Grenfell Tower block disaster

[blue b4 the moon]

Someone posted earlier in this thread that the more expensive, less flammable cladding had been rejected in favour of the less expensive, more flammable one. The more expensive one costing a whole £2 a metre more than the cheaper one that was chosen. I wonder who went for the cheaper option, the contactor or the owners.

However if the building passed fire regulations apart from penny pinching had either one done anything wrong?

After completion the building was passed as safe?

There were obviously concerns by the reports earlier in the thread so it'd be a government legislation issue?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

However if the building passed fire regulations apart from penny pinching had either one done anything wrong?

After completion the building was passed as safe?

There were obviously concerns by the reports earlier in the thread so it'd be a government legislation issue?

In the scenario you paint, blame has to ultimately rest with the legislators.

 

[cibaman]

Is that a fact?

Or just something thats now been repeated so often it seems like a fact?

For a few years, I was on the board of a community housing trust which also undertook a major refurbishment programme. Improving the appearence of buildings was definitely an objective of the programme, although by no means the main one. The accepted view was that improving the appearence of the buildings would make them more appealing to residents and potential residents, increase occupancy rates, reduce vandalism etc. There weren't any wealthy properties near our flats and houses so obviously I can't comment on whether that had a disproportionate influence on the Grenfell Tower refurbishment.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

For a few years, I was on the board of a community housing trust which also undertook a major refurbishment programme. Improving the appearence of buildings was definitely an objective of the programme, although by no means the main one. The accepted view was that improving the appearence of the buildings would make them more appealing to residents and potential residents, increase occupancy rates, reduce vandalism etc. There weren't any wealthy properties near our flats and houses so obviously I can't comment on whether that had a disproportionate influence on the Grenfell Tower refurbishment.

There cannot be anything intrinsically wrong with wanting any property to look more appealing from the outside.

 

[The Northern Baptist]

The building regulations state that for any building over 18m (about 6 floors) the fire resistant cladding must be used on the whole building.

It quite clearly wasn't used in this case, just a matter of finding out if it the wrong cladding was ordered by mistake or if it was a deliberate act to save money.

My cousin is in the cladding game and I was amazed when he told me the regs. I would've thought any building used by humans, let alone residential buildings, would need fire resistant materials no matter what the height

 

[blue b4 the moon]

In the scenario you paint, blame has to ultimately rest with the legislators.

Yes that's where my thought process is going, I think people are perhaps a bit quick to blame others in the chain until the full picture is known.

 

[SWP's back]

Someone posted earlier in this thread that the more expensive, less flammable cladding had been rejected in favour of the less expensive, more flammable one. The more expensive one costing a whole £2 a metre more than the cheaper one that was chosen. I wonder who went for the cheaper option, the contactor or the owners.

I may sound stupid here but surely someone has to ask why there is a choice in the first place?

Why is there a more flammable option?

Despite being more flammable, does it meet the regulations? If so and the cladding is at fault then the issue is with the regulations rather than the contractor surely?

 

[SWP's back]

The building regulations state that for any building over 18m (about 6 floors) the fire resistant cladding must be used on the whole building.

It quite clearly wasn't used in this case, just a matter of finding out if it the wrong cladding was ordered by mistake or if it was a deliberate act to save money.

My cousin is in the cladding game and I was amazed when he told me the regs. I would've thought any building used by humans, let alone residential buildings, would need fire resistant materials no matter what the height

Well that would change things quite dramatically.

 

[Blue Hefner]

I may sound stupid here but surely someone has to ask why there is a choice in the first place?

Why is there a more flammable option?

Despite being more flammable, does it meet the regulations? If so and the cladding is at fault then the issue is with the regulations rather than the contractor surely?

I think the one used is banned in Germany and America on buildings over 3 floors.

I would have thought the less flammable one would be used on factories, warehouses etc. I.e building with good emergency exit, sprinkler systems etc and it be unlikely to have sleeping upstairs

To sum up - I'd suggest that there is nothing wrong with a less flammable one if on an appropriate sized building

That said, this is all assumption, I know nothing about cladding or building regulations.

 

[Vic]

There's all sorts of speculative nonsense around. One I can't get my head round is that an air gap acted as a funnel. If the cladding is primarily for insulation, how can a gap between wall and cladding open to the air do anything for insulation?

EDIT: see below for the answer.