John Lewis of NHBC continues evidence about Option 3 desktop reports, quality concerns with fire engineer assessments, and his August 2015 discovery that Kingspan threatened legal action against Sotech for releasing failed K15 test data. Lewis admits having 'strong suspicions that kingspan were concealing failed test reports'.
00:00:22 would you ask mr lewis to come back in please okay
00:00:36 all right mr lewis yes thank you thank you very much yes yes mr chairman thank you mr lewis now i want to ask you about option 3 reports
00:00:45 reports can we go please to your witness statement at page 47
00:00:51 and on page 47 to paragraph 182a at the bottom of that page where you say this as a general introductory point i did have concerns as to the quality of some desktop
00:01:03 as to the quality of some desktop reports for example they were written by people who did not have the necessary depth of knowledge however if this was the case we did not accept them and would request further evidence from the builder or its fire engineer via nhbc
00:01:15 builder or its fire engineer via nhbc surveyor or project manager we had an escalation procedure where the desktop reports would come in get referred to me and i would review i would then refer these on to steve evans and or another senior manager
00:01:27 senior manager first what do you mean by those who did not have the necessary depth of knowledge
00:01:34 at the start of the process we were receiving
00:01:41 receiving what
00:01:43 what the builders thought were suitable option three reports which really ended up being nothing more than the architect justifying what they had done
00:01:54 what they had done or in many cases just a rehash of the cladding details that had already been put forward was that a problem with the architect's qualifications expertise
00:02:06 the architect's qualifications expertise or experience or perhaps instead the fact that the architect or the builder the client the member of nhbc didn't understand what was required by nhbc under option three
00:02:18 was required by nhbc under option three no because the on the schemes that were affected a condition had been put on the approval which stated the need for an option
00:02:29 which stated the need for an option three report in line with bca guidance note 18.
00:02:34 note 18. that was put back by our surveyor to the builders
00:02:39 builders and they were in response to that condition and the words in that condition this was their submission back to us
00:02:46 to us as in what the way that they felt that they were dealing with that condition right um
00:02:52 right um i'm just interested by in what you mean by the phrase people who did not have the necessary depth of knowledge which i think you need to go back to page 47 to see
00:03:03 go back to page 47 to see do you mean that the
00:03:05 that the desktop assessments were written by people who did not have the qualifications that you had anticipated or that they didn't understand what it was that you wanted it was both both
00:03:16 was that you wanted it was both both no now as i we understand it the nhbc is this right would examine the option three reports or assessments that came in and you were the person who did that
00:03:29 and you were the person who did that yes yes initially did you ever consider that the building control officers in in the case of the nhpc your ais who did not have uh any fire engineering
00:03:40 who did not have uh any fire engineering fire engineering expertise to call on when option three reports came in might be a problem
00:03:49 um well they had me to call on i was very much involved in the business i was not remote what about those cases where nhbc was offering warranty only where
00:04:00 offering warranty only where the bca was external
00:04:04 um well obviously i had no direct links to the building control that was being carried out by another organization no no but those schemes were then dealt with by our special risk project manager
00:04:15 with by our special risk project manager surveyors
00:04:16 surveyors and same thing you know they're in the same london office and i was in that office very regularly what did you contemplate somebody like a john hoban for example of rbkc would do
00:04:28 john hoban for example of rbkc would do when confronted with an option 3 report from the architect throw it back but how would that person know to throw it back
00:04:38 it back if that person didn't themselves have their own fire engineering expertise to the requisite level um well i think the wording of the option three you know it did say about
00:04:50 you know it did say about the suitable suitably qualified fire specialists now it would come down to how they interpreted a suitably qualified fire
00:05:01 interpreted a suitably qualified fire specialist nhbc i've explained before what we considered to be a suitably qualified fire specialist um
00:05:10 um i would not generally consider an architect to be a you know of the right level of specialist fire knowledge that we will be seeking for an option three reports
00:05:22 be seeking for an option three reports no let's break this up first of all looking at your own internal bcos your approved inspectors um employed by um your
00:05:31 your bcs subsidiary right let's take them in each case of an option three report coming from an architectural builder were they automatically sent to you to consider
00:05:40 consider um
00:05:42 um i would guess that some were probably weeded out by the surveyor and thrown back before they got escalated to me by the surveyor do you mean the building control officer
00:05:53 control officer yes but at nhbc we had some surveyors right so so i see so was there a dictat a direction that went to all ais employed
00:06:05 direction that went to all ais employed by the subsidiary that where they received an option three report they had to send it to
00:06:11 to in the first instance the surveyor and in the second instance to you sorry the the surveyor the a nhbc was an approved inspector as a whole that's the name for the company
00:06:23 a whole that's the name for the company the surveyor was the you know the building control surveyor qualified person that was dealing with the job yeah but that's what i thought you meant so take say the way it worked is this right is
00:06:35 way it worked is this right is the surveyor express as the expression you use is the person discharging the approved inspector function yes right now was there an instruction given to all ais
00:06:45 all ais that when they received an option three report they had to send it to you for approval
00:06:50 approval you still seem to think that those surveyors are the ais the the ai nhbc was the ai sorry all right there's a terminology question let's take it more
00:07:01 question let's take it more specifically individuals who were carrying out nhbc bcs's function as an approved inspector that person yes whom i think you call the surveyor yes
00:07:13 whom i think you call the surveyor yes yes and that was the purpose of steve evans
00:07:16 evans um
00:07:17 um you know emailed to the surveyors saying with the the guidance the internal guidance be 500 i think it was um and subsequently enclosing a copy of the bca guidance note and saying this is the
00:07:29 guidance note and saying this is the procedure from here on i see so that and that comes in february 2015. so before that do we take it that there's no instruction that comes with the original issue in june 2014 of bca technical guidance note
00:07:41 june 2014 of bca technical guidance note 18 to your surveyors that in each case where they receive a an option three report they must send it to you well
00:07:50 well there must have been because would you know whether the order wasn't well i see what i'm trying to recall now um because we were getting new jobs coming in
00:08:01 coming in and
00:08:01 and those jobs were finding their way to me and i can't recall the official process of whether steve or anybody had issued an instruction or a memo or an email to
00:08:14 an instruction or a memo or an email to that effect before but you know it certainly was not the case that they were still coming in no one has said anything and the survey was left on their own to deal with it because
00:08:22 because you know they were coming through to me did you ever consider providing further guidance about what was required from the writer of the report the assessment and from the report itself
00:08:34 and from the report itself after after june 2014 uh we were doing that at numerous times yes
00:08:42 yes what was the purpose of escalating an option three report to steve evans given that he had as he told us no qualifications in relation to fire engineering um
00:08:51 um the idea was that i would look at it from the
00:08:55 from the you know that look at that what had been written from a fire engineering point of view
00:09:00 view um
00:09:01 um ultimate sign off rested with those above me you know ultimate sign-off for building control purposes rested with people above me and so you know steve and diane wanted
00:09:12 and so you know steve and diane wanted to
00:09:13 to check you know do carry out another check on i assume of what i was saying and whether they agreed with what i've been doing um it was more of a it would be more of a sense check to
00:09:25 it would be more of a sense check to make sure i'd not missed anything um but that was the process that had been put in place but assessing the adequacy
00:09:33 adequacy of what itself is an assessment of test data in fact an assessment of assessment of test data is something that could only be done by
00:09:44 is something that could only be done by someone with the relevant qualifications as you have identified yes yes did steve evans have those qualifications steve was not a fire engineer no and therefore how could he
00:09:56 engineer no and therefore how could he possibly reliably even carry out a sense check if you didn't know the technical sense of what you were intending well steve and i steve had been on the same journey that i had
00:10:08 had been on the same journey that i had been on where we both gained
00:10:11 gained a lot more knowledge of what works what didn't work what was thought could work you know he he had a good level of knowledge you know as well you know similar to what i'd
00:10:22 well you know similar to what i'd learned but if you had failed to spot a technical error why would he have picked it up
00:10:27 it up um
00:10:28 um it was another pair of eyes it was you know it was not an official peer review it was
00:10:35 it was you know another set of eyes well it wasn't an official peer review because it wasn't appear neither in in in at least in the sense of qualifications was he no and
00:10:46 no and he wasn't called that no let's go to um sub paragraph b please on page 48 where you say this i found the reports to be variable reports written by bre andexova tend it
00:10:58 reports written by bre andexova tend it to be the most comprehensive ones which gave assurance that they understood the requirements of regulation b41 and the associated guidance in approved document b demonstrated knowledge of the performance of materials in fire and had
00:11:09 performance of materials in fire and had expertise in extrapolation of data from fire tests however and particularly at the start of the process in june or july 2015 the quality of the reports from other fire engineers lacked
00:11:20 other fire engineers lacked understanding of bs 8414 and br 135 and in some cases had not accessed the range of tests which kingspan had offered to make available to fire engineers what are you referring to there when you
00:11:32 what are you referring to there when you say at the start of the process in june july 2015
00:11:36 july 2015 do you mean 2015 yes this was after
00:11:43 after the
00:11:44 the instruction had gone sorry
00:11:47 sorry this was after we had gone through
00:11:50 through [Music]
00:11:51 [Music] a list of schemes which were still in build um as at the time we carried out a review of those schemes in around june july 2015.
00:12:03 june july 2015. um
00:12:04 um after that that was when the condition was applied on those schemes that they would not be signed off until an option three option four report had been received from
00:12:17 been received from you know a suitable fire specialist and that was the time that you know the condition went on all the jobs to hold them up
00:12:25 them up so that they could not be signed off until this second review had been undertaken right but that wasn't the start of the process of receiving and analyzing
00:12:35 analyzing and accepting or rejecting option three reports was it well the option three reports started to trickle in um after you know first of january 2014 um on the jobs which we're working to
00:12:47 um on the jobs which we're working to the
00:12:49 the later bba certificate for kingspan um
00:12:54 um but there were not many because most of those jobs were still at very star early stages
00:13:00 stages the bulk of them came in as i say after the 20 the june 2015 review after we went back through all the jobs that were in build and
00:13:10 and put on a holding condition to you know get their cladding reviewed again i don't i don't think i'm following this are you sure you mean 2015. let's take it in stages you say they start to trickle in from january
00:13:21 they start to trickle in from january 2014 post change in the bba certificate you then put out bca technical guidance note 18 issue naught in june 2014
00:13:33 naught in june 2014 uh and
00:13:34 uh and you amend it in june 2015 precisely because bre x over and chilton for had become overwhelmed by the number so why do you say that as you told us in
00:13:47 so why do you say that as you told us in the last answer um the bulk of them came in after june 2015.
00:13:53 2015. because in june 2015 nhbc undertook a review of all the jobs that were still in build including the ones on the
00:14:04 including the ones on the previous bba certificate and did another check back through what had been proposed on those jobs so are we to take from what you're telling us that there was no problem in in
00:14:16 us that there was no problem in in relation to the quality of reports from other fire engineers before june july 2015. you only began to pick those up in june july 2015. is that is that how
00:14:28 june july 2015. is that is that how the story went no it was after june july the ones we were seeing before that tended to be from
00:14:35 from you know the likes of bre and xover um we didn't have a lot of issue with those ones
00:14:41 ones the
00:14:42 the ones that we did have the issues with came in
00:14:45 came in you know generally after this second review of all those schemes in around june july 2015 and that's the one where we started to see some quite variable ones
00:14:56 see some quite variable ones there may have been others before that but i i i follow so so i i think i've understood your evidence does it work like this see if it is this if i've got this right mr lewis um the trickle became a flood so far as
00:15:08 um the trickle became a flood so far as bre x-over and chilton were concerned after after june 2014 but there was no problem with the quality but the the quality problem arose after june july 2015.
00:15:21 yes because we were not just seeing reports from bre and xover after july 2015 we were seeing them from a whole range of others exactly and did it occur to you at that
00:15:32 exactly and did it occur to you at that stage once you started to see a reduction in the quality uh that that might be attributable to your dilution of the qualifications required in the uh second edition issue one of technical guidance nate 18 in
00:15:43 one of technical guidance nate 18 in july to in june 2015. no we took it that you know they hadn't read it properly and hadn't supplied data from the right set of people
00:15:54 set of people well that may be the case but that may be because they were not properly qualified to do so as a result of um your amendment to the wording of option three which we saw this morning no um no i don't think that was the case
00:16:08 no i don't think that was the case uh
00:16:11 let's look at a document on this point if you go please to nhb402791
00:16:17 this is an email run from august 2015 and if we go to page two in this we can see that uh there is an email from you to diane marshall and steve evans on the
00:16:28 to diane marshall and steve evans on the 6th of august 2015. and let's look at it together it's quite long but i want to share it to you hello both i attended a meeting with sotech on tuesday
00:16:36 tuesday they manufacture aluminium not composite cladding systems their system holds approval when used with rockwool insulation they also showed me a bs8414 part two test which used k15 behind a
00:16:47 part two test which used k15 behind a two millimeter aluminium finish which was funded equally by between kingspan satech and another party i forget who in 2008 it failed within 15 minutes with quotes flames coming off the top of the
00:16:59 quotes flames coming off the top of the test rig quotes a few months ago sotek got a call from kingspan telling them that they take legal action against them if they release the test report my problem is that one kingspan have never mentioned it two kingsman have
00:17:10 never mentioned it two kingsman have been reluctant to our request that they undertake a test using aluminium three we've seen assessments from bre which are based on the terracotta and eternity board tests and the results extrapolated to
00:17:22 and the results extrapolated to aluminium
00:17:23 aluminium with the conclusion that in their view it should perform acceptably when tested to bsa414
00:17:29 to bsa414 either bre have ignored or been instructed to ignore the earlier satech test or as it was some time ago the current staff are unaware of it i know that our backs are covered by bre's assessment report but i still have
00:17:41 assessment report but i still have doubts about how the fire performance of a lightweight metal has been assessed on the basis of an inert organic material and knowing that kingspan are wanting to cover up tests which are not happy to
00:17:52 cover up tests which are not happy to share i just have the feeling that the use of an aluminium facade in k-15 may not be as good as we're led to believe and over the page you say happy to elaborate more on tuesday
00:18:04 do we get from that mr lewis that by this point early august 2015 you yourself now had strong suspicions that kingspan were concealing failed test reports
00:18:18 were concealing failed test reports yes
00:18:19 yes did you consider how it was that the bre could extrapolate test data from
00:18:25 from the two you mentioned terracotta and eternity systems in order to produce operation option three reports about aluminium while at the same time ignoring
00:18:37 while at the same time ignoring or not being aware of failed tests that were going on in their burn hall
00:18:44 it was a concern yes so you did consider it and you were worried about it yes
00:18:52 yes did you ever discuss that with the bre
00:18:56 bre we
00:18:57 we when we met with bre they were very clear that they couldn't discuss
00:19:06 client confidential matters was was that the meeting on the 27th of november 2014 or was there a later meeting no it would be the 2014 meeting right let's see
00:19:17 meeting right let's see right well when you learned what you set out in this email did you seek a conversation with bre to tell them either that they've been
00:19:28 to tell them either that they've been misled or they got on an internal problem
00:19:31 problem um all i did with it was raise it to diane um
00:19:36 diane um yes because i felt that it was sufficient to to go there we
00:19:42 we did raise the same issue with x over later on yes and put it to them
00:19:49 them and
00:19:50 and what did to your knowledge what did diane marshall do with this information uh i'm not aware that she did anything with it
00:20:00 did you know that she didn't done nothing with it at the time i wasn't party to any emails other than i believe diane replied to this email with
00:20:10 with you know thank you very much okay go back a page if we can please mr lewis look at page two you say
00:20:17 you say um there towards the bottom of the screen at the beginning of the paragraph i know that our backs are covered by biari's assessment report what did you mean by that in that
00:20:31 we were relying that bre were if they were writing a report saying that it was acceptable under option three then you
00:20:42 acceptable under option three then you know really we were going off that you know and relying upon that what
00:20:47 what could have been the case was that bre knew data from failed tests and were applying the knowledge but not referencing it
00:20:58 referencing it um it could be that they knew of things that we didn't um it was a you know an in-depth assessment so in a nutshell
00:21:09 in a nutshell you're saying that although you've got the piece of paper the bre's assessment you know or you have reason to believe that it's not reliable um not entirely no we were saying that
00:21:20 um not entirely no we were saying that you know
00:21:21 you know bre are the experts in this you know if they give us a report saying that it's it's okay then you know we weren't really in a position to
00:21:32 a position to argue against that or to disprove it well that's that's certainly or maybe the sense of the first sentence but the words that follow the butt would believe that wouldn't they your banks are covered by the bre's
00:21:44 your banks are covered by the bre's assessment report but you still have doubts in other words you had an underlying doubt about whether the bre report which put a k-15 together with an aluminium
00:21:56 k-15 together with an aluminium brain screen panel was reliable for the reasons you've set out yes i did and that was combined with you know we had said to kingspan when we were in the meetings with
00:22:08 when we were in the meetings with kingspan discussing what they were going to test
00:22:11 to test we did say we feel it'd be very useful if you did a test on a lightweight metal finish so that we can get some idea of how that will perform um i wish they said you know along the
00:22:22 um i wish they said you know along the lines of yes good idea let's write that down
00:22:25 down but no test ever came we never saw it and that was combined now with my you know hearing this from sotech were you flagging up to diane marshall and steve evans the fact that you could always
00:22:36 evans the fact that you could always blame the bre for producing an unsound extrapolation for terracotta and eternit lightweight even though you had your own doubts about it no i was just flagging up to diane that this bit of
00:22:50 up to diane that this bit of information on lightweight you know facade had come to light were your let me careful my expression were your surveyors
00:22:58 surveyors accepting routinely accepting option three reports which detailed buildups using k15 and an aluminium main screen well they would you know they were there
00:23:09 well they would you know they were there were some that were definitely being referred to me at this time right what were you doing with them i was going through them and again you know it depended who wrote
00:23:20 again you know it depended who wrote them but in the case of bre i would have tended to you know
00:23:25 you know go with it you know they were much more knowledgeable on this and had much more access to data than i would have had even though after 6th of august 2015 you knew there was a problem that you set
00:23:36 knew there was a problem that you set out here
00:23:37 out here could you continue to accept we well we we did
00:23:42 we did well no actually no we didn't um because the ones that we started to receive from x over with a lightweight metal
00:23:50 metal we
00:23:51 we started to go back to x over and quiz them and say are you sure about this you know and we raised our issues with them and to the point where we went and actually sat down with them
00:24:03 actually sat down with them to share those concerns face to face to say you know we we don't believe we can do this and the reason for that was also tied in with the cellotex extended application report
00:24:14 extended application report where xover had said there was insufficient data to conclude that celetex with a lightweight metal finish would pass br 135 and they will come to that in in very shortly can you just
00:24:26 that in in very shortly can you just tell me with this looking at the document on the screen and the reference to a test which was actually carried out with an aluminium panel
00:24:36 panel and
00:24:37 and an assessment report which apparently uh basing itself on data derived from testing an inorganic material demonstrated that an aluminium
00:24:49 material demonstrated that an aluminium panel
00:24:50 panel would be acceptable did that inconsistency not suggest that the whole
00:24:57 the whole process of doing assessments was flawed or might be flawed
00:25:06 um
00:25:09 it didn't strike me as such um
00:25:14 um i mean at this time we also knew that you could
00:25:17 you could follow option one build a system from materials limited combustibility and if you built them in a certain arrangement they would still fail an eight 8414 test
00:25:28 eight 8414 test that's because you're testing a specific construction aren't you with specific dimensions and materials
00:25:36 materials but i mean um i would have thought this was a rather worrying
00:25:42 worrying piece of evidence that a system actually being tested with aluminium failed and someone comes along and says well i can show you that aluminium is satisfactory by reference to an extrapolation from
00:25:54 by reference to an extrapolation from some
00:25:55 some test on some completely different material
00:25:58 material that was the situation we were in yes well did it not prompt you or someone else to say to ask the question whether option three was actually a safe option it didn't lead us to
00:26:11 safe option it didn't lead us to question the whole option three thing but it did lead us to question this particular build-up but in terms of the robustness of the option three system
00:26:23 of the option three system we we didn't you know we didn't forget the well we didn't change that that continued we didn't suddenly lose total faith in it or anything we still considered it to be a method of showing compliance that you
00:26:35 a method of showing compliance that you know
00:26:36 know that did you not think it deserved further investigation no he didn't do you think you should have done yes very likely yes
00:26:47 yes very likely yes and why didn't you because
00:26:51 because at the time you know this was the policy that had been adopted by nhpc on these jobs and my time was very much taken up in looking at these reports and you know
00:27:03 looking at these reports and you know dealing with them along that policy uh now you refer at the end of this mr jones i'm so sorry no no i'd ask my question
00:27:10 question i don't know whether you can go back to page three please where you said happy to elaborate more on tuesday
00:27:16 tuesday um did you have a meeting with them on whether it was the tuesday or or another day but shortly after you sent this email
00:27:24 email i can't remember what was happening on that tuesday i can't remember what it was
00:27:31 now you've referred to a meeting with xover
00:27:34 xover let's look at that
00:27:39 i think it's right in general isn't it that although the reports from x over that you got under the initial iteration of option three were comprehensive you had concerns about them we did with regards to the lightweight
00:27:52 we did with regards to the lightweight finish yes yes absolutely let's look at x uh let's look at exo four zeros two one three seven please
00:28:06 and if we go in this email run to page 3 we will find an email from you to janet murrell of the 9th of december
00:28:16 december 2015
00:28:18 2015 also sent to a jenny lucas cox copied to steve evans and dave white yes yes and the subject is lightweight metal cladding finishes bs8414 br135 and you
00:28:30 cladding finishes bs8414 br135 and you say dear janet i write following my conversation with jenny earlier this week nhbc is currently receiving a number of desktop studies of bsa414 straight br 135 external fast spread performance of facade construction from
00:28:42 performance of facade construction from xover which conclude with the option with the opinion that the use of aluminium and zinc finishes in conjunction with combustible insulation is acceptable well some of these have also been acceptable to us following our own assessment of the geometry of the
00:28:54 own assessment of the geometry of the building and how it fits within the requirements of regulation b4 1. several have been rejected because nhbc remains unconvinced that accurate conclusions can be drawn from data from tests using
00:29:06 can be drawn from data from tests using thicker heavier inorganic materials when assembled in a manner currently undertaken by the cladding industry nhbc feels that this issue needs more discussion and so would welcome the opportunity to meet with you either at
00:29:17 opportunity to meet with you either at our milton keynes office or at your warrington office in addition to me attendance from nhbc include dave steve evans dave white thank you for your time and i look forward to hearing from you
00:29:28 and i look forward to hearing from you now did the sense of that main paragraph there
00:29:32 there reflect your concern about extrapolation uh that had been done by the bre in the last part of the 6th of august email we looked at a little bit earlier yes it included you know studies that we were
00:29:45 included you know studies that we were seeing
00:29:46 seeing on this type of build-up yes and the person at the nhbc that remained unconvinced was you i think wasn't it yes it was did steve evans and dave white share your lack of conviction no they were
00:29:58 your lack of conviction no they were relying on me to you know to to share what i felt and they were supportive of that yes they didn't disagree with you did they no they didn't now let's look at page two please scroll up
00:30:09 please scroll up um it looks from
00:30:12 from the email run that you've got no response from x over to that message so you wrote again on the 23rd of december hello janet i've just reviewed another x over report which justified the use of
00:30:23 over report which justified the use of lightweight metal cladding finishes in conjunction with combustible insulation at this stage nhbc doesn't feel comfortable in accepting it for the reasons already raised with you as such can i repeat my request to meet with xover and discuss this matter at some
00:30:35 xover and discuss this matter at some point early in the new year either at our offices or yours and
00:30:43 you then i think get a response to that my question is whether between the two emails you send janet murrell
00:30:54 emails you send janet murrell did you have a discussion with x over or did they simply not respond at all
00:31:01 i don't recall the response so probably there wasn't one and i don't recall the telephone conversation either now if we go up the chain we can see if we go to page one we can see that
00:31:13 if we go to page one we can see that jennifer lucas cox
00:31:17 who is at x over and her signs herself off as a certification engineer based in warrington uh writes to you on the 6th of january 2016. do you see the foot of page 1. yes
00:31:29 2016. do you see the foot of page 1. yes and she writes to you and janet murrell copied to steve evans dave white and jackie alder and she says hi john for our information could you confirm the reference number of the x over report you're referring to certificate we could
00:31:40 you're referring to certificate we could look at this also page two i know you suggested we meet to discuss a similar matter but it does discuss janet and i didn't feel it necessary at the time you are more than welcome to come here and we can discuss the matter further
00:31:52 and we can discuss the matter further along with anything else you feel necessary it seems there are a few circumstances which require clarification perhaps we have a number of dates available for you if you wish to visit us and then she sets them out and the rest is about
00:32:03 sets them out and the rest is about booking um looking at that when she says as discussed at the very top of the screen there in that first line there on page two what's she referring to what discussion we must have had a telephone
00:32:15 discussion we must have had a telephone conversation do you remember when it was whether before or after your second email i don't recall it i mean it must have been after the the first email
00:32:26 the first email i don't recall so do you remember the discussion or a discussion with xavier in which they told you that they didn't see the need to discuss their desktop reports with you i can't recall it i can recall the meeting but i i'm struggling to recall a
00:32:38 meeting but i i'm struggling to recall a discussion telephone conversation so you can't remember whether they gave you a reason for why they weren't prepared to discuss it or felt it unnecessary not not in advance of the meeting no now as you can see i've shown you
00:32:50 now as you can see i've shown you jennifer lucas cox gives you some dates
00:32:54 dates but if you go to the top of the email chain page one um we can see your response to her
00:33:01 you say hello jenny and this is the same day 6th of january 2016. thanks for the email the most recent schemes are as below they give an example of the range of different applications we're seeing
00:33:12 applications we're seeing and there are four of them greenwich wharf
00:33:15 wharf k15 in conjunction with aluminium honeycomb
00:33:19 honeycomb scarborough road k15 with zinc grange walk this is number three celetex rs 5000 with aluminium
00:33:30 celetex rs 5000 with aluminium and
00:33:31 and and then the fourth one is appraisal of celotex pir facade clowning systems which is data from the celetex test extrapolated to other kinds of external finish
00:33:43 finish and it goes on with regards to aluminium finishes it concluded that there wasn't sufficient evidence to judge with certainty that compliance with br135 could be achieved you see that yes
00:33:54 you see that yes and
00:33:59 you refer
00:34:00 refer in
00:34:04 that to those four were there any others they were the at the time they would be the only four that xover had written right
00:34:14 right and the and the one that xover had come back and
00:34:17 back and and said no to effectively was number four yes
00:34:21 four yes in other words they couldn't extrapolate yes that was the the celtics the generic celetex one was that the only one where they'd come back and said um there wasn't sufficient evidence
00:34:31 evidence or without others yes and this is what led us to query the other three yeah now um
00:34:38 um let's go to exo402138
00:34:43 this is an email from you of the third of february 2016 to
00:34:49 to jennifer lucas cox and also janet morrell and a gentleman called franz papp who may be familiar to the panel from earlier evidence copy to steve evans
00:35:01 earlier evidence copy to steve evans dave white and malika coria i think has joined by this time and
00:35:08 and it's sent on the 3rd of february subject meeting to discuss performance of metal planting systems used with combustible insulation now it's quite a long email so let's just take it in stages thanks for the
00:35:19 just take it in stages thanks for the email there are a number of items we'd like to discuss with you all related to the justifications which xover have provided in support of regulation b41 br135 and bs8414
00:35:30 br135 and bs8414 one
00:35:30 one aluminium composite materials i'm sorry aluminium and zinc sheet the bs8414 tests which you've seen are all based on heavier inorganic materials or timber products yet the data from these is
00:35:41 products yet the data from these is being extrapolated to thin lightweight metal finishes it's unclear to us how far the knowledge can be stretched before it becomes unreliable we have hearsay evidence that tests using lightweight metal finishes with
00:35:52 lightweight metal finishes with combustible insulations have been tested but were unsuccessful now pausing there what hearsay evidence are you referring to there that was the so-tech that's sotech is it yes going on with point two you say
00:36:03 going on with point two you say aluminium composite materials as above there seems to be no test data available for the wide range of acm products in some of the x over reports it's been unclear which product has been referenced it's known that the material
00:36:15 referenced it's known that the material core properties have a large impact on the combustibility of these products i'm pausing again what core properties are you referring to there what material core properties are you uh are you
00:36:26 core properties are you uh are you talking about um
00:36:31 that particular one we were referring to you know the the the more commonly seen acm materials where
00:36:39 where the core can range from a 100 polythene to a mix of polyethylene and mineral or a mineral content you just said 100 polythene
00:36:50 polythene what did you mean the core of the of the many of the acm panels was uh when i say polythene you know it's too good it's the sun it's in an emphasis and polyethylene it's the
00:37:02 an emphasis and polyethylene it's the same thing yes right
00:37:05 yes right that may
00:37:06 that may simplify things later but so you use the word polythene because you think does it that it's the same thing as polyethylene it's yes um the reason i use polythene is
00:37:18 the reason i use polythene is going back unrelated to this but you know polythene was a commonly known term within the construction industry when you came talking about damproof membranes and things like that
00:37:29 membranes and things like that um
00:37:29 um so
00:37:30 so but to cut to the point i think you've given us already when you refer to core properties you are including acm with a 100 polyethylene core a pe core
00:37:41 core yes we were yes yes now had any of the desktop reports from x over thus far covered
00:37:48 covered acm
00:37:55 clear that a 100
00:37:59 a 100 polyethylene cord acm would would not pass
00:38:03 pass we never saw any test reports any justifications for those
00:38:09 those from x over from x over no or indeed generally from anybody apart from the one scheme we've mentioned about the apex building right
00:38:18 right now then let's go on in your email at point three aluminium honeycomb panels many of these contain significant amounts of resin to bond the external finish to the honeycomb backing
00:38:29 honeycomb backing the x over reports reference only the metal components of these panels with no consideration of the properties of the resin nor how these materials are likely to actually perform in a fire situation and then glazed spandrel panels
00:38:41 and then glazed spandrel panels you express your view there brick slip cladding
00:38:45 cladding and again you say in the last sentence there again we query how far the knowledge can be stretched without a need to test a sample of the assembled components and then six celetex rs 5000 unlike
00:38:57 and then six celetex rs 5000 unlike other combustible insulation manufacturers rs-5000 has been tested only in one build-up celatex provided us with a copy of exxov's generic appraisal of other facade-cladding systems which stated
00:39:09 facade-cladding systems which stated that with regards to an aluminium finish the test evidence wasn't sufficient to judge with certainty that compliance with br135 could be achieved yet we have subsequently been provided with site-specific reports where rs-5000 has
00:39:21 site-specific reports where rs-5000 has been deemed acceptable in conjunction with aluminium-sheet acm and corium brick slips now do you do you know which those site reports are
00:39:34 um not offhand no i can't recall which one specifically which jobs they were right to be clear just looking at the date
00:39:45 to be clear just looking at the date grenfell had not been signed off until the july of 2016 so they couldn't include that site and that's not an nhbc site we had nothing to do with grandfather and then seven
00:39:57 and then seven cladding buildups generally the x over reports deal with the expected performance of the component materials uh without consideration of how a completed system is likely to perform in addition the aluminium support
00:40:09 addition the aluminium support components of many systems vary in thickness between manufacturers with no analysis of the effects of its value engineering quotes the thicknesses down to the minimum acceptable from a structural point of view thickness
00:40:22 now you can see what you said there this email was it was copied to steve evans and dave white as i've shown you had you raised these concerns with them or other
00:40:33 raised these concerns with them or other senior staff at nhbc before sending this message to x over uh yes because item seven look very much like dave's words right
00:40:44 like dave's words right so this was to some extent at least a collaborative exercise oh yes very much so right
00:40:49 so right now the list appears to go against what you say in your witness statement that we saw earlier about x overs reports being comprehensive and assuring
00:40:57 assuring to just to remind you that was paragraph 182 b at page 47. that's right isn't it well generally they we we did have confidence in
00:41:08 confidence in x over
00:41:09 x over um
00:41:10 um it was just with regards to this lightweight panel one because we saw the disconnect between what xover had said when they assessed the celetex buildup
00:41:21 buildup um
00:41:22 um compared to what they were saying in some of the job specific ones thereafter um and that was it was that disconnect that we were wanting to bottom out really that was the thrust of
00:41:33 bottom out really that was the thrust of the meeting mainly right it's right i think isn't it that xover had in fact provided uh an option three report
00:41:44 report uh approving the use of rs 5000 with a acm
00:41:50 um reading this it looks like they had done yes yes and indeed i think the reference to that just for the record is cel403717
00:41:58 cel403717 there's no need to go to it but what was their explanation of providing such a report in circumstances where uh as you say in in six the test evidence
00:42:09 evidence wasn't sufficient to judge with certainty that compliance with br135 could be
00:42:15 could be well achieved understand that that the thinking from x over was in some of the or in the fire test that had been carried out the flame
00:42:28 had been carried out the flame hit the external cladding panel which then broke up and fell away and opened up the cavity and the insulation to the fire
00:42:37 fire and they were benchmarking that against what was likely to happen when you know another material was used in that in its place would it would that new material
00:42:48 new material open up in the same way to the same extent faster or slower than what had happened in the case of the you know the tested arrangement
00:43:02 does that not indicate to you that at least so far as xover's approach was concerned option three was unreliable at least in relation to particular buildups
00:43:14 relation to particular buildups combustible insulation with a lightweight metal cladding we didn't have the skills or the knowledge to say that with any certainty we all we could do was
00:43:24 do was go and quiz them and say please elaborate why you know why you say this you know you're the experts where not well indeed but the questions you're asking are with great respect
00:43:35 you're asking are with great respect pretty pointed aren't they yes there's nothing inexpert about the questions is there i would hope not no and to say you were in a position to be able to bring some expert scrutiny
00:43:47 to be able to bring some expert scrutiny to bear on what xover was doing and on this one at least they'd come up short didn't they
00:43:55 we we had concerns yes yes yes yes now there's then a meeting uh
00:44:02 uh i'm sorry i'm sorry to finish the point off you had concerns but did the fact that you had concerns not indicate to you
00:44:08 you that the whole edifice of option three was built on shaky foundations because even x over as people you expected to have the requisite level of expertise could not always produce a reliable option three report
00:44:19 option three report we didn't take that view at the time we
00:44:24 possibly wouldn't have written off the whole option three process on the basis of you know this one type of cladding system did you not seek to give it some further thought that there may be some
00:44:36 further thought that there may be some cladding systems in common application which really ought to be would fall outside option three altogether we didn't know because you know
00:44:46 you know bre and others were also backing up you know this type of of a you know of testing despite the fact that we saw from your 6th of august email you had very considerable
00:44:57 email you had very considerable reservations about it
00:45:01 yes but we didn't write off the option three testing process no i know we continued we you know we still had reasonable confidence that you know the at least the intended way was meant to be done
00:45:13 the intended way was meant to be done should be reliable now the meeting with xavier eventually took place on the 4th of february 2016. uh and we have we get this from janet morrill's statement um it was attended
00:45:24 morrill's statement um it was attended by janet murrell jennifer lucas cox and franz papp and you were there as well do you recall that yes i remember it yes uh now janet morrill and franz papp
00:45:35 uh now janet morrill and franz papp were
00:45:36 were fire engineers qualified fire engineers weren't they um
00:45:41 um no
00:45:41 no no i don't believe they were fire engineers i believe general janet has a phd in chemistry um okay and after france i don't know what his his were why were you meeting
00:45:52 what his his were why were you meeting people who were not fire engineers then in order to discuss this problem because x over was a ucas accredited laboratory i see
00:46:07 right i see so
00:46:09 i see so just to just to round this point off you might actually end up by having to deal with people doing option three reports who are in fact less expert than you purely because appendix a pushed you in their direction
00:46:22 well not in the case of exo you know these people were very much more knowledgeable than i was or as you might put it the approved document supporting regulation certain
00:46:32 sorry i'm confused yes well i mean my point is that in in you gave us two camps earlier you said you didn't have to be fire engineers they could be ucas
00:46:44 fire engineers they could be ucas accredited people from ucas accredited laboratories yes did the fact that you were meeting janet merrill and franz patton who were as you thought not fire engineers as you've told us not give you some concerns that the edifice of option
00:46:56 some concerns that the edifice of option three and the people qualified to do option three reports might might be a little bit shaky no it didn't because you know x over
00:47:06 a very well known testing body that could you know interpolate on these issues these matters well now jennifer lucas cox was a certification engineer according to her
00:47:18 certification engineer according to her email signature that i showed you did she also have fire engineering credential credentials i have i don't know what jenny had right now steve evans and dave white were there as well
00:47:29 evans and dave white were there as well i think
00:47:30 i think yes
00:47:31 yes um if we look at uh janet murrell's statement
00:47:35 statement we see what she says about this meeting this is at exo402132 please page 31
00:47:43 page 31 i'll just show you page one just so that you're clear what it is we're looking at okay so can i clarify definitely dave was there right i'm not actually now 100 sure
00:47:55 right i'm not actually now 100 sure steve was there right
00:48:01 uh well we have an email which i think shows that he was but you can't remember i don't think that matters particularly for present purposes okay looking at page one
00:48:10 page one of this is that janet moral's statement of the inquiry of october last year and if we go to page 31 paragraph 7.36 g please
00:48:19 please you can see what she says she says my general recollection though is that we discussed the matters listed in mr lewis's third of february 2016 email in some detail that's the email we've just been looking at together
00:48:30 been looking at together my sense was that since nhbc were not fire engineers themselves their purpose in meeting us meeting with us was to understand in more detail the conclusions we had reached in our reports in relation to
00:48:41 reached in our reports in relation to the relevant products from a fire engineering perspective our aim in speaking with them was to talk through the issues that they had raised so as to allay their concerns and then she says as a result of our
00:48:52 and then she says as a result of our meeting
00:48:54 meeting i believe mr lewis had a greater understanding of our views of the uses of the various facade types and materials and his concerns in that regard had largely been resolved do you agree that with janet morrell's recollection or characterization of the
00:49:06 recollection or characterization of the meeting
00:49:08 meeting in g
00:49:20 yeah that generally ties in with my recollection yes yes
00:49:27 yes and she seems to recall the purpose of the meeting was to get a fire engineering perspective if janet merrill and franz pack were not fire engineers how would that how would
00:49:38 fire engineers how would that how would that happen well they would use their other expertise in knowing how these things were were done i mean janna did have a good background i understand
00:49:51 did have a good background i understand in
00:49:52 in fire having i believe she was at the fire research station and things like this she she knew her stuff and when it came to fire things as far as we we were concerned
00:50:03 concerned so i i mean i don't know for sure what her qualifications in fire engineering were and all i know is what i've read in her statement about having the degree in chemistry
00:50:12 chemistry yes paragraph 2.9 i'm not sure i can i can illuminate you any further um
00:50:20 right and did that did it concern you at all that you come along to the meeting for a fire engineering perspective and we're getting it from people who were not actually fire engineers they were just
00:50:29 just people who as you put it knew their stuff when it came to fire things well acts of a warrington fire were generally regarded in the construction industry as
00:50:41 industry as you know
00:50:42 you know if there was a pecking order it would probably start with bre and they would be a close second right that if you needed advice on something fire related they were a good company to go to yes so
00:50:53 they were a good company to go to yes so this is really about brand management isn't it in fact isn't it so you you have x over and can use the x over name rather than the actual particular qualifications of the actual particular people producing the actual reports
00:51:05 people producing the actual reports my understanding was that they were very well qualified people now um
00:51:10 now um after this meeting did you remain concerned that knowledge was being stretched too far in x overs option three reports
00:51:23 we wrote
00:51:25 no i mean i would tend to agree with what janet morrell wrote though that you know we'd gone with them with a list of concerns we'd put it to them them
00:51:36 of concerns we'd put it to them them being the experts in all of this lot they'd given their reasons why you know they felt it was acceptable they said perhaps it's just really you know we're not giving you enough detail
00:51:47 know we're not giving you enough detail in the reports and we will give you more detail in future just to back up what we're saying just to give you more information to back up our opinion
00:51:55 opinion um
00:51:56 um and that's what you know the the kind of the outcome of the meeting was right did did x over actually explain to you how they were able to extrapolate data
00:52:07 how they were able to extrapolate data from tests on heavier inorganic materials
00:52:10 materials and apply it to a build up using aluminium or zinc as you had asked them it was as i said earlier you know they they compared it to
00:52:22 compared it to you know the fact that like the terracotta tiles they they as soon as the heat touches them they tend to shatter and fall away completely you know it was all down to the rate at which the external panel would
00:52:33 would be breached before the fire started to then attack the insulation material did they explain to you how they were able to approve acm panels to be used on buildings over 18 meters when
00:52:45 be used on buildings over 18 meters when there was no large scale testing that had been completed using those panels as one of the components yes they you know there were of you know the same same sort of you know techniques using
00:52:57 same sort of you know techniques using the same techniques looking at how long it would be before the panel disintegrated and the fire touched the insulation did you really understand let me try to disrupt a slightly
00:53:09 let me try to disrupt a slightly different way when you heard their explanation what did you learn that you didn't know before
00:53:17 um i hadn't really thought about it before you know this was kind of new stuff new territory for me when they elaborated on what they you
00:53:28 when they elaborated on what they you know their thought process was in in looking and writing these things then
00:53:33 then it made sense you know with my knowledge of
00:53:37 of what i'd learned in you know fire engineering it it you know it didn't seem off the wall it kind of made sense how if you didn't have test data
00:53:48 how if you didn't have test data using acm panels in a build up
00:53:52 how could you extrapolate from something as different from an inorganic material to an acm which had never been tested as i said it was purely down to the rate
00:54:04 as i said it was purely down to the rate the time period between the fire touching the external and and it been breached it wasn't
00:54:12 it wasn't totally based on just the terracotta test don't forget at this point we had also seen the trespa test um
00:54:21 um and so there was that you know there was useful information in that test as well but if you didn't have i'm sorry mr lewis what i'm struggling to understand is if there was no test data
00:54:32 data of acm as a component in any build up at all how would x over know and how did you understand they would know how it would perform
00:54:43 know how it would perform uh they would have xover had knowledge of you know well i assume they had knowledge of how the panels reacted under fire they would have knowledge of
00:54:54 under fire they would have knowledge of the heat release rate of those panels when they if you know when they caught fire they would have knowledge of the failure mechanism of those panels when heater was applied to them that was the
00:55:06 heater was applied to them that was the the you know as i understood the the mixing pot of things that they considered well how closely did you scrutinize this i mean did you ask them this question well wait a minute takes over you only got small-scale test
00:55:18 over you only got small-scale test results for the for an acm panel a 476 part six and seven test or a perhaps a combustibility test that's all you've got it's not the same thing as an eight four one four test so
00:55:29 thing as an eight four one four test so how can you extrapolate um you have no data did you ask them that question we didn't ask it specifically we relied on them to have considered that data
00:55:40 on them to have considered that data as part of their response when they were writing these reports
00:55:44 did they tell you that their report had found that celetex and aluminium metal sheets would not have met br 135 with sufficient certainty
00:55:53 certainty which is the very fact you yourself had picked up at 0.6 in your 3rd of february email
00:55:59 email yes that that was well documented by that point and if that's the case how were they able to approve acm then or how do they explain to you that they
00:56:10 or how do they explain to you that they were able to approve acm by process of extrapolation they well
00:56:16 they well from the point of the celetex generic celetex test using sorry extrapolation using the aluminium panel
00:56:24 panel they
00:56:25 they i recall it was something along the lines of you know we we didn't have quite enough evidence but we we felt it probably would be okay but we didn't want to commit on that um but you know on the job specific
00:56:37 um but you know on the job specific schemes they felt able in many cases to describe as i said you know the rate at which the aluminium would melt and the panel open up and then from there they then went to
00:56:48 then went to and if it was an acm panel how long would it take for the acm panel to to melt or disintegrate before the fire then got onto the insulation so you let me just understand this you raised the concern and you put you set out at
00:57:00 the concern and you put you set out at 0.6
00:57:01 0.6 because
00:57:02 because as you record there the reported found that celetex and aluminium metal sheets together would not have met 135 br 135 with sufficient certainty did did
00:57:13 with sufficient certainty did did janet murray or anybody else at x over uh
00:57:17 uh satisfy you that in fact it would
00:57:22 they satisfied us that in the jobs specific you know
00:57:28 you know scenarios that we'd asked them they were you know they wrote all their reports were writing and saying with that one yes it probably would there could have been differences between
00:57:39 between well they're very well there were differences between the celetex buildup and what we were looking at in many of these others i mean not least that they were k15 rather than celatex the thickness of the aluminium panel
00:57:51 the thickness of the aluminium panel would have made a difference as well and very likely you know the way that panel was fixed and and and other things um you know they their view as well they took all that into account and
00:58:03 took all that into account and produced a report job-specific report based on it
00:58:10 now i want to ask you about the 2015 review
00:58:15 uh if we go back to your statement please at page 32 you say this at paragraph 115 [Applause] following the change in position described at paragraph 91 above
00:58:33 see that yes and hbc conducted a process to review projects with a story higher than 18 meters this was known as the combustible cladding review or the 2015 project
00:58:44 cladding review or the 2015 project review now just pausing there the change in position for paragraph 91 is
00:58:50 is i think a reference to the fact that as of january the nhbc was was asking builders to show compliance with bca technical guidance note 18 yes yes yes and if we continue to paragraph 116 you say
00:59:03 to paragraph 116 you say a report was produced from nhbc's record setting out the building still in build that will likely to have a story over 80 metres in height on which the combustible materials control list would be based due to the way our systems work we could not filter by materials used in
00:59:15 we could not filter by materials used in morally checking projects that were still under construction now pausing again
00:59:21 again is it right that the 2015 review only looked at buildings currently in construction and did not include any buildings which had already been completed regardless of whether they had combustible components in the external
00:59:33 combustible components in the external walls or not yes the purpose of that review was to look at the buildings which were still yeah in buildings and still do something with who decided
00:59:44 with who decided not to look at buildings which had already been completed uh it would be steve and diane and
00:59:51 and why was that did you ever know what the reason was for that decision yes because those buildings had been signed off um there was nothing really a building
01:00:02 there was nothing really a building control body could do with a job that had already been completed um
01:00:07 um well
01:00:10 if you heard let it be assumed discovered that those that had been signed off had been signed off on an erroneous basis for example because
01:00:19 because the
01:00:20 the surveyor had thought wrongly that
01:00:24 that k-15 was a material of limited combustibility why was there nothing that an hbc could do about it well many of them would have not even been nhbc's building control there were
01:00:36 been nhbc's building control there were those that were the ones they had um
01:00:42 sorry specifically the question again please yes absolutely um let me suppose that you had discovered at this time that there was a legacy of
01:00:53 at this time that there was a legacy of buildings
01:00:55 buildings approved for building control purposes by
01:00:58 by nhbc's surveyors as approved inspectors or as an approved inspector
01:01:05 inspector which had
01:01:08 which had passed as compliant a building over 18 meters which had used kingspan k15 being a material of limiting being not not being a material a limited combustibility
01:01:19 a limited combustibility in the external wall buildup why was there nothing that nhbc could do about it well
01:01:27 well there was nothing we could do because you know once as i say building control legislation is such that once a building control body signs off a job that is the
01:01:39 control body signs off a job that is the end of you know any involvement they can have in that job um building control cannot go back to a building that it signed off a year ago and say oh by the way you think you need to change this and we want you to change
01:01:50 to change this and we want you to change that you know that was not the route to go down no and it was not that nhbc was just saying uh you know we're not bothered we they seriously were bothered that you know that but the
01:02:03 were bothered that you know that but the first initial trench of jobs which we could target very effectively and quickly were the ones where we hadn't issued the final certificate and nhbc was very much still able to have
01:02:15 nhbc was very much still able to have some control over those and that was the you know the the first focus of those jobs first yes i'm interested in the history and the thinking about the history
01:02:25 history are you able to explain why it was that nhbc
01:02:31 that nhbc did not
01:02:37 do anything about the fact that as had been discovered there was a legacy of high-rise buildings which had been signed off as compliant by nhbc inspectors which were in fact not compliant
01:02:50 which were in fact not compliant we were at risk of not being compliant yes we we knew that that was the case um i believe that all that was conveyed to the the nhpc board for them to
01:03:02 the nhpc board for them to you know be aware of now that that is what steve evans told the inquiry he he said
01:03:07 said uh that uh um there were discussions with the nhbc board that was date 221 page 26 line 11.
01:03:19 line 11. was that right did you remember the fact of a discussion with nhbc's board on that very question i didn't attend board meetings no but did somebody tell you that it had happened
01:03:30 somebody tell you that it had happened at this point had been escalated to the board for them to consider what to do about
01:03:33 about well i knew that regular updates were going to the nhpc board um and as far as i knew that that did include
01:03:42 include you know the fact of these how many schemes we've got on the go and very likely there are others that have been completed do you know whether there was any consideration
01:03:53 consideration at any time within nhbc about undertaking a risk assessment in relation to the legacy of high-rise buildings featuring combustible insulation
01:04:04 insulation which had been completed before the 1st of january 2014. i believe there were discussions happening at higher level there were not discussions i was really
01:04:16 there were not discussions i was really party to but i knew nhpc was not wanting to just wash its hands of all those schemes it you know and it still had the you know the build mark warranty was there for schemes where we
01:04:28 warranty was there for schemes where we had carried out building control there was a you know claims that could be made yeah so if not washing wanting to wash its hands of those schemes what what was nhbc to your knowledge
01:04:40 what was nhbc to your knowledge considering uh by way of addressing the problem uh i had no knowledge of what they were really doing i wasn't involved in those discussions i
01:04:51 i wasn't involved in those discussions i knew that it was you know
01:04:53 you know an issue that they were having to do something with and think about you say it was discussed at a higher level who who discussed it and we know steve evans uh says that it was taken to the board
01:05:04 uh says that it was taken to the board but
01:05:05 but what about diane marshall was she involved in that decision to your knowledge yeah she was she was i mean you know diane was aware of it um i believe ian davis was aware of it as well
01:05:14 well yeah now going on to paragraph 117 still on the screen you say a team has established to review all the projects within the above scope i led the team which also included david alexander white who i
01:05:25 included david alexander white who i think is dave white isn't it yes he got married by that point uh right and he adopted his um partner's name did he indeed part right gary jarvis and phil pettinger we reviewed each of the buildings and
01:05:37 reviewed each of the buildings and categorized them as high medium or lay risk if there was a low likelihood of fire safety issues such as a brickwork construction then they were categorized as low risk high risk materials such as acm 100 pe cord and fr grades using a
01:05:49 acm 100 pe cord and fr grades using a mix of p and mineral content or trespa a timber laminate were categorized as higher risk now just pausing there did any of the team other than you have any kind of fire engineering qualifications
01:06:02 kind of fire engineering qualifications um dave they didn't have fire engineering qualifications but they were selected because they had an awful lot of knowledge of you know this and other building related
01:06:14 you know this and other building related you know matters so especially dave you know dave had a huge amount of knowledge of cladding systems as did phil and uh you know as did gary as well who made the decision
01:06:25 made the decision on which category a particular building would fall into i believe i put the forward some suggested categories to steve who accepted them
01:06:37 who accepted them and how did you go about formulating your categories and deciding which building should fit into which category
01:06:45 category i based it on my own knowledge of what materials you know were considered to be a higher risk and lower risk you know such as we knew that brickwork was probably a
01:06:56 as we knew that brickwork was probably a lower risk and
01:06:59 and actually the end of the scale would have been 100 pe chord acm did you have set parameters objective criteria with which to work or comparative test data that you were using or was this just um
01:07:12 that you were using or was this just um it was i mean this process was more of a screening exercise to you know to go through the jobs and just give them a ranking um based upon you know what i considered to
01:07:23 based upon you know what i considered to be
01:07:24 be as i say high-risk medium risk or low risk
01:07:27 risk now we've seen that you refer there to uh
01:07:30 uh pe core
01:07:32 pe core yes acm 100 pe core yes or a mixture yes why would your customers still have buildings under construction using a 100 pe chord acm panel if nhpc was not
01:07:44 pe chord acm panel if nhpc was not accepting those products as a matter of course
01:07:47 course there were still some that were slipping through that we're getting it but not in most cases on a large scale you know the the areas of pe chord acm were
01:07:59 the areas of pe chord acm were tending to just be you know small isolated areas used as part of another cladding system or something of that manner so can we just be careful then with this paragraph when you say higher risk materials such
01:08:11 when you say higher risk materials such as acm 100 percent pe chord were categorized as higher risk that doesn't tell us that they that there was a complete ban on them so far as nhpc was concerned above 18 meters
01:08:24 was concerned above 18 meters what was the position was the position that you were accepting them for for buildings under 18 meters well for the first of this exercise we were really going through the architects
01:08:35 the architects proposals
01:08:37 proposals and if we found that the architect was proposing 100 pe code
01:08:43 code then that for the purpose of the exercise was getting flagged as a high risk
01:08:47 risk after that then the process of investigation as to had that been changed was that still proposed um had it been built that way and all those questions they followed on later on
01:08:58 questions they followed on later on this was really just a screening through of what the uh you know the architect had proposed to put on the building bearing in mind that in many cases there was a very big difference between what
01:09:09 was a very big difference between what the architects proposed and what finally got built
01:09:13 got built i'm just interested to know why there were 100 percent pe called aluminium composite material was higher risk as opposed to as opposed simply to not accept it at
01:09:24 as opposed simply to not accept it at all
01:09:26 all uh it was a screening exercise you know did the nhbc have established practices in relation to p e acm they weren't formally written down but the you know
01:09:37 formally written down but the you know all of the srpm surveyors and by this point the other building surveyors were you know they'd all been told several times about the risk of 100 pe card acm
01:09:48 the risk of 100 pe card acm what percentage of minerals against pe content was uh was acceptable um well for the post is this screening except for the screening i think anything that had you know if the
01:09:59 anything that had you know if the architect's details said acm we immediately put that into the high risk you know we would work through the detail later on and see if it could be lowered but for the post of this he was kept up high
01:10:11 kept up high and
01:10:12 and as a general matter post screening and post analysis what acm products in particular were you accepting typically in 2015
01:10:23 the range the ones we saw
01:10:27 we saw you know the brand names i can think of a luca bond alpolic um
01:10:35 um they were a a1 or a2 weren't they well they came in a mix they came in a range generally you know there were three one product could have three versions the 100 pe chord
01:10:46 versions the 100 pe chord the you know the the fr version which was a mix of pe and mineral and the you know the a1 a2 rated which was mineral content
01:10:55 content continuing with paragraph 119 of your statement you say diane marshall steve evans
01:11:00 evans ian davis and i subsequently held meetings to review the specifics of each high or medium risk project in detail starting with the higher risk ones the results of the review are documented in the combustible materials control list
01:11:11 the combustible materials control list that we all populated as part of the review by way of context all of these buildings had a condition placed on them preventing them being finalized for the purposes of building control and or warranty cover as a result the process
01:11:22 warranty cover as a result the process we were conducting held up the completion of some of the project those projects that said once we identified a project had a low risk rating then that project was recommended to continue
01:11:33 project was recommended to continue were any of these buildings ever unable to be finalized for building control or warranty cover no but a lot of them did require remedial works to be carried out on site
01:11:45 remedial works to be carried out on site before we could do that
01:11:48 and in what ways were buildings which had a condition preventing them being finalized able to get that condition removed
01:11:55 removed when they'd either provided a sufficiently robust justification for what the material combination they were using or
01:12:03 using or they'd gone back and in some way remediated the building to an extent that was appropriate for us to then consider it to be safe and who made that decision
01:12:15 ultimately it would be you know the final sign off from diane or steve sorry diana ian the process to get to there would have been you know via myself usually with
01:12:27 been you know via myself usually with diana steve usually there was a meeting with the builders very often there'd be a meeting between the builders us and x over you know to discuss what was considered to be appropriate um and then you know it
01:12:40 appropriate um and then you know it would continue from that point uh mr chairman i've got about five more minutes on this line would it be convenient yeah i think so yes thank you thank you and let's look at the table uh
01:12:52 thank you and let's look at the table uh which is your exhibit jal225 which is the same as steve evans is it's nhb403038
01:13:02 now we need the native version of this because it's an excel spreadsheet
01:13:30 uh
01:13:49 uh thank you and and if you look at the bottom left-hand corner of the screen you can see that there are three tabs pre-31st december 13 post first january 14 and escalations
01:14:02 post first january 14 and escalations yes yes
01:14:04 yes yes uh and let's um if we can scroll down in this tab you can see perhaps you don't need to but take it from me there were 196 projects yes yes and the second tab is those
01:14:15 yes yes and the second tab is those reviewed after 31st of uh after first of january 2014 and if you look at that if you just
01:14:20 you just click on it there were 95 projects and that's the num total number in the left-hand most column and i think in each case that was the project which could be made up of a
01:14:32 project which could be made up of a number of buildings yes yes
01:14:35 yes and the third tab is escalations and if we click on that and scroll to the bottom you can see that that includes 145 buildings um
01:14:45 um um no projects rather no no no the escalations tab was
01:14:52 was my log
01:14:54 my log of
01:14:56 of of the referral or the you know the response we were getting back from the builder after we applied a condition so on any scheme you know the builder would reply to that condition
01:15:08 builder would reply to that condition and this was a log of you know everything that had come to me either by an email or via a general referral on the internal fusion system and
01:15:20 and right
01:15:21 right so this is your log of those which have been escalated this was a log of what i did with every time you know we i got a response referral from one of the surveyors
01:15:33 surveyors what was the criteria what were the criteria for escalating a project to steve evans this was not a log of the ones that went to steve you know this was a log of
01:15:45 to steve you know this was a log of jobs that came to me for me to look at i thought i thought all of them came to you in the first instance didn't they yes everything on here came to me yes but they used when you know the only ones that then got
01:15:56 you know the only ones that then got escalated
01:15:57 escalated up to steve that were in a condition to get escalated were typically you know the way you see the date in column i it won't be completely there but you know well the third tab is forgive me it
01:16:08 know well the third tab is forgive me it may be um my fault but i i thought these were all those that have been escalated purely by the fact that you'd call the the tab escalations no this was a list of
01:16:18 of ones you know any job that came across my desk and the response that i gave to it hence why you're seeing things like you know you can see their line 146 column h
01:16:27 column h no proper assessment received you know i got it on the 26th of january looked at it there was nothing there that we could really do anything with returned it back to the surveyor right that one didn't go anywhere so although it's called
01:16:38 anywhere so although it's called escalations this this tab isn't actually escalations at all no right
01:16:43 right uh well let's go back to the first tab and scroll down then and we can see a number of high colored sorry red colored high risk buildings you can see that just from the first page
01:16:54 page of the spreadsheet yes yes and they have a description of the elements of the external facade in many in fact most but um they don't contain details of the exact materials do they
01:17:07 details of the exact materials do they no why is that it was a screening exercise it wasn't a fully in-depth review at this stage was that information held somewhere in nhpc's system yeah yeah yeah it was all
01:17:18 nhpc's system yeah yeah yeah it was all on the jobs you know but literally thousands of documents on every single one of these jobs right do you know of of the products that feature in this spreadsheet how many roughly were prevented from receiving final off by
01:17:30 prevented from receiving final off by you or by steve evans well ultimately sorry i mean you know it might help if i just can explain say line 121
01:17:41 can explain say line 121 um
01:17:42 um yes the initial review when myself and phil and gary were and dave were sitting in the room one of us looked at that job and found that the architect was proposing you know
01:17:54 proposing you know an acm by the look of it uh well there was an issue on there that we considered this was a high risk that stayed in column a g then later on myself diane steve sat
01:18:07 then later on myself diane steve sat around in a room and then we went into each job to look more closely at the details and the arrangement of the building
01:18:13 building and we obviously came to the conclusion that actually that one can be downgraded and so that one went down to a low risk um and that was it you know thereafter
01:18:24 you know thereafter the jobs would have been returned to the surveyor to do something with in the normal way i see so we can we can actually do the maths ourselves can we by by comparing a g and ai yes those two columns and seeing which remained red
01:18:36 columns and seeing which remained red and which went to um yes went to yellow yes
01:18:39 yes you know initially we if we had concerns it went as a high later on we'd see if we could downgrade it and do you know from recollection
01:18:50 from recollection and without digging through this document how many of these projects had pe called acm on them
01:18:59 uh was it from recollection a significant number no it wasn't there were quite a few that had a an fr rated core in terms of ones with 100 pe core i
01:19:10 in terms of ones with 100 pe core i don't recall really there were very many at this stage right and and what about combustible insulation you could see quite a lot of k15 yeah yeah yeah most of them had combustible insulation mr chairman is that a
01:19:22 insulation mr chairman is that a convenient moment that's the jew yes yes right well i think it's time we had a break mr lewis so we'll stop there we'll resume please at 25 to 4 and again please don't talk to anyone about your
01:19:34 please don't talk to anyone about your evidence
01:19:35 evidence all right thank you very much thank you
01:19:47 thank you twenty-five to 40.
01:37:17 would you ask mr lewis to come back in please okay
01:37:25 [Applause]
01:37:33 all right mrs really yes thank you thank you very much yes mr mr german thank you i'd like now to ask you about 12.7 we went through the meaning of 12.7 of adb and your evidence about it when we
01:37:44 and your evidence about it when we looked at tony baker's email
01:37:47 email from the bre to you in may 2013 yesterday
01:37:51 yesterday and again
01:37:52 and again at the meeting that you had with sarah colwell on the 27th of november 2014 uh i want to ask you about an email steve evans wrote to brian martin who was at dclg in 2015. it's at nhb402792
01:38:07 was at dclg in 2015. it's at nhb402792 and if we go in that please to page four right at the foot of the page
01:38:14 page four foot of the page we can see steve evans email of the 15th of june to brian martin combustible cladding and it's one of those which where the heading is separated from the text over to page five please it says
01:38:25 text over to page five please it says this and it's a long email
01:38:29 it starts good afternoon brian i write to request the department's view are you familiar with this email yes i drafted that email you drafted it
01:38:40 drafted that email you drafted it and um what prompted you to draft it steve asked me to draft it and what prompted him do you know i don't know what prompted i think it
01:38:52 i don't know what prompted i think it was
01:38:53 was that we wanted once again to be certain that our interpretation of paragraph 12.7 included the external cladding panels finish you
01:39:05 the external cladding panels finish you know system right now the date of this is june
01:39:08 is june 15th of june 2015. do you know whether this email was written after the issue of issue one of the bca technical guidance note 18 in
01:39:19 of the bca technical guidance note 18 in 2015 in other words the revised version or before
01:39:24 uh can we look at the dates again what was the date yes you scrolled up to page four at the very foot of the page it's the 15th of june 2015. when when did we issue the well i
01:39:35 2015. when when did we issue the well i don't know precisely i'm asking you do you know precisely when issue one was it was um published i can't recall if it was
01:39:42 was no i can't recall the timeline was this email written before or after you conducted the 2015 combustible cladding review you know no this was written before it right and let's look at the email it's long but it's
01:39:54 at the email it's long but it's important so we need to go through it um good afternoon brian i write to request the department's view regarding the need for limited combustibility external cladding finishes on buildings with a
01:40:05 cladding finishes on buildings with a floor level exceeding 18 meters in height
01:40:08 height assessed in accordance with paragraph 12.7 of approved document b2 as together with the associated paragraphs 12.5 to 12.9 as i understand it section 12 power 12.2
01:40:20 as i understand it section 12 power 12.2 explains that there is a need to slow down the rate of fire spread across the external faces of the building this is elaborated upon in paragraph 12.5 which states
01:40:28 states that the external envelope of a building should not provide a medium for fire spread if it is likely to be a risk to health and safety and the use of combustible materials in the cladding system and extensive cavities may
01:40:39 system and extensive cavities may present a risk until buildings generally a tall block of flats with a defending place policy would be considered a high risk to health and safety
01:40:48 safety at this point therefore it is assumed that the entire wall buildup is an issue and so following the following parts of the external wall construction should not assist with fire spread and the first two bullet points cover
01:41:00 and the first two bullet points cover external cladding material and backing board and the third insulation and then going further down however however the wording of power 12.7 of adb2 then goes on for state but in a building with a
01:41:11 on for state but in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level any insulation product filler material not including gaskets sealants and similar etc used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility see
01:41:23 should be of limited combustibility see appendix a this restriction does not apply to masonry cavity wall construction that complies with diagram 34 in section 9. whilst this paragraph is clear that insulation products are a risk to fire
01:41:35 insulation products are a risk to fire spread firstly it's unclear as to the meaning of filler products and secondly it is unclear whether it is intended that these recommendations apply to the external cladding finishes the use of the word etc implies that the
01:41:47 the use of the word etc implies that the major components of the cladding system need to be considered whilst many cladding finishes fall within table a7 guidance for quotes materials of limited combustibility on quakes we have come
01:41:58 combustibility on quakes we have come across a large number which do not and so even with a class naught surface spread of flame rating and when used with a malk insulation the objectives of section 12 may still not be met even though the guidance in paragraph 12.5
01:42:10 though the guidance in paragraph 12.5 has been met guidance in bs 9991 is more clear stating that combustible materials should not be used in cladding systems and extensive cavities see below however it also doesn't subsequently
01:42:22 however it also doesn't subsequently state that the cladding finishes should be mulk when used on tall buildings and if we go to page six vre document 135 far performance of external thermal installations for walls
01:42:33 external thermal installations for walls of multi-story buildings the alternative approach to complying with the above clauses is clear that the external cladding finish and its interaction with the insulation is an important factor in the resistance to fire spread across
01:42:45 the resistance to fire spread across external walls we have met with dr sarah colwell of bre and she verbally confirmed that the issue of fire spread by way of the external finish is as important as fire spread via the insulation
01:42:57 spread via the insulation our own view is that there is little point in ensuring that an insulation product meets with malt requirements when it can then be faced with a cladding finish which whilst achieving a class north surface but a flame
01:43:08 class north surface but a flame requirement becomes a contributory factor in the spread of fire up the building when acted upon by a flame plume from the flash day of fire however there appears to be a difference in interpretation across the industry
01:43:19 in interpretation across the industry and so your opinion straight steer would be very welcome thank you for your time now this is as i say 15th of june 2015.
01:43:30 now this is as i say 15th of june 2015. and we touched on this topic before my first question is this were you aware of anybody at nhbc discussing this question with brian martin at any point before this
01:43:45 no had you come across colleagues in or others in industry who also thought that the wording of 12.7 and the reference to filler or filler material was unclear
01:44:00 we had come across people that interpreted that this
01:44:05 that this only applied to the insulation and not the external finish not many people were pulling pointing out the word filler and saying what what does that word mean you know
01:44:16 know so there were was that right there was a divided society as it were some people who thought that 12.7 the use of word phillip meant that
01:44:24 that 12.7 applied to the whole of the facade build up and those who didn't yes yes
01:44:33 what was your own view in in mid 2015 as to what the term filler or term filler material etc meant
01:44:45 um a filler is something which is in my view at the time applied
01:44:53 applied to a building system whatever um afterwards to to make up a gap um you know one thinks of poly filler you know it's used to fill your cracks
01:45:04 know it's used to fill your cracks before you decorate it you know there are various options you know as guest interpretations of where you could use it what could be turned to filler but you know that was kind of my
01:45:15 you know that was kind of my understanding of what it meant by a filler material it was something along those lines did you was it your understanding that the presence of that word in 12.7 was
01:45:26 the presence of that word in 12.7 was what may
01:45:28 what may was what meant that all elements of an external wall build up including facings external facings had to be a material of limited
01:45:39 to be a material of limited combustibility no and my view is it was the word etc that as you told us yesterday indeed now steve evans
01:45:50 steve evans refers as presumably your draft does to nhbc coming across a large number of cladding finishes that were not materials of limited combustibility can you give us an idea of scale what did you mean by large number
01:46:07 it's hard to put a figure on it i mean i would say at the time there was a an awful lot of buildings were using a brick finish and you know probably 50 or more were probably brick so of all the others that was when we're
01:46:20 so of all the others that was when we're into this variety of different products um
01:46:24 um some of those were steel aluminium which were
01:46:28 were molc
01:46:29 molc you know it was only when you got down to your trespass your acms some of your rock panels and some of them are you know resin-bound cladding systems if i was to put a figure i'd probably
01:46:41 if i was to put a figure i'd probably say
01:46:42 say about a third of the you know the the external cladding materials we were seeing probably a third of those were probably um not mllc
01:46:54 um not mllc and was that i think it follows from your answers it was that was projects on which nhbc were providing services yes albeit sometimes only the warranty rather than the building control right and was that discovery that results i
01:47:06 and was that discovery that results i think the answer is no from what you said about the chronology but just help me was that discovery the result of nhbc's 2015 review of combustible materials no no i'd not already now sarah colwell i think had told you
01:47:17 now sarah colwell i think had told you at the meeting that you'd had with her at the bre in watford on the 27th of november 2014 about her thoughts on external finishes and they corresponded with yours i think
01:47:29 and they corresponded with yours i think yes yes they did yes and indeed tony baker had done the same in his email of may 2013. indeed yes yes and indeed the bca technical guidance naught technical guidance 18 issue naught from june 2014
01:47:42 guidance 18 issue naught from june 2014 a year before had also
01:47:45 had also corresponded with that view it did it was our view all along yeah so why why did the nhbc feel given that history
01:47:54 history that it was necessary to consult brian martin separately about this point and at length
01:47:58 at length well i think because we've been to we've made our own view which we were pretty sure about we'd been to bre who also had said you know it was their
01:48:10 who also had said you know it was their view but they were not the ones you know that oversaw the building regulations and approved document b you know what was a document issued by the ministry and therefore i think steve's
01:48:22 ministry and therefore i think steve's viewers well we haven't got it chapter and verse from the ministry perhaps we should do that just to be you know cover all bases um and that's why i believe that we've
01:48:34 um and that's why i believe that we've done that i mean at this time you know steve particularly was getting a lot a lot of kickback from the industry
01:48:41 industry about why we were asking for the cladding finish to be molc when it was only the insulation so i know steve was under a lot of pressure at the time um and i suspect that could have
01:48:52 um and i suspect that could have contributed as well to him saying let's just you know get a yet another layer of assurance that we are on the right track like this i see so
01:49:05 to summarize your evidence on that was it the case that between june 2014 and june 2015 there were elements of the industry who were reacting adversely to the breadth
01:49:17 were reacting adversely to the breadth of option one uh yes very much so yes now if we go to page four of this email chain we can see brian martin's response the very next day 16th of june
01:49:28 the very next day 16th of june 2015 at 10 02 in the morning
01:49:35 and he says this hi steve i can't offer a formal view as such specific projects are a matter for the relevant building control body as you say the overarching objective is that the external envelope of a building
01:49:46 the external envelope of a building should not provide for me a medium for fire spread and this is particularly important for a block of flats people do sometimes try to play games with definitions and where this happens one should refer back to this objective
01:49:58 one should refer back to this objective we came across one incident where an eps foam
01:50:01 foam was used to fill a void behind some aluminium sheeting because it was not included specifically for its thermal properties the designers had concluded that it wasn't insulation and thus its use was okay when it caught
01:50:14 and thus its use was okay when it caught fire the flames could be seen across the city exclamation mark that's why the reference to fillers etcetera was included in the ad text do you have some examples of specific constructions you've come across it maybe we could revise the text again or
01:50:26 maybe we could revise the text again or maybe test some of it best regards brian what did you understand brian martin's role to be in relation to the wording of adb
01:50:39 my knowledge at the time was that on my understanding was that
01:50:43 that brian
01:50:45 brian was
01:50:46 was i thought the more or less the author of adb obviously would have been via a committee but it was certainly brian's department that issued that document and on that basis
01:50:58 issued that document and on that basis they were the best people to go to for an interpretation of what they were meaning it went by a certain clause in adb did you understand why his response was that he couldn't offer a formal
01:51:09 was that he couldn't offer a formal formal view as such it was typical of the response we always got back from brian that his take on everything would always be
01:51:20 his take on everything would always be you know you you're the building control body you've got to interpret it in the way you see fit um this kind of fitted with that what did you think about that
01:51:31 what did you think about that well
01:51:33 well we would have preferred a yeah well obviously we would have preferred a straight answer you know yes no you know that would have made our lives easier because we don't know where we were we were very much you know trying to
01:51:45 we were very much you know trying to navigate our way through a system that had been set by the ministry in terms of the bl 135 adb bba certificates and you know building control bodies were kind of left on their own to navigate this route to
01:51:58 on their own to navigate this route to interpret it as they saw fit in the right way and then to stand by that later on and you know it was not easy in many cases if
01:52:08 if the department's building regulations division couldn't offer a view or certainly not a formal view on the wording or meaning of particular causes of adb who do you know
01:52:20 causes of adb who do you know who could and what organization would be able to do that there isn't one it was left to ourselves to interpret it as we saw fit and to implement
01:52:30 implement all of this process as we saw fit the only thing set in stone was the functional requirement b41 in this case now you address brian martin's response in your in your witness statement if we
01:52:41 in your in your witness statement if we look at that and go to please go please to page 19 at the foot of the page paragraph
01:52:46 paragraph 74
01:52:47 74 you say there in in the second sentence in my view
01:52:55 well you say acm is not directly addressed by the document you see that
01:53:01 and then you go on to say the closest was that adb referred to filler which in theory could have been the core of an acm panel however i did not consider this to be the case an email from brian martin from
01:53:12 the case an email from brian martin from mhclg dated 16th june 2015 which we've just seen suggests he shares this view and then over the page to page 20 mr martin indicated that the reference to filler was to address filler being
01:53:24 filler was to address filler being placed behind insulation such as polystyrene filler to take up the gaps given that mr martin headed the adb review process i was comfortable we were focusing on the correct issue however irrespective of the wording in adb i was
01:53:36 irrespective of the wording in adb i was clear in my own mind that the manner and rate at which 100 percent pe called acm burned could not be interpreted as meeting the wording of regulation b4 1. now just to be clear
01:53:50 is it right you didn't think the wording in adb was clear and you essentially made your own decision or came to your own conclusion that b4 related to all elements of the external wall even though it didn't explicitly say so
01:54:03 though it didn't explicitly say so yes and to back that up the words we put when triple nine one was up for review we put foot to them you know the words which he made specifically that he did
01:54:14 which he made specifically that he did include the external cladding panel yes and they were incorporated into the later version of triple nine one and steve evans told us that he'd always thought you know he'd always had that view regardless of what filler meant was
01:54:26 view regardless of what filler meant was that also your understanding yes we were clear we we knew what we thought yes yes did you know which project brian martin was referring to in his email and he refers to the eps fame being used to
01:54:38 refers to the eps fame being used to fill a void at the time no i just assumed it was one in london right i think it was actually one in manchester the edge salford 2005. that's what i believe from
01:54:49 that's what i believe from this inquiry right not from your involvement no i follow now you say in paragraph 74 as we've seen um irrespective of the wording in which
01:55:00 um irrespective of the wording in which in adb i was clear in my own mind that the manner and rate at which 100 p e covered acm burned could not be interpreted as meeting the wording of regulation b4 one just at the end there are you saying
01:55:13 one just at the end there are you saying that 100 pe called aluminium could never be used in any situation as it would always fail to satisfy the functional requirement whichever route to compliance was adopted yes from what we'd seen of the way it
01:55:25 yes from what we'd seen of the way it burns i couldn't see how ever you could say you know you had inhibited fire spread across a building so just to be clear
01:55:36 so just to be clear your own view at the time since mid-june 2015 was
01:55:43 2015 was pe cord acm would always fail to satisfy the functional requirement whichever route compliance one tried yes
01:55:53 and the basis for that view was what
01:55:56 was what simply from evidence of fires around the world that had had that stuff used and was that a view you shared with others at nhbc yes yeah yeah yeah who
01:56:08 others at nhbc yes yeah yeah yeah who um well at the time i was carrying out various presentations to internally to the surveyors and some external ones um you know it was
01:56:19 you know it was it was something that i always stated in the presentation to the surveyors that along the lines of if anybody puts it to you with 100 pe called acm you know just just knock it back immediately
01:56:31 just just knock it back immediately there's no way that we're really going to consider that that could meet building regulations right and when did that instructional advice to surveyors start being given by you
01:56:43 you um
01:56:44 um well it would have been i mean after we wrote the first guidance note in the first edition of the bc8 guidance notes once that was going then i believe that
01:56:55 once that was going then i believe that was when i told the country meeting the various surveying teams um presenting on this so it would have been i can't put dates on it but you know it was during this
01:57:07 was during this this period you know probably more 2015 maybe like 2014 as well right around that time okay and had you seen well were you beginning to see any desktops through option three that had approved
01:57:18 through option three that had approved the use of 100 pe called acm we were yes and
01:57:23 and knocking those back as well on the basis that their use could never satisfy the functional requirement under option three yes
01:57:30 three yes yes
01:57:34 so even option three wouldn't avail a a building owner or architect if they chose to use acm with a with 100 pe core not in our view i mean right you know as as we saw
01:57:47 i mean right you know as as we saw if we were getting this put on option three we were rejecting it now can we go back up the email chain please to page three i think we can take this quite quickly
01:57:58 i think we can take this quite quickly given your evidence page three we see that on the 17th of june 2015 uh
01:58:05 uh steve evans forwards his email and brian martin's response to you and says john not a very clear answer indeed not an answer at all um did
01:58:15 um did you agree with that but did you consider going back to brian martin did you entertain evans consider going back to him and asking for a clearer answer or an answer on this issue
01:58:26 an answer on this issue um i think we felt that that was the clearest answer we were likely to get brian generally was consistent from what i understood that you know he didn't want to get involved in policy decisions
01:58:38 in policy decisions between building control bodies i mean it's an awful lot of work that went into that email an awful lot of very clear if i may say so clear description of the problem why did you take his reposters
01:58:51 why did you take his reposters as final and not go back to him and see if he could tease out a little bit more well we we kind of took that you know the influence of what he'd written was that we were on the right lines um he
01:59:03 that we were on the right lines um he just for some reason you know wasn't going to state that in black and white um but we we kind of you know ready that he thought we were right and that was you know as much as we
01:59:15 and that was you know as much as we would probably get from him right let's go up to page two we can see your response
01:59:21 response and you say this yes a clearer answer would have helped however interpreting his response can i suggest
01:59:27 suggest one
01:59:28 one filler materials have been made a bit more clear a plywood backing to a metal finish would i guess be one such example actually it's quite useful to now know what the definition of filler material
01:59:39 what the definition of filler material is
01:59:40 is two brian says that the overarching objective is that the external envelope of a building should not provide immediate fire spread and that if in doubt we should refer back to this objective so it surely has to include the external cladding material question
01:59:52 the external cladding material question mark an example being that we'd be reluctant to accept timber cladding which only has a class naught ssof i think that's a surface spread of flame indeed but which would allow flames spread when acted upon by a large flame plume is this enough to hang our hat on
02:00:05 plume is this enough to hang our hat on surely we should let h h play devil's advocate on it they're usually quite good at arguing these things now was there a specific situation that the two of you had been discussing about whether the definition of filler
02:00:16 about whether the definition of filler or filler material or filler material etc applied
02:00:22 not that i recall specifically i mean we were
02:00:26 were not really clear what a filler material was in the context of most of the facade systems we were seeing
02:00:33 seeing um
02:00:35 um but i don't recall there was a particular job that was you know dictating that you know our as i say you know we we just based more on the etcetera than we did on the filler right what did you
02:00:47 we did on the filler right what did you mean by is that enough for us to hang our hat on um
02:00:52 um that i think you know we've asked this question of various people now enough times
02:00:58 times surely that's we've got enough evidence from various parts of the industry to confirm that our interpretation that the external cladding panel needs to be
02:01:10 the external cladding panel needs to be material limited combustibility it was you know was it was that now steve evans in his witness statement says and i don't think we need to take you to it it's paragraph
02:01:21 you to it it's paragraph 287 e roman 7 in on page 115 but he addresses the reference to h and he says that that was the a reference to h being a fire engineer who would act on
02:01:33 h being a fire engineer who would act on behalf of builders on various projects and it would try and push the interpretation that the acm core was neither filled nor insulation that's what he says in his statement do you agree
02:01:43 agree that was the sort of argument that we were getting about from various places right yes and h was a paradigm was it um a good example yes i would think yes i think it was because i recall
02:01:55 i think it was because i recall yes it was because steve at some point and i can't remember the timeline had been in a meeting with h where their argument was that a 100 pe chord used with a mineral wool insulation
02:02:07 used with a mineral wool insulation would be
02:02:08 would be acceptable under adb um
02:02:11 um and i know that steve you know he came out of that meeting quite you know wound up it had obviously you know
02:02:19 you know been a contentious meeting right
02:02:24 did it concern you that fire engineers like h were pushing this interpretation of adb
02:02:29 of adb yes yes now brian martin asks in his email for steve evans to respond with specific instructions that he'd come across
02:02:35 across now we can't see the email at the top of the chain because it's been redacted but were you aware of his response if any to this request from brian martin
02:02:46 from brian martin did he copy me in on it well i don't know i'm asking you do you know whether he responded i don't think i'm not aware of her response right i don't recall one now
02:02:59 you say you don't remember um steve evans going back to brian martin and giving him specific examples
02:03:09 i don't recall it no
02:03:12 i'd like now to turn to 2016 and nhbc's guidance note uh now um
02:03:21 uh now um first
02:03:22 first the nhbc
02:03:24 the nhbc conference on the 7th of july 2016 entitled facades to tall buildings and you cover this in your statement of paragraph 193 page 53.
02:03:35 paragraph 193 page 53. let's just look at that
02:03:39 193 bottom of page 53 and let's scroll up a little bit to the middle of page 53 to see the main heading there the main heading is nhbc guidance note
02:03:51 the main heading is nhbc guidance note acceptability of common wall construction containing combustible materials in high-rise buildings the 2016 guidance and then there's some metallics reasons for the 2016 guidance note
02:04:03 for the 2016 guidance note and then you say this due to the change in policy mentioned above a paragraph 91 which i should just tell you is is where you set out we saw it earlier the requirement to comply with the bca technical guidance note 18.
02:04:15 technical guidance note 18. um
02:04:16 um an hbc had put a condition on all projects for which it was providing building control and or warranty cover for and which were over 18 meters this meant that the projects underwent an
02:04:27 meant that the projects underwent an additional fire safety review process within nhpc before final approval was obtained there was a formal escalation process where after i'd approved it as the fire engineer it went to steve evans for approval and then to senior manager
02:04:39 for approval and then to senior manager such as ian davis who was an nhbc director at the time for final sign off and at 194 you say what this meant in practice was
02:04:50 you say what this meant in practice was that we were holding up the final sign-off on many projects with the escalation process also as the vast majority of these projects was obtaining were obtaining option three assessment we were seeing significant numbers of
02:05:01 we were seeing significant numbers of very similar reports for acm brickwork and timber in essence the fire engineers were issuing almost the same report again and again with minor variations and it's been made clear by kingsman that no further large-scale testing was
02:05:14 that no further large-scale testing was planned
02:05:15 planned why was the focus on kingspan
02:05:20 um mainly because they were the ones that we'd had most discussions with and they were the ones that were
02:05:27 that were you know we weren't seeing a lot of traction with them in terms of doing more fire testing but they were the only ones really that were at the time or had been proposing
02:05:39 were at the time or had been proposing to do more you know testing more condi you know scenarios was it the case that because there was to be no further large-scale testing proposed by kingspan you needed an avenue to approve their product in
02:05:51 an avenue to approve their product in different build-ups well that was the option three process to do that we didn't produce this guidance note to
02:06:00 to give yet another avenue no but the option three process would depend on data and you only had data from what was it three tests yes and we were hitting this kind of stalemate situation where kingspan said
02:06:12 kingspan said you know we we only sell insulation we've done all these fire tests we're not doing any more go and target the people that make other materials and ask them to do some fire tests so this stuck guidance and it was in part a response to that was it it was in response to
02:06:25 to that was it it was in response to the the you know this plateau situation that we'd reached that you know nobody was proposing any more right for one for testing we weren't aware of any happening and
02:06:37 we weren't aware of any happening and all we were seeing was a rehash of the same stuff from the fire engineers you know based on the evidence pool that was already there right now
02:06:47 now when you say there were minor variations you you say the fire engineers were issuing almost the same report again and again with minor variations what what were the minor variations just you know
02:06:59 were the minor variations just you know with regards to that material changes and slight differences in the way it was fixed thickness of the insulation could be five mil ten mil wider thinner you know things like that what was your
02:07:10 you know things like that what was your criteria what were your criteria for establishing whether the variations were minor um
02:07:18 um because we knew the tests well i knew the tests and would look at you know what they were writing and and you know i knew the type of you know i knew the types of sheathing
02:07:29 you know i knew the types of sheathing board that had been used and that would change i knew the thicknesses of the insulation we knew that changed we knew the thing is that the cavity would look at things like that um the way the cladding panels were
02:07:40 um the way the cladding panels were fixed usually that was an aluminium it didn't change very often but it could change from aluminium to steel you know there were things like that but you know all of those within reason were
02:07:52 you know all of those within reason were probably not going to particularly adversely affect the performance of you know of a cladding system in in the test well you say all of those within reason were probably not going to particularly
02:08:05 probably not going to particularly adversely affect performance what was the scientific basis or was that a scientific basis on which you could assess the impact
02:08:16 you could assess the impact in fire of what you call a minor variation
02:08:19 variation on each buildup that you were seeing to an acceptable level of confidence well i didn't hold this is where i have to you know be
02:08:30 this is where i have to you know be honest that i didn't hold that level of you know of expertise and quite honestly i probably shouldn't have been doing this and trying to do this process
02:08:44 so the answer i think is none yes yes thank you now um
02:08:53 does that mean that in fact being honest with us you had no scientific or objective basis for being able to say with any kind of confidence how each of these changes to the system
02:09:04 how each of these changes to the system proposed would affect its performance in fire
02:09:06 fire all i had was you know what i'd learned from reading the option three reports which were coming in from people like bre and x over um and things like that you know i was
02:09:18 um and things like that you know i was reading theirs and interpreting it combining that with the best of the knowledge that i did have and forming a view based on that did you tell your seniors did you tell steve
02:09:30 tell your seniors did you tell steve evans that that was what you were doing uh well yes they they knew my you know my qualifications and they they didn't know that yeah did they know about the reservations that you've just very
02:09:41 reservations that you've just very candidly expressed to us uh
02:09:45 probably not no i don't know if i sort of said you know this is the limit of my knowledge i don't know if i'd explain that to them at the time do you know why we have no evidence that you actually did um do you know
02:09:57 you actually did um do you know if that's right why you didn't why i didn't mention it to them yes um
02:10:04 um because they they already knew what i you know how much my expertise were where it went you know how far it went going on to paragraph 195 on page 54
02:10:16 going on to paragraph 195 on page 54 you say the top there based on the reports
02:10:19 reports we had received through the formal escalation process we could see that we would always get the same results therefore we intended to tell our builders that the specific wall makeups where we had already seen numerous option three assessments we had
02:10:30 option three assessments we had sufficient existing information to be able to know what a further option three report would say now when you say results uh results of what
02:10:41 uh results of what um
02:10:43 um these were the you know
02:10:47 yeah the results of you know basically the what was going to be written in the option three reports
02:10:55 we knew that it got to the point
02:11:00 perhaps if i explain the rationale behind why the guidance note came into existence
02:11:05 existence which was initially that we had no route to compliance for a brick facade other than to make the builder go through an option three
02:11:16 the builder go through an option three report process to put on every scheme to justify the use of a brick facade with a lightweight steel frame construction and that was the basis of the guidance note originally was you know surely there was no need to make
02:11:28 know surely there was no need to make everybody
02:11:29 everybody go through this and tie up the likes of ex over to write this report just for for that type of thing and that was you know that was the original idea behind it
02:11:40 original idea behind it what was the problem with the brick brick to my knowledge isn't combustible is it no but it didn't meet the option one route because you could only use combustible insulation if it had a block work in a leaf which we didn't see on new build it
02:11:52 leaf which we didn't see on new build it was lightweight steel frame option two it had never been tested so there was no route to compliance for a brick facade with kingspan on a lightweight steel frame
02:12:03 lightweight steel frame so therefore you know it was down to option three and we were insisting that people basically got an option three report written for something which was quite obvious to most people that
02:12:15 was quite obvious to most people that was going to comply
02:12:19 well there are a lot of variables aren't there
02:12:21 there i mean did you ever think that even if the uh brick
02:12:27 brick uh outer skin was not combustible itself the dimensions of the cavity might come into play and partly because the brick would trap the heat more than some other things
02:12:38 things we weighed all that up but in most buildings you have concrete frame the floor slabs come across and then you have a cavity barrier between the slab edge and the brickwork so your insulation is only
02:12:51 brickwork so your insulation is only confined to a story height sandwiched between you know two floor slab edges and brickwork on the external face on that basis
02:13:02 on that basis the width of the cavity would not particularly make a great deal of difference to you know if it burns if it did burn it would only be one story height that would be burnt trapped behind brickwork
02:13:14 trapped behind brickwork just following the logic of your example through was that a thought you had at the time i mean you've given this as
02:13:23 this as a historical reason for the origin of this
02:13:26 this no that was why this is why the 2016 guy and snoke came into existence initially to tackle the brickwork scenario did you given that thought did you not
02:13:38 given that thought did you not think then of revisiting option one and
02:13:45 and asking yourself whether in fact it was right
02:13:47 right that all elements of the external world build up needed to be materials of limited combustibility because your brick example might be one where that interpretation was impracticable and unnecessary
02:14:00 was impracticable and unnecessary but option one was written in you know in adb it was taken from there but it was controversial as you told us but it was clear in adb that you could only use
02:14:11 only use you know brick with a block where backing wall and use combustible insulation in the cavity now
02:14:16 now um so the answer is no you didn't consider it because it would be the wrong approach we couldn't do it right now um
02:14:28 you say you will always get the same results here did you stop to consider the possibility that the reason why you were getting so many quotes same results some quotes was because of how you'd set up your risk
02:14:40 because of how you'd set up your risk analysis system in the first place [Applause] uh in what way well did you consider that it might have been because your system of escalation and analysis was
02:14:52 system of escalation and analysis was too insensitive to small but potentially important variations in build up in the in relation to things like materials quantities dimensions fixings we were not i mean i was going through
02:15:04 we were not i mean i was going through each of these option three reports from you know exorbia whoever they were not i was reading them in depth they were not saying anything about
02:15:16 anything about those issues that you said they were boiling down to if you have a class b material on the outside face then
02:15:27 you know if it's class b class b materials used with kingspan k15 on a lightweight steel frame we're tending to you know or they were they would perform okay and that was what we were getting
02:15:39 okay and that was what we were getting back in terms of the option three reports
02:15:41 reports and that was based on the fact that you know there was test data at that point for
02:15:46 for the trespa test which was not class b but it was other um there was a test on korea career cladding which was a um a class b material
02:15:57 um a class b material um and there was other evidence as well from nfpa 285 tests career not a composite though was it korea is a composite material it's i believe it's
02:16:08 believe it's a resin-bound sort of mineral wrapped up in resin so would i say a composite i mean not a pe composite no it's not a not an acm no considering you had concerns over many of the option the
02:16:20 had concerns over many of the option the three assessments that you'd received uh did you not think that removing option three as a step entirely uh
02:16:31 from the building control or warranty process was irresponsible well by this point we you know we hadn't as far as i could make out ever been able to
02:16:44 make out ever been able to reject a building um there have been some buildings where there'd been other works needed the the one building which we were adamant was very unsafe that simply we only had it for warranty
02:16:56 that simply we only had it for warranty and they just withdrew the warranty and took it with someone else the building never changed you know we were at this point where we weren't achieving anything we weren't able to stop buildings being built with
02:17:08 able to stop buildings being built with these materials on we were just you know it wasn't not exactly a rubber stamp exercise but it was becoming that you know there was not a body of evidence and the reports were not looking in more depth at new
02:17:20 not looking in more depth at new evidence coming forward um
02:17:23 um it was just plateauing out on the back of all of this there were very few by this point most developers had said we're not going through this hassle again you know we're going to build with
02:17:35 again you know we're going to build with materials limited combustibility so we were seeing a distinct tail off in the use of you know these sort of needed for these reports did that not did that experience not demonstrate to you that
02:17:46 experience not demonstrate to you that option three either didn't work or had severe limitations i was
02:17:51 i was of the view at that point that this whole process was
02:17:58 not well no it had achieved results you know but
02:18:02 but because we steered a lot of new you know new up-and-coming buildings down a different route of a safer route and we'd hopefully educated a lot of people as to what all this was about
02:18:14 people as to what all this was about but in terms of groundbreaking new changes
02:18:18 changes nothing was coming about well let's just look at one of the option three well some of the option three reports you refer to as as part of the significant number you looked at in preparation for the 2016 guidance note
02:18:31 preparation for the 2016 guidance note nhb401408
02:18:35 this is a an option three report completed by h h fire for bellway homes on the 21st of april 2016 and the development was was barking site
02:18:46 and the development was was barking site g as you can see called gno1 and o2 and if we go to the bottom of page six and the top of page seven
02:19:03 you can see the tested systems arrangements which were used in producing the assessment and if you go to the top of page seven
02:19:12 you can see that the four bsa414 tests are referred to there yes yes they work across the page uh and the numbers are there and
02:19:26 uh and the numbers are there and the
02:19:27 the um
02:19:28 um test numbers and details and these are all tests sponsored by kingspan for k-15 aren't they yes and the insulation proposed a barking site g was k-15 yes i can recall but
02:19:40 i can recall but more than likely yes well i mean i think we could probably get that from the middle
02:19:44 middle column
02:19:46 column external cavity insulation k15 k15 k15 and then k 18 but that should be 15 that's a typo to take that from from from me don't think there's such a thing as k18
02:19:59 think there's such a thing as k18 um
02:20:01 were you aware in 2016 when his report for beltway homes was written that the third test referred to there the trespa high pressure laminate test number two nine three nine four
02:20:14 test number two nine three nine four zero it was a failed test yes we knew that you did yes did h h know that it was a failed test yes i mean bre refused to issue a br135 for that
02:20:26 bre refused to issue a br135 for that test indeed we don't see anywhere we've seen in this report where h h mentioned that fact
02:20:33 that fact do you accept that on its face the reader of this wouldn't know that uh
02:20:39 uh no because h were fire engineers as i say you you read the report you saw it was terminated early if you knew bs 8414 you know that terms under which
02:20:51 bs 8414 you know that terms under which early termination of a test you know
02:20:55 you know that was all there they they knew it i'm sure they knew it but you know failed test did still reveal useful data should h not have set out the basis on
02:21:06 should h not have set out the basis on which they were relying on data from a failed test
02:21:10 uh well we we weren't we didn't have set parameters of how we expected them to to write these you know we
02:21:18 we left it up to them to you know provide an expert report were you aware of how the failed test on a trespa laminate sample gave confidence to the report
02:21:29 sample gave confidence to the report writer
02:21:30 writer and allowed them to compare it with a system using for example rayner bond acm well it did reveal data in terms of you know i mean a lot of this was you compare between these reports you would
02:21:43 compare between these reports you would you know you'd look i mean you know by comparison with that one with the terracotta report a lot of the build-up is largely the same up until the point of the k-15
02:21:55 k-15 then the cavity width is slightly different and the external finish was different one of those tests passed you know class past br135 one of them didn't that would allow a fire
02:22:06 them didn't that would allow a fire engineer to then home in into why one past wind upon didn't and to what effect you know what what extent the test was affected by the the trespass panel well let's look at this
02:22:17 trespass panel well let's look at this and you can see if you go to page eight that under paragraph 2.1.1 uh the following external wall types have been identified for this project and then the first one is brick cladding
02:22:28 and then the first one is brick cladding and rhino bond cladding indicated as green in the figures below and you need to scroll down page 8 to see the green let's do that you can see where it was on the building where on the west elevation there was there was rainer
02:22:39 elevation there was there was rainer bond you see yes uh and if you go to page 15
02:22:45 and following um you have the four the fourth um the fourth kind which is rainer bond range green cladding and reigning bonds misspelled it doesn't matter general this type has not been tested to
02:22:57 general this type has not been tested to bs8414 to determine whether it meets the performance criteria of br135 but will be assessed based on option three of the bca technical guidance note i.e a desktop study to consider whether similar testing can be extrapolated to
02:23:08 similar testing can be extrapolated to conclude that if the test that if tested the proposed build ups would be expected to achieve with the br 135 performance criteria yes yes and uh then if you look at the next page
02:23:20 and uh then if you look at the next page could i just point out on that image there yes
02:23:23 there yes the there was a block the renault bond was fixed to a block work well exactly there's a point i was going to go to make um
02:23:32 make um given that it's fixed to a block work there
02:23:35 there it's it's not a um it's not a vented cavity is it um
02:23:42 um no no well yes the cavity between the back of the raynor bond and the front of the block work
02:23:48 work is a vented cavity it's very small it's 65 mil and then asses under on page 16 assessment against tested systems and you can see what's said under external
02:23:59 you can see what's said under external cladding and support systems there you see that
02:24:04 which paragraph sorry 4.3 yes and then 4.3.1 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 yes
02:24:13 yes uh identify the difference between the testing arrangements and the proposed arrangements found in the cladding materials
02:24:19 materials the tested cladding systems were either a 30 millimeter thick terracotta clay tile or a six millimeter thick cement particle board each system supported upon aluminium railings whereas the proposed cladding is 100 millimeter block work system with a raynor bond
02:24:31 block work system with a raynor bond screen just pausing there they're a bit different aren't they uh yes they are but the incorporation of a block work would generally you know lead to a fire engineer to
02:24:42 you know lead to a fire engineer to consider that that was going to perform better than the tested i think that's what they say in the next two paragraphs isn't it and the third paragraph although the cladding materials will not propagate
02:24:53 cladding materials will not propagate fire
02:24:55 fire it can be seen from the results of the tested systems and from other bs8414 tests that the cladding systems can play a positive role in shielding combustible insulation such as such integrity and
02:25:07 insulation such as such integrity and thermal resistance of the cladding are considered further in this assessment below
02:25:11 below now what do you know and what was the reaction to fire properties of this reynabond panel which allowed allowed credible technical comparison between the failed trespa test and that of the proposed system
02:25:23 proposed system the
02:25:24 the trespa was a class d um the rhino bond system the fr version of renault bond was a class b
02:25:35 class b um
02:25:36 um we
02:25:37 we knew that from that the renault bond data sheet and
02:25:42 and in this job we went back to site to say please can you confirm exactly which version of renault bond was supplied to site to check that it was the fr version
02:25:54 to check that it was the fr version rather than the 100 pe code version but well that's exactly right they hadn't specified what type of render bond cladding was being used pe or fr fr had they they hadn't no so as a standalone
02:26:05 they they hadn't no so as a standalone this is a in that sense useless well we this is why we we went back we we went back and said tell us exactly which one has been used
02:26:16 tell us exactly which one has been used was it only the fact that this was a class b panel that gave you com assuming it to be because of fr assuming it to be fr um that gave you confidence that it was going to behave the same as a trespass
02:26:28 going to behave the same as a trespass panel without knowing anything about its surface spread of flame properties or heat of combustion all matters of that nature we we we'd seen the various
02:26:39 we'd seen the various option three assessments using a class b
02:26:44 a class b fire existing mineral mix pe core panels we've seen those justified several times by you know various bodies
02:26:55 know various bodies um
02:26:56 um so you know we we looked at this one and said well if that panel was directly in front of the insulation that's the sort of option three assessment that we've seen many a time from well not many times but
02:27:08 many a time from well not many times but several times from x over um
02:27:12 um in this particular case it's got a block work into you know into into liner as well so
02:27:18 well so most likely it's going to perform at least as well as
02:27:22 as what they would already seen carried out under the a41 under the option threes did you have any misgivings about h relying on the fourth test we've seen which is the uac cement particle board
02:27:34 which is the uac cement particle board in test two two zero eight seven six which was the 2005 kingspan k15 test
02:27:41 test using the cementitious particle board well again you know the fire engineering people would all look at each of those and you know make this adjustment as to
02:27:52 you know make this adjustment as to at what point in the test did the panels fail and open up the cavity and let the fire get to the insulation yes but it was using a rain screen made of thick cementitious particle board did
02:28:03 of thick cementitious particle board did you not have any misgivings about the fact that h were relying on that test uh when applying it to a
02:28:12 a this green screen uh not a search because you know we we knew that that material heated up and shattered and opened up in
02:28:23 heated up and shattered and opened up in large you know in large chunks what comparative judgments can one make as between a cement particle board on the one hand and a reynaband acm panel fr or pe on the other
02:28:34 other that the one of them the the cement board would heat up shutter open up a large area the
02:28:42 the a class b
02:28:45 a class b acm
02:28:46 acm would heat up in the zone of the flame plume
02:28:49 plume and open up a large area yeah it was a comparison a fine line judgment between how those two things would you know those two situations would occur
02:29:05 mr german is that a convenient moment yes i think it is um i think we've done enough for today mr lewis but i'm afraid that means we're going to have to ask you to come back tomorrow for a short period of time to
02:29:17 tomorrow for a short period of time to finish your evidence i i hope you were warned of that yes indeed i was sorry if it's inconvenient but um there are a few more questions we need to put to you so we'll resume tomorrow morning at 10
02:29:28 we'll resume tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock and i imagine mr lewis can hope to be free before lunch uh
02:29:35 uh yes i think that's a fair assessment it may depend on what um further questions we discover overnight uh what and what questions others wish me to put well it sounds as though you
02:29:46 me to put well it sounds as though you can
02:29:47 can certainly hope to get away by lunchtime and we'll let you get away of course as soon as we can anyway um now we're going to stop and please remember not to talk to anyone about your evidence
02:29:58 to anyone about your evidence while they're out of the room and we'll look forward to seeing you at 10 o'clock tomorrow
02:30:02 tomorrow thank you thank you very much
02:30:18 thank you very much 10 o'clock tomorrow please