I wouldn't be so sure of that.. I have been shown a new estate where they built about 20 houses and sold them and then started building the next phase. At this point cracks started to appear in the first phase. It turns out that all the houses had started to move and the developer was now desperately trying to find ways to stabilise the ground. The last time I looked they had demolished some of the first phase and were piling the ground near the houses (not for foundations).
Indeed it spends more time worrying about exact colour schemes and cycle parking ...
Problem with statutory anything is keeping such legislation up do date. Who knows - it may have been written before such cladding became common.
Which inspectors might these be?
But now, according to some, it is perfectly OK to have the builders self assess the work is done correctly. Provided that building firm is a big enough contributor to Tory party funds, obviously. ;-)
In message , at
14:09:49 on Thu, 22 Jun 2017, "dennis@home" remarked:Built on a landfill site, perhaps?
Well that is what planning is about.
The tube ticket inspectors, who do you think?
I don't believe it was.
Not that uncommon in old coal or salt mining areas if they don't do the foundations exactly right. They didn't build timber framed for nothing.
You might be near the mark. According to the K&C site:-
'We provide Building Regulation Services on projects across England and Wales through the Partner Authority Scheme.'
My local council (Wandsworth) has its own service. It's also a Tory controlled council, and has been for ages.
Is there a way to tell which last longer and why or is it like doing the lottery where you have no idea it's all down to luck of the draw.
How did anyone know?
Jun
o exists. There are perfectly ok houses around that meet hardly any current BRs. And equally there are unsatisfactory ones that do (Grenfell?).
es were built properly to last, some weren't and haven't survived the test of time. And some have worked well, some have been unsatifactory.
lottery where you have no idea it's all down to luck of the draw.
Do they have adequate foundations. Is the wall construction adequately stab le. Is the roof structure & cladding adequate etc. Is it a type of construc tion know to be problematic. In short there's a big difference between what BR requires & what actually works & lasts.
NT
The refrigerant used could well be R600a. In the right circumstances R600a + mains electricity + 21% oxygen = bang + flames + degradation of blown foam insulation + melting of thermoplastic lining of fridge = fumes + whole kitchen being taken out. Think you have extinguished the flames, open window, whole block of flats sets alight, approaching 100 dead.
Ronan Point happened because there was no redundancy in the structure, remove one element such as a wall of an individual flat and everything else in the vicinity is incapable of carrying the loads it now has to carry.
ITYM there is nothing there to carry the loads.
There are still blocks out there built in that manner AFAIK.
I think they were all modified ......
No we don't, but we did need the EU to agree that the backing of loans for it by the UK government did not break the rules on state aid.
SteveW
But will a few pins and stuff like that stand up to an explosion with 50
- 150 g of butane?
Since every flat had a self-closing fire door, how did all that smoke get into the central stairwell anyway ?.
Can't wait to see what comes out at the public enquiry.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required