Anyone used a building notice rather than submitting plans like they did for the tower block?

It's the building contractor's job.

There has never been any situation when the basics weren't bloody obvious to the man in the pub.

well that will be part of the summary but there should also be 'this cladding was employed because'

and a 'if the regulations are changed in the followi9ng way, this cladding will never be employed again, and we strongly recommend it is stripped from all high rise buildings now'

Plenty of facts. We have all seen the video footage. We have probably all built fires, some out of stuff like EPS and EPP and polyisocyanurate...

We know pretty much what the cladding was.

It behaved as tests indicated it would.

It was classed as fire resistant, which it wasn't in the way it was used

The manufacturer makes three variations of the cladding, non-combustible, fire-resistant and burn-baby-burn, it seems (cue Huge) they used the latter.

FR was specified. Until someone checks what was actually installed, everything else is pointless speculation.

Funny concept of the word "contradict". Fact 2 supports Fact 1.

It's a concrete building. After a few hot days the whole structure ends up like a giant storage heater. You can open the windows but that just allows more hot air to enter. And you should not open your front door to get throughflow because that is a fire door (also insecure).

Cladding the building stops rain causing penetrating damp and evaporative cooling in winter and prevents the solar gain from heating up the concrete structure.

Done properly, it's a good idea. But it was done to comply with the EU directive to reduce Co2 and this seems to have overridden everything else. This will all come out during the public enquiry.

Why on earth did it need 150 mm of celotex. In Scandinavia or Germany perhaps where it gets really cold, but London ?.

In southern Europe and Brazil buildings have shutters to stop the solar gain. The French have developed a special multi-layer foil insulation for situations where you need to reduce heat gain, but it also seems to be common over here when doing barn conversions.

The planning application says they wanted to "future-proof" the spec; the building is also hot in the summer and cold in the winter.

I gave you two known facts in the other post, which you replied to.

Why are you using ad-hom type arguments more usually favoured by far left types?

Wrap a tall building in combustible materials = crap idea. Any additional attempts to mitigate with carefully designed fire breaks etc are just that - mitigation.

I think you'll find even a drunken chav could work that out - not everything needs a "panel of experts".

Right - I've gave you a substantive link to show that it was Reynobond PE.

"Reynobond PE is flexible to the core. Reynobond PE features a polyethylene core that adds strength and rigidity to the coil-coated aluminum panels."

Except I'm right, and even if I wasn't, you've just tried argument by denying the antecedent. If you're not going to at least be logical, I'm not going to bother.

Did you ever learn to construct an argument at school?

Refute the point with a citation or don't bother.

Why are you taking technical advice from men in pubs?

The spec calls for FR materials. Neither of us know if that spec was obeyed, so your speculation is just that.

And here's my substantive link to show you're wrong;

Until someone tests what was actually installed on the building, it is completely impossible to assign blame.

Oh, wow, "argument by fallacious authority". (Fallacious because no-one really knows what's on the outside of that building.)

Oh, the irony.

TBH, I don't see why you're getting so bent out of shape. All I'm saying is that *NONE* of us have any facts and we need to wait and see what an expert survey reveals. Then we can get on with assigning blame and imprisoning whoever's responsible; assuming that anyone is.

Yep. And at University. And I know the difference between a peer reviewed journal and a newspaper.

I do not accept newspapers as a valid source, and neither should you. Once the Fire Brigade report is in, then perhaps we might have something to discuss. Until then, it is *ALL* speculation.

The planning document already linked several times

in section 2.1 shows the inside-to-outside make-up of various sections of the building (structural columns, concrete panels above/below windows, the windows themselves, the infill panels etc)

the U values of the individual materials, the overall U value per different section, and the average U value for the whole wall, according to the proportions of each type of section that make up the wall.

Overall this achieves a 0.15 U value for a complete side of the building

A new build is required to achieve 0.16 for walls, a refurb could have got away with 0.3, so they certainly didn't skimp.

The alu cladding does precisely f*ck all for adding insulation.

The grenfell spec does, or the BR specs do?

The BBA cert shows that both the FR and PE versions of the Reynobond panels are assessed as passing "Class 0" although approvals in other countries only pass the FR and A2 versions.

We have a (not under oath) quote from a named director of the cladding manufacturer, that it was the PE version that they supplied to the installer, presumably he wouldn't say that to a journalist unless he has triple checked that PE is what the paperwork or order specified, so he can successfully pass the buck? And therefore come the enquiry that paperwork is going to be produced.

We're not and you're being obtuse.

"Men in pubs" is just an expression for the common man (or woman) - the "man on the Clapham Omnibus".

You started it...

Your link shows what should have been put in the building - and the architect specified "FR". I think we're all clear about that.

Right...

"Omnis Exteriors manufactured the aluminium composite material (ACM) used in the cladding, a company director, John Cowley, confirmed to the Guardian.

He also said Omnis had been asked to supply Reynobond PE cladding, which is £2 cheaper per square metre than the alternative Reynobond FR, which stands for ?fire resistant? to the companies that worked on refurbishing Grenfell Tower."

Either he's lying or he isn't. It seems unlikely he'd be mistaken.

For clarity is someone saying the "SUSTainaBiliTY anD enerGY STaTeMenT" (their caps not mine) specifies FR cladding? because I can only see where it says "FR" insulation, but nothing about FR/PE/A2 cladding.

Exactement.

I bet it will turn out that no one even thought about it, or if they did the cladding they ordered was 'fire resistant' and all the boxes ticked so there.

It wi8ll be that the specifications were adhered to, the specs adhered to the right building control, but somewhere the right building control is actually pretty wrong.

And who can be held responsible for a sin of omissions.?

'not suitable for dying pets' on the microwave time again.

I think we're shaping up for all individuals walking away unscathed, blaming the regs for not being tight enough, the poor taxi driver who apparently left his fire door open might even end-up being the subject of private prosecutions ...