chris101 Â Â 10 #133 Posted June 29, 2017 Julie Dore didn't authorise the work. The people incharge then long gone either MP"s or Lords now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
*_ash_*   87 #134 Posted June 29, 2017 I hate our Labour council but it looks like that councils all over country have invested into the same cladding. The cladding passed all current safety standards so there is no criminal negligence.  I think the investigation will say that no one was to blame, that it was an unfortunate set of events and will recommend new safety standards.  Hooray, a sensible post.  I hate our Labour council but it looks like that councils all over country have invested into the same cladding. The cladding passed all current safety standards so there is no criminal negligence.  I think the investigation will say that no one was to blame, that it was an unfortunate set of events and will recommend new safety standards.  It will all boil down to semantics, and will be argued about for years.  I hate our Labour council but it looks like that councils all over country have invested into the same cladding. The cladding passed all current safety standards so there is no criminal negligence. I think the investigation will say that no one was to blame, that it was an unfortunate set of events and will recommend new safety standards.  And it will drag on for years, while people try to nail someone down for it. I pity the person who heads this investigation.  -  It was a shocking event, and with all what's going on (positive things like it being removed immediately in places), it's unlikely to happen again.  It's also been seen worldwide and they are also testing things. That's what happens after a catastrophic event, people learn. Some people don't realise that this is how the world works. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
apelike   10 #135 Posted June 29, 2017 I can't see the point in recladding.  The tenants get their heating as part of their rent..  Although it maybe classed as part of the rent account to be paid its is an added charge on top. Its also expensive despite the fact that the heat is from the hot water being generated by the incinerator that burns the cities rubbish. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Guest makapaka   #136 Posted June 30, 2017 (edited) Do you imagine that it said to use materials that didn't meet the building codes at the time?  No idea. Did it? Either way any scenario could have implications on recovery routes dependent on the contract.  Did the materials not meet the regulations - I haven't seen that only that it was different to what the council initially asked for (allegedly)? Edited June 30, 2017 by makapaka Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
tinfoilhat   11 #137 Posted June 30, 2017 No idea. Did it? Either way any scenario could have implications on recovery routes dependent on the contract.  Did the materials not meet the regulations - I haven't seen that only that it was different to what the council initially asked for (allegedly)?  According to auntie Beeb, the cladding was swapped to a cheaper LESS fire retardant panel. There's nothing to suggest it wasn't up to code at the time.  Grenfell Tower: Cladding 'changed to cheaper version' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40453054 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Eater Sundae   12 #138 Posted June 30, 2017 (edited) According to auntie Beeb, the cladding was swapped to a cheaper LESS fire retardant panel. There's nothing to suggest it wasn't up to code at the time.  Grenfell Tower: Cladding 'changed to cheaper version' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40453054  The article you linked also says...  "Despite their differences, both types of cladding have the same official fire rating."  Confusing.  Edit. The lunchtime news is repeating the anomaly, ie that the replacement aluminium cladding had a less fire resistant core, yet they both had the same fire rating.  Faced with cost cutting pressure, and paperwork confirming that the cheaper cladding had the same (presumably compliant) fire rating, it's no surprise that they would agree to a change. In fact, if it subsequently came out that they had failed to change to a cheaper, compliant material, they would be criticised for wasting money.  We will need to wait for the enquiry to sort the wheat from the chaff, and whether it was reasonable to change from the original specification, eg whether the specification was tight enough, etc. Edited June 30, 2017 by Eater Sundae Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Guest makapaka   #139 Posted June 30, 2017 The article you linked also says... "Despite their differences, both types of cladding have the same official fire rating."  Confusing.  Edit. The lunchtime news is repeating the anomaly, ie that the replacement aluminium cladding had a less fire resistant core, yet they both had the same fire rating.  Faced with cost cutting pressure, and paperwork confirming that the cheaper cladding had the same (presumably compliant) fire rating, it's no surprise that they would agree to a change. In fact, if it subsequently came out that they had failed to change to a cheaper, compliant material, they would be criticised for wasting money.  We will need to wait for the enquiry to sort the wheat from the chaff, and whether it was reasonable to change from the original specification, eg whether the specification was tight enough, etc.  Absolutely - which is why its not as straightforward as just checking deliveries / dragging contractor's back to site for remedials etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
kal el   11 #140 Posted July 3, 2017 Did I read that Cllr Dore said that SCC can't afford to replace all cladding and that the original cladding cost £300,000 less.  The cladding on our blocks are 23 years old. How do we know if they were up to spec all that time ago. Janet Sharpe told us that the cladding has some sort of fire wall behind it but yet we haven't had any proof of this. She also said that we are to have a sprinkler put into our kitchens. That's all good until some one who is doped up or drunk decides to set it off. ( most of the tenants on our blocks are either doped up or drunk ). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
John   10 #141 Posted July 5, 2017 Sheffield children’s NHS foundation trust is preparing to remove cladding from one of its buildings following a negative test result.  https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/04/three-nhs-buildings-fail-post-grenfell-fire-safety-tests Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
kal el   11 #142 Posted July 10, 2017 The cladding on my Tower Block has been tested and deemed fit for purpose. so the SCC say. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Guest busdriver1 Â Â #143 Posted July 10, 2017 The cladding on my Tower Block has been tested and deemed fit for purpose. so the SCC say. Â Under the circumstances I doubt very much they would say it was OK if it was anything other. Looks like you will have to find another stick to beat them with. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
SYorksDeano   10 #144 Posted July 10, 2017 Have you noticed how quiet it has gone in regard to what tower blocks around the UK have failed? The other day it was 190 blocks out of 191 but none of them named.  Sheffield Council wouldn't announce if they had failed or not. It was a few weeks ago when they said everything was fine just for a few days after that to find out it wasn't fine in one block they had allegedly tested. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...