Below today's email to the council and the HSE, slightly modified to remove names.“Unfortunately despite the work carried out on the cliff façade by TDC on 8th October (removing vegetation lose masonry from the portal blockwork on site and from the area either side of the site boundary at the eastern end of the site, see http://thanetonline.blogspot.com/2010/10/council-weed-pleasurama-cliff-facade.html ) more of the render has come away from the façade, I think over the last couple of days.
One again this is over the site boundary, so any of it that falls to the ground will do so from about 50 feet and probably land partly on the site and partly on the public highway.
There is a ledge immediately below the part I can see that has come away which may prevent part or all of it from falling to the ground, I would think this would depend on how far up the delamination extends.
As you know my concern is that the rapid deterioration of this part of the façade is due to the blocked drainage and damaged surface above it and my main concern is that water has entered this part of the cliff making its stability uncertain.
I am also concerned that both the council and the council’s advising engineers have a considerable vested interest in the cliff façade within the site boundary being shown to be in good condition. I am further concerned that any survey of the cliff by the councils advising engineers or the councils engineers after the main contract to repair and coat the façade would be influenced by the liability were the cliff to found defective.
I am also uncertain as to the situation relating to work on the site, by this I mean that all work on the site seems to have stopped since the weekend 2nd 3rd October when the piece of render fell off.
Is it your contention that it is safe to work on the site at the moment?
Picture above with the loose part outlined in red, clcik on it to enlarge, the render seems to be about 50 mm away from the brickwork behind, because the surface of the render hasn’t cracked this suggests that the delamination extends some considerable way up.
I am asking that you take the following action.
1 Cordon off and sign the effected area until the problem is investigated.
2 Institute a weight limit topside.
3 Investigate the localised area and remove the lose render.
4 Arrange for a full and independent survey of the cliff behind the site extending beyond the site to Augusta Stairs.
5 Please register this as official customer feedback.”
Definately need this cordoned off. The cliff top promenade along the whole of the Eastcliff is unstable. This doesn't prevent Cllr O'Donnell and Cllr Hoult allowing either themselves or their performers/artistes to use the promenade as a driveway and parking place. No Risk Assessment here either!
ReplyDeleteHello Michael,
ReplyDeleteYou are hammering at TDC's door while they are hiding inside desperately hoping that it will all go away - especially you I suspect.
I hope TDC are able to give you a reasoned and detailed reply.
Keep up the good work.
With regard to the poor repair of façades maybe some effort could be better directed towards the eyesores within the town and in particular a certain bookshop!
ReplyDeleteAnon 18:30, I doubt very much whether a scruffy bookshop window can potentially kill people.
ReplyDeleteThe sword of Damacles in the form of an Article 2 Inquest is hovering
ReplyDelete'Article 2' inquests
8. Where employees (or other emanations) of the state potentially bear responsibility for loss of life (whether by their actions or omissions), the right to life in Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)6 may be engaged. For Article 2 to be engaged, there must be reasonable grounds for thinking that the death may have resulted from a wrongful act on behalf of the state7. An example might be a death in custody, either in prison or under police detention.
9. In such a case, the state is under an obligation to initiate an effective public investigation by an independent body. The House of Lords has ruled that, while a criminal investigation and prosecution may not discharge this obligation, an inquest is likely to do so. The inquest must, however, determine not only the identity of the deceased and when, where and how the death occurred, but also in what circumstances8. The limited ambit of a ‘standard’ inquest will not satisfy the obligation on the state.
10. Whether the enhanced form of inquest will be required will depend on the precise circumstances of the particular case9. Only those inquests that are concerned with a possible breach of Article 2 by an agent of the state have this wider scope; other types of inquest can be more limited10. The Coroner’s decision will determine the questions s/he will need to address during the inquest and will have an impact on the assistance that you provide to the Coroner.
To anon at 18:30,
ReplyDeleteYour comment is an immense contribution to the debate on this subject - You clown!
As I have often commented. If Article 2 Inquests had been available to the eleven Royal Marines murdered at Deal Barracks 1989 by an IRA Bomb. It may have gone like this :
ReplyDeleteHM Coroner "Supt Rogers how many lines of inquiry mentioning IRA featured in warnings given to you prior to the bombing ?"
Supt Rogers "26 sir"
HM Coroner "How many did you pursue ?"
Supt Rogers "Nil sir"
HM Coroner "Were thyere any other warnings on record about barracks security ?"
Supt Rogers "Yes from RAF Provost in East Anglia 1981 and from Brigadier Harvey to MI5 and Special Branch 1982 sir"
HM Coroner "Did any of these warnings touch on persons with access to keys for the barracks ?"
Supt Rogers "Yes sir all three warnings, 1981 from RAF, 1982 from Brigadier Harvey and Army Physical Training Corps and in 1988/89 in the 26 lines of inquiry I chose not to pursue sir"
HM Coroner "There was a complaint that employment had been obtained by deception as a Reliance security guard at the barracks did you record and investigate the crime complaint ?"
Supt Rogers "No sir. Rather I helped Reliance to assist him into new employ by not objecting to their provision of a good reference for him sir "
To get inquests of that standard under Article 2 was one of the objectives of complaint about Kent Police betrayal of the Royal Marines. Now we have Article 2 inquests. And they are there to look at acts or ommissions of agents of the state which may have led to or failed to prevent death.
The wall of silence which Kent Police hid behind all these years in similar circumstances nowadays is not available to them.
With drainage from above and tide from below I think that the Pleasurama project is heading towards such an inquest.
To Anonymous at 18:30,
ReplyDeletePlease spare time to study the comments of 'Retired' on the subject of Article 2 Inquests.
It certainly makes sense to me and is an apt warning to TDC.
Never the less I should welcome your advice and guidance on the law.