Tower block fire - london

[LOAM]

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.

The Reynobond literature says the PE and FR product are both class 0 for surface spread of flame, the highest class available.

 

[balky12]

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.

I never suggested otherwise.

It was never presented this way was it? Even the 'rich' onlookers would have chosen sprinklers if the question was shall we make the flat look prettier but people will die, or flat looks the same but no one will die.

Although, it has been mentioned that sprinkler installation was discussed, however residents didn't want to extended inconvenience. Guess we will have to wait and see if this is true.

 

[Cern]

The Reynobond literature says the PE and FR product are both class 0 for surface spread of flame, the highest class available.

Isn't the problem thought to be with the flammability of the inner layer of the cladding though, rather than the surface?

 

[touch]

I linked/quoted THE BUILDING REGULATIONS...

I saw that you quoted some regulations. You still havn't provided any sources or evidence to explain why you think these materials dont comply with them when the manufacturer and all the news sources i've seen so far claim that they do comply.

 

[ubersonic]

The Reynobond literature says the PE and FR product are both class 0 for surface spread of flame, the highest class available.

Yes that's because aluminium doesn't spread flame very well, but that has nothing to do with the flammable insulation attached to the aluminium surface. The issue is that the insulation didn't meet regs and once fire got to it it went up like a shellsuit and because the cladding was all down the sides of the building it spread like wildfire.

 

[Cern]

I never suggested otherwise.

It was never presented this way was it? Even the 'rich' onlookers would have chosen sprinklers if the question was shall we make the flat look prettier but people will die, or flat looks the same but no one will die.

Although, it has been mentioned that sprinkler installation was discussed, however residents didn't want to extended inconvenience. Guess we will have to wait and see if this is true.

Well no-one likes building works. But when building work is vital for safety it's up to the authorities to explain and convince people why its necessary. Except that if they don't want to spend the money in the first place they aren't going to attempt to do much convincing are they?

 

[ubersonic]

I saw that you quoted some regulations. You still haven't provided any sources or evidence to explain why you think these materials dont comply with them

Because the regulations say they don't, as they require fire resistant/combustion limiting material. And the flammable cladding used was neither, thus it did not meet the regulations.

when the manufacturer and all the news sources i've seen so far claim that they do comply.

There is a difference between complying with some regulations and complying with all regulations, as has been previously explained.

Here's another bit from Building Regulations Approved Document B:

Internal fire spread (linings)

B2.
(1) To inhibit the spread of fire within the building, the internal linings shall.

(a) adequately resist the spread of flame over their surfaces; and
(b) have, if ignited, a rate of heat release or a rate of fire growth, which is reasonable in the circumstances.​

(2) in this paragraph "internal linings" mean the materials or products used in lining any partition, wall, ceiling or other internal structure."

 

[Hagar]

Yes that's because aluminium doesn#t spread flame very well, but this has nothing to do with the flammable insulation attached to the aluminium surface. The issue is that the insulation didn't meet regs and once fire got to it it went up like a shellsuit and because the cladding was all down the sides of the building it spread like wildfire.

If that is the case, it is a construction and inspection issue. ie contractor and clerk of works (or whatever they call themselves now) or possibly a design detail issue.

 

[Chris Wilson]

Protests starting at the Kensington and Chelsea Town Hall, I fear this may get unpleasant,
a hot weekend ahead and plenty of hot headed political belligerence.... Won't take much for
it to turn into a riot. Hopefully the authorities are prepared

 

[Caracus2k]

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.

What building regs have the Tories changed since Labour were last in? Dergualation is not inherently 'bad' more regulation is not inherently 'good' its a balancing exercise

 

[balky12]

Well no-one likes building works. But when building work is vital for safety it's up to the authorities to explain and convince people why its necessary. Except that if they don't want to spend the money in the first place they aren't going to attempt to do much convincing are they?

I'm not disagreeing with you. However if the renovating company is doing everything by regulated standards, then it suggests extra safety measures (sprinklers), and the resident's predominantly disagree with the suggestion, then what are they to do?

 

[robfosters]

Someone got derided earlier in the thread for claiming it could cause a riot. It's getting a bit hairy at the town hall.

 

[ubersonic]

If that is the case, it is a construction and inspection issue.

The sad thing is, it's entirely possible that the contractor could have truly believed that the cladding they were using was safe for the purpose they were using it for. They may have looked at that spec sheet LOAM linked and also assumed that because it had really good fire protection values from the aluminium side that was the whole story, then coated an entire building in flammable material while all the time believing they were making it safer.

If that's the case I really feel for the guy who made that purchasing decision

 

[Em3bbs]

There is a difference between complying with some regulations and complying with all regulations, as has been previously explained.

Here's another bit from Building Regulations Approved Document B:

Unfortunately that clearly says 'internal'.

Edit: I say unfortunately because why the **** didn't they add external to that as well.

 

[touch]

Extract: from Building Regulations Approved Document B:
"The Requirements
Internal fire spread (linings)

Now you're just pasting anything from google which looks like it might back up your point.
Those regulations you've quoted clearly refer to internal linings, which is completely irrelevant.

 

[ubersonic]

Unfortunately that clearly says 'internal'.

Edit: I say unfortunately because why the **** didn't they add external to that as well.

Ahh, didn't notice that as I was in a rush lol, but in fairness the regs say essentially the same stuff about the external too:

"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 ^^

 

[Cern]

Protests starting at the Kensington and Chelsea Town Hall, I fear this may get unpleasant,
a hot weekend ahead and plenty of hot headed political belligerence.... Won't take much for
it to turn into a riot. Hopefully the authorities are prepared

Well there'll be some grim irony if they decide to un-mothball Boris Johnson's water cannons, the cost of which (£320k of taxpayers money) could have been better invested in equipment for the fire service, such as a cherry picker to reach the upper floors of large buildings perhaps.

 

[ubersonic]

Now you're just pasting anything from google which looks like it might back up your point.

I'm actually copying from regulations documents I have.

Those regulations you've quoted clearly refer to internal linings, which is completely irrelevant.

It is, however the quotes I linked previously say the same stuff about the outside and you ignored those so nice to see you read before replying occasionally ^^

 

[mmj_uk]

I thought everybody affected had been put into hotels? protesting to be immediately rehoused within the borough seems a bit unreasonable to me particularly when you've got people who've lost family.

There's going to be riots at this rate.

 

[glenimp617]

I thought everybody affected had been put into hotels? protesting to be immediately rehoused within the borough seems a bit unreasonable to me particularly when you've got people who've lost family.

There's going to be riots at this rate.

I think the way the country is going, it's only a matter of time before something kicks off

People aren't stupid, they hear things like the country has no money then sees millions of pounds being wasted. My city of Lincoln are spending £1 million on laying block paving at the bottom of the high steet, an area nobody uses because there's no shops!

They then said in their next breath that a very popular NHS walk-in centre was closing due to being over used.