London Fire and Aftermath RIP

josip

JupiterKid wrote: »

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.

I suspect that they will have an accurate death toll at the end, but all of the identities probably won't ever be established unfortunately.

tara73

JupiterKid wrote: »

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.

But I heard they will look for the dents of the victims as this is, sorry for being graphic here, often the only thing what is really left of the poor people in fire incidents like this.

I think after they stabilised the tower and recover teams can get in, they will be able to give the relatively exact number of victims.

And actually, the relatives of people who lived there unregistered through subletting or however can come forward, I think, they have literally nothing to loose at this stage.

A Dub in Glasgo

tara73 wrote: »

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.

There were 6 flats per floor (2 x one bed and 4 x two bed) and 20 floors

mikeybrennan

Samaris wrote: »

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.

I'd say it was a flat out lie myself t

tara73

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

There were 6 flats per floor (2 x one bed and 4 x two bed) and 20 floors

alright, thanks, with this it stays with an average of 5 people in each flat with 600 people in total.

I also read somewhere here, that it is a new 'trend' in London, to sublet your apartment just for the night if you are working at night and for the day, if working at daytime... crazy stuff.

tara73

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

There were 6 flats per floor (2 x one bed and 4 x two bed) and 20 floors

nah, correction, everywhere it states 24 storeys.

Lady is a tramp

tara73 wrote: »

nah, correction, everywhere it states 24 storeys.

I thought the bottom few were offices/shops?

orangerhyme

It was originally 120 flats over 20 floors on a 24 floor building - 80 2 beds and 40 1 beds with the bottom 4 floors used for offices, gym, creche etc.
I think the refurbishement added 7 flats to the lower 4 floors somehow.

So lets say 60 people in the 40 one-bed flats and 240 people in the 80 two-bed flats = 300.

I think 300 -400 is more realistic than 400 -600

orangerhyme

The new 7 flats added to the lower floors consisted of :

One level of 4 flats: 3 four-bed apts, 1 three-bed ( 15 to 20)
Whats interesting about this is that on the same floor space as what normally has 10 beds, they squeeze in 15 beds.

Another level of 3 flats: 2 two-beds and 1 one-bed. ( 7.5)

My calculations are based on an average of 1.5 people per 1 bed flat = 40 *1.5, average of 3 people per 2 bed flat = 80*3
So 300 over 20 floors.
Then on the new flats: min of 20
So 300 + 20 = 320

Anyway, I think 300 to 400 is more realistic.

mikeybrennan

I'm sure there will be a lot of focus on the installation of the insulation and PE cladding

Whatever fire barriers were in place didn't seem to work.

My understanding is that ventilated intumescent fire barriers are fitted behind the cladding to close off the chimney in the event of fire.
http://www.astroflame.com/ventilated-fire-barrier.html

Harry Palmr

Homeless will get nice new apartments in Kensington and Chelsea authority

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/21/grenfell-tower-families-to-be-given-68-flats-in-luxury-apartment-complex

Sixty-eight flats in a luxury apartment complex where prices start at ?1.6m are being made available to families displaced by the Grenfell Tower fire.

Families who escaped the tower blaze will be able to take up permanent occupation in July and August in the apartments in the Kensington Row scheme about 1.5 miles south of Grenfell, where last Wednesday?s blaze left 79 people dead and missing and presumed dead.

The homes are within the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea but in the more affluent south end of the borough. They have been purchased by the Corporation of London and will become part of its social housing stock.

orangerhyme

Another issue is with the insulation used under the cladding, Celotex RS5000 is named officially as what was used although Celetex FR5000 is in original planning app.
Now according to the building regs:

"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."

In Appendix A limited combustibility is defined in the EU class BS EN 13501-1 as "Class A2 -s3, d2 or better".

Now Celotex RS5000 has not being tested according to the EU class, it only has a UK Class 0.
According to here: http://www.shadbolt.co.uk/european-fire-testing.aspx
UK class 0 = Eu Class B!!

Basically:
UK Class EU Class
Non-Combustible A1 (provision for non testing)
Limited Combustible A2-s3,d2 or better
Class 0 B-s3,d2 or better
Class 1 C-s3,d2 or better

This technical guide to ACM cladding is rather damning:http://www.boothmuirie.co.uk/media/3929/boothmuirie_technical_note_march2016.pdf

It says that neither Reynobond or Celotex RS5000 are of "limited combustibility", basically the entire insulation and cladding system was against regulations!

orangerhyme

mikeybrennan wrote: »

I'm sure there will be a lot of focus on the installation of the insulation and PE cladding

Whatever fire barriers were in place didn't seem to work.

My understanding is that ventilated intumescent fire barriers are fitted behind the cladding to close off the chimney in the event of fire.
http://www.astroflame.com/ventilated-fire-barrier.html

Theres lots of regs on fire blocks and barriers between levels and windows etc...I wouldnt be surprised if these werent compliant also.

Im not going to research it though.

mikeybrennan

Those regulations should have been changed after the last coroner's report.

No doubt in my mind.

mikeybrennan

orangerhyme wrote: »

Theres lots of regs on fire blocks and barriers between levels and windows etc...I wouldnt be surprised if these werent compliant also.

Im not going to research it though.

By the looks of the fire they weren't compliant.

orangerhyme

mikeybrennan wrote: »

Those regulations should have been changed after the last coroner's report.

No doubt in my mind.

I agree. Im obviously a layman but the regs are too ambiguous and open to interpretation.

Theres 2 to 3 different fire safety certs for materials, but they arent actually equivalent.
So a material is considered of "limited combustibility" in one class but not in another. Makes no sense.

This is the most damning thing Ive seen:
http://www.boothmuirie.co.uk/media/3929/boothmuirie_technical_note_march2016.pdf

It lists both the Reynobond PE and Celotex RS5000 as neither "Non Combustible or Limited Combustibility" !!
It even has "flammable" in brackets to describe the category Reynobond is in.

CeilingFly

If reports today are anything to go by it looks like this could have been avoided and only bad luck combined with the combustible cladding caused the deaths.

Seems the fire service were there attending the kitchen/fridge fire and had extinguished it and left.

The fire was near an open window and some embers got out and into the cladding and only went on fire after smouldering for a while, but then went like wild.

Seems the general build and fire safety is quite good as they are in effect concrete blocks and in normal circumstances a fire would be totally enclosed in the one flat.

So looks like the cladding is 100% the cause of the deaths and it was an unfortunate circumstance that triggered it.

Water John

I don't think we know the quality of the partitions, on each floor.

orangerhyme

This video shows the doors in Grenfell as well as the gas pipes:
https://youtu.be/EQQSvBMQUUk

Later on in the video a journalist talks about issues with the doors of the flats and whether they were fire safety doors and self closing.

orangerhyme

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/21/grenfell-tower-16-council-inspections-failed-to-stop-use-of-flammable-cladding

This seems to put to bed the question whether the cladding was legal/compliant with regulations or not.

mikeybrennan

The Department of Communities and Local Government, which oversees building regulations, says: “Cladding using a composite aluminium panel with a polyethylene core would be non-compliant with current building regulations guidance. This material should not be used as cladding on buildings over 18m in height.”


Non-compliant with guidance?

Is there still wriggle room there?

orangerhyme

mikeybrennan wrote: »

The Department of Communities and Local Government, which oversees building regulations, says: “Cladding using a composite aluminium panel with a polyethylene core would be non-compliant with current building regulations guidance. This material should not be used as cladding on buildings over 18m in height.”


Non-compliant with guidance?

Is there still wriggle room there?

This statement by them isnt even true. Look at the regulations here 12.5 to 12.9:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/441669/BR_PDF_AD_B2_2013.pdf

Materials of UK Class 0 are allowed on external surfaces. Reynobond PE is UK Class 0.

12.7 regulates "any insulation product", does this cover cladding? I'm not sure.
"Any insulation product should be of limited combustibility"
Reynobond PE doesnt satisfy the definition of limited combustibility.

I think the poorly worded regulations might save someone jail time.

orangerhyme

The Department of Communities and Local Government, which oversees building regulations, says: “Cladding using a composite aluminium panel with a polyethylene core would be non-compliant with current building regulations guidance. This material should not be used as cladding on buildings over 18m in height.”


To me that looks like they are covering their asses and passing the blame onto the dept of building control in RBKC

tara73

as I see it, it all comes down whether the architects specified the cladding material compliant with the fire building regulations, means they wrote the fire retardant Reynobond cladding on the handed in material list or plan in the planning application process.

if there's no written specification of the right material in the plans, the contractors/the subcontractor who receives the working drawings from the architect to build accordingly to this plans, has the duty to give notice to the architect/the client, his concerns the material to be used doesn't has the right specification.
if he fails to do so, he would, next to the architect, also be liable for the disaster.

That's why I wrote earlier in this thread I hope the architect has it signed off from the council to use the non fire retardant cladding. Otherwise he's f****.

For sure there's another possibility the architect specified the right fire retardant cladding and the contractor just used the non fire retardant to save money. Then, for sure, the contractor will see the prison from inside for a longer time.

this disaster tells everyone working in the building business again why it is adamant to let every small bit or decision be signed off on paper from the client.
Verbal agreements are null and void.

mikeybrennan

How is it safe for residents of other tower blocks reclad in the same manner to stay put?

Presumably this a political decision to leave them at risk pending 'investigations'.

The reality is that they should have been relocated immediately

josip

mikeybrennan wrote: »

How is it safe for residents of other tower blocks reclad in the same manner to stay put?

Presumably this a political decision to leave them at risk pending 'investigations'.

The reality is that they should have been relocated immediately

Would London have the necessary number of free accommodation units to house all the people that would be affected?

Water John

Now seems insulation foam used inside, produced hydrogen cyanide when burned at high temp.

Samaris

josip wrote: »

Would London have the necessary number of free accommodation units to house all the people that would be affected?

Not just London. There's another 84 tower blocks across the UK that are apparently coated in the same stuff. That's a hell of a big housing project to do at once and I doubt it would be possible.

Say taking the lowball number of 450 people in a block, by 84 is 37,800 people. Some quick and very dodgy estimates based on UK population demographics puts maybe 10,500 of those with some form of special consideration possibly needed (child, elderly, disabled) and you basically have a small town to relocate (with disruption to peoples lives and maybe making it a lot harder for them to get to their workplaces, etc). I doubt it could be done, especially as the UK is already feeling the financial bite of ongoing uncertainty as to the future.

There's a cynical part of me that snorts rather at the Government putting the survivors into the "posh" accommodation. Frankly, I think even if they all got palaces it wouldn't make up for what many of them have lost and the horrors they endured, but it was a good way to make chunks of the general population more inclined to be aggravated at the survivors which is a distraction from the anger at the whole thing. Worked too. Apparently there was quite a mixed reaction to it. I suspect the narrative will soon turn against the people there, particularly once the inquiry is going on and there's nothing else to talk about other than the illegal subletting, etc. Look how the Mail on Sunday (?) focussed on the guy whose fridge went up, and it appears to have been total and nasty bollockology. And that was while the building was still smouldering. Divide and conquer, distract and ignore.

orangerhyme

Samaris wrote: »

Not just London. There's another 84 tower blocks across the UK that are apparently coated in the same stuff. That's a hell of a big housing project to do at once and I doubt it would be possible.

Say taking the lowball number of 450 people in a block, by 84 is 37,800 people. Some quick and very dodgy estimates based on UK population demographics puts maybe 10,500 of those with some form of special consideration possibly needed (child, elderly, disabled) and you basically have a small town to relocate (with disruption to peoples lives and maybe making it a lot harder for them to get to their workplaces, etc). I doubt it could be done, especially as the UK is already feeling the financial bite of ongoing uncertainty as to the future.

There's a cynical part of me that snorts rather at the Government putting the survivors into the "posh" accommodation. Frankly, I think even if they all got palaces it wouldn't make up for what many of them have lost and the horrors they endured, but it was a good way to make chunks of the general population more inclined to be aggravated at the survivors which is a distraction from the anger at the whole thing. Worked too. Apparently there was quite a mixed reaction to it. I suspect the narrative will soon turn against the people there, particularly once the inquiry is going on and there's nothing else to talk about other than the illegal subletting, etc. Look how the Mail on Sunday (?) focussed on the guy whose fridge went up, and it appears to have been total and nasty bollockology. And that was while the building was still smouldering. Divide and conquer, distract and ignore.

Theres been reports of every council in the UK investigating cladding and fire safety on all its council blocks but I havent heard of any been evacuated, or cladding removed, or people moving.

My assumption is that this type of cladding will be made illegal over certain heights ( if it not is already) and this regulation will apply retrospectively also Id imagine.

Peregrinus

I don't think relocation of everyone in affected properties is feasible.

Nor is it the only think that can be done. What can be done straight away is to revisit fire safety protocols for affected buildings, changing the policy of leaving most people in place on the assumption that the fire can be contained, and that an evacuation will only expose people to risks and hamper the work of firefighters. You can have an immediate full evacuation policy for these buildings until the design and materials problem has been remedied.

An awful lot of people will be evacuated unnecessarily, but that's a small price to pay to avoid another Grenfell.