fire in London tower block

[APOLLO]

I'm not sure if it is all down to "penny pinching". (though it seems to be where sprinklers etc are concerned).

 

The outside cladding caught fire and burned quickly and aggressively. Plastic covered polystyrene or foam seems to be a standard product used for such installations worldwide (recent similar bad high rise exterior cladding fires have occurred in Dubai & Australia etc). 

 

A google search of  "exterior insulation systems" brings up many manufacturers and many product types. Many of them are polystyrene or foam based with outer skins of plastic, aluminium etc. A typical wording in the manufacturers blurb is "Has good fire performance, with Class 0 rating to both faces. Also has low toxicity and smoke obscuration of less than 5%. Includes a vapour control layer as standard to reduce risk of condensation." - Not exactly fireproof.

 

There are quite literally many acres of these products are fixed to the outside of literally thousands of tower blocks in the UK installed by very many housing companies / associations / councils etc. The manufacturers give all the properties, fire resistance etc etc. (at least on the few I googled - the info is there and not hidden).

 

This problem has grown and grown, seemingly oblivious to the very many building owners / consultants / designers / installation contractors / insulation manufacturers around the UK. It is not unique to this London borough.

 

We have a huge problem. I guess the rest of the year will see vast works installing sprinkler systems, etc and removing combustible insulation material around the UK (and elsewhere).

 

Brit15

Edited June 15, 2017 by APOLLO

[Nearholmer]

There was a prof of fire safety speaking on the radio 4 science programme this evening, very interesting on the topic of exterior cladding, compartmentation etc, well worth looking for it on iPlayer.

 

Kevin

[DougN]

Appollo, The cladding on the building here in Melbourne was the ACM product. I do not recall the name of the product off the top of my head. HOWEVER there are products that are "safe" these includ various panel type of Alucobond and others. These do not contain polystyrene or polyethylene. Recenetly I have the misfortune of dealing with a 3 story project that was to have sheet EPS (expanded polystyrene). The client is screaming blue murder when I did the research and found that the product specified did not comply due to fire and Building Regs. They are screaming over the 100K of extra costs! As the registered builder on the project there is no way in my mind that I will be installing the non compliant material due to the legal, both criminal and civil, implications. Interestingly this building also contains Alpolic which is another ACM product that I will have to investigate before the installation of the product. 

 

As I said last night the Australian Building regulations are a lot higher than the UK's with more compliance and Legal ramifications for non compliance. This is not to say that rogues don't exist but it is a lot harder to get away with things. Also you can make more money where the builder takes the risks but the subcontractors escape any liability. (Sorry this is getting onto my soap box) 

[Nearholmer]

Reorte

 

There are two possibilities:

 

- that something was done that did not comply the law; or,

 

- that everything was done in accordance with the law, and that still wasn't enough to protect people.

 

Way too early to know, but if it is the former, then the effectiveness of the enforcement regime would logically be in question, and if it is the latter, then the effectiveness law-making would be in question.

 

There are also "in between" possibilities, such as the possibility that there were contraventions, but even if there hadn't been, people would still have been unduly vulnerable.

 

Whatever other daft decisions the PM has made lately, she made a good one today by going straight for a public inquiry. There have been nasty cases in the past where it has taken donkeys years, and caused endless heartache, to obtain a public inquiry, I think the Marchioness sinking was one.

 

Kevin

Edited June 15, 2017 by Nearholmer

[Horsetan]

Reorte

There are two possibilities:

- that something was done that did not comply the law; or,

- that everything was done in accordance with the law, and that still wasn't enough to protect people.

 

Way too early to know, ....

I'd be adding a third (which perhaps is trivial on its own, but which might have been the root of the disaster, given where the fire is said to have broken out):

 

- liability for faulty consumer durables / white goods.

[OnTheBranchline]

There are many unsettling things regarding this fire:

1) Residents raised their concerns repeatedly and nothing was done (second article down):

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/jun/14/grenfell-tower-major-fire-london-apartment-block-white-city-latimer-road?page=with:block-594155a4e4b0240ef76146fb#block-594155a4e4b0240ef76146fb

 

2) A former housing minister warned against beefing up fire safety rules to include sprinklers because it could discourage house building:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-minister-warned-beefing-up-10622601

 

3) The current Fire Minister voted against making homes fit for human habitation:

https://politicalscrapbook.net/2017/06/new-fire-minister-was-among-72-tory-landlords-who-voted-against-homes-fit-for-human-habitation/

 

4) The PM's Chief of Staff 'sat on' report warning high-rise blocks like Grenfell Tower were vulnerable to fire:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-mays-chief-staff-sat-10620357.amp

 

5) The Fit for Human Habitation motion, aimed to offer greater protection and safety regulations to tenants of private landlords, by MP's who are also, you guessed it, private landlords. The blood of every Grenfell victim is on the hands of Government. There is no denying the design, construction and renovation of the building played an enormous part in the severity of the disaster and the damage it caused. Government failure to put as much effort into safety regulations as they have investigatory powers (aka Snoopers Charter) has sadly cost many, many lives. The fact that so many MPs voted against the Homes act, while being landlords themselves is disgusting. That is the definition of a conflict of interest. Especially ones to earn 10K in rental profits.

Edited June 16, 2017 by OnTheBranchline

[jjb1970]

Too much speculation in this thread, given that we don't know what caused the fire or whether any of the things being thrown around by the media would have made any difference in this case it seems premature to be assigning blame and making sweeping statements.

I do think this tragedy has raised awareness of certain issues with building regulations and in particular sprinklers.

[robert17649]

Do remember that the Titanic complied with all the current regulations when launched.

 

Investigations are not even under way and our noble meejar are reaching unproven even if possble conclusions.they may be right but there are fire investigators who's job is to investigate,let them get on with it.

 

this is terrible tragedy for all involved , surely the priority must be to house the homeless and care for the injured (physically and mentally) leaving the professionals to get on with their jobs rather than causing more anguish by speculation.

[stewartingram]

Far too much speculation in the media including on here. There are expert investigations , led by the Fire Service initially, going on to establish facts. Whilst I, and I expect everyone else, am appalled by the tragedy, I personally am fed up up with the continual coverage in the media. Why is the program on TV called NEWS, when 99.9% of its content is actually SPECULATION? 

 

Stewart

Edited June 16, 2017 by stewartingram

[bike2steam]

 Why is the program on TV called NEWS, when 99.9% of its content is actually SPECULATION? 

 

Stewart

Because modern media likes to sensationalize everything to the last drop, and there are people out there with nothing better to do than believe everything they say.

[Horsetan]

Because modern media likes to sensationalize everything to the last drop, and there are people out there with nothing better to do than believe everything they say.

Yes, just like conspiracy theories on the Internet....

[Nearholmer]

Interesting to see that The Mayor of London has called for an interim report to be published "this summer".

 

It's SOP to issue a relatively early, interim, report in cases like this, setting out the known facts of "what" happened, but not examining "why", so that any very key learning can be acted upon quickly, but "this summer" implies to me "by the end of August", which is pretty short order for something that might prove seriously challenging to investigate.

[Legend]

I think the first reaction people have in this country is to ask for a Public Enquirey. I don't have a problem with that, but they usually take ages to organise and come to a conclusion, then it seems not all recommendations are acted upon. Look at the Hillsborough one as an example.

 

I don't think we have the time , we need action now to protect people. I think the key things are . Suitability of cladding in high rise buildings, sprinkler systems , the advice to stay put in your flat in the event of a fire, is this still appropriate? Presumably the answer to the last one will be specific to the block of flats you live in . Has it been re clad , had the fire proof integrity been compromised in any way. And this needs to happen now because there are people living in these blocks that need reassurance and a way out in the event of fire. We cannot fail them in the way residents of Grenfell house were failed.

 

I am still shocked that this could happen in modern regulated Britain. I thought we had basic safety covered, but apparently not. So I think we also need a review of current specifications, regulations and checks . Were they adaquate. Was it just a case of people ticking boxes and going through the motions rather than actual testing. Not sure it's just about penny pinching , it could just be sheer incompetence as well or taking the easy route and not asking the tricky questions.

 

As a basic I would have thought all high rise buildings will have to have sprinklers now . Not just new builds but old buildings too. We have seen the price of not having them. How else do you fight fires in a High Rise . I always thought we had a plan, but I now don't think that's the case, which is still the bit I'm shocked about.

[Horsetan]

Interesting to see that The Mayor of London has called for an interim report to be published "this summer".

 

It's SOP to issue a relatively early, interim, report in cases like this, setting out the known facts of "what" happened, but not examining "why", so that any very key learning can be acted upon quickly, but "this summer" implies to me "by the end of August", which is pretty short order for something that might prove seriously challenging to investigate.

 

I think the Mayor's demand merely reflects the way society - and particularly here in London - is today. Restless and impatient.

[phil-b259]

Too much speculation in this thread, given that we don't know what caused the fire or whether any of the things being thrown around by the media would have made any difference in this case it seems premature to be assigning blame and making sweeping statements.

I do think this tragedy has raised awareness of certain issues with building regulations and in particular sprinklers.

 

 

Far too much speculation in the media including on here. There are expert investigations , led by the Fire Service initially, going on to establish facts. Whilst I, and I expect everyone else, am appalled by the tragedy, I personally am fed up up with the continual coverage in the media. Why is the program on TV called NEWS, when 99.9% of its content is actually SPECULATION? 

 

Stewart

 

Sorry, but most of the things being raised in the media are actually FACTS not pure speculation - though I agree the media may be hyping them up.

 

All of the things mentioned in post 31 by 'On the Branchline' are not some sort of made up conspiracy or guesswork - they actually happened and can be verified by multiple sources (e.g. Hansard, correspondence to the Council etc.)

Edited June 16, 2017 by phil-b259

[sulzer27jd]

It is not speculation to say that whatever caused the fire in one of the apartments, did not itself cause that disaster. High rise flats are, by design, relatively safe in relation to fire spread. The fire services have well-developed procedures for dealing with incidents in this type of property, which are, in keeping with the construction design, intended to be deployed from the inside of the building. What has shocked everyone is how this fire developed in such a rapid and unexpected manner. The number one imperative is that the construction/retrofit be investigated and any immediate findings used to adapt emergency procedures.

[jjb1970]

We do not know the proximate cause of the fire.

 

We do not know what caused the rapid spread of the fire.

 

We do not know if sprinklers would have avoided some or all of the fatalities.

 

We do not know if the cladding used made the fire worse or was responsible for the rapid spread of the fire.

 

At the moment speculation on all of the above is just that, speculation. Professional investigators who know what they are doing will investigate and produce a report,  they will have the professional expertise, judgement and hopefully resources to investigate properly and arrive at a more informed, robust conclusion than the media commentariat and/or politicians.

[Nimbus]

Whatever other daft decisions the PM has made lately, she made a good one today by going straight for a public inquiry. 

 

The point was made on last night's Newsnight, by a legal professional who represented the victims of a similar occurrence, that a Public Enquiry is a lot more restrictive than an Inquest, because it is under government control and does not permit questions and cross-examinations from affected members of the public. It can therefore give the impression of a mechanism to limit criticism of the powers that be.

 

The Nim.

[phil-b259]

We do not know the proximate cause of the fire.

 

We do not know what caused the rapid spread of the fire.

 

We do not know if sprinklers would have avoided some or all of the fatalities.

 

We do not know if the cladding used made the fire worse or was responsible for the rapid spread of the fire.

 

At the moment speculation on all of the above is just that, speculation. Professional investigators who know what they are doing will investigate and produce a report,  they will have the professional expertise, judgement and hopefully resources to investigate properly and arrive at a more informed, robust conclusion than the media commentariat and/or politicians.

 

Its not all speculation. As has been frequently mentioned since the disaster occurred, it is a FACT that there have been plenty of severe fires in tower blocks fitted with sprinklers but no deaths - and its foolish to claim there is not some sort of relationship between the two. Similarly it is a FACT that there have also been several significant tower block fires where external cladding has been identified as a factor in the rapid spread of a fire.

 

Agreed, until the investigators have done their work we will not be able to comment on the exact relationship between these factors with regard to this particular tower block, but I don't think it is too far fetched to say that, based on the wealth of evidence from elsewhere, if the block had been fitted with sprinklers and had not been clad, then the death toll would have been less.

[Oldddudders]

We don't know the cause? I was under the impression that a distraught male survivor living on the fourth floor stated that his fridge had exploded, causing a fire in his flat. Did the media make that up?

[stewartingram]

Sorry, but most of the things being raised in the media are actually FACTS not pure speculation - though I agree the media may be hyping them up.

 

All of the things mentioned in post 31 by 'On the Branchline' are not some sort of made up conspiracy or guesswork - they actually happened and can be verified by multiple sources (e.g. Hansard, correspondence to the Council etc.)

 

Facts are these:

 

There was a fire -believed to be ​in a kitchen but the true cause is not yet proven as definite.

The fire spread rapidly & was very intense. Cause unknown but lots of speculation (cladding etc)

​There appeared to be a lack of effective alarm systems (by statements from those escaping) but this also is not proven but will be investigated.

Escape routes were not effective, but did they meet current regulations? We don't know at this stage. Almost certainly in the light of this disaster, more improvements may/will be needed, but again this is not for now but the future. (And with due respect for those in similar tower blocks, asap).

​​Guidance for residents in case of fire was given to stay in the rooms and wait for rescue. This is a standard procedure thought to be correct, but obviously not so in this case. Anything that is different to the expected norm was NOT expected, investigations will show errors in design, construction, implementation etc.

 

​​Anything further than this IS speculation, though some of the points raised no doubt will prove to be true. Proper news reporting should deal in facts only.

[Horsetan]

We don't know the cause? I was under the impression that a distraught male survivor living on the fourth floor stated that his fridge had exploded, causing a fire in his flat. Did the media make that up?

 

The Times reported on yesterday's front page that said individual had allegedly taken time to pack some of his belongings before reporting the fire to a neighbour, rather than directly to the Fire Brigade. Was that an invention too?

 

....Proper news reporting should deal in facts only.

 

Yes, although that would give us the much-reduced report:

 

"Tower block catches fire. Many dead." 

 

That would be about all they could report without risking speculation.

Edited June 16, 2017 by Horsetan

[pete_mcfarlane]

Do remember that the Titanic complied with all the current regulations when launched.

In fact it exceeded them in certain areas, having more lifeboats than the regulations required. Even though it still didn't have enough for everyone on board. 

 

Too much speculation in this thread, given that we don't know what caused the fire or whether any of the things being thrown around by the media would have made any difference in this case it seems premature to be assigning blame and making sweeping statements.

I do think this tragedy has raised awareness of certain issues with building regulations and in particular sprinklers.

 

A lot of what I'm seeing in the media seems to be less about fire safety, and more about one political party trying to make capital out of the disaster by attacking the current Government for the sum of all the failings of every previous Government around fire safety and social housing. 

[EddieB]

Sorry, but most of the things being raised in the media are actually FACTS not pure speculation - though I agree the media may be hyping them up.

 

All of the things mentioned in post 31 by 'On the Branchline' are not some sort of made up conspiracy or guesswork - they actually happened and can be verified by multiple sources (e.g. Hansard, correspondence to the Council etc.)

While "these things" may be factual, they may not represent the whole story.  

 

What began as deep trauma and shock is turning to anger on the ground.  Those directly affected need emotional and practical support, not interlopers trying to channel and exploit that anger. What is of concern is how much of the media (and some politicians who should know better) are using "these things" to vilify certain individuals, before the full facts of any investigation can emerge.  Likewise, it seems clear that a failure to implement the recommendations of the report on the Lakanal fire could have some bearing on this tragedy, but a more detailed examination is needed as to where responsibility lay - both in terms of ministerial duties (successive ministers, not just one) and others (including the local MP) in holding to account.  

 

Until everything can be properly examined, it's almost impossible to draw a line between facts and speculation, which is why I agree with those who suggest there is too much speculation here already.

Edited June 16, 2017 by EddieB

[Ian Hargrave]

Its not all speculation. As has been frequently mentioned since the disaster occurred, it is a FACT that there have been plenty of severe fires in tower blocks fitted with sprinklers but no deaths - and its foolish to claim there is not some sort of relationship between the two. Similarly it is a FACT that there have also been several significant tower block fires where external cladding has been identified as a factor in the rapid spread of a fire.

 

Agreed, until the investigators have done their work we will not be able to comment on the exact relationship between these factors with regard to this particular tower block, but I don't think it is too far fetched to say that, based on the wealth of evidence from elsewhere, if the block had been fitted with sprinklers and had not been clad, then the death toll would have been less.

 

We do not know the proximate cause of the fire.

 

We do not know what caused the rapid spread of the fire.

 

We do not know if sprinklers would have avoided some or all of the fatalities.

 

We do not know if the cladding used made the fire worse or was responsible for the rapid spread of the fire.

 

At the moment speculation on all of the above is just that, speculation. Professional investigators who know what they are doing will investigate and produce a report,  they will have the professional expertise, judgement and hopefully resources to investigate properly and arrive at a more informed, robust conclusion than the media commentariat and/or politicians.

 

Well you're a good deal more cautious than our radio Rottweiler John Humphries was on the Today Programme on Radio 4 this morning when he hung Sajed Javed out to dry and Humphries do not forget cut his journalistic teeth at Aberfan and later on what he described as the "odious" Alf Robens for his subsequent handling of the disaster.Any echoes there ,folks ? If you didn't listen..catch up on iplayer...that'll clarify your mind. ...it should.

aa