NHBC evidence session examining the development of guidance on combustible materials, the 2016 guidance note allowing ACM cladding, and NHBC's reviews of high-rise buildings after Grenfell.
00:00:22 would you ask mr evans to come back in please thank you
00:00:38 ready to carry on yes thank you very much yes yes mr chairman thank you um can we please have backup on the screen nhb402864
00:00:47 this is nick jenkins his response to brian martin 17th february uh at the foot of page one over to page two and i read it to you and i think um
00:00:58 and i think um we had put the question to you but you hadn't answered by the time we broke for lunch
00:01:04 lunch um but looking at it again if you have page two please there he asks the questions
00:01:10 questions in the second paragraph is it that the certification has been wrongly awarded thus pointing to a requirement for better informed stroke educated certifying officers or
00:01:20 or have they not achieved certification and others subject to indemnity policies to cover the risk now the question was of course posed to brian martin but are you able to answer it or were you able to answer it had it been posed to you
00:01:40 was obviously confusion in in the industry which is why this debate was was going on um
00:01:48 so it had that been the case um
00:01:52 um i can't answer for all building control bodies
00:01:55 bodies at all um but certainly in the case of a um
00:01:59 um you would think that there were there was a requirement for better informed educated
00:02:03 educated um across the industry to clear up that um that confusion yes there's confusion uh we've seen that already that's a slightly different question though nick nick jenkins is
00:02:14 question though nick nick jenkins is asking
00:02:15 asking uh where there are certain either the certificate's been wrongly awarded or there isn't one but the insurers are picking up rift the risk now so far as the nhbc was concerned
00:02:26 now so far as the nhbc was concerned which was it or was it a bit of both as i say as far as i was aware we hadn't passed any buildings with acn with a pe core
00:02:37 acn with a pe core so
00:02:38 so i can't answer that from an nhpcc point of view i can't also speak for any other building control body in terms of whether the certification has been wrongly awarded they may have had additional information or justification that they
00:02:49 information or justification that they felt was
00:02:51 felt was okay if indeed what nick was saying was true but you didn't know one way or the other did you whether your bcos had been wrongly
00:02:59 wrongly awarding certificates or refusing to do so and leaving it to um the
00:03:05 the indemnity to pick up the risk as i said to the best of my knowledge nhbc had not passed any buildings with a pe called acm
00:03:17 acm now then let's turn to july 2016 five months later you'll remember that on the 7th july 2016 the nhbc held a seminar called facades to tall buildings is that right
00:03:29 facades to tall buildings is that right that's correct and in the months leading up to that seminar i think it's right that you were involved in the organization of individuals who would conduct short presentations based on the topic of facades
00:03:41 based on the topic of facades yes yes and did you contact brian martin of dclg to present a seminar uh i did yes let's look at the email chain about that please nhb401325
00:03:54 page eight is where i'd like to start with an email from you at the bottom of the chain
00:04:01 the chain to brian martin subject nhbc seminar on facades to tall buildings
00:04:07 buildings hi brian nhbc are organizing a seminar on the facades to tall buildings which will focus on the use of combustible materials and routes to compliance which to demonstrate compliance delegates will be formed from senior technical people from major builders
00:04:18 technical people from major builders involved in constructing tool buildings the seminar will be held across two sessions on thursday 7th july 2016 and will be held in our center held in our central london offices at minster court
00:04:30 central london offices at minster court i wonder if you'd like to attend and address the audience in respect of the regulatory requirements for facade to tall buildings our draft program is as follows and then you can see the second bullet point down in red
00:04:41 see the second bullet point down in red regulatory requirements relating to the facades of tall buildings dclg question mark 15 minutes and then other things such as testing procedures bre alternative methods to demonstrate compliance
00:04:53 demonstrate compliance bca
00:04:55 bca factors affecting fire engineered approaches x over query and hbc technical guidance notes nhbc and then q a at the end now to paraphrase the next two emails in
00:05:06 now to paraphrase the next two emails in the chain
00:05:07 the chain after you have not received a response from him i think you contacted richard harrell at the dcldg to see if he could chase up the email he then does that and the response then comes back to you from brian martin on the 20th of june
00:05:21 brian martin on the 20th of june almost three weeks later that's at page six can we skip to that please uh and he says uh towards the bottom of the screen hi brian sorry for not getting back to you
00:05:32 brian sorry for not getting back to you sooner on this i've been in two minds about this i'm not entirely happy that some of the assessments or engineering solutions that are being used in the industry meet the objectives of part b
00:05:43 the objectives of part b it's not for me to tell building control bodies what they can and or can't accept but i'm reluctant to be seen to be endorsing something i'm unhappy with perhaps i'm worrying unnecessarily but
00:05:54 perhaps i'm worrying unnecessarily but on ballots i think i'll decline your kind offer best regards brian was this the first time that you were aware that the dclg was not happy with desktop reports and engineering
00:06:05 with desktop reports and engineering assessments that were being used at that time in industry it was the first time that brian has spoken to me that he wasn't happy with some of the assessments he'd seen yes right
00:06:17 so you're drawing a distinction between assessments and engineering solutions as well he talks about some assessments not all assessments he does he does let's see what you say uh if you go back
00:06:28 let's see what you say uh if you go back to him and you say hi brian you just scroll up please uh to probably the bottom of page five bottom of page five where we see the start of the email in the usual way
00:06:41 start of the email in the usual way um and split over onto page six this is you coming back to him copy to richard harold hi brian thanks for coming back to me i'd like to understand a little more in terms of how you feel they don't meet the functional requirements our aim at the seminar is to reinforce how
00:06:53 at the seminar is to reinforce how builders can demonstrate compliance using bca gn18 perhaps we can have a conversation so that we can put your mind at rest as i do feel that someone from dclg setting out the requirements
00:07:04 from dclg setting out the requirements of the regulations will focus the rest of the day would you have any time to tomorrow to catch up on the phone
00:07:12 and he then responds uh to you on the next day twenty twenty first of june at page five and we see that he writes there hi steve
00:07:23 hi steve see hi steve not really near a phone until thursday i'm comfortable with the principles set out in the bca guidance note the four options are a matter of fact i'm a tad
00:07:34 options are a matter of fact i'm a tad concerned that some assessments and engineering solutions are not as robust as they should be that's this is why i'm a bit conflicted options three and four are a matter for designers and bcbs
00:07:46 are a matter for designers and bcbs and then in your net in the next email on page five by response uh you say hi brian could we talk thursday what time would be good for you i could do any time in the morning and
00:07:57 i could do any time in the morning and after four in the afternoon as i have a funeral to go to uh i would be comfortable with you being critical at the seminar in respect of what you would ideally want to see in terms of a robust solution as a pointer for the builders
00:08:08 solution as a pointer for the builders in the room are there any nhbc schemes where you feel we may have fell short i would certainly like to think not but if you have i'm keen to understand where you feel we could have done better in terms
00:08:19 feel we could have done better in terms of a more robust solution
00:08:23 now why are you asking if there are nhbc schemes which you think might have fallen short i didn't think they'd fell short but i wanted to
00:08:34 wanted to see if brian had any other information that perhaps concern them now you conducted a review in the previous year haven't you 2015 was there nothing in that that indicated
00:08:45 was there nothing in that that indicated to you that nhbc schemes have fallen short in respect of some of these assessments and engineered solutions so the review the previous year was to to get a benchmark of where those schemes were i think in reading this in
00:08:58 schemes were i think in reading this in reading this email again now um
00:09:01 um i'm not talking about schemes i'm talking about the assessments i think i'm trying to come across here because brian's referred to some of the option three and four assessments it's pretty new and
00:09:12 it's pretty new and again i hadn't drafted it quite right um but i think in my the context of where i'm saying this it's where does he think some of the nhbc assessments assessments
00:09:23 some of the nhbc assessments assessments of schemes have fell short that's what i was trying to get out
00:09:31 you had accepted uh i think is this right by this time july 2016 assessments as they're called uh where acm
00:09:42 acm was the rain screen material we would have done by this time yes yes and
00:09:50 and you now
00:09:51 you now as it seems was interested in knowing whether he thought there were any nhbc schemes where as you put it you had fallen short i would have expected anybody if someone
00:10:02 i would have expected anybody if someone from dclg had come through and said i have some concerns over some reports
00:10:07 reports uh that he's seen i think that anyone would have asked the question are any of ours in there yes no i'm not saying it's not an actual question but it was a question
00:10:16 question why were you asking him that question given the review that you had yourself performed the previous year the review the previous year was not of the escalations that have been carried out or the option three assessments the
00:10:28 out or the option three assessments the review the previous year was to identify if there was an assessment needed i see
00:10:35 i see and uh
00:10:39 if you go look go please to the excuse me you go to the response please on page four he responds to you and he says uh hi steve this is now the 23rd of june
00:10:50 uh hi steve this is now the 23rd of june hi steve i'm sorry i missed our slot this morning i've been looking back over this and the information you sent me on the seminar you've clearly put some effort into the event i should make it clear that i have no specific evidence
00:11:01 specific evidence of a problem on one of your sites i would tell you i've just grown concerned that some desktop studies as they've become known and engineered approaches i've heard about make me wonder if the right people are doing them sometimes i
00:11:14 right people are doing them sometimes i know we've had some communication in the past about problems you had with the bba certificate for a kingspan product again i only have part of the story so i guess that makes me nervous most of my information quotes on quotes
00:11:25 most of my information quotes on quotes comes from building inspectors public and private sector who are presented with submissions many do not appear to cover important details like window reveals
00:11:33 reveals maybe it would be better if i do come to your event i've got an appointment on 7th july but i should be able to move it sadly there's nobody else in the team that could easily cover this subject matter i'll get back to you brian
00:11:45 matter i'll get back to you brian now brian martin's concerns is this right as expressed in this email rather rather reflected your own doesn't they
00:11:55 what do they not yes yes
00:11:58 yes yes was the nhbc seminar arranged at least in part to try to address the problem of substandard desktop and engineered reports that had become commonplace since the publication of bci technical guidance note 18.
00:12:11 technical guidance note 18. it was a again another it was a seminar that we were organizing to try and raise the awareness of it and the processes that needed to be followed and get a consistent message to all of our builders
00:12:22 builders what we don't see here mr evans is any discussion with brian martin or any effort on your part to provoke a discussion with brian martin about the concerns that you had that we've seen reflected in the emails
00:12:35 that we've seen reflected in the emails with um booth murray about the anomaly of diagram 40 of adb 12.7 and the definition of filler we don't see that in here why is that
00:12:48 we don't see that in here why is that i was trying to persuade brian to come and talk at our seminar and
00:12:53 and the reason that we'd asked dclg to come along we thought to have a a to get a profile speaker from dclg but also so brian could that slot was for dclg to
00:13:05 brian could that slot was for dclg to explain
00:13:06 explain their understanding of the requirements of the building regulations why didn't what was required why didn't you spell that out in terms of him and and say look we've got industry representatives like booth murray saying
00:13:19 like booth murray saying that acm can't be used above 18 meters and there's an interesting question about what bco bcos are doing are they certifying or are they not why didn't you ask him to come along and
00:13:31 why didn't you ask him to come along and actually address that point head on i wanted him to come along we wanted him to come along to do a presentation on the requirements of the building regulations
00:13:42 yes this is the topic is required so he could set out that if you look at the structure of the day it was structured to take the those builders in the room through a journey these are the requirements of the building regulations
00:13:53 requirements of the building regulations these are how you could demonstrate compliance and a q a session so it was it was supposed to be structured in that way it wasn't
00:14:02 wasn't meant
00:14:03 meant you know that the subject that you're with that we've we've covered could well have been covered as part of that presentation this wasn't a detailed so i hadn't laid out a detailed synopsis of what we
00:14:15 out a detailed synopsis of what we wanted him to cover at this point no um and one can see the tenor of the email exchanges which is that the topic that he seems to have focused upon is the substandard quality
00:14:26 focused upon is the substandard quality of desktops being issued pursuant to option three and
00:14:31 and indeed engineering solutions under option four as opposed to resolving the anomaly problem which had given rise to nick jenkins's concerns now they may overlap but they're not the
00:14:43 now they may overlap but they're not the same my question i'll try it one more time in a different way why didn't you use this opportunity and the upcoming conference to try to persuade brian martin to come along and address the question that you had so long tried to
00:14:55 question that you had so long tried to get out of get an answer on from him but have thus far only obtained oblique responses
00:15:02 responses we'd asked brian to come along and talk about the building regulations as they were at that time we'd already fed back by this time to the call for evidence for anomalies in adb
00:15:13 anomalies in adb as brian alluded to an earlier email exchange so we'd fed back these um
00:15:19 these um the the
00:15:20 the the differences in interpretation if you like in terms of the regulations this was about covering on that day the present adb on what the requirements were
00:15:30 were any changes that were required to that would have been subject to a further review consultation process and things like that
00:15:40 so it was very much centered on what the building regulations required at that point in time and what the building regulations required at that point are in time was that rain screen panels in your view and the view of others in the
00:15:52 your view and the view of others in the industry important voices must be materials of limited combustibility why not simply ask brian martin to come along and spell that out at least leaving aside the question of
00:16:03 at least leaving aside the question of alternative routes to compliance if you notice on the the the brief
00:16:09 the brief that we'd set out was for brian asked to brian come along or someone from dclg he'd come along and talk about the present building regulations also on the program there you'll notice that i'm
00:16:18 that i'm um or i'm representing bca to give a presentation where as part of that it would be a very similar presentation to what i gave at the facades conference earlier in the year
00:16:29 earlier in the year where i would mention as part of that that our view was that it was all so it would be it would have been covered as part of the day
00:16:37 day and if anyone there had asked the question of course brian was there to answer for q and a's as well if it needed reinforcing from dclg
00:16:48 it was it wasn't meant to be a
00:16:51 a session for dclg to come and answer questions on why the regulations didn't say this why the regulations didn't say that it was meant for dclg to come out and set out what the regulatory
00:17:02 and set out what the regulatory requirements were he may well have covered that as part of his presentation you then arranged to meet brian martin i think before the seminar i did yes did you did you do so i did what did you discuss with him um
00:17:14 discuss with him um i can't remember the exact conversation i
00:17:17 i we talked about what the intention of the day very much like we've just done here in terms of what was uh the journey that we wanted to take buildings on for the day
00:17:24 the day who the other presenters were if we if we were aware at that time i think we were still waiting for a confirmation of a couple of presenters um i also talked to him about a a guidance note we would shortly be producing as well
00:17:35 producing as well did you i did and that is the guidance note uh entitled acceptability of common wall constructions containing combustible materials and high-rise buildings
00:17:44 buildings yes
00:17:44 yes can we have that up please nhb 6065
00:17:53 now i'm going to assume mr evans you're familiar with this document i am yes was this the document you discussed with brian martin before the meeting uh during that meeting yes i i discussed
00:18:05 uh during that meeting yes i i discussed this talking with him i didn't i didn't have a copy with me i didn't show him a copy of it i talked about the the the document and what it was meant to do right did he have a copy of it he didn't
00:18:16 right did he have a copy of it he didn't know so you were just telling him about it in general yes who else was present at that meeting it was just myself from brian martin was it on the 7th of july or before or on a date it was before was
00:18:27 or before or on a date it was before was it specifically arranged it was a meeting in our offices in london specifically about his attendance it was yes yes
00:18:36 yes yes did you show him a draft of this document
00:18:40 no it's right to think that nhbc launched this guidance note at the seminar didn't it it was yes um
00:18:51 did brian martin although you say he didn't see it at the meeting you had with him did he see it at any time before the launch not before the launch time well not not until the day it was it was
00:19:02 well not not until the day it was it was um laid out on people's chairs when they went for lunch and then came back or went for the break and came back so he would have seen it before the presentation um that launched it but yes
00:19:13 yes right
00:19:13 right um during the discussion that you had with him about it even though you weren't showing him the text of it did you get any commentary from him any feedback any views yeah he um i talked about the concept of it what it
00:19:25 i talked about the concept of it what it was what was um the intention of it um and he mentioned that it sounded like a a pragmatic solution and almost followed a deemed to comply route right
00:19:36 right who was this note meant for it was friendship for nhbc builder customers
00:19:42 customers uh who drafted it uh it was a drafted between myself john so john lewis did the um the heavy lifting on it in terms of the um a lot of the the text uh edited by
00:19:55 a lot of the the text uh edited by myself and also by diane marshall did you give or did anybody give john lewis some specific instructions or an outline template
00:20:03 template or at least a direction as to what he should put in it i think it was a a discussion between um the four of us myself john lewis diane marshall and also ian davis
00:20:15 also ian davis so was this discussion did this take place at a meeting in in in documents what how did this i don't remember where the the concept of this document came up from i know it was uh we started
00:20:27 uh we started i think that we started to discuss it in early may i think um of that year um but i don't remember a specific date or time where it was let's do this you think early may can
00:20:39 let's do this you think early may can you remember what prompted the first discussions of what led to this document um
00:20:46 um i can't exactly know
00:20:50 when john lewis drafted it you then reviewed it and signed it off did you um i it went through several iterations of going backwards and forwards um but the final sign off was with diane
00:21:01 the final sign off was with diane marshall i see
00:21:05 now in some
00:21:07 some this note includes three appendices which sets out three different types of buildups doesn't it it does and there are buildups that the nhbc would accept without
00:21:17 without any bsa414 testing taking place and without a desktop or a fire engineering report being completed is that right that's correct yeah now the first of those well we can
00:21:29 yeah now the first of those well we can we can look at the bottom right hand corner
00:21:31 corner which summarizes what i've just put to you and we can see the three appendices appendix one is brickwork facade appendix two is timber paneling and appendix three is aluminium composite panels can you see that
00:21:43 panels can you see that i can yes yes now we'll come back to this document in a moment before we we do can i just take you into your statement please at page 102 and look at
00:21:54 statement please at page 102 and look at paragraph 251 because it is here that we see that you're
00:21:59 you're you explain the logic behind the guidance note and you say this in terms of the basis for the 2016 guidance note a nhbc and in particular john lewis had reviewed a number of option 3 desktop
00:22:10 reviewed a number of option 3 desktop assessments john lewis had accumulated a huge amount of information and knowledge assessing a large number of option 3 reports as part of the escalation process we could identify how these were likely
00:22:21 we could identify how these were likely to perform based on those test results we could take an approach that a wall makeup was deemed to satisfy quotes unquote
00:22:28 unquote if it was practically identical to these established wall makeups in such circumstances the desktop assessment would not be needed initially we considered producing a separate document for the timber and brickwork makeups we
00:22:40 for the timber and brickwork makeups we then decided to combine these and include a section on acm now you say there we could identify how these were likely to perform based on those test results um when you say these what what are the
00:22:52 um when you say these what what are the these that you refer to in that sentence these were the tests which were um presented within the option three reports
00:23:01 reports how could you identify how something was going or likely to perform in a fire so we had a number of uh a great deal of option three reports um which
00:23:12 um which as it says were for
00:23:15 were for um
00:23:16 um predominantly or very similar uh wall types uh with fire engineers such as bre xover
00:23:26 xover were justifying through those test results they were citing in the reports as being compliant were there any test reports with or without br 135
00:23:38 test reports with or without br 135 classification reports on large-scale systems which used acm cladding panels on the basis of which this guidance could be written no there wasn't
00:23:49 no there wasn't how come
00:23:50 how come how come it could be written without such test reports so fire engineers were using test reports which had been produced for other materials with class b panels
00:24:01 b panels and other reports and in their view um
00:24:07 um they expected uh aluminium acm of a minimum requirement um class b to perform in similar ways so
00:24:16 so let me just see if i can understand this what you had when preparing this document was a
00:24:24 was a group of or a collection of of test reports for rain screen panels which were class b but not acm with an extrapolation from that fact
00:24:37 with an extrapolation from that fact that
00:24:37 that in their view acm
00:24:41 acm would perform the same the view of those fire engineers who were submitting those option three assessments was on that basis yes
00:24:50 were any of those acms acms with pe core no
00:24:58 no no
00:25:01 now there hadn't been any large-scale testing of buildups using acm panels of any class
00:25:07 any class a one a two b or or or at all and i think you accepted that both in your statement and today didn't the fact that there had never been a bs 8414 test with or without a br
00:25:20 been a bs 8414 test with or without a br 135 classification not itself raise alarm bells with you about the reliability of a desktop study from
00:25:29 from another kind of material
00:25:33 i took the view that
00:25:38 experienced fire engineers with experience in this area so the materials specialists such as bre xova and others had examined those outcomes of those
00:25:49 had examined those outcomes of those tests
00:25:50 tests and were in their view satisfied that they could um at that point say that they were of the view that those systems would work
00:26:02 would work uh and would perform uh likely to perform adequately in a test uh i took comfort from the fact also that john lewis had peer-reviewed those um so
00:26:13 um so um i was
00:26:15 um i was of the view that the fire engineering community
00:26:18 community um that we were accustomed to dealing with was comfortable with that and i saw no reason at that point um
00:26:26 um that we weren't able to do that how could you go from the position we've seen that you had adopted together with nick jenkins in january and february of this same year
00:26:39 and february of this same year to this guidance note as with everything your understanding develops and during that intervening period we'd seen these reports being submitted
00:26:50 being submitted and going through the escalation process did you ignore the fact that brian martin had already raised with you the fact that he was skeptical that a flame retardant even a flame retardant
00:27:02 retardant even a flame retardant acm panel could pass a large-scale fire test does he we see he told nick jenkins in his 17th of february 2016 email brian martin was not a fire engineer
00:27:13 brian martin was not a fire engineer i didn't first of all i didn't but
00:27:17 but again i took the view that experienced fire engineers in this area were running to that conclusion um i can only the best information i had at that time
00:27:29 the best information i had at that time was that right well what test data did you use to identify how small changes in the build-up of a system would change the way it would perform in a fire
00:27:40 the way it would perform in a fire i didn't use that test data it was used by the fire engineers well
00:27:44 well okay but when you saw what the fire engineers had looked at did you undertake some kind of assessment or did you ask john lewis to undertake some kind of assessment as to
00:27:55 undertake some kind of assessment as to whether or not their inference because that is what a desktop is was reliable and the bay and and had a scientific basis
00:28:06 i asked during conversations and there were many conversations around this note um
00:28:11 um in terms of views john you know john lewis was
00:28:14 lewis was um confident and in or um you know was was of the view that the assessments that had been put forward again by experienced fire engineers his peers in the industry
00:28:25 peers in the industry um had looked at the test data that was available
00:28:30 available and yes it was it was it was of limited test data we'd always like more test data
00:28:35 data it was limited test data but you have to make a take a view on the information you have at the time but
00:28:43 but the view was that they had provided suitable justification for the use of those various cladding types there not just acm but brickwork timber
00:28:54 timber and that we would be in a position where we could produce this guidance note how did you reconcile the production of this guidance note with brian martin's own expressed skepticism
00:29:08 brian martin's own expressed skepticism as to the quality of some of the assessments that he'd seen again the fact that brian had not raised an issue with an hpc scheme
00:29:19 an issue with an hpc scheme and i was confident in our robust escalation process then i was confident in our viewers nhbc and this was very much nhbc's view
00:29:30 and this was very much nhbc's view yes i see that but nhb you were not because you'd never done a full market survey
00:29:36 survey was not and could not be confident that all building control officers would subscribe to the nhbc view this wasn't for all building control officers this was for nhbc builder
00:29:47 officers this was for nhbc builder customers
00:29:48 customers and for nhbc surveyors
00:29:57 can we agree that even small changes to a build up could affect fire performance we can and that's why the note says that if if you build it in accordance with that
00:30:09 accordance with that specification you won't require you won't be required to submit an option three report but if you move away from it and the instruction to our survey was if they move if the specification that they
00:30:20 they move if the specification that they reviewed if it didn't replicate that
00:30:25 that that specification then they would need to go down an option three route
00:30:31 if as per john lewis the desktop assessments that were coming back
00:30:38 back from fire engineers and being used by an hbc to sign off projects were all perfectly acceptable then what was the purpose of the guidance note
00:30:50 the guidance note um we had feedback from builders that they were experiencing long delays getting desktop assessments um the predominant cladding type we we saw was around
00:31:01 cladding type we we saw was around brickwork started that's where they as i recall that we want it started um i think that started the conversation um
00:31:11 um but they were and we were receiving a lot of desktop reports last minute desktop reports just prior to finally because the fire engineers were you know had lots of these going on
00:31:23 lots of these going on um
00:31:25 um so it was it was about was there a way we could
00:31:28 we could we could make it more efficient for the builders if we could identify a robust construction which if they were prepared to to build to and these were
00:31:40 to and these were these were actually these didn't replicate what was in the option three assessments these went over and above what was in the option three assessments so in many ways they were more robust we thought than those that were in the option three assessments can
00:31:52 were in the option three assessments can i make sure i've understood what was going on here excuse me you hand received a number of option three as we call them assessments yes uh each of which presumably related
00:32:04 yes uh each of which presumably related to
00:32:05 to uh a different external wall buildup yes well some of them may have been the same yeah some of them were the same range of them yes a range of them yes yes and then on the basis of that range
00:32:17 yes and then on the basis of that range of
00:32:18 of assessments sorry assessments based on that range of different buildups you produced um some
00:32:26 some guidance
00:32:27 guidance which was in a sense um
00:32:31 um an inference derived from that group of assessments yes but the
00:32:36 but the the nature of the guidance was unlikely to reflect many perhaps of the underlying assessments is that right
00:32:48 so say for example we'd received you know five different um brickwork facade types yeah so varying maybe different sorts of insulation varying cavity
00:33:00 sorts of insulation varying cavity widths
00:33:01 widths maybe even varying brick thicknesses or types of um what we were saying was well okay if we look at all those five is there a specification that we can pick which is greater than those because
00:33:12 pick which is greater than those because we're all we're happy with all of those five so is there a specification we could do
00:33:17 could do which
00:33:17 which you know we would always say we're happy with
00:33:21 with because
00:33:21 because yeah we've had the option three assessments or whatever so it was always going to be that the the fire engineer could justify that and if we could arrive at a point saying that's the specification then why not just accept that without the need for an
00:33:33 just accept that without the need for an option three assessment in a very similar way deemed to satisfy is an again an accepted route under the building regulations under regulation seven you know fitness for purpose and and knowing about it so in the same way
00:33:46 and knowing about it so in the same way um in very simple terms if you had a a steel beam that goes across an opening in the load in an eight before beam if you walked on to uh before that show my age and eight before um you know 150
00:33:59 my age and eight before um you know 150 by 100 b
00:34:01 by 100 b um you walk onto site and you see that and it's going a meter and a half carrying a floor load that's going to work you don't need a calculation for it i was trying to relate this more to the acm panel problem
00:34:13 acm panel problem and i'd rather assume that you'd had a number of
00:34:17 number of option three assessments of wall build ups with different combinations of insulation rain screen cladding
00:34:30 rain screen cladding and cavity barriers or whatever and using those you derive from them um
00:34:39 um a proposed build up which you would then yes very soon yes so it doesn't it does involve drawing an inference from the underlying assessments which are themselves drawing inferences from it does underline data
00:34:51 inferences from it does underline data yeah and and that those inferences were in the option three reports that we'd received so there were fire engineers bre xover warrington fire who was submitting thank you yes
00:35:02 thank you yes i'm just going to your statement you say we could take an approach this is the middle of the subparagraph that a wall makeup was deemed to satisfy if it was practically identical to these establishable makeups
00:35:14 establishable makeups um who made the decision as you contemplated it that a war makeup was practically identical
00:35:23 john lewis put forward the proposed specification and
00:35:28 and um that seemed reasonable to me uh what does practically identical mean by which i mean what were the parameters in respect of whether something was practically identical or not
00:35:40 practically identical or not in terms of the you know what we saw coming through those wall those different wall type proposed so you know you we would draw a
00:35:49 draw a similar size cavity similar size external you know brickwork same sort of a backing board or a better backing board
00:35:57 board but why practically identical as opposed to identical because again what would what we were doing is we had five you know using example of five different brickwork scenarios they all differed
00:36:10 scenarios they all differed they were all different so what we've done when we say practically the same we're drawing a robust solution which is a single solution we're saying if this single solution
00:36:21 single solution is probably better than all of those five if you follow that one we wouldn't need an option three because if you were to do one it we would accept it out it wouldn't be a it wouldn't be difficult for your fire engineer to prove it
00:36:33 for your fire engineer to prove it we wouldn't you know we on our on review it's just something we've seen before i'm going to stop you because i think you may be misunderstanding my question and i'm sure it's my fault i just want to understand what what practically
00:36:45 to understand what what practically means because once you depart from identical
00:36:49 identical same
00:36:51 how far from the same would practically allow you to go
00:36:58 i can't put a figure on that as i say john
00:37:02 john um when we when we were drafting this john put forward a um a specification um which he felt was robust and reflected uh what he'd seen in option
00:37:15 reflected uh what he'd seen in option three reports what we've seen with the facade types put through right and that seemed reasonable to me i see now before you signed off on it or sent it to diane
00:37:26 you signed off on it or sent it to diane marshall's she signed off on it did anybody think to send the draft of this out to for example xover or bre
00:37:37 to for example xover or bre any into any independent testing house or ucas accredited organization in the united kingdom and ask for an independent peer review to check that the the guidance you were
00:37:50 to check that the the guidance you were now putting out uh
00:37:52 uh would robustly permit compliance with adb
00:37:57 adb no why is that
00:38:01 we had confidence in what we'd see and it was us that was making the decision as the building control body and the warranty provider that that was a
00:38:12 a specification that we were happy to accept
00:38:15 accept well i know that's the result but what's the reason i want to know the reason why nobody's paused for a moment and said to themselves if we're going to put out guidance such as this which collates and
00:38:27 guidance such as this which collates and makes common a generic wool build-up based on a lot of different extrapolations so we're going to put out an extrapolation of an extrapolation let's
00:38:38 extrapolation of an extrapolation let's at least get somebody independent in the industry robustly to critique it my question is that didn't happen as you've told us my question is why not
00:38:49 it wasn't considered why not
00:38:53 why not it wasn't considered we it was a note which was being prepared by nhbc for nhbc builders it was based on many of the reports which those bodies you've mentioned bre xover had already
00:39:06 you've mentioned bre xover had already submitted
00:39:08 submitted the fact that they'd already in their option 3 reports justified
00:39:15 justified uh and
00:39:16 uh and under you know in effect put their name to those
00:39:19 to those um
00:39:20 um those wall types
00:39:24 it never it never occurred to me that we would need to
00:39:29 need to have that peer reviewed by them now let's go to appendix 3 please of this guidance note now let's go back to the document itself nhb50401293
00:39:39 let's go to page 4. this is the appendix on acm panels this is uh appendix 3. let's look at it carefully key issues top left
00:39:49 top left similar to cement panels mineral called aluminium composite panels tend to crack and break up under sudden flame impingement you see that i do uh once burnt through
00:40:00 you see that i do uh once burnt through occurs flames affect both the internal and external faces of the panels giving the potential for flames to spread via the cavity for this reason reliable cavity barriers are necessary etc
00:40:11 cavity barriers are necessary etc and then if you um look down at the second paragraph that discusses br135 and
00:40:20 and underneath that you can see the first bullet point says that an appropriate measure to meet br135
00:40:27 br135 is
00:40:28 is as follows quotes the use of minimum class b
00:40:32 class b in accordance with bsen13501 aluminium composite panels which provide a class naught surface spread of flame see that i do now that was a change wasn't it from the bca technical
00:40:44 wasn't it from the bca technical guidance note 18 in both issues which required materials of limited combustibility so a1 or a2 materials to be used uh throughout the external wall
00:40:55 be used uh throughout the external wall construction including the panels where over over 18 meters if you're going down the auction one route yes
00:41:04 well you say if you're going down the option so if you if if you wanted to use a panel
00:41:10 a panel a class b panel as a as describing it now
00:41:13 now um
00:41:14 um on a wall construction i would not view that as compliant with option one i would view that as you would need to go down the option three route to demonstrate
00:41:26 option three route to demonstrate compliance
00:41:34 how do you get to the use of minimum class b then here what's that a reference to the minimum class b for a an aluminium acm panel
00:41:46 acm panel in what
00:41:46 in what context
00:41:48 context it has a classification as a class b panel
00:41:52 panel yes and how does that link to the building regulations because you're then going down the option three route rather than the linear route this this wasn't meant to um this this was we
00:42:05 wasn't meant to um this this was we would accept this construction in lieu of an option three assessment there wasn't for example there wasn't a test
00:42:13 test until after this was produced for brickwork i agree so potentially um
00:42:18 um you weren't able to we were asking for option three assessments for brickwork in front of um
00:42:26 um combustible and well sorry in terms of combustible insulation so
00:42:32 so it was very restrictive in terms of the tests we had at the time well class b is not material of limited combustibility it's not no so here and we'll come to more of this in a moment but here you're saying you
00:42:44 in a moment but here you're saying you will accept as because it's common you say
00:42:47 say uh an external will build up with external panels which meet class b not
00:42:52 not not
00:42:53 not materials of limiting combustibility that's correct yes and that's a change isn't it from bca technical guidance note 18.
00:42:59 note 18. going down the option one route yes yes and can you tell us where the class b designation came from
00:43:08 came from because i think you said earlier that there were no bs eight four one four tests on aluminium composite panels and there wasn't at this stage either no so where did uh
00:43:19 did uh we'd see that become from so we've seen a number of uh option three assessments for
00:43:24 for aluminium acm panels uh
00:43:29 uh class b rating um through the option three route right where the fire engineers would use other test data to demonstrate to to demonstrate that they in their consideration that would
00:43:41 consideration that would if it was tested pass a an 8414 test thank you but not an acm of class b not an ac no so that's the point isn't it here suddenly we've got the use of minimum class b
00:43:53 we've got the use of minimum class b aluminium composite panels so i ask you in in a variation on the theme of the chairman's how could a class b aluminium composite panel be used over 18 meters
00:44:04 composite panel be used over 18 meters in the absence of any large scale testing to br 135 of such panels and in the absence of any desktop assessment where the assessment involves such panels
00:44:13 panels now we had desktop assessments which had
00:44:18 which had which involved the use of acm class b panels
00:44:24 panels which were the fire engineers had used other test data from other tests not from acm tests admittedly but from other tests to demonstrate compliance i see do you happen to know
00:44:37 i see do you happen to know well can you remember it's probably rather difficult to say what sort of underlying test data they were using in in any cases the one that specifically springs to mind is that there was a test for a class b career
00:44:48 there was a test for a class b career panel what's the name it was a manufacture plan i think it was it's like a hpl type i i i couldn't say off the top of my head at the moment it wasn't aluminium but it was a robust
00:45:00 it wasn't aluminium but it was a robust class b panel that was not a composite of this sort of construction that acm is no it wasn't and therefore not necessarily going to behave in the same way under fire the view of the um the fire engineers
00:45:13 view of the um the fire engineers that put those forward that um were examining those um those constructions are putting forward option three was that they would perform similarly right yes thank you sorry mr minute
00:45:25 yes thank you sorry mr minute let's look down at restrictions on use next the use of polythene or polythene material called aluminium composite panels which do not achieve the minimum class b combustibility classification fall outside of the scope of this
00:45:37 fall outside of the scope of this guidance note such products are unsuitable for use in high-rise situations it's also imperative that substitution with a less fire resistant product doesn't take place on site now you've explained in your witness
00:45:48 now you've explained in your witness statement to page 107 paragraph 266 we don't need to see it i don't think that polythene is a simple typographical error for polyethylene yes it is yes that's what you say yes
00:45:59 yes it is yes that's what you say yes and you also say that that would have been obvious to anyone in the industry yes i think it would be yes i mean just a brief side point but how do you account for that typo in this final published version
00:46:11 published version i think as i say i think it was word blindness we reviewed this a number of times
00:46:16 times um right
00:46:18 um right i mean it's not a long or complex document was it pulled together in a rush
00:46:23 rush um i don't think it was put together in a rush but it was a number of iterations of the document a number of originally it was intended to be three set or you know a separate document for each cladding
00:46:34 a separate document for each cladding type um
00:46:36 type um i think somewhere on the line then we decided that we would put it together into one with appendices for each padding time um
00:46:45 and it it it just got in there um
00:46:49 um so it was it was a drafting area that wasn't picked up um now the restrictions on use applying as as they do and you say they do the
00:47:00 as they do and you say they do the polyethylene or polyethylene mineral called aluminium composite panels um
00:47:09 apply unless
00:47:12 unless they achieve minimum class b combustibility classification that's right isn't it that's right yes
00:47:20 can you explain why given what you told us before in your evidence about fr we suddenly see the emergence of the acceptability of polyethylene pe
00:47:32 this isn't access this is an acceptance of pe it is isn't it
00:47:38 it it's uh it's telling you uh that unless uh the pe chord acm panel achieves class b minimum it can't be used
00:47:49 b minimum it can't be used at this time we were unaware of any acm panels pe cord and we didn't believe that you could get a class b spec classification for an acm pe chord panel
00:48:01 classification for an acm pe chord panel well that's interesting explain the
00:48:06 the language then it says the use of polyethylene or polyethylene mineral called aluminium composition panels which do not achieve minimum class b combustibility classification fall outside the scope of this guidance that
00:48:19 outside the scope of this guidance that means that those which do achieve a minimum class b combustibility classification fall within it it was
00:48:27 i'm aware now that there was at this time i wasn't aware at the time there was at this time a aluminium acm pe cord panel which had which had a po which had
00:48:40 panel which had which had a po which had a class b rating at the time that this was that i was not aware of this we were not aware of this nhbc was not aware of this when we were drafting this
00:48:51 when we were drafting this it was drafted in such a way again it's you know unfortunately in terms of the drafting you can read it the way i was reading it with the
00:49:01 with the the belief that an aluminium an acm with a pe core would not be able to achieve a class b rating well let's just break that up a little first of all do you accept that what
00:49:12 first of all do you accept that what you're restricting here is
00:49:15 is polyethylene chord acm panels which don't achieve class b as a minimum
00:49:22 it was meant to
00:49:25 it was written in a way i believed it was written in a way um
00:49:32 um that would not allow a pe called acm panel to be used in accordance with this guidance well why not simply say restrictions on use all polyethylene mineral called
00:49:45 polyethylene mineral called aluminium composite panels full stop
00:49:50 in hindsight we could have worded it that way yes but it was meant that was what it was meant to say and that's the way that we were reading i read it at the time um i don't understand that
00:50:01 the time um i don't understand that forgive me there is all the difference in the world isn't there between saying uh aluminium composite panels with a pe core are outside the scope of this guidance
00:50:12 guidance as opposed to aluminium composite panels which don't achieve class b are outside the scope of this guidance i accept it could have been clearer well it it it's radically different
00:50:24 well it it it's radically different isn't it the way you're now reading it or having us read it with the benefit of hindsight it could have been clearer but i want to know why you say it's the benefit of hindsight presumably this document was drafted as
00:50:36 presumably this document was drafted as it was by john lewis a fire engineer reviewed by you and reviewed a number of times by those senior to you and the nhbc how could this apparent ambiguity have crept in
00:50:47 apparent ambiguity have crept in at the time i read it
00:50:49 i read it that it would exclude acm with a pe call do you see that by referring to minimum class b compostability you are telling your customers
00:51:00 customers uh that what is that that acm with a poly polyethylene or polyethylene mineral chord core
00:51:08 core is acceptable provided it achieves minimum class b you're letting it in my view at the time as i hadn't seen um a
00:51:20 acm panel with a pe core achiever class b
00:51:24 b my view at the time was on reading that there wouldn't be a possibility of an acm panel with a pe core being used in this case so i said are we meant to
00:51:35 in this case so i said are we meant to read this
00:51:36 read this as saying
00:51:38 as saying don't come to us uh with a class b
00:51:42 b combustible acm panel with a polyethylene called because they don't exist
00:51:47 exist or in other words you won't be able to satisfy the minimum class b with an acm panel with a polyethylene core because it doesn't exist
00:51:57 my view was you wouldn't get an acm panel with a pe core and that's the way i was i was reading it
00:52:03 yeah i accept it it's badly worded when you look at it when you look at it now but the intention at the time was to
00:52:13 was to not allow the the use of an acm with a pe core because we felt the evidence that i'd seen at the time although obviously with hindsight we've seen certification for another
00:52:25 we've seen certification for another panel
00:52:26 panel but that an acm panel with a pe core would not achieve a class b the the best class b panel we had seen or the best the the lowest um the panels we had seen at the time that
00:52:38 the panels we had seen at the time that achieved a class b were the fr rated which had a high mineral content for their core before you released this note did the nhbc look at in any detail at the acm pe
00:52:49 nhbc look at in any detail at the acm pe panels on the market and look at their euro class ratings no we didn't why is that we looked at the i say our experience of going through
00:53:00 going through uh of the panels that we had seen and been presented with uh the class b panels we've seen had always been the the fr core panels
00:53:09 panels so the ones we'd seen with that had been originally presented as p e chord were
00:53:15 were class e or so we we didn't we didn't believe that you could achieve at that point um a class b rating for a p e court powers the ones we had seen with pe core
00:53:27 powers the ones we had seen with pe core either been presented at first or i mentioned the um the scheme yesterday with the um pe chord isolated they were not a class b they were
00:53:38 they were not a class b they were worse than a class b so it was our belief at the time that you wouldn't be able to achieve a class b with a pe called acm that was your belief that your belief was based
00:53:49 your belief that your belief was based on not having done a survey of the uk market just looking at the desktops that had come in yes
00:53:56 yes well all the panels that our builders have presented us with yes and therefore we can take it can't can't we that you never saw the existence of the rainer bond uh
00:54:06 uh pe55 which was said to be class naught or class b equivalent uh and
00:54:13 uh and i had a pe core that's correct we were we were unaware of that at that time [Music]
00:54:19 [Music] then of course had you asked xover
00:54:23 xover or the bre they would doubtless have told you of the existence of such material wouldn't they maybe you can't answer that question i i can't answer that question
00:54:35 can't answer that question only if they were aware of it as well that
00:54:37 that you know x over bre were putting forward their option threes with class b acm panels so they may also have been unaware but they were they were only assessing what was presented to them by
00:54:48 assessing what was presented to them by their builder customers wouldn't it have been prudent at the time to see exactly what materials were out there on the market before you were before you recommended what was used over 18 meters
00:55:00 what was used over 18 meters and before you knew what testing had been done on them [Applause]
00:55:08 in hindsight maybe why not pick up the phone to the bba brian moore for example and say i'll ask them um to provide you with all the current bba certificates of all acm
00:55:19 the current bba certificates of all acm pe cord panels on the market
00:55:24 we didn't do that and then why not i say the evidence we had in front of us at the time that we'd derived from our you know the desktop assessments we'd seen
00:55:35 seen this was guidance for our builders of what we would accept um
00:55:39 um we
00:55:40 we we believed at the time that we were correct in doing this now let's look at the foot of page one uh on the right hand side of the document we were there a minute ago
00:55:52 document we were there a minute ago the words say the following common wall and facade constructions are acceptable to nhbc without the need to provide an option three assessment providing the design specification and installation meets the
00:56:04 specification and installation meets the minimum specifications set out of the following appendices and there you have appendix three now let's go to appendix three and now look at the guidance in light of that uh paragraph the guidance says this
00:56:22 and let's look at it closely where a building has a floor level exceeding 18 meters from outside ground level a class b aluminium composite panel finish is specified and the builder can demonstrate that the following precautions are incorporated
00:56:34 following precautions are incorporated into the specification design and installation of the facade nhbc will accept the bill the build up as meeting requirement b4 one
00:56:44 one yes yes and we know what requirement b41 is that's the functional requirement yes yes for external flame spread for no not for the uh entire wall construction it will adequately resist
00:56:56 construction it will adequately resist the passage of fire thank you that's required for thank you that's a better articulation than i gave you from inside to out double layer of 12.5 minimum plasterboard and then you have lightweight steel frame internal leaf
00:57:09 lightweight steel frame internal leaf and then over the the top in the right hand column no less than 12 millimeters thick symmetrical cement particle board a minimum combustibility class b insulation
00:57:20 insulation comprising one of kingspan k15 celotex rs 5000 extra therm srrs drained and ventilate vented cavity
00:57:31 drained and ventilate vented cavity aluminium support rails minimum class b aluminium composite material boards with a class naught surface spread of flame classification
00:57:43 so this is telling builders and building control officers that an external wall build up with acm panels with class b so not
00:57:55 with class b so not materials of limited combustibility together with insulation products which are not materials of limited combustibility where
00:58:05 where there'd be no 8414 test for the specific build-up was acceptable for meeting the functional requirement b4
00:58:16 functional requirement b4 now my question is how was that possibly consistent with the proved document b
00:58:26 it is consistent with a proof document b we had seen at this point we had seen option three assessments which
00:58:34 which um when assessed were deemed to satisfy requirement b41 um via their desktop assessment route
00:58:46 um via their desktop assessment route and as i said we then um put a a specification in place which we felt from that evidence we had
00:58:59 from that evidence we had we would be willing to accept as demonstrating compliance with b41 is this document not rewriting a proof document b on the linear route by writing roughshod
00:59:11 on the linear route by writing roughshod over 12.7 for insulation which requires mulc material of limited combustibility and downgrading technical guidance note 18 itself which says that all elements including the external
00:59:23 all elements including the external facing material needed to be material of limited combustibility
00:59:28 no how come how come no it's not so it's not downgrading vsa guidance now 18 because if a fire engineer had come to
00:59:40 because if a fire engineer had come to us
00:59:40 us at this point with an option three assessment for a wall construction which followed that specification um using the appropriate test um
00:59:51 um errands to justify option three we would have accepted it that's what we're saying here it's a deemed to satisfy route we had seen enough we felt at that time we'd seen enough
01:00:02 we felt at that time we'd seen enough we'd always want to see more but we had seen
01:00:06 seen sufficient to satisfy us desktop assessments which had
01:00:12 which had demonstrated compliance through the option three route
01:00:18 route for
01:00:19 for makeups which were less robust than this that we could say for nhbc projects for building control and for warranty if
01:00:30 for building control and for warranty if you presented that specification we would be prepared for that set for warranty and building control purposes and as a building control body we could make that choice the list you've got under the guidance
01:00:43 the list you've got under the guidance the way i
01:00:44 the way i read it to you is
01:00:48 is no more than a list of products or materials and some dimensions isn't it it is yes yeah there's no
01:01:00 there's no uh
01:01:01 uh information here of how they should all fit together what the tolerances are what the design should be what the gap should be what the closing should be
01:01:12 the closing should be is there
01:01:15 is there there is no
01:01:17 and that's radically different from what bs8414 and one br135 requires isn't it which requires precise and identical conformity between the system tested and the system used
01:01:30 system tested and the system used if you're going down the 8414 route and using that yes well
01:01:35 well yes and therefore this is a way isn't it of circumventing end running both the linear route which requires materials for limited combustibility and 8414
01:01:45 and 8414 you've set those at naught and provided a completely new form of regulatory compliance which bears no
01:01:53 bears no and pays no respect to the particular design of the particular facade
01:01:59 it was using our experience at that time to give guidance to our builders on what we would accept for warranty and for building control purposes where they were using an hpc
01:02:12 purposes where they were using an hpc where they were using nhbc now i know that for grenfell tower that wasn't the case
01:02:16 case but
01:02:17 but if mr hoban now and you'll recall perhaps you won't recall that the 7th of july was the day on which mr hogan applied his signature to the to the document of practical completion for grenfell tower
01:02:31 it's entirely possible that he might have looked at this ticked off king's bannon celex rs-5000 ticked off his minimum class b rain screen cladding uh and the other things perhaps uh and
01:02:44 uh and the other things perhaps uh and assumed that he was absolutely compliant do you accept that
01:02:50 if he chose to um accept this but this was not for mr holman and lebc this was for nhbc
01:03:01 what difference does that make position is nh are nhbc's builders permitted greater flexibility laxity in compliance with the building regulations than
01:03:12 regulations than a a local council employed building control officer no no i wouldn't thought so you weren't intending to to create a two-tier bca society i assume and therefore the
01:03:23 society i assume and therefore the guidance in this could perfectly reasonably wouldn't it couldn't it be used by a local authority inspector who was not inspecting for a member builder so i still expect
01:03:34 so i still expect each one of these would have still been passed in front of one of our surveyors or our project managers to review so had they had any suspicions or
01:03:45 so had they had any suspicions or um had they had any concerns on the system that it was radically different to the the systems they were seeing so logic gap sizes and things like that i would have expected them to ask those questions
01:03:55 questions uh of the builder and maybe sought the uh the guidance from one of our fire engineers well forgive me that's completely wrong isn't it because i showed you the first part the first paragraph or the last paragraph on the
01:04:07 paragraph or the last paragraph on the first page which says that provided you've got all these elements in your system you are deemed to have complied without further questions asked you deem not to have a need to require
01:04:18 you deem not to have a need to require to submit an option three assessment but we would still carry out the assessment of the other areas so in terms of the event the drained invented cavity the standards would an hpc standard would require minimum dimensions for that
01:04:31 require minimum dimensions for that um
01:04:32 um the the aluminium support rails would need to be fitted in according to the manufacturer so there would still be other due diligence that would go on in relation to this specification does it come to this mr evans
01:04:44 does it come to this mr evans by july or perhaps may when you started the exercise 2016 you'd had lots of option three desktops many of which had been done by xover in which these products had been used
01:04:56 products had been used you identified certain materials and products commonly used in the external wall buildups the subject of those desktops and said that they could be used without either a full-scale test or a desktop study of the actual
01:05:08 or a desktop study of the actual build-up proposed or a holistic fire engineered solution even though these materials specifically the insulation and the rain screen cladding panels were not
01:05:19 screen cladding panels were not materials of limited combustibility
01:05:24 yes we were saying we would accept the specification for nhbc building control and an hbc warranty did that not utterly set approved document b at naught
01:05:36 approved document b at naught no because approved document b is guidance a builder can demonstrate compliance any other way they choose the what where what where is building control
01:05:47 control as the building control body are looking at is does it achieve the functional requirement ie b41 that is the building regulation and what we're saying here is if you presented this specification
01:06:00 if you presented this specification subject to other due diligence in terms of our surveyors and project managers reviewing it for other areas
01:06:06 areas we would accept that as meeting the functional requirement now why was there any need for you to come up with this guidance note in july 2016 what was the problem that it was seeking
01:06:18 what was the problem that it was seeking to solve
01:06:20 to solve as i mentioned before there were delays in getting um
01:06:25 um specifications from order specifications option three assessments from fire engineers where there were you know four very similar wall constructions
01:06:36 four very similar wall constructions um
01:06:37 um we
01:06:38 we where we were comfortable um with
01:06:42 um with a specification why couldn't we um present that as a deemed to comply which would allow our people to actually concentrate on those areas
01:06:53 to actually concentrate on those areas where we weren't so satisfied with the constructions so we were targeting our time to where we actually felt it was needed i mean the truth this is
01:07:04 i mean the truth this is this is actually taking your technical guidance notes from 2014 and 15. putting a line through one
01:07:12 one two
01:07:13 two and four
01:07:14 and four uh and creating a essentially a option a single option uh where you had these buildups namely an extrapolation from a series of
01:07:25 an extrapolation from a series of extrapolations other words an extrapolation from a series of option three desktops it was creating it wasn't correct it was it was
01:07:36 it was listing a specification which was deemed to satisfy in our view and which part of approved document b do you say supports or justifies this approach
01:07:47 supports or justifies this approach so regulation seven allows the um past performance fitness for purpose route
01:07:53 route but would you accept um mr evans that there's a
01:07:58 there's a something of an anomaly here that in on the basis of appendix 3 you can now um justify a buildup which does not have
01:08:10 does not have insulation of limited combustibility does not have cladding panels of limited combustibility so once completely bypassed paragraph 12 5 to 12 7 of um adb
01:08:22 5 to 12 7 of um adb yes i would accept that
01:08:25 i mean is it just an anomaly one has to live with or does it suggest that something's not quite right it's it's no what it what this is saying is we had seen by that by this point we
01:08:36 is we had seen by that by this point we had seen other justifications through option threes um which
01:08:41 um which led us at that point to be able to make a decision we felt as the building trouble in the warranty body
01:08:47 body that we can accept this construction as demonstrating complies with the functional requirement thank you
01:08:54 thank you was this done as a favor to your clients or from internal pressure or lobbying from industry no
01:09:01 no was this
01:09:02 was this a desperate attempt by the nhbc to give some validity retrospectively to the commonly used wall buildups which nhbc had been approving no
01:09:11 no i want to show you what adrian pogita from kingspan said can we please go to kin
01:09:19 two two nine seven
01:09:23 second email on page one please
01:09:27 uh it's 8th july 2016 so the day after the conference gents interesting development from nhbc they've effectively eased the passage of compliance for a selection of combustible insulation brands k15
01:09:39 combustible insulation brands k15 included in three select build-ups in high-rise rain screen applications overall i feel this is good news as it shows a shift in thinking and an acceptance of combustible insulation and i'm sure is a direct result of our
01:09:51 i'm sure is a direct result of our testing and campaigning on this issue however the bad and annoying news is that it also allows celetex and extra therm after relatively little effort to ride in on our shirt tails and will put significant pressure on us in these
01:10:02 significant pressure on us in these select applications now i'm not interested terribly much in the last sentence there but i am interested in the rest of it um he was asked about that email when he gave oral evidence and i'll show you his
01:10:13 gave oral evidence and i'll show you his evidence please can we have day 85 page 25.
01:10:22 i'll just show you what he he told us about that um if we go to day 85 page 25 line i i ask him
01:10:35 um well let's pick it up at line 21 where we see the quotation there let's go over the page page 86 the question at line nine now did you perceive at the time when you say that
01:10:47 perceive at the time when you say that you're sure it's a direct result of our testing and campaigning on this issue that you had had some part to play in the apparent relaxation by the nhbc in their new guidance in july 2016 answer
01:10:59 their new guidance in july 2016 answer yeah i thought that the evidence that we provided them had helped with their thinking but also you know with the other work they were doing we were sure we were involved
01:11:09 and he goes on to explain that that's in part is july 2014 test was he right in saying that nhbc had eased the passage of compliance due to kingspan's lobbying
01:11:21 due to kingspan's lobbying no
01:11:22 no so you disagree with him do you i do uh was he right nonetheless in his email that nhbc had effectively eased the passage of compliance
01:11:33 passage of compliance for
01:11:34 for a selection of combustible installation brands among which was it was k-15 we had presented a specification that we as nhsbc building control and
01:11:48 that we as nhsbc building control and nhbc warranty would be willing to accept as demonstrating compliance with b41 as the building control body and the warranty body it was intended to ease the passage of compliance wasn't it
01:12:01 the passage of compliance wasn't it it was intended to make it more efficient
01:12:05 efficient in terms of if a builder selected that specification we wouldn't be asking them for an option three assessment yes because we'd seen sufficient evidence to
01:12:17 because we'd seen sufficient evidence to to demonstrate to us at that time that
01:12:21 that um had an option three assessment been put in
01:12:24 put in we would have accepted it yes that's what i'm saying to you i'm asking you i'm putting to you it was easing the passage to compliance because the bill the customer would no longer have to go to the trouble and expense of consulting
01:12:35 to the trouble and expense of consulting xover to do a desktop it would just present
01:12:38 present a list a shopping list of these materials to the bco and the bca would sign it off and see subject to other checks and balances
01:12:46 balances it is easing the passage of compliance will you accept um i'm sorry many of our builder customers wouldn't agree with that because the specification was over and above what they in some cases would want to do
01:12:57 to do so you don't even agree that it your aim here was to ease the passage of compliance for your builder customers if they selected that that's that specification we would not ask them for additional information yes
01:13:09 ask them for additional information yes they may see that as
01:13:12 as being more efficient for them but
01:13:17 but alongside that many times they weren't able to use that specification or they would want to do it differently so in that case they would have to go down the option three route
01:13:29 now given
01:13:32 given the concerns that you and dclg had had about option three desktop study reports some of which we saw reflected in the exchanges you'd had this very month and the previous month with brian martin were you not concerned
01:13:44 with brian martin were you not concerned yourself that the 2016 guidance note was again encouraging industry to bypass important testing that should have been the remit of experienced and competent professionals
01:13:57 experienced and competent professionals we weren't saying by publishing this guidance note that we weren't still going to be asking builders for and manufactures for testing
01:14:06 and that wasn't the case at all we weren't there was at the end of the day there was only three specifications here um it wasn't a case of we will no longer be asking for testing or encouraging
01:14:18 asking for testing or encouraging industry to do testing that would still be the case this was seen as as helpful guidance to our builders where they were willing to to incorporate this specification on their buildings we would not ask for
01:14:30 their buildings we would not ask for additional information to demonstrate compliance we would be satisfied that that from our for ourselves for our purposes an hpc building control and an hpc warranty
01:14:40 warranty that they satisfied or they could satisfy regulate the functional requirement b41
01:14:47 even now are you able to tell us whether nhbc had historically accepted rayner bond pe
01:14:53 bond pe on buildings over 18 meters in reliance on a bba certificate in respect of that product that said it was class b as far as i'm concerned as far as i'm aware no
01:15:05 as i'm concerned as far as i'm aware no are you familiar with the dclg seven tests that were performed after the grenfell tower fire i am yes and so you're aware that even build-ups using fr acm panels with pir or phenolic insulation failed to meet the criteria
01:15:18 insulation failed to meet the criteria in br 135. i am yes both of which were of course acceptable under your 2016 guidance note weren't they
01:15:25 they they would have been yes
01:15:28 now we've seen that brian martin had expressed to nick jenkins his doubts about the cause of flame retardant acm panels
01:15:34 panels in an email chain which was forwarded to you we've seen that already did you take that into account when issuing the 2016 guidance note no we didn't we took into account as i
01:15:45 no we didn't we took into account as i mentioned the the evidence that we'd had provided from builder customers when they were constructing these buildings why didn't you take that into account when considering the builder customer evidence
01:15:57 the builder customer evidence i'd taken the view of fire engineers who were experienced in these matters i wasn't releasing this guidance note a dangerous thing to do in an industry in
01:16:08 dangerous thing to do in an industry in respect of which you had already by this time harbored serious concerns at the time we felt it wasn't no
01:16:19 you see by this time the use of combustible materials in high-rise buildings have been referred to variously as a ticking time bomb nick jenkins an accident waiting to happen
01:16:31 jenkins an accident waiting to happen barbara lane john lewis and of grave concern jenkins again why was nhbc who was well aware of those potential problems now easing the passage of compliance for combustible
01:16:42 passage of compliance for combustible materials rather than making things tighter
01:16:48 i wouldn't as i said i wouldn't consider it at that point that we'd eased the passage we had carried out a great deal of work in satisfying ourselves and gaining information from
01:17:00 information from um experts uh in the this area that that note was it was we could justify issuing that note
01:17:10 note and accepting those constructions are you quite sure i have to put it to you but one of the motivations in the nhbc putting forward this 2016 guidance note was not a
01:17:21 this 2016 guidance note was not a retrospective curing of the historical legacy overhang of buildings over 18 meters with k15 and acm on them
01:17:32 from my perspective absolutely not now we touched briefly on your meeting with brian martin you think we all have a break soon yes mr jones i'm so sorry yes of course now is a good time i thought this might be a good time we'll have the afternoon break at this point
01:17:44 have the afternoon break at this point mr ellens we'll come back please at 25 to 4
01:17:47 to 4 and uh please don't talk to anyone about your evidence all right thank you very much
01:18:01 thank you 25 to 4 please
01:36:33 would you ask your evidence to come back in please
01:36:48 all right mr ready to go on i am yes thank you very much yes mr miller yes um i now want to ask you about what stewart taylor thinks he was the specialist facade
01:36:59 thinks he was the specialist facade engineer that you met in 2013. can we please go to his witness statement at win702 at page 45 i'd like to show you paragraph 103
01:37:11 i'd like to show you paragraph 103 at the bottom of that page he says this and he's answering the question what were your views or if different what are your views now on the contents of this note and this note is the 2016 technical
01:37:23 note and this note is the 2016 technical um guidance note acceptability of commonwealth instructions and he says this
01:37:28 this i cannot recall when i first saw this document my views were that i completely disagreed with its contents the document generally allowed the use of materials which are not classed as limited combustibility a class a2 in accordance
01:37:40 combustibility a class a2 in accordance with en 13501 for example the guidance in appendix 3 aluminium composite panels allows minimum class b acm panels combustible insulation in the sfs
01:37:52 insulation in the sfs sfs zone minimum class b cement particle sheathing board and k-15 or celatex rs-5000 or extra firm foam insulation in a drained and ventilated cavity
01:38:03 a drained and ventilated cavity this guidance in no way resembles the guidance in adb2 2007. i regarded the document as being quite irresponsible i did not know why such a document had been produced especially
01:38:14 document had been produced especially after wintec had spoken to the nhbc in 2013 about the issues of using combustible materials on buildings with a story equal to or greater than 18 meters
01:38:24 meters um
01:38:27 before we get to where he says i regarded the document as being quite irresponsible do you agree with his summary of what the document allows
01:38:40 yes it's the first time i've seen it but yes right
01:38:45 yes right he says he regards the document as being quite irresponsible do you agree no
01:38:51 no why don't you agree for the reasons i've highlighted um
01:38:56 um we were
01:38:57 we were um we were the building control body we were the warranty body who were looking to accept this and it was that was our our choice and our review that we put forward in that note do you stand by this note today
01:39:13 the note is being withdrawn yes do you stand by it no
01:39:18 no why not
01:39:21 obviously seeing the um the
01:39:25 the the tests for ace at the government test for acm that they did after the grenfell fire
01:39:30 fire causes um or caused me to think uh in terms of the uh the performance of or the in-use performance testing
01:39:41 in-use performance testing um
01:39:44 um so
01:39:44 so yeah
01:39:45 yeah so is the reason you don't stand by it is because what was essentially an extrapolation of an extrapolation or a theory about a theory
01:39:58 a theory about a theory it was shown to be
01:40:01 to be wholly flawed when reproduced in reality the note was i was happy with the note um when we issued it given the
01:40:12 um when we issued it given the information we had at the time since the grenfell fire information i've seen and test results i've seen i would call into personally i would you know had i known it with
01:40:23 i would you know had i known it with hindsight
01:40:25 hindsight ever known now what i know then i wouldn't have issued that note in the in the form it was what information did you have at the time
01:40:36 so as i've shown been shown to be wrong
01:40:43 the the information that we had at the time was not shown to be wrong but we have more information now
01:40:53 in terms of actual testing of acm
01:40:57 so are you saying that the reason you don't stand by this note now is because you now realize that you didn't have the test data that you now have the test data we have
01:41:09 the test data we have calls into question the
01:41:12 the um
01:41:13 um the specifications and whatever that were that we used yes why didn't the test data that you had then such as it was
01:41:20 was call
01:41:21 call the very same question into question the test data we had at the time uh the justifications we had from the those fire engineers at the time and knowledge at the time led us to
01:41:33 and knowledge at the time led us to believe
01:41:34 believe that that was a satisfactory specification
01:41:39 was brian martin present for part of the seminar where you distributed and discussed
01:41:44 discussed the 2016 guidance note as far as i can recall he was present for all of it uh do you recall whether he made any comments or raised any criticisms
01:41:57 comments or raised any criticisms no he didn't did he say anything about this guidance note one way or the other
01:42:04 i can't remember if he did on the day no sorry did anybody else in attendance say anything about this guidance nate one way or the other no now you told us that the guidance
01:42:15 no now you told us that the guidance note was withdrawn in
01:42:17 in what was withdrawn it was drawn in fact immediately after the fire wasn't it it was yes
01:42:26 and in fact we could see this through diane marshall's witness statement she told the nhbc technical department on the 28th of june 2017 that that guidance had now been withdrawn
01:42:37 had now been withdrawn do you know whose decision it was to withdraw that guidance note i don't know were you privy to the discussions which led to the withdrawing of the guidance
01:42:48 led to the withdrawing of the guidance note
01:42:49 note no
01:42:52 now i want to ask you next about acm products and the nhbc's review in 2017 after the grenfell tower fire this is something you talk you discuss in your statement at page 110
01:43:05 in your statement at page 110 and on that page can we please go to paragraph 276. you say it paragraph 276 as far as i'm aware no system incorporating acm cloning had been
01:43:16 incorporating acm cloning had been tested
01:43:17 tested to bs 8414 prior to june 14th june 2017 and achieved br135 we had asked the manufacturers such as kingspan to carry out this testing but that had not happened
01:43:28 happened in terms of whether prior to the 14th of june 2017 there had been an option three assessment ie desktop study to br 135 or option four assessment a fire engineering assessment incorporating acm
01:43:39 engineering assessment incorporating acm with a pe or otherwise combustible core a i'm not aware of any option 3 reports b i'm aware there was an option 4 report where there were small isolated areas of acm with the pe core as it was in small
01:43:52 acm with the pe core as it was in small areas dotted across the building this was deemed to be acceptable by the fire engineer the report would have come to my attention as part of the escalation process mentioned above i would have discussed it with john lewis and the senior manager who signed off the
01:44:04 senior manager who signed off the escalation diane marshall or ian davis as part of that process now just pausing there that was an option for report was it it was yes so a holistic fire engineer engineered solution yes
01:44:16 engineer engineered solution yes uh do you remember what the project was
01:44:19 was i don't know i'm afraid not might have been h h barking site g
01:44:24 site g i don't know you don't know was that
01:44:29 was that the only occasion on which the nhp nhpc saw a fire engineering report on a project that was using acn with a pe core
01:44:38 it's the only one i can recall going on at paragraph 278 you say other than the
01:44:43 than the above example to the best of my knowledge nhbc would not have provided building control warranty or other services for buildings over 18 meters where the wall makeup included acm panels with a pe or otherwise
01:44:54 panels with a pe or otherwise combustible core we would not have accepted a proposal such as this in terms of establishing this a we carried out a 2015 project review as i described about at paragraph 150
01:45:06 about at paragraph 150 this covers buildings that were in build at that point after that point we adopted the position that the builder must demonstrate compliance with one of the options in the bca guidance note and would consider
01:45:17 the bca guidance note and would consider each project using the escalation process therefore if it had acm panels with a pe core john lewis the fire engineer would not have accepted it as acceptable now
01:45:28 now it's not right is it that the 2015 review did show that nhbc had provided building control and warranty services for many buildings with acm
01:45:39 buildings with acm sorry can you repeat the question yeah i'll try it differently um isn't it correct that in fact the 2015 review did show
01:45:51 that in fact the 2015 review did show that nhbc had provided building control and warranty services four buildings a number of buildings with acm as the rain screen material
01:46:02 with acm as the rain screen material it identified a number of projects which were in progress where the builder was proposing to use acm and they were suitably rated to be
01:46:14 and they were suitably rated to be further examined yes and let's look into that in a little bit more detail
01:46:20 detail can we please go to nhb403038
01:46:30 this is a spreadsheet there it is compiled we believe in 2015 and then updated later as a live document which
01:46:41 updated later as a live document which you exhibit as sde 101 and it's the document we saw earlier i think
01:46:48 i think yes
01:46:49 yes because it's the same exhibit number and let's look at it again you've got the tabs showing pre-jan 240 2014 post january 2014 and then the escalations and the page
01:47:00 and then the escalations and the page we're looking at here at the moment is the escalations yes yes now um if we um go back to
01:47:09 back to uh
01:47:10 uh let's start with pre-january 2014.
01:47:17 we can see there's the color coding and if we look at one or two examples there let's look at number 17. we'll have to scroll up for that
01:47:28 we'll have to scroll up for that if we go to number 17
01:47:34 uh
01:47:48 uh i think we may want in fact the next tab i'm sorry postpost 2014. if we go please to exhibit
01:47:58 exhibit row number 14. there
01:48:04 uh yeah 17. that's it uh orchard putney or orchid partner limited 17 and that's code red yes it says yes so high risk and let's look
01:48:15 it says yes so high risk and let's look at 40 as well let's just look at one or two 40 higgins construction
01:48:25 that's given a red and you can look at the comments under that one on the right hand side we should consider the risk as being high due to the use of copper on a
01:48:36 high due to the use of copper on a timber backing and acm material for the aluminium rain screen please note that a x over warrington fire report has been commissioned and is present in the file in readiness for the fully assessment outside this initial
01:48:47 fully assessment outside this initial review so that was given a red let's look at number 58 mount anvil
01:48:57 also given a red this project would in my view constitute a high risk until we know the performance of the acm rain screen wall buildup
01:49:07 and just to complete the picture go back to 17 because i didn't put to you the comment but looking at 17.
01:49:16 blocks b and d appear most affected aluminium rain screen clouding fixed to concrete wall with k15 in cavity and again given a code red yes yes and we can see here and these are just examples that there are references here
01:49:27 examples that there are references here to acm
01:49:29 to acm but no details of exactly what the cladding product is that's been used and whether or not it's pe um why is that because this was the initial review of the review team
01:49:40 the review team this would then have been um would have been in red so the condition would have been applied the builder would have been approached to provide further information um they would have provided that
01:49:51 um they would have provided that information and then that would have been if if john had reviewed that peer-reviewed that internally been satisfied that it would have been passed through for um escalation to myself and then on to
01:50:03 um escalation to myself and then on to diane to have the condition cleared right so was that information actually gathered even though we don't see it on this document um yes if that building was subsequently signed off then yes it would have needed that process to be completed in order to
01:50:14 completed in order to have been filed for um
01:50:17 um so is this building control and warranty
01:50:22 17 sorry i'm just checking if it's warranty and building control
01:50:27 i believe that one's just warranty only i believe right and is it your evidence that none of these was acn with a pe or otherwise combustible core again
01:50:38 again as part of that that those comments in um column a1 were the initial comments of that review group that wasn't the signing off of that that wasn't the end of the process that was the initial review we
01:50:49 process that was the initial review we carried out in 2015 when we rag rated these projects that's the the initial view of that review team so um john lewis phil pettinger dave alexander white and gary jarvis
01:51:01 alexander white and gary jarvis can we just scroll to the right hand side of this move the cursor along to the right and see how see what the last column is is up-to-date comments isn't it
01:51:14 i believe so yes and just looking at
01:51:19 if we scroll down and we can still see the column numbers look at 17 we can't yes it's still red
01:51:27 you've got you've got
01:51:33 blocks b and d which were the most effective with aluminium rain screen but in the red writing there you can see they've been downgraded to low risk in looks like november 2015 and
01:51:46 looks like november 2015 and february 2016. yes yes
01:51:49 yes yes um do you know whether they were downgraded to low risk with a acm on them or whether the panel was changed i don't know let's try
01:52:00 let's try uh
01:52:01 uh row 40.
01:52:04 row 40. if we go to the right hand side of the document we go down to row 40 let's see how that turned out this is higgins construction and if we can scroll to the right hand side there's no there's nothing there
01:52:19 if that
01:52:21 that project had
01:52:24 been amended so that the aca bed had been removed because it was high risk would you expect to see that noted in this document not necessarily in this document but it would have been noted in the project
01:52:35 would have been noted in the project file
01:52:36 file let's try 58 mountainville let's scroll down 58. yes thank you very much uh high risk because of the acm
01:52:47 high risk because of the acm uh noted capping beam stage what does that tell us about whether or not this was rejected or accepted so at the stage this was last updated um the building was only a capping beam
01:52:59 building was only a capping beam so it wasn't it was nowhere near it was still under construction right i don't think i'll be corrected if i'm wrong by you but i don't think we see anywhere in this document an outcome of this review whereby
01:53:11 an outcome of this review whereby the project was rejected because it was high risk
01:53:14 high risk because of the presence of acm rain screen not in this document though you'd have to dig into the each individual file have you done that
01:53:23 it would have been done as an iterative process as we as we'd gone through these so these projects would have been moving through noel pells who was the project manager on that um particular job that
01:53:34 manager on that um particular job that you've highlighted there at row 58 would have been in charge it would have been the project manager coordinating with the builder to get the evidence from them in terms of the option three assessment or indeed um have they
01:53:47 assessment or indeed um have they decided ultimately to change the cladding perhaps uh or the installation whatever so um and he would have had to pass it through the escalation process in order for that um that blocking condition to have been
01:54:00 um that blocking condition to have been removed so that blocking condition prevents
01:54:04 prevents a building trial final certificate or a warranty being offered on that project so until it's been through the escalation process that condition would have been applied yes but we don't see
01:54:16 yes but we don't see on this document at least
01:54:19 projects being rejected because they're high risk because of the presence of acm no they wouldn't have been at that stage because we still had the opportunity and
01:54:30 because we still had the opportunity and part of this the reason for doing this was to then get the information from the builder to satisfy ourselves just because at the review stage in 2015 it had acm proposed and it was deemed as
01:54:44 it had acm proposed and it was deemed as high risk or amber risk we didn't just say we're not going to do it we then wanted to work with the builder to satisfy ourselves that the builder could demonstrate compliance
01:54:55 was it nhbc's policy in respect of post-january 14 buildings high-rise buildings to reject
01:55:04 to reject acm
01:55:05 acm altogether or to accept them if the builder could demonstrate compliance through one of the routes in bca guidance node 18
01:55:16 bca guidance node 18 we would accept it with acn yes you would accept it with acm if they could demonstrate compliance through one of the routes on bca guidance down 18 well according to you the only way that could be done was option three and that is
01:55:27 be done was option three and that is that what you mean predominantly it would be option three or option four yes we only have one option for us youtube well we know that yes they can't go down the with a pe core they wouldn't be able to
01:55:38 with a pe core they wouldn't be able to go down
01:55:39 go down um
01:55:40 um they may acm there are a2 panels which are acm panels which if then used with a with a non-combustible insulation would have actually satisfied
01:55:52 have actually satisfied option one route do you know how many of these projects were using acm with a pe core
01:55:58 i don't know when this says these were using them these would have been in varying stages of design so the design must may have indicated and in most of the cases you'll see it has aluminium acm panels
01:56:11 you'll see it has aluminium acm panels but it's not known at that time if it's pe chord
01:56:14 pe chord subsequent investigations with the builder may have actually revealed that it was the a2 panel for example
01:56:22 example can we go back to the first tab which is the pre-31st december 2013 spreadsheet and scroll down if you scroll down gently you can see large numbers of code reddit buildings
01:56:34 large numbers of code reddit buildings high-risk buildings which have a description of the elements of the external facade in them but many of them don't in fact most of them don't contain any detailed uh identification of the exact materials used
01:56:45 exact materials used that's right isn't it they're they're they're pretty generic yeah but i mean just quickly scanning through obviously i'm not it's been a while since i've reviewed this spreadsheet yes
01:56:56 reviewed this spreadsheet yes yeah yes now um if we look at the first high risk development on the in in the first tab at line six if we can stop scrolling and go back to line six we can
01:57:07 scrolling and go back to line six we can see that that one uh given code red in the column a g uh is a development by fraser's projects limited yes
01:57:20 uh and you can see that from from line six b phrases projects limited and if you go along to lines uh along line six to column s
01:57:32 uh you can see that it's riverside quarter phase three oz road london sw18 yes see that curtain walling with insulation backed panels aluco bond rain screen aluminium
01:57:43 panels aluco bond rain screen aluminium composite system you see that there i do
01:57:48 and it's coated red with the word high what did peer review risk assessment refer to
01:57:53 refer to there
01:57:55 there so
01:57:56 so um it would have entailed uh because it was pre-31 for the in order of the insulation would have been obviously a letter from kingspan
01:58:07 kingspan or
01:58:07 or and for the panels then it would need to set it obviously for the remainder of the wall construction would have been checked in accordance with the atb and what does the color red and the word high refer to
01:58:18 high refer to the
01:58:19 the when the review team looked at this um
01:58:23 um there was the they they graded it as high and then we went through the sorry i can't remember the descriptions but it's it's within my witness statement i think we summarized them earlier on and we can see the um the description of the product a luca
01:58:35 the description of the product a luca bond rain screen aluminium composite system do you know or did you know or could you have known what type of a luca bond range screen that was
01:58:43 not through looking at that description on here no right i'd have to go into the job and that would tell you whether it was p e chord or not is that right um
01:58:52 um i i would hope i mean obviously there we see it's at higher than that low that would um
01:58:58 would um that would yeah the escalation that was passed through would have verified that yes
01:59:02 yes and why is the exact type of luca bond rain screen not noted there because it wasn't known at this time and that's why it's probably that's probably why it's been rated as high at that point and where would that information and
01:59:13 and where would that information and also the information about the kind of insulation being used be held if not in this spreadsheet it would be held in the project file itself the spreadsheet is just a summary of that
01:59:23 that the you'd have to dig into the file to find the actual assessments the letters and things like that you'd have to dig into the dog the job file for that if you go along to ai
01:59:35 ai heading column a i
01:59:41 for this project you can see that it's been given a yellow low yes
01:59:47 yes yes there are no further details no as it was coded red originally was that project escalated it would have had to been for them to for the blocking condition to have been
01:59:58 for the blocking condition to have been cleared yes yeah and then if we go to the escalations cap we can follow it through i think if we click on the escalations tab you can see this building features twice in this spreadsheet the first is at line 116.
02:00:11 116. you can see it there yes
02:00:13 yes yep
02:00:14 yep uh you've got the name of the project at column e and if you go along you can see that the date of review in column g 13th of july 2016. yes you can see that so that's after your note after your
02:00:26 so that's after your note after your guidance note and if you look at column h the comments column it says query the aluminium spandrel areas around windows and if we go down to line 129
02:00:37 and if we go down to line 129 you can see the project appears again in this document column e riverside quarter phase three and then going along if you look at column um you can see it's reviewed under column
02:00:50 g at
02:00:52 at 28th of august 2016 and in the column h
02:00:57 h having the containing the comments it says numerous concerns raised as per referral answer text overall should reach a positive outcome mkf and that's it and i think mkf is the
02:01:10 and that's it and i think mkf is the other engineer malik katkori yeah and he's the other fire engineer yes now breaking all that up and i've shown you a lot to digest mr evans but first what were the numerous concerns referred to
02:01:22 were the numerous concerns referred to there do you know i don't know you wouldn't know off the top of your head but we would find that would we in the project file you have to go to the project file yes and what's the referral answer text what is that so that's um so when our surveyors or
02:01:35 so that's um so when our surveyors or project managers want um the uh particular work to be reviewed by one of our fire engineers they would put it into what we call a referral um so a package of information which is
02:01:46 um so a package of information which is then sent through to the fire engineers work queue and then when the fire engineer has done their work on it they would put their response to it and they would send that back to the surveyor or to the project manager so it's an
02:01:58 to the project manager so it's an internal management system for tracking that work that goes through the system absolutely and what is meant by overall should reach positive outcome that was his view um yeah if those concerns had been
02:02:09 um yeah if those concerns had been satisfied you know i would i would interpret that you'd have to ask malik of course but i'm first reading that he's raised numerous concerns but he feels that um
02:02:20 numerous concerns but he feels that um the the builder is going to be able to respond to those positively i don't suppose you know the answer to this but at least specifically for this project but in procedural terms how would that project have changed from
02:02:31 how would that project have changed from red and high risk to yellow and low risk so depending when it uh was done obviously um prior to the issue of the um the guidance note
02:02:42 um the guidance note which we talked about so prior to june 26th
02:02:46 26th um
02:02:48 um then obviously would have gone through an escalation process to me and then through to to diane
02:02:53 to diane following the issue of the nhpc guidance note we
02:02:56 note we changed the escalation process um to allow the uh fire engineers to respond directly back to the um
02:03:07 um to the project manager or the um surveyor if they were satisfied so it no longer had to go through myself or diane
02:03:17 now given that this project was coded yellow does that mean that it was given a low risk rating and construction recommended to continue which is how i think what you'd say yellow ultimately i'm saying ultimately
02:03:29 yellow ultimately i'm saying ultimately it would appear that um by going down to yellow
02:03:33 yellow um or that particular block um so it could you know those blocks each line in that spreadsheet is a block rather than the whole job and you've said you've already said this it appears twice in this spreadsheet so that would indicate
02:03:45 this spreadsheet so that would indicate that there's separate blocks on this job in order for that block to have been downgraded to yellow it would have had to go through the escalation process nice and somebody
02:03:56 the escalation process nice and somebody you know either myself prior to
02:03:59 prior to june 22 july 22 2017 2016 sorry um to be cleared or ultimately when we changed it we did modify it later on for
02:04:10 changed it we did modify it later on for the fire engineer to be satisfied and respond positively
02:04:14 so the surveyor or the project manager could not just clear that condition on their own there had to be a an audit trail internally for how that was done um
02:04:23 um right
02:04:25 right have
02:04:26 have had the end has the nhpc gone back to the project files after the fire or gone
02:04:32 or gone into the public domain and
02:04:36 and checked this document this spreadsheet against
02:04:42 the ultimate outcomes
02:04:45 outcomes and to see whether in fact acm and particularly acm with a pe core did end up on any of these buildings which had originally been marked high risk
02:04:55 risk following the grenfell fire we did a review again of the projects in build
02:05:02 firstly to gather information to see if any had been constructed using the nhbc guidance note
02:05:10 note um
02:05:11 um and and i
02:05:13 and and i can confirm that not a none of the projects that were in build that had used that guidance note had actually gone down the acm route they're all brickwork uh a majority of brickwork and a couple of timber
02:05:24 a couple of timber we also
02:05:26 we also went back to all of the projects that were still in build which had um either received option three assessments and we were assessing them all we'd assess them and cleared them and we asked the builders to go back to
02:05:38 and we asked the builders to go back to their fire engineers and to
02:05:40 and to um
02:05:41 um clarify with their fire engineers if they still stood by their report their their findings in their their assessments based on the information um that we had then in terms of the
02:05:52 that we had then in terms of the government testing and things like that now you say that you'd after the fire you'd gone back and did a review to see if any had been constructed using the nhbc guidance note do you mean the
02:06:03 the nhbc guidance note do you mean the 2016 guidance yes the 2016 codes right but what about the intervening two and a half years 2014 and 2050 which is covered by this spreadsheet my question was have you done a review after the
02:06:15 was have you done a review after the grenfell tower fire to see if any of these projects any of these buildings contain
02:06:21 contain acm
02:06:22 acm rain screen again we only looked at projects in build at that stage why is that
02:06:29 that was a decision that was made by an hbc to only look at projects that were in build yes what was the raise what was the basis of that decision the rationale for it can you tell us
02:06:39 tell us i don't know the rationale again my my um the brief i was given was to look at buildings which were under construction at that time
02:06:50 at that time a quick google search brings up a twitter page i hesitate to do this to you without showing it to you but to take it from me that for riverside quarter sw18 um
02:07:02 it says that riverside quarter is 650 flats in nine buildings developers phrases who've replaced cladding on four new buildings that cost its own cost and applying for government funds for the four older buildings
02:07:15 funds for the four older buildings do you know anything about that i don't know no why not why don't why isn't nhbc equipped to know whether any of these buildings covered in this spreadsheet are actually the subject of
02:07:27 spreadsheet are actually the subject of cladding removal and an application for funding by the government uh i wouldn't know that uh if the builders or the sorry if the building owners
02:07:39 owners felt that they had um a claim they could make that through our claims department but i wouldn't know that that's i don't work in claims
02:07:50 the decision to sign off this building with the cladding that it had on it would be something that we would be able to see would we in the project file the nhbc project file
02:08:01 nhbc project file there should be information within the project file yes do you know from your own knowledge whether those project files have been disclosed to the inquiry
02:08:10 i don't know i don't know not the full project files i know um i believe that we've compiled a list of the um
02:08:17 the um the option three assessments and things like that but i don't i don't know if we've disclosed um
02:08:24 um entire project files to the inquiry i don't know sorry you didn't read any or asked to see any when preparing your evidence did you i didn't know
02:08:33 know why is that why are you not keen to know whether in fact these buildings referred to in this review updated as it was through 2016 in fact in fact contained acm
02:08:45 in fact in fact contained acm with or without a pe core
02:08:49 joined my preparation for the inquiry i didn't feel that was necessary why not
02:08:57 i mean i put it to you because surely it would be essential to know whether in fact the system you had in place to ensure that no acm particularly no acm with the pe corps found its way onto high-rise buildings was robust
02:09:08 high-rise buildings was robust as i say in my statement i was numerous times in my statement as far as i'm aware
02:09:14 i'm aware we haven't built buildings with acn with a pe core and i was as part of my review in preparation for the inquiry i've been through the process that we followed for
02:09:25 through the process that we followed for our escalation process and detailed that and i was happy with that process well let's examine that can we go to your statement please page 110 paragraph 279
02:09:37 279 you say
02:09:39 you say uh post grenfell building reviews nhbc carried out a number of actions after the grenfell tower fire including investigating the extent to which nhbc provided building control or warranty services
02:09:50 services for buildings over 18 meters which incorporated acm panels with a pe or otherwise combustible core in their external walls
02:10:02 now the first question is if you had brought in as we see you did in 2015 new guidance i'm sorry 2014 and then again in 2015
02:10:13 i'm sorry 2014 and then again in 2015 new guidance which meant that you would not have accepted acm with the pe course save as part perhaps of desktops and you'd reviewed all the projects before that date why did you need to undertake that review
02:10:25 undertake that review surely you would know
02:10:30 sorry could i go back up to the previous page on my statement yes can we go back to page 110 please
02:10:43 i'm trying then to the next page right
02:10:51 so i can repeat the question sorry
02:10:54 yes uh if you brought it as we saw you brought in a technical guidance note 18 in 2014 and revised it in 2015. yes the effect of that was
02:11:05 the effect of that was using the linear route aluminium composite material panels with a peak or would not and could not have been accepted yes yes yes um and therefore the only way they could have been accepted was presumably an
02:11:17 have been accepted was presumably an option three desktop yes yes yes
02:11:21 yes yes and you would have seen during the escalation process surely any desktop which had included an acm pe called rain screen clouding build-up if there had been one which would propose to accept yes
02:11:33 propose to accept yes yes and i think you told us earlier that you hadn't seen one not through an option three routes not through an optional three route quite therefore my question is having done that and having never seen one what was the point of carrying out this review
02:11:44 the point of carrying out this review you would be confident wouldn't you that you had no buildings which had acm of the pe core on them i think a lot of companies after the grenfell fire did a lot of due diligence what were the parameters of your review
02:11:57 what were the parameters of your review let me be more specific how far back did nhp search in time we searched back um so in terms of the um
02:12:06 um so in 2017 the first thing we did was to look at
02:12:09 look at any buildings which had used the 2006 guidance no 2016 guidance note to do that and then we looked at projects which were under construction
02:12:22 projects which were under construction at that time i see
02:12:26 i see so
02:12:27 so under construction meaning what the initial notice had been filed or had not yet been filed had been filed had been filed but hadn't yet been processed well there's been process or was under construction or hadn't been
02:12:38 was under construction or hadn't been hadn't been signed off i see so no certificate we had an issue a final certificate right i see i'm with you
02:12:46 and what was the earliest date that took you back to i don't know i can't be sure wouldn't gone very far back would it
02:12:55 it wouldn't have gone back to 2013 it depends how long the project took to build some some buildings can take a very long time to build but i don't know sorry but did you specifically focus on seeing whether any
02:13:07 specifically focus on seeing whether any pre-31st december 2013 projects uh had a acm with a pe core on them
02:13:16 as i say i i didn't we didn't revisit any completed projects at that time why not
02:13:24 why not my brief was to review projects under construction yes you see i know and this is a consistent theme throughout your evidence mr evans and what i really would like to know is why did nobody at the nhbc go back in time
02:13:36 did nobody at the nhbc go back in time and work out what is the universe of high-rise buildings in the built environment signed off by the nhpc which contained acm
02:13:47 contained acm particularly acm with a pe core on them after grenfell that was a decision that was out of my remit at that time who made that decision
02:14:01 i don't know who made that decision it would
02:14:03 would the decision that was fed down to me following my escalation to back as 2015 the decision was fed back to me was fed back by um ian davis and diane marshall
02:14:15 diane marshall you just told us and i i you say it also in paragraph 281 of your statement which is on the screen that the first part of the process was to see if there are external war makeups with acm given final approval for
02:14:27 with acm given final approval for building control on the basis of the 2016
02:14:30 2016 nhbc guidance notes yes and is that because that was that was your priority because it was that document which for the first time expressly let in acm
02:14:41 for the first time expressly let in acm particularly acm with a pe call uh cladding cladding materials
02:14:48 we we that obviously at the time after the um
02:14:52 the um the the test the government tests and the results from that we wanted to ensure
02:14:57 ensure um
02:14:59 um or
02:15:00 or establish if any of uh the buildings that we had um i'd use that 2016 guidance note yeah so it's part of the due diligence we were doing as all organizations were doing at that
02:15:11 all organizations were doing at that time why did you do it because i was asked to do it yeah that's like sorry let me rephrase the question why did the nhbc do it um because obviously um you know we had
02:15:23 um because obviously um you know we had been uh we've been asked questions about the 2016 guidance note uh we felt as part of our due diligence we wanted to identify if any of those um projects that had used the note had incorporated acm now the result of that
02:15:37 incorporated acm now the result of that was a list wasn't there uh which you exhibited sde 12 112 of a small number of you say uh of projects using acm
02:15:47 using acm uh and there were there were four projects on there weren't there well they were they were identified as they could have used acm yes yes
02:15:56 yes yes and were those four that projects that were at some stage uh on the spreadsheets that we've been looking at i don't know i can't verify that well you could verify that
02:16:07 verify that well you could verify that you could put one document next to the other
02:16:10 other i haven't done that operation why is that
02:16:18 i haven't sorry do you know what type of acm was used as this as the in those projects i can't recall on those now do you know why that detail isn't included
02:16:30 as i say here um there was a small number of um cases where
02:16:36 where um it was identified that acm had been used
02:16:39 used um on establishing that uh john lewis reviewed those and none of them had used the acm i'd not followed the 2016 guidance note um so we then they were revisited as
02:16:51 um so we then they were revisited as part of um we then asked the surveyors or engineers to go back so project managers to then go back to the original fire engineers to or advise the builder to go
02:17:04 engineers to or advise the builder to go back to the original fire engineers on those projects to um identify if they if they still stood by their reports and if you look at paragraph 283 of your statement you say in july to september
02:17:15 statement you say in july to september 2017 we carried out a separate review to revisit projects under construction where the escalation process described above was used to justify materials and there were never available tests so the builders fire engineers were relying
02:17:27 the builders fire engineers were relying on testing of similar materials but pausing there what do you mean by the escalation process was used to justify materials so these were materials within the wall build up where they were no available
02:17:38 build up where they were no available tests
02:17:39 tests so that could be cladding it could be whatever was in that that will make up so it's it's like you're earlier on so when you say no available tests you mean the builders fire engineers were relying
02:17:51 the builders fire engineers were relying on testing of what they regarded as similar
02:17:54 similar analogous materials yes right now you say that the results of that project are shown in sde 113 which i think you renamed the 2017 escalations review table is that correct
02:18:06 review table is that correct um i believe so yeah well let's look at it nhb 403 please
02:18:15 and this is a list of 96 projects or so of varying cladding types
02:18:22 i'm just going to wait till it comes up it's nhb403039
02:18:27 there it is and it's got three sheets as you can see from the tabs in the bottom left-hand corner
02:18:34 corner and
02:18:35 and you can see if we scroll to the bottom that there are some 96 uh projects in all and again is it is it projects or is it buildings
02:18:45 buildings um i don't know i'd imagine it's projects at this time yes it looks like projects
02:18:49 projects yes
02:18:50 yes uh do you know what the date range was that was used to compile this spreadsheet
02:19:00 i don't know sorry and again
02:19:03 and again did you use the 2016 guidance note so sorry this went back to all of the all of the escalations we'd received since our changing policy of 2015 sorry i see so back to march 2015 yes right if
02:19:16 i see so back to march 2015 yes right if they were still under construction again yes and what were the outcomes of those projects
02:19:20 projects uh where it was identified that um testing um that the report may rely on um
02:19:26 um other testing other than the materials they'd got um again we asked the builder to go back to their fire engineer
02:19:35 engineer and
02:19:36 and ask them to carry out their due diligence in terms of were they still happy to stand by their report and were there any
02:19:43 there any where the nhbc had provided either warranty or building control off the where
02:19:49 the where the
02:19:50 the um
02:19:51 um external wall build up did not comply with the proof document b
02:19:56 i don't know this was then delegated down to brian stevenson and keith evans to see that through and did they report to you what their
02:20:07 and did they report to you what their findings were they didn't um shortly after this um
02:20:13 um this project was handed over uh i was conned out for three four days a week onto another project internal project if we look at paragraph 284
02:20:24 if we look at paragraph 284 you say the other
02:20:28 2017 process was to understand nhbc's potential exposure from claims relating to cladding this related to claims under section 4 of nhebc's build mark policy we looked at all buildings over 18 meters including those where
02:20:39 meters including those where construction was complete neil jefferson and ian davis led discussions with builders who constructed the buildings if those builders confirmed that they intended to address any potential cladding issues then from an insurer's
02:20:50 cladding issues then from an insurer's point of view nhbc did not need to consider those as part of its exposure for potential claims the list of buildings with stories over 18 meters that included acm in the external wall makeup and that
02:21:01 makeup and that baby nhbc considered is at acede114 uh let's
02:21:07 uh let's uh let's go to ste114 [Music]
02:21:11 [Music] zeros three zero four zero
02:21:26 and you called it the section 4 exposure table is that right yes and that relates to section 4 of nhbc's build mark warranty yes yes so this table shows the projects which have been insured by nhbc
02:21:37 projects which have been insured by nhbc who are likely to make a claim is that correct it's um an examination of where uh buildings under cover um if they were to result in a claim what our exposure would be yes i follow does the did the
02:21:49 would be yes i follow does the did the nhbc also provide building control services in respect of these projects or some of them um where there's a in column k where there's a bcj reference
02:22:00 there's a bcj reference i see that oh i see and we can see that from item two first project bcj ref so that
02:22:06 that where we see bcj ref that's where there was both warranty and building control approval that's the bill control job reference yes yeah yeah i follow the case yeah thank you now um if you look at it um we can see
02:22:17 at it um we can see that there are in fact in total some 27 blocks
02:22:24 blocks from a number of projects yes yes yeah and and they all had acm on them yes uh yes there yeah yeah now the table
02:22:35 uh yes there yeah yeah now the table doesn't always tell us what type of acm the blocks had why is that because we wouldn't know right you could find out there couldn't you by looking at the project file no um yes but we wouldn't actually know if that was what was put
02:22:46 actually know if that was what was put on the building well if it was in the project file and it had signed up sign off by the bco you wouldn't you um not necessarily in some cases
02:22:55 cases well not where perhaps it was we we weren't present on site all the time when those buildings were being built um
02:23:01 um this was where it was um we'd identify that there was a acm on the building and if a claim was made and it was actually discovered that there were difficulties
02:23:12 discovered that there were difficulties with that cladding type this could be our this was to judge our potential exposure as we had as any reasonable insurance company would do now let's look at the first uh seven
02:23:23 now let's look at the first uh seven uh lines of this table this is a development called the new festival quarter
02:23:29 quarter in linfield yes yes uh and the developer was bellway homes yes
02:23:36 yes um and you can uh see that the height is provided
02:23:41 provided on the screen in front of us we can see that they're all above 18 meters so we're looking at high rises aren't we yes and we can also see that
02:23:50 that um
02:23:51 um there's a cladding comment in the right hand in column n op support cladding comment terracotta tile rain screen clouding a luca bond metal rain screen clowning etc etc goes on down the page
02:24:04 clowning etc etc goes on down the page did that project have any pe cord aluminium composite on it uh i don't know from this uh you don't know
02:24:12 know um
02:24:15 um i think it's right isn't it that the nhbc agreed to accept a claim to reclad these blocks
02:24:26 i believe so i can't be certain if this is a this is one of those schemes now right let's scroll to the right to the right hand column please
02:24:39 at any rate this is a this is effectively an underwriting assessment of the likelihood of build the claims uh
02:24:45 uh failure likelihood and probability of acceptance of claims yes yes yes probability claim accepted is given 75 in each case yes
02:24:55 yes in those cases yes
02:24:59 and if we look at box s21 in this table we go stay with move back to the left and go down to item 21.
02:25:10 item 21. um if we just go back to the left hand side we can see that the project
02:25:15 project uh is
02:25:16 uh is [Music]
02:25:20 something called grange walk development in bunton street in london do you remember that development i don't know looking at what it says in the column s there on the screen block 19.38 meters
02:25:32 there on the screen block 19.38 meters tall adb
02:25:33 tall adb 2000 applicable wall types one brickwork with assumed k-15 to ground level low risk may pass br 135 test based on other k-15 and other brickwork tests therefore low-risk green
02:25:44 low-risk green okay and then trespa meteo on various colors no wall type found but on fig 3 there are spandrel panels between windows which show the trespa the extent of the trespa at every floor level
02:25:56 i'm not sure you can see this actually on this i think you have to you may not be able to do this on the system but if you could hover over there that's it thank you
02:26:08 it thank you um let's move on um under item two trespametti on various colors no wall type fan but on figure three there are spandrel panels between windows that show the trespa the extent of trespass at every floor level and given the age
02:26:19 at every floor level and given the age of the job this is trespa probably is probably the class d variant therefore it is an amber risk 3.3 reyna bond pe core 100 millimeters kingspan k15 on cp board
02:26:31 100 millimeters kingspan k15 on cp board and sfs plasterboard it is sufficient at this stage to know that all four elevations are clad in principle in the principle cloudy material being pe raino bond as detailed within the specifications stored in the out tray
02:26:42 specifications stored in the out tray given that p rainy bond is obviously and clearly hazardous to life safety from industry experience and specifically due to grenfell this is a red risk and cannot by any means be made to pass any desktop study rockwell cavity barriers
02:26:54 desktop study rockwell cavity barriers like location on a certain conclusion read with urgent concerns for life safety
02:27:00 how was it that nhbc approved for building control or warranty a hotel i think it was clad in pe acm class d high pressure laminate with combustible insulation
02:27:13 i don't know i was involved in that project well no i'm not suggesting you were but nhbc had both provided a warranty and building control sign-off my question is are you able to explain
02:27:24 my question is are you able to explain how
02:27:25 how no
02:27:29 i want to ask you about new capital key another development that nhbc accepted a claim on now first are you familiar with that
02:27:40 now first are you familiar with that project uh i am yes yes and that's is that because it has been reported in the media as the largest development in europe to be affected by the presence of acm cladding
02:27:51 the presence of acm cladding it was um as a result of us um looking at that at nhbc yeah and you'll you'll correct me if i'm wrong but it was made up of 11 different blocks with over 900 flats
02:28:03 blocks with over 900 flats it was it's an enormous development isn't it
02:28:05 isn't it it is yes yeah now it's not in this table um we can't see it here why is that do you know um it may be known as i think it's actually the greenwich reach scheme there
02:28:16 there oh that's it is it yeah we might know it as something different do you know that well i don't know i can't be i can't be sure though well if it
02:28:25 it sorry if they'd already been subject to a claim
02:28:28 a claim um it wouldn't be in this table if we were already dealing with it as a claim i see we wouldn't have been up so this was to this was to um this table was put together to as far as we're able to tell inform our
02:28:41 as far as we're able to tell inform our underwriter or our actuarial division of what could be potential claims that we didn't know about now let's look at uh well do you know
02:28:52 now let's look at uh well do you know whether nhbc provided building control or warranty services or both in respect of the new capital key project
02:29:00 i believe we provided both yes and again you're not able to explain how come
02:29:07 how come i'm not known i want to show you another document nhb4025555
02:29:13 this is a meeting of the nhbc board of directors on the 18th of september 2018 after the grenfell tower fire by some 14 months
02:29:23 months uh
02:29:24 uh 15 months i appreciate you're not on the board of directors at the nhbc you weren't at this meeting neil smith and diane marshall were you'll also notice that at that meeting as
02:29:35 as as a guest as the third and uh person there carl stokes
02:29:40 stokes um
02:29:41 um are you able to explain how and why carl stokes
02:29:46 stokes well first of all do you know anybody called cut stokes i do who is he he was our head of i.t i see so different carl stokes from the carl stakes of his the fire risk assessor at grenfell tower yes very good
02:29:57 assessor at grenfell tower yes very good in which case well i assume so right but being we had a carl stokes who is her head of i.t i'm putting two and two together the bad news mr evans is that that doesn't shorten matters terribly sorry
02:30:09 doesn't shorten matters terribly sorry um if we go to page four of this document we can see heading four media scrutiny
02:30:16 uh and uh
02:30:20 there it is and there's a there's a paragraph there about the media team uh
02:30:25 uh with the support from a pr company uh and if we go down to heading number five claims it says a schedule of claims notified to date relating to acm clouding is attached to appendix one
02:30:37 attached to appendix one of particular note r 5.1 new capital key validated on the 9th of july 2018 as it was determined by an expert that there was evidence of overall non-compliance with part b at
02:30:48 overall non-compliance with part b at the time of construction there was an initial an initial flurry of media interest after the announcement but this died down fairly quickly galliard is currently designing a repair scheme and cost estimates but considering how to settle this claim
02:30:59 considering how to settle this claim most effectively this involves negotiation with galliard and consideration of what the policy enables us to do reaching an agreement is not straightforward due to the restrictions of the policy and just pausing there do
02:31:10 of the policy and just pausing there do you know from your knowledge what the overall non-compliance with part b was i believe uh there were deficiencies in the cavity barriers um and those sort of things around the
02:31:22 um and those sort of things around the scheme right now we know that it was an acm building do you know what type of acm was on the on that building was it pe was it
02:31:29 pe was it i couldn't confirm either way do you know what type of insulation the media reports say phenolic it was phenomenal it was phenomenal again how can you explain the fact that nhbc had signed this
02:31:40 the fact that nhbc had signed this building off as being compliant with the building regulations i can't no now you you say that nhbc was responsible for raising the standards of industry but in fact responsible for
02:31:51 industry but in fact responsible for signing off the largest acm pe cloud building project in europe given everything you've told us how could that have happened
02:32:02 i don't know the ins and out of why that material is on the building i'm not familiar with the with this game the centrillion point another acm project there as you can see
02:32:13 project there as you can see again do you know what type of acm that was i don't know again did nhbc provide warranty or building control services or both in respect again i don't know on what basis the that claim was validated right
02:32:26 the that claim was validated right you're assuming they says there's evidence of non-compliance with part b at the time of construction and then we've got bellway on page page six
02:32:37 and several projects listed there uh prospect place keysight and new festival quarter where we see that project all acm weren't they i don't know again
02:32:49 i don't know again there's workmanship issues there so as well so
02:32:54 well so i don't know that just a few i don't know the the reasons for validating the claim
02:32:57 claim right
02:33:01 and again do you know the reasons for validating the claim do you know whether nhbc provided warranty or building control services or both uh i can't be at this point of time i can't recall sorry and then just
02:33:12 can't recall sorry and then just skipping ahead to the end of the document mr chairman i've got very little left which i should just tell you well i was about to ask you i know fair enough and it's gone 5 30 and can i just ask you
02:33:21 ask you to ask the transcriber whether i'm fit to continue or she is fit to continue for another five minutes well i was going to ask you how long do you think you think five minutes yes before the normal break and then there are i know
02:33:32 normal break and then there are i know there are one or two questions but i'd rather take those after the break yes well she's very long suffering but i think she'll go for another five minutes mr evans you can do another five minutes i hope i'd rather conclude if we can
02:33:43 i hope i'd rather conclude if we can today oh we're going to do that in any event yes don't worry thank you yes let's just look at the end i'm grateful mr chairman i'm grateful to the transcriber too can we skip ahead to the end of the document
02:33:54 end of the document we can see appendix one on the last page page eight of eight the heading is cladding claims
02:34:01 circumstances movement since 31st march 2018
02:34:05 2018 and we can see that a list of developers there on in the uh left-hand side of the table uh and
02:34:12 uh and the projected provisions as at 30th september 2018 the 30th of march 2018 and the movement between those two dates in that six month period is this a table you're familiar with no you're not
02:34:24 table you're familiar with no you're not no let's just take it quickly then uh or even more quickly you can see the gray box on the left has the block details a list of 18 sites with the developer and the site name and the claim status you
02:34:36 the site name and the claim status you see
02:34:37 see um
02:34:38 um we can see that there are some 11 sites in 2018
02:34:45 in 2018 that had made claims with the further seven
02:34:48 seven not yet eliminated yes yes uh yes and we've seen earlier that a number of sites were found not to have complied with part b of approved document b
02:34:59 document b yes
02:35:00 yes in general terms i mean are you aware of how many claims have been made against nhbc
02:35:05 nhbc i'm from non-compliance i'm not no you're not
02:35:10 i i are you able to explain how it was at nhbc
02:35:13 at nhbc with the high standards that you told us about
02:35:16 about the changes of policy the guidance to industry managed to sign off a number of very large projects made up of thousands of people's homes when they didn't comply with the building regulations
02:35:28 comply with the building regulations as i say um nhbc don't build buildings the
02:35:33 the we're on site for a limited amount of time it's the builder's responsibility to build in accordance with the building regulations our warranty neither our building control or a
02:35:46 building control or a warranty is a guarantee that there is no non-compliance in that building we can't do that we're not on site all the time now you told us in your witness statement paragraph 22 page 7
02:35:58 statement paragraph 22 page 7 that the nhbc exists to raise standards and improve the quality of housing looking back on it all and looking back at what i've shown you over the last three days would you accept that nhbc
02:36:09 three days would you accept that nhbc signally failed in that purpose no i wouldn't you wouldn't no why's that we can't guaran as i said we can't guarantee that every building that we've
02:36:21 guarantee that every building that we've been involved with whether it be a a multi-storey building or a two or three story home will be defect free or that's not what we're there for the it's the builder that builds and the builders
02:36:33 the builder that builds and the builders responsibility to build in accordance with the building regulations we're not on site all the time so we cannot guarantee we can do whatever we can in terms of nhpc
02:36:44 whatever we can in terms of nhpc standards in terms of our building control service to influence as far as we can and raise those standards but we can't guarantee and it's not expected that building
02:36:55 and it's not expected that building control is able to guarantee that there are there won't be non-compliances on site when we when we sign off and that's whether your local authority or an approved inspector
02:37:06 approved inspector are you prepared to accept or nhb prepared i'm sorry sorry sorry i was i was speaking over you sorry you're asking a question do you uh
02:37:18 uh speaking as the nhbc except
02:37:23 except that as
02:37:24 that as a result
02:37:25 a result at least in part of nhbc's role in the in the matters we've covered the built environment has a number of high-rise buildings
02:37:37 has a number of high-rise buildings signed off by nhbc and warranted by an hbc which do not and never did follow the guidance in approved document b and did not comply with the building regulations
02:37:54 i will accept that there i can accept that there are as evidenced by the um the reviews that building owners have there's a number of buildings out there a high number of buildings out there with pe core as to
02:38:06 buildings out there with pe core as to nhbc's role in that that's not for me to to decide
02:38:12 to decide well i'm asking you to i'm it's not i don't think that's for me to
02:38:19 to today if you if you don't want to express an opinion i don't want you don't think we need require you to do so we might draw our own conclusions however that's for the i mean obviously we're we want to assist
02:38:30 mean obviously we're we want to assist the inquiry as much as we can in coming to its conclusions and nhbc will will learn from from the lessons that we've learned and from the any lessons that the the inquiry includes as well and
02:38:42 the the inquiry includes as well and that takes me to my final question looking back on the matters that we've covered over the last three days mr evans is there anything that you personally would have done differently
02:38:53 yes i would have been more assertive with kingsman um
02:38:59 um i do feel
02:39:01 i do feel that
02:39:02 that i should have escalated that a lot sooner
02:39:05 sooner seen through that and obviously evidence from the inquiry has revealed that um they weren't just they weren't just delaying things they in some cases they were lying and that's a matter for me to look at myself
02:39:17 a matter for me to look at myself um
02:39:19 um so yeah
02:39:20 so yeah and
02:39:21 and i would have pressed a lot a lot firmer for
02:39:24 for more testing at an earlier time
02:39:29 mr evans thank you very much i've come to the end of my prepared questions i am conscious that there is one question i haven't asked you a set of questions that i want to revisit
02:39:38 revisit but for the meantime i'm going to ask the chairman to take the usual break just to make a review yes thank you well i'm sorry it's not quite over for you mr evans because at this stage when council reaches the end
02:39:50 this stage when council reaches the end or thinks he's reached the end of his questions we have a break to enable him just to check that he hasn't left anything important out and also to let other people who are following the proceedings from other locations can
02:40:02 proceedings from other locations can suggest questions which perhaps we should put to you so uh we're gonna have a break no i think ten minutes should be enough shouldn't it
02:40:09 it it should be if i need any more time mr chairman i'll come and and uh i'm sorry to entertain you and all the other people who are involved but we'll break for ten minutes we'll come back at ten to 5 but if
02:40:20 back at ten to 5 but if more time is required um well you may find this little later than that but we'll tell you as soon as we're ready that's fine all right thank you thank you very much
02:40:37 all right just a minute we'll say ten to five if you need more time just ask the archer to come thank you very much mr chairman yes thank you
02:53:52 would you ask mr evans to come back in please okay
02:54:04 all right mr evans i'm sorry we kept doing a little longer than i indicated but we'll see if there are any more questions for you now yes yes um mr chairman one or two could you please be shown nhb402791
02:54:22 this is an email of the 6th of august 2015
02:54:30 and will be when
02:54:33 when i get the right page number uh it's uh at page two and uh it's from john lewis to diane marshall st and you
02:54:44 and the subject is k-15 news with aluminium facade hello both i attended a meeting with satech on tuesday they manufacture aluminium not composite cladding systems their system holds approval when used
02:54:55 their system holds approval when used with rockwell insulation they also showed me a bs 8414 part 2 test which used king k-15 behind a two millimeter aluminium finish which was funded equally between kingspan sotech
02:55:06 funded equally between kingspan sotech and another party i forget who in 2008. it failed within 15 minutes with flames coming off the top of the test rig a few months ago saytek got a call from kingspan telling them that they'd take
02:55:17 kingspan telling them that they'd take legal action against them if they released the test report my problem is that one kingspan have never mentioned it two kingsmen have been reluctant to our
02:55:26 our request that they undertake a test using aluminium three we've seen assessments from bre which are based on the terracotta and eternity board tests and the results extrapolated to aluminium with the conclusion that in their view
02:55:37 with the conclusion that in their view it should perform acceptably when tested to bs8414 either bre have ignored or been instructed to ignore the earlier satech test or as it was some time ago the current staff were unaware of it
02:55:49 the current staff were unaware of it i know our backs are covered by bre's assessment report but i still have doubts about how the fire performance of a lightweight metal has been assessed on the basis of an inert in organic material and knowing that kingspan are
02:56:00 material and knowing that kingspan are wanting to cover up tests which they aren't happy to share i just have the feeling that the use of an aluminium facade in k-15 may not be as good as we're led to believe happy to elaborate more on tuesday
02:56:11 happy to elaborate more on tuesday that's what he says on the next page now first of all do you remember receiving that or reading that email uh i don't do you remember having any discussions with diane marshall or with john lewis about the contents of that
02:56:23 john lewis about the contents of that email
02:56:24 email we are having lots of discussions at the time
02:56:27 time around this subject yeah right but did you do you remember having any specific discussions about this specific email not that i can specifically remember about the scene no no do you remember specific discussions the next period in
02:56:38 specific discussions the next period in the next week the following tuesday i don't know sorry do you know whether any actions were agreed between you diane marshall and john lewis or some of you on that and what to do about it
02:56:50 you on that and what to do about it i don't know sorry do you remember what you did about it did nhbc go to kingspan and confront them with this
02:57:00 i don't remember i'm sorry we don't i don't think we've seen any uh record of you doing that do you know why that is i say i i can't recall
02:57:11 why that is i say i i can't recall um
02:57:13 um i can't recall the specific email and i was i was uh it was sent to myself and but i can't remember the specific email or the discussions that ensued we're having lots of discussions at that time around this subject now we know that you've already done your reviews in 2014
02:57:25 you've already done your reviews in 2014 and 15
02:57:26 and 15 and they were continuing but in the light of the warning that you get from sotek
02:57:30 sotek about the failed k-15 and aluminium test are you able to explain why the nhbc went on
02:57:36 went on to publish the nhbc 2016 guidance permitting the use of k-15 and acm in appendix 3 as we've seen as i said that we
02:57:46 that we we had
02:57:47 we had we felt at that time sufficient option three assessments carried out by fire engineers bre xover to
02:57:56 to satisfy ourselves that we were in a position to be able to publish that right when you pulled um that 2016 guidance together did you go back and look at this email and ask yourself the question um why are we listing acm as
02:58:09 question um why are we listing acm as rain screen cladding and k15 given in the real world when put together they they spectacular they signally failed an 8414 test 15 minutes with flames coming
02:58:20 8414 test 15 minutes with flames coming off the top of the test rig no i didn't why is that
02:58:26 as i say the the process of putting that that guidance note together was based on the option three reports we had at that time yes but this is the real world this is a real world test acm with k-15
02:58:39 is a real world test acm with k-15 15-minute failure flames coming off the top of the rig why prefer an extrapolation of a set of extrapolations to a real-world test i hadn't seen this real-world test you've been told about it in this email
02:58:50 you've been told about it in this email though yes but we still hadn't seen that real world test i would say that the we based our
02:58:57 based our our view of what we would accept um to satisfy ourselves that the wall facade met before one on those option three assessments uh and our internal review of those assessments now earlier
02:59:09 review of those assessments now earlier in the year february earlier february 2015 you wrote to kingspan nhb50922 i just want to show you one or two documents
02:59:19 documents and just ask you briefly about them this is 5th of february 2015. letter to tony milichap re the use of cool firm k-15 range screen boarding
02:59:30 cool firm k-15 range screen boarding facades above 18 meters it's a long letter
02:59:34 letter and
02:59:35 and we know the reaction it provokes it was the one it was the one copied to gene merta yes i think we looked at this earlier in your evidence in fact you recall
02:59:43 recall i do yes yes just just remind us what was the purpose of that letter this was to inform um kingspan that would be going to our customers
02:59:54 would be going to our customers um telling them they needed uh where they were using combustible materials that we would be uh um asking for compliance to demonstrate compliance using bca guidance now 18.
03:00:06 guidance now 18. can we go to nhb 50s 934 please
03:00:15 this is a letter from you of the 13th of february internally where you're bringing staff up to date what was the purpose of that email that was to tell uh update staff in
03:00:27 that was to tell uh update staff in terms of our um new policy around cafe around combustible insulation and specifically k-15 can we go to nhp401032 please
03:00:43 this is a letter to customers in march 2015
03:00:47 2015 yes the final text to for communication which we haven't seen during your evidence uh what was the purpose of that this is to inform our builder customers of the processes with the revised process we were now following and how
03:00:59 process we were now following and how did they respond
03:01:03 they weren't very pleased in most cases
03:01:09 led to a lot of difficult conversations now you also referred in your evidence i think in an answer to the question the question from the chairman when he asked you whether um
03:01:22 when he asked you whether um you knew about or could recall any test data for non-acm class b panels and you responded that the one specifically brings to mind is a class b
03:01:33 brings to mind is a class b career
03:01:34 career panel
03:01:35 panel is that's career is it c-a-r-e-a yes i see did you know that that was tested with k-15
03:01:42 with k-15 in december 2014 and failed
03:01:47 and it was also subsequently tested and then passed when was that i can't remember the exact date but
03:01:58 uh mr chairman i've come to the end of my questions i didn't yes thank you any of the others uh and therefore it simply remains for me mr evans to thank you very much for coming to the inquiry and assisting us with our investigations we're extremely
03:02:10 with our investigations we're extremely grateful to you can i also please uh express my thanks to the transcriber for sitting 35 minutes beyond the due time and to you and the panel for allowing me that indulgence yeah thank you very much
03:02:23 that indulgence yeah thank you very much well mr evans we finally have reached the end of the experience as far as you're concerned but it's right that i should thank you on behalf of all three members of the panel for coming to give us your evidence it's been quite a
03:02:35 evidence it's been quite a lengthy process and i suspect not an entirely agreeable one but you've been generous with your time and we've learned a lot as a result of hearing from you so thank you very much indeed and you're now free to go thank you very
03:02:47 and you're now free to go thank you very much thank you thank you would you like to give the ushers
03:03:00 well mr that brings us to the end of the proceedings for today and it also brings us to the end of the proceedings for 2021 because we're not sitting next week and in fact we shan't be sitting
03:03:14 week and in fact we shan't be sitting again until the 24th of january next year
03:03:20 but i'd just like to make it clear that the inquiries staff and members including i may say the members of the panel back at work early in january to make sure as far as
03:03:31 early in january to make sure as far as possible that good use is made of the intervening period and i just also like to say thank you very much to all those who give us their support in
03:03:42 all those who give us their support in keeping the inquiry running many of you are here in the room today and i include amongst them loyal
03:03:50 loyal supporters if that's the right word those who come and attend the inquiry quite
03:03:55 quite quite regularly and indeed for most of the time as far as i can see but particularly i'd like to thank our technical supporters the stenographer who's done a tremendous job and never complains even though we keep
03:04:08 and never complains even though we keep her late on occasion our document manager who's always seems to bring up the documents within seconds of their being asked for and those who aren't present in the of
03:04:19 and those who aren't present in the of course i should mention the ushers and the support staff but there are others who are not present in the room and who has seen only occasionally i'm thinking in particular of the technical support staff who inhabit the
03:04:31 technical support staff who inhabit the little room just outside the hearing room and keep all these systems functioning remarkably well and the security staff and others who keep the building running smoothly i'm
03:04:43 keep the building running smoothly i'm very hopeful that by the time we get to the end of january the present difficulties with the latest variant of covid will have resolved themselves at least to the point when it won't be necessary for us
03:04:55 point when it won't be necessary for us to
03:04:56 to impose any further restrictions but we shall keep things under review and we will take whatever steps we need to take to ensure that we can resume hearings at the end of january so
03:05:08 resume hearings at the end of january so until then it only remains for me to wish you all happy christmas and a good holiday
03:05:13 holiday and i look forward to seeing most if not all of you again in january thank you very much