Tower Block Fire

TheBigBean

I'm struggling to be outraged here. Article states that the property is owned by a family trust and Rees-Mogg's mother in law is a trustee. No evidence of inappropriate lobbying. Meanwhile lots of people died in a fire. What am I missing?

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean wrote:

I'm struggling to be outraged here. Article states that the property is owned by a family trust and Rees-Mogg's mother in law is a trustee. No evidence of inappropriate lobbying. Meanwhile lots of people died in a fire. What am I missing?

now imagine that you barely escaped with your life and have lost all of your possessions and start reading suggestions that you could have had fireproof cladding for an extra £10k. Not only that but the kindling was only attached to the side of your building so rich people had a nicer view and then you discover that very rich people are getting several millions of pounds for their pet projects.

Now you and I might well rationalise that £7.5m was not removed from the Kensington refurb budget to under-pin Jacob Rees Mogg's Mother in law's ancestral home but if we were trying to stir up a mob then it is hitting a number of nails on the head

TheBigBean

Thanks. I see the tenuous connection now, but the article is broadly accurate it would appear.

coopster_the_1st

Dinyull wrote:

From what I see on Twitter (font of all truth, obvs) this could all boil over at any point into what happened at Tottenham in 2011.

Heavy anti-govt and press feeling, fire service cuts, safety equipment not used/working and rumours circulating that the cladding was only added so the luxury apartments opposite didn't have an eye-sore.

Once grief subsides and anger takes over, who knows where it goes.

And this irresponsible peice from the BBC will just add to it - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40290158 - London fire: A tale of two tower blocks

They are not comparing like-for-like or even buildings built in the same century but why let that get in the way of the story.

Lookyhere

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

From what I see on Twitter (font of all truth, obvs) this could all boil over at any point into what happened at Tottenham in 2011.

Heavy anti-govt and press feeling, fire service cuts, safety equipment not used/working and rumours circulating that the cladding was only added so the luxury apartments opposite didn't have an eye-sore.

Once grief subsides and anger takes over, who knows where it goes.

And this irresponsible peice from the BBC will just add to it - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40290158 - London fire: A tale of two tower blocks

They are not comparing like-for-like or even buildings built in the same century but why let that get in the way of the story.

Do you think they need another reason to be very angry? the humanitarian effort on the ground isnt being led by the council or the Government, its being done by the community, that in its self is a disgrace!

Though given the numbers rumoured to have died, maybe there isnt that many people to help?

The article is comparing the level of safety in a modern designer tower block, built primarily for the well off and one that, in the main, houses blacks, refugees and the poor, its self explanatory that the flats in question are from different era's.
I imagine though that you wish to divert any blame from the Council or Government.

coopster_the_1st

Lookyhere wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

From what I see on Twitter (font of all truth, obvs) this could all boil over at any point into what happened at Tottenham in 2011.

Heavy anti-govt and press feeling, fire service cuts, safety equipment not used/working and rumours circulating that the cladding was only added so the luxury apartments opposite didn't have an eye-sore.

Once grief subsides and anger takes over, who knows where it goes.

And this irresponsible peice from the BBC will just add to it - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40290158 - London fire: A tale of two tower blocks

They are not comparing like-for-like or even buildings built in the same century but why let that get in the way of the story.

Do you think they need another reason to be very angry? the humanitarian effort on the ground isnt being led by the council or the Government, its being done by the community, that in its self is a disgrace!

Though given the numbers rumoured to have died, maybe there isnt that many people to help?

The article is comparing the level of safety in a modern designer tower block, built primarily for the well off and one that, in the main, houses blacks, refugees and the poor, its self explanatory that the flats in question are from different era's.
I imagine though that you wish to divert any blame from the Council or Government.

So the council are doing nothing? Or are they concetrating on relocating those made homeless? Or don't you agree this is the top priority?

As I said, it is not like for like. It's purposely written to create division. It's no different comparing a council house built in the 1970's with a 5 bed detached house built for the private market in 2015.

This is a horrific situation and I will blame the council and/or the govt if they are found to be at fault.

Lookyhere

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

From what I see on Twitter (font of all truth, obvs) this could all boil over at any point into what happened at Tottenham in 2011.

Heavy anti-govt and press feeling, fire service cuts, safety equipment not used/working and rumours circulating that the cladding was only added so the luxury apartments opposite didn't have an eye-sore.

Once grief subsides and anger takes over, who knows where it goes.

And this irresponsible peice from the BBC will just add to it - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40290158 - London fire: A tale of two tower blocks

They are not comparing like-for-like or even buildings built in the same century but why let that get in the way of the story.

Do you think they need another reason to be very angry? the humanitarian effort on the ground isnt being led by the council or the Government, its being done by the community, that in its self is a disgrace!

Though given the numbers rumoured to have died, maybe there isnt that many people to help?

The article is comparing the level of safety in a modern designer tower block, built primarily for the well off and one that, in the main, houses blacks, refugees and the poor, its self explanatory that the flats in question are from different era's.
I imagine though that you wish to divert any blame from the Council or Government.

So the council are doing nothing? Or are they concetrating on relocating those made homeless? Or don't you agree this is the top priority?

As I said, it is not like for like. It's purposely written to create division. It's no different comparing a council house built in the 1970's with a 5 bed detached house built for the private market in 2015.

This is a horrific situation and I will blame the council and/or the govt if they are found to be at fault.

The residents are saying they are not there, if they haven't the personal or expertise, then maybe the government should be there, haven't we the means to help in an emergency anymore?

I get from the article that if you are wealthy, your safety is catered for, if your poor black etc your safety is secondary, the cost of retrofitting sprinklers is small in terms of overal spending and certainly far less than cladding and new windows, even if applied to 7000 tower blocks.

Unless people get a grip here, then we ll have riots, its been handled appallingly.

Pross

I think you're missing what is an unusually reasonable point that Coopster is making. To be a fair comparison you would have to compare the 2015 'luxury' tower block with a block of affordable housing appartments built at the same time. On modern sites a percentage of the development gets set aside as social housing and build out to the spec provided by the Housing Association. In nearly all sites I've worked on the spec is better than that being used by the bulk open market developer. In some cases there have been elements of the affordable housing that are superior to more bespoke luxury houses due to the requirements of Housing Associations for them to meet Lifetime Homes or, formerly, Code for Sustainable Homes requirements.

Unfortunately the era of council housing slapped up in the 50s - 70s weren't so good and many of those buildings have been through constant renovations. Ideally rather than fighting that battle they would be knocked down and replaced by modern housing but I believe even on this estate the plans to do so are being fought.

Lookyhere

Pross wrote:

I think you're missing what is an unusually reasonable point that Coopster is making. To be a fair comparison you would have to compare the 2015 'luxury' tower block with a block of affordable housing appartments built at the same time. On modern sites a percentage of the development gets set aside as social housing and build out to the spec provided by the Housing Association. In nearly all sites I've worked on the spec is better than that being used by the bulk open market developer. In some cases there have been elements of the affordable housing that are superior to more bespoke luxury houses due to the requirements of Housing Associations for them to meet Lifetime Homes or, formerly, Code for Sustainable Homes requirements.

Unfortunately the era of council housing slapped up in the 50s - 70s weren't so good and many of those buildings have been through constant renovations. Ideally rather than fighting that battle they would be knocked down and replaced by modern housing but I believe even on this estate the plans to do so are being fought.

jesus if we cannot house the poor in safe properties then they should be knocked down and rebuilt, i am not missing anything Coop is saying, he is a typical right wing voter, who despises the poor.
I am watching CH4 news and a report was given to the Government on the fire risk and that the manufacturer was asked to supply the cheaper less fire proof version.

Can you imagine if in 2009 6 children were killed in a private school fire, a report recommends all boarding schools are fitted with sprinklers, what percentage of private schools, now 9 years later would have sprinklers fitted?

the BBC article is absolutely spot on in highlighting the differing standards people at opposite ends of the income spectrum are subjected too.

And please dont say it would cost too much to either rebuild or bring up to standard these tower blocks, are we some sort of 3rd world basket case? because i m starting to think thats exactly what we ve become.

coopster_the_1st

Lookyhere wrote:

jesus if we cannot house the poor in safe properties then they should be knocked down and rebuilt, i am not missing anything Coop is saying, he is a typical right wing voter, who despises the poor.
I am watching CH4 news and a report was given to the Government on the fire risk and that the manufacturer was asked to supply the cheaper less fire proof version.

Can you imagine if in 2009 6 children were killed in a private school fire, a report recommends all boarding schools are fitted with sprinklers, what percentage of private schools, now 9 years later would have sprinklers fitted?

the BBC article is absolutely spot on in highlighting the differing standards people at opposite ends of the income spectrum are subjected too.

And please dont say it would cost too much to either rebuild or bring up to standard these tower blocks, are we some sort of 3rd world basket case? because i m starting to think thats exactly what we ve become.

You are poor and I am a Conservative voter, so you are not worth a response any more than this.

I'll leave you sat on the floor dribbling and rocking, in your misinformed echo chamber

tailwindhome

To be fair May was always going to be a target for anger and the woman in blue owns a f**king palace in the area...

mamba80

insulation materials and fire retardants used in the UK have been banned for years in Germany, this was bought home to me a while ago, when i had advice from a German eco housing expert, he had no idea of the slack standards in the UK.

i do feel slightly sorry for May, she is sooooooo clearly out of her depth, the newsnight interview? she couldnt answer a single question, it was like emily maitls wasnt even there and May was reading from a uninterruptible script.

verylonglegs

May is making Gordon Brown look like a charismatic statesman like genius, the only reason she is still there is because the Tory party are so fucked up they don't know who should or could replace her. They are probably drawing straws right now to see who gets thrown under the bus with an appearance on the Sunday politics shows. Truly pitiful.

Pross

Lookyhere wrote:

Pross wrote:

I think you're missing what is an unusually reasonable point that Coopster is making. To be a fair comparison you would have to compare the 2015 'luxury' tower block with a block of affordable housing appartments built at the same time. On modern sites a percentage of the development gets set aside as social housing and build out to the spec provided by the Housing Association. In nearly all sites I've worked on the spec is better than that being used by the bulk open market developer. In some cases there have been elements of the affordable housing that are superior to more bespoke luxury houses due to the requirements of Housing Associations for them to meet Lifetime Homes or, formerly, Code for Sustainable Homes requirements.

Unfortunately the era of council housing slapped up in the 50s - 70s weren't so good and many of those buildings have been through constant renovations. Ideally rather than fighting that battle they would be knocked down and replaced by modern housing but I believe even on this estate the plans to do so are being fought.

jesus if we cannot house the poor in safe properties then they should be knocked down and rebuilt, i am not missing anything Coop is saying, he is a typical right wing voter, who despises the poor.
I am watching CH4 news and a report was given to the Government on the fire risk and that the manufacturer was asked to supply the cheaper less fire proof version.

Can you imagine if in 2009 6 children were killed in a private school fire, a report recommends all boarding schools are fitted with sprinklers, what percentage of private schools, now 9 years later would have sprinklers fitted?

the BBC article is absolutely spot on in highlighting the differing standards people at opposite ends of the income spectrum are subjected too.

And please dont say it would cost too much to either rebuild or bring up to standard these tower blocks, are we some sort of 3rd world basket case? because i m starting to think thats exactly what we ve become.

Fark me you're a chippy one! Who has said the poor shouldn't live in safe houses? I bet there are lots of similar blocks in private ownership with equal issues though. Why are people intent on making this a class war? Take a look at private housing, there's not the same legislation to bring building standards up to modern levels as there is in a rental property. There'll be thousands of houses in private ownership that don't meet modern safety standards on issues such as electrical wiring and boiler servicing.

I've just posted that new build social housing is generally built to a higher standard than standard open market housing. These tower blocks are around 50 years old and have needed constant renovation and upgrading, often due to poor construction in the first place. You can definitely argue that the priority of the type of renovation work needs looking at though as most recent upgrades have concentrated on environmental / energy efficiency. Don't you agree that demolishing out dated and often dilapidated properties and providing new housing meeting all modern regulations for the same people to live in would be a more ideal scenario?

rjsterry

Pross wrote:

There'll be thousands of houses in private ownership that don't meet modern safety standards on issues such as electrical wiring and boiler servicing.

Absolutely. My work mostly centres on refurbishment and alterations to fairly upmarket houses in London. I'd guess 2 out of 3 have to be substantially rewired, have the boiler and CH replaced and require various structural defects to be made good. I'm working on a newish (built circa 2001) "executive" home at the moment where we are uncovering numerous examples of poor workmanship and corners cut. This is not a problem that solely affects social housing by any stretch.

Garry H

rjsterry wrote:

Absolutely. My work mostly centres on refurbishment and alterations to fairly upmarket houses in London. I'd guess 2 out of 3 have to be substantially rewired, have the boiler and CH replaced and require various structural defects to be made good. I'm working on a newish (built circa 2001) "executive" home at the moment where we are uncovering numerous examples of poor workmanship and corners cut. This is not a problem that solely affects social housing by any stretch.

Fake News! Away with your knowledge and facts

Lookyhere

rjsterry wrote:

Pross wrote:

There'll be thousands of houses in private ownership that don't meet modern safety standards on issues such as electrical wiring and boiler servicing.

Absolutely. My work mostly centres on refurbishment and alterations to fairly upmarket houses in London. I'd guess 2 out of 3 have to be substantially rewired, have the boiler and CH replaced and require various structural defects to be made good. I'm working on a newish (built circa 2001) "executive" home at the moment where we are uncovering numerous examples of poor workmanship and corners cut. This is not a problem that solely affects social housing by any stretch.

I am obviously missing the numbers of open market properties recently clad in flammable materials that have been banned in Germany USA etc and then go up in smoke killing dozens of people.

People seem to be reacting to this as if it were some sort of unavoidable accident.

I think David Lammy summed it up perfectly last night, he said " Dickens wrote about poverty in London 2 centuries ago, these conditions havent gone away" nor would it appear the attitudes of many toward the poor, the people who have died are black, refugees illegals etc and whats the betting that a year or so down the line, this fire will have been all forgotten about and nothing really would have changed?

mamba80

Lookyhere wrote:

Can you imagine if in 2009 6 children were killed in a private school fire, a report recommends all boarding schools are fitted with sprinklers, what percentage of private schools, now 9 years later would have sprinklers fitted?

...precisely, its taken 4 days to get a Gov team on the ground, the folk were promised that no one would be housed outside of the area....... promise broken.

the whole thing is a fucking disgrace but because these people dont matter, so have a PI and kick it down the road and give it to another Gov to sort out.

the feeling i am getting from May is she is desperate not to be associated with this disaster rather than showing empathy or caring, unlike the Queen and i am no fan but credit where it is due.

Pross

I'm getting a bit fed up with people trying to make this an issue about poor v rich. Does anyone think if this had been a block of luxury flats in Docklands the people who lost their homes would be re-homed immediately in the same area? There's a housing shortage and long waiting lists so the fault here is making a promise to re-house several hundred people immediately in the same area. Many new build private apartment blocks use very similar material, not as a cladding but as the actual building fabric, whether it has the same insulation I don't know but if it complies with Building Regs for that use and is cheap then I'm pretty sure it will have been used. Even in top end housing the extra money gets splashed out on the visible finishes such as marble flooring and bespoke kitchens whilst the shell will be as cheap as possible. There are definitely questions that need answering over whether sprinklers should be fitted in all high rise buildings and why combustible materials are allowed within the insulation.

I would also agree that the Goverment response and May's aloofness have been very poor although given the anger being directed towards them I don't think it would achieve much other than even more anger. The tragedy is already being used by people with an axe to grind to drum up hysteria. Claims that the deaths are murder is obviously ludicrous (unless of course it turns out the fire was started deliberately). As for the comment about not seeing posh houses burn down, I'm pretty sure there was a fairly posh gaff in Windsor that went up in smoke a few years back.

capt_slog

Pross wrote:

I'm getting a bit fed up with people trying to make this an issue about poor v rich. Does anyone think if this had been a block of luxury flats in Docklands the people who lost their homes would be re-homed immediately in the same area? There's a housing shortage and long waiting lists so the fault here is making a promise to re-house several hundred people immediately in the same area. Many new build private apartment blocks use very similar material, not as a cladding but as the actual building fabric, whether it has the same insulation I don't know but if it complies with Building Regs for that use and is cheap then I'm pretty sure it will have been used. Even in top end housing the extra money gets splashed out on the visible finishes such as marble flooring and bespoke kitchens whilst the shell will be as cheap as possible. There are definitely questions that need answering over whether sprinklers should be fitted in all high rise buildings and why combustible materials are allowed within the insulation.

I would also agree that the Goverment response and May's aloofness have been very poor although given the anger being directed towards them I don't think it would achieve much other than even more anger. The tragedy is already being used by people with an axe to grind to drum up hysteria. Claims that the deaths are murder is obviously ludicrous (unless of course it turns out the fire was started deliberately). As for the comment about not seeing posh houses burn down, I'm pretty sure there was a fairly posh gaff in Windsor that went up in smoke a few years back.

Well said that man.

mamba80

Pross wrote:

I'm getting a bit fed up with people trying to make this an issue about poor v rich. Does anyone think if this had been a block of luxury flats in Docklands the people who lost their homes would be re-homed immediately in the same area? There's a housing shortage and long waiting lists so the fault here is making a promise to re-house several hundred people immediately in the same area. Many new build private apartment blocks use very similar material, not as a cladding but as the actual building fabric, whether it has the same insulation I don't know but if it complies with Building Regs for that use and is cheap then I'm pretty sure it will have been used. Even in top end housing the extra money gets splashed out on the visible finishes such as marble flooring and bespoke kitchens whilst the shell will be as cheap as possible. There are definitely questions that need answering over whether sprinklers should be fitted in all high rise buildings and why combustible materials are allowed within the insulation.

I would also agree that the Goverment response and May's aloofness have been very poor although given the anger being directed towards them I don't think it would achieve much other than even more anger. The tragedy is already being used by people with an axe to grind to drum up hysteria. Claims that the deaths are murder is obviously ludicrous (unless of course it turns out the fire was started deliberately). As for the comment about not seeing posh houses burn down, I'm pretty sure there was a fairly posh gaff in Windsor that went up in smoke a few years back.

Pross, you are totally missing the point.

for years under many governments, social housing has been neglected, May is PM not maggie, not Brown or blair, she is where the buck stops.

i get fed up with people saying folk are drumming up hysteria.... how would you feel searching for a loved one, or knowing a child or bro is dead, no info no home no money and in a relatively strange country?
the anger is there, it doesnt need to be drummed up or how would you feel going to sleep with your children in a similarly refurbished tower block? ffs, try an have some understanding.
this was a totally avoidable fire, the gov was advised to review regs and didnt. the rsidents complained over many years and were ignored.... indeed threatened with legal action..... do you think that if the board of a private boarding school complained about a fire risk no one would do anything about it, for years?

of course there are fires in rich peoples houses but show me the numbers burned alive compared to the deaths over many years in social housing ?
windsor castle.....
"The castle suffered extensive damage in the fire and was fully repaired within the next few years at a cost of £36.5 million" and "The castle still had its own twenty-strong fire brigade, of whom six were full-time. Equipped with a Land Rover and pump tender, they were based in stables two miles south of the castle...... 200 firemen and 35 engines soon arrived..... " thankfully no one died.

this isnt about rich v poor, its about the value placed on certain peoples lives by gov and society ie us lot, i feel shamed by this incident, for want of a better word.

meanredspider

@mamba80 - if Corbyn had won the election, would the buck stop with him?

I, too, am appalled by this tragedy but it's a result of decades of neglect under governments of all colours. I'm unhappy with May's engagement with the local community following this but I think Pross's point is correct - there is only so much that can be done. What seems to be missing is someone stepping up to take control of the local situation (May isn't the right person but perhaps she should have appointed someone).

mamba80

He would be the one to answer the questions and come up with a suitable action plan BUT he d have only been in power for a week or so, doesn't apply to TM.

May has been in gov since 2010, its her gov that has ignored the report over the 2009 fire, slashed funding to councils, as some someone said on newsnight "strong and stable or bolting the stable door?"
i do however understand her safety fears, but this could have been addressed by a: not lying and saying it was a security issue (but the queen could!) b: by meeting a residents delegation in public.

i do happen to agree with your remarks though, as i said to Stevo...events dear boy events.....

Pross

mamba80 wrote:

this isnt about rich v poor, its about the value placed on certain peoples lives by gov and society ie us lot, i feel shamed by this incident, for want of a better word.

Maybe you ought to point that out to Lookyhere as they're the one who keep saying it wouldn't happen to rich people. You also keep mentioning fires in private schools - I suspect the reaction if that did happen would be the same as it would be for a state school, let's hope we never find out. As for the value of a human life, I can only speak for myself and I certainly don't rate human worth by how rich a person is.

My point is that rich and poor live in buildings being built to the exact same regulations and that it is highly unlikely a private housing developer would be spending more money on fire safety than they are obliged to, to hear some people talking there's a two tier system that puts those in social housing at greater risk which simply isn't the case. If there is a greater instance of fires in social housing than private (which I agree there seems to be) I suspect it mainly comes down in part to things like furnishings being older and not complying with the far superior modern standards and many buildings being older and built under less stringent regulations.

I'm waiting to find out more on if / why improved standards were delayed and whether it is just the timescales of the process or if Goverment have dragged their feet in which case I agree they are culpable.

verylonglegs

meanredspider wrote:

@mamba80 - if Corbyn had won the election, would the buck stop with him?

I, too, am appalled by this tragedy but it's a result of decades of neglect under governments of all colours. I'm unhappy with May's engagement with the local community following this but I think Pross's point is correct - there is only so much that can be done. What seems to be missing is someone stepping up to take control of the local situation (May isn't the right person but perhaps she should have appointed someone).

Khan fronted up and took some heat and sometimes that's what the job is. It wouldn't have changed anything physically for the victims but if you've spent the last couple of months turning an election into a presidential campaign based on how great your leadership is then you really need to be able to step and face voters at times like this, even if it's to get a faceful of flak.

bobmcstuff

Surrey Commuter wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I'm struggling to be outraged here. Article states that the property is owned by a family trust and Rees-Mogg's mother in law is a trustee. No evidence of inappropriate lobbying. Meanwhile lots of people died in a fire. What am I missing?

now imagine that you barely escaped with your life and have lost all of your possessions and start reading suggestions that you could have had fireproof cladding for an extra £10k. Not only that but the kindling was only attached to the side of your building so rich people had a nicer view and then you discover that very rich people are getting several millions of pounds for their pet projects.

Now you and I might well rationalise that £7.5m was not removed from the Kensington refurb budget to under-pin Jacob Rees Mogg's Mother in law's ancestral home but if we were trying to stir up a mob then it is hitting a number of nails on the head

It doesn't sound that tenuous to me. If it was my house and my family that died I would be on the streets too, I think.

Lookyhere

Pross wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

this isnt about rich v poor, its about the value placed on certain peoples lives by gov and society ie us lot, i feel shamed by this incident, for want of a better word.

Maybe you ought to point that out to Lookyhere as they're the one who keep saying it wouldn't happen to rich people. You also keep mentioning fires in private schools - I suspect the reaction if that did happen would be the same as it would be for a state school, let's hope we never find out. As for the value of a human life, I can only speak for myself and I certainly don't rate human worth by how rich a person is.

My point is that rich and poor live in buildings being built to the exact same regulations and that it is highly unlikely a private housing developer would be spending more money on fire safety than they are obliged to, to hear some people talking there's a two tier system that puts those in social housing at greater risk which simply isn't the case. If there is a greater instance of fires in social housing than private (which I agree there seems to be) I suspect it mainly comes down in part to things like furnishings being older and not complying with the far superior modern standards and many buildings being older and built under less stringent regulations.

I'm waiting to find out more on if / why improved standards were delayed and whether it is just the timescales of the process or if Goverment have dragged their feet in which case I agree they are culpable.

One of the countries top private schools has a program to remove asbestos, also happening at a friends school where fees are 9k per term, that doesnt happen in state schools unless un-covered during building work etc where the policy is to leave, despite evidence of the risks.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/20 ... ort-finds/

so another example of Government not doing what a report recommends, but if you can afford to go private (subsidised by the tax payer (zero vat rated fees) it is being addressed..

However, i have just listened to Kents Tory council leader, its great pity he isnt in Government, he was totally correct in his assessment of what has happened, why we cant hang about and what needs to be done moving forward.

Re building materials, do you think a private tower block would be retrofitted with the more expensive insulation panels or the cheaper less fire retardant ones used on the social housing at Grenfell? both conform to current regs.

meanredspider

Lookyhere wrote:

Re building materials, do you think a private tower block would be retrofitted with the more expensive insulation panels or the cheaper less fire retardant ones used on the social housing at Grenfell? both conform to current regs.

I, for one, could believe it could be either. I thought the whole objection to the private sector was that they were just in it for the profit...?

I get involved in observing the generation of regulation - it's a messy process. Presumably, because we're taking back control, this current reg is a European one? Or are we saying that our own regulatory framework isn't that great?

rjsterry

meanredspider wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

Re building materials, do you think a private tower block would be retrofitted with the more expensive insulation panels or the cheaper less fire retardant ones used on the social housing at Grenfell? both conform to current regs.

I, for one, could believe it could be either. I thought the whole objection to the private sector was that they were just in it for the profit...?

I get involved in observing the generation of regulation - it's a messy process. Presumably, because we're taking back control, this current reg is a European one? Or are we saying that our own regulatory framework isn't that great?

About five minutes on Google and I've found examples of similar polyethylene cored ACM panels fitted to brand new blocks of flats. I imagine the manufacturers may take those products off their websites before too long. I've already given an example of a house I'm working on - less than 20 years old, marketed as 'executive' homes - where the original electrical installation wouldn't pass current regs. In any case, as Pross pointed out, a lot of new social housing is mixed in with private open market housing as part of larger developments. The developers will only up-spec things that can be seen on the open market properties.

There's certainly a question to be answered over why such products are deemed to be acceptable, but they are not only fitted on social housing.

By the way, asbestos that is fully enclosed within a building's structure does not generally present a risk. Leaving it undisturbed is quite a sensible approach.

bobmcstuff

rjsterry wrote:

By the way, asbestos that is fully enclosed within a building's structure does not generally present a risk. Leaving it undisturbed is quite a sensible approach.

And it's completely noncombustible so it's actually a fantastic building material.

It's only a problem when you start cutting it up and releasing dust.