National House Building Council Evidence - Wednesday 2nd February 2022 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:00:28 good morning everyone and welcome to today's hearing today we're going to hear a bit more evidence from mr john lewis uh and then we shall move on to another

00:00:39 uh and then we shall move on to another witness later in the morning so could i ask mr lewis to come back in please

00:00:53 good morning mr lewis good morning

00:01:00 all right are you ready to carry on i am yes thank you very much yes mr mr chairman good morning morning members of the panel good morning to you mr lewis good morning yesterday we were looking at the h report for bellway the option 3

00:01:12 at the h report for bellway the option 3 report can we please have that back at nhb 401408

00:01:21 now we were on the topic of acm panels among other things and my question is for you to start with this morning what percentage of the core

00:01:32 this morning what percentage of the core of an acm panel had to be

00:01:34 had to be had to be mineral for it to be classified as fr um our understanding was somewhere around about 70 75 percent mineral to you know 20 25

00:01:49 75 percent mineral to you know 20 25 where did you get that understanding from

00:01:52 from it came from a number of sources it came

00:01:57 it came initially i believe from dr lane

00:02:01 lane when we met with her based on

00:02:05 based on what arab were doing in the middle east and learning from the situation that had occurred there it came also from

00:02:15 from dr janet morrell in discussions um from ex-over as well and we were really informed that you needed around that percentage

00:02:26 around that percentage for a material to an acm material to be able to perform you know quotes anywhere near adequately right were you aware at the time in the industry that manufacturers

00:02:38 industry that manufacturers were claiming uh that the product was fr when it had a mineral

00:02:43 mineral content of less than 70 to 75 percent no the manufacturers didn't tend to publish

00:02:51 publish that data not that we had any access to so i wasn't able to really verify what mineral cores were in the various products

00:03:03 products so how could you tell when presented with a mineral

00:03:07 mineral called

00:03:09 called acm panel

00:03:10 acm panel an fr panel for which fr was claimed by a manufacturer what percentage of mineral content was contained in the core

00:03:19 core it wasn't possible to determine the mineral content that all we could do was to look at the en 13 501 part one combustibility

00:03:30 the en 13 501 part one combustibility classification criteria and from those to dig down into the various um figure and total heat release rates that were

00:03:41 rates that were allowable within the parameters of class a b

00:03:45 a b you know well mainly we looked within the class b right but that wouldn't tell you precisely what the mineral content would was it would just tell you how it performed

00:03:53 performed then to guess wouldn't you that it had had the requisite mineral content it did but we

00:03:59 but we looked at

00:04:01 looked at the word

00:04:02 the word 841 successful 8414 tests using class b materials

00:04:07 materials um notably the career test we you know used that as an example we looked at the 13501 classifications for korea

00:04:18 korea we compared that to you know things like al pollock fr to see whether the alcoholic fr had a higher or well or worse combustibility you know within the

00:04:29 worse combustibility you know within the class b if we had had you know higher figures than the career on which the the tests had been done but the career as i understand it was not an acm panel was it no it wasn't but it was a class b panel

00:04:41 panel which had to fall within the you know the figures that were allocated for a class b material yes but that's i'm comparing

00:04:49 comparing career with an alcoholic fr was comparing apples and pears wasn't it no not totally no they they were you know class b materials um

00:04:59 um our comparisons were not just alone onto the career you know we we we also had the the evidence from the failed trespa test um

00:05:09 um and other things you know we we looked at all of these we had nfpa

00:05:14 nfpa 285 test data for a class b trespa as well

00:05:19 well um not directly comparable but there was figures and information in there that we felt you know you could use to some extent and and go with well

00:05:31 use to some extent and and go with well i mean

00:05:32 i mean as a fact can you confirm this korea was a polyester resin concrete panel yes yes yeah and trespa was a high pressure laminate yes yes yeah

00:05:44 yes yeah not acm in either case no they were not direct comparisons no but you know as i said yesterday the the way that

00:05:55 the the way that fire engineers were putting this back to us was very much along the lines of how quickly the external panel opens up and allows the flame into the cavity to attack the insulation

00:06:06 attack the insulation and then alongside that is then you know obviously the external panel will burn to some extent and how quickly and you know what rate you could expect that external panel to

00:06:17 you could expect that external panel to burn

00:06:19 burn and the comparisons were you know very much on what these materials would do when impinged on by flames

00:06:28 now let's go back to the report please at page 16. we looked at this yesterday paragraph 4.3.1 and 4.3.2

00:06:37 and 4.3.2 and to do 4.3.3 we looked at that together yesterday i'm not going to re-read it to you

00:06:44 but it's right i think that the reyno bond

00:06:47 bond here was being applied to the block work wall yes yes yeah and at 4.3.2 it says the block work and supporting system is non-combustible so would play no direct role in the propagation of fire i think

00:06:59 role in the propagation of fire i think you agreed with that statement yesterday didn't you yes yes now what was the basis on which um that statement could be made

00:07:07 be made um block work holds a

00:07:11 holds a classification without further test you know concrete is classified as a1 the supporting system was aluminium again classified without further test as a1

00:07:22 further test as a1 but if you were going to use this to extrapolate to a different system you would have to take into account would you not the geometry differences the thermal properties differences and the differences in the location

00:07:33 the differences in the location and type of cavity barrier

00:07:39 you you would certainly look at the cavity barrier positions yes yes the other aspects i wouldn't have thought were really going to

00:07:49 going to make a lot of difference well they might mightn't they you can't say whether they would or they wouldn't without knowing what the differences in geometry were and what the difference in the thermal properties of the component parts were it would all depend

00:08:01 it would all depend um

00:08:01 um no block work would not lead in my view to you know

00:08:07 you know it wouldn't really make the fire worse you know for one to better terms and and likewise the aluminium you know you would expect the alien the worst thing would happen with the aluminium is it's likely to melt and you know the

00:08:19 it's likely to melt and you know the panels would then drop off exposing the polyethylene core to the to direct impingement of flame no the whole panels would just drop off because the whole panel was supported on aluminium

00:08:31 whole panel was supported on aluminium so if the aluminium support melted and failed then you know the panels would drop off the building well what if the aluminium face fell off or peeled away delaminated

00:08:42 delaminated um

00:08:43 um well our understanding was that wasn't really the failure mechanism what tended to happen with 100 pe

00:08:53 100 pe acms was that the

00:08:56 the the polyethylene core tends to soften and melt away at about 90 degrees and

00:09:02 and that's

00:09:03 that's the point at which that you know then starts to become involved in the fire um

00:09:10 um and then you know the sequence events from there on is that that then leads to further you know burning melting of that type of a system and that propagates the fire with the class b materials the

00:09:23 with the class b materials the e the polythene was used more of a binder um and again you would get the same sort of thing that the polythene would be the first thing to melt which would then you know lead to

00:09:35 which would then you know lead to some sort of then you know the policy is starting to contribute a little bit more to the fire and the failure of the panel in that way but

00:09:45 but a very thin sliver of aluminium i can say aluminium melts at 600 degrees ish and a flame would be

00:09:55 would be higher than this so that it would not be in place for very long because there was no thermal mass to it we're going to very long answer full of science what tests

00:10:04 tests was is that answer based on that you had seen

00:10:07 seen in 2014 15 and 16. all that i'm basing this on is what we saw from

00:10:13 saw from the 8414 test looking at what you know was left on the rig after the fires had occurred which 8414 test well

00:10:25 which 8414 test well there were well certainly the 8414 test that we'd seen

00:10:30 seen but

00:10:31 but no sorry

00:10:33 no sorry sorry let me be clear are you referring to an 8414 test using acm polyethylene core

00:10:39 core there was not an a414 test using a polyethylene core there was various um

00:10:49 um there was a there was a fire facades conference in doha i believe in 2014 and as part of that there were various slides and you know with a video

00:11:01 slides and you know with a video showing the various ways that you know the difference between the three types of acm and the way that they reacted under fire um i was alerted to that i believe by

00:11:14 um i was alerted to that i believe by dr janet morrell um is you know as some sort of evidence of of what happened we'd also i believe the address building in dubai

00:11:24 in dubai there were a lot of images from that photographs and you could see from that what you know tended to have occurred with the aluminium sorry with the acm panels

00:11:39 can we then go on please to paragraph 4.3.6.2

00:11:44 4.3.6.2 which you'll find on page 17 of this document

00:11:49 and i'll read you the whole of 4.3.6 which says the renderbond screen panels consist of an extruded thermoplastic compound core

00:11:58 and it says compound core which i think in the end turned out to be fr yes it did in this job yes in this job

00:12:07 my first question after getting this panel was to go back and say can you confirm this is the fr version of a renault bond that you're using because you know we didn't want any confusion with a 100 pe

00:12:20 didn't want any confusion with a 100 pe card one right and it then says uh 4.3.6.1 when tested to bsen13501 the panels achieved a class class

00:12:28 class achieved a b classification equivalent to class naught and shall resist the surface spread of flame in accordance with the guidance of adb do you know where that statement came from

00:12:38 from that i'm guessing h h put in based on diagram 40 which says that you know a class b can

00:12:47 can meet or be considered acceptable you know when the english uk version was class o do you know where they got the statement the panels achieved a b classic classification from

00:12:58 classic classification from i would imagine and i would have hoped that they had gone through to the manufacturer's data sheet at least for that

00:13:05 that the data sheet and 3.6.2 as this panel is shielded from the insulation belay by the block work walls it's not considered that this panel will play any significant role in the propagation of fire to the insulation material

00:13:18 insulation material did you see any investigations or any evidence of that in the report well the build-up on this building was the

00:13:26 the renault bond was then fixed to a block work wall which was and the insulation was behind the block work so taking it the way you would expect the fire breaking out of the window and then

00:13:39 fire breaking out of the window and then acting back upon the wall above the window

00:13:42 window they the block work was clearly you know shielding the insulation material

00:13:54 the block work was shielding the insulation material but it says the panel is shielded from the insulation by the block work walls so so what's being said there the block

00:14:05 so so what's being said there the block work

00:14:06 work creates a barrier is that right between the panel and the insulation

00:14:12 my reading of that is the panel is shielded from the insulation by the block work and

00:14:19 and you know the panel will not play any significant role in the propagation of fire to the insulation meaning that if the panel is burning the block work is going to prevent the heat from that panel burning from

00:14:33 the heat from that panel burning from meeting onto the insulation do you accept that at no time in this report does the writer deal with either the detailed makeup and combustibility of the rainer bond panel

00:14:46 of the rainer bond panel rather than asserting that it's class b that is

00:14:50 that is correct yes the only information that was offered in the report was it was class b doesn't deal with the fact that the this panel let it be assumed an fr raynor bond

00:15:03 let it be assumed an fr raynor bond 55 panel is inherently different to terracotta and cementitious particle board doesn't deal with that is it no it doesn't it doesn't well actually i can't

00:15:14 can't without seeing the report against to see what technical basis reports they were referring to it's difficult for me to actually answer that i thought i'd shown you that there were four we looked at that yesterday

00:15:25 we looked at that yesterday you can go back again if you like uh not from my point of view i mean i remember you know this was typical was that they would choose those four reports because they were the only four reports yes and there's no analysis here

00:15:37 reports yes and there's no analysis here about how the acm rainer bond panel would differ in fire performance to terracotta or cementitious particle board

00:15:43 board if exposed to an 8414 test um

00:15:49 well without reading the report again but yes i'll tell that as read

00:15:57 can i ask you a general question

00:16:00 i'd like you look to look please at br 135 itself the 2013 edition at bre 40

00:16:10 we looked at this yesterday in a different context mr lewis but let's go back to it there's page one written by sarah caldwell and tony baker of the bre

00:16:21 of the bre and can we go to appendix a please page 28.

00:16:27 and you can see on page 28 in the middle of your screen on the left hand side there are three bullet points and underneath the three bullet points it says this the classification applies only to the system as tested and

00:16:39 applies only to the system as tested and detailed in the classification report the classification report can only cover the details of the system as tested it cannot state what is not covered when specifying or checking a system it's important to check that the

00:16:50 important to check that the classification documents cover the end use application now can we also look please at page 32 which is an appendix b covering the bs8414 part 2 test and this

00:17:04 covering the bs8414 part 2 test and this time you see the exactly the same text on the right hand side of the screen again underneath the three bullet points i won't read it out to you again it's the same yes yes

00:17:15 yes were you

00:17:16 were you aware of those paragraphs in those annexes of br135 yes i was were you always aware of them at least from the date of the publication of this edition

00:17:27 date of the publication of this edition yes i'd about this point read br135 you know a number of times could you explain how option three was consistent with those two paragraphs

00:17:38 those two paragraphs because

00:17:39 because the option three came about as we've referred to via the the appendix a of

00:17:47 of adb which stated that the method that should be carried out in undertaking extended application of fire tests

00:17:58 of fire tests and the route to how that should be done and

00:18:01 and you know so that that was the route by which we were relying upon the people writing these reports to have done that job properly did anybody at the time

00:18:13 did anybody at the time put

00:18:14 put appendix a and the reference to test data

00:18:21 side by side with these two paragraphs and ask how they could be consistent did anybody do that no we relied upon the people providing us with these reports

00:18:33 these reports you know that that was part of their role their job and you know that they should be doing that and if they couldn't

00:18:40 couldn't you know comply with these criteria these paragraphs then really they shouldn't have been providing us with a report mr lewis that may be my fault for the way i put the question before nhbc

00:18:52 way i put the question before nhbc decided to adopt your suggestion of having option three in the first place did anybody sit down put appendix a with a reference to the word test data next to these paragraphs in br135

00:19:05 next to these paragraphs in br135 and ask

00:19:06 and ask how they could be consistent if you were going to proceed with option three we didn't no no do you accept looking at it uh that in fact

00:19:16 fact these paragraphs are completely inconsistent with the existence of an option three

00:19:40 um well it's difficult to answer because the option three

00:19:47 route you know was all contained in the pfpf guide

00:19:52 guide which

00:19:54 which i'm not an expert in the pfpf guide but i would imagine has similar wording to these paragraphs as to how far you can extrapolate from one tested system to another

00:20:07 one tested system to another um

00:20:09 um well the answer here is that you can't is there anything in the fpf guide that you can recall that i'm not an expert in the pfpf guy because writing of these reports to that level of detail was not what we did we

00:20:22 level of detail was not what we did we were not

00:20:23 were not there for that purpose you know our role as a building control body was to receive those reports and consider whether that was reasonable sufficient evidence for us to

00:20:34 reasonable sufficient evidence for us to be able to say yes it looks like the building legs have been met no the great respect was to do so that wasn't your role as a building control body your

00:20:43 body your you had as a building control body put out option three you'd published it as a further alternative route to compliance with adb and my question is before you did that

00:20:56 and my question is before you did that did you consider how option three which you are offering to your

00:21:04 building control officers was consistent in any way with these two paragraphs i i'd have to take a slight issue with you suggesting that we wrote another weight route to compliance

00:21:17 another weight route to compliance the option three as we've said several times is purely based upon appendix a of approved document b which did allow extended application from fire

00:21:29 did allow extended application from fire tests without taking account of these paragraphs

00:21:35 um sorry without taking account of these paragraphs it was a route within adb that led to extended applications yes well mr lewis i wonder if i can help a little bit i

00:21:46 i wonder if i can help a little bit i think the point that mr millett is asking you to consider is this that the concept the whole concept of an extended application whether under appendix a or from any other source

00:21:58 appendix a or from any other source is inherently inconsistent with the notion that data derived from an 84 bs8414 test is relevant only to

00:22:09 is relevant only to the system that was the subject of the test

00:22:12 test so that the whole concept of extended application doesn't work in this particular context that's the point that i think you're being asked to consider

00:22:28 if that is the question then well yes i have to i have to say yes you know that that is probably that is probably the case

00:22:41 probably that is probably the case but

00:22:43 you know the likening this to the way things were done in the construction industry and still are done you know the the the suggestion that you know that you would remove a

00:22:55 you know that you would remove a lightweight panel and replace it with brickwork

00:22:58 brickwork would very much lead you know to people considering that that was probably going to perform in a better way

00:23:06 way and that process you know would have been carried out and was carried out on numerous occasions so you know we if we if that was being implemented

00:23:17 if we if that was being implemented rigidly as per what you're saying here then

00:23:21 then nothing would have been allowed to be built because there were only four tests and that would have been all that the construction industry could build on high-rise buildings the answer might have been that the construction industry

00:23:32 have been that the construction industry would have to use non-combustible or materials of limited combustibility not materials which did not qualify on that basis i guess that is correct yes

00:23:46 all right thank you could i sorry i mean another point that i meant to mention initially that you asked me in the first day as to whether

00:23:56 whether we understood that the appendix a was suitable for application to external facade systems um

00:24:04 um in 2018

00:24:06 in 2018 the

00:24:07 the mhclg commissioned the writing of bs 9414 which was specifically a test as a standard specifically for the purpose of extending

00:24:18 extending you know test data from cladding systems

00:24:23 well i'm not going to ask you about that that's post fire and a response to it so i don't think it's helpful for us to explore that with you can i then ask you about the 2016 guidance note please

00:24:35 about the 2016 guidance note please which should we find at nhb 6065.

00:24:45 now there it is i'm going to assume that you're familiar with this document mr lewis would that be right yes yes now am i right in thinking that this document was what was left on the chairs of those attending the facades to tall buildings

00:24:56 attending the facades to tall buildings conference which took place on the 7th of july 2016. yes yes it was um who wrote it i did you did with input from steve evans

00:25:07 you did with input from steve evans input from steve owens and diane marshall in yes yes now i mean his evidence to the inquiry was that you did most of what he called the heavy lifting in writing this text is that correct that is correct on

00:25:18 text is that correct that is correct on the first page we can see that it discusses the bca technical guidance note and at the bottom of the second column on the right you can see it says this under the heading common wall and facade types accepted by nhbc

00:25:30 facade types accepted by nhbc the following common wall and facade constructions are acceptable to nhpc without the need to provide an option three assessment providing that the design specification and installation meets the minimum specifications set in

00:25:41 meets the minimum specifications set in the following appendices appendix one brickwork facade appendix two timber paneling appendix three aluminium composite panel or panels

00:25:53 or panels now can we just go back to your witness statement please at page 54 before we come back to this document and paragraph 198 at the bottom of the page

00:26:03 page um i'll just paraphrase the first half of the paragraph you say there that it was a generally held view that brickwork was a robust and safe external cladding so it made sense to draft an acceptable brick build up

00:26:15 draft an acceptable brick build up and then five lines from the bottom of the paragraph you say this my view can you see it says my view yes i can see that yeah my view was that as i was the one reviewing the option three assessments and producing

00:26:27 option three assessments and producing guidance it also made sense to add timber and fire retarding acm with a core formed from a minimum 70 stroke 30 mineral stroke polyethylene mix as the other materials where i had seen

00:26:39 other materials where i had seen evidence of compliance through those assessments

00:26:44 now just to be clear i think you hadn't had you seen clear evidence of compliance through large-scale testing of acm

00:26:50 of acm panels no we had only seen various option three reports yes

00:26:59 and that's not evidence of compliance was it it's an opinion about compliance

00:27:07 well it is an extended the option threes were supposedly you know extended application this should be more than just an opinion you know they should be at the very best you know the people

00:27:19 at the very best you know the people doing that report saying

00:27:22 saying you know there is enough evidence to support the view that these would pass yes it's an opinion about the quantity of evidence and what it does i guess ultimately it is a very expert opinion yes yeah but its opinion nonetheless i guess that is

00:27:35 opinion nonetheless i guess that is ultimately it yes and did it concern you that uh

00:27:40 that uh this guidance was based on an opinion or range of opinions even though from experts but not on actual test data

00:27:51 did it concern you it concerns me now it didn't particularly if i say it didn't concern me that sounds like i was you know oblivious it didn't flag up with me that

00:28:04 it didn't flag up with me that you know it was wide of the mark no why is that because the option three assessments were coming from a number of sources which were quite well respected

00:28:17 sources which were quite well respected you know namely xover and you know because of that we were of the view that mixed with other you know i was saying seen the comparisons between how

00:28:29 saying seen the comparisons between how class b acms burned compared to 100 percent pe called acms burn you know we were of the opinion that it was all within the bounds of what was acceptable under br135 or would be if it

00:28:41 acceptable under br135 or would be if it was tested can we look at para 201 of your statement on the next page please page 55. you say there in terms of actual relevant test data the kingspan celetex

00:28:52 relevant test data the kingspan celetex and extratherm bs8414 tests were were the only sets of data available the fire engineers were relying on these for the option three reports whilst i'd seen a number of successful bsa414 tests i

00:29:04 number of successful bsa414 tests i suspected that more had been unsuccessfully carried out and have not been shared with us or any other fire engineer

00:29:11 engineer let's write a thing and we've covered this already but just confirm while we're looking at that paragraph that neither kingspan nor celetex nor extratherm had tested with an acm panel

00:29:22 extratherm had tested with an acm panel not that we knew at the time not that indeed

00:29:27 indeed and

00:29:27 and the same applies to acm manufacturers you've not seen any large-scale testing by them of their acm panels um not 8414 but i do believe some of

00:29:39 um not 8414 but i do believe some of them may have done nfpa 285 tests and none of that raised any alarm bells with you when going about compiling appendix 3. is that right at the time no

00:29:54 so you couldn't be sure that acm panels whether tested by a leukobond or tested by kingspan had not actually failed ac uh 8414 tests

00:30:05 not actually failed ac uh 8414 tests at that time no we couldn't be sure all right

00:30:09 all right let's look at appendix 3 please on page

00:30:13 4 let's have that up

00:30:19 here is appendix 3 aluminium composite panels

00:30:22 panels now in the first paragraph under key issues

00:30:26 issues you

00:30:27 you um speak of using reliable cavity barriers

00:30:30 barriers and in the second paragraph uh you discuss br135 you see that yes and then you under that you say in the first set of bullet points

00:30:40 points that uh an appropriate measure to meet br135

00:30:45 br135 is

00:30:46 is and then the first square bullet point says the use of minimum class b in accordance with bsen 13501 part one aluminium composite panels which provide a class naught surface spread of flame

00:30:59 now that was a change wasn't it from bca technical guidance note 18 which required materials of limited combustibility so a1 or a2 only to be used over 18 meters

00:31:15 well option one of an ad of ad sorry option one of the bca guidance note was based on what was written in adb indeed uh but this

00:31:26 this is a change from that isn't it you're now allowing class b panels and not only class a1 or a2 panels

00:31:34 we were if it was

00:31:36 if it was you know used in the combination of the other items listed further down this and that was all based on the fact that we'd seen that justified numerous i'll type that type of construction justified

00:31:48 type that type of construction justified numerous times under option three

00:31:56 [Applause] so just to be clear these is it right that these appropriate measures are to be taken um cumulatively

00:32:11 um yes because you know we went on to say this is the type of buildup you know that you should use you know this appendix that we said we

00:32:22 you know this appendix that we said we would

00:32:23 would you know

00:32:24 you know we weren't accepting this met building regulations we were simply saying this guidance note if you follow what is written in there do that type of a build up

00:32:34 up we would then not seek another option three report for that you know for that particular wall buildup

00:32:43 buildup well in not accepting another option three report you were your bcas would sign it off as compliant no they would not because you know the building would still need to be assessed for

00:32:54 to be assessed for under regulation before our surveyors were instructed that you know they could have a you know see if this was being put if something was being put forward

00:33:05 put if something was being put forward on the basis of this guidance note and at that point then in conjunction with their manager they would still look at the building and

00:33:13 and you know discuss whether they still considered that would meet you know regulation b4 how could the use of the class b material over 18 meters without any large scale testing or

00:33:24 without any large scale testing or desktop assessment assuming that they were permitted for any particular project build up meet the routes to compliance set out on your own bca technical guidance node the very one that the nhbc had adopted

00:33:36 the very one that the nhbc had adopted in

00:33:37 in 2015 as policy it was all this was simply you know revolving around the option three route that

00:33:45 that we'd seen

00:33:47 we'd seen a number of option three reports based on this combination of materials and we took the view that you know all we're going to get on every building here on is the same report

00:34:00 building here on is the same report saying the same thing

00:34:03 you know it was as i said yesterday things were plateauing out at this point um

00:34:10 um and it was you know just considered that you know and it would well no that was that was the route right is steve evans accepted when he gave evidence or at least appeared to accept

00:34:21 accept some people may submit he didn't but accepted from the chairman on day two two one page one four five at lines eleven to eighteen uh th this exercise

00:34:33 eleven to eighteen uh th this exercise was

00:34:34 was essentially an inference based on underlying assessments which are themselves inferences from underlying data

00:34:41 data would you accept that characterization of the approach being set out in this document yes i

00:34:48 yes i think i probably would yes so you no longer needed all elements in the cladding system including external facings to be materials of limited combustibility you didn't need an 8414 test meeting vr135

00:35:00 test meeting vr135 and you didn't need a desktop that's correct isn't it it is yes that that was a completely uh new approach which i would suggest to you set your

00:35:12 i would suggest to you set your technical guidance note 18 at naught well technical guns notes 18 was a bca publication this was

00:35:22 this was intended purely as an internal nhbc thing well yes but an internal nhbc thing

00:35:29 thing with quite a lot of influence sixty percent of the bca market and it was a market

00:35:39 yes but at the time the

00:35:43 the the you know the the con our clients at the time were very much shifting towards building with non-combustible materials they weren't risking this anymore and risking

00:35:54 weren't risking this anymore and risking holdups to their you know to their schemes they were already

00:35:59 already moving on to you know using option one and option two so what was the point of this document then

00:36:07 then it was simply that at the time nhbc was realizing that the processes we were going through were very time consuming just of all of my

00:36:19 very time consuming just of all of my time was on them as well as a lot of steve's time and as well as a lot of you know diane's time we were realizing that having gone through all this process the

00:36:31 having gone through all this process the number of buildings that we were rejecting was very very small because you know we were getting the reports which were considered to meet option three and were

00:36:42 considered to meet option three and were considered from reputable sources um there was the you know the desire to move to a more of a you know a business as usual footing

00:36:54 this wasn't was it a new

00:36:57 new route to compliance with approved document b it was an essentially an end run

00:37:02 run around it wasn't it it was

00:37:07 it was kind of a streamlined option three i guess is the best way to put it yes well it was a streamlined option three which meant you didn't have to do any of the things which adb required or

00:37:18 the things which adb required or suggested

00:37:20 suggested well option three you know didn't necessarily mean you did have to follow a you know the adb stuff he just had to you know build a well put together a report which said that the proposed

00:37:31 report which said that the proposed facade system if tested would probably meet br135 can we just look um briefly at nhb402792

00:37:46 we saw this yesterday i think but this is an email written by steve evans to brian martin [Applause]

00:38:00 where the response comes back in the way you were not satisfied with uh and your response you'll recall to

00:38:11 uh and your response you'll recall to steve evans

00:38:20 well the the the the question put by steve evans to brian martin the question was should a uh an external panel be a material of

00:38:31 an external panel be a material of limited combustibility that try to cut through this quickly that was the question he gave you an answer that you weren't very satisfied with it doesn't don't the contents of appendix 3 of this

00:38:45 don't the contents of appendix 3 of this july guidance note run completely contrary to that suggestion because you're now suggesting that external wall panels should not be materials of limited combustibility but only class b

00:38:58 um yes they did but that was intentional you know the email to brian martin was specifically asking

00:39:06 asking whether paragraph 12.7 applied

00:39:11 applied um

00:39:13 um the next

00:39:14 the next thing you know the next paragraph on says or a system test2814 br135 and that system test allowed you to use

00:39:25 and that system test allowed you to use materials which were not limited combustibility it allows you to use combustible materials but if as a whole when tested achieved br 135 that was considered you know another way

00:39:37 that was considered you know another way through another option so you know no i'll stop there can we go back to the guidance note please nhb401293 page four

00:39:50 now in

00:39:55 in two places in this document on this page in fact you refer to a class naught surface spread of flame

00:40:08 class naught surface spread of flame what do you mean by that that

00:40:13 that whatever panel you know on the data sheet would also have a surface spreader flame classification achieving class naught

00:40:27 at class naught i think you know is not a surface spread of flame classification is it it's a combination of a surface spread of flame result under part 7 of bsa bs 476

00:40:40 result under part 7 of bsa bs 476 and a fire propagation test under part six

00:40:43 six yes yes

00:40:45 yes yes did you intend that the use of the expression class naught surface spread of flame

00:40:49 of flame meant that the acm panels only had to pass bs 476 part 7.

00:40:55 we we wanted a panel which had a classification to class and alt so why use the expression surface spread of flame

00:41:04 of flame because

00:41:10 because that was well the class o really did

00:41:14 did deal mostly with surface spread of flame well

00:41:17 well yes there were could we could have added extra words to say you know the the other bit as well but we didn't why did you i mean i'm interested why did you have to add the word surface spread of

00:41:28 have to add the word surface spread of flame in two places two places on this page after the words class naught given that class naught is not only a surface spread of flame test but a fire propagation test

00:41:39 test but a fire propagation test i think at the time really because i hadn't looked too closely into the class one class o you know fire tests um largely my thinking at the time was

00:41:51 largely my thinking at the time was classo

00:41:52 classo was mostly a surface spread of flame um

00:41:56 um why did you think that because my understanding was that it was a spread of flame classification i hadn't to be honest really for a long time read into class one fight you know

00:42:09 time read into class one fight you know and i don't think i'd really no i had read the four seven six part six and seven tests but you know it wasn't a thing we dealt with day to day you know the

00:42:20 day you know the the panel being provided or anything been provided with classo was very common we we never really needed to delve beyond it to check anything out

00:42:31 delve beyond it to check anything out did you write this

00:42:34 this here a class naught surface spread of flame

00:42:37 flame and again on the right hand side in the middle of the column in the last bullet point there in the first section class naught surface spread of flame classification without going

00:42:48 going back to approved document b and actually looking at seeing what class naught was at the time yes that is the case how come

00:43:00 come because we weren't seeing with these panels you know we were not seeing i recall

00:43:08 panels being put to us with with worse than a class naught spread of flame well that class note rating they were not

00:43:16 were not it wasn't particularly an issue you know our there was a big issue with the combustibility of the the core material but

00:43:24 but the the class naught you know they were all from what i recall coming in with a class naught rating can you see how some people reading this might have thought that they only had to

00:43:35 might have thought that they only had to pass a bs 476 part 7 test

00:43:40 test in order to to comply with your guidance my understanding was you had to do four seven six part six first before you could then do the 476 part seven

00:43:56 yes well that's helpful to know that and my question is why were you hazy or were you hazy when you drafted it sounds as if you were well yeah it was the spread of flame sorry the class o

00:44:09 the spread of flame sorry the class o it was that was not our issue with these that was not you know striking us as any you know as a problem or things that people were trying to get past us with or anything like that no but you're

00:44:20 or anything like that no but you're specifying technical ingredients for a technical guidance note as the senior most uh one of two senior most uh

00:44:31 uh one of two senior most uh fire qualified fire engineers at nhbc why didn't you do your homework and get to the bottom of what class naught really was uh i have no answer for that

00:44:42 uh i have no answer for that now looking at

00:44:44 at the left hand side you can see restrictions on use and it says the use of polythene or polyethylene mineral called aluminium composite panels which do not achieve a minimum

00:44:56 panels which do not achieve a minimum class b combustibility classification fall outside the scope of this guidance note such products are unsuitable for use in high-rise situations now

00:45:05 now polythene there is polyethylene i think isn't it yes can you just explain the language um polythene or polyet or polythene mineral cord in both cases do you mean

00:45:17 cord in both cases do you mean polyethylene is is polythene your your word for polyethylene well it's not my word it is a well-used synonym of polyethylene right and the

00:45:28 synonym of polyethylene right and the words i used when writing this was to try and

00:45:31 try and keep it in you know simple language that the construction industry people were familiar with and as i said yesterday polythene you know damproof membranes were

00:45:43 you know damproof membranes were commonly referred to as polythene dpms it was for that reason i i agree i mean obviously i i knew that there was polyethylene but and that was the correct term but yes i should have probably used that but

00:45:55 yes i should have probably used that but it wasn't a type a was it are you i mean you intended to write the word polythene no i i did you know you go to a supermarket you come out with a polythene bag it was if you're lucky or you paid for it yes in the old days yes

00:46:07 you paid for it yes in the old days yes but that was the situation that was the use of the term yes but you see the problem i'm having is that mr evans told us that it was a typo and ms marshall

00:46:18 and ms marshall seems to think that that that the typo was one of the reasons why the note as it came to be was withdrawn was it a typo

00:46:27 typo no it was you know me i used the word intentionally it was i agree not the scientific term were you ever asked by either of those individuals whether this was a typo

00:46:38 was a typo no and when the guidance note was withdrawn i wasn't even you know party to those discussions at the time now we've been through the section of your statement which is paragraph 108 on

00:46:49 your statement which is paragraph 108 on page 54

00:46:51 page 54 where you uh refer to um

00:46:54 um the mixture or blend of 70 30 mineral polyethylene mix we looked at that

00:47:02 that do you know can you point us where in the guidance does it specify that the acm panels to which the guidance relates need to have a minimum of 70 mineral core

00:47:12 core it doesn't and the reason for that was that

00:47:17 that we didn't believe it was possible or conceivable that a hundred percent called acm panel would achieve anywhere near a class b

00:47:29 would achieve anywhere near a class b rating

00:47:30 rating and

00:47:31 and that was why be on the basis of that as our background knowledge that that was you know as we saw it not possible the need to actually then start to stipulate

00:47:41 stipulate percentage cause did did not feature at the time

00:47:47 so

00:47:54 are you saying that

00:47:57 that you put this in because you thought it was unachievable

00:48:02 i put this in i refer to the use of class b

00:48:06 class b because by saying that i

00:48:10 i thought that that was then clearly going to exclude all the 100 p e chord acm materials which you know as far as we knew would nowhere achieve nowhere near a class b

00:48:22 nowhere achieve nowhere near a class b we thought you know their class e class f

00:48:24 f you know we were obviously not wanting to include those this was you know we wanted the fire existing mineral pe called mixed materials and they were the ones that we were basing

00:48:35 they were the ones that we were basing this guidance note on why not say so because as i say we didn't think it was feasible that any acm 100

00:48:44 acm 100 pe card acm would get anywhere near a class b that's what you say in your statement but why didn't you spell that out in the document because we didn't think it was possible i mean

00:48:54 i mean you know when we released this document there was a presentation at that facade conference and in that presentation there were two slides

00:49:05 slides where we spelt out that you know this we were not interested in the hundred percent pe called acms we were talking about the fr versions with the mineral mixes and we spelt this out

00:49:16 the mineral mixes and we spelt this out very clearly in the presentation that was surrounding this but we didn't put it in the guidance now and i you know but you in fact you do the opposite don't you because you suggest here or at

00:49:27 don't you because you suggest here or at least hint that a class b pure pe core acn panel

00:49:33 acn panel would be acceptable no that was not that was definitely not the intention of my wording you can see how somebody might read it that way can't you

00:49:43 can't you the use of polythene called mineral which do not achieve that fallout saying i can see how it's been interpreted

00:49:54 interpreted not in the way that we wanted it i'm not certainly not in the way i was writing it if you thought that no pure pe chord aluminium panel met class b why refer to them at all

00:50:10 well you know it's the that sentence you know saying the use of polythene

00:50:16 polythene aluminium panels falls outside the scope of the guidance note and the use of polythene mineral chord ones which don't achieve class b fall outside of the guidance note that was

00:50:27 that was if i was writing it now which i'll i would not be writing this now it that would be a clearer way of writing it before you publish this note did you

00:50:38 before you publish this note did you take the time to do a survey of what acm class b panels were being specified in the market we based it only on the ones that we

00:50:49 we based it only on the ones that we were

00:50:50 were generally seeing proposed you know based on the option three reports and other things

00:50:55 things you know we we knew the likes of a luca bond value panel um

00:51:01 um you know those ones they were the ones that we we'd seen and that we based our knowledge upon those data sheets

00:51:08 sheets but given that as you told us in your statement and in your evidence yesterday that a 100 polyethylene called acm panel would never be accepted by nhbc what was the purpose of saying the

00:51:22 nhbc what was the purpose of saying the use of polythene or polyethylene acm

00:51:29 what was the point of referring to them at all

00:51:31 at all because we wanted to get it across that you know don't don't use this guidance note and use it in conjunction with 100 pe cord

00:51:42 use it in conjunction with 100 pe cord acm because this guidance note would not be applicable to that type of build but unless you've done a proper survey and it really got to the bottom of what was in the market and assured yourself reliably that there

00:51:55 and assured yourself reliably that there were no 100 pe called acm panels out there being sold as class b this wording would invite the application of those

00:52:06 would invite the application of those panels and would pass wouldn't it

00:52:11 that's all with hindsight well no mr lewis what i'm putting to you is

00:52:17 is is a factual question that at the time did you did you not consider that without doing a full market survey to assure yourself that there was no 100 acm

00:52:29 acm pe call panel out there claiming class b

00:52:34 this was a risky thing to write

00:52:38 that that was the case we didn't do that level of

00:52:41 level of market research

00:52:46 lewis i wonder if you can help me with a related

00:52:50 related point in relation to this document i wonder if we could scroll up the document a little bit to get the whole of the right hand column thank you very much it strikes me

00:53:01 it strikes me there's something rather anomalous about this because you told us i think earlier on that

00:53:06 on that it was your understanding of paragraph 12 7

00:53:09 12 7 in adb

00:53:11 in adb that every element of or every major element of the wall had to be of limited combustibility

00:53:20 in particular of course the insulation and in your view the rain screen panel but what we've arrived at through this route is

00:53:31 through this route is a clear indication that a combination of a combustible insulation and a combustible because only class b rain screen panel is acceptable

00:53:42 is acceptable so it's completely contradictory to paragraph 12 7. now i know we've got there through the so-called extrapolation route but did that not

00:53:53 extrapolation route but did that not strike you as a rather anomalous situation

00:54:00 not at the time because we were looking paragraph 12 7 was not part of the thinking of the process because we knew that that was never going to be complied

00:54:11 that that was never going to be complied with with any of these materials we were looking at the second option of the 8414 tests then extrapolated via the option three routes then extrapolated to a you know

00:54:24 routes then extrapolated to a you know what we'd seen in those option three reports

00:54:27 reports you know for these type of materials and then that was why this guidance no it didn't strike you as somehow odd that you'd got back to a point which was completely contradictory to paragraph 12 7. it didn't and it

00:54:40 to paragraph 12 7. it didn't and it should have done right that's very fair thank you very much

00:54:46 mr lewis i want to show you a long email chain at

00:54:51 chain at six nhb402864 please

00:54:54 and we went through this with steve evans in his evidence so i'm going to take a little bit more quickly with you if i may

00:54:59 if i may but this is a long email chain in february 2016 which followed on from a conference a siderise conference which had occurred a little earlier in that year and january that year the subject of the

00:55:12 january that year the subject of the email chain is the use of acm planning panels on buildings exceeding 18 meters in height

00:55:17 in height and

00:55:18 and um there's a reference at the very top there to the presentation given to the facades conference just out of interest were you involved in drafting that presentation no i

00:55:29 in drafting that presentation no i wasn't steve to this now i'll paraphrase the beginning of the email chain nick jenkins who you may know from boov murray had written to sarah colwell in january after the

00:55:40 sarah colwell in january after the conference to clarify whether both diagram 40 and the guidance in 12.6 to 12.9 needed to be satisfied to comply with the building regulations and asked also if the scope of 12.7 extended to

00:55:52 also if the scope of 12.7 extended to external cladding and whether the word filler was meant to include the core of an acm panel so these are pretty key questions and to cut a longer story short um

00:56:03 and to cut a longer story short um uh

00:56:05 uh he got an email back from steve evans agreeing that both diagram 40 and paragraphs 12.6 to 12 and 12.7 needed to be satisfied question for you did you have a discussion with steve evans about

00:56:16 have a discussion with steve evans about that at this time

00:56:22 i believe

00:56:25 i recall steve saying he'd had some contact with booth murray um

00:56:32 um and it would have been around you know those issues yes i do recall a conversation yes right

00:56:40 and did you see these emails

00:56:45 um well obviously it was sent to me yeah some of them were higher up in the chain yeah well you could where you were you consulted on there on the contents coming back from brian uh to um from steve evans to nick jenkins or

00:56:58 from steve evans to nick jenkins or brian martin very likely i was because you know steve would want things to be sense checked you know for want of a better word before he sent it down just check that you know we were saying in

00:57:09 check that you know we were saying in agreement right very likely yes now picking it up at the page three please if i can there's an email of the 26th of february 2016 from nick jenkins to brian martin

00:57:21 to brian martin which you're not copied in on uh and he says many thanks for your prompt response in the life of the fires that have taken hold of a number of buildings clad in acm panels in recent years i also think that the core of acm

00:57:32 years i also think that the core of acm panels should most definitely be considered as filler some acm calls meet the rules of adb however the ones commonly used in the uk at present don't to the best of my knowledge there have been no full scale 8414 tests carried out to date of any

00:57:44 8414 tests carried out to date of any wall constructions featuring any type of acm panel i'm aware that two manufacturers of acm have plans to have such tests carried out this however unfortunately means that no existing buildings in the uk over 80

00:57:56 existing buildings in the uk over 80 meters tall that feature acm panels currently meet the b4 requirements there are many such buildings and their numbers are growing whilst i appreciate it is for the designer and building

00:58:07 it is for the designer and building controlled body to consider if requirement b4 has been met i do think the current situation is of grave concern surely this justifies the requirement for a less ambiguous statement of the rules when he asks for a meeting

00:58:20 when he asks for a meeting now i i think you've told us that at that time there had been to your knowledge no full-scale tests um with acm at that time and

00:58:30 and you were aware i think that there were historically buildings over 80 meters that had nonetheless used acm yes yes we were yes

00:58:38 were yes even though they weren't materials of limiting combustibility yes yes

00:58:44 yes yes and had not been successfully tested to 8414 and certified to 135 br 135 agreed yes

00:58:52 yes and as such there was nothing in fact for option three an option three report to be based on as i think we've covered other than other than a form of extrapolation from one product to another

00:59:03 to another agreed but you know beautiful miori were the suppliers and the manufacturers of a lot of these atm materials as well so they must have been supplying them knowing that they were being used on such buildings

00:59:16 were being used on such buildings now do you know how they were being approved by building control i think there was a large ignorance in the building control profession about it you know generally the thinking

00:59:29 about it you know generally the thinking was if it gets class o it's all right that thinking we saw numerous occasions from other building control bodies labc

00:59:41 labc we even saw it from people in the fire engineering group at the london fire brigade that took the view that if it's class o it must be okay

00:59:54 just to be clear where were nhbc at this time early 2016 approving buildings using ac mpe well not not knowingly no i certainly wasn't no not knowingly

01:00:06 wasn't no not knowingly it's right to think isn't it that correct me if this is wrong with nhbc in the past nonetheless had approved buildings with acmpe

01:00:16 by virtue of the approved i have to take as meaning had a final certificate been issued indeed by this the inspector upon completion of the site works and on that basis i think

01:00:29 site works and on that basis i think it's fair to say that some had and and we knew about that in terms of whether they had come across you know mine or steve or somebody's desk and said can we use this product and one of us had said

01:00:41 use this product and one of us had said yes it will be fine i don't believe that that

01:00:44 that was the case it certainly wasn't the case for me no but you hadn't satisfied yourself that it hadn't happened

01:00:51 happened well there was no easy way to do that you know the a lot of the time as we saw on many schemes as a product was specified at the design stage which was what we looked at

01:01:02 stage which was what we looked at subsequently was changed when the procurement seat team on site went to to buy it and that was often influenced by the cladding contractors that were saying you know can we use this panel

01:01:15 saying you know can we use this panel it's cheaper and it's easier to work with

01:01:17 with um and that was you know that happened i would guess on on certain occasions without reference back to the surveying side of nhbc it would have been left at

01:01:28 side of nhbc it would have been left at site inspection and the site inspectors possibly never noticed or picked up on it now

01:01:35 it now we can see as i've shown you that nick nick jenkins's view was that the situation was of grave concern did you agree by this point the use of an acm 100 p

01:01:46 by this point the use of an acm 100 p yes would have been a great concern yes yes did you send a message to the building control officers employed by

01:01:55 by nhbc bcs

01:01:58 nhbc bcs to

01:01:59 to dig out their records discover so far as they could which buildings they had approved by way of providing a certificate which had got acm on the exterior and

01:02:12 which had got acm on the exterior and contact the building owner did you do that at this point in time we had done the 2015 review which would have picked up

01:02:24 2015 review which would have picked up everything that was in build up to that point

01:02:27 point um

01:02:29 um we we didn't we didn't do a separate review you know in february 2016 to repeat what had already been done that wasn't carried out

01:02:39 out but our surveyors you know we were saying this clearly they the ones the major projects team was then put together there was they made the large buildings was then being dealt with by a much smaller pool of people

01:02:51 much smaller pool of people and they were all well aware of the risks of pe called acm but you were now well aware of at least the possibility that there was a legacy of nhbc building

01:03:04 that there was a legacy of nhbc building control officer approved buildings which had acmpe core on the exterior we were aware that there were a number of buildings that had it on yes and you didn't do anything

01:03:17 on yes and you didn't do anything to alert the building owners to the dangers

01:03:21 dangers well

01:03:22 well i mean i know you don't like me to say that this was not my role but it wasn't my role you know that would have been left to people above me to instruct or to to do that um

01:03:33 to do that um so me personally no i did not no but did you advise your seniors that this should be done given what given the

01:03:42 given the um the coalescence of knowledge as we can see from nick jenkins email early in 2016.

01:03:49 2016. did you say to steve evans or diane marshall for example look there is a legacy problem out there there are buildings we've approved which contain pe called acm which

01:04:02 acm which is dangerous or potentially dangerous we should tell the building owners did you do that i didn't spell it out because they were as aware as i was that these buildings were there they might say well we were reliant on

01:04:14 they might say well we were reliant on you as the resident fire engineer what would you say to them um they were aware that these buildings were there because we'd identified a number of them

01:04:25 we'd identified a number of them in the when we did the 2015 review we'd highlighted the fact you know that we put those as a high risk in the 2015 review

01:04:35 review you know it they'd been at the we hadn't done the cladding for start conference but they they knew my thoughts on all of this um steve definitely was well aware of the risks of 100 pe called acm it was

01:04:48 the risks of 100 pe called acm it was you know by that point we were banging on about it every time we discussed this with any of our surveying teams it

01:04:56 it was not well yes they were well aware let's go up to page two of this email string please and we can see brian martin's response to nick jenkins of the 17th of february 2016 at 9 49

01:05:09 17th of february 2016 at 9 49 and in fact i think we want the beginning of page the foot of page one where he starts think

01:05:13 think thanks nick

01:05:22 uh

01:05:25 sorry i'm so sorry foot of page two my fault thanks nick i'm not sure the text really is all that ambiguous given that it must cover all forms of construction people often argue

01:05:36 forms of construction people often argue that it isn't clear when they are trying to justify doing something that's clearly wrong i'm not entirely sure that even the vacm products that have flame retardant cores would meet the rules of thumb in the a.d so it'll be interesting to see if any of them get through an

01:05:47 to see if any of them get through an 8414 test page three please but that's just my opinion we've recently commissioned a survey of part b users with a view to feeding into the next revision

01:05:56 revision in the first instance it might help your put your views into that please and he goes on um to refer to an upcoming meeting of the cwct group but were you when you saw this surprised

01:06:08 but were you when you saw this surprised to see that brian martin was skeptical of the combustibility or the reaction to fire properties of even those acm products with flame retardant cause and their ability to

01:06:19 retardant cause and their ability to pass an 8414 test

01:06:23 yes that started to unnerve

01:06:28 unnerve me

01:06:29 me at that point because all we've been hearing before that which admittedly was from the likes of x over was that

01:06:40 was that they were fairly confident that a class b acm if tested with k15 would

01:06:48 would pass an 8414 test and then to see that brian was oh you know it made me question well why is he saying that does he know something we don't because

01:06:59 something we don't because all we were getting fed with was you know it would probably be okay did you or did it prompt you to go back and re-review those buildings with acm from the 2015 review

01:07:11 from the 2015 review uh

01:07:12 uh it didn't no because we were still reliant upon you know the those those experts

01:07:18 experts having you know standing by their report and and saying that they felt that it would pass eight for one sorry past br135

01:07:25 br135 given that brian martin said here that he wasn't sure that even flame retardant acm panels could as he puts it get through

01:07:33 through an 8414 test why did you then draft the 2016

01:07:37 2016 guidance note which allowed acm panels to be used over 18 meters without any large scale testing or even a specific desktop assessment well i didn't particularly hone in on

01:07:49 well i didn't particularly hone in on that part of an email which wasn't even addressed to me at that time you know it was some pages down so it didn't feature in my mind and

01:07:58 and as i said we were placing our reliance upon those that were writing the option three reports saying that it would be okay

01:08:08 and then go to the bottom of page one please in this run and over to the top of page two this is nick jenkins's response hi brian yes i think you're probably right

01:08:20 top of page two

01:08:24 uh in the people are claiming ambiguity to suit their needs you see that uh and then you can see the text of the email and then at the the uh

01:08:35 uh immediately under that he says what i can't get my head around however is how buildings that clearly include products that neither meet the rules are set out in adb2 or have been the subject of a

01:08:46 in adb2 or have been the subject of a full-scale a414 test are achieving building regulation compliance completion certification is it that a the certification has been wrongly awarded thus pointing to a requirement for better informed stroke

01:08:57 requirement for better informed stroke educated certifying officers or b they have not achieved certification and are that subject to indemnity policies to cover the risk are you able to answer nick jenkins question

01:09:12 well taking point a certification wrongly awarded the way we were as i say approving them was based on option three which was then

01:09:23 was based on option three which was then in itself based on the extended application rules that was how we were so you know in our view it was not a wrongly awarded certification i see

01:09:34 i see now going back to your statement at paragraph

01:09:38 paragraph 211d on page 57

01:09:51 you say this the reason for presenting the guidance note at the seminar is to inform nhbc's customers of the current policy having carried out the 2015 project reviewer set out at paragraph 115 we had blocked many builders

01:10:02 115 we had blocked many builders customers projects from being signed off for building control purposes and insisted they obtain more evidence to demonstrate compliance with adb as a result of this there was concern in the industry and we wanted to explain the situation this conference was

01:10:14 the situation this conference was intended to draw a line under that process and show what business as usual would be like this included launching the 2016 guidance note now you refer to a situation what situation

01:10:27 concerning the industry and we wanted to explain the situation what was the situation

01:10:32 situation the situation

01:10:36 one second please let me just read it

01:10:44 the situation had been that

01:10:48 a developer had put forward a building with a load of details which had been passed by our surveyors then we had gone back and said

01:11:00 surveyors then we had gone back and said we

01:11:01 we want you to go through your cladding system again and provide extra checks to extra justification for it and we're not going to sign off any plots until you do that

01:11:14 plots until you do that um that was not just acm that was everything including as i say brick work all the way through and all the other types

01:11:21 types um

01:11:22 um there had been a huge amount of resistance kick back unhappiness with us for doing that um

01:11:32 um but having you know alongside running a long hold outside that they we believe that the developers were starting to understand why we were why we had put that blocking condition on

01:11:44 we had put that blocking condition on um

01:11:45 um and so we felt that you know the best thing we can do all this has been hearsay via you know their local surveyor the best thing to do is let's have a conference and they can all come and hear it

01:11:56 can all come and hear it directly from us and we can explain that situation why that situation had come about why these developers were having to put up people in hotels because they couldn't move into their flats it was

01:12:07 couldn't move into their flats it was that you know that was the situation

01:12:11 what was business as usual to go back to a system whereby the b4

01:12:19 the b4 you know the b41 aspect would be dealt with by the surveyor for the job without it needing every job to come across my desk for a you know a second

01:12:31 across my desk for a you know a second check to in effect make sure that the surveyor had done what a building control survey should be doing

01:12:38 doing so it was a simplification exercise is this right to make it easier for the surveyor and in turn easier for an hbc's customers

01:12:49 customers simple terms easier is not the word i would use it was you know as i say we were having gone through all that process we were not really rejecting any jobs

01:13:01 really rejecting any jobs um

01:13:02 um and we wanted to just move back to you know as it should have been prior to this that a surveyor should be able to have it within their competence to look at a building and decide whether it complied with b4 it was a complete

01:13:14 complied with b4 it was a complete backflip wasn't it from nhbc's policy the previous year when you ask that the bca guidance note be followed

01:13:22 well no the bca guidance note was still there the surveyors were informed to make sure that it was followed apart from the odd you know the few ones that would

01:13:33 know the few ones that would fit under this guidance note but that still held true you know that that process of meeting bca guidance note was still there and the surveyors were

01:13:42 were well aware of that it just removed the secondary check by me by steve by diane you know before a building would be signed off that was considered you know that could now be left with the

01:13:54 you know that could now be left with the surveyor to deal with well forgive me let's just in the light of that answer just go back please to

01:14:00 please to the guidance note we can go back to that please

01:14:06 and hb40 is one two nine three page four

01:14:11 page four left hand column at the foot of the page we need to scroll to the bottom guidance where a building has a floor level exceeding 18 meters from outside ground level a class b aluminium composite panel finish is specified and the

01:14:23 panel finish is specified and the builder can demonstrate that the following precautions are incorporated into the specification design and installation of the facade and hbc will accept the build up as meeting requirement b41 that's the

01:14:34 meeting requirement b41 that's the functional requirement isn't it yes

01:14:39 well it is yes so it's not it's not it's a complete backflip from the presence of option three at all indeed a complete backflip from the whole of the bca guidance note

01:14:51 from the whole of the bca guidance note and let me suggest you why i put that to you and you can answer all you need is a building above 18 meters a class b aluminium composite panel finish

01:15:02 panel finish and the precautions incorporated into the specification yes that's all you need is all you need for what acceptance by the nhbc

01:15:14 the nhbc that the buildup meets the functional requirement of the building regulations no that would not have been the case because these buildings were still you know it wasn't a case of

01:15:25 you know it wasn't a case of do that

01:15:27 do that and no one else will question anything else you're straight through on par before that that certainly was not the case well that's what it says isn't it it says yes but it was not what we intended it to say what did you intend it to say we intended it to say that we

01:15:39 it to say we intended it to say that we would not

01:15:41 would not therefore ask for an option three report and a separate option three report for this build-up that was what we were trying to get her and you know we as i say this was

01:15:53 and you know we as i say this was released there was a presentation which accompanied it and all of what i'm saying here was in that presentation yes i'm not sure and not sure you disagreed with me well you don't need an option three

01:16:05 well you don't need an option three report

01:16:07 report um in fact given that option three was an alternative to option two and all and option two was an alternative to option one

01:16:13 one it's right isn't it that what you were intending and indeed did get across to your customers through this document was that provided they'd met the conditions in the first part of

01:16:24 met the conditions in the first part of that paragraph under guidance nhbc

01:16:28 nhbc would accept the build up as meeting requirement b 4.1 and proceed to a certificate and the build mark warranty but there are a number of layers

01:16:39 but there are a number of layers in between those stages yes now let's just go through them you need a building over 18 meters yes that's easy yes yes uh you need a class b aluminium

01:16:50 uh you need a class b aluminium composite panel finish if you can find one yes

01:16:53 one yes uh

01:16:54 uh yes yes and then the demonstration that the following precautions are incorporated and then we then there is a list can you see yes and the list is a list of products and measurements isn't it it is yes yes

01:17:07 and measurements isn't it it is yes yes no more than that yes yeah so so long as your 18 meter plus building has got class b aluminium composite panel finish and these ingredients as specified

01:17:18 and these ingredients as specified nhbc will proceed to issue a certificate of compliance with the building regulations uh building requirement building regulation functional requirement b4 part one no because

01:17:31 no because once

01:17:33 once once the builder had said our cladding system the build it was said to the surveyor we based our cladding system on you know what's in there so we haven't provided an option three report

01:17:45 an option three report the

01:17:46 the surveyor would still look closely at you know the materials or we would be expected to look closely at verify the materials

01:17:56 materials you know when i say that i mean verify that it wasn't 100 pe called acm that had been used instead you know they were then required to assess the building for b4 and then to run that past their

01:18:08 b4 and then to run that past their manager

01:18:09 manager the managers were a much smaller pool of people who were very much at this point you know knowledging and knowledgeable of our concerns on acm and it was then that in compliance the

01:18:20 and it was then that in compliance the guys know that accompanied this to the surveyors said that in conjunction with their manager then they can make a decision as to whether it meets b41 it was not an automatic you know

01:18:31 was not an automatic you know process by any means well where are all those qualifications set out in this document they're not in this document they are in the accompanying document which went to the surveyors the email that went to the surveyors

01:18:44 as to how they you know as to how the surveyors needed to treat this document and to deal with it

01:19:04 well you say that they would be expected to look closely at the materials and verify them supposing

01:19:14 supposing on the 7th of july 2016 which by coincidence happened to be the date on which john hoban of rbkc signed the certificate of practical completion

01:19:25 completion for compliance of grenfell tower supposing he had been an nhbc surveyor and supposing this had been an nhbc refurbishment he would have picked up this guidance picked up the reyno bond pe55 bba

01:19:38 picked up the reyno bond pe55 bba certificate picked up kings band's k-15 literature and on the face of this guidance would have been quite entitled to accept the build-up as meeting requirement b4 part

01:19:50 build-up as meeting requirement b4 part one would he not no he would have if he had been you know as you say one of our surveyors he would have then been required to go and speak with his manager as to do we

01:20:02 and speak with his manager as to do we consider this was okay i would have expected that the manager would have knowing our concerns on acm materials would have at least said

01:20:15 would have at least said um you know looking at the extent that it was used let's just have a quick word with john because i was in the office at the time regularly and i was around and we you know i think

01:20:29 and we you know i think as i said we we found out at that point that the data sheet for renault bond from the manufacturer only gave a classification for the fr version

01:20:41 classification for the fr version and

01:20:42 and it did not give a classification for the 100 pe card version um that was only written in a bba certificate who had also you know noted that

01:20:54 also you know noted that the 100 pe card renault bond for some reason had got a class b fire test we i hadn't picked up on that because you know my first port of call was

01:21:06 you know my first port of call was always to the manufacturer's data sheets and you know that the manufacturer's data sheets didn't give a classification for 100 pe code version that would have set alarm

01:21:17 code version that would have set alarm bells ringing for me you're a fire engineer most of these surveyors aren't no but they they knew the risks of pa acm i mean you know

01:21:29 acm i mean you know generally i was finding that even if they weren't sure just the fact that it was said acm i was getting a lot of queries you know is

01:21:38 is this is acm is it right is it not you know and then you had to explain well there are three types of acm possibly it could be possibly it's not find out specifically which one it is

01:21:49 specifically which one it is and and we would go through that sort of a process

01:21:53 a process i i can't say for certainty but i would very much have expected that that would have been the process that would have gone on in nhbc

01:22:07 mr chairman before the break and i'm afraid i'm not going to finish before the break we only we have one short topic to cover afterwards can i just finish off this line yes of course can i just show you then please um

01:22:18 just show you then please um the witness statement of stuart taylor from wintec who were specialists for cyber engineers we we looked at uh during the course of your evidence and we know you met them

01:22:29 your evidence and we know you met them in 2013 as we've seen this is at win702 paragraph 103 foot of page 45

01:22:42 and he says this in answer to the question from the inquiry what were your views or if different what are your views now on the content of this note and he says this i cannot recall when i

01:22:53 and he says this i cannot recall when i first saw this document my views were that i completely disagreed with its contents the document generally allowed the use of materials which are not classed as limited combustibility class a2 in accordance with en13501

01:23:05 a2 in accordance with en13501 for example the guidance in appendix 3 aluminium composite panels allows minimum class b acm panels combustible insulation in the sfs zone minimum class b cement particle sheathing board and

01:23:17 b cement particle sheathing board and k15 or celitex 5000 or extra firm firm foam insulation in a drained and ventilated cavity this guidance in no way resembles the guidance in adb 2

01:23:29 way resembles the guidance in adb 2 2007. i regarded the document as being quite irresponsible and i did not know why such a document had been produced especially after wintec had spoken to the nhpc in 2013 about the issues of using combustible materials on buildings

01:23:42 using combustible materials on buildings with a story equal to or greater than 18 meters

01:23:46 meters do you disagree with anything that mr

01:23:50 that mr taylor says there

01:24:04 the only bit

01:24:08 i have to not take issue with but you know query a bit about being quite irresponsible we we were not

01:24:19 we were not wanting to be irresponsible we were

01:24:24 we were you know trying to do things in a better way um you know that implies that we were quite blase about it we we that was certainly not the case

01:24:35 certainly not the case but apart from that i think what he says is probably true right

01:24:43 right let me suggest to you that his characterization of this note as completely irresponsible or quite irresponsible is correct and it was a dangerous mistake on behalf on the part of the nhbc designed to go back to business as

01:24:56 nhbc designed to go back to business as usual and at the expense of life safety what do you say to that it i

01:25:03 it i i have to agree it shouldn't have been written if it was no it shouldn't have been written we shouldn't have done it i mean you know in all of this as i say that

01:25:15 in all of this as i say that we did do a review afterwards as to where this any buildings had relied upon this guidance note and you know in that review we found that it had not been used

01:25:27 had not been used and on any building that we could identify

01:25:31 identify um

01:25:32 um that is its only saving grace from for one of the better from my point of view is that it never actually got used

01:25:42 is that a convenient moment mr chairman yes i think it is thank you very much well i think it's time we had a break for the morning mr lewis we'll come back please of course to 12 and as before please don't talk to

01:25:53 and as before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out of the room thank you thank you very much

01:26:08 thank you very much course to 12 please

01:45:42 you ask mr lewis to come back in please

01:45:55 [Music]

01:45:59 right mr lewis on we go yes mr mr chairman having reviewed uh my note of my examination of uh mr lewis i've come to the conclusion that i have asked him all i need to ask him

01:46:10 all i need to ask him subject to any questions coming from uh other core participants uh which um we can do in the usual way so i'm going to ask you to rise for the usual time let's say 15 minutes and come back at noon or

01:46:22 say 15 minutes and come back at noon or just afternoon yes right thank you well mr lewis just so you understand when we get to the end of council's prepared questions we need to have a short break so that

01:46:31 so that uh council just can check although i think he's done that he hasn't got any more questions but also to allow other people who are following the proceedings from other places can suggest further

01:46:42 from other places can suggest further questions that we might want to put to you so we will have that break now i'm sorry to get you in and out such rapidity but we'll have the break now we'll come back at uh 12 noon and then we'll see if

01:46:53 at uh 12 noon and then we'll see if there are any more questions we need to ask you all right thank you very much thank you great

01:47:11 uh mr millet i've said 12 o'clock of course if it turns out that more times required you can ask josh to come and let us know yes thank you very much thank you very much

02:00:18 would you ask mr lewis to come back in please okay

02:00:33 all right mr lewis well let's see if there's any more questions for you yes yes mr chairman just one or two in the transcript for yesterday you had said that there were some

02:00:44 you had said that there were some buildings where there had been other works needed um and you've never been able to reject a building and you said the one building where we were adamant was very unsafe you only had it for warranty and they

02:00:55 you only had it for warranty and they just withdrew the warranty and took it with someone else you recall saying that yes indeed um was that the apex project it was yes did the apex project concern a building with 100 pe called acm yes it

02:01:08 a building with 100 pe called acm yes it did it did and was that a building where the building control final certificate was provided by the local authority healing i think in that case it was yes and i think it's right isn't it you may

02:01:19 and i think it's right isn't it you may remember recall that the builder had submitted a detailed report from dr connolly

02:01:25 connolly yes indeed eminence dr connolly and

02:01:29 and that had said that the cladding was compliant with building regulations and presented an acceptable risk yes indeed i gather i recall there were at least two possibly three versions of that report yes right but nonetheless nhbc

02:01:42 report yes right but nonetheless nhbc refused warranty cover we did indeed yes and you know what happened in the end as you say the the company the developer obviously weighed up their options of

02:01:53 obviously weighed up their options of either removing the cladding to continue with nhbc cover they went to another warranty provider who obviously said they were prepared to accept it as it stood and

02:02:05 accept it as it stood and and it was taken on on that basis yes thank you thank you very much well mr lewis i have no further questions for you it remains only for me to thank you very much for coming to the inquiry and thanking if your assistants were

02:02:16 thanking if your assistants were extremely grateful to you so thank you very much mr chairman thank you and uh it's right that i should thank you as well mr lewis on behalf of all three members of the panel you give netherlands for quite a long time i'm sorry it went on a little longer than

02:02:27 sorry it went on a little longer than you were originally led to believe but it has been very useful and helpful to hear what you have to tell us so we are very grateful to you for coming to give your evidence and now you're finished and you're free to go to thank you very

02:02:39 and you're free to go to thank you very much thank you

02:02:52 now mr millet i think you have another witness for us don't you but yes we will need to rise for a few moments before you call that witness so that the usual housekeeping arrangements can be

02:03:03 usual housekeeping arrangements can be made so we'll rise and perhaps the usher would come and tell us as soon as you're ready very good mr chairman thank you very much

02:09:16 [Music] yes mr billy no if you have another witness yes uh our final nhbc witness is miss diane marshall say may i please call miss marshall now

02:09:29 call miss marshall now thank you

02:09:35 good morning miss marshall i understand you're going to swear the oath i am yes right there should be a testament there on the desk could you take the testament in your right hand please and read the words on the screen

02:09:47 the screen i swear by almighty god that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you very much now please sit down make yourself comfortable huh thank

02:09:58 down make yourself comfortable huh thank you

02:10:04 yes when you're ready mr miller yes thank you very much mr chairman ms marshall good morning can i start by thanking you very much for coming to the inquiry and assisting us with our investigations we're extremely grateful to you

02:10:16 extremely grateful to you if you have any difficulty understanding my questions i can put the question again or rephrase it as you would like but

02:10:24 but please just do say when answering my questions please don't nod or shake your head you have to say yes or no as the case may be and it's also important that we don't overspeak

02:10:35 also important that we don't overspeak and also that you speak clearly so that the transcriber who sits to your right there can get down exactly what it is you're telling us we'll take scheduled breaks in the usual

02:10:46 we'll take scheduled breaks in the usual way in the afternoon and in the morning but if you need a break at any other time please please let us know now you've provided one witness statement to the inquiry can i take you to it please it'll appear on your screen

02:10:57 to it please it'll appear on your screen as with all the documents that i'm going to be looking at with you uh it's uh nhb403434

02:11:06 and the first page bears the date 6th of october 2021 could you please be shown page 47.

02:11:14 page 47. you can see a signature there above the date 6th of october 2021. um is that your signature it is yes and this is your witness statement it is yes and have you read this witness

02:11:25 yes and have you read this witness statement recently yes and can you confirm for us that the contents are true

02:11:30 true uh my legal team have sent through a letter with some observations of corrections yes they have and subject to those can you confirm that its contents are true yes

02:11:41 are true yes uh and uh subject to those corrections have you discussed your statement or your evidence with anybody before coming here today only with my legal team yes now let's look at those corrections can we please first see paragraph 84

02:12:04 that's on page 20 and you can see that that refers to confusion in paragraph 84 a do you see that yes uh what would you like to tell us about that

02:12:15 that just that the the timeline in relation to the december 13 email i i've got the confusion incorrect

02:12:26 incorrect that the confusion at this stage was in relation to kingspan being certified as a material of limited combustibility not in relation to the changes to the bba certificate so the second part of

02:12:38 bba certificate so the second part of paragraph a can we look at paragraph 167 please

02:12:57 and there you see what's said there would you like to make a correction to that

02:13:02 that yes i was copied into that email it doesn't change the context but i did see that email as i was copied in and then on please to paragraph 188

02:13:19 at the foot of page 39 there uh

02:13:23 uh is there a correction you wish to make to that paragraph yes the the second bottom line nhbc fire engineers were required to carry out a robust process checking of each project submitted that wasn't the

02:13:35 each project submitted that wasn't the case with the 2016 guidance note no thank you and paragraph 202 finally i think there's a typographical error would you like just to identify it

02:13:50 yes the the the final date the 25th of august should be 2017 not 2018. yes thank you very much now can i start then my substantive

02:14:02 can i start then my substantive questions to you by asking you about your background and your previous employment and your role at the nhbc um looking at paragraph nine of your statement please if we can go to that

02:14:14 uh you say they're on page two under the heading qualifications training and career

02:14:19 career that you um i'm going to summarize that you you were a trainee building control surveyor from 1983 or in 1983 yes yes and then in 1991 you qualified as a building surveyor

02:14:30 building surveyor yes and you then obtained a first class degree in building engineering yes yes do you know when that was well can you remember 2006

02:14:40 2006 2007

02:14:42 2007 and if you look down to paragraph 10 you say that before that um or before working at nhbc you were a building surveyor who did you work for i worked for two different local

02:14:53 worked for two different local authorities prior to joining in hbc which were they at bedford borough council and north hertfordshire district council

02:15:02 council and during your time as a surveyor did you deal with buildings over 18 meters in your day-to-day work i had a limited exposure to buildings of that height due to the geographical nature of the local authorities that i worked in

02:15:15 worked in yes and

02:15:17 yes and were you involved at all in providing building control services or final sign-off for residential buildings over 18 meters when at those authorities

02:15:30 i don't recall but

02:15:33 but that doesn't mean that i didn't now you say

02:15:38 uh that you had in this paragraph 10 that you'd undertaken regular training on the building regulations during your time as a surveyor did any of that training concern fire safety in buildings over 18 meters

02:15:55 that the training would have been in relation to the requirements of proof document b in its entirety um and that would have covered the range of buildings of residential non-residential

02:16:06 buildings of residential non-residential and

02:16:08 and over 18 metres and under 18 meters

02:16:14 did you have any training on those matters after you joined nhbc

02:16:22 i wouldn't say specific training i would have sat in on training being delivered at team meetings i wouldn't have necessarily been

02:16:31 been looked

02:16:32 looked been there to to receive formal training as i didn't apply it on a day-to-day basis

02:16:38 basis now we know you joined nhbc in 2001 correct so does that tell us that you didn't have any training or at least any formal training on the adb

02:16:49 training on the adb amendments in 2006-7

02:16:53 or the building regulations 2010 or the various different industry guidance documents such as the cwct technical nate 73 or bca guidance note

02:17:05 technical nate 73 or bca guidance note technical note 18. well as i say i would have sat through the the training material i would have seen some of the training material because i had a building control training manager that reported to me

02:17:17 training manager that reported to me that developed the training material and would would run it past me so i would be aware of the requirements i wouldn't be familiar with how they would be applied on a project by project basis

02:17:28 on a project by project basis now if we look at paragraph eleven just further down page two you set out the positions that you have held at nhbc since joining in 2001. it doesn't say what position you held when you joined what was it i joined as

02:17:41 when you joined what was it i joined as a surveying manager surveying manager and who did you report to at that time um neil cooper did that position deal with residential buildings over 18 metres

02:17:54 buildings over 18 metres the the team that i managed did yes

02:17:57 did yes the team that you managed did so did that mean that you had to become familiar with the rules concerning buildings over 18 meters i was familiar with the rules in terms of the high level training that

02:18:09 in terms of the high level training that i would have received with updates to the regulations and obviously reading new approved documents as they were published i wouldn't be familiar with the day-to-day application of those on a project specific basis do you remember

02:18:21 project specific basis do you remember what types of buildings you did deal with as a building control manager once you became appointed to that position between 2006 and 2007

02:18:32 that role was the oversight of a number of the area managers um i the the surveying manager position that i joined in 2001 there were five of those across

02:18:43 in 2001 there were five of those across the country and the building control manager was the manager overseeing that role i see and and with did that role involve buildings over 18 meters

02:18:55 buildings over 18 meters the team's dealing with them yes and your oversight of those teams presumably as well yes and can you tell us what sort of percentage would you say if the buildings you worked on uh by way of

02:19:07 buildings you worked on uh by way of your supervisory role were buildings over 18 meters so could you just clarify what you mean by

02:19:14 by i worked on well in your role as a building control manager between 2006 and 2007 what sort of percentage in rough terms would you say comprise buildings over 18

02:19:27 would you say comprise buildings over 18 meters

02:19:29 meters that my team's dealt with right

02:19:32 right i would say probably less than 50 percent of our

02:19:40 of our um of the that profile of work if i can put some context around the percentages that that might help so nhbc has a warranty market share of around about 75

02:19:51 around about 75 um that's to the end of 2020 and that's reliant on published government figures in housing returns the way that we measure our building control market share is a percentage of

02:20:02 control market share is a percentage of that warranty so we we report on building control take up

02:20:07 up in relation to the warranty product that we we offer so where we report 60 to 60 to 70 of building control over the previous seven years that would be as a proportion of

02:20:19 years that would be as a proportion of our warranty market and then that 60 to 70 percent is then broken down further to answer your question it would be less than 50 percent of the high-rise market that we

02:20:31 percent of the high-rise market that we would provide building control where we're also providing warranty and

02:20:36 and those that crossed your desk in those in that time frame what sort of percentage of high-rise projects in other words projects over 18 meters

02:20:47 in other words projects over 18 meters would that have represented they would generally only be referred to me if there was an issue or an escalation or a question in relation to the construction or any element of that

02:20:58 the construction or any element of that project that required management intervention you then became acting head of building control in i think 2007 yes yes and that lasted a year before you became

02:21:10 and that lasted a year before you became group head of building control in 2008 correct again during that period uh what sort of percentage of high-rise projects crossed your desk

02:21:21 projects crossed your desk again it would be by exception in relation to any major concerns or issues around interpretation uh now you were then i think as you say promoted to

02:21:32 promoted to head of technical services in 2012 yes yes and held that position until 2017 as you tell us now to be clear being acting head of and then group head of building control

02:21:44 of building control before then being made head of technical services does that mean that you have effectively have been in charge of an hpc building control since 2007.

02:21:55 yes yes now i know the name of the department's changed over a number of years but i think steve evans says in his statement that

02:22:03 that um the technical services department was responsible for as he puts it confirming compliance in terms of warranty cover and building control services that's how he puts it would you agree with that

02:22:14 would you agree with that characterization yes yes

02:22:17 yes yes and that was essentially your responsibility from 2007 yes yes yes and remained your responsibility um when you became head of technical operations in 2018 yes

02:22:29 in 2018 yes yes yes it was essentially a name change but the role remained the same yes it was merging uh different departments within the organization and then you i think moved to your current position of operations director in 2019 is that

02:22:41 operations director in 2019 is that right correct now in the years up to 2013 um

02:22:47 um is it right that your experience in providing building control uh expertise or experience for high-rise residential buildings was by way of exception

02:22:59 buildings was by way of exception would that be a fair way of putting it yes

02:23:03 yes and would that also apply to your experience in rain screen cladding and external facades on buildings over 18 meters yes i had a very competent team that

02:23:14 yes i had a very competent team that worked beneath me yes uh

02:23:19 yes uh but your personal professional [Music]

02:23:23 [Music] experience and expertise in relation to rain screen clouding and external facades

02:23:28 facades on high-rise buildings buildings over 18 meters was limited i think would you accept that yes and you were you are reliant on the expertise of those in your teams yes

02:23:39 does that tell us that you weren't or maybe you were help me familiar with components being used in the external walls of high-rise buildings in 2013.

02:23:50 walls of high-rise buildings in 2013. i think my my awareness increased significantly in 2014. yes but in 2013 what was the baseline

02:23:59 an understanding of the requirements of the regulations and understanding of the detail within approved document b but no practical application of that on a project specific basis except by

02:24:12 a project specific basis except by exception

02:24:14 exception so do i take it from that answer that you understood section 12 of approved document b as it then was yes

02:24:28 uh and similarly the fact that it was guidance directed to compliance with the functional requirement b4 part one yes have you had or had you had at that time

02:24:41 have you had or had you had at that time 2013

02:24:43 2013 any personal first-hand experience with either small-scale or large-scale fire testing no

02:24:52 no how familiar were how familiar were you in 2013

02:24:56 in 2013 with bs 8414 either parts one or part two or both and the br135 criteria i would say i wasn't familiar not now let's look at an nhbc bcs i think

02:25:09 now let's look at an nhbc bcs i think it's also the case that you had been a director of nhbc building control services

02:25:14 services a subsidiary of nhbc since 2012. is that is that correct yes and nhbc bcs limited as a private company isn't it through which nhbc

02:25:25 company isn't it through which nhbc provides building control services yes it's a wholly owned subsidiary of nhbc yes and it provides building control services correct for for a fee yes yes and i think nhbc is a non-profit

02:25:38 yes yes and i think nhbc is a non-profit distributing company but it's holy and subsidiary makes money put it bluntly it provides a service for which it gets paid for yes yes uh there isn't any other shareholder in

02:25:49 uh there isn't any other shareholder in nhbc bcs other than nhbc is there that's correct

02:25:53 correct um

02:25:54 um now you were a director of the subsidiary company um

02:26:00 what were your responsibilities and i don't want a list of the legal responsibilities what were your practical responsibilities and duties as a director of nhbc bcs limited

02:26:11 a director of nhbc bcs limited um the the day-to-day oversight of the operation of our approved inspector service the the maintenance of our approved inspector license um ensuring that we met any criteria set

02:26:24 um ensuring that we met any criteria set by our regulator being sicare making sure that applications for licensed reapprovals were carried out having suitable insurance in place to

02:26:36 having suitable insurance in place to operate as an approved inspector and

02:26:39 and carrying out audits as required by our regulator

02:26:42 regulator would that also include business planning setting and meeting budgets and the financial performance of the company yes yes yes and

02:26:52 and did it also involve you reporting to the main board of nhbc um on occasions yes the the building control services board was chaired by ian davis

02:27:03 ian davis and ian davis was a main board member so he would report back into the main board that's when it was just executive directors on board and heads of department prior to that there was

02:27:14 department prior to that there was non-executive directors that formed building control services board and on a at least a yearly basis the chairman of the board would report back to the main nhbc board on the activities of building

02:27:25 nhbc board on the activities of building control services from 2013 apart from ian davis as the common director were there any other common directors as between nhbc at the parent company and an hbc building control services

02:27:36 and an hbc building control services limited the subsidiary

02:27:41 i'm not sure if the finance director may have been a common director at that point in time now you told us that you were as head of building control that nhbc

02:27:52 building control that nhbc uh

02:27:53 uh saddled with if that's the right word the responsibility for the building control licence is that the case from 2012 up to 2019 yes yes

02:28:01 yes yes and therefore i think you would agree would you that the you were ultimately responsible for all building control decisions made by

02:28:10 nhbc i would be responsible for yes but that would be done in conjunction with advice and on a consensus basis with others

02:28:20 others which others if it was a technical matter i would use the expertise of my team i would also refer to ian davis as chairman of the board occasionally if there were things that that needed

02:28:31 there were things that that needed discussing at an hbc board rather than building control services board did you ever report to an hbc board directly yourself yes i have attended nhbc board right was

02:28:43 yes i have attended nhbc board right was that a regular occurrence um i wouldn't say regular but um there are definitely occasions when i would report into the board on different matters relating to building control services

02:28:54 relating to building control services limited and was there a standing arrangement whereby you would report the

02:28:59 the affairs of nhbc bcs limited including the financial affairs to the main board i think that was a standing agenda item and papers to the board it wouldn't necessarily be me that attended it could

02:29:10 necessarily be me that attended it could be ian davis that attended right and would you would you produce those papers yourself would you generate them or at least approve

02:29:20 them think they would be generated certainly the financial performance would have been with our accounts department in terms of preparing the annual accounts and

02:29:31 annual accounts and reporting those to the board as necessary i would review the annual accounts before they were delivered to the main nhbc board um any papers that would be delivered

02:29:42 would be delivered would

02:29:44 would i'm trying to recall if it was myself or ian that would have prepared those and i think it could have been both of us and what about technical matters did you report technical matters

02:29:55 did you report technical matters regularly or irregularly to the main board yourself either either in paper form or in by way of presentation yes as required

02:30:04 required do you still hold the position of operations director at nhbc i do yes you do

02:30:12 and do you have responsibility as that today for the parts of the business that deal with nhbc's warranties or insurance my the operations directorate um is

02:30:23 my the operations directorate um is responsible for the technical operations department which is the department that steve evans now leads there is the inspection department

02:30:34 leads there is the inspection department which is all of our field-based inspection staff going out on site and our standards and technical department is now part of operations and what role do you have in relation to

02:30:45 and what role do you have in relation to nhbc warranties

02:30:50 nhbc warranty it sorry just clarify the point that you're trying to get well what let me ask it this way what role do you have a role in relation to the issue

02:31:01 you have a role in relation to the issue and honouring of nhbc warranties how's that today my teams look at the technical aspects in relation to compliance with nhbc standards and they also carry out the

02:31:13 standards and they also carry out the inspections to make sure that the on-site construction is being dealt with in accordance with nhbc standards my team don't get involved in the policy wording

02:31:24 don't get involved in the policy wording or the

02:31:26 or the underwriting or other aspects in relation to warranty who's the underwriting done by our underwriting department and that's a separate department it is yes you have no role in that do you no right now let

02:31:39 no role in that do you no right now let me ask you about some memberships in your statement i think you list a number of memberships including the chartered association of building engineers yes yes the royal institution of chartered surveyors yes the construction industry

02:31:51 surveyors yes the construction industry council approved inspectors registered seacare yes yes and the building regulations advisory committee brac and also the acai and the bca yes yeah and you're members of all of

02:32:02 yes yeah and you're members of all of those

02:32:04 those at the time of writing this we nhbc were a member of acai we've declined to renew our membership with that organisation why is that

02:32:14 purely because nhbc in its own right has

02:32:20 has the opportunity to meet with officials and departments without needing to go through the association of consultant approved inspectors why was the decision made to come away from the acia

02:32:32 made to come away from the acia it was a decision that was made at the building control services board and it reflected our thinking at the time

02:32:40 time when was that decision made um it would have been between october and now so i think it was just before christmas right and why was it made well as i stated um it was reported to

02:32:52 well as i stated um it was reported to the board the value of remaining a member of acai there was limited value there was an intention to increase the subscription fees and the evaluation was that we didn't

02:33:04 and the evaluation was that we didn't think it was best value and what had happened between let's say 2017 and 2021 um to

02:33:12 um to cause that decision to be made uh the extent and activity of the association now in your statement please page 4 if we can go to that paragraph 15 you say this

02:33:24 this although i'm employed by an hbc i often attend these various professional groups in a personal capacity i feel strongly that nhbc and the industry generally needs to share experience and understanding of complex

02:33:35 experience and understanding of complex technical issues to ensure that we get the best possible results in terms of compliance with the building regulations in essence i believe in proactively engaging with various bodies to ensure an industry-wide focus and which groups

02:33:47 an industry-wide focus and which groups did you attend in a personal capacity as opposed to in your position as head of technical services at the nhbc my appointment to brac was in a personal capacity

02:33:57 capacity and my attendance at or my involvement in the sick care management board is in a personal capacity right why those two particularly

02:34:09 particularly just the way the organizations are set up that they look for personal involvement rather than organizational representation other than the bca were you involved with

02:34:21 were you involved with the

02:34:22 the topic if i can call it that of external fire spread on buildings over 18 meters as part of any of these groups

02:34:33 it would have been discussed at brac meetings

02:34:39 in terms of um sorry could you just scroll up to the point about the the brac appointment if that's possible yes absolutely it's e at the top of page four

02:34:53 that was in 2019 and i think the new regulations around non-combustible materials would have been 2018 so it may have been the legacy papers that i would

02:35:04 have been the legacy papers that i would have seen as as being a brac member now um let me ask you about the bca um

02:35:11 um have you been a member of the bca since its inception in 2008 i've been on the bca executive since 2008 representing the chartered association of building engineers

02:35:29 and i think it's right to say that you worked with steve evans at the bca since that date yes no both both steve and i are employed by an hbc

02:35:40 an hbc i represent the chartered association of building engineers at the bca steve is or was chairman of the bca technical committee and he was there representing acai yes

02:35:53 and he was there representing acai yes but it's right to say that you together worked at the bca or in relation to bca matters in relation to bca matters yes yes

02:36:01 yes and in 2008 i think he was still at the labc wasn't he yes

02:36:07 yes were you at any time a director of the bca

02:36:10 bca yes

02:36:11 yes between which dates

02:36:19 i think it would have been not long after

02:36:22 after it was formed and

02:36:25 and we

02:36:26 we closed the company i think last year

02:36:35 right and were you on the executive committee of the bca during those yes during between those dates you were and it's right i think isn't it that um steve evans was the chair of the bca

02:36:48 um steve evans was the chair of the bca technical group between 2010 and 2019 as he i think has told us yes yes do you remember whether he would send guidance notes to the bca executive committee for acceptance

02:37:00 committee for acceptance yes he would he would were you at any time the chair of the bca

02:37:05 bca yes um the the chair of the bca rotated around the five member organizations on an annual basis um so the year that it was the turn of

02:37:17 um so the year that it was the turn of the chartered association of building engineers i chaired the meetings for that period and which was which were those dates which were those years um

02:37:28 i think it was around 2012. but i'm not sure now you told us that it was closed the abca was closed

02:37:40 abca was closed uh why was it closed i think there's a section in my statement that references the discussions that we had with mhclg and they engaged with all of the

02:37:52 and they engaged with all of the constituent members of the bca and nhbc in its own right cic and siccare and asked us to do a piece of work on

02:38:03 and asked us to do a piece of work on the future of building control which we published a report in relation to and as a consequence of that there was discussions around rebranding the group of bca into the

02:38:16 rebranding the group of bca into the future of building control with mhclg's

02:38:21 mhclg's acknowledgement of that working group and doing whatever work was required on a broader basis so as a consequence of that the company was was closed

02:38:32 was closed yes thank you now i'd like to ask you some questions about nhb's position from time to time on combustible materials starting with acm as head of building control as of 2013

02:38:43 as head of building control as of 2013 what was nhbc's position on the use of acm cladding panels on external facades of buildings over 18 meters

02:38:54 did you say 2013 yes right um

02:38:59 in 2013 i would have expected the surveyors to establish compliance by following the guidance within the approved document

02:39:14 right and was there standing an hbc policy about the use of acm

02:39:21 acm cladding panels in external facades on buildings over 18 meters not in 2013 no now can we go please to page 10 of your statement

02:39:32 statement and look at paragraph 42 together you say there as i explained at paragraph 17 above in relation to buildings over 18 meters tall i was involved in the policy decisions

02:39:43 involved in the policy decisions which specified the types of materials or external wall arrangements which would be acceptable to nhbc for building control purposes now if we look at paragraph 17

02:39:56 let's just go back to that on

02:40:01 page page four it says this my involvement in nhbc's building sorry my involvement in nhbc's decision making relating to the use of products

02:40:12 making relating to the use of products in the external wall arrangements of buildings over 18 meters tall to comply with the building regulations and approved document b is described in paragraph 78. in summary nhbc produced a guidance note in 2016 this was produced

02:40:25 guidance note in 2016 this was produced by staff in my department i was briefed along with ian davis operations director who presented the guidance note to the executive committee on first july 2016 and ultimately signed it off

02:40:38 now my question is what was nhbc's policy in relation to combustible materials in external facades above 18 meters in 2013.

02:40:50 there was no formal policy in 2013 other than ensuring compliance by following the approved document right so

02:41:00 right so i see

02:41:01 i see now um

02:41:03 now um when you say that as you do

02:41:05 as you do i was involved and to go back to paragraph 42.

02:41:13 um i was involved you say in the policy decisions which specified the types of materials or external wall arrangements which would be acceptable to nhbc for building control purposes

02:41:25 to nhbc for building control purposes um how are those policy decisions made

02:41:30 there would be discussions of the the technical aspects around compliance um debate around the wording within the approved document

02:41:41 approved document and agreement and consensus on a way forward

02:41:45 forward and when you say you were involved in those decisions who is it who made the final decisions on the types of materials

02:41:53 materials that were acceptable to nhbc

02:41:56 as as head of building control the responsibility would have been mine but it would have been taken on the basis of technical advice and guidance being provided with the exception of the the

02:42:07 provided with the exception of the the 2016 guidance note which did go to the executive directors because of the implications of that guidance note yes and we'll come and look at that later in your evidence what data or testing would

02:42:18 your evidence what data or testing would you personally rely upon in order to decide which materials or external wall arrangements were acceptable for nhbc building control purposes

02:42:30 i would rely on the advice of my specialists and experts within the organization right and does that tell us that you yourself didn't

02:42:39 didn't research

02:42:41 research personally in respect of particular materials or product products in order to make decisions on their acceptability no i i didn't feel that i needed to with the the experience that i had within my

02:42:52 the the experience that i had within my team

02:42:54 team as a matter of if not policy then routine did nhbc allow combustible materials in external facades over 18 meters in the years up to and including 2013.

02:43:10 our current knowledge at the moment is yes we did uh and your knowledge at the time was that we weren't allowing them

02:43:20 uh your knowledge at the times that you weren't allowing them just explain that to me so if you put your mind back in the position that it was in in 2013 was that mind that nhbc did not allow

02:43:32 that mind that nhbc did not allow combustible materials in an external will build up over 18 meters the position in 2013 would have been the expectation that my surveyors and

02:43:43 expectation that my surveyors and project managers would have assessed each scheme on its own merits against the requirements of approved document b and assessed those in relation to

02:43:55 and assessed those in relation to either non-combustible materials or product certification and

02:44:01 and when this matter was raised in 2014 and discussed with steve evans and john lewis in relation to the element around

02:44:12 lewis in relation to the element around the the non-combustible facades and filler

02:44:15 filler i was

02:44:16 i was reassured that the interpretation of my colleagues was that that would have been applied robustly to ensure that filler etc was included

02:44:28 to ensure that filler etc was included in the assessment now that last answer covers a lot of ground which we're going to cover in a bit more step by step what i want to know is in 2013

02:44:42 what i want to know is in 2013 before what happened in 2014 was your mind did you think that nhbc as a result of your surveyor's work was

02:44:54 your surveyor's work was or was not accepting the use of combustible materials in external wool buildups in buildings over 18 meters

02:45:04 i had no indication that we were accepting

02:45:08 accepting acm at that point

02:45:11 yes did you think that you were or did you think that you weren't my understanding in 2013 was that we weren't

02:45:22 weren't right and why was that did you have an understanding as to why that was because of following the guidance within the approved document so

02:45:33 so was it your understanding at the time that your surveyors would routinely reject the use of combustible materials in external build up so for 18 meters because of their understanding of

02:45:45 because of their understanding of approved document b yeah could you just clarify you mentioned acm and then you mentioned combustible materials so that they're two different aspects

02:45:57 no i think you mentioned acm ms lewis not me but never mind uh let me ask the question again was it your understanding at the time that your surveyors would routinely reject the use

02:46:09 surveyors would routinely reject the use of combustible materials in external wall buildups over 18 meters because of the way in which they understood approved document be yeah apologies if there's confusion

02:46:20 apologies if there's confusion there would have been acceptance of products if they had independent certification

02:46:34 could you just could you just explain what you mean by that independent certification of what of the the product so

02:46:42 so in relation to the question around combustible materials the surveyors would have followed the guidance within the approved document but if a product was certified by

02:46:54 but if a product was certified by the likes of bba and that bba certificate was taken as a an independent assessment of a ucas accredited certification body that would be taken

02:47:05 certification body that would be taken as suitable evidence subject to the terms of that condition certificate

02:47:14 what was nhbc's position on acm panels in 2013

02:47:20 in 2013 again to my knowledge at the time was that we wouldn't accept acn panels because of the requirements for the filler etc to be non-combustible

02:47:32 non-combustible so does that tell us that nhbc's experience and indeed policy was that the core of an acm panel uh

02:47:39 uh because it could never be non-combustible or of limited combustibility couldn't be used above 18 meters yeah under options one and two yes

02:47:50 and two yes well you

02:47:51 well you careful because you say under options one or two are you meaning there the linear route to compliance under section 12.5

02:48:02 section 12.5 6 and 7 or are you meaning the um full-scale testing under 12.5 through 8414 and br135

02:48:13 through 8414 and br135 yes both of those right so when you say options one and two there's a shorthands derived from a later document yes that's correct we need to be careful here with terms

02:48:25 does so does that tell us that nhbc would routinely refuse to accept acm panels with a p e corps in the years up to and including 2013. to my knowledge yes yes

02:48:38 to my knowledge yes yes on the basis i think you've explained that the core because it could never be a molk a material of limited combustibility would mean that it would fail the

02:48:49 would mean that it would fail the requirements as you understood them yes yes

02:48:55 and you've mentioned filler a minute ago getting it that's getting ahead a little bit let's just take it a little bit more slowly can we go to page seven of your statement paragraph 32

02:49:07 paragraph 32 you say there that historically the core element of any external cladding system is not considered in the guidance

02:49:16 guidance contained within the approved documents now why do you say that the core of a cladding panel was not considered in the approved documents

02:49:27 in the approved documents the

02:49:29 the definition or the the wording within um section 12 where it introduced filler etc under insulation was only introduced into the

02:49:41 insulation was only introduced into the 2006 version of approved document b so prior to that and i think it was the 2000 version as amended there was no mention of filler

02:49:53 uh so does does that answer and i don't want to put words in your mouth mean that when the amendment was made in the 2006 version which i think came in in april 2007

02:50:04 april 2007 yes you read the word filler material dot dot dot etcetera as

02:50:11 as in as applying to the core of an acm panel

02:50:18 at the time in 2006 sorry 2007 when it was introduced i wasn't looking at specific projects so i wouldn't necessarily have have linked two together

02:50:29 linked two together in 2013

02:50:32 in 2013 when the issue around certification of products came to light i spoke with colleagues around how

02:50:40 how we as an organization were applying filler etc because it is confusing or it was confusing in my mind i didn't have the working knowledge of the approved

02:50:51 working knowledge of the approved document and how it was being applied in practice

02:50:54 practice therefore speaking to colleagues when this this issue came tonight in 2014 i was reassured by colleagues that that was the way that it was being routinely applied i see

02:51:07 so does that tell us that for a period your own understanding was that the core of an external cladding panel was not covered by adb

02:51:18 it's difficult to say one way or the other because i wasn't looking at specific projects right or offering any advice in relation to the interpretation of that guidance can i just ask you this um there was

02:51:29 can i just ask you this um there was that change to the text of adb yes in 2007 where the words filler and etc were interpolated were any steps taken at that stage to

02:51:40 were any steps taken at that stage to discuss and disseminate two surveyors what the

02:51:44 what the what they meant i've

02:51:47 i've yes there was um and we had a specialist surveyor working for nhbc at the time that produced some training material in 2007

02:51:57 in 2007 and by reference to the material i can see that the slides included insulation filler etc um i wasn't at the training so i don't know what debate was around

02:52:08 so i don't know what debate was around those those words but it was certainly identified as an addition to approved document be whether or not that was fully understood by all of the participants i can't say

02:52:21 by all of the participants i can't say but i mean it it sounds to me as though some attempt was made to give an instruction to surveyors

02:52:29 surveyors about the implication of those new words yes it was it was something different within the approved document that didn't exist previously and had been identified as a change there was a corporate view

02:52:40 as a change there was a corporate view was taken is that fair yes thank you very much you thank you did your own understanding about the meaning of the word filler change at any time

02:52:54 i think in in 2014 it was confirmed that that was the understanding of my colleagues and the project teams that were applying the requirements

02:53:06 requirements and

02:53:07 and supported by the the work that was being done through the building control alliance

02:53:12 alliance the the guidance document contained clarification around all elements and that was a common understanding within the bca technical group was that because of the word filler as you understood it or because of the more general

02:53:25 or because of the more general requirements that um no part of the external wall build up should contribute to the surface spread of fire i think it was around the term filler

02:53:37 i think it was around the term filler etc that created the debate and discussion did you uh ever approach the government department the dclg at that time in relation to the lack of guidance on the meaning of

02:53:48 guidance on the meaning of the word filler or on the core of external clouding panels no i think we did or steve evans did in 2015 i believe

02:53:59 2015 i believe now

02:54:00 now you've told us that you were familiar with

02:54:03 with paragraphs 12.5 to 12.9 of the of approved document b did you yourself consider leaving aside perhaps the word filler that all elements of the external facade

02:54:14 that all elements of the external facade should be of limited combustibility if they were following option one yes so you call it option one i might call it the linear route it doesn't matter yes good

02:54:25 good and therefore if the core of a collating panel was not addressed in the approved documents

02:54:30 documents what was the nhbc's historic policy on the use of acm panels with different types of combustible cores

02:54:38 sorry could you repeat the question [Music]

02:54:42 [Music] before the change let's let's try it this way before the change in in 2007

02:54:48 2007 what had been nhbc's approach to the use of

02:54:51 of combustible cord acm panels

02:54:55 following the guidance within the approved document from recollection it only had effectively options one and two included within the 2000 version and does that tell us that nhbc signed off no

02:55:08 tell us that nhbc signed off no high-rise buildings which used acm panels in the years up to and including 2013 and certainly not after 2007 and 2013. not to my knowledge

02:55:19 after 2007 and 2013. not to my knowledge right

02:55:20 right let me ask you about insulation uh were you familiar with paragraph 12.7 of b4 particularly i think you were given your what you just told us let's have it up it's at clg four zeroes

02:55:31 let's have it up it's at clg four zeroes sorry five zeroes two two four please page 96

02:55:40 uh now it's well worn in this inquiry and i'm not going to spend time reading it out unless you want me to but

02:55:48 but it's heading is insulation materials stroke products and just look at the words there in relation to kingspan's k15 and celitex's rs 5000

02:56:00 celitex's rs 5000 did you ever believe at any time that they could be used over 18 meters in accordance with that provision

02:56:09 not in accordance with this provision but within the approved document there is the acceptance of the status of independent certification what does what does that mean i'm sorry

02:56:20 what does what does that mean i'm sorry what do you mean by that a bba certificate

02:56:25 um do you mean well what do you mean by that you say there's uh let me just explore it without putting words in your mouth you say that

02:56:34 say that in the approved documents there is the acceptance of the status of independent certification how does that work

02:56:43 work allowing a particular material or product to comply with this paragraph

02:56:51 it doesn't necessarily associate with this paragraph but at the front of the approved document there is recognition of the status of independent testing on a product to show that it is suitable

02:57:03 a product to show that it is suitable for use

02:57:05 for use and the bba certificate covered the installation of kingspan with

02:57:12 with certain conditions attached to that certificate

02:57:21 and how would that satisfy 12.7 looking at the language of it

02:57:33 it doesn't satisfy 12.7 it satisfies the approved document or the regulation in an alternative way well how in an alternative way by the use of independent certification

02:57:45 by the use of independent certification of the product

02:57:49 does that mean that if you nhbc received a bba certificate

02:57:59 what would that bba certificate have to say

02:58:02 say in order to comply with 12.7

02:58:06 it's not well it's not 12.7 itself it's it's the requirement under regulation 7 which allows the use of independent certification to

02:58:16 to assess a product's performance and that that certificate would be reviewed um to see how it addressed the issues around fire safety

02:58:28 and when you say regulation seven do you mean regulation seven or do you mean the approved document supporting regulation seven well the approved document support in regulation seven there were also at

02:58:39 in regulation seven there were also at the front of the approved document supporting approve part b there's also reference to some of the elements of the regulation seven approved document i

02:58:50 the regulation seven approved document i mean to cut through this is what you're telling us that so far as the nhbc was concerned it had to look no further than a vba certificate if the bba certificate said that 12.7 was satisfied in respect of a

02:59:02 that 12.7 was satisfied in respect of a particular insulation material i think um the the status of a bba certificate is well established it's an independent ucas certified body

02:59:15 it's an independent ucas certified body that carries out testing and assessment of a range of building products and certainly in all of my time that i've been in building control they have been accepted as being

02:59:27 they have been accepted as being reliable

02:59:28 reliable and

02:59:29 and well researched and they have a standing in the industry where they can be used as a reference so is the answer to my question yes yes thank you mr chairman

02:59:40 question yes yes thank you mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes i think it is thank you very much wellness marshall um it's time we had a break so everyone can get some lunch we'll stop now we'll resume please at two o'clock

02:59:52 resume please at two o'clock and uh since you started giving evidence i have to ask you please not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it while you're out of the room all right thank you very much would you go with the usher please

03:00:14 thank you very much just a minute two o'clock please

03:00:27 you