peterms Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 Some quite shocking correspondence now coming out. Quote The architect, builders and fire engineer who worked on the disastrous Grenfell Tower refurbishment knew the cladding system would fail in the event of a fire more than two years before 72 people were killed, according to emails revealed at the public inquiry on Tuesday. Staff at architects Studio E, the fire engineer Exova, the facade installer Harley, and Rydon, the main contractor, discussed how the cladding system they were planning to wrap around the 120-home apartment block was likely to fail in the event of a fire. “Metal cladding always burns and falls off,” an architect emailed a fire engineer in spring 2015. An employee of the facade installer told a colleague: “As we all know, the ACM [the combustible cladding panels] will be gone rather quickly in a fire!”... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepyvillian Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 The title of this thread is really annoying. Why not the Grenfell Tragedy ? Because that's what it was, a Shameful tragedy that could have been so easily prevented. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 29, 2020 Moderator Share Posted January 29, 2020 54 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said: Why not the Grenfell Tragedy ? Because that's what it was, a Shameful tragedy that could have been so easily prevented. I agreed. And now it's called.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 The people involved in selecting and installing the cladding are now reported as demanding protection against prosecution if they are to give evidence to the inquiry. Looks like the inquiry needs to ignore them, and the HSE and police should instead proceed energetically to establish whether criminal offences have occurred. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 E-mails yesterday showing they all knew for years the panels were flammable and potentially lethal. Today they want immunity from prosecution. What lovely people they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 51 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: E-mails yesterday showing they all knew for years the panels were flammable and potentially lethal. Today they want immunity from prosecution. What lovely people they are. It's not obvious from the very brief excerpts I've seen that they knew the panels were lethal in the event of fire. They may claim they knew the panels would fail, but that failure would take the form of falling away harmlessly, not creating a giant torch. Detailed investigation should inquire what was known in the professions about this, and what people employed in these professions should reasonably be expected to have known if they were exercising an acceptable level of care, diligence and professional expertise, and the case for criminal prosecution should be determined on that basis. If anyone agrees to give them legal indemnity in exchange for offering up what such an investigation should anyway establish, then presumably the same principle should extend to any and all criminal acts committed by anyone. Which should save a lot on the criminal justice system, as we would no longer need one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 They knew the insulated sandwich was combustible, it was never sold as anything else. Their mistake, was in presuming it would be so crap it would fall off the building quickly once it was on fire. They got the fire bit right, they miscalculated the capacity of the metal fixings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 44 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: They knew the insulated sandwich was combustible, it was never sold as anything else. Their mistake, was in presuming it would be so crap it would fall off the building quickly once it was on fire. They got the fire bit right, they miscalculated the capacity of the metal fixings. I imagine the HSE will want to establish whether any presumptions and miscalculations were bad enough to constitute criminal negligence. This must override any consideration of getting them to speak to the inquiry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted January 29, 2020 Moderator Share Posted January 29, 2020 1 hour ago, peterms said: If anyone agrees to give them legal indemnity in exchange for offering up what such an investigation should anyway establish, then presumably the same principle should extend to any and all criminal acts committed by anyone. Which should save a lot on the criminal justice system, as we would no longer need one. Have you just described Catholicism? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 25 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said: Have you just described Catholicism? You must say three Our Fathers, and three Hail Marys, and your sin shall be absolved. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 I needed to look up something in the official govt guidance on fire risk assessments today. I got annoyed because there was a ‘hard’ paper copy in the office (which is a QA non-compliance), I felt vindicated having a whinge at such a document being kept when I saw it was dated 2006. I went on the website. It’s still the current version. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 On 29/01/2020 at 19:52, peterms said: The people involved in selecting and installing the cladding are now reported as demanding protection against prosecution if they are to give evidence to the inquiry. Looks like the inquiry needs to ignore them, and the HSE and police should instead proceed energetically to establish whether criminal offences have occurred. Isn't this what David Duckenfield did, or have I misremembered that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said: Isn't this what David Duckenfield did, or have I misremembered that? That vaguely rings a bell, but I'm not at all sure. Any such request should be turned down. Especially in light of the further emails reported today, which are more damning and suggest that several people were very well aware of the dangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 17, 2020 Share Posted February 17, 2020 There are still families living in tower blocks with flammable cladding. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted February 18, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted February 18, 2020 Yeah but tower blocks covered in poisonous flammable cladding is a way to reduce the burden on the welfare state, whereas refurbishment of the palace is a tourism boost. A worthy investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted February 18, 2020 Share Posted February 18, 2020 don't mention the £4bn refurbishment of the houses of parliament... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 Grauniad: Quote The architect of the Grenfell Tower refurbishment has admitted he did not read building regulations aimed at preventing cladding fires and had no idea that panels used to insulate buildings could be combustible. Bruce Sounes, the project architect on the council block where 72 people died in June 2017, told the public inquiry into the disaster that he did not know that aluminium panels could melt and spread flames and had no idea cladding had previously caught fire on buildings in the UK and Dubai, including at Lakanal House in Southwark in 2009, where six people died. Under cross-examination by Kate Grange QC, counsel to the inquiry, Sounes said that during the Grenfell Tower refurbishment he did not familiarise himself with regulations demanding external walls must adequately resist the spread of fire. ... Sounes told the inquiry it was the responsibility of the council’s building control department to check on compliance and other expert consultants were expected to advise. ... The inquiry also heard that Studio E manipulated its fees to avoid the contract being put out to open tender. Sounes said that, at the request of the tower’s landlord, Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO), he deferred charging some fees so the threshold that would have obliged the client on the council-owned block to issue an open tender was not met. ... Studio E has already admitted it would not have been selected for the job in competition because it lacked experience in high-rise housing or over-cladding works. ... more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 Mr Architect has not had a great day there. From what I’ve read, he’s been almost disarmingly honest about his lack of knowledge. But a lack of knowledge shouldn’t be a problem. His lack of self awareness appears to be the problem on the bit of reading I’ve done. You should know enough to know that you don’t know detail and so you either swat up or you canvass other expert opinions and get a consensus on what the rules are for your specific problem. In this case, the refurbishment cladding of a tall building with what would now be considered noon compliant fire escapes. It looks on the surface, like the problem is he didn’t even know there was stuff he didn’t know. His reference to what he believes is the role of Building Control kind of backs this up. I can’t remember off the top of my head, but somewhere around about page 1 there is a short stand alone paragraph in bold in the regs that says all responsibility for compliance is with the designer, builder and owner. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted March 4, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted March 4, 2020 The architect is going need a good lawyer. And a good insurance policy. And a new career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts