Stand by my earlier statement to @itvlondon on #Hackitt review
“It’s a bastardised wish list which may prove cost prohibative to implement”
Will be interesting to see the detail on Monday but THREAD with headline comments.
Reviews occurred in @ScotGovBldgStds of primary legislation in 2003
Concept of fire and building safety life cycle isn’t a new one see paper circa 2007/8
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdNshvaX0AMgXW1.jpg)
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdNshveWkAAXUjf.jpg)
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdNshvfXkAA20t2.jpg)
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdNshvdXgAENenC.jpg)
Why limit to residential high rise & not broader applications eg hospitals, offices etc
Why introduce “accountable person” when fire safety order establishes “responsible person”
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdNuR2EXYAAkkaS.jpg)
Why within HSE & not a new agency (see Scottish building standards agency)
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdNwGV9WAAMJYDU.jpg)
What costs will owners & operators need to pay
Or the tax payer?
Who will foot the costs & at what cost - @govuk make it clear new safety costs will be landing but not how they will ensure affordable.
New powers to legislate cost recovery?
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdNx2FZWsAAoFYB.jpg)
Key point
Is @govuk scraping legacy “deemed to statisfy standards + concepts of managed risks”
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdNyaYrWsAEqmWB.jpg)
No mention of failed building warranty schemes or challenges holding developers to account
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdNy_iJWkAQA3Mx.jpg)
No mention how recent or legacy cases will be treated or time frame for any of the new regime
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdNzXmVWsAIY0e6.jpg)
With fire order 2005 + CDM regs 1994/2007/2015 why have so many opportunities been missed hold those duty holders or responsible persons to account?
How will this be enforced?
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdN0MVxWoAAGiZe.jpg)
It lead to building, fire + health and safety being Asplit into three distinct streams
Building Act
Fire Precaurions Act
Health & safety Act
+
Housing Act is still poorly integrated
However poor overlaps with building, safety & environ health.
Necessary yes but what of the mechanics as @BRE_group + @BBAguru are now privatised?
Again this will cost money to set up - public money + material & product manufactures money & slide down to the consumer!
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdN7bXDXgAQl9eV.jpg)
Guidance isn’t clearer is more confused - EWS1 + lenders & insurers risk adversion reflects this
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdN-Ms9XoAArxbe.jpg)
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdOAm80X0AEZEdn.jpg)
But we didn’t see non-acm reports or additional necessary ammendements to ADB until may 2020!
Note many residents are not hit with second wave costs as a result!
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdOBKdPWkAAzPuY.jpg)
When hundreds of thousands remain in unsafe buildings and many facing bankruptcy.
![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdODIlZXsAAAuIg.jpg)
Is this back door privatisation or attepmts to wipe the slate clean
Who will foot the costs
How do we ensure safety until implemented