Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Grenfell Tower fire in North Kensington - news and discussion

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.
Again, nobody knows what the cause or the real problem is. Personally, I doubt it's one single factor, more likely a perfect storm of things going extremely wrong.

What ever happened, it wasn't just the materials.
 
Article from the AJ, basically summing up their initial impressions with 5 questions:

AJ part 1 said:
With a criminal investigation under way and a public inquiry announced, the AJ puts forward five key questions about the causes of the tragic fire

1. CLADDING2. THE REGS3. ARCHITECTS’ ROLE4. BUILDINGS AT RISK5. IMMEDIATE ACTION

The residents of Grenfell Tower in west London had repeatedly warned of the potentially devastating effects of a fire before last week’s blaze. At the time of writing 79 people were dead or missing, presumed dead, as a result of the disaster. The exact cause of the fire at the 24-storey building in north Kensington, which had only recently undergone an £8.6 million refurbishment by Studio E Architects, remains unknown. Much more evidence will be needed before fingers can be pointed and, of course, there may have been multiple causes. Even so, the new cladding on this 1974 concrete block has already become a major focus of attention after eyewitnesses said the fire spread up the building’s exterior with alarming rapidity. Here are five key questions which will need to be answered.

1. What cladding product was specified on Grenfell Tower and was it legal for tall buildings?
clip_image002.jpg


One of the main aims of the refurbishment was to improve the building’s thermal performance through new external cladding. In its designs, Studio E Architects, working with contractor Rydon, specified a cassette-type insulation system comprising Celotex FR5000 insulation board attached to a timber backing. The drawings also specified a Reynobond aluminium composite material (ACM) rainscreen panel to be installed 50mm in front of the insulation. The lightweight Reynobond panel comes with either a polyethylene core or a slightly more expensive, honeycombed mineral core, which is more fire-resistant.

According to a report in The Guardian, at Grenfell, the construction team used the cheaper panels. These are prohibited on high-rise buildings in the USA and – according to the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) – also breach the UK’s Building Regulations 2010, which restrict their use on buildings over 18m tall.


Earlier this week chancellor Philip Hammond said a criminal investigation would be launched to investigate these possible breaches – in particular discrepancies with Part B (fire safety) Volume 2, Paragraphs 12.5-12.9, which state that cladding and insulation on buildings over 18m tall should be of limited combustibility. This is defined further in Table A7.


2. If this cladding method breached the regs, why was it used at Grenfell Tower?


Source: Harley Facades

This will be a key question for the Met’s criminal investigation and the public inquiry but, at the time of writing on Monday (19 June), Kensington and Chelsea Council remained unwilling or unable to answer basic questions put to its press office five days previously, including if and when Studio E’s project was granted Building Regulations approval and when exactly Grenfell Tower last had a fire risk assessment.

What is known is that fire experts have long claimed that Part B is inadequate and open to exploitation. The document has not been properly reviewed since 2006 and, in 2015, a survey by the Fire Sector Federation, which represents fire and rescue organisations, found that 92 per cent of its members believed that the regulations were ‘long overdue an overhaul’.

In the UK, products are tested on an individual basis, rather than in combination with other building components. This contrasts with the testing regime in the Middle East. Following a series of serious fires in high-rise buildings there linked to the use of panels containing polyethylene – the same cladding material apparently fitted at Grenfell Tower – the UAE banned the material and ruled that components must be fire-tested alongside other components.


Konstantinos Tsavdaridis, associate professor of structural engineering at the University of Leeds, told The Times that the UK needed to adopt such a system, adding: ‘You may have very good material indeed. But if you install it as part of a system with gaps and voids, the smoke and the heat can pass through and create a chimney effect, funnelling flames to the floors above. That’s what happened at Grenfell Tower.’

The role of procurement and whether value engineering was at play will also be in the spotlight, as will the government’s war on red tape and so-called ‘health and safety culture’ and whether this drive helped allow rules to be broken or bent. After speaking to affected residents last Sunday, London mayor Sadiq Khan said: ‘To those who think rules, regulations, health and safety investment, are a bad thing, I say come to Grenfell Tower, come and meet the wonderful people I have met and remember those who have lost their life in a preventable accident that didn’t need to happen.

‘The tragedy we have seen is the consequence of mistakes and neglect from politicians, from the council, and the government.’
 
AJ part 2 said:
3. Could the declining role of architects have played a part in this tragedy?
The answer to this will of course depend on the exact cause of the fire and thus on the outcomes of the public inquiry. However, there is a suspicion that there is no longer a single competent professional such as an architect or engineer who has responsibility for specifying materials and – alongside the building control and fire officers – ensuring such materials, or a safe and legal alternative, are used and correctly installed.

Instead, the argument goes, responsibility for risk has been spread around to the point where no-one knows where responsibility lies. In a recent opinion piece for The Guardian in response to the Grenfell Tower fire, architect Deon Lombard – a former project director at tp bennett who has worked on major refurbishment projects and on residential towers – wrote: ‘In the past, architects have specified construction materials and have then been in a position to ensure that the specified materials were used. This is increasingly not the case as performance specifications enable alternative materials to be used, often selected by the developer, contractor or subcontractors.

‘With architects now seldom having the authority to insist on specific products being used, there is a tendency to go for cheaper materials, without necessarily understanding the impact or knock-on effect.’

RIBA Council member George Oldham – Newcastle upon Tyne’s city architect from 1979 till 1990 – told the AJ that ‘something has been lost’ in the move away from filling such positions, pointing out that his role had involved a wide range of responsibilities, including fire risk and maintenance of buildings.

He said: ‘There has been a shift from public sector control of the design and building process to something which is more or less a free-for-all.’

Statement from Studio E
We are deeply shocked and distressed over news of the devastating fire at Grenfell Tower.

Our thoughts are with those that have been affected by this tragic incident, together with all of their relatives and friends.

Given the ongoing nature of the incident it would be inappropriate for us to comment or speculate further at this stage. We will be available to assist the relevant authorities as and when we are required.

4. Are there any other buildings at risk?
According to the DCLG, there are 4,000 similar residential tower blocks in the UK – many of them owned by local authorities.

Councils around the country including London boroughs, Sheffield, Leeds and Manchester are urgently carrying out fire safety checks while tower block residents in four major Scottish cities – Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee – were quickly reassured by the authorities that the cladding believed to have been used at Grenfell Tower had not been used on their buildings.

In addition, at least one architecture practice is internally reviewing its designs for tower blocks and the building materials used.

Simon Bayliss, managing partner at HTA, said: ‘We’ve set up a technical group across our various architecture studios and different teams, so we can represent all of the buildings we have built recently or are currently building.

‘We will be looking into the implications of the detailing, the packages we’ve prepared, our role on the projects, and preparing ourselves to work with the clients and the contractors should they need any assistance.’

Bayliss, who lived in a 20-storey tower block for eight years, said that HTA had yet to establish whether any of its schemes used the same cladding as Grenfell Tower.

He pointed out that a 2012 fire at a HTA-designed 22-storey tower block in the Chalcots Estate, north London, which had used aluminium cladding, had not spread to other floors.

‘We need to look at every single one individually and make sure that the right things were done,’ he said.

Prior to the Grenfell Tower fire, safety checks on tower blocks appear to have been in decline.

According to figures published in last weekend’s Sunday People, fire safety checks at tower blocks and commercial buildings fell 25 per cent in the five years from 2011 to 2016, from 84,575 to 63,201. Worryingly, the cladding used in Grenfell Tower is not restricted to residential buildings either. The Times reported that £553 million of public sector money has been spent fitting buildings with similar external cladding, including schools, hospitals and leisure centres.
 
AJ part 3 said:
5. What needs to be done immediately to make sure post-war, high-rise residential blocks are safe?
Ampthill Estate in Camden

Among the most extreme solutions is give up on these buildings and to simply flatten them. Writing in last weekend’s Observer, mayor Khan wrote: ‘It may well be the defining outcome of this tragedy that the worst mistakes of the 1960s and 1970s are systematically torn down.’

Others have suggested less drastic measures, including the retrofitting of sprinklers to all high-rise residential blocks, a recommendation made in 2012 by the coroner at the Shirley Towers inquest.

At present, only towers built in England since 2007 and above 30m high have to have sprinklers fitted. Their effectiveness was praised in 2015 by a spokesman for the Chief Fire Officers Association, who maintained that no-one had died in any fire in the UK in a building with a ‘properly installed sprinkler system working the way it’s meant to’.

However, others point out that it will take months to fit sprinklers to all vulnerable towers and call for far more urgent action.

Leading architect Rab Bennetts said: ‘We cannot wait. We need to get moving on several thousand towers. The government needs to ensure there are fire extinguishers and smoke alarms on every level, they need to make sure fire doors work properly and the seals are good and they need to ensure that flammable clutter and rubbish isn’t left around on landings.

‘There are thousands of people in these blocks and they need everything done fast to ensure they’re ok.’

Timeline
  • April 1991 Cladding cited as a key factor in a fire at Knowsley Heights, Liverpool
  • June 1999 One person dies in a tower block fire in Garnock Court in Irvine, Scotland. The cladding is cited as a factor
  • 2005 Scotland requires sprinklers in all new-build tower blocks above18m
  • 2006 The government insists on sprinklers in new-build tower blocks of flats higher than 30m
  • July 2009 Six people die in a fire in Lakanal House, south London. The coroner says that the Building Regulations should ‘provide clear guidance’ with regard to the ‘external fire spread’ on buildings
  • April 2010 Two firemen are killed fighting a fire in Shirley Towers, Southampton
  • November 2010 Fifty-eight people die in a fire in a 28-storey block of flats in Shanghai. External insulating material is cited as a possible cause
  • 2012 Shirley Towers inquest. Coroner recommends sprinklers should be fitted to existing residential tower blocks
  • March 2013 Lakanal House inquest recommends retrofitting sprinklers to existing tower blocks
  • January 2014 Planning permission is granted for the £10 million refurbishment of Grenfell Tower, including new external cladding. Completed in 2016
  • December 2015 Cladding is cited as a cause for the spread of a fire at the 63-storey Address Hotel in Dubai
  • January 2016 Legislation introduced in Wales requires sprinklers in every new home
  • November 2016 Grenfell Action Group warns that the block’s manager KCTMO is ‘playing with fire’ and ‘only a catastrophic event will expose the ineptitude and incompetence of our landlord’
  • 14 June 2017 Fire breaks out on the fourth floor of Grenfell Tower
 
What do you object to in the last paragraph ? ( in the article, I'm sure you object to my whole Post )

And yes - if you want to spend more money on one thing you have to spend less money on something else. Unless you have an infinite amount of money to spend on something, and generally you don'tz

Alex
Right. And how many millions do rbkc have in their reserves?
 
WTF are you doing posting this out of date nonsense?

If everyone died, why are hundreds still in need of help & support?

You are a loon, and need to fuck off.
I saw this video for the first time today. Apologise if I have missed something but I haven't seen anything to contradict it.

From the Guardian (checked today's date)

King’s College hospital, which declared a major incident when it became aware of the fire in the 24-storey high-rise block, had potentially been expecting “hundreds” of patients, Bew told the Press Association. But staff became saddened when so few arrived, which meant many more were still trapped inside.

“We were ready to receive many more casualties. We knew there were many more people in the building. As time went on and we realised that we weren’t going to receive those casualties, it was very sad,” he said. Most of those arriving were conscious, and almost all were suffering the effects of smoke inhalation, with very few having burns.

Grenfell survivors face months of recovery, doctors warn
 
What do you object to in the last paragraph ? ( in the article, I'm sure you object to my whole Post )

And yes - if you want to spend more money on one thing you have to spend less money on something else. Unless you have an infinite amount of money to spend on something, and generally you don'tz

Alex

And if you don't spend money on some things you end up spending more later on. Do you really think not installing sprinklers was a cost effective move? Given the low cost of installing them they'd pay for themselves within a couple of much smaller (and highly likely) fires.

I mean, they're sprinklers, not gold-plated taps - you have to go to nearby Buck House to see public money being spent on that.
 
There's a fucking bunch of bonkers (and of course unfounded) conspiracy theories going round about this fire (like the video you just posted squirrelp). Can they just please fucking stop now. It's obscuring the real issue and in the long run is going to do nothing but damage the struggle around this incident and housing in general.
 
Again, nobody knows what the cause or the real problem is. Personally, I doubt it's one single factor, more likely a perfect storm of things going extremely wrong.

What ever happened, it wasn't just the materials.

The fire service turned-up & put out the fridge fire, they thought the job was done, until they saw what was happening outside.

The cladding was responsible, to what degree it was the material used -v- how it was fitted will come out in time, but the cladding was the problem - every expert is saying that.
 
And if you don't spend money on some things you end up spending more later on. Do you really think not installing sprinklers was a cost effective move? Given the low cost of installing them they'd pay for themselves within a couple of much smaller (and highly likely) fires.

I mean, they're sprinklers, not gold-plated taps - you have to go to nearby Buck House to see public money being spent on that.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

How much would installing sprinklers in every multi storey public sector building in the country cost ?

Alex
 
Painful to say it but I agree with teuchter, with the point he keeps trying to make. But it might be inevitable that in a horrific situation like this a clear simplish narrative (it was the cladding & it was clad to please the rich neighbours) is irresistibly attractive.
Why's it painful?

Anyway, yes, of course a clear simplish narrative is irresistably attractive, and I don't blame those directly affected by the tragedy for grasping hold of it when it's fed to them.

It's the responsibility of people in general, though, to stand back and do their best to work out what the real reasons behind this were. And, despite what some of the blowhards on here like to try and imply, someone trying to look rationally at boring technical or regulatory issues doesn't have to mean they are ignoring or discounting the politics and economics that are behind everything.
 
The fire service turned-up & put out the fridge fire, they thought the job was done, until they saw what was happening outside.

The cladding was responsible, to what degree it was the material used -v- how it was fitted will come out in time, but the cladding was the problem - every expert is saying that.
Respectfully, you're not an expert. You keep making posts without thinking, making sweeping statements when actually all that is known FOR A FACT is that there was a dreadful fire in a tower block and many people died.

Lots of industry people are giving their opinions on what might, MIGHT have happened. But nobody KNOWS because the investigation has barely started.

You also seem dead set on saying that the cladding was THE problem here without considering there may be multiple factors involved. That's closed minded and unhelpful.

At this stage all we can do is help those who need help and support and wait for actual facts to emerge, however long that takes.
 
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

How much would installing sprinklers in every multi storey public sector building in the country cost ?

Alex
That's such an inane question. How much does it cost to fit smoke alarms in every council house in the country? See, proves fuck all.
 
You haven't seen anything to contradict it?

Try pulling your head out of your arse, then report to a hospital for a brain transplant.
Well no, I haven't. First we had an official figure of 17 or so. Now it's an order of magnitude greater at 79. How high is the real one? I don't know, but suggest that you might not either.

From the Guardian article it is not just those resident in Grenfell Tower who count as people needing help and support but also residents nearby.

How many actual residents of the Tower have been accounted for? If you have information on this please post.
 
I'm not an expert, but the firemen I saw on a vid going to the building, the second lot were cursing a blue streak and baffled as to how it went while the one of them said 'its climbing up the outside' or something similar, all of them expressing disbelief at it burning like that.

but yes inevitably this
capitalism and class society are to blame

is the kicker
 
You didn't read the whole post, did you?

Yes, reread it still Not sure what I missed.

Anyway apparently there are 4000 council/ha blocks which need inspection, 1% of blocks already have sprinklers - I've seen varying costs of installation between 200k and 333k.

So we are talking about .8bn gbp to install sprinklers - but the TOTAL deaths by fire in the U.K. Is <300.

17000 people per year die in accidents - could you come up with a way of saving more lives by spending that .8bn on something else ?

Tough decisions.

Alex
 
Respectfully, you're not an expert. You keep making posts without thinking, making sweeping statements when actually all that is known FOR A FACT is that there was a dreadful fire in a tower block and many people died.

Lots of industry people are giving their opinions on what might, MIGHT have happened. But nobody KNOWS because the investigation has barely started.

You also seem dead set on saying that the cladding was THE problem here without considering there may be multiple factors involved. That's closed minded and unhelpful.

At this stage all we can do is help those who need help and support and wait for actual facts to emerge, however long that takes.

And, you seem to be in denial of the facts known so far, I have no idea why.

The other day you pulled me up because I repeated the fact the the fire was started by a fridge, widely accepted by everyone & now confirmed by senior fire sources.

Now you are pulling me up on this, despite every report, every expert, the clear video evidence, and fire sources all putting the blame on the cladding.

Concrete tower blocks do not go up in flames like this, the fire spread across the whole outside of the building in about 30 minutes, the problem was the cladding.
 
And, you seem to be in denial of the facts known so far, I have no idea why.

The other day you pulled me up because I repeated the fact the the fire was started by a fridge, widely accepted by everyone & now confirmed by senior fire sources.

Now you are pulling me up on this, despite every report, every expert, the clear video evidence, and fire sources all putting the blame on the cladding.

Concrete tower blocks do not go up in flames like this, the fire spread across the whole outside of the building in about 30 minutes, the problem was the cladding.
I 'M pulling you up on stuff because you're all over the place, you're chasing from article to article , theory to theory, without stopping to pay any type of critical reasoning or common sense. You're reposting the least little thing as if it were a solid known fact when much of it is opinion.

I don't know how many times this has been pointed out to you - the cladding is a factor, and not the only factor. By focusing on this one thing do you know how much you might miss or disregard because it doesn't fit with your chosen narrative.

TRyand exercise a little care and caution in what you breathlessly repeat. This is not an academic exercise. People died, for fucks sake.
 
Yes, reread it still Not sure what I missed.

Anyway apparently there are 4000 council/ha blocks which need inspection, 1% of blocks already have sprinklers - I've seen varying costs of installation between 200k and 333k.

So we are talking about .8bn gbp to install sprinklers - but the TOTAL deaths by fire in the U.K. Is <300.

17000 people per year die in accidents - could you come up with a way of saving more lives by spending that .8bn on something else ?

Tough decisions.

Alex

800 million (based on the 200k estimate because a project of this scale should be able to get some serious economies of scale going) for sprinklers that will last for multiple years, not just one, will reduce injuries as well as deaths, will reduce loss of property 3 presumably make a small difference to insurance costs. When it comes to death and injury you have to take into account loss of earnings, extra costs of carers, extra cost in benefits, as well as the obvious medical, emergency services and funeral costs.

I do actually think it adds up. No hindsight needed.

Private blocks nearly always have sprinklers - they won't be there just for fun.
 
Back
Top Bottom