A failing Airspace Scheme...

Not one of ours, we were approached by the tenants of the block(s) below. A quick coffee, listened to the project history and then a quick tour around the blocks and some of the flats which were directly under the construction site above.

Its a bit of a weird one for me because the overwhelming impression I got from the project was just how poor everything had been managed and approached from concept to site right now. The concerns from the residents could have been lifted verbatim from any HRB tenant, the only difference being this didn't classify as a HRB.

Its weird for me because the project team aren't wrong by the letter of the law, its just a very poor approach and execution. I should have been more shocked from what I saw, but this is the construction industry, its nothing we haven't seen before. I thought about competency of all involved, the client, design team, contractor, and I figured they either didn't care or weren't at the level to care. For example;

Post planning there has been very little communication between the developer/freeholder and tenants. Even when the tenants raised safety concerns (this crosses the threshold from 2a to 2b in A3 Building Regs), they got a high level waffle letter from the Structural Engineer that they didn't understand, but even they knew it sounded like waffle (it was).

They had fire concerns as well, but no correspondence from the Fire Engineer.

We spoke about what work was earmarked for the existing blocks - nothing that they knew of. You can't get a Material Change of Use scheme through Building Regs without making improvements to the existing building - or at least demonstrating the risk levels. So has that exercise been done? My guess was no, but the developer could also not have passed that info across if work was to be done on the existing block (poor from them), but are Building Control even asking these questions? Tenants did ask them but hit a brick wall in correspondence with them too, same with the HSE to a degree who didn't want to take on their concerns.

So this brings us onto the current condition of the building as works get underway above. Now, like anyone whose done their job for a while, you begin to spot what works and what doesn't pretty quick. Even from the ground I could see the structure was detailed in a non-standard way, it wasn't wrong, I'm sure it worked and they had calculations for it, but if that's got a question mark over it, what else have they done that's questionable?

As much as I could sit here and tear the SE a new one for missed work or a bad approach, the existing building is their get out of jail card. That thing is so strong and robust (in a traditional sense), that nothing will happen from a structural perspective. They'll move on, apply this approach to the next building and might not be so lucky next time - how can we say that is demonstrating competency?

And then we have the Contractor. They haven't thrown a scaffold roof over the project, and we know that will be because of lifting everything onto the site, but then how are they managing water ingress to the flats below? How are they keeping the existing building weather tight during the works. Because that water damage has now spread to two storeys down from the roof level, we saw mould, damp, high humidity levels, water coming through the risers and buckets everywhere - no one should be forced to live like that, even in the short term. And the one question that kept ringing through my head was 'how is this not making the existing building worse?'.

Building Regulations state we're not allowed to make the existing building any worse and one element of the site visit really got me thinking about this. It was longitudinal cracks forming in the concrete ceiling at roof level - most probably corrosion of the reinforcement which is expanding. Now I know that weakens the slab and shortens the life span of that structural element, so they're making the existing building worse through the works. That's not a allowed. Why aren't Building Control taking a harder line of this through their inspections?

But more importantly, how is that roof slab supposed to be remedied once the airspace scheme is finished above? It weighs a tonne, they only have access from the underside which is occupied and if they have weakened the roof slab, how much longer is that then safe? How to replace, make good? Will temporary works be needed, i.e. back-propping across all the floor below?

I know the developer / contractor would have made a cost assessment of placing a temporary roof over the site and making good any works. But how best to approach months of water ingress which weaken the walls and slab elements below that you are now heavily overstressing?

Lots of questions - need to think it all through.

And need to think this through from the tenant perspective too, because I did feel for them. Its daunting and worrying for them, not fully understanding everything, being faced with little to no information. The HRB regulations about communication were ringing in my ears again, along the with the re-definition of a HRB from the Grenfell report.

This was a poor site. I'm sure it will be celebrated as a success once it's complete, but far too many questions than answers coming from it. Can't see this being an example which helps the Airspace or Construction industry.