Grenfell Tower fire

[Triassic]

11 hours ago, PeterW said:

 

Chatting to an insurance broker on the train this afternoon and he said the industry is watching with interest on this as he said there will be a lot of liability checking as to who "should" have confirmed the specification and contract. He was saying there are currently to his knowledge 4 layers of contractor and subcontractor involved in the mix, and potentially 3 contracting parties - sadly it sounds like the only ones who will win there are the lawyers .... 

No doubt a number of these firms will be going bust very soon. As we have already seen by the frantic back peddling and web site remodelling, as companies try to distance themselves from Grenfell Tower.

[ProDave]

10 hours ago, JSHarris said:

 

 

We've already seen it.  Loads of web pages have been taken down by companies involved in this project already.  I will bet that a lot of staff spent the past two days erasing hard discs and shredding documents as fast as they possibly could.............

And there will be no record of any instruction to do so.

[ProDave]

10 hours ago, RandAbuild said:

This is likely to be a flat sold under the right to buy, then sold on and made available for letting. Looks like they've spent a fair bit on it, but even so someone was making a killing at £500 a week.

As an aside, I wonder how the insurance will deal with a leasehold flat in this block?

 

Normally it would pay to refurbish the flat I would expect, but that's not going to happen. Would it just pay out the market value of the flat and the insurance company then own a lease on a flat in a burned out block that will almost certainly now be demolished?

[Ferdinand]

10 hours ago, RandAbuild said:

This is likely to be a flat sold under the right to buy, then sold on and made available for letting. Looks like they've spent a fair bit on it, but even so someone was making a killing at £500 a week.

 

Not sure about that. London Buy-to-Let is very marginal.

 

Here, as a traditional BTL, the flat would be around £300k when renovated (say 275k to purchase). If they bought it now 3.75k stamp duty + 10k Osborne Tax.

Rent is £25k / year. 10% void = 22.5k. If they got that that is an exceptional yield for a London property. Normally you would have to spend perhaps £500k on a property to get to that rent level.

Minus another 12-15% if under management.

Mortgage of £200k would at todays prices have an interest rate equivalent of say 3.5% (rolling setup fees of about 2.5-3k in) = 7k pa.

In K&C Council Tax is low - Band D is about £1000. Ignore as currently incident on the tenant.

Service charge. Guessing a little - perhaps £2k a year which is cheap for London, but may have been huge following the refurb.

Plus they will need to budget another 1k or so for insurance, gas safety etc.

And perhaps 1-2k for maintenance and investment.

Plus the opportunity cost of interest on 100k of capital which could be 3-5% elsewhere = say 3k. 

 

Which leaves gross profit at around 8-9k a year, which is profitable but not really a killing. Or 5-6k if using a managing agent. And in 4 years the mortgage interest will be treated as income for higher rate taxpayers.

 

It would be much better if owned outright, or much worse if in a Borough like Southwark or Newham where there is a lot more bureaucracy.

 

F

 

Edited June 17, 2017 by Ferdinand

[Ferdinand]

32 minutes ago, ProDave said:

As an aside, I wonder how the insurance will deal with a leasehold flat in this block?

 

Normally it would pay to refurbish the flat I would expect, but that's not going to happen. Would it just pay out the market value of the flat and the insurance company then own a lease on a flat in a burned out block that will almost certainly now be demolished?

 

Surely it will be "100% rebuild value" or buy the equivalent.

[AliG]

My suspicion having read the various reports available and also having spoken to an architect friend is that class 0 fire resistance is not properly understood.

 

The impression I get is that people believe that if they install something that is class 0 then they have met the appropriate standards.

 

Now the fact that class 0 materials are not marketed as fire resistant and these appear to be different more expensive materials should perhaps ring alarm bells.

 

Reading the Probyn Miers report it seems clear that EPS based cladding was known to not be fire resistant but they wanted further study on other materials and this never seems to have happened.

[Jeremy Harris]

@AliG, there has always been confusion over the term "fire resistant" in terms of building materials, I think.  I'm familiar with the term when applied to aircraft materials, where the meaning seems different, in that fire resistant means a material that not only does not itself sustain a fire, but that it will act as a barrier to fire for some period of time.  In building regs terms, fire resistance seems to often be confused with resistance to the spread of fire (the Class O rating, for example) not the actual fire resistance of the material.

 

Looking at a bit of video last night, there was a shot of a firefighter leaning out of a window on the tower and levering off a charred layer of the external insulation.  It seems clear that the material was still quite thick, although badly charred, so the insulation itself may well have had a degree of fire resistance, but that didn 't stop it breaking down under heat and giving off flammable gasses, leaving behind the charred core.

 

After a bit more digging around I think I know what the differences between the different grades of PIR may be.  The "5000" series PIR foams all seem to use the same base polyol to make the foam layers, but it seems that there are different reinforcing layers between the products.  All PIR has one or more layers of glass fibre in it, to give it enough strength to be handled (and make it irritating when it's sawn!), but it looks as if the position of these layers may vary from one grade to another.  I found this out via a roundabout route, and it's largely guesswork, but the starting point was the "I" series foams, that have a tougher outer surface, so they can both stand foot traffic when laid on floors, and take UFH staples better.  It looks like these products have reinforcing layers closer to the surface, to make the surfaces stronger.

 

I think it's possible that the "FR" series foams may have something similar, a surface layer, or layers, that acts to reduce the amount of oxygen that can get to the foam in the even of fire.  Celotex are very coy about the detail, and they don't even give any specifics about the supposed fire resistance of their "FR" products, other than in very general terms.  I think it seems likely that some form of surface difference may well be the main differentiating factor between the different types, though.

Edited June 17, 2017 by JSHarris
typo - mis-spelled "Celotex"

[SteamyTea]

30 years ago we used to add a melamine powder to the polyol to reduce the burning risk, not sure if that is still done these days.

It used to play havoc with the machinery as it was an abrasive.

Edited June 17, 2017 by SteamyTea

[ADLIan]

All mainstream insulation products are covered by BS EN standards which are used for CE marking and use BS EN 13501 for the fire performance. This Standard not only looks at the flammability but also characterises smoke production and burning droplets.

 

Surface spread of flame rating under BS 476 is NOT referenced by these Standards so is meaningless.

 

For some reason all of the Celotex products discussed here, irrespective of chemical composition, type of facing or use of glass fibre reinforcement, all have the same reaction to fire rating of 'No Performance Dertermined' (NPD).. If for example their standard products were 'Euroclass E' but a special fire resistant version was better at 'Eurclass B why not do the test and publish the data

 

I have looked at a few of the Declaration of Performance documents (I have no intention of checking the entire product range) and they are all 'NPD'.

 

Bottom line is they all appear to have the same fire performance and I've not seen any published test data to indicate otherwise

[Temp]

On ‎6‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 14:16, ADLIan said:

Interestingly the Celotex RS5000 product used has 'no performance declared' for fire performance under its CE Mark, Read into this that it is combustible and that's what it must be classed as when assessing its suitability for use in any particular application.

 

Google found this from the cache. Original requires login...

 

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4BkhN1f_NkkJ:https://www.labc.co.uk/our-services/registered-details/rd/ew491-celotex-rs5000-pir-insulation-board+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

 

EW491 Celotex RS5000 PIR Insulation Board

 

This is an assessment of a PIR insulation board by Celotex designed for use within rain screen construction. RS5000 is a textured aluminium foil faced PIR board that comes in thicknesses of between 50mm and 150mm and goes through the same manufacturing process as the Celotex FR5000 product, the difference being it has been assessed by the BRE and complies with BR135 for use in rain screen applications above 18 metres in height subject to the board being fixed to a non-combustible substrate.

 

Celotex has provided test reports undertaken by BRE and BBA to verify the product from both performance in fire and thermal properties. The product is much the same as their FR5000 board but is specifically tested to be used with rainscreen constructions above 18 metres. The board comes in various thicknesses and can be used with a variety of cladding systems (including masonry or rain screen systems) and can be fixed back to a structural steel frame with a sheathing board or direct back to masonry.

 

Celotex RS5000 has been successfully tested to BS 8414:2 2005, meets the criteria set out in BR135 and therefore is acceptable for use in buildings with storeys above 18m in height (subject to the board being fixed to a non-combustible substrate ) as alternative compliance to AD B.

[ADLIan]

I believe that test only covered one particular external cladding (12mm fibre cement sheet?) and is not valid in any other system.

[Jeremy Harris]

8 minutes ago, ADLIan said:

I believe that test only covered one particular external cladding (12mm fibre cement sheet?) and is not valid in any other system.

 

That sounds extremely plausible.  I recall trying to dig out the actual product testing, and exact test methods used, that related to BBA certification for a different product range some years ago, and the level of obfuscation surrounding what had and what had not been tested, how it had been tested and what the actual BBA certificate related to, rather than the product advertising BS from the manufacturer, convinced me that very often the stated certification was not worth the paper it was written on.

 

I remain firmly convinced that the semi-self regulatory model we have for everything from material testing to building regulatory compliance is very deeply flawed.  There seem to be just too many ways that regulations can be circumvented, entirely within the letter of the law and applicable regulations, but wholly against their intent.

 

I think we will have much squirming and sloping of shoulders from all involved in this refurbishment project, as they all seek to pass the blame on to others.

[SteamyTea]

I would have thought that the main structural engineer would have raised concerns about failure in a fire.  This must surely be taught very early on in any mechanical engineering course (I learnt about Young's Modulus in my first year).

[Jeremy Harris]

16 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

I would have thought that the main structural engineer would have raised concerns about failure in a fire.  This must surely be taught very early on in any mechanical engineering course (I learnt about Young's Modulus in my first year).

 

From what I can gather, after a few hours of trying to recover deleted web sites, the responsibilities in this refurbishment project were divided between several different companies, with coordination being by a project manager employed by KCTMO. I'm trying to find out more about the seniority, qualifications etc of the project manager, but it seems that a lot of stuff is still being deleted by KCTMO.

 

The advice to residents in May 2016 (from this source that they haven't yet taken down:  http://www.kctmo.org.uk/files/100428_kctmo_rydon_grenfell_tower_newsletter_may_2016_vff.pdf) was this:

 

Quote

The ‘stay put’ fire policy

 

The smoke detection systems have been upgraded and extended. The Fire Brigade has asked us to reinforce the message that, if there is a fire which is not inside your own home, you are generally safest to stay put in your home to begin with; the Fire Brigade will arrive very quickly if a fire is reported.

 

The only reason you should leave your home is if the fire is inside your home. In this case you and your family should leave the flat immediately: close your door behind you, leave the building and call the 999, giving your address and postcode.

 

 

[Jeremy Harris]

I'm generally a fairly reasonable person, but sometimes things happen that get make me very, very angry, angry enough to start shouting and swearing.  I've spent a lot of time today trying to uncover information and copy websites as they have been taken down by those who may well bear some responsibility for this fire.  Most of the deleted websites have just gone, with no explanation, the URLs just "404".  This one is the one that's made me angry, because it's so obviously disingenuous, given that the residents are all calling for more information: http://www.harleyfacades.co.uk/page/grenfell-tower-626

 

In case they take it down (again), this is what Harley Facades, the company that supplied and fitted the flammable facade to Grenfell Tower, are now saying:

Quote

As a mark of respect to the people of Grenfell Tower, we have removed all details from our website.

 

 

 

Edited June 17, 2017 by JSHarris

[Ferdinand]

6 hours ago, JSHarris said:

I'm generally a fairly reasonable person, but sometimes things happen that get make me very, very angry, angry enough to start shouting and swearing.  I've spent a lot of time today trying to uncover information and copy websites as they have been taken down by those who may well bear some responsibility for this fire.  Most of the deleted websites have just gone, with no explanation, the URLs just "404".  This one is the one that's made me angry, because it's so obviously disingenuous, given that the residents are all calling for more information: http://www.harleyfacades.co.uk/page/grenfell-tower-626

 

In case they take it down (again), this is what Harley Facades, the company that supplied and fitted the flammable facade to Grenfell Tower, are now saying:

 

 

 

 

Are you using the Wayback Machine?

 

Spidering kctmo since  2002, and presumably most of the others.

 

https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.kctmo.org.uk

Edited June 17, 2017 by Ferdinand

[Jeremy Harris]

Yes, I've been searching the Wayback Machine, the problem is finding the original deleted page URLs, as searching the Wayback Machine without them isn't that easy, as some of the pages don't have a "friendly" URL.

 

I've copied a lot of the original pages from KCTMO, Harley Facades and Rydon, plus a few news sites that had reported on this project.

 

As an interesting aside, the project manager for this project seems to have no internet presence at all now, which seems odd.  It's pretty much mandatory that major public sector projects are managed in accordance with PRINCE2, and that the project manager for this project should have been a PRINCE2 Practitioner, and I'd have expected them to have passed either IPMA Level C or Level B (I had to have IPMA Level A to manage a £200M construction project).  The majority of those working in non-sensitive areas, including local government and its associated bodies, have some form of public profile, via Linked In or whatever, yet I can't find anything at all about the qualifications and experience of the project manager who will have been responsible for many of the key decisions in this refurbishment.  Not sure what conclusion to draw from this, but the most obvious may be that the project manager wasn't formally qualified - that would fit with my limited experience of local authorities..............

Edited June 18, 2017 by JSHarris

[Ferdinand]

1 hour ago, JSHarris said:

Yes, I've been searching the Wayback Machine, the problem is finding the original deleted page URLs, as searching the Wayback Machine without them isn't that easy, as some of the pages don't have a "friendly" URL.

 

I've copied a lot of the original pages from KCTMO, Harley Facades and Rydon, plus a few news sites that had reported on this project.

 

As an interesting aside, the project manager for this project seems to have no internet presence at all now, which seems odd.  It's pretty much mandatory that major public sector projects are managed in accordance with PRINCE2, and that the project manager for this project should have been a PRINCE2 Practitioner, and I'd have expected them to have passed either IPMA Level C or Level B (I had to have IPMA Level A to manage a £200M construction project).  The majority of those working in non-sensitive areas, including local government and its associated bodies, have some form of public profile, via Linked In or whatever, yet I can't find anything at all about the qualifications and experience of the project manager who will have been responsible for many of the key decisions in this refurbishment.  Not sure what conclusion to draw from this, but the most obvious may be that the project manager wasn't formally qualified - that would fit with my limited experience of local authorities..............

 

If you go into the "summary" option, and list the urls, you can then filter by type.

 

eg list of urls

https://web.archive.org/web/*/kctmo.org.uk/*

 

That would let you zero in on eg all the newsletters.

 

filter by *.pdf

 

Hope that helps for your searching rather than repeating things you know and are doing.

 

Best of luck anyway.

 

Ferdinand

 

[Jeremy Harris]

Thanks, @Ferdinand, the KCTMO info isn't to hard to find, it's mainly other stuff, like the information from suppliers and main contractors that's a bit of a challenge.  Some of the sites had rather un-friendly URLS, often just a sort of random string of alphanumerics, making finding a particular topic or subject a bit challenging.

[Ferdinand]

43 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

Thanks, @Ferdinand, the KCTMO info isn't to hard to find, it's mainly other stuff, like the information from suppliers and main contractors that's a bit of a challenge.  Some of the sites had rather un-friendly URLS, often just a sort of random string of alphanumerics, making finding a particular topic or subject a bit challenging.

 

You can do the same for any site, and hopefully the technique transfers and there are a small enough list of urls of each type to spelunk through.

 

 

Edited June 18, 2017 by Ferdinand

[Jeremy Harris]

@Ferdinand, yes, if you know the base URL of the site, but when looking for all the reports on sites within the construction industry, this does mean a lot of digging around, looking for 404'd pages, then searching the Wayback Machine using the URL of the 404'd page.  To add to the problem, not all the taken down pages return a 404, most have been re-directed to the main news pages of the sites they were on.

[Ferdinand]

31 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

@Ferdinand, yes, if you know the base URL of the site, but when looking for all the reports on sites within the construction industry, this does mean a lot of digging around, looking for 404'd pages, then searching the Wayback Machine using the URL of the 404'd page.  To add to the problem, not all the taken down pages return a 404, most have been re-directed to the main news pages of the sites they were on.

 

Don't think I can add much more.

[Jeremy Harris]

@Ferdinand, it does seem as if there is a fair bit of work going on to make a lot of the information that was on the web about this project hard to find.  It looks very much as if one of the first actions by all those involved was to remove as much data from the public domain as possible, and that alone makes be suspicious.

 

On a separate point, Philip Hammond made a curious remark during an interview this morning.  He stated that the materials used in the cladding of Grenfell Tower were "illegal".   I doubt that many would disagree with the view that their use in this application should not have been allowed, but the term "illegal" is very strong language, coming from such a senior figure.

 

AFAICS, the materials themselves were not illegal at all.  They seem to have had the approvals required by law and the applicable regulations, even if those approvals, and the design and implementation of the cladding scheme itself, were very deeply flawed.

 

 

Edited June 18, 2017 by JSHarris

[Crofter]

It's almost certainly a gross oversimplification to state that the materials were illegal.

What appears to have happened is that the way that these materials were combined, including the scale and height, led to a fundamental change in the building's fire risk, and that insufficient regard was paid to that.

 

The fact that the fire advice remained 'stay in your flat' shows how poorly thought out this project was. It would have cost almost nothing to change that advice. Whilst that change alone would probably only have made a reduction in fatalities, and not been able to save everyone, it is IMHO indicative of major failings in the overall project management.

[Jeremy Harris]

I agree, it does seem to be just wrong to say that a product is illegal, when there seems to be no evidence that this was actually so.  There has been some clarification of Philip Hammond's statement, and it now seems he was referring to EU regulations.  He's still wrong, I believe, as I'm near-certain that we haven't yet subsumed the Eurocode requirements into our building regulations or approval requirements. 

 

I know that compliance with the relevant Eurocode may be accepted by building control, as I did this with our retaining wall (it was designed to Eurocode 7), but I'm not aware of there being a requirement for compliance with all the Eurocodes in the UK, yet.