Chat Forum
It is currently Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:50 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1604 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 ... 41  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 30160
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: 9768
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: 732
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: 13240
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: 30160
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  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 30160
Location: Planet Rock
4 year old video from France. Cladding with the same core :( :(



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yQLIlIetDM


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10714
Anonymous. wrote:
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


I wouldn't criticize a school for feeding my children a food product that was certified as fit for their consumption. and the school had no reason to believe otherwise

This may be the case here and likely is. If I was choosing a cladding i would research it all in depth. But many haven't the time, ability or enthusiasm to do this. they just trust that others have and rely on the certificates given.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39190
Anonymous. wrote:
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


Seriously? :? that is the equivalence you are going with


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2013 10:41 am
Posts: 2507
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.

Yeah, you're right. 60 x 20 x 4. :blush:

That really is astonishing. Points less to some corruption-for-gain and more to a cultural thing of just not giving a shit about a certain part of the community.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 26760
Anonymous. wrote:
4 year old video from France. Cladding with the same core :( :(



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yQLIlIetDM


Terrifying stuff. Has to be a criminal prosecution here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2013 10:41 am
Posts: 2507
Anonymous. wrote:
4 year old video from France. Cladding with the same core :( :(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yQLIlIetDM

:shock: That goes from a flicker on the second floor or whatever to all 20 stories in one minute.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19084
In essence the guidance suggest not using combustible cladding panels, or, if you do, proving to the regulators that the system you intend to use (including fixings etc) will not create a fire risk.

Here are some useful links including the full certificate that Silver posted.

http://www.bbacerts.co.uk/CertificateFi ... 0PS1i1.pdf

https://www.allerdale.gov.uk/downloads/ ... ldings.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10714
TheDocForgotHisLogon 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.

Yeah, you're right. 60 x 20 x 4. :blush:

That really is astonishing. Points less to some corruption-for-gain and more to a cultural thing of just not giving a shit about a certain part of the community.


This si unfair.

If a contractor can buy two products that are both certified for a job why should they go for the more expensive one. UNLESS it can be proved that they knew of the fire risk.

Some do lots of research about these matters (I try to employ these types). Others don't. Some councils will have strict cost and time pressures imposed. Others won't.

That's why we have regulations. They must be well thought out and robust to cater for all situations.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 30160
Location: Planet Rock
Openside wrote:
Seriously? :? that is the equivalence you are going with


Yes. I take it you openside have no experience of DIY

I have different cladding boards at various prices to offer you for your DIY project. All of them from the same company and only the cheapest one has no fire retardant properties whatsover, but all are are passed as fit for use. Would it not be glaringly obvious to you as a DIY novice that you shouldn't be putting the cheap one on the walls of your house. Just as it should be glaring obvious crushed razor blades are not suitable to be fed to children no matter what the safety regs say.

Imagine looking at the different prices and seeing them get more expensive as they are more fire resistant. You can't tell me you would take the cheap one that says a bit fat ZERO


Last edited by Anonymous. on Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39190
Duff Paddy wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
4 year old video from France. Cladding with the same core :( :(



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yQLIlIetDM


Terrifying stuff. Has to be a criminal prosecution here.



Quite possibly but who?

If it is certified as safe to use you can't blame the builder(however much he was trying to save)
Surely the responsibility lies with the regulatory authority? You have to wonder if it was ever tested😐


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:09 pm
Posts: 732
Openside wrote:
Duff Paddy wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
4 year old video from France. Cladding with the same core :( :(



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yQLIlIetDM


Terrifying stuff. Has to be a criminal prosecution here.



Quite possibly but who?

If it is certified as safe to use you can't blame the builder(however much he was trying to save)
Surely the responsibility lies with the regulatory authority? You have to wonder if it was ever tested😐


Read previous page.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39190
Anonymous. wrote:
Openside wrote:
Seriously? :? that is the equivalence you are going with


Yes. I take it you openside have no experience of DIY

I have different cladding boards at various prices to offer you for your DIY project. All of them from the same company and only the cheapest one has no fire retardant properties whatsover, but all are are passed as fit for use. Would it not be glaringly obvious to you as a DIY novice that you shouldn't be putting the cheap one on the walls of your house. Just as it should be glaring obvious crushed razor blades are not suitable to be fed to children no matter what the safety regs say.



Sorry still doesn't work. Everyone is trying to save money particularly the DIYer or he would just pay someone else to do it.

A better analogy is renting a car there are all sorts of add on insurances you can go for from £500 excess to paying nothing if you fancy testing out the airbags. Most people back themselves not to damage the car and save money on the extra insurance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39190
armchair pundit wrote:
Openside wrote:
Duff Paddy wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
4 year old video from France. Cladding with the same core :( :(



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yQLIlIetDM


Terrifying stuff. Has to be a criminal prosecution here.



Quite possibly but who?

If it is certified as safe to use you can't blame the builder(however much he was trying to save)
Surely the responsibility lies with the regulatory authority? You have to wonder if it was ever tested😐


Read previous page.


Pages of either hand wringing or chest beating drivel? No
Thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 4904
Death toll has been revised up to 79


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 30160
Location: Planet Rock
Openside wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Openside wrote:
Seriously? :? that is the equivalence you are going with


Yes. I take it you openside have no experience of DIY

I have different cladding boards at various prices to offer you for your DIY project. All of them from the same company and only the cheapest one has no fire retardant properties whatsover, but all are are passed as fit for use. Would it not be glaringly obvious to you as a DIY novice that you shouldn't be putting the cheap one on the walls of your house. Just as it should be glaring obvious crushed razor blades are not suitable to be fed to children no matter what the safety regs say.



Sorry still doesn't work. Everyone is trying to save money particularly the DIYer or he would just pay someone else to do it.
:shock: :shock:
Trying to save money would mean not using the most expensive one. So let me get this straight you are saying if you were doing DIY to save money you would put the cheap one on the walls that house your children ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19084
Openside wrote:
Duff Paddy wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
4 year old video from France. Cladding with the same core :( :(



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yQLIlIetDM


Terrifying stuff. Has to be a criminal prosecution here.



Quite possibly but who?

If it is certified as safe to use you can't blame the builder(however much he was trying to save)
Surely the responsibility lies with the regulatory authority? You have to wonder if it was ever tested😐


This link is useful.

https://www.allerdale.gov.uk/downloads/ ... ldings.pdf

They need the design of the cladding system signed off so an inspector is going to be in trouble I'd guess. The panels on their own would not have been considered suitable.

I expect a wider review of the regulations will be required.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 30160
Location: Planet Rock
theo wrote:
Openside wrote:
Duff Paddy wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
4 year old video from France. Cladding with the same core :( :(



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yQLIlIetDM


Terrifying stuff. Has to be a criminal prosecution here.



Quite possibly but who?

If it is certified as safe to use you can't blame the builder(however much he was trying to save)
Surely the responsibility lies with the regulatory authority? You have to wonder if it was ever tested😐


This link is useful.

https://www.allerdale.gov.uk/downloads/ ... ldings.pdf

They need the design of the cladding system signed off so an inspector is going to be in trouble I'd guess. The panels on their own would not have been considered suitable.

I expect a wider review of the regulations will be required.

I would make you right on that


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 26760
Manufacturer sells two types of cladding - one basic and the other labelled as fire resistant, and it costs a litttle more. If you're cladding every external wall of a high rise building with known poor fire safety facilities, and you select the basic cladding over the fire resistant one, then yes that is criminal negligence in my view.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14087
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
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.

Are you sure?? It most cases they are standard and adapted on sitd

It's an odd one. Harley cladding seem to have done it to spec, but should have known the height limitations and questioned the spec. Too early to say but if that's true, they and whoever drew up the spec are fûcked.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10714
Duff Paddy wrote:
Manufacturer sells two types of cladding - one basic and the other labelled as fire resistant, and it costs a litttle more. If you're cladding every external wall of a high rise building with known poor fire safety facilities, and you select the basic cladding over the fire resistant one, then yes that is criminal negligence in my view.


If the cladding has been certified by the appropriate authorities as being ok to use for this type of job. I doubt if they would be guilty of criminal negligence. So it all comes back to whether it was certified for this type of job


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32626
Location: Hut 8
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.

Now we know why the council ring fenced this as a limited company.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39361
Torquemada 1420 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.

Now we know why the council ring fenced this as a limited company.



Well it was more the demands of the residents etc that the council weren't involved.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:07 pm
Posts: 4667
happyhooker wrote:
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
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.

Are you sure?? It most cases they are standard and adapted on sitd

It's an odd one. Harley cladding seem to have done it to spec, but should have known the height limitations and questioned the spec. Too early to say but if that's true, they and whoever drew up the spec are fûcked.


They are standard and cut to size on site. Jake had gone in detail how easy it is to cut these panels to fit the nooks and crannies of the building.

You really think they are going to custom cut panels for every single building design that comes through their door and charge you 22 quid a panel? They roll them out the door and the contractors make them work in situ.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14087
Rumham wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
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.

Are you sure?? It most cases they are standard and adapted on sitd

It's an odd one. Harley cladding seem to have done it to spec, but should have known the height limitations and questioned the spec. Too early to say but if that's true, they and whoever drew up the spec are fûcked.


They are standard and cut to size on site. Jake had gone in detail how easy it is to cut these panels to fit the nooks and crannies of the building.

You really think they are going to custom cut panels for every single building design that comes through their door and charge you 22 quid a panel? They roll them out the door and the contractors make them work in situ.

I think we may be agreeing???


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32626
Location: Hut 8
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
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.

Doubt it. As per other posters, these won't differ from bricks or tiles. You cover as optimally as you can and trim the remainder.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19307
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
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.


Are you suggesting that every required panel is individually measured beforehand, and each individual panel is cut to size before they are delivered for fitting?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:07 pm
Posts: 4667
happyhooker wrote:
Rumham wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
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.

Are you sure?? It most cases they are standard and adapted on sitd

It's an odd one. Harley cladding seem to have done it to spec, but should have known the height limitations and questioned the spec. Too early to say but if that's true, they and whoever drew up the spec are fûcked.


They are standard and cut to size on site. Jake had gone in detail how easy it is to cut these panels to fit the nooks and crannies of the building.

You really think they are going to custom cut panels for every single building design that comes through their door and charge you 22 quid a panel? They roll them out the door and the contractors make them work in situ.

I think we may be agreeing???


:thumbup:

Watching this is giving me some real concerns about the application of these panels in general. We have a tender submitted with a boat load of Kingspan panels and I have to admit watching that French fire video made me a little queasy. They are a different panel to this one and are FM approved but I'm thinking now rockwool is not such a bad option after all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10714
Interesting

https://disqus.com/by/RAENorth/
Quote:
Why don't you actually read the post and, where appropriate, click through and read some of the links? That's what their provided for.

The Agrément Certificate to which I refer attests that the product, when fitted in accordance with the Certificate provisions, conforms with the requirements of the UK Building Regulations.

Then, under the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 (to which I refer n the post), as long as the product can be lawfully marketed in one MS, no other MS may prohibit its sale (for the purpose intended) in their territories - not withstanding that a more rigorous code might apply to domestically marketed products.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 30160
Location: Planet Rock
bimboman wrote:
Torquemada 1420 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.

Now we know why the council ring fenced this as a limited company.



Well it was more the demands of the residents etc that the council weren't involved.


No it doesn't work like that anymore. KCTMO is not actually part of the council and it was always their job to get the works done. They just make sure they sub the work out. In their defence they would have had more money to spend on the refurbs had it not been for the government cuts in money for the decent homes project a few years ago.

Quote:
The Kensington and Chelsea Tenants Management Organisation (KCTMO) hired the construction firm Rydon as the lead contractor on the project, which included re-cladding the building with material that commentators allege could have been a factor in the fire’s rapid spread.

At least eight other contractors and sub-contractors were involved in separate elements of the refurbishment and materials used for the work.

Experts said this raised concerns about the supervision of such schemes, in part because local authorities no longer had full oversight as they did in the past.

Thomas Lane, editor of Building Design, said: “There was a time when local authorities had their own architecture departments, some of them quite famous. Nowadays it’s all done externally. You’ve got disparate people, design teams, surveyors, project managers, a whole army of people.”

Image


Last edited by Anonymous. on Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39361
Quote:
lways their job to get the works done. They just make sure they sub the work out. In their defence they would have had more money to spend on the refurbs had it not been for the government cuts in money for the decent homes project a few years ago



When did they cut that ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2013 10:41 am
Posts: 2507
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
lways their job to get the works done. They just make sure they sub the work out. In their defence they would have had more money to spend on the refurbs had it not been for the government cuts in money for the decent homes project a few years ago



When did they cut that ?

Lack of money's no defence. We saw above that the difference in cost between the two options was a total of $9,600.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 30160
Location: Planet Rock
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
lways their job to get the works done. They just make sure they sub the work out. In their defence they would have had more money to spend on the refurbs had it not been for the government cuts in money for the decent homes project a few years ago



When did they cut that ?


Your lot got into power in 2010
Quote:

Decent Homes cuts threaten workloads and apprenticeships


2 MARCH, 2011

Workloads and even apprenticeship places are under threat after local authorities were subjected to cuts to their Decent Homes budget this week.

Several bodies said they would have to reappraise their programmes, which provide improvements to sub-standard social housing, after they were faced with a shortfall of millions of pounds.

Nottingham City Homes had expected £91 million but said that now only £35m was secure with a further £46m provisional. The arms-length management organisation said the cuts would mean “major changes” to its Secure Warm Modern programme for homes in the city.

It also said its plans to expand apprenticeship schemes with contractor partners would be put at risk.

Chief executive Chris Langstaff said: “We are very disappointed that because of the reduced funding, we will not be able to finish our programme as we wanted.

“This is also a difficult time for our staff, our contract partners in the private sector and for the apprentices that we were hoping to develop as part of the scheme.”

Currently 75 apprentices are working towards trade qualifications alongside NCH’s Secure Warm Modern partner contractors. The original programme planned to increase this number in line with the expected funding, however this may now not be possible.

Homes for Haringey, the London borough’s housing Almo, also said it would talk with its partners about how to deliver its Decent Homes work more efficiently following a £28.6m reduction in funding for the programme.
https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/mark ... 20.article


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39361
Sorry inshouldmhave said "cut that for the Grenville towers" , then I wouldn't have to read about unrelated issues in Nottingham,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8287824.stm

Labour removed 150 mill in 2009.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19084
Silver wrote:
Interesting

https://disqus.com/by/RAENorth/
Quote:
Why don't you actually read the post and, where appropriate, click through and read some of the links? That's what their provided for.

The Agrément Certificate to which I refer attests that the product, when fitted in accordance with the Certificate provisions, conforms with the requirements of the UK Building Regulations.

Then, under the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 (to which I refer n the post), as long as the product can be lawfully marketed in one MS, no other MS may prohibit its sale (for the purpose intended) in their territories - not withstanding that a more rigorous code might apply to domestically marketed products.


Wrong. The regulations provide that this type of panel can only be used in buildings over 18m high if the proposed cladding system (panels, fixing etc) is tested and signed off by a registered inspector.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1604 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 ... 41  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], bleacher, comets, Da iawn diolch, Google Adsense [Bot], Jeff the Bear, MungoMan, rett, Wilderbeast 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