88 new houses near Cambridge to be demolished.

[ProDave]

20 hours ago, Temp said:

 

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.”

 

 

 

 

 

Are they trying to justify that on the basis the development has already started thus changes to BR's since they started do not apply?

 

It will be interesting to see the legal ruling.

[kandgmitchell]

From recollection the application of the new Part L was done by a plot by plot basis rather than all plots within the original scheme. So even though the site may have have started as a whole, only those individual plots that were under way in June 2023 could claim to be built under the old version. If the defective house was being demolished and it's foundations removed I'd thought it'll be hard to argue that the new replacement wasn't an entirely new building and thus subject to the current regs. 

[saveasteading]

.

24 minutes ago, kandgmitchell said:

hard to argue that the new replacement wasn't an entirely new building and thus subject to the current regs. 

I haven't done an English 'Start' for a few years. Last I did though, the client wanted the least done to keep PP. The bco was nervous about a token 'Start' ( such as a sign and a trench in the old days). We had to submit the design and build an actual part of it. Otherwise he said the planners wouldn't agree it had commenced. 

On that basis, these buildings have not commenced.

[Dave Jones]

anything in ground that has been inspected constitues a 'start' normal way to lock in planning commencement is a short run of footings/garage. locked in forever.

[ProDave]

I think "starting" for planning is separate to "starting" for building control.

[Dave Jones]

3 minutes ago, ProDave said:

I think "starting" for planning is separate to "starting" for building control.

 

not really. in England, BCO take the planning ref and issue paperwork against it for new build.

 

 

[saveasteading]

4 hours ago, ProDave said:

I think "starting" for planning is separate to "starting" for building control

You are right and I wrote that confusingly.

I mean that perhaps  the planners' definition may be used to define a start on site for regs.

 

 

[SteamyTea]

If I was the developer I would build to the latest standards, or better, and promote it heavily.

Then when people do a google search they would see what fine houses I make, rather than an unfortunate event.

The marginal costs would be very small.

[saveasteading]

2 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

what fine houses I make,

Their website says little specific about quality. 90% over owners would recommend us isn't a great claim.

[SteamyTea]

8 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

90% over owners would recommend us isn't a great claim.

Who expressed a preference.

The rest would not eat the cat food.

[Gus Potter]

On 21/03/2024 at 17:55, kandgmitchell said:

From recollection the application of the new Part L was done by a plot by plot basis rather than all plots within the original scheme. So even though the site may have have started as a whole, only those individual plots that were under way in June 2023 could claim to be built under the old version. If the defective house was being demolished and it's foundations removed I'd thought it'll be hard to argue that the new replacement wasn't an entirely new building and thus subject to the current regs. 

Think you have nailed it A bit.. but maybe not?

 

I do a bit of claims work and at times represent Builders for my sins.. but sometimes honest builders get bad Clients and grief from BC and need someone to stick up for them. Yes it seems they have made a bollocks of this development.. but the developer may/ is be doing something about it.

 

If I was acting on behalf of the builder I would say.. look the houses were signed off by BC? and yes the problems became apparent quite quickly but could have taken say 2 years or more to manifest? I mention 2 years as no one has talked about the warranty provider and where they fit in. I think the Builder has a good case in fairness so my feeling is that BH folk and the press are not giving a fair hearing to the builder.

 

The building process carries risk.. sometimes thing go wrong! So long as no one gets hurt that is the most important thing for me as an SE.

 

I can see how this is turning into a barny. If I was acting for the Council I would look closely at the approval dates for each house and the time line.  The law is pretty clear on this and the documentation is probably well recorded.

 

But... I suspect this is a case of shoddy reporting and a lack of professionalism on the reporter's side... probably too young and too daft to be competant to pen such and article.

 

If they had written a balanced article then this would help young folk getting on the property ladder and make good choices when doing so.

 

It's click bate folks and winding you up!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 24 by Gus Potter