Forum Topic

One was refurbished inside and the other was ACM cladding as part of the local refurbishment of the area. The one with cladding Grenfell was never refurbished inside and was true to the original 70s design 1 HOUR protection BETWEEN FLATS if only they didn't fit the cladding the fire would not have spread up the building.. Lakanal was totally refurbished inside and the layouts were altered and the original compartmentation was breached by the builders allowing the fire to spread through the flats... Grenfell the supplier and builders failed to address the problem at design stage that the ACM was never design or approved for high rise buildings..Greed has nothing to do with Building regulations they have for years changed the biggest thing that was introduced was privatisation and a free-for-all. Building regs are not worth the paper they are written on especially when in house developments are concerned in council owned buildings... The residents in the upper floors of Grenfell had no chance with temperatures in there 1000c.. Building industry have written a lot since Grenfell and there are more consultants and experts out there.. Building TOWER blocks out of modern cheap materials and expect them to stop the spread of fire is crazy.. Hammersmith Grove there was a fire in the middle of the block 2021, the layout and design  of the old building the fire was contained and no deaths. Shepherd Bush green 12th floor the fire was contained.. when owners fit plastic windows and cladding in tall buildings what do they expect when a fire breaks out??

Nicolas Ozegovic ● 186d

Your criticism might have more credibility if you didn't constantly resort to juvenile name calling. Whilst the current administration in Ealing should be roundly condemned for the Perceval House proposal it is perhaps worth remembering the circumstances in which it is arisen. Local authorities are in many ways just delivery organisations for central government policy and have little discretion of their own. Westminster controls the purse strings and councils have a choice of either doing one they are told or being deprived of funding. In the current economic environment it is very difficult for a council to take a principled stand and refuse to implement government policy. The current government have mandated very aggressive housing targets for London mainly because they remain averse to building on the green belt in constituencies which are represented by Conservative MPs. Therefore the heavy lifting to reach the desired number of housing starts is being done in the capital. At the same time there are quite onerous requirements on 'affordable' housing. As London doesn't have much spare land and the targets focus on number of units not number of rooms we are ending up with a huge number of flats and hardly any houses. As the requirement to offer affordable units reduces profit margins, more units need to be crammed into the space which means taller buildings. Like with LTNs, Julian Bell and Ealing Council appear to be guilty of implementing a government policy with undue enthusiasm rather than originating the policy themselves. As with LTNs, culpability for the consequences of these policies should be shared between local and central government.

Gordon Southwell ● 189d