Jump to content

Towering inferno in London


Recommended Posts

why? plenty of english people have lived in them too, even in sheff, norfolk park etc, even kelvin and hyde park / park hill to a smaller degree

 

Yeah exactly, I don't think is anything inherently wrong with the buildings, just that something specific made this one highly unsafe that shouldn't have happened. it does not mean all tower blocks are unsafe. But that doesn't in anyway excuse or exonerate anyone involved knowingly in the modifications to this building that appear to have led to the fire being as catastrophic as it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah exactly, I don't think is anything inherently wrong with the buildings, just that something specific made this one highly unsafe that shouldn't have happened. it does not mean all tower blocks are unsafe. But that doesn't in anyway excuse or exonerate anyone involved knowingly in the modifications to this building that appear to have led to the fire being as catastrophic as it was.

but ALL high rise blocks should be thoroughly inspected forthwith to be sure, and regulations tightened NOT untightened like the government seem to have been doing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but ALL high rise blocks should be thoroughly inspected forthwith to be sure, and regulations tightened NOT untightened like the government seem to have been doing

 

May has urged councils to do this yesterday, so there's still time for her to change her mind ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's terrible...as tinfoil hat has said, most of the flats were 1 bed with only 1 per floor a 2 bed, so on basic occupation maths, that should be 2 x 1 bed flat, 4 x 2 bed flat, so 12 floors, 12 bed flats and 108 1 bed, 216 in the 1 bed + 48 in the 2 beds so 300 max...including visitors, babies sharing rooms etc. Anything above this must be regarded as over-occupancy surely? And should be investigated as well as to whether this was intentional (i.e. council allocating too small a flat to a family) or unintentional (i.e. residents having guests or unexpected occupants in the flat) and how this can be avoided if possible in the future.
kate you need to take a look here and see how councils can get around this http://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/repairs/overcrowding and wonder how many more high rise flate are holding more people than they should :roll:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

May has urged councils to do this yesterday, so there's still time for her to change her mind ;)

i really do believe if they backtrack on things it will result in riots, not poxy trainer thieving but poll tax style riots, people are angry and its 1000s of peoples lives on the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A project like the refurb of these flats will have involved an inspection of the premises of some sort, maybe a budget estimate drawn up and funding applied for. Drawings and a schedule of works will then have been drawn up as tender package and sent to contractors to price, the winning contractor will then have been given an order to do the works.

 

I doubt if a contractor would willingly change the specification of the cladding requested as an inspection could lead to them replacing it with what was specified at their own cost.

 

It will be very interesting to see who did give the go ahead for the materials used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There are a lot of missing people and I have the highest sympathy and thoughts for the fire brigade who will have to be the first on the scene...I cannot being to imagine how harrowing this will be for them and even thinking about it is making me extremely upset.

talking of the fire brigade

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40290912

 

i can see a lot retiring with PTS after this

 

---------- Post added 17-06-2017 at 23:02 ----------

 

A project like the refurb of these flats will have involved an inspection of the premises of some sort, maybe a budget estimate drawn up and funding applied for. Drawings and a schedule of works will then have been drawn up as tender package and sent to contractors to price, the winning contractor will then have been given an order to do the works.

 

I doubt if a contractor would willingly change the specification of the cladding requested as an inspection could lead to them replacing it with what was specified at their own cost.

 

It will be very interesting to see who did give the go ahead for the materials used.

the government have been lowring regulations and specs so it wouldnt be hard to keep the job in spec, apparently the cladding isnt banned here so its "safe" even though its banned in the US, and been used in fires in Dubai, Spain, France and Australia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.