London Fire and Aftermath RIP

orangerhyme

Water John wrote: »

Well, its simple, who authorised the use of this cladding on a high rise building, contrary to the manufacturers recommendations.
That's the question.
Who then comes under scrutiny, is neither here nor there.

It's possible the manufacturers recommended the product for high rise. The height recommendation is from Dec '16, it may not have existed at the time of the refurbishment.

jackofalltrades

Water John wrote: »

Not much use putting fire retarding doors of 30 or 60 mins in a building if you put gas pipes in the stairwell and give the fire an alternative route up the outside of the building.

I'm wondering if the doors between the flats and the halls were fire doors at all.
There have been several accounts of people not being able to leave their flats due to smoke in the halls.

mikeybrennan

the supplier of the PE panels has already came out and contradicted hammond-says they're legal for high-rise

Water John

The fire doors would have been into the stairwell from the corridors.

Someone had to pass, installing a flammable product PE on the outside of a high rise building.
We are also into the realm of legal and what was recommended, two different things.

Fratton Fred

Water John wrote: »

Well, its simple, who authorised the use of this cladding on a high rise building, contrary to the manufacturers recommendations.
That's the question.
Who then comes under scrutiny, is neither here nor there.

was the cladding at fault then?

Water John

We will be finding out if was was a major contributing factor to the level of loss of human lives.
That's what the inquiries will look into, hopefully.

Considering some previous inquiries, people may be a bit sceptical, however.

tara73

orangerhyme wrote: »

It's possible the manufacturers recommended the product for high rise. The height recommendation is from Dec '16, it may not have existed at the time of the refurbishment.

I doubt the manufacturers recommended it for high rise before Dec. 16 or ever. Still, if there's no recommendation from the manufacturer, it's the planners (architects) job, to make sure, what the specification for a material is and should be before they use it.

But it's a tricky one, because if british fire regulations have no specifications in it what grade of fire resistent cladding material should be used for buildings above a certain height, it's goes back again to the 'people' who do the fire regulations and didn't revised them, especially after the Lakanale fire.

However, I would bet, it will be the architects fault, because it's always the architects fault..:(:mad:

Fratton Fred

Water John wrote: »

We will be finding out if was was a major contributing factor to the level of loss of human lives.
That's what the inquiries will look into, hopefully.

Considering some previous inquiries, people may be a bit sceptical, however.

ok. I was just checking.

It was sounding like you. Mikey and Tara had some sort of inside information that had already concluded what caused the fire, why it spread so quick and who was at fault.

But you don't then, obviously.

orangerhyme

Ok, here's a brief summary of what I've researched.

The planning application make to the K&C council planning dept:

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/planning/searches/details.aspx?adv=0&simple=grenfell+tower&simpleBatch=20&simSubmit=Search&id=PP/12/04097&cn=145691+IBI+Taylor+Young+Chadsworth+House+Wilmslow+Road+01625+542200&type=decision&tab=tabs-planning-2#tabs-planning-6

One thing to note is that in the "Sustainability and Energy Statement" there is no mention of cladding or Reynobond, merely Zinc cladding of Celotex insulation. So, sometime after the planning application in Aug '13 they decided to use the Reynobond on top of the Celotrex cladding.

Also note in the approval doc, they have a condition:

"Detailed drawings or samples of materials as appropriate, in respect of the
following, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority before the relevant part of the work is begun and the
works shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the details so
approved and shall thereafter be so maintained:
? Materials to be used on the external faces of the building(s);
Reason – To accord with the development plan by ensuring that the character
and appearance of the area are preserved and living conditions of those living
near the development suitably protected."


They approved it but building regulations are under the remit of the dept of building control of the council.

"The Department of Building Control is responsible for ensuring that building work in the Royal Borough meets the standards of the building regulations."

So, here is the application by StudioE architects for building regulations approval in Sept '14 whcih was approved.
https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/bconline/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage

One question here is if they mentioned Reynobond cladding in their application. Lets assume they did.

So, now we look at the actual regulations:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/441669/BR_PDF_AD_B2_2013.pdf

Look at Section 12 which covers external walls. This is where it gets complicated and is difficult to interpret.

But basically, The Dept Of Building Control passed the refurbishment, according to the regulations I assume.
Were all the materials stated clearly in the document?

orangerhyme

" drawings are deposited with the Local Authority and are subsequently checked for compliance with the Building Regulations.

The various stages of the work are also inspected and checked for compliance with the relevant technical requirements of the Building Regulations; by a Building Control Surveyor employed by the Local Authority"

So, it looks like the dept of building control are responsible for compliance with building regulations.

tara73

@orangerhyme: wow, you are very good in your research, thanks for that.

this I found in Section 12/external walls. I don't know if I misread something, but for me, this sounds pretty clear:

Insulation Materials/Products

12.7
In a building with a storey 18m or more
above ground level any insulation product, filler
material (not including gaskets, sealants and
similar) etc. used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility (see Appendix A).
This restriction does not apply to masonry cavity
wall construction which complies with Diagram 34
in Section 9.

Cavity barriers
12.8
Cavity barriers should be provided in
accordance with Section 9.

so limited combustability in buildings over 18 m and cavity barriers. I think both were not given..

mikeybrennan

tara73 wrote: »

@orangerhyme: wow, you are very good in your research, thanks for that.

this I found in Section 12/external walls. I don't know if I misread something, but for me, this sounds pretty clear:

Insulation Materials/Products

12.7
In a building with a storey 18m or more
above ground level any insulation product, filler
material (not including gaskets, sealants and
similar) etc. used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility (see Appendix A).
This restriction does not apply to masonry cavity
wall construction which complies with Diagram 34
in Section 9.

Cavity barriers
12.8
Cavity barriers should be provided in
accordance with Section 9.

so limited combustability in buildings over 18 m and cavity barriers. I think both were not given..

I think limited combustibility only applies to the insulation fixed to the wall and not the cladding

This is where the government review of building regs should have done away with the loophole allowing PE type cladding.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Seems to be a massive problem developing in regards to illegal subletting. Claimants names are not matching up to those on the rental agreements.

There's going to be a whole bunch of people who are legally entitled to nothing. Just seems to be going from bad to worse for everybody involved.

123shooter

mikeybrennan wrote:

This is where the government review of building regs should have done away with the loophole allowing PE type cladding.

Who says they should. I'm sorry but you seem to be on to blaming the gov which ever way it goes.

You never answered my other question about...... Were they supposed to change building regs after that date?

A Dub in Glasgo

123shooter wrote: »

You never answered my other question about...... Were they supposed to change building regs after that date?

Yes, if it shows that those regs no longer protect people

orangerhyme

tara73 wrote: »

@orangerhyme: wow, you are very good in your research, thanks for that.

this I found in Section 12/external walls. I don't know if I misread something, but for me, this sounds pretty clear:

Insulation Materials/Products

12.7
In a building with a storey 18m or more
above ground level any insulation product, filler
material (not including gaskets, sealants and
similar) etc. used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility (see Appendix A).
This restriction does not apply to masonry cavity
wall construction which complies with Diagram 34
in Section 9.

Cavity barriers
12.8
Cavity barriers should be provided in
accordance with Section 9.

so limited combustability in buildings over 18 m and cavity barriers. I think both were not given..

Thanks. I got lazy once I was trying to interpret the building regulations as its a bit difficult.

As regards 12.7 I'm not sure the cladding is considered insulation or filler material as its purpose is to cover the insulation. Although it does have insulation properties so I could be wrong.

"12.5. The external envelope of a building should not provide a medium for fire spread if it is likely to be a risk to health or safety. The use of combustible materials in the cladding system and extensive cavities may present such a risk in tall buildings.
External walls should either meet the guidance given in paragraphs 12.6 to 12.9 or meet the performance criteria given in the BRE Report Fire performance of external thermal insulation for walls of multi storey buildings (BR 135) for cladding systems using full scale test data from BS 8414-1:2002 or BS 8414-2:2005. "

Now, to me 12.5 seems more relevant as it specifically says "cladding" and covers all materials and also 12.6 to 12.9 show Diagram 40.

So Diagram 40 states that for over 18m external wall surface should be "class 0 national class or class B -s3, d2 or better (European Class).

So, basically the cladding would have had to have passed either the BRE tests mentioned in 12.5 or one of the tests mentioned in Diagram 40 (class 0 or class , then it is considered compliant with Building Regulations.

I'll get back to ye on that.
Complicated huh?

mikeybrennan

they were supposed to review fire safety regulations after the lakanale report was published

the rules should have been tightened

tara73

orangerhyme wrote: »

I'll get back to ye on that.
Complicated huh?

haha, yes, I'm quite familiar with this regulation stuff checking, as it's part of my job, so I know how confusing it can be, and very often not clearly written at all and leaving also often much room for interpretation, not only in the UK..it's very bad and I never understood why it's like that. If there are regulations, they should be clear and not interpretable, especially with fire regs.

jackofalltrades

Water John wrote: »

The fire doors would have been into the stairwell from the corridors.

From my limited knowledge of the fire regulations, there would also have to be fire doors between the flats and the corridor.

123shooter

Havent been in flats for years but sure I remember big red fire hoses on the upper floors in case of fire.

orangerhyme

"12.7
In a building with a storey 18m or more above ground level any insulation product, filler material (not including gaskets, sealants and
similar) etc. used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility (see Appendix A)"

I have a real problem with the "etc", I dont think in a fire safety regulations you should have an "etc"!!! Its way too ambiguous.

But basically the Reynobond cladding is not compliant if under the definition of "limited combustibility" as its not Class A2.

But in Diagram 40 referred to in 12.5 it passes both the Class 0 and Class B.

orangerhyme

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/grenfell-cladding-is-banned-in-the-uk-says-chancellor/5088271.article

An expert here comes to the same conclusion, its probably compliant but theres ambiguity and room for interpretation.

sondagefaux

GM228 wrote: »

But the benefit of an inquiry is unlike an inquest it can apportion blame.

Inquests in England and Wales can return verdicts of unlawful death, and coronors can record narrative verdicts which link evidence of the unlawful kilings to named organisations or individuals.

With respect to inquests into the Grenfell Tower deaths, it seems likely that any inquest will be held with a jury:

(3) If it appears to a coroner, either before he proceeds to hold an
inquest or in the course of an inquest begun without a jury, that there is
reason to suspect—
(a) that the death occured in prison or in such a place or in such
circumstances as to require an inquest under any other Act;
(b) that the death occurred while the deceased was in police custody,
or resulted from an injury caused by a police officer in the
purported execution of his duty;
(c) that the death was caused by an accident, poisoning or disease
notice of which is required to be given under any Act to a
government department, to any inspector or other officer of a
government department or to an inspector appointed under
section 19 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974; or 1974 c.37.
6 c.13 CoronersAct 1988
(d) that the death occurred in circumstances the continuance or
possible recurrence of which is prejudicial to the health or safety
of the public or any section of the public,
he shall proceed to summon a jury in the manner required by subsection
(2) above.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/13/pdfs/ukpga_19880013_en.pdf

The verdicts available to juries in inquests include findings of unlawful killings. If an inquest jury returns a verdict of unlawful killing, the coroner may either make a 'short form' inquest verdict or make a 'narrative verdict' which explains the verdict in much greater detail and can be used to name individuals or organisations. The standard of proof required to record a verdict of unlawful killing is 'beyond a reasonable doubt', similar to the standard of proof required in criminal trials.

https://www.burnetts.co.uk/publications/blogs/inquest-verdicts-explained

The findings of an inquest cannot be framed in such a way as to apportion criminal or civil liability, but the verdict of unlawful killing in respect of named individuals or organisations (which can be done through the coroner making a narrative verdict) is a much more powerful verdict IMO than assigning blame through an inquiry, especially as inquires also cannot find people guilty in criminal terms.

Only criminal proceedings can assign guilt in criminal terms.

Neither an inquiry nor an inquest are criminal proceedings.

However, inquests are generally much quicker and evidence from them may be used in criminal prosecutions.

I hope that coroners inquests, with juries, are held into these deaths.

If the juries return verdicts of unlawful killing (which must be founded on evidence that establishes the verdicts beyond a reasonable doubt), hopefully the coroner will then publish narrative verdicts which name those individuals and/or organisations whom the evidence links to the unlawful killings.

Such verdicts could not assign criminal guilt, but could be a step towards criminal prosecutions.

tara73

orangerhyme wrote: »

"12.7
In a building with a storey 18m or more above ground level any insulation product, filler material (not including gaskets, sealants and
similar) etc. used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility (see Appendix A)"

yes, it's the one I quoted too and which is the most telling in my opinion.

orangerhyme wrote: »

I have a real problem with the "etc", I dont think in a fire safety regulations you should have an "etc"!!! Its way too ambiguous.

yes, it's horrible

orangerhyme wrote: »

But basically the Reynobond cladding is not compliant if under the definition of "limited combustibility" as its not Class A2.

do you know for sure which Reynobond was used? I don't recall it was that exactly specified in the planning application documents send from the architect. Didn't they just call it Reynobond and otherwise were discussing the colours? I might have missed it.

https://www.arconic.com/aap/europe/en/info_page/certified_fire_solutions_aluminium_cladding_facades_roofs.asp
this is the variety of choices from Reynobond which is quite annoying too, I think, because it doesn't say exactly what are the differences. But it is actually following the EU fire certifications, so there should have been the right product available for sure.

orangerhyme wrote: »

But in Diagram 40 referred to in 12.5 it passes both the Class 0 and Class B.

sorry, I'm lost here with this strange Diagrams, what about this distances of 1000mm...but at the end of the day, it definetely tells there should have been some sort of fire proof material at least beginning from the height of 18m up. And clearly, there wasn't.

Samaris

Something that came up regarding the cladding and its legality is that a substance can test fine in the lab, but not when it's actually in situ. Lab has one panel, try to set light to it, it doesn't burn, that's grand.

But when the flames catch the edge and there's the other factors at play - be it far higher heat or the wind tunnel effect etc, it can prove dangerous even though it tested to compliance.

orangerhyme

Reynobond PE Polyethylene was used.

mikeybrennan

the manager of the company which supplied the PE panels has came out and said they're legal for high-rise

Samaris

Where Hammond got it (and it was very foolish of him to say it without checking first) was that several -other- countries banned it after a few bad blazes and he thought that the UK had had the sense to do it too.

tara73

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Seems to be a massive problem developing in regards to illegal subletting. Claimants names are not matching up to those on the rental agreements.

There's going to be a whole bunch of people who are legally entitled to nothing. Just seems to be going from bad to worse for everybody involved.

I was expecting something like that. That's another little tragedy in itself.

how can the relatives proof now their for example brother/sister with family were in there.

I was always wondering about the high estimated number of 400-600 people living there. I've seen floor plans, with not more flats than 4-5 on each floor. Estimate in average 4 people living in each apartment (which is already high I think), with 24 storeys and 5 floors that makes 480 people.
and 600 people means 5 in every flat.
That's an unusual high estimate, considering there were also 1 bed flats.

JupiterKid

I have a hunch that many of the flats were overcrowded with some people resident not registered with the social landlord. I sadly don't think that all the victims will be accounted for.