| These tower blocks that have the same cladding on 08:48 - Jun 23 with 3417 views | hampstead_blue |
| These tower blocks that have the same cladding on 16:15 - Jun 22 by Steve_M |
It still takes a lot for one of these to go up and cause the sort of devastation seen at Grenfall. It's not like these are flammable if someone chicks a match at them. I suspect the fire investigation will show that whilst the panels caused the rapid spread there were other failings there too.
The Camden ones aren't clad to ground level from memory but from second floor up. |
there is a row of tower blocks running from Swiss Cottage toward Belsize Park which have been re-done in the past three years. Around 4 I think. They are clad top to bottom.
As I have said already, the Gov should just get it done ASAP and worry about the costs later. In the grand scheme of things it will cost pennies. |  |
| Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
| | Poll: | Best Blackpool goal |
|  |
| These tower blocks that have the same cladding on 08:56 - Jun 23 with 3410 views | Steve_M |
| These tower blocks that have the same cladding on 08:48 - Jun 23 by hampstead_blue |
there is a row of tower blocks running from Swiss Cottage toward Belsize Park which have been re-done in the past three years. Around 4 I think. They are clad top to bottom.
As I have said already, the Gov should just get it done ASAP and worry about the costs later. In the grand scheme of things it will cost pennies. |
Yes, it's those ones but they are brick for the bottom two floors. |  |
| |
| These tower blocks that have the same cladding on 09:37 - Jun 23 with 3396 views | Throbbe |
| These tower blocks that have the same cladding on 20:44 - Jun 22 by TVRBlue |
I may be mistaken but I wasn't aware Celotex "cladding" was used on the Grenfell tower block.
Reports state the engineering and manufacturing company Arconic were involved in the manufacture (and I assume supply) of the cladding called Reynobond PE (polyethylene).
If this is true it is wrong for people to be suggesting the cladding was supplied by someone else - Celotex or otherwise, which could do untold damage to that particular Company.
Another thing is how did the incorrect cladding end up being put on the tower block? One assumes an architectural practice (or "in-house" Local Authority architect/s) produced a specification for the refurbishment works including the cladding system.
Was the correct cladding specified?
If so, who agreed to change the cladding to the type that was not suitable (or compliant with the building regulations in place at the time the refurb works were undertaken)?
Furthermore, was the installation of the cladding (compliant or otherwise) undertaken correctly with regards horizontal and vertical fire-stopping in the correct places?
All of these things should be contained as part of the overall Contract for the refurbishment of the tower block, let alone within the HSE Safety File for the project.
Anyway, these are some of the questions that should be being asked if they haven't already. |
I'm guessing you have personal knowledge of development from this. As you say, there are any number of people who could have been responsible for whatever failing occurred at Grenfell. And indeed, the cladding itself could have been OK, but the necessary protection against fire spreading missed.
Generally speaking, I don't do the site supervision of housing/commercial schemes I design, so once the drawing and spec leave me, I have no control over changes. It is standard practice for developers/contractors to then 'value engineer' those designs, and that will usually involve changes to specifications, and sometimes to significant aspects of the design. That's not a bad thing, they have a better knowledge of available products, so can often spot savings that I've missed. It's a rare scheme that can be built exactly as intended too, so sometimes the site team will discover an obstruction below ground that needs a tweak to the design to avoid. In both cases, The good ones will refer changes back to me for review, but many go suspiciously quiet at that point. I suspect that somewhere between the developers tendering the works and the contractor appointed, the contractor may not even be aware who the designer is.
That's the reason that the CDM file most name the Principal Designer incidentally. If the site team don't know who the designer is, how are they supposed to get agreement to on-site amendments to the design. If they don't, they could be accepting the role of Designer under the Regulations.
For Joe's benefit, this will be on the F10 form, which I'd suggest you stick a copy of in your CDM file, so if it does get missed in error, you're covered. I sympathise that some inspectors are pedantic b**tards, but most I've dealt with are sensible enough to accept that as long as the information is on site, the format is not so important.
If it's any consolation, it's a massive paper chase for designers too. I won't actually take on the PD role unless the whole design team are within my organisation. I'm legally responsible, and could face prison, if they don't comply, and if it's another design organisation employed by my client I have no contractual leverage to make them do so. |  |
| |
| These tower blocks that have the same cladding on 09:48 - Jun 23 with 3391 views | Throbbe |
| These tower blocks that have the same cladding on 14:09 - Jun 22 by CaptainObvious |
wearing hi-vis jackets in broad sunshine, wearing a hat-hard-on when there is no danger of anything falling on your head, reams and reams of paperwork, that sort of thing. i have it on good authority that european countries don't have any of this, yet do not seem to suffer a significantly greater number of accidents. there is more emphasis on personal responsibility, we are more of a nanny state. |
I take your point, but in both the hi-vis and hard hat example, who decides which times/locations are safe? Easier to manage a site where everyone wears PPE at all times, rather than someone having to decide when the light is low enough and get everyone to put it on, or have people monitoring a blacktop gang working in the open air to make sure they put their hard hats on when walking through a building under construction to get to a canteen.
I accept that these are only two examples (and I'll do the house extension one in a second), but neither of these are 'being strangled' really, and arguably the one size fits all approach is cheaper and easier than taking each situation on its merits.
We could take the view that the employer provides the equipment, and it is down to the individual whether they want to wear it or not, but at present employers have a duty of care to their employees. It would certainly mean a substantial rewriting of the law. | |
| |
| These tower blocks that have the same cladding on 09:55 - Jun 23 with 3388 views | Throbbe |
| These tower blocks that have the same cladding on 12:05 - Jun 22 by Deano69 |
Crazy isnt it.
Had a load of house renovation work done a couple of years ago, the nonsensical bollox we had to go through for petty items such as having to have an extractor fan in the utility room as we have a washing machine in there, and the shower hose from the bath taps having to be a particular height on its holder, for example. Yet we can clad a building in flammable material that lets of cyanide gases.
We need this planning stuff to take a long hard look at itself.. |
Both of those reduce the likelihood of Legionnaires Disease. Shower heads and damp utility rooms are breeding grounds for legionella. This can, and has, been fatal.
Quite often the apparently nonsensical building regs stuff is for a reason that isn't obvious. There's an argument that the onus should be on the designer/contractor/homeowner to manage the risk, rather than have a load of red tape. I agree the balance isn't always right, but at the small extension/renovation/local builder end of the market, the one man bands don't always have the skills to make those judgements, and nor should they have to. If you made every local builder responsible for that stuff they'd either have to spend months learning about all the different risks before doing any work, or more likely would just pack it up and go and work for a large contractor. | |
| |
| These tower blocks that have the same cladding on 09:57 - Jun 23 with 3387 views | No9 |
| These tower blocks that have the same cladding on 09:37 - Jun 23 by Throbbe |
I'm guessing you have personal knowledge of development from this. As you say, there are any number of people who could have been responsible for whatever failing occurred at Grenfell. And indeed, the cladding itself could have been OK, but the necessary protection against fire spreading missed.
Generally speaking, I don't do the site supervision of housing/commercial schemes I design, so once the drawing and spec leave me, I have no control over changes. It is standard practice for developers/contractors to then 'value engineer' those designs, and that will usually involve changes to specifications, and sometimes to significant aspects of the design. That's not a bad thing, they have a better knowledge of available products, so can often spot savings that I've missed. It's a rare scheme that can be built exactly as intended too, so sometimes the site team will discover an obstruction below ground that needs a tweak to the design to avoid. In both cases, The good ones will refer changes back to me for review, but many go suspiciously quiet at that point. I suspect that somewhere between the developers tendering the works and the contractor appointed, the contractor may not even be aware who the designer is.
That's the reason that the CDM file most name the Principal Designer incidentally. If the site team don't know who the designer is, how are they supposed to get agreement to on-site amendments to the design. If they don't, they could be accepting the role of Designer under the Regulations.
For Joe's benefit, this will be on the F10 form, which I'd suggest you stick a copy of in your CDM file, so if it does get missed in error, you're covered. I sympathise that some inspectors are pedantic b**tards, but most I've dealt with are sensible enough to accept that as long as the information is on site, the format is not so important.
If it's any consolation, it's a massive paper chase for designers too. I won't actually take on the PD role unless the whole design team are within my organisation. I'm legally responsible, and could face prison, if they don't comply, and if it's another design organisation employed by my client I have no contractual leverage to make them do so. |
I am surprised that you or your company is not, as part of the design exercise, required to have a presence on site to ensure both the design and the material specifications you have incorporated into that design to ensure structural integrity etc.is not complied with. |  | | |
| These tower blocks that have the same cladding on 10:01 - Jun 23 with 3380 views | Throbbe |
| These tower blocks that have the same cladding on 09:48 - Jun 23 by Throbbe |
I take your point, but in both the hi-vis and hard hat example, who decides which times/locations are safe? Easier to manage a site where everyone wears PPE at all times, rather than someone having to decide when the light is low enough and get everyone to put it on, or have people monitoring a blacktop gang working in the open air to make sure they put their hard hats on when walking through a building under construction to get to a canteen.
I accept that these are only two examples (and I'll do the house extension one in a second), but neither of these are 'being strangled' really, and arguably the one size fits all approach is cheaper and easier than taking each situation on its merits.
We could take the view that the employer provides the equipment, and it is down to the individual whether they want to wear it or not, but at present employers have a duty of care to their employees. It would certainly mean a substantial rewriting of the law. |
Just to avoid being too one sided, I'll give you my favourite bit of H&S nonsense.
For some years I worked on roads, occasionally in live traffic. On A roads and motorways that can be quite a noisy environment, enough to cause permanent hearing damage over time. Someone within the company decreed that on any 50mph or over road we would wear ear defenders. I pretty much ignored this on the basis that when working within a metre or so of high speed traffic, it was bloody important to have all my senses working.
In fairness, the policy lasted for less than a week before they saw sense and allowed people working outside traffic management to use their discretion on hearing protection. | |
| |
| These tower blocks that have the same cladding on 10:06 - Jun 23 with 3373 views | Throbbe |
| These tower blocks that have the same cladding on 09:57 - Jun 23 by No9 |
I am surprised that you or your company is not, as part of the design exercise, required to have a presence on site to ensure both the design and the material specifications you have incorporated into that design to ensure structural integrity etc.is not complied with. |
We offer the service, but generally speaking developers don't want to pay for it as they are already employing an architect. In fact, I'm usually working for free answering technical queries. I'd be quite sympathetic to a legal requirement for the designer to inspect their design, but suspect that would never fly, as it would be seen as anti-competitive, and placing too much financial burden on developers.
For most of my career, doing highway engineering for local authority/Highways England, then yes, design and supervision was standard practice. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| These tower blocks that have the same cladding on 10:17 - Jun 23 with 3358 views | No9 |
| These tower blocks that have the same cladding on 10:06 - Jun 23 by Throbbe |
We offer the service, but generally speaking developers don't want to pay for it as they are already employing an architect. In fact, I'm usually working for free answering technical queries. I'd be quite sympathetic to a legal requirement for the designer to inspect their design, but suspect that would never fly, as it would be seen as anti-competitive, and placing too much financial burden on developers.
For most of my career, doing highway engineering for local authority/Highways England, then yes, design and supervision was standard practice. |
What yoiu describe is something I have only ever come across when a conceptual or front end design is performed, mainly for costing purposes. Even then who ever does the final design and issues the drawings etc. for construction sicks very close to the original concept unless major flaws are found either in the design perameters of the materials suitability / strength.
I am aware that the plannignchanges made by Heseltine in the 80's paved the way for Building Control to be handed over to the private sector and that developers and Building Control did make a lot of changes on site which I suppose is the root cause of the current building problems?
A surveypr this morning said, on TV, that the original design of Grenfell Towers would never have exposed the building to the catstrophic fire. So are enhancements not subjeted to rigorous materials and construciton checks? | | | |
| These tower blocks that have the same cladding on 10:22 - Jun 23 with 3352 views | chicoazul |
| These tower blocks that have the same cladding on 12:06 - Jun 22 by GavTWTD |
From tha article:
"It has also emerged that cyanide gas released by burning insulation on Grenfell Tower could have contributed to some of the deaths.
Boards fitted during a refurbishment of the 24-storey block might have filled homes with the highly toxic substance when they caught fire, an expert has disclosed.
They could have produced enough deadly hydrogen cyanide to fill every flat at the west London high-rise, it has been reported." |
God almighty. Imagine that. |  |
| |
| These tower blocks that have the same cladding on 10:41 - Jun 23 with 3327 views | Throbbe |
| These tower blocks that have the same cladding on 10:17 - Jun 23 by No9 |
What yoiu describe is something I have only ever come across when a conceptual or front end design is performed, mainly for costing purposes. Even then who ever does the final design and issues the drawings etc. for construction sicks very close to the original concept unless major flaws are found either in the design perameters of the materials suitability / strength.
I am aware that the plannignchanges made by Heseltine in the 80's paved the way for Building Control to be handed over to the private sector and that developers and Building Control did make a lot of changes on site which I suppose is the root cause of the current building problems?
A surveypr this morning said, on TV, that the original design of Grenfell Towers would never have exposed the building to the catstrophic fire. So are enhancements not subjeted to rigorous materials and construciton checks? |
They certainly should be, and of course as TVRBlue has explained, they may have been, but the design subsequently amended. My point was that design changes are not always made by the designer.
I wouldn't like to speculate on the particular case until a more thorough investigation has been done. As per TVRBlue's post, I'm a little concerned that conclusions about the suitability (and even origin) of the cladding are being jumped to, with real effects on local businesses.
Interesting topic, for a handful of us at least. However, I'm off work today, and have just realised I'm in danger of spending it on TWTD! Off to find something else to do on a beautiful day, so I'll not be responding for a bit. [Post edited 23 Jun 2017 10:44]
| |
| |
| These tower blocks that have the same cladding on 10:48 - Jun 23 with 3322 views | No9 |
| These tower blocks that have the same cladding on 10:22 - Jun 23 by chicoazul |
God almighty. Imagine that. |
& exposed, unprotected gas pipes.
Gas should never be allowd in high rise buildings, I though it was banned after Ronan Point? | | | |
| These tower blocks that have the same cladding on 12:09 - Jun 23 with 3302 views | itfcjoe |
| These tower blocks that have the same cladding on 09:37 - Jun 23 by Throbbe |
I'm guessing you have personal knowledge of development from this. As you say, there are any number of people who could have been responsible for whatever failing occurred at Grenfell. And indeed, the cladding itself could have been OK, but the necessary protection against fire spreading missed.
Generally speaking, I don't do the site supervision of housing/commercial schemes I design, so once the drawing and spec leave me, I have no control over changes. It is standard practice for developers/contractors to then 'value engineer' those designs, and that will usually involve changes to specifications, and sometimes to significant aspects of the design. That's not a bad thing, they have a better knowledge of available products, so can often spot savings that I've missed. It's a rare scheme that can be built exactly as intended too, so sometimes the site team will discover an obstruction below ground that needs a tweak to the design to avoid. In both cases, The good ones will refer changes back to me for review, but many go suspiciously quiet at that point. I suspect that somewhere between the developers tendering the works and the contractor appointed, the contractor may not even be aware who the designer is.
That's the reason that the CDM file most name the Principal Designer incidentally. If the site team don't know who the designer is, how are they supposed to get agreement to on-site amendments to the design. If they don't, they could be accepting the role of Designer under the Regulations.
For Joe's benefit, this will be on the F10 form, which I'd suggest you stick a copy of in your CDM file, so if it does get missed in error, you're covered. I sympathise that some inspectors are pedantic b**tards, but most I've dealt with are sensible enough to accept that as long as the information is on site, the format is not so important.
If it's any consolation, it's a massive paper chase for designers too. I won't actually take on the PD role unless the whole design team are within my organisation. I'm legally responsible, and could face prison, if they don't comply, and if it's another design organisation employed by my client I have no contractual leverage to make them do so. |
The new regulations just make it so difficult, because as you say no-one wants to be a designer - especially on small projects when the architect is just drawing it up in reality.
CDM should work, but any changes to it have made it much worse in my view |  |
| |
| These tower blocks that have the same cladding on 13:57 - Jun 23 with 3279 views | Deano69 |
| These tower blocks that have the same cladding on 09:55 - Jun 23 by Throbbe |
Both of those reduce the likelihood of Legionnaires Disease. Shower heads and damp utility rooms are breeding grounds for legionella. This can, and has, been fatal.
Quite often the apparently nonsensical building regs stuff is for a reason that isn't obvious. There's an argument that the onus should be on the designer/contractor/homeowner to manage the risk, rather than have a load of red tape. I agree the balance isn't always right, but at the small extension/renovation/local builder end of the market, the one man bands don't always have the skills to make those judgements, and nor should they have to. If you made every local builder responsible for that stuff they'd either have to spend months learning about all the different risks before doing any work, or more likely would just pack it up and go and work for a large contractor. |
I genuinely bow to your clearly greater knowledge on the subject.
That was not the reason given for the need to do those things.
Also, if the washing machine had been in the kitchen (like the dishwasher) I wouldn't need one. I take your point, but it still doesn't add up. Only one example I grant you. Arent the electrical and plumbing industries 'regulated'? |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
