• Professional Development
  • Medicine & Nursing
  • Arts & Crafts
  • Health & Wellbeing
  • Personal Development

141 Educators providing A2 courses

Shackerley Holdings Group Ltd

shackerley holdings group ltd

Chorley

Shackerley (Holdings) Group is an independently-owned, British rainscreen cladding company with a rich industrial heritage that stretches back over half a century. Founded by Lancashire entrepreneur, Brian G Newell, Shackerley began in the ceramics industry with porcelain tiles and we have always been involved in the manufacture, prefabrication and distribution of technical porcelain products that offer flexible design and installation benefits for architects, construction professionals and façade specialists. SureClad® Ceramic Granite (Porcelain Stone®) Cladding Systems Today, Shackerley is a major UK manufacturer of non combustible rainscreen cladding systems. With ISO 9001 accredited factories in Lancashire, we are UK’s market leader in the design, manufacture and supply of fire safe cladding systems for building façades. Our SureClad® Ceramic Granite porcelain cladding systems have pioneered the use of large format cladding panels, winning a Queen’s Award for Enterprise for innovation. Investment in equipment, facilities, software systems and training at our Lancashire cladding factories have enabled us to remain at the forefront of the cladding sector, providing façade design solutions for architects and innovative cladding fixing systems for construction professionals. We have continued to innovate in the cladding sector and ensure our rainscreen cladding systems meet the needs of specifiers throughout the lifespan of the building. This includes offering large format cladding panels and bespoke cladding details, providing a huge array of cladding materials, colourways and finishes, and adding new cladding systems to our range. We have been particularly driven to ensure the safety of cladding systems. All our cladding systems are A1 or A2-s1-d0 rated to EN13501-1, ensuring we can offer a non combustible cladding solution for any project. We also offer a safety meshing process and have developed an A1 rated safety meshing system. As a result, our SureClad cladding systems are popular choice across a wide range of façades, including residential, offices, hospitals, schools and local authority buildings.

Fort Luton

fort luton

London

In 1859 Lord Palmerston instigated the Royal Commission on the Defence of the United Kingdom to review the nation’s defences. At the time there was a strong possibility of a French attack and the country’s existing defences were deemed obsolete. The report was published the following year with the recommendation of the construction of a series of forts to strengthen the defences around the country against landward attack. Over 80 forts were built with five being constructed in Medway to protect the Royal Dockyard, Royal Arsenal and the approach to London. Fort Luton was the smallest in the “Chatham Concrete Ring”. The five forts were Fort Borstal, Fort Bridgewoods, Fort Horsted, Fort Luton and Fort Darland. The design and placement of the forts were based on the needs and armament available in 1860, artillery range was three miles and with the site of the forts you could hold the enemy around five miles from the Dockyard at Chatham, an important feature of approach to London was the A2 which Rochester Bridge is part of and this had to be protected, if the enemy could use it they would have a direct route into London and if they destroyed the bridge they could delay our troops from hampering their invasion plans and forcing them to travel miles to cross the River Medway. Construction started on the Medway forts in the mid-1870s however funds became short and work stopped for some years, by the time work began again armament had so improved as to make the forts useless for the defence of the Royal Dockyard and Rochester Bridge, artillery fire was now travelling up to twelve miles. The design of the forts were changed many times reflecting on the improving armament, changing needs for defence and the new suggestion that fixed artillery forts were an unnecessary cost which field works could replace. Due to the constant improvements during this short period many features of Fort Luton were removed from plans including a main magazine, counterscarp galleries and a caponier. The size of Fort Luton was also reduced and a casemate was converted into the use of a magazine. None of the forts received their fixed gun emplacements but instead they were provided with secure bases around the ramparts, this allowed field guns to be wheeled into position when under attack but also removed if there was heavy bombardment. To protect the guns Fort Luton was provided with four gun shelters in which the artillery men could also retreat when in danger.