Evidence from John Lewis, NHBC's specialist fire engineer, regarding the approval and use of combustible insulation materials including Kingspan K-15 on high-rise buildings above 18 meters.
00:00:27 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing
00:00:30 hearing today we're going to resume taking evidence
00:00:33 evidence and we're going to pick up where we left off just before christmas by hearing further evidence from the national house building council mr millet yes good morning mr chairman good morning members
00:00:44 morning mr chairman good morning members of the panel i now call mr john lewis please thank you
00:00:58 good morning mr lewis i understand you're going to take the oath
00:01:02 oath so would you take the testament there in your right hand please and read the words on the screen in front of you
00:01:10 i swear by almighty god that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you very much now sit down and make yourself comfortable
00:01:30 right yes mr military are you ready thank you mr lewis good morning can i start by thanking you very much for coming to the inquiry and assisting us with your evidence we're extremely grateful to you uh if you have any
00:01:42 grateful to you uh if you have any difficulty understanding any of the questions i'm going to ask you i i can rephrase the question or repeat it as you like if you want to break at any time other
00:01:53 if you want to break at any time other than the scheduled breaks that we're going to take at the normal time please just ask and we can take a break can i ask you also please to keep your voice up so that the person who sits to your right can get down exactly what you
00:02:05 your right can get down exactly what you say clearly so we have a nice clean transcript don't shake your head or nod your head
00:02:11 your head you have to say yes or no as the case may be
00:02:14 may be uh can i also ask you please to um to
00:02:18 to listen carefully to my questions as well and answer the questions that i'm putting to you now you've provided two witness statements to the inquiry one was in a in response to a request for documentary
00:02:30 in response to a request for documentary disclosure and one in response to a request for evidence can i show them to you please the first is nhb401332
00:02:40 and is dated the 28th of january 2020. there it is on the screen is that your first statement it is yes and can we go to page three
00:02:51 it is yes and can we go to page three there's a signature there is that your signature above the date
00:02:59 it hasn't come through yet it hasn't stage three
00:03:16 this there it is yes that's my signature thank you and the second witness statement is that nhb 403433
00:03:28 and is dated the 5th of october 2021 is that the first page of your fifth october statement it is yes thank you and if we go to page 69 please you'll see that there's a
00:03:40 69 please you'll see that there's a signature above the date there is that your signature it is yes have you read these witness statements and particularly this 69-page second witness statement recently yes i have and can
00:03:51 statement recently yes i have and can you or do you say that the contents of it are true yes to best of my knowledge to that tree and have you discussed your statement or your evidence that you're going to give today with anybody before coming here only with uh my legal team right can i
00:04:04 only with uh my legal team right can i ask you just to keep your voice up if you can please hear you clearly now i'm going to start with a few questions about your background your qualifications and experience before coming on to your work at the nhbc
00:04:16 coming on to your work at the nhbc and throughout my questions i'm going to be referring to your second witness statement nhb403433
00:04:23 specifically now to summarize in your witness statement page three at paragraph seven a to d you set out your your qualifications um can we just tick them off uh first
00:04:35 um can we just tick them off uh first you have a bachelor of science uh in construction management yes that's correct and a master of science in fire and explosion engineering yes yes that's correct and a diploma in fire safety engineering uh i
00:04:48 diploma in fire safety engineering uh i think at the time of writing your second statement that you were that you had yes and now the diploma was carried out in completed in about
00:04:59 completed in about 1998 i believe yes and at the time of your statement uh you were in the process they think of applying to be a chartered engineer through the ife yes that application is
00:05:10 through the ife yes that application is still ongoing it's still ongoing now before working at the nhbc i think you'd worked in the building control industry hadn't you i worked for local authority building control before joining nhbc i was also
00:05:21 control before joining nhbc i was also involved in building control at nhbc but as an approved inspector yes and just before the nhbc i think you had three years 1994 to 1997
00:05:33 years 1994 to 1997 for the labc at rydale district council that's correct yes how long did you work for the labc just for those three years just those three years and what position did you did you hold i started off in 1994 as a
00:05:47 did you hold i started off in 1994 as a trainee building control officer and
00:05:50 and some months later became an assistant building control officer right and at the time you left in 1997 to go to the nhbc what role at the labc did you hold i was an assistant building control
00:06:01 i was an assistant building control officer
00:06:03 officer paraphrasing paragraph eight of your statement as we can see on the screen if we can just have that in full um you i think worked for the nhbc from 1997
00:06:12 1997 until just recently is that is that right that's correct yes and from 2013 i think you were a specialist building control surveyor which you say meant that you were nhbc's specialist fire
00:06:23 that you were nhbc's specialist fire engineer
00:06:25 engineer yes the role was titled building a specialist building control sorry a specialist building surveyor yes it was intended that i did other than fire things at the time but i tended to
00:06:37 fire things at the time but i tended to only do fire engineering issues right and you say in 8c there as you can see that the role of specialist building control survey meant i was nhbc specialist fire engineer as
00:06:49 i was nhbc specialist fire engineer as detailed below so did what was the role as a specialist fire engineer or did it just involve drawing on your recently acquired expertise in fire engineering
00:07:03 it was as i say it was a role that was intended that i did other than fire
00:07:10 fire stuff um but i had just completed my master's degree and
00:07:16 and so yes it was intended that i would be the specialist within nhbc dealing with you know the fire engineering and fire specialist inquiries were you the only specialist fire engineer
00:07:27 specialist fire engineer at nhbc at and from that time i was until about 2016 when uh another fire engineer joined nhbc was that mr cat courier it was yes
00:07:39 cat courier it was yes now did that mean that during that period
00:07:43 period 2016
00:07:45 2016 uh
00:07:46 uh you were the only one you were the only fire engineer there yes
00:07:51 yes does that mean that your work in that special specialist field was never peer reviewed internally by somebody with equivalent qualifications no it wasn't
00:08:02 no it wasn't as at october 2021 you held that role i think but from 2018 within the major projects team is that right that's correct and major projects is this right are eight stories or above in other words high rises uh
00:08:15 or above in other words high rises uh yes i believe that was the criteria why was that team created in 2018 um
00:08:22 um it was
00:08:24 it was felt at the time that the majority of tall
00:08:30 tall more complex buildings were being constructed within london and
00:08:37 and the
00:08:38 the nhbc took the view that they should bring together a specialist team not just if well of surveyors and engineers and specialists in those taller buildings bring them together
00:08:50 taller buildings bring them together into a a team within a london office with a london base so that they were accessible to our customers did the fact of the grenfell tower fire in june 2017
00:09:03 of the grenfell tower fire in june 2017 play any part in the decision to create that team in 2018 uh no the the team the major projects team was
00:09:12 team was set up in 2016. i think actually even earlier maybe the summer of 2015 right i didn't join it until 2018. i follow now um you told us you left in late 2021 where do you work
00:09:25 you left in late 2021 where do you work now i now work for taylor wimpey teddy wimpy and what's your current position i'm a senior fire engineer with them
00:09:35 during the years from 1997 until 2013 you say you worked in a number of different roles at nhbc as a building control surveyor that's right is it that's correct apart from
00:09:47 that's correct apart from a brief
00:09:48 a brief time out working for another company right and did your roles involve residential buildings above 18 meters um
00:09:56 um only towards the end of that period of time
00:10:01 time at the start i was mainly doing much more low-rise things i
00:10:07 things i worked also with the commercial building control team which was largely non-residential schemes for a few years and it was only towards the end of that time that i got more involved in high-rise residential
00:10:19 and during your time at the nhbc i think you were not part of management or the nhbc board no i'd like to turn then to the functions and divisions of the nhbc and take that
00:10:31 and divisions of the nhbc and take that quite quickly you say it paragraph 14 in your statement on page four if we can just have that up that a large part of the nhbc's business was to provide warranty cover for new build properties
00:10:42 build properties uh across the country is that correct yes that's correct and the purpose was to increase standards in the control improve standards in the construction industry yes
00:10:54 yes as well as providing the warranty cover yes that was another you know intention of the nhbc's role now we know from the evidence of mr evans that nhbc had a subsidiary an hbc bcs building control services limited
00:11:07 bcs building control services limited which carried out building control work through the approved inspector regime which is basically private sector building control yes yes that's correct yes and do you
00:11:18 yes yes that's correct yes and do you agree uh that at the nhbc provided warranties for over 80 percent of the new build market i'm not sure the figure but it sounds
00:11:29 i'm not sure the figure but it sounds a likely figure right uh at all events the nhbc i think you would agree is the largest private sector building control body in the uk yes i believe that's correct and in your
00:11:40 yes i believe that's correct and in your statement of paragraph 22 we don't need to turn it up you estimate that in the period 2005 to 2019 nhbc bcs had over 60 of the market share of the
00:11:52 had over 60 of the market share of the residential market that's i think what you say yes it it was around that figure how did you arrive at 60 or over 60 during that 14-year period
00:12:03 during that 14-year period um i just recall it from you know we we were informed at various corporate
00:12:11 corporate meetings that we held somewhere around about the 60 of the residential market share i believe it did fluctuate year on year some years it was below that and some
00:12:22 some years it was below that and some years it was more um i didn't particularly keep abreast of those figures particularly do you happen to know what the residential market share for building control services was during the period 2013 to
00:12:34 services was during the period 2013 to 2016.
00:12:36 2016. no
00:12:39 no during
00:12:40 during any of your time 20 2005 to 2019 did the market share ever fall below 50
00:12:49 i don't know now just to be clear you say that steve evans was the building control manager for the technical services department reporting to diane marshall and in her turn diane marshall
00:13:00 marshall and in her turn diane marshall was head of that department reporting up to ian davis and ian davis was the operational director until the end of 2017 i'm summarizing paragraph 18 on page five can you confirm that
00:13:12 page five can you confirm that yes that's correct and did ian davis report to the main board of nhbc i believe so he was a director so i would think so yes how closely did you work with steve evans
00:13:23 work with steve evans uh steve evans was my direct line manager from 2013 to
00:13:30 to 2018.
00:13:34 who else within nhbc had specialist knowledge of fire engineering between the period between the dates 2013 say august 2013
00:13:45 say august 2013 and june 2017 only my ex-colleague malika courier who joined
00:13:52 joined i think was december 2015 right
00:13:57 now going back to your statement at page
00:14:01 page six please if we can go to that paragraph 20 at the top of that page you say this
00:14:10 in the second line the projects that i understand the inquiry is focused on which were eight stories or higher were covered by nhbc's major projects team this had two sections special special risk project managers who looked after
00:14:22 risk project managers who looked after warranty aspects and a separate section of specialist surveyors looking at building control now steve evans made reference in his evidence to buildings over six stories in height being considered by the nhbc
00:14:35 in height being considered by the nhbc to be those over 18 meters that was his evidence why do you say eight stories here
00:14:42 because i believe the major projects team
00:14:49 dealt with buildings over eight stories um
00:14:56 the six stories i believe that the the bit between six stories and eight stories
00:15:01 stories did still rest with the technical services department rather than the major projects team i think you know they didn't fall into that eight story right entire category i mean do you know from your own
00:15:12 i mean do you know from your own knowledge as a specialist fire engineer that the eight that six stories is generally accepted as the numerical equivalent of 18 meters yes i'm aware of that so can you account for
00:15:23 that so can you account for the the difference between between six stories and eight stories so far as the interests of the major projects team was concerned i i can't i was not involved in
00:15:34 i was not involved in [Music]
00:15:35 [Music] setting up the major projects team that was carried out i believe mostly by ian davis and that was eight stories and above was where it was set right you know you don't know how eight stories was arrived at as a number
00:15:48 was arrived at as a number no i don't now to be clear were the special risk project managers involved only in warranty projects or do they also have a role in building control there was
00:15:59 there was a wide overlap
00:16:02 they were there to most of the building control well in fact all of the building control projects i would say also had the warranty side and so if it was with nhbc for building control
00:16:15 was with nhbc for building control it would also be being dealt with for warranty right as the norm that was the norm yes right
00:16:27 other than you did anybody else in the major projects team have any qualifications in fire engineering
00:16:36 not that i'm aware of i know there were several of my colleagues who i believed were
00:16:43 were members of the institution of fire engineers
00:16:46 engineers but
00:16:47 but beyond that i don't think any of them held any particularly formal qualifications in fire engineering and who were those colleagues
00:16:56 um from memory there was a lady
00:17:01 a lady hassie
00:17:05 i know she was a a member of the uh institution of fire engineers or became one during her period at nhbc um
00:17:18 i would be guessing to suggest anybody else right now um let's turn into a different topic which is the building regulations and you've very helpfully set out in your statement to us your knowledge of the building regulations
00:17:29 knowledge of the building regulations and the related approved guidance and how
00:17:33 how they in turn relate to buildings above 18 meters in height can we look please at page seven of your witness statement at the bottom of the page paragraph 26
00:17:44 at the bottom of the page paragraph 26 and in relation to large-scale fire testing you say there at the beginning the bs-8414 test series related to the rate of fire spread across and within walls in the period of 2000 to 2013 i
00:17:57 walls in the period of 2000 to 2013 i did not have much awareness of the bs-8414 test series although i knew it was a test for external fire spread prior to 2013 i mostly dealt with
00:18:08 prior to 2013 i mostly dealt with residential and non-residential buildings which were lower than 18 meters to which paragraph 12.7 of adb did not apply now um
00:18:18 now um you may not have been a qualified fire engineer until is it right august 2013 yes but but i think you did have at least have awareness of such a thing as large scale fire testing
00:18:31 such a thing as large scale fire testing before august 2013 is that is that correct that's correct yes right and and you knew at the very least that that was a a test for external fire spread
00:18:42 a a test for external fire spread yes i did yes which was relevant did you know to the achievement of functional requirement b4
00:18:53 achievement of functional requirement b4 b41 of the of the building regulations yes i knew it was cited in approved document b as a
00:19:02 as a way that
00:19:04 way that external facades could be uh assessed yes now i'd like just to show you something uh which is a report commissioned by an hbc uh for which you are where i think part
00:19:15 uh for which you are where i think part of the stakeholder group nhb 50452 please
00:19:24 and it's a document entitled if you can see on the screen fire performance of highly insulated residential buildings and modern methods of construction a literature review and the date is the
00:19:36 a literature review and the date is the 14th of april 2010 prepared for nhbc foundation um just on that are you familiar with this document do you remember it yes i do can we go to page two
00:19:49 yes i do can we go to page two you can see that it was prepared by the bre
00:19:52 bre tom lennon and danny hopkins approved by steve manchester do you know what led to it's being commissioned
00:20:04 i recall that
00:20:08 the
00:20:10 issue originally the aim of the document was to understand how
00:20:18 the more modern buildings at that time which were those that were highly insulated whether that would make
00:20:28 make for a much more severe fire should want a fire occur within them that was my understanding of that document yeah was there a prompt a trigger which led
00:20:39 was there a prompt a trigger which led to this document being commissioned that you can tell us about no not that i recall how no i the first i knew was when i was asked if i would like to sit on the stakeholder group can we go
00:20:51 sit on the stakeholder group can we go to page six uh of the
00:20:56 uh of the document and you can see that the title there is engagement of project stakeholder group and then there's a list of names affiliations and who they represent and you can see that just above halfway
00:21:08 and you can see that just above halfway through that list which includes people like sarah colwell brian martin graham perrier and debbie smith your name appears you see that yes i can see that representing approved
00:21:19 yes i can see that representing approved inspectors did you uh read this report when it came out
00:21:25 out yes i i did do yes and presumably you read it when you were a part of the stakeholder group
00:21:33 group yes it would have been shortly after it was published now i don't want to go through this report in detail but unless we have to but do you remember that this report looked at both internal and external fast bread
00:21:48 i don't recall you don't recall and it looked at small-scale testing large-scale testing and the fact that modern buildings were using more and more combustible materials i can show you a part of the report if you like
00:21:59 you like let's go to page 27 please and let's look there at paragraph 3.4.2
00:22:06 3.4.2 you can see external fire spread there at the foot of the screen there are three main potential ignition sources in relation to external fire spread they are
00:22:15 are and then you can see radiated heat external fire source in direct contact with the building and fire breaking out of one of the compartments and then there's a long paragraph after that
00:22:25 that which identifies controls
00:22:29 controls due to restrictions on the amount of combustible material and there's a reference in the middle of the paragraph to
00:22:35 to the testing ignitability flame spread heat release than it says many of the cladding systems now in the market are complex composite or built up systems where an assessment of the characteristics of the exposed surface with respect to flame
00:22:47 exposed surface with respect to flame spread may not provide an accurate picture of performance in a realistic fire scenario for this reason and due to some high-profile fires involving vertical flame spread particularly the fire at irvine in 1999 house of commons
00:23:00 fire at irvine in 1999 house of commons 1999.
00:23:01 1999. a new large-scale test method was developed by bre and eventually became the basis of a british standard bsi 2002 fire test for clouding systems the test
00:23:12 fire test for clouding systems the test method looks at performance due to a realistic fire scenario comes corresponding to a fully developed fire within a compartment with external flaming from a window opening impinging directly on the external facade the test
00:23:24 directly on the external facade the test considers system performance rather than surface spread of flame properties in isolation i've read quite a bit of that to you
00:23:32 to you is it fair to say that in and from the date of this report at least you were well aware of the common use of combustible materials over 18 meters
00:23:46 yes we knew
00:23:48 knew that combustible insulation was becoming a much more common insulation material used on on tall buildings yes now let's go back to your
00:24:00 buildings yes now let's go back to your statement of page seven and pick it up in the same place where we were paragraph 26 and you say continuing with the paragraph on the few residential schemes of mine
00:24:12 on the few residential schemes of mine which exceeded this height it was policy that our special risk project manager teams being specialists in the whole arena of facade types and construction would assess and advise the fire safety
00:24:23 would assess and advise the fire safety requirements for this component of the building alongside any requirements for water ingress air infiltration pressure equalization barriers etc in addition the fire engineers for these buildings did not include any reference to
00:24:34 did not include any reference to paragraph 12.7 and with k-15 generally being the most common board type insulation the cursory read of their bba certificate and marketing literature gave the impression that their product
00:24:45 gave the impression that their product had been tested to bsa414 and so was suitable for use however my knowledge in this area expanded especially in the period of 2013 to 2014.
00:24:58 2013 to 2014. now is the process that you're describing in the passage i've just read to you
00:25:02 to you uh what happened between 2013 between 2000 and 2013 at the nhbc are you describing events there in summary between those two years
00:25:13 summary between those two years sorry could you just go back up a page yes let me go back to page seven the foot of the page you'll describe you start that passage i've read it to you with the words prior
00:25:24 i've read it to you with the words prior to 2013. and my question is is everything that you're describing there that i've read to you something that happened but between 2000 and 2013.
00:25:44 i can't recall when the special risk project manager teams were set up
00:25:52 set up um that could have been after 2000 in the year 2000 right but can we take it that in general [Music]
00:26:01 [Music] what you're describing here is is what pertained at the nhbc between 2013 between 2000 and 2013.
00:26:12 in general yes yes sorry um could you
00:26:17 could you clarify the question please yes i've read a large chunk of text to you which starts with the words prior to 2013.
00:26:24 2013. and really just all i'm seeking to get from you is confirmation that everything you described there was the status quo was the situation if you like at the nhbc
00:26:35 nhbc but before 2013 starting in 2000.
00:26:42 possibly as i say i can't remember when the srpm teams were set up certainly they were around from around 2006 onwards
00:26:53 around from around 2006 onwards um
00:26:54 um right
00:26:56 right i can't i'm hazy on what happened prior to that from 2000 to that time yes i understand now the four lines up from the bottom of that page on the right hand side you can see it you say in addition the fire engineers for these
00:27:08 addition the fire engineers for these buildings
00:27:10 buildings who were they i mean the consultant fire engineers that were engaged by the developers of the buildings oh i see not nhbc people no right
00:27:20 no right and do you know do you have any idea why those individuals would not make reference to 12.7 of approved document b or perhaps 13.7 as it became
00:27:33 or perhaps 13.7 as it became during that period i don't i think there was on most of the jobs that we saw the consultant fire engineers dealing with regulation b4
00:27:45 with regulation b4 generally just considered the boundary distances the radiated heat spread to other buildings it was
00:27:52 it was very
00:27:54 very there was not very often that any of them made any reference to paragraph 12.7 right so is this right that until 2013 the use of k-15 was widespread
00:28:07 the use of k-15 was widespread uh and accepted by fire engineers in other words the developers fire engineers on the basis of a cursory read of the bba certificate and kingspan's marketing literature
00:28:21 generally what we saw was that the fire engineers would write a fire strategy in that they would say the building will comply with approved document b
00:28:32 document b you know
00:28:34 you know and that was as far as it went the change are these that was always written at the very start of a construction project before details of materials were
00:28:46 before details of materials were generally known or had been agreed by the construction teams it was usually much later on that the you know the way the facades
00:28:57 that the you know the way the facades were built that information was provided so far as the nhbc was concerned is it correct that until 2013 the use of k-15
00:29:09 k-15 was accepted by the nhbc on the basis of a cursory read of the bba certificate and kingspan's marketing literature
00:29:19 i can't speak for what my colleagues did
00:29:25 i know that when i was asked and it was not on very many occasions at this time
00:29:32 this time if i was asked or shown the kingspan k15 bba certificate then
00:29:39 then the reading of that was that and the information we got from kingspan was generally that it was suitable for use on buildings over 18 meters so you took what documents you were
00:29:51 so you took what documents you were given at face value we
00:29:56 we the bba certificate as i think steve alluded to did suggest at the time that further information would be or should be obtained from
00:30:09 would be or should be obtained from kingspan well we'll come to the bba certificate but in general it was it was it your practice and to your knowledge the practice of your of your colleagues within the nhbc that they would take the certificate and the
00:30:21 they would take the certificate and the marketing literature by from kingspan at face value
00:30:27 there was a very much a reliance on kingspan to advise how to use that product
00:30:34 product on those buildings so you know either rightly or wrongly i think
00:30:41 think yes we did rely upon kingspan to advise how their product should be used on tall buildings up until 2013 what was nhbc's approach to the use of
00:30:53 what was nhbc's approach to the use of other combustible elements of an external buildup on buildings over 18 meters such as acm panels
00:31:04 again we knew that anecdotally at least that it was used in some situations um
00:31:14 what we did also find was that often
00:31:19 often the selection of the panel either we weren't informed of it or it was a change which had happened you know when the builders value engineers or
00:31:31 engineers or procurement people had got involved i'm not aware that you know it well i'm not aware of any kind time that came across my desk
00:31:42 kind time that came across my desk to use 100 pe called acm material and and you know it was asked is this suitable
00:31:48 suitable um
00:31:49 um and if it had been then you know we we would be saying no it's not can i ask you to look please at diane marshall's statement which is at nhb zeros
00:32:02 and let's go to page 17. i'll show you the first page page one just to identify the document nhb 403434 there's her statement to the inquiry 6th of october 2021 and if we go please to
00:32:14 of october 2021 and if we go please to page 17 paragraph 72 she says this prior to 2015 nhbc's approach towards k-15 which was allowed by approved document b
00:32:25 document b was to rely on the bba certificate for k-15 that was first issued on 27th of october 2008. this bba certificate stated that k-15 was acceptable for buildings over 18
00:32:36 was acceptable for buildings over 18 metres tall provided that the manufacturer's approval for the arrangement was obtained do you agree with what she has written there
00:32:58 yes um that was the understanding of the bba certificate yes and was that your own understanding
00:33:06 it was at the time yes as a fire engineer um as you were qualified to be from i think august 2013 are you able to explain how that approach complied
00:33:18 to explain how that approach complied with any of the routes to compliance within approved document b
00:33:30 well the approved document be the first option was it didn't comply with the first option which was the limited combustibility
00:33:41 which was the limited combustibility the second one suggested reference to testing
00:33:46 testing um
00:33:48 the bba certificate was understood under regulation 7 to be a suitable method of demonstrating compliance
00:34:02 and that certificate said seek advice from the manufacturer so
00:34:10 so just help me what route to compliance in adb
00:34:16 in adb is satisfied by
00:34:19 by seeking the manufacturer's approval mr lewis
00:34:27 it was the
00:34:31 well it didn't fit directly with that it was
00:34:35 was you know as as we came on to when we were writing the bca guidance note it was really
00:34:45 you know the the testing that had been done
00:34:48 done that then been extrapolated by people that could extrapolate it to say that
00:34:56 say that it was you know likely to support a construction which it was proposed
00:35:07 can i take it that from august 2013 you were familiar with the routes to compliance in the approved documents yes i was so do you agree that either
00:35:18 either the material used over 18 meters in an external wall being insulation had to be a material of limited combustibility
00:35:29 combustibility that was the first option yes yes yes there was an alternative wasn't there which was
00:35:35 which was uh that if such a material was to be used
00:35:38 used insulation material was to be used in an external wool buildup it had to to be tested
00:35:44 tested under bs8414 either part one or part two and satisfy the criteria set out in br 135 yes yes that's correct yes and from june 2014 we'll as we'll come
00:35:57 and from june 2014 we'll as we'll come to option 3 desktops but we'll come back to that yes yes yes so taking all of that into account can you explain to us how k15 a combustible material
00:36:08 material could be approved for use over 18 meters merely by reliance on a bba certificate that simply told you to seek
00:36:17 to seek the manufacturer's approval
00:36:21 because sitting alongside the approved document b was the regulation 7 approved document which
00:36:32 which also then cited that you know bbi certificates could be considered as suitable also as suitable evidence for
00:36:43 suitable evidence for meeting the building regulations when did the approach that diane marshall has set out in her statement of paragraph 72 there begin she says it prior to 2015. can you
00:36:55 begin she says it prior to 2015. can you can you give us a starting date i can't no i think that's a question for diane right and this was the approach to your understanding was it by the nhbc to buildings above 18 meters using k-15
00:37:08 buildings above 18 meters using k-15 until 2015. yes well i can't say that it was a you know written down policy
00:37:19 policy you know a search it we the use of bba certificates was considered to be a way of
00:37:29 a way of meeting the building regulations a way that a year-proofing inspector was carrying out their you know their function
00:37:36 function now we'll come back to the bba certificate for k-15 later in your evidence
00:37:40 evidence i want just to ask you now about when you first had concerns about the use of combustible materials in tall buildings as we know you you did can we start by looking at um
00:37:53 can we start by looking at um your statement please paragraph 47 on page 12. i think i can summarize what you say there and at paragraphs 47
00:38:05 47 you say i recall i first became aware of a possible issue with the use of and compliance of combustible materials being used in buildings over 18 meters around the time it was raised by steve cook to steve
00:38:17 it was raised by steve cook to steve evans in august 2013 in relation to queries he had he had from his builder customers about k-15 on buildings over 18 meters
00:38:25 18 meters shortly after that i recall an nhbc surveyor chris cooley also raised it however for me the issue really came to the forefront in november 2013 when wintec raised it as i referenced below
00:38:37 wintec raised it as i referenced below at paragraph 50 onwards now august 2013 you refer to there that was was it the same month that you became a specialist building control surveyor within the nhpc
00:38:49 surveyor within the nhpc it is yes yes and was that the date you achieved your um your specialist fire engineering qualification uh it was around that time right maybe in the milk before right
00:39:01 in the milk before right and the change in position to specialist building control surveyor i think was a as a result of now being nhbc's specialist fire engineer i think you've told us that before but just confirmed that yes yes so was it a coincidence
00:39:13 that yes yes so was it a coincidence that in the same month that this issue was raised by steve cook to steve evans you become nhbc's fire engineer no it wasn't a coincidence um if it wasn't a coincidence can you explain
00:39:24 wasn't a coincidence can you explain how the two came together
00:39:31 sorry
00:39:34 i did the master's degree it was me requesting nhbc that just so happened to finish in around july 2013
00:39:46 2013 um and then i you know having then got that specialist knowledge i moved over to become this specialist you know in the fire in fire engineering at the nhpc
00:39:57 the fire in fire engineering at the nhpc in august yes did you alert steve cook to the problem no i didn't it wasn't you right uh before you took on that new role what did nhbc done do you know in relation to
00:40:09 did nhbc done do you know in relation to gaining fast specialist advice on large and complex buildings prior to me taking over the role nhbc would
00:40:17 would go to an external consultant with these queries i see so before august 2013 with you there as the newly qualified fire engineer does that tell us that
00:40:28 fire engineer does that tell us that before that date uh nhbc uh had no internal um expertise of that kind at all well i was
00:40:39 well i was i was consulted on a number of fire issues it wasn't my role to be the specialist but the obviously nhbc knew i was doing the master's degree and
00:40:52 master's degree and they would run things past me and that's my opinion on a number of things um i mean i'm looking at that one there i recall the chris cooley i i recall that
00:41:03 i recall that chris raised an issue with k-15 and my response was we haven't we shouldn't accept it you refer to an external
00:41:14 you refer to an external consultant who was the external consultant who would who would be consulted by the nhbc at that time it was um jim galt he was uh ex-head of fire engineering at the london fire brigade
00:41:26 london fire brigade um
00:41:28 um we didn't catch his name could you just repeat it please yeah jim gold is that
00:41:32 is that g-a-l-t uh g-o-l-t g-o-l-t jim gold xlfb he was ex-head of fire engineering at london fire brigade
00:41:43 at london fire brigade uh what providing his services to nhbc as a consultant yes he had retired from london fire brigade and he was working as a consultant right and how long did he provide these consultancy services to the nhbc for before august 2013
00:41:57 the nhbc for before august 2013 i'm not sure of how long it was he was acting prior to that time i know that he was
00:42:03 was certainly in place from 2013 till around about 2014. and before 2013 before august 2013 how frequently did mr gold
00:42:12 gold um
00:42:13 um how frequently was he asked to give his advice
00:42:18 advice i can't put a figure because i wasn't involved in the process of escalating referrals to him right do you know how he came to be chosen to act as the external fire specialist consultant to
00:42:29 external fire specialist consultant to the nhbc no i don't do you know who made the decision to appoint him or at least resort to him i don't know prior to
00:42:43 i don't know prior to mr gold been engaged um nhbc did have its own fire engineer fire specialist um a chuck called mike tucker i understand he was
00:42:55 called mike tucker i understand he was with the nhbc i think till around about 2007 maybe 2008
00:43:02 2008 so i would guess that jim gulp probably took over
00:43:07 took over when mike took a left right from your knowledge is this something that diane marshall might be able to help us with very likely yes i was not involved in this side of things at the time
00:43:21 now uh you say i think that your knowledge in the area of combustible materials
00:43:26 materials and their use about above 18 meters expanded after 2013. was that because you didn't have any dealings with buildings over 18 meters before then or was it because of your
00:43:37 was it because of your recently acquired qualification no it was
00:43:41 no it was mainly
00:43:42 mainly you know after as i said in my witness statement when we had the meeting with wintec that was the point at which you know
00:43:51 you know my i got more involved and more knowledgeable on the matter right was um becoming a fire engineer something that you had pursued at the behest of nhbc or was it something that you had done
00:44:02 was it something that you had done yourself personally no it's something i wanted to do personally right who funded it nhpc right and do you know whether that was a result of nhbc
00:44:14 whether that was a result of nhbc deciding that they needed a specialist fire engineer or just because they thought it was a good thing to have you do it was
00:44:22 it was me that
00:44:24 me that we every year you would have a performance development review one of the questions in that would be is there any further training and why would you like your career to go and it was at one of those where you
00:44:36 and it was at one of those where you know i've been thinking that i would like to specialize more in fire engineering and
00:44:41 and i suggested to my manager at the time would nhbc support me in becoming a fire specialist and that would have been of some use to an hpc
00:44:53 some use to an hpc and did mr gold services cease after you achieved your qualification in august 2013 or did you work alongside him no he continued up until he retired right and when was that
00:45:06 2015 2016. now once he did sorry once he did retire nhbc did appoint a further set of consultants to continue there were areas that was
00:45:18 to continue there were areas that was outside of my knowledge and on those occasions we would still go to external fire engineers for for our advice and who were they [Applause] we at the time
00:45:30 we at the time i believe we engaged 10 us design fire consultants and ifc
00:45:38 ifc or international fire consultants i believe that's i think that's what it stands for yes john pagan yes
00:45:44 yes i see and who and why were they engaged what specialist fields that they had but you didn't have uh meant that they needed to be consulted
00:45:54 consulted there would be a number of issues generally it was the computational fluid dynamics that the cfd modeling of smoke movement in residential corridors
00:46:05 in residential corridors was an area that i wasn't very competent with
00:46:09 with so
00:46:10 so certainly anything that came in with cfd modelling would go pretty much generally straight outside to one of the the other consultants there would be other things as well that were you know quite complex
00:46:21 as well that were you know quite complex outside of my expertise finite element analysis um things like that you know that i mean steve evans my manager was very
00:46:32 i mean steve evans my manager was very clear to me that if i wasn't sure don't worry about it we would go to an external consultant and that was how the company operated right and to the best
00:46:43 company operated right and to the best of your recollection did nhbc ever go to any external consultants on the question of
00:46:49 of and i put this broadly the safety of the use of k-15 above 18 meters or the safety of the use of acm as the external wall panel above 18 meters
00:47:00 wall panel above 18 meters i can't recall any it's possible that there were i do recall at least one job where jim gold was asked for his view on a cavity barrier
00:47:13 asked for his view on a cavity barrier type of installation i can't remember the scheme name now i'd like to ask you about kingspan and we'll do this in i think a number of parts so let's let's start with part one
00:47:25 parts so let's let's start with part one of king spanish can we go to your statement and look please at the bottom of page 12 uh plan 47 where we've just looked at and just um
00:47:39 where we've just looked at and just um picking that up as i've read to you already just halfway through you say shortly after that i recall you see that and and then um
00:47:50 and and then um you go on to explain the the the meeting um you refer to an email earlier on i think uh
00:47:57 think uh from chris cooley to steve evans let's go to that nhb 50583
00:48:07 and if we go to the email at the foot of the chain
00:48:13 you if we go to the very foot of the chain
00:48:16 chain you can see that
00:48:19 that he says steve this is steve cook to steve evans 28th of august 2013 subject kingspan k12 and k15 importance hi steve this issue of using a non-combustible cavity insulation for
00:48:31 a non-combustible cavity insulation for all floors where there is a floor over 18 meters and the use of cementitious backing boards or not is causing a lot of concern to customers compounded by nhbc's apparent change in stance now
00:48:42 nhbc's apparent change in stance now that we're picking up on it do we have any guidance if so can it be released to all if not can he provide some can we get kingspan to test their k50 k12 straight 15 insults to be non-combustible create a niche for
00:48:54 non-combustible create a niche for themselves in the market and solve the issue once and for all now this is an email of 28th of august 2013 as we can see to your recollection did steve cook
00:49:06 did steve cook believe k-15 to be non-combustible at that time
00:49:16 i think it was steve didn't think it was non-combustible i think reading this he
00:49:27 reading this he obviously thought that there was a way to test something and it could become non-combustible it's it's not a right way of thinking but that that's what i understand from this
00:49:38 that that's what i understand from this email is that he felt that it could be tested so it could be non-combustible how did that work it wouldn't work no um what do you what were your own views at that time
00:49:51 were your own views at that time and i should just say you did see this email as i'm going to show you in a moment but but what were your own views about the combustibility or otherwise of k-15 that
00:49:59 k-15 that the if you needed to know the combustibility of a product you went to their data sheet and as far as i'm aware the data sheet was quite clear that it was a class c right at this point did you know that k15 was
00:50:11 at this point did you know that k15 was a phenolic foam
00:50:15 uh yes and did you therefore know late august so just paste qualifications that as a phenolic foam it could not be a material of limited combustibility yes
00:50:26 a material of limited combustibility yes i believe i was aware of that yes would you have expected that your colleagues at nhbc would also know that phenolic foam was not and could not be a material of limited combustibility
00:50:40 i would have expected that
00:50:43 they could have found the answer relatively easily even if they didn't know right now you can see as i've shown you that the email starts this issue of using a
00:50:54 the email starts this issue of using a combustible cavity insulation for all floors
00:50:57 floors where there's a floor over 18 meters do you know what this issue was how the issue had come in to nhbc and was now being considered
00:51:13 no i don't recall i wasn't really involved in it at this time and i don't know i just you know at the time i knew that this
00:51:22 that this k-15
00:51:23 k-15 was being you know kicked around for want of a better word but i wasn't really involved in it right looking at the
00:51:31 the second line of the first paragraph of this email mr cook says brackets compounded by nhbc's apparent change in stance now that we are picking up on it close bracket what was the change in
00:51:42 close bracket what was the change in stance can you tell us that is referred to there i don't know were you aware of any cases where this had been picked up on when he says now that we are picking up on it were you aware of any cases where
00:51:55 on it were you aware of any cases where this had been picked up on the only
00:52:00 the only one that came that i recall coming across my desk was would have been about this time it was a query from chris cooley um about the use of the material right
00:52:14 um about the use of the material right it was just a single job i can't remember which the job was right now if we go to the top of the chain we can see steve evans response two days later 30th of august 2013 to steve cook and you're copied in on it
00:52:27 to steve cook and you're copied in on it and he says steve firstly not for us to get kingspan to do any testing as far as i'm aware they're aware of the issue and it's for them to decide what their strategy is as for guidance we don't have any but happy to ask john to look at it and if required we can draft
00:52:39 at it and if required we can draft something john can we chat about this next week
00:52:42 next week can you explain what issue it was that kingspan were aware of according to mr evans in his email there
00:52:55 i would be guessing but it must have been to do with the use of the material being combustible and used over 18 meters um
00:53:06 um and that
00:53:08 and that it did not fit with the approved document b root i'm it's the best i can guess had this issue been to your knowledge discussed internally uh in within nhbc
00:53:19 internally uh in within nhbc before this as i say i was aware of conversations about it
00:53:27 about it or about the subject or about the name k-15
00:53:31 k-15 i really was you know i was not involved in that and i really was not sure of what was happening at the time very well and do you know whether there were any discussions with kingspan at this time on this quotes issue on quotes
00:53:44 this time on this quotes issue on quotes again all that all i'm aware of is that maybe they were invited into the london team to give a presentation on the use of their material i wasn't at
00:53:56 on the use of their material i wasn't at that presentation and i'm not even sure if it ever took place but i thought it had taken place and i thought that they had been in and talked to the nhpc
00:54:08 to the nhpc about the use of that material now steven says here that the nhbc didn't have any guidance on the use of combustible insulation was the position as we've seen it as explained by diane marshall in that part of her witness
00:54:20 marshall in that part of her witness statement i've shown you that k-15 was being waived through by virtue of having the bba certificate
00:54:33 formally or informally i
00:54:38 i think at the time there was probably a a reliance or an over reliance upon kingspan to give the correct advice
00:54:49 kingspan to give the correct advice and
00:54:50 and when kingspan were approached for that advice
00:54:54 advice they would tend to say yes look here's a you know here's a bba certificate that says it's fine here's a fire test we've done
00:55:02 done and and here's an labc certificate that says it's fine you know that would be what would come back and i think most
00:55:11 most people at that point said yeah it must be okay it must be okay but it must be okay is that a a robust and appropriate approach for the nhbc to
00:55:23 and appropriate approach for the nhbc to take
00:55:26 i was not the one that would make those decisions now steve evans says here as we can see that
00:55:33 that john can we chat about this next week did you have a chat about it the following week do you remember
00:55:42 possibly but there's nothing springing to mind
00:55:45 to mind do you remember at least in outline whether you and he reached some kind of consensus
00:55:51 consensus about whether guidance was required i can't recall anything do you know and again just by way of recollection how the situation was left as at the end of august 2013.
00:56:03 as at the end of august 2013. i don't recall let's move then to october 2013 when the uh problem was brought to your attention again nhb 50587 please
00:56:16 and i'd like to start this email chain in the middle which is the second email down on page one and you can see um that it it starts at the foot of page one
00:56:28 it starts at the foot of page one it's from dave cummins of nhbc uh to see to you copy to steve cook and steve evans and he says on top of page two
00:56:40 um hi john i attended can you see at the top of your screen hi john i attended a presentation by bre today at london fire hq and got drawn into a conversation at the interval by
00:56:51 into a conversation at the interval by an ai who obviously has had dealings with ourselves over the issue of insulation materials on high rise i.e over 18 meters he's copied me an email but below that i believe came from john bien that is basically going against
00:57:03 bien that is basically going against what my thoughts are on the use of limited combustibility i don't believe k-15 meets this and one that if this is something that's being considered by yourself as maybe a
00:57:14 being considered by yourself as maybe a policy for tech zone could i have your thoughts on this please and if we look at the email below it that he's sending on it comes from andrew maple uh on the 16th of october
00:57:26 uh on the 16th of october and he's from in pr approved inspector services
00:57:31 services as we can see from the foot of the email we'll come to on page three and uh
00:57:37 uh he provides an extract from what he's been told from someone at nhbc and he says this um good to dave good to meet you this morning below is an extract
00:57:48 morning below is an extract of email to designers from for a couple of high-rise blocks we're dealing with in stratford colleague at nhbc was john bien and then there's a quotation you can see in italics we're happy to provide agreement in principle to use of
00:58:00 provide agreement in principle to use of kingspan k15 so far as part b is concerned we require one fire strategy to document proposal two section drawing showing cladding and insulation and lining makeup three drawing showing cavity barrier
00:58:13 three drawing showing cavity barrier stroke fire break provision to openings and junctions between compartment walls and floors with external walls four treatment penetrations through the dry lining five clarification of how plaster
00:58:25 lining five clarification of how plaster dabs achieve an r value within the u-value calculation six over the page how proposal is supported by nhbc who according to bba certificate 4k15 still
00:58:36 according to bba certificate 4k15 still seek drained cavity construction seven actual condensation risk analysis for makeups proposed now when you saw that did you understand from dave cummins
00:58:48 did you understand from dave cummins your colleague that he believed that k15 was not a material of limited combustibility and could not be used over 18 meters but was drawing to your attention the
00:59:00 but was drawing to your attention the fact that a colleague seemed to have a different view and was accepting k15
00:59:07 could you just go back up a page please yes we go back to page two please what i'm not sure is whether the text in italics was john bean's words or
00:59:19 italics was john bean's words or whether that was the words from andrew maple
00:59:24 uh well according to dave cummins he in the email i've read to you he believed that the text came from john bien
00:59:35 from john bien it just doesn't tie in with point number six on the next page well it might do but i mean we can argue about the text my question is what was your understanding that you glean from dave cummins
00:59:48 my understanding was that there was an awful lot of confusion for want of a better word as to whether k-15 was suitable for use whether it was limited
00:59:59 suitable for use whether it was limited combustibility or or what um right
01:00:04 right um
01:00:05 um you say there was confusion you i think at least by this time were not confused and you knew that it wasn't immaterial of limited combustibility being ephenolic yes i believe that's yes let's look at steve cook's response at the top
01:00:17 look at steve cook's response at the top of the email chain you're copying in if we go to the top he says um
01:00:23 um uh and
01:00:24 uh and he is back to dave dave cummins to you as well copy to steve evans the extract does not look like it came from john and in any case the pms are advising customers that insulation in cavities on high rise over 18 meters all needs to be
01:00:37 high rise over 18 meters all needs to be of limited combustibility as per ad approved document obviously k-15 does not need a backing board wall it is rigid and is attractive to customers but
01:00:48 rigid and is attractive to customers but does not have test evidence that it meets the limited compatibility rating k12 does need a backing board straight wall and does have limited combustibility so is okay for 18 meters plus but is not as attractive as k15 is
01:01:00 plus but is not as attractive as k15 is to customers so that's what steve cook says
01:01:04 says when you saw that as you did did you understand steve cook's message that k-15 is not material of limited combustibility so despite the fact that it was attractive to customers it couldn't be used over 18 meters
01:01:18 yes i would agree with that yes do you know whether diane marshall's understanding about the use of k-15 changed at this time
01:01:30 can you give us an insight into that i can't i mean i only
01:01:35 i only recall that the issue was being banded around within nhbc but
01:01:44 but you know within really only the london-based teams of nhbc
01:01:49 nhbc and at that time i wasn't particularly involved with them so i just heard it you know on the grapevine as it were was to your understanding was nhbc still accepting approving and
01:02:02 was nhbc still accepting approving and warranting k-15 above 18 meters despite the fact
01:02:07 the fact that it was combustible
01:02:12 yes i'd be i believe they were yes it was the basis of that no more than the fact that kingspan was okaying it it would have been well i
01:02:25 i feel i'm commenting on an area that i really wasn't involved with and you know all i know is that these
01:02:33 these all i can go off is the one or maybe two schemes which came across my desk at the time which i looked at which
01:02:41 which were you know when we asked for advice from kingspan
01:02:47 what we got was a copy of their marketing literature copy the fire test and copy the bba certificate a copy of the labc approval let me try it this way you had no reason to think that at this point the nhbc had made a
01:03:00 that at this point the nhbc had made a decision
01:03:01 decision not to approve or warrant the use of k-15 above 18 meters i wasn't aware of any such decision but so drawing the threads together so far
01:03:12 so drawing the threads together so far is it fair to say that as of october october 2013 first you were aware that k15 was not a material of limited combustibility yes
01:03:23 combustibility yes me personally yes yes you were aware that approved document b said that materials in an external wall build up over 18 meters and less tested under bs 8414 to br 135
01:03:35 and less tested under bs 8414 to br 135 had to be emitted of limited combustibility yes yes and at this time the nhbc were advising their customers that insulation on high-rise buildings should be of limited
01:03:47 high-rise buildings should be of limited combustibility yes
01:03:50 yes yes
01:03:51 yes but despite that k-15 was still being accepted by the nhbc or at least hadn't been refused by an hbc because i was also aware of the
01:04:04 because i was also aware of the regulation 7 which would suggest that you know bba approval could be taken as an alternative way of demonstrating compliance did you at the time
01:04:15 did you at the time go and look at regulation 7
01:04:20 and check whether the nhbc's reliance on it justified its then approach i didn't
01:04:30 i didn't specifically know but my understanding and was that regulation sorry bba certificates were an accepted
01:04:41 certificates were an accepted way of demonstrating compliance under regulation seven to your knowledge did anybody at nhbc double check verify that the approach that they were taking in the light of this knowledge
01:04:53 this knowledge was justified by regulation seven
01:05:00 did anybody do that sorry
01:05:04 sorry yes can i
01:05:06 yes can i repeat the question please to your knowledge did anybody at nhbc
01:05:12 double check that the approach that was being taken was justified by regulation seven well i'm not aware anybody
01:05:23 seven well i'm not aware anybody specifically went and double checked it but
01:05:26 but these you know the diane steve they were people that had been in building control for many years and the status of bba certificates under
01:05:37 and the status of bba certificates under regulation seven was was well known yes i mean did you understand that did you understand as the only qualified fire engineer in the organization
01:05:48 fire engineer in the organization that a bba certificate was not wholly writ
01:05:54 please could you rephrase the question yeah it was the regulation seven did not
01:06:01 did not give the status of conclusivity conclusive evidence to a bba certificate the whole
01:06:11 the whole building regulation system nothing gave conclusive evidence on anything that was it was about an approved inspector's role requirements were to
01:06:22 role requirements were to take reasonable steps to see if you know compliance with the building regulations was being achieved
01:06:33 can we then
01:06:36 go to nhb 50585
01:06:40 50585 which is an email of the 4th of october 2013
01:06:43 2013 from wintec and this is from chris macy if we go to the foot of page one and over to page two
01:06:51 two i should just say this i apologize for this this will happen quite a lot in your examination where we split over a number of pages with these emails now now wintec were weren't they facade engineering
01:07:02 were weren't they facade engineering consultants yes yes uh and they were reputable weren't they as far as i knew i i didn't have a lot to do with facades at this time but i had heard of them and knew that they
01:07:13 had heard of them and knew that they were
01:07:14 were to be relied upon yes yes now this email as you can see comes from chris macy who is the managing director of wintec and it goes to dave white who is at nhbc copy to paul savage who was i
01:07:25 is at nhbc copy to paul savage who was i think another win tech colleague of his and he says this david and if we go to page two it was good to meet at cwct this week
01:07:33 this week as discussed please find attached a document that infers that k-15 is suitable for all applications and is compliant with part b i've marked the relevant text in yellow our concern is that k-15 does not as a
01:07:45 our concern is that k-15 does not as a material meet the requirements of part b of the building regulations in that it isn't of limited combustibility kratom quotes the regulations do however allow the use of this material on buildings over 18 meters tall subject to a
01:07:57 over 18 meters tall subject to a specific test on the exact form of the construction used or alternatively a report from bre that supports the use of a material based on an assessment of its specific application or alternatively if
01:08:09 specific application or alternatively if it's used in masonry constructions the sales literature from kingspan is not wrong in its content but infers that all applications of the use of k15 will
01:08:20 all applications of the use of k15 will be acceptable in all events which we believe is not the case k-15 is widely used in industry having spoken to bre we believe it should not be without the supporting report documentation or test
01:08:32 supporting report documentation or test data to confirm its acceptability underlined as the mode of failure can be affected by subtle changes in design that occur between forms of construction i hope the attached and above are of
01:08:44 i hope the attached and above are of assistance and we would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you further in due course [Applause] now you are not uh copied in on this email but
01:08:55 email but do you agree uh
01:08:58 uh or did you agree at the time had you seen it um that um
01:09:02 um his view
01:09:03 his view as expressed here that to use k-15 over 18 meters
01:09:08 18 meters um
01:09:09 um to comply with adb uh would
01:09:13 uh would require passing an 8414 test yes
01:09:18 yes yeah everything he said in that email i would not disagree with right well thank you at the time i'm not sure i was particularly reading that email
01:09:29 particularly reading that email right okay but you don't there's nothing me saying that to you now there's nothing you would disagree with no no now before we move on to the subsequent meeting that the nhbc had the following month november 2013 i just want to show you two more nhbc internal emails first
01:09:42 you two more nhbc internal emails first of all nhb 50589
01:09:47 uh the first email at the foot of the chain please if you go to the last page foot of the chain you can see uh that
01:09:54 uh that this is from paul williams to brian stevenson steve cook jerry crouch and martin white i think all internal yes you have to say yes yes yes thank you
01:10:06 you have to say yes yes yes thank you morning amanda thorpe has received feedback from a customer that nhbc no longer accepts this on buildings above 18 meters as it's considered combustible is this something surveyors have been advised on just pausing there can you just tell her
01:10:18 just pausing there can you just tell her who amanda thorpe is she was one of the building control surveyors right now if we go up to the next email in the chain which is the response from steve cook which copies you in he writes this
01:10:32 you in he writes this most are aware and we've discussed at atm meeting steve evans and john lewis are looking to provide some better guidance at a meeting on the subject soon
01:10:40 soon and if we go to the top of the chain we can see the response from brian stevenson
01:10:45 stevenson to uh steve cook paul williams jerry crouch martin white steve evans you and chris cooley i certainly wasn't double exclamation mark please see our attached our findings when this was last raised
01:10:56 our findings when this was last raised now um he attaches three documents to this email one of which is kingspan's k15 marking marketing literature and the other two are email chains of their own just pausing there do you
01:11:08 just pausing there do you accept that at the end of 2013 or certainly in the last quarter of that year employees at nhbc were not familiar with the building regulations in this respect
01:11:19 regulations in this respect and exceptions to where combustible materials could be used on buildings above 18 meters
01:11:31 i'm not sure i can answer that steve cook was the manager of the team that was predominantly seeing the material used on high-rise
01:11:42 seeing the material used on high-rise buildings
01:11:44 buildings i
01:11:46 i can't answer for what his instructions were to the teams or or his understanding well let me put it to you this way did it surprise you that brian stevenson who was an atm an aerial
01:11:57 brian stevenson who was an atm an aerial technical manager wasn't aware that k-15 was not a material of limited combustibility
01:12:09 um i'm a little surprised that yes because you know
01:12:15 you know it was
01:12:16 it was it was not something kingspan were hiding they they
01:12:20 they data sheet and the bba certificate i believe all said it was class c so
01:12:27 so it wasn't a thing that was difficult to find out well class c isn't uh but isn't material limited combustion no it's not no sorry i maybe misunderstood your
01:12:38 sorry i maybe misunderstood your question
01:12:39 question uh well uh let me try a slightly different question do you know how many buildings nhbc was signing off at this point either through building control approval or through provision of warranties
01:12:50 warranties um
01:12:51 um where combustible materials such as k-15 was being used i don't i i can't put a figure i honestly was not involved in any of those buildings up until
01:13:02 those buildings up until you know my involvement in this process really started with our first meeting with wintec in november and this was all before that i knew it was all happening i could hear the noises being made
01:13:13 the noises being made i had only just joined as a specialist in about august of 2013 and
01:13:19 and there was an awful lot of other fire related issues that i was being dealing with and
01:13:25 with and you know i was i knew that there was something that had to be grabbed hold of at some point but i hadn't been asked to grab hold of it and i had a lot of other things that were occupying my mind at the time
01:13:36 were occupying my mind at the time but you had been asked to grab hold of it hadn't you because steve cook's response as i've read to you was that you and steve evans were looking to provide some better guidance and would be meeting on the subject so this was being put on your plate wasn't it yeah but what i did was
01:13:49 yeah but what i did was dictated by steve well
01:13:52 well right but you were involved in examining the question at this point um
01:13:58 um well looking at that email it appears that way but i don't really recall any
01:14:05 any discussions between me and steve particularly up until you know we we met with wintec um that was the time for me that was the kind of watershed moment that it all
01:14:16 kind of watershed moment that it all started to crystallize and i was focusing in on it right so just going back then to the email below it was we don't have it on the screen but the one at the foot of page one please we scroll down to it where steve cook
01:14:29 down to it where steve cook says steve evans and john lewis are looking to provide some better guidance and are meeting on the subject soon um did you meet steve evans and discuss this subject
01:14:40 steve evans and discuss this subject steve and i had as i said he was my direct manager we had one two ones at least once a week it's possible that you know we were it was one of a number of subjects that were on that list of
01:14:52 of subjects that were on that list of things to
01:14:53 things to of our to-do list right but by that point
01:14:56 point we hadn't really well i hadn't started to
01:14:59 to to do anything with it right but to be clear do you recall at this time late october um agreeing with steve evans to sit down and look to improve the guidance
01:15:10 the guidance i don't recall that now mr chairman i i've got one more document in this run which will take about five minutes before we turn to turn to the win tech meeting in november 2013 i'd just like to finish off and be sensible
01:15:21 just like to finish off and be sensible to do that thank you yes now let's go then to nhb50094
01:15:26 this is an email exchange a few days later early november 2013 and if we go to um
01:15:32 to um the foot of page three please
01:15:36 this is an email of the 4th of november from paul williams
01:15:45 to the southwest area technical team as you can see there and he says surveyors all
01:15:52 all amanda raised a question on the use of kingspan k15 insulation in wall constructions in buildings over 18 meters steve evans and john lewis are currently reviewing whether we can accept this product for use in this situation as we have doubts with respect
01:16:04 situation as we have doubts with respect to the combustibility aspect of the product
01:16:10 now just pausing there is that correct as a fact were you currently reviewing whether an hpc could accept k15
01:16:20 k15 we weren't no the the issue as i seemed to recall was that it had been raised to steve and me we were
01:16:32 we were you know we we had it on our to-do list well maybe i mean a to-do list uh
01:16:39 uh is exactly that um was this question being examined at that time by you with a view
01:16:47 a view to producing better guidance so that the nhbc could make a decision no i don't think at that point at the fourth of november i don't think we were doing anything and why is that
01:17:00 doing anything and why is that well for me i as i say you know what i did was
01:17:04 did was tightly controlled by steve um and i believe he hadn't asked me to do it i can't recall the timeline of when dave's email about the meeting with wintec i don't know if
01:17:15 the meeting with wintec i don't know if this was crossing over at around that same time
01:17:19 same time and whether we were just waiting until we could meet with winter and understand it more before they went do something with it i
01:17:26 with it i i seem to recall steve asking me before that meeting with wintec to
01:17:33 wintec to you know what was the synopsis of things that we were going to discuss with wintec
01:17:38 wintec but i can't recall the timeline all right specifically now let's go higher up to page three please or higher up page
01:17:45 page three and we see here an email from chris cooley four days later 8th of november 2013 to brian stevenson you don't see this but it forwards the query on from amanda
01:17:56 but it forwards the query on from amanda thought that we have just seen and the promise of guidance and chris cooley says this brian any idea how long stephen john will take as we're involved with design team meetings and need to pass on our requirements at the outset
01:18:08 pass on our requirements at the outset of the design process if we're not going to accept k-15 what are the alternatives as far as we're aware there are no other foam insulation boards that meet the requirements so all high-rise will be forced to use rockwool as you can
01:18:20 forced to use rockwool as you can imagine this will cause a major issue with our customers as they all use board insulation to gain their you values i hope steve is ready to take the barrage of inquiries now you're copied into this email
01:18:32 now you're copied into this email further up the chain uh when steve evans says he will update everyone after a meeting with kingspan the following week and they need to show you that but um
01:18:43 and they need to show you that but um if we look at your statement please page 12
01:18:46 12 paragraph 47 we've looked at this before you say there that chris cooley raised the question of the use of k-15 over 18 meters uh you you um
01:18:58 uh you you um you say
01:18:59 you say in the last line there chris cooley also raised it
01:19:02 raised it uh
01:19:03 uh were you referring to this exchange we've just been looking at in november 2013
01:19:09 2013 no
01:19:10 no right so that you say what are you referring to then there was another
01:19:15 another set of emails on a job
01:19:20 job where
01:19:21 where chris was putting it forward and
01:19:25 and i recall the email was saying kingspan said it was all right without a backing board and was that the case and my advice back to chris was
01:19:37 and my advice back to chris was that it was you know what why would we want to accept it without the backing board if it was meant to have the backing board and my suggestion was you know not that it was my decision to take but
01:19:49 not that it was my decision to take but my suggestion was that there wasn't enough evidence that we should accept it can we just go back to look at the email that we've just been looking at please from chris cooley
01:20:01 and uh no uh it's the one at page three of nhb five zeros five nine four page three please
01:20:11 yes that's the one um now just looking at that
01:20:14 at that uh you can see that he he says there
01:20:19 that uh all high-rise projects were using combustible rigid fame insulation predominantly for cost and to meet you values we've seen that do you agree with what he says was that happening
01:20:31 was that happening so where is this switch uh well uh the middle of the paragraph there are no other foam insulation boards that meet the requirements and then as you can imagine this will cause
01:20:43 then as you can imagine this will cause a major issue with our customers as they all use board insulation to gain their u-values
01:20:48 u-values do you agree with that
01:20:51 i couldn't say whether all high-rise buildings were using it um i really was not heavily involved in the high-rise buildings at this time so
01:21:03 buildings at this time so you know i have no reason to doubt with chris but we were well aware that there were other insulation products around at the time um i would doubt that it was all
01:21:16 um i would doubt that it was all right do you agree nonetheless that for nhbc to come out and say that they would no longer accept these forms of combustible insulation on high-rise buildings would if chris cooley contemplates subject nhbc to a
01:21:28 cooley contemplates subject nhbc to a barrage of inquiries well undoubtedly so yes and that presumably would then have a potential knock-on effect on nhbc's business
01:21:39 business um
01:21:41 um i don't think we the issue of the you know the business money side of it would have been the issue i think at that point it would have been how to manage
01:21:52 manage a lot of angry customers yes
01:21:56 yes and did nhbc continue to accept k-15 in order to avoid the barrage of inquiries as chris cooley put it no we just you know nhbc
01:22:07 you know nhbc at the time was it wasn't afraid of tackling
01:22:13 tackling difficult subjects and difficult issues and
01:22:16 and you know part of any regulator's role was
01:22:19 was at times that you would have to upset your customer and not let them have what they wanted and that was understood and that was the way it operated um
01:22:29 um really
01:22:30 really [Music]
01:22:32 [Music] so
01:22:32 so use the word regulator there is that how you saw the nhbc the building control services bit that i worked for as an approved inspector was a regulator yes thank you mr chairman is that a
01:22:43 thank you mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes thank you very much
01:22:46 much well um mr lewis we have a break during the morning in the afternoon and this is a convenient time to take the break for the morning so we'll stop there we'll resume please at 20 to 12
01:22:57 resume please at 20 to 12 and now you've started to give your evidence it's very important that you don't discuss your evidence or anything relating to it with anyone all right thank you thank you very much would you like to go with the archer
01:23:18 thank you 20 to 12 please
01:40:18 would you ask mr lewis to come back in please
01:40:30 right mr lewis ready to carry on thank you yes yes thank you very much yes yes mr chairman thank you mr lewis um can i then take you back to paragraph 47 of your statement page
01:40:41 to paragraph 47 of your statement page 12. we've examined it i think a number of times now and you say in the last line there oh last sentence however for me the issue really came to the forefront in november 2013 when wintec raised it as i
01:40:53 november 2013 when wintec raised it as i referenced below at paragraph 50 onwards um now let's before we go to the meeting let's go please to nhb 50604
01:41:06 and go to the bottom of the email chain on page four please and you can see there that here is an email from you to steve evans graham perrier dave white and gary jarvis
01:41:19 15th of november 2013 did you say some notes from this morning's meeting together with the first draft of an internal guidance note meeting was attended by stuart taylor winteck david watercarby watercarbie
01:41:31 winteck david watercarby watercarbie wintec graham perrier dave white john lewis so you were there yes yes yes now we'll look at the guidance note that you circulated shortly but just looking at the notes of the meeting we can see that at point two
01:41:43 at point two it says
01:41:44 it says wintek outlined the route to compliance as recommended in adb ii and then there are four bullet points underneath that let's just look at the first two a 12 power 12.7 of adb2 refers to the
01:41:57 a 12 power 12.7 of adb2 refers to the limited combustibility requirement of all elements of a cladding system including the insulation and external facing material the exclusions are smaller gasket parts and similar low-risk items adb-2 previously referred
01:42:10 low-risk items adb-2 previously referred to the insulation alone needing to be of limited combustibility but the latest document changed this to include all larger elements second bullet point use of a mulk
01:42:21 second bullet point use of a mulk material of limited combustibility will meet the requirements of adb2 and so b4 the definition is stated in table a7 of adb-2 for european classifications the
01:42:33 adb-2 for european classifications the key issue is that achieves either an a2 an a1 or a2 rating now
01:42:39 now looking at those first two bullet points as i've read to you do you know why what you've said there had to be spelled out to your colleagues
01:42:54 i think because
01:42:58 it was an area that i hadn't really researched and
01:43:04 and having it spelt out to me by wintec and then me then going and reading it all again for myself it sort of you know yes we kind of already knew it
01:43:16 you know yes we kind of already knew it but
01:43:17 but we hadn't sat and got it all clear in our heads and started to put it down on a you know together in a situation i see so and so i thought that well if that was me probably the best thing to
01:43:28 that was me probably the best thing to do is put it down in writing and try and put it in you know simple terms so that when i came back to it it was clear to me again and it would be clear to everybody else right so do we take it
01:43:39 to everybody else right so do we take it from that answer that what's written in those two bullet points there was not second nature to you before the meeting
01:43:52 sorry do you mean did i know that all already yes well yes we we kind of did but we hadn't put it together and drawn you know joined all up all the dots with relation
01:44:03 joined all up all the dots with relation to combustible insulation in high-rise buildings before looking this was the first attempt to do that
01:44:10 right now looking at the third bullet point
01:44:13 point which is quite long i'll read it to you the alternative route para 12.5 is for the client to submit evidence to us that the complete underlined complete proposed external planning
01:44:25 complete proposed external planning system has been assessed according to the acceptance criteria in br135 the method of determining this is to carry out a fire test in accordance with bsa414 part 1 if the cladding is fixed to the face of an external masonry or
01:44:37 to the face of an external masonry or concrete external wall or bs8414 part 2 if the cladding is fixed to and supported by a structural steel frame the bs8414 tests do not give a pass fail
01:44:48 the bs8414 tests do not give a pass fail answer because the data obtained is used by different bodies with different minimum requirements however for building regs any test using this method needs to be supported by proof that the acceptance criteria of
01:44:59 proof that the acceptance criteria of br135 have been met refer to pages 19 and 23 of br135 2013 for details of these again
01:45:11 again was that
01:45:12 was that well known second nature to you before the meeting or was this something that you
01:45:17 you took away from the meeting and then checked out for yourself i wouldn't say it was second nature it was
01:45:26 was i didn't know br135
01:45:29 br135 at this point i don't think i'd read it for quite a while before this um
01:45:35 um and i did know you know the a414 testing was there
01:45:39 was there again you know i we i hadn't joined up the dots as it were right now let's look at the third bullet sorry the fourth bullet point down it says this the client may instead submit a desktop study report from bre
01:45:52 submit a desktop study report from bre stating whether in bre's opinion bre 135 criteria will have been met such a report will be based upon test data which bre already has in its possession and so this option will be of
01:46:03 possession and so this option will be of no benefit if the products have not already been tested by a bre in multiple situations or arrangements other test bodies chilton warrington fire etc would also be acceptable but these bodies are not known to have any
01:46:15 these bodies are not known to have any test data
01:46:18 do you know where that idea captured by that bullet point came from did it come from the wind tech side alone or did it come from an hbc at least in part
01:46:29 least in part no i believe that came from wintec right so to your knowledge was this the first time that you had heard it mentioned this approach mentioned as an alternative to the use either
01:46:40 to the use either of the material of a limiting combustibility above 18 meters or satisfying the bre the br-135 criteria after a a bs-8414 test
01:46:52 a bs-8414 test yes i believe that was the first time that i'd heard of it and i believe that wintec
01:46:59 wintec stated it because they had
01:47:03 they had on some other schemes not ones that we'd been involved with that i was aware of that was how it had been accepted by other building control bodies right so
01:47:14 right so to shorten that answer is you'd understood from that that wintec had got a desktop from bre that other inspectors had approved maybe not wintec but
01:47:24 but you know they were obviously aware that a scheme had been approved on the basis of a desktop study from bre on some other scheme right but that was news to you that was the first time i'd heard it yes now then moving on to paragraph
01:47:36 yes now then moving on to paragraph three
01:47:37 three thermostatic insulins if we just scroll down please uh thermosetting insulants rigid polyurethane foam boards are combustible one large manufacturer undertook a successful br135 bs 8414 part 1 test
01:47:51 successful br135 bs 8414 part 1 test using their insulation as part of the cladding build up and are now stating that it is an acceptable product for use in walls exceeding 18 meters however this statement appears to be flawed because
01:48:01 because first bullet the test was to bs8414 part one cladding fixed to the face of an external masonry straight concrete external wall hence it cannot be applied to a cladding system proposed to be
01:48:12 to a cladding system proposed to be supported on a steel frame building bullet 2
01:48:16 bullet 2 the test result can only be used if the same combination of materials strict fixing arrangements is used any deviation from the tested scenario negates the result bullet three
01:48:27 bullet three as far as can be ascertained this is the only test that bre have undertaken on this product and so as there is only one set of results it is difficult to draw any reliable conclusions
01:48:40 reliable conclusions and then it goes on hence whereas a cladding system using a polyurethane foam insulin may be successfully tested in future this the insulin alone cannot be considered as being a mulc
01:48:51 be considered as being a mulc now
01:48:52 now when it refers that to the one large manufacturer did you understand who it was
01:48:58 was to whom wintec was referring
01:49:02 yes it was kingsbury kingspan now let's look at point six on the next page please page five
01:49:11 class naught does not infer any resistance to combustibility it is solely a measure of the spread of flame across the surface now uh
01:49:22 now uh was that news to you no it wasn't i i knew that already you knew that already what about your colleagues from what you could tell
01:49:33 i can't answer for them there was a lot of
01:49:36 of misunderstanding confusion i'm just looking at clause or paragraph six it's not right is it in fact that class north is solely a measure of spread of flame across the surface
01:49:48 spread of flame across the surface there's another aspect to achieving class naught as well isn't there
01:49:54 yeah i mean i think at the time i was just basically writing out wintex words right um
01:50:01 right um but you know the the inference was just because it's class o doesn't mean it's non-combustible and and that that was you know the inference of that paragraph yes and this might come we might come
01:50:12 yes and this might come we might come back to this in due course but did you understand at the time that in fact class naught was uh achieved by passing two separate bs 476 tests
01:50:22 tests parts
01:50:23 parts seven which is surface spread of flame but also part six
01:50:27 six fire propagation uh
01:50:31 uh i can't be sure that at the time i knew the full process to get to classo i knew that it was one step beyond class one and so it required
01:50:41 required more testing but i wouldn't have known the details probably at that stage did is that not something that you would have learned in the process of obtaining your qualification as a fire engineer
01:50:52 your qualification as a fire engineer not really no really no because the fire engineering master's degree you know it dealt with principles it wasn't skewed towards dealing with you know the way the uk deals with it you know you learnt how
01:51:05 deals with it you know you learnt how flames elongated how flames reacted with surfaces
01:51:08 surfaces it wasn't tied in with the uk building regulatory system or the british standard system did it teach you anything about the testing and classification systems in use either in the uk or in europe no it
01:51:19 use either in the uk or in europe no it didn't it didn't no it wasn't that sort of you know it was a you know a more academic you know fundamentals of this is how flames travel across surfaces this is
01:51:30 flames travel across surfaces this is how they can elongate this is you know how they cling to surfaces this is how to calculate the length of a flame
01:51:36 flame things like that it was all a lot of it was international stuff you know did you have any education then as part of that qualification on the building regulations and approved document b
01:51:49 regulations and approved document b approved document b i can remember the first
01:51:54 the first first time i came into contact with obviously was 1994 when i started local authority and i believe we did have some training on it then and i do recall that the 2006 version
01:52:08 and i do recall that the 2006 version i mentioned mike tucker and i know that mike was involved in some of the working groups that led up to the publication of the 2006 version and so when it was published mike tucker
01:52:21 and so when it was published mike tucker put together some training that
01:52:24 that taught us how you know what the changes were that were in the 2006 version um
01:52:30 um i also recall that i took a lot of that training and i was delivering a lot of that training on the 2006 version to other people within nhpc we might come back to that in due course
01:52:41 we might come back to that in due course if i may just park that um
01:52:44 um looking at point seven on this email he says um or you say uh rather there's a problem that other bcbs are not applying the criteria this is likely to be as a result of a lack of knowledge we should
01:52:55 result of a lack of knowledge we should be aware that by following the above approach we may be seen as being awkward or obstructive if another bcb is willing to accept it as such should the issue be raised via the building controlled alliance etc question wintek would be
01:53:06 alliance etc question wintek would be willing to give talks or presentations on the subject and was this a record of the discussion at the meeting or was it a side note to your nhbc colleagues the first sentence about
01:53:18 the first sentence about problem with other bcb's not applying it that was from wintec
01:53:24 wintec the second sentence likely to be a lack of knowledge would be in wintec and then the next part would have been my own words right so
01:53:36 my own words right so the next part being the next sentence well the next three sentences yeah two sentences and then the last sentence did wintec tell you at the meeting that they would be willing to uh provide the education yes otherwise i
01:53:48 uh provide the education yes otherwise i want to put that down yeah and now you were a member i think of the bca at the time or were you not no i was you weren't do you know who raised the idea of having the bca issue guidance on this question
01:54:02 looking at that sentence i'm guessing that myself and steve must have discussed it at some point around this time um
01:54:11 um steve was the one that had the links into the bca so it would have come from steve he wasn't at the meeting there no he wasn't no so um it would have been a discussion
01:54:22 so um it would have been a discussion after the meeting is that right that would have had to have been well i can't recall for sure but i'm we must have had some discussions before this meeting
01:54:33 this meeting um because i seem to remember steve
01:54:37 before the day before asking me for a synopsis of what we were likely to discuss um so we must have had discussions around this time as to you know what we were going to likely to
01:54:49 you know what we were going to likely to be talking about with winter
01:54:53 and i i guess for some reason steve wasn't able to make the meeting and so you know he was just keeping tabs on what we were discussing and why and and things like that so did you go
01:55:04 and and things like that so did you go into the meeting knowing already that um
01:55:09 um at least bca members would need to be educated on this subject i don't recall that i mean we may have it may have been a discussion i'm
01:55:20 it may have been a discussion i'm guessing here this is you know because it was so long ago but it may have been steve saying well if there's a you know if it's a significant issue maybe we should go via bca rather than internally within nhbc
01:55:32 within nhbc now paraphrasing some of the email above this chain we can see i'm summarizing it for you you forward the notes on to brian stevenson he responds this is on page 3 on the 19th of november if we can scroll
01:55:44 on the 19th of november if we can scroll up to that please page three and he asks whether he can refer to the guidance note uh you've attached to the email and we'll come back to you at his next team meeting and then and
01:55:55 at his next team meeting and then and then if we go to page two same day 19th november if we go up to page two um you can see that you respond that it's only in draft you see that
01:56:07 that it's only in draft you see that and then if we go to the next email up in the chain higher up on page two later the same day we can see that steve evans writes to you and brian stevenson copied to among
01:56:18 you and brian stevenson copied to among others diane marshall and says hi all i have a bca technical meeting on 9th december we if we can format this note into the bca format i can get it tabled and hopefully agreed as bca policy
01:56:29 and hopefully agreed as bca policy guidance john how will this affect the kingspan board that sparked pardon the pun oh
01:56:34 pun oh the issue off now were any of those people copied into this email members of the bca
01:56:42 i believe
01:56:45 yeah i think diane held a position at the bca and was this draft that's referred to and we will look at it in a moment was the first draft of what eventually became bca technical guidance note 18
01:56:57 became bca technical guidance note 18 published the following year in the june yes yes
01:57:02 yes yes and and if we go to your response above this at 1609 on the same day 19th of november you say this hello steve no problem i'll change the format and recirculate it
01:57:13 change the format and recirculate it from what i gather from wintec kingspan k15 was tested in one instance on a masonry wall construction on this basis kingspan claimed that it's suitable for use in buildings over 18 meters high but
01:57:25 use in buildings over 18 meters high but when you dig down to the detail it's only acceptable if the wall construction is exactly the same as that tested most of our schemes are still framed and with a metsec or similar external wall build up and say the kingspan test doesn't
01:57:36 up and say the kingspan test doesn't hold true and if we follow the adb and br 135 guidance we shouldn't be accepting it even with a cementitious liner board the product is still combustible and so doesn't meet adb to
01:57:47 combustible and so doesn't meet adb to require recommendations according to wintec kingspan proposed to test multiple combinations of cladding liner and insulation but didn't see this through after the first test hope this
01:57:59 through after the first test hope this helps
01:58:01 helps did any of your colleagues at nhbc express any dissent from the view that you've set out here
01:58:09 no not that i recall can we therefore conclude that at least by mid-november 2013 if not before that the nhbc as an organization was aware that it should not be accepting
01:58:20 that it should not be accepting combustible materials in external world buildups of buildups of walls over 18 meters buildings over 18 meters except in the specific circumstances identified by wintech
01:58:34 identified by wintech well as i say you had the adb route and then running alongside that was the bba regulation 7 route
01:58:45 so you could not i'm sorry to interrupt you but you've mentioned regulation seven
01:58:50 seven various times can we just make it clear what you're referring to yeah regulation seven is um a standard which deals with materials and workmanship um it gives various
01:59:03 um it gives various ways that materials can be deemed to be suitable this is the building regulation yes sorry yes yes thank you very much yes mr chairman i think we examined it with mr evans and if need be we can come
01:59:14 with mr evans and if need be we can come back to it we may need to yes thank you um now
01:59:19 um now subject to that question can we then go back to your statement please at page 13.
01:59:27 paragraph 53 towards the bottom of page 13 and page 54 over the top you say at 50 um at 53 i recall during the meeting
01:59:38 i recall during the meeting that wintec went through the adb routes to compliance as i'd already as i'd only been in my specialist role for a few weeks and in that time had been dealing with other fire safety issues i had not focused on this issue to the extent that
01:59:49 focused on this issue to the extent that it was discussed during the meeting after the meeting i looked further into this issue and it was clear to me that wintec was right as a result i drafted an email dated 15th november 2013 to set out these
02:00:00 15th november 2013 to set out these issues in order for the key people in nhbc to consider this carefully and then you go on at 54 from my point of view wintec was a reliable source of information in their role they generally
02:00:11 information in their role they generally designed good robust external wall systems from a fire safety point of view they would often specify materials of limited combustibility
02:00:21 however it was my experience that the building companies would often look to change the specification given that products like k15 could be used in a thinner version of the wall makeup i suspect wintek may have been frustrated
02:00:33 suspect wintek may have been frustrated by this nonetheless i considered they were motivated by raising a genuine fire safety concern and saw nhbc as a body that would assist with addressing this
02:00:44 now after receiving the information from a company whom you considered reliable and motivated by genuine concerns of fire safety did nhbc make any changes in its
02:00:55 did nhbc make any changes in its approach to accepting combustible materials in wall build ups over 18 meters
02:01:03 well the guidance notes that was the start of the process of you know making the change right
02:01:11 right um that was published in june 2014 so that's no i believe seven months later no i believe steve
02:01:23 later no i believe steve sent out an email in december 2014 clarifying to some extent nhbc's policy you're right that's 2014. we're still interested that was straight after this
02:01:34 interested that was straight after this process uh no we're in 2013. sorry
02:01:40 sorry we're still in 20 we're in november 2013 here yeah but i thought
02:01:46 i may be getting my days to confuse but i thought that steve sent out some email not long after this to
02:01:54 to clarify matters to some degree well we'll we'll come to look at a a december an early december email from steve evans later but yes um
02:02:04 um i think the answer to my your the answer to my question is technical guidance note 18. and that took i think as a matter of record
02:02:15 i think as a matter of record until june 2014 to publish yes uh
02:02:23 and that's its date issue north june 2014. uh it must have been then but you take it from me and we are going to look at it in detail shortly let me approach the question in a slightly different way
02:02:34 slightly different way did nhbc stop accepting kingspan k15 in high-rise buildings and any other and indeed any other combustible materials in high-rise buildings over 18
02:02:47 materials in high-rise buildings over 18 meters
02:02:48 meters in and from november 2013. not that i'm aware of now why not i wasn't the one that would have taken any of those decisions
02:02:59 any of those decisions that's not my ques not an answer to the question do you know the reason why nhbc persisted in accepting
02:03:07 accepting k-15 and indeed possibly other combustible materials in build-ups of walls external walls in buildings over 18 meters after november 2013.
02:03:21 all i can recall like i say is that
02:03:25 that the reference to the bba certificate indicated that there was a route to compliance fire that way and therefore nhbc didn't see a need to stop using k15
02:03:40 nhbc didn't see a need to stop using k15 and the questions particularly at that time were related to k-15 now i've read you the detailed um
02:03:49 um uh minute record of the meeting you had with wintec from what i've read to you we've seen a record there of any reference to regulation seven is that because there was no discussion
02:04:01 is that because there was no discussion of regulation seven at that meeting yes the notes from the meeting were from what i recall were wintec and the route through the adb
02:04:14 and the route through the adb do we take it from that that there was no discussion of regulation seven between nhbc and wintec at that meeting
02:04:27 i don't recall one now no
02:04:31 and if regulation seven
02:04:35 was something which as you understood it at the time blessed or sanctified the approach
02:04:40 approach that was being taken by the nhbc to accepting k-15 over 18 meters for the time being can you explain why that wasn't discussed
02:04:52 discussed um
02:04:53 um no i can't but it was on the back of after the wintec meeting that that was when we wrote to kingspan
02:05:03 kingspan and said
02:05:05 and said please tell us why your product is you know paraphrased please tell us why your product is considered okay for use on tall buildings and kingspan i believe you know came back with the bba
02:05:17 you know came back with the bba certificate as one of their supporting reasons
02:05:29 now you i think had no further contact with wintec after this meeting no and why did nhbc not have any further contact with wintec after this meeting given that the
02:05:41 given that the they had raised genuine fire concerns and had offered to assist in public education on the point well mostly dealing with wintec was via
02:05:51 via you know dave white's area of the uh you know the the the warranty standards side that was
02:05:58 that was most of what the contact with wintec i you know i understood was was to do with things you know relating to you know water ingress and things like that
02:06:09 that as far as i know wintec were still being dealt with by people in the nhbc on a fairly regular basis it me personally that was the one and only
02:06:20 personally that was the one and only time i really came into contact with them
02:06:24 them was there a concern at the nhbc so far as you could detect it that win tech might well find out that the nhbc had been signing off buildings many buildings containing k-15 or other
02:06:35 many buildings containing k-15 or other combustible materials purely on the say so of the manufacturer when that material was not a material of limited combustibility and there was no supporting bsa414 test
02:06:49 sorry what was the first part of the question well was there a concern generally
02:06:53 generally in within nhbc that wintek might discover that nhbc historically had been signing off many buildings above 18 meters which contained combustible materials
02:07:04 materials [Music]
02:07:05 [Music] without an without a bsa414 test either i suspect that windset knew of a lot of buildings that were being signed off with k15
02:07:15 with k15 not just once at nhbc but you know of many or probably all the building control bodies right now um
02:07:25 now um you i think have confirmed to us that there was no discussion of regulation seven at this time was there any internal consideration of regulation seven within the nhp within
02:07:36 regulation seven within the nhp within nhbc
02:07:37 nhbc to
02:07:38 to ensure in light of what wind tech had told you at the meeting and all the dots being joined up as you've told us nonetheless regulation 7 might provide assistance to
02:07:49 regulation 7 might provide assistance to nhbc
02:07:54 i'm trying to recall specifically but i know that steve and i had plenty of discussions and
02:08:03 and most likely after this meeting one or other others would have said we'd better see what the bba certificate says and see if that supports because that was generally the
02:08:15 supports because that was generally the next place you went to as a building control surveyor
02:08:20 we've seen nothing in the documents to suggest that there was any active consideration of regulation seven to see if it assisted the nhbc in the way in which you have told us can you explain why
02:08:31 can you explain why um
02:08:34 well it was the way building control people did it you know you you would say pull out the bba certificate let's have a look at that you know we wouldn't formalize a procedure of
02:08:46 wouldn't formalize a procedure of checking it under regulation seven regulation seven referred to bba certificates generally building control bodies are accepted bba certificates well let's look at regulation seven shall we just briefly
02:08:57 regulation seven shall we just briefly inq three zeros one four nine three zero please
02:09:07 um here it is regulation seven materials and workmanship uh and uh if we go to page 13
02:09:19 we can see paragraphs 1.15 and 1.16 under the heading independent certification scheme
02:09:31 just looking at those there i won't read them out to you but
02:09:34 but did you look at those paragraphs in october or november 2013 in the context of the problem that you were discussing with wintec at the meeting in november 2013.
02:09:47 meeting in november 2013. noah
02:09:48 noah i didn't specifically but
02:09:52 but it was just known throughout building control that bba certificates were accepted
02:10:00 accepted the full route to how that happened and came up and you know where it was written in which approved document i must have read at some point in the past but you know it wasn't at the forefront and i didn't go back to check
02:10:11 forefront and i didn't go back to check it no
02:10:12 it no right thank you so the position actually is that reg this is not regulation seven of course is it this is regulation this is within this is an approved document i think isn't it no this is um we'll get back
02:10:24 isn't it no this is um we'll get back let's go back to page one
02:10:32 well it is called regulation now it may be called regulation seven but when people refer to regulation seven and mr lewis says he means building regulation seven
02:10:42 seven that is not what we're looking at building regulation seven says very little it says nothing about um bba certificates as such it just says you've got to do the work with the right materials in the right way
02:10:54 materials in the right way well correct i mean like that that's true all right this is how you look at that mr chairman no no we don't need to look at it i have looked at it right um but what we're now looking at just for clarity
02:11:06 looking at just for clarity is um
02:11:09 an approved document as it says let me try it this way with the witness mr lewis when you refer to regulation 7 in your evidence this morning were you referring to this document on the screen
02:11:20 referring to this document on the screen in front of us
02:11:25 well it was this is the approved document that supports regulation seven regulation seven says you must use materials fit for purpose and then the guidance is to what
02:11:36 and then the guidance is to what could be considered that is what's contained in this approved document yes and it may be that i went too swiftly to the approved document in support of regulation seven but it is the the part of approved this approved document supporting regulation
02:11:48 approved document supporting regulation seven that which you were intending to refer this morning when you refer to regulation seven yes because that's the part that discusses independent certification schemes it does and and the bba
02:12:01 schemes it does and and the bba certificates were considered to be an independent certification scheme and i think just to confirm you didn't look at those paragraphs in october november 2013.
02:12:12 november 2013. i didn't simply because it was already established and well known that bba certificates are acceptable now let's go to your statement
02:12:24 let's go to your statement uh
02:12:25 uh paragraph 48 if we can please on page 13.
02:12:34 uh i'm sorry it's the foot of page 12 i think we need a 48.
02:12:41 a 48. and you say that after the wintec meeting i considered what they were saying read adb closely and realized this was a potential issue that is when i realized the issue needed to be escalated i wrote to the kingspan technical helpline on 26th november
02:12:53 technical helpline on 26th november 2013.
02:12:55 2013. now did you escalate this issue within nhbc
02:12:59 nhbc yes the email i wrote after the winter meeting was to steven diane they were i see i see so that was that was your escalation yes
02:13:08 yes as well as as i say steve and i had regular discussions about what i was doing and workload and what needed to be done now at that time so after the wintec meeting and after your report of
02:13:19 wintec meeting and after your report of it to those individuals within nhbc were there any changes made to the practice of accepting combustible products on buildings over 18 meters within nhbc
02:13:31 within nhbc not immediately straight after this no not immediately when
02:13:37 when after we'd gone to kingspan found out their reference to bba certificates looked at it a bit more found the
02:13:46 found the labc certificate things like that and that was the point that then i think steve
02:13:51 steve wrote an email to the surveyors that's 2015. no i'm
02:13:58 no i'm i thought there was an email from steve in december 2013 straight after this process you said so we'll look we'll we'll have to look at that together um but before we do let's
02:14:10 that together um but before we do let's let's look at paragraph 49 while we have it you say at the end of 2013 i knew anecdotally of projects where nhbc had provided warranty or building control where the external wall arrangement of
02:14:21 where the external wall arrangement of specify where the external wall arrangements specified a combustible material in buildings which were over 18 meters i did not know of a report in 2013 which lists projects and combustible materials nhbc systems are
02:14:33 combustible materials nhbc systems are not set up in a way where i can filter by buildings over 18 meters and where they used a specific combustible material i'm aware that in 2015 a project review was carried out which is addressed later in my statement
02:14:46 addressed later in my statement so
02:14:48 so is it right that despite knowing that
02:14:52 that this was an issue in other words k-15 should not be used above 18 meters in the absence of an a specific bs-8414 test for the specific build-up
02:15:03 build-up nothing was done within hbc by way of changing the approvals process until a project review in 2015 more than a year later
02:15:16 other than as i say the
02:15:19 the email i believe was around december 2013 apart from that the only things that changed was then later on when we found out that the bba certificate had changed again but that
02:15:30 certificate had changed again but that was not until around about january february of 2014.
02:15:39 now if we go to the attachment next of your to your email this is the first draft of the internal guidance note nhb 50605
02:16:06 uh if if if we look at that we can see that it's headed use of combustible cladding materials in residential buildings and it's a it's a draft on which we can see track changes which come from steve
02:16:18 see track changes which come from steve evans as he's confirmed to us do you know why it was headed combustible cladding materials
02:16:28 we just named it something along those lines it was a first draft it would have been my word choice of words yes why did you choose the word cladding
02:16:39 why did you choose the word cladding because
02:16:42 the issue was of you know the build-up of the insulation and the cladding finishes and all the other components that that was the the issue of
02:16:54 the issue of you know that was under consideration right so when you use the word cladding you were referring to the entire external wall build up where you not yes not not rain screen yes because i believe we tied it in with
02:17:06 yes because i believe we tied it in with the wording in regulation b41 which talked about the external walls should not be a medium for fire spread yes i see
02:17:13 see had you had any discussion with wintec wintec as well as talking about insulation um on the subject of rain screen panels and and specifically acm with the
02:17:25 and and specifically acm with the polyethylene core did that come up
02:17:30 i would i'm this is all hazy because it was so long ago but i do recall wintek saying along the lines of and it's not just the insulation you know you need to be careful about the external finish
02:17:42 careful about the external finish materials
02:17:45 materials but i didn't recall that down as such and the focus at the time i recall was very much upon the the insulation material being the risk and if we look then uh about a third of
02:17:57 and if we look then uh about a third of the way down the page um it says uh there external surfaces it's about halfway down your screen can you see that
02:18:07 that and it says the change to all external surfaces should comply with diagram 40 of adb2 what was your understanding at the time of what diagram 40 of adb2 required
02:18:21 of what diagram 40 of adb2 required well diagram 40 was giving guidance
02:18:27 guidance on you know fire spread across wall surfaces so you know
02:18:33 you know we knew that there was the two issues of combustibility and flame spread surface spread of flame diagram 40 was talking about the surface spread of flame both of the
02:18:44 both of the side of the wall facing outwards as on the the side of the you know the external finish facing into the cavity in certain situations and we'll come back to that and you go on to say further down the page under the heading
02:18:55 further down the page under the heading combustibility of cladding components in buildings exceeding 18 meters in height you say this where the building exceeds 18 meters in height paragraph 12.7 of adb2 refers to the need for limited
02:19:07 adb2 refers to the need for limited combustibility of all elements of a cladding system this includes the insulation internal lining board and the external facing material the exclusions are smaller gasket parts and similar low
02:19:19 are smaller gasket parts and similar low risk items now what did you mean by external facing material there
02:19:26 the part of the external wall system that was
02:19:31 that was outermost
02:19:32 outermost right was it your understanding that all elements of the cladding system by which i mean
02:19:39 i mean the entire external wall build up including the as you put it outermost elements had to be of limited combustibility
02:19:51 had to be of limited combustibility yes it was because in
02:19:55 in 2012
02:19:57 2012 i believe i wrote an email to the bre asking exactly that question as to whether they considered paragraph 12.7 should we
02:20:09 paragraph 12.7 should we did refer to and did include the external cladding panels and bre wrote back and said well they didn't quite commit on it
02:20:20 well they didn't quite commit on it because they said interpretation of adb is not for them but it and then it gave words along the lines of yes but it makes sense that you need to consider all the parts of an external wall that would affect how a
02:20:32 external wall that would affect how a fire was to spread up in yes we'll come to see if we can identify that
02:20:38 that exchange shortly very shortly but before we do uh
02:20:44 do uh i think you answered the question your understanding of the requirements of the of adb was rooted in that exchange was it yes i see did you
02:20:55 did you either at this time or at any earlier time than this november 2013 consider
02:21:03 consider that
02:21:03 that what you've written in that paragraph there was different from what 12.7 of adb actually said yes we were well aware that paragraph
02:21:15 yes we were well aware that paragraph 12.7 of adb didn't specifically refer to the external cladding panel but
02:21:26 but the wording of paragraph 12.7 said any insulation filler material etc and
02:21:33 and by virtue of the etc my interpretation was that the apparent the sentence was inferring that you know all parts of the external wall
02:21:45 you know all parts of the external wall needs all major components of it need to be
02:21:48 be materials of limited combustibility
02:21:52 and it goes on to say here just just following this chain of reasoning through if i may mr lewis
02:21:59 lewis therefore the use of a material of limiting combustibility for these components will satisfy the requirements of section 12 of adb 2 and part b4 the definition of a molk material of limited combustibility is
02:22:11 material of limited combustibility is stated in table a7 of adb2 so taking those two paragraphs together what was your understanding of of complying
02:22:22 complying with both diagram 40 and
02:22:26 and 12.7
02:22:29 they related to two separate sections of approved document b and both sections you know were intended to be considered by a building control body or a building designer so was it your understanding
02:22:42 designer so was it your understanding therefore that an external cladding system had to comply with both diagram 40 and 12.7 or was compliance with diagram 40 enough
02:22:53 enough so far as the range screen was concerned no both both ice specs had to be complied with did you therefore turn your mind to how that was so given that a material a limited
02:23:05 given that a material a limited combustibility if you look at table a7 had to be a1 or a2 in the euro class
02:23:12 or satisfy um bs476 part 11. in the national class whereas under diagram 40
02:23:23 diagram 40 it required only that the external wall material be class naught or class ii euro class
02:23:38 well this was
02:23:41 this was one of the things with adb it it had things in it which were slightly at odds slightly confusing and hadn't really been bottomed out
02:23:54 but the approach we took was we knew that both aspects needed to be considered i mean you know noting that adb was just
02:24:05 i mean you know noting that adb was just a guidance document but our interpretation was that you had to consider both the combustibility aspect where it was over 18 meters tall as well as the surface spread of flame
02:24:16 as well as the surface spread of flame aspects listed in diagram 40.
02:24:21 40. did you did it occur to you at the time that there might be an inconsistency between 12.7 as you read it applying to all elements and diagram 40 applying to the external surface because diagram 40
02:24:33 the external surface because diagram 40 only required class b euro class which was not material of limited combustibility yeah we were aware that there was an inconsistency yes
02:24:45 an inconsistency yes but
02:24:46 but in our view paragraph 12.7 was quite clear once you go over 18 meters these materials need to be material limited combustibility so do we take it from
02:24:59 combustibility so do we take it from that that the nhbc's thinking
02:25:02 thinking evolving of course that it was at this time through this drafting process that they would require rain screen panels used above 18 meters to be class a1
02:25:14 used above 18 meters to be class a1 or a2
02:25:16 or a2 materials of limiting combustibility and that class b would not be sufficient despite what diagram 40 said if you were following the linear route of adb specifically yes
02:25:29 the linear route of adb specifically yes that was our interpretation right
02:25:32 right and was that put into practice
02:25:36 it this was the start of that process drafting this guidance which then made its way you know conveyed to the surveyors as a
02:25:47 surveyors as a an hbc yes indeed so the start of the process which turned into option one as we'll come to see i think you'll recall in tgn 18 in june 2014
02:26:01 in tgn 18 in june 2014 meant that if option 1 was going to be pursued
02:26:05 pursued diagram 40 [Music]
02:26:08 [Music] had to be overridden by 12.7 in other words you would reject a class b panel
02:26:18 if the router compliance was citing those
02:26:21 those you know that that route through the approved document b then yes that would not be a correct way of doing it yeah thank you now let's um
02:26:30 sorry just to be very clear was it your understanding at the time that that when you say all elements that included a core of an acm panel
02:26:44 yes i we we said all elements you know really we meant
02:26:49 meant all the big elements you know things like the minor fixings and things possibly were not a big risk but the largest components of the wall system all needed to
02:27:01 all needed to meet the material limited combustibility and that
02:27:05 and that you know as i say the the core of the acm would have been included by virtue of the etc wording in 12.7
02:27:14 i want to then look at the exchange you had with the bre that you told us about and see if we can identify it can we please go to nhb402971
02:27:27 now this is an email chain between you mr lewis and tony baker from the bre in the may of 2013 and therefore just placing it in its chronology it's before you started in
02:27:39 chronology it's before you started in your position as a specialist fire engineer in the august of that year and before you were alerted to the issues with k-15 by steve cook and if we go to the first email in the chain on page two
02:27:50 the first email in the chain on page two please
02:27:51 please um it's from you to him tony baker 10th of may 2013 uh and uh
02:27:58 uh and uh it's copy to brian stevenson and others john greenhouse and chris myers who who are they can you just tell us john greenhouse at the time
02:28:11 at the time he was either a commercial building control man i think yes i think john was my manager at the time he was the manager of the commercial building control chris myers was one of the uh
02:28:22 control chris myers was one of the uh building control surveyors i believe yes now tony tony baker is your contact there and you say dear tony i hope you're well pleased to give the direct approach in this way
02:28:33 to give the direct approach in this way but i wondered if i could seek your opinion
02:28:35 opinion straight clarification of an issue relating to the combustibility of cladding systems in high-rise premises in this case a block of flats now just pausing that did you know tony baker or were you put in touch with him
02:28:47 baker or were you put in touch with him by somebody no it was um i didn't send him an email i believe on a different matter in 2012 right yes that was it i'd sent him an email in
02:28:58 yes that was it i'd sent him an email in 2012
02:29:00 2012 asking about a cavity barrier interpretation um
02:29:04 um which i think i'd sent to sarah colwell and tony baker replied so as i had him and knowing that he was likely to respond i wrote straight back to him i see so the 2012 discussion was about
02:29:15 see so the 2012 discussion was about cavity barriers i think it was right okay well let's look at this continuing with the email adb diagram 40 states that external services of cladding systems at this height should be of class b s3 d2
02:29:27 class b s3 d2 paragraph 12.9 not applicable in this case due to the residential nature also states the requirement for services for the surfaces which face into the cavity to be of a similar
02:29:38 into the cavity to be of a similar rating parent 12.7 states that any insulation product filler material etc should be of limited combustibility for this we take the table a7 definition as
02:29:49 this we take the table a7 definition as being a material achieving class a2 s3 d2 or better a classification which is higher than that for the surfaces rightly or wrongly my interpretation has been the 12.7 includes the cladding
02:30:01 been the 12.7 includes the cladding panels themselves as it seems logical to expect these to perform equally as well as the insulation in a fire situation as i understand it the issues are fast spread across the surfaces of the materials as well as combustibility of
02:30:13 materials as well as combustibility of the system bs 999 and 9991 have similarly worded clauses is this a correct interpretation many thanks in advance for your help it's appreciated
02:30:24 it's appreciated now first do you remember what it was in may 2012 2013 that prompted you to write this email
02:30:34 no i don't recall but it must have been an issue raised most likely by chris and or possibly brian it must have come from them because i
02:30:45 it must have come from them because i didn't work in the same team as chris it must have been a query that he'd said and someone had asked me what do you think i see and how had you come to the interpretation of 12.7 that
02:30:56 come to the interpretation of 12.7 that you described that did you sit down and read it did you do some research on it did you ask colleagues what did you do um
02:31:04 um no it just made sense that why
02:31:07 why make an in an insulin non-combustible when you're only going to clad it in the face with something that was combustible you know that the inference of regulation b41 was
02:31:19 regulation b41 was that the external wall needed to restrict or inhibit fire spread
02:31:25 spread and do you know what the problem was that prompted chris or brian to raise it with you i can't recall right now let's go up to the response from tony baker he comes back to you if we go up the
02:31:36 he comes back to you if we go up the page
02:31:37 page to page one please he comes back to you on the 13th of may 2013 three days later and this is copied to um the same people but also copied internally within the
02:31:48 but also copied internally within the bre to philip carney and he says this john thanks for your email we would consider that all significant elements straight layers of the cladding system should be considered as part of the
02:31:59 should be considered as part of the overall fire risk assessment for the cladding system and therefore this would include the insulation cavities within the cladding system and the external layer render system or rain screen cladding panels
02:32:10 cladding panels and obviously use and positioning of fire straight cavity barriers it is difficult to be specific as there are many different types of system available and adb itself refers mainly to the insulation also as adb is essentially a
02:32:22 insulation also as adb is essentially a guidance document it is the responsibility of the relevant authorities to ultimately decide on the applicability of specific standards and classifications for any given system design
02:32:31 design that being said bre have conducted many large-scale fire tests on cladding systems of varying design and it is clear that the fire performance depends on the overall system design and not necessarily just
02:32:43 system design and not necessarily just on individual component material classifications now
02:32:48 now looking at the first part of that answer did you interpret tony baker's response to your question to mean that 12.7 included the clanning panels or any
02:32:59 included the clanning panels or any elements of the cladding panels themselves
02:33:04 it clarified my interpretation that that paragraph in adb was referring to all the the larger components of a wall build up
02:33:15 the larger components of a wall build up yes as you said including the core of a rain screen panel yes yes
02:33:21 yes yes so can we take it from
02:33:24 from this email and what you've just told us about it that some six months before your meeting with wintec and the draft that you circulate that we've just looked at
02:33:35 we've just looked at you were advised by the bre that all elements of the external wool build up including cladding its core
02:33:42 its core and the insulation should be
02:33:45 should be of materials of limited combustibility yes yes
02:33:50 yes yes did you have any ques any reason to question
02:33:53 question tony baker's advice there as i say it fitted with my reading of and thinking
02:34:01 thinking did you bring his advice to the attention of your senior colleagues at nhbc
02:34:07 nhbc as you can see there brian and john were both in
02:34:10 both in my manner well john was my manager at the time brian was on the same managerial level as john so you you just assumed that they read it and understood it as you had well obviously chris and
02:34:21 it as you had well obviously chris and john had brought the query to me i can't remember why but obviously they had raised the query um
02:34:29 um they saw my opinion i'd gone back to them
02:34:32 them where it went from there on i kind of left to them can we look then at your witness statement please at page 15
02:34:42 15 paragraph 61a in the middle of the page middle of your screen there and you say there before january 2014 prior to us knowing about any concerns there was no particular policy when uk
02:34:54 there was no particular policy when uk 15 was being used and we would have seen the marketing literature which advises it is fit for use along with the previous version of the bba certificate which supported its use prior to 2013.
02:35:06 prior to 2013. now
02:35:08 now can you explain why it was that despite having received tony baker's advice in the may of 2013 and hbc failed to put it into practice straight away
02:35:19 no i can't because i was not in a position where i would have even been at the manager's meeting when it was discussed and i was not in a position of setting any policy
02:35:30 policy my role was simply to give advice when i was asked right
02:35:38 did the nhbc to your knowledge have any particular policy in relation to combustible cladding panels in 2013 i'm not aware of an official policy no
02:35:49 i'm not aware of an official policy no so does that tell us that so far as you were aware they were being accepted even if they were not materials of limited combustibility comprised of such i can only comment for the times when
02:36:01 i can only comment for the times when i was asked do i think that this can you know complied or not and i would give the advice in the case of an acm that you know by this time we knew of various fires around the world involving that material yeah
02:36:13 material yeah and
02:36:14 and my you know if it came across my desk i would have said you know
02:36:19 you know it should it doesn't comply it should not be used and there were occasions when that happened i think you say there were one or two yes i can't recall and i haven't got specific emails i don't think of where that did happen but like i say by 2013 there'd been well in
02:36:33 like i say by 2013 there'd been well in 2012 specifically there were quite a few fires around the world particularly in the middle east i believe involving the material you know i knew about them and i was
02:36:44 i knew about them and i was my that was my view you know it did not comply right yes thank you now um the going back to tony baker's email if we can
02:36:55 nhb402971 in the second paragraph i i've not shown you that looked at the first paragraph he says this the classification document br 135
02:37:06 classification document br 135 fire performance of external thermal insulation for walls of multi-storey buildings has recently been revised and up issued to the third edition it may be useful for you to obtain a copy of this as it gives some useful
02:37:17 copy of this as it gives some useful information in addition lpcb fire and security certification arm of bre global have published two lps standards for external cladding systems lps 1581
02:37:30 for external cladding systems lps 1581 and lps 1582 these standards use the same core test methodology bs 841 for but the criteria are higher than that of br135 having been developed to provide
02:37:41 br135 having been developed to provide additional property protection requirements for insurers did you look at either of those two documents
02:37:47 documents lps 1581 or 1582 at the time i certainly looked at them
02:37:56 i can't recall if it was at that time or whether it was later i certainly have had reviewed both those documents
02:38:06 and you'll you'll know from that review that indeed those two documents do provide higher standards don't they they do but they were geared towards the insurance industry rather than the regulatory control
02:38:18 regulatory control i understand and indeed that is what tony baker says in effect now if we go back to your first draft of the bca technical guidance note as it stood in november 20 2013. that's nhb
02:38:30 november 20 2013. that's nhb 50605 please and let's go to page 2 of that document
02:38:37 you can see there that
02:38:40 that you um in the first paragraph there you provide
02:38:43 provide for testing the complete proposed build up to br 135 i'm summarizing it but that's what you've referred to there yes
02:38:51 yes well yes testing is to a415 indeed and it's very similar to what you've set out in the note as you took from the win tech meeting having joined up the dots yes yes
02:39:01 yes yes and when did you first become familiar with br135 performance of external thermal insulation for walls of multi-story buildings third edition 2013.
02:39:12 buildings third edition 2013. um
02:39:13 um the third edition probably was after tony baker referred it to me i would think i had been involved reading the second edition on a scheme previous to this
02:39:27 but the third edition probably was that
02:39:30 was that did you look at the third edition i believe i would have done yeah i can't recall for sure can we take it that you were at least from this time november 2013 familiar
02:39:42 from this time november 2013 familiar with its contents um
02:39:47 yeah i think yes i think so because you know we referred i referred to it before i wrote the bca guidance note and this was the forerunner to that um
02:39:58 um just as a way of you know understanding the situation a little bit clearer
02:40:02 clearer now this paragraph which starts or rather the part of it that's that that starts the bs 8414 test to not give a pass fail answer
02:40:15 went into issue naught of technical guidance note 18 eventually published in the in june 2014 verbatim
02:40:26 verbatim take that from from me you can see that it says here in the in the penultimate line that the method needs to be supported by proof
02:40:35 proof that the acceptance criteria of br135 have been met what was the proof with which or to which you were referring there
02:40:56 i was i think
02:41:00 what we were getting at with those two sentences is that it has to be a test and that test has to show compliance with br135 so
02:41:10 br135 so you know the the acceptance criteria br135
02:41:14 br135 could only be met if there was the proof that was provided by the 8414 test indeed
02:41:20 indeed that's right but what doc what document did you have in mind that would contain that proof
02:41:33 well at the time
02:41:36 all there was that we knew of was the a414 test
02:41:40 a414 test so the test data yes and the graphs therein would tell you
02:41:45 you whether criteria br br135 were met if you could read them if you could understand them interpret them and apply them yes
02:41:54 them yes so do we take it from that that you were not referring by the word proof to the bre classification reports that would be generated by bre on the basis of
02:42:06 be generated by bre on the basis of those documents if sought by the manufacturer at that time we i didn't know i don't think any of us knew that
02:42:17 that following an 8414 test a separate br1 sorry br135 compliance document was issued
02:42:25 issued thank you all we knew of was the 8414 test
02:42:29 test yeah now then if we look at the third paragraph from the bottom of this document
02:42:34 document i'm sorry the next paragraph on actually um it says however if no actual fired test data exists the client may instead submit a desktop study report from a suitable independent
02:42:46 study report from a suitable independent ucas accredited testing body bre chilton fire or warrington fire stating whether in their opinion br135 criteria will have been met the report should be supported by test
02:42:57 the report should be supported by test data
02:42:59 data the test house already has in its possession and so this option may not be of benefit if the products have not already been tested in multiple situations stroke arrangements the report should
02:43:11 arrangements the report should specifically reference the tests which they have carried out on the product now
02:43:17 now this paragraph and i've read my way through the amendments that steve evans made in track change was almost word for word published in the first version of the issue nought of technical guidance note 18.
02:43:30 technical guidance note 18. what was the source of that third option
02:43:37 the first meeting with wintec set the scene that it was potentially an option that other building control bodies or that wind tech had seen accepted by other building control bodies
02:43:50 control bodies we knew that extended application reports of fire tests
02:43:56 tests was carried out and was an accepted way under appendix a of approved document b we joined the dots upon that one and arrived at this paragraph right
02:44:07 right so
02:44:08 so just to
02:44:09 just to see if i can understand your evidence on this
02:44:12 this the idea of desktops to use a shorthand came from wintec from what they said at the meetings we've seen the record of the note of which is said you then looked at that
02:44:24 you then looked at that looked at extended applications and drafted what we see here
02:44:30 um yes
02:44:35 before that you know i mean clarifying that you know this was the first time in the context of an external wall assessment that the use of a desktop assessment
02:44:46 assessment you know it was the first time i'd come across it
02:44:50 across it we had seen lots of desktop assessments of other things it was a normal way of doing things
02:45:05 you referred to extended application x app what were you referring to when you mentioned that a moment ago uh we would have we referred to the
02:45:18 we would have we referred to the the appendix a of the approved document b at the time and you know the extended application principles were laid out in in those paragraphs
02:45:30 and
02:45:34 was there any discussion that you recall between you and wintec about
02:45:39 about this the contents of this paragraph the idea of doing desktop studies at the meeting there was
02:45:49 i seem to remember that at the meeting wintec as i said before just said they had or they knew of schemes that incorporated combustible insulation that
02:46:01 incorporated combustible insulation that had been proved by virtue of an expert taking a look at it and giving their view that it would have met the requirements did you ask winteck
02:46:12 requirements did you ask winteck what it was that the death that that experience was based on
02:46:17 based on did you ask them for example well which part of the proof document be justifies that approach we didn't but we knew that it was there in adb for
02:46:28 we knew that it was there in adb for extended application where in adb in appendix a we knew that the you know the principles of how they should be done was was written down there right so when is how did this work did
02:46:39 right so when is how did this work did you go into the meeting familiar with that part of appendix a to which you've just referred or did you um did you discuss appendix a as the justification for this approach at the meeting
02:46:51 at the meeting or both i don't recall specifically but you know we knew that appendix a of proof document b was there they gave the general rules on doing extended application
02:47:02 application the fact that wintek said that they'd seen it carried out by the likes of bre kind of fitted in with that um we didn't sort of see the need to
02:47:15 we didn't sort of see the need to query why bre were doing it after the meeting and in the process of producing this draft which of course as we know accompanied the note the meeting did you look again
02:47:27 did you look again at appendix a and what you call extended applications yes because we wouldn't well i wouldn't have really wanted to
02:47:39 well i yes i would have i did go through it because you know otherwise i'd have been making it up off what i thought rather than a researched answer you know to write those paragraphs in the guidance
02:47:50 write those paragraphs in the guidance note so just to just to get the the reasoning clear you hear at the meeting
02:47:57 meeting that desktops are being used and you hear that from wintec because they've come across it in their practice and
02:48:03 and you then draft this as a as a proposed approach
02:48:07 approach having looked again at appendix a either again or for the first time and thinking that appendix they supported that approach have i got that right yes
02:48:19 going back to nhb
02:48:23 nhb 604 nhb 50604 please we can just look at that
02:48:38 i'm so sorry 605 is what i wanted sorry i'm so sorry nhb
02:48:44 nhb 605
02:48:56 you can see that um there are uh three bodies identified in that paragraph looking at that paragraph bre chilton fire or warrington fire how have you gone about choosing them
02:49:09 how have you gone about choosing them because the wording in the appendix a of approved dot can be referred to suitably
02:49:19 suitably i think i forget the wording exactly but it did refer to ucas accredited bodies the only ones that we knew of that we'd seen fire tests from
02:49:30 seen fire tests from were just those three
02:49:38 can we then go back please uh to uh nhb
02:49:43 uh nhb 40604 perhaps that should be five zeroes 604.
02:49:48 604. and hb 4040 604 i'm sorry sorry here we are that's right
02:49:54 right uh and uh
02:49:56 uh and uh if we look please
02:50:00 at the minute of the net the note of the minute on page four and looking at the
02:50:11 the third bullet point there
02:50:20 sorry under paragraph three i'm so sorry we need paragraph three for this you could see that it says there as far as can be ascertained and we've read this before uh this is the only test that bre have undertaken
02:50:32 the only test that bre have undertaken on this product and so as as there is only one set of results it's difficult to draw any reliable conclusions now this comes at the same time as we've seen as the draft how could reliable
02:50:43 seen as the draft how could reliable conclusions be drawn without with one set of test results on k15 which were available at that time
02:50:54 i think the answer is they couldn't well it wasn't something that we at nhbc
02:51:03 at nhbc thought about and considered the rules for carrying out extended application were
02:51:12 were contained in en 15725 and the pfpf guide that said that
02:51:21 said that paraphrases says that if there isn't enough evidence to do an extended application assessment then that shouldn't be done but the fact that you know the likes of bre and and others
02:51:34 you know the likes of bre and and others were doing that and were providing such extended application we just assumed that they knew the rules around doing them much better
02:51:45 the rules around doing them much better than we did and they wouldn't have provided one if there wasn't the evidence base on which to do one did you did you go to the bre at this time have you been told what you were told by wintec
02:51:58 were told by wintec for example go back to tony baker and say to him we're looking at uh
02:52:03 uh desktops as a further alternative route to compliance can you please tell us what you've been doing in this context by way of producing extended application reports for external wall buildups
02:52:16 reports for external wall buildups entire
02:52:17 entire tool building envelopes did you do that no we didn't why is that um
02:52:26 i think because at the time it wasn't
02:52:32 it wasn't you know happening on one of the jobs that
02:52:36 that we were seeing particularly at that time um
02:52:40 um i can't give any real reason we we didn't think of it at the time but mr lewis here you are proposing uh a third option i'm sure what became option three
02:52:52 option three instead of direct route compliance and instead of a full system test under bsa414 based on an extrapolation from data
02:53:05 given the importance of of what you are trying to achieve here why did you or anybody else at nhbc not think to go back to the bre
02:53:16 at nhbc not think to go back to the bre ask them
02:53:17 ask them how and in what circumstances they'd done these before and what their methodology for doing them what so that you could be satisfied that you were stipulating for something to your members that was safe
02:53:28 to your members that was safe we didn't think of it at the time are you able to explain why that is no i mean we were you know scrabbling around to try and
02:53:39 you know scrabbling around to try and get something together um to get a guidance note put together to
02:53:44 to that was useful to building control bodies um
02:53:48 bodies um why were you scrambling around surely it was a simple question of saying we shouldn't accept k-15 above 18 meters because it doesn't comply um
02:53:59 um that was not something that i i could do i mean that was you know for people above me to if that was the decision that they wanted to take that that was for them to do but
02:54:11 that that was for them to do but you know there was as i say alongside all of this a bba certificate
02:54:18 i'm not quite sure i understand mr lewis why you felt it necessary to propose this third way of doing things at all i mean all right you've been told by wintec that
02:54:30 right you've been told by wintec that they'd seen some of these studies i didn't know how much detail they told you about them was it much it wasn't i mean we just as far as i came in with kell it was just simply
02:54:41 just simply you know they were aware that a study or studies had been carried out by bre on ajob somewhere which had justified its use so why are we so keen to include this as a third
02:54:53 to include this as a third possible
02:54:55 possible route compliance because
02:55:00 i can't recall specifically but we
02:55:04 we were trying to consider all the options it was you know extended application as i say we got the idea from wintec it did make logical sense that there was that route that
02:55:16 sense that there was that route that could be followed granted that the amount of data on which to do that may not have been a great deal but
02:55:24 deal but you know equally you had to also consider the differences anyway that we were looking at you know we but you knew that there was only one test on k-15
02:55:36 one test on k-15 that was your understanding wasn't it well
02:55:39 well that was
02:55:40 that was at this stage of the game i don't think we'd even met with kingspan so i don't think we even knew that
02:55:48 that or what that one test was i don't think we'd even had a copy of it right thank you at the time it's right that you were the only qualified fire engineer within ahbc weren't you
02:55:59 weren't you well actually i've just noticed from the previous email that i wasn't actually awarded a degree until about december time anyway so
02:56:10 about december time anyway so technically i guess in november i hadn't even got a master's degree no but you've had all the education yes and
02:56:18 and you passed your exams yes yes yeah well i was waiting to find that out right
02:56:24 right right
02:56:25 right so um
02:56:26 so um at this time you weren't even is this right formally at least the qualified fire engineer in nhbc well i had the the position of the specialist building surveyor yes
02:56:37 specialist building surveyor yes i did not at this point technically have a master's degree very good but um did you understand that notwithstanding the formal position there were others more senior to you and nhbc who were relying on the expertise
02:56:49 nhbc who were relying on the expertise that you had gathered from the masters course that you that they had sponsored and you had undertaken yes i knew that there were looking to me to be you know as someone who was a
02:57:00 to be you know as someone who was a little bit more educated in fire things maybe yes looking for my opinion yes so so uh the decision all decisions that were made as a matter of policy
02:57:12 made as a matter of policy at and from this point on were made by people above you of course but did you understand at the time that they were being made at least in part based on in reliance on what you were telling them or not
02:57:24 what you were telling them or not telling them yes very much so yes yes now did you discuss the methodology that should be used when completing these desktop studies uh myself and steve i seem to recall you
02:57:36 uh myself and steve i seem to recall you know would we did discuss it a few times yes what was the methodology sorry that you know that the process listed in the appendix a of the approved document b that's sort of well we can
02:57:47 document b that's sort of well we can look at it in in this afternoon if you like but that that's not a process it's a description of
02:57:53 of of of an approach isn't it my question is a bit more bit more detailed what were the precise steps in the methodology that the bre or warrington or chilton that you expected to undertake when extrapolating
02:58:06 expected to undertake when extrapolating from test data from one build-up to an untested build-up
02:58:12 build-up we
02:58:13 we didn't have that level of knowledge we relied upon them to if they couldn't do it they should say they can't do it and was there any discussion between you and steve evans about what the minimum
02:58:24 and steve evans about what the minimum qualifications that somebody needed to have in order to be able to produce these desktop reports that was all included in the pfpf guide
02:58:36 did you have any discussion about who should be producing these reports um well
02:58:46 as i say you know at the time we restricted it just to the u d the word in the approved appendix a talked about the ucas accredited bodies we restricted the first version of the guidance note just to the ucas
02:58:57 guidance note just to the ucas accredited bodies and then the appendix aid says you know use follow recommend guidance is in the pfpf guide um
02:59:08 um and and that was considered to be taking the reasonable steps that the building control body needed to take to ensure compliance thank you very much mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes thank you very
02:59:20 a convenient moment yes thank you very much mr miller well miss luis we're going to break now so we can all get some lunch we'll resume please at two o'clock and as i said to you earlier please make sure you don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything related to it over
02:59:33 evidence or anything related to it over the break all right thank you thank you very much we'd like to give the usher please
02:59:48 thank you very much two o'clock please [Applause]
03:00:04 you