Tower Block fire in London?

All things Rugby
ID2
Posts: 3253
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:47 pm

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by ID2 »

Covfefe wrote:Link?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 03356.html
The Independent has confirmed that the homes in question were built by St Edward as a condition of the granting of planning permission by Kensington and Chelsea Council.

Under Section 106 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act, councils can require developers to commit to provide a certain amount of social housing in any new private residential development (or alternatively pay a sum of money to the local authority for investment in social housing elsewhere) as a condition for the granting of approval.

This is what St Edward was doing. These social housing flats were always going to be available for use by low-income Kensington residents at some point.

In the absence of this deal The Independent has also confirmed St Edward would have offered the homes for sale to locally based housing associations. These housing associations would then have then have let out the homes at below-market rents.

There are actually two types of social rent that housing associations are allowed by the Government to charge tenants.

"Social rent" means the rent is around 50 per cent of market rates. "Affordable rent" means about 80 per cent of market rents.

The planning documents of the site suggest they were to be social rent.

But, regardless, those rich people in the development who have reportedly voiced their discontent at poorer folk moving in obviously failed to appreciate that they would have soon have had some new low-income neighbours in any event.
User avatar
globus
Posts: 52706
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Oundle

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by globus »

Oh Lord. I know a lot about Section 106s. I have to. They were to be superseded by CILs (Community Infrastructure Levies) but that looks a bit of a way off.

I don't know what the Planning requirements were for this development. In past years developers were to supplant 40% of new builds with what has now known as "Affordable Accommodation". The term "Social Housing" has been expunged because of its connotation.

We have undergone a comprehensive survey here. Thank the Lord, we don't have any high rises.
User avatar
Covfefe
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:48 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Covfefe »

ID2 wrote:
Covfefe wrote:Link?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 03356.html
The Independent has confirmed that the homes in question were built by St Edward as a condition of the granting of planning permission by Kensington and Chelsea Council.

Under Section 106 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act, councils can require developers to commit to provide a certain amount of social housing in any new private residential development (or alternatively pay a sum of money to the local authority for investment in social housing elsewhere) as a condition for the granting of approval.

This is what St Edward was doing. These social housing flats were always going to be available for use by low-income Kensington residents at some point.

In the absence of this deal The Independent has also confirmed St Edward would have offered the homes for sale to locally based housing associations. These housing associations would then have then have let out the homes at below-market rents.

There are actually two types of social rent that housing associations are allowed by the Government to charge tenants.

"Social rent" means the rent is around 50 per cent of market rates. "Affordable rent" means about 80 per cent of market rents.

The planning documents of the site suggest they were to be social rent.

But, regardless, those rich people in the development who have reportedly voiced their discontent at poorer folk moving in obviously failed to appreciate that they would have soon have had some new low-income neighbours in any event.
So they are paying these amounts
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 41995
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Anonymous 1 »

globus wrote:Oh Lord. I know a lot about Section 106s. I have to. They were to be superseded by CILs (Community Infrastructure Levies) but that looks a bit of a way off.

I don't know what the Planning requirements were for this development. In past years developers were to supplant 40% of new builds with what has now known as "Affordable Accommodation". The term "Social Housing" has been expunged because of its connotation.

We have undergone a comprehensive survey here. Thank the Lord, we don't have any high rises.
I'm pleased for you Globby. Although I must admit I'm surprised Oundle has s̶o̶c̶i̶a̶l̶ ̶h̶o̶u̶s̶i̶n̶g̶ Affordable Accommodation.
User avatar
Covfefe
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:48 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Covfefe »

Anonymous. wrote:
globus wrote:Oh Lord. I know a lot about Section 106s. I have to. They were to be superseded by CILs (Community Infrastructure Levies) but that looks a bit of a way off.

I don't know what the Planning requirements were for this development. In past years developers were to supplant 40% of new builds with what has now known as "Affordable Accommodation". The term "Social Housing" has been expunged because of its connotation.

We have undergone a comprehensive survey here. Thank the Lord, we don't have any high rises.
I'm pleased for you Globby. Although I must admit I'm surprised Oundle has s̶o̶c̶i̶a̶l̶ ̶h̶o̶u̶s̶i̶n̶g̶ Affordable Accommodation.
Everywhere does
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 41995
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Anonymous 1 »

Covfefe wrote:
ID2 wrote:
Covfefe wrote:Link?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 03356.html
The Independent has confirmed that the homes in question were built by St Edward as a condition of the granting of planning permission by Kensington and Chelsea Council.

Under Section 106 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act, councils can require developers to commit to provide a certain amount of social housing in any new private residential development (or alternatively pay a sum of money to the local authority for investment in social housing elsewhere) as a condition for the granting of approval.

This is what St Edward was doing. These social housing flats were always going to be available for use by low-income Kensington residents at some point.

In the absence of this deal The Independent has also confirmed St Edward would have offered the homes for sale to locally based housing associations. These housing associations would then have then have let out the homes at below-market rents.

There are actually two types of social rent that housing associations are allowed by the Government to charge tenants.

"Social rent" means the rent is around 50 per cent of market rates. "Affordable rent" means about 80 per cent of market rents.

The planning documents of the site suggest they were to be social rent.

But, regardless, those rich people in the development who have reportedly voiced their discontent at poorer folk moving in obviously failed to appreciate that they would have soon have had some new low-income neighbours in any event.
So they are paying these amounts
Who is paying what ?
User avatar
Covfefe
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:48 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Covfefe »

Anonymous. wrote:
Covfefe wrote:
ID2 wrote:
Covfefe wrote:Link?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 03356.html
The Independent has confirmed that the homes in question were built by St Edward as a condition of the granting of planning permission by Kensington and Chelsea Council.

Under Section 106 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act, councils can require developers to commit to provide a certain amount of social housing in any new private residential development (or alternatively pay a sum of money to the local authority for investment in social housing elsewhere) as a condition for the granting of approval.

This is what St Edward was doing. These social housing flats were always going to be available for use by low-income Kensington residents at some point.

In the absence of this deal The Independent has also confirmed St Edward would have offered the homes for sale to locally based housing associations. These housing associations would then have then have let out the homes at below-market rents.

There are actually two types of social rent that housing associations are allowed by the Government to charge tenants.

"Social rent" means the rent is around 50 per cent of market rates. "Affordable rent" means about 80 per cent of market rents.

The planning documents of the site suggest they were to be social rent.

But, regardless, those rich people in the development who have reportedly voiced their discontent at poorer folk moving in obviously failed to appreciate that they would have soon have had some new low-income neighbours in any event.
So they are paying these amounts
Who is paying what ?
Exactly
User avatar
Covfefe
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:48 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Covfefe »

34 blocks have failed the safety tests now. I suppose all will require new housing. How many private dwellings would fail, will they get new homes too.
armchair pundit
Posts: 919
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:09 pm

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by armchair pundit »

Anonymous. wrote:
Covfefe wrote:
ID2 wrote:
Covfefe wrote:Link?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 03356.html
The Independent has confirmed that the homes in question were built by St Edward as a condition of the granting of planning permission by Kensington and Chelsea Council.

Under Section 106 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act, councils can require developers to commit to provide a certain amount of social housing in any new private residential development (or alternatively pay a sum of money to the local authority for investment in social housing elsewhere) as a condition for the granting of approval.

This is what St Edward was doing. These social housing flats were always going to be available for use by low-income Kensington residents at some point.

In the absence of this deal The Independent has also confirmed St Edward would have offered the homes for sale to locally based housing associations. These housing associations would then have then have let out the homes at below-market rents.

There are actually two types of social rent that housing associations are allowed by the Government to charge tenants.

"Social rent" means the rent is around 50 per cent of market rates. "Affordable rent" means about 80 per cent of market rents.

The planning documents of the site suggest they were to be social rent.

But, regardless, those rich people in the development who have reportedly voiced their discontent at poorer folk moving in obviously failed to appreciate that they would have soon have had some new low-income neighbours in any event.
So they are paying these amounts
Who is paying what ?
JC's said he'll pay. :thumbup:
User avatar
GWO2
Posts: 3016
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 7:12 pm

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by GWO2 »

Seneca of the Night wrote:
Covfefe wrote:I'm really starting to worry about the direction the uk is going. It can be compared to 1917 Russia or 1936 Germany. The successful are now the target.
We have a violent left wing who are trying to destroy free speech and are building a Stalin like personality cult around Corbyn.

The something for nothing brigade is now in the ascendancy and it's frightening to watch.
Okay, who is this?
Boris something or other
Silver
Posts: 9980
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Silver »

http://news.sky.com/story/tower-block-c ... s-10925792

Tower block cladding: All material tested so far has failed

The high-rise buildings, in 17 council areas, fail combustibility tests - with others being checked as a "matter of urgency".

10:03, UK, Sunday 25 June 2017
The burned shell of Grenfell Tower block
Image: At least 79 people are feared to have died in the Grenfell Tower fire

All the cladding on high-rise buildings judged to be potentially at risk has failed Government combustability tests, it has emerged.

Communities Secretary Sajid Javid said 34 buildings in 17 local authority areas are so far affected but tests in other areas are ongoing.

The Building Research Establishment (BRE) is "running around the clock" to test cladding on other buildings, he added.

If needed, Mr Javid said, the BRE can test up to 100 samples a day.

He said: "The landlords for all the affected buildings are taking action to inform tenants and implement the interim safety measures needed.
preview image
Video: Camden: 'Multiple fire safety failures'

"Areas affected include the city of Manchester, Camden, Plymouth, Hounslow, Portsmouth, Barnet and Brent.

"The fact that all samples so far have failed the tests underlines the value of the testing programme we have set up with the Building Research Establishment to get samples checked properly in the laboratories.

"It is therefore very important for local authorities and housing associations to continue to submit such samples as a matter of urgency."

Mr Javid stressed that buildings which are found to have unsafe cladding may not necessarily have to be evacuated.

He said the decision to evacuate four towers on the Chalcots Estate in Camden, north London, was taken because a failed cladding test had been "compounded by multiple other fire safety failures".
Silver
Posts: 9980
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Silver »

Surely the Eu should pick up the bill to right this. Its their piss poor regulations that is the cause of this fire and the repair work

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/grenf ... 72731.html
Grenfell fire: Number of buildings to fail urgent cladding safety checks soars to 60

Chloe Chaplain
Sunday 25 June 2017 21:30 BST

Cladding: The material is believed to have been one of the reasons the fire spread so quickly Jeremy Selwyn

The Government has now confirmed that sixty high-rise buildings in 25 local authority areas have failed fire cladding safety tests, the Government has said.

Local authorities ordered urgent checks of the material used on the buildings after police confirmed that the cladding on Grenfell Tower contributed to the fast-spreading fire.

The number has been steadily rising all weekend and has almost doubled since Saturday.

The announcement came after Communities Secretary Sajid Javid revealed all of the buildings that have so far submitted cladding samples have failed combustibility tests.
an124846217a-view-of-part-o.jpg
Tests: Sampls of the cladding have been sent off for tests (AP)

The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) said Doncaster, Norwich, Stockton-on-Tees and Sunderland all had buildings that failed tests, while Manchester, Plymouth and Portsmouth have already been named.

Islington, Lambeth and Wandsworth joined Barnet, Brent, Camden and Hounslow on the growing list of London boroughs, while 11 other areas are yet to be named.
Chalcots Estate resident accosts Camden Leader Georgia Gould

Camden Council leader Georgia Gould said around 200 residents from 120 households were still refusing to leave their homes in four tower blocks evacuated in the Chalcots Estate in north London.

She took the decision to clear 600 flats on Friday night after London Fire Brigade inspecting officers identified concerns over the combination of external cladding, fire doors, gas pipes and insulation.
User avatar
DragsterDriver
Posts: 26369
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Big Willi Style

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by DragsterDriver »

Anonymous. wrote:
Covfefe wrote:
ID2 wrote:
Covfefe wrote:Link?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 03356.html
The Independent has confirmed that the homes in question were built by St Edward as a condition of the granting of planning permission by Kensington and Chelsea Council.

Under Section 106 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act, councils can require developers to commit to provide a certain amount of social housing in any new private residential development (or alternatively pay a sum of money to the local authority for investment in social housing elsewhere) as a condition for the granting of approval.

This is what St Edward was doing. These social housing flats were always going to be available for use by low-income Kensington residents at some point.

In the absence of this deal The Independent has also confirmed St Edward would have offered the homes for sale to locally based housing associations. These housing associations would then have then have let out the homes at below-market rents.

There are actually two types of social rent that housing associations are allowed by the Government to charge tenants.

"Social rent" means the rent is around 50 per cent of market rates. "Affordable rent" means about 80 per cent of market rents.

The planning documents of the site suggest they were to be social rent.

But, regardless, those rich people in the development who have reportedly voiced their discontent at poorer folk moving in obviously failed to appreciate that they would have soon have had some new low-income neighbours in any event.
So they are paying these amounts
Who is paying what ?
50% rent around there isn't going to be low income families?
User avatar
Gavin Duffy
Posts: 17023
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Gavin Duffy »

Silver wrote:Surely the Eu should pick up the bill to right this. Its their piss poor regulations that is the cause of this fire and the repair work

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/grenf ... 72731.html
Grenfell fire: Number of buildings to fail urgent cladding safety checks soars to 60

Chloe Chaplain
Sunday 25 June 2017 21:30 BST

Cladding: The material is believed to have been one of the reasons the fire spread so quickly Jeremy Selwyn

The Government has now confirmed that sixty high-rise buildings in 25 local authority areas have failed fire cladding safety tests, the Government has said.

Local authorities ordered urgent checks of the material used on the buildings after police confirmed that the cladding on Grenfell Tower contributed to the fast-spreading fire.

The number has been steadily rising all weekend and has almost doubled since Saturday.

The announcement came after Communities Secretary Sajid Javid revealed all of the buildings that have so far submitted cladding samples have failed combustibility tests.
an124846217a-view-of-part-o.jpg
Tests: Sampls of the cladding have been sent off for tests (AP)

The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) said Doncaster, Norwich, Stockton-on-Tees and Sunderland all had buildings that failed tests, while Manchester, Plymouth and Portsmouth have already been named.

Islington, Lambeth and Wandsworth joined Barnet, Brent, Camden and Hounslow on the growing list of London boroughs, while 11 other areas are yet to be named.
Chalcots Estate resident accosts Camden Leader Georgia Gould

Camden Council leader Georgia Gould said around 200 residents from 120 households were still refusing to leave their homes in four tower blocks evacuated in the Chalcots Estate in north London.

She took the decision to clear 600 flats on Friday night after London Fire Brigade inspecting officers identified concerns over the combination of external cladding, fire doors, gas pipes and insulation.
It's the EU tests that the cladding is failing you pathological lying piece of beta sh*t. The cladding used has British certification not EU. If the EU tests were conducted it wouldn't have been permitted.
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 41995
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Anonymous 1 »

DragsterDriver wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Covfefe wrote:
ID2 wrote:
Covfefe wrote:Link?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 03356.html
The Independent has confirmed that the homes in question were built by St Edward as a condition of the granting of planning permission by Kensington and Chelsea Council.

Under Section 106 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act, councils can require developers to commit to provide a certain amount of social housing in any new private residential development (or alternatively pay a sum of money to the local authority for investment in social housing elsewhere) as a condition for the granting of approval.

This is what St Edward was doing. These social housing flats were always going to be available for use by low-income Kensington residents at some point.

In the absence of this deal The Independent has also confirmed St Edward would have offered the homes for sale to locally based housing associations. These housing associations would then have then have let out the homes at below-market rents.

There are actually two types of social rent that housing associations are allowed by the Government to charge tenants.

"Social rent" means the rent is around 50 per cent of market rates. "Affordable rent" means about 80 per cent of market rents.

The planning documents of the site suggest they were to be social rent.

But, regardless, those rich people in the development who have reportedly voiced their discontent at poorer folk moving in obviously failed to appreciate that they would have soon have had some new low-income neighbours in any event.
So they are paying these amounts
Who is paying what ?
50% rent around there isn't going to be low income families?
The 50% claim is complete rubbish. It's not linked to market rates.
bimboman
Posts: 70523
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by bimboman »

Either way regarding the amount, the answer to "who pays" is YOU and ME, the tax payer is paying.
Silver
Posts: 9980
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Silver »

Gavin Duffy wrote: It's the EU tests that the cladding is failing you pathological lying piece of beta sh*t. The cladding used has British certification not EU. If the EU tests were conducted it wouldn't have been permitted.
The EU have competency in this area. Its the EU that control cladding regulations. they set the regs and control this area and the Uk just implement them. And can not deviate without EU permission.
Silver
Posts: 9980
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Silver »

bimboman wrote:Either way regarding the amount, the answer to "who pays" is YOU and ME, the tax payer is paying.
why shouldn't the Eu pay. It their f++k up.
User avatar
Covfefe
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:48 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Covfefe »

Anonymous. wrote:
DragsterDriver wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Who is paying what ?
50% rent around there isn't going to be low income families?
The 50% claim is complete rubbish. It's not linked to market rates.
Its unethical to provide luxury homes for a few for free at the expense of those who work but can't even afford the south east never mind Kensington.
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 41995
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Anonymous 1 »

Silver wrote:
bimboman wrote:Either way regarding the amount, the answer to "who pays" is YOU and ME, the tax payer is paying.
why shouldn't the Eu pay. It their f++k up.
That is not what he is talking about. You EU obsessed fucktard. Taxpayers subsidise social housing.
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 41995
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Anonymous 1 »

Covfefe wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
DragsterDriver wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Who is paying what ?
50% rent around there isn't going to be low income families?
The 50% claim is complete rubbish. It's not linked to market rates.
Its unethical to provide luxury homes for a few for free at the expense of those who work but can't even afford the south east never mind Kensington.
I will try and never reply to you again.
armchair pundit
Posts: 919
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:09 pm

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by armchair pundit »

Silver, how confident are you that the inquiry will conclude that the EU was to blame for the disaster ?
User avatar
Covfefe
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:48 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Covfefe »

Anonymous. wrote:
Silver wrote:
bimboman wrote:Either way regarding the amount, the answer to "who pays" is YOU and ME, the tax payer is paying.
why shouldn't the Eu pay. It their f++k up.
That is not what he is talking about. You EU obsessed fucktard. Taxpayers subsidise luxury social housing in prime locations
Yes that's true
User avatar
Covfefe
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:48 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Covfefe »

Anonymous. wrote:
Covfefe wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
DragsterDriver wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Who is paying what ?
50% rent around there isn't going to be low income families?
The 50% claim is complete rubbish. It's not linked to market rates.
Its unethical to provide luxury homes for a few for free at the expense of those who work but can't even afford the south east never mind Kensington.
I will try and never reply to you again.
Is that a promise and with all your logins :proud:
Silver
Posts: 9980
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Silver »

Covfefe wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
DragsterDriver wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Who is paying what ?
50% rent around there isn't going to be low income families?
The 50% claim is complete rubbish. It's not linked to market rates.
Its unethical to provide luxury homes for a few for free at the expense of those who work but can't even afford the south east never mind Kensington.
If Govts were ethical the World would be very diff
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 41995
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Anonymous 1 »

Silver wrote:
Covfefe wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
DragsterDriver wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
Who is paying what ?
50% rent around there isn't going to be low income families?
The 50% claim is complete rubbish. It's not linked to market rates.
Its unethical to provide luxury homes for a few for free at the expense of those who work but can't even afford the south east never mind Kensington.
If Govts were ethical the World would be very diff
No government shills
User avatar
Saint
Posts: 15686
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: South Oxfordshire

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Saint »

armchair pundit wrote:Silver, how confident are you that the inquiry will conclude that the EU was to blame for the disaster ?
We'll, when it doesn't it will be yet further proof of the conspiracy of the elites to keep the gullible masses under control. That's how conspiracy theorists mind's work - everything can be explained in such a way as to back up their claim, Occam's Razor simply doesn't exist
Silver
Posts: 9980
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Silver »

armchair pundit wrote:Silver, how confident are you that the inquiry will conclude that the EU was to blame for the disaster ?
Low. As the elites don't like their EU project being criticized.
Silver
Posts: 9980
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Silver »

Saint wrote:
armchair pundit wrote:Silver, how confident are you that the inquiry will conclude that the EU was to blame for the disaster ?
We'll, when it doesn't it will be yet further proof of the conspiracy of the elites to keep the gullible masses under control. That's how conspiracy theorists mind's work - everything can be explained in such a way as to back up their claim, Occam's Razor simply doesn't exist
Image
Silver
Posts: 9980
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Silver »

And another one 8)

Image
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 41995
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Anonymous 1 »

armchair pundit wrote:Silver, how confident are you that the inquiry will conclude that the EU was to blame for the disaster ?
Maybe a fairer question would be how confident is he that the inquiry will show the boards complied with EU regs. UK regs not being an issue as according to Silver they cannot be more stringent because UK manufacturers of safe boards would have an unfair advantage in the UK over EU manufacturers of unsafe boards.

The EU needs to investigate Scotland for breaking the rules
The Scottish Government has already said that no council or housing association high-rise block has cladding of the type believed to have been used in Grenfell Tower.
ID2
Posts: 3253
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:47 pm

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by ID2 »

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... fell-fire
A government-supported initiative to cut red tape considered a push to dismantle EU regulations on the fire safety of cladding and other construction materials in the weeks before the Grenfell Tower fire.

A document obtained by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, and seen by the Guardian, singled out EU regulation which covers the safety and efficacy of construction materials as among the first to target for dismantling. Among the products covered in the EU regulation is cladding.
User avatar
Gavin Duffy
Posts: 17023
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Gavin Duffy »

Also, there is an error/ambiguity in the British Building Regulations between what is called up in Diagram 40 and what is stated in Appendix A7. Could become and issue in any legal action although the Reynobond PE doesn't appear to comply with either anyway.
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 41995
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Anonymous 1 »

I wonder if that meeting was scheduled
A government-supported initiative to cut red tape considered a push to dismantle EU regulations on the fire safety of cladding and other construction materials in the weeks before the Grenfell Tower fire.

A document obtained by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, and seen by the Guardian, singled out EU regulation which covers the safety and efficacy of construction materials as among the first to target for dismantling. Among the products covered in the EU regulation is cladding.

The director of the Red Tape Initiative, Nick Tyrone, said the document was a “starter for 10” and on the morning of 14 June – the day of the fire – the body’s expert panel of housebuilders sat down to consider it.
However, he said the panel rejected the idea of dismantling regulations which covered health and safety. Asked if the fire had anything to do with the decision, he said: “It sobered the discussion but I don’t think it changed what everyone was going to say.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... nfell-fire
Silver
Posts: 9980
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Silver »

Anonymous. wrote:
armchair pundit wrote:Silver, how confident are you that the inquiry will conclude that the EU was to blame for the disaster ?
Maybe a fairer question would be how confident is he that the inquiry will show the boards complied with EU regs. UK regs not being an issue as according to Silver they cannot be more stringent because UK manufacturers of safe boards would have an unfair advantage in the UK over EU manufacturers of unsafe boards.
A trade agreement (like the single market) must cover regulations otherwise individual countries will use stds (regulations) to impose non tariff restrictions on other countries. So it was important that the EU when they take over (like they have with cladding) must come up with a good set of regulations.

Thankfully stds setting is now moving to international bodies. But once again they must get the stds right. Not for example buckle under when lobbyists do their thing.
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 41995
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Anonymous 1 »

Yet if it wasn't for this fire this cladding would have been put on more buildings.

insurance industry issued fire risk warning one month before tragedy

The UK’s insurance industry issued a warning relating to flammable external surfaces on high rise buildings just one month before the Grenfell Tower fire that left at least 79 people dead.

In a statement, the Association of British Insurers said that it had been calling on the Government to review its standards for building regulations for the last eight years and that it had issued a warning in May specifically relating to the combustible external cladding on buildings like the Grenfell Tower and how it can cause fire to spread.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 07891.html
armchair pundit
Posts: 919
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:09 pm

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by armchair pundit »

Silver wrote:
Saint wrote:
armchair pundit wrote:Silver, how confident are you that the inquiry will conclude that the EU was to blame for the disaster ?
We'll, when it doesn't it will be yet further proof of the conspiracy of the elites to keep the gullible masses under control. That's how conspiracy theorists mind's work - everything can be explained in such a way as to back up their claim, Occam's Razor simply doesn't exist
Image
Come on, don't give up that easily.

It's got to be at least a possibility hasn't it, that after undertaking a full investigation of the causes of the disaster, the inquiry will conclude that the fire was caused by the EU ?

Don't give up on your dream yet.

edit : apologies for that Saint. Got the wrong man !
Last edited by armchair pundit on Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
HurricaneWasp
Posts: 3264
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 4:19 pm
Location: A Dreaming Spire

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by HurricaneWasp »

Saint wrote:
armchair pundit wrote:Silver, how confident are you that the inquiry will conclude that the EU was to blame for the disaster ?
We'll, when it doesn't it will be yet further proof of the conspiracy of the elites to keep the gullible masses under control. That's how conspiracy theorists mind's work - everything can be explained in such a way as to back up their claim, Occam's Razor simply doesn't exist
Like with religion, their claims cannot be falsified, only tweaked to fit new information.
Yer Man
Posts: 21433
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Yer Man »

I'm waiting to see what's in Hillary's emails... it must have been her fault.
Silver
Posts: 9980
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Tower Block fire in London?

Post by Silver »

Its a bit late now. But they must have known how dangerous this product was. and that it was EU rated for a purpose that it should not have been rated for

And why not just stop selling this product full stop? They have another one that doesn't cost much more that is fire resistant.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... er-charges
The manufacturer of the insulation used in the £8.6m refurbishment of Grenfell Tower has announced the material will no longer be supplied for use in cladding on high-rise buildings.

Celotex said it was stopping the supply of Celotex RS5000 for rainscreen cladding systems in buildings over 18 metres tall “with immediate effect, including in respect of ongoing projects, pending further clarity”.
Post Reply