Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


It is not extreme socialism, or even socialism, to see the current way things work is ponk and deeply unfair, entirely weighted toward keeping the rich in their comforts.

To quote Call Me Dave, we can't go on like this.

It won't in the end. Eventually the populace will either rebel against the system or we'll have a housing recession that eclipses what we already have. There is already a massive thunderhead cloud on the horizon as we have an aging population. Yes population might be growing now, but with anti immigration messages doing the rounds then in 20-30 years the current crop of 50 year olds will start passing away. That could lead to a huge housing surplus over the long term as the number of younger people entering the system is less than the older generation leaving the system. It might be in 50-100 years but I do expect the housing market to collapse at some point.

I'm browsing around, and I can't find anything on developers being able to pay to waive their social housing obligations. I've got an amendment from 2013 giving an exemption for buildings that have otherwise been left empty for a considerable period of time (to encourage them to make use of the land). I've also found something from December 2014 whereby developers are able to remove their obligation if they can successfully plead their scheme is otherwise financially unviable (which is being manipulated to the hilt by private developers), but I can't spot a simple 'Pay and get out of obligations' bit of legislation.

The housing market has been propped up since the last crash by suppressing interest rates. Held at almost 0% so that millions can continue to scrape by each month with their bloated mortgages they bought thinking they couldn't lose because house prices were always going up.

My parents paid an average of about 9% IIRC on their mortgage over the years, sometimes less, sometimes a lot more. These days people whine if they have to pay 1%. Shows the difference. Interest rates only need to creep up a few percent and masses will fail to pay their mortgage. Government are terrified by this reality of the credit crunch biting home so rates are suppressed.

Holding down interest rates makes responsible saving worthless, and rewards running up huge debt and credit, which is what millions have done on mortgages and cards. Even setting aside mortgages and student debt, the credit debt in this country is a disgrace IMO, but it's the 'have now pay later' culture we now have.

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

Unfortunately though the government changed the rules on affordable housing. Developers can now pay (legally, this isn't a type of fraud) to remove their obligations on affordable housing. With councils that are cash poor, (especially capital wise) many are taking this option and allowing developers not to build affordable housing. At least in my area, that money from one area is then being pumped into other areas that with more councillors to develop relatively superfluous things like swimming pools (noting that there was already one it was just a bit old). The area that money came from though gets nothing apart from more (non-affordable housing). It would not be a surprise if this is now happening elsewhere.

Is that new? Do you have a link for that? I swear I was reading in private eye last week how some dodgy developers were being fined for not providing social housing as a matter of course. I would have thought that if there was a legal set sum as a possibility, it would have just been easier for them to stump up then wait for the fines.

It's a bit complicated because it's all tied in knots because of the legislation so rather than writing pages I'll provide a brief overview. There are effectively three types of contributions developers can make. Two are legally bound under what are called S106 agreements and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and there are voluntary contributions that a developer can make for specific reasons (lets say making a local roundabout look better) because they think that will sell the houses at a higher rate (but happens relatively rarely). In 2015 the government introduced a system where developers could show that they do not have to pay for affordable housing if it eats into profits too much. S106 contributions are for specific purposes that the Councils have to prove are required and are only for capital works (so such as extra places at schools, improvements to roads, additional bus stops, and increased capacity at local household waste sites as well as affordable housing). Effectively extra capacity that would not have occurred but for the development (noting taxes only pay towards revenue costs). CIL allows councils to charge a per square metre charge for improvements to the area, but cannot be duplicate items under S106 (and vice versa) - so you can't charge for school places twice for example; however CIL money can be spent as the Council sees fit (assuming it is included on a list of items they can change as and when they feel is appropriate).

The actual determination of whether a site is profitable is opaque at best http://blog.shelter.org.uk/2014/08/looking-to-avoid-providing-affordable-housing/ and hence viable. They can then claim that the affordable housing isn't viable and it gets knocked on the head (whilst the remainder, especially the CIL contributions that can be spent anywhere in the District remain in the planning permission). Additionally S106 agreements can only be challenged by Developers at Planning appeals (or eventually the high court). Hence the Council and developer can negotiate perfectly legally about contributions and as long as one party or the another can make it justifiable. But if it is approved there isn't really any recourse for the public or other authorities to challenge the decision (except by going to the High Court). I've been in situations where Districts have approved S106 funding for local parks with questionable justification whereas County contributions have been refused for capital investment that really is going to have an affect on those facilities.

So what then can happen is that developer takes the value of estimated sales minus development costs, land costs, CIL, S106, voluntary contributions etc and then can claim it is not viable. Effectively it moves the affordable housing developments away from the development because then the builders can sell the properties at a much higher price either by not taking the hit in value because of the social housing neighbours or design the site in a way that maximises the return depending on what the local market demand is.

And this is all before you take into account that redevelopment of existing properties can be exempt from affordable housing (which is likely to be particularly problematic in London)

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/01/property-developers-affordable-housing-councils-empty-building

or that under developments under 10 properties are exempt (which largely affects rural villages)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30009901

Unfortunately the legislation is a bit of a mess and has never been tidied up. S106 was meant to be repealed but instead lingers on because of flaws in CIL and yet they keep on introducing legislation for S106 agreements that make it harder for them to be applied and easier to avoided.

Okay, so it's not a simple 'Pay and get out of your legal obligations' scheme you're talking about (which is how you made it sound initially). You're referring instead to the legislation I mentioned in my last post, from the end of 2014.

So to clarify in two sentences what I think you're saying; you're stating that CIL contributions are included in calculating whether or not a scheme is financially viable or not. So companies therefore are proposing lots of various local extras and schemes under CIL to take them over the threshold of whether or not they're financially viable, letting them duck out on having to build social housing.

Is that it?

 Ketara wrote:
Okay, so it's not a simple 'Pay and get out of your legal obligations' scheme you're talking about (which is how you made it sound initially). You're referring instead to the legislation I mentioned in my last post, from the end of 2014.

So to clarify in two sentences what I think you're saying; you're stating that CIL contributions are included in calculating whether or not a scheme is financially viable or not. So companies therefore are proposing lots of various local extras and schemes under CIL to take them over the threshold of whether or not they're financially viable, letting them duck out on having to build social housing.

Is that it?

Sort of, but it is Councils that propose contributions not the companies. What the companies do is show that altogether the contributions and their costs aren't 'viable' (although in a lot of cases that is questionable). The developers can then say that as it is not viable they don't need to put forward affordable housing. The Councils can challenge this and negotiate with the developer to see what can be removed to make affordable housing viable. However that depends on whether the Council prefers the money for a swimming pool under CIL or the affordable housing. At least in the area I am those parts of the District that are on the boundary are consistently not favoured because development in these areas have limited effects on the District overall; whereas a significant fraction of Councillors end up favouring the larger urban areas (simply because there are more councillors). Nothing here is illegal, it's meant to be a decision as to what is best for the District, but it can be left with some areas getting little affordable housing whilst other areas get much larger infrastructure developments once the contributions are pooled together.

Really the pay and you get out of the scheme comes from that Developers know this and can manipulate the circumstances. The advantage for them is that the viability tests are rather loose and not well defined so overall they generally make more profit than initially forecast (for example from redesigning the site without affordable housing). So in the end it is pay the minimum which might be a better way of looking at it.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
The housing market has been propped up since the last crash by suppressing interest rates. Held at almost 0% so that millions can continue to scrape by each month with their bloated mortgages they bought thinking they couldn't lose because house prices were always going up.

My parents paid an average of about 9% IIRC on their mortgage over the years, sometimes less, sometimes a lot more. These days people whine if they have to pay 1%. Shows the difference. Interest rates only need to creep up a few percent and masses will fail to pay their mortgage. Government are terrified by this reality of the credit crunch biting home so rates are suppressed.

Holding down interest rates makes responsible saving worthless, and rewards running up huge debt and credit, which is what millions have done on mortgages and cards. Even setting aside mortgages and student debt, the credit debt in this country is a disgrace IMO, but it's the 'have now pay later' culture we now have.

The government is far more worried about people stopping spending and starting to horde money. Only a tiny minority are at risk of mortgage default. The far bigger risk is people stopping spending. On an individual level it's not an issue, but when large amounts of money gets put away in savings and taken out of the economy you get stagnation, which would be catastrophic at the moment and drive us back to recession.

 Steve steveson wrote:


The government is far more worried about people stopping spending and starting to horde money. Only a tiny minority are at risk of mortgage default. The far bigger risk is people stopping spending. On an individual level it's not an issue, but when large amounts of money gets put away in savings and taken out of the economy you get stagnation, which would be catastrophic at the moment and drive us back to recession.

Which is why they are very wary about increasing interest rates. However it's not just about hording vast amounts of money. You can still be spending the same money but getting less for it. Naturally we spend money on essentials first (so mortgage, food, fuel etc). If you expect further increases then keeping some hidden away to be able to manage such increases is not unsurprising. Additionally the luxuries are also increasing in cost then what you might have been able to afford you no longer can and for some items it can be very binary (either you buy those designer jeans or you don't). This can move the money to a few large discounting companies meaning less money in the economy overall.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Right to Buy was a good idea poorly executed.

If they'd replaced the housing stock as they sold them, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.

But no. Sold off, money funnelled to Westminster and pissed up the wall. Great if you were in the right place at the the right time, completely ponk for everyone else.

I agree, profits from selling off social housing stock should have been funnelled and ear-marked for the construction of new housing stock.

Is it too late to establish such a policy? Do we even have any social housing stock remaining?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Right to Buy was a good idea poorly executed.

If they'd replaced the housing stock as they sold them, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.

But no. Sold off, money funnelled to Westminster and pissed up the wall. Great if you were in the right place at the the right time, completely ponk for everyone else.

I agree, profits from selling off social housing stock should have been funnelled and ear-marked for the construction of new housing stock.

Is it too late to establish such a policy? Do we even have any social housing stock remaining?

The problem with Right to Buy is that it allows you to buy properties at under the market value by quite some margin. Even if you did ear mark the funding each generation would be losing money unless the right to buy didn't kick in until you'd been somewhere for 15 or more years.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Right to Buy was a good idea poorly executed.

If they'd replaced the housing stock as they sold them, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.

But no. Sold off, money funnelled to Westminster and pissed up the wall. Great if you were in the right place at the the right time, completely ponk for everyone else.

I agree, profits from selling off social housing stock should have been funnelled and ear-marked for the construction of new housing stock.

Is it too late to establish such a policy? Do we even have any social housing stock remaining?

The problem with Right to Buy is that it allows you to buy properties at under the market value by quite some margin. Even if you did ear mark the funding each generation would be losing money unless the right to buy didn't kick in until you'd been somewhere for 15 or more years.

That's quite true, the current stock of baby boomers, my parents included, got a quite staggering discount when buying their home, when prices were already modest. They basically got the deal of a lifetime, it was a massive giveaway to try and secure a conservative future for the forseeable future. And it worked to an extent. We haven't had a left wing government since the 70s, and this is part of the reason.

The Tories are practically unassailable, even now.
Even after,
1. Years of austerity, refusing even to consider tax raises to tackle the debt.
2. Brexit. A fething disaster just waiting to happen
3. Creating a divided, angry nation
4. Nearly costing us the union with Scotland, although that may still be on the cards
5. Cutting security budgets so much, the police are effectively a mop up crew
6. Dergulating business to the extent that firms feel they can cover homes in pretty looking firelighters, and brush off legitimate concerns
7. Be the party that is touted as the only fiscally responsible political party despite willingly creating a climate of uncertainty and confusion
8. Food banks. Having to give people fething food for free so that they don't starve to death in a modern, 21st century, Northern European country.

The Tories are basically the most incompetent, ideologically distorted collection of low level sociopaths we have the misfortune to suffer.
How many people have to die, and live in misery in our wealthy and prosperous corner of the world before people stop voting for these fuckwits.


And breathe.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Right to Buy was a good idea poorly executed.

If they'd replaced the housing stock as they sold them, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.

But no. Sold off, money funnelled to Westminster and pissed up the wall. Great if you were in the right place at the the right time, completely ponk for everyone else.

I agree, profits from selling off social housing stock should have been funnelled and ear-marked for the construction of new housing stock.

Is it too late to establish such a policy? Do we even have any social housing stock remaining?

The problem with Right to Buy is that it allows you to buy properties at under the market value by quite some margin. Even if you did ear mark the funding each generation would be losing money unless the right to buy didn't kick in until you'd been somewhere for 15 or more years.

Right, so change the Right to Buy laws and only sell the properties off at the full market value. Social housing is for the benefit of society as a whole, not individuals. Purchasing your council home is (or should be) a privilege, not a right.

https://twitter.com/tradegovuk/status/875821279324065792


"Intl Trade Sec @LiamFox welcomes Craword Falconer as 2nd Perm Sec and Chief Trade Negotiation Adviser https://www.gov.uk/government/news/dit-appoints-crawford-falconer-as-new-chief-trade-negotiation-adviser …"


I'd have more faith here if they could actually spell his name correctly.


did anyone see Disgraced Minister Fox during the election at all ...?

One assumes he was given something of a low profile presumably ?

I see that they are using a rarely used piece of legislation to ensure there is no Queen's speech next year.

It is being played off the back of how much wok there is to do on Wrexit, but I am highly suspicious.

I think this may be more to do with that the government are doing their utmost to avoid a potentially embarrassing defeat as they start forcing through damaging Wrexit agreements minimising the risk of a background rebellion against them that could result in another election.

 Whirlwind wrote:
I see that they are using a rarely used piece of legislation to ensure there is no Queen's speech next year.

It is being played off the back of how much wok there is to do on Wrexit, but I am highly suspicious.

I think this may be more to do with that the government are doing their utmost to avoid a potentially embarrassing defeat as they start forcing through damaging Wrexit agreements minimising the risk of a background rebellion against them that could result in another election.

Much as this aint a perfect Gov arangement, i am sick and tired of politcal children argueing for weeks at a fething time.
Not another election, we had 6 weeks of gak, i don't want 6 more.

JUST DO YOUR DAMN JOBS AND RUN THE COUNTRY...

Oh she'll spin this out as long as she can.

Thankfully, it's pissing off the Tory party as much as everyone else.

I keep saying - they're going to stuff up Brexit, and force themselves into the political wilderness, as they'll have no scapegoat whatsoever.

And all because an authoritarian nightmare PM was uttelry incompetent.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Right to Buy was a good idea poorly executed.

If they'd replaced the housing stock as they sold them, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.

But no. Sold off, money funnelled to Westminster and pissed up the wall. Great if you were in the right place at the the right time, completely ponk for everyone else.

I agree, profits from selling off social housing stock should have been funnelled and ear-marked for the construction of new housing stock.

Is it too late to establish such a policy? Do we even have any social housing stock remaining?

The problem with Right to Buy is that it allows you to buy properties at under the market value by quite some margin. Even if you did ear mark the funding each generation would be losing money unless the right to buy didn't kick in until you'd been somewhere for 15 or more years.

Right, so change the Right to Buy laws and only sell the properties off at the full market value. Social housing is for the benefit of society as a whole, not individuals. Purchasing your council home is (or should be) a privilege, not a right.

This is fundamentally the point.

Thatcher wanted to turn the council-house inhabiting working class into middle-class property owners. There were two problems with the plan. The first was that people often couldn't have afforded to buy their council houses at full market rate. This was addressed by giving a discount based on the length of time the people had rented their houses from the council. This in itself was a perfectly good idea. The real problem was that Thatcher also compelled councils not to build new council housing stock, even if they could afford to do it (increasingly problematic in hot ares like the sounth-east.)

 Whirlwind wrote:
I see that they are using a rarely used piece of legislation to ensure there is no Queen's speech next year.

It is being played off the back of how much wok there is to do on Wrexit, but I am highly suspicious.

I think this may be more to do with that the government are doing their utmost to avoid a potentially embarrassing defeat as they start forcing through damaging Wrexit agreements minimising the risk of a background rebellion against them that could result in another election.

I think you're right on the money there seeing as the current Queen's speech is looking precarious already.

Steve steveson wrote:

The government is far more worried about people stopping spending and starting to horde money. Only a tiny minority are at risk of mortgage default. The far bigger risk is people stopping spending. On an individual level it's not an issue, but when large amounts of money gets put away in savings and taken out of the economy you get stagnation, which would be catastrophic at the moment and drive us back to recession.

So basically, what the big corporations and the rich have been doing for decades offsoffandhore and saying "this is how it's supposed to work" is actually bad for the economy? Say it isn't so!

Another tower block fire in Haringey. No fatalities, fire quickly extinguished.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/18/hundreds-flee-flats-in-fear-after-fire-breaks-out-at-flats-in-haringey-6716888/

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Another tower block fire in Haringey. No fatalities, fire quickly extinguished.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/18/hundreds-flee-flats-in-fear-after-fire-breaks-out-at-flats-in-haringey-6716888/

Was it covered in that flammable gak too?

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Another tower block fire in Haringey. No fatalities, fire quickly extinguished.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/18/hundreds-flee-flats-in-fear-after-fire-breaks-out-at-flats-in-haringey-6716888/

Was it covered in that flammable gak too?

Unknown.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Another tower block fire in Haringey. No fatalities, fire quickly extinguished.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/18/hundreds-flee-flats-in-fear-after-fire-breaks-out-at-flats-in-haringey-6716888/

Was it covered in that flammable gak too?

Unknown.

Uf entire building not light up like a match, probably not.

Now it comes out...

UK the cladding is recommended to a max of 10m by manufacturers

Banned above 18m by building regs.

The tower is 67m high.

They exceeded the material spec by a long long way if true.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Another tower block fire in Haringey. No fatalities, fire quickly extinguished.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/18/hundreds-flee-flats-in-fear-after-fire-breaks-out-at-flats-in-haringey-6716888/

Was it covered in that flammable gak too?

Unknown.

Uf entire building not light up like a match, probably not.

Now it comes out...

UK the cladding is recommended to a max of 10m by manufacturers

Banned above 18m by building regs.

The tower is 67m high.

They exceeded the material spec by a long long way if true.

Is that a building reg or a material supply/manufacturer reg? What material and application does this refer too?

if it applies to towers such as grenfell then councils will be as complicit as builders/landlords. Over the last few years many buildings have been refitted and have been clad across the country.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Another tower block fire in Haringey. No fatalities, fire quickly extinguished.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/18/hundreds-flee-flats-in-fear-after-fire-breaks-out-at-flats-in-haringey-6716888/

Was it covered in that flammable gak too?

Unknown.

Uf entire building not light up like a match, probably not.

Now it comes out...

UK the cladding is recommended to a max of 10m by manufacturers

Banned above 18m by building regs.

The tower is 67m high.

They exceeded the material spec by a long long way if true.

Is that a building reg or a material supply/manufacturer reg? What material and application does this refer too?

if it applies to towers such as grenfell then councils will be as complicit as builders/landlords. Over the last few years many buildings have been refitted and have been clad across the country.

Not best media but

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/818480/cladding-Grenfell-tower-illegal-10m-32-feet-not-to-be-used-Arconic-manufacturer-Kensington

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4615012/Chancellor-claims-Grenfell-cladding-illegal.html

"Flammable cladding that helped the inferno which destroyed the Grenfell tower is already illegal on tall buildings in Britain, Philip Hammond claimed today.
The Chancellor said criminal probes and a public inquiry into the disaster would answer why the controversial material was used.
It emerged today that the cladding installed on Grenfell was not designed for use on buildings taller than 10metres high - a fraction of the 67metre Grenfell block.
The Department for Communities and Local Government said cladding with a flammable core - like that used on Grenfell Tower - was banned on buildings over 18metres high. "
A breach of building regulations is a criminal offence with unlimited fines.


"Arconic said: 'It is crucial to choose the adapted products in order to avoid the fire spreading to the whole building. Especially when it comes to facades and roofs, the fire can spread extremely rapidly.
'It is especially crucial for public establishments. Buildings are also classified according to their height, which will define which materials are safer to use. Another important rule when it comes to the height of buildings concerns the accessibility of the fire brigade – as soon as the building is higher than the firefighters' ladders, it has to be conceived [sic] with an incombustible material.'
The company provides its customers with a height guidance table. While PE can be used up to 10 metres, products which are fire retardant should be used on buildings up to 30 metres. Above that height – the limit of American fire ladders – Arconic strictly advises cladding panels containing non-combustible substances.
When it comes into contact with fire, the PE plastic melts, drips and burns, which would explain why the fire spread downwards as well as upwards over the exterior of Grenfell Tower."

 jhe90 wrote:


Now it comes out...

UK the cladding is recommended to a max of 10m by manufacturers

Banned above 18m by building regs.

The tower is 67m high.

They exceeded the material spec by a long long way if true.

Doesn't look like this might be correct though. I was a bit sceptical when this claim was made given the number of buildings it is put on.

Looking at the building regulations (page 93 onwards)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/441669/BR_PDF_AD_B2_2013.pdf

It appears that cladding can be installed on buildings above 18m as long as it meets certain standards and the following diagrams indicates that it has to be Class 0 in the standards. Below 18m the material can be class 1 instead (so a bit worse).

Looking at the manufacturers specifications

https://www.arconic.com/aap/europe/pdf/Certifications%20page_042014.pdf

Both PE (the one on Grenfell) and FR (the fire resistant version) *both* meet class 0. Therefore both types are legally allowed to be installed on building beyond 18m (assuming no dodgy tests but that would be a different issue). You still have to meet installation standards but again that is another issue and not really one we can review here.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:

The company provides its customers with a height guidance table. While PE can be used up to 10 metres, products which are fire retardant should be used on buildings up to 30 metres. Above that height – the limit of American fire ladders – Arconic strictly advises cladding panels containing non-combustible substances.
When it comes into contact with fire, the PE plastic melts, drips and burns, which would explain why the fire spread downwards as well as upwards over the exterior of Grenfell Tower."

We have to remember that the company is American. They recommend safety requirements based on the American system (which appears more rigorous than ours) which I suppose is not a surprise given the number of buildings of these types in the US. The company can make recommendations but companies are only legally required to follow the minimums.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:


Now it comes out...

UK the cladding is recommended to a max of 10m by manufacturers

Banned above 18m by building regs.

The tower is 67m high.

They exceeded the material spec by a long long way if true.

Doesn't look like this might be correct though. I was a bit sceptical when this claim was made given the number of buildings it is put on.

Looking at the building regulations (page 93 onwards)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/441669/BR_PDF_AD_B2_2013.pdf

It appears that cladding can be installed on buildings above 18m as long as it meets certain standards and the following diagrams indicates that it has to be Class 0 in the standards. Below 18m the material can be class 1 instead (so a bit worse).

Looking at the manufacturers specifications

https://www.arconic.com/aap/europe/pdf/Certifications%20page_042014.pdf

Both PE (the one on Grenfell) and FR (the fire resistant version) *both* meet class 0. Therefore both types are legally allowed to be installed on building beyond 18m (assuming no dodgy tests but that would be a different issue). You still have to meet installation standards but again that is another issue and not really one we can review here.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:

The company provides its customers with a height guidance table. While PE can be used up to 10 metres, products which are fire retardant should be used on buildings up to 30 metres. Above that height – the limit of American fire ladders – Arconic strictly advises cladding panels containing non-combustible substances.
When it comes into contact with fire, the PE plastic melts, drips and burns, which would explain why the fire spread downwards as well as upwards over the exterior of Grenfell Tower."

We have to remember that the company is American. They recommend safety requirements based on the American system (which appears more rigorous than ours) which I suppose is not a surprise given the number of buildings of these types in the US. The company can make recommendations but companies are only legally required to follow the minimums.

Ok, Fiar, this seems resnoble.

One, why is US spec for 10M and we fine at 67M
we probbly should be adopting US fire specs for cladding then. ours is too damned lax.

B.
this stuff was rated to a 0 Rating. it spread up building like a match, this stuff had to be intalled wrong. it was a fire conduit, not fire esistiant on that tower...
THe top 3 floors could not even escape, and had close to or 100% fatality rate

 jhe90 wrote:


Ok, Fiar, this seems resnoble.

One, why is US spec for 10M and we fine at 67M
we probbly should be adopting US fire specs for cladding then. ours is too damned lax.

B.
this stuff was rated to a 0 Rating. it spread up building like a match, this stuff had to be intalled wrong. it was a fire conduit, not fire esistiant on that tower...
THe top 3 floors could not even escape, and had close to or 100% fatality rate

With regards the first point, both the US and EU requirements appear to make this material not suitable for high rise buildings (although with the EU it does appear that individual states can apply their own standards). For the US in particular I would hypothesise that they have had fires previously where cladding was to blame and/or with the greater prevalence and hence number of people living in such buildings there is a greater awareness of the issues such cladding can bring in. It should be noted that cladding was also a factor in the 2009 London fire at the Lakanal flats (from what has been reported). The coroner recommended a review of the relevant building regulations and that sprinkler should be installed. However this has never been actioned and effectively means that in this regards not much has actually changed. The Building regulations should have been changed from this fire. If they had Grenfell is unlikely to have happened. The person responsible for doing this is now the governments Chief of Staff.

On the second point. A lot depends on what is considered 'flammable' and requires a brief understanding of how fires operate. Material burns because it results in a chemical reaction and these can be classified broadly into two categories exothermic reactions and endothermic. For the most part anything will burn if you add enough energy to the particles. Exothermic reactions are where when something reacts it releases heat, burning wood is a good example of this. This is organic compounds burning to make (mainly) carbon dioxide and water. Exothermic reactions are self perpetuating - once you have enough energy in the system it will generate more meaning more of the material will continue to burn and then release more energy and so on. Endothermic reactions are where the burning process requires energy (i.e. you need to keep adding heat to keep the reaction going otherwise it will shut off), photosynthesis is a good example, it takes energy from the sun and converts it to sugars and oxygen.

Plastics are oil based therefore they will burn in oxygen readily once you add in enough heat, they are exothermic reactions. The question the fire regulations/guidance/standards make is how much heat (for the purposes of this discussion lets assume 500C would it take to ignite this material and then a risk assessment of how *likely* it is that such a material will experience this level of heat. Almost certainly this material would not be allowed inside (as there is a high risk of electrical failures, gas burning etc). On the outside of the building however this is much less of an issue. Apart from reflections/direct sunlight (lets assume a 100C) or a cigarette end (lets assume 200C) in the UK it was assessed that it is unlikely that the temperature would ever get high enough to ingite the cladding. However what is easily apparent is that small internal fires can causes much greater local concentrations of heat but the rules lack real consideration of the implications. In this case it appears a fridge exploded - we can then perhaps assumes that the liquid organic coolant was burning (lets say at 700C); a fire extinguisher was used but it might have been the wrong type and/or or it blew some of the burning liquid out of the open window. We now have a liquid that is burning at 700C that combusts the caldding with a combustion temperature of 500C. This hence will ignite the cladding, however because it is an exothermic reaction it produces more heat which therefore causes more cladding to start burning. Because heat rises this means burning air and ash is moving upwards on the updraft which can cause panels to combust above as well. Now you have the circumstances where the panels are burning both sideways and and upwards and hence the consequences. And this is all before you start considering that fires can causes high winds as it sucks more air in. Apart from bricks, concrete and glass pretty much everything will become flammable at a high enough temperature - the question is at what point does that risk become negligible. In the UK our standards assume a lower heat threshold.

I will however take a moment to point out the EU has higher standards than the UK but individual states can make there own decision. If the EU had enforced there rules on the UK, Grenfell tower might not have happened. However for a lot of people this is what they mean when they talk about red tape (there are even Tory MPs on file saying that leaving the EU would allow us to reduce these types of standards and environmental ones). If Grenfell tower had never happened because of the 'red tape' then the consequences of the more relaxed regulations wouldn't have been seen and people would just be clamouring that they are over the top and costing businesses money. So next time anyone complains about EU red tape I would recommend you remind them about Grenfell. With EU red tape this disaster probably wouldn't have happened; the question is how much EU red tape do people want to get rid of and how much extra risk do we want to put on the populace which we will then only deal with once a disaster of this scale happens?

As an aside it's not really a very confidence inspiring thing that the person in number 11 can't actually get his facts right...

 Whirlwind wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:


Ok, Fiar, this seems resnoble.

One, why is US spec for 10M and we fine at 67M
we probbly should be adopting US fire specs for cladding then. ours is too damned lax.

B.
this stuff was rated to a 0 Rating. it spread up building like a match, this stuff had to be intalled wrong. it was a fire conduit, not fire esistiant on that tower...
THe top 3 floors could not even escape, and had close to or 100% fatality rate

With regards the first point, both the US and EU requirements appear to make this material not suitable for high rise buildings (although with the EU it does appear that individual states can apply their own standards). For the US in particular I would hypothesise that they have had fires previously where cladding was to blame and/or with the greater prevalence and hence number of people living in such buildings there is a greater awareness of the issues such cladding can bring in. It should be noted that cladding was also a factor in the 2009 London fire at the Lakanal flats (from what has been reported). The coroner recommended a review of the relevant building regulations and that sprinkler should be installed. However this has never been actioned and effectively means that in this regards not much has actually changed. The Building regulations should have been changed from this fire. If they had Grenfell is unlikely to have happened. The person responsible for doing this is now the governments Chief of Staff.

On the second point. A lot depends on what is considered 'flammable' and requires a brief understanding of how fires operate. Material burns because it results in a chemical reaction and these can be classified broadly into two categories exothermic reactions and endothermic. For the most part anything will burn if you add enough energy to the particles. Exothermic reactions are where when something reacts it releases heat, burning wood is a good example of this. This is organic compounds burning to make (mainly) carbon dioxide and water. Exothermic reactions are self perpetuating - once you have enough energy in the system it will generate more meaning more of the material will continue to burn and then release more energy and so on. Endothermic reactions are where the burning process requires energy (i.e. you need to keep adding heat to keep the reaction going otherwise it will shut off), photosynthesis is a good example, it takes energy from the sun and converts it to sugars and oxygen.

Plastics are oil based therefore they will burn in oxygen readily once you add in enough heat, they are exothermic reactions. The question the fire regulations/guidance/standards make is how much heat (for the purposes of this discussion lets assume 500C would it take to ignite this material and then a risk assessment of how *likely* it is that such a material will experience this level of heat. Almost certainly this material would not be allowed inside (as there is a high risk of electrical failures, gas burning etc). On the outside of the building however this is much less of an issue. Apart from reflections/direct sunlight (lets assume a 100C) or a cigarette end (lets assume 200C) in the UK it was assessed that it is unlikely that the temperature would ever get high enough to ingite the cladding. However what is easily apparent is that small internal fires can causes much greater local concentrations of heat but the rules lack real consideration of the implications. In this case it appears a fridge exploded - we can then perhaps assumes that the liquid organic coolant was burning (lets say at 700C); a fire extinguisher was used but it might have been the wrong type and/or or it blew some of the burning liquid out of the open window. We now have a liquid that is burning at 700C that combusts the caldding with a combustion temperature of 500C. This hence will ignite the cladding, however because it is an exothermic reaction it produces more heat which therefore causes more cladding to start burning. Because heat rises this means burning air and ash is moving upwards on the updraft which can cause panels to combust above as well. Now you have the circumstances where the panels are burning both sideways and and upwards and hence the consequences. And this is all before you start considering that fires can causes high winds as it sucks more air in. Apart from bricks, concrete and glass pretty much everything will become flammable at a high enough temperature - the question is at what point does that risk become negligible. In the UK our standards assume a lower heat threshold.

I will however take a moment to point out the EU has higher standards than the UK but individual states can make there own decision. If the EU had enforced there rules on the UK, Grenfell tower might not have happened. However for a lot of people this is what they mean when they talk about red tape (there are even Tory MPs on file saying that leaving the EU would allow us to reduce these types of standards and environmental ones). If Grenfell tower had never happened because of the 'red tape' then the consequences of the more relaxed regulations wouldn't have been seen and people would just be clamouring that they are over the top and costing businesses money. So next time anyone complains about EU red tape I would recommend you remind them about Grenfell. With EU red tape this disaster probably wouldn't have happened; the question is how much EU red tape do people want to get rid of and how much extra risk do we want to put on the populace which we will then only deal with once a disaster of this scale happens?

As an aside it's not really a very confidence inspiring thing that the person in number 11 can't actually get his facts right...

True for point one. Yes. This type of cladding is newer to the UK and we had less experience for the situation, clad buildings seem to have been a newer idea to update older builds without rebuild and a cheaper way to keep them in use.

B. Yes fire is buring air and even steel, gold, glass and concrete cam burn with enough heat.
However . Surely there should have been some kinda of fire break in the panaling no?

Isolation. My dad works in building, mostly new builds. This only "low" builds too like 3-4 story max. The regulations get tighter the taller you get of course.
He has to install all kind of fire socks between floors and buildings etc and such. They act as breaks to slow down a fire that gets going. They won,t stop it but they are jus there to buy time so you can escape. Surely the cladding required some form of isolation barriers.

C.

Yes, some regulations might of stopped this but also not all the red tape and judgements in Brussels where helpful too. Some save lives. Others are a downright waste of paper.
Id take each case as and such om own merit in that regard.

I do agree we should adopt the US or EU standards on cladding though.

Is there any kind of copyright on laws? EU regulations and laws are public knowledge, so once out of the European Union whats to stop us from simply picking and choosing which laws and regulations we like and which ones we don't like? Just outright plagiarize the EU. What are they gonna do, sue us for copyright infringement?