Barrow Hill estate major works residents’ update meeting (contract R104)
22 June 2017, 6:30pm – 8:30pm Barrow Hill Village Club
Present
Westminster City Council attendees
Councillor Rachael Robathan, Cabinet Member for Housing
Councillor Robert Rigby, Regent's Park Ward
Councillor Gotz Mohindra, Regent's Park Ward
Councillor Daniel Astaire, Regent's Park Ward
CityWest Homes attendees
Jonathan Cowie, Chief Executive
Phil Jenkins, Executive Director Property and Development
Jim Paterson, Property Services Director
Matt Bundy, Head of Capital Programme
John Millichope, Head of Leasehold Operations
Daren Townsend, Property Services Communications
2 Starling House53 Robin House54 Robin House63 Robin House
6 Swallow House35 Robin House4 Robin House62 Robin House
4 Starling House4 Linnet House30 Swallow House45 Robin House
8 Mallard House11 Mallard House26 Robin House29 Robin House
7 Starling House3 Swallow House7 Starling House3 Swallow House
15 Robin House13 Mallard House51 Robin House2 Kingfisher House
5 Swallow House 6 Starling House15 Heron House50 Robin House
67 Robin House6 Kingfisher House4 Swallow House10 Herron House
8 Robin House9 Starling House
- Introduction and welcome
1.1Councillor Robert Rigby introduced himself as a member for the Regent's Park
Ward, and then introduced his colleagues from Westminster City Council, including the
Councillor Rachael Robathan, Cabinet Member for Housing.
1.2Councillor Rigby outlined the purpose of the meeting; to provide an update on the current status of the project; to highlight the steps taken to resolve the dispute with Keepmoat; and give residents the chance toask questions. He apologised for the delay in holding the meeting.
1.3Councillor Robathan thanked residents for their time and expressed her disappointment about the dispute with Keepmoat. She apologised forthe disruption, inconvenience and upset caused, and reassured residents that the City Council, Ward Councillors and CityWest Homes have been working hard resolve the dispute.
- Fire safety at Barrow Hill
2.1Councillor Rigby said that following the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower he had asked CityWest Homes to clarify the fire safety procedures at Barrow Hill.
2.2Matt Bundy outlined the current fire risk assessment and associated inspection regime at Barrow Hill. He said that due to the design and construction of the properties at Barrow Hill there were no direct comparisons with Grenfell Tower, and that the properties were classified as low risk. On this basis, fire risk assessments are carried out every two years.
2.3The current assessment was carried out in October 2016, backed by quarterly management inspections. The majority of actions from the 2016 assessment have been addressed as part of the Keepmoat contract and there is a separate fire risk assessment project being prepared to satisfy the remaining actions. Matt confirmed that is a stay put policy in place for the properties at Barrow Hill.
2.4Matt explained that work undertaken by Keepmoat under project R104 included fire risk assessment work including fire resistant paint (Class 0) in the communal areas and emergency lighting.
2.5Johnathan Cowie said that given the events at Grenfell Tower, it was back to square one in relation to fire safety. CityWest Homes will be reviewingfire management procedures in line with any recommendations made by London Fire Brigade or changes to national fire safety advice.
2.6 Resident Questions
Q: None of the windows across the estate operate well, they are difficult to open. How is this safe in the event of a fire?
The properties are designed and built to enable residents to escape from their flat, in the event of a fire in their property. Fire detection is installed in tenanted flats to provide residents with early warning and travel distances within the flat are restricted to ensure residents can evacuate, before a fire can develop to an extent which prevents them from leaving via their front door, which is deemed to be the primary route of egress.
The windows to habitable rooms (bedrooms) which open onto communal walkways have not been designed as means of escape windows, as the internal layout of the flats meet the requirements of the current Building Regulations (Approved Documents B2); the flat entrance door being the route of escape in the event of a fire within individual flats. Similarly windows to kitchens and bathrooms are not deemed as means of escape under AD B2 and both these and the habitable room windows which open onto the communal walkway need to be restricted to 100mm to comply with Approved Document K of the Building Regulations.
Other windows to habitable rooms (bedrooms and living rooms) within each flat are also not considered as means of escape windows due to the internal layout, however as some of these may be at the limits of the travel distances stipulated in the Building Regulations we will be undertaking internal surveys with the H&S team to ensure that all flat archetypes have suitable means of escape.
Q: There is no clear guidance on what to do in the event of a fire, what should residents do if there is a fire?
A copy of the fire strategy for the building is included the fire action notice in the foyer of each block.
Q: Is the stay put policy safe?
Yes, advice from CityWest Homes and our partners London Fire Brigade is unchanged. The buildings at Barrow Hill are designed to ensure that a fire in an individual dwelling is contained within the flat of origin, as such residents in adjacent properties as long as they are not directly affected by smoke or flame, or requested to evacuate by the emergency services, are safe to remain in their homes.
Q: The fire extinguishers across the estate have been removed, why were they never replaced?
Fire extinguishers were removed from the communal areas of all blocks in 2006. They remain in plant (equipment) areas.While fire extinguishers are classed as a fire precaution, only people who have been properly trained to use fire extinguishers should use them and then only when it is safe to do so.As residents are not trained to use extinguishers, the presence of such equipment can encourage people to try to fight fires and thus residents may put themselves and others at increased risk.
Other factors considered in reaching our decision:
- The risk of fire spread due to occupants using the equipment to prop fire doors open
- The risk to the user (manual handling) of attempting to utilise a heavy appliance
- The cost of the supply and fitting of extinguishers in all blocks to current standards.
- The cost of testing and maintaining the extinguishers on an annual basis.
- The cost of replacing extinguishers following damage caused by misuse (used as door stops) or intentional vandalism.
Q: Although there is a no-smoking policy, how is this enforced?
It is very hard for the local team to enforce. Unless members of the team see someone smoking it is difficult to evidence. A block letter can be helpful to remind everyone of the policy. The team relies on reports from residents to help identify offenders. If offenders can be identified CityWest Homes can start enforcement action under the lease or tenancy agreement for nuisance.
Q: How often are estate inspections held?
The estate services team carry out a monthly compliance check for each block on the estate. In addition, the housing services team carries out quarterly estate inspections. The housing services team will be re-looking at the focus of inspections with residents with a view to re-defining the brief to cover for example, signage, recycling, green spaces, improvement opportunities, and estate amenities such as bike racks etc.
Action: Separate meeting to discuss housing management issues including ASB
Who: Daren Townsend
By when: Week commencing 26 June 2017
Post meeting note: Meeting held on 29 June 2017, summary and action list sent out at same time as these notes.
- Project update
3.1Matt Bundy gave a summary of the current dispute with Keepmoat and the next steps. He explained that CityWest Homes has instructed the contractor, Keepmoat, to replace the windows installed as part of the major works project on the estate. However, Keepmoat dispute this and have put forward proposals to repair the windows. CityWest Homes is unsatisfied with these proposals and the position remains unchanged.
3.2CityWest Homes is holding Keepmoat to account and is using the remedies set out in the contract to ensure they fulfil their contractual obligations.
3.3 Matt apologised for the delay in providingthat update, explaining that the relationship with Keepmoat has deteriorated, as has their commitment at that time to honour their obligations under the contract. This has meant that CityWest Homes has had to be careful about what and how we communicate with residents.
3.4 Resident Questions
Q: The lighting is a disaster. Why are they so bright, on all the time and so many of them?
We are required to provide 50 lux to the open walkways for general lighting and one to five lux for emergency lighting with battery back-up. The lighting has been installed with timers and they should not be on 24 hours a day. All timers will be checked to make sure they are working correctly.
Q: Why do the lights face our homes and not away from them?
Westminster City Council planners requested that our original design be amended to reduce light pollution to the adjacent buildings. Our first response was to lower the lights fittings so they weren’t visible from the street. However there was considerable opposition to the extended trunking.
Q: Lights along the walkway are dangerous, can they be moved?
This will be picked up as part of the review of lighting installed across the estate as part of the major works project.
Action: CityWest Homes to set up resident working group, initially to look at lighting installed as part of the project.
Who: Residents to nominate as volunteers, Daren Townsend to facilitate first meeting.
By when: Week commencing 24 July 2017.
Q: Keepmoat have been back a number of times but these have been very temporary fixes. What is the process for fixing the windows?
The windows cannot be repaired to a standard that will satisfy the requirements of the contract and therefore the repairs are by their nature temporary while CityWest Homes and Keepmoat resolve the dispute.
Q: How do you report immediate issues with windows or any other parts of the work, including damp issues?
Please contact the CityWest Homes’ Customer Services Team on 0800 358 3783 or . CityWest Homes will log the issue and, where appropriate, instruct Keepmoat for rectification in the first instance as determined by the contract. If the issue is not related to the major works project the Customer Services team will assign it to the relevant team within CityWest Homes and keep you updated on progress.
Q: What is the timescale for dealing with all the issues identified in the very detailed window surveys carried over the last year?
The final survey information will be issued to Keepmoat over the next two weeks.This information will be accompanied by further instructions requesting that Keepmoat replace the windows throughout the estate. Keepmoatwill havea minimum of 30 days to respond to the instructions.
There are three possible outcomes:
- Keepmoat return and to replace the windows.
- Westminster City Council litigate.
- Keepmoat make a commercial settlement with Westminster City Council over the cost of the windows installed and explore other options.
The possible outcome, and timescales, will be determined by Keepmoat’s response to the final submission of evidence and instruction to replace the windows across the estate. CityWest Homes will provide an update for residents in July on the progress of the dispute and the timescales.
Post meeting note:The final evidence is due to be issued to Keepmoat the week commencing 10 July 2017.
Q: What was the CityWest Homes quality control process while the windows were installed? Why didn’t it pick up that the issues before over 1000 windows installed?
The original technical data from the manufacturer confirmed the windows had British Standards certification and the specification addressed the performance requirements.
The windows arrived on site as complete pre finished products.
When defects were first noted with the windows (July 2015) CityWest Homes raised the matter with Keepmoat, who accepted that there were issues, and gave assurances that a simple on-site remedy could be developed and implemented. As time went on more defects became apparent, and it was clear to CityWest that the work being proposed would not suffice.
Although CityWest Homes routinely recorded defects and escalated our concerns to Keepmoat directors, those relating to the product construction remained subjective only until these had been proven by subsequent retests by the Building Research Establishment.Even after investing considerable time and resource dismantling and retesting windows, Keepmoat remain of the opinion that the windows can be repaired rather than need to be replaced.In retrospect, the decision to continue with the installations in July 2015 was an error of judgement, however the full extent of the defects was not apparent at that time.
Q: Who at CityWest Homes has taken responsibility for delivering the project?
Mike Bhamra at CityWest Homes is responsible for the administration of the contract. However Keepmoat is accountable for the works and CityWest Homes has instructed them to replace the windows.
Q: What has CityWest Homes been doing since June last year?
Below is a summary of the onsite activity undertaken by CityWest Homes since June 2016:
- All properties surveyed externally and 143 of 174 properties surveyed internally (82%).
- 1,114 windows surveyed internally.
- Over 130 quality management surveys undertaken, with 350 external and over 100 internal defects/ snagging items noted.
- Of these defects / snagging items, Keepmoat has completed 43 and the remaining items are programmed to be completed within the next two months.
- Intrusive testing of 10 windows and one set of French doors by the Building Research Establishment .
- Removal of the scaffold netting.
- Removal of the scaffold in stages, with the final scaffold down in May 2017.
- Garden clearance and tidy up in June 2017.
- External window cleaning in June 2017.
Post meeting note:The number of defects / snagging items identified has changed based on the way that the defects have been recorded for the process of mediation. If you would like a copy of the defects / snagging list please contact Daren Townsend at
Q: If Keepmoat is so poor, why is CityWest Homes still using them?
For the current project at Barrow Hill CityWest Homes is required to instruct Keepmoat for rectification in the first instance as determined by the contract.
For future projects, CityWest Homes is procuring a ten year partnering contract with a single contractor providing services for major works projects. Keepmoat has not made the shortlist to tender. This means that when this contract comes into place, from late 2017, Keepmoat will not be working on major works projects for CityWest Homes for ten years.
Q: In addition to the poor quality of the windows, the poor installation has caused damage. Who is responsible for this and when will it be fixed?
The contractor is obliged to make good consequential damage arising from any work undertaken.
Through the quality management surveys and resident feedback CityWest Homes has identified 350 external and over 100 internal defects/ snagging items. Of these defects / snagging items, Keepmoat has completed 43 and the remaining are programmed to be completed within the next two months.
Q: Who designed the windows installed?
The window is a product from a company called Westport, they hold the intellectual property rights to the design.
Q: What defects have been identified by the Building Research Establishment?
The issues with the windows include, but are not limited to:
- Dropping top sashes.
- Adhesion issues with astragal bars.
- Issues with the weighting of the sash windows.
- Issues with corrosion of the ironmongery/fittings/fixings.
- Paint finish.
- Seals coming off.
- Compliance with British Standards.
- Leaks.
- Splitting to the bottom sash.
- Opening Joints.
Q: The windows open outwards along the balcony and walkways, is this safe?
The walkway windows have been designed with restrictors to prevent them opening further than 100mm, this is required under building regulations.
Q: Will replacement windows be like for like? Which manufacturer will be used?
We are unable to confirm at this stage as there are several possible outcomes to our discussions with Keepmoat.
Q: The window cleaning was very poor are we paying?
Residents will not be billed for the window cleaning.
Q: Has the work been signed off?