brighton & hove city council - whatdotheyknow · brighton & hove city council westmount...

Brighton & Hove City Council

1-32 Westmount Finsbury Road Feasibility Report Date : 06th November 2014 Ref : 1329 Revision : 1

Brighton & Hove City Council Westmount Feasibility Report

pod LLP – November 2014 P a g e | i

Copyright

© This report is the copyright of pod LLP. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person other than the addressee is strictly prohibited.

Limitation

This report has been produced by pod LLP for the sole use of Brighton & Hove City Council in accordance with the commission and brief of this project.

No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this Report or any other services provided by us. This report may not be used or relied upon by any other party without the prior and express written agreement of pod LLP.

The external survey in order to compile this report was carried out from ground level and no close up access to the elevations was provided. A further detailed survey of the building will need to take place once an access scaffold has been erected.


pod LLP – November 2014 P a g e | ii

Report Details

Carried out at: 1-32 Westmount Finsbury Road Brighton BN2 9WE

Prepared by: Andrew Kilford BSc (Hons) AMFPWS pod LLP Unit 1.3 13 The Leathermarket Weston Street London SE1 3ER Prepared for: Ms. Theresa Youngman Brighton & Hove City Council

1st Floor Brighton & Hove Housing Centre Unit 1 Fairway Trading Estate Eastergate Road Brighton BN2 4QL


pod LLP – November 2014 P a g e | 2

Contents

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 3-4

2. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 5

3. General Condition............................................................................................................................... 6-9

4. Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 10-11

5. In Flat Survey Results ...................................................................................................................... 12-13

6. Fabric Refurbishment Options ........................................................................................................ 14-15

7. Budget Estimate ............................................................................................................................. 16-17

8. Environmental Improvement Options................................................................................................. 18

9. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 19

Appendix A – Condition Photographs



1. Introduction pod LLP were appointed to survey and provide a report on the roof condition and external areas at Westmount, Finsbury Road. We were asked to identify any roof defects and make additional recommendations on the level of repairs required to bring the blocks up to a good standard of repair.

Finsbury Road is situated around half a mile from the seafront in Brighton, with the block being set over four floors, containing thirty two flats. The block appears to form part of a larger estate with Highden and Crown Hill, two independent blocks located directly adjacent. The three are of identical design and are likely to have been constructed at a similar time. pod LLP have also been asked to provide a survey of Highden, which is detailed out in a separate report.

In addition to the main body of the building, the block benefits from a small store which abuts the main building on its rear elevation. Situated within the rear amenity area is two brick built store buildings which are ancillary to the main building.

For the purpose of this report the front of the building shall be deemed to be facing west.

Detailed Brief

The client’s detailed brief requested that the following information be provided:

i. Carry out a survey to assess the condition of the roof and make necessary recommendations;

ii. Carry out a survey to assess the general condition of the external fabric of the building, prioritising those repairs needed to complete environmental improvements and immediate repairs affecting the integrity of the building.

iii. Make recommendations on reasonable environmental improvements to the building.

iv. Carry out a survey to assess the general condition of the landscaping, pathways, roadways of the estate.

v. Provide an estimate for any works recommended for client budgetary purposes.

Survey

The inspection of the external elements and a selection of flats was carried out on 20th October 2014.

The weather at the time of inspection was overcast and cold with some isolated showers.

The surveys were carried out by Andrew Kilford BSc (Hons) and Jason Paine BSc (Hons) MRICS on behalf of pod LLP.

Given the nature of works identified within this report it is not anticipated that a fire risk assessment will be required at this stage.

Construction of Westmount

Westmount is four stories in height and constructed using masonry cavity wall construction with concrete separating floors and roof. The external walls are constructed using a brickwork outer leaf and brickwork inner leaf; with four stair cores, all with entrances at ground floor level.

The roof consists of a concrete roof deck which has been retrospectively insulated and coated in a single layer felt waterproofing membrane. The roof is also populated with four brick built tank rooms and a series of brick built chimney stacks. Tank rooms are also of masonry cavity wall construction and have a concrete flat roof, coated in a single layer of asphalt; and timber panelled access doors out on to the roof space.

Typically chimney stacks are finished with a single brick soldier course and concrete coping stone, with flues met by a mix of terracotta, metal and potential asbestos cement terminals; bedded in concrete flaunching. Some chimney stacks have been over-clad in render, presumably to deal with historic leaks.



To the front of the block, main entrances benefit from a small projecting concrete canopy, providing storm shelter, the canopies are of concrete construction and have a single layer asphalt coating.

All flats located on the upper levels of the block benefit from a concrete balcony. There is a mix of both recessed and projecting balconies, all with galvanised steel balustrading; a decorative coat to soffits/exposed areas and a waterproofing asphalt layer under foot. Furthermore the block is served by a single storey store which adjoins the main building at its rear elevation; as well as two detached stores situated in the rear amenity space. All of the stores are constructed in solid masonry with an English brick bond, concrete flat roofs and timber windows/doors.

The windows to Westmount are generally double glazed white UPVC units; an exception to this is to windows serving common parts, where larger concrete framed, single glazed communal windows can be seen. Main entrance doors to the block are powder coated part glazed aluminium doors with glazed side panels. To the rear of the block are decorated solid timber doors providing access to the rear amenity area.

The main entrances to the front of Westmount are accessed via a tarmac driveway which wraps around the building to its Southern elevation, with associated parking directly opposite the front elevation. Concrete paths and steps provide direct access to the front entrance doors. The rear of the block is mostly laid to lawn with a concrete path adjoining the stair cores and the tarmacked area to the South elevation, where the block is secured by a galvanised steel chain link fence with concrete posts. The tarmac drive and path are separated by a steel gate with Yale Lock providing secure access.



2. Executive Summary

This report aims to identify and budget estimate the external repairs and improvements to the block at Westmount, Brighton.

The roof covering to both the main block and the single storey additions was seen to be in a state of disrepair with patch repairs having been made, along with plants and moss growth to the roof. This would suggest that the single ply waterproofing has reached the end of its useful life and may develop further leaks within the next five years.

Furthermore; the condition of the block is fair to poor with worn pointing and spalling brickwork. The windows are estimated to be in excess of twenty years old and in many instances are draughty, distorted and defective. Some glazing panes were misted indicating a breakdown of rubber gaskets and others subsequent penetration of water into the glazing units had occurred.

Spalling of brickwork at high level was also evident, along with a general degradation of pointing to chimney stacks and tank rooms which have contributed to leaks within flats on the upper floors. It is clear that the roof needs attention to prevent the development of further defects within flats, and to the structural integrity of the building.

The building is also suffering from spalling concrete to various areas, to include, roof soffits, coping stones, retaining walls and balcony soffits. Photographic evidence of these defects can be seen within Appendix A.

Within this report we have explored options for remedial works to the three key aspects of the building and in summary we have suggested the following:

Carry out general repairs to the fabric of the building and replace windows and doors to ensure structural stability and to maintain a safe, warm and dry environment for its occupants.

Replace existing defective roof covering with new insulated roof system and high performance three layer, felt waterproofing system.

Over-clad the external façade of the block with an insulated render system to reduce maintenance and improve thermal performance.

An insulated render system would vastly improve the thermal performance of the building. We have explored the potential improvements within both sections 5 &6 and a potential U-Value of 0.25W/m²K could be achieved to external walls; and when combined with replacement windows (1.6W/m²K) and a replacement roof (0.18W/m²K), the suggestions herein could greatly improve the quality of life for the buildings occupants and reduce heating bills.

In addition to the above there is also funding to be considered and in this regard we believe that under the Energy Companies Obligation (ECO) funding would be available for application of EWI and replacement windows to the block. It is suggested that the client explore alternative funding.



3. General Condition

Roof Areas

The roof to Westmount is in a poor condition with a number of defects noted. The current roof make up consists of a single layer felt waterproofing membrane, laid over 60mm cork and PIR insulation board; on a separating layer and the original asphalt covering. An inspection of the roof covering revealed areas of heavy moss, lichen and plant growth; as well as a number of patch repairs which is evidence of a general breakdown of the roof covering.

Rainwater to the roof is collected by outlets within the eaves overhang and discharged down the building in cast iron downpipes. It was apparent on inspection that the outlets were significantly undersized and could not cope with the level of water discharge. It is our opinion that the main roof has an expected life of around 5 years remaining.

The roof houses four brick built tank rooms and a series of chimney stacks. It is apparent that brickwork at high level has become extremely weathered with large areas of spalling brickwork and a general breakdown of brick pointing. A large amount of brickwork to high level has been re-pointed; however the new application has been applied directly on to the existing pointing; without the necessary raking out/preparation, which has led to new pointing failing. To other areas brickwork pointing is very poor with large portions missing and defective.

A number of chimney stacks have been retrospectively rendered, presumably to deal with historic leaks. The new render to stacks has been completed very poorly with no coping stone/finishing detail, which has led to moisture getting in behind the render and causing it to crack and de-bond. The felt up-stands to the chimney stacks and tank rooms have become defective given their age, and retrospectively overlaid with a lead apron flashing; however this has been poorly installed and is pulling out of its chase in the brickwork coursing. A number of potential asbestos cement flue terminals, and rusting metal terminals were seen serving chimney stacks and should be replaced.

The roofs to tank rooms consist of the original asphalt covering with concrete to soffits receiving a decorative coating. The condition of the asphalt to these roofs can be seen to be poor with heavy moss and lichen growth as well as some cracking noted to the asphalt.

The decorative coating to soffits has also failed which has left large areas of concrete exposed. This has resulted in concrete carbonation, which can also be seen to chimney coping stones, as well as the soffits of the main roof. Historic concrete repairs can also be seen to the main roof soffits, more specifically to the Southern end of the rear elevation.

The tank room doors consist of timber panelled double leaf units which are rotting, and swollen. Combined with rusting moving parts, this makes to doors extremely difficult to operate. Above the tank room doors; concrete boot lintels are seen which are covered in a decorative coating. To a number of lintels cracking is evident which suggests failure of the lintel and these should be replaced prior to any over-cladding work.

The single storey roofs to canopies and roofs to the stores within the rear amenity space consist of a concrete deck with asphalt covering. The majority can be seen as defective, with areas not benefiting from flashing details, sagging/cracked asphalt and excessive moss growth. Furthermore the store which abuts the main building on its rear elevation consists of an identical build up but has no flashing detail at its abutment with the main building, as well as large areas of missing asphalt, leaving areas of exposed concrete.

In summary the following defects were noted to roof areas:

Breakdown of single layer felt waterproofing membrane.

Breakdown/failure of up-stands and flashings.

Undersized rainwater outlets.



General degradation of high level brickwork and pointing.

Spalling concrete to roof soffits & chimney coping stones.

No roof edge protection.

Failure of concrete lintels to tank rooms.

External Elevations

Walls were considered to be in a satisfactory to poor condition, depending on their location, with the following defects noted.

Prior to carrying out our inspection; a section of wall was opened up to facilitate a proper inspection of the external elevations. An inspection of the walls confirmed a cavity wall construction; with 102mm external brickwork laid in stretcher bond, a 70mm insulated cavity (blown mineral wool) and a brickwork inner leaf. The opening up was carried out to an external wall enclosing a habitable space, and we would suspect that this construction would be uniform across the block. Whilst there was evidence of cavity fill to this area, it appeared retrospective; with drill holes in the brickwork. These holes were not seen anywhere else on the structure and therefore we cannot be certain that cavity fill is constant across the block.

Whilst it is noted that the building may benefit from cavity fill insulation, this construction still falls foul of the current Building Regulations. It could be stated that the thermal properties of the external walls are poor at an approximate U-Value of around 0.45W/m²K. Given that the height of the building exceeds three storeys, complete retrospective cavity fill may be difficult as it is officially classified as hard to treat. In addition to this, mineral wool insulation is not appropriate for coastal towns; especially where moisture is already present within the cavity/structure. Any retrospective cavity fill would likely be saturated, becoming ineffective and leaving bridges within the cavity. This building would therefore benefit from an insulated over cladding rendered scheme, which will greatly improve the thermal efficiency of the dwellings within.

Furthermore, the opening made within the structure presented a single wall tie. Given the size of the opening it was impossible to determine the pattern and spacing of wall ties, and it may be necessary to carry out further opening up to determine this fully. The wall tie surveyed had been retrospectively installed, which would indicate that the building has suffered from some form of wall tie failure historically. There was no distortion or rusting of the tie seen.

To the area where the opening was made, additional holes had been drilled, which appeared to be draining water from the structure. A subsequent internal reading of this area showed that the front/flank elevation appeared dry, however the rear/flank elevation gave high moisture readings. This may however, be due to an encroachment of the DPC externally which has resulted in penetrating damp.

The DPC material appeared to be in a satisfactory condition however it should be a clear 150mm from ground level, as described within the Building Regulations. There are sections to all elevations, where the DPC has either been breached or encroached upon. This is possibly a result of years of landscaping and composting by the residents, resulting in a build-up of ground levels; however clear disregard can be seen in areas where concrete paths/steps have been installed, probably by Brighton and Hove City Council; resulting in encroachment and breach of the DPC.

In addition the sub floor is ventilated at regular intervals by a series of terracotta air bricks. A number of these bricks have been blocked by spoil and would need to be reinstated or cleared, depending on their condition.

The openings within the structure typically do not benefit from cavity trays/weep holes; however some have been retrospectively installed to areas where lintels have been replaced – This will be discussed in greater detail within the ‘Windows & Doors’ section of this report. The absence of cavity trays/weep holes could present future problems with interstitial condensation, among other defects.



Whilst the brickwork appeared to be in a satisfactory condition, there was evidence of localised staining to a number of elevations on the block where overflow pipes have leaked historically. In addition, where new boiler extract flues have been installed, repairs to brickwork have been completed to a poor standard, with disregard for brick bonding and the use of what appears to be a weak mortar mix. A number of missing boiler flue terminals were seen to the front elevation. To the northern end of the front elevation; saturated brickwork can be seen beneath DPC. There is no evidence of this dampened brickwork above DPC; and this would indicate that the DPC material is of sound condition.

The brickwork pointing to all elevations of the block was considered poor, where defective and missing sections can be seen. There are small areas to the block, where re-pointing has been undertaken historically.

Balconies form an addition to all flats located above ground level. Quite heavy moss growth can be seen to the concrete balconies, along with a general degradation of the decorative coating, more specifically to soffits. There are clear signs of concrete carbonation to balcony soffits with exposed, corroding concrete reinforcement and cracks/blisters within the concrete. These cracks and blisters indicate early carbonation in other areas.

Galvanised steel balustrading can be seen to all balconies which has been covered in a decorative coating. The paint is flaking and missing to large areas and rusting/erosion of the steel has occurred; more prominently to the rear elevation of the block. Rust drips can be seen to balconies, again this is emphasised to the rear elevation. The asphalt covering under foot was also seen to be sagging and cracking.

All of the properties on the third floor now benefit from an alternate means of escape by way of metal escape stairs. We believe this to be linked with a retrospective review and implementation of the recommendations set out in Approved B (Fire Safety) of the Building Regulations, as they appear to have been installed fairly recently. The condition of the stairs appeared satisfactory with no evidence of rusting or erosion. The decorative coating to these stairs however, would benefit from redecoration as part of routine maintenance.

The rainwater to the roof is collected by inset outlets in the roof soffits and is discharged downwards in Cast Iron pipes. Whilst there was no heavy rain at the time of inspection, rainwater goods appeared to be free from defect with no leaks evident. The decorative coating was missing and flaking in large areas and rainwater goods would benefit from redecoration or replacement given their age.

A number of lead overflow pipes can be seen to all elevations which discharge into brick built gullies that have been coated in a sand cement render. Generally the render has deteriorated and is missing to large portions of the gullies.

In summary the following defects were noted to external elevations:

Carbonation of concrete to balcony soffits.

Rusting and erosion of balcony balustrades.

Underperforming external walls with regard to thermal insulation.

Breach and encroachment of the DPC in various locations.

Lack of cavity trays/weep holes.

Poor brick pointing along with poor quality brick repairs where flues exit the structure.

Retrospective cavity wall ties – We are not certain if these have been implemented elsewhere.

Windows & Doors

The existing windows are a mix of UPVC double glazed units to flats and concrete framed communal windows with fixed single glazed infill panes. From a visual inspection alone it is difficult to ascertain the exact age of the windows, but based on a review of their condition we anticipate them to be in excess of twenty years old, with the communal windows being a likely existing feature of the building.



The double glazed windows to flats have an angled double lapped creasing tile cill and the communal windows have a concrete cill with a weathered throat. All windows were seen to have concrete boot lintels which have no bearing onto the external brickwork and are reliant on bearing onto the internal skin. The suitability of the internal skin is unknown i.e. lightweight blocks are not suitable. All lintels were finished with a decorative paint covering. There were a number of windows, more prominently to the common parts on the front elevation, where diagonal cracking could be seen internally to heads of windows. This is an indication of either movement or lintel failure and is further reinforced by the appearance of replacement lintels, located sporadically across the block.

The main entrance doors to the block appear to have been installed fairly recently and consist of a powder coated aluminium entrance door with fixed glazed side panel, both set within a timber frame. Generally the entrance doors to the block were considered to be in a satisfactory condition warranting no immediate repair. To the rear of the block, common parts are served by solid timber doors providing access to the rear amenity areas. These doors are not linked to the blocks intercom system and are key operated. The doors themselves are dated, with a couple proving difficult to operate, likely due to swelling and some isolated rotting.

Those flats with rear access all have a UPVC door providing access to the rear amenity space or the balconies. Again it was difficult to ascertain the age of these doors, however based on their design and condition we anticipate them to be in excess of twenty years old. Internal review of these doors indicated a general degradation of the units which were all difficult to operate, with rusting moving parts. A number had also dropped leaving gaps within the frame; contributing to draughts which are causing discomfort to residents.

Generally doors and windows to the two detached store rooms were considered poor, with rotting of doors and frames evident.

A number of flats were inspected internally. A closer review of the doors and windows confirmed their condition as poor, with the following defects noted:

Moving parts to windows were generally very stiff, rusting and required some force to operate the window mechanism correctly. The operation of the windows for the elderly, infirm and disabled would be very difficult.

Numerous double glazed units have failed resulting in misting panes and condensation on the inside face of panes of glass.

A number of side and top hung casements had dropped, leaving them difficult to open or close and in some instances leaving gaps at the heads of windows where air leakage and draughts have presented issues. Some residents have installed draught strips themselves.

Door furniture was loose and rusting of the mechanisms within the door was evident, leaving them in an unsecure condition.

General Landscaping and Estate Areas

The external landscaping to Westmount is a combination of tarmac for parking, concrete paths and laid to lawn areas. Handrails to steps are metal with a decorative coating and the rear amenity space is bounded by a chain link fence and concrete posts with a steel door providing secure access. Generally the condition of concrete footpaths and tarmac is satisfactory with no significant defects noted. Handrails were also seen to be in a satisfactory condition, however would benefit from redecoration as part of routine maintenance.

There is a concrete retaining wall to the southern end of the front elevation which is flanked by a concrete ramp, providing access to a basement store room. There is evidence of concrete carbonation to this wall with exposed, rusting reinforcement.

Finally, the steel gate separating the rear amenity area has quite advanced rusting with erosion present to isolated areas.



4. Recommendations

In order to bring his building to a good state of repair we would recommend the following works:

Roof Areas

Renew all roof coverings to the building, including insulation to the main roof, given the condition as referred to above.

Carry out concrete repairs, felt only overlay and decoration of eaves to tank rooms.

Carry out concrete repairs to roof soffits and decorate in a protective and faring coat.

Replace concrete lintels above tank room doors.

Replace tank room doors and frames in full.

Render all high level brickwork to prevent further degradation of brickwork/pointing.

Increase the size of rainwater outlets to roof.

Renew all rainwater goods and provide rainwater gullies.

Install felt only overlay and flashing aprons to new felt upstands to all low level roof areas.

Provide a fall arrest system or install roof edge protection.

External Elevations

Allow for brick cleaning and repairs to all elevations and repoint all elevations of the block with a suitable mortar mix and a clean bucket handle joint.

Installation of External Wall Insulation system to all elevations of the block. Subject to suitability of structure and wall tie inspection.

Excavate to perimeter of building and remove foliage/plants to ensure a 150mm clear gap between ground level and DPC. Provide perimeter edging and pea shingle.

Carry out concrete repairs to balcony soffits.

Replace all balcony balustrades.

Redecorate all previously decorated surfaces, exposed concrete areas to be treated with a faring coat and protective coating.

Reinstate sand cement render to overflow gullies.

Windows & Doors

Replace all concrete windows to communal areas with a UPVC or aluminium alternative.

Replace all UPVC windows and external doors within the block. With the exception of main entrance doors.

Reinstate concrete lintels to all windows. Will require a thorough detailed review of windows to identify necessary replacements.

General Landscaping & Estate Areas

Redecorate handrails, allow for priming and coating in anti-corrosion paint i.e. Dulux Metalshield.

Renew side entrance gate with hot dip galvanised steel replacement and locking mechanism. Allow for priming and coating in anti-corrosion paint i.e. Dulux Metalshield.



Replace concrete posts and fencing in full with replacement to match existing.

Carry out concrete repairs to retaining wall providing access to basement store.



5. In Flat Survey Results

Whilst on site, access was available to a selection of flats. The flats appeared to be in a reasonable condition although there was evidence of some defects/issues, which are listed below.

Flat 15 Westmount [Block 9-16]

Description

The property is located on the third floor of the block (top floor), and benefits from three bedrooms, kitchen, bathroom, W.C. and living room. An external door from one of the bedrooms provides access to a balcony located on the front elevation.

The property was covered quite heavily by occupant’s belongings, which made inspection of some areas difficult.

Defects Noted

Severe damp where a historic leak had occurred to the chimney breast in both the living room and kitchen. Subsequent works claim to have dealt with the issue; however the tenant is still experiencing issues with saturated plaster and mould growth. Damp readings around the chimney breast were seen to be consistent at 999/999.

A number of glazing panes have blown with misted panes.

Kitchen extract fan is dated and warrants replacement.

No extract fan to W.C.

Door providing access to the balcony has dropped with clear gaps evident. Tenant has installed draught strips.

No fire collars to pipework.


Description

The property is located on the ground floor of the block, and benefits from a single bedroom, kitchen, bathroom, W.C. and living room. The property has external access via a communal door within the common parts.

Defects Noted

No ventilation mechanical or otherwise to kitchen or bathroom. This has contributed to condensation around window reveals with black mould present.

Damp smell coming from kitchen units (on hallway partition wall), base unit back plate prevented a thorough inspection.

Central side hung casement to bay window in the living room has dropped and is difficult to operate/close properly.

Rubber gaskets to windows have failed generally.

External yard gully directly outside the flat has no cover and is full of debris which causes it to frequently overspill in heavy rain.

No fire collars to pipework.




Description

The property is located on the first floor of the block and benefits from two bedrooms, kitchen, bathroom and living room. An external door from one of the bedrooms provided access to a balcony located on the rear elevation.

Defects Noted

No ventilation mechanical or otherwise to kitchen or bathroom. This has contributed to condensation around window reveals with black mould present.

Handle to rear balcony door is very loose, moving parts were seen to be rusting.

Area of damp located above the rear balcony door; likely a result of poor pointing/detailing around the lintel.

A number of casements to windows have dropped making their operation difficult.


Description

The property is located on the third floor (top floor) of the block and benefits from two bedrooms, kitchen, bathroom, and living room. An external door from one of the bedrooms provided access to a balcony located on the rear elevation.

Defects Noted

Rear balcony door is rusting quite significantly making its operation and locking mechanism difficult to use.

Excessive rusting and erosion noted to balcony balustrading.


Description

The property is located on the ground floor of the block and benefits from a single bedroom, kitchen, bathroom, W.C. and living room. The property has external access via a communal door within the common parts.

Defects Noted

Rising/penetrating damp to the rear/flank wall abutment in the living room. Readings were consistent at low level at 999/999.

Issues with SVP blockages.



6. Fabric Refurbishment Options

External Façade

Given the earlier survey notes regarding the external fabric of the building we believe that there are two general repair approaches, these being:-

Option 1 – General Repairs

The first option would be to carry out general repairs based on the refurbishment of the existing external elements of the building, to areas identified in a poor condition as per the previous sections within this report. This is with a view to extend the life of the property but not to include for any thermal improvements to the building. Works would include the following:

Redecorating works and concrete repairs.

Brickwork repairs to include repointing and making good.

Replacement external windows and doors.

Replacement rainwater goods.

Roof replacement and associated works.

We believe these works to be the minimum required to bring the blocks back into an acceptable state of repair. The benefit of such limited works is primarily a reduced budget, with the main disadvantage being that the key issue of heat loss is not addressed. The residents experience excessive heat loss in the winter and the installation of an insulated render system addresses this, as well as reducing maintenance to the external façade of the block in future years.

The cost of the repairs option is difficult to quantify at feasibility stage but could quite easily be similar to that of the over cladding system, especially as health and safety regulations would dictate that these works could only be carried out safely with a full access system, whereas the over cladding could be carried out using mast climbers that are cheaper to install and use. This would be further enhanced by the fact that the repairs to the build would attract no grant funding unlike the insulated render system.

The approximate budget cost of these works is detailed further in Section 7 of this report.

Option 2 – General Repairs and EWI

The second option would be to carry out repairs based on refurbishment of the existing external elements in addition to cladding the external walls with a system incorporating insulation that improves the thermal performance of the building fabric. This option will help to eradicate the instances of condensation whilst protecting the external brickwork, reducing the need for future maintenance; to include the following:

Redecorating works and concrete repairs.

Replacement external windows and doors.

Replacement rainwater goods.

Roof replacement and associated works.

These works we believe offer the client and residents a far better solution to problems that currently affect the estate, namely condensation, heating of the building (in part) and protection of the brickwork that currently requires continual repairs.

The benefit of such works would be to provide a thermal barrier to the buildings raising the U value to 0.25W/m2K and reducing significantly the effects of condensation within the dwellings. The repairs needed to repair and repoint the brickwork could be left untreated and enclosed within the new



insulated render system. The applied render system would then protect the façade from further deterioration.

Such works would also attract a level of funding for the scheme, and whilst the exact level of funding is yet to be defined we believe that this could pay for a significant level of the works. Past experience shows that this could be in the region of 30-40% of the thermal improvement costs.

The external over cladding system will have a 25 year warranty thus significantly reducing the council’s life cycle costing for maintenance of these buildings. If the buildings were to be repaired only, as Option 1, then it is likely that the remaining areas of the buildings would deteriorate at a similar rate to that of the existing. Due to the cladding warranty any defects noted within the next 25 years will be carried out at nil cost to the council (unless malicious damage or poor maintenance etc.).

The cost of the repairs option is difficult to quantify at feasibility stage but could quite easily be similar than that of the over cladding system, especially as health and safety regulations would dictate that these works could only be carried out safely with a full access system, whereas over cladding can be completed via mast climbers that are cheaper to install and use. This would be compounded by the fact that repairs to the build would attract no grant funding unlike the insulated cladding.

The approximate budget cost of these works is detailed further in Section 7 of this report.



7. Budget Estimate

Below is a budget estimate for works to the fabric of the each building based upon the works identified within this report. This Budget Estimate is for works cost only and does not allow for specialist and professional fees, local authority fees, general asbestos removal, or VAT.

Item Work Element Option 1 Option 2

WESTMOUNT

1.0 ROOF AREAS

1.1 Renew all roofs to the building. £90,000.00 £90,000.00

1.2 Concrete repairs to soffits/copings £4,500.00 £4,500.00

1.3 Carry out repairs to high level brickwork £4,500.00 £4,500.00

1.4 Replace concrete lintels above tank room doors & replace doors and frames in full.

£6,000.00 £6,000.00

1.5 Render all high level brickwork to include tank rooms and chimney stacks.

£9,000.00 £9,000.00

1.6 Increase size of rainwater outlets Inc. Roof alterations Inc. Roof alterations

1.7 Renew all rainwater goods and provide rainwater gullies at ground level.

£12,000.00 £12,000.00

1.8 Provide fall arrest system or roof edge protection.

£14,000.00 £14,000.00

Subtotal item 1.0 £140,000.00 £140,000.00

2.0 EXTERNAL ELEVATIONS

2.1 Install full independent scaffold access/mast climbers.

£89,000.00 £89,000.00

2.2 Install an External Wall Insulation System & render store rooms.

- £358,250.00

2.3 Carry out brickwork/render repairs and clean and repoint brickwork.

£70,000.00 -

2.4 Excavate to perimeter of building; install perimeter edging and pea shingle.

£25,000.00 £25,000.00

2.5 Carry out concrete repairs to balcony soffits and redecorate all exposed concrete.

£8,000.00 £8,000.00

2.6 Replace all defective balustrades, decorate and allow for decoration of escape stairs.

£24,000.00 £24,000.00

2.7 Liquid plastic coating to balconies. £16,000.00 £16,000.00

2.8 Install mechanical extract to Kitchens and Bathrooms

£12,000.00 £12,000.00

Subtotal item 2.0 £244,000.00 £532,250.00

3.0 WINDOWS & DOORS

3.1 Renew all windows to flats/elevations £120,000.00 £120,000.00

3.2 Replace lintels to windows (50% of block) £37,500.00 £37,500.00



3.3 Renew all balcony doors. £25,000.00 £25,000.00

3.4 Renew rear communal doors. £7,000.00 £7,000.00

3.5 Replace doors to store rooms. £2,500.00 £2,500.00

Subtotal item 3.0 £192,000.00 £192,000.00

4.0 LANDSCAPING AND ESTATE AREAS

4.1 Carry out concrete repairs to retaining wall. £1,250.00 £1,250.00

4.2 Replace side gate & lock £1,750.00 £1,750.00

4.3 Replace concrete fence posts and fencing. £5,000.00 £5,000.00

4.4 Redecorate handrails. £1,250.00 £1,250.00

Subtotal item 4.0 £9,250.00 £9,250.00

5.0 TOTAL WORKS COST £585,250.00 £873,500.00

6.0 SUMMARY

6.1 Total Works Cost £585,250.00 £873,500.00

6.2 Preliminaries and Management £111,197.50 £165,965.00

6.3 Contingency (5%) £29,262.50 £43,675.00

6.4 Fees (5%) £29,262.50 £43,675.00

6.5 Overheads (5%) £29,262.50 £43,675.00

6.6 Profit (5%) £29,262.50 £43,675.00

TOTAL OPTIONS BUDGET COSTS £813,497.50 £1,214,165.00



8. Environmental Improvements The current construction of Westmount will fall far short of the current Building Regulations in terms of heat loss. To alleviate this issue and bring the building to meet with current regulations; in this regard the most practical treatment is to over clad the building using an insulated render system.

As previously mentioned, the inspected cavity consists of 102mm brickwork laid in stretcher bond, an insulated 70mm cavity and a brickwork internal skin, which we assume measures 102mm. There was evidence of retrospective cavity fill to the block to specific areas. It cannot be assumed that the insulation is uniform across the block, however even if the entire block benefits from retrospective insulation which is unlikely, it would still fall foul of the current Building Regulations with a U-Value of around 0.45W/m²K. The size of the building means that the cavity is generally difficult to treat with blown mineral wool type insulation. Therefore the most practical method of improving the thermal performance of walls is through the installation of an insulated render system.

An insulated render system would produce improved performance to Westmount leading to an approximate reduction of thermal leakage of 35% through the external façade of the building (figure taken from standard industry literature). We have calculated the existing U-Value to be in the region of 1.5W/m²K. The installation of an insulated render system could considerably improve the current situation and exceed the Building Regulations requirements by achieving around 0.25W/m²K with a reputable external wall insulation system of a suitable thickness.

The replacement roof and windows would also contribute to the thermal improvements of the building and all done concurrently; the finished product would significantly improve the performance of the building, providing a new thermal shell to the block. We anticipate the existing roof U-Value to be in the region of 0.48W/m²K. Subject to replacement, the new roof would achieve 0.18W/m²K and windows 1.6W/m²K, meeting the current Building Regulations.

Carbon saving will be achieved through this installation, however the exact saving can only be accurately calculated whilst taking to consideration the building and its occupants use as a whole. We would suggest that carbon savings calculations be carried out by a specialist consultant following agreement on a preferred option, this will save the Client abortive fees.

The client may additionally consider the installation of PV panels to the roof at Westmount.

The benefits of a PV installation to these buildings would be:

1. The electricity produced could be fed into the communal electricity supply, thus reducing the service charge costs to the client and the residents.

2. The client would benefit from the feed in tariff rebate for the system.

3. The client would be seen to be adopting eco technologies which are proven to work and pay back over a reasonable period.



9. Conclusion

In conclusion, we confirm that whilst the building facades are generally in a poor condition, some repairs, possibly in combination with a rendered over cladding system, can be carried out in order to bring the buildings up to a good state of repair and improve their thermal performance.

The recommended repairs noted within this report will ensure that the blocks are wind and water tight and the works will extend the life of the buildings whilst also looking aesthetically pleasing.

With regards to flat roof coverings, and as noted above, the original roof coverings have shown signs of degradation and following core sampling we believe the estimated life expectancy of the current system to be up to 5 years. Given this we have therefore recommended a new high performance felt system be installed to the building.

As noted above other elements of the building have reached the end of their useful life and will require wholesale replacement I.e. windows, doors etc.

Some minor concrete repairs, as well as brickwork repointing are necessary to mitigate any further deterioration. We would recommend that any exposed concrete has a faring coat and protective coating to reduce the future spalling and corrosion of the underlying reinforcement. In addition the installation of an insulated render system will further improve the heat loss through the structure of the building and will perform to a greater standard than the current Building Regulation U-Value.

The application of a new roof, in combination with new windows and doors and the potential installation of an external insulated render system would not only further the life of the building but would also ensure and promote a better standard of living for the occupants therein. Ultimately reducing instances of condensation as well as reducing fuel bills and preventing further degradation of the structure.

Signed:

Andrew Kilford BSc (Hons) For and on behalf of pod LLP

Date: 6th November 2014



Appendix A

Condition Photographs



Photo 1 Photo 2 Spalling concrete to basement retaining wall. Breach of DPC and staining of brickwork.

Photo 3 Photo 4 Evidence of retrospective cavity fill. Rusting/rust drips to balcony balustrading.



Photo 5 Photo 6 Evidence of rusting to door mechanisms. Encroachment of DPC & poor brick pointing.

Photo 7 Photo 8 Rust drips to balconies/poor brick pointing. Rotting frame and door to store rooms.



Photo 9 Photo 10 Spalling of concrete soffits/exposed reinforcement. Spalling of concrete frame to window.

Photo 11 Photo 12 Spalling of brickwork/retrospective pointing. Cracking/blistering of render to chimney stack.



Photo 13 Photo 14 Spalling of concrete coping stone . Potential asbestos cement flue terminal.

Photo 15 Photo 16 Damp to Flat 15. Damp to Flat 15.



Contact details

Andrew Kilford BSc (Hons) AMFPWS pod LLP Unit 1.3 13 The Leathermarket Weston Street London SE1 3ER

Telephone: 02031 765 590 Mobile: 07736 298 666

Email: [email protected] Web: www.podpartnership.com

brighton & hove city council - whatdotheyknow · brighton & hove city council westmount...

Documents