fire in London tower block

[tamperman36]

I would like to offer my deepest sympophies to all those families who have lost friends and relatives in the horrific fire in the London tower block, and those who have lost there homes.

I'd like to thank all those who work for the emergency services who once again turned out in there masses to such a horrific scene

And wish the local comunity my best wishes for the way they are pulling together to help out those who have lost everything.

[kevinlms]

Sadly, its a problem likely to be repeated, since a significant factor seems to be the use of dodgy cladding. Similar cladding has been used in many high rise buildings, around the world.

 

There was a fire on the 13th floor of an apartment block, in Melbourne yesterday. Fortunately a small fire brought under control very quickly, but residents must have been a bit alarmed.

[Legend]

It's been a long time since an incident has really shocked me like this. Thoughts are with everyone involved . It is horrific.

 

I work for a big corporation who takes health and safety extremely seriously, to the extent that some find it intrusive . I know not every company is like this, but my overall view of Great Britain was similar. You can see it in some threads on here where we laugh about Health and Safety officials. To me that's a good sign that H&S is prevalent through all aspects of society. I really thought that GB had great Fire Safety Standards and Building Controls , amongst other things,which is why I'm aghast (really I'm struggling for words) that something like this could happen.

 

I remember the Kings Cross fire. Dust in the escalator ignited, but one of the key issues was the cladding in tunnels which spread the fire. For years after the Underground looked like a building site as all cladding was taken down. Local to me the Clyde tunnel had its cladding removed for the same reason. So we learned lessons . Eventually cladding was replaced with fire proof material.How could we then coat a high rise building with cladding? Yes I know someone will say it's different but it's not really , it's all too obvious now that it's combustible . And my shock is that no one realised this. Did it not occur to someone that this would happen, were there no tests carried out? I know hindsight is a great thing but given our controls shouldn't this have been spotted. I think this is what's shaken me the most . I thought we had stringent protections and we seemingly don't. Have people just been box ticking are our strong Health and Safety laws an illusion? Add to this the lack of sprinklers and an alarm that did not alert people , I'm almost incredulous. Really we failed these people , as soon as that fire started it looks like they had little chance.

 

I'm so sorry for those involved. A nightmare scenario.

Edited June 15, 2017 by Legend

[Oldddudders]

It's been a long time since an incident has really shocked me like this. Thoughts are with everyone involved . It is horrific.

You cannot be the only one who has been so affected, and in the best tradition of 'ill winds' that collective angst may cause a public concern that means Mrs May will announce an independent inquiry. Lots of very dirty laundry will get washed there. And legislation will follow.

 

I do hope so.

[bike2steam]

You cannot be the only one who has been so affected, and in the best tradition of 'ill winds' that collective angst may cause a public concern that means Mrs May will announce an independent inquiry. Lots of very dirty laundry will get washed there. And legislation will follow.

 

I do hope so.

In the 1960's an evil landlord by the name of Rachman ruffled the feathers of many politicians who vowed to do away with his style of slums, it seems his spirit is still alive, and well.

Edited June 15, 2017 by bike2steam

[tamperman36]

now is not the time to speculate and point fingers, we should let those who are trained and knowledgable about these issues do there jobs and give out true and acurate information before we start demanding answers then real solutions can be worked out.

I did not start this thread for finger pointing or political debate so please don't.

 

I started this thread to pass on our thoughts and best wishes to all those caught up in this horrific incident.

[bike2steam]

now is not the time to speculate and point fingers, we should let those who are trained and knowledgable about these issues do there jobs and give out true and acurate information before we start demanding answers then real solutions can be worked out.

I did not start this thread for finger pointing or political debate so please don't.

 

I started this thread to pass on our thoughts and best wishes to all those caught up in this horrific incident.

I do appreciate that, but it has to be said the whole episode leading up to the horrific event, as seen on tv, does open a particularly nasty can of worms.

[DougN]

Sadly, its a problem likely to be repeated, since a significant factor seems to be the use of dodgy cladding. Similar cladding has been used in many high rise buildings, around the world.

 

There was a fire on the 13th floor of an apartment block, in Melbourne yesterday. Fortunately a small fire brought under control very quickly, but residents must have been a bit alarmed.

Kevin I think you may have jumped in on this a bit too quickly. As this is something I am acutely aware off and well qualified in. The cladding system because that is what it is, is quite complex as the acm is a large and varied material. The problem here in the lacrosse building was the supplier was specified by the developer which was provided to the building surveyor! So is the builder at fault? As they only followed the documentation they were contracted to supply!

 

One thing I am stunned at is the lack of a fire sprinkler system in the building. I doubt there is any buildings over 5 stories here in Australia that have yet to be fitted or fitted during construction. There is a statistic that 95% of fires in a sprinklered building are put out by 1 sprinkler head or 99.99998% are put out by 2 heads. The most important thing is since the invention of the sprinklers as we know them, there has been no loss of life due to fire in a sprinklered building. Now this is all from memory and uni was 20 years ago!

 

My simpathies are with those effected and from a professional point of view I am interested in the causes and end ramifications for the built environment in the uk. I doubt that there will be any effects to the Australian industry due to this as it has already been modified and discussed at length between the professional institutes of AIBS (Aust, bldg, surveyo) AIB (Aust. Insititue of Building) RAIA, Engineers Australia, AIQS.

[phil-b259]

One thing I am stunned at is the lack of a fire sprinkler system in the building. I doubt there is any buildings over 5 stories here in Australia that have yet to be fitted or fitted during construction. There is a statistic that 95% of fires in a sprinklered building are put out by 1 sprinkler head or 99.99998% are put out by 2 heads. The most important thing is since the invention of the sprinklers as we know them, there has been no loss of life due to fire in a sprinklered building. Now this is all from memory and uni was 20 years ago!

 

 

This is one of the downsides of making certain building regs only apply to new construction. I believe that it has now been mandatory for sprinkler systems to be fitted to new build tower blocks for over two decades now, but NOT mandatory retro fitting such systems to existing blocks blocks unless the building houses certain specific types of accommodation (e.g. student halls of residence) as per the wording of the legislation. As such its all too easy for those planning refurbishment schemes to claim to cost of fitting such things is too great to the overall scheme and the law will back them up.

Edited June 15, 2017 by phil-b259

[Legend]

It sounds like In terms of protection and regulation Australia is where I thought the UK was .

 

I am still incredulous . Didnt anyone test the fire alarm to see if it could be heard in the flats? I'm not into attributing blame or chucking people into prison. All I want is to make sure that our regulations are stringent, real and being enforced and regularly tested. I really am shaken that this could happen in the UK in 2017.

[phil-b259]

It sounds like In terms of protection and regulation Australia is where I thought the UK was .

 

I am still incredulous . Didnt anyone test the fire alarm to see if it could be heard in the flats? I'm not into attributing blame or chucking people into prison. All I want is to make sure that our regulations are stringent, real and being enforced and regularly tested. I really am shaken that this could happen in the UK in 2017.

 

Again around 5 years or so ago the legislation changed and stripped the Fire Brigade of the official duty to inspect and issue fire safety advice to residents of high rise blocks - with that duty being transferred to the buildings owners.

 

I assume this is an extension of the principle applied to railways where the HMRI do not tell companies what to do any more, with the Government effectively privatising the process by telling companies / individuals they must 'buy in' the services of a 'competent person / body' to verify the companies plans are safe / comply with legislation such as ROGS

 

This in turn allows the budgets and staff numbers employed by Government bodies to be reduced, with those organisations thus in theory being more focused on their 'core' duties while in theory boasting private sector employment as providers of safety advice compete in the market place .

 

The downside of this approch is that it becomes very easy for commercial considerations to trump safety. E.g. Not fitting sprinklers because the law says you don't have too rather than going ahead anyway because its widely considered best practice.

 

As ever this obsession by certain politicians that 'more competition' is the sole route to a better society is not necessarily bourne out by the facts.

[DougN]

Well I am a little stunned still that the UK doesn't have the same standards of building regulations that Australia has. The NCC national constuction code (volumes 1,2 or 3) this is free to look at and use. The buildings I am involved with at the moment al, have the fire brigade reports, engineering fire reports on top of the usual building surveying reports before the permit is issued. Then once all of that is done and the at the completion the fire brigade come through and complete the sign off. All of this is required before people move in!

 

I can see the CIOB, and RICS talking to the ABCB about the regulations we have to see how this could be better managed.

 

I was reading up on the sprinklers out of interest... any building over 25m high must have sprinklers. Here in Australia. Below that it is a question of economics but as the sprinklers are cheaper than most other solutions down to 12m in height most buildings over 3 stories have them.

[Glorious NSE]

I am still incredulous . Didnt anyone test the fire alarm to see if it could be heard in the flats? I'm not into attributing blame or chucking people into prison. All I want is to make sure that our regulations are stringent, real and being enforced and regularly tested. I really am shaken that this could happen in the UK in 2017.

I think there will undoubtedly be more to come out on this (and many other things) - but it may be that the alarms were only set to sound locally to where the fire is - otherwise you have a structure with 120+ households and up to 600 people and everyone has to react every time somebody burns the toast / somebody thinks that hitting an alarm button at 1am on the way back from the pub is a jolly jape - that kind of thing would cause widespread disregard of any alarms in short order.

 

And if that's the case, it may be that a strong fire burning largely on the outside of the building may not have been detected everywhere inside until later, after those folk who say the alarms didn't sound had got out.

 

That would fit with a fire plan where any residents not in immediate danger stay put, keep the stairs clear, and wait for the fire brigade to manage the incident - rather than clogging the stairs with folk slowly trying to leave.

 

[jjb1970]

I think we should let the investigators complete their investigation and await their report before jumping to any conclusions.

[Legend]

I think there will undoubtedly be more to come out on this (and many other things) - but it may be that the alarms were only set to sound locally to where the fire is - otherwise you have a structure with 120+ households and up to 600 people and everyone has to react every time somebody burns the toast / somebody thinks that hitting an alarm button at 1am on the way back from the pub is a jolly jape - that kind of thing would cause widespread disregard of any alarms in short order.

And if that's the case, it may be that a strong fire burning largely on the outside of the building may not have been detected everywhere inside until later, after those folk who say the alarms didn't sound had got out.

That would fit with a fire plan where any residents not in immediate danger stay put, keep the stairs clear, and wait for the fire brigade to manage the incident - rather than clogging the stairs with folk slowly trying to leave.

 

Thanks. Some points there that I hadn't considered. Not as straightforward as I thought

[The Stationmaster]

Again around 5 years or so ago the legislation changed and stripped the Fire Brigade of the official duty to inspect and issue fire safety advice to residents of high rise blocks - with that duty being transferred to the buildings owners.

 

I assume this is an extension of the principle applied to railways where the HMRI do not tell companies what to do any more, with the Government effectively privatising the process by telling companies / individuals they must 'buy in' the services of a 'competent person / body' to verify the companies plans are safe / comply with legislation such as ROGS

 

This in turn allows the budgets and staff numbers employed by Government bodies to be reduced, with those organisations thus in theory being more focused on their 'core' duties while in theory boasting private sector employment as providers of safety advice compete in the market place .

 

The downside of this approch is that it becomes very easy for commercial considerations to trump safety. E.g. Not fitting sprinklers because the law says you don't have too rather than going ahead anyway because its widely considered best practice.

 

As ever this obsession by certain politicians that 'more competition' is the sole route to a better society is not necessarily bourne out by the facts.

 

Sorry to go rather of course but it has nothing to do with the situation on the railways.  What happened to HMRI is deeply bound up in all sorts of departmental politics and empire building within the state sector where a particular organisation grabbed the chance offered by privatisation and personnel changes to seek a wider reaching change to things and they made a very carefully constructed case which did for the old style HMRI.

 

the situation post ROGS is completely different from the past and the only link with it is that the Inspectorate as it now is ensured the point was firmly made that they are Inspectors and not consultants or advisers (in some respects reflecting the fact that they don't necessarily have the right past experience to enable them to advise.  The shift of responsibility in a formalised sense mainly recognises what was, or should have been, taking place anyway prior to the introduction of ROGS.  In any case I reckon what happens now in inspectorate and enforcing authority terms is more expensive than what went before - the old HMRI has in practice been replaced by two organisations (HMRI and RAIB)  although the overall number of posts equivalent to the old REIs (Railway Employment Inspectors) is probably less than was the case in the past but the total number of posts, plus having two organisations instead of one, will have increased managerial and admin costs overall. 

 

Overall I think the ROGS situation is probably better than what went immediately before as many responsibilities are much clearer and the system - in my experience - seems to work quite well (although I admit to vested interest in saying that). 

[APOLLO]

Very shocking news indeed - and further deeply bad news is yet to come as the building is searched. My thoughts are with all affected.

 

There are very many similar clad blocks around the UK (several in my home town recently re-insulated on the exterior) and I hope that they are being inspected thoroughly right now. That's the insulation, alarms, evacuation notices & procedures etc, along with the local emergency services.

 

Too early for blame etc, but not too early for the above checks.

 

Brit15

[Nearholmer]

Like others, I was stunned that this could happen in the UK. I was under the false impression that whatever we might make a hash of, people could sleep sound in their beds, knowing that something on this scale would be effectively impossible here. So stupid am I, that when I caught a snippet on the radio, I first thought it was in Russia, where tower block safety is a lively issue.

 

What those who have lost, or think they have probably lost, loved ones must be feeling is too awful to contemplate.

 

Kevin

[Reorte]

Like others, I was stunned that this could happen in the UK. I was under the false impression that whatever we might make a hash of, people could sleep sound in their beds, knowing that something on this scale would be effectively impossible here. So stupid am I, that when I caught a snippet on the radio, I first thought it was in Russia, where tower block safety is a lively issue.

No system can ever be completely immune to people ignoring the rules. It seems to me that the big question for the inquiry is whether everything done to the block was in compliance and someone really should've known better there, or whether shortcuts were taken that resulted in this disaster.

[jjb1970]

I don't know about the railway sector, but in other sectors such as marine and aviation there are good reasons why there are separate bodies for standards/regulation and incident investigation. In the event of an incident one of the possible causal factors may be shortcomings in regulations or the performance of regulatory bodies, separating incident investigation removes a potential conflict of interest and ensures that the incident investigation body is independent. There is a further factor that some bodies such as the MCA are also tasked with promoting the sectors they regulate and it would not be sensible to have the same body responsible for growing a sector and acting with the commercial interests of that sector in mind also being the incident investigating body.

[RANGERS]

I'd agree with everything which has been said but feel compelled to add that after watching news reports tonight and listening to the radio reports through the day, I find it disturbing that some left homeless are still awaiting return contact from the Borough housing department or Social Services regarding emergency accommodation and the relief operation appears to be largely in the hands of some extremely enthusiastic, dedicated and thankfully well drilled volunteers (and maybe the better for it). One lady had been forced to arrange temporary accommodation for her children with friends and relations, three of them in separate locations and she was resigned to spending a second night separated from them in the leisure centre. The story may not be entirely representative of the situation on the ground but that there's one soul in this situation is heartbreaking.

 

The speed with which the fire took hold and the devastation it caused in such a short time is almost unbelievable, seasoned fireman have been left in disbelief at what happened, but the fact it happened in the UK's richest borough, and the suggestion that the causes and lack of preventative measures may have been down to penny pinching, is beyond any words.

[phil-b259]

Earlier this evening Channel 4 News posted a segment where an angry local suggested that the prime objective of the refurbishment works undertaken on the block was more to do with improving the environment / views for the wealthy incomers who have been snapping up property to the south and pricing locals out of the area. On a similar vein, the BBC have pointed put that the borough not only has some of the highest house prices in the country, but also some of the most deprived areas.

 

https://www.channel4.com/news/voice-of-anger-amongst-those-who-live-around-grenfell-tower

https://www.channel4.com/news/regeneration-is-a-euphemism-for-ethnic-and-class-cleansing-kensington-resident-and-writer

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40291372

 

While naturally it is unwise to draw too many conclusions from this, the sentiments from locals does very much seem to be that their concerns about the works undertaken to the tower block have not been listened to by those in positions of power, both locally and nationally where despite their denials, the fact the Government doesn't appear to have done much about the recommendations that followed a previous fatal tower block blaze 10 years ago is a disgrace.

Edited June 15, 2017 by phil-b259

[jjb1970]

I think it is important to distinguish between local authority actions that may be inedifying politically, and causal factors for a major fire.

[Horsetan]

....I find it disturbing that some left homeless are still awaiting return contact from the Borough housing department or Social Services regarding emergency accommodation ....

In the early part of my career, when I used to do legally-aided Housing cases, some of my clients lived within the boundaries of Kensington and Chelsea. RBK&C were not exactly the quickest to deal with correspondence, and the above observation suggests that little has changed in 15 years.

Edited June 16, 2017 by Horsetan

[Titan]

I think the nature of the refurbishment shows where the priorities lay - making it look nice and reducing running costs.  A new more efficient common heating system was installed, which would have required new plumbing to every flat. Surely it would have made sense to install sprinklers at the same time? Even if there were no economies of scale by coordinating the works, fitting sprinklers would have added less than 5% to the refurbishment cost.

 

It ought to have been made mandatory for sprinkler systems to be fitted as part of refurbishment works as well as new build, as an absolute minimum.