Planet Rugby Forum

The cheaper version apparently reflects heat from the sun and keeps heat in the building - used correctly and this appears not to have been - it is OK. If you want totally fireproof you cannot have timber framed buildings.

Hard to tell which cladding is safe or flammable - NZ contractor

16/06/2017
Matthew Hutching

Councils around New Zealand are being asked to check the cladding on high-rise buildings after a devastating fire tore through a London apartment block.

The tower had an aluminium composite cladding. The material has been blamed for several building fires around the world, including the 2015 Docklands blaze in Melbourne.

ACM (Aluminium Composite Material) also known as ACP (Aluminium Composite Panel) is not prevalent in New Zealand, Minister for Building and Construction Nick Smith told The AM Show on Friday.

He couldn't say how long the product has been used here.

ACP in NZ for decades

But a New Zealand cladding company told Newshub aluminium composite panels have been used on buildings here since the 1980s, and possibly earlier.

The company, which didn't want to be named, told Newshub it only uses fire-rated ACP cladding with a mineral core, but says there has been a lot of lower-cost, non-fire-rated material used in the industry.

The lower-cost material often has flammable polyethylene in its core, which is what was in Grenfell Tower's cladding.

But it's hard to tell the difference between that and the fire-rated mineral-core ACP, unless samples are taken and tested.

Dr Smith said: "With the significant fires that occurred in Melbourne and Dubai in multi-storey high-rise buildings we made decision on January 1 this year to prohibit the use of these sorts of combustible cladding products [on buildings over two storeys tall]."

London fire: Could it happen in New Zealand?

Councils to check buildings

Dr Smith said the advice he's had is that it's unlikely the cladding has been used in New Zealand on high-rises, but he has asked officials to check with main city councils to see if any newly-constructed buildings have used it.

"This composite aluminium product's only been around for a few years, and so it's unlikely it's been used on old buildings, unless it's a refurbishment."

The Grenfell Tower was an older building that had its cladding recently refurbished.

"It's relatively modern building material - it is suitable for low-rise buildings, it is not suitable for high-rise; that's why we moved on January 1 and banned it," says Dr Smith.

"I think there'll be tough questions in Britain as part of the inquiry as to why other jurisdictions like New Zealand banned this product, but it was allowed in the UK."

Fire engineer Stuart Harris told The AM Show there will be some taller buildings in New Zealand with the cladding, "but I think the big picture is the cladding is not the problem itself".

Systems 'more important' than cladding

"Fire safety of the building is a combined thing it's about the cladding that's on the building but more importantly it's on the systems."

If high-rise buildings with the combustible product are found, Dr Smith said fire engineers will investigate and advise on safety modifications.

"It's not just one line of defence. I'm advised there's not a single building in New Zealand where people are advised to stay in the building [this was reportedly the advice in the Grenfell Tower]. The consistent advice in New Zealand is 'evacuate'.

"Secondly, we have far stricter requirements in terms of sprinklers - that was absent from that Grenfell building."

He says he's looking at tougher requirements for New Zealand high-rise buildings around access for fire engines and firefighters, and access to water.

'Application of cladding just as important as cladding itself'

Engineering experts say it is difficult to gauge exactly how many buildings in Australia might have inflammable cladding installed in an unsafe way.

"It's a material that's quite commonly used," Victorian president of Engineers Australia Chris Stoltz said.

"I wouldn't be surprised if there are scores of buildings in each capital city and maybe in some of the regional cities as well."

Mr Stoltz said the Senate committee hearing would be a "useful exercise" but warned the Government not to focus too narrowly on the type of materials used.

"The application of the cladding is just as important as the cladding itself," he said.

Mr Stoltz said the Grenfell building was engulfed so quickly because the design of the cladding gave the fire a path both up and around the building.

In contrast, the cladding on the Lacrosse building only offered the fire a vertical path up the building.

"Ultimately it's not all about the cladding. It's about making sure that our buildings are constructed in accordance with their design," he said.

"It could be there are other reasons a building doesn't conform [with the code], it's not just about fire.

"And I think we need to broaden our horizons a little and look at systemic issues about ensuring buildings are compliant."

Industry Minister Arthur Sinodinos told the Senate that Australian regulators were in touch with their UK counterparts about the Grenfell disaster.

He said Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull would write to premiers and chief ministers, urging them to make sure new buildings meet Australia's safety standards.

"We implore all states and territories to enforce compliance with the national construction code," Senator Sinodinos said.

Meanwhile, a company involved in the renovation of the tower was forced to deny cladding on the building was banned in the UK after comments made by Chancellor Phillip Hammond.

It was reported that the material used in the cladding covering Grenfell was Reynobond PE – a cheaper, more flammable version of two available options.

Appearing on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, Mr Hammond said: “My understanding is the cladding in question, this flammable cladding which is banned in Europe and the US, is also banned here.”

John Cowley, managing director of CEP Architectural Facades, which produced rainscreen panels and windows for Grenfell Tower’s cladding sub-contractor Harley Facades Ltd, said: “Reynobond PE is not banned in the UK.

“Current building regulations allow its use in both low-rise and high-rise structures.

“The key question now is whether the overall design of the building’s complete exterior was properly tested and subsequently signed off by the relevant authorities including the fire officer, building compliance officer and architect before commencement of the project.”

c69 wrote:

camroc1 wrote:

theo wrote:

Jake wrote:

theo wrote:They value engineered the arse out of it, that's for sure.

Theo, in the world of euphemisms this phrase is one of the most misguided of all as you and I both know the real meaning.

Quite. Nothing of value is left.

Pushing design liability down to the bottom most feeder in the chain is a very short term position to take in an industry that is noted for very long tails.

When deregulation "value for money" and destroying the health and safety culture is of uttermost importance then it's no wonder things go wrong.
Oh and be well aware Health and Safety has been demonised by certain sections in the UK.

theo wrote:
I don't that is entirely fair on the construction industry. It is probably one of the most H&S conscious industries out there. Particularly on major projects.

I thin the issue here is that the regulations had loopholes that meant that these panels could be used on high buildings. Clearly that was an error.

Jake wrote:

Petros wrote:Cheap council tax in Kensington & Chelsea anyway

Band Range of Values
RBKC Council Tax

GLA Tax Total Council Tax
A up to and including £40,000 £521.33 £186.68 £708.01
B £40,001 to £52,000 £608.22 £217.79 £826.01
C £52,001 to £68,000 £695.11 £248.91 £944.02
D £68,001 to £88,000 £782.00 £280.02 £1062.02
E £88,001 to £120,000 £955.78 £342.25 £1298.03
F £120,001 to £160,000 £1129.56 £404.47 £1534.03
G £160,001 to £320,000 £1303.33 £466.70 £1770.03
H over £320,000 £1564.00 £560.04 £2124.04

I would suggest that nothing really falls into A to G anyway.

Jake wrote:

Petros wrote:Cheap council tax in Kensington & Chelsea anyway

Band Range of Values
RBKC Council Tax

GLA Tax Total Council Tax
A up to and including £40,000 £521.33 £186.68 £708.01
B £40,001 to £52,000 £608.22 £217.79 £826.01
C £52,001 to £68,000 £695.11 £248.91 £944.02
D £68,001 to £88,000 £782.00 £280.02 £1062.02
E £88,001 to £120,000 £955.78 £342.25 £1298.03
F £120,001 to £160,000 £1129.56 £404.47 £1534.03
G £160,001 to £320,000 £1303.33 £466.70 £1770.03
H over £320,000 £1564.00 £560.04 £2124.04

I would suggest that nothing really falls into A to G anyway.

Silver wrote:

theo wrote:
I don't that is entirely fair on the construction industry. It is probably one of the most H&S conscious industries out there. Particularly on major projects.

I thin the issue here is that the regulations had loopholes that meant that these panels could be used on high buildings. Clearly that was an error.

Why would these panels be allowed on low rise building?

RodneyRegis wrote:

Silver wrote:

theo wrote:
I don't that is entirely fair on the construction industry. It is probably one of the most H&S conscious industries out there. Particularly on major projects.

I thin the issue here is that the regulations had loopholes that meant that these panels could be used on high buildings. Clearly that was an error.

Why would these panels be allowed on low rise building?

Why are timber frames still allowed on houses?

Silver wrote:

theo wrote:
I don't that is entirely fair on the construction industry. It is probably one of the most H&S conscious industries out there. Particularly on major projects.

I thin the issue here is that the regulations had loopholes that meant that these panels could be used on high buildings. Clearly that was an error.

Why would these panels be allowed on low rise building?

c69 wrote: Oh and be well aware Health and Safety has been demonised by certain sections in the UK.

Silver wrote:

RodneyRegis wrote:

Silver wrote:

theo wrote:
I don't that is entirely fair on the construction industry. It is probably one of the most H&S conscious industries out there. Particularly on major projects.

I thin the issue here is that the regulations had loopholes that meant that these panels could be used on high buildings. Clearly that was an error.

Why would these panels be allowed on low rise building?

Why are timber frames still allowed on houses?

If you had two types of timber. one fire resistant and one not for almost the same price and ease of manufacturing / growing. It would be a good question.

Sandstorm wrote:Timber frame houses are built for the look. Fire safety comes waaay down the list.

Silver wrote:

theo wrote:
I don't that is entirely fair on the construction industry. It is probably one of the most H&S conscious industries out there. Particularly on major projects.

I thin the issue here is that the regulations had loopholes that meant that these panels could be used on high buildings. Clearly that was an error.

Why would these panels be allowed on low rise building?

Sandstorm wrote:Timber frame houses are built for the look. Fire safety comes waaay down the list.

Torquemada 1420 wrote:

Sandstorm wrote:Timber frame houses are built for the look. Fire safety comes waaay down the list.

Whaaaat? Timber is used safely and successfully all over the world.

Fire Retardant Cladding
Protection from fire
Fire Resistant Solutions for Timber Cladding
Protecting against the threat of fire is one of the most critical elements of any new build and, for projects such as schools and educational buildings, UK building regulations may stipulate that the timber cladding must be treated with a fire retardant.

Torquemada 1420 wrote:

c69 wrote: Oh and be well aware Health and Safety has been demonised by certain sections in the UK.

And rightly so because instead of dealing with the real issues, the morons employed in these sectors have elected to demonstrate that they are doing their jobs by issuing a string of requirements that do f**k all and are subject to derision.

Survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire are to be rehomed in a luxury housing development in the heart of Kensington, the government has said.
Sixty-eight one and two-bedroom flats have been acquired at the Kensington Row development, it added.
The apartments are "newly-built social housing" in a complex where the price of private homes starts at £1.5m.
At least 79 people died and many more were left homeless after fire engulfed the west London tower block a week ago.
The complex includes a 24-hour concierge service and a private cinema, the website of developer St Edward's says.
The Department for Communities and Local Government said extra public money had been found so the flats could be fitted out more quickly.
It said the "expectation is that these new properties will be offered as one of the options to permanently rehouse residents from Grenfell Tower"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40357280

Spoiler: show

Anonymous. wrote:

Survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire are to be rehomed in a luxury housing development in the heart of Kensington, the government has said.
Sixty-eight one and two-bedroom flats have been acquired at the Kensington Row development, it added.
The apartments are "newly-built social housing" in a complex where the price of private homes starts at £1.5m.
At least 79 people died and many more were left homeless after fire engulfed the west London tower block a week ago.
The complex includes a 24-hour concierge service and a private cinema, the website of developer St Edward's says.
The Department for Communities and Local Government said extra public money had been found so the flats could be fitted out more quickly.
It said the "expectation is that these new properties will be offered as one of the options to permanently rehouse residents from Grenfell Tower"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40357280

Spoiler: show

theo wrote:Great news. Interesting that the deal was brokered and paid for by the City of London Corporation who will hand them to K&C. £10m all in apparently. Flats ready by end of July.

Berkeley Home and M&G the developers. Tony Pidgeley is a legend.

Anonymous. wrote:

theo wrote:Great news. Interesting that the deal was brokered and paid for by the City of London Corporation who will hand them to K&C. £10m all in apparently. Flats ready by end of July.

Berkeley Home and M&G the developers. Tony Pidgeley is a legend.

I've been round that place. The part where the old tax office is complete but the bit where the old B&Q was is a long way off.

Anonymous. wrote:

theo wrote:Great news. Interesting that the deal was brokered and paid for by the City of London Corporation who will hand them to K&C. £10m all in apparently. Flats ready by end of July.

Berkeley Home and M&G the developers. Tony Pidgeley is a legend.

I've been round that place. The part where the old tax office is complete but the bit where the old B&Q was is a long way off.

happyhooker wrote:

Anonymous. wrote:

theo wrote:Great news. Interesting that the deal was brokered and paid for by the City of London Corporation who will hand them to K&C. £10m all in apparently. Flats ready by end of July.

Berkeley Home and M&G the developers. Tony Pidgeley is a legend.

I've been round that place. The part where the old tax office is complete but the bit where the old B&Q was is a long way off.

Jesus, someone's acting quickly. The call has already gone out for subbies. At this notice some people's rates are going to be quite high.

theo wrote:

Anonymous. wrote:

theo wrote:Great news. Interesting that the deal was brokered and paid for by the City of London Corporation who will hand them to K&C. £10m all in apparently. Flats ready by end of July.

Berkeley Home and M&G the developers. Tony Pidgeley is a legend.

I've been round that place. The part where the old tax office is complete but the bit where the old B&Q was is a long way off.

I think the flats they are getting are in the completed bit. Big old site.

happyhooker wrote:

theo wrote:

Anonymous. wrote:

theo wrote:Great news. Interesting that the deal was brokered and paid for by the City of London Corporation who will hand them to K&C. £10m all in apparently. Flats ready by end of July.

Berkeley Home and M&G the developers. Tony Pidgeley is a legend.

I've been round that place. The part where the old tax office is complete but the bit where the old B&Q was is a long way off.

I think the flats they are getting are in the completed bit. Big old site.

See above, there's obviously some work left to do

theo wrote:

happyhooker wrote:

Anonymous. wrote:

theo wrote:Great news. Interesting that the deal was brokered and paid for by the City of London Corporation who will hand them to K&C. £10m all in apparently. Flats ready by end of July.

Berkeley Home and M&G the developers. Tony Pidgeley is a legend.

I've been round that place. The part where the old tax office is complete but the bit where the old B&Q was is a long way off.

Jesus, someone's acting quickly. The call has already gone out for subbies. At this notice some people's rates are going to be quite high.

Mobilisation! Apparently the Government is stumping up the cash to get them fitted out quickly.

theo wrote:

happyhooker wrote:

theo wrote:

Anonymous. wrote:

theo wrote:Great news. Interesting that the deal was brokered and paid for by the City of London Corporation who will hand them to K&C. £10m all in apparently. Flats ready by end of July.

Berkeley Home and M&G the developers. Tony Pidgeley is a legend.

I've been round that place. The part where the old tax office is complete but the bit where the old B&Q was is a long way off.

I think the flats they are getting are in the completed bit. Big old site.

See above, there's obviously some work left to do

I think just fitting out as they say finished by July.

Sandstorm wrote: I hope they have good locks, otherwise some SJWs will probably occupy them before they can be handed over.

Torquemada 1420 wrote:

Sandstorm wrote:Timber frame houses are built for the look. Fire safety comes waaay down the list.

Whaaaat? Timber is used safely and successfully all over the world.

RodneyRegis wrote:

Torquemada 1420 wrote:

Sandstorm wrote:Timber frame houses are built for the look. Fire safety comes waaay down the list.

Whaaaat? Timber is used safely and successfully all over the world.

Of course it is. The cladding is ok for low-rise buildings because if there's a fire, it can be put out. Same as with timber frames.

camroc1 wrote:

RodneyRegis wrote:

Torquemada 1420 wrote:

Sandstorm wrote:Timber frame houses are built for the look. Fire safety comes waaay down the list.

Whaaaat? Timber is used safely and successfully all over the world.

Of course it is. The cladding is ok for low-rise buildings because if there's a fire, it can be put out. Same as with timber frames.

On the whole fire regs for residential developments are based on getting people out safely rather than saving the building. Half hour fire resistance is sufficient for 2 storey development and one hour for 3 and above I low rise.

Commercial buildings tend to have sprinklers more as an insurance requirement than anything else.

Anonymous. wrote:

camroc1 wrote:

RodneyRegis wrote:

Torquemada 1420 wrote:

Sandstorm wrote:Timber frame houses are built for the look. Fire safety comes waaay down the list.

Whaaaat? Timber is used safely and successfully all over the world.

Of course it is. The cladding is ok for low-rise buildings because if there's a fire, it can be put out. Same as with timber frames.

On the whole fire regs for residential developments are based on getting people out safely rather than saving the building. Half hour fire resistance is sufficient for 2 storey development and one hour for 3 and above I low rise.

Commercial buildings tend to have sprinklers more as an insurance requirement than anything else.

Two tower blocks that have had that kind of cladding have been all but enveloped in flames within 15 minutes.

camroc1 wrote:

Anonymous. wrote:

camroc1 wrote: On the whole fire regs for residential developments are based on getting people out safely rather than saving the building. Half hour fire resistance is sufficient for 2 storey development and one hour for 3 and above I low rise.

Commercial buildings tend to have sprinklers more as an insurance requirement than anything else.

Two tower blocks that have had that kind of cladding have been all but enveloped in flames within 15 minutes.

Indeed. I,m not sure what point you're trying to make.

theo wrote:Great news. Interesting that the deal was brokered and paid for by the City of London Corporation who will hand them to K&C. £10m all in apparently. Flats ready by end of July.

Berkeley Home and M&G the developers. Tony Pidgeley is a legend.

Openside wrote:

theo wrote:Great news. Interesting that the deal was brokered and paid for by the City of London Corporation who will hand them to K&C. £10m all in apparently. Flats ready by end of July.

Berkeley Home and M&G the developers. Tony Pidgeley is a legend.

The houses won't be starting at 1.5M anymore!!!

Newsome wrote:I don't understand how a house can be allocated as "Social Housing" and be on the market for 1.5 million?