London Fire and Aftermath RIP

jackofalltrades

The problem with moving from a "stay put" to a "get out now" policy is that these buildings weren't designed with that in mind.
You run the serious risk of a crush happening, when everyone tries to pile into a narrow staircase all at once.
That and the fire brigade won't be able to get up the stairs due to all the people coming down it.

Peregrinus

jackofalltrades wrote: »

The problem with moving from a "stay put" to a "get out now" policy is that these buildings weren't designed with that in mind.
You run the serious risk of a crush happening, when everyone tries to pile into a narrow staircase all at once.
That and the fire brigade won't be able to get up the stairs due to all the people coming down it.

You have to manage a general evacuation, which means you evacuate floor by floor (or group of, say, three floors by group of three floors), only sounding the alarms on each floor when it's appropriate for that floor to evacuate. It's scary to have to wait your turn, but everyone does get out more quickly.

But it does require fire drills and fire wardens, and one of the things they may need in these buildings, while they are waiting for renovation, is to involve tenants in such things. It may also require upgrades to the alarm/communication systems.

GM228

Fratton Fred wrote: »

GM228 wrote: »

An inquest is a public inquiry by a coroner, an inquiry is a public inquiry by a judge.

I'm aware of that, What I guess I was uncertain of, is the relationship with a formal police investigation.

GM228 wrote: »

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

And where there is likely to be blame in more than one area, with some parties being at fault, but not criminally negligent, can help people better understand what actually went wrong?

There is no relationship, when there is a formal police investigation neither type of inquiry can proceed until it is completed and whilst an inquiry can apportion blame, neither can actually determine any civil or criminal liability.

sondagefaux wrote: »

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.

Yes indeed they can return verdicts of lawful/unlawful etc (I already stated) this, however they can't name organisations etc or apportion blame and they also can't legally find differently to the outcome of any criminal investigation.

sondagefaux wrote: »

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



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 coroner can't apportion blame by naming individuals, they can't name or blame individuals or organisations, they simply are for a finding of fact in relation to how a death occurred, not who caused it.

GM228

Sky News reporting around 600 other buildings in England have the same cladding as Grenfell.

orangerhyme

GM228 wrote: »

Sky News reporting around 600 other buildings in England have the same cladding as Grenfell.

"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.”

I really dont buy this statement.
The regulations are unclear, hence why the cladding is on so many towers.

If so many planners and housing authorities are misinterpreting the regs, then the regs are the problem.

I think its going to be difficult to hold anyone accountable.

mikeybrennan

josip wrote: »

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

I realise it is not practical at all.

I was making the point that at some level there is a calculated risk to leave tenants in situ pending investigation.

Imagine you're a tenant in one of the other affected high rises in London.
6 months down the road investigations are ongoing and remedial works not even started.You're life is at risk in the meantime.

If another fire broke out the question would arise ,why didn't the government act sooner to ensure tenants safety.

orangerhyme

mikeybrennan wrote: »

I realise it is not practical at all.

I was making the point that at some level there is a calculated risk to leave tenants in situ pending investigation.

Imagine you're a tenant in one of the other affected high rises in London.
6 months down the road investigations are ongoing and remedial works not even started.You're life is at risk in the meantime.

If another fire broke out the question would arise ,why didn't the government act sooner to ensure tenants safety.

ISIS must look at these towers and think its an easy way to commit a terrorist attack, although many of the victims would be muslim, not that it might deter them.

Gamebred

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4627844/Grenfell-Tower-families-moving-2bn-block.html


Can see some dwellings going on fire purposely soon in the hope of moves to luxury accommodation, dangerous precedent.

tara73

orangerhyme 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.”

I really dont buy this statement.
The regulations are unclear, hence why the cladding is on so many towers.

why are the regulations unclear? I think we figured out that above the hight of 18 m there must be used a fire retardant cladding and insulation.

And even if they seem to be unclear, any architect with common sense and responsibility should insist on using fire retardant cladding above 18m, even if the contractor won't do it to save a few pounds.

mikeybrennan

orangerhyme 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.”

I really dont buy this statement.
The regulations are unclear, hence why the cladding is on so many towers.

If so many planners and housing authorities are misinterpreting the regs, then the regs are the problem.

I think its going to be difficult to hold anyone accountable.

It comes back to the government again doing nothing on building regs since 2013.

Assuming the ambiguity is there in the regulations to allow this to happen.

A Dub in Glasgo

Guidance is not a law... the guidance is not to fit and the law does not stop any refurb from fitting them

tara73

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4627844/Grenfell-Tower-families-moving-2bn-block.html

I also think it's not the best idea to move the homeless people from Grenfell Tower to this luxury apartment complex. It's not that I think they didn't earn it or something, quite the opposite.
It's that I think it will cause problems with the 'rich' owners of the apartments in many ways and who needs this. It will probably shed a bad light on the people of Grenfell Tower atthe end of the day.

mikeybrennan

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Guidance is not a law... the guidance is not to fit and the law does not stop any refurb from fitting them

The PE panels may be legal.

Then there is the issue of the installation and fire stops etc.,there will likely be faults found here that contributed to the spread of fire.

A construction lawyer was also making the general point that when refurbishing a building any increased fire risk has to be mitigated in other ways.


As an example in Australia the external PE panels are fitted in conjunction with external sprinklers.

Bushmanpm

Its being reported that Hydrogen Cyanide (AKA ZyklonB!) was released during the fire and may have caused some of the deaths. By no means pleasant but probably marginally better than burning to death.

This reminded me of the Kings Cross Tube fire of 1987 where some of the deaths were attributed to cyanide poisoning as opposed to burning or smoke inhalation.
It transpired that besides the paint in the escalator channels, another contributor was the electrical cables. I know this because after that fire my dads company got part of the contract to supply new cabling for the rewiring of the Tube with a special type of cable referred to as Low Smoke & Fume (LSF) or Low Smoke, Zero Halogen (LSZH) and since then is a requirement in all public new builds or refurbs.

What I cannot fathom is why was what was learned from that fire thirty years ago not applied to all relative areas of the construction industry.

Please note: I'm posting this on my phone plus I'm crap at posting links ;-)

mikeybrennan

Camden has decided to remove cladding from affected high-rises.

Looks like this will happen everywhere so

I can't see any other outcome

josip

mikeybrennan wrote: »

Camden has decided to remove cladding from affected high-rises.

Looks like this will happen everywhere so

I can't see any other outcome

How much of the £10m Greenfell refurb cost was for the cladding?
600 * (a lot of money) = An awful lot of money

mikeybrennan

josip wrote: »

How much of the £10m Greenfell refurb cost was for the cladding?
600 * (a lot of money) = An awful lot of money

About a quarter of that i think

Bushmanpm

Bushmanpm wrote: »

Its being reported that Hydrogen Cyanide (AKA ZyklonB!) was released during the fire and may have caused some of the deaths. By no means pleasant but probably marginally better than burning to death.

This reminded me of the Kings Cross Tube fire of 1987 where some of the deaths were attributed to cyanide poisoning as opposed to burning or smoke inhalation.
It transpired that besides the paint in the escalator channels, another contributor was the electrical cables. I know this because after that fire my dads company got part of the contract to supply new cabling for the rewiring of the Tube with a special type of cable referred to as Low Smoke & Fume (LSF) or Low Smoke, Zero Halogen (LSZH) and since then is a requirement in all public new builds or refurbs.

What I cannot fathom is why was what was learned from that fire thirty years ago not applied to all relative areas of the construction industry.

Please note: I'm posting this on my phone plus I'm crap at posting links ;-)

Or the Bradford City fire in '85. Loada rubbish under a load of wood with a roof sealed with bitumen. Fire escapes locked, empty fire extinguishers, yet the same **** kept happening.

jackofalltrades

Peregrinus wrote: »

You have to manage a general evacuation, which means you evacuate floor by floor (or group of, say, three floors by group of three floors), only sounding the alarms on each floor when it's appropriate for that floor to evacuate.
It's scary to have to wait your turn, but everyone does get out more quickly.

But it does require fire drills and fire wardens, and one of the things they may need in these buildings, while they are waiting for renovation, is to involve tenants in such things. It may also require upgrades to the alarm/communication systems.

No one is going to wait their turn though. The footage of the Grenfell tower burning is etched into people's minds.
And if they've seen the Roubaix Tower fire, then they'll run straight through a fire warden.

The flammable cladding will have to be removed from these affected buildings.
External fire sprinklers are needed until such time as this can be done.
They're the only thing that I can think of that might re-assure residents and would stop or slow down a catastrophic fire.

mikeybrennan

jackofalltrades wrote: »

No one is going to wait their turn though. The footage of the Grenfell tower burning is etched into people's minds.
And if they've seen the Roubaix Tower fire, then they'll run straight through a fire warden.

The flammable cladding will have to be removed from these affected buildings.
External fire sprinklers are needed until such time as this can be done.
They're the only thing that I can think of that might re-assure residents and would stop or slow down a catastrophic fire.

There won't be external sprinklers fitted imo

I'd say the cladding will be coming down everywhere asap

Initially I thought that there would be remedial work everywhere to mitigate the fire risk but removing the cladding is the likely scenario and cheaper of course.

It's madness that this situation was allowed to develop unchecked .

fergiesfolly

tara73 wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4627844/Grenfell-Tower-families-moving-2bn-block.html

I also think it's not the best idea to move the homeless people from Grenfell Tower to this luxury apartment complex. It's not that I think they didn't earn it or something, quite the opposite.
It's that I think it will cause problems with the 'rich' owners of the apartments in many ways and who needs this. It will probably shed a bad light on the people of Grenfell Tower atthe end of the day.

How does rich people getting their knickers in a twist shed a bad light on the victims of Grenfell Tower.

tara73

fergiesfolly wrote: »

How does rich people getting their knickers in a twist shed a bad light on the victims of Grenfell Tower.

that's not the point.

without judging one lifestyle or the other, the problem will be that the lifestyles of the people from GT and owners of the apartm. will be very different.
For example:
- noise will prob be an issue, there were many families with kids living in Grenfield Tower; more visitors going in and out; people of GT are more working class, might work shift work, means coming in at hours when 'rich' people want to sleep
- I read in Grenfell Tower were problems with piles of rubbish lying around in communal areas, I don't think the apartment owners will appreciate that

I don't think I have to write everything down here, people can imagine on their own what it all involves.

And with sheding a bad light on the GT people, I had in mind, for example, that the 'nice' british media like the Sun for example, would love to report if maybe there's some rubbish lying around with headlines like: That's how the new tenants treat their 1 million flats paid by the council.

And before somebody gets their racist accusations out, I said, it's my opinion without judging one lifestyle or the other, just being realistically here and thinking that lifestyles, expectations and tolerances are too different.
I mean, there are already some apartment owners who are whining with the GT people moving in, it will downgrade the value of their apartments...says it all I think.

orangerhyme

tara73 wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4627844/Grenfell-Tower-families-moving-2bn-block.html

I also think it's not the best idea to move the homeless people from Grenfell Tower to this luxury apartment complex. It's not that I think they didn't earn it or something, quite the opposite.
It's that I think it will cause problems with the 'rich' owners of the apartments in many ways and who needs this. It will probably shed a bad light on the people of Grenfell Tower atthe end of the day.

I doubt the council had much choice where to put them.
They were under pressure to rehouse them quickly in the same borough.
I doubt there was a few hundred council flats lying vacant.
It's Kensington, so any available apartments would be expensive and luxury.

mikeybrennan

I'm actually pleasantly surprised that the flammable cladding is being removed right now.

Speaking as a londoner myself i wasn't expecting this fast pace at all.

orangerhyme

tara73 wrote: »

why are the regulations unclear? I think we figured out that above the hight of 18 m there must be used a fire retardant cladding and insulation.

And even if they seem to be unclear, any architect with common sense and responsibility should insist on using fire retardant cladding above 18m, even if the contractor won't do it to save a few pounds.

Read through my posts. I've shown many times the regs are unclear.
It's the architects responsibility to design structures which pass building regs and it's the council's responsibility to enforce building regs.

This cladding passes building regs.

mikeybrennan

orangerhyme wrote: »

Read through my posts. I've shown many times the regs are unclear.
It's the architects responsibility to design structures which pass building regs and it's the council's responsibility to enforce building regs.

This cladding passes building regs.

Councils are saying that the cladding isn't what they specified.

Too much grey in this whole scenario

fergiesfolly

tara73 wrote: »

that's not the point.

without judging one lifestyle or the other, the problem will be that the lifestyles of the people from GT and owners of the apartm. will be very different.
For example:
- noise will prob be an issue, there were many families with kids living in Grenfield Tower; more visitors going in and out; people of GT are more working class, might work shift work, means coming in at hours when 'rich' people want to sleep
- I read in Grenfell Tower were problems with piles of rubbish lying around in communal areas, I don't think the apartment owners will appreciate that

I don't think I have to write everything down here, people can imagine on their own what it all involves.

And with sheding a bad light on the GT people, I had in mind, for example, that the 'nice' british media like the Sun for example, would love to report if maybe there's some rubbish lying around with headlines like: That's how the new tenants treat their 1 million flats paid by the council.

And before somebody gets their racist accusations out, I said, it's my opinion without judging one lifestyle or the other, just being realistically here and thinking that lifestyles, expectations and tolerances are too different.
I mean, there are already some apartment owners who are whining with the GT people moving in, it will downgrade the value of their apartments...says it all I think.

Says it all about the current owners and those people who think the tenants of Grenfell wont appreciate their new accommodations.
Who's to say that they won't appreciate their new homes more than current owners.

josip

mikeybrennan wrote: »

Councils are saying that the cladding isn't what they specified.

Too much grey in this whole scenario

Everyone will be trying to pass blame on this, same as always.
In the end it will come down to the paper trail.

mikeybrennan

josip wrote: »

Everyone will be trying to pass blame on this, same as always.
In the end it will come down to the paper trail.

If the government had acted there would be no grey area.

They sat back and allowed this to happen

Junkyard Tom

mikeybrennan wrote: »

I'm actually pleasantly surprised that the flammable cladding is being removed right now.

Speaking as a londoner myself i wasn't expecting this fast pace at all.

Labour are proposing setting up a National Investment Bank which would borrow at very cheap rates and use its credit to carry out works and projects in the real economy. It would be ideal now if it was up-and-running, a NIB could release funds for a comprehensive inspection and refurb of all highrise if needed.