Grenfell Tower Fire | 14th June 2017

This just popped into my head. It's about 6,5 years since this happened. Has anything of note been done to decrease the odds of this happening again?
 
VorZakone said:
This just popped into my head. It's about 6,5 years since this happened. Has anything of note been done to decrease the odds of this happening again?
Click to expand...
Legislation has been passed and councils have been told to re-inspect buildings and do new risk assessments, but unsure if there is any new money to actually do this.

https://www.manchesterfire.gov.uk/n...afety-taskforce-welcomes-fire-safety-changes/

In practical terms local fire services have re-evaluated all high rises as much higher risks than before because they can't depend on compartmentalisation of the fire. so for example if a fire is reported at such a location now a High level ladder vehicle will attend automatically, whereas before they would only attend if requested by initial onsite crews.

Because of the dreadful scenes there has been a lot of attention on high rises and cladding but the biggest fear amongst a lot of Fire crews are the low rise 5 storey flats that have rapidly been constructed. These can be built to a low standard and often have a lot of timber clad internal voids and fires can look to have died down only to re-emerge after passing behind timber / insulated walls.

There was a fire in some of these low rise flats in Irlam / Cadishead a few years ago that quietly raged for a number of days and fire crews had actually allowed people back in a couple of times, thinking the flames had gone out only to get called back out later on to revisit as it flared up again.

Sadly the onus is still on councils and fire services to inspect, monitor and maintain, rather than builders to actually build in safety features like sprinklers etc. Given the way budgets are being slashed and the story has rapidly moved onto "I can't sell my flat because of cladding uncertainty!" I don't have a lot of confidence that everything has been done to reduce the risks, even if the response from fire crews might be better prepared.

this report highlights a lot of the issues - this was a very narrow call - that thankfully had no death toll but the images of fire spread on page 57 are as alarming as grenfell

https://manchesterfire.gov.uk/media/2118/cube_report_v11_tagged.pdf
 
Last edited:
VorZakone said:
This just popped into my head. It's about 6,5 years since this happened. Has anything of note been done to decrease the odds of this happening again?
Click to expand...

The majority of the works ongoing to existing tower/apartment blocks at the minute are fire safety/cladding remediation works.
 
buchansleftleg said:
Legislation has been passed and councils have been told to re-inspect buildings and do new risk assessments, but unsure if there is any new money to actually do this.

https://www.manchesterfire.gov.uk/n...afety-taskforce-welcomes-fire-safety-changes/

In practical terms local fire services have re-evaluated all high rises as much higher risks than before because they can't depend on compartmentalisation of the fire. so for example if a fire is reported at such a location now a High level ladder vehicle will attend automatically, whereas before they would only attend if requested by initial onsite crews.

Because of the dreadful scenes there has been a lot of attention on high rises and cladding but the biggest fear amongst a lot of Fire crews are the low rise 5 storey flats that have rapidly been constructed. These can be built to a low standard and often have a lot of timber clad internal voids and fires can look to have died down only to re-emerge after passing behind timber / insulated walls.

There was a fire in some of these low rise flats in Irlam / Cadishead a few years ago that quietly raged for a number of days and fire crews had actually allowed people back in a couple of times, thinking the flames had gone out only to get called back out later on to revisit as it flared up again.

Sadly the onus is still on councils and fire services to inspect, monitor and maintain, rather than builders to actually build in safety features like sprinklers etc. Given the way budgets are being slashed and the story has rapidly moved onto "I can't sell my flat because of cladding uncertainty!" I don't have a lot of confidence that everything has been done to reduce the risks, even if the response from fire crews might be better prepared.

this report highlights a lot of the issues - this was a very narrow call - that thankfully had no death toll but the images of fire spread on page 57 are as alarming as grenfell

https://manchesterfire.gov.uk/media/2118/cube_report_v11_tagged.pdf
Click to expand...
Thanks.
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c623vrw92rrt

Let me guess what's coming next - 'lessons to be learned'. Probably with a sprinkling of political point scoring.



At some point in the chain somebody knowingly lied about the cladding meeting a safe specification, so will they see the inside of a cell? Doubtful.

1. Manufacturers of cladding products – which were “by far the largest contributor” to the fire – were found to have engaged in “systematic dishonesty”, and used “deliberate and sustained strategies” to make their products appear safe
2. Arconic, the company which made the cladding panels on the tower’s exterior, are found to have “deliberately concealed” the safety risk; two firms which produced insulation - Celotex and Kingspan - were found to have “misled”
3. “Incompetent” companies involved in the 2011 refurbishment of the tower – Studio E and Harley Facades – are found to bear “significant” responsibility for the disaster, while project manager Rydon’s oversight of the work led to a culture of “buck-passing”
4. “Many opportunities” to address the risks posed by flammable cladding were missed by governments from the early 1990s onwards, culminating in “decades of failure”
5. The 2010 Conservative-Liberal Democrat government is strongly criticised for its focus on cutting regulation, which led to safety matters being “ignored, delayed or disregarded”
6. Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea council and its social housing arm, the Tenant Management Organisation, had a “persistent indifference to fire safety, particularly the safety of vulnerable people”
7. London Fire Brigade lacked a strategy to evacuate the building once they had lost control, and had an “unfounded assumption” the type of blaze which occurred at Grenfell Tower could not happen
Click to expand...


Also i think its a bit unfair to blame the Fire Brigade for not understanding risks they were told were not risks.
 
Drainy said:
There was a finding that private companies faked results.

Surely there is criminal liability there.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, and if they were government contracts these private companies were granted, then any compensation MUST be paid for through the public purse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.