It is reminiscent of the fire in Dubai a couple of years back where the fire seemed to run wild up the outside of the building, using the cladding.
Around 9 this morning the page content was gone. I followed a link from google and while the link existed the content pane was empty and "Grenfell Tower" was missing from the list of refurbishment projects. I checked carefully as I was surprised it was gone. The google cache link was similarly empty and reported it was last refreshed 7 something am this morning.
the fire alarm didn't go off- someone's responsible for that, although more likely the maintenance rather than refurbishment side of things.
Indeed management issues and construction issues are completely separate. By law though they have to be tested every 6 months IIRC. Some eye witnesses on Sky have suggested that there have been management issues with things being left in communal corridors etc.
As bad as the people managing the building might be, dumping a mattress in a communal area is not really their fault. Some of the stuff on that blog seems tenuous at best.
Apparently survivors are being found inside. Barricaded themselves in and used wet clothes to seal gaps around doors.
true, the refurb company has to answer to the spread of the fire, especially this cladding issue, although as you say they could well have followed code properly on that one.
That's some good initiative, must have been absolutely terrifying, this scenario certainly figures quite low on my list of preferred ways to go out. I can only hope that the death toll is lower than the videos made it seem.
Aye. I worked on something very similar to this in Melton Mowbray at the PERA headquarters where we over clad a late 50's concrete frame and spandrel paneled tower block with ACM. Everything was done on an aluminum helping hand bracket system that was resin anchored back into the main structure. I've heard people say that some of these were hung on timber battens but I would question that to be honest. It was several years ago but I seem to remember some cavity barriers were required in within the void behind the rain screen at that time I think the only option was to use an Alucabond material which was and is fire retardant (its what most of the facade companies imported, but there's so many products on the market these days its probable that there is all sorts of rubbish out there.
It is, its communal living they are responsible for up keep to ensure one resident does not put another at risk. Basics
I actually gasped - someone caught a baby from the 9th floor - people jumping from 16th and 17th Amazing how fight/flight kicks in when something this threatening happens!
Not looking forward to hear the number that have sadly lost their lives.. I can sense this being a very large loss of life.
Regardless whether building regs were complied with, prosecutions can be brought under CDM Regs if it is deemed reasonably foreseeable that fire could spread on the outside of the building due to the cladding. As this has happend elsewhere with this type of cladding the reasonably foreseeable condition is very likely met. If it is the cladding that is found to be at fault then those with design responsibility could be in serious trouble.
we'll have to see what the investigation comes up with on that one, but if it was then hopefully as you say the people responsible will have to answer for it. do we have any reason to suspect negligence with the refurb? if this kind of cladding is standard enough practice. edit: i mean that in terms of we have the campaign group claiming the management company is crooked
It is all speculation at the moment. My point is just that "we complied with the regs mate" cannot necessarily be used as a defence in law.
