Grenfell Tower: Cladding 'changed To Cheaper Version'

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40453054

Look as if the Council is in deep do-do over this. which might explain the fiasco at last nights Council meeting.

[mikey4444]

Not sure AOG....good question though !

Most of the houses in America are built completely of wood, so I guess fire must be a hazard there.

My point in raising this is that the Council could have chosen a safer version of the cladding, but didn't.

I have been listening to the news this morning, and the Judge who has been chosen to head the Enquiry has said that the remit that he has been given, may not answer this question, and that residents may be disappointed.

[jno]

I guess you can get out of a bungalow quickly enough, aog; awkward when you're on the 20th floor and the fire is below you.

[jno]

I read that, mikey, and was surprised. I'm pretty sure May was saying a day or two ago that no stone would be left unturned. May's record on inquiries (child abuse) is not good, but I hope this can be sorted out swiftly. People want to know a lot more than just what time the fridge caught fire, and rightly so.

[Togo]

Something that intrigues me is, that apparently, the original fire crew put out the fridge and flat fire and were packing up to leave after deciding it was safe to do so. As they were leaving the site it was noticed that the fire had indeed taken hold on the exterior of the building. Unseen from the position that the fire engine had been obliged to be parked up to gain access.

[Old_Geezer]

There is a difference between doing the right thing and staying legal so they can avoid blame. One can understand various separate decisions seemingly to be reasonable and a different balance between safety and cost demanded, but the situation as a whole was clearly inadequate. Hopefully safety standards will be raised, with priority given to spending on a standard with a large safety margin rather than a reasonable one for most circumstances: and someone given and taking responsibility for checking the whole situation at each proposed change. Folk who make the decisions seem to be those who have to rely on answers to questions they think to ask; and they still end up using materials, for example, above the level they were recommended to be used to. All who managed/planned the safety standards for the building ought to have the expertise to be able to notice and point out issues. Apparently this didn't happen, and the tenants' fears ignored also.

[mikey4444]

Grenfell Tower fire: Downing Street criticises council over aborted meeting

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40455363

[petal54]

sad that so many people' had 'to die to find this out,being wise after the event no comfort to the families of those who dies

[naomi24]

Peter Pedant, // this is is almost a text book negligence innit ? …..less money is lower quality duh//

Exactly right - but cheaper doesn’t necessarily mean more fire resistant. That’s not almost text book intelligence – it is text book intelligence.

Mikey, //My point in raising this is that the Council could have chosen a safer version of the cladding, but didn't.//

Do we know that the council deliberately chose a less safe form of cladding? We know it chose less expensive, but as I said to Peter Pedant, that doesn’t necessarily mean less safe. It just means less expensively produced.

[Old_Geezer]

It's been reported that zinc is safer than aluminium.

[mikey4444]

Thanks OG.

They could also have chosen a cladding that has mineral wool in the sandwich, which is far less likely to catch fire.

[naomi24]

Mikey, but whatever they chose must have adhered to fire safety regulations .... no?

[Gromit]

Full Council meeting have o be public by law. I was one of Margaret Thatcher's better policies forcing local councils to be transparent to their electorate.
For K&C to curtail it because it was public is probably illegal, and is certainly morally indefensible.
The Times seems to have evidence that the refurbishment tender specified fire retardent Zinc cladding, and the sought a retender for the cheaper material which was eventually used.
People on the Council responsible for that decision deserve to be prosecuted for manslaughter.

[mikey4444]

Gromit....10% correct.

Quite how Nicholas Paget-Brown is still Council Leader is beyond my understanding. He should resign with immediate effect, for his appalling handling of the aftermath of the fire, if for no other reason.

[Baldric]

I don't think he heard you Naomi

[Gromit]

Only 10% correct :-(

[mikey4444]

Gromit....bloody keyboard !

1,000, 000 % correct.

[Gromit]

// [the cheaper cladding] must have adhered to fire safety regulations .... no?

Correct, No.

The cladding is failing fire tests all over the country, so is clearly not compliant with the regulations. One of the key questions is why it has been widely used, and why it passed inspections. It seems obvious thnpections are not good enough.

[albaqwerty]

Mr Alba works in construction industry and says that 'that type of cladding should never be used in buildings over 2 storeys high'

[Gromit]

// Over the past week, the government has been testing high-rise tower blocks in England owned by councils and housing associations. All 95 of those tested so far have been discovered to be covered with an aluminium "rain-screen" exterior cladding that does not meet the required combustibility standards. You would be right to ask: how on earth can this have happened?
The short answer is: the organisations responsible for maintaining standards in the building industry have been advising contractors not to take the regulations too literally.
To understand this, it is worth starting with a document known as Approved Document B. This is the government's own set of fire safety guidance. It stipulates, at section 12.7, "in a building with a storey 18m or more above ground level any insulation product, filler material.... etc used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility".
That loose-sounding term - "limited combustibility" - actually has a precise definition, set out later in that document. Broadly, though, all you need to know it basically won't catch alight. And material meeting this requirement in tests will get a combustibility grade of "A2" or better.
That is the standard against which the government has been testing cladding. A government spokesperson said "a test failure means that the cladding does not meet the requirements for limited combustibility in current Building Regulations". That is to say, a failure means a breach of the official rulebook. //

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40418266

[naomi24]

Gromit at 14:00 Fri, so if that’s the case the Council, who can only take advice from the experts, are not in deep do-do, as Mikey puts it – the inspectors are.