Grenfell Tower fire in North Kensington - news and discussion

[Treacle Toes]

It's all very well picking holes in the way people see things or how they are going about things. Solidarity is an active thing however. If you think you know better, share that knowledge. Volunteer to help. Many hands make light/er work.

 

[Teaboy]

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.

The problem with this that the only way anyone can make any decision on whether a product is suitable and safe is whether it has been tested and satisfies regulations. On both counts it would appear that the cladding system did.

Its also worth mentioning that the client (in this case the council or the housing provider) would have probably had very little input into the choice of the panel. The decision would have been made by the architect and main contractor, all the client would have done is OK'd the colour scheme. It may be the case that they did take a more active role but it is not always the case as how would they know anyway unless they are a construction professional?

Obviously the client in this case is responsible for driving down of costs which has the inevitable consequences of value engineering which has already been discussed.

Lets face it, nothing is known for sure at the moment but we can have a good guess at crappy regulations which can be loosely interpreted by race to the bottom mentality.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The attitude displayed by some on the Brixton forum is symptomatic of British society as a whole. Anyone going on about poverty or poor housing or the growing divisions in society is someone to be dismissed or ridiculed.

TBF though, those "some on the Brixton forum" are invariably gobshites and shitcunts of the first water.

 

[Corax]

The problem with this that the only way anyone can make any decision on whether a product is suitable and safe is whether it has been tested and satisfies regulations. On both counts it would appear that the cladding system did.

Safe if installed correctly.

That's the point I'm making regarding the aesthetics. If corners were cut in the installation (eg no/shoddy fire-stops) to save costs, on a solution that was more expensive in the first place - but prettier - then the whole 'aesthetics' angle remains relevant even if it wasn't the primary reason for the project in the first place.

IYSWIM...

 

[Teaboy]

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.

I think this is a fair point.

I just think nothing is known yet and nothing can be. There may be some things which are never known, if dodgyness has gone on then the evidence will be destroyed no doubt.

We can't say for sure the most basic thing like was the cladding everyone think was used actually used? Did the cladding actually have anything to do with the fire? We just don't know yet and in the absence of information rumours and accusations are flying.

 

[killer b]

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.

Who's writing them off, other than you?

 

[Pickman's model]

I think this is a fair point.

I just think nothing is known yet and nothing can be. There may be some things which are never known, if dodgyness has gone on then the evidence will be destroyed no doubt.

We can't say for sure the most basic thing like was the cladding everyone think was used actually used? Did the cladding actually have anything to do with the fire? We just don't know yet and in the absence of information rumours and accusations are flying.

yes, the cladding did have something to do with the fire, as can be seen from the fact that huge flames which would not have been otherwise present run up the sides of the building. in addition, we're told that similar insulation has been involved in fires in australia and dubai. the extent to which the cladding and insulation were responsible for the tragedy may yet need to be determined, but that it did have some bearing on the great growth and irruption of the fire cannot be argued.

 

[stethoscope]

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.

The now removed content from the Rydon website, as reported by the Independent here stated:

A statement from Rydon after the work was finished noted that "rain screen cladding, replacement windows and curtain wall façades have been fitted giving the building a fresher, modern look".

That statement included a quote from Nick Paget-Brown, the leader of the council, who remarked on how happy he was to see "first-hand how the cladding has lifted the external appearance of the tower".

That public statement after the completion made no reference to insulation, only discussing the change in the external appearance of the building.

The refurbishment work that added the cladding cost £8.6m and finished in May last year. Both before and since that time, residents have repeatedly complained about the safety of the block, but were assured that there was no problem.

Whilst I'd agree with what's been said here by Teaboy and others that cladding has been done for insulation and damp-preventing purposes primarily, I wouldn't still be so quick to discount though that appearance wouldn't be a factor in all this - and I'm sure Grenfell Action Group are party to more information than most of us here about the history and issues and they seem both organised and well informed. FWIW, I've seen and experienced comments made by councillors and developers about other estates in terms of 'dirty, grim concrete tower blocks and flats that are making our area look unattractive' and what can be done, and so being able to make them look more aesthetically pleasing for wider political reasons (and not just for the benefit of residents) is a consideration.

(for transparency: whilst I believe its important that we understand and learn to what degree the cladding was suitable or not or its installation was the problem in terms of exascerbating the fire, so that lessons can be learned from it and other blocks using it such as Ferrier in Newham can be subject to revision asap, I admit its rather lower on my immediate concerns of what's going on with the wider issue of social housing, cleansing and gentrification and the effects on communities right now, and sadly demonstrated by Grenfell).

 

[Teaboy]

Safe if installed correctly.

That's the point I'm making regarding the aesthetics. If corners were cut in the installation (eg no/shoddy fire-stops) to save costs, on a solution that was more expensive in the first place - but prettier - then the whole 'aesthetics' angle remains relevant even if it wasn't the primary reason for the project in the first place.

IYSWIM...

Yeah, I see what you're saying. The contractor would have been instructed to install fire breaks if they haven't then that is gross negligence, probably criminal negligence. If they felt forced into that position because of cost cutting to fund a more expensive system than would be terrible but the buck would stop with the contractor, legally speaking.

 

[cupid_stunt]

The focus needs to be kept on the materials used & how they were installed, because that is the root of the problem here.

The problem with this that the only way anyone can make any decision on whether a product is suitable and safe is whether it has been tested and satisfies regulations. On both counts it would appear that the cladding system did.

You say that, but according to reports, the manufacturers themselves said it is 'crucial' that these panels should not be fitted above 32ft, the block was 220ft tall.

I would be interested in your comments on that, as clearly you know more than me.

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

 

[Teaboy]

yes, the cladding did have something to do with the fire, as can be seen from the fact that huge flames which would not have been otherwise present run up the sides of the building. in addition, we're told that similar insulation has been involved in fires in australia and dubai. the extent to which the cladding and insulation were responsible for the tragedy may yet need to be determined, but that it did have some bearing on the great growth and irruption of the fire cannot be argued.

Yeah, don't get me wrong it looks like the main cause of the spread of flames but we don't know for sure at the moment.

 

[editor]

Who's writing them off, other than you?

I haven't seen their concerns or claims being "written off" anywhere. Given their track record of voicing legitimate concerns, they're the people who should be listened to the most. Anyone trying to dismiss them or write them off should have their agenda looked at very carefully.

 

[editor]

Just to repeat the salient points from the Indie article:

And that cladding – a low-cost way of improving the front of the building – was chosen in part so that the tower would look better when seen from the conservation areas and luxury flats that surround north Kensington, according to planning documents, as well as to insulate it.

“Due to its height the tower is visible from the adjacent Avondale Conservation Area to the south and the Ladbroke Conservation Area to the east,” a planning document for the regeneration work reads. “The changes to the existing tower will improve its appearance especially when viewed from the surrounding area.”

The document, published in 2014 and providing a full report on the works, makes repeated reference to the “appearance of the area”. That is the justification for the material used on the outside of the building, which has since been claimed to have contributed to the horror.

The materials used were chosen “to accord with the development plan by ensuring that the character and appearance of the area are preserved and living conditions of those living near the development suitably protected,” according to the same report.

A number of conditions were attached to the 2014 decision to approve the plan – many of which related specifically to the material used in the cladding, so that the council could ensure the "living conditions of those living near the development" were "suitably protected".

That planning application concludes with a statement that "the development will provide significant improvements to the physical appearance of the Tower, as well as the environmental performance and the amenity of its residents".

Rydon, the company behind the refurbishment work, said the cladding and other changes had been made to help with "improving thermal insulation and modernising the exterior of the building".

Grenfell Tower was covered in material to make it look better. That’s being blamed for multiple deaths

So, no, the residents' group have very fucking right to bring up the cosmetic role of the cladding. it's not something to be written off or dismissed. It clearly forms part of the equation.

 

[cupid_stunt]

I think this is a fair point.

I just think nothing is known yet and nothing can be. There may be some things which are never known, if dodgyness has gone on then the evidence will be destroyed no doubt.

We can't say for sure the most basic thing like was the cladding everyone think was used actually used? Did the cladding actually have anything to do with the fire? We just don't know yet and in the absence of information rumours and accusations are flying.

Your posts have been very informative, and frankly amazing.

But, questioning if the cladding had anything to do with the fire?

 

[Corax]

yes, the cladding did have something to do with the fire, as can be seen from the fact that huge flames which would not have been otherwise present run up the sides of the building. in addition, we're told that similar insulation has been involved in fires in australia and dubai. the extent to which the cladding and insulation were responsible for the tragedy may yet need to be determined, but that it did have some bearing on the great growth and irruption of the fire cannot be argued.

Coupled with off-the-record comments from LFB, the evidence is pretty overwhelming.

 

[editor]

Rage levels: critical

And he is certainly right about one thing: When it comes to many regulations, it is best to leave such calculations of benefit and cost to the market, rather than the government. People can make their own assessments of the risks, and the price they’re willing to pay to allay them, rather than substituting the judgment of some politician or bureaucrat who will not receive the benefit or pay the cost.

Grenfell Tower, of course, was public housing, which changes the calculation somewhat. And yet, even there, trade-offs have to be made. The government spends money on a great number of things, many of which save lives. Every dollar it spends on installing sprinkler systems cannot be spent on the health service, or national defense, or pollution control. Would more lives be saved by those measures or by sprinkler systems in public housing? It’s hard to say.

Beware of Blaming Government for London Tower Fire

 

[ViolentPanda]

A small point:
The organisation that had charge of Grenfell Tower - Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation - is NOT structurally a TMO, it's an ALMO - an entirely different kettle of fish, contractually.
Most TMOs are resident-centric - that means that refurb decisions are balloted, NOT imposed, and that if you have board members taking the piss, they can be voted out at the TMO's AGM (that they are structurally-obliged to hold).
All the actions of KCTMO suggest an ALMO that's been given a name to make it sound like the organisation empowers residents.

 

[Teaboy]

The focus needs to be kept on the materials used & how they were installed, because that is the root of the problem here.



You say that, but according to reports, the manufacturers themselves said it is 'crucial' that these panels should not be fitted above 32ft, the block was 220ft tall.

I would be interested in your comments on that, as clearly you know more than me.

I think we're getting the the nub of the problem. Manufacturers recommendations and building regs are different things. Also as I have said all along regulations are there to be interpreted.

 

[eatmorecheese]

Rage levels: critical



Beware of Blaming Government for London Tower Fire

Fuck me.

 

[Corax]

Rage levels: critical

Beware of Blaming Government for London Tower Fire

Every dollar it spends on installing sprinkler systems cannot be spent on the health service, or national defense, or pollution control, or subsidising the bar and restaurants at Westminster, or tax breaks for big corporations or your landed gentry mates from Eton.

FIFY.

Fucking false dichotomy cuntishness of the highest order.

 

[editor]

Tories, eh?

Tory politician branded 'disgrace to humankind' after Grenfell comment

 

[Teaboy]

Your posts have been very informative, and frankly amazing.

But, questioning if the cladding had anything to do with the fire?

Yeah just to expand on that. There have been fires with similar cladding which have been nowhere near as catastrophic. Also this fire was extraordinary, all the floors were on fire at the same time and with extreme ferocity. I have said all along that I suspect something else was happening in addition, something was fueling this fire. Bearing in mind what these panels are made of the fire would have had to be sustained by something as it may its way into the building so quickly. The insulation is probably going to be a culprit as is the lack of fire stopping. Regardless of what happened with the cladding the residents should have had an hour to escape this building at the least, it appears they didn't even have minutes.

I don't know more than anyone else about how this fire spread so quickly and so devastatingly.

 

[stethoscope]

Rage levels: critical


Beware of Blaming Government for London Tower Fire

Jesus.

I despair enough at people and commentators talking about those bad lefties politicising it all. Like its not fucking political.

 

[DotCommunist]

Jesus.

I despair enough at people and commentators talking about those bad lefties politicising it all. Like its not fucking political.

this is the enemy writing for the enemy to justify their world view. I find it useful (and one day evidence for the prosecution in a peoples court) cos it shows you which way the currents of managing the reactions are/will go. But I'm not suprised.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Well, this is still a crock of shit...

 

[Teaboy]

Rage levels: critical



Beware of Blaming Government for London Tower Fire

Her conclusions in that article are remarkably stupid and show a stunning lack of insight and reasoning. A true free market libertarian.

 

[free spirit]

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

I'd envisage that the legislation would state that a fire risk assessment was necessary and what the requirement was for a project to be approved, then inclusion in the BREEAM report would be one way to ensure compliance.

One thing that inclusion in BREEAM would do would be to force the manufacturers to clarify exactly what there product was rated at and for, so that accurate comparisons could be made.

The rating that Celotex gives their product seems to vary depending on which paperwork you check. On the data sheets it's class O, but on the FR version on the CE declaration it's Euroclass F, and on the version used on this job it has NPD listed for all the fire ratings, and elsewhere it gives info that indicates that it's only rated for use on above 18m buildings as part of a specific installation method that effectively protects the celotex from any fire. So the data sheet appears to be very misleading.

On the intiial BREEAM assessment cladding design it wasn't shown as being used in accordance with those instructions, so presumably the designers at that stage at least weren't aware of the requirement and thought the Class O applied to the FR5000 insulation itself, as it would seem from reading the datasheet.

 

[free spirit]

The focus needs to be kept on the materials used & how they were installed, because that is the root of the problem here.



You say that, but according to reports, the manufacturers themselves said it is 'crucial' that these panels should not be fitted above 32ft, the block was 220ft tall.

I would be interested in your comments on that, as clearly you know more than me.

This is what they say on the website

Suitable for use in warm steel frame constructions for ventilated facade applications, Celotex RS5000 can be used in buildings above 18 metres in height – a first for PIR insulation.

 

[Teaboy]

Well, this is still a crock of shit...

Jesus. Its just compounding shit on shit. Being told they are making themselves intentionally homeless if they don't accept the first offer of accommodation even if its miles and miles away. Its nothing short of a disgrace.

 

[bimble]

Overheard two old women on the bus today talking about this, furious at the way those made homeless are being treated, it's not going away or unnoticed, which is something.