Grenfell Tower Inquiry - National House Building Council (NHBC) Evidence - Thursday 16th December 2021 (1/2). Stephen Evans of NHBC gives testimony on the organization's BCA technical guidance notes, desktop studies under Option 3, and communications with the department about combustible materials in high-rise cladding.
00:00:28 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to hear further evidence from mr stephen evans of the national hospital council so would you ask mr evans to come in please
00:00:47 good morning mr evans
00:00:54 all right ready to carry on i am yes thank you very much yes mr chairman good morning to you good morning members of the panel mr evans good morning to you good morning uh we were in the middle of discussing
00:01:06 discussing uh the technical guidance note issue one of june 2015 last night can we please have that back up at ceo402440
00:01:20 we were looking at page two please option three and we were discussing in option three there the introduction of the phrase a
00:01:32 the introduction of the phrase a suitably qualified fire specialist which as you accepted yesterday was a an amendment uh from the reference to suitably qualified fire safety engineer
00:01:43 suitably qualified fire safety engineer that we had in the uh previous year's version issue naught that was the where we were yesterday now
00:01:51 now you say in your statement that we've seen that you weren't seeking to reduce the criteria for compliance my question is did you not realize that by not insisting that desktops were done
00:02:02 by not insisting that desktops were done by a fire safety engineer in order to widen the pool of those eligible to perform them you are reducing the requisite level of expertise
00:02:14 i didn't consider it that way why is that
00:02:19 i saw a suitably qualified fire specialist as being the same as a fire engineer why the change then
00:02:29 i didn't actually draft this section it was drafted by by john lewis and i saw no reason to amend it i didn't even make if i'm honest the connection between the the
00:02:40 honest the connection between the the change i saw them as one and the same right we saw in your statement yesterday and we can go back to it if you like paragraph 200 page 77 that you say that one of the reasons for the change in the
00:02:51 one of the reasons for the change in the note was quotes to increase the capacity of suitable engineers to carry out the assessments so was it not the case then that by downgrading the person from suitably qualified fire
00:03:04 the person from suitably qualified fire safety engineer to suitably qualified fire specialist you were widening the pool of those eligible to perform them
00:03:14 no my expectation would be that those option three reports would be done by a fire engineer it's a
00:03:24 looking at the wording i can see how it could be interpreted the way but certainly we saw those option three reports being submitted by fire engineers so why the
00:03:35 submitted by fire engineers so why the change
00:03:36 change as i said
00:03:38 as i said i didn't draft it and i didn't pick it up when i reviewed it ah you didn't pick it up when you reviewed it i i saw them as as one and the same i didn't think i would i didn't think there was any difference between the two
00:03:49 there was any difference between the two right
00:03:51 right were you not concerned that uh the people doing these um desktop studies under option 3 could come from any uncertified body or
00:04:02 could come from any uncertified body or could even be somebody who had gained some kind of fire qualifications but had no knowledge of large-scale fire testing
00:04:14 i would have taken it that would have been picked up as part of the review of an option three assessment
00:04:22 i mean you said in your statement that the change to the bci guidance note was to increase the capacity of suitable engineers to carry out the assessments do you stand by what you said in your statement or are you changing it
00:04:36 i stand by my statement yes and therefore if the purpose of widening the pool of suitable engineers to carry out the assessments
00:04:48 assessments was as you say were you not concerned that some of them could now come from unqualified or uncertified bodies and had irrelevant qualifier qualifications or minimal qualifications
00:05:00 or minimal qualifications that would be for the building control body
00:05:02 body to
00:05:03 to pick up as part of their review of the option three assessment uh in ensuring that the report was compiled by a suitably qualified
00:05:15 compiled by a suitably qualified person to do that did it not occur to you that broadening the scope or pool of those uh purportedly qualified to carry out these desktop studies was making the problem worse in light of
00:05:27 was making the problem worse in light of the fact that option three reports had been coming in to you that made recommendations without referring to relevant testing
00:05:37 no it didn't the fact that we'd actually picked up
00:05:40 picked up that these reports are coming in and weren't referring to testing gave me some confidence that we had a robust system in place did you consider at the time that the person's actually qualified to do this
00:05:51 person's actually qualified to do this kind of work were few and did not include those who had no experience of bs 8414 the testing methodology and the br 135 criteria but who might try
00:06:03 the br 135 criteria but who might try and enter this apparently quite profitable market
00:06:09 i can't comment on the the profitability of this
00:06:12 of this um but no again um at 10 hpc we put in a robust
00:06:18 robust escalation process which would have picked uh those items up on the review of the the assessments
00:06:25 it's right i think that after making the change as we see here to issue one or through issue one of the guidance note the pool of people that completed that work did increase
00:06:37 it did yes and standards fell didn't they
00:06:44 i can't say that they did well we'll come come to look at this shortly the other amendment that's made to the bca technical guidance note in issue one in june 2015 was to include option four as
00:06:56 june 2015 was to include option four as you can see now in the middle of your screen
00:06:59 screen and that says if none of the above options are suitable the client may consider addressing this issue by a holistic fire engineered approach taking into account the building geometry ignition risk factors restricting fire
00:07:11 ignition risk factors restricting fire spread etc shots an approach would be expected to follow a recognized design code such as the bs 7974 application of fire safety engineering principles to the design of buildings suite of documents and be
00:07:22 buildings suite of documents and be supported with quantitative analyses where appropriate now
00:07:26 now if we go back to your statement uh please at page 64. paragraph 178 d at the bottom of the page you say option 4 which was incorporated into the 2015 bca guidance
00:07:37 incorporated into the 2015 bca guidance note as explained in more detail the paragraph 193 is based on paragraph naught point 30 and 0.31 of the general introduction to approve document b let's go to that that's at clg 50224 page 15
00:07:53 go to that that's at clg 50224 page 15 towards the top of the page we can see both of those paragraphs set up there
00:07:59 i don't think i need to read them out aloud to you there they are that is i take it what you were referring to in your statement it is yes yes um why was that option four only introduced into technical guidance note
00:08:10 introduced into technical guidance note 18 in june 2015 and not in its original issue naught in june 2014
00:08:16 june 2014 given that the holistic fire engineered solutions had been one means of compliance uh with uh approved document b for a long time
00:08:29 it wasn't omitted from the first issue on purpose it was it wasn't there um nhbc when we'd written to our builder customers um
00:08:41 customers um highlighting the options that were available in the bca guidance note had also added this in as a possible for a solution a a way of demonstrating compliance for an hbc um and we also
00:08:55 compliance for an hbc um and we also started to or discussed i discussed it with the bca guidance group as a possible um
00:09:03 um revision to the bca guidance note shortly after that why not simply refer expressly to what was in adb namely paragraph 0.30 and 0.31
00:09:16 again we were trying to provide pragmatic guidance to building control teams to
00:09:25 guide them in what we what the constituent bodies of the bca considered were [Music]
00:09:33 [Music] acceptable ways for builders to demonstrate compliance it wasn't meant to be an in-depth technical guide to how to do it we were relying on the expertise and the professionalism of
00:09:45 the expertise and the professionalism of those building control bodies when doing it it was a it was a in many ways it was a signpost to the different areas of the building regulations um that could be used to demonstrate compliance before including this option
00:09:58 compliance before including this option four
00:09:59 four in the guidance note in june 2015 on what occasions have you seen reports produced to be seven nine seven four i see are my teams and i see lots of
00:10:10 i see are my teams and i see lots of reports to be seven nine seven four five safety engineering it's a common practice
00:10:17 practice i would say almost every um
00:10:21 um tall building whether it be residential or otherwise and indeed many what you wouldn't term as a tall building
00:10:29 building have fire engineered solutions purpose-built blocks of flats yes refurbishments of old purpose-built blocks of flats yes you'd see how many of those can you
00:10:40 yes you'd see how many of those can you give us an idea that you had seen involving
00:10:44 involving combustible materials and external wall buildups before june 2015. so fire safety engineering does not necessarily look at a single element that is where option three comes in
00:10:55 option three comes in fire safety engineering looks at everything that are building constitutes so both passive and active fire safety measures
00:11:02 measures um so it looks at you know whether whether the building is sprinklered whether what the travel distances are within it what um what the facade is um how that interacts with different parts
00:11:13 how that interacts with different parts of the building so it appear it looks at the building as a holistic approach fire safety engineering can be targeted at certain elements or certain functions
00:11:24 at certain elements or certain functions but also it can take a a general approach to the fire safety of the whole building right let me try it slightly differently um as at june 2015 how many
00:11:34 how many holistic fire safety engineered reports to bs 7974 had you seen for either new or refurbished purpose-built blocks of flats involving
00:11:45 purpose-built blocks of flats involving [Music]
00:11:48 [Music] an insulated envelope
00:11:52 i couldn't put a number on it it wasn't many that specifically addressed the the facade it was generally for um
00:11:59 um means of escape factors yeah an option for reports could only be completed by a specialist field of experts that's right isn't it
00:12:07 isn't it there's no dif there's no definition for what is a fire engineer it's not a protected characteristic such as an architect so you could be a fire specialist and still
00:12:18 you could be a fire specialist and still be an expert in fire up to the standard that you don't have to call yourself a fire engineer for example to be registered with the institute of fire engineers did you think it um important
00:12:29 engineers did you think it um important that you should set out the qualifications and experience required to conduct an option for assessment in the same way that you at least attempted to do
00:12:37 to do in relation to option three again the building regulations don't stipulate what level of qualification is needed it would be for the building control body to judge whether the person that they were
00:12:48 whether the person that they were receiving that report was of sufficient competence to undertake that did the nhbc have any checks and
00:12:59 nhbc have any checks and checks and balances on who could undertake that kind of work no but we did employ our own fire engineer to review those reports coming in
00:13:09 in was there any discussion internally about what qualifications somebody doing an option for report should have not that i can recall now um can we go please to nhb four
00:13:20 now um can we go please to nhb four zeros one zero five seven
00:13:23 seven and h b four zero is one zero five seven this is an email uh chain in april 2015 and if we go please
00:13:34 please uh to
00:13:36 uh to the first email at the bottom of the chain
00:13:39 chain if we go right to the bottom uh we can see that it is your email to brian martin on the 2nd of april 2015 copied to diane marshall graham perry erin davis
00:13:50 erin davis subject update on combustible materials in the envelope of buildings over 18 meters
00:13:54 meters hello brian i hope that you are well i'm conscious that we have not provided an update
00:13:58 update on our progress with the manufacturers of combustible insulation materials that are marketed as being suitable for use in buildings over 18 meters for some time
00:14:07 time and i must apologize for this but this has been an extremely complicated process in ensuring that the information we provide to our builders is correct and allows them as much flexibility to demonstrate compliance as is possible
00:14:19 demonstrate compliance as is possible first what was can you tell us briefly what was the extremely complicated process that you're referring to there i think it was the process we'd been through in the previous 12 months right
00:14:31 through in the previous 12 months right why was the nhbc trying to allow quotes as much flexibility to demonstrate compliance as possible why was it doing that
00:14:39 that because we're trying to highlight to build as the routes that they could demonstrate compliance through the building regulations what flexibility were you allowing that was not otherwise afforded by the guidance in approved document b
00:14:51 document b there was no more flexibility and was offered in uh approved document b why did the nhb see want flexibility in their building control body
00:15:04 the build as i explained yesterday the building regulations allows a builder to demonstrate compliance whichever they whichever way they choose the approved documents give a range of approaches to do that but a
00:15:17 a range of approaches to do that but a builder can choose other ways if they wish
00:15:19 wish what we were trying to do through both through nhbc and through the bca so my involvement with the bca was to
00:15:32 was to give building control bodies point them towards those those methods which you know we would encourage builders if they were trying to demonstrate compliance to use right
00:15:43 demonstrate compliance to use right was that another way of expressing the concept working with industry
00:15:47 industry it is yes yes i see now looking at the third bullet point down on the next page please we can scroll to page two we can see
00:15:58 we can see uh that you refer in the second paragraph there to the issue the issued internal guidance that's issue naught by this point and then in the third paragraph
00:16:10 and then in the third paragraph uh you say with respect to insulation type materials of which kingspan k15 and celotex rs5000 are the most common we encounter
00:16:18 encounter then this would mean following options two
00:16:20 two and three
00:16:22 and three from the bca guidance note option two testing of the complete system in accordance with bsa414 part one or two and then a classification to br 135 issued by the testing house
00:16:34 br 135 issued by the testing house option three desktop study of the system measured against the requirements of br135 and using results from completed tests to justify reasonings we have also added a further option of
00:16:45 we have also added a further option of the full-filed engineering solution for the complete building and will be taking this to the bca as a suggestion to add to the guidance note and it's on that third bullet point there we can see brian martin's response
00:16:56 there we can see brian martin's response at the top of the email chain page one 7th of april 2015. he says thanks for this steve if there are common solutions that people are using for the engineered approach i'd be interested to hear about
00:17:07 approach i'd be interested to hear about them it might be that we could adopt them in future editions of the ad there does seem to have been some confusion in the market whether some polymer insulation materials are combustible or not i guess i shouldn't
00:17:18 combustible or not i guess i shouldn't be that surprised exclamation mark anything that you can do to raise awareness has got to be a good thing is nhbc content that the existing projects you have dealt with meet these
00:17:29 you have dealt with meet these principles i understood that there had been some questions raised were you content that the existing projects
00:17:38 projects that you had dealt with historically had dealt with met the principles being referred to here i hadn't carried out a review of the existing projects
00:17:49 existing projects did you answer his question
00:17:52 we don't see that i don't think that i did no no why is that
00:17:58 um
00:18:01 i don't know there was no reason no specific reason there was no specific reason to avoid answering it um or answering the email at all well that may be a matter of opinion but
00:18:13 that may be a matter of opinion but let me ask you this did you you didn't respond to his question did you ask him about what he meant when he said i understood that there had been some questions raised
00:18:25 some questions raised did you ask him i didn't know why is that
00:18:33 i don't know i didn't respond to the email
00:18:42 is it because nhbc knew that there was a historic problem and you didn't want to go any further in opening up that problem with brian martin is that what
00:18:56 problem with brian martin is that what was happening no it's not
00:19:00 now we
00:19:05 i just want to ask you some questions uh in parallel chronologically about labc can we please look at labc triple zero two eight one seven
00:19:17 this takes us just a little bit back in time mr evans to december 2014. this is an internal nabc email chain uh which you won't have seen the subject is
00:19:28 you won't have seen the subject is k15rd urgent thanks
00:19:33 thanks uh it's interesting subject title but it speaks for itself uh it is um let me suggest to you that that's a reference to the registered detail for k-15 which the labc had published
00:19:45 k-15 which the labc had published now to paraphrase the email chain what's happening here is that the labc is being asked by kingspan to renew the registered detail and david ewing at the labc is asking for an update on k15 in
00:19:57 labc is asking for an update on k15 in light of a recent bca meeting and you'll remember that the bca meeting was the one that had happened on the 8th of december at which you and barry turner had been present and we saw the note of that yesterday so that's the context can
00:20:09 that yesterday so that's the context can we look at page one second email down this is doug bason uh on this on the 11th of december 2014 uh to david ewing and barry turner and he says we discussed yesterday and steve
00:20:21 he says we discussed yesterday and steve came clean about the continue to burning discussion we had last friday and last friday i calculated as as the 8th of december
00:20:29 december they nhbc
00:20:31 they nhbc are placing the onus on installers stroke builders who have used it to prove compliance where it's not strictly in accordance with the bba certificate conditions of use the sales director of kingspan was apparently very bullish when steve spoke to him last week and
00:20:43 when steve spoke to him last week and has said the responsibility for how it is used is down to the developer so they are distancing themselves from it not sure if barry has anything further to add it seems there's no likelihood of kingspan coming up with the test that
00:20:54 kingspan coming up with the test that will prove it works in the high-risk situations with combustible constructional details cheers doug now steve from the nhbc uh i'm going to suggest to you is you
00:21:06 uh i'm going to suggest to you is you yes yep yes do you recall this conversation with doug bason where you as he puts it came clean
00:21:15 as i said yesterday i can't remember the specifics of the um the conversations i had
00:21:21 had do you remember what you had been as this suggests keeping from the labc up to that point
00:21:30 i don't recall i kept anything from the labc at any point was the reference and i know it's not your email and you didn't see it at the time but see if you can help was there a discussion at the flat that
00:21:41 was there a discussion at the flat that friday 8th of december of 2014 meeting about continuing to burn what was that about can you help the only thing i can think it is
00:21:52 the only thing i can think it is referring to is the tests which
00:21:55 which kingspan had done where the um the test had continued to burn after the um the rig had been extinguished was that the failed bs8414 test on an on
00:22:08 failed bs8414 test on an on k15 in fact a new form of k15 in march 2014 using the trespa uh cladding panel it could have been yes right now who was the bullish sales director
00:22:19 now who was the bullish sales director of kingspan that's referred to there can you help i can't remember that i can't remember his name sorry do you remember what that person said to you
00:22:29 this was at the point where our relationship with with kingspan was coming to a ahead and we were running out of patience
00:22:37 patience um
00:22:38 um and it was clear that they weren't going to be able to produce the necessary evidence um
00:22:44 and i don't remember the the exact words but it was along the lines of well we don't put this stuff into buildings builders do um so
00:22:55 into buildings builders do um so that was that was the gist of that conversation so kingspan with the people distancing themselves from
00:23:03 from whatever the it is yes
00:23:08 thank you now um i just want then to um
00:23:14 turn to a new topic which is the 2015 project review done by nhbc uh it's right i think isn't it that uh nhbc's change in policy uh in february or march 2015 led to a
00:23:26 uh in february or march 2015 led to a review of buildings over 18 meters in which nhbc had in the past provided building control and warranty services no the review was to look at con buildings which were under construction
00:23:38 buildings which were under construction at the time right
00:23:41 right either way is this correct that the review in 2015 um coincided with or shortly post dated the um introduction of the new policy yes yes
00:23:52 yes yes now if we go to your statement please page 150 and page 51 paragraph 150 in the middle of page 51 you say this the rule 9 request asks about nhbc's combustible cladding
00:24:04 asks about nhbc's combustible cladding review which is the 2015 project review i've described below i can confirm this occurred in 2015 not in 2014. i coordinated the process the reason for this was undertaken was to ensure projects where nhbc was
00:24:16 to ensure projects where nhbc was providing warranty cover or building control services complied with the policy and hbc adopted in early 2015 as described in paragraphs 106 to 111 above this process included investigating
00:24:27 this process included investigating which projects had products such as k15 and rs 5000. now you refer there to the combustible or you refer to the review as the combustible cladding review
00:24:39 review but then you mentioned two forms of insulation as you can see there did that review include all combustible materials in an external wall build up such as combustible cladding panels as
00:24:50 such as combustible cladding panels as well as insulation panels yes it involved a team looking at the entire wall makeup yeah
00:24:58 yeah and did that review include all cladding panels
00:25:02 panels rain screen that didn't achieve a1 or a2 classification at that point it involved looking at the whole wall construction and
00:25:13 and giving it a rag rating in terms of if there were any combustible elements within that facade yes so the answer is yes yes thank you and what were the parameters in the sense of boundaries of dates
00:25:26 the sense of boundaries of dates used in that review how far back did it go
00:25:28 go so we uh ran a report of all of the projects which were currently under construction or um were about to start construction
00:25:39 um were about to start construction and how were those dates decided um we ran a report on our system
00:25:47 system which again identified all those projects which were still in progress was there a calendar start date no right now um if we go to paragraph 152 of your
00:25:58 now um if we go to paragraph 152 of your statement at the bottom of page 51 it says this the 2015 project review consisted of a an internal report was produced to list all the potentially relevant buildings the fusion system
00:26:09 relevant buildings the fusion system could not categorize by height only number of flaws or material so a long manual review process was then required as described below b a combustible material review group was set up with four individuals john
00:26:21 was set up with four individuals john lewis philip pettinger gary jarvis and dave alexander white working full-time to review the relevant projects see i believe they reviewed approximately 300 blocks in some cases there were multiple blocks within a single site
00:26:34 blocks within a single site and then
00:26:35 and then d over the page each project was reviewed in order to confirm whether it had the relevant materials and then the reviewer analyzed the project gave it a red amber or green rating now just pausing there
00:26:48 rating now just pausing there the fusion system is the nhbc's i.t system is it it's our internal document management system yes right now without being able to categorize by height did you therefore categorized by flaws or
00:26:59 you therefore categorized by flaws or did you go through each project and check the drawings for heights of buildings no we ran it we ran the report based on the height of the building so sorry six uh six floors yes
00:27:10 sorry six uh six floors yes so
00:27:11 so it's a number of floors number of floors number floors so um relevant projects were those over six floors six fours and above yes six bulls and above equating to 18 meters yes yes and what were the relevant materials
00:27:22 and what were the relevant materials that you took into account in this review
00:27:25 review everything that was in the external facade
00:27:28 facade now um
00:27:30 now um when you say 300 blocks i think you covered this yesterday um do you mean 300 different projects making up a number of tall buildings or was it 300 buildings it was 300
00:27:41 buildings it was 300 buildings buildings yes so that doesn't tell us how many projects
00:27:45 projects now continuing um with
00:27:50 e we've seen f for each of the red and amber projects nhbc inserted a condition that would prevent final building control approval being given or warranty cover until the builder had demonstrated the appropriate
00:28:02 builder had demonstrated the appropriate compliance this compliance consisted of one for projects that had commenced before the end of 2013 correspondence with kingspan confirming that the k15 can be used over 18 meters in respect of
00:28:13 can be used over 18 meters in respect of this project two for projects commencing after the start of 2014 compliance with one of the options in the bca guidance note g there was then an escalation process
00:28:24 g there was then an escalation process in order to ensure compliance the builder would submit the appropriate fire safety report or other evidence of compliance this would initially be reviewed by a fire engineer generally john lewis who would then escalate it to
00:28:35 john lewis who would then escalate it to me for further review i would then finally send it up for final sign off by a senior manager such as ian davis or diane marshall this escalation process was also adopted for projects submitted
00:28:46 was also adopted for projects submitted after the 2015 project review several examples of this escalation process are described below paragraph 157 and and you go on to say uh on the next page of paragraph 154 you
00:28:58 uh on the next page of paragraph 154 you don't need to go there but the red category meant that the building had combustible insulation or combustible cladding
00:29:05 cladding yes yes yes what if a building had combustible cladding on it um and where the initial notice was submitted before the end of 2013 but
00:29:16 submitted before the end of 2013 but didn't use k15 what was deemed in that case to be appropriate compliance
00:29:24 that would still be i would i can't recall if any if there were any instances of that um if i'm honest um
00:29:31 um but had that been the case i would still have expected it to be flagged as red because it was looking at the whole facade and for the surveyor to deal with it as they would do the other projects did you find any buildings which had
00:29:43 did you find any buildings which had combustible cladding on them for which the initial notice was submitted before january 14 and by combustible cladding i mean rain screen panels not achieving a1 or a2
00:29:55 screen panels not achieving a1 or a2 classification i don't know no no now you describe in your statement amber as being medium risk what was what was deemed to be medium risk
00:30:07 what was deemed to be medium risk i think i really i can't remember off the top of my head but i think i referred to it in my statement as what the categories were do you know who made the decision uh about what should be about what the um ambit of that category
00:30:19 about what the um ambit of that category was yes uh john lewis put forward some suggestions on what those categories should be because i discussed um how the review should be with with john john put forward some suggestions and i was happy
00:30:30 forward some suggestions and i was happy to accept those i see
00:30:33 i see now before we go to on to look at the combustible materials table that was produced from this review of 300 buildings there were three further colors other than red amber and green what weren't there there were yes and
00:30:44 what weren't there there were yes and let's just go through those yellow but that was deemed i think wasn't it to be low risk so combustible insulation with a brick substrate yes yes
00:30:54 yes yes um who decided that that could be low risk
00:30:59 again i believe that was suggested during discussions with the the review group right and what was the scientific basis for that do you know it was a view that we'd formed as a as
00:31:10 it was a view that we'd formed as a as as nhpc
00:31:11 as nhpc i know but what was the scientific basis for that view sorry can you repeat the makeup again what was the scientific basis for that view that yellow
00:31:23 that yellow equals low risk including combustible insulation with a brick substrate
00:31:30 i mean do you know i can't recall now at the conversations now off the top of my head no sorry um there's also blue and i think blue is simply not yet reviewed not yet commenced i believe not that
00:31:42 not yet commenced i believe not that commence yes and then there was purple isn't there yes um already completed yes did those feature in the review no they weren't reviewed so
00:31:53 so if a project or building featured combustible cladding or any other combustible material in the external facade but was completed before the review in
00:32:04 but was completed before the review in 2015
00:32:06 2015 then it would remain as it was with no action taken is is that correct yes that's correct do you know whether any of those projects classified as purple have been the subject of required
00:32:18 have been the subject of required remediation in the wake of the grenfell tower fire i don't know if you um go please to page 54 of your statement and look at paragraph 155
00:32:31 paragraph 155 you say there that in relation to the projects in the purple band attributed purple not being reviewed you say
00:32:41 at one five five d
00:32:44 uh you say in the fourth line this approach was based on instructions i received at the time who gave you those instructions
00:32:54 as i say in my statement i believe that would have come from either diane marshall or ian davis right
00:33:01 did you question those instructions did you ask either of them what the basis for that instruction was
00:33:08 i didn't but i believed it had come from the discussions with the with the nhpc board do you know what the reason for the instruction was i don't know
00:33:23 uh
00:33:29 is it not the case that in fact otherwise
00:33:33 otherwise uh the job would have been too large well i i don't know the reason the decision for it um but i have indicated in my statement that yes had we um you
00:33:44 in my statement that yes had we um you know from a practical point of view it took four people seven weeks at full time to review 300 blocks
00:33:53 blocks i'm not saying that's a factor in why the decision was made not to review existing completed projects um i'm just saying just explaining here that the if if we had been asked to do that
00:34:05 if if we had been asked to do that that would have been a huge task but i don't
00:34:08 don't that
00:34:10 that i don't know the reason why that decision was made not to do that no do you know though who actually did the counting exercise to work out before giving you the instruction that it would have created a job so large
00:34:22 it would have created a job so large that it would have been unachievable as you say in paragraph sub d there as i say i don't know the reason why that decision was made so i don't i can't i would only be speculating if i said it was purely on
00:34:33 speculating if i said it was purely on the time that it was going to be taken to do it i see can i just understand then when you say in d however as the review of inbuilt projects took four people seven weeks of full-time work increasing that to cover all the
00:34:44 increasing that to cover all the completed buildings would have created a job so large that it would have been unachievable was that something you knew and understood at the time or is that you rationalizing it when you did your statement
00:34:55 statement that would be me rationalizing when i did my statement can we then look at the combustible materials table i just want to be clear about about this first of all there was a combustible material materials report
00:35:08 a combustible material materials report which i think you exhibit as exhibit 17 to your
00:35:11 to your statement which was put together in 2014 yes
00:35:15 yes yes and there's there was also i think is this right the combustible materials table which you exhibit as 101 which was put together in 2015 as a result of the
00:35:26 put together in 2015 as a result of the 25th review sorry no no no sorry apologies no this was this was all 2015. right but there are there are two documents on there there's the combustible materials report and the
00:35:38 combustible materials report and the combustible materials table the report became the table yes right let's let's let's see how we go with that then can we go please to nhb 50853
00:35:59 oh suck apologies sorry i'm getting mixed up here well that's why i was sorry clarification i i imagine when you were talking about the report you were talking about the original report we ran from fusion so
00:36:11 original report we ran from fusion so that the um the excel table that was pulled out sorry my apologies no no this report yes no that's all right i just want to be to be clear so we know we all know what we're looking at so this is the combustible materials report yes yes
00:36:24 the combustible materials report yes yes and it was produced in 2014. it was yes yes
00:36:28 yes yes and it's basically is this writer report on how you got to where you were as at late 2014 yes yes do you know who drafted this document uh it was drafted by john
00:36:38 by john lewis did you reviewed by me i i
00:36:43 i i i signed it off in effect and who asked john lewis to draft it me and who asked you to drop to ask him um i believe it
00:36:58 i believe it would have come up in discussions with graham uh perrier uh diane marshall and mark jones because um we obviously had to we wanted to
00:37:09 we obviously had to we wanted to escalate it further to our executive committee and then possibly onto the board
00:37:15 board in terms of making a decision on how to proceed
00:37:19 proceed so
00:37:20 so i can't remember i didn't receive a specific instruction please put this report together um it was a decision that was made to put a report together i don't know where the the file instruction came from right
00:37:32 the the file instruction came from right and you say you wanted to escalate it further to our executive committee and then possibly onto the board so can we take you that it was intended it's it's readership was intended to be senior management and the executive
00:37:43 senior management and the executive board of nhbc now it focuses and correct me if i'm wrong about this mr evans on k15 and rs 5000 but does not include other combustible external wall materials
00:37:55 combustible external wall materials that's correct yes do you know why that is
00:38:00 because the um the focus of this whole exercise would undertake was on the combustible insulation as i mentioned before the cladding um
00:38:11 um and part of it although it part of the external wall we were
00:38:17 comfortable that that would be looked at as part of the the building control process
00:38:22 process anyway
00:38:23 anyway um so our surveys would be looking at that this was um as we if we've been through that over the last couple of days
00:38:30 days um
00:38:31 um this the whole process started off here with the confusion over the classification of combustible insulation i see
00:38:38 i see now let's look at the combustible materials table nhb 403038 please
00:38:47 and we're going to need the native version of this there it is now um
00:38:53 now um this we have as produced in 2015 can you tell us the month in 2015
00:39:02 it would have been i i can't tell you the exact month now i'm sorry it would have been after our changing policy so around march time right okay now am i right just looking at it that the first tab shows the
00:39:13 at it that the first tab shows the projects reviewed before december 2013. that's correct yes that that was the the yes the pre 31st december 2013 project yes and if we
00:39:25 31st december 2013 project yes and if we scroll down um take it from me that was 196 projects and we can scroll down and see that um at the very bottom
00:39:39 stop there 196. and i say 196 because in fact it's 197 but row one isn't a project it's the title
00:39:47 title anyone has to always bear that in mind when reading these excel spreadsheets now the second tab if you look at the second tab um that's post01014
00:39:58 yes yes and if again we scroll down we can see that that was 95 projects you'll see the figure 96 at the bottom in the very far left hand column yes yes
00:40:09 in the very far left hand column yes yes yes uh was that and again that was that was buildings or was that projects um that was blocks that was blocks
00:40:20 um that was blocks that was blocks so for example on that page there row 89 90
00:40:26 row 89 90 89 90 and 91 are all on the same project uh yes
00:40:34 yes uh royal wharf north willits road london e-16 yes yes now
00:40:42 the third tab is entitled escalations if we go to the top the third tab
00:40:50 is escalations you can see that and there is the escalations spreadsheet and that appears to include 143
00:40:58 143 must be blocks again wasn't it or is that wrong that was escalations that came up so obviously the the table here um the pre and the post were at a
00:41:09 here um the pre and the post were at a point in time yes when we ran the report the escalations tab was added at a later date so we could track the escalations that came through but these would also include the projects which either hadn't
00:41:20 include the projects which either hadn't started at that point or new projects which came in after the report was run off oh i see yeah so this was more of a tracking sheet rather than just covering those 300 projects yeah those 300 blocks
00:41:33 those 300 projects yeah those 300 blocks it was then used as a progress sheet for for running through as well i see um now um
00:41:39 um now um just to be clear on my question again was this this block by block um i don't know without digging into detail i mean sometimes we would receive an option three report which just covered one block
00:41:50 covered one block sometime it may cover if they had the same facade on on three or four of those blocks it may cover all of the scheme as well now um were these um projects encompassing
00:42:03 projects encompassing multiple blocks on occasions those for which the nhbc had either before 2014 not received the letter from kingspan or after 2014 january 2014
00:42:14 after 2014 january 2014 those which have not followed the routes to compliance are set out in bca's technical guidance note 18 issue nought
00:42:22 sorry can you rephrase that question yes it does um the escalated project here yes with these those where before january 2014 there'd been no kingspan approval letter
00:42:35 there'd been no kingspan approval letter and after 2014 uh no evidence of following the route compliance recommended in
00:42:43 in in technical guidance note 18 issue naught it would be both we required both of them to be escalated both both of those yeah i see yeah and when i say or is because
00:42:54 is because there's a distinction isn't there yes but yes and what about projects using other combustible materials that had been submitted before january 2014 such as combustible rain screen material again were those just not taken into
00:43:06 again were those just not taken into account now again if that if the review group had reviewed those um so if they were on this report as not being completed at that time they would have been reviewed by the review group and say the review group
00:43:18 review group and say the review group looked at all of the the facade
00:43:22 of the 143
00:43:25 143 escalations whether for buildings or projects
00:43:28 projects did they all use combustible materials either cladding or insulation
00:43:35 if they were escalated through our process then yes they would yes we i think we've seen some examples that's we can try one mr evans can we go uh 112 if we scroll down to number 112
00:43:48 we scroll down to number 112 you'll see there
00:43:52 south thames college wandsworth high street and garrett lane you see and it says unclear which acm product has been used request cb location and
00:44:04 has been used request cb location and details updated cavity barrier is not clear
00:44:07 clear and also 120 at the foot of the screen and addressing glenthorn road requested justification of aluminium and polystyrene spandrel panels and cb
00:44:19 polystyrene spandrel panels and cb provision now it looks from that i picked two by by way of example that this escalation process at least was picking up uh combustible cladding or potentially
00:44:30 uh combustible cladding or potentially combustible cladding yes yes do you know whether uh
00:44:37 uh those projects were using acm with a pe core
00:44:42 core if we if we go back to line 112 that comment unclear which acn product has been used that is the comment from the the fire engineer mk those initials are malik
00:44:54 engineer mk those initials are malik kakoria right who was the fire engineer we then
00:44:57 we then employed
00:44:58 employed we
00:45:00 we employed a further um
00:45:02 um fire engineer so they were his initial comments on what was fed through right um that as you see because the final columns aren't yet completed no um
00:45:13 completed no um it hasn't yet been escalated so they were his initial comments so they would have been the comments that he fed back to
00:45:19 to um the surveyor or the project manager in order to get that information from the from the builder right
00:45:26 right and again
00:45:29 and again yeah
00:45:30 yeah when that was then um that was then confirmed that would then be then it would be escalated if it was if it was satisfactory so it's possible is it that he was looking to see whether the acm there was acm of the
00:45:43 see whether the acm there was acm of the pe corps i'm quite hopeful by seeing that comment that that was what he was trying to establish yes and do you know how it was that nhpc might have provided building control sign-off on projects where the rain screen panels were
00:45:55 where the rain screen panels were aluminium composite material with a pe core
00:45:58 core at this stage we wouldn't have done that you say at this stage no historically yeah i think historically i've said i i've as we've gone through i would um have surveyors would have been
00:46:09 have surveyors would have been um reviewing the facade and if they'd picked up that it was a pe core they shouldn't have you know we would have
00:46:17 have gone back to the builder and you know gone through our normal building control processes and ensuring that the building can plug with the burn regulator yes if it was a pe core and being picked up then should have gone
00:46:28 being picked up then should have gone back
00:46:29 back uh
00:46:30 uh or would have gone back to the builder yes it is
00:46:33 yes it is i understand the question is did this process identify the fact that in the past building control officers had been signing off as compliant rain screen panels
00:46:43 panels comprising acm with a pe core as i said we didn't carry out a review of the previous projects well that's what i'm asking you see is that is this exercise not doing that at
00:46:54 that is this exercise not doing that at least in respect of acm this project was doing this project was doing it for projects which were under construction um when we took the from our changing policy
00:47:05 our changing policy um
00:47:06 um forgive me because i thought that this was an escalation exercise which covered both
00:47:11 both new
00:47:13 news certifications and and was it was an up-to-date tracker but also
00:47:19 but also escalations which were escalations from the process covered by the um the other day my apologies so yes we would have asked for so if the if it was a um
00:47:31 if it was a um a
00:47:32 a if it was pre the 31st of december which is the period i believe you're talking about yes yeah um we would have not only asked for the uh obviously the uh the letter from kingspan but we would have
00:47:44 letter from kingspan but we would have also
00:47:45 also picked up and you know the the cladding panel would have been dealt with as a as part of the overall review as well yeah so it would have picked that up yes thank you so so just to be so i'm clear with you the escalations
00:47:56 so i'm clear with you the escalations tab here is an escalation not only of post january 14 but pre yes
00:48:02 yes yeah yes
00:48:03 yeah yes now was the approach in this table therefore to identify any external wall buildups that had elements in them whether cladding or insulation that was not
00:48:12 not a material of limited combustibility and had had not been tested under bs8414 either part one or two to the br 135 criteria
00:48:25 to the br 135 criteria if it had been passed through as an escalation um it would have yes it would have um generally been an option three or an option four assessment yes um if it had gotten down
00:48:36 assessment yes um if it had gotten down the um the the linear routes option one or option two i did i thought i saw an example earlier on um on one of the earlier tables where um it wasn't reviewed as part of the review
00:48:48 it wasn't reviewed as part of the review project
00:48:49 project because it hadn't started but when they did start
00:48:52 did start the builder confirmed that all of the facade was non-combustible so i'd confirmed back to the project manager that it didn't need to be escalated and they could clear the condition
00:49:03 they could clear the condition because it would it was not effectively an option one yes i see now the table doesn't indicate how the issues were resolved
00:49:11 resolved no
00:49:12 no only that many of them were yes why is that
00:49:16 that because uh this confirms that uh you know the dates in columns i and j uh were the dates they were passed through uh escalated to me um
00:49:26 um and then when we had ortho we had clearance um or sorry when it had been escalated then on to to diane or to ian for them to clear it so um there would then be obviously an escalator a chain
00:49:37 then be obviously an escalator a chain of emails or escalations that follow this
00:49:40 this in what ways did the nhbc um either downgrade uh or accept high risk or red classified projects so once the builder had provided the information uh and john or or malik
00:49:52 information uh and john or or malik latterly um had um agreed to those uh reviewed the submissions from the builder from their fire engineer and was happy with them they would then be
00:50:03 happy with them they would then be escalated to me i would do my management check um review it for consistency review it for obvious errors um review it for my understanding basic
00:50:16 um review it for my understanding basic understanding of the the principles we were looking for if i ask any questions back if necessary if i was an uncle if i was unclear or anything if i was then happy i would summarize that
00:50:27 i would summarize that into a further email and send it on to diane and ian
00:50:33 predominantly diane and
00:50:37 and dan would then undertake her own review if it was done using this example um if she was then happy she would confirm to me that the combustible materials blocking condition could be clear right
00:50:48 blocking condition could be clear right i would then confirm back to the surveyor or project manager they could do that i see two things arise out of that answer let me just ask you briefly first what information were you referring to there
00:50:59 information were you referring to there you say once the builder had provided the information yeah was that a desktop so that would be the desktop assessment the fire engineered solution um and any irrelevant information that
00:51:11 um and any irrelevant information that was then needed to uh to demonstrate compliance i think and in the escalation process you've referred to diane marshall forming her own view on based on her own review um help me was diane marshall a
00:51:23 um help me was diane marshall a qualified fire engineer no what to the best of your knowledge what specialist fire qualifications did diane marshall have
00:51:34 qualifications did diane marshall have experience built up over her uh career in building control as a as a building control professional you're not necessarily a specialist in all of these areas you're a generalist
00:51:46 all of these areas you're a generalist you know how buildings are put together you now have an understanding of how a building works and how the different parts of that building interact and you're looking at many different things across the building right away from the foundations
00:51:58 foundations all the way through to fire safety so our role is to have a general understanding we are then advised by specialists in those areas and it's up to each building control
00:52:09 and it's up to each building control body
00:52:10 body as an approved inspector you have to prove that through your licence application that you have either specialist in your organization or you have access to specialists to advise you if you're a local authority then that
00:52:21 if you're a local authority then that decision is made by the the head of building control or the chief building survey how they do that but you would generally be informed by specialists that's why we employed people like john lewis and malek courier
00:52:33 people like john lewis and malek courier to advise us so they would do the the fire engineering review using their fire engineering experience the our internal peer review if you like um and then myself and dan would look at
00:52:44 um and then myself and dan would look at it from the building control perspective but it was us that were making the decision that we were informed by um john and malik um it was us that was making the
00:52:55 um it was us that was making the diana and myself that were making the decision right so to call it escalation perhaps is misleading in a way this wasn't escalation it was uh nhbc through diane marshall and you
00:53:06 uh nhbc through diane marshall and you making a decision uh based on uh your assessment your unex expert assessment of john lewis uh and the other phone john john
00:53:17 lewis uh and the other phone john john malik's uh expert
00:53:20 expert fire engineering input it was um i would call it an expert i was making an informed decision informed by the experts that i'm
00:53:31 informed by the experts that i'm employing to do that for me right let me leave it with you this way if i can the escalation process was not a process of peer review of the fire engineering principles and application
00:53:42 engineering principles and application of expertise underlying john lewis's own view
00:53:46 view no the peer review was done by john lewis is very foreign to the submissions is there a completed version of this table
00:53:53 table this was the latest version i could find we obviously when we um later in in 2016 we actually changed the the policy in terms of the escalations because of the experience we've gained going
00:54:05 the experience we've gained going through so this is a
00:54:08 this is a a position in time now i want to turn to a slightly different topic one which we have covered
00:54:15 covered already in your evidence but i want to view it later in the chronology in your evidence particularly in your witness statement of paragraphs 51-56
00:54:26 witness statement of paragraphs 51-56 and in the documents we've seen already that the removal of the clause in buildings with more than for the floor more than 18 meters above ground level advice should be sought
00:54:37 ground level advice should be sought from the certificate holder that which was in the original bba certificate uh before it was amended in december 2013
00:54:44 2013 um you you say made the product unacceptable for use over 18 meters after that date it didn't necessarily make it unacceptable
00:54:55 unacceptable it made it it couldn't be you know it didn't
00:54:58 didn't it could still be used if an appropriate approaching method was used to demonstrate compliance so unacceptable unless it call unless it corresponded with options one two or
00:55:09 corresponded with options one two or three
00:55:10 three at that point yes yes now as at december 2013 when the bba certificate was reissued and that wording seek advice from the certificate holder was removed
00:55:22 from the certificate holder was removed um
00:55:23 um let me try and leave it with you this way a letter from kingspan was no longer sufficient of itself to allow the bco to bless the use of the product over 18 meters
00:55:34 product over 18 meters it would no longer be sufficient for the um the building troll surveyor to accept that product as complying with its bba certificates yes now let's go please to nhb 50895
00:55:46 nhb 50895 this is an email chain from 2015. earlier in that year and if we go please to page three in the email run first email at the bottom of the chain 27th of january 2015 from graeme perrier
00:55:59 27th of january 2015 from graeme perrier to john alban at the bba copy to you subject kingspan cool thumb k15 bba certificate zero eight slash four five two that number is incorrect it doesn't
00:56:10 that number is incorrect it doesn't matter
00:56:11 matter um
00:56:12 um he writes as follows hi john we're having a few issues with the use of kingspan cool firm k-15 insulation on walls over 18 meters and wonder if you would agree to provide me with a bit of information relating to bba certificate
00:56:23 information relating to bba certificate zero eight four five two which was updated 17 december 2013 the updated certificate contained a slight change of wording in respect of the products behavior in relation to fire which
00:56:34 behavior in relation to fire which unfortunately changed its suitability for use on facades above 18 meters the one piece of information i don't have is the reason why the change was made i've spoken with the certificate holder but
00:56:45 spoken with the certificate holder but they've suggested i speak with yourselves
00:56:50 are you able to provide me with this information regards grand period and if we go up the chain we can see on page two
00:56:56 two uh the the next day 28th of january john elden replies and he says and this isn't copied to you uh we hi graham we have recently received exactly
00:57:07 graham we have recently received exactly the same request for information from mike quintum to our chief executive she's asked that i give her the necessary information for mike i'll make sure that you're copied in
00:57:17 and then if we go to the top of the chain
00:57:20 chain uh
00:57:20 uh we can see that there's an email the same day 28th of january 2015. uh
00:57:26 uh from
00:57:28 from graham perrier to
00:57:32 to john albin john copy of current 084582 december 2013 attached copy of previous revision 08452 april 2010 attached i do not have a copy of the
00:57:44 attached i do not have a copy of the original from 2008. the issue related relates to the revised wording between section 7 of the 2010 document in section 8 of the 2013 document bba certificate zero eight four five
00:57:57 bba certificate zero eight four five eight two dated 27th october 2008 section 7.2 contained the wording and this is in red in buildings with a floor more than 18 meters above ground level advice should be sought from the certificate holder
00:58:08 be sought from the certificate holder the certificate holder's interpretation was that the bs-8414 test was carried out on a masonry wall and therefore as long as a non-combustible backing board was used the wall buildup should perform equally well as the test in hbc building
00:58:21 equally well as the test in hbc building control and standards accepted this interpretation however bba certificate 08452 dated 17th december 2013 section 8 2 sub 1 contained the revised wording
00:58:32 2 sub 1 contained the revised wording the test result relates only to this specific construction and a separate test would be required to establish the performance of any other combination of materials
00:58:41 materials an hbc building control and standards interpretation of this revision is that only construction subject to satisfactory tests in accordance with bs8414 are now acceptable which limits use to masonry construction to the
00:58:53 use to masonry construction to the exclusion of all other construction types which don't have test evidence none of which do minor change in words but massive impact regarding acceptability of the non-masonry wall types typically used on
00:59:05 non-masonry wall types typically used on high-rise residential developments it would be most helpful if you could let us know what prompted the revision now the response to that query is nhb
00:59:16 now the response to that query is nhb 50890
00:59:18 50890 dated the same day
00:59:23 and it's top of page one from john album to graeme perry or and what he's doing is he says as always thanks for your help with this as
00:59:35 thanks for your help with this as promised please see below the response given by my boss brian moore to mike quinton and then below that on page two we can see uh
00:59:44 uh the email sent by brian moore to mike quinton at nhbc copy to claire curtis thomas who was the chief executive of the bba and john alban himself subject kingsman k15 hello
00:59:57 alban himself subject kingsman k15 hello mike
00:59:58 mike claire has asked me to respond to your query the certificate in question is for a phenolic insulation board used either in masonry or in conjunction with a cladding finish in the latter case the building regulations require that an insulation
01:00:11 regulations require that an insulation material should be of limited combustibility if it is if it is to be used above 18 meters unless it has successfully passed a full-scale fire test to bs eight four one four part one two thousand and two
01:00:23 two thousand and two in the previous version of the certificate we made reference to the relevant sections of the building regulations where this is defined together with a statement that four buildings more than 18 meters above ground level advice should be sought
01:00:34 ground level advice should be sought from the certificate holder for the second issue in december 2013 we were provided with a fire test report to bs
01:00:41 to bs part one and we included reference to this in the certificate we also pointed out that this result was specific to the construction tested and that a separate test would be required to allow use of any other build up above 18 meters
01:00:53 any other build up above 18 meters there has been no changes to the building regulations requirements nor in the scope of our assessment what we have done is to make the situation clearer to anyone who is not familiar with the relevant requirements
01:01:05 relevant requirements bba certificates cannot possibly restate all of the relevant requirements of the building regulations in detail we can only point the reader to the sections that apply and provide the necessary information on the product's performance to enable them to make an informed
01:01:16 to enable them to make an informed decision as to whether or not the prepaid specification is fit for purpose including regulatory compliance the wording in the previous certificate was not wrong but it is less explicit
01:01:27 was not wrong but it is less explicit than the current version there has been no change in assessment criteria or scope of approval only a change of emphasis in the wording so in conclusion it is not correct to say that the certificate was amended in 2013 december
01:01:39 certificate was amended in 2013 december 2013 to exclude use above 18 meters if you need anything more please let me know
01:01:45 know now
01:01:46 now do you agree with what brian moore says there that if there was in fact no change in the assessment criteria for k15
01:01:55 this is the first time i've seen this email
01:02:00 so i need a little bit more time to read it in depth and digest it so um i can't say whether i do or i don't i'm sorry um
01:02:11 um as as i think we've discussed though our interpretation was there was a change in that certificate yes
01:02:18 yes and i think building on that uh if
01:02:23 if it was a simple clarification as mr moore is maintaining there um are you able to explain why nhbc um used the change in the wording to justify substantive change
01:02:36 justify substantive change in stance in relation to k-15 i
01:02:39 i i could suggest the answer that you didn't agree with mr moore and thought that it was a change well i think
01:02:45 think the way we've illustrated over the last couple of days that would be the case now given the significance that nhbc says that this change in the certificate
01:02:56 says that this change in the certificate had
01:02:57 had can you explain why it took over a year so from late 2013 until january 2015 the date of this email exchange to seek this clarification from the bba
01:03:11 i can't know
01:03:14 can
01:03:19 i believe we had made um approaches to them in 2014 um
01:03:25 um [Music]
01:03:26 [Music] as we were going through the process with with kingspan um i can only suppose by the the email from graham then went in january 2015. yeah as a final yeah
01:03:39 january 2015. yeah as a final yeah whether it was asked for as a result of us escalating it up to our senior managers in nhbc and they wanted something
01:03:45 something a bit further
01:03:50 certainly our approaches sorry our approaches in 2014 would have been a um it wouldn't have been a chief executive level obviously this email is to to mike quinton
01:03:59 quinton so
01:04:00 so um
01:04:01 um right
01:04:02 right just before i move on then with that uh could you just be shown nhb 5089
01:04:15 uh this is an email from graeme perrier to dave white and you steve dave please see brian moore bba response to mike quinton below not exactly correct
01:04:26 exactly correct double exclamation mark no this is strictly private at this stage as it's come to me from john albert at bba no doubt we will receive a request from comment from mike and due course and then if you scroll down you can see the
01:04:38 then if you scroll down you can see the foot of page one the email from john albin to graham perrier which i showed you before 28th of january which itself forwarded the the reply from brian moore to mike quinton
01:04:50 reply from brian moore to mike quinton at the bottom of page two so it looks from that email right mr evans that you did in fact see this email run at the time including mr moore's response to mr clinton that i read to you in full it does but in preparation of my statement
01:05:02 does but in preparation of my statement i didn't review that email and i i can't recall seeing it i didn't recall seeing it when you showed me it then at all events and can you explain why the 12.7 question
01:05:13 can you explain why the 12.7 question wasn't also asked of the bba at the same time
01:05:19 i can't know i just didn't draft the original question to to john were you involved in the decision to go to the bba and ask them questions
01:05:29 questions at this point early 2015 i can't remember if i was or i wasn't it may have been disgusting when we were discussing um i know in early january we had a meeting um
01:05:40 had a meeting um with ian davis and neil jefferson so it may have been an outcome of that meeting can we then go to nhb 50902
01:05:51 this is an email of the 28th of january 2015 where mike quinton forwards the response from brian moore
01:05:59 second email down to ian davis neil jefferson
01:06:05 uh and in the second email down [Music]
01:06:11 [Music] uh we we can see mike quinton says see below from bba which is the brian moore email we've just seen where does this leave things
01:06:23 just seen where does this leave things and then if you look at the email at the top of the chain ian davis responds to mike quinton thanks mike it doesn't really help in essence it says k-15 is only approved
01:06:34 essence it says k-15 is only approved for use above 18 litres if it's used in construction types that have been tested otherwise it's not been approved and we can no longer just rely on the manufacturers say so for other types of construction i forward to forward forwarded to graham and steve evans who
01:06:47 forwarded to graham and steve evans who are following up on the detail now did you accept after receiving this response that relying on kingspan ceso had been an error on the part of nhbc
01:07:03 no we still had a valid bba certificate um which we'd interpreted and which clearly stated 12.7 um
01:07:15 um so
01:07:17 so our view hasn't hadn't changed on our approach that we were going which we were embarking on what detail were you following up on according to this email
01:07:30 well i i specifically don't know i can't remember an instruction to me to follow up with bba my instructions at this time were then to start putting together the um the uh the review
01:07:43 um the uh the review and the escalation process right
01:07:47 so was it was this email run the trigger for
01:07:51 for uh creating what we've seen in the spreadsheets the combustible materials table
01:07:58 no it wouldn't have been the combustible materials report we we saw earlier was used to escalate the issue to
01:08:09 was used to escalate the issue to um ian davis neil jefferson and i i um i assume they also informed mike quinton
01:08:15 quinton um and i understand there was then discussions at the nhbc board um which was then that they were the that's that was the trigger for me to undertake start either changing policy but also then the review
01:08:29 can i then turn to a different topic uh mr chairman i'd like to start this topic if i can i'll get somewhere oh yes you'll get something right yes um uh i want to ask you next about an email you
01:08:40 want to ask you next about an email you wrote to brian martin on the 15th of june 2015
01:08:44 june 2015 about clause 12.7 nhb402792
01:08:50 uh and uh if we go please to page four
01:09:00 um we can see uh your email to brian martin on the 15th of june
01:09:07 of june at the very foot of page four and if we go to the very foot we missed it can we just hold at the foot of page four please and see the title uh combustible cladding that's the title
01:09:19 uh combustible cladding that's the title now to page five please
01:09:21 please scroll to page five importance hi good afternoon brian now before we go through the the detail of this email um just have a look down the screen
01:09:32 have a look down the screen uh at um at what you're saying here um
01:09:37 um my question is do you remember writing this email uh i didn't write the email it was drafted for me by john lewis i see do you remember reviewing it and then sending it you do yes
01:09:48 sending it you do yes what had prompted you to send it so we'd obviously changed our policy uh in regard and um combustible combustible insulation um
01:09:59 combustible combustible insulation um and we'd put this blocking condition on we'd had and obviously we discussed yesterday our view that the combustible you reviewed the whole of the facade
01:10:11 you reviewed the whole of the facade when we'd obviously i'm putting that condition on to those who can those projects we had lots of communications then we'd build lots of conversations with builders and it came up um
01:10:22 and it came up um this the the anomaly you highlighted yesterday in terms of the way one way of interpreting the regulations is that you you could have uh an external cladding with a classo surface
01:10:34 with a classo surface um
01:10:35 um and but you then had a a non sorry a combustible core to that insulation to that sorry to that to that panel um our interpretation was different
01:10:46 different um and we had been challenged on that um by uh some fire engineers um and
01:10:55 um and we we to to see seal the they were not terming it as filler um as such so to settle it um i asked john to draft
01:11:06 so to settle it um i asked john to draft me an email which we could send to brian to see if we could get a conclusive review a conclusive answer from from brian that was what was meant right in that last answer you referred to a challenge by some fire engineers can you
01:11:19 challenge by some fire engineers can you remember who they were um i remember one um specifically h h fire right at a meeting i was at with a with a builder yeah
01:11:27 yeah yeah you mentioned them yesterday and we have we have some questions i think about those i know about those but later on which we may need to cover but just on this um was this email written
01:11:39 on this um was this email written before or after the issue of the uh june 2015 issue one of the technical guidance note
01:11:47 i can't specifically i don't know on the day sorry was it written before or after the 2015 combustible cladding review it
01:11:57 it i think they were all happening at the same sort of time now let's look at the email um and let's go through it um you say good afternoon brian i i write to request the department's view
01:12:08 write to request the department's view regarding the need for limited combustibility external cladding finishes on buildings with a floor level exceeding 80 meters in height assessed in accordance with paragraph 12.7 of approved document b2 together with associated paragraphs 12.5 to 12.9
01:12:22 associated paragraphs 12.5 to 12.9 as i understand it section 12 paragraph 12.2 explains that there is a need to slow down the rate of fire spread across the external faces of the building this is elaborated upon in para 12.5 which
01:12:33 is elaborated upon in para 12.5 which states that the external envelope of a building should not provide a medium for fire spread if it is likely to be a risk to health and safety and the use of combustible materials in the cladding system and extensive cavities may
01:12:45 system and extensive cavities may present a risk in tall buildings generally a tool block of flats with the defending place policy would be considered a high risk to health and safety
01:12:55 safety at this point therefore it is assumed that the entire wall buildup is at issue and so the following parts of the external wall construction should not assist with fire spread and then you have five bullet
01:13:07 spread and then you have five bullet points the first three of which are external cladding material backing board if appropriate insulation and there are two others there intermediate boarding and internal wall
01:13:19 intermediate boarding and internal wall linings then you continue however the wording of power 12.7 of adb2 then goes on to state that in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level any insulation product filler material not
01:13:31 insulation product filler material not including gaskets sealants and similar etc used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility see appendix a this restriction does not apply to masonry cavity wall construction that
01:13:43 masonry cavity wall construction that complies with diagram 34 in section 9. whilst this paragraph is clear that insulation products are a risk to fire spread firstly it's unclear as to the meaning of filler products and secondly
01:13:54 meaning of filler products and secondly it's unclear whether it's intended that these recommendations apply to the external cladding finishes the use of the word etc implies that the major components of the cladding system need to be considered whilst many cladding
01:14:06 to be considered whilst many cladding finishes fall within table at the table a7 guidance for materials of limited combustibility we have come across a large number which do not and so
01:14:16 and so even with a class naught surface spread of flame rating and when used with a material of limited combustibility mulc insulation the objectives of section 12 may still not be met even though the
01:14:27 may still not be met even though the guidance in paragraph 12.5 has been met
01:14:36 and it goes on
01:14:39 guidance in bs 9991 is more clear stating that combustible materials should not be used in cladding systems and extensive cavities see below however it also doesn't subsequently state that the cladding finishes should be marked
01:14:50 the cladding finishes should be marked when used on tall buildings
01:14:55 uh and then um if you continue to page uh six please bre-135 fire performance external walls etc
01:15:04 etc is clear that external cladding finish and its interaction with the insulation is an important factor in the resistance to fire spread across external walls we have met with dr sarah colwell of bre
01:15:16 have met with dr sarah colwell of bre and she verbally confirmed that the issue of fire spread by way of the external finish is as important as fire spread via the insulation our own view is that there is a little
01:15:27 our own view is that there is a little point in ensuring that an insulation product meets with mulch requirements when it can then be faced with a cladding finish which whilst achieving a class naught surface spread of flame requirement becomes a contributory factor in the spread of fire up the
01:15:39 factor in the spread of fire up the building when acted upon by a flame plume from a flashed over fire however there appears to be a difference in interpretation across the industry and so your opinion straight steer would be very welcome
01:15:51 very welcome thank you for your time now first had you discussed this point with brian martin at any time before you wrote that email
01:16:02 not that i recall had you come across colleagues or others in the industry uh who were confused by the wording of 12.7 and the reference to filler as i said i had we've been challenged by
01:16:15 as i said i had we've been challenged by fire engineers right at that point had that been recent before this email or a long time before i can't recall if it was a long time before whatever sorry and what
01:16:27 before whatever sorry and what difference in opinion but let me ask you this way in the life of that last answer when you say that there was a difference in opinion a difference in interpretation across the industry was that difference in interpretation
01:16:39 was that difference in interpretation about the language of
01:16:42 of this part of adb itself it was the treatment of the word filler wasn't that um and that sort of thing and applying our view as we discussed yesterday was
01:16:54 our view as we discussed yesterday was that the entire cladding system if you're if you're going down option one should be materials and even if you're going down other routes you still shouldn't be using combustible tools in that in the um in the facade unless it's justified
01:17:06 um in the facade unless it's justified by another by another means to your recollection did sarah colwell of the bre
01:17:13 bre um support her opinion as you've referred to there in the penultimate paragraph by reference to the word filler applicable to the core of a panel
01:17:22 panel as i mentioned yesterday i don't recall the exact conversation where that was discussed
01:17:27 discussed uh right
01:17:28 uh right so whether fire engineers uh on both sides of the filler debate to your recollection some thinking that filler referred to
01:17:39 some thinking that filler referred to for example the polyethylene core of an acm panel and some thinking that it didn't
01:17:45 it didn't i would say yes there was because i had a fire engineer john john lewis who was on one side and i had discussions with um at least one fire engineer who was on the other what side was john lewis on he was of the same view as me that he he
01:17:57 he was of the same view as me that he he drafted this email so which is clear that we thought it should um the the non-combustion was for the entire cladding system but was that because of the word filler or just because that was best practice i think
01:18:08 because that was best practice i think it was great you go back to paragraph 12.5 you start they should all be read together it's very different it's very it's very you know when you're reading the building regulations they're not they're not into you have to read lots
01:18:19 they're not into you have to read lots of different parts together and put them and put it together to form a picture so yeah as they say we've referred to four or five different clauses within that
01:18:28 that specific section of the building regulation so taking it all together that was our view um
01:18:34 um but the but very often the debate that was thrown back if you're not thrown back but the debate back the point of view that was put back to us by um those fire engineers would be that um
01:18:45 um those fire engineers would be that um 12.7 mentions filler and filler doesn't include the filling of a in an acm panel or any other panel for that the cladding panel uh so
01:18:56 uh so it was your opinion that filler did refer to the polyethylene core of an acm panel
01:19:03 panel i had no particular view on what filler meant but the fact that these fire engineers had uh used that as a reason for not necessarily asking for the the core of a
01:19:14 necessarily asking for the the core of a panel to be a material dome to combustibility that was where we wanted to um actually if you know um to actually get a definitive view if we could yes i see now you wanted a
01:19:26 we could yes i see now you wanted a definitive view from brian martin yes he would he would be the person i would if i had a question on the building regulations uh i would go to and did you go to him because you expected him to give you a
01:19:37 because you expected him to give you a definitive answer
01:19:44 sometimes brian would give you a view sometimes he wouldn't
01:19:49 the department was always um [Music]
01:19:52 [Music] was always keen would not necessarily come down on a um a yes or no unless it was really clear than the document uh answers were you know as far as the department was concerned it was for the building troll
01:20:04 concerned it was for the building troll body to make a decision and as you'll see that they they would point you in the right direction but they wouldn't necessarily give you a yes or no answer but on this one
01:20:15 or no answer but on this one uh
01:20:16 uh what did you what did you ask i was trying to encourage a yes or no answer yes thank you now um uh
01:20:24 uh you said that you'd come across a large number of cladding finishes that were not materials of limited combustibility when you say large number can you give us an idea of the scale i can't know was that in relation to
01:20:36 i can't know was that in relation to projects on which nhbc were providing services
01:20:40 services it would have been from my experience yes and was that as a result of the review of combustible materials that you had conducted up to this point it would have been informed by that yes mr german is that a convenient moment
01:20:52 mr german is that a convenient moment yes i think it is thank you well i think it's time we had a break sorry mr evans we'll stop now we'll resume at 25 to 12 please and as usual please don't talk to anyone about your evidence thank you
01:21:03 anyone about your evidence thank you thank you very much
01:21:11 thank you mr miller 25 to 12 please
01:37:23 would you ask mr evans to come back in please
01:37:38 all right mr evans ready to carry on yes thank you very much yes mr evans um continuing with this question of all elements and i want just to um go quickly through some old ground over
01:37:50 quickly through some old ground over some old ground so um let's take this quickly i think we can i'm looking at the issue north of technical guidance note 18 again that's at nhb triple quote um nhp 50760
01:38:03 quote um nhp 50760 page two option one we can see the linear route there and as we looked at on the first day of your evidence the reference there is to use of materials of limited combustibility for
01:38:15 materials of limited combustibility for all elements of the cladding system both above and below 18 meters yes yes now i'm i this will i'm sure you will accept that that is crystal clear to me yes uh well why would it be not
01:38:27 to me yes uh well why would it be not crystal clear to anybody i i'm agreeing yes you're agreeing figuratively the christian was to me vigorous agreement yes um was it clear to you at the time this was drafted and
01:38:38 to you at the time this was drafted and issued
01:38:39 issued that the guidance in adb relating to limited combustibility did apply to all elements of the cladding system
01:38:47 system my view was that it did yes yes and then can we proceed on the assumption that your view was an nhbc view yes and and that included the external cladding finishes yes as you described
01:38:58 cladding finishes yes as you described them or as described here the external facing material yes um
01:39:03 um now
01:39:04 now given that can you just tell us what has made what had made the matter unclear to you after that uh by the time you sent this email that we've just seen to brian martin in june 2015.
01:39:17 2015. it was the challenge around it was the challenge around the meaning of the word filler that was the um
01:39:23 um the the the feedback from engineers when we're having conversations so
01:39:28 so it wasn't unclear in my mind it was just there was it was unclear in terms of there wasn't a clear i couldn't counter it with an a at that point with an argument it was just my interpretation back to i
01:39:39 it was just my interpretation back to i followed the builders yeah i followed say does it does it come to this that the nhbc having heard the counter arguments wasn't persuaded by them but had identified a controversy in the industry which you thought government
01:39:50 industry which you thought government should solve yes i think i came back from one meeting and and played tried to play devil's advocate with uh with john um to see
01:40:00 um to see to challenge to challenge that his view and my view um but i was i was firmly of the view that yes it should be all elements and was sarah colwell's confirmation to you on the
01:40:12 colwell's confirmation to you on the 27th of november 2014 at the meeting along the same lines a comfort to you it would it would have been yes yes now um if we then
01:40:23 now um if we then go to the response to the email we have that at nhb 5040 is 2792-402792
01:40:31 this is brian martin's response the next day 16th of june 2015 at
01:40:38 at page four please in this email run and if we go to that he says this hi steve i can't offer a formal view as such specific projects are a matter for the relevant building control body as you say the overarching objective is that
01:40:50 say the overarching objective is that the external envelope of a building should not provide a medium for fire spread and this is particularly important for a block of flats people do sometimes try to play games with the definitions and where this happens one should refer back to this objective
01:41:03 should refer back to this objective we came across one incident where an eps foam was used to fill a void behind some aluminium sheeting because it was not included specifically for its thermal properties the designers had concluded that it wasn't insulation and thus its
01:41:15 that it wasn't insulation and thus its use was okay when it caught fire the flames could be seen across the city that's why the reference to fillers etc was included in the ad text do you have some examples of specific constructions
01:41:26 some examples of specific constructions you've come across it may be that we could revise the text again or maybe test some of it now what do you understand brian martin's role to be relating to the
01:41:38 martin's role to be relating to the wording of adb
01:41:42 my view that he was effectively the guardian of adb did you understand therefore why his response was that he couldn't offer a formal view as such
01:41:53 formal view as such as he says things as i explained before the department would not necessarily always come down with that with a definitive view um
01:42:02 um they've maintained that they've uh that they the approved documents were then for the uh relevant building control body
01:42:09 body to use in terms of making their decision whether they were happy to accept builders
01:42:16 builders evidence of compliance if the department's building regulations division in the shape of brian martin
01:42:28 in the shape of brian martin could not offer or perhaps would not offer a formal view on the wording or the meaning of a particular provision in adb do you know of another organization
01:42:39 of another organization or individual who could do so or would be prepared to do so or who is responsible for doing so
01:42:50 as brian says there it is for each relevant building control body so in each individual project it would be for that building control body to make a decision if a question came up on what was a filler or not
01:43:02 if there was if there wasn't a specific definition in terms of who should be making that definition my view because i asked the question was that it should be um mhclg
01:43:15 that it should be um mhclg um did you understand in light of that answer that what brian martin was saying was that
01:43:20 was that interpretation of the guidance in approved document b interpretation of it and its language was a matter for the relevant building control body
01:43:32 relevant building control body interpretation is but if those um if ultimately um
01:43:37 um [Music]
01:43:39 [Music] that still is in dispute um there's there is then the the formal enforcement route
01:43:45 route to go down which would ultimately end up in the courts for the courts to make a decision
01:43:49 decision just putting the point another way did you understand brian martin to be saying that interpretation of the language of approved document b was up to each individual building control officer
01:44:01 i think brian here the way i i interpreted this body yes he's saying that he's up to each individual building control body but i also think that the by including his third paragraph there he was pointing very much trying to to
01:44:13 he was pointing very much trying to to give a um a signpost to why filler was in included as a word so almost to not necessarily to say he can't offer a formal view but he was certainly trying to signpost what
01:44:25 certainly trying to signpost what he interpreted that filler to me right and in the third paragraph well what did you understand by uh the the email as a whole and specifically
01:44:36 the email as a whole and specifically the third paragraph he was pointing towards
01:44:39 towards um a material which wasn't hadn't been included as an installation as being uh it wasn't included in the wall as a for its thermal properties as that so
01:44:50 thermal properties as that so um
01:44:51 um i didn't my interpretation of that was you know
01:44:55 you know just saying it's not an insulation it's that that layer is not an insulation does not mean it's not a filler but oblique isn't it it is
01:45:05 it is it is and i think as i say my my conclusion from this email is we hadn't got an answer no
01:45:13 no and as we'll see in a second before i ask you about that did you know which project brian martin was referring to in his email in the third paragraph there i i didn't know i might
01:45:24 i i didn't know i might does the fire at the edge in salford in january 2005 mean anything to you i've heard it during the course of the um the conversations here yes oh i
01:45:35 the um the conversations here yes oh i see
01:45:36 see now if we go back to the email chain and go to page three please we can see that on the 17th of june 2015 you
01:45:45 forward this email and brian martin's response to your email to john lewis and you say this john not a very clear answer indeed not
01:45:57 john not a very clear answer indeed not an answer at all [Music]
01:46:00 [Music] in the light of that mr evans did you consider going back to brian martin and asking for a clearer answer or answer on this question no why is that i felt i've got
01:46:12 i felt i've got the answer that brian wanted to give
01:46:17 yes um
01:46:19 um but given it's a bleakness why didn't you go back to him and say words to the effect of come on brian don't have her give us a view you're the only person
01:46:31 give us a view you're the only person who can give us an authoritative view why didn't you do that
01:46:38 because it didn't change our view on the fact that the um the entire cladding system should be materials of limited combustibility when going down that route did it give you enough material to go back to those
01:46:50 go back to those uh fire engineers that you referred to for example h and say we've now got a sufficiently clear answer from government that a polyethylene core of an acm panel
01:47:03 that a polyethylene core of an acm panel because it's filler needs to be well is out because it's not a material of limited combustibility and that the rain screen panel itself must be a material of limited combustibility throughout
01:47:15 combustibility throughout it it didn't give us that ammunition though no so given that that's what you wanted by asking him in your email for a view why didn't you go back to him and say i'm sorry brian this isn't
01:47:26 and say i'm sorry brian this isn't enough for me to resolve the controversy at this point we were in the middle of doing a review of all of those projects where i was extremely busy i'd tried to get an answer from brian i
01:47:39 i'd tried to get an answer from brian i hadn't got the answer i wanted we were happy with our interpretation of the regulations and proceeded on that basis right um now let's see how this eventuates within uh nhbc can we go out
01:47:51 eventuates within uh nhbc can we go out please to page two in the email chain where we see john lewis's response to you the same day
01:47:59 and he says yes a clearer answer would have helped however interpreting his response can i suggest one filler materials have been made a bit more clear a plywood backing to a metal finish would i guess be one such example
01:48:11 finish would i guess be one such example actually it's quite useful to know now what the definition of a filler material is
01:48:15 is brian says that the overarching objective is that the external envelope of a building should not provide a medium for fire spread and that if in doubt we should refer back to this objective so surely it has to include the external cladding material
01:48:28 the external cladding material a question mark an example being that we'd be reluctant to accept timber clatting which only has a class naught ssof surface spread or flame but which would allow flame spread when acted upon by a large flame plume is this enough
01:48:40 by a large flame plume is this enough for us to hang our hat on question mark should we let h h play devil's advocate on it question they're usually quite good at arguing these things exclamation marks
01:48:52 these things exclamation marks had there been a specific situation in which the two of you you and john lewis had discussed whether the definition of filler applied i think as i mentioned before i after a
01:49:03 i think as i mentioned before i after a meeting with h h i'd come back and play devil's advocate with with john to test out what we thought i see and therefore his suggestion should we let h h play devil's advocate was passing the ball back into their
01:49:15 was passing the ball back into their court to see how they argued if they wanted to continue arguing it yeah right how did you understand what john lewis meant by is that enough for us to hang our hat on
01:49:26 our hat on i.e his interpretation of what um brian was saying was that enough for us to to keep on with our definition or our interpretation sorry now in your statement you refer to to the fact that
01:49:38 statement you refer to to the fact that his reference to h playing devil's advocate was a reference to h h a fire engineer who would act on behalf of builders on various projects that's what you say yes at paragraph 287
01:49:49 that's what you say yes at paragraph 287 e little roman 7 on page 116 and you go on to say it would try to push the interpretation that the acm core was neither filler nor insulation
01:50:01 core was neither filler nor insulation on what occasion had h tried to argue that the core of an acm panel was neither
01:50:06 neither filler nor insulation in my statement i mentioned a building i had with uh barrett east london where h h were present so it's on that project yes
01:50:15 yes and and
01:50:17 and and to the best of your recollection was that debate before or after the issue of issue naught of technical guidance note 18 in
01:50:24 18 in june 2014 which referred to all elements it was after that it was after that yes
01:50:32 did day change it was it pre it post dated
01:50:35 dated um the um the review where we then applied the condition that was a reason for having the the meeting we put a condition on the um particular project which meant it could be finaled for warranty or
01:50:46 could be finaled for warranty or building control without uh the necessary justification being submitted did you have a discussion with h about the terms of your option one which referred to all elements and external external finishes
01:50:59 external external finishes as i recall on this project it was actually using a combustible insulation um so there was the justification there but then they were they also had a um there was also obviously discussions
01:51:11 there was also obviously discussions about the panel as well did hnh uh argue with you that technical guidance at note 18 issue naught went too far in requiring all elements of the external wall construction to be
01:51:23 of the external wall construction to be materials of limited combustibility including the external panels as i recall the discussion they were relaying their interpretation of approved document b to me
01:51:34 approved document b to me i don't believe the specific um
01:51:37 um challenge was around the content of bc guys not 18. it was around how we made how they were able to demonstrate compliance with this particular project right and who was it
01:51:50 particular project right and who was it at h h who was the engineer who took that view i can't remember the gentleman's name
01:51:57 was he called glenn horton it wasn't glenn though it wasn't glenn um do you know whether agent h had submitted an option three report desktop study or an option for holistic uh holistic engineered solution
01:52:10 uh holistic engineered solution in respect to that uh project or were they making these points based on an interpretation of the linear route in 12.6 to 12.9 of adb as i mentioned this uh my my recollection was that this
01:52:21 uh my my recollection was that this project also had material oh sorry had um um
01:52:25 um um combustibility yes so it would have been it would have been necessary to go down the auction three or the option for route
01:52:32 yes my question is is did have they submitted a report i can't recall this stage had that um i don't think at this stage they had submitted a report this was a a meeting
01:52:43 submitted a report this was a a meeting on an ongoing project on a project which was going through the the design stage
01:52:51 now we saw that brian martin asked in his email for you to respond with specific constructions that you'd come across
01:52:57 across uh now we can't because of the redaction see the end of this email chain but did you respond to that request from brian martin
01:53:06 martin i don't think i did why is that as i said at the time i hadn't got the answer an answer um i moved on to the next the next problem which was in front of us on that day
01:53:18 which was in front of us on that day was it the case that you had been approving combustible cladding materials on buildings and didn't want to tell him
01:53:24 no you know why brian martin's interpretation was regarded as uh unhelpful
01:53:32 unhelpful was it just its lack of clarity and commitment to me it was that lack of clarity yes right
01:53:37 right can i then turn to something different um
01:53:41 um and this is 2016. uh do you remember that on the 13th of january 2016 you attended a conference hosted jointly by the bre and siderise
01:53:53 hosted jointly by the bre and siderise yes do you remember that you gave a presentation at that conference entitled facades to tall buildings routes to compliance i do yes
01:54:01 i do yes do you remember that there was a question and answer session at the conference at the time of preparing my statement i remembered there was a q a session but i couldn't remember the specifics that
01:54:12 couldn't remember the specifics that were asked at that time now uh i'm going to show you a video of this conference or part of it which uh lasts about seven minutes mr
01:54:24 which uh lasts about seven minutes mr chairman i hope that's not inconvenient we also have a transcript of it at inq 3014949
01:54:33 it is just as quick to go to listen to the videos it is to look at the uh
01:54:38 uh transcript so i'm going to ask for the trend for the video to be played right now does it contain anything of which people should be warned only words no fire and there's no graphics or images in it
01:54:51 and there's no graphics or images in it all right thank you
01:54:54 yes it's at sil sil triple zero one double zero six six
01:55:02 and i'd like the um
01:55:05 the um the cursor along the bottom please to be put at 12 minutes exactly and to stop at 19 minutes and 13 seconds uh and i'd like you just to follow along
01:55:16 uh and i'd like you just to follow along with me
01:55:17 with me as i say we have a transcript as well which we can go back to but i'd just like to show it to you because the reason i'm showing you the video i should just be clear is is that we get a very clear impression of the interaction at this conference
01:55:29 interaction at this conference can we start please at 12 minutes i'll have the volume up
01:55:38 good morning nick from euroclad and bruce murie we're a manufacturer our fabricator of acp or aluminium composite material facades
01:55:50 facades we we fabricate all manufacturers materials so typically they'll be a lucrabond alcolic larson and many others
01:56:01 larson and many others now typically acm is available in three grades in the uk and all three grades are commonly supplied in the uk one grade having the polyethylene core
01:56:12 one grade having the polyethylene core which was used on the fire that we saw the video of it burns
01:56:17 it burns very aggressively the polyethylene as has been discussed interestingly all three grades achieve a class o in terms of surface spread of fire
01:56:29 fire luka bond and mitsubishi have two levels of then fire rated materials one achieving
01:56:36 achieving a
01:56:37 a a
01:56:39 a b classification under the the euro norm test and one achieving an a2 classification under the euro norm test i think there's a lot of ambiguity at
01:56:50 i think there's a lot of ambiguity at the moment as to what is acceptable as being
01:56:54 being non-combustible and does the b classification s1do sit within the required or the limits of what is considered
01:57:06 limits of what is considered of limited combustibility or does it have to be a2 if it's of a2 then
01:57:14 then it's of a concern because in the past 15 years we've only supplied two projects where the a2 grade material has been used so we we talk about substitution of
01:57:26 used so we we talk about substitution of materials
01:57:27 materials there's a real concern there that actually perhaps none of the materials supplied in the uk with the exception of two projects to my knowledge actually meet the requirements of the definition of limited combustibility
01:57:44 so your question we right the question is is whether a euro class b is limiting combustibility yeah b s one o that is not that is not limited combustibility in which case you only have two projects
01:57:57 in which case you only have two projects the other thing to remember is the proof document b is not the regulation approved document b is guidance
01:58:07 and that there are other means to demonstrate um compliance with the building rigs other than approved document b but what i would say is if you take approved
01:58:18 i would say is if you take approved document b as the absolute requirement which i've caveated then it's limited combustibility for buildings with a story
01:58:29 buildings with a story above 18 meters the i mean in in view of what the gentleman was outlining there does the panel feel that um potentially we are sitting on a time
01:58:40 potentially we are sitting on a time bomb as well in terms of some of the uh the materials that that are installed or do we have a level of confidence that the ones that have been installed in the past um
01:58:50 past um will perform in a fire anyone want to come back on that one
01:59:00 taking that the the polyethylene type panel yes obviously if the if the if the building has doesn't have a habitable floor over 18 meters
01:59:10 18 meters uh there's no restriction on that i understand that i could name
01:59:18 there is an anomaly in the um the approved documents and if you follow the guides within the approved documents you are deemed to have met the performance criteria okay so the the approved documents if
01:59:31 okay so the the approved documents if you follow the elemental method if you use a non-combustible insulation material and your
01:59:38 and your external cladding meets diagram 40 which is a classo surface spreader flame you're deemed to have complied so there could be instances could be
01:59:49 could be where we have this polyethylene filled panel on buildings over 18 meters but
01:59:56 but when we talked to diesel we have highlighted this with dclg and they are looking at part b at the moment in terms of looking at other areas of the regulations they need to to examine and part b is one of those we've we've submitted evidence to say
02:00:07 we've we've submitted evidence to say well actually this this is something we've found the spiritual industry um
02:00:13 um the thick when you talk to them is it you know yes you've got a combustion what it what could be a combustible uh cladding external cladding but if you then couple that with a combustible or an insulation material
02:00:26 a combustible or an insulation material which is not material in the combustibility actually you're increasing the risk as well so that's the when they develop these regulations after the 1999 fire um that was where that came from um but like all regulations it's you
02:00:38 um but like all regulations it's you know they continually evolve um when regulations change we don't revisit older buildings which perhaps if they were built now wouldn't comply so we don't do that so yeah there are a
02:00:50 so we don't do that so yeah there are a number of areas of the building regulations where there could be buildings out there which wouldn't comply with modern day standards but those risks are managed aren't they so so to be clear if you have a
02:01:01 so to be clear if you have a non-combustible insulation a mineral a mineral wool insulation of one brand or another in conjunction with an uh a classification of external cladding that has a class o surface spread of
02:01:12 that has a class o surface spread of fire yeah that is acceptable under the current range it would meet the boom regulations but as your building control body i would perhaps be talking to you in light of that my knowledge
02:01:25 light of that my knowledge because my knowledge is not about minimum levels of compliance regulations um but
02:01:30 um but we as an industry should be talking to our customers about that as well and we should be talking to um government about that yeah my personal view is that that certainly should change because it's it you could have
02:01:42 change because it's it you could have exactly in that scenario you could have an exact repeat of the by fire in any number of buildings that we've supplied product to in london and to boot many of those will also have a
02:01:54 boot many of those will also have a foam-based thermal insulation and again the panels when they're manufactured again
02:02:00 again factory manufactured panels are probably safer than the you know of a lesser degree of risk than the um the ones that are manufactured on site but what you find is invariably
02:02:11 site but what you find is invariably with building tolerances even with factory
02:02:13 factory made panels that come complete fully sealed the core is fully sealed and things like that so you have some degree of time before that fire reaches that which is that they have to be cut to
02:02:24 which is that they have to be cut to size and all sorts and altered on site anyway because of building tolerances and the way that that happens so that again increases the the risk and even a factory-made panel has exposed edges in in aluminium composite
02:02:35 exposed edges in in aluminium composite material
02:02:36 material it is something we've raised as the bingo alliance we have raised with dclg as an area we think should be looked at as part of their review of part b you
02:02:47 b you so that's all we need now
02:02:52 uh i've shown you that uh clip we can go back and look at the transcript if we need to uh it's clear from that and would you agree that nick jenkins of murie was
02:03:04 agree that nick jenkins of murie was very worried about the use of acm with the pe corps he was
02:03:10 he was and was worried because it was widespread throughout at least england and wales if not the united kingdom it was widespread on the the project he alleged it was widespread on the projects he'd been involved with yes he
02:03:21 projects he'd been involved with yes he wouldn't be the only supplier of aluminium panels in the industry
02:03:25 industry no were you surprised to hear from a manufacturer of acm panels that they were predominantly supplying acm panels with a pe core to builders rather than those of
02:03:36 to builders rather than those of limited combustibility he didn't define what buildings they were that he was providing those panels on as i explained in the
02:03:44 in the in the uh in my answer below 18 meters there was no restriction were you not troubled to hear that in 15 years
02:03:53 years murray had only supplied two projects with a2 panels uh materials of limited combustibility again i wasn't you know i'm not part of that time to the how i still don't know understand
02:04:06 the how i still don't know understand how many buildings he's provided those on
02:04:12 now the chair of the panel directs a question to you as to whether we're all sitting on a ticking time bomb uh and your first remark was you'll have to ask our builder customers why did you respond in that way
02:04:24 why did you respond in that way because i haven't been involved in all of the buildings that have been built in the uk
02:04:29 the uk surely
02:04:30 surely the nhbc of all groups or institutions would be the best place to answer that question because it was providing building control services and warranty services to most of the
02:04:41 warranty services to most of the industry
02:04:44 it was providing warranty and building control services to a proportion of the industry yes a large proportion but again um we don't just build we don't just do provide building control and
02:04:56 building control and uh warranty on tall buildings we also the the vast majority of the buildings we work on are less than 18 meters yes i understand that but where it's over 18 meters why would your remark you
02:05:08 over 18 meters why would your remark you will have to ask our customers our builder customers apply because they know what they've built yes but you had the overview didn't you rather than your customers who only knew
02:05:19 rather than your customers who only knew what they'd built
02:05:22 yes we um as a building patrol body we're not on site all of the time um
02:05:29 um and it but it is the builders that are there all the time they know what they have built um there are things such as project subs product substitution um
02:05:39 um those sort of things that you know we may not be made aware of well are you saying that the nhpc was was not aware of what its builder customers had built and what uh nhbc's
02:05:50 and what uh nhbc's bcs had signed off on as i as i said as i said in the last couple of days our building control processes would
02:06:01 processes would um have picked this up on the buildings we were providing building control on i was speaking there i was there at that um
02:06:08 um that conference representing the bca not nhbc the bca so speaking on behalf of the bca right well you were wearing an hbc badge did you not see that i did would those
02:06:19 you not see that i did would those people there know you as an nhbc person and think that when you spoke you spoke at least consistently within hbc's views i was frequently introduced at these seminars as steve evans from the nhbc
02:06:33 seminars as steve evans from the nhbc that was another question exactly so so i mean isn't the nhbc the largest insurer and building control body in the united kingdom housing market the best person
02:06:42 person best institution to be able to advise industry on the safety of the current housing stock that's not our role no but it is your role to have a view about fire safety in the in the built
02:06:54 about fire safety in the in the built environment is it not nhbc's role is as a a provider of housing warranties the new home to new homes and as an approved inspector
02:07:06 inspector and we don't nhpc i'm not a regulator of the industry nhbc do not make the building regulations um so that is not our role no and perhaps for cross purposes and
02:07:19 no and perhaps for cross purposes and when the suggestion was made we're sitting on a ticking time bomb i'm just interested in to know why your remark was we'll have to ask our builder customers rather than expressing a view whether it's the bca's view or an hbc's
02:07:31 whether it's the bca's view or an hbc's view
02:07:32 view why did you shut it off as something for the builder rather than something for the builders insurer or the building control officer i'm not so nxbc is not the builder's insurer
02:07:43 the builder's insurer nhbc provides housing 10-year housing warranties for new homes we don't insure builders
02:07:49 builders sorry i said actually it's gone wrong in the transcript building insurer you provide warranties yes for new homes yes yes
02:07:57 yes yes yeah
02:07:57 yeah sorry can you repeat the question i think we've just tried each other's track
02:08:02 track very well uh let's back up a little bit this conference was about tall buildings the stars on tour building so we can we forget
02:08:13 building so we can we forget low builds anything under 18 meters right so in that context which is of course the context in which this conference is taking place and the context of mr jenkins's questions
02:08:24 context of mr jenkins's questions when the question is are we sitting on a ticking time bomb and you say you'll have to ask our builder customers what i'm suggesting to you is that that was shuffling off responsibility for answering the question onto your
02:08:35 answering the question onto your customers in circumstances where nhbc or the bca if you like was at least as well placed to answer it do you accept that
02:08:49 no our builders build the builders build the buildings they know what they they should know what they've built um we don't as a building control body as an hpc we don't hold as built
02:09:01 as an hpc we don't hold as built drawings for those buildings
02:09:04 buildings did you disagree that industry was sitting on a ticking time bomb
02:09:11 i didn't have a view in terms of that i couldn't make a a call on that that's not my place to do being a little bit more scientific
02:09:22 being a little bit more scientific we've seen the discussion that you uh involved in uh you got involved in about an anomaly in the approved document i think you've earlier in your evidence described a little bit of that
02:09:35 described a little bit of that just say that we're clear is the anomaly that diagram 40 of approved document b allows cladding that is class naught surface spread of flame to be used over 18 meters
02:09:47 18 meters and that even if that cladding is not a material of limited combustibility you are deemed to have complied with the building regulations that is the view that was expressed we
02:09:58 that is the view that was expressed we discussed earlier with the hnhs yes that's the anomaly is it that is yes yes in that situation can you explain why you were deemed to have complied a view would be if you went down that
02:10:10 a view would be if you went down that route that you were deemed to have complied
02:10:12 complied but that wasn't your understanding or view of approved document being 2016 was it it wasn't my view no no and indeed that view was inconsistent with technical guidance note 18 wasn't
02:10:24 with technical guidance note 18 wasn't it it was
02:10:26 it it was and i think um had there also been a video of my presentation which i gave which led into that i bear in my um in my talk around that presentation i highlight that it is our view that it is
02:10:38 highlight that it is our view that it is all of the cladding system and is that that is because i think isn't it that the your view was that the external cladding had to comply with both diagram 40 and the requirements of
02:10:50 the requirements of uh 12.7 yeah you can't take the independent parts together you have to read it all that section together you have to read it all together so that the all the materials in the external wall should be of limited
02:11:01 external wall should be of limited combustibility yes and if all else fails you go back to the actual regulation itself rather than the guidance which would be regulation b41 now that being your understanding did the nhbc
02:11:12 being your understanding did the nhbc permit
02:11:13 permit the use of acm pe
02:11:18 on that basis as i've said before no we did not no so if a builder came to you saying that they had complied with diagram 40 of adb because their panel was class b
02:11:30 because their panel was class b for example uh it being an acm panel with a pe core would the nhbc building control services have signed off the project as compliant
02:11:43 i would hope that i i can't speak for every individual project
02:11:47 project because of course i wasn't involved in every indian project but our surveyors should have been picking that up yes right
02:11:57 so the answer is the answer is uh not to my knowledge not to your knowledge right now we've been through 12.7 of adb in your email to brian martin
02:12:10 uh in june 2015. we saw that that's six months before this conference as at january 2016 had your understanding that we've just explained and you've just explained changed as to
02:12:21 and you've just explained changed as to what materials 12.7 applied to no it hadn't so you
02:12:27 so you you
02:12:29 you was your understanding that it did or was your understanding that it didn't apply to external cladding
02:12:36 my my understanding and as i was trying to express in this answer and it's perhaps not the clearest of answers um was i was agreeing with with um
02:12:47 agreeing with with um i forget the person's name so it's gone um i was agreeing in terms of the the the interpretation in the regulations um but i then went on to express if i was your builder control body and i think i
02:12:59 your builder control body and i think i was cut off at that point and or went off on another tangent um but as i said i felt i at that conference i'd expressed
02:13:08 expressed um so in preparing my statement i wasn't aware of that that video it's only as a result of reading other evidence that's been forward to the inquiry and i reviewed that i could have perhaps put it better
02:13:20 i could have perhaps put it better in terms of my view and what i felt the the view of the industry should be on that but as i say it hadn't changed my view my view has always been
02:13:32 my view has always been that
02:13:33 that the cladding panels should be should to go down the option one route should be in a material limited combustibility all of the panel yes why didn't you tell that audience in
02:13:45 yes why didn't you tell that audience in january 2016 what you're telling the same audience in a sense in the first bca guidance note in june 2014 namely that
02:13:55 that as one of the elements of the cladding system
02:13:57 system a cladding panel with a pe core uh wasn't allowed because it didn't meet the requirements of limited combustibility full stop as i said i i would have expressed that as part of my
02:14:09 would have expressed that as part of my presentation maybe not as expressly as that
02:14:11 that but i would have included the fact that um that
02:14:14 um that limited conversibilities for all of the the external wall system it's not um totally clear in my answer there right now we've also just seen the discussion that you had with john lewis about brian
02:14:26 that you had with john lewis about brian martin's answer in june 2015 or lack of answer to the same question are cladding panels to be included in 12 to 12.7
02:14:37 included in 12 to 12.7 on that occasion it looks as if you both decided that regardless of brian martin's answer disappointing though it was to you the overarching objective was that the external cladding should not provide a
02:14:48 external cladding should not provide a medium for first bread that's right i think isn't it yes yes it was that something you were still confident of in in in 2016 or had your view begun to
02:14:59 view begun to soften a little no it had not softened right when you responded why didn't you just tell the audience straight up that as evidenced by the dubai cladding fires which you knew about by that stage
02:15:11 fires which you knew about by that stage at latest
02:15:12 at latest acm panels with a pe core were dangerous and non-compliant and should not be used and should never have been used as i said it's probably a badly worded
02:15:23 as i said it's probably a badly worded answer i was trying to express it uh i started off by explaining my understanding of or i thought i was trying to explain um
02:15:32 um where that uh the misunderstanding came from or the the changes in in view um
02:15:39 um i would have looking at it now i can't remember actually giving the answers only on reviewing the video it's a badly worded answer and can i just pick something else up in the transcript uh we'll go to the transcript rather than back to the video
02:15:51 transcript rather than back to the video um inq3014949 page 13.
02:15:56 page 13. you'll recall the video on it but let's look at the uh the words um if you uh look at
02:16:07 look at uh
02:16:08 uh the top of the page at page 13.
02:16:22 uh i'm so sorry it's the foot of page 12 it is actually where we want to go um if you go to page 12 uh it says but
02:16:32 but the when we talk to dc this is towards the bottom of your screen we have highlighted this with dclg and they are looking at part b at the moment in terms of looking at other areas of the regulations they need to examine and part b is one of those we've
02:16:45 examine and part b is one of those we've submitted evidence to say well actually this is something we found as the
02:16:50 the building control industry
02:16:55 now when did you speak to dclg about that anomaly
02:17:02 well we've spoken to um brian martin do you remember speaking of sorry i cut you off i'm so sorry sorry i i i'm
02:17:11 i'm okay again i am i i can't i is the email to brian martin before this i'm getting mixed up with the timeline sorry the email to brian martin was six
02:17:22 sorry the email to brian martin was six months before this so that would have been certainly where we've talked to mhco2 about it i can't recall if there was a call for evidence at that time either
02:17:33 [Applause]
02:17:36 so when you're referring to talking to dclg and highlighting the problem with them is that a reference back to the email exchange that you'd had with brian martin in june 2015. it could be i can't
02:17:47 martin in june 2015. it could be i can't remember any of the specific uh approaches whether i say i'm talking about the building control industry there it could be that we discussed it at
02:17:55 at bca meetings and labc had said they'd raised it or one of the other constituent parts of the the bca had said that i don't know
02:18:06 in short was there a later discussion about this point between you or anybody else
02:18:13 else at nhbc and brian martin between the june of 2015 and january 2016. i can't be certain going on the transcript just below that you'll see that you say
02:18:26 it says that when you talk to them it's you know yes you've got a combustible what could be a combustible cladding external cladding but if you then couple
02:18:37 external cladding but if you then couple that with a combustible or an insulation material which is not a material with limited combustibility actually you're increasing the risk as well so that's the when they develop these regulations after the 1999 fire that was
02:18:49 regulations after the 1999 fire that was where that came from now the reference to the 1999 fire is that a reference to the fire at garnet court in irvine in scotland i believe so that had been one of the um
02:19:00 i believe so that had been one of the um one of the examples which i think steve howard had given at the presentation right what is it that you're trying to to impart to the audience there when you refer to the
02:19:11 when you refer to the that's where that came from
02:19:16 i don't know now sorry right and then if you go 13 down 13 lines down towards the end of the line um
02:19:25 um you could see you say but like other regulations you see that in the middle of the screen like all regulations it's they continually evolve when regulations change we don't revisit older buildings
02:19:36 change we don't revisit older buildings which perhaps if they were built now we wouldn't comply so we don't do that so there are a number of areas to the building regulations where there could be buildings out there which wouldn't comply with modern day standards but
02:19:47 comply with modern day standards but those risks are managed aren't they so now when you say those risks are managed aren't they how are those risks managed exactly
02:19:57 exactly so in relation to fire safety obviously each building has to have a fire risk assessment so um the fire risk assessor as a building only you have to commission a fire risk assessment
02:20:08 commission a fire risk assessment um
02:20:10 um and you have as part of that process you highlight any um
02:20:16 any um challenges with the building um and that that's any any building whether it's built in
02:20:21 built in 1950 or whether it's built five years ago
02:20:25 ago and you should put in as part of that fire risk assessment under the building you should put in mitigation to manage any risks that are identified right
02:20:35 right does that
02:20:37 does that it lead to the inference that a fire risk assessor should know when conducting a fire risk assessment that the residential high-rise block he
02:20:48 that the residential high-rise block he is asset or she is assessing uh has an external wall build up comprising an aluminium composite material panel with a polyethylene core
02:21:00 material panel with a polyethylene core and
02:21:01 and assess the risk accordingly i'm not a fire risk assessor and i don't undertake fire risk assessment so that's something you'd need to right so can you tell me when you said
02:21:14 right so can you tell me when you said that those risks are managed aren't they i wasn't just referring to fire safety i was relating my answer back to fire safety
02:21:20 safety but
02:21:21 but there are other risks within the building regulations as well not just for and as a building owner you should be managing those risks i mean really what i'm what i'm getting at is whether your view in january 2016
02:21:33 at is whether your view in january 2016 is whether in relation to the legacy of high-rise residential buildings uh overcloud within acmp core panels um that problem was not a problem
02:21:44 um that problem was not a problem for the building industry or for nhbc or the bca
02:21:48 the bca but a problem for the building owner in discharge of its obligations under the rro the regulatory reform order
02:22:01 any existing building um
02:22:04 um is the responsibility of the building owner isn't it now if the builder only identifies any risks in that building
02:22:13 they put measures in they should be putting measures into place to mitigate that risk that could be going back to their builder if they felt that the builder had done something wrong with that
02:22:25 was one example of as you put it not revisiting older buildings nhbc's policy of not looking at any of the buildings for which they had approved k-15 or other combustible insulation in
02:22:37 or other combustible insulation in external wall buildups before january 2014.
02:22:41 2014. as i said i wasn't party to that decision
02:22:44 decision understood but was was that your understanding though at the time january 16 of nhbc's policy in respect of historic buildings my understanding was that i was asked to look at the buildings under construction at that time no i appreciate that and
02:22:56 at that time no i appreciate that and you've made it very clear yesterday and indeed the day before but this is just in relation to the transcript here and i'm just trying to understand what you're actually referring to are you referring to to that as a policy of nhbc
02:23:08 referring to to that as a policy of nhbc no so what are you referring to i'm referring to the fact that actually there's a number of areas of the building regulations where there could be
02:23:15 be buildings which don't comply with modern building regulations and it's up to the building owner to manage those risks not just specifically with fire safety now i want to show you two email runs uh
02:23:27 now i want to show you two email runs uh written about this conference and those comments can we go first first set of email chains to blm uh five zeros two one one please and i'd like to start on page four
02:23:39 like to start on page four uh with the email at the bottom of page four
02:23:44 four from nick jenkins to you and david metcalfe of cwct
02:23:58 uh and david metcalf actually makes a later appearance in this but let's stick with this email 19th of january 2016 from nick jenkins to you uh and it post dates the conference as
02:24:10 uh and it post dates the conference as you can see from the first paragraph uh and if you look at that first paragraph he says i hope this finds you well you may recall we met last week at the siderise bre
02:24:20 bre facades conference steve after your presentation i asked some questions of the panel relating to the permissible use of rain screen clouding panels formed from various grades of acm aluminium composite materials when used
02:24:31 aluminium composite materials when used as part of multi-layered wall systems there was some ambiguity in the answers provided by the panel
02:24:41 let's go on with it it's a long email so bear with me um do you remember receiving it uh i do yes yes i believe this ambiguity stems from some people making the assumption that in the absence of positive test data from bs 8414 part 2
02:24:54 positive test data from bs 8414 part 2 2005 tests featuring acm rain screen panels that compliance can be achieved for such wall systems featuring by either one meeting the guidance given in paragraph 12.6 to 12.9 of adb2 by
02:25:07 paragraph 12.6 to 12.9 of adb2 by restricting insulation product filler material not including gasket sealants and similar etcetera and then it goes on to site from 12.7 or providing cladding in accordance with diagram 40. this stipulating that if a
02:25:19 diagram 40. this stipulating that if a boundary exists less than a thousand millimeters away or and or the building has a height over 18 meters
02:25:26 18 meters then a cladding material meeting class nor national class or b s3 d2 or better european class is required and then there's an ore i think which is strain and he says this in my understanding compliance is not achieved
02:25:38 understanding compliance is not achieved via
02:25:39 via an if either one or two a satisfied scenario rather only via an if one and two are both satisfied scenario in my if my understanding is correct and the three millimeter thick core
02:25:51 the three millimeter thick core associated with four millimeter acm is to be considered a filler material then the only acms on the market that meet the adb2 definition of being materials of limited combustibility are alpolic a2 and alucobond a2 both of
02:26:04 alpolic a2 and alucobond a2 both of these products are classified as a2 s1d naught in accordance with bsen 13501 of 2007.
02:26:12 2007. as a rule in my 15 years experience of supplying fabricated acm range screen panels to specialist cladding contractors in the uk market we are rarely asked to provide such materials the vast majority of acm panels we are
02:26:24 the vast majority of acm panels we are asked to provide for architectural application are either alpolig fr a leukobond plus or larson fr products all of which are classified as b s one d naught in accordance with with bs en
02:26:36 naught in accordance with with bs en 13501
02:26:37 13501 2007 and thus whilst they can be classified as building products that are hard to burn and not accepted as being a limited combustibility in accordance with table a7 appendix a of adb2
02:26:49 with table a7 appendix a of adb2 in many instances it's not even the bs 1d nor rated acm panels which we are asked to supply but standard polyethylene core material acm that burns quite efficiently what's more i'm
02:27:01 burns quite efficiently what's more i'm aware of many tall residential buildings recently constructed in the uk where such panels are installed in combination with various foil faced rigid foam thermal insulation boards which are also
02:27:12 thermal insulation boards which are also not accepted as being of limited combustibility in accordance with table a7 appendix a of adb2 as a responsible supplier booth murray euroclad would like to put a guidance
02:27:23 euroclad would like to put a guidance note similar to bca tcn that would be tgn 18 out to the market but written specifically in relation to the use of acm rain screen cladding panels and associated thermal insulation products
02:27:34 associated thermal insulation products used as part of a multi-layered build up wall systems before we publish any such guidance we want to be sure that we have our facts straight
02:27:42 straight with that in mind i would very much appreciate your thoughts on my understanding of the current building regulations
02:27:50 now um was there anything about that email that you didn't understand when you received it not that i can recall now now if we look up to page two and your response of the 29th of january
02:28:05 we'll see what you say uh
02:28:10 thank you for your email but first you know the date um it took some 10 days or so to get back to nick jenkins do you know why
02:28:18 know why i think i asked john lewis to draft me a response right um and then if we look at the text of your email you say thanks for your email your email i've now had the chance to review the contents and comment on the points as below and if we flip to page
02:28:31 points as below and if we flip to page three of the email run nhbc would agree that both points need to be met diagram 40 relates solely to the finished external surfaces needing to be cur of the correct surface spread of flame
02:28:42 the correct surface spread of flame rating and paragraph 12.7 is an additional requirement for taller buildings where the major components of any external wall system need to be formed from materials of limited combustibility like you i'm also unable
02:28:53 combustibility like you i'm also unable to see any suggestion that adb2 suggests that either or is acceptable and in my view this doesn't make sense as it implies that ssof surface spread of flame
02:29:04 flame can be used as a trade-off against combustibility given that both items aren't closely related this doesn't make any sense from a fire engineering perspective and then you go on nhbc
02:29:15 and then you go on nhbc agrees that a class b product doesn't fall within the classification of a molk as such it isn't possible to accept the installation of any acm product on the basis of the recommendations of adb
02:29:26 basis of the recommendations of adb however if the acm product holds a bs8414 br135 approval for the same wall build up as is being proposed and it would be deemed acceptable by virtue of the alternative approach stated in
02:29:38 the alternative approach stated in paragraph 12.5 of adb2 however in nhbc's experience no such fire tests have been carried out using an acm material hence the need to follow bca guidance note 18 as a way to
02:29:49 follow bca guidance note 18 as a way to show evidence of compliance with the functional requirement of regulation b4 1 which you then set out underneath that and then at the bottom if we scroll to the bottom of page 3 in terms of a technical guidance note nhbc would be
02:30:02 technical guidance note nhbc would be happy to comment on any note and indeed in my capacity as chair of the bca technical group would be willing to jointly publish the note as a new bca guidance note as i think this would be beneficial to the industry as a whole
02:30:14 beneficial to the industry as a whole now um just pausing there in fact finishing there on that do you agree that that email is entirely consistent with technical guidance note 18
02:30:25 with technical guidance note 18 uh issue uh indeed issue naught and issue one and with sarah colwell's view expressed to you on the 27th of november 2014 at the meeting you had in watford
02:30:39 yes i would yes and do you agree that that is a complete u-turn from what you told the auditorium of industry players only two weeks before as i said i think my answer that uh
02:30:52 as i said i think my answer that uh was was badly worded but that was what i was trying to express right now um david metcalfe was party to this email chain and we see that if you go back to page
02:31:05 that if you go back to page two
02:31:07 two uh
02:31:08 uh he has a rather exotic email address it's a b x d w m at bath dot ac dot u k that's david metcalf isn't it
02:31:19 that's david metcalf isn't it i i if you tell me that's the case yes right
02:31:23 right well i'm sorry i don't i don't remember everyone's email address sorry no no fair enough and if i'm wrong about that i'll be corrected by somebody but take it from me that that is correct okay um had you had a discussion with
02:31:35 okay um had you had a discussion with david metcalf of cwct in the interim no
02:31:40 no did you know what his view was i didn't know why didn't you ask him do you know
02:31:47 given that he's on the email run i i don't know why didn't my conversation was with nick um now let's just go back to the second paragraph of this email and i want to
02:31:58 paragraph of this email and i want to look at it again
02:32:01 um
02:32:04 yes if we go back please to a second paragraph there
02:32:12 there if you agreed that class b was not a material of limited combustibility and as you say there were no large scale fire tests using an acm
02:32:24 this is the second paragraph on that page there how could a builder follow the tech bca technical guidance note to show compliance with b4 other than through a holistic fire engineered
02:32:36 through a holistic fire engineered solution
02:32:37 solution as i say there a builder would need to go down the bca guidance number 18. they couldn't use the other routes well they could go down the bca guides now 18 route well the bca guide in terms of sorry an
02:32:49 well the bca guide in terms of sorry an option three or option four but right so not one and two you um option four park option three how could a builder follow option three
02:33:02 follow option three if there were no large scale fire tests using an acf material generating any test data for the purposes of creating a desktop study to approve it
02:33:13 creating a desktop study to approve it they would have to demonstrate it through other tests that have been undertaken but on what materials uh it could be a class b panel like um material for example well the class b panel could be simply
02:33:25 well the class b panel could be simply an aluminium panel with no core at all
02:33:29 it could be yes yeah how could you use um a test
02:33:34 um a test uh
02:33:35 uh on that panel uh to extrapolate across uh safely to a desktop study which would show
02:33:42 show um
02:33:43 um potential compliance with br135 and respect of an acm panel with a pe core that would be for a fire engineer to do in as part of their report wasn't it well and for us to review
02:33:55 well and for us to review yeah
02:33:57 yeah functionally that is correct but did you have any views at the time about how that would ever provide any data which could safely be used to produce a desktop study at this time we were still yeah we were
02:34:08 at this time we were still yeah we were still encouraging industry to do tests so
02:34:10 so um
02:34:11 um you know the hope would have been that we would see a test on a material which could be um which fire engineers could then use um for their option three assessments
02:34:24 um for their option three assessments well if you weren't going to use test data from an acm panel with a pe core because there were there was no such data
02:34:30 data did you did you have in mind what data could be used uh from which an extrapolation of safety to meet a br 135
02:34:40 from what material not at this point i'm not a fire engineer i'm not compiling these reports i would review i would review the them as they come through to to an hpc
02:34:50 to an hpc it would be for a fire engineer to gain those reports that they felt could demonstrate compliance if they were if they were if they were looking to
02:35:02 if they were if they were looking to demonstrate compliance for an acm material
02:35:07 did you have any view one way or the other about whether any option three desktop reports could ever properly be produced given the absence of data about how acmpe performed
02:35:18 i didn't have a view on that no right
02:35:24 did nonetheless i think as we can see from this uh there were no 8414 tests to be r135 which featured such panels and such panels couldn't be used because they
02:35:35 panels couldn't be used because they were not materials of limited combustibility if you were going down the linear route option one or option two and therefore it comes to this that leaving a side option for i think we can leave it like this
02:35:47 leave it like this uh
02:35:47 uh it was desktops or nothing and you had no view as to whether a desktop which
02:35:53 which would support the use of an acm panel with the pe core could or couldn't be produced by a file engineer again i would need to review what the fire engineer put forward
02:36:04 fire engineer put forward let's go to the second set of emails nhb full nhb402864
02:36:19 and if you go to the bottom of the email chain page seven of nine
02:36:24 it's a nine page email run let's go to page seven first email nick jenkins of vue muir to sarah colwell of the bre 20th of january 2016. so the day after he sent you his email
02:36:35 he sent you his email and and
02:36:36 and and the subject heading is use of acm cladding panels on buildings exceeding 18 meters in height it is take it from me virtually identical to the email he sent you the previous day
02:36:48 previous day if we then go up the next email in the chain to page six of nine we see nick jenkins writes to her again on the first of february 2016 so about a fortnight later
02:36:57 later and he says this hi sarah regarding my email of the 20th of january i received an auto reply at that time from which i understand you returned to the office last tuesday could you please acknowledge receipt of my query and
02:37:08 acknowledge receipt of my query and advise when i could expect to receive a response from the bre on the matter i've received feedback from steve evans of the nhbc bca and also david metcalf of cwct who have both confirmed that they
02:37:19 cwct who have both confirmed that they think my interpretation of the building regulations in relation to the use of combustible materials in high-rise buildings is correct i.e to meet the requirements paragraphs 12.6 to 12.9 and diagram 40 need to be followed the
02:37:32 diagram 40 need to be followed the question still remains however as to which material stroke components have to be meet the requirements of paragraph 12.7 previously paragraph previously power 12.7 was interpreted to mean
02:37:43 power 12.7 was interpreted to mean simply the insulation had to be of limited combustibility although this was not always adhered to from recent meetings and discussions the general understanding is now that the scope of 12.7 extends to also include
02:37:55 scope of 12.7 extends to also include the external cladding the bca guidance agrees with this david's thoughts are that this is logical especially following the recent evidence of fire spread up the facade of a number of buildings in the middle east with
02:38:06 buildings in the middle east with combustible cladding panels a simple read through the approved document however would not tell you this we are waiting feedback and confirmation from the bre as this is a perquisite i
02:38:17 from the bre as this is a perquisite i think it means prerequisite to us issuing straight publishing any much needed guidance note to the industry
02:38:25 now it looks as if his reference to your feedback was your email to him of the 29th of january we've just looked at um
02:38:35 um on the face of the documents but can you recall whether you also spoke to nick jenkins as well as sending him your email
02:38:43 email uh
02:38:44 uh i don't recall now um the email run reveals that nick jenkins doesn't get an answer from sarah colwell and has to chase her and she she responds on the 12th of
02:38:55 and she she responds on the 12th of february if we go to page four
02:38:59 this is now 2016 as i say and you can see at the top of the page
02:39:08 uh uh uh uh over over the top of an email from nick jenkins to brian martin the same day 16th of february um
02:39:17 um she says
02:39:18 she says i'm so sorry um
02:39:21 let me take this more slowly if we go please down to page four
02:39:27 four at the foot of page four
02:39:32 she comes back on the 12th of february and says dear nick further to my earlier email we now have a chance to look at your email and i would suggest that you contact brian martin at dclg and there's the email address with regard to this
02:39:44 the email address with regard to this request as they are the body with responsibility for this document and therefore any interpretations associated with it
02:39:50 with it and then the response from nick jenkins is to brian martin in the email immediately above that hi brian
02:39:58 brian also 16th of february 2016. copy to sarah colwell and stephen howard at the bre
02:40:04 bre i'm forwarding this query to you as recommended by sarah colwell of the bre as you will note from the correspondence below sarah advises the dclg of the body with responsibility for adb2 this matter is currently the topic of
02:40:16 this matter is currently the topic of much discussion in the construction industry and if one thing is evident that is there is much confusion and misunderstanding your serious review of the matter would therefore be most welcome i look forward to hearing back
02:40:27 welcome i look forward to hearing back from you with some clarification regards nick
02:40:31 nick and then at the top of the page page four actually let's start at the bottom of page three in this email run
02:40:39 email run uh you can see here is brian martin's response to nick jenkins the same day 16th of february 2016 and over the top of page four please he says hi nick it is for the designer and the building control body
02:40:50 designer and the building control body to consider if requirement b4 has been met
02:40:54 met adb gives guidance on this by saying that the external wall should not provide a medium for fire spread in tall buildings it then offers two approaches a set of rules or a full-scale test in the rules we deliberately added the word
02:41:06 the rules we deliberately added the word filler to address things that form part of the cladding system that are not insulation but could provide a medium for fire spread i think the core of an acp panel could reasonably be considered to be a filler
02:41:17 reasonably be considered to be a filler so unless the core material meets the rules then ad suggests a full-scale test however if the designer and building control body choose to do something else then that's up to them i'm on the road
02:41:28 then that's up to them i'm on the road at the moment so drafting this from memory
02:41:31 memory brian
02:41:31 brian now you're not copied in on this email until you're sent it higher up the string a day or two later by nick jenkins that's page one second email from the bottom let's just go to that if we can please
02:41:42 we can please uh and you'll see there uh nick jenkins passes this onto your second email from the bottom then on the 17th of february you see yes
02:41:52 yes um
02:41:53 um did you read brian martin's email to nick jenkins when nick jenkins sent it to you the next day i mustered them but i can't recall reading it yeah was this the answer that you had been hoping for back in june
02:42:04 you had been hoping for back in june 2015 when you previously wrote to him on this point it was it's still a non-answer though isn't it he he still expresses the same view i think
02:42:15 i think differently than he put in my email it's still up to the build trial body to decide
02:42:20 decide now we then see
02:42:24 nick jenkins response at the bottom of page three we just scroll back down which you also saw because as you as you can see you were copied in
02:42:35 can see you were copied in uh and
02:42:37 uh and not not to this email but above it and you see that he says to brian martin hi brian many thanks for your response prompt response in light of the files that have taken hold in a number of
02:42:48 that have taken hold in a number of taken hold of a number of buildings clad in acm panels in recent 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
02:42:59 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 a414 tests carried out to date of any wall constructions featuring any type of acm panel i'm
02:43:11 featuring any type of acm panel i'm aware that two manufacturers of acm have plans to to have such tests carried out this uh however unfortunately means that no existing buildings in the uk over 18 metres tall the feature acm panels
02:43:23 metres tall the feature acm panels currently meet b4 requirements there are many such buildings and their numbers are growing whilst i appreciate it is for the designer and building control body to consider if requirement b4 has been met
02:43:34 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 with the above in mind do you think it would be worth setting up a meeting with the relevant bodies and experts represented to review
02:43:47 bodies and experts represented to review the current presentation of the rules regards nick now i think it was your understanding at this time that there indeed had been no full-scale tests to 8414 using acm
02:44:01 full-scale tests to 8414 using acm that's correct yeah uh uh and were you aware of buildings over acm that had used acm with a and certainly with a pe core approved by nhbc bcs
02:44:13 nhbc bcs warranted i was not you weren't
02:44:19 and therefore you would have had no understanding is this right of how it came about if there were such buildings how they had been approved by nhbc's building control services division
02:44:29 division as i say i was not aware of any buildings that nhbc had approved on that basis at this point where did you have any inkling yourself
02:44:40 where did you have any inkling yourself as to whether past approvals of high-rise buildings featuring acm pe core existed
02:44:51 i was not aware though as i said i was you know i was confident as far as i could be that our systems would have picked that up and our processes would have picked that up for
02:45:03 processes would have picked that up for an hbc building now here we are in uh early early 16 the debate is now raging and you say you didn't do it to your knowledge did anybody at nhbc
02:45:15 to your knowledge did anybody at nhbc uh
02:45:16 uh think to conduct a retrospective investigational audit as on how many buildings
02:45:23 buildings if any buildings uh in the built environment over 18 meters had been signed off by nhbc's bcs all warranted by nhbc
02:45:34 warranted by nhbc with the build mark warranty uh featuring acm and particularly acm with a pe core as part of the cladding buildup
02:45:42 buildup i was not aware no no so you have you were aware of no discussions about conducting such an exercise is that is that right that's correct
02:45:54 now we can see that uh nick jenkins says that the situation is of grave concern you see those words there did you agree
02:46:05 you see those words there did you agree with him
02:46:12 i don't know if i'd had a view at that time i'd say i was i was looking at this from an nhbc perspective well
02:46:19 well why would the fact that you were looking at it from an nhbc perspective excuse you're not having a view one way or the other well no he he talks about
02:46:30 he he talks about all buildings again all buildings that he's been involved with i
02:46:35 with i it didn't raise any further concerns with me in terms of our position at nhbc
02:46:45 well that doesn't quite answer my question it doesn't raise any further concerns were your concerns grave were they serious
02:46:54 serious it seems that nick jenkins's concerns as a supplier was that the situation is of grave concern did you share his view
02:47:09 i didn't form a view at this time perhaps it's a mistake but my a lot of my
02:47:15 my um attention at this time was really around combustible insulation as i said i um
02:47:23 um my
02:47:24 my my feelings in terms of the the work that we've done at um uh nhbc were that we would have picked up these had that been the case but you had no basis for that
02:47:36 basis for that um
02:47:37 um feeling because you hadn't investigated it
02:47:42 it no
02:47:43 no but our systems would be that our surveyors would review these projects in accordance with the building regulations yes but given the um anomaly ambiguity
02:47:55 ambiguity whichever word you pick you couldn't be sure that your bcos on the ground all universally shared your view nick jenkins view sarah
02:48:07 shared your view nick jenkins view sarah colwell's view could you
02:48:15 i couldn't for every one of our surveyors no
02:48:20 and so
02:48:23 but i had to but i had to have confidence in our processes and the training of our people that that would be the case but it wasn't part of your process before june 2014 to spell out to be your own bcos
02:48:35 be your own bcos that
02:48:37 that uh an aluminium composite material cladding panel particularly one with a pe core could not be used
02:48:47 unless it had passed an 8414 test as part of a full-scale test which none ever had
02:48:54 to the best of my knowledge we had not done that
02:49:00 but i don't i wasn't involved in every project
02:49:04 project no i'm not suggesting you were what i'm suggesting to you is that your confidence that your building control officers would have applied adb in exactly the same way as you were reading it in 2014 15 16 and as you tell
02:49:17 reading it in 2014 15 16 and as you tell us in fact historically always given that you couldn't have that confidence can you explain why you didn't at least suggest
02:49:27 suggest that a retrospective review should be undertaken to make sure that all the building control officers signing off historic projects with this material on it had got it right and not got it wrong
02:49:47 the decision that i had bit had been relayed to me does work was to look at existing building sorry system was buildings that were under construction we weren't
02:49:58 were under construction we weren't reviewing um projects which had been completed now let's go to
02:50:07 brian martin's response which starts at the bottom of page two
02:50:15 uh at 17th february at 0 9 49 bottom of page 2.
02:50:24 and um he says thanks nick i'm not sure the text
02:50:27 the text is really all that ambiguous given that it must cover all forms of construction people often argue that it isn't clear when they're trying to justify doing something that's clearly wrong i'm not entirely sure that even if the acm
02:50:39 entirely sure that even if the acm products that have flame retardant calls would meet the rules of thumb in the ad so it'll be interesting to see if any of them gets through an 8414 test but that's just my opinion we've recently commissioned a survey of part b
02:50:51 recently commissioned a survey of part b users with a view to feeding into the next revision in the first instance it might help if you put your views into that please only gives a link to the survey
02:50:58 survey there's a meeting of the cwct group to talk about cladding and fire safety is run by bath university maybe you could ask them if you can get involved brenda acted details below is organizing things
02:51:10 acted details below is organizing things now
02:51:11 now were you surprised to see that brian martin was skeptical of the combustibility of acm products with flame retardant cores and their ability to pass an 8414 test
02:51:22 to pass an 8414 test i don't know if i had if that was the case at the time no i can't remember did you
02:51:30 think at that time did you have a thought at that time that it was possible uh that building control officers were passing uh um
02:51:40 um build buildings nhbc buildings based on option three reports where the external wall build-up included an acm core
02:51:50 acm core with a with a which was fire retardant
02:51:55 sorry acm with a core which was fire retardant
02:52:00 retardant uh i don't know this time sorry
02:52:04 did brian martin's response prompt you to
02:52:09 to i think the answer is no it didn't prompt you to go back and re-review buildings with acm from the 2015 review that you've done no it didn't didn't why is that
02:52:20 no it didn't didn't why is that i was confident in the processes we put in place that whatever the external wall construction um
02:52:28 um we would have you know we would have passed it through our escalation process no but but here you see for the first time i would suggest brian martin being skeptical uh about the ability of
02:52:40 skeptical uh about the ability of fr called acm products to pass an 8414 test uh let alone be compliant did that not prompt you to go back and re-review your
02:52:52 re-review your the or redo the exercise you'd been doing the previous year 2015 to look at acm no it didn't and why is that
02:53:06 again i had confidence in the systems that we'd set up i did it didn't maybe it's myself in terms of not joining up all the dots um
02:53:15 um or but at the time i was confident that our review had been thorough and that
02:53:21 and that those projects that were coming through were being you know our teams were all fully aware um of what they were what we wanted as nhbc and those processes would be
02:53:32 nhbc and those processes would be followed
02:53:34 followed now let's go to the bottom of page one of this email run there we see nick jenkins response of the 17th of february let's look at the first two paragraphs
02:53:45 let's look at the first two paragraphs he says
02:53:50 we we're now in the meat of the email yes i think you're probably right in that people are claiming ambiguity to suit their needs what i can't get my head around however is how buildings that clearly include
02:54:02 is how buildings that clearly include products that neither one meet the rules are set out in adb2 or have been made the subject of a full scale 8414 test are achieving building regulation compliance completion certification
02:54:13 compliance completion certification is it
02:54:14 is it that
02:54:15 that and he goes on to ask the certification has been wrongly awarded thus pointing to a requirement for better informed stroke educated certifying officers or b
02:54:25 b th have they not achieved certification and others subject to indemnity policies to cover the risks risk
02:54:33 risk uh now are you able to answer nick jenkins question i know it wasn't addressed to you but to brian martin but if it had been asked to you what would you have said
02:55:01 sorry can i take a short break on well we could have a break for lunch and in the event you'd like to yeah i think we'll do that we can come back to the later stage um
02:55:11 um right we'll stop now for lunch then mr evans we'll resume at two o'clock please and
02:55:16 and again please don't discuss any reference to anyone outside the room thank you
02:55:30 right thank you very much mr millet two o'clock please thank you