LABC Grenfell Tower update

I am surprised, following the fire in Camberwell, where there were comparable problems that sprinklers had not been required in tall buidings. Still no retrospective decision.

Also ironically, as professionals we are being directed to energy saving/green matters and one of the functions of the Grenfell Cladding, in addtion to the improved appearance was improved thermal insulation. The original concrete cladding did not of course burn.

Going back to my time working more in central London I wonder if the watering down of the role of District Surveyors and their historic role flowing from the 1666 Fire of London and the London Building Acts affected the expertise involved in the Building Regs. interpretation.

Finally we have been told in Manchester by the Fire Brigade that a stay put policy is their approach. This failed in Camberwell so why was it not rewiewed?

Agreed that sprinklers should have been fitted to this building. Building regulations need to be changed.
Although from the outside looking at the situation it does look like an accumulation of errors all of which will come out in the enquiry. Bear in mind this was also a single stair building one way in one way out. I was shocked to hear how much money Kensington Council had in reserve they could have easily retrofitted sprinklers to this building thereby protecting their housing stock. Now in reality they have to replace the amount of housing with new buildings how much is that going to cost. How much is it costing them in hotels and such like to house their homeless.
They cannot even blame the issue on austerity cuts because of the vast amount of money they had in their account 300milion apparently. Not sure how the poorer councils would undertake major works most local councils have little or no reserves in their accounts. I hope someone does a cost comparison how much a sprinkler system would of cost against how much its going to cost them to rebuild the housing, cost of temporary accommodation, on cost, cost of enquire, police time etc. etc. But never mind I guess the good old tax payer will eventually end up paying for it in the long term.

I am a little concerned that all the attention is on the cladding. From the very limited information I am aware ( so could have this completely wrong) the escape route was full of smoke including the stairwell. This would lead me to think fire doors failed or were not fitted, venting failed and the stair walls had breaches somewhere to allow smoke in. In addition the fire service advice was to stay in your flat and await rescue. The cladding spread the fire quickly but surely the smoke and inability to exit through what should be a sealed stairwell was a major factor in this terrible tragedy

I was away on holiday when this tragedy happened and kept up to date by sky news broadcast.
I am disappointed, to say the least, how much focus was put on Planning and the Planning approval in regard to the fire. This was all that was mentioned in the first two days.
It shows how uneducated the public and media are in terms of the construction process in this country.
This issue is clearly one of Building Regulations and Building Control bodies, beit those of Local Authorities or private sector.
The building is a typical 70's built single staircase building without sprinklers. Not ideal but not glaringly unsafe.
There have been many fires in such a building over the years which have been safely contained to the flat of origin.

The problem in this instance appears to be either the material/combustibility of the newly fitted cladding or the fire-stopping behind the cladding, both of which would have been subject to Building Regulations scrutiny.
Either :
1. The regulations are wrong in that they permit the use of
combustible claddings to be used in this way.
2. The fire testing of the cladding is inadequate in that it approves a material does not meet the requirement of the regulation
3. An inferior cladding was used on site to that approved under the Plan checking process
4. There was an error on the part of teh BCB in that they approved an inadequte material at plan stage or their on site supervision was not robust enough to check the material or fire-stopping

It is a horrible incidence for all of those concerned.

Building Control has forever played second fiddle to Planning in terms of its political importance. This incident should be highlighted to the government, media and the public to reinforce the work of Building Control in the building industry.
LA's in particular have lowered staffing levels to such an extent that BC Surveyors are reacting to situations and applications rather than managing them.
LABC should be canvassing the government on this point

I was amazed by the number of "look at me ...... fire experts" put forward for comments by the media at the height of this dreadful tragedy. Talk about uncle Tom Cobley and all.

They were from some very diverse and dubious professional backgrounds that to me, as a chartered architect with fire forensics experience, rang a few alarm bells. (No pun intended). Eg one, a claimed "structural engineer" commenting on sprinkler systems and fire doors. Somehow, that did not seem an appropriate call on his expertise.

Would have been good to include within the above a comment from Ken&Chel Building Control explaining what inspection they did or didn’t make of the cladding work in progress, and confirming (or otherwise) their acceptance of the aluminium-faced panels as appropriate. Until this happens there will inevitably be rumours . .

It is high time the UK Government ensured qualified architects are involved in all building design and construction from Inception to Completion. In Germany and many other countries drawings have to be signed by an architect at planning, building regulations and on completion. The Irish Government legislated for a similar system to Germany after serious concerns about the growing number of building failures. The UK currently allow anybody to design buildings, no qualifications required. The public need to be protected from the unqualified.

Very easily solved - pressurize the staircase, emergency lighting, fire doors and a dry/wet riser. (some one will correct be that fire doors don't even need closers?), lot easier and cheaper than changing all the cladding

Seems to me that building was built to 70's spec, so it should'nt be compared to todays requirements. (as an example a friend of mine had a 20 min entrance door, and had changed all his internal doors to glass panel, and disabled his alarm

Re the BCO correct me again i dont think it is even a statutory visit to check the wall construction.

When the first happened i'm sure the cladding system had a name given, i typed it into google, it came up as an approved USA product, does reg 7 still apply re CE marks etc?

Food for thought.

All comments posted at an earlier date to this one have been transferred from our old website.