Case Study

Question 1

Could you please elaborate on the safeguarding issues with the original building layout?

Answer 1

• There was a lack of access control meaning ease of access in and out of the building
• Reception could not control visitors coming into the building as once they were at the desk they were past the secure line
• There was no secure lobby

Question 2

Could you please run through the timeline of the works?

Answer 2

• Initial discussions and feasibility design were commenced in September of 2022
• A tender exercise was carried out ready for the CIF bid in December of 2022
• Confirmation of CIF results was received in June 2023
• Works commenced in July 2023 and completed in October

Question 3

Why did you use an Intermediate form of Contract?

Answer 3

• Relatively higher value of works and more complex
• With the nature of tendering two options we may have needed option to utilise sectional completion for which a Minor works does not allow

Question 4

Your project timeline suggests that the works ran into the school term, how did you manage the disruption?

Answer 4

• Prior to commencement the sequencing was fully planned out to ensure the noisiest parts of the project were completed during the summer holidays.
• The site area was completely sealed off to ensure safety and eliminate the spread of dust.
• A temporary reception area with intercom was created in a different area of the school to ensure this function could still be carried out

Question 5

Can you please advise what documents you used to aid your design?

Answer 5

• The Approved Documents, for example Part M to design minimum lobby sizes
• Building Bulletin 103 to inform the minimum space requirements for school office space
• Relevant British Standards such as BS 8300 for designing Accessible and Inclusive spaces.

Question 6

Please can you advise what type of building control application was submitted?

Answer 6

This was a full plans application to West Suffolk Building Control

Question 7

For Key Issue 1, please can you advise why Options 1 & 2 did not fully address the safeguarding issue?

Answer 7

• Option 1 consisted of the provision of access control, however the existing lobby was to remain which was was not secure and current did also not comply with Part M requirements.
• Option 2 provided access control and a sufficient secure lobby, however resulted in the loss of invaluable storage space

Question 8

For Key Issue 1, you mention Option 2 allows for future extension, please can you elaborate on this?

Answer 8

Option two’s design means that the lightweight lobby can be easily demolished and the building further extended to achieve the layout shown in Option 3.

Question 9

Please can you describe the process you went through for inspecting the flat roof in Key Issue 2?

Answer 9

• I undertook a desktop assessment initially to obtain any information on roofs construction and any risks such as asbestos shown within the schools records.
• I undertook a risk assessment to determine whether the survey was necessary and how to make it safer, as well as dynamic risk assessment on the day.
• I wore appropriate PPE
• I accessed the roof via a telescopic ladder footed by a colleague, I ensured the ladder was at the correct angle of 70 degrees

Question 10

What were some of the defects spotted on the roof?

Answer 10

With this roof the main issue was the degredation of the felt roof covering including heavy blistering and splitting of laps.

Question 11

You mention your proposed Option 3 increased insulation levels, do you know what u-value the roof achieved and what document influences this?

Answer 11

I designed the roof in accordance with Approved Document Part L ensuring it met a u-value 0.18 W/m2K.