However if the building passed fire regulations apart from penny pinching had either one done anything wrong?Someone posted earlier in this thread that the more expensive, less flammable cladding had been rejected in favour of the less expensive, more flammable one. The more expensive one costing a whole £2 a metre more than the cheaper one that was chosen. I wonder who went for the cheaper option, the contactor or the owners.
In the scenario you paint, blame has to ultimately rest with the legislators.However if the building passed fire regulations apart from penny pinching had either one done anything wrong?
After completion the building was passed as safe?
There were obviously concerns by the reports earlier in the thread so it'd be a government legislation issue?
Is that a fact?
Or just something thats now been repeated so often it seems like a fact?
There cannot be anything intrinsically wrong with wanting any property to look more appealing from the outside.For a few years, I was on the board of a community housing trust which also undertook a major refurbishment programme. Improving the appearence of buildings was definitely an objective of the programme, although by no means the main one. The accepted view was that improving the appearence of the buildings would make them more appealing to residents and potential residents, increase occupancy rates, reduce vandalism etc. There weren't any wealthy properties near our flats and houses so obviously I can't comment on whether that had a disproportionate influence on the Grenfell Tower refurbishment.
Yes that's where my thought process is going, I think people are perhaps a bit quick to blame others in the chain until the full picture is known.In the scenario you paint, blame has to ultimately rest with the legislators.
I may sound stupid here but surely someone has to ask why there is a choice in the first place?Someone posted earlier in this thread that the more expensive, less flammable cladding had been rejected in favour of the less expensive, more flammable one. The more expensive one costing a whole £2 a metre more than the cheaper one that was chosen. I wonder who went for the cheaper option, the contactor or the owners.
Well that would change things quite dramatically.The building regulations state that for any building over 18m (about 6 floors) the fire resistant cladding must be used on the whole building.
It quite clearly wasn't used in this case, just a matter of finding out if it the wrong cladding was ordered by mistake or if it was a deliberate act to save money.
My cousin is in the cladding game and I was amazed when he told me the regs. I would've thought any building used by humans, let alone residential buildings, would need fire resistant materials no matter what the height
I may sound stupid here but surely someone has to ask why there is a choice in the first place?
Why is there a more flammable option?
Despite being more flammable, does it meet the regulations? If so and the cladding is at fault then the issue is with the regulations rather than the contractor surely?
There's all sorts of speculative nonsense around. One I can't get my head round is that an air gap acted as a funnel. If the cladding is primarily for insulation, how can a gap between wall and cladding open to the air do anything for insulation?
Completely agree. Lammy's comments yesterday were disgraceful.Yes that's where my thought process is going, I think people are perhaps a bit quick to blame others in the chain until the full picture is known.
Pretty sure that's a building control issue rather than planning, although they do go hand in hand tbf.If a local planning authority gets an application to use cladding on a new or refurbished building, it would normally be up to building regs to say what's legally permissible (how it looks would be a planning issue). I expect they would now turn it down unless non-flammable was specified and one thing central government could do immediately is say it's a material planning consideration (material as in one that matters not a consideration of materials).
If there's an enclosed void it can aid insulation (cavity wall, double or even secondary glazing). If it's not enclosed, how can it possibly help insulation?Ventilation is needed in buildings - we need air for gas boilers for combustion purposes, to remove moisture from bathrooms etc.
We don't want to restrict the amount of air going in too much - some is needed. Where the air gap becomes a problem is when there is not stop gap between the floors, the air can travel up the building and act as a chimney/funnel.
If a local planning authority gets an application to use cladding on a new or refurbished building, it would normally be up to building regs to say what's legally permissible (how it looks would be a planning issue). I expect they would now turn it down unless non-flammable was specified and one thing central government could do immediately is say it's a material planning consideration (material as in one that matters not a consideration of materials).
Please read the post.Pretty sure that's a building control issue rather than planning, although they do go hand in hand tbf.
If there's an enclosed void it can aid insulation (cavity wall, double or even secondary glazing). If it's not enclosed, how can it possibly help insulation?
Apologies. Must have skipped over the material part!Please read the post.