Another cladding fire?

I wonder how much progress the government has made in clearing up the hideous mess left by the failure to update Building Regulations in the last ten years?

Let me see....



"Up to 17,000 households still live in privately owned apartment blocks with dangerous cladding similar to the Grenfell Tower — despite a government scheme aimed at making the buildings safe. A £200m government fund was launched this year to replace cladding on these buildings but it has so far approved preliminary funding for just one tower despite aiming to pay the cost of replacing the material for almost half the 184 private sector blocks that need work.

Flammable cladding was blamed for the rapid spread of the catastrophic fire at Grenfell Tower, in which 72 people died two-and-a-half years ago. Government tests have since pinpointed more than 400 towers with the aluminium composite cladding systems used in Grenfell, of which 184 are privately owned."


https://www.ft.com/content/c65fa3d2-06ee-11ea-a984-fbbacad9e7dd


Oh. Pretty f ing appalling. No change, then.

Have a friend who just built a small 70' x 40' shed cladded with corrugated tin.
BC is now demanding that he removes an entire gable, clad with another material that is the same as the corrugated tin (ie - doesn't catch fire) and paint all the steel work (which won't catch fire) with fire proof paint.
Seems their is change.:LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL:
Which will cost my friend ££££££££'s.
Their are no building in the vicinity of his shed.

Seemingly if his shed catches fire it must collapse inwards and not outwards.
This is the logic explained by his bco. :LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL:
His shed is made from concrete and steel.
 
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
"Witness reports suggested the blaze at the Cube building on Friday travelled rapidly over the surface of the building. Local politicians said it was covered with high-pressure laminate cladding, which can be combustible. Paul Dennett, the elected mayor of Salford, identified the cladding as high-pressure laminate and said he would ask the government for more funding to remove dangerous cladding from buildings..."

"...But HPL panels played a role in the spread of a fire at another London housing block, Lakanal House, in 2009, which killed six people."

https://www.ft.com/content/bb1e05b4-0896-11ea-b2d6-9bf4d1957a67

Over ten years ago.

"An inquest into the deaths at Lakanal House found that the rapid spread of the fire had trapped people in their homes. The exterior cladding panels had burned through in less than five minutes"

Lakanal3-1200px.jpg


Lakenal

Some commentary. It mentions the Ministers responsible for Building Regulations.

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/ins...ians-missed-the-chance-to-stop-grenfell-61834
 
Sponsored Links
Steel joists twist in heat, the reason they are painted is to stop them twisting and causing walls to collapse, he may be just over zealous in your friends case.

My friend wanted to clad the inner side with the fire proof material.
Which is a much easier operation. And would also have allowed him to insulate the gable.
That would protect the timber that the cladding is fixed too, from burning.
By putting it on the outside the BCO has ensured that in the event of a fire, the exposed timber will burn and the cladding will collapse and fall outwards.
:LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL:
Pen pushers? A load of clowns.
 
There is a lot of Chinese £money flowing into investment building of these student accomodation blocks. They are flying up in every university city.

Apart from the cladding we should also be looking very closely at the relaxed building regs they enjoy. They are all just waiting to happen & I have no doubt that someone somewhere has calculated how many fires / deaths / per annum to expect !

I am strongly opposed to any UK taxpayer funds being used now or in the future to subsidise putting them right & making them safe.

Shut them down. Shut them down NOW, we are killing our children.

Have you seen Manchester, amount of new tower blocks?

Whats the cause?

1) Ineffective Regulation?
2) Builders cutting corners
3) Poor inspection regime?

We are a leading nation, we should be able to put up a block of flats.
 
I've never built anything that I wouldn't live in along with the people who are important in my life. And I've built a few . . . .

I understand that a major personallity quality of a person who is likely to become succesfull these days is to be a psychopath.

You would need to be a psychopath, to build such a thing, that you MUST know is a fire death trap.
 
I've never built anything that I wouldn't live in along with the people who are important in my life. And I've built a few . . . .

I understand that a major personallity quality of a person who is likely to become succesfull these days is to be a psychopath.

You would need to be a psychopath, to build such a thing, that you MUST know is a fire death trap.

So what enables these psychopaths? Where are the checks and balances?

We are a first world country not a third world country like Bangladesh where they made substandard buildings which collapsed.

Its really shamefully if the pursuit of profit is the only determinant.
 
People in business will often say "we obeyed all relevant laws" when they are caught doing something wrong.

So it is necessary for laws to prevent them, and the laws must be enforced.

That's what building regulations are for.

1667 was a good year for fire-prevention regulations.

England's Housing ministers have failed to do their duty in this respect for at least ten years.
 
I read this a while back, some interesting points on how the responsibility has been shifted onto the people paying for the building (why would they want to cut corners..).

Below is a post from former chief fire officer from Derbyshire fire and rescue (very good and highly respected chief)

Grenfell...

Who’d be a fire chief?
Who’d be a firefighter?

I’ve not read the Grenfell Inquiry yet. Something to look forward to next week.

As a firefighter, you spend decades being told to follow procedures and training. They work, fires get put out, you get to go home safely.

You are told you did a good job, you are audited and the auditors tell you that you are competent and professional. It is reaffirming and reassuring.

Step outside those procedures and you fail your assessment, you are not competent. You don’t want to be there.

All these procedures are written to tackle fire in buildings built to a regulated standard.

The building is supposed to behave in a predictable way. Arm Chair enthusiasts would imagine that fire is not predictable. Well, you are wrong, it is a matter of scientific fact that fire develops and behaves predictably depending on the fuel, air and environment.

That is why firefighters can have standard operating procedures (SOPs) that for the most part work and do the job. If fire was unpredictable you could not have an SOP.

For decades building regs worked and we never suffered a Grenfell even in the 80 and 90s when there were 40% more fires than we have today.

Likelihood and severity, you’ve heard these banded around. In the nineties the likelihood was massive but it seems nowadays the severity has mushroomed as whole buildings are burning down on a regular basis.

If you ever drove through Salford in the 90s a single burnt-out flat was a common sight as you looked up at the high rise buildings. Like a broken tooth.

A fire put out using tried and tested procedure in a building designed to contain the fire to the flat of origin. Most people in the other flats wouldn’t even know that a fire had occurred until the morning after.

No common fire alarm, no mobile phones yet a successful outcome and no mass evacuation.

Why?

Because the buildings were not wrapped in flammable material allowing unchecked spread up the facade and ingress through windows.

Because the internal separation was solid and fire-resistant, because mostly the fire doors unless vandalised worked.

At this time the fire brigade was the responsible authority for fire legislation. We issued fire certificates and our word was law.

Admittedly we didn’t issue certs on domestic property but such was our regulatory power in other premises the local authority building control accepted that we knew what we were about and went with our recommendation

All that changed through deregulation at the end of the 90s. (The reform act of 2005 in fact). I was in fire protection at the time and I remember the old hands predicting a disaster.

It was like giving the kids the keys to the sweet shop. Building owners were now (2006) responsible for the fire safety standards in the same way a manager is responsible for health and safety at work. Some do it well, some do it badly, some do what they can afford and hope it’s enough.

Well, it’s not good enough and it is coming home to roost.

As a chief, you expect your firefighters to follow the policy and be competent, you have the dubious pleasure of being ultimately responsible for making sure that this is the case. It is a massive responsibility, you do your best. You audit the boys and girls to death. They are sick of being assessed. But they are safe, competent and they go home at the end of the shift.

Grenfell.

Imagine turning up at a building where everything has gone wrong the whole fire protection system had failed and the fire is spreading through what should be concrete fire-resistant rooms and up the outside beyond your capability to reach it.

You now need to tell 200 firefighters to forget everything they ever learned and do things completely outside of every procedure they have trained on. Things that could get them killed. It’s a miracle none were.

Every fibre in your body is screaming to do something new and evacuate whilst every professional brain cell is saying “are you mad” if you evacuate the people in the flats with no breathing apparatus they are doomed and it will be seen to have been your call.

Evacuating a burning building means taking people from what you understand to be a place of relative safety (or at least it should be if built right) and asking them to enter smoke-filled corridors and stairs knowing some won’t make it. We are talking about people of all ages and abilities here. Your mum, your grandad, your kids.

What would you do?
How brave are you now sitting in your armchair with the daily mail sword drawn about to slay the guilty?

Making life and death decisions outside of policy because a building had been let slide as a result of a succession of systematic governmental failure, safe in the knowledge that if you lose one firefighter or members of the public are found in stairwells dead you will be squarely in the frame of “going outside of procedure”.

Not so easy is it.

It is no surprise that candidates for chief fire officers jobs total one or two per position when advertised these days.

I stand with Dany Cotton and I stand with London Fire Brigade.

I look forward to part two of the report that looks at root cause including building regs and I sincerely hope the author does his job properly.

I hope everyone understands that firefighters turn up when everyone else’s risk assessment had gone wrong and are tasked with sorting out the mess.

We are not chefs, a missed instruction does not result in a ruined dish. We have to take what ingredients we have been given and bake a cake on the hoof whilst the kitchen is on fire and then have some armchair baker who may have watched his mum make a jam tart once tell us how well we have done.

Don’t get me started on sprinklers. I’ve been vocal, been on the telly, been sat in front of ministers with hard evidence to prove the case and been fobbed off.

Politics is at the root of Grenfell, I doubt any politician will be vilified in the way firefighters and chiefs have this week

Who’d be a chief?
Who’d be a firefighter now?
 
Below is a post from former chief fire officer from Derbyshire fire and rescue
Wow, that explains so clearly how the role of the fire service is just one part of the jigsaw in fire safety and death prevention.

And it really shows up why the Grenfell enquiry has been phased in the wrong order.

It seems to me that Trump politics is in play - investigate the rescue part first and get criticism focused on that, so hopefully everybody will have lost interest when the building regulations, architects, council, builders etc get put under the spotlight.
 
I could be act like many on here and put on my building regulation hat and become an instant expert and say its the fault of stupid students or the immigrant delivering the takeout who threw his fag end into a bin.
You turning over a new leaf then and winding your neck in?
 
I read this a while back, some interesting points on how the responsibility has been shifted onto the people paying for the building (why would they want to cut corners..).

Below is a post from former chief fire officer from Derbyshire fire and rescue (very good and highly respected chief)

Grenfell...

Who’d be a fire chief?
Who’d be a firefighter?

I’ve not read the Grenfell Inquiry yet. Something to look forward to next week.

As a firefighter, you spend decades being told to follow procedures and training. They work, fires get put out, you get to go home safely.

You are told you did a good job, you are audited and the auditors tell you that you are competent and professional. It is reaffirming and reassuring.

Step outside those procedures and you fail your assessment, you are not competent. You don’t want to be there.

All these procedures are written to tackle fire in buildings built to a regulated standard.

The building is supposed to behave in a predictable way. Arm Chair enthusiasts would imagine that fire is not predictable. Well, you are wrong, it is a matter of scientific fact that fire develops and behaves predictably depending on the fuel, air and environment.

That is why firefighters can have standard operating procedures (SOPs) that for the most part work and do the job. If fire was unpredictable you could not have an SOP.

For decades building regs worked and we never suffered a Grenfell even in the 80 and 90s when there were 40% more fires than we have today.

Likelihood and severity, you’ve heard these banded around. In the nineties the likelihood was massive but it seems nowadays the severity has mushroomed as whole buildings are burning down on a regular basis.

If you ever drove through Salford in the 90s a single burnt-out flat was a common sight as you looked up at the high rise buildings. Like a broken tooth.

A fire put out using tried and tested procedure in a building designed to contain the fire to the flat of origin. Most people in the other flats wouldn’t even know that a fire had occurred until the morning after.

No common fire alarm, no mobile phones yet a successful outcome and no mass evacuation.

Why?

Because the buildings were not wrapped in flammable material allowing unchecked spread up the facade and ingress through windows.

Because the internal separation was solid and fire-resistant, because mostly the fire doors unless vandalised worked.

At this time the fire brigade was the responsible authority for fire legislation. We issued fire certificates and our word was law.

Admittedly we didn’t issue certs on domestic property but such was our regulatory power in other premises the local authority building control accepted that we knew what we were about and went with our recommendation

All that changed through deregulation at the end of the 90s. (The reform act of 2005 in fact). I was in fire protection at the time and I remember the old hands predicting a disaster.

It was like giving the kids the keys to the sweet shop. Building owners were now (2006) responsible for the fire safety standards in the same way a manager is responsible for health and safety at work. Some do it well, some do it badly, some do what they can afford and hope it’s enough.

Well, it’s not good enough and it is coming home to roost.

As a chief, you expect your firefighters to follow the policy and be competent, you have the dubious pleasure of being ultimately responsible for making sure that this is the case. It is a massive responsibility, you do your best. You audit the boys and girls to death. They are sick of being assessed. But they are safe, competent and they go home at the end of the shift.

Grenfell.

Imagine turning up at a building where everything has gone wrong the whole fire protection system had failed and the fire is spreading through what should be concrete fire-resistant rooms and up the outside beyond your capability to reach it.

You now need to tell 200 firefighters to forget everything they ever learned and do things completely outside of every procedure they have trained on. Things that could get them killed. It’s a miracle none were.

Every fibre in your body is screaming to do something new and evacuate whilst every professional brain cell is saying “are you mad” if you evacuate the people in the flats with no breathing apparatus they are doomed and it will be seen to have been your call.

Evacuating a burning building means taking people from what you understand to be a place of relative safety (or at least it should be if built right) and asking them to enter smoke-filled corridors and stairs knowing some won’t make it. We are talking about people of all ages and abilities here. Your mum, your grandad, your kids.

What would you do?
How brave are you now sitting in your armchair with the daily mail sword drawn about to slay the guilty?

Making life and death decisions outside of policy because a building had been let slide as a result of a succession of systematic governmental failure, safe in the knowledge that if you lose one firefighter or members of the public are found in stairwells dead you will be squarely in the frame of “going outside of procedure”.

Not so easy is it.

It is no surprise that candidates for chief fire officers jobs total one or two per position when advertised these days.

I stand with Dany Cotton and I stand with London Fire Brigade.

I look forward to part two of the report that looks at root cause including building regs and I sincerely hope the author does his job properly.

I hope everyone understands that firefighters turn up when everyone else’s risk assessment had gone wrong and are tasked with sorting out the mess.

We are not chefs, a missed instruction does not result in a ruined dish. We have to take what ingredients we have been given and bake a cake on the hoof whilst the kitchen is on fire and then have some armchair baker who may have watched his mum make a jam tart once tell us how well we have done.

Don’t get me started on sprinklers. I’ve been vocal, been on the telly, been sat in front of ministers with hard evidence to prove the case and been fobbed off.

Politics is at the root of Grenfell, I doubt any politician will be vilified in the way firefighters and chiefs have this week

Who’d be a chief?
Who’d be a firefighter now?

Just look how the media has twisted it to blame the firefighters by running with the politicians narrative.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top