search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Cladding focus


suggest what else could be done in the aftermath of Grenfell, I strongly urged that other materials, such as high pressure laminates (HPL), should also be looked at. This was firmly rejected. After the strength of public opinion became


clear on Question Time on the day Judith Hackitt published her report, Dominic Raab announced that a combustible ban would be implemented. Sir Ken Knight, who chairs the Independent Expert Panel, went on to argue – contrary to overwhelming public opinion – that such a ban was unnecessary and should be limited to the exact material that clad Grenfell.


Hackitt’s ‘system’ focus


As a manufacturer of cladding systems, I have seen the huge impact the combustible ban has had on the design of tall buildings, and the attitude and rigour of those involved in it. It’s amazing how competent people can become when it’s in their financial interests. Hackitt’s remit forced her to totally ignore the regulations that impact on the design principles of a building, and that the public was led to believe would be reviewed. Instead, she entirely focused on the regulatory ‘system’. Unsurprisingly, given that she actually based herself in MHCLG’s offices, we ended up with a review that was totally outward looking and failed to examine the role of the regulatory body, how it was guided and what


its intentions were. If you’re going to look at the ‘system’, you have to examine who writes the software.


Consultation issues


Hackitt also missed the system problem with consultations (the recent combustible ban review concluded on 25 May). The self declared purpose of MHCLG is ‘to create great places to live and work, and to give more power to local people to shape what happens in their area’. Hackitt failed to identify how the consultation process undermines this. It’s obvious that the public consists of those


most likely to face the consequences of the risks others decide to expose us to, but who are the least likely to voice their opinions in a consultation. Instead, consultations are dominated by corporations, especially those which have the time and resources to protect their commercial interests. If I had written the regulatory review, the first recommendation would have been to restate the objectives of the regulator, making the public and its safety the priority. Safety is paramount and deregulating it is a false economy.


Regulatory body failings


Those who contribute to this field require a vision to guide us, to which we can resort whenever


FOCUS


www.frmjournal.com JUNE 2020


47


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60