88 new houses near Cambridge to be demolished.

[Temp]

Faulty foundations apparently...

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv2548v1dpyo

 

 

[Andehh]

2 story foundations on a 3 story house maybe?

[ProDave]

Or strip founds on land needing piling?

 

I would be concerned if I was in one of the already occupied houses on the development.

[Alan Ambrose]

Goodness another BS result like Greenwich. There must be way to nip this stuff in the bud - presumably BC signed off the foundations in the first place.

 

More brinkmanship do you think?

[Post and beam]

5 minutes ago, ProDave said:

I would be concerned if I was in one of the already occupied houses on the development.

I thought i read about this a few weeks ago. Some of the houses are indeed already occupied

[Roger440]

16 minutes ago, Alan Ambrose said:

Goodness another BS result like Greenwich. There must be way to nip this stuff in the bud - presumably BC signed off the foundations in the first place.

 

 

 

No need for them to have been signed off. They can sign them off themselves. Only first one needs inspecting.

 

Whilst we dont know the actual details, i suspect just another example, as though it were needed, that the BC system is broken.

[saveasteading]

16 minutes ago, Alan Ambrose said:

presumably BC signed off the foundations in the first place

Rather an assumption!

Maybe it was they who noticed the problem. They are not normally entitled to do spot checks.

I've seen a  similar case where depth for trees had not been allowed for, BS demanded founds to be exposed, then down they came.

 

I wonder if we can google to find the actual issue.

 

As we are speculating here, my guess is that they did the standard 1m deep footings whereas they needed to be deeper and wider for poorer ground, or as said, 3 storey load....due to absence of skilled supervision.

 

David Wilson is an upmarket brand for Barratt.   hmmm.

 

25 minutes ago, ProDave said:

I would be concerned if I was in one of the already occupied houses on the development.

you're right , but this could presumably be resolved very quickly if they are allowed to explain the issue.

 

23 minutes ago, Alan Ambrose said:

More brinkmanship do you think?

Sorry, I don't know what you mean.

[saveasteading]

Found it. It's all in this report from July and worth a read if you're into ground heave.

 

 https://darwingreenconstruction.co.uk/frequently-asked-questions/

 

 

In principle though. There has been soil heave due to the high plasticity of the ground.

Phase 1, had beam and block suspended flooring and seems to have resisted, or joggled with, ground movement.

Phase 2. is  in-situ suspended concrete floors, which has  'not allowed for' the heave, resulting in cracking.

 

I also notice that the Buiding control was by NHBC, and there is no comment about inspections.

 

And that the Environment Agency are against further development as there is insufficient water supply, and it will deplete the aquifer.

 

[kandgmitchell]

They have had to go back to planning committee to get the demolition process added to the reserved matters approvals for the method statements for construction (as presumably they only allowed for building them, not knocking them down). The proposed method statement includes for demolishing the structure whilst salvaging as much as possible for re-use. It also mentions grubbing out the foundations with all brickwork/concrete being crushed on site and re-used to fill voids and for piling mats. The attached plan (presented to committee so in the public domain) shows the plots to be taken down but interestingly refers to adjacent piled houses remaining. It therefore seems to be a situation where some were piled and are ok but some had traditional foundations and are not. There are no specific details probably because someone's PI insurance is going to get a very big hit.  

plan.pdf

[saveasteading]

5 hours ago, kandgmitchell said:

whilst salvaging as much as possible for re-use.

Good info. If you have access to local news , then keep us informed if you learn more please. Esp any pics of the cracks.

 

They'd probably rather just knock the lot over, but are being watched. Claiming to be  the best at sustainable construction makes them have to salvage what they can. 

 

Anybody know the build cost of a house like this?  I'm just guessing £150k.

150 x 88 = approx 13M.  Add demo, admin, loss of sales, doing it properly next time and legals:  A £20M hit.  MD might not get the £2M bonus this year.

 

My main concern is that this has been kept quiet for so long? Its the first I've heard of it.  How much influence do these developers have.

 

If it became more public then perhaps there would be more scrutiny of quality. 

 

 

[patp]

Whoever is going to want to buy a house on that site? There is a new development in a nearby town on a site that the locals have named as a "flood plain". It is all over social media that the site floods regularly. Anyone looking for a house in the area is going to be aware and no amount of reassurance will combat that knowledge.

[AliG]

The development where my parents used to live was one of two built on land that was occupied by a school.

 

The school was rebuilt where the playing fields were and the land sold off to pay for it.

 

The school was well known to be subsiding, the walls were covered in cracks. It was only around 30 years old when it was demolished.

 

The builders decided on a house by house basis whether or not to use piles.

 

All the houses where my parents were seem to be fine, but a couple of houses on the adjacent development began to subside and had to be demolished.

 

Scotland, so BC not self certified. Still happened. BC will rely on SE reports for this kind of thing.

[joe90]

16 hours ago, Roger440 said:

i suspect just another example, as though it were needed, that the BC system is broken.

I agree!!!

[kandgmitchell]

This area around Cambridge is a real hot spot. Completely new towns are being built, estates of a 1000 houses are going through the planning system. We drove through the village where we used to live last weekend after visiting friends. Just outside, running along a road between the A11 and A505 was hundreds of metres of herras fencing. Behind it the Wellcome Trust are extending their Genome Campus along with 1,500 homes, 150,000m2 of commercial, a school, hotel etc etc. Not far down the M11 they've put a whole new junction in merely to serve the proposed housing developments to the north of Harlow. 

 

The pace of development in that area is amazing. No wonder Building Control is stretched - how can all of this be checked, there simply aren't the resources, multiply that across the country you can see why things get missed.

[joe90]

33 minutes ago, kandgmitchell said:

No wonder Building Control is stretched - how can all of this be checked, there simply aren't the resources, multiply that across the country you can see why things get missed.

But, is it the builders fault or the building control, and if it’s building control why should the developer suffer financial loss?

[SteamyTea]

6 minutes ago, joe90 said:

But, is it the builders fault or the building control, and if it’s building control why should the developer suffer financial loss?

Will be down to whoever designed the foundation system for that site.

If they got their calculations wrong, then BC would probably be unable to check the numbers.

In the rare case where someone 'gets confused' and says do A when they should have said do B, then that would be down to whoever is responsible for that site, probably the building company.

 

Will really come down to a paper trail to find out where the mistake was made.

What is important is that mistakes like this are spotted before any physical work takes place.

[Ferdinand]

1 hour ago, kandgmitchell said:

This area around Cambridge is a real hot spot. Completely new towns are being built, estates of a 1000 houses are going through the planning system. We drove through the village where we used to live last weekend after visiting friends. Just outside, running along a road between the A11 and A505 was hundreds of metres of herras fencing. Behind it the Wellcome Trust are extending their Genome Campus along with 1,500 homes, 150,000m2 of commercial, a school, hotel etc etc. Not far down the M11 they've put a whole new junction in merely to serve the proposed housing developments to the north of Harlow. 

 

The pace of development in that area is amazing. No wonder Building Control is stretched - how can all of this be checked, there simply aren't the resources, multiply that across the country you can see why things get missed.

 

Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh is the new Surbiton.

 

From Good Farmer to Good Life in a decade.

 

 

[kandgmitchell]

3 hours ago, joe90 said:

But, is it the builders fault or the building control, and if it’s building control why should the developer suffer financial loss?

But if the developer is the builder, should building control be liable for the error that builder makes on their own project. "The author of their own misfortune" really. That's not to excuse building control for not picking this up at an earlier stage (but maybe they did?).  I've worked on both sides of the fence, local authority and private building control as well as designing and submitting to them. You would be amazed at the lack of detail often submitted for approval - just the planning drawings if you are lucky, it then becomes like drawing teeth to get sufficient detail to check the scheme properly whilst all the time the builder is rushing ahead and the client is blissfully unaware. Then, when finally you get the info you need, it's your fault that things have to change on site - the cry of "why didn't you pick this up earlier" comes from both the builder and client. It's a thankless task at times.....

[Gone West]

22 minutes ago, kandgmitchell said:

Then, when finally you get the info you need, it's your fault that things have to change on site

Why isn't a full plans only, submission required, with the developer taking the hit if they start without BC approval. If this was the case, with proper BC inspections, you would know who was at fault.

[SteamyTea]

27 minutes ago, kandgmitchell said:

But if the developer is the builder, should building control be liable for the error that builder makes on their own project

The Police are not responsible for not catching speeding motorists. And if they do catch one, they are not responsible for any subsequent accidents.

[Adrian Walker]

22 hours ago, Alan Ambrose said:

Goodness another BS result like Greenwich. There must be way to nip this stuff in the bud - presumably BC signed off the foundations in the first place.

 

More brinkmanship do you think?

BC very rarely signs off or even visits developers site. I think it should be mandatory. 

[kandgmitchell]

7 minutes ago, Gone West said:

Why isn't a full plans only, submission required, with the developer taking the hit if they start without BC approval. If this was the case, with proper BC inspections, you would know who was at fault.

I agree, we've basically been working with a system set up by the 1936 Public Health Act and tweaked a bit by the 1984 Building Act where an applicant was only "giving notice of an intention to build" . A council (as it was then) could refuse an application but that didn't stop work going ahead if the applicant wanted as long as work on site complied. That was all well when things were simple and building methods were traditional. Now we have really complex regulations about saving energy, electric vehicles, gigabyte infrastructure and goodness knows what else. You can't check that on site standing in the rain and mud.

[AliG]

A site visit won't tell you if you need piles.

 

There would need to be a site investigation which is then given to a SE who advises on the correct foundations.

 

BC can only sign off on the paperwork provided.

 

I do agree though that large developers get much less oversight than individual builders, yet individual builders are probably more likely to take care that their build is being done correctly.

[saveasteading]

6 hours ago, joe90 said:

is it the builders fault or the building control ?

It is the builder's responsibility/ fault, or their designer.

BC do not do detailed checks of the design, otherwise they would need  a lot more staff, who happen to know absolutely everything, and many times the fee.

They do an overview of the design*, and sampling  checks on site. They can't even do spot checks without an invitation from the builder.

 

We're all guessing about this project, as it could be any of many things. 

Error in the soils assessment.

A recent change in the ground condition.

Design error.

Change of design by the builder.

Construction faults.

Construction quality.

 

Has anyone noticed in the blurb, why they changed to a in-situ suspended slab? Or how this is done for a ground floor? This appears to have been quoted as the problem.

I'm not aware of an economic way of doing this, ie in getting the shuttering out again after use.

So perhaps it was poured on the ground for ease, and isn't actually suspended.   I'm speculating again.

 

* A Structural Engineer may do many days of detailed consideration and complex design. BC would need to have an SE in house who specialised in that ( or those) aspects of design, or they have to commission another SE to do so.

They do NOT go through all the calculations. They look at the principles, and take a view on whether the output/ proposal looks about right.

 

Anther important aspect that often isn't understood is  'Building Notice'.

In the English system it is permitted to submit designs as the project proceeds.  This is higher risk, and can lead to projects not being considered holistically, and construction proceeding in advance of stage approvals.

As a designer and contractor I preferred this, as it allows an earlier start, and I know it is my risk.

A 'Full plans' application needs all the detail and I think is unusual for big projects, because of the time delay for approval.

Which is better?  It depends on the contractor's skill and attitude to risk.

 

In Scotland there is no option. Having recently worked with the Scottish system, we had to wait a very long time for the warrant to be issued. It is a serious offence to start without approval.

Much as the wait for approval is frustrating, it did allow additional details to be submitted or even changes made to ensure the bco's approval.

They pointed out some issues that might have been contentious, and they were resolved before commencement.

 

 

[joe90]

10 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

Anther important aspect that often isn't understood is  'Building Notice'.

I have never used this method as I wanted to know from day one what BC passed as acceptable 

 

11 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

We're all guessing about this project, as it could be any of many things. 

Yes and I, for one, would like to understand what went wrong. I wonder what the total cost for this “cock up” is 🤷‍♂️