A section of heavy wood fell down from the former EMD cinema building in Hoe Street, Walthamstow

The wooden roof section hanging off the EMD

The wooden roof section hanging off the EMD

First published in Waltham Forest by

A SECTION of roofing on the former EMD cinema building collapsed, luckily missing passers by.

A piece of wood fell from the roof on Thursday morning, and was snapped by internet writer Freewheeler, who runs the Crap Cycling & Walking in Waltham Forest blogsite.

He said: "Presumably no one was passing at the time, as the collapsed section, made of solid wood, would probably have killed anyone it had hit on the head. "It has roughly the dimensions of a railway sleeper, but is longer.

"It is also studded with nails."

Bill Hodgson, of the McGuffin Film Society, said: "This is clearly a danger to the public and it is not acceptable for a listed building to be neglected in this way.

"Part of the canopy collapsed in 2007 and UCKG gave assurances then that work would be undertaken to make it safe.

"This obviously hasn't happened and the council should now step in to make sure the owners stop neglecting their responsibilities.

"We know the interior of the building is being maintained so there is no legitimate reason why the exterior should be left to rot".

The building in Hoe Street, is owned by evangelical Christian group Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (UKCG), which wants to use the building as a church and community centre.

But campaigners want the council to purchase the building so it can be re-opened as a cinema, a move ruled out by council cabinet member for invetsment Cllr Terry Wheeler.

Comments (21)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:07pm Thu 23 Jul 09

JonathanB says...

Poor EMD :-(
Poor EMD :-( JonathanB
  • Score: 0

5:43pm Thu 23 Jul 09

Gordon Mandembota says...

JonathanB wrote:
Poor EMD :-(
Yes it is about time that the Church started to use it like a church and have a bit of respect and spend some money on it.
[quote][p][bold]JonathanB[/bold] wrote: Poor EMD :-([/p][/quote]Yes it is about time that the Church started to use it like a church and have a bit of respect and spend some money on it. Gordon Mandembota
  • Score: 0

6:11pm Thu 23 Jul 09

Walthamster says...

This has been an accident waiting to happen for the past year or more. Waltham Forest council has responsibility to protect listed buildings in this borough, so why has it done nothing?

The UCKG have been letting the building decay, as they are trying to force the council to let them use it for a purpose that was refused by a public inquiry.

The UCKG has gone too far now, allowing it to become a danger to the public. The council is also to blame for not taking action sooner.

Any chance of legal action to enforce protection of this listed building -- and of the public?
This has been an accident waiting to happen for the past year or more. Waltham Forest council has responsibility to protect listed buildings in this borough, so why has it done nothing? The UCKG have been letting the building decay, as they are trying to force the council to let them use it for a purpose that was refused by a public inquiry. The UCKG has gone too far now, allowing it to become a danger to the public. The council is also to blame for not taking action sooner. Any chance of legal action to enforce protection of this listed building -- and of the public? Walthamster
  • Score: 0

10:24pm Thu 23 Jul 09

RichieA70 says...

This is a complete disgrace. Squatters have been found in the building in the last few weeks too. UCKG are clearly not maintaining the building properly or providing adequate security. UCKG may consider such incidents as helping their cause to get planning permission. This building is on English Heritages 'at risk' register and for obvious reasons.

How long before the building is destroyed by arson or someone is injured or killed by further collapses?
This is a complete disgrace. Squatters have been found in the building in the last few weeks too. UCKG are clearly not maintaining the building properly or providing adequate security. UCKG may consider such incidents as helping their cause to get planning permission. This building is on English Heritages 'at risk' register and for obvious reasons. How long before the building is destroyed by arson or someone is injured or killed by further collapses? RichieA70
  • Score: 0

10:28pm Thu 23 Jul 09

E-Number says...

Clearly the more decayed the cinema appears to be the more the church can protest it's not fit for purpose.

Very clever of them.

But if they can't look after the building now how could anyone believe that they would refurbish and protect the building in the future if they were granted planning permission? They clearly have no respect at all for it.

How did the council's conservation officer allow them to neglect the facade in such a way that it's falling apart?

And how do we know the church haven't let the interior fall apart too?

And the organ?

All are under a Grade 2* listing.

English Heritage should be told.
Clearly the more decayed the cinema appears to be the more the church can protest it's not fit for purpose. Very clever of them. But if they can't look after the building now how could anyone believe that they would refurbish and protect the building in the future if they were granted planning permission? They clearly have no respect at all for it. How did the council's conservation officer allow them to neglect the facade in such a way that it's falling apart? And how do we know the church haven't let the interior fall apart too? And the organ? All are under a Grade 2* listing. English Heritage should be told. E-Number
  • Score: 0

10:29pm Thu 23 Jul 09

Redfox says...

Why are UKCG getting ALL the blame?
The building is Grade II* listed and comes under the care of the council's long serving conservation officer who has a clear duty to survey the site every 12 months and in fact, has reported to English Heritage his observations. These reports are not made public or appear in the council website nor receive attention on the agenda of WWCC meetings.
Considering this canopy has been falling apart with holes appearing in it for the best part of 3 YEARS - what blame lands on his shoulders?
Search the Yahoo group site for messages 2007-2009.
Expect Guardian inquest in next issue?
Why are UKCG getting ALL the blame? The building is Grade II* listed and comes under the care of the council's long serving conservation officer who has a clear duty to survey the site every 12 months and in fact, has reported to English Heritage his observations. These reports are not made public or appear in the council website nor receive attention on the agenda of WWCC meetings. Considering this canopy has been falling apart with holes appearing in it for the best part of 3 YEARS - what blame lands on his shoulders? Search the Yahoo group site for messages 2007-2009. Expect Guardian inquest in next issue? Redfox
  • Score: 0

10:35pm Thu 23 Jul 09

E-Number says...

Redfox wrote:
Why are UKCG getting ALL the blame? The building is Grade II* listed and comes under the care of the council's long serving conservation officer who has a clear duty to survey the site every 12 months and in fact, has reported to English Heritage his observations. These reports are not made public or appear in the council website nor receive attention on the agenda of WWCC meetings. Considering this canopy has been falling apart with holes appearing in it for the best part of 3 YEARS - what blame lands on his shoulders? Search the Yahoo group site for messages 2007-2009. Expect Guardian inquest in next issue?
A casual observer might think it was in the council's interest to allow this decay...
[quote][p][bold]Redfox[/bold] wrote: Why are UKCG getting ALL the blame? The building is Grade II* listed and comes under the care of the council's long serving conservation officer who has a clear duty to survey the site every 12 months and in fact, has reported to English Heritage his observations. These reports are not made public or appear in the council website nor receive attention on the agenda of WWCC meetings. Considering this canopy has been falling apart with holes appearing in it for the best part of 3 YEARS - what blame lands on his shoulders? Search the Yahoo group site for messages 2007-2009. Expect Guardian inquest in next issue?[/p][/quote]A casual observer might think it was in the council's interest to allow this decay... E-Number
  • Score: 0

10:45pm Thu 23 Jul 09

mdj says...

Might it not be argued that this is one of those orphan sites that the Council is keen for us to identify (so it can build 100 zillion flats on, more than likely).
The Council has a right to take over residential properties that are left unoccupied for as little as six months: is there any comparable power over neglected commercial property, if only on safety grounds?
The church has said on the record that renovation is conditional upon getting its Planning Permission, which is a clear breach of its legal duty. Perhaps we could initiate a little 'protection by occupation', as the Council did in the Coppermill Lane Library.
Might it not be argued that this is one of those orphan sites that the Council is keen for us to identify (so it can build 100 zillion flats on, more than likely). The Council has a right to take over residential properties that are left unoccupied for as little as six months: is there any comparable power over neglected commercial property, if only on safety grounds? The church has said on the record that renovation is conditional upon getting its Planning Permission, which is a clear breach of its legal duty. Perhaps we could initiate a little 'protection by occupation', as the Council did in the Coppermill Lane Library. mdj
  • Score: 0

11:01pm Thu 23 Jul 09

RichieA70 says...

E-Number wrote:
Clearly the more decayed the cinema appears to be the more the church can protest it's not fit for purpose. Very clever of them. But if they can't look after the building now how could anyone believe that they would refurbish and protect the building in the future if they were granted planning permission? They clearly have no respect at all for it. How did the council's conservation officer allow them to neglect the facade in such a way that it's falling apart? And how do we know the church haven't let the interior fall apart too? And the organ? All are under a Grade 2* listing. English Heritage should be told.
Despite it's glossy appearance, UCKG have bodged refubishment at their 'flagship' HQ at Finsbury Park.

Maybe they used the same contractors and project managers as LBWF did for the Walthamstow Central Library refurb...
[quote][p][bold]E-Number[/bold] wrote: Clearly the more decayed the cinema appears to be the more the church can protest it's not fit for purpose. Very clever of them. But if they can't look after the building now how could anyone believe that they would refurbish and protect the building in the future if they were granted planning permission? They clearly have no respect at all for it. How did the council's conservation officer allow them to neglect the facade in such a way that it's falling apart? And how do we know the church haven't let the interior fall apart too? And the organ? All are under a Grade 2* listing. English Heritage should be told.[/p][/quote]Despite it's glossy appearance, UCKG have bodged refubishment at their 'flagship' HQ at Finsbury Park. Maybe they used the same contractors and project managers as LBWF did for the Walthamstow Central Library refurb... RichieA70
  • Score: 0

11:25pm Thu 23 Jul 09

E-Number says...

RichieA70 wrote:
E-Number wrote: Clearly the more decayed the cinema appears to be the more the church can protest it's not fit for purpose. Very clever of them. But if they can't look after the building now how could anyone believe that they would refurbish and protect the building in the future if they were granted planning permission? They clearly have no respect at all for it. How did the council's conservation officer allow them to neglect the facade in such a way that it's falling apart? And how do we know the church haven't let the interior fall apart too? And the organ? All are under a Grade 2* listing. English Heritage should be told.
Despite it's glossy appearance, UCKG have bodged refubishment at their 'flagship' HQ at Finsbury Park. Maybe they used the same contractors and project managers as LBWF did for the Walthamstow Central Library refurb...
Who would be surprised if there was another "rave" or similar any time now - just to put the point across?
[quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E-Number[/bold] wrote: Clearly the more decayed the cinema appears to be the more the church can protest it's not fit for purpose. Very clever of them. But if they can't look after the building now how could anyone believe that they would refurbish and protect the building in the future if they were granted planning permission? They clearly have no respect at all for it. How did the council's conservation officer allow them to neglect the facade in such a way that it's falling apart? And how do we know the church haven't let the interior fall apart too? And the organ? All are under a Grade 2* listing. English Heritage should be told.[/p][/quote]Despite it's glossy appearance, UCKG have bodged refubishment at their 'flagship' HQ at Finsbury Park. Maybe they used the same contractors and project managers as LBWF did for the Walthamstow Central Library refurb...[/p][/quote]Who would be surprised if there was another "rave" or similar any time now - just to put the point across? E-Number
  • Score: 0

3:23am Fri 24 Jul 09

sensibility says...

By the time those who can do something actually taken any action, the building will probably be so beyond repair that it will have to be demolished and it seems to me, sadly, that this is the most likely scenario
By the time those who can do something actually taken any action, the building will probably be so beyond repair that it will have to be demolished and it seems to me, sadly, that this is the most likely scenario sensibility
  • Score: 0

7:11am Fri 24 Jul 09

Gordon Mandembota says...

E-Number wrote:
Clearly the more decayed the cinema appears to be the more the church can protest it's not fit for purpose.

Very clever of them.

But if they can't look after the building now how could anyone believe that they would refurbish and protect the building in the future if they were granted planning permission? They clearly have no respect at all for it.

How did the council's conservation officer allow them to neglect the facade in such a way that it's falling apart?

And how do we know the church haven't let the interior fall apart too?

And the organ?

All are under a Grade 2* listing.

English Heritage should be told.
Tell them then?
[quote][p][bold]E-Number[/bold] wrote: Clearly the more decayed the cinema appears to be the more the church can protest it's not fit for purpose. Very clever of them. But if they can't look after the building now how could anyone believe that they would refurbish and protect the building in the future if they were granted planning permission? They clearly have no respect at all for it. How did the council's conservation officer allow them to neglect the facade in such a way that it's falling apart? And how do we know the church haven't let the interior fall apart too? And the organ? All are under a Grade 2* listing. English Heritage should be told.[/p][/quote]Tell them then? Gordon Mandembota
  • Score: 0

7:46am Fri 24 Jul 09

JonathanB says...

We walked past the Rio Cinema in Dalston last weekend and I thought "The EMD could be that."

:-(
We walked past the Rio Cinema in Dalston last weekend and I thought "The EMD could be that." :-( JonathanB
  • Score: 0

10:30am Fri 24 Jul 09

Gordon Mandembota says...

Start a fund raiser?
Start a fund raiser? Gordon Mandembota
  • Score: 0

10:42am Fri 24 Jul 09

Walthamstow noob says...

Redfox wrote:
Why are UKCG getting ALL the blame?
The building is Grade II* listed and comes under the care of the council's long serving conservation officer who has a clear duty to survey the site every 12 months and in fact, has reported to English Heritage his observations. These reports are not made public or appear in the council website nor receive attention on the agenda of WWCC meetings.
Considering this canopy has been falling apart with holes appearing in it for the best part of 3 YEARS - what blame lands on his shoulders?
Search the Yahoo group site for messages 2007-2009.
Expect Guardian inquest in next issue?
Seems like someone has been reading these comments and attempted to try and find this information out. A Freedom of Information request has been made to the council here:
http://www.whatdothe
yknow.com/request/em
d_english_heritage_s
urveys
[quote][p][bold]Redfox[/bold] wrote: Why are UKCG getting ALL the blame? The building is Grade II* listed and comes under the care of the council's long serving conservation officer who has a clear duty to survey the site every 12 months and in fact, has reported to English Heritage his observations. These reports are not made public or appear in the council website nor receive attention on the agenda of WWCC meetings. Considering this canopy has been falling apart with holes appearing in it for the best part of 3 YEARS - what blame lands on his shoulders? Search the Yahoo group site for messages 2007-2009. Expect Guardian inquest in next issue?[/p][/quote]Seems like someone has been reading these comments and attempted to try and find this information out. A Freedom of Information request has been made to the council here: http://www.whatdothe yknow.com/request/em d_english_heritage_s urveys Walthamstow noob
  • Score: 0

2:04pm Fri 24 Jul 09

Shannon Wright says...

"A piece of wood fell from the roof." Don't these UKCG people know a good carpenter?
"A piece of wood fell from the roof." Don't these UKCG people know a good carpenter? Shannon Wright
  • Score: 0

4:50pm Fri 24 Jul 09

JonathanB says...

Shannon Wright wrote:
"A piece of wood fell from the roof." Don't these UKCG people know a good carpenter?
Brilliant!
[quote][p][bold]Shannon Wright[/bold] wrote: "A piece of wood fell from the roof." Don't these UKCG people know a good carpenter? [/p][/quote]Brilliant! JonathanB
  • Score: 0

5:11pm Fri 24 Jul 09

ferdy55 says...

Must be a sign from Heaven!!!! :--)
Must be a sign from Heaven!!!! :--) ferdy55
  • Score: 0

9:32pm Fri 24 Jul 09

nosey parker says...

E-Number wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
E-Number wrote: Clearly the more decayed the cinema appears to be the more the church can protest it's not fit for purpose. Very clever of them. But if they can't look after the building now how could anyone believe that they would refurbish and protect the building in the future if they were granted planning permission? They clearly have no respect at all for it. How did the council's conservation officer allow them to neglect the facade in such a way that it's falling apart? And how do we know the church haven't let the interior fall apart too? And the organ? All are under a Grade 2* listing. English Heritage should be told.
Despite it's glossy appearance, UCKG have bodged refubishment at their 'flagship' HQ at Finsbury Park. Maybe they used the same contractors and project managers as LBWF did for the Walthamstow Central Library refurb...
Who would be surprised if there was another "rave" or similar any time now - just to put the point across?
Great news - when is this rave? Will The Rolling Stones be playing?
[quote][p][bold]E-Number[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E-Number[/bold] wrote: Clearly the more decayed the cinema appears to be the more the church can protest it's not fit for purpose. Very clever of them. But if they can't look after the building now how could anyone believe that they would refurbish and protect the building in the future if they were granted planning permission? They clearly have no respect at all for it. How did the council's conservation officer allow them to neglect the facade in such a way that it's falling apart? And how do we know the church haven't let the interior fall apart too? And the organ? All are under a Grade 2* listing. English Heritage should be told.[/p][/quote]Despite it's glossy appearance, UCKG have bodged refubishment at their 'flagship' HQ at Finsbury Park. Maybe they used the same contractors and project managers as LBWF did for the Walthamstow Central Library refurb...[/p][/quote]Who would be surprised if there was another "rave" or similar any time now - just to put the point across?[/p][/quote]Great news - when is this rave? Will The Rolling Stones be playing? nosey parker
  • Score: 0

9:49pm Fri 24 Jul 09

E-Number says...

Gordon Mandembota wrote:
Start a fund raiser?
For a billion pound organisation? I think they can afford their own maintenance staff...
[quote][p][bold]Gordon Mandembota[/bold] wrote: Start a fund raiser?[/p][/quote]For a billion pound organisation? I think they can afford their own maintenance staff... E-Number
  • Score: 0

1:40pm Thu 30 Jul 09

Joe Scaramanga says...

mdj wrote:
Might it not be argued that this is one of those orphan sites that the Council is keen for us to identify (so it can build 100 zillion flats on, more than likely).
The Council has a right to take over residential properties that are left unoccupied for as little as six months: is there any comparable power over neglected commercial property, if only on safety grounds?
The church has said on the record that renovation is conditional upon getting its Planning Permission, which is a clear breach of its legal duty. Perhaps we could initiate a little 'protection by occupation', as the Council did in the Coppermill Lane Library.
It appears that the UCKG have this covered, as the building is registered as 'part occupied' on the English heritage site.

I suspect the 'squaters' may in fact be paid cronies, to ensure the building isn't left unoccupied.
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: Might it not be argued that this is one of those orphan sites that the Council is keen for us to identify (so it can build 100 zillion flats on, more than likely). The Council has a right to take over residential properties that are left unoccupied for as little as six months: is there any comparable power over neglected commercial property, if only on safety grounds? The church has said on the record that renovation is conditional upon getting its Planning Permission, which is a clear breach of its legal duty. Perhaps we could initiate a little 'protection by occupation', as the Council did in the Coppermill Lane Library.[/p][/quote]It appears that the UCKG have this covered, as the building is registered as 'part occupied' on the English heritage site. I suspect the 'squaters' may in fact be paid cronies, to ensure the building isn't left unoccupied. Joe Scaramanga
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree