On 22/06/17 08:37, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Martin Brown '''newspam'
escribió:

I am surprised that someone hasn't mocked up the known cladding
configuration on TV and set light by now. Or perhaps they have...

Interesting photo here.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...renfell-tower-
16-council-inspections-failed-to-stop-use-of-flammable-cladding#img-2

or http://tinyurl.com/y8e9bbxa

"Burning debris from Grenfell Tower thought to be the cladding used on
the outside"

The translucent stuff is interesting. At first glance I thought it was
a jet of water, but it looks like melting plastic. Is polyethylene
clear/translucent?

polyethylene is polythene

Wot they make clear bags from

Its not a single compound: its a broad class of polymers


--
€œBut what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!€�

Mary Wollstonecraft

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 22/06/17 06:50, RJH wrote:

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".


...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.

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

On 22/06/2017 08:37, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Martin Brown '''newspam'
escribió:

I am surprised that someone hasn't mocked up the known cladding
configuration on TV and set light by now. Or perhaps they have...

Interesting photo here.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...renfell-tower-
16-council-inspections-failed-to-stop-use-of-flammable-cladding#img-2

or http://tinyurl.com/y8e9bbxa

I don't see how on site inspections really affect this. They opted for
the cheapest materials available to cut costs. The manufacturers
apparently warned against using it on buildings taller than 10m but they
did it anyway. It isn't actually prohibited AFAICT and it is "Class 0" -
a worthless BS - bull**** standard of fire safety if ever there was one!

Reuters has an interesting take on the legal situation:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/brita...-idUKL8N1JD3YI

The rules didn't forbid it. This will be a very expensive legal case.

"Burning debris from Grenfell Tower thought to be the cladding used on
the outside"

The translucent stuff is interesting. At first glance I thought it was
a jet of water, but it looks like melting plastic. Is polyethylene
clear/translucent?

Yes white/translucent provided you don't add things to it. You sometimes
get delicate things like LCD screens wrapped in a waxy PE foam.
(may be tinged pink to indicate it has an antistatic additive in)

The stalactite drips of molten stuff just under the horizontal line of
flame on the RHS are interesting. So is the fact that the stuff has
completely delaminated exposing the entire flammable core to the air!

I see that the most senior unelected council office has been scapegoated
and forced out of their job to add to the costs of this fiasco.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40362317

Doubtless he will be able to sue his employers and the government for
unfair dismissal eventually when the dust settles.

He may or may not have done a good job in the immediate aftermath of
this major disaster but he was dealt an unplayable hand.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
On 21/06/2017 15:29, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 21/06/2017 15:10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 21/06/2017 10:42, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It would almost certainly be cheaper and better to demolish and
start
again.


I don't think anyone is suggesting doing it to that block.

I wasn't either. It will almost certainly be demolished - even if the
structure is still sound. I doubt many would want to live in a
building
with a history like that no matter how well repaired.

There are plenty of examples around where it is more cost effective
to
start afresh than do major alterations to the structure.


Once its pulled down they can sell the land for a profit.

And then pay even more for the land needed to replace it. It is
already at the 'cheap' end of K&C.


Replace it?

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.

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

On 22/06/2017 00:20, sm_jamieson wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 13:24:24 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:

As far as I can see the Celotex is more or less blameless although the
FR5000 would have been better I doubt if it would alter the outcome -
the outer layer of cladding just burnt far too fiercely.

Cyanide from PIR:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...nhalation.html

That isn't really news though. I suspect the most damage was still done
by the hot soot particles burning the lungs and airways. It isn't a
surprise that smoke from burning cyanurate foams or isocyanate foams for
that matter have traces of HCN in their decomposition products.

Cyanuric Acid : H-O-C#N
Isocyanate : R-N=C=O
Hydrogen Cyanide : H-C#N

# triple bond
= double bond
- single bond

The functional groups are an essential part of the polymer chemistry.

In fact some of the fire retardants used in PU foams can result in even
worse things when the stuff does actually burn. You *really* don't want
to breathe in the smoke if you can avoid it - run away.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Mike Tomlinson wrote:

The translucent stuff is interesting. At first glance I thought it was
a jet of water, but it looks like melting plastic. Is polyethylene
clear/translucent?

think tupperware.

Martin Brown wrote:

It isn't actually prohibited AFAICT and it is "Class 0" -
a worthless BS - bull**** standard of fire safety if ever there was one!

Reuters has an interesting take on the legal situation:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/brita...-idUKL8N1JD3YI

The rules didn't forbid it. This will be a very expensive legal case.

The originally proposed zinc cladding was specified as "FR".

Has anyone seen anything in the planning documents about whether the
substituted aluminium cladding was specified as "PE" or "FR" or was it
left unspecified?

Dave Plowman wrote:

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.

No doing well with Battersea Power Station.

On 22/06/17 10:15, Andy Burns wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:

It isn't actually prohibited AFAICT and it is "Class 0" -
a worthless BS - bull**** standard of fire safety if ever there was one!

Reuters has an interesting take on the legal situation:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/brita...-idUKL8N1JD3YI

The rules didn't forbid it. This will be a very expensive legal case.

The originally proposed zinc cladding was specified as "FR".

Has anyone seen anything in the planning documents about whether the
substituted aluminium cladding was specified as "PE" or "FR" or was it
left unspecified?

That is the real $64m dollar question.
That the MSM have totally avoided.

--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

In message , at 09:58:00 on Thu, 22 Jun
2017, Martin Brown remarked:

I see that the most senior unelected council office has been
scapegoated and forced out of their job to add to the costs of this
fiasco.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40362317

Doubtless he will be able to sue his employers and the government for
unfair dismissal eventually when the dust settles.

That's an unfortunate metaphor in the circumstances

He may or may not have done a good job in the immediate aftermath of
this major disaster but he was dealt an unplayable hand.

I'm reserving judgement on whether or not they had a sufficiently robust
disaster recovery plan, which was apparently both generically and
specifically his responsibility.

From the council website:

[Mr Holgate], The Town Clerk is expected to work such hours as are
necessary to ensure the job gets done. This routinely involves one or
two evenings a week. From January 2017, as an economy and recognising
the delegation of duties as section 151 officer {Finance- rp} to a
colleague from April, Mr Holgate is working a 4½ day week. He is
nevertheless "on call" at almost all other times, particularly to cover
emergency planning requirements. No extra payments are made for such
extended hours.

--
Roland Perry

On Thursday, 22 June 2017 07:48:25 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/06/17 00:51, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 22 June 2017 00:24:20 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article
,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 19:33:12 UTC+1, The Natural
Philosopher wrote:
On 21/06/17 18:01, tabbypurr wrote:
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.

if BR vanished insurers would set up something similar and it
would be a condition of insurance

1 or 2 might, but there'd still be a huge market for
noncompliant houses. As there is today. I don't know any insurer
that refuses Victorian houses.

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.

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.

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.

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

In article ,
RJH wrote:
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•.

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.

--
Small asylum seeker wanted as mud flap, must be flexible and willing to travel

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
I'd be rather surprised if bureaucrats initialised much in the way of
building regs? Mostly done on advice, I'd say. Choosing the right expert
to get that advice from is the tricky part.

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

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

--
*Just give me chocolate and nobody gets hurt

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Andy Burns" wrote in message ...

Mike Tomlinson wrote:

The translucent stuff is interesting. At first glance I thought it was
a jet of water, but it looks like melting plastic. Is polyethylene
clear/translucent?

think tupperware.

His name is Tomlinson, Mike Tomlinson.

On 22/06/2017 10:28, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:58:00 on Thu, 22 Jun
2017, Martin Brown remarked:

I see that the most senior unelected council office has been
scapegoated and forced out of their job to add to the costs of this
fiasco.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40362317

Doubtless he will be able to sue his employers and the government for
unfair dismissal eventually when the dust settles.

That's an unfortunate metaphor in the circumstances

He may or may not have done a good job in the immediate aftermath of
this major disaster but he was dealt an unplayable hand.

I'm reserving judgement on whether or not they had a sufficiently robust
disaster recovery plan, which was apparently both generically and
specifically his responsibility.

It may not have been perfect but they had no reason to expect London to
suffer from third world building standards enforcement by allowing
flammable cladding to be used on a high rise building. The local council
should not have been expected to deal with it on their own.

From the council website:

[Mr Holgate], The Town Clerk is expected to work such hours as are
necessary to ensure the job gets done. This routinely involves one or
two evenings a week. From January 2017, as an economy and recognising
the delegation of duties as section 151 officer {Finance- rp} to a
colleague from April, Mr Holgate is working a 4½ day week. He is
nevertheless "on call" at almost all other times, particularly to cover
emergency planning requirements. No extra payments are made for such
extended hours.

Even so there is a limit to what one *individual* can be expected to do
no matter how many hours they work in the face of a major catastrophe. I
know from bitter experience that at about 20 hours of continuous working
in a crisis the decisions made by experts can be flat out wrong.

This article in New Scientist also sheds light on how people fail to
behave rationally under extreme stress like finding their home is on
fire or that their main parachute did not open :

https://www.newscientist.com/article...ve-a-disaster/
(precis public access version of issue 3125 I think)

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 22/06/2017 07:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/06/17 00:51, wrote:

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.

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.

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.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 09:58:00 on Thu, 22 Jun
2017, Martin Brown remarked:

I see that the most senior unelected council office has been scapegoated
and forced out of their job to add to the costs of this fiasco.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40362317

Doubtless he will be able to sue his employers and the government for
unfair dismissal eventually when the dust settles.

That's an unfortunate metaphor in the circumstances

He may or may not have done a good job in the immediate aftermath of this
major disaster but he was dealt an unplayable hand.

I'm reserving judgement on whether or not they had a sufficiently robust
disaster recovery plan, which was apparently both generically and
specifically his responsibility.

From the council website:

[Mr Holgate], The Town Clerk is expected to work such hours as are
necessary to ensure the job gets done. This routinely involves one or two
evenings a week. From January 2017, as an economy and recognising the
delegation of duties as section 151 officer {Finance- rp} to a colleague
from April, Mr Holgate is working a 4½ day week. He is nevertheless "on
call" at almost all other times, particularly to cover emergency planning
requirements. No extra payments are made for such extended hours.

and I bet they made him pay for his car parking space ......

In message , at 09:58:00 on Thu, 22 Jun
2017, Martin Brown remarked:
I see that the most senior unelected council office has been
scapegoated and forced out of their job to add to the costs of this
fiasco.

One head on a pike is clearly not enough:

From Sky News:

"Campaigners have welcomed the departure of chief executive Nicholas
Holgate, who was forced to quit by Communities Secretary Sajid Javid,
but say Nicholas Paget-Brown should also go."
--
Roland Perry

On 22/06/2017 10:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
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€¢.

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.


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.

On 22/06/2017 07:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

8

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

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?

In message , at 10:50:40 on Thu, 22 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

I'd be rather surprised if bureaucrats initialised much in the way of
building regs? Mostly done on advice, I'd say. Choosing the right expert
to get that advice from is the tricky part.

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

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

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:

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.

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

On 22/06/2017 10:40, wrote:

Subsidence would not be a feature of such new builds.


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).

dennis@home wrote:

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.

Indeed it spends more time worrying about exact colour schemes and cycle
parking ...

In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:
I'm reserving judgement on whether or not they had a sufficiently
robust disaster recovery plan, which was apparently both generically
and specifically his responsibility.

It may not have been perfect but they had no reason to expect London to
suffer from third world building standards enforcement by allowing
flammable cladding to be used on a high rise building. The local council
should not have been expected to deal with it on their own.

Seems other local boroughs - almost certainly more cash strapped than K&C
- did have such plans in force. But obviously for their own borough.

--
*Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
There is a statutory requirement to have some works inspected.

Problem with statutory anything is keeping such legislation up do date.
Who knows - it may have been written before such cladding became common.

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.

Which inspectors might these be?

--
*Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:48:17 on Thu, 22 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

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.

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

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. ;-)

--
*The beatings will continue until morale improves *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message . com, at
14:09:49 on Thu, 22 Jun 2017, "dennis@home"
remarked:
Subsidence would not be a feature of such new builds.

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).

Built on a landfill site, perhaps?
--
Roland Perry

On 22/06/2017 11:51, Martin Brown wrote:
On 22/06/2017 10:28, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:58:00 on Thu, 22 Jun
2017, Martin Brown remarked:

I see that the most senior unelected council office has been
scapegoated and forced out of their job to add to the costs of this
fiasco.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40362317

Doubtless he will be able to sue his employers and the government for
unfair dismissal eventually when the dust settles.

That's an unfortunate metaphor in the circumstances

He may or may not have done a good job in the immediate aftermath of
this major disaster but he was dealt an unplayable hand.

I'm reserving judgement on whether or not they had a sufficiently
robust disaster recovery plan, which was apparently both generically
and specifically his responsibility.

It may not have been perfect but they had no reason to expect London to
suffer from third world building standards enforcement by allowing
flammable cladding to be used on a high rise building. The local council
should not have been expected to deal with it on their own.

I think the issue is that they appear to have done next to nothing.
They didn't activate any emergency plans that anyone knows of.
Other councils around them stepped in after the total failure to have a
visible presence.

On 22/06/2017 14:20, Andy Burns wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

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.

Indeed it spends more time worrying about exact colour schemes and cycle
parking ...

Well that is what planning is about.

On 22/06/2017 14:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
There is a statutory requirement to have some works inspected.

Problem with statutory anything is keeping such legislation up do date.
Who knows - it may have been written before such cladding became common.

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.

Which inspectors might these be?

The tube ticket inspectors, who do you think?

On 22/06/2017 13:48, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:58:00 on Thu, 22 Jun
2017, Martin Brown remarked:

I see that the most senior unelected council office has been
scapegoated and forced out of their job to add to the costs of this
fiasco.

One head on a pike is clearly not enough:

From Sky News:

"Campaigners have welcomed the departure of chief executive Nicholas
Holgate, who was forced to quit by Communities Secretary Sajid Javid,
but say Nicholas Paget-Brown should also go."

I'm inclined to think that they are right there. Although I would add to
the list the head of building inspection and any inspectors that failed
to notice that dangerous Raynobond PE cladding was being installed.

This looks increasingly like a "what you can get away with scenario"...

Raynobond PE has after all on paper got a UK "Class 0" fire rating.
(presumably so have various equivalent clones by other makers)

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 22/06/2017 14:30, Roland Perry wrote:
In message . com, at
14:09:49 on Thu, 22 Jun 2017, "dennis@home"
remarked:
Subsidence would not be a feature of such new builds.

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).

Built on a landfill site, perhaps?

I don't believe it was.

On 22/06/2017 14:30, Roland Perry wrote:
In message . com, at
14:09:49 on Thu, 22 Jun 2017, "dennis@home"
remarked:
Subsidence would not be a feature of such new builds.

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).

Built on a landfill site, perhaps?

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.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 22/06/2017 14:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
There is a statutory requirement to have some works inspected.

Problem with statutory anything is keeping such legislation up do
date. Who knows - it may have been written before such cladding became
common.

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.

Which inspectors might these be?

The tube ticket inspectors, who do you think?

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.

--
*Money isn't everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 18:02:01 UTC+1, wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 17:28:59 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:06:04 on Wed, 21 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

One properly protected stairwell and we'd not have had this appalling
outcome.

What do you think would have protected it better? (Genuine question,
not a devils advocate).

All the usual things it was built to do. Preventing fire and smoke
getting into it.

That's down to fire doors, and we have yet to see the conclusions drawn
by the enquiry.

Having emergency lights and so on. Proper signs etc. There weren't even
any floor numbers on it. Great help to the rescue services - not.

If those were missing, I'm sure the enquiry will tell us.

It was mentioned by a fireman on TV.

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.


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.

On Thursday, 22 June 2017 16:09:59 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 18:02:01 UTC+1, tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 17:28:59 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:06:04 on Wed, 21 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

One properly protected stairwell and we'd not have had this appalling
outcome.

What do you think would have protected it better? (Genuine question,
not a devils advocate).

All the usual things it was built to do. Preventing fire and smoke
getting into it.

That's down to fire doors, and we have yet to see the conclusions drawn
by the enquiry.

Having emergency lights and so on. Proper signs etc. There weren't even
any floor numbers on it. Great help to the rescue services - not.

If those were missing, I'm sure the enquiry will tell us.

It was mentioned by a fireman on TV.

But yes. Let's hope any enquiry is comprehensive and findings acted on.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 22/06/2017 21:04, The Other Mike wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 14:41:29 +0100, "dennis@home"

wrote:

If LPG is banned can they have a fridge? Will a fridge have enough gas
in it to cause a Ronan Point type of disaster?

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 ......

On 21/06/2017 20:33, dennis@home wrote:
On 21/06/2017 19:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Or the diseconomies of scale of having to lobby the EU for ten years
to get permission to build a nuclear reactor.


We don't need EU permission to build a nuclear reactor so that's more
brex**** from you.

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

On 22/06/2017 21:26, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 22/06/2017 21:04, The Other Mike wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 14:41:29 +0100, "dennis@home"

wrote:

If LPG is banned can they have a fridge? Will a fridge have enough gas
in it to cause a Ronan Point type of disaster?

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.

But will a few
I think they were all modified ......



But will a few pins and stuff like that stand up to an explosion with 50
- 150 g of butane?