Huge fire in Grenfell Tower - West London

[najaB]

Camden Council offered to pay for this option but, unsurprisingly, London Fire Brigade were unable or unwilling to play ball.

Indeed, unsurprisingly. It would reduce their coverage for the rest of the city and there's no guarantee that if a fire did break out it would be on the lower floors where they would be effective in fighting it.

 

[DelayRepay]

I am watching people who are refusing to leave, and am concerned. They do not seem to recognise that firefighters at Grenfell took incredible risks with their lives to try to rescue people. It may be unlikely that a fire will break out, but it is absolutely wrong for people to stay, knowing that this will mean again firefighters have to take extreme risks to rescue them.

 

[HSTEd]

If it breaks out it breaks out.

But if they leave and no fire breaks out, they will end up living god knows where for god knows how long until the council can be bothered to let them back in.

I know exactly why they don't want to move.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If it breaks out it breaks out.

But if they leave and no fire breaks out, they will end up living god knows where for god knows how long until the council can be bothered to let them back in.

I know exactly why they don't want to move.

Not to mention that it's been announced on national TV News that these flats are now empty...

 

[DelayRepay]

If it breaks out it breaks out.

But if they leave and no fire breaks out, they will end up living god knows where for god knows how long until the council can be bothered to let them back in.

I know exactly why they don't want to move.

I know why they don't want to leave. I would not want to leave my home. But I do not think the fire brigade and council took this decision lightly. And I think my point is still valid - by staying they are not only taking risks with their own lives (which I accept is a low risk which they are entitled to take). They are also taking risks with the lives of fire fighters who would have to rescue them if something bad happened. This is a risk they are not entitled to take.

Not to mention that it's been announced on national TV News that these flats are now empty...

I believe security officers are guarding the flats - as they are deemed unsafe the council will be obliged to make sure nobody enters.

 

[Antman]

I know why they don't want to leave. I would not want to leave my home. But I do not think the fire brigade and council took this decision lightly. And I think my point is still valid - by staying they are not only taking risks with their own lives (which I accept is a low risk which they are entitled to take). They are also taking risks with the lives of fire fighters who would have to rescue them if something bad happened. This is a risk they are not entitled to take.




I believe security officers are guarding the flats - as they are deemed unsafe the council will be obliged to make sure nobody enters.

They are not unsafe as such, just that if a massive fire did break out it would be impossible to get everybody out in time if the block was fully occupied. Those that choose to stay put must do so at their own risk.

That said I'm sure there will be some sort of staff presence 24/7.

 

[bramling]

They are not unsafe as such, just that if a massive fire did break out it would be impossible to get everybody out in time if the block was fully occupied. Those that choose to stay put must do so at their own risk.

That said I'm sure there will be some sort of staff presence 24/7.

For anyone choosing to remain, one hopes that they would be made fully aware that the fire brigade would *not* seek to rescue them in the event of a fire. There can't be a single person who isn't aware of what the worst-case scenario is. It's extremely selfish to put the fire brigade in such a difficult position. I'm rather fed up seeing on TV the moaning from some of the Camden residents - unlike Grenfell they have the luxury of being able to be wise after the event, and in my view they should be thankful they weren't the unlucky ones.

 

[Busaholic]

It cannot be right to paint residents of those Swiss Cottage tower blocks as villains of the piece should they choose to stay put, having weighed up the risks as against.... well, what exactly? A 94 year old, resident for 47 years, only knows he has a bed available until next Tuesday, having been persuaded it was in his best interests to move out. An 80 year old has decided to stay with her cat, that probably means more to her than anything else. Who's to say she is wrong? Not me. There will never have been a better time since the refurbishment to live there, from the point of view of knowing that there are people on more-or-less permanent fire watch. In Plymouth, they are saying errant cladding can be removed within three days, without the need for people to move out - are they wrong?

 

[RichmondCommu]

They could have put a fire appliance outside each of the blocks until the remedial works are carried out.

With all the cut backs in London do you honestly think they have the resources to do that?

 

[najaB]

In Plymouth, they are saying errant cladding can be removed within three days, without the need for people to move out - are they wrong?

Different building, different cladding, different resource availability.

 

[RichmondCommu]

It cannot be right to paint residents of those Swiss Cottage tower blocks as villains of the piece should they choose to stay put, having weighed up the risks as against.... well, what exactly? A 94 year old, resident for 47 years, only knows he has a bed available until next Tuesday, having been persuaded it was in his best interests to move out. An 80 year old has decided to stay with her cat, that probably means more to her than anything else. Who's to say she is wrong? Not me. There will never have been a better time since the refurbishment to live there, from the point of view of knowing that there are people on more-or-less permanent fire watch. In Plymouth, they are saying errant cladding can be removed within three days, without the need for people to move out - are they wrong?

Unless of course god forbid the whole thing goes up tonight.

 

[Temple Meads]

Unless of course god forbid the whole thing goes up tonight.

The chances of a major fire in one of these affected blocks in the time before the cladding is removed is tiny.

I can fully understand residents who choose to stay put.

 

[yorkie]

The chances of a major fire in one of these affected blocks in the time before the cladding is removed is tiny.

I can fully understand residents who choose to stay put.

Agreed.

The attitude to risk in this country is very odd and disproportionate.

For anyone choosing to remain, one hopes that they would be made fully aware that the fire brigade would *not* seek to rescue them in the event of a fire. There can't be a single person who isn't aware of what the worst-case scenario is. It's extremely selfish to put the fire brigade in such a difficult position. I'm rather fed up seeing on TV the moaning from some of the Camden residents - unlike Grenfell they have the luxury of being able to be wise after the event, and in my view they should be thankful they weren't the unlucky ones.

Nonsense. The risk is no greater now than when the cladding was installed. Now that it is known that the cladding is inappropriate, it should be removed as soon as possible. But that doesn't mean the building is suddenly unsafe, and the risks are small. If you want everything to be 100% safe you'd need to abolish road transport immediately, as that is a huge risk, causing thousands of deaths.

To blame residents and have a go at them in this way is absurd.

 

[HSTEd]

Additionally you can guarantee that the second a fire is noticed everyone will get out immediatley, they are less likely to get cut off than in the case of Grenville where people remained in place.

 

[Cowley]

It all reminds me a little of what happened after the Hatfield crash with the panic to survey track and the temporary speed limits going up everywhere.

 

[bramling]

The risk is no greater now than when the cladding was installed. Now that it is known that the cladding is inappropriate, it should be removed as soon as possible. But that doesn't mean the building is suddenly unsafe, and the risks are small. If you want everything to be 100% safe you'd need to abolish road transport immediately, as that is a huge risk, causing thousands of deaths.

To blame residents and have a go at them in this way is absurd.

One can imagine the reaction if one of the affected blocks *did* happen to go up.

You appear to be advocating that hundreds of people should be allowed to remain in a building where the entire fire mitigation strategy (containment and wait to be rescued) has been proven to be completely compromised, just because (in your judgement) the risk of a fire is "small".

 

[DelayRepay]

From what was reported on the news, the problems in Camden are more than just the cladding. There seem to be problems with internal fire doors and gas pipes too.

I've just read that every sample of cladding which has been tested so far, has failed. But the fire service have only been concerned enough to request the Camden blocks be evacuated. So their fears must be about more than the cladding and I think people should listen to the experts.

It is fine saying people are staying at their own risk, but if god forbid a fire breaks out, the fire brigade won't sit by and say "we told you so". They will go into the building, risking their own lives, even though they know it is not safe, to rescue people.

 

[jon0844]

Exactly.

There's always the risk now of someone attempting to start a fire deliberately too. Also a low risk, but not impossible as another form of terrorism.

 

[Antman]

Additionally you can guarantee that the second a fire is noticed everyone will get out immediatley, they are less likely to get cut off than in the case of Grenville where people remained in place.

But that's just it, hundreds of people and one staircase, it's unlikely everybody would get out if heaven forbid there was another fire on the scale of Grenfell. And imagine the uproar if the worst did happen and the council had been aware of the safety issues and hadn't moved residents out.

 

[IanXC]

They could have put a fire appliance outside each of the blocks until the remedial works are carried out.

Camden Council offered to pay for this option but, unsurprisingly, London Fire Brigade were unable or unwilling to play ball.

I read that London Fire Brigade were not satisfied this was suitable mitigation of the risk and would have remained unhappy with the risk within the buildings.

 

[Antman]

I read that London Fire Brigade were not satisfied this was suitable mitigation of the risk and would have remained unhappy with the risk within the buildings.

Quite right too, in a worst case scenario I don't think having one fire appliance on standby would be sufficient.

 

[najaB]

Quite right too, in a worst case scenario I don't think having one fire appliance on standby would be sufficient.

It's not even that - if the fire was on the top floor they could have a dozen appliances but not be able to do anything about it in time since the cladding appears to breach the containment principle.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Nonsense. The risk is no greater now than when the cladding was installed. Now that it is known that the cladding is inappropriate, it should be removed as soon as possible. But that doesn't mean the building is suddenly unsafe, and the risks are small. If you want everything to be 100% safe you'd need to abolish road transport immediately, as that is a huge risk, causing thousands of deaths.

To blame residents and have a go at them in this way is absurd.

No it doesn't mean the building is suddenly unsafe. The truth of the matter is, that the building was unsafe before, but it was not known that this was the case. Although the actual risk has not changed (the building is still physically the same as when the refurbishment was completed), the perceived risk has increased as information that was not known before has come to light. The council has sensibly carried out a new risk assessment based on the new information and has taken a decision. Whether the decision was sensible or not is conjecture. It has been taken and acted upon.

Now I agree, blaming residents is absurd and helps no one. The only thing that will help is getting the cladding down as quickly and as safely as practicably possible. Preferably from the upper floors first.

I also note that the insulation from Grenfell also failed tests, but am not seeing any reports that this is being tested elsewhere in addition to the cladding. In my mind this is a serious commission.

 

[Dai Corner]

No it doesn't mean the building is suddenly unsafe. The truth of the matter is, that the building was unsafe before, but it was not known that this was the case. Although the actual risk has not changed (the building is still physically the same as when the refurbishment was completed), the perceived risk has increased as information that was not known before has come to light. The council has sensibly carried out a new risk assessment based on the new information and has taken a decision. Whether the decision was sensible or not is conjecture. It has been taken and acted upon.

Now I agree, blaming residents is absurd and helps no one. The only thing that will help is getting the cladding down as quickly and as safely as practicably possible. Preferably from the upper floors first.

I also note that the insulation from Grenfell also failed tests, but am not seeing any reports that this is being tested elsewhere in addition to the cladding. In my mind this is a serious commission.

Agreed

As I've posted before in this thread, the Celotex RS5000 insulation used at Grenfell had been tested to the relevant standard for use in buildings over 18m high but the manufacturer's literature gives details of the construction method used for the tests and warns that building designers not using exactly the same materials and method should do their own assessment / testing.

 

[Antman]

It's not even that - if the fire was on the top floor they could have a dozen appliances but not be able to do anything about it in time since the cladding appears to breach the containment principle.

That's pretty much the sort of scenario I had in mind, panic stricken residents trying to get down the stairs as the fire brigade were trying to get up. For me the council have made the right decision and if any residents want to stay put it should be made quite clear that they do so entirely at their own risk.

 

[Busaholic]

Quite right too, in a worst case scenario I don't think having one fire appliance on standby would be sufficient.

Four blocks = four fire engines. The Grenfell fire, by the way, was a 40 pump callout, only the second time since 1972 that so many engines were sent to an individual fire by the London brigade, and in 1972 there were many more fire engines and fire stations in the GLC area than there are now.

 

[najaB]

...and in 1972 there were many more fire engines and fire stations in the GLC area than there are now.

Though that is someone offset by the fact that modern fire appliances are *much* more capable than their 1970s equivalents.

 

[HSTEd]

Its a very small chance of a catastrophic fire - versus the far more likely health problems to be caused by the stress and fear associated with putting people in temporary accomodation, possibly with repeated moves, that is unlikely to be particularily comfortable.

Its a similar situation to the FUkushima evacuation - where it now appears the populace suffered more health problems from the stress of the evacuation than would have been suffered from radiation had they simply remained in place.

EDIT:

It's not even that - if the fire was on the top floor they could have a dozen appliances but not be able to do anything about it in time since the cladding appears to breach the containment principle.

A fire on the top floor is not that bad in terms of safety of life.... after all it would not trap anyone and fires advance downwards considerably more slowly than they advance upwards.

THe worst case is a fire on a floor just out of reach of the fire brigade's primary hoses.

 

[najaB]

A fire on the top floor is not that bad in terms of safety of life.... after all it would not trap anyone and fires advance downwards considerably more slowly than they advance upwards.

Normally, yes. However if you look at the photos of the fire at Grenfell Tower it is clear that the fire went up one side of the building and then back down the other *very* quickly.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Four blocks = four fire engines. The Grenfell fire, by the way, was a 40 pump callout, only the second time since 1972 that so many engines were sent to an individual fire by the London brigade, and in 1972 there were many more fire engines and fire stations in the GLC area than there are now.

How many pumps was the 1980 Alexandra Palace fire?