88 new houses near Cambridge to be demolished.

[Canski]

There is a site near me in Bidford on Avon with 50 new units on it. The houses are completed with all landscaping and internal works complete, the whole site is heras fenced off with security in place. I have no idea what the reason is but they can't be occupied. Someones head is going to roll.  

[Iceverge]

Leaving aside the incorrect construction for a second I think it's a fundamental problem with the way we build houses. 

 

They're completely inflexible. Any movement and they become structurally unsound. 

 

Timber, R/C concrete, steel and even old lime mortared buildings can take a fair bit of movements without damage. 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2023 by Iceverge

[Gus Potter]

On 14/12/2023 at 17:53, saveasteading said:

Found it.

Not too late to become an investigative journalist!

[Gus Potter]

On the upside, the Cambridge neck of the woods have challenging soils, not run of the mill stuff, exciting but you need to have your wits about you when entering this den of underground terrain.. not common bed time reading but for the keen.

 

Cambridge lies roughly on the edge of the Gault CLAY formation. It's a thin band of a particular soil that stretches from Swafham, East of King's Lynn, thickens (on plan) aproaching Cambridge to Oxford, thins out and ends just to the east of Bath. At the Bath end it tends to be a bit less expansive as it is siltier and more sandy... but at the northern end (Cambridge end) is becomes a wolf in sheep's clothes. I'm trying to introduce some drama as it's nearly Santa time.

 

The Gault clay can trip you up as when you dig as it can appear quite firm / hard. But when the weather changes is becomes a highly expansive soil. This can trip builders and designers up. It is quite a unique soil for the UK and in a thin and variable band so not often encountered. I can in some ways see why maybe design changes were possibly made late or on site.

 

Now there may a be a bit more to this as Gault clay can also contain elevated levels of suphuric acid and sulphates that can attack concrete... and all that impacts on any steel rebar reinforcement in terms of rebar cover.  It may be that the heave thing is exacerbated by the durability of the concrete and rebar cover. Maybe someone has said.. hey it's not just the heave thing but your cement content in the concrete / rebar cover is under spec for the soil type. Now that would impact on any concrete piling potentially.

 

Anyway. At least no one has got hurt, it has been picked up, a lot of folk will have learnt some lessons.. the insurer's will pick it up and we the punters will pick up the tab one way or another.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[saveasteading]

1 hour ago, Gus Potter said:

On 14/12/2023 at 17:53, saveasteading said:

Found it.

Not too late to become an investigative journalist!

As it happrns i was thinking about this. How come i can find that july, detailed statement online in 20 minutes, whereas so-called journslists simply spout a story handed to them with no further research. And why is it news now but wasn't before?

[Gus Potter]

15 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

As it happrns i was thinking about this. How come i can find that july, detailed statement online in 20 minutes, whereas so-called journslists simply spout a story handed to them with no further research. And why is it news now but wasn't before?

It's because, I think you have many years experience as a Contracting Engineer, you are widely read, pragmatic, thoughtful but at the same time your head does not zip up the back, just like a lot of folk on BH.

 

I enjoy BH as I would rather spend my time sharing what I know and I do feel that lots of other members feel the same, you give, receive and learn. @Declan pulled me up for putting BH at risk from spammers,  I learnt from that. Sometimes it's the small things that matter, maybe the odd kick up the arse at times helps a lot.

 

I'm in a slightly different space. My PI insurance covers me for free advice I give and opinions I express. That allows me to use my own name on Build Hub so long as I'm not daft. That is why I don't have to caveat every post I make. I pay a bit extra for free advice I give in my premium and that includes BH and other social media.

 

I use my own name as I feel that if you can't stand by what you say then zip it. Also if you want to pipe up then expect some folk will disagree with you. If you can't handle that then.. zip it.

 

Many modern journalists are a disgrace to their profession, they have no moral fibre, many are pathetic individuals who will sell themselves to the highest bidder,  but we already know that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Roger440]

On 15/12/2023 at 18:22, saveasteading said:

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.

 

 

 

* 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.

 

 

 

I agree with this summary.

 

However, it rather asks the question what is the whole BC inspection process for. What does it achieve?

 

It clearly cannot pick up a faulty design like this (lets assume it is for the moment) for the reasons you state. The BCO will be reliant on the reports on ground conditions, and the corresponding foundation design. So long as he sees a set of plausible calcs, its good to go.

 

To expect the BCO to check the integrity isnt realistic. Nor can there possibly be any comeback on the BCO.

 

So again, what is the point?

 

At a more basic level, installation of insulation, for example. They want to see it fitted. Doesnt care if its poorly fitted or doesnt even work, because cold air can circulate both sides. (see nce pretty picture in other thread). So long as its there, of the required thickness, tick in the box.

 

So again, what is the point.

 

Then of course, involving the BCO, is entirely optional. If you are a big developer then the last people you want on site. So dont have them there.

 

So again what is the point?

 

I really cant see what they are for beyond a means of employment for a number of people.

 

 

[saveasteading]

39 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

what is the whole BC inspection process for. What does it achieve?

It would be an awful lot worse without.

[Roger440]

2 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

It would be an awful lot worse without.

 

Im not sure that much of a reason to leave it as it is?

[joe90]

A “clerk of works” springs to my mind !  Are they still a thing?, on our self builds I guess that’s us 🤷‍♂️

A clerk of works inspects the workmanship, quality and safety of work on construction sites and reports back to senior managers and clients. As a clerk of work, you'd be conducting regular site inspections and checking that building plans are being followed correctly.

[saveasteading]

10 hours ago, Roger440 said:

not sure that much of a reason to leave it as it is?

What's your suggestion?

[Kelvin]

10 hours ago, Roger440 said:

 

Im not sure that much of a reason to leave it as it is?

What’s your suggestion? 
 

It’s more a scale thing. For all the thousands of extensions etc that make up the biggest proportion of applications it likely works mostly ok. For large complex builds it doesn’t as there is an expectation that the developer is doing it correctly and checking the work which they clearly aren’t in some cases. The consequence of failure in this case is going to cost David Wilson homes many millions to fix. Maybe there also needs to be very harsh penalties for failures too to act as a deterrent. 

[Mike]

7 hours ago, joe90 said:

A “clerk of works” springs to my mind !  Are they still a thing?

Apparently they're making a (small) comeback - https://www.building.co.uk/focus/the-return-of-the-clerk-of-works/5090855.article

[saveasteading]

39 minutes ago, Mike said:

A “clerk of works” springs to my mind !  Are they still a thing?

My father was one, working for 'the client'. He was allowed to crit the architect's proposals, then did spot checks on quality through to completion.

But even these decades ago there was some inferior work and crazy design ideas that the architect insisted upon.

He was known to take the jacket off (but never the tie and cap) and show a joiner or plasterer how to do it properly.

 

Nowadays there are site managers and 'Client's Representatives' . More likely Surveyors than ex trades.

 

But in these house problems, the developer has total control and could have Clerks of Works if they wanted: but they don't.

[saveasteading]

I've now read the article, which I recommend.  but I disagree with 2 statements.

 

industry reports by Sir Michael Latham and Sir John Egan in the 1990s might also have hurried the demise of the clerk of works.

 

I don't agree with this conjecture. These reports were  criticising the standard contest between client, contractor and subcontractor. I was there and it was very combative in some circles, horrible to work in, and expensive.

The main losers through Latham and Egan were claims surveyors and lawyers. 

theoretically the big contractors also lost all the money they made through claims, and non payments. But overall most of them just started to behave better and concentrate on quality..

The winners were the good sub-contractors who could now get all the money due.

 

The article also blames the 'design and build' process. This is a common whinge by architects and surveyors who lost supervisory work. 

I declare an interest. My company was a design and build specialist. 

No, the problem was with clients passing all risk to contractors through the 'design and build' contract. The contractors may or may not have the skill or ethos for quality. But then the same applied to the surveyor and architect.

 

I'd also add that the demise of the Borough Engineer is a similar loss. They were pushed out by accountants and general managers, who don't have technical skills.

 

[SteamyTea]

It may work out cheaper to pay for a rebuild every now and again (and associated legal fees) than employ 40 clerks of works (or however many are needed for current contracts).

 

[saveasteading]

21 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

cheaper to pay for a rebuild every now and again

I was thinking that today. 88 houses out of????

 

Barratt Developments PLC had revenues for the full year 2023 of 5.32bn.

 

£20M rebuild cost (guessed). 20/ 5,320 = 0.65%

 

 

Profit from operations (£m)	707.4
Operating margin	13.3%

 

 

20 / 707 = 2.8%, so it is significant even to them..But not critical, unless this affects sales.

 

Edited December 17, 2023 by saveasteading

[saveasteading]

42 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

crazy design ideas that the architect insisted upon.

This roof will leak badly: correct

This lead roof will be stolen: correct

This would be ok in Spain but not here, it will suffer damp and will be demolished in a few years: correct.

 

I hadn't realised til now, typing it: it was always water. the Architect still got repeat work though.

So the C o W needs the client to listen. The build quality was good though.

[SteamyTea]

30 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

20 / 707 = 2.8%, so it is significant even to them.

I would think that is considered a 'normal risk'.

And they will probably get some of it back via someone's PI insurance.

And, they probably costs these sort of mistakes in from the start.

[Kelvin]

Either quality is designed in and everyone involved buys in to a quality first approach or you have someone responsible for quality, checking every element and signing it off. Just transferring the responsibility for quality to the people doing the task is never going to work. Oddly one of the older guys on my site described me like his old clerk of works guy which I took as a compliment rather than an insult. 

[SteamyTea]

3 minutes ago, Kelvin said:

Oddly one of the older guys on my site described me like his old clerk of works guy which I took as a compliment rather than an insult. 

Is there an anagram to be made from Clerk of Works?

[Roger440]

11 hours ago, Kelvin said:

What’s your suggestion? 
 

It’s more a scale thing. For all the thousands of extensions etc that make up the biggest proportion of applications it likely works mostly ok. For large complex builds it doesn’t as there is an expectation that the developer is doing it correctly and checking the work which they clearly aren’t in some cases. The consequence of failure in this case is going to cost David Wilson homes many millions to fix. Maybe there also needs to be very harsh penalties for failures too to act as a deterrent. 

 

Im not sure i have one.

 

Im just the end user.

 

But i know is broken and pointless. I had a suite of certificates at the last place. Not one job had been done to regulations. Not one.

 

Including the whoe septic tank debacle i have recounted before.

 

So what do these "certificates" tell me. Who do they benefit? They certainly didnt benefit me as it turns out they were not worth the paper they were written on. And this on, what you would describe as the biggest proportion of applications. Though it needs pointing out not on the biggest proprtion of actual work being done.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 17, 2023 by Roger440

[Temp]

 

Replacement Darwin Green homes ‘will not be built to all of the latest building regulations’

 

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/replacement-darwin-green-homes-will-28850775.amp

 

Cambridge City Council said the developer had confirmed it would not be building the homes to meet new standards for ventilation, conservation of fuel and power, and mitigation of overheating.

 

The developer forced to demolish faulty new build homes at the Darwin Green development will not build the replacement homes to the latest building regulations, Cambridge City Council has said. Councillor Katie Thornburrow, the executive councillor for planning, building control and infrastructure, said the authority is taking legal advice on the issue.

 

Barratt and David Wilson Homes Cambridgeshire began work to demolish the 88 impacted properties - some fully and some partially constructed - at the Darwin Green development on the edge of Cambridge earlier this year. It was revealed in the summer last year that there were problems with the foundations of a number of newly built homes in the second phase of the development.

 

At the time the developer said that a “small number” of houses had foundation issues and said no one had moved into any of the affected properties. It was initially reported that 36 newly built houses were impacted by the issue and needed to be demolished. However, a council report later revealed 88 fully and partially built properties were impacted.

 

Councillor Simon Smith submitted a question to the city council’s planning and transport scrutiny committee this week (March 19), highlighting new building regulations had been introduced. He asked whether the developer had said if it would be building the replacement homes in accordance with the new regulations, which he said provided for “better ventilation, conservation of fuel and power and mitigation of overheating”.

 

Cllr Thornburrow said the developer had told the city council it was not planning to meet these new regulations. She said: “BDW have confirmed that the replacement dwellings will not be built to the new standards for ventilation, conservation of fuel and power, and mitigation of overheating, they will not be built to those standards. 3C Building Control, the council’s shared in-house building control service, are in the process of taking legal advice as to our next steps.”

 

 

 

 

 

[applypressure]

wow what an absolute waste of money

[saveasteading]

1 hour ago, applypressure said:

an absolute waste of money

Small money to the developer. Lots of good hardcore. They should be able yo reuse roof trusses  tiles, dingows, but will they bother?

I'd be amazed if an SE agreed to the design change. More likely the money side of the company.  What will save money? ( I have seen such decisions by unqualified staff).

 

Maybe they'll start looking at quality  and reputation.