Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Roundtuit  
#1 Posted : 30 June 2025 09:15:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

A few backlogs as a regulator attempts to build a department and performance from scratch in consquence of the Grenfell enquiry appears to be too slow for HM Governments desire to rapidly improve the availability of housing.

They are noew seeking to cut through the red tape perceived to be delaying "approvals" by creating another "arms length" regulator.

Wasn't it removal of the red tape and a switch to marking ones own homework over the preceding decades that resulted in Grenfell in the first place?

Of course as an arms length organisation it won't be political expediency at fault.

As to the question - anyone seen the necessary changes to legislation which will accommodate this move?

thanks 4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
peter gotch on 30/06/2025(UTC), MikeKelly on 30/06/2025(UTC), peter gotch on 30/06/2025(UTC), MikeKelly on 30/06/2025(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#2 Posted : 30 June 2025 09:15:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

A few backlogs as a regulator attempts to build a department and performance from scratch in consquence of the Grenfell enquiry appears to be too slow for HM Governments desire to rapidly improve the availability of housing.

They are noew seeking to cut through the red tape perceived to be delaying "approvals" by creating another "arms length" regulator.

Wasn't it removal of the red tape and a switch to marking ones own homework over the preceding decades that resulted in Grenfell in the first place?

Of course as an arms length organisation it won't be political expediency at fault.

As to the question - anyone seen the necessary changes to legislation which will accommodate this move?

thanks 4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
peter gotch on 30/06/2025(UTC), MikeKelly on 30/06/2025(UTC), peter gotch on 30/06/2025(UTC), MikeKelly on 30/06/2025(UTC)
Messey  
#3 Posted : 30 June 2025 09:40:40(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Messey

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

Wasn't it removal of the red tape and a switch to marking ones own homework over the preceding decades that resulted in Grenfell in the first place?

That is NOT how I would put it!

When a company willfully & criminally (IMHO) alter/hides  test samples to trick the testing house - all so they can sell non compliant materials to be used on tall buildings when they shouldn't have been- that is the main reason the fire spread and killed like it did OK there were many secondary factors, but lets not let this criminal act off the hook as that is what they would want I was in the fire service and had Grenfell on my ground. We attended a fore that was out of the window prior to the cladding being installed. The resulting scarring of the wall was visible for weeks before repairs were made. It did not spread laterally  So with all respect Roundtuit, lets not use phrases such as 'marking your own homework' as it doesnt adequately describe the ignorant, negligent and beyond selfish hunger for profit that was laid bare during the Inquiry 

peter gotch  
#4 Posted : 30 June 2025 10:05:00(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Good morning Messey

Just because some companies appear to have been more reckless than the norm shouldn't be taken as an exxuse to let other organisations (and individuals) up to and including those governing the country off the hook.

Roundtuit  
#5 Posted : 30 June 2025 11:18:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: Messey Go to Quoted Post
so they can sell non compliant materials to be used on tall buildings when they shouldn't have been

Non-compliant is quite a stretch.

The Building Regulations Approved Document B on external walling components of High Rise / High Risk buildings was only altered to EN 13501-1 Non-Combustible / Limited Combustibility in December 2022.

Some manufacturers have been found to have garnered the system of testing at Grenfell but at the end of the day HM Gov sets the rules and chooses, or otherwise, how those rules are policed. It would appear taking time to do things correctly is not the model they wish to follow.

Roundtuit  
#6 Posted : 30 June 2025 11:18:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: Messey Go to Quoted Post
so they can sell non compliant materials to be used on tall buildings when they shouldn't have been

Non-compliant is quite a stretch.

The Building Regulations Approved Document B on external walling components of High Rise / High Risk buildings was only altered to EN 13501-1 Non-Combustible / Limited Combustibility in December 2022.

Some manufacturers have been found to have garnered the system of testing at Grenfell but at the end of the day HM Gov sets the rules and chooses, or otherwise, how those rules are policed. It would appear taking time to do things correctly is not the model they wish to follow.

Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.