Tower block fire - london

LOAM said:
No it was report into the fire at Lakanal House in 2009, who's landlord was Southwark council.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the bill the other poster mentioned which relates to private landlords and has nothing to do with the maintenance of tower blocks.

But as you mention it Southwark is a Labour council... you're supposed to blame the Tories!
 
Caracus2k said:
get real ....she would have just be the target of vitriol and the media would have been there to lap it up. End result no benefit to the residents and no benefit to the tories or May. Even Sadiq Khan took some grief
Click to expand...
If our so called glorious PM cant meet people under times of tragedy she is not fit for office. People are allowed to be angry and its part of her job to take that and look at ways of distilling that anger.

She sacked two advisors recently over the election, but its pretty apparent that she is incompetent to the core.
 
Has this been posted yet?

19095595_1632643066748302_5001188372901460479_o.jpg
 
Cern said:
£2 per square metre extra for flame resistant materials is not much of a "trade off" if you ask me. It might not have stopped the building burning down, but it might have slowed the fire down enough to save more lives.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-grenfell-tower-identified-as-omnis-exteriors
Click to expand...

you don't even necessarily need to have used cladding from that same supplier, there are other options too (the BBC expert mentioned rock wool for example) - main point though was that this isn't necessarily a cost or austerity issue from the POV of the local authority

VincentHanna said:
Has this been posted yet?

19095595_1632643066748302_5001188372901460479_o.jpg
Click to expand...

don't think so, but silly arguments along the same lines have
 
Dis86 said:
It costs 10% more though. In a build 10% is a heck of a lot.
Click to expand...

I heard a figure of £5000 extra. I thought that seemed low, how many cladding parts were needed as that works out around 225ish

Either way it would only have cost approx £1200 per flat to install a full sprinkler system, which works out at about £144,000

Could have easily been done as part of the 10 million refurb.
 
Dis86 said:
Source? Everything I've read says it meets regs.
Click to expand...
From the regs:

"The external walls of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another."
"In a building with a storey 18m or more above ground level any insulation product, filler material (not including gaskets, sealants and similar) etc. used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility"
"The external envelope of a building should not provide a medium for fire spread if it is likely to be a risk to health or safety. The use of combustible materials in the cladding system and extensive cavities may present such a risk in tall buildings."

Appendix A gives requirements for the definitions of resisting combustion, it's the amount of time a material takes to succumb to the fire. "Flammable" is not an acceptable level of fire resistance ^^
 
iamtheoneneo said:
If our so called glorious PM cant meet people under times of tragedy she is not fit for office. People are allowed to be angry and its part of her job to take that and look at ways of distilling that anger.

She sacked two advisors recently over the election, but its pretty apparent that she is incompetent to the core.
Click to expand...

khan had a bottle thrown at him and was ambushed by a kid asking him what he was going to do (for which there isnt a simple satisfactory answer that anyone can provide)

I disagree that the best reaction from a pm is rush to the scene to have a 'chat' with the victims. I would far rather they direct the best resources be directed to the scene with as little a media circus as possible and ensure the matter is in investigated appropriately.


unfortunately we live in a world where feelings all too often trump facts.....
 
That Austerity thing is a pile of crass.
The building is 50 years old isn't it.
Been a fair few governments along the way.
10M just been spent on it, and that might turn out to have been a terrible spend, costing lives rather than saving any, lets wait for the reports.
 
dowie said:
well we just had an 'expert' on the BBC saying that the costs were quite high for this sort of project and other materials could have been used. The idea that this is just the cheapest option rather than perhaps a bad decision isn't so clear. There certainly doesn't seem to be a clear argument that it is the fault of 'austerity' or 'the Tories' - much as people in here would seem to like to turn this into a political rant.

Has there been some profiteering on the part of contractors here?
Click to expand...

Unless the chap on the BBC had access to the target costs document then anything he says is more or less meaningless. We have no idea of the full extent of the works carried out. The LA certainly had a budget of 10million for it so its QS's clearly thought that it was in the right area. They apparently rejected a quote for nearly 12million and put it back out to ojeu tender.


dowie said:
I was referring to the bill the other poster mentioned which relates to private landlords and has nothing to do with the maintenance of tower blocks.

But as you mention it Southwark is a Labour council... you're supposed to blame the Tories!
Click to expand...

Southwark were fined £600K for their part, the relevant part is what impact the report would have had on subsequent over clad specifications. That much is as relevant as the actual use of polyethylene core cladding panels.
 
Caracus2k said:
so an enquiry properly conducted can make a recommendation to change the building regs......

cost and fire retardance are not the only consideration .... How much did the alternative weigh, how easy is it to fit and handle, what's its comparative longevity etc etc
Click to expand...

Yes of course, but the fire resistant product is described as a version of the same product, so is likely comparable in usage. Manufacturer website is here if you want to check.

There have been a number of interviews with fire / building regulation experts where they've said a range of viable options were available.

As for longevity, it's usually the case with most products of 'you get what you pay for' and quality, durability, reliability and warranty rise with price not decrease. I can't imagine it's any different in this case.
 
shameless opportunists aplenty seeking to make political capital our of death and suffering.... Perhaps these people should be subjected to a few decades of Marxist rule so we can see what the outcome of that is?
 
LOAM said:
Unless the chap on the BBC had access to the target costs document then anything he says is more or less meaningless. We have no idea of the full extent of the works carried out. The LA certainly had a budget of 10million for it so its QS's clearly thought that it was in the right area. They apparently rejected a quote for nearly 12million and put it back out to ojeu tender.
Click to expand...

The expert was female actually, I don't think you need to have access to target costs to state that using different panels would have been possible - the variation of cost of materials for these things is a tiny tiny % of the budget - one estimate of 5k extra for different panels from the same manufacturer - on a 10 million budget 5k is a rounding error. Given that this expert was involved in similar projects for other London local authorities I think she likely does know what she is taking about here.
 
Caracus2k said:
shameless opportunists aplenty seeking to make political capital our of death and suffering.... Perhaps these people should be subjected to a few decades of Marxist rule so we can see what the outcome of that is?
Click to expand...

Shameless apologists abound too. How is that any different?
 
ubersonic said:
From the regs:

"The external walls of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another."
"In a building with a storey 18m or more above ground level any insulation product, filler material (not including gaskets, sealants and similar) etc. used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility"
"The external envelope of a building should not provide a medium for fire spread if it is likely to be a risk to health or safety. The use of combustible materials in the cladding system and extensive cavities may present such a risk in tall buildings."

Appendix A gives requirements for the definitions of resisting combustion, it's the amount of time a material takes to succumb to the fire. "Flammable" is not an acceptable level of fire resistance ^^
Click to expand...

There's no quantifiable results there though. It's purely down to interpretation.

I'd say they're poorly worded which has certainly been my experience of dealing with building regs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom