Indeed - although I would rather hope that they did this before the cladding was installed rather than before it went up (as it were)

For Borpin, what CFOA say is:

FRS enforce the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 for almost all places in England and Wales, except those used solely for domestic purposes. However, even in domestic premises such as flats, the common or shared areas still come under the regulations. Someone who is proved to have failed to comply with the Fire Safety Order is guilty of a criminal offence and may be charged accordingly.

Regards

Barney

Good to see a slightly more sober discission of this tragedy here than I've seen online generally.

I think it should be a wake up call for many people and organisations. That said, we do have to wait until we really understood what went wrong before making hasty changes to legislation and so on.

The standard of reporting on this, from a technical point of view, has been pretty poor in most of the media.

Also as others have said there's a danger that this taints the reputation of all retrofit energy efficiency measures. Obviously the inhabitants of this building were horribly let down by all the processes that failed to prevent this. But as far as I can make out there was no sinister motive in applying the new cladding. It was supposed to improve living conditions. There is an idea that seems to have taken remarkably strong hold that the cladding was added to improve the view from nearby luxury housing developments. As far as I can see, that's fully nonsense. But I can see that similar retrofit schemes, regardless of fire safety, could start to be opposed as symbols of prettification or gentrification; measures taken not for the benefit of social housing tenants but the surrounding bourgeoisie.

It makes me think of another trend I've noticed recently here in London which is opposition to schemes to reduce car usage and make urban areas more cycle and pedestrian friendly. These too have become associated with gentrification and we end up with them being opposed by many from a demographic with very low car ownership. The wealthy car owners get to continue to drive their vehicles through London's poorer wards because the residents are fearful of the encroachment of pavement wine bars and associated house price increases. This fear stirred up by simplistic ideas promoted by clickbait media. Frustrating and counterproductive. I think we might see similar things following from this disaster.

Posted By: djhAt least one of those should be on the list to go to prison.

and I'd humbly suggest that the following is not entirely out of context, neither...

www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40189828

"These departments obviously consider themselves too important to be accountable to the public and are just ignoring the FOI Act. This is not hard pressed FOI officers struggling to meet deadlines, it looks like deliberate flouting of the law."

Mr Frankel adds: "The commissioner can stop this at a stroke. She can issue enforcement notices which will expose officials or ministers to the risk of fines or even imprisonment if they don't comply. The commissioner needs to start taking action."

gg

Posted By: GotanewlifeThe tower residents rep (having lived in the tower for 20+ years) explained in BBC news (I think) that the block was hard to heat, as the heating wasn't really up to it and that there were mould problems - it was she (on behalf of residents) who pushed for cladding. So yes, utter tosh.

Have you got any reference for this? Significant if true.

Posted By: fostertomEnsure any building control sign-off has taken into account the fire safety regulations (with a number of councils getting independent specialists to check cladding).

Posted By: borpinI doubt Grenfell would have failed this test.

Really? So not a matter of insufficiently retardant insulation and lack of firestops, contrary to Regs? You reckon good compliance, but Regs inadequate? Or discretionary 'risk assessment' (in lieu of hard prescriptive requirements) abused?

The firemen got there quickly and put out a fire at the fridge on the 4th floor. They were walking out of the block and saw the outside on fire.

Posted By: barneyYour an Architect Tom - what would you consider when specifying the external cladding system ?

All of the above, sooner or later, before committing anything. I don't need convincing about taking fire seriously - don't regard fire rules as bureaucracy to be outwitted - unless it's obviously stupid/inadequate.

Apart from the last point (possibly stupid/inadequate) I'd be more comfortable with applying prescriptive rules, that having to make, or trusting some privatised person/body to make, discretionary 'risk assessment' instead. To me, that's an invitation to commercial pressures, esp if it's known that there's no higher authority with teeth to do spot checks - no risk except of being judged in court/inquest after a disaster.

Press suggestions that evidential documents are being shredded as we speak.

Posted By: fostertomPress suggestions that evidential documents are being shredded as we speak.

It is really difficult to erase electronic documents completely.

Posted By: borpinIt is really difficult to erase electronic documents completely.

true - if e.g. police are empowered/instructed to sieze hard drives - the worry is that no one is treating it that seriously.

I didn't think that this was true from the above article = "What we know from the photographs and news reports is that rockwool was used - correctly - for the insulation but so it seems was the inflammable PE foam - if only in a 5mm thick layer in the middle of an aluminium sandwich for the rainscreen cladding."

I thought rock wool wasn't used as the primary insulation layer but maybe I just assumed it was plastic.

I don't rate the Raedwald article myself. First the confusion between PE and EPS foams for use in EWI, and then a confusion between rockwool going on Kingspan phenolic and the Celotex PIR that was actually in place. Phenolic is a thermosetting plastic (i.e doesn't drop molten flaming balls) that produces water and carbon dioxide as combustion products, PIR is a thermoplastic (i.e. does drop molten flaming balls) that produces combustion products including hydrogen cyanide. He doesn't seem to understand much about insulation.

Right on the money about power and politics though.

Why are there no documents available associated with that rbkc item? Is that normal for building control?

Posted By: djhI don't rate the Raedwald article myself. First the confusion between PE and EPS foams for use in EWI, and then a confusion between rockwool going on Kingspan phenolic and the Celotex PIR that was actually in place. Phenolic is a thermosetting plastic (i.e doesn't drop molten flaming balls) that produces water and carbon dioxide as combustion products, PIR is a thermoplastic (i.e. does drop molten flaming balls) that produces combustion products including hydrogen cyanide. He doesn't seem to understand much about insulation.

Yes I also thought it was a bit confused, more interesting are the comments below.

PS Spare a thought for the people that lived near the block but not actually in it. They can't go home until it's made safe/demolished. Not sure what's being done to help them.

Interesting discussion here about the relationship between the various classifications the the Building Regs. Last comment on this page most interesting.

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/grenfell-cladding-is-banned-in-the-uk-says-chancellor/5088271.article

Camden preparing to remove similar panels from one of their towers:

http://camdennewjournal.com/article/exclusive-cladding-removed

The contractors are saying that what they installed was what was specified and signed of by BC. Camden seems not to agree.