I doubt that you would have the entire reasoning there. The news does go global so those firemen and the counsil will have heard of it.
The public outrage does not force the counsil to resign. What would really be the inspiration for change?
Council? Doesn't your lot have building regulations put together on a national scale? That is the issue isn't it? No regulation and no one to enforce it if there was any regulation. Council?
Having a few local heads on a platter won't fix the national issue, it will just kick the can down the road again, like 1974 did.
I doubt that you would have the entire reasoning there. The news does go global so those firemen and the counsil will have heard of it.
The public outrage does not force the counsil to resign. What would really be the inspiration for change?
Yes almost every firefighter everywhere has heard of the Grenfell fire and the problems being discussed about what caused it, what caused it to spread etc, etc that's just Standard Operating Procedure for f/f's everywhere. Now whether the local public officials do anything about the problems is another matter that often gets complicated by who's running for reelection and what they think they have to promise to get reelected.
It would be alot like the Hospital Operating Rooms that found germs in supposedly 'clean' equipment that caused patients to die, almost every Hospital everywhere in the civilized World has heard of it and is figuring out how to deal with it.
Lawyers also keep an eye on the News too, Lawyers everywhere are checking their own areas for buildings that used that cladding and if so how much money the owners have that can be gotten from them in any lawsuits!
I think there maybe some confusion where Councils fit into building standards in the UK.
The National legislation is the Building Regulations 2010. Any building whether for public use or residential purposes has to comply with the current regulations. These cover construction standards, fire safety precautions, gas and electrical installation, emergency exits, and other building features.
A developer wanting to construct a building will apply to the Local Council for planning permission. The Planning Committee will consider the Borough Unitary Development Plan, and judge whether the proposed building fits into that. If it does, then outline planning permission will likely be given. Dtailed Plans for the building will then be lodged with the Council and scrutinised. They may also be a public consultation if the building is deemed contentious. If found to comply with all relevant regulations then in force, planning permission is given.
During the various construction stages, building inspectors will inspect the work to ensure it is being built in accordance with the approved plans and regulations. Upon completion the building is given a final building safety and fire inspection to allow a certificate of occupancy to be issued.
Post construction the building owners are responsible for ensuring that the building continues to meet legislation and fire safety standards. Grenfell was Council owned, therefore the Council were responsible for monitoring the building and ensuring annual fire safety inspections e.g. fire hose reels, extinguishers, fire doors, emergency exits etc were in working order.
The reason that there were three Council resignations was not to do with the above. It was to do with the fact that immediately after the fire it was clearly apparent that the Council did not have a suitable disaster plan in place, and also that they failed to initially realise the scale of the problem, and did not ask for help until it was forced upon them. To the extent that a government task force has had to be sent in to take over much of the Council functions They were incompetent in their jobs, they lost pubic confidence, and their positions were consequently untenable.
They chose to save the Council taking votes of no confidence and sacking them, and resigned beforehand. It is not a case of heads on a platter, or sacrificial lambs, that is Tabloid media chatter. No amount of resignations will bring back 80 lost lives. But more competent people in post will hopefully prevent any future problems, and regain the confidence of the public.
There are current reports the the LFB are feeling that if they had had access to a taller aerial platform earlier it might have helped to contain the fire. That might well be true, but they, arguably reasonably, did not ask for one before Grenfell, because historically there was no demonstrable need for one. Hindsight is of course a wonderful thing, and I gather lessons have been learned and that the LFB have now modified their standard call out procedures, and are looking into funding for a high rise aerial platform.
I am however mindful that we must wait for the official enquiry and not pre-judge or try to pre empt the outcome.
The council owns the building (save every penny). The council draws up the plans (hires a lackey). The council inspects the plans they drew up. The council builds the building (hires a lackey). The council hires the on site inspectors to make sure the lackey they hired is doing a bang up job. The council is supposed to have regular inspections (by their lackey). Even if they fail a regular inspection, nothing happens.
Do I have that about right?
If so, do you see the problem? Or where is the authority that came up with regulations? Might as well not exist.
I'm sorry but you appear to be under some misapprehension.
Take the case where the Council decides to build a block of flats on its Council owned land. It will ask a number of building companies to tender for the work, and award the contract to the one that it believes gives the best value for money. Not necessarily the lowest tender. It is the contractor that draws up the plans to the Council's outline specification which are then submitted for approval and compliance with building regulations.
The contractor will then construct the building with the Councils building inspectors overseeing the work, with approval required to continue at various stages. e.g. approval for the foundations being of the required size and depth, before above ground construction proceeds. For a large contract there will likely be a Council Clerk of works permanently on site.
Post construction, it will be the local fire brigade that carries out fire safety inspections, and the Council have a legal duty to follow any recommendations made. If they do not then the fire brigade can withdraw the fire safety certificate and people will have to be re-housed. The Councils own building inspectors will monitor that the building continues to meet all construction regulations, or is modified if the regulations change.
In the case of the Grenfell estate, a further building was found to have un-lagged or protected gas pipes, and fire door problems. That building has of course been evacuated pending remedial work. The question to be asked there is why these failings were not picked up earlier, why did it take Grenfell to bring them to light. I of course cannot answer that question for you, but I can provide an address to write to if you wish to have a more authoritative answer.
I doubt that a professional building company nor the fire brigade would appreciate being called lackeys as you term them. They are 3rd party experts in their field providing the expertise that the Council does not have in-house and is not expected to. I trust that the above explains more fully your concerns.
The London Fire Brigade has issued a statement that says that they have never in their history had to deal with a fire like Grenfell, and it was completely unexpected. Their prior experience over many years showed that tower block fires were most always contained within one flat, and it was better for people to stay put to avoid smoke inhalation.
Everyone agrees that the Grenfell fire shouldn't have happened, but until something of that nature does, it is only then that standards, equipment and procedures are tested to extreme limits likely not designed for. It is not a case of shutting the stable door, it is simply learning lessons for the future to prevent it happening again. The Building regulations are overseen by the Department for Communities and Local Government, and the Building Regulations Advisory Committee. That is national legislation that is passed through Parliament, there are no "local" building standards that can over-rule or amend that, as has been alleged.
I'm sorry that you have such a dim view of the UK, but it is not helpful at this stage to start pointing fingers and making accusations and pre-judgements, which might prejudice the official enquiry. Again if you have concerns regarding UK building regulations I can provide addresses for you to write to.
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
I'm sorry but you appear to be under some misapprehension.
Reading your description, I don't think so. However I don't assume the council is lily white.
Council picks builder based on the size of the kickback. "Best Value for the money"
Contractor draws plans - usually there is a different contractor who puts pencil to drafting paper than the one that puts nails into wood here, but it doesn't matter. They are the employee of the council, so they are a lackey, do what we say or you are fired.
Plans go to council for inspection of regulations. Of course they pass. (Or they arrange for an item to not pass so there is an appearance of propriety)
Building goes up, whatever cost savings there are by getting substandard materials gets split with the council as an additional kickback. Councils inspector never bothers to check if the stuff arriving on the job site matches what was on the specifications, those nights at the titty bar the contractor buys just puts him to sleep.
After the building is up, the fire department comes and they see that the doors are doors and they open and close. They weren't there when the materials were delivered, so they assume everything was done to code, because some lackey signed it off.
IIRC you have said anything post occupancy is voluntary and fire brigades do not have authority to do mandatory no refusal inspections.
Chris S_2 wrote:
The London Fire Brigade has issued a statement that says that they have never in their history had to deal with a fire like Grenfell, and it was completely unexpected. Their prior experience over many years showed that tower block fires were most always contained within one flat, and it was better for people to stay put to avoid smoke inhalation.
Brazil fire 1974, double the number of dead as Grenfeld. Is it another case that nothing can be learned from anyone else? Suddenly it seems that isn't the case anymore and perhaps your fire codes will get the update they should of had in 1974, the year Grenfeld went up.
Chris S_2 wrote:
I'm sorry that you have such a dim view of the UK
Last I checked the residents of UK were human beings subject to all the failings of human beings elsewhere on the planet. If somehow they have been elevated to gods let me know.
I'm not assuming everything was done correctly, clearly it wasn't; too many are dead.
I initially started this thread as I was interested in anyone else's experience of using Reynobond PE in other countries. Since then however it has degenerated into allegations of bribery, corruption, and impropriety between UK Councils and contractors which could be seen by some as libellous.
That could well bring this project into disrepute, so I am asking the Moderators to lock this thread, as I can see no useful purpose in it continuing.
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
IIRC you have said anything post occupancy is voluntary and fire brigades do not have authority to do mandatory no refusal inspections.
DownUnda some residential and business fire insurers will give discounted premiums if an accredited agency - and fire brigade inspectors qualify here - vouch for certain minimum facilities and provisions. This is post construction and don't need to be presented each insurance period, but within the last five years say. In an earlier life as a clinic owner I had yearly inspections and recommendations by our local brigade, for a fee, and enacted everything they suggested.
The other thing I've learnt - it was news to me - is that the public housing providers are moving toward placement on private blocks of modular units. This is typically upon a poorer family's property, room permitting of course. It literally arrives on the back of a truck and placed, leveled/stumped, connected to power/water/sewerage etc. There are two sizes more or less as big as a large caravan. Rent is paid to the housing authority as usual and they retain title of the asset. One special reason is the real estate market within cities for ground area is getting ridiculous and so providing this 'ready-made' asset on already paid for ground is the saving. The need to return ground area price is why high-rises go as they do. You could have an adult couple or maybe a parent with two kids in one. They are cosy, safe, & off street as it were. Normally the tenant is related to the property owner. This conversion of low to medium density housing occurs without all the expensive nonsense of subdivision & strata titles et al. A clever idea.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
I doubt that you would have
I doubt that you would have the entire reasoning there. The news does go global so those firemen and the counsil will have heard of it.
The public outrage does not force the counsil to resign. What would really be the inspiration for change?
Jonathan_76 wrote:I doubt
Council? Doesn't your lot have building regulations put together on a national scale? That is the issue isn't it? No regulation and no one to enforce it if there was any regulation. Council?
Having a few local heads on a platter won't fix the national issue, it will just kick the can down the road again, like 1974 did.
Jonathan_76 wrote:I doubt
Yes almost every firefighter everywhere has heard of the Grenfell fire and the problems being discussed about what caused it, what caused it to spread etc, etc that's just Standard Operating Procedure for f/f's everywhere. Now whether the local public officials do anything about the problems is another matter that often gets complicated by who's running for reelection and what they think they have to promise to get reelected.
It would be alot like the Hospital Operating Rooms that found germs in supposedly 'clean' equipment that caused patients to die, almost every Hospital everywhere in the civilized World has heard of it and is figuring out how to deal with it.
Lawyers also keep an eye on the News too, Lawyers everywhere are checking their own areas for buildings that used that cladding and if so how much money the owners have that can be gotten from them in any lawsuits!
I think there maybe some
I think there maybe some confusion where Councils fit into building standards in the UK.
The National legislation is the Building Regulations 2010. Any building whether for public use or residential purposes has to comply with the current regulations. These cover construction standards, fire safety precautions, gas and electrical installation, emergency exits, and other building features.
A developer wanting to construct a building will apply to the Local Council for planning permission. The Planning Committee will consider the Borough Unitary Development Plan, and judge whether the proposed building fits into that. If it does, then outline planning permission will likely be given. Dtailed Plans for the building will then be lodged with the Council and scrutinised. They may also be a public consultation if the building is deemed contentious. If found to comply with all relevant regulations then in force, planning permission is given.
During the various construction stages, building inspectors will inspect the work to ensure it is being built in accordance with the approved plans and regulations. Upon completion the building is given a final building safety and fire inspection to allow a certificate of occupancy to be issued.
Post construction the building owners are responsible for ensuring that the building continues to meet legislation and fire safety standards. Grenfell was Council owned, therefore the Council were responsible for monitoring the building and ensuring annual fire safety inspections e.g. fire hose reels, extinguishers, fire doors, emergency exits etc were in working order.
The reason that there were three Council resignations was not to do with the above. It was to do with the fact that immediately after the fire it was clearly apparent that the Council did not have a suitable disaster plan in place, and also that they failed to initially realise the scale of the problem, and did not ask for help until it was forced upon them. To the extent that a government task force has had to be sent in to take over much of the Council functions They were incompetent in their jobs, they lost pubic confidence, and their positions were consequently untenable.
They chose to save the Council taking votes of no confidence and sacking them, and resigned beforehand. It is not a case of heads on a platter, or sacrificial lambs, that is Tabloid media chatter. No amount of resignations will bring back 80 lost lives. But more competent people in post will hopefully prevent any future problems, and regain the confidence of the public.
There are current reports the the LFB are feeling that if they had had access to a taller aerial platform earlier it might have helped to contain the fire. That might well be true, but they, arguably reasonably, did not ask for one before Grenfell, because historically there was no demonstrable need for one. Hindsight is of course a wonderful thing, and I gather lessons have been learned and that the LFB have now modified their standard call out procedures, and are looking into funding for a high rise aerial platform.
I am however mindful that we must wait for the official enquiry and not pre-judge or try to pre empt the outcome.
Government
Regulations
NHBC
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
Let me see if I understand
Let me see if I understand this.
The council owns the building (save every penny). The council draws up the plans (hires a lackey). The council inspects the plans they drew up. The council builds the building (hires a lackey). The council hires the on site inspectors to make sure the lackey they hired is doing a bang up job. The council is supposed to have regular inspections (by their lackey). Even if they fail a regular inspection, nothing happens.
Do I have that about right?
If so, do you see the problem? Or where is the authority that came up with regulations? Might as well not exist.
I'm sorry but you have it all
I'm sorry but you appear to be under some misapprehension.
Take the case where the Council decides to build a block of flats on its Council owned land. It will ask a number of building companies to tender for the work, and award the contract to the one that it believes gives the best value for money. Not necessarily the lowest tender. It is the contractor that draws up the plans to the Council's outline specification which are then submitted for approval and compliance with building regulations.
The contractor will then construct the building with the Councils building inspectors overseeing the work, with approval required to continue at various stages. e.g. approval for the foundations being of the required size and depth, before above ground construction proceeds. For a large contract there will likely be a Council Clerk of works permanently on site.
Post construction, it will be the local fire brigade that carries out fire safety inspections, and the Council have a legal duty to follow any recommendations made. If they do not then the fire brigade can withdraw the fire safety certificate and people will have to be re-housed. The Councils own building inspectors will monitor that the building continues to meet all construction regulations, or is modified if the regulations change.
In the case of the Grenfell estate, a further building was found to have un-lagged or protected gas pipes, and fire door problems. That building has of course been evacuated pending remedial work. The question to be asked there is why these failings were not picked up earlier, why did it take Grenfell to bring them to light. I of course cannot answer that question for you, but I can provide an address to write to if you wish to have a more authoritative answer.
I doubt that a professional building company nor the fire brigade would appreciate being called lackeys as you term them. They are 3rd party experts in their field providing the expertise that the Council does not have in-house and is not expected to. I trust that the above explains more fully your concerns.
The London Fire Brigade has issued a statement that says that they have never in their history had to deal with a fire like Grenfell, and it was completely unexpected. Their prior experience over many years showed that tower block fires were most always contained within one flat, and it was better for people to stay put to avoid smoke inhalation.
Everyone agrees that the Grenfell fire shouldn't have happened, but until something of that nature does, it is only then that standards, equipment and procedures are tested to extreme limits likely not designed for. It is not a case of shutting the stable door, it is simply learning lessons for the future to prevent it happening again. The Building regulations are overseen by the Department for Communities and Local Government, and the Building Regulations Advisory Committee. That is national legislation that is passed through Parliament, there are no "local" building standards that can over-rule or amend that, as has been alleged.
I'm sorry that you have such a dim view of the UK, but it is not helpful at this stage to start pointing fingers and making accusations and pre-judgements, which might prejudice the official enquiry. Again if you have concerns regarding UK building regulations I can provide addresses for you to write to.
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
Chris S_2 wrote:I'm sorry but
Reading your description, I don't think so. However I don't assume the council is lily white.
Council picks builder based on the size of the kickback. "Best Value for the money"
Contractor draws plans - usually there is a different contractor who puts pencil to drafting paper than the one that puts nails into wood here, but it doesn't matter. They are the employee of the council, so they are a lackey, do what we say or you are fired.
Plans go to council for inspection of regulations. Of course they pass. (Or they arrange for an item to not pass so there is an appearance of propriety)
Building goes up, whatever cost savings there are by getting substandard materials gets split with the council as an additional kickback. Councils inspector never bothers to check if the stuff arriving on the job site matches what was on the specifications, those nights at the titty bar the contractor buys just puts him to sleep.
After the building is up, the fire department comes and they see that the doors are doors and they open and close. They weren't there when the materials were delivered, so they assume everything was done to code, because some lackey signed it off.
IIRC you have said anything post occupancy is voluntary and fire brigades do not have authority to do mandatory no refusal inspections.
Brazil fire 1974, double the number of dead as Grenfeld. Is it another case that nothing can be learned from anyone else? Suddenly it seems that isn't the case anymore and perhaps your fire codes will get the update they should of had in 1974, the year Grenfeld went up.
Last I checked the residents of UK were human beings subject to all the failings of human beings elsewhere on the planet. If somehow they have been elevated to gods let me know.
I'm not assuming everything was done correctly, clearly it wasn't; too many are dead.
Chris S_2 wrote:I'm sorry
It is one many elsewhere share, Mr S. If you yourself cannot portray your fellow citizens well, why should others?
I initially started this
I initially started this thread as I was interested in anyone else's experience of using Reynobond PE in other countries. Since then however it has degenerated into allegations of bribery, corruption, and impropriety between UK Councils and contractors which could be seen by some as libellous.
That could well bring this project into disrepute, so I am asking the Moderators to lock this thread, as I can see no useful purpose in it continuing.
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
Gary Charpentier wrote:IIRC
DownUnda some residential and business fire insurers will give discounted premiums if an accredited agency - and fire brigade inspectors qualify here - vouch for certain minimum facilities and provisions. This is post construction and don't need to be presented each insurance period, but within the last five years say. In an earlier life as a clinic owner I had yearly inspections and recommendations by our local brigade, for a fee, and enacted everything they suggested.
The other thing I've learnt - it was news to me - is that the public housing providers are moving toward placement on private blocks of modular units. This is typically upon a poorer family's property, room permitting of course. It literally arrives on the back of a truck and placed, leveled/stumped, connected to power/water/sewerage etc. There are two sizes more or less as big as a large caravan. Rent is paid to the housing authority as usual and they retain title of the asset. One special reason is the real estate market within cities for ground area is getting ridiculous and so providing this 'ready-made' asset on already paid for ground is the saving. The need to return ground area price is why high-rises go as they do. You could have an adult couple or maybe a parent with two kids in one. They are cosy, safe, & off street as it were. Normally the tenant is related to the property owner. This conversion of low to medium density housing occurs without all the expensive nonsense of subdivision & strata titles et al. A clever idea.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal