01:21:36 of hundreds of paragraphs that we'd amended and did you ever consider that the word filler might in fact suggest some kind of product used to fill or block existing gaps or voids such as expanding foam filler we have some here
01:21:49 expanding foam filler we have some here polyfiller
01:21:52 did anyone think well filler could be thought of as that i don't think we thought that at the time no
01:22:00 and as mr bird said a filler is there to fill a void up as it does as we can see did anybody think at the time that in fact an external wall panel doesn't have
01:22:12 fact an external wall panel doesn't have a void
01:22:13 a void it's a composite product made by bonding a piece of polyethylene or polystyrene as the case may be
01:22:21 may be to two sheets of metal aluminium or other
01:22:28 at the time we thought it was the a good generic term to describe those things that you inserted inside a construction but that's the point isn't it if you're aiming at the edge
01:22:41 it if you're aiming at the edge the polystyrene doesn't get inserted does it it gets made at the same time it's a composite product which is made by bonding a piece of polystyrene in that case acmpe
01:22:53 in that case acmpe pe
01:22:54 pe to two sheets of metal
01:22:58 metal that's why it's a composite product
01:23:04 so at the time we thought that that was the right term did you take any steps to make sure you being you and the department that the word filler was generally understood in the sense in which you intended it
01:23:16 in the sense in which you intended it before you introduced it into the final text no
01:23:22 and is that because you wanted to get this through without making a fossil without provoking a jr challenge
01:23:30 challenge because it hadn't been consulted on i think it was it was because we had limited time available at that point do you know why the word filler wasn't defined in the approved document
01:23:42 wasn't defined in the approved document when it was introduced
01:23:46 i think because we were trying to use generic text we didn't want a pr the problem with um producing definitions of terms is that you then find everybody argues about what the words in the definition mean
01:23:58 words in the definition mean so if you're trying to get people to think broadly then a definition can be counter productive
01:24:07 taking it into stages appendix e was available to you as a definition section wasn't it yes and it had plenty of definitions in there didn't it yes and did you deliberately not define the
01:24:19 and did you deliberately not define the word filler was that a deliberate decision um i'm not sure it was i think we we
01:24:24 we we wanted to use the term in in a in its sort of natural sense so we didn't at that time we didn't conclude that a definition was necessary right now let's just break that up
01:24:37 right now let's just break that up was it
01:24:38 was it was your thinking that the word filler was so clear to everybody and everybody would understand it your way that there was no need to define it
01:24:46 define it or was it your thinking that you didn't want it defined because you wanted people to have a conversation about what it might mean
01:24:57 i don't think we considered it quite as as precisely as that but the latter is is close to what was in our minds at the time right
01:25:13 and it ever occurred to you that the absence of a definition might make the term unclear or ambiguous at least in the absence of any clear evidence of a settled industry understanding not at the time now
01:25:43 and i think you accept that none of this was put before brac and not consulted on before it was sent out that's correct
01:25:53 now let's um go to your statement please
01:25:59 clg3019469 page six paragraph 18. um
01:26:04 um [Applause]
01:26:09 you say there given the need to consult brac and other representative persons on substantive changes to the regulations it would be highly unusual to make quick changes
01:26:19 changes to either the approved documents or the regulations any substantive change would have to be assessed against government regulatory policy of the day discussed with the main brac group and potentially a brac working group established
01:26:30 a brac working group established specifically to consider the proposed change subjected to public consultation and then scrutinized by ministers and sometimes by parliament now can we agree mr martin that in relation to the
01:26:41 mr martin that in relation to the specific wording added to paragraph 12.7 on and after the 22nd of november 2006 but before going to press on the 18th of december 2006
01:26:53 december 2006 not one of those steps was taken um i think what we were doing was reacting to some extent to a response we got to the public consultation um it's nature
01:27:05 um it's nature if you put a consultation draft people respond to it you amend the text accordingly um
01:27:12 um so in in that respect we were responding to comments that have been made to the consultation but that can't be right with great respect because you didn't actually ask people um or put before them the edge problem and ask them how they thought it should
01:27:24 and ask them how they thought it should be solved
01:27:25 be solved so it wasn't a consultation was it it was a single resp it was a single word and a single response from the nhbc is a result of they having picked up on the
01:27:34 the the incident
01:27:41 um yeah we were responding to the comment that they had made it was a comment that they had made voluntarily and not but not something you would ask the entire consultation body about that's my point that's right which which i think is
01:27:52 that's right which which i think is probably why we were constrained about how far we could go in response to it and uh and at the nhbc was certainly not suggesting to you how you should encapsulate the problem
01:28:03 encapsulate the problem in the wording of the approved document were they
01:28:07 were they no
01:28:08 no no and given that you didn't ask the nhbc about what they meant by filler but just adopted it uh
01:28:15 uh it's not right to say is it that the the the consultation response or the consultation itself covered this issue it didn't for the reasons you've given the
01:28:26 for the reasons you've given the consultation asked people to comment on the entire draft that was one of the responses we got from the nhbc can we agree that the only scrutiny your word to which
01:28:35 to which the particular changes to 12.7 received was yours and anthony birds perhaps your colleagues in the department yes
01:28:47 was there any discussion between you and anthony bird at the time about all the steps in the normal process and specifically the fact that none of them had been taken in relation to this change
01:28:58 change um i think i think across the board it's the it's the nature of the the way these documents are drafted you produce your draft for consultation um over in this case several years of of
01:29:10 over in this case several years of of work
01:29:11 work um
01:29:13 um as as the document finally comes comes together
01:29:16 together there's um
01:29:19 a process of refinement and so small changes like this would have been made across the entire draft now i'm going to ask you a question which you may have answered already a
01:29:30 which you may have answered already a number of times but i just want to be clear if i can bef when
01:29:36 bef when 12.7 went to press
01:29:39 what did you intend the wording in that final version to mean
01:29:46 mean by reference to slash products and the reference to filler material not including brackets etc
01:29:57 etc um
01:29:59 um the intention as i understood it was that it was to be it was intended to be a broad
01:30:05 a broad um comment about certainly insulation materials but also other materials that might be found inside a wall construction that could have
01:30:16 that could have a potential to result in an external fire spread that requirement b4 was trying to prevent right were you seeking to exclude all elements of an external wall
01:30:28 exclude all elements of an external wall arrangement
01:30:32 no
01:30:37 so you weren't to be clear you weren't seeking
01:30:40 seeking to require all elements of the external wall build up to be material of limited combustibility that's correct
01:30:49 and other than gaskets and sealants and similar what were you seeking to
01:30:56 to exclude from the requirement of materials of limiting combustion the structural frame so a timber frame building for instance
01:31:09 right so
01:31:11 so was it your intention that everything in the external wall build up other than the frame
01:31:17 the frame should be of limited combustibility
01:31:24 in general terms yes but it's quite difficult to define where those things start and finish which is the problem that we had why not at least say so why not at least say everything except the
01:31:35 not at least say everything except the frame in an external will build up must be of limited combustibility that would have solved it if that's what you were seeking to achieve
01:31:48 only that it's quite difficult to define where the structural frame starts and finishes
01:31:52 finishes why is that um depends on the form of construction you're using sometimes it's not quite obvious where they do start and finish
01:32:11 and was that the problem with the breadth of the draft that you'd originally attached to your 18th of january 2005 email yes
01:32:25 but what was the problem in excluding frame and defining frame what's the problem with frame that you'd come across that meant that
01:32:36 that you'd come across that meant that identifying a clear exclusion from the general rule that everything in the external will build up with me of limited combustibility was difficult
01:32:52 there are so many different ways of constructing a building um
01:32:57 um trying to
01:33:00 define those different elements um
01:33:04 um in a prescriptive way and
01:33:07 and just create a similar problem to the one that we envisaged with the edge which is that whilst most people would recognize the polystyrene as an insulation material in that particular form of construction it
01:33:18 that particular form of construction it wasn't an insulation material so that kind of very prescriptive approach to describing all the different components of the building we didn't think would work
01:33:31 and was that a thought process you had at the time i think so yes did you intend and understand the scope of the new language with its new breadth of 12.7 to
01:33:44 language with its new breadth of 12.7 to extend to the external surfaces of cladding panels as well as to the core of those panels uh that was not the way i read it
01:33:53 right so in answer to my question a moment ago whether you were intending leaving aside frames that all elements of the external wall build up should be of limited combustibility you missed one
01:34:04 of limited combustibility you missed one out
01:34:04 out i think yes i think that's fair well why didn't why didn't you mention it just a minute um i'm sitting here with no notes answering questions that i don't i'm not expecting so and i will not always answer your
01:34:17 so and i will not always answer your questions precisely okay so i just want to see if we can identify with some precision your thinking at the time
01:34:26 you have all elements to be material of limited combustibility but not the frame but also not the external surface yes i think that's fair yes well it may
01:34:37 yes i think that's fair yes well it may be fair but was it your thinking at the time i want to get into your head in the back part of truth that's what i believe i was thinking at the time yeah right now um
01:34:45 now um you thoughts it it didn't extend to that i see
01:34:52 i see did it occur to you um
01:34:57 that if the insertion of the word filler material etc in 12.7 was to tell the reader that all elements of the external wall build up were to be of limited combustibility
01:35:09 uh then you needed to amend diagram 40. perhaps to delete it altogether that's what we were setting out to do we would have done but that wasn't what we were sitting at today so was the idea
01:35:22 were sitting at today so was the idea therefore that because you weren't intending to extend the requirement of materials of limited combustibility to the external surface you preserve diagram 40 and 12.6
01:35:34 you preserve diagram 40 and 12.6 i think that's what we were thinking at the time yes
01:35:41 did you at some later point come to the view
01:35:45 view that the external surfaces of the cladding panels rather than only the core of a cladding panel
01:35:50 panel were caught by 12.7 and should be of limited combustibility that's not something i've ever considered i don't think it's not something you've ever considered right
01:36:01 right mr chairman is that a convenient moment
01:36:06 yes i i think it is thank you very much mr minute um right well mr martin it's time we had a break for the morning uh we'll stop now we'll resume please at
01:36:17 uh we'll stop now we'll resume please at 25 to 12.
01:36:19 25 to 12. and as before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it while you're out of the room all right yes sir thank you very much would you get in the usher please
01:36:38 thank you very much mr minute 25 to 12 please thank you mr chairman
01:55:13 welcome back um mr millett if you're ready to continue perhaps you'd ask the usher to bring mr martin back in yes thank you mr chairman may we please have mr martin back into the hearing room
01:55:36 hello again mr martin are you ready to carry on i hope yes sir thank you very much yes mr millet yes mr martin um can we now go please uh much much further forward in time to
01:55:49 much further forward in time to the summer of 2013. i want to take a a trip there if we can um clg three zeroes one nine two one nine
01:56:02 now what i'm going to show you is a series of emails from that time between you and the gentleman called daniel turner who i think was a building control officer at ipswich
01:56:14 building control officer at ipswich borough council and you can see uh here the first two emails in the chain or the last two emails in the chain i'm not going to go through every single one of these emails can we please go to the one
01:56:26 can we please go to the one he sends you a second down on the 14th of june there at 10 25 in the morning yes and he says
01:56:37 yes and he says uh the subject is external walls in high-rise buildings and he says martin i think he thinks is your first name perhaps i don't know um i trust you're keeping well you may remember several months ago you provided
01:56:49 remember several months ago you provided some guidance on the use of combustible insulation via sips panels within the external wall of a building over 18 meters high in respect to paragraph 12.7 of adb volume
01:57:01 respect to paragraph 12.7 of adb volume 2.
01:57:03 2. following our discussion and some further research excuse me the architect amended their design to include a metal framing system and also incorporated an insulation board which has been tested in accordance with bs8414 part 1 2002.
01:57:17 accordance with bs8414 part 1 2002. and then he goes on to explain the changes made to the specification and if we go on to the third paragraph down he says this my query is the guidance given within paragraph 12.7
01:57:29 paragraph 12.7 refers specifically to the insulation material being of limited combustibility but does not refer to the substrate that it is fixed to etc if the sheeting boards were a sheet of plywood would
01:57:40 boards were a sheet of plywood would this meet with the spirit of the regulation's intention or should these be of limited combustibility also if ply were acceptable the cavity would obviously need to be subdivided at a
01:57:51 obviously need to be subdivided at a maximum of 10 to 10 meter centers to limit the spread i think he means there of a fire within this void but as noted above we are unsure as to whether a ply sheet is acceptable in the first place
01:58:03 sheet is acceptable in the first place in this instance are you able to offer any guidance on the intention of this paragraph of the approved document now by june 2013 you were an official
01:58:15 now by june 2013 you were an official full-time at the department with responsibility for approved document b weren't you amongst other things yes yes amongst other things um so
01:58:24 um so do you accept that you were the right person
01:58:27 person uh for mr turner to go to for guidance on the intention underlying this provision of adb yes yes now moving up to the chain uh up the chain to the top email you
01:58:38 uh up the chain to the top email you respond
01:58:39 respond uh the same day a little bit later and you say this hi daniel the ad doesn't preclude the use of timber sheathing as this would effectively outlaw timber frame construction and the evidence didn't
01:58:51 construction and the evidence didn't support this however the cavity barriers would need to be in line sorry would be needed in line with all compartment floors and walls in order to meet the guidance in the a.d be our report what
01:59:02 guidance in the a.d be our report what br135 may help with some of the issues now first your response to mr turner was would you accept this clear and unequivocal advice yes
01:59:14 yes yes now when you say the evidence didn't support this at the end of the first sentence what evidence were you referring there to
01:59:28 i'm not sure i remember what particularly i'm thinking of there um but certainly the department hadn't chosen to prohibit the use of high-rise timber frame construction what evidence did you have in 2005 or
01:59:41 what evidence did you have in 2005 or 2006
01:59:42 2006 before the amendment to adb which might have supported or not supported a restriction on the use of timber above 18 meters
01:59:52 it's probably the work that went into the timber frame 2000 project that i mentioned yesterday so when you use the expression of the evidence didn't support this were you referring to evidence that you had or the absence of
02:00:04 evidence that you had or the absence of any evidence to the contrary
02:00:08 probably evidence that i was aware of from the tim frame 2000. and could to be precise what was precluded by that evidence
02:00:23 well that say the timber frame 2000 project was about working out how you coming up with um design advice on how to construct high-rise timber frame buildings so i didn't
02:00:33 didn't um it's quite a complex document lots of different issues in there here we have a reference to timber sheathing
02:00:44 clearly you're saying that that was permitted and not precluded by 12.7 what's the difference between timber sheathing and
02:00:56 sheathing and timber frame construction how does timber sheathing relate to timber frame construction um so
02:01:03 um so for the most common form of timber frame construction
02:01:09 a framework is constructed with timber
02:01:14 vertical and horizontal timber members and to provide stiffness to the frame usually a timber sheathing board is fixed to that structure
02:01:26 fixed to that structure right so timber sheathing you understood to be part of timber frame construction on the basis of the this report that you had in mind at the time i think so yes right
02:01:38 we'll come back to mr turner uh at a later stage um can we go please to clg one
02:01:47 clg one five zeros three eight
02:01:52 this is as you can see from page one [Music]
02:01:57 [Music] a
02:01:58 a circular issued by the department and
02:02:02 and you can see from the top right hand corner that it's dated the 18th of december 2006 and the subject is the amendments to part b and other things yes yes uh did
02:02:13 part b and other things yes yes uh did you play any part in drafting this document
02:02:16 document um i think i did yes you think you did uh and what part did you play i would've been one of a number of people that that worked on the text
02:02:27 worked on the text uh
02:02:27 uh i see and did you understand that the purpose of the circular was to notify as wide an audience as possible of the impending changes to among other things here
02:02:36 here the amendments to part b
02:02:42 um i think it's primarily aimed at building control bodies why'd you say that and i think it's the nature of what the circulars were for
02:02:53 right how were they circularized what was the mechanics by which they were circularized i think at that time i think the department had arrangements
02:03:06 i think the department had arrangements with um
02:03:09 it was either
02:03:13 the the the replacement to her majesty state her majest her majesty's stationary office which used to provide um a range of publication and printing and distribution services
02:03:24 and distribution services um so it was either that organization which i think became part at least part privatised at some point um or it may have been a contract with an entirely separate contractor but i think at that time these were these
02:03:37 i think at that time these were these these would have been posted on mass to um a standard list right a standard list and would the standard list only include building controlled bodies or uh all groups such as the bca or an hbc
02:03:50 uh all groups such as the bca or an hbc or did it include others other representatives of the industry such as for example the cwct um i think this probably would have been circulated only to um
02:04:01 circulated only to um all the local authorities and registered approved inspectors might have been all the chief fire officers as well they they're you and the list over time changed and i i don't know for sure which one this would have
02:04:12 know for sure which one this would have been
02:04:13 been so very much building control orientated was there any reason why it wasn't also sent to
02:04:18 sent to um architectural organizations or surveyors such as the racs the raba designers and other construction industry bodies um
02:04:30 industry bodies um i think this was a formal process that had been established for some time um and that was that was how it was done um the documents he placed on the department's website as well
02:04:42 department's website as well right let's then go to page two
02:04:47 where it um says in the first bullet point that the purpose is to draw attention to these amendments and explain the changes they make to the building regulations 2000 the building regulations and the
02:04:58 the building regulations and the building approved inspectors etc regulations 2000 the ai regulations and then third bullet point announced the approval and publication of two new approved documents
02:05:09 approved documents and then if you scroll slowly down through to page 10 and take this from me that the secular gives fairly detailed information about the changes to that guidance
02:05:19 guidance and as an author i think you'd accept that it does what it does doesn't it um yes yes now um so we can we can see just some examples of page nine if we go back a page
02:05:32 of page nine if we go back a page if you look at c15 there's new guidance there
02:05:36 there on the need to ensure that management regimes relevant to the building design are realistic and and on page nine at c17 at the foot of the page if we scroll down to that please
02:05:48 to that please um you can see that
02:05:51 that there's something about the provision of self-closing devices within individual flats
02:05:55 flats at c80 on page 10
02:05:58 10 provisions for smoke control have been changed
02:06:01 changed and required fire resistance levels for car parks and things c19 for example a number of clarifications of existing
02:06:12 a number of clarifications of existing guidance including in relation to the use of locks and child resistance safety stays on the escape windows see all that yes
02:06:20 yes now we've scoured this document from end to end mr martin we can't find anything in it
02:06:26 in it by way of any reference to any change to the provisions in b4 external fire spread so take that from from me the question is why why is there nothing in this document about external fire spread
02:06:49 probably because those changes were made very late on and this document had probably been drafted well in advance well in advance of what the changes yeah and the changes that they would
02:07:00 yeah and the changes that they would have been drafted simultaneously but it would have been quite easy wouldn't it to add a rather paragraph in here a matter of moments just to add another c here saying
02:07:10 saying uh we've also broadened the requirement of
02:07:15 of limited combustibility in the external wall construction to include everything except frames and surfaces yeah i think if it come to mind that we could have done that but clearly we didn't no i know you didn't um i quote and and you
02:07:27 know you didn't um i quote and and you accepted you could have done my question is why why didn't you
02:07:32 i don't recall a conscious decision not to um i think
02:07:37 my guess is because those amendments were late on they didn't find their way into this document
02:07:45 but wouldn't it have been obvious that if you were going to make late amendments not having consulted on them nonetheless at least to alert all the building control bodies at whom this document was directed that they were there
02:07:59 i think i think we should have done but but clearly at the time we didn't think of it well and you didn't think of it i mean why didn't you think of it given that you were actually making these amendments themselves
02:08:10 themselves on the eve of publication why not simply read across swivel across to another screen open another screen and add a paragraph
02:08:21 then as as i say this was a the changes we made in relation to b4 were
02:08:27 were one of
02:08:29 one of hundreds of changes that we were making was there was the reason again to keep this as low-key as possible and not to alert
02:08:40 as low-key as possible and not to alert industry to the fact of the changes in order to
02:08:43 order to avoid a risk of challenge on the basis that it had not been the subject of consultation in the first place i don't remember that that being something we talked about
02:08:54 that being something we talked about now going back up to page eight of this document
02:08:57 document paragraph c8 we can see there it says uh under the broadheading of the new approved documents the summary of the main changes to the guidance contained in both of the approved documents can be
02:09:09 both of the approved documents can be found inside their front covers now let's go to that um can we please go to clg 1607
02:09:19 this is volume 2 of the 2006 edition as published
02:09:24 published and you can see that from the bottom right hand corner
02:09:28 corner and if we go to page 2 please you can see
02:09:31 see at the top of the page on the left hand side
02:09:34 side volume 2 main changes in the 2006 edition you see that yes and if we look over page 2
02:09:44 you can see changes listed to the introductory sections you can see that can't you go if you scroll down you can see in the left-hand column b1 fire alarms and flats fire alarms means
02:09:56 fire alarms and flats fire alarms means of escape
02:09:58 of escape and then if we go back up to the top of the screen it goes straight down to b3 there's no b2
02:10:05 b2 um
02:10:06 um you see that and
02:10:09 and if you go to the bottom of the right hand column in the small bold print there it says main changes are continued on the inside back cover and if we go to the inside back cover that's a page 169 can we go there
02:10:20 can we go there we can see the remainder of the changes are covered and here we do have the second half of the screen b4
02:10:28 b4 and you've got p and q notional boundaries space separation uh and roof coverings in order to incorporate the new european system of classification in 13501 relating to roof
02:10:41 classification in 13501 relating to roof coverings there you see those two changes but nothing at all there about 12.7 uh
02:10:49 uh or filler or the exclusions from filler gaskets sealants and similar why is that um
02:10:57 um it wasn't
02:10:58 it wasn't one of those we listed those things that we thought um were most needed to be given prominence that one didn't come on the list and i think partially that's because some of those changes were
02:11:09 because some of those changes were probably late in the process
02:11:14 you see given that you'd made amendments to 12.7 by adding by expanding the title and adding the words filler material not including gaskets sealants and similar
02:11:25 including gaskets sealants and similar brackets etc it would have been easy wouldn't it to flip to page 169 or whatever it was in the draft and just add a sentence or two there
02:11:36 a sentence or two there wouldn't it it could have been we didn't decide to do that we probably changed every paragraph in the document was there a deliberate decision at the time not to alert the reader to that change no
02:11:47 no so again you would say it was you would you it just got missed and what's the there's no other direction well as i say there are hundreds of hundreds of changes and this lists some that
02:11:58 some that we'd identified as right might be worth bringing the to the readers attention but why wasn't 12.71 worth bringing to
02:12:09 but why wasn't 12.71 worth bringing to the reader's attention given that it had to do
02:12:12 to do with the combustibility of the external wall
02:12:16 quite an important one they're all important
02:12:19 important well
02:12:20 well they may all be important uh i i see why you say that uh but um given that it was a recent one and therefore at the forefront of your mind at the time why not just pop it in under b4
02:12:32 b4 and clearly we didn't think of that at the time
02:12:38 well it isn't clear whether you didn't think of it at the time or whether it was a deliberate decision not to put it in well my evidence is that it wasn't the deliberate decision i don't recall ever discussing that with
02:12:49 don't recall ever discussing that with mr bird or anyone else i understand now after the publication of the approved document i think it's right isn't it that you were along along with anthony bird involved with
02:13:00 with what he called a dissemination exercise do you remember that yes uh and um he says that in his statement of paragraph 32 is it right that your own work on the dissemination exercise in fact formed
02:13:12 dissemination exercise in fact formed part of the project to revise approved document
02:13:14 document b yeah part of the contract yes yes yes thank you uh exactly and just for our record that's task 3d page 13 of the contract
02:13:25 that's task 3d page 13 of the contract bre 401953 um
02:13:31 um you may remember we can look at it if you like but it envisaged that there would be six seminars or roadshows between april and september 2006. do you remember that i certainly remember doing a series of roadshows yes you do right and did you
02:13:43 roadshows yes you do right and did you did you attend them you went to those roadshows did you um most of them mr bird and i um spoke at them it was quite a long presentation i think between the two of us it ran on
02:13:54 think between the two of us it ran on for a good few hours did you attend all of them um i don't think i don't think i did um i'm pretty sure that mr greenwood may
02:14:06 i'm pretty sure that mr greenwood may have covered some of them we made a point of getting
02:14:11 a number of colleagues to attend the first event so that they could follow um
02:14:17 um how we presented um the the information so that there'd be a degree of consistency in the way we presented it now if we go to your statement at page
02:14:28 now if we go to your statement at page 35 please paragraph 106
02:14:34 um you say this the department continued to be aware of the issues concerning external cladding systems throughout the review of adb that led to the 2006 edition being published
02:14:44 published as may be seen from slide 55 of the powerpoint presentation which you exhibit or you refer to that i jointly delivered with anthony byrd i was still at bre he was at the department entitled
02:14:56 he was at the department entitled changes to part b fire safety of the building regulations and approved document b the fabric of external wall construction had been an aspect of the review and one which had resulted in changes from the previous version the
02:15:07 changes from the previous version the slide sets out two ways in which the industry may achieve the functional requirements of b requirement b4 using materials of limited combustibility or meeting the performance criteria in br135 from test data obtained by
02:15:19 br135 from test data obtained by conducting a part 1 2002 or bs8414 part 2 2005 test the presentation that goes over the page was delivered as part of the post-review
02:15:30 was delivered as part of the post-review drive to educate the industry about the changes that had been made to adb now can we flip back please to the first to the page before the first sentence of that paragraph this is where you say
02:15:42 that paragraph this is where you say the department continue to be aware of the issues concerning external cladding systems throughout the review of adb that led to the 2006 edition being published
02:15:53 published now first when you say the department who are you talking about there
02:15:59 there and that would have been the people at the department that i was dealing with it's mr bird and his colleagues mr bird and his colleagues and again which colleagues do you say we're aware of the issues concerning external planning
02:16:10 issues concerning external planning systems
02:16:11 systems um
02:16:14 from memory i'm pretty sure tracy cole was involved in the whole project um i can't remember when darren hobbs joined the team i think he was there okay now when you say the issues concerning external accounting systems
02:16:25 concerning external accounting systems what were the issues you're referring to there
02:16:28 there um i think i'm referring generally to discussions we would have had for instance regarding the edge
02:16:36 right
02:16:43 can we go to the slideshow then that you refer to
02:16:47 which i think is what you say was part of the department's drive to educate the industry about the recent changes this is a clg 30195 19451
02:16:59 19451 one clg 30194 five one
02:17:14 uh and that's the first page uh you can see it's um it's on clg heading background procedural changes volumes one and two and dwelling house
02:17:26 one and two and dwelling house buildings other than do any houses volume two uh and um if uh you go please to uh
02:17:35 uh the
02:17:39 uh if you go
02:17:44 the first slide
02:17:58 uh i'm not sure it's there in fact but do you remember that you were one of the authors with of this document with anthony bird yes you were did you prepare the slides together
02:18:08 together yes
02:18:09 yes did you jointly deliver all of these presentations or did did when he wasn't there did you do it and when you weren't there did he do it or perhaps because it was very long um there was always two
02:18:20 was very long um there was always two people presenting one from the department one from bre right i see i see
02:18:25 i see and you're right it's 59 pages long if we go to 55 page 55 we can see that this is a slide dealing with external wall construction if we have that just expanded and it says in
02:18:37 have that just expanded and it says in blue external wall construction uh and
02:18:41 uh and then it goes on to say insulation materials stroke products and then there's a direct quotation from 12.7 isn't there yes yes or at least the first part of it
02:18:52 or at least the first part of it uh and then cavity barrier section 9 external surfaces diagram 40 or meet the performance criteria given in br135 so just just looking at it you've chosen
02:19:04 so just just looking at it you've chosen to quote
02:19:05 to quote there the new 12.7 uh and then just cross refer to the other elements cavity barriers section 9 external services section 40. yes yes yes
02:19:17 yes yes yes now if we um if we go to your witness statement that i've just read out to you let's go back to that please
02:19:26 please paragraph 106 you say there
02:19:31 say there uh
02:19:33 uh that and this is four lines up from the bottom the slide sets out two ways in which the industry may achieve the functional requirements of requirement b4 you see that yes then you go on using materials of limited combustibility or
02:19:45 materials of limited combustibility or meeting the performance criteria in br135
02:19:50 br135 um
02:19:51 um why do you say that
02:19:56 let's get back to the we probably need to get back to the slide at page 55 if we can
02:20:01 we can but why do you say it sets out the two ways in which industry can comply um i'm trying to explain the what's become known as the linear route or the other large-scale test route but in your
02:20:13 other large-scale test route but in your statement you say using materials of limited combustibility or meeting the performance criteria in br135 the reason i ask the question is because
02:20:24 the reason i ask the question is because if filler was intended not to apply to the whole of the external wall buildup but only parts of it
02:20:31 it retaining diagram 40 it's right isn't it that
02:20:36 that the alternatives weren't materials of limited combustibility or a full-scale test were they i see your point yeah
02:20:48 so why do you say in paragraph 186 that the slide sets out two ways to comply with the functional requirement when in fact there are if you ignore cavity barriers
02:20:57 barriers there are three two of which run in tandem insulation and external surfaces
02:21:07 and that's not the way i'd look at it i think the linear route is a combination of a number of different provisions one of which does not require limited combustibility is the standard namely diagram 40. yes i accept your
02:21:18 namely diagram 40. yes i accept your point yes and is there an element was there an element when you wrote your statement to some confusion there between diagram 40 and combustibility limited combustibility no i think i was just trying to point out that we were
02:21:29 just trying to point out that we were explaining both both options yes but both options aren't the options are they it's linear or full scale test not limited combustibility or full scale test i accept that yeah
02:21:41 test i accept that yeah i'm just trying to understand how you came to make that mistake when doing your statement do you can you explain um
02:21:49 um i don't think there was any ulterior motive in that i was just trying to explain the the two options
02:21:56 now you mentioned it i probably could have described it more accurately
02:22:05 and again just to be clear there's no i think you'd accept there's no suggestion looking at the slide that the requirement of limited combustibility applied to all elements of the external wall construction over
02:22:16 of the external wall construction over 18 meters is there that's correct no and that's because is this right that you didn't in fact intend that the changes to adb should have that effect well we didn't intend yes that was the
02:22:27 well we didn't intend yes that was the the conclusion that we came to as a team the we being what both you the bre as the contractor and the department yes
02:22:40 now the separation of these three matters
02:22:44 matters would tend to suggest wouldn't it or to confirm look those looking at the slide that the word products in the title of paragraph 12.7 was not a reference to all products but insulation products
02:22:59 yes well if we said just insulation products we wouldn't have needed the phrase filler material not including gasket sealants and similar etcetera right well would you accept that there's no suggestion here by way of explanation that the phrase
02:23:13 by way of explanation that the phrase as you can see set out filler
02:23:16 filler material etc was intended to refer to the core of composite cladding panels there's not an explanation on the slide the slide is just quoting the
02:23:28 the slide is just quoting the the text but we would have we wouldn't have just put the slide up and let people read it we would have talked about it well i was going to ask you did you address that orally in your explanation um
02:23:41 in your explanation um we addressed all of the slides orally right and what did you i know it's difficult and there's no script but can you remember the gist of what you told the attendees at these roadshows about what filler material not including
02:23:53 about what filler material not including gasket sealants and similar etc meant i can't remember exactly what we said did you explain to these people that the word filler might apply to unspecified components in the external wall
02:24:05 components in the external wall construction which you hadn't been able to think of i think i would have done but i can't say for certain right
02:24:13 do you agree that this presentation at least looking at the slide doesn't tell industry that the phrase filler material etc was intended to apply apply to something other than insulation if you only look
02:24:24 other than insulation if you only look at the slide yes yes did you
02:24:29 did you ask for feedback from your audiences about their understanding of the new text of paragraph 12.7
02:24:42 no i don't remember doing that now given that it hadn't been listed as a matter of consultation it hadn't been consulted on it hadn't been put before brac it hadn't been mentioned in the 18th of
02:24:54 it hadn't been mentioned in the 18th of december to 2006 circular and it hadn't been listed as a significant change on the front or back covers of the new edition given all those matters why didn't you
02:25:05 why didn't you seek feedback from your audiences to see what they thought
02:25:12 um well we would have presented this and explain
02:25:18 what the text was what what the changes were intended to try and achieve
02:25:23 we were the the audience were quite able to raise issues with us so they wanted to there would have been a question and answer session at the end but we didn't specifically ask them about this as you
02:25:34 specifically ask them about this as you say it's a very long presentation so they would have there would have been a range of questions about all of the slides i imagined
02:25:41 right so
02:25:44 so is this right that you left it to the vagaries of a q a rather than formally asking them at the end for their feedback on whether or not the changes were clear and understood we would have needed to
02:25:55 and understood we would have needed to do that for the whole document i don't think that would have been a practical option
02:26:00 option well
02:26:01 well the difference between the whole document and this part of the document is that
02:26:08 that this was one part of the document which had not been the subject of any consultation or any publication whereas much of the rest of the document if not all of the rest of the document had no
02:26:21 all of the rest of the document had no well i think there would have been textual changes to again most of the document following the consultation so that the fact that the text in the final document wasn't the same as the consultation
02:26:32 consultation is normal right
02:26:37 now i want to turn to
02:26:40 to different years 2008 and 2009. can we start please by looking at clg one triple zero three five seven two
02:26:53 uh and if we go to the bottom email in the chain please uh this is an email from philip reid to you on the 14th of february 2008.
02:27:04 february 2008. and uh he says this dear brian thank you for your time this afternoon following on from our conversation please find below and attached a bit of further information surrounding the issue of concern for the company's eurocloud and
02:27:16 concern for the company's eurocloud and euro bond who i represent euro bond and euro clad have over 25 years experience supplying metal external envelope solutions for roofs and walls using non-combustible
02:27:27 and walls using non-combustible insulation they offer built up systems and composite panels construction systems that are used on a wide range of buildings including schools and hospitals
02:27:37 hospitals that we have serious concerns about this fire safety surrounding certain types of composite panels and feel that the current standards and regulations need to be reviewed to ensure people's lives are not put at
02:27:48 ensure people's lives are not put at risk unnecessarily there's a belief that there are loopholes in the existing framework that allows some manufacturers to offer products that are misleading in their sales documentation and are a genuine
02:28:00 sales documentation and are a genuine fire risk to the public i have attached a very basic briefing paper which covers some of the issues in more detail
02:28:09 and you can
02:28:11 you can see the rest of it there's a reference to lps 1181
02:28:16 and um he goes on to say in the next paragraph towards the end we are very interested to find out the position on this issue from the relevant divisions of dclg within dclg if it's if possible it would
02:28:28 within dclg if it's if possible it would also be useful to meet with the right people to see how this can be pursued
02:28:34 now we can see from that email that you had had a conversation with philip reid that day do you remember the conversation no you don't
02:28:43 now if we go up the chain we can see that you responded to his email that very day 15 minutes later and you say this philip many thanks for your email as i explained today if
02:28:54 your email as i explained today if you're concerned that a manufacturer is deliberately misleading people with its literature then this is something that should be taken up with the relevance trading standards authority i understand that euro bond have already made such a
02:29:05 that euro bond have already made such a complaint to the advertising standards authority and this has in part been upheld regards brian martin
02:29:13 and if we look at the top of the email chain we can see that you forwarded both emails both his to you and yours in response to anthony byrd four days later on the 18th of february 2008. yes yes
02:29:27 on the 18th of february 2008. yes yes now leaving aside for the moment if we can mr martin the advertising standards authority and any specific misleading claims being made by specific manufacturers when you responded to philip reed
02:29:38 when you responded to philip reed on the 14th of february you didn't respond at all did you to his wider point that there were loopholes in the existing framework allowing such claims to be made did you
02:29:51 to be made did you i think when you look at his briefing paper um it related to the lps 1181 testing regime and the application of different types of sandwich panels to
02:30:03 different types of sandwich panels to low-rise industrial buildings
02:30:06 um well maybe but but my question is is is about your response he's identified loopholes in the existing framework which he said allowed such claims to be
02:30:18 which he said allowed such claims to be made you didn't respond i think i'm just asking you to accept that on the face of it you're not responding to that are you i may have done in the conversation we had on the telephone right but you don't recall the conversation no
02:30:30 conversation no so you don't recall whether you did or didn't respond to that concern
02:30:36 um what did you um i i can't imagine we would have had a conversation without addressing it right
02:30:44 right all right um and what did you tell him i mean i know you can't remember the conversation and you're probably speculating but um [Music]
02:30:54 [Music] do you accept this that loopholes in the existing framework if there were any would be probably a matter for the department uh if there were any um what would if if you if you look at the
02:31:05 what would if if you if you look at the briefing paper that's attached it's it's referring to an insurance industry standard lps 1181 and the concerns um well the point that i mean
02:31:17 i mean mr reed works for political intelligence which is a political lobbying company um so he's been employed by um his clients uh manufacturers of rock fiber field sandwich panels
02:31:29 sandwich panels and
02:31:30 and they weren't happy that some manufacturers were selling other products that weren't there right and and did you before you responded to him 15 minutes
02:31:41 before you responded to him 15 minutes after his email or perhaps during the period up between the conversation uh in the afternoon and
02:31:50 and receiving his email at 4 18 that same afternoon do any research into the loophole he was referring to and satisfy yourself that there was no such
02:32:01 satisfy yourself that there was no such loophole
02:32:04 um i would have read his briefing paper and considered that and
02:32:09 and and having considered that were you satisfied that there was no loophole in respect of what he was raising i i i believe so yeah did you explain to him that he was wrong
02:32:20 that he was wrong in his belief that there were loopholes i think i would have explained to him that lps 1181 isn't relevant to the building regulations it's an insurance industry standard yes and and uh he wanted to receive your
02:32:31 yes and and uh he wanted to receive your views on
02:32:33 views on those standards which he says come from the insurance sector uh and that they're being misused and wanted to know what your position was what did you tell him um
02:32:43 um i
02:32:44 i i can't remember the exact conversation but as i say it's it's these are standards that aren't relevant to building regulations so that would have been the answer i gave him right let's go to clg one triple zero three
02:32:55 let's go to clg one triple zero three six four five please this is a chain of emails from march same year 2008. uh it's a long chain uh so we don't need to go to all of it
02:33:06 uh so we don't need to go to all of it but can we look please at page three at the foot of that page and this is an email uh
02:33:12 uh sent by bill parler on the 7th of march 2008
02:33:17 2008 to
02:33:19 to jeanette henderson now
02:33:21 now bill parler was at the time from the association for specialist fire protection the asfp wasn't he yes you may remember that and just to give you a little bit of
02:33:32 and just to give you a little bit of context and jeanette henderson was at the department wasn't she yes uh and i this email i think in his previous which set which was sent on the day before which we don't need to look at related to the code for sustainable homes
02:33:45 to the code for sustainable homes uh and again for context he had raised concerns that that code made no reference to fire safety or or compliance with the provisions of approved document b
02:33:56 approved document b but what i want to focus on having giving you that context is this if we look at page three he says this jeanette thank you for your note i can easily agree and note that adb will still apply but we have a very large dependency on
02:34:08 but we have a very large dependency on the class naught contrivance for building products since the 1960s this was originally introduced to permit paper-faced plasterboard previously the weaknesses of the class nought approach has largely been compensated by
02:34:20 has largely been compensated by relatively robust and traditional building techniques however now with modern methods and sustainability as a buzzword designers have taken their eyes off the ball
02:34:31 have taken their eyes off the ball the consequence is that we see massive increases in fire load introduced into the building fabric often protected by little more than a thin film of aluminium foil if the foil or alternative covering remains intact
02:34:43 or alternative covering remains intact classmate can be maintained if not then flashover can be reached in seconds yes seconds not minutes with combustible lining products vulnerable points will occur wherever
02:34:54 vulnerable points will occur wherever building services penetrate the combustible materials it's not just about damaged systems the prefabricated modular system has similar worries associated with the basic use in innovative design regressively we are
02:35:06 innovative design regressively we are sailing ever closer to a great calamity and less sense and better understanding underlined prevails in we in recent times the weakness of over-reliance of the class nought
02:35:17 over-reliance of the class nought approach was demonstrated in the sandwich panel market where steel sheet covering was used much more robust than aluminium foil the large spate of fires deaths and near
02:35:28 the large spate of fires deaths and near deaths that followed caused appendix f to be added to adb as guidance but not as a requirement ultimate unfortunately designers have not linked the two issues at all these hazardous panels and modern
02:35:39 at all these hazardous panels and modern methods of construction insurers are not increasingly concerned they are already concerned and contemplating removal of insurability for such buildings i think i need the rest
02:35:51 i think i need the rest now
02:35:53 and um says he's happy to pop in for a chat now this email wasn't copied to you but it was forwarded to you by jeanette henderson on the 1st of april and we
02:36:05 and we can see
02:36:09 that much higher up the chain if we go to the foot of page one
02:36:16 it comes through tracy cull but slightly secured as root to you um
02:36:25 um and
02:36:27 uh you respond to it uh at the top of your screen on the third of april do you see that yes yes so can we take it that you read bill parler's email
02:36:38 bill parler's email at the time yeah must have done yes yes thank you now
02:36:42 now if we can go back to page four
02:36:46 of the email run and go back again to bill parler's email first paragraph
02:36:54 uh we can see there that um
02:36:58 um he refers to appendix f can we take it that at the time this is 2008 you were aware of appendix f yes yeah now am i right in thinking that appendix f had been introduced into the
02:37:10 appendix f had been introduced into the 2000 edition of approved document b i think so yes and that came into force in july 2000 yes yes
02:37:20 yes yes yes we we think that's right because it doesn't i think appear in the 1992 version
02:37:25 version um now the guidance in appendix f um let's go to that it's at clg one five zero is 12 page one three two
02:37:43 uh it's entitled insulating core panels and then underneath that appendix f and then underneath that fire behavior of insulating core panels used for internal
02:37:54 insulating core panels used for internal structures now
02:37:58 now um
02:37:59 um then it says introduction insulating core panel systems are used for external cladding as well as for internal structures and just could you just explain to us what insulating core panels are in the
02:38:12 what insulating core panels are in the context of external cladding um insulating core panel is another way of saying sandwich panels so they're typically two layers of metal with a a
02:38:23 a core of either an insulating foam or an insulating rock fiber
02:38:29 fiber right and how would they be used in external cladding um in the way they were used on the edge um as a as the external face of the building ah okay so you would call that
02:38:40 building ah okay so you would call that would you an insulating core panel and that panel that was used at the edge i think in terms of this yes although appendix f is focused on on their use um internally when you were
02:38:53 their use um internally when you were searching for a way to deal with the edge problem as we can see you were after the consultation did you think to turn up appendix f and use the words or phrase insulating core panel
02:39:04 phrase insulating core panel which is a signifier for the edge and apply the material of limited combustibility requirement to that um i think the problem would have been is it's got the word insulating in it so you'd assume that it was only it would
02:39:16 you'd assume that it was only it would only apply to things that were there for their thermal performance yes all right um i see that what about the word core did you not think to look at appendix f
02:39:28 did you not think to look at appendix f uh and see that the edge panel was a panel with a core and used the language in appendix f i see your point no that's not what we thought at the time yeah no i could see
02:39:40 thought at the time yeah no i could see that too but why why why was that the case um i couldn't i couldn't say that going back to bill parler's email um he refers to the large spate of fires deaths and near deaths
02:39:52 deaths and near deaths as you can see i've read that to you yes
02:39:58 and it's the middle pretty much the middle of your screen the last do you see it yeah large state of fires deaths and near death that followed caused appendix f to be added to adb as guidance but not as a
02:40:09 to adb as guidance but not as a requirement do you were you aware of the large spate of fires deaths and near deaths to which he's referring um
02:40:22 it's it's not uncommon for people to use um
02:40:26 um hyperbole in in this kind of um correspondence um there definitely were deaths associated with the use of insulated panels inside a building
02:40:37 insulated panels inside a building there were some firefighters that died tragically
02:40:43 i think it was a i think it was a chicken frying works where they were cooking chicken on an industrial scale and there were some
02:40:55 and there were some foam filled panels that formed the petitions around the cooking area and
02:41:01 and used in
02:41:02 used in that
02:41:03 that environment you get a sudden change in the um nature of the fire which the fire firefighters wouldn't have been able to recognize
02:41:13 recognize until it was too late so those firefighters were killed and that's one of the main drivers for why these changes were made um
02:41:20 um there were some um other industrial fires where where there were like financial losses which had been attributed to
02:41:31 which had been attributed to the use of this kind of insulated or sandwich panel
02:41:44 if we look back then at appendix f if we can just go back to that please page one three eight sorry one three uh
02:41:55 let's well actually let's go to the appendix f in in the 2006 edition i think it's probably better so we can place it in time clg one five zero seven four zero sorry four zero seven four zero clg one four zeroes
02:42:08 zero seven four zero clg one four zeroes seven four zero page one three eight here's appendix f again
02:42:14 and if you look at the um right hand side
02:42:20 of the text and the third and fourth paragraph in that right hand column it says the insulating nature of these panels together with their sealed joints means the fire can spread behind the panels hidden from the occupants of
02:42:31 panels hidden from the occupants of occupied rooms stroke spaces this can prove to be a particular problem to firefighters as due to the insulating properties of the cause it may not be possible to track the spread of fire even using infrared detection equipment
02:42:44 even using infrared detection equipment this difficulty together with that of controlling the fire spread within and behind the panels is likely to have a detrimental effect on the performance of the fixing systems potentially leading to their complete and unexpected collapse together with any associated
02:42:56 collapse together with any associated equipment
02:42:57 equipment now when considering the fire at the edge in 2005 and 2006 and making amendments to section 12 of the approved document
02:43:06 document to to address the edge problem did you give any consideration to making amendments to the first part of appendix f
02:43:14 f the content of which indicates doesn't it that such panels only present a particular problem for fire spread internally
02:43:28 that's not the approach we took we took the view that appendix f was specifically about internal structures it was a particular issue that had arisen
02:43:36 arisen and at the time the department produced this appendix we were trying to produce something that was more generic and not focused on a single product well
02:43:48 yes i mean you say you took the view that appendix f was specifically about internal structures but it's clear that it isn't is it because as it says in paragraph one and as you've confirmed they are used in
02:44:00 you've confirmed they are used in cladding systems and indeed cladding on high-rise buildings as in the case of the edge
02:44:05 the edge yes
02:44:06 yes so it wasn't limited to internal panels yeah but this section is talking about
02:44:11 about the issues they present when used internally yes but in fact those issues could also apply externally they're different well maybe but they're common aren't they
02:44:23 they they're common and they could have they may be different they may behave differently but the the problems with sandwich panels with a combustible core when used for cladding would be similar to or the same as or at
02:44:34 would be similar to or the same as or at least common with the problems identified in what i've just read to you you can't track the spread of the fire um it's quite a different situation
02:44:47 right
02:44:58 did you consider the language of appendix f when looking at 12.7 at all
02:45:07 i don't think we did um i think it's a good point and and in hindsight i think we could have used the word core as well as
02:45:18 a more generic text
02:45:22 then let's go back to bill parla's email clg one triple zero three six four five
02:45:31 uh and if you go to uh
02:45:35 uh the first page please i think we need the movie page three for this uh
02:45:42 uh he refers there in the third line of his email to dependency on the class naught contrivance for building products since the 1960s you see that yes um what did you
02:45:53 you see that yes um what did you understand him to mean when he read this email
02:46:00 i think he's talking about the way that classo evolved in the 1960s but he calls it a contrivance what did you understand to me by that um
02:46:14 i think he's referring to the way that at the time they were trying to come up with a classification that allowed certain products and didn't allow certain other products and i think at that time
02:46:26 at that time they were focused on quite specific products that they knew they did or didn't want to be used and that's how they developed the test so i can see why you would call it a contrivance yes i mean the message that
02:46:38 contrivance yes i mean the message that he's giving to jeanette henderson and thereby up the chain to you is isn't it that class naught is no longer a robust standard um given its original purpose
02:46:50 um given its original purpose and given the arrival of more modern methods of modern methods of construction and sustainability i think that's the argument he's making yes yes was that not a very clear warning about the dangers inherent in retaining
02:47:01 about the dangers inherent in retaining a reference to class naught in approved document b at least in the context of external fire spread um that's a that's a view i'd heard other people make yes
02:47:12 other people make yes at the time um
02:47:15 um yes and which other people i can't remember it's a it's a it's a topic that's that's come up from time to time in the past um about the criticism of classo in in its generality not particularly focused on external wall
02:47:27 particularly focused on external wall construction but generally well indeed it had and indeed we've seen because we saw it last week the recommendation of the select committee to
02:47:37 to abandon class north in favor of um a much tougher combustibility standard with an alternative being the full system test yes yes yes and and did you not read this at the at
02:47:49 and and did you not read this at the at the time as indicating that that argument the inadequacy of class naught as a classification standard uh was
02:48:00 uh was still persisting um it showed there was a there were some people that took that view um but decisions had already been made up by then and the approved document was in
02:48:13 by then and the approved document was in place what were your views in the spring of 2008
02:48:17 of 2008 or thereabouts on the adequacy or otherwise of national class north as a standard
02:48:22 standard to be retained by diagram 40 and b41 relating to the surfaces of external walls above 18 meters
02:48:34 i'm not relating to this email this is generally external well i'm relating it to the email only in terms of its timing 2008.
02:48:53 i think i just generally thought this was something we'd need to look at in the
02:48:56 the future when would you need to look at it next next time we reviewed approved document b which was going to be at this point when
02:49:09 i'm on like up until the 2006 edition they were reviewed about it i think that the space between reviews varied from about six to nine years i think yes in fact historically we know that
02:49:21 yes in fact historically we know that that was put on a more regular cycle and the next review was in in 2010 wasn't it um i think at that time so this is after the um future of building control report um
02:49:33 um so yeah i mean i'm of the view the proof document should be revised every five to six years right
02:49:42 with any rate is it can we take it that on your radar
02:49:49 a review of the adequacy of approved document of class naught in the context of external fast bread needed to be undertaken the next time there was a review of adb i think the whole fire classification
02:50:00 i think the whole fire classification system was something we'd need to look at because we implemented the european system and the question about at which point um
02:50:07 point um you either removed or derogated in some way that the bs-476 system was clearly going to be one of the things that we'd need to consider at some point i think
02:50:17 i think so i think the answer to my question is yes it was on your radar for reconsideration the next time there was a consideration of the standards yes yes thank you now if we go then uh to
02:50:28 uh to uh
02:50:30 uh uh
02:50:31 uh the tran i'd like to show you what dr crowder told the inquiry this is a day 229 page 53 please
02:50:49 and if we look together at line 18 he's asked the question do you consider that national class naught has been at any time an appropriate measure of the fire performance of external cladding
02:51:01 performance of external cladding and the answer he gives is i when it was when the issue if you like was first conceived that i can understand the argument for using an existing test and trying to make the best use of it albeit
02:51:12 trying to make the best use of it albeit in a slightly different application using these sorts of principles but i would say that and if we could turn over you know certainly by the time of adb 2006
02:51:22 2006 when you know we were several years into european harmonization for instance i really struggled to see why class naught was retained i mean i think i well i don't think i did i gave evidence on the
02:51:34 don't think i did i gave evidence on the appropriateness or otherwise of class naught as opposed to the european tests during the evidence i gave in singapore in the supreme court back in 2015 and then he goes on if you
02:51:45 and then he goes on if you go please to line 21 to say this
02:51:53 yeah i don't support class naught as a test i understand that there are political motivations as to why it was retained but those are political they're not technical
02:52:04 um now first of all can you do you agree with that
02:52:11 well all of it well do you agree with his evidence that um that there were political motivations behind class naught's retention and not technical motivations
02:52:22 motivations do you agree with that i think it's a very broad i i think i need to qualify that um
02:52:32 there wasn't a specific political driver to retain classo or otherwise um in in the jury sense of the word um
02:52:44 at the time of drafting adb 2006 there was a recognition that you needed to consider more than the surface that's why the guidance was structured the way it was
02:53:03 if we go on to page 56 at line 19
02:53:09 question is your evidence that despite remaining concerned about it you never raised it that's with class naught with brian martin because you knew the answer would be no and he says this i wouldn't say i never raised
02:53:21 says this i wouldn't say i never raised we knew there was a shared understanding that class naught is what it is and it's not ideal yeah then
02:53:29 then that ultimately it would come to an end but that end got extended and extended and extended and i mean it's in some of my evidence you know government and i'm not talking about brian martin
02:53:40 and i'm not talking about brian martin i'm talking about people he reported to they weren't in listening mode at this point fire safety was very much in decline at that stage i would suggest
02:53:50 no i've put all of that to you is there anything that dr crowder told the inquiry that i've just read to you there that you disagree with
02:53:59 um in in generality i suppose it's it's a it's a fair observation from his point of view
02:54:08 did you share dr crowder's understanding that class naught as he put it is what it is and it's not ideal did you share that understanding with him
02:54:21 specifically for external wall construction or generally its use well i'll specif at the context here is specifically for external wall construction
02:54:32 external wall construction i think at the time we record we at the time of drafting the adb 2006 would come to the view that you couldn't use it in isolation that was the point of of the way we'd structured the guidance
02:54:44 and in in more general terms we knew that the bs476 series of tests would eventually be withdrawn now that's not the first time you've used the expression
02:54:56 used the expression in isolation or couldn't be used in isolation what do you what do you mean in isolation from what so classo is fine for assessing the properties of a product at its surface
02:55:08 properties of a product at its surface but won't necessarily tell you what's going on beneath the surface which may be relevant in some circumstances
02:55:16 which is why adb 2006 talks about external wall construction generally first talks about the risk of using combustible materials within a cladding
02:55:28 combustible materials within a cladding system
02:55:29 system and then points you to consider both the surface
02:55:33 surface following diagram 40 and to consider insulation fillers etc inside the construction
02:55:41 now let's go then to clg
02:55:46 uh triple zero one nine five zero eight
02:55:51 this is march 2008
02:55:56 um can i just ask you before i take you to that did you do you remember having a discussion with david crowder and around this time march 2008 or or anytime in 2008 or so
02:56:07 2008 or so about the inadequacies or otherwise of class naught no
02:56:13 looking at this email if we go to the second email down in the chain we can see that on the 20th of march 2018 larry cody sends an email to anthony bird
02:56:27 to anthony bird and just to orientate you in the email run if you go up to page one to the top of page one you can see that anthony bird sends it on five days later 25th of march to
02:56:38 on five days later 25th of march to tracy cull and you yes yes please deal he says and i'll come back to that in a moment just i'm showing you that just to remind you that you saw the longer email from larry cody
02:56:50 you saw the longer email from larry cody sent to him anthony bird if we go back to the page one to the foot he says this
02:56:56 this um
02:56:57 um and you need to look please at the second paragraph down halfway down that paragraph where he says having witnessed the speed and extent of
02:57:08 having witnessed the speed and extent of damage resulting from fires in buildings during recent years we share the concern that that traditional methods of evaluating risk may not be sufficiently adequate in their current
02:57:19 sufficiently adequate in their current form to be applied directly to alternative construction methods and products
02:57:22 products indeed we believe that in certain circumstances new and possibly larger scale tests may be necessary to adequately assess the performance of a construction system such as the relatively new bs8414 tests for spread
02:57:34 relatively new bs8414 tests for spread of fire on facades now when you saw this email did you understand by the reference to the term traditional methods of evaluating risk that mr cody was expressing a concern
02:57:46 that mr cody was expressing a concern that class naught was inadequate
02:57:50 i don't remember this email so i don't remember thinking about it now we know that as i've shown you anthony bird forwards the chain to you and says please deal if only to say
02:58:01 if only to say we go up please to that if only to say that any work we do let and it is not for is not all for us to support stroke pay for will be guided
02:58:12 to support stroke pay for will be guided by the necessary steering group thanks and
02:58:16 and now that suggested response is something of a brush off isn't it um the difficulty you have um
02:58:24 um in situations like this is you can't
02:58:27 you can't you can't set out what you think as an official because that would be perceived as being the department's opinion um and the department essentially wouldn't have had a opinion at that
02:58:39 wouldn't have had a opinion at that point other than to say this is there's some research that is looking at it well so you can't you can't go back to him and say yes i agree because the department hasn't made a decision which
02:58:51 department hasn't made a decision which eventually gets you know the government's seal of approval so you're always having to be very cautious about um
02:58:59 um agreeing or disagreeing with a point that somebody's making if it if it's pointing out to what we should do in the future because that's a decision that's yet to be made
02:59:10 right but you don't he doesn't suggest that you tell him just what you've told us he says please deal if only to say that any work we do etcetera will be guided by the necessary steering group and i'm
02:59:22 by the necessary steering group and i'm suggesting to you that the right characterization of the suggested response is a brush off not actually going to deal with his with the nub of mr cody's concerns well i disagree that's the best answer that you could
02:59:34 that's the best answer that you could give within the constraints as a as an official
02:59:43 right
02:59:47 we can't find any written response to
02:59:50 to larry cody do you remember whether there was one
02:59:52 was one uh no
02:59:54 uh no you don't do what consideration did you give to the broad concern that mr cody has raised here about the adequacy of class nautil or traditional methods
03:00:03 methods um i think it's a it's a it's a general and ongoing debate about how um
03:00:09 um standards need to be developed to try and interact with um changes in construction technology right
03:00:17 right now i'm going to turn to a different topic next and i'm going to look at the period from 2012 and ask you about a number of major fires
03:00:28 fires involving external fire spread on high-rise buildings internationally in the period 12 to 14. can we start mr martin with your statement please page 36 para 109
03:00:41 and here you say this on the 17th and 18th of may 2012 i was sent links to a tower fire that had taken place in france in reading about the fire and responding i remarked that
03:00:52 the fire and responding i remarked that this wouldn't be in accordance with building regs probably by this comment i intended the same as that which i think david crowder of bre implied by his comment in the other contemporaneous email chain maybe post them a copy of
03:01:03 email chain maybe post them a copy of br135
03:01:06 br135 my understanding at the time was and remains
03:01:09 remains that if the functional requirement of the regulations and the guidance in adb is adhered to high-rise blocks should not be clad in such a way that leads to a fire like that which would had occurred in france i used the word
03:01:20 occurred in france i used the word probably as i did not have anywhere near enough data to assert definitively whether the french bloc would have been compliant with requirement before or not now i think it's right isn't it that the
03:01:31 now i think it's right isn't it that the fire that you're referring to here was the fire at myrmal's tower in rube in france on the 14th of may 2012 i believe so and if we look at one of the emails that you're referring to we i think see this it's clg-3019179
03:01:52 there's a an email below it uh
03:01:58 uh hello french was quite rusty with some embedded
03:02:02 embedded photos and videos and then you on the 18th of may 2012 you send an email to louise upton peter wise ken knight
03:02:10 knight copy to anthony bird and stephen kelly subject is uh fire in france this week and you say this for info the video on the second link is pretty alarming this wouldn't be in accordance with
03:02:21 this wouldn't be in accordance with building regs probably probably and that's the bit you quote in your statement
03:02:26 statement now why did you need any data in order to make an analysis was the image of the external fire spread not enough to tell you that the external wall
03:02:35 wall at ruby did not adequately resist the spread of fire over the surface of the walls
03:02:44 yeah i think when i'm saying didn't comply wasn't being according to building regulations i'm referring to the the guidance in the approved document alongside the functional clearly it doesn't meet the functional requirement no we didn't you wouldn't
03:02:56 requirement no we didn't you wouldn't need data for that you'd just look at the video and see that wouldn't you yeah but what you what what what would i like to have known as had a better understanding of the form of construction did you later find out any more information about the form of
03:03:07 information about the form of construction or what had caused the fire i don't think so i think this was the best information we managed to get did you ever find out what kind of cladding products were involved or whether the external wall arrangement in fact as built would have complied
03:03:18 in fact as built would have complied with
03:03:19 with the provisions of approved document b no i think we often struggle to get useful information from from fires in other countries did the department you in particular make any
03:03:30 department you in particular make any effort to do that
03:03:33 um i can't remember at the time we would have asked um bre if they had any contact over there it's often quite immediately after an incident it's often quite difficult to
03:03:44 incident it's often quite difficult to get reliable information the information that's in the press is invariably inaccurate um and
03:03:51 um and the authorities in different states will often be very cautious about sharing information um because there's a potential there may be some sort of prosecution or something so
03:04:03 some sort of prosecution or something so it's it's um it's quite difficult to get useful information on this kind of thing right did anybody think of making a government a government request
03:04:18 um i don't think so no why is that um that's not something we'd have i was
03:04:25 i was would regard as a regular
03:04:28 regular thing to do no maybe not but nonetheless an alarming fire external clouding implicated
03:04:47 i was probably working on other things at the time so i would have had a limited amount of time to look at this did you become aware at some later stage about what the panels on that tower were whether they were acm panels with a pe
03:04:59 whether they were acm panels with a pe core
03:05:03 i think i know now that they were acm um but i don't think i knew we knew that at the time for sure when did you discover that they were acm probably in the last four years i see
03:05:16 no did you consider
03:05:20 uh as david crowder had said that posting them whoever them was a copy of br 135 would have been helpful
03:05:30 um no i think they would have found that incredibly rude i think that's just in making a
03:05:34 making a a quip
03:05:35 a quip yeah i was going to say it was just a bit of flip and banter wasn't it yes yeah i don't know i think you would have considered that appropriate right and before this fire had you become aware of any other major cladding fire
03:05:46 aware of any other major cladding fire outside the uk
03:05:53 i can't remember the chronology there's been there's been a some in a number of different sites around the world let's go to clg 3019192
03:06:06 if you go to the bottom email in that email chain please this is an email
03:06:14 if we go to the foot of the chain you can see this is an email um from
03:06:21 um from al
03:06:22 al i'm assuming that's alan not a1 but al at rushbrook consultants in strathaven in scotland and the emails he is forwarded
03:06:35 the emails he is forwarded by sam greenwood to you and anthony bird on the 5th of december 2012 under the heading
03:06:41 heading meeting in december and tam wheel fire report
03:06:44 report in quotes
03:06:46 in quotes and the email itself says this high ian currently in abu dhabi and saw the initial reports of the police fire investigation quotes unquote into this tower fire and then there's a um a web
03:06:57 um a web page there once ignited the fires quickly sped up the highly flammable building cladding which contained aluminium and fiberglass to the roof triple question mark i'm back on the
03:07:08 triple question mark i'm back on the 12th so how about a meeting for a beer and pizza on monday the 17th or tuesday 18th december for anyone who's interested and if you go up that chain
03:07:19 up that chain um you can see that the email is forwarded to you on the 5th of december fyi sounds like the edge fire in manchester that signaled the end of rain screen cladding in quotation marks dot dot dot dot
03:07:32 quotation marks dot dot dot dot and at the top of the chain you respond to sam greenwood the same day and say yes have you seen the video it's awesome
03:07:43 awesome now i think as we can tell from the title of the email chain this was the fire at tamweel tower which occurred on the 8th of november 2012. yes
03:07:53 2012. yes uh yes yes what did you know we'll come to learn about the cladding panels which were involved in the tamweel tower fire
03:08:03 i'm not sure when i found out but i'm pretty sure it was acm
03:08:09 and if we look at your statement uh you
03:08:13 uh you say page 37 paragraph 110 we don't need to look at it all but you describe the exchange you're having here with with sam greenwood
03:08:24 and you say uh there in the third line i responded remarking on the awesome power of the fire it remained my view that such a situation should not occur in england providing adb was applied correctly
03:08:38 providing adb was applied correctly and then you go on to say what i read to you earlier about the edge being taken into account you'll recall this is a paragraph we saw earlier this morning
03:08:49 the awesome power of the fire is what you referred to and you say as i've shown you that it was your view that such fire should not occur in this country providing adb was applied correctly
03:09:01 and the lessons had been taken into account in the 2006 edition was that your view at the time in other words at the time of the tamweel tower fire
03:09:11 fire that kind of fire couldn't happen here because you'd added the words filler material etc to paragraph 12.7 of approved document b and added the word slash products to the
03:09:22 and added the word slash products to the title
03:09:24 title well it's a little more than that it's that it's the it's the entirety of that section so 12.5 onwards but yes that was my view at the time i see so just to be clear
03:09:33 clear you you understood at the time your view at the time was that tamweel couldn't happen here because of the revisions of 12.7 i've referred to taken together with the two sentences at the beginning of 12.5 that we read earlier yeah well
03:09:45 of 12.5 that we read earlier yeah well it shouldn't happen assuming people had followed
03:09:48 followed the guidance as we'd intended yeah
03:09:52 yeah now um
03:09:55 now um were you aware at the time therefore that the fire at tam wheel involved pe panels pe cord panels or at least composite panels with a with a combustible core
03:10:07 a combustible core in order to be able to make the link with the word filler
03:10:14 i'm not sure when i when i found that about but it seemed likely right
03:10:22 i mean my question really is a slightly more precise one than perhaps i've put was the reason why you thought that the tamweel fire shouldn't happen here because of the general words in 12.5
03:10:35 because of the general words in 12.5 or because of the specific introduction of the words filler material etc into 12.7 i think it's the combination of the two a combination of the two yes
03:10:48 how do they combine
03:10:50 combine to indicate that the core of an arranged screen panel should be non-combustible and limited combustibility it goes back to the point i was making when we drafted that text is is we were trying to get people to think
03:11:02 we were trying to get people to think beyond just insulation right
03:11:06 everyone can understand saying that if the functional requirement had been met then it shouldn't happen but my question is
03:11:15 is um
03:11:18 um how would following approved document be mean that it shouldn't happen
03:11:27 you'd read the general warnings about using combustible materials you'd look at the
03:11:32 at the provisions that that talk about insulation fillers etc and say um i wouldn't include a layer of polyethylene in the
03:11:44 polyethylene in the formation of my construction
03:11:51 given the seriousness of the fire at ruby and now at tamweel
03:11:59 did it occur to you at the time that heavy reliance would have to be placed on a particular phrase just three words in reality filler material etc
03:12:11 filler material etc in order for it not to happen in england
03:12:23 my view at the time is what i said i thought that was i thought that guidance was
03:12:27 was adequate
03:12:29 adequate and then coming to the conclusion that it shouldn't happen here because of adb
03:12:37 did you think it was sufficiently well understood that that was the case universally across the piece across industry even though that phrase had ever been subjected to any of the ordinary processes for change for
03:12:49 ordinary processes for change for guidance
03:12:51 guidance no public consultation at the time i thought it was okay yes right
03:13:02 notwithstanding the absence of a definition absence of public consultation absence of black scrutiny absence of uh
03:13:11 uh clear identification in the circular of the nature of the change yeah that's the answer is the same at the time i thought it was okay now you say in the last sentence here i'm unsure why mr greenwood stated that
03:13:23 i'm unsure why mr greenwood stated that the fire had signaled the end of rain screen cladding rain screen clouding continues to be used to this day and did it surprise you at the time that he'd said what he'd said
03:13:33 i don't remember thinking about it at the time did you ask do you remember whether you asked him what he meant it was
03:13:40 it was um i i i didn't i mean we didn't work together anymore so it just dropped me a line with some information he thought might be useful yes i mean it's a striking thing to say isn't it that the
03:13:51 isn't it that the uh that um the fire signaled the end of rain screen cladding did you not want to know what he meant
03:13:57 he meant or why he thought what he thought i don't remember thinking that at the time
03:14:02 time were you aware in the period between 2012 and 2014 of any other major fires internationally involving significant external fire spread
03:14:17 um as i said there were a few i can't remember the chronology um there's a there's a handful of fires that occurred in various places around the world one in australia i can't remember what year it was yes that was i think late in 2014 at la crosse building
03:14:29 think late in 2014 at la crosse building november yes but i can give you a chronology at the al baker tower in charge of january 2012 al taya tower sharjah april 2012 the polar tower in istanbul july 2012
03:14:42 the polar tower in istanbul july 2012 the safe belkazo building in dubai october 2012. al-hafiz sharjah april 2013
03:14:50 2013 shangri-la hotel in september 2014 and the lacrosse building in melbourne in november 2014. that's the chronology in those two years were you aware of all of those fires or
03:15:01 were you aware of all of those fires or only some of them do you think i think only some of them right do you remember which in particular had a long list i have read to you i i couldn't say right were they principally days in the uae do
03:15:13 were they principally days in the uae do you think
03:15:14 you think um i certainly remember the conversation being that there seemed to be an issue in the uae with a particular material yeah and you remember i think the la crosse fire you referred to that yeah i i need limited um information
03:15:26 yeah i i need limited um information about that as well um it's very difficult to work at what i knew then and what i know now as you might imagine over the last four years we've looked into this so we've been able to
03:15:38 looked into this so we've been able to look into this subject in more detail and
03:15:43 as a department we've rejoined um an international group the department had withdrawn from um some years before which meant that we better connections with other other nations outside europe you said you
03:15:55 nations outside europe you said you rejoined it did that mean that you were part of an international group that had come away from it um yes there um i'm trying to remember when it was it was very early when i after i joined the
03:16:06 was very early when i after i joined the department uh there's um i've forgotten that it's got a very long title but there's there's a there's a group of countries mostly that use
03:16:17 group of countries mostly that use a functional or performance-based approach to building regulations um and um that includes countries like australia um but also scotland and england has spread in new zealand i
03:16:30 england has spread in new zealand i think there's about eight or nine different
03:16:32 different member states um and i think at some point shortly after i joined the department it was decided that the cost of being involved in the organization was too high and so it was
03:16:43 organization was too high and so it was decided to withdraw so that was that after or in or after 2008
03:16:49 2008 you say after i joined the department um i think it was after you joined the gym in full time well do you mean join the developer full-time yes right and did you know who made the decision
03:16:59 decision to
03:17:01 to give up membership of this group i think whoever's deputy director at the time um
03:17:07 time um i couldn't say for certain
03:17:11 how much did it cost to be a member of this group most of the costs involved is delegates attending meetings um because of its nature sometimes those meetings are a long way off right
03:17:22 right do you remember whether there was intel circulars publications that came from the group to keep the british government uh aware of uh other fires it's a it's a i think
03:17:35 uh other fires it's a it's a i think it's very constructive one one of the problems you have as a working in in the job of
03:17:41 job of the the official the lead official if you like for um building regulations on a particular subject is there's no one else in the country doing the same job as you
03:17:49 as you so having links to people doing that job in other countries is useful um and certainly after the grenfell tower fire
03:17:58 fire i think actually it was one of the recommendations that dame judith's report
03:18:02 report included
03:18:03 included the department rejoined and until i left and moved to another post i found that connection useful yes i mean finding it useful after the fire is one thing why didn't you find it useful to rejoin after the
03:18:14 rejoin after the intel intelligence about the uae files has started to filter through the department in 2012. um i think the budgets were extremely limited then so asking to rejoin at that time would have been um
03:18:26 rejoin at that time would have been um would have fallen on stony ground right now do you remember discussing these fires in the department at the time or seeing any evidence about them photographs videos reports
03:18:40 just a few brief conversations really right
03:18:43 right what about conversations with bre colleagues or as it was then former bre colleague colleagues um i think certainly for some of them we did ask the team that's working on
03:18:54 we did ask the team that's working on investigation of real fires to see if they could use any of their international contacts to get more information but again that contract was quite limited in the amount of resources it had
03:19:03 had sarah colwell told us that she did discuss these international affairs with you at a meeting on the 30th of january 2014
03:19:11 2014 and that had come up in conversation uh
03:19:16 uh do you remember that i don't bet it seems likely right
03:19:28 [Applause] were you aware that some of these fires had been reported to the department specifically in reports submitted to you by the bre under the investigation of real fires contract yes
03:19:40 real fires contract yes and i think the polar fire the tamweel tower fire are two examples of that did you read the reports where they had been identified i would have done yes right did you make the link between those files and the use of acmpe
03:19:52 files and the use of acmpe products in this country
03:19:57 not at that time no did you at any time make during that period make any link between those files and the full-scale tests carried out at the bre in 2001 under cc 1924
03:20:08 the bre in 2001 under cc 1924 on the aluminium pe chord system as i said yesterday i mean i i only had second-hand information about those tests um and
03:20:18 and i remember dr caldwell explaining the mechanism by which what now known to be acm behaves
03:20:26 behaves and um assumed it was that material being used in other countries
03:20:33 when you say you said secondhand information about those tests in fact you had access to the reports didn't you because you were both at the bre and at the department in september 2002
03:20:44 the department in september 2002 and had access at least to the analysis report and the closing report which that spelled out what that i suppose i had access to a library of information but i didn't read all of it and you also had access to it in when
03:20:55 and you also had access to it in when drafting br135 in its second edition so
03:21:00 so so you
03:21:01 so you had the means to knowledge didn't you i could have done um certainly when i was working on bl 135 i was working listening to what dr caldwell was telling me and working with her to try
03:21:12 telling me and working with her to try and develop the text um so
03:21:16 so i guess at the time i didn't feel the need to look at that data because she'd produced it mr chairman just two more questions before i can finish the line if i may yes very well thank you now given
03:21:29 yes very well thank you now given that acm panels with a pe core achieving class naught had been subjected to the full scale test in 2001 on the basis they were at that time in use
03:21:40 use in
03:21:41 in the uk built environment when you learned of this spate of cladding fires in the uae or internationally perhaps including france did you consider that there might be buildings here in the uk
03:21:53 buildings here in the uk which had been clad in acm with a pe core before the words filler material etc and the other amendments had been introduced into approved document b in
03:22:05 introduced into approved document b in 2006
03:22:08 2006 i think the view i had at the time was the test that dr caldwell had carried out was on an innovative product i wasn't aware that it was in use in the industry
03:22:19 industry in wide use at the time um and as a result with the test it probably wouldn't continue to be in use right but i have no evidence of that but that's that's what i had in my mind at the time
03:22:30 that's what i had in my mind at the time did you not think though that if the problem of combustible cord rain screen
03:22:36 screen panels was the problem or one of the problems that the amendments to adb by 12.7 was seeking to achieve that there might very well be
03:22:48 that there might very well be some
03:22:50 some high-rise buildings in the united kingdom
03:22:53 kingdom on which rain screen panels with a combustible core had been applied above 18 meters before the amendment to adb in 2006
03:23:06 i don't think i gave that direct consideration but it's
03:23:13 whenever you change the guidance to the building regulations there would be buildings that were built before that that might not reach that same standard
03:23:26 that's kind of the nature of progressively trying to improve standards yes but did the fact of these fires their awesome power the rapid the rapidity of external fire spread not lead you to
03:23:37 external fire spread not lead you to think that there might well be a population of such buildings in the united kingdom which predated your amendments to approve document b in 2006 so that it
03:23:48 approve document b in 2006 so that it could happen here
03:23:52 i don't remember thinking that
03:23:57 and i'm assuming therefore and that answer that that wasn't a subject that came up for discussion with the other officials in the department at the time 2012 onwards no something
03:24:08 at the time 2012 onwards no something i've asked myself several times is whether we should have um looked harder at that time um
03:24:16 mr chairman i'm sorry to go on to five past one but um that's a convenient moment if uh that's right we'll stop there mr martin we'll break now so we can all
03:24:27 mr martin we'll break now so we can all have some lunch resume please at five past two and as before i have to ask you not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it when you're out of the room
03:24:41 thank you very much will you give me the option please
03:24:51 thank you very much five parts too then please
03:25:14 you