A massive fire hit the former Dairy Crest site in Cheam on Friday, as 50 firefighters tackled huge flames and a gas cylinder in danger of exploding.
The two and three storey site in Anne Boleyn's Walk has been under construction to turn it into flats. London Fire Brigade reported 100 per cent fire damage to one of the new buildings, but said the two former Dairy Crest buildings and one of the new blocks were undamaged.
Fire and police investigators were on site all weekend to try to determine what caused the blaze, which broke out just after 11pm last night. Ten fire engines attended the scene and used two hydraulic platforms to help fight the fire from above.
They found a propane cylinder on the site which had to be cooled to make it safe after the intense fire. John Bain, who lives nearby in Station Way, was woken up by sirens as the fire engines arrived.
He said: "There were 50-foot flames leaping up, it was a huge fire. I was one of the first down there. They were 80 per cent finished with the building work, now it is completely burnt out."
Firefighters called a stop to their efforts just after 2am.
Send us your pictures of the fire by clicking here or add your memories in the comment box below.4:09pm Saturday 5th May 2007
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: N Peek, Cheam on 4:08pm Sun 6 May 07
Living nearly next door to the weekend fire in Cheam, we were well aware how inappropriate this development was for the area and worked hard to try to moderate the plans. However we were overruled by an inspector who believed in summary they would have no effect on the school or other houses in Anne Boleyns Walk.
Comments from parents today are indicating that they did not understand how close the buildings would actually be to the school from the Linden Homes displays or that windows in the flats would look out on the children. Other parents have been commenting about what would have happened to the children if it had happened during the day (they now see Linden homes regularly blocking the road in Anne Boleyns Walk whilst unloading lorries in the road or trying to back them into the site). Many are aware that the alternative narrow path into Queens Acre was being showered with burning debris.
As a resident, we are concerned about the safety of the timber frame buildings during construction (we are told that they would withstand a fire once a cladding has been applied). However, the first building went from no sign of fire just after 11pm to 50foot flames some 5 minutes later when we called the fire brigade and had jumped to a second building by the time they had arrived. It is only due to the luck of wind direction that our home has not been damaged. The example this week end shows that unclad timber framed buildings burn very easily with consequences for other properties. If it is the cladding that makes them fireproof, why were they left unclad for so many weeks?
I have heard parents talking about raising a petition to stop the redevelopment in its current form. Unfortunately I fear that Linden Homes will just use the fact that they have planning permission to put up the flats again with the added advantage that the trees partially screening the mass of these blocks of flats from the school / houses has been conveniently removed by the fire. However, I know of many families in Anne Boleyns Walk who would like to see the parents succeed but we do know how hard it is to fight the government inspectors and developers.
Living nearly next door to the weekend fire in Cheam, we were well aware how inappropriate this development was for the area and worked hard to try to moderate the plans. However we were overruled by an inspector who believed in summary they would have no effect on the school or other houses in Anne Boleyns Walk.
Comments from parents today are indicating that they did not understand how close the buildings would actually be to the school from the Linden Homes displays or that windows in the flats would look out on the children. Other parents have been commenting about what would have happened to the children if it had happened during the day (they now see Linden homes regularly blocking the road in Anne Boleyns Walk whilst unloading lorries in the road or trying to back them into the site). Many are aware that the alternative narrow path into Queens Acre was being showered with burning debris.
As a resident, we are concerned about the safety of the timber frame buildings during construction (we are told that they would withstand a fire once a cladding has been applied). However, the first building went from no sign of fire just after 11pm to 50foot flames some 5 minutes later when we called the fire brigade and had jumped to a second building by the time they had arrived. It is only due to the luck of wind direction that our home has not been damaged. The example this week end shows that unclad timber framed buildings burn very easily with consequences for other properties. If it is the cladding that makes them fireproof, why were they left unclad for so many weeks?
I have heard parents talking about raising a petition to stop the redevelopment in its current form. Unfortunately I fear that Linden Homes will just use the fact that they have planning permission to put up the flats again with the added advantage that the trees partially screening the mass of these blocks of flats from the school / houses has been conveniently removed by the fire. However, I know of many families in Anne Boleyns Walk who would like to see the parents succeed but we do know how hard it is to fight the government inspectors and developers.
Posted by: amyalta, Cheam on 6:59pm Sun 6 May 07
I would like to know why my comment was removed? Once again - this report is inaccurate! The site is NOT 'destroyed' - only the timber framed parts are! The old dairy buildings are fine - thank goodness, and we now all need to kee pan eye on these! Has anyone commented on how poor, or rather non-existent, secuirty was at the site?
I would like to know why my comment was removed? Once again - this report is inaccurate! The site is NOT 'destroyed' - only the timber framed parts are! The old dairy buildings are fine - thank goodness, and we now all need to kee pan eye on these! Has anyone commented on how poor, or rather non-existent, secuirty was at the site?
Posted by: harveyl, Sutton on 7:35pm Sun 6 May 07
Absolutely right, N. Peek - parents have expressed horror at how close that council block is to the school, but was anything done to try and stop it when it was possible?
Absolutely right, N. Peek - parents have expressed horror at how close that council block is to the school, but was anything done to try and stop it when it was possible?
Posted by: Mr & Mrs F Mcnulty, Cheam on 5:09pm Mon 7 May 07
As occupiers of an adjacent property it was with considerable alarm that we were awakened from sleep to find a towering inferno raging only yards away and the police ordering us out of the house for our own safety.
We have written to the council, the developers, our MP and others to urge in the strongest possible terms a review of this hazardous development and to ask for its scaling down to something more modest and risk free. We hope that [bold]good design and safety[/bold] will now be the sole deciding factors relating to any further development on this site.
As occupiers of an adjacent property it was with considerable alarm that we were awakened from sleep to find a towering inferno raging only yards away and the police ordering us out of the house for our own safety.
We have written to the council, the developers, our MP and others to urge in the strongest possible terms a review of this hazardous development and to ask for its scaling down to something more modest and risk free. We hope that
good design and safety will now be the sole deciding factors relating to any further development on this site.
Posted by: N Peek, Cheam on 5:42pm Mon 7 May 07
In reply to harveyl, our own file of papers which is over an inch thick does implies the residents fought very hard / spent a lot of our own time. Other people have equally impressive records. Unfortunately, neither the residents or the council had the money to throw at expensive lawyers. Linden Homes were able to employ a Queens Council and knew all the tricks in the trade because you are applying for planning permission / fighting appeals all the time.
At the time, there seemed to be less interest from parents of children using the school. The way the plans were presented, you really needed to study them carefully to appreciate the actual impact. They just did not seem to have the concern or see the problems envisaged by residents.
In reply to harveyl, our own file of papers which is over an inch thick does implies the residents fought very hard / spent a lot of our own time. Other people have equally impressive records. Unfortunately, neither the residents or the council had the money to throw at expensive lawyers. Linden Homes were able to employ a Queens Council and knew all the tricks in the trade because you are applying for planning permission / fighting appeals all the time.
At the time, there seemed to be less interest from parents of children using the school. The way the plans were presented, you really needed to study them carefully to appreciate the actual impact. They just did not seem to have the concern or see the problems envisaged by residents.
Posted by: amyalta, Cheam on 11:35am Tue 8 May 07
Well, the parents are reaping the consequences of their don't-care attitude. If my kid were in that school I'd want to know how they plan to get the children out when it happens again? As it surely will if it's built the same way. How can the school have allowed this to be built, right on the doorstep?
Well, the parents are reaping the consequences of their don't-care attitude. If my kid were in that school I'd want to know how they plan to get the children out when it happens again? As it surely will if it's built the same way. How can the school have allowed this to be built, right on the doorstep?
Posted by: Li, Cheam on 12:25pm Tue 8 May 07
In reply to amyalta I feel it is unfair to say that the parents did not/do not care about this development. I have been shocked at how little safety has been present in the areas directly adjacent to the site - narrow escapes from tiles sliding off the roof and smashing onto the pavement (just missing children and parents), lorries blocking the road and pavement when young children are walking to school. If there were to be any new petitions I am sure many parents will be very keen to sign.
In reply to amyalta I feel it is unfair to say that the parents did not/do not care about this development. I have been shocked at how little safety has been present in the areas directly adjacent to the site - narrow escapes from tiles sliding off the roof and smashing onto the pavement (just missing children and parents), lorries blocking the road and pavement when young children are walking to school. If there were to be any new petitions I am sure many parents will be very keen to sign.
Posted by: amyalta, Cheam on 2:38pm Tue 8 May 07
Yes, Li, but my point was that parents did nothing at all to prevent the development from happening, and now it is too late! Of course parents are shocked at the lack of safety - it is appalling, but residents did warn of all this and were ignored - parents fell for the cute exhibitition by Linden Homes, for which the school so obligingly provided lovely space.
Yes, Li, but my point was that parents did nothing at all to prevent the development from happening, and now it is too late! Of course parents are shocked at the lack of safety - it is appalling, but residents did warn of all this and were ignored - parents fell for the cute exhibitition by Linden Homes, for which the school so obligingly provided lovely space.
Posted by: Edward, Cheam on 12:06pm Wed 9 May 07
I think they should put a McDonalds there myself.
I think they should put a McDonalds there myself.
Posted by: felipelloves, sutton on 12:19pm Wed 9 May 07
As a parent of a child at the school, I was appalled when the go ahead for this development went through. I along with many others registered my opposition with the authorities, after being urged to by the headteacher. I am only comforted by the fact that my daughter will have left St. Dunstans by the time this development is rebuilt. I hope that the children still remaining at the school are not affected by the countless extra cars and loss of privacy to what is an excellent, safe,well rounded centre of education.
As a parent of a child at the school, I was appalled when the go ahead for this development went through. I along with many others registered my opposition with the authorities, after being urged to by the headteacher. I am only comforted by the fact that my daughter will have left St. Dunstans by the time this development is rebuilt. I hope that the children still remaining at the school are not affected by the countless extra cars and loss of privacy to what is an excellent, safe,well rounded centre of education.
Posted by: harvey, Sutton on 3:11pm Wed 9 May 07
Hilarious, 'felipelloves' - only a tiny handful of parents supported residents in their fight against this development, and as for the school - it supported it, in fact all that would have been needed was for St D's to say no, and it would not have happened! When we soke against it thre school accused us (as did the local MP) of stopping people from having somewhere to live. well, they have it now - two council blocks on their doorstep, no doubt soon to be filled with riff-raff. Lucky you, felipelloves - my son and daughter in law have to live with this scum just around the corner!
Hilarious, 'felipelloves' - only a tiny handful of parents supported residents in their fight against this development, and as for the school - it supported it, in fact all that would have been needed was for St D's to say no, and it would not have happened! When we soke against it thre school accused us (as did the local MP) of stopping people from having somewhere to live. well, they have it now - two council blocks on their doorstep, no doubt soon to be filled with riff-raff. Lucky you, felipelloves - my son and daughter in law have to live with this scum just around the corner!
Posted by: Colin on 3:42pm Thu 10 May 07
This is ridiculous! Its a couple of appartments being built! Anyone would think they are knocking down a beloved landmark. Do you really think the value and the quality of living will deteriorate in Cheam Village, due to just a few new apartments?
This is ridiculous! Its a couple of appartments being built! Anyone would think they are knocking down a beloved landmark. Do you really think the value and the quality of living will deteriorate in Cheam Village, due to just a few new apartments?
Posted by: harvey, Sutton on 8:19pm Thu 10 May 07
By a couple, do you mean 46 (in 5 3-storey blocks) because that is what it is? And the blocks nearest the school will be council flats. Linden Homes wanted to knock down the Old Dairy buildings, but were overruled by English Heritage. Quality of living has already deteriorated by this development. Try walking or driving past. There are lorries blocking the road and damaging hedges. Tiles falling off on to the pavement. No security on the site to prevent mischief or accidents. And just wait until 46+ more cars arrive with the new residents.
By a couple, do you mean 46 (in 5 3-storey blocks) because that is what it is? And the blocks nearest the school will be council flats. Linden Homes wanted to knock down the Old Dairy buildings, but were overruled by English Heritage. Quality of living has already deteriorated by this development. Try walking or driving past. There are lorries blocking the road and damaging hedges. Tiles falling off on to the pavement. No security on the site to prevent mischief or accidents. And just wait until 46+ more cars arrive with the new residents.
Posted by: nck, Cheam on 10:08pm Thu 10 May 07
Re the coment from harvey, he has hit the density contrast on the head. In Anne Boleyns Walk the are 29 houses in some 400 metres of road followed by 46 appartments in less than a further 100 metres. The blocks are totally out of character in design, size and style. They will spoil what is so special about Cheam Village. Just watch out on your doorstep as other developers will point to the Linden Homes site as justification for similar densities elsewhere amongst existing houses.
A further thought - why are the lorries parked on yellow lines not getting tickets? Also is there a Health and Safety issue in unloading with forklifts across the pavement? Anyone an expert?
Re the coment from harvey, he has hit the density contrast on the head. In Anne Boleyns Walk the are 29 houses in some 400 metres of road followed by 46 appartments in less than a further 100 metres. The blocks are totally out of character in design, size and style. They will spoil what is so special about Cheam Village. Just watch out on your doorstep as other developers will point to the Linden Homes site as justification for similar densities elsewhere amongst existing houses.
A further thought - why are the lorries parked on yellow lines not getting tickets? Also is there a Health and Safety issue in unloading with forklifts across the pavement? Anyone an expert?
Posted by: Colin on 9:33am Fri 11 May 07
I live in Cheam and drive past this development every day and its not affected me in the slightest. In any case, 5 3-storey blocks will look better than its current state. And 3-storeys is hardly high rise.
I live in Cheam and drive past this development every day and its not affected me in the slightest. In any case, 5 3-storey blocks will look better than its current state. And 3-storeys is hardly high rise.
Posted by: harvey, sutton on 10:37am Fri 11 May 07
Of course it doesn't affect you, Colin - you DRIVE PAST it! It would certainly affect you if you lived in the road, or if you had children at the school! JUST HOW SELFISH CAN YOU BE?
Of course it doesn't affect you, Colin - you DRIVE PAST it! It would certainly affect you if you lived in the road, or if you had children at the school! JUST HOW SELFISH CAN YOU BE?
Posted by: Colin on 11:09am Fri 11 May 07
Harvey, with all due respect, I hardly feel you have the right to call me selfish. You don't know the first thing about me.
As it stands, I feel this site is more of a hazard to the children, and certainly more of an eyesaw to the local residents.
I for one, would rather live next to a new housing development than a neglected, burnt out, building site.
Harvey, with all due respect, I hardly feel you have the right to call me selfish. You don't know the first thing about me.
As it stands, I feel this site is more of a hazard to the children, and certainly more of an eyesaw to the local residents.
I for one, would rather live next to a new housing development than a neglected, burnt out, building site.
Posted by: harvey, SUTTON on 11:29am Fri 11 May 07
i can most certainly call you selfish if your attitude is 'Well it doesn't affect me, I drive past it! Of course it's a hazard for the children as a burnt out site - b ut it is even more of a hazard to them when another 50 + cars are in and out of the drive next to them, and when the council blocks have wondows which directly overlook their playground!
i can most certainly call you selfish if your attitude is 'Well it doesn't affect me, I drive past it! Of course it's a hazard for the children as a burnt out site - b ut it is even more of a hazard to them when another 50 + cars are in and out of the drive next to them, and when the council blocks have wondows which directly overlook their playground!
Posted by: Colin on 11:43am Fri 11 May 07
Well in that case I can call you arrogant.
I have lived in Cheam all my life and I care very much for the local community.
And why are windows that look directly over a playground a hazard? They are not building a prison?
Well in that case I can call you arrogant.
I have lived in Cheam all my life and I care very much for the local community.
And why are windows that look directly over a playground a hazard? They are not building a prison?
Posted by: nck, Cheam on 11:45am Fri 11 May 07
With respect Colin, until you live close to this development and have suffered all the problems and expense caused by the building work to date, I believe it is a bit presumptious to decide whether an undeveloped site is more of a hazard to the local residents.
Put in context, the fire on this site went from no sign of fire at 11:05 to evacuation by 11:20. Children in the school would have had no chance of escape via the main entrance judging by the intense heat from 100 feet away.
With respect Colin, until you live close to this development and have suffered all the problems and expense caused by the building work to date, I believe it is a bit presumptious to decide whether an undeveloped site is more of a hazard to the local residents.
Put in context, the fire on this site went from no sign of fire at 11:05 to evacuation by 11:20. Children in the school would have had no chance of escape via the main entrance judging by the intense heat from 100 feet away.
Posted by: Colin on 11:54am Fri 11 May 07
Nck, thats fair enough and I can understand your concern with the construction.
I just believe that something constructive should be done with the land and I believe, as a resident of Cheam, homes are the answer. Cheam pretty much has everything else it needs.
PS, thanks for not insulting me :-)
Nck, thats fair enough and I can understand your concern with the construction.
I just believe that something constructive should be done with the land and I believe, as a resident of Cheam, homes are the answer. Cheam pretty much has everything else it needs.
PS, thanks for not insulting me :-)
Posted by: Mr F Mcnulty, Cheam on 8:41pm Sat 12 May 07
One of the articles in this weeks Guardian credits Linden Homes with the assertion that the development was not a fire risk and that they would use the same methods in the rebuilding process. That seems tantamount to saying that they accept no blame for leaving a flammable construction unprotected for so long; that they will do it again; and the neighbours can go to blazes - which, tragically, might well be the outcome unless those in authority interveine to stop this hazardous development.
One of the articles in this weeks Guardian credits Linden Homes with the assertion that the development was not a fire risk and that they would use the same methods in the rebuilding process. That seems tantamount to saying that they accept no blame for leaving a flammable construction unprotected for so long; that they will do it again; and the neighbours can go to blazes - which, tragically, might well be the outcome unless those in authority interveine to stop this hazardous development.
Posted by: harveyl, Sutton on 4:15pm Mon 14 May 07
Colin, homes are indeed the answer, and homes are exactly what residents wanted on the site - but proper homes, with gardens, for families, and not these tiny flatlets. The density is totally wrong for this site. As for council flat windows overlooking the playground - do you know what a paedophile is? Did you know that at least two known ones have been given local authority housing in Cheam in the very recent past (information obtained by local councillor)?
Colin, homes are indeed the answer, and homes are exactly what residents wanted on the site - but proper homes, with gardens, for families, and not these tiny flatlets. The density is totally wrong for this site. As for council flat windows overlooking the playground - do you know what a paedophile is? Did you know that at least two known ones have been given local authority housing in Cheam in the very recent past (information obtained by local councillor)?
Posted by: nck, Cheam on 8:29pm Mon 14 May 07
From comments from Linden Homes, one would be lead to believe they are the only ones to suffer. After all they lost two buildings and would have the profits on the development delayed by a few months. They did not have to endure being evicted from their homes at 11 pm in pyjamas, having the weekend wrecked in trying to clear up the mess and recover some sleep, houses smelling of smoke, damaged paintwork, windows, curtains, plants, etc..
Their sincere apologies runs to their loss adjuster not being interested in residents losses - they are relying on the law which allows them to duck out of paying any compensation if the fire was caused by anyone but Linden Homes employees. Thus the residents have to pay for the damage done by the Linden Homes fire.
They have made a great song and dance about how they have helped the school but have not said anything about what they have done for the residents affected. If I was cynical, I would say that residents did not offer good value for money in any publicity when compared with parents, councilors and school administrators. But then I am just a mere resident having to put up with the noise, dirt and blocked roads whilst Linden Homes walk away with their profits on the development.
If someone did manage to get onto this site and have time to set a fire that was so intense that it destroyed two buildings, surely it must indicate that the security was inadequate. Certainly for three days after the fire, they left the site unlocked. For a few hours after the fire a single Police car was posted at the entrance but after that there was no security visible at all. Maybe they were relying on all the people coming to look to provide the security.
From comments from Linden Homes, one would be lead to believe they are the only ones to suffer. After all they lost two buildings and would have the profits on the development delayed by a few months. They did not have to endure being evicted from their homes at 11 pm in pyjamas, having the weekend wrecked in trying to clear up the mess and recover some sleep, houses smelling of smoke, damaged paintwork, windows, curtains, plants, etc..
Their sincere apologies runs to their loss adjuster not being interested in residents losses - they are relying on the law which allows them to duck out of paying any compensation if the fire was caused by anyone but Linden Homes employees. Thus the residents have to pay for the damage done by the Linden Homes fire.
They have made a great song and dance about how they have helped the school but have not said anything about what they have done for the residents affected. If I was cynical, I would say that residents did not offer good value for money in any publicity when compared with parents, councilors and school administrators. But then I am just a mere resident having to put up with the noise, dirt and blocked roads whilst Linden Homes walk away with their profits on the development.
If someone did manage to get onto this site and have time to set a fire that was so intense that it destroyed two buildings, surely it must indicate that the security was inadequate. Certainly for three days after the fire, they left the site unlocked. For a few hours after the fire a single Police car was posted at the entrance but after that there was no security visible at all. Maybe they were relying on all the people coming to look to provide the security.
Posted by: AAA on 1:51pm Tue 15 May 07
Think you should get a life. There are far worse things to worry and moan on about all the time. Sounds like whatever built by whoever would not have been right.
Think you should get a life. There are far worse things to worry and moan on about all the time. Sounds like whatever built by whoever would not have been right.
Posted by: nck, Cheam on 2:29pm Wed 16 May 07
With respect how wrong you are AAA. Have you experienced a developer on your doorstep yet? When you are woken up before 7am by building work, faced with all the costs created by the developer who could not give a toss about residents, watch the effect on the whole village this development is having, see schoolchildren running the gauntlet of walking round a forklift unloading lorries across a pavement, encounter all extra dust and dirt, damaged gardens, etc. maybe you would understand residents comments. Until you have been there, you can not understand the living hell a developer can create for residents.
Before this development was approved by Government Inspectors it had been rejected by all concerned with the planning process. Residents, Councillors, our MP and Planning Officials were of a common opinion that the density and type of development was inappropriate for the area. Everyone was realistic, the land could not stand idle but what was needed was something that complimented the village and park.
You may not also be aware that as far as Linden Homes are concerned, the residents can claim for the damage to their homes on each residents insurance. That means WE pay the excess and lose our no-claims discounts. Can’t see why residents should not be upset - all to help Linden Homes maximise the profits on this development.
Could it be that AAA is working in the construction industry - in which case the lack of understanding makes perfect sense.
With respect how wrong you are AAA. Have you experienced a developer on your doorstep yet? When you are woken up before 7am by building work, faced with all the costs created by the developer who could not give a toss about residents, watch the effect on the whole village this development is having, see schoolchildren running the gauntlet of walking round a forklift unloading lorries across a pavement, encounter all extra dust and dirt, damaged gardens, etc. maybe you would understand residents comments. Until you have been there, you can not understand the living hell a developer can create for residents.
Before this development was approved by Government Inspectors it had been rejected by all concerned with the planning process. Residents, Councillors, our MP and Planning Officials were of a common opinion that the density and type of development was inappropriate for the area. Everyone was realistic, the land could not stand idle but what was needed was something that complimented the village and park.
You may not also be aware that as far as Linden Homes are concerned, the residents can claim for the damage to their homes on each residents insurance. That means WE pay the excess and lose our no-claims discounts. Can’t see why residents should not be upset - all to help Linden Homes maximise the profits on this development.
Could it be that AAA is working in the construction industry - in which case the lack of understanding makes perfect sense.
Posted by: harveyl, Sutton on 3:24pm Wed 16 May 07
Well said, 'nck.' And AAA, you are totally wrong: residents would have loved a development of family houses here, instead of these blocks of flatlets. Linden homes have shown utter contempt for residents from the start. It's all about profit, and devil take the poor locals who have to live with the consequences.
Well said, 'nck.' And AAA, you are totally wrong: residents would have loved a development of family houses here, instead of these blocks of flatlets. Linden homes have shown utter contempt for residents from the start. It's all about profit, and devil take the poor locals who have to live with the consequences.
Posted by: captain, nearby on 11:09am Mon 28 May 07
[quote][bold]harveyl[/bold] wrote:
Well said, \'nck.\' And AAA, you are totally wrong: residents would have loved a development of family houses here, instead of these blocks of flatlets. Linden homes have shown utter contempt for residents from the start. It\'s all about profit, and devil take the poor locals who have to live with the consequences. [/quote] these are not council estate family homes being built if they were filled with refugees i can understand all the moaning they are kuxury apartments for keyworkers ie drs nurses etc so stop the moaning and complain to the government for letting every other person get housed before the above
harveyl wrote:
Well said, \'nck.\' And AAA, you are totally wrong: residents would have loved a development of family houses here, instead of these blocks of flatlets. Linden homes have shown utter contempt for residents from the start. It\'s all about profit, and devil take the poor locals who have to live with the consequences.
these are not council estate family homes being built if they were filled with refugees i can understand all the moaning they are kuxury apartments for keyworkers ie drs nurses etc so stop the moaning and complain to the government for letting every other person get housed before the above
Posted by: captain, nearby on 11:13am Mon 28 May 07
[quote][bold]Li[/bold] wrote:
In reply to amyalta I feel it is unfair to say that the parents did not/do not care about this development. I have been shocked at how little safety has been present in the areas directly adjacent to the site - narrow escapes from tiles sliding off the roof and smashing onto the pavement (just missing children and parents), lorries blocking the road and pavement when young children are walking to school. If there were to be any new petitions I am sure many parents will be very keen to sign.[/quote] check with the propriertor of the school if you want to moan. also check the end of year profits for the school because they accepted a nice 5 figure sum from the building company before and during the works ..FACT..
Li wrote:
In reply to amyalta I feel it is unfair to say that the parents did not/do not care about this development. I have been shocked at how little safety has been present in the areas directly adjacent to the site - narrow escapes from tiles sliding off the roof and smashing onto the pavement (just missing children and parents), lorries blocking the road and pavement when young children are walking to school. If there were to be any new petitions I am sure many parents will be very keen to sign.
check with the propriertor of the school if you want to moan. also check the end of year profits for the school because they accepted a nice 5 figure sum from the building company before and during the works ..FACT..
Posted by: CAPTAIN, nearby on 11:14am Mon 28 May 07
[quote][bold]Li[/bold] wrote:
In reply to amyalta I feel it is unfair to say that the parents did not/do not care about this development. I have been shocked at how little safety has been present in the areas directly adjacent to the site - narrow escapes from tiles sliding off the roof and smashing onto the pavement (just missing children and parents), lorries blocking the road and pavement when young children are walking to school. If there were to be any new petitions I am sure many parents will be very keen to sign.[/quote] check with the propriertor of the school if you want to moan. also check the end of year profits for the school because they accepted a nice 5 figure sum from the building company before and during the works ..FACT..
Li wrote:
In reply to amyalta I feel it is unfair to say that the parents did not/do not care about this development. I have been shocked at how little safety has been present in the areas directly adjacent to the site - narrow escapes from tiles sliding off the roof and smashing onto the pavement (just missing children and parents), lorries blocking the road and pavement when young children are walking to school. If there were to be any new petitions I am sure many parents will be very keen to sign.
check with the propriertor of the school if you want to moan. also check the end of year profits for the school because they accepted a nice 5 figure sum from the building company before and during the works ..FACT..
Posted by: harvey, Sutton on 1:26pm Thu 31 May 07
Sorry, 'captain,' but you are TOTALLY WRONG about what these flats are! Residents were indeed told that they were going to be 'affordable housing for key workers,' but we later found out that this was a flat lie! In fact, the blocks which burnt down are going to be - and I quote exactly. from Linden Homes own handout - '100% rented social housing.' This is a fact. They are NOT 'luxury apartments for keyworkers!'
Sorry, 'captain,' but you are TOTALLY WRONG about what these flats are! Residents were indeed told that they were going to be 'affordable housing for key workers,' but we later found out that this was a flat lie! In fact, the blocks which burnt down are going to be - and I quote exactly. from Linden Homes own handout - '100% rented social housing.' This is a fact. They are NOT 'luxury apartments for keyworkers!'
Posted by: amyalta, South Cheam on 1:30pm Thu 31 May 07
Oh dear, CAPTAIN - this is dangerous ground! Are you really sure about your FACT re. the school acepting a 5 figure sum? When a local resident questioed Linden Homes about this, their man flew int oa rage and said that if anyone, no matter who (she was a white-haired 78 year old)suggested any such thing, Linden wouldsue them for Libel 'to the full extent of the law.' WHERE US YOUR EVIDENCE? If you have any, residents would like to see it, since it might help explain why the school was so keen to have this dreadful development built!
Oh dear, CAPTAIN - this is dangerous ground! Are you really sure about your FACT re. the school acepting a 5 figure sum? When a local resident questioed Linden Homes about this, their man flew int oa rage and said that if anyone, no matter who (she was a white-haired 78 year old)suggested any such thing, Linden wouldsue them for Libel 'to the full extent of the law.' WHERE US YOUR EVIDENCE? If you have any, residents would like to see it, since it might help explain why the school was so keen to have this dreadful development built!
Posted by: harvey, Sutton on 1:41pm Thu 31 May 07
I could not help but roar with laughter at the comment by 'captain' re 'key workers' including doctors - does 'captain' have any idea how much doctors earn? GPs get an average of £105,000 and you can bet your life they won't be living in these council flatlets - because that's what they are - council homes, as admitted by Linden themselves - 'This development would not be viable without Social Housing Grant...we can confirm that this will be 100% social housing.'
I could not help but roar with laughter at the comment by 'captain' re 'key workers' including doctors - does 'captain' have any idea how much doctors earn? GPs get an average of £105,000 and you can bet your life they won't be living in these council flatlets - because that's what they are - council homes, as admitted by Linden themselves - 'This development would not be viable without Social Housing Grant...we can confirm that this will be 100% social housing.'
Posted by: harvey, Sutton on 1:44pm Thu 31 May 07
I second 'Amyaltes' reuqest for some evidence of this '5 figure sum' which the School accepted! If it's true, it is a bribe. Some residents and parents did question the school as to if it had had any 'planning gain' but they issued an offical denial in very strong terms. Evidence, please, for your 'fact,' captain!
I second 'Amyaltes' reuqest for some evidence of this '5 figure sum' which the School accepted! If it's true, it is a bribe. Some residents and parents did question the school as to if it had had any 'planning gain' but they issued an offical denial in very strong terms. Evidence, please, for your 'fact,' captain!
Posted by: cheamite, Cheam on 1:53pm Thu 31 May 07
Yes, please - evidence for this fact that St Dunstan's accepted money from developers! If true, shocking disregard for children's safety.
from lifelong Cheam resident.
Yes, please - evidence for this fact that St Dunstan's accepted money from developers! If true, shocking disregard for children's safety.
from lifelong Cheam resident.
Posted by: nck, Cheam on 5:20pm Thu 31 May 07
Comments above may also explain why the school has not objected to Linden Homes errecting the new fencing inside the school grounds. Note how it is inside the line of the gatepost - or has Linden Homes now found they own part of the school grounds?
It will be interesting also to see if the original tree screen to the new buildings along the school boundary will be restored or if Linden Homes have had another "potential sales problem" for them removed by the fire.
Comments above may also explain why the school has not objected to Linden Homes errecting the new fencing inside the school grounds. Note how it is inside the line of the gatepost - or has Linden Homes now found they own part of the school grounds?
It will be interesting also to see if the original tree screen to the new buildings along the school boundary will be restored or if Linden Homes have had another "potential sales problem" for them removed by the fire.
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
