Flats being demolished in Solomons Passage SE15

[buddug]

Hi rendelharris. It's normal nowadays for local authorities to work together under what is called the LABC (local authority building control) partnership - google it. One council outside the area - often where the architects or developers are based - approves their plans for the host council and submits them - i.e. in this case, to the host council Southwark - where the work is taking place, and then the host council takes over to do the building control and sign-off of the works. What that entails, who knows. In my experience of building control, with regards to a local restaurant I helped with, they are very stringent, as LondonMix said. Anything wrong, and you have to redo it. However, now, in this case, Southwark is claiming building control sign-off is all very airy-fairy. Very odd.

[rendelharris]

Thanks for the explanation, didn't know that - but from your previous you say Ashford denies giving approval? All very murky...

Kudos for all your hard work on this and for keeping us updated, much appreciated.

[buddug]

You're welcome. I feel for the residents, as I think we all do. And all the other victims of Southwark Council's leaseholders and tenants in general.

[farfisamania]

With regard to the restrictions on building control responsibility the important case is Murphy v Brentwood 1991. This is why remedies need to be sought from contractors (or perhaps the landlord in this case).

[geneie]

There is an item on Solomons Passage on You and Yours (BBC radio 4) now

[LondonMix]

Agree-- one of my experiences with Southwark building control in 2013 involved the inspector forcing the builder to re-do a run of drainage 4 times before signing it off. That's why I find the idea that they are just there to advice totally preposterous.

Thanks for continuing to pursue this.

buddug Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi rendelharris. It's normal nowadays for local

> authorities to work together under what is called

> the LABC (local authority building control)

> partnership - google it. One council outside the

> area - often where the architects or developers

> are based - approves their plans for the host

> council and submits them - i.e. in this case, to

> the host council Southwark - where the work is

> taking place, and then the host council takes over

> to do the building control and sign-off of the

> works. What that entails, who knows. In my

> experience of building control, with regards to a

> local restaurant I helped with, they are very

> stringent, as LondonMix said. Anything wrong, and

> you have to redo it. However, now, in this case,

> Southwark is claiming building control sign-off is

> all very airy-fairy. Very odd.

[spider69]

After listening to this latest interview with Wandle you can only cry on behalf of these residents..

Lives destroyed but it is still pass the parcel. When the Chief Exec was asked do you feel guilty she put Sir Humphrey Appleby to shame with a it's not my fault answer.

Government should take this up and take who is responsible to court. Will it happen? I doubt it.

It you want to listen it is about 15 minutes in.

[Mugglesworth]

Has anyone ever found out who the Clerk of Works was on this?

[farfisamania]

"Agree-- one of my experiences with Southwark building control in 2013 involved the inspector forcing the builder to re-do a run of drainage 4 times before signing it off. That's why I find the idea that they are just there to advice totally preposterous"

I think it was you who first introduced the term 'advice'?

The situation is, stated simply, much as the head of building control put it: they are "not a clerk of works". The fact they can, for example, inspect a drainage run to ensure the contractor knows what they are doing is neither here nor there. They are there to ensure, as well as possible, compliance. They can't put a surveyor onsite every day. That's why the client on any complex project (i.e. Wandle) needs to have its own quality management processes in place. Exactly what happened in this case is something the client really needs to tell the building's residents. I don't think throwing most of the focus on the approval process, rather than the contract management, will progress things much.

Building control approval, ultimately, is not a guarantee and if defects subsequently emerge then they do not have financial liability. Murphy 1991 was fought on that very issue. The speculation on this forum that a local authority might become somehow liable to the owners for defects if the contractor goes under is poorly informed. Compensation for defects is usually based on rent and I am wondering if this is the principle Wandle have adopted here.

[LondonMix]

No I wasn't the first person to use the term, it was another poster who said they were more of an advisory service.

I am not arguing that Southwark is financially responsible-- I want to know how this happened (corruption, incompetence, etc) and for the person responsible within Southwark never to work on any building control project again.

Not only should what has happened to Wandle residents not be allowed to reoccur but imagine if this happened to the new secondary school or the new primary school. Its unconscionable!

Building control provide a public service and in this instance they appear to have badly failed. Of course Building Control isn't a clerk of works but they make specific visits at critical times in the build to ensure the most sensitive elements of the build are executed to code.

[first mate]

London Mix,

I totally agree with you. This is not about strict liability but building control, having made numerous site visits must even in a minir way be held accountable..if only to finally indicate that stuff was deliberately hidden from them etc..

I have heard takes from builders working on large projects in ED that certain building control officers can allegedly be 'persuaded' to pass stuff that is not to standard. Obviously this may be oure baloney.

[richard tudor]

When will Wandle publish the name of the

Clerk of Works and others concerned withis build and also make available all the confirmation sign off

sheets for the works on this project.

So far nothing seems to have been produced to allow MP,s Cllrs, Residents and public to see the depth of this mess.

As Housing Ass are no more than extensions of local authorities regarding housing perhaps Ms Harmam could ask the Govt to now take a deeper interest.

[buddug]

I agree with everything you've just said LondonMix, so I won't repeat. Farfisamania said 'They can't put a surveyor onsite every day', but Southwark building control made 48 visits, for God's sake! How did they miss all of this?

[farfisamania]

48 visits don't represent a huge amount of time over the course of constructing a large residential building!

Don't get me wrong, I find it appalling that these buildings are now having to be demolished. I do however feel that trying to get 'answers' from building control isn't going to get you that far because a) they can point out that they have no responsibility for quality issues (which most of the problems listed by Wandle seem to be) and b) on compliance issues, approval is still not an absolute guarantee of compliance.

I think it would be more productive to ask how the contractor (and their replacement) was procured, how the contract was managed, what snagging was carried out, what are the contents of the report recommending demolition. There was a suggestion y someone here that the structural problems were worsened by poor maintenance. What maintenance regime was in place? How did it take account of the building's characteristics? Why did it take several years to uncover these defects? I don't know if private organsisations like housing associations are covered by FoI - I think it depends on ownership. If the HA in this case isn't covered by FoI then I think it shows some of the problems with HAs as a way of delivering social housing.

Housing associations were at the forefront of promoting timber framed construction in the UK in the early 2000s. Up till that point English homebuilders hadn't made that much use of it. Detailed info from the HA would help to show exactly what happened here.

[LondonMix]

Farfusanabua-- your 10 posts on this thread are virtually all of the 12posts you have ever made on the ED forum.

I hope you don't mind me asking but are you in anyway affiliated with Southwark Council? If so, can you please openly declare what that relationship is?

[richard tudor]

farfisamania Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 48 visits don't represent a huge amount of time

> over the course of constructing a large

> residential building!

>

> Don't get me wrong, I find it appalling that these

> buildings are now having to be demolished. I do

> however feel that trying to get 'answers' from

> building control isn't going to get you that far

> because a) they can point out that they have no

> responsibility for quality issues (which most of

> the problems listed by Wandle seem to be) and b)

> on compliance issues, approval is still not an

> absolute guarantee of compliance.

>

> I think it would be more productive to ask how the

> contractor (and their replacement) was procured,

> how the contract was managed, what snagging was

> carried out, what are the contents of the report

> recommending demolition. There was a suggestion y

> someone here that the structural problems were

> worsened by poor maintenance. What maintenance

> regime was in place? How did it take account of

> the building's characteristics? Why did it take

> several years to uncover these defects? I don't

> know if private organsisations like housing

> associations are covered by FoI - I think it

> depends on ownership. If the HA in this case isn't

> covered by FoI then I think it shows some of the

> problems with HAs as a way of delivering social

> housing.

>

> Housing associations were at the forefront of

> promoting timber framed construction in the UK in

> the early 2000s. Up till that point English

> homebuilders hadn't made that much use of it.

> Detailed info from the HA would help to show

> exactly what happened here.

Perhaps Harriet Harman, all Cllrs and Southwark Council could take action, legal if necessary, to get the answers to above.

Perhaps all parties, including Wandle, would prefer it to remain buried. From memory at the very start of this thread these questions were raised. Due Diligence

From all interviews maintenance was a great problem. Last raised on Radio 4 a few days ago

[farfisamania]

LondonMix, I already said I'm not affiliated. My particular interest in this story is the same as yours: I'm concerned as to how a building can require demolition after six years of life. Something has clearly gone wrong somewhere.

[Penguin68]

On the face of it, this seems to have been a flawed build exacerbated by poor or inappropriate maintenance - hand-over from builder to association seems to have been slack (i.e. suggested lack of snagging) - whether the faults which have appeared are part of the remit of buildings control or not will presumably (if 'they' bother to undertake a proper review) appear in due course. Whether they should have been (i.e. is the remit and authority of buildings control wide enough?) is a different question. What is blindingly obvious is that a build undertaken by or for a Housing Association should not need tearing down so soon after completion. No materials used should have failed so precipitately (even Ronan Point took some time for its flawed construction to become apparent). No doubt there will be a lot of blame shifting but this is a scandal - and anything but a victimless 'crime'. If poor maintenance was an issue (lots of suggestions it was certainly contributory) then Wandle cannot get out from under by blaming the earlier principals and the builder.

[Elphinstone's Army]

Whilst many comments are attempting to pin the tail on the donkey, this does not help the residents of Solomons Passage who will not be thrilled to receive the Wandle propaganda in the guise of a house magazine, the cover of which declares, '1,000 new homes - tackling south London's housing crisis' with an abject lack of irony, awareness or concern.

[jam_log]

another article in the local press

http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/residents-condemned-wandle-flats-say-back-square-one-demands-go-unheeded/

[Elphinstone's Army]

Thank you for posting this - the spelling, grammar, syntax, split infinitives, and dull tone are not exactly dynamic.

However, the gist is that nothing productive is being done by Wandle,

The notion that somehow it is the resident's fault/responsibility/burden whether practically, fiscally or morally, to be utterly disingenuous.

In the Spring magazine, Wandle picture and describe,l,000 new homes for south London. ready for 2021. at

Grange Walk Bermondsey, 34 flats to rent and 22 for shared ownership,

Valentine Place, 13 flats for rent and 6 for shared ownership.

this can be seen on wandle.com/newhomes

I realise the tenants want to stay in Peckham of course they do if they have chidren at school, or in fact, want to stay.

But they are being disenfranchised, dismissed, sidelined, without being offered, as recompense for the upheaval, stress, inconvenience and imposition of indifference on the part of their landlords, Wandle, new accommodation in which they could at least be together. A forward completion time notwithstanding.

Bearing in mind as someone pointed out earlier, there are no cracks showing yet in their current accommodation.

Who can cut through the sheer bloody minded intransigence of all from the euphemistically described 'customer services' to the almost monstrous CEO Tracey Lees.

There is another word I feel would describe the head of the fish but I fear is possibly libellous, usually involving lack of empathy.

[spider69]

What you can be 100% sure of they have taken very expensive legal advice to minimize their liability, to Residents, Tenants and Leaseholders, paid for by indirect Govt funds and left these people to hang out to dry. They are fully aware that these people cannot employ the best legal brains to put up any fight.

No doubt they have employed at great cost the best legal advice they can get. Will they tell who?

I suspect that all discussions held under the umbrella of Harriet Harman and Cllrs and possibly agreed prior to Legal advice to make them look good is now flushed down the toilet.

It is apparent that Wandle did not oversee this construction which is not the fault of residents and before anyone says Leaseholders and Shared Ownership showed have conducted their own survey you do not expect to find in some cases 3 year old builds wrong from the getgo. How would they find out?

They may be taking the builders etc to court but this is no more than a smokescreen to avoid what they should be doing for residents etc. "We cannot comment until the report is released" but residents will only see what Wandle want people to see, no more no less. Not their failings I suspect

Courts I suspect would uphold that Wandle is fulfilling their minimum duties. i.e. lets screw these people for the min we have to pay.

This will not cover improvements, furniture that has been purchased to fit their flats. Location to allow people to continue their work. Will Wandle cover storage for furniture that cannot be used until the repairs are made and they return in the case of Shared Ownership and Leaseholders.

When will Tracey Lees and Wandle stand up and say we have "F..cked up" in a major way and we will pay out whatever it costs to put matters right. Lives are worth much more than my reputation and Wandles.

If Wandle are building houses in the immediate area all residents should have first choice not having to bid.

Shared ownership should have their places fixed with all costs incurred covered without out arguments and remain shared ownership as per the purchase agreement.

What will happen is Harriet Harman, Cllrs will slip slowly away and let matters disappear.

I hope HH will remain committed and use her influence to help these people.

I feel this is not about people but financial damage limitation underpinned by legal costs.

[Blah Blah]

Harriet and Cllrs will not be allowed to let it slip away. There are people at Labour branch meetings who have raised this and will keep Cllrs and Harriet involved.

[richard tudor]

Does anyone know if Solmons Passage suffered from the last few days of torrential rain?

[spider69]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Harriet and Cllrs will not be allowed to let it

> slip away. There are people at Labour branch

> meetings who have raised this and will keep Cllrs

> and Harriet involved.

With all that's going on what are the chances that this is only on a list they deem unimportant.

Labour like most politicians will only look after their own interest,

Perfect opportunity for Wandle to push through what ever they want. As some one noted in an earlier post.

What was the old Government ploy "now is the time to release bad news" no one will notice until it is too late.