Archive - Friday, 27 January 2012


Find by date

Other ways to search

Also look for

Never miss anything again. Sign up for our RSS news feeds and Newsletters.

Corn Exchange fire exits were dangerous, report reveals

THE fire exits at Witney’s Corn Exchange did not provide a safe means of escape, it has emerged.

Witney's boarded-up Corn Exchange Witney's boarded-up Corn Exchange

Ten “major” faults have been identified at the hall in Market Square since it was closed following the discovery that the heating and ventilation system was in danger of “imminent failure”.

It has now emerged that the building, owned by Witney Town Council, needs “appropriate” fire exits, new boilers, a load certificate for the stage lighting and action to tackle rising damp.

The door to the building’s upper circle also needs widening to keep it in line with fire regulations.

The council had previously said the bleacher seating could be a fire hazard and that there are “substantial” problems with the external brickwork.

The council has also been forced to install steel rods to support the building’s balcony and has attached nets to the outside of the hall to protect passers-by.

But the full extent of problems at the hall may never be known, after the council refused to release the builder’s report.

Clerk Sharon Groth said in December that the council would look to remove a confidentiality clause put on the report by its author, SJ Treloar and Associates.

But she has now said the clause cannot be removed and releasing the document would be a breach of confidence, for which the council could be sued.

At a public halls meeting on Tuesday, town councillor Roger Curry said: “There are no secrets in the report – no bodies buried in it.

“I do not think we should be wasting time trying to publish the report. We should concentrate on getting the hall back up and running.”

But the committee wants all future reports commissioned by the council not to have such a clause. Members also agreed to commission three firms of architects to draw up designs for the Corn Exchange revamp so the public can decide which route to take.

The two options are spending about £500,000 to meet the statutory requirements and open it within six to nine months, or spend about £1.5m to fully refurbish the hall and open it within 12 to 18 months.

The council only has £190,000 in its public halls reserve and is considering selling Langdale Hall, in Langdale Gate, or raising council tax to pay for the costs.

Before a decision can be made on the Corn Exchange, the council needs to see a report on the electric system. The report, which the council expects to receive soon, could say that the entire building needs rewiring.

At Tuesday’s meeting, the council also agreed to spend £4,375 on a new fire door at Langdale Hall to increase its capacity from 245 to 430.

The council has already spent £45,000 revamping the hall – including creating two new meeting rooms, restoring the dance floor and improving disabled, kitchen and toilet facilities – to compensate for the Corn Exchange closure.

But council member Chris Woodward said: “We should never lose sight of the fact we should be focusing on the Corn Exchange.”

  • To have your say on the future of the halls, call 01993 704379 or see witney-tc.gov.uk/publichalls.html

Comments (17)

27/01/12

Thinkingoutloud says...

unfortunatley the building was built a little while before 'elf and safety' was invented so its not suprisng it did not meet all of the requirements. Presumably nobody came to any harm in the building in all the years it has beenused by the goo folk of Witney?

27/01/12

the wizard says...

I find this confidentiality clause an excuse for a massive cover up of not only a failing building but gross negligence on behalf of those paid to supervise its up keep and well being so to speak.
If there is nothing to hide then why are they not disclosing it, this is cr@p .
The more they hide the true depth of the problems the more people will suspect something major is being hidden. Totally disgraceful.
The whole affair has been very shoddily handled and they think they are hoodwinking the public.

28/01/12

gettothepoint says...

This constant twittering that there is nothing to hide, yet a totally reluctance to publish only goes to prove there is plenty to hide. Are we supposed to believe all of these faults occurred within one calendar year possibly 2? The real issue here is the apparent total lack of annual inspections or action resulting from any reports. So, for how long was the building a hazard to the public and how many other public buildings are now in the same predicament. I would assume the council are rapidly attempting to inspect and certify all of their other buildings or as per normal can we expect a reactive rather than proactive approach to this problem?

28/01/12

gettothepoint says...

This constant twittering that there is nothing to hide, yet a totally reluctance to publish only goes to prove there is plenty to hide. Are we supposed to believe all of these faults occurred within one calendar year possibly 2? The real issue here is the apparent total lack of annual inspections or action resulting from any reports. So, for how long was the building a hazard to the public and how many other public buildings are now in the same predicament. I would assume the council are rapidly attempting to inspect and certify all of their other buildings or as per normal can we expect a reactive rather than proactive approach to this problem?

29/01/12

C ARINGAROSA says...

I have read the above article with interest.As time goes on more nuggets of information,relevant to the closure of the Corn Exchange, are escaping into the public domain,and are highlighting the total lack of expertise in the previous running of, and maintainance of, the building.These problems ,and, Councillor Mole tells me,many others yet to be revealed, should have been detected and remedied years ago, instead of people burying their heads in the sand.This survey could well be the first full one to be carried out on the Corn Exchange since it was built in 1863.I do think however, that some of the problems have been exagerated due to euro nonsense.I also think that enough money should be spent to make the place comply with regs, and bring it back into use asap,rather than on some grandiose scheme that will probably cost millions,and make the cost of hireing it completely out of the average hall users reach. These are hard times,and money is short, so lets just do the basics.Economy is needed !.Oh and by the way the last time I looked, the majority of the Corn Exchange was built of stone,but we will let that pass.

29/01/12

Man on the Green says...

The Town should simply ask SJ Treloar and Associates for permission to publish their report (& could let them know that they'll never be employed again to work for the authority unless they agree).

Both the individual councillor and the officer who commissioned the report and signed off on the contract without checking this clause should resign immediately (talk about incompetence!), and we should be told just how this sorry state of affairs was allowed to arise.

Surely, the Town is responsible for periodic surveys of the fabric of their property?

When was an architect last commissioned to carry out such a survey, and what were their conclusions? If they recommended remedial work, why was this not done? If they signed off without raising any issues, serious questions of professional competence should be raised.

This is a mess, and we can't just sit back and wring our hands.

Councillors are remunerated out of the public purse for assuming their "responsibilities", and officers are required to demonstrate professional standards.

If they fell down on those duties, they must be held to account.

29/01/12

xjohnx says...

I think you will find that the fire exits are fine. However the building regulations have been changed since the building was last updated. Exits not dangerous, just slightly less safe than in a new building.
Would you scrap or rebuild all old cars, when construction standards are improved?
No, I didn't think so.

29/01/12

the wizard says...

There is nothing to hide
There is nothing to hide
There is nothing to hide
There is nothing to hide
There is nothing to hide
There is nothing to hide
There is nothing to hide
There is nothing to hide

Really ?????

That is apart from,

The electrics
The heating system itself
The boilers
The crumbling balcony
The fire escapes
The walkways
The doorways
The seating

Half a million needed right here, right now to bring it up to current required standards.

One and a half million and up to 18 months of work to do a proper job.

And they have the nerve and front to say ,

There is nothing to hide.

Just who do you think you are kidding. Who ever is responsible, do the proper thing and go... NOW before any more disasters are found out.

Go NOW,Go NOW,Go NOW.

We the public have had enough of this, and as always , IT IS US, OUR MONEY THAT HAS TO PAY FOR THIS ABOMINATION, ENOUGH !

29/01/12

C ARINGAROSA says...

I think that it will be more like 3.5 Million to do a major refurb on the building, or half a million to get it back into use quickly.

30/01/12

pjdorward says...

I see the keyboard warriors are hard at it again - why do none ever speak to me personally?

And by the way, none of the elected Witney Town Councillors receive pay.

Peter J Dorward
Cllr.

30/01/12

Man on the Green says...

xjohnx wrote:
I think you will find that the fire exits are fine. However the building regulations have been changed since the building was last updated. Exits not dangerous, just slightly less safe than in a new building.
Would you scrap or rebuild all old cars, when construction standards are improved?
No, I didn't think so.
Actually 'yes' where public safety is concerned. Taxis that are too old (and thus either unsafe or unsuitable, because they pollute too much, say) cannot be licensed for public carriage; vintage and veteran cars are rightly not allowed to run on leaded fuel; and tractors have to have roll bars if they are used on farms.

The same applies to many other aspects of this sorry story.
Does John think we should just have left the balcony hanging on because it was old? The fire escapes are too narrow, which means if a fire had broken out, people would have been more likely to get trapped - and killed.

Nothing can diminish the reckless negligence of the council staff and of our elected representatives to whom we entrusted the responsibility for the maintenance and upkeep of this building.

This makes one wonder what collusion there may have been with the local building control team. Given the way the District Council has been shown to behave (see the latest Private Eye for another chapter in the long-running saga of misrepresentation, chicanery and downright dishonesty), this would not be beyond belief.

30/01/12

the wizard says...

pjdorward wrote:
I see the keyboard warriors are hard at it again - why do none ever speak to me personally?

And by the way, none of the elected Witney Town Councillors receive pay.

Peter J Dorward
Cllr.
Not so much keyboard warriors, more like the Witney public airing their disgust at the goings on, which we have every right to do, and when we do, the councillors get a bit fidgety because they don't like being told what they are uncomfortable with, in this case the truth.
IF, there is nothing to hide then just get on with publishing the full list of faults and problems, and let us know why this has been kept within the council for so long, because it just didn't all happen overnight. Who ever is responsible for this should resign, or get sacked, this is a public building, for use by the Witney public and ultimately paid for by the people of Witney and those who hire it, so speak now please and tell all, rather than hide behind words.

30/01/12

xjohnx says...

pjdorward wrote:
I see the keyboard warriors are hard at it again - why do none ever speak to me personally?

And by the way, none of the elected Witney Town Councillors receive pay.

Peter J Dorward
Cllr.
Super! How can we contact you and actually get into conversation?

30/01/12

xjohnx says...

Man on the Green wrote:
xjohnx wrote:
I think you will find that the fire exits are fine. However the building regulations have been changed since the building was last updated. Exits not dangerous, just slightly less safe than in a new building.
Would you scrap or rebuild all old cars, when construction standards are improved?
No, I didn't think so.
Actually 'yes' where public safety is concerned. Taxis that are too old (and thus either unsafe or unsuitable, because they pollute too much, say) cannot be licensed for public carriage; vintage and veteran cars are rightly not allowed to run on leaded fuel; and tractors have to have roll bars if they are used on farms.

The same applies to many other aspects of this sorry story.
Does John think we should just have left the balcony hanging on because it was old? The fire escapes are too narrow, which means if a fire had broken out, people would have been more likely to get trapped - and killed.

Nothing can diminish the reckless negligence of the council staff and of our elected representatives to whom we entrusted the responsibility for the maintenance and upkeep of this building.

This makes one wonder what collusion there may have been with the local building control team. Given the way the District Council has been shown to behave (see the latest Private Eye for another chapter in the long-running saga of misrepresentation, chicanery and downright dishonesty), this would not be beyond belief.
Don't be precious!

I commented on the width of the fire exits only. You made up the rest.

The safety report will no doubt be used as an excuse to sell the building as 'to costly'. Assume all points of the report, while basicaly true, are hyped up to the max,eg fire exits dangerous (rather than just need minor updating).

30/01/12

pjdorward says...

xjohnx wrote:
pjdorward wrote:
I see the keyboard warriors are hard at it again - why do none ever speak to me personally?

And by the way, none of the elected Witney Town Councillors receive pay.

Peter J Dorward
Cllr.
Super! How can we contact you and actually get into conversation?
xjohnx,

My contact details are on the WTC website, which many folk already know (and I'm surprised you didn't).

In case you can't find it, cut and paste this url:

http://www.westoxon.
gov.uk/council/counc
illor.cfm?ward=22

Pete.

31/01/12

xjohnx says...

pjdorward wrote:
xjohnx wrote:
pjdorward wrote:
I see the keyboard warriors are hard at it again - why do none ever speak to me personally?

And by the way, none of the elected Witney Town Councillors receive pay.

Peter J Dorward
Cllr.
Super! How can we contact you and actually get into conversation?
xjohnx,

My contact details are on the WTC website, which many folk already know (and I'm surprised you didn't).

In case you can't find it, cut and paste this url:

http://www.westoxon.

gov.uk/council/counc

illor.cfm?ward=22

Pete.
Contact is easy. Its the, 'actually get into conversation' thats hard to do.

03/02/12

David Dixon says...

RE: CORN EXCHANGE FIRE HAZARD
I am very glad to see I am not the only reader who feels the town council are attempting to bury The Corn Exchange report? Why does something so important for local democracy appear only on page 18 this weeks paper?

What are they so afraid of? If there is no secrets or bodies buried, why not publish? Tom Jennings article suggests SJ Treloar Associates have refused permission to publish and will sue! Frankly I do not believe it. As a professional surveying firm Mr Treloar's report will be above reproach. Come on Councillor Curry publish in full. The decision is the councils. The council need to make it plain if Mr Treloar has refused or have they just not asked him?