Further to the previous stories, I have received the following statement from the developer, which is reproduced below in full:
A spokesperson for developer Visionbell, comments: “Following commencement of the approved works, it was established by our professional team that the building was unstable and posed a significant danger to the public. We were advised by specialist structural engineers to urgently reduce the height of and re-build part of the external walls in the interest of public safety. The decision to undertake this work was based solely on health and safety concerns, following recommendations from our professional team. As part of this emergency work, full hoarding went up to ensure the safety of the public.
“Health and safety remains our number one priority. There is no planning or financial gain and ultimately we have lost a significant sum of money and time due to this. We intend to reinstate the building as it was before, with the addition of the approved extension, ensuring its long term future. We will be liaising with the local authority about this.”
“I can confirm that the appointed contractor, Build With Confidence Construction Limited, is not in liquidation and remains actively involved on the project.”
5 comments:
Not good enough. Your company should be wiped out, just as you have wiped out Deptford History. I, for one, have put a curse on you.
Straight out of the tory handbook on obfuscation and last minute lies. If Lewisham swallow that then subversive emolument has already taken place.
This is disgraceful and you should be ashamed of what you have done.
I hope all action is taken to ensure you do put it back as it was and you are taken to task on you crime against Deptford's History. You should also take down the old signage and put up your own.
This and Deptford Dame was mentioned in number 1520 of Private Eye magazine.
Do, please, keep digging and reporting on events. Whether or not the building had "unsafe" upper storeys, emergency works could have awaited a notification phone call to the council. The council must proceed with prosecution (if this is Crown Court level, I think a jury will have no problem dismissing that defence argument) and the people responsible get criminal records for their actions. The council must also insist on re-instatement to the pub's former layout and appearance. Whether the developers should then (after restoration) be allowed to carry out the originally approved conversion works is debateable - at that point, perhaps sufficient interest in keeping it as a pub, formation of a community interest society to buy and run it and compulsory purchase by the council will come into play.
Post a Comment