Tower Block Fire

13567…18

Comments

  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    bompington wrote:
    Capt Slog wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    Graeme_S wrote:
    "Put it this way, you’re meant to work on a fire for a maximum of four hours, we’ve been here for 12."
    Simple then! If it wasn't for the evil Tories then we'd have 3 times as many firefighters and everything would have been fine :roll:

    Oh good grief! In how many more threads have we got to have these arguments?
    That was my point. There's obviously a place for investigation, and if negligence or wrongdoing is found then appropriate action: but an awful lot of people seem really delighted - and I mean exactly that - to have a golden opportunity to bash the Evil Torees and the Evil Landlords

    thats an outrageous thing to say and utterly untrue.

    Maybe you should take off your right wing glasses and look at the fact that a very similar fire took place in 2009, the fire door held but spread very quickly through the ceiling and killed 6 people, a report done, recommendations advised, 4 years later.... absolutely nothing done, but thats all ok isnt it?
    the residents complain again and again... nothing done.

    the real scandal isnt that people are questioning what the heck has gone on but that people like you think that we must not question our lords and masters.
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    mamba80 wrote:
    people like you think that we must not question our lords and masters.
    bompington actually wrote:
    There's obviously a place for investigation, and if negligence or wrongdoing is found then appropriate action

    :?:
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    bompington wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    people like you think that we must not question our lords and masters.
    bompington actually wrote:
    There's obviously a place for investigation, and if negligence or wrongdoing is found then appropriate action

    :?:



    we had a report and investigation in 2009 and the Gov did absolutely nothing, carried on and clad the building in materials linked to other fires in hi rise buildings throughout the world.

    the appropriate action taken after 2009 was a 500k fine for the council woo weee!

    why dont you read this?
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... wer-blocks

    a guy on R4 this said we need to learn from countries like Brazil, who have tougher fire regs than we do....
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,223
    The sandwich panels used on the cladding here have become the norm in the construction of industrial, commercial and high rise buildings and most jobs I've worked on in the last decade other than traditional housing have used them in some form. Often the building structure is simply a steel from with these panels being slotted in to create the external fabric as it provides a quick, easy, fairly cheap and energy efficient shell.

    I took a look at one of the main manufacturers websites as I wanted to see if there was anything about testing for fire resistance.

    http://www.eurobond.co.uk

    One of the first things it mentions is the insulation is fire resistant. I wonder if that has been an urgent website update? It also suggests that fire resistance isn't an essential factor of the BS covering their manufacture which backs up what someone posted earlier. If that is the case it would appear to be a massive oversight, the images of the fire looks like it isn't just not fire resistant but burns fiercely

    Edit - the news just showed someone setting fire to insulation used in some of these panels and it really does burn quickly and pretty easily.
  • Lookyhere
    Lookyhere Posts: 987
    As i understand it, the fire regs apply to the outer skin not the polyurethane material we saw being burnt on TV.

    Yet again we are or will be seeing the Government having to justify either spending cuts and/or lack of action where there has been loss of life.
  • capt_slog
    capt_slog Posts: 3,965
    bompington wrote:
    Capt Slog wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    Graeme_S wrote:
    "Put it this way, you’re meant to work on a fire for a maximum of four hours, we’ve been here for 12."
    Simple then! If it wasn't for the evil Tories then we'd have 3 times as many firefighters and everything would have been fine :roll:

    Oh good grief! In how many more threads have we got to have these arguments?
    That was my point. There's obviously a place for investigation, and if negligence or wrongdoing is found then appropriate action: but an awful lot of people seem really delighted - and I mean exactly that - to have a golden opportunity to bash the Evil Torees and the Evil Landlords

    Apologies Bomp.

    My comment wasn't aimed at you specifically, it was exasperation at the way threads seems to go this direction lately.


    The older I get, the better I was.

  • Lookyhere
    Lookyhere Posts: 987
    Capt Slog wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    Capt Slog wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    Graeme_S wrote:
    "Put it this way, you’re meant to work on a fire for a maximum of four hours, we’ve been here for 12."
    Simple then! If it wasn't for the evil Tories then we'd have 3 times as many firefighters and everything would have been fine :roll:

    Oh good grief! In how many more threads have we got to have these arguments?
    That was my point. There's obviously a place for investigation, and if negligence or wrongdoing is found then appropriate action: but an awful lot of people seem really delighted - and I mean exactly that - to have a golden opportunity to bash the Evil Torees and the Evil Landlords

    Apologies Bomp.

    My comment wasn't aimed at you specifically, it was exasperation at the way threads seems to go this direction lately.

    It seems to me that these threads go this way because the right of centre forumites will tolerate no criticism of their Governments policies or lack of.
    So their response is to say "we must wait for an investigation/it is too early and we must respect the dead" etc etc in other words lets just forget about it and move on, these things rarely happen.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,223
    Or alternatively because 'lefties' jump to conclusions and want to blame the government with no idea of the cause or mitigating factors. Personally I'd rather people concentrate on the impacts and let experts determine what happened and why and if there have been delays in implementing previous recommendations then these need to be explained.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 19,677
    Pross wrote:
    The sandwich panels used on the cladding here have become the norm in the construction of industrial, commercial and high rise buildings and most jobs I've worked on in the last decade other than traditional housing have used them in some form. Often the building structure is simply a steel from with these panels being slotted in to create the external fabric as it provides a quick, easy, fairly cheap and energy efficient shell.

    I took a look at one of the main manufacturers websites as I wanted to see if there was anything about testing for fire resistance.

    http://www.eurobond.co.uk

    One of the first things it mentions is the insulation is fire resistant. I wonder if that has been an urgent website update? It also suggests that fire resistance isn't an essential factor of the BS covering their manufacture which backs up what someone posted earlier. If that is the case it would appear to be a massive oversight, the images of the fire looks like it isn't just not fire resistant but burns fiercely

    Edit - the news just showed someone setting fire to insulation used in some of these panels and it really does burn quickly and pretty easily.
    An interesting comparison from an Australian fire: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... fell-tower
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Pross wrote:
    Or alternatively because 'lefties' jump to conclusions and want to blame the government with no idea of the cause or mitigating factors. Personally I'd rather people concentrate on the impacts and let experts determine what happened and why and if there have been delays in implementing previous recommendations then these need to be explained.

    Tenants complaining of landlords putting their safety and health at risk in the interest of profits is as old as time.

    It is, and always was, a political issue, and, like it or not, it cuts to the heart of what a lot of people find difficult with capitalism.

    To suggest it's not political, and that people shouldn't use it as such, is to ignore what politics is all about.

    Now, you can argue whether it's applicable in this instance, but if you look at where it is; one of the most unequal areas in the whole of Europe (where the super rich live two streets down from the genuinely poor), and you have tenants relentlessly having their genuine safety concerns ignored by the landlord, who presumably turns in a profit on the building, you can see why people are drawing those conclusions.
    _
  • Lookyhere
    Lookyhere Posts: 987
    Pross wrote:
    Or alternatively because 'lefties' jump to conclusions and want to blame the government with no idea of the cause or mitigating factors. Personally I'd rather people concentrate on the impacts and let experts determine what happened and why and if there have been delays in implementing previous recommendations then these need to be explained.

    So, Government have a report and recommendations, plus from the Coroner, do absolutely nothing for 4 years, but the moment someone questions why, you are suddenly called a leftie and how dare you raise these points :roll:
    Experts wrote this report on the Lakenall fire and what exactly changed?

    Unfortunately, its this attitude that means that no doubt the next report wont be acted on either, in a few years time we ll have another fire and who said deference was dead?

    You and others dont seem to realise that Government should be held to account, by the electorate inc Labour who did change the regs on fire sprinklers for new build but not for older buildings, why weren't older buildings included? the shadow housing minister didn't answer!
  • Moonbiker
    Moonbiker Posts: 1,706
    This is the cladding material used on the building by the contractors:

    https://www.celotex.co.uk/products/rs5000

    Certification
    Celotex RS5000 is a premium performance solution and
    is the first PIR board to successfully meet the performance
    criteria set out in BR 135 for rainscreen clading systems.
    The system tested was as follows:
    • 12mm Fibre Cement Panels
    • Supporting aluminium brackets and vertical rails
    • 100mm Celotex RS5000
    • 12mm Non-combustible sheathing board
    • 100mm SFS System
    • 2 x 12.5mm plasterboard
    The fire performance and classification report issued only
    relates to the components detailed above. Any changes to
    the components listed will need to be considered by the
    building designer.

    Wonder if it was installed as spec above ot not......
  • Moonbiker
    Moonbiker Posts: 1,706
    Part of the reasons the clading was used is being reported as to "improve view form nearby luxury flats"

    Not sure if thats true but wouldn't be surprised......
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,815
    mamba80 wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    people like you think that we must not question our lords and masters.
    bompington actually wrote:
    There's obviously a place for investigation, and if negligence or wrongdoing is found then appropriate action

    :?:



    we had a report and investigation in 2009 and the Gov did absolutely nothing, carried on and clad the building in materials linked to other fires in hi rise buildings throughout the world.

    the appropriate action taken after 2009 was a 500k fine for the council woo weee!

    why dont you read this?
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... wer-blocks

    a guy on R4 this said we need to learn from countries like Brazil, who have tougher fire regs than we do....

    Even in that article, one of the experts says “Whatever cladding system you use, you have to incorporate fire stops at the line of each floorplate and every party wall around a dwelling to prevent fire from spreading up the facade. The current regulations are robust enough, but they have to be properly followed, and the architects drawings properly executed on site.”

    Jumping to conclusions informed by one's own political viewpoint means there is a chance that that the wrong changes will be made, and less importantly that money and effort will be wasted.
  • mr_goo
    mr_goo Posts: 3,770
    Moonbiker wrote:
    This is the cladding material used on the building by the contractors:

    https://www.celotex.co.uk/products/rs5000

    Certification
    Celotex RS5000 is a premium performance solution and
    is the first PIR board to successfully meet the performance
    criteria set out in BR 135 for rainscreen clading systems.
    The system tested was as follows:
    • 12mm Fibre Cement Panels
    • Supporting aluminium brackets and vertical rails
    • 100mm Celotex RS5000
    • 12mm Non-combustible sheathing board
    • 100mm SFS System
    • 2 x 12.5mm plasterboard
    The fire performance and classification report issued only
    relates to the components detailed above. Any changes to
    the components listed will need to be considered by the
    building designer.

    Wonder if it was installed as spec above ot not......

    What I don't understand is why a manufacturer would not want to get full fire resistance certification on a product that has a potential risk. It has nothing to do with government cut backs. I've worked for manufacturers in the past where they've had to change component mixtures to ensure that their product is fire resistant to class 0, all at their own costs. And that was on specialist sanitary ware for secure units going into prisons and other secure units.
    Don't understand the Celotex stance on this. Class 0 is surely the standard that all should aspire for when manufacturing building envelope materials.
    Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.
  • craigus89
    craigus89 Posts: 887
    Mr Goo wrote:
    What I don't understand is why a manufacturer would not want to get full fire resistance certification on a product that has a potential risk.

    Why would they do something that would cost a lot of money that they aren't required to do?

    There is a lot more to fire protection than just simply what materials are used. In the vast majority of cases that I've experienced where there is some kind of problem with a building such as water getting in or leaks, the first thing people do is jump to the conclusion that the roof material must have failed or not be up to specification. That is VERY rarely the case, in the vast majority of cases it is down to workmanship and corners being cut as it's 3pm Friday and Shaun wants to get down the pub and knows no one will see if he doesn't go all the way back to the van to get that extra cavity barrier as it will all be sealed up and out of sight anyway.

    That is the reality of these situations, I'm not sure whether this would be able to be proved anyway looking at the extent of the damage, so I'm sure the cladding company will be the scapegoat.
  • Lookyhere
    Lookyhere Posts: 987
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    people like you think that we must not question our lords and masters.
    bompington actually wrote:
    There's obviously a place for investigation, and if negligence or wrongdoing is found then appropriate action

    :?:



    we had a report and investigation in 2009 and the Gov did absolutely nothing, carried on and clad the building in materials linked to other fires in hi rise buildings throughout the world.

    the appropriate action taken after 2009 was a 500k fine for the council woo weee!

    why dont you read this?
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... wer-blocks

    a guy on R4 this said we need to learn from countries like Brazil, who have tougher fire regs than we do....

    Even in that article, one of the experts says “Whatever cladding system you use, you have to incorporate fire stops at the line of each floorplate and every party wall around a dwelling to prevent fire from spreading up the facade. The current regulations are robust enough, but they have to be properly followed, and the architects drawings properly executed on site.”

    Jumping to conclusions informed by one's own political viewpoint means there is a chance that that the wrong changes will be made, and less importantly that money and effort will be wasted.

    Are you suggesting that the opinions of BR members will be acted upon?
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,815
    Lookyhere wrote:

    Are you suggesting that the opinions of BR members will be acted upon?

    I assume that the views expressed here are also expressed elsewhere. If there is a groundswell of "something must be done", then something will be done. I'd be in favour of waiting to find out what the cause of the fire spreading so catastrophically was, and what is the correct thing to do to prevent something like this happening again (based on at least initial investigation), then doing that.
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    people like you think that we must not question our lords and masters.
    bompington actually wrote:
    There's obviously a place for investigation, and if negligence or wrongdoing is found then appropriate action

    :?:

    we had a report and investigation in 2009 and the Gov did absolutely nothing, carried on and clad the building in materials linked to other fires in hi rise buildings throughout the world.

    the appropriate action taken after 2009 was a 500k fine for the council woo weee!

    why dont you read this?
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... wer-blocks

    a guy on R4 this said we need to learn from countries like Brazil, who have tougher fire regs than we do....

    Even in that article, one of the experts says “Whatever cladding system you use, you have to incorporate fire stops at the line of each floorplate and every party wall around a dwelling to prevent fire from spreading up the facade. The current regulations are robust enough, but they have to be properly followed, and the architects drawings properly executed on site.”

    Jumping to conclusions informed by one's own political viewpoint means there is a chance that that the wrong changes will be made, and less importantly that money and effort will be wasted.

    waiting 4 years is nt jumping to conclusions. money and effort has in deed been wasted, how much is it going to cost to demolish rebuild this site and rehouse these 500 residents? whats the bet that it wont be repleced with social housing?

    as for a law suit, tenants cant get legal aid anymore, which no doubt helps landlords do exactly what they want.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,223
    Lookyhere wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    Or alternatively because 'lefties' jump to conclusions and want to blame the government with no idea of the cause or mitigating factors. Personally I'd rather people concentrate on the impacts and let experts determine what happened and why and if there have been delays in implementing previous recommendations then these need to be explained.

    So, Government have a report and recommendations, plus from the Coroner, do absolutely nothing for 4 years, but the moment someone questions why, you are suddenly called a leftie and how dare you raise these points :roll:
    Experts wrote this report on the Lakenall fire and what exactly changed?

    Unfortunately, its this attitude that means that no doubt the next report wont be acted on either, in a few years time we ll have another fire and who said deference was dead?

    You and others dont seem to realise that Government should be held to account, by the electorate inc Labour who did change the regs on fire sprinklers for new build but not for older buildings, why weren't older buildings included? the shadow housing minister didn't answer!

    I'm not suggesting the points shouldn't be raised, of course they should. My issue is with the assumption that nothing has been done, it could be that it is going through the process. Unfortunately, Regulations often take years to be amended due to the whole process of finding Parliamentary time, consulting, reviewing responses, amending proposals etc. You could argue, reasonably, that the process should be speeded up in the case of Regulations that affect safety but then the danger is you get knee jerk and impractical legislation. For all we know new regulations may be agreed and coming into force in a few weeks. Applying building regulations retrospectively is always going to be near impossible unfortunately.

    Incidentally, the Welsh Government had proposed making sprinklers compulsory in all new build houses but I think they have since dropped the proposal after opposition from house builders who said the cost would be prohibitive. There is also the insurance issue of sprinklers going off when they shouldn't (I used to do a lot of work with a supermarket that stopped installing sprinklers for that very reason). High rise, however, is another matter. The biggest issue here seems to be that the equipment that is already a legal requirement didn't function as it should have for some reason.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,223
    Moonbiker wrote:
    Part of the reasons the clading was used is being reported as to "improve view form nearby luxury flats"

    Not sure if thats true but wouldn't be surprised......

    I would be, it's being used on similar buildings all over the country and I believe it is to provide weather proofing (and possibly improved insulation).
  • narbs
    narbs Posts: 593
    So May visits the site and talks to, um, none of the residents.

    She's a walking disaster.
  • fenix
    fenix Posts: 5,437
    She's not spoken to any members of the public for weeks has she ? All the stage managed meet and greets in the election campaign. She's not a people person is she ?
  • bendertherobot
    bendertherobot Posts: 11,684
    The lady's not for turning.
    My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
    https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
    Facebook? No. Just say no.
  • dinyull
    dinyull Posts: 2,979
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    people like you think that we must not question our lords and masters.
    bompington actually wrote:
    There's obviously a place for investigation, and if negligence or wrongdoing is found then appropriate action

    :?:



    we had a report and investigation in 2009 and the Gov did absolutely nothing, carried on and clad the building in materials linked to other fires in hi rise buildings throughout the world.

    the appropriate action taken after 2009 was a 500k fine for the council woo weee!

    why dont you read this?
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... wer-blocks

    a guy on R4 this said we need to learn from countries like Brazil, who have tougher fire regs than we do....

    The current regulations are robust enough, but they have to be properly followed, and the architects drawings properly executed on site.”

    And you wouldn't believe how often this doesn't happen.

    Work in a similar line of work to Architecture, and on almost EVERY job the incorrect revision drawing or artistic licence is used. Despite doing all of the contractors thinking for them on clear and concise drawings.

    And then contractors usually simply refuse to carry out anything but the easiest of snagging works, because they know most clients just fold and sign off the work.
  • bobmcstuff
    bobmcstuff Posts: 11,400
    Pross wrote:
    Lookyhere wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    Or alternatively because 'lefties' jump to conclusions and want to blame the government with no idea of the cause or mitigating factors. Personally I'd rather people concentrate on the impacts and let experts determine what happened and why and if there have been delays in implementing previous recommendations then these need to be explained.

    So, Government have a report and recommendations, plus from the Coroner, do absolutely nothing for 4 years, but the moment someone questions why, you are suddenly called a leftie and how dare you raise these points :roll:
    Experts wrote this report on the Lakenall fire and what exactly changed?

    Unfortunately, its this attitude that means that no doubt the next report wont be acted on either, in a few years time we ll have another fire and who said deference was dead?

    You and others dont seem to realise that Government should be held to account, by the electorate inc Labour who did change the regs on fire sprinklers for new build but not for older buildings, why weren't older buildings included? the shadow housing minister didn't answer!

    I'm not suggesting the points shouldn't be raised, of course they should. My issue is with the assumption that nothing has been done, it could be that it is going through the process. Unfortunately, Regulations often take years to be amended due to the whole process of finding Parliamentary time, consulting, reviewing responses, amending proposals etc. You could argue, reasonably, that the process should be speeded up in the case of Regulations that affect safety but then the danger is you get knee jerk and impractical legislation. For all we know new regulations may be agreed and coming into force in a few weeks. Applying building regulations retrospectively is always going to be near impossible unfortunately.

    Incidentally, the Welsh Government had proposed making sprinklers compulsory in all new build houses but I think they have since dropped the proposal after opposition from house builders who said the cost would be prohibitive. There is also the insurance issue of sprinklers going off when they shouldn't (I used to do a lot of work with a supermarket that stopped installing sprinklers for that very reason). High rise, however, is another matter. The biggest issue here seems to be that the equipment that is already a legal requirement didn't function as it should have for some reason.

    My understanding was that the tests used on the majority of panels don't necessarily reflect reality. I.e., the PUR panels will pass the test conditions but not in real life scenarios. The UK has been switching from polyurethane to polyisocyanurate which is harder to burn. But the Grenfell building, despite being a recent modification, still used PUR.

    Article from last year on the topic:
    http://www.probyn-miers.com/perspective ... om-the-uk/
    In the UK, influence from insurers and technical development within the composite panel industry has led to cores of polymer-cored external cladding panels changing from PUR to PIR to phenolic foam, decreasing the fire hazard.

    The fire performance of external cladding panels is not always understood, even by architects and specifiers, and the issues are not straightforward. The architect / specifier may have difficulty interpreting a composite panel manufacturer’s specification.

    Class 1 to British Standard (BS) 476-7 is often cited. This is a small scale test, which limits the allowable spread of flame over the surface of a construction product after ignition by a pilot flame after 1½ and 10 minutes. The metal face of a composite panel may resist the application of a pilot flame in such surface testing.

    We took a call to the office yesterday morning asking if we would go on CNN to talk about the fire, I think they were looking for a nice bit of speculation.
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,310
    Polyurethane cladding? Jesus Christ, is this legal?
    left the forum March 2023
  • bobmcstuff
    bobmcstuff Posts: 11,400
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    Polyurethane cladding? Jesus Christ, is this legal?

    It's sandwiched between metal sheets so it is able to pass the small scale tests.

    Technology has moved on but the regulations have not (for various reasons...)
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,310
    bobmcstuff wrote:
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    Polyurethane cladding? Jesus Christ, is this legal?

    It's sandwiched between metal sheets so it is able to pass the small scale tests.

    Technology has moved on but the regulations have not (for various reasons...)

    Horrible... there are responsibilities, clearly
    left the forum March 2023
  • mr_goo
    mr_goo Posts: 3,770
    Craigus89 wrote:
    Mr Goo wrote:
    What I don't understand is why a manufacturer would not want to get full fire resistance certification on a product that has a potential risk.

    Why would they do something that would cost a lot of money that they aren't required to do?

    There is a lot more to fire protection than just simply what materials are used. In the vast majority of cases that I've experienced where there is some kind of problem with a building such as water gett8ing in or leaks, the first thing people do is jump to the conclusion that the roof material must have failed or not be up to specification. That is VERY rarely the case, in the vast majority of cases it is down to workmanship and corners being cut as it's 3pm Friday and Shaun wants to get down the pub and knows no one will see if he doesn't go all the way back to the van to get that extra cavity barrier as it will all be sealed up and out of sight anyway.

    That is the reality of these situations, I'm not sure whether this would be able to be proved anyway looking at the extent of the damage, so I'm sure the cladding company will be the scapegoat.

    Not just poor workmanship but mostly the contractor breaking spec and using cheapest products they can get away with. They only have to keep their fingers that nothing goes wrong in first 10 years and then they're all good.
    Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.

Categories