Towering inferno in London

[Pinkman]

No the council would put a proposal to an architect who would pick suitable and regulation standard materials using their expertise. The contractor would then price accordingly and the work would then have to be signed off by someone to make sure it meets requirements, this process may have fell down somewhere if the cladding is responsible.

 

Ok thanks. I'm not an architect and don't know any either...I sort of thought they only designed a building and then let the engineers and builders worry about the materials and logistics.

 

---------- Post added 15-06-2017 at 15:59 ----------

 

If the cladding didn't meet the standards then building inspection and control would be that point.

But when it does meet the standards... Well, then it's a central government failure because they're the ones who set the standards (apparently considerably lower than most other places).

 

Yeah, you said before about our standard being lower. Have you got a source?

 

I sort of thought the Brits championed good regs. BRE has been around a long time and other countries employ their services.

[John]

Your second link says page not found...

 

It is still there you just need to change the timeline.

 

Beside, they have put the deleted web page back up on their site and added a paragraph at the top.

 

They had nothing to do with the cladding.

 

Deleting this information which is what they did originally was probably not the best course of action to take given it would only serve to attract the attention of trolls and that is the last thing this company needs.

[Eater Sundae]

How would that work in practice for a contractor submitting a tender to the council to clad an existing towerblock?

 

It depends on the type of contract, but...

 

(I no longer work in the construction industry so don't have access to the regs, but from memory...)

 

In all but the smallest contracts, CDM regs will apply, and any council and contractor will be aware of their responsibilities. There are several defined roles, each with defined responsibilities.

 

I may have got wording/titles wrong, as the wording changed a few years ago. There should be plenty of people who can correct me.

 

Roughly speaking, these roles are:

Owner, who commissions the work.

Project Manager (may have got this title wrong), who manages the contract.

Designer, who designs the work, and

Contractor, who builds it.

 

Some of these roles can be shared

eg, the owner can also project manage,

the project manager could also design, the contractor could also design, etc.

 

For example, if a council wants a building cladding, it could design the scheme itself, prepare drawings etc, act as project manager, and invite a contractor to quote against a detailed design and a bill of quantities. So the owner is also the project manager and the designer

 

Alternatively, at the other end of the scale, it could approach a contractor, and ask it to project manage and design, as well as build, ie the contractor is also the project manager and designer. (Typical a design-build contract, or turn key).

 

There are a whole range of options in between.

 

The council, as owner, especially if he is not technically competent himself, could employ a consulting engineer to design and manage the contract.

 

Under CDM, the project manager has a duty to ensure that the owner employs a competent designer and contractor. He in effect has a duty to protect the owner from his own incompetence.

 

Similarly, the designer has a duty to be competent, as does the contracor.

[Pinkman]

It depends on the type of contract, but...

 

(I no longer work in the construction industry so don't have access to the regs, but from memory...)

 

In all but the smallest contracts, CDM regs will apply, and any council and contractor will be aware of their responsibilities. There are several defined roles, each with defined responsibilities.

 

I may have got wording/titles wrong, as the wording changed a few years ago. There should be plenty of people who can correct me.

 

Roughly speaking, these roles are:

Owner, who commissions the work.

Project Manager (may have got this title wrong), who manages the contract.

Designer, who designs the work, and

Contractor, who builds it.

 

Some of these roles can be shared

eg, the owner can also project manage,

the project manager could also design, the contractor could also design, etc.

 

For example, if a council wants a building cladding, it could design the scheme itself, prepare drawings etc, act as project manager, and invite a contractor to quote against a detailed design and a bill of quantities. So the owner is also the project manager and the designer

 

Alternatively, at the other end of the scale, it could approach a contractor, and ask it to project manage and design, as well as build, ie the contractor is also the project manager and designer. (Typical a design-build contract, or turn key).

 

There are a whole range of options in between.

 

The council, as owner, especially if he is not technically competent himself, could employ a consulting engineer to design and manage the contract.

 

Under CDM, the project manager has a duty to ensure that the owner employs a competent designer and contractor. He in effect has a duty to protect the owner from his own incompetence.

 

Similarly, the designer has a duty to be competent, as does the contracor.

 

Interesting. Thanks for the reply.

[julado]

I want politics to be kept out of it. That's the point.

 

The whole thing is politicised...by the very fact that those involved and those who lost their lives are living in a council block in a London borough who wishes that people like them were not there. Part of the reason for adding the cladding was because posher people who had to look at the tower as it was complained to the council that it was an eyesore.

 

Do you think that this would have happened to a privately owned tower of flats where builders, contractors would have had to have kept to health and safety guidelines...and most definitely had to include a sprinkler system...or at least dry risers (that in this tower were removed during the refurbishment).

 

Or do you want to live in a fluffy pink world where poor people don't exist?

[truman]

The whole thing is politicised...by the very fact that those involved and those who lost their lives are living in a council block in a London borough who wishes that people like them were not there. Part of the reason for adding the cladding was because posher people who had to look at the tower as it was complained to the council that it was an eyesore.

 

Do you think that this would have happened to a privately owned tower of flats where builders, contractors would have had to have kept to health and safety guidelines...and most definitely had to include a sprinkler system...or at least dry risers (that in this tower were removed during the refurbishment).

 

Or do you want to live in a fluffy pink world where poor people don't exist?

 

Are you accusing someone of not adhering to guidelines etc.?

[Obelix]

The whole thing is politicised...by the very fact that those involved and those who lost their lives are living in a council block in a London borough who wishes that people like them were not there. Part of the reason for adding the cladding was because posher people who had to look at the tower as it was complained to the council that it was an eyesore.

 

Do you think that this would have happened to a privately owned tower of flats where builders, contractors would have had to have kept to health and safety guidelines...and most definitely had to include a sprinkler system...or at least dry risers (that in this tower were removed during the refurbishment).

 

Or do you want to live in a fluffy pink world where poor people don't exist?

 

OK so what part of it do you think breached H+S guidelines then? And why would private towers be required to have sprinklers and not council since theyd be on the same building regulations.

 

Also I've never ever seen a tower block with external sprinklers....

[top4718]

It depends on the type of contract, but...

 

(I no longer work in the construction industry so don't have access to the regs, but from memory...)

 

In all but the smallest contracts, CDM regs will apply, and any council and contractor will be aware of their responsibilities. There are several defined roles, each with defined responsibilities.

 

I may have got wording/titles wrong, as the wording changed a few years ago. There should be plenty of people who can correct me.

 

Roughly speaking, these roles are:

Owner, who commissions the work.

Project Manager (may have got this title wrong), who manages the contract.

Designer, who designs the work, and

Contractor, who builds it.

 

Some of these roles can be shared

eg, the owner can also project manage,

the project manager could also design, the contractor could also design, etc.

 

For example, if a council wants a building cladding, it could design the scheme itself, prepare drawings etc, act as project manager, and invite a contractor to quote against a detailed design and a bill of quantities. So the owner is also the project manager and the designer

 

Alternatively, at the other end of the scale, it could approach a contractor, and ask it to project manage and design, as well as build, ie the contractor is also the project manager and designer. (Typical a design-build contract, or turn key).

 

There are a whole range of options in between.

 

The council, as owner, especially if he is not technically competent himself, could employ a consulting engineer to design and manage the contract.

 

Under CDM, the project manager has a duty to ensure that the owner employs a competent designer and contractor. He in effect has a duty to protect the owner from his own incompetence.

 

Similarly, the designer has a duty to be competent, as does the contracor.

 

The current terms (I think) are:

 

Client

Principal designer

Main contractor

Sub-contractor

[sgtkate]

The whole thing is politicised...by the very fact that those involved and those who lost their lives are living in a council block in a London borough who wishes that people like them were not there. Part of the reason for adding the cladding was because posher people who had to look at the tower as it was complained to the council that it was an eyesore.

 

Do you think that this would have happened to a privately owned tower of flats where builders, contractors would have had to have kept to health and safety guidelines...and most definitely had to include a sprinkler system...or at least dry risers (that in this tower were removed during the refurbishment).

 

Or do you want to live in a fluffy pink world where poor people don't exist?

 

Julado, I think this would easily have happened in a privately owned block too sadly. Only last year was a law blocked that would have forced landlords to ensure their houses were fit for human habitation, currently there is minimal legislation over what this means and therefore houses can legally be rented in an appalling condition. Unfortunately if there is no law to force builders or apartment managers to do something on safety grounds then they aren't going to do it as it eats into their costs. Parliament should have sorted this out decades ago so this isn't just a Tory issue, Labour had ample time to fix it too and didn't either. This rests partly on all our governments for the last 50 years.

 

So, let's see what happens now. If there is not widespread, and I do mean widespread, changes and legislation brought in urgently to address safety matters in all housing stock then expect riots. Once again it's the poorest members of society who have suffered over profiteering (changes could easily have been made to the building to improve safety and saved lives by getting people out more quickly even if the fire itself couldn't have been stopped). Again the people who feel absolutely lost in our society have born the brunt and once again I don't see a happy ending. I just hope things get fixed properly now and we never see this kind of tragedy again.

[Eater Sundae]

OK so what part of it do you think breached H+S guidelines then? And why would private towers be required to have sprinklers and not council since theyd be on the same building regulations.

 

Also I've never ever seen a tower block with external sprinklers....

 

There was an architect on radio 5 live, today, advocating external sprinkler systems, to specifically quench any fires in the external cladding.

 

I don't know if this is already a thing, or whether he was just bouncing ideas around, but he pointed out that this would be a comparatively cheap retro-fit, and would not need disruption to individual flats.