Grenfell Tower fire in North Kensington - news and discussion

[killer b]

Can we not turn this thread into the Awesome Wells show please?

or any thread, ever.

 

[Who PhD]

I did address it. I made a specific point in reply to a specific one of yours. You are avoiding that response. I guess because you can't admit to using a word wrongly.

As to the DWP, lots of DWP workers - some of whom will probably have had friends/family, or even themselves in Grenfell - will give a fucking big toss.

It's very obvious that my referring to the DWP is institutionally; to think that I mean otherwise is being deliberately unfair. The people at the bottom will not be the ones making these kinds of policy decisions.

However the point still remains: if DWP workers won't stand up then the situation won't change. It is uncharitable to call that childish when it is absolutely the reality. By all means they should be supported in doing so, to do otherwise would be a betrayal. Solidarity networks and unions, particularly the PCS, should be fighting with these people. But it cannot be acceptable that we allow these people, difficult though their position may be, to drive others, including friends/family, or even themselves in Grenfell, to face utter annihilation. That is a line that cannot be crossed. Anyone that regards that as puerile is, IMO, dodging the issue. Anyone who doubts the DWP would rather not have to give 'special treatment' to Grenfell survivors is being naive.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Who PhD - Please leave it there now, out of respect for other users, this is a serious thread, that doesn't deserve being derailed.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Meanwhile...

Grenfell victims are sleeping in cars and parks, says Kensington MP

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

"Those responsible will never get away with it" - Defend Council Housing speaker on Grenfell Tower horror.

 

[Who PhD]

Who PhD - Please leave it there now, out of respect for other users, this is a serious thread, that doesn't deserve being derailed.

I agree.

 

[Corax]

FTR, whilst I don't live near Grenfell, my DWP advisor was themselves housebound with mental health issues until 6 months ago. They've been nothing but empathetic and supportive. I rather hope that they don't "get their fucking teeth smashed in"

 

[Pickman's model]

FTR, whilst I don't live near Grenfell, my DWP advisor was themselves housebound with mental health issues until 6 months ago. They've been nothing but empathetic and supportive. I rather hope that they don't "get their fucking teeth smashed in"

who phd needs to learn how to win friends and influence people

 

[Treacle Toes]

Meanwhile, people find ways of focusing their feelings and raising awareness...

 

[Who PhD]

FTR, whilst I don't live near Grenfell, my DWP advisor was themselves housebound with mental health issues until 6 months ago. They've been nothing but empathetic and supportive. I rather hope that they don't "get their fucking teeth smashed in"

Nor do i, supportive and empathetic staff aren't the people i'm referring to. If you're sanctioning grenfell survivors you are neither supportive nor empathetic.

 

[free spirit]

Yes. The funding for upgrades to thermal performance can be obtained from different sources meaning that a refurbishment like this can be heavily subsidised. Whereas ongoing general maintenance and internal works come out of the councils general budge (I'm generalising here a bit). The point being that there is money available for these sort of works where there might not be for general maintenance.

IMO one aspect of this that needs reviewing is the BREEM methodology, which takes zero account of fire risk.

It'd be pretty simple to add fire risk into it so that it was obvious that one option posed a higher fire risk than another, though we would also need to sort out the fire classifications to stop celotex PIR insulation looking as if it was as fire proof as rock wool.

If the fire risk is increased then the funding ought to cover adding sprinklers or other fire measures as part of the work to mitigate that increase in risk (though in this case nothing would have mitigated it, the fire risk from the materials used was too great anyway).

 

[Pickman's model]

IMO one aspect of this that needs reviewing is the BREEM methodology, which takes zero account of fire risk.

It'd be pretty simple to add fire risk into it so that it was obvious that one option posed a higher fire risk than another, though we would also need to sort out the fire classifications to stop celotex PIR insulation looking as if it was as fire proof as rock wool.

If the fire risk is increased then the funding ought to cover adding sprinklers or other fire measures as part of the work to mitigate that increase in risk (though in this case nothing would have mitigated it, the fire risk from the materials used was too great anyway).

BREEAM. the BREEAM methodology.

 

[teuchter]

IMO one aspect of this that needs reviewing is the BREEM methodology, which takes zero account of fire risk.

Why start trying to assess fire risk within a system that isn't set up with the expertise to do so? Doesn't make any sense. If it's true that certain materials or methods present an unacceptably high fire risk then change needs to happen via building regs, the regs that should guide all building work.

 

[bi0boy]

BREEAM is just a back-slapping tickbox exercise for 'sustainability' brownie points. I suppose a building at high risk of being destroyed by fire isn't very sustainable, so you could award 1 credit for 'building can't easily become a towering inferno' but then this could be offset by adding 1 credit for 'washing machines are specified with B rating under EU Energy Efficiency Labelling Scheme' or similar.

 

[Teaboy]

IMO one aspect of this that needs reviewing is the BREEM methodology, which takes zero account of fire risk.

It'd be pretty simple to add fire risk into it so that it was obvious that one option posed a higher fire risk than another, though we would also need to sort out the fire classifications to stop celotex PIR insulation looking as if it was as fire proof as rock wool.

If the fire risk is increased then the funding ought to cover adding sprinklers or other fire measures as part of the work to mitigate that increase in risk (though in this case nothing would have mitigated it, the fire risk from the materials used was too great anyway).

I'd be wary of mixing up different elements like this. The other thing to remember is BREEAM is a methodology created by essentially a private company like BBA certificates. Things like this are useful addition to construction and manufacturers see the benefit and pay handsomely to have their products rated.

Safety critical stuff like fire should really be covered (as it is) in national legislation as to what is minimum acceptable standards.

I agree with you about PUR and PIR mind, its clearly time to state that only mineral fibre can be used on tall buildings.

 

[squirrelp]

Yes. The funding for upgrades to thermal performance can be obtained from different sources meaning that a refurbishment like this can be heavily subsidised. Whereas ongoing general maintenance and internal works come out of the councils general budge (I'm generalising here a bit). The point being that there is money available for these sort of works where there might not be for general maintenance.

Well two points:

1) It seems to me speculation on your part to assume that the cladding part of this project was heavily subsidised, I'm not aware of evidence that it was subsidised at all.

2) Even it was completely subsidised, that would not preclude motivation for the work being a cosmetic one from those who ordered and controlled it.

 

[free spirit]

Why start trying to assess fire risk within a system that isn't set up with the expertise to do so? Doesn't make any sense. If it's true that certain materials or methods present an unacceptably high fire risk then change needs to happen via building regs, the regs that should guide all building work.

because that was the point at which the various options were assessed, BREEAM includes a range of factors but excludes fire risk entirely.

I'm not saying it should include a full fire risk assessment, but it could easily include an at a glance risk rating for the different options, and if the risk were too high / complex for the assessor to undertake themselves it should be outsourced at that stage to a fire risk assessor to give their input.

This doesn't just apply for the cladding, also the option to fit combi boilers in each flat and knock a 4-5 inch vent hole through the outer cladding in each flat had fire safety implications that should have been picked up as part of the overall assessment.

The BREEAM report was the stage at which all options were being assessed and recommendations being made, those shouldn't happen without at least a basic level of fire risk analysis happening as well, otherwise decisions are being taken with only partial knowledge of the implications

 

[cupid_stunt]

Well two points:

1) It seems to me speculation on your part to assume that the cladding part of this project was heavily subsidised, I'm not aware of evidence that it was subsidised at all.

2) Even it was completely subsidised, that would not preclude motivation for the work being a cosmetic one from those who ordered and controlled it.

Oh, FFS!

The windows had reached end of life & needed replacing, the block suffered from lack of insulation, flats becoming saunas in summer & hard to heat in the winter. If the windows had to be replaced, it was logical to install insulation (leaving aside the wrong type of material used here, and any other shortcomings) at the same time, that was the reason for the work.

Once that decision was made, the next stage was planning permission, which always includes consideration of the visual impact to the local area, whether that includes a conservation area or not.

Anyone thinking this was about it being a cosmetic job for people living in expensive properties nearby, should ask themselves why dozens of other blocks across the country have undergone this type of 'improvement' despite the fact they are not over looked by residents in a conservation area.

This bonkers idea that it was done for cosmetic reasons needs to be dropped, it's a distraction from focusing on the real reason(s) why things went tits-up here.

 

[bi0boy]

I'm not saying it should include a full fire risk assessment, but it could easily include an at a glance risk rating for the different options, and if the risk were too high / complex for the assessor to undertake themselves it should be outsourced at that stage to a fire risk assessor to give their input.

Very bad idea. A few credits for wireless heat detectors in kitchens and similar trendy stuff could yield a decent "at a glance" risk rating that ignored other factors. It is totally not the place for a fire risk rating to be tucked away in, and certainly not the right format for arriving at a low risk rating that would preclude a full fire risk assessment.

 

[Teaboy]

Well two points:

1) It seems to me speculation on your part to assume that the cladding part of this project was heavily subsidised, I'm not aware of evidence that it was subsidised at all.

2) Even it was completely subsidised, that would not preclude motivation for the work being a cosmetic one from those who ordered and controlled it.

With regard to your first point I would point you to the following schemes which have run at one time or another:

CERT Scheme
CESP Scheme
ECO Scheme

Overview of previous schemes

Initially CERT was set up to provide funding for this sort of thing primarily from the energy providers. It was primarily to do with cavity wall, loft insulation etc although funding could be gained for more expensive schemes such as external wall insulation (EWI). As the money was insufficient for EWI the CESP scheme replaced it and ran reasonably successfully until David Cameron's 'greenest government ever' came into power and overhauled the system as part of the wildly unsuccessful Green Deal. The element of the Green Deal which was focused on social and council housing was called ECO which stood for something like Energy Company Obligation (or something like that, I can't be bothered to google and lets face it nor can you).

Funding for these sorts of schemes have been around for a very long time and have led to huge amounts of tower blocks and other housing developments being insulated. There were are also lots of other schemes from the crackpot competition 'Retrofit for the Future' through to Mayor of London schemes.

In my time in this industry which covered 40 odd projects similar to this I only encountered one scheme which was fully financed by the local authority because it was primarily a face lift. This was done by Reading Borough Council and it was for very specific reasons. I don't know for sure how the Grenfell project was funded but it would be very surprising and highly unusual if a scheme of this sort didn't seek out the funding that was available to them.

Your second point is largely irrelevant because one comes from the other. The motivation to do exactly this comes from the government both in the form of instructions to local authority and the funding capability. It was going to be done at some point. And just to reiterate that you cannot install external insulation without a new cladding system of some description.

Now, I have a question for you. If it was just about aesthetics why bother with the new windows, curtain walling system (incorporating an SFS system which is not cheap) and external insulation? The cladding is actually the cheap part compared to other aspects of the build.

Even after all this is did turn out that some person in a high position was having his view being ruined and pushed for this none of this changes the fact the building was (if only externally) being improved for the benefits of the residents.

 

[free spirit]

The Grenfell tower BREEAM report covered Energy efficiency, water use, ventilation, safety, flooding, responsible sourcing of materials.

I see no reason why it couldn't also include Fire safety.

Though maybe the methodology isn't right as it allows one factor to be offset against another, when fire safety should be absolute really.

If not then there should be a statutory requirement for a fire risk assessment to be carried out and probably lodged with building control in advance for all significant works, and for all works to result in an overall improvement (or at least no worsening) of the fire risk score for the building. (AFAIK this isn't the case currently)

But my point on BREEAM was that this should be being done at least to some extent at the point when the decisions are being taken on which materials to use etc not just being done retrospectively after the decision has been taken. It's a crucial factor that should be visible to the decision makers at the point the decision is being taken on which option to go for.

There was a 28 page options appraisal carried out at the start of the decision making process for this project that had no information at all about fire risk implications within it. It recommends the use of low VOC paints for health benefits, but nowt about the risks of cladding the building in flammable material.

 

[free spirit]

Very bad idea. A few credits for wireless heat detectors in kitchens and similar trendy stuff could yield a decent "at a glance" risk rating that ignored other factors. It is totally not the place for a fire risk rating to be tucked away in, and certainly not the right format for arriving at a low risk rating that would preclude a full fire risk assessment.

instead we have a situation where there is zero requirement for a fire risk assessment prior to a decision being made. I don't see this as being a positive thing.

 

[Corax]

1) It seems to me speculation on your part to assume that the cladding part of this project was heavily subsidised, I'm not aware of evidence that it was subsidised at all.

It's a pretty reasonable assumption, given that people can get subsidies for things like getting their loft insulated and other energy saving measures.

 

[teuchter]

This bonkers idea that it was done for cosmetic reasons needs to be dropped, it's a distraction from focusing on the real reason(s) why things went tits-up here.

It appears that even the residents' action group are hooking onto this idea now

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.

Grenfell Tower – The KCTMO Culture Of Negligence

This gives people excuse to write them off as rabble rousers rather than a residents' group who have been raising reasonable objections over the years.

 

[bi0boy]

instead we have a situation where there is zero requirement for a fire risk assessment prior to a decision being made. I don't see this as being a positive thing.

Fire safety for proposed developments is covered under part B of buildings regs. It doesn't belong anywhere else imo. Sure there are lots of ways those regulations can be changed, but adding stuff to BREEAM is not appropriate.

It would be like adding the Landlord's Gas Safety Certificate into the EPC with points for 'how safe is the gas boiler'.

 

[Corax]

This bonkers idea that it was done for cosmetic reasons needs to be dropped, it's a distraction from focusing on the real reason(s) why things went tits-up here.

Although I understand your point, I disagree.

Whilst it may not have been done primarily for cosmetic reasons, the issue is priorities. From what I've read there were cheaper, inherently safer (purely rendered insulating cladding - with no air gaps) options available, but they're not as pretty. If it turns out that corners were cut to reduce cost, on a more expensive but more cosmetically pleasing option, then that's very much relevant IMO.

 

[Treacle Toes]

It appears that even the residents' action group are hooking onto this idea now


Grenfell Tower – The KCTMO Culture Of Negligence

This gives people excuse to write them off as rabble rousers rather than a residents' group who have been raising reasonable objections over the years.

It would be helpful then, if someone in the know, could reach out to the resident's action group and articulate these concerns to them. Perhaps that someone could also give advice about a more practical approach to their campaign for justice.

 

[Teaboy]

The Grenfell tower BREEAM report covered Energy efficiency, water use, ventilation, safety, flooding, responsible sourcing of materials.

I see no reason why it couldn't also include Fire safety.

Though maybe the methodology isn't right as it allows one factor to be offset against another, when fire safety should be absolute really.

If not then there should be a statutory requirement for a fire risk assessment to be carried out and probably lodged with building control in advance for all significant works, and for all works to result in an overall improvement (or at least no worsening) of the fire risk score for the building. (AFAIK this isn't the case currently)

But my point on BREEAM was that this should be being done at least to some extent at the point when the decisions are being taken on which materials to use etc not just being done retrospectively after the decision has been taken. It's a crucial factor that should be visible to the decision makers at the point the decision is being taken on which option to go for.

There was a 28 page options appraisal carried out at the start of the decision making process for this project that had no information at all about fire risk implications within it. It recommends the use of low VOC paints for health benefits, but nowt about the risks of cladding the building in flammable material.

It is something worth considering as long as it sat alongside robust legislation.

 

[editor]

Oh, FFS!

The windows had reached end of life & needed replacing, the block suffered from lack of insulation, flats becoming saunas in summer & hard to heat in the winter. If the windows had to be replaced, it was logical to install insulation (leaving aside the wrong type of material used here, and any other shortcomings) at the same time, that was the reason for the work.

Once that decision was made, the next stage was planning permission, which always includes consideration of the visual impact to the local area, whether that includes a conservation area or not.

Anyone thinking this was about it being a cosmetic job for people living in expensive properties nearby, should ask themselves why dozens of other blocks across the country have undergone this type of 'improvement' despite the fact they are not over looked by residents in a conservation area.

This bonkers idea that it was done for cosmetic reasons needs to be dropped, it's a distraction from focusing on the real reason(s) why things went tits-up here.

Perhaps the residents group know more about this than you. They're hardly like to completely make it up unless they believe there's some truth in it, although they may perhaps be exaggerating it a bit out of their understandable anger.

 

[Pickman's model]

Oh, FFS!

The windows had reached end of life & needed replacing, the block suffered from lack of insulation, flats becoming saunas in summer & hard to heat in the winter. If the windows had to be replaced, it was logical to install insulation (leaving aside the wrong type of material used here, and any other shortcomings) at the same time, that was the reason for the work.

Once that decision was made, the next stage was planning permission, which always includes consideration of the visual impact to the local area, whether that includes a conservation area or not.

Anyone thinking this was about it being a cosmetic job for people living in expensive properties nearby, should ask themselves why dozens of other blocks across the country have undergone this type of 'improvement' despite the fact they are not over looked by residents in a conservation area.

This bonkers idea that it was done for cosmetic reasons needs to be dropped, it's a distraction from focusing on the real reason(s) why things went tits-up here.

leaving aside it was a factor mentioned in the planning documents.