Fire hazards found in Southwark tower blocks
Southwark Council failed to carry out suitable fire risk assessments on three tower blocks, according to enforcement notices released by fire safety chiefs.
The notices, issued by the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, state that some fire doors in the blocks in question – Perronet House, Marie Curie House and Castlemead on Camberwell Road – are either not fire resistant and/or self-closing.
It found ceilings to common access/escape corridors in all three blocks were not fire resisting.
The fire notices were issued to the council on 11 August, following a fire at another Southwark tower block – Lakanal House, in Camberwell – which killed six people, including three children, in July. But because the notices were subject to a 21 day appeal period further details about them have not been available until now.
The notices add that for all three blocks there were no suitable arrangements for the ‘planning/monitoring/review of protection of escape routes’.
They also state that for Marie Curie house there had been ‘inadequate maintenance of fire resisting construction, cavity barriers and fire doors’.
It adds that in Marie Curie House the ‘emergency plan relevant to premises had not been communicated effectively to residents’.
The notices inform the council that the buildings all fail to comply with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order and that the councils are legally obliged to take corrective actions by the end of October this year. They do not mean that the property requires evacuation or that the buildings are ‘unsafe for members of the public to use’.
Perronet resident Janet Yatak said she felt that heads should roll at the council after she read the notices.
A Southwark council spokesperson said: ‘Ensuring our residents are safe is our top priority. That is why by the time the fire brigade served these notices we already had an extensive safety programme in place and had already begun some of the works.
‘Following the Lakanal fire we worked with the fire brigade and on our own to lookat the works needed on high rise blocks. We conducted intrusive inspections that provide much greater detail than fire risk assessments. As a result, we have committed £4 million to improve fire safety at these blocks.
‘At Marie Curie we have completed about 25 per cent of the works, we have begun the works at Castlemead and work at Perronet begins next week. These works go over and above the work in the enforcement notice.
‘We have said that we did not consider these enforcement notices were necessary when we already had plans in place to undertake the precautionary work the LfB wanted. The action taken may be disproportionate when there are possibly hundreds of scissor blocks like the ones in question up and down the country, but we understand that the LfB, like us, will be concerned to go above and beyond what is needed on fire safety after the tragedy.’
Risky business
What fire chiefs discovered at Marie Curie House in Southwark
- No suitable and sufficient [fire] risk assessment carried out.
- Emergency routes not kept clear.
- Fire doors are not fire resisting and/or self closing.
- Ceilings to common access/escape access corridor not fire resisting.
- Emergency plan relevant to premises had not been communicated effectively to residents.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (3)
Peter | 08/09/2009 9:57 am
I am somewhat surprised that notices were served to the residents (leaseholders) carry out these works because the buildings failed to comply with Regulatory Reform (Fire safety).
The Council's failure in its risk assessment to identify these problems [could have contributed to] the tragedy at Lakarnal House. This must be a Landlord's responsibility as this cannot be classed as an improvement/repair and the full costs of the work must be bourne by the Council.
Any thoughts?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Harry Lime | 08/09/2009 2:18 pm
Peter, my thoughts are that whilst the council may have been at fault in not being timely with their assessments, why shouldn't leaseholders pay their "fair share"? They have bought a property and the trems of what the should and shouldn't pay towards is well documented. I appreciate it's particularly a problem in London for residents who have bought but not necessarily got high incomes or savings, but if that's the case the council should be able to place a charge on the property to be returned on it's sale. Leaseholders in London have enjoyed (in the past) massive capital gains in their property after exrecising their right to buy. If they wish to treat it as a home they should be happy for the charge to be placed as it won't alter the enjoyment of their home or their pocket, if they view it as ian investment they shoud pay for waht is outlined in their lease agreement, nothing more, nothing less.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rooie Nelles | 12/09/2009 8:21 am
I live on one of the upper floors of Marie Curie and am a tenant, rather than a leaseholder. I attended a recent meeting for residents of the block and there were a few leaseholders there. The eventual bill for works to individual dwellings is likely to be in the region of £7000-£9000 and, as one of those present said, their homes are presently unsaleable and will remain so for a couple of years at least. I think that Southwark Council bear some responsibility for this situation, because they sold these properties whilst neglecting their responsibilities to ensure that the block was fire-safe. There are not even any records of inspections of the dry-risers in Marie Curie & Lakanal since 2005.
Personally, I oppose the "right-to-buy" rules, which have been a major factor in the shortage of social housing in areas like London, but don't think it is fair to target this opposition at those who have bought their homes - they're not the villains here.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment