Eddies Boots wrote:
Thanks for the long post eric.
This explain a lot
There are many advocates for stay put, who point to data that shows it is successful in the vast majority of fires. National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) data shows that there were more than 57,000 fires in high rises between 2010 and 2017, but that only 216 (0.4%) required the evacuation of more than five residents.
It is also worth noting that hundreds of blocks around the country have already dropped it. In May 2018, the NFCC published guidance suggesting that blocks known to have dangerous cladding adopt an evacuation strategy, backed by either a 24-hour waking watch or fire alarms.
Known to have dangerous cladding? I assume a government should be focused on working out how to get this fixed, and making sure it can't happen again. Its not a free-market issue.
My slightly simplistic take on this is that, although there have always been timber frame buildings in this country, the codification of building regulations has always been heavily focused on masonry / non-combustible construction. So the idea that fire can spread across the outside of buildings hasn’t been adequately considered because it isn’t ‘normal’. The regs are rarely rewritten from scratch, just amended.
At the same time, in the last 20/30 years that we’ve been steadily increasing insulation and haven’t rigorously taken on board the impact of adding burny shit to facades. The ‘dangerous cladding’ shit comes up largely from never having addressed the risk from first principles.