When i was traveling in Asia last year the tall hotels I stayed in had these in the rooms and in the corridors. Must admit it was a bit disconcerting at first.
And another expert had now come out and said the current system, in particular the fire inspections now being conducted, are flawed and a waste of time. Prof Dix understands that it about assessing the design as a whole, essentially a risk based safety case approach. Can’t link at the moment, but it is on the BBC website.
mind you prof Dix says:
He said FRAs did not look inside individual properties and did not need to see how the building was originally designed to evacuate people, meaning it was “like having a full health check and only checking the tonsils”.
the report I saw on the news checks in Camden clearly did look inside flats as they showed a flat where the door between the kitchen and the main living space had been removed by the occupant for aesthetic reasons, when it was a fire door…mind you one cant assume all other council checks are just as thorough.
In buildings above 2 storeys all doors should be fire doors.
clearly common sense dictates that they should not be removed by occupants…one would have thought…
Absolutely, unfortunately it is common for this to happen.
hmmmm Ironmongery Direct just sent me an email advert for Fire Doors…
Could it be prevented with the right kind of (tamper-proof) hinges ?
In theory I suppose Graeme but it’s hard to legislate against stupidity.
and angle grinders…
The cartoon is particularly disparaging about the RBKC. Very apt.
It’s good that someone is trying to expose this cover-up as it begins. Time will tell whether the remit or adjudication are up to the job.
Who should pay?
I think that the ultimate responsibility should lie with the government, as the building regs were manifestly not fit for purpose - the cladding was signed off, but it is now recognised as dangerous.
Certainly the individual residents should not be the ones forced to cough up. The landlord or Gov should
Emotions aside, residents have no responsibility. Council, and owners (landlords) who will be aware of the volatility of the cladding are.
The residents are the leaseholders so would (normally) be responsible but the govt should pay as they approved dangerous cladding for use on buildings.
Top marks to her, I hope she sticks to her guns on this and gets the right changes made. At this stage the various pressure groups and MPs would be (in fact are) baying for action, usually resulting in a simple change to Regs that achieve little. It looks like she is pushing them down the Safety Case based approach, an independent Regulator and through life management of safety in the round. About bloody time.