Chat Forum
It is currently Sat May 26, 2018 3:08 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1820 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 ... 46  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10714
guy smiley wrote:
Silver wrote:
MrJonno wrote:
Yer Man wrote:
armchair pundit wrote:
I've never heard so much horseshit in my life.

Keep engaging with Silver and you'll have to review that statement.


Silver is usually just a tedious loon but his trolling on this thread is a bit disgusting. I don't understand why more people don't just have him on ignore.


Because some appreciate posts based on facts.

But I raise the level that the brain-dead collective (like yourself) hate.


You're trolling a disaster thread. That's low behaviour and you should know better. If you don't, then you're a candidate for banning or ignoring at least.


Crap. I'm posting facts that are directly relevant to this thread. its just that the EU supporters don't like these facts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20466
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
Silver wrote:
and here is the picture of the approval for the cladding used. So Hammond shoots his mouth off without knowing the facts. and seems to get it completely wrong

Image

Isn't it the insulation that is at issue here?


The insulation is within the panel.

Not sure when that certificate is from however, so could be out of date.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 36660
Location: in transit
Silver wrote:
guy smiley wrote:

You're trolling a disaster thread. That's low behaviour and you should know better. If you don't, then you're a candidate for banning or ignoring at least.


Crap. I'm posting facts that are directly relevant to this thread. its just that the EU supporters don't like these facts.



You are posting your opinion, as usual presenting that as fact, and abusing people who disagree.

That, my sad and addled friend, is trolling.

I suggest, politely, that you stop.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2013 10:41 am
Posts: 3831
ID2 wrote:
Article in the Guardian says several European countries recently changed their safety standards to ban combustible material, I wonder how they can change their laws but Britain can't.


Also says the there's 2 types of cladding produced by the company, the cheaper one for £22 per square meter, or £24 for a fire resistant version

So if the building is 60m x 20m x 20m then the area in question is 24,000m2 and sometimes decided to put flammable cladding up to save less than 50k.

Fcuk me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6817
guy smiley wrote:
Silver wrote:
guy smiley wrote:

You're trolling a disaster thread. That's low behaviour and you should know better. If you don't, then you're a candidate for banning or ignoring at least.


Crap. I'm posting facts that are directly relevant to this thread. its just that the EU supporters don't like these facts.



You are posting your opinion, as usual presenting that as fact, and abusing people who disagree.

That, my sad and addled friend, is trolling.

I suggest, politely, that you stop.



He probably has a few actual facts strewn amongst his nonsense but for me when he makes up EU regulation* (or anything else he can think of) to fit his agenda, he is trolling


*or deliberately misinterprets it to mean the opposite of what it actually means


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34591
Location: Hut 8
theo wrote:
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
Silver wrote:
and here is the picture of the approval for the cladding used. So Hammond shoots his mouth off without knowing the facts. and seems to get it completely wrong

Image

Isn't it the insulation that is at issue here?


The insulation is within the panel.

Not sure when that certificate is from however, so could be out of date.

My bad. Missed reading the PE bit.

OK. Now I am confused. I thought PE was explicitly banned under EC law for such applications? :?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 33599
Location: Planet Rock
theo wrote:
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
Silver wrote:
and here is the picture of the approval for the cladding used. So Hammond shoots his mouth off without knowing the facts. and seems to get it completely wrong

Image

Isn't it the insulation that is at issue here?


The insulation is within the panel.

Not sure when that certificate is from however, so could be out of date.

I don't know is Hammond is right or wrong. I would suggest that Silver knows that certificate does not mean the boards were legally applied on that building. I suggest not replying to any more of his posts on this thread


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20466
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
theo wrote:
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
Silver wrote:
and here is the picture of the approval for the cladding used. So Hammond shoots his mouth off without knowing the facts. and seems to get it completely wrong

Image

Isn't it the insulation that is at issue here?


The insulation is within the panel.

Not sure when that certificate is from however, so could be out of date.

My bad. Missed reading the PE bit.

OK. Now I am confused. I thought PE was explicitly banned under EC law for such applications? :?


I think that is what needs to be established.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10620
We know the panels were approved it's just Hammond said not over 18m high.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 33599
Location: Planet Rock
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
We know the panels were approved it's just Hammond said not over 18m high.

:thumbup:

Quote:
Although Hammond said that the material used in the Grenfell Tower refurbishment, containing flammable polyethylene, was “banned” in the UK, a Treasury spokesman said later that what he meant was that it was banned for buildings of a certain height.

Hammond was referring to a statement issued by the department for communities at the end of last week when it was asked to clarify the legal position. It said: “Cladding using a composite aluminium panel with a polyethylene core would be non-compliant with current Building Regulations guidance. This material should not be used as cladding on buildings over 18m in height.”


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ip-hammond


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20466
Anonymous. wrote:
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
We know the panels were approved it's just Hammond said not over 18m high.

:thumbup:

Quote:
Although Hammond said that the material used in the Grenfell Tower refurbishment, containing flammable polyethylene, was “banned” in the UK, a Treasury spokesman said later that what he meant was that it was banned for buildings of a certain height.

Hammond was referring to a statement issued by the department for communities at the end of last week when it was asked to clarify the legal position. It said: “Cladding using a composite aluminium panel with a polyethylene core would be non-compliant with current Building Regulations guidance. This material should not be used as cladding on buildings over 18m in height.”


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ip-hammond


Someone is going to prison. That is shocking. How the hell did the Council, project managers/architects, cladding supplier and contractor not know that? And how the hell did the Building regs inspector sign it off. Corporate manslaughter.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10603
Location: Bucks
theo wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
We know the panels were approved it's just Hammond said not over 18m high.

:thumbup:

Quote:
Although Hammond said that the material used in the Grenfell Tower refurbishment, containing flammable polyethylene, was “banned” in the UK, a Treasury spokesman said later that what he meant was that it was banned for buildings of a certain height.

Hammond was referring to a statement issued by the department for communities at the end of last week when it was asked to clarify the legal position. It said: “Cladding using a composite aluminium panel with a polyethylene core would be non-compliant with current Building Regulations guidance. This material should not be used as cladding on buildings over 18m in height.”


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ip-hammond


Someone is going to prison. That is shocking. How the hell did the Council, project managers/architects, cladding supplier and contractor not know that? And how the hell did the Building regs inspector sign it off. Corporate manslaughter.

Also who is selling this to them, surely knowing damn well that its illegal and could be deadly? plums.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20466
croyals wrote:
theo wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
We know the panels were approved it's just Hammond said not over 18m high.

:thumbup:

Quote:
Although Hammond said that the material used in the Grenfell Tower refurbishment, containing flammable polyethylene, was “banned” in the UK, a Treasury spokesman said later that what he meant was that it was banned for buildings of a certain height.

Hammond was referring to a statement issued by the department for communities at the end of last week when it was asked to clarify the legal position. It said: “Cladding using a composite aluminium panel with a polyethylene core would be non-compliant with current Building Regulations guidance. This material should not be used as cladding on buildings over 18m in height.”


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ip-hammond


Someone is going to prison. That is shocking. How the hell did the Council, project managers/architects, cladding supplier and contractor not know that? And how the hell did the Building regs inspector sign it off. Corporate manslaughter.

Also who is selling this to them, surely knowing damn well that its illegal and could be deadly? plums.


That'll be the supplier.....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10603
Location: Bucks
theo wrote:
croyals wrote:
theo wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
We know the panels were approved it's just Hammond said not over 18m high.

:thumbup:

Quote:
Although Hammond said that the material used in the Grenfell Tower refurbishment, containing flammable polyethylene, was “banned” in the UK, a Treasury spokesman said later that what he meant was that it was banned for buildings of a certain height.

Hammond was referring to a statement issued by the department for communities at the end of last week when it was asked to clarify the legal position. It said: “Cladding using a composite aluminium panel with a polyethylene core would be non-compliant with current Building Regulations guidance. This material should not be used as cladding on buildings over 18m in height.”


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ip-hammond


Someone is going to prison. That is shocking. How the hell did the Council, project managers/architects, cladding supplier and contractor not know that? And how the hell did the Building regs inspector sign it off. Corporate manslaughter.

Also who is selling this to them, surely knowing damn well that its illegal and could be deadly? plums.


That'll be the supplier.....

I should read posts fully...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:09 pm
Posts: 920
theo wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
We know the panels were approved it's just Hammond said not over 18m high.

:thumbup:

Quote:
Although Hammond said that the material used in the Grenfell Tower refurbishment, containing flammable polyethylene, was “banned” in the UK, a Treasury spokesman said later that what he meant was that it was banned for buildings of a certain height.

Hammond was referring to a statement issued by the department for communities at the end of last week when it was asked to clarify the legal position. It said: “Cladding using a composite aluminium panel with a polyethylene core would be non-compliant with current Building Regulations guidance. This material should not be used as cladding on buildings over 18m in height.”


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ip-hammond


Someone is going to prison. That is shocking. How the hell did the Council, project managers/architects, cladding supplier and contractor not know that? And how the hell did the Building regs inspector sign it off. Corporate manslaughter.



The first really informative comments on the thread.

Now, Cato, we are getting somewhere.


Last edited by armchair pundit on Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10714
Anonymous. wrote:
theo wrote:
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
Silver wrote:
and here is the picture of the approval for the cladding used. So Hammond shoots his mouth off without knowing the facts. and seems to get it completely wrong

Image

Isn't it the insulation that is at issue here?


The insulation is within the panel.

Not sure when that certificate is from however, so could be out of date.

I don't know is Hammond is right or wrong. I would suggest that Silver knows that certificate does not mean the boards were legally applied on that building. I suggest not replying to any more of his posts on this thread


Richard is an expert on EU law.

If he claims its ok to use this cladding based on the EU regulations (that the UK must adopt) and certificates there is over a 90% likelihood that it is. and the contractors said they have complied with the regulations

So I suggest we don't throw mud at the contractors or Council.

Quote:
Once an EAD exists, a manufacturer can apply to a national Technical Assessment Body (TAB) and ask it, on the basis of the EAD, to produce a European Technical Assessment (ETA) in respect of their products. This becomes the basis of a formal Declaration of Performance (DoP) which then allows the manufacturer to CE-mark their product. This in turn allows the manufacturer to sell the product throughout the EU (EEA).

Interestingly, the very product said to have been used to clad Grenfell Tower has been given an ETA in the form of an Agrément Certificate issued by the British Board of Agrément (BBA) (pictured). This is the relevant TAB for certifying that the product is "fit for purpose" and conforms with UK Building Regulations.

This completely contradicts Chancellor Philip Hammond's assertion that the cladding used on Grenfell Tower, which has been widely blamed for spreading the blaze, is banned in the UK on (areas of) buildings above 18 metres. It is also at odds with the claim by the Department for Communities and Local Government, which has said that, if this cladding was used, "it would not comply with current building regulations".

The Agrément Certificate attests that, in relation to the Building Regulations for reaction to fire, the panels may be regarded as having a Class 0 surface – which is the standard set in Building Regulations Approved Document B1 (see page 95).


Last edited by Silver on Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:07 pm
Posts: 6587
theo wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
We know the panels were approved it's just Hammond said not over 18m high.

:thumbup:

Quote:
Although Hammond said that the material used in the Grenfell Tower refurbishment, containing flammable polyethylene, was “banned” in the UK, a Treasury spokesman said later that what he meant was that it was banned for buildings of a certain height.

Hammond was referring to a statement issued by the department for communities at the end of last week when it was asked to clarify the legal position. It said: “Cladding using a composite aluminium panel with a polyethylene core would be non-compliant with current Building Regulations guidance. This material should not be used as cladding on buildings over 18m in height.”


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ip-hammond


Someone is going to prison. That is shocking. How the hell did the Council, project managers/architects, cladding supplier and contractor not know that? And how the hell did the Building regs inspector sign it off. Corporate manslaughter.


It's not the supplier's responsibility really to govern this. You place an order for a certain number of panels and they give them to you. If the contractor then puts them where they were not supposed to go then he will pay the price.

Lots of blame to go around here if the regulations state that explicitly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:09 pm
Posts: 920
Rumham wrote:
theo wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
We know the panels were approved it's just Hammond said not over 18m high.

:thumbup:

Quote:
Although Hammond said that the material used in the Grenfell Tower refurbishment, containing flammable polyethylene, was “banned” in the UK, a Treasury spokesman said later that what he meant was that it was banned for buildings of a certain height.

Hammond was referring to a statement issued by the department for communities at the end of last week when it was asked to clarify the legal position. It said: “Cladding using a composite aluminium panel with a polyethylene core would be non-compliant with current Building Regulations guidance. This material should not be used as cladding on buildings over 18m in height.”


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ip-hammond


Someone is going to prison. That is shocking. How the hell did the Council, project managers/architects, cladding supplier and contractor not know that? And how the hell did the Building regs inspector sign it off. Corporate manslaughter.


It's not the supplier's responsibility really to govern this. You place an order for a certain number of panels and they give them to you. If the contractor then puts them where they were not supposed to go then he will pay the price.

Lots of blame to go around here if the regulations state that explicitly.


The architects are f**ked.

If the builders (contractor or subcontractor) new they were prohibited on hih rise buildigs and didnt say anything, then theyre f**ked too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10714
theo wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
We know the panels were approved it's just Hammond said not over 18m high.

:thumbup:

Quote:
Although Hammond said that the material used in the Grenfell Tower refurbishment, containing flammable polyethylene, was “banned” in the UK, a Treasury spokesman said later that what he meant was that it was banned for buildings of a certain height.

Hammond was referring to a statement issued by the department for communities at the end of last week when it was asked to clarify the legal position. It said: “Cladding using a composite aluminium panel with a polyethylene core would be non-compliant with current Building Regulations guidance. This material should not be used as cladding on buildings over 18m in height.”


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ip-hammond


Someone is going to prison. That is shocking. How the hell did the Council, project managers/architects, cladding supplier and contractor not know that? And how the hell did the Building regs inspector sign it off. Corporate manslaughter.


Maybe because it had the appropriate certificate for this work. as the contractor has stated and is shown above.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10714
armchair pundit wrote:
Rumham wrote:
theo wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
We know the panels were approved it's just Hammond said not over 18m high.

:thumbup:

Quote:
Although Hammond said that the material used in the Grenfell Tower refurbishment, containing flammable polyethylene, was “banned” in the UK, a Treasury spokesman said later that what he meant was that it was banned for buildings of a certain height.

Hammond was referring to a statement issued by the department for communities at the end of last week when it was asked to clarify the legal position. It said: “Cladding using a composite aluminium panel with a polyethylene core would be non-compliant with current Building Regulations guidance. This material should not be used as cladding on buildings over 18m in height.”


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ip-hammond


Someone is going to prison. That is shocking. How the hell did the Council, project managers/architects, cladding supplier and contractor not know that? And how the hell did the Building regs inspector sign it off. Corporate manslaughter.


It's not the supplier's responsibility really to govern this. You place an order for a certain number of panels and they give them to you. If the contractor then puts them where they were not supposed to go then he will pay the price.

Lots of blame to go around here if the regulations state that explicitly.


The architects are f**ked.

If the builders (contractor or subcontractor) new they were prohibited on hih rise buildigs and didnt say anything, then theyre f**ked too.


Not if the cladding had the appropriate certificate. as it appears it did. My prediction is no one will go to prison as it's an EU f++k up. But time will tell. Richard may be wrong. Its shouldn't be too hard to find out though


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:12 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13686
Location: XPAT CUNT
[quote="Silver"][/quote]

Your desperation to blame this on the EU is quite sad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10620
Rumham wrote:
theo wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
We know the panels were approved it's just Hammond said not over 18m high.

:thumbup:

Quote:
Although Hammond said that the material used in the Grenfell Tower refurbishment, containing flammable polyethylene, was “banned” in the UK, a Treasury spokesman said later that what he meant was that it was banned for buildings of a certain height.

Hammond was referring to a statement issued by the department for communities at the end of last week when it was asked to clarify the legal position. It said: “Cladding using a composite aluminium panel with a polyethylene core would be non-compliant with current Building Regulations guidance. This material should not be used as cladding on buildings over 18m in height.”


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ip-hammond


Someone is going to prison. That is shocking. How the hell did the Council, project managers/architects, cladding supplier and contractor not know that? And how the hell did the Building regs inspector sign it off. Corporate manslaughter.


It's not the supplier's responsibility really to govern this. You place an order for a certain number of panels and they give them to you. If the contractor then puts them where they were not supposed to go then he will pay the price.

Lots of blame to go around here if the regulations state that explicitly.


These aren't off the shelf items. They're made to order so yes they will have known and given it's there business they should also know the relevant country's building regs.

In terms of signing it off I've been reading that Blair loosened these rules. It's apparently largely self sign off now, Fire brigade isn't required to chip in with feedback and sign off either any more. How this happened is going to pull in a lot of people who are culpable to varying degrees.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10714
Zakar wrote:
Silver wrote:


Your desperation to blame this on the EU is quite sad.


I don't think people should throw mud at the Council or contractors if it's an EU f++k up. If this cladding panel was certified for this work etc then we should stand up for the council and contractors as a matter of decency. Not throw mud if they have followed all the regulations etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20466
Silver wrote:
Zakar wrote:
Silver wrote:


Your desperation to blame this on the EU is quite sad.


I don't think people should throw mud at the Council or contractors if it's an EU f++k up. If this cladding panel was certified for this work etc then we should stand up for the council and contractors as a matter of decency. Not throw mud if they have followed all the regulations etc.


You're an idiot. Piss off.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20466
Rumham wrote:
theo wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
We know the panels were approved it's just Hammond said not over 18m high.

:thumbup:

Quote:
Although Hammond said that the material used in the Grenfell Tower refurbishment, containing flammable polyethylene, was “banned” in the UK, a Treasury spokesman said later that what he meant was that it was banned for buildings of a certain height.

Hammond was referring to a statement issued by the department for communities at the end of last week when it was asked to clarify the legal position. It said: “Cladding using a composite aluminium panel with a polyethylene core would be non-compliant with current Building Regulations guidance. This material should not be used as cladding on buildings over 18m in height.”


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ip-hammond


Someone is going to prison. That is shocking. How the hell did the Council, project managers/architects, cladding supplier and contractor not know that? And how the hell did the Building regs inspector sign it off. Corporate manslaughter.


It's not the supplier's responsibility really to govern this. You place an order for a certain number of panels and they give them to you. If the contractor then puts them where they were not supposed to go then he will pay the price.

Lots of blame to go around here if the regulations state that explicitly.


Yes that's a fair point, though you'd hope there would be some warning labelling that comes with the panels.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 33599
Location: Planet Rock
theo wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
We know the panels were approved it's just Hammond said not over 18m high.

:thumbup:

Quote:
Although Hammond said that the material used in the Grenfell Tower refurbishment, containing flammable polyethylene, was “banned” in the UK, a Treasury spokesman said later that what he meant was that it was banned for buildings of a certain height.

Hammond was referring to a statement issued by the department for communities at the end of last week when it was asked to clarify the legal position. It said: “Cladding using a composite aluminium panel with a polyethylene core would be non-compliant with current Building Regulations guidance. This material should not be used as cladding on buildings over 18m in height.”


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ip-hammond


Someone is going to prison. That is shocking. How the hell did the Council, project managers/architects, cladding supplier and contractor not know that? And how the hell did the Building regs inspector sign it off. Corporate manslaughter.


At this moment I'm not to bothered about if it was banned or not. These boards are obviously unsafe so why is it they were used on that building yet the neighbouring council had used more expensive fire resistant boards on it's buildings that were being refurbished at the same time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20466
Silver wrote:

Not if the cladding had the appropriate certificate. as it appears it did. My prediction is no one will go to prison as it's an EU f++k up. But time will tell. Richard may be wrong. Its shouldn't be too hard to find out though


You're an idiot. Piss off.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:07 pm
Posts: 6587
Silver wrote:
Not if the cladding had the appropriate certificate. as it appears it did. My prediction is no one will go to prison as it's an EU f++k up. But time will tell. Richard may be wrong. Its shouldn't be too hard to find out though


You have no idea how building works so just stop it ffs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10714
theo wrote:
Silver wrote:
Zakar wrote:
Silver wrote:


Your desperation to blame this on the EU is quite sad.


I don't think people should throw mud at the Council or contractors if it's an EU f++k up. If this cladding panel was certified for this work etc then we should stand up for the council and contractors as a matter of decency. Not throw mud if they have followed all the regulations etc.


You're an idiot. Piss off.


Why? Do you want to have a pop at the council or contractors etc. If so it makes you a complete and utter prick. I look at the facts before I do this. and based on the facts I have posted above it looks to me like they might not be to blame

But let throw mud and put the boot in anyway


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:07 pm
Posts: 6587
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
Rumham wrote:
theo wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
We know the panels were approved it's just Hammond said not over 18m high.

:thumbup:

Quote:
Although Hammond said that the material used in the Grenfell Tower refurbishment, containing flammable polyethylene, was “banned” in the UK, a Treasury spokesman said later that what he meant was that it was banned for buildings of a certain height.

Hammond was referring to a statement issued by the department for communities at the end of last week when it was asked to clarify the legal position. It said: “Cladding using a composite aluminium panel with a polyethylene core would be non-compliant with current Building Regulations guidance. This material should not be used as cladding on buildings over 18m in height.”


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ip-hammond


Someone is going to prison. That is shocking. How the hell did the Council, project managers/architects, cladding supplier and contractor not know that? And how the hell did the Building regs inspector sign it off. Corporate manslaughter.


It's not the supplier's responsibility really to govern this. You place an order for a certain number of panels and they give them to you. If the contractor then puts them where they were not supposed to go then he will pay the price.

Lots of blame to go around here if the regulations state that explicitly.


These aren't off the shelf items. They're made to order so yes they will have known and given it's there business they should also know the relevant country's building regs.

In terms of signing it off I've been reading that Blair loosened these rules. It's apparently largely self sign off now, Fire brigade isn't required to chip in with feedback and sign off either any more. How this happened is going to pull in a lot of people who are culpable to varying degrees.


They are off the shelf products. There is no logic to custom making these or else they would cost about 200 quid a panel. They are mass produced items and you just order them as specced on the drawings you received for tender.

Edit: they will be manufactured once you order them but they are standard products and act the same as an off the shelf item does - nothing is changed for specs. You ask for 1,000 panels and you get a 1,00 panels. It would not be unusual for no questions to be asked beyond what are the payment and delivery terms.


Last edited by Rumham on Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15223
TheDocForgotHisLogon wrote:
ID2 wrote:
Article in the Guardian says several European countries recently changed their safety standards to ban combustible material, I wonder how they can change their laws but Britain can't.


Also says the there's 2 types of cladding produced by the company, the cheaper one for £22 per square meter, or £24 for a fire resistant version

So if the building is 60m x 20m x 20m then the area in question is 24,000m2 and sometimes decided to put flammable cladding up to save less than 50k.

Fcuk me.


£9600 saving.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10714
Rumham wrote:
Silver wrote:
Not if the cladding had the appropriate certificate. as it appears it did. My prediction is no one will go to prison as it's an EU f++k up. But time will tell. Richard may be wrong. Its shouldn't be too hard to find out though


You have no idea how building works so just stop it ffs.


I have posted an article above written by an EU expert

Too many just want to have a pop at the council or contractors


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10714
fatcat wrote:
TheDocForgotHisLogon wrote:
ID2 wrote:
Article in the Guardian says several European countries recently changed their safety standards to ban combustible material, I wonder how they can change their laws but Britain can't.


Also says the there's 2 types of cladding produced by the company, the cheaper one for £22 per square meter, or £24 for a fire resistant version

So if the building is 60m x 20m x 20m then the area in question is 24,000m2 and sometimes decided to put flammable cladding up to save less than 50k.

Fcuk me.


£9600 saving.


But did the contractors know of the fire risk. Or assume that if they were certified for this type of job (and what I have posted above it seems they were) they were OK

To me we should wait to find out if the cladding was certified for this job or not before throwing mud.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:07 pm
Posts: 6587
Silver wrote:
Rumham wrote:
Silver wrote:
Not if the cladding had the appropriate certificate. as it appears it did. My prediction is no one will go to prison as it's an EU f++k up. But time will tell. Richard may be wrong. Its shouldn't be too hard to find out though


You have no idea how building works so just stop it ffs.


I have posted an article above written by an EU expert

Too many just want to have a pop at the council or contractors


Is he a building expert? Because that is the only items relevant here. How have the panels been applied and whether this breaches local regulations or not which can only be set by the UK.

It appears they have been used for high rise construction when it was clearly stated this was not allowed so the issue is now with those who designed and installed the project. Or with the contractor who possibly replaced other materials specced with these cheaper panels. It really is that simple.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 33599
Location: Planet Rock
theo wrote:
Rumham wrote:
theo wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
We know the panels were approved it's just Hammond said not over 18m high.

:thumbup:

Quote:
Although Hammond said that the material used in the Grenfell Tower refurbishment, containing flammable polyethylene, was “banned” in the UK, a Treasury spokesman said later that what he meant was that it was banned for buildings of a certain height.

Hammond was referring to a statement issued by the department for communities at the end of last week when it was asked to clarify the legal position. It said: “Cladding using a composite aluminium panel with a polyethylene core would be non-compliant with current Building Regulations guidance. This material should not be used as cladding on buildings over 18m in height.”


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ip-hammond


Someone is going to prison. That is shocking. How the hell did the Council, project managers/architects, cladding supplier and contractor not know that? And how the hell did the Building regs inspector sign it off. Corporate manslaughter.


It's not the supplier's responsibility really to govern this. You place an order for a certain number of panels and they give them to you. If the contractor then puts them where they were not supposed to go then he will pay the price.

Lots of blame to go around here if the regulations state that explicitly.


Yes that's a fair point, though you'd hope there would be some warning labelling that comes with the panels.
I find it hard to believe experienced contractors wouldn't know the rules and what the consequences would be if they put the wrong cladding up and did not install/properly install cavity barriers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10620
Rumham wrote:

They are off the shelf products. There is no logic to custom making these or else they would cost about 200 quid a panel. They are mass produced items and you just order them as specced on the drawings you received for tender.


Of course they're made to order they've got to fit right they don't have 1,000s of sizes sitting around, and of course buildings aren't perfect and move with age so the panels at the top might be a few mm off the panels at the bottom. They're not complicated and cutting, shaping of the sheets will all be done by machine.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10714
Rumham wrote:
Silver wrote:
Rumham wrote:
Silver wrote:
Not if the cladding had the appropriate certificate. as it appears it did. My prediction is no one will go to prison as it's an EU f++k up. But time will tell. Richard may be wrong. Its shouldn't be too hard to find out though


You have no idea how building works so just stop it ffs.


I have posted an article above written by an EU expert

Too many just want to have a pop at the council or contractors


Is he a building expert? Because that is the only items relevant here. How have the panels been applied and whether this breaches local regulations or not which can only be set by the UK.

It appears they have been used for high rise construction when it was clearly stated this was not allowed so the issue is now with those who designed and installed the project. Or with the contractor who possibly replaced other materials specced with these cheaper panels. It really is that simple.


Agree. and Richard has looked into this matter and believes they clearly were certified for this job. So based on this it stopped me criticizing the council or contractors. until I read clear evidnece otherwsie


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:09 pm
Posts: 920
There are a couple of very informative comments from architects in response to the following article :

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/grenfell-towe ... 61.article

Quote:
However, for buildings greater that 18m tall (and as referred to previously) the cladding/insulation materials should be of limited combustibility – Table A7 defines this as:

a. Any non-combustible material listed in Table A6 (which doesn’t include polyethylene);
b. Any material of density 300/kg/m’ or more, which when tested to BS 476-11:1982, does not flame and the rise in temperature on the furnace thermocouple is not more than 20ºC;
c. Any material with a non-combustible core at least 8mm thick having combustible facings (on one or both sides) not more than 0.5mm thick. (Where a flame spread rating is specified, these materials must also meet the appropriate test requirements);
d. Any material of density less than 300kg/m3, which when tested to BS 476-11:1982, does not flame for more than 10 seconds and the rise in temperature on the centre (specimen) thermocouple is not more than 35°C and on the furnace thermocouple is not more than 25ºC.

Or, meet the requirements/criteria of thermal insulation for walls of multi storey buildings (BR 135) for cladding systems using full scale test data from BS 8414-1:2002 or BS 8414-2:2005. The testing criteria includes:

a) extent of flame spread over the surface of the cladding system (both vertically and horizontally);
b) extent of flame spread and damage within any intermediate layers (both vertically and horizontally);
c) estimate of any flame spread and damage within the cavity, if present, (both vertically and horizontally);
d) extent to which the external face of the cladding system has burnt away or become detached;
e) details of any collapse or partial collapse of the cladding system.

So for the use of this particular cladding to not contravene of Building Regulations requirements, I understand that the above standards would also need to have been met for this particular use (building more than 18m tall).

I don’t see how a polyethylene core panel could have met these requirements. Also, does it not beg the question why the manufacturer/supplier would offer/produce a “less flammable” version if the standard Polyethylene product could suffice.

The use of this particular cladding on this particular building is surely a question for whomever (multiple) specified, justified and approved the use of the product assuming it was considered as part of the Building Regulations application
.


Quote:
ArchitectureScribble | 17 June 2017 0:07 am

There are multiple factors that seem inadequate or illogical to me within the building design of Grenville Tower and it's refurbishment and regarding fire escape strategies. Whether the Building Regulations have been met or not. Maintenance Issues: 1. The Dry Risers did not function & so the Fire Brigade could not connect to mains water at high level under pressure to fight the fire from inside the building. 2. No central fire alarm system appears to have been set off - from tenants reports. Was there a central fire alarm system hard wired throughout the building? Refurbishment & Retrofit Issues: 1. There was no sprinkler system. So far fire experts are saying this would have saved lives and reduced the spread of fire or extinguished it, at least inside the building. 2. Did all flats have 1 hour fire doors onto the escape route with adequate door closers? Did some tenants remove closers to the front doors to apartments? Because the question should be asked - how did the fire spread to the stairwell as it appears to have done? 3. There appears to have been no smoke extraction system within the stairwell - why not - especially as it was the only escape route? 4. The Cladding: Other comments here seem to suggest that the cladding system did not meet the Building Regulations Part B for buildings above 18m in height. Celotex claim that their insulation product smoulders but does not burn. In my experience this is not true. It will ignite at a high temperature. It burns with thick black toxic smoke. OSB (the assumed backing board) is compressed timber shavings or sawdust created into board using resin. Resin is flamable. OSB also has a petroleum based coating as a moisture barrier and therefore doubly presents a spread of flame risk. Aluminium - the assumed outer cladding does ignite and a relatively low temperatures for a metal - this was evidenced in the burning of ships bombed during the Falklands War. 5. Looking at footage of the flame spread it certainly looks as if fire stopping was absent in places although much of it was in place (from photos of the burned out panels this looks like a Rockwool type product such as Conlit). 6. The fire spread appears to have been driven by the prevailing wind - hence this plus other factors such as the chimney effect through the cavity - caused rapid spread of flame.7. Aluminium burns and this must have ignited the window frames in some cases. 8. A new gas main was allegedly being fitted within the stairwell, which was also the only escape route. This is a potential fire hazard. Fire Escape Strategy Issues: 1. Is ONE escape route really sufficient in a multi-storey residential block with a high number of residents? I think the Building Regulations should be revised and a requirement for more than one escape route in relation to the number of people escaping and as an alternative way out of high buildings should be legislated for. 2. The 'stay-put' policy has always concerned me. I have never agreed with it unless in a hospital situation with intensive care patients who cannot be moved. In the event of a fire the building should be evacuated and muster points should be allocated in the surrounding area. This would also allow people to be accounted for. 3. There should be fire drills. Morgan Stanley successfully evacuated all of their staff plus visitors from the Twin Towers because they were well drilled and because staff escaped in pairs holding hands, so that no one was left behind. 4. Was there a fire warden system? This is not only a safety measure but it helps the community to take control of their own safety in an fire and would also help to ensure escape routes were kept clear of debris and rubbish. My points simply amount to saying that multiple factors need to be addressed to ensure the safety of all residential tower blocks. Certainly no combustible material or polystyrene based materials should be fitted to the exteriors - only materials that resist fire and prevent surface spread of flame. I also question the need for a cavity within external insulated cladding panels and this needs discussion vis a vis the need to account for dew point in an external situation.


Last edited by armchair pundit on Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15223
Silver wrote:
fatcat wrote:
TheDocForgotHisLogon wrote:
ID2 wrote:
Article in the Guardian says several European countries recently changed their safety standards to ban combustible material, I wonder how they can change their laws but Britain can't.


Also says the there's 2 types of cladding produced by the company, the cheaper one for £22 per square meter, or £24 for a fire resistant version

So if the building is 60m x 20m x 20m then the area in question is 24,000m2 and sometimes decided to put flammable cladding up to save less than 50k.

Fcuk me.


£9600 saving.


But did the contractors know of the fire risk. Or assume that if they were certified for this type of job (and what I have posted above it seems they were) they were OK

To me we should wait to find out if the cladding was certified for this job or not before throwing mud.


I'm not throwing mud. I'm pointing out that Doc calculated volume and not surface area, and that the saving based on his figures was under ten grand.

On the contracting side I would imagine you'd have to be particularly ignorant not to know that there is a fire resistant version and a non fire resistant version.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 33599
Location: Planet Rock
Silver wrote:
fatcat wrote:
TheDocForgotHisLogon wrote:
ID2 wrote:
Article in the Guardian says several European countries recently changed their safety standards to ban combustible material, I wonder how they can change their laws but Britain can't.


Also says the there's 2 types of cladding produced by the company, the cheaper one for £22 per square meter, or £24 for a fire resistant version

So if the building is 60m x 20m x 20m then the area in question is 24,000m2 and sometimes decided to put flammable cladding up to save less than 50k.

Fcuk me.


£9600 saving.


But did the contractors know of the fire risk. Or assume that if they were certified for this type of job (and what I have posted above it seems they were) they were OK

To me we should wait to find out if the cladding was certified for this job or not before throwing mud.

So you wouldn't criticise a school for feeding your child crushed razor blades if they told you the regulations said it was OK


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1820 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 ... 46  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BBB, bimboman, Bing [Bot], Brumby_in_Vic, canine, CarrotGawks, Cartman, Chilli, CrazyIslander, de_Selby, englishchief, Farva, Flametop, Flockwitt, frillage, Google Adsense [Bot], hermie, houtkabouter, iarmhiman, jinxed, jolindien, Leinsterman, MungoMan, Pat the Ex Mat, PCPhil, Sandstorm, shortbutlong, Ulsters Red Hand, UncleFB, Wendigo7, Willie Falloon, YOYO, Zakar and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group