CurtainRaiser Posted December 7, 2021 Share Posted December 7, 2021 "“Government’s dependency on that industry resulted in Government becoming the junior partner in the relationship, thereby permitting industry’s exploitation of the regulations. Government’s response, on realising the extent of the problem, was to react by concealment, instead of candour. The result is a prolonged period of concealment by Government, which should properly be regarded as one of the major scandals of our time.” Ahead of Monday’s hearing Grenfell United said the “the spotlight will finally fall on the Government” in this part of the inquiry. In a statement, the group for bereaved and survivors said: “Government’s indifference to safety has been going on for decades and, had it not been for the loss of our families in the most public way, people would still be oblivious to how deadly their homes really are. “While Grenfell United has campaigned for safer homes and the banning of deadly materials, Government ministers were all too happy to be wined and dined by the same companies responsible for Grenfell.” " And then it gets interesting "David Cameron should appear before the Grenfell Tower inquiry after making comments that were “ridiculing” health and safety in the years before the fire, a lawyer has said. The former Prime Minister made speeches regarding red tape and regulation that had effectively relegated citizens to “a bonfire”, said a barrister representing some of the bereaved and survivors. Michael Mansfield QC told the public inquiry into the 2017 blaze, which claimed 72 lives, that Mr Cameron should appear at a hearing to explain what he meant by his words. In 2010, Mr Cameron had said he wanted to “scrap health and safety rules that put people off”, Mr Mansfield said, and followed this the year after by saying “the shadow” of health and safety was holding people back, adding that this was not “how a great nation was built” and that “Britannia didn’t rule the waves with arm bands on”. Mr Mansfield said such speeches were “ridiculing, humiliating health and safety, and relegating citizens, as it were, to effectively a bonfire”. He quoted Mr Cameron as having referred to the “health and safety monster” in 2012. Mr Mansfield said: “We say he needs to be here to answer what he meant. Because if it’s going to be sent through his proteges, through his ministers, whatever, that he didn’t mean what he said, well let him come and say that. “But this is what he did say, ‘to kill off the health and safety culture for good’.” Mr Mansfield, still quoting Mr Cameron, added: “I want 2012 to go down in history not as just the Olympics year or Diamond Jubilee year, but the year we banished a lot of pointless time-wasting from the economy and British life once and for all. “It has become an albatross around the neck of businesses, costing them billions of pounds a year, a feared health and safety monster to be slain, so that businesses feel they can get on, they can plan, they can invest, they can grow, without feeling they’re going to be strangled by red tape and health and safety regulation.” Mr Mansfield told the inquiry it was important to “recall” and “relive” the atmosphere of that time “because it could happen again unless it is banished as an approach”." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 10, 2021 Share Posted December 10, 2021 I wonder if the Squad are aware Kingspan is a company based in the EU? :-| .......... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingspan_Group Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted December 10, 2021 Share Posted December 10, 2021 pelmetman - 2021-12-10 7:58 PM I wonder if the Squad are aware Kingspan is a company based in the EU? :-| .......... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingspan_Group Yes and it's mentioned earlier in the thread. And to get you creaming your crackers the cladding is made in France - which is also mentioned. The key difference is that in Ireland and France you are not allowed to use the products as they were used on Grenfell, probably a reflection of better building control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 10, 2021 Share Posted December 10, 2021 CurtainRaiser - 2021-12-10 8:17 PM pelmetman - 2021-12-10 7:58 PM I wonder if the Squad are aware Kingspan is a company based in the EU? :-| .......... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingspan_Group Yes and it's mentioned earlier in the thread. And to get you creaming your crackers the cladding is made in France - which is also mentioned. The key difference is that in Ireland and France you are not allowed to use the products as they were used on Grenfell, probably a reflection of better building control. Is that before or after Grenfell (?) .......... Cant say I'm suprised though that you would be defending the EU suppliers rather than the UK government *-) ......... Typical Brit Hater tactics >:-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted December 10, 2021 Share Posted December 10, 2021 pelmetman - 2021-12-10 8:29 PM CurtainRaiser - 2021-12-10 8:17 PM pelmetman - 2021-12-10 7:58 PM I wonder if the Squad are aware Kingspan is a company based in the EU? :-| .......... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingspan_Group Yes and it's mentioned earlier in the thread. And to get you creaming your crackers the cladding is made in France - which is also mentioned. The key difference is that in Ireland and France you are not allowed to use the products as they were used on Grenfell, probably a reflection of better building control. Is that before or after Grenfell (?) .......... Cant say I'm suprised though that you would be defending the EU suppliers rather than the UK government *-) ......... Typical Brit Hater tactics >:-) ......... Before. And again its documented in the thread. I'm not defending the EU suppliers, I'm pointing out that UK construction companies, the ones who have been paying the Tories millions, used the watered down standards they bought to use materials in a way they couldn't in France and Ireland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 10, 2021 Share Posted December 10, 2021 CurtainRaiser - 2021-12-10 8:36 PM pelmetman - 2021-12-10 8:29 PM CurtainRaiser - 2021-12-10 8:17 PM pelmetman - 2021-12-10 7:58 PM I wonder if the Squad are aware Kingspan is a company based in the EU? :-| .......... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingspan_Group Yes and it's mentioned earlier in the thread. And to get you creaming your crackers the cladding is made in France - which is also mentioned. The key difference is that in Ireland and France you are not allowed to use the products as they were used on Grenfell, probably a reflection of better building control. Is that before or after Grenfell (?) .......... Cant say I'm suprised though that you would be defending the EU suppliers rather than the UK government *-) ......... Typical Brit Hater tactics >:-) ......... Before. And again its documented in the thread. I'm not defending the EU suppliers, I'm pointing out that UK construction companies, the ones who have been paying the Tories millions, used the watered down standards they bought to use materials in a way they couldn't in France and Ireland. Aaah before ;-) ....... JUST how soon before?.........You'll save me wading through 17 pages of Boris hating tripe *-) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted December 10, 2021 Share Posted December 10, 2021 pelmetman - 2021-12-10 8:42 PM CurtainRaiser - 2021-12-10 8:36 PM pelmetman - 2021-12-10 8:29 PM CurtainRaiser - 2021-12-10 8:17 PM pelmetman - 2021-12-10 7:58 PM I wonder if the Squad are aware Kingspan is a company based in the EU? :-| .......... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingspan_Group Yes and it's mentioned earlier in the thread. And to get you creaming your crackers the cladding is made in France - which is also mentioned. The key difference is that in Ireland and France you are not allowed to use the products as they were used on Grenfell, probably a reflection of better building control. Is that before or after Grenfell (?) .......... Cant say I'm suprised though that you would be defending the EU suppliers rather than the UK government *-) ......... Typical Brit Hater tactics >:-) ......... Before. And again its documented in the thread. I'm not defending the EU suppliers, I'm pointing out that UK construction companies, the ones who have been paying the Tories millions, used the watered down standards they bought to use materials in a way they couldn't in France and Ireland. Aaah before ;-) ....... JUST how soon before?.........You'll save me wading through 17 pages of Boris hating tripe *-) .......... From when the products first came to market. They weren't designed for such a use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted December 10, 2021 Share Posted December 10, 2021 CurtainRaiser - 2021-12-10 8:17 PM pelmetman - 2021-12-10 7:58 PM I wonder if the Squad are aware Kingspan is a company based in the EU? :-| .......... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingspan_Group Yes and it's mentioned earlier in the thread. And to get you creaming your crackers the cladding is made in France - which is also mentioned. The key difference is that in Ireland and France you are not allowed to use the products as they were used on Grenfell, probably a reflection of better building control. He wouldn't know that as the only "contributions" he's made to this thread have been derogatory comments about "foreign types". He's also overlooked the fact the cladding company are major Tory donors having given £2.5 million to the party with Johnson trousering £50k for himself. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/builders-grenfell-cladding-give-tories-2-5m-5c9gwvhrb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted December 14, 2021 Share Posted December 14, 2021 pelmetman - 2021-12-10 7:58 PM I wonder if the Squad are aware Kingspan is a company based in the EU? :-| .......... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingspan_Group What difference would it have made if Kingspan had their HQ in the UK? This is the regulation that governs fire spread over the exterior walls of tall boildings. External Fire Spread. B4. (1) The external walls of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another, having regard to the height, use and position of the building. (2) The roof of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the roof of the building and from one building to another, having regard to the use and position of the building.” That (B4. (1)) is the regulation that should have applied to the insulation and cladding installed at Grenfell Tower. It is unambiguous. It would make no difference whether Kingspan had their HQ in the UK, the EU, or on the moon. Kingspan do/did not choose which of their products is to be used. They may offer technical advice, but they do not decide. The designer chooses, apples for and must obtain Building Control approval for, the product/s to be used. The designer then specifies to whoever is to install the product, as part of their contract for the work, the product/s that is/are to be used. If a change to a product that has been approved is contemplated, the change must also gain Building Control approval before the new product can be used. If the desire for the change comes from a contractor, then the approval of his client and the designer must also be obtained. Given the wording of the regulation, and the safeguards provided by the building Control system and its requirements for products to be specified and approved before work can, legally, be carried out, the remaining mystery is how that material came to be approved, who approved it, and if it was not approved, how it came to be accepted by those responsible for ensuring that the finished job complied with the approvals given, and who signed off the work on completion. All these matters should be a simple matter of record. If the records no longer exist, there is a serous question as to why that is. Everything else is incidental. No flammable cladding, no disaster. It is that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted December 14, 2021 Share Posted December 14, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-12-14 12:56 PM pelmetman - 2021-12-10 7:58 PM I wonder if the Squad are aware Kingspan is a company based in the EU? :-| .......... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingspan_Group What difference would it have made if Kingspan had their HQ in the UK? None but Pelmet is desperately trying to find something positive about Brexit and keeps failing. It's HQ is actually based in Ireland but the company is global employing 15000 in 70 different countries, including UK where they also manufacture at 18 different sites. The UK workforce alone accounts for over 3000 employees. https://www.kingspan.com/gb/en-gb/about-us/kingspan-great-britain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted December 14, 2021 Share Posted December 14, 2021 Bulletguy - 2021-12-14 3:35 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-12-14 12:56 PM pelmetman - 2021-12-10 7:58 PM I wonder if the Squad are aware Kingspan is a company based in the EU? :-| .......... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingspan_Group What difference would it have made if Kingspan had their HQ in the UK? None but Pelmet is desperately trying to find something positive about Brexit and keeps failing. It's HQ is actually based in Ireland but the company is global employing 15000 in 70 different countries, including UK where they also manufacture at 18 different sites. The UK workforce alone accounts for over 3000 employees. https://www.kingspan.com/gb/en-gb/about-us/kingspan-great-britain Maybe Dave thinks Kingspan designed and built Grenfell Tower ? :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted March 18, 2022 Share Posted March 18, 2022 The latest installment. Its fairly damning. https://tinyurl.com/y5just5m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted April 7, 2022 Share Posted April 7, 2022 Tub of lard responsible for the "bonfire of regulations" is too busy to answer questions at inquiry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted April 7, 2022 Share Posted April 7, 2022 CurtainRaiser - 2022-04-07 5:46 PM Tub of lard responsible for the "bonfire of regulations" is too busy to answer questions at inquiry They're extremely selfish people and this tweet sums up their mentality; Someone must have explained to him that wasn't a good look dissing an inquiry into people's deaths. Doubt he realised it on his own. Maybe all Tories should have a real human being whose job is to explain to them how real human beings with empathy behave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted April 9, 2022 Share Posted April 9, 2022 Brian Kirby - 2021-12-14 12:56 PM................................................ This is the regulation that governs fire spread over the exterior walls of tall buildings. "External Fire Spread. B4. (1) The external walls of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another, having regard to the height, use and position of the building" . ..................................................... Regarding Class 0 materials, they may, or may not, be adequate to meet the regulation. They may be "incombustible", or of "limited combustibility". I would argue that on a building such as Grenfell Tower the obvious choice for compliance would be incombustible. An experienced fire officer would challenge the use of the "limited combustibility" group by calling for a test to be carried out to prove its performance. If it then proved capable of adequately resisting "the spread of fire over the walls", which seems unlikely with almost any combustible material, it would pass. If not, back to the drawing board! A reasonably competent designer would know that. Neither the insulant (or whichever brand), nor the cladding (of whichever type was used, except possibly the fire resistant grade of cladding that was originally specified and subsequently substituted with a lower grade) were incombustible. If it can burn, even if very slowly, the fire can spread. If it can spread, it does not comply with the requirement. Whoever passed it for use was incompetent. This whole Enquiry tower of Babel needs only to examine who gave Building Regs approval to the material used. 48 hours trawling through the approval records should have identified the guilty party. I strongly suspect that the fault will lie in the permitted use of "Approved Inspectors" to give Buliding Regs approvals alongside L/A Building Control departments. This change placed private firms, from whatever part of England, in competition with each other to provide the service. It is self-evident to me that there are two aspects to this competition. 1, the fee demanded. 2, the firm's success record in granting approvals. Those who were expensive would be at a disadvantage to cheaper competitors. Ditto those who were "pernickety" over detail. So, as the developer has to pay, who is he going to choose? Hardly the local authority, because they are ultimately answerable to local councillors and are known to be thorough. So, more probably the cheapest commercial firm who has the best reputation for "flexibility". Failure is built into the present system. Approved Inspectors were first introduced in 2000 under Blair, and revised in 2010 under the Coalition. So, everyone has egg on their face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted April 9, 2022 Share Posted April 9, 2022 CurtainRaiser - 2021-02-01 2:08 PM colin - 2021-02-01 1:51 PM The deregulation of inspectors happened under the last Labour government ,while we where building a house, and I doubt the present Tory government are likely to reverse it. I thought at the time it was a stupid thing to do, and I've not changed my mind. As an example, our (council) inspector, came for one of the inspections and was obviously 'disturbed', he seemed happy to spend some time on the inspection and 'calm down', we later found out he had been in a argument with a developer over the standard of blockwork put up by inexperienced Polish 'brickie's', turns out they had been employed without checks on their qualifications, and the work was of such poor quality he had said it needed taking down! Now imagine a privately employed inspector saying that, some might, but others will be looking at future employment, and before anyone thinks I'm wrong, we have had a whole estate locally which turned out to be uninhabitable it was built so badly, the new homeowners had to be moved out for the remedial work to be done. Nope. "Since the mid-1980s, English building regulations have been based on what is known as a ‘performance-based’ system. This means that rather than setting out prescriptive rules or lists of banned materials, the regulations outline broad outcomes which buildings must achieve. It is then, theoretically, up to the industry to decide how to meet these standards. This change, introduced by Margaret Thatcher's government in 1985, swept away 306 pages of building regulations and replaced them with just 24." https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/the-paper-trail-the-failure-of-building-regulations-55445 Remember Eric Pickles and his "bonfire of red tape"? https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/8379/2076689.pdf Yes the red tories of Blairs years had made some changes but if you want some clear guidance the FBU can help https://www.fbu.org.uk/blog/deregulation-and-grenfell-tower-fire The FBU link is worth revisiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted April 10, 2022 Share Posted April 10, 2022 The problem, I think, is that the people commenting are not, unsurprisingly for the most part, practitioners in the field of Building Control, so lack working experience. The regulation, which I reproduced above, concerns the spread of fire over the external wall of a building. It is not primarily concerned with this or that material, just over whether, if used externally, it would contribute to external fire spread. On 16 May 2013 Dr Sarah Colwell of the BRE hosted a conference organised by the Confederation for Aluminium in Building. The conference was entitled External Fire Spread on High Rise Buildings. I can't find the link, but I have set of the conference presentation graphics published by BRE. They graphically illustrate the risks, including those on the means of fire spread, and also several examples of instances where fire had spread in exactly the fashion that the Grenfell Tower fire spread. The conference took place at about the time that the Grenfell refurbishment designs were being developed and (presumably) approved. Anyone with knowledge of the conference would have failed the application for Building Regulations approval on the ground of the proposed cladding system. Anyone dealing with that application should have had that knowledge. I had a work colleague who was a seconded Home Office Fire Officer. His job was to advise us on Building Regulations compliance. So, when we got stuck over what was, or was not, compliant we'd go to him. I well remember his almost routine, smiling, reaction to my queries. "First", he'd say, "carefully read the actual regulation, then decide what it actually means, and only then consider whether the proposed construction meets the meaning of the regulation". Hence my repetition of Regulation B4 (1) above. Follow the advice of my ex colleague, decide whether the materials selected for the refurbishment might meet the requirement, and then try to imagine how anyone, experienced or otherwise, could possibly have reasoned that they did! So yes, the FBU were spot on. Problem was, they were of the "Trades Union Tribe" and the government of the day were of the "deregulating tribe", so "Gremlins" tribal instincts got the better of the collective experience of the fire fighters - not because they were wrong, but purely because they were of the wrong tribe. There's a stern lesson for someone, somewhere in there! :-D The "Inside Building" pieces are also spot on, but are inevitably post hoc. That is why I was so impressed by the BRE conference. It is quite chilling to look through the graphics to see how exactly what was being proposed for Grenfell was exactly what the conference was pointing out was lethal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted April 10, 2022 Share Posted April 10, 2022 Brian Kirby - 2022-04-10 11:57 AM So yes, the FBU were spot on. Problem was, they were of the "Trades Union Tribe" and the government of the day were of the "deregulating tribe", so "Gremlins" tribal instincts got the better of the collective experience of the fire fighters - not because they were wrong, but purely because they were of the wrong tribe. There's a stern lesson for someone, somewhere in there! :-D Good analogy. :-D There's a later FBU link to CR's; https://www.fbu.org.uk/news/2019/09/23/government-deregulation-responsible-grenfell-new-report-says No government escapes criticism as it covers Heath, Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron. The Thatcher government cut building regulations from more than 300 pages to just 25, ceasing a formal requirement to ensure buildings were “deemed to satisfy” fire safety regulation. I found that the most staggering......300 pages down to 25. 8-) It's also easy to see why Pickles was so anxious to leave the inquiry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted April 10, 2022 Share Posted April 10, 2022 Bulletguy - 2022-04-10 2:12 PM Brian Kirby - 2022-04-10 11:57 AM So yes, the FBU were spot on. Problem was, they were of the "Trades Union Tribe" and the government of the day were of the "deregulating tribe", so "Gremlins" tribal instincts got the better of the collective experience of the fire fighters - not because they were wrong, but purely because they were of the wrong tribe. There's a stern lesson for someone, somewhere in there! :-D Good analogy. :-D There's a later FBU link to CR's; https://www.fbu.org.uk/news/2019/09/23/government-deregulation-responsible-grenfell-new-report-says No government escapes criticism as it covers Heath, Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron. The Thatcher government cut building regulations from more than 300 pages to just 25, ceasing a formal requirement to ensure buildings were “deemed to satisfy” fire safety regulation. I found that the most staggering......300 pages down to 25. 8-) It's also easy to see why Pickles was so anxious to leave the inquiry! The 300 pages down to 25 claim is somewhat misleading. That refers to the actual regulations which, as you can see from the section I quoted, are relatively brief. The actual documents entitled the "Building Regulations" are many hundreds of pages long, spread over several volumes. First the regulation is set out (actually from the Building Act 1984, where they originate), and then expanded by what are termed the "Deemed to satisfy" provisions which, generally, set out tried and tested ways in which the regulation can be satisfied. These refer to the use of products that have been tested and proved to conform (such as fire doors, etc.) or methods of construction using, or which conform to, published standards (for example, British Standards). Most then leave scope for innovation, by allowing the applicant to demonstrate compliance, by having alternative methods/materials/combinations tested at an accredited test station. In effect, you can either use a pre-approved "off the shelf method" or, at your own expense, have a suitable prototype example subjected to an accredited test. The tests carried out after the fire at BRE, on the cladding/insulation materials combination used on Grenfell, conclusively demonstrated that far from preventing a fire from spreading, they provided the means for it to spread - very quickly. Simply stated, if it can burn, it should not be on the outside of such a building. It can, so it should not have been approved for use. It's flammability could probably have been tested with a small sample of each material and a box of matches in the office car park! These approvals are supposed to be granted by people with sufficient knowledge and experience to recognise where inappropriate materials/methods are proposed. It is clear that, in the case of Grenfell, either they were not, or no approval was given. Since it is mandatory to maintain records of such approvals it should only require a matter of a few hours to check whether approval was given, and what, actually, was approved. We know what was used, so a simple check would show whether unauthorised materials were switched for those approved, or whether unsuitable materials were approved, and by whom. That is the crux of the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted April 11, 2022 Share Posted April 11, 2022 Brian Kirby - 2022-04-10 8:07 PM Bulletguy - 2022-04-10 2:12 PM Brian Kirby - 2022-04-10 11:57 AM So yes, the FBU were spot on. Problem was, they were of the "Trades Union Tribe" and the government of the day were of the "deregulating tribe", so "Gremlins" tribal instincts got the better of the collective experience of the fire fighters - not because they were wrong, but purely because they were of the wrong tribe. There's a stern lesson for someone, somewhere in there! :-D Good analogy. :-D There's a later FBU link to CR's; https://www.fbu.org.uk/news/2019/09/23/government-deregulation-responsible-grenfell-new-report-says No government escapes criticism as it covers Heath, Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron. The Thatcher government cut building regulations from more than 300 pages to just 25, ceasing a formal requirement to ensure buildings were “deemed to satisfy” fire safety regulation. I found that the most staggering......300 pages down to 25. 8-) It's also easy to see why Pickles was so anxious to leave the inquiry! Simply stated, if it can burn, it should not be on the outside of such a building. It can, so it should not have been approved for use. It's flammability could probably have been tested with a small sample of each material and a box of matches in the office car park! What I still cannot get my head round is not only why they fitted that rubbish (apart from penny pinching) but also how they fitted it leaving a massive air gap between the panels and the building enabling fire to spread more rapidly. I suspect had it been fitted direct to the walls with no air gap, the fire spread would have been slower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted April 11, 2022 Share Posted April 11, 2022 There were, possibly still are, some drawings on the net showing the arrangement. Metal framework is first fitted to the external walls to carry the cladding. The Celotex / Kingspan panels are next attached directly to the existing external walls, working around the framework fixings. This provides the thermal insulation to reduce heat losses and so cut heating bills. Finally the cladding is fixed to the support framework. It's function is to protect the relatively fragile cladding from impact and weather. The airspace between the insulation and the cladding allows for ventilation, to permit any moisture that does get past the cladding (which is, in effect, only a rain screen, to dry off, and to allow any humidity that escapes into the cavity from the building to dissipate. That airspace between insulation and cladding is blocked at each storey height with a cavity fire barrier to prevent fire travelling vertically up the cavity - completely negated by using flammable insulation and cladding! The windows were a bit hair-raising as well. To prevent cold-bridging around the windows, they had to be set out on the line of the cladding, leaving extended reveals all round the openings that were closed using PVC mouldings. So, any fire that did get into the cavity only had to burn out the PVC, and any fire inside a flat only had to burn out the reveals to get into the cavity - and then ignite either or both of the cladding or insulation and away you go. In the event, that worked perfectly! But how it ever got past Building Control I simply cannot (yet) understand. The eventual fire was never a case of if, only of when! It is staggering! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted April 11, 2022 Share Posted April 11, 2022 Bulletguy - 2022-04-11 3:53 PM Brian Kirby - 2022-04-10 8:07 PM Bulletguy - 2022-04-10 2:12 PM Brian Kirby - 2022-04-10 11:57 AM So yes, the FBU were spot on. Problem was, they were of the "Trades Union Tribe" and the government of the day were of the "deregulating tribe", so "Gremlins" tribal instincts got the better of the collective experience of the fire fighters - not because they were wrong, but purely because they were of the wrong tribe. There's a stern lesson for someone, somewhere in there! :-D Good analogy. :-D There's a later FBU link to CR's; https://www.fbu.org.uk/news/2019/09/23/government-deregulation-responsible-grenfell-new-report-says No government escapes criticism as it covers Heath, Thatcher, Major, Blair and Cameron. The Thatcher government cut building regulations from more than 300 pages to just 25, ceasing a formal requirement to ensure buildings were “deemed to satisfy” fire safety regulation. I found that the most staggering......300 pages down to 25. 8-) It's also easy to see why Pickles was so anxious to leave the inquiry! Simply stated, if it can burn, it should not be on the outside of such a building. It can, so it should not have been approved for use. It's flammability could probably have been tested with a small sample of each material and a box of matches in the office car park! What I still cannot get my head round is not only why they fitted that rubbish (apart from penny pinching) but also how they fitted it leaving a massive air gap between the panels and the building enabling fire to spread more rapidly. I suspect had it been fitted direct to the walls with no air gap, the fire spread would have been slower. It should have been fitted with fire breaks as you describe to stop it acting like a chimney. Proper Building Control would have spotted that but no one was clearly supervising the subbies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted April 11, 2022 Share Posted April 11, 2022 CurtainRaiser - 2022-04-11 4:40 PM.......................... It should have been fitted with fire breaks as you describe to stop it acting like a chimney. Proper Building Control would have spotted that but no one was clearly supervising the subbies. From memory, it was, (cavity fire barriers) but as both the cladding and the insulation were essentially flammable, the fire just by-passed them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted April 11, 2022 Share Posted April 11, 2022 This may be interesting: https://tinyurl.com/ychk3lpc It is a non-technical summary of the technical submissions to the enquiry, but from what I've read so far, I think it explains the various subjects very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted April 11, 2022 Share Posted April 11, 2022 Brian Kirby - 2022-04-11 6:47 PM CurtainRaiser - 2022-04-11 4:40 PM.......................... It should have been fitted with fire breaks as you describe to stop it acting like a chimney. Proper Building Control would have spotted that but no one was clearly supervising the subbies. From memory, it was, (cavity fire barriers) but as both the cladding and the insulation were essentially flammable, the fire just by-passed them. Likewise from memory, I think they were specified but I recall reading that in some instances they weren't fitted at all and when they had been fitted it was so badly that there was no effective seal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.