Forum menu
and the government want firefighters male and female old to do that up to the age of 60yrs, I'm 52 and I'm starting to slow down and struggle to keep up with the younger FF's and don't cope with the heat as well. To continue to do that until you are 60 is bonkers and there will sad to say probably be a death on duty
My FIL was a firefighter and had to retire early due to ill health. I understand the rules have been tightened up massively on that too, and he wouldnt have been able to reitre today.
This thread is not the time or the place for this discussion, but apparently if the firefighter rescues you, they then want you to be operated on by a 68 yr old surgeon. 😯
modern high rise buildings are now almost invariably steel framed
Sorry Slowster, but there are still lots of concrete high rise structures being built in London................
One thing that I've not seen mentioned is that the Fire Brigade should be doing annual inspections on buildings like this and they have the power to issue enforcement notices if safety deficiencies are found. If signage etc was missing or inadequate or they found other problems why didn't they do something about it?
When they inspect our buildings they lift ceiling tiles to check for fire stopping, they check every single fire door for intumescent strips and so on - they are incredibly thorough.
The Fire Brigade would also have been consulted as part of the Building Regs application that would have been made when the alterations and improvements were done to the building.
The price of steel usually dictates the type of construction. We had to totally redesign one of ours as concrete worked out far cheaper at the time.
[quote=FunkyDunc ]
This thread is not the time or the place for this discussion, but apparently if the firefighter rescues you, they then want you to be operated on by a 68 yr old surgeon.
Disagree with that.... so when would be the time, when there is a death on duty?
I'll keep raising the issues of FF well being and I'll let the other sectors fight their issues. Ideally it should be combined issue but as proved hard to do.
[quote=Rockhopper ]One thing that I've not seen mentioned is that the Fire Brigade should be doing annual inspections on buildings like this and they have the power to issue enforcement notices if safety deficiencies are found. If signage etc was missing or inadequate or they found other problems why didn't they do something about it?
When they inspect our buildings they lift ceiling tiles to check for fire stopping, they check every single fire door for intumescent strips and so on - they are incredibly thorough.
The Fire Brigade would also have been consulted as part of the Building Regs application that would have been made when the alterations and improvements were done to the building.
In our area we do inspect high rise properties, some are annually and others are quarterly depending on the property risk. Worst we found was that [s]pikeys[/s] persons had stolen every hose outlet on each landing had we needed to fight a fire within that block we would've severely been hampered.
Some of the residents don't help themselves though sofa's and other furniture dumped in common areas are a fire setters dream. There are freephone numbers to get it uplifted but once out of their flat its not their problem.
That's the problem funkydunk it's never the time. Govt ignore studies, advice and even their own reports and no one cares til a big tragic event, Then though it's not the time or place.
I live in a tower block that was similarly re clad 5 years ago. It's one of 5 blocks under the same management, the cladding was put up in a similar way to greenfell. i'm hoping the insulation used has a better fire retardency, I'll be checking that out. I did see them put in rock wool at each level though as a fire break, it will be interesting to see if the rock wool was omitted in GF, the footage suggests this might be an issue as the fire seemed to move uninterrupted theough the cladding betwwe floors, maybe the gap between insulation / rock wool and cladding meant flames leapt too easily past rock wool? or there was no rock wool.
The blocks are far better managed, though not perfect and cut backs saw the intercom system with attendant security guard located 24 hr in an office in one of the blocks removed a couple of months ago.. It occurred to me how having security on site would be very useful in the event of an emergency, improving response times and co-ordination. I'm anticipating that us residents will be pushing for it to be returned asap. I could imagine lots of lives could have been saved in GF and associated blocks had a 24 hr security / cctv operator been based in one of the blocks.
Looking at my block, it's 12 stories high [the height of a fire ladder], 50 two bedroom flats, 75 residents in all, with 2 lifts and 2 stairs, both separated from each other situated either side of the building.. It's a slim building, 4 flats wide but only one flat deep. the stairs aren't central, they are to the edge of the building with large windows on each floor and an open catwalk between each stairs on floors 2, 6, and 10. so in an emergency you're no more than 2 floors away from a catwalk / alternative escape route.
Gas mains were removed 15 years ago as the council thought it daft to continue pumping gas into tower blocks, they replaced appliances if a tenant was still using gas.
I've obviously been planning my escape route and I'm sure some of you reading my description are planning it for me! At GF tower they didn't have the option of planning an escape route, there's only one option, a single central staircase, entirely enclosed, [no windows] with up to 24 floors to negotiate in one go rather than the alternative option every 2 floors I have in my block.
Blocks like GF tower need 2 stairs, either to the edge of the building or as external additions. Gas in a tower blocks? ffs. Any block over 12 stories [height of fire ladder] needs a compete rethink in terms of fire safety / fire fighting strategy.
Former housing minister Brandon Lewis told MP's 2 years ago "We believe it is the responsibility of the fire industry rather than the government, to market fire sprinkler systems effectively and to encourage their wider installation"
That right there is the Tory ideology.
The market and the profit motive fixes everything.
The government shouldn't hinder the market by putting red tape in the way.
No funding for sprinklers in social housing, and no compulsion for private landlords to put their hands in their pockets either.
If people want to live some where safe, they have to pay for it.
Feenster, brandon Lewis is also a former fire minister who saw through massive budget cuts and destruction of our pension.
Bit of a **** in fairness
My sister went into social housing after her husband passed away without leaving provision for her.
The places she was offered were shitholes unfit for human habitation and the management companies had no intrest in complaints.
On that experience I suspect this tragedy is another symptom of under funded public services and what funding there is being taken by private companies.
Former housing minister Brandon Lewis told MP's 2 years ago "We believe it is the responsibility of the fire industry rather than the government, to market fire sprinkler systems effectively and to encourage their wider installation"That right there is the Tory ideology.
The market and the profit motive fixes everything.
The government shouldn't hinder the market by putting red tape in the way.
No funding for sprinklers in social housing, and no compulsion for private landlords to put their hands in their pockets either.If people want to live some where safe, they have to pay for it.
Or, if you really want to be partisan and play point scoring political games about such a tragedy, you could look at it the other way - That this goes back to (Ed Milliband's) Climate Change Act. Insulate tower blocks to reduce heating costs as part of the council's obligation towards getting their carbon footprint down, but produces a fire susceptible building which due to it's antiquated design becomes a death trap.
See. Easy to make an extremely complex and multi faceted situation that has taken decades to develop into a political football isn't it? Don't think it really adds much to the debate though.
[quote=ninfan ]Or, if you really want to be partisan and play point scoring political games about such a tragedy
I've no doubt that's exactly what you want to do ninfan.
you could look at it the other way - That this goes back to (Ed Milliband's) Climate Change Act. Insulate tower blocks to reduce heating costs as part of the council's obligation towards getting their carbon footprint down, but produces a fire susceptible building which due to it's antiquated design becomes a death trap.
You could, if it wasn't possible to get such insulation which is fire resistant, which is what they're supposed to use. But don't let that stop you from your point scoring.
hate to say it but think the fatalities here are going to multiply eh? loads still missing. 🙁
I saw that point made in the Telegraph
"Green regulations prioritised over safety"
What a **** you have to be to misrepresent that regulation like that, its not the same as showing ministers have shirked their responsibily at all.
Its a blatent lie.
This is about putting money ahead of (somebody elses) safety nothing else.
Met Commander has expressed hope that fatalities don't reach triple figures - which I strongly suspect is a tactic to soften the blow of news to follow in the next few days on just that subject. Fire USAR and Police Search Advisors will have been in and mapped most of the building and there will be a good ballpark figure on casualty numbers already.
Lots of bobbies from my Force are on standby to assist with victim recovery and mortuary procedures - collectively the Disaster Victim Identification process. Guess which course I passed last week?
What a **** you have to be to misrepresent that regulation like that
I'm not even offended by ninfers any more. Just weary.
Former housing minister Brandon Lewis told MP's 2 years ago "We believe it is the responsibility of the fire industry rather than the government, to market fire sprinkler systems effectively and to encourage their wider installation"That right there is the Tory ideology.
The market and the profit motive fixes everything.
The government shouldn't hinder the market by putting red tape in the way.
This is a flawed understanding (not that I would dispute firestarter's comment that Brandon Lewis is a bit of a ****.)
The sprinkler industry would love the government to legislate requiring sprinklers to be installed in more buildings. It's precisely the sort of competitive advantage every business would like. By way of analogy, it's a bit like cycle helmet manufacturers wanting governments to pass laws making helmets compulsory for all cyclists, and I think most of us are aware of the flaws in that approach. Ironically, passing legislation that favours a particular business sector is exactly the sort of thing that the Conservatives tend to be accused of.
The reason not to require that more buildings have sprinklers by law, and to say it is up to the sprinkler industry to make that case themselves, is that like most safety legislation, our fire safety legislation is goal based. This means that instead of having laws that prescribe exactly what fire protection measures are in place in any given building, the legislation requires suitable means for warning of fire, detecting fire, suitable means of escape, adequate fire resistance in the construction etc. etc. Official guidance is given on what is suitable or adequate in various codes of practice, including Approved Document B of the Building Regs for England and Wales. This goal based approach allows for changes in technology and the state of knowledge to be taken into account: the problem with prescriptive approaches is that it is impractical to keep updating the legislation as and when new technology appears and evolves. Sprinkler system technology itself is constantly developing and evolving, and not all systems are equal or as good as one another.
Sprinklers are not the be and end all of fire safety. It is perfectly possible to design buildings that are safe without sprinklers, and it is also possible to have buildings with sprinkler systems in them which are inherently unsafe. Most of the sprinkler systems in the UK are property protection systems, i.e. installed to prevent loss of the building and its contents, rather than life safety systems. When sprinklers are installed to protect life, there is often a trade off, and Approved Document B and recognised fire safety engineering principles allow for this, e.g. reducing the fire resistance of walls and floors or permitting bigger compartments because sprinklers have been installed.
If prescriptive legislation is passed making sprinklers a requirement in buildings where the same or better levels of fire safety can be achieved by other means, especially less expensive or even more reliable alternatives, then that is not making things better.
Flogging my cycle helmet analogy to death, spending lots of money and resources on making everyone wear a helmet, may deliver a worse result than other measures such as road safety campaigns, better design of roads and cycle lanes etc.
Slowster
I agree. Another r4 interview on the way home tonight said very similar to you, that it is one of several potential measures and that there is no one size fits all answer.
And apologies to anyone that thinks me insensitive or 'knee jerk' for what i posted before. But I'll defend myself again. I absolutely don't intend to be knee jerk about this, but reports were written years ago recommending a review and if necessary overhaul of the legislation as it is according to the 'experts' not fit for purpose. IT HAS NOT BEEN DONE. Despite even the last minister saying in October it would be, and 9 months on admitting it's not even started.
There have been repeated warnings and failures to act on them. Because this tragedy has now occurred, we'll now have an inquest and maybe finally stuff will be done. I don't know what the opposite of knee jerk is, but this seems like it to me, that people whose jobs it is (plural-because it's been across 3 minister's desks afaik) have failed to do them properly and only now will once dozens, maybe hundreds god forbid have died and forced them to.
I'm leaving aside the commercial organisations that may have used the cheapest options available. They are commercial organisations and of course profit is a consideration. At this stage it would be wrong to suggest anything about whether it was conforming to regs and installed properly and so on. That will come from the inquest. The issue is the regs and appropriate review thereof, and the failure to act on previous warnings is a disgrace.
The sprinkler industry would love the government to legislate requiring sprinklers to be installed in more buildings. It's precisely the sort of competitive advantage every business would like. By way of analogy, it's a bit like cycle helmet manufacturers wanting governments to pass laws making helmets compulsory for all cyclists, and I think most of us are aware of the flaws in that approach. Ironically, passing legislation that favours a particular business sector is exactly the sort of thing that the Conservatives tend to be accused of.
The major problem with wide scale sprinklers is whos going to plan the systems, install the systems, and plan the access to private and publicly owned flats, its going to take years for little benefit to most of the residents, but a huge disruption to residents while its all undertaken.
Better to implement it into all new builds of residential blocks, and reinforce the fire regulation of exixting blocks.
its not the same as showing ministers have shirked their responsibily at all.
Theres a bit of a leap isn't it? Something happens, must be the ministers fault.
For what its worth, you might want to look at the CV for the new Labour MP for that constituency...
[quote=ninfan ]Theres a bit of a leap isn't it?
No, that would be blaming this fire on regulations to reduce energy usage.
Having read through here and watched quite a bit on tv / web news channels just another word of admiration for the emergency services especially the fire brigade.
@bunreep I hear you about retirement age but it is very very expsenive to retire that early, ball park 50% of salary per anum all through your service. If you think about it join fire service at 20, retire at 50 and you are retired longer than you where working.
As for budgets / spending etc the building just had £80,000 per flat spent on it. Not many of us spending £80k on our home maintainence. This cladding spec (dangerous ?) and (obsessive) concern over "environment" efficiency in this case appears to have been responsible.
No, that would be blaming this fire on regulations to reduce energy usage.
Er, yes, well done, that was the point...
We don't know the reasons - its as much point blaming it on environmental regulations as it is on government cuts, ministers decisions, cost cutting, dodgy contractors or anything else - we simply dont know, and to try blame anything or anyone at the moment is just people lashing out and trying to either rationalise or politicise something long before anyone has any idea of the reasons or answers
Are these two competing for biggest troll **** award?
Watch this and tell me how Bruneep and his colleagues can do this in their 60s.
Listening to and watching the reports is so sad. Hearing that people jumped reminds me of 911 and makes you wonder the terrifying situation that forces that decision. The political point scoring makes me sick. The block was built in the 70s and likely designed in the 60s. Governments of all persuasions could have made sprinkler installation (for example) compulsory as a retrofit since then yet none did. The people who died, their relatives, those who were affected by the fire, emergency service workers - they all deserve to know what happened and why, and more to the point, steps must be taken to stop it happening again. Good article on Sky News this evening about disasters and how they changed things. - It shouldn't come to that but it does. Amazing work by the fire brigade. Incidentally I went to a seminar by a company called iMist a couple of weeks ago. Look them up - interesting product and retrofitable to your house. Go on - do it.... let me know how many of you get it installed. It could save your life.
[quote=jambalaya ]@bunreep I hear you about retirement age but it is very very expsenive to retire that early, ball park 50% of salary per anum all through your service. If you think about it join fire service at 20, retire at 50 and you are retired longer than you where working.
There are plainly a number of roles that could be carried out by 50+ year old firemen - especially as we are hearing that there isn't enough being done on the [i]prevention[/i] side. Thing is, that would mean additional personnel to replace them in the more physical roles, not just making the existing folk work longer.
@wilburt from what I understand the £2.6m cladding was put on soley for environmental reasons. Hinsight is always 20/20 but clearly that £2.6m would have been better spent on a central fire alarm and maybe sprinklers. (As I posted before we have neither in an 8 story Paris block)
@seaso sadly yes a death toll much hogher seems likely, its all heatbreaking.
@gavinpearce, that iMist thing looks like a great idea, and a hell of a lot cheaper and simpler to retrofit (though still a bit of a hassle) to other blocks.
@jam
We don't get that pension for free, I currently pay 14.7% of my monthly pay into the pension.
@scotroutes
Sadly there a very few other positions left other than ops, they are being done by civilians . If you are not fit for duty they will try to dismiss on capability.
Exactly bruneep. we have just had two lads dismissed on capability, one had a knee injury on duty and one had ME. Sad state of affairs
Jamba - the cladding should have been put on properly to the correct spec then this would not have happened
reports were written years ago recommending a review and if necessary overhaul of the legislation as it is according to the 'experts' not fit for purpose.
If by reports you mean coroners' reports, such as that for Lakanal House, bear in mind that a coroner is not an expert. They may have heard from [u]some[/u] experts during the inquest, but it is unlikely that someone who is most likely a solicitor by profession is somehow going to see where everyone else has been going wrong and what needs to be done.
The reality is that there are lots of 'experts' and they do not all agree. Moreover, with something like fire safety which is so multi-disciplinary, no one expert or group of experts has all the answers.
High rise fires have been a major concern for the whole global fire safety industry for many years, and it takes time for knowledge and experience between different experts and different countries to be shared and discussed, and hopefully to reach a consensus and for optimal solutions to be identified.
Unfortunately, most advancement in fire safety is reactive, and it often takes a major fire, or even several major fires, including loss of life, before there is a general consensus of understanding about what all the underlying causes were and what the best solutions are.
Any review in the UK will probably not be carried out by government officials, but will instead be undertaken by an organistation like the BRE, and it it will probably take a lot of preparation by them to identify the right people to participate, for those people all to be available at the same time, and to establish the right extent of scope. If it were clear that there was still a lot of uncertainty in the fire safety industry about the precise nature of the problems and a lot of disagreement about the solutions, it would not surprise me if the organisation charged with undertaking the review suggested to the minister that it be delayed until there was more consensus. The ministers themselves are not experts, and they are largely dependent upon the advice given to them (with the exception of Michael Gove, who has had enough of experts).
Moreover, I suspect that the sheer scale of loss of like at Grenfell Tower will result in changes which simply would not have been considered if the review had been undertaken earlier. Sadly that is the reactive nature of safety legislation: the nature and extent of risk is often not apparent until some people die, and constantly evolving technology, construction methods and other changes in how we live mean that fire safety is also constantly evolving and changing.
We've come a long way since the 1979 Woolworth fire in Manchester, when employees died because the instructions in a fire were to firstly to empty the tills in case the money were stolen, and they were then trapped on the upper floors with iron bars on windows preventing fire fighters reaching them, but this is a never ending process.
A final point about sprinklers. As I have said, the majority of sprinkler systems in the UK are property protection systems and were not installed to protect lives. A very significant number of those systems will fail due to incorrect design, specification, changes to the occupation of the building, or inadequate maintenance. Because fires are relatively rare, many owners and occupiers of buildings with sprinklers and many sprinkler companies do not get caught out by these defective systems. If we take a knee jerk reponse to Grenfell Tower and require that a very large number of sprinkler systems are installed in flats, and rely heavily on sprinklers over all other forms of fire protection and fire safety, we may well find in 10 or 20 years that we have a large legacy problem of lots of buildings where we cannot adequately rely on the sprinkler system.
Incidentally I went to a seminar by a company called iMist a couple of weeks ago. Look them up - interesting product and retrofitable to your house. Go on - do it.... let me know how many of you get it installed. It could save your life.
And this is precisely what I mean about 'experts' and different opinions and competing technological solutions.
There are major issues with water mist systems, and a lot of cowboys and disreputable salesman are marketing them and selling water mist systems which will not work to ill informed customers, including local authorities. The are being marketed as alternatives to sprinkler systems because they cost a lot less money, but they are not. They do have some very specific uses, e.g. in engine rooms of ships, where they are a suitable form of protection and for which there are recognised design standards based on proper testing for that specific application. In the testing that has been undertaken of water mist systems' ability to provide general fire protection in an office (which is a relatively low hazard risk) in the same way as a sprinkler system, they failed (I think this was undertaken by the BRE).
Slowster, you clearly know your stuff. Your points are fair, mine is not that the coroner or anyone else for that matter made any particular recommendations beyond that there needed to be a review and where appropriate overhaul. Not what the review would find or what the changes should be...just that it was needed. And successive administrations have failed to do it. I don't doubt it's a complex and difficult area, and experts may conflict in opinion but that's no reason to not have the review. No matter how hard, I can guarantee you've no chance of reaching a consensus or outcome unless you actually start the process.
If I may redo my car analogy.... it's like you've taken a car to the garage and the garage has said "I think your steering is borked, but I don't know why, you need to get it looked at by someone who knows what they're doing". But you didn't, and now the car's crashed. Not the original garage's fault, not the fault of the guy you didn't take it to. Yours, for not taking it.
My thoughts are with everyone affected - including the emergency services.
The level of voluntary support has shown human nature at it's best.
The posts by Slowster are helpful for me to understand some of the technical aspects in fire suppression and prevention.
I have a good level of construction knowledge in a technical capacity but this is so specialised that speculation is totally pointless.
Any enquiry must proceed quickly - I acknowledge Slowster's comment about BRE and gathering technical evidence-based findings.
Some observations about responses from politicians - I'm no great fan of Corbyn but he showed a real 'human touch' in talking with residents and literally putting his arm around shoulders; May, regrettably, didn't and it suggests she lacks empathy; Nick Paget-Brown showed an even lesser level of empathy - or contrition.
Kensington council appear to be paralysed into inaction when it comes to finding accommodation for those who are now homeless - and that stinks; it gives the impression they don't care and don't know what to do.
If the wealthy resiidents in the borough all chipped in a day's income and/or opened their doors for their neighbours that, I think, would be appropriate and welcomed.
Facts are in short supply but against a backdrop of Lakamal House, outsourcing of building management to ALMOs, questions about tech specs, designing safety in or designing cost out there should be a clear statement from government that there will be accountability for the enquiry results.
Is retro-fitting cladding to a concrete structure an example of form over function?
Jamba - the cladding should have been put on properly to the correct spec then this would not have happened
And now everyone is an armchair cladding expert ??
How do you know what the spec was ? How do you know if it was fitted correctly ? *
If the cladding is suitable for the current regulations (you normally have to submit your cladding choice / manufacturer etc - along with method statements , risk assessments etc before works coomence (specification will normally be at the estimation stage). All this would have been signed off before any works was started.
For example, If I get a job in to quote for, that the engineer calls up for a specific brand of purlins / cladding / bolts etc, I can't just go to site and install something else entirely. If I want to change any item to a supplier that for example gives me a greater discount , then I have to put these proposals forward, along with evidence that they are equal to or exceed the specification in the original tender. I can't just roll up on site with an alternative .
* If you have evidence to the contrary then please share
no evidence at all - but correctly installed cladding has fire breaks in it or is non combustible. given the way the fire spread it would appear that something failed here in the fire breaks according to the reports I have read which include testimony from folk I would expect to know about this stuff.
the installation was not inspected to ensure its compliance with fire regs
Revs. It seems that tomorrow's times are suggesting exactly that.
Plastic based insulation used as it was £2 per panel cheaper. Some company saved £5k on the job.
Suggestions also that the lowest level of building control scrutiny was applied to the retro fit.
Along with a catalogue of shortcuts, failings and ways to maximise profit as well described in this thread.
A horrible combination and heartbreaking result.
Facts are in short supply. There are lots of 'experts' pontificating and opining in the media but none of them have enough verifiable information to be believed - yet.
Listen to/read their views but don't just assume it's factually correct.
The facts will only emerge at the end of an enquiry with significant input from technical experts who have examined the site and the multiple specs covering product, installation, testing, certification; was it D&B, target cost, competitive tender, specified by the ALMO - in other words, how significant was cost?. QS will check application for payment from contractor; who did the MQS work for and what did they check?
A suggestion; for those who do not understand construction/product specs/product approvals/performance standards - read, listen, learn.
For construction pros (self included) who are not expert in fire control/prevention/suppression - read posts from Slowster who is expert in this and Bruneep who is serving firefighter.
All of us should pray - in private or in church - whether or not you believe.
I own a flat in a low rise block(3 storey), recently refurbed and clad. Obviously I've been thinking hard about it this week, and I mostly feel it's significantly better than the Grenfell scenario, and in a couple of ways I think we should be looking at remedial work.
[URL= http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a177/midlifecrashes/2012-07-25_11-08-26_171_zpshpvcrcxr.jp g" target="_blank">
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a177/midlifecrashes/2012-07-25_11-08-26_171_zpshpvcrcxr.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
Insulation sheet has been bonded to the wall, whether with adhesive over the full surface or in runs/dab I don't know. Mesh applied over the top to provide a key.
[URL= http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a177/midlifecrashes/2012-08-22_15-56-57_242_zpsebqsw0py.jp g" target="_blank">
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a177/midlifecrashes/2012-08-22_15-56-57_242_zpsebqsw0py.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
[URL= http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a177/midlifecrashes/2012-08-22_15-57-48_984_zpss6myra7v.jp g" target="_blank">
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a177/midlifecrashes/2012-08-22_15-57-48_984_zpss6myra7v.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
Trowelled on render, in two passes, under layer and self coloured top.
[URL= http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a177/midlifecrashes/2012-10-10_15-26-06_176_zpslrprgnlt.jp g" target="_blank">
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a177/midlifecrashes/2012-10-10_15-26-06_176_zpslrprgnlt.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
The ground floor here is the original concrete, it was clad once the scaffolding was out of the way.
So far so good, I think I'm happy with the cladding, there isn't scope for a metal top layer to peel away, the finish of the original build is such that there aren't large voids behind the cladding to act as chimneys and the render ought to act to hold integrity across the wall if some of the insulation was alight.
What is not so good is the finish of some of the detail work, new doors and windows were installed, and pipes, flues and sills were replaced and extended where they went through the outer wall.
[URL= http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a177/midlifecrashes/00d16a47-800e-4a60-b160-e26a6170a5f6_zpsjt2mzrcq.jp g" target="_blank">
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a177/midlifecrashes/00d16a47-800e-4a60-b160-e26a6170a5f6_zpsjt2mzrcq.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
Where the new flue was put on the older boiler, it was just expanding foam, at my next gas safety cert inspection my gas man picked up on it and we hacked out the foam by a couple of inches and made good with pointing mortar then plaster.
[URL= http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a177/midlifecrashes/IMG_20160206_113141755_zpsxtuhmcry.jp g" target="_blank">
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a177/midlifecrashes/IMG_20160206_113141755_zpsxtuhmcry.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]
Where new doors were installed, the dreaded expanding foam was overused.
Midlifecrashes I would be submitting those to your building management company and asking some questions about the spec of the foam used.
Is this really about money / rich vs poor if 10m was recently spent on the building. 200 firefighters attended in minutes is this really about cuts? Do we need to hear from celebrities? Does it matter which politican? came out looking best?
Seems to me to be a tragic accident that everyone is exploiting for their agendas. Horrible.