adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 8,933 
Likes: 4,783
|
Post by adrianc on Jun 28, 2017 7:42:08 GMT
After listening to a full debate on local radio today where fortunately (so far) only one tower block has been identified after testing as being covered in combustible cladding In your area, I presume? Which doesn't, of course, say anything about whether or not it's perfectly suitable, safe, and to regulations. It might just be the wrong shade. It might even be better stuff than they thought they ordered. Maybe the stuff they thought they ordered had been discontinued by the manufacturer. If it met regs seven years ago, but doesn't now, then the regs have already been overhauled in that period... BR changes don't apply retrospectively. For example, when was the last time the wiring in your house was changed and updated because of a BR change? There have been 10 updates since the 16th edition of the wiring regs - BS7671 - were introduced in 1992, the most recent only fully required since last October. That update - 17th edition, amendment 3 - includes a requirement for non-combustible consumer units. It's not that long since metal CUs were a bad thing...
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jun 28, 2017 8:39:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 8:53:06 GMT
What might be an issue is not the regulations or specifications, but rather that the testing regime may have tightened up in the time. Laboratories may have reviewed their test specifications and modified them, alternatively the sampling regime may have changed. So many variables, just like real life.  |
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,583
Likes: 4,181
|
Post by agent69 on Jun 28, 2017 8:57:05 GMT
i really do hope that the reasons for this inferior cladding are not down to council cost savings being made by choosing the cheapest tender quote, (of course not) As somebody who works in the construction industry, most of our work is awarded on the basis of lowest price (why would it be any other way?). Everyone gets the same enquiry document and everyone is obliged to carry out the works to the same standards. I worked for a brief period of time for a company that made fire resistant roller shutters and doors. Before they could sell a 1hr fire door you had to supply one to the building research establishment and they would install a mock up and set fire to it. I wonder if the same principle applies to cladding panels? As we have seen from the diesel emissions scandal, what comes out of a test is not necessarily replicated in real life.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Jun 28, 2017 9:41:24 GMT
This is the best write-up I've yet seen on the root causes. In essence, the shift away from contractors having to use in-house local authority Building Control to using external Building Control "consultants" instead, paid directly by the contractors and therefore with a clear conflict-of-interest in helping contractors find ways to do things more cheaply "within current regulations", drove a cart and horses through sensible fire safety considerations.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jun 28, 2017 10:17:45 GMT
This is the best write-up I've yet seen on the root causes. In essence, the shift away from contractors having to use in-house local authority Building Control to using external Building Control "consultants" instead, paid directly by the contractors and therefore with a clear conflict-of-interest in helping contractors find ways to do things more cheaply "within current regulations", drove a cart and horses through sensible fire safety considerations. You mean the link I put in a few posts higher up..... :-)
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Jun 28, 2017 11:04:22 GMT
This is the best write-up I've yet seen on the root causes. In essence, the shift away from contractors having to use in-house local authority Building Control to using external Building Control "consultants" instead, paid directly by the contractors and therefore with a clear conflict-of-interest in helping contractors find ways to do things more cheaply "within current regulations", drove a cart and horses through sensible fire safety considerations. You mean the link I put in a few posts higher up..... :-) Er, yes!!
|
|
r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1,883
|
Post by r1200gs on Jun 28, 2017 11:11:17 GMT
What might be an issue is not the regulations or specifications, but rather that the testing regime may have tightened up in the time. Laboratories may have reviewed their test specifications and modified them, alternatively the sampling regime may have changed. So many variables, just like real life. On the BBC news yesterday, there was an interview where the interviewee complained that the Government test was different to that used when the panels were supplied and that was why the results were different to what was in the specification. The results had gone from Class 0 to Class 3 giving a fail. In another part of the news report, comment was made to the apparent lack of fire stops and fire doors, both of which are BR requirements. You beat me to it. As soon as I saw that 100 percent of the buildings had failed "the test" I wondered just what "the test actually was. I could apply my own test to anything you like and get a 100 percent failure rate.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jun 28, 2017 11:24:49 GMT
You mean the link I put in a few posts higher up..... :-) Er, yes!! well as we are both 'staff', its good to see we are broadly on the same page, even if to confirm that we also don't take any notice of what the other may have said :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jun 28, 2017 11:27:09 GMT
You beat me to it. As soon as I saw that 100 percent of the buildings had failed "the test" I wondered just what "the test actually was. I could apply my own test to anything you like and get a 100 percent failure rate. That's a challenge. How about "Test that a diamond can't be scratched by a piece of butter". I'll allow you to conduct the test at any temperature & pressure combination you can reasonably re-create. 
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jun 28, 2017 11:31:58 GMT
with 'breaking news' that 120 of 120 have now failed (out of 600 they were taregting to test I guess) you do have to wonder what the heck is going on, and whether the tests themselves are to a fundamentally different standard to that required by BR at the time of fitting/specification etc. (as mentioned above).
Unless there is a fundamental flaw in the BR themselves.
starting to look all a bit odd.
|
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,961
Likes: 1,680
|
Post by Steerpike on Jun 28, 2017 11:32:30 GMT
Give me a lever big enough...is one allowed use of the LHC?
|
|
r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1,883
|
Post by r1200gs on Jun 28, 2017 11:41:16 GMT
You beat me to it. As soon as I saw that 100 percent of the buildings had failed "the test" I wondered just what "the test actually was. I could apply my own test to anything you like and get a 100 percent failure rate. That's a challenge. How about "Test that a diamond can't be scratched by a piece of butter". I'll allow you to conduct the test at any temperature & pressure combination you can reasonably re-create. There's always one........  Anyway, I think we can be reasonably sure that the test required to certify the panels is not the same one being used now to fail 100 percent of them. I wonder if some panels were certified to be used in conjunction with other safety features of the building, such as a decent alarms, fire containment, ease of evacuation, sprinkler systems? I really haven't taken too much notice as there is too much hysteria around right now, but I will be. For now, it looks like they were in a building with no fire suppression worthy of note, no alarm systems, no sprinklers, lousy evacuation options and then they wrapped the building in flammable plastic for good measure. I also note that the residents had been complaining that the place was a fire hazard for years and if what I read is to be believed, the building managers had been warned only recently that it was a disaster waiting to happen and were asked why they were waiting for a disaster before anything was actually done. The enquiry will I'm sure get to the bottom of this in end I'm sure. I just hope those responsible for any negligence don't just get early retirement while some lacky afraid of losing his job carries the can.
|
|
stub8535
Member of DD Central
personal opinions only. Not qualified to advise on investment products.
Posts: 1,442
Likes: 945
|
Post by stub8535 on Jun 28, 2017 12:21:11 GMT
I do wonder why, with students having finished their studies for the academic year, colleges in London are not offering to make the properties temporarily available for the displaced. This gives local authorities a chance to locate/ finish petmanent accommodation before September.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,831
Likes: 11,059
|
Post by ilmoro on Jun 28, 2017 12:30:51 GMT
I do wonder why, with students having finished their studies for the academic year, colleges in London are not offering to make the properties temporarily available for the displaced. This gives local authorities a chance to locate/ finish petmanent accommodation before September. You mean the ones that are now failing the tests? Oh and its not just us. The Germans have now evacuated a block and are busy testing. As far as the issues with the testing go, I would suggested that the issues raised on Newsnight on Monday first alluded to by ME earlier in the thread and in the article that followed linked to by ME yesterday in another thread and subsequently by a couple of latecomers in this thread might provide some explanation as to why something 'passed' previously but is failing now. If they were testing based on 'interpretation of the rules' rather than the actual rules then not surprising there is a discrepancy.
|
|
