Tower block fire - london

StriderX said:
A fair bit was spent because one of the reasons for cladding was for the surrounding neighborhoods (two conservation areas mainly) having a better view, its all in the planning documents on RBKC council site.
Click to expand...

so if they were able to spend several million then it doesn't seem like 'austerity' is necessarily to blame here... there was money available but the question is whether it was spent wisely, who decided that this particular type of cladding should be used rather than the more fire resistant sort etc.. i.e. what we'll learn from an inquiry/investigation

of course that doesn't stop people form wanting to turn it into some sort of political point scoring exercise
 
ubersonic said:
I get that you're trying to blame the Tories at all cost, but think of this logically, if you argue that it wasn't the fault of the contractors who bought/installed the substandard cladding (the now defunct Harley Facades) or the project managers who hired them (Rydon Maintenance), or the landlord who hired them (Kensington and Chelsea TMO) but in fact the fault of the "Tory" council who hired them, isn't the next step in the ladder of lol to blame the voters who elected them? :p
Click to expand...

Don't forget the tory housing ministers that sat on a report that building regulations be reviewed. And all the tories that voted against making homes fit for human habitation just to keep their pockets lined. Yeah I'll blame alright.
 
dowie said:
didn't we already have an inquest after a different tower block fire in 2009 - why would another one be different/better and why is a public inquiry 'weak'?
Click to expand...

The child abuse public inquiry is all you need to know about why public inquiries are terrible. How many people have swung in and out of chairing in the last year alone because the government wont allow the necessary tools to complete the inquiry?
 
RavenXXX2 said:
Don't forget the tory housing ministers that sat on a report that building regulations be reviewed. And all the tories that voted against making homes fit for human habitation just to keep their pockets lined. Yeah I'll blame alright.
Click to expand...

ah but the tories, the tories... etc.. didn't that relate to private landlords - what does that have to do with the maintenance of council owned tower blocks? I guess as it is housing related it is an excuse to start more ranting about 'the Tories'
 
StriderX said:
The child abuse public inquiry is all you need to know about why public inquiries are terrible. How many people have swung in and out of chairing in the last year alone because the government wont allow the necessary tools to complete the inquiry?
Click to expand...

so because a particular public inquiry is bad all are bad?
 
StriderX said:
No, because all public inquiries are at the behest of the government's whims, hardly independent is it.
Click to expand...



Exactly, an inquest is what is needed, not a government controlled PE. Mind you I was surprised how fast Maybot announced a PE, no that the Tories have anything to cover up or anything, right....
 
StriderX said:
https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/idoxWAM/doc...LUME2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1

And

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/wamdocs/4conservanddevelop.pdf

Is all i can find on CD63 (the document pertaining to conservation of view), but this is in my opinion a minor grievance compared to cheapening out on crappy cladding in the first place.
Click to expand...

I don't see anywhere in there where it says that the reason for the cladding was "for the surrounding neighborhoods (two conservation areas mainly) having a better view".
 
dowie said:
so if they were able to spend several million then it doesn't seem like 'austerity' is necessarily to blame here... there was money available but the question is whether it was spent wisely, who decided that this particular type of cladding should be used rather than the more fire resistant sort etc.. i.e. what we'll learn from an inquiry/investigation

of course that doesn't stop people form wanting to turn it into some sort of political point scoring exercise
Click to expand...

Just because money was spent it doesn't mean it wasn't austerity. It could have been that to have the building to a safe standard it would have cost £12m but only £9m was approved due to austerity for example.
 
StriderX said:
No, because all public inquiries are at the behest of the government's whims, hardly independent is it.
Click to expand...

an inquest can't apportion blame in terms of criminal and civil liability and will likely avoid any areas subject to criminal investigation

we had an inquest after the 2009 fire did we not?
 
sanaxe1 said:
It could have been that to have the building to a safe standard it would have cost £12m but only £9m was approved due to austerity for example.
Click to expand...
Government contracts don't usually work like that, they either go all out (or at least attempt to) or say they don't have the money and do nothing.
 
ubersonic said:
It doesn't list it as a reason either :S
Click to expand...

To accord with the development plan by ensuring that the character and appearance of the area are preserved and living conditions of those living near the development suitably protected.
Click to expand...

Connecting that with the UDP document that connects the conservation of view to the refurbishment is about as good as the explanation for this as it gets, regardless it's not really important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom