24 Storey Tower on Fire in Kensington - dies

So, an exploding fridge does not cause fire
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1210334/Alert-new-wave-exploding-fridges-caused-environmentally-friendly-coolant.html

And the person who reported that his fridge had exploded actually had to WAKE up his neighbours, so clearly that was not the explosion heard 20 blocks away as confirmed by the policeman yesterday

EDIT ok a friend of mine said their fridge exploded 4 years ago and did set on fire

Fron annirfan
https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/bconline/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=dates&keyVal=_RBKC_BCAPR_123520

Town Hall, Hornton Street, W8 7NX
Building Control » Building Control Dates

(opens in a new window)
DEM/14/02401 | Demolition | Grenfell Tower, Grenfell Road, LONDON, W11 1TH

Application Received Wed 21 May 2014
Application Deposited Thu 22 May 2014

Application Reference Number DEM/14/02401
Description Of Works - Demolition
Agent Name - Rydon Maintenance Ltd

honeyaisle wrote:Fron annirfan
https://www.instagram.com/p/BVdSjTKn_jI/

Town Hall, Hornton Street, W8 7NX
Building Control » Building Control Dates

(opens in a new window)
DEM/14/02401 | Demolition | Grenfell Tower, Grenfell Road, LONDON, W11 1TH

Application Received Wed 21 May 2014

Application Deposited Thu 22 May 2014

Application Reference Number DEM/14/02401
Description Of Works - Demolition
Agent Name - Rydon Maintenance Ltd

So the same company who applied for demolition of the building (which was rejected) were responsible for the flammable cladding and refurbishment?

Andrew Goldman director of company responsible for Grenfell Tower refurbishment admits he is clueless over what cladding was made from. Following last night London Massacre Mr, Goldman, director of Rydon, told Good Morning Britain: "We don't know there is any direct link between the fire and cladding."

It sounds more like 9/11 each and every day.

I've got a pound on this company getting the regeneration contract.

http://www.rydon.co.uk/what-we-do/regeneration

Today's blaze is an almost carbon copy of a fire in October 2015 in another KCTMO property, when sleeping residents were evacuated from a tower block and 16 people taken to hospital after a fire in a third-floor flat.

Firefighters rescued 50 people from the 14-storey building in west London and two residents were forced to escape from their balconies as the blaze raged.

Residents crawled to safety and described seeing 'fireballs' at Adair Tower in Appleford Road in North Kensington. 

In the aftermath of the Adair Tower fire the London Fire Brigade found that the KCTMO had not been looking after the safety of residents properly and issued an Enforcement Order ordering them to improve the fire safety in the escape staircases and to provide self-closing devices to all the tower block's front doors.

A further audit by the London Fire Brigade of the neighbouring Hazelwood Tower found similar breaches of health and safety legislation and an Enforcement Order was also issued for this property forcing the tenant management agency to address the serious concerns of the Fire Brigade's inspectors. 

 

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/bconline/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_RBKC_BCAPR_123520

great find

Lets put this to bed once and for all, who is to blame and why?

Who are the buildings owners? Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council.
Who decided to undertake the refurbishment work? Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council.
Who set the "scope of works" which is the work to be done? Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council.
Who sets the standards for such buildings? National standards as enshrined in legislation with local variations.
Who did the original survey work on this building? Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council.
Who set the specifications and approved their funding? Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council.

In any survey they would do a survey of the structure and any defects would, and should be rectified, these would include any upgrades for compliance with national standards, and these would have included at least one other means of egress, the fitting of appropriate fire protection systems, and a system of monitoring the building in the event of a major incident.

Many criteria apply to many buildings and in this case the main two were:

The height of the building.

The frequency of occupation of the building.

So what are these? the height of the building dictates many things which include the height of the dry risers which supply water to the building in the event of a fire, and the number of dry risers the building is fitted with as you may lose water on one dry riser and have to use pumped, or other mains water in the other dry riser to give adequate fire suppression for the time it takes to evacuate the building.

Frequency of occupation is a hypothetical figure based on the original designs of the properties, basically a structure may contain various properties of differing sizes and the frequency of occupation is the combined number of the flats and how many people each flat was designed to house at their time of construction, as amended over the years.

Now the contract is put out to tender by Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council.

At this point anyone bidding would get a detailed pack, this would contain all the details of the building, what it contained, what it didn't contain, and what it should contain, and at this point the ping pong between Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council and any contractor begins. Bidders would refer to the drawings supplied in their pack supplied by  Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council and would be asking questions about why the building didn't contain the safety features they should be fitted with and price them separately as something called a "variation" and include them in their bid.
There is no way Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council could claim they didn't know their building wasn't compliant with the legislation as so many bidders would have raised the same issues multiple times, so yes they did know.

At some point the planning department of Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council would have received a planning application and at some point they also would raise the issues of "compliance" and refuse planning permission, citing the work needed to make the building compliant, so how can Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council deny liability.

At some point during the bidding/tender process several contractors would naturally drop out, but each contractor would send a set of detailed specifications back to Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council with their bid for the work, and be assured that these companies have some excellent people pricing the work.

There is only one body to blame here, Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council; they set the original specifications, they were made aware of the buildings deficiencies and what work was needed to bring the structure up to the minimum specifications by their own planning department, and numerous contractors bidding for the work.
They alone have the planning department under their control, and the planning department incorporates a body called "building control" who are responsible for overseeing the construction works, so they cannot blame anyone else.

What does not make sense is that if kensington borough council owned the building, why woukd they refuse their own planning permission to demolish it in 2014.

I think someone else owns the building and there may be a lease to kensington council or an housing association.

Awoken2. The information you have posted is not conspiracy theory, but is FACT.

Have a look at harleyfacades.co.uk

assassin wrote:Lets put this to bed once and for all, who is to blame and why?

Who are the buildings owners? Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council.
Who decided to undertake the refurbishment work? Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council.
Who set the "scope of works" which is the work to be done? Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council.
Who sets the standards for such buildings? National standards as enshrined in legislation with local variations.
Who did the original survey work on this building? Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council.
Who set the specifications and approved their funding? Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council.

In any survey they would do a survey of the structure and any defects would, and should be rectified, these would include any upgrades for compliance with national standards, and these would have included at least one other means of egress, the fitting of appropriate fire protection systems, and a system of monitoring the building in the event of a major incident.

Many criteria apply to many buildings and in this case the main two were:

The height of the building.

The frequency of occupation of the building.

So what are these? the height of the building dictates many things which include the height of the dry risers which supply water to the building in the event of a fire, and the number of dry risers the building is fitted with as you may lose water on one dry riser and have to use pumped, or other mains water in the other dry riser to give adequate fire suppression for the time it takes to evacuate the building.

Frequency of occupation is a hypothetical figure based on the original designs of the properties, basically a structure may contain various properties of differing sizes and the frequency of occupation is the combined number of the flats and how many people each flat was designed to house at their time of construction, as amended over the years.

Now the contract is put out to tender by Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council.

At this point anyone bidding would get a detailed pack, this would contain all the details of the building, what it contained, what it didn't contain, and what it should contain, and at this point the ping pong between Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council and any contractor begins. Bidders would refer to the drawings supplied in their pack supplied by  Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council and would be asking questions about why the building didn't contain the safety features they should be fitted with and price them separately as something called a "variation" and include them in their bid.
There is no way Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council could claim they didn't know their building wasn't compliant with the legislation as so many bidders would have raised the same issues multiple times, so yes they did know.

At some point the planning department of Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council would have received a planning application and at some point they also would raise the issues of "compliance" and refuse planning permission, citing the work needed to make the building compliant, so how can Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council deny liability.

At some point during the bidding/tender process several contractors would naturally drop out, but each contractor would send a set of detailed specifications back to Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council with their bid for the work, and be assured that these companies have some excellent people pricing the work.

There is only one body to blame here, Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council; they set the original specifications, they were made aware of the buildings deficiencies and what work was needed to bring the structure up to the minimum specifications by their own planning department, and numerous contractors bidding for the work.
They alone have the planning department under their control, and the planning department incorporates a body called "building control" who are responsible for overseeing the construction works, so they cannot blame anyone else.

Thanks Assassin for your input, you obviously have a lot of knowledge about the subject. But before it gets put to bed I have a couple of questions. that are still unanswered.

Surely the council can absolve itself of any responsibility because it paid £11 Million (of taxpayers money) to the KCTMO who's responsibility was the maintenance and upkeep of the building?

Why would Rydon Maintenance be named on the original demolition application in 2014?

Why did an application for demolition go in in the first place if the building just needed a facelift?

Is Rydon's current connection to the KCTMO (allowing them to cover the building in highly flammable cladding) in any way connected to the 2014 application for demolition?

And do current building regs allow multiple occupancy buildings to be covered in Raynoboard, which is illegal in most of Europe?

Help with any of these would be much appreciated.

The reason why I am not happy with what is being reported is because it just seems to fit perfectly into this media driven Muslim/Christian psy-op that we are currently being bombarded with. There's an agenda in play.

I've took a step back and looked at the current situation, first Brexit, then an election, all these "terrorist" events, each and every one is an excercise of divisiveness, to keep us arguing against eachother.

All these horrific "terrorist" events but each time the perpetrators die so there are no questions to answer. All the arrests that follow these atrocities (over 20 in the Manchester bombing case) but NOBODY ever charged with anything?

The mainstream media lies to us, it's nothing more than propaganda so anything that's reported by them needs closer scrutiny.

Regarding liability, I think it comes down to who specified that product? Who sanctioned that product ? Was the product used ,the one specified ? What regulatory authority gave type approval for this product.

More good info from Annie



https://youtu.be/at_D7PyYhrE

daveiron wrote:More good info from Annie



https://youtu.be/at_D7PyYhrE

Incredible information Dave, just subbed

handle wrote:Awoken2. The information you have posted is not conspiracy theory, but is FACT.

Have a look at harleyfacades.co.uk

I think the statement from MD Ray Bailey says it all really...

"At this time, we are not aware of any link between the fire and the exterior cladding to the tower.”

...Come on, anybody with eyes could make the link within 15 minutes of the fire starting!!

Thanks Assassin for your input, you obviously have a lot of knowledge about the subject. But before it gets put to bed I have a couple of questions. that are still unanswered.

Surely the council can absolve itself of any responsibility because it paid £11 Million (of taxpayers money) to the KCTMO who's responsibility was the maintenance and upkeep of the building?

Why would Rydon Maintenance be named on the original demolition application in 2014?

Why did an application for demolition go in in the first place if the building just needed a facelift?

Is Rydon's current connection to the KCTMO (allowing them to cover the building in highly flammable cladding) in any way connected to the 2014 application for demolition?

And do current building regs allow multiple occupancy buildings to be covered in Raynoboard, which is illegal in most of Europe?

Help with any of these would be much appreciated.

The reason why I am not happy with what is being reported is because it just seems to fit perfectly into this media driven Muslim/Catholic psy op that we are currently being bombarded with. There's an agenda in play.

I've took a step back and looked at the current situation, first Brexit, then an election, all these "terrorist" events, each and every one is an excercise of divisiveness, to keep us arguing against eachother.

All these horrific "terrorist" events but each time the perpetrators die so there are no questions to answer. All the arrests that follow these atrocities (over 20 in the Manchester bombing case) but NOBODY ever charged with anything?

The mainstream media lies to us, it's nothing more than propaganda so anything that's reported by them needs closer scrutiny.[/quote]

No conspiracy here Awoken, the council are to blame and cannot absolve themselves, or claim "we didn't know" as they would be notified on many occasions.

Kensington and Chelsea Borough council offered the contract to the contractor and set the specifications to maintain the building, it is also Kensington and Chelsea Borough council who are required to monitor their appointed contractor and ensure they are doing the necessary work, or sack them and replace them with another contractor.

Rydon would be named on the planning permission as they were the appointed contractor. Where work is to be undertaken its about classification and in this case the planning department classified this as partial demolition of structural aspects of the building to undertake these works, hence someone in planning classified it as demolition works, nothing unusual here as 10 identical planning applications to 10 different planning departments would give 10 different classifications.

When an application goes into a planning department it is broadly classified, the demolition element focuses mainly on the structural element, when a structure is clad it is either semi-structural, structural, or non structural; in this case it would require structural changes to the building, and be classed as structural and require some demolition work to be undertaken.

Current building regulations do allow buildings to be covered in Raynoboard but as I have already stated this depends on a number of factors, in this case the answer is a definitive NO due to the height, frequency of Occupation, and a number of other factors. In either case Kensington and Chelsea Borough council should not have specified it at the tender stages, if they did specify it at the tender stage the main contractors bidding for the contract would have picked it up and told Kensington and Chelsea Borough council to change the specifications to an approved product. At that stage Kensington and Chelsea Borough council should have specified another product, this is the tender stage in action.
In either case their own Planning department should have picked it up and refused planning permission, so there is no excuse or reason for them to absolve themselves of responsibility.

The only conspiracy here is the fact that Kensington and Chelsea Borough council are trying to play the deflection game, first its trying to pass the buck to a defunct contractor instead of accepting blame (Raynoboard), secondly their own planning (Kensington and Chelsea Borough council) department have failed to pick up an illegal material, and finally why didn't building control monitor the works as they would have a full list of ALL materials and their specifications to be used, along with certificates of conformity.

Hi all

assassin - thanks for the rundown, i was hoping someone would do that. i do however think there is much more to it than who's to blame, it's gonna be a whole onion of conspiracy all by itself - it reeks of it!

i'm completely convinced that everything that's been happening is a hoax. All of the 'terrorist' attacks of late - all hoaxes. All agenda to promote fear and get us at each other's throats, T.H.E.Y. need us to rise up against each other before they can carry out the next phase of their plan.

AnnieLogical's latest vid tells a story almost as interesting as comments beneath it. Rumours that they emptied the building in May, that locals didn't know any of the people interviewed, no actual residents interviewed, on top of all the other oddities. i must admit i'm starting to suspect that, as in all the other 'events', ......no-one died, nobody got hurt.

Whatever the case let's not be divided by opinion - we're all on the same side and it's becoming increasingly important to cleave together. Remember May wanted out - something's coming....

Cheers!

Came across this info on another site and I thought it was interesting. Grenfell Tower completed 1974. Towering inferno film released 1974. The wiki Grenfell page may get taking down soon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenfell_Tower

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Towering_Inferno

Just a strange coincidence I'm sure.

Here is the ownership

I know this sites rules concerning promoting other sites. So this is the last one of Annie Logicals vids i will put up.
I can only suggest, if interested sub her channel. I do however consider this info below is important.




https://youtu.be/AulVLH3sZ5s

I say dont worry.
If too many think your promoting a shill site ,
they would likely say so,
Annie is very good IMO,
and if its Facts as opposed to opinions ,
then Post away.

Based on Annies vid I am hoping she can uncover more on this ie; as Zurich seems to be the insurer of choice for LAs etc.
it would be interesting to know was the change only for this block / all properties ,or all of councils insurance that were covered previously by Zurich.

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/bconline/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=details&keyVal=_RBKC_BCAPR_124682

New floor areas, new overcladding & windows, new heating system, reconfigured podium and entrance.

Agent name := Studio E Architects Ltd

Grenfell Tower Regeneration Project 2014:= https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/idoxWAM/doc/Drawing%20-%20Approved-1303789.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=1303789&location=VOLUME2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1

Archive of above drawings := https://web.archive.org/web/20170621150251/https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/idoxWAM/doc/Drawing%20-%20Approved-1303789.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=1303789&location=VOLUME2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1

Grenfell Tower Regeneration Project 2013 := https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/idoxWAM/doc/Revised%20Drawing-1094418.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=1094418&location=VOLUME2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1

Archive of above drawings := https://web.archive.org/web/20170621151638/https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/idoxWAM/doc/Revised%20Drawing-1094418.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=1094418&location=VOLUME2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1

Grenfell Tower Regeneration Project 2012 := https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/download?ac=3071387

Archive of above drawings := https://web.archive.org/web/20170621151826/https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/download?ac=3071387


So in 2012, 2013 they were going to regenerate then in may 2014 they applied for a demo then in sept 2014 they apply for the works discussed in 2012?.


Grenfell Tower regeneration Project Sustainability and energy Statement : planning application 2012 := https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/idoxWAM/doc/Other-952368.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=952368&location=VOLUME2&contentType=application/pdf

Archive of above application := https://web.archive.org/web/20170621164459/https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/idoxWAM/doc/Other-952368.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=952368&location=VOLUME2&contentType=application/pdf

Planning search := https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/planning/searches/details.aspx?adv=1&address=GRENFELL+TOWER&batch=20&id=PP/12/04097&cn=145691+IBI+Taylor+Young+Chadsworth+House+Wilmslow+Road+01625+542200&type=decision&tab=tabs-planning-2#tabs-planning-1

daveiron wrote:I know this sites rules concerning promoting other sites. So this is the last one of Annie Logicals vids i will put up.
I can only suggest, if interested sub her channel. I do however consider this info below is important.




https://youtu.be/AulVLH3sZ5s

I think the fact that a huge profit could be made by a fortuitous insurance switch just a short time before the disaster is purely coincidental.

May it also serve as a lesson to the Norwegian insurance industry for offering such reckless policies in the first place.
The £1 billion liabilities they may now have will more than cover all compensation packages and the £67 million regeneration package.

As I said, it does sound like 9/11 more and more each day.

(Edit in comments section Re; insurance due for renewal noted)