Grenfell Inquest

[Dangee]

The cladding firm are getting the flak at the moment.
Just wondering if whoever speced the products (architect?) should be taking more responsibility.
Or Celotex for giving false test results.
The cladding company just installed (wrongly) the product.
Any thoughts?

 

[Mottie]

All of 'em!

 

[dontbelieveawordofit]

speculation is always good. may as well cancel the inquest and sort it out here.

 

[Stivino]

It will all come out in the wash.

 

[ericmark]

I thought the whole idea of the LABC was that they spotted errors?

 

[JohnD]

I thought the whole idea of the LABC was that they spotted errors?

The Housing Minister is responsible for the Building Regulations.

If only somebody had known!

 

[JohnD]

The Housing Minister is responsible for the Building Regulations.

If only somebody had known!

Ooooops....
They did.

Would you be surprised to know that four Housing Ministers were advised of the danger from wrapping blocks of flats in flammable materials? And did nothing about it?

How many of them do you think should have been elevated to the House of Lords after their dereliction became known?

What do you think about this one, for example?

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/new...months-before-grenfell-new-letters-show-61883

"Gavin Barwell, who was housing minister in 2016 and 2017, received seven letters from the group of MPs responsible for scrutinising fire safety rules between September 2016 and May 2017 – with the last landing just 26 days before the fire at Grenfell Tower.


The letters warned of the risk of a deadly fire and called for a promised review of building regulations and fire safety to be carried out to prevent it.


But Mr Barwell sent just three short replies during this period and became so bad at replying that the group resorted to sending their letters by recorded delivery."

And did nothing about it.

 

[securespark]

Everybody should shoulder some responsibility but no one will.

I heard Celotex 4K had been downgraded to 3K until "exhaustive tests" had been carried out. Apparently, Celotex has passed with flying colours and now 3K has been regraded as Celotex 4000.

 

[ellal]

It will all come out in the wash.

I think you mean nothing will come out in the 'whitewash'

 

[KenGMac]

there was a story that there was a move suggested to bring Scottish Building Regs. into more alignment with the English systems.

No thanks.

 

[JohnD]

I'm sure that some Scots politicians are capable of being useless incompetents just like some English ones, but in this case, Scotland was well ahead of the game.

"Scottish building regulations and high rise domestic tower block cladding

Can the same type of cladding found on Grenfell be used in domestic tower blocks in Scotland.

No, Building Standards systems and regulations for high rise (over 18m) domestic properties in Scotland means the type of product used on Grenfell Tower should not be used in the cladding systems.


What do Scottish building regulations say about the use of cladding on high rise domestic tower blocks?

Since 2005 Scottish building regulations have stated that cladding and insulation on high rise domestic buildings should either be made of non-combustible materials or the whole cladding system has been the subject of a stringent fire test. From 2005 these regulations applied to new high rise domestic buildings or re-cladding work to existing high rise domestic buildings.


The Building Standards Technical Handbooks can be downloaded at http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Built-En...andards/techbooks/techhandbooks/th2016domfire


External cladding on high rise domestic buildings built or altered before 2005 had to meet a Class 0 classification which was the most demanding anti-flame spread classification at that time."

https://www.gov.scot/publications/grenfell-responding-in-scotland/

 

[Dangee]

Celotex said the rs4000 was class0 fire rated.

 

[Dangee]

Did it have a CE mark though?

 

[Dangee]

Could be the French companies fault.
Bring back the kite mark!

 

[JohnD]

But IIRC the assembled panels had never been tested in a trial wall.

When they were, the results were disastrous.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...test1_BS_8414_Part_1_test_report_Issue1.2.pdf

I draw your attention particularly to

5.1 Temperature Profiles

813.9°C at 390 seconds after ignition.

and

5.2 Visual Observations

"Continuous flow of flaming material"
at 250 seconds