U.K. ENGINEERING 2016 REPORT

Moshe and Brian,

Was this a conspired criminal act based on greed to make a profit by using the cheap illegal material, negligence or ignorant incompetence?


I think sadly that it may be a combination of negligence and ignorant incompetence that is probably closest to the mark. Brian reported Philip Hammond as saying that the material was illegal for tall buildings but the report in the paper that I read said that the material was illegal and then went on to say that the guidance was it should not be used on buildings over ten metres high. I am not an expert in the building regulations but have spent nine years as Chairman of an IEC Technical Committee (TC 18) and have considerable experience with shipping and offshore regulations. Generally with regulations, guidance is just guidance and is not actually a requirement. Also the word "should" is not mandatory but is just a recommendation when used in regulatory documents. This makes me think that there was a loophole in the regulations that somebody should have plugged. I certainly didn't see anything so glaring in the marine regulations and had the tower block been a ship, there would have been a number of requirements for fire detection, sprinklers, fire escape routes, etc. that would have needed to be complied with which were just not there for the residents.


I also heard or read in the past few days that the firm that carried out the work was told to use this particular cladding. Had they been aware of the recommendations in regard to high buildings I would have expected them to still speak up but not having chosen it themselves they may not have been aware (ignorant imcompetence?) but the person who specified it should certainly have known.


The most telling report I have read regarding this is that the law changed about ten years ago and they removed the need for a fire certificate for buildings and put the onus on the owners and builders/renovators to maintain the fire safety standards with regulation by routine inspections by the (already incredibly overloaded) fire brigade. This (it has been reported) is not working and it is a tragedy that it has taken an event like this to highlight the fact sufficiently that something might now be done about it. It has also been reported that residents can take legal action against landlords if the building is delapidated but they have no recourse is there are major safety concerns. Perhaps this is another area that is ripe for change.


Alasdair Anderson FIET

Moshe and Brian,

Was this a conspired criminal act based on greed to make a profit by using the cheap illegal material, negligence or ignorant incompetence?


I think sadly that it may be a combination of negligence and ignorant incompetence that is probably closest to the mark. Brian reported Philip Hammond as saying that the material was illegal for tall buildings but the report in the paper that I read said that the material was illegal and then went on to say that the guidance was it should not be used on buildings over ten metres high. I am not an expert in the building regulations but have spent nine years as Chairman of an IEC Technical Committee (TC 18) and have considerable experience with shipping and offshore regulations. Generally with regulations, guidance is just guidance and is not actually a requirement. Also the word "should" is not mandatory but is just a recommendation when used in regulatory documents. This makes me think that there was a loophole in the regulations that somebody should have plugged. I certainly didn't see anything so glaring in the marine regulations and had the tower block been a ship, there would have been a number of requirements for fire detection, sprinklers, fire escape routes, etc. that would have needed to be complied with which were just not there for the residents.


I also heard or read in the past few days that the firm that carried out the work was told to use this particular cladding. Had they been aware of the recommendations in regard to high buildings I would have expected them to still speak up but not having chosen it themselves they may not have been aware (ignorant imcompetence?) but the person who specified it should certainly have known.


The most telling report I have read regarding this is that the law changed about ten years ago and they removed the need for a fire certificate for buildings and put the onus on the owners and builders/renovators to maintain the fire safety standards with regulation by routine inspections by the (already incredibly overloaded) fire brigade. This (it has been reported) is not working and it is a tragedy that it has taken an event like this to highlight the fact sufficiently that something might now be done about it. It has also been reported that residents can take legal action against landlords if the building is delapidated but they have no recourse is there are major safety concerns. Perhaps this is another area that is ripe for change.


Alasdair Anderson FIET