Huge Fire In Block Of Flats

[Sir Bagalot]

beko1987 said:

I drove past it with my dad on wednesday night as we went to camden for a gig. TBH up until then I had been "Bloody hell that's bad" etc as I've read about it and read this thread since pretty much the start as someone who doesn't live in london, doesn't really do politics etc

But as we drove past it on the A40 a feeling of "fk me" spread over, goosebumps as we looked through the shell of the building, was a feeling I've not had before.

I drive past it most days. It still gives me goosebumps.

I did park up one day and took a walk to look at some of the messages. Some of them are really chilling and desperately sad

[Trevatanus]

It's weird.
I have this desire to see if.
Don't know why, and if I do, it will be specific trip.
I guess it's just because it's such a massive thing.

[austinsmirk]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/grenfel...

Can't believe it's taken so long for it to happen. Same thing happened at 9/11. In fact there was a British women who got herself flown out to ny on the pretext of having lost nearest and dearest.

[p1stonhead]

Trevatanus said:

It's weird.
I have this desire to see if.
Don't know why, and if I do, it will be specific trip.
I guess it's just because it's such a massive thing.

I would suggest not. It's hard to describe bits definitely stayed with me in a bizarre way.

[The Surveyor]

rockin said:

Building regulations are of limited relevance. The fundamental issues are around,

• Did someone specify an unsuitable solution, and/or
• Did someone supply materials which did not meet specification, and/or
• Did someone supply materials which, although within specification, were so unsuitable for the known purpose that it was obviously unsafe.

If you drive negligently and hit a pedestrian you can't get off the hook just by saying,

• My car had a valid MOT, and
• I was obeying the speed limit.

The Building Regulations (and the British Standards applicable at the time) are very relevant when we're talking about construction works being satisfactory or not IMHO. That is the minimum standard, it's the threshold against which the cladding used on the tower will be measured against. It's the threshold which will define if there's been any negligence or not.

[bitchstewie]

kev1974 said:

RBK&C coming in for some heat from No. 10 for the state of that meeting last night though!

Leader of RBK&C has stepped down.

Not exactly surprising given that st show last night.

[kev1974]

bhstewie said:

kev1974 said:

RBK&C coming in for some heat from No. 10 for the state of that meeting last night though!

Leader of RBK&C has stepped down.

Not exactly surprising given that st show last night.

None of it should have been left to the council. It's obvious from the start that RBK&C don't have a clue how to handle this, why would they, their day to day stuff is housing a few families a day, emptying bins on Exhibition Road, making street lights work in Holland Park. I'm not surprised he's thrown in the towel, and I very much doubt they'll find anyone else willing to step into his place.

This was always too big for any London borough council, there should have been a crisis management task force in place before 10am the morning after.

[Short Grain]

kev1974 said:

bhstewie said:

kev1974 said:

RBK&C coming in for some heat from No. 10 for the state of that meeting last night though!

Leader of RBK&C has stepped down.

Not exactly surprising given that st show last night.

None of it should have been left to the council. It's obvious from the start that RBK&C don't have a clue how to handle this, why would they, their day to day stuff is housing a few families a day, emptying bins on Exhibition Road, making street lights work in Holland Park. I'm not surprised he's thrown in the towel, and I very much doubt they'll find anyone else willing to step into his place.

This was always too big for any London borough council, there should have been a crisis management task force in place before 10am the morning after.

They haven't got a clue and are all so arrogant they won't f*kin even admit they don't have a clue!!

[V8 Fettler]

Speed 3 said:

Clickbait alert:

Grenfell Tower: Cladding 'changed to cheaper version'
By Tom Symonds and Daniel De Simone
BBC News

"Documents show the aluminium cladding was less fire-resistant than zinc, thereby saving nearly £300,000."

and right at the bottom:

"Both types of cladding have the same fire official rating."

So you're trying to save public money as you're mandated to do, what choice do you make ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40453054

Neither, because neither can match the fire resistance of the concrete that formed the exterior of the tower prior to the refurbishment. Basic design principles.

[Eddieslofart]

Some terrible decisions being made. This is Hard Rock.

[FlyingMeeces]

Short Grain said:

They haven't got a clue and are all so arrogant they won't f*kin even admit they don't have a clue!!

That's rather it for me - not condemning them for not being able to handle it, condemning them for not having the balls to say so, loud and clear. Good leaders - of any kind - know when to ask for help. That help perhaps also should have been much much more promptly, and clearly, offered but that's almost a separate issue.

[anonymous-user]

This whole episode will, hopefully, make people think longer and harder about their abilities before standing as Councillor

[tigerkoi]

kev1974 said:

bhstewie said:

kev1974 said:

RBK&C coming in for some heat from No. 10 for the state of that meeting last night though!

Leader of RBK&C has stepped down.

Not exactly surprising given that st show last night.

None of it should have been left to the council. It's obvious from the start that RBK&C don't have a clue how to handle this, why would they, their day to day stuff is housing a few families a day, emptying bins on Exhibition Road, making street lights work in Holland Park. I'm not surprised he's thrown in the towel, and I very much doubt they'll find anyone else willing to step into his place.

This was always too big for any London borough council, there should have been a crisis management task force in place before 10am the morning after.

Hi there, I sort of agree and disagree with you.

Yes if we have crystal balls, and could see these events happening we can predict that all these authorities will fluff their lines. The strength of management and leadership talent at these places is woefully lacking and therefore we are now used to the bar being set so low. Most council CEOs are people with little career experience beyond the cosy confines of local govt and the civil service, hardly tuned by stints in the private sector where their skills would be augmented by new economic and organisational pressures.

Basically, whole cohorts of management staff in public sector are weak.

And should we accept that? No.

The whole point of paying more dollar for someone to run the executive machine of an RBKC is not for him/her to be great at doing the perfunctory like waste management or collecting taxes. Nope. You pay 180-300k for these guys because in that one day in a ten thousand when things unravel, that's when you need to earn your bucks; when you rally your staff; when you swallow your internal anxieties and insecurities and still step forward.

You step up when you're in the hot seat. You don't get on the train and ask to be kept 'updated' via email.

A crisis hits and that's when you've got to show for the flaming ball. But these guys have argued for the last decade or so, they need private sector money or they move on. But they don't have FTSE 100/250 skills. Great in the locker room but when they put their spikes on they're a no show.

Holgate was a bust when leadership was required. Paget-Brown has had a cosy local Tory ambience, but it's one thing the Labour councillors denouncing him, but now his own party are saying he had to go. Good. And Black in charge of the TMO...could see it was only a matter of time.

There is flat incompetence in the public sector at higher levels. They swan between posts around London in particular, based on tenure and benevolence and play the same old crap music: outsource this; raise taxes get less service; everything online but nuanced queries get lost in the system; robotic call queues that leave you with no one to actually speak to after 18 button presses....

We're now used to this level of poverty-spec service from out LAs. Hopefully the most significant thing that will come out of Grenfell isn't about cladding, poor vs wealthy, it will be about a massive reimaging of the level of expectation residents have with their LAs, accountability, QoS, pure leadership capability, joined up services....

After all, they're hot at making sure your car is ticketed and accumulating <£250m in their accounts...

Last thing as I finish my monologue - - if anyone has watched the video of the failed council meeting from last night, watch the reactions of the chap next to Paget-Brown, Rock Feilding-Mellen. The chap looks in utter fear. Another Etonian who's coasted through life making up poor policies that......well.......

That's a guy who's looking like he's right in the firing line now. Good.

[plasticpig]

Eddieslofart said:

Some terrible decisions being made. This is Hard Rock.

Is that the stuff made from basalt fibre?

[Glade]

Newsnight have copies of reports from Exova that state that higher grade acl would behave the same as ceramic tile for surface flame spread. I think they said these were comissionned by Kingspan for some Unite students flats in portsmouth.

Newsnight inferred this would have given the building inspectors the green light to sign off the combination.

I don't think Exova will be technically wrong. Newsnight man says that acl doesn't perform like this in a fire... It sounds like Exova are talking about surface flame spread, no doubt under specified conditions which doesn't seem like the same thing.

An unrepresentative test method has been used?

https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/8809043433...

Edited by Glade on Friday 30th June 23:14

[jules_s]

Glade said:

An unrepresentative test method has been used?

Almost definitely

Or most likely

Perhaps quite probably

You see it's quite easy to word these matters differently to spin it in which way suits the person making the statement

I'm a (bit) involved with this situation, albeit not directly. So I've refrained from posting in the thread. However, having had to review some materials I've specified as class '0' and what that means it does make you question the testing methods employed and the outcome they produce

[Elysium]

WatchfulEye said:

The contractor that did the refurbishment is now threatening the council with libel over allegations that the cladding was non-compliant with the regulations.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/30/fi...

Elysium said:

Regardless of the standards, the regs state that rainscreen systems need to resist spread of flame. They did not, so they cannot be compliant. They are also not of limited combustibility when tested to the BS (i am pretty sure this is what the BRE have been doing)

In summary, it is a UK loophole that has allowed materials like this to be used, not a Euro Norm. They don't comply with the standards in the way that they were used.

It's more subtle than that.

AD B 12.6 and associated diagram specifies that the "external surface" must resist surface spread of flame across the surface. The ACM cladding used meets this, by virtue of having an aluminium surface. The requirements in 12.6 for "class 0" performance do not apply to the combustibility of the material.

The problem is in the interpretation of B 12.7 which applies to tall buildings and places combustibility requirements on "insulation, filler, etc.". The DCLG has stated in guidance to buildings controllers that their interpretation of "insulation, filler, etc." applies to all materials used in the cladding system, with the exceptions of the "sealants, gaskets and similar" also specified in 12.7.

In a letter to councils following the disaster, the DCLG spelled this out, that "filler" in this context includes the "core" of composite materials.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

It is tempting to think that this is clearly a reactionary interpretation. However, a guidance note to buildings control dated 2014, clearly shows the interpretation intended by the DCLG. https://www.labc.co.uk/sites/default/files/BCA%20G...

It's not so much a loophole, as it appears to be widespread misunderstanding of ambiguous legislation, combined with an abject failure of enforcement.

I don't see the ambiguity. My interpretation would be exactly as the letter. There are 3 options:

1. Use only materials of limited combustibility

OR

2. Submit test information confirming that the entire system meets BR 135

OR

3. Submit a desktop study as an alternative to the test information

We don't know what was submitted here, but it's pretty clear that all materials are not of 'limited combustibility'. From what I have read both products were sold based on BR 135 compliance, but not tested as a system. Perhaps there will be a desktop study, but we will have to wait to see.

In the meantime, we have evidence that the cladding did not resist spread of flame as a system. Since that is something it must do to comply, the PM is safe to say it does not, regardless of any test data or studies available. It simply did not function as it was required to.

[Collectingbrass]

Glade said:

I don't think Exova will be technically wrong.

Just on this; I've used Exova as fire engineers on a number of complex buildings & they won't be wrong on this, they never are. They will be busy from now on though.

[Glade]

I used Exova for completely different testing, their initial advice was good and their reports very specific... as you would expect. I have also used smithers rapra, intertek, sgs for various testing and they all are similar in this respect.

In these reports they don't speculate, it's just statement of fact. Description of test method, result etc. Then as the client you draw your conclusion whether the material is fit for purpose.

Does anyone have this surface flame spread test method?

It probably states prepare sample according to method A. place flame of type x on the surface at distance y for time z. If there is no bonfire sample passes.

If the engineer then chooses to use lower grade material, and/or he should have commissioned a different test of the system... e.g. not just surface spread test then he will be at fault.

Unless he followed legislation to the letter which says " do flame spread test to method B.S. EN ISO 123456:2017"

In which case legislation is not sufficient.

People when are saying "obviously the test is not representative, someone must hang for this" should probably get into legislation writing, and make the world a better place.

[Glade]

watchfuleye seems to have summarised the legislation quite well.

Where it puts us if almost every builder and inspector nationally has mis interpreted the regs... is it a fault with the regs?

I think they need amending to remove the ambiguity