Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'OT (OFF Topic) Forums' started by Steveml63, Jun 14, 2017.
Building re -clad and has a BREEAM rating according to the Rydon website. Sadly that only deals with thermal issues and not fire safety.
Would be interesting to know the brief/scope of works for the enhancement particularly as residents have previously reported fire safety issues "allegedly".
Structural Engineer has visited site and "allegedly" declared the building safe according to BBC News just now.
HSE will be crawling all over the building / design very soon I imagine. RIP to those that have tragically died.
What does this have to get political.....??
Looking at the image on the BBC website, it is striking to see how little we can do to when fighting fires in tower blocks.
Clearly at current there is no way of delivering water or flame retardant - or rescue - to anything above the 6th-7th floor.
A fire-fighter on radio 4 today said that they are trained to fight fires in tower blocks 'from the inside' - i.e. the routine response is for fire fighters to go up the stairs and deal with the fire from within the building.
...but when they can't do that?
Although I haven't memorised everything the HSE has ever written, I don't think the blame would be put on the principal contractor (Rydon?)
Surely the client for agreeing to such material or even the Architect possibly, but how did the work get passed off by control if they were aware of the material used
London fire: Grenfell Tower 'renovated with deadly cladding'
"Online records indicate contractor installed "over-cladding with ACM cassette rainscreen" at Grenfell Tower."
"ACM stands for aluminium composite material, which is the same combustible product blamed for fuelling nearly a dozen major high-rise fires globally in the past decade, including in Melbourne in 2014.
One person was killed and another six people injured in Roubaix, France, in 2012 after Mermoz Tower was refurbished with flammable cladding."
It will be a criminal matter, not civil... different rules apply.
One question that will be asked regarding any individual involved is whether they could have reasonably been expected to foresee that whatever action(s) they took - or failed to take - could result in injury or loss or life, and of course if it was under their responsibility to take said action.
Indeed, somebody somewhere is in for a rollicking. Especially if it has been made aware in the past (after reading links just posted)
If building regulations were followed, then it may well be a failing of regulations themselves. Written by Government, advised by the industry.
This.^^^. In the U.K. I think a precedent has been set. The fire has spread from the outside in and that is very rare. High rise buildings have very good fire prevention internally.
They did seem to ignore experience from around the world where similar has happened.
Just been reading that now actually. Lessons needed to be learnt methinks.
Replying to @byrneliam854 and @s8mb
It's not very helpful to spread that around. The blog may have had other content. Not the fault of the solicitor."
Titanic met all British Board of Trade requirements - at the time .
Sounds like they employed Chinese construction methods
Not another one...
Seems spending money on sprinklers instead of cladding would have been a better use of the 'tower block updating fund' money. Surprised nobody thought of that TBH.
Fires not even out yet and people are naming & shaming the renovation company, posting pictures of them (on Twitter).
Funny how everyone is an expert when nothing has been confirmed yet.