fire in London tower block

[The Stationmaster]

The PM may be ill-informed, or as confused as all other non-experts, but she may well be carefully leaving the question of the legality or otherwise of the cladding for a court of law to rule on.

 

She actually made it quite clear that as far as the combustibility was concerned she was awaiting a report on the outcome of tests.  How on earth anyone could know, or be expected to know, the answer without data from a test of the material actually used (and ideally in a similar mounting using the same method of fixing) is completely beyond me.  

 

But then I'm not a politico or journo seeking to serve cheap points on the back of somebody else's tragedy. 

[Zomboid]

The thing with standards not making much sense to journalists is that they would be pretty useless if they did. In order to provide useful guidance they have to go into a level of detail that only people in the relevant industry can comprehend.

 

As for the PM not answering questions on it, the answer she gave was that the people who knew what they were talking about would be making a statement soon (48h I think she said). How could she possibly tell the house something that might, 48h later, turn out to be incorrect? That was just political point scoring, the people asking would have known what the answer would be - and exactly the same scene would have played out with different participants if the election had gone the other way.

[chris p bacon]

But then I'm not a politico or journo seeking to serve cheap points on the back of somebody else's tragedy. 

 

 

I'm often reminded of a Danny Baker sketch.

 

A quiet newsroom with journo's sitting around looking bored and making paper aeroplanes. The door bursts open and one rushes in shouting "The Queens dead" at which point there's a big cheer as they fire up the PC's

[Horsetan]

The thing with standards not making much sense to journalists is that they would be pretty useless if they did. In order to provide useful guidance they have to go into a level of detail that only people in the relevant industry can comprehend....

 

One would have thought that journalists who work for the industry trade journals would have a somewhat better understanding than a mainstream hack. Perhaps it should be their reports that should gain wider exposure.

[arran]

Sorry I disagree - I'd have expected there to be a straight-ish answer available to that question without getting drawn into the specifics of this disaster - "Material X meets building regs and fire regs for buildings over 18m" or "Materiel X does not meet building and fire regs for buildings over 18m"*.

 

I don't believe for a second that the PM has no knowledge of what the actual situation is. How could she be ordering actions to be taken (and they clearly have been) without any knowledge? <Maybe treat that as rhetorical.... >

 

If the simple fact of what materials do and do not meet building/fire regs is some kind of secret that can only come out by having a major incident enquiry then surely it's now impossible for anyone to build anything over 18m....

 

We clearly currently have professional folk stating that it does meet them, and other professional folk stating that it does not meet them. You'd think obviously one or the other party would be easily proven wrong, but the lack of a clear answer makes it sound like the real answer is "it's complicated" - there's more to come....

 

(*Or met them until....Or meets one but not the other....Or whatever....)

 

 

 

 

 

The fact they knew the difference between the costs of having fire resistant cladding means it must have been discuses at some meetings about the blocks refurbishment at a cost of 8.5 Million .  also the housing association "not the council"  has a majority of residents on its board, every one concentrates on the council and they can only approve or reject there application, they dont make the rules only implement them.

 

Regard Arran 

[Glorious NSE]

  It really isn't a simple yes/no answer.  

 People may think this is being wilfully contrarian, but not only is it entirely possible for a material to be simultaneously compliant and non-compliant with regulations, it is quite normal

 

 

Excellent! That's the answer I've been trying to get to for several pages....

 

Thanks all.

 

 

 

 

[melmerby]

Those that are trying to score political points on the back of this disaster should be careful what they wish for.

According to a couple of sources (reliability of info not known!) this particular cladding was first started to be installed on tower blocks 10-11 years ago.

 

Who was in power?

 

Keith

[chris p bacon]

Excellent! That's the answer I've been trying to get to for several pages....

 

Thanks all.

 

 

 

 

 

Of course I won't even mention the counterfeit products that even suppliers are duped by. ............

[Horsetan]

.... I won't even mention the counterfeit products that even suppliers are duped by. ............

 

Made in China, by any chance?

[EddieB]

Who was in power?

He wasn't called "Teflon Tony" for nothing!

[Rivercider]

Those that are trying to score political points on the back of this disaster should be careful what they wish for.

According to a couple of sources (reliability of info not known!) this particular cladding was first started to be installed on tower blocks 10-11 years ago.

 

Who was in power?

 

Keith

That is true, but it does appear that not very much has been successfully implemented following the Lakanal House fire of 2009,

and the Coroners report of 2013. I think there must be quite a few people closely involved with that who ought to hang their heads in shame,

 

cheers

[meil]

Having seen our PM blatantly avoid answering the question of whether this materiel met building and fire regs or not yesterday, I think there's more to come out on this....

It's not a question of whether the material failed to meet the requirements it's whether the cladding system failed to meet the building regulations. There is not only the question of material but there is the issue of appropriate fire-stops integral to the cladding system.

 

The PM could not possibly give an answer to that question without detailed knowledge of the cladding system design.

Edited June 23, 2017 by meil

[Glorious NSE]

It's not a question of whether the material failed to meet the requirements it's whether the cladding system failed to meet the building regulations. There is not only the question of material but there is the issue of appropriate fire-stops integral to the cladding system.

 

The PM could not possibly give an answer to that question without detailed knowledge of the cladding system design.

That wasn't the question I heard asked though.

 

The one I heard asked was (and I'm doing this from memory, so excuse the paraphrase) - that they had been trying to work out what things met regs and what did not and couldn't work it out, and if the cladding was X as stated - did that meet regulations, or did it not?

 

That's a simple enough question.

 

Now it might not have had a simple answer....

 

 

 

 

 

[meil]

That wasn't the question I heard asked though.

 

The one I heard asked was (and I'm doing this from memory, so excuse the paraphrase) - that they had been trying to work out what things met regs and what did not and couldn't work it out, and if the cladding was X as stated - did that meet regulations, or did it not?

 

That's a simple enough question.

 

Now it might not have had a simple answer....

 

 

 

 

 

No it doesn't have a simple answer. In so far as the fire spread across the building in the way it did it unequivocally did not meet the requirements of the Building Regulations because the Building Regulations state:

 

The external walls of a building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another, having regard to the height, use and position of the building.

 

 

However that is not the question realy being asked. The question realy being asked is does the material and design comply with the Approved Document (AD B parts 1 and 2) that sets out the practical standards and design norms that if complied with will be deemed to meet the requirements of the Building Regulations. The Approved Documents are very technicaly heavy documents that require professional knowledge to understand and implement.

[Glorious NSE]

No it doesn't have a simple answer.

And that in itself, could have been the simple answer given....

 

I'm sure with a few more words.

 

In so far as the fire spread across the building in the way it did it unequivocally did not meet the requirements of the Building Regulations because the Building Regulations state:

 

The external walls of a building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another, having regard to the height, use and position of the building.

 

 

However that is not the question realy being asked. The question realy being asked is does the material and design comply with the Approved Document (AD B parts 1 and 2) that sets out the practical standards and design norms that if complied with will be deemed to meet the requirements of the Building Regulations. The Approved Documents are very technicaly heavy documents that require professional knowledge to understand and implement.

 

They may have been more pertinent questions, but they were not (again from my memory) the ones actually asked, and your first answer would have worked... 

 

 

 

 

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

No it doesn't have a simple answer. In so far as the fire spread across the building in the way it did it unequivocally did not meet the requirements of the Building Regulations because the Building Regulations state:

 

The external walls of a building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another, having regard to the height, use and position of the building.

 

 

However that is not the question realy being asked. The question realy being asked is does the material and design comply with the Approved Document (AD B parts 1 and 2) that sets out the practical standards and design norms that if complied with will be deemed to meet the requirements of the Building Regulations. The Approved Documents are very technicaly heavy documents that require professional knowledge to understand and implement.

 

I can just imagine the barristers having endless fun with that. Is the cladding the "external wall of the building? Or is it just something fixed to the external wall?

[melmerby]

The problem with a lot of these materials is that they come as part of a complete "system"

Implement that system fully and everything is fine. It will comply with the relevant regulations.

Change something or leave something out and it does not comply.

However some people involved in the renovations may not realise the significance of  having to use the whole of the "system" and see the approved designation and assume all is fine when it is not and you have a disaster waiting to happen.

 

It would appear that there are some tower blocks where the outer material as used at Grenfell Tower is fitted hard up against Rockwool insulation (which is non flammable) and could be just fine.

 

Keith

[Clearwater]

As is often the case, something may be perfectly safe in some scenarios but in other scenarios, the same thing could be really dangerous if it is not fitted or used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

[Bernard Lamb]

As is often the case, something may be perfectly safe in some scenarios but in other scenarios, the same thing could be really dangerous if it is not fitted or used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

So you test in in the situation in which you intend to use it.

Perfectly simply but costly.

To go back a few pages.

If the likes of LUL, other examples are available, can work to practical procedures then why can't others.

Even the much maligned motor industry does in general make an attempt to maintain standards that involve safety.

Bernard

[jjb1970]

Normally when fire testing materials you do a suite of standard tests and then define limiting conditions. There are limited test facilities and the testing isn't cheap, standard tests accompanied by defining any limiting conditions and/or instructions on use generally works well. In my experience the only bodies that do application specific fire testing and testing for other parameters are military agencies and even they don't do it that much.

[Clearwater]

So you test in in the situation in which you intend to use it.Perfectly simply but costly.To go back a few pages.If the likes of LUL, other examples are available, can work to practical procedures then why can't others.Even the much maligned motor industry does in general make an attempt to maintain standards that involve safety.Bernard

I agree but often comes back to RTFM...

[jjb1970]

One would have thought that journalists who work for the industry trade journals would have a somewhat better understanding than a mainstream hack. Perhaps it should be their reports that should gain wider exposure.

 

After over a week of saturation media coverage it is remarkable just how little information the media has imparted to us beyond a lot of speculation. I think the main reason for that is that nobody had the information for the simple reason that the facts were still to be ascertained, however it begs the question of why write so many lines and fill endless hours of rolling TV and radio broadcasts with the same empty speculation?

 

Technical journals would undoubtedly be better (although they also have their moments...), their writers tend to have some understanding of what they write about and access to informed people and not the sort of rent-a-gob idiots loved by the general media who seem to be selected more for their quotability and opinions than anything else (on another subject, how did that idiot Wolmar get himself ensconced as one of the go to "experts" for railway stories?). I think the problem is that most technical writers are a bit more responsible and avoid the sort of speculation we've been treated to for the last week and try and avoid reducing complex issues to a 5 second sound byte.

 

And of course a lot of the media coverage is motivated by political points scoring and swinging an axe rather than informing us.

[APOLLO]

Breaking news

 

Camden flats to be evacuated over cladding

 

More than 100 homes in a tower block on a council estate in Camden, north London, are be evacuated because of safety concerns over cladding in the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire.

Camden Council says residents in 161 flats in one of five blocks on the Chalcots estate are affected.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40389148

 

Brit15

[Mallard60022]

For what it is worth this tragedy has opened a huge can of worms and a lot of those worms are a long way from fire safety legislation. Also the after affects extend even further as following the 'terror events' across the country, this fire and the prospect of increasing 'extremism' including possible mass protests about whatever, the authorities are really concerned about lack of 'resources' that have now become obvious.

Historically I do not think I have witnessed such frantic activity at Government level (in all its' forms) for many many years, nor have I seen this Country so vulnerable as it is right now.  Interesting times and I suspect that is why so much of the media is in overdrive. 

Phil

[APOLLO]

I agree Mallard, as they say down in Norfolk "It's a right muddle" !!.

 

We need good leadership - and quickly - unfortunate fact is there ain't (m)any. This seems to me to be endemic world wide.

 

Almost getting afraid to put the news on these days.

 

Brit15