Tower block fire - london

dirtychinchilla · 21 Jun 2017 at 15:47

I can't believe they are putting all these people in the same block. They may as well paint it black. Great that they're getting re-homed, not so great that they can all mourn together in one spot.

Trusty · 21 Jun 2017 at 15:50

Isn't it the sort of thing would make them even closer though, would they not want to be together?

StriderX · 21 Jun 2017 at 15:51

Brizzles said:
And with an endless wallet,and hindsight, we could have built a new block.

Do the construction companies not hire people that pay taxes? This disaster has costed millions more than just keeping them safe in the first place, first the £10 million used to make it a candle wick and now the honorable use to find new homes for these people.

Cern · 21 Jun 2017 at 15:51

dowie said:
no one is bitching about anything, you don't need to project your own emotions here. Yes they're not exactly doing badly (relative to victims of this type of thing) - if you can't discuss things sensibly then don't bother quoting me thanks

Your "not doing badly" comment just measures things on a purely financial basis and comes across sour, whether you intended it to or not.

Yes they have received some cash handouts and are getting rehoused somewhere which is an upgrade from where they were before. But it's not just about the financial side of things, the trauma is much much more and I doubt there's that many who haven't lost a neighbour, friend or family member, as well as all manner of treasured possessions that cannot be replaced.

Do bear in mind also that these aren't the most expensive flats being offered, they are the social housing component of the new development. A fact that no doubt will get skipped over when the right wing media get to grips with the story.

dirtychinchilla · 21 Jun 2017 at 15:53

Trusty said:
Isn't it the sort of thing would make them even closer though, would they not want to be together?

Maybe. They might want to forget. I suppose in that case they could just live elsewhere.

Brizzles · 21 Jun 2017 at 15:53

dirtychinchilla said:
I can't believe they are putting all these people in the same block. They may as well paint it black. Great that they're getting re-homed, not so great that they can all mourn together in one spot.

And what do you think the chances are of finding x number of separate homes is?

Cern · 21 Jun 2017 at 15:54

dirtychinchilla said:
I can't believe they are putting all these people in the same block. They may as well paint it black. Great that they're getting re-homed, not so great that they can all mourn together in one spot.

Why not? They were a fairly strong community before, they'll likely be an even stronger community after. Often it's easier to grieve among people who know and understand what you're going through. And if there's those who can't deal with it and don't want to live there, I'm sure there'll be alternatives, albeit most likely out of the borough.

Amp34 · 21 Jun 2017 at 15:59

LOAM said:
No, you can simplify material description down to their base principles. A simple Aluminium cassette cladding RAL 7016 would do.

Ok, but presumably when they came out and checked they would be looking to see if it conformed to regulation?

dowie · 21 Jun 2017 at 16:00

Trusty said:
No evidence for it yet but i suspect the government will reimburse a large portion if not all, as you say, no point debating this, it's pretty moot, most important thing is progress is being made.

I think you're unaware of the City, they already pay for a bunch of social housing well outside their borders - they're very wealthy and already have plenty of cash, It is very unlikely to happen. I'm happy to be corrected if it later does

Cern said:
Your "not doing badly" comment just measures things on a purely financial basis and comes across sour, whether you intended it to or not.

Yes they have received some cash handouts and are getting rehoused somewhere which is an upgrade from where they were before. But it's not just about the financial side of things, the trauma is much much more and I doubt there's that many who haven't lost a neighbour, friend or family member, as well as all manner of treasured possessions that cannot be replaced.

Do bear in mind also that these aren't the most expensive flats being offered, they are the social housing component of the new development. A fact that no doubt will get skipped over when the right wing media get to grips with the story.

I was simply discussing the news item relating to this, if you can't focus on that then don't bother quoting me. Yes I'm well aware this is the social housing block, if you'd paid attention to my previous post instead of trying to quote a snippet and attach some emotion to it you'd have already seen that. If you wanted to discuss the actual new item itself then I'm happy to do so, I'm not interested in whether you think something comes across as sour etc..

dirtychinchilla said:
I can't believe they are putting all these people in the same block. They may as well paint it black. Great that they're getting re-homed, not so great that they can all mourn together in one spot.

They're not all being put there, some (lots) of them are, they'll still need to find homes for others either in the borough or in neighbouring ones.

Schlong&Stable · 21 Jun 2017 at 16:03

StriderX said:
I would like to note that RBKC has ~£200-300 million stashed away, why is that not being used for this?

Where did you get that idea? They have about £8m cash.

Cern · 21 Jun 2017 at 16:05

Schlong&Stable said:
Where did you get that idea? They have about £8m cash.

£274m

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...74m-in-reserves-grenfell-tower-budget-surplus

LOAM · 21 Jun 2017 at 16:08

Amp34 said:
Ok, but presumably when they came out and checked they would be looking to see if it conformed to regulation?

Not the planners no, for the most part a planners input is over once planning approval is granted*. A building control officer or approved inspector would inspect work to ensure it complies which brings us back full circle to that of uncertainty regarding its use.

*There are time when they get involved again such as non material amendments or approving planning conditions or if for some reason it comes to light that its been built differently (think bigger, taller etc) and enforcement is needed.

Amp34 · 21 Jun 2017 at 16:09

LOAM said:
Not the planners no. A building control officer or approved inspector would inspect work to ensure it complies which brings us back full circle to that of uncertainty regarding its use.

Back to the pedant point then. The issue being the overly broad use of the word planners.

LOAM · 21 Jun 2017 at 16:13

Amp34 said:
Back to the pedant point then. The issue being the overly broad use of the word planners.

Its not pedantic at all, its a completely different department with a different discipline. Inspection more often than not is undertaken by a privately owned company where as Planning is always via Local Authority. Its like blaming a taxi driver for ambulance response times.

Amp34 · 21 Jun 2017 at 16:15

In the sense the word planners was used in my original post it is pedantry. It was a simplified term to describe applications, checks and authorizations for building work.

Fairly obvious in the context it was used I assumed, but apparently not.

Anyway, point being if every regulation and requirement was adhered to it may well be that no one was in the wrong. Let's hope the enquiry finds out and it doesn't turn into a witch hunt due to the inflamed tensions.

Cern · 21 Jun 2017 at 16:22

dowie said:
I was simply discussing the news item relating to this, if you can't focus on that then don't bother quoting me. Yes I'm well aware this is the social housing block, if you'd paid attention to my previous post instead of trying to quote a snippet and attach some emotion to it you'd have already seen that. If you wanted to discuss the actual new item itself then I'm happy to do so, I'm not interested in whether you think something comes across as sour etc..

Happy to discuss it, but when what you seem to want to take away from the article is that "the first thing Corbyn will jump on is that there is a 'poor door' and that they're being treated as second class citizens in the development, can't use the pool etc" it's rather difficult to have a reasoned discussion. You've no evidence that would be Corbyn's response, it's just your projection, your bias.

Since this development was already planned to have a social / affordable housing component, do you not think that issues about access to communal facilities and any associated costs (which might be subsidised for those in the social housing) might already have been considered long before Grenfell occurred? Or was this "affordable" housing originally aimed at a somewhat different clientele?

LOAM · 21 Jun 2017 at 16:23

Amp34 said:
In the sense the word planners was used in my original post it is pedantry. It was a simplified term to describe applications, checks and authorizations for building work.

Fairly obvious in the context it was used I assumed, but apparently not.

Perhaps but in the context of this fire the crux of the argument doing the rounds is that there's some misgiving because the planning docs failed to mention the use of a fire retardant cladding system and therefore blame could be apportioned accordingly.

Amp34 said:
If planning wasn't followed correctly then why? Was it a failure of the architect? If so why did they spec the wrong stuff (and why was it approved by the planning department)? Were they leaned on for cost cutting or did they miss something?

This is simply not true, firstly trust me when I say planners really don't give two hoots how much something costs, i have many clients who really wish they did. Secondly there is no requirement at that time to specify anything (from a manufacturers point of view or product) you can be very generic, you don't even need stick to what you specify if you did.

Planning documents are in the public domain, building regulation documents aren't so you wont know what the architect specified to building control.

Amp34 · 21 Jun 2017 at 16:30

LOAM said:
Perhaps but in the context of this fire the crux of the argument doing the rounds is that there's some misgiving because the planning docs failed to mention the use of a fire retardant cladding system and therefore blame could be apportioned accordingly.

This is simply not true, there is no requirement at that time to specify anything, or indeed stick to what you specify if you did. Planning documents are in the public domain, building regulation documents aren't so you wont know what the architect specified to building control.

How is that not true? Or is it another pedant argument claiming the architect (in this context the people that designed the renovation and specified the materials to be used for the client) won't be the one that specified the material to be used?

And by you, I presume you mean the official enquiry as to why it happened, who almost certainly will have access to the documents and will almost certainly get access to tender documents and final receipts/invoices from the contractor detailing what was put on the building.

LOAM · 21 Jun 2017 at 16:34

Amp34 said:
How is that not true? Or is it another pedant argument claiming the architect (in this context the people that designed the renovation and specified the materials to be used for the client) won't be the one that specified the material to be used?

And by you, I presume you mean the official enquiry as to why it happened, who almost certainly will have access to the documents and will almost certainly get access to tender documents and final receipts/invoices from the contractor detailing what was put on the building.

Its not true because you can not take the planning documents as gospel as to what was installed, they are meaningless in the context of this fire investigation. My use of the word "you" was everyone but the investigation team of course which means simply we (the general public) right now have no idea what was specified.

Amp34 · 21 Jun 2017 at 16:36

Where I my original post did I say anything about the public?

You're trying to pull a post apart (point scoring?) whilencompletely ignoring the fact thenpost was entirely about the point that just because it happened doesn't mean someone has to be to blame - it could have just been a terrible accident at the wrong time, but whatever it was we need to learn from it and make sure it forms thappen again.