NHBC fire engineer John Lewis gives evidence about the acceptance of Kingspan K-15 combustible insulation above 18 meters based on manufacturer assurances rather than test evidence.
00:00:26 would you ask mr lewis to come back in please
00:00:42 all right mr lewis all ready to carry on yes thank you thank you very much yes thank you mr chairman mr lewis kingspan part two i'd like to go back to that topic please can we go to your witness statement at page
00:00:53 statement at page 14 paragraph 58 and uh
00:00:58 and uh there under the heading kingspan general points you say an hpc's relationship with kingspan in the period from 2005 to 2017 was not particularly good but it
00:01:09 2017 was not particularly good but it was a professional relationship we felt that they were being evasive and hiding the truth they were a big organization who seemed to feel that they could drive the market i tried to distance myself and politely refuse the office of the
00:01:20 and politely refuse the office of the office to visit their factory i wish to maintain a professional distance what were the main reasons for the as you put it less than good relationship with kingspan
00:01:36 it just the first meeting with kingspan
00:01:41 kingspan was okay
00:01:43 was okay it's quickly sort of led to us not being fully trusting of what they were saying um forgive me just just to cut through you you've identified the period from 2005
00:01:55 2005 as the period during which it was uh not particularly good is that right um to be honest no that really would be more from 2013
00:02:07 no that really would be more from 2013 to 2017 i didn't have any really relationship with kingspan apologies now in the say can we be clear then that it was only during the period from 2013 that
00:02:18 only during the period from 2013 that you felt that they were being evasive in hiding the truth yes right and
00:02:23 and those factors which meant that the relationship was not particularly good is that right that's right so before 2013 what was the relationship with kingspan like we didn't have one you didn't have one well one way or the other because i see that's never crossed
00:02:35 other because i see that's never crossed right your paths never crossed okay so now if we go to page 13 of your uh your
00:02:40 uh your witness statement please back a page to paragraph
00:02:45 paragraph 59
00:02:49 uh i'm sorry top of page 14. that's what we want
00:02:58 no i'm sorry my note is wrong 15. paragraph
00:03:01 paragraph 59b at the top of page 15 is what we want
00:03:05 want and you say um there
00:03:10 once we had the meeting with wintec in november 2013 i drilled down more into kingspan's marketing literature and questioned them regarding the change of wording to the bba certificate and the fact that there was only one bs 8414
00:03:22 fact that there was only one bs 8414 fire test as we learned more about kingspan we learned that their knowledge base was very limited how is their knowledge base limited that
00:03:32 that when we quizzed kingspan as to what evidence they had for the combustibility and the use of their product
00:03:39 product we found that there was just the single 8414 test
00:03:44 um and then other person like the bba certificate and the labc approval now you've referred in your statement to writing to the kingspan technical helpline on the 26th of november
00:03:57 helpline on the 26th of november uh
00:03:58 uh can we look at the email you sent it's at nhb
00:04:01 at nhb 50644
00:04:08 and if we go to page five of this email run i just want to ask you page five there we can see uh
00:04:18 an email uh of the 26th of november to kil pb tech line inquiries is that the email that you're referring to in your statement when you say you wrote to their helpline it is yes it is now then
00:04:30 their helpline it is yes it is now then let's trace it up the chain to page three just very quickly we can do that page three we can see you provide details of a specific project which is some pancras way you can see that
00:04:41 you can see that if you scroll down a little bit lower down page three from your third december email yes you see that and then at the top of page two on page
00:04:52 and then at the top of page two on page two of the uh you can see an email of the 12th of december 2013 and your response
00:04:58 response and it's got a long response i don't want to read it all out to you but um we can look at the first two paragraphs you say the bba certificate power 73 refers back to obtaining clarification from yourselves about the use of k-15 in a
00:05:10 yourselves about the use of k-15 in a building which exceeds 18 meters in height
00:05:14 height as far as i can see where the building exceeds 18 meters in height power 12.7 of adb2 refers to the need for limited combustibility of all elements of a cladding system both above and below 18 meters this includes the insulation
00:05:26 meters this includes the insulation internal lining board and the external facing material the exclusions are smaller gasket parts and similar lowrisk items
00:05:33 items therefore the use of a material of limiting combustibility for these components will satisfy the requirements of section 12 of adb 2 and part 4. the definition of malk as it stated at table a7 of adb2 i'm just pausing there that's
00:05:46 a7 of adb2 i'm just pausing there that's very similar to if not identical to what you had in your in your draft uh uh guidance note that you'd circulated the previous month isn't it
00:05:57 previous month isn't it yes it was guidance what is what became um technical guidance nate 18. yes i probably just copied the words yes and then the next paragraph in summary does almost the same thing so far as bsa414
00:06:10 almost the same thing so far as bsa414 is concerned doesn't it
00:06:13 it takes the you you're nodding you you have to say yes if it before i'm sorry i'm just reading it i follow let's read it through
00:06:22 i mean it is i think i i think it looks to be the same wording that i used or very similar yes yes and then you say as far as i can see only one test in accordance with br135 was carried out using bs8414.1
00:06:35 was carried out using bs8414.1 as such the use of k15 as part of any other cladding buildup fixed to the face of a building or for a cladding system fixed to a structural steel frame covered by bsa414.2 isn't allowable
00:06:46 covered by bsa414.2 isn't allowable question mark please give you advice if i've interpreted the inquirements wrongly
00:06:50 wrongly now um first was that the first time that you yourself had contacted kingspan about
00:06:56 about these questions yes it was uh and to your knowledge was it the first time anybody at nhbc had contacted kingspan about these questions
00:07:08 to my knowledge yes but i was aware that there had possibly been a meeting
00:07:15 a meeting in a london office where kingspan came into the nhpc and talked to the teams but i wasn't involved in that and i don't know what was discussed at that meeting and presumably before you wrote this email to the tech line
00:07:27 this email to the tech line no one had briefed you about that meeting
00:07:30 meeting no they hadn't no um now we can't find a response that you ever received from kingsman to this email do you recall receiving a response
00:07:41 receiving a response no not to this email i think i followed it up with another email asking for it to be escalated to their managers
00:07:49 managers now
00:07:50 now um
00:07:51 um we can see page one of this email run which is your email the next day 13th of december 2013 to uh kil copied to steve evans dave white
00:08:02 uh kil copied to steve evans dave white and graham perrier see that yes i can yes and you say hello ben thank you for your help so far you see that yes what was that what was the help so far and who was ben
00:08:14 the help so far and who was ben um ben i believe was the chap at the kingspan line that had replied to my first email um
00:08:22 um he had no he hadn't offered anything it was just me being polite right saying why did you not reply quicker but to be fair i think we'd only given them a day by this point yeah i think all you've done is given you the
00:08:33 i think all you've done is given you the given you the bba certificate in fact yes yes
00:08:37 yes yes and then you go on to say i'm my managers here at nhbc would very much like to resolve this issue with you as soon as possible could i request that you escalated your management team with a view to meeting early in the new year between both parties so that's the
00:08:48 between both parties so that's the escalation you're referring to i think is it it is yes the purpose of this email that steve said we need to keep on kingspan to not let this slip and keep on to get a
00:08:59 let this slip and keep on to get a response from them and hence that's why we wrote this along i wrote this other one so soon and then you say unfortunately given the number of affected projects that nhbc deals with we feel that we need to start
00:09:11 deals with we feel that we need to start to advise our customers the k-15 doesn't comply with the building regulation requirements or the bba certificate when used in ex on a building in excess of 18 meters high now
00:09:23 meters high now [Music]
00:09:24 [Music] it's right i think that nhbc did not in fact start to advise your customers to that effect at that time
00:09:32 time we didn't um the reason i put that sentence in was that i basically knew it would get a response from kingspan fairly sharply
00:09:44 response from kingspan fairly sharply and did it yes it did we immediately had the management replying back to me and it was that that then crystallized the meeting in january 2014 that happened next i think i believe so in reading and
00:09:57 next i think i believe so in reading and hearing what i've heard from kingspan i gather that they sort of focus mindset in their organization when you met well first question did do you remember meeting kingspan in the january of 2014
00:10:09 meeting kingspan in the january of 2014 following this exchange yes i can recall the meeting yes do you remember whether they advised you that you had actually interpreted the requirements the guidance contained in approved
00:10:20 the guidance contained in approved document b completely wrongly no i
00:10:24 no i recall from the meeting that when we put all this to them they didn't disagree with any of it or really deny any of it
00:10:35 deny any of it in the light of that therefore why didn't you do as you said you would even if by way of attention seeking in the penultimate paragraph in this email and indeed start to advise your
00:10:48 email and indeed start to advise your customers that k15 doesn't comply above 18 meters
00:10:53 it was not that such decisions were not for me to take no but
00:11:00 but indeed but uh do you know why that didn't happen given that you were at the meeting and involved in the process well i know by that stage steve had reviewed the well with the house d we'd
00:11:11 reviewed the well with the house d we'd all reviewed the bba certificate and
00:11:17 and considered that potentially all there was a route forward for the acceptability of k-15 if
00:11:25 if following the wording in the bba certificate kingspan had given their opinion view expertise to say that they considered it to be okay
00:11:36 what was the basis in approved document be
00:11:38 be whereby a route to compliance with approved document b to satisfy the functional requirement b4 was based entirely on the manufacturer's approval
00:11:52 it was i agree it was not really a very good way of doing it but
00:12:01 at the time it was not unusual for construction companies or anybody that needed
00:12:10 needed guidance
00:12:11 guidance to go to the people that had the most knowledge of a product which in the case of kingspan of k-15 was kingspan um
00:12:22 um so yes it
00:12:25 so yes it you know looking back it doesn't make a lot of sense that you would rely on a manufacturer to tell you a route through but
00:12:31 but you know there was no other body out there with knowledge particularly in kingspan k15 or of this type of insulation and how it performed in fire situations
00:12:42 situations the only people that had in-depth knowledge of that seemed to be kingsman i'm sorry
00:12:48 i'm sorry as as the soul by then formerly qualified fire engineer at an hbc did you tell your bosses
00:13:00 did you tell your bosses that
00:13:01 that kingspan that k-15 could not be used above 18 meters in compliance with approved document b full stop we we did have that conversation yes and
00:13:13 we we did have that conversation yes and therefore can you explain why it continued to be used by virtue of the bba certificate and did you did anybody ask you what the basis of reliance solely on the
00:13:26 what the basis of reliance solely on the bba certificate and by that route solely on kingsman's approval what the basis of that was in approved document b it ran alongside approved document b
00:13:38 document b it was another route by which building control bodies so was it your opinion at the time that even though k-15 didn't meet
00:13:48 meet the requirements of approved document b so far as limited combustibility was concerned and would only meet the requirements of approved document b if if contained in a
00:13:59 approved document b if if contained in a wall build up precisely the same as that tested in 2005 notwithstanding that it was all right to continue to approve the use of k-15 above 18 meters simply
00:14:10 the use of k-15 above 18 meters simply because kingspan said it was all right
00:14:16 the if it was just king span saying that we would not have gone with it it was the fact that the bba certificate said seek advice from kingsman and
00:14:26 and therefore we felt that you know that was an accepted route through to you being able to accept the product did you know at the meeting in january 2014
00:14:40 that the bba certificate had been amended
00:14:43 amended in the december of 2013. we did not know that at the time we found that out some weeks after that meeting
00:14:52 meeting and we were quite annoyed disappointed that kingspan who obviously knew it had been changed
00:14:59 changed hadn't mentioned it in the meeting with us did it occur to you given that you were in your own mind entirely reliant on kingspan say so
00:15:11 on kingspan say so and entirely reliant in turn on the fact as you thought it at the time that the bba certificate permitted that approach to go to the bba and ask them what the basis
00:15:22 basis uh what their basis was for allowing k-15 above 18 meters simply based on kingspan's approval we didn't think of it at the time no why not because
00:15:35 we you know it did not seem it didn't seem an unusual situation that the
00:15:42 the you seek advice from the people that had the most knowledge of the product
00:15:47 product um
00:15:49 um and that was kingspan were you aware in and after october 2013 and before the meeting in with kingspan in january 2014 of any
00:16:00 with kingspan in january 2014 of any other bba certificates in relation to other products which said um go and go and seek the manufacturer's approval
00:16:08 approval if you want to use it above 18 meters i wasn't aware of any bba certificates but
00:16:15 but you know typically in the construction industry
00:16:19 industry take for instance you know advice on a cavity barrier in a complex facade the normal route is that people will go to the manufacturer
00:16:30 people will go to the manufacturer of cavity barriers and say i've got this situation can you give us your advice and to me it was just a bit of a follow-on from that that you know bba said well we've seen some
00:16:43 you know bba said well we've seen some tests
00:16:44 tests but you know if you need more expert advice specific advice go to kingspan for that
00:16:50 for that so
00:16:51 so going to kingspen so what happens to approve document b you can't satisfy a proof document b you just go to the manufacturer manufacturer says it's fine and up it goes it was that the approach i agree looking
00:17:03 it was that the approach i agree looking back that that is was
00:17:06 was the approach but i don't understand looking back that was the approach you must have realized at the time you were taking and what i'm keen to understand is how you thought that was justified because the bba certificate said seek advice from kingspan
00:17:19 said seek advice from kingspan in use of their product over 18 metres in the course of your education to be a as a fire engineer were you told that notwithstanding that a particular product did not meet the
00:17:31 product did not meet the requirements or the guidance in approved document b it was perfectly acceptable approach simply simply to rely without question
00:17:40 question on a bba or like certificate no obviously we were never taught that no but if i could just say at that first meeting we had with
00:17:52 at that first meeting we had with kingspan
00:17:53 kingspan they brought along you know i can recall now them saying that
00:18:00 that yes it's a paraphrased yes it's a combustible material but look here's a video of us firing a blow lamp at it and as you can see it doesn't burn particularly
00:18:12 doesn't burn particularly the issue we've got is this we just don't have a great deal of evidence that meets the uk way of doing things but you know again paraphrase trust us we use this a lot on tall buildings around
00:18:23 use this a lot on tall buildings around the world and it's accepted and you thought that was unacceptable independent robust way of holding kingspan to account for the use of combustible meat material above 18 meters not really no
00:18:36 material above 18 meters not really no no so why did you let it continue i know you say it wasn't your decision why did you let your bosses continue to approve k15 given that you knew it was dangerous um
00:18:47 um i did i seem to recall i did on several occasions point out that this was getting flimsier and flimsier the way you know we were accepting this product was
00:18:59 we were accepting this product was just you know it was not the more we got into it we were not getting a greater feeling of comfort it just seemed to be getting flimsier and flimsier now let's then move forward in time and
00:19:10 now let's then move forward in time and we'll come back to the bba certificate and due course mr lewis let's go to nhb50688
00:19:18 uh and uh the second email down in the chain at the foot of page one is an email
00:19:23 email um of the second of april 2014 from your colleague dave white to technical services managers copied to you and steve evans and graham perrier can you see that
00:19:34 can you see that i can yes uh yes uh it's right at the foot of the page and if we go over to page two please at the top you say um
00:19:42 um or it's he says i should say and hbc we go to the top of page two
00:19:59 top of page two of this email run
00:20:06 thank you um fyi to clarify in response to various emails below first bullet nhbc had a follow-up meeting with kingspan today to discuss further testing in relation to fire performance of the k-15 insulation board product on
00:20:18 of the k-15 insulation board product on walls above 18 meters although some additional testing has been recently done there are still and this is now in bold no further reports yet issued to prove performance
00:20:29 reports yet issued to prove performance for a typical multi-story frame building where the wall build up includes light gauge stud framing filled with insulation and covered by exterior grade fire resistant sheathing board onto which k-15
00:20:41 which k-15 uh is
00:20:42 uh is uh
00:20:43 uh is fixed
00:20:45 is fixed so to clarify on the current situation for walls 18 meters and above and this is in bold the and then this is in cats only wall build up for which we have full proof of fur performance
00:20:57 full proof of fur performance of k15 is for a block work masonry backing wall and i'm using a raised voice to indicate the cats ie is described in bre fire test report
00:21:08 test report 220876 for kingspan insulation on a multi-story wall tested as defined by br135 and bs8414 part one this is referred to in bba certificate zero
00:21:19 referred to in bba certificate zero eight four five eight two but may not be absolutely clear from the way it's presented in the current certificate we plan to review this again with kingspan pending results from ongoing bre fire testing in the coming months
00:21:30 testing in the coming months now you were at that meeting i think weren't you sorry which day was this this is early april 2nd of april 2014. this was the second meeting we had with kingspun yes yes and you were there yes yes yes so did you do you remember did
00:21:42 yes yes so did you do you remember did you discuss with kingspan at that meeting the letters that they were providing to the nhbc about k-15 on on projects
00:21:49 projects over 18 meters which had been registered before january 2014 based on the bba certificate
00:21:59 i can't recall specifically what was discussed but i'm sure they would have been discussed at that meeting yes well we have notes of the meeting uh and they're at appendix um a it's nhb
00:22:11 it's nhb 50853 at page 12. we just quickly look at that
00:22:19 um there it is we've looked at this document
00:22:23 document and you can see the meeting is referred to in the second second part of the page um what we have in fact is what looks like a cut and paste in the third fourth and fifth bullet points
00:22:35 bullet points if we scroll down to the foot of page two from the email we've just looked at and there's no reference to any letters there
00:22:42 there that they've been providing
00:22:45 to you sure it's right that in fact there was any discussion at that meeting about letters i can't recall do you know why it wasn't at this time given the terms and tenor
00:22:56 given the terms and tenor of the email we've just been looking at and and what one might call the takeaway from this meeting why it was that nhbc did not simply draw a line under the use of k-15 at this point and say we're not
00:23:09 of k-15 at this point and say we're not going to approve the use of k-15 above 18 meters anymore unless you provide us with
00:23:17 with a with test data for the particular build up which conforms with bs8414 either parts one or two and br135 the reason i believe
00:23:30 that it continued was the change had occurred as of
00:23:37 as of 1st of january 31st december that was taken as nhbc gave that as a cutoff between the old bba certificate and the new bba certificate
00:23:49 certificate so the old ones were being dealt with via the letter from kingspan the ones after that were the ones where we were seeking the you know a more
00:24:00 you know a more deeper assessment and more clarification on how it could be done they were schemes which were for which the initial notice was submitted
00:24:12 the initial notice was submitted and these schemes being as big as they were
00:24:15 were we knew that we had several months a year maybe more before they those schemes came up to the point at which they were asking for a final certificate
00:24:26 certificate and under the building regulations you know at the point up until then is still work in progress it's not deemed to be compliant or non-compliant that
00:24:37 to be compliant or non-compliant that only you know comes to the crunch at the end of the job when the final certificate has been issued then as a regulator you're committing you know that you've assessed it and you consider it to be in compliance with building regulations
00:24:50 compliance with building regulations so we knew that we had several months of
00:24:54 of this
00:24:56 this you know of this well we had several months in which kingspan could come up with a justification to prove it before we were in the situation where we had to nail our colours to the master as it
00:25:07 nail our colours to the master as it were see when do you remember when you first
00:25:11 first saw
00:25:12 saw the new bba certificate and realized that it had been replaced in december 2013. it was when i believe it was dave wasn't it dave white sent a copy around
00:25:24 wasn't it dave white sent a copy around um it's just further upon this yes emails on here i think it it's in this timeline
00:25:30 uh if you could just go up here you're right it is yes 19 it looks like 19th of march
00:25:39 um could you just go for another page please
00:25:46 yeah page 11 does that help you
00:25:51 uh it looks like 24th of february 2014. does that does that help you i'm just reading it
00:25:59 yes that would right that would be that right yes yes thank you now can we then go um
00:26:05 go um back please to nhb 50688 and the email at the top of the chain of the third of april 2014 this one is from philip pettinger
00:26:16 this one is from philip pettinger a special projects manager at nhbc and he's replying to dave white's update on the meeting with kingspan and he says um without exaggeration i should say i'm sorry mr lewis you're
00:26:28 should say i'm sorry mr lewis you're sent this email as well as dave white you're a direct recipient of it and he says without exaggeration every underlying done in bold every building srpm deal with which are over 18 meters
00:26:40 srpm deal with which are over 18 meters in height on extremes now pushing 250 meters in height proposed stroke have used kingspan k15 and i would guess that 90 or more in bold are light gauge steel
00:26:51 90 or more in bold are light gauge steel in-fill-framed walls with either brickwork and or rain screen external clouding this would include building control jobs also on warranty only jobs we are accepting k15 if the building control body is happy and deeming to
00:27:03 control body is happy and deeming to comply they always are and do exclamation mark we are adopting the same approach to our own warranty and bc jobs subject to our surveyors and then this is emboldened in red for emphasis just for clarity and to
00:27:16 for emphasis just for clarity and to avoid confusion are our building control teams accepting k-15 this for these types of jobs at the moment
00:27:23 moment it would be good to know as we get asked by various developers and contractors this question will come up in a meeting next week for a 75-storey resi building and suspect it will be the key factor as
00:27:34 and suspect it will be the key factor as to whether nhbc undertake the bc or not however tower hamlet's officer john mcgeary is also looking at this situation and is fully aware of the issues not sure of his decision on though they will be the alternative bc
00:27:46 though they will be the alternative bc provider
00:27:48 provider now i'm most interested really in the first two paragraphs and the red bold in the at the beginning of the third you've addressed this email in your statement and
00:28:00 and i'm summarizing mr lewis said correct me if this is wrong but you agree i think that most buildings were steel framed but you disagree that every building used k-15
00:28:09 used k-15 um that was your position in your statement just help us what type of insulation was predominantly being used on tall buildings of the kind to which mr pettinger is referring here
00:28:20 to which mr pettinger is referring here no the
00:28:21 no the go-to product was kingspan k15 right was was acm um [Music]
00:28:28 [Music] were acm rain screen panels also being routinely used over 18 meters at this time not that i recall now what kind of panels were being used
00:28:39 what kind of panels were being used predominantly or was there no predominant type of panels there wasn't really i mean at the time we were i remember when we did the review in 2015 we were finding a lot of brick facades
00:28:51 we were finding a lot of brick facades we found quite a few solid metal sheet facades
00:28:55 facades terracotta was another one that was being used various high-pressure laminates rock panels there were there was a range i mean and obviously acms were in there as well of
00:29:06 obviously acms were in there as well of varying types as an hbc specialist fire engineer would you be consulted on very tall buildings in other words buildings pushing 250 meters
00:29:17 pushing 250 meters no not necessarily right why is that
00:29:22 because the srpm teams were much more
00:29:29 much more knowledgeable of facade systems and cladding systems than i was at that point
00:29:34 point my knowledge was very much developing as quickly as i could at this point and
00:29:42 they were dealt with you know i was i was a you know a specialist within the technical services dealing with a whole range of fire issues not specifically just dealing with a
00:29:53 specifically just dealing with a high-rise the high-rise tended to be in london tended to be dealt with by teams that had worked on high-rise for many months years um
00:30:04 um and so i wasn't routinely brought in just
00:30:08 just examining that answer does that tell us that in fact your qualification as a fire engineer
00:30:17 engineer although you had specialist knowledge of fire what it was how it grew how it spread how it behaved you didn't have a specialist knowledge of the testing
00:30:28 of the testing regime
00:30:29 regime and you didn't and you weren't a cladding or facade specialist either i think that's fair to say right i certainly wasn't the facade specialist i didn't know probably more about the fire testing than possibly others did in the
00:30:40 testing than possibly others did in the nhpc at that point were those limitations that you've explained to us about which surround your expertise as a fire engineer known to steve evans
00:30:52 engineer known to steve evans diane marshall ian davis
00:30:55 ian davis um yes i believe so yes now the um the email as it says as i've shown you in the middle paragraph says what it says i've read it to you um
00:31:06 to you um one can read it um would it be fair to to say that
00:31:12 that while steve evans and you had been setting up the guidance for the acceptability of combustible materials what happens on site is completely different
00:31:22 which paragraph are you referring to sorry the middle one the one on warranty only jobs yes in other words um
00:31:32 um building control bodies always accept k-15 above 18 meters as a matter of practicality notwithstanding what approved document b says that was the feedback that we were getting was that
00:31:45 that we were getting was that i wasn't aware of any building control body i wasn't hearing of any that were kicking it back as it were and
00:31:53 and you know we were seeing the jobs from both the warranty side and the building control side the building control and hbc
00:32:03 and hbc probably carried out building control on less than half of the jobs which to me meant that you know over half of the the jobs were being dealt with by other building control bodies and
00:32:14 and the
00:32:15 the the refusal or the kickback from those building control bodies was not there um
00:32:21 um i in other words you know those other building control bodies as far as i could see were were accepting it um
00:32:29 um i mean i do recall later on on some jobs where we did say you know are you sure your building control bodies got this right we would receive letters and we saw letters you know
00:32:41 letters you know very many of them being from labc local authorities saying you know we accept the use of kingspan on this product on this building we don't have a problem with it
00:32:52 don't have a problem with it and that was the general way things seemed to be happening at the time by this time though your knowledge of the acceptability of k-15 had evolved so that you were now clear in your mind
00:33:04 so that you were now clear in your mind that it it should not be on buildings above
00:33:07 above 18 meters save in a work build up that conformed to the 2005 8414 test yes it was yes um and therefore did you not think to yourself
00:33:18 therefore did you not think to yourself that there was a problem out there of a generic problem with building control because they were routinely accepting k-15 and had historically been doing so on buildings above 18 meters yes
00:33:32 on buildings above 18 meters yes yes
00:33:33 yes that would sum it up quite neatly i would say yes right thank you
00:33:42 and what was your reaction when you saw this email is it was it telling you something you knew already or did it come as a there was no surprise in this we right apart from you know we i
00:33:54 we right apart from you know we i couldn't say with any certainty that every building um but certainly we knew that an awful lot of them were proposing it right so
00:34:03 right so would it be fair to describe nhbc's knowledge at this time early april 2014 as knowledge of mass non-compliance so far as k-15 was concerned
00:34:15 so far as k-15 was concerned on high-rise buildings well it's hard to say it was non-compliance because as i say the bba certificate it could mean that the other building control bodies again were relying on the bba
00:34:26 again were relying on the bba certificate as the route through to compliance so i don't think you can say it's non-compliance well
00:34:34 well possibly you can i don't know where it legally sits
00:34:42 did you ever seek to explore with other building control bodies at this time whether
00:34:53 whether in accepting k-15 above 18 meters before the end of 2013 they they had relied
00:35:00 relied and relied solely on the bba certificate as it then stood or whether they had any other
00:35:11 or whether they had any other view
00:35:11 view or understanding on the basis of which they could accept k-15 above 18 meters did you do that no we didn't we didn't do that
00:35:21 do that why is that um
00:35:23 um really it was very time pressured at the time we were you know we had a lot of jobs in build at the time which we knew we
00:35:34 which we knew we had to resolve in some shape or form um and it was i wasn't just doing claddings i was doing a lot of other fire related issues you know there was a lot going on at this time
00:35:45 this time well let's turn now then together to the bba certificates themselves given the importance uh in relation to k-15 first i think and then generally can we go to your statement please at page 15.
00:36:00 and if we look at paragraph 61 be on that page we need to scroll down a bit further we looked at this before but i just look at it again it says as of january 2014 when the concerns were being raised this was when
00:36:13 concerns were being raised this was when we picked up on the change of wording to the to the bba certificate which stated the need to refer back to the manufacturer and just pausing there you identified for us the
00:36:24 for us the circulation of the bba certificate at the end of february 2014 but were you aware of the fact of the change before that because you identified january there as the date the first i knew about it was when dave
00:36:36 the first i knew about it was when dave sent his email i see it may have not been january it may have been february i can't recall for sure can you recall whether it was before or after your first meeting with king so it's definitely after the festival thank you
00:36:47 definitely after the festival thank you now and then then goes on steve evans policy was then to obtain confirmation from the manufacturer for every project so the bba certificate requirements would be fulfilled in this way the bba certificate would satisfy the building
00:36:59 certificate would satisfy the building regulations now on the change of wording are you referring here to the removal in december 2013 to be precise the 17th of december 2013
00:37:12 to be precise the 17th of december 2013 of the subsection in it that said in buildings with a floor more than 18 meters above ground level advice should be sought from the certificate holder yes
00:37:22 yes now we looked at steve evans at some examples of the confirmations received from kingspan i'm not going to show you the same but would you agree that they were generic and were not in-depth analyses or scientific
00:37:34 analyses or scientific examinations for each confirmation yes i would agree yeah now
00:37:40 now we can go to it if you want to but do you remember that the bba certificate for k-15 which was reissued on the 17th of december 2013 removed that clause
00:37:52 that clause so just to be clear the policy that steve evans wanted confirmation from kingspan for each build-up was for projects that were registered before january 2014. that's right yes
00:38:04 that's right yes and do you remember when that policy began was it when the nhbc started asking kingspan for what had been referred to as comfort letters or another time
00:38:19 i'm struggling to remember because i thought steve sent something out in december 2013 as well
00:38:28 as well um which said that which said
00:38:35 i can't recall when it was whether it was then or whether it was later he did send something out in december 2013. we're going to come to that but we need to
00:38:43 need to well we'll come back to that question perhaps and it's answered due course um but the previous policy uh had that been running since the inception of the bba certificate for
00:38:54 inception of the bba certificate for k-15 in october 2008 when the clause was first put in it was it wasn't a formal policy i i think it was
00:39:05 policy i i think it was you know the general way was that it was considered k-15 was considered to be okay and when it was looked at why it was considered to be okay you know someone say well the bba
00:39:17 you know someone say well the bba certificate says that so on that basis i don't think it was really ever challenged particularly it was taken as being well if it's got bba go back to the uh go back to kingsman i
00:39:28 go back to the uh go back to kingsman i said i can't speak for everybody in nhpc you know i only came across that situation
00:39:34 situation once in 2013 on
00:39:38 on the job that i mentioned you know the same pancreas way and
00:39:43 and you know all that all those details were submitted from the contractor all the stuff from kingspan saying their reasoning why they considered it to be okay at what point
00:39:55 at what point to the best of your recollection did uh
00:39:59 did uh nhbc
00:40:01 nhbc cease
00:40:02 cease accepting k15 above 18 meters based solely on kingspan seiso
00:40:12 well the we knew the date was 17th of december 2013. i believe just for ease they said well let's just run that till the end of the year and we'll start from the first of january and we'll go from
00:40:23 the first of january and we'll go from that date and so that was the cut-off date between the old and the new yeah it was uh as we know from mr evans evidence but when was when was that approach that that policy um inaugurated
00:40:36 approach that that policy um inaugurated when did that start happening uh it wasn't on the first it wasn't no it wasn't it was after them it was it was after
00:40:44 after well as after we seen the new bba certificate we wouldn't after that that the policy had to be transmitted to the surveyors that this certificate changed but when after that how long after that i can't recall
00:40:56 how long after that i can't recall um now here in your statement you say in this way the bba certificate would satisfy the building regulations uh we may have covered this before when discussing the approved document giving guidance on
00:41:08 the approved document giving guidance on regulation 7 but in what way could a bba certificate satisfy the building regulations it is as i say they it's that is it yes right
00:41:19 right um
00:41:21 um if we go to page 45 of your statement
00:41:26 paragraph 172a
00:41:30 at the foot of that page you say the mention of the bca guidance note was suggested as there were concerns on the wording used in the bba certificates
00:41:43 i felt that this wording could be heavily influenced by the manufacturers and resulted in confusing or embellished certificates which albeit factually correct sometimes made important information difficult to read
00:41:54 information difficult to read now what you're saying here is in the context of a much later exchange
00:42:01 exchange it's the
00:42:02 it's the discussions within the bba or with the bba that nhbc had in november 2015 so almost
00:42:10 so almost two years later my question is when did you yourself first begin to suspect that manufacturers could as you put it influence heavily influence
00:42:21 influence heavily influence the language of these certificates
00:42:28 i felt it was telling that the words of this paragraph to refer back to the certificate holder had been removed from
00:42:39 had been removed from the 20 pre-2014 bba certificate and the the post 2014 bba certificate um
00:42:47 um to me that you know it the reason well i i guessed that the reason it had been taken out was because bbi were no longer comfortable without wording being in
00:42:59 comfortable without wording being in there
00:43:00 there and at their insistence it had probably been removed because
00:43:05 because if kingspan had been instrumental in it for any particular reason then i would have expected they would have told us that reasoning at the meeting in january and
00:43:16 reasoning at the meeting in january and you know they made no mention of it no
00:43:23 but when you did discover the change in the certificate you didn't go straight back to kingspan and
00:43:31 and point it out to them and ask them for an explanation as to why they kept quiet about it did you i can't remember what we did um i don't think we've seen any documents that suggest that and you don't say it in your statement no um
00:43:43 in your statement no um it would be in the timeline you know that it would have said in there as to what emails were sent by who to whom i thought we'd i thought nhbc responded to it quite quickly and sent
00:43:56 to it quite quickly and sent i thought i can't remember
00:44:03 going back to your statement then at page 44 please if we can just go back a page to paragraph 170b you can see that you address the second issue of the bba certificate for k-15
00:44:15 issue of the bba certificate for k-15 published in december 2013. you see that under b there and you say this little roman one i believe that one of our surveyors possibly chris cooley brought this
00:44:27 possibly chris cooley brought this certificate to my attention although i cannot remember the details on how i got involved and when concerns were brought to my attention i remember that concerns were raised internally about this change as the reference to the certificate holder confirming that the configuration was
00:44:39 confirming that the configuration was acceptable was removed the only route for compliance permitted by the certificate was the single configuration under the bs8414 test our concern was with kingspan we only had one bs 8414 test conducted in 2005.
00:44:53 had one bs 8414 test conducted in 2005. it is around december 2013 time that we then started engaging in the dialogue with kingspan having reviewed the evidence given to the inquiry i've discovered that kingspan used a different version of k15 during the 2005
00:45:04 different version of k15 during the 2005 test i was unaware of that at the time now just focusing on the first three roman numerals there the clause in the bba certificate for kingspan k15 before
00:45:15 bba certificate for kingspan k15 before the december 2013 reissue in other words the version issued in 2008 and then 2000 and then 2010 and then again in july 2013 uh had the um advice sort should be
00:45:28 uh had the um advice sort should be solved from the certificate holder provision in it yes yes yes and it didn't say did it that the certificate holder could confirm acceptable build ups over 18 meters
00:45:38 meters didn't say that did it it didn't use those words but do you know why the nhbc and apparently nobody else interpreted it that way
00:45:49 um
00:45:53 they just simply said for buildings over 18 meters seek advice from the certificate holder yes but it doesn't it doesn't say um that the certificate holder could
00:46:05 um that the certificate holder could say yes or no to whether the build up over 18 meters it was acceptable so my question my question is why did an hpc interpret it that way we just took
00:46:17 hpc interpret it that way we just took the assumption that that
00:46:21 we it we took the assumption because it had been tested for a configuration and
00:46:30 and therefore
00:46:32 therefore we thought well it possibly can be used on high-rise the
00:46:41 the bb-8 no sorry the like i said there was the 8414 test there was the video of the blow lamp
00:46:47 blow lamp you know at the time it was not ringing
00:46:52 ringing alarm bells with us that this was a product which was a massive risk on tall buildings
00:46:57 buildings um
00:46:58 um it was more that and you know with the assurances and comforting words from kingspun that it was just a matter of proving the compliance that it obviously was going
00:47:10 compliance that it obviously was going to be okay but this is the kingsman's words they felt it was going to be okay but
00:47:15 but it was just a matter of they didn't have the paperwork to to back that up and hence why kingspan said please bear with us we can't get the paperwork overnight it takes time to do these tests bear with us a little bit
00:47:27 these tests bear with us a little bit we'll get it together and then everyone will be happy and that was the
00:47:32 was the you know the the how things were left really at that time right
00:47:37 right just
00:47:38 just let's just focus though on the words in the bba certificate and bear in mind as you've told us that the bba certificate was as you thought
00:47:52 justified as a as reliable as far as the nhbc was concerned by approved document b and therefore the phrase advice should be sought from
00:48:03 the phrase advice should be sought from the certificate holder was something nhbc could rely on now given that you knew that it wasn't a material of limiting combustibility and and given that you knew it in any part it had only passed one very specific
00:48:14 it had only passed one very specific full system buildup my question is what advice did you think kingspan would be giving to a building owner seeking approval
00:48:27 to a building owner seeking approval or to a building control officer asking the question other than yes this is exactly the same as tested in 2005
00:48:38 as tested in 2005 or no this is not exactly the same what other advice could kingspan give that sat within approved document b
00:48:51 there wasn't really any advice that sat within approved document b
00:48:56 b i do recall on a scheme before this where the contractor had gone to kingspan
00:49:04 kingspan and the paperwork that came back from kingspan
00:49:08 kingspan was
00:49:10 was in their words i seem to recall it said along the lines of we tested it to 8414 part one
00:49:17 part one and we used a very thin panel as representing worst case conditions and therefore given that it passed under on this type of test they were
00:49:28 on this type of test they were comfortable that it would pass on other forms um and their you know their emails and responses back would be along those lines you know indicating that they'd thought carefully
00:49:39 indicating that they'd thought carefully and
00:49:40 and you know whereas we realized afterwards of the a414 test from 2005 was actually on quite a robust construction kingspan were putting it forward is that it was you know quite a weak
00:49:51 it was you know quite a weak construction and therefore if it passed that one then anything else would you know would many other types of cladding would also perform okay did you ever ask yourself the question when you saw this
00:50:02 yourself the question when you saw this bba certificate and realized that it was being relied upon to justify the use of k-15 above 18 meters did you ever ask yourself the question what advice is it that kingspan would be giving
00:50:19 no it didn't did it not occur to you leave aside whether or not the bba certificate was the route
00:50:26 the route did it not occur to you that going to a manufacturer and asking them is this okay above 18 meters was not a route to compliance with adb
00:50:38 well as i say the bba certificate gave the indication that if you did go back to kingspan and seek specialist advice from them then
00:50:51 specialist advice from them then you know that you would end up with a safe build-up did you ask yourself the question i wonder where bba have got the idea from that asking the manufacturer for whether or not
00:51:03 for whether or not this
00:51:04 this its own combustible material can be used above 18 meters comes from well i kind of felt that kingspan must have influenced the wording to get that in there
00:51:17 wording to get that in there but equally on the other side i felt that
00:51:22 that it wasn't that unusual as i said earlier to go back to a manufacturer for specialist advice on their product well that might depend on the nature of the specialist advice you're seeking but on what basis
00:51:34 you're seeking but on what basis did you think kingspan could tell you that k15 was suitable for use over 18 meters if it didn't satisfy the requirements of adb i mean what was the thinking into
00:51:47 adb i mean what was the thinking into your understanding going on at kingsford the the thinking was along i mean it was not very rigorous thinking but it was surely kingspan they sell this all over
00:51:59 surely kingspan they sell this all over the world they put it on lots of high-rise buildings they must know that it's safe it was that sort of a thing well it's safe because they think it's safe
00:52:07 safe unfortunately yes not because of any testing or analysis or no it was coupled with you know well it has passed some testing for use on high-rise um
00:52:19 for use on high-rise um and that was you know
00:52:22 you know and like i say with other things mixed in there as well you know don't forget that we also like i say the blow lamp test
00:52:29 test we
00:52:29 we didn't place any reliance on the labc approvals but we know knew that they had also looked at it and come up with some you know consideration that it was safe
00:52:40 you know consideration that it was safe it
00:52:41 it didn't strike us that you know the whole thing was pointing to everybody in the industry seemed to think it was basically a a fairly safe product and we
00:52:53 and we rightly well wrongly went along with that really we didn't scrutify scrutinize that to a much level greater level of death right thank you
00:53:06 you were aware i think from what we've seen october certainly november 2013 of a br 135 third edition yes yes
00:53:20 2013 of a br 135 third edition yes yes you would therefore have been aware is this right that within the indus the appendices to br 135
00:53:29 br 135 appendix a dealing with masonry part 1 and
00:53:33 and appendix 2 dealing with steel structured frames and it's b both of those had a paragraph in them the gist of which was
00:53:44 the gist of which was that
00:53:46 that the
00:53:47 the results
00:53:48 results of a bs-8414 part one or part two test could only be used to justify the inclusion of any of those components in exactly the same wall build up yes
00:53:59 in exactly the same wall build up yes yes
00:54:00 yes and therefore in order to justify the use of k-15 in any build-up other than that which had been tested in 2005 as referred to in the bba certificate that had run until december 2013
00:54:12 december 2013 you would have needed to see as many different build-ups sorry as many different bs8414 tests passing br 135 as there were buildups out there yes
00:54:23 out there yes yes did you ask to see all the many thousands of or at least hundreds of br 135 criteria satisfied under bsa414
00:54:35 135 criteria satisfied under bsa414 tests that surely must have existed if king spam were to be believed we did ask kingspan for their tests they produced only that one
00:54:47 they produced only that one only one and yet there were many as we've seen from the passenger email many these are very neutral word there are many
00:54:55 many high-rise buildings with kingsman k15 on them
00:54:58 them did it occur to you that at that time either that kingspan had radically
00:55:03 radically misunderstood whether deliberately or otherwise
00:55:06 otherwise the
00:55:07 the provisions of 8414 br 135 and the alternative route to compliance uh
00:55:14 uh or that you were going along with that misunderstanding by permitting that situation to remain
00:55:23 sorry i lost track of the question well let me try it more simply um
00:55:27 um once it had become apparent to you that they could only produce one set of test results it must have been clear to you that there were simply no test results supporting the many different build-ups that contain k-15 out there yes that became very clear to us and when did
00:55:39 became very clear to us and when did that become very clear to you well it was very clear after the first meeting with kingsman when we realized they only had that one test and why at that point did you not then bring down the shutters and say no more k-15 above 18 meters
00:55:50 and say no more k-15 above 18 meters until you've got a test for that build up or that build up or that build up because king span said we've got this all these tests booked on all these different materials just give us a few weeks we'll have the
00:56:01 just give us a few weeks we'll have the evidence for you and everything will be fine what to justify the historic position
00:56:06 position well to justify that it was use you know issues on all these various different types of clotting so were you expecting to see hundreds if not thousands of vs eight four one full text we weren't expecting that many but we
00:56:17 we weren't expecting that many but we did expect you know five or six more tests on a bigger range of materials do you accept this proposition as a matter of common sense that buildings on whose initial notice was
00:56:29 buildings on whose initial notice was served before the 31st of december 2013 uh were
00:56:34 uh were no more or less safe than buildings in respect of which the natives are served on or after the 1st of january 2014. i
00:56:43 i accept that yes yes and you accept i suppose also that the combustibility of k-15 was the same uh either at 10 to midnight or 10 past midnight on the 1st of january 2014. yes
00:56:56 midnight on the 1st of january 2014. yes i accept that yes therefore why did the fact that there had previously been an unreliable and unsafe bba certificate as you came no doubt to see that it was i mean the
00:57:07 no doubt to see that it was i mean the history
00:57:08 history should should continue to be repeated
00:57:15 i have no answer i mean it was i was just one of a group of people that were looking at this issue at the nhpc i gave my views on the fire aspect of it
00:57:29 the rest was really for others to decide upon
00:57:34 upon now let's uh look a little bit more closely at the guidance given to nhbc staff over the bba certificate and you referred earlier in your evidence to an
00:57:45 referred earlier in your evidence to an email in december 2013. uh i i just wanted to look at that nhb 50615 please six one five
00:57:58 and if we go to page two
00:58:02 um we can see that this is an email at the bottom of the chain first one second of december uh from steve evans to you use of kingspan cool phone k15 rain
00:58:13 use of kingspan cool phone k15 rain screen board hi john you see that i hope that you had a good weekend i'm proposing to send the email below to all technical staff today as this was discussed at length at the managers meeting any comments
00:58:24 meeting any comments and the text says dear all in italics there has recently been some confusion in respect of the use of kingston cool them k-15 rain screen board in buildings over 18 meters in
00:58:35 board in buildings over 18 meters in height the confusion has arisen in respect of whether the material can be treated as a material of limiting combustibility the product has a current bba certificate attached which indicates that it is acceptable for use in
00:58:46 that it is acceptable for use in accordance with the proof document b volume 2.
00:58:50 volume 2. 7.1 and the 7.1 is the provisional certificate the bba certificate does seem to qualify this however by then going on to say that in situations over 18 meters advice
00:59:01 that in situations over 18 meters advice should be sought from the certificate holder 7.2 we're currently investigating this with kingspan and we are awaiting a response from them however until we are in a position to say otherwise an hbc's
00:59:12 in a position to say otherwise an hbc's bcs's current policy is to accept the use of this material in rain screen and masonry construction over 18 meters and if we go to the next email up in the
00:59:23 and if we go to the next email up in the chain to page one we can see your response the same day 2nd of december 2013 and you say this hello steve i'm not too sure about this one i think it would be better to wait until
00:59:34 it would be better to wait until kingspan clarified things question mark i don't agree that there's confusion about the mulk classification this type of insulation board is combustible and doesn't meet the mold classification bba
00:59:45 doesn't meet the mold classification bba certificate power 7.1 is referring to its class naught rating not its lc limited combustibility properties it's badly worded but i still don't think it implies that k-15 is a molk
00:59:56 implies that k-15 is a molk para-72 states that reference needs to be made back to kingspan before accepting it in a building over 18 meters so if we send out an email to all staff i think we should state that whilst we are obliged to accept it in
01:00:08 whilst we are obliged to accept it in principle it is a requirement of the client to obtain this advice from kingspan and present it to us before we can formally accept it in the situation proposed
01:00:18 uh and then there's a text a bit of text set out which i think you've drafted yes underneath that i think i or amended yes and then if we go to page two
01:00:29 and then if we go to page two um you can see that that then ends and then you go on to say the trouble is but i don't think kingspan will be able to come up with the required goods exclamation mark but at least we've dug into it a bit deeper
01:00:42 into it a bit deeper now first
01:00:44 now first um if we just could go back up please to page one
01:00:49 page one where you say we're obliged to accept it in principle you see that yes why did you why were nhbc obliged to accept k-15 in principle
01:01:01 it comes back to the fact that there is a bba certificate that says
01:01:07 that says on a taller than 18 meter building seek advice back from the certificate holder that you know to me in a way suggested that
01:01:19 that we were kind of not well maybe obliged is not the right wording but it was going to be very difficult for us to refuse it um to accept it you know if there was a
01:01:31 um to accept it you know if there was a bba certificate that indicated a route to compliance and accepting it but it didn't indicate a route to compliance that's the problem isn't it it was indicating uh a route but not to one which was
01:01:43 but not to one which was sanctioned by approved document b no but we
01:01:49 no but we took it everybody i believe at the time that read that took that as indicating that that was the basis on which it could be accepted
01:02:01 accepted did you think at the time that bba the bba had got this right or got this wrong when saying that although it's not a mulk
01:02:11 mulk seek advice from the manufacturer if you wish to use k-15 above 18 meters again as i said earlier it didn't seem
01:02:22 out of the question that you would go back to a manufacturer for specific advice on their product um
01:02:31 um with that you would ex be expecting that the manufacturer was you know giving good advice were you not interested to sorry i'm so sorry did you want to complete your own
01:02:42 sorry did you want to complete your own no i was just saying you know you expect you would expect it was possibly a misguided you know way of doing things but you know the assumption rightly or wrongly was that the
01:02:53 rightly or wrongly was that the manufacturer would know the most about the product and be able to advise on its best use
01:02:59 best use and again the answer may be the same but let me just try it anyway according do you accept that according to approved document b you were obliged in fact to refuse
01:03:09 refuse approval to k15 precisely because it was neither a material of limited combustibility nor being used in a cladding system tested under b8414 and certified to br135
01:03:23 it was not as as i've said it was not as clear-cut as that because you had the bba certificate and then within the adb you then have the extended application routes right so at this point this
01:03:35 routes right so at this point this precise point december
01:03:39 december 2013
01:03:40 2013 why not then go to the bba and say we have this certificate it's got this provision in it can you please explain what the basis of your putting that in there was
01:03:51 there was why didn't we know you didn't do that at that stage and indeed not for a long time
01:03:56 time afterwards why is that um
01:04:01 um for me i was looking more at the fire you know technical aspects of things
01:04:09 things i didn't have routes into bba i didn't know
01:04:13 know who they were and
01:04:16 and you know
01:04:17 you know i was
01:04:18 i was well amongst me steve graham
01:04:22 graham i was you know junior to them so things like that i would have left to them to do and you say at the end of this as i've shown you at least we've dug a bit
01:04:33 shown you at least we've dug a bit deeper
01:04:34 deeper what did you mean by that could you go back to that because this of course page two you're quite right now absolutely page two after the text you say the trouble is i don't think kingspan will be able to come up with the required goods
01:04:45 goods uh
01:04:46 uh but at least we've dug into it a bit deeper could you just go up the page a little bit more please um go back to page one yes yeah i just can't remember
01:04:58 yes yeah i just can't remember one second if i read it please yes of course
01:05:11 i think what i meant by that was you know we were now routinely on every job from here on going to go back to kingspan and say we want to see your advice please mr
01:05:24 we want to see your advice please mr kingspan for this particular job and the cladding systems on it and be very specific and that was you know what i meant by us we were going to dig a bit deeper on
01:05:35 we were going to dig a bit deeper on specific you know on each job
01:05:39 but unless you got test data which passed
01:05:44 passed or satisfied the requirements of br135 um
01:05:49 um they were never going to be able to satisfy you were they not following proof document b route no well there's no other route is there well as i said in that last paragraph i didn't think
01:06:01 in that last paragraph i didn't think they were going to be able to come up with anything exactly so at that point having dug as far as you had by this stage why not simply by this time say to king span no
01:06:12 by this time say to king span no that was
01:06:13 that was not for me as in my position to do i understand that but why can you explain why your seniors didn't um well as i say you know there was this long
01:06:24 long period of time before it was going to
01:06:29 sorry no let me think again because this was before that change in the king sponsors in the bba certificate yes and at this time i think it's right to say you didn't actually know that there was even going to be a change we didn't
01:06:43 sorry mr mills could you repeat your question again well my question really is although it wasn't your position to make policy decisions
01:06:52 decisions why did your seniors not at this point say no to kingspan no k-15 above 18 meters um
01:07:03 um i don't know i would guess that
01:07:10 we needed to there was there's there was definitely going to be a big knock-on effect you know the to suddenly pull the rug from the acceptance of
01:07:22 pull the rug from the acceptance of kingspan was going to leave you know at this time just before the end of a year was going to leave an awful lot of buildings
01:07:31 buildings that could not complete in time you know for the end of the year and that was a cut-off date in most house builders diaries
01:07:38 diaries um people wanting to move in by christmas it would have had a massive knock-on effect across the industry um
01:07:48 um and i think that that had to be handled very carefully you know and that was what my managers were aware of was that that had to be handled in a careful way
01:07:59 in a careful way i repeat again you know that we were
01:08:03 we were in probably less than half the cases the building control body on these jobs these you know so we would have been the only ones going and saying it's clearly wrong when other building
01:08:15 it's clearly wrong when other building control bodies and you know again with the labc certificate we're saying no it's actually fine and that was going to be a very difficult situation to justify
01:08:27 be a very difficult situation to justify um
01:08:28 um that it would have been a you know very difficult to justify in that way
01:08:35 hmm
01:08:43 let's look at the certificate bba 6037
01:08:51 if we go to the first page at the bottom we can see in the light gray box
01:08:58 that it's signed off you see that on the 27th of october 2008 and then there's a very small text underneath that that says certificate amended on 6th of april
01:09:09 amended on 6th of april 2010
01:09:11 2010 and this certificate was then itself published on the 12th of july 2013 and still current at the time of these emails as you've just told us you weren't aware
01:09:22 as you've just told us you weren't aware of the imminent change if you go to page 5 we can see clause 7.2
01:09:28 7.2 and the seek approval wording
01:09:32 wording there it is uh and if we go up to 7.1 you can see that k15
01:09:37 that k15 it's classified as class naught or low risk you see that yes i can see that and you pointed that fact out to steve evans i think in your email yes um if you look at the second
01:09:48 email yes um if you look at the second paragraph it says that england and wales k-15 can be used in accordance with a number of parts of adb including 12.7 do you see that yes indeed when did
01:10:02 12.7 do you see that yes indeed when did you first notice the presence of the reference to 12.7 in this certificate
01:10:12 i believe it was that the sequence of events was i wrote to the kingspan helpline um
01:10:22 um asking for their reasons why they considered it acceptable they wrote back to me and they enclosed a bbi certificate which was the 2008 version which didn't have that reference into it
01:10:36 which didn't have that reference into it then in the subsequent email discussion between me and steve he
01:10:42 he wrote
01:10:43 wrote you know that he'd obviously sorry steve had then downloaded from the bba certificates website this version now i
01:10:53 now i took a cursory look at what steve had emailed and didn't at that point realize that it was a different version to the one that i'd already looked at which did not say the 12.7 thing
01:11:04 not say the 12.7 thing so when i reply back to steve's email about you know i don't think there's any confusion blah blah blah um i hadn't noticed that there was this other certificate that had this wording
01:11:15 other certificate that had this wording on it so
01:11:16 on it so it would have come out i guess after steve obviously wondered why we were talking across purposes and
01:11:24 and pointed it out to that point i see i follow and this would have been because i think you we saw you going to the helpline on the 26th of november 2013. this would all have been within the same decision
01:11:36 the same decision within a few days yes this was all happening quite rapidly and yes this was just one email i looked at briefly and commented right right did you sorry could i just point i mean another our
01:11:47 could i just point i mean another our issues with the bba certificates were that they were quite confusingly worded um so if you go to the first page of this one yes can we do that page one please
01:11:59 please you would expect sorry the second page please if if page page two right
01:12:16 h2
01:12:20 well just looking at page one you know behavior in relation to fire the builds will not contribute to the development stages of a fire yeah i mean that to
01:12:30 that to your average building control officer i say average i don't mean it's disrespectfully but to most building control people that think well that means it's not going to make a fire worse so it's pretty good
01:12:41 worse so it's pretty good you would also look at this section here under regulations you know it gave text about fire performance and yet regulation b4 or any regulation b is not cited in that area there about
01:12:54 is not cited in that area there about all this lot so it was all very confusing that they had this you know acceptance via the regulation seven and yet this front page didn't indicate it being a big risk
01:13:07 indicate it being a big risk and the regulation section not really specifically saying yes or no towards regulation b and those what you just told us with those thoughts that you had at the time when you first saw the bba certificate
01:13:18 when you first saw the bba certificate whether it had come from um kingspan or whether it had come from the website well these were thoughts i had about bba certificates which probably not at that time but you know
01:13:29 probably not at that time but you know as i read them more and more later on you started to feel that you had to read between the lines a little bit on a bba certificate because the wording could be quite
01:13:39 quite confusing well we need to be careful mr lewis not to confuse your thoughts at the time which i'm interested in with your opinions about the document which evolved
01:13:48 evolved later and perhaps during the process of preparing to give evidence at the time late november early december 2013
01:13:58 2013 did you have did you espouse the views about this bba certificate then that you're now telling us about
01:14:07 i can't recall that i did specifically know no um but i did certainly look at you know it was
01:14:15 it was i was only asked by steve really about the uh refer back to the uh certificate holder
01:14:21 holder could do you remember whether before you responded to steve evans second december 2013 email you you had noticed the presence of the reference of 12.7 there on page five i hadn't noted that
01:14:33 there on page five i hadn't noted that at all i didn't notice that until i think steve pointed it out to me after he sent me that draft of that email to to consider okay but at that point you noticed it well he pointed out to me and
01:14:44 well he pointed out to me and i thought well he's obviously incorrect because it is a material it's not a material limited combustibility indeed
01:14:51 indeed and
01:14:53 and given that 12.7 had somehow got into this certificate did that not alert you to the fact that this was at least in that respect an
01:15:04 this was at least in that respect an unreliable document um
01:15:08 um well it i put it down to being a typo um it didn't necessarily mean that the whole certificate was unreliable but clearly it had missed something in the uh the final proofread well it's
01:15:21 uh the final proofread well it's missed something it had obtained something and something pretty dramatic in the final proofread i can't recall though if there was text in this one about
01:15:31 about the combustibility classification though well if we go to just go back to page five rather than arguing about about its words my question is is this quite simply when it says
01:15:43 is this quite simply when it says in 7.1 approved document b paragraphs 12.5 12.6 and 12.7 when you didn't when you did i uh noticed that because steve evans
01:15:54 i uh noticed that because steve evans had brought it to your attention did it not occur to you that's an obvious error um
01:16:01 um yes it would have done and did you not therefore think to yourself i wonder how that obvious error could have got into this document i didn't question it in that way no i just
01:16:13 didn't question it in that way no i just assumed that it was a typo right looking at it now i can see that there is no reference anywhere else on this area about it not being a material of limited couple stability
01:16:24 material of limited couple stability exactly and therefore this dock did not occur to you at the time this document was an extremely dangerous one it didn't occur to me at the time no can you explain why that is um
01:16:36 no because well as i say we were focused more on the 7.2 issue
01:16:44 that was where we were looking as to well
01:16:47 well if it was suitable over 18 meters what did you need to do to get this advice and what advice you know were we looking for given the fundamental nature of the era of presenting k-15 as a
01:16:59 of the era of presenting k-15 as a material of limited combustibility as this certificate does i i just want to know why it is you didn't contact either kingspan or the bba to ask them how this era had arisen
01:17:10 bba to ask them how this era had arisen um at the time i think we well i was focused on other things i i don't know i i did not do it
01:17:18 do it we'll come back to the bba certificates mr chairman is this a convenient moment if it suits you yes well we're going to have another break now mr lewis and we'll come back please at 25 to 4
01:17:29 at 25 to 4 and again i'll ask you not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything to do with it while you're away from the room all right thank you thank you very much
01:17:46 thank you mr millet 25 to 4 please
01:36:36 would you ask mr lewis to come back in please thank
01:36:51 all you mrs yes thank you thank you very much yes
01:36:54 much yes mr chairman mr lewis uh i want now to turn to
01:36:58 turn to the uh new certificate we saw that on the or we i told you i think was that on the 17th of december 2013 the bba certificate changed so far as k-15 was concerned and
01:37:10 changed so far as k-15 was concerned and deleted the contact the manufacturer clause clause 7.2 and also the clause indicating that uh it complied with um 12.7
01:37:20 12.7 can we look then in the light of what i've just said to you at nhb 50689
01:37:30 this is an email string in february 2014 and if we look at page two we can see steve steve evans is emailed to you on the 25th of february 2014. let's just look at that he says john missed you off the circulation list for
01:37:42 missed you off the circulation list for some reason even though i've asked you to do something dave is off till thursday saying may be wise to source the bba yourself and um if you look um below that
01:37:54 at what is sent this is on page three at the top of page three you can see that um steve evans is asking dave white to forward a copy of the bba certificate that you've referred to in the memo and the memo
01:38:06 to in the memo and the memo is something we saw earlier with all the bold and capital letters so this is this prompts the bba certificate as revised to get circulated and
01:38:17 and what uh
01:38:18 what uh he's asking you to do is to assess the bba certificate against rbc policy as set out in my email of the 27th of january 2014. yes
01:38:28 yes and um you then respond at the top of the chain
01:38:34 the chain bearing in mind the date of the question 25th of february the top of the chain is your response on the 9th of may 2014. you see that and you say hello steve i've taken a look at the current bba certificate the relevant bit is
01:38:46 certificate the relevant bit is extracted below and we'll come to the rest of this email in a moment but first do you know why it took you two and a half months or so to respond to his request no i don't i don't recall it was unusual because we were
01:38:58 it was unusual because we were generally quite quick on this thing and steve was always chasing me for things right
01:39:04 right can you explain why this did not conform to the usual way of things i can't i don't recall we can see that you go on here to set up the behavior in relation to fire
01:39:15 the behavior in relation to fire part eight uh extracting from the bba ema certificate uh and it lays out the detailed build up from the successful bs 8414 test in 2005.
01:39:28 bs 8414 test in 2005. you can see that at 8.2 and then you also transpose into your email the little little
01:39:35 little footnote at the bottom in the smaller print which says the test result
01:39:40 result relates only to the specific construction and a separate test would be required to establish the performance of any other combination of materials and then underneath that 8.3 which says that the product incorporated in the
01:39:52 that the product incorporated in the construction defined in section 8.2 can be used in buildings with a floor more than 18 meters above ground level fire break should be used at every floor level after the first floor and then you say this i'm not actually
01:40:04 and then you say this i'm not actually sure how we can justify accepting it exclamation mark even the bit about an assessment by kingspan has been removed and the words now say that any other combination of materials needs a
01:40:15 combination of materials needs a separate test and the test is to bs8414 part one which is specific to masonry walls
01:40:22 walls we can't see a response to that email from steve evans do you remember did he agree with your assessment
01:40:32 i can't recall i mean by the time we got to may things had moved on again with i believe you know i recall that
01:40:44 do you know why it took until february 2015
01:40:47 2015 as we'll come to see for nhbc to actually to change its policy about the acceptance of k-15 and only to accept it if the initial notice had been lodged before the 31st
01:40:58 notice had been lodged before the 31st of december 2013. well in the interim period of time we were hopeful
01:41:06 hopeful that
01:41:08 that kingspan would come up with
01:41:12 you know a bulk of evidence which would show that actually their product was okay with the myriad of different cladding facilities it was used for um
01:41:23 um and that period of time just seemed to just keep dragging on you know we thought we were at the end of it and they would ask for a bit longer and we thought we were getting closer and it never came and i think that was yes it took until
01:41:35 and i think that was yes it took until 2015 before the decision makers at nhbc decided that you know enough was enough
01:41:46 you know enough was enough uh as the resident fire engineer at least say people thought you were at nhbc
01:41:51 nhbc why were you happy to keep accepting k-15 in build-ups that had not been tested to
01:41:56 tested to 8-4-1-4
01:41:58 8-4-1-4 because i think by this stage we were asking for
01:42:06 you know the equivalent of the option three assessment i don't think we quite published it by this stage but you know we were asking for that third-party extended application
01:42:17 that third-party extended application report i believe
01:42:21 right when did that start that policy or process
01:42:27 well i thought that steve's emailed to the surveyors once we found out about the change in the the kingspan certificate and then i think he made a distinction between the pre
01:42:40 he made a distinction between the pre 31st to the 12th 2013 and the post ones and i recall there was an email i thought it was in february saying from here on we want any build up
01:42:52 any build up from new schemes to be justified to you know by kingsman under an extended application right
01:43:00 right so
01:43:01 so leaving aside the precise chronology is it the case then that a policy had begun to take root within nhbc of accepting desktops
01:43:14 of accepting desktops done by
01:43:15 done by reputable test houses in respect of particular buildups using k15 over 18 meters i believe that was in place for the schemes where the initial notice had
01:43:27 schemes where the initial notice had been served after the 31st of december 2013. we were not seeing many because those schemes were in their infancies
01:43:38 those schemes were in their infancies and getting around to designing the cladding packages generally hadn't happened by that point but does it come to this that those initial notices that have been received but before
01:43:50 but before the first of january 2014 which included k-15 above 18 meters would be accepted with no further questions asked simply because of the historic bba certificate
01:44:01 historic bba certificate uh
01:44:02 uh it was along those lines i don't know if who
01:44:05 who can't recall if we were asking those people to go back and get yes i believe we were asking those designers to go back to kingspan and ask for you know something
01:44:16 you know something the advice well the advice from kingspan that was cited in the bba certificate and what was that advice that you saw uh it tended to be
01:44:28 you know a letter from kingspan giving their opinion that they considered it to be okay in the build-up that it was proposed but as we discussed earlier not a reasoned or detailed analysis
01:44:40 detailed analysis featuring an examination of the precise build up the products use the materials used the orientation i agree it was not an extended application in the terms that you would expect for a pfpf test now
01:44:55 i want to ask you about celetex next and we'll come back to kingspan um but you say in your statement that you disagreed that k-15 was being used on every building over 18 meters but pir was being used
01:45:06 being used uh and we can look at the statement if you like but when you refer to pir what were you referring to we were
01:45:13 we were really
01:45:14 really well really we were talking about this family of
01:45:19 family of insulations included phenolic pir and pur congratulations i see let's look at your statement please page 30 paragraph 107.
01:45:32 and you say in the middle there my knowledge you see you say my knowledge of the celetex rs5000 product was that it was in the same product family as k15 pir
01:45:43 in the same product family as k15 pir and pur insulation i cannot recall for certain when it came to my attention we did not go into the same level of depth as for k-15 because it was much less common for builders to look to use this product
01:45:54 product was philip pettinger right then when he said in april 2014 as we've seen the buildings over 18 meters were using k-15
01:46:04 it was the go-to product as far as i knew um
01:46:08 knew um i just wasn't in a position to verify what phil said were you aware that celetex was contacting nhbc in 2014 asking for advice on their standards in order for them to tailor their testing for rs 5000
01:46:22 them to tailor their testing for rs 5000 under bs8414 i
01:46:26 i can't recall it if i did know about that then it would have been you know over the coffee discussions with dave in in the milton keynes office i see you weren't involved in that i
01:46:37 i see you weren't involved in that i wasn't involved in those no um right let's see how we go then with this uh let's look at nhp50748 this is an email chain from august 2014
01:46:49 this is an email chain from august 2014 at a time
01:46:51 at a time when i say this very generally when rs 5000 was launched having apparently passed a
01:46:57 passed a bs 8414 test to br 135 on the 2nd of may 2014 that's the history
01:47:04 history uh it's a long chain we need any i think go to the third email down on page two please if we do that this is from steve evans to to gray dave white graham perrier and you
01:47:15 white graham perrier and you you see
01:47:16 you see 8th of august and he says hi all noel has found this product we can't find a bba certificate at present but it claims to have had a test making it suitable
01:47:27 test making it suitable over 18 meters although i suspect this is the same as k15 only in the configuration tested
01:47:35 uh and uh you then respond if we scroll up please to the top of well i think we need the bottom of page one top of page two
01:47:45 and bottom of page one your response 12th of august and if we go to the top of page two you say the most noticeable thing is the use of non-combustible fire cement
01:47:57 use of non-combustible fire cement panels on the external face but at least say they claim it's tested on a steel supporting structure and not a masonry wall i guess that's a step forward from the situation with k-15
01:48:08 the situation with k-15 why was that so noticeable which aspect
01:48:14 the test on this steel supporting structure or the use of the non-combustible fire cement panels well
01:48:22 well you say
01:48:24 you say the most noticeable thing is the use of non-combustible first cement panels on the external face why was that so noticeable because it was obviously
01:48:35 it was obviously well
01:48:38 it was we were likening it to the k-15 2006 test
01:48:43 2006 test where
01:48:44 where they used quite big thick robust external panels um which we were suspected were to assist it to get through the a414 test right so you're referring to the malia
01:48:57 right so you're referring to the malia turnit
01:48:58 turnit panels yes you may not have known that that's what they were but that's what you were referring to the the the rain screen effectively yes right but it was noticeable to you because it was thick and non-combustible yes yes
01:49:11 it was thick and non-combustible yes yes we were seem to be just going down the same route that we've gone down with the k-15 2006 test right and the step forward was that it was on a a steel supporting structure
01:49:22 was on a a steel supporting structure and not a masonry wall yes
01:49:27 and at the very top of the chain we can see dave white responds to you and those on the chain he says hello uh john graham and i are currently reviewing a fire test report and supporting information provided by
01:49:38 supporting information provided by celetex for this product we recently had a meeting at their factory premises and have since received a final version of the br e5 test report however the sample test as reported was a wall type with very robust
01:49:49 a wall type with very robust construction i.e the thickest boards were specified for both the rain screen and a fire resistant magnesium oxide backing board fixed us sheathing behind the celotex insulation product i think that once we've had time to look at this
01:50:01 that once we've had time to look at this in standards and technical it would be useful to discuss this with you and steve meanwhile if you want to read the report just let me know and i will forward it to you we should deal with the fire test information as commercial and confidence at the moment
01:50:13 and confidence at the moment did you read the bre fire test report do you recall i recall it was sent to me i think by nigel edison in a separate email but it would have
01:50:24 in a separate email but it would have been around about this time because i think
01:50:27 think as soon as it was released they put it out there yeah um it's certainly correct you are right as a matter of chronology that it was um my question is did you actually read it yes i did
01:50:40 it yes i did having ready did you notice within the report the bre report a photograph of some white boards which which are in fact white magnesium oxide boards behind the cladding panels at two points on the
01:50:52 the cladding panels at two points on the rig
01:50:54 rig i
01:50:55 i noticed that there was a photograph with orange boards and white boards did you wonder what they were i
01:51:02 i just assumed that these were samples that were left over the color didn't matter in a fire test so they just used these boards because they were you know no point throwing
01:51:14 they were you know no point throwing them away
01:51:15 them away i didn't read anything more into it than that right did you have any discussions within nhbc about what those boards might be no or whether or not the um description in
01:51:26 or whether or not the um description in the bre report for rs 5000 second of may test um accurately listed the components
01:51:39 no i mean we i looked at it i looked as closely as i could um
01:51:44 could um i didn't notice anything untoward in any of the tests now i want to show you nhb 50784
01:51:53 this is an extract from dave white's review of the fire test report and his subsequent correspondence with john roper at celetex and this is the letter of the 29th of september 2014 that the panel may
01:52:07 september 2014 that the panel may recall
01:52:08 recall having been shown in the autumn of 2020. if we go to page two we can see in the first paragraph that dave white writes this at our previous meetings i took care when explaining the
01:52:20 meetings i took care when explaining the limitations into testing fire performance of any wall type where the key details were not representative of typical actual facade systems this included some constructive feedback on your initial prototype drawings
01:52:31 on your initial prototype drawings however when we finally saw that the actual test had included some very large format thick cladding boards and unusual detailing the immediate comment was that this test installation was not sufficiently representative of typical
01:52:43 sufficiently representative of typical rain screen designs normally found on high-rise residential buildings whilst this arrangement was resistant to early temperature rise within upper story levels the overall fire behavior indicated that the facade had only
01:52:55 indicated that the facade had only limited fire resistance and continue to burn extensively in excess of 30 minutes um
01:53:02 um first do you know what the unusual detailing was that he's referring to there no i i knew that dave was somewhat annoyed that
01:53:13 was somewhat annoyed that having sat with celetex to discuss what they were going to test and dave had said you know test something which actually gets built and i know that dave was quite annoyed when the test came in and
01:53:25 quite annoyed when the test came in and it used a build up which was not really very seen very often um
01:53:32 um i don't know what unusual detailing dave was referring to though right did you agree the the build-up that celetex tested was not representative of the typical rain screen design
01:53:45 i did at the time and i'm but i'm struggling now to remember what the whole build-up was right well i don't think i need to spend time listing it for you but do you remember
01:53:55 remember well let's go over the page and look at the third paragraph from the bottom
01:54:02 uh he says in terms of an hbc acceptance our technical view is that the fire performance of celetex insulation shows limitations in the actual fire resistance relying heavily on a specific and unusual facade construction type
01:54:14 and unusual facade construction type including thickness and actual i'm sorry and layout of key parts of the clouding system to provide partial fire resistance just stopping there did you discuss this test with dave white do you
01:54:25 discuss this test with dave white do you remember
01:54:30 we did discuss it yes did he talk about or did he mention his concerns to you that he's expressing here
01:54:38 here i understood that
01:54:41 it was dave's concerns were the fact that the cementitious the ethernet panel was with such a thick panel um then we never really saw that used very often did you
01:54:53 really saw that used very often did you agree with his view that the build-up tested did not represent those used on real-life buildings well
01:55:00 well i mean it could have been used it wasn't one that we saw used very regularly and it certainly wasn't a test carried out on you know in the worst worst case as it
01:55:11 you know in the worst worst case as it were after the bsa414 test for rs 5000 in 2014 do you remember whether the nhpc witnessed a rise in the use of rs 5000
01:55:23 witnessed a rise in the use of rs 5000 in uh external wall buildups on buildings
01:55:26 buildings over 18 meters in height
01:55:29 not that i recall now
01:55:33 now i want to ask you then about technical guidance note 18 issue naught published in june 2014 um if we go to that please it is at nhb
01:55:45 um if we go to that please it is at nhb 50760
01:55:52 and we can sit there on your screen use of combustible cladding materials on residential buildings
01:56:00 buildings it's a document we've seen a number of times
01:56:04 times and
01:56:07 it contains a number of options on page two if you just go to that option one and option one is taken verbatim i think from your original draft note that you'd circulated in
01:56:18 draft note that you'd circulated in november
01:56:19 november 2013 and had amended slightly by steve evans following the meeting that you'd had with wintec in that month yes yes yes option two uh is a slightly expanded version of the
01:56:31 uh is a slightly expanded version of the same isn't it
01:56:34 yes that looks to be in the sense that uh
01:56:38 uh i say it's slightly expanded it's got a it's got an add-on at the end the last sentence of option two says these acceptance criteria are listed in nxa or nxp of br135 and include the following
01:56:49 nxp of br135 and include the following then you've got the three bullet points external internal and mechanical that those reflect don't they the
01:56:56 the three bullet points that one would see if one looked at br135 third edition append appendix a for masonry and appendix b for structural steel frame yes yes that's right yes and then we have option three let's look at that if
01:57:08 have option three let's look at that if no actual fire test data exists for a particular system the client may instead submit a desktop study report from a suitable independent ucas accredited testing body bre chilton fire or warrington fire stating whether in their
01:57:20 warrington fire stating whether in their opinion br 135 criteria would be met with the proposed system the report should be supported by test data which the test house already has in its possession and so this option may not be of benefit if the products have not
01:57:32 of benefit if the products have not already been tested in multiple situations or arrangements the report should also specifically reference the tests which they've carried out on the product
01:57:39 product now if we go back to your statement just and
01:57:44 and look at that we will come back to this text if we need to go please to page 35 in your statement paragraph 133
01:57:53 at the bottom of that page you there set out
01:57:57 out the constraints on builders testing every build up scenario to bl 135 and then in the penultimate sentence of that paragraph you say this four lines up from the bottom driven by increasing
01:58:09 from the bottom driven by increasing thermal insulation targets builders were often looking for thinner insulation products as well as more cost effective solutions than using such materials we wanted to document another option available to them if they could
01:58:21 option available to them if they could not comply with the first two options i therefore drafted option three now who's the we that wanted this further option
01:58:34 we wanted to document another option it would have been well it would have been at least myself and steve
01:58:43 anybody else well myself and steve were the ones dealing with on a day-to-day basis we i know diane and others were being kept abreast of it but
01:58:54 abreast of it but generally it was me and steve working our way through this one right why
01:58:59 why why did you want to document another option
01:59:03 option because we were aware of you know to do the option to to get the test
01:59:11 test it was
01:59:13 it was hey it took a long time to get a test done and b it was only valid for the exact system that was tested so any change to that system
01:59:24 any change to that system officially meant that that test was null and void um
01:59:30 um and we get we knew about the you know the extended application route
01:59:36 route and so we we included it for that reason but what was what was in it for nhbc in doing that just that we knew it was a
01:59:47 it was a an accepted route sorry we we knew that it had been by virtue of the first meeting with wintec we knew it had been suggested by
01:59:58 wintec we knew it had been suggested by them that it could be done and by reputable organizations that could do it we knew that that route was a route supported through adb
02:00:11 and so you know we didn't have a problem with including it and
02:00:18 and it you know this was a guidance note for the building control
02:00:23 control profession um
02:00:27 um we weren't doing it for our own purposes because it was going out across the board so
02:00:31 board so it just
02:00:32 it just showed a route forward
02:00:35 forward i'm interested in what you say there when you say it was a guidance note for the building control profession and it was going out across the board i think steve evans's evidence
02:00:46 evidence and forgive me for misquoting him perhaps is that this was actually a guidance note for bca members
02:00:56 um but but do i take it from your answer that actually its influence would have been universal within the building control profession yeah i mean my understanding was
02:01:07 yeah i mean my understanding was bca
02:01:08 bca was not restricted in who it would have in there and i it did cover it certainly covered acai members and labc members and that pretty much you know
02:01:19 that pretty much you know summed up every building control body right
02:01:23 right why was it nhbc's task or nhbc's task via the bca to help
02:01:30 to help the profession as you call it find other ways of complying with the guidance in adb other than option one or two it wasn't really finding other ways it
02:01:41 it wasn't really finding other ways it was
02:01:43 in a way just you know expanding elaborating clarifying what was already a way that was accepted under adb well mr lewis that's not how it reads is
02:01:56 well mr lewis that's not how it reads is it
02:01:57 it and what you said is we wanted to document another option implying that you were not satisfied with the first two and you were looking for a third and council's question is
02:02:09 for a third and council's question is why were you looking for a third because
02:02:13 because we knew that option
02:02:16 option two
02:02:20 to be able to come up with a test so i'm not reading this very well option two was so specific to the actual
02:02:31 option two was so specific to the actual buildup and there were many different components in a cladding system
02:02:39 system and
02:02:40 and any change of those components would have
02:02:43 have you know
02:02:44 you know pushed it outside of the office so option two was a relatively limited value
02:02:49 value well it gave a good indication that that type of product used with that type of product to use with that type of barrier probably would be all right well that wasn't sufficient you know to under option two that
02:03:02 you know to under option two that that then would need assessment ideally by somebody more expert to say yeah change that one for that and it will still work well and the option to as you rightly say is uh
02:03:14 as you rightly say is uh requires a specific test off the wall as it's intended to build it yes yes so that's going to be expensive and time consuming yes so all right you're thrown back to option one why
02:03:25 you're thrown back to option one why isn't that left enough um
02:03:31 because it was all back to that very you know we we knew that these option three reports could be done and
02:03:41 and at the time we weren't being told or weren't cons weren't thinking that the insulation was the big fire risk
02:03:53 fire risk that possibly it was you know the it was all down to we we kind of felt that you know it could be shown to be compliant and then we could get to a situation the building control industry
02:04:04 situation the building control industry could get to a situation where you know it was known that these generic types of products worked all right together you know in whatever situation and and that was
02:04:16 and and that was where we were trying to get to with it we
02:04:19 we you know we didn't want to hold up the industry we were aware that insulation you know the the need to use high levels of insulation to achieve other part l thermal requirements
02:04:32 other part l thermal requirements um
02:04:34 um we were just trying to you know reconcile the two things and bring them together all right thank you just building on that answer to the chairman's question you say
02:04:45 you say that
02:04:47 that you were trying that's where you were trying to get to with it and you didn't want to hold up the industry and really what i'm trying to get at is your mo is nhbc's motives
02:04:58 nhbc's motives what was its true purpose in a lighting on and then publishing option three as a further alternative means to compliance
02:05:12 it was too
02:05:16 you know not well it was to assist the industry to to get you know uh to come to a conclusions that these these claddings would work um
02:05:28 these claddings would work um it wasn't being done as a way that nhbc could improve its market share because it was being done under the bca we were trying to share what we'd picked up and what we
02:05:39 share what we'd picked up and what we knew with the rest of the building control profession taking a step back do you agree that nhbc's business in part was as an improved inspector
02:05:50 part was as an improved inspector yes it was yes and an approved inspector is there to grant or withhold approval of compliance under the building regulations yes yes yes uh and indeed i think you referred to it
02:06:02 uh and indeed i think you referred to it as a regulator yes yes yes um
02:06:08 did you understand at the time that a regulator's role was ruthlessly and fearlessly and independently to consider what was in front of it and decide whether it passed
02:06:20 front of it and decide whether it passed and complied or failed because it didn't comply yes we were aware of that yes yes it was and did you consider that it was therefore not part of a regulator's role
02:06:32 therefore not part of a regulator's role to help industry or guide industry to compliance or to get to a place it was simply the regulator's role
02:06:44 it was simply the regulator's role to decide whether a particular structure did or didn't comply it was up to government to change the guidance was that the thinking or was it not
02:06:57 that was the
02:07:00 yes it was that was what we knew our bottom line was and
02:07:05 and you know we knew at nhpc that we were not going to well we didn't want to put ourselves into a
02:07:12 into a you know a position whereby we'd overstep the mark but equally the
02:07:20 the building can the construction industry does work by a process of collaboration between
02:07:27 between all parties designers constructors and you know in a way the the the regulators the goalkeepers and that was how it how it operated but if the goalkeeper is collaborating with
02:07:38 if the goalkeeper is collaborating with the striker what happens to the match yeah i can understand that now yes but
02:07:45 but you know at the time you know building control as a profession had wanted to move on from the days of you know being very rigid
02:07:58 to a point where it was collaborative
02:08:02 did it ever occur to you that this act of collaboration was
02:08:08 was in one sense corrupting because it would undermine the ruthless and fearless independence of the regulator
02:08:21 uh
02:08:26 well i think we probably knew that um
02:08:33 but you know
02:08:37 you know i can't give any reasons more you know that was the the thinking of the industry at the time of the profession at the time it did try to help you know work with his designers did you draft option three in order to
02:08:49 did you draft option three in order to legitimize the schemes that to your own knowledge and hbc historically had incorrectly approved so far as k-15 was concerned no we genuinely drift drafted
02:09:00 concerned no we genuinely drift drafted it is because we knew that that route to compliance also featured through the approved document and we could not see a reason why it couldn't be applied to facades as
02:09:12 it couldn't be applied to facades as well as it was applied to any other you know part of a building did anybody at the time give any consideration to the implications to the nhbc in admitting that they had signed
02:09:23 nhbc in admitting that they had signed off for some years high-rise buildings using k-15 in error i'm not sure what the discussions were at high level right
02:09:38 going on to paragraph 134 of your statement at the foot of page 35 you say this the basis for the option three was to adopt an assessment in lieu of tests
02:09:48 of tests in lieu of tests you say in particular this is based on the 2006 version amended in 2013 of adb where at appendix a paragraph one it states and then emphasis added much of the
02:10:00 and then emphasis added much of the guidance in this document is given in terms of performance in relation to british or european standards for products or methods of test or if you turn the page design or in terms in terms of european
02:10:12 design or in terms in terms of european technical approvals in such cases the material product or structure should be have been assessed from test evidence against appropriate standards or by using relevant design design guides as meeting that
02:10:23 design guides as meeting that performance or and then you put this in bold note for this purpose laboratories accredited by ucas for conducting the relevant tests and suitably qualified fire safety engineers might be expected to have the necessary expertise
02:10:36 to have the necessary expertise first whose idea was it to use these provisions in appendix a as the basis of justifying the presence of option three in tga 18.
02:10:50 the original idea was from the first wintec meeting where we understood that this was being done um and then it was myself that
02:11:01 um and then it was myself that put down these words taken from appendix a
02:11:06 did you sit down with steve evans and actually discuss these words yeah we
02:11:12 yeah we i think we did and certainly you know it was in the first draft and you know i would have at least told steve
02:11:19 steve it's there in adb you know it's that's what it is did you seek any external or independent opinion
02:11:28 opinion uh for example from x over or from bre about whether the provisions these provisions you've uh you've put into your statement of appendix a could be used to justify desktop assessments on
02:11:40 used to justify desktop assessments on something as large and complex as a tall building envelope we didn't see any reason why why they couldn't be applied
02:11:54 um we did
02:11:57 we did discuss
02:11:58 discuss we did send a copy of the bca guidance note prior to publication we did send a copy to bre and sbre's comments on it
02:12:09 to bre and sbre's comments on it um
02:12:12 i can't recall whether we ran it past x over or not possibly not by that point but you know later on it was there the bca members
02:12:22 members were well aware of it there was nobody came back that said it was not suitable and we were seeing reports
02:12:32 reports from these ucas laboratories based on it yes i mean
02:12:40 is the specific answer to my question that before publication you sent it to the bre for comments did first did they come back with any comments no they didn't i can't remember even if we because we had a meeting with
02:12:52 even if we because we had a meeting with arab fire as well and i don't know if we showed it to them at that meeting either well that would have been on the 25th of november 2014 yes some months after publication
02:13:04 publication that's the date you met arab i'm sorry that's the date you met the bre sarah colwell yes you met aaron two days later on the 27th of november 2014. that's right yeah so that's after publication i'm interested in before publication so
02:13:16 i'm interested in before publication so my question is before publication and indeed actually before you drafted the draft the same day as the meeting in november 2013 or even between those two dates november
02:13:27 or even between those two dates november 2013 and june 2014 did you go to bre orex over or warrington and ask them for a a an opinion a considered opinion about whether option three was justified
02:13:38 about whether option three was justified by the language of appendix a
02:13:41 a no we didn't why is that um
02:13:45 um because we i don't think we really had those routes into those organizations particularly at the time but
02:13:57 but we saw that it was we saw that the route was there through approved document b and that was more of a building control issue and that was why steve opted to
02:14:09 issue and that was why steve opted to limit it to you know bca members well you told us this morning that you'd approach tony baker in may 2013
02:14:18 2013 as a route into the bre because of some previous discussion that you'd had with him in
02:14:22 him in 2012 about cavity barriers why not use tony baker as your route into bre why not send your draft option three to tony baker in november 2013 or at any time
02:14:34 baker in november 2013 or at any time before publication in june 2014 and ask him and say tony we think this is justified by by appendix a and the language there can you please give us
02:14:45 language there can you please give us your view
02:14:47 your view you could have done that couldn't you we could have done but the response we got back from tony baker the previous time was
02:14:54 time was it's not for bre to comment on building control
02:14:57 control approval right uh
02:15:00 uh that's not my there's no answer to my question
02:15:03 question my question was about adb and whether or not you considered going to the bre and asking them whether or not
02:15:13 or not they would support an alternative alternative route to compliance based on appendix a or perhaps whether they'd ever seen it before
02:15:22 before well we knew they'd seen it because well we knew from wintec or we heard from winter that they'd written these reports yes that was that second hand why not go to the source
02:15:33 why not go to the source before you publish and say tony we want to do this is this justified by approved document b and is it safe we didn't think to do that why not
02:15:45 we didn't think to do that why not because we didn't think that it was unsafe we felt that it was a legitimate route supported by the approved document given that the appendix uh and given
02:15:58 given that the appendix uh and given that option three specifically identifies bre as one of the three testing houses who are going to be called upon to provide these desktops and given that you had a route in through tony baker into bre since at least 2012
02:16:10 least 2012 and 2013 why not alert them to the fact at the very least that your that these might be coming the requests for these might be coming down the track and that they should be prepared to answer them why not even do that i don't know we
02:16:22 why not even do that i don't know we didn't think of it at the time and i'm trying to understand why you didn't think of it at the time can you give us an explanation i can't i think you know it was
02:16:34 think you know it was we genuinely i think thought that it was a clear cult way through the approved document it was supported by approved document approved document b was
02:16:45 was you know a building control document it was enough to run it past the other building control bodies and and that would be
02:16:53 would be you know sufficient if it was an acceptable alternative route did you ever address your mind to the question why it wasn't referred to in section 12 5 to section to section 12 9 of adb
02:17:06 5 to section to section 12 9 of adb which actually deals with the routes to compliance
02:17:11 because
02:17:15 well in other parts of adb where he talks about
02:17:19 about fire tests and things like that it didn't
02:17:22 didn't have any additional guidance you know the the guidance on extended applications was generic guidance at the back of the approved document b and in that guidance it didn't say this
02:17:33 and in that guidance it didn't say this is not suitable for this type of fire test or anything like that it just was generic wording for assessments of fire
02:17:41 fire and what basis did you think that appendix a and the words you've put in your statement uh
02:17:48 uh authorized extended application assessment for the fire performance of an external wall there was nothing there to suggest that it wouldn't be acceptable
02:18:00 so the absence is this right the fact that it didn't say you couldn't use it for external walls
02:18:08 walls led you to think that it could be even though there was no reference to this approach in section 12 itself it was generic guidance for
02:18:19 guidance for fire tests now it's right to think that these kinds of assessments weren't routinely seen for high-rise residential buildings before the publication of bca technical guidance note 18 were
02:18:30 of bca technical guidance note 18 were they
02:18:32 they they weren't routinely seen but we did know that they were happening only because windtech had told you and also because kingspan had brought along
02:18:43 along a yes in around about august 2014 kingspan had suppliers with copies of option three and option four tests and reports from
02:18:55 tests and reports from one was from bre and two were from arab fire for schemes which we were not involved with that had already you know they'd had commissioned through those organizations so options
02:19:06 through those organizations so options three and option four and another side option four how many option three reports did you see in the august of 2014 well there was only the the one yeah
02:19:17 and you then said paragraph 135 i therefore consider this to be a valid and appropriate route to compliance as it was based on the building regulations i did not have any concerns with the inclusion of option
02:19:28 concerns with the inclusion of option three
02:19:29 three now given that the building regulations are not prescriptive and given that adb is only guidance why did you feel that you needed to document another option for builders to comply with the building regulations
02:19:41 regulations because we were trying to
02:19:46 bring about a you know a clearer way that
02:19:50 that external walls should be being considered under regulation b4 we were aware that in most cases building control bodies were not really
02:20:02 building control bodies were not really focusing in on the fire performance aspects and
02:20:07 and we wanted to try and bring it around bring it back to some sort of
02:20:12 sort of order
02:20:15 when um you had your meeting with wintec in november 2013 did they show you an example of a desktop they didn't show us on them right did they identify any desktop by name any
02:20:26 they identify any desktop by name any project where uh the building control officer or ai had approved it uh they didn't and they were i seem to recall they were quite careful about what names they did drop
02:20:38 careful about what names they did drop so you had no detail and no means of obtaining any detail about exactly what projects they had been referring to no we didn't no one pretty much you didn't ask them
02:20:49 one pretty much you didn't ask them uh not at that stage no no so you drafted option three without any outside uh support or or expert input from bre or xover or
02:21:00 expert input from bre or xover or warrington fire
02:21:03 without having seen any previous desktops from anybody and solely on the basis of the second hand say so of wintec undocumented at a meeting
02:21:14 undocumented at a meeting is that is that a fair summary no because the root you know the appendix i have approved document b was quite clear in its wording that
02:21:25 quite clear in its wording that you can't test everything and it is reasonable to extrapolate from tests to given and you know an idea of performance now
02:21:35 now what words in there are you relying on when you say that uh
02:21:42 the the best i can see in front of me you know that the have been assessed from test evidence against appropriate standards
02:21:51 well that just we can argue about the meaning of words but that is in fact is this right at the time that those are the words you thought justified this approach
02:21:59 approach as a matter of fact is that correct yes i see
02:22:03 uh now uh
02:22:07 what was your view at the time about what amounted to an appropriate quantity of test evidence with which an external planning system could probably be assessed against appropriate standards
02:22:19 standards we didn't have a figure in mind of it like that we relied upon if a report comes in from one of these
02:22:30 if a report comes in from one of these organizations then it must be you know considered by them that there was enough evidence there were you concerned that when the first version issue naught of bca technical
02:22:42 version issue naught of bca technical guidance nato 18 came out there were only a handful of successful bs-8414 tests
02:22:49 tests for uh
02:22:51 for uh well for anything really upon which fire specialists might be able to base their extrapolations well it all depended what was needed to be assessed um in many cases at the start you know yeah
02:23:04 in many cases at the start you know yeah i take a brickwork facade didn't a brickwork facade used with a lightweight steel frame build up
02:23:12 build up didn't fit option one in the adb and it didn't have any a414 test um so to use that there was no way that could be used
02:23:23 there was no way that could be used unless somebody did this extended application test and i think
02:23:27 think most people fire engineers and not would agree that looking at what was tested which had a cementitious panel of about 12 mil take that off and put a 75 millimeter
02:23:38 take that off and put a 75 millimeter brick facade in front of it it was likely and well accepted that that brick facade was going to perform at least as well as but most likely better than what had already been tested
02:23:51 better than what had already been tested did you envisage did you have any views at all on um
02:23:56 um how closely similar the bsa414 tests which have generated the underlying data for these desktops would have to have to the system being proposed
02:24:08 the system being proposed we knew that we would expect it to be have some you know good similarities yes what does that mean we would expect that
02:24:20 what does that mean we would expect that if it was a thin panel external cladding finish then there would be test data on some sort of thin panel cladding finish in the test um
02:24:30 um the the way that those materials would act under
02:24:33 act under impingement of flames there would be some similar similarities there these were things that we would you know expected to see so you know in other words would the panel resist fire like in the way timber
02:24:45 panel resist fire like in the way timber would before then it breached or would it in the way like a cement panel just shatter and a large areas of it would break up or in the case of a lightweight metal would it just melt in the areas
02:24:56 metal would it just melt in the areas where it reached the melting point i mean how would you know i mean what's the data set you'd be referring to in order to come to the decision as to whether something was sufficiently similar well that would need to be assessed from you know the the various
02:25:07 assessed from you know the the various tests that needed to back these um you know
02:25:12 you know these that that's if you may say so circular answer what was the data that well let me put it this way did you expect to see sufficient data to enable an expert to to to say whether something
02:25:25 an expert to to to say whether something was sufficiently similar well we did because kingspan would given us their you know even at the january meeting they said we're going to do this this and this
02:25:37 this this and this they provided us with their proposed test
02:25:40 test you know buildups you know as far as we knew that the data was albeit by this point maybe not quite in existence but we knew that kingspan were planning to do that and
02:25:52 kingspan were planning to do that and data would be gradually become more and more
02:25:56 more you know the data pool would be bigger well let's try some examples would a bs 8414 test report using a riveted fixed system for the rain screen be eligible for use in an option three report where instead
02:26:09 in an option three report where instead a cassette system was proposed uh it depends on what the material was yes and similarly what about a successful test using pir insulation could that be
02:26:20 test using pir insulation could that be extrapolated to other pir systems even if they used a different cladding panel um
02:26:27 um well the transference between two types of pir manufacturer would probably be something that could be catered for under this extended application yes and could a system using an aluminium
02:26:38 and could a system using an aluminium panel be
02:26:39 panel be extrapolated to cover a system using a zinc panel very well
02:26:45 very well very likely yes right we see it very lightly but it would depend on the data wouldn't it well yes the data you know we would expect to see some evidence of fire testing or some
02:26:56 evidence of fire testing or some knowledge of how those panels were going to
02:26:59 to you know act under fire it would depend on a method an established scientific method of extrapolation wouldn't it yes did you know whether an established scientific method of extrapolation even
02:27:11 scientific method of extrapolation even existed
02:27:12 existed um we left that to the ucas bodies to do that and if they informed us that they considered it was acceptable then we you know accepted what they said they
02:27:24 we you know accepted what they said they were the experts in this not us that that last part of the answer i understand let me see if i've got this right
02:27:30 right you put option three out there is this right not actually knowing in advance whether any of these three identified test houses actually had any established scientific methodology
02:27:42 any established scientific methodology which would form the basis of the extrapolations uh well we did yes because we expected that if the data was not there then we wouldn't get an option three report back
02:27:56 would it not have been sensible to check with these testing houses before putting option three out there whether in fact extrapolation was scientifically possible
02:28:05 possible before telling all telling the industry at large that it was something that they should try and achieve
02:28:12 for completeness it would have probably improved things and made things a little bit more robust but as i say you know we we knew at the time that there was a
02:28:23 time that there was a test for
02:28:24 test for kingspan we k15 we knew that there was a i believe a test with extratherm albeit an eight four one four part one test you know we knew that these tests were occurring and were becoming more
02:28:35 occurring and were becoming more you know
02:28:37 you know the data pool was was growing was there a list of acceptable parameters in which fire specialists would have to base their opinions we left that to the ucas
02:28:48 we left that to the ucas you know the labs to to determine that you know that was all part of the the pfpf guide and the 1575 extended application standard
02:28:59 extended application standard right so
02:29:00 right so is the answer to these questions where i'm giving you examples that in fact trying to predict on paper via a desktop report what would happen if a large-scale fire test was undertaken
02:29:12 was undertaken without doing small-scale testing of the components is is impossible we weren't the experts in fire testing they that was the likes of bre and xover
02:29:23 they that was the likes of bre and xover we said look there's this route through adb that looks like it can be done we didn't go any further than that you know we relied upon them to give their views as to whether it was
02:29:35 give their views as to whether it was unacceptable to do that right and that did that mean that the thinking about who was going to carry out these desktops
02:29:41 desktops pointed very strongly in the direction of extremely expertly qualified people um
02:29:49 um we weren't aware of the you know extremely we we knew it had to go
02:29:55 to go along the lines of people with the right amount of knowledge in this you know this particular area was the reality you didn't actually know whether option three reports could
02:30:07 whether option three reports could routinely be produced by
02:30:10 by uh
02:30:10 uh people such as bre ex overall warrington or chilton but hoped that they would be because otherwise option three would be pointless
02:30:19 pointless well we knew that they were being produced so we knew that the option three
02:30:25 three route
02:30:27 route you know did work um because we were hearing of and seeing not very many we were seeing some reports from bre it might work it might work on occasions but what had led you to think
02:30:38 but what had led you to think that that it would work across the board as a general alternative alternative to compliance um well simply because the wording in
02:30:50 um well simply because the wording in the appendix a that said you know do test and if you need to extrapolate from the test then use this particular set of standards and guides
02:31:06 mr german is that a convenient moment yes i think it is mr miller thank you very much well i think we've done enough for one day mr lewis we'll stop there we'll resume tomorrow morning please at 10 o'clock
02:31:17 tomorrow morning please at 10 o'clock and again since you're going home or wherever you're going please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it thank you we look forward to seeing you tomorrow morning 10 o'clock thank you
02:31:38 thank you mr miller 10 o'clock tomorrow thank you