Southwark commissions fresh fire risk checks
The London borough where six people died in a tower block blaze has brought in external assessors to conduct in depth risk assessments of the fire risk in all its high rise blocks.
Southwark Council owns Lakanal House, where a major fire broke out in July. Its own staff have already carried out assessments of the fire risks in its other high rise blocks, but it has now decided to call in external consultants to carry out further checks.
Council housing officers carried out visual inspections after attending training courses with London Fire Brigade. But the professional assessors will undertake inspections of 175 blocks of seven storeys or more which include probing the structure of the building. The inspections will be complete by April.
The council made the announcement after a professional fire risk assessor found a raft of ‘substantial’ risks in a sample of 19 of the assessments carried out by Southwark staff.
The council published the professional assessor’s reports for six of the blocks. At Columbia Point 20 of the 36 fire risks which needed to be remedied were substantial, Regina Point had 28 substantial risks out of 45, Hanworth House had 24 out of 43, Maydew House had 18 out of 34, while the fire risks in Burwash House and Taplow were mostly medium and low.
The main dangers in Columbia Point and Regina Point came from the poor condition of doors between stairs and communal areas which could allow fire to spread, some flats had no smoke detectors including one about to be handed to a new tenant, and security gates installed by residents over their front doors could slow their escape from a fire.
In Maydew House holes in walls where contractors had installed cables and pipes could allow fire to spread and glazing in some fire doors and windows appeared to be clear plastic rendering them ‘virtually useless in a fire’, the report said.
In all blocks assessed, apart from Burnham and Taplow, the assessors said poor workmanship by contractors was to blame for some of the fire risks. A spokesperson for the council said it was currently spending £4 million on improving fire safety and spending £250,000 on preventing the spread of fire between communal areas and stairwells – one of the main risks mentioned in the reports – as well as investigating fire spread through ventilation and fitting or replacing fire extinguishers, dry risers and smoke detectors.
A Southwark council spokesperson said: ‘Having your home described as having “substantial risk” would come as a shock to anyone. But I would like to reassure residents that we have acted quickly and urgently on this report to reduce the risk, and a massive amount of work across the block has already been carried out. Many of the issues, such as blocked escapes, were dealt with even before the fire risk assessment was submitted, and we have a plan in place to respond to the rest.’
A resident of one of the blocks assessed said the previous fire risk assessments carried out on his estate by housing officers were ‘a farce’.
‘It was not good enough because they did not know what they were doing’, he said.
It is understood that that the council knew there had been complaints about some of the fire risk assessments conducted by the housing officers. However it brought in the professional assessors because it wanted to take a more in depth look at the risks in some of its properties rather than in direct response to the complaints.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (8)
Sharon | 11/01/2010 11:33 am
There seems to be an element of pride displayed by Southwark Council about how they are dealing with the fallout since 6 people tragically lost their lives in the Lakanal House fire. A professional assessment for 6 blocks revealed an appalling list of fire risks and for Southwark council to trumpet that 'many of the issues, such as blocked escapes, were dealt with even before the fire risk assessment was submitted, and we have a plan in place to respond to the rest' I found particularly distasteful. They are doing what they have been supposed to do all along!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
| 11/01/2010 3:03 pm
"‘It was not good enough because they did not know what they were doing’, he (a resident) said....contractors had installed cables and pipes could allow fire to spread and glazing in some fire doors and windows appeared to be clear plastic rendering them ‘virtually useless in a fire’....In all blocks assessed, ....the assessors said poor workmanship by contractors was to blame for some of the fire risks...the council knew there had been complaints about some of the fire risk assessments conducted by the housing officers"
In essence, a litany of complete and total incompetence on the part of this Retained Stock (ie unreformed and unreconstructed) basket case of an inner London council which, as of last year, was the 4th highest debtor to HRA in the entire country:
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/Attachments.aspx?attype=T&storycode=6505311&atcode=8106#tb_8106
sucking nearly £614m out of a system funded by 200 other LA's across the country.
At the same time Southwark milk their 12,000 leaseholders for the privilege of having to put up with their management and said workmanship of their contractors:
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/story.aspx?storycode=6504635
"The borough sent out demands worth £28.5 million between 2006/07 and 2008/09 - 16 per cent of which were for more than £10,000."
None of this is surprising. It's just what happens when incompetent councils run housing departments. Not fit for purpose organisations employing not for purpose employees who get away with it because they can. It's called the public sector and this story is par for the course.
It clearly illustrates that classical liberal think tank Progressive Vision have the right idea:
http://www.progressive-vision.org/policies/housing.htm
"Government involvement in housing has only delivered poor quality housing, lack of community and high demand....The high level of state ownership, in many guises, of housing restricts flexibility in the development of new housing and creates anti-social environments. Central government, councils and housing associations should sell their existing housing stocks and exit the market."
In terms of HRA reform, any suggestion that the 200 odd other local authorities around the country who fund the HRA should take on the debt of Southwark, and their basket case brethen, so that they can continue with business-as-usual is laughable. Clearly incompetents like this should be forced to sell their portfolio in order to both balance the books and provide a reasonable standard of service to their long suffering residents.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
bizarreloverectangle | 11/01/2010 11:14 pm
Ohh **** you really hate the public sector, don't you. I can call you ****, by the way? It's not as if "Islington Leaseholder Action Group (ILAG)" is more than one person, is it? Still, at least "Progressive Action" is a two-man band of "classical liberal" (or 'libertarian' to give it a more accurate name) thinking, who'se attitude to everything can be summarised in one word - deregulation. I seem to recall that they were quoted by Daniel Hannan MEP in his recent anti-NHS comments.
Still, on to the specific comments:
"4th highest debtor", conventiently ignoring the size of Southwark's stock (also the 4th largest within the HRA system), perhaps debt per property would have a slightly more meaningful figure, but then again, it proabably wouldn't have backed up your figures, now, would it? (17th highest, if you're interested, like most London Boroughs with inherited LCC/GLC stock).
"Sucking £614m out of a system funded by 200 other LA's in the country", hmm, only 182 LA's still in the HRA system, & not all of them "contribute". Maybe that's why the Government want to get rid of the subsidy system?
"demands worth £28.5m between 2006/07 & 2008/09", whoops, that's over three years over 12,000 leaseholders - average annual charge £792 - a tidy sum, but once again not quite the eyecatcher you wanted, was it?
Still, I expect all that venting was cathartic.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
| 12/01/2010 2:10 pm
The figures come from IH so I assume they are reliable. Check the links provided. I assume you work for this basket case of a borough, perhaps in the housing department? Or in the housing department of a similar basket case LA? Don't expect turkeys to vote for Christmas. Instead of attempting to trash the figures why not address the management performance issues highlighted . Or do you think their performance is completely acceptable? Absolutely typical of local government of course. The ostrich like "we are not to blame" mentality; even when it is obvious you are. As stated, this article is surprising. It's just what happens when incompetent councils run housing departments
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
bizarreloverectangle | 12/01/2010 5:33 pm
When in doubt, play the man, not the ball, eh. Any chance of you accepting that your choice of figures was at best selective & at worst misleading? Thought not. After all, that might just undermine your prejudices. Libertarians like you are the worst form of ostrich, doubtless you believe that hard drugs should be legalised as well, as that would be consistent with your "deregulate everything" world view.
100 years ago the original article was a reasonable criticism of Southwark Council's "stable door" approach to the Lakanal tradegy. Difficult to see what else they could do in the current circumstances though. But then you went off on one.
BTW as you know nothing about the original poster, nice to see that that hasn't stopped you forming irrational judgments there as well - at least your folly is consistent. Time to stop feeding the troll, I think.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
| 12/01/2010 9:02 pm
Like I said the figures come from IH and are not misleading. LB Southwark's joke of a housing dept is supported by contributions from hundreds of other councils (200 or 182, whatever) who fund the national HRA. And yes Shaun Regan just happens to be a project accountant in the housing dept of....yes you guessed it...LB Southwark:
http://www.southwark.gov.uk/Uploads/FILE_10628.pdf
So the guy kinda has a vested interest in defending his status quo. A status quo that is completely unacceptable to residents and the wider public. More of the same is not the answer. Such organisations have well past their sell by date and should certainly not be supported by contributions from other less badly run councils up and down the land. The only fair way to deal with HRA debt is to force the debtors to balance their own books rather than continue to leach off those who have. Stock sale, stock transfer, route and branch reform. Don't expect LB Southwark housing dept employees to agree but hey, they're part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
bizarreloverectangle | 13/01/2010 2:16 pm
More selective reporting of facts. Typical. And still playing the man, not the ball. Let's get the personal stuff done with first. Shaun Regan works for a professional accountacy body providing temporary housing finance support where there are recuitment problems. You might have mentioned other recent work at Welwyn Hatfield, Camden, Stockport, the GLA or Islington but once again, distortion is the name of the game. Doubtless examples of all the above were on your Google search results.
It's now rather sad that you continue to demonstrate your total lack of understanding as to how housing finance works and still peddle your own prejudices - still no acknowledgement of your selective use of statistics I notice.
You mention balancing the books - if Southwark were allowed to keep all its rental income and capital receipts instead of having to hand them over to the government (presumably to fund the "other" councils) then I doubt that debt would be much of an issue. Did I mention that it's a problem inherited from the LCC/GLC & the current HRA Review is trying to fix it? Yes, but you don't listen to facts that don't fit your predetermined ideas, do you? The use of weasel words like "joke", "basket case" "leach" etc are a real giveaway.
By the way, when Southwark tenants voted on a stock transfer for the Aylesbury Estate (when Shaun Regan was working for your local borough Islington, just to be clear), they apparently voted against, giving the lie to your assumptions as to what tenants want. Please try & accept that things are never as black & white as you obviously want them to be, or as you were asked in another thread by someone else - get some help.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
| 14/01/2010 9:51 pm
"get some help"
Well, you would say that wouldn't you? Doubtless you say the same to those who support the Localis proposals or Progressive Vision view etc. Once more:
http://www.progressive-vision.org/policies/housing.htm
"Government involvement in housing has only delivered poor quality housing, lack of community and high demand....The high level of state ownership, in many guises, of housing restricts flexibility in the development of new housing and creates anti-social environments. Central government, councils and housing associations should sell their existing housing stocks and exit the market."
I concur but don't expect you to agree if course. There will be a new Administration soon and it is entirely possible that classical liberal views on State involvement in housing will play a part in future policy making. Whether you like it or not.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment