Appendix A8 Authenticity

"(Composite products listed in Table A7 must meet test requirements given in Appendix A, paragraph 13(b))"

That was the statutory guidance, authorised under Section 6 of the 1984 Building Act, in Approved Document Part B (Fire Safety) Volume 2 - Buildings other than Dwellinghouses, Appendix A Table A8. Unaltered from ADB (2002) to ADBv2 (2013), which remained in force until Grenfell Tower fire on 14 June 2017. Killing 72, with more lucky to escape.

That Table A8 requirement for Class 0 (National) from ADB (2002) to ADBv2 (2013) had the same meaning as Table A8 in ADB (1991), which said "(Composite products listed in Table A7 must meet the test requirements given in paragraph A12(b))."

Appendix A was altered in numbering, but the meaning of Paragraph 12b. (1991) and Paragraph 13b. (2002 to 2013) was maintained when the Ministry's statutory guidance to compliance with the law of the Building Regulations incorporated European classifications for Reaction to Fire defined by BS EN 13501-1 into Approved Document Part B for Fire Safety. The current version of which is BS EN 13501-1:2018 Fire classification of construction products and building elements. Classification using data from reaction to fire tests. Quite different to the National classifications, which were retained.

ADB was subsequently divided into Volume 1 for Dwellinghouses and Volume 2 for all other Buildings in 2006. Retaining Class 0 (National) in ADBv2 (2006 to 2013).

At the time of Grenfell Tower fire, and throughout the period in which the refurbishment was commissioned by clients, designed by consultants, and built by contractors, Item 1. of Table A8 qualified the double-definition of Class 0 in Appendix A Paragraph 13. This was identical to the 1991 definition of Class 0 in Appendix A Paragraph 12.

Item 1. of Table A8 is the only instance in the text of ADBv2 (2006 to 2013) that refers to Paragraph 13b., but it is written Paragraph 13(b). Consequently a digital search of the document using either "13b" or "13b." fails to show "13(b)". But the renumbering from Paragraph 12 in 1991 to Paragraph 13 in 2002 shows Table A8 to mean the a. and b. double-definitions.

Paragraph 13b. gave the "Pass" criteria for National tests in two Parts of the BS 476 Fire tests on building materials and structures Series. Although not explained in Appendix A Paragraph 13 (2002 to 2013), or Paragraph 12 (1991) before it, the National test Parts were:

BS 476-6:1989+A1:2009 Fire tests on building materials and structures. Method of test for fire propagation for products to achieve a fire propagation Index (I) of ≤12 and a Sub-Index of ≤6.

BS 476-7:1997 Fire tests on building materials and structures. Method of test to determine the classification of the surface spread of flame of products to achieve surface spread of flame Class 1.

These National tests were widely understood to be referred to in Appendix A Paragraph 13b. (2002 to 2013) and Paragraph 12b. (1991) before it. Class 0 in the second definition b. of Paragraph 13 meant testing to BS 476 Parts 6 and 7, and meant nothing else for decades.

Item 1. of Table A8 told clients, consultants and contractors following the statutory guidance of Approved Document Part B in pursuit of compliance with the Building Regulations, and Requirement B4-(1) of Schedule 1. in particular, that Composite Products were to be tested to BS 476 Parts 6 and 7 to "Pass" criteria in Paragraph 13b. to achieve Class 0.

Paragraph 13 alone addressed both "... a material or the surface of a composite product", and appeared to offer four ways to obtain Class 0, through to ADBv2 (2006 to 2013):

• Material - a. Limited Combustibility to Tests in Table A7
• Material - b. Tested to BS 476 Parts 7 and 6
• Composite Product Surface - a. Limited Combustibility to Tests in Table A7
• Composite Product Surface - b. Tested to BS 476 Parts 7 and 6

However the qualification of Item 1. of Table A8 might have suggested Composite Products were meant to be tested to the National criteria in Paragraph 13b., while homogenous Materials were meant to be Limited Combustibility as Table A7, which recognised Materials that were classed as Non-Combustible as Table A6.

If that qualification was intended, then Table A8 arguably reduced Paragraph 13 to mean:

• Material - a. Limited Combustibility to Tests in Table A7
• Composite Product Surface - b. Tested to BS 476 Parts 7 and 6

It might be attempted that Item 1. of Table A8 meant Class 0 (National) Materials were:

"Only non-combustible material or material of limited combustibility. (Composite products listed in Table A7 must meet test requirements given in Appendix A, paragraph 13(b))"

Where changing the "Any" to mean "Only" at the start of Item 1. of Table A8 was a qualification on Paragraph 13 in which the "or" after 13a. became an "and", while revising 13b. from an option to a special case for Composites. Such a mis-reading would suggest Class 0 Materials and Composite Products could only have been Limited Combustibility as Table A7, which included Non-Combustible as Table A6.

That forced and false interpretation would alter the meaning of Paragraph 13 to:

• Material - a. Limited Combustibility to Tests in Table A7
• Composite Product with a Surface - a. Limited Combustibility to Tests in Table A7 and b. Tested to BS 476 Parts 7 and 6

That was not the effect Item 1. of Table A8 had on Paragraph 13., and not how it was written, beginning with "Any" in a list of "Typical performance ratings of some generic materials and products":

"Any non-combustible material or material of limited combustibility. (Composite products listed in Table A7 must meet test requirements given in Appendix A, paragraph 13(b))"

Class 0 in Paragraph 13a. in isolation did mean any Non-Combustible or Limited Combustibility Material, but Paragraph 13 was written as an option, with an "or" between 13a. and 13b. for both "... a material or the surface of a composite product".

Neither Item 1. in Table A8 nor Paragraph 13 were written to say Class 0 could only mean Non-Combustible or Limited Combustibility Material or Composite Product with a Surface.

Paragraph 13b. was not only talking about Composite Product. It is too strict to argue the effect of Item 1. of Table A8 reduced the double-definition of Class 0 in Paragraph 13 of ADBv2 (2006 to 2013) to the binary:

• Material - Limited Combustibility as Table A7 or Non-Combustible as Table A6
• Composite - BS 476-7 [Class 1] and BS 476-6 [Index (I) of ≤12 and a Sub-Index of ≤6]

In normal practice most clients, consultants and contractors, along with the authorities they referred to, would have allowed Class 0 homogenous Materials to be tested to BS 476 Parts 7 and 6, and Composites to be tested Limited Combustibility or Non-Combustible. They understood the four-way form of the double-definition of Class 0.

The Paragraph 13 double-definition of Class 0 could be read in four ways. Although Item 1. of Table A8 certainly suggested it was not sufficient to test a Composite Product Surface to Limited Combustibility alone, and that testing to BS 476 Parts 7 and 6 was required:

• Material - a. Limited Combustibility to Tests in Table A7
• Material - b. Tested to BS 476 Parts 7 and 6
• Composite Product Surface - a. Limited Combustibility to Tests in Table A7 and Tested to BS 476 Parts 7 and 6
• Composite Product Surface - b. Tested to BS 476 Parts 7 and 6

That meant Class 0 could be achieved by a homogeneous Material or a Composite Product tested only to the combination "Pass" criteria of BS 476-7 [Class 1] and BS 476-6 [Index (I) of ≤12 and a Sub-Index of ≤6].

Having obtained Class 0 a homogeneous Material or a Composite Product could be used as the Surface of External Walls as Diagram 40 in ADBv2 (2006 to 2013).

That requirement for Class 0 had not changed since Diagram 36 in ADB (1991), when Class 0 had the same four-way form of the double-definition in Paragraph 12, but without European classification options. Neither Diagram 40 (2002 to 2013) nor Diagram 36 (1991) ever mentioned Limited Combustibility, or insisted upon Class 0 (13a.) or (12a.)

After 2002 the Ministry permitted the alternative of testing Cladding Systems to BS 8414 Fire performance of external cladding systems. Test methods for non-loadbearing external cladding systems applied to the face of a building. But clients, consultants and contractors were not required to test Systems rather than Materials and Products. In any case BS 8414 testing was not universally applicable to the reality of all types of Cladding. Nor is there a lack of criticism of the BS 8414 method. It is not compulsory arguably because it is not a panacea for all forms of construction and architectural arrangement.

Of course clients, consultants and contractors are free to adopt any approach that satisfies the law of the 2010 Building Regulations. Innovation is not illegal, but carries risk. BS 8414 System testing was made available as a stated alternative to following the text of Section 12 of ADBv2 (2006 to 2013). A project could also be Fire Engineered in entirety to BS 7974:2019 Application of fire safety engineering principles to the design of buildings. Code of practice, and the supporting Public Documents. Any approach is accepted if it satisfies the legal requirements, with the assumption that adherence to the statutory guidance of Approved Document text achieves compliance. The ADs are not assumed to be flawed.

When following the text of the Approved Document the External Surfaces of Walls were to achieve Class 0 in the most onerous of cases for building height, proximity to "Relevant Boundary" and use. By 2006 that Class 0 requirement certainly included the surfaces of Materials and Composite Products facing into cavity construction. Cladding was Class 0 because of Diagram 40 (2002 to 2013) and Diagram 36 (1991).

In contrast, Insulation on high-rise buildings was required to be Limited Combustibility, as Paragraph 12.7 of ADBv2 (2006 to 2013), unless BS 8414 tested with all Materials and Products of a Cladding System. What else was BS 8414 for if not combustible Insulation?

At least that appeared to be the understanding of ADBv2 (2006 to 2013) until, in a political response to Grenfell Tower fire, the Ministry published Advice Note 1. on 30 June 2017. In Footnote 4. the Ministry, represented in the Civil Service by Melanie Dawes, insisted:

This was untrue. Unauthentic. An astonishing Ministry Lie that has not yet been admitted to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, chaired by Martin Moore-Bick.

Aluminium Composite Material, like any Composite referred to in Item 1. of Table A8, was to be tested to BS 476 Parts 7 and 6 to achieve Class 0, where it was not BS 8414 tested within a Cladding System. ACM had no core to consider as a "Filler", with "Filler" undefined in ADBv2 (2006 to 2013). ACM was not "Insulation", which would have brought it into Paragraph 12.7. Indeed no Cladding Material or Product as the External Surface of Walls was addressed by Paragraph 12.7 as written, and titled:

Item 8. of Table A7 for Limited Combustibility referred to Paragraph 12.7 for Insulation.

While Item 6. of Table A7 simply recognised that Class 0 Materials in Paragraph 13a. of Appendix A. were required to be Limited Combustibility. The fact that Paragraph 13 applied to all "Lining" Materials, which were not differentiated between External and Internal construction, means that Item 6. of Table A7 referred to more than Cladding.

Item 1. of Table A8 insisted that Limited Combustibility Insulation for high-rise buildings as Item 8. of Table A7 were to be additionally tested to Paragraph 13b. for Class 0 when a Composite Product. That would apply to Foil faced Plastic Foam thermal Insulation.

Item 1. of Table A8 insisted that Limited Combustibility Class 0 Materials as Item 6. of Table A7 were to be additionally tested to Paragraph 13b. when a Composite Product. That is not to say all Class 0 Materials and Products were to be Limited Combustibility. But rather confirms that Paragraph 13b. applied to all Composite Products, whether Limited Combustibility as Paragraph 13a. or not. As follows:

• Material - a. Limited Combustibility to Tests in Table A7; or
• Material - b. Tested to BS 476 Parts 7 and 6; or
• Composite Product - a. Limited Combustibility to Tests in Table A7 and Tested to BS 476 Parts 7 and 6; or
• Composite Product - b. Tested to BS 476 Parts 7 and 6.

The additional cases make sense. Item 1. of Table A8 did not mean Class 0 (National) was only achieved by Table A7 Limited Combustibility or Table A6 Non-Combustibility Materials and Products, because Paragraph 13 of Appendix A. did not say:

• Material - a. Limited Combustibility to Tests in Table A7; unless
• Composite Product - a. Limited Combustibility to Tests in Table A7 and b. Tested to BS 476 Parts 7 and 6.

There were not two but rather four ways to achieve Class 0, with only two requiring Limited Combustibility. But all Composites had to be Class 0 tested to BS 476 Parts 7 and 6.

That approved two ways to achieve Class 0 through testing to BS 476 Parts 7 and 6 alone.

Except in the case of Insulation on high-rise, which was restricted by Paragraph 12.7.

Unlike non-Insulation Materials and Products, such as Cladding.

There were several ways to achieve a Non-Combustible classification in Table A6 and a Limited Combustibility classification in Table A7. But Class 0 was not bound to them.

Non-Combustibility as a National class in Table A6 looked to either BS 476-4:1970 Fire tests on building materials and structures. Non-combustibility test for materials and BS 476-11:1982 Fire tests on building materials and structures. Method for assessing the heat emission from building materials. Limited Combustibility as a National class in Table A7 recognised Table A6 and BS 476-11. Not BS 476 Parts 7 and 6.

The External Surfaces of Walls did not have to exceed one of the four ways to achieve Class 0, when BS 8414 System testing, BS 7974 Fire Engineering or any alternative approach were ignored. But the four ways to Class 0 were not equivalent in their Reaction to Fire.

Composite Product tested to BS 476 Parts 7 and 6 as Paragraph 13 and in accordance with Item 1. of Table A8 could be Cladding compliant with Diagram 40. The fact was that Item 6. of Table A7 was not requiring Cladding to be Limited Combustibility in the way Item 8. of Table A7 and Paragraph 12.7 required Insulation to be Limited Combustibility on high-rise.

The Approved Document had established a Class 0 (13b.) Cladding market, and not only for Composites. Paragraph 13b. meant homogenous Cladding Materials did not need to be Limited Combustibility either. Cladding only needed the combination "Pass" criteria of BS 476-7 [Class 1] and BS 476-6 [Index (I) of ≤12 and a Sub-Index of ≤6] to get to market.

Class 0 (13b.) was the single, simple reason why so much Cladding now deemed defective by the Ministry Lie in Footnote 4. is being identified in the built stock.

Unfortunately Judith Hackitt did not believe me when I told her that on 22 February 2018.

https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/30-minutes-dame-judith-hackitt-approved-document-part-ian-abley/

Any approach is accepted if it satisfies the law of the 2010 Building Regulations. But adherence to statutory guidance in Approved Document Part B text around Class 0 (13b.) was no guarantee that the legal Requirement B4-(1) of Schedule 1. had been satisfied.

The ADs are not assumed to be flawed, but there was a flaw in Class 0 (13b.) that stood without Ministry correction for decades. Attracting novelties in Modern Methods of Construction that commercially pushed the technical boundaries of Paragraph 13.

The Grenfell Tower Inquiry is trying to identify who went beyond the flaw for Cladding in Paragraph 13b., or the restriction on Insulation in Paragraph 12.7. They are not assisted by the false Footnote 4. conflation of Cladding with Paragraph 12.7.

Trying to cover for Class 0 (13b.) with the Ministry Lie of Footnote 4. was a flimsy political mistake that should have been corrected by an admission to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.

The authors of statutory guidance must admit combustible Cladding was approved.