So no plans submitted for approval and no statutory visits needed while
the work was in progress.

How many more worms are they keeping in the tin?

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
So no plans submitted for approval and no statutory visits needed while
the work was in progress.

How many more worms are they keeping in the tin?

not in the near od Scotland .......

dennis@home wrote:

So no plans submitted for approval and no statutory visits needed while
the work was in progress.

I thought the building notice meant it was *only* checked by visits as
it progressed?

On 16/06/2017 19:52, Andy Burns wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

So no plans submitted for approval and no statutory visits needed while
the work was in progress.

I thought the building notice meant it was *only* checked by visits as
it progressed?

Yes. but there are no statutory points where anyone has to visit on that
job.

If it were you building an extension you would have to have visits like
when you did the foundations, drains, etc.

So the question must be what visits were made?

The real fault isn't in the cladding but in the system used to bypass
proper building control IMNSHO.

I don't think building notices are intended for works like that but more
for minor jobs like the odd house.

But who's going to care in four years time when the public enquiry does
something?

On 16/06/2017 20:04, dennis@home wrote:
On 16/06/2017 19:52, Andy Burns wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

So no plans submitted for approval and no statutory visits needed while
the work was in progress.

I thought the building notice meant it was *only* checked by visits as
it progressed?

Yes. but there are no statutory points where anyone has to visit on that
job.

If it were you building an extension you would have to have visits like
when you did the foundations, drains, etc.

So the question must be what visits were made?

The real fault isn't in the cladding but in the system used to bypass
proper building control IMNSHO.


eg a missing firestop at every floor level?


--
Adam

ARW wrote:

dennis@home wrote:

The real fault isn't in the cladding but in the system used to bypass
proper building control IMNSHO.

Even if they'd submitted a full plans application, nothing would stand
out as being "wrong" the PE version of the alu cladding is (crazily)
approved, the drawings from the planning application show reasonable
looking robust details ... so you'd still end up depending on what was
inspected on visits.

eg a missing firestop at every floor level?
I can't make out the remains of any fitted in the aftermath photos, that
correspond to the ones shown in the plans at approx floor/ceil height on
the plans but it does have in brackets "where applicable" rather than
stating every floor.

http://i.imgur.com/zVZe5RV.jpg

On 16/06/2017 21:01, Andy Burns wrote:
ARW wrote:

dennis@home wrote:

The real fault isn't in the cladding but in the system used to bypass
proper building control IMNSHO.

Even if they'd submitted a full plans application, nothing would stand
out as being "wrong" the PE version of the alu cladding is (crazily)
approved, the drawings from the planning application show reasonable
looking robust details ... so you'd still end up depending on what was
inspected on visits.

If there were any visits or they were at an appropriate time.
The statutory visits don't exist in this kind of renovation.

Huge wrote:

Tim+ wrote:

It does seem utterly insane to clad a tower block in firelighters.

Oh, indeed. Which is why it didn't happen.

Predicting the past should be easier, no?

In article . com,
"dennis@home" writes:
So no plans submitted for approval and no statutory visits needed while
the work was in progress.

How many more worms are they keeping in the tin?

Here's the spec for the upgrade including the insulation...

6" Celotex FR5000, with a 2" cavity behind.

Also used 1" Celotex FR5000 as glazing infill panels.

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/idoxWAM/doc/...df&pageCount=1

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article ,
(Andrew Gabriel) writes:
In article . com,
"dennis@home" writes:
So no plans submitted for approval and no statutory visits needed while
the work was in progress.

How many more worms are they keeping in the tin?

Here's the spec for the upgrade including the insulation...

6" Celotex FR5000, with a 2" cavity behind.

Also used 1" Celotex FR5000 as glazing infill panels.

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/idoxWAM/doc/...df&pageCount=1


Bloody hell - oh the irony...

"1.4 Overheating

Grenfell Tower currently suffers from chronic overheating in the summer.
"

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 17/06/2017 00:04, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
(Andrew Gabriel) writes:
In article . com,
"dennis@home" writes:
So no plans submitted for approval and no statutory visits needed while
the work was in progress.

How many more worms are they keeping in the tin?

Here's the spec for the upgrade including the insulation...

6" Celotex FR5000, with a 2" cavity behind.

Also used 1" Celotex FR5000 as glazing infill panels.

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/idoxWAM/doc/...df&pageCount=1


Bloody hell - oh the irony...

"1.4 Overheating

Grenfell Tower currently suffers from chronic overheating in the summer.
"


If your flat faced south or south-west, the solar gain would be awful.

On 17/06/2017 11:06, Andrew wrote:

Grenfell Tower currently suffers from chronic overheating in the summer.
"


If your flat faced south or south-west, the solar gain would be awful.

Would ventilation not have been enough to solve that?

On 17/06/2017 11:26, Nick wrote:
On 17/06/2017 11:06, Andrew wrote:

Grenfell Tower currently suffers from chronic overheating in the
summer.
"


If your flat faced south or south-west, the solar gain would be awful.

Would ventilation not have been enough to solve that?

It's a concrete building. After a few hot days the whole structure
ends up like a giant storage heater. You can open the windows
but that just allows more hot air to enter. And you should
not open your front door to get throughflow because that is
a fire door (also insecure).

Cladding the building stops rain causing penetrating damp
and evaporative cooling in winter and prevents the solar
gain from heating up the concrete structure.

Done properly, it's a good idea. But it was done to comply
with the EU directive to reduce Co2 and this seems to have
overridden everything else. This will all come out during
the public enquiry.

Why on earth did it need 150 mm of celotex. In Scandinavia
or Germany perhaps where it gets really cold, but London ?.

In southern Europe and Brazil buildings have shutters to
stop the solar gain. The French have developed a special
multi-layer foil insulation for situations where you
need to reduce heat gain, but it also seems to be
common over here when doing barn conversions.

(Andrew Gabriel) Wrote in message:
In article . com,
"dennis@home" writes:
So no plans submitted for approval and no statutory visits needed while
the work was in progress.

How many more worms are they keeping in the tin?

Here's the spec for the upgrade including the insulation...

6" Celotex FR5000, with a 2" cavity behind.

Also used 1" Celotex FR5000 as glazing infill panels.

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/idoxWAM/doc/...df&pageCount=1


Well a combination of thicknesses of FR5000 is mentioned
on
different parts of the structure -150mm, 100mm.

NB Glazing infill panels totals 125mm (5")...

FR5000 - fire rated as Class 0...

Mmm
--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On 17/06/2017 09:14, jim wrote:
(Andrew Gabriel) Wrote in message:
In article . com,
"dennis@home" writes:
So no plans submitted for approval and no statutory visits needed while
the work was in progress.

How many more worms are they keeping in the tin?

Here's the spec for the upgrade including the insulation...

6" Celotex FR5000, with a 2" cavity behind.

Also used 1" Celotex FR5000 as glazing infill panels.

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/idoxWAM/doc/...df&pageCount=1


Well a combination of thicknesses of FR5000 is mentioned
on
different parts of the structure -150mm, 100mm.

NB Glazing infill panels totals 125mm (5")...

FR5000 - fire rated as Class 0...

Mmm


There is a caveat with FR5000. If subjected to extreme temperatures,
then instead of charring it will then burn. It is only class "O" when
covered with non-combustible material.

On 17/06/17 11:09, Andrew wrote:

There is a caveat with FR5000. If subjected to extreme temperatures,
then instead of charring it will then burn. It is only class "O" when
covered with non-combustible material.


Ive tried to burn regular celotex. Yeah even unto a blowtorch. Yes in
time in a roaring fire it will disintegrate into a charred mess,
presumably by oxidation,. but at 20% oxygen the reaction is not
exothermic enough to be considered 'burning'.

The blame has to lie with the polyethylene foam rain cladding, not the
insulation.


--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

The Natural Philosopher Wrote in message:
On 17/06/17 11:09, Andrew wrote:

There is a caveat with FR5000. If subjected to extreme temperatures,
then instead of charring it will then burn. It is only class "O" when
covered with non-combustible material.


Ive tried to burn regular celotex. Yeah even unto a blowtorch. Yes in
time in a roaring fire it will disintegrate into a charred mess,
presumably by oxidation,. but at 20% oxygen the reaction is not
exothermic enough to be considered 'burning'.

The blame has to lie with the polyethylene foam rain cladding, not the
insulation.

Described as "zink cladding" in the pp doc...?


--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On 17/06/17 11:09, Andrew wrote:

There is a caveat with FR5000. If subjected to extreme temperatures,
then instead of charring it will then burn. It is only class "O" when
covered with non-combustible material.

This is partly why I lined my attic roof with plasterboard down to the
tops of the joists. Not 100% covered, but it's the best I could do that
was practical.

On 16/06/2017 23:56, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article . com,
"dennis@home" writes:
So no plans submitted for approval and no statutory visits needed while
the work was in progress.

How many more worms are they keeping in the tin?

Here's the spec for the upgrade including the insulation...

6" Celotex FR5000, with a 2" cavity behind.

Also used 1" Celotex FR5000 as glazing infill panels.

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/idoxWAM/doc/...df&pageCount=1


That's a planning application not a building control plan.

Once you have planning permission you can quite easily change things as
far as the structure is concerned as long as the outside view is similar.

It is not the planning departments job to ensure it meets building regs.

dennis@home wrote:

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/idoxWAM/doc/Other-952368.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=952368&location=VOLUM E2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1

That's a planning application not a building control plan.

True

Once you have planning permission you can quite easily change things as
far as the structure is concerned as long as the outside view is similar.

But then you'd be paying the architects twice, so why would you, if cost
cutting was the aim?

It is not the planning departments job to ensure it meets building regs.

Agreed.

On 17/06/2017 10:21, Andy Burns wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/idoxWAM/doc/Other-952368.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=952368&location=VOLUM E2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1


That's a planning application not a building control plan.

True

Once you have planning permission you can quite easily change things as
far as the structure is concerned as long as the outside view is similar.

But then you'd be paying the architects twice, so why would you, if cost
cutting was the aim?

It is not the planning departments job to ensure it meets building regs.

Agreed.

The building regs have not been updated to consider this style of
external cladding. So as it stands, the work is compliant and
as long as the contractor is an 'approved person' then
inspection (like Fensa or Hetec) should not be needed.

Andrew wrote:

The building regs have not been updated to consider this style of
external cladding.

So how can a new material come into use, if it doesn't pass the old tests?

On 17/06/2017 10:21, Andy Burns wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/idoxWAM/doc/Other-952368.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=952368&location=VOLUM E2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1


That's a planning application not a building control plan.

True

Once you have planning permission you can quite easily change things as
far as the structure is concerned as long as the outside view is similar.

But then you'd be paying the architects twice, so why would you, if cost
cutting was the aim?

Why would it involve the architects?


It is not the planning departments job to ensure it meets building regs.

Agreed.

dennis@home wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

dennis@home wrote:

Once you have planning permission you can quite easily change things as
far as the structure is concerned as long as the outside view is similar.

But then you'd be paying the architects twice, so why would you, if cost
cutting was the aim?

Why would it involve the architects?

Well the architects (Studio E) seem to have subbed out the energy
related aspects (to Max Fordham) who presumably wouldn't make any
changes and re-calculations from the goodness of their heart?

In article . com,
"dennis@home" writes:
On 16/06/2017 23:56, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article . com,
"dennis@home" writes:
So no plans submitted for approval and no statutory visits needed while
the work was in progress.

How many more worms are they keeping in the tin?

Here's the spec for the upgrade including the insulation...

6" Celotex FR5000, with a 2" cavity behind.

Also used 1" Celotex FR5000 as glazing infill panels.

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/idoxWAM/doc/...df&pageCount=1

That's a planning application not a building control plan.

Once you have planning permission you can quite easily change things as
far as the structure is concerned as long as the outside view is similar.
It is not the planning departments job to ensure it meets building regs.

It is a condition of this planning approval that any changes due
to building control must come back to be approved by planning too.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 17/06/2017 12:12, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article . com,
"dennis@home" writes:
On 16/06/2017 23:56, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article . com,
"dennis@home" writes:
So no plans submitted for approval and no statutory visits needed while
the work was in progress.

How many more worms are they keeping in the tin?

Here's the spec for the upgrade including the insulation...

6" Celotex FR5000, with a 2" cavity behind.

Also used 1" Celotex FR5000 as glazing infill panels.

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/idoxWAM/doc/...df&pageCount=1

That's a planning application not a building control plan.

Once you have planning permission you can quite easily change things as
far as the structure is concerned as long as the outside view is similar.
It is not the planning departments job to ensure it meets building regs.

It is a condition of this planning approval that any changes due
to building control must come back to be approved by planning too.


I don't think so and neither does my friend who was a head of building
control.

On 17/06/2017 20:37, dennis@home wrote:
On 17/06/2017 12:12, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article . com,
"dennis@home" writes:
On 16/06/2017 23:56, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article . com,
"dennis@home" writes:
So no plans submitted for approval and no statutory visits needed
while
the work was in progress.

How many more worms are they keeping in the tin?

Here's the spec for the upgrade including the insulation...

6" Celotex FR5000, with a 2" cavity behind.

Also used 1" Celotex FR5000 as glazing infill panels.

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/idoxWAM/doc/...df&pageCount=1


That's a planning application not a building control plan.

Once you have planning permission you can quite easily change things as
far as the structure is concerned as long as the outside view is
similar.
It is not the planning departments job to ensure it meets building regs.

It is a condition of this planning approval that any changes due
to building control must come back to be approved by planning too.


I don't think so and neither does my friend who was a head of building
control.

Why would the planning department be interested in changes due to
building control unless they changed the look of the final structure or
affected local access?

SteveW

In article om,
"dennis@home" writes:
On 17/06/2017 12:12, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article . com,
"dennis@home" writes:
On 16/06/2017 23:56, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article . com,
"dennis@home" writes:
So no plans submitted for approval and no statutory visits needed while
the work was in progress.

How many more worms are they keeping in the tin?

Here's the spec for the upgrade including the insulation...

6" Celotex FR5000, with a 2" cavity behind.

Also used 1" Celotex FR5000 as glazing infill panels.

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/idoxWAM/doc/...df&pageCount=1

That's a planning application not a building control plan.

Once you have planning permission you can quite easily change things as
far as the structure is concerned as long as the outside view is similar.
It is not the planning departments job to ensure it meets building regs.

It is a condition of this planning approval that any changes due
to building control must come back to be approved by planning too.


I don't think so and neither does my friend who was a head of building
control.

Well, I guess neither of you read the conditions of *this* planning
approval, where it's clearly stated as a condition of this approval.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 09:58:46 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

It is not the planning departments job to ensure it meets building
regs.

It's the building contractor's job.

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

6" Celotex FR5000, with a 2" cavity behind.

"behind" meaning

concrete panel/celotex/cavity/aluminium panel


A whopping 10mm of original insulation on the inside of the concrete wall!

On 17/06/2017 10:19, Andy Burns wrote:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:

6" Celotex FR5000, with a 2" cavity behind.

"behind" meaning

concrete panel/celotex/cavity/aluminium panel


A whopping 10mm of original insulation on the inside of the concrete wall!


If you went into a builders merchant in 1974 and asked for insulation,
you would have been given the choice of fibreglass in rolls for lofts,
about 2 inches thick, or maybe thin panels of expanded polystyrene,
or slabs of compressed straw-like material, or maybe even told to use
those EPS tiles that people stuck on their ceilings with dabs.

And they would have treated you like some sort of eco-freak.
"Why do you need insulation ?, just turn the electric heating on"

On 16/06/2017 23:56, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article . com,
"dennis@home" writes:
So no plans submitted for approval and no statutory visits needed while
the work was in progress.

How many more worms are they keeping in the tin?

Here's the spec for the upgrade including the insulation...

6" Celotex FR5000, with a 2" cavity behind.

Also used 1" Celotex FR5000 as glazing infill panels.

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/idoxWAM/doc/...df&pageCount=1


But unless it is held tightly to the surface being insulated, air
leakage between celotex and original surface will nullify any
benefit. The original surface is very uneven, with some sort
of exposed pebbly material.

Also the vertical concrete columns had a profile that cannot be
clad without some additional fire-rated foam or rockwool to
prevent air leakage. Then these columns were clad with vertical
tunnels of that composite material which created a nice
chimney for hot gases to shoot up inside.

Being a hot night, many windows were open allowing superheated
gases to enter the flats at higher levels, causing secondary
fires.

Andrew Wrote in message:
On 16/06/2017 23:56, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article . com,
"dennis@home" writes:
So no plans submitted for approval and no statutory visits needed while
the work was in progress.

How many more worms are they keeping in the tin?

Here's the spec for the upgrade including the insulation...

6" Celotex FR5000, with a 2" cavity behind.

Also used 1" Celotex FR5000 as glazing infill panels.

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/idoxWAM/doc/...df&pageCount=1


But unless it is held tightly to the surface being insulated, air
leakage between celotex and original surface will nullify any
benefit. The original surface is very uneven, with some sort
of exposed pebbly material.

Also the vertical concrete columns had a profile that cannot be
clad without some additional fire-rated foam or rockwool to
prevent air leakage. Then these columns were clad with vertical
tunnels of that composite material which created a nice
chimney for hot gases to shoot up inside.

Being a hot night, many windows were open allowing superheated
gases to enter the flats at higher levels, causing secondary
fires.



These "chimneys" would have been capped below every window though?

Can you get "celotex" going enough to create the sort of scenes on TV?

--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On 17/06/17 11:15, jim wrote:
Andrew Wrote in message:
On 16/06/2017 23:56, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article . com,
"dennis@home" writes:
So no plans submitted for approval and no statutory visits needed while
the work was in progress.

How many more worms are they keeping in the tin?

Here's the spec for the upgrade including the insulation...

6" Celotex FR5000, with a 2" cavity behind.

Also used 1" Celotex FR5000 as glazing infill panels.

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/idoxWAM/doc/...df&pageCount=1


But unless it is held tightly to the surface being insulated, air
leakage between celotex and original surface will nullify any
benefit. The original surface is very uneven, with some sort
of exposed pebbly material.

Also the vertical concrete columns had a profile that cannot be
clad without some additional fire-rated foam or rockwool to
prevent air leakage. Then these columns were clad with vertical
tunnels of that composite material which created a nice
chimney for hot gases to shoot up inside.

Being a hot night, many windows were open allowing superheated
gases to enter the flats at higher levels, causing secondary
fires.



These "chimneys" would have been capped below every window though?

Can you get "celotex" going enough to create the sort of scenes on TV?

The celotex did not go. It was the decorative rain panels. The charred
celotex is still there.

http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/arti...5-Jun-2017.jpg

shows a drone and charred panels still attached.


--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

Huge wrote:

Wow, you've managed to get in there and do an assessment before the Fire
Brigade, Coroner or Insurance Assessor. I'm impressed.

While I agree that the professional investigators will do a better job
than we all can from our armchairs, do you *actually* expect the wording
in the summary paragraph of the inquiry's report to be much different from

"flammable composite cladding, cavity between insulation and
cladding caused chimney effect feeding and spreading the fire"

?

On 17/06/17 11:30, Andy Burns wrote:
Huge wrote:

Wow, you've managed to get in there and do an assessment before the Fire
Brigade, Coroner or Insurance Assessor. I'm impressed.

While I agree that the professional investigators will do a better job
than we all can from our armchairs, do you *actually* expect the wording
in the summary paragraph of the inquiry's report to be much different from

"flammable composite cladding, cavity between insulation and
cladding caused chimney effect feeding and spreading the fire"


well that will be part of the summary but there should also be 'this
cladding was employed because'

and a 'if the regulations are changed in the followi9ng way, this
cladding will never be employed again, and we strongly recommend it is
stripped from all high rise buildings now'



?



--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

Huge wrote:

Someone else who can see into the future.

How is it up your ivory tower? The rest of us have eyes.

On 17/06/17 12:16, Huge wrote:
On 2017-06-17, Andy Burns wrote:
Huge wrote:

Someone else who can see into the future.

How is it up your ivory tower? The rest of us have eyes.

But no facts. And over-active imaginations.



What no facts???

Fact 1: The fire spread up the cladding in a way that should not happen
in a tower block;

Fact 2:

"Omnis Exteriors manufactured the aluminium composite material (ACM)
used in the cladding, a company director, John Cowley, confirmed to the
Guardian.

He also said Omnis had been asked to supply Reynobond PE cladding, which
is £2 cheaper per square metre than the alternative Reynobond FR, which
stands for €œfire resistant€� to the companies that worked on refurbishing
Grenfell Tower."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...mnis-exteriors


So the cladding was not fire resistant and the fire spread rapidly up
the cladding.

On 17/06/17 12:16, Huge wrote:
On 2017-06-17, Andy Burns wrote:
Huge wrote:

Someone else who can see into the future.

How is it up your ivory tower? The rest of us have eyes.

But no facts. And over-active imaginations.


Plenty of facts. We have all seen the video footage. We have probably
all built fires, some out of stuff like EPS and EPP and polyisocyanurate...

We know pretty much what the cladding was.

It behaved as tests indicated it would.

It was classed as fire resistant, which it wasn't in the way it was used


--
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.

On 17/06/17 11:53, Huge wrote:
On 2017-06-17, Andy Burns wrote:
Huge wrote:

Wow, you've managed to get in there and do an assessment before the Fire
Brigade, Coroner or Insurance Assessor. I'm impressed.

While I agree that the professional investigators will do a better job
than we all can from our armchairs, do you *actually* expect the wording
in the summary paragraph of the inquiry's report to be much different from

"flammable composite cladding, cavity between insulation and
cladding caused chimney effect feeding and spreading the fire"

Someone else who can see into the future.



If I push someone off the edge of a cliff, I can expect, with a high
degree of confidence, that they will be dead in less than 30 seconds.

It's what humans do - predict the future based on available information.


Too many people seem to work to the notion "only a convened panel of
experts can decide anything" when the basics are bloody obvious to the
man in the pub.


Given what we *know* - that the exterior cladding was a polythene coated
ali skin (banned in the USA), it was fairly obvious that the panels were
at the root of the rapid spread of the fire. The details of any gaps and
lack of fire breaks will need more detailed examination.


If someone had left windows open, it's also highly likely the heat from
the fire outside would have set curtains alight and from there, other
materials.