Fire at Bolton student accommodation

  • Thread starter Deleted member 5265
  • Start date


tenpins said:
Didn't the Building Regs change in December 2018?
As a result of Grenfell and use of ACM cladding.
Click to expand...
😮 😧

I’ve just skimmed the 2019 version of Approved Document B and it’s terrifying. For flame spread over internal linings; all mention of Class 1 or Class ‘O’ has been removed, there is no mention of BS476 (part 6 and part 7) which is the only satisfactory test of flame spread and instead replaced all of that with

“
B2. (1) To inhibit the spread of fire within the building,
the internal linings shall—
(a) adequately resist the spread of flame over their surfaces; and
(b) have, if ignited, either a rate of heat release or a rate of fire growth, which is reasonable in the circumstances”

I’ve emboldened two bits as they are massive cop-outs! What does that even mean??

In fairness, the section on external walls (post-Grenfell) looks to have been bolstered and refers to specific test criteria now, though I am not familiar with those tests.
 
Last edited:
Bakerlooline said:
😮 😧

I’ve just skimmed the 2019 version of Approved Document B and it’s terrifying. For flame spread over internal linings; all mention of Class 1 or Class ‘O’ has been removed, there is no mention of BS476 (part 6 and part 7) which is the only satisfactory test of flame spread and instead replaced all of that with

“
B2. (1) To inhibit the spread of fire within the building,
the internal linings shall—
(a) adequately resist the spread of flame over their surfaces; and
(b) have, if ignited, either a rate of heat release or a rate of fire growth, which is reasonable in the circumstances”

I’ve emboldened two bits as they are massive cop-outs! What does that even mean??

In fairness, the section on external walls (post-Grenfell) looks to have been bolstered and refers to specific test criteria now, though I am not familiar with those tests.
Click to expand...
It's complex to say the least.
I work as a chartered surveyor assessing these for mortgage purposes.
Basically any flat in a block of 6 or more stories with cladding of any type needs to be reviewed and passed as safe. There are a limited number of qualified people to do the tests and the backlog is causing mayhem for people trying to sell.
 
Privately managed student residence, claims that it was the same cladding used at Grenfell. Tory MP's blocking building code upgrades to rented properties. So nothing to see here

Looking forward to the enquirey blaming the Fire & Rescue service
 
Last edited:
Patch said:
A quote from one of the students (taken from the BBC):

"I heard the fire alarm going off but it kept on going off so I just thought it was a drill at first until one of my flatmates shouted down the corridor that it was a real fire"

I'm glad everyone was safely evacuated but how stupid is this one?
Click to expand...

When I was a student our fire alarm would go off several times per day because somebody a few houses away had burnt some toast or some shite. They were all linked from house to house, but definitely made people less likely to be aware of actual fires
 
tenpins said:
It's complex to say the least.
I work as a chartered surveyor assessing these for mortgage purposes.
Basically any flat in a block of 6 or more stories with cladding of any type needs to be reviewed and passed as safe. There are a limited number of qualified people to do the tests and the backlog is causing mayhem for people trying to sell.
Click to expand...
I work in the cladding industry, and even now it’s an absolute minefield trying to figure out what is allowed, what is safe and what isn’t? To be fair since Grenfell contractors are playing it as safe as possible. No foam insulation, all fire rated products etc.

To simply blame cladding frustrates me though. If done right it’s as safe as anything. A big problem is/was is that on a rain screen cladding system nearly all the components come from different suppliers and there’s a likelihood that they aren’t all tested together. There’s that many different suppliers nearly every building is bespoke. Going forward new builds should be safer through tighter design, specifications and quality controls.

I think there’s going to be a lot of remedial work needed to existing buildings. It’s easy to blame contractors and cheap materials but due to the last recession every job became about price. I don’t think the potential for how bad things could be was realised until grenfell and while it was a tragedy, it’s certainly made people more aware of the risks.
 
Patch said:
A quote from one of the students (taken from the BBC):

"I heard the fire alarm going off but it kept on going off so I just thought it was a drill at first until one of my flatmates shouted down the corridor that it was a real fire"

I'm glad everyone was safely evacuated but how stupid is this one?
Click to expand...
When I was a student, the alarm went off at night during freshers week, and I came out my room to find my mate standing on a chair trying to knock the bell off the wall with a shoe.
 
heard on the news earlier the students were immediately rehoused at halls and travelodges and were bought toiletries that they needed. be interesting to here what the cause of the fire was.
 
Glad that everyone was ok. But how very Tory that we're in almost exactly the same place as we were before Grenfell. Fucks sake, this type of shit should have been priority #1.
 
Bakerlooline said:
😮 😧

I’ve just skimmed the 2019 version of Approved Document B and it’s terrifying. For flame spread over internal linings; all mention of Class 1 or Class ‘O’ has been removed, there is no mention of BS476 (part 6 and part 7) which is the only satisfactory test of flame spread and instead replaced all of that with

“
B2. (1) To inhibit the spread of fire within the building,
the internal linings shall—
(a) adequately resist the spread of flame over their surfaces; and
(b) have, if ignited, either a rate of heat release or a rate of fire growth, which is reasonable in the circumstances”

I’ve emboldened two bits as they are massive cop-outs! What does that even mean??

In fairness, the section on external walls (post-Grenfell) looks to have been bolstered and refers to specific test criteria now, though I am not familiar with those tests.
Click to expand...

I m an architect- AD Part B is virtually unreadable.

It’s written like an arse covering terms and conditions legal document.

FFS if I had time I would rewrite the fucker into simple speak - it’s a working document - not a house conveyance.
 
PNEFC111 said:
I m an architect- AD Part B is virtually unreadable.

It’s written like an arse covering terms and conditions legal document.

FFS if I had time I would rewrite the fucker into simple speak - it’s a working document - not a house conveyance.
Click to expand...
Agreed. There are many paragraphs that now begin with “it is the Secretary of State’s opinion that...”. Really? Is s/he really so well qualified to express those opinions? I think not. The document maybe covers the governments arse but nobody else’s, a decent lawyer should be able to tear it apart. It makes it all the more sickening that “they” dared to blame the Fire Brigade for Grenfell.
 
Bakerlooline said:
It’s strange isn’t it... if you look at all the newspaper reports this morning they’re talking about the fire “crawling up the cladding”. Yet in that specific footage there is actually no cladding to be seen at all...
Click to expand...

Exactly. Even Andy Burnham, the Mayor was banging on about cladding when it was abundantly clear that the fire was internal to the building and displayed none of the spread of flames seen at Grenfell. Pure scaremongering and point scoring.
englishman abroad said:
Privately managed student residence, claims that it was the same cladding used at Grenfell. Tory MP's blocking building code upgrades to rented properties. So nothing to see here

Looking forward to the enquirey blaming the Fire & Rescue service
Click to expand...

Yet the evidence of our own eyes that the fire spread through a stair well is completely dismissed and we blame the one thing that was clearly not on fire - the cladding.
 
Last edited:
Sir Lancelot said:
Exactly. Even Andy Burnham, the Mayor was banging on about cladding when it was abundantly clear that the fire was internal to the building and displayed none of the spread of flames seen at Grenfell. Pure scaremongering and point scoring.


Yet the evidence of our own eyes that the fire spread through a stair well is completely dismissed and we blame the one thing that was clearly not on fire - the cladding.
Click to expand...

No cladding you say???
Bakerlooline said:
It looks like a classic communal stairwell fire. We’ve had a few in this country over the years, the fire which defined the phenomenon was the Kings Cross Fire. Although that wasn’t a stairwell specifically, it demonstrated the chimney effect perfectly I.e air moving along tunnels or up stairwells helps to spread flame incredibly quickly. You may think, yeah but there’s no fuel for a fire in a stairwell what with concrete floors etc (you can hear the footsteps in the video), but it’s the painted walls that are the issue. The inquest into the Kings Cross fire stated that “multiple layers of paint on walls and hand rails contributed directly to rapid flame spread”. Approved Document B of the Building Regs was adapted to solve the problem as there were other fires too (Mostyn Hospital, Gloucester Grove Estate etc). But, as with the cladding at Grenfell; under pressure from less scrupulous manufacturers the regs were changed in the mid 00’s and went from being absolutely specific; that any paint system used in such areas must achieve at least Class 1 of the BS476 flame spread test (developed at Warrington Fire Research Centre) to being vague with the addition of 3 short words... “or similar approved”. That suddenly made it possible for manufacturers to adopt their own tests and rendered the Building Regs useless. That’s what led to the cladding at Grenfell being about as effective as tissue paper and rendering the fire brigade’s totally correct advice, utterly obsolete. We have to go back to building regs that are sound and water-tight before more people die. Hopefully no-one was hurt in this fire. Sorry to be a bit dry on the subject like’, but it’s one I’m quite passionate about obvs.
Click to expand...

Fantastic theory only that isn’t a stairwell on fire, they’re external walkways with a shit load of cladding behind them. They’re suspended in some places which would allow unrestricted fire spread straight up the back. Check it’s design out, I think it’s fair to say it’s another cladding incident.
 
Last edited:
I'm Spartacus said:
No cladding you say???


Fantastic theory only that isn’t a stairwell on fire, they’re external walkways with a shit load of cladding behind them. They’re suspended in some places which would allow unrestricted fire spread straight up the back. Check it’s design out, I think it’s fair to say it’s another cladding incident.
Click to expand...
The problem with rainscreen cladding is there’s no decent detail for horizontal firebreaks. Because the cavity needs to be drained you can’t put a full width fire batt in and the intumescent lipped ones work on too tight a tolerance for most systems to practically achieve.
 
Billy Fish said:
The problem with rainscreen cladding is there’s no decent detail for horizontal firebreaks. Because the cavity needs to be drained you can’t put a full width fire batt in and the intumescent lipped ones work on too tight a tolerance for most systems to practically achieve.
Click to expand...
So it’s not fit for purpose then?
 

Back
Top