Brent Council has disclosed the Ridge Report to Wembley Matters following a Freedom of Information Request. It shows just how bad the condition of this 'new build' was. According to the Scrutiny Minutes, this report has never been discussed with Higgins Partners who built Granville New Homes, no redress has been sought, and Higgins is working on at least three contracts in the borough worth millions.
There have been a small number of redactions for personal/identifiable information. (Click on bottom right corner for full size)
Philip Grant has read the Ridge Report, and has commented:
If I remember correctly, Scrutiny Committee were told that the Ridge Report was commissioned by First Wave Housing, and that Brent Council were not informed about its findings until after FWH had received the Report.
The Ridge Report clearly states that the client was Brent Council AND First Wave Housing. So, on whose instructions was it commissioned, and who paid for it?
The Report says that it was commissioned because Brent Council and FWH were aware of many serious problems at Granville New Homes:-
'Brent Council & First Wave Housing have noted the below issues:
Water leaks resulting in severe damp and mould within the flats.
Rotting timber windows due to water leaks and severe condensation.
Roof capping defects allowing water to penetrate into the cavity behind the cladding.
Water ponding on the flat roofs.
Inadequate falls to the communal walkways resulting in water flooding the lift shafts.
Water tracking into the flats from the service ducts in the communal areas.
Cladding failure allowing water penetration through the walls.
Inadequate fall to the balconies allowing water to penetrate the flats through the doors.
Difficulty sourcing spare parts for remedial works to the windows.'
Claims that Brent Council were not aware of the serious problems until after the Ridge Report was received in May 2021 appear to be untrue.
After all, Brent Council's housing staff had been managing the GNH properties on behalf of FWH since 2017!
Cabinet decided to "consult" with the residents about the work which needs to be carried out. Has this been done yet?
People are living in these flats which were poorly designed, with many examples of poor workmanship by the builders who constructed them, both major contributors to the problems which now have to be put right.
The report says that a year should be allowed for the design, procurement and statutory consents needed for the remediation work, which itself is then likely to take around 18 months to carry out. I hope that Brent Council will get on with the job, and make sure it is done properly this time.
There appear to be some discrepancies between the Ridge Report above, and how it was presented to Cabinet on 11 October 2021, in a report signed off by Brent's Chief Executive.
The opening paragraph of the report to Cabinet members says:
'First Wave Housing (FWH) has commissioned a report from Ridge Consultants
to investigate water penetration, cladding, fire safety and window issues at
FWH’s Granville Road, Princess Road, and Canterbury Road blocks (otherwise
known as Granville New Homes). Ridge have recommended that works be
carried out at the blocks to remediate these issues. It is estimated that the cost of works will be £18.5m. This makes the FWH business plan unviable.'
This clearly states that fire safety was investigated as part of the Ridge Report; but the report itself (see bottom of page 24 of the document in the blog above) says:
'Fire safety matters, relating to the cladding have not been commented on in this report as they are excluded from the scope. From what was seen, during the opening up of the cladding, there are a number of issues which should be further investigated by a façade specialist and fire engineer. These include possible combustible insulation and seemingly a lack of cavity barriers within the cladding system. The cladding systems should be reviewed, from a fire safety perspective, as a matter of urgency.'
Page 26 of the Ridge Report gives the budget cost estimates of the work identified as a result of this consultant's investigations:
'TOTAL COSTS by block:
Granville Road East £2,185,000
Granville Road West £2,475,000
Peel Square £4,550,000
Pilgrims Corner £4,435,000
TOTAL £13,645,000'
Clearly, there is a difference between the £13.645m figure in the Ridge Report which has now been disclosed under FoI (and which was not made available to the members of the Audit or Scrutiny Committees, when they considered the problems and proposed solutions over Granville New Homes), and the £18.5m figure in the report to Cabinet.
Was there a second specialist report on the fire safety issues, with the estimated cost of that remediation making up the almost £5m difference between the two figures?
If not, what is the explanation for that difference?
And if there was a separate fire safety defects report, why was that not mentioned in the report to Cabinet, and why has that report not been disclosed to councillors, or made public?
6 comments:
If I remember correctly, Scrutiny Committee were told that the Ridge Report was commissioned by First Wave Housing, and that Brent Council were not informed about its findings until after FWH had received the Report.
The Ridge Report clearly states that the client was Brent Council AND First Wave Housing. So, on whose instructions was it commissioned, and who paid for it?
The Report says that it was commissioned because Brent Council and FWH were aware of many serious problems at Granville New Homes:-
'Brent Council & First Wave Housing have noted the below issues:
Water leaks resulting in severe damp and mould within the flats.
Rotting timber windows due to water leaks and severe condensation.
Roof capping defects allowing water to penetrate into the cavity behind the cladding.
Water ponding on the flat roofs.
Inadequate falls to the communal walkways resulting in water flooding the lift shafts.
Water tracking into the flats from the service ducts in the communal areas.
Cladding failure allowing water penetration through the walls.
Inadequate fall to the balconies allowing water to penetrate the flats through the doors.
Difficulty sourcing spare parts for remedial works to the windows.'
Claims that Brent Council were not aware of the serious problems until after the Ridge Report was received in May 2021 appear to be untrue.
After all, Brent Council's housing staff had been managing the GNH properties on behalf of FWH since 2017!
Cabinet decided to "consult" with the residents about the work which needs to be carried out. Has this been done yet?
People are living in these flats which were poorly designed, with many examples of poor workmanship by the builders who constructed them, both major contributors to the problems which now have to be put right.
The report says that a year should be allowed for the design, procurement and statutory consents needed for the remediation work, which itself is then likely to take around 18 months to carry out. I hope that Brent Council will get on with the job, and make sure it is done properly this time.
At my very first tutorial at the Vauxhall School of Building to become a building surveyor, I will always remember the course tutor saying "never buy a new Building, as it will always have defects, some of which might not appear for several years and I recommend that if you ever buy your first house, make sure it is at least 30 years since it was built, as hopefully by then all the defects will be known".
First a little bit of SK history, The SK NDC (Souh Kilburn New Deal for Communities) commissioned the construction of Thames Court in Albert Road and was ahead of it's time as it was built with 'a green agenda' around 2006/7. However the development cost 5 x times the current rate at that time to build new homes. So the NDC board commissioned Granville New Homes as their next project, but this project was to be constructed within strict financial measures.
The last NDC board meeting took place on the 7th July 2008 with succession passing to the South Kilburn Trust but they were not given a budget to build new homes and so the ownership of Granville New Homes was given to BHP (Brent Housing Parnership) who were an 'arms length management organisation' (ALMO) who managed Brent Council's Housing stock for them.
One of my disabled friends was decanted from Marshal House in Albert Road to his new all at one level ground floor flat at Granville New Homes and on my first visit to see his new flat, I must admit I was envious at seeing how lovely it looked. That was until he told me I could not use his bathroom, as it needed to be repaired and this was around 2012. He also surprised me with his comment that he wished he could go back to Marshall House, as he never had any problems there, whereas in his new home there were continuous problems to his bathroom but by then it was too late, as Marshall House had been demolished.
First Wave Housing took over Granville New Homes on the 11th October 2017 after BHP was dissolved on the 30th September 2017 and I assume there must be 'minutes' covering the transfer and a report into the structural condition of Granville New Homes must have been presented to the First Wave Housing board at one of their first board meetings, as it was their biggest asset at the time.
I have now read the report and come to the conclusion that Granville New Homes should be demolished. My reason for saying that is the estimated cost of repairs at £18.5M. only prevents water egress. There will be a lot of additional costs to deal with the cladding and other defects from what Inhave read.
Someone from Brent Council needs to justify why they are taking the repair route, rather than the demolishing of the whole site. In the long run these additional costs are likely to be several millions more and will First Wave Housing be able to pay for them? From my understanding of their current financial situation, the answer is no and they will need to get Brent Council to provide them with more funding.
There appear to be some discrepancies between the Ridge Report above, and how it was presented to Cabinet on 11 October 2021, in a report signed off by Brent's Chief Executive.
The opening paragraph of the report to Cabinet members says:
'First Wave Housing (FWH) has commissioned a report from Ridge Consultants
to investigate water penetration, cladding, fire safety and window issues at
FWH’s Granville Road, Princess Road, and Canterbury Road blocks (otherwise
known as Granville New Homes). Ridge have recommended that works be
carried out at the blocks to remediate these issues. It is estimated that the cost of works will be £18.5m. This makes the FWH business plan unviable.'
This clearly states that fire safety was investigated as part of the Ridge Report; but the report itself (see bottom of page 24 of the document in the blog above) says:
'Fire safety matters, relating to the cladding have not been commented on in this report as they are excluded from the scope. From what was seen, during the opening up of the cladding, there are a number of issues which should be further investigated by a façade specialist and fire engineer. These include possible combustible insulation and seemingly a lack of cavity barriers within the cladding system. The cladding systems should be reviewed, from a fire safety perspective, as a matter of urgency.'
Page 26 of the Ridge Report gives the budget cost estimates of the work identified as a result of this consultant's investigations:
'TOTAL COSTS by block:
Granville Road East £2,185,000
Granville Road West £2,475,000
Peel Square £4,550,000
Pilgrims Corner £4,435,000
TOTAL £13,645,000'
Clearly, there is a difference between the £13.645m figure in the Ridge Report which has now been disclosed under FoI (and which was not made available to the members of the Audit or Scrutiny Committees, when they considered the problems and proposed solutions over Granville New Homes), and the £18.5m figure in the report to Cabinet.
Was there a second specialist report on the fire safety issues, with the estimated cost of that remediation making up the almost £5m difference between the two figures?
If not, what is the explanation for that difference?
And if there was a separate fire safety defects report, why was that not mentioned in the report to Cabinet, and why has that report not been disclosed to councillors, or made public?
Have Higgins been contacted for comment - currently building in Islington as well as elsewhere in Brent.
Thames Court, Albert Road 2006 was by no means universally NDC Board supported as being the best use of precious New Deal for Community government regeneration funds on this estate. As with the Thames Court and Granville New Homes extreme costs it became many exciting regeneration themes no funds-THE END for community-led South Kilburn.
As John Healy comments Thames Courts build cost was five times above that of the actual build rate per unit at that time. So, a highly misleading build quality showcase for these regeneration SHOW HOMES for all estate residents to view regarding what future development would bring was the presentation made.
Especially bizarre this, when flats were already being built (among others by the likes of Sir Phillip Green) in South Kilburn Land and these could easily have sufficed to offer a free and cost real view of what new developer-led flats for estate residents would actually be like as homes.
Also Thames Court is five storeys, the build height residents wanted. How does a cancelled partnership masterplan 2004 replaced by a 'tall building zone' new vague plan fit in with this Thames Court SHOW HOME spend being in any way a true revelation of what developer-led has in store for South Kilburn Land?
Later Granville New Homes 2009, also NDC funds, was built on the Granville Road Public Open Space natural flood defence (one quarter being retained as a new invested in pocket park which is now also proposed to be privateer built on in the new developer-led Brent Local Plan).
Regarding the Ridge Reports scoping being to investigate water penetration 'investigating all aspects of the envelope', This Report mentions poor quality workmanship but fails to venture into rising damp and high ground water levels which surely add to these sick buildings problems?
The opaque developer now demanding to build on the renewed Granville Road Pocket Park may indeed be delighted by the adjacent Granville New Homes build fail and the potential site opportunity it presents, as in year 2009 there is no way they would ever have be able to build on the public owned entire giant scale Granville Road Public Open Space natural flood defences.
This is why the term Land War should apply to South Kilburn.
Post a Comment