Evidence from NHBC regarding their knowledge of combustible insulation risks on high-rise buildings. Discusses the 2014 'friendly warning' from government about PIR insulation and NHBC's response.
00:00:27 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to continue hearing evidence from mr john lewis so i'm going to ask mr lewis to come back in please
00:00:46 good morning slurs good morning
00:00:54 are you ready to go yes thank you very much yes just a minute yes mr chairman good morning members of the panel good morning to you mr lewis good morning to you good morning um i'd now like to ask you about an email of the 2nd of july 2014 which
00:01:07 an email of the 2nd of july 2014 which is where we've got to in chronology at nhb 507
00:01:12 nhb 507 please
00:01:18 and if we scroll to the very bottom of the email chain we can see that it's an email at the bottom of page two over to page three and if we start at the bottom of page
00:01:29 and if we start at the bottom of page two
00:01:53 we can see an email from brian martin of the 2nd of july at 11 42 subject fire safety facades and he says hi neil and it's addressed to neil smith
00:02:05 and it's addressed to neil smith hi neil i've been talking to a few folk about fire safety and facades recently if we go to page three please picking it up at the top of that page allegedly several buildings have been
00:02:16 allegedly several buildings have been erected
00:02:17 erected where pir insulation has been used in cladding panels well over 18 meters in height
00:02:22 height apparently people are under the impression the pir is a material of limited combustibility which it isn't again allegedly many of these buildings are blocks of flats i have no idea how true these
00:02:34 i have no idea how true these allegations are but they come from relatively reliable sources the purpose of my email is a friendly warning
00:02:41 warning you might want to double check with your inspectors and plan checkers that they are on top of this happy to discuss regards brian now
00:02:52 now can we assume that you were aware in july 2014 that pir insulation was combustible yes i was yes had the nhbc been providing building control
00:03:05 been providing building control and warranty services to buildings over 18 meters using pir insulation as opposed to phenolic which we know kingspan k15 was before receiving this email from brian
00:03:16 before receiving this email from brian martin
00:03:22 we knew the
00:03:25 knew the products more by their trade names
00:03:31 so we would have known we would have heard the terms k15 or celatex rs 5000 which were the two insulations which were predominantly
00:03:42 insulations which were predominantly used which we knew about i'm not sure and i'm still not sure which of those other materials out there are pir insulation
00:03:55 pir insulation we were tending to think of the whole family of
00:03:59 family of pur and phenolics as kind of a family of combustible insulations we weren't splitting our thoughts down individually between those three types
00:04:10 individually between those three types no very well but on that on the basis of the family the pir pur and phenolic belong to the same family can we take it that nhpc had been providing building control services and warranty services
00:04:22 and warranty services in respect of buildings over 18 meters which contained one or other member of that family including pir yes because we knew that k-15 was being used it will keep k-15 is phenomic but p-i-r
00:04:33 keep k-15 is phenomic but p-i-r particularly i'm not sure which of the installations are pir right do you remember what the reaction was within nhpc to the friendly warning that
00:04:44 within nhpc to the friendly warning that we get here from government i don't think it came as a surprise um you know the use of combustible types of insulation was
00:04:56 combustible types of insulation was commonplace now you say in your statement uh
00:05:01 uh and i don't think we need to go to it but i'll give you the reference it's page 66 paragraph 242 by reference to this document that you weren't copied into it you say however steve evans four did this to me on 15th
00:05:13 steve evans four did this to me on 15th of august 2014 as brian martin had praised the drafting of the guidance note in the subsequent email now we'll come to look at the rest of the email string in a moment what was the first that you knew
00:05:24 the first that you knew of this warning from brian martin on the 15th of august 2014 when steve evans forwarded it to you yes i believe it was right so can we take it from that that you didn't have
00:05:35 take it from that that you didn't have any
00:05:36 any discussion with steve evans about this email before he forwarded it to you on the 15th of august
00:05:45 i don't recall any now you say in paragraph 243 of your statement that you recall only discussing this email with steve evans and nobody else um was that discussion
00:05:57 and nobody else um was that discussion uh in july when the email came or only in august after he sent it to you
00:06:06 could you move up to the second page i'm just trying to get the timeline yes of course absolutely uh let's do that i'll i'll i'll show you the whole email string um please that helps let's let's take it
00:06:18 please that helps let's let's take it chronologically and so i've shown you the bottom of page two if we scroll up to the bottom of or further up page two we can see um
00:06:27 um [Music]
00:06:29 [Music] the email of the second of july at the bottom and half of steve evans's response if we go on to page one at the bottom of page one we can see steve evans reply of the 11th of july 2014 to brian martin
00:06:41 of the 11th of july 2014 to brian martin copy to diane marshall and neil smith and then above that brian martin's response uh and that that's the july correspondence we'll look at the people we'll look at
00:06:52 we'll look at the people we'll look at the 15th of uh april email later but my question is one of recollection do you remember
00:06:57 remember discussing this email string with steve evans in july or do you remember discussing it with him only after the middle of august no i believe
00:07:09 no i believe we discussed it not long after it had been received right so in july yes right
00:07:17 right do you remember discussing the matter yourself with brian martin at any time no i i never had any contact with brian martin
00:07:26 martin not direct you know from myself now if we go back to your statement i i should show this to you page 66 please paragraph 244 you say
00:07:39 in para244 i understood the friendly warning
00:07:42 warning to be in reference to the pir insulation being used on tall residential buildings that nhbc was involved with and the brian martin was suggesting that we verify the basis on which we were
00:07:53 we verify the basis on which we were accepting it i do not know the identity of the quotes relatively reliable sources quotes referred to in brian martin's email what buildings were nhbc involved with
00:08:05 what buildings were nhbc involved with at the time that were using pir insulation
00:08:11 again um i'm not sure which of the insulation types are pir we were
00:08:18 we were treating pirpur phenolic as a product family
00:08:22 family and
00:08:23 and our references generally were on that basis yes so um does it come to this in the light of that answer and the one you gave me earlier
00:08:32 earlier that
00:08:33 that you knew that pir insulation was being used on tall residential buildings with which nhbc was involved but you couldn't identify specifically what the insulation product was
00:08:45 insulation product was without going into the detail
00:08:51 it's difficult to say i'm if i knew which of the product were pir then i would have a much clearer regulation let me let me try it this way when you saw this email for the
00:09:02 this way when you saw this email for the first time it can be taken that you didn't understand you didn't think that it didn't apply in other words your reaction wasn't well this doesn't apply to us because nhbc has not signed off any buildings with
00:09:13 has not signed off any buildings with pir on them no my thoughts at the time were
00:09:16 were you know in rather than reading pir read p-i-r-p p-i-r-p-u-r phenolic together and you know consider it on that basis that group of products do you know what
00:09:28 that group of products do you know what prompted the friendly warning coming so soon as it did after the launch of issue naught of technical guidance note 18 by the bca no were you aware of made aware of which
00:09:40 were you aware of made aware of which projects mr martin was referring to no
00:09:43 no do you know how brian martin was aware of what projects the nhbc was involved with with featured pir insulation i didn't i had no idea did you think that this warning extended
00:09:54 did you think that this warning extended also to phenolic insulation it seems on the family answer that they did yes yes that was my fault yes did anybody to your knowledge in nhbc go back and check the basis on which it was
00:10:07 back and check the basis on which it was being accepted as brian martin suggests you should do at that stage we were already well on with you know the kingspan and issue under drafting of
00:10:19 the kingspan and issue under drafting of the the bca guidance note um
00:10:23 um but well forgive me it had already come out in fact it came out on in june we looked at it yesterday so i'm putting this to you on the basis that it comes the friendly warning comes
00:10:34 that it comes the friendly warning comes a matter of weeks only after the guidance note was published so again my question did anybody in nhbc to your knowledge having received this friendly warning from government
00:10:46 friendly warning from government do as brian martin had suggested and actually go and check the basis on which pir was being accepted
00:10:54 we just treated it along these lines of the way we've been looking at the k-15 issue and the way we'd come to the conclusions that the k-15 and the basis on which that was accepted
00:11:05 on which that was accepted was
00:11:06 was you know was well was what it was um right we sorry
00:11:13 apologies if i've not answered the question could you repeat the question yes did anybody in hbc to your knowledge having received this friendly warning from government go and check the basis on which pir or
00:11:26 go and check the basis on which pir or any other family member of combustible insulation was being accepted by an hbc on tall buildings
00:11:36 buildings well we'd already gone through that process with the k-15 so no there was not a you know a separate inquiry after that stage after that email no
00:11:48 so can we take it from that answer that that nhbc to your knowledge and you in particular when you've discovered it we're not particularly concerned by this warning no we were concerned um
00:12:02 no we were concerned um but you didn't act on it we were already acting on it with the discussions with kingspan and celetex and people like that did this communication from brian martin
00:12:14 did this communication from brian martin set any alarm bells off in your mind about the number of buildings for which you
00:12:20 you as in nhbc had up to that point um been accepting combustible insulation on including k-15 at that stage we already knew that k-15
00:12:33 at that stage we already knew that k-15 was you know the go-to product on many of the schemes we were involved with we knew there were a substantial number of schemes without insulation on it do you remember whether anybody voiced
00:12:44 do you remember whether anybody voiced the opinion that now that government had got itself involved even informally through the friendly warning it was time to stop accepting combustible insulation materials over 18
00:12:57 combustible insulation materials over 18 meters
00:12:59 meters since you've all at least been aware of the routes to compliance and the dangers of combustible materials from october or november the previous year i don't recall it changed what we were
00:13:10 i don't recall it changed what we were doing we'd already at that point as you say
00:13:13 say issued
00:13:14 issued the bca guidance note um
00:13:21 sorry i lost track what was the question well
00:13:25 well now that government had got involved to your knowledge did anybody voice the view that it was now time to stop
00:13:32 to stop accepting combustible insulation products on tall buildings i don't remember anything directly of that nature saying we should stop no
00:13:43 that nature saying we should stop no now can we go back to the email run please that we looked at a moment ago i just want to show you brian martin uh steve evans reply to brian martin of the 11th of july um it's there at the foot of page one and goes over to page two
00:13:55 of page one and goes over to page two i'm not going to read it all out to you but um if just look at the first paragraph with me i hope that you are well neil smith has discussed your email with me below and asked me to respond as i've been dealing with this on behalf of nhbc
00:14:07 with this on behalf of nhbc this is an issue that nhbc are aware of and have been in discussions with industry about it for some time and he goes on to say the issue is in respect of the use of kingspan cool them k15 rainscreen board in buildings over
00:14:19 k15 rainscreen board in buildings over 18 meters in height the confusion has arisen etc um now i hope i've read enough of that to you
00:14:27 to you for you to be familiar with it if you were my question is do you remember whether steve evans discussed this reply with you before it was sent to brian martin on the 11th of july 2014.
00:14:43 i don't recall that he did and
00:14:46 and steve would very often ask me to draft up a response for him to top and tail
00:14:52 tail and i don't think i did that with this one so right that would imply that we probably didn't discuss it steve just did it do you know why
00:15:02 why steve evans would choose not to
00:15:06 not to discuss this response to government with you given that you were at this time nhbc's sole qualified fire engineer
00:15:17 i think steve with it being brian martin would have kept it to just the senior people at nhbc um neil smith was in a senior head of
00:15:30 um neil smith was in a senior head of department role as was diane i assume that you know it being government they just kept it within themselves well keeping it within themselves so far as the
00:15:41 as the circulation of the email response is one thing but why could do you know why steve evans chose to keep the substance of the response from you and not call on
00:15:53 of the response from you and not call on your assistants in order to produce it i don't but you know the responses i'm reading here was
00:16:02 was only what he and i both knew would have agreed on
00:16:05 agreed on i think a lot of it is probably based on what we wrote in the bca guidance note so
00:16:11 so i never read anything into it at all right well let me just ask you about one aspect of it please if we go to page two second paragraph down on that page
00:16:23 second paragraph down on that page it's the pre-penultimate paragraph in the email
00:16:26 the email and it reads as follows as we had a number of projects can you see in the second paragraph i can thank you yes yes as we had a number of projects under construction and in advanced stages of design utilizing k-15 nhbc approached kingspan
00:16:39 utilizing k-15 nhbc approached kingspan and made them aware of our concerns as a result of this dialogue kingspan are currently undertaking further testing using different cladding and facade treatments in accordance with bs8414
00:16:49 bs8414 part 2 of 2002. the results from the tests are expected by the end of this month and nhbc are meeting with kingspan at the beginning of august at which time kingspan will be asked to provide
00:17:00 kingspan will be asked to provide evidence that their product can be used in alternative construction types other than that specified in the current bba certificate and then he goes on as follows there is no reason to suspect the buildings which have been built with
00:17:12 the buildings which have been built with kingspan k-15 are at risk at this time it is just the fact that the testing carried out to date does not bear this out
00:17:19 out king's men are confident that the the current testing uh currently underway will prove the suitability of the material for use over 18 meters
00:17:28 18 meters if they're not able to do this we will begin the process of informing industry the product is no longer suitable for use in facades over 18 meters as well as informing other stakeholders such as bca
00:17:39 informing other stakeholders such as bca and the fire and rescue service although both parties are already aware of our ongoing discussions now do you agree that further testing on specific
00:17:51 specific systems
00:17:53 systems under
00:17:53 under bs8414 part 1 could not make k15 suitable for use in all facades over 18 meters generically could it
00:18:04 i believe that's a typo i think steve meant a414 part 2 because the discussions we were having with kingspan at the time it was only
00:18:16 with kingspan at the time it was only the part two tests that they were doing well my doesn't matter with great respect my question wasn't focused on part one necessarily do you agree that further
00:18:27 necessarily do you agree that further testing on specific systems whether under eight four one four part one or part two could not make k15 suitable for use in all facades generically no not generically no and mr evans as we
00:18:40 no not generically no and mr evans as we can see doesn't say that kingspan were going to subject every single buildup into which they had supplied k15 historically or were proposing to do so
00:18:53 were proposing to do so does he doesn't say that and we can read that no so and
00:18:58 and do you agree that if they had done that that would be thousands of tests occupying the bre burn hall for months um yes it would be several thousand potential combinations yes
00:19:11 potential combinations yes yes now
00:19:13 yes now on that question did mr evans consult you
00:19:20 did he ask you did he come to you at any stage and say is it reasonable to say to the government that the tests proposed by kingspan k15 will justify the use of k-15 on any tall
00:19:33 will justify the use of k-15 on any tall building facade
00:19:37 no
00:19:55 now
00:20:05 let's go to nhb5757
00:20:11 which is an email chain in the summer of 2014
00:20:15 2014 and if we go to page three in that email we can see that it's dated the 16th of june
00:20:19 june 2014 from steve evans to richard bromwich who was the national business development manager at kingspan and a number of others including you you see that yes now this is the month
00:20:30 see that yes now this is the month before the friendly warning from brian martin 2nd of july 2014 [Music]
00:20:35 [Music] and we can see that steve evans asks richard bromich for an update on the use of k-15 over 18 meters you see that and in the second paragraph of that email he says this the latest version of the bba certificate extracted below
00:20:48 certificate extracted below makes it clear that only a construction similar to that tested can be considered as meeting the requirements of bs 8414.1 k15 back directly onto a masonry wall it's noted that the additional wording
00:20:59 it's noted that the additional wording of the earlier bba certificate whereby advice on alternative constructions could be sought from kingspan has now been removed nhbc has not been provided with anything further that is based on bs8414 to prove performance from
00:21:10 bs8414 to prove performance from accredited independent testing in accordance with br135 recommendations as such as a building controlled body nhbc building control services is in a difficult situation whilst we do not
00:21:21 difficult situation whilst we do not wish to prejudice the construction of a large number of tall buildings in which cave k-15 is being used in a as an insulant
00:21:29 insulant we do not have any suitable basis under regulation seven for the acceptance of the external envelope design where it moves away from the construction used to compile the bba certificate and then in red and bold therefore i
00:21:41 and then in red and bold therefore i must advise you that unless additional test evidence supporting the use of k-15 in constructions which differ from the bs 8414.1 test can be provided before 30th of june 2014 and hbc building
00:21:54 30th of june 2014 and hbc building control services will need to reconsider its acceptance of k-15 in buildings over 18 meters as fit for purpose
00:22:02 now was the reluctance that we see here on the basis that nhbc would find themselves in difficulty because of the large number of buildings that had been historically approved using k-15
00:22:19 now at that point we were
00:22:23 we were six months in to a situation where buildings
00:22:30 were registered after the 31st of december 2013 so we're in the current bba certificate which didn't give the option to go back to kingspan so the difficult situation
00:22:43 to kingspan so the difficult situation was with regards to those that set off you know admittedly probably not very many buildings at that stage which had been registered with us since you know the start of that year
00:22:57 they were the ones that the focus of this email was particularly on at this time how many buildings were steve evans referring to when he says a large number of tall buildings as you can see in the third
00:23:08 buildings as you can see in the third paragraph there uh i can't quantify that i don't know what the figure would have been if the nhbc as a building control body felt
00:23:18 felt that they could not accept the external envelope design because there was no 8414 test
00:23:24 8414 test applying to it there was no way around that was there no but it's like i said you know these were in build the you know the
00:23:37 the you know the the day of reckoning as it were was when those buildings came for requiring a final certificate um and there was still usually in many cases several months to run before we were into that situation where we had to
00:23:50 were into that situation where we had to well we were being asked to give that certificate so we were running with this period of time during which we were hoping and kingspan were assuring us that they would get together you know sufficient test
00:24:01 get together you know sufficient test data to enable more informed decisions to be taken
00:24:06 certainly and and why not therefore
00:24:12 why did the nhp therefore not spell out the fact
00:24:17 the fact that unless within that period the precise proposed external wool buildup was subjected to a bs-8414 part one or part two test and satisfied
00:24:28 part one or part two test and satisfied the br-135 criteria it would not be accepted by an hbc's building control
00:24:35 uh i don't know why that was taken that decision was taken my as you put in my witness statement you know that red paragraph my wording suggested wording was very
00:24:47 my wording suggested wording was very different
00:24:48 different yes why is that because
00:24:52 because at the time we were now six months into this dialogue with kingspan and
00:24:59 and it was becoming clear to me that kingspan had made assurances that they would have a big body of test evidence and everything would be fine and that was just not panning out and we were six months into the process
00:25:11 months into the process and we weren't really any further on by that point they'd done the trespa test which had clearly failed um and i think that was about as far as we'd got by that point exactly so why
00:25:23 we'd got by that point exactly so why not just draw a line under it and say no 8414
00:25:26 8414 no certificate it was not a decision for me to take no uh that's you've made that point a number of times mr lewis and i'm not suggesting it was my question is an nhbc question do you can you explain
00:25:39 an nhbc question do you can you explain sitting there today why nhbc did not make that decision no i think nhbc was aware that to do that
00:25:50 aware that to do that you know would have made a well it would have created a storm within the industry on these buildings and nhbc needed to be mindful you know if it was going to make that
00:26:01 you know if it was going to make that storm
00:26:03 storm then
00:26:04 then it wanted to be clear that it was necessary and and would have been done i think
00:26:11 i think one point which we at the nhbc did have in mind at the time was that
00:26:17 was that legally
00:26:19 legally if nhbc was not prepared to accept the building with k-15 on it then that meant we would not be able to issue a final certificate and the regulatory process meant that then those schemes would have to revert
00:26:31 then those schemes would have to revert back to local authority building control for them to take enforcement action we had in the back of our minds that labc had a certificate accepting it as a material limited
00:26:43 accepting it as a material limited combustibility and were generally accepting buildings with this material on it and so we were kind of thinking well
00:26:51 well is there a great deal in point in rejecting them and sending them back to local authority if they're likely to only still get approved under the local authority's ways of doing things
00:27:09 why not talk to the labc about it at this point those discussions have been had via
00:27:16 via the bca
00:27:17 the bca exactly why not go through the bca and have those urgent discussions um i don't know again steve would have done that we'll come back to the nabc in a moment but
00:27:28 come back to the nabc in a moment but before i do can i just ask you to be scrolled up to page two at the foot of page two of this email run where we see an email of the 14th of july 2014 from steve evans to either meredith king's to
00:27:42 to either meredith king's to either meredith at kingspan copied to dave white among others and you as well as graeme perrier and richard bromwich of kingspan dear iva and over to page three please
00:27:55 dear iva and over to page three please find attached copies of recent communications that nhbc have had with dclg in respect of the fire safety and facades i've also been keeping colleagues at building control alliance labc and the
00:28:07 building control alliance labc and the fire brigade up to date with progress of our discussions now um
00:28:13 now um it looks as if steve evans was forwarding the friendly warning correspondence the brian martin email of the 2nd of july and his response of the 11th of july to
00:28:24 response of the 11th of july to a number of people within kingspan and indeed to you now before he sent it did he discuss with you his intention to send the
00:28:36 send the correspondence with the dclg to kingspan
00:28:41 i'm very likely but i can't recall it specifically do you remember what he or the nhbc more generally hoped to achieve by doing so
00:28:52 achieve by doing so uh
00:28:53 uh i would guess the more pressure we put onto kingspan the more likely they were to
00:28:58 to right come up with some goods right
00:29:03 right can we take it from this and in fact you did see the friendly warning email and the 11th of july response before your discussion in before the email in august
00:29:15 august yes i believe that was the case yes was this do you think this was the first time you saw the friendly warning email and the nhpc response to it i don't think so i mean um steve and i
00:29:27 i don't think so i mean um steve and i worked closely that don't believe steve was keeping anything from me for any particular reason we were completely open
00:29:34 open now looking back at the emails here and paraphrasing paraphrasing the rest of the chain we can see that a meeting is arranged for the 6th of august between nhbc and kingspan
00:29:45 august between nhbc and kingspan and if we go to the top of the chain at page 1 here's here is an email from steve evans to ivan meredith of the 15th of august copied among others to you either i apologize apologies for
00:29:56 either i apologize apologies for delaying and responding final copy of bca guidance note attached which will be on the bca website shortly unfortunately they're in the process of switching administrators so there's been a delay in updating the site in the meantime is
00:30:08 in updating the site in the meantime is it possible to get a letter of comfort from bre confirming the results and the likely results and then a follow-up letter from arabs explaining what they will be doing with the results i feel this is necessary to protect all our
00:30:20 this is necessary to protect all our positions given that it could be a further three months before we get this resolved and the number of buildings currently using or planning to use k-15 now you i think were at the meeting of
00:30:31 now you i think were at the meeting of the 6th of august 2014 weren't you i was yes do you remember what kingspan had promised
00:30:36 promised from bre and arab at that meeting
00:30:42 i recall by that point kingspan had they'd done the trespa test they'd done the terracotta test i believe the terracotta test had only
00:30:54 i believe the terracotta test had only just
00:30:55 just recently been done and they hadn't had the report from bre hence the letter of comfort asking you know that bre just say yes it's done in its past
00:31:05 its past um and
00:31:07 um and aaron
00:31:08 aaron kingsman had spoken to arabs all they told us that they had spoken to arab to get arab to you know do something with the range of results they were getting
00:31:19 they were getting to give further comfort to the likes of the building control bodies that
00:31:26 that that enabled their product to be you know better accepted or a better you know well yes better accepted right did either of the letters of comfort from bre or from arab ever materialize
00:31:39 from bre or from arab ever materialize certainly the one from arab never did i don't recall anything from bre to your understanding when steve evans said that he felt the need to protect
00:31:50 said that he felt the need to protect all
00:31:51 all our positions did that include nhbc's position we were getting uncomfortable by that point yes right
00:31:58 right and was it brian martin's friendly warning that has prompted nhbc's feeling for the need to protect its position no we were uncomfortable right from the start of this year
00:32:10 the start of this year i see being 2014.
00:32:18 and did you or anybody else at nhbc suggest that the use of k-15 be paused while you resolve that issue or did
00:32:29 or did nhbc just plow on and continue to accept k-15
00:32:35 um as i say that thinking at the time was
00:32:40 let's give king spam the chance to come up with this big body of data and see if that resolves or makes life easier or clearer right but by this time as i think we've
00:32:51 but by this time as i think we've established you had seen steve evans response of the 11th of july and i read to you part of that which and i paraphrased said that just because there's no test
00:33:02 said that just because there's no test results doesn't mean it's not safe were you concerned by that if
00:33:08 if steve got that i believe from and as i said yesterday the assurances from kingspan that their product wasn't a massive fire risk
00:33:20 wasn't a massive fire risk you know i refer to the blow lamp video um the test that they had got we weren't aware of the failed tests um
00:33:28 um the the thinking was at least at the start that it wasn't a massive fire risk um how would you know that without a test well we only had the a41 for the part one the
00:33:40 we only had the a41 for the part one the 2005 test
00:33:41 2005 test that was the only test in existence and that did show a good level of you know of passing when put under the br135 parameters and given your as
00:33:52 br135 parameters and given your as you've just told us your disk your discomfort and hbc's discomfort not only from the time of the friendly warning but but actually from the beginning of the year why not tell brian martin that exact
00:34:04 why not tell brian martin that exact fact
00:34:07 i don't know
00:34:11 i want to ask you know about labc we touched on it a moment ago mr lewis let's look at nhb 50616 please
00:34:24 now this is uh an email i think you were referring to yesterday of the 2nd of december 2013 and it's from steve evans to technical services within nhbc
00:34:36 services within nhbc and the subject as you can see is use of kingspan cool them k15 range screen board
00:34:42 board uh dear all there has recently been some confusion in respect of the use of kingspan cool therm k-15 rain screen board in buildings over 18 meters in height the confusion has arisen from kingsman's
00:34:54 the confusion has arisen from kingsman's statement that their product is acceptable for use in a building over 18 meters
00:34:59 meters however the product is made from a generic type of polyurethane foams which are by nature combustible now just pausing there i think you would accept that's a mistake isn't it k15 is phenolic
00:35:10 phenolic not a polyurethane it is but as i say p-u-r-p-i-r phenolic we lumped as one family of materials right
00:35:21 right now if we go to your statement please at page 17
00:35:26 page 17 we can see that you say in paragraph 68a having introduced this email in the opening words of paragraph 68
00:35:37 opening words of paragraph 68 you answer the inquiries rule 9 questions about that email in the following way a i believe the confusion described in line one referred to kingspan's assertion that
00:35:48 referred to kingspan's assertion that their product is suitable for use on a building greater than 18 meters based on a local authority building control labc system approval which incorrectly implied that k-15 could be considered a
00:36:00 implied that k-15 could be considered a mulk material of limited combustibility when we were saying otherwise you can see this from our discussion of the draft email on the same day timed at 1109 and you exhibit it
00:36:13 1109 and you exhibit it when did you first become aware of that labc system approval
00:36:19 i believe it was around 2012.
00:36:24 now it was released in 2008 do you know why you weren't aware of it earlier than that
00:36:32 no i didn't have a lot to do with high-rise buildings particularly and i just hadn't i don't believe it had sort of come across my desk i didn't go looking for
00:36:43 across my desk i didn't go looking for it obviously but you know i wasn't aware this had been referred to me to look at if we go on in your statement of page 39 please let's look at the
00:36:56 please let's look at the foot of that page of paragraph 154 this is under the heading labc and you say at 154 i recall reading the the k15 labc certification the k-15
00:37:07 the k15 labc certification the k-15 certificate came to my attention as it said it could be considered a monk but i knew this was clearly not the case and then over the page apparent 155 you say i had concerns
00:37:19 apparent 155 you say i had concerns regarding the k-15 labc certificate as i knew it was wrong but i was not able to intervene and there was no one really to report it to so nhbc did take the steps referred to in paragraphs 156 and 158
00:37:32 referred to in paragraphs 156 and 158 below needless to say nhpc would not have accepted the certificate if it was presented to us as any form of evidence now we've looked in this inquiry in depth at the labc system approval for
00:37:43 depth at the labc system approval for k-15
00:37:45 k-15 and its incorrect assertions in relation to k-15 i think as i think accepted do you know or do you remember when you first read this certificate i think you say 2012 is that when you
00:37:56 think you say 2012 is that when you notice the error
00:38:00 yes i believe so i think when i first had it shown to me
00:38:07 i don't think it took me very long to realize that that was incorrect right even though you hadn't in fact uh obtained your qualifications as a fire engineer yeah you didn't need to be
00:38:18 fire engineer yeah you didn't need to be a fire engineer to read table a7 in adb right
00:38:24 now were you surprised in 2012 when you saw this the erroneous certificate and spotted the error in it that labc
00:38:33 that labc who was responsible for a large portion of the country's building control services would release such a fundamentally erroneous statement about the fire safety of a product
00:38:44 yes i was but we weren't party to the full range of what labc had looked at in arriving at that conclusion but it certainly didn't fit with the
00:38:56 but it certainly didn't fit with the k-15 data sheet which said it was class c
00:39:00 c no
00:39:01 no why did you feel you were unable to intervene as you say in your statement because
00:39:07 because we labc were a different organization to us
00:39:13 and because you know as i say there that there is no overarching body that looks
00:39:24 looks at the labc as far as i'm aware you know there wasn't anyone to escalate up the chain if you had one of these concerns the most you could do on any particular job was go to the head of building
00:39:35 job was go to the head of building control for that particular borough and raise it to them and on subsequent schemes that was you know queries that we did forward but beyond that there was nowhere to go to
00:39:47 to other than perhaps brian martin but you know
00:39:51 you know well why not just write to lab at abc the powers that be within nabc it is after all an entity even though in fact it contains or has membership
00:40:02 fact it contains or has membership across local authorities and and draw the error to their attention and ask them to correct it or at least ask them why they've let it languish uncorrected for so long
00:40:14 uncorrected for so long um
00:40:15 um well that is kind of what steve did you know in around 2014.
00:40:23 um i'm given the close relationship between nhbc and labc as we've seen was there
00:40:29 was there nobody that you personally could pick up the phone to and alert them no there wasn't
00:40:39 this error in the labc certificate was that in your mind in 2014 at the time of the friendly warning email
00:40:48 email yes it was um so if in fact it was the case as you told us that you knew that the nabc certificate erroneously and and misleadingly identified uh
00:41:00 identified uh k15 as a material of emitter combustibility when it obviously wasn't
00:41:07 how would the fact that labc would might take over
00:41:10 take over uh the approval by way of enforcement if nhbc rejected it uh have helped because you knew that they would be accepting it on an erroneous basis
00:41:24 so let me try it differently what would be what would have been the point of not making a fuss about k-15 over 18 meters merely because the labc uh was there as a backup and would have
00:41:36 uh was there as a backup and would have approved it anyway there wasn't really one no now
00:41:40 now um if we then go to your statement please at 153 go back a page
00:41:50 you say in terms of the labc test certification process i understood the purpose of gaining an abc type approval system approval or registered details certificate for a product meant that the builder could present the certificate
00:42:01 builder could present the certificate before any local authority and it would be accepted i knew of these certificates but i was not really familiar with them as nhbc did not accept labc type approval
00:42:11 approval why is it that nhbc did not accept labc type approval
00:42:20 our understanding of the process by which labc issued their approvals wasn't one that i think
00:42:31 wasn't one that i think nhpc
00:42:33 nhpc had a lot of confidence in and on that basis would not rely upon them
00:42:41 did nhpc provide warranties on buildings where the local authority bco had signed off
00:42:47 off in reliance on uh an labc certificate do you know
00:42:51 you know um
00:42:52 um i would imagine that to be the case i can't name any names though no but with that i mean i'm sure you can't name any names maybe you can but i'm not asking you to do so what i
00:43:04 but i'm not asking you to do so what i am interested in is why it is the case that nhbc would provide warranties on buildings where the local authority bco had signed a building off in reliance on an labc certificate if nhbc had no
00:43:15 an labc certificate if nhbc had no great deal not a great deal of confidence in the process well i think prior to you know this time around 2014 where we
00:43:26 time around 2014 where we did decide to take you know a stronger line on the warranty only jobs um
00:43:33 um there would be a number of jobs that the labc had signed off for building control and we offered the warranty on yes yes well why it's a question there may be a lot but why is that
00:43:44 lot but why is that that was
00:43:46 that was well that was we were a warranty body you know on those schemes we were not doing the building control we were simply offering a warranty yeah i mean are you able to give us any insight into why it was or how it was that nhbc was
00:43:57 why it was or how it was that nhbc was prepared to offer a warranty on a building where the local authority building control officer had signed off the building as compliant in reliance on a labc certificate well they were very
00:44:08 a labc certificate well they were very different things you know the the warranty
00:44:11 warranty was
00:44:12 was to deal with defects it was not there to deal with regulatory compliance now let's look at nhb 810 810 this is an email
00:44:24 this is an email between you and somebody called jane keeley of ascent building control
00:44:34 dated the 13th of november 2013 uh 2014. now um to paraphrase the first part of the email chain uh what's happening here is that jane keeley is forwarding an email from
00:44:45 keeley is forwarding an email from another colleague who is querying k15 and asking you if the labc certificate dated the 30th of november is still valid and we can see your response at the top
00:44:58 and we can see your response at the top in the email of the 13th of november 2014
00:45:02 2014 and you say this it's all garbage hereford labc didn't know what they were talking about we had a telephone call with labc warranty technical manager can't recall his name which it's he stated that they were withdrawing their
00:45:14 stated that they were withdrawing their approval straight away that was on 27th of october so i would check it's still valid if i was you so it looks from this is this right that you finally did intervene in some way
00:45:26 um i guess so i mean this was jane is a long-standing friend of mine right we she asked me because she knew that i was involved at nhpc looking at these
00:45:38 involved at nhpc looking at these particular issues i see and do you say it's all garbage there for the reasons you've given namely that the lab certificate was plainly wrong uh when it when it referred to k-15 as a
00:45:51 uh when it when it referred to k-15 as a material of limited combustibility i believe that's what i was referring to it would be whatever jane's question was to me yeah let's look down to be fair to you i haven't shown you the full email
00:46:02 you i haven't shown you the full email string but uh if you go down to um uh your own uh
00:46:08 uh your own message over to page two if we scroll to page three page two and look into page three you're actually setting up the reasons and just pausing there just pausing there at the very end of the second
00:46:19 there at the very end of the second paragraph there we can see that you say it's not clear why the labc detail states that it's a mock when it clearly isn't
00:46:27 isn't so that's your message and then you at the top of page three we can see that you you set out the um
00:46:34 the um beige i suppose that's the right color block
00:46:37 block where it says adb fire safety note from the results it can be considered as a material a limited combustibility and then two lines underneath that since k15 can be considered a material
00:46:49 since k15 can be considered a material of limited combustibility it is suitable for use in all situations shown on diagram 40 of approved document b i mean you've highlighted those two in yellow i think so that's the point you
00:47:00 yellow i think so that's the point you were dealing with isn't it and is it that that's why you say it's all garbage could you just go to page four and i see what jane actually did ask specifically uh yes of course page
00:47:12 uh yes of course page i think we need in fact to go on to page five to see what the question is good it comes up to you
00:47:20 uh no sorry could you get back to page four
00:47:25 four page four it is
00:47:29 yeah so jane was asking if the certificate which was the labc certificate is still valid
00:47:37 valid and jane asked me is this the one that they are withdrawn or are withdrawing so my response back was directly in relation to that certificate and my
00:47:48 in relation to that certificate and my first paragraph i believe you know the last sentence of that was saying check it is still valid because i understood they were withdrawing it now going back to the top of the email uh chain itself and the very first
00:47:59 chain itself and the very first paragraph i've read to you you
00:48:02 you tell jane keeley that you've had a telephone call with the labc warranty technical manager
00:48:12 and then you say at which he stated they were withdrawing their approval straight away
00:48:17 away um
00:48:18 um i how well do you remember that conversation it was steve arranged a telephone
00:48:26 telephone conference call um and he asked me to listen in oh well i listen in and contribute but i don't think i had anything to really contribute
00:48:37 anything to really contribute and it was between steve and myself and this is where i really cannot remember who it was from labc i would imagine it was either barry turner or doug basson but i'm kind of
00:48:50 turner or doug basson but i'm kind of guessing on that well i don't know if steve in his evidence had a clearer view of you know a recollection of that conversation my question is
00:49:01 conversation my question is do you remember whether you were told during the conversation without being prompted the labc had already decided to withdraw their approval
00:49:11 approval or
00:49:12 or did they say to you that they were going to withdraw their approval straight away in light of what you'd said to them no i believe that it was we had the conversation and pointed out that their certificate
00:49:24 and pointed out that their certificate was
00:49:25 was their own it was wrong and
00:49:28 and i do i recall the words along the lines of we'd better do something about that and and take a look and withdraw it um it was something like that right
00:49:40 right did the person in saying that express surprise
00:49:48 did they try to defend it do you remember
00:49:51 remember not really i kind of remember they were a bit
00:49:53 a bit [Applause] you know not kind of
00:50:00 i'm struggling for the word they they didn't particularly see that it needed to be dealt with any immediate urgency now
00:50:10 now uh if we um sorry could i just i'm not sure this you know whether they did withdraw that uh certificate soon after that conversation or not i don't know if that's been established
00:50:21 established uh now going back to your email if we can go back to page one you set out the contents of the bba certificate
00:50:30 and the details of the test there and that's the 2005 test with the cementitious particle board that kings that kingspan had undertaken on k15 and you then go on
00:50:43 undertaken on k15 and you then go on uh to say
00:50:46 uh on the next page page two in the second paragraph
00:50:53 and i've shown you the end of this but it it starts as follows kingspan have since done at least two tests i suspect they've done more that have kept the results close to their chests because they perform so badly exclamation mark using a steel frame and
00:51:05 exclamation mark using a steel frame and ventilated rain screen and there is an issue with ongoing burning once the fire source is extinguished the insulation continues to burn up the cavity and in one case continued over the cavity barrier and up to the top of the test
00:51:16 barrier and up to the top of the test rig so it's not clear why the labc detail states that it's a molk when it clearly isn't now um how did you know about the issue of ongoing burning as you put it
00:51:27 you put it that was taken from the trespa test right that's the trespa test and and you've presumably seen the results of that had you yes we'd been presented
00:51:38 that had you yes we'd been presented with a copy of that report right now given that you were suspicious that king kingspan had been failing tests as you say in the words in brackets there yes yes
00:51:49 yes yes and given that you were aware of problems with ongoing burning why was nhbc still continuing even at this stage uh to approve the use of k-15 above 18 meters
00:52:01 meters we're now in november 2014 because
00:52:07 because we at that point came
00:52:11 came to realize that the performance of the a4 1 4 tests wasn't
00:52:19 wasn't but it wasn't just the insulation it was a combination of insulation cavity and external panel and those three well largely those three components together were what drove
00:52:31 components together were what drove whether you would pass a test or not we we knew that the k-15 with the rye cladding finish could pass these tests with the wrong
00:52:42 could pass these tests with the wrong cladding finish particularly ones which were highly combustible it tended to be actually it was the cladding finish which was causing the the flaming of the rig rather than the insulation
00:52:54 rig rather than the insulation so we knew that the evidence at that point was pointing that it would work with certain types of external finish well just breaking that answer up into two further
00:53:06 breaking that answer up into two further questions first of all am i right in thinking that you had always known certainly since august 2013 that an 8414 test was a system test
00:53:18 that an 8414 test was a system test it was always a question of performance of the entire system and not simply the performance of the insulation yes yes we knew that yes and and secondly uh
00:53:29 uh when you say um that um the test evidence was pointing to the fact that it would work with certain types of external finish it's right isn't it to say that the only test
00:53:42 right isn't it to say that the only test under 8414 in which
00:53:45 in which k15
00:53:46 k15 uh had passed as it were in other words the whole rig had satisfied br135 was the one
00:53:53 the one um using um cementitious particle board as the rain screen the details of which are set out in the bba certificate you set out on page one of this email string that was the situation with k15 we
00:54:07 that was the situation with k15 we were aware of think of a a414 part one test using extra therm which was a similar
00:54:15 similar family you know in within that family of materials
00:54:18 materials which had passed we were i think aware of the celetex test at that time with the alternate material which had passed so
00:54:29 so that was you know the basis on which we you know we were looking at this we knew that the performance of the family of materials
00:54:37 materials you know and in the cases that you could you know take some assumptions well but you were
00:54:45 you were treating them as a family but not is this right making any allowance for the difference between the chemical composition or the mechanical structure
00:54:57 structure of each of these different products no we were treating them as a group family of insulation products but jane keeley's asking you about k15
00:55:09 jane keeley's asking you about k15 yes not extra thermal rs 5000 yes
00:55:14 yes yes yes so question again focusing on k-15 given that you had been suspicious about failed tests and ongoing burning
00:55:25 failed tests and ongoing burning how could it have been any comfort to you that other products within the same family
00:55:30 family had passed 8414 tests within rigs using different range screen
00:55:46 well i agree you know the only test evidence we had for k-15 at this point was
00:55:51 was the 2005 test now i was no no because by this point there was also the k-15 test with the trespa
00:56:02 test with the trespa and
00:56:03 and i believe the k-15 test with a terracotta finish at this point had already been issued not you had the details of the results of that yet had you
00:56:12 you i believe we knew about it i thought we this was in november 2014 wasn't it no and that test was carried out in july so
00:56:23 and that test was carried out in july so or june or july so i thought we had had seen that one by this point the trespass which you have referred to was the one which would have actually produced the problem with ongoing burning yeah but the terracotta
00:56:34 ongoing burning yeah but the terracotta test was the first terracotta test was carried out
00:56:39 wasn't that around july time i think june june yeah i would have thought we did you remember do you remember seeing the results of the terracotta test before sending this email
00:56:51 test before sending this email i
00:56:52 i can't be sure but i believe it was yes because the time period between the test being carried out in this email was five months
00:57:03 five months four months five months surely you know we would have seen the report by this point
00:57:10 it's not something you refer to as a positive is it in your second paragraph that's still on the screen
00:57:18 uh sorry what specifically the results of the terracotta test
00:57:34 but the second paragraph i'm referring to the
00:57:38 to the statement in the bba certificate now let's go to page three of this email chain uh where you as we can see set out in the page beige box
00:57:51 uh the um element of the certificate that you've set out and you you comment on it
00:58:04 and you say underneath it as we can see in the brackets the bit about using a non-combustible lining board instead of a masonry backing on a steel frame wall has since proved not to be correct these words were kingspans they assumed that
00:58:15 words were kingspans they assumed that it would perform the same but when they did the tests it was found they performed far worse um now was that something you'd actually seen on sites or on proposed buildups the the use of a non-combustible lining
00:58:27 the the use of a non-combustible lining board in lieu of testing on a steel frame
00:58:32 uh i hadn't seen it on site but the reference to it was i recall
00:58:39 i recall you know the meetings with kingspan that where they had said that in their view and i can't recall the reasons they said that okay he's not on a blockwork backing wall but it's on
00:58:50 on a blockwork backing wall but it's on a non-combustible board instead it will perform in the same way or at least as well as a block work wall and and that was it wasn't something i've actually seen on site but i had seen how these things were put together
00:59:02 seen how these things were put together on site typically with a lightweight steel frame and the boards and that lock yes
00:59:06 yes now you then go on underneath that to say it's all an accident waiting to happen and we're meeting with all the pir manufacturers to try and get something sorted but in the meantime they continue to state that it's fine and most bcbs accept that at face value
00:59:18 and most bcbs accept that at face value without sifting through the details however dclg are now on the case hence why we need to sort something out soon
00:59:26 uh now on that
00:59:31 oh sorry you continue to say our current policy is to request a copy of a test on the proposed cladding buildup if there isn't one then we take the view that we can't apply the bba approval or the br 135 compliance as such it's recommended
00:59:42 135 compliance as such it's recommended that the mark be used instead i can elaborate further if you want this is just the summary now was it the contact from dclg that made you finally intervene
00:59:53 intervening what precisely
00:59:57 well by this point we were already in the discussions with kingspan and and going through
01:00:04 through you know that process of trying to
01:00:07 trying to get kingsman to prove their product a bit more i see now at what point have you decided that this was all an accident waiting to happen those words i got i believe we just had
01:00:18 those words i got i believe we just had the meeting with arab
01:00:21 arab fire and dr lane used those same words i copied those words and used them in this email to jane i was going to ask you that and we'll we'll see that that's
01:00:32 you that and we'll we'll see that that's in her email of the 30th of october 2014. so you had essentially agreed with her and used precisely the same expression yes yes i see and
01:00:44 what was it that
01:00:47 that prompted you to agree with dr lane to such an extent that you would essentially copy and paste her expression into an email to a colleague
01:00:58 well i think dr lane's when she used the phrase it wasn't specifically to do with the insulation it dr lane used the phrase when referring to
01:01:09 phrase when referring to combustible 100 percent chord polyethylene chord acms um
01:01:15 um so that's what she was referring to i was referring to the fact that this situation with kingspan k15 was not looking good
01:01:27 not looking good um
01:01:28 um hence why in my final sentence i thought the best thing to recommend to jane would be that if that they just don't go down the road with a k-15 and and use a a non-combustible insulation
01:01:40 and use a a non-combustible insulation instead
01:01:41 instead um
01:01:43 um and that was because by this point in time
01:01:45 time many of the clients at nhbc were opting to
01:01:49 to steer away from using k15 and to go you know down a non-combustible route with their insulation instead did your colleagues at nhbc
01:02:00 at nhbc share the views that you have described to jane keeley namely that it's all an accident waiting to happen we i believe they everyone at nhbc knew
01:02:11 we i believe they everyone at nhbc knew that this was not a good situation
01:02:16 so that's a yes i think so yeah
01:02:22 now the policy that you describe here
01:02:26 here uh of
01:02:27 uh of um
01:02:28 um asking for materials of limited combustibility to be used unless there's a valid br 135 certification in fact that had never been an hbc's policy had it
01:02:41 an hbc's policy had it it was not a policy but it was certainly an answer that i was giving back to our srpm surveyors when they were asking me
01:02:52 when they were asking me and i believe at this point i was saying to them
01:02:56 to them if they want to use k15 we're going to have all these issues and we're going to ask them to prove it if they
01:03:03 if they want you know simplicity and risk-free then change the insulation to a non-combustible one so when did the policy become that which
01:03:14 so when did the policy become that which you describe in this paragraph the policy on that and if that wasn't an official nhpc policy that was me giving my
01:03:24 giving my thoughts advice to my colleagues well is that right you say our current policy who's the hour oh sorry the nhbc current policy at that time was as we've said you know to go through the
01:03:36 as we've said you know to go through the you know the asking k kingspan to prove it option three assessments option four well the option for hadn't really come out at that point but to prove it via either test evidence or an option three
01:03:48 three that was the nhbc policy at that time with great respect help me with that don't think that's what it says let's read it again our current policy is to request a copy of a test on the proposed cladding
01:04:00 of a test on the proposed cladding buildup
01:04:01 buildup if there isn't one then we take the view that we can't apply the bba approval or the br 135 compliance as such it's recommended that a material
01:04:12 as such it's recommended that a material of limited combustibility be used instead
01:04:15 instead now first of all our current policy were you not referring to nhbc's current policy yes i was and when did the nhbc adopt that policy
01:04:27 and when did the nhbc adopt that policy with the
01:04:29 with the when steve sent out the email to the surveyors largely saying the what was in the bca guidance note that either material limited combustibility a
01:04:40 either material limited combustibility a test to a414 or an option three assessments no reference to option three in here at all is there it's either um
01:04:48 um it's either mulk or eight four one four at as per a adb
01:04:55 adb isn't it there is in this email yeah but you know the na that was the nhbc policy at the time as evidenced by the other emails that have been around
01:05:09 i mean this you know as i said that's next next sentence if there isn't one then we take the you can't apply the bba approval or the br-135 i could have put in a sentence there and
01:05:21 i could have put in a sentence there and saying so they have to justify it by some other means but
01:05:25 but this was not an email where we wanted to go down that route or particularly i wanted to suggest jane went down that route because i knew that you know it was a much more difficult scenario
01:05:37 much more difficult scenario jane had a building which where they were saying should we use k-15 my advice back to her was don't
01:05:46 don't yes
01:05:47 yes yes thank you i'm just seeking to understand this current policy when it came in um you referred to steve's email to surveys in fact that didn't go until the february of 2015 three or four
01:05:58 the february of 2015 three or four months
01:05:59 months or three months later so i'm just trying to understand help me with this when did what you described there as the current policy of nhbc become adopted
01:06:11 i'm struggling to remember that then i mean we were seeing jobs coming in at this time with the k15 and the discussions were that you know it would need to be backed up
01:06:23 you know it would need to be backed up with a option three assessment but
01:06:28 gen i don't know i i'm struggling to recall sorry [Applause]
01:06:38 were you still asking for comfort letters from kingspan at this time
01:06:43 i believe they were on the jobs that were under the old bba certificate yes
01:06:50 why didn't you tell jane keeley that why didn't you tell her that in respect to projects before january 2014 or whether noted the initial notice had been filed before that date
01:07:02 you just had to get approval from kingspan and it was fine why didn't you tell her that because
01:07:11 because i really didn't have a lot of didn't want to do anything for to improve kingspan sales figures we really were
01:07:20 were finding them a difficult organization and
01:07:23 and a lot of what they were saying was not becoming you know it was murky right so does that tell us that actually you didn't believe in nhbc's policy of continuing
01:07:35 believe in nhbc's policy of continuing to accept
01:07:37 to accept pre-first january 2014 projects using k-15 above 80 meters based only on kingspan say so i did have a lot of concerns about it yes
01:07:49 yes but you're asking a fire engineer whether
01:07:53 whether you know they would prefer not to use combustible materials you know it's it's like asking turkeys to vote for christmas you know it's that sort of scenario
01:08:11 now let's talk about arab i just want to ask you some questions about the meetings that you had with arab and bre in november 2014. can we go first please to nhb 508
01:08:26 and go to page four in that email run please and here we see steve evans writing
01:08:32 writing to barbara lane on the 30th of october 2014.
01:08:36 2014. copy to graeme perrier u and dave white subject fire performance of pur and pir thermoset rigid insulation boards in building envelopes above 18 meters and there's a lot in in the detail but
01:08:48 there's a lot in in the detail but before we look at that can i just take you please to page 7 page 22 of your statement paragraph 79 and you say there
01:08:58 there at the end of that sentence
01:09:03 at the end of that paragraph you say we were looking to identify
01:09:08 sorry second sentence i apologize second sentence we knew arab had been involved in considering fires in high-rise buildings so they wanted to get their views in particular we were looking to identify if arab could assist us with understanding the safety issues relating
01:09:20 understanding the safety issues relating to acm in essence barbara lane at arab agreed that it was not safe it was there a particular issue with acn that had prompted the contact with arab
01:09:31 that had prompted the contact with arab as opposed to insulation
01:09:43 no i don't recall a specific job that was on our minds at this time that had acm on it when we went to meet dr lane right and i asked that because the first bullet point of
01:09:54 that because the first bullet point of the email and i'd like we can get back to that please nhb five zeros eight one one page four the first bullet point there
01:10:02 there is dealing with insulation and indeed that's the title of the email itself
01:10:08 itself yes yes
01:10:10 yes yes that
01:10:10 that yes i mean i recall that the thrust of this meeting was really to discuss in the essence k-15 yes so you said earlier that in fact it had been prompted by acm and you said it
01:10:21 had been prompted by acm and you said it in your statement but but looking at the the email that kicks it off it looks as if it's it's insulation isn't it it was yes um now um if we go back to uh
01:10:32 um now um if we go back to uh steve irvine's email please as now in front of us you can see the first bullet point says this in looking at key aspects of design to maintain acceptable levels of fire safety over the expected life of residential buildings we have
01:10:44 life of residential buildings we have over the past months reviewed potential fire risk where combustible construction materials are installed within external walling envelopes of drained and ventilated rainscreen facades in focusing on an evaluation of true
01:10:55 focusing on an evaluation of true performance the materials of greatest concern include pir stroke pir thermoset rigid polyurethane board products which are promoted by manufacturers for
01:11:06 which are promoted by manufacturers for extensive use in external envelopes of multi-story buildings exceeding 18 meters high now just pausing there what review is steve evans referring to
01:11:22 you see in the third or second line of that first bullet point he says have over the past months reviewed potential fire risk what is the review
01:11:37 i'm trying to i don't i'm trying to recall if there was a
01:11:42 i know that after
01:11:46 after sometime in the early part of 2014 steve did ask steve got some jobs together which had come in under the new bba certificate
01:11:57 under the new bba certificate and had asked me to take a look through informally this was this is not a formal process informally look through what was being proposed to see if it was going to
01:12:10 to see if it was going to create you know concerns with regards to the use of the k-15 in relay and the the cladding panel so that had been carried out
01:12:21 carried out and i would guess that since that there would be you know a few more jobs had come in where maybe it was being proposed i can get that's all i can guess is that
01:12:32 i can get that's all i can guess is that that's those are the jobs that steve was referring to at this point
01:12:38 did you do you understand when you got this message uh in copy that this was a reference only to insulation or did it also include external padding panels principally this was the insulation we
01:12:51 principally this was the insulation we were mostly concerned with um
01:12:56 we we knew the you know well we certainly knew the issues with regards to acm panels um but the meeting was not about that this meeting was you know us trying to find a way through that possibly you know k-15 and others
01:13:10 that possibly you know k-15 and others could be acceptable looking at the second bullet point it says in accordance with our technical standards and building regulations adb compliance nhbc has regularly requested that fire performance should be proven
01:13:22 that fire performance should be proven by testing under the bs 8414 and br 135 requirements for high-rise buildings exceeding 18 meters this has resulted in a greater number of these fire tests being commissioned by manufacturers in
01:13:33 being commissioned by manufacturers in attempting to prove performance of their insulation products on facades above 18 meters however the results from this type testing does not always confirm the safe levels of performance that are
01:13:44 safe levels of performance that are hoped for now that wasn't strictly true was it because nhbc historically had accepted letters uh from kingspan in lieu of
01:13:55 uh from kingspan in lieu of successful tests under bs8414 to br 135 criteria and they were still doing so
01:14:02 doing so um the the letters were under the old bba this was in the you know the new world of the new the latest bba that we were
01:14:13 latest bba that we were doing this process well that distinction doesn't leap from that text does it no it doesn't do you know why i don't i looking at this i didn't draft this one i think this was dave that drafted this
01:14:26 drafted this and do you do you know why steve evans says here that large-scale testing doesn't confirm safe levels of performance we were looking forward we you know we were
01:14:37 forward we you know we were we were trying to sorry i'm going back to your earlier question we were looking forward at this point trying to sort out the situation as it was with k-15 and the current bba
01:14:48 k-15 and the current bba um
01:14:49 um and that was the reason why you know we were looking for a route forward on that no that's not right is it we've great respect mr lewis it says nhbc has regularly requested that fire performance should be proven not and hbc
01:15:02 performance should be proven not and hbc is proposing going forwards to do so it's looking at the past sorry where's that sentence well we're looking at the second bullet point yeah
01:15:14 looking at the second bullet point yeah first and second lines
01:15:17 after the words in bold nhbc has regularly requested that fire performance should be proven it's it's looking historically at the position isn't it that's what it's about not the future yeah it was
01:15:29 not the future yeah it was yeah with regards to the you know the latest situation and the testing the trespass the terracotta test well forgive me i'll put the point again
01:15:40 forgive me i'll put the point again because you've gone back to it and taught to qualify it but this is not is it telling barbara lane in plain terms that historically until the 1st of january 2014 nhbc regularly accepted in
01:15:52 january 2014 nhbc regularly accepted in fact
01:15:53 fact universally accepted k15 simply on the basis of the manufacturers say so because the bba certificate said it could no we didn't those words are not in him that influence is not in there no it's not and therefore by saying that
01:16:05 it's not and therefore by saying that has regularly requested that fire performance should be proven by testing was um
01:16:11 was um was wrong or at least only a half truth
01:16:16 that's probably the case yes yeah now um
01:16:21 now um i mean can you explain why i know you didn't draft this as you say but can you explain why steve evans would chose would have chosen only to present a half truth to barbara lane whose assistance he was seeking
01:16:33 i can't like i say it was the situation at that time you know the
01:16:39 know the the old bba certificate jobs were one issue this was the new bba certificate jobs and the current situation mr chairman we're mid-string uh and i i
01:16:50 mr chairman we're mid-string uh and i i quite like to finish this string off if i can it'll take about 10 minutes so that's the problem i'm happy now i've managed another ten minutes couldn't you mr lewis can you guys have a break yes i'm very grateful thank you now after
01:17:02 i'm very grateful thank you now after the list of bullet points the email continues and we need to scroll down page four
01:17:07 page four to where it says an internal meeting do you see that yes an internal meeting was held recently involving an hbc heads of department responsible for building control
01:17:16 control and building standards including nhbc standards and technical and just note that sentence he goes on we agreed that our next course of action should be to hold initial discussions with recognized fire
01:17:28 initial discussions with recognized fire experts whereby issues of concern could be considered without prejudice on a purely technical basis in relation to current knowledge including building regulations and existing standards on fire performance
01:17:39 fire performance we would greatly value your input and the recognized arab expertise concerning this particular issue hopefully it can help nhbc in progressing towards practical clarification on what can reliably be
01:17:51 clarification on what can reliably be understood from performance testing and for potential fire engineering input regarding combustibility of insulation products and external surfaces of multi-story facades and external walls to limit fire spread
01:18:04 external walls to limit fire spread if you'd be interested in me in meeting please get back to me so that we can provide some dates to arrange a meeting possibly at the bre garston offices now did you attend the meeting that's
01:18:16 now did you attend the meeting that's referred to there which involves nhbc heads of department responsible for building control and building standards including nhbc standards and technical we need to go back back a page i think
01:18:27 we need to go back back a page i think so i can show you the precise text page four at the bottom
01:18:35 the internal meeting did you attend it yes i believe i did but i struggled to remember really which meeting it was do you remember whose idea it was to
01:18:46 do you remember whose idea it was to approach arab with these questions
01:18:51 i think that was steve what was your role to be in that meeting we were
01:19:00 we were just you know so that
01:19:03 well we all had our own set of queries on this issue um we were going as a group of people or with our own queries with was
01:19:15 people or with our own queries with was you know and with the aim of the meeting was that each of us would raise those particular queries and you know
01:19:23 know and see
01:19:24 and see now if we go to page three of this email string we can see that barbara lane responds to you all uh the same day 30th of october 2014 about an hour later
01:19:37 about an hour later and she says steve i'm on holiday but jamie will call you to sort dates arab actually deeply concerned about the lack of understanding of assemblies and the ongoing incorrect use of test reports for individual materials being applied
01:19:49 for individual materials being applied to more complex building envelope forms the use of highly combustible materials in residential buildings is now simply an accident waiting to happen we are getting some interaction with clients and there is definitely the
01:20:00 clients and there is definitely the beginning of a shift in emphasis we would be delighted to address this issue with nhbc and bre and appreciate you contacting us um i don't need to take you to page four it just says barbara
01:20:12 it just says barbara now did barbara elaine's timely response
01:20:16 as we can see from the timing indicate that she believed that this was an accident waiting to happen did that concern you the speed of the response didn't no we knew i'm sorry my fault did her reaction
01:20:29 knew i'm sorry my fault did her reaction that it was an accident waiting to happen concern you
01:20:33 to some extent
01:20:39 we had by this point as i say we'd seen the fires
01:20:43 the fires in the middle east and other places and i think we all knew that
01:20:51 there was a possibility of something of that nature could happen in the uk
01:21:01 did anybody to your knowledge at this point
01:21:04 point given her use of that expression and as we saw two weeks later your precise adoption of it in your discussions with jane keeley prompt anybody at nhbc to go back to
01:21:17 prompt anybody at nhbc to go back to brian martin and tell him that in fact there was a real as opposed to a negligible risk to the buildings for which nhbc and
01:21:29 to the buildings for which nhbc and others had approved combustible material in external facades over 18 meters in the past
01:21:36 the past no i don't believe anybody did any part no and why is that um
01:21:43 um partly because
01:21:46 as we said you know the the issues were not just the insulation it was the mix of the insulation and external cladding panel
01:21:54 panel would have a big effect on it that bit we were not clear on at that point as to where those parameters lay
01:22:05 where those parameters lay um
01:22:08 otherwise i don't know i think we kind of all assume that brian had his ear to the ground and he must also be aware of these situations and what was going on we you know he was
01:22:20 was going on we you know he was didn't seem credible that he was sitting in an isolated tower without knowing of the same concerns that us and harop were were facing was that an assumption that
01:22:31 were facing was that an assumption that you remember making at the time well i didn't have at this point you know i had no contact with brian martin i mean i
01:22:42 contact with brian martin i mean i don't think i'd even met him you know all i'd saw was an email via steve which was saying brian sent this email yeah i wasn't
01:22:52 i wasn't you know
01:22:53 you know i wasn't sort of my mind was focused on you know what was happening on the time rather than thinking we need to go and tell this to brian now you know that was that was not my way of thinking at the
01:23:04 that was not my way of thinking at the time
01:23:05 time given that in the 11th of july 2014 brian martin had been told by steve evans
01:23:12 evans that just because there's no test evidence doesn't mean it's not safe i paraphrase but that's the beginning part of the fourth paragraph in that email you'll remember it given that brian martin had been given that
01:23:23 brian martin had been given that assurance by nhbc my question is did anybody
01:23:26 anybody at this stage now given that you've had a recognized industry expert tell you that it was an accident waiting to happen not think to go back and correct the impression that steve evans's 11th of july email had given him
01:23:39 of july email had given him um
01:23:40 um i don't believe anybody did that and i don't recall a discussion at the time
01:23:45 time where we said should we go back to brian or not i don't recall it featuring and did anybody on this email chain having received this reaction from barbara lane
01:23:57 barbara lane did anybody either you or steve evans grand perry or dave white suggests stopping the use of or the approval of combustible materials over 18 meters and the adoption of the policy that two
01:24:09 and the adoption of the policy that two weeks later you told jane evans had been adopted jane keeley had been adopted
01:24:16 adopted um
01:24:18 sorry first part of the um what was the key word on your question please well um having received this email from from a recognized industry expert barbara lane did anybody who received
01:24:30 barbara lane did anybody who received this email yourself included suggest stopping approving use of k-15 other than in accordance with the policy that two weeks later you told jane keeley nhbc had adopted no i don't
01:24:42 keeley nhbc had adopted no i don't believe there was no i don't think that happened why and why is that do you know uh i don't know mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes i think it is thank you very much
01:24:53 yes i think it is thank you very much well we'll have a breakdown mr lewis we'll resume please of course to 12 and as before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence when they're out of the room all right thank you very much you'd like to go with the usher then
01:25:04 you'd like to go with the usher then thank you
01:25:14 thank you across the top please
01:44:54 would you ask mr lewis to come back in please thank you
01:45:11 all right mr lewis ready to carry on i hope yes thank you yes mr chairman thank you i now want to ask you about the meetings with uh bre and arab in late november 2014. uh i think there were meetings on the
01:45:23 uh i think there were meetings on the 25th with arab on the 27th of november respectively now you took notes of both those meetings and you sent them to steve evans on the 10th of december 2014. let's look at those nhb 50829
01:45:39 and what we see here is a summary as you say of each of the two meetings
01:45:44 meetings held recently regarding the use of combustible components within external wall systems and the first one you deal with is the meeting with arab in london on the 25th of november 2014 and you
01:45:56 on the 25th of november 2014 and you identify who was in attendance you can see them there barbara elaine and charlotte robin you steve evans graham perrier and dave white respectively all from um nhbc
01:46:07 white respectively all from um nhbc and af i think is short for arab fire looking at paragraph one it says this af stated that they had been approached by kingspan to offer an opinion about the use of kingspan k15 on high-rise
01:46:18 use of kingspan k15 on high-rise buildings however af did not wish to be involved with only one manufacturer but rather wish to see the issues tackled across this the entire section of the construction industry now just just pausing there was this when you first
01:46:29 pausing there was this when you first learned that arab were not in fact preparing the assessment report that kingspan had promised nhbc at the meeting you attended on the 6th of august 2014.
01:46:40 august 2014. yes we got a very different story from arab fire from what we were getting from kingsman were you surprised by that i think we kind of suspected that
01:46:52 i think we kind of suspected that this was
01:46:53 this was it was the case you know kingsman were not coming up with that report they weren't able to come up with letters of comfort to say how it was going so i think we were already suspicious that arab fire were not able to do what
01:47:05 that arab fire were not able to do what kingspan wanted so this wasn't was it therefore the first time that nhbc learned that this report promised by kingspan was not in fact coming was the first time we
01:47:16 fact coming was the first time we learned that it wasn't coming i see up to this point i believe kingspan was assuring us that something it would happen
01:47:26 uh yes now
01:47:28 now do you remember what the reaction of steve evans was to that news
01:47:34 like i say i i don't think we were totally surprised no but
01:47:41 no but disappointed um yes disappointed um
01:47:47 um yes this point is probably the best word now going on with the meeting points you say this at para2 af are deeply concerned about the use of combustible components within external wall constructions of high-rise buildings
01:47:59 constructions of high-rise buildings and then three af feel that the current guidance is not sufficiently robust and then continuing with the rest of it af wished to create new guidance based around bands of building risk and building height
01:48:10 building height af are preparing an article for architects journal discussing the issues and risks af handed over a copy of lpc1582
01:48:17 lpc1582 requirements and tests for lpcb approval of non-load-bearing external counting systems fixed to and supported by a structural steel frame they have considered this to be the level of performance that wall buildup should
01:48:28 performance that wall buildup should achieve
01:48:30 achieve they have queried the position of a bcb stating that in af's view and hbc bcs can insist on any level of performance that they deem appropriate and hbc se steve evans advised that adb2 is deemed
01:48:43 steve evans advised that adb2 is deemed to satisfy requirement b3 and so legally nhbc cannot require any increased level of performance they have stated they would be interested in working more closely with nhbc to establish new acceptance
01:48:54 nhbc to establish new acceptance criteria
01:48:56 criteria and then there's a summary over the page at the top of page two you say it was felt by an hbc that af we're looking at the issue from a risk-based fire engineering perspective whilst laudable this didn't assist from
01:49:08 whilst laudable this didn't assist from a bcs perspective where acceptance criteria is already published within adb2 bs 9991 and hbc feels that the current position is that systems need to be assessed
01:49:20 is that systems need to be assessed according to the criteria of br135 this being the performance criteria issued by clg
01:49:27 clg now
01:49:29 now the summary there was that something actually said is that does that recall discussions at the meeting or is it your summary
01:49:40 i believe after the meeting we
01:49:44 we got together in a coffee shop to debrief between us and
01:49:51 and that was kind of you know the conclusions and that we picked out from the meeting so it was the nhbc takeaway as it were rather than the expression of something said at the meeting
01:50:04 yes yes um
01:50:07 yes um now is it right therefore that you found out from this meeting the arab fire first shared your concerns about the use of combustible material insulation materials above 18 meters
01:50:20 insulation materials above 18 meters uh in addition to the earlier email from dr lane but yeah yes they and also they believe the the guidance was inadequate yes
01:50:30 yes yes and that they were planning on doing the same thing that the nhbc had done through the bca navy producing guidance for industry yes yes
01:50:40 yes but they wanted to increase levels of performance based on lpc 1582 yes yes but nhbc didn't in a nutshell well it wasn't that we
01:50:51 in a nutshell well it wasn't that we didn't want to it was we had to work within the confines of the the published documents that supported building regulations we couldn't well we we felt that we
01:51:03 couldn't well we we felt that we couldn't
01:51:04 couldn't step outside of that because that was the criteria set as i said there that's the performance criteria that the mhclg had set
01:51:12 had set for strict building rex minimum compliance and that was the criteria we had to work with did lh and hbc actually take any legal advice on that question or was that an
01:51:24 advice on that question or was that an assumption uh
01:51:26 uh i'm not aware that we did but it fits with you know this is the building regulation process its minimum standards those minimum standards are
01:51:37 standards are kind of described within the the documents that support it let's just look at your statement please page 22 paragraph 81
01:51:49 and you say there in the last sentence arabs view was that adb was largely out of date and as this was a modern product nhbc were entitled to ask for higher
01:52:00 nhbc were entitled to ask for higher requirements which product was the modern product referred to was that k-15
01:52:14 it wasn't just k15 it was you know a number of products which had been
01:52:21 been come into existence since the last review of adb did you agree that adb might have been out of date with respect to those products yes
01:52:32 and as a result of that view was there any discussion about taking it to government and asking them to revise or review
01:52:38 review adb particularly in light of those developments and concerns about them as far as i'm aware that the comments there were well i know that i regularly
01:52:50 i know that i regularly said to steve and or diane you know is there any news on the revised adb they were the ones that had the contacts
01:53:01 they were the ones that had the contacts linked directly with the ministry to
01:53:04 to find these out i'm not aware that anything happened specifically straight after this meeting but
01:53:10 but i'm sure and i do believe it was a question that was asked at fairly regular intervals you know around this time do you remember do you remember having a discussion with diane
01:53:21 remember having a discussion with diane marshall
01:53:22 marshall around the time all as a result of this meeting no now let's then look at the bre meeting two days later the 27th of november 2014 which you also cover in the same document
01:53:33 document if we go back to it please at page two
01:53:38 you can see there's the title uh the meetings at watford 27th of november 2014 and again we have the attendees there this time it's sarah colwell steve manchester and steve howard from
01:53:49 steve manchester and steve howard from the bre and the same quartet from an hbc including you um now it
01:53:58 um now it it i don't want to go through all of this in detail but but i think it's right to say that sarah colwell went through took the meeting through bs841 for testing and gave a summary of
01:54:09 bs841 for testing and gave a summary of br135 classification yes yes and if we go to 9a 0.9 a on page 3
01:54:17 she says this sc clarified the following a
01:54:23 a the wording of power 12.7 of adb2 includes all major components of a cladding system including the external finish
01:54:32 finish you see that yes now on that precise point did sarah colwell explain how the wording of 12.7 led to that meaning
01:54:43 the wording of 12.7 led to that meaning she didn't it was a question that i believe i
01:54:46 believe i raised at the meeting um
01:54:49 um paraphrase to would does bre think that paragraph 12.7 includes all the major components or is just restricted to the insulation and not the external finish right what made you ask her that question because
01:55:02 question because at this time the kickback we were getting anytime we raised this on a job was
01:55:09 was adb doesn't say that it only includes the insulation so why are you concerned about the cladding finish but at this time chronologically i think you you will agree that bca technical
01:55:21 you you will agree that bca technical guidance note 18 issue north of june 2014
01:55:25 2014 uh which had already been out there for some five months had already made it very plain under option one that all elements
01:55:32 elements as it says of the cladding system needed to be material of limited combustibility including external facings so given that that was the bca's expressed position
01:55:45 the bca's expressed position drafted for it by you
01:55:49 by you uh and approved by steve evans why were you asking her for her opinion on this point just to get further clarification that we were on the right track i mean i was
01:56:00 we were on the right track i mean i was clear in my mind that we were on the right track but to hear it from the mouth of somebody in a high up senior position at bre just helped to strengthen that we clearly had
01:56:12 helped to strengthen that we clearly had not definitely had not got it wrong and when she clarified it did you detect in her clarification that she was in any doubt about it no right you've recorded her as using the words
01:56:24 you've recorded her as using the words including the external finish which i think is slightly different from what's in the bca note which i think says external facings do do we take it that there's no distinction or was not intended to be a
01:56:36 distinction or was not intended to be a distinction no the external finish in this case i meant you know whatever the external cladding panel was so you're not let's be very clear you didn't ask her about and you didn't understand her to be addressing
01:56:49 understand her to be addressing the surface of the product but the whole product whether or not it was a composite product
01:56:58 product yes i was not for clarity i was not referring to the surface spread of flame upon the you know the external facade finish in that term i was meaning
01:57:09 facade finish in that term i was meaning in this case whatever cladding panel was used as the outermost element it had to be a material of limiting combustibility to meet under the wording
01:57:20 combustibility to meet under the wording of 12.7 yes did that mean and i think the answer you've given it to me but forgive the repeat uh does that mean that it had that that the whole panel had to be of limited combustibility throughout ie
01:57:32 limited combustibility throughout ie including any core yes
01:57:37 yes now
01:57:38 now first was there any discussion at the meeting about how that requirement as you had and she had read it from 12.7
01:57:51 was consistent with diagram 40 and the
01:57:57 the option there to to have a panel which was class b s3 d2
01:58:02 s3 d2 but class b which of course was not material of limiting combustibility i don't recall it the discussion um
01:58:13 um and i don't recall that we no the the discussion was purely around this part of adb relating to you know paragraph 12.7 and the ones before and
01:58:25 paragraph 12.7 and the ones before and after it so nobody turned back a page in
01:58:29 in adb and said well if that's right how does diagram 40 work no
01:58:36 no is that was that a question that had occurred to you at all um
01:58:44 well i i knew it was
01:58:48 i knew it it was a bit of adb where two things didn't fully make sense but you know the it wasn't an either or you had to comply
01:59:00 it wasn't an either or you had to comply with both to comply with adb guidance you had to meet both sets of requirements so
01:59:08 so even if
01:59:09 even if you know that if diagram 40 but you have to bear in mind i think diagram 40 it also reply applies to you know non-residential buildings a whole range of buildings whereas 12.7
01:59:21 whole range of buildings whereas 12.7 you know predominantly i think was residential actually no i don't think it is just residential i think it applies to all buildings over 18 meters because yeah
01:59:33 buildings over 18 meters because yeah now um
01:59:35 now um leaving aside the question of how 12.7 and diagram 40 might relate to each other with that interpretation as to park that my question my next question is uh had nhbc
01:59:47 uh had nhbc thus far
01:59:48 thus far up to november 2014 been implementing the practice uh identified by the meaning of 12.7 which sarah colwell clarified and requiring that all
02:00:00 colwell clarified and requiring that all external panels including the core be of material of limited combustibility
02:00:09 i'm not i can't speak for what the surveyors were doing um
02:00:14 um i can only speak for if i was ever asked the question and on the jobs if i dealt with them
02:00:20 with them um that was what i would have done all right i can understand why you say that but i'm after nhbc's practice in other words what was it what were its building control officers its approved
02:00:33 building control officers its approved inspectors doing were they requiring external panels including composite external panels with a core
02:00:42 a core to be composed fully of material of limited combustibility in accordance with the interpretation that you and sarah colwell shared i'm not sure what they were doing
02:00:53 i'm not sure what they were doing i can't right give her a view on that one was it not your business to make sure that your seniors understood and we know who was at the meeting of course but make sure they understood
02:01:06 course but make sure they understood that the interpretation of 12.7 that we see clarified here by sarah colbert at your request was carried through into practice
02:01:13 practice it was one of the reasons why i brought it up at the meeting just so that my seniors could hear it from the likes of sarah carwell um
02:01:22 um yes i would have ex you know i i would expect that as the senior leaders they then pick it up and run with it do you know why they didn't uh
02:01:33 uh i don't i mean at the time you know we were very much focused on option three reports that were starting well that were coming in by this point
02:01:52 what was an hbc's policy in respect of a class b
02:01:57 class b rain screen panel
02:02:01 at this time was a class b rain screen panel accepted on buildings over 18 meters as diagram 40 might suggest it could be
02:02:12 as diagram 40 might suggest it could be or was nhbc refusing to accept class b rain screen panels on buildings over 18 meters on the basis that it didn't comply with paragraph 12.7 as understood by you and sarah caldwell
02:02:25 understood by you and sarah caldwell at this point we would have been saying we need an option 3 report
02:02:33 that's that's a
02:02:37 that's a that's an answer to a slightly different question
02:02:40 question before you decide that you want an option three report
02:02:46 report don't you have to consider whether or not option one is satisfied if your client tells you it is um well we yes i mean we would have gone through the process you know it doesn't meet option one
02:02:57 option one um
02:02:58 um does it meet option two great if it did most of them didn't um
02:03:04 um so the next thing was well yeah you need to mr client mr building you need to prove this by option three understood understood that logic
02:03:12 logic just going back half a step were you rooted where was nhbc by this time
02:03:19 time or after this clarification from sarah colwell
02:03:23 colwell telling builder control officers that they could not accept a rain screen panel as compliant with the
02:03:34 the primary route to compliance using diagram 40 in other words they had to reject a class b rain screen panel because it didn't
02:03:44 didn't satisfy option one not withstanding diagram 40.
02:03:50 there wasn't a you know a policy drafted up or you know to immediately to go out to the space to say that
02:03:58 say that it was assumed that these were building control surveyors that knew adb they they should know this well
02:04:05 well what
02:04:06 what what was nhbc's public position at this time
02:04:10 time was it
02:04:11 was it option one which meant that all building control officers approved inspectors when presented with a rain screen panel with a composite core which was class b
02:04:23 with a composite core which was class b were required to refuse it under option one was that the position yes and are you confident they that all of
02:04:32 of um nhbc's building control service officers understood that i
02:04:38 i can't be sure that that was the case there was a mixed bag of abilities well let's just help you with this you told us more than once that you had to work
02:04:48 work as building control surveyors within the confines of adb you couldn't impose any stronger rules
02:04:56 rules um
02:04:57 um what was your attitude if the client said well look at diagram 40 it says i can have a class b panel we would say yeah but look at paragraph 12.7 so at that point there would be a
02:05:09 12.7 so at that point there would be a dispute do you recall any dispute of that sort of rising um yes
02:05:14 yes well i i recall
02:05:18 yes yes that that particular scenario was put to us on a number of occasions i do believe by you know builders their fire engineers people like that
02:05:29 people like that and they just um accepted your view did they no they would then kick back and say then 12.7 only covers the insulation you know we had to be
02:05:40 insulation you know we had to be very robust we were we were taking a lot of flack from our clients
02:05:46 clients as to why we were in their view asking for more than what adb said and these clients were then getting their fire engineers to come and join in the attack on us to to justify their
02:05:57 the attack on us to to justify their point of view and
02:06:00 and we were like as i say you know fighting back on this on many fronts on many schemes
02:06:06 schemes and
02:06:07 and you know it was causing the considerable amount of stress at our end um because of we you know of what was going on at the time and no one thought to invite clg to clarify the position
02:06:20 invite clg to clarify the position well we'd already
02:06:24 sought our own view on it i'm trying to recall
02:06:29 recall we'd already asked brian martin i think by this point was he did he consider that 12.7 applied to the external finish no i'm thinking of the particular discrepancy or
02:06:40 of the particular discrepancy or apparent discrepancy between 12.7 and diagram 40. so there you've got a clear on one view of the matter a clear conflict yes and on another view of the
02:06:51 conflict yes and on another view of the matter no conflict did no one think to put that question to uh clg i don't believe we did pull that question no
02:07:03 but i do believe at about this time the bs triple nine one review was coming up
02:07:14 up and
02:07:15 and as part of bs triple nine won the 2011 version more or less said the same as adb
02:07:22 adb and when the consultation for the new version of that one came up we put together our thoughts as to how that section of triple nine one should be amended to make it clearer
02:07:33 amended to make it clearer um to remove some of these issues and as far as i can see you know our mostly my comments on that were included in the 2015 version of triple nine one
02:07:44 in the 2015 version of triple nine one um had adb been up for a draft comment commentary at the same time we would have said the same thing in that to try and remove this ambiguity between the two
02:07:55 two things
02:07:56 things thank you
02:07:57 thank you yes
02:08:01 now um
02:08:04 [Applause]
02:08:19 yes forgive me um under point 10 on the screen uh we can see that sarah colwell recommends document lps 1582 as the more onerous benchmark for
02:08:31 1582 as the more onerous benchmark for use within the insurance industry and you and i think you rejected that because it was a it was
02:08:39 it was uh not in accordance with adb and you felt obliged to accept the minimum standards on in adb is that is that right
02:08:46 right we felt that we couldn't insist on the highest standard obviously we wanted the highest standard but we had to be sure that we were what we could in you know reasonably insist on yes and then beneath that you see the
02:08:58 yes and then beneath that you see the summary and hbc welcomed the clarifications by bre as well as the useful background which led up to the publication of br135 nhbc was unaware of the existence of a br135 classification
02:09:09 the existence of a br135 classification certificate and steve evans i think clarified this and you clarified it earlier in your evidence yesterday in fact it's right isn't it that nhbc were not aware of the potential availability of a
02:09:21 potential availability of a classification under br135 until you were alerted to it by sarah colwell yes we didn't know at that point that bre did an 8414 test and as one
02:09:33 that bre did an 8414 test and as one report and then issued another report to classify to br135
02:09:43 given that ignorance until that time if i can use that word without being rude without knowing about the availability of a br 135 classification certification
02:09:55 of a br 135 classification certification by the bre up to this point how did an hbc believe the build-ups of external walls either through large-scale testing or desktop studies was was found acceptable
02:10:09 desktop studies was was found acceptable because the data was clearly available within the 8414 report so so does it work like this that the the option three was to proceed purely
02:10:21 the option three was to proceed purely on the basis of the underlying 8414 data in other words the data spat out by the test and not on the basis of the interpretation of that
02:10:32 of the interpretation of that data
02:10:33 data and a judgment as to whether or not it met br135
02:10:40 met br135 yes the
02:10:41 yes the the information that was necessary to anybody doing an option three report was in the a414 test report
02:10:47 report the bl-135 summarize just said the highest temperatures the criteria were met there was no additional information in a 135 report that was not already in the
02:10:58 135 report that was not already in the 8414 report well there are two parts to it there's the doing of the test under 8414 and and there is a judgment as to whether the results of the test meet the
02:11:09 whether the results of the test meet the set criteria it contained in br135 yes yes
02:11:13 yes the bre classification report did the latter of those didn't it it did yes you then discovered yes uh
02:11:22 uh do we take it that that option three was launched on the basis that uh
02:11:30 uh um
02:11:31 um identified bodies bre warrington x over and uh and chilton could not only read the test day test
02:11:42 could not only read the test day test data
02:11:44 data but also
02:11:45 but also make the decision as to whether that test data met vr135 and then use that to extrapolate to a different build-up
02:12:02 that it was not difficult for the the data you know that br135 says as long as the temperatures at level two don't exceed 600 minutes within a
02:12:14 don't exceed 600 minutes within a 15-minute time period um that was the that was the you know the criteria of br135
02:12:21 br135 all that information was clear in the graphs in the 8414 report um
02:12:27 um you know it was not in my view complex
02:12:31 complex data you know it's gcse maths physics you know to look at a graph and see where the maximums were reached under what time
02:12:41 what time so
02:12:42 so you know it was easy to you know fairly easy to interpret that the other bit of the br135 classification was to give guidance on
02:12:53 classification was to give guidance on how much of the facade collapsed and again you know the whole point of that there was not a specific building regulation section which said
02:13:04 regulation section which said you must have x amount of collapse of a facade system you know all there was that information in the br135 was then for
02:13:12 for you know could be taken and used sort of where it was needed you know under other risk assessment measures
02:13:20 measures um
02:13:21 um typically as i found you know the the only real place i found was that dry riser inlets under bs triple nine zero
02:13:29 zero it said
02:13:30 it said place the inlet in an area where it's not likely to be affected by falling debris
02:13:34 debris the
02:13:35 the br135
02:13:37 br135 you know section on that would have been useful information for anybody following that guidance in triple nine zero but it's right isn't it that br 135 i'm just exploring this a bit further
02:13:48 i'm just exploring this a bit further does contain criteria about mechanical performance yes that's that's what i'm referring to now yes exactly right which is not i think referred to in approved document b no it's not other than by reference to br135 itself as part of the
02:13:59 reference to br135 itself as part of the alternative route to compliance yes
02:14:03 and that wouldn't be spat out by the data on an 8414 test would it no that the data didn't cover that but so if you picked up the data from an 8414 test you wouldn't be able to tell anything about about mechanical
02:14:16 about mechanical failure or performance yeah you would get an idea looking at the photographs and the report as to how much of the system had opened up during the fire yeah that would give you an
02:14:27 the fire yeah that would give you an idea of how much was likely to be lying on the floor yeah but without without the bre who do the test without the bre who do the test giving you a classification certificate which
02:14:38 you a classification certificate which tells you what happens to mechanical performance somebody else picking up the data would have if not no idea certainly much less of an idea about how mechanical performance fared in the test
02:14:49 performance fared in the test um that is true but even if you followed paragraph 12.7 and used non-combustible materials
02:14:57 materials you still could have an awful lot of collapsed debris on the floor
02:15:03 the floor uh you know where after a fire situation yes but not as a result of using non-combustible insulation no there was no limits on you know if the material if the
02:15:14 you know if the material if the insulation didn't burn but just all fell off
02:15:18 off that was
02:15:19 that was would have still complied with paragraph 12.7
02:15:23 12.7 yeah so in order to know whether or not your system your full system was going to present a risk of
02:15:30 risk of mechanical failure which would come in a number of different ways and you can see them actually in lpc 1583 pooling uh falling debris uh delamination for example
02:15:42 example the vs8414 test wouldn't tell you that you'd need a classification report wouldn't you it only gave very limited information on the collapse and and like i say
02:15:53 i say we we knew you knew that facades in a fire situation there would be a sizable amount of falling debris you know i mean a curtain walled system we knew that
02:16:04 a curtain walled system we knew that glass shutters and drops and that's you know was not well known you didn't need a br135 to quantify the amount
02:16:13 amount you knew that it would happen in any fire event anyway now the last heading here is action following the meeting which says this and hbc discussed its position and determined that from a bc point of view there is no requirement to
02:16:25 point of view there is no requirement to limit straight prevent the collapse partial collapse or falling of debris from an external wall construction during a fire situation these matters are mentioned in various other british standard documents and so are a matter for the building design team to take
02:16:37 for the building design team to take into consideration when other such documents are being applied
02:16:42 now we've covered this just now but why did nhbc not feel that this was something that they should take into account
02:16:51 account what i was referring to in that was whereas there were various you know regulation b41 said you know inhibit the spread of fire if there was a similar regulation that
02:17:02 if there was a similar regulation that said
02:17:03 said make sure the bits of the building don't fall on top of the main ex interest you know escape routes then
02:17:10 then we would have felt that there was you know a re a building regulation requirement to deal with that but there wasn't you know there wasn't a specific building regulation
02:17:21 specific building regulation saying
02:17:22 saying you know to that effect all there was as i referred to with the dry riser inlet british standard was guidance in those that said you know take
02:17:31 take take account that you could have falling debris
02:17:35 debris um and that is why we that was the you know the inference of what i was getting at with that that scent that paragraph well let's just
02:17:46 well let's just let's just nail this down rather than me asking you generalities about it can we go please to br
02:17:51 to br e
02:17:52 e four zeros five five five five
02:18:01 this is br 135 third edition which is written by sarah colwell and tony baker and it was published in 2013 and if we go in this please to
02:18:12 2013 and if we go in this please to page
02:18:13 page 33
02:18:15 33 i just want to show you what it says about mechanical performance
02:18:21 it says under b 2.4 left hand side no failure criteria have been set for mechanical performance however ongoing system combustion following extinguishing of the initial source
02:18:32 extinguishing of the initial source shall be included in the test and classification reports together with any details
02:18:37 details sorry together with details of any system collapse spalling delamination flaming debris or pool fires the nature of the mechanical performance should be considered as part of the overall risk assessment when specifying
02:18:50 overall risk assessment when specifying the system now
02:18:54 now but
02:18:56 but without
02:18:57 without make the point again without a decision made by br135 about mechanical performance performance setting out those details
02:19:10 a a simple set of test data would be insufficient wouldn't it well it says there that it shall be con included in the test report as well as a classification
02:19:23 report as well as a classification report
02:19:26 so ongoing yes so that that information was already in the test report and then the nature of the mechanical performance should be considered as part of the overall risk assessment when specifying the system so that tells you doesn't it
02:19:39 the system so that tells you doesn't it that you need both both what both the test and the classification reports and the deeds specifically the details of any system collapse spawning delamination flaming debris or pool fires
02:19:52 debris or pool fires yes but that was it so it says in the sentence before that was already in the test report the classification report just
02:20:01 just basically repeated that in a shorter form but do you accept that
02:20:08 that br 135
02:20:10 br 135 is
02:20:12 is written into the building approved document b at least was from um april 20 uh 2007. yes yes so meeting the br 135 criteria
02:20:25 yes so meeting the br 135 criteria was written into approved document b yes yes and br 135 is this yes
02:20:33 yes yes and therefore um when considering whether the br135 criteria are met that includes mechanical performance as stated here yes
02:20:44 yes uh yes yes and therefore whether you can get that information from the test data or only from the classification reports nonetheless it was critical was it not particularly
02:20:55 it was critical was it not particularly to somebody doing a desktop study that they would need to have details of mechanical performance even though those details themselves were not written out in long hand in a proof document b
02:21:08 the the data was in the test report now then let's um look at the last action in the following meeting following the meeting uh if we go back to the meeting note
02:21:21 perhaps sorry just going back on that point i mean the whole point of the classification report is that you have tests um
02:21:30 um and then the idea is that then you have a shorter summary report that says to anybody without any specialist knowledge look here it is there's the classification that says it meets br135
02:21:42 classification that says it meets br135 from you know the test house a fire engineer as i say can go back to the test report and pick out most of that information for themselves without having to have it
02:21:53 for themselves without having to have it also spelt out to them in that formal way the the evidence is all there for a fire engineer to pick right now building on that therefore let's go back to where i wanted to go which is
02:22:05 back to where i wanted to go which is uh the
02:22:07 uh the text i've just read to you action following the meeting you can see it says nhbc discussed its position and determined that from a bc point of view there is no requirement to limit prevent the collapse of partial collapse or falling of debris etc
02:22:20 collapse or falling of debris etc and you say these matters are mentioned in various other british standard documents and so a matter of a building design team to take into consideration and such other documents are being applied that's wrong isn't it because it from a bc point of view the
02:22:32 because it from a bc point of view the bc the building control officer had to consider
02:22:36 consider whether br 135 was met and that included a consideration of the mechanical performance factors we've just looked at
02:22:49 yeah but you know as i say the br135 it didn't set
02:22:54 set quantities it just had to record you know it could have said the whole rig collapsed um and that would be as much as you would you know as far as it would go
02:23:06 you would you know as far as it would go um
02:23:09 well the impression given by that paragraph is that from a bc point of view they didn't concern themselves with limited or prevention of collapse partial collapse of falling debris
02:23:20 partial collapse of falling debris this is what i was saying earlier you know
02:23:22 know what is possibly poorly worded but what we meant was there isn't a specific building regulation that says take it you know you must
02:23:33 take it you know you must well collapse of the facade must not take place or only certain amount of collapse must take place that that was not a building regulation thing and that's where i was coming from with that sentence
02:23:44 sentence is to you know yeah obviously we don't want it all collapsing but there isn't this building right regulation that says that to that effect well i i think i've put this to you
02:23:55 well i i think i've put this to you already and i'll just put it one more time i i'm suggesting to you that that's that's wrong it is only correct that those requirements weren't set out in long hand but they were implicit from the requirement if adopting the
02:24:07 the requirement if adopting the alternative route compliance to pass the br 135 criteria which included mechanical performance um
02:24:17 in that case
02:24:22 we need to be well i mean we need to get the quantification then from bl 135 and there isn't a quantification no there isn't a quantification there is
02:24:33 no there isn't a quantification there is a statement that says record how much debris collapsed now let's look at the last action following the meeting as noted by you nhbc followed up its meeting with bre with an email copying close with this email to sarah colwell
02:24:45 close with this email to sarah colwell clarifying what it feels is its position from a bc point of view nhbc has drafted a revision to bca guidance note use of combustible cladding materials on residential buildings and requested sc
02:24:56 residential buildings and requested sc to advise of any inaccuracies a response to this email is currently awaited was there a was a response to that email ever received you know no it wasn't after the meetings with arab and the bre
02:25:07 after the meetings with arab and the bre respectively what if any changes did the nhbc make to its approach to the acceptability of combustible materials on buildings over 18 meters
02:25:19 um well we would have taken into account what we'd you know the above points that are in this email but i don't think it led to any significant changes to what we were
02:25:31 significant changes to what we were doing apart from the insistence that we saw
02:25:35 saw a br135 classification certificate for any fire test the reason for that was going back to the trespa test where the test failed
02:25:47 where the test failed and kingspan was saying to us it didn't fail it was terminated early and we said well surely that means it failed and they said no it was terminated early and he still met they were you know the criteria of br 135
02:26:00 were you know the criteria of br 135 um for fire spread and that was the background to us you know finding out from the bre that
02:26:08 bre that you know if the bre had not issued a br 135 classification report that meant that in their view one could not be issued
02:26:18 be issued we didn't we learned that at the meeting with bre right
02:26:24 uh now
02:26:27 can i then move on to july 2015. i want to ask you next about the changes made to
02:26:33 to the bca technical guidance note in its second edition called issue one uh published in july 2015. now you've covered this in your statement uh and if we go to that um at uh
02:26:47 uh and if we go to that um at uh paragraph 140 at page 37 i just want to look together with you of what you say there
02:26:58 you've got a heading the 2015 bca guidance note and a paragraph 140 you say this in early 2015 i recall we saw a project for a warranty for warranty cover or building control services where
02:27:10 cover or building control services where there were concrete balconies running right around the building these balconies were considered to be a significant barrier to vertical fire spread however considering their impact on the overall building was outside the scope of option three this drove home
02:27:23 scope of option three this drove home the need for option four as a result steve evans instructed me to produce an updated draft version of the 2014 bca guidance note the 2015 bca guidance note was issued in july 2015.
02:27:36 was issued in july 2015. so am i right in thinking that in 2015 you still had no involvement with the bca
02:27:42 bca no i never had the involvement with the media do you know why you were instructed by steve evans to produce an updated version of guidance for that organization um well i produced the first version um
02:27:55 um well i produced the first version um we
02:27:56 we between us had discussed that there was obviously scope for option four um so he asked me to draft it so it followed because you've done the first version that you should amend the that
02:28:07 version that you should amend the that to produce the second yes the general question which i think applies to both is why was an employee of nhbc who was not a member of the bca drafting both of these guidance notes
02:28:18 these guidance notes um
02:28:19 um that was how it was done he was asked to do it and did it yeah i just did as i was told
02:28:23 was told now let's go to uh that document at cel40 is 2440.
02:28:37 and you can see at the top of the screen this is issy one june 2015. you see that yes and the title is the same use of combustible cladding materials on
02:28:48 combustible cladding materials on buildings exceeding 80 meters in height and if we go to page two we can see there three quarters of the way down the page
02:28:58 page uh option four you see that yes now that says if none of the above options are suitable the client may consider addressing this issue via a holistic fire engineered approach taking into
02:29:09 fire engineered approach taking into account the building geometry ignition risk factors restricting fire spread etc such an approach would expect would be expected to follow a recognized design code such as the bs 7974 application of
02:29:21 code such as the bs 7974 application of fire safety engineering principles to the design of buildings suite of documents and be supported with quantitative analyses where appropriate on what occasions in practice
02:29:34 on what occasions in practice had you seen reports or analyses produced to bs 7974 before you included this option in this revised guidance note
02:29:43 note we had at this point i believe seen
02:29:48 seen two reports from i believe they were from arab fire where
02:29:56 where you know uh an option for had been carried out i can't remember whether well i mean i'm sure that they would have cited the bs7974
02:30:07 that they would have cited the bs7974 way of doing things because there wasn't really any other suite of documents that would have been appropriate right i mean is it right that the bs7974 documents and
02:30:18 documents and [Music]
02:30:20 [Music] standards which is what they are or and quantitative analyses were not usually used for residential blocks of flats it's things like airports uh
02:30:31 it's things like airports uh we there was nothing to say you couldn't design your blocker flash to 7974 but it was
02:30:37 it was very very
02:30:39 very very rare i mean i never sorry because the design guidance in triple 911 and adb was
02:30:45 adb was there and it was suited to most situations yeah and he wouldn't normally resort to seven nine seven four that would save for a unique and complex building no there would not usually be a need to
02:30:56 need to no and
02:30:58 no and would you agree with this that option four reports could only be completed by a specialist field of experts such as arab well that was what we wanted we didn't want
02:31:10 want you know we didn't want something from the builders you know project manager saying we've done this and this is what we think you know we wanted if we were going to go down this option for we wanted it to be from
02:31:23 for we wanted it to be from people that knew what they were looking at and could do this you know properly was that clear
02:31:31 clear to all of your building control officers from the language of option four uh
02:31:37 uh yes i believe it was what was the what it what words in there would you identify that made that absolutely clear to your um approved inspectors well just the you know the holistic fire
02:31:48 the you know the holistic fire engineered approach would imply that you need a fire engineer to do it or you know somebody of that elk why not specify under option for who precisely was qualified to undertake
02:31:59 precisely was qualified to undertake this kind of holistic assessment because in truth we weren't expecting to see many option for reports simply because in a high-rise block of flats with a
02:32:11 in a high-rise block of flats with a staple policy it
02:32:14 it wasn't you know it wasn't really going to be suitable to use it in most cases what we didn't want under option four which is what we were getting
02:32:26 which is what we were getting questioned was you know well we've put in sprinklers so therefore we're not going to have a fire you know we didn't want reports of that ilk we didn't want reports of saying well we'll just put in a fire alarm you
02:32:37 well we'll just put in a fire alarm you know and that will cover it we we wanted a proper detailed study of how fires could start and affect cladding systems and
02:32:48 cladding systems and you know
02:32:49 you know then how that building was still safe in that event do you remember option four the holistic fire engineered solution was something already written expressly into approved
02:33:02 already written expressly into approved document b yes that well adb i can't remember the precise wording but yes adb says you don't have to use adb you can use you know a design solution design sleep yes yes
02:33:14 yes yes what was the purpose of including option four in in here when it was already in the approved documents and when you weren't really expecting it to be used on high-rise residential buildings
02:33:25 on high-rise residential buildings anyway for the reasons you've given because the guidance note was really just pulling together what was already written in adb and it was the same with option two and as we discussed yesterday option three the basis for that
02:33:38 option three the basis for that what appendix a yeah yeah appendix a covered option three and option four was dealt with under the the section that talks about you know fire engineering now
02:33:49 you know fire engineering now um
02:33:51 um the addition of option four was one amendment that you made to the technical guidance note 18. it's right i think isn't it that the second change you made to that guidance
02:34:02 second change you made to that guidance note in 2015 was
02:34:05 was as to those who could complete the desktop reports under option three yes we changed the wording on that slightly
02:34:13 slightly and
02:34:15 and what you say in your statement about that is that page 38 we can just look at that please this is paragraph 147 and 148
02:34:23 148 [Applause] and at 147 you say the rule 9 notice asks about the amendments made to the 2015
02:34:30 2015 bca guidance note in relation to option three in the 2014 guidance note we focused on three bodies as fire engineers bre chilton fire and warrington fire to carry out the assessment in lieu of the tests a lot
02:34:42 assessment in lieu of the tests a lot but widened this in the subsequent addition to any suitable ucas accredited bodies and suitably qualified fire safety engineers which were expected to have the necessary expertise quotes on quotes
02:34:53 quotes the reason for this amendment was that we had received feedback from the testing houses that they were being overwhelmed with requests for option 3 a lot reports when we re-examined adb it became
02:35:04 when we re-examined adb it became apparent that the a-lot assessment in lieu of tests need not be carried out by just those previously mentioned and so capacity could be increased in line with the building regulation guidance i do not believe
02:35:16 regulation guidance i do not believe that it reduced the criteria for compliance in any way now
02:35:21 now let's go back first of all to page two of issue one of uh the guidance 2015 guidance that was at cel 40244
02:35:32 that was at cel 40244 zero page two
02:35:36 now if you look at option three there we can't find uh
02:35:42 uh in the text of issue one the words you're citing and quoting in this paragraph
02:35:47 paragraph the word suitably qualified fire safety engineers which were expected to have the necessary expertise we can't see that in option three i'm looking at it there it says if no actual test the client may instead a
02:35:59 actual test the client may instead a desktop study report from a suitably qualified fire space yes not suitably qualified fire safety engineers expected to have the necessary expertise which is how you quote it as i've just read to you from your statement
02:36:10 statement yeah but there was a reason for that what's that that
02:36:14 that the ucas
02:36:16 the ucas testing houses the staff at those were not strictly fire engineers they were i i i think we're maybe slightly across purposes let me try this again can we
02:36:27 purposes let me try this again can we keep this document on the screen please and have the statement of paragraph 147 back up again page 38
02:36:38 page 38 back up again and have both on the screen at the same time i just want to it's a language question i just want to be clear about it
02:36:53 so you can see on the right hand side of your screen that you're quoting
02:36:59 uh a phrase in italics there at the end of the paragraph suitably qualified fire safety engineers which were expected to have the necessary expertise but if you look to the left of the
02:37:10 but if you look to the left of the screen you can see that the phrase used in the
02:37:14 in the language of option 3 in the 2015 edition is 20 suitable qualified fire specialist yes so
02:37:22 yes so how do you account for the difference because
02:37:26 because the language on in the witness statement that's taken straight from the proved document be appendix a approved document b appendix a said
02:37:38 approved document b appendix a said quote you know shortened you either get evidence from a ucas accredited laboratory or you get a suitably qualified fire engineer
02:37:49 suitably qualified fire engineer we just i simply combined those two things together into the term a suitably qualified fire specialist right
02:38:01 right so that was your decision yes i was just pleased with my wording to prune
02:38:06 to prune the words taken from a from appendix a and compress them into the expression suitably qualified fire specialist yes with the emphasis on suitably qualified well it's not it's not emphasized at all well it's not but that was what was in
02:38:18 well it's not but that was what was in my mind was that you know we didn't want just a report from someone who who would say i think it's fine that was not what we wanted we wanted a proper study
02:38:28 study now you
02:38:29 now you uh
02:38:33 well first this was a conscious decision i think to amend the requirements of those who completed desktops yes we wanted to widen the scope from just those three organizations yes i mean it
02:38:45 those three organizations yes i mean it wasn't a clarification it was a positive change yes yes who made the decision to widen the scope as you call it um i believe it came from steve and was the reason for that
02:38:57 steve and was the reason for that clarifica uh that expansion solely the feedback from testing houses that they were overwhelmed by requests for option three reports that had come as a result of the 2014 first edition of this document
02:39:09 first edition of this document well i i can't remember for sure where it came from but i did read in steve's witness statement that he understood or he had got feedback from a bca meeting that
02:39:21 bca meeting that you know that that was what was being said
02:39:25 said now before you made this change did you pause
02:39:28 pause to consider the implications of the volume of demand for option three reports
02:39:33 reports flowing from the first edition of this document in 2014 well we
02:39:40 well we were hearing that they were you know there was
02:39:43 there was a backlog in producing them um
02:39:47 um i heard as well and i can't remember where it was from that you know that i think it was bre hadn't sort of geared up for producing suddenly a large number of these reports
02:39:59 number of these reports these reports were now on the schemes that they were coming in on were schemes which were very much in their final stages and there was some urgency to get these reports done before the
02:40:11 get these reports done before the schemes were completed i mean what i mean by my question
02:40:16 and particularly the word implications is this did the fact that there was now a large volume of desktop reports that these three testing houses are now being asked
02:40:28 three testing houses are now being asked for signal to you that industry couldn't comply
02:40:31 comply with meeting the linear route to compliance nor meeting 8414 to br135 and that this was um
02:40:41 um universally popular and much easier no it was the industry at this point were shifting on their new schemes where they could to using non-combustible
02:40:53 they could to using non-combustible materials in their walls this was the backlog of schemes which were the ins you know the cladding was already installed and really the developer only had the choice of getting an option three report
02:41:06 choice of getting an option three report or
02:41:07 or scaffolding it and removing it all again right so
02:41:12 right so does that tell us that option when did you learn that option three was being used in that way in other words to correct a historical problem it wasn't really you know it was
02:41:25 it wasn't really you know it was it wasn't really correcting the historical problem it was you know in our way we were looking at it was
02:41:32 it was you know you've built this mr builder with this set of materials please now give us evidence that actually is it is safe otherwise we don't feel able to issue a final certificate
02:41:45 certificate it was that sort of approach
02:41:51 well yes historical in the sense that combustible insulation or combustible materials had already gone up over 18 meters
02:42:00 meters and it was either option three or pull it off yes that's what i mean by a historical problem yes it was a well it was a problem on jobs which were still in build at that stage yeah now you you discovered
02:42:12 stage yeah now you you discovered or you knew that that was a problem in 2015 my question is was that a problem which option three was originally inserted into the 2014 version to address
02:42:22 address largely yes
02:42:26 being a legacy problem created by reliance on the pre-december 2013 bba certificate uh and the post december one as well
02:42:38 december one as well right now we're sorry we were saying to you i could say to mr builder you know you want his final certificate demonstrate that your cladding system is safe
02:42:53 you say you re-examined adb and it became apparent to you that the assessment needn't be carried out only by
02:42:59 by the three bodies you had identified in issue naught bre chilton fire and warrington but was wider than that who was it who
02:43:10 but was wider than that who was it who was that you yourself who came to that conclusion based on a reading of adb or was that something you were told
02:43:18 what the suitably qualified fire engineers would be an alternative is is that what you mean is that who you're referring to yes yeah i mean it was guys in adb i knew it was there
02:43:28 was there um
02:43:29 um i think steve had noticed it was there we
02:43:32 we didn't put it in the first draft because we thought let's keep it as narrow as we can and as good as we can um
02:43:40 um the the option you know this second draft was
02:43:43 draft was expanded to include it yeah let's just um compare the two side by side then um keep keep uh the um document on the left of the screen up please and let's replace it
02:43:54 screen up please and let's replace it replace the document on the right with the 2014 edition which is at cel403725
02:44:04 page two in each case i just want to compare the language if i may can we just expand option three please
02:44:12 please and now you'll see that in 2014 the language as we saw yesterday was um
02:44:18 was um desktop study you see this under option three desktop study from a suitable independent ucas accredited testing body brackets bre chilton fire or warrington fire stating
02:44:31 fire stating whether they're in whether in their opinion etc and that's then amended in 2015 to say desktop study report from a suitably qualified fire
02:44:43 report from a suitably qualified fire specialist stating so that's the change yes yes
02:44:49 yes yes now i
02:44:50 now i having shown you that um i just want to put what mr evans told the inquiry in his evidence in december can we please take both of those off the screen and have up day two two one
02:45:03 screen and have up day two two one uh
02:45:04 uh page
02:45:06 page um
02:45:07 um sorry day two two one uh
02:45:11 uh page one line twenty
02:45:22 and if we scroll down
02:45:26 to line 20 you can see that it's the very first question of the day and the question is we were in the middle of discussing the technical guidance native c1 of june 2015 last night and it goes up on the screen again
02:45:38 night and it goes up on the screen again and then we look at options two and three and then if you turn the page please to the next page of the transcript
02:45:46 um we end with line four that was where we were yesterday and then the question goes like this at line five now you say in your statement that we've seen that you weren't seeking to reduce the criteria for compliance my question is
02:45:58 criteria for compliance my question is did you not realize that by not insisting that desktops were done by a fire safety engineer in order to widen the pool of those eligible to perform them you were reducing the requisite level of expertise answer i didn't
02:46:10 level of expertise answer i didn't consider it that way question why is that answer i saw a suitably qualified fire specialist as being the same as a fire engineer question why the change then and his answer is this i didn't actually
02:46:23 and his answer is this i didn't actually draft this section it was drafted by john lewis and i saw no reason to amend it i didn't even make if i'm honest the connection between the change i saw them as one and the same do you agree with what he says there
02:46:36 do you agree with what he says there first of all that you drafted this amendment yes i drafted the amendment now he doesn't seem to think that this was a conscious decision taken to widen the pool of people available to write these reports he says in fact he didn't
02:46:48 these reports he says in fact he didn't realize it was a change at all can you account for how that passed him by
02:46:54 well i'm sure i discussed it you know with steve as to what i was meaning by the proposed wording because you know it would have gone in a draft version before it was issued um steve would have been known
02:47:07 issued um steve would have been known what i was you know why i was writing what i was writing right and i know why what i was writing while i was writing it i don't know if you want me to elaborate on that now or that's a further question so just so i
02:47:19 that's a further question so just so i got your evidence clear as far as you were concerned steve evans had no doubt at all about what you were intending to achieve by the change well i would have explained it to him in clear terms but most likely you know this was a long
02:47:30 most likely you know this was a long time ago maybe steve couldn't recall it at the time now
02:47:34 now do you specifically recall discussing with him the fact of and the reasons for the change that you've told us about yes you do
02:47:42 you do now who was a suitable qualified fire specialist which is the language in the amended version
02:47:49 version the appendix a said
02:47:53 said you could use people from the uks laboratories or suitably qualified fire engineers so in my view a suitably qualified fire specialist was one of those two
02:48:05 specialist was one of those two camps
02:48:06 camps what level of qualifications should that person have
02:48:11 we would expect that it would be a well
02:48:15 well from the newcastle laboratories we would expect that was covered under the pfpf guide so that would be dealt with that way
02:48:22 way and for the fire engineers we would expect
02:48:25 expect you know someone holding a chartered engineer cng status cng yes why not say so um
02:48:35 um because
02:48:37 because you know we didn't want this was a guidance note for the building control bodies to use who
02:48:45 who [Music]
02:48:46 [Music] should be and were expected to still be well aware of appendix a and what the requirements were in there i mean it you know it was for those building control bodies to decide who
02:48:58 building control bodies to decide who they considered to be suitably qualified it wasn't for us to spoon feed that to them
02:49:03 them but in our case nhbc we were very clear on what we considered a suitably qualified fire specialist well so you say so why not spell it out why not tell them it's got to be a c eng we didn't
02:49:14 them it's got to be a c eng we didn't engineer we we didn't think to do that at the time but when you look at option four you see you did because in option four you ask for a holistic design solution to be prepared and
02:49:25 design solution to be prepared and produced by a suitably qualified fire safety engineer why the difference in language there was no particular reason well on the face of it
02:49:36 well on the face of it do you accept that there is a difference when one you've got a suitably qualified fire specialist which is not the same as an engineer and in the second you've got a suitably qualified fire safety engineer anybody
02:49:49 qualified fire safety engineer anybody reading the two on the page might think might and they that they were different because you wouldn't expect a ucas laboratory which was looking at you know comparing tested samples to
02:50:00 to then look at a completed building and do it that way you know the the looking at a completed building and assessing fire spread up a completed building was that was the reign of a fire engineer
02:50:12 that was the reign of a fire engineer a ucas laboratory was a material specialist or a chemist or a you know a physicist somebody like that that would not
02:50:19 not be used to looking at buildings you accept i think that there was no guidance there were no parameters there were no checks or balances of any kind in this document about who should be
02:50:30 in this document about who should be completing these reports what their qualifications were or what experience they had to have if any on external fast bread it was a guidance note for building
02:50:42 it was a guidance note for building control bodies they should know i mean to deal with a building of this size there were questions coming up in our experience regularly on you know fire things which were slightly different to
02:50:53 things which were slightly different to what was tested and assessments that were being made that was a normal thing that would happen you would expect a building control body that was used to deal with buildings of this nature to
02:51:04 deal with buildings of this nature to having placed their own criteria for what they considered to be you know a suitable fire specialist to to advise on those matters but given that option
02:51:16 on those matters but given that option three
02:51:20 was a second alternative route to compliance that you say you took from appendix a in other words an extrapolation
02:51:31 in other words an extrapolation or an assessment based on test data and given that in the first edition you had made it crystal clear who it was he was to conduct those extrapolations or assessments
02:51:42 extrapolations or assessments why not if you were going to widen the pool ensure that those doing that exercise would have the same level of qualification as bre
02:51:52 bre warrington or chilton by
02:51:55 by stipulating the level of qualifications and experience they had to have rather than using the
02:52:01 the language that you did there was no reason other than you know we didn't want to know very long
02:52:10 long detailed well excessively detailed guidance now you know we just wanted to set out the benchmark parameters of what should you know a building control body
02:52:21 should you know a building control body should be
02:52:21 should be looking at interpreting them in the way that adb was already saying you know we were just putting in one document what adb was saying in different various different
02:52:32 saying in different various different places did you intend to dilute the qualifications in order to make it easier to mop up the backlog no of course not no you say of course not did you consider that that might be the outcome no we were very very
02:52:44 outcome no we were very very clear that you know we we this was a robust thing this had to be done right we we were not looking for we were not looking for something on a headed paper from someone in fire saying
02:52:56 headed paper from someone in fire saying i think this is fine we weren't wanting that so why so then why not use exactly the same language as you you used for the first time for option four suitably qualified fire safety engineer uh there is
02:53:07 uh there is well i don't have an answer but equally there was no underlying intention to you know do as you say that that was not the case you know i mean we were at this point rejecting an awful lot of
02:53:21 at this point rejecting an awful lot of reports that were coming in that our clients felt justified or met option three or option four yes well they wouldn't they i mean they would want you to think that my question is although you may not have intended it what did
02:53:32 you may not have intended it what did you do if anything to guard against that as an outcome well we didn't do anything because we you know left it as i say we we knew what we would accept at nhbc um we weren't there trying to spoon feed
02:53:45 um we weren't there trying to spoon feed other building control bodies they should know have their own sets they should have their own criteria now in your statement you say and we've seen this but if you we can go back to it if you like mr liz you say you had feedback from testing houses that they
02:53:57 feedback from testing houses that they were being overwhelmed for requests for option three reports do you remember from whom you received that feedback as i said i can't recall where it came from but i do recall
02:54:09 from but i do recall as i said reading steve's witness statement that it came back once he
02:54:15 he or following a bca meeting or something like that
02:54:19 like that do you know when that was no i can't remember but it would have been you know a lot long before we wrote the the the draft the second we're testing houses asking
02:54:29 asking or suggesting that the parameters of those who could complete desktop reports be widened
02:54:36 not that i know of now right
02:54:39 right now we haven't seen any mention in the notes of the meetings uh that we saw in late november with arab and bre of
02:54:49 of the
02:54:49 the con of the concerns that you've expressed the feedback you've expressed do you know why that is
02:54:58 was it mentioned again i recall you questioned steve on this when he was sitting here um i didn't record it in the meeting
02:55:09 i didn't record it in the meeting notes afterwards um they were not a d it could have been mentioned i i can't recall it could have been mentioned by sarah caldwell or the others at that time and i was busy scribbling
02:55:22 at that time and i was busy scribbling notes on other things and didn't note it down
02:55:25 down the truth is i didn't note it down i can't be sure at the moment whether it was discussed or not discussed um i think steve is quite sure or was clear
02:55:37 i think steve is quite sure or was clear that it was discussed um i can't say one way or the other whether that's true or not from regulation we've seen no emails or reports or notes of
02:55:48 seen no emails or reports or notes of meetings
02:55:50 meetings either internally or as between an hbc and anybody in which these concerns this feedback is recorded can you explain that
02:56:01 can you explain that i can't no i mean it came back to me via steve right so you've not seen a document
02:56:07 document in which bre or chilton or warrington fire complained no no
02:56:15 no it was simply something that steve told you about and you acted on is that how is that how it worked pretty much yes right
02:56:29 now we're going to go on i think to another topic
02:56:33 topic um mr chairman i'm happy to start it well
02:56:37 well you might finish it in two minutes i was gonna say it's very nearly time to break anyway wouldn't it be more sensible to stop there i i think we have three minutes till one o'clock it would be sensible to do that thank you
02:56:48 be sensible to do that thank you right thank you very much on the launch well ms lewis um we're slightly ahead of time but not much we're going to stop there
02:56:54 there so we can have some lunch and we'll be resuming at two o'clock please and again please make sure you don't discuss your evidence or anything related to it with anyone
02:57:03 anyone thank you thank you very much
02:57:16 thank you very much two o'clock please
02:57:34 you