Tribunal ruling could make it more difficult for council to oversee quality of building safety works

News30.05.243.00 PM by Stephen Delahunty

Camden Council has expressed concern that a recent tribunal ruling could make it more difficult for the local authority to check if a building owner has carried out the necessary building safety works.

Star Yard in Camden (picture: Google Street View)

Sharelines

Tribunal ruling could make it more difficult for London council to oversee quality of building safety works #UKhousing

Camden Council said a recent tribunal ruling could make it more difficult to check if a building owner has carried out the necessary building safety works #UKhousing

The judgment came after an appeal against an improvement notice that had been served under Section 12 of the Housing Act 2004 on a property at 4 Star Yard in Camden, which forms part of larger premises spread over two buildings.

An improvement notice requires the person or firm on whom it is served to carry out remedial action within a certain time.

In this case, a firm called Raingate is the freeholder of the buildings, which are connected by a four-storey high link bridge over a pedestrian alleyway known as Chichester Rents.

The main use of the six-storey buildings is as commercial premises, but the first floor contains five residential flats.

The bridge comprises glazed elevations, which are now known to have category three aluminium composite material cladding – similar to that used on Grenfell Tower – after being installed as part of a refurbishment programme in or about 2014.

Following the Grenfell Tower Fire in June 2017, local authorities were asked to identify and actively ensure that all building owners of high-rise residential buildings with potentially unsafe cladding were taking appropriate measures to guarantee their buildings were safe and that residents felt safe.

After the initial improvement notice was issued by Camden, an appeal was submitted by Raingate on the basis that a formal improvement notice was unnecessary and that it would have been sufficient for the council to have served an advisory hazard awareness notice instead.

This is similar to an improvement notice except there are no dates for the work to be started or completed, and no offence is committed if not complied with.

The tribunal judge agreed the the council should have served an improvement notice and that it was appropriate to investigate the materials and make-up of the external walls.

However, Inside Housing understands that the wording of the judgment allows Raingate to appoint its own expert to assess the quality of any remediation work and then inform the council, as opposed to allowing Camden to inspect the work itself.

A Camden Council spokesperson said: “While we welcome the tribunal’s judgment that we correctly served an improvement notice, it’s disappointing that the owner sought to appeal this and was unwilling to carry out a full review of the buildings materials to understand any potential risks.

“We have worked hard to help these residents and improve their safety, and have some concerns that the details of this judgment may make it more challenging for the council to undertake our role and ensure that the owner is carrying out appropriate works to ensure that risks to residents are reduced.

“It is vital that owners of buildings with combustible cladding materials should not be free to pick and choose whether to carry out appropriate remediation works, and that there is external oversight to confirm that works will reduce risks to an acceptable level.”

Camden Council said it will continue to work with the London Fire Brigade (LFB), Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) and the Building Safety Regulator to help ensure the building is safe for occupiers.

LFB declined to comment on the significance of the tribunal as it currently has an enforcement notice in place on the same building, which has a deadline for the completion of the remedial work for the end of June.

In response, Raingate said: “The safety of our residents is our first priority and we take any concerns about cladding very seriously.

“The tribunal’s decision in this case relates to a five storey building made up primarily of commercial offices, but which has five flats on the first floor with small amounts of cladding on parts of the external walls of two of those flats.

“Raingate consulted three different independent safety experts who provided reports making clear that the fire risk to the tenants taking into account this particular cladding was low.

“Camden Council produced no independent fire risk assessment report and no evidence from independent experts challenging the findings of Raingate’s experts. As we did not think that the terms of the improvement notice served by Camden reflected the true fire risk for this building, we pursued an appeal for the improvement notice to be varied.

“Raingate therefore welcomes the tribunal’s decision that Camden’s improvement notice should be varied, with the result that the safety of the whole wall system should be assessed in an independent type 4 fire risk assessment by a fire risk professional rather than by Camden.

”Raingate is now in the process of completing the steps required by the varied improvement order.”

Asked about the tribunal’s significance, DLUHC said it was not legally binding so would not set a precedent.

On the issue of assessments, the department highlighted that under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, fire and rescue services have powers to ensure a suitable and sufficient risk assessment is carried out by a competent professional.