Grenfell Tower block disaster

BlueAnorak said:
Damning stuff by Privste Eye on the conduct of the RBKC TMO.
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/issue-1447/news
Click to expand...

Very interesting read BA, thanks for linking it.
Seems that the over riding theme was initially gambling that fire would not affect any high rise block to gambling that it would not affect their particular tower block when fire did occur elsewhere.
A lot of damning evidence that regs were simply nuisance value and should be buried or ignored at all costs.

One can only speculate why fire safety in particular was treated this way and it makes me wonder what other regulations have been simply ignored by the hubris those in power at all levels have shown.
 
Yes that Eye piece made very interesting reading - confirms really why the government want to limit the scope of the enquiry to what happened on the day....... far too many at National and Local Government level could be implicated
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting point made by Mark Field (FO junior minister and former Kensington councillor). Kensingtom council is one of 33 unitary authorities covering London (New York has 5). He suggests that none of those authorities has the critical mass to deal with the aftermath of a disaster such as Grenfell.
 
bluethrunthru said:
Yes that Eye piece made very interesting reading - confirms really why the government want to limit the scope of the enquiry to what happened on the day....... far too many Tories at National and Local Government level could be implicated
Click to expand...

Thing is, are other councils any different? Not much is my bet.
If the power surges had been sorted then the fire may not have started, but once the cladding set light then they were stuffed - though National Grid cladding the gas pipes may have given people more time to escape via the sole staircase. If sprinklers had been available to put out the fire before it got hold then that would have been great but that's universal across the whole country.

For me:

1. The fire regs need to change along the following lines:
1.1 Building cladding - All cladding materials must be fire retardant. (1 year to full compliance? Remove dangerous cladding as a second level of urgency. Those without proven barriers to stop fire spreading between levels to be highest priority for rework.)
1.2 Building exits - In multi-occupancy buildings (not just tower blocks), at least two stairwells, not adjacent to each other. A landing between staircase and floor corridor with two doors one between staircase and landing and one between landing and floor that open away from staircase. Ideally a smoke curtain to deploy behind outer door on fire confirmation to prevent smoke getting into landing let alone staircase. (2.5 years to full compliance?)
1.3 New multi-occupancy buildings(not just tower blocks) must fit sprinklers with sections for each flat and corridor. (There is a good case for this to be the case for all new accommodation including houses.)
1.4 Retrofit dry sprinklers to all multi-occupancy accommodation - no renovation allowed that does not apply new standard (10 year compliance).

2. Residents committees need to be given more power, with regulator for enforcement. Power surges especially are very dangerous and the National grid not cladding the fitted gas pipes is a scandal in itself.

3. Council emergency plans for dealing with the loss of major housing blocks need to be in place. Councils may need to team up with adjacent councils to provide sufficient resources to deal with major incidents like Grenfell Tower.
 
Last edited:
cibaman said:
Interesting point made by Mark Field (FO junior minister and former Kensington councillor). Kensingtom council is one of 33 unitary authorities covering London (New York has 5). He suggests that none of those authorities has the critical mass to deal with the aftermath of a disaster such as Grenfell.
Click to expand...
Well if you've seen the state of council emergency plans for various disasters. You'd know that to be a fact.
 
Grenfell Tower residents who were illegally subletting will not face prosecution, Communities Secretary Sajid Javid has said.

The Cabinet Minister said the move was guided by a concern that "loved ones still missing are identified".

The protection from prosecution applies to anyone coming to authorities with information about people who were in their flats at the time of the fire.

Anecdotal evidence from residents has indicated that people living in the tower block may have been unlawfully subletting their properties, and that they are reluctant to come forward and report others are missing because of the fear of reprisal.

Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders said: "It is a priority for investigators to establish who was in Grenfell Tower on that tragic day and it is crucial that we do everything possible to support them."

Guidance issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions said that tenants of Grenfell Tower who were subletting their properties and who "come forward to authorities" to share information "should not face prosecution for offences under section one of the Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act 2013".

http://news.sky.com/story/grenfell-...ing-amnesty-announced-by-sajid-javid-10934448
 
BlueAnorak said:
Damning stuff by Privste Eye on the conduct of the RBKC TMO.
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/issue-1447/news
Click to expand...
There's an odd quote in there: "former secretary of state for Wales David Jones told a fringe meeting at the 2013 Conservative conference: “Regulations on builders are considerably more onerous than in England – including the bizarre proposal to fit every new house with a sprinkler system. The consequence of this over-regulation is that fewer houses are being built in Wales.”

The sprinkler reg didn't come in till January 2016. It seems to cost about an average £2000 per dwelling. And apparently new housing starts in Wales are now the highest since the crash.

During 2016-17, the number of new dwellings started increased by 2 per cent compared to the previous year to 6,871 dwellings. This is the second highest annual number recorded since the start of the recession in 2007 -08.

http://gov.wales/statistics-and-research/new-house-building/?lang=en
 
Last edited:
karen7 said:
I thought this is why we weren't getting all the casualty numbers so i'm glad they are doing this now
Click to expand...

I read somewhere that they had contacted at least one person living in all but 23 flats and had established how many people were missing from those flats. However the 23 flats where they hadn't made any contact were believed to be the ones where most of the deaths occured. They just don't seem to have any reliable information on how many people were in living in those flats on the night of the fire.
 
cibaman said:
I read somewhere that they had contacted at least one person living in all but 23 flats and had established how many people were missing from those flats. However the 23 flats where they hadn't made any contact were believed to be the ones where most of the deaths occured. They just don't seem to have any reliable information on how many people were in living in those flats on the night of the fire.
Click to expand...
Seems so,hopefully the residents will give over the info now they know they won't get in trouble,i really feel for everyone involved,it must be like being in a nightmare
 
BlueAnorak said:
Can't have had any that actually worked as the fire wasn't contained and spread across the outside of the building so quickly.
Click to expand...

Just to reiterate - you don't need cladding for fire to spread across the exterior. If we just reclad in non-combustible materials and don't fit sprinklers, it can still happen.
From before cladding - the video explains this within the first minute and a bit and (at 3 min 10) shows one of the reasons for the stay-put policy. The rest gets repetitive but basically, over 40 years ago they were saying to fit sprinklers, and as we've had sprinklers since the 19th century, it's hardly a novelty.
 
Vic said:
Just to reiterate - you don't need cladding for fire to spread across the exterior. If we just reclad in non-combustible materials and don't fit sprinklers, it can still happen.
From before cladding - the video explains this within the first minute and a bit and (at 3 min 10) shows one of the reasons for the stay-put policy. The rest gets repetitive but basically, over 40 years ago they were saying to fit sprinklers, and as we've had sprinklers since the 19th century, it's hardly a novelty.
Click to expand...


Hi Vic, whilst your point is that a fire may spread from floor to floor because of reasons unrelated to cladding is the speed of fire spread lowered if the cladding is at least FP ?
Ideally of course sprinklers are the answer but it would seem the use of combustible cladding offered a much more speedy channel for the fire to continue its destructive pathway.
 
http://www.ukfrs.com/Lists/Photos/050115_0737_Firesandfir4.jpg
SilverFox2 said:
Hi Vic, whilst your point is that a fire may spread from floor to floor because of reasons unrelated to cladding is the speed of fire spread lowered if the cladding is at least FP ?
Ideally of course sprinklers are the answer but it would seem the use of combustible cladding offered a much more speedy channel for the fire to continue its destructive pathway.
Click to expand...
I think you'd need to see video of the floor to floor fire spread to know. I've yet to see video of high rise fires where the next floor didn't ignite before any cladding caught fire. If the fire breaks were wrongly installed then it's possible fire was behind what could be seen, and anything creating a channel rather than a flush surface will increase speed of spread, but the cladding itself would probably be ignited at each level as a secondary effect - but then adding to the heat and accelerating the spread higher up (and laterally).

Keep the fire in is the answer and that means sprinklers.

Here's a little illustration

http://www.ukfrs.com/Lists/Photos/050115_0737_Firesandfir4.jpg
050115_0737_Firesandfir4.jpg
 
Last edited:
SilverFox2 said:
Hi Vic, whilst your point is that a fire may spread from floor to floor because of reasons unrelated to cladding is the speed of fire spread lowered if the cladding is at least FP ?
Ideally of course sprinklers are the answer but it would seem the use of combustible cladding offered a much more speedy channel for the fire to continue its destructive pathway.
Click to expand...
Limited combustability tests to pass UK code 0 requires fire to spread relatively slowly. A hell of a sight less slowly than what happened in Grenfell Tower anyway where the gap between the quikly burnt insulation and the slower burning tiles turned into a chimney sucking the fire and heat up the building breaking the windows and starting a fire on the floor above.
 
Last edited:
BlueAnorak said:
Limited combustability tests to pass UK code 0 requires fire to spread relatively slowly. A hell of a sight less slowly than what happened in Grenfell Tower anyway where the gap between the quikly burnt insulation and the slower burning tiles turned into a chimney sucking the fire and heat up the building breaking the windows and starting a fire on the floor above.
Click to expand...

Windows breaking seems to be the problem for fire to reach inside.
Are glass clad buildings more or less likely to be susceptible to fire than ordinary glass windows ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top