the planning application showed various options (from a communal boiler, communal boiler plus heat pump, individual boilers, with a few sub-options too) but I didn't see anything in the planning docs which made it clear which was chosen, that info only came from the TMO leaflets to tenants.
In message , at 20:59:42 on Wed, 5 Jul
2017, Andy Burns remarked:I'd have expected a planning application of this complexity to involve hundreds of separate documents. Do you have a url for the relevant entry on the council's planning portal?
So we are all on the same page, so to speak, here's an example (from a different discussion, which is about the concourse of the new Luton Airport transit, and its elevation compared to the existing station platforms). The info required in that instance is in the 44th document here:
Search here
for application PP/12/04097
Then for each of the 7 decisions, follow the case number links
I think there was an earlier withdrawn or superseded application, but I'm struggling to find that one right now.
In message , at 20:16:52 on Thu, 6 Jul
2017, Andy Burns remarked:What's the title of the most likely document to have mentioned the method of heating, but in fact omits to do so?
Something like a "Sustainability & Energy Statement" gave the options, and hinted at the favoured one, but nothing I saw in the plannign site said which was chosen, see also board minutes and other docs under
I'd look, except "
En el artículo , Andy Burns escribió:
I linked to it earlier
In message , at 21:10:05 on Mon, 10 Jul
2017, Mike Tomlinson remarked:
Assuming they picked "B1", the scheme replaces the earlier vented hot water storage tanks with an unvented one; which is "charged" once a day in the small hours via a heat exchanger.
They get 200 litres of hot water "free", and if they need more, they have to use an immersion heater running off their already-metered electricity.
Option C states:
"Each flat is [already] served by a 22mm natural gas supply originating from the kitchen riser {with a} gas meter under the kitchen sink."
And goes on to say how in that proposal they could install individual combi-boilers.
En el artículo , Roland Perry escribió:
Did you add the word 'already' there?
In message , at 12:30:54 on Tue, 11 Jul
2017, Mike Tomlinson remarked:
Yes, because that is what the context of the document very significantly implies, and I didn't want to write an essay about it.
In particular, as they are describing the situation pre-refurb, what possible other meaning could there be?
En el artículo , Andy Burns escribió:
Visible in the video on this page.
4s in.Arrived in my email inbox an hour ago:
- - - - - Lib Dems call for compulsory electrical safety checks in all rented homes (...) Speaking today in the House of Commons on the Grenfell Tower tragedy, Liberal Democrat Local Government Spokesperson Wera Hobhouse MP called on the Government to introduce compulsory electrical safety tests in all rented homes to protect tenants. The checks would be required every 5 years, in line with the requirements for gas checks, and paid for by private landlords or in the case of social rented homes, by the council or managing body. (...) "Given the [Grenfell] fire seems to have started in a fridge, there must be immediate reform to electrical safety.
- - - - -
Much as Grenfell is a tragedy, I really wish politos would do some research before jumping on the latest bandwagon.
I think that is unfair, I am sure it was sized on the assumption of a small number of flat fires, more than one because it would be conservative to assume that there could be no propagation.
Hopefully the enquiry will come to useful conclusions. And you need someone who is bloody competent at investigating the precise contract terms of the cladding and other refurbishment, not someone who has great empathy like Noel Edmonds or Paul O'Grady.
In message , at
13:42:23 on Wed, 12 Jul 2017, snipped-for-privacy@mdfs.net remarked:What research topic did you have in mind?
I saw a report cited yesterday that 1800 fires a year (throughout the country) are started by faults in kitchen appliances. The previous serious fire in a London tower block was caused by a fault in a TV.
An earlier statistic from the London Fire Brigade was that they attend two fires in a tower block per day.
However, an "electrical safety check" is unlikely to reveal anything useful.
In message , at 09:43:44 on Thu, 13 Jul 2017, charles remarked:
If it includes looking up the serial number to see if it's on a recall list, and then whether the repair has been done, that's a step in the right direction.
Much earlier in the thread there were plausible examples given of how in effect PAT-testing criteria would catch a lot of risky equipment before it actually burst into flames.
The costs of doing thorough checks on all wiring and appliances on a frequent enough basis to be of use would surely be horrendous? And if a dodgy appliance is found, what do you do about it? Stick a 'do not use' label on it? Or replace it with a new one? At whose cost? Even if say a dodgy appliance was found and removed, what's to prevent the tenant or whatever simply buying a used untested one? Or even a new one which isn't well designed?
And why just rented homes? Some of the flats in the Grenfell tower were privately owned.
Of course fire prevention is important. But the more important thing is to contain any. And make sure emergency exits are up to the purpose intended.
Quite. And cost a great deal. And would the average person on here want a stranger poking around their house testing every electrical appliance?
I really wouldn't be too sure with domestic appliances. Any checks are restricted to external ones. Do you really thing a TV that bursts into flames is due to a faulty mains lead?
In message , at 10:49:00 on Thu, 13 Jul
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
All of these issues are not insurmountable when it comes to gas appliances.
The same rules ought to be applied to every flat in a communal building such as Grenfell.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.