Forum Topic

Technically Gordon is correct and that exposes the flaws in the system.This is a headache for planners working for a Borough but useful for planners working for developers or consulting as it creates a grey area to make a living from.But the sheer complexity means it is almost impossible to lodge a pertinent objection which has any gravitas.  One has to be fully familiar with planning laws and procedures and then some on top.Even retired planners struggle with some of this but can understand a working planner not being keen to get involved as it could damage that persons whole livelihood.So for ordinary residents, objecting from the perspective of reality is futile and even more aggravating when these objections bear out to be correct in their predictions and concerns.But what can exists is a firm and clear policy by a Borough to not entertain such applications.Unfortunately Ealings administration has been at the forefront of hawking the Borough at places like Cannes along with Hounslow and far too keen to prove Ealing to developers as a 'Can Do' Borough.This really is morally corrupt and not in the interests of those who voted them to run the basics of a borough.There are Boroughs who choose not to pursue this policy and are not allowing their towns to fall prey.So there are things that can be done to minimise these applications.LBE, by being the proposer of this one is not far short of a crime against the Town and it's existing residents. Certainly a reckless act of wanton vandalism.Interesting to just how many behind these schemes end up working for developers and other allied businesses.

Raymond Havelock ● 227d

All the problems go back to the lack of social housing.  Being forced to sell off social housing and with nearly all of the money going straight to the Treasury instead of being able to take and use the money gained to build new housing has left Councils with the responsibility of housing many people but not having the funds to do so.  They spend a lot of resources trying to find homes for people and moving them from place to place - something which is no good for creating communities and no good for children's continuity of education or any continuity of care for anyone and where people lose touch with any family and community they do have.  This leads to Councils trying to get what they need from the buildings and land that they already have by making deals with developers.  Developers make more when they have more units.Since I watched the Dangerous Cladding Debate I have watched a webinar presentation explaining about fire doors and showing pictures of doors that have been failed.  Unbelievable number of faults.  I can understand now why architects and other specifiers specify door sets.  Mismatched leaves, doors not fitted square and then bodged to try and make them fit, lack of seals around them and around any holes cut in them, closers that don't work etc etc.  Some of these were in hospitals.  It is really frightening that people who are elderly or infirm could have been put so at risk by being in tall buildings not safeguarded through poor workmanship and/or lack of maintenance.  Some Building Regs have now been changed and there is a Fire Bill returning to the Commons shortly.  It doesn't matter what the regulations are though if they are either difficult to follow or not followed at all."And then of top it is how people treat property.  Much gets very poorly treated through rough use and poor housekeeping."People need to be aware that if they mistreat property or alter it they may put themselves as well as other people in danger.When there is a lack of administration or continuity in administration or good enough administration this also creates problems and dangers.  Buildings need regular inspections by people who really understand what they are inspecting and why and not just ticking boxes.https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/a6ac5191-f789-42ba-a63f-71e9c65ffbb6?in=15:38:38It follows another debate - on Defence and isn't indexed.  Many MPs of difference parties telling of the problems their constituent leaseholders have with faulty buildings.

Philippa Bond ● 237d

I watched the Dangerous Cladding Debate in Parliament the other week.  MPs from all parties with constituents who are in the dreadful situation of not being able to sleep because their flats have been deemed dangerous and they have to pay to have a waking watch which is costly - and that is without all the remediation work that now needs to be done on their flats. Each MP was telling of their constituents, the leaseholders, and the problems they have encountered including not being able to find out who the offshore owners of the building are.The problem is much greater than just cladding. There are other faults and there are a lot of buildings involved.Project specific subsidary companies are often created just for the construction of one building to protect the parent company from liability.  So if things go wrong the liabilities stay with the subsidiary company which may then fold.Once completed buildings are often sold to offshore investment companies who have no interest in addressing the faults.Interestingly the Conservatives had obviously been whipped to abstain from voting.England & Wales Building Regulations have had some changes made to them since Grenfell.  However there are very many more buildings which need reappraisal because apart from the cladding it seems that Grenfell also threw up issues with other forms of fire protection in recently constructed towers.An interesting proposal for the funding of the necessary remedial work is contained in the following Youtube discussion.It has a very good introduction giving an overview of the situation by Martina Lees a journalist with The Times and Sunday Times.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fo_j4xEayA

Philippa Bond ● 239d