Residents of blocks in Thamesmead blighted by unsafe cladding jeered Greenwich councillors as a watered-down motion on fire safety was passed amid shambolic scenes in Woolwich Town Hall.
Leaseholders in Royal Artillery Quays are in dispute with Barratt Developments, which built the riverside blocks two decades ago, over the type of cladding it plans to apply to the building following the Grenfell Tower fire of 2017, which killed 72 people.
The residents, who are already paying thousands of pounds for “waking watch” patrols, say they are facing higher insurance bills because Barratt will not install the highest-rated “gold standard” A1 cladding. Barratt insists the materials it is planning to use – rated B1 – will be safe.
Councillors passed a motion at last Wednesday’s meeting calling on the government to improve fire safety laws in general, rather than calling on Barratt to install the A1 cladding, as had been planned in a previous motion which had been due to go to the council last year.
The motion came more than three hours into a meeting which had to be extended twice to allow it to be heard, with many councillors clearly itching to go home.
And the Labour councillor introducing the motion,‘Lade Hephzibah Olugbemi, appeared unsure of its contents, at one point appearing to criticise the words put forward in her own name.
Long-running saga at Royal Artillery Quays
The fiasco was the latest twist in a long-running saga where Royal Artillery Quays residents say they have been trying to get Greenwich Council to publicly support them in their battle with Barratt.
While residents have praised local Labour MPs Matt Pennycook and Abena Oppong-Asare for taking up the cause, they say they have struggled to get vocal support from the council on the complex issue, which has since become embroiled in local party politics.
A motion criticising Barratt was due to come to Greenwich Council last year. But it was pulled after Olugbemi, their local Labour councillor, withdrew her name from the document, which had been put forward by Chris Lloyd, her fellow West Thamesmead councillor, a former Labour member who had recently switched to the Liberal Democrats.
Lloyd resigned from the council in November for family reasons, and the withdrawal of the original motion led the chair of the residents’ group, Steve Day, to stand to succeed him as a Liberal Democrat. He was unsuccessful in the by-election in December – losing to Labour’s Jahdia Spencer – but took almost a third of the vote across the whole ward.
Mention of Royal Artillery Quays removed
After delays caused by the West Thamesmead poll and other by-elections, a revised motion from Olugbemi finally went to Greenwich Council last Wednesday to allow the motion to be heard.
But all mention of Barratt and Royal Artillery Quays was excised from the text – to the anger of residents who had waited for the motion to be heard.
Instead, the motion pushed the government to act on the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry, review how to protect leaseholders from increased costs and to back a risk-pooling reinsurance scheme – essentially insurance for insurers – to support leaseholders.
Olugbemi appeared poorly-prepared for the motion – reading from it rather than introducing the issue to her fellow councillors.
And when Conservative opposition leader Matt Hartley proposed an amendment to single out Barratt for criticism and to specifically call on it to install the highest-rated cladding, Olugbemi appeared to criticise the motion she had just put forward.
Olugbemi criticised Hartley’s amendment for explicitly stating that the reinsurance scheme should be funded by a levy on developers.
She called the demand “a vague commitment without clear legislative backing”, even though it was largely similar to her own motion.
Hartley responded: “It’s not an either/or. It’s not your motion or my amendment. My amendment just adds to your motion. So I mean, everything you’ve just criticised was in your own motion.
“It’s either the motion on its own calling on the government to do all those things, or it’s the motion plus the amendment specifically about leveraging the council’s influence on the situation in Royal Artillery Quays.”
Olugbemi’s newly-elected ward colleague Spencer did not contribute to the debate, while Day was denied permission to address it.
‘Council has fought tooth and nail’
Rachel Taggart-Ryan, the council’s cabinet member for enforcement, said she had written to the building safety minister, Alex Norris, about the issue, adding that Hartley’s amendment “serves to muddy the issue, the likely result of which will be further delays to the work being carried out”.
“It is jumping the gun to state that flammable material will be left by developers on Royal Artillery Quays,” she said.
“An update I received this morning from the Building Safety Regulator stated the investigation is still ongoing.”
The council would wait for the regulator’s judgement, she said, adding that the council had fought “tooth and nail” for work to be carried out.
“We will not countenance any suggestion that this is not a priority for this council,” Taggart-Ryan said as residents challenged her from the public gallery.
“To suggest otherwise would not only be factually incorrect, but would also be an insult to the residents of this borough, especially those of West Thamesmead who have continued to put their faith in us as representatives.”
Council leader Anthony Okereke said he wanted there to be a change in the law before making demands of Barratt, with angry residents still complaining in the gallery.
“Legislation at the moment currently permits Barratt to build to B1 standards,” he said. “If we’re going to ask Barratt to stop building to B1 standards and take it to A1, we need to change the legislation because it’s currently legal to build to B1. They will say to me, that;s what’s legally required.
“I need the tool to be able to say to Barratt to do that. It would be wrong for me in this chamber to mislead residents. We have a responsibility to get these technical difficulties correct.”
The residents left the town hall after the Conservatives’ amendment was voted down, with councillors getting impatient to leave themselves.
When, at 11.10pm – more than four hours after the meeting began – Olugbemi was asked if she wanted to close the debate, she laughed as she said she would, with former council leader Denise Hyland making a triumphant gesture and muttering “yes!” – something caught on camera by the council webcast.
The unamended motion, calling for action from the government but not Barratt, was passed unanimously.
Fire brigade enforcement notice
The situation was complicated further by Hartley having to withdraw part of his amendment referring to the London Fire Brigade issuing an enforcement notice on Barratt over the issue. The brigade had told residents that it intended to serve a notice, but there was confusion over whether this had been done or not.
The London Fire Brigade has told The Greenwich Wire that it served the notice on Barratt on Thursday, the day after the meeting, and that it would be made public after a consultation period had ended. Barratt said on Monday that it had not received the notice.
Barratt told this website last year that while some combustible material would remain in place at Royal Artillery Quays, its fire engineer had said there was not a sufficient risk of a fire spreading to necessitate its replacement.
The developer said that it would continue to press the government on the issue of increased insurance payments and wanted to begin the cladding work as soon as the Building Safety Regulator had given it the go-ahead.
Barratt told The Greenwich Wire this week that its position had not changed.
📩 Follow The Greenwich Wire on Bluesky, Facebook, LinkedIn or Threads. You can also sign up for WhatsApp alerts – or subscribe to our emails through the blue box above.
You must be logged in to post a comment.