Despite the officer recommendation, the planning committee voted to refuse permission for this application. It was felt that it did not respect the character of the surrounding buildings, the lack of private gardens for the family unit was also a reason for refusal.
A good decision from the councillors but lets hope this site can be developed soon, it is a terrible eyesore at present, and we are still waiting for a report from the Health and Safety Executive regarding the death on site when the basement area was excavated in September 2010.
Farewell to #14
Down she goes
lets hope what appears next is not too bad.
6 Church Rise is coming along nicely now, but not looking forward to the on street parking once its done. Im sure #14 is going to add to parking issues on CR once its done too, being the nearest side road.
What a shame to lose such a large and seemingly solid, pleasant Victorian house. Makes me worry for the structural integrity of our own round the corner.
If you deliberately remove every internal wall and excavate the cellar, then it is quite likely that your house will fall down. In this case somebody died because of the poor supervision and management of the site, although the HSE is still to determine the penalty over two years after the death and the collapse of the building. And it does seem as if the crown prosecution service will be pressing charges for negligence or corporate manslaughter.
Edd, as Michael says, #14 Waldram, and #6 Church Rise fell foul to the same problem, idiot, greedy developers who try and squeeze extra flats into old houses by digging all the foundations out.
Agreed Michael, very sad that the matter is still dragging on, but on the up side, at least the adjacent properties are safe from any further issues with the building.
Planning permission has now been granted for a new building which will just about fit into the existing streetscape.
Planning officers had wanted an modern block between two early 1900s houses (see post from May last year). The Forest Hill Society and neighbours felt that this did not respect the character of the surrounding buildings.
After explaining our concerns to the architect and meeting with them, they produced a plan that we felt was much more acceptable and brought housing back onto this site (including units suitable for families).
Planning officers recommended rejecting this plan and all the aspects that they were willing to overlook on a modern building became of concern to them in this proposal. Fortunately the planning committee did not agree with officers, and with a few helpful words from Cllr Paschoud speaking as the ward councillor, they unanimously approved the latest designs, which had been supported by the Forest Hill Society.
Thats one mammoth building from the plans, hard to picture in its physical state.
With 6 Church Rise drawing to a close, and this getting the green light, it looks like the block will once again be in tact. Albeit somewhat modified.
Look forward to seeing this getting going, and feel for the near by residents. Having gone through concrete clearance myself from the plot next door, I imagine they are about to go through the mill too.
Mukesh Shah and Kiran Shah, both of the Optima Business Park, Pindar Road, Hoddesdon, Herts, were each found guilty of two separate breaches of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. Mukesh was fined £40,000 with costs of £34,750. Kiran was fined £25,000 and was also ordered to pay £34,750 in costs.
The brothers were told they would be jailed if they failed to make the necessary payments.
Vijay Patel, of Valley Walk, Croxley Green, Herts, was ordered to undertake 270 hours of community work after pleading guilty to a single CDM Regulations breach. The court ruled he had no means to pay a fine or contribute towards costs.
HMB Services Ltd, of the same address, is now dissolved so the company avoided prosecution.
“Mukesh and Kiran Shah were having this conversion undertaken as part of a business venture and they were therefore ‘clients’ in this project. A client has a very major influence over how a construction project is run as they have responsibility for appointing competent advisors – principal contractors – and ensuring that arrangements are in place for carrying out the project safely.
“The clients in this case failed on all fronts. They had no advisors to help them understand what was required of them, the principal contractor they appointed was not competent to manage this work safely and there were no formal arrangements in place to ensure the safety of those workers on site.
“It appeared neither the clients nor principal contractor had any understanding of the very real risks on that site – or how to ensure those risks were controlled.”
I'm very pleased that those guilty have been prosecuted for the terrible situation that led to the death of a worker on this site.
Wow. Bit of an eye-opener that the client is responsible, too, not just the contractor (who arguably is better placed to know what a job requires and whether it's beyond his skills/budget).
Search
Help
