National House Building Council - Wednesday 15th December 2021 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:20:54 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to continue hearing evidence from mr stephen evans of the national house building council so would you ask mr evans to come back

00:21:05 so would you ask mr evans to come back in please okay

00:21:14 good morning mr evans yes make yourself comfortable there

00:21:21 all right ready to carry on good thank you very much yes yes mr chairman good morning to you and thank you good morning members of the panel mr evans good morning to you good morning yesterday we looked at an email from

00:21:34 yesterday we looked at an email from november 2013 which i'd like just to go back to if i may please first nhb 50604

00:21:51 and at the top of the screen is an email from

00:21:58 from you to john lewis of the 21st of november

00:22:04 2013 as you can see and we saw this yesterday

00:22:07 yesterday and it says hi john my comments on the note that you put together along with the format of the bca guidance notes and you'll recall that and then you said in the second sentence of the second paragraph

00:22:18 second paragraph uh brian had them into his team meeting for some cpd some time ago so we'll have a contact to begin with and that's a reference to kingspan in the first sentence of that paragraph as you can

00:22:29 sentence of that paragraph as you can see

00:22:30 see is the brian there that you're referring to brian stevenson it is yes right now can you help us um do you know when kingspan came into nhbc to give cpd to

00:22:44 kingspan came into nhbc to give cpd to his brian's team i don't know you don't do you know what that cpd covered

00:22:53 i don't know would there be documents showing what that cpd covered such as a presentation given by kingspan to nhbc or some notes taken by anybody

00:23:05 taken by anybody but brian or members of his team about that presentation do you think there may be but i'm not aware right is it the case that you haven't seen any i haven't seen any no right

00:23:17 i haven't seen any no right if there had been would you have seen those in the ordinary course of your work

00:23:21 work unlikely

00:23:22 unlikely unlikely

00:23:27 so do we take it from that that you can't help us about whether or not it covered the use of kingspan products on high-rise buildings k-15 in particular i'm afraid i can't you can't

00:23:40 were you troubled at the time or perhaps slightly later than this that the same brian for whom kingspan had provided cpd appears not to have been aware that k-15 was combustible as we saw yesterday

00:23:53 it didn't at that point it didn't raise any concerns with me um i didn't register it i didn't put the the two things together no can i then ask you to please on a

00:24:04 can i then ask you to please on a slightly different point um to look at a document uh at kin402663

00:24:15 and this is a letter from kingspan dated the 13th of january 2014 to james thomas design and build coordinator mount anvil in the city of london

00:24:26 in the city of london uh and mount anvil i think are developers aren't they you may remember their they are yes yes and

00:24:33 and this document is about eagle house cool firm k-15 as you can see from the subject heading uh and the text of the letter says this further to our previous discussion to date regards the eagle house project and

00:24:45 date regards the eagle house project and the use of cool them k15 within the ventilated range system in a building with a story of 18 meters or more above ground level we can confirm the following

00:24:56 confirm the following and then you see this paragraph it is our opinion that our cool them k-15 product would be fit for purpose if installed onto a non-combustible substrate with horizontal cavity barrier

00:25:07 substrate with horizontal cavity barrier installed in line with intermediate floors and at centers not exceeding 3.5 metres

00:25:13 metres we trust that the foregoing information is of assistance and in the event of any further queries please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned and it's signed for kingspan by either meredith

00:25:25 by either meredith now looking at the document looking at the text looking at the date was this the it was this the kind of approval from kingspan that

00:25:36 the kind of approval from kingspan that nhbc would routinely get until late 2013 apparently pursuant to the bba certificate then extant

00:25:47 the bba certificate then extant yes yes

00:25:50 yes yes thank you can i then turn to acm

00:25:54 acm now at the time of the grenfell tower fire mr evans do you know what was the nhbc stance on the use of acm cladding as the rain screen on an external wall

00:26:05 as the rain screen on an external wall buildup

00:26:10 our position would be that we would require an option three assessment um if it was not in a tested system and at that point we were unaware of any

00:26:22 we were unaware of any systems that have successfully passed an eight four one four part one or part two test with uh an a with a an acm panel

00:26:31 panel um

00:26:32 um and we would have ax we at that point uh the engineer the option three assessments we receive um

00:26:39 um would

00:26:40 would um

00:26:42 um generally if it was acm um

00:26:45 um have a an acm with an fr a fire resistant core or a class b panel um

00:26:56 um we wouldn't have allowed uh we wouldn't have accepted anything with it with a pe call

00:27:03 at all

00:27:05 not for the the whole of the facade no what do you mean by that i can recall um through the escalation process that we uh instilled when we changed our

00:27:16 we uh instilled when we changed our position

00:27:17 position in 2015.

00:27:20 in 2015. um i can recall one scheme where there were isolated areas of acm across the entire facade so they were they were

00:27:31 the entire facade so they were they were dotted around almost coloured panels dotted around sorry

00:27:36 sorry and the assessment of the the fire engineer

00:27:40 engineer was that they were small areas the remainder of the cladding was substantially non-combustible um the cladding areas

00:27:51 non-combustible um the cladding areas and that in their view um that would achieve overall fire safety and be equivalent to a

00:27:58 a would you would demonstrate a safe system that one project was that the apex project no that wasn't not there no right the apex project was it was different the the entire facade of the apex was uh acmpe

00:28:11 apex was uh acmpe i see uh

00:28:17 before 2015 what was the nhbc's policy about acm cladding

00:28:29 where it was in an untested system um

00:28:35 so yeah we would still expect our surveyors to look at it and we would still expect them to review the cladding and not accept a pe chord acn panel

00:28:48 so not so acm all right but acm with a pe call not all right so acn with it with an fr core fire resistant fire resistant core

00:29:01 core fire resistant fire resistant core um providing a head suitable either third-party accreditation third-party certification or other evidence then yeah

00:29:13 evidence then yeah at that point right

00:29:16 right yeah we would have accepted it on what basis well i i wasn't involved in the individual all those individual jobs and they weren't at that point escalated to me

00:29:26 me um

00:29:27 um but i would have expected the surveyor to do due diligence in terms of ensuring that it met the conditions under it and within the building regulations and the advice of the the guidance that she's given in

00:29:39 of the the guidance that she's given in the approved documents right that's quite a generic answer specifically what would you have expected the surveyor to do by way of due diligence in that respect but put it slightly

00:29:51 in that respect but put it slightly differently what would you expect the surveyor to satisfy themselves of so far as concerned the rain screen panels i would have expected with any panel not

00:30:03 i would have expected with any panel not just acm

00:30:04 just acm the surveyor to satisfy themselves by gathering information from the builder that it met the the guides from the approved document so diagram 40 paragraphs 12.5 to 12.7 including 12.7

00:30:18 paragraphs 12.5 to 12.7 including 12.7 well 12.7 is refers to the the insulation but when they're looking at the entire wall makeup yes right well we'll come back to that we touched on it yesterday but we'll come back to that again

00:30:29 again um the inquiry has heard evidence that some acm panels with a pe core including our comics reinerbond pe55 used at grenfell had a bba certificate

00:30:40 used at grenfell had a bba certificate which indicated that such panels may be quotes regarded regarded

00:30:46 regarded either in face fix or in cassette system as having class naught now the question i have for you is did you or anybody else at the nhbc believe that such panels could be used over 18

00:30:58 that such panels could be used over 18 meters in all circumstances

00:31:02 our belief nxbc as you'll see from the the guidance which john lewis um drafted um on the resort at following his meetings with wintec was that all the cladding system should be

00:31:13 the cladding system should be non-combustible so i would expect our i would have expected our surveyors um and indeed you know had they asked me the question um i would have informed them that they

00:31:25 um i would have informed them that they should be checking the entire panel yes right um before that so that's late 13 but before late 13 and the win tech meeting what was the nhbc's stance

00:31:36 meeting what was the nhbc's stance i can't be specific because i we didn't have a published position on that prior to 2013 when we started to generate guidance on this

00:31:47 started to generate guidance on this but we would i would have expected the surveys to have the same the same viewing at that point um

00:31:54 um taking 2012 or 2013 perhaps is the starting point and the fire at granville tower in june 2017 as the end point during that period were you aware of any large-scale testing taking place using

00:32:06 large-scale testing taking place using acm pe cord panels no no

00:32:14 do you or did you know why that was

00:32:19 we asked kingspan and other parties where we were talking to them about what builders whatever to to undertake tests um but we never received any test results

00:32:31 received any test results whether whether they actually undertook tests

00:32:35 tests we were never told if they did um

00:32:39 um but i was well i didn't see any tests for acm at that point did you see any

00:32:46 any eight four one four either part one or part two tests using uh acm rain screen of the pe core as the rain screen

00:32:55 screen element

00:32:56 element no no and again why did you think that was why did you think that no such rig was ever tested

00:33:07 i didn't see any i didn't question why not

00:33:11 not did you ever put two and two together so to speak and uh

00:33:15 uh wonder why it was that there were so many buildings in the built environment by 2013 with acmp equal on them and yet that that product or that material had never been tested as part of an eight

00:33:27 never been tested as part of an eight four one four test in terms of acn without pe core i i wouldn't i wouldn't at that point have been surprised not to have seen a test because i didn't think at that point it would pass a test

00:33:39 point it would pass a test if he wouldn't pass a test what would it be doing on all these buildings then

00:33:44 as i say i'm i'm unaware of any buildings which nhbc

00:33:52 um would have passed at that time with acnp equal was there ever was there ever a time before the end of 2013 when you were of the view

00:34:03 the view perhaps well thought through or ill thought through uh that acn panels with a pe core complied with the building regulations or could do

00:34:15 or could do i say complied with the building library but personally i would have never thought that no you wouldn't you would never have thought no right can i show you nhb four zeros one zero four four please

00:34:28 four zeros one zero four four please this is a this is a chain of emails from february 2014 i'm sorry 15 2015. it's a long chain we only need to look at the last email at the very top of the chain it's from john

00:34:39 the very top of the chain it's from john lewis to graham perrier ian davis dave white aleister hodder and you subject read kingspan cultham k15 using facades above 18 meters second of april

00:34:51 facades above 18 meters second of april 2015.

00:34:54 uh and it starts in feb earlier in the year uh and

00:35:00 and if um you you look at that the the content of the chain below that to give you the context mr evans is the kingspan of given an update to nhbc

00:35:11 update to nhbc which lacked any further promised test results

00:35:14 results and your colleagues at nhbc are frustrated uh and beginning to have some concerns and if you look at this email what john lewis says is this hello

00:35:25 what john lewis says is this hello graeme al i noted quite a few metal face cladding systems when reviewing the identified sprm jobs they tended to be either zinc or aluminium both are worrying given the temperatures involved

00:35:36 worrying given the temperatures involved especially the aluminium which melts away at around 300 degrees the br-135 test states a maximum allowable figure of 600 degrees and so it's expected that the aluminium will

00:35:48 it's expected that the aluminium will all have melted away leaving the k-15 exposed

00:35:52 exposed in my view it would be useful to test an aluminium-faced system as a priority kingspan proposed to test an acn aluminium composite panel in june 2015.

00:36:03 aluminium composite panel in june 2015. it's slightly different to many of the finishes we see an acm system has k-15 sandwiched between two skins of aluminium whereas we also see systems where the individual components are built up on site

00:36:15 built up on site these usually have a vented cavity directly against the k15 which assists the burning and so in my view are likely to perform worse than an enclosed sandwich type system was he correct that you were nhbc was

00:36:28 was he correct that you were nhbc was seeing many aluminium panels and acms coming to nhbc either for building control or for warranties

00:36:37 so i believe the context of that email was where john is referring to zinc or aluminium he's actually referring to just zinc or aluminium sheet panel so no no core um and we would expect both of those to

00:36:49 um and we would expect both of those to to melt away quite quickly in a flame plume

00:36:54 plume but in the second paragraph he's talking about yes and we did believe that we would like to see an acm um

00:37:03 um panel not necessarily a peacock because we didn't think a pe corps would pass but certainly we want and we did express views to kingspan that we would we would one of the tests that we would like them to undertake and they indeed

00:37:14 like them to undertake and they indeed indicated they would do would be an acm test yes my question is was

00:37:23 was well we tried slightly differently was nhbc seeing acm panels as part of build ups for external wall systems coming to it for warranty or

00:37:34 systems coming to it for warranty or building control approval or both

00:37:38 we would have been yes i mean when we did a review of the um the systems we had all the buildings we had under

00:37:45 had under construction in 2015 a number of those were either aluminium or

00:37:51 or acm panels yes now given well that was amongst a variety of you know i would say tens of types of cladding systems it wasn't the it wasn't

00:38:02 cladding systems it wasn't the it wasn't the predominant sort of cladding system we were seeing yes now whether or not they had a a call

00:38:12 what was the nhb stance on buildups which had aluminium or zinc cladding systems well zinc or aluminium are both non-combustible they melt but they're both non-combustible so if it's

00:38:24 they're both non-combustible so if it's a zinc or an aluminium panel on its own with no core that would that is sufficient to pass through the linear route it is and what if if it's an acm panel

00:38:38 it is and what if if it's an acm panel then we would look for an equivalent so an fr core again would indicate that it could meet the fire you know the fire resistance standards for for for the panel yes so

00:38:49 standards for for for the panel yes so what was it that was worrying you can see that uh john lewis says both are worrying zinker aluminium and he explains why it's worrying namely that they melt and expose well at that point it was the

00:39:01 at that point it was the it was the fact that it actually it exposes the insulation and we still hadn't at that point got confirmation in terms of our full understanding of the reaction of that

00:39:12 that that material in a fire so that was the concern

00:39:16 concern yes

00:39:19 and what was the what was the nhbc's stance

00:39:23 stance at that time were they underwriting external wall buildups with zinc and aluminium or aluminium on them or or not so again at this time when we were finally the buildings we

00:39:35 when we were finally the buildings we would be finding at this time even of april 2015 they would have been subject to the previous

00:39:42 previous bba certificate so they would have been the the time they were submitted to nhbc for building control and warranty they would have been subject to the previous bba certificate

00:39:53 previous bba certificate so it was it was reasonable to expect or to to expect the builder to comply with the certificate in time the bba certificate in place at the time when they submitted the application obviously around this time we we changed

00:40:05 obviously around this time we we changed our visit we changed that position by the second of april 2015 which then required any buildings which were subject to the new

00:40:15 new um the post 20 december 2013 bba certificate would need to provide the builders would need to provide um evidence to demonstrate compliance in

00:40:26 evidence to demonstrate compliance in accordance with bca guidance now 18. yes you not issue not

00:40:31 issue not so

00:40:32 so is the short answer oh well issue naught or we had at that point we'd indicated two builders that we would accept a fire engineered solution as well a fire engineer solution was also

00:40:44 engineer solution was also um which subsequently became option four in bc but at that point it was a an nhbc

00:40:51 an nhbc that was the march guidance was it that was the march guide yes i see um so is the short answer to my question that at this stage in relation to post 2013 applications

00:41:02 applications an hbc stance was to accept both warranty and for bco purposes wool buildups using aluminium or zinc cladding systems

00:41:13 cladding systems provided

00:41:15 provided there was

00:41:16 there was an option three desktop provided the builder demonstrated compliance using one of the methods in bca guides not 18 yes well or refined you need solutions curiosity about that of course is isn't

00:41:28 curiosity about that of course is isn't it that because they are non-combustible if they have no core an aluminium sheet uh would be class naught wouldn't it

00:41:36 it it would and if it was and if it was used with a um a non-combustible insulation then that would be one of the linear routes but had it used a

00:41:46 a material

00:41:47 material and an insulation which wasn't a material limited combustibility then they would need to go down either the option three or the option for room well what because subsequently became the option for yes yes and just to

00:41:58 option for yes yes and just to nail this point firmly where it was aluminium let's say without a call plus k15 you would need an option three report wouldn't you yes yes

00:42:09 yes uh now we're going to look at the bci guidance and option three case uh desktop studies shortly were you in fact at this time april 2015 receiving

00:42:20 at this time april 2015 receiving option three reports desktop studies detailing zinc acm or aluminium cladding

00:42:29 cladding i'm sure we were now john lewis appeared to be cons to appear to be worried as he says because of the lack of testing in that area sorry just just just a at this time we started second of april

00:42:41 at this time we started second of april uh 2015 it was shortly after we'd um sort of implemented our changing procedures that was in the beginning of march so our builders were just getting um

00:42:52 um our relationships with a number of our builders were quite pushed at that time because we'd imposed a new requirement on them um and they were at that point then talking to their fire engineer various fire engineers uh in order to

00:43:03 various fire engineers uh in order to all indeed to get their option three assessments so at this time i'm not sure if we'd had too many options at how many option three assessments we'd had um and i can't

00:43:14 um and i can't really verify if any of those at that point when john wrote this email were from zinker aluminium now we've seen that uh john lewis says both are worrying did you share his concern

00:43:26 worrying did you share his concern um if we hadn't seen any um any additional information from fire engineers

00:43:32 engineers um then i can understand if you hadn't seen any many option three assessments at that time which incorporated those then yeah i would i would not not worrying

00:43:43 not worrying you know i would i would want further information right well what further information given

00:43:49 given given how

00:43:50 given how aluminium even without a core would perform in the event of a fire with k-15 behind it why

00:44:00 why was nhbc

00:44:02 was nhbc continuing at least potentially to accept

00:44:05 accept projects with those products forming part of the external wall buildup given the expressed concerns had we received option three assessments on these wall makeups from

00:44:17 on these wall makeups from c2p qualified for our engineers who

00:44:21 who based those on test information and they went through our um what i would view as a robust escalation process

00:44:31 process then

00:44:32 then yes we would accept them even though there was a concern because they hadn't been tested uh and as john lewis says it would be at least useful to to test an aluminium phase system as a priority

00:44:46 an aluminium phase system as a priority so part of our escalation process firstly was that the fire engineer john lewis would review the option three assessment and if he wasn't

00:44:55 wasn't satisfied with the information that was in there

00:44:58 in there he would have he wouldn't have passed that through i wouldn't have escalated it to myself um for the further escalation to one of our uh senior managers

00:45:09 to one of our uh senior managers so

00:45:11 so by the time it got to me it would we'd already done or john had already done a review do you know of any cases at this time where john lewis had refused uh or rejected a system buildup using

00:45:24 uh or rejected a system buildup using aluminium or zinc cladding

00:45:28 cladding with k15

00:45:30 with k15 on the basis that he was concerned that a desktop would be insufficient and that a full a414 test was required i can't be certain at this time though can i ask you a slightly different topic

00:45:41 can i ask you a slightly different topic we'll come back to this topic shortly but

00:45:44 but a side point uh previous cladding fires what did you know this time so early 2015 about um earlier cladding fires overseas in the period 2012 to 2014

00:45:57 overseas in the period 2012 to 2014 i knew that had been previous cladding fires

00:46:00 fires um were you aware of the fire at myrmal's tower in roubaix in france in 2012 one fatality six injuries i believe i was were you aware of the fire in the wuxin golden suites in busan

00:46:12 fire in the wuxin golden suites in busan in south korea in 2010 i can't be certain of the exact schemes that i was aware of but i was aware of a number of fires and what about the spate of fires in high-rise

00:46:23 about the spate of fires in high-rise buildings in the uae in 2012 early 2013 including the al taya tower in sharjah the al-hafiz tower in sharjah the saif belga building in dubai and the

00:46:35 the saif belga building in dubai and the tam wheel tower also in dubai did you know about those again some of those names are familiar but i can't be specific in terms of i i was aware of a of a range of fires but

00:46:47 of a range of fires but again i can't be specific on the exact names of those buildings can you not the inquiries cladding expert mr jonathan sacula told us that those fires in the uae and particularly those in

00:46:59 in the uae and particularly those in dubai were well covered in the uk news media and technical press at the time were you aware yourself of the news media and press articles about

00:47:10 news media and press articles about those fires

00:47:15 i would have read if they had been in the in the press i was the trade press i was reading i would have been aware of them yes with i'd also had discussions with

00:47:23 with with john obviously when we were talking around this whole subject so they would have come up as part of those conversations i see now these fires are a good deal earlier than 2015 and for the most part a good deal earlier than

00:47:34 the most part a good deal earlier than the publication of the technical guidance note 18 in june 2014 issue naught

00:47:40 naught to what extent did nhbc take that reporting the reporting of these overseas fires into account when deciding whether it was acceptable to continue

00:47:50 continue to approve the use of aluminium

00:47:53 aluminium cladding

00:47:55 cladding and particularly aluminium composite material clatting on tall buildings

00:48:01 we we would have considered so if the

00:48:05 if the builder can demonstrate compliance with the regulations the building regulations through the acceptable routes which are in the approved document nhbc's position would be that we would accept that for building regulations and

00:48:17 accept that for building regulations and for warranty whether it was for acm or any other material

00:48:27 and in fact as you told us your due diligence extended no further the bba certificate up until the end of 2013.

00:48:36 2013. due diligence for the installation not for the entire cladding system for the installation i would still expect my surveyors

00:48:45 surveyors to and project managers to have looked at the rest of the cladding system so the position of cavity barriers the type of cladding that was being the rain screen clothing that was being used or brickwork or whatever the outer face was

00:48:58 brickwork or whatever the outer face was it was only the position that we would accept kelly 15 a satisfying 12.7

00:49:06 if they fulfilled the the conditions of the the bba certificate the rest of the cladding system we would still look at we'd still check right let me try to get at this slightly differently did the

00:49:19 differently did the the well-broadcast fact of the fires in for example the uae and dubai before 2014 not make nhbc particularly alive to the risks of using acm

00:49:33 alive to the risks of using acm uh as part of a an external wall build up on buildings above 18 meters regardless of what the insulation was so the my understanding of those fires was that those panels were acm pe cord

00:49:47 that those panels were acm pe cord and certainly my knowledge of the the fires that i i was aware of that i can recall they were acmpe cord so i would have expected as i as i said earlier but any proposal that included

00:49:59 earlier but any proposal that included an acm pe chord panel

00:50:03 panel would not have been accepted had we known about it was it your position i think i would cover this slightly earlier but let me just repeat the point and i apologize for repeating the question if i am was

00:50:14 for repeating the question if i am was it your understanding

00:50:18 let's take the date late 2013 until

00:50:23 until june 2014 that there were no acm

00:50:27 acm pe cord rain screens on buildings above 18 meters in the english and welsh built environment

00:50:38 i can't answer that because i didn't look at any of all those buildings no did you proceed on the assumption that there weren't because there couldn't have been

00:50:48 i can't answer that because i i wasn't i i wasn't involved in all of those projects had your surveyors ever asked you or john to your knowledge john lewis if acmpe was acceptable over 18 meters

00:51:01 if acmpe was acceptable over 18 meters i don't recall a surveyor asking me i can't answer for john had you been asked that question what answer would you have given i would have said acn with a pe core would not be satisfactory

00:51:15 would not be satisfactory and why would you have said that because of my knowledge uh because of the um you know my knowledge of those fires but also i would not view it as a non-combustible panel because of its

00:51:26 non-combustible panel because of its core

00:51:28 core my view as i said before despite the the

00:51:31 the one of the interpretations of the of the regulations which could be that you could have a classo outside surface and then the rest of the other core my view was that a pe core

00:51:42 other core my view was that a pe core was was combustible and i i would have my advice would have been that it wouldn't be acceptable but i wasn't asked that question at that point no but what you were asked in a sense or what was put to you in this email is a

00:51:55 what was put to you in this email is a test

00:51:56 test uh under eight four one four and has to assume

00:51:59 assume uh

00:52:00 uh we're using acm so

00:52:04 so if your view was that a an acm panel uh

00:52:09 uh was something which would or should not be used uh what was the purpose of testing it well an acn with a pe core yes an acn

00:52:20 well an acn with a pe core yes an acn with an fr core could well have passed a test and that's what what we were pushing for we weren't just pushing for a test with an acm core we were also pushing four tests with zinc aluminium copper

00:52:33 zinc aluminium copper we see we saw lots of you know even to the extent of you know having a test for brickwork for example um up until this time there hadn't even been a test with brickwork we don't see a response to this email

00:52:45 we don't see a response to this email from you

00:52:48 clarifying that there would only be a test worth doing if you're going to use an acm panel where that panel had an fr core

00:52:58 core we don't see a document to that effect did you have a discussion with mr lewis to that effect that if they're going to test an acm panel then it had to be a fr core because a pe core couldn't be used

00:53:09 couldn't be used i didn't have a a conversation along those lines no but we in various meetings with kingspan and other builders um we had lots of conversation this time and i can't

00:53:20 conversation this time and i can't remember them all obviously because it was a this was taking up a great deal of my time

00:53:24 my time um

00:53:25 um you know we were pushing for tests on various cladding types not just acm um but various cladding types you see the distinction you're drawing between acm with an fr core and acm of

00:53:37 between acm with an fr core and acm of the pe core is not one drawn by john lewis in this email and it would i be right in thinking that it's a critically important distinction because the nhbc stance is that acm with an fr core was

00:53:49 an fr core was would be acceptable well it would be acceptable if it if it was justified through an option three assessment it wasn't just accepted um it wouldn't you know at this point it wouldn't just be accepted

00:54:01 wouldn't just be accepted um

00:54:02 um carte blanche it would have needed a um we would have needed an option three assessment that would need an option three assessment or other evidence to demonstrate it met one of the other routes in the bca guidance

00:54:13 of the other routes in the bca guidance now

00:54:15 now okay let's turn i may have to come back to that in due course but um because there it raises further questions but let me park that and ask you then now about the technical guidance note 18 issue naught june 2014

00:54:27 issue naught june 2014 except let's start with your witness statement

00:54:31 statement nhb

00:54:33 nhb uh

00:54:34 uh 403020 page 65 paragraph 180

00:54:41 and at paragraph 180 towards the top of the page you have the heading and then under the heading you say this in the years prior to 2014 the thermal requirements in the building regulations meant architectural designs

00:54:54 regulations meant architectural designs incorporated vast numbers of different cladding combinations it became clear to me and other people involved with building control bodies which were assessing these cladding combinations that a the linear routes to compliance

00:55:07 that a the linear routes to compliance described in section 12 of approved document b were insufficient to deal with the vast numbers of different combinations of supporting structure insulation and cladding finish that were being specified and for the

00:55:19 that were being specified and for the arrangements for closing internal cavities as set out above the linear routes are not the only approaches to compliance the building regulations focus on how a building should perform the approved documents provide information on some of the ways to

00:55:31 information on some of the ways to demonstrate compliance rather than providing the descriptive details on how a project would reach that outcome the industry therefore needed to settle on guidance regarding acceptable routes to get to the outcome required by the

00:55:42 to get to the outcome required by the building regulations especially as new construction methods came onto the market

00:55:48 market i'm particularly interested in that last sentence

00:55:51 sentence but

00:55:53 but more generally you touch on the changes to thermal requirements of the building regulations and and the vast numbers of different planning combinations being used did that need for thermal improvement in fact result in more

00:56:06 improvement in fact result in more combustible materials being used on buildings

00:56:10 buildings than had previously been the case

00:56:15 in my view yes and you say the linear routes to compliance in a the linear routes to compliance described in section 12 of approved document b were insufficient to deal

00:56:26 document b were insufficient to deal with the vast numbers of different combinations of supporting structure insulation and cladding finish that were being specified now when you say

00:56:35 say there that the linear routes to compliance were insufficient to your word insufficient do you mean insufficient to cater for the demand by builders to use combustible materials because of their

00:56:49 combustible materials because of their optimal thermal performance and thinness

00:56:54 yeah yeah so obviously if you're using an insulation which is not a material combustibility you don't you cannot claim that that entire wall is is non-combustible so that's your the first

00:57:05 non-combustible so that's your the first route

00:57:06 route if you then tested it as soon as you move away from that test you are

00:57:13 you are as you've as as you've questioned me before as soon as you move away from that test you're again not meeting the the second of those requirements and we could see on buildings even with it even with a if you had a tested

00:57:24 it even with a if you had a tested system

00:57:25 system on some areas of that building even though you have the same out internal face you may actually find that you've got a wider cavity you may find you've got you know a different thickness of insulation because that so actually you know that even the even

00:57:37 actually you know that even the even those two linear routes were quite with some of the the complicated high-rise buildings residential buildings we see they weren't yeah they were limited in what we could do in

00:57:48 they were limited in what we could do in asking builders to demonstrate compliance through those routes so your your uh word insufficient there is directed at insufficient to cater for the for builders demands for optimal

00:57:59 the for builders demands for optimal thermal performance as opposed to sufficient to protect occupants of those buildings from the risk of fire the building regulations are

00:58:11 the building regulations are look at a variety of things and you have to take all those into account so um you know there was a focus at this time on thermal

00:58:21 thermal it was a big driver of the government with it with the carbon agenda and they wanted ever more thermally efficient wall makeups and in some cases the only

00:58:32 wall makeups and in some cases the only way they could do the builders were finding they could achieve that was with

00:58:38 was with insulins that which which were not materials of limited combustibility now you say in the last sentence of b the industry need therefore needed to settle you see that i read it to you yes

00:58:49 settle you see that i read it to you yes my question is is why why did the industry need to settle on guidance regarding acceptable routes given that adb was itself the official guidance put

00:59:00 adb was itself the official guidance put out by government about acceptable routes to the outcomes required by the functional requirements so

00:59:07 so the guidance within the approved documents are a way

00:59:12 a way of demonstrating compliance with the functional requirements of the regulations a builder can can use any method they want so they don't have to stick to that method they can provide whatever evidence they feel

00:59:25 can provide whatever evidence they feel um

00:59:26 um demonstrates compliance with the the functional requirement so they don't have to go down they didn't have to go down any of those linear routes they could choose to demonstrate it another way

00:59:38 demonstrate it another way and the questions in the industry at that time

00:59:41 that time you know we'd ask been asked ourselves internally well what would we what would be the other methods that would be acceptable for a builder to demonstrate compliance in these

00:59:54 demonstrate compliance in these in these instances

00:59:58 there are throughout the approved documents there are a number of alternative approaches which are

01:00:05 which are illustrated that could be following the guidance in a british standard it could be following the guidance in a code of practice

01:00:12 practice there are multiple different ways and even then the builders designers do not do not have to stick to those they can they can provide what you know a range of evidence

01:00:24 of evidence which then a building control body has to assess

01:00:27 to assess has that met the functional requirement and

01:00:31 and you know

01:00:33 you know i felt we felt at nhpc you know first of all our people internally were asking well if they don't

01:00:39 don't go down the non-combustible route they don't go down the testing route what would we accept from a builder to demonstrate compliance so does it come to this that the reason why

01:00:50 to this that the reason why it was thought including by nhbc that the linear routes to compliance were as described by section 12 of adb were insufficient was because more and more builders wanted to use

01:01:01 builders wanted to use materials

01:01:02 materials which were more susceptible of combustion in the external wall build-ups

01:01:11 we were seeing more and more of clamming

01:01:14 clamming systems which you they couldn't demonstrate compliance to those two linear routes so the answer is is yes to my question i think um well they were not they they weren't they had combustible elements within

01:01:25 they had combustible elements within them

01:01:26 them not just insulation um but they yeah and they weren't tested so yes yes now going back to your statement please at uh paragraph 181 if we just scroll down the screen please just below that

01:01:38 down the screen please just below that and you can see it says a wider range of facades was being used in the industry and it was necessary regularly to consider their compliance the bca therefore developed a guidance note to set out belay which

01:01:49 guidance note to set out belay which explained what the range of industry bodies involved in the bca considered to be the acceptable ways of providing evidence that demonstrated compliance with approved document b uh well

01:02:00 uh well it approved document b was guidance wasn't it it was yes and your technical guidance note 18 was therefore guidance about guidance

01:02:12 therefore guidance about guidance yes it was yeah why not simply go to the government and ask them to review approved document b and amend it if it had become insufficient

01:02:24 if it had become insufficient for the for its purposes from the point of view of industry

01:02:33 so we the

01:02:36 the the process of changing an approved document is quite a lengthy process which involves first of all undertaking research

01:02:45 research um

01:02:46 um carrying out consultations so had we waited for um

01:02:53 um a change in the approved document had a change in the document being necessary for this

01:02:58 for this um that could have been two three years down the line [Music]

01:03:04 [Music] actually when we started to develop the note

01:03:07 note there were other alternative options within the building regulations guidance itself which could be developed and put in the context context of how they'd

01:03:19 put in the context context of how they'd be used for a facade

01:03:24 so at this point the bca developed its own guides note it could be that in future had that you know um we have seen uh with previous bca

01:03:35 we have seen uh with previous bca guidance note for example that whether bc have developed that guidance uh mhclg have actually referenced that guidance in an approved document a revision to approve document

01:03:48 so this is this was a credit the bca was a

01:03:51 a a quicker way of giving guidance to the industry on how to deal with these

01:03:57 these areas these gray areas let's look at issue nought nhb 50760

01:04:08 and to be clear although i think everybody by name now knows that this was this you naught june 2014 issue one was june 2015. yes yes and um its title is as we saw from the

01:04:21 and um its title is as we saw from the november draft uh use of combustible cladding materials on residential buildings now we saw the earlier versions of this document from john lewis and with your red amendments and who else was involved

01:04:34 red amendments and who else was involved in the drafting of issue nought

01:04:38 the the original version which was taken to the bca guidance group would have been myself and john right um

01:04:46 um and i'm i can't recall if there was any then um slight amendments before we actually issued it officially from the the the members of the bca guide screen

01:04:57 the bca guide screen right that was my next question you can't remember whether whether there were any further amendments from that group i i'd need to go through various versions and things i'd had to identify yeah but

01:05:10 but it was certainly reviewed by all the members of the bca guidance group who made

01:05:15 made the decision that a guidance note on combustible cladding materials was required and should be drafted and published by the bca as opposed to

01:05:27 as opposed to nhbc for its builder customers so hbc obviously we saw yesterday from some of the emails the email exchanges internally um that we were developing internal

01:05:39 um that we were developing internal guidance

01:05:40 guidance for our surveyors um

01:05:43 um i firmly believe as i mentioned yesterday that you know we don't compete on standards we compete on service and price that that would be what with that where the building

01:05:54 what with that where the building control body should be competing on um sorry can i cut across here it's a shorter shorter answer i think that's probably deserved it's a question of who i i i i made

01:06:06 i i i i made the suggestion that we take it to bca as a bca guide snowden and have it as industry guidance as opposed to an hbc guidance right why why do you make that decision because if we were having questions internally and

01:06:18 we were having questions internally and we were seeing these cladding systems internally um

01:06:22 um and and external facade systems then other building control bodies were also doing that so nhbc presented this to the bca guidance group

01:06:32 group and asked if they wanted to develop it as a bca guidance name so in short you thought that this was a matter of sufficient importance not to be restricted to nhbc's customers but to go

01:06:44 restricted to nhbc's customers but to go out to the entire building control officer community yes yes

01:06:50 were there any external non-bca specialist fire engineers or other fire professionals such as x over or bre or chilton

01:07:01 such as x over or bre or chilton who were consulted about the contents of this note

01:07:04 this note no

01:07:05 no why is that

01:07:08 this was a note for building control bodies

01:07:12 bodies and

01:07:13 and they were all experienced building control professionals around the table so there was no need the group felt that it wasn't it was never suggested to consult any fire

01:07:24 never suggested to consult any fire engineers and you say i think in your statement that you didn't discuss it either with the bba or with ucas no

01:07:32 no right why did you not discuss this guidance with any of the certification bodies

01:07:37 bodies again this was guidance issued by the bca which building control bodies could didn't have to they could refer to when they were looking at external facade systems now um we'll

01:07:48 external facade systems now um we'll look at option three in a moment but we we i think are familiar with what it means but can i just ask why you didn't at least ask the bre or xova or chilton or indeed the certification houses

01:08:00 or indeed the certification houses whether they agreed that your desktop formulation was an appropriate use and interpretation of

01:08:08 of approved document b

01:08:15 we felt that it was an acceptor it was an x as i mentioned yesterday it was a an established convention to receive desktop assessments for all sorts of areas of the building regulations not just

01:08:28 regulations not just facades but for all sorts so within building control it wasn't unusual to receive a desktop assessment for a product a makeup a composite structure

01:08:40 a composite structure it wasn't unusual to do that given that it would be at least in the first iteration of this note going to be x over bre chilton fire who would be the experts carrying out the desktops why did you not go to them

01:08:52 the desktops why did you not go to them first and ask them whether this was something that they were prepared to do

01:08:59 that question never arose well it may not have arisen uh the question is why didn't it arise

01:09:09 it wasn't considered i mean we received as i said we received fire engineered solutions from those some from bodies such like that so this was this was part of their as far as we

01:09:20 this was part of their as far as we would have been aware at that time this would have been part of their business and they were capable of doing that did you

01:09:27 you maybe but would it not have been very easy simply to pick up the phone to one of your contacts at the bre or x over and simply ask them whether or not um

01:09:38 and simply ask them whether or not um they would be amenable to performing desktop studies in respect of cladding combustible cladding structures based on their tests based on the revisions to issue one

01:09:51 based on the revisions to issue one in hindsight yes we could have spoken to those bodies because we actually referred to them incorrectly in this

01:09:59 this this

01:10:00 this in terms of the the guidance we gave in option three here was that those assessments should be carried out only by ucas accredited um testing houses where actually the guidance in the approved document only

01:10:11 guidance in the approved document only refers to suitably qualified fire engineers did you seek i have the answer to this must be no but why didn't you seek uh bres or exovers or chilton far's view as to whether the use of desktops

01:10:25 view as to whether the use of desktops was permitted as a further alternative route to compliance by approved document b

01:10:34 or at least what their views were about that

01:10:43 the building regulations allow the use of desktop studies for

01:10:50 for comparison of tested systems to allow to allow them to demonstrate compliance so the fact that the we were only in this document um highlighting the routes to compliance

01:11:03 um highlighting the routes to compliance which were in the approved documents there was no need um and certainly it was never raised by um

01:11:09 um anybody around the table at the the bca technical group as to whether we needed to discuss it with the fire engineering community

01:11:16 community as to whether this was an acceptable route it was as far as the building control people around the table were concerned this was an acceptable route to demonstrate compliance

01:11:28 demonstrate compliance we'll examine that in just a moment before i do can i ask you this why did you not seek dclg input into that issue actually ask them for their view about desktops

01:11:40 desktops the bcaa technical group was brought together originally as labc acai technical group to look at the areas and

01:11:51 technical group to look at the areas and the regulations the building regulations don't are not exhaustive the functional requirements are there but the guidance within them is is not exhaustive they don't cover all building types so there

01:12:02 don't cover all building types so there is a need for and there was a need for building control to develop guidance where there were missing parts of the building regulations or it wasn't quite covered if we continually went back to mhclg with every little

01:12:15 back to mhclg with every little interpretation challenge or bit that was missing we'd never actually get the job done you say every little bit uh this wasn't a bit was it this was a

01:12:26 uh this wasn't a bit was it this was a totally

01:12:27 totally new

01:12:29 new method being broadcast to the building control community and builders of a further way of achieving compliance with

01:12:40 with approved document b and therefore b4

01:12:44 b4 i don't know if it was a new way i'm not sure if there was any i'm unaware of any i'm personally unaware of any desktop assessments which were done for facade systems before the day that's went out

01:12:55 systems before the day that's went out but i can't i can't verify that that wasn't the case as i say this was a an acceptable route which was used by not just with fire engineers but across other areas of the regulations as well

01:13:07 regulations as well um

01:13:08 um and would have been open and was was known about would have been open to demonstrate to demonstrate compliance but why wouldn't it been a very simple thing just to send an email to brian

01:13:19 thing just to send an email to brian martin and say this is what we're proposing what are your views

01:13:25 the mhclg were papers only members of the technical group and i believe when i circulated this draft richard harrell at that time who was the

01:13:36 richard harrell at that time who was the head of the building regulations division at mhclg was copied in on that and as we mentioned as we talked about yesterday the relationship with those

01:13:47 relationship with those individuals was such that had had they had a concern um

01:13:52 um i was confident that they would have raised it i think now let's um go back to this question of how desktop studies are

01:14:02 are contemplated by approved document b can we go to your witness statement again please at page 64 paragraph 178 towards the bottom of the page subparagraph c

01:14:17 it's page 64. new say option you say c paragraph one appendix a of approved document b is the basis for option three this states

01:14:28 this states in such cases the material product or structure should have been assessed from test evidence against appropriate standards or by using relevant design guides as meeting that performance for this purpose laboratories accredited by

01:14:40 this purpose laboratories accredited by ucas for conducting tests and suitably qualified safety engineers might be expected to have the necessary expertise

01:14:50 now that's what you cite there i think you need the full context um can we please look at clg

01:14:59 clg 50224 page 119

01:15:04 and what i'm showing you is

01:15:07 is that part of adb which you're quoting and you can see from the screen that it sits within appendix a performance of materials products and structures introduction and the full context is this one much of

01:15:20 and the full context is this one much of the guidance in this document is given in terms of performance relating in relation to british or european standards for products or methods of test or design or in terms of european technical stand

01:15:31 or in terms of european technical stand technical approvals in such cases the material product or structure should a be in accordance with a specification or design which has been shown by test

01:15:42 or design which has been shown by test to be capable of meeting that performance or and then there's a note which goes with a

01:15:47 with a for this purpose laboratories accredited by ucas for conducting the relevant tests would be expected to have the necessary expertise and then b as an alternative

01:15:58 and then b as an alternative to a

01:15:59 to a have been assessed from test evidence against appropriate standards or by using relevant design guides as meeting that performance and then there's a note which says the same thing about

01:16:11 a note which says the same thing about ucas

01:16:13 ucas for conducting the relevant tests and suitably qualified fire safety engineers might be expected to have the necessary expertise

01:16:21 expertise now

01:16:23 now if we could just go having shown you that

01:16:27 that uh if you

01:16:29 uh if you look at b little b there uh as compared with a could could you explain how that wording gets you to a process of extrapolation

01:16:41 gets you to a process of extrapolation from test evidence on

01:16:44 on a rig that is that is different so

01:16:50 so it's the have been assessed from test evidence so it's the assessment so that's where we have the desktop assessment so where we've seen desktop assessments

01:17:01 so where we've seen desktop assessments particularly where i would have experienced perhaps desktop assessments previously to this would be for example for a fire door so a fire door is tested

01:17:12 so a fire door is tested there is a maximum you can't test absolutely everything that would be a physical impossibility well i suppose you could but you'd never get anything built

01:17:23 but you'd never get anything built um so you would test something to an agreed standard so such as that the fire door test and there'd be a under the 476. um now if you then wanted to use either

01:17:35 um now if you then wanted to use either a bigger door or you wanted to change perhaps the seals around that door or you were using different hinges or things like that to that assembly

01:17:45 assembly then you would expect to see an assessment of

01:17:50 of um by a fire engineer who would bring together the various tests of the original fire tech the original test for the door maybe another test for a door a test for the different materials composite materials that they were

01:18:01 composite materials that they were bringing in to make that door and reviewing that test information would use that test that information to demonstrate that that door met the relevant standard the the requirement

01:18:12 the requirement um far doors uh aren't the subject though of an equivalent i was using it as an example so yeah exactly i i know you were uh but my point is did anybody at the time

01:18:23 but my point is did anybody at the time consider whether the words have been assessed from test evidence when you're considering an entire building envelope

01:18:33 uh was the right way of reading those words given the presence of the one alternative route to compliance other than linear

01:18:45 route to compliance other than linear was an 8414 test which could only be used to justify a an envelope which corresponded precisely

01:18:55 precisely to the rig that had been tested so what you admit so when we say from test evidence that's not just from one test we would expect to see evidence from

01:19:05 from multiple tests we would expect to see a fire engineer to look at not just you know to look at perhaps two or three tests as part of that engineered approach that that assessment

01:19:17 approach that that assessment um and that could be so because if if you've got a test for example with a a

01:19:23 a a

01:19:24 a 50mm cavity if you were to extend that cavity to 60 millimeters or 100 millimeters then that test is no longer valid but what you may have is you may have a test

01:19:35 what you may have is you may have a test with

01:19:36 with 40 millimeters and an 80 millimeter cavity and both although they perform differently they may perform differently by looking at the differences between the two

01:19:46 the two then an engineer would be able to make an assessment of whether in their view that system with a with that 50 ml cavity would achieve the required standard

01:19:57 standard who was it you know who came up with interpreting the words have been assessed from test evidence that you've identified in b as justifying option three desktops was it you the original drafting was done by john

01:20:08 the original drafting was done by john lewis right did anybody was there any discussion at the time between you and john lewis or

01:20:14 or at the bca more generally about whether these words here in b could support the meaning you now seek to attribute to them

01:20:24 no there wasn't i believe it as i say my understanding was that it was an acceptable route to demonstrate compliance from test evidence had you always thought that or did you rootle around in the adb to try to find a

01:20:36 around in the adb to try to find a justification for desktops and lighted on these words i'd always thought that i i can't remember when i started to think about that because i've been a building control professional at that time for

01:20:47 control professional at that time for 25 years and i say when i was practicing and you know in day-to-day assessment of these projects i saw um desktop assessments for various others not just for for fire but for

01:20:59 others not just for for fire but for thermal yeah all sorts of um areas within the regulation yeah um you see a cladding

01:21:05 cladding and a building envelope uh is a system isn't it yes uh and so how did you uh how did you justify the extension or application of

01:21:16 justify the extension or application of 1b here to an entire system as i mentioned before um using the fidor analogy that is a system it's a system made up of the door itself the frame the

01:21:27 made up of the door itself the frame the hinges

01:21:29 hinges the locks

01:21:30 the locks it's a system um many of the assessments we see are four systems so not just and that's why in some ways that's why we actually included option three there because we

01:21:41 included option three there because we wanted to be specific in saying that it actually needed that the testing needed to be relevant to the facade and relevant and relevant testing um not

01:21:53 and relevant and relevant testing um not just any old tests that the you know

01:21:57 you know i i think in somewhere in my statement i um i mentioned that at one of the meetings with kingspan they showed us a test with a self-conducted test that they'd done with a a piece of kingspan a k-15 and a blowtorch now that to us

01:22:10 k-15 and a blowtorch now that to us would not be an acceptable test it's not done under laboratory conditions by ucas accredited testing house so that was why we wanted to be specific

01:22:21 we wanted to be specific we felt i felt john felt there was no the

01:22:26 the the technical committee felt um that that was an acceptable route to demonstrate compliance and but we wanted to be clear to building control bodies who were using that guidance that it needed to be under

01:22:37 that guidance that it needed to be under the conditions in which it should have been done

01:22:39 been done well um did you ever take any uh expert fire engineering advice from the on your interpretation and its consequences from the likes of x over or arab fire or

01:22:52 over or arab fire or bre or warrington so the the original advice as i say the original drafting was done by john lewis who was our fire engineer

01:23:00 engineer so i was you know comfortable that as a fire engineer he'd put that forward as a and it was a it was an approach that i recognized yes um i think the

01:23:11 i think the uh

01:23:12 uh the question really is whether you sought any independent external fire engineering input as to your interpretation and application of 1b

01:23:23 application of 1b i didn't seek independent fire engineering advice but by referring it to the bca technical group i saw independent building control advice from my birth from my peers within the

01:23:34 from my birth from my peers within the bill control industry do you remember when you first saw a desktop assessment for an entire external system as opposed to say a fire door

01:23:45 i don't know it would have been around this period yeah did they not tell you something um well

01:23:52 um well in terms of my me actually seeing one as i said at this time i was um i was involved in the day-to-day management of surveyors

01:24:03 day-to-day management of surveyors and engineers and project managers so i wouldn't i wouldn't have been involved in the day-to-day assessment of these schemes so even if they had been submitted at this point prior to this point prior to the implementing hour or this coming on my

01:24:15 implementing hour or this coming on my radar i wouldn't have necessarily seen them

01:24:19 them did you or john lewis to your knowledge consider

01:24:22 consider uh how you're well consider the x apps the extended application rules

01:24:34 i i didn't no no do you know whether he did i don't know do you know whether you or he worked out how your conception of desktops here as a rising

01:24:46 conception of desktops here as a rising from 1b was consistent with the presence of the exact rules and the guidance and standards on their application

01:24:54 we didn't have that discussion no no did you do i take it that nobody actually looked at the except rules

01:25:01 not that i'm aware of were you aware of them at the time

01:25:07 i wasn't no you weren't no when did you first become aware of the existence of the extended application rules that's right i i can't be sure

01:25:18 that's right i i can't be sure so

01:25:18 so you never and john lewis to your knowledge never considered how the development of the option three could ever be consistent with the x app rules

01:25:27 presumably not as i said i'd seen i i'd i'd seen desktop assessments for other systems

01:25:36 systems not necessarily for facades but for other systems um so it was a familiar approach to me and i didn't i didn't question at that point um

01:25:47 at that point um specifically uh as i said if you know in terms of they i accepted that they they could be used for facades did you consider whether in fact paragraph 1b of appendix a to approve

01:25:59 paragraph 1b of appendix a to approve document b which you have on your screen was an admittedly recondite signpost to these exact principles or whether it was an invitation to the public to design their own extended

01:26:10 public to design their own extended application principles i didn't consider that though

01:26:18 now let's go back to issue nord please uh nhb50670

01:26:25 we've seen page one let's go to page two and let's look at option three

01:26:33 seven six zero

01:26:38 i'm sorry i get the wrong reference nhb seven six zero thank you option three if no actual

01:26:44 no actual option three if no actual fire test data exists for a particular system the client may instead submit a desktop study report from a suitable independent ucas accredited testing body

01:26:55 ucas accredited testing body brackets bre chilton fire or warrington fire

01:26:59 fire closed brackets stating whether in their opinion br 135 criteria would be met with the proposed system the report should be supported by test data which the test house already has in

01:27:10 data which the test house already has in its possession and say this option may not be of benefit if the products have not already been tested in multiple situations stroke arrangements the report should also specifically reference the tests which

01:27:22 specifically reference the tests which they have carried out on the product so we can see that here in issue north of this note the bca explains that the person drafting the report must be from a ucas accredited body correct

01:27:35 a ucas accredited body correct yes yes and that at the time would bre chilton fire or warrington fire yes yes yes

01:27:41 yes um is the guidance saying let me put it differently was your intention in drafting it thus

01:27:48 thus to communicate the fact that the testing evidence relied upon also had to come from a ucas accredited body

01:27:57 certainly in that drafting i would have interpreted that way yes and in addition the person drafting the report

01:28:05 report the study report also had to be from a ucas accredited body yes that's that was the intention from that that option at that time yet the guidance note doesn't spell out who

01:28:16 the guidance note doesn't spell out who at the uk's accredited body should be drafting the desktop study report does it

01:28:22 it it doesn't know who did you intend should be such a person

01:28:30 i would have expected one of their fire engineers is that because in appendix a one b

01:28:39 b the person doing the assessment should be quotes a suitably qualified fire safety engineer yes

01:28:49 and what level of education

01:28:53 and experience would a suitably qualified fire safety engineer have to have

01:28:59 have in your view at the time who could be entrusted with this work so the that phrase a suitably qualified fire engineer that appears in the building regulations is not then further

01:29:10 building regulations is not then further defined but i would have expected somebody

01:29:13 somebody who was a member of institute of fire engineers i would have expected it also to be peer reviewed internally right why not say that

01:29:32 in hindsight we could have said that uh but actually bearing reference to a ucas crested testing body the assumption would have been that they would have been

01:29:41 been capable of doing that and certainly our knowledge of bre chilton and warrington fire at that time would have been that they would have had suitably qualified people fire engineers working for them was it not important at the time to spell out

01:29:53 important at the time to spell out precisely

01:29:54 precisely who it was and what qualifications they had to have it was going to be undertaking these desktop studies given that you were effectively encouraging industry to adopt this approach as a further alternative

01:30:10 i think it was accepted by my my view at this time in in reading that would have i would have expect personally i would have expected that to come from a qualified fire

01:30:21 that to come from a qualified fire engineer

01:30:22 engineer you would have expected it yes and one can see why but why not say it given the importance of the option

01:30:33 i suppose i

01:30:35 i reading it at the time my assumption would be as i said that we didn't need to put it the fact that we'd referred to a uclassic crested testing body

01:30:44 body uh using reports which were in their possession my

01:30:50 my my assumption would have been that it would have been by a fire engineer perhaps it's an oversight on our part that we didn't do that now what

01:30:59 now what tests did you contemplate at the time would be or should be used to compile an option three desktop report

01:31:10 so i would have expected relevant test data

01:31:14 data now that could so relevant test data to what they were they were trying to prove it would in you know that would include eight four one four tests it may also include other

01:31:26 one four tests it may also include other tests to bs-476 of various elements which are being put in could data from failed tests be used it was certainly a view that data from

01:31:37 it was certainly a view that data from failed tests could be used sometimes the data from a failed test um the the view was in discussions it wasn't put in here but

01:31:47 here but in discussions i'd had with verify engineers they were always they their view was that they would like to see failed tests because it

01:31:55 it from that sometimes you can get information as to why it failed

01:32:02 you say there was a view yes whose view was that so that that came up in conversations at various times i don't know when we'd discuss it with our engineers but there was certainly a view that um

01:32:14 that um a failed test could be useful uh in being able to look at why a system failed right um first was this view a view that was discussed before the bca

01:32:27 discussed before the bca guidance note issue naught was published no no

01:32:31 no no secondly who had this view that data from failed tests could be used

01:32:38 i can't be specific on who it was i know it came up in conversations that we had but i was having lots of conversations at the time and what about client confidentiality in this sense

01:32:49 in this sense do you accept that it might be the case that the bre might be aware that a k-15 had failed a bs-8414 test or

01:32:58 or the poor performance of a particular part of the test rig but if kingspan had not agreed to release the test data uh what would happen was the bre

01:33:09 uh what would happen was the bre if that if it was that um body doing the desktop study was it supposed to ignore that data how would it use data in that way

01:33:24 so can you can you rephrase that question

01:33:25 question [Music]

01:33:27 [Music] yes uh was the question of the client's ability to insist on the confidentiality of the test data in the hands of the testing house something you considered

01:33:39 testing house something you considered at the time

01:33:45 no because we we took it that if a a body that had carried out a commissioned a test wanted their help for whatever reason

01:33:57 wanted their help for whatever reason they conducted the test whether it was to prove the insulation or to prove the cladding because we see tests for both of those not just for um

01:34:06 um we would have thought i would have soon had taken it that had they wanted to

01:34:11 to to um

01:34:13 to um use that test to demonstrate how their product could be used they would agree to it being released whether that was a failed test or a past test

01:34:24 well why did you make that assumption

01:34:28 that that assumption proceeds on the basis

01:34:31 basis that it was the the the client

01:34:36 client in this example kingspan who wanted the desktop or rather where the builder wanted the desktop because they were intending to use k15 but what if that wasn't the case

01:34:47 use k15 but what if that wasn't the case what if somebody else wanted the data wanted the desktop

01:34:53 they could request it yes but people like kingston could simply insist on their contractual rights of confidentiality what would happen

01:35:01 happen in that case i would expect the fire engineer if they [Music]

01:35:06 [Music] if they didn't have enough data to

01:35:09 to be able to produce a desktop assessment not to produce one so

01:35:15 so the was it your contemplation at the time that the success of option three was entirely dependent upon the owner of the test data consenting to waive their confidentiality rights over it

01:35:27 confidentiality rights over it it was my view that it would be based on

01:35:31 based on test information that was available yes and if if the fire engineer was not able to

01:35:38 to get that test information i would expect them not to produce a desktop assessment and did that happen in practice did you can you think of an instance after june 2014 where the likes of bre or xova said i'm terribly sorry we can't produce a

01:35:50 i'm terribly sorry we can't produce a desktop sadly for this particular build-up because the owner of the test data or some of the test data has refused to allow us to do that did that happen in practice

01:36:01 do that did that happen in practice i wouldn't know that if if the if these bodies the fire engineers or the vre children or ronton foreign had that discussion with their their customer and their supplier and

01:36:12 their customer and their supplier and not produced a desktop study i wouldn't have seen it so they wouldn't have told me but you would have got wind of the fact that it was a problem wouldn't you somebody would have come to you and said your your new option three isn't working very well because manufacturers are insisting on the test data being kept

01:36:24 insisting on the test data being kept confidential you would have got wind of that wouldn't you not necessarily not necessarily i mean the if if the builder had gone to a fire it had gone to

01:36:33 to um

01:36:35 um bre chilton or warrenton fire and asked them to

01:36:38 them to produce a desktop assessment for a war makeup and

01:36:43 and those bodies felt that they weren't able to do that because they want the available test data the builder may way have gone gone away and changed for either another system where the information was available or even

01:36:54 the information was available or even changed the make up of the wall to make it comply through another or to demonstrate compliance to another route and i wouldn't necessarily be told of that

01:37:04 that uh mr chairman i've got a few more questions on this line but they can equally well be taken after the break well what would you prefer to do well um let's take the break now right i may be able to shorten them there we are mr evans we'll have a break

01:37:17 there we are mr evans we'll have a break at this point we'll come back please at 25 to 12 and as before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence when they're out of the room thank you thank you very much

01:37:32 [Applause] thank you mr millet 25 to 12 please

01:57:08 would you ask mr evans to come back in please

01:57:24 all right mr evans all ready to carry on yes thank you very much yes mr miller yes mr chairman thank you mr evans before you wrote technical guidance note 18 issue naught in 2014 how many desktop reports had been submitted

01:57:37 reports had been submitted to your knowledge to the eight to nhbc for external facades which contained or comprised combustible materials do you know

01:57:44 know i don't know was it none was it one was it i think there was a there was a there was a few right

01:57:51 right in what form did they come

01:57:56 again they would come in um from fire engineers as a document to review right

01:58:03 right was it just the letter of approval from the likes of kingspan was there an actual report by an actual independent test house or fire safety engineer in terms of an option three it would have been an

01:58:14 it would have been an actual desktop assessment from one of the test houses and do you recall that seeing them at the time

01:58:21 the time um i think we'd reviewed a few not through the um the escalation process we established but prior to this we reviewed um a couple of i can't be specific on those but yes and were they

01:58:32 specific on those but yes and were they for whole building envelopes yes

01:58:37 right and did you ask the person who generated them at the time what basis they were providing them to you on

01:58:48 they were providing them to you on how do you mean sorry did you did you go back to them and say thank you very much for the desktop what is your what is the basis within adb on which you are providing this to us is there a discussion about that no

01:59:00 is there a discussion about that no after tgn uh issue naught was released in june 2014 uh did did things change did you then get more desktops um i believe at this point it was still

01:59:12 um i believe at this point it was still um fairly slow in in getting them um because

01:59:17 because the number of the buildings that we were reviewing at that time would have still been under the previous bba certificate which was an acceptable route for demonstrating compliance for that element of the wall

01:59:28 element of the wall before june 2014 were there any successful bs 8414 tests with certification to br 135 of uh pir or phenolic foam insulation

01:59:40 of uh pir or phenolic foam insulation products that you were aware of i was aware of obviously aware of the um the eight four one four two tests which king spanned them yes uh that hadn't received a br one

01:59:52 yes uh that hadn't received a br one three five certification they had it until september 2015. no that's correct no and indeed seller takes a successful test in may 2014 only received its certification to br

02:00:03 only received its certification to br 135 in august 2014. so would it be the case therefore that before june 2014 you had seen no classifications to bo135 in respect of

02:00:15 classifications to bo135 in respect of any

02:00:16 any 8414 tests done on pir or phenolic insulation products

02:00:24 from my correct recollection that's right yes yes

02:00:28 and you knew i think is this right that at least from having been told so by wintec in the previous november that a br 135 certification was needed to assess the test results to the criteria

02:00:40 assess the test results to the criteria in br 135

02:00:43 in br 135 the

02:00:44 the test result is required to

02:00:47 to assess against bl-135 but you could also you don't need the bl-135 certification to use the test the actual test result for

02:00:59 use the test the actual test result for the desktop assessment

02:01:02 otherwise you wouldn't be able to use for example a failed test to illustrate how the system would react

02:01:13 so it's the actual test the results from the test so the two different things so the test itself demonstrates how the wall performs in that test environment over the time so it measures the temperatures at various levels

02:01:25 temperatures at various levels i'm not a fire engineer it's not my my depth of expertise but my rudimentary understanding of what that test is it's those test results not the bl 135 classification that you're looking at as

02:01:36 classification that you're looking at as part of your desktop assessment is the test how does the wall react in that fire yeah so you're interviewing that as part of your desktop assessment yeah so does it come

02:01:47 desktop assessment yeah so does it come to this

02:01:48 to this that even though you and to your knowledge no one else at the nhbc had ever seen

02:01:53 ever seen an actual br 135 classification for the use of pir or phenolic in an external wall build up to june 2014 nonetheless you were proceeding on the

02:02:04 nonetheless you were proceeding on the basis uh that it could be achieved uh and was proceed was proposing that that could be achieved would be done by way of an extrapolation via a desktop study

02:02:15 desktop study so the the desktop assessment is using test results and not just eight four one four tests could be other test results as well other fire engineering um techniques

02:02:26 other fire engineering um techniques to

02:02:27 to demonstrate that a a war makeup in the view of the person compiling that report

02:02:34 report would have tested achieve a bl-135 classification but if you don't so the tests that you're using do not necessarily have to have that bl-135 classification no i understand

02:02:46 bl-135 classification no i understand but did it not tell you something about whether they would or wouldn't that so far they never had

02:02:56 sorry i don't understand that question sorry

02:02:58 sorry the purpose of option three is to have a report stating whether in the opinion of the report's author br 135 criteria would be met with the proposed system

02:03:10 proposed system was it not important to take into account the fact that hitherto there had been no vr 135 classification for pir or phenolic products in an

02:03:21 for pir or phenolic products in an external wall buildup but there had been tests and i think the view you know certainly our intention in um in presenting the you know that as a

02:03:33 in presenting the you know that as a method and a route for compliance as a sexism to nhbc through the bca guidance route was that that would instigate more testing

02:03:44 testing you know we've been pressing kingspan for further tests um obviously then um including the fact that an option three assessment relied on those tests um would

02:03:57 on those tests um would you know urge industry to actually undertake more tests and indeed that was the case

02:04:02 the case but at june 2014 that hadn't happened had it as far as you knew not that i'm aware of no uh and at june 2014 there wasn't any actual br135 in respect of these products um so does it

02:04:15 respect of these products um so does it come to this that you were happy to put out

02:04:17 out guidance recommending desktop studies uh which would extrapolate from test results that br 135 would be met even though in fact it had

02:04:28 would be met even though in fact it had never been met because there had been no classification

02:04:38 as i stated before it's the test data which is being used in the option three assessment it isn't necessary to have that 135 classification of that test result in

02:04:50 classification of that test result in order to use it for because some of the tests you use don't have a bl-135 classification it could be you know the wall makeup could differ because you're changing the cavity

02:05:01 because you're changing the cavity barriers for example in which case you'd refer to the testing for the cavity barriers that's not a bl one three five degrees i need to ask you this as jones i mean

02:05:10 i mean i don't think you need to be an expert to know that the way of fire develops is a very complex matter

02:05:17 matter did it ever occur to you that it might not actually be very feasible

02:05:22 feasible to produce a desktop uh study telling you how a system would react if it was set a light based on tests conducted on completely

02:05:33 based on tests conducted on completely different systems

02:05:40 not at that time no no he didn't no i mean

02:05:44 i mean it strikes me that it's possible that you could have got some help on that from one of the established fire testing houses who would at least be in a better position to understand whether what you were

02:05:55 to understand whether what you were expecting them to do was something that could

02:05:58 could reasonably ask well we've seen by by this stage we had already um you know we had already seen um

02:06:08 um reports fire engineered reports from engineers who were you know only only a few as i recall i can't recall numbers but i know we had from fire engineers such as the bre to

02:06:19 from fire engineers such as the bre to justify facades so it was something that we knew they had the capability and the willingness to do um it

02:06:28 um it this is an accepted route for compliance which has been used for

02:06:33 for throughout my career well it may be an accepted route to establish compliance in relation to some types of materials or products but whether it's going to work depends on the nature of the

02:06:45 work depends on the nature of the materials or products and the complexity of the analysis isn't it yes yeah so what might work for doorknobs might not work for exterior world facades

02:06:57 exterior world facades no but there an exterior wall facade is complicated but so are other

02:07:02 other parts of the building structure which would equally be um and

02:07:06 um and addressed with a with a desktop assessment right thank you very much yes just finishing off on br 135 well i understand i have the the point

02:07:17 well i understand i have the the point about test data did it never strike you at the time as odd that there had never in fact been to your knowledge and in fact a classification to br 135 in respect

02:07:28 classification to br 135 in respect either of pir or phenolic as insulation material in an external wool buildup it didn't strike me as odd no because as

02:07:41 it didn't strike me as odd no because as we've seen before the kingspan product which was at the moment at that time the predominant product

02:07:47 product um

02:07:48 um had a bba certificate which would be which would be an acceptable route for demonstrating compliance providing it was referred to the the manufacturers we discussed yesterday

02:08:00 the manufacturers we discussed yesterday so

02:08:01 so the incentive for manufacturers such as kingspan to do testing wasn't there and i think you've heard evidence to that effect the fact and you know our conversations

02:08:14 the fact and you know our conversations with them

02:08:15 with them through 2014 were about uh

02:08:19 uh encouraging them to do more testing because we wanted to see more testing let's go back to the bca guidance and look at option one

02:08:30 look at option one we considered the wording of this uh in its draft form yesterday um sorry this is at nhb 50760

02:08:43 and if you go to the top of the screen you can see option one i'll read it to you again the use of materials of limited combustibility for all elements of the cladding system both above and below 18 meters

02:08:54 below 18 meters this includes the insulation internal lining board and the external facing material smaller gasket parts and similar lowrisk items can be excluded from this requirement the definition of

02:09:05 from this requirement the definition of a molec

02:09:06 a molec material of limited combustibility is stated in table a7 of adb ii now as author or co-author perhaps of this document can you confirm first what

02:09:18 this document can you confirm first what did the phrase all elements of the cladding system cover

02:09:24 as i explained yesterday my understanding of that was the entire wall construction yes and that would include would it the core of an acm panel

02:09:32 panel yes yes

02:09:33 yes yes was that the approach which the nhbc itself adopted after this guidance was published

02:09:40 published so therefore to reject acm panels on buildings over 18 meters unless the panel

02:09:47 panel was a material of limiting combustibility throughout if they were going down the option one route yes

02:09:55 if they were going down the option one route yes but not if not if if uh

02:10:01 if if uh part of the so if it was a uh if they were presenting a panel which was not uh could be which could not be regarded as a material limited combustibility they wouldn't be able to go down the option one room they would either be

02:10:13 option one room they would either be we'd either ask them to go down option two

02:10:15 two or produce an option three report to demonstrate compliance

02:10:24 now we'll come back to desktop studies later um i just want to ask you now about brian martin and your relationship with him

02:10:32 with him he was at the time what was called at that point the department for communities and local government dclg and today it's called the department for leveling up housing and communities

02:10:43 leveling up housing and communities um when and where did you first meet brian martin do you remember i can't recall do you know what you considered his role to be within dclg in 2013-2014

02:10:54 2013-2014 he worked within the building regulations department and he was at a specific responsibility for adb and what was his involvement if any with nhbc

02:11:04 nhbc we would meet him at various functions or but he had no specific role within hbc

02:11:09 hbc he would um he would occasionally call us

02:11:11 us myself and diane marshall obviously through our involvement with bca lebc whatever we knew brian and he would occasionally contact us to ask our advice what we what we

02:11:23 to ask our advice what we what we considered if they were um thinking about introducing something or wanted a view they would sometimes come to us to hpc to ask us what was his involvement on the bca or with the bca

02:11:36 involvement on the bca or with the bca he he had no direct involvement with the bca technical group um when richard harrell moved on um at some point brian became we copied

02:11:47 um at some point brian became we copied brian in on as a member of uh mhclg at that time who we would have copied on as paper's only member now can we please go to nhb 50732

02:12:03 and i'd like to start in this email chain

02:12:07 chain which is from july 2014 at page two at the bottom where you can see that there's an email from brian martin to neil smith of the second of july 2014 subject fire safety

02:12:19 second of july 2014 subject fire safety facades

02:12:22 facades and

02:12:24 and he says this high neil i've been talking to a few folk about fire safety and facades recently allegedly several buildings have been erected

02:12:35 several buildings have been erected where pir insulation has been used in cladding panels well over 18 meters in height

02:12:41 apparently people are under the impression that pir is a material of limited combustibility which it isn't again

02:12:49 again allegedly many of these buildings are blocks of flats i have no idea how true these allegations are but they come from relatively reliable sources the purpose of my email is a friendly

02:13:00 the purpose of my email is a friendly warning

02:13:01 warning you might want to double check with your inspectors and plan checkers that they are on top of this happy to discuss regards brian

02:13:13 now you're not on this email um but we can see

02:13:19 see from the bottom of page one to the two page two that uh you respond to it uh on the 11th of july and we'll come back to that in a moment

02:13:31 back to that in a moment so can we take it first mr evans that you saw brian martin's friendly warning email at the time it was sent or shortly after shortly after yes yeah were you concerned that the person responsible

02:13:43 concerned that the person responsible for the building regulations was sending and the nhb what he called a friendly warning if anything i was um quite relieved because it had been an

02:13:54 quite relieved because it had been an issue that we've been dealing with for a number of months at this time so he was telling you nothing further than what you already knew is that right that's correct

02:14:06 so do we take it from that that did not set off alarm bells within the nhbc about the use of combustible materials uh which nhbc's building control and warranty departments have been signing

02:14:17 warranty departments have been signing off on because you've known that for some time

02:14:19 some time is that the case it didn't set off any alarm bells because it was an issue that we were dealing with at that time right um

02:14:32 so when he says allegedly twice and

02:14:37 and purports that he had no idea how true those allegations were in fact that was as far as you were concerned an excess of caution you knew that buildings did have pir insulation

02:14:51 that buildings did have pir insulation on them

02:14:52 on them which were materials of limited combustibility and the allegations were true yes yes yes

02:14:59 yes now we can see your response to him of the 11th of july that i showed you a moment ago um if we go back please to page one 11th july 1411

02:15:12 a copy to diane marshall and neil smith and i'll show it to you you say this

02:15:20 before i just ask you can i just confirm with you that you sent a draft of your response i think to diane marshall internally at the nhbc before responding to brian martin yes yes and we we show we also show down

02:15:31 yes yes and we we show we also show down of courtesy to neil smith yes they both approved what in fact you eventually sent yes yes let's look at what you said uh bottom of page one dear brian i hope that you are

02:15:42 page one dear brian i hope that you are well neil smith has discussed your email with me below and asked me to respond as i've been dealing with this on behalf of nhbc this is an issue that nhbc are aware of and have been a discussion with industry about for some time

02:15:54 industry about for some time the issue is in respect of the use of kingspan cool firm k-15 rain screen board in buildings over 18 meters in height the confusion has arisen from kingspan's statement that their product

02:16:05 kingspan's statement that their product is acceptable for use in a building over 18 meters however the product is made from a generic type of polyurethane foam which is by nature combustible however since 27th of october 2008 the

02:16:18 however since 27th of october 2008 the product held a bba certificate attached which indicates that it is acceptable for use in accordance with approved document b volume 2 paragraph 12.7 7.1 subject to advice

02:16:31 7.1 subject to advice being should be sought from the certificate holder 7.2 if the building exceeds 18 meters in height it was on this basis that nhbc building control and other building control

02:16:42 control and other building control bodies accepted the use of k-15 in buildings over 18 meters in height including blocks of flats we understand that labc have also issued a registered detail approving the material for use

02:16:53 detail approving the material for use over 18 meters now i just want to pause there

02:16:57 there and focus on the last uh paragraph there which starts um

02:17:07 the issue is in respect

02:17:10 did you believe at the time that brian martin's concerns or his friendly warning related only to k-15 or was it more was it broader

02:17:23 i wasn't aware because i'd been dealing with kingspan i'd assumed it was just with kingspan and certainly at that time as i said in terms of the timeline i think at the time celetex

02:17:34 time celetex were just moving towards reclassifying their their insulation so kingspan was the i'd assumed it was well i made him aware that we were dealing with kingspan i didn't know if that was a i couldn't

02:17:46 didn't know if that was a i couldn't assume that sorry i shouldn't have assumed it was just kingspan but because i'd been dealing with kingspan that was i did take an assumption sorry yes were you aware

02:17:58 aware uh

02:17:59 uh that

02:18:00 that i think you must have been given that you you cite the very bba certificate that k-15 was not a pir or polyurethane insulation that you say here but um

02:18:11 insulation that you say here but um phenolic

02:18:12 phenolic i was aware that as a drafting error yes but it's it's a member of the same family isn't it or the same type of insulation right

02:18:23 now we've been through the bba certificate for 2008 uh and we've been through the changes to the bba certificate in 2013 with the addition of the reference to closed 12.7

02:18:35 addition of the reference to closed 12.7 and we've seen already yesterday the section regarding contacting the certificate holder for advice and how that then came out in december 2013. now

02:18:45 now leaving that on one side it's right isn't it that you knew long before july 2014 that k-15 should not be used above 18 meters unless it met the requirements of br 135 using 8414 testing

02:19:02 as part of a tested system yes as part of a tested system yes and you've learned that fact at latest by the time you met wintec in november 2013.

02:19:13 if they wanted to go down those routes and again

02:19:17 and again the product at that point had a bba certificate which was acceptable to

02:19:23 to um to accept the material in the use if it was used in those conditions we just we discussed that yesterday the building control would have accepted the use of

02:19:34 control would have accepted the use of a combust that kingspan k15 in a wall facade as meeting 12.7 providing the conditions of the bba certificate were met now

02:19:45 of the bba certificate were met now first do you accept that the bba certificate as we've now been through didn't in fact refer to adb section 12.7 from 2008 but only uh for the few months between july

02:19:56 between july 2013 and december 2013. the certificate that i reviewed and we discussed that we looked at yesterday was revised in 2010

02:20:08 yesterday was revised in 2010 i when i picked that up in 2013 i'd assumed um that it had been issued in 2010 i was why would it have that date did you not check the bba certificates

02:20:20 did you not check the bba certificates to which you were referring when you compiled this email

02:20:30 in in hindsight what i should have done is is actually um extended that to say the 27th of october 2008 and amended on the 6th of april i think it was the 6th of april 2010

02:20:41 of april 2010 when it was actually amended that's what it says in the very small italics at the bottom underneath the 27th of october in hindsight but i think the certificate that i attached to this would have been that version

02:20:52 that version why didn't you check the email the bba certificates from the date of their original issue to make sure that what you were telling brian martin

02:21:03 that what you were telling brian martin was correct

02:21:10 probably because i was dealing with a lot of other matters at the time right and it was drafted in a uh in a way to um

02:21:19 to um bring brian up to speed with what we were doing so the fact that i actually then attached the certificate the the correct certificate to that yeah it's an error

02:21:30 it's an error in terms of not making sure it had the the full title and date of that document but i was trying to get across to brian what we were doing about what the issue highlighting what the issue was as i

02:21:41 highlighting what the issue was as i understood it and what we were doing about it

02:21:44 about it did you deliberately use the 2008 as the start date for the reference to 12.7 uh

02:21:51 uh well first question why did you use the start date of 27th of october 2008 when even on what you say you saw 12.7 wasn't in the bba certificate until

02:22:03 12.7 wasn't in the bba certificate until april 2010

02:22:06 the the certificate is still dated the 2010 version as amended is still dated i believe the 27th of october 2008. did you deliberately use the 2008 as the start date for the reference to

02:22:19 as the start date for the reference to 12.7 to make it look as if the bba reference to 12.7 had been in circulation for many years and not simply for a few months in 2013 in order to strengthen nhe's nhbc's defense

02:22:33 no this was not a defensive email this was an email highlighting to brian martin that we were aware of the issue he'd he'd brought to our attention and we were dealing with it we were working

02:22:44 were dealing with it we were working with industry to try and find a solution there was no deception intended or otherwise you see i use the word defense advisedly because

02:22:54 because uh the words after however in the second line of the second paragraph are setting out

02:23:00 out nhbc's explanation for why

02:23:04 for why it was accepting [Music]

02:23:07 [Music] k-15 above 18 meters namely reliance on the bba certificate i think it sets out that it's the building control industries um acceptance of it which was based on

02:23:19 um acceptance of it which was based on the bba certificate which was an acceptable route uh and a a route which had been used for many years and was detailed in the building regulations as an acceptable route for

02:23:30 route for accepting a product well you knew very well that k15 did not and could never comply with 12.7 didn't you and this was why um in this email when we read the full

02:23:42 um in this email when we read the full context of the email i explained to brian what we're doing about it

02:23:51 what was the point of referring to 12.7 in that paragraph if you knew that in fact 12.7 could never reply to kingsman k15 because the certificate that i attached

02:24:03 because the certificate that i attached to this

02:24:04 to this email

02:24:05 email contained was the the version that contained

02:24:09 contained the um the statement that if used in accordance with the bba certificate it was acceptable that product was acceptable under paragraph 12.7 did you want brian martin to think that you had been taken in by that

02:24:21 been taken in by that i was indicating to brian where the confusion had come from as brian indicates in the original email in the chain there appears to be some confusion and i was confirming that there was why

02:24:32 and i was confirming that there was why did you think brian martin would would consider that credible given that it was common knowledge uh that phenolic or pir insulation boards were not and could never be materials of limited combustibility i don't think i say in this email that it

02:24:44 don't think i say in this email that it is a material there's combustibility all right complement 12.7 then i'm explaining the where the confusion as i understood it within the industry comes it was coming from in how this

02:24:56 comes it was coming from in how this material was being accepted you realized i think as you told us yesterday at least from november 2013 that your reliance on the bba certificate and the concomitant uh advice quotes on

02:25:08 and the concomitant uh advice quotes on quotes from kingspan to which it directed you uh had been misplaced

02:25:16 that's right isn't it sorry can you repeat the question yes you realize from november 2013 the reliance on the bba certificate uh

02:25:26 uh particularly 12.7 and particularly the um seeking advice from kingspan and therefore using the bba certificate had been misplaced so i i didn't

02:25:39 so i i didn't i realized or we started to question why the bba had made the statements it made within there and we were exploring with kingspan

02:25:50 with kingspan um what additional evidence they had that had allowed bba to make those statements or had caused bba to make those statements the route of accepting a bba certificate

02:26:02 the route of accepting a bba certificate as evidence of compliance i wasn't trying to to justify that because that's an acceptable route within the building regulation mr evans come on you must have realized about

02:26:14 come on you must have realized about seven eight months later july 2014 and this is after don't forget the issue of class of issue naught of the tgn that any kind of reliance on the certificate which said 12.7 or which said seek

02:26:27 which said 12.7 or which said seek advice from the manufacturer would have been completely misplaced you must have realized that by this time shortly by this time we understood that the

02:26:37 the the previous um bba certificate or the the evidence or that sorry the bbs certificate had changed so you couldn't use that material um that material in accordance with its current bba certificate on buildings

02:26:50 current bba certificate on buildings which that bba certificate applied to no mr owens you must have realized let's be clear you must have realized i'm putting it to you that by july 2014 reliance on the historic bba certificate that

02:27:01 the historic bba certificate that referred to 12.7 and also referred to check with the manufacturer was always misplaced

02:27:08 misplaced you must have realized that it was still an acceptable route for those buildings to demonstrate compliance why were you relying in july 2014 on the

02:27:19 why were you relying in july 2014 on the wording of the bba certificate which contained the reference to 12.7 specifically to justify the nhbc's position as you set out in this paragraph

02:27:30 set out in this paragraph i'm not justifying our position in this paragraph i'm explaining the the issue and why it occurs and putting it into context to brian martin his statement that there seems to be some

02:27:41 statement that there seems to be some confusion so i'm trying to explain in this paragraph why there is confusion i'm not trying to justify

02:27:48 justify where nhb y and hbc are accepting anything or why we're dealing with kingspan i'm purely putting into context to brian that i'm actually aware of the confusion

02:27:59 confusion and i go on to explain in the email later in the email what we are

02:28:04 are doing about it to try and get to a solution well you say in the in the last sentence sorry a penultimate sentence it was on this basis that nhbc control and other building control bodies accepted the use

02:28:16 building control bodies accepted the use of k-15 in buildings over 18 meters in height

02:28:19 height were you trying to tell him that the the basis on which nhbc was doing so was was you now understood completely erroneous and you were accepting that or were you

02:28:30 and you were accepting that or were you trying to signal to him uh that your approach was justified i'm signaling to him that we were accepting the use of that material and we're still accepting the use of that

02:28:41 we're still accepting the use of that material on buildings where that bba certificate applied on the basis that the compliance with a bba certificate is

02:28:51 is acceptable under the building regulations for demonstrating the the suitability of a material it isn't the reality that you were purporting to rely on a bba certificate you knew was completely unreliable by this stage

02:29:04 completely unreliable by this stage in order to provide an excuse to government for why the nhbc had been aligned kingspan on buildings over 18 meters historically isn't that the position no now let's um

02:29:15 now let's um look at the reference you make to the labc register detail you which we can see uh in the last sentence on in that paragraph um having worked at the labc previously

02:29:27 um having worked at the labc previously mr evans i think you were familiar weren't you with the concept of an labc registered detail when i was with labc it would have become a type it would have been a type approval or a system approval

02:29:38 approval or a system approval but yes i was familiar with the concept and in fact it's right that uh k-15 was first made the subject of a system type approval certificate by the labc in may 2009

02:29:51 2009 do you remember that i now understand that yes were you working at the labc at that time or with the labc at that time i was on the board of labc at that time yes so when did you first become aware of

02:30:02 so when did you first become aware of the nabc system approval or the later registered detail approval for k-15s you know around about 2013 2014. how did you discover that

02:30:13 discover that uh i believe um one of my specialist surveyors found it right

02:30:18 right gary jarvis i believe do you know when in 2013 i can't be specific on the date at this time though no it could have been two thousand i suspected probably 2014 it was when we were

02:30:30 was when we were i think it was one of in fact sorry my apologies it would have probably been when we first met with kingsman in january uh and they brought it along to that

02:30:41 uh and they brought it along to that meeting in january 2014.

02:30:48 so that would probably be when i was aware of it sorry looking at this uh email and the last sentence there you say we understand that labc have also issued a registered detail approving the material for use

02:30:59 detail approving the material for use over 18 meters as i've read to you what was the purpose of saying that to brian martin here

02:31:07 again it was adding further context

02:31:11 now we've explored already in this inquiry the labc system approval and the registered detail for k-15 and it's misleading statement about k-15 and limited combustibility i don't need

02:31:22 and limited combustibility i don't need to go back over that with you can we go to your statement please and go to page 86

02:31:30 page paragraph 215 many people at nhbc would have been aware

02:31:37 aware of the labc certificates you see that yeah and and then uh at 216 you say

02:31:47 you say i'm sorry i should cover in 215. you say nhbc did not accept the above labc certificates as evidence of compliance with the building regulations or in relation to its building control services

02:31:59 the distinction between nhbc they go on to say accepting certificates from bba but not nabc was a result in my view of bba being a ucas accredited organization

02:32:10 being a ucas accredited organization whereas labc was not and then you go on nabc received a fee and had a commercial interest now then we go down to 216 underneath that and it says in terms of the labc

02:32:21 that and it says in terms of the labc certificates for k15 a i was aware of these certificates and i would have read them the circumstances in which i received copies included one in february 2014 i received a copy of a system

02:32:32 2014 i received a copy of a system certificate from a builder customer seeking to justify the use of k15 over 18 meters but nhbc did not accept it as evidence

02:32:40 evidence two gary jarvis in nhbc's technical services team sent a copy of certificate ew 165 to case for k15 to john lewis and me in an email dated 24th of october

02:32:52 me in an email dated 24th of october 2014

02:32:53 2014 three i recall that kingspan also provided copies to us in around 2014. b my concern was that the labcs documents gave the wrong impression about k-15's suitability for use on

02:33:06 about k-15's suitability for use on buildings higher than 18 meters i cannot recall the specific details now when did you first read the labc certificate that said that k15 was a

02:33:17 certificate that said that k15 was a material of limited combustibility and could therefore be used on buildings every 18 meters

02:33:24 i believe it was around in early 2014.

02:33:30 the labc certificate said the k-15 could be considered to be a material of limited combustibility when in truth it couldn't yes

02:33:40 yes that's correct yeah did you not recall that

02:33:46 i did recall it yes i do recall it yeah but i i think i was referring there in my statement too there are there are other things on there in terms of the classo and low risk yeah now given your

02:33:58 classo and low risk yeah now given your close relationship with the labc through the bca as we discussed yesterday why didn't you query that statement in that certificate with the labc straight away when you saw it

02:34:10 the labc straight away when you saw it in early 2014

02:34:15 again in early 2014 we were in dialogue with kingspan to again understand the information they provided so it could have been

02:34:26 provided so it could have been um

02:34:27 um we didn't regard it as a material kind of combustibility but they could have presented evidence to labc

02:34:35 labc they could have presented element evidence to bba at that time which made them both those bodies put the statements they did on their certificates we wanted to understand that

02:34:45 that um again and our approach was to kingspan at that point yes

02:34:51 yes no one can understand perhaps well

02:34:56 did well first of all did you speak with barry turner or anybody else at labc about that statement in that certificate not in early 2014 i did raise it at um

02:35:10 not in early 2014 i did raise it at um subsequent bca technical meetings and as as we've heard in previous evidence to the inquiry i did i sent a copy of my email to barry turner to um in june to uh doug and to barry turner

02:35:23 in june to uh doug and to barry turner at ebc as well [Music]

02:35:28 [Music] but given that labc were involved in the bca and given your close relationship with the labc why not just pick up the phone to barry turner and ask him what the

02:35:39 to barry turner and ask him what the basis of the statement was what was wrong with doing that rather than going through kingspan

02:35:48 though there would have been nothing wrong with that but i didn't but our conversation with with kingspan and at that point kingspan were um

02:35:57 um or at that point indicating that they would be able to provide us with additional evidence yes but it's not really an answer to my question

02:36:05 question what was the reason for not going directly to labc as the source of the statement and asking what the basis for it was as opposed to going to kingspan who was

02:36:16 as opposed to going to kingspan who was the manufacturer and in whose interests that statement was

02:36:31 our conversation our decision as i explained it was to to talk to in the same way we didn't talk to bba at that point was to talk to kingspan the manufacturer to gain their to gain their

02:36:42 manufacturer to gain their to gain their information we felt that that was a an easy route an easier route sorry to get that information labc had approached labc and asked them why

02:36:53 why they'd put that it wasn't necessary that they would give me that information um they may see it as an approach from a competitor trying to find out you know why you know if we didn't treat it as a

02:37:04 you know if we didn't treat it as a material limited combustible they are it

02:37:08 it it never at that point we raised it through the bca but our our conversation at the time was with kingsman why would you trust kingspan to be more forthcoming about the basis for the claim to

02:37:19 about the basis for the claim to material of limited combustibility than the bca than the well in the labc who had put out the certificate at that point i had no reason to

02:37:31 at that point i had no reason to suspect

02:37:32 suspect or

02:37:33 or to doubt kingspan in their sincerity at the time that they that the impression i got was that they were going to be able to provide that information it was only later in 2014 as we went through this process

02:37:45 through this process and they just seem to bring up other excuses we you know i no longer believe that and we weren't going to get to kingston won't be able to provide that information given that you were concerned about the

02:37:57 given that you were concerned about the new

02:37:57 new bba certificate for k-15 amended in december 2013 which had at long last limited its use above 18 meters pretty substantially why weren't you questioning the labc registered

02:38:09 you questioning the labc registered detail

02:38:10 detail which greatly widened the use of k-15 by saying it could be used above 18 meters

02:38:19 it was not necessary for us to question that well it was wasn't it because you're the nhbc you're providing warranties on the use of this material above 18 meters and your bc services are

02:38:30 above 18 meters and your bc services are okaying it but as i said we would not accept the labc certificate as that justification

02:38:41 therefore why are you referring to it in your email to brian martin again i'm adding further context to where the confusion is why this confusion has arisen in the

02:38:52 why this confusion has arisen in the industry which brian is talking

02:38:56 talking what is the relevant context if the labc certificate was as you say in your statement something the nhbc would never accept

02:39:08 i

02:39:12 as i explained i'm trying to give brian in that

02:39:15 in that in that paragraph the context of my understanding of where the confusion which brian talks about in his original email is why is rising why didn't you say

02:39:28 is why is rising why didn't you say to brian martin uh

02:39:31 uh look

02:39:32 look um both the bba certificate up to december 2013 and still the labc certificate even now say

02:39:41 say that a k-15 on the one hand complies with 12.7 bba is a material of limited combustibility labc

02:39:51 labc that's plainly wrong because this is a phenolic product and you are right and there is a problem why didn't you say that

02:40:04 my email was to explain or to to um

02:40:09 um to explain to brian where my understanding of the confusion was to acknowledge the fact that nhbc was aware that there was an issue in terms

02:40:20 aware that there was an issue in terms of that understanding across the industry and to explain to brian what we were doing about it explain i couldn't i could have ex looking back now i could probably

02:40:31 looking back now i could probably rewrite that paragraph four or five times in different ways my point my point of that my my

02:40:37 my my draft at that time was that and i'm i'm putting to you that this was not an explanation it wasn't it was explaining away uh nhbc's approach and

02:40:49 uh nhbc's approach and why it hadn't done anything fundamental

02:40:55 that was not as i explained that was not the point at all of that email this was a

02:40:59 a an exchange of emails between nhbc and

02:41:03 and dclg they'd asked us a question i was putting the context of what i understand adding some explaining to him where i my understanding of the the confusion was and then explaining

02:41:15 the confusion was and then explaining what nhpc were doing i was not seeking to

02:41:18 to make excuses or anything like that it was an explanation to brian of what where we were and what we were doing about it let's let's look at the rest of the email

02:41:28 email can we go back to it please

02:41:35 thank you let's continue

02:41:39 at the top of the screen it says in january of this year we were made aware of a revised bba certificate for k-15 issued under 17 december 2013 also attached

02:41:50 attached uh the new certificate removed the passage which indicated that it was acceptable for use in accordance with the proof document b volume 2 paragraph 12.7

02:41:59 12.7 and instead states that the product will not contribute to the development stages of a fire

02:42:05 of a fire but it has only been tested and is therefore only suitable for one specific construction on masonry walls 8.2 as we had a number of projects under construction and in advanced stages of

02:42:17 construction and in advanced stages of design utilizing k15 and hbc approached kingspan and made them aware of our concerns

02:42:22 concerns as a result of this dialogue kingspan are currently undertaking further testing using different cladding and facade treatments in accordance with bs841

02:42:30 bs841 2002

02:42:32 2002 the results from the tests are expected by the end of this month and nhbc are meeting with kingspan at the beginning of august

02:42:39 of august at which time kingspan will be asked to provide evidence that their product can be used in alternative construction types other than that specified in the current bba certificate

02:42:50 now just pausing there again given that the reference to paragraph 12.7 in the bba certificate had only been short-lived uh

02:42:59 uh and i would suggest to you as always self-evidently erroneous why were you purporting here to make its removal from the bba certificate in december a matter of relevance

02:43:12 again i was adding context explaining to brighton

02:43:17 the how we'd identified the issue and what we were doing about it

02:43:24 it and explaining to him the significance of the change in the bba certificate which was an acceptable route for a material to demonstrate that it was suitable to be used

02:43:35 suitable to be used now you say that there are projects with k-15 that were in the advanced stages of design and under construction were they halted while this confusion

02:43:45 confusion was sorted out

02:43:48 no as i've previously explained at this time the construct the projects which were uh under design and construction would have been submitted to nhpc

02:43:59 to nhpc while the previous bba certificate was in force

02:44:02 in force so prior to the 17th of december 2013. so

02:44:07 so as a building control body

02:44:11 as a builder sorry they could demonstrate compliance with that bba certificate by referring to the certificate holder and that was an acceptable route and isn't it still an acceptable route under the build

02:44:22 acceptable route under the build regulations to accept the bba certificate for the acceptability of a product

02:44:29 product yes the

02:44:30 yes the last paragraph of brian martin's email says that the purpose of that email is a friendly warning as we as we saw you might want to double check with your

02:44:41 might want to double check with your inspectors and plan checkers that they are on top of this did you not read that uh as a warning from government that the nhbc ought to be doing something about

02:44:52 about um about approving the use of k-15 above 18 meters we were doing something about it prospectively but not historically

02:45:05 we were doing something about it now your email as i explained yesterday um my approach here was to to move forward with this

02:45:17 to move forward with this um and to

02:45:20 um and to solve that to to be able to to inform builders

02:45:24 builders how they could demonstrate compliance with the building regulations not just for k-15 but in any scenario which moved away from

02:45:32 away from either those of linear routes it was never a consideration of the work i was undertaking and it was never an instruction to me that i had to find a solution

02:45:43 that i had to find a solution to

02:45:44 to protect nhbc what we've done in the past um

02:45:49 um that was never mentioned to me as a as a building control professional had i been approached by my employer to tell me that to find a solution to to allow a product which i consider not to

02:46:01 allow a product which i consider not to be a material olympic compostability onto a building i would no longer be working for that employer now your email to brian martin continues as follows there is no reason to suspect

02:46:13 as follows there is no reason to suspect that buildings which have been built with kingspan k15 are at risk at this time it is just the fact that the testing carried out to date does not bear this out

02:46:24 bear this out kingspan are confident that the testing currently underway will prove the suitability of the material for use over 18 meters if they're not able to do this we will begin the process of informing industry that the product is no longer

02:46:35 industry that the product is no longer suitable for use in facades over 18 meters as well as informing other stakeholders such as the bca and the fire and rescue service although both parties are already aware of our ongoing

02:46:46 parties are already aware of our ongoing discussions now just pausing there again this paragraph

02:46:51 paragraph about buildings not being at risk wasn't in fact i think in the first draft you sent to diane marshall do you remember that um i i don't specifically right do you know who added it

02:47:03 know who added it um

02:47:05 um it was probably me right but i can't be certain about that right now looking at the statement there is no reason to suspect that buildings which have been built with kingspan k15 are at risk at this time it is just the fact

02:47:18 risk at this time it is just the fact that the testing carried out today does not bear this out how

02:47:22 how how could buildings with k-15 above 18 meters

02:47:26 meters possibly not be at risk if k-15 had not passed a fire safety test required by the regulatory regime uh directed exactly to that risk

02:47:40 as i said yesterday at this point there was no reason that there was no we we'd seen

02:47:47 we'd seen tests which had passed between a bba certificate which had been assessed by the bba a trusted organization

02:47:55 we had seen a test which had been conducted with this material we hadn't been furnished at this time or had awareness of failed tests although listening to the evidence of the inquiry

02:48:06 listening to the evidence of the inquiry we now know they were they were concealed from us so i believe that statement there was our view at that time there was no reason to suspect that those buildings which included k-15

02:48:18 which included k-15 were

02:48:19 were at risk it's just the fact that the systems they'd been incorporated in had not been tested isn't that a reason

02:48:30 it's not a reason for what sorry suspecting that buildings which have been built with kingspan k15 are at risk

02:48:38 but as i go on to explain if they're not able to prove the suitability of that material then we would inform industry again you're taking sorry you're you're taking individual lines when

02:48:50 individual lines when i'm i'm i'm reviewing it when i've reviewed this and i i wrote it i was taking the whole paragraph to be taken together you go on to say the issue is just that testing to date does not bear

02:49:02 just that testing to date does not bear this out

02:49:04 you see that it is just the fact that testing carried out today does not bear this out

02:49:11 you're accepting aren't you there that the nhbc at the time had no test evidence to support safe use of k-15 over 18 meters on any existing or planned building

02:49:23 on any existing or planned building but what we did have on those buildings is we had

02:49:27 is we had a bba certificate which was an acceptable route to demonstrate compliance yes but no testing

02:49:33 testing carried out to date to back it up the testing so the bba certificate is an acceptable route to accept a material for use in accordance with the

02:49:45 material for use in accordance with the build regulations and the bba certificate that was issued for k-15 um

02:49:52 um said it could be used over 18 meters um

02:49:57 um in it with reference to the certificate holder as a as a building control body i can i that that is i cannot enforce anything further than that

02:50:09 anything further than that i can't unilaterally as a bring to our body if it's i don't have the powers to unilaterally raise those standards it's the minimum standards of the building regulations which i'm enforcing

02:50:20 which i'm enforcing and

02:50:21 and the building regulations allow a product manufacturer to have a bba certificate to demonstrate the suitability of their product and if providing the builder then follows that bba certificate

02:50:33 bba certificate as a as a building control body they have

02:50:38 they have done the builder has actually demonstrated compliance with those regulations

02:50:46 you don't refer to reliance on the bba certificate in this paragraph for your current

02:50:51 current uh thinking do you

02:50:56 no as a as i explained yesterday we were going through the process to to give ourselves to furnish ourselves with enough information to make a an informed

02:51:07 enough information to make a an informed decision

02:51:09 decision on whether the buildings which was subject to the new

02:51:12 new bba certificate would be

02:51:16 would be acceptable but at this point um as i explained the buildings which were under construction would have been still under the the previous bba

02:51:27 still under the the previous bba certificate a certificate which you had very good reason to suspect was erroneous in its statements but again

02:51:36 but again bba it was still a bba we had nothing from bba to say at that point they made a mistake on it bba was still you know was silent on that you hadn't asked them

02:51:48 you hadn't asked them i i believe by this time we had made an approach to bba to uh i believe at this time graham had actually or graham or someone had made an approach to bba what did they say um

02:51:59 um they said it was a revision i believe

02:52:02 i believe i can't be sure on that what did they say about 12.7 they didn't they didn't say it we asked them why the certificate as part of this process before we changed our policy in 2015 we

02:52:14 before we changed our policy in 2015 we asked the bba why they changed the certificate and they said it was a revision they weren't specific in terms of

02:52:19 of why they'd removed 12.7 they weren't specific in that i'm so sorry mr evans i thought we'd cover this a little bit yesterday

02:52:25 yesterday was there ever a time after the revision of which you became aware in january 2014 when you asked the bba how it had come about about historically uh that 12.7 had found its way into the

02:52:38 uh that 12.7 had found its way into the bba certificate for k-15 did you ask them that question no we didn't i believe i i can't remember the exact wording of graham's e because graham um

02:52:50 wording of graham's e because graham um and agree imperio um

02:52:53 um sent an email to them we asked them why the certificate had been revised so you had let's speak let's just count up what we've got here we've got no tests to back up the use of k15 but the

02:53:05 tests to back up the use of k15 but the hope of future tests and we've got a historical bba certificate which you had very strong reason to believe was erroneous so far as the reference to 12.7 was concerned but hadn't explored

02:53:16 12.7 was concerned but hadn't explored that with the issuer of the certificate

02:53:20 how could in the light of that how could there possibly be no reason to suspect that buildings which have been built with kingspan k-15 were at risk

02:53:38 the test there was just an absence of testing to bear that out we could have well received testing kingspan could have done that testing uh and demonstrated compliance and that was what we were working with

02:53:49 and that was what we were working with industry to try and establish you understood that bs8414 was a system test yes yes

02:53:57 yes yes and there were two different tests and two different sets of criteria in fact under br135 depending on whether you look at annex a or nxb one for masonry substrate and one for steel frame yes

02:54:08 substrate and one for steel frame yes yes yes

02:54:10 yes yes and you also understood that the system classified to br 135 through testing to bs8414 demonstrated suitability for the tested system only and only in the exact configuration as

02:54:22 and only in the exact configuration as tested yes yes yes so how would further testing to bs8414 which you were waiting for have helped you

02:54:31 you in respect of any build up historically or planned that was different from the system exactly tested

02:54:40 if they'd done a range of tests of various configurations again they could go down as they later suggested they would they could go down either a fire engineer could use that in a in a

02:54:53 fire engineer could use that in a in a desktop assessment or as kingspan later suggested uh they were in conversations uh or suggested they were going to ask a foreign engineer such as arab to do a

02:55:04 foreign engineer such as arab to do a global assessment which would

02:55:09 put together all the testing that was available for systems with the product in

02:55:14 in and would then come up with a um a portfolio or a description of the parameters under which that material could be used

02:55:25 could be used in watchful in which recital the type of facade faces that sort of thing

02:55:35 did you suppose at the time that kingspan was planning on testing to bs841 for every build-up on which k-15 had already been used on buildings above 18 meters

02:55:48 no so how would further testing to base 841 for help

02:55:54 for help as i explained to perhaps i didn't think sorry if i perhaps i didn't explain it clear enough if they'd done a range of tests in a range of with a range of different facade types a range of different

02:56:05 facade types a range of different thicknesses of the material different cavity sizes that would give them a portfolio of testing which they could which a fire engineer could produce

02:56:16 could produce um a

02:56:17 um a portfolio or a a sort of a global assessment illustrating under what conditions that product could be used as i explained

02:56:28 product could be used as i explained this was not being used as an explanation for what had gone before this was being used for what was coming for future designs my focus was not on as i said justifying

02:56:41 as i said justifying any decisions which any building control body had made in the past my focus was on facing this problem which we had a material which was not a material combustibility

02:56:52 combustibility was

02:56:53 was materials which were not materials limited combustibility were

02:56:58 were in some cases necessary for the builder to be able to demonstrate compliance with other parts of the building regulations so

02:57:06 so we were trying to explore how um if possible these products could be used well

02:57:13 used well forgive me but your paragraph i've just read to you says there is no reason to suspect the buildings which have been built with kingspan k15 at risk at this time so

02:57:24 kingspan k15 at risk at this time so this paragraph is concerning you with the legacy of built buildings using k-15 isn't it buildings which have been built

02:57:36 buildings which have been built yes yeah yeah you're not looking you're not saying there's no reason to suspect to suspect that buildings in development or under design are at risk you're

02:57:47 or under design are at risk you're talking about the past aren't you the built environment

02:57:52 but i'm also not there defending what the industry has done before what i'm saying is there isn't evidence at this point in time to illustrate that there would be a

02:58:06 to illustrate that there would be a problem no maybe i'm as i'm setting out here um we are you know working with industry to get further information to inform us of that

02:58:20 what you're saying is obvious there's no testing carried out to date to bear out the fact that buildings already built are not at risk and therefore

02:58:33 are not at risk and therefore my question is did you suppose that kingspan were planning on testing every single rig or every single buildup in the built environment on which case 15 had already been used over 18 meters

02:58:45 15 had already been used over 18 meters in order

02:58:46 in order to

02:58:47 to satisfy you that there was no such risk is that what you were supposing no i wasn't

02:58:54 wasn't and therefore

02:58:57 you must have realized that whatever the extent of kingspan's k-15 testing prospectively was there was a very good reason to suspect that buildings built with k-15 were at

02:59:08 that buildings built with k-15 were at risk namely that the testing proposed wouldn't cover every single build up testing

02:59:15 testing there wouldn't be a test for every single buildup but there may be enough evidence to demonstrate that the use of kingspan k-15 did not pose a risk over and above

02:59:26 k-15 did not pose a risk over and above the functional requirements of the regulations now in your statement you've commented on this phrase let's go to it page 114 please paragraph 287b little roman 8

02:59:37 little roman 8 bottom of the page we included the text that there was quite no reason to suspect that buildings which have been built with kingspan k15 are at risk at this time

02:59:51 at the time i had no information to the contrary kingspan was telling us the product was safe and had indicated that they were going to do more testing until we knew for certain that there was an issue we did

03:00:02 certain that there was an issue we did not want to leap to conclusions given the serious implications of changing the position on k-15

03:00:11 but you did have information to the contrary didn't you namely the very absence of test evidence to support positively the use of k-15 in buildings over 18 meters

03:00:23 buildings over 18 meters at least on steel frame buildings and any systems different from the system tested in 2005. that's right isn't it i had an absence of testing i didn't have any information at that time that

03:00:35 have any information at that time that the those the constructions that it was involved in were unsafe well that's not quite the full extent of it is it because you knew that the material was not of

03:00:46 you knew that the material was not of limited combustibility and for that reason didn't comply with paragraph 12 7 adb which in turn suggests that it is at least

03:00:56 least suspect to use that word unless it can be shown to be safe so in the absence of any testing to show that it's safe you're simply left with the fact that it's suspect

03:01:08 the fact that it's suspect but there could be the way

03:01:11 the way there could be other ways to demonstrate its compliance either through a desktop study a global assessment of course but you didn't have that at the time no but i didn't have any other information that led me to believe that

03:01:23 information that led me to believe that it wouldn't be if that information had been produced i had no information to demonstrate that they wouldn't be able to do that at that time and that's that's the aspect that's the position i was coming from at that time

03:01:35 was coming from at that time i suppose what i'm saying is i don't have enough i don't have enough information but to suspect either way is that the approach that nhbc routinely took to compliance with adb namely that

03:01:47 took to compliance with adb namely that if a manufacturer of a of a product says itself then it's then it's safe if you don't have any information to show the contrary

03:01:57 we will not just accept if if we ask for information from a builder we will not just expec accept their acceptance their their statement and that's why we were um we hadn't

03:02:09 and that's why we were um we hadn't accepted kingspan's statement earlier in the year when they came and told us that's why we're asking them for additional testing when you say in your statement here until we knew for certain

03:02:20 until we knew for certain that there was an issue we did not want to leap to conclusions i have to suggest to you that the conclusion required no leap surely the inevitable and only conclusion was that k-15 was

03:02:34 and only conclusion was that k-15 was non-compliant because its youth wasn't supported by data from a large-scale test under bs8414 and ii on each and every build up to to be our 135 criteria

03:02:50 that's the only conclusion available

03:02:57 that's not the way i saw it at the time well why is that it's not complicated i wanted we didn't have the testing yes that's true but we want it we there are we wanted to

03:03:09 but we want it we there are we wanted to give the opportunity for

03:03:13 for industry to demonstrate that the there that the

03:03:17 the the statements they were making that it could be used safely they're not you know we weren't asking them to prove it was a material of limited combustibility we were asking them to prove that it could be used

03:03:28 prove that it could be used safely across a range of different facade types and then that could be used in future going forward to demonstrate compliance leaving aside the the legacy

03:03:40 leaving aside the the legacy do you accept that nhbc should have stopped blessing the use of kingspan k15 above 18 meters until you knew that each external wool buildup

03:03:52 external wool buildup presented to you complied through an 8414 test to br br 135 criteria and therefore you knew it was safe rather than continuing to allow it to be used until you found out that

03:04:04 it to be used until you found out that it wasn't

03:04:11 no as i explained in my statement and i've explained here we were the buildings we were filing at this point were still under the previous bba which

03:04:23 were still under the previous bba which was an acceptable route to demonstrate compliance and as a building control body i can ask for no more i i can't ask for that anymore um if i

03:04:32 um if i if i believed if i wanted them to do more and they don't they didn't do it i would then have to hand it back as an approved inspector i have no legal powers of enforcement so

03:04:43 i have no legal powers of enforcement so i would have to then hand that building back to the local authority who would then have to take enforcement action and their enforcement would be based on exactly the same premise that i'm saying

03:04:54 exactly the same premise that i'm saying it

03:04:55 it you know

03:04:57 you know their defense from the building i've complied with the bba certificate i'm gonna stop you there because the bba certificate at this time this is july 2014 is the one that did not refer to 12.7 and remove the refer to manufacturer provision it was much

03:05:09 manufacturer provision it was much narrower the buildings i was issuing the final certificate on here at this point in time was under the previous bba so

03:05:20 so i had time to work with industry to allow industry to demonstrate to us that that product could be used safely over 80 meters for the buildings that were submitted after

03:05:32 that were submitted after the issue of the new bba certificate um so i had talked we had time to work on that um

03:05:40 um and as as it was as was the case in 2015 when we changed our position and we didn't and we moved towards or we asked builders to demonstrate compliance in

03:05:51 builders to demonstrate compliance in accordance with bca guides no 18 that did

03:05:56 that did stop a number of those buildings for a period of time from being built while they had to go away and produce desktop assessments some of those buildings had to change their configuration

03:06:09 their configuration whatever so as a you know we it was reasonable to allow industry time to furnish issues with this information and when they couldn't provide that information we changed our policy

03:06:24 so this is the shorter answer to my question

03:06:27 question that you didn't stop blessing the use of k-15 going forwards until you knew it was safe but was happy to continue to use it until you found out that it wasn't safe

03:06:39 until you found out that it wasn't safe because

03:06:40 because of what a previous but now withdrawn bba certificate had said which you had very good reason to believe was unreliable

03:06:51 but under the building regulations and and my power as a building control body the applicator those buildings which were

03:06:59 were um which we were happy to issue final certificates on were

03:07:05 were built under the that the previous bba certificate was in force and was a

03:07:12 was a a way of demonstrating compliance with the regulations as a building control body i can only enforce the minimum requirements of the building regulations

03:07:23 i can't i can't make up my own regulations and the regulations at that time were that we could accept or the the builder could demonstrate compliance

03:07:34 builder could demonstrate compliance by complying with the bba certificate for in in force at the time they submitted the application well not when you knew it was obviously wrong surely which you must have done

03:07:48 we wanted to understand or where i wanted to to allow industry to demonstrate that they their material could be used safely

03:07:59 could be used safely that wasn't saying it was unsafe at that time because as i say here we didn't have any information to the country and that's why we wanted to furnish ourselves with that information well mr evans we've been around this boy a number of times i'm going to put two

03:08:10 number of times i'm going to put two things to you uh first of all i suggest to you that you didn't want to leap to conclusions as you put it because it would have been bad for business suddenly

03:08:19 suddenly to stop approving the use of k-15 above 18 meters indeed any combustible insulation above 18 meters it would have caused an upheaval and a barrage of inquiries wouldn't it

03:08:33 and you wanted to avoid that

03:08:36 we wanted to avoid confusion in the industry

03:08:40 industry and we wanted to work with industry to resolve that confusion it was not it was not done to protect market share it was not done with any

03:08:52 market share it was not done with any other reason than to allow industry to give us the information so we could make an informed decision which we did in

03:08:58 in uh 2015. and you didn't want to leap to conclusions as you put it i have to suggest to you because it would raise the specter of a major historic legacy problem for nhbc

03:09:11 historic legacy problem for nhbc warranted or accepted buildings what you might call the cladding crisis

03:09:21 mr chairman we talked about this yesterday

03:09:23 yesterday um

03:09:24 um i'm a billionaire professional i've been in the industry 32 years at no time was any approach made to me to

03:09:34 to find a solution to this problem to protect nhbc's either its integrity or its historic buildings well well you have made that

03:09:45 buildings well well you have made that clear andrew as i said if anyone had i would not be working for that employer yeah so i disagree with that statement thank you did i have a short break please

03:09:56 please yes certainly we go this might be a convenient moment for the lunch break and perhaps yeah just come back a little earlier

03:10:01 earlier well do we need to come back earlier maybe a slightly extended break would be i don't know we can come back at two o'clock yeah yes we'll have a break now for lunch and usual rules apply thank you

03:10:19 thank you mr millett two o'clock

03:10:49 you