- 31,738
- Buckwheat City
- Dennisch
That has been a very sharp observation by the PM.
The Grenfell Tower Fire
- Thread starter TRGTspecialist
- 196 comments
- 6,266 views
That has been a very sharp observation by the PM.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Virtually all building materials are combustible at one level or another, that's why they're rated by retardation. I think her meaning is taken to be that these were too easily combustible. Iirc the cladding should resist fire for an hour - that doesn't appear to have happened.
But yes, it's pretty obvious
- 31,738
- Buckwheat City
- Dennisch
Now, now, no need for that.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
In my jurisdiction the materials allowed to be used can vary depending on the height of the building and other factors. I wouldn't be surprised to learn if the material in question was approved here for use in 2 or 3 story structures but nothing higher. Curious to see what the regs are there regarding this specific material. This should be a scandal that dwarfs just about everything else.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
I believe I already posted them.
EDIT: Indeed I did. The appropriate British Safety standards are listed therein.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Further to the above (@Johnnypenso will probably be interested in this) Camden council have tested the cladding on their renovated tower blocks and are removing it.
In a first hint of where some culpability may eventually be found to lie the renovations were carried out by the same company who renovated the Grenfell tower.
In a first hint of where some culpability may eventually be found to lie the renovations were carried out by the same company who renovated the Grenfell tower.
Council Leader Georgia Gould
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
And now the legal battle ensues. Were the contractors forthright in their use of the material or was their some subterfuge at work? Who knew what and when?
Tired Tyres
Premium
- 12,624
- West Yorkshire
- Tired_Tyres
- Tired Tyres
And that can't have anything to do with the council selecting the cheapest quote presented for a project now does it?
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Hard to say - nobody should be providing a quote that uses illegal materials. Camden seem clear that the material that was fitted wasn't what they'd asked for, the implication is that the contractor substituted a (presumably) even cheaper material.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
It would be fair to presume that the material has to achieve the standard set out in the appropriate British Safety standard minimums quoted in the fire regs. If the material achieves those standards then arguably the regulations are wrong (ie too lax) and the contractor has done nothing wrong. If British Safety standards were specified (which they must have been by default) and the material falls short of those then the contractor has some serious questions to answer, possibly from prison.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Also, no one should be accepting quotes with material that doesn't meet specs. On top of that, there's an inspection process. Building inspectors visit these sites many, many times during the construction/renovation process. If the materials were unacceptable it should have been spotted at that time. The only way this thing could fall on the contractor IMO, is through massive subterfuge, bribery and deliberate misrepresentation of the materials being used through some kind of forging of documents or a payoff to the appropriate officials to look the other way. We pay for a massive bureaucracy to prevent these things happening, yet, right out in the open, unapproved materials were used to renovate this and other buildings. I'd like to know how this massive subterfuge occurred supposedly 600 times without a single building inspector or other official catching on.
Last edited:
- 15,925
- wrexham
- jameskent86451
- Jamobomb86
The Artists For Grenfall charity song 'Bridge Over Troubled Water' made it to number one in the UK official chart, which is extraordinary considering it was only released on Wednesday!, its the biggest selling single of the year so far by miles and it had the most downloads on the opening day in this decade!
Credit where its due to Simon Cowell and everyone who took part in this, its amazing!
Credit where its due to Simon Cowell and everyone who took part in this, its amazing!
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
It's a complete over reaction to the issue.
Should alternative accommodation be offered to those that want it, yes.
Should additional fire risk control measures be put in place, yes.
Should hundreds of families be forced from their home by a councillor just trying to cover their arse from all possible liability. No.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
It's the fire brigade who've said that they cannot guarantee the safety of residents given the nature of the materials in the construction*. "All possible liability" includes the possibility of the building catching fire and the fire brigade being unable to get enough water onto the exterior above the first few storeys. That fire is extremely unlikely to occur but if it did then what would be the first question people would ask in the aftermath?
*EDIT: This is despite the council offering to foot the bill for temporary fire stations to be located adjacent to the blocks. If a fire starts like Grenfell it simply cannot be stopped in those materials and, when it spreads, access to a building of that type is too difficult to fight the fire internally - Grenfell burnt for at least 2 days iirc.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Where are these hundred of families to be accommodated? Who is paying for it? Is this a mandatory evacuation enforced by punishment of arrest and forcible treatment?
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
I see your point (I think) - my own view is that families with children shouldn't be given the option to stay while those without children should be allowed to do so. Evacuees will be in sports halls and the like (the usual emergency accomodation) and then, one would hope, allocated other properties from available housing stock. Dependent on the available housing stock, naturally.
EDIT: I am also reading that hotels are being booked.
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
The fire brigade can't guarantee the safety of anyone, never have and never will. They are part of the mitigation, not the solution for all fire risks.
Introducing a wireless fire alarm system shouldn't be difficult, even if that means it goes off with the toaster. Additional fire extinguishers throughout the building and if necessary trained staff on site to assess, fight and manage an evacuation for the time it takes to remove the cladding.
I'm all for offering the option of alternative accommodation but I feel they've gone way too far in this instance.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
The issues aren't just the cladding though, it also seems that some fire doors are missing and that new gas piping uses conduits/routes that aren't up to the safety standard. Evacuation assistance may be little use if a fire reaches a stairwell or if everybody needs to leave at once - that's the whole reason for the "self-containment" systems of the original designs.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
NY Times article comprehensively supplies plenty of blame for the tower fire. Must read.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/24/world/europe/grenfell-tower-london-fire.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/24/world/europe/grenfell-tower-london-fire.html
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
It seems to completely ignore what the Fire Regulations say though. If the aluminium/polyurethane cladding behaves as they say then it doesn't pass the required British Safety standards by a long chalk. Above a certain number of storeys the material has to resist combustion for a full hour - that so obviously didn't happen.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
If the regulations are adequate then no, the fault doesn't lie in the nature of the written regulations.
Yes, definitely.
Agreed. The company responsible for the tower renovation (and the renovation of other towers whose cladding has failed safety checks) has gone bankrupt, a common trick for companies wishing to avoid large fiscal damages. The only cases that can now stand are against the individuals in any proven decision chain.
Similar threads
