Grenfell: Building reform consultation fails to ensure strong voice from residents.

2 Comments

In another bizarre and ironic twist post-Grenfell, the MHCLG has issued a consultation on the proposed regulatory reform based on the Hackitt review. It calls for a stronger resident voice but fails to ensure this through the consultation process.

The MHCLG (Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government) has announced a consultation on its plans for the implementations of the Hackitt Review of Building Regulations. There are 5 broad areas covered by the proposals.

  • the scope of the new regime
  • the concept of dutyholders who have clear responsibilities throughout a building’s design, construction and occupation
  • giving residents a stronger voice in the system and ensuring their concerns are never ignored
  • plans for a new building safety regulator to provide oversight of the new building safety regulatory regime
  • strengthened enforcement and sanctions to deter non-compliance with the new regime

Martin Stanley, former Senior Civil Servant and editor of ‘Understanding Government’ argues that the the MHCLG consultation fails to listen to residents in this blog: Fire Safety: Still no one Listens, This is especially ironic as providing a stronger voice for residents is a key proposal.

Please click on the text to link to the blog.

Link to Martin Stanley blog on MHCLG consultation and failure to ensure strong resident voice.

Thanks to Martin for agreeing to the cross-post. I would recommend viewing his Grenfell webpage. You can follow Martin on twitter and LinkedIn.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Grenfell Tower, Learning, Safety Culture, Safety Leadership ,

2 Comments »

  1. In my opinion this so called duty of care by the building owners went out the window a long time ago. From councils claiming that they hold no building information, including thoses buildings they designed and built themseleve. To claiming they have know knowledge of asbestos materials in industrialised and system built consstruction from the 1960s and 1970s. And what happened when the National Federation of Council Leaseholders brought these claims to government, nothing. Government also showed no interest when we highlighted the fact that too many local authorities denied receiving buiding allerts. To local authorities refusing to acknowledge they attended the AMA meetings or that they attended seminars to discuss problems found with 1960s and 1970s concrete construction. And the more government allowed this to continue, the wider the gap grew over local authority duty of care.
    Les watson
    Former researcher National Federation Council Leaseholders
    My LDN-L01. On O2.

  2. Pingback: The Grenfell EnquirerGrenfell: What actions should the government take?

Join the enquiry...

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.