Building control (or not)

[Jameshow]

I don't think it's a BC issue - reading between the lines it's a change of flooring from block and beam to prestressed hollow beams that's the issue?

The structural engineer didn't appreciate any issues that the change might have made?

Although ground conditions might have been a factor too?

 

[Spectric]

The structural engineer didn't appreciate any issues that the change might have made?

Was he even notified or involved, there are always cases where once the drawings are done by an architect and approved that they don't get fully implemented on the ground, corners get cut, sub standard material and wrong concrete mix to name a few with the expectation that they will get away with it and make a bit more money. Who saw that documentary on Tv where the mortar on one housing estate was just soft and easily removed due to lack of cement in the mix and if you really want your eyes opened then visit a housing estate in progress and look at the unfinished properties where they have not yet covered up the bodges and it is frightening.

 

[BearTricks]

It would be interesting to know what went wrong, it could be all sorts of things such as grade or miss grade of concrete that an inspector would not see but which would be picked up on a cube test later - still no excuse for it getting that far. Pity the person who had to tell the boss.

I was on site on a big commercial build a couple of weeks ago and the guys were testing the concrete twice a day and refusing to even pour it if it was below a certain temperature.

The labourers were going mad and clearly wanted to get on with it. I can definitely see how a couple of bad apples could push something through under the radar to get it done. Surprised it doesn’t happen more. Or maybe it does and we never hear about it.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Has there been a time post WW2 (and possibly even before) when one could buy a new house, secure in the knowledge that it had been properly constructed with quality materials, and could be expected to last (say) 60+ years before any significant remedial work would be required?

We seem to be paying the price for inadequate or private building control with inspections which may be too superficial, by those without the requisite knowledge and sometimes corrupt.

It is easy to be impressed by, and pay a premium for, the superficial glitz of a new property - sparkling kitchens, bathrooms, modern heating systems etc all promising an enviable lifestyle with zero expenditure on upgrades for at least a decade.

The non-visible bits are where the problems may lie - eg: foundation depth, adequacy of materials (eg: roof timbers, wood framing, damp course, lintels). Perhaps the solution is an older property where any deficiencies in the original construction should be evident and/or rectified.

Before praising Victorian, Georgian or earlier builders, note their substandard construction would by now be collapsed/replaced, leaving only that which was (mostly) properly built. The cost of refurbishing Parliament - a very Victorian icon - perhaps makes this is a naive observation!!!

 

[Bingy man]

What a waste of time and materials, it says they will be reusing the rubble. Somebody was cutting corners!
But what plug ugly houses to start with, really lacking any attractive features at all, soul destroying, looks like Soviet block housing.
Reading the above it made me wonder if they could have just removed the 3rd floor?

I’ve seen better looking prisons and for upwards of £650,000 this is not what I’d expect. As for how it wasn’t picked up sooner - well if the planners are in bed with the builders and the architects then say no no more-rip of Britain as it’s best …

 

[MikeJhn]

I don't think it's a BC issue - reading between the lines it's a change of flooring from block and beam to prestressed hollow beams that's the issue?

The structural engineer didn't appreciate any issues that the change might have made?

Although ground conditions might have been a factor too?

Assuming that the buildings had traditional trench foundations that change would not have made any difference to the foundations, the loadings would still be the same, the structural engineer's contract would have been finished long before a change of specification was proposed, probably only contracted during the design stage just after planning approval, this change in specifications would have gone to the Architect, if there was one, and would have to be approved through BC if put before them by said Architect who had that responsibility, if this was a Design and Construct contract to the Local Authority then the responsibility lies with the Builder who would have employed either direct, or externally a qualified Architect.

The issue of hardcore is spurious to say the least, it has to be "clean" as proposed in the specification and Bill of Quantities.

Concrete is tested for slump on every pour and cubes taken to be crush tested by an external laboratory at 7, 14 and 28 days, the days of the Resident Structural Engineer has passed and its the responsibility of the LBA to ensure that standards are kept to the specifications.

 

[Cabinetman]

Has there been a time post WW2 (and possibly even before) when one could buy a new house, secure in the knowledge that it had been properly constructed with quality materials, and could be expected to last (say) 60+ years before any significant remedial work would be required?

We seem to be paying the price for inadequate or private building control with inspections which may be too superficial, by those without the requisite knowledge and sometimes corrupt.

It is easy to be impressed by, and pay a premium for, the superficial glitz of a new property - sparkling kitchens, bathrooms, modern heating systems etc all promising an enviable lifestyle with zero expenditure on upgrades for at least a decade.

The non-visible bits are where the problems may lie - eg: foundation depth, adequacy of materials (eg: roof timbers, wood framing, damp course, lintels). Perhaps the solution is an older property where any deficiencies in the original construction should be evident and/or rectified.

Before praising Victorian, Georgian or earlier builders, note their substandard construction would by now be collapsed/replaced, leaving only that which was (mostly) properly built. The cost of refurbishing Parliament - a very Victorian icon - perhaps makes this is a naive observation!!!

I knew a Surveyor years ago who told me that houses built in the 20’s were definitely not built to such a good standard as those built in the 1930’s. Trouble is this present fiasco has been going on for decades now.