Grenfell Tower - Celotex

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Didn't building regs in a crude form start rather earlier than 100 years ago? After the fire of London?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Of course. The insurance money *must* be used to replace it with suitable council homes.

The so called affordable housing that private developers claim they will build in a planning application always seems to somehow shrink in number by the time work finishes. Certainly did when Boris was Mayor. Be interesting to see if Khan does any better.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

They did some years ago. Along with many building societies. But only some designs. Difficult types were terraced with semi basements. Presumably due to damp issues.

[tabbypurr]

To a limited extent yes. London Building Act of 1667. Before that came the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, around 1700BC. If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it prop erly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death. If it ruins goods, he shall make compensation for all that has been rui ned, and inasmuch as he did not construct properly this house which he buil t and it fell, he shall re-erect the house from his own means. If a builder builds a house for someone, even though he has not yet com pleted it; if then the walls seem toppling, the builder must make the walls solid from his own means.

From 1875 foundations had to be 2' deep - they often weren't though. Early BR from after WW1 did make a real difference to the standards of constructi on, especially wrt damp problems.

But I'd still like the opportunity to build & ignore all the rules. I'm sur e I could make a fine house that obeyed almost none of them. I'd like to se e a new town where BR weren't applied, you just have to show some way to de al with the important issues then you can build. It would generate a lot of creativity and produce lots of often good houses at much lower cost. It wo uld be a proving ground for ideas, and would I'm sure generate an assortmen t of new accepted ways to build. BR has its place, but it's really stifling British creativity & economic progress.

NT

[tabbypurr]

It's possible to get insurance from specialists for buildings with major problems, and 10s of millions of noncompliant houses are insured, so I don't see insuring a noncompliant building being too big a problem, even if the field of players is smaller.

NT

[RJH]

yes, seems so. An interesting circular conversation underlying a number of media articles right now. The contractors insisting what they did 'met regs and passed inspections'. The inspectors saying 'meeting regs the responsibility of the contractor:

Barry Turner, director of technical policy at Local Authority Building . . . said that it was difficult to tell the difference between fire-resistant and non-fire resistant panels once they are installed and stressed that ?the person responsible for doing it right is the person carrying out the work?.

Yes, agreed. But depending upon how this tragedy is spun non-issues (or statistically trivial issues) could quite easily shape practice.

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 00:03:03 on Thu, 22 Jun

2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

Strange you say that - the same is true of virtually every regulation relating to the quality of a product or service.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Depends on what is being insured.

Its very hard to get insurance for houses with subsidence problems, but no one cares about lack of insulation except the occupants.

[Tim Watts]

...Is exactly the WRONG person to be signing off that regs are met...

They seem to be confusing the contractor being the right person to order and install the correct materials, with the independent inspector being the right person to prove the contractor is honest.

[Jim GM4DHJ ...]

In Scotland anybody can make out their own certificate of completion for BS to accept or reject ..... so it is still a BS problem

[Richard]

Question is, without making a song and dance about it, can Khan do it?

[Andy Burns]

No doing well with Battersea Power Station.

[tabbypurr]

Subsidence would not be a feature of such new builds. Bar subsidence one can insure nearly anything. In short this objection is a false one.

NT

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Then no need to check any building work ever.

I've no experience of building a tower block, but do know when doing some major works on this house, the BI insisted in seeing some aspects of things (like RSJ pads) before they were plastered over.

In other words, he wanted to make sure it was built to spec.

But I suppose with big business doing the work, they are all automatically trusted.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Rather obvious, innit? Yet on here, faceless bureaucrats get the blame.

[Martin Brown]

It is also pretty difficult to get flood insurance in places where new build has been put on obvious flood plains that regularly flood. And nothing ever seems to be done about it (they set up a scheme but with summer flooding becoming more common it still isn't affordable).

It is almost the fifth anniversary of the summer floods that trashed Newcastle and closed the A1 and weather conditions are ripe for another deluge. A warmer atmosphere can carry a lot more water inland.

[dennis]

No they aren't.

There is a statutory requirement to have some works inspected.

The problem is there doesn't appear to be any inspections required for the work on Grenfell Tower as a refurbishment with no structural changes. So its up to the inspectors to negotiate with the contractors about what they are going to check.

This is what happens when you let the big boys use building notices for work so that they don't need to submit any plans.

No the planning application is not plans of what was to be done before anyone asks. All that was for was to show that the insulation met the targets for insulation.

[dennis]

8<

That would be why the big energy suppliers have an obligation to insulate homes because no one cares. You don't think all the green levy goes in FITs do you?

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 10:50:40 on Thu, 22 Jun

2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

While they are faceless to the general public, the "right experts" (via their trade and professional associations, charities etc for whom they work) know very well who they are. That's a vital part of being such an expert.

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 10:48:17 on Thu, 22 Jun

2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

Exactly the same here, when I had an RSJ put in. They want sufficient engineering bricks on top of the breeze block pillars.