Evidence session examining the role of Local Authority Building Control in the approval and oversight of building work at Grenfell Tower.
# Transcribed with OpenAI Whisper (medium model)
# Source: Local audio transcription (no YouTube captions available)
00:00:00 Would you ask Mr Turner to come back in please?
00:00:27 Right Mr Turner, ready to carry on. Good, thank you very much. Yes, Ms Grange.
00:00:52 Yes, thank you. I want to ask you some questions now about LABC's relationship with manufacturers,
00:00:58 and in particular with Kingspan. And can we start by looking at your witness statement
00:01:02 please at page 4 paragraph 16. So there you say this, I have limited engagement with product
00:01:15 manufacturers. Such engagement would be responding to specific technical inquiries of a general nature
00:01:21 and not necessarily related to a particular project system approval or registered detail. Whilst I have
00:01:28 had dealings with Kingspan, they have not related to K15 with the exception of an initial phone call
00:01:33 with Andrew Pack in 2008 detailed below. I've had no direct dealings with Celetex. Now when you say
00:01:40 I have limited engagement with product manufacturers, are you there drawing a distinction
00:01:45 between the engagement you had in your role, a senior technical role, and the engagement that
00:01:50 the LABC more generally had? Yes. Right, so do you accept that the LABC itself had quite extensive
00:01:58 engagement with manufacturers? Yes. Yes. Now let's look at Kingspan in particular because what we can
00:02:06 see is that the LABC was collaborating with Kingspan on a number of different projects.
00:02:13 So for example in November 2008 the LABC collaborated with Kingspan to produce a guidance for tapered
00:02:20 roofing. Do you recall that? I do. Let's look at the document LABC 0016947. So this is that technical
00:02:35 guidance note, that LABC technical guidance note for tapered roofing November 08. And we can see
00:02:41 in that top set of boxes that we've got an in conjunction with Kingspan and then we have the
00:02:46 Kingspan logo next door to the LABC logo. Do you see that? I do. And was this a piece of guidance
00:02:53 that you were aware of at the time? Yes. Now at the time that the LABC was in the process of issuing
00:03:01 the 2009 system type approval certificate for K15, on the 6th of April 2009 it received an email
00:03:09 from someone called Christopher Hall, the sales and marketing director of an organization called
00:03:14 Reticell, who was concerned that the LABC was unfairly promoting Kingspan as a manufacturer.
00:03:22 Let's have a look at that email. It's at LABC 308172.
00:03:28 Now this is in the second half of that page. We can see this email from Mr. Hall at Reticell.
00:03:42 It's copied to Paul Everill, the chief exec, and then you are CC. Do you see that?
00:03:49 CC Barry 10, LABC. 6th of April 2009. And he says this, dear Mr. Everill, we'd be obliged if you
00:03:57 could provide us with some guidance comments on the above note issued in November 2008. And he's
00:04:02 referring to the tapered roofing insulation guidance that we just looked at. And he says this,
00:04:07 for some weeks now we've been aware of the guidance note and we've no issue at all with the message
00:04:12 that it delivers. What does concern us, however, and may concern other tapered insulation
00:04:16 manufacturers, is that the style and presentation of the note, as evidenced by the attached download
00:04:22 taken from the Kingspan website and its potential commercial implications, and he has a copy of the
00:04:28 guidance, there is evidence, albeit anecdotal, that in linking in this fashion with a manufacturer
00:04:35 could provide them with what could be considered an unfair advantage in this market. The fact that
00:04:40 the LABC and the name manufacturer are linked in the same document could confer upon the manufacturer
00:04:47 a preferential status to the detriment of others operating in this segment of the flat roofing
00:04:51 market. The fact that possibly they may have been very instrumental or helpful in developing the note
00:04:57 is very commendable, but we would question if it is appropriate for the LABC to then be seen as
00:05:03 providing some kind of pseudo endorsement to the manufacturer in this fashion. Surely the LABC have
00:05:09 to be completely neutral and seen to be neutral, and whilst we are sure that no endorsement is
00:05:14 meant, it could certainly be construed from this another activity by the manufacturer in the
00:05:18 marketplace. This kind of sponsorship is not something we've ever seen before,
00:05:25 and then he says the latest evidence of such activity we would offer of this is an article
00:05:30 in the Roofing, Cladding and Insulation magazine from March 2009 referring to the note and inviting
00:05:36 visits to the manufacturer website, not the LABC, to download a copy. Linking to a manufacturer in
00:05:43 this fashion also discourages other manufacturers from displaying the notice and spreading the word,
00:05:48 as we are unlikely to carry a note with the logo of a competitor manufacturer on our website.
00:05:54 We will appreciate your comments. Now, do you remember seeing this email in April 2009?
00:06:03 I don't recollect the detail of it, but I do think that there was subsequent
00:06:15 to its receipt, and in the process it was agreed that manufacturers should not be recognised in this way.
00:06:23 Right. Do you remember discussing it with Mr Everall, the Chief Executive?
00:06:30 No.
00:06:32 Did you at the time think there was any merit in the concerns being raised about the LABC's neutrality
00:06:38 in terms of these activities?
00:06:41 Yes, but I think there was a discussion around it was fair to acknowledge where someone had been
00:06:50 helpful, but we did accept that this was perhaps a little bit more than should have occurred.
00:06:59 So what was a little bit more than should have occurred?
00:07:01 Displaying the logo.
00:07:03 Yeah, yeah. Now we can see from the documents that Mr Hall sent a further email on the 5th of May 2009
00:07:12 asking Mr Everall to acknowledge receipt and provide a response to the email that he'd sent
00:07:16 in April for the transcript that's at LABC 308172. Mr Hall then sends a further email on the 10th of
00:07:25 June 2009 chasing for a response again for the transcript that's at LABC 308173.
00:07:34 And then we can see a further email that Mr Hall sends on the 24th of September 2009 if we go to that
00:07:41 LABC 308178.
00:07:48 And he says to Mr Everall, you're not copied into this, it's at the top of this page September.
00:07:53 Dear Mr Everall, I suspect that you have other issues that are more pressing than responding to
00:07:57 my inquiry and that I have taken that into account when considering the length of time taken from my
00:08:03 original inquiry to the fact that I appear as of today, 24th of September, not to have received a
00:08:08 reply. Do not mistake our lack of chasing activity as an indication of any diminution of our interest
00:08:14 in this matter. My original email was sent back in April. Can we expect any reply, a reply,
00:08:23 at all? If the answer is in the affirmative, when might we expect such a reply to be provided?
00:08:30 And then you are the person that finally responds on the 2nd of December 2009, so many months after
00:08:37 this complaint is raised. And that appears at LABC 308182. And I want to look at the bottom of page 1.
00:08:47 So this is from you to Mr Hall, CCing Mr Everall, December 09, and you say, dear sir, I refer to
00:08:55 your emails addressed to the Chief Executive Officer of LABC, expressing concern over the
00:08:59 inclusion of the Kingspan logo on our guidance note relating to tapered roof insulation.
00:09:05 I would advise that LABC is a private members organisation where membership is voluntary
00:09:10 and our principal role is to support members in their interpretative work, and I would advise
00:09:15 members in their interpretation and application of building control legislation. The guidance
00:09:20 note referred to was produced as a result of differing interpretations of the legislative
00:09:24 requirements for calculating the thermal properties of flat roof constructions. Discussions were held
00:09:30 with the technical department of Kingspan in order for LABC to gain an industry view on the problem,
00:09:36 and it was considered appropriate to recognise the help given by the company in this way.
00:09:41 As a private company, LABC reserved the right to engage with industry where it is considered
00:09:46 beneficial to the aims and objectives of the organisation. However, we do recognise your
00:09:51 concerns and had perhaps not appreciated the wider issues that you raise. Guidance notes produced by
00:09:58 LABC are intended for members' use. While there is no restriction on circulation, then we go over
00:10:04 the page, within the public domain, this is not the fundamental purpose of such notes and it is
00:10:09 for others to consider the guidance as they see fit. The guidance note has now been available
00:10:14 for some time and we do not wish to withdraw the information. Having previously agreed to include
00:10:20 the Kingspan logo, we do not consider it appropriate to remove it in this instance.
00:10:25 We will, however, take your concerns into account should we produce guidance with industry
00:10:30 assistance in the future. Do you see that? Yes. Now, is it fair to say that
00:10:38 you are saying in that email that you understand the concerns and to some extent you accept the
00:10:42 concerns, but you are also pushing back quite hard in that email about this point, aren't you?
00:10:48 You are defending the LABC's position. Yes.
00:10:55 Can you explain why did it take you so long to respond to him, him having raised these
00:11:00 complaints in April 2009? No, because the original correspondence wasn't to me.
00:11:10 Why not remove the guidance and reissue it without the Kingspan logo?
00:11:15 I don't know. I have no recollection of the discussions. Presumably there was some feeling of
00:11:25 of... and we... remaining on an agreement made to show the logo, I don't recall.
00:11:36 So you are speculating about why you didn't do that? Yes. I see. Looking at this now,
00:11:44 can you see why concerns were being raised about... Well, I acknowledge that in the letter.
00:11:48 Yeah. And the extent to which it looks like the LABC are giving Kingspan preferential treatment
00:11:55 by partnering in this way. Acknowledged in the letter. Yes. So you agree that?
00:12:00 I've acknowledged it in the letter. Right. And at the top of the page we can see Mr. Hall's
00:12:05 response to your email. He's responded promptly on the 2nd of December 2009.
00:12:13 Thank you for your reply. Much appreciated. There are trade organisations that represent
00:12:17 insulation manufacturers and roofing system suppliers. Might I suggest that should you
00:12:22 feel the necessity to consult in the future, and I agree that this is a very necessary step,
00:12:30 that you deal with a trade organisation and not one individual company who have, in my opinion,
00:12:36 used this situation to further their own particular agenda. We are not happy that this
00:12:41 continues to be circulated with the Kingspan logo, and I would ask that in the light of our concerns
00:12:46 that you reconsider the position. If our points do have merit, as you suggest, then I do not think
00:12:52 it unreasonable to seek not the withdrawal of the notice, but the withdrawal of the Kingspan logo.
00:12:58 I'm sure if approached the Thermal Insulation and Manufacturers Association, who endorsed the
00:13:03 document, to the benefit of all and not a minority interest. Look forward to your reply, Chris Hall.
00:13:10 And then your response to Mr. Hall appears at, if we go to a different document, LABC 308183.
00:13:22 It's in the second half of page one. It's the third of December.
00:13:30 And you say, dear sir, I refer to your message below, the contents of which are noted. I would
00:13:34 advise that as the technical content remains relevant, we will not be withdrawing the notice
00:13:39 or amending recognition of those involved in its production. And then at the top of the page,
00:13:46 Mr. Hall says, dear Mr. Turner, while I'm grateful for your prompt reply, we are still not satisfied
00:13:51 that this is an appropriate response. We may well consider other avenues to raise our concerns more
00:13:55 formally elsewhere. So he was not satisfied with your response, was he? Obviously not.
00:14:03 Do you accept that the LABC must be neutral and must be seen as being neutral?
00:14:08 Yes, but we also have a problem in identifying who and what in a competitive environment.
00:14:24 Yes, but why wasn't Mr. Hall's response to that the right one, which is if you need to
00:14:29 issue guidance like that, you consult with wider trade organisations who represent a number of
00:14:35 different companies rather than going to one company only? That was a very good point. We
00:14:42 had those contacts, as I've said before, through the various working groups which we were on.
00:14:51 They were the ones that were open to discussion at that time, and it's just an avenue that was
00:14:59 followed innocently. You mean Kingspan were the ones that were open to discussion at the time?
00:15:06 Kingspan were party to the discussions on thermal performance of buildings
00:15:13 at the various working groups, along with others. I honestly don't know whether Timsor
00:15:18 were represented there. I would rather guess that they were. They didn't, or it didn't,
00:15:30 materialise that those discussions were taken with those people. That's just the way that
00:15:39 it came about. It wasn't pursued in any particular, certainly not by LABC, in any particular way,
00:15:47 but by the same token, we had to make ourselves noted in the public eye.
00:15:55 I don't know whether...
00:15:59 Well, someone's gone, honestly, to speak to the workmen who are dealing with it. Do you want to
00:16:05 wait for a minute? It stopped temporarily, at least. Shall we see how we go?
00:16:11 Yes. Shall I carry on for now? After he came back to you, Mr Hall, and said he wasn't happy,
00:16:17 and why don't you go to the trade associations, something you've admitted was a good point,
00:16:22 did you actually give any consideration within the LABC to doing that very thing,
00:16:27 to approaching trade organisations about this guidance, to see if they would partner with you
00:16:32 instead? I think it was something that was done, it was something that was
00:16:42 passed, and it's something that would be taken into account for future. It wasn't seen as
00:16:52 a pressing point to change it at that time. That's my recollection.
00:16:58 Did you ever go back to Kingspan and say we've had concerns raised about having your logo on
00:17:02 our guidance? We'd like to discuss with you whether that's appropriate, and perhaps whether
00:17:07 we ought to go to a wider trade organisation. I couldn't say whether that happened or not.
00:17:13 We can see from an email exchange between you and Ms Cruz, if we look at this, LABC 308174.
00:17:22 You were due to have a meeting with Kingspan on the 18th of August 2009.
00:17:30 You can see that from the top email. You say to Ms Cruz in 2nd of July 2009,
00:17:35 can you add this to the agenda for the TWG? What was the TWG?
00:17:39 Technical Working Group.
00:17:41 I can't meet them on the dates given and have suggested 18th of August when I'm likely to have
00:17:45 a meeting with Kingspan at Lupus Street. Do you remember what you were meeting with Kingspan to
00:17:50 discuss in July, August 2009? I have absolutely no idea.
00:17:56 Okay. Can we look at another email now, LABC 308186.
00:18:07 These are emails in December 2009. The second email down on page 1 is you to somebody called
00:18:15 Jamie Rich, who we think was a marketing assistant at LABC. The email is headed Re Outlook.
00:18:23 You say, hi Jamie, I'm working on something with Kingspan, but it won't be for this month.
00:18:27 I will have an announcement, a new guidance note, but that will only be a couple of lines.
00:18:31 See what I can do tomorrow. Do you remember what was Outlook? Was it a publication?
00:18:40 It was a periodical, not magazine, but information sheet distributed to members, member authorities.
00:18:52 It was a member organisation publication.
00:18:58 Yeah. So were you working on an article with Kingspan for that publication?
00:19:03 Certainly looks like it.
00:19:04 Yes. And can you remember what the topic of that was?
00:19:06 No idea.
00:19:07 No.
00:19:08 At that time, there was huge focus on thermal performance. Members were desperate for
00:19:17 information on how to meet the new requirements of the regulations.
00:19:21 Yes. So you were collaborating with Kingspan on some guidance in relation to that area, were you?
00:19:27 It would appear so, yes.
00:19:28 Yeah. If we look at another email exchange, LABC 302330,
00:19:35 it appears that in March 2010, you're collaborating on another guidance note with Kingspan.
00:19:43 Second email down is an email from you to John Garbert. He's the head of marketing at Kingspan.
00:19:48 We've mentioned him before. CC-ing Philip Hammond. And you say, good morning, John.
00:19:54 Attached is the proposed guidance note with the amended last paragraph. I've made a minor change.
00:19:59 It's maybe a personal choice rather than anything else, but hopefully puts a positive rather than a
00:20:03 negative angle on the need to comply. I've also added a comment at the end to indicate that the
00:20:08 note is in relation to the provisions of Part L only, hopefully to avoid challenges against other
00:20:13 aspects of the regulations that may on rare occasions need to be taken into consideration.
00:20:18 Changes are in red. If we can agree on this, I think we're there and can format the finished
00:20:22 article and circulate to members. So as you've just explained, it would appear that you're
00:20:29 working on a guidance note with Kingspan relating to Part L of the building regulations. Is that
00:20:34 right? Yes. How did that fit with what you'd said to Mr. Hall in December 2009 that you were going
00:20:42 to take his concerns into account should you produce guidance with industry again in the future?
00:20:47 Yes. Mr. Hall wasn't a member of the various working groups. I think,
00:20:58 but I may be wrong, I think that was associated with information that was being produced by
00:21:04 the Zero Carbon Hub, which again was all thermal insulation and sustainability focused.
00:21:12 And it was an avenue of
00:21:18 availability at the time and
00:21:24 past information was not followed up on. I think the
00:21:34 the approaches were such that it was easier to work with those people that came to you rather
00:21:46 than go searching for others. That may be the case. So it was easier to work with Kingspan
00:21:52 because they were coming to you to talk about this than it was to say go off and find
00:21:57 representative trade organisations that you could collaborate with? That's a possibility, yes.
00:22:02 And did that occur to you? You're now some time on from the complaint that Mr. Hall raised in
00:22:10 April 2009. You've acknowledged his complaint in December 2009. We're now in 2010. Why not at least
00:22:17 try and find those trade organisations and ask to collaborate with them rather than one company?
00:22:24 Trade organisations were very similar to LABC in that they are representative of
00:22:34 members and they don't necessarily have a technical group or technical
00:22:43 committee or technical person of that association that we could link with in an easy fashion.
00:22:53 Manufacturers tend to have technical departments and it was the technical information that we were
00:22:59 seeking. Right, I see. But are you saying that trade organisations wouldn't have the necessary
00:23:13 expertise to be able to collaborate with you? They would within their organisation but we would end up
00:23:21 working with one of their members who would be an employee of another organisation. So we would end
00:23:30 up dealing in a similar fashion with an alternative manufacturer. Now I'm not saying that's wrong
00:23:38 but we wouldn't necessarily and that person would represent the trade organisation but we'd still be
00:23:45 working with an individual company. Yes but at least then when you issue the guidance it's being
00:23:49 issued on behalf of you and the trade organisation rather than you and a company, a specific company.
00:23:55 Yes you can say that now and it's easy to understand that now but at the time shall we say it was the
00:24:03 route of least resistance. But you'd had complaints raised about it didn't you? So
00:24:09 you weren't unaware that this was causing consternation within the marketplace were you?
00:24:15 I obviously didn't take them into consideration during these discussions.
00:24:22 There's a further exchange between LABC and John Garber on the 28th of April 2010. If we go to that
00:24:28 LABC 302333.
00:24:37 Again this is the second email down. This is Philip Hammond to John Garbert. The subject here is
00:24:43 general advice on building REGs. Hi John, just so you know Barry has approved the document for release.
00:24:48 We'll add to our website then tell all our members and surveyors about it. After that
00:24:53 we'll face it to external audiences and then John Garbert says to Mr Hammond at the top,
00:24:59 thanks Phil I'll do my utmost to remember to let you see whatever we put on this.
00:25:07 Can you help us? Was that exchange referring to the same piece of guidance or a different piece
00:25:11 of guidance with Kingspan at this time? I couldn't tell you. One would assume so but I don't know.
00:25:19 We can also see from the documents that you had a meeting with Kingspan with Richard Bromwich and
00:25:25 Chris George in December 2010 to discuss the National Federation of Roofing Contractors
00:25:31 competent person scheme for the transcript that's at LABC 2019652.
00:25:38 Can we look at another email at LABC 0019658?
00:25:54 We can see this is an email you send. This is now into 2011 now, March 2011. You to Mr Everill,
00:26:01 your chief exec at the top and then you say thank you Paul. Yesterday fitted in well and the lunch
00:26:07 break was perhaps more productive for LABC than the seminar itself. Excellent discussions with
00:26:13 Kingspan, MPBA, BBA and members of DCLG, even RDLABE and BCA. Enjoyed my day, hope you did too.
00:26:22 And this appears to be some kind of seminar you've attended on energy performance of buildings,
00:26:27 evidence and feedback. Do you remember attending that seminar and having excellent discussions
00:26:33 with Kingspan? It wasn't just Kingspan was it? There were numerous
00:26:45 seminars, meetings about energy performance during that time
00:26:53 and there was discussions with many people there, not just Kingspan. So that was just a report on
00:27:02 the way that the day went and the people that I spoke to. Yes but that doesn't provoke a memory
00:27:08 about what your excellent discussions with Kingspan were at that particular conference. Well there
00:27:12 were excellent discussions with BBA and DCLG as well. Yes, fair enough. So it was about
00:27:18 understanding the regulations not about any particular guidance note. Yeah now just going
00:27:24 back to what you said in your statement that I showed you right at the beginning, you said
00:27:28 I have limited engagement with product manufacturers. Now looking at what we've just looked at,
00:27:34 the collaboration that you had with Kingspan, the meetings you had with them,
00:27:38 do you accept that that significantly understates the extent of your relationship with Kingspan
00:27:43 during this period? My relationship with Kingspan was purely technical and they were
00:27:50 providing expertise in an area that was becoming a lot more important to building control by way
00:28:00 of thermal performance and they just happened to be there and available at the time. So whilst that
00:28:07 may be an understatement, it was not my position to go chasing
00:28:13 manufacturers, it just so happens they were the ones that were easily accessible through all the
00:28:20 various groups that I was partaking in at the time. Yes. And just seemed to be there at the time.
00:28:30 And would it be fair to say that you were frequently engaged with Kingspan between 2008 and 2008?
00:28:37 And would it be fair to say that you were frequently engaged with Kingspan between 2008 and 2011?
00:28:47 Yes. Did your relationship with Kingspan and that positive dialogue you were having,
00:28:54 say, over thermal requirements, do you think with hindsight that might have affected
00:28:59 the way you responded to concerns which were raised about Kingspan's
00:29:05 statements over their fire performance? Oh yes, with hindsight. In what way? Can you help us?
00:29:14 The ways that's already been discussed. I can't elaborate on what's previously been discussed
00:29:21 but with hindsight there may well have been undertones and there may well be a reason why
00:29:28 they were always in attendance, in view, readily available at various working groups. I don't know.
00:29:43 But that seems to be the case that they were the ones that were more readily available than
00:29:50 other manufacturers for the thermal performance information that we were looking for.
00:29:56 Yeah. I think what I was putting to you was that do you accept that that affected the way you then
00:30:01 responded to concerns when they were raised about Kingspan's fire performance statements?
00:30:08 Yes. Yeah.
00:30:12 There was something called an LABC business sponsorship package at this time. Do you recall that?
00:30:20 I'm aware of it. And a proposal for such a sponsorship package was put to Kingspan.
00:30:26 If we can go to LABC 302324. Now we can see from the top this is an LABC business sponsorship package
00:30:41 proposal to John Garbet, marketing director Kingspan installation. Now the document's not dated but
00:30:48 from some information on page three of it, which we'll come to in a moment, it appears that the
00:30:53 sponsorship agreement would run from the 1st of November 2009 through to October 2010. So that's,
00:31:00 it's got to have been some time before that that this sponsorship package was pitched.
00:31:06 And if we look at overview and these first few paragraphs it says LABC is a non-profit making
00:31:12 company limited by guarantee. Its principal source of income is subscriptions from local
00:31:17 authorities to pay for the technical policy, legal services, marketing and lobbying functions
00:31:22 undertaken by LABC on behalf of local authority building control departments in England and Wales.
00:31:28 We have a business development and marketing team. The services are delivered by local authority teams
00:31:33 and therefore the revenue from sales goes directly to our members authorities. Consequently LABC has
00:31:39 no sales income to reinvest in marketing communications to help keep subscriptions
00:31:45 down and effectively to stop the burden of marketing being passed back to council taxpayers.
00:31:51 LABC seeks commercial partnerships and business sponsorship to help pay for marketing to industry.
00:31:58 Business sponsorship packages provide a simple and direct channel for manufacturers and service
00:32:02 providers to communicate with LABC's surveyors and their customers. Payment of a sponsorship fee
00:32:08 simply pays for LABC's communication costs and helps us to run sales activities, events,
00:32:13 publications and our various online activities. And below that there's a section headed no bias
00:32:22 or exclusivity. If you just look at that section it says LABC's market position is largely based
00:32:30 on its independence and technical impartiality. So whilst we are very happy to help promote technical
00:32:35 knowledge and awareness of systems and solutions we do so to encourage quality design and construction.
00:32:41 We cannot offer business sponsors exclusive access and we will work with any reputable company etc.
00:32:48 But then it goes on however LABC believes that building control has to engage with manufacturers,
00:32:52 service suppliers, designers, specifiers and contractors. The climate change agenda is creating
00:32:57 a huge amount of innovation and the variations we see in projects and on site is almost infinite.
00:33:03 Therefore we need and value input from industry. LABC welcomes support from all parties to help
00:33:09 advance our knowledge enabling us in turn to provide better advice to our customers.
00:33:14 And then it outlines in section c the benefits of sponsoring LABC.
00:33:20 4000 you get direct outreach to 4000 LABC surveyors and technical support staff,
00:33:27 3000 special customers registered as partner customer accounts etc. It goes on.
00:33:33 And then if we go over the page to the next page
00:33:48 we can see that a business sponsorship package is then outlined for Kingspan. I'm not going to go
00:33:54 through all the detail of it. There's two parts we can see it's events, conferences and LABC
00:34:00 building excellence awards and then it's LABC member and surveyor communications.
00:34:09 And then if we go on to page three
00:34:17 we can see what's involved in that and I just want to look at the penultimate bullet point on that
00:34:24 page beginning direct support if we could zoom in on the second half of the page.
00:34:29 It says that one of the benefits is direct support to our technical working group via Barry Turner
00:34:34 and its chair Mike Sansom for technical policy clarification to the LABC network.
00:34:41 The technical working group is LABC's clearinghouse to identify difficult or unusual technical issues
00:34:46 where LABC network is being inconsistent or needs a policy. Topics tend to be very detailed and
00:34:51 specific and the working group will take external help and advice to define a policy position. So
00:34:57 you're specifically named in this sponsorship package and then we can see that an offer is made
00:35:05 it says it under terms and period the sponsorship package defined above is offered at 12,500.
00:35:11 This money will be ring fenced etc in the bottom and if we go below that we can see it says the
00:35:20 next awards cycle starts immediately after this year's national building excellence awards in
00:35:25 October. The counties and regions immediately begin their next cycle of local awards culminating
00:35:30 in the next year's national awards in October therefore the sponsorship agreement will run
00:35:34 from the 1st of November 2009 through to the 31st of October 2010. Now were you aware of this
00:35:42 proposed sponsorship package to Kingsbound at the time? I was probably aware of it.
00:35:49 I had no input into it.
00:35:51 Why was a bespoke business sponsorship package targeted at Kingsbound in particular? Can you help us?
00:36:01 I had no budgetary responsibility, no responsibility to generate income and did not promote or
00:36:15 not promote did not make any sales pitches that is not my document I cannot answer for it.
00:36:23 Were you ever involved in any discussions about whether such business sponsorship packages
00:36:28 risked prejudicing LABC's independence from manufacturers? It was a difficult line for us to
00:36:39 for us to to follow on a difficult path because because we had a need for income
00:36:49 to be able to promote local authority building control in a competitive market
00:36:57 there needed to be income from somewhere it wasn't provided by government and it certainly
00:37:04 wasn't provided by local authorities and so this was a you know one of many
00:37:13 methods by which some form of income could be generated in order to promote those services
00:37:22 it wasn't part of my remit and I can't answer for that document. Were you ever aware of any
00:37:29 steps being taken to safeguard against an erosion of LABC's independence given sponsorship deals
00:37:38 like this one? It was always a thought process and it's not an answer that I'm aware of at any rate
00:37:55 that we ever really got to grips with there were other companies that we used for information in
00:38:07 much the same way it was a sales and marketing promotion business agreement that I wasn't party to.
00:38:20 Does it follow from that answer that you weren't aware of any steps being taken specific steps to
00:38:26 protect LABC's impartiality and independence despite these sponsorship deals? I think the
00:38:33 questions were asked but I can't tell you what the what the resolution was.
00:38:39 Yeah and can you help us as to whether this particular package was accepted and agreed
00:38:45 by Kingspan? I can't I don't remember it coming to fruition but I again it was not part of my remit.
00:38:59 Right we've seen a spreadsheet for the transcript that's the LABC 308181 that suggests that the
00:39:06 total income generated from commercial partnership with Kingspan was as quoted here 12,500 but you
00:39:14 can't help us. You've got more information than I have. Right okay thank you. Just looking before
00:39:20 we leave this proposal if we go back to the bottom of page one we see the section again
00:39:28 benefits of sponsoring LABC and if we go over the page and just look at the second paragraph down
00:39:35 it says that Kingspan installation will benefit from increased brand awareness and brand reinforcement
00:39:41 and provide the opportunity to gain personal experience through presentations and meetings
00:39:45 with Kingspan's insulation team as well as fostering increased product knowledge and
00:39:49 technical understanding our contact with the marketplace will provide an indirect route to
00:39:53 sales through referrals. Do you see that? Yes. And again was that your understanding about what one
00:40:00 of the benefits would be to Kingspan of sponsoring in this way? No not my understanding at all it's a
00:40:06 sales pitch which I was not party to so I can't answer for the wording
00:40:17 it was necessary to generate income if that was the way that it was
00:40:22 had to be done then presumably that is the case but I can't answer for that document.
00:40:28 If we just look at an email chain LABC 302326
00:40:36 and we look at the bottom of the page there's an email 17th of November 2009 from Philip Hammond
00:40:43 to John Garbutt now and the subject is are you supporting LABC now to be clear you're not copied
00:40:48 in on this email but it says hi John we seem to be giving you good coverage I was just reading
00:40:53 the proof of Phil Heath's flood piece my next awards cycle is kicking off now and I'd like to
00:40:59 be able to announce to LABC members and surveyors that Kingspan insulation is sponsoring LABC
00:41:05 is sponsoring LABC we're also finalizing the speakers and sessions for our main
00:41:10 member conference early in February have you been able to make a decision
00:41:16 do you know what good coverage he's referring to there he says we seem to be giving you good coverage
00:41:22 no no John Garbutt's response is is one email up
00:41:28 he says this he says to Philip Hammond Philip Philip we are I have just been dotting the eyes
00:41:34 and crossing the t's I will have an order number for you shortly would it be wise for us to meet
00:41:39 up to hammer out who needs to do what when going forward would you and Barry like to come out and
00:41:44 see us and meet all involved from our side and see what we do perhaps we can also discuss the
00:41:49 guidance note that is with Barry we are keen to get that out on the streets
00:41:54 do you remember ever going to to meet them to see what they do around this time
00:42:03 I have no recollection of
00:42:08 meeting them that doesn't mean to say it didn't happen but I don't recall it we can see one email
00:42:16 I don't recall it we can see one email up
00:42:21 Phil Hammond then says John great news I'll speak with Barry and see if we can get a choice of dates
00:42:26 and then right at the top this is actually we think from a private email associated with Phil
00:42:34 Hammond that explains the email address he says it appears that Kingspan will become our new
00:42:41 national sponsor of awards for 2010 you're sent that email we need to get a meeting and
00:42:47 announcement ASAP do you remember Kingspan becoming the national sponsor of the awards for 2010
00:42:54 no again did that sponsorship involvement of Kingspan impact on the LABC's decision
00:43:03 to investigate the concerns which have been raised by third parties about the k-15 certificates
00:43:09 no because I didn't tie the two together I was not involved in this discussion or this sponsorship
00:43:16 discussion yeah and I want to move on to ask you about the registered details certificates which
00:43:23 were issued for k-15 so we know that you changed from what you call the type approval system to
00:43:29 the registered details system I think you tell us in your statement it was around 2010 that change
00:43:34 was taking place is that right again the my statement is based on documents and information
00:43:43 provided to me not necessarily personal involvement
00:43:50 I see so what was the extent of your involvement in the registered details schemes as the
00:43:56 the lead technical I thought I've already described that it's exactly the same as it was for the
00:44:05 certificates right and can you explain briefly what prompted this change to this scheme called
00:44:11 the registered details scheme why was there this change because then because of the name again as
00:44:16 I've explained earlier about the use of the word certificate was was not correct because we're not
00:44:23 a certification body I see well um let's look at the registered details manual now
00:44:33 um this is a h hbc six zeros 23
00:44:45 if you go to the next page you should see the front page there is the labc registered details manual
00:44:54 and
00:44:55 it's right isn't it that that this manual was designed for the benefit of the local authority
00:44:59 undertaking the research for the registered details certificates is that right that's my
00:45:05 understanding and we can see if we go to page four
00:45:13 top of the page that's made clear here in this introduction it says thank you for agreeing to
00:45:18 act as research authority in respect of a registered detail certificate and that's
00:45:24 the application and then underneath that this brief manual sets out the process and procedures
00:45:29 of a typical registered detail application clearly depending on the complexity of certain
00:45:35 applications and reply times from applicants so that's the purpose of this document and were you
00:45:42 familiar with the contents of it not particularly no why not because it was developed by others
00:45:50 but did you ever read it in your time at the labc
00:45:56 it's not a process or document that i had day-to-day involvement in so did i read it
00:46:05 yes did i digest it no okay and if we look at the fourth paragraph down here in this introduction
00:46:13 in this introduction we can see it says this once a registered detail certificate
00:46:19 and note it is still called a certificate yes in this manual probably a cut and paste error but
00:46:28 that's an assumption well it says once well if it's a cut and paste area i think it appears a
00:46:33 number of times in this document we can see it appears for example in the beginning of the
00:46:38 paragraph above registered detail certificates last for 12 months but anyway continuing with
00:46:44 that fourth paragraph it says once a registered detail certificate is awarded the type system or
00:46:49 solution will be recognized by all local authority building control departments across England and
00:46:54 Wales therefore it is important that the application i should say is thoroughly considered and the
00:47:01 procedures detailed below are closely followed so again is that your understanding that once you've
00:47:06 got that registered detail certificate that type system or solution will be recognized by all
00:47:14 labc building control department departments across England and Wales yes that that wording
00:47:19 is very similar to the previous document that you've that you've referred to and this is
00:47:28 an updated version of that so i would assume that a lot of the wording will be very similar
00:47:34 yes it is but i think you said earlier that some of that wording you weren't very comfortable with
00:47:39 because it didn't necessarily reflect what you thought ought to happen
00:47:42 did you ever raise concerns about this wording i don't recollect that i was consulted on the
00:47:48 wording of the document and then if we look just for now there's a section called independent
00:47:56 certification schemes it appears at page 19 of this manual and we'll come back to this manual
00:48:02 a few times you see their independent certification schemes in the middle of the page
00:48:08 and in the first paragraph it says there are many uk product certification schemes for example bba
00:48:13 and bre schemes these schemes certify compliance with a registered recognized document british
00:48:19 standard etc it does not mean that if a product is not certified with one of these schemes the
00:48:24 product is not suitable it is a common misconception that all products need say a bba certificate this
00:48:31 is not the case but a bba certificate does provide absolute assurance and materials should
00:48:37 not then be interrogated further do you see that yes were you involved in agreeing that that was
00:48:45 an appropriate approach once you've got a bba certificate don't interrogate further no i did not
00:48:52 use that wording or was not consulted on that wording but it was a general belief
00:48:59 throughout the building control industry both public and private that bba certificates were
00:49:11 a good indication and could be relied upon did anybody ever raise a concern that the problem
00:49:19 with that might be that if there was an error in the bba certificate that error would just simply
00:49:23 get perpetuated if there was no interrogation whatsoever it was not for building control
00:49:30 to interrogate bba that is policed by a different organization they they they are a a certification
00:49:39 body notified by ucas it's for ucas to police bba not building control but what if there was a
00:49:46 patent error on the face of the bba certificate would you have expected building no i would not
00:49:51 expect building control to do it we're not scientists we're not test laboratory technicians
00:49:58 we rely on their certification for their information it is not for building control
00:50:04 to police those certificates let's just look at an email now that you sent to mr ewing in
00:50:11 october 2012 if we go to labc three zeros four eight nine three
00:50:24 now this email is part of a wider email chain in relation to an email received from the office
00:50:28 of fair trading the oft and i just want to show you what you said to mr ewing in the
00:50:34 fourth paragraph of this email this is you to mr ewing copying in miss stimpson in october 2012
00:50:42 and it's about an oft statement which you're referring to in the first paragraph and you
00:50:50 suggest a form of words and you say in the second part of that i must stress that labc do not test
00:50:57 or certify insulation products our registered detail process is an impartial expression
00:51:04 of compliance with building regulations based on testing and information provided by uk or eu
00:51:09 accredited testing stations all construction products are constrained by regulatory requirements
00:51:15 which may restrict how compliance can be demonstrated this restriction can itself
00:51:19 become a barrier for innovative products so while we support competition for the certification of
00:51:24 insulation products innovations and subsequent certification must demonstrate compliance with
00:51:30 the constraints of the regulatory framework do you see that there yes now does that accurately
00:51:36 summarize in your view the intended purpose of the registered detail system
00:51:49 yes yes in that first line of that paragraph i just read you say i must stress that labc do not
00:51:57 certify insulation products if that's right what are the type approval and registered detail
00:52:05 certificates for kings band k-15 and celotex rs 5000 if they're not certificates for insulation
00:52:12 products yes i think it is poorly worded but the meaning for that is um we do not provide
00:52:23 as i've said we're not a certification body approved for that purpose within the uk so we
00:52:31 do not provide a laboratory type certificate to say that a product when tested to a certain
00:52:46 standard meets certain requirements we rely on the testing laboratory to provide that certificate
00:52:57 that's what's meant there and which is why as i've said the word certificate in terms of the
00:53:06 registered details etc and type approvals was an incorrect use of the word
00:53:17 um but there i'm not saying that we you know uh the meaning there is that we're not providing
00:53:31 a ukass accredited certificate to say that a product has met certain standards
00:53:39 right i see but you accept that that bold statement that you've made there at the beginning of that
00:53:44 paragraph is it's much more nuanced than that what you're saying isn't it because you do issue
00:53:50 certificates the way that i've worded that you know yes it could be better but the um um the
00:53:58 you misconstrue the meaning that was intended okay let's look now at the registered detail
00:54:05 certificate which was valid for the k-15 product from the 28th of august 2013 until the 28th of
00:54:13 august 2014 now i'm just going to summarize the events that led up to to that certificate
00:54:20 i want to summarize some of the chronology just for efficiency sake so what we know is that on the
00:54:26 14th of april 2011 kingspan inquire about updating their old system approval to become a registered
00:54:34 detail for the transcripts that that's at labc 301970 page three then on the 7th of june 2011
00:54:46 mr mills of kingspan inquires about the timeline for a new approval for the transcript that's at
00:54:52 labc 301970 and then on the 7th of june the same day 2011 labc email kingspan confirming what the
00:55:03 registered details process is that's at labc 301939 and then i want to pick it up on the 9th of june
00:55:17 if we can go to labc 302397
00:55:23 and i want to look at the bottom of page one and on to page two
00:55:30 so martin taylor at the labc can you help us as to what mr taylor's role was
00:55:38 it was
00:55:44 i think at that time sales promotion right and he says uh hi david and then we go over the page
00:55:52 so this is to david jones at herefordshire we've received two requests recently regarding the
00:55:57 registered details from kingspan the first for cool therm k-15 via gareth mills and then the
00:56:03 second for something called the kingspan tech building system via justin davis and there appears
00:56:09 to be a little confusion regarding the move to registered details and the possibility to combine
00:56:13 a registered details check with an labc new home warranty check i think it will be therefore be a
00:56:20 good idea for me to meet with kingspan to discuss the whole product range to allow me to offer a
00:56:25 more attractive quote i can also advise them regarding other initiatives our labc are working
00:56:32 on around the green deal etc and then he says i appreciate you have a good relationship with
00:56:38 kingspan so it'd be good if you could also come along accordingly i would be grateful if you
00:56:43 confirm your availability so that's sent to mr jones and then if we go up the page
00:56:51 at the top of the page on the 9th of june martin taylor sends an email to mr davis of kingspan
00:56:56 confirming there's going to be a meeting on the 6th of july 2011 and he confirms that mr jones
00:57:02 of herefordshire will be in attendance and then we see an email if we go to labc three zeros two four zero two
00:57:14 we see an email from mr taylor to david jones you're not copied into this email or party to this email
00:57:24 but he says hi david further to our recent meeting at kingspan i've now been asked to quote on the
00:57:29 enclosed 21 systems i normally as discussed in the meeting quote 2005 under for each new system and
00:57:37 350 pounds for each renewal which in this case would be 48,200 so clearly unrealistic
00:57:44 as the research authority you receive one third of the agreed fee and i can by negotiation
00:57:49 increase this to cover additional checking etc
00:57:54 most of these already have bba certification which should greatly reduce you checking time
00:57:59 what i really need from you is an indication of whether you feel it'd be appropriate to do this
00:58:03 time what i really need from you is an indication of whether you feel it'd be appropriate as your
00:58:07 checking fee and a timetable for when you could complete the checking and then he says if you
00:58:12 don't have capacity i'll source this from elsewhere and he says in the final substantive paragraph
00:58:17 i'm looking to be as competitive as possible as this could establish strong links now in advance
00:58:22 of the green deal and if kingspan sign up for registered details others are likely to follow
00:58:27 so
00:58:30 now just pausing there do we take it from the fact that mr jones had been approached to assist with
00:58:37 this registered details work for kingspan that there had been no concerns raised within lebc
00:58:45 itself about mr jones's technical competence to carry out these kind of assessments
00:58:51 i don't think it's appropriate for me to answer that question because i was not party to this
00:58:59 process and the choice is made well i want to know whether you recall there being any concerns
00:59:06 about asking mr jones to do these technical assessments i have no recollection of that
00:59:13 now on the 17th of august 2011 if we go to labc three zeros two zero two one
00:59:21 mr jones responded to mr taylor's email about the fee query
00:59:31 and he says this he says sorry to delay things difficult to give a definitive response at this
00:59:34 stage mainly because we don't know exactly what it is we'll be getting a third of
00:59:38 however my initial reaction is this could probably be okay provided as we discuss at the meeting the
00:59:42 checking procedure does not require us to go outside the scope of the bba certificates
00:59:46 to any great extent other than to verify the assertions made in terms of building regs
00:59:51 compliance against other guidance now in fairness mr jones seems to think that he should at least
00:59:58 check whether the assertions made in in the bba certificates in terms of building regs compliance
01:00:05 in the bba certificates in terms of building regs compliance
01:00:08 were correct is that your understanding as well i can only read what is written there
01:00:18 i can't comment any more than that on what he says there sounds reasonable
01:00:24 yes and then if we pick it up at the end of that paragraph he just two lines up he says time for
01:00:29 some negotiation i guess as i agree it would be good to establish and maintain a strong link with
01:00:35 them given the market they are in now the emails i've just read to you show that there was clearly
01:00:45 a benefit to la bc from partnering or doing this work on registered details certificates for kingspan
01:00:52 because if kingspan sign up for the registered details scheme others are likely to follow
01:00:59 is that fair yes that's that's the assumption made in that in that correspondence and were you aware
01:01:05 that the la bc clearly wanted to establish what's described here as a strong link with kingspan given
01:01:11 the market they were in no that's not a comment that um i was aware of or i can comment on
01:01:22 now let's look at another email chain now at la bc 308243
01:01:33 this is an email of the 18th of august 2011 so this is still before the registered details
01:01:39 certificates issued it's martin taylor to anna sloper and he says hi anna i've attached the
01:01:48 kingspan quote can you add the register the rd registered details reference numbers in for me
01:01:53 and put the below into a letter to accompany the quote and then he says dear justin la bc registered
01:02:00 details i refer to our meeting on the 4th of july 2011 in respect of the above and to your
01:02:04 subsequent email of the 20th of july 2011 i enclose a fee quotation in respect of the registered
01:02:10 details process for your consideration for ease of reference and to hopefully make the process
01:02:16 affordable i've grouped the installation products together into roof wall and floor solutions
01:02:21 the quotation is set out to allow you to either select individual systems or a combination
01:02:26 whereupon the discount of 25 illustrated will be applicable to five or more systems instructed
01:02:32 together i've also as requested included a quote for all the systems as a whole for your further
01:02:38 consideration and then he goes on to explain that david jones of herifordshire has confirmed he will
01:02:45 be able to check all of the submission within a two to three week period dedicating himself to the
01:02:50 project full time and then he said goes down on completion of the registered detail checking
01:02:56 process it's hoped that the individual systems can be illustrated in the form of a compliance
01:02:59 guide or technical guidance notes which will both educate all la bc surveyors and allow kingspan to
01:03:05 promote your systems accompanied by our nationally recognized logo maybe we could consider a joint
01:03:11 promotion of the same and then he if we go down he then says i sincerely hope you find the quotation
01:03:21 acceptable so that's what he's proposing is sent and then underneath that we see some red text from
01:03:27 mr taylor and i want to ask you about this he says ana please let me know what you think to both the
01:03:32 letter and the quote launer thinks it's worth a try but i would appreciate your comments if we get
01:03:37 this one right it will be good for the bonus do you see that yes
01:03:45 and we can see from the attachment to that email
01:03:51 the invoice that's quoted for the registered details certificate
01:03:56 and that invoice totaled around ten thousand one hundred and fifty six pounds and 25 pence
01:04:02 um now from what mr taylor has said in the email there appears to be a clear financial benefit to
01:04:09 the employees of la bc if kingspan signs up to the registered detail scheme do you agree
01:04:17 again you're taking an inference from that comment i would suggest that that was a flippant comment
01:04:27 which is now being misconstrued and i do not agree and to my knowledge employees did not
01:04:37 get any bonus whatsoever based on these details right so you think that's just an off it's an
01:04:44 office banter comment that you are in taking the wrong inference from having seen this email do
01:04:52 you maintain that the la bc was impartial when it came to carrying out its assessments
01:04:57 of kingspan's product
01:05:02 there's obviously a working relationship
01:05:09 whether that um impacted on impartiality i i couldn't comment
01:05:23 so you just can't help us as to whether the significance of this work to la bc potentially
01:05:29 affected the extent to which the la bc were impartial in its assessments of these registered
01:05:35 detailed certificates i can't comment on that because i was not involved in this so this is
01:05:42 the first time i've seen this correspondence and the impartiality i would like to believe
01:05:53 was not affected but there was obviously a good working relationship and there was obviously a
01:05:59 need to get information and i can't i can't expand on that any further okay can we look at
01:06:09 an email now that you sent a couple of months or few months later in october 2011 if we go to la bc
01:06:16 0019679
01:06:29 this is an email of the 20th of october 2011 that you send to
01:06:34 steve evans of the nhbc we're going to come back to some exchanges with mr evans in due
01:06:40 in due course we've got mr bass in there etc and the subject matter if we could blow up the top email
01:06:55 can we zoom in to the top email sorry
01:07:04 there we go
01:07:10 and it says the subject is bca technical liaison action point 17th of october 2011
01:07:18 that bca is that the building control alliance yes it's being referred to there now i've i've
01:07:23 got a number of questions for you about the bca and about their technical guidance notes
01:07:28 we'll come to those in due course but looking at this email you say hi everyone
01:07:32 just to prove i haven't disappeared off the face of the earth i attached the query received from
01:07:36 rockwall last year sometime and our response regarding junction of a party wall with a roof
01:07:43 i think the description in the action list and what i was supposed to be providing may vary
01:07:47 slightly but this was the question asked and the response given it later transpired that rival
01:07:53 manufacturers were at war and it would have suited rockwall very nicely for us to agree with them
01:07:59 i later had cause to take issue with king span via a trading standards query over using our
01:08:05 opinion in advertising because it suited king span they chose to use our opinion in their
01:08:10 advertising something that was very quickly discouraged now can you just help us with some
01:08:16 of the background to this email because we're not clear on it at the moment when what are you
01:08:21 actually referring to there in terms of rival manufacturers being at war and taking issue with
01:08:28 king span via a trading standards query the challenge or the the query about for bca was about
01:08:37 the carrying of a
01:08:43 a
01:08:48 plastic based insulation material over the party wall
01:08:57 in a flat roof on flats which is very difficult to remember and explain i'm sorry it's there is a
01:09:06 a die in fact i think there is a now an improved diagram in adb as to the the principles involved
01:09:15 but you either take the party wall beyond the surface of the roof to provide fire separation
01:09:28 between flats either side of the party wall or there was a requirement for a non-combustible
01:09:38 material to be
01:09:43 300 millimeters either side of the party wall within the flat roof space
01:09:53 or
01:09:53 i think it was any material could be carried across dependent on the overall height of the building
01:10:04 okay but how had you um how had king span chosen to use lab's labc's opinion in their advertising why
01:10:15 in their advertising why was that a problem the the two things are not
01:10:22 um i rather suspect that is related to um i i don't think it's the same opinion
01:10:34 but it might be because the
01:10:38 uh the outcome was that you could use a their their manufactured material
01:10:48 across a cavity wall in within a flat roof i think for up to three story flats
01:10:56 and because we had made that decision on interpretation of a requirement of adb
01:11:04 requirement of adb they were they were using that um and and i was not happy with it
01:11:15 right i see and why was it quickly discouraged i again it's um
01:11:23 um
01:11:27 off off the cuff remarks um in terms of i would have uh sent an email to them and asked them to
01:11:38 stop stop doing it right i see okay um mr term that might be a good moment for the
01:11:46 afternoon break would it all right it would yes well it's a little early than usual but i don't
01:11:52 suppose you mind that uh mr turner will we'll have the break now we'll come back please at half past
01:11:57 three and while we're out of the point you're out of the room again please don't discuss for
01:12:02 evidence or anything relating to it to anyone and if you'd like to give the asha that'll be fine
01:12:09 thank you very much
01:12:22 thank you very much of australia please
01:12:39 you
01:13:09 you
01:13:39 you
01:14:09 you
01:14:39 you
01:15:09 you
01:15:39 you
01:16:09 you
01:16:39 you
01:17:09 you
01:17:39 you
01:18:09 you
01:18:39 you
01:19:09 you
01:19:39 you
01:20:09 you
01:20:39 you
01:21:09 you
01:21:39 you
01:22:09 you
01:22:39 you
01:23:09 you
01:23:39 you
01:24:09 you
01:24:39 you
01:25:09 you
01:25:39 you
01:26:09 you
01:26:39 you
01:27:09 you
01:27:39 you
01:28:09 you
01:28:39 you
01:29:09 you
01:29:39 you
01:30:09 you
01:30:39 you
01:30:40 you
01:30:40 you
01:30:42 you
01:30:43 you
01:31:07 would you ask Mr Turner to come back in please
01:31:12 All right, Mr. Turner, carry on. Thank you very much. Yes, for speaking.
01:31:36 Yes, thank you. Yes. Now continuing with the chronology leading up to this first K15 registered
01:31:41 certificate being issued in August 2013. Just for your background, what we see in the documents
01:31:47 is there's a confirmation email from Herefordshire Council agreeing to act as the assessing authority.
01:31:52 Then there's some delay in Kingspan providing the necessary information about K15 for the
01:31:59 assessment. And I want to pick it up on the 19th of June 2013. If we go to LABC 40893,
01:32:08 here we see an email from Mr. Jones to Mr. Brennan, Cathal Brennan, copying in Mr. Davis,
01:32:23 and he is attaching a copy of the completed registered details certificate for K15. And
01:32:34 we can see in the string below that that somebody called Colin Davis appears to have completed the
01:32:42 assessment on behalf of Herefordshire Council. That's in the middle of this page. We can see
01:32:48 Colin Davis is emailing David Jones, I've made the necessary alterations, I believe this is now
01:32:52 sufficient, etc. And then we can see from Mr. Jones' email again back at the top of the page
01:32:59 that he attaches three documents to the email. He attaches the Cooltharm K15 type approval summary,
01:33:05 revised June 13 document. He attaches an application pack, registered details application form for the
01:33:13 product, and then a commission pack compliance declaration form. Now the revised Cooltharm
01:33:18 K15 type approval summary appears at LABC 40894. And if we go to page three of this document,
01:33:34 just looking just above that B3 heading, we can see it says from the results it can be considered
01:33:43 as a material of limited combustibility and meets the criteria of a Class 0 classification
01:33:48 for surface spread of flame. And further down the same page, under the heading requirement B4,
01:33:55 external fire spread, it says since K15 can be considered a material of limited combustibility,
01:34:01 it is suitable for use in all situations shown on diagram 40 of ADB, including those parts of a
01:34:07 building more than 18 metres above ground. So the technical information in this summary remained
01:34:14 technically incorrect. Do you agree? Yes. And now moving forward in time, on the 20th of June 2013,
01:34:23 if we go to LABC 305132, Mr Brennan sends the compliance declaration form and technical details
01:34:34 for K15 for peer review. We can see this here from this email on the 20th of June. And we can see that
01:34:43 this email is sent to you three lines down in the CC list, you appear, Barry Turner, as well as a
01:34:51 number of other addresses of local authority building control personnel in different local
01:35:00 authorities plus LABC people themselves. And my question for you is, did you form part of the peer
01:35:09 review group? No. So can you explain why this email is being sent to you? No. Did you do anything
01:35:21 with the information you were sent in this email? Did you do any checks? Not to my knowledge. And the
01:35:29 email states that all technical details are available within the document library. You see
01:35:36 that underneath the bullet point, it says the compliance declaration form and all relevant
01:35:42 technical details of the above are available within the document library. I wanted to know
01:35:47 whether that included the type approval summary. We assumed it would. Can you help us on that?
01:35:52 I wasn't responsible for the document library. I can't answer the question. Now, we can see
01:36:03 from this email, we can see that votes were due from the peer review group by the 4th of July,
01:36:11 2013. Can you see that's in bold towards the top of the email? So the peer review group
01:36:16 being sent this and asked for their votes by the 4th of July, 2013. Now, let's just go back to the
01:36:24 Registered Details Manual and what it says in relation to this peer review process. If we can
01:36:30 go to HBC 6023 and look at page 27. So here, in Appendix 10 to this manual, we have a section
01:36:49 on the peer review process. And it tells us at the top of the page, once the necessary checks
01:36:53 and paperwork has been returned by the research authority, the Registered Detail Application is
01:36:58 added to the LABC website forum for validation by peer review. This stage is crucial to the
01:37:05 entire process of Registered Details because it demonstrates an audit trail to certification
01:37:11 by consideration from independent professionals. Do you see that? Yes. And then it goes on. It
01:37:19 confirms in the next substantive paragraph that all the information received as part of the
01:37:23 application is uploaded into the document library. So it tells us that. And then further down that
01:37:32 paragraph, there's a sentence beginning, they should then review the supporting information
01:37:37 to ensure that it is relevant to the product and demonstrates its suitability.
01:37:42 And it says this after that, it is not necessary to undertake a full check, as this should already
01:37:48 have been done by the research authority. An evidential desktop review is all that is required.
01:37:58 Now, I'm going to come back to that phrase in a moment. And then the beginning of the next
01:38:03 substantive paragraph says, currently four votes are required to certificate the application.
01:38:10 This will be reviewed pending support of the voting system. If there are more members prepared
01:38:16 to peer review within the timescales, then this would demonstrate a more robust system.
01:38:21 Now, from the correspondence and the documents available to the inquiry, we can only see one
01:38:26 response to this peer review process from a man called Tim Bartlett of West Suffolk Council.
01:38:36 Now, he ends up being involved in the RS5000 story. So we'll come back to him with your
01:38:42 colleague, Mr. Ewing. If we go to LABC 305139, we can see his response in the second email down on
01:38:55 page one. On the 26th of June, Mr. Bartlett says, good morning, Cathal. I left a post earlier in
01:39:03 the week in support of registered details 165, call them K15. And then he goes on. Now, that is
01:39:10 the only response we can find to this peer review process. And we haven't seen any others. Can you
01:39:17 help us as to whether four votes were in fact received from the peer reviewers? No, I can't.
01:39:23 I was not part of that process at that time. I'm sorry. I have no idea. Can you help us as to what
01:39:31 would happen if there was a dissenting vote as part of the peer review process?
01:39:35 Yes. The peer review group would then be asked to reconsider as far as I'm aware.
01:39:48 As I said before, this was not part of my day-to-day work. And in fact, with the additional
01:39:55 employment of people within LABC, I became more and more remote from it. So this particular
01:40:04 process was now outside my remit almost. So I can't comment on what happened with this particular.
01:40:18 Can you comment on what was supposed to happen as part of this peer review process? We saw in the
01:40:24 manual that it said it's not necessary to undertake a full check, as this should already have been
01:40:30 done by the research authority. An evidential desktop review is all that's required.
01:40:35 What does that mean? It would be that the
01:40:41 items listed in an approved document were matched with the documents that had been reviewed,
01:40:51 not the content of those documents. I'm not sure I understand that.
01:40:57 So if the approved document requires a certificate for spread of flame, a certificate for
01:41:10 heat generation, a certificate for structural stability, all those are listed.
01:41:20 So they'll simply note that there's a claim about fire performance, note that there's a certificate
01:41:25 that relates to fire performance, and tick that's it, yes?
01:41:29 Pretty much. It was up to the individual giving the response as to how much he wanted to investigate
01:41:39 it. It wasn't necessarily that the certificate was checked. It was just that the certificate
01:41:46 as to how much he wanted to investigate it. It wasn't dictated by LABC as to how they
01:41:54 carried out that work, and some would look at it in more detail than others.
01:41:59 If you're right as to what that process involved, how is that any form of check or verification?
01:42:05 Why isn't it? Why when you check whether a certificate that's listed in an approved
01:42:12 document has been necessary and a product has got that certificate,
01:42:18 why would you need to do anything else? Because you need to check that whatever
01:42:22 statements are made in the LABC certificate are supported by the test information that you've got.
01:42:32 It would be, but the detail of, I mean a BBA certificate for argument's sake can run to
01:42:42 14 or more pages, and it may be, well quite frankly, the most important page is towards
01:42:52 the back of the document, or used to be, I think they put them at the front now. Did it achieve
01:43:00 XYZ? And if that information is there, then that is your peer review.
01:43:08 So are you saying it would be unreasonable to inspect the peer reviewers
01:43:12 to read on beyond the front page of a BBA certificate?
01:43:15 There has to be a degree of belief that your colleagues are capable of doing something,
01:43:23 otherwise you're doing the thing three times over.
01:43:26 Well that of course is true, but how does the peer review operate to eliminate unconscious errors?
01:43:35 We know that the certificate that we've been discussing made certain statements about
01:43:41 combustibility and fitness for use on high-rise buildings. How would anyone to check whether those
01:43:48 statements had been correctly or incorrectly transposed from the underlying documentation?
01:43:55 They would, in as much as if it had been reviewed, but you've already told me that you've found no
01:44:07 evidence to say that there was a peer review on this particular document.
01:44:12 No, no, I'm asking to comment on the system, the system as you've described it.
01:44:18 If there is a statement that was to say a material is a non-combustible material,
01:44:30 then I would expect that that will be indicated on the certificate issued by the testing laboratory,
01:44:38 and that will have been viewed by the peer review process.
01:44:44 This may be what I'm not understanding, it may be my fault. I thought what you were telling us was
01:44:50 that those who were asked to undertake the peer review were expected to satisfy them that supporting
01:44:57 documentation as documents existed, but not to examine the supporting the contents of the
01:45:05 supporting documentation.
01:45:10 Yeah, you may have sort of, perhaps I've not explained myself very well, but the process is
01:45:20 one of an overview of what somebody has done in detail. So if there is a statement, which as we've
01:45:30 already discussed is incorrect, it should have been picked up. The peer review was intended
01:45:39 to cover that process. Now if the peer review has failed in that process,
01:45:45 so be it, I can't answer for it, that is a reality.
01:45:50 So I think it follows that you would expect the peer review process to examine the contents of
01:45:58 the underlying documents to some extent, because that would be how you would pick up the mistake,
01:46:06 isn't it?
01:46:06 It would. A lot would depend on the detail that you were actually examining.
01:46:13 If we're looking at this particular statement, then one would expect that that statement was
01:46:24 found somewhere in the documentation and should have been checked.
01:46:32 I'm struggling to think of an example where you wouldn't need to read everything in
01:46:38 total composite detail, but there will be occasions when
01:46:45 if a statement is not made about, you know, there's a requirement for a product to provide a certain
01:46:55 fire resistance, 30 minutes, 60 minutes. There's a certificate to say that it achieves that,
01:47:05 full stop. There's no statement made to that effect anywhere else. You don't need to check any further
01:47:11 to see how it achieved it. Does it need to be fitted in a certain way?
01:47:18 You expect that to be part of the detailed document.
01:47:21 That I understand. That's very helpful. Thank you very much.
01:47:27 If we move forward with the story now, on the 28th of June 2013, Mr Brennan, if we go to LABC
01:47:34 40925, Mr Brennan sends an email to Gareth Mills of Kingspan.
01:47:42 Telling him that the peer review section, here we have it, the final peer review section of the
01:47:47 registered details process has now been completed for the K15 system. Please find attached draft
01:47:52 copies of your registration certificates. Now, can you help us, and you may not be able to, but
01:47:57 I'm going to ask you nevertheless, can you help us as to why Mr Brennan is telling Mr Mills that
01:48:03 the peer review process has been completed on the 28th of June 2013, when responses were asked from
01:48:10 the peer reviewers prior to the 4th of July 2013? I have absolutely no idea. Should that have
01:48:16 happened? It doesn't sound like it. No, because someone might have come along before the 4th of
01:48:22 July and said, I object, I have a problem with this. Unless, no, not necessarily. If the
01:48:28 requisite number of responses had been received, then it would be reasonable to proceed with it,
01:48:36 and not waiting for the full extent of the time period given. I see. So you send it out to a large
01:48:43 number of peer reviewers, as we saw in that email, quite a large number of people, and you just wait
01:48:49 for four yeses, and once you've got your four yeses, the certificate can be issued. Is that right?
01:48:56 That's what the document says. But what if a peer reviewer needed a bit more time,
01:49:02 hadn't got round to looking at it for another few days, and then looked at the certificate and had
01:49:07 a problem with it? How does the system allow for that? Then I don't manage the system. I don't run it,
01:49:18 so I can only surmise. But the process was, if you've got four agreements, you go ahead. That's the
01:49:28 way the document is written. If somebody has got real concerns over it, and they've gone into it in
01:49:33 so much detail, I would expect them to make that concern known as soon as possible. Even if they
01:49:41 need more time to look at it, hang on a minute, I need to look at this a bit further, you know,
01:49:48 and I'll get back to you. Well, doesn't that... Ms Granger, your point strikes me as sad, except
01:49:54 for this. We don't know, do we, whether by the 28th of June all those on the working group had
01:50:02 not responded? Because if you'd had 100% response by the 28th of June, you could go ahead. True.
01:50:08 We've only seen one response at all. Yeah, quite. I understand that. So, yeah, we don't know. Fair
01:50:15 point. But you keep saying, this wasn't my process, but you are copied in, yes, and you are the senior
01:50:25 person at the LABC with technical knowledge. How could you not take an interest in this peer review
01:50:32 process? Because there was a lot of other work going on, and this was a process. There were now
01:50:38 other technical people involved that were trusted to be aware of that process.
01:50:48 Now, we know then that Kingspan requests some amendments to the draft certificate.
01:50:55 You dealt with that in your witness statement, but I want to look at the email that's received
01:50:59 from Kingspan. This is at LABC 40954.
01:51:12 This is an email from Gareth Mills to Mr Brennan on the 1st of August, and he says,
01:51:18 we had a look over the documents and wondered if we could add some more detail into some of the
01:51:22 sections regards where the product can be used. And then there's a detailed email setting out a
01:51:28 number of points that Mr Mills is asking to be included. And I'm not going to take you through
01:51:34 all of this, but I'm going to highlight a number of points. So at point one, it says the product is
01:51:41 suitable for use with a variety of outer claddings, including rain screens. And then at point three,
01:51:48 it says this, the product can be used on buildings with stories greater than 18 meters from ground
01:51:54 level, provided it is used in combination with suitably non-combustible substrates
01:51:59 and ancillary components. Note BS 8414 testing. Now note there, he doesn't tell you what type of
01:52:06 8414 testing there, whether it's part one or part two, but he wants that statement included,
01:52:12 that bold statement that it can be used on buildings with stories above 18 meters.
01:52:17 And he also asks at the end of the email, point six, just scroll down, we've got two images which
01:52:25 we would like to include within the drawing section if possible, which I'll follow up with shortly.
01:52:30 I'd have the images available to send either by various formats. So he wants these two images.
01:52:37 And we can see from the documents that this is referred on to Mr Jones at Herefordshire
01:52:44 and also to Mr Ewing, David Ewing. Now was Mr Ewing in a technical role at the LABC?
01:52:51 Yes. And would you have expected Mr Ewing to have identified whether these requested amendments
01:52:58 were supported by the technical information available to the LABC at the time? Mr Ewing
01:53:03 would have an ability to do that, yes. Right. Now Mr Ewing doesn't appear to have responded,
01:53:09 and we can ask him about that when he appears before us.
01:53:13 Mr Jones, however, confirms that he was happy with these requested amendments.
01:53:17 We can see that if we go to LABC 40936.
01:53:30 So on the 12th of August 2013, Mr David Jones says, copying in Mr Ewing and Mr, sent it to
01:53:38 Mr Ewing and Mr Brennan. Hello, Cathal. I have no problem with those points being incorporated
01:53:43 as part of this certificate. I think the key ones under items one, three and four are already
01:53:51 covered in the Herefordshire council type approval summary. Now he's right about that. Point three
01:53:57 can be used above 18 metres was covered in the Herefordshire council type approvals summary.
01:54:03 And then he says, but see no problem with those points being reinforced as per Gareth's suggested
01:54:08 wording below. Certainly I can't see there's anything there not backed up by the technical
01:54:13 data underpinning the certificate. Now, can you help us? These additions drafted entirely by
01:54:19 Kingspan never seemed to have been subject to the peer review process. Can you help us as to why
01:54:25 that is the case? No. And what happened subsequently is on the 13th of August, Mr Brennan
01:54:35 informs Mr Mills that the research authority are happy for the text to be altered. And then
01:54:42 the registered detailed certificate is sent to Kingspan on the 28th of August.
01:54:47 That certificate appears if we go to LABC three zeros, one three zeros.
01:55:05 So here it is LABC registered system, the registered detail Kingspan, Coultham, K-15,
01:55:14 Rainscreen board. This is the front piece of the certificate and it's dated the 28th of August,
01:55:22 2013. We see that at the bottom. It's valid until the 28th of August, 2014. So valid for a year.
01:55:28 And on behalf of the LABC, it's signed by you. Do you see that? Yes. Now, did you review this
01:55:34 certificate? No. So even though it has your signature on it, you don't review the technical
01:55:42 content at all? No. Given the concerns that have been highlighted by others in the industry in
01:55:48 relation to the 2009 system type approval certificate for K-15, didn't it occur to you
01:55:54 that it was important to check the certificate that was being signed in your name to make sure
01:55:58 it was accurate? I wasn't aware that it was being signed in my name and I put my trust in those
01:56:04 dealing with the process to have equal technical knowledge on the matter, if not greater technical
01:56:12 knowledge than I did. When you say I wasn't aware that it was being signed in my name,
01:56:17 when did you become aware that certificates like this had your name on them? I was aware that the
01:56:24 certificates were being, or my signature was being used on these documents. I wasn't aware when this
01:56:31 particular one was issued or at the time it was issued. It was just, yes, they go out with my
01:56:37 signature on it at that particular time. Are you asked to authorise the issuing of a certificate?
01:56:45 No, I was not. So someone in the office just puts your signature on it? If I was asked to authorise
01:56:52 it, if you think I should have been, that may be an omission, but the answer is no, I was not.
01:56:57 Thank you. Now if we go to an accompanying document, LABC 301001,
01:57:07 this is the drawings and document list which accompanies the certificate, the LABC registered
01:57:13 details drawing and document list. And we can see in the third box down under supporting documentation
01:57:20 that it's got the Herefordshire Council type approval summary, which we just looked at,
01:57:24 and then it's got the ninth issue of the Kingspan's own marketing material and the 2008 BBA
01:57:32 certificate 084582. Now we take it from this that it was intended that this document would accompany
01:57:44 the main certificate, is that correct? Yes.
01:57:47 And this would be available online and on the LABC website, is that correct? I believe so, yes.
01:57:58 And we know that from the registered details manual, it confirms that the registered details
01:58:03 certificate and the drawing and document list is added to the LABC website, that's what it says
01:58:07 there, is that your understanding? Yes. And then this drawing and document list is added to the
01:58:13 website, is that correct? Yes.
01:58:14 And then this drawing and document list then includes appendix A on page two,
01:58:23 and we can see that appendix A is verbatim exactly what was suggested by Gareth Mills
01:58:30 in his email to the LABC about the additional information that he wanted included, so point one,
01:58:37 product is suitable for use with a variety of outer claddings including rain screens,
01:58:42 point three, the product can be used on buildings with stories greater than 18 metres from ground
01:58:46 level provided it's used in combination with suitably non-combustible substrates and ancillary
01:58:51 components, and it's got a reference to 841 for testing and the requirements of BR135,
01:58:58 and then we can see the inclusion of two diagrams on page three, which are the diagrams that Mr.
01:59:04 Mills asked to be included, K15 with a steel frame and K15 with a terracotta tile. Now we
01:59:13 know at this time that Kingspan had not in fact tested their K15 product with a steel frame system,
01:59:21 they'd only tested one time in 2005 or a successful test with a masonry substrate.
01:59:28 So what we see from this is that the Kingspan suggestions have simply been cut and pasted
01:59:34 into this appendix to the drawings and document list, is that correct?
01:59:39 It would appear so.
01:59:40 And can you explain why the information that's in that that wording is misleading in terms of
01:59:48 K15 and its use above 18 metres?
01:59:51 Can I explain by way of what should have happened or can I explain why it was
02:00:06 done in the way it was on this certificate?
02:00:08 Can you explain why those errors, I mean go back one page, why the bold statement is made at point
02:00:14 three that the product can be used on buildings with stories greater than 18 metres without any
02:00:20 real qualification, why that appears in this as part of this certificate documentation?
02:00:28 Not being party to the document production, I can't explain it, no.
02:00:39 There is an obvious omission purposefully or otherwise with regards to which 841 test,
02:00:46 8414 test is being referred to and I can't explain why because I wasn't party to its production.
02:00:59 I see. Well what it should have said is that K15 can be used in accordance with one system
02:01:05 and one system only and that system ought to have been described, do you accept that?
02:01:09 I do, yes.
02:01:09 Yes.
02:01:11 Now we know that there was just moving forward with the story, there was a revised BBA certificate
02:01:18 issued for K15 on the 17th of December 2013 and we can see that you became aware of this
02:01:25 on the 11th of July 2014 by way of an email from Steve Evans of the NHBC and I want to look at this
02:01:32 carefully. If we go to LABC 40882 and if we go the second email down, this is an email from Steve
02:01:45 Evans of the NHBC, he's the senior area technical manager, we see that from the bottom of the page,
02:01:52 to you and Mr Basson, 11th of July 2014 and he says this, Barry Doug hope that you are both well,
02:02:00 please keep this confidential at this time but felt that you may like to see this approach
02:02:06 we have had from DCLG and my response. I have mentioned this at BCA meetings in the past
02:02:13 but it is now coming to a head. I note that the LABC registered detail expires in August this year
02:02:21 so you may wish to consider this in light of the amended BBA certificate issued in December 2013.
02:02:29 Happy to discuss further regards Steve Evans. So that's what Mr Evans says to you and then what
02:02:35 he's done is he's forwarded below an email chain that he's had with Mr Brian Martin. Now if we look
02:02:42 first at Mr Martin's email at the bottom of page three, this is dated the 2nd of July 2014
02:02:54 and the subject is fire safety facades and he says hi Neil, this is to Neil Smith
02:03:00 NHBC, he says I've been talking to a few folk about fire safety and facades recently.
02:03:07 Allegedly several buildings have been erected where PIR insulation has been used in cladding
02:03:13 panels well over 18 meters in height. Apparently people are under the impression that PIR is a
02:03:20 material of limited combustibility which it isn't. Again allegedly many of these buildings
02:03:26 are blocks of flats. I've no idea how true these allegations are but they come from relatively
02:03:32 reliable sources. The purpose of my email is a friendly warning, you might want to double
02:03:38 check with your inspectors and plan checkers that they are on top of this. Happy to discuss regards
02:03:44 Brian. So that's Mr Martin's email and then Mr Evans has forwarded your response that,
02:03:52 sorry his response to Mr Martin so you can see that too. That's on page two
02:03:59 and it's dated the 11th of July and he says this, dear Brian I hope that you are well,
02:04:06 Neil Smith has discussed your email with me below and asked me to respond as I've been dealing with
02:04:10 this on behalf of NHBC. This is an issue that NHBC are aware of and have been in discussions
02:04:17 with industry about it for some time. The issue is in respect of the use of Kingspan Cool Thim K15
02:04:23 rain screen board in buildings over 18 meters in height. The confusion has arisen from Kingspan's
02:04:29 statement that their product is acceptable for use in a building over 18 meters. However the product
02:04:35 is made from a generic type of polyurethane foam which is by nature combustible. However since 27th
02:04:42 of October 2008 the product held a BBA certificate attached which indicates that it is acceptable
02:04:48 for use in accordance with approved document B volume 2 paragraph 12.7 7.1 subject to advice
02:04:56 being should be sought from the certificate holder 7.2 if the building exceeds 18 meters in height.
02:05:03 It was on this basis that NHBC building control and other building control bodies
02:05:08 accepted the use of K15 in buildings over 18 meters in height including blocks of flats.
02:05:14 We understand that LABC have also issued a registered detail approving the material for
02:05:21 use over 18 meters. Then he goes on, in January of this year we were made aware of a revised
02:05:28 BBA certificate for K15 issued on the 17th of December 2013 also attached. The new certificate
02:05:35 removed the passage which indicate that it was acceptable for use in accordance with approved
02:05:39 document B volume 2 paragraph 12.7 and instead states that the product will not contribute to
02:05:45 the development stages of a fire but that it has only been tested and therefore is only suitable
02:05:51 for one specific construction on masonry walls 8.2. As we had a number of projects under
02:05:58 construction and in advanced stages of design utilizing K15 NHBC approached Kingspan and made
02:06:03 them aware of our concerns. As a result of this dialogue Kingspan are currently undertaking further
02:06:09 testing using different cladding and facade treatments in accordance with BS8414 part 1
02:06:15 2002. The results from the tests are expected by the end of this month and NHBC are meeting
02:06:20 with Kingspan at the beginning of August at which time Kingspan will be asked to provide evidence
02:06:25 that their product can be used in alternative construction types other than that specified in
02:06:29 the current BBA certificate. And then he goes on, there is no reason to suspect that buildings which
02:06:36 have been built with Kingspan K15 are at risk at this time. It is just the fact that the testing
02:06:43 carried out to date does not bear this out. Kingspan are confident that the testing currently underway
02:06:48 will prove the suitability of the material for use over 18 meters. If they are not able to do this
02:06:54 we will begin the process of informing industry that the product is no longer suitable for use
02:06:58 in facades over 18 meters as well as informing other stakeholders such as BCA and the fire and
02:07:04 rescue service although both parties are already aware of our ongoing discussions. I trust that
02:07:10 this addresses your immediate concerns and will keep you informed for the developments. In the
02:07:14 meantime if you have any queries or would like to discuss further please feel free to get in touch.
02:07:19 So that email is sent to you. Do you know why Steve Evans wanted you to keep this email
02:07:29 confidential? It's one of the things that he said. No. What steps did you take upon receiving this
02:07:41 email to ascertain what had happened with LABC certificates and the approval of K15?
02:07:50 I don't recall. I may well have
02:07:58 passed it on to those dealing with registered details but I have no recollection of the actual
02:08:02 action taken. So you don't recall taking any action yourself in relation to these emails? No.
02:08:12 Can you recall considering whether to take some action in response to it?
02:08:22 I recall discussions with various people including Steve Evans over the wording of the
02:08:36 BBA certificates and how it was being used in various aspects of it and I think it was an ongoing
02:08:48 process that may well have not come to a conclusion but as indicated there,
02:08:57 people were awaiting further information. Yes but wouldn't the first thing be to do
02:09:03 on receipt of this quite serious exchange of emails you've seen to go and check what the LABC
02:09:10 have said and have they said it was a material of limited combustibility as reported by Brian Martin?
02:09:18 I can't comment on that because I don't know whether I did or not and I don't know whether
02:09:22 it was brought to the attention of the people dealing with registered details. I do not recall it.
02:09:29 Well we can see at the top of the chain that we'll see it in a moment you do refer this email on
02:09:37 to Mr Ewing and we'll see that in a moment but do you recall discussing it with Mr Ewing or any other
02:09:46 LABC colleagues? I can't recall the detail of any discussion as I've indicated to you
02:09:56 and aware of it you've already told me more than I could remember in the fact that it was passed on
02:10:02 so I can't comment any further. Okay just a few questions about the detail of what's said in here.
02:10:10 Steve Evans mentions that he has previously raised this in BCA meetings.
02:10:17 Can you help us as to what he might have raised? That's the second line in his email at the bottom
02:10:22 of page one. I can only surmise it's a generality of what is laid out in that email.
02:10:33 I don't recall the discussion in any detail whatsoever. It may well have been that there
02:10:41 was a discussion at that point as to the
02:10:48 validity of various aspects of it but I really can't recall.
02:10:55 Did you realise that there was an urgent need to check the LABC registered detail
02:11:02 in the light of what Mr Evans was flagging up to you? You have a record of the actions taken and
02:11:07 that is all that I can refer to as what took place. Yes and we need some help as to what
02:11:18 action was taken I'm afraid and you simply can't help us with that? Is that your position? Yes.
02:11:26 I do not recall the dealings associated with it. I do recall at various times
02:11:36 discussions with BCA, with people within LABC
02:11:48 and as we know things were changed were subsequently changed as time moves on.
02:11:54 Whether those discussions took place at this time or whether they were subsequent
02:12:00 I can't recall a timeline. Right so you can't help us as to whether you were aware in general
02:12:06 of this problem of the use of combustible insulation materials in buildings over 18
02:12:12 metres at this time? Not to the extent that it was considered a major issue and as Steve
02:12:24 Evans has stated there it was not considered at that time to be a problem and we were waiting
02:12:32 for the tests. Yes if we look at the top of page three and what Mr Evans said back to Mr Martin
02:12:40 he says there's no reason to suspect that buildings which have been built with Kingspan K15
02:12:44 are at risk at this time it's just the fact that the testing carried out to date does not bear
02:12:50 this out. Did you agree with that view that there was no reason to suspect that buildings were at risk?
02:12:58 I'm not sure that I considered it in so much detail. Did you discuss that view with Mr Evans?
02:13:11 Not that I recall.
02:13:13 Did you have any concern about the number of buildings that might have been
02:13:18 approved with K15 because of the LABC certificates either the system type approval
02:13:24 or the registered details certificate? Did you have any concerns about that at this point?
02:13:30 Had I flagged it up anywhere you would have a record of it and you don't so the answer to that
02:13:36 must be no I didn't. Can you help us as to why you weren't concerned? No it is
02:13:44 likely that it was played down by all the parties involved including in the emails that you have
02:13:52 there you know the urgency was not flagged up. Was any consideration given
02:14:03 to warning LABC members about this potential problem so that they were at least alive to it
02:14:10 even if you weren't recommending any immediate positive action? Not by me.
02:14:17 And why not not by you given the technical role that you held within LABC? Who else
02:14:22 should have taken that decision? It could have been a number of people within
02:14:28 could have been a number of people within within LABC at that time that were also involved on it
02:14:36 on a technical side of it. Yes you can say it should have been me. It wasn't and it wasn't done.
02:14:45 And again the the whole focus the whole world was looking at thermal performance at that time
02:14:52 and I think the you know
02:15:00 people's eye was taking off the ball because of the push for home improvement and thermal performance
02:15:10 mine included. Yeah I appreciate that that that was the context to this but once you've got
02:15:18 a senior civil servant raising this problem with NHBC and then them raising it with you
02:15:26 wasn't that something pretty serious that needed to be given detailed consideration by LABC?
02:15:36 For whatever reason it would appear it wasn't seen at that in that way at that time.
02:15:42 When you saw the email did you make any connection between Mr Martin's friendly warning and the claims
02:15:51 by Kingspan that K15 was suitable for use over 18 meters? No I didn't join the dots.
02:16:00 And you didn't join the dots to your own certificates the your own LABC certificates
02:16:05 including the one signed by you? The one it had been brought it was brought to the attention
02:16:12 as you've already said to to Mr Ewing and could be looked it was going to be looked at further.
02:16:20 The urgency was not flagged up in that way or not or not recognized.
02:16:29 Did it even occur to you that the LABC certificates might have supported and possibly facilitated
02:16:36 the claims made by Kingspan in respect of suitability for use over 18 meters? No.
02:16:44 Did it occur to you that the inaccurate content of LABC certificates might have at least in part
02:16:49 contributed to or even caused the situation which had led to Mr Martin sending his friendly warning
02:16:56 email? No.
02:17:04 Did you notice that Mr Evans had told Mr Martin in his response that we understand LABC have also
02:17:13 issued a registered detail approving the material for use over 18 meters? Did you notice that that
02:17:18 was being reported back to Mr Martin? Yes. Mr Martin's email is effectively raising
02:17:27 the same concern that Mr Cody raised from Rockwall back in September and October 2009 i.e. K15 is not
02:17:36 a material of limited combustibility. Did you make that connection? No. Why not? I don't know.
02:17:44 So you didn't think back at all to the correspondence you'd had from Rockwall? Obviously not.
02:17:54 Now at this stage July 2014 it's clear that you'd become aware now that there was a revised BBA
02:18:02 certificate in relation to K15. That's correct isn't it? Yes. Now we can see you've sent Steve
02:18:11 Evans's email to David Ewing on the 15th of July 2014. We see that at the top of the page.
02:18:23 Top of page one sorry.
02:18:27 And you say this to Mr Ewing, hi Dave something you may be aware of if not then for your info
02:18:35 Barry. Now first of all why did you send this email to David Ewing at the LABC? Because he was
02:18:43 dealing with registered details. And what steps if any did you expect Mr Ewing to have taken on
02:18:51 receipt of this email? To give it the consideration that you're expecting should have been given.
02:18:58 Yes I mean it's fair to say your email doesn't exactly suggest that this is an important issue
02:19:05 does it or an urgent issue it just says if not then for your info. Yes. So can we take it from
02:19:12 that that you really didn't think that this was a big deal at the time? It would appear so.
02:19:18 So on the 16th of July 2014 a Mr Clive Everett from Europa facade consultants
02:19:30 had sent an email to Mr Brennan expressing concern about the content of the registered
02:19:35 details certificate for K15. Let's just look at that email LABC 40835.
02:19:50 So here we can see Mr Everett's email of Europa facades and he says dear Cathal it was good to
02:19:56 talk to you earlier and discuss this issue with you. The query we have is the LABC registered
02:20:02 details 165 certificate clearly shows in figure one the Kingspan K15 product being used on a
02:20:08 lightweight steel structural framing system an arrangement for which it is often used and for
02:20:14 which it is perfectly suited. However when we start to look at buildings that are above 18 meters high
02:20:20 in accordance with approved document B we need to ensure that the insulation is either non-combustible
02:20:25 or that the system not just the insulation has been tested to BS 8414 part two.
02:20:33 Now pausing there did you know that at the time that for buildings over 18 meters
02:20:39 the insulation in fact he's got it wrong it's not that it's non-combustible it needs to be of limited
02:20:43 combustibility or that the system not just the insulation has been tested to BS 8414. Did you
02:20:50 know that at the time? That it had to be tested. That either it had to be of limited combustibility
02:20:56 or it had to have been tested as part of a full system test and only the system used. Did you know
02:21:01 that? I was aware of what was in the approved document in terms of recommendations it's not
02:21:09 something that I read on a day-to-day basis but yes I was aware that systems and I was aware of
02:21:17 the the BS 8414 tests. Right he goes on he says the LABC registered detail certificate indicates
02:21:26 that the K15 is suitable for buildings over 18 meters high and substantiates this by referring to
02:21:31 and then he quotes from a particular Kings band publication and the BBA certificate from 2008 a
02:21:37 copy of this certificate is attached. Section 7.2 states in buildings with a floor above 18 meters
02:21:44 advice should be sought from the certificate holder. Section 7.5 refers to the K15 product
02:21:50 having been tested in accordance with BS 8414 part one for non-load bearing masonry substrates.
02:21:57 Our point being that nowhere in the BBA certificate does it confirm that K15 has been
02:22:01 tested in accordance with the requirements of 8414 part two which is for non-load bearing
02:22:06 lightweight structures and then he goes on the current BBA certificate in section 8.2 again refers
02:22:14 only to 8414 part one masonry substrate testing. It also states that the following cutting
02:22:21 construction met with the criteria as stated in the BRE report and then goes on to describe
02:22:26 a construction that has the insulation mechanically fixed to a non-combustible substrate etc.
02:22:34 And then he goes on
02:22:38 we go over the page
02:22:42 fully understanding that this is a complex issue can the LABC confirm whether they have some evidence
02:22:47 that's not been discussed here that shows that the Kings band K15 product meets the requirements
02:22:51 of 8414 part two we've asked Kings band this question previously and at the time of our last
02:22:57 communication with them April this year Kings band confirmed that the K15 insulation product
02:23:02 had not been tested in accordance with BS 8414 part two as a further note we've had a number
02:23:08 of discussions with the BRE regarding this and the 8414 part two test the BRE's view is that the
02:23:14 test is system specific and not product specific it is the system that is being tested to ensure
02:23:20 it remains stable and the mode of mechanical failure of the system is considered as part of
02:23:24 the test the BRE have advised as if an insulation product works in one system I meets the requirements
02:23:31 of br 135 and passes the 8414 part two test while it may be an indicator that the same insulation
02:23:37 will work on another system it does not confer an automatic compliance compliance can only be
02:23:42 achieved through test to this end it seems that stating that an insulation product compliant with
02:23:47 BRE 135 is not possible other than in a particular tested configuration assembly we would be
02:23:54 interested in your thoughts on the subject particularly as we've just been issued with
02:23:57 the registered details 165 certificate by a specialist contractor for a project on the
02:24:03 understanding on their part that this can be used as proof of compliance with adb and br 135
02:24:09 we look forward to hearing from you
02:24:13 now did anyone at the labc can you help us ever respond to mr everett's email did you ever see it
02:24:22 I don't recall ever seeing that no can you explain why that wouldn't have been sent to you
02:24:30 as the senior technical person within the labc because it was sent to the people dealing with
02:24:36 the registered details but it's clearly I mean he says at the top of that page it's a complex
02:24:41 issue why wouldn't they refer it on to you and get your views on it you have to ask them I don't know
02:24:55 now mr ewing was responsible for the registered details scheme is that right
02:25:00 was that your understanding at the time yes one of the people responsible for it
02:25:11 so would you have expected him to have responded to this email
02:25:17 or sorry to have been referred this email either either him or mr taylor martin taylor
02:25:27 both with
02:25:31 equal sort of standing in technical ability to myself
02:25:39 I see but you can't help us as to why we can't see that happening nor can we see
02:25:44 any response to mr everett's email I have not seen this previously so I can't answer your question
02:25:52 answer your question okay mr chairman I think that is a good moment to stop I'm making
02:26:00 good progress and I should be hopefully done with this witness sometime in the morning
02:26:06 tomorrow so that we can then start mr ewing before the lunch break right well um there we are mr
02:26:13 tenor that's obviously a convenient point to stop for the afternoon I'm afraid we're going to have
02:26:17 to ask you to come back there's some more questions tomorrow morning but at least it sounds as though
02:26:22 you should be able to get away before lunch which I hope will is your arrangements thank you and
02:26:29 again I just have to remind you not to talk to anyone about your evidence over the break
02:26:33 and we'll see you at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning okay all right thank you very much
02:26:52 thank you very much miss grange 10 o'clock tomorrow then please okay