On Thursday, 22 June 2017 00:14:16 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:

But yes. Let's hope any enquiry is comprehensive and findings acted
on. Sad it has taken a disaster of this magnitude for some to realise
building regs etc aren't just red tape to annoy people.

Some certainly are. Some are life saving. And every shade inbetween also
exists. There are perfectly ok houses around that meet hardly any
current BRs. And equally there are unsatisfactory ones that do
(Grenfell?).

If BR vanished we'd be back to how it was over a century ago. Some
houses 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.

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

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 properly, 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 ruined, and inasmuch as he did not construct properly this house which he built 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 completed 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 construction, especially wrt damp problems.

But I'd still like the opportunity to build & ignore all the rules. I'm sure I could make a fine house that obeyed almost none of them. I'd like to see a new town where BR weren't applied, you just have to show some way to deal 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 would be a proving ground for ideas, and would I'm sure generate an assortment of new accepted ways to build. BR has its place, but it's really stifling British creativity & economic progress.


NT