Grenfell Tower fire in North Kensington - news and discussion

[cupid_stunt]

apologies if this has already been posted, a search of the thread didn't show anything
Inquiry. The Great British Housing Disaster (Adam Curtis, 1984) - 43 mins onwards mentions fire risks of cladding tower blocks

Any reason for posting this?

It seems to be about system/factory building of blocks in the 60s, that doesn't apply to Grenfell Tower, which was built to far higher standards in the 70s. Grenfell Tower was designed with attention to strength following the Ronan Point collapse of 1968, and has survived previous fires, prior to it being clad in plastic.

 

[equationgirl]

Any reason for posting this?

It seems to be about system/factory building of blocks in the 60s, that doesn't apply to Grenfell Tower, which was built to far higher standards in the 70s. Grenfell Tower was designed with attention to strength following the Ronan Point collapse of 1968, and has survived previous fires, prior to it being clad in plastic.

It looks like an interesting documentary for background purposes, although obviously may not be directly relevant.

 

[frogwoman]

it was designed to stand for hundreds of years wasn't it? why the hell did they wrap it in plastic then

 

[equationgirl]

it was designed to stand for hundreds of years wasn't it? why the hell did they wrap it in plastic then

One of the many questions for the investigation - what was it clad in? Why? What other options were there? Was it installed in accordance with manufacturer instructions? How combustible was it? What other fireproofing measures were taken?

 

[cupid_stunt]

One of the many questions for the investigation - what was it clad in? Why? What other options were there? Was it installed in accordance with manufacturer instructions? How combustible was it? What other fireproofing measures were taken?

Assuming the reports are right about the materials used are correct, which may or may not have fallen within current regulations, it would certainly appear to have been installed against manufacturer instructions.

• 
  There seems some doubts about the regulations now, but certainly it seems the manufacturers says it shouldn't have been used on a 220ft building, and the contractors - Harley Facades - must have been aware of that, yet still used it.

• Manufacturers' say it is 'crucial' that the panels should not be fitted above 32ft

Fears on cut-price cladding were ignored on Grenfell Tower | Daily Mail Online

 

[editor]

Makes me so fucking angry There are 1,399 homes a stone's throw from Grenfell Tower left empty by millionaires. Time to move in the victims

 

[Raheem]

Well spotted. It will go no-where for families that have lost everything.

I don't think this is fair, really. Providing emergency money is a really obvious thing that the government can do. It's meant for practical, immediate purposes, not as compensation. The issue is not the amount, but the fact that it has taken the best part of a week to sort out and, in the meantime, some of the survivors will have been entirely dependent on charity.

 

[equationgirl]

I don't think this is fair, really. Providing emergency money is a really obvious thing that the government can do. It's meant for practical, immediate purposes, not as compensation. The issue is not the amount, but the fact that it has taken the best part of a week to sort out and, in the meantime, some of the survivors will have been entirely dependent on charity.

Or the kindness of strangers, or friends, other relatives.

There should have been a better implemented contingency plan, even if this was the absolute worst case scenario.

 

[PursuedByBears]

Grenfell Tower fire: volunteer beaten up after being mistaken for CEO of company responsible for building

Oh dear. At the Town Hall on Friday according to the article.

 

[brogdale]

Grenfell Tower fire: volunteer beaten up after being mistaken for CEO of company responsible for building

Oh dear. At the Town Hall on Friday according to the article.

His job description alone appears ample justification for a bit of rough house, tbh

 

[ChrisD]

Another industry view...An avoidable tragedy: questions for the public inquiry on Greenfell Tower - passivehouseplus.ie

Says that the whole project was done on a building regulations notice* with self certification by sub contractors.
*building regs are either certified by "full plans" or the "building regulations notice" route. The later is fine for a simple house extension but I never realised that a complete refurbishment of a tower block could be done that way. So not only does approved document B ( fire safety) need urgent review which we knew I suggest that the whole regulatory process needs overhaul.

 

[ChrisD]

An event to discuss technical and political issues from this tragedy
The Truth about Grenfell Tower

"Please join us and share what we collectively know so far about the technical and political decisions that led to the Grenfell Tower fire; reassure residents about the safety of post-war tower blocks against the fear being spread by the media; and discuss how we can counteract this disaster being used by politicians to promote the demolition of London’s council estates for profit."

 

[Treacle Toes]

Grenfell Tower – The KCTMO Culture Of Negligence

New Blog post up.

 

[Artaxerxes]

Makes me so fucking angry There are 1,399 homes a stone's throw from Grenfell Tower left empty by millionaires. Time to move in the victims

A better article on this.

Where are the empty homes in Kensington?

 

[editor]

Grenfell Tower – The KCTMO Culture Of Negligence

New Blog post up.

This bears repeating:

It is incumbent on us also to state our firmly held belief that the cladding in question was not introduced for the benefit of the residents of Grenfell Tower but because Kensington and Chelsea Council had redeveloped the surounding area, building another of their flagship academy schools right next to Grenfell Tower, and a new sports and leisure centre next to that. The cladding on Grenfell Tower was intended to pimp it up so that it wouldn’t spoil the image of creeping gentrification that the Council are intent on creating, here and throughout the rest of North Kensington.

 

[Treacle Toes]

WeThePeople‏ @gaurangmorjaria 1h
Worth reminding that Cllr Judith Blakeman (Lab) complained 19 times! Its time Police stepped in before evidence is destroyed #GrenfellTower pic.twitter.com/xCFUCTE0kS

Important video in this tweet.

 

[gawkrodger]

FBU statement

Firefighters demand no cover up on Grenfell Tower - justice for victims | Fire Brigades Union

 

[agricola]

A better article on this.

Where are the empty homes in Kensington?

Certainly whoever wants to be rehoused locally should be temporarily accomodated in some of them empty flats and homes, but there is a lot more the state could do in the long term. For example, they are (or at least were) about to sell off the Hyde Park barracks site for yet more super-luxury dwellings. Why not commit at least part of that site to building social housing for the displaced residents of Grenfell and others?

 

[Artaxerxes]

Certainly whoever wants to be rehoused locally should be temporarily accomodated in some of them empty flats and homes, but there is a lot more the state could do in the long term. For example, they are (or at least were) about to sell off the Hyde Park barracks site for yet more super-luxury dwellings. Why not commit at least part of that site to building social housing for the displaced residents of Grenfell and others?

They should, and they probably will.

It will be a lie.

 

[xsunnysuex]

Someone on a facebook thread about housing the survivors in the local area, posted people who don't work should be grateful for any accommodation they are offered.
Don't think they will make the mistake of posting that again!!

 

[Teaboy]

The idea that the refurbishment project carried out by Rydon was primarily about aesthetics has really taken hold now. It seems to be taken as fact that it was the main motivator yet as far as I can see the only evidence for this is one extract from a planning document which was really rather typical.

I've said on this thread several times that the cladding was part of an upgrade to improve the thermal performance of the building, this is something the council is absolutely obliged to do. There have been countless similar projects around the UK.
As part of the upgrade there were new windows installed which presumably would have had a better thermal performance and reduced sound transfer. There was also external wall insulation. These two things alone would have been to the benefit of the tenants and the tenants alone. You cannot install external wall insulation without a new cladding system of some description, it cannot be done.

There have traditionally been a number of funding options available to councils and social housing providers to help pay for these upgrades. You cannot get these substantial funding arrangements simply for prettying up a place. I don't know how this project was funded but I suspect there must have some sort of government fund tapped somewhere.

Now you can argue over the individual merits of modern design and cladding against the brutalist architecture of the 60's & 70's but I have absolutely no reason to doubt this was an attempt to make the block look better for everyone but the primary factor were the windows, insulation and redevelopment of the lower floors creating more flats. As I said pages and pages ago, re-furbs like this are meant to be a win win.

It seems that something has gone badly wrong in the planning and implementation of the construction project and there is a raft of other legitimate criticisms to make, many of which go straight to number 10.

What we have to ask is should council tenants live in warm flats with good windows? Should those more likely to struggle with paying energy bills be first in line for insulation and modern windows? I really think this focus on the motivation for the re-furb is at best unhelpful and at worse a distraction from the serious underlying failures. This is only my belief, but as I have said before I have personally been involved in many similar projects.

 

[bimble]

The fallout from that issue of the council's reserves and rebates continues:
Kensington and Chelsea council has £274m in reserves

 

[cupid_stunt]

The idea that the refurbishment project carried out by Rydon was primarily about aesthetics has really taken hold now. It seems to be taken as fact that it was the main motivator yet as far as I can see the only evidence for this is one extract from a planning document which was really rather typical.

I've said on this thread several times that the cladding was part of an upgrade to improve the thermal performance of the building, this is something the council is absolutely obliged to do. There have been countless similar projects around the UK.
As part of the upgrade there were new windows installed which presumably would have had a better thermal performance and reduced sound transfer. There was also external wall insulation. These two things alone would have been to the benefit of the tenants and the tenants alone. You cannot install external wall insulation without a new cladding system of some description, it cannot be done.

There have traditionally been a number of funding options available to councils and social housing providers to help pay for these upgrades. You cannot get these substantial funding arrangements simply for prettying up a place. I don't know how this project was funded but I suspect there must have some sort of government fund tapped somewhere.

Now you can argue over the individual merits of modern design and cladding against the brutalist architecture of the 60's & 70's but I have absolutely no reason to doubt this was an attempt to make the block look better for everyone but the primary factor were the windows, insulation and redevelopment of the lower floors creating more flats. As I said pages and pages ago, re-furbs like this are meant to be a win win.

It seems that something has gone badly wrong in the planning and implementation of the construction project and there is a raft of other legitimate criticisms to make, many of which go straight to number 10.

What we have to ask is should council tenants live in warm flats with good windows? Should those more likely to struggle with paying energy bills be first in line for insulation and modern windows? I really think this focus on the motivation for the re-furb is at best unhelpful and at worse a distraction from the serious underlying failures. This is only my belief, but as I have said before I have personally been involved in many similar projects.

Spot on!

Those claiming the 'improvements' were done just to tart-up the outside are frankly bonkers.

 

[8den]

Mood in W8

 

[squirrelp]

The idea that the refurbishment project carried out by Rydon was primarily about aesthetics has really taken hold now. It seems to be taken as fact that it was the main motivator yet as far as I can see the only evidence for this is one extract from a planning document which was really rather typical.

I've said on this thread several times that the cladding was part of an upgrade to improve the thermal performance of the building, this is something the council is absolutely obliged to do. There have been countless similar projects around the UK.
As part of the upgrade there were new windows installed which presumably would have had a better thermal performance and reduced sound transfer. There was also external wall insulation. These two things alone would have been to the benefit of the tenants and the tenants alone. You cannot install external wall insulation without a new cladding system of some description, it cannot be done.

There have traditionally been a number of funding options available to councils and social housing providers to help pay for these upgrades. You cannot get these substantial funding arrangements simply for prettying up a place. I don't know how this project was funded but I suspect there must have some sort of government fund tapped somewhere.

Now you can argue over the individual merits of modern design and cladding against the brutalist architecture of the 60's & 70's but I have absolutely no reason to doubt this was an attempt to make the block look better for everyone but the primary factor were the windows, insulation and redevelopment of the lower floors creating more flats. As I said pages and pages ago, re-furbs like this are meant to be a win win.

It seems that something has gone badly wrong in the planning and implementation of the construction project and there is a raft of other legitimate criticisms to make, many of which go straight to number 10.

What we have to ask is should council tenants live in warm flats with good windows? Should those more likely to struggle with paying energy bills be first in line for insulation and modern windows? I really think this focus on the motivation for the re-furb is at best unhelpful and at worse a distraction from the serious underlying failures. This is only my belief, but as I have said before I have personally b

The idea that the refurbishment project carried out by Rydon was primarily about aesthetics has really taken hold now. It seems to be taken as fact that it was the main motivator yet as far as I can see the only evidence for this is one extract from a planning document which was really rather typical.

I've said on this thread several times that the cladding was part of an upgrade to improve the thermal performance of the building, this is something the council is absolutely obliged to do. There have been countless similar projects around the UK.
As part of the upgrade there were new windows installed which presumably would have had a better thermal performance and reduced sound transfer. There was also external wall insulation. These two things alone would have been to the benefit of the tenants and the tenants alone. You cannot install external wall insulation without a new cladding system of some description, it cannot be done.

There have traditionally been a number of funding options available to councils and social housing providers to help pay for these upgrades. You cannot get these substantial funding arrangements simply for prettying up a place. I don't know how this project was funded but I suspect there must have some sort of government fund tapped somewhere.

Now you can argue over the individual merits of modern design and cladding against the brutalist architecture of the 60's & 70's but I have absolutely no reason to doubt this was an attempt to make the block look better for everyone but the primary factor were the windows, insulation and redevelopment of the lower floors creating more flats. As I said pages and pages ago, re-furbs like this are meant to be a win win.

It seems that something has gone badly wrong in the planning and implementation of the construction project and there is a raft of other legitimate criticisms to make, many of which go straight to number 10.

What we have to ask is should council tenants live in warm flats with good windows? Should those more likely to struggle with paying energy bills be first in line for insulation and modern windows? I really think this focus on the motivation for the re-furb is at best unhelpful and at worse a distraction from the serious underlying failures. This is only my belief, but as I have said before I have personally been involved in many similar projects.

There seems to be many things that the council and tenant management organisation were 'absolutely obliged to do' regarding fire safety for the residents of Grenfell Tower, but failed to. So, I don't think it is unfair to wonder about the true motivations of those who led the refurbishment project.

 

[Wilf]

Spot on!

Those claiming the 'improvements' were done just to tart-up the outside are frankly bonkers.

Teaboy knows his stuff, but 'bonkers' overstates it. Every bit of context here has the residents being treated like shit - for decades. When you seen phrases in the planning documents about 'the view from the conservation area', antennae twitch. I'm perfectly happy with the expert position Teaboy sets out, but we may well never know the precise discussions and weightings that went on in, but there are certainly questions to be asked when you are talking about an authority like K and C. That's not me suggesting it was primarily done for the external view, just that these are real Qs and can be put forward without getting into conspiraloonery.

 

[Teaboy]

There seems to be many things that the council and tenant management organisation were 'absolutely obliged to do' regarding fire safety for the residents of Grenfell Tower, but failed to. So, I don't think it is unfair to wonder about the true motivations of those who led the refurbishment project.

Yes but you don't get external funding in the millions from British Gas to fix the lifts. It's a distraction and the fact a conspiraloon like you is onto it should ring alarm bells.

 

[Teaboy]

Teaboy knows his stuff, but 'bonkers' overstates it. Every bit of context here has the residents being treated like shit - for decades. When you seen phrases in the planning documents about 'the view from the conservation area', antennae twitch. I'm perfectly happy with the expert position Teaboy sets out, but we may well never know the precise discussions and weightings that went on in, but there are certainly questions to be asked when you are talking about an authority like K and C. That's not me suggesting it was primarily done for the external view, just that these are real Qs and can be put forward without getting into conspiraloonery.

Don't get me wrong, it would have been a consideration in planning but however misguided they may have been I have no reason to doubt that they thought the new appearance would be beneficial to the whole community.

 

[xsunnysuex]

Some good news for once.

FIRE FAMILY FOUND
Grenfell Tower ‘family of five who were missing and feared dead are found ALIVE after managing to flee as fire took hold’


Grenfell Tower 'family of five who were missing and feared dead are found ALIVE after managing to flee'

 

[8den]

Some good news for once.

FIRE FAMILY FOUND
Grenfell Tower ‘family of five who were missing and feared dead are found ALIVE after managing to flee as fire took hold’


Grenfell Tower 'family of five who were missing and feared dead are found ALIVE after managing to flee'

Reported in the independent on Friday

Syria refugee family of five missing in Grenfell Tower fire found safe and well