|
Post by martin44 on Jun 26, 2017 22:14:58 GMT
60 tested 60 failed. Not good.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2017 8:54:25 GMT
60 tested 60 failed. Not good. Given that these are public buildings we need to start seeing results from private properties. In fact how many of us have invested in properties via P2P which have flamable foam wrapped around them? ? Student accomodation? Conversions of commercial buildings to housing? All feels very uncomfortable, radio 4 had an article about the private sector high rise yesterday and you can tell they are worried.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 8,948
Likes: 4,787
|
Post by adrianc on Jun 27, 2017 9:11:51 GMT
60 tested 60 failed. Not good. Given that these are public buildings we need to start seeing results from private properties. It's also worth remembering that they're testing those believed to be highest-risk first.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jun 27, 2017 9:33:36 GMT
60 tested 60 failed. Not good. Given that these are public buildings we need to start seeing results from private properties. In fact how many of us have invested in properties via P2P which have flamable foam wrapped around them? ? Student accomodation? Conversions of commercial buildings to housing? All feels very uncomfortable, radio 4 had an article about the private sector high rise yesterday and you can tell they are worried. Newer buildings are more likely to have mitigating protection mechanisms such as sprinkler systems which may allow them to prioritise. Likewise e.g. hotels. Its just fundamentally staggering that a First World country in the 21st century has somehow got itself into a position where it has high rise buildings wrapped in combustible material. And on an apparent systemic scale.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 8,948
Likes: 4,787
|
Post by adrianc on Jun 27, 2017 9:40:43 GMT
Its just fundamentally staggering that a First World country in the 21st century has somehow got itself into a position where it has high rise buildings wrapped in combustible material. And on an apparent systemic scale. AIUI, the material was marketed as being fire-proof to the required standards. Either the manufacturer was lying, the production process or quality control was way off, or the standards are inadequate. It's going to be a long and interesting route to discover the truth...
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jun 27, 2017 9:55:06 GMT
Its just fundamentally staggering that a First World country in the 21st century has somehow got itself into a position where it has high rise buildings wrapped in combustible material. And on an apparent systemic scale. AIUI, the material was marketed as being fire-proof to the required standards. Either the manufacturer was lying, the production process or quality control was way off, or the standards are inadequate. It's going to be a long and interesting route to discover the truth... I don't think so. I thought the cause was fundamentally clear from the outset: its due to a) lack of investment in social housing b) profit motive in housing provision c) cuts to fire service. Who needs an enquiry to get to root cause ? Lets hope however that the route is not too long. And I would think it is highly likely that a number of compounding failures are likely to be highlighted (e.g. an inspection / test regime that failed to catch common usage of an inappropriate product ) ?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2017 9:59:17 GMT
Mrs Bobo is an environmental Lawyer/Engineer (building services) with a strong interest in this area. The Economist also has a good article about high rise building design. Basically as far as we can see, the UK has gone down the "safe zone" route far more than other countries so that both new build and revamp could suffer from this issue. New build because of material selection and revamp because the work may have breached the safe zone barrier and material selection (seems that this is a pretty common problem due to lousy British builders).
It appears that there are also time issues on planning and review. If the council passed off the plans and then passed off the actual build then much of potential risk has passed to the council, they have between 1 and 2 years to dig themselves out of the mess (based on which element is being looked at) so the financial risk for us is with properties that are still on our book less than 2 years after building control has signed off the things.
Now, that is a serious issue for P2P.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2017 10:06:02 GMT
AIUI, the material was marketed as being fire-proof to the required standards. Either the manufacturer was lying, the production process or quality control was way off, or the standards are inadequate. It's going to be a long and interesting route to discover the truth... I don't think so. I thought the cause was fundamentally clear from the outset: its due to a) lack of investment in social housing b) profit motive in housing provision c) cuts to fire service. Who needs an enquiry to get to root cause ? Lets hope however that the route is not too long. And I would think it is highly likely that a number of compounding failures are likely to be highlighted (e.g. an inspection / test regime that failed to catch common usage of an inappropriate product ) ? Cuts to fire services.... I spent a few hours last year with our local fireservice chief who admitted that his problem is that he and his staff do not have enought to do and virtually never put out fires. It seems that design standards on buildings and electrical/gas goods have improved so much in the last 20 years that the fire service spend their time cutting open crashed cars, pumping out cellars and visiting industrial units to check for safe routes out etc. He even admitted that he doesn't know why he still has a fire station as it could be housed in the local ambulance service. So probably not a root cause. The existing control method should be planning control and building pass off. It looks like one or the other failed. At a higher level it may also be down to building regulations, see article in Economist.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jun 27, 2017 10:11:50 GMT
I do hope the intended tongue in cheek of the first part of my post has not been lost due to lack of an emoticon.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2017 10:14:30 GMT
"For want of a nail a shoe was lost "
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,840
Likes: 11,068
|
Post by ilmoro on Jun 27, 2017 10:41:36 GMT
Newsnight last night ... building regulations are fine they ban external combustible material over 18m. The problem is the interpretation of the regs by thr relevant inspection/supervisory bodies which has led to guidance that allows materials that dont meet the regs to be used. On another point - how did Camden get away with not having 1000 fire doors... you would have thought somebody might have noticed the ease they could carry their shopping into the block? Edit Of course, with all these issues and choas in the country... who else would you send for? www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/may-turns-to-ex-teacher-as-policy-head-ctzrv7csf?CMP=TNLEmail_118918_1998678ribs
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,587
Likes: 4,182
|
Post by agent69 on Jun 27, 2017 19:45:34 GMT
Newsnight last night ... building regulations are fine they ban external combustible material over 18m. That sounds about 17m too high!
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jun 27, 2017 19:52:09 GMT
...The Economist also has a good article about high rise building design. .. Well I had not got around to unwrapping the plastic cladding from my weekly copy of the economist from FRiday, so your post prompted me to pick it up from under the doormat this evening (along with a few bills...). Forget the bit about high rise buildings. This weeks Bagehot is a complete hoot. Or at least it would be if it was not so truly reflective of the current UK political scene. The para beginning "Mr Hammond is a grown up in a political playpen...." is one of the most cutting and sadly accurate pieces of political observation I've seen for a long time.
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Jun 27, 2017 21:29:31 GMT
After listening to a full debate on local radio today where fortunately (so far) only one tower block has been identified after testing as being covered in combustible cladding, however, the local council rep during a morning interview, made a strange comment along the lines of....
'According to documentation we had, the cladding is not to the specification we requested nor expected' .
This comment led to a flourish of calls asking awkward questions such as "what do you mean had" and "Do you have the documentation from building control that signed off the job" and "who were the contractors who carried out the cladding work".
Needless to say the council has made no further comments today, i really do hope that the reasons for this inferior cladding are not down to council cost savings being made by choosing the cheapest tender quote, (of course not)
A second thought... would cladding installed, say, 7 years ago, pass today's building regs, i suspect not, but it may well have passed the building regs at the time of installation, and if it did, then an overhaul of the regulations is needed.
I suspect this may edge towards a future national scandal.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 7:28:04 GMT
'According to documentation we had, the cladding is not to the specification we requested nor expected' . Then it should have been rejected. Should not be a cost issue, just a management issue. Specifications in building services move very slowly, I'd not worry about 7 year old specs.
|
|