DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
best kept a the lodge then etc etc
Residents of council tower blocks and estates across East and South London dropped 22 banners – one for each of the 22 residential floors in the 24 storey Grenfell Tower, destroyed by fire in Latimer Road on 14 June – in a show of mass solidarity with victims, survivors and local community.
The council become more gobsmackingly awful by the second. Meeting cancelled, because it being reported would be 'prejudicial'
And Paget-Brown wont resign 'in the forseeable future'
Kensington council meeting adjourned over inquiry prejudice fears - BBC News
Any idea who the guy complaining is?
Cllr J. Robert Atkinson (Labour)Any idea who the guy complaining is?
I think that's the Labour group leader, Cllr Robert Atkinson.Any idea who the guy complaining is?
Nimble fingers!Cllr J. Robert Atkinson (Labour)
Knowsley Heights, Liverpool, 1991. Deliberate fire spread up and behind rainscreen cladding, extended over 11 floors. Building Regulations were changed as a result of this.
Mercantile credit building, Basingstoke, 1991. Fire on 8th floor spread up the building behind glass curtain walling.
Three storey block in Milton Keynes, 1995. Roof destroyed.
Alpha House Coventry, 1997. Flames travelled up the outside of the block from 13th to 17th floor. No fire penetration of the flats.
Butler House, Grays, Essex, 1997. Fire in top flat of 14 storey block caused uPVC window frames to melt and drip, which in turn caused some damage to cladding.
Grenfell Tower: Cladding 'changed to cheaper version' - BBC News
No wonder the council leader didn't want the press at the meeting.
Watched this report on the news this morning, what I don't get is this line - "Both types of cladding have the same fire official rating."
The savings were part of an ongoing effort by the council and the local tenant management organisation to drive down the cost of the refurbishment.
A source close to one of the many companies involved in the project said the change was typical of constant pressure by councils to reduce the costs of building refurbishments.
Which bit ?
They're rated the same, so the decision wasn't made to knowingly substitute a a product of a lesser grade, it would have met the same criteria for fire performance. This doesn't mean that it was of the same flammability, just that both (according to official tests) met a particular standard - although it turns out the original proposed material would have performed better. I doubt it was considered any further than meeting the same specification
The question for me is more how it is possible for a - presumably - somewhat carefully arrived-at specification for materials can be almost summarily changed purely to save some money and by simply making some kind of equivalence on the basis of a standard, rather than going back and looking at the previous decisions that were made in regard to the original material, and questioning where any impact of the revised choice might fall. "Regression testing", if you will...Aluminium cladding is cheaper than zinc.
I don't believe the change of face material from aluminium to zinc is relevant to fire resistance (might be wrong though).
In fact zinc melts at a lower temperature than aluminium. However, the original panels may have had some kind of zinc alloy.
What's relevant is the core material. The question is whether the originally specified zinc panels had a more fire resistant core.
Grenfell Tower: Cladding 'changed to cheaper version' - BBC News
No wonder the council leader didn't want the press at the meeting.
Grenfell Tower: Cladding 'changed to cheaper version' - BBC News
No wonder the council leader didn't want the press at the meeting.
If they are finding any of that a problem then they might finally realise that they should resign.wrt the council's excuse for stopping the meeting yesterday saying it would prejudice the inquiry, Wondering whether the council meeting and minutes could have informed/been used by the inquiry if considered appropriate?
obviously the council and senior officers/cabinet are arse covering and dodging it as far as possible but how valid (or rather legal) is their excuse?
I can understand the council wanting to lock the public out of their meetings - they're obviously terrified [with good reason].
The question for me is more how it is possible for a - presumably - somewhat carefully arrived-at specification for materials can be almost summarily changed purely to save some money and by simply making some kind of equivalence on the basis of a standard, rather than going back and looking at the previous decisions that were made in regard to the original material, and questioning where any impact of the revised choice might fall. "Regression testing", if you will...
I don't know if this is relevant, but I saw on tv the other night a report saying that the original testing process involved putting cladding on a test structure and setting fire to it to see how it performed. This was later stopped and manufacturers merely required to provide proof they had followed procedures. [or some such - I'll try to find the report and link to it]But if both types of panel had the same fire rating, that's not where the blame lies.
At the moment the fault seems to be with the testing and safety standards.
The question for me is more how it is possible for a - presumably - somewhat carefully arrived-at specification for materials can be almost summarily changed purely to save some money and by simply making some kind of equivalence on the basis of a standard, rather than going back and looking at the previous decisions that were made in regard to the original material, and questioning where any impact of the revised choice might fall. "Regression testing", if you will...