Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday June 26 2017, @07:52AM   Printer-friendly
from the Going-With-The-Crowd dept.

From ABC News:

The list of high-rise apartment towers in Britain that have failed fire safety tests grew to 60, officials said Sunday, revealing the mounting challenge the government faces in the aftermath of London's Grenfell Tower fire tragedy.

All of the buildings for which external cladding samples were so far submitted failed combustibility tests, Communities Secretary Sajid Javid said. As of late Sunday, that includes 60 towers from 25 different areas of the country — double the figure given a day earlier.

More from the BBC:

The Local Government Association said some councils have introduced 24-hour warden patrols to mitigate the risk before cladding is removed.

It said in a statement: "Where cladding fails the test, this will not necessarily mean moving residents from tower blocks.

"In Camden, the decision to evacuate was based on fire inspectors' concerns about a combination of other fire hazards together with the cladding."

So it looks like, far from an isolated thing, basically everyone had the bright idea to do this.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by theluggage on Monday June 26 2017, @12:46PM (1 child)

    by theluggage (1797) on Monday June 26 2017, @12:46PM (#531279)

    Its very unclear whether these tests are ones the buildings should have passed when they were refurbished, or whether they are new standards that with "20:20 hindsight" should have been applied...

    Its equally unclear whether the cladding was "as specified" when the plans were approved, or if someone has unofficially substituted a cheaper product or fitting method.

    ...and its likely to remain unclear, because it is quite likely to end up as evidence in judicial inquiries, civil cases and criminal prosecutions, so the people who actually know won't be casually chatting about it to the press.

    What on Earth do they spend their time doing?

    Probably soft-targetting individuals who just want to build a new domestic garage for their house and don't have lobbying powers on the local council. I remember my parents having a new pre-fab garage built in the 70s and the planning dept. insisting that half the front lawn be covered in concrete so that vehicles could turn and, hilariously, having to replace some external and internal panelling in the garage with asbestos... I assume that, by now, some later owner has had to pay an exorbitant sum to have the men in bunny suits come and take the evil death panels (tm) away...

    Waiting for the winter, when all these de-cladded tower blocks get so cold and damp that all the residents start buying cheap electric fires from FleaBay...

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by choose another one on Monday June 26 2017, @04:06PM

    by choose another one (515) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 26 2017, @04:06PM (#531366)

    Bingo.

    There is also the interesting issue of whether the various panels actually pass the fire tests that they are certified to have passed, and apparently some do not. This brings the system of independent testing labs and supply chain (possible fake products) under scrutiny as well - fire retardant products could be specified by all concerned and the stuff fitted could be marked as meeting spec, but actually doesn't when tested. Not in the Grenfell case, where it appears someone knew they were fitting flammable, but in other towers being tested.

    But the big issue IMO is the building regs. New buildings would have to have sprinklers, end of story. The cladding would still go up like a match but the interior of the building would be saved as would the people (see the several fires in Dubai with this type of cladding).

    These old buildings were designed to contain fires in one flat/apartment, and that design works (there have been real fires, contained), but with the cladding added to the outside that design is broken. Fire will be able to travel from flat to flat even if the cladding and the insulation are fire resistant because of the air gap, which in reality could be filled with whatever crap the builders dropped when it was fitted, which could well be flammable. With a refurbishment that totally breaks original design assumptions in event of fire, the whole building should be brought up to current fire standards which means (at least) sprinklers, changing the fire protocols and advice, and (at worst) far fewer deaths and quite possibly everyone gets out.

    When I was looking at converting my loft, I was told by council building control that I would need to retrofit sprinklers and self closing fire doors to the entire house, because it would then be more than 4 floors (which made it not worth doing). Where were those building control people when a council is making major changes to a tower block? This is the issue: the council commissions the work, pays the bill, grants the permission for the work, inspects the work and certifies it meets the regulations. Conflicts of interest abound, and where they do corruption will not be far behind.