O.o
Well yes, if you want to interpret fire resistant/combustion limiting as flammable I suppose it is open for interpretation
Tower block fire - london
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
Well yes, if you want to interpret fire resistant/combustion limiting as flammable I suppose it is open for interpretation
These tower blocks have been around since the 1970s. There's been fires in them over the years, but previously those fires were contained, or relatively contained, because of how individual flats were designed to be self-contained. Hence the 'stay put policy'. But the cladding would appear to have compromised that because a flammable material was used.
we don't know the facts yet. I'm not apologizing for anyone. I'm saying wait for the facts
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,639
It sounds like it wasn't that unsafe prior to the new cladding. Obviously could have done with a working fire alarm system (down since 2012), a sprinkler systems and another stairwell
You can't put another stairwell in an existing build.
They were saying it was basically safer in the 60's when it was first built, than in 2016 when the refurb was carried out.
Most news sources are saying that the cladding conformed to regulations. Do you have any other sources which say it doesnt?O.o
Well yes, if you want to interpret fire resistant/combustion limiting as flammable I suppose it is open for interpretation
(quoting the regulations isn't evidence that the product doesnt comply)
Pass on what the additional costs were, its often not as simple as multiplying the difference by the required area, it may have had different fixing requirements that needed a completely different cladding rail etc but I don't know so cant comment. Regardless of how many projects she's been involved in unless she's knows what works were undertaken then its moot. I've worked on over clad projects of 50's concrete clad towers and they were in the region of £4m contract value, you simply can not compare project A with project B unless you know the contents of both specifications. So many factors could have increased the costs that the projects she worked on didn't have to undertake, concrete repair for example could have been extensive, we simply don't know.
I quoted the regulations which list the standards that materials must comply with to be deemed acceptable, the materials used did not comply and thus are unacceptable and do not meet the regs.
I think you're getting confused by the fact it's possible for the same thing to meet some building regs but not meet other different building regs. Regardless of what regs the materials used do comply with or what British/EU standards they conform to, they do not comply with the regulations for use as external cladding on a tower block in Britain.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,639
Usually I would say lets wait for the full facts etc, but in this instance It's pretty obvious what was to blame. You've got Firefighter veterans of 30 years saying they've never seen anything like it, Fire visibly spreading in the videos around the outside of the building etc.
The rooms were designed to burn for 60 minutes, self contained.
it's not a political argument. I'm not blaming labour and people shouldn't blame the tories (until we know the facts). Let's imagine a scenario where Corbyn came to power in recent election and this fire didn't occur (but the fire risk remained). Do you think labour would have simultaneously tightened up the building regs AND pursued a policy of mass public building?
I'm not for weakening safety standards and if Corbyn had won and some years down the line a building built in his proposed programs had burnt down in tragic circumstances with building regs passed on from the tories I hope I would have the decency to NOT exercise it as an opportunity to have a pop at Corbyn
but we don't know everything... Was the cladding installed correctly?? Etc.
I'm not sure there are many facts at the moment that turn this into a blame the Tories/austerity scenario yet
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,639
The idea that it had pretty cladding to make it look nicer to the wealthy people in the area does seem plausible though.
It literally serves no other purpose other than cosmetic. I dunno, maybe they were trying to make it look nicer for the residents as well, and they did put Firedoors on in the refurb but the problem wasn't the fire escaping internally.
I conceed it's too early to blame Austerity, but the facts will come out.
It literally serves no other purpose other than cosmetic. I dunno, maybe they were trying to make it look nicer for the residents as well, and they did put Firedoors on in the refurb but the problem wasn't the fire escaping internally.
I conceed it's too early to blame Austerity, but the facts will come out.
Just saying again that the materials did not comply doesn't back up your original post. Do you have any sources to confirm this?
Most mainstream news sources at the moment are saying that the materials used meet the regulations.
Disgusting politicizing of this tragedy
You can't say it's not a political argument when the Conservatives have a policy of deregulation, removing any red tape that impedes the ability for companies to make profits, reducing the role of the state wherever possible, implementing huge austerity cuts, plan to use Brexit to tear up as much EU legislation as possible, a lot of which pertains to health and safety.
I'm not suggesting Labour have all the answers, they don't and even if idealistically they would like to tighten regulations AND build millions more homes, there's clearly a financial barrier to achieving both of those aims.
But there seems to be an ever widening gulf between where the Tories want to take this country and where Labour do. It's all very polarised right and left, the middle has been vacated. But if this is to be resolved, it's going to need politicians and voters to meet in the middle, to agree some compromises, to soften austerity, to support public services, to soften Brexit, to make society fairer and so on.
Fixed.
I think you will be hard pushed to find someone living in the block who, if asked, would or said, no thanks, I prefer the concrete look.
I linked/quoted THE BUILDING REGULATIONS...
No they are saying they meet regulations, but there are more than one, and the regulation concerning the cladding insulation applied to the outside of a building greater than 18m in height prohibit the use of flammable materials, as previously stated/cited.
I honestly think most would have considered it a waste of money.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,639
In the context of not having working alarms and reading through their blogs, I agree with Cheesyboy.
No, but if given the choice between fitting some fancy flammable cladding or spending the money on sprinklers, fire alarms, fire extinguishers, keeping the stairwells and landings free of junk etc etc, only a fool would choose the cosmetics. And the residents aren't fools, there's plenty of blogs and minuted meetings where fire safety concerns were repeatedly raised, and rejected by the authorities.