Worse than seriously red said. Apparently cladding was replaced post Grenfel but obviously not fit for purpose. Serious under-funding in building regs assessment. Doubt any of this will be in Daily Mail, just Boris soundbites.
And since 1996 Building Control is carried out by private sector building control as well as Local Authorities.
This is where the major flaw is - privatisation of what was essentially an independent service to ensure construction standards comply with all regulations. There's a reason why the building control fees for a Consultant Approved Inspector are less than a Local Authority Building Control Officer.
Worse than seriously red said. Apparently cladding was replaced post Grenfel but obviously not fit for purpose. Serious under-funding in building regs assessment. Doubt any of this will be in Daily Mail, just Boris soundbites.
Apparently? Where did you hear this?
The cladding on this building looks likely to be HPL - high pressure laminate. Since December 2018, new fire safety regulations have banned combustible materials like HPL from the external walls of new buildings over 59 feet tall.
Building regs are not fit for purpose - its all about doing things on the cheap.
Many unsafe buildings out there.
Ridiculous generalisation.
Some aspects of Approved Document B need revising in the light of Grenfell fire, but to say they're not fit for purpose is laughable.
It's British Standards also require revising and the quality testing regime of components is obviously flawed. The building inspection process also needs to be tightened up and the complete removal of a 48 hour building notice.
Problem is that cutting corners is endemic across the construction industry from the labourer to the Contracts Manager - all trying to maximise the returns for a job where the lowest price will virtually always win a contract. Set a minimum standard and everyone builds to it, that's the problem with Building Regulations. If you can cut corners and get away with, then human nature will let you do it in four out of five cases.
Tighter controls and independent quality checks throughout the construction process from specification that is fit for purpose, throughout the supply chain and eventually on site needs to be strengthened. But the 'checkers' only add cost to the final project and added costs reduce profit - heaven forbid.
I know of one developer who spent over £30m before Grenfell to start putting things right.
there are thousands of properties with exposure
we did a job 7 years ago where we did a smoke test and managed to set the fire alarm in the building next door. When we investigated we found there was no fire stopping at all in a steel frame building. If one had a fire that would have come down. These were not cheap and cheerful properties either - these were £1m each
unfortunately many companies have gone to the wall now as they simply can’t get PI insurance. I know of a Company who were paying £20,000 per year / and then right after Grenfell it jumped to £200,000. People can’t pay that so there is nobody to do the remedial work anyway.
shambles
I’ve been a PI UW in the city for 25+ years, market is mental at the moment. Renewed one case a few weeks back where premium went from £800k to £2.3m with a £1m Xs.
Nearly two and a half years after Grenfell, how many tower blocks are still death-traps? I'd imagine most could be fixed for the money spaffed up the wall to DUP.
Nearly two and a half years after Grenfell, how many tower blocks are still death-traps? I'd imagine most could be fixed for the money spaffed up the wall to DUP.
Some 360 buildings of which half are privately owned.
No competent ministers delivering and zero accountability given that Parliament is dedicated to finding a path through Brexit.
Nearly two and a half years after Grenfell, how many tower blocks are still death-traps? I'd imagine most could be fixed for the money spaffed up the wall to DUP.
Some 360 buildings of which half are privately owned.
No competent ministers delivering and zero accountability given that Parliament is dedicated to finding a path through Brexit.
Will you stop this with your politically motivated falsehoods.
The Building Regulations were amended in December last year to prevent ACM cladding from being used. They are not and cannot be retrospective.
As of the end of September this year, out of the 352 high rise blocks within the social sector that had ACM cladding, it has been replaced on 147 of them already with the reaming blocks all in the process of having it replaced. This will be completed by the end of 2021.
Of the 233 private sector buildings (167 are private residential blocks, 36 are student accommodation and 30 are hotels), Of these 69 have replaced the cladding, 147 have a remediation plan in place but remediation works have not started and building owners intend to remediate and are developing plans for 7 buildings. These ahould all be completed by the end of 2022. The remediation of buildings with ACM cladding systems unlikely to meet Building Regulations is a complex process and involves addressing several issues with the exterior cladding system and broader fire safety systems for each building along with some of the ownership of both freeholds and some complicated leaseholds for these buildings.All of this work takes time and varies considerably depending on the building structure, extent of cladding, and existing fire safety systems. For many buildings this is a complex job involving major construction work which needs to be planned, consulted on and carried out carefully along with other associated fire safety works. You know fuck all about what's be going on in the fire safety industry and are just chucking out crap to suit your own objectives.
Nearly two and a half years after Grenfell, how many tower blocks are still death-traps? I'd imagine most could be fixed for the money spaffed up the wall to DUP.
Some 360 buildings of which half are privately owned.
No competent ministers delivering and zero accountability given that Parliament is dedicated to finding a path through Brexit.
Will you stop this with your politically motivated falsehoods.
The Building Regulations were amended in December last year to prevent ACM cladding from being used. They are not and cannot be retrospective.
As of the end of September this year, out of the 352 high rise blocks within the social sector that had ACM cladding, it has been replaced on 147 of them already with the reaming blocks all in the process of having it replaced. This will be completed by the end of 2021.
Of the 233 private sector buildings (167 are private residential blocks, 36 are student accommodation and 30 are hotels), Of these 69 have replaced the cladding, 147 have a remediation plan in place but remediation works have not started and building owners intend to remediate and are developing plans for 7 buildings. These ahould all be completed by the end of 2022.
The remediation of buildings with ACM cladding systems unlikely to meet Building Regulations is a complex process and involves addressing several issues with the exterior cladding system and broader fire safety systems for each building along with some of the ownership of both freeholds and some complicated leaseholds for these buildings.
All of this work takes time and varies considerably depending on the building structure, extent of cladding, and existing fire safety systems. For many buildings this is a complex job involving major construction work which needs to be planned, consulted on and carried out carefully along with other associated fire safety works.
You know fuck all about what's be going on in the fire safety industry and are just chucking out crap to suit your own objectives.
He refuses to listen and struggles to grasp the building control element.
Addicted. I posted after reading the Aliwibble link which seems at odds with your rambling justification. Fire regs may not be retrospective but government action to save lives is a given. Are existing tower blocks safe or not?
I made two points. There are many unsafe buildings out there. The government has not spent enough money over two and a half years making them safe.
Which is the falsehood? Don't muddy the waters accusing me of things I've never said.
Please explain how the student block in the current news caught fire, when cladding had recently been replaced, post Grenfell with supposedly fire resistant cladding?
Ali makes the point that building regs are not driven by Government experts but the construction industry. Comments please.
And CAFC999 what is your point? Have you worked in the construction industry?
Addicted. I posted after reading the Aliwibble link which seems at odds with your rambling justification. Fire regs may not be retrospective but government action to save lives is a given. Are existing tower blocks safe or not?
I made two points. There are many unsafe buildings out there. The government has not spent enough money over two and a half years making them safe.
Which is the falsehood? Don't muddy the waters accusing me of things I've never said.
Please explain how the student block in the current news caught fire, when cladding had recently been replaced, post Grenfell with supposedly fire resistant cladding?
Ali makes the point that building regs are not driven by Government experts but the construction industry. Comments please.
And CAFC999 what is your point? Have you worked in the construction industry?
Let me guess , you got an F in A level gire safety too? Is there any limit to areas where you lack basic understanding but claim expertise?
Addickted is an expert on this subject, as you very well know, yet you dismiss his comments as ramblings simply so you and SR can push your own political agenda.
Amazing Stu, you haven't called me a racist in a post.
Addicted may be an expert (I didn't know) but he needs to explain his reasoning rather than accusing me of bullshit falsehoods. I am quite open to being educated by those who know more about a subject than myself, but his claims seem at odds with the link Aliwibble posted.
I have never claimed expertise but merely commented on a seemingly well researched article, that Addicted has yet to dissect.
What grade A level did you get in fire safety? Who is the minister responsible?
I am replying to you and the post about Addicted accusing me of politically motivated falsehoods. Nothing to do with SR.
Moving the goalposts means you've lost the argument.
Despite Addicted rambling summary of new fire regs, as an EXPERT he has yet to confirm (the title of this thread) whether the remedial cladding on the student accommodation was legal under the new regulations, or preceded them.
He was quoting SR, who had claimed nothing had been done, when it would appear over half the buildings have been modified! Is that enough, no! Is it a lot more than 'nothing' absolutely!
How can you claim its nothing to do with SR when it was his post being replied to?
Addicted. I posted after reading the Aliwibble link which seems at odds with your rambling justification. Fire regs may not be retrospective but government action to save lives is a given. Are existing tower blocks safe or not?
I made two points. There are many unsafe buildings out there. The government has not spent enough money over two and a half years making them safe.
Which is the falsehood? Don't muddy the waters accusing me of things I've never said.
Please explain how the student block in the current news caught fire, when cladding had recently been replaced, post Grenfell with supposedly fire resistant cladding?
Ali makes the point that building regs are not driven by Government experts but the construction industry. Comments please.
And CAFC999 what is your point? Have you worked in the construction industry?
Just sit back, take your time and read the thread through again. All the answers to your questions are there, except how the fire started, which we currently have no idea. Just thank God all the students are safe.
Addicted. I posted after reading the Aliwibble link which seems at odds with your rambling justification. Fire regs may not be retrospective but government action to save lives is a given. Are existing tower blocks safe or not?
I made two points. There are many unsafe buildings out there. The government has not spent enough money over two and a half years making them safe.
Which is the falsehood? Don't muddy the waters accusing me of things I've never said.
Please explain how the student block in the current news caught fire, when cladding had recently been replaced, post Grenfell with supposedly fire resistant cladding?
Ali makes the point that building regs are not driven by Government experts but the construction industry. Comments please.
And CAFC999 what is your point? Have you worked in the construction industry?
Yes - And I deal quite a bit with building control. The point I am making is that it is a local authority issue and not a government one. Local authority, via building control have to inspect the safety of each building and charge a fee to cover the costs so I don't know where the cost cutting is coming from?
I'd be interested to see if building control staffing levels have held up in recent years as local authority budgets have been cut, and whether that's having an impact on inspection schedules though.
I'd be interested to see if building control staffing levels have held up in recent years as local authority budgets have been cut, and whether that's having an impact on inspection schedules though.
Building control charge also a fee per inspection so budget cut backs should not really effect this.
Local authority can either employ Building Control Officers (BCO) full time or hire them freelance. Either way a project has to get signed off by them. If the local authority are using that money else where due to cut backs then that is wrong.
Comments
This is where the major flaw is - privatisation of what was essentially an independent service to ensure construction standards comply with all regulations. There's a reason why the building control fees for a Consultant Approved Inspector are less than a Local Authority Building Control Officer.
The cladding on this building looks likely to be HPL - high pressure laminate. Since December 2018, new fire safety regulations have banned combustible materials like HPL from the external walls of new buildings over 59 feet tall.
Many unsafe buildings out there.
Some aspects of Approved Document B need revising in the light of Grenfell fire, but to say they're not fit for purpose is laughable.
It's British Standards also require revising and the quality testing regime of components is obviously flawed. The building inspection process also needs to be tightened up and the complete removal of a 48 hour building notice.
Tighter controls and independent quality checks throughout the construction process from specification that is fit for purpose, throughout the supply chain and eventually on site needs to be strengthened. But the 'checkers' only add cost to the final project and added costs reduce profit - heaven forbid.
plenty more like that as well
No competent ministers delivering and zero accountability given that Parliament is dedicated to finding a path through Brexit.
The Building Regulations were amended in December last year to prevent ACM cladding from being used. They are not and cannot be retrospective.
As of the end of September this year, out of the 352 high rise blocks within the social sector that had ACM cladding, it has been replaced on 147 of them already with the reaming blocks all in the process of having it replaced. This will be completed by the end of 2021.
Of the 233 private sector buildings (167 are private residential blocks, 36 are student accommodation and 30 are hotels), Of these 69 have replaced the cladding, 147 have a remediation plan in place but remediation works have not started and building owners intend to remediate and are developing plans for 7 buildings. These ahould all be completed by the end of 2022.
The remediation of buildings with ACM cladding systems unlikely to meet Building Regulations is a complex process and involves addressing several issues with the exterior cladding system and broader fire safety systems for each building along with some of the ownership of both freeholds and some complicated leaseholds for these buildings.All of this work takes time and varies considerably depending on the building structure, extent of cladding, and existing fire safety systems. For many buildings this is a complex job involving major construction work which needs to be planned, consulted on and carried out carefully along with other associated fire safety works.
You know fuck all about what's be going on in the fire safety industry and are just chucking out crap to suit your own objectives.
I made two points. There are many unsafe buildings out there. The government has not spent enough money over two and a half years making them safe.
Which is the falsehood? Don't muddy the waters accusing me of things I've never said.
Please explain how the student block in the current news caught fire, when cladding had recently been replaced, post Grenfell with supposedly fire resistant cladding?
Ali makes the point that building regs are not driven by Government experts but the construction industry. Comments please.
And CAFC999 what is your point? Have you worked in the construction industry?
Addickted is an expert on this subject, as you very well know, yet you dismiss his comments as ramblings simply so you and SR can push your own political agenda.
#notacult
Addicted may be an expert (I didn't know) but he needs to explain his reasoning rather than accusing me of bullshit falsehoods. I am quite open to being educated by those who know more about a subject than myself, but his claims seem at odds with the link Aliwibble posted.
I have never claimed expertise but merely commented on a seemingly well researched article, that Addicted has yet to dissect.
What grade A level did you get in fire safety? Who is the minister responsible?
Your racism is not relevant here, unless you're blaming the genetically evil jews, which I've not seen, so didn't mention。
Moving the goalposts means you've lost the argument.
Despite Addicted rambling summary of new fire regs, as an EXPERT he has yet to confirm (the title of this thread) whether the remedial cladding on the student accommodation was legal under the new regulations, or preceded them.
How can you claim its nothing to do with SR when it was his post being replied to?
And it's Addickted.
Local authority can either employ Building Control Officers (BCO) full time or hire them freelance. Either way a project has to get signed off by them. If the local authority are using that money else where due to cut backs then that is wrong.