working in them is a somewhat different scenario, different for fire drills, escapes, etc., and also people don’t sleep there (OK, I might at my desk drop off during a teleconference but YKWIM)

So there’s a fire tomorrow in a 4th floor flat which spreads via the cladding and the people are still living there?

Does seem a bit knee jerky/band wagonny/arse covery, although I can’t really blame the council for that reaction.

Can’t help but think that less disruptive interim measures, such as 24hr fire marshals, different evacuation instructions (leave immediately at first alarm), and ensuring that the fire alarms actually work would be as effective and a LOT less disruptive to families. But then, I’m not the one making the decisions, and I’m certainly not an expert.

I wonder if anyone has actually looked at the risk of that happening in just the day or two you need to find proper accommodation for a large number of vulnerable families, vs the risks to them of being turfed out in the middle of the night with no time to make proper arrangements for those who need extra care?

According to the BBC the council even offered to pay for the Fire Brigade to station appliances and crew outside the buildings, but the Brigade said it still would not be able to guarantee the residents safety.

It seems they tried desperately to come up with a way of legitimately avoiding evacuating the blocks, which is going to be a major logistical headache and cost the council a lot of money, even if it does get it back at some point from the contractors or even central government.

The problem is that the fire safety of people in these flats is completely dependent upon being able to rely on residents staying put in the event of fire. The moment it is no longer possible to do that and evacuation is essential for all residents in the event of fire, then the single exit stairwells mean that the buildings are inherently unsafe.

Reportedly they also found other problems which aggravated the risk. There’s mention of the insulation of gas pipes going into flats, which I think probably means that the holes made in the concrete walls for the pipes have not been properly ‘fire stopped’. So fire would be able to spread very quickly internally, as well as externally via cladding.

It sounds like this was not a borderline decision: the council probably had no choice.

Same residents that have been vocal since Grenfall saying they fear for their safety due to the cladding and can’t sleep because of it.Now moved out so they can quickly remedy/remove it, tenants still not happy though.

Aracer, I agree damned if you do, damned if you don’t. How many fires have their been in those blocks in the ten years since they were installed? How many have reached the cladding? It does seem likely to be a bit of an over reaction – unless perhaps things like self closing fire doors etc are not working in which case there is a maintenance scandal there which is potentially worse than the cladding errors, because it would be obvious to anyone there is a problem and relatively easy to fix.

Personally I would have given people the option to move out UNLESS the remedial works themselves temporarily increase the risk e.g. By grinding off the fittings etc and make a fire more likely. It should be possible to significantly mitigate the risk without booting everyone out – fire extinguisher in every flat, more smoke detectors, hotline to report waste in hallways (and act on calls immediately) a different evacuation approach.

If I lived on the top two or three floors I would be concerned. If I had mobility issues that would impede evacuation I would be concerned. A blanket approach seems like an overreaction but I haven’t seen the risks they have identified – we are assuming it is all about the cladding.

Given the costs involved in evacuation they presumably didn’t think it could be mitigated by having 24/7 “fire wardens” in each block, until the cladding was removed.

It would be interesting to know however what powers they have to evict people from their homes at that notice and what judicial oversight there is of that? Does anyone know?

so what would YOU do if faced with potentially letting hundreds of people burn to death AND 100% guaranteed getting banged up for corporate manslaughter if that did happen?

Maybe the best solution is to rip down these old council tower blocks (across the country). Should have gone years ago anyway.

Awaits shouts of gentrification and ethnic cleansing…

Though I’m hoping it may put a stop to some of the modern tower block building schemes. Luxury flat towers that are going to blight the centre of Woking (worse than it already is at least). Has some awful bright coloured cladding on the plans too.

Some in Basingstoke have an amazing wind tunnel sort of effect with towers close together. Also a potential fire hazard as it could fuel fire.

Yes I agree it was sarcasm – we need the market to be even further regulated /checked/controlled though as it appears that products that do not meet requirements are able to be sold and installed

the RW usually refer to this as “red tape” when its just essential safety checks to stop businesses being unscrupulous in the pursuit of profit

Untested and given the fact that 80 odd people just died, I’d not want to take the risk.

Worth a listen:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p056nw0f

It’s not clear if this relates just to the cladding, or whether it’s tied in with previous renovation work too.

Oh I see, sorry! I misunderstood, I read “4 storey flat”!

I wonder which construction company(s) is going to put in the tender to carry out all the repairs …

ford do not stand for election and I assume they do not have corporate manslaughter rules in the US??

Also, that all happened 45 years ago.

I suspect Ford would react very differently now.

(Not just because they got their sums wrong, and ended up doing a recall of 1.5M cars anyway)

The main problem with fires in schools is arson, and this is usually caused by teenagers and youths starting a fire outside school hours. Protecting the building from these sorts of fires, not life safety, has been why insurers and others have been pushing for sprinklers in new schools.

School fires/arson are far less common outside the UK, and this is a social problem. So we are having to spend more money on new schools to include sprinklers because of the people who start those fires, money which would otherwise be better spent on teacher salaries (I know it’s not either/or, but at the end of the day resources are limited: money spent to rebuild schools that are destroyed by arson and on sprinklers to protect against arson takes away from the total available pot).