Carlton Mansions co-op, Coldharbour Lane, Brixton - history and news

[Brixton Blog]

Hi all,
just for info, here the full response from the council (housing and regen department) last week on this (as obviously couldn't fit all in the Bugle)



Why is the council asking Carlton Mansions Housing Cooperative to leave the building it occupies?
Lambeth Living, the Councils housing management company, carried out a Fire Risk Assessment of 1 – 16 Carlton Mansions which has recommended that the building is evacuated as a priority.
Why was the fire risk assessment carried out by the health and safety department rather than by Hunters, who are contracted to do the council’s fire risk work?
Hunters carried out the survey on behalf of Lambeth Living.
Why was the assessor sent to the building someone who is reportedly not an expert in assessing historic buildings?
The age of any building or structure is not the issue. The assessor is an expert in Fire Safety and that was the purpose of the visit. The Council is obliged to ensure its buildings meet relevant health and safety regulations regardless of their age.
The officer sent to assess the building did not enter any of the flats – how can they make a proper assessment of whether there is correct compartmentalization and fire standards if that is the case?
Because the premises is in residential use, the assessment has been carried out on common parts of the building only. It is considered that flat entrance doors form part of the protection to the common escape route; as such the assessment considers the suitability of the door from a visual perspective only.
The fire risk assessment states that it is a ‘recommendation’ that the residents leave – what made the council decide it was necessary?
The Council has a duty of care to residents and we cannot ignore such a clear recommendation from a Fire Risk Assessment.
The Cooperative have offered to install fire doors and do as much work as they can to get the building up to standard – why is this not enough?
The Fire Risk Assessment makes a clear recommendation to vacate the building as a priority and therefore residents could not be allowed to remain in situ while the works are being done.
Installing fire doors would only rectify one of many issues identified with the building and their installation would not on its own make the risk level acceptable.
Where will cooperative members be housed if they are evicted from the site?
The residents will be offered temporary accommodation and from there they will have their housing need assessed and if eligible would be made a direct offer of a new home.
Will you serve the Housing Cooperative a possession order?
We will be taking whatever legal action is best suited to the circumstances. The Co-op will be formally advised of this in due course.
Are the standards for historic buildings different to those for newer buildings? Has the historic nature of the building been taken into account in this risk assessment?
The age of the building is not a consideration - this is about the safety of the occupants.
Does every other nineteenth and early 20th century building owned by Lambeth comply with the same standards? Do they all have correct ‘compartmentalisation’, for instance?
All buildings have to comply with Fire Risk Assessments. There is a rolling programme under which these are carried out.
Why has Lambeth Council never done a fire risk assessment at Carlton Mansions before? Why has it previously not taken responsibility for the maintenance of the building and why has it decided to do so now?
It is not clear when the last Fire Risk Assessment was carried out in this instance. However, not doing this in the past is not a reason for failing to do this in the present. Responsibility for upkeep of the building was, indeed, partially the responsibility of the Carlton Mansions Housing Co-operative from the point the block became a short life property. The structural integrity and safety of the building is the responsibility of the freehold owner - the London Borough of Lambeth. We are taking this action now because Lambeth Living have brought this matter to our attention.
Lambeth Council did a thorough survey of the building a few years ago - why was the fire risk not mentioned in that survey?
The survey you are referring to was not a Fire Risk Assessment.
What are you going to do to help the cooperative members in their current situation?
The residents will be offered temporary accommodation and from there they will have their housing needs assessed and if eligible would be made a direct offer of a new home
If the Housing Cooperative is evicted, what will happen to the Carlton Mansions building? Will you get a company like Camelot in and why/why not?
Once the building is vacated it will need to be secured. We will not be using live in guardians due to the recommendations of the Fire Risk Assessment.
Lambeth has been strongly criticised recently (e.g. by the likes of Private Eye) for its policy of ridding the borough of short life and the way it has approached this. The members of the Housing Cooperative also feel that they are not being giving the chance of a dialogue about this situation. How does this all fit into the cooperative council model?
In terms of an ongoing dialogue with the residents, the Council has met and continues to meet representatives from Carlton Mansions to discuss this extremely sensitive issue and to provide support where it can.

 

[Effrasurfer]

Tweeted @cllr_robbins, Good luck, hope sense prevails!

 

[Brixton Hatter]

Thanks for all the support. It means a lot to me that people in Brixton care. Whatever happens Brixton, when the chips are down, shows that it is has real community spirit.

Is it worth getting people down to the court tomorrow at 10am to show support?

I'm supposed to be elsewhere, but I will be there to support if people think it's worth it....

Court House
Cleaver Street
Kennington Road
London
SE11 4DZ

Near to Kennington tube station, just off Cleaver Square

 

[shifting gears]

I can't get out of work in the morning but I wish you all the very best of luck

 

[quimcunx]

The Cooperative have offered to install fire doors and do as much work as they can to get the building up to standard – why is this not enough?
The Fire Risk Assessment makes a clear recommendation to vacate the building as a priority and therefore residents could not be allowed to remain in situ while the works are being done.

Does every other nineteenth and early 20th century building owned by Lambeth comply with the same standards? Do they all have correct ‘compartmentalisation’, for instance?
All buildings have to comply with Fire Risk Assessments. There is a rolling programme under which these are carried out.

I find these two quite interesting.

The first that the residents can't be in situ 'while the works are being done'. Do they mean if the co-op got the necessary work done they would have to move out while it was done, which is down to the co-op and the contractors surely? Or that they have to move out until the work is done and then they could move back in? Or that the council would do the necessary work and they could not stay while that was done? Because it seems that they are dismissing any work being done under any circumstance and evicting them permanently because the area will be developed in a couple of years and their lease would end then anyway.

'There is a rolling programme under which these are carried out' and it just so happened that it was Carlton mansions turn right now rather than other properties which might not be inspected for another 6 months? Year? Five years?

A redevelopment is planned for Somerleyton Road including the land that Carlton Mansions stands on. Carlton Mansions has been short life since the 70s (?) and it is understood that these sorts of tenancies are 'temporary'. And it is understood that when the land comes to be redeveloped in 2 year that the residents would move out and that there is no guarantee that the building will continue to exist. However there is the matter of the mural. There have been mumblings that of course the council want to keep the mural if possible. Oval house who will take possession of the adjacent land have said that they are happy to try to respect the mural in their own development (and I have no particular reason to disbelieve them). However I can imagine that it would be so much more convenient in the grand scheme of things if the mural was not there and if efforts to protect it were not being made. Properties like this one soon fall into a state of disrepair when left vacant and I can't help but think that listings for murals can be dismissed if a building is found to be unsafe and in need of demolition. Also that it might be a lot more lucrative* to be able to offer the land for a new block of flats to a developer. (Is this possible considering the plans for the area as a whole?)

Perhaps I'm just a very cynical soul. Maybe it's all just coincidence.

*for the private developers, the council are unlikely to get a good deal for us, only in comparison to having to keep the CM building.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

Perhaps I'm just a very cynical soul. Maybe it's all just coincidence.

No it's not coincidence...you're totally spot on.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

Yeah I noticed that bit too:

The Cooperative have offered to install fire doors and do as much work as they can to get the building up to standard – why is this not enough?
The Fire Risk Assessment makes a clear recommendation to vacate the building as a priority and therefore residents could not be allowed to remain in situ while the works are being done.

What are "the works"?

 

[free spirit]

Why was the assessor sent to the building someone who is reportedly not an expert in assessing historic buildings?
The age of any building or structure is not the issue. The assessor is an expert in Fire Safety and that was the purpose of the visit. The Council is obliged to ensure its buildings meet relevant health and safety regulations regardless of their age.

hoisted by their own petard.

please do make sure you quote this bit in court tomorrow, then read out this paragraph from appendix C, Historic Buildings, fire safety risk assessment, sleeping accomodation.

Fire risk assessments conducted for sleeping accommodation which is within a listed or historic building will need to ensure that a balance is struck between ensuring sufficient fire safety measures are in place for the safety of people, yet avoid extensive alterations and helping to maintain the character of the building

also worth asking them for evidence that they're consulted English Heritage, or that their fire officer had sufficient training and experience in conducting fire risk assessments in historic buildings to justify him taking these decisions by himself without reference to anyone who actually knows what they're doing with historic buildings.

The advice and/or consent of a building control body or any other relevant bodies (e.g. English Heritage) should form part of any fire risk assessment that impacts on the character of the building (e.g. replacement of doors, fittings, wooden panelling and decor) or material changes to existing escape routes. A

 

[quimcunx]

Yeah I noticed that bit too:



What are "the works"?

I suspect they mean that until such time as the work* was completed the risk is intolerable and so requiring immediate eviction.

* the work being getting it up to standard.

 

[editor]

Just got a reply from Rachel Heywood. It doesn't look good at all. I've asked her if it's OK to publish it as it explains how they're treating the matter.

 

[kittyP]

Emailed. Best of luck to all. x x x

 

[Brixton Hatter]

hoisted by their own petard.

please do make sure you quote this bit in court tomorrow, then read out this paragraph from appendix C, Historic Buildings, fire safety risk assessment, sleeping accomodation.

Fire risk assessments conducted for sleeping accommodation which is within a listed or historic building will need to ensure that a balance is struck between ensuring sufficient fire safety measures are in place for the safety of people, yet avoid extensive alterations and helping to maintain the character of the building

also worth asking them for evidence that they're consulted English Heritage, or that their fire officer had sufficient training and experience in conducting fire risk assessments in historic buildings to justify him taking these decisions by himself without reference to anyone who actually knows what they're doing with historic buildings.

The advice and/or consent of a building control body or any other relevant bodies (e.g. English Heritage) should form part of any fire risk assessment that impacts on the character of the building (e.g. replacement of doors, fittings, wooden panelling and decor) or material changes to existing escape routes. A

good work

Gramsci boohoo

 

[free spirit]

This bit is also worth taking into court with you, from the housing fire safety steering group clarification document on their 2008 guidance

However, in a low risk 3 storey shared house where there is sound conventional construction and doors opening onto the escape route which are of sound, solid construction, close fitting and self closing then 20 minutes fire resistance can often be achieved.

I'd expect that the doors already in place will be of this type of construction, so will afford 20 minutes fire resistance protection, which is considered by the fire safety steering group to be sufficient for 3 storey buildings, yet this fire safety officer has determined that it's so dangerous a situation for a 4 storey building that it requires immediate evacuation.

I don't see that in a historic building that replacing 20 minute rated doors with 30 minute rated doors is even likely to be justifiable just because the building has a 4th storey, as long as other measures are in place - ie proper heat and smoke detector fire alarm system, emergency lighting in the stairwell to facilitate rapid escape, and fire extinguishers etc.

All of that should be pretty quick and simply to install IMO (as a qualified electrician - albeit a solar panel installer), and I don't see that there should be justification for ordering an immediate evacuation of a building that's been lived in safely for decades... unless maybe the interior walls and doors are utterly shagged with holes all over the place etc.

 

[free spirit]

for reference, this is the recommendations to apply to low risk buildings

In all buildings a fully protected escape route (staircase) offering 30 minutes fire resistance is the ideal solution and it will usually be appropriate for all bedsit-type accommodation.

However, in lower risk buildings (i.e. single household occupancy of up to four storeys and low risk shared houses), due to the lower risk and shorter travel distance to the final exit, this need not be insisted upon as long as all the following conditions are met:

• the stairs should lead directly to a final exit without passing through a risk room;
• the staircase enclosure should be of sound, conventional construction throughout the route;
• all risk rooms should be fitted with sound, close-fitting doors of conventional construction (lightweight doors and doors with very thin panels should be avoided); and
• an appropriate system of automatic fire detection and warning is in place (see table C4).

so assuming there is some form of automatic fire detection and alarm in place, and the rest applies, this is where what I talked about earlier about it being subjective as to whether it's classified as high risk, low risk, or really whether there ought to be some common sense medium ground applied to the situation and it be recognised that a 4 storey HMO isn't suddenly so much more risky than a 3 storey HMO that what would be judged as being safe in a 3 storey building should be used as grounds for immediate eviction on safety grounds in a 4 storey building.

ps it would be useful to know if the flats are bedsit type arrangements with their own kitchens, or all use one shared communal kitchen? That's a key factor in determining how high risk the building should be viewed as being.

eta from here http://www.cieh.org/uploadedFiles/C...ications/National_fire_safety_guidance_08.pdf

 

[free spirit]

btw there are 3 documents linked to in those last 3 posts, I'd strongly recommend someone involved prints them out and takes them in to the court with them - they should be the 3 key guidance documents the council and their fire safety officer should be following I think.

I'd hope that someone arguing the points I've just made with reference to those guide would at least be able to convince a judge to order a halt to eviction procedings until a second opinion can be sought from someone who specialises in fire safety for older buildings.

 

[quimcunx]

they are all separate flats with own kitchen and bathroom as far as I know. I've not been in all the flats, just one.

 

[cesare]

I suggest you take sufficient photocopies of the evidence free spirit has found for you for the court. I for the other side, one for the bench (or whatever it's called) and 1 for the witness stand so minimum of 3 extra and more if you can. Highlight the relevant passages so they're easy to refer to.

Good luck all.

Edit: oops, just seen free spirit's above post

 

[free spirit]

they are all separate flats with own kitchen and bathroom as far as I know. I've not been in all the flats, just one.

arse. That makes things worse.

however, this is the paragraph I was looking for, which allows for alternative methods to be used to reduce the risk level of a building to a point where it then becomes viewed as a low risk building again.

9.12 If there is a suitable second staircase or exit or if there are additional fire safety measures (an enhanced system of fire detection and warning, for example, or a water suppression system), the premises may be considered lower risk and the travel distances and levels of protection may be adjusted accordingly where this lower risk can be demonstrated

so that gives possible options that should be explored in an old building rather than just insisting on 30 minute fire rated doors etc.

looking at google earth, it looks like it's got exits onto the roof in 3 places, which I'd expect could easily be made into alternative escape routes - ie on to the roof, then down one of the other escape routes, in which case there'd only be a need to install a decent alarm system IMO. If they needed to keep the doors secure they could have a break glass key on the inside of the door that opened all the other doors from the outside. That should satisfy any credible fire officer as a suitable alternative escape route.

 

[peterkro]

Hope court goes well later today.

 

[critical1]

A Co-Op closing down a Co-Op, welcome to the NEW and improved Lambeth council you friendly helpful co-operative council.

What is your local councillor doing to help you? have thay met with you to discus anything? or are they just making statement?

What will happen to the Nuclear Dawn mural.. will they demolish the building??

So many questions and so few...

Co-Operative critical
Critical1

 

[Fenian]

looking at google earth, it looks like it's got exits onto the roof in 3 places, which I'd expect could easily be made into alternative escape routes - ie on to the roof, then down one of the other escape routes, in which case there'd only be a need to install a decent alarm system IMO. If they needed to keep the doors secure they could have a break glass key on the inside of the door that opened all the other doors from the outside. That should satisfy any credible fire officer as a suitable alternative escape route.

Someone looking at google earth - or just passing by - should also be able to note the emergency escape route next to Atlantic Road that has been sealed off.

​

 

[eme]

Please can people write to their Councillors about this. We have received the request this afternoon to attend court tomorrow morning. We have had no time to prepare and they have had a limited communication with us.

done - hope not too late x

 

[Thimble Queen]

Sending love and strength. Really hope Carlton residents can fight this bullshit x

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Oh my god, only heard about this last evening, how awful we have sent a letter to the councillors, but please let me now of there's any other way to help...

 

[girasol]

This really is evil, health & safety being used as an eviction tool. Sickening. People live in much more hazardous conditions (fire wise), don't see councils taking measures to actually improve their safety. It's so transparent that's an excuse it would be less disgusting if they just came out with the real motive.

 

[Dan U]

Good luck all. What total cunts Lambeth are.

 

[blossie33]

I don't live in Brixton but good luck for today!
What a lovely building it looks - how sad if it has to be demolished

 

[teuchter]

Good luck. As others have said Fire Risk Assessments are subjective to some extent and it seems completely out of order to try and evict the residents at such short notice without at least giving them the chance to get a second opinion and look into ways of rectifying things without everyone having to move out. Unless the assessment identified something exceptionally dangerous about the current situation.

 

[EastEnder]

Have emailed the council stooges.

(((boohoo et al)))

 

[Chilavert]

Good luck at the hearing today.

Fwiw I do a fair bit of work with London Fire brigade - if it would help for me to try and find someone to speak to about the risk assessments then let me know and I'll do what I can.