CA2/894/4

Harlington; Harlington Upper School: Phase 2 construction (E/H28/P1, P2, P3) Tied Bundle of Papers

1974-1990

From: 1974 To: 1990

Manuscript Report on concrete cubes by Mr Brown, County Structural Engineer; 'The 6 day test report (this should have been tested at 7 days) on concrete poured to the plant slab has failed to reach the required strength and the density of the cubes tested is low. Could you please take this matter up with the Clerk of Works when you next speak to him or ask him to contact me to ensure that the taking, striking and curing of the cubes is carried out correctly. Subject to the results received for the 28 day, it may be necessary to carry out non-destructive tests on this concrete and the General Contractor should be warned accordingly'; 26 March 1974 Memo from M Wiles, Structural Division; 'I have visited the site and undertaken Schmidt rebound hammer tests on the suspect concrete in the plant room slab. The results obtained from these tests indicate that the concrete strength is satisfactory and in accordance with the design requirements'; 4 June 1974 Letter from County Architect to Bacal Contracting Ltd regarding claims for delay; concludes 'I am, therefore, willing to grant a total of four weeks extension to the sectional completion date on claims received by me to date and would point out that the delays have not been considered to be running concurrently'; 23 September 1974 Memo from M Wiles, Structural Division; 'On visiting the site on Tuesday 25th June 1974, I noticed that some of the Pierhead precast floor beams had been damaged along their bottom flanges by the insertion of pipe hangers. I therefore informed the Clerk of Works that this was unsatisfactory and that remedial works would have to be carried out on the beams. This remedial work being in the order of removing all damaged concrete and making good with epoxy mortar'; undated [June 1974] Memo from M Wiles, Structural Division; 'Due to the fact that the results obtained from cores taken from the tank room slab have taken such a long time coming through from Bacal's Ltd, the equipment in the tank room has been placed in position. This puts us in the position of having to accept their results which indicate that the concrete is not up to standard and would normally raise doubts as to its acceptability'; 20 January 1975 Drawing EH28P3 No 1; External Drainage and Site Works; shows location of manholes; scale 1:200; January 1975 Estimated building costs for 200 place extension; total £459,169; 12 February 1975 Calculation regarding amount of fuel (oil) used since the firing of the boilers on 8th January 1975; 4,200 gallons used, boilers running for 50 days; average 84 gallons per day; Main Contractor's {Bacal Contracting Ltd] use in 22 days calculated at 1,848 gallons; 'I am prepared to accept the replacement by you of the 1,848 gallons in lieu of the cost at 21.69 pence per gallon' (total £400.83); 14 April 1975 Letter from County Architect to Birchwood Concrete Products Ltd (regarding Phase III); 'It is understood that you have tendered for the supply, delivery and erection of pre-cast flooring for the whole of the floor areas including any necessary make-up strips in accordance with my specification and that where holes and partitions occur the supporting units have been designed accordingly'; mentions that they require names of three authorities or firms they have carried out contracts for in the past five years [for references]; 3 June 1975 Report from Chief Fire Officer, Ampthill; gives recommendations and concludes 'until the above recommendations are carried out, the means of escape from this school will remain unsatisfactory'; 9 June 1975 Memo from County Architect; 'Mr Anker has commenced land drainage works on his land to the west and east of the [school] site. I wish to make it clear that these works have not been made necessary by any work carried out on the Upper School site, and although there were problems of rainwater run-off during playing field construction, that the land drainage system to the playing field areas is now complete. I will not be able to accept, therefore, the responsibility for any costs incurred by Mr Anker for this work or for any reimbursement for loss of crops'; 16 June 1975 Tender from David Charles Construction Ltd for 200 place extension, proposed to be accepted; total £388,865; contract period 13 months; 16 July 1975 Covering Letter from Bacal Contracting Ltd, enclosing Bills of Quantities [not present] for Phase III; mentions 'As you are probably aware Bacal Contracting is now part of the David Charles Group. This will mean that should the Contract be successfully negotiated, the contract will be in the name of David Charles Construction (Northampton) Ltd'; 13 June 1975 Memo from County Architect to Chief Education Officer [reply to memo of 4 July 1975]; 'I am now able to give you the General Contractor's completion dates for Harlington Upper School; Admin, Dining, Kitchen, Workshops, Science Labs and Lecture Theatre; 24 August 1975 Activity Studio, Squash Courts, Toilets/Changing, Art/Pottery, Sports Club room, Music (Misuse); 28 September 1975 It will not be possible to obtain Planning permission, prepare drawings and erect temporary classrooms before completion of this phase of the building. I have submitted the Tender for the 800 phase to Department of Education and Science and subject to their agreement to the acceptance of this tender, the 800 phase should be completed by September 1976'; 17 July 1975 Report to Education Committee; 'The Committee will appreciate that the financial difficulties of Bacal have delayed the negotiations for an acceptance of tender for Phase III. Until we knew who was going to take over the contract it was not possible to finalise negotiations or place an order. Negotiations have now been completed and a price in the sum of £358,867 has been agreed for a 65 week contract which is the optimum period and will give a completion in December 1976. Alternatively, I have negotiated a price of £388,867 for an accelerated contract of 55 weeks which would give completion by 6 September 1976. The estimate which was approved by Committee was £388,500'; 14 July 1975 Letter from Harlington Sports Association requesting a coin operated meter for lighting the squash courts, mentions their Squash Club is newly formed; 'We understand Mr Lister has requested that we give consideration to the school having occasional Saturday morning use of the Squash Courts, we are happy to oblige on these occasions but we would require 14 days notice in writing to enable us to reschedule our programme', and 'We observe that there is no door between the changing rooms on the first floor and the rest of the school and we wonder if you would consider putting a door in there which could be locked during the time we are actively engaged in our area when the school is closed. We intend to keep out undesirable elements from the Club Room and the Squash Courts but do not particularly want to have the resonsibility of undesirable elements gaining access to the school whilst we are the only persons on the school complex'; also mentions a pay phone is due to be installed next to the Club Room entrance door; 23 June 1975 Letter from Brown & Merry, Land and Estate Agents, Commercial Road, Bedford, acting on behalf of Mr M Anker (of Manor Farm, Tingrith); 'The following works were specified in the Contract of Sale from our Client to your Council: A stockproof post and four rail fence with 2 strands of barbed wire within the boundaries of the land sold A plastic covered chain link fence 6ft high along playing fields or recreational land A drain or drains and/or a ditch or ditches for the drainage of surface and underground water from adjoining land of our Clients Connections from drains draining our Client's adjoining land onto the land sold to new field drains An access from Goswell End Road, Harlington, to our Client's land It was further stipulated that all drain connections were to be approved by our Client and ourselves before backfilling, and that at least one week's notice would be given that these drain connections were ready for inspection and approval. To date neither our Client, his Solicitors or ourselves have been notified that any drain connections were ready for inspection and approval. In your letter dated 3rd June 1974 ...you stated that you intended the 100mm land drain on the eastern boundary to the south of the new inspection chamber would be relaid during September 1974. To date there are no signs that this drain has yet been relaid. The statement in your letter of 12th March 1975, that our Client's Solicitor had been informed that the accommodation works had been completed, even at this point of time, is patently incorrect as the works have not been completed, or had not on 5th July 1975. We are also unable to reconcile the estimated cost of the accommodation works as approved by your Council at £12,500 with your statement that the "completed" works cost £3,571'; 9 July 1975 Reply; 'The 100mm land drain will shortly be replaced by a ditch on the eastern boundary. The drain connection on this boundary will, therefore, shortly become redundant. Owing to contractual difficulties the building and associated works have been further delayed. I expect, however, that the ditching works and the relaying of the culvert at the south east corner of the site will be completed during the next two months. The accommodation works had been completed on the 12th March 1975 with the exception of the eastern boundary drain, which was agreed to be a temporary measure and the tennis court netting which was agreed to be installed before the courts were handed over for school use'; 31 July 1975 Further reply to letter of 15th August 1975; 'The proposed ditch to the eastern boundary of the school site will be completely within the school site and will follow the line of the land drain southwards to the roadside ditch from the silt pit. The ditch will be of sufficient depth to pick up land drain outlets where these have been exposed. The ditch is intended to replace the temporary land drain, to which Mr Anker objected. The culvert at the south east corner of the school site is not part of the accommodation works and, although I agree that now the ditch has been regraded, the invert of the culvert is too high, it has not caused any problems to the drainage of Mr Ankers land. The accommodation works remaining to be completed are those which, it was agreed, could be completed before the areas of school playing field come into use. These are tennis court stop netting and chain link fencing to the playing field areas. These will be in position before the areas concerned are handed over for school use'; total cost of accommodation works £9,540; 28 August 1975 Manuscript Report by Mr Phillips (Clerk of Works) Tuesday 26 August; Further excavation to foundations of Workshops and concreting Wednesday 27 August; Supervision to concrete pour. Visited twice to inspect founds. Item 1 Page 25 CP114 not observed in any way Thursday 28 August; Brought to notice of Contractor he is not cleaning existing walls and founds ready for concrete. Science founds now well under way but found joints here are broken with Flexell after cleaning Friday 29 August; Science Block founds poured, yesterday's instructions ignored, no Flexell joints as Drawing 40:04. Advised Contractor to remove wet concrete and install same. Also to use shutters and extra vibration where passing through French drains; August 1975 Letter from David Charles Construction; 'Your letter dated 18th August 1975 stated that "we agreed that no delay would be caused by Messrs Hewetsons late commencement in the activity and squash court areas". May we strongly dispute this fact. You will recall the writer stated that with your agreement, the delay could be confined to the activity studio, the two squash courts and the corridor leading to them ...The statement made in our letter dated 12th August 1975 relating to delay, therefore still stands and we would appreciate your Architects Instruction granting the necessary extension of time to this particular area. To assist you in your assessment we would point out that Hewetsons finally commenced on site on Thursday 21st August 1975'; 29 August 1975 Letter from Department of Education and Science approving the work for extensions to 800 places for £424,685; build costs £366,355 and professional fees £58,330; 4 September 1975 Letter from County Architect to David Charles Construction, following site visit 12 September; 'As pointed out to the Site Agent, certain of the roof joists in the Drama Studio do not comply with the required specifications. I therefore require remedial work to be put in hand and ask you to let me know how you propose to carry out the work'; 15 September 1975 Letter to Mr N B Lister, Headmaster, from Chief Education Officer regading concerns over delays; 'I very much appreciate your concern about Phase II targets; as you are probably aware, the latest date which has now been given for the occupation of this part of the school is 3rd November 1975. (I have informed the Harlington Sports Association of this further delay). As far as the next phase - Phase III - is concerned, however, I am satisfied following discussions with the County Architect that there is no cause for anxiety. The Contractor is different from the one associated with Phase II and the work is well advanced and keeping within the schedule required for completion by August, 1976. The County Architect appreciates the difficulties which will be imposed on the school should the August 1976 deadline not be met, not least in terms of curriculum and examination implications, and that a major contingency exercise would need to be launched if the programme began to fall behind the target dates. With this in mind, therefore, I have asked the County Architect to let me have the earliest possible warning of any delays likely to affect completion (in this respect I feel that January 1976 will be a crucial date). Memo from County Architect to County Valuer and Estates Officer; 'I ...ask you to obtain permission, as a matter of urgency, for the Main Contractor to clean and regrade the ditch on the boundary of land owned by Mr Hughes adjacent to the school access road. It will also be necessary to remove a number of dead elm trees on this boundary and I intend to have this work carried out as ditching work proceeds; 21 October 1975 Letter from County Valuer and Estates Officer to Mr A E Hughes, Rosehaven, Toddington Road, Harlington; 'It is necessary to recut approximately 550 feet of the ditch lying on the south west boundary of the new school and adjacent to your land. It is not clear who is responsible for such works but the County Council is prepared to meet the full cost of the work on this one occasion. However, this will not set a precedent and the Council does not and will not accept responsibility for such work in the future. All reasonable precautions will be taken not to cause damage to your land or hedge thereon'; 23 October 1975 Memo from County Valuer and Estates Officer to County Architect; mentions the above and gives reasons for the Council paying in full; 'negotiating a cost apportionment could take a very long time with this particular neighbour'; 23 October 1975 Various correspondence regarding wording of the contract with David Charles Construction, legal points etc.,; October 1975 - January 1976 Memo from Chief Education Officer to County Architect; 'Great concern has been expressed as to the standard of the wall finishes in newly opened Upper Schools. In particular at both Harlington and Sharnbrook Upper Schools the light emulsion paintwork has been seriously damaged not by vandalism but by general use. Any brushing against this paintwork either by dark clothing or by books or hands results in a mark. After three attempts to wash marks off the plasterwork is reached. I quite appreciate the constraints the Architects are working under with regard to finance and finish. However, it does seem extremely undesirable that in an attempt to cut costs, a finish is being produced which will not stand up to normal wear and tear of ordinary school use. Suggestions are being made that these walls will have to be repainted and it would therefore seem sensible to avoid additional costs and put a better finish on the walls in the first place'; 18 November 1975 Memo from County Architect to Chief Education Officer; 'I have been informed that hockey is being played in both the drama studio and the activity studio. I must point out that the finishes and fittings are unsuited for this activity and that damage to and defacement of the finishes must result. It will not be possible to hold the Main Contractor fully responsible for maintenance work which will be required in these areas'; 31 March 1976 Memo from County Surveyor to County Architect; 'After investigation, 2 No. 225mm diameter pipes have been laid on the south side of the road, side by side, between the manhole on the eastern side of Harlington Railway Bridge to a new mahole on the western side. These pipes connect the exising system to an alternative ditch on the south side of the road. There are now two surface water systems under Harlington Railway Bridge which will obviate flooding caused by water backing up at the Railway Bridge'; 25 February 1976 Memo from County Architect regarding Mr Anker's claim mentions 'I am particularly anxious that it should not be protracted in view of the involvement of a Member of Parliament'; 5 April 1976 Invoice from Brown & Merry regarding claim for damage to land of Mr Anker; total £1,410 plus fees of £138 (before VAT); 14 April 1976 County Valuer and Estates Officer comments on the above; 'I would suggest that over 50% of this claim is probably due in part to the excessive rain fall experienced early 1975. Had certain site works been carried out earlier, the damage may not have been so extensive but it is of course possible that the very same unfavourable weather and ground conditions delayed the execution of these works'; 26 April 1976 Points raised at a meeting held 20 May 1976 to discuss proposed Phase 4 plans; 28 May 1976 Headmaster's Report 4 May 1976; 239 boys and 230 girls on roll; includes summary of building progress 'Phase III is progressing well and at the moment no problems are seen for September. The corridor walls of Phase I have been repainted following dissatisfaction with the first covering. As a result of building, rooms have to change their roles from time to time but otherwise there has been no difficulty of any note and we have had splendid co-operation from the comtractor. Phase IV of the building should commence in October next; includes calendar of school events covering 21 January 1976 - 4 May 1976 Minutes of School Governors meeting 6 February 1976; mentions security concerns 'It was reported that the Fire Officer and the representative of the County Architect had visited the school to look at fire risks in connection with a proposal to seal off the main body of the school as a security measure when only joint facilities are in use, and arrangements have been made for regular supervision visits to be made by the caretaking staff when any part of the building is in use' Drawing of detailed furniture layout for Reprographic Areas of Harlington and Sandy Upper Schools; July 1976 Memo from County Architect to County Planning Officer; 'I understand that you are preparing a scheme for tree planting on the western boundary of the playing fields... Although planting between the stock fence and the chain link fence would not hamper playing field activities, I must point out that the Agreement under which the County Council purchased the land precludes planting adjacent to the boundary in order to prevent crop shading ...I must also point out that the main contract holds no monies for this work and therefore the cost must be borne entirely from other sources'; 14 July 1976 Memo from Peter J Moore, Landscape Section, County Architect's Department, to Mr C Edwards, Job Architect; '...You indicated that you would welcome a report on the work of Messrs R B Tyler (Ware) Ltd: The standard of the maintenance on this contract has tended to have an adverse effect on the surface of the playing field, primarily because of type and size of vehicle employed to perform this function. Whilst we have no intention of telling the Contractor his job, we feel that we should however point out that if this standard of maintenance continued, the field could deteriorate to the point where the surface wouldn't be acceptable to the Council Banks and other areas of grass which at present have not been maintained by the Contractor; the maintenance specification and these areas should be brought to the Contractor's attention The whole of the contract area that has been seeded should be stone picked and weeded in accordance with the specification The Contractor should have his attention drawn especially to the cricket square, and the relevnat clauses in the specification. Until this cricket square is to the Council's satisfaction, the Landscape Contractor is responsible for all work necessary to maintain and produce the required result. I and my section had indicated our concern at the unacceptable work by Messrs Tall Trees Ltd on the surrounds of the school: Although this firm earlier gave an assurance to the Council that they would comply with the specification, their work and workmanship is below, in fact well below, the standard that we would consider acceptable to the council... The lawns are all weed grasses and weeds, the levels and contours remain unsuitable The shrubs and trees have never been adequately watered, shrub beds have not been cleared of weeds, plants are now being choked by weeds. Over 60% of the plants have not successfully taken I would therefore recommend that this firms work should be terminated and that this work could be completed by the Landscape Contractor responsible for the playing field contract. I don't know whether this is possible but I feel it would be practical to have one contractor, who is at present working reasonably with the Main Contractor'; 23 June 1976 Memo from Chief Education Officer to County Architect regarding both Harlington and Sandy Upper Schools; 'I am extremely concerned about the adequacy of teaching spaces, both in terms of number of spaces effectively available and their sizes'; 15 October 1976 Reply; 'The layouts for these schools were agreed in 1971 and since then ABB2 forms for the whole of the schools and for each phase have been sent to you for forwarding to the Department of Education and Science. Apart from the redesign work carried out on the Phase 4 library section, no other changes have been made since the first schemes. I am, therefore, very surprised that you are querying, at this stage, the adequacy of teaching spaces provided. I have no intention of recalculating the teaching areas of this school and refer you to the ABB2 forms...; 20 October 1976 Letter from H G Erlandson, Managing Director, Attencombe Builders Limited, 14 Upper High Street, Harpole, Northampton; '...we now wish to confirm that although David Charles Construction (Northampton) Ltd is not in receivership, we feel it is inevitable. Because of this, with the contracts in mind, we have now entered into negotiations with the Receivers, Messrs M A Jordan and D W Hawkins, for the purpose of securing the ongoing workload...; (Mark Rutherford Upper School and Harlington Upper School); 28 October 1976 Letter from A S Nichols, Contracts Director, Attencombe Builders Ltd; '...we would confirm our interest in completing any outstanding works at Harlington Upper School. It is not possible to obtain an assignment of the Contract from the Receiver and we therefore feel the best method of carrying out the works is on a direct order basis'; 5 November 1976 Letter from Banister, Walton & Company Ltd; 'Our final account amounted to £2,339.81 excluding VAT. We have received payment against a gross sun of £2,283.74. We have now been informed that David Charles Construction Ltd have appointed a receiver. As a nominated supplier we formally request that when the bakance of our account is certified for payment this be made direct ot ourselves'; 5 November 1976 Letter and statement of account from R B Tyler (Ware) Ltd to W H Cork Gully & Company (Insolvency Practice); 'We would also like to draw your attention to the fact that we are Nominated Sub-Contractors on the Contract at Harlington Upper School for Bedfordshire County Council. We would also point out that during the latter part of September, Bedfordshire County Council forwarded to David Charles Construction Ltd an amount of £4,750, which is due to us and to date we have not received. Would you please be good enough to advise us whether we will be receiving this sum or if we should take up the matter with the client (Bedfordshire County Council)'; 9 November 1976 Letter from R Barwell, A R Hoare & Company Ltd to County Architect; 'Unfortunately, the majority of outstanding monies due to us for this contract were invoiced in August 1976. In the present uncertain situation we are not prepared to carry out any further works until all money invoiced prior to 19th October 1976 is received. We trust that you will endeavour to solve this problem urgently and thus enable us to complete our works'; 17 November 1976 Letter inviting tenders 'to be a variable price lump sum, to remain open for acceptance within three months from the date of return of tender and to be received ...not later than noon on Monday 3rd January 1977'; 18 November 1976 T & B St Albans, 38 Upper Marlborough Road, St Albans Mitchell Construction Limited, Woodston House, Oundle Road, Peterborough Richardson and Bottoms Limited, 105-107 Biscot Road, Luton Marshalls of Luton, Sarum Road, Luton T & E Neville, Marsh Road, Leagrave, Luton William J Bushby, 54 High Street, Kempston John Laing, via H6/V8 City Roads, Central Milton Keynes J M Hill, Church Street, Ampthill Problems with the layout and function of the Home Economics Area, reported to Chief Education Officer by Miss Child; 'it is impossible to stand in front of heater and do practical work and also the drawers and cupboards are facing the wrong way. ...On the wall between the Dual Purpose Room and the Home Economics Room, two shelf dividers are indicated on the plan. At the moment there is no sign of any shelves at all. ...The cooker ...has been moved. As a result there is no work surface at the side which is not practical'; 16 December 1976 Reply from County Architect; 'The Main Contractor for Phase 3 of the school went into liquidation during last Autumn leaving certain of the works outstanding. It will not be possible to complete the work to the Home Economics Room until a new Contractor is appointed'; 31 January 1977 Schedule of works carried out up to Thursday, February 3rd 1977 by Richardson & Bottoms Limited; includes tidying up, paving, drainage, brick retaining wall around tennis courts, etc., mentions 'Foul Water drain laid so that road way does not require breaking up when Phase 4 is constructed' Letter from William J Bushby Limited regarding insurance and legal points about the contract; 'We now look forward to receiving your instructions for the 19 (2) (a) insurance to proceed'; 22 March 1977 Pencil note on dorse; 'I would confirm that you are not responsible for any insurance relating to the existing building apart from that required under Clause 19 (2) (a)' Response from County Architect to telephone call to Chief Executive from Tall Trees (Transplanters) Ltd; 'Messrs Tall Trees were a nominated sub-contractor to David Charles on this project. David Charles are in liquidation and therefore all claims for payment in respect of this sub-contract have to made on the Official Receiver. No direct orders have been placed on this firm by this Authority. Mr Gardner Young was probably referring to Architects Instructions which were issued to him through the main Contractor in the normal course of the contract and the works of watering and maintaining planted areas, to which he refers, was part of his responsibilities under the original sub-contract'; 25 March 1977 Letter from William Freer Ltd, Heating, Air Conditioning and Sanitary Engineers regarding two direct orders; 'In order for us to carry out the works listed on these two separate orders, we await written confirmation from Mr Lewis as promised by him as to the terms and conditions, particularly with regard to payment, for the work so carried out. Letter from Deputy County Architect to L C Mann & Partners, 105 High Street, Crawley; 'Phases 1 and 2 of Harlington Upper School comprised the contract with Bacal Construction [sic] Ltd, who went into liquidation and the contract novated to David Charles Construction Ltd. Although the greater part of this contract reached a state of practical completion, there were certain items, particularly in the external works - playing fields, planting etc., - which were never taken over. Nor is it true that all defects had been rectified. A great deal of remedial work still has to be carried out before the final certificate can be issued ...Phase 3 of the contract was negotiated with David Charles Construction (Northampton) Ltd. Again, on this phase a great deal of work has to be done, particularly in external works, before the final state of practical completion can be agreed; although it is true that most of the buildings have been taken over. Again, however, there is remedial work to be carried out. ...the reason for not accepting your offer was that it was considered inappropriate for two contractors to be on site at the same time. As a contractor was being appointed to carry out Phase 4, it was considered that it owuld be more appropriate for them to carry out both the outstanding work and the remedial work under the defects liability clause of both Phases 1, 2 and 3. A specification was prepared to enable them to quote the Authority for the work but they considered the only way to deal with the work was on a day work basis. I sought the approval of both Sureties for this procedure some time ago and still await their comments. We were not aware, nor were we informed, that you had obtained quotations for the completion of the works as stated in your last paragraph' [in their letter of 9th November 1976]; 24 August 1977 Memo from County Architect (Designate) to Chief Education Officer; 'The outstanding items mentioned in your memorandum are included in a Bill of Completions which specifies the work which was left uncompleted by the liquidation of Bacal Contracting Ltd and David Charles Construction Ltd. The Insurance Company which is acting as bond holder on these Contracts has required that competetive tenders are sought for the remaining work. I expect to obtain tenders in November and the work will commence as soon as possible after then; 4 October 1977 Memo from Structures Division; 'Following the site visit made on the 11th October 1978 ...I have to report that the retaining wall is in a potentially dangerous situation and could fail at any time by slip failure of the clay. I therefore recommend that the school is warned, and the children kept away from it until it can be safely propped, which should be undertaken as a matter of urgency; 16 October 1978 Memo from Structural Section; 'I visited the school today and inspected the retaining wall alongside the back hard tennis courts, this I had previously reported to you as being of the same construction as the one pulled down as a dangerous structure. The inspection was undertaken to see how the wall had weathered the winter, and was standing up to the present wet period. It was found that water was soaking through the wall, and in many places was actually gushing. There was a vertical crack mid-way along the wall running full height. The water pressure at the back of the wall needs relieving urgently, before it brings about a structural collapse; 30 March 1979 Letter from Harlington Sports Association regarding poor condition of the squash courts; Remedial work is required immediately A report prepared for our Squash Club by a technical representative of Proderite, a well-known company in the field of Squash Court construction, suggests that the repair work now needed is of a complex nature because of basic faults at the original construction stage The floor of one of the Courts is beginning to break up in places with obvious dangers to any player Unless action is taken to avoid further deterioration the ultimate work which will be needed will be highly expensive and will render the Courts inoperative for a lengthy period I was asked to urge most strongly that the County Council take steps to put in hand the work which, in our view, reflects the absence of any action under the builders liability guarantee'; 19 March 1979 Quotation from B G Cox Ltd, Alpha Works, Meadow Way, Letchworth [letter heading in 60s/70s font]; 'Protect floor with dust sheets, erect platform, hack off existing facing to background, clear rubbish from site, supply and plaster walls with Prodorite formula S and formula S coat finish to rear wall area 1 and 2 courts' 2 courts £1,660 1 court only £1,070'; 26 April 1979 Quotation from J L Burr, 62 Manor Road, Barton-le-Clay; one court £825; two courts £1,550; 21 March 1979 E Hollinshead, Assistant Building Surveyor, states 'Note should also be made that the Courts have reached a state, despite earlier repairs, of being unplayable'; 18 May 1979 Memo regarding carpeting in three areas; a) Two social are[?as] on the first floor (not the adjoining classrooms which are also carpeted), b) Entrance to and part of the "A" Dining room, c) Foyer area to Administration; 'I suggest that area a) is relaid with vinyl asbestos tiles and areas b) and c) are relaid with "Iron Duke" carpeting supplied and laid by the Education department under the special cost arrangements'; 5 October 1979 Letter from Granwood Flooring Limited, Riddings, Derby; 'An inspection was made [30 October] of the Workshop and adjacent corridor. Extensive cracking has occurred in this area, and purely based upon the tapping of the floor and in our experience of this type of cracking, we feel that the sub-screed which was laid by others has probably failed. You will appreciate that certain cracks are probably following day joints in the screed, but the "crazy" cracking is usually indicative of a break down below the block and bedding screed. Obviously to confirm this statement, small sections of the floor would have to be taken up to carry out a full investigation'; 6 November 1979 Memo from County Valuer and Estates Officer; 'Following a complaint regarding flooding on adjoining land, my assistant has made a site inspection and although he is unconvinced that flooding emanated from the school site he noted that for a length of about two chains ...there was little evidence of the "french" drain that runs the length of the western boundary. The bank may have slipped a little and coveered the stones. If this form of drain is going to be effective, and clearly in this situation we have got to ensure that it is 100% so, might I suggest that the top layer of stones be regularly (say annually) loosened up and any slipped soil cleaned off, thereby enabling the water to fall through the stones unimpeded'; 24 June 1980 Report from Building Research Advisory Service regarding the concrete flooring in the Workshop area (3 pages); mentions 'The granolithic concrete topping had not bonded to the base concrete for essentially the same reason that the cement:sand screed ahd failed to do so, i.e. the base concrete had not been thoroughly hacked before the bondong agent was applied. Shrinkage cracks had formed across the bays. Such cracks occur more readily when ggranolithic toppings are not properly cured and are allowed to dry out too rapidly as would seem to have happened here': 21 November 1980

Stored off site - 2 working days notice required to retreive from storage. Please contact us for advice.

file

Bacal Contracting Limited,
David Charles Construction (Northampton) Limited,
Harlington Sports Association,
Brown and Merry,
Hewetsons Ltd,
R B Tyler (Ware) Ltd,
Tall Trees (Transplanters) Limited,
Attencombe Builders Limited,
A R Hoare & Company Limited,
Richardson & Bottoms,
William Freer Limited

HARLINGTON, Harlington Upper School, DRAINAGE, liquidation, asbestos, local flooding