In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 10:32:08 on Tue, 20 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

Make one or two of the two bed flats into a one bed flats, according
to some there is a real shortage of one bed flats to avoid the
bedroom tax.

Brilliant thinking. The purpose of the bedroom tax was to get people
out of accommodation larger than they need to release it for those
more deserving. Allegedly. Rather than just to tax the poor more.

It's not of course a "tax" at all, but a cap on the amount of housing
benefit that's paid, having looked at your needs and the accommodation
in question[1].

Perhaps Dave could explain in what way it's a tax. HMRC collects it, do
they?

Get Steptoe to explain it to you.

Or could it be you are suddenly interested in only using the official term
for something?

--
*Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:35:02 on
Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Tim Streater remarked:

Make one or two of the two bed flats into a one bed flats,
according to some there is a real shortage of one bed flats to
avoid the bedroom tax.

Brilliant thinking. The purpose of the bedroom tax was to get people
out of accommodation larger than they need to release it for those
more deserving. Allegedly. Rather than just to tax the poor more.

It's not of course a "tax" at all, but a cap on the amount of housing
benefit that's paid, having looked at your needs and the accommodation
in question[1].

Perhaps Dave could explain in what way it's a tax. HMRC collects it, do
they?

Branding something a "tax" is just a popularist nickname. Just like
*raising* the social care means test threshold from £23k to £100k is
called a "dementure tax".

(And dementure isn't the sole reason why people need social care,
either).

With pedants like that, tax means exactly what they want it to mean, at
any one point in time.

--
*The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on my list.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
The Other Mike wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 00:54:14 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:


Read somewhere that Celotex supplied all the materials for the cladding.

Celotex do not supply cladding, nor manufacture it, nor supply materials
that could be used in its manufacture, but other than that your source
was entirely accurate.

True. It is simply a brand name of an insulation product. But its parent
company Saint-Gobain makes a wide range of building materials, and it
could be that's what was meant. I'd suggest you take it up with the
broadcaster.

--
*What happens if you get scared half to death twice? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
The Other Mike wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 16:56:27 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:


Most of the flats around here have two or more staircases.

It a case of what the planning department think of cost v safety.

Those flats around you are they of a similar date of design and
construction?

Long blocks of flats commonly have multiple entrances and stairwells. For
rather obvious reasons. The same rather obvious reasons explain why a
tower block doesn't.

--
*If you can read this, thank a teecher

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , at 14:15:42 on Tue, 20 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:32:08 on Tue, 20 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

Make one or two of the two bed flats into a one bed flats, according
to some there is a real shortage of one bed flats to avoid the
bedroom tax.

Brilliant thinking. The purpose of the bedroom tax was to get people out
of accommodation larger than they need to release it for those more
deserving. Allegedly. Rather than just to tax the poor more.

It's not of course a "tax" at all, but a cap on the amount of housing
benefit that's paid, having looked at your needs and the accommodation
in question[1].

Now comment on how that differs from the point I was replying to.

I was expanding on the word "tax", not disagreeing with the purpose you
mentioned.

Converging with a question asked in another(?) thread earlier, they also
cap the benefit to the rental of an average(?) property of the size that
it's determined you qualify for.

If you are in rented accommodation (private or council) then it will
tend to encourage people to downsize, leaving the larger properties
available for larger households. Assuming you can even still get housing
benefit as an owner-occupier, they are the ones most likely to be
under-funded.

[1] For example, a family of parents and two children won't qualify for
more than a three-bedroom house. So if you happen to be living in a
five bedroom house, that two "extraneous" rooms.

All very good. Now explain how making an exiting property smaller would
meet any of those objectives. Unless there were an excess of larger
properties. In which case the bedroom tax *would* have been simply
punitive.

Apparently there's a shortage of 1-bed property as an unforeseen
consequence of this benefit cap. So there are people suffering by living
in a surplus of 2-bed accommodation they can't afford to pay for.

Turning 20 of the 2-bed flats into a 1-bed plus stairwell will mean
everyone still has the bed they need, they will be better off, and the
building is safer. Win, win.

--
Roland Perry

In message , at 14:20:46 on Tue, 20 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:35:02 on
Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Tim Streater remarked:

Make one or two of the two bed flats into a one bed flats,
according to some there is a real shortage of one bed flats to
avoid the bedroom tax.

Brilliant thinking. The purpose of the bedroom tax was to get people
out of accommodation larger than they need to release it for those
more deserving. Allegedly. Rather than just to tax the poor more.

It's not of course a "tax" at all, but a cap on the amount of housing
benefit that's paid, having looked at your needs and the accommodation
in question[1].

Perhaps Dave could explain in what way it's a tax. HMRC collects it, do
they?

Branding something a "tax" is just a popularist nickname. Just like
*raising* the social care means test threshold from £23k to £100k is
called a "dementure tax".

(And dementure isn't the sole reason why people need social care,
either).

With pedants like that, tax means exactly what they want it to mean, at
any one point in time.

Pedants? They are propagandists.
--
Roland Perry

On 20/06/2017 12:17, The Other Mike wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 16:56:27 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:


Most of the flats around here have two or more staircases.

It a case of what the planning department think of cost v safety.

Those flats around you are they of a similar date of design and construction?


They were built in the early to mid '60s AFAIK.

My wife lived in one as a child so that makes them at least 50 years old.

I don't know how they were constructed but they have banned LPG.

If LPG is banned can they have a fridge? Will a fridge have enough gas
in it to cause a Ronan Point type of disaster?

In article , Roland Perry
wrote:
In message , at 14:15:42 on Tue, 20 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
In article , Roland Perry
wrote:
In message , at 10:32:08 on Tue, 20
Jun 2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

Make one or two of the two bed flats into a one bed flats,
according to some there is a real shortage of one bed flats to
avoid the bedroom tax.

Brilliant thinking. The purpose of the bedroom tax was to get people
out of accommodation larger than they need to release it for those
more deserving. Allegedly. Rather than just to tax the poor more.

It's not of course a "tax" at all, but a cap on the amount of housing
benefit that's paid, having looked at your needs and the accommodation
in question[1].

Now comment on how that differs from the point I was replying to.

I was expanding on the word "tax", not disagreeing with the purpose you
mentioned.

Converging with a question asked in another(?) thread earlier, they
also cap the benefit to the rental of an average(?) property of the
size that it's determined you qualify for.

If you are in rented accommodation (private or council) then it will
tend to encourage people to downsize, leaving the larger properties
available for larger households. Assuming you can even still get
housing benefit as an owner-occupier, they are the ones most likely to
be under-funded.

[1] For example, a family of parents and two children won't qualify
for more than a three-bedroom house. So if you happen to be
living in a five bedroom house, that two "extraneous" rooms.

All very good. Now explain how making an exiting property smaller would
meet any of those objectives. Unless there were an excess of larger
properties. In which case the bedroom tax *would* have been simply
punitive.

Apparently there's a shortage of 1-bed property as an unforeseen
consequence of this benefit cap. So there are people suffering by living
in a surplus of 2-bed accommodation they can't afford to pay for.

Turning 20 of the 2-bed flats into a 1-bed plus stairwell will mean
everyone still has the bed they need, they will be better off, and the
building is safer. Win, win.

so the "new" one bedroom "flat" will have no toilet or cooking facilties -
unless it takes spaces from the one living room the remaining flat has?

You might be able to make 3, one bedroom units out of two, two bedroom
ones, but it would depend on how the walls were made of.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 20/06/2017 12:17, The Other Mike wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 16:56:27 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:


Most of the flats around here have two or more staircases.

It a case of what the planning department think of cost v safety.

Those flats around you are they of a similar date of design and
construction?


They were built in the early to mid '60s AFAIK.

My wife lived in one as a child so that makes them at least 50 years old.

I don't know how they were constructed but they have banned LPG.

If LPG is banned can they have a fridge? Will a fridge have enough gas
in it to cause a Ronan Point type of disaster?

my fridge runs off mains electricity

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
The Other Mike wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 00:54:14 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"

wrote:


Read somewhere that Celotex supplied all the materials for the cladding.

Celotex do not supply cladding, nor manufacture it, nor supply materials
that could be used in its manufacture, but other than that your source
was entirely accurate.

True. It is simply a brand name of an insulation product. But its parent
company Saint-Gobain makes a wide range of building materials, and it
could be that's what was meant. I'd suggest you take it up with the
broadcaster.

Why should he "take it up with the broadcaster"?
You're the fool that posted it here, you take it up with them for making you
look an idiot. Oh crap - not their fault, you have always been one.

In message , at 14:52:52 on Tue, 20
Jun 2017, charles remarked:
Apparently there's a shortage of 1-bed property as an unforeseen
consequence of this benefit cap. So there are people suffering by living
in a surplus of 2-bed accommodation they can't afford to pay for.

Turning 20 of the 2-bed flats into a 1-bed plus stairwell will mean
everyone still has the bed they need, they will be better off, and the
building is safer. Win, win.

so the "new" one bedroom "flat" will have no toilet or cooking facilties -
unless it takes spaces from the one living room the remaining flat has?

Huh? The two-bedroom flat has six rooms at the moment.

Two bedrooms, a bathroom, a loo, a kitchen, and a living room.

The bedroom furthest from the living room is almost ideally placed to be
a staircase.

You might be able to make 3, one bedroom units out of two, two bedroom
ones, but it would depend on how the walls were made of.

Some plans floating around are actually for fewer, larger flats (3-4
bed) on each floor. So that runs against the "bedroom tax" scenario.
--
Roland Perry

In article , Tim Streater
wrote:
In article , charles
wrote:

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 20/06/2017 12:17, The Other Mike wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 16:56:27 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

Most of the flats around here have two or more staircases.

It a case of what the planning department think of cost v safety.

Those flats around you are they of a similar date of design and
construction?

They were built in the early to mid '60s AFAIK.

My wife lived in one as a child so that makes them at least 50 years
old.

I don't know how they were constructed but they have banned LPG.

If LPG is banned can they have a fridge? Will a fridge have enough gas
in it to cause a Ronan Point type of disaster?

my fridge runs off mains electricity

So does mine. But I still expect that it has butane in it.

mine is probbaly too old for butane, but ebven if it wasn't I would expect
tehre to be a small quantity, unlike a LPG cylinder used for cooking.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
Apparently there's a shortage of 1-bed property as an unforeseen
consequence of this benefit cap. So there are people suffering by living
in a surplus of 2-bed accommodation they can't afford to pay for.

Turning 20 of the 2-bed flats into a 1-bed plus stairwell will mean
everyone still has the bed they need, they will be better off, and the
building is safer. Win, win.

The purpose of a high rise is to accommated the largest number of people
on the smallest land area. If you're going to mess with that ratio by
removing rooms and adding stairwells, a re-think of the whole thing might
be better.

But two stairwells filled with killer smoke ain't going to help much
either.

--
*When blondes have more fun, do they know it?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
charles wrote:
Turning 20 of the 2-bed flats into a 1-bed plus stairwell will mean
everyone still has the bed they need, they will be better off, and the
building is safer. Win, win.

so the "new" one bedroom "flat" will have no toilet or cooking facilties -
unless it takes spaces from the one living room the remaining flat has?

You might be able to make 3, one bedroom units out of two, two bedroom
ones, but it would depend on how the walls were made of.

With the current housing shortage, making an existing flat smaller is a
total nonsense, unless the object it to provide more needed units.

And single people or even couples ain't the priority. It's those with kids.

Of course it would be great to provide affordable housing for at least
some single people. Like perhaps nurses and young police, teachers, etc.
As once was done.

Doubt that will happen in my lifetime.

--
*Can fat people go skinny-dipping?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 10:32:08 on Tue, 20
Jun 2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

Make one or two of the two bed flats into a one bed flats,
according to some there is a real shortage of one bed flats to
avoid the bedroom tax.

Brilliant thinking. The purpose of the bedroom tax was to get
people out of accommodation larger than they need to release it for
those more deserving. Allegedly. Rather than just to tax the poor
more.

It's not of course a "tax" at all, but a cap on the amount of
housing benefit that's paid, having looked at your needs and the
accommodation in question[1].

Perhaps Dave could explain in what way it's a tax. HMRC collects it,
do they?

Get Steptoe to explain it to you.

Or could it be you are suddenly interested in only using the official
term for something?

because the unofficial term is being used deliberately to make
something appear harder than it is. For political reasons only, IOW.

Take it up with the popular press, then. And think of a nice easy Short
name which describes it better. I'll give you a clue, though. Steptoe is
taken.

--
*If you don't pay your exorcist you get repossessed.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
Turning 20 of the 2-bed flats into a 1-bed plus stairwell will mean
everyone still has the bed they need, they will be better off, and the
building is safer. Win, win.

so the "new" one bedroom "flat" will have no toilet or cooking facilties -
unless it takes spaces from the one living room the remaining flat has?

You might be able to make 3, one bedroom units out of two, two bedroom
ones, but it would depend on how the walls were made of.

With the current housing shortage, making an existing flat smaller is a
total nonsense, unless the object it to provide more needed units.

And single people or even couples ain't the priority. It's those with kids.

Of course it would be great to provide affordable housing for at least
some single people. Like perhaps nurses and young police, teachers, etc.
As once was done.

Doubt that will happen in my lifetime.


Wrong again Dave, the biggest growth is in single person households.

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
You might be able to make 3, one bedroom units out of two, two bedroom
ones, but it would depend on how the walls were made of.

Some plans floating around are actually for fewer, larger flats (3-4
bed) on each floor. So that runs against the "bedroom tax" scenario.

Didn't read the planning app for Grenfell that carefully, but it did
mention making more flat per floor on some of them. Could be they made
some larger ones too.

--
*Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 15:29:35 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:52:52 on Tue, 20
Jun 2017, charles remarked:
Apparently there's a shortage of 1-bed property as an unforeseen
consequence of this benefit cap. So there are people suffering by living
in a surplus of 2-bed accommodation they can't afford to pay for.

Turning 20 of the 2-bed flats into a 1-bed plus stairwell will mean
everyone still has the bed they need, they will be better off, and the
building is safer. Win, win.

so the "new" one bedroom "flat" will have no toilet or cooking facilties -
unless it takes spaces from the one living room the remaining flat has?

Huh? The two-bedroom flat has six rooms at the moment.

Two bedrooms, a bathroom, a loo, a kitchen, and a living room.

The bedroom furthest from the living room is almost ideally placed to be
a staircase.

are they big enough for a largish stairwell? And do the flat layouts align on every floor to make it doable? And would the new stairwell have communal access?


NT

"Capitol" wrote in message
.. .

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
Turning 20 of the 2-bed flats into a 1-bed plus stairwell will mean
everyone still has the bed they need, they will be better off, and the
building is safer. Win, win.

so the "new" one bedroom "flat" will have no toilet or cooking
facilties -
unless it takes spaces from the one living room the remaining flat has?

You might be able to make 3, one bedroom units out of two, two bedroom
ones, but it would depend on how the walls were made of.

With the current housing shortage, making an existing flat smaller is a
total nonsense, unless the object it to provide more needed units.

And single people or even couples ain't the priority. It's those with
kids.

Of course it would be great to provide affordable housing for at least
some single people. Like perhaps nurses and young police, teachers, etc.
As once was done.

Doubt that will happen in my lifetime.


Wrong again Dave, the biggest growth is in single person households.

Dave likes to be consistent.

Wrote in message:
On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 15:29:35 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:52:52 on Tue, 20
Jun 2017, charles remarked:
Apparently there's a shortage of 1-bed property as an unforeseen
consequence of this benefit cap. So there are people suffering by living
in a surplus of 2-bed accommodation they can't afford to pay for.

Turning 20 of the 2-bed flats into a 1-bed plus stairwell will mean
everyone still has the bed they need, they will be better off, and the
building is safer. Win, win.

so the "new" one bedroom "flat" will have no toilet or cooking facilties -
unless it takes spaces from the one living room the remaining flat has?

Huh? The two-bedroom flat has six rooms at the moment.

Two bedrooms, a bathroom, a loo, a kitchen, and a living room.

The bedroom furthest from the living room is almost ideally placed to be
a staircase.

are they big enough for a largish stairwell? And do the flat layouts align on every floor to make it doable? And would the new stairwell have communal access?


NT


Volunteers for doing nige's research raise your hands.......
Ah.......
:-)
--
Jim K


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

On 18/06/2017 11:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Get some and put a blowtorch to it.
Celotex insulation does not really burn.
I set some on fire quite easily with the sparks of a metal grinding disk
when using an off-cut of Cellotex as a spark deflecter (thinking the
stuff would be fireproof). The sparks were hitting the non-foiled end
grain and I'm sure it actually had flames coming from it not to mention
lots of quite nasty smoke.

On 21/06/2017 00:11, Pet @ www.gymratz.co.uk ;¬) wrote:
On 18/06/2017 11:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Get some and put a blowtorch to it.
Celotex insulation does not really burn.

I set some on fire quite easily with the sparks of a metal grinding disk
when using an off-cut of Cellotex as a spark deflecter (thinking the
stuff would be fireproof). The sparks were hitting the non-foiled end
grain and I'm sure it actually had flames coming from it not to mention
lots of quite nasty smoke.

Burning metal sparks can be quite a bit hotter than a blowtorch flame
and may concentrate the heat released in just the wrong way. Celotex is
after all a very good heat insulator. The smoke from it is bad for you.

Incidentally the photo which appeared in the Observer p27 and on the
cover of the London Evening Standard tends to suggest that the vertical
fins on the side of the building played some part in fire propagation.
They have jets of flame jumping up 4-6 storeys from three of the four.
(building is already well alight to the top but RHS less so internally)

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/...n=true#image=5



--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin Brown wrote:

the photo which appeared in the Observer p27 and on the
cover of the London Evening Standard tends to suggest that the vertical
fins on the side of the building played some part in fire propagation.

Some of the planning docs showed a solid triangle of insulation around
the support columns (which is what the fins are covering) the columns
are rotated 45° from normal.

# concrete
@ insulation
- cladding

#####
###########################
@@@@@@@@@@#######@@@@@@@@@@
---------+@#####@+---------
\@@@@@/
\@@@/
\@/
V

But the aftermath photos seem to show a triangular void between concrete
columns and insulation.


#####
###########################
@@@@@@@@@@#######@@@@@@@@@@
---------+@#####@+---------
\@ @/
\@ @/
\@/
V

On 20/06/2017 08:19, dennis@home wrote:
On 19/06/2017 21:43, Tim Streater wrote:

Where would you put an external stairwell? How would anyone access it -
there'd have to be access on each floor, and apart I presume from the
ground floor where the front doors are, every point on the outside of
the building is the outside of someone's flat. You'd have to sacrifice
accommodation.


Make one or two of the two bed flats into a one bed flats, according to
some there is a real shortage of one bed flats to avoid the bedroom tax.


FFS! I'd not leave you in charge of my property portfolio :-)

--
Cheers, Rob

On 19/06/2017 09:08, Tim Watts wrote:
On 18/06/17 11:16, Michael Chare wrote:
A nearby wooden bungalow was refurbished and the insulation improved
with Celotex a few years ago. I wonder if the occupants know that was
the stuff on the outside of Grenfell tower that burns at high
temperatures and gives off toxic fumes.

I have considered putting some Celotex in my attic and then covering
it with thin plywood so that I could walk on it but I have rather gone
off the idea, though if the house catches fire badly, I am unlikely to
want to go in the attic.



I covered mine (80%) in plasterboard.

If inadequately enclosed insulation board is the problem I can see all
sorts of problems ahead. On the house reproofing I've seen, celotex is
fixed between the joists against the internal plasterboard with no
covering to the outside.


--
Cheers, Rob

On Sunday, 18 June 2017 11:17:01 UTC+1, Michael Chare wrote:
A nearby wooden bungalow was refurbished and the insulation improved
with Celotex a few years ago. I wonder if the occupants know that was
the stuff on the outside of Grenfell tower that burns at high
temperatures and gives off toxic fumes.

I have considered putting some Celotex in my attic and then covering it
with thin plywood so that I could walk on it but I have rather gone off
the idea, though if the house catches fire badly, I am unlikely to want
to go in the attic.


I think the answer is to have good fire alarms.
Perhaps even in the loft itself and linked to the others.

In message , at
13:05:38 on Tue, 20 Jun 2017, remarked:
Apparently there's a shortage of 1-bed property as an unforeseen
consequence of this benefit cap. So there are people suffering by living
in a surplus of 2-bed accommodation they can't afford to pay for.

Turning 20 of the 2-bed flats into a 1-bed plus stairwell will mean
everyone still has the bed they need, they will be better off, and the
building is safer. Win, win.

so the "new" one bedroom "flat" will have no toilet or cooking facilties -
unless it takes spaces from the one living room the remaining flat has?

Huh? The two-bedroom flat has six rooms at the moment.

Two bedrooms, a bathroom, a loo, a kitchen, and a living room.

The bedroom furthest from the living room is almost ideally placed to be
a staircase.

are they big enough for a largish stairwell?

Big enough for a secondary *emergency* staircase, in addition to the
existing main staircase. Or if you need more room, then sacrifice the
2nd bedroom from two adjacent flats.

And do the flat layouts align on every floor to make it doable? And would the new stairwell have communal access?

Yes and yes.

However, the biggest problem is breaching the concrete floors all the
way through the 24 floors, and making sure the sides of the stairwell
are isolated from the flats.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at
22:14:43 on Tue, 20 Jun 2017, jim remarked:
Apparently there's a shortage of 1-bed property as an unforeseen
consequence of this benefit cap. So there are people suffering by living
in a surplus of 2-bed accommodation they can't afford to pay for.

Turning 20 of the 2-bed flats into a 1-bed plus stairwell will mean
everyone still has the bed they need, they will be better off, and the
building is safer. Win, win.

so the "new" one bedroom "flat" will have no toilet or cooking facilties -
unless it takes spaces from the one living room the remaining flat has?

Huh? The two-bedroom flat has six rooms at the moment.

Two bedrooms, a bathroom, a loo, a kitchen, and a living room.

The bedroom furthest from the living room is almost ideally placed to be
a staircase.

are they big enough for a largish stairwell? And do the flat layouts align on every floor to make it doable? And would the new stairwell have
communal access?

Volunteers for doing nige's research raise your hands.

It's OK, I did that research before posting the original suggestion. So
I can answer it off-the-cuff.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 15:58:53 on Tue, 20 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
Apparently there's a shortage of 1-bed property as an unforeseen
consequence of this benefit cap. So there are people suffering by living
in a surplus of 2-bed accommodation they can't afford to pay for.

Turning 20 of the 2-bed flats into a 1-bed plus stairwell will mean
everyone still has the bed they need, they will be better off, and the
building is safer. Win, win.

The purpose of a high rise is to

safely

accommated the largest number of people on the smallest land area. If
you're going to mess with that ratio by removing rooms and adding
stairwells, a re-think of the whole thing might be better.

better than condemning the whole block

But two stairwells filled with killer smoke ain't going to help much
either.

Which is why they should be vented. And perhaps stiffer firedoors.
--
Roland Perry

En el artículo , Andy Burns
escribió:

But the aftermath photos seem to show a triangular void between concrete
columns and insulation.


#####
###########################
@@@@@@@@@@#######@@@@@@@@@@
---------+@#####@+---------
\@ @/
\@ @/
\@/
V

As Martin said in another thread, and as has been mentioned by a fire
safety expert on the news, this would create a chimney effect, assuming
no firebreaks were fitted. That would allow fire to travel up the void,
igniting adjacent cladding panels as it went.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
The bedroom furthest from the living room is almost ideally placed to be
a staircase.

are they big enough for a largish stairwell?

Big enough for a secondary *emergency* staircase, in addition to the
existing main staircase. Or if you need more room, then sacrifice the
2nd bedroom from two adjacent flats.

And do the flat layouts align on every floor to make it doable? And
would the new stairwell have communal access?

Yes and yes.

However, the biggest problem is breaching the concrete floors all the
way through the 24 floors, and making sure the sides of the stairwell
are isolated from the flats.

It would almost certainly be cheaper and better to demolish and start
again.

--
*Prepositions are not words to end sentences with *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 21/06/17 00:11, Pet @ www.gymratz.co.uk ;¬) wrote:
On 18/06/2017 11:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Get some and put a blowtorch to it.
Celotex insulation does not really burn.
I set some on fire quite easily with the sparks of a metal grinding disk
when using an off-cut of Cellotex as a spark deflecter (thinking the
stuff would be fireproof). The sparks were hitting the non-foiled end
grain and I'm sure it actually had flames coming from it not to mention
lots of quite nasty smoke.

That is not being on fire.
And I rather doubt your story

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkM1kOO0S0I

is what happened when I tried. (no that isn't me. just a video I found)


--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

On 21/06/17 09:01, RJH wrote:
On 19/06/2017 09:08, Tim Watts wrote:
On 18/06/17 11:16, Michael Chare wrote:
A nearby wooden bungalow was refurbished and the insulation improved
with Celotex a few years ago. I wonder if the occupants know that was
the stuff on the outside of Grenfell tower that burns at high
temperatures and gives off toxic fumes.

I have considered putting some Celotex in my attic and then covering
it with thin plywood so that I could walk on it but I have rather
gone off the idea, though if the house catches fire badly, I am
unlikely to want to go in the attic.



I covered mine (80%) in plasterboard.

If inadequately enclosed insulation board is the problem

It isnt.

Te problem is inflammable decorative cladding applied over the
(fireproof) insulation

I can see all
sorts of problems ahead. On the house reproofing I've seen, celotex is
fixed between the joists against the internal plasterboard with no
covering to the outside.


And how many house fires have we had since celotex became de facto roof
insulation?

More than enough to raise alarms if celotex was an issue



--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:58:53 on Tue, 20 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
Apparently there's a shortage of 1-bed property as an unforeseen
consequence of this benefit cap. So there are people suffering by living
in a surplus of 2-bed accommodation they can't afford to pay for.

Turning 20 of the 2-bed flats into a 1-bed plus stairwell will mean
everyone still has the bed they need, they will be better off, and the
building is safer. Win, win.

The purpose of a high rise is to

safely

accommated the largest number of people on the smallest land area. If
you're going to mess with that ratio by removing rooms and adding
stairwells, a re-think of the whole thing might be better.

better than condemning the whole block

Not so sure about that. The original block was built in a particular way
to contain any fire to a small area. It seems to have been updating work
which was the cause of this disaster. Even more major updating to include
a second internal staircase might well create as many problems as it is
meant to solve.
Better to demolish and start again.

But two stairwells filled with killer smoke ain't going to help much
either.

Which is why they should be vented. And perhaps stiffer firedoors.

One properly protected stairwell and we'd not have had this appalling
outcome. That, to me, is the important part any investigation has to
explain. An escape route is the last resort which is by far more important
than any other.

Adding a second staircase with the same woeful disregard for making it
conform to what is already common knowledge is simply throwing good money
after bad.

--
*Corduroy pillows are making headlines.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Andy Burns
escribió:

But the aftermath photos seem to show a triangular void between concrete
columns and insulation.


#####
###########################
@@@@@@@@@@#######@@@@@@@@@@
---------+@#####@+---------
\@ @/
\@ @/
\@/
V

As Martin said in another thread, and as has been mentioned by a fire
safety expert on the news, this would create a chimney effect, assuming
no firebreaks were fitted. That would allow fire to travel up the void,
igniting adjacent cladding panels as it went.

There was mention on TV last night of checks on other cladded towers
across the country. Most, it seems, use a better skin as regards fire
resistance. But one which does use the same skin was mentioned as having a
different fitting method as regards airgaps and fire breaks, etc. Will be
interesting to find out the full details at any enquiry.

--
*You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 21/06/17 00:11, Pet @ www.gymratz.co.uk ;¬) wrote:
On 18/06/2017 11:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Get some and put a blowtorch to it.
Celotex insulation does not really burn.
I set some on fire quite easily with the sparks of a metal grinding disk
when using an off-cut of Cellotex as a spark deflecter (thinking the
stuff would be fireproof). The sparks were hitting the non-foiled end
grain and I'm sure it actually had flames coming from it not to mention
lots of quite nasty smoke.

That is not being on fire.
And I rather doubt your story

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkM1kOO0S0I

is what happened when I tried. (no that isn't me. just a video I found)

I have a pile of Celotex 5000 offcuts in the workshop if anyone wants to
collect for their own trials:-)



--
Tim Lamb

On 21/06/2017 10:58, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Andy Burns
escribió:

But the aftermath photos seem to show a triangular void between concrete
columns and insulation.


#####
###########################
@@@@@@@@@@#######@@@@@@@@@@
---------+@#####@+---------
\@ @/
\@ @/
\@/
V

As Martin said in another thread, and as has been mentioned by a fire
safety expert on the news, this would create a chimney effect, assuming
no firebreaks were fitted. That would allow fire to travel up the void,
igniting adjacent cladding panels as it went.

There was mention on TV last night of checks on other cladded towers
across the country. Most, it seems, use a better skin as regards fire
resistance. But one which does use the same skin was mentioned as having a
different fitting method as regards airgaps and fire breaks, etc. Will be
interesting to find out the full details at any enquiry.

I think we are already at the point where all UK sales of Raynobond PE
should be chased down. Raiding their distributors and seizing files to
do it if that is what it takes. Priority should be given to eliminating
it from all the places where it most seriously compromises safety which
is just about anywhere that a true Class 0 fire resistance is required.

I am surprised that someone hasn't mocked up the known cladding
configuration on TV and set light by now. Or perhaps they have...

As far as I can see the Celotex is more or less blameless although the
FR5000 would have been better I doubt if it would alter the outcome -
the outer layer of cladding just burnt far too fiercely.

Given how well the PE stuff burns I doubt if any horizontal fire break
can stop it running vertically up the building once it is well alight.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 21/06/17 13:24, Martin Brown wrote:
On 21/06/2017 10:58, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Andy Burns
escribió:

But the aftermath photos seem to show a triangular void between
concrete
columns and insulation.


#####
###########################
@@@@@@@@@@#######@@@@@@@@@@
---------+@#####@+---------
\@ @/
\@ @/
\@/
V

As Martin said in another thread, and as has been mentioned by a fire
safety expert on the news, this would create a chimney effect, assuming
no firebreaks were fitted. That would allow fire to travel up the void,
igniting adjacent cladding panels as it went.

There was mention on TV last night of checks on other cladded towers
across the country. Most, it seems, use a better skin as regards fire
resistance. But one which does use the same skin was mentioned as
having a
different fitting method as regards airgaps and fire breaks, etc. Will be
interesting to find out the full details at any enquiry.

I think we are already at the point where all UK sales of Raynobond PE
should be chased down. Raiding their distributors and seizing files to
do it if that is what it takes. Priority should be given to eliminating
it from all the places where it most seriously compromises safety which
is just about anywhere that a true Class 0 fire resistance is required.

Possibly.
I am surprised that someone hasn't mocked up the known cladding
configuration on TV and set light by now. Or perhaps they have...

These things take time
As far as I can see the Celotex is more or less blameless although the
FR5000 would have been better I doubt if it would alter the outcome -
the outer layer of cladding just burnt far too fiercely.

Indeed. Celotex are an honest firm making honest product well supported
by documentation and sound advice for architects.

Given how well the PE stuff burns I doubt if any horizontal fire break
can stop it running vertically up the building once it is well alight.

100% agree.
Those flames were meters tall.


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

In message , at 10:53:23 on Wed, 21 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

accommated the largest number of people on the smallest land area. If
you're going to mess with that ratio by removing rooms and adding
stairwells, a re-think of the whole thing might be better.

better than condemning the whole block

Not so sure about that. The original block was built in a particular way
to contain any fire to a small area. It seems to have been updating work
which was the cause of this disaster. Even more major updating to include
a second internal staircase might well create as many problems as it is
meant to solve.
Better to demolish and start again.

They probably will demolish the block that caught fire, so we are
discussing here some unquantified subset of the 4000 other residential
tower blocks in the country.

But two stairwells filled with killer smoke ain't going to help much
either.

Which is why they should be vented. And perhaps stiffer firedoors.

One properly protected stairwell and we'd not have had this appalling
outcome.

What do you think would have protected it better? (Genuine question, not
a devils advocate).

That, to me, is the important part any investigation has to
explain. An escape route is the last resort which is by far more important
than any other.

Adding a second staircase with the same woeful disregard for making it
conform to what is already common knowledge is simply throwing good money
after bad.

Why assume here was any woeful disregard in the design of the first
staircase?

--
Roland Perry

On 21/06/2017 09:16, Roland Perry wrote:


However, the biggest problem is breaching the concrete floors all the
way through the 24 floors, and making sure the sides of the stairwell
are isolated from the flats.

Just build it on the outside and you only need a fireproof walkway from
the core through the bedroom.
it wouldn't be that difficult to continuously cast one in concrete and
there would be no requirement for any other material that could burn
except the fire doors. No windows, no cladding. Put the emergency lights
on the outside with a glass block inserted as you go so no wiring inside.