Huge Fire In Block Of Flats
Discussion
cossy400 said:
Vipers said:
http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/SmokeAlarms.asp
Says landlords must fit smoke alarms, wonder if this applies to council owned properties.
Excuse my ignorance but I thought this was a requirement since the 80/90s? Says landlords must fit smoke alarms, wonder if this applies to council owned properties.
The s
t storm from Grenfell is just getting bigger and bigger. The housing act 2004 covers social landlords and 'houses in multiple occupation' HMO's. The 2015 regulations mentioned in the link above introduced more detailed retrospective requirements and specific offences relating to smoke alarms and their maintenance in the private rented sector:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/smoke-a...
Grenfell was legally required to have a fire alarm system, with a combination of smoke and heat detectors. The planning documents mention it specifically and it is clear that it was intended to be altered as part of the refurbishment. There are reports that it did not operate, but I have not seen anything that explains why.
There really is a lot happening as a result of this. The Fire Brigade appear to be crying that they are too short staffed and that their role of risk assessing everything was taken away, hence they need more staff even though they admit that the fire at Grenfell was so big they could have done nothing different.
Planners are now running around to see what they have approved in good faith within the rules given
Business are now checking, like Premier Inns and taking steps.
Councils are running around trying to see what they have neglected for so many years
And now many councils see an opportunity to lever a heap load of cash out of the central plot to build refurbish everything as no one in government is likely to say no with this all running around the media making the Tories look worse than before.
And to those who are saying how some residents will see how quick things move when a block burns, yes there will be some without a doubt who think that way, hopefully they will not act that stupidly. I was speaking with one fireman I know, he was telling tales of social housing where rules are clear and yet they break them. They went to a small fire which had started when the barbeque on the balcony of a block of flats caught the curtains and they were called. No amount of discussion could make that flat owner realise it was his fault for having a fire on a balcony, with the wind etc. against the rules he wanted a barbeque, simple as that.
We need safe home for all but we need tower blocks in London due to density, these were built in the 60's and now need making safer it cannot be beyond us to do so.
Planners are now running around to see what they have approved in good faith within the rules given
Business are now checking, like Premier Inns and taking steps.
Councils are running around trying to see what they have neglected for so many years
And now many councils see an opportunity to lever a heap load of cash out of the central plot to build refurbish everything as no one in government is likely to say no with this all running around the media making the Tories look worse than before.
And to those who are saying how some residents will see how quick things move when a block burns, yes there will be some without a doubt who think that way, hopefully they will not act that stupidly. I was speaking with one fireman I know, he was telling tales of social housing where rules are clear and yet they break them. They went to a small fire which had started when the barbeque on the balcony of a block of flats caught the curtains and they were called. No amount of discussion could make that flat owner realise it was his fault for having a fire on a balcony, with the wind etc. against the rules he wanted a barbeque, simple as that.
We need safe home for all but we need tower blocks in London due to density, these were built in the 60's and now need making safer it cannot be beyond us to do so.
spaximus said:
They went to a small fire which had started when the barbeque on the balcony of a block of flats caught the curtains and they were called. No amount of discussion could make that flat owner realise it was his fault for having a fire on a balcony, with the wind etc. against the rules he wanted a barbeque, simple as that.
well if people have to live in rabbit-hutches with no outside space (I live in a flat myself and it is very wearing not being able to wander out into a garden when you feel like it), it's obvious rules like that are going to be broken.CoolHands said:
well if people have to live in rabbit-hutches with no outside space (I live in a flat myself and it is very wearing not being able to wander out into a garden when you feel like it), it's obvious rules like that are going to be broken.
Well I certainly wouldn't have expected that rules concerning basic common-sense safety would be broken by most people. Why on earth would anyone consider a barbeque to be anything like safe in that location ?Kermit power said:
Just out of interest, is the recommended procedure in the UK always to avoid lifts in the event of a fire alarm?
I remember staying in a very tall hotel in the States a few years back where the fire procedure sign on the back of the bedroom doors actually recommended that anyone over the 14th floor should take the lift in the event of a fire alarm, as they were presumably making a trade off between the risk of the lift stopping working and the time it would take people to walk down 15+ flights of stairs.
This was one of those buildings with lifts that only served Floor 14 and above, so I presume this probably made the policy viable.
It's not only the risk of the lift failing and being cooked inside a metal box before plunging twenty floors to even further doom, it's the potential for the doors opening onto an inferno with no way of escape or avoidance. I remember staying in a very tall hotel in the States a few years back where the fire procedure sign on the back of the bedroom doors actually recommended that anyone over the 14th floor should take the lift in the event of a fire alarm, as they were presumably making a trade off between the risk of the lift stopping working and the time it would take people to walk down 15+ flights of stairs.
This was one of those buildings with lifts that only served Floor 14 and above, so I presume this probably made the policy viable.
Tricky one to advise upon as a one-size-fits-all set of recommendations but I think I'd be wary despite the length of time it would take to run down the stairs.
cossy400 said:
Excuse my ignorance but I thought this was a requirement since the 80/90s?
The st storm from Grenfell is just getting bigger and bigger.
Smoke alarms are required in individual dwellings (i.e. individual flats) which are let, and the responsibility lies on the landlord.The s
t storm from Grenfell is just getting bigger and bigger. This requirement does not apply to the communal areas of a block. Expert guidance has generally been that such individual flat alarms, should not be linked together, to reduce the disruption from false alarms, and avoid the problem of causing congestion on exit routes in buildings which are designed to slow the spread of fire.
However, in dwelling smoke alarms/fire alarms have limited reliability, because occupants get frustrated by false alarms, or the low battery signal and tend to disable the alarms.
I used to let out some flats, and maybe about 1/3 of the time, when I inspected, I'd find the smoke/heat alarms disabled (batteries removed, and mains supply switched off at the circuit breaker). This worried me enough that I ended up changing the smoke alarms in the living room and hallways to heat alarms (smoke alarms only in the bedrooms), wiring them into the lighting circuit (so you couldn't just switch off the circuit breaker), using "tamper-proof" models of alarm, which can't be opened to remove the battery without a special tool, and installing 10 year lithium batteries at the beginning of every tenancy. This helped, but I still ended up with occasional removed alarms (often with collateral damage to ceilings). I always used to worry about my liability if tenants had deactivated the alarms. Anyway, I'm out of that business and I sleep a lot more soundly.
hidetheelephants said:
jules_s said:
OldGermanHeaps said:
The buildings were bare for decades before without incident before all the tree hugging ste got involved why would that be a problem now?
Because the fire protection around the building is reliant on the cladding, you cant just remove it and maintain the integrity of everything connected to itte got involved why would that be a problem now?
How will removing the flammable cladding and flammable foam insulation, leaving only the bare concrete, decrease the integrity of the fire protection?Oceanic said:
cossy400 said:
That firefighter seems as drunk as the rest of them!Cold said:
It's not only the risk of the lift failing and being cooked inside a metal box before plunging twenty floors to even further doom, it's the potential for the doors opening onto an inferno with no way of escape or avoidance.
Tricky one to advise upon as a one-size-fits-all set of recommendations but I think I'd be wary despite the length of time it would take to run down the stairs.
lifts for some years have lockout/ratchet devices in design to prevent them from free falling in the event of cable failure or such.Tricky one to advise upon as a one-size-fits-all set of recommendations but I think I'd be wary despite the length of time it would take to run down the stairs.
although I agree this wouldn't be much good if they activated between floors with an advancing fire where you could not get out of the lift car.
Engineer792 said:
Oceanic said:
cossy400 said:
That firefighter seems as drunk as the rest of them!
When I was in the RNLI we regularly tested the fire pump on our lifeboat and you had to hold the hose nozzle pretty tightly! (The main fire pump was connected to the port engine which was a 14 litre 485bhp Cat V8)Engineer792 said:
Oceanic said:
cossy400 said:
That firefighter seems as drunk as the rest of them!Plus he was not trying to get water in the window, he was cooling the surrounds, roofline etc. Blasting water in the window would have driven the flames/heat towards the crews entering the room via the stairs, making conditions much worse for them.
CoolHands said:
spaximus said:
They went to a small fire which had started when the barbeque on the balcony of a block of flats caught the curtains and they were called. No amount of discussion could make that flat owner realise it was his fault for having a fire on a balcony, with the wind etc. against the rules he wanted a barbeque, simple as that.
well if people have to live in rabbit-hutches with no outside space (I live in a flat myself and it is very wearing not being able to wander out into a garden when you feel like it), it's obvious rules like that are going to be broken.The rules are there to protect people and there are enough communal parks and gardens even in London to allow most activities. Do you think the "rich" who own flats thinks "f
k it" I will have a barbeque on my balcony? No they understand if they want a garden they pay more for one or do without.I have lived where there were rules I did not like but to endanger people because they want a sausage is the height of irresponsibility and shows why these sort of things happen.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff