Grenfell Tower

Relax and chat about anything not covered elsewhere.
Post Reply
cybernet69

Are all the flats in this tower council owned ?
spreadbetting
Posts: 3140
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:06 pm

Like most council property developments they're a mix of owner occupiers (leaseholders) and tenants but managed by a management company rather than the council. All goes back to the Maggie era when she wanted council housing stock to be privately managed or owner occupied and we had the boom in housing co-ops that managed their own blocks and eventually merged into housing associations.
User avatar
ShaunWhite
Posts: 9731
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am

Shocking that regs require hotels to have sprinklers but not residential high-rises.

One flat I had in London was only on the 3rd floor, but I fixed a knotted rope next to the window and had a hose coiled up and plumbed in under the bath, because we only had one stairway and I was worried about the batty old lady who lived below us starting a fire. You don't have to be very high up to be trapped.

As it happened I was the one who started a fire (faulty low voltage lighting transformer near some newspapers under a wooden table), never been happier to have been so cautious and still have some burn scars from putting it out. The fire never got bigger than about 3 feet across but the heat of a fire indoors is truely astonishing and had melted anything plastic in the top half of adjoining rooms.

Check your own precautions now.
User avatar
ShaunWhite
Posts: 9731
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am

These EU regs cover the resonable requirment to insulate. It's the UK building regs that control the materials used. In Germany this type of cladding is considered 'flamable' and is not used.

Trust the Express to blame the EU in the headline and explain the detail in the very last paragragh.

The blame lies with sucessive governments who have caved in to lobbying and backhanders from the likes of Persimmon and Barret who's only objective is profit, and the cash strapped councils who have had to make 'tough decisions' about where their money is spent. Saw a guy on local tv who said the council took hoses out of his block because they were too expensive to maintain !
Last edited by ShaunWhite on Fri Jun 16, 2017 5:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
spreadbetting
Posts: 3140
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:06 pm

There's nothing inherently wrong with the EC regulations regarding energy efficiency, it's all down to how it's administered. In this case it seems the developers have clad the building as cheaply as possible to save £2 per panel and used flammable polystrene ones rather than the non flammable fibre ones which cost extra.

I'm sure many of us will have been approached to have our cavity walls insulated for free as part of the EC regs, again these are done by fly by night companies cashing in on a quick buck and use the cheapest options available to increase profits and usually fail within years and need replacing.
cybernet69

Apparently they have checked the supply chain and the cladding used was the cheaper more flammable option available.

SKY sources quote that around 30,000 buildings in the UK have this type of cladding.

:o
User avatar
ShaunWhite
Posts: 9731
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am

Surely it's time we ended the farce that is the 6 week parliamentary summer recess. There's just too much happening 24/7 to let them all have a 6 week summer holiday. It might have been appropriate in 1850 but not now.
User avatar
ShaunWhite
Posts: 9731
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am

cybernet69 wrote:
Fri Jun 16, 2017 5:53 pm
Apparently they have checked the supply chain and the cladding used was the cheaper more flammable option available.

SKY sources quote that around 30,000 buildings in the UK have this type of cladding.

:o
Perhaps some blame needs to be laid at the feet of insurance companies too. If they wouldn't insure these places then the owners might sit up and be a bit more careful.
cybernet69

ShaunWhite wrote:
Fri Jun 16, 2017 5:58 pm
cybernet69 wrote:
Fri Jun 16, 2017 5:53 pm
Apparently they have checked the supply chain and the cladding used was the cheaper more flammable option available.

SKY sources quote that around 30,000 buildings in the UK have this type of cladding.

:o
Perhaps some blame needs to be laid at the feet of insurance companies too. If they wouldn't insure these places then the owners might sit up and be a bit more careful.
Agreed.

It's all kicking off on twitter as the company that supplied the cladding panels have said they were asked to supply the cheaper ones. Either by the council or sub-contractors.

I think someone is going to get lynched at this rate. :roll:
spreadbetting
Posts: 3140
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:06 pm

Hot weather and discontent usually lead to riots, somehow I can't see this Tory government doing anything but inflamming the situation with their incompetence.
cybernet69

Personally, i think in such situations then hotels with vacant rooms in the area should be made to provide shelter.

Having just lost your home and nearly killed, sleeping on a mat on the floor of a community centre seems something out of the dark ages.
User avatar
Dublin_Flyer
Posts: 688
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 10:39 am

From what current reports are, the tower was revamped at a cost of circa 10M recently, covered with a cladding of some form of polystyrene like material, supported by wooden lats holding it to the building. The revamp didn't address the fact that there was only 1 way out, bar window jumping, which some victims apparently did.

Talk of Torys or Labour or any others, in this topic prior to the event is irrelevant.

Massive planning and a shitload of paperwork goes into a tower revamp like was done, and requires a huge amount of sign-offs that their part of the job has been done, done properly, and in line with all current best building practices, and health and safety guidelines.

Whoever gave the final sign off on cladding a whole building with non fire-retardant material with one fire exit, should be held criminally liable. If they're part of a company, then all company directors should be equally liable.

Talk of Torys or Labour, or any others post-tragedy is irrelevant too.

These people died because assholes didn't do their job.

Don't blame Tory, or Labour, or DUP, or anyone else.

This tragedy is because of individual people not giving a crap, and letting their job go in play.
cybernet69

Dublin_Flyer wrote:
Sat Jun 17, 2017 1:44 pm
From what current reports are, the tower was revamped at a cost of circa 10M recently, covered with a cladding of some form of polystyrene like material, supported by wooden lats holding it to the building. The revamp didn't address the fact that there was only 1 way out, bar window jumping, which some victims apparently did.

Talk of Torys or Labour or any others, in this topic prior to the event is irrelevant.

Massive planning and a shitload of paperwork goes into a tower revamp like was done, and requires a huge amount of sign-offs that their part of the job has been done, done properly, and in line with all current best building practices, and health and safety guidelines.

Whoever gave the final sign off on cladding a whole building with non fire-retardant material with one fire exit, should be held criminally liable. If they're part of a company, then all company directors should be equally liable.

Talk of Torys or Labour, or any others post-tragedy is irrelevant too.

These people died because assholes didn't do their job.

Don't blame Tory, or Labour, or DUP, or anyone else.

This tragedy is because of individual people not giving a crap, and letting their job go in play.
+1
vankancisco
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 8:54 pm

Dublin_Flyer wrote:
Sat Jun 17, 2017 1:44 pm
From what current reports are, the tower was revamped at a cost of circa 10M recently, covered with a cladding of some form of polystyrene like material, supported by wooden lats holding it to the building. The revamp didn't address the fact that there was only 1 way out, bar window jumping, which some victims apparently did.

Talk of Torys or Labour or any others, in this topic prior to the event is irrelevant.

Massive planning and a shitload of paperwork goes into a tower revamp like was done, and requires a huge amount of sign-offs that their part of the job has been done, done properly, and in line with all current best building practices, and health and safety guidelines.

Whoever gave the final sign off on cladding a whole building with non fire-retardant material with one fire exit, should be held criminally liable. If they're part of a company, then all company directors should be equally liable.

Talk of Torys or Labour, or any others post-tragedy is irrelevant too.

These people died because assholes didn't do their job.

Don't blame Tory, or Labour, or DUP, or anyone else.

This tragedy is because of individual people not giving a crap, and letting their job go in play.
It's a sensitive issue, but this horrific event goes much deeper than that. There's multiple layers of responsibility and it certainly doesn't look like individual errors are to blame. The government, local authority and property management company are all going to be asked serious questions, as various levels of responsibility will be spread amongst all three. Perhaps the most worrying thing that has come out is that the government have possibly ignored advice regarding safety issues related to residential tower blocks. The investigation is going to be complex and lengthy, but it will go to the heart of government and beyond. Perhaps the most poignant thought in all of this is that a tragic number of society's most poor and desperate people have perished in a deathtrap, surrounded by some of the most expensive properties and wealthy people in the world.
Post Reply

Return to “Chill Out Area”