Will Redbridge be acting on Cllr Howard's suggestion of a review of single staircase High Rise?

 Dear Anna and Councillors

Thank you for your email. I received an email from a Manager at Fairview yesterday. Fairview is not prepared to amend their plans for single staircases and insert dual staircases at the homebase development. I copy the email below.

At Redbridge Planning committee meeting on 14^th June, Cllr Howard replied to a question of mine which he asks if the Council should be looking into this issue. I quote from Cllr Howard

….I think it would be worth investigation of the cabinet member for planning and legal officers as to what their responsibilities are on the staircase..”

I would be grateful if you could look into this issue for me by 5pm on Monday 19^th June to let me know if the Council is re-considering their position on dual staircases for High Rise which have passed the planning committee but have not been built.

Should I hear back from you by 5pm on Monday I will investigate if the single staircase issue could be challenged under judicial review.

The time limit may be an obstacle for a legal challenge. However, I note that if the judgment is upheld in the Tesco Toxic Towers court case at the Court of Appeal then the right time for a judicial review of the school will be when the internal layout will be published, which may be years from now. I copy the relevant paragraphs for your ease of convenience below.

With the Tesco officer report and I expect other High Rise developments, the officer report is silent on the issue. Perhaps that silence on a key safety issue may be reasonable grounds to allow an out of time application.

Usually, the Council take more time than a working day to reply to enquires, but I merely asking if Cllr Holmes question has triggered a review of the single staircase issue for developments which has passed planning committee stage but have yet to be built.

Regards

Andy Walker

Email from Fairview Below

Dear Andy,

 

Thank you for providing your notes from meeting on the 6^th June. Please find our responses to points 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 below:  

1) Contact details to publish on my site and maybe Fairview

Chris Jaques mobile number is 07783 55486 Chris.Jaques@fairview.co.uk working hours unless emergency or 0208 023 7092

2) Fairview will consider air conditioning units and air purification units for residents with respiratory medical conditions – decision by end of next week

Dust generation during construction is most prolific during the demolition and initial enabling phasing. During this work Fairview employed industry best practice dust suppression techniques and controls, all of which have been agreed with London Borough of Redbridge. These techniques and controls ensure that most of the dust created was supressed at source or contained within the site. Therefore, we do not consider residents have been exposed to levels of dust from our site which require exceptional mitigation.

We have now completed the demolition and enabling phases of the construction and therefore the amount of dust-generating work being undertaken will be significantly reduced. As a result, we do not consider that there are any special circumstances which justify the provision of air conditioning units and air purification units. Fairview has an excellent reputation for its construction practices and works with a large number of Local Authorities. These measures have never previously been requested before, or required by any Local Authorities.    

3) No council inspections of the dust management plan says Fairview

4) The development has single staircases – This appears to be predatory capitalist conduct to me and I hope Fairview will reconsider

The site was granted permission unanimously by London Borough of Redbridge in April 2022, prior to the GLA mandating for the inclusion of second staircases in blocks above 30m in February this year. Both the Mayor and the London Fire Brigade recognise it is not feasible for all schemes which have been approved prior to this decision to be redesigned and go through a lengthy planning process to incorporate the changes required for a second staircase.

Our development at Goodmayes was designed to highest standards of fire safety at the time of approval and includes sprinklers within both the residential and commercial units. The scheme and fire safety measures have also been signed off by both the GLA and Health and Safety Executive.   

5) Child health stats – I asked Fairview to consider supporting that BHRUT stats on child health linked to air pollution be allowed to be sent to an academic and I referenced a Fire Brigade Union study in support.

Fairview understand that you currently have an Upper Tribunal hearing in relation to the publication of data in relation to this. While this is ongoing, we do not consider it appropriate to comment.    

6) I requested specification on air filters and why filters not to 7th floor like the Tesco development– I was told council says ground floor and first floor only and the specification would be sent to me.

As set out at the meeting, Planning Condition 37 requires “all commercial and residential spaces located at the ground and first floor of blocks E1, E2 and E3 directly facing onto the High Road Goodmayes to the north shall be fitted/ventilated with either air obtained from elevated locations away from this road and/or the use of nitrogen dioxide filters, both of which shall utilise closed mechanical ventilation to ensure national objectives with respect to air quality are met”. This condition was requested by the GLA.

At this time the specific air filters to be installed within the units is yet to be decided and therefore we are unable to provide the specification However, Fairview will fully comply with this condition and will ensure that national objectives in relation to air quality are meant.

7) Residents have to pay for their own surveys re cracks in walls.

It is standard practice for residents to undertake their own surveys as this ensures the surveys are undertaken by someone independent.

Kind Regards

Judgement extract

Extract from High Court judgment below:

11) My conclusion is that the latter inference is correct and the Claimant’s case is not a properly arguable case. One point is that the latter inference is by far the more natural one. The significance of Policy SI 1, and this part of it in particular, must have been well known to the councillors who took this decision. More importantly, Mr Garvey, who appears for the Council, has drawn my attention to other conditions contained within the grant of planning commission and, in particular, condition 87. That condition is as follows:

“School internal layout: prior to commencement relevant works phase identified on the phasing plan submitted under condition 3 above, full details of the layout of the proposed school shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The subsequently approved details shall be implemented in full prior to the commencement of the use.”

12) Mr Garvey accepts that that condition, either read on its own or read together with condition 82 which concerns an air-quality positive statement, is such that it is clear that the time for compliance with paragraphs (b) and (d) within the policy has not yet arisen so far as concerns the school. The question of the design solutions that are necessary to address the requirements of the policy will be considered at the time that the Council takes its decision on condition 87 concerning the school layout. At that time, the Council’s decision will need to comply with Policy SI 1, in the sense of being consistent with that policy. If the Council’s decision on condition 87 is made without proper consideration of the policy, that decision would be challengeable, for that reason.

13) Since that is so, it seems to me that what is referred to in the officers’ report is sufficient for the present purposes. I accept the submission made both by Mr Garvey and by Mr Village KC for the Interested Party that the position is different, or was different, so far as concerned the residential blocks. They are not subject to a layout condition equivalent to condition 87; no doubt that was because the layout of the blocks was already sufficiently settled such that condition 61 could be put in place to address the requirements of (b) and (d) within the policy at this stage.