Brian Kirby Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 antony1969 - 2018-03-18 7:57 PM..................I'll stand by what I've said previously I believe it's simply because you don't like to read bad Grenfell news and more importantly it's me that posted it ... Deedums Wrong on both counts, and it's Diddums! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-03-19 1:32 PM antony1969 - 2018-03-18 7:57 PM..................I'll stand by what I've said previously I believe it's simply because you don't like to read bad Grenfell news and more importantly it's me that posted it ... Deedums Wrong on both counts, and it's Diddums! :-D Well we will have to agree to disagree me thinks ... You are right of course it is Diddums ... Me and school never saw eye to eye ... Too many foriegn teachers :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 Bulletguy - 2018-03-18 9:44 PM.......................... Apparently that was part of the cost cutting to save money, downgrading it from zinc to aluminum. Filling it with polyethylene.....they might just as well have been making an incendiary bomb..................... Yes, but folk have fickle attitudes. On the one hand, no-one should spend more than the minimum necessary to achieve a functionally satisfactory outcome when spending public money. On the other hand, they criticise cost cutting where there has been a bad outcome that involved the substitution of a cheaper material for a more expensive one. The true answer is that using flammable materials on the external walls of this (and other) buildings contravenes building regulations. Cost considerations do not come into that decision. There is a strict procedure for gaining approval for work of that kind, which involves the submission of corroborated evidence of the fire resistance, and resistance to spread of fire, of the proposed design. Usually, and I'm pretty sure was relevant in this case, such evidence could only be provided after a full scale mock-up of a full story height sample of the proposed cladding system had been fire tested, usually at the Fire Research Station at Borehamwood. It seems that cannot have been done, because the combination of insulation and cladding as used would not have passed the test. If different materials to those actually used were tested, and passed, but someone later decided to switch in a flammable alternative, for purely cost saving reasons, it opens a very nasty can of worms indeed as even then normal materials checking should have picked up on the switch. Prison beckons for someone in that case! The questions that then arise would be whether that cost saving was passed on to Kensington and Chelsea, whether the fact that the substitute materials were not those approved was made clear to Kensington and Chelsea, and whether the decision to use them was taken knowing that was the case. In short, was there fraud, and if so by whom, was there incompetence, and if so on whose part. As ever, we are left with this being the result either of knavery, or fools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-03-19 2:03 PM Bulletguy - 2018-03-18 9:44 PM.......................... Apparently that was part of the cost cutting to save money, downgrading it from zinc to aluminum. Filling it with polyethylene.....they might just as well have been making an incendiary bomb..................... Yes, but folk have fickle attitudes. On the one hand, no-one should spend more than the minimum necessary to achieve a functionally satisfactory outcome when spending public money. On the other hand, they criticise cost cutting where there has been a bad outcome that involved the substitution of a cheaper material for a more expensive one. The true answer is that using flammable materials on the external walls of this (and other) buildings contravenes building regulations. Cost considerations do not come into that decision. There is a strict procedure for gaining approval for work of that kind, which involves the submission of corroborated evidence of the fire resistance, and resistance to spread of fire, of the proposed design. Usually, and I'm pretty sure was relevant in this case, such evidence could only be provided after a full scale mock-up of a full story height sample of the proposed cladding system had been fire tested, usually at the Fire Research Station at Borehamwood. It seems that cannot have been done, because the combination of insulation and cladding as used would not have passed the test. If different materials to those actually used were tested, and passed, but someone later decided to switch in a flammable alternative, for purely cost saving reasons, it opens a very nasty can of worms indeed as even then normal materials checking should have picked up on the switch. Prison beckons for someone in that case! The questions that then arise would be whether that cost saving was passed on to Kensington and Chelsea, whether the fact that the substitute materials were not those approved was made clear to Kensington and Chelsea, and whether the decision to use them was taken knowing that was the case. In short, was there fraud, and if so by whom, was there incompetence, and if so on whose part. As ever, we are left with this being the result either of knavery, or fools. I read in one article where the downgrading to aluminium saved £600k which seems a small price to pay when the alternative meant non-flammable ensuring increased level of safety and wouldn't have resulted in the inferno Grenfell became. And by using the cheaper flammable option, if it contravenes building regs (makes sense), i wonder who sanctioned it? There's an article here concerning the time the cladding was installed where no less than 16 inspections failed to call a halt on it. A local Labour councillor said, “This raises the question of whether the building regulations officers were sufficiently competent and did they know what they were looking at. It also begs a question about what they were actually shown. Was anything concealed from them.” Fraud, incompetence? I think it highly unlikely we will ever get any truthful answers to that but had this occurred on industrial premises we'd be seeing custodial sentences by now. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/21/grenfell-tower-16-council-inspections-failed-to-stop-use-of-flammable-cladding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted March 19, 2018 Share Posted March 19, 2018 Last I read, Paul, inferred that the contractor had been engaged on some kind of design and construct basis, leaving him responsible for the design, for obtaining all necessary clearances, and for execution of the work. However, this all needs to be tempered with caution, as the reporters don't fully understand the system they are reporting upon either. I think the enquiry probably will drill down to the crux of the issue, but they will need to read a huge volume of correspondence between a large number of parties (suppliers, sub-contractors, designers, test institutions, the council, their building control department, etc. etc.), so it will take quite a while to clarify who said what to who, when, and on what grounds. Added to that the Met Police are pursuing a separate fraud enquiry (which is what unearthed the dud fire doors), so I think there is a good chance that the guilty will be identified and, where appropriate, prosecuted. We shall see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted April 8, 2018 Share Posted April 8, 2018 Who are these vile people ... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/06/fraudster-jailed-for-pretending-to-be-victim-of-grenfell-tower-fire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 The Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety final report conducted by Dame Judith Hackitt released today. She told C4 news how shocked she was over the building sectors 'lack of moral responsibility, the attitudes, and the practices' within it. Though a highly qualified engineer her expertise is in the field of building chemical plants, not accommodation, so quite why she was asked to head the inquiry i'm not sure. She mentions about 'people flouting the system' using non-compliant materials and said they 'must be held to account'. She hasn't called for a total ban on cladding which is confusing, but explains her reason here; https://www.channel4.com/news/author-of-grenfell-tower-review-the-lack-of-discipline-has-shocked-me https://www.channel4.com/news/government-will-consult-on-banning-flammable-cladding-after-its-grenfell-review-failed-to-propose-such-action Full report here; https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-building-regulations-and-fire-safety-final-report A good Q&A article here from the Guardian; https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/17/hackitt-review-grenfell-style-cladding-building-regulations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 Bulletguy - 2018-05-18 12:26 AM The Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety final report conducted by Dame Judith Hackitt released today. She told C4 news how shocked she was over the building sectors 'lack of moral responsibility, I'm more shocked by the lowlife that have tried to profit from the tragedy including a Grenfell activist 8-) ...... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/grenfell-tower-fire-man-charged-fraud-a8309611.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-tower-fire-woman-fraud-support-false-joyce-msokeri-police-a7930071.html https://news.sky.com/story/man-who-claimed-family-died-in-grenfell-fire-pleads-guilty-to-fraud-11109982 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5432261/Grenfell-campaigner-hotel-room-uses-home.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 Bulletguy - 2018-05-18 12:26 AM The Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety final report conducted by Dame Judith Hackitt released today. She told C4 news how shocked she was over the building sectors 'lack of moral responsibility, the attitudes, and the practices' within it. Though a highly qualified engineer her expertise is in the field of building chemical plants, not accommodation, so quite why she was asked to head the inquiry i'm not sure. She mentions about 'people flouting the system' using non-compliant materials and said they 'must be held to account'. She hasn't called for a total ban on cladding which is confusing, but explains her reason here;................................. I think if you download and read both (especially) the interim report and the final report, you will begin to glimpse why she was asked to head the inquiry. It's a long read, though. The interim goes at some length into the reasoning behind her call for a centralised approval authority. What the report identifies is the way in which the system has been degraded over time, both to allow self-certification, and to introduce price competition into the approvals procedure. She can't be specific over the shortcomings, because the police are still running a criminal investigation into how non-compliant materials came to be used. Regarding a ban on flammable materials, I don't think it is that simple. It is already the case, as she acknowledges, and as confirmed by Brokenshire yesterday in parliament, that the cladding system used on Grenfell does not meet Building Regs requirements and was used illegally. In short, it is already "banned" under the regs. It is the degraded approvals procedure that led to its use. The report makes recommendations to tighten the controls in the kind of way that was normal 30-40 years ago. The bigger question is whether a naïve, free-market oriented, deregulating, government will bite the bullet of accepting that the private sector has to be regarded as a potential poacher, meaning that its employer has to be prepared to employ a gamekeeper to keep it on the rails! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-05-18 3:31 PM The report makes recommendations to tighten the controls in the kind of way that was normal 30-40 years ago. You mean before we joined the EU >:-) ........ Just sayin :D ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-05-18 8:43 AM Bulletguy - 2018-05-18 12:26 AM The Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety final report conducted by Dame Judith Hackitt released today. She told C4 news how shocked she was over the building sectors 'lack of moral responsibility, I'm more shocked by the lowlife that have tried to profit from the tragedy including a Grenfell activist 8-) ...... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/grenfell-tower-fire-man-charged-fraud-a8309611.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-tower-fire-woman-fraud-support-false-joyce-msokeri-police-a7930071.html https://news.sky.com/story/man-who-claimed-family-died-in-grenfell-fire-pleads-guilty-to-fraud-11109982 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5432261/Grenfell-campaigner-hotel-room-uses-home.html Only three out of the four links you posted committed an offence, been charged and rightly sentenced. The Wail appears to be little more than it's usual attempt at whipping up hate as no offence is reported at all. For balance it was reported there were approx 350-400 residents living in Grenfell, 72 of whom lost their lives. Perhaps you should consider more seriously the comments from Dame Judith Hackitt over 'people flouting the system' using non-compliant materials. Had you lost your entire family in a property fire caused by shoddy working practices and use of non-compliant materials, i think you would be singing a very different tune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-05-18 3:37 PM Brian Kirby - 2018-05-18 3:31 PM The report makes recommendations to tighten the controls in the kind of way that was normal 30-40 years ago. You mean before we joined the EU >:-) .............. No, Dave, I don't, because it has no relevance whatever, to either Building Regs approval procedures, or to the Grenfell fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-05-18 3:31 PM Bulletguy - 2018-05-18 12:26 AM The Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety final report conducted by Dame Judith Hackitt released today. She told C4 news how shocked she was over the building sectors 'lack of moral responsibility, the attitudes, and the practices' within it. Though a highly qualified engineer her expertise is in the field of building chemical plants, not accommodation, so quite why she was asked to head the inquiry i'm not sure. She mentions about 'people flouting the system' using non-compliant materials and said they 'must be held to account'. She hasn't called for a total ban on cladding which is confusing, but explains her reason here;................................. I think if you download and read both (especially) the interim report and the final report, you will begin to glimpse why she was asked to head the inquiry. It's a long read, though. The interim goes at some length into the reasoning behind her call for a centralised approval authority. What the report identifies is the way in which the system has been degraded over time, both to allow self-certification, and to introduce price competition into the approvals procedure. She can't be specific over the shortcomings, because the police are still running a criminal investigation into how non-compliant materials came to be used. Regarding a ban on flammable materials, I don't think it is that simple. It is already the case, as she acknowledges, and as confirmed by Brokenshire yesterday in parliament, that the cladding system used on Grenfell does not meet Building Regs requirements and was used illegally. In short, it is already "banned" under the regs. It is the degraded approvals procedure that led to its use. The report makes recommendations to tighten the controls in the kind of way that was normal 30-40 years ago. The bigger question is whether a naïve, free-market oriented, deregulating, government will bite the bullet of accepting that the private sector has to be regarded as a potential poacher, meaning that its employer has to be prepared to employ a gamekeeper to keep it on the rails! :-) From what she said on the C4 interview she seemed to be genuinely shocked and surprised at the lax attitude within domestic property builds. I've no idea of the field of engineering she specialises in but she obviously believed the controls were as strict. The part you mention in second para (emboldened) is what i found disturbing but she said that will be a matter for the building regulator now. As you say it is already banned......it needs properly enforcing. There seems to have been a culture of cost cutting and riding rough shod over any regulations. I doubt that same culture applied when developing Hyde Park One or Canary Wharf apartments. Seeing how 'new builds' get thrown up in a matter of weeks today with residents moving in before the cement has barely had time to set, has always baffled me how developers get away with it. And they aren't cheap either. A small development near my village went up a few years ago, tiny little 'rabbit hutches' at £200 - £250k and all were sold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-05-18 4:21 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-18 3:37 PM Brian Kirby - 2018-05-18 3:31 PM The report makes recommendations to tighten the controls in the kind of way that was normal 30-40 years ago. You mean before we joined the EU >:-) .............. No, Dave, I don't, because it has no relevance whatever, to either Building Regs approval procedures, or to the Grenfell fire. Point of order ;-) ......That's not what you said >:-) ....... The implication "IS" before we joined the EU we were getting it right? (lol) ....... Just sayin :D ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 Bulletguy - 2018-05-18 4:28 PM From what she said on the C4 interview she seemed to be genuinely shocked and surprised at the lax attitude within domestic property builds. I've no idea of the field of engineering she specialises in but she obviously believed the controls were as strict. Blimey Bullet I could've told you that decades ago *-) ....... I once went to fit a blind in a show house I was fitting out, and just the force of my bradawl made the wooden window fall out 8-) ........ So the fact that the window was made of wood should indicate how long ago that was >:-) ........... ....and folk wonder why I don't buy "new" stuff made this century.......Because from experience its even worse *-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 Bulletguy - 2018-05-18 4:28 PM......................From what she said on the C4 interview she seemed to be genuinely shocked and surprised at the lax attitude within domestic property builds. I've no idea of the field of engineering she specialises in but she obviously believed the controls were as strict. The part you mention in second para (emboldened) is what i found disturbing but she said that will be a matter for the building regulator now. As you say it is already banned......it needs properly enforcing. There seems to have been a culture of cost cutting and riding rough shod over any regulations. I doubt that same culture applied when developing Hyde Park One or Canary Wharf apartments. Seeing how 'new builds' get thrown up in a matter of weeks today with residents moving in before the cement has barely had time to set, has always baffled me how developers get away with it. ..................... It isn't just domestic, Paul, the same procedures apply to all construction approvals; commercial, residential, private and public. She is a chemical engineer, but was head of the Health and Safety Executive 2009 - 16. Have a look at her biog: it is impressive! One clever lady. It goes beyond enforcement, which I see as post hoc. It has happened because over time government has allowed self-certification, licenced private firms to become Buildings Regulations approvers who compete on price for the job, allowed "desk studies" on fire engineering to be carried out by non-specialists, and generally de-regulated the approvals system. The regulations were written by professionals for professionals, but are now widely being interpreted by non-professionals. So, decisions have been taken by people who lack the necessary understanding. The result has been confusion over who does what to whom and when, and who is responsible if it all goes wrong. That, I hope, is about to get sharply clarified, and I rather fear some poor souls will end up in the dock as a consequence. They may be rogues, or just people who had insufficient understanding of the implications of what they were doing - but in either case I wouldn't like to be in their shoes! Assuming the initial approvals procedures are properly brought back in line (big assumption!), so one can be confident that what gets approved for construction is as fully compliant as it can be made, it will be possible to move to enforcement - so that what gets built is what was actually approved, and hopefully to management - so that what is built is maintained in its approved state. It's a far worse mess than I had realised, but I've not been closely involved for years so haven't had hands-on experience of the shifting goal posts. When I saw the pictures of the fire I was incredulous that it could be happening. On a ban, it might be helpful to issue a temporary ban until the approvals systems is re-jigged, but beyond that I think the problems of definition and who is authorised to rule on compliance would run into trouble in the longer term. People keep inventing new materials, particularly insulants, and new ways to use existing materials and combinations of materials - which is where Grenfell (and seemingly a number of other buildings) came unstuck. This will cost government (i.e. us!) the thick end of £500,000 at present estimates - so expect costs to rise as the true scope becomes clear - just for the local authority and housing association properties. Personally, I can't see how they can leave private owners to fend for themselves (their properties are now effectively valueless and un-saleable) as the same system granted approval in all cases. That should be a salutary lesson for someone on the true cost of ill-considered deregulation. But, will it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 Bulletguy - 2018-05-18 4:28 PM Brian Kirby - 2018-05-18 3:31 PM Bulletguy - 2018-05-18 12:26 AM The Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety final report conducted by Dame Judith Hackitt released today. She told C4 news how shocked she was over the building sectors 'lack of moral responsibility, the attitudes, and the practices' within it. Though a highly qualified engineer her expertise is in the field of building chemical plants, not accommodation, so quite why she was asked to head the inquiry i'm not sure. She mentions about 'people flouting the system' using non-compliant materials and said they 'must be held to account'. She hasn't called for a total ban on cladding which is confusing, but explains her reason here;................................. I think if you download and read both (especially) the interim report and the final report, you will begin to glimpse why she was asked to head the inquiry. It's a long read, though. The interim goes at some length into the reasoning behind her call for a centralised approval authority. What the report identifies is the way in which the system has been degraded over time, both to allow self-certification, and to introduce price competition into the approvals procedure. She can't be specific over the shortcomings, because the police are still running a criminal investigation into how non-compliant materials came to be used. Regarding a ban on flammable materials, I don't think it is that simple. It is already the case, as she acknowledges, and as confirmed by Brokenshire yesterday in parliament, that the cladding system used on Grenfell does not meet Building Regs requirements and was used illegally. In short, it is already "banned" under the regs. It is the degraded approvals procedure that led to its use. The report makes recommendations to tighten the controls in the kind of way that was normal 30-40 years ago. The bigger question is whether a naïve, free-market oriented, deregulating, government will bite the bullet of accepting that the private sector has to be regarded as a potential poacher, meaning that its employer has to be prepared to employ a gamekeeper to keep it on the rails! :-) From what she said on the C4 interview she seemed to be genuinely shocked and surprised at the lax attitude within domestic property builds. I've no idea of the field of engineering she specialises in but she obviously believed the controls were as strict. The part you mention in second para (emboldened) is what i found disturbing but she said that will be a matter for the building regulator now. As you say it is already banned......it needs properly enforcing. There seems to have been a culture of cost cutting and riding rough shod over any regulations. I doubt that same culture applied when developing Hyde Park One or Canary Wharf apartments. Seeing how 'new builds' get thrown up in a matter of weeks today with residents moving in before the cement has barely had time to set, has always baffled me how developers get away with it. And they aren't cheap either. A small development near my village went up a few years ago, tiny little 'rabbit hutches' at £200 - £250k and all were sold. Youve obviously never worked on sites or redevelopments ... You can be sure cost cutting through materials or other will have happened on Hyde Park One and Canary Wharf ... I dont do redevelopment or site work anymore as tha's no money in it for moi but back in the day when I did site work everyone who could from foundation to roof cut corners , if you didn't you made no money ... Your "rabbit hutches" as sh8tty as they are the demand is there for them ... Our new lazy homeowners prefer to move into something already finished rather getting their hands dirty ... Trouble is 6 months after buying a rabbit hutch they do have to get their hands dirty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 antony1969 - 2018-05-18 5:58 PM Bulletguy - 2018-05-18 4:28 PM Brian Kirby - 2018-05-18 3:31 PM Bulletguy - 2018-05-18 12:26 AM The Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety final report conducted by Dame Judith Hackitt released today. She told C4 news how shocked she was over the building sectors 'lack of moral responsibility, the attitudes, and the practices' within it. Though a highly qualified engineer her expertise is in the field of building chemical plants, not accommodation, so quite why she was asked to head the inquiry i'm not sure. She mentions about 'people flouting the system' using non-compliant materials and said they 'must be held to account'. She hasn't called for a total ban on cladding which is confusing, but explains her reason here;................................. I think if you download and read both (especially) the interim report and the final report, you will begin to glimpse why she was asked to head the inquiry. It's a long read, though. The interim goes at some length into the reasoning behind her call for a centralised approval authority. What the report identifies is the way in which the system has been degraded over time, both to allow self-certification, and to introduce price competition into the approvals procedure. She can't be specific over the shortcomings, because the police are still running a criminal investigation into how non-compliant materials came to be used. Regarding a ban on flammable materials, I don't think it is that simple. It is already the case, as she acknowledges, and as confirmed by Brokenshire yesterday in parliament, that the cladding system used on Grenfell does not meet Building Regs requirements and was used illegally. In short, it is already "banned" under the regs. It is the degraded approvals procedure that led to its use. The report makes recommendations to tighten the controls in the kind of way that was normal 30-40 years ago. The bigger question is whether a naïve, free-market oriented, deregulating, government will bite the bullet of accepting that the private sector has to be regarded as a potential poacher, meaning that its employer has to be prepared to employ a gamekeeper to keep it on the rails! :-) From what she said on the C4 interview she seemed to be genuinely shocked and surprised at the lax attitude within domestic property builds. I've no idea of the field of engineering she specialises in but she obviously believed the controls were as strict. The part you mention in second para (emboldened) is what i found disturbing but she said that will be a matter for the building regulator now. As you say it is already banned......it needs properly enforcing. There seems to have been a culture of cost cutting and riding rough shod over any regulations. I doubt that same culture applied when developing Hyde Park One or Canary Wharf apartments. Seeing how 'new builds' get thrown up in a matter of weeks today with residents moving in before the cement has barely had time to set, has always baffled me how developers get away with it. And they aren't cheap either. A small development near my village went up a few years ago, tiny little 'rabbit hutches' at £200 - £250k and all were sold. Youve obviously never worked on sites or redevelopments ... You can be sure cost cutting through materials or other will have happened on Hyde Park One and Canary Wharf ... I dont do redevelopment or site work anymore as tha's no money in it for moi but back in the day when I did site work everyone who could from foundation to roof cut corners , if you didn't you made no money ... Your "rabbit hutches" as sh8tty as they are the demand is there for them ... Our new lazy homeowners prefer to move into something already finished rather getting their hands dirty ... Trouble is 6 months after buying a rabbit hutch they do have to get their hands dirty What Brian get his hands dirty??? (lol) ........ Bullet can only polish Bullets and his ego *-) ....... I doubt they've ever set foot on a building site :-| ...... I got out of the game when building regs said I had to wear a hard hat and steel toe capped boots to fit curtains 8-) .......Then I knew the lunatics were in charge >:-) ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-05-18 6:04 PM antony1969 - 2018-05-18 5:58 PM Bulletguy - 2018-05-18 4:28 PM Brian Kirby - 2018-05-18 3:31 PM Bulletguy - 2018-05-18 12:26 AM The Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety final report conducted by Dame Judith Hackitt released today. She told C4 news how shocked she was over the building sectors 'lack of moral responsibility, the attitudes, and the practices' within it. Though a highly qualified engineer her expertise is in the field of building chemical plants, not accommodation, so quite why she was asked to head the inquiry i'm not sure. She mentions about 'people flouting the system' using non-compliant materials and said they 'must be held to account'. She hasn't called for a total ban on cladding which is confusing, but explains her reason here;................................. I think if you download and read both (especially) the interim report and the final report, you will begin to glimpse why she was asked to head the inquiry. It's a long read, though. The interim goes at some length into the reasoning behind her call for a centralised approval authority. What the report identifies is the way in which the system has been degraded over time, both to allow self-certification, and to introduce price competition into the approvals procedure. She can't be specific over the shortcomings, because the police are still running a criminal investigation into how non-compliant materials came to be used. Regarding a ban on flammable materials, I don't think it is that simple. It is already the case, as she acknowledges, and as confirmed by Brokenshire yesterday in parliament, that the cladding system used on Grenfell does not meet Building Regs requirements and was used illegally. In short, it is already "banned" under the regs. It is the degraded approvals procedure that led to its use. The report makes recommendations to tighten the controls in the kind of way that was normal 30-40 years ago. The bigger question is whether a naïve, free-market oriented, deregulating, government will bite the bullet of accepting that the private sector has to be regarded as a potential poacher, meaning that its employer has to be prepared to employ a gamekeeper to keep it on the rails! :-) From what she said on the C4 interview she seemed to be genuinely shocked and surprised at the lax attitude within domestic property builds. I've no idea of the field of engineering she specialises in but she obviously believed the controls were as strict. The part you mention in second para (emboldened) is what i found disturbing but she said that will be a matter for the building regulator now. As you say it is already banned......it needs properly enforcing. There seems to have been a culture of cost cutting and riding rough shod over any regulations. I doubt that same culture applied when developing Hyde Park One or Canary Wharf apartments. Seeing how 'new builds' get thrown up in a matter of weeks today with residents moving in before the cement has barely had time to set, has always baffled me how developers get away with it. And they aren't cheap either. A small development near my village went up a few years ago, tiny little 'rabbit hutches' at £200 - £250k and all were sold. Youve obviously never worked on sites or redevelopments ... You can be sure cost cutting through materials or other will have happened on Hyde Park One and Canary Wharf ... I dont do redevelopment or site work anymore as tha's no money in it for moi but back in the day when I did site work everyone who could from foundation to roof cut corners , if you didn't you made no money ... Your "rabbit hutches" as sh8tty as they are the demand is there for them ... Our new lazy homeowners prefer to move into something already finished rather getting their hands dirty ... Trouble is 6 months after buying a rabbit hutch they do have to get their hands dirty What Brian get his hands dirty??? (lol) ........ Bullet can only polish Bullets and his ego *-) ....... I doubt they've ever set foot on a building site :-| ...... I got out of the game when building regs said I had to wear a hard hat and steel toe capped boots to fit curtains 8-) .......Then I knew the lunatics were in charge >:-) ....... As normal grasping reality of what takes place proves a little difficult for the drips ... Talking of Grenfell what ever happened to the tests on that magical exploding fridge and the fella who packed all his belongings before raising the alarm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 antony1969 - 2018-05-18 6:09 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-18 6:04 PM antony1969 - 2018-05-18 5:58 PM Bulletguy - 2018-05-18 4:28 PM Brian Kirby - 2018-05-18 3:31 PM Bulletguy - 2018-05-18 12:26 AM The Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety final report conducted by Dame Judith Hackitt released today. She told C4 news how shocked she was over the building sectors 'lack of moral responsibility, the attitudes, and the practices' within it. Though a highly qualified engineer her expertise is in the field of building chemical plants, not accommodation, so quite why she was asked to head the inquiry i'm not sure. She mentions about 'people flouting the system' using non-compliant materials and said they 'must be held to account'. She hasn't called for a total ban on cladding which is confusing, but explains her reason here;................................. I think if you download and read both (especially) the interim report and the final report, you will begin to glimpse why she was asked to head the inquiry. It's a long read, though. The interim goes at some length into the reasoning behind her call for a centralised approval authority. What the report identifies is the way in which the system has been degraded over time, both to allow self-certification, and to introduce price competition into the approvals procedure. She can't be specific over the shortcomings, because the police are still running a criminal investigation into how non-compliant materials came to be used. Regarding a ban on flammable materials, I don't think it is that simple. It is already the case, as she acknowledges, and as confirmed by Brokenshire yesterday in parliament, that the cladding system used on Grenfell does not meet Building Regs requirements and was used illegally. In short, it is already "banned" under the regs. It is the degraded approvals procedure that led to its use. The report makes recommendations to tighten the controls in the kind of way that was normal 30-40 years ago. The bigger question is whether a naïve, free-market oriented, deregulating, government will bite the bullet of accepting that the private sector has to be regarded as a potential poacher, meaning that its employer has to be prepared to employ a gamekeeper to keep it on the rails! :-) From what she said on the C4 interview she seemed to be genuinely shocked and surprised at the lax attitude within domestic property builds. I've no idea of the field of engineering she specialises in but she obviously believed the controls were as strict. The part you mention in second para (emboldened) is what i found disturbing but she said that will be a matter for the building regulator now. As you say it is already banned......it needs properly enforcing. There seems to have been a culture of cost cutting and riding rough shod over any regulations. I doubt that same culture applied when developing Hyde Park One or Canary Wharf apartments. Seeing how 'new builds' get thrown up in a matter of weeks today with residents moving in before the cement has barely had time to set, has always baffled me how developers get away with it. And they aren't cheap either. A small development near my village went up a few years ago, tiny little 'rabbit hutches' at £200 - £250k and all were sold. Youve obviously never worked on sites or redevelopments ... You can be sure cost cutting through materials or other will have happened on Hyde Park One and Canary Wharf ... I dont do redevelopment or site work anymore as tha's no money in it for moi but back in the day when I did site work everyone who could from foundation to roof cut corners , if you didn't you made no money ... Your "rabbit hutches" as sh8tty as they are the demand is there for them ... Our new lazy homeowners prefer to move into something already finished rather getting their hands dirty ... Trouble is 6 months after buying a rabbit hutch they do have to get their hands dirty What Brian get his hands dirty??? (lol) ........ Bullet can only polish Bullets and his ego *-) ....... I doubt they've ever set foot on a building site :-| ...... I got out of the game when building regs said I had to wear a hard hat and steel toe capped boots to fit curtains 8-) .......Then I knew the lunatics were in charge >:-) ....... As normal grasping reality of what takes place proves a little difficult for the drips ... Talking of Grenfell what ever happened to the tests on that magical exploding fridge and the fella who packed all his belongings before raising the alarm Makes you wonder dont it ;-) ....... He had time to pack??? 8-) ........ I wonder if he was a Momentum member? :-S ........ Not to mention he knocked on his neighbours door and left his open so she could see the fire in his kitchen :-| ....... Well a good fire does need a bit of draught *-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-05-18 5:57 PM Bulletguy - 2018-05-18 4:28 PM......................From what she said on the C4 interview she seemed to be genuinely shocked and surprised at the lax attitude within domestic property builds. I've no idea of the field of engineering she specialises in but she obviously believed the controls were as strict. The part you mention in second para (emboldened) is what i found disturbing but she said that will be a matter for the building regulator now. As you say it is already banned......it needs properly enforcing. There seems to have been a culture of cost cutting and riding rough shod over any regulations. I doubt that same culture applied when developing Hyde Park One or Canary Wharf apartments. Seeing how 'new builds' get thrown up in a matter of weeks today with residents moving in before the cement has barely had time to set, has always baffled me how developers get away with it. ..................... It isn't just domestic, Paul, the same procedures apply to all construction approvals; commercial, residential, private and public. She is a chemical engineer, but was head of the Health and Safety Executive 2009 - 16. Have a look at her biog: it is impressive! One clever lady. It goes beyond enforcement, which I see as post hoc. It has happened because over time government has allowed self-certification, licenced private firms to become Buildings Regulations approvers who compete on price for the job, allowed "desk studies" on fire engineering to be carried out by non-specialists, and generally de-regulated the approvals system. The regulations were written by professionals for professionals, but are now widely being interpreted by non-professionals. So, decisions have been taken by people who lack the necessary understanding. The result has been confusion over who does what to whom and when, and who is responsible if it all goes wrong. That, I hope, is about to get sharply clarified, and I rather fear some poor souls will end up in the dock as a consequence. They may be rogues, or just people who had insufficient understanding of the implications of what they were doing - but in either case I wouldn't like to be in their shoes! Assuming the initial approvals procedures are properly brought back in line (big assumption!), so one can be confident that what gets approved for construction is as fully compliant as it can be made, it will be possible to move to enforcement - so that what gets built is what was actually approved, and hopefully to management - so that what is built is maintained in its approved state. It's a far worse mess than I had realised, but I've not been closely involved for years so haven't had hands-on experience of the shifting goal posts. When I saw the pictures of the fire I was incredulous that it could be happening. On a ban, it might be helpful to issue a temporary ban until the approvals systems is re-jigged, but beyond that I think the problems of definition and who is authorised to rule on compliance would run into trouble in the longer term. People keep inventing new materials, particularly insulants, and new ways to use existing materials and combinations of materials - which is where Grenfell (and seemingly a number of other buildings) came unstuck. This will cost government (i.e. us!) the thick end of £500,000 at present estimates - so expect costs to rise as the true scope becomes clear - just for the local authority and housing association properties. Personally, I can't see how they can leave private owners to fend for themselves (their properties are now effectively valueless and un-saleable) as the same system granted approval in all cases. That should be a salutary lesson for someone on the true cost of ill-considered deregulation. But, will it? Yes i saw that and she is obviously highly qualified. As you say, pretty damn impressive! What i meant re 'domestic builds' she seemed genuinely shocked to find the same level of controls to what she's been used to dealing with in her own field, was not throughout the industry as a whole. It look like as you said, a case of too many non-professionals interpreting the rules however best suits them. It was interesting that the LFB spokesman mentioned having competent people making decisions and seeing more robust tests are strictly adhered to is more important than a blanket ban. My only experience of fire so far has thankfully not been at home, but once at work when we had an explosion in one of the powder cell rooms. Fortunately nobody was working the block at the time it occurred otherwise there would certainly have been loss of life. That was a major serious matter and involved months of investigations. The only 'fire issue' i do have at home is a conifer issue with a crazy neighbour whose planted a 40ft fireball. Council aren't interested as you can plant these damn things......but put a fence up higher than 2mtrs and you'll be in trouble! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 Bulletguy - 2018-05-18 6:34 PM My only experience of fire so far has thankfully not been at home, but once at work when we had an explosion in one of the powder cell rooms. ! Is that all Bullet *-) ...... Every vessel I served on caught fire at least once ;-) ....... The only one that didn't ....sunk :D ....... Even had a fire at HMS Rooke in Gibraltar......and that was a shore base (lol) ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-05-18 5:41 PM Brian Kirby - 2018-05-18 4:21 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-18 3:37 PM Brian Kirby - 2018-05-18 3:31 PM The report makes recommendations to tighten the controls in the kind of way that was normal 30-40 years ago. You mean before we joined the EU >:-) .............. No, Dave, I don't, because it has no relevance whatever, to either Building Regs approval procedures, or to the Grenfell fire. Point of order ;-) ......That's not what you said >:-) ....... The implication "IS" before we joined the EU we were getting it right? (lol) ....... Just sayin :D ..... No. 40 years ago we were in the EEC. We joined on 1/1/1973. Grenfell tower was completed in 1974, and will have originally been approved by RBKC District Surveyors under section 20 of the London Building Acts. At that time we had just joined the EEC. Neither the London Building Acts, nor the present Building Regulations, nor the present building regulations approvals system have ever been subject to EEC or EU regulation or intervention. Certain materials testing procedures have been harmonised across the EU, so that materials approved in one country can be used in others without further testing but, as neither the cladding nor the insulation used in the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower comply with UK building regulations they were illegally used. Membership or otherwise of the EEC or the EU has no relevance to this whatever. This was an entirely home grown catastrophe, largely facilitated by governments besotted with "light touch" regulation and de-regulation, which so degraded the approvals procedures that it was possible for non-compliant materials to be used. The resulting death toll was a consequence of UK government regulatory laxity, no more, no less. Just sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-05-18 6:04 PM I got out of the game when building regs said I had to wear a hard hat and steel toe capped boots to fit curtains 8-) .......Then I knew the lunatics were in charge >:-) ....... How many "jobs" is this now? They keep mounting. Banana boat deckhand, 'soldier', bus driver, pelmet maker and now suddenly you're claiming to have been employed on building sites. *-) Demolition would be more likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted May 18, 2018 Share Posted May 18, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-05-18 6:40 PM Bulletguy - 2018-05-18 6:34 PM My only experience of fire so far has thankfully not been at home, but once at work when we had an explosion in one of the powder cell rooms. ! Is that all Bullet *-) ...... Every vessel I served on caught fire at least once ;-) ....... The only one that didn't ....sunk :D ....... Even had a fire at HMS Rooke in Gibraltar......and that was a shore base (lol) ....... Why am i not surprised to read that? With you on board they'd got a one man trouble making disaster. I'm more surprised they didn't have you walk the plank. Incidentally an explosion is much more than just a fire......but then you wouldn't know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.