Afternoon evidence from NHBC's Steve Evans examining the organization's handling of Kingspan K15 concerns, coordination with DCLG, the 'accident waiting to happen' warnings from Arup Fire, and building control policy changes from 2013-2015.
00:14:39 would you ask mr evans to come back in please thank you
00:14:54 right mr evans ready to carry on yes thank you thank you very much yes sister yes mr chairman thank you mr evans um just picking up where we left off did anybody
00:15:04 anybody as that june or july 2014 do an internal study within nhbc to see how many
00:15:11 how many as built buildings historical buildings contained k15 as approved by nhbc bcs or warranted by nhbc no
00:15:22 no why is that it would actually be quite difficult to get that information and quite time consuming
00:15:29 consuming our system uh our document management system doesn't
00:15:34 doesn't um record
00:15:36 um record the information in terms of the the makeup of the building the different components that it's made from as you can appreciate a multi-story residential building is made up of thousands of different components
00:15:47 up of thousands of different components so
00:15:48 so that that our system doesn't stretch to that
00:15:50 that to be able to identify those sites it would actually entail
00:15:56 entail a great number of staff sitting down and going through all the all of the projects we've ever looked at to identify that and even then that may not be accurate because we don't hold as
00:16:07 not be accurate because we don't hold as built drawings
00:16:13 well we'll come back to what you did to by way of study later on
00:16:18 later on um
00:16:19 um what action did the nhbc take in relation to all buildings specifying and using k15 and other combustible products in the meantime so between july 2014 and march 2015.
00:16:32 so between july 2014 and march 2015. so we would have been having conversations with builders in terms of um
00:16:38 um their
00:16:39 their the the position of k-15 and alerting them to the fact that we were working with them too or working with the manufacturer to identify the suitability of that product so we
00:16:51 the suitability of that product so we would have been on new buildings on buildings which were submitted after that january date so not subject to the previous
00:16:59 previous bba certificate those afterwards we would have been having those conversations warning the uh the builders i think there's a yeah okay going back to the last email in the chain at nhb five zero seven three zero
00:17:11 chain at nhb five zero seven three zero let's go back to that the last email in that chain comes from brian martin in response to yours to him of the 11th of july that's nhb50732
00:17:30 i'm so sorry i'm not sure i enunciated that clearly enough 732. and he writes to you saying hi steve many thanks for this can you keep me informed of any further developments please
00:17:41 further developments please regards brian were you surprised that he offered no further guidance feedback or even comment on what you were what you say you had done and what you were proposing to do
00:17:53 to do no
00:17:54 no now you sent brian martin's friendly warning email and your response to it on to colleagues at the labc didn't you i did yes can we go to labc
00:18:05 50892 please sorry four zeros eight nine two i think it should be labc four zeros eight nine two yes
00:18:15 yes and if we look at the third email down in the chain at the bottom of page two we can see here is an email from um doug bason
00:18:21 bason uh to david ewing and barry turner
00:18:27 and below that we can see your email to doug basin and barry turner itself also of the 11th of july and underneath uh underneath the opening part it says barry doug you see i do
00:18:38 part it says barry doug you see i do hope that you are both well please keep this confidential at this time but felt that you may like to see this approach we've had from dclg and my response i've mentioned this at bca meetings in the
00:18:49 mentioned this at bca meetings in the past but it is now coming to a head i note that the nabc registered detail expires in august this year so you may wish to consider this in the light of the amended bba certificate issued in december 2013.
00:19:03 and why did you ask them to keep it
00:19:08 confidential i don't know um i asked myself this i saw this on uh previous evidence of the inquiry and i i don't know you don't know
00:19:19 i mean in hindsight there was no reason to ask them to keep it confidential we doubted i did already discussed it with barry and duggar at the bca technical meetings
00:19:30 at the bca technical meetings did you
00:19:31 did you want him to keep it confidential because you knew that this was a massive problem and wanted to contain it as best you could
00:19:38 could i say this i mean the fact that there was kingspan k15 historically present on a wide number of buildings above 18 meters
00:19:47 meters no as i say i i can't
00:19:50 i i can't now looking back i can't see why i asked them to keep it confidential i'd already discussed them with it as i mentioned there at bc meetings can we please go to labc double zero two zero
00:20:01 zero one four one at page thirty
00:20:09 this is part of doug bason's email sorry the witness statement and page 30 paragraph 52.4 he says this
00:20:20 and page 30 paragraph 52.4 he says this is in response to some questions about the email the tail end of which you can probably just about see at the top of page 30 itself which you don't need to see
00:20:30 see and he says this that paragraph 52.4 he that's you mr evans he was concerned that there may be an issue of potential non-compliance with the building regulations and spoke to us quotes in
00:20:42 regulations and spoke to us quotes in confidence close quotes as he did not wish to make the matter public knowledge until he was in full command of all the facts relating to this matter um is that correct
00:20:54 um is that correct does what mr basin says there reflect your thinking at the time as i've said i reflected on what i said in that email and i can't i don't know why i asked for it to be kept confidential you know in hindsight there
00:21:06 confidential you know in hindsight there was no reason to keep it that way i'd already talked we'd i'd already mentioned the issue at the bca technical committee where doug and barry were present so it was it wasn't confidential
00:21:18 present so it was it wasn't confidential did you tell the meeting the general discussion at a bca meeting that as mr basin recalls it there may be an issue of potential non-compliance with the building regulations
00:21:30 with the building regulations did you say that no i don't i don't recall those words i believe
00:21:36 believe um i appraise them of the situation with the bba certificates the change in the bba certificates and the the work that kingspan were now planning to do but it's right isn't it that there was
00:21:48 but it's right isn't it that there was or may have been an issue of potential non-compliance with the building regulations so far as k-15 was concerned if the k-15 had been used in accordance with his previous bba certificate as far
00:22:00 with his previous bba certificate as far as the building regulations are concerned there wouldn't have been a non-compliance
00:22:07 on buildings which was subject to that bba certificate now let's go to nhb 50757
00:22:17 this is an email run in the month before the friendly morning this is june 2014. and if we go please to the first email in time on page three in this string
00:22:30 in time on page three in this string it's an email from you to richard bromwich at kingspan dated the 16th of june 2014 copied to a number of people including john lewis
00:22:41 john lewis at graham perrier and ivor meredith subject kingsman k-15 and it says dear richard
00:22:48 richard further to the recent recent discussions between kingspan and nhbc i would be grateful if you could provide me with an update on the use of kingspan k15 on buildings with a height exceeding 18 meters as a matter of urgency
00:23:00 meters as a matter of urgency the latest version of the bba certificate extracted below makes it clear that only a construction similar to that tested can be considered as meeting the requirements of bsa414 part 1 k-15 backed directly onto a masonry
00:23:13 1 k-15 backed directly onto a masonry wall it is noted that the additional wording of the earlier bba certificate whereby advice on alternative constructions could be sought from kingspan has now been removed and hbc has not been provided with
00:23:25 and hbc has not been provided with anything further that is based on bsa414 part one to prove performance from the from accredited independent testing in accordance with br 135 recommendations as such as a building control body nhbc
00:23:38 as such as a building control body nhbc building control services is in a difficult situation whilst we do not wish to prejudice the construction of a large number of tall buildings in which k-15 is being used as an insulin
00:23:49 k-15 is being used as an insulin we do not have any suitable basis under regulation 7 for the acceptance of the external envelope design where it moves away from the construction used to compile the bba certificate
00:24:00 certificate now just pausing there that accords doesn't it with what either meredith told the inquiry namely that nhbc were reluctant to refuse uh a k-15
00:24:14 do you agree with that as i state there um it would it would if we if we had an outright ban at that point it would produce the construction of a large number of tall
00:24:25 construction of a large number of tall buildings it would actually cause other problems then with insulation so we were keen to see as i said to resolve the problem to allow if possible the use of of this
00:24:36 allow if possible the use of of this type of material to satisfy both the thermal but also the fire safety aspects of the burn regulations
00:24:46 and this was a warning that if we weren't able to do that then that would cause problems yes so i think the answer is yes you were reluctant to refuse k15 at that stage yes yes and was that
00:24:57 at that stage yes yes and was that reluctance on the basis that nhbc would find themselves in difficulty as you identify
00:25:03 identify because in part of the large number of buildings that had previously been approved or warranted historically by a nhbc before 2014. as i've stated
00:25:14 a nhbc before 2014. as i've stated before this had nothing to do with historic buildings yeah well we've been there mr blind well we're continuing to approve and warrant that we're proposing to use k-15 so the buildings we were finally at this point still in june
00:25:26 finally at this point still in june would still be under the previous bba which i've explained under what circumstances we would accept k-15 but the last part of that paragraph rather suggests that in fact you had come to the view that you didn't have a suitable
00:25:37 the view that you didn't have a suitable basis
00:25:39 basis on which to rely on regulation seven uh to uh use the bba certificate as the route to approval going forward yes so for buildings which are subject to the new bba certificate which i'm
00:25:50 the new bba certificate which i'm referring to here
00:25:53 we would not be in a position to accept an issue a final certificate on those buildings
00:25:57 buildings and in the second line where you say you don't wish to prejudice the construction of a large number of tall buildings what can you give us an idea of what you meant by a large number uh i can't at this point but what i can
00:26:09 uh i can't at this point but what i can say is when we did
00:26:12 did run a report of buildings under construction in 2015 there was around 300 blocks on that report
00:26:23 but that was into that that would be almost um about 10 months later from this right and why i mean you may think that we've been here before but why was nhbc building control services in a difficult position
00:26:34 services in a difficult position um
00:26:36 um it had no basis on which going forward to accept
00:26:40 to accept the presence of k-15 over 18 meters it would be in a difficult position because we would be telling those um builders who were building buildings subject to the new bba that we were not able to accept k-15 and
00:26:53 that we were not able to accept k-15 and they would possibly then have to uh revisit their designs they would also quote as i said and then would then court may cause issues with then achieving compliance with other parts of the building regulation so it it solved
00:27:05 the building regulation so it it solved one problem but made another well what we were trying to do was to find a solution which actually meant we could move forward with both a solution for your customers but not a solution for nhbc or the building control officers uh
00:27:17 nhbc or the building control officers uh working for bcs but at this position we weren't yet being asked to issue final certificates on the basis of the new bba certificate forgive me your last answer but one and
00:27:30 forgive me your last answer but one and i
00:27:31 i suggested and in fact i think said that the difficult position was about telling builders
00:27:37 builders that you couldn't accept k-15 and that they would then have all the difficulties you identified so the difficulties aren't weren't for nhbc it was easy for nhpc to say no the difficulties
00:27:49 difficulties were for your customers isn't that the reality the difficulties would be predominantly yes the responsibility for compliance with the build regulations is the builders
00:28:00 builders but obviously as a building control body uh my role is any building control body whether it be an approved inspector or local authority is to work with the builder to help them to demonstrate that compliance and
00:28:11 to demonstrate that compliance and achieve that compliance so i wouldn't i as a as a building control service we wouldn't just tell the builder we're not accepting it you're on your own we would you know there would be resubmissions
00:28:23 you know there would be resubmissions there would be um you know re-examination of plans and that sort of thing so it yes it's their problem and they're building the building but obviously as a building control body we're asked to
00:28:35 building control body we're asked to work with them to you know to and out and indeed we have to be involved in that process so that when we come to issue our final certificate we're in a position to be able to do so and make the
00:28:47 able to do so and make the um the statements that are made on the final certificate can you just unders explain to me why you thought as you just said that your role as building
00:28:58 that your role as building control was to help them demonstrate compliance as opposed simply to ensure that they met compliance so
00:29:11 for as long as i've been in building control
00:29:13 control both local authority and approved inspectors it's been a collaborative process in terms of rather than um and it could be run like this that
00:29:25 um and it could be run like this that you get receive a submission from the builder and you say no it doesn't comply and then he tries again no it doesn't comply
00:29:32 comply it's about working together to um
00:29:36 um not to design the building for them but to work with them to enable them because i can't be involved in design but to you know steer them in that direction to steer them towards those solutions
00:29:48 to steer them towards those solutions which do offer compliant solutions so it's a it's a building control service well presumably you could uh give them reasons obviously for
00:29:59 uh give them reasons obviously for refusing
00:30:00 refusing designs without telling them how to how to do it better and you and you do and then you know you frequently then get asked the question well what do you need and builders want certainty they would like you to tell them how to build
00:30:12 would like you to tell them how to build it of course but we can't do that we're not you know we're not allowed under the approving spectrum regulations to be involved in design and we wouldn't do that
00:30:22 that what we may be able to do is to point it towards a range of solutions which they may want to consider from our experience from building being involved in other buildings of that type or whatever so
00:30:33 buildings of that type or whatever so that's what i mean by collaborative process
00:30:36 process yeah thank you in that last answer you draw a distinction between being involved in design on the one hand and pointing the client towards a range of
00:30:47 pointing the client towards a range of solutions they may want to reconsider on the other what's the difference they choose
00:30:53 choose they choose the method they then they they go down they they're they're involved in the design they're the ones that are designers
00:31:02 that's how you've always seen the role of a bco is it to help the client arrive at as
00:31:09 at as making a decision about their design as i said before building control whether it be local authority or approved inspectors private sector
00:31:20 approved inspectors private sector as long as i've worked in them wherever i've worked it has been along that basis that we work with the customer
00:31:29 we yeah it's part of a it's part of a service it is part of the part of the service
00:31:35 service um and as i said we we may want to compete on price and service but we wouldn't compete on technical standards now looking at the email um going back to it
00:31:45 to it you can see that in the red it says therefore i must advise you that unless additional test evidence supporting the use of k-15 in constructions which differ from the bsa414.1 test can be provided before
00:31:58 bsa414.1 test can be provided before 30th of june 2014 nhbc building control services will need to reconsider its acceptance of k15 in buildings over 18 meters as fit for purpose and that's in red and bold was
00:32:10 purpose and that's in red and bold was it in red and bold in order to bring that point very firmly home to kingspan yes yes
00:32:16 yes yes did you receive additional test evidence supporting the use of k15 in constructions different from bsa414 part one before that date 30th june 2014 no
00:32:29 no given that that is so mr evans why did you not simply tell brian martin when you responded to his friendly email of the 2nd of july on the 11th of july
00:32:41 on the 11th of july that you had given kingspan a deadline to come up with additional supportive test evidence they had not met the deadline and therefore you were now actively reconsidering acceptance of
00:32:52 actively reconsidering acceptance of k-15
00:32:54 k-15 on buildings over 18 meters because i believe from from this email um
00:33:00 um [Music]
00:33:02 [Music] kingspan were proposing to uh although they told us they were they'd had some tests which they were all writing results for and they were proposing to engage arabs
00:33:13 and they were proposing to engage arabs to do a global assessment based on those reports and pate and give us a um i'll give the industry a view on how and where kingspan k15 could be used
00:33:24 where kingspan k15 could be used so you set them a deadline in bold and red and then didn't enforce it we didn't because uh we considered their proposal we could they came back and said they'd had some tests done
00:33:35 said they'd had some tests done for which they didn't yet have the results
00:33:37 results and they proposed to then engage arabs so no we didn't enforce that we gave them a little bit of what we consider the time a a further reasonable time scale
00:33:47 scale to bring that evidence forward
00:33:55 and if we uh go uh
00:33:59 go uh up the email chain please oh sorry i should ask you first did you get a reply to this email from richard bromwich or anybody else at kingspan
00:34:09 kingspan i believe i may have got a response from either meredith asking for that extension of time right although we're meeting with that or something yeah sorry i don't recall and then if you look up the email chain at the foot of page two please you can
00:34:21 at the foot of page two please you can see that
00:34:24 the next email in the string is from you to iva meredith copied internally to uh nhbc uh
00:34:35 uh as as well i think as others uh and richard bromwich as well at kingspan and you say dear iva and then if you go to the top of page three you say please find attached
00:34:47 three you say please find attached copies of recent communications that nhbc have had with dclg in respect of the fire safety and facades i have been keeping colleagues at the building control alliance labc and the
00:34:59 building control alliance labc and the fire brigade up to date with the progress of our discussions as stated i should say in the communication with dclg at our meeting on 6th of august 2014 nhbc will be looking for
00:35:10 august 2014 nhbc will be looking for evidence from kingspan that supports the use of k-15 above 18 meters outside of the constraints of the current bba certificate now
00:35:19 now it looks from this that you sent him the brian martin friendly warning email and your 11th of july response because you say i've attached copies of recent communications is that is that
00:35:30 recent communications is that is that correct
00:35:31 correct i believe so yes that was the i believe that's the correspondence i think what did you hope to achieve by sending kingspan the friendly warning email from brian martin and your response to him
00:35:44 i was hoping to um to impress on kingspan that actually wasn't just the building control community that was aware of this situation but also mhclg were aware of the situation and also
00:35:55 were aware of the situation and also that we were keeping them informed of the progress right
00:36:00 right and you say there that the you've been in touch with the fire brigade and keeping the fire brigade up to date um first of all which fire brigade that would be uh london fire brigade lfb yes
00:36:11 would be uh london fire brigade lfb yes um
00:36:12 um we've been unable to find any um any evidence of those communications can you tell us who at the lfb were you in touch with on this subject um that wasn't me personally that would have been a conversation
00:36:23 that would have been a conversation between diane marshall and uh lindsay seal
00:36:27 seal of uh the fire engineering group lindsay seal is the answer yes right i believe so i mean um
00:36:35 um that that's um who i understood diane spoke to it i just want to know exactly how much you understood what what is it that you understood uh lindsay seale was told by diane marshall about the nhbc's then concerns
00:36:48 marshall about the nhbc's then concerns about the use of k-15 above 18 meters my understanding of um the conversation was that um diane had a conversation with lindsay to
00:36:59 diane had a conversation with lindsay to ask if the london fire brigade would want to know about facades
00:37:06 facades the response um
00:37:08 um as i understood it to have back and i'm taking this third hand um was that um a facade was not considered as a part of the common area
00:37:19 of the common area of a building so therefore would not be considered under a consultation a building control statutory consultation so it was a matter for the building control body not for london fire brigade
00:37:31 control body not for london fire brigade at that point now paraphrasing the rest of the email chain a meeting is arranged for the 6th of august between an hbc and kingspan and if we go to the top of the email chain we can see that you write to
00:37:42 chain we can see that you write to either meredith on the 15th of august 2014 we go to the top page one there it is and we can see others are copied either
00:37:53 and we can see others are copied either my apologies for the delay and responding final copy of the bca guidance note attached which will be on the bca website shortly unfortunately they're in the process of switching administrators so there's been
00:38:04 switching administrators so there's been a delay in updating the site in the meantime is it possible to get a letter of comfort from bre confirming the tests and the likely results and then a follow-up letter from arabs explaining what they will be doing with the results
00:38:15 what they will be doing with the results i feel this is necessary to protect all our positions given that it could be a further three months before we get this resolved then the number of buildings currently using or planning to use k-15
00:38:26 currently using or planning to use k-15 what had kingspan been promising from the bre and arab today sorry at the meeting of the 6th of august so they promised the test results so they they uh informed us that they'd
00:38:38 so they they uh informed us that they'd um undertaken two tests uh and that those test results were being prepared and that bre were going to produce those reports
00:38:46 reports they'd also told us that they'd engage with arabs for arabs to do a global assessment of the product and of those tests
00:38:57 of the product and of those tests to
00:38:57 to develop a global assessment which described in what situation um
00:39:03 um kingsman k15 could be used did either of those letters of comfort bre or arabs ever materialize no did you ever pursue them we pursued them here
00:39:15 we pursued them here beyond this um we had a meeting with um we had a meeting both with bre and with arabs uh in november of
00:39:25 of 2014. um
00:39:28 2014. um i can't remember specifically at the bre meeting if we discussed these these tests because i think by that time we got well we had some results cobbled together by kingspan but we certainly spoke to arabs at that
00:39:40 we certainly spoke to arabs at that point about whether they'd had a conversation with kingspan right so the letters of comfort didn't materialize but they were superseded by the two meetings you had on as we'll come to uh 25th and 27th of november yeah um
00:39:51 yeah um you say
00:39:53 you say i feel this is necessary to protect all our positions what position or was it of nhbcs that you were seeking to protect
00:40:03 protect the position was at this point we we now got buildings which were subject to the new bba certificate which were reaching in some stages you know some
00:40:15 reaching in some stages you know some advanced stages of design so they were then considering the facade types and things like that and we wanted if we were going to change position we wanted to tell builders as soon as possible um that that was the case that we
00:40:27 um that that was the case that we wouldn't we wouldn't be accepting k-15 going forward and why did you feel the need to protect kingspan's position this was a at this point
00:40:38 at this point a process that we were you know
00:40:41 you know together
00:40:42 together um and i wanted to impress on that we you know we had an interest in this but also
00:40:46 also you know to get their ownership of the issue as well and what was the number of buildings using or planning to use k-15 there that you refer to i don't know was it a large number
00:40:59 i don't know was it a large number but as i said when we i would imagine that um
00:41:02 that um this time in august uh by the time we ran the report the following march uh at 15 say in march 2015 that was about 300 blocks so it wouldn't be a
00:41:13 about 300 blocks so it wouldn't be a dissimilar number it would be probably less than that but moving towards 300 i imagine and i take it that you didn't pause the use of k-15 or the approval or underwriting of the use of
00:41:24 approval or underwriting of the use of k-15 above 18 meters sorry can i go back and correct that so the report that we ran in
00:41:29 ran in 2015 was 300 blocks but a number of those blocks were subject to the previous bba certificate so i think on the 2015
00:41:40 so i think on the 2015 um
00:41:41 um report we ran those around about 100 blocks which was subject to the new bba certificate so it would be around about maybe 100 blocks sorry did you pause the use of k-15 whilst you resolved this issue
00:41:53 resolved this issue or did you just continue to accept it we continued to communicate with builders that we had on those buildings which would be subject to the new bba certificate we continued to communicate
00:42:04 certificate we continued to communicate with builders that we were still working with kingspan to try and resolve to try and finish ourselves with the information to make us comfortable with the use of that material going forward yeah yes but that
00:42:17 material going forward yeah yes but that doesn't quite answer my question did you pause the use of k-15 until that time or did you continue to accept k-15 until that time the buildings at this time still at this time we were issuing our building control final certificates for
00:42:29 building control final certificates for would have still been subject to the previous
00:42:32 previous um bba certificate now can we go please next to clg3019253
00:42:46 this is an email from you to brian martin 15th of august now 2014
00:42:53 2014 in which you say this hi brian nhbc have had a further meeting with kingspan and they have confirmed that they have had two further tests carried out at bre the test utilize kingspan
00:43:04 out at bre the test utilize kingspan k-15 in steel-framed cladding systems the tests were carried out to bs8414 1 2002.
00:43:12 2002. and kingspan are encouraged by the preliminary results just just pausing there did you mean bs8414 part 1 2002
00:43:23 bs8414 part 1 2002 or
00:43:24 or or did you mean bsa414 part two 2005 which of course is the test relating to steel frame cladding systems again i think that's probably a drafting
00:43:35 again i think that's probably a drafting error on my part right it's a mistake okay um
00:43:38 okay um it goes on uh that the uh that they have confirmed that the full results should be available in the next two months kingspan are then to engage arabs to carry out a desktop assessment using the three sets of results for tests carried
00:43:49 three sets of results for tests carried out for kingspan k15 and provide an assessment detailing the conditions that any cladding system should provide to allow k-15 to be used over 18 meters without further justification
00:44:02 without further justification when you say there to brian martin that kingspan are encouraged by the preliminary results what had kingspan told you at your meeting about the two tests they'd carried out
00:44:14 tests they'd carried out they told us they were encouraged by the results
00:44:16 results any more than that not at that point no right and we asked uh as we we asked for the information to support that
00:44:27 right did they not provide that to you at the meeting that's why we asked for the letter from bre to verify that they had carried out the results and what their preliminary view of was of those results to substantiate
00:44:38 of was of those results to substantiate what king span was saying right
00:44:41 right and what basis had you come to understand that the the full results that you phrase you use for the tests under bs8414 part two would become available at some
00:44:52 part two would become available at some point over the next two months that's what kingspan told us and would not be uncommon in in terms of what we understood the timescale forget those results would be i see
00:45:04 results would be i see now being system tests can you explain how you anticipated that these two tests uh even if classified to br 135 could or would
00:45:15 would assist with all of the high-rise buildings previously cladding k-15 or was that not the point as i've said before that wasn't the point this was to look at the use of kingspan
00:45:26 kingspan going forward and looking at kingspan going forward how did you anticipate that those two tests even if classified to br 135
00:45:34 to br 135 would assist with all of the potential external wall buildups proposed above 18 meters
00:45:41 meters under construction or approaching approval at this point so arabs what we what kingspan were asking arabs to do was to produce an assessment
00:45:52 arabs to do was to produce an assessment detailing the conditions as i said in the in the email that any cladding system should provide to allow k15 to be used over 80 meters without further justification that wouldn't necessarily allow all
00:46:03 allow all systems
00:46:04 systems to be accepted without justification but may for example say that the k15 could be used with a certain type of panel with a certain type of
00:46:15 type of ventilation gap um a certain thickness of you know so it would set out the parameters for which a wall construction could be accepted with k-15
00:46:24 k-15 that was what we were that was what we were
00:46:27 were led to believe was and was it your understanding at about this time 15th of august 2014 that arab had actually agreed to carry out the assessment that you described here to brian martin
00:46:40 here to brian martin um
00:46:41 um we hadn't approached harris to to confirm if they'd been uh if they'd agreed to do it at this point i don't believe
00:46:46 believe no but what was your understanding about whether arab had agreed with kingspan that they would arrest were telling us that they sorry kingspan were telling us that they'd had conversation with arrows to do that
00:46:57 to do that right
00:46:58 right so just to be clear kingspan told you arabs had agreed to do this exercise kings kingsman told us they were engaging arabs to do it i can't i forget the terminology they use they said a
00:47:10 the terminology they use they said a long time ago now yes i mean to be fair to you your email says no more than that they are kingsman of then to engage arabs my question is whether you got the impression from kingspan that arabs had agreed to carry out the desktop
00:47:22 agreed to carry out the desktop assessment using the three sets of results or whatever that was certainly the impression i came away from that meeting with yes i see uh
00:47:31 and then in the next paragraph you say the agreed time scale for all this sorry for this all to happen is three months although we are encouraging them to get it done sooner in the meantime we are seeking a letter of comfort from bre
00:47:42 are seeking a letter of comfort from bre through kingspan confirming the tests and bre's initial view of the results they'll be issuing we've also asked for a similar undertaking from arabs we are also liaising with labc and other bcbs
00:47:53 also liaising with labc and other bcbs through the bca to keep them up to date with the progress being made but when was it that you'd ask for a similar undertaking from arabs at the meeting earlier in the month when they when they told us
00:48:04 they when they told us that they're in get they were wanting to engage around so they were going to engage sorry
00:48:11 when had you asked yourself
00:48:14 yourself for a similar undertaking you say in the third line just to be clear we as nhbc have also asked for a similar undertaking from arabs uh it may be my fault misunderstanding
00:48:25 uh it may be my fault misunderstanding what you're writing there did are you telling brian martin that you yourself had approached arabs to give you an undertaking or is it that you're telling him that you had asked kingspan that's kingspan i
00:48:36 you had asked kingspan that's kingspan i see
00:48:37 see uh
00:48:38 uh in the agreed time scale of three months did the nhbc continue uh to sign off uh high-rise buildings with k-15 on them we did
00:48:49 we did where they were because they would have again
00:48:54 and building over 18 meters takes
00:48:57 takes you know 12 to 18 months to construct so they would have been submitted to nhbc at this time well before the bba certificate was superseded so it would still be subject
00:49:08 superseded so it would still be subject to that previous bba certificate so to be clear we're still in the period of hangover are we from the old bba certificate looking at the final paragraph of your email you say this we i've also attached for your information
00:49:19 i've also attached for your information a copy of the bca guidance note on the use of combustible cladding materials on residential buildings which has been produced to reinforce the requirements of the regulations and to aid industry on how they can prove compliance when
00:49:31 on how they can prove compliance when proposing to use materials on buildings over 80 metres that are not materials of limited combustibility
00:49:38 you may have given us a hint of this already but why was the bca working to aid industry on how they can prove compliance when using combustible materials at height
00:49:53 we would we were the bca were
00:49:58 the routes to demonstrate compliance so that was the aid to industry it was identifying the routes that they would need to follow to demonstrate compliance
00:50:09 demonstrate compliance let me propose the quest question the other way around why wasn't the bca working to limit the use of combustible materials at height to those clearly meeting the
00:50:20 to those clearly meeting the requirements either of the linear route if it were possible
00:50:25 possible or large-scale testing under bs8414 parts one and two to the br-135 criteria because under the approved documents under the building regulations a builder
00:50:36 under the building regulations a builder can demonstrate compliance whichever way they wish to and there are two linear routes defined within the approved document but the builder can still demonstrate compliance with a
00:50:48 still demonstrate compliance with a desktop assessment or a fire engineered solutions they are opportunities offered within the building regulations further to demonstrate compliance with the bca brought those together into
00:51:00 with the bca brought those together into a note to and put them in within the the context of what we'd be looking for where they were used to demonstrate compliance for a facade let's look at one more document on this
00:51:12 let's look at one more document on this point can we go to clg one triple zero six eight eight nine please
00:51:24 uh this is the set of minutes of a meeting of the 8th december 2014 from the bca technical liaison group and you can see who was present you were there
00:51:35 there and doug bason was there as as well as barry turner you could see his name at the end of the line yep and if we look at the second line down we can see that you chaired it you were in the chat
00:51:47 chaired it you were in the chat i was elected as chair for that group yes right um can we go to page four please and look at point 12 point naught
00:51:57 use of combustible materials in cladding systems to buildings over 18 meters
00:52:06 and it says se that's you mr evans outlined the work carried out to date in identifying possible solutions to allowing polyurethane type insulation materials to be used in cladding systems
00:52:17 materials to be used in cladding systems over 18 meters se stroke bt as barry turner to discuss further outside of the meeting confirmation of any actions to be fed back to the group
00:52:29 back to the group now we can see that bt is barry turner uh
00:52:35 uh when it says sc outline the work carried out to date in identifying possible solutions to allowing polyurethane type insulation materials to be used in cladding systems over 18 meters is the
00:52:46 cladding systems over 18 meters is the reference there to polyurethane correct p-u-r is that what you mean i was describing the the family of of insulation materials i follow so does that include phenolic and pi insulation
00:53:01 uh now what was the work carried out to date
00:53:05 date i believe i updated the group on the work which kingspan were doing and this told us that or told us they were doing this is now december yes have you seen the results by then of
00:53:17 yes have you seen the results by then of the tests that were long promised no we hadn't did you not think to to tell the bca meeting that despite having met kingspan
00:53:28 meeting that despite having met kingspan in the january of that year and various meetings throughout the year culminating in various promises being made about tests in the august of that yeah you still haven't seen them i can't remember exactly what i told the
00:53:40 i can't remember exactly what i told the group these are not contemporary since notes these are not a transcript of the meeting these are higher high-level action points to cover what was discussed at the meeting and and who had actions are leading from it the expression
00:53:52 the expression and i appreciate what you just told me about
00:53:55 about about the the nature of these notes but the expression um identifying possible solutions do you disagree that that's something you said at the time or i just said i can't remember what i said
00:54:06 i just said i can't remember what i said at the time these were notes i probably made on the train on the way home right and
00:54:12 and solutions solutions to what what was the problem to which these were possible solutions to them demonstrating compliance with the burn regulations right
00:54:25 so to allow combustible materials over 18 meters
00:54:29 18 meters to provide solutions whereby builders could demonstrate compliance with the building regulations wasn't it for builders to demonstrate to building control that they had complied with
00:54:41 control that they had complied with building regulations as opposed to building control to identify ways for them in which combustible materials could be used at height as i said the nature of the building control services to
00:54:53 control services to and you know is to what is to to work with those builders um
00:54:58 um and where there are routes that they can use to demonstrate compliance to highlight them to them there's working with and working with those and
00:55:06 those and would it be fair to say that looking at the material we've seen so far um nhbc was
00:55:12 was if not taking the lead on on finding solutions uh at least co-partnering with industry in doing so we were allowing industry
00:55:23 we were allowing industry time to be able to provide the information that they wish to provide to builders to demonstrate compliance by this time we were then considering our changing
00:55:34 were then considering our changing policy
00:55:36 policy at nhpc
00:55:38 at nhpc you say time we were allowing the industry time but did there come a time when you set a a real deadline beyond which nhbc would say enough
00:55:49 enough so in early 2015 we informed kingspan that we would be going to industry to say we would only accept the use of their material in where builders demonstrated
00:56:00 in where builders demonstrated compliance using bca guidance now 18 yes yes so
00:56:04 yes so it took 18 months between the this problem first arising in august 2013 and march 2015 for kingsman to say enough for an hpc to
00:56:16 for kingsman to say enough for an hpc to say enough i'm sorry kingsman never said enough i see the point nhbc it did yes
00:56:30 meeting with arab um we've we've seen that you wrote to brian martin in july 2014
00:56:35 2014 saying that there was no reason to suspect that buildings using k-15 were at risk
00:56:40 at risk i just want to ask you about some of the issues that came up in the following months after that can we start with nhb 50810
00:56:55 an email chain between john lewis and hbc specialist surveyor and fire engineer and somebody from ascent has sent building control called jane keely and the date is 13th of november
00:57:06 keely and the date is 13th of november 2014
00:57:09 2014 and i
00:57:10 and i i think we need to um uh look at the top of the chain uh with the email from john lewis to jane keeley to paraphrase the first part of the email chain what's happening here to
00:57:22 email chain what's happening here to give you some context mr evans is that jane keeley is forwarding an email from another colleague who is querying k15 and asking john lewis if the labc certificate
00:57:33 the labc certificate dated
00:57:34 dated november to november 14 is still valid that's the i'm summarizing it i hope fairly and john lewis's response can be seen at the top of the chain uh and he reads he writes as follows
00:57:48 uh and he reads he writes as follows it's all garbage hereford labc didn't know what they were talking about we had a telephone call with labc warranty technical manager can't recall his name at which he stated that they were withdrawing their
00:58:00 that they were withdrawing their approval straight away that was on 27th of october so i would check it's still valid if i was you now just pausing there uh were you on the call that was made by john lewis to the labc warranty
00:58:12 made by john lewis to the labc warranty technical manager on the 27th of october 2014.
00:58:17 i believe i was but i can't remember specifically no i mean it's not in your statement so i haven't i believe i was but i can't remember i know we requested a a conference call with them but i can't remember having
00:58:28 with them but i can't remember having that call
00:58:29 that call did you remember who you spoke to as i say i can't remember yeah
00:58:35 yeah now he goes on in this email uh
00:58:38 uh he sets out the bba certificate then current eight two as you can see including the very small type next to uh the one in brackets
00:58:50 uh the one in brackets and then says note that bsa414 part one is part one test method for non-laid-bearing external cutting systems applied to the face of the building i.e it's fixed directly to a masonry substrate see picky if you turn
00:59:03 masonry substrate see picky if you turn the page to page two you can see the picky he's referring to there is a photograph of a rig and then um he goes on at some length to explain
00:59:14 he goes on at some length to explain that kingspan have only tested to part one of bs8414 and below that in on page three if you go to that you can see an orange box with some yellow highlighted writing
00:59:28 and just let's look at that together this is from the labc certificate and it says adb fire safety note from results it could be considered as a material of limited combustibility and
00:59:39 material of limited combustibility and meets the criteria for class naught classification for spread of flame since a k-15 can be considered a material of limited combustibility it's suitable for use in all situations shown on diagram 40 of approved document b
00:59:52 on diagram 40 of approved document b etc including those parts of a building more than 80 metres above the ground
00:59:58 uh uh now um
01:00:03 uh now um he uh
01:00:06 goes on to say um
01:00:10 um the bit about using a non-combustible lining board instead of a masonry backing on a steel frame wall has since proved not to be correct these words were kingspans they assumed that it would perform the same but when they did the test it was found that it performed
01:00:22 the test it was found that it performed far worse
01:00:23 far worse it's an accident it's all an accident waiting to happen and we're meeting with all the pir manufacturers to try and get something sorted but in the meantime they continue to state that it's fine and most bcbs accept that at face value
01:00:35 and most bcbs accept that at face value without sifting through the details however dclg are now on the case hence why we need to sort something out soon
01:00:45 now do you know who told nhbc uh
01:00:51 that
01:00:55 in other words sorry told nhpc what sorry uh
01:00:59 sorry uh with the bit in brackets underneath the box the bit about assuming about about using a non-combustible lining board instead of a masonry backing do you know who told nhbc and what is recorded there
01:01:12 um no was this something that nhbc building control surveyors have been seeing on their sites namely use of a non-combustible lining board in lieu of testing on a steel frame
01:01:25 i couldn't say i i didn't write this email so i'm not sure where john got that information from right do you know when and how john lewis found out that the testing had shown that this build up performed far worse as he puts it
01:01:38 performed far worse as he puts it no
01:01:42 just before i come back to ask you about the accident waiting to happen paragraph can i just show you what he says above the box if we turn up page three please
01:01:53 the box if we turn up page three please he says there in the second paragraph before uh in the second paragraph the one at the very end of the page kingspan have since done at least two tests i suspect they've done more but have kept the results close to their chest because
01:02:04 the results close to their chest because they performed so badly using a steel frame and ventilated rain screen and there is an issue with ongoing burning once the fire source is extinguished the insulation continues to burn up the cavity and in one case continued over
01:02:15 cavity and in one case continued over the cavity barrier and to the top of the test rig so it's not clear why the labc detail states that it's an molc when it clearly isn't uh now on that were you aware of the information that john lewis has
01:02:26 information that john lewis has described
01:02:28 described i was aware of those tests yes you were how how did how did the nhpc how did you come to know about that um
01:02:36 um i think we had a document from kingspan first of all which um put the two together and i we may have also seen the test results the actual test results at this point as
01:02:48 the actual test results at this point as well i'm not sure right did that come from either meredith i i don't know where we got those from going back then to the accident waiting to happen paragraph please on page three i've read the paragraph to you i don't
01:02:59 i've read the paragraph to you i don't need to read it again what is said underneath that is our current policy is to request a copy of a test on the proposed bill proposed cladding buildup if there isn't one then
01:03:10 cladding buildup if there isn't one then we take the view that we can't apply the bba approval or the bre one compliance as such is recommended that an mollc molk be used instead i can elaborate
01:03:22 molk be used instead i can elaborate further if you want this is just a summary
01:03:25 summary were you aware of all of those issues that john lewis is setting out there they're all issues which we've been discussing as part of our work on this project on this subject yes
01:03:36 work on this project on this subject yes when did what he describes as your current policy start um
01:03:41 um this would be uh so at this point it wasn't a formal policy but had um a building being referred which was at by this stage obviously this to december subject to the new
01:03:53 subject to the new uh bba certificate had one of the surveyors received a proposal um and asked john the question in terms of around of what do we do about the the use of kingspan because it's subject to
01:04:04 use of kingspan because it's subject to the new bba certificate then this would have been our our stance we were forming this policy in our mind going forward this was all the time we were starting to escalate it to our senior managers into the board
01:04:16 senior managers into the board now you're not copied into this email mr evans did do you think you saw it at the time i didn't i didn't see it until i started to prepare for this for the this enquiry did you have any discussion about its contents the gist
01:04:28 discussion about its contents the gist of its contents with mr lewis before he sent it no now we know you contacted barbara lane of arab on the 30th of october 2014 three days after the call with labc
01:04:40 three days after the call with labc we know that um was it this email or the points covered in it that prompted you to do that no no if we go to nhb 50811
01:04:50 50811 we can see the email you sent to barbara lane on the 30th of october 2014.
01:04:58 if um you go please down to page four you can see your email of that date at 11 48.
01:05:13 and you ask for a meeting with her and the bre
01:05:21 [Applause] yes
01:05:24 and you say uh dear barbara further to my telephone message left earlier today i'm writing to request a meeting with you to discuss technical issues of concern to nhbc involving residential
01:05:35 concern to nhbc involving residential high-rise apartment blocks where combustible materials form part of the external facade and or the wall buildup for insulated framed building structures the meeting would also be attended by
01:05:46 the meeting would also be attended by bre to reflect on current testing it might help if i outline some of our main concerns below and just pausing there how did you go from believing that there was no risk as you told brian martin in the 11th of
01:05:58 as you told brian martin in the 11th of july email that we saw earlier to having a list of concerns in october 2014. because we hadn't received the information that we've been promised from kingspan
01:06:10 from kingspan so
01:06:11 so it was the site which was it it was the continuing promises and the non-material of the non-appearance of the material they promised us right so just before we go to look at the
01:06:23 so just before we go to look at the list of concerns that you set out is it right that these were concerns that you had before kingspan or at the same time as king spain were promising you
01:06:35 king spain were promising you the test results but you didn't express those concerns because you thought or hoped that the test results would address them is that i think i think i think we began
01:06:46 is that i think i think i think we began to lose patience with kingspan right um and um
01:06:52 um just prior to this myself and graham perrier had met with uh dianne marshall uh and mark jones who are our media managers
01:07:02 managers um and they had and we'd gone through the process we'd been through with kingspan um and the suggestion was that one of the outcomes of that meeting was to go
01:07:13 the outcomes of that meeting was to go and meet with the bre and
01:07:16 and arabs to get a greater understanding prior to us then going escalating further up to our dire executive committee let's look at some of those concerns if we look at the
01:07:27 of those concerns if we look at the first bullet point you say this in looking at key aspects of design to maintain acceptable levels of fire safety over the expected life of residential buildings we have over the past months reviewed potential fire risk
01:07:39 past months reviewed potential fire risk where combustible construction materials are installed within external walling envelopes of drained and ventilated rain screen facades in focusing on an evaluation of true performance the materials of greatest concern include
01:07:52 materials of greatest concern include pur stroke pir thermoset rigid polyurethane board products which are promoted by manufacturers for extensive use in external envelopes of multi-story buildings exceeding 80 meters high
01:08:03 buildings exceeding 80 meters high pausing there again were you referring to insulation only or were you including external cladding boards which used combustible elements or had them in it at this point we were talking about insulation boards
01:08:15 insulation boards going to the next bullet point you say in accordance with our technical standards and building regulations a d b compliance nhbc has regularly requested that fire performance should be proven by testing under bsa414 and br
01:08:28 be proven by testing under bsa414 and br 135 requirements for high-rise buildings exceeding 18 meters this has resulted in a greater number of these fire tests being commissioned by manufacturers in attempting to prove performance of their insulation products on facades over 18
01:08:40 insulation products on facades over 18 meters however the results from this type testing does not always confirm the safe levels of performance they are that are hoped for what testing was that a reference to
01:08:52 what testing was that a reference to that was referencing to the test from kingspan
01:08:55 kingspan right
01:09:00 and after the bullets the email continues
01:09:02 continues at the bottom of the screen you'll need to scroll down bottom of the page an internal meeting was held recently involving nhbc heads of department responsible for building control and building standards including nhbc
01:09:13 building standards including nhbc standards and technical we agreed that our next course of action should be to hold initial discussion discussions with recognized fire experts whereby issues of concern could be considered without prejudice on a purely technical basis in
01:09:26 prejudice on a purely technical basis in relation to current knowledge including building regulations and existing standards on fire performance we would greatly value your input and the recognized arab expertise concerning this particular issue hopefully it can
01:09:38 this particular issue hopefully it can help nhbc in progressing towards practical clarification on what can reliably be understood from performance testing and for potential fire engineering input regarding combustibility of insulation products
01:09:50 combustibility of insulation products and external surfaces of multi-story facades and external walls to limit fire spread
01:09:57 spread if you would be interested in meeting please get back to me so that we can provide some dates to arrange a meeting possibly at the bre garston offices now who attended the meeting that you refer to there between nhbc heads of
01:10:10 refer to there between nhbc heads of department responsible for building control and building standards including nhp standards and technical who was that that was myself graham perrier diane marshall and mark jones
01:10:23 no there's a reference letter without prejudice without prejudice to
01:10:28 what it's a phrase that it was just an open uh an open meeting in terms of open discussion yes um
01:10:37 yes um issues of concern could be considered we'll just get back to the expression please at the foot of page four this is a concern can be considered without prejudice on a purely technical basis
01:10:48 basis whose prejudice or prejudice to whom did you have in mind
01:10:56 i believe that wording came uh i i believe that wording came from um our legal team at the time really did you seek legal advice on the content of this email
01:11:07 content of this email um i don't want to know the legal advice i want to know whether you sought it
01:11:14 i passed a draft in in front of uh diane i believe
01:11:18 i believe um
01:11:19 um and i i don't know where that wording came from
01:11:22 came from i assumed it come from um i assume now it came from our legal team
01:11:30 do you know why the legal team was involved
01:11:36 no i don't i'd if i started i don't i can't be certain that it was the legal team that put that in but i know i'm not now you asked barbara elaine if she'd be
01:11:48 now you asked barbara elaine if she'd be interested in meeting and she responds the same day only half an hour later we can see that at the uh the bottom of page three please steve she says i'm on holiday but jamie
01:12:01 steve she says i'm on holiday but jamie will call you to sort dates arab are actually deeply concerned about the lack of understanding of assemblies of the ongoing incorrect use of test reports for individual materials being applied to more complex building envelope forms
01:12:12 to more complex building envelope forms the use of highly combustible materials in residential buildings is now simply an accident waiting to happen we're getting some traction with clients and there is definitely the beginning of a shift in emphasis we will be delighted
01:12:25 a shift in emphasis we will be delighted to address this issue with nhbc and bre and appreciate you contacting us barbara
01:12:32 did barbara lane's timely response indicate to you that she believed that this was an accident waiting to happen
01:12:40 happen concern you at all
01:12:50 i wouldn't say concern is the word it um again assured me that um
01:12:56 um we were going to be able to move forward and meet with arabs and they had con you know concerns about the product the accident waiting to happen
01:13:07 the accident waiting to happen was exactly the same phrase we've seen already used by john lewis in his 13th of november garbage email two weeks later was that a coincidence or had you fed her view back to him we
01:13:18 or had you fed her view back to him we could we could see he was on the email chain
01:13:21 chain i say
01:13:22 i say he he would have received this email so he may have actually taken the wording from this fair enough he certainly didn't disagree though we could see that did
01:13:30 did you
01:13:32 you i
01:13:33 i my focus was on finding a solution and and coming arriving at a view on whether we could accept the use of this material going forward yes um you've explained that
01:13:44 you've explained that but my question was did you think that this was an accident waiting to happen as arab had said
01:13:54 i knew it was a solution that needed solving in order to satisfy myself that when we were issuing the final certificate i don't know that i can under my function as a building control body
01:14:04 body to ensure that the building was safe yes
01:14:08 i wouldn't quite tell it as an accident waiting to happen but barbara lane of arab fire did did that not have carry some weight with you it certainly impressed on me that we needed to do something about it yes
01:14:20 needed to do something about it yes which is why we're escalating it yes i mean there's a difference isn't there between a solution needing needing a problem eating a solution as you'd explained and an accident waiting to happen
01:14:32 waiting to happen there's a difference isn't there there is a difference yes and this wasn't so far as arabs were concerned simply a problem that needed sorting out this was an accident waiting to happen in other words uh
01:14:43 uh well i i don't need to explain to you what the phrase accident waiting to happen means do i no you understood it at the time i assume i understood her point of view and so did john lewis you could see
01:14:54 john lewis you could see john lewis used that phraseology but you need to address that with him
01:15:00 i mean did you think that this was barbara lane just exaggerating or did you think that this was something to be taken seriously at this point i hadn't met barbara lane so i couldn't tell if she was exaggerating or i didn't know if this was a terminology she used
01:15:11 this was a terminology she used on a daily basis or what so i i couldn't pass a comment on that no but to the best of your recollection of what you thought at the time did you take it seriously that this was
01:15:23 did you take it seriously that this was an accident waiting to happen or did you dismiss it as a as an exaggeration i took this whole issue seriously that's why i spent most of the previous 10 months
01:15:34 10 months trying to work with industry to find a solution having been told by arab fire
01:15:41 arab fire as we see that this was an accident waiting to happen a view it seems endorsed by john lewis your fire safety engineer within nhbc at the time did you go back to brian martin and
01:15:54 time did you go back to brian martin and tell him
01:15:55 tell him that in fact there might well be a risk to the buildings for which you had approved combustible material in the external facade contrary to what you said in your 11th of july
01:16:06 to what you said in your 11th of july email to him no at this point we'd agreed to meet with
01:16:12 with um barbara at arabs and we wanted again i wouldn't go back until i understood why she was saying what she got to say at that meeting right but did you therefore have it in
01:16:24 right but did you therefore have it in your mind that at some point given the seriousness of the matter uh you would have to go back to him and tell him you were wrong and that in fact this uh there was a a real risk to the buildings in respect of
01:16:35 real risk to the buildings in respect of which previous approvals for k-15 over 18 meters had been granted i was aware that if we changed that position we would go back to informing yes
01:16:44 yes now
01:16:46 now if we um go please to clg 3019264 we see that in early december 2014 and i should just say that i'm skipping
01:16:58 and i should just say that i'm skipping over for the moment the two meetings you have with the bre and arab in late november 2014 just before this email so that that's the potential of the context
01:17:09 that that's the potential of the context uh if we go to this email string stream you can see in the second email down uh on page one there's an email from brian martin
01:17:21 to you on the 4th of december and it picks up if you go to page
01:17:28 2 on the august correspondence between you so this is the next email in the chain between you and brian martin after the august correspondence and uh if you go to page one at the foot
01:17:39 and uh if you go to page one at the foot of the page you can see that in his email of the 4th of december 2014 to you he says hi steve this subject this is at the very foot of the screen this subject came up
01:17:52 the screen this subject came up again recently and then over to page two do you have any more information you can share i couldn't find a bca note online regards brian and going up to your response
01:18:03 and going up to your response above that on page one please you say this
01:18:07 this hi brian i have a bca meeting on monday and should be able to come back to you with a response after that meeting i've checked the bca website and it hasn't been placed onto it yet i've chased and it will hopefully be put online early
01:18:18 it will hopefully be put online early next week
01:18:22 uh now at that point you had your meeting i think with arab yes yes
01:18:29 yes yes um
01:18:31 um was there anything in that meeting and we'll come to the detail of it in a moment which led you to think that contrary to what barbara elaine had given you by way of reaction in her earlier email
01:18:42 reaction in her earlier email this wasn't an accident waiting to happen
01:18:46 and that there was no current risk
01:18:49 i think at this point we decided that we need to change our policy on the acceptance of k-15 and we was that we were preparing to do that why did you did you not mention to brian martin here
01:19:01 martin here given that you were now in contact with him and he was asking you questions why did you not mention to him here what you had learned about the true position in relation to the risk of combustible materials in high-rise residential
01:19:13 materials in high-rise residential buildings
01:19:16 as i say here i had a bca meeting on on the monday when i would update the bca group
01:19:21 group and also internally we were then working on our changing policy so at this point it wasn't appropriate to go back to brian and tell him what we were intending to do as nhbc because we were
01:19:33 intending to do as nhbc because we were still
01:19:34 still developing that internally now the meeting that's the bca 8th of december meeting which you chaired the note for which we just saw is that right yeah i see in fact it's right you didn't go back to brian martin after that meeting
01:19:47 back to brian martin after that meeting and didn't go back to him at all until the 2nd of april 2015. that's what we see from the documents does that accord with your recollection it does yes yes
01:20:00 so you didn't then relay back to him the view that both arab and john lewis were of the view that the presence of k-15 in a number of buildings above 18 meters was unsupported by any test data and in
01:20:11 was unsupported by any test data and in their words was an accident waiting to happen
01:20:14 happen he didn't tell brian martin i didn't know why didn't you having previously assured him in july 2014 that there was no reason to think that the use of k-15
01:20:25 reason to think that the use of k-15 over 18 meters posed any risk at this point we were then looking to change our policy internally and we wanted to inform um it wasn't i was feeding up
01:20:37 i was feeding up uh in terms of advising our managers in terms of a change of policy it wouldn't have been appropriate at this point to go back and tell him that until we changed our policy which we did in april
01:20:48 do i right so the 30th of october 2014 we see the email from uh barbara lane there's then some discussion about meeting and then a
01:20:59 discussion about meeting and then a meeting in fact took place on the 25th of november 2014. did yes were you waiting to see what they said in detail of that meeting before acting on the trenchant
01:21:10 meeting before acting on the trenchant warning from barbara lane that this was an accident waiting to happen
01:21:16 we wanted to understand from both bre and from arabs what their view was yes now so far as we can see from the documents the meeting with arab took place on the 25th of november 2014 and
01:21:29 place on the 25th of november 2014 and then there was a separate meeting with bre two days later at um at gaston on the 27th of november 2014. yes the original intention was to hopefully
01:21:40 the original intention was to hopefully meet with them both together but unfortunately we weren't able to make those dates work was that a diary problem it was a diary problem right now notes of both of those meetings were sent to you by john lewis on the 10th of
01:21:52 sent to you by john lewis on the 10th of december 2014 so that's two days after the 8th of december bca meeting we saw let's look at those they're at nhb 50829.
01:22:08 and let's look first at the top of the email
01:22:10 email and the notes relating to the meeting with arab
01:22:13 with arab on that day the the email covers both meetings
01:22:16 meetings uh pages one and two cover the meeting at
01:22:20 at uh fitzroy street with arab fire in attendance you can see barbara lane and charlotte robin of arab uh john lewis and you from nhbc together with graham perrier and dave white also from nhbc
01:22:32 from nhbc and looking at the numbered paragraphs of the points from the meeting it says af at arab fire stated that they had been approached by kingspan to offer an opinion about the use of kingspan k-15 on high-rise buildings however af
01:22:44 k-15 on high-rise buildings however af did not wish to be involved with only one manufacturer but rather wish to see the issues tackled across this entire section of the construction industry now just pausing there was this
01:22:56 now just pausing there was this the time when you first learned that arab were not in fact preparing an assessment report as had been indicated by kingspan in early august 2014 at your meeting with them
01:23:10 it was the first time we'd had that direct
01:23:12 direct um information from arabs that they'd been approached and they hope weren't doing anything yet right so kingspan never came back to you and told you arabs had refused not that i can recall what did you think
01:23:25 not that i can recall what did you think i think what they what they said was i don't know if it was at this point but they certainly informed us at some point that arabs and they were considering or they considered that arab
01:23:37 considering or they considered that arab were willing to sponsor a phd student with them
01:23:40 with them right to look at these issues
01:23:45 uh now the assessment report that's referred to there uh
01:23:52 uh oh it's not referred to in terms but but the
01:23:55 the concept of an assessment report to which kingspan had referred in august was that the report that you had described to brian martin in your 15th of august 2014 email as the assessment detailing the conditions that any
01:24:07 detailing the conditions that any cladding system should provide to allow k-15 to be used over 18 meters without further justification you'll remember the text of that email was that the report that you were referring to
01:24:19 report that you were referring to well the this this obviously the email to to brian was confirming what um kingsman had told us they were going to be asking arabs to do this confirmed that arabs sorry kingspan
01:24:31 this confirmed that arabs sorry kingspan had made an approach to them about the use of their material on the buildings um it didn't confirm obviously what kingspan had asked them to do but
01:24:41 but and as they just confirmed that uh what are farad responded back to them yes what was your i'm putting two and two together i would assume they're one the same yes yes yes exactly
01:24:52 they're one the same yes yes yes exactly what was your reaction upon hearing that in fact uh that report had not been prepared and would not be prepared well the fact that it hadn't arrived with us by this point and we were now meeting with arabs i think we'd
01:25:04 were now meeting with arabs i think we'd reached a point where we weren't we didn't expect to see it anyway after the meeting with arab did you contact brian martin to tell him that there would now be no arab letter or report after all despite what you had said why is that
01:25:16 said why is that as i said we were then changing our policy
01:25:19 policy in terms of the use of combustible material so we were developing that internally um and that wouldn't result in this report so why not keep brian martin abreast of
01:25:31 so why not keep brian martin abreast of what was going on given that he had asked you to do that back in july in fact
01:25:35 fact and again in august
01:25:39 probably because after this after these meetings i was then involved in making arrangements for the changing policy going on with the note two af are deeply concerned about the use of combustible
01:25:50 concerned about the use of combustible components within external wall constructions of high-rise buildings af feel that the current guidance is not sufficiently robust af wished to create new guidance based around bands of building risk and building height
01:26:01 building height af are preparing an article for architects journal discussing the issues and risks
01:26:07 and risks af handed over a copy of lpc 1582 requirements and tests for lpcb approval of non-load-bearing planning systems fixed to and supported by a structural steel frame
01:26:19 by a structural steel frame may have considered this to be the level of performance the wall buildup should achieve
01:26:25 achieve then seven af queried the position of a bcb
01:26:28 bcb stating that in af's view nhbc bcs can insist on any level of performance they deem appropriate nhbc se that's you advised that adb2 is
01:26:39 se that's you advised that adb2 is deemed to satisfy requirement b3 and so legally nhbc cannot require any increased level of performance af stated that they would be interested in working more closely with nhbc to
01:26:50 in working more closely with nhbc to establish new acceptance criteria and then you see summary and then over the page as follows it was felt by nhbc that af were looking at the issue from a risk-based fire engineering perspective
01:27:05 whilst laudable this didn't assist from a bcs perspective where acceptance criteria is already published within adb2 bs9991 and br135 and hbc feels that the current position
01:27:18 and hbc feels that the current position is that systems need to be assessed according to the criteria of br135 this being the performance criteria is sued by clg
01:27:27 by clg now i've read that all to you but let's see if we can can what
01:27:32 what could be taken away from the meeting according to this note do you agree to the best of your recollection that you discovered at this meeting with arab fire first that they shared your concerns about the use of combustible
01:27:44 concerns about the use of combustible insulation above 18 meters yes yes and second that they believe that the guidance was inadequate yes yes and thirdly that they were
01:27:55 yes yes and thirdly that they were essentially um planning on doing the same thing that nhbc had done through bca namely to produce
01:28:02 produce guidance for industry but admittedly rather tougher yes yes and although arab wanted to increase the level of performance above and beyond the guidance as it then stood in adb the
01:28:14 guidance as it then stood in adb the nhbc did not want to do that nhbc bcs were unable to do that
01:28:22 you say unable to do that as a building control body we can only enforce the minimum requirements of the building regulations arabs were proposing a higher standard
01:28:36 so you were pressing
01:28:40 is this right um not only to but i say pressing you were you were content to work with the regulatory regime as it was uh and uh within the regime to find ways
01:28:53 uh and uh within the regime to find ways of helping your builder customers to comply with it as a building control body that's all i can work within i can only work within the regulatory framework which is in front of me why didn't you see this as an opportunity to
01:29:05 didn't you see this as an opportunity to work with arab to toughen standards and call the likes of kingspan to heal as a building control body i can only that would be beyond my powers to do i can only work within the regulatory
01:29:16 can only work within the regulatory framework i have you had a an in with the dclg through brian martin why not go to brian martin and say we think that it's time you look closely
01:29:27 we think that it's time you look closely at the regime here because
01:29:31 because as we understand it we're stuck with the standards in approved document b arab think they're insufficient and unsafe um please release us from this bind and allow us to work with arab to toughen standards across the industry
01:29:43 standards across the industry why didn't you do that we know you didn't
01:29:46 didn't we didn't no we're a building control body and we have to work within the regulations we have there would be opportunities to raise this as there has been uh since in terms of um when
01:29:57 been uh since in terms of um when dclg or mhclg asked for calls for evidence in terms of revising adb this was one of the issues we put forward it's part of that call for evidence now we'll come back in a moment to
01:30:09 we'll come back in a moment to your answer about legally we couldn't uh which you make in a number of places but can i before i do that can i just ask you about the reference to um
01:30:18 um lps there or lpc1582
01:30:25 which you see i think we've lost it it's on page one if we go back to that item six um were you familiar with lpc1582
01:30:35 lpc1582 it has a very long and forbidding title but were you familiar with it no i wasn't you weren't um
01:30:40 um i'll tell you what it was uh it was called the red book have you ever heard of the red book i have yeah it was published by bre global in 2014 and required a higher level of performance of external cladding systems for use by
01:30:52 of external cladding systems for use by insurers and other bodies were you not familiar with it i wasn't though right
01:30:59 did you not know therefore that it was a tougher standard it imposed a tougher standard than than
01:31:06 than um adb in that in summary the test periods were longer there were more criteria in that they include a criteria for mechanical performance burning debris
01:31:18 mechanical performance burning debris and pool fires and glowing combustion all of which are absent from br135 did you did you know that i didn't understand all of that i i knew that it was a higher standard than was required yeah under the building
01:31:30 required yeah under the building regulations yes
01:31:34 and arab wanted the nhbc as a private building control body to insist on those higher levels of performance when providing building control services is that a fair summary of the attitude they
01:31:45 that a fair summary of the attitude they were taking they were of their view that we could
01:31:47 we could as a building control body ask for a higher level of standards at a higher level than the uh than the building regulations required yes
01:31:54 yes i don't know if that was specific just to to an hpc or whether it's to all of building control but that was certainly the view that we could
01:32:05 yes now when you say legally nhbc can't require an increased level of performance is that is that right that was your view of the law was it
01:32:16 of the law was it it is the law as a building control body let's look please at nhb403452
01:32:25 what i'm going to show you is the witness statement of graeme perrier of the 10th of november this year
01:32:33 now he was in st in charge of standards and and technical wasn't he at nhbc he was in 2014 yes yes yes page six please paragraph 28
01:32:46 he says there i was primarily involved with nhbc standards of which technical requirement are one or the standards 2017 edition states work shall comply with all relevant building regulations
01:32:57 with all relevant building regulations and other statutory requirements relating to the completed construction work nhbc will generally accept work that accords with relevant building regulations stroke building standards and supporting documents exceptions
01:33:08 and supporting documents exceptions would be where nhbc has a higher standard
01:33:13 standard now that's the 2017 edition did the addition of the nhp stand nhbc standards in use in 2014 also say exceptions would be where nhbc has a higher standard
01:33:27 be where nhbc has a higher standard i would imagine so yes i can't was that i don't know the standards and hpc standards inside out but yes i would imagine it did yes was it not the case that in fact if nhbc
01:33:40 was it not the case that in fact if nhbc so chose it could require an increased level of performance nhbc
01:33:46 nhbc the insurance company for in order in setting its standards could if it wished to do that nhbc building control services could not and in respect of fire safety nhpc
01:33:59 and in respect of fire safety nhpc standards accepted compliance with the building regulations is the level that it would expect in order to meet nhpc standards i see so just help me then um with the text
01:34:11 so just help me then um with the text here
01:34:13 here the nhbc standards are those the warranty standards which those underwriting would apply nfpc standards are standards which the builder
01:34:24 builder under the terms of registration agrees to build in accordance with in order to be offered uh or to gain access to build mart warranty yes build mark warranty so these
01:34:33 so these what relationship is there or was there between nhbc standards on the one hand and the um acceptance criteria by building control services on the other
01:34:46 building control services on the other so
01:34:47 so requirement r1 as uh
01:34:50 as uh graham has alluded to there states that work shall comply with all relevant building regulations and other statutory requirements relating to completed construction work so that is the that is the relationship so the
01:35:02 the that is the relationship so the starting point for compliance with nhpc standards
01:35:06 standards the minimum standard is the minimum standard of the build regulations where it chooses to nhpc standards in some areas do expect a higher standard
01:35:17 higher standard but not
01:35:18 but not as we covered earlier in my um information to the inquiry on fire safety
01:35:25 safety so in fire safety compliance with the building rig it the minimum stance of the building regulations is deemed to to then meet an hbc standard sorry i i'm a bit confused could you just tell me the exceptions
01:35:36 could you just tell me the exceptions where an hbc could apply a higher standard you say that applies to the insurance is part of the business but not the building control part of the business where nhbc standards says a high standard yes right
01:35:46 right okay uh what was then to stop um an hbc uh warranty that part of the business going along with arab and working with arab where it could set higher standards
01:36:00 if it chose to there would have been nothing to do that no exactly so why didn't it
01:36:05 didn't it nhbc was of the view at that point that compliance with the building regulations that's the uh that was our
01:36:14 was our certainly from the bill control services point of view we were working to the minimum standards of the building regulations mr chairman's a convenient moment yes i was just about to suggest it might be good thank you very much we'll have a
01:36:25 good thank you very much we'll have a break i think mr uh mr evans and uh we'll come back please at 20 to four and um as before please don't discuss your evidence with anyone while you're out of the room thank you very much
01:36:45 94 please thank you
01:55:25 with bre uh can we go back to the notes of the meetings we saw in the email nhb 50829 and this time go to page two
01:55:40 and uh here we see on page two immediately underneath the notes of the arab fire meeting on the 25th of november we see the notes of the meeting with bre in watford on the 27th of
01:55:53 with bre in watford on the 27th of november 2014. two days later and we can see who is in attendance from the bre there was sarah colwell steve manchester and steve howard and from nhbc there was john lewis you
01:56:04 from nhbc there was john lewis you graham perrier and dave white
01:56:08 now i don't want to go through everybody on that list but is it correct to say that sarah colwell went through the bsa414 testing and gave a summary of the br135 classification if
01:56:20 a summary of the br135 classification if you look at point one yes uh and looking at point nine uh
01:56:26 uh a if you turn the page please to page three
01:56:30 three sc clarified the following the wording of paragraph 12.7 of adb2 includes all major components of a cladding system including the external finish um
01:56:43 finish um now assuming that this note is correct what did you understand sarah colwell to mean by uh to mean by that that uh 12.7 includes all major
01:56:54 that uh 12.7 includes all major components of a cladding system including the external finish all of the first all of the facade so would that apply to an acm panel yes it would including its core
01:57:05 panel yes it would including its core including it's cool did you understand that that meant particularly given the reference there to 12.7 that the external cladding panel had to be a material of limited
01:57:16 had to be a material of limited combustibility well this was um this was sarah's view in terms of the meaning of 12.7
01:57:27 view in terms of the meaning of 12.7 that she that's what she understood it to me but i understood that my understanding was that she was referring to all of the cladding system yeah yes does it come to this that you
01:57:38 yeah yes does it come to this that you understood her to mean uh that the external cladding panel had to be a material of limited combustibility in order to meet 12.7 i understood her that that was her interpretation yes yes
01:57:51 that that was her interpretation yes yes and that included the core as well yes all yeah my understanding was that her interpretation was it was all of the facade system yes yeah do you know what prompted her to make that clarification i can't remember
01:58:03 i can't remember can you remember to come in as part of the conversation we were having at the at the time do you remember anything about what gave rise to it
01:58:10 to it no i don't right had the nhbc been implementing that approach in practice and requiring that all external cladding panels had to be materials of limited combustibility
01:58:24 be materials of limited combustibility i thought i think we spoke about this before so yes we it would be part of our assessment and since what date had that been the approach of the nhbc that would have been the approach since the requirement was in the building
01:58:35 the requirement was in the building regulations right so is this right that the approach of nhbc was always that all panels conforming a rain screen on a cladding system
01:58:46 on a cladding system had to meet 12.7 my view had i been asked for advice was that yes so say we didn't have any specific written guidance on that until we um adopted bca guidance now 18.
01:58:57 guidance now 18. yes and so therefore when sarah uh
01:59:00 uh colwell clarified the following as this nate said she was telling you at least something you you already knew it was telling me that my interpretation was the same as hers
01:59:13 was the same as hers all right
01:59:14 all right sarah didn't write the building regulations of course they're written by mhclg so this was purely and simply sarah's interpretation of the building regulations as it was mine yes um i know it's not your writing it's john
01:59:25 i know it's not your writing it's john lewis's writing and i know it's not your interpretation of what you said but why was there a need for clarification of that
01:59:33 of that i think we when we were discussing the building regulations the requirements of it it would have come up as discussion so again this is not a verbatim account of the the meeting it's a list
01:59:45 account of the the meeting it's a list of
01:59:46 of um
01:59:48 um salient points from that meeting now we saw bca technical guidance note 18 issue naught option one published in the june of 2014 before this meeting at the bre in the november
02:00:00 this meeting at the bre in the november of that year we've seen that i'm not going to take it back take you back to it but you'll recall the words uh
02:00:07 uh materials of limited combustibility for all elements of the cladding system above and below 18 meters including the external facing material you'll remember that yes yes so
02:00:18 yes so is it right that the nhbc through the bca guidance note was promoting the use of materials of limited combustibility in all elements of the cladding system including the external facing material
02:00:29 including the external facing material not only insulation materials within the system at least from june 14. if you went down the route of option one yes yes if you went down the route of option one and that would include the cladding panels and their core
02:00:40 panels and their core yes not simply the aluminium surface not simply the aluminium surface yes well the aluminium surface is it is the is class that's not a material limited combustibility yes
02:00:51 combustibility yes so
02:00:54 do you know whether sarah colwell was giving the clarification based on what technical guidance note 18 issue naught already said or was this her coming to this separately
02:01:17 now um in your guidance note uh and again i don't need to take you back to it but when it refers to option one it refers to a definition of a mole a material of limited combustibility by
02:01:29 a material of limited combustibility by reference to table a7 of approved document b do you remember that i do yes i don't need to go back to it um
02:01:38 a7 of approved document b sets out both national and european testing standards which are relevant to whether a material can be considered as one of them of limited combustibility
02:01:50 one of them of limited combustibility doesn't it yes and so in general terms did that mean that cladding panels in order to be materials of limited combustibility had to satisfy either
02:02:02 to satisfy either bsa bs476 part 11 or b of a1 or a2 euro class classification
02:02:12 that would have been mine without referring back to the table in detail yes yes
02:02:18 yes so is this right according to bca technical games guidance note 18 an external panel which achieved a class b euro class rating
02:02:29 rating unless it had been successfully tested as part of a full-scale system test under bs8414 and classified to br 135 was not acceptable on a building over 18
02:02:40 was not acceptable on a building over 18 meters
02:02:41 meters in order to satisfy option one that's great that's correct is it yeah that's correct yeah well i would have yes that would have been my yeah if you'd asked if a bill would come to me and ask for that advice yes i would have advised them and how if that
02:02:54 would have advised them and how if that question had been asked of you would you have squared that with 12.6 of approved document b and diagram 40 which does no more than allow class b which is not malk material of limited
02:03:07 which is not malk material of limited combustibility for the external surface so our interpretation was that all of the
02:03:14 the the wall would have been should have been a mature limited combustibility an interpretation you could take and say and they said that we'd been
02:03:25 and say and they said that we'd been approached we'd had that um approach indeed i discussed it at a um with a number of builders was that you could yes you could go for a class one
02:03:36 could yes you could go for a class one surface spreader flame on the on the panel and then uh the rest of the the the rest of the panel you could in theory not be a material bit of combustibility but our interpretation
02:03:47 combustibility but our interpretation was that
02:03:48 was that you would need that all of the facade systems should be a material limited combustibility if it was a material of limited combustibility then it would automatically class naught wouldn't it
02:04:00 automatically class naught wouldn't it it would fit yes it would yes yes yeah you would you tend to expect to yeah it would be but not class b
02:04:09 you're getting into the depths of 50 which will be on my area of exfoliating well maybe that's the problem but i mean i just want to see how far we can go with it with you did you ever address your mind to how your interpretation of the building regulations and i'm not
02:04:21 the building regulations and i'm not putting to you whether it's right or it's wrong but how it was consistent with the provisions of 12.6 and diagram 40 which allowed class b for the external surface so so that's the external surface which
02:04:33 so so that's the external surface which is the surface spreader flame which is different from it being a material limited combo stability yeah did you address your mind to have that all fitted together at the time um
02:04:44 um my interpretation had always been that the whole cladding system so i i could see where others had come to that um
02:04:52 that um that conclusion and indeed i'd highlight you know as part of our um information that we passed back to mhclg when they did the um the call for evidence on adb
02:05:04 call for evidence on adb we addressed that anomaly in there that the an interpretation of the regulations on that was that you could take that route when was that aaron to um that was um
02:05:15 um i would actually sorry be after the grenfell fire right okay now um what was nhbc's policy about class b cladding panels or any cladding panel
02:05:26 cladding panels or any cladding panel that was not a1 or a2 or had met 476 part 11.
02:05:32 part 11. we would ask that to go down the option three route i see so you wouldn't have accepted it not that i'm aware of that even though diagram 40 permitted it even though dark ground 40 permitted it right
02:05:44 ground 40 permitted it right isn't that an example of nhbc in fact seeking to hold builders to a higher standard of safety than adb required in other words class a1 or a2
02:05:55 a1 or a2 or 476 part 11 as opposed to class b it depends how you regard 12.7 when it refers to fillers well that was that a point in your mind historically when it's up when refusing
02:06:08 historically when it's up when refusing to accept panels unless they were a1 or a2 it wasn't a consideration i my
02:06:17 my if you like the focus at the time when we were doing this was around the insulation it wasn't on specifically the panels as well i
02:06:25 well i in my mind panels needed to be if they were going down the option one route needed to meet materials of limited combustibility yes it wasn't uh um
02:06:34 um anything different to that i would have urged him to go down the option three route did any customer ever come to you and uh in response to your refusal to accept a class b panel for rain screen
02:06:47 accept a class b panel for rain screen under the linear route and complain that you were holding them to a higher standard
02:06:51 standard than required by the building regulations i can remember one conversation i had with um barrett eastland and i believe on a project uh where i met in the early stages of their design i met with them
02:07:03 stages of their design i met with them and their
02:07:04 and their fire engineer h in their offices in london and we'll come
02:07:09 come yeah we'll come to that in in due course certainly so that that's the one occasion it's the one occasion i can remember but did it occur to you at any stage that you the nhbc in refusing
02:07:20 stage that you the nhbc in refusing class b
02:07:21 class b panels as rain screen was holding customers builders to a higher standard than that required under adb
02:07:29 adb it didn't because i'd always had that interpretation
02:07:34 um going back to the notes of the meeting if we can on the screen if we if we look at them can we look at point 10 sc recommended document lps 1582 as a more onerous benchmark for use within
02:07:45 more onerous benchmark for use within the insurance industry now um
02:07:49 now um by reference there to within the insurance industry what did she mean what did you think she meant
02:07:56 meant so generally the insurance it's sometimes within the insurance industry insurance institute will ask for a higher standard and that's based on property protection rather than life
02:08:07 property protection rather than life safety
02:08:08 safety so the building regulations is about life safety so the minimum standards are for life safety there are several docket there are several documents
02:08:17 documents produced
02:08:19 produced by various bodies which the insurance industry would then use which require higher standards and that's generally around property protection uh
02:08:30 uh say would you have understood her reference to the insurance industry as including your build mark warranty no because our um our policy is about um
02:08:41 our policy is about um the protection of the home it's not about that property protection as such in similar way to this so um it doesn't cover for example the loss of the asset that is that would then be a home
02:08:53 that is that would then be a home insurance uh a company's insurance that's a different thing to our structural insurance warranty
02:08:59 warranty um it's right to think as we've now seen that by late november 2014 two significant figures within the fire engineering community barbara lane and sarah colwell completely independently of each other
02:09:11 completely independently of each other as it seems mr evans are recommending lps 1582 as the benchmark that she used by industry rather than adb now having it been recommended to you twice within
02:09:22 it been recommended to you twice within two days did the nhbc consider that proposal further
02:09:29 i didn't no did anybody else at nhbc to your knowledge
02:09:35 knowledge to my knowledge no why is that i don't know you'd have to ask them i'm asking you so far as you know i was concerned from a building control services point of
02:09:46 a building control services point of view which was interested in enforcing the minimum stance of the building regulations in terms of generation of nhpc standards that was dealt with by standards and technically right and did standards and tech not take this point up given that graeme perry was
02:09:58 point up given that graeme perry was there at the meeting and at least consider whether this higher standard should now be incorporated into the warranty so as i said these standards are generally there for property
02:10:09 are generally there for property protection so this would be in the realms of so when you when you have a build mark warranty you would also take out house insurance
02:10:18 insurance you know to prevent from accidental damage and things like that and if your house burned down if your house burned down sorry for the i'm sorry for the that's insensitive um if your property was to collapse for
02:10:29 um if your property was to collapse for a structural failure for example that would probably be a a through an accident or something driving into it or something like that an impact which caused it to to collapse
02:10:40 caused it to to collapse you would claim on your house insurance for that rather than go to your build mark warranty the bill mark warranty is to uh it covers defects in
02:10:49 in the build that cause damage to the property not by the external and this the these stat property standards the lps standards and others that are um generated for that are about protecting
02:11:01 generated for that are about protecting the asset
02:11:03 the asset and the protection against that so i think um perhaps mr ewing used the phrase the the um the uh example last week of a warehouse where you've got the compartmentation wall between the
02:11:15 compartmentation wall between the warehouse the between the offices and the warehouse itself building regulations may require that to be two hours the insurance company may require that to be four hours to protect their they asset the
02:11:27 hours to protect their they asset the stock and things like that so that that's where those standards come from so it wouldn't be appropriate necessarily for nhpc build mark to go along those lines now under point
02:11:38 to go along those lines now under point 10 we can see the heading summary which says nhbc welcomed the clarifications by bre as well as the useful background which led up to the publication of br135
02:11:49 led up to the publication of br135 nhbc was unaware of the existence of a br 135 classification certificate i just want to understand that last sentence
02:11:59 sentence what was it the case that until this meeting
02:12:02 meeting nhbc were really not aware of the existence of or a need for a br135 classification in general no this was the um one of the questions that was asked with
02:12:13 one of the questions that was asked with who who could produce that classification certificate so would it be produced by the test house or would it be produced by somebody else um because br bl-135 is a publicly
02:12:25 um because br bl-135 is a publicly available document so it could you know conceivably we could do the bl-135 classification as a bill control body um we wouldn't do that but it
02:12:36 um we wouldn't do that but it conceivably we could um so i think we we would um
02:12:41 would um it was it was that the clarification that
02:12:45 that um certainly bre could be commissioned to go through the test and then do the bl-135 classification certificate
02:12:54 what were you unaware of what was the nhpc unaware of when it says the existence of a br135 classification certificate i i can't be
02:13:06 classification certificate i i can't be sure now going back to that sorry
02:13:08 sorry i mean let's be clear was it aware that until this meeting you weren't aware of the the need for bl-135 classification at all
02:13:15 at all or that you're unaware of over a particular classification certificate for something sorry we were aware that it needed to be it needed to meet the um the requirements of bl-135
02:13:27 the requirements of bl-135 so we were aware of that we were aware of bl-135 we were aware of the the fact that in order to meet the regulations it needed to
02:13:35 needed to to meet the performance criteria within that right it was that the fact that we could rely on from from memory and it is a distant memory sorry um it could be around the fact that there
02:13:46 it could be around the fact that there could be a bl 135 certificate to prove that that would be issued by the testing house and i'm not sure i'm following what is it given that you knew that of the existence of br 135 criteria presumably from the publications
02:13:59 presumably from the publications what is it that you are unaware of says it says you were unaware of the existence of a br-135 classification certificate what document were you unaware of so you you can get a you
02:14:11 so you you can get a you we can be provided with a certificate which verifies that somebody has done the bl one that has done the classification against br135
02:14:21 so that's that's been done why are you saying you've never seen one for any product or what you see saying you've never seen one for kingspan k15 or were you saying you were unaware of the existence of the procedure for generating them
02:14:33 generating them what was it you were ignorant i've never seen one for br for kingspan k-15 no no well you wouldn't have done at that point because there wasn't one but but what were you not aware of i'm just trying to understand what it was you were missing
02:14:44 were missing i i can't recall now right
02:14:49 now looking at the heading under the summary action following the meeting it says this nhbc discussed its position and determined that from a bc point of view there is no requirement to limit stroke prevent the collapse partial collapse or falling of
02:15:01 collapse partial collapse or falling of debris from an external wall construction during a fire situation these matters are mentioned in various other british standard documents and so are a matter for the building design team to take into consideration when uh
02:15:12 team to take into consideration when uh when such other documents are being applied
02:15:14 applied and just pausing there br 135 was not a british standard was it but but you had been made aware i think of the bre um if not before that that the risk of collapse partial collapse and falling
02:15:26 collapse partial collapse and falling debris was was something that was required by br135 and therefore by reference approved document b is that right no it's something which needs to be considered by the designer it's not
02:15:37 be considered by the designer it's not necessary to attain a bl-135 classification right why was it something that nhbc did not feel that it was something they should take into account again that's beyond the realm beyond the
02:15:49 the realm beyond the um the the need of the minimum standards of the building regulations
02:15:56 but had you not been told that there was something that which needed to be taken into account it's something that needs to be taken into account by the design team yes but not in order to achieve the minimum standards of the building regulations
02:16:10 were you aware at this time that collapse
02:16:13 collapse and falling debris in a fire situation could start secondary fires and was a relevant risk on buildings over 18 meters
02:16:20 meters i was aware that when a building burns that you do have falling debris yes
02:16:30 looking at the last action following the meeting
02:16:33 meeting uh it says uh nhbc followed up its meeting with bre but with an email copy enclosed with this email to dr sarah colwell
02:16:41 colwell clarifying what it feels its position from a bc point of view nhbc has drafted a revision to the bca guidance note use of combustible cladding materials and residential buildings and requested sc
02:16:52 residential buildings and requested sc to advise of any inaccuracies a response to this email is currently awaited now the email itself we can then go to it's nhb500
02:17:03 and this is from john lewis to sarah colwell
02:17:11 and we can see he says there uh hello sarah this is the 4th of december so a few days later copy to you hello sarah thank you for the opportunity to meet last thursday since our meeting we've continued our
02:17:22 our meeting we've continued our discussions on fair performance of insulation products within building envelopes i think that we all found the meeting at bre valuable in many respects and in particular you helped us to understand the importance of looking for
02:17:34 understand the importance of looking for a br135 fire classification report soon after the final bs8414 part two fire test report has been issued today we've been discussing correct interpretation of the br135 classification report in relation to
02:17:46 classification report in relation to buildings
02:17:48 buildings building regulations compliance
02:17:53 now does that not tell us that at the meeting sarah colwell um educated you on
02:18:03 on the need for a br135 fire classification report
02:18:14 as i said my understanding was you you could there was a report available um my question at that meeting was who does it and how long does it take because again we'd been told by kingspan that they had
02:18:26 we'd been told by kingspan that they had the test results but they were still awaiting the bl-135 so there was a separation in time there so it this was all part of a of a learning around this issue yes and was
02:18:38 learning around this issue yes and was part of the learning around this issue that before the meeting with sarah colbert you had been unaware of the need to look at a br 135 classification report
02:18:46 report but as a result of the meeting she enlightened you and after that you understood the need to look at a br135 classification report in order to understand the test results
02:18:57 understand the test results no
02:18:58 no no no i knew of bo135 and one of the questions i said at the time i had was who would produce that br135 assessment could we do it should we be doing it ourselves or
02:19:12 right just help me in the second line of that email which you received by copy it says in particular you helped us to understand the importance of looking for a br 135 fire classification report soon
02:19:24 a br 135 fire classification report soon after the bsa414 part 2 fire test report has been issued what was it that you had not understood about br135 classification reports that she assisted you to understand
02:19:36 she assisted you to understand well actually
02:19:39 bre were quite clear that they would produce the report and the bl-135 classification report together and we'd we'd recounted to them the fact
02:19:50 and we'd we'd recounted to them the fact that we had a report we had um
02:19:55 um reports from kingspan but hadn't had the bl-135 so
02:20:01 right um
02:20:06 do you know whether a response to this email was ever obtained i don't think it was i think there was a chase email sent but i don't think we ever received a response right do you know
02:20:18 received a response right do you know why not
02:20:19 why not i don't know now after the meeting with arab 25th of november
02:20:25 november bre 27th of november did the nhbc make any changes to its approach
02:20:31 approach uh to the acceptability of combustible insulation materials on buildings over 18 meters
02:20:36 18 meters yes we did in um february 2000 for 2015. right that's the next step
02:20:43 next step um we'll come to that before we do can i go back to technical guidance note 18 and option three
02:20:51 and i'd like to start with this please by looking at your witness statement at page 66 paragraph 185 you say there in my view any report for this third option needs to justify any
02:21:02 this third option needs to justify any discrepancies between the tested and proposed build ups in presentations i gave on behalf of bca i emphasized that applying data from very dissimilar materials could lead to
02:21:13 very dissimilar materials could lead to inaccurate conclusions in instances where we saw that occurring nhbc would not accept that assessment are you able to give us some examples you came across in these reports where
02:21:24 you came across in these reports where data was applied from dissimilar materials or very dissimilar materials
02:21:32 i can't because in the ones i saw that were escalated to me obviously they were at a point where john lewis was happy to to recommend that they were uh accepted so you didn't
02:21:43 that they were uh accepted so you didn't see the ones he rejected no we'd have discussions sometimes about um
02:21:49 um one to ones and things like that about things he'd seen but no i didn't see those reports now so so um in presentations you were working on essentially what you've been told by john lewis namely that there were dissimilar materials which produced data
02:22:01 dissimilar materials which produced data which would lead to inaccurate conclusions and so should lead to rejection i was emphasizing that the test report should be um should consider um as similar materials as possible yes
02:22:14 um as similar materials as possible yes did you ever become concerned that whoever was producing the desktop reports was applying data in ways which have no scientific basis
02:22:24 my concern with some of the option three reports was that um from that
02:22:29 from that we would get a view of the fire engineer not based on test information so to
02:22:37 to you know to paraphrase it they were just saying it complies because i'm a fire engineer so an unreasoned report an unreasonable report right um just standing back from that for a moment
02:22:48 standing back from that for a moment were you aware of whether there was any framework of rules principles any kind of guidance about how these assessments ought to be carried out
02:23:01 ought to be carried out by the relevant fire engineer no did you ever become concerned about the absence of such framework principles guidance i relied on the professionalism of the
02:23:13 i relied on the professionalism of the fire engineers in making that assessment and making this the statements they made based on the test evidence did it occur to you that one fire engineer might apply one
02:23:25 that one fire engineer might apply one approach one set of principles uh and another fire engineer equally qualified might apply another that's why we set up an internal review
02:23:36 that's why we set up an internal review process
02:23:37 process where our fire engineers would review them internally and yeah you may find that a fire engineer takes a different approach to others but providing their reasoning is based on test results there's no reason why
02:23:48 test results there's no reason why you can't and and it's a reasoned argument
02:23:51 argument um
02:23:52 um there's no reason why you can't accept that
02:23:56 you in a similar way to the way you find structural engineers will design buildings differently now you mentioned a moment ago that you had concerns about unreasoned uh reports
02:24:07 uh reports and and you indeed covered that at paragraph 190b of your statement at page 169. i don't think there's a need to to look at that given what you just said when was it that your concern over
02:24:18 when was it that your concern over option three desktop studies began
02:24:26 when john relayed to me that we some of the standard that we were that initially was being sent through when what's that remember um i would imagine it would be some time after we
02:24:37 imagine it would be some time after we changed our policy in march 2015 and we started to to see an increased number of option three reports coming through
02:24:47 and how often was it that you saw option three reports which simply stated that a build-up was satisfactory without a proper assessment of or identification of the underlying test data again i can't give you that answer
02:24:59 again i can't give you that answer because they they wouldn't have been escalated to me in circumstances where that happened was it your understanding although you may not have seen them that there simply wasn't enough test data for option three reports to be reliably
02:25:10 option three reports to be reliably produced
02:25:11 produced or was it as a result of the lack of competence or expertise on the part of those producing the reports or perhaps both
02:25:22 i would have probably thought it was on the competence area right competence so in terms of the the fire engine the foreign
02:25:31 foreign accepted principles in doing a desktop assessment would be that you would base it on test information if a fire engineer came to us and just said it works because i'm a fire engineer paraphrasing what they do
02:25:42 engineer paraphrasing what they do i wouldn't think they're a very good fire engineer if i'm honest not just understanding the first principles of doing a desktop assessment and so far as k-15 was concerned when option sorry issue naught
02:25:55 option sorry issue naught with option three and it was launched in june 2014 what was the test data for k-15 that would enable extrapolation into other rigs what was the test data at that point
02:26:07 what was the test data at that point there was um the single test was that did anybody ever examine the question whether that single test from 2005 with the cementitious particle board etc
02:26:18 board etc was going to be sufficient to allow extrapolation by desktop study for use in other systems did anybody at the nhbc address their mind to that question
02:26:30 mind to that question no the consideration was that by adopting that policy we would actually encourage industry to undertake more testing
02:26:37 testing and as we've seen i think now from some of the evidence taking us to late 2014 by the end of that year you'd still you had still seen no test data from kingspan
02:26:48 kingspan which would enable a desktop to be produced other than on the test data from the 2005 test is that right they had subsequent tests um the two tests they carried out a bit
02:26:59 um the two tests they carried out a bit at bre as well now we'll come back to that i think later but you you you say there were two extra tests but did that did anybody address their minds within nhbc
02:27:11 within nhbc to decide whether that group of tests which had come from kingspan and the results of it were now enough to be able to allow a fire engineer to extrapolate to a decision about whether they would
02:27:23 to a decision about whether they would meet 135 in respect of a different external wall buildup as i said that the adoption of bca guides now 18 was to
02:27:34 the adoption of bca guides now 18 was to both to you for to encourage um manufacturers to release more test information if they had it because we suspected that there was more test information out there but also to encourage
02:27:46 but also to encourage the industry to undertake more testing so some chicken and egg really option three existing in some ways in some ways yes but you have to start somewhere well
02:27:57 somewhere well right but is it right that option three existed as a means of stimulating the industry to provide more test data to be able to do option three reports it was no it was a way of demonstrating providing builders with guidance on how
02:28:09 providing builders with guidance on how they could demonstrate compliance across a range of options so they could choose to go down option one option two or option three a builder could choose that they wanted to use a system and have it tested
02:28:21 to use a system and have it tested themselves and indeed some did data would then be available if they wanted to make it available because they may have done it in conjunction with the manufacturer
02:28:34 yes what i'm really seeking to get at is that at the time of option three in issue naught was launched in june 2014 the universe of available test data at least for k-15
02:28:46 least for k-15 uh was minimal i think it acknowledged the fact that there was the limitation on the number of
02:28:52 of test data all the way through this and would it be right then therefore that the efficacy of option three would only be as good as as a as the universe
02:29:03 universe of available test data at any given time it would be on uh it would be on the judgment of the fire engineer pulling that data together whether they had enough information in
02:29:15 whether they had enough information in order to make an assessment and that would depend upon what then happened after june 2015 so far as the production of further test data was concerned all the availability that was made available to them
02:29:26 available to them would you agree well let me ask you about the process of escalation is it right that nhbc relied on john lewis who was the surveyor with a degree
02:29:37 surveyor with a degree in fire engineering to critique option three reports when they came in yes yeah in the early stages yes towards um we also then employed a further fire
02:29:48 um we also then employed a further fire engineer
02:29:49 engineer um
02:29:50 um to assist with that um i forget when malik was uh was employed
02:29:55 employed around 2016 i believe yes later and then he would he would review them and then they would be escalated to you was the process whereby
02:30:06 was the process whereby he escalated to you those he was unhappy with
02:30:10 with if he accepted them why would he need to escalate them to you we wanted to set up so when we when we instigated the new process we put a blocking condition on all
02:30:20 all uh buildings uh that we'd assessed so the 300 blocks that we had and in construction at that time we put a blocking condition on which prevented the issue of a final certificate or
02:30:32 the issue of a final certificate or warranty
02:30:33 warranty we then set about a robust escalation process to
02:30:39 to ensure that we we as nhvc bcs and warranty were happy because at this stage we then decided our board decided that actually we would have the same level of
02:30:50 level of um
02:30:52 um the same standard for an hbc warranty where we were providing warranty only as we would where we were also providing building control so we said that we had to set up a robust escalation process
02:31:03 escalation process to ensure that the information we gained at that time we were happy with and that went and it actually meant that a senior manager at nhpc had to authorise the clearance of that blocking
02:31:14 authorise the clearance of that blocking condition um my question to you was i'm afraid rather garbled let me try it again
02:31:19 again despite your answer uh was the process of escalation from john lewis to you when one whereby he escalated reports he was happy with or reports he was unhappy with reports he
02:31:31 reports he was unhappy with reports he was happy with right why would he escalate reports he was happy with was that because of the block that you've just described in your last yes i see now with reports that he was happy with um you would then review them what what
02:31:45 um you would then review them what what criteria would you apply to to the review
02:31:48 review so i would generally check it for um
02:31:52 um accuracy um i would have a a read through um the documents at high level checking the the inputs checking um you know very very things but i'm i'm not a fire engineer i was
02:32:04 but i'm i'm not a fire engineer i was obviously relying on john's interpretation of those and the fire engineers original report and
02:32:10 and just looking for for obvious errors and in some cases consistency so you weren't and in fact weren't able or equipped to perform a proper peer review
02:32:22 to perform a proper peer review of john lewis's acceptance of
02:32:25 of desktop studies were you no not a not a fire engineering peer review one was a management peer review in terms of that consistency i'm not a fire engineer no would you agree that not all building
02:32:36 would you agree that not all building control bodies had even had the services of a fire engineer in-house to perform the role that john lewis was performing that's correct in your experience would most building
02:32:47 in your experience would most building control bodies have had the knowledge in 2014 to be able properly to critique option three reports that they'd been presented with which contained much opinion and perhaps not enough test data that
02:33:00 and perhaps not enough test data that would be for the building control body to decide themselves however if they identified um that they didn't have that foreign expertise internally they could um as a bill control body uh
02:33:12 they could um as a bill control body uh engage the services of an external fire engineer
02:33:15 engineer to do that on their behalf and indeed when i've worked at um local authorities where we didn't have a fire engineer we would engage an external fire engineer
02:33:26 would engage an external fire engineer um to assist us in that process well let me ask it differently what did most building control bodies know
02:33:34 know that they had to critique option three reports that they had been given with the relevant expertise in order to understand it building control bodies would know that
02:33:45 building control bodies would know that they had
02:33:46 they had a duty to perform in ensuring that they fulfill their duties as a building control body whether that be a local authority or an approved inspector
02:33:56 inspector did all building control bodies and ais know what the methodology was to be was that was to be used in producing a desktop so that they could check that it had been done in accordance with that
02:34:07 had been done in accordance with that methodology it would be up to the individual building control body to ensure the level of checking on whatever they did to those assessments
02:34:18 assessments did they know what data they had to see in order to be able to be satisfied as john lewis was i can't speak for other building control bodies on that i can only tell you what we expected to see as nhbc and would you not have known
02:34:31 see as nhbc and would you not have known that through your involvement in the bca for example as i say i can't speak for other building control bodies i can only refer to what we did at nhbc
02:34:42 refer to what we did at nhbc well it may be that nhbc was questioning substandard reports as john lewis was doing filtering them out did you know that other building control bodies
02:34:51 bodies were doing the same applying the same standards as he was or perhaps not doing so because they didn't have the requisite knowledge we had
02:34:58 we had um some anecdotal evidence in some cases that
02:35:02 that they weren't no did you ever think that the bca should be taking some action to set some standards to which desktops should adhere before being accepted by bcos generally
02:35:15 i didn't and it wasn't raised at the bca technical group do you know why not
02:35:22 the bca technique so it was it's up to each individual building control body to discharge their function and for them to decide
02:35:29 to decide um how they do that it wasn't for bca to tell them how to do that the bca was offering guidance on what level what um how the routes to compliance were
02:35:41 compliance were it wasn't for bca to then set the bca wasn't a body that could do that well
02:35:47 well the bca maybe later taking taking it in stages you i think did you appreciate the risk at the time that some building control bodies might be able properly to scrutinize and critique a
02:35:59 properly to scrutinize and critique a desktop study and some might not and therefore there were there was a risk of unevenness in standards of approach across the industry
02:36:08 industry did the bca appreciate that at least the bca appreciated that um there were differences in interpretation across the building total industry which is why we attempted to to produce
02:36:20 is why we attempted to to produce guidance to aid them on various subjects but it was still up to each individual building control body how they discharged their function and the bca didn't think about producing some guidance to to guide
02:36:32 some guidance to to guide bcos as to how to interpret desktop studies
02:36:39 no no it was it wouldn't be appropriate for an hpc sorry so bca to do that well the bca had thought it appropriate to publish technical guidance 18 which introduced desktop studies
02:36:51 introduced desktop studies given that that was thought appropriate why not bca then thinking it appropriate to assist those reading desktop studies in a uniform way as to how to interpret them
02:37:02 as to how to interpret them i'm sorry bca didn't introduce desktop studies they were already there in the regulations well we we've been we've been through that
02:37:10 that but option three was the first time i think it's right to say isn't it that desktop studies had been put out there in the industry as a clear further alternative way of of um meeting
02:37:23 of um meeting the guidance in adb and thereby satisfac satisfying the functional requirement before it was the first time it had been brought together into a document covering facade yes and given
02:37:34 document covering facade yes and given that bca gone that far why was it problematic for the bca to set out in parallel some principles for all bcos to apply uniformly across the country so that when they when each
02:37:45 the country so that when they when each bca picked up a desktop study everybody knew what it was they had to look at again that would be the we would have been relying on the fire engineering community
02:37:56 fire engineering community to be doing recent desktop assessments now let's rely on their expertise
02:38:06 mr chairman i'm going to turn to the next topic but i wouldn't mind making a little bit of headway on it given where i've got to well you've got five minutes if you want to use it let's see how i get on in five minutes yes um
02:38:17 see how i get on in five minutes yes um bt uh bc's technical guidance note issue one june 2015 is where we go next and uh
02:38:24 and uh this is at cel quadruple zero two four four zero uh and for those interested in the version we used at module one it's cel402347
02:38:37 if i have those both of those in the transcript um people can find them now um you can see first page date issue one june 2015 if we turn to page two option
02:38:48 june 2015 if we turn to page two option three
02:38:50 three we can compare in option three uh it says if no actual fire data exists for a particular system the client may instead submit a desktop study report from a suitably qualified fire
02:39:01 from a suitably qualified fire specialist stating whether in their opinion br 135 criteria would be met with the proposed system now um you you remember that in the 2014 uh guidance note those who could produce
02:39:14 uh guidance note those who could produce test stops were limited to a ucas accredited testing body bre chilton fire or warrington fire you remember that i do
02:39:21 do and now in the 2015 guidance note that was amended to a suitably qualified fire specialist yes yes now you've explained a little bit about this in your statement which i'd like to look at page 73 paragraph 193
02:39:38 and you you um pick that up uh here under the heading bca guidance note uh issue one and you say the bca guidance nate was subsequently reissued in july 2015
02:39:51 subsequently reissued in july 2015 i think that's actually june isn't it yes it is the 2015 bca guidance note a expanded the range of methods to include a fourth option to demonstrate compliance option four and b permitted
02:40:03 compliance option four and b permitted suitably qualified fire engineers to produce option 3 assessments now start
02:40:09 now start staying with option 3 reports can we look at page 77 of your statement please paragraph 200.
02:40:21 and you say that one of the amendments was to widen the bodies that could provide option three assessments in the 2014 bca guidance note that was limited to a ucas accredited testing body bre chilton fire or warrington fire in the
02:40:33 chilton fire or warrington fire in the 2015 bca guidance note that was amended to a suitably qualified fire specialist the reason for this was a is described in paragraph 190 above my recollection
02:40:44 in paragraph 190 above my recollection is the bre had stated that the meeting on 27th of november 2014 that there was an issue with dealing with the volume of option three requests there were only three named testing houses to deal with these my recollection is that nabc had
02:40:56 these my recollection is that nabc had received similar feedback b this change to the bca guidance note was therefore to increase the capacity of suitable engineers to carry out the assessments it was not reducing the criteria for compliance in any way
02:41:08 criteria for compliance in any way c this change was consistent with the approved document b paragraph one appendix a of approved document b et cetera et cetera which states for this purpose laboratories accredited by ucas
02:41:19 purpose laboratories accredited by ucas for conducting tests and suitably qualified fire safety engineers might be expected to have the necessary expertise as set out in paragraph 178 above now first if we get back to the note of the bre meeting on the 27th of november 2014
02:41:32 bre meeting on the 27th of november 2014 at nhb 50829
02:41:37 let me just ask you about this perhaps before the break uh you could see though the second half of the uh of the email [Music]
02:41:48 [Music] on page two if we go to that we can see the bre element um we've looked in vain for any reference there to bre saying that they did not have
02:41:59 to bre saying that they did not have capacity to deal with option three reports
02:42:02 reports you could take a moment to study it if you like on page two and on page three we can't find any reference in it
02:42:10 can you i can't no no do you know why it wasn't noted if indeed bre had said that they didn't have capacity to deal with option three reports
02:42:18 reports i don't know why it wasn't noted as i say my recollection was that it was discussed as part of that meeting
02:42:25 meeting and you say in your statement that the change was made to increase the capacity of quote suitably qualified fire engineers to carry out assessments and that the expression suitably qualified fire specialist was consistent with adb appendix a paragraph one which
02:42:38 with adb appendix a paragraph one which referred to suitably qualified fire safety engineers
02:42:44 if that's the case why not say fire safety engineers and simply mirror the language in approved document b for a suitably qualified fire safety engineer who at least would have qualifications rather than the using the
02:42:57 qualifications rather than the using the expression suitably qualified fire specialist
02:43:06 i don't believe i would have seen them as any different fire safety specialist fire safety engineer
02:43:12 engineer that there isn't a protected title for a fire safety engineer as there is such it's like an an architect so
02:43:21 well what is a fire specialist
02:43:25 a person who specializes in fire well well maybe that isn't that isn't defined within the building regulations no but it might include people who do fire risk assessments for a living for
02:43:36 fire risk assessments for a living for example or install smoke alarms
02:43:42 i i can see how you could read that into it yes
02:43:45 it yes so what was the reason then for departing from the language of adb appendix a which actually specifically referred to fire safety engineers engineers
02:44:00 at the time i didn't see it as any different until you've pointed it out now i wouldn't have even seen it as any different if i'm honest mr chairman it's 4 30 and we're hanging mid-topic but i'm happy to leave trouble
02:44:11 mid-topic but i'm happy to leave trouble is it'll take quite a long time to finish the topic um and anyway i think the day has gone on long enough i'm sure that's that's true we can break them i'm sure mr can come back tomorrow morning on the same topic yeah well there it is
02:44:23 on the same topic yeah well there it is mr evans i'm afraid we'll break that topic that no doubt a very interesting point i think we've all done enough one day so we'll stop there we'll i'm afraid i have to ask you to come back tomorrow for some more questions
02:44:35 back tomorrow for some more questions but i think you were expecting that i was yes yes good so we'll resume please at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning and in the meantime please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it okay thank you very much you'd
02:44:47 to it okay thank you very much you'd like to go the usher then please
02:44:57 thank you mr miller at 10 o'clock tomorrow then please okay