Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The flammable building cladding which helped turn Grenfell Tower into a blazing torch which killed at least 58 people on the 14th June this year may have been chosen in part due to its climate credentials.
Grenfell Tower cladding that may have led to fire was chosen to improve appearance of Kensington block of flats
Material would help make the flats look better from outside, planners noted
Andrew Griffin @_andrew_griffin Thursday 15 June 2017 08:59 BST
The cladding that might have led to the horrifying blaze at Grenfell Tower was added partly to improve its appearance.
During a refurbishment aimed at regeneration last year, cladding was added to the sides of the building to update its look. The cladding then seems to have helped the fire spread around the building, allowing it to destroy almost the entirety of the structure and kill people inside.
And that cladding – a low-cost way of improving the front of the building – was chosen in part so that the tower would look better when seen from the conservation areas and luxury flats that surround north Kensington, according to planning documents, as well as to insulate it.
…
A number of conditions were attached to the 2014 decision to approve the plan – many of which related specifically to the material used in the cladding, so that the council could ensure the “living conditions of those living near the development” were “suitably protected”.
The council noted that the cladding would also improve insulation, helping keep sound and cold out from the building, and improve ventilation. An environmental statement said that the “primary driver behind the refurbishment” was to address the insulation and air tightness.
“The reclad materials and new windows will represent a significant improvement to the environmental performance of the building and to its physical appearance,” the planning application reads. “The design of the scheme as a whole has fully considered policy requirements, expectations and aspirations, fully taking into consideration the immediate and wider surroundings, particularly focussing on creating a wider environment that works as a coherent place,” another part of the same document says.
That planning application concludes with a statement that “the development will provide significant improvements to the physical appearance of the Tower, as well as the environmental performance and the amenity of its residents”.
…
According to Wikipedia, the cladding used was a mixture of aluminium sheet and Aluminium coated Polyethylene. Polyethylene is a relatively good heat insulator – at least compared to Aluminium, which is a good heat conductor. Production of polyethylene is also much less carbon intensive than producing aluminium, so a sheet of cladding which contains Polyethylene is likely “greener” than a sheet of cladding made entirely of Aluminium.
But Polyethylene is highly flammable.
The type of cladding used on the Grenfell building is reportedly banned for use on tall structures in the USA, due to the fire risk.
I used to be involved with local government in the UK. During this time the council I was involved with was subject to relentless pressure from the UK national government to consider greenhouse gas emissions with every decision. Compliance was often rewarded with increased funding.
I am not suggesting that anyone deliberately sacrificed the safety of the Grenfell tower residents to earn a few points with national government. It is far more likely that whoever made the decision to use the flammable cladding had no idea the cladding presented a serious fire risk. But in my opinion it is possible that the Alumninium coated Polyethylene cladding was chosen in preference to pure Aluminium cladding, in part because the superior insulation properties of the Polyethylene and the more favourable carbon footprint of Polyethylene helped burnish the green credentials of the officers and politicians who made that decision.
Update (EW): Dr Jim Glockling, Technical Director of the Fire Protection Association, said the following in an interview about Grenfell;
…
“There has been an emerging body of evidence surrounding some of the materials being used and now we have an appalling demonstration of what can happen,” he said.
Alongside the cosmetic appeal of cladding, it is used as an insulation to make buildings more sustainable to meet green energy requirements.
“It could be that this is the quest for sustainability trumping other concerns,” Dr Glockling warned.
…
Even worse is the fact that the supplier of this material offers a slightly more expensive version with flame retardant added to the polyethylene. You can’t cure stupid…
Alucobond holds significant patents around the fire rated Aluminium cladding market and enforces it vigorously. You can buy a fire retarded cladding in China for a little bit more but try bringing it into a country which actively enforces patents and you will find yourself on the end of a patent infringement action.
When you cut to the chase if you look at why the importing company didn’t bring in the fire retarded version I am pretty sure that will be the reason for a few dollars in cost.
*NOT for a few dollars in cost.
‘Did UK Government Climate Mania Contribute to the Grenfell Tower Disaster?’
Of course it did. The only thing more certain than that will be the follow up efforts of warmists to whitewash away all culpability and responsibility for consequences.
I think there is a case to say that building regs are inappropriately skewed towards climate realted measures and not fir safety. Here’s my research:
Everyone has been shocked to the core by the images of the inferno that engulfed the Grenfell Tower, killing 58 people. Most were horrified by the suggestion in the Times that the cause of the fire might have been penny pinching on the type of cladding used in the recent refurbishment of the building. It seemed unbelievable that they didn’t spend an extra £5,000 for fire resistant cladding.
Of course, we don’t know the reasons for the fire yet, but we should certainly look at the influence of slavish devotion to green ideology.
First, the polyethylene (PE) variant of Reynobond cladding used is twice as thermally resistant as the fire retardant (FR) variant that would have cost £5,000 more to install. This is important in the context of the planning application and the regulations governing the refurbishment of buildings. It should be noted that the original planning application called for zinc cladding and Celotex 5000 insulation, but a change was later approved to use Reynobond cladding instead.
The Sustainability and Energy statement makes clear that “improving the insulation levels of the walls, roof and windows is the top priority of this refurbishment”. Indeed, they parade their green credentials by boasting that “the proposed insulation levels far exceed those required by Building Regulations”. This looks like green concerns about insulation levels trumped any other consideration, even fire safety, which wasn’t even mentioned.
The report used by the council to decide the planning application considered the application against many policies such as amenity, diversity of housing and climate change, but not apparently, any fire safety policy. The council admonishes itself for only achieving a ‘good’ rating against its climate change objective, but congratulates itself because “the proposed alterations which include the new windows, cladding materials and internal heating system will all provide a significant improvement to the sustainability of the building”.
The BREEAM report used to assess the sustainability credentials of the refurbishment has 43% of its evaluation criteria weighted towards the Energy, a further 8% towards materials and just 17% towards Health and Wellbeing.
They achieved a measly single credit for saying they would install fire and carbon monoxide detectors in each flat. But they got a total of 10 credits for improving the energy efficiency and reducing primary energy demand. They got a further 19 credits for using “materials [that] will have a green guide rating of at least A+(3)” and 8 more for using highly insulating materials.
It is clear that the primary focus of the BREEAM framework is energy efficiency, with precious little focus on fire safety.
This evidence points to environmental concerns trumping all other considerations when choosing refurbishment materials. It certainly challenges the narrative that the choice of cladding material was driven by cost cutting.
Of course, it is too early to allocate blame, but surely the Public Inquiry should tell us whether we have sacrificed 58 people on the altar of Gaia.
BREEAM Report: https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/idoxWAM/doc/Revision%20Content-1094275.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=1094275&location=VOLUME2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1
S & E Report: https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/idoxWAM/doc/Other-952368.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=952368&location=VOLUME2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1
RBKC officer report: https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/idoxWAM/doc/Report-1180275.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=1180275&location=VOLUME2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1
It looks like the original fire, which started in a kitchen in one of the apartments, had been successfully contained and extinguished by a fire crew. They were satisfied the job was done and were leaving as other crews were arriving. It was then noticed that there was an extensive spread of the fire to other parts of the building, clearly conducted by the cladding. I’ve just heard this and if it is the case then it would seem that this cladding is specifically the cause of the extent of the damage and responsible for the loss of so many lives.
Yes, heard very similar from a neighbour whose son was one of the fire crew.
Some apartments in the building were privately owned and rented for about £2,000/month. Not the slum ghetto portrayed by some of the more excitable commentators.
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-56848189.html
http://www.standard.co.uk/Front/london-fire-inside-the-2k-grenfell-tower-flats-before-the-blaze-a3565416.html
Decentralized heating !
“d. Require that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are reduced to meet the Code for Sustainable Homes, EcoHomes and BREEAM standards in accordance with the following hierarchy:
i. Energy efficient building design, construction and materials, including the use of passive design, natural heating and natural ventilation;
ii. Decentralised heating, cooling and energy supply, through Combined Cooling Heat and Power (CCHP) or similar, whilst ensuring that heat and energy production does not result in unacceptable levels of air pollution;
iii. On-site renewable and low-carbon energy sources;”
@michel June 19, 2017 at 12:28 am
You have it exactly. The observation of the fire spreading is most important. (It’s also a general point about being a good “scientist” like others have already commented). I agree that the flames seen within the flats behind the windows is not consistent with every flat being ignited from an exterior cladding fire. The intensity also suggested there to be an additional fuel source e.g. gas. I consider it very likely that the recent work on the gas pipework will be highly significant.
Note that Reynobond is touted as a “smog-eating, self cleaning” material. Very green, very sustainable etc.
https://www.fastcompany.com/1752324/introducing-self-cleaning-smog-eating-building
This is due to a coating of TiO2 which does have the capacity to catalyze breakdown of hydrocarbons and NOx when irradiated with UV-light.
However combining TiO2 and aluminium metal strikes me as less than ideal from a fireproofing viewpoint. In other contexts this combination is known as “thermite”, widely used for e. g. incendiary bombs.
Oh come on, thermite is powdered aluminium and iron oxide in stoichometric proportions.
Here we are talking about a thin surface layer of TiO2.
The problem was the combustible PE core of the cladding panels.
Thermite is something completely different.
Video of Titanium dioxide / Aluminium powder Thermite.
I don’t know if the Titanium dioxide layer was thick enough to form a viable thermite, but the reaction seems plausible.
If they used Reynobond PE, I highly doubt they spent the extra bucks to buy “EcoClean”, let alone the fact that the TiO2 layer is very thin, and coats of paint are between it and the aluminum.
The greens simply consider the deaths collateral damage. Their morality puts environmental issues above all else including human life.
I think cladding had little or nothing to do with the greenhouse, and most to do with money. In the 1970s most UK construction had little or no regard for energy use and efficiency,
In the UK the fastest payback is for quickly and cheaply applied insulation. Insulating an un-insulated loft/attic gives a payback in saved energy cost in around 2 years. Walls and single to double glazing will pay back in 3-7 years if done as part of a major refurbishment, but can be financially marginal if replacing servicable units. Both in terms of comfort and money upgrading the cladding was the right call irrespective of govt regulation.
As far as the fire is concerned there were clearly some major failings which must be addressed when understood. But leaping to conclusions to find someone to blame without evidence has all the attributes of a witch hunt not justice,
– cladding may have been responsible for the spread of the fire but it should be installed with barriers in the voids. It may have failed due to poor installation, non compliance with spec or a contractor signing off on below spec items to save a few £k
– apartments and floors should be separated by a fire break, It is not clear whether these failed, were never specified, or negligently left out of the refurbishment
– new gas mains were being installed with pipework apparently running up the stairwell. Basic fire safety regulation excludes combustible material, Doors to all flats and in the stairwell should be fire rated. It is not clear whether this may have contributed to the spread of he fire.
– the stairwell apparently had a number of broken doors and rubbish accumulating – local council deficiency
– water sprinkler system not installed – although unclear if this would have made the slightest difference.
The end result is that they will probably find deficiencies in at least two areas. But I also suspect that climate policies had at worst only a trivial and probably no impact on the event.
There are plenty of examples where climate policies can be linked to poor outcomes. Putting forward arguments like this frankly diminishes the overall sceptical message in much the same way as every trivial change in the natural environment is attributed to greenhouse gas emissions – in summary – RUBBISH.
Sorry Terry, greenwashing wont help the search for truth here any more than it helped the residents of Grenfell tower.
To quote from Greg, above:
“The EU mandate and came into effect in France on Jan 1st 2017, [made it compulsory for building cladding projects to include the addition of thermal insulation].
This is direct result of the “ambitious carbon reductions” enshrined in the Paris agreement.
Make all the devious, contorted excuses you like to divert from that but ridiculous, alarmist claims have so distorted the everything now that very bad and inappropriate choices are being made.
If you distort the weight of the various factors that go into any decision making process, you will make the wrong choices.
That is, sadly, what happened here.
[Green politics led to this fire 🔥]”
The reason. Direct from their report.
“1.1 Overview
The aim of this report is to identify how, as part of the Grenfell Tower refurbishment scheme, the current energy and environmental comfort problems can be addressed, and how the chosen solutions sit within the London Plan’s aim to bring existing housing stock up to the Mayor’s standards on sustainable design and construction.
The poor insulation levels and air tightness of both the walls and the windows at Grenfell Tower result in excessive heat loss during the winter months. Addressing this issue is the primary driver behind the refurbishment.
Due to valid safely concerns the windows at Grenfell Towers are restricted to open no more than 100 mm. This restriction causes chronic overheating in the summer months. It is essential that the renovation works do not make the overheating problems any worse and where possible we will strive to reduce overheating in line with current guidelines.
The heating system exacerbates the overheating problem due to its high uncontrolled heat losses throughout the year (including summer) and is also reaching the end of its design life. The client wishes to update the heating system at this point. Updating the heating system allows the disruptive works to ‘piggy back’ on the recladding works.
‘The London Plan July 2011’ aims to conserve energy. A defined energy hierarchy should be followed. This hierarchy is as follows:
1. Be lean: use less energy, in particular by adopting sustainable design and construction measures
2. Be clean: supply energy efficiently
3. Be green: use renewable energy
This approach has been adopted to illustrate the environmental benefits achieved through the refurbishment of the tower.”
So do you think the cladding would have been done without the EU directive aimed at CO2 mitigation? Is that your point?
That is the exact point. No CO2 reduction, No project money !
“2.1 Insulation
Improving the insulation levels of the walls, roof and windows is the top priority of this refurbishment.
Improving the insulation levels on a solid wall construction is always best done from the outside of the wall. This solves several issues with thermal bridging and interstitial condensation. Thermal bridging will be kept to a minimum by insulation window reveals and using thermal breaks on all fixings that link the new rain screen cladding to the existing concrete structure.
The chosen strategy is to wrap the building in a thick layer of insulation and then over-clad with a rain screen to protect the insulation from the weather and from physical damage.
Table 2-1 below shows the target levels of insulation for Grenfell Tower. The proposed insulation levels far exceed those required by Building Regulations. Insulation improvements may only happen once or twice in a buildings lifetime due to the complexity and disruption caused. For this reason we are going over and above current building regulations to make sure the building continues to perform well into the future.
Column two of the Appendix A Heating Options Study shows the energy improvements that are made to Grenfell Tower by applying the improved insulation and new windows.
“
Hint hint….
“3.0 PLANNING POLICY
The following sections describe The London Plan planning policy, spatial development strategy for greater London July 2011. The policy is described in a national, regional and local context. We summarise the planning policies at these levels that have informed our approach to the Grenfell Tower energy strategy.”
Mayors policy !
“3.1 Policy Context – National
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPS) set out the Government’s national policies for different aspects of land use planning in England. This policy outlines that the local planning authorities are empowered to include policies in their plans requiring a percentage of on-site renewable energy within both new and some existing developments.
3.2 Policy Context – Regional
The London Plan. Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London, July 2011
Policy 5.4: Retrofitting
A: The environmental impact of existing urban areas should be reduced through policies and programmes that bring existing buildings up to the Mayor’s standards on sustainable design and construction. In particular, programmes should reduce carbon dioxide emissions, improve the efficiency of resource use (such as water) and minimise the generation of pollution and waste from existing building stock.
B: Within LDFs boroughs should develop policies and proposals regarding the sustainable retrofitting of existing buildings. In particular they should identify opportunities for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from the existing building stock by identifying potential synergies between new developments and existing buildings through the retrofitting of energy efficiency measures, decentralised energy and renewable energy opportunities (see Policies 5.5 and 5.7).
It was a 25 year payback !
25 years is the same as never, in this context. In real-world industry, 4 years is often the dividing point between go and no-go for capital improvement projects. I’ve seen projects with pay-out periods of 10 years considered, occasionally. Never anything as long as 25 years. There are almost always projects competing for the same money that have much shorter payouts.
Local policy rubbishes your rubbish !
“3.3 Policy Context – Local
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s (RBKC’s) Core Strategy outlines their environmental requirements for new and refurbished developments in the following policy:
Policy CE1: Climate Change
The Council recognises the Government’s targets to reduce national carbon dioxide emissions by 26% against 1990 levels by 2020 in order to meet a 60% reduction by 2050 and will require development to make a significant contribution towards this target.
To deliver this the Council will:”
But if the fire started in a (mandated) Green fridge, then “climate policies” bear some responsibility. (Although apparently the fault was not in the Green design, but in a manufacturing defect in the cheapest model of such fridges.) Lots of contributing factors!
A disappointing article. Where is the reference to the Architects design plan? Here is the link.
They very clearly state that the goal is to meet London’s CO2 reduction plan.
http://www.rydon.co.uk/what-we-do/refurbishment/case-studies/refurbishment-case-studies/grenfell-tower
Oh, it was pulled. No matter, I have a copy.
”
1.1 Overview
The aim of this report is to identify how, as part of the Grenfell Tower refurbishment scheme, the current energy and environmental comfort problems can be addressed, and how the chosen solutions sit within the London Plan’s aim to bring existing housing stock up to the Mayor’s standards on sustainable design and construction.
The poor insulation levels and air tightness of both the walls and the windows at Grenfell Tower result in excessive heat loss during the winter months. Addressing this issue is the primary driver behind the refurbishment.
Due to valid safely concerns the windows at Grenfell Towers are restricted to open no more than 100 mm. This restriction causes chronic overheating in the summer months. It is essential that the renovation works do not make the overheating problems any worse and where possible we will strive to reduce overheating in line with current guidelines.
The heating system exacerbates the overheating problem due to its high uncontrolled heat losses throughout the year (including summer) and is also reaching the end of its design life. The client wishes to update the heating system at this point. Updating the heating system allows the disruptive works to ‘piggy back’ on the recladding works.
‘The London Plan July 2011’ aims to conserve energy. A defined energy hierarchy should be followed. This hierarchy is as follows:
1. Be lean: use less energy, in particular by adopting sustainable design and construction measures
2. Be clean: supply energy efficiently
3. Be green: use renewable energy
This approach has been adopted to illustrate the environmental benefits achieved through the refurbishment of the tower.”
+10
This link to the 2012 plan by Max Fordham is still active!
https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/idoxWAM/doc/Other-952368.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=952368&location=VOLUME2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1
Page 12 is quite telling………..
Yep
“Policy CE1: Climate Change
The Council recognises the Government’s targets to reduce national carbon dioxide emissions by 26% against 1990 levels by 2020 in order to meet a 60% reduction by 2050 and will require development to make a significant contribution towards this target.”
“The type of cladding used on the Grenfell building is reportedly banned for use on tall structures in the USA, due to the fire risk.”
When I saw the diagram of the cross-section of the cladding my reaction was, “that can’t possibly be legal!” It is an obvious fire hazard. I’m glad that here in the US it is illegal and I’m shocked that it is legal anywhere where there are fire codes.
Janice More wrote
“R. Kit P.: Here are the “idiots” https://www.elsevier.com/ you are sneering at (the scientists behind the report on cladding I cited above).”
No Janice, I am not sneering at scientist, Janice is the idiot because she said this:
“those people died because of a completely IMAGINARY problem.”
The root cause of the of people dying is not know yet. Not only is Janice an idiot but she a liar.
Furthermore, Janice is vile pond scum because she is using a tragedy to further a narrow minded agenda. Just like those who fear monger pregnant women about mercury in fish.
The reason I tell people they are stupid idiots is just maybe someone else will learn.
When we lived in China, we lived in a company compound high rise apartment building without smoke detectors. When our son in college came to visit, I had him bring enough smoke detectors for everyone I worked with. I also sent an email to responsible managers so they could ignore it.
Idiots like to blame, smart people want to know the root cause so they protect there family.
One root cause of fatalities in fires not being warned by smoke detectors. A second root cause is not being trained in escape routes and practice a fire drill.
Here is the interesting thing about my example for the idiots. You can not blame anyone else.
Kit
The above discussion and black and white documentary evidence makes it abundantly clear that energy conservation was the driving force behind the disastrous cladding, with incontrovertible motivation of climate change mitigation.
Your misogynistic jowl-flapping does not change in any way the fact that the Grenfell residents were sacrificed in a Wicker-Man style pyre to appease the god of climate change political correctness.
In their own words:
“2.1 Insulation
Improving the insulation levels of the walls, roof and windows is the top priority of this refurbishment.
Improving the insulation levels on a solid wall construction is always best done from the outside of the wall. This solves several issues with thermal bridging and interstitial condensation. Thermal bridging will be kept to a minimum by insulation window reveals and using thermal breaks on all fixings that link the new rain screen cladding to the existing concrete structure.
The chosen strategy is to wrap the building in a thick layer of insulation and then over-clad with a rain screen to protect the insulation from the weather and from physical damage.
Table 2-1 below shows the target levels of insulation for Grenfell Tower. The proposed insulation levels far exceed those required by Building Regulations. Insulation improvements may only happen once or twice in a buildings lifetime due to the complexity and disruption caused. For this reason we are going over and above current building regulations to make sure the building continues to perform well into the future.
Column two of the Appendix A Heating Options Study shows the energy improvements that are made to Grenfell Tower by applying the improved insulation and new windows.”
“Improving the insulation levels on a solid wall construction is always best done from the outside of the wall. This solves several issues with thermal bridging and interstitial condensation. Thermal bridging will be kept to a minimum by insulation window reveals and using thermal breaks on all fixings that link the new rain screen cladding to the existing concrete structure.”
No, no and thrice no!!! All they really needed to do was upgrade the dry lining on the inside and extend it into the reveals. With new windows fixed to the structure in a proper manner. Suspending UPCV window frames in Celotex is about as dopey as it gets. No doubt with loads of good ‘ole flammable, can applied filler foam here and there.
But that wouldn’t have given them a silly paper U-value 50% better than the regs to tout around as green bullshit. BTW with a vented cavity the conductivity of the rain screen doesn’t count, the calculations in the planning doc are bollocks.
Retired Kit P
Your self righteous attitude is quite telling. You used quite a few alphabetical letters to form some nasty words, like a bully would do.
Some people grow up and some people grow old.
At best, your statement is less than 50% intelligent.
This is a sobering account by a Turkish couple in their late 50s who saved themselves from the 16th (17th) floor after nearly 3 hours when all hope seemed lost. It describes the windows breaking and fire starting in the apartment. “At that point the windows smashed, debris started falling past the window and the walls of the bedroom were on fire.”
Worth noting that the windows were PVC too. He is a taxi driver who did national service in the Turkish Army.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3838442/couple-doused-themselves-in-water-and-dashed-through-16-floors-of-fire-to-safety-after-sobbing-999-operator-said-nobody-could-save-them/
He’s described as a chauffeur rather than a taxi driver, apologies. The linked article confirms that the initial fridge fire was out when the cladding started to burn.
It would help police and fire departments if they had access to the phone numbers of all residents of a building. Then they then could “broadcast” alarms and advisory bulletins. (They could even broadcast videos to smartphone owners.) This would be useful to warn of extreme wildfires (as in N. Alberta a year or two ago), flooding threats (as from the Mt. Saint Helens eruption and the threatened Oroville dam), hurricanes, violent hail, etc. It could even warn of “active shooters” in a neighborhood.
Persons who object to this sort of collective action or to sharing their phone numbers, or who thought that too many false alarms would be sent by worrywarts, would be allowed to opt out of the system.
This system would also be useful to send more timely “all-clear” messages.
PS: Persons who don’t want to be pestered by false alarms could specify that they don’t want to be called for borderline warnings. Or worrywarts could specify that they DO want to receive such warnings.
Don’t you think our Big Brother government already has that information? They even know where your phone was yesterday at six. So they know exactly which phones were in the building when the fire started.
In the U.S., the NSA collects information on all phones, and all messages sent by and received by them. But it may not legally look at it unless it gets an OK from a special judge. It’s doubtful that it has that data arranged by building.
Local police and fire departments, who are the ones I think should have phone-number data, are not Big Brother and do not have access to building-sorted phone numbers.
There is nothing wrong with insulating and decorating buildings, whatever the motivations.There is lots wrong with allowing fuel to be used as an insulating product.
I regularly bid for public works contracts. I have to offer the lowest-cost legally-permissible option. If I don’t either I will lose out to someone who does, or my customer will accused of buying a “gold-plated” solution. The banal truth is that all those wretched people were killed by the legal availability of a dangerous product plus the obligation on the council to get “value for money”.
Why was the material legal? Maybe we’ll find out someday. But we don’t need to wait to find out before we summarily ban it today. The incremental cost of a safer product is footling.
Yes, to this.
As I said above, I can’t believe it was legal.
A few thoughts from my perspective as a design professional.
-The council/designers/etc. Will have been looking at if the materials meet their standards. This will actually play out as “must meet or exceed ASTMA #####.##”, it isn’t laid out as clearly as it has for you in the stories. In most cases people will check the materials requirements against the standards and feel they have done due diligence. It is not incompetence, it is a failure in the way we apply standards. It is impersonal and not at all informative.
– The designers will often pick a general style of finish/cladding and lay out the minimum safety standards from the building code in the specifications, then allow the suppliers to recommend the product. There are mechanisms for special exceptions, but since this actually met the building standards, none would have been needed to approve this.
– Older buildings have rules and regulations called “grandfathering”, which allows older buildings to not be brought up to the newest adopted standards. The reason for this is obvious, since if you own a building and they change the rules in the building code, you could be put on the spot for millions of dollars of upgrades you had no way of expecting or paying for. Under those standards, they often force compliance during major renovations. A reason many old buildings fall into disrepair, because they don’t generate enough revenue to pay for both the renovations and building code upgrades. In this case, it sounds like an exterior cladding upgrade to make the building more presentable in the community without triggering more extensive upgrades. If you are too aggressive in forcing the upgrades, the buildings end up demolished and people have no where to live. People must recognize the problem, the building doesn’t generate enough money to pay for the upgrades unless you raise the rent. No company can be expected to be forced to pay more than they can generate, so locked rents always lead to poor buildings. Nicer buildings lead to higher rents. There is no solution, since even government housing still runs up against budgets and costs for upkeep and repairs. It is easy to say put in a sprinkler system, but raising rents 25-40% to cover the costs would put rents out of reach for many.
– Nothing is built as safe as it could possibly be (outside of some eccentric billionaires pet project). There is always higher levels of safety and accepted levels of risk. Cost usually is always the deciding factor. Things are usually built as safe as you can afford them to be. There is nothing stopping the average family from installing sprinklers in their houses, except it add 10-20 grand to the cost, and a risk of water damage from failures down the line. People decide the cost/risk isn’t worth the money. We condemn things once they fall below a certain safety level, but there is a lot of accumulated risk before that hits. The average person reading this has a house/apartment that would be deadly under they right rare circumstances.
– The “green” aspects of projects is now ever present. Most offices strive to have LEED certified staff to make the “use this and you will be greener” suggestions. LEED levels are actually given more praise and notice than fire safety (assuming you meet minimum standards). There is absolutely no doubt that the “green” aspects of this would have been considered very closely, and at a higher level than fire safety. Sad but true, it is the world we live in. Nobody asks what level of fire safety a project achieved above the standard, but everyone want’s to know your LEED or energy efficiency efforts.
Can’t happen in Germany:
“Die deutsche Bundesbauministerin Barbara Hendricks (SPD) reagierte nur einen Tag nach dem Unglück: Nach menschlichem Ermessen könne so eine Katastrophe in Deutschland nicht passieren.”
(Source: https://www.zdf.de/politik/frontal-21/brennende-fassaden-100.html)
Translation:
The German Federal Building Minister Barbara Hendricks (SPD) responded only one day after the disaster: According to human estimate such a catastrophe could not happen in Germany.
Yeah, we are the best (again). It’s such a shame.
But wait, German firefighters documented dozens of burning claddings here (must be Fake News, thats why German politicians try to establish an anti fake news law, and because Donald Trump exited from Paris Agreement, Germany strengthens partnership with China which can also help with suppressing such Fake News ):
http://www.feuerwehr-frankfurt.de/index.php/projekte/wdvs
A firefighter I know talked about how quickly some modern small and medium scale commercial/industrial premises burn, when they are made of the dual sandwich insulated plastic coated aluminium, when the middle of the sandwich is of a combustible insulation type. It is not the aluminium nor the thin polyethylene coating that causes such a rapid and severe fire, it is the inappropriate insulating core.
I am no CO2 hating eco nutball, but bullsnort is bullsnort, irrespective of who says it and what side of an agenda they support. It is utter excrement to claim that climate mania caused this disaster. It is not the principle of insulating and draught reduction, nor the principle of externally cladding buildings to improve appearance or increase service life that led to this disaster. It is (almost certainly) the combustibility of the core layer and any voids within/around that allowed the fire to spread so very rapidly.
It is perfectly possible to specify a fire retardant insulating core in such products. So far, this appears to be entirely a failure to correctly specify appropriate materials for risks that should have been identified at the planning stage. I am disappointed to read apparently learned and intelligent people making such fallacious comments, when the full evidence has yet to be gathered. Shame on you.
“It is utter excrement to claim that climate mania caused this disaster.”
Only a few of the commenters went that far. Most stated that climate mania was a contributing factor, because it incentivized the buyer to get the panel with the highest insulating rating. Those commenters provided quotes from official documents in support of their claim that a high insulating rating was sought for Green brownie points.
“It is perfectly possible to specify a fire retardant insulating core in such products.”
Some of the comments upthread stated that a fire retardent core might have slowed the spread of the fire, but would not have eliminated all risk to the building. (Though a slower fire would have allowed most of the lives lost to be saved.) Many comments said that the retardent version cost more, and was rejected for that reason, although the extra cost was not very much. (I wonder if the retardent version had a somewhat lower insulating rating. If so, that would have been a double whammy.
I am as much of a climate skeptic as anyone but I have to say it’s a bit of a stretch to blame green mania as it is to blame austerity brexit or trump.
A lot of focus on the aluminium PE sandwich rainscreen of course but rarely do people comment on the 100mm slabs of PIR insulation right behind the rainscreen which also burn like there’s no tomorrow. Possibly a greater fuel load in them than the rainscreen.
For me the real problem is responsibility. The drift over the last two or three decades away from an independent qualified Architect running the project from start to finish alongwith Clerk Of Works to inspect.
Nowadays the Architect invariably dances to the Contractor’s tune as part of the ‘Design and Build’ package.
The cosy preferred bidder’ status where the Contractor cuts his own corners, marks his own homework and signs off his own work.
Contractors carry no professional indemity. Their motive is to make money.
Professionals like Architect’s and Engineer are not allowed to have vested commercial interests outside their Fee.
And if the first bidder says it’s £11m for the project don’t come back and say “our funding arrangements are only letting us have £10m. Anything you can do?” If the project is £11m either you pay it or you cancel it.
So we have the perfect storm of inexperienced council officials tendering cleaning services one week and then being tasked with appointing a Contractor the next.
Architects emancipated and relegated to being a sub-contractor to the Principal Contractor. Not accountable to the Client.
CDM regulations which make a Principal Designer accountable for selecting products and materials but then cease that role when the works start on site and pass the responsibility for implementation to Greedy Contractor PLC.
Building Control may have inspected the works ’17 times’ but who cares. They have zero responsibilty. They re-worded the Warrant Completion Certificate a few years back to phrase it such that the applicant is now stating that the works are correctly complete on the application for completion and the local authority simply now ‘accept’ the statement.
Summary : –
Client – inexperienced. No professional responsibility
Design Build Contractor ‘Preferred Bidder’ – Experienced but no professional responsibility.
Architect – Experienced. Professional responsibility but answerable to the Contractor not the client.
Local Authority – Experienced. Responsibilty zero.
Clerk Of Works – Google it kids. They are extinct in the new age of profit and superficialism.
Solution – Change the CDM Regulations to ensure that the Principal Designer remains in post until Project Completion and ensure that the Principal Contractor and the Principal Designer cannot be the same person, are independent and answerable and responsible to the Client. Simple. They could legislate that in an afternoon.
God knows why the Met have allocated 266 policemen to ‘investigate’ this.
+10
From Celotex FAQ
Classed as a combustible with a flame spread rate of 1.
What type of Celotex did hey use? Was it the 6″ specified?
“Is Celotex of limited combustibility?
Celotex is classed as combustible when tested in accordance with BS476 and has a class 1 surface spread of flame when tested to the same standard.
For premium fire performance please see ourCelotex FR5000 and products”