Re: Huge fire at West London tower block
 

I'm sure the Camden labour party can fully explain how it was all the fault of the tory government and how they valiantly fought for the fire doors.

Re: Huge fire at West London tower block
 

Don't be silly Rizzy! It will never happen. Just ask the shadow home secretary!

Re: Huge fire at West London tower block
 

Maybe this is one of those issues where politicians aren't totally to blame (hard to credit I know). The greed of developers to use the cheapest materials and win contracts might have a part, but those politicians who have made decisions that have created such a market place, where residents health and safety doesn't rate highly, have to answer.

Re: Huge fire at West London tower block
 

These are properties owned by the council, they're responsible.

Re: Huge fire at West London tower block
 

what now you know it's a labour council

Re: Huge fire at West London tower block
 

I cannot see how the Government in power is resposible in any way.

Both Building Regs and Fire Regs are not imposed at the drop of a hat, they all take time.

It has been claimed that under present building regs the cladding should not have been used. IDK I'll await the enquiry result.

The blame game is totally disingenuous. The Government of today cannot be held responsible for the decisions of the Governments of the past. Governments have more to worry about than social housing, thats left to the local authorities under guidelines that may have been set years ago.

By all means blame successive Governments for not updating the guidelines in their term of office but to blame the present one is an anethama.

Re: Huge fire at West London tower block
 

No don't recall blaming any political side. If they are any to blame it would be in national govt. for putting councils under such cost pressure.

Re: Huge fire at West London tower block
 

Mod Edit. and it will probibly be starred out!


You know the rules so don't try and get around them.

Re: Huge fire at West London tower block
 

Grenfell cladding was changed to cheaper version, reports say
Documents seen by BBC show contractors were asked to fit aluminium instead of more fire-resistant zinc, saving £300,000

Cladding proposed for Grenfell Tower during a multimillion-pound refurbishment was changed to a cheaper, less fire-resistant version to make a saving of less than 4% of the final cost of the project, according to reports.

Documents seen by the BBC show contractors working for Kensington and Chelsea council were asked in 2014 to use aluminium cladding instead of zinc, to save £300,000. The wider refurbishment cost £8.6m

The leaders of Kensington and Chelsea council have been accused of shameful behaviour after shutting down the first cabinet meeting since the disaster after attempts to block the media from the hearing failed.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...on-reports-say

Re: Huge fire at West London tower block
 

It's not so much the difference between aluminium and zinc but the selection of the cheaper of the two available aluminium ones with the poorer fire rating. The difference there was about £5k IIRC.

However there's still the issue of the insulation's fire resistance that's not even beeing tested at the moment and the tests that are being done are on the individual components of the aluminium cladding not the composite installed as intended. An interviewee on R4 Today programme this morning asserted that all the current testing was a waste of time and effort.

A bit like testing a lump of wood for flamability and then condemning all timber-framed properties when it catches fire. :dozey:

Re: Huge fire at West London tower block
 

SO WHAT. The insulation was the problem. Zinc is NOT more fire resistant the Aluminium. Zinc panels come in FR and PE versions, as do Aluminium ones. BOGUS ISSUE. The plans specified Celotex FR5000 insulation, but it was Celotex RS5000 that was finally used and from one particular source it is 70% MORE expensive. So where are these cost savings meant to be? How is supposedly saving £2/sq m on the cladding meant to mean anything if you spend around £23/sq m MORE on the insulation.

Well actually the FR(fire resistant) versions of the insulation AND cladding ALSO contain the same substance, just mixed in with other material(s). If would STILL give off toxic fumes.

Re: Huge fire at West London tower block
 

This is all bollocks.

The testing of the "cladding" is scaremongering.

They're testing the insulation within the cladding which is pointless you have to test the the composite cladding in its entirety.

If a fire door is rated to withstand for an hour, you don't strip off the outer skins of the door and then test it.

This is hysteria, started by the government fuelled by the media.

The enquiry needs to run its course but I would say ultimately the buck stops with the landlord until proven otherwise.

Re: Huge fire at West London tower block
 

Any landlord has to trust the designers. They can't be expected to be experts in design and materials.

The designers merely trusted the "headline" from the manufacturers that the insulation was ok to use above 18m, They didn't look to check specifically under what circumstances it can be used and assumed it could just be slapped on.

Re: Huge fire at West London tower block
 

They employ people to work with the architects and contractors, they are the client, they are in control of the specifications and the budget.

This statement is an example of why and where the hysteria, witch hunting and false accusations appear.

You have no evidence whatsoever to back up statement. No evidence whatsoever.

Re: Huge fire at West London tower block
 

Facts:- The manufacturers made claims that it could used above 18m. Suppliers reiterated that. It was even listed in the product selector part of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) website. The design of how the insulation was to be used was bad, regardless of what type was used. I looked at the plans. No fire barriers between the window frames and the insulation.

From the Celotex website.
On the face of it, no reason to suggest it was the wrong product to use.

It is only when you read in further in another document you get this.
As for the suggestion of cost cutting being a factor, I also checked and compared prices. For one supplier as an example the FR5000 in the original plans would currently cost £755.32 for 23.04sq m but the RS5000 that was used(confirmed by the manufacturer) is £1282.65 for 23.04sq m. That is 70% more.