Grenfell Tower block disaster

Prestwich_Blue said:
I believe all councils have or are expected to have contingency plans in place for emergencies like this. Manchester certainly did in 1996 and incidents like the 7/7 bombings would only have heightened that requirement.
Click to expand...

Thanks PB, forgive my cynicism but are these documented and available to all employees ?
 
SilverFox2 said:
I stand to be corrected but is it possible that the 40 feet vertical limit is to ensure that there are breaks in the chimney effect which effectively ensures extra construction work if used in tower blocks etc.?
If the method statement for the installation does not include these construction breaks then an FR containing cladding should have been used because a proper risk assessment would have indicated its requirement.

Maybe mistakes in interpretation could be made but at least it explains why an apparently inferior cladding could be included onto a list of approved ones.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much my take on it.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I believe all councils have or are expected to have contingency plans in place for emergencies like this. Manchester certainly did in 1996 and incidents like the 7/7 bombings would only have heightened that requirement.
Click to expand...
Unlike many other countries the UK lacks an organised Civil Defence body to co-ordinate responses in the aftermath of major incidents like the Grenfell fire. Leaving it up to councils inevitably leads to a patchwork pattern where some councils are fully up to speed and others, for whatever reasons, lag behind.
 
lancs blue said:
Unlike many other countries the UK lacks an organised Civil Defence body to co-ordinate responses in the aftermath of major incidents like the Grenfell fire. Leaving it up to councils inevitably leads to a patchwork pattern where some councils are fully up to speed and others, for whatever reasons, lag behind.
Click to expand...
We have COBR(A), which is supposed to be for situations like this. It can involve central & local government officials, including mayors and others as necessary. It's not just about national security issues.

I bet no one even thought to call a meeting.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
We have COBR(A), which is supposed to be for situations like this. It can involve central & local government officials, including mayors and others as necessary. It's not just about national security issues.

I bet no one even thought to call a meeting.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty certain COBRA met last week about the tower fire, although it has been reported in some places as a small version.

I think it's now called the Civil Contingencies Committee.
 
Last edited:
Police announcing that they believe that the toll is now 79 dead or presumed dead; they may have to go abroad to find dental records and DNA in an attempt to identify the dead.

Truly horrible.
 
SilverFox2 said:
I stand to be corrected but is it possible that the 40 feet vertical limit is to ensure that there are breaks in the chimney effect which effectively ensures extra construction work if used in tower blocks etc.?
If the method statement for the installation does not include these construction breaks then an FR containing cladding should have been used because a proper risk assessment would have indicated its requirement.

Maybe mistakes in interpretation could be made but at least it explains why an apparently inferior cladding could be included onto a list of approved ones.
Click to expand...

This is what I have read too, each floor would need a tightly compacted (wedged) fire resistant barrier to prevent the chimney effect..
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
We have COBR(A), which is supposed to be for situations like this. It can involve central & local government officials, including mayors and others as necessary. It's not just about national security issues.

I bet no one even thought to call a meeting.
Click to expand...

Now that is a good point PB.

You mentioned previously how Manchester coped and I noted they had in place the use of our Stadium that was used as a central point for those searching for relatives etc. so I see it can be done and also integrated with the way the local people can be part of the show of resistance it brought confidence to everyone in time of need.

Not saying this spirit does not exist in the fire area just that the apparent lack of coordination by the council leaves the locals relying totally on the generosity of others.
 
Vic said:
It's only a few months old. Winter 2016.

It is the most comprehensive thing I've seen and I'm surprised the firm hasn't been more prominent as real experts in the last few days.

If I get the gist right, the panels used probably met UK buildings regs (so a question mark over Hammond's comments this morning).

"Class 0 limits the rates of surface spread of flame and of fire propagation, but can be achieved by materials which are combustible in a fully developed fire."

But there should be a non-combustible stop at each floor (to stop the funnel / chimney effect in cavities) so there may be issues there on how it was done.

The Parliamentary report from 2000 is horrible to read - but does both mean that hindsight is wonderful and that the risks were known.

"The committee concluded:

18. The evidence we have received during this inquiry does not suggest that the majority of the external cladding systems currently in use in the UK poses a serious threat to life or property in the event of fire. …

19. Notwithstanding what we have said in paragraph 18 above, we do not believe that it should take a serious fire in which many people are killed before all reasonable steps are taken towards minimising the risks."

As such a fire could be started maliciously from the outside of buildings, locking up bins and clearing exterior rubbish has to be immediate priority.

And the overall conclusion seems to be that many such buildings will need physical alterations that would need scaffolding so costly that they mIght as well install new cladding. And the bottom line is that unaltered buildings may be uninsurable.
Click to expand...
Yeah it's very comprehensive and it describes all the fires in the Middle East and the way in which the grenfell tower burned is eerily the same as those. I'm shocked this cladding is used in any construction
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I believe all councils have or are expected to have contingency plans in place for emergencies like this. Manchester certainly did in 1996 and incidents like the 7/7 bombings would only have heightened that requirement.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Councils are required to have an emergency plan so that resources are plans are in place to deal with such incidents.I believe the full requirements are laid out in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.

In fact, several officers in councils across the country are paid an additional generous amount to be on-call, some are senior staff at some authorities are expected to do it without any extra pay. We had secretaries on an extra £6k pa to be available, if required, to take notes at meetings during incidents.
 
The DCLG has confirmed that the lower spec material is indeed illegal on buildings over 59 feet (no confirmation from the DCLG as to the reasons why it is illegal) and Councils have ordered to send high-rise cladding for urgent fire tests after Glenfell Tower blaze. The company supplying the panels has disagreed but from what I've read the wording is very much subject to interpretation and of course the fact it caught fire and spread at brethtaking spread means it clearly wasn't in any way fire retardant - and the regs are clear on that point above 59 feet.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...iveapp_androidshare_AlsCVWKwF5nX;AlsCVWKwF5nX
 
Last edited:
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