Barton House Tower Evacuated

[BristolEcho]

A block of flats in Bristol was evacuated urgently a couple of days ago due to concerns that it could collapse at any moment.

Civil servants have been raising concerns for some time with government about this risk:

Experts warned government of tower block collapse risk last year, leak reveals

Whitehall officials were told that at-risk buildings have not been remediated, with the market ‘prioritising profit over safety’

www.theguardian.com

Firstly fucking pricks.

I also noticed that it was not assessed for structural integrity since the 70s. Is this normal?

 

[brogdale]

A block of flats in Bristol was evacuated urgently a couple of days ago due to concerns that it could collapse at any moment.

Civil servants have been raising concerns for some time with government about this risk:

Experts warned government of tower block collapse risk last year, leak reveals

Whitehall officials were told that at-risk buildings have not been remediated, with the market ‘prioritising profit over safety’

www.theguardian.com

Firstly fucking pricks.

I also noticed that it was not assessed for structural integrity since the 70s. Is this normal?

Normal for neoliberalism; profit before people.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Normal for neoliberalism; profit before people.

As far as I can gather, it is Council owned.

Yes, it is.

Barton House Bristol evacuation: What we know so far

About 400 residents face uncertainty after they were told to leave their flats over safety fears.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[brogdale]

As far as I can gather, it is Council owned.

Yes, it is.

Barton House Bristol evacuation: What we know so far

About 400 residents face uncertainty after they were told to leave their flats over safety fears.

www.bbc.co.uk

Unfortunately council ownership of the building does not protect the residents from the depredations of privatised/out-sourced,'arms length' scum-bags. What's left of the hollowed out local state only exists as a vehicle to funnel public money into corporate coffers, not do things like check that people's homes are safe. Have you not been following the Grenfell inquiry?

 

[ElizabethofYork]

Bloody hell. I wonder if this means that other tower blocks built at that time are also affected?

 

[Sasaferrato]

Unfortunately council ownership of the building does not protect the residents from the depredations of privatised/out-sourced,'arms length' scum-bags. What's left of the hollowed out local state only exists as a vehicle to funnel public money into corporate coffers, not do things like check that people's homes are safe. Have you not been following the Grenfell inquiry?

Yes, I have.

Not all 'arms length' are shit. Over the last few years, Almond Housing, our local housing association has put on external insulation (we live in a concrete wall town), new roofs, new kitchens and bathrooms and new boilers.

 

[brogdale]

Bloody hell. I wonder if this means that other tower blocks built at that time are also affected?

Estimated 575 other blocks may be similarly affected.

 

[marty21]

There was something about this on the radio this morning - as someone who works in Social Housing, my initial thought, was how the fuck did it get that bad that they had to evacuate 400 people. I also thought, what a nightmare for the housing staff (I've been there) and it wouldn't have been their fault, it would have been the fault of Property Services who maintain the flats. It seemed that it was only identified in a recent survey of 3 flats, and they then discovered that the original building wasn't built as per the original plans and hadn't really been looked at since it was completed? If that is true, it's an enormous fuck up.

 

[brogdale]

Yes, I have.

Not all 'arms length' are shit. Over the last few years, Almond Housing, our local housing association has put on external insulation (we live in a concrete wall town), new roofs, new kitchens and bathrooms and new boilers.

Accepted, not all. But neither is it right to suggest that just because a block remains in council ownership, (though few are exclusively so after RTB), neoliberalism does not endanger the residents.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Accepted, not all. But neither is it right to suggest that just because a block remains in council ownership, (though few are exclusively so after RTB), neoliberalism does not endanger the residents.

In Bristol? I thought Bristol Council was regarded as one of the better ones from resident's point of view.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Estimated 575 other blocks may be similarly affected.

Fuck. If they are the same size, that's over 20,000 people out of their homes.

 

[kalidarkone]

In Bristol? I thought Bristol Council was regarded as one of the better ones from resident's point of view.

What made you think that?

 

[Sasaferrato]

What made you think that?

Just what I've read really. Seemed to be a progressive Council. Of course, those who live there may see it differently.

Edited to add:

One of my nephews stayed in Bristol for about three months working on a building project, he's an electrical engineer, he spoke very positively of the place.

 

[Gerry1time]

Just what I've read really. Seemed to be a progressive Council. Of course, those who live there may see it differently.

I’m sure the last 20 years of cuts have changed a lot there, but when I worked there, I was struck by their policy that day time drinking whilst at work was ok with your manager’s permission. Only my manager in one assignment I had was a functional daytime drinking alcoholic with a bottle of vodka in his desk drawer. That was a fun office to work in.

You also used to be able to notice two rush hours of traffic in the afternoon. The normal one at 5pm or so, and ‘council rush hour’ around two hours earlier.

Like I say, I’m sure a lot has changed in the intervening 20 years, but Bristol is still in many ways a city where good ideas go to die, and a lot of that is down to the council and associated ecosystem of the ‘great and good’ who benefit from the city more than the city benefits from them. The mayoral referendum was a perfect exemplar of that nonsense. Thankfully that at least is being undone.

 

[marty21]

I’m sure the last 20 years of cuts have changed a lot there, but when I worked there, I was struck by their policy that day time drinking whilst at work was ok with your manager’s permission. Only my manager in one assignment I had was a functional daytime drinking alcoholic with a bottle of vodka in his desk drawer. That was a fun office to work in.

You also used to be able to notice two rush hours of traffic in the afternoon. The normal one at 5pm or so, and ‘council rush hour’ around two hours earlier.

Like I say, I’m sure a lot has changed in the intervening 20 years, but Bristol is still in many ways a city where good ideas go to die, and a lot of that is down to the council and associated ecosystem of the ‘great and good’ who benefit from the city more than the city benefits from them. The mayoral referendum was a perfect exemplar of that nonsense. Thankfully that at least is being undone.

part of the reason for a 'council rush hour' is the repairs folk, they tend to start at 7 or so, so leave at 3. Us lazy Housing Officers come in between 8 and 10, so leave later.

 

[Lurdan]

From a post this week by Peter Apps on his Substack:

"This week we saw the emergency evacuation of a 15-storey large-panel systems (LPS) tower block in Bristol, rendering 400 residents homeless, which followed hot on the heels of a major balcony collapse in Barking, east London.

Neither risk is new. We have known we have a major problem with LPS buildings since a corner of Ronan Point collapsed “like a pack of cards” in 1968.

(For the uninitiated - LPS buildings are made of big concrete slabs, bolted together to form a tower. They collapse exactly like you’d expect them to if something goes wrong.)

The trouble is that we’ve never really grasped this issue as a nation - yes the Griffiths Inquiry (into the Ronan Point collapse) called for strengthening works, but there was no follow up to ensure it was done.

Leaked minutes of a government advisory group I obtained (and published this week) suggest it wasn’t. “A member with extensive experience in the structural analysis of LPS buildings indicated that many were not strengthened post Ronan Point,” the minutes say.

Even where it was, poor maintenance in the years since has left them in a parlous state. Many blocks have not been properly surveyed in decades, and water ingress has further weakened the already dangerous structure.

The chickens may be coming home to roost with this issue. Social landlords are finally doing structural surveys as part of the building safety case for the new regulator. What they find out could well mean Bristol is not the last emergency evacuation.

“Our LPS buildings are 60 years old, and they’ve never had any kind of structural scrutiny. They’ve had some historic strengthening work, but then no subsequent follow-up,” one building safety manager told me last month.

This is likely to be the case around the country. There are an estimated 575 LPS buildings in England. At a conservative estimate, this is 50,000 flats and the homes of 125,000 people. We will need a national plan for dealing with them, which is more sophisticated than an interminable stay in the nearest Premier Inn.

There can be options for LPS buildings: carbon fibre or steel supports to the vertical ties can take them up to the required standard, but this work can be expensive and difficult to complete with residents in situ.

For some blocks, though, which have been poorly maintained, it may be simply impossible.

In either event, the cost to councils and social landlords will be enormous. In Leeds, where demolition is planned for 11 blocks, the cost of demolition and rehousing is estimated at £29.37m. Scale this across the country and you have (another) financial crisis for councils and social landlords."

A long Inside Housing article which sets the LPS issue into the context of the other structural issues being uncovered under the new Building Safety regime: Structural stability: is the UK heading towards a new building safety crisis? - (archived)

 

[teuchter]

A positive interpretation of this is that the new building safety act is having some real world effect in forcing building owners to be proactive in monitoring the safety of the buildings they are responsible for.

Making tens of thousands of people homeless is of course not really an intended outcome.