The Bishop wrote:Thank you for your honest opinion, which I respect. I personally would go further and add that the cladding exemplifies and exposes a whole range of issues including: improving a building cosmetically for the the affluent residents delight when a fraction of the 'improvement' money could have been used on a sprinkler system. The issue of re-housing the Grenfell residents is another difficult consequence. Grenfell remains an icon, a terrible icon, of austerity and the magic money tree myth.
I really don't want to get tied down in this. Building standards and fire retardant materials are not my subject. Locally I'm very worried for example that in a new build in Deal last week three houses were destroyed after an initial fire which was external to the buildings. What standard of buildings are we providing for both private and public?
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/deal/news/new-builds-destroyed-by-blaze-182012/
The talk of making them nice to look at for affluent residents is a red herring. Why should public housing look rubbish. The cladding was to improve thermal retention in the building as it has been used up and down the country, again in both public and private owned buildings.
'Sprinklers' are not a universal panacea and I await the results of the enquiry whether they would have helped in this specific case.