Smoke House & Curing House, 18 Remus Road
Language: English Publication details: LON/00BG/HYI/2023/0024, First-Tier Tribunal Property Chamber, 3 July 2024Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: Decision of Judge Martyński and Mr A Thomas RBI, FRICS, MIFireE between applicant Nicholas Blomfield and leaseholders and respondent Monier Road Limited. Concerns regarding the Fire Risk Assessment and FRAEW reports which did not state the building may be an HRB; talk about bin stores and other aspects of the building that were omitted (combustible timber walkways and planters in a courtyard and timber balconies) from the report were of concern. Goes into some detail on whether the building is a higher risk building and says it isn’t simple to answer and that “There is therefore a question over the status of Government guidance”.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Status | Date due | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE JUDGMENT (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | Available |
Browsing Virtual shelves, Shelving location: Online Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
| No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | ||
| ONLINE JUDGMENT Richmond upon Thames LBC v R. (on the application of Ariyo) | ONLINE JUDGMENT Weintraub v London Borough of Hackney | ONLINE JUDGMENT Spire Property Development LLP v Withers LLP | ONLINE JUDGMENT Smoke House & Curing House, 18 Remus Road | ONLINE JUDGMENT Hazelwood Properties Limited v London Borough of Camden | ONLINE JUDGMENT Dale House Developments Limited v Brian C Ronnie and Ryden LLP | ONLINE JUDGMENT Clapham v Narga |
Decision of Judge Martyński and Mr A Thomas RBI, FRICS, MIFireE between applicant Nicholas Blomfield and leaseholders and respondent Monier Road Limited. Concerns regarding the Fire Risk Assessment and FRAEW reports which did not state the building may be an HRB; talk about bin stores and other aspects of the building that were omitted (combustible timber walkways and planters in a courtyard and timber balconies) from the report were of concern. Goes into some detail on whether the building is a higher risk building and says it isn’t simple to answer and that “There is therefore a question over the status of Government guidance”.