Some kind of building standards have been in place in England since 1845. The Building Regulations as we now know them were first introduced in 1965. Standards have changed regularly since 1965 in order to keep abreast of new materials and building techniques. Not all changes
... have been for the better and some materials have had unforeseen problems and dangers. Having set up the building regs regime, the Government then allowed the the system to be interfered with in a way that reduced control over testing and oversight of construction generally.
This was bound to lead to a lowering of standards of both materials and construction. Some changes, like the appointment of "Approved Inspectors" was bound to weaken control over standards of construction and the privatisation of testing stations like Boreham Wood did nothing to
... ensure that materials were fit for purpose in every case. Cladding is a prime example of that. On the construction standard front missing cavity barriers & unsealed breaches in fire compartment walls are just two examples of where things have been allowed to go horribly ....
.... wrong. This has been down to successive governments and their attempts to save money in the main. Poor construction standards and the use of inappropriate materials has been down to irresponsible builders and developers again, mainly to save money. Building Control Depts.
... have been lax in their enforcement of the correct standards and this has not been helped by the existence of approved inspectors who have been allowed to mark their own homework. All of these factors taken together have produced situations like the Grenfell Towers fire and
... but for the grace of God, many others. You will notice that I have not mentioned the part played by leaseholders in this mess, & that is simply because they have played no part. My question therefore is, WHY ARE THRY EXPECTED TO PAY FOR OTHERS MISTAKES?

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Cyril Moseley

Cyril Moseley Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @cyrilmoseley

27 Apr
My understanding of the Government's intention of using the Fire Safety Bill to make leaseholders "Responsible Persons" under the RR Fire Safety Order 2005 is to secure access to flat entrance doors and external cladding for any necessary enforcement action by the local F&RS.
This is a nonsense as that access could be secured by making the leaseholders "Dutyholders", which eould give them responsibility for seeing that any fire safety features within their individual flats are adequately maintained, without making them responsible for paying for it.
Unfortunately, even if this could be achieved by an amendment of the Fire Safety Bill, it eould not overcome the problem presented by the unfair terms of most leases which allow owners & freeholders to pass on the cost of maintenance and repairs to fire safety provisions. It is
Read 13 tweets
4 Mar
@hilarybennmp I never thought I would ever say this, but the Tories are completely untrustworthy. They are letting down thousands of leaseholders and are again threatening to break international law. Dodgy PPE deals, tax savings for dodgy developers. No integrity. What a load of charlatans.
@hilarybennmp The real answer to the cladding scandal is to deal with the internal fire precautions first and cladding later. The installation of fire detection & alarm systems and sprinklers, maintenance of passive fire precautions & evacuation procedures will improve safety much more than
@hilarybennmp ... cladding removal. Cladding only becomes a risk if exposed to fire. Therefore, if any source of fire is likely to be controlled or extinguished by sprinklers the fire risk is mitigated. This is in line with fire risk assessment procedures and outcomes. If this approach is not
Read 4 tweets
23 Jan
@HRRBFireSafety @sued62 @MattHodgesLong @lgahousing Hi Phil, looking at the example guidance, I suppose it could be argued that the cladding breaches the compartmentation of any block fitted with it. Under these circumstances it would seem right to dispense with the "stay put" policy and provide a suitable fire detection & alarm
@HRRBFireSafety @sued62 @MattHodgesLong @lgahousing .... system to facilitate a controlled evacuation process. The "cladding" compartmentation breach can be overcome by the installation of sprinklers. The mhlgc acknowledges that in their own studies sprinklers were shown to reduce the risk to life by up to 75% and other studies
@HRRBFireSafety @sued62 @MattHodgesLong @lgahousing .... showed that this safety factor was even higher. In fact in studies by the Sprinkler Association they were shown to have a reliability factor of 97% and an efficiency factor of 99%. There is no reliable way in which the integrity of the compartmentation in these tower blocks
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!