Building Surveying Journal May-June 2016

Incorporating Building Conservation Journal

Building Surveying Journal

The bigger picture Time to rethink flooding strategies PG.

18

The whole story

Shaping the future

BUILDING CONSERVATION

An holistic approach to damp diagnosis

The built environment in the year 2030

Different views vary outcomes

PG.

8

16

PG .

Philosophies of repair PG.

28

May/June 2016

rics.org/journals

RICS B U I L DI N G SURV E YI N G J OURN A L

A DV E RTI S I N G

Kemperol® Liquid roofing and waterproofing at its very best

Ideal for roof refurbishment, repair and new build roofing projects.

Kemperol® is a cold liquid application removing the fire risk of hot works.

With BBA Approval and expected life in excess of 25 years your roofing budget will never be better spent.

Complete solvent free and odourless waterproofing systems available that can be laid whilst the building is operational - Ideal for schools, hospitals and offices. Have the work done when you want it or need it.

Laid in a single wet-on-wet process to form a totally seamless, durable, fleece reinforced, UV stable, elastomeric waterproofing membrane that cannot delaminate.

For more information visit www.kempersystem.co.uk

KEMPER SYSTEM LTD. Kemper House, 30 Kingsland Grange Woolston, Warrington, Cheshire United Kingdom WA1 4RW Tel: 01925 445532 Fax: 01925 575096 enquiries@kempersystem.co.uk

Kemperol Liquid Waterproofing

A COMPANY THAT OFFERS EASY ACCESS TO THOSE DIFFICULT TO REACH PLACES! WHY HELIDRONE SURVEYS?

C

M

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

Spains Hall, Finchingfield

K

HeliDrone Surveys Limited specialise in aerial photographic surveys utilising a remote controlled drone, which is particularly useful where access by conventional methods is expensive, disruptive, inconvenient or time consuming. Our services are predominantly used for roofs, high level elevations and panoramic landscapes. High resolution photographs can be issued electronically within hours and can be zoomed to achieve a very detailed image of the surface.

The benefits of using us are: minimal disruption, reduced health and safety concerns and reduced time on-site in comparison to scaffolding or cherry pickers. Our drones also have the added benefit of being environmentally friendly.

Please call 01279 874379 or email info@helidronesurveys.co.uk for more information.

• Low cost • High resolution images can be issued electronically within hours • Low health & safety risk • Minimal disruption • No scaffolding • No cherry pickers • Environmentally friendly

www.helidronesurveys.co.uk

To ad ve rtise con t a c t Em m a Ke n n e dy +4 4( 0 ) 20 7 8 7 1 5 7 3 4 or emmak@wearesu nday. c om 2 m aY/ J U N E 2 0 1 6

C O NTENTS

RI CS Building surveying JOUR NAL

Incorporating Building Conservation Journal

Building Surveying Journal

The bigger picture Time to rethink flooding strategies PG.

The whole story

Shaping the future

An holistic approach to damp diagnosis

The built environment in the year 2030

PG.

8

16

PG .

18

BUILDING CONSERVATION

Philosophies of repair Different views vary outcomes PG.

May/June 2016

rics.org/journals

28

Front cover: ©Shutterstock

contents 4 Adapting to change

BU I L DI N G S URVE YING JOU R NAL

Alex Charlesworth reflects on the Building Surveying Conference and the professional group board’s business plan

20 Rise of the new

Editor: Barney Hatt T +44 (0)20 7695 1628 E bhatt@rics.org

5 Update

22 Positional sense

The Building Surveying Journal is the journal of the Building Surveying Professional Group

6 Securing a sustainable future

CON TAC TS

Advisory group: Gary Blackman (Lambert Smith Hampton), Alan Cripps (RICS), Sukhjeet Dosanjh (Watts Group), Brad Hook (National Energy Foundation), Mat Lown (Tuffin Ferraby Taylor), Patricia Newman, Trevor Rushton (Watts Group), Chris Skinner (Savills), Roger Stanton (Tuffin Ferraby Taylor), Andy Tookey (Baily Garner), Terry Walker (Walker Associates Ltd).

The Building Surveying Journal is available on annual subscription.

All enquiries from non-RICS members for institutional or company subscriptions should be directed to: Proquest – Online Institutional Access E sales@proquest.co.uk T +44 (0)1223 215512 for online subscriptions or SWETS Print Institutional Access E info@uk.swets.com T +44 (0)1235 857500 for print subscriptions To take out a personal subscription, members and non-members should contact licensing manager Louise Weale E lweale@rics.org BU I L DI N G C O N S E RVAT ION JOU R NAL Editor: Robert Mallett T +44 (0)20 7695 1533 E rmallett@rics.org The Building Conservation Journal is the journal of the Building Conservation Forum Building Conservation Forum Board contact: Frank Keohane (Paul Arnold Architects) Published by: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Parliament Square, London SW1P 3AD T +44 (0)24 7686 8555 W www.rics.org ISSN 1750-1032 (Print) ISSN 1759-3387 (Online) Editorial and production manager: Toni Gill Sub-editor: Matthew Griffiths Designer: Nicola Skowronek Creative director: Mark Parry Advertising: Emma Kennedy T +44(0)20 7871 5734 E emmak@wearesunday.com Design by: Redactive Media Group Printed by: Page Bros While every reasonable effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of all content in the journal, RICS will have no responsibility for any errors or omissions in the content. The views expressed in the journal are not necessarily those of RICS. RICS cannot accept any liability for any loss or damage suffered by any person as a result of the content and the opinions expressed in the journal, or by any person acting or refraining to act as a result of the material included in the journal. All rights in the journal, including full copyright or publishing right, content and design, are owned by RICS, except where otherwise described. Any dispute arising out of the journal is subject to the law and jurisdiction of England and Wales. Crown copyright material is reproduced under the Open Government Licence v1.0 for public sector information: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence

Sean Tompkins discusses RICS input into a major international climate conference

7 Special foundations

Michael Cooper discusses the implications of a recent party walls case

8 The whole story

Michael Parrett looks at some causes of damp and reminds surveyors to take an holistic approach to diagnosis

10 Significant oversights

Simone West identifies ten often overlooked items in new developments that can dramatically affect ease of access and use

11 Not so unpredictable

The UK’s first amphibious house is leading the way in flood-resistant design, as Richard Coutts explains

Laurence Cobb considers the liabilities of project monitors and construction professionals, plus the validity of liquidated and ascertained damage provisions

23 Legal Q&A

Legal experts answer common queries

24 Special portfolio

Robert Ballantyne describes the challenges of working on a major portfolio of building surveys in Denmark

26 Managing your maintenance

The optional maintenance management competency draws on a number of other skillsets, explains Ewan Craig BUILDIN G CO N SERVATION J O URN A L

Checking records is essential to identify areas that are prone to sinkholes before development starts, as Clive Edmonds explains

12 In demand

Mark Hampson explains how vital the role of the specialist dilapidations surveyor now is

14 Living with change

Tom Makokha makes the case for prioritising diversity to help meet the challenges of globalisation

16 Shape of the future

Dan Cook and Chevon Erasmus Porter explore what the built environment sector will look like in 2030

18 The bigger picture

Alan Cripps says it is time to rethink flooding strategies

19 A risky business

Jessica Lamond and Namrata Bhattacharya-Mis look at the impact of flooding on businesses

27 Opinion

We need to make sure that tradition has a future, insists John Edwards

28 The philosophies of repair

Dr Alan Forster discusses how the outcome of a historic repair project can be moulded by subjectivity and differing philosophical perspectives

32 Looking after our heritage

Cathie Cook explains how the NHTG are opening up new opportunities for specialist heritage craft skills training

34 Heritage update

m ay/ june 2 0 1 6 3

RICS B U I L DI N G SURV E YI N G J OURN A L

CH A I R M A N S C O L U M N

OPINION Alex Charlesworth reflects on the Building Surveying Conference and the professional group board’s business plan

Adapting to change

T This year’s RICS Building Survey­ing Confe­rence built on previous years’ successes by relocating to one of London’s prime conference centres, allowing even greater numbers to attend.

My thanks to the working group responsible for organising the event, which was led by Nicola Williams, Kevin Thomas, Anthony Walker and RICS. The Building Surveying Professional Group Board (BSPGB) uses the conference to focus on salient, current issues in our sector. It is designed, where possible, to challenge views and encourage discussion.

One of the highlights each year is the review of economic and market trends and this year’s, delivered by RICS Chief Economist Simon Rubinsohn, was no exception.

While our sector continues to see growth and demand for our services, there are rumblings of thunder. Recent 4 May / J U N E 2 0 1 6

turbulence on the London stock exchange prompted by the situation in China, a global slowdown in growth and the UK’s potential exit from the EU are all part of this. Let us not forget, market downturns usually occur in seven-year cycles – our last, of course, being in 2008.

Building information modelling Although it must seem as if we have read much on the subject of building information modelling (BIM), there is still a lack of understanding about what it can do for our industry.

This is because discussions around BIM have focused on what it does for large developments rather than addressing its everyday use, in particular how it can help building surveying.

The BIM session at the conference focused on the more practical aspects. It is not only about 3D CAD, it is also about bringing professionals together to work on a single, collaborative platform. It may be easier to conceive of BIM as electronic files that are shared, exchanged and worked on collaboratively through cloud storage.

Think of these files as telling the whole story of the building, from design and

construction to occupation: operating and maintenance manuals, design data for each component, refurbishments and so on are all documented and accessible.

Imagine how useful this will be during the construction phase or when undertaking building inspections, facilities management, refurbishments, reinstatement cost assessments, dilapidations and so on. Think how far technology has come in ten years, and imagine how far it is going to go in the next ten.

BIM will certainly become part of our professional lives, and maybe sooner than you think.

CDM Regulations The changes in Construction, (Design and Management) (CDM) Regulations also featured prominently on the agenda for the conference, as we are adapting to our role as principal designers and developing our understanding of these regulations’ more onerous implications.

It is not just our sector that has been affected, as many more professions are now having to consider the regulations. For example, even set designs for theatre or television now have to comply!

At least our sector has been used to CDM Regulations for some time. We just need to make adaptations, not sweeping changes.

As with previous years, we also held a panel session at the end of the day. This year’s focus was recruitment and the skills shortage; although this is associated with buoyant salaries, commercial pressure

is still suppressing fee levels. I have spoken out about these issues a number of times before as they are a concern for our profession.

Board business plan If you have not yet read the Building Surveying Professional Group Board Business Plan 2016–2019, I would urge you to do so. It provides an informed view of the issues facing our profession, and what the BSPGB is doing to tackle them (http://bit.ly/1Tqwf7s).

The BSPGB has a firm commitment to focus its energies on the plan, and has set out its strategy clearly.

Unlike normal business plans, which sit on the shelf and are dusted off every 12 months, the strategy has been adapted into an action plan, with associated board members allocated responsibility for completing actions before each quarterly meeting to ensure the strategy is advanced.

I will continue to update you as to the BSPGB’s progress and as always, if you have any feedback, wish to volunteer or want to offer any market insights, please do contact me. C

Alex Charlesworth FRICS is Chairman of the Building Surveying Professional Group BuildingSurveying ProfessionalGroup@rics.org

RI CS Building surveying JO UR NAL

UPDATE

UPDATE Shake your foundations

In brief...

Connected technology

Diversity and inclusion conference

The first amendment to party wall legislation in 20 years means that it is now possible to serve statutory notices and awards by email. The Party Wall etc. Act 1996 (Electronic Communications) Order 2016 was published by the Department for Communities and Local Government on 10 March and is the first amendment to the act since it came into force nationally in July 1997. Existing methods of issuing documentation and service will continue to remain available. n http://bit.ly/1bsc5XS

The National House Building Council Foundation has published its report The connected home: designing and building technology in today’s homes, which points out that wireless connection can be adversely affected by the number of devices simultaneously using the domestic network and by wifi from neighbouring properties. The home’s size and geometry can restrict wireless coverage throughout, while certain construction materials such as light steel framing and foil-backed plasterboard can limit transmission. n http://bit.ly/200YejI

Flooding

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has announced how to apply for flood repair grants of up to £5,000, which have been made available to residents and businesses affected by the winter storms. n http://bit.ly/1KWtN7n The Environment Agency is using a remote-controlled robot to investigate causes of flooding such as blocked tunnels and underground culverts that people cannot reach.

The 30kg robot fits into spaces as small as 155mm in diameter and uses its camera to inspect underground tunnels more than a mile long. n http://bit.ly/1Tj6CU1

Inclusive environment CPD

The UK government has asked industry professionals to develop an inclusive environment CPD module via the Design Council. Inclusive environments are places that work better for all, and include buildings, parks, roadways, stations and bus routes.

By approaching planning, design and management with an inclusive environment in mind, professionals can create places that reflect the diversity of the people who are likely to use them, and are the responsibility of all those working in the built environment. n For more information, contact Alan Cripps, RICS Associate Director of the Built Environment, acripps@rics.org

Publications

Standards and guidance notes

Alexander Aronsohn, RICS Director of Technical International Standards and Executive Secretary of the International Property Measurement Standards (IPMS) Standards Setting Committee, has written an update on RICS IPMS progress in Property Journal May/June. n www.rics.org/uk/news/journals/ property-journal RICS has also published Health and safety for residential property managers and Rights of Light 2nd edition guidance notes. n http://bit.ly/207P8Sk n http://bit.ly/1T7xrNT

RICS has published its London Manifesto 2016: Vision for London report ahead of the capital’s mayoral elections in May, which calls on the future incumbent to donate land to self-starting community housebuilders, and The future of policy and standards for zero and low carbon homes research report, which was written in the light of the 2012 Housing Standards Review and recently withdrawn 2016 zero carbon target. n http://bit.ly/24motki n http://bit.ly/1TKFmQt

29 June, London

Join industry peers for a day of knowledge-sharing and practical workshops, including sessions on the RICS Inclusive Employer Quality Mark online self-assessment tool, and the organisation’s State of the Profession report. n www.rics.org/divconf

RICS Dilapidations Forum Conference 22 September, London

Book early to avoid disappointment n www.rics.org/dfc

RICS training and events 18 May, London

Dilapidations: leases explained (part 2) n www.rics.org/dilapsleases2 7 June, London

Carbon management in the built environment n www.rics.org/carbonbuilt 28 June, London

Fundamentals of managing asbestos n www.rics.org/asbestos

RICS Online Academy 18 May

Cracking and structural movement: identification and treatment n www.rics.org/cracking 2 June

Building pathology competency masterclass n www.rics.org/buildingpath

May/ J U N E 2 0 1 6 5

RICS B U I L DI N G SURV E YI N G J OURN A L

CL I M ATE C H A N GE

Securing a sustainable future

T

Sean Tompkins discusses RICS input into a major international conference

he history of dealing with climate change is hardly a tale of unambiguous, ambitious leadership.

Nineteen years after the landmark Kyoto Protocol was signed, global temperatures have continued to rise and the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has reached its highest level in more than a million years. Oceans are becoming dangerously acidic and sea levels are going to rise, even if we all stopped burning carbon tomorrow. With much of the world’s population living in coastal areas, the consequences will be significant. Climate change is often seen as an environmental issue, a concern for a minority of those living in the developed world or a curious preoccupation of indigenous people, such as those of the Andes to whom our planet is Pachamama or ‘Mother Earth’.

In fact, climate change is about human prosperity and security. It threatens to disrupt our economic models, break supply chains and force mass population movement. The latest Global Risks Report from the World Economic Forum (http://bit.ly/1hu9fk0) highlights 29 global risks over the next 10 years, and identifies “failure to mitigate and adapt to climate change” as having the most impact.

At the UN Climate Change Conference, COP21, world leaders made encouraging progress in agreeing a target of no 6 m ay / june 2 0 1 6

more than 1.5–2°C average temperature rises compared to pre-industrial levels.

But politicians alone cannot deliver the necessary cuts in emissions: political good intentions can soon be knocked sideways by short-term exigencies and lobbying by special interest groups.

Businesses face challenges in the form of pressure to return growing profits yearly and pay strong dividends to shareholders.

And who would have predicted that oil prices would have crashed to the point where investment in renewable energy now looks like a poor deal?

So who will take the long-term view and turn good intentions into practical steps?

My answer is: professional bodies. As its Charter requires RICS to act in the public interest, it has a responsibility, given that buildings consume around 40% of the world’s energy and contribute up to 30% of annual greenhouse gas emissions.

At COP21, RICS argued that professional standards provide confidence to make the bold commitments that are urgently needed. For example, RICS can develop, promote and deliver sustainability standards across the whole property lifecycle. International Property Measurement Standards will make it easier to measure and compare energy efficiency based on floor area; International Construction Measurement Standards will do the same for embedded carbon. These standards will mean more reliable and consistent valuation of property and more certainty Image © Shutterstock

regarding running costs. Taken together, these steps can also help markets better understand the value added by sustainable features.

We know that markets are increasingly interested in sustainability. Globally, 2014 was a record year for the green bond market. There was over $35bn in new issuances, more than triple the previous year. All these investors want good returns for their savings balanced against risk. To a responsible fund manager, low-efficiency buildings are a risk. On the positive side, research by RICS and others has found that energy-efficient buildings generate higher investment yields. They achieve higher rents, attract occupants more quickly and spend less time empty.

This is more than a question of technical standards. They have to be applied ethically and must be regulated.

RICS made a number of commitments at COP21: 1. to strengthen the business case for energy-efficiency measures by building capability among valuers; RICS has already made sustainability an integral part of the Red Book professional valuation guidance 2. to increase market confidence in climate change commitments by supporting internationally standardised and vertically integrated measurement and reporting.

Furthermore, RICS will play its part in defining the sector’s climate goals, promoting transparency, information exchange and greater energy efficiency in the built environment. Among the first steps have been the launch in 2015 of the RICS/UN resource Advancing responsible business practices in land, construction, real estate use and investment, and the launch in February of the UNEP Finance Initiative’s Sustainable real estate investment framework, which RICS co-authored. The latter provides professionals with user-friendly guidance that can support the implementation of climate-risk strategies.

There is much to do, and I shall refrain from making grandiose, long-term predictions. But I can say with certainty that everyone across the surveying sector has to take climate change seriously. I am determined that RICS should take a lead in this vital field. If it does not, then who will? b Sean Tompkins is RICS Chief Executive stompkins@rics.org

RI CS Building surveying JO UR NAL

Legal

Special foundations

J

Michael Cooper discusses the implications of a recent party wall case

ust as my last article was concluding that surveyors should keep up to date with court decisions (see Building Surveying Journal, October/November 2015, p.6), Chaturachinda v Fairholme was also being heard at Central London County Court – a case that shed an interesting new light on the phrase “special foundations”.

Reinforcement in underpinning has always been considered a special foundation, requiring a neighbour’s consent. Contrary to popular belief, this situation has not been overturned by Chaturachinda. A reinforced underpin only constitutes a special foundation if it sits directly on the ground and can be described as a foundation, and this lay at the heart of the case.

Chaturachinda concerned an underpin beneath the party wall, beneath which there was in turn a mass concrete foundation, or rail. The developing owners argued that this was the foundation and that the underpin – which sat above the rail, tied to the slab in the normal manner – was a wall raised downward, not a foundation. The dispute was referred to a third surveyor, who agreed with the owners’ assertion.

The third surveyor’s position was appealed on three key points: 1. the loads were borne by the underpin and the rail served no purpose in distributing them 2. loads were transmitted to the pins and slab, which was an integral foundation taking them to the ground 3. the inclusion of the rail was an attempt to avoid the legislation.

Meaning investigated In deciding the case, the meaning of special foundations was investigated, both in terms of the legislation’s wording and its original purpose when it was included in the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939. The introduction of steel-framed buildings in London in the early 1900s had started to impose point loads onto the ground through steel

columns, whereas previously they had been distributed along the full length of load-bearing walls. Due to the forces involved, pads were reinforced with a grillage of beams and rods that proved difficult to remove.

An advisory committee in 1935 suggested that building owners could use grillage foundations to support columns, but only with the adjoining owner’s written consent where these crossed the boundary. This suggestion was incorporated into the 1939 act (the predecessor to the Party Wall etc. Act 1996), under which grillage foundations were renamed “special foundations”.

In the case of Standard Bank of British South America v Stokes [1878], it was decided that a wall can be raised downwards. Why, then, would a wall below ground be considered any more a foundation than one above ground taking load from a roof to the foundation?

Foundations v special foundations The definitions of foundations and special foundations in the 1996 act turn on the nature of the structure that transmits the load from a wall to the ground. An adjoining owner’s consent is not required for a reinforced wall, even if this is built below ground level and encloses a habitable space.

The sides of the basement box forming the habitable space of the extension are walls, and even though these ultimately transmit the load above to the ground, it does not mean that they are foundations any more than the parts of the walls above ground are. What transmits the Image © Alamy

load from the walls to the ground are the foundations of those walls, and in Chaturachinda the foundations were concrete rails. It is those that constitute the building’s foundations.

Under the 1996 act, the foundation is the structure resting on the ground on which the wall in turn rests. It follows that the reinforced underpin does not satisfy this definition if it is supported on rails, and under those circumstances the function of transmitting load to the ground is performed by the rails rather than the underpinning.

The judge in Chaturachinda rejected the adjoining owner’s arguments.

As the rails might not be necessary for the proposed structure, I wonder whether their contrived nature did not receive full consideration in the neighbour’s case. It could be perceived that “the rails” were designed to take the foundation outside the definition of “special foundations”, but as they were present in the design they had the effect that the building owner’s surveyor contended. That is to say, the rails did bear the load, and as they were constructed in advance of the underpin that rested on them, they accordingly transmitted the load to the ground and became the foundation. Let’s see whether the decision stands the test of time. C

Michael Cooper is Director of Building Consultancy at Colliers International

m aY/ J U N E 2 0 1 6 7

RICS B U I L DI N G SURV E YI N G J OURN A L

B uilding patholog y

The whole story

T

Michael Parrett looks at some causes of damp and reminds surveyors to take an holistic approach to diagnosis here are a range of potential causes for damp, from poor construction through inadequate design to historic building practices. The careful surveyor will need to be aware of these and attentive to the different ways in which related problems manifest themselves.

One common problem to watch out for is whether cast-iron gutters and rainwater pipes have been painted properly. If painting schemes missed the inside faces these can then corrode.

Connections where flat-roof rainwater outlets meet internal pipes are also vulnerable. They often suffer blockages, and in winter water can freeze there, cracking the outlet. Either problem may cause leaks down the outside of the internal pipe.

Surveying cast-iron goods such as these can be tricky due to the restricted access they afford. I use a mirror on a telescopic pole to check the rear of pipes and gutters, but some problems are beyond the reach of a 3m surveyor’s ladder. Alternatively, you can use safe-working platforms, but these are expensive and often have access restrictions of their own.

Another common problem is that installers of PVCu systems do not allow for linear expansion. This occurs on all elevations, especially the south-facing one, but if you follow the manufacturer’s instructions, goods can be cut appropriately.

Guttering alignment is a further critical factor, but falls are often incorrect and result in flows away from the outlet and spillages over the gutter. Some modern systems can be laid level, though, with outlets designed to create a vortex that can draw water from the gutter.

Drainage design is thus vital to the proper discharge of rainwater. I have seen hydraulically short designs with poor

k Broken collar and corroded section of cast-iron rainwater pipe. The defects occurred due to a lack of paint protection and subsequent wetting and frost action. Often the rust is not properly removed when painting cast-iron pipes, which will cause paint rejection and failure 8 May/ J U N E 2 0 1 6

sizing or spacing or too few rainwater pipes. The complex calculations for correct designs take into account such factors as rainfall intensity and roof area, however.

Tree and leaf litter cause blockages as well; bottom sections of pipes can get completely blocked, particularly when entering a branch drain, meaning that in heavy rain, water sprays from each joint. Knowing what to look for in each case is essential.

Warning signs Leaks onto outside walls are hard to detect, particularly on solid walls when damp may only be noticed during the escape of water. Leaks in cavity walls may remain undetected if cavities are not blocked, and will only be identified when conducting a survey in heavy rain.

On north-facing elevations, algae may signal a leaking gutter joint, but on sunny elevations leaks are more difficult to see. One sign is water falling straight to the ground, causing rain splash, and is especially noticeable where there are raised flowerbeds.

Problems can usually be solved by replacing or repairing goods or clearing blockages. Owners may be reluctant to change the lower sections of cast-iron pipes because they are hard-wearing, but if the upper sections are defective then the lower parts will be too.

Cast-iron pipes can flow directly into an underground branch drain, and if these drains are defective, water can seep into the ground and building. Be aware, then, that branch drains often fail through blockages or frost action.

Leaking water pipes In the 1960s and 1970s, copper heating and other water pipes were often run through solid floors. Denso tape or fibrous wrapping were rarely used or poorly applied, inadequately protecting bare copper from acidic cementitious floor screeds; as a result, pipes perforated and caused leaks.

As the joint between copper and steel can cause an electrolytic reaction that accelerates corrosion, you may find that gunmetal has been used instead because it prevents these corrosive forces.

In the 1920s, some water mains were made of lead.

Galvanised barrel pipes were laid later and the zinc coating acted as a ‘sacrificial anode’ in aggressive soils, leaving bare steel that, again, often corroded. Tree roots and desiccation can also disturb water mains.

Leaking mains can be a source of dampness as well as undermining foundations or causing overhydration to create heave, especially in areas of London clay. When investigating a property, it is therefore useful to know how mains are routed in different building genres.

In Victorian and Edwardian properties, lead water mains and drains often ran under the house from the isolation valve outside the curtilage. Leaks could soak into the fender wall of fire hearths, which do not have damp-proof courses, wicking damp into the chimney breast.

RI CS BU ILDING S URV EYI NG JOUR NAL

k Leaking water main supply pipe under a timber suspended floor, causing extensive wet rot decay. The defective section of water main was underneath kitchen cupboards. Detection was possible using a hygrometer probe and endoscope

k Copper water pipes in a solid-floor screed corroded and leaked due to poorly applied plastic wrapping. This exposed sections of the pipe to the cementitious floor material, leading to its perforation within eight years of being laid

During the interwar years, large ‘cottage estates’ replaced slums, and one water main and isolation valve typically served a short terrace, routed alongside the buildings through back gardens and then teed off into properties.

Responsibility for leaks was complicated by the Housing Act 1980, which allowed tenants to buy council homes. The resulting terraces of publicly and privately owned properties with shared water mains mean that determining who is responsible for repairs can be difficult.

Private owners may also apply to their water utility to install their own, separate main and isolation valve to avoid sharing, and you should ascertain whether or not this is the case.

Knowledge of the building genre, mains routing and shared supplies allows a surveyor to check for leaks. But a key question is whether any neighbours have also complained of dampness or a sudden drop in water pressure, which may indicate a leaking main.

Leaks may also be investigated by the water company. An inspector will visit the site at night when water use is low, and use a listening stick on isolation valves. ‘Hearing’ a leak, they then use a leak correlator, an electronic sounding device, to pinpoint the location.

Another possible check is the syphon test: after the main is closed, the spout of the kitchen sink tap is put in a glass of water. If the tap sucks the water from the glass then a leaking main is creating a vacuum in the pipe, which draws up the fluid Defective water mains are often just repaired locally. However, old pipes leaking in one section may well begin to leak in another.

In this case, the whole length of pipe should be renewed.

Common indications include ground collapse or dampness. In Victorian properties, where drains run under the building, there will be foul smells – usually every time a toilet is used.

Blocked drains may cause localised flooding, particularly in back inlet gullies near external walls where rainwater pipes terminate. Blockages often occur in interceptor chambers, and can create back surges, causing sewage to flow into the house.

Occupiers should therefore be educated not to put waste in the drainage system, and refuse systems improved to let them dispose of rubbish more easily.

Drainage problems are increasingly being identified using CCTV camera surveys. If tree roots are found to be present inside pipes, all but the severest blockages can be bored out, using a special attachment to allow relining.

With severe blockages, a pneumatic steel arrowhead can be pushed through to shatter the pipe; a new channel can be bored and a drainage pipe pulled through. Excavation and renewal may be the only other option.

Drainage

Michael Parrett is a building pathologist, chartered building surveyor and founder of Michael Parrett Associates. He is an Eminent Fellow of RICS and the lead author on the Building Pathology Damp section of isurv info@michaelparrett.co.uk

Sudden dampness usually relates to defective drainage caused by tree root penetration, blockages or physical defects. Any leaks can raise the humidity in a building and cause dampness, especially under suspended floors.

Tree roots are a significant threat to underground pipes, particularly vitrified, salt-glazed clay networks, disturbing drainage and altering its alignment.

Desiccation may also unsettle drainage during long dry periods and cause the ground to move, while mains leaking near a drainage pipe might lead to overhydration and heave. In either case, pipes will split or be misaligned, and material collects on these ledges to create blockages.

Old systems are subject to greater strain over time.

Underground networks built before October 1939 combined foul and surface water into a single drain, and increasing rainfall, the bad habits of occupants and conversion of larger buildings into separate flats all put higher demands on these systems.

Images © Michael Parrett

A surveyor’s approach Surveying buildings for dampness should be an holistic process that moves from recognising a symptom to diagnosing its cause; it will usually be one or a combination of the causes discussed above.

Offering a professional opinion on the source of dampness means improving your knowledge and understanding potential failures in the various building genres, and the techniques and equipment that can be used to remedy them. b

BS EN 12056: 3 – 2000 Rainwater drainage design http://bit.ly/1KgLgFo Diagnosing damp. Ralph Burkinshaw and Mike Parrett http://bit.ly/1G2tEsb Mike Parrett’s Guide to Building Pathology http://bit.ly/1zeIO7X

Related competencies include Health and safety, Inspection, Building Pathology

May/ J U N E 2 0 1 6 9

RICS B U I L DI N G SURV E YI N G J OURN A L

I nclusive design

Simone West identifies ten often overlooked items in new developments that can dramatically affect ease of access and use

Significant oversights

A

pproved Document M: Access to and use of buildings (ADM) and parts of Approved Document K: Protection from collision, falling and impact (ADK) provide important sources of information and guidance for designers or clients, in England. Some buildings may need a different approach to that set out in ADM Volume 2 – Buildings other than dwellings, which should be in the access strategy.

Certain small items are often missing from finished designs. Some of these may be expensive to change at a later date, meaning that clients can face large potential costs; others are not expensive to rectify, but can still present problems because building owners may not be aware of them until someone complains or takes action against them.

1. Slopes considered level Many designers fail to recognise that a gradient between 1:21 and 1:60 is required to have “level landings … introduced at each 500mm rise of the access … in all cases”, according to ADM Volume 2 – Buildings other than dwellings (http://bit.ly/1RcO5aF).

2. Handrail termination Handrails should always be closed at the ends otherwise they can catch on clothing or handbags. They must also extend 300mm horizontally beyond the top and bottom step or ramp to ensure the user is aware that they are at the start or end. Image 1 shows a handrail neither closed nor sufficiently extended.

1

1 0 m ay / J une 2 0 1 6

3. Invisible manifestation Manifestation of glazing often does not “contrast visually with the background seen through the glass, both from inside and outside, in all lighting conditions”, ADK points out (http://bit.ly/20bvLUY), leaving visually impaired people open to humiliation and injury. The common etched finish often fails to contrast visually because of complex backgrounds, as in image 2.

In many cases, a two-tone etched effect would be more effective.

4. Glass doors ADK requires “where glass doors are beside or part of a glazed screen, they are clearly marked with a high-contrast strip to the top and on both sides”. In addition, glass doors – when held open – need “guarding to prevent people colliding with the leading edge”, it adds.

When the doors in image 2 are opened, for instance, there is no highlighting to the edges and they can become invisible.

5. Refreshment facility counters ADM requires that a worktop, bar or shared refreshment facility is not more than 850mm high to make it suitable for a wide range of users. However, this is rarely so, due to the standard heights of units and fittings beneath them. An alternative would be the provision of two different counter heights.

6. Visual contrast of switches and sockets ADM states that “switches, outlets and controls will satisfy Requirement M1 if … front plates contrast visually with their backgrounds”. This will help everyone, particularly the visually impaired.

7. Colostomy shelf The accessible toilet is important for a wide range of users, including those whose needs may cause embarrassment in more public facilities. This shelf is an important place to put the equipment needed to empty or replace a colostomy bag safely; however, a study by Jo-Anne Bichard found that only 3% of accessible toilets contain colostomy shelves.

Images © Simone West

2

8. Visual contrast in toilets White finishes are often used for toilets, meaning some users have to feel their way around. ADM requires that “the surface finish of sanitary fittings and grab bars contrasts visually with background wall and floor finishes, and there is also visual contrast between wall and floor finishes”.

9. Pipes in the transfer space If service or soil pipes run at the rear of the 750mm-long transfer space, this will reduce the available room, making it impossible for a wheelchair user to transfer on to the toilet from the side.

10. Toilet lobbies Privacy for toilets can be achieved by the suitable placement of walls or screens, but if a lobby is required then it should fulfil the criteria set out in section 3.16 of ADM. Remember that access to toilets is required by people: bb carrying bags or luggage bb with small children and pushchairs bb who use a walking aid bb who have limited upper body strength bb who use wheelchairs and wish to go in with friends or use an ambulant facility.

All of these users will find access difficult where internal lobbies do not comply with minimum standards. C Simone West is an NRAC access consultant at Atkins Global simone.west@atkinsglobal.com

Related competencies include Legal/regulatory compliance

Sinkholes

RI CS Building surveying JO UR NAL

Not so unpredictable

T

Checking records is essential to identify areas that are prone to sinkholes before development starts, as Clive Edmonds explains

The occurrence of sinkholes receives regular media coverage, and stories often mention that the public or councils are very surprised by what has happened. But should sinkholes really be as surprising as they first seem?

People living in river valley floors or beside the coast are aware of the risk of flooding in bad weather. Similarly, people living in coalfields know there is some risk of land instability over old mines. Beyond this, though, such hazards are less thoroughly understood, although more information is available than ever before.

The vast majority of collapses are triggered either by rainfall or by the sudden release of large volumes of water into the ground from leaking or broken utility pipes.

The water saturates the ground, which increases the unit weight of a soil bridge over a void in the ground, changes the pore pressure and causes the internal erosion of fine particles.

Sinkholes and crown holes The cumulative effect is to destabilise the soil bridge, so it collapses downwards and triggers upward void migration to the surface, where it is referred to as a sinkhole.

Strictly speaking, however, the term should only be used for a surface collapse over an

The crown hole at Hemel Hempstead upward migrating void created by the natural dissolution of a soluble rock at depth, such as limestone, chalk, salt or gypsum. If the void is artificial – that is, a mining void – then the surface collapse is referred to as a crown hole.

It follows that knowing where there are soluble rocks underground or where mining has historically taken place can offer an indication of where sinkholes and crown holes are likely to form. Details of mapped geological strata can be obtained from online resources, such as those of the British Geological Survey, to determine where soluble rocks are present.

Data on old mine workings is more difficult to source; although there are specialist websites such as Subterranea Britannica and the National Association of Mining History Organisations, as well as helpful books, caving guides, council archives and historical maps. Alternatively, data on the occurrence of naturally formed and artificial voids can be obtained from commercial national databases, including the natural cavity and mining cavity databases held by Peter Brett Associates LLP. Recent, notably large crown holes occurred at Hemel Hempstead in February 2014 (see image above) and at

St Albans in October 2015, being about 10m and 13m in diameter respectively and around 5–6m deep.

Both collapses occurred at locations where Palaeogene Lambeth Group deposits – clays and sands – overlay Cretaceous-age chalk. With reference to historical maps, it is also apparent that both locations had been the site of former brickworks with kilns, dating from the early to mid-1800s onwards and falling into disuse by the 1890s.

In this period, it was common to use a ground mix of 75% clay and 25% chalk to produce durable bricks.

The chalk was obtained by sinking a shaft below the clay and extracting it by mining.

Once the brickworks became disused the shaft was sealed or infilled, but mine workings were often left open at depth.

Over time, such workings degrade, the old shaft becomes increasingly unstable and eventually the ground above falls into the mine, producing a collapse or crown hole at the surface.

Based on knowledge of the geology and historical land use, it is possible to foresee the potential of these collapses occurring.

While an RICS member carrying out a building inspection or an inspection Image © Peter Brett

for building control purposes may have local knowledge of past land instability, their training does not give them the specific understanding of geological and historical factors that actually determine the potential for ground movement in an area.

It may also be that new development extends across previously undeveloped areas with different geological conditions, so local knowledge is not necessarily applicable.

While it would be good practice to become broadly familiar with areas prone to subsidence, it would be best to direct housebuyers and developers to national databases so they themselves can check what is recorded and what the foreseeable geohazard risks are.

These resources will never pinpoint the exact position of the next sinkhole or crown hole, but they can at least indicate the areas that are most prone to subsidence, forewarning owners of existing development and alerting those who need to mitigate risks to new development. C Dr Clive Edmonds is a partner at Peter Brett Associates cedmonds@peterbrett.com

www.peterbrett.com www.bgs.ac.uk www.subbrit.org.uk www.namho.org.uk

Related competencies include Construction, technology and environmental services, Building pathology

May / J une 2 0 1 6 1 1

RICS B U I L DI N G SURV E YI N G J OURN A L

D ilapidations

Mark Hampson explains how vital the role of the specialist dilapidations surveyor now is

In demand

I

t is a common misconception that dilapidations work levels increase during a recession and lag in the boom time. In fact, the situation is quite the opposite. While the buoyancy or otherwise of the property market affects both the number and the nature of dilapidations instructions in different ways, there are many other factors that create opportunities for building surveyors carrying out such work.

Many of the long leases agreed in the 1990s and 2000s are now coming to an end. Because of these lengthy leases, the buildings to which they relate may now require substantial upgrading to attract new tenants or purchasers. Service installations, in particular, may not fulfil modern expectations, and the building itself may fall short of the incoming minimum energy efficiency rating.

Determining who is to pay for these big-ticket items is where the building surveyor with specialist dilapidations experience comes in. Over the past few years the importance of dilapidations has received increasing recognition from property stakeholders, not just at the end of leases but right through the property lifecycle, particularly in acquisitions, rent reviews and asset management:

Acquisitions A competitive market means that those who purchase property with residual lease terms now want to price in accurate dilapidations recovery figures during the acquisition process. Take, for example, the buyer of a 100,000 sq. ft office with a residual lease term: the difference between a recovery rate of £10/sq. ft and £20/sq. ft will amount to £1m for the whole building. The numbers really stack up, so landlords need to know what a tenant may be liable for and factor that in to their bidding price or refurbishment appraisal options.

But how is an accurate recovery rate formulated? The answer, again, lies with instructing a specialist dilapidations 1 2 m aY/ J U N E 2 0 1 6

surveyor who has a thorough grasp of all of the relevant issues. Factors such as knowing what dilapidations items and costs will survive in the event of a refurbishment are critical, and require a comprehensive understanding of the lease and dilapidations law.

Rent reviews Generally, rent reviews are carried out on the assumption that, at the review date, the tenant has complied with their covenants and that any of their improvements will be disregarded. This can cause difficulties.

Say the tenant has replaced a suspended ceiling system. They may argue this is an improvement and should therefore be disregarded at rent review.

The landlord, on the other hand, may hold the view that the tenant was simply complying with their covenant to repair.

Without clear evidence of the damage to the old system, which would demonstrate whether or not the covenant to repair had been triggered, it will be difficult for the valuer to make an assessment. Had a record been taken of the physical condition of the original ceiling at the time of lease commencement in an annexed schedule of condition – perhaps in conjunction with covenants worded to limit liability – such arguments could be properly assessed by the dilapidations surveyor, so the subsequent rent review would be a true reflection of the condition at that time.

Asset management As capital value growth slows and property yields are squeezed, landlords and their advisors are exploring a range of asset management options to create value. Cost recovery is high on the list, and dilapidations considerations are more and more important to decision-making.

What dilapidations generally boil down to is determining what liability a tenant has for outstanding repairs. This is often far from straightforward as there are many issues to grapple with: debates around repair or replacement, whether the landlord will do the work or not or

even opt for more extensive works or improvements, to name but a few.

Repair versus replacement Unsurprisingly, a plethora of court cases have explored the issue of repair versus replacement. Invariably, tenants will prefer the cheaper, patching-up repair option, while for landlords replacement will be more appealing. But precisely when does patching-up become an unacceptable method of repair, leaving wholesale replacement, at the tenant’s expense, the only viable option?

Sometimes, the only practical and economic way of dealing with disrepair is replacement, as for instance where the claimant can produce credible evidence that repairs are not reasonable or possible. Incidentally, just because a building element has exceeded its indicative life-expectancy does not automatically validate a claim for its replacement, unless replacement would be both cheaper and lease-compliant.

Take an ageing air-conditioning fan coil unit, for example. Its motorised controls or fan decks may not be working, so replacement may be cheaper

RI CS BU ILDING S URV EYI NG JOUR NAL

compared with continued, piecemeal repair, given the increasing difficulty of sourcing salvaged components, and the associated labour costs.

There may also be external influences to consider such as bye-laws or the Building Regulations, which may dictate that a higher or more up-to-date standard is required. The ever-tightening regulations governing the use of CFCs and other gases in air-conditioning systems are a good example of this.

The precise wording of the lease is also key. Where the covenant to repair extends to keeping the property in good condition (as in Credit Suisse v Beegas Nominees Ltd [1994] EGLR 76), this can foster the expectation of a higher standard of repair than clauses without the stipulation. While the argument is surprisingly little used in negotiations, it could be employed more widely in the current climate.

Landlord claims Landlords sometimes have to go beyond the scope of the tenant’s remedial works and carry out enhancements and improvements to present the property to the market in a desirable condition.

Image © Alamy

But what impact does this have on the dilapidations claim against the former tenant? Will it negate their ability to recover some of their costs?

In Sunlife Europe Ltd v Tiger Aspect Holdings Ltd [2013] EWHC 463 TCC, it was found that, where a tenant leaves a building in disrepair and the landlord decides to carry out improvements rather than simply repair it, the latter can still recover the original cost of repairs. But this can only be done if a landlord can prove that, had the premises been left in reasonable repair, they would not have replaced the disputed elements.

Putting Sunlife to one side, there are numerous cases where it has been found that the tenant only has to pay for dilapidations if the landlord has carried out – or has demonstrated their intention to carry out – the necessary repairs.

However, in @sipp Pension Trustees v Insight Travel Services Limited [2015] CSIH 91, the Inner House of the Court of Session – the Scottish equivalent of the Court of Appeal – upheld a lease provision allowing the landlord to recover the cost of dilapidations without proving that it would actually carry out the work.

The court found that a clause in the lease, which stated that at the lease’s end the tenant would pay the landlord for the cost of putting the premises into a good and substantial state of repair, was in fact a payment provision and not a claim for damages for breach of contract; therefore, the issue of whether or not the landlord intended to carry out the work was irrelevant. Accordingly, the landlord was entitled to payment as the tenant had failed to carry out the required repairs.

This case reverses the trend that has emerged in the courts over recent years in dilapidations cases and will, no doubt, be welcomed by commercial landlords.

Dilapidations are an issue not just at lease-end but practically throughout a building’s lifecycle, whether this concerns pursuing or defending interim dilapidations, service charge disputes, property acquisitions, rent reviews or broader asset management.

Specialist building surveyors appreciate the technical assessment of a building’s physical condition and the remedial works required to put defects right, and are ideally placed to deal with the complexities of dilapidations law. With large sums often at stake, the case for instructing a specialist is clear cut. C

Mark Hampson is Head of Dilapidations at Malcolm Hollis mark.hampson@malcolmhollis.com

RICS Dilapidations Forum Conference will take place on 22 September in London. Book early to avoid disappointment www.rics.org/dfc

Related competencies include Legal/regulatory compliance

m aY/ J U N E 2 0 1 6 1 3

RICS B U I L DI N G SURV E YI N G J OURN A L

I nternational

Tom Makokha makes the case for prioritising diversity to help meet the challenges of globalisation

Living with change

W

hen Prof. Tim Berners-Lee published a paper entitled ‘Information Management: A Proposal’ in August 1991, few readers would have realised that they were looking at his blueprint for a commercially viable internet and arguably the world’s first website. More than 2.5 billion people now use the internet globally; few people would disagree that the world has changed drastically in the last few decades.

In the past, for instance, the core of the construction consultancy sector in the UK predominately consisted of traditional private cost consultants and project management practices, primarily servicing UK-based clients. My own introduction to the industry was as a trainee building surveyor, undertaking surveys for public authorities in London. But many of my clients now operate in domestic, pan-European and global markets, often concurrently, from a UK base.

New markets Globalisation has dramatically and permanently changed the way in which I and my colleagues work. This in turn has forced changes in my clients’ business models, corporate cultures, diversity and the geographical locations in which they operate.

Many of these changes have been induced by global labour and consumer forces in emerging markets and the rapid advance of e-commerce. It is now possible for anyone in the world with internet access to shop virtually at any time and in any global market. Some commentators suggest that 25% of all retail sales in the US and the UK will be conducted online by 2020. But what does all this have to do with diversity?

When commentators refer to globalisation, they usually mean the rapid socio-economic development of capitalism globally that has spurred and continues to spur profound change, drastically eroding geographical and social barriers. This has enabled communities, corporations and governments to connect with one another very efficiently, particularly in emerging markets such as Russia, India, China and South America.

One can therefore deduce that in order for the professional real estate services sector to survive and prosper, it will need to recruit from a diverse and expanded talent pool, to satisfy the ever-more expansive demands of clients.

In May 2011, the report Equality and Diversity: good practice for the construction sector was published by the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission, on behalf of the Construction Leadership Diversity Forum (http://bit.ly/1BgpRUE).

The evidence collected for the study demonstrated that the following benefits would accrue with robust implementation of good diversity and equality practices: bb efficiency savings thanks to improved staff retention bb a wider pool of talent available to the industry from under-represented groups bb a more diverse supply chain that would offer better support for small businesses bb improved on-site working relationships based on respect for everyone’s differences.

How, though, do we move the topic of diversity up the industry agenda? Many readers may recall that a similar debate took place on matters of health and safety some decades ago.

To think once more in the timeframes of technology, when Apple brought out its first Mackintosh desktop in 1984, cavalier approaches to site inductions and personal protective equipment were not unusual. Would this be acceptable today?

There has clearly been a thoroughgoing cultural change in the industry that has seen a health and safety ethos inculcated into personnel at all levels. I suggest that it is high time that matters of diversity, equality and inclusion are treated in the same manner if we are to deal successfully with the numerous threats, opportunities and challenges that globalisation will continue to present. C

Cross-fertilisation These connections have led to the breakdown of cultural barriers and encouraged the cross-fertilisation of ideas. It is these new ideas, generated by the markets in which our clients operate, that have changed client expectations of the scope of professional real estate service delivery models that we need to offer.

1 4 m aY/ J U N E 2 0 1 6

Tom Makokha is a building surveyor at CBRE, and RICS representative on the Construction Industry Council Diversity Panel tmakokha.tm@gmail.com

Image © Shutterstock

A DV ERTISING

“It is an industry accepted method of calculating a rebuild value to help remove the risk of any mis-calculations. The most important benefit of using BCIS Rebuild Online is that it gives quick, simple and reliable rebuild calculations.”

RI CS BU ILDING S URV EYI NG JOUR NAL

Rebuild Online – Updated May 2016 BCIS Rebuild Online is an essential rebuilding cost calculator for surveyors and loss adjusters.

Small Surveying Firm

To find out more about BCIS Rebuild Online visit: rics.org/rebuildonline or phone +44 (0)24 7686 8433 To a21177-RICS d ve rtise con t a cadt 174x127.5mm-UPDATE.indd Em m a Ke n n e dy +4 BCIS Rebuild 1 4( 0 ) 20 7 8 7 1 5 7 3 4 or emmak@wearesu nday. c om

29/03/2016 15:41

m aY/ J U N E 2 0 1 6 1 5

RICS B U I L DI N G SURV E YI N G J OURN A L

STR ATE G Y

Shape of the future Dan Cook and Chevon Erasmus Porter explore what the built environment sector will look like in 2030

G

lobal expansion, changing demographics and technological advances are the key trends driving and reshaping the world in which we live and work. Digital advances, a mobile workforce and unprecedented urbanisation will bring challenges and opportunities never encountered before. New markets, products and services bring a need for housing, infrastructure and education as the world grapples with changes to real estate and society as a whole.

So how can the built environment sector proactively respond? How will it shape where we live, and what skills will it need to be relevant?

To find the answer to some of these questions, RICS decided to place strategic foresight at the forefront of its planning and engagement with global stakeholders, to ensure that the built environment plays a lead role in taking responsibility for the future of the profession. This research culminated

1 6 m aY/ J U N E 2 0 1 6

in the launch of our Futures report Our changing world: let’s be ready, which reflects our vision of the world in 2030.

The report contains strategic actions we can take from today and over the next few years to help ensure that we, the profession, are prepared.

Over three years, RICS carried out intensive research through horizon scanning, scenario planning and simulation to create and consider alternate futures. We engaged with a range of industry leaders, practitioners, students and firms through workshops, conferences and other global events, as well as in-depth interviews and research, to identify where the most significant changes are occurring and which drivers and trends have the greatest implications for the surveying profession and the wider built environment sector.

Greater urbanisation and changing demographics: Today, 54% of the world’s population lives in cities. By 2050, this

is expected to rise to 66%. The rapid growth in urbanisation globally will affect how new infrastructure is delivered, how cities are planned and what professional skills are required to feed this demand.

The ageing of established economies and youth population booms in Africa will also change demands on the way the built environment is used.

Shifts in economic power: We are beginning to see clear shifts in economic power, especially with the emergence of the BRICS group of countries that includes Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. The group is fast moving beyond political links and is now establishing its own financial institution, the New Development Bank, to be based in Shanghai. Many new companies and institutions are now participating in regional and global economies and BRICS’ role as a political and economic player, together with other rising markets, will continue to grow in influence for both the built environment sector and Image © iStock

RI CS BU ILDING S URV EYI NG JOUR NAL

better outcomes for society are themes we expect to see rising up the agenda in the period to 2030.

Greater resource scarcity and growing importance of sustainability: In many parts of the world, water, food, minerals or energy supply have come under pressure, making the issue of resource management crucial for economic development. Against the rising population and demand for new development, our profession has the ability to take the lead by promoting better use of land and agricultural management, and advising on the most efficient ways to manage resources in the built environment.

The professional of the future

the professionals who advise on asset development and management.

Growing middle class: A growing middle class means growth in consumption. This will trigger the need for more housing and better planning in cities to accommodate greater numbers of vehicles on the road and retail or business developments.

A study by Oxford Economics expects construction output by 2025 to grow by as much as 70% to US$15tr.

Notably, China and India are expected to contribute to one third of this output.

Inequality and instability: Notwithstanding the various global efforts at reducing poverty, the wealth gap remains a major contributing factor to unrest and volatility around the world.

With almost 70% of the world’s wealth bound up in real assets, our sector has a critical role in ensuring quality housing and infrastructure, as well as strong ethical principles for the profession, especially in the wake of the global financial crisis. Building trust and ensuring

Surveying may have a long history, but roles are continuously adapting to our evolving world. Technological advances will mean major change for many professionals as they replace certain tasks and transform building processes to improve efficiency and productivity. Big data, complex projects and the need for collaboration will drive new skillset needs.

On top of this, the cyclical nature of our sector (especially construction, sale of properties, resource booms and greater global mobility) will raise challenges for employers trying to meet skills needs.

Our journey starts now. We believe the key areas of focus for our sector to take action going forward are as follows.

War for talent: How do we attract the next generation of professionals, retain that talent, promote diversity and ensure that the right education is available to meet our sector’s needs?

Future cities: How does our sector contribute to the reform of land-use planning, integrating smart technology, building resilience, helping to define the economic and social purpose of placemaking, and delivering affordable community infrastructure?

Embracing technology and big data: Our goal must be to create new value through the integration of datasets, the building of analytical capability and embedding new technology by changing systems and processes. Our profession needs to place itself at the forefront of change and help to change mindsets.

Leadership: Leadership is needed across the land, real estate and construction sectors, including representation at board level, a stronger voice in government and collaboration across professional bodies.

Ethics: The issue is becoming a critical part of professional behaviour and is an area where more work is needed. RICS has recently launched, with a coalition of partners, the International Ethics Standards, which aim to create a set of global principles for the profession.

An opinion expressed many times is that a stronger commitment to sustainability is needed from our sector to bring about positive change. This might involve action on the part of our industry’s leaders, greater convergence of standards and measurement, and smarter policy interventions and direction from government.

In conducting our research for the report, we held more than 100 round tables, workshops and interviews with professionals of varying experience levels and expertise, across Asia, South Asia, Africa, the USA, Europe and South America. More than 500 people contributed. Together we can respond to these challenges and ensure that our sector and professions are equipped to be successful in a fast-paced, changing global environment.

The future may be inescapable, but it can be shaped by those who think about it today. In other words, to shape the future you must first imagine it. b

Dan Cook is RICS Director of Strategy and Chevon Erasmus Porter RICS Global Communications and External Affairs Advisor

If you would like to participate in any of our Futures work, get in touch at futures@rics.org #ricsfutures The report is available to download at www.rics.org/changingworld

m aY/ J U N E 2 0 1 6 17

RICS B U I L DI N G SURV E YI N G J OURN A L

F looding

OPINION The bigger picture

L

Alan Cripps says it is time to rethink flooding strategies ast winter, the ineffectiveness of recently constructed flood defences in northern England was exposed following storms in Cumbria and Yorkshire. This flooding and the increasing uncertainty of weather patterns owing to climate change have together contributed to a growing awareness that reliance on traditional forms of defence alone is not working.

The latest theory is that flooding should be assessed on an holistic basis, where all areas in a catchment are examined to ensure that the best overall strategy for reducing flood damage is adopted.

Flooding will never be eliminated in its entirety, but the more solutions that are in place to reduce water flow in the catchment, the more floods can be contained. If the local drainage system is clear, ditches and culverts have been maintained, individual properties have installed protection and resilient materials are used, the risks of damage will be dramatically reduced if floodwater does reach built-up areas.

These measures will make the clean-up and drying process quicker, enabling re-occupation sooner after the event. There is now also evidence to show that the use of resilient materials is helping the process.

Flood Re Flood Re – the flood insurance scheme set up by the UK government and industry in April 2016 to provide cheaper insurance to homeowners in parts of England most vulnerable to flooding – has secured reinsurance deals worth £2.1bn with 38 insurers. The scheme will cater for around 350,000 households in high-risk areas, but excludes businesses, houses built after 2009 and properties in council tax band H. It is time that homeowners take some responsibility to prevent their properties being flooded: there should be an obligation on them to carry out resistance or resilience works. If they ignore the problems, they could be excluded from the scheme. The use of resilient materials as well as the protection of individual properties is recommended, subject to suitability, as a way of limiting the extent of flooding.

Local authority planning departments should not be allowing developments in such areas without imposing conditions on planning approvals stipulating the use of resilient materials up to first-floor level. Sustainable urban drainage systems should be used on the estate to drain rainwater, while the overall impact of the project on surrounding areas should be considered to minimise the effects of flooding.

Following floods, existing properties should be reinstated using resilient materials, not those from which they were originally constructed. There would be only one way to guarantee this, however – some form of change to the Building Regulations.

With the establishment of Flood Re, there would seem to be more scope for such regulatory reform. Previously, insurers would have termed resilient construction a “betterment”; although this is clearly the case, the benefits of using resilient materials for reinstatement also include quicker clean-up and drying times. If the homeowner can return to their property sooner as a result, it will reduce the costs of alternative accommodation.

Insurers have always argued that there is no benefit to them as businesses in paying for retrofits because the homeowner could change their policy provider the next day. But with Flood Re in place for the most vulnerable properties, retrofitting could become a more viable option. The homeowner’s policy is likely to stay in the Flood Re scheme, so their property can in turn benefit from the installation of resilient materials after another flood, with resultant savings. There would also be less damage, if any, at minimal cost to the scheme overall, and therefore faster resolution of the claim for damage. C

Alan Cripps is RICS Associate Director of the Built Environment acripps@rics.org

www.floodre.co.uk

Building Regulations Perhaps the time has come to look at amending the Planning and Building Regulations to help push this agenda. It seems ridiculous that we should be building in floodplains or adjacent to high-risk areas without using resilient materials on lower storeys.

1 8 m aY/ J U N E 2 0 1 6

Related competencies include Insurance, Design and specification, Legal/regulatory compliance

F looding

RI CS Building surveying JO UR NAL

A risky business Jessica Lamond and Namrata Bhattacharya-Mis look at the impact of flooding on businesses

F

lood Re – the UK government and industry flood insurance scheme – represents one of the biggest changes in this sector for many years because business premises will now be excluded from the insurance pool (see p.18).

Small to medium-sized businesses were included in the previous statement of principles on flood insurance, so this move may cause big problems for small firms – especially those affected by the recent flooding – making flood insurance more difficult and costly to obtain.

Understanding the impact of flooding on businesses is therefore more important than ever as they struggle to recover physically and operationally.

Building surveyors can make a real difference by providing guidance and advice for such businesses, however.

Statistical evidence The statistical evidence for direct and indirect damage and disruption to businesses from flooding is sparse, and much of it is confusing and contradictory.

According to Environment Agency estimates, the 2007 flooding was a widespread event that affected an estimated 8,000 businesses yet resulted in 35,000 flood-related insurance claims from them, suggesting that they were claiming against multiple sources of loss on different policies. The insurance data indicates that direct damage is more costly than business interruption and other losses.

Recently published research by the authors, based on a survey of mainly small to medium-sized businesses flooded in Sheffield and Wakefield in 2007, sheds some light on the different challenges businesses face during and after a flood. It shows that disruption can be just as important as physical damage in terms of recovery, with sales disruption ranked first in terms of initial losses during recovery.

The study also showed that most of the companies paid for their own repairs

and losses and did not claim on their insurance. In fact, only 25% had used insurance to cover some or all of their recovery costs – at 13% and 12% of surveyed businesses respectively.

Self-finance was the most frequent source of funding repairs at 68%, with only the remaining 8% reporting that they had used a business reserve.

Higher cost It appears that businesses may be wary of making a claim – if they can afford not to – because they fear losing their insurance, and this theory is backed up by recent government research. The true cost of flooding to businesses may be higher than we think, given that a large share of it may not be evident in insurance data.

The study also suggests that preventing losses through individual property protection and other measures will benefit businesses directly, not just their insurers, so they may be more willing to undertake flood mitigation.

Factors affecting the time taken to recover were also ranked by respondents.

They indicated that clean-up and internal repair was the top factor and regaining customer base second. We know that households suffer financial, social and emotional impacts from being relocated; the relocation of business activities can be much more difficult.

Only 11% of the businesses surveyed had an alternative location from which to operate, meaning many would have to close for repairs – potentially, if this repair were protracted, causing considerable loss of trade and then a struggle to regain custom. While the businesses surveyed were not closed for long – mostly less than two weeks – the lingering effect on turnover was still felt to be significant.

So while indirect losses may be very important, the amount of those losses, in most small to medium-sized enterprises, is inextricably linked to the amount of damage and speed of recovery of the business premises.

If staying open in a prime location is important then it makes sense for

businesses to be prepared; however, most businesses are not. Just under half of those responding had made any kind of preparation and the most popular measures were non-structural, such as signing up for warnings. Only 15% had installed temporary protection to prevent damage, 5% had installed flood-resilient features and 4% some permanent property protection.

There is obviously potential for businesses to be much better prepared.

However, flood preparation is often a low priority on the agenda of small and medium-sized businesses.

Property owners and occupiers will benefit from the advice of qualified building surveyors in choosing and implementing suitable adaptation, not least in taking advantage of grants offered to households and businesses flooded in 2015 (see p.5).

The changes in insurance associated with the introduction of Flood Re could force businesses to reconsider their approach to flood risk. This may present an opportunity for building surveyors to advise small and medium-sized business clients on measures that will enable them to get insurance. In doing so, it will be vital for surveyors to focus on measures that will speed recovery and get businesses back to trading. C Jessica Lamond is Associate Professor in the Centre for Floods, Communities and Resilience at the University of the West of England jessica.lamond@uwe.ac.uk Namrata Bhattacharya-Mis is Research Fellow in the Centre for Floods, Communities and Resilience at the University of the West of England namrata.bhattacharya-mis@uwe.ac.uk

Researchers at the University of the West of England are currently seeking surveyors who have advised on flood risk for commercial property to participate in a study. Please contact Jessica Lamond.

To read National Flood Forum case studies, visit http://bit.ly/1SBEjn8 www.floodre.co.uk

Related competencies include Insurance

m aY/ J U N E 2 0 1 6 1 9

RICS B U I L DI N G SURV E YI N G J OURN A L

F LO O D I N G

The UK’s first amphibious house is leading the way in flood-resistant design, as Richard Coutts explains

Rise of the new

C

urrently, there are more than five million UK properties at risk of flooding, and rising sea and river levels could threaten many more over the next 100 years, with a major cost for homes and businesses.

One innovative solution may be amphibious construction, with homes resting on fixed foundations but able to float up in the event of flooding. The UK’s first amphibious house has been built on a small island in the River Thames in Buckinghamshire, classified as Flood Zone 3b, the functional floodplain.

The initial option of a floating property with the adjacent garden in the course of the river was not favoured by the Environment Agency. An elevated building would sit high enough to avoid an extreme flood, but would be divorced from the garden.

An amphibious house solves these issues by allowing occupants to enjoy their garden, only rising to avoid floods when necessary.

Construction starts with a wet dock formed from steel sheet piling and a reinforced concrete ring beam retaining the top edges of the piles. A permeable concrete slab forms the base of the dock and retains the bottom edge of the sheet piling. The slab is supported by concrete piles that have been driven into the ground and carries the weight of the building during dry conditions.

Cut-away construction section

Roof light

Gulley and guidepost

Details Zinc rainskin cladding

The concrete ring beam is cast adjacent to the can-float base to create an overlap in the structure and minimise the amount of debris that enters the dock. Some siltation is inevitable, so the base is profiled to create a void under the house, which can be flushed out from time to time.

Buoyancy fix The can-float base functions in a similar way to the hull of a ship. It provides the building’s buoyancy and supports the structural frame of the dwelling, formed from reinforced waterproof concrete to protect from water ingress.

The foundation is designed to be heavy enough to prevent crabbing and impact damage, while sufficient in volume and light enough in mass to provide buoyancy.

The dwelling is set between four galvanised steel ‘dolphins’. A bespoke running mechanism fixed between the house and guideposts will facilitate smooth vertical movement as the house

The base is designed to be heavy enough to prevent crabbing and impact damage and light enough to provide buoyancy 2 0 m aY/ J U N E 2 0 1 6

Can-float foundation junction with guidepost

Details

rises and falls. The dolphins hold the house true and level against the river current during a flood. Flexible services connect the house with the land.

Insulated and flexible pipes run along the side of the house within the wet dock to pump wastewater into a treatment tank.

Designed to cope with the predicted extreme (1 in 100) flood level now and in 100 years’ time, the contemporary dwelling comes complete with open living space around a double-height space overlooked by the gallery master bedroom. The glazed south-facing facade gives panoramic views of the river and an attractive and functional riverside garden.

High-performance insulation and double-glazing reduces heating demand of the house, with a heat recovery ventilation system adds to energy savings. External louvres shade the building from the southern sun.

The riverside garden includes a number of terraces stepping down to the water’s edge, which will incrementally flood when the river rises up its banks, containing the floods in predetermined spaces. This allows residents to be more conscious of their natural environment and in turn raises their awareness of potential flood risk. An 8m buffer zone, required by planning, provides ecological continuity Images © Baca Architects

RI CS BUILDING S URV EYI NG JO UR NAL Timber and steel frame The house has been built on an island in the Thames

Timber and steel frame

n junction

Can-float foundation and guideposts Can-float foundation and guideposts

Wet dock accessway Wet dock accessway and protects the character of the riverside setting.

Overcoming obstacles The challenge of a moving house is in the servicing and utilities, and there are a number of obstacles to bringing forward flood-resilient typologies.

These include an absence of statutory guidance building standards with regard to stability and buoyancy, as well as approved construction techniques for displacement and hybrid flotation units. Uncertainty about the whole-life performance (and the standards to which they should be built) has raised questions with funders, warrantors and mortgage providers, thus hampering the realisation of projects.

Two variables affect the whole-life performance of floating and amphibious buildings more significantly than static buildings. The first is the wear and tear of movement on connection details, in particular to the external envelope and services, as well as the potential corrosion from permanent immersion in water. The second is the impact of climatic changes such as increased flood frequency, intensity of rainfall, wind loading and overheating.

Like any machine with moving parts, such buildings require regular maintenance and monitoring. Some floating properties in the Netherlands have shown signs of substantial

corrosion, listing and abandonment due to poor consideration of the whole-life performance. Lack of clear structural standards, poor maintenance and lack of routine monitoring has the potential to result in (avoidable) catastrophic failure.

The Thamesside house is designed to allow both visual inspection of the key parts and physical testing. During construction, the house was tested after the can-float base had been completed to test the integrity of the hull, watertightness, balancing and the running gear, then again once the upper frame and fit-out was completed, to rebalance the system.

The wet dock is accessible from both ends of the building and a walkway around the entire can-float base allows visual inspection, replacement of parts (if required) and jet cleaning of the dock to remove siltation should it occur.

Once a year, the dock will be pumped full of water to repeat the flotation test; the house will be elevated to 50cm to test the integrity and free movement, before the water is slowly released and the building allowed to touch down again.

Part M accessibility The island on which the amphibious house is located is only accessible via a narrow canal lock that restricts access by wheelchair. The Environment Agency also requires that a flood management plan is in place, linked to an early warning system for evacuation in the event of a flood. Because the case was betterment, the scheme was granted dispensation for wheelchair users.

Nonetheless, other new-build schemes – including amphibious houses in the Netherlands – have been designed to provide continuous access in the event of a flood, in combination with elevated walkways and access points for emergency services.

Amphibious construction is a new phenomenon internationally, and thus there are few examples.

In the USA is Brad Pitt’s Make it Right scheme in New Orleans, built following hurricane Katrina, while Maasbommel in the Netherlands has 32 units and Thailand has half a dozen units. While the Dutch have produced guidance in respect of stability and buoyancy, these are not fully developed NTAs – the Dutch Standardisation Institute’s equivalent of British Standards. An equivalent does not exist in the UK. To comply with the Planning and Building regulations, standard components from different construction sectors were tried and tested and appropriated for use on the amphibious house. This was time-consuming, frustrating and stifled innovation. There is clearly a vacuum to be filled. An addendum to BR 2015 to incorporate regulations for domestic floating and displacement structures or an equivalent of Robust Details, Part E (Sound resistance) for such building typologies would help this emerging sector flourish.

In future, we envisage large communities that are holistically planned with improved preparedness for flooding and climate change. Dwellings will be low carbon, and organised around multifunctional landscapes that will help control surface water flooding or act as large flood storage areas. New communities will comprise flood-resilient dwellings located on the highest ground, with amphibious homes in the transitional zones between development and the natural environment.

The planning system, supported by common standards, has a critical role in realising this vision with the potential to provide safe development as well as simultaneously addressing land availability and acting as a catalyst for emerging construction industries. b

Richard Coutts is Director at Baca Architects rcoutts@baca.uk.com

Construction, technology and environmental services

m aY/ J U N E 2 0 1 6 2 1

RICS B U I L DI N G SURV E YI N G J OURN A L

L egal

Positional sense Laurence Cobb considers the liabilities of project monitors and construction professionals, plus the validity of liquidated and ascertained damage provisions

T

here is a view that the role of the project monitor is a bit of an easy ride when it comes to balancing risk against reward, but the recent case of Lloyds Bank Plc v McBains Cooper Consultancy Ltd [2015] EWHC 2372 (TCC) shows that such a view is mistaken.

In this case, the bank agreed to lend in excess of £2.5m to the borrower, Miracle Signs & Wonders Ministry Trust, to redevelop a church. However, after 21 months the development was unfinished and the money was all but gone. The borrower was unable to complete so Lloyds sold the property and was left with the loss of about £1.4m.

Lloyds sought to recover its losses from McBains Cooper, alleging inaccurate progress reports, lack of site visits, failure to discuss shortfalls in funding with the borrower, and failing to inform Lloyds that the third floor of the property was being developed.

The court found that a significant proportion of the losses were the responsibility of McBains Cooper. Its lack of site visits and early notifications of variations meant that the bank was exposed to losses from cost overruns.

However, the bank was also at fault owing to its own negligence from internal errors, so it was found responsible for a third of its losses. Clearly, as project monitor, playing an active role and knowing your brief is vital to avoiding claims, and it is best to make sure that your client understands what is happening on the project.

“ Playing an active

role and knowing your brief is vital to avoiding claims 2 2 May/ J U N E 2 0 1 6

reduces a sum otherwise payable due to defective performance, does not apply to professional services contracts. An exception is when an identifiable element of the services’ scope can be shown to be worthless, as was found regarding a failure to provide monthly cost reports.

This case offers a mixed picture for construction professionals. While pursuing them is often not straightforward, global claims can in principle be brought; however, if claims can be detailed, then a global claim is likely to fail, and hopeless services can lead to abatement against elements of fees.

Penalty rule

Global claim Another recent case looking at claims against construction professionals was William Clark Partnership Limited (WCP) v Dock St PCT Ltd [2015] EWHC 2923 (TCC). WCP was retained by Dock St to provide quantity surveying and project management services regarding the construction of a primary healthcare centre. Dock St claimed that a cost overrun in excess of £700,000 was a result of WCP’s failings. WCP brought proceedings for the balance of unpaid professional fees and Dock St, as part of its counterclaims, sought recovery of the cost overrun and abatement or reduction of fees due to poor performance.

Although WCP was found to have failed to provide adequate cost reports and to have performed poorly, the cost overrun claim failed because of causation issues.

It was a global claim – in itself not fatal, but the route taken instead of advancing a properly detailed case. However difficult it might have been such a case could still have been put forward, in the court’s view.

As to the abatement issue, the general rule is that abatement, which

Finally, if only because of the press coverage these cases received, I cannot ignore the recent Supreme Court decision in Cavendish Square Holding BV v El Makdessi and Parkingeye Ltd v Beavis [2015], which has reformulated the penalty rule. This moved away from a validity test on whether the pre-estimate of loss is genuine to a broader test as to the innocent party’s legitimate interest in the performance of the contract, including its nature as a deterrent. It is now much less likely that a liquidated and ascertained damage claim will be found to constitute a penalty.

These cases offer a simple but important message to surveyors to be aware of what they are signing up for, as any failures can be expensive – whether or not you wanted those terms in the first place. C

Laurence Cobb is Partner at law firm Taylor Wessing lcobb@taylorwessing.com

Related competencies include Legal/regulatory compliance, Dispute resolution and conflict avoidance

Image © iStock

Legal Q&A LEG A L

+info Charles Blamire-Brown is a partner at Pinsent Masons LLP charles.blamirebrown@ pinsentmasons.com

Defects list

Q

The contract administrator has issued a practical completion certificate with a defects list attached, stating that practical completion is subject to rectification of these defects. What is the status of the defects list?

> Charles Blamire-Brown

A

While a good administrative tool, a defects list will likely have little bearing on parties’ underlying contractual obligations.

We must first understand what a “defects list” is. There are four scenarios when a contract administrator tends to use one: bb first, prior to completion, setting out a list of the work that remains to be completed before a practical completion certificate (PCC) can be issued bb second, on completion, issuing with the PCC a defects list, containing some very minor items of work still to be carried out bb third, on completion, issuing with the PCC a defects list detailing major items of work that are still outstanding bb fourth, after completion, as a tool for monitoring any defects that come to light and are not remedied by the contractor during the contractual defect rectification period.

The defects lists issued in the first, second and fourth examples are unlikely to be inconsistent with the terms of the underlying contract. Contrast this with the third example. As we will see, most standard forms of contract allow for “completion” to be achieved in instances where there are very minor defects, but not where there are major outstanding defects.

Practical completion Under a Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) contract, the contract administrator is required to certify that practical completion has taken place. “Practical completion” is not defined, but case law provides that this occurs at the completion of “all the construction work that has to be done” or when the works are complete “for all practical purposes”. There is unlikely to be an issue with regard to the first example; such a defects list would merely serve as a practical reminder of the defects that require rectification before achieving practical completion.

Similarly the defects list in example two is likely to be compatible with the criteria for practical completion under a JCT contract. Practical completion will still be achieved even with very minor defects, so long as works are substantially complete.

The issue comes with the list in example three. It is not possible for practical completion to be achieved in cases where major defects are outstanding, and the contract administrator should not certify practical completion until these are remedied.

That said, you may want to consider formally varying your contract by agreement between the parties to allow for practical completion notwithstanding defects identified on a specified list.

This will not be achieved with the defects list in example three, but will require a formal amendment to the underlying contract.

Under the New Engineering Contract (NEC), the project manager must certify completion within a week of this being achieved. Unlike JCT, NEC specifically defines completion: the contractor has, among other things, to complete all works that the works information requires them to by the completion date.

In practice, works specified in the works information tend to be very comprehensive, including provision of all operations and maintenance manuals and as-built drawings, for example. Failure to provide these, even if they do not stop the employer using the works, will mean that completion is not achieved.

In such circumstances it is possible that the defects list in the second example (as well as the third) may not be compatible with the underlying contract requirements relating to completion.

However, the project manager may consider issuing an instruction changing the completion requirements in the works information to avoid this issue. This instruction can be issued unilaterally and does not need the agreement of the contractor.

Practical tool A defects list can be a useful tool to help focus parties’ minds on any outstanding works, both before and after completion.

It will not, however, alter whether or not “practical completion” under JCT or “completion” under NEC has been achieved. If the defects listed in the current example are more than very minor, the contract administrator should not have issued the PCC. The defects list cannot be used to circumvent the contractual requirements in this way and will not have such an effect. As the PCC seems to have been issued, practical completion is deemed to be as per its date, notwithstanding the outstanding defects.

Accordingly, the defects list issued in this instance is no more than a record of the outstanding defects that the contractor is already required to rectify in line with its obligations under the contractual defects rectification period (as in example four). C

Related competencies include Contract administration, Contract practice

May/ J U N E 2 0 1 6 2 3

RICS B U I L DI N G SURV E YI N G J OURN A L

B uilding surve y ing A broad

Robert Ballantyne describes the challenges of working on a major portfolio of building surveys in Denmark

Special portfolio In Denmark, a pre-cast concrete frame is the norm

I

n common with many sizeable practices, Malcolm Hollis regularly carries out building survey work for clients acquiring large property portfolios. So when a client asked us to report on the condition of 50 industrial buildings on 26 separate sites, we knew we had the expertise and resources to meet their demands.

The fact that the buildings in question were not in the UK but in Denmark certainly threw in some extra challenges. However, having previously carried out portfolio work in Europe for other clients we were no strangers to working outside the UK, so we had a very good idea of what would be involved.

Specific brief With such a large portfolio to inspect and report on in an extremely tight timeframe, the first step was to develop a very specific brief with our clients. We then produced a bespoke report format, to include a building survey.

This consisted of a costed schedule of repairs in years one to five and in the longer term, prepared on a priority basis and apportioned to the tenant or landlord according to the lease covenants applicable to a particular property.

We also prepared a reinstatement cost assessment for each of the buildings, for which we used Danish pricing books to give costings in Danish Krone – UK prices differ considerably, so using locally produced pricing guides was essential.

Energy Performance Certificates were handled by an external environmental consultant.

Probably the biggest initial challenge was the administrative side. Mobilising a team of 25 surveyors from eight locations to 2 4 m aY/ J U N E 2 0 1 6

four different airports in Denmark was no mean feat. Added to that, accommodation, car hire and cherry pickers had to be organised for each site. However, everything ran like clockwork and the initial phase of surveys, covering around 263,000m2 in floor area, was carried out over just five days.

Not being fluent Danish speakers, we were relieved (although not surprised) to find that most Danes speak very good English. Arriving at one of our first sites we did have some initial problems with a Lithuanian driver, not least because it was his first day on the job and he had not realised that he would be operating the cherrypicker. It was a bit of a bumpy ride, but the job got done.

Differing construction types There were some interesting differences between the UK and Denmark in terms of construction types. Almost all the buildings we inspected were industrial warehouse units, which in the UK would typically be of a steel portal frame construction, whereas in Denmark a pre-cast concrete frame is the norm.

One of our Danish contacts – who provided us with a wealth of local knowledge – offered a possible explanation. Because of low winter temperatures, buildings must be designed to withstand the presence of snow over long periods.

Equally, the prevalence of concrete might also be attributable to concerns about thermal mass. Metal sheds can get unbearably hot in the summer, while for a similarly sized concrete building temperature fluctuations are less pronounced.

This may, in turn, mean there is less reliance on mechanical cooling, although the environmental sustainability of concrete has been subject to criticism.

Almost invariably, the units we inspected incorporated pre-cast composite panel cladding, with and without insulation.

Image © Malcom Hollis

RI CS BU ILDING S URV EYI NG JOUR NAL

Most of the roofs were built-up mineral felt, which usually incorporated good levels of insulation. Where these had been re-felted, the work had been done to a very high standard.

However, legislation in Denmark means that any work to roof coverings that involves replacing more than half of it necessitates the thermal upgrading of the entire roof to current building regulations standards.

During the course of our inspections, we saw a significant number of roofs that had had work carried out under the 50% threshold, presumably to avoid the expense of upgrading the roof as a whole. This piecemeal approach is far from ideal and can lead – quite literally – to a patchwork of repairs carried out over the long term.

Many of the units had large windows, presumably to let in as much natural light as possible, especially in the winter months when the sun remains low in the sky. Perhaps not surprisingly, given that Denmark is the home of one of Europe’s largest producers of glulam – glued, laminated timber beams and columns – use of this material was also widespread.

High standards We felt that the overall standard of construction was very good.

The initial investment in quality construction is likely testament to the fact that most leases require the tenant to carry out internal repair, with the landlord retaining responsibility for external repairs, as well as district heating systems in some cases. However, with no service charge mechanism, we did see evidence that the initial investment had been eroded over time by lack of maintenance.

This was clearly something that needed to be flagged up to our client, who was in the process of negotiating purchase of the freeholds. A full breakdown of the liabilities and costs they would be taking on, and when these might be expected, was crucial to the ongoing discussions over price.

Since that initial phase, we have subsequently been instructed to survey a further 173 units in Denmark and similar portfolios in Germany, the Netherlands and Poland, demonstrating that there are plenty of opportunities for UK firms to provide building surveying services across the European mainland. Indeed, the growth in demand and the need for local specialists is such that we opened our first office on the continent – in Madrid – in September last year, with more in the pipeline.

However, while much of what we do in the UK is directly transferable to instructions on the mainland, there are clearly differences – not least in construction types, building regulations, laws governing the built environment and cultural issues. Before proceeding with an instruction outside the UK, surveyors must ensure that they are aware of those differences and careful to work within their capabilities and knowledge base. C

Robert Ballantyne is a partner at Malcolm Hollis robert.ballantyne@malcomhollis.com

To a d ve rtise con t a c t Em m a Ke n n e dy +4 4( 0 ) 20 7 8 7 1 5 7 3 4 or emmak@wearesu nday. c om m aY/ J U N E 2 0 1 6 2 5

RICS B U I L DI N G SURV E YI N G J OURN A L

APC

Managing your maintenance

M

The optional maintenance management competency draws on a number of other skillsets, explains Ewan Craig, a speaker at the RICS annual It’s Your APC conference

aintenance management is one of the optional competencies of the building surveying APC. Maintenance issues in a property portfolio often require several technical competencies to be applied.

These include, for example: bb construction technology and environmental services: the materials and components from which the stock is made and its form of construction bb building pathology: how to prevent, reduce or remedy stock deterioration bb sustainability: how to understand the impact that maintenance has on the stock’s sustainability bb legal/regulatory compliance: what the owner’s and occupier’s rights and responsibilities are regarding, for example, health and safety or dilapidations issues.

The levels The requirements of each level of the competency are as follows.

At level 1 Show knowledge and understanding of the nature of building maintenance, and the principles and practice of building maintenance management.

At level 2 Apply your knowledge to gather building maintenance information, formulate policies and implement maintenance management operations.

At level 3 Provide evidence of reasoned advice, prepare and present reports on maintenance management issues.

Your submission should prove that you are familiar with the organisation and operation of maintenance on a portfolio of properties, and you should be ready for questions on these or related issues.

Questions Actual questions are based on the candidate’s experience, which should 2 6 May/ J U N E 2 0 1 6

be at level 2 but could exceed this. Two examples are given below.

Would you please explain how you prepared to carry out the condition surveys for five buildings for client Y? This question is aimed at level 2 candidates. The answer should show the issues that you considered in applying your knowledge, for example as follows.

The surveys were undertaken to ascertain the condition of the commercial buildings, and would be used to revise the maintenance programme for the buildings and plan works. Following confirmation of the instruction and brief, I obtained client information relevant to the buildings – for example the leases, repairing covenants, the extent of the demise, areas of concern, the asbestos register and their maintenance records.

I also established their maintenance policy, the approach to life expectancy and categorising repairs. The client occupied the whole of each building; their portfolio was located across southern England, so I coordinated the surveys over several weeks. This period gave me continuity as the surveyor, and allowed for the first survey to be a pilot to confirm that I would meet the client brief. I also carried out pre-inspection checks, such as the health and safety risk assessment.

I liaised with our in-house building services engineer, who carried out the services condition survey at the same time. One roof was inaccessible, so specialist access with a mobile elevating work platform was organised, being the best option in that instance. I followed the practice’s quality assurance and management processes in preparing for the surveys together with the RICS guidance notes, and also drew on information from isurv.

Could you please explain how you produced a three-year maintenance works plan for procurement on client X’s portfolio?

This question is also aimed at level 2 candidates, but it could be extended to level 3. You could answer along the following lines.

I was part of the team that carried out the condition surveys for the client’s portfolio of 16 buildings. I used the data from this to produce a five- and 10-year maintenance plan that followed the condition surveys’ recommendations.

This provided a profile of works, detailing priorities and expenditure for each year.

I discussed the client’s needs for their assets and balanced these against their finances and resources.

Working with the RICS guidance notes and other information from sources such as isurv and BCIS, I produced two potential maintenance works plans – a lower-cost extended plan and an optimum plan. Works were grouped together to minimise business disruption and reduce costs by sharing the expense of outlays such as scaffolding. Grouping works also brought economies of scale, with more competitive works packages. I then worked with my line manager who presented the final recommended three-year works plan to the client.

Care Given the time constraints of the APC, your answer should be brief but comprehensive. The answers given above are not exhaustive. Care should be taken to demonstrate your own skills, abilities and knowledge to the assessors. C Ewan Craig is an APC assessor and Associate with Ridge and Partners LLP e.craig@ridge.co.uk

For details on the APC pathway guide for building surveyors, please visit http://bit.ly/10yITaW

Related competencies include Client care, Construction technology and environmental services, Legal/regulatory compliance, Building pathology, Sustainability, Design and specification, Maintenance management

Building Conservation Journal OPINION

CONT ENTS

Traditional buildings deserve better

T

Cover Line

Traditional buildings make up a quarter of the UK building stock, and in most cases there’s little difference between those with statutory protection and those without. Most are designed and built and perform in the same way, so they require the same understanding and treatment. Yet those that have protection and those that don’t are often treated differently. Professionals like ourselves with conservation knowledge will treat these buildings in an informed way, but those that don’t will often treat them like modern buildings – remedial treatments using new, often inappropriate interventions with risky consequences.

For most traditional buildings, it means that, for issues such as damp, the services of a damp proofing contractor will frequently be recommended, often resulting in chemical damp proof courses and impermeable cement render

Images © Dr AM Forster, NHTG, Alamy

John Edwards FRICS, is a director of Edwards Hart Consultants and formerly worked for Cadw and English Heritage

being installed. Those of us in conservation will instead try to find the true cause of dampness and not do anything to limit the building fabric’s breathability. One must ask why this persists when authoritative guidance such as BS 7913 on historic and traditional buildings clearly states that impeding breathability is wrong.

While working at English Heritage, I managed a sector skills agreement with the Construction Industry Training Board and through this initiated the creation of the Sustainable Traditional Buildings Alliance. This was designed to offer a channel for our advice on understanding and treating traditional buildings, and has since gone on to make a huge impact in informed energy efficiency retrofit.

But promoting best practice in surveying traditional buildings needs to be central to all bodies in our sector. The RICS’ voice must be heard clearly, challenging the delegation of professional building surveying activities to others where there could be adverse consequences.

Until normal practice complies with best practice, the credibility of chartered surveyors could be called into question and this will be detrimental to those of

us who are experts and take pride in dealing with issues professionally. Any argument that this is a specialist field because it concerns traditional buildings is nonsense – we are talking about a quarter of UK building stock, and less than 10% of this quarter has statutory protection.

There is no doubt that the RICS is advancing the practice of chartered surveyors and in the last Building Surveying Journal there were excellent features on subjects such as sustainability, building information modelling, drones and the technology used in surveying buildings – all very important issues. But going back to basics and ensuring that a chartered surveyor’s expertise doesn’t omit traditional buildings must surely be near the top of our priorities – it is in the public interest. This is a problem across the sector, and others – as well as the RICS – have a role to play.

Most of you will probably be experts in building conservation, and that’s partly the problem: this message needs to reach those chartered surveyors who are not. They form the vast majority of those dealing with and surveying traditional buildings. C

Philosophies of repair Dr Alan Forster discusses how historic repair projects can be influenced by differing philosophical perspectives PG.

28

Looking after our heritage

Cathie Cook explains how the NHTG is opening up new opportunities for specialist heritage craft skills training PG.

32

Heritage update PG. 34 CONTACTS Advisory group: Alan Cripps (RICS), John Edwards (Edwards Hart Consultants), Alan Forster (Heriot-Watt University), Frank Keohane (Paul Arnold Architects) and John Klahn (RICS)

rics.org/journals May/ J U N E 2 0 1 6 2 7

RICS B uilding conservation JOURNAL

Conservation philosophy

Dr Alan Forster discusses how the outcome of an historic repair project can be influenced by subjectivity and differing philosophical perspectives

The philosophies of repair

W

hen assessing a deteriorating structure, two professionals may look at the same building and propose significantly different repairs. The final result of the project will be influenced by experience, philosophical perspectives and financial constraints. These feed into the selection of the technical repair interventions and therefore the building aesthetics.

This article investigates why repair projects often start at a subjective point and are prone to further divergence when building conservation philosophies inform technical fabric repair decisions.

The need for objectivity The assessment of an historic building requiring repair should lead to an objective evaluation of condition. Visual surveys are a commonly adopted method of inspection as they are easy to execute, are relatively cheap and do not rely on specialist technical survey equipment. These surveys are invaluable especially when used in conjunction with supplementary techniques such as infrared thermography.

The objectivity of a visual survey may be variable, being a function of human evaluation and interpretation. Objective reporting supports the establishment of fabric repair strategies and broader asset management. If objective criteria are not used, the broad scope of condition surveys may make consistent and uniform reporting difficult.

Subjectivity in the condition survey James Douglas defines “condition survey” as “a descriptive, snapshot assessment of a building”. A survey involves “inspection with recording of narrative, sometimes 2 8 MaY/ J U N E 2 0 1 6

with detailed analysis and identification of defects and related causes to determine remedial works”. There should be a consistent and logical process for the inspection, recording and reporting, and – as is highlighted in BS 7913 (2013) – comprehensive, meaningful checklists can help ensure consistent evaluation.

The broad scope of condition surveys, however, makes their rational production and uniformity of content difficult to ensure. This difficulty is exacerbated if the client communicates their objectives poorly to those providing the professional services. Survey subjectivity has been described by Ad Straub as “the practice of condition assessment by building inspectors yielding variable results due to subjective perceptions of inspectors.

Surveyor variability is defined as the situation where two or more surveyors, evaluating the same building, arrive at very different survey decisions."

The hierarchy of building diagnostics However experienced the surveyor, they will have a subconscious investigative protocol in any survey. Douglas identifies a “hierarchy of building diagnostics”, which can be subdivided into three principle areas: commissioning; monitoring; and investigative diagnostics; with the latter further subdivided into protocols, testing techniques and cognitive branches.

The cognitive branches reflect the investigator’s critical-thinking, problem-solving and decision-making processes and are all inherently subjective. Clearly, these reflect a building professional’s experience, influences and prejudices, and they affect the objectivity and accuracy of reporting. In terms of evaluating holistic building performance and technical repair options, the hierarchy of building

The broad scope of condition surveys makes their rational production and uniformity of content difficult to ensure diagnostics can help make explicit these subjectivities and thus identify the potential deficiencies of a survey.

Limiting variation, “condition survey on historic buildings should be performed by competent persons with knowledge of traditional materials, construction technologies and decay processes”, and a focus on conservation accreditation is a means of demonstrating such competency (BS 7913, p.19).

More generally, a chartered building surveyor has already proved their expertise by understanding the core competency areas of practice, and

RI CS Building conservation JOURNAL

2

1

to an expressed hypothesis system with three critical questions to evaluate the need for effective repair. These are: bb where are we now? bb where do we want to be? bb how do we get there?

3 1 Philosophically driven fabric repair of Cardiff Castle, Cardiff, where repair of flank walls with red sandstone masonry banding delineates new from original fabric 2 Philosophically driven fabric repair, Neues Museum, Berlin 3 Decorative plaster scheme, where no

attempt has been made at restoration

Images © Dr AM Forster

this can provide a degree of uniformity between practitioners.

Decision-making approaches A system of problem solving and decision making, in which hypotheses are generated, is used to assess methods of repair. BS 7913 (p.9) specifically refers

The hypothesis generation and methodologies used should be proportionate to the scope of the works and the significance of the building in question. Clearly, anyone undertaking a survey devises hypotheses consciously or subconsciously, but the relevance of the questions asked and the suitability and accuracy of the chosen solution depends on the building inspector’s experience, education and ability to analyse evidence. Any diagnostic process must enable the investigator’s hypothesis to be confirmed or refuted.

Standardisation may prove difficult, leading to variation in condition survey and proposed fabric repair.

Differing philosophies BS 7913 (p.6) indicates that “understanding the significance of MaY/ J U N E 2 0 1 6 2 9

n

RICS B uilding conservation JOURNAL

C onservation P hilosoph y

Table 1 Tenets of building conservation philosophy

n

Ethics

Principles

bb Authenticity (non-distortion of evidence) bb Integrity bb Avoidance of conjecture (need for incontestable evidence) bb Respect for age and historic patina bb Respect for the contribution of all periods

bb Minimal (least) intervention (or conservative repair) bb Legibility (honesty and distinguishability) bb Materials and techniques (like-for-like materials) bb Reversibility bb Documentation (meticulous recording and documentation) bb Sustainability

an historic building enables effective decision making about its future”. Repairs should be assessed before selection against both ethics and principles, which respectively set out the broader issues or key concepts, and offer the specific criteria on which conservation works should be based, as Technical Advice Note 8: The Historic Scotland Guide to International Charters (1997) explains (see Table 1).

In my 2010 article “Building conservation philosophy for masonry repair: Part 1 ‘Ethics’”, I emphasise that: “it could be assumed that the importance associated with each of the ethics and principles will vary from person to person, depending on their perspective and what they perceive to be of greater value. It is obviously best to consider them as holistically as possible, while comparing and contrasting the individual concepts.

A skewed focus or over-reliance on any one of the ethics or principles will lead to a selected repair that may be eminently suitable in one respect, but clearly fails in other aspects”.

Generally, conservation professionals can be broadly categorised in philosophical terms as purists, pragmatists or cynics, with each of these dispositions influencing their approaches to fabric repair.

Weighing up the approaches In reality, attitudes and perspectives cannot be neatly compartmentalised and are in no way binary, so decisions may be influenced by any of the three views. Additionally, a professional who is philosophically cynical does not automatically recommend indefensible conservation. Any professional, whether conservation-orientated or not, should understand the performance requirements of buildings, repairing them 3 0 m aY/ J U N E 2 0 1 6

with the most appropriate materials and techniques possible.

Conversely, a purist is not simply a pedant who dogmatically and uncompromisingly applies philosophical tenets. Most purists would seem to derive their understanding of building conservation from a long scholarly tradition reacting to damage of historic buildings by, for instance, Victorian conjectural restoration.

Also, far from preserving a structure as an archaeological artefact or museum piece, a purist philosophical approach including distinguishable repair can, in many cases, be exceptionally progressive, incorporating bold contemporary design into an historic context. Purists may be orientated towards conservative repair and honesty (the repair should be distinguishable, as in images 1 and 2), but such overt philosophically driven interventions can be aesthetically controversial.

My view is that the application of honest repair can be acceptable, but that context is paramount in making the decision. Furthermore, sensitively applied, honest or obtrusive repairs can be quite visually appealing for many practitioners, telling the story of an evolving structure.

A conservative repair approach, characterised by legible, minimal intervention and good maintenance, may better achieve conservation objectives and simultaneously reduce project cost by not undertaking unnecessary or overzealous interventions. The aphorism ‘less is more’ encapsulates this approach.

It is also important to understand that there are no absolutes in conservative repair, only greater levels of defence for selected repairs. The first rule of conservation is that there should be “no dogmatic rules … Each case must be considered on its own merits”, as AR

Powys explains in the 1929 piece “Repair of Ancient Buildings” for the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings.

A pragmatist may be influenced by various philosophical perspectives, proposing both restoration and conservative repair. The distinctions between the two are often misunderstood but form the basis of defensive positions for repair strategies.

Restoration is defined in BS 7913 (1998, p.10) as: “An alteration of a building, part of a building or artefact which has decayed, been lost or damaged or is thought to have been inappropriately repaired or altered in the past, the objective of which is to make it conform again to its design or appearance at a previous date … A presumption against restoration is a hallmark of the British approach to building conservation.

Restoration can diminish the authenticity and thus the historic value of a building”.

That said, restoration is deemed acceptable if the architectural analysis determines that restorative design interventions enhance the building’s integrity and support its significance.

Conservative repair is characterised in BS 7913 (1998, p.10). It says: “A conservative approach to repair is fundamental to good conservation.

This means that no building or part of a building should be repaired before such repair is strictly necessary or unless there is a good reason”.

Without a clear philosophical vision or a willingness to restore certain sections of a building, deciding to make other interventions distinguishable could potentially result in a lack of continuity.

It may then become difficult to defend interventions, as decisions to adopt honest repair or restoration become somewhat muddled.

A cynic who has no regard to the philosophy may take an approach that leads to significant falsification of the historic record by ‘restoring’ a building without giving consideration to distinguishability. Meaningful consideration of the philosophical tenets should be fundamental to defensible building conservation.

The influence of philosophies on repair selection The initial evaluation of the degree of deterioration and how objectively it is reported is clearly critical. This may be influenced by the inspector’s experience and risk-aversion, leading to potentially

RI CS Building conservation JOURNAL

The possibility for divergence between approaches is considerable different interventions. Compounding this, the application of philosophical tenets would again lead to divergence.

The aesthetic outcome of the project is a function of the choices made by the professional, so the possibility for divergence between approaches is considerable, as a result of the numerous stages that they must consciously or subconsciously navigate.

Conclusions: the divergent project 1. The subjective nature of survey and determination of the degree of deterioration cannot readily enable an objective starting point. A lack of commonality in definition also creates ambiguity. Clear communication and a shared language may reduce the chances of this.

2. Use of systematic surveying approaches may enable a relative level of uniformity, but the building inspector’s experience and interpretation may still vary considerably.

3. The professional’s experience will directly affect the technical repair strategy selected, but will diverge when the differing building conservation philosophies are applied. Any philosophy may be seen from the practitioner’s individual perspective.

4. Project aesthetics and their defensiblity may be radically different depending on technical and philosophical understanding. This must be understood by those commissioning advice.

It is evident that a well-considered, methodical survey should be undertaken by a professional with specific expertise

and knowledge of fabric repair. There should be meaningful discussions between stakeholders on the defensibility of the selected interventions and their aesthetic consequences. Justification of actions and the supporting decisions is important; what seems reprehensible is when no consideration is given to philosophical approaches. C To read the full version of this paper, please visit http://bit.ly/1LoygQH

Dr Alan M Forster is Associate Professor and Programme Director for the MSc/PgDip in Building Conservation (Technology & Management) at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh. a.m.Forster@hw.ac.uk

BS 7913 Guide to the conservation of historic buildings

Carriera is a Recruitment and Search & Selection specialist within the Construction and Property industry. We work closely with our clients who are employers, as well as professionals who are seeking to develop their career. We do this by taking time to understand the brief, motivators and opportunity for the party concerned.

The clients we work with have a number of key opportunities, a few of which are detailed below.

Director

Team Leader

Hertfordshire You will: • Be an expert in neighbourly matters, in particular party walls

• Take control of an existing fee income • Grow the service line and team • Manage existing relationships whilst identifying and fostering new ones

In return, you will receive: • Excellent compensation and significant bonus

• Route through to shareholding • An excellent platform to work from and

London You will: • Be an expert in Technical due diligence • A Chartered Building Surveyor (Senior or Associate)

• Possess a solid understanding of commercial, leisure and residential assets

In return, you will receive: • A solid basic, excellent car allowance and benefits package with bonus based upon a fee target

• Route through to Partner (salaried) and then Equity based upon value added

talented professionals to work with

Senior Chartered Building Surveyors Milton Keynes & Cambridge You will: • Be a Chartered Building Surveyor • Be a solid professional within the commercial arena, dealing with both project and professional duties

• Be capable of taking instruction, managing client relationships and delivering a seamless service

• Be driven to achieve associateship and beyond

In return, you will receive: • An excellent salary and benefits package • Supported career growth

For more information about these vacancies or to enquire about other opportunities please call Elliot Wright on 0203 817 0000 or email ewright@carriera.co.uk Recruitment – Search & Selection – Market Intelligence – Benchmarking

www.carriera.co.uk

To a d ve rtise con t a c t Em m a Ke n n e dy +4 4( 0 ) 20 7 8 7 1 5 7 3 4 or emmak@wearesu nday. c om m aY/ J U N E 2 0 1 6 3 1

RICS B uilding conservation JOURNAL

Looking after our heritage

T

Cathie Clarke explains how the National Heritage Training Group is creating opportunities for specialist heritage craft skills training

he National Heritage Training Group (NHTG) was created by the UK heritage agencies and the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) to address their growing concerns about the lack of experienced heritage craftspeople and the sustainability of the UK’s built heritage. An NHTG report from 2005 stated that there are around 5.5 million traditional buildings in England and 505,000 in Scotland, about 10% of which are listed. On average, around 20% of buildings were constructed before 1919.

In Wales, there are almost 500,000 dating from before 1919, nearly a third of all its building stock. Northern Ireland has around 125,000 buildings of this vintage, and there are about 175,000 in the Republic of Ireland.

Following each of the world wars, there was a need to rebuild the country quickly. With the advent of Portland cement and other new materials and techniques at this time, traditional building skills and training were slowly dropped from college curricula. By the turn of the 20th century, traditional or ‘heritage’ building skills and training were only available via a handful of specialist training providers and no formal qualifications existed.

It is also true to say that most construction-related undergraduate degrees do not include any conservation elements, which has resulted in poorly or incorrectly specified works on traditional and listed buildings.

The toolkit should enable new entrants and experienced contractors alike to upskill and improve their knowledge 3 2 m aY/ J U N E 2 0 1 6

Cause for concern This dearth of training opportunities has led to a number of issues arising.

1. There is a general lack of knowledge about how traditional buildings – whether they are listed or not – were constructed, and thus how they should be properly cared for and maintained by craftspeople and professions.

Most buildings from before 1919 will be of solid wall construction and need to allow the movement of moisture and air inside and through their fabric.

2. Inappropriate materials and techniques have been used to care for, maintain and develop traditional buildings, which has often led to fabric decay, damp and other issues. This creates the impression that old buildings are cold, draughty, inefficient and difficult to heat.

3. Diminishing knowledge and understanding has led to fewer specialist conservation building contractors, and therefore the opportunities to offer worthwhile apprenticeships have significantly decreased.

4. Off-site training to support apprentices is limited and difficult to access.

The 2008 NHTG review Traditional Building Craft Skills – Reassessing the Need, Addressing the Issues stated that 109,000 people were employed on pre-1919 buildings in 2007, but only 33,000 craftspeople were actually equipped with the skills to work on such stock. The review found that “the vast majority working in this sector are generally builders, with only 8% of those interviewed describing themselves as conservation or heritage specialists”.

In addition, the review stated that: “Contractors have high, but at times unjustified confidence in their ability to work on traditional buildings.”

Image © NHTG

RI CS Building conservation JOURNAL

If we are to look after our heritage buildings we need to value our current craftspeople New heritage craft qualifications The first challenge was to qualify the existing workforce by creating a suite of heritage craft qualifications at Level 3, the equivalent of A-levels, and link them to new Heritage Construction Skills Certificate Scheme (CSCS) cards. Level 3 was considered the best benchmark to define an experienced and knowledgeable craftsperson, although clearly many master craftspeople would be working at a much higher level than this.

The Heritage CSCS card was initially available for experienced craftspeople in the hope that those with the skills could access a card without needing the formal qualification, and in the meantime construction colleges would offer the new L3 NVQ. Unfortunately, only a small proportion of the estimated 95,000 experienced craftspeople came forward to access the card. Limited funding and difficulty in accessing training has resulted in even smaller numbers of craftspeople undertaking the NVQ Heritage Diploma. Most new achievements have been financed through Heritage Lottery Fund bursary schemes.

The most recent report into the state of the heritage craft skills sector, Skills Needs Analysis 2013: Repair, Maintenance and Energy Efficiency Retrofit of Traditional (pre-1919) Buildings in England and Scotland, states that 87% of the contractors in England who were polled do not hold formal qualifications relating to work on traditional buildings, and that this figure rises to 95% in Scotland.

The report also found that 75% and 72% of contractors surveyed in England and Scotland respectively have not undertaken any training on traditional buildings in the past four or five years. The report states that the “ongoing effect of the economic recession and subsequent weak economic recovery is the most significant change that has affected demand for skills, supply of skills, and training provision”.

The NHTG believes that the biggest and most powerful driver for skills development in the crafts – across all the construction industry and not just the heritage sector – is client demand.

However, with the specific and significant issues in heritage training that make accessing work experience, courses and qualifications much more challenging than in mainstream construction trades, it is difficult for a client to demand that craftspeople have the right qualifications and certifications.

Training tools launched The NHTG recognised that it was important to make all the specialist training that is available fully accessible. So in 2015, a searchable online Heritage Craft Skills Training Directory was launched. It lists more than 120 training providers across the UK, in addition to explaining the different types of qualifications available. The directory can be searched by craft, course type or qualification, making it a very flexible and easy-to-use tool.

Heritage training still requires suitable host projects, and the development of a Traditional Building Skills Training Toolkit is another major step forward in helping clients, specifiers and contractors to incorporate skills training into ‘live-site’ projects.

This has been written by the NHTG in partnership with the Churches Conservation Trust and independent conservation and training specialists, and uses Bolton All Souls – a Heritage Lottery Fund-supported project – as a case study. The toolkit is available for free from the NHTG website, and was downloaded 600 times within three months of its launch.

By offering a simple, step-by-step guide with sample templates, it helps make sense of the traditional building skills and training landscape. It provides examples of clauses that can be used in procurement contracts to ensure that heritage training is integral to the construction project. Training should not just be limited to apprenticeships, but should comprise a range of opportunities from taster days to formal courses for all stakeholder groups.

The toolkit should enable new entrants and more experienced contractors alike to upskill and improve their knowledge and understanding. Everyone from homeowners, community groups, local authority representatives, specifiers, young people and others should benefit from built heritage training. CPD is not just for professionals!

Increasing demand Considering that more than 20% of existing buildings are of traditional construction, it would seem sensible to have a similar proportion of construction education programmes focusing on the construction, care and repair of these buildings if we are truly interested in their long-term sustainability.

Also, the more training that can be encouraged on projects, the more demand there will be for training providers to offer heritage training and qualifications. If we are to look after our heritage buildings into the future and make them sustainable, we need to value our current craftspeople, offer the opportunity for new craftspeople to learn their trade and provide everyone with the knowledge and understanding to ensure that appropriate care, repair and development is carried out.

There are still many hurdles remaining, but the NHTG is committed to supporting the sector and will continue to lobby all stakeholders and pursue new initiatives to protect and value heritage craft skills. C

Cathie Clarke is General Manager of the NHTG www.the-nhtg.org.uk

Follow us on Twitter @NHTG_News All reports mentioned in this article can be also viewed on the NHTG website.

m aY/ J U N E 2 0 1 6 3 3

RICS B uilding conservation JOURNAL

H eritage U pdate

UPDATE

Heritage Update is compiled by Henry Russell OBE FRICS, School of Real Estate and Planning, University of Reading and Chair of the Heritage Alliance’s Spatial Planning Advocacy Group h.j.g.russell@reading.ac.uk

Planning consultations The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and its Commons Select Committee have both been consulting on planning policy.

The Housing and Planning Bill currently going through Parliament has provisions that will affect the historic environment.

For example, “planning permission in principle” is a proposal to accelerate development on certain types of land, enabling councils to decide the site and extent of development, or developers to apply to do so. Designation can be made at any time, and could include sites allocated in a neighbourhood development plan.

This parallels the process for outline planning permission, so the government suggests that permission in principle would be a lighter process. It also says brownfield land and small sites would be suitable for permission in principle, with a view to developing land

The Lords on planning In February, the House of Lords Select Committee on National Policy for the Built Environment published its report Building better places. This is a wide-ranging report addressing heritage issues and acknowledging their economic impact in providing employment. It proposes a strategic government policy for heritage, recognising that while the National Planning Policy Framework generally affords adequate protection for heritage, there are problems resulting from the loss of local authority conservation services.

The report also calls on the government to review VAT rates on the repair of listed buildings, as this often amounts to a considerable cost. n http://bit.ly/1Q4ToLR

more quickly. Brownfield land may be of archaeological interest, however, so heritage impacts will need to be considered in this process. No clear way has yet been proposed to do so.

The DCLG also proposes that the residential density around commuter hubs be increased to make transport more sustainable. Such hubs are not well defined, but will necessarily include some historic areas. n Commons select committee consultation http://bit.ly/1PRVOc3 n DCLG consultation http://bit.ly/1XW7pLY

Housing and Planning Bill If enacted, the bill will enable the grant of permission in principle and the establishment of brownfield registers, which will identify formerly developed land that is suitable for new housing. It also proposes a competitive system for processing planning applications by alternative providers, such as external consultants or other planning authorities.

It is not clear how alternative providers will be selected, what criteria will be used or how standard planning application consultation processes will be affected, but the government intends to conduct a pilot before implementing the new system across the country. Local authorities will also have the power to streamline planning procedures to speed up decisions, including a fast-track service at an additional fee.

Many of the bill’s provisions will be enacted by secondary legislation, consultation on which is available at the second of the links below. n Housing and Planning Bill http://bit.ly/1Lsb9SM n Implementation of planning changes: technical consultation http://bit.ly/1QnA1cD

SPAB guidance

Traditional roofing is a highly regional phenomenon and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) has published excellent guidance on traditional slating in the South West of England, following a similar guidance note on pegged tiles in the South East.

SPAB is planning to digitise many of its technical publications, although it already has a technical Q&A section on its website with many illustrated answers. n SPAB resources http://bit.ly/1Z4bq33 n Technical Q&A http://bit.ly/1RWQAQj 3 4 May/ J U N E 2 0 1 6

Parliament renewal

RICS Conservation Forum Board Chair Lynda Jubb recently appeared at a hearing of the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster. Commenting on the options for the Restoration and Renewal Project, she made points on compliance, maintenance, capacity, heritage skills, VAT and risk. The works are estimated to cost £3.5bn–£5.7bn over six to 32 years, depending on how many people will have to vacate the Palace to effect the necessary repairs.

Historic England guidance notes Technical conservation and planning advice from Historic England can be downloaded from the agency’s website. Recently published guidance is available on insulating timber-framed walls and pitched roofs, tall buildings, heritage partnership agreements and site allocation in local plans. n http://bit.ly/1RQmFXc Image © Alamy

A DV ERTISING

RI CS BU ILDING conservat ion JO UR NAL

Glass for period windows

The professionals in concrete repair All CRA members: 4 Are accredited to

BS EN ISO 90001 and BS EN ISO 14001

4 Comply with BS EN 1504 4 Can demonstrate

a proven track record and capability

The London Crown Glass Company specialises in providing authentic glass for the windows of period buildings.

This glass, handblown using the traditional techniques of the glass blowers, is specified by The National Trust, the Crown Estates and indeed many others involved in the conservation of Britain’s heritage.

Specify authentic period glass for your restoration projects.

4 Comply with the

CRA’s stringent codes of practice

A member of:

THE LONDON CROWN GLASS COMPANY 21 Harpsden Road, Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 1EE Tel 01491 413227 Fax 01491 413228 www.londoncrownglass.co.uk

Get it right.

Get a professional.

Insist on CRA

www.cra.org.uk

Dilapidations Roadshow Multiple locations May-July 2016 Get to grips with building surveying, valuation and legal addressed in Consortium Commercial Developments vs ABB (2015). Our annual dilapidations roadshow brings together both practising lawyers and buildings surveyors to analyse the issues from the case that will impact both landlord and tenant.

Join the event near you to: • Hear a critical perspective on dilapidations from across the profession with speakers including surveyors, valuers and lawyers.

• Take part in practical afternoon discussions to work through topical issues facing the sector • Get updates on the latest changes including: Part 36 offers and EPCs.

Book your place online today:

rics.org/dilapsroadshow

To a d ve rtise con t a c t Em m a Ke n n e dy +4 4( 0 ) 20 7 8 7 1 5 7 3 4 or emmak@wearesu nday. c om Untitled - Page: 1

m aY/ J U N E 2 0 1 6 3 5

2016-03-29 11:09:57 +0100