Chat Forum
It is currently Tue Apr 24, 2018 7:51 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1820 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 ... 46  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 33156
Location: Planet Rock
4 year old video from France. Cladding with the same core :( :(



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yQLIlIetDM


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10714
Anonymous. wrote:
Silver wrote:
fatcat wrote:
TheDocForgotHisLogon wrote:
ID2 wrote:
Article in the Guardian says several European countries recently changed their safety standards to ban combustible material, I wonder how they can change their laws but Britain can't.


Also says the there's 2 types of cladding produced by the company, the cheaper one for £22 per square meter, or £24 for a fire resistant version

So if the building is 60m x 20m x 20m then the area in question is 24,000m2 and sometimes decided to put flammable cladding up to save less than 50k.

Fcuk me.


£9600 saving.


But did the contractors know of the fire risk. Or assume that if they were certified for this type of job (and what I have posted above it seems they were) they were OK

To me we should wait to find out if the cladding was certified for this job or not before throwing mud.

So you wouldn't criticise a school for feeding your child crushed razor blades if they told you the regulations said it was OK


I wouldn't criticize a school for feeding my children a food product that was certified as fit for their consumption. and the school had no reason to believe otherwise

This may be the case here and likely is. If I was choosing a cladding i would research it all in depth. But many haven't the time, ability or enthusiasm to do this. they just trust that others have and rely on the certificates given.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 40305
Anonymous. wrote:
Silver wrote:
fatcat wrote:
TheDocForgotHisLogon wrote:
ID2 wrote:
Article in the Guardian says several European countries recently changed their safety standards to ban combustible material, I wonder how they can change their laws but Britain can't.


Also says the there's 2 types of cladding produced by the company, the cheaper one for £22 per square meter, or £24 for a fire resistant version

So if the building is 60m x 20m x 20m then the area in question is 24,000m2 and sometimes decided to put flammable cladding up to save less than 50k.

Fcuk me.


£9600 saving.


But did the contractors know of the fire risk. Or assume that if they were certified for this type of job (and what I have posted above it seems they were) they were OK

To me we should wait to find out if the cladding was certified for this job or not before throwing mud.

So you wouldn't criticise a school for feeding your child crushed razor blades if they told you the regulations said it was OK


Seriously? :? that is the equivalence you are going with


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2013 10:41 am
Posts: 3779
fatcat wrote:
TheDocForgotHisLogon wrote:
ID2 wrote:
Article in the Guardian says several European countries recently changed their safety standards to ban combustible material, I wonder how they can change their laws but Britain can't.


Also says the there's 2 types of cladding produced by the company, the cheaper one for £22 per square meter, or £24 for a fire resistant version

So if the building is 60m x 20m x 20m then the area in question is 24,000m2 and sometimes decided to put flammable cladding up to save less than 50k.

Fcuk me.


£9600 saving.

Yeah, you're right. 60 x 20 x 4. :blush:

That really is astonishing. Points less to some corruption-for-gain and more to a cultural thing of just not giving a shit about a certain part of the community.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 29627
Anonymous. wrote:
4 year old video from France. Cladding with the same core :( :(



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yQLIlIetDM


Terrifying stuff. Has to be a criminal prosecution here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2013 10:41 am
Posts: 3779
Anonymous. wrote:
4 year old video from France. Cladding with the same core :( :(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yQLIlIetDM

:shock: That goes from a flicker on the second floor or whatever to all 20 stories in one minute.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20466
In essence the guidance suggest not using combustible cladding panels, or, if you do, proving to the regulators that the system you intend to use (including fixings etc) will not create a fire risk.

Here are some useful links including the full certificate that Silver posted.

http://www.bbacerts.co.uk/CertificateFi ... 0PS1i1.pdf

https://www.allerdale.gov.uk/downloads/ ... ldings.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10714
TheDocForgotHisLogon wrote:
fatcat wrote:
TheDocForgotHisLogon wrote:
ID2 wrote:
Article in the Guardian says several European countries recently changed their safety standards to ban combustible material, I wonder how they can change their laws but Britain can't.


Also says the there's 2 types of cladding produced by the company, the cheaper one for £22 per square meter, or £24 for a fire resistant version

So if the building is 60m x 20m x 20m then the area in question is 24,000m2 and sometimes decided to put flammable cladding up to save less than 50k.

Fcuk me.


£9600 saving.

Yeah, you're right. 60 x 20 x 4. :blush:

That really is astonishing. Points less to some corruption-for-gain and more to a cultural thing of just not giving a shit about a certain part of the community.


This si unfair.

If a contractor can buy two products that are both certified for a job why should they go for the more expensive one. UNLESS it can be proved that they knew of the fire risk.

Some do lots of research about these matters (I try to employ these types). Others don't. Some councils will have strict cost and time pressures imposed. Others won't.

That's why we have regulations. They must be well thought out and robust to cater for all situations.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 33156
Location: Planet Rock
Openside wrote:
Seriously? :? that is the equivalence you are going with


Yes. I take it you openside have no experience of DIY

I have different cladding boards at various prices to offer you for your DIY project. All of them from the same company and only the cheapest one has no fire retardant properties whatsover, but all are are passed as fit for use. Would it not be glaringly obvious to you as a DIY novice that you shouldn't be putting the cheap one on the walls of your house. Just as it should be glaring obvious crushed razor blades are not suitable to be fed to children no matter what the safety regs say.

Imagine looking at the different prices and seeing them get more expensive as they are more fire resistant. You can't tell me you would take the cheap one that says a bit fat ZERO


Last edited by Anonymous. on Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 40305
Duff Paddy wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
4 year old video from France. Cladding with the same core :( :(



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yQLIlIetDM


Terrifying stuff. Has to be a criminal prosecution here.



Quite possibly but who?

If it is certified as safe to use you can't blame the builder(however much he was trying to save)
Surely the responsibility lies with the regulatory authority? You have to wonder if it was ever tested😐


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:09 pm
Posts: 920
Openside wrote:
Duff Paddy wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
4 year old video from France. Cladding with the same core :( :(



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yQLIlIetDM


Terrifying stuff. Has to be a criminal prosecution here.



Quite possibly but who?

If it is certified as safe to use you can't blame the builder(however much he was trying to save)
Surely the responsibility lies with the regulatory authority? You have to wonder if it was ever tested😐


Read previous page.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 40305
Anonymous. wrote:
Openside wrote:
Seriously? :? that is the equivalence you are going with


Yes. I take it you openside have no experience of DIY

I have different cladding boards at various prices to offer you for your DIY project. All of them from the same company and only the cheapest one has no fire retardant properties whatsover, but all are are passed as fit for use. Would it not be glaringly obvious to you as a DIY novice that you shouldn't be putting the cheap one on the walls of your house. Just as it should be glaring obvious crushed razor blades are not suitable to be fed to children no matter what the safety regs say.



Sorry still doesn't work. Everyone is trying to save money particularly the DIYer or he would just pay someone else to do it.

A better analogy is renting a car there are all sorts of add on insurances you can go for from £500 excess to paying nothing if you fancy testing out the airbags. Most people back themselves not to damage the car and save money on the extra insurance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 40305
armchair pundit wrote:
Openside wrote:
Duff Paddy wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
4 year old video from France. Cladding with the same core :( :(



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yQLIlIetDM


Terrifying stuff. Has to be a criminal prosecution here.



Quite possibly but who?

If it is certified as safe to use you can't blame the builder(however much he was trying to save)
Surely the responsibility lies with the regulatory authority? You have to wonder if it was ever tested😐


Read previous page.


Pages of either hand wringing or chest beating drivel? No
Thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 5093
Death toll has been revised up to 79


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 33156
Location: Planet Rock
Openside wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Openside wrote:
Seriously? :? that is the equivalence you are going with


Yes. I take it you openside have no experience of DIY

I have different cladding boards at various prices to offer you for your DIY project. All of them from the same company and only the cheapest one has no fire retardant properties whatsover, but all are are passed as fit for use. Would it not be glaringly obvious to you as a DIY novice that you shouldn't be putting the cheap one on the walls of your house. Just as it should be glaring obvious crushed razor blades are not suitable to be fed to children no matter what the safety regs say.



Sorry still doesn't work. Everyone is trying to save money particularly the DIYer or he would just pay someone else to do it.
:shock: :shock:
Trying to save money would mean not using the most expensive one. So let me get this straight you are saying if you were doing DIY to save money you would put the cheap one on the walls that house your children ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20466
Openside wrote:
Duff Paddy wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
4 year old video from France. Cladding with the same core :( :(



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yQLIlIetDM


Terrifying stuff. Has to be a criminal prosecution here.



Quite possibly but who?

If it is certified as safe to use you can't blame the builder(however much he was trying to save)
Surely the responsibility lies with the regulatory authority? You have to wonder if it was ever tested😐


This link is useful.

https://www.allerdale.gov.uk/downloads/ ... ldings.pdf

They need the design of the cladding system signed off so an inspector is going to be in trouble I'd guess. The panels on their own would not have been considered suitable.

I expect a wider review of the regulations will be required.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 33156
Location: Planet Rock
theo wrote:
Openside wrote:
Duff Paddy wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
4 year old video from France. Cladding with the same core :( :(



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yQLIlIetDM


Terrifying stuff. Has to be a criminal prosecution here.



Quite possibly but who?

If it is certified as safe to use you can't blame the builder(however much he was trying to save)
Surely the responsibility lies with the regulatory authority? You have to wonder if it was ever tested😐


This link is useful.

https://www.allerdale.gov.uk/downloads/ ... ldings.pdf

They need the design of the cladding system signed off so an inspector is going to be in trouble I'd guess. The panels on their own would not have been considered suitable.

I expect a wider review of the regulations will be required.

I would make you right on that


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 29627
Manufacturer sells two types of cladding - one basic and the other labelled as fire resistant, and it costs a litttle more. If you're cladding every external wall of a high rise building with known poor fire safety facilities, and you select the basic cladding over the fire resistant one, then yes that is criminal negligence in my view.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17797
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
Rumham wrote:

They are off the shelf products. There is no logic to custom making these or else they would cost about 200 quid a panel. They are mass produced items and you just order them as specced on the drawings you received for tender.


Of course they're made to order they've got to fit right they don't have 1,000s of sizes sitting around, and of course buildings aren't perfect and move with age so the panels at the top might be a few mm off the panels at the bottom. They're not complicated and cutting, shaping of the sheets will all be done by machine.

Are you sure?? It most cases they are standard and adapted on sitd

It's an odd one. Harley cladding seem to have done it to spec, but should have known the height limitations and questioned the spec. Too early to say but if that's true, they and whoever drew up the spec are fûcked.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10714
Duff Paddy wrote:
Manufacturer sells two types of cladding - one basic and the other labelled as fire resistant, and it costs a litttle more. If you're cladding every external wall of a high rise building with known poor fire safety facilities, and you select the basic cladding over the fire resistant one, then yes that is criminal negligence in my view.


If the cladding has been certified by the appropriate authorities as being ok to use for this type of job. I doubt if they would be guilty of criminal negligence. So it all comes back to whether it was certified for this type of job


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34503
Location: Hut 8
theo wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
We know the panels were approved it's just Hammond said not over 18m high.

:thumbup:

Quote:
Although Hammond said that the material used in the Grenfell Tower refurbishment, containing flammable polyethylene, was “banned” in the UK, a Treasury spokesman said later that what he meant was that it was banned for buildings of a certain height.

Hammond was referring to a statement issued by the department for communities at the end of last week when it was asked to clarify the legal position. It said: “Cladding using a composite aluminium panel with a polyethylene core would be non-compliant with current Building Regulations guidance. This material should not be used as cladding on buildings over 18m in height.”


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ip-hammond


Someone is going to prison. That is shocking. How the hell did the Council, project managers/architects, cladding supplier and contractor not know that? And how the hell did the Building regs inspector sign it off. Corporate manslaughter.

Now we know why the council ring fenced this as a limited company.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 47909
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
theo wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
We know the panels were approved it's just Hammond said not over 18m high.

:thumbup:

Quote:
Although Hammond said that the material used in the Grenfell Tower refurbishment, containing flammable polyethylene, was “banned” in the UK, a Treasury spokesman said later that what he meant was that it was banned for buildings of a certain height.

Hammond was referring to a statement issued by the department for communities at the end of last week when it was asked to clarify the legal position. It said: “Cladding using a composite aluminium panel with a polyethylene core would be non-compliant with current Building Regulations guidance. This material should not be used as cladding on buildings over 18m in height.”


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ip-hammond


Someone is going to prison. That is shocking. How the hell did the Council, project managers/architects, cladding supplier and contractor not know that? And how the hell did the Building regs inspector sign it off. Corporate manslaughter.

Now we know why the council ring fenced this as a limited company.



Well it was more the demands of the residents etc that the council weren't involved.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:07 pm
Posts: 6468
happyhooker wrote:
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
Rumham wrote:

They are off the shelf products. There is no logic to custom making these or else they would cost about 200 quid a panel. They are mass produced items and you just order them as specced on the drawings you received for tender.


Of course they're made to order they've got to fit right they don't have 1,000s of sizes sitting around, and of course buildings aren't perfect and move with age so the panels at the top might be a few mm off the panels at the bottom. They're not complicated and cutting, shaping of the sheets will all be done by machine.

Are you sure?? It most cases they are standard and adapted on sitd

It's an odd one. Harley cladding seem to have done it to spec, but should have known the height limitations and questioned the spec. Too early to say but if that's true, they and whoever drew up the spec are fûcked.


They are standard and cut to size on site. Jake had gone in detail how easy it is to cut these panels to fit the nooks and crannies of the building.

You really think they are going to custom cut panels for every single building design that comes through their door and charge you 22 quid a panel? They roll them out the door and the contractors make them work in situ.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17797
Rumham wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
Rumham wrote:

They are off the shelf products. There is no logic to custom making these or else they would cost about 200 quid a panel. They are mass produced items and you just order them as specced on the drawings you received for tender.


Of course they're made to order they've got to fit right they don't have 1,000s of sizes sitting around, and of course buildings aren't perfect and move with age so the panels at the top might be a few mm off the panels at the bottom. They're not complicated and cutting, shaping of the sheets will all be done by machine.

Are you sure?? It most cases they are standard and adapted on sitd

It's an odd one. Harley cladding seem to have done it to spec, but should have known the height limitations and questioned the spec. Too early to say but if that's true, they and whoever drew up the spec are fûcked.


They are standard and cut to size on site. Jake had gone in detail how easy it is to cut these panels to fit the nooks and crannies of the building.

You really think they are going to custom cut panels for every single building design that comes through their door and charge you 22 quid a panel? They roll them out the door and the contractors make them work in situ.

I think we may be agreeing???


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34503
Location: Hut 8
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
Of course they're made to order they've got to fit right they don't have 1,000s of sizes sitting around, and of course buildings aren't perfect and move with age so the panels at the top might be a few mm off the panels at the bottom. They're not complicated and cutting, shaping of the sheets will all be done by machine.

Doubt it. As per other posters, these won't differ from bricks or tiles. You cover as optimally as you can and trim the remainder.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22424
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
Rumham wrote:

They are off the shelf products. There is no logic to custom making these or else they would cost about 200 quid a panel. They are mass produced items and you just order them as specced on the drawings you received for tender.


Of course they're made to order they've got to fit right they don't have 1,000s of sizes sitting around, and of course buildings aren't perfect and move with age so the panels at the top might be a few mm off the panels at the bottom. They're not complicated and cutting, shaping of the sheets will all be done by machine.


Are you suggesting that every required panel is individually measured beforehand, and each individual panel is cut to size before they are delivered for fitting?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:07 pm
Posts: 6468
happyhooker wrote:
Rumham wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
Rumham wrote:

They are off the shelf products. There is no logic to custom making these or else they would cost about 200 quid a panel. They are mass produced items and you just order them as specced on the drawings you received for tender.


Of course they're made to order they've got to fit right they don't have 1,000s of sizes sitting around, and of course buildings aren't perfect and move with age so the panels at the top might be a few mm off the panels at the bottom. They're not complicated and cutting, shaping of the sheets will all be done by machine.

Are you sure?? It most cases they are standard and adapted on sitd

It's an odd one. Harley cladding seem to have done it to spec, but should have known the height limitations and questioned the spec. Too early to say but if that's true, they and whoever drew up the spec are fûcked.


They are standard and cut to size on site. Jake had gone in detail how easy it is to cut these panels to fit the nooks and crannies of the building.

You really think they are going to custom cut panels for every single building design that comes through their door and charge you 22 quid a panel? They roll them out the door and the contractors make them work in situ.

I think we may be agreeing???


:thumbup:

Watching this is giving me some real concerns about the application of these panels in general. We have a tender submitted with a boat load of Kingspan panels and I have to admit watching that French fire video made me a little queasy. They are a different panel to this one and are FM approved but I'm thinking now rockwool is not such a bad option after all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10714
Interesting

https://disqus.com/by/RAENorth/
Quote:
Why don't you actually read the post and, where appropriate, click through and read some of the links? That's what their provided for.

The Agrément Certificate to which I refer attests that the product, when fitted in accordance with the Certificate provisions, conforms with the requirements of the UK Building Regulations.

Then, under the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 (to which I refer n the post), as long as the product can be lawfully marketed in one MS, no other MS may prohibit its sale (for the purpose intended) in their territories - not withstanding that a more rigorous code might apply to domestically marketed products.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 33156
Location: Planet Rock
bimboman wrote:
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
theo wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Boobs not Moobs wrote:
We know the panels were approved it's just Hammond said not over 18m high.

:thumbup:

Quote:
Although Hammond said that the material used in the Grenfell Tower refurbishment, containing flammable polyethylene, was “banned” in the UK, a Treasury spokesman said later that what he meant was that it was banned for buildings of a certain height.

Hammond was referring to a statement issued by the department for communities at the end of last week when it was asked to clarify the legal position. It said: “Cladding using a composite aluminium panel with a polyethylene core would be non-compliant with current Building Regulations guidance. This material should not be used as cladding on buildings over 18m in height.”


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ip-hammond


Someone is going to prison. That is shocking. How the hell did the Council, project managers/architects, cladding supplier and contractor not know that? And how the hell did the Building regs inspector sign it off. Corporate manslaughter.

Now we know why the council ring fenced this as a limited company.



Well it was more the demands of the residents etc that the council weren't involved.


No it doesn't work like that anymore. KCTMO is not actually part of the council and it was always their job to get the works done. They just make sure they sub the work out. In their defence they would have had more money to spend on the refurbs had it not been for the government cuts in money for the decent homes project a few years ago.

Quote:
The Kensington and Chelsea Tenants Management Organisation (KCTMO) hired the construction firm Rydon as the lead contractor on the project, which included re-cladding the building with material that commentators allege could have been a factor in the fire’s rapid spread.

At least eight other contractors and sub-contractors were involved in separate elements of the refurbishment and materials used for the work.

Experts said this raised concerns about the supervision of such schemes, in part because local authorities no longer had full oversight as they did in the past.

Thomas Lane, editor of Building Design, said: “There was a time when local authorities had their own architecture departments, some of them quite famous. Nowadays it’s all done externally. You’ve got disparate people, design teams, surveyors, project managers, a whole army of people.”

Image


Last edited by Anonymous. on Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 47909
Quote:
lways their job to get the works done. They just make sure they sub the work out. In their defence they would have had more money to spend on the refurbs had it not been for the government cuts in money for the decent homes project a few years ago



When did they cut that ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2013 10:41 am
Posts: 3779
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
lways their job to get the works done. They just make sure they sub the work out. In their defence they would have had more money to spend on the refurbs had it not been for the government cuts in money for the decent homes project a few years ago



When did they cut that ?

Lack of money's no defence. We saw above that the difference in cost between the two options was a total of $9,600.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 33156
Location: Planet Rock
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
lways their job to get the works done. They just make sure they sub the work out. In their defence they would have had more money to spend on the refurbs had it not been for the government cuts in money for the decent homes project a few years ago



When did they cut that ?


Your lot got into power in 2010
Quote:

Decent Homes cuts threaten workloads and apprenticeships


2 MARCH, 2011

Workloads and even apprenticeship places are under threat after local authorities were subjected to cuts to their Decent Homes budget this week.

Several bodies said they would have to reappraise their programmes, which provide improvements to sub-standard social housing, after they were faced with a shortfall of millions of pounds.

Nottingham City Homes had expected £91 million but said that now only £35m was secure with a further £46m provisional. The arms-length management organisation said the cuts would mean “major changes” to its Secure Warm Modern programme for homes in the city.

It also said its plans to expand apprenticeship schemes with contractor partners would be put at risk.

Chief executive Chris Langstaff said: “We are very disappointed that because of the reduced funding, we will not be able to finish our programme as we wanted.

“This is also a difficult time for our staff, our contract partners in the private sector and for the apprentices that we were hoping to develop as part of the scheme.”

Currently 75 apprentices are working towards trade qualifications alongside NCH’s Secure Warm Modern partner contractors. The original programme planned to increase this number in line with the expected funding, however this may now not be possible.

Homes for Haringey, the London borough’s housing Almo, also said it would talk with its partners about how to deliver its Decent Homes work more efficiently following a £28.6m reduction in funding for the programme.
https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/mark ... 20.article


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 47909
Sorry inshouldmhave said "cut that for the Grenville towers" , then I wouldn't have to read about unrelated issues in Nottingham,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8287824.stm

Labour removed 150 mill in 2009.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20466
Silver wrote:
Interesting

https://disqus.com/by/RAENorth/
Quote:
Why don't you actually read the post and, where appropriate, click through and read some of the links? That's what their provided for.

The Agrément Certificate to which I refer attests that the product, when fitted in accordance with the Certificate provisions, conforms with the requirements of the UK Building Regulations.

Then, under the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 (to which I refer n the post), as long as the product can be lawfully marketed in one MS, no other MS may prohibit its sale (for the purpose intended) in their territories - not withstanding that a more rigorous code might apply to domestically marketed products.


Wrong. The regulations provide that this type of panel can only be used in buildings over 18m high if the proposed cladding system (panels, fixing etc) is tested and signed off by a registered inspector.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 2:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 33156
Location: Planet Rock
bimboman wrote:
Sorry inshouldmhave said "cut that for the Grenville towers" , then I wouldn't have to read about unrelated issues in Nottingham,


Yeah right. Put it this way. K&C were expecting a lot more money to spend on their properties. However as soon as the Conservative government came in they cut the money councils were to receive. So clearly each project had less to spend on it. Including Grenfell Tower.

Unrelated Nottingham issue :lol:

Quote:
The arms-length management organisation (Nottingham version of KCTMO)said the cuts would mean “major changes” to its Secure Warm Modern programme for homes in the city.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 2:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 47909
Anonymous. wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Sorry inshouldmhave said "cut that for the Grenville towers" , then I wouldn't have to read about unrelated issues in Nottingham,


Yeah right. Put it this way. K&C were expecting a lot more money to spend on their properties. However as soon as the Conservative government came in they cut the money councils were to receive. So clearly each project had less to spend on it. Including Grenfell Tower.

Unrelated Nottingham issue :lol:

Quote:
The arms-length management organisation (Nottingham version of KCTMO)said the cuts would mean “major changes” to its Secure Warm Modern programme for homes in the city.



Looks like those cuts were 2009 under labour if related to the decent homes scheme. You and silver today for the win.?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 2:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 33156
Location: Planet Rock
bimboman wrote:
Sorry inshouldmhave said "cut that for the Grenville towers" , then I wouldn't have to read about unrelated issues in Nottingham,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8287824.stm

Labour removed 150 mill in 2009.


The £150m from the entire budget they put into new homes instead. Getting back to Nottingham again that is one council and they were down £46m alone in 2011. That money wasn't going into new houses either


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 2:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 47909
Anonymous. wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Sorry inshouldmhave said "cut that for the Grenville towers" , then I wouldn't have to read about unrelated issues in Nottingham,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8287824.stm

Labour removed 150 mill in 2009.


The £150m from the entire budget they put into new homes instead. Getting back to Nottingham again that is one council and they were down £46m alone in 2011. That money wasn't going into new houses either



You know this ? Budgets run for future years. Probably removed by Labour.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 2:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 33156
Location: Planet Rock
bimboman wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Sorry inshouldmhave said "cut that for the Grenville towers" , then I wouldn't have to read about unrelated issues in Nottingham,


Yeah right. Put it this way. K&C were expecting a lot more money to spend on their properties. However as soon as the Conservative government came in they cut the money councils were to receive. So clearly each project had less to spend on it. Including Grenfell Tower.

Unrelated Nottingham issue :lol:

Quote:
The arms-length management organisation (Nottingham version of KCTMO)said the cuts would mean “major changes” to its Secure Warm Modern programme for homes in the city.



Looks like those cuts were 2009 under labour if related to the decent homes scheme. You and silver today for the win.?


That is pretty scummy bimbo. Trying to blame a scummy coalition move on Labour. Haringey council lost £50m to their budget
Quote:
The Decent Homes programme was set up by the Labour government. The coalition has said it is cutting the budget, impacting on councils across London.
Haringey Council said as a result of this the focus would now be on windows, doors, roofs and crucial health and safety works, such as rewiring.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14080660


Not forgetting another coalition move

Quote:
The affordable housing grant was cut by 60 per cent. Housing Associations were told to introduce the so-called "Affordable Rent" at up to 80 per cent of market rent, and make up the shortfall in funding to build new homes with borrowing


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 2:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 33156
Location: Planet Rock
Anyway my original point was KCTMO had a lot less money to "play with" than they would have originally anticipated so it's not that surprising that attempts were made to cut corners here and there.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1820 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 ... 46  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Apposite, BBB, Big Nipper, BillW, de_Selby, Ewinkum, frillage, Frodder, GDBFC99, Google Adsense [Bot], james garner, Jensrsa, kingswood, Laurent, Liathroidigloine, Man In Black, Market Square Hero, Mog The Almighty, MungoMan, Peaches, rabble, Raggs, Risteard, Saint, Sards, SEAsianExpat, Stjudes, sunnybanana, Teenage_hooker, Thomas, Toro, Wilson's Toffee and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group