Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Grenfell Tower fire in North Kensington - news and discussion

I hope that this sparks a wider debate around the way we handle homelessness in England along with the important stuff around health and safety etc. Being carted off miles away from support networks, being threatened with this concept of intentionally homeless, families living in rooms with no facilities is really par for the course unfortunately. There is a hotel the council use here which is half way down the motorway - they've housed people with kids there when there's no shops or anything near by. Because of the lack of facilities a lot of homeless families are forced to order takeaways or eat out which is expensive - you can't cook proper meals when all you have is a kettle and then they get hammered for not handling their money correctly. There's lots of use of the word 'choice' when in reality there is little choice. The whole system is a disgrace and perhaps naively I have been surprised at other people's surprise at how badly the residents of Grenfall are being treated. This is pretty standard, I hope it starts to change both for them and everyone else.
 
I've finally tracked down the politician who bears ultimate responsibility for the change in the building regulations that allowed this cladding to be used....

Step forward former Deputy Prime Minister - John Prescott.

The change happened in the 2002 amendment to the part B of the building regulations which incorporated EU standards as well as BS standards.

In doing this the previous requirement for cladding of buildings above 20m in height to be Class 0 fire rating Non-combustible) was changed to buildings above 18 m in height could either be class 0 rated in the BS standards, or could be Class B-s3, d2 rated in the European Standards.

There's no real equivocation about this, Prescott signed off on a downgrade in the fire rating of the regulations, despite someone actually writing in to the regulations exactly what the S3 and d2 bit means, and it should eb obvious to anyone that class B is not going to be the highest rating, so is not going to be equivalent to the highest BS rating.

"When a classification includes S3,d2, this means that there is no limit set for smoke production and/or flaming droplets/particles."

When implementing the change to EU regulations they're legally supposed to be implemented at an equivalent level or higher to the existing British Standards, but case law shows that the courts have decided that it is for the secretary of state to judge what equivalent level or higher actually means in practice, not the courts.

So John Prescott is personally responsible for signing off the change in the regulations that ultimately resulted in this tragedy.

This also looks to be in part a result of his power grab to increase the areas his department was responsible for, as until a year earlier it was part of the remit of the department for Environment Transport and Regions, who probably had the competence to actually handle this work properly, and had even issued a report on the fire concerns with external cladding of tall buildings in 1999. Had the DETR still be in charge I doubt this change would have happened.

ps For clarity it's not the EU regulations at fault, it's that they didn't apply the correct EN standard to be equivalent to the BS standard, they applied a lower standard.

page 91
 
free spirit said:
I've finally tracked down the politician who bears ultimate responsibility for the change in the building regulations that allowed this cladding to be used....

Step forward former Deputy Prime Minister - John Prescott.

The change happened in the 2002 amendment to the part B of the building regulations which incorporated EU standards as well as BS standards.

In doing this the previous requirement for cladding of buildings above 20m in height to be Class 0 fire rating Non-combustible) was changed to buildings above 18 m in height could either be class 0 rated in the BS standards, or could be Class B-s3, d2 rated in the European Standards.

There's no real equivocation about this, Prescott signed off on a downgrade in the fire rating of the regulations, despite someone actually writing in to the regulations exactly what the S3 and d2 bit means, and it should eb obvious to anyone that class B is not going to be the highest rating, so is not going to be equivalent to the highest BS rating.

"When a classification includes S3,d2, this means that there is no limit set for smoke production and/or flaming droplets/particles."

When implementing the change to EU regulations they're legally supposed to be implemented at an equivalent level or higher to the existing British Standards, but case law shows that the courts have decided that it is for the secretary of state to judge what equivalent level or higher actually means in practice, not the courts.

So John Prescott is personally responsible for signing off the change in the regulations that ultimately resulted in this tragedy.

This also looks to be in part a result of his power grab to increase the areas his department was responsible for, as until a year earlier it was part of the remit of the department for Environment Transport and Regions, who probably had the competence to actually handle this work properly, and had even issued a report on the fire concerns with external cladding of tall buildings in 1999. Had the DETR still be in charge I doubt this change would have happened.

ps For clarity it's not the EU regulations at fault, it's that they didn't apply the correct EN standard to be equivalent to the BS standard, they applied a lower standard.

page 91
Click to expand...

Not as straightforward as that, as I believe the panels used *did* meet Class 0.

In other words they would still have been allowed prior to the changes to AD part B you describe.

If, (and it's not immediately clear to me reading the regs whether they should) in addition to consideration for surface spread of flame requirements, the cladding panels should be considered as an "insulation product or filler material" (para 12.7) and therefore need to be assessed for combustibility (not the same thing) you are referred to Appendix A and tables A6 and A7. And the EU standards that are specified there are not the Class B-s3, d2 you mention but the higher Class A2-s3, d2 and Class A1.
 
Last edited:
teuchter said:
Not as straightforward as that, as I believe the panels used *did* meet Class 0.

In other words they would still have been allowed prior to the changes to AD part B you describe.

If, (and it's not immediately clear to me reading the regs whether they should) in addition to consideration for surface spread of flame requirements, the cladding panels should be considered as an "insulation product or filler material" (para 12.7) and therefore need to be assessed for combustibility (not the same thing) you are referred to Appendix A and tables A6 and A7. And the EU standards that are specified there are not the Class B-s3, d2 you mention but the higher Class A2-s3, d2 and Class A1.
Click to expand...
yeah I just checked that, and both the cladding panels and insulation are certified by the manufacturers as meeting class 0.

Which is scary shit. How does celotex itself get classed with the highest fire rating?
 
I'd also just sussed that they've got class A2 in one section for the insulation, and class B on diagram D for wall surface covering. Which is really odd. But also is still a downgrade for that element.

Also here's how Celotex get the rating for above 18m buildings - it;s not for the boards by themselves, but for the entire system with 12mm fibre cement board, and non-combustible board sandwiched around it and fire stops etc. Which really isn't obvious at all on either the website or datasheet, only on this sheet.

Building above 18 metres Celotex RS5000 has been successfully tested to BS 8414-2:2005 (Fire performance of external cladding systems: Test method for non-loadbearing external cladding systems fixed to and supported by a structural steel frame), meets the criteria set out in BR 135 and is therefore acceptable for use in buildings above 18 metres in height. The system tested to BS 8414-2:2005 was as follows: ▶ 12mm fibre cement panels ▶ Supporting aluminium brackets and vertical rails ▶ 100mm Celotex RS5000 ▶ 12mm non-combustible sheathing board ▶ 100mm SFS system ▶ 2 x 12.5mm plasterboard Celotex RS5000 has been successfully tested to BS 8414- 2:2005 (Fire performance of external cladding systems) Fire stopping was provided by ventilated horizontal fire breaks positioned at each floor slab edge and above the hearth opening. Vertical non-ventilated fire breaks were provided at the edges of both the main face and the return wing and around the hearth opening. N.B. Ventilated fire barriers comprised of stonewool insulation with Class O aluminium foil facings and a continuous bonded intumescent strip. Non-ventilated fire barriers comprised of stonewool insulation with Class O aluminium foil facings specifically intended to fully fill the void. The fire performance and classification report for Celotex RS5000 only relates to the components detailed above. Any changes to the components listed will need to be considered by the building designer.
Click to expand...
 
I've not watched last night's Panorama special yet, but here's a report on it:

Firefighters who successfully tackled the fridge fire that started the Grenfell Tower thought their was job was done and began to leave - only realising how quickly it had spread when they stepped outside.

Units were called to what they believed to be a standard fridge fire at the doomed high-rise, and within minutes told residents the fire was out in the flat.

The crew was leaving the building when firefighters outside spotted flames rising up the side of the building, BBC Panorama has uncovered.

The Fire Brigades Union say firefighters were left facing an unprecedented fire, and officers broke their own safety protocol to rescue people.

Firefighters EXTINGUISHED Grenfell Tower fridge fire | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...

Sorry for the source, google has only thrown up the Mail & Sun.

ETA: Just watched Panorama, it was hard. :(

But, yeah, they are saying having spoken to senior fire sources, the fridge fire had been put out, and they thought the job was done, until they saw what was happening outside, and they couldn't believe what they were seeing.

Back-up was called, and there's mobile phone footage taken inside one of the back-up fire engines as it approached the block, the fire crew couldn't believe it, words along the lines of 'What the fuck [bleeped out]. Jesus. How's that possible?' were heard. :(
 
Last edited:
In other news, loads of people have complained about the coverage of the poor sod who lived in the flat where the fridge went up, by both the Mail & the Sun.

Hundreds of people have made formal complaints about press coverage that has “shamed” the man in whose flat the Grenfell Tower fire reportedly started.

MailOnline ran an article headlined ‘The man whose faulty fridge started tower inferno’ which identified and pictured a man it called an “Ethiopian taxi driver”.

Neighbours have said the man, who has not spoken to the press, frantically banged on their doors warning them about the blaze as it took hold.

As anger continues to rise at the causes of the devastating fire that killed an estimated 78 people, people have lashed out at the article and another in The Sun focusing on the man, and thousands signed a petition calling the coverage “cruel”.

Press Coverage Of Grenfell Tower Fire Man With Faulty Fridge Triggers 1650 Complaints | HuffPost UK
Click to expand...
 
Fears more Grenfell Tower victims unaccounted for because they 'officially didn't exist'

Fear that we'll never really account for all the missing and dead, due to subletting and also victims being too scared to reveal themselves because of their possible immigration status. At a time when they've lost everything they'll also avoid accessing any formal support :(

Links to archived listings from property websites have been doing the rounds and some of these flats were being rented out at £2,100 p/m for a two bed. It's just extortion and depressing that housing (especially built for the public/social need) has ended up like this :mad:

Just does my head in.
 
Casual Observer said:
Teaboy, I don't disagree with what you have said on the subject of cladding and new windows but it's worth pointing out that that other parts of the refurbishment project were definitely not for the benefit of residents (converting what had been community space on the lower floors into 9 new flats, installing a new heating system to enable itemised charging charges for each flat for example).
Click to expand...

Yes, I don't really know enough about what has gone on internally to comment, there are certainly a lot of bad stories coming out about both design and implementation. I guess if the 9 new flats went to people on the housing list that's good for them but less good to lose the community space

I have a couple of cladding questions:

Have any of the cladding projects you have been involved in involved applying cladding on top of fluted concrete surfaces and if so, what measures were taken to fill in the vertical gaps created by the fluting on the original concrete surfaces?

Are there UK laws about the types of surface to which cladding can be applied?

Are UK cladding rules for new buildings different to those for old buildings?
Click to expand...

As it happens I was involved in a project where fluted concrete was present, 3 tower blocks in South London. In this case an insulated render system was used which differs from cladding in that the insulation is fixed directly back to the existing substrate and then a wet applied render is used directly over the insulation. Its a cheaper system and the aesthetics (short term and long term) of render and questionable but from a fire safety point of view its probably better as there are no cavities behind the system. For this particular project we only proposed a non-combustible insulation (Rockwool), my original proposal was for the fluted concrete to be dubbed out to present a flat surface for the insulation to be fixed to. Its a while ago now and I'm pretty sure that it was happened but the main thinking for this was so there was a flat surface for the insulation to be chemically fixed (glued) to, there is also a secondary mechanical fix. Fire wasn't really a consideration because we were using Rockwool which obviously satisfied regs. There is no specific regs for dealing with every type of existing substrate, everyone just gets together and makes a proposal which is either accepted or rejected by building control.

The thing about building regs is that they mainly focus around safety so its down to the various parties involved to propose best practice with regard to fixing. With this is mind architects and engineers often rely heavily on the system manufacturers. So in theory a system can be applied to any substrate as long as every party is happy and building control and insurer are satisfied. The main criteria for a substrate for cladding is will it hold the weight and will it be possible to get a good fix.

Building regs tend to be tighter on new build then re-furb for the simple reason that a lot of what they were doing back in the day wouldn't be allowed now, but as the building is already there and some features are not easily retro-fitted you have to make do with what you've got. From a facade point of view I believe the regs surrounding fire are the same, but it is a 4 years since I worked in the industry and things change.
 
purenarcotic said:
I hope that this sparks a wider debate around the way we handle homelessness in England along with the important stuff around health and safety etc. Being carted off miles away from support networks, being threatened with this concept of intentionally homeless, families living in rooms with no facilities is really par for the course unfortunately. There is a hotel the council use here which is half way down the motorway - they've housed people with kids there when there's no shops or anything near by. Because of the lack of facilities a lot of homeless families are forced to order takeaways or eat out which is expensive - you can't cook proper meals when all you have is a kettle and then they get hammered for not handling their money correctly. There's lots of use of the word 'choice' when in reality there is little choice. The whole system is a disgrace and perhaps naively I have been surprised at other people's surprise at how badly the residents of Grenfall are being treated. This is pretty standard, I hope it starts to change both for them and everyone else.
Click to expand...

This is a brilliant post.

There is not enough understanding of what actually happens when you are in dire circumstances and need housing. And The way that people in these situations are treated is just getting worse and worse.

I spent time in women's hostels just about 3 years ago and that was horrible enough. But although they were restrictive, imposing ridiculous rules on you and generally trying their best to make you feel like a criminal and a failure at least they were vaguely safe.

The conditions weren't great and having your freedom restricted i.e.; having to be back by a certain time and only be allowed a night away if you cleared it with staff for example. was humiliating and intrusive. But compared to situations people are in now esp families it was easy. It nearly broke me but in comparison it was easy.

Most people here now are being housed in really crappy bnbs and they are just not safe. They are housing young families in the same crappy 'hotels' as violent ex offenders and long term street homeless people with severe alcohol and drug problems. Next door to them with no security and only them small bar locks like you have in pub toilets on the door. When I was in places I could handle it when there was drug dealers outside because they know it's an easy place to sell and when it was kicking off because someone has come back on spice and is having a psychotic episode. Just about like, sent me under tho. But how can families deal with that?

One lady got stabbed in my friends place next door to a woman with her two kids under five, they must have heard everything. how the fuck do you handle that when you have got 2 or 3 young kids to handle? How do you explain why you are there to a 3 year old?

And these families are getting told if you leave here you will be considered intentionally homeless and you will have to present your children to social services. How the fuck can we call ourselves a civilised country when we can allow that happen? It's beyond me it really is.

It makes no sense logically or ethically, it's going to cost many many times more to put those kids into care than it is to house the family or help them with their rent arrears. It's just punitive, people even young children are being punished for being poor now.

We all know how explorative and genrally fucked this housing market is but There's plenty of people making ridiculous money of this, it's not a housing crisis for them it's payday and kids are getting punished for it in horrific ways. And even If you do get housed after months or years of living being treated like a criminal stuck in some Dickensian limbo even if you are lucky and can get social housing you can still burn to death in your own home because if your poor they just don't give a fuck about ya. This is what it's come to and it is just so casual that's what's terrifying.

They talk about terrorism and the attacks over the last few weeks have been terrible and sad and frightening. The army evacuating my flats after the Manchester attacks shit me right up, had panic attacks for days. But this fire and all the circumstances that have lead our society to a place like this, that's what chills me to my bones, it deeply disturbs the soul of me because it's so fucking casual. I know what terrifies me and my community more and it seems like you can't escape from it.

Like you say I hope the whole situation can get examined properly know, that we can really look into how families are treated when they have housing need because nobody deserves anything like this especially not little kids man.
 
cupid_stunt said:
Jobseekers' allowance rules suspended for Grenfell Tower tenants - well that's something, one assumes normal housing rules will also be lifted too.
Click to expand...
THat's not quite the same as "as flexible as possible" though, is it.

The only thing that will stop the bastards from sanctioning or otherwise applying their sadistic regime will be the chance they, and I mean the frontline staff, will get their fucking teeth smashed in if they try it. There's no way that the Tories will otherwise relent on their shit system because the rest of us will, rightly IMO, wonder why this can't be the way the system operates by default.
 
Who PhD said:
THat's not quite the same as "as flexible as possible" though, is it.

The only thing that will stop the bastards from sanctioning or otherwise applying their sadistic regime will be the chance they, and I mean the frontline staff, will get their fucking teeth smashed in if they try it. There's no way that the Tories will otherwise relent on their shit system because the rest of us will, rightly IMO, wonder why this can't be the way the system operates by default.
Click to expand...
will you do this fucking smashing?
 
Who PhD said:
THat's not quite the same as "as flexible as possible" though, is it.

The only thing that will stop the bastards from sanctioning or otherwise applying their sadistic regime will be the chance they, and I mean the frontline staff, will get their fucking teeth smashed in if they try it. There's no way that the Tories will otherwise relent on their shit system because the rest of us will, rightly IMO, wonder why this can't be the way the system operates by default.
Click to expand...
your posts make you sound about twelve
 
London fire: A tale of two tower blocks - BBC News

A 2012 report by the British Automatic Fire Sprinkler Association (BAFSA) concluded that fire sprinklers could be retrofitted with tenants in place at a cost of about £1,150 a flat. Since the 24-storey Grenfell Tower contained 120 flats, it would have worked out at £138,000. That's significantly less than the £2.6m spent on the cladding and replacement windows.

Architect and fire expert Sam Webb said: "We are still wrapping post-war high-rise buildings in highly flammable materials and leaving them without sprinkler systems installed, then being surprised when they burn down.

"I really don't think the building industry understands how fire behaves in buildings and how dangerous it can be. The government's mania for deregulation means our current safety standards just aren't good enough."
Click to expand...
 
Orang Utan said:
your posts make you sound about twelve
Click to expand...
How does that address any of what I've said?

You seriously think the DWP gives a shit about these people? The only reason they have relented, if it can be considered that, is because of the media spotlight.

At no point did they volunteer to do the right thing.
 
Who PhD said:
How does that address any of what I've said?

You seriously think the DWP gives a shit about these people? The only reason they have relented, if it can be considered that, is because of the media spotlight.

At no point did they volunteer to do the right thing.
Click to expand...
i ask again: are you volunteering to assault dwp staff? or is this something you only recommend to others?
 
Who PhD said:
How does that address any of what I've said?

You seriously think the DWP gives a shit about these people? The only reason they have relented, if it can be considered that, is because of the media spotlight.

At no point did they volunteer to do the right thing.
Click to expand...
The DWP is made up of many individuals, many of which do give a shit, but have been put in impossible positions by government policies.
 
Barking_Mad said:
Video from firefighters approaching the tower block

London tower fire: Video reveals disbelief of firefighters heading into 'Towering Inferno' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Click to expand...
That's horrible, real time processing with the fire fighters getting a grip on what has happened. Even experienced fire fighters needing a few seconds to see something and then get their heads round what they are about to experience. Statement of the obvious, sorry - but just horrible. :(
 
stethoscope said:
Fears more Grenfell Tower victims unaccounted for because they 'officially didn't exist'

Fear that we'll never really account for all the missing and dead, due to subletting and also victims being too scared to reveal themselves because of their possible immigration status. At a time when they've lost everything they'll also avoid accessing any formal support :(

Links to archived listings from property websites have been doing the rounds and some of these flats were being rented out at £2,100 p/m for a two bed. It's just extortion and depressing that housing (especially built for the public/social need) has ended up like this :mad:

Just does my head in.
Click to expand...
I'd have thought getting an amnesty for all the issues about sub letting and immigration status should be a key demand. Everybody has to get rehoused and everybody has to get the temporary payments (and longer term monies).
 
Orang Utan said:
The DWP is made up of many individuals, many of which do give a shit, but have been put in impossible positions by government policies.
Click to expand...

You're just stating the obvious, what's your point? What is it that you want to do here. You have two choices:
Either you stand against the regime
Or it continues and this includes the sanctioning (because it WILL happen) of Grenfell survivors. Not to mention everyone else left to starve to death.

If all you are going to do is state that they are in an impossible situation, then nothing will change. If these people will not act to chagne this situation then nothing will change. If that's the case then i'd rather they lost their job than a fire victim who's lost everything is left to starve by the state. Obviously I'd rather that didn't happen, but that will happen if all people do is make excuses for this system, and i'm afraid that includes those working within it. This also means that unions need to get more involved and help those people get out of impossible positions. This isn't easy, by any means, but the alternative I'm afraid is worse.

If all you can do in respoinse to that is simply insult me then you are contributing nothing. If anything that's the childish position.

Grenfell survivors will struggle with the DWP. This headline belies a less positive tone from the DWP and it's about time we stopped using this 'workers in an impossible situation' argument because it isn't working. Support them, collectives, do all that. But stop making excuses, people are dying. We know this. We've seen it. When someone from Grenfell gets sanctioned the excuse will be that "we were unable to correctly verify his identity, and so he could have been a fraudster". This is not good enough. If the DWP can relent (if) for this group (and rightly so), then that is clear proof the system shouldn't be this brutal.

Don't engage in puerile gaslighting, engage with what I've said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PTK
Fire in Tower Block in Dagenham, London, Monday 26 August 2024.
Replies
24
Views
890
marty21
marty21
G
Kemi Badenoch discussion
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
186
Views
8K
GarveyLives
G
Aladdin
125 firefighters fight Fire at Somerset House
Replies
8
Views
482
Fozzie Bear
Fozzie Bear
BristolEcho
Barton House Tower Evacuated
Replies
16
Views
915
teuchter
teuchter
PR1Berske
UK election poll: Islington North
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
161
Views
6K
hitmouse
hitmouse
Back
Top Bottom