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
A Kurdziel  
#1 Posted : 12 November 2021 11:57:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-59260848

When we talk about “the culture” we often treat it as aslightly theoretical concept but it’s real and in this piece on the BBC website shows builders taking steps to avoid new properties being subject to stricter post-Grenfell fire related building controls.  You do wonder about the mental processes that leads people to the conclusion that life  is  a game and  you should do whatever it takes to win.

Roundtuit  
#2 Posted : 12 November 2021 12:39:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

The forthcoming Building Safety Bill makes clear the differentiation for 18m+ / 7 storey+ from other properties. The material (fire) classifications have already been adjusted in the Building Regulations and associated Approved Documents to suit the needs of greater protection in tall constructions.

You would have thought LFB would be happy to see less high rise and high risk being planned/constructed.

IMHO it is not so much taking steps to avoid the rules rather adjusting the product to fit within those rules.

Dieselgate was/is an example of taking steps to avoid the rules.

Roundtuit  
#3 Posted : 12 November 2021 12:39:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

The forthcoming Building Safety Bill makes clear the differentiation for 18m+ / 7 storey+ from other properties. The material (fire) classifications have already been adjusted in the Building Regulations and associated Approved Documents to suit the needs of greater protection in tall constructions.

You would have thought LFB would be happy to see less high rise and high risk being planned/constructed.

IMHO it is not so much taking steps to avoid the rules rather adjusting the product to fit within those rules.

Dieselgate was/is an example of taking steps to avoid the rules.

achrn  
#4 Posted : 12 November 2021 13:48:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel Go to Quoted Post

this piece on the BBC website shows builders taking steps to avoid new properties being subject to stricter post-Grenfell fire related building controls.  You do wonder about the mental processes that leads people to the conclusion that life  is  a game and  you should do whatever it takes to win.

I completely disagree with that article.

If you apply a conventional hierarchy of controls, the builders in this case have eliminated the hazard by not building a high-rise, which surely has to be better than controlling the hazard by implementing things like more complex fire alarms.

If the author thinks that lower buildings than 18m high should also have enhanced fire measures, that's a different argument.  However, having decided the rules and written the rules and published the rules, you can't rationally lambast someone for complying with the rules.

thanks 3 users thanked achrn for this useful post.
Roundtuit on 12/11/2021(UTC), Brian Hagyard on 12/11/2021(UTC), Kate on 12/11/2021(UTC)
Brian Hagyard  
#5 Posted : 12 November 2021 13:59:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard

i agree how is this avoiding the rules? If they build under 6 floors there aee a different set of rules. Avoiding them would be building over 6 floors and not following the enhanced fire precautions. Rubbish sensation journalism again.

should buidings under 6 floors still have to comply with the enhanced fire precautions - totaly different agrument.

Kate  
#6 Posted : 12 November 2021 14:34:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

I recall an inspector in the COMAH sector saying that intentionally limiting your chemical inventory to just below the COMAH thresholds to avoid application of the onerous COMAH rules was absolutely fine by them as the outcome was that hazards were reduced, which was exactly what was wanted.

This is analogous to building a less tall building in order to avoid the onerous rules for tall buildings.

A Kurdziel  
#7 Posted : 12 November 2021 15:26:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

Ok having lower buildings is better BUT in an ideal world no building would have flammable cladding its just that the government has decided for now that 18 m  is the cut off point. Perhaps there is an expectation that in the future the limit will be lowered, once the high rises have been brought under control.   

thanks 1 user thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
Kate on 12/11/2021(UTC)
peter gotch  
#8 Posted : 12 November 2021 15:36:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Well, in the BBC article there is a link to a comment by the Building Safety Minister.

If he/Government think that a risk-based approach is appropriate then they can legislate for that, rather than incorporating somewhat arbitrary thresholds.

Some years ago, moves were happening to amend the requirements of the Reservoirs Safety Act 1930 whose main provisions only came into play if the capacity of a reservoir exceeded 25000 cubic metres, to move from this hazard-based legislation to a risk-based approach.

So, in essence you look at the infrastructure and what is downstream to see the impact of failure (as well as the probability of failure). I have worked on a project involving a mega reservoir where there is virtually nothing downstream for miles. In contrast I have worked on projects where they were reducing the capacity of reservoirs to below the magic number without considering the population downstream and only for the reservoirs to come back into scope when the law changed.

thanks 1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 15/11/2021(UTC)
Users browsing this topic
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.