Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Proposals made by Rendall & Rittner (Read 19713 times)
Michele Mills
Guest


Proposals made by Rendall & Rittner
02/20/02 at 22:25:36
Print Post  
Has anyone noticed that R & R's idea of putting a roof on is not only absurdly expensive but that it has no hope of curing the 'rising damp' emanating from  the pipes beneath the water feature and ruining the flats of those people living on the ground floor.?
We had a plan through our last managing agents for fixing the ground floor leaks which came in at 500 per flat, now we are talking 5,000.!

I have details of the original architects of the building, who did intend to build a glass roof over everything before the developers went bankrupt, if anyone wants them.

Oh, and Pathfinders are the only freeholders of Baltic Quay.  CAM is merely a subsidiary put in to manage and now defunct
   
By the way , cardboard should be put beside the bins in B1 then George can break it down more effectively befor it goes in.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Ex Member


Re: Proposals made by Rendall & Rian dividing the cost in a similar way to the service charge to reflect the higher value/size etc of some of the apartments. Does anyone know how they are proposing we pay for it, and if this method of dividing costs has been agreed? I missed the last residents' meeting and haven't seen any minutes, so I don't know if it was discussed there.
Reply #1 -
Print Post  
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Erik Carlson
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline



Posts: 24
Joined: 01/01/01
Gender: Male
Re: Proposals made by Rendall & Rittner
Reply #2 - 02/21/02 at 10:57:21
Print Post  
I don't know how the proposed figure will divide. Sturges were simply dividing the cost between the total number of flats as a guide. I don't think that the details have been bashed out yet. I don't think any resident whether their flat is big or small would be able to come up with 5K just like that, so there's clearly some more thinking that needs to be done. If you missed the last residents meeting then have a look at the minutes. Duncan Rendall tells me that these were put in the post to all leaseholders lastnight. I'll scan them in and upload to the site as soon as I see them.
To Michele: I'm sorry I don't have your email address or i'd take this private. If you can drop a copy of the architects plans through my letterbox (flat 121) I'd be happy to post them on the site for all to see and discuss. Similarly if you have any previous plans that I can post for comparison with the new plans. I will also ammend the history tonight. Thanks for your input!
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Alison
YaBB Newbie
*
Offline


I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 10
Joined: 02/19/02
Gender: Female
Re: Proposals made by Rendall & Rittner
Reply #3 - 02/22/02 at 17:50:40
Print Post  
Shocked Grin Kiss

There are a few valid points that were made at the meeting last week;

-Fixing the ground floor would cost only about 500 per flat but it's better to fix everything as why should people on the higher levels pay for issues only affecting the ground floor, even though we sympathise with them?!  This view was expressed by a few people and it seems fairer to fix everyones problems.  The 5k would also repaint all the flats.

-If the garden is dug up no-one can guarantee the extent of damage.  'Blocks of concrete could fall on cars' I quote.

-Although there is water there now, putting in a roof at the 3rd would stop it getting worse and there are remedies to fixing the current damp problem there now.

A few points that weren't covered;

-Do we have permission from the freeholders, Pathfinder, to make such amendments to the building?

-Are we going to claim money back for the damage from the garden?

-If the roof is at the 5th floor, or the glass enclosures cover the walkways there instead, it will inhibit the ability for those on the 4th and 5th to move large bulky furniture around on those landings. And on the 5th the glass won't actually meet the flat front and so the carpet walkways still wouldn't be totally covered

-Whose flat is going to have a noisey air-conditioning unit or heater stuck next to it?

It does seem to have been all a little rushed and nobody has any idea of how much majority there will be for a motion to be carried for the work.  Oh well, it will all come to a head on Wednesday!!!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
jereford
YaBB Newbie
*
Offline


I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 3
Joined: 02/23/02
Re: Proposals made by Rendall & Rittner
Reply #4 - 02/23/02 at 10:27:07
Print Post  
Hello All.

Perhaps I can add my experience regarding the proposed major works by Rendall & Rittner.  I currently work in Hong Kong but own a flat in Baltic Quay.

My experience is that if we go for a quick cheap-fix solution we will solve the symptom for a year or two (maybe) but are only storing up yet more problems and yet more expense later on, which will impact everybody negatively both in terms of quality of the block and the resale value of our flats.

In this context I think Sturgess's report is balanced and the scale of work they propose is necessary across six key areas. 

a) It seems that the water ingress into the ground-floor flats is significantly due to surface water seepage from the raised Japanese Garden (i.e. water seeping through directly from the Japanese Garden or from its drainage conduits).  The only effective way to stop this that I know of is:

(i) to remove the Japanese Garden completely and take the level of this central area back to a level equal to or lower than the floors of the ground-floor flats and then install effective drains and a waterproof screed to stop further surface water ingress into the basement.

(ii) to stop the surface water getting anywhere near the ground floor flats (and the other flats in the central area) which appears to have been the originally intention of the architects through their roof proposal and is the intention behind Sturgess's roof proposal.  If no surface water falls in the central area there will be no surface water ingress.

b) Any damp rising from below through the damp course would be a completely separate issue to the above.  It does not appear certain that the damp course is damaged.  Damp courses from the period when Baltic Quay was built are usually reliable at this age unless physically damaged due to poorly conducted subsequent work.  What appears to be rising damp could effectively be surface-water ingress coming up against the damp course from above and then seeping sideways and back up the concrete walls.  However it would be essential to test the damp course and conduct any repairs necessary to ensure it is good.

c) The maintenance of the surface cladding or other external surfaces of the building on a regular basis is crucial.  Surface tiles have to be regularly maintained or else rainwater gets behind them and permanently wets the concrete structure as once behind the tiles the water cannot dry out.  This ultimately rusts the steel frame or reinforcing rods of the building, causing the concrete to flake and ultimately fail.  To repair this kind of damage is hugely more expensive in the long term than fixing the tile cladding every four or five years.  In Hong Kong the trend is now to remove tiles on older buildings and paint the concrete with a good quality sealant paint every five years.

d) The window casements are sealed to the structure with mastic sealant which is starting to fail.  My flat on the third floor has water staining right down one side of the front casement due to failed sealant.  Given the age of the block, it is quite reasonable to expect this sealant to need replacing and I think it should be done to stop further water damage.

e) The window woodwork also needs repainting and realistically should be done every four to five years.

f) I think Sturgess are accurate in their assessment of the guttering, gullies.  Regular inspections and cleaning, resloping and resealing as relevant is essential.

Although GBP5,000 is a large sum of money, and is not easily findable at short notice by the majority of us, I think it is essential that we bite the bullet and address the structural issues facing the building with water ingress.  I suspect that the ease with which we can sell flats in the block (and the price that we can get for them) will already be negatively impacted.  The water-ingress problems are now in the open and prospective purchasers will be wary until the problems are solved and as a group we show a proven commitment to maintaining the building with long-term solutions.

I also think the block is now of an age where a regular maintenance schedule, more rigorous than that conducted in the past, is required and, as unpalatable as it is, this will probably necessitate an increase in the annual service charge. 

Finally my experience of other blocks is that structural maintenance costs that are not covered by the service charge, would usually be shared between the leaseholders in the same proportion as the service charge.

I hope this is helpful and that we can move forward to solve the problems of the block and get the structure back to a point where it requires and receives only ongoing regular maintenance.

All the best,

Jeremy Ford
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Susie_Richards
YaBB Newbie
*
Offline


I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 2
Joined: 02/27/02
Gender: Female
Re: Proposals made by Rendall & Rittner
Reply #5 - 02/27/02 at 10:01:04
Print Post  
After reading the latest minutes - I was surprised at the cost of the 6,000 per flat charges!  I only saw the botanical gardens last month (even though I have lived here for over a year) as I do not have access to the main reception - only outside access - so is everyone to pay the same costs?

ps great idea about the website  Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
Send TopicPrint