Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Grenfell Tower fire in North Kensington - news and discussion

One of the most scary - but also encouraging - aspects of events like this fire is the knife-edge on which survival depends. I imagine there were quite a few people who made the same decision to escape, but for whom, due to circumstance or a tiny difference in timing or approach, it wasn't successful...and yet, for a few, it was.

I bet she got a big hug from her husband when he returned.
 
Grenfell Victims and Survivors Trust seems really dubious. 'They' managed to get people's addresses off the council, to get the police on side and to use a venue linked to the relief effort. Yet, there is nothing behind it but a Gmail account, a mobile number and an inactive twitter handle. The chair of the meeting doesn't seem to have given their name to anyone, and the council's comments don't shed much light on what was going on.

Authorities running the relief effort confirmed that they had sent out letters to survivors, but said they had been provided for delivery by the council. A council spokeswoman said she could not immediately provide further details of the group, or why the letter had been delivered to survivors.

Several hours later, prominent barrister Jolyon Maugham added his voice to concerns about the group. “Apparently my name is being used to endorse the ‘Grenfell Victims and Survivors’ Trust’. I know nothing of this organisation,” he said on Twitter. He said the group’s lack of public profile raised concerns about their motives for seeking a role in a legal battle that is widely expected to be long and complicated.
 
So maybe the council were duped, rather than in on it?

You might think the police or council could offer some clarification on what happened,instead of this:

A council spokeswoman said she could not immediately provide further details of the group, or why the letter had been delivered to survivors.

However this came about, it shows both incompetence and contempt for the residents. It either looks like a lazy and cynical attempt by the council to direct former Grenfell residents towards a particular form of representation, or it demonstrates that two weeks after the event they have still failed to liaise with any actual representatives of the affected community and that they thought it was a good idea to facilitate a meeting with an unnamed man in a hat with no credentials, no address, no landline, without having anyone to run the idea past beforehand.
 
Last edited:
Framing this in terms of cock up or conspiracy seems to miss the point. Wouldn't a competent local authority that took its responsibilities seriously be doing something similar to this, but in a way that was more transparent and less manipulative? Whatever general issues there might be with this sort of political mediation, nobody would be surprised if the council were organising meetings with the people affected, community and faith groups, residents associations, lawyers etc. from which they encouraged a representative body with some legitimacy to emerge. Then they could negotiate and liaise with it to share information and manage resources.
 
Last edited:
19398943_703698719803839_1930118251_n.jpg


19398606_703698796470498_298394301_n.jpg


19433423_703698863137158_996867214_n.jpg


19477897_703698966470481_267808275_n.jpg


19398682_703699019803809_576561300_n.jpg


19398566_703699053137139_2131219519_n.jpg


19389842_703699113137133_1886736390_n.jpg

19398839_703699163137128_1008139088_n.jpg


19433670_703699266470451_1567759379_n.jpg
 
FINALLY an acknowledgment that some tenants had probably illegally sublet their flats:

Communities Secretary Sajid Javid has announced guidance from the Director of Public Prosecutions not to prosecute tenants at Grenfell Tower and Grenfell Walk for unlawful subletting....Anecdotal evidence from the community suggests that some of the tenants in the tower block may have been unlawfully sub-letting their properties. This may mean people are reluctant to come forward with valuable information that would help to identify anyone still missing.

Protection from prosecution for unlawful subletting at Grenfell Tower - GOV.UK

Perhaps eventually there'll be acknowledgement of possible overcrowding. I'll bet you any money that some of the sublet flats had 6 residents, but the legitimate tenants were only aware of 2 of them. Wouldn't it be great if this led to debate about the minimum wage and acknowledgment that many people can't afford rent unless every room is used as a bedroom?
 
The Guardian website posted a new lead article late this afternoon.

Grenfell survivors issue 12 demands to PM to overhaul response to tragedy

The first paragraph of the story says "Survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire are writing to the prime minister". By the third paragraph however it transpires that the letter has been "written by lawyers on the survivors’ behalf, (...) based on feedback from the meeting".

The meeting is the one held in Parliament last week, called by Diane Abbott.

A Guardian story on Saturday described it as follows :

Labour MPs invited survivors to parliament for a meeting chaired by Diane Abbott, which collapsed into recriminations and resentment.

One activist, who walked out of the meeting, said that local residents and survivors felt as if they had been paraded before a “flock of vultures”.

“How many more times are the victims of this tragedy going to be exhibits in a grotesque sideshow?” Ishmahil Blagrove said in a posting on Facebook after the meeting, questioning why MPs had not come to visit the site of the fire.

Ismahil Blagrove is a co-ordinator for Justice 4 Grenfell.

This letter has been sent on behalf of a different group BMElawyers4Grenfell. It begins :

We are an umbrella action group incorporating leading BME Lawyer groups, BME Community Organisations, survivors, residents and supporters, created to assist those who have survived the fire and those who live within the vicinity of Grenfell Tower.

We arranged a meeting, called by the Shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbot M.P. (...) Also in attendance were 150 Residents.

The letter is signed by Ismet P Rawat (Mrs), President, Association of Muslim Lawyers, Peter Herbert, Chair, Society of Black Lawyers, Ghino Parker (Mrs), Resident and Grenfell community representative.

The Guardian article clarifies that Mrs Parker is "a local resident who is supporting survivors and bereaved relatives".

Did the meeting "collapse into recriminations and resentment" or is that just Ismahil Blagrove's view ? If it did how did it express the 12 demands which have been formulated ? How did it mandate BMElawyers4Grenfell to represent its views ? In its interestingly ordered list of the various people involved in BMElawyers4Grenfell survivors are listed third and residents listed fourth. When the letter refers to 150 residents attending the meeting how many of those were survivors ?

I note that not a single former resident of Grenfell Tower is quoted in this Guardian story.

Nor in the one on Saturday which included an account of the meeting.

That one did contain quotes from Pilgrim Tucker, "a housing campaigner who has worked with Grenfell residents for several years", "prominent barrister" Jolyon Maugham, David Alexander, "professor of disaster management at University College London", David Lammy, "the MP for Tottenham who lost a friend in the fire and has become a strong advocate for survivors and bereaved families", Souad Talsi, "founder of Al Hasaniya, a charity supporting Arabic-speaking women in the area" and an unnamed senior manager of Al Hasaniya.

But not a single survivor.
 
Yes. This problem was raised in the 1999 parliamentary inquiry into high rise building / cladding fires I've previously linked to on this thread.

Not a new issue, not a tory issue, not corruption exactly, just the logical consequence of 40 years of neoliberal government deregulation and privatisation. Government no longer has the in house expertise to write / review the standards themselves, so they get industry committees to write them, then maybe ask the privatised BRE to give their opinion (who now earn much of their income from product testing for industry), then consult but ignore the responses because they don't understand them, then sit on it for a few years etc etc.
 

From the Celotex homepage

Update - Friday 23rd June

Grenfell Tower: Celotex is to stop the supply of RS5000 for use in rainscreen cladding systems in buildings over 18m tall


Celotex is shocked by the tragic events of the Grenfell Tower fire. Our thoughts are with everyone affected by this devastating human tragedy. We have been supplying building products for over forty years and as a business our focus has always been to supply safe insulation products to make better buildings.

We want to do everything that we can to support the Government’s ongoing response to the tragedy. We continue to offer our full cooperation with the investigations.
Celotex notes the comments made by Scotland Yard at this morning’s briefing in respect of the insulation used in Grenfell Tower. In view of the focus on rainscreen cladding systems and the insulation forming part of them, Celotex believes that the right thing to do is to stop the supply of Celotex RS5000 for rainscreen cladding systems in buildings over 18m tall with immediate effect (including in respect of ongoing projects), pending further clarity.

Celotex manufactures and supplies the insulation product RS5000 for use in multicomponent rainscreen cladding systems for buildings over 18m tall. Safety testing was undertaken on RS5000 as part of a particular rainscreen cladding system and this is described in documents available on our website. As noted in those documents, any changes to components of the cladding system or construction methods used need to be considered by the relevant building designer.
Given the developments of the past twenty four hours, we wish to discuss with the authorities how we can restore confidence in the products that we supply to the above 18m market.

At this early stage, it would not be appropriate for Celotex to make any further comment at this time.

For all media enquiries please call: 07387 411972


Update - Friday 16th June

As with the rest of the nation our thoughts continue to be with those affected by the terrible fire at Grenfell Tower in London. On Wednesday, as soon as we were able to, we confirmed that our records showed a Celotex product (RS5000) was purchased for use in refurbishing the building. We wanted to provide an update to that statement and provide further information as we are able to.

It is important to state that Celotex manufacture rigid board insulation only. We do not manufacture, supply or install cladding. Insulation is one component in a rainscreen system, and is positioned in that system behind the cladding material.

As we previously stated, our records show a Celotex product (RS5000) was purchased for use in refurbishing the building. This product has a fire rating classification of Class 0, in accordance with British Standards. Celotex RS5000 is the insulation component specifically tested as part of a system to British Standard BS8414-2:2005. When the system is designed and installed in line with this, RS5000 meets the criteria set out in BRE Report BR 135 ‘Fire performance of external thermal insulation for walls of multi storey buildings.’

We will of course assist the relevant authorities fully with any enquiries they have.



Update - Thursday 15th June

Our thoughts are with those affected by the terrible fire at Grenfell Tower in London. Our records show a Celotex product (RS5000) was purchased for use in refurbishing the building.

Full technical information on all of our products is available here on our website. If required, we will assist with enquiries from the relevant authorities at the appropriate time. Due to the nature of this developing situation it would be inappropriate for us to comment or speculate further on this tragedy.

my emphasis

Everyone knows Celotex burns, and that it is a better insulator, lighter and cheaper than Rockwool, which doesn't. The spec sheet for RS5000 (pdf) shows how it should be protected from fire:
upload_2017-7-4_9-51-53.png
ie, it should be put behind about 1/2 hour protection. The speed with which the fire spread suggests that was not adhered to.

At the moment it looks like the designer/architect has an awful lot of questions to answer. I'm not sure yelling CORRUPTION because a standard industrial product was potentially misused is really adding much.
 
Everyone knows Celotex burns, and that it is a better insulator, lighter and cheaper than Rockwool, which doesn't.

Celotex is a better insulator than rockwool but it is not cheaper, it is more expensive. Fire considerations aside, Rockwool tends to be used if you've got lots of space, and celotex type boards where you want to keep the thickness of the wall build-up down.

ie, it should be put behind about 1/2 hour protection. The speed with which the fire spread suggests that was not adhered to

No, that buildup does not place it behind 1/2 fire protection, it puts it in front of (on the outside of) the fire protection. That buildup is similar to the Grenfell one in that the Celotex is exposed to the cavity behind the rainscreen panels. But in that case the rainscreen panels are non-combustible fibre cement.
 
Celotex is a better insulator than rockwool but it is not cheaper, it is more expensive. Fire considerations aside, Rockwool tends to be used if you've got lots of space, and celotex type boards where you want to keep the thickness of the wall build-up down.
I've tried and failed to find spec and pricing for a Rockwool slab certified for use above 18m. Is there one?


No, that buildup does not place it behind 1/2 fire protection, it puts it in front of (on the outside of) the fire protection. That buildup is similar to the Grenfell one in that the Celotex is exposed to the cavity behind the rainscreen panels. But in that case the rainscreen panels are non-combustible fibre cement.
'behind' was ambiguous, perhaps I should have said 'protected by'. The sandwich they tested is shown here.
 
I've tried and failed to find spec and pricing for a Rockwool slab certified for use above 18m. Is there one?

The Rockwool Duo slab is used in EWI applications. I don't think it needs to be certified as such because it is a completely non-combustible product. This is the major problem with cladding systems over render. An EWI render system is tested as a complete system and supplied as such, this includes the adhesives, the insulation, the base coat, the primer and the top coat. This is one system. In cladding panels all suppliers are just providing one element and they are then being thrown together with little consideration for how they work together.

I'm going to come back to this because I want to say a few things about how this fire has come about and what I think the findings will tell us.
 
The Rockwool Duo slab is used in EWI applications. I don't think it needs to be certified as such because it is a completely non-combustible product. This is the major problem with cladding systems over render. An EWI render system is tested as a complete system and supplied as such, this includes the adhesives, the insulation, the base coat, the primer and the top coat. This is one system. In cladding panels all suppliers are just providing one element and they are then being thrown together with little consideration for how they work together.

I'm going to come back to this because I want to say a few things about how this fire has come about and what I think the findings will tell us.
tvm. I'll be interested in your conclusions (and those of the inquiry, obviously).

I know I have more questions than answers about all of this, including the extent to which cosmetic and commercial considerations, both short- and long-term, have overridden everything else. Also with regard to the design airgap between insulation and rainscreen cladding (which puzzles my layman understanding).

The responsibility for materials choice and the overall system clearly lies with the designer/architect, hopefully in consultation with the technical departments of the various manufacturers, but they're operating within a design brief. There must be reasons why cladding rather than rendering is part of that brief.
 
'behind' was ambiguous, perhaps I should have said 'protected by'. The sandwich they tested is shown here.

In the buildup they show there it's *not* (aside from fire breaks at each floor level) protected from spread up the cavity, behind the cladding panels, which is what seems to be relevant at Grenfell.

The difference between what they show there, and what seems to have been installed at Grenfell, is really only the cladding panels. At grenfell they had the plastic core, in that celotex document they are non combustible fibre cement.
 
I know I have more questions than answers about all of this, including the extent to which cosmetic and commercial considerations, both short- and long-term, have overridden everything else. Also with regard to the design airgap between insulation and rainscreen cladding (which puzzles my layman understanding).

Rainscreen cladding relies on that gap to let water drain away. The principle of a rainscreen is that it protects the wall behind from wind-driven rain, but the cladding layer is not fully watertight. Any water that gets through the joints between the panels has to drain away and that is what the gap is for. It has advantages over fully sealed systems in that you are not relying on weathertight joints between panels, and also it can be helpful for letting water vapour within the wall to escape, depending on the exact buildup.

The responsibility for materials choice and the overall system clearly lies with the designer/architect, hopefully in consultation with the technical departments of the various manufacturers, but they're operating within a design brief. There must be reasons why cladding rather than rendering is part of that brief.

It may be an aesthetic consideration. Render can have a habit of looking pretty grubby after a few years, especially in locations where you can't easily repaint it. How well metal panels weather in the long term is open to debate.
 
Back
Top Bottom