Flats being demolished in Solomons Passage SE15

[rendelharris]

Excellent, good work!

[Azalea]

Saw this story on ITV London News today.

[buddug]

Renata Hamvas. You said "I have contacted building control again and they have informed me that fire stopping would have been checked as part of the site inspection." But you don't mention fire escape routes...

[JamesRixon]

LondonMix & Buddug,

This is a terrible thing that has happened, however it may be helpful not to focus on the role of building control department quite so much, especially without knowing the full set of facts and defects of the development.

Whilst the duty of the building control is to approve particular aspects of a development, it is difficult to hold them to account if they have been lied to or misled. This may be the case but as yet I don't think we know the full facts.

below is a link with a brief explanation of the many types of inspection that MAY happen on a construction site, which demonstrates the complexities of responsibilities.

http://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Construction_site_inspection

Please feel free to PM me to discuss more so as not to veer off topic on this thread.

Regards,

James

[buddug]

James says "however it may be helpful not to focus on the role of building control department quite so much" and that to do so is "veering off topic"! Building control inspectors were not lied to about fire escapes, alarms. They made more than 40 site visits to the development for God's sake. Councillors should not be protecting the council at the expense of the safety and well-being of Southwark residents. And the only reason we don't know the full facts is because the council is not telling us them. I've had to put in a freedom of information request to prise the truth out of them.

[rendelharris]

buddug I think you've got your Jameses mixed up - Rixon, not Barber, who replied to you.

[buddug]

Thanks Rendelharris! Have now remedied that. It was the last three lines of his sign-off that threw me. Also a bit too early for me to be posting really - haven't had my second coffee...

[AbDabs]

buddug Wrote:

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

> James says "however it may be helpful not to focus

> on the role of building control department quite

> so much" and that to do so is "veering off topic"!

> Building control inspectors were not lied to about

> fire escapes, alarms. They made more than 40 site

> visits to the development for God's sake.

> Councillors should not be protecting the council

> at the expense of the safety and well-being of

> Southwark residents. And the only reason we don't

> know the full facts is because the council is not

> telling us them. I've had to put in a freedom of

> information request to prise the truth out of

> them.

A lack of fire exits/routes can be spotted in one visit but fire stopping is a very different thing. 40 visits would only witness a small percentage, and when the inspectors do their rounds workers will know to turn their hands to 'finishing' any exposed details that need stopping. Most fire stopping can't be seen in the finished product. I suspect the problem only came to light when the floor,wall,ceiling finishes have been removed to repair other defects. I would lay the blame solely with the contractor.

[buddug]

AbDabs, one resident said there were no fire exits. Southwark building control would have seen this was the case. For me that is the most serious issue after the terrible situation the residents are in. James Rixon's helpful link also seems to show building control had quite a large remit in my mind. For two blocks to need demolishing after just 6 years is astonishing following more than 40 initial inspections. I'm just going to wait and see what comes out from the freedom of info requests. No point trying to guess who's at fault at this stage, but questions had to be asked - of both Wandle and Southwark Council.

[TE44]

http://m.insidehousing.co.uk/6525371.article?mobilesite=enabled

http://m.insidehousing.co.uk/analysis-and-data/investigations/london-burning/7009301.article?fontSize=2

First link is from Inside Housing, its from 2013,

Regarding enforcement orders from fire brigade. There was 16 notices served to London social landlords within a 6 month period in 2013, 50% of those were served in Southwark, 4 to Wandle.

The second link is more up to date, does anyone

Know if wandle have been served an order.

[LondonMix]

During my build, building control insisted on seeing the firestopping before dry wall was overlaid. He specifically told the contractor to call at the specific point and said if it wasn't visible he'd make them remove the finishing. Again, I'm only speaking for personal experience and I may have dealt with an exceptional officer but I find it hard to understand.

Of course the contractor is to blame and I hope there are legal penalties that can be put forward against the director of that now bankrupt company. However, building control exist to protect the public against rogue contractors.

Of course one of my top priorities is getting the people impacted by this compensation and housing.

However, I live in Southwark. New primary schools and secondary schools are currently being constructed and its important that some type of investigation into what happened within the council takes place to see if appropriate duty of care was adhered to. Perhaps it was, but without proper accountability what prevents lapse behavior now and in future?

[rendelharris]

JamesRixon Wrote:

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

> Whilst the duty of the building control is to

> approve particular aspects of a development, it is

> difficult to hold them to account if they have

> been lied to or misled.

You are clearly far more knowledgable about these matters than I, but as a lay person I would have thought one of the prerequisites of a building control department is to have the necessary knowledge, skills and rigour to ensure that they are not lied to or misled?

[buddug]

Exactly, Rendelharris. As well as the evidence of their own eyes re lack of fire escape route.

[Rosetta]

This story is being comprehensively covered on BBC Radio London, 94.9, now, on the Drivetime programme. They interviewed the Chief Executive. Available to listen to on iPlayer later tonight

[Nicola M]

The BBC London Radio today - Solomons Passage residents talking, MP Harriet Harmon and Wandle Chief exec Tracey Lees

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03tpx3f

Listen for the last 90 mins to catch all of it.

Rosetta Wrote:

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

> This story is being comprehensively covered on BBC

> Radio London, 94.9, now, on the Drivetime

> programme. They interviewed the Chief Executive.

> Available to listen to on iPlayer later tonight

[richard tudor]

I have just listened to the interview on BBC drive time and would suggest that local residents take the time to do the same.

Thank god that Eddie Nestor has taken this up and promised he will not let the matter drop. His interviews were excellent.

The programme put all those involved to

shame and the interview with the Wandle Chief Executive has to be listened too to be believed.

All you people that post on the forum regarding trivial and petty things should listen and put your support behind these people who will suffer through no fault of their own.

At least Harriet Harman spoke sense and nailed the matter regarding all that is wrong with this whole affair.

Let's hope that the National Press picks this up so those at fault cannot pass the buck.

[buddug]

I've just heard the 'property expert' express his disbelief and shock that Southwark Council building control signed this off...

[OD]

Hey All,

I'm so glad that residents spoke with BBC Radio London, as I suspected Eddie Nestor (Anna O'Neil and team) highlighted the awful situation that they are facing and tried to get some responses/answers.

The responses from the Wandle CEO beggars belief and in my mind demonstrated that she simply does not care. The CEO did not once show/express/'just say it for saying sake' one drop of empathy or regret for the situation until repeatedly pressed by Eddie - utterly disgusting and I made sure to email in and say so. Whilst I suspect that Wandle is not solely at fault (again where are Southwark Council in this??) the residents are faced with dealing with this organisation for resolution.

Harriet Harman seems to be doing her best to get the voices of the residents heard and bring them directly to Wandle - this is indeed progress. I really hope that they respond responsibly and with empathy and common sense.

[Elphinstone's Army]

Harriet Harman is visiting Solomons Passage this morning first thing, according to her interview on Drivetime.

An excellent photo opportunity and shame there will not be tv cameras there.

All residents, best wishes, and an opinion that it is not for you (residents) to find yourselves somewhere to live after having been asked to leave - all good sense, manners, and pragmatism suggest this is the responsibility of Wandle. And possibly legal, but as I am not sure, I say that in a little voice.

The interview with Tracey Lees was a jaw dropper wasn't it?? She described Wandle, twice, as a business! Well a business has customers who need to be catered for and if needs be placated. And we all want value for money and not be ripped off Tracey. Wandle is a Housing Association, publicly funded.

I make no excuses for Tracey Lees but would say that she has been CEO since March 2015 and would not have known about Solomons Passage problems, and picked up the poisoned chalice unwittingly. However now as CEO she is able to show her mettle if not her compassion, and to do the right thing by her hapless residents.

[Blah Blah]

Harriet Harman has also tabled meetings with Wandle in parliament on this, so there is no doubt that Southwark Labour are treating this with the seriousness it deserves. Southwark do not own the land, they did not build the properties in question either, and they also hold no liability really.

The construction company (companies) involved are the only party to this that no-one is dicussing here and yet they are central to what has happened. If the process was such that Wandle couldn't, or didn't pick up on the problems, that needs to be looked at. If the guidelines and rules around building control/ inspection from Southwark's end weren't adaquate to pick up on problems, that can be looked at too. There's an automatic drive it seems to lay blame at Southwark, or Wandle etc. But until the facts are fully established and understood (as they must be through some kind of inquiry), seeking blame where there may be none is unfair.

What matters in the immediate term, is that residents are given satisfactory alternate accomodation at no extra expense to themselves (whilst the rebuild takes place) and that fair compensation is given for the disruption. This should be done with no objection or fuss from Wandle.

[rupert james]

"There's an automatic drive it seems to lay blame at Southwark, or Wandle etc. But until the facts are fully established and understood (as they must be through some kind of inquiry), seeking blame where there may be none is unfair."

As the original builder went into liquidation as you might expect they are out of the frame.

In financial takeovers there is a thing called due diligence where one company looks at another to establish what the true situation is before they go ahead.

Why did the new construction company not look at what they were taking on and report and why did Wandle not know what they had in construction terms when the other builder went down?

No matter which way the cake is sliced Wandle is the main ingredient.

Southwark is in the picture because of building control.

It would seem proper for Wandle to hold their hands up and say we are 100% in the wrong.

"What matters in the immediate term, is that residents are given satisfactory alternate accommodation at no extra expense to themselves (whilst the rebuild takes place) and that fair compensation is given for the disruption. This should be done with no objection or fuss from Wandle."

An enquiry should slow this down.

Drive time should be praised for bringing this into the public arena.

[Blah Blah]

The original construction company might be out of the frame in terms of compensation, but they are not out of the frame in terms of usderstanding exactly WHO is responsible for the poor construction. Did either of the construction companies build anything else at the time, and are those building in danger too? These are questions at the heart of the matter.

After all, concrete that is poured, looks like poured concrete. Only a scientifc test could really tell you if the poured concrete is to the required standard. My point there being that once something is constructed, it is possible for it to look ok enough to pass inspection, especially if dishonest paperwork or records accompany it. I don't know enough about the process of checks and standards to be specific, but this is what needs to be looked at - the safeguards that should have made sure this didn't happen having failed.

[malleymoo]

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/fire-ravaged-peckham-site-had-no-watchman/6507756.article

There were concerns back in 2009 about Greenacre sites around the time the current flats were being built. Please see the link above. There had been two major fires on their sites I a shirt period. This article all edges they had not followed the correct fire procedures re fire safety on their sites.

Greenacre is down in many of the news reports as the developer but the original scheme had been developed by St Aidan's group. They were challenged in the planning process about the fact that they were planning to build the social housing at a more lower specification than the earlier privatly owned development.Southwark was very much aware of this issue and chose to ignore the concerns. In my mind this makes them just as much to blame as Wandle Greenacre and St Aidan's.

[aerie]

we are Wandle tenants on CPR as in a sudden desperate situation involving immediate surgery which obviously they knew about necessitating offer of small apartment.

What we could not grasp was how filthy it was and had to install new toilet!! it was disgusting.

The obfuscation, lies, intimidation, lies, promises, lies, harassment, lies, threats! lies, mag describing how wonderful Wandle are and new CEO who is uncontactable!

and 'housing officers' with a life experience of a 12 yo and as much tact, we despaired. Do not think you will fare any better. Stay until you are offered something better. Wandle are morally deficient : fasten your seat belts it's going to be a bumpy ride.

And Wandle, ceo and all, are about to be exposed.

Which does not help you residents. We listened to Drivetime. Tracey Lees sounds like someone on the you know what. HH will make mincemeat of her.

And hopefully will have your collective backs.

This is a shocking, disgraceful situation, good luck one and all

[PeckhamRose]

Hi all, I would like to offer my condolences as it were to the terrible situation you all find yourselves in. Just proves that all the rules in the world mean nothing when it comes to any kind of company trying to do things for cheap when they think they can get away with it. I can not imagine how you all feel.