The way of salvation

I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

Glory to God, who has made a way for us to be reconciled to Himself, through His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, and His blood shed for us on the cross. No other way was possible, we may reasonably suppose, since ‘without the shedding of blood there is no remission’ of sins, and we learn from the law of Moses that the sacrificial lamb had to be without blemish, so that only a perfect Man, as ‘a lamb without spot or blemish‘, could take our place and bear the punishment we deserved. Hallelujah for His life laid down willingly and in love for our sakes. ‘We love Him’, the Lord Jesus, ‘because He first loved us.‘ Shame on those who water down this holy gospel and pretend that they have found some other way to find peace with God. There is none. God set Jesus before us as the means of atonement, of propitiation, ‘through faith in His blood‘. There is no other way to be saved. Jesus died for our sins, the godly for the ungodly, ‘the just for the unjust‘, that He might bring us to a loving God. Hallelujah. Glory be to His holy Name on high, the Name above every Name.

Continue reading The way of salvation

The gospel of Jesus Christ

Good news

The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me to preach good news to the poor, the Lord Jesus said, and the same commission is given to His servants who desire to magnify His holy Name only, and give Him glory, as we preach the good news about the salvation granted to lost sinners through faith in Him and in His precious blood shed for us on Calvary.

Rest

Come unto Me, all you who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

The Lord Jesus calls us to Himself to find rest and peace and love in Him. There is no other place to find perfect and enduring peace and rest, since only Jesus shed His precious blood for us, and no-one can come to the Father except through Him. Repent of your sins, turn from your wicked ways, and receive mercy and forgiveness in His holy Name.

The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want. He makes me to lie down in green pastures; He leads me besides the still waters; He restores my soul.

Continue reading The gospel of Jesus Christ

Grenfell Tower: Why, in 1995, did the BBA see no additional hazard in using combustible render rather than non-combustible?

In my last post, I introduced an Agrément Certificate issued by the British Board of Agrément (BBA) to Sto in 1995 for an External Wall Insulation System. Examining the version of the system with combustible Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) insulation, I first questioned the basis on which it had been granted a Class 0 Reaction to Fire rating (Detail Sheet 2):

Then I expressed alarm that the BBA granted approval for the system to be used at any height:

in apparent direct contravention of the restriction, introduced into Approved Document B in 1992, of the use of combustible insulation to buildings of 20 metres or lower:

I sent an email to the BBA on 15 April to ask whether they now believed the Certificate was issued in error, but have not so far received a reply.

Continue reading Grenfell Tower: Why, in 1995, did the BBA see no additional hazard in using combustible render rather than non-combustible?

Grenfell Tower: Why, in 1995, did the BBA approve combustible insulation for use on high rise residential buildings?

The British Board of Agrément is the leading British certifier of construction products and systems. It was originally named the Agrément Board, after a similar system pioneered in France by the CSTB (Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bātiment). The Director of the CSTB was invited (p. 62) to speak about that organisation at a special meeting of the Royal Institute of British Architects in 1963, and Geoffrey Rippon, the Construction Minister accepted a recommendation to establish a similar system in Britain.  It was established in 1966 as a limited company controlled by the government, and was accordingly long referred to as a non-departmental public body. Its first two objects, as laid out in its Memorandum of Assocation, were to assess materials, products, systems and techniques for use in the building industry, and to grant certificates for them:

Continue reading Grenfell Tower: Why, in 1995, did the BBA approve combustible insulation for use on high rise residential buildings?

Grenfell Tower: Exova’s approval in 2012 of the use of combustible ACM for high rise cladding

In my last post I introduced a Certificate of Approval, issued in 2012 by Exova, trading as Warrington Certification, for a combustible FR grade ACM panel. According to the government’s post-Grenfell interpretation of Approved Document B2, 12.7, this certificate should not have been issued, since the panels fail to meet the limited combustibility requirement of that paragraph.

The certificate bore on every page the signature of Sir Ken Knight, who is Chair of the Grenfell Tower Expert Panel. This body claimed on 30 June 2017 that the Buildings Regulation guidance requires the ACM core to be of limited combustibility. The text of the Approved Document guidance on cladding has remained unchanged since 2007. It follows that the Expert Panel must be of the view that the certificate was issued in error.

Continue reading Grenfell Tower: Exova’s approval in 2012 of the use of combustible ACM for high rise cladding

Grenfell Tower: time to put an end to the charade

Since 18 June 2017, just four days after the Grenfell Tower fire, the Government has been claiming that its Approved Document guidance does not permit the use of combustible ACM cladding on high rise buildings. On 27 June the Communities Secretary Sajid Javid appointed an ‘independent expert advisory panel’ to advise the government on what immediate safety measures needed to be taken to avert the risk of a further tragedy. Under its Terms of Reference, the regulations concerning fire safety and

the use of specific materials

were within the scope of the expert panel’s work:

The Chair of the panel, which appears still to be in operation, is Sir Ken Knight, former London Fire Commissioner and former Government Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser.

Continue reading Grenfell Tower: time to put an end to the charade

Grenfell Tower: how many high rise buildings are there in England with PE ACM cladding and phenolic insulation? (part 1)

On 5 September 2017, the Government published data for the number of high rise residential buildings in England (as of 31 August) with various types of ACM cladding, and with various types of insulation:

The number of buildings accounted for in this table is:

81 + 107 + 8 + 21 + 12 = 229.

The total number of buildings in England with ACM cladding (including those stripped post-Grenfell) is given in paragraph 5 (and also in paragraph 8):

Since 173 + 16 + 89 = 278, it is clear that 278 is the number of buildings as well as the number of samples.

Continue reading Grenfell Tower: how many high rise buildings are there in England with PE ACM cladding and phenolic insulation? (part 1)

Grenfell Tower: what is a filler material?

In my last post, I argued that the core of an ACM panel cannot reasonably be described as a filler material. The Government, and also to its shame the Building Research Establishment, have been doing precisely that, and as a consequence the new usage has passed to some extent into common parlance. But what is at issue is what the term ‘filler material’ meant at the time that the Grenfell Tower refurbishment was being planned and executed. I do not believe the term was ever used in a publicly available form to refer to the ACM core prior to the terrible tragedy of 14 June 2017, and I ended my last post by challenging the Government to produce even a single instance of such usage.

Continue reading Grenfell Tower: what is a filler material?

Grenfell Tower: is the core of ACM panels a ‘filler material’?

I have been examining three alternative rationales offered by the DCLG for their claim that the core of ACM panels is covered by paragraph 12.7 of Approved Document B2:

1. The ACM core is an insulation material or product;

2. The ACM core is a filler material;

3. All elements of the cladding system are covered, and so the ACM core is covered.

As I explained in part 1 of this series, the first of these rationales may be excluded immediately because ACM cladding has no insulation function. I showed in part 2 that common sense, logic and informed opinion rule out the third rationale, the application of 12.7 being clearly restricted to insulation and filler materials, with any further coverage limited to minor unspecified items.

In this post I demonstrate that that the core of cladding panels made of Aluminium Composite Material cannot properly be described as filler material. As I pointed out before, the DCLG itself finds this a doubtful proposition since in footnote 4 of its Explanatory Note on safety checks and testing of 30 June 2017:

with its ‘and/or’, the core is claimed to be either an insulation material/product, or an filler material, or both (but not neither!) So, according to the logic of this footnote at least, the ACM core could be just an insulation product and not a filler material at all.

Continue reading Grenfell Tower: is the core of ACM panels a ‘filler material’?

Grenfell Tower: does the Approved Document guidance require all elements of a high rise cladding system to be of limited combustibility?

I continue with my examination of the three alternative rationales offered by the DCLG for their claim that the core of ACM panels is covered by paragraph 12.7 of Approved Document B2:

1. The ACM core is an insulation material or product;

2. The ACM core is a filler material;

3. All elements of the cladding system are covered, and so the ACM core is covered.

I am taking the third of these in second place, as it is less technical than the ‘filler material’ rationale, and can be refuted all the more easily. The first I dealt with summarily in my last post, demonstrating it I believe to be completely untenable.

Continue reading Grenfell Tower: does the Approved Document guidance require all elements of a high rise cladding system to be of limited combustibility?