Safety concerns about Arlington House in Margate include the deterioration of the main concrete structure and the cladding panels “to such an extent that they both present a risk to the health and safety of residents and members of the public.”
Other issues include the adequacy of fire safety measures, concern relating to one flat on each floor not being fitted with smoke detection or sounders; smoke control as many windows in the escape staircases cannot be opened due to disrepair and service ducts which are not fully protected and could allow the spread of fire and smoke.
A number of residents who previously spoke out about the problems, via statements read at a council meeting by Cllr Rob Yates, have now been issued with ‘no fault’ eviction notices.
The issues are highlighted in a report to councillors ahead of a Scrutiny meeting on February 11th which will be attended by members of building leaseholder Metropolitan Property Realization Limited (MRPL).
MPRL holds the site on a 199 year lease, which has 140 years left to run. The land was initially leased from Margate Borough Council, and arrangements passed on to Thanet District Council. TDC says its freehold ‘relates strictly to the land’ but not the building. However, since queries were raised by a resident TDC has responded to say: “TDC is the freeholder of the whole of the Arlington site, including all of the land and all of the structures on them.
Enforcement notices
Last year a notice of enforcement action was issued to MPRL due to structural issues with the building’s concrete that first came to light a decade ago and fire alarm system improvements that were still awaiting completion after five years.
The Building Safety Regulator refused to issue a safety certificate for the 18-storey high-rise tower block and ordered MPRL – which is a subsidiary of billion dollar umbrella company Freshwater – to undertake a full structural survey by 14 July and a full fire safety compartmentation survey by 14 August.
A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) spokesperson confirmed these documents have been received but the report says the building safety regulator was not satisfied that either was sufficiently detailed to make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks in the building.
The BSR has the option to prosecute if the two regulatory notices are not fully complied with.
Thanet District Council also served a Hazard Awareness Notice. The council has regulatory powers which can require MPRL to take action to address health and safety hazards. A council inspection identified a Category 1 hazard for Fire and a number of other Category 2 hazards, including one relating to structural integrity.
Enforcement options – but £20m compensation risk
The council does have other enforcement options. One of these is to issue a Prohibition Order although this could result in compensation costs of some £20m
The report to councillors says: “The council does have other enforcement options, including the service of an Improvement Notice, which would require specified remedial works to be completed within set timescales.
“ In order to serve such a notice, the council would need to specify the remedial works required, and at this time insufficient information is held to enable that course of action to be taken in respect of some hazards.
“The council also has the power to make a Prohibition Order or Emergency Prohibition Order. Where a Prohibition Order is made, compensation may be payable in certain circumstances. An initial assessment of the potential compensation indicates that the council’s liability could be as high as £20m if the building was subject to council-led prohibition.
“Prohibition powers are also available to KFRS. KFRS exercises power under different statutory provisions, which do not provide for an equivalent compensation mechanism.”
The council says it will support other agencies actions for the category 1 hazard and concentrate its efforts on the category 2 concerns.
A waking watch, installed by MPRL and consisting of four fire marshals patrolling the building 24/7, had been costing £48,000 a month but has now been stood down with the installation of a whole building fire alarm and detection system.
‘Limited powers’ and insurance issues
Thanet council says that although it is the freeholder this is for the land and not the building.
The report says: “As the head lease pre-dates the building itself, it relates strictly to the land rather than the structures which have been built throughout time, leaving the council with very limited powers of intervention.”
Update- TDC has since said: “”TDC is the freeholder of the whole of the Arlington site, including all of the land and all of the structures on them.”
It does have rights regarding insurance compliance, with the terms of the lease requiring MPRL to insure the whole of the Arlington site in full reinstatement value against loss or damage by fire, storm, or tempest, subsidence, and aircraft in the joint names of the council and MPRL.
In June last year, “significant concerns” were raised when insurer, Covea, restricted Property Owners Liability cover from £10 million to £1 million and imposed a 25% co-insurance clause for fire damage (with a minimum £1 million contribution).
The insurer also indicated that it would not be inviting further cover after the expiry of the previous policy on 1 September 2025. MPRL has since provided evidence of a new policy.
MPRL is responsible for the structure and fire safety arrangements for Arlington House.
A multi-agency meeting will take place on 10 February to discover any updates on the situation at Arlington House.
Scrutiny meeting
Representatives of MPRL are expected to attend the Scrutiny meeting at 11am on February 11 at Thanet council’s offices. Members of the public are welcome to attend.
Cllr Yates had raised issues faced by the tenants during a scrutiny meeting last December.
Cllr Yates said: “Arlington residents are encouraged to attend this public scrutiny meeting about Freshwater’s management of Arlington House. For those attending, please meet promptly at 10.45am outside Thanet council offices on Wednesday 11th February.”
Thank you, for this most detailed update Katie.
It is most unfortunate and inappropriate that TDC is once again attempting to shirk its responsibilities.
TDC is the freehold owner of both the land and all the buildings on the site. The buildings comprise all 142 flats, 50 shops, and the car park.
This is all clearly defined within Freehold Title K894425 at the Land Registry.
TDC holds all the Title Deeds in its strongroom.
Time for TDC to wake up and own up !
Do TDC have the “powers to enforce” this time? If so, do it instead of just “grilling” (i.e. chatting to) the owners.
As outlined above. TDC has two sets of powers.
TDC has the power as the Local Authority to enforce repairs. (Albeit that may now be usurped by the BDR).
TDC has the power as the freehold owner of the building to take action to forfeit the lease to Met Prop/Freshwater for serious breach of repairing covenant.
The evidence of longstanding failures to properly maintain the building is there for all to see – along with all the reports going back over a decade.
Ok, perhaps I should rephrase that: WILL TDC use their “powers to enforce”?
Thanet Council are terrible, they were found to have abused their power in a Margate Court last week against a resident.
Eh? Do tell!
With evidence
Evidence for all assertions would be useful or, it’s all tosh.