Inspection (submission)

Question 1

Talk me through your desktop inspection for Fore St Hexham/your organising/on site inspection (6 steps) (H&S issues/how you dealt with (if applicable).

Answer 1

1. I reviewed the site on google maps to try and establish if there were any hazards which I should be aware of.
2. Looked at files and spoke to client, identified that property had recently been vacated by previous tenant.
3. Sought the asbestos management plan and asbestos register and floorplan etc.
4. Undertook preliminary research -
   - Planning: no previous planning history for property, but was in Hexham Conservation Area, and previously occupied for 25 years by A1 retailer, therefore assumed permitted for A1 use.
5. Undertook risk assessment alongside planning journey – accompanied by colleague so did not need to follow lone working policy – client had informed me building had been left in good condition, previous tenant had yielded up appropriately, no particular safety issues (therefore did not take any H&S equipment on inspection)
6. Informed my manager and put details in my calendar.

Question 2

Talk me through your desktop inspection for Peacock St Sunderland/your organising/on site inspection (6 steps) (H&S issues/how you dealt with (if applicable).

Answer 2

1. I reviewed the site on google maps to try and establish if there were any hazards which I should be aware of.
2. Looked at files and spoke to probate solicitor dealing with instruction, identified that the building was built prior to 1999, and that the now deceased owner may have not had much involvement in the property for several years, and therefore it may be in poor condition.
3. Sought the asbestos management plan and asbestos register and other documents – the probate solicitor did not have any, and informed me that there was unlikely to be one in place due to previous lack of management (no floorplans etc.) – BUT brought LR plan to confirm boundaries on site.
4. Undertook preliminary research -
   - Planning: previous permissions stated B2-7 and B1 use, therefore assumed that.
5. Undertook risk assessment alongside planning journey – identified the hazards that could be present, and therefore brought along hard hat, safety goggles, gloves, and steel toe capped boots (vacant), planned journey (accompanied by colleague).
6. Informed my manager and put details in my calendar.

Question 3

Talk me through your desktop inspection for Nelson St Newcastle/your organising/on site inspection (6 steps) (H&S issues/how you dealt with (if applicable).

Answer 3

1. I reviewed the site on google maps to try and establish if there were any hazards which I should be aware of.
2. Looked at files and spoke to client, identified that property had recently been vacated by previous tenant – who had become insolvent and therefore surrendered the lease, leaving the in-situ bureau de change fit out – CONFIRMED that client had decided to not pursue a dilapidation claim due to insolvency, and therefore to market unit with existing fit out.
3. Sought the asbestos management plan and asbestos register and other docs
4. Undertook preliminary research -
   - Planning: NCC planning portal – confirmed listed (Listed Building Application) and A1 use permitted as 2016 application granted for retailer to alter shopfront signage.
5. Undertook risk assessment alongside planning journey – accompanied by colleague so did not need to follow lone working policy – client had informed me building had been left in good condition, albeit tenant had left fitout in place, no particular safety issues (therefore did not take any H&S equipment on inspection), planned journey (accompanied by colleague).
6. Informed my manager and put details in my calendar.

Question 4

Talk me through your desktop inspection for Cambois, Blyth/your organising/on site inspection (6 steps) (H&S issues/how you dealt with (if applicable).

Answer 4

1. I reviewed the site on google maps to try and establish if there were any hazards which I should be aware of.
2. Looked at files and spoke to client (local council), ascertained that building is in poor condition, but did not know much else beyond that as property part of large asset portfolio, interested in disposing of it.
3. Sought the asbestos management plan and asbestos register and other documents – received… leave for now.
4. Undertook preliminary research -
   - Planning: as the client was the local council, I had certainty that the current use of the property (doctors office, otherwise vacant), was permitted.
5. Undertook risk assessment alongside planning journey – identified the hazards that could be present, and therefore brought along hard hat, safety goggles, gloves, and steel toe capped boots, planned journey (accompanied by colleague).
6. Informed my manager and put details in my calendar.

Question 5

What was the purpose / property type - talk me through your inspection of Fore St, Hexham (8 steps).

Answer 5

Purpose: looking for marketability issues – current condition, repair and maintenance, statutory compliance, services, presentation of accommodation and flexibility and marketability

Property type: small period retail unit in established rural town centre

1. Carried out desktop pre-assessment
2. Printed off plans/planned journey
3. Told manager and detailed in calendar
4. Considered location
5. Considered externally
6. Considered internally
7. Filed inspection report and clearly labelled photos
8. Marketing Report – advice etc

Question 6

What was the purpose / property type - talk me through your inspection of Peacock St, Sunderland (8 steps).

Answer 6

Purpose: looking for value significant factors as per VPGA 8 of RB (basis for checklist)
DOCUMENTED INSPECTION STUFF ON PAPER, REVIEWED COMPANY CHECKLIST AT END

Property type: vacant terrace of industrial units in Sunderland

1. Carried out desktop pre-assessment
2. Printed off plans/planned journey
3. Told manager and detailed in calendar
4. Considered location
5. Considered externally
6. Considered internally
7. Filed inspection report and clearly labelled photos
8. Valuation Report – advice etc. –
   - I documented and reported on the damaged roof in my report.

Question 7

What was the purpose / property type - talk me through your inspection of Nelson Street, Newcastle (8 steps).

Answer 7

Purpose: looking for marketability issues – current condition, repair and maintenance, statutory compliance, services, presentation of accommodation and flexibility and marketability

Property type: period secondary retail unit in Newcastle city centre

1. Carried out desktop pre-assessment
2. Printed off plans/planned journey
3. Told manager and detailed in calendar
4. Considered location
5. Considered externally
6. Considered internally
7. Filed inspection report and clearly labelled photos
8. Marketing Report – advice etc. –
   - I analysed the property pitch and unit size/frontage/internal arrangement against nearby units, reported that whilst the unit was in good internal order, only parts of the existing fit out (suspended ceiling, lighting, floor and wall surfaces and air con, WC/tea) should be retained.

Question 8

What was the purpose / property type - talk me through your inspection of Cambois, Blyth (8 steps).

Answer 8

Purpose: looking for value significant factors as per VPGA 8 of RB (basis for checklist)

Property type: 1900s former miner’s institute in residential, previously mining rural village

1. Carried out desktop pre-assessment
2. Printed off plans/planned journey
3. Told manager and detailed in calendar
4. Considered location
5. Considered externally
6. Considered internally
7. Filed inspection report and clearly labelled photos
8. Valuation Report – advice etc. –
   - I documented and reported on the restrictive covenant (solely miner’s institute) and horizontal cracking indicating a structural issue in my report.

Question 9

Tell me about the location of Fore St, Hexham, and what you noted in relation to the inspection purpose?

Answer 9

Situated in Hexham, fairly affluent large market town in Tyne Valley, 22 miles of Newcastle.

Property situated in historic retail centre of town (Conservation Area), Fore St (prime retailing street) situated 20m to east, just off prime pitch but very nearby, facing on to market square – good public parking provision nearby, and benefits from significant footfall from visitors heading to Fore Street from nearby public parking provision.

Neighbouring occupiers included Paxton’s Fish and Chips, Gordon Caris Clock Repairs, Jacksons Barber Shop, Newcastle Building Society (mix of established local and regionals) – immediately on Fore St there is Edinburgh Woollen Mill, Argos, Mountain Warehouse, Clarks etc. – nationals.

Noted occupier changes on GOAD plan – included Hairdressers (previously gift shop, Fake Monkey), and Hallmark on corner with Fore St – now Carphone Warehouse. Generally very few changes, very few vacancies, suggesting good retail health as occupiers seek to renew in most instances.

Noted several vacancies west along Market Place, moving away from prime Fore St – took down agents and property addresses (Bradley Hall was primary agent, has local office).

Noted vacancies were all in double or larger units, indicating that smaller units off pitch have good letting prospects, but larger units can be difficult to fill.

Question 10

Tell me about the location of Peacock St, Sunderland, and what you noted in relation to the inspection purpose?

Answer 10

Situated in Millfield area, 1.5m w of city, surrounding area built up low value residential and PBSA blocks, immediate surrounding area tertiary, generally poor condition industrial and other commercial space,

Isolated low quality location not in keeping with current property use, several miles from main road network so only suitable for local industrial/workshop etc. services, quite high vacancy rate (some letting boards noted), albeit still viable for some local businesses (MOT garages, taxi company)

Millfield Metro Station 0.5 miles north east, bus stops nearby.

The location of the property is arguably no longer suitable for industrial users who now prefer modern industrial estates with easy access to good transport links. The area has developed in recent years towards residential and retail use, with few remaining industrial users in the vicinity.

Question 11

Tell me about the location of Nelson St, Newcastle, and what you noted in relation to the inspection purpose?

Answer 11

Situated in Newcastle city centre, secondary pitch in terrace of units facing exterior of Grainger Market (Grade II listed popular indoor market), 100m west of Grainger Street (prime pitch in Newcastle, £80 ZA), and 200m south of Gray’s Monument, also considered prime area, which connects to Northumberland Street approx. 200m further east (prime street).

Additionally unit is corner unit of north entrance of Grainger Market, which contains a wide range of food retailers, restaurants, growing food scene, and therefore benefits from a lot of increasing footfall of those visiting market.

Limited public parking provision nearby, subject street pedestrianised, unless for loading purposes, counterbalanced by significant footfall. However, presents challenges to certain potential occupiers who trade in bulky goods – difficult to unload, therefore not really suitable for these users.

Neighbouring occupiers included Coral, Smiths Barbershop, Ladbrokes, Second Skin (leather), Café Royale, The Alchemist, Reds True BBQ (mix of locals, regionals and nationals, primarily betting shops/eateriers/normal retailers on subject side, national restaurants on Eldon side). On prime GS junction Starbucks, End, L’Occitane, Yo Sushi.

Noted no vacancies at junction with Grainger St, but neighbouring double unit (William Hill) vacant (CBRE), probably due to too much betting shop competition nearby, and single unit Graffles Pancakes (Barker Proudlove), which I confirmed had been re-let, with fit out works taking place.

Very few vacancies basically – average turnover of occupiers, common in high value areas of city centre. As only vacancy in double unit, suggested single units easier to fill (to local/regional occupiers).

Question 12

Tell me about the location of Cambois, Northumberland and what you noted in relation to the inspection purpose?

Answer 12

Situated in Cambois, a former coastal mining village situated around 16 miles north of Newcastle upon Tyne, 3 miles north of Blyth. Cambois was developed around the mining industry, the mining industry went into decline – now a low value residential village with basic retail amenities, approx. 0.5 miles for subject property, which was isolated amongst residential.

Isolated low quality location not in keeping with commercial property use. Effectively an obsolete community building that had partially been used for basic pharmacy services, but otherwise would serve a better purpose if changed to a different commercial use, demolished or redeveloped for residential use. Mining villages like Cambois are isolated, with basic bus route links to rural towns, but otherwise lacking public transport.

Question 13

Tell me about the external (construction) of Fore St, Hexham and what you noted in relation to inspection purposes?

Answer 13

• Terraced ground floor unit in period building, not listed. Period SG timber framed shop front glazing retained (Conservation Area), offices above with party wall staircase to rear of subject unit, solid brick, suspended timber floor. No external space, access only from front, otherwise entirely enclosed by other buildings.
• Trench or strip footings likely given age of property, solid walls.

Question 14

Tell me about the external (construction) of Peacock St, Sunderland and what you noted in relation to inspection purposes?

Answer 14

• 5x steel framed industrial units
• Concrete floors and solid wall construction (brick formation), under mono-pitched corrugated, what appeared to be, asbestos roofs, number of holes in roofs, valley gutters may have been blocked, could not ascertain externally, no roof lights.
• Appeared to have been constructed early 1900s, re-roofed at later date, LR title stated …. CHECK IF HAVE TIME.
• SGTF.
• Trench or strip footings likely given age of property, solid walls providing structural support to steel frame. CORRECT?
• Metal rainwater goods/downpipes, which appeared to be in reasonable condition.
• VADs to each unit, small enclosed tarmac covered yard to rear, bordered by other buildings, provides some benefit but not suitable for lorry access, part of space could be used for 3 parking spaces, but ample free public parking on street, albeit quite narrow road that would make lorry access difficult– appeared secure, palisade fencing and access gate in reasonable condition.
• Verified site boundaries with reference to LR plan I brought.

EXTRA - could be another Q really to do with valuation specific enquiries…

• Given previous owners lack of management, no documentation provided on fire safety or EA compliance – therefore assumed for purpose of valuation complied, but advised client to investigate further.
• Flood risk – VLR, no signs of flood risk on site.
• Historic maps showed had been in current industrial use for many years, previously greenfield. No history of mining in area. No signs of contamination on site – therefore assumed for valuation no contamination risk.

Question 15

Tell me about the external (construction) of Nelson St, Newcastle and what you noted in relation to inspection purposes?

Answer 15

• Terraced ground and basement floor unit in period ‘Tyneside Classical’ Grade II (*?) listed building, SG metal framed glazing (verified PP obtained), upper floors used by office occupiers.
  Ground floor had been internally rebuilt in 1980s – cavity walls to front elevation, solid walls retained to side/party/rear, suspended timber floor.
  No external space, access only from front, otherwise entirely enclosed by other buildings.
• Trench or strip footings likely given age of property, solid walls.

Question 16

Tell me about the external (construction) of Cambois, Northumberland and what you noted in relation to inspection purposes?

Answer 16

• 2 storey mid-terraced building, early 1900s construction (dated by stone inscription, clients understand and generally architecture).
• solid brick walls
• cast iron guttering
• pitched slate covered roof
• uPVC double glazed windows
• no land to speak of
• rear first floor elevation overhung the central area of the ground floor, supported by early 1900s reinforced columns, with remainder of building supported by load bearing brick walls.
• Trench or strip footings likely given age of property. CORRECT?, what about rear overhang?
• externally appeared to be in reasonable condition, other than at top of first floor rear elevation near roof line, single diagonal crack more than (1 inch? I have diameter somewhere) deep, indicating structural movement
• I noted the locations of the brickwork cracking (similar places just below roof line on upper floor wall), which I deduced appeared to indicate that the building had been extended in the early 1900s, increasing the width of the roof pitch on the rear side of the property, which had likely resulted in roof spread to the corners. In addition, the building was likely built with trench or strip foundations with load bearing brick walls above, resulting in much of the roof weight concentrated on the building corners, due to the poorly supported void below the middle section of the first-floor elevation alongside the roof spread.

Question 17

Tell me about the internals (specification) of Fore St, Hexham and what you noted in relation to inspection purposes?

Answer 17

• Plastered painted walls, 2.5m height, roof mounted fluorescent tube lighting left in situ by previous tenant, NO suspended ceiling, clear retail space (lie) to front, with WC and tea room off to rear (structural wall).
  Electric fixed heating and electric water heater.
  Electric, water, drainage in place, gas available but capped off.
  Statutory compliance: fire alarms etc. in place, Asbestos Register stated no asbestos.
  In reasonable repair overall, no defects of note.
  Internal layout clean/tidy, in similar condition/specification to neighbouring units, therefore did not advise any works necessary at this point.
  Noted it was one of smallest units in parade, which should be beneficial as popular with long term local businesses, no vacancies in smaller units.

Question 18

Tell me about the internals (specification) of Peacock St, Sunderland and what you noted in relation to inspection purposes?

Answer 18

• Very basic internal layout – single unheated workshop space with ancillary WC/tea room (stud construction) with electric fixed heating, and instantaneous electric water heating.
• Roof mounted fluorescent tube lighting.
• Good eaves height of c. 5.5m, VAD c. 3.5x3.5
• Electric (single phase), water and drainage services in place, no gas heating.
• I noted the location and photographed the poor condition of the roof. There were a number of holes in the cladding, which had resulted in water ingress in all of the units, to differing levels. This was indicated by discolouration on the solid brick walls and water streaming down walls. The units were otherwise in very basic condition, plain walls/roof/floors, no other obvious areas where asbestos may be present.

Question 19

Tell me about the internals (specification) of Nelson St, Newcastle and what you noted in relation to inspection purposes?

Answer 19

• Plastered painted walls, 2.7m height, suspended ceiling incorporating LED lighting and modern AC cassettes, currently stud bureau de change fit out splitting retail space in half, carpet covered to front and vinyl covered to rear, incorporating stairs to basement and separate WC.
  Electric water heater.
  Electric, water, drainage in place, gas available but capped off.
  Statutory compliance: fire alarms etc. in place, Asbestos Register stated no asbestos.
  In reasonable repair overall, no defects of note.
  Internal layout clean/tidy, in similar or marginally better condition/specification to neighbouring units, however, I noted the current fit out did not appear in keeping with neighbouring occupiers (retailers, restaurants, betting etc.) who would prefer an open plan space at ground floor front to back, and therefore works should be undertaken to improve marketability.

Question 20

Tell me about the internals (specification) of Cambois, Northumberland and what you noted in relation to inspection purposes?

Answer 20

• Very basic internal layout, dated throughout, in need of full renovation.
• primarily arranged as cellular vacant community meeting rooms, a dated basic kitchen and toilets to both floors, plastered painted ceilings/walls, ceiling mounted fluorescent tube lighting.
  Doctors Surgery: occupying the rear corner of the ground floor – pharmacy(?)
• gas heating system for main building decommissioned, gas capped off
  plastered painted walls, suspended ceiling with LED panel lighting, carpeted, electric wall heaters, drainage, water and electricity

Question 21

What advice did you give to the client in relation to Fore St, Hexham and why? What was the outcome(s) of your advice?

Answer 21

Marketing Report – advice etc. –

• I analysed the property pitch and unit size/frontage against nearby units, reported the unit would achieve a Zone A rate just marginally below prime rates given the small size and reasonable internal condition with no particular works necessary to unit arrangement or specification – which is both popular with local occupiers who do not appear to vacate premises often (GOAD), and given the pitch – just off prime.
• I advised that marketability/rent may improve if minor modernisation works were undertaken, however, based on nearby units, it appears smaller units nearby to prime pitch are attractive to local occupiers who do not have expectations for a high specification, remain occupied long term and are rarely vacant, and therefore at this stage modernisation works probably unnecessary.

Question 22

What advice did you give to the client in relation to Peacock St, Sunderland and why? What was the outcome(s) of your advice?

Answer 22

Valuation Report – advice etc. –
- I documented and reported on the damaged roof in my report.
- I consulted our management team, who had experience re-roofing similar asbestos clad properties, applied a rate per sq ft to reflect current roof size, cost of £150,000, so made capital deduction to Market Value to reflect this, alongside reflecting the generally poor dated condition of the units, through analysis of VP sales comparable evidence. However, I also advised my client to:
• Seek advice from an Asbestos Consultant to provide an Asbestos Register and Management Plan, and thereby consider the risks – whether could be left in-situ/repaired/if fibres had been disturbed.
• I advised that this was an uncertain H&S risk at present, albeit likely a low risk, and nobody should be granted access to the property until these documents had been commissioned.
• Seek advice from a Chartered Building Surveyor to ascertain more precisely whether the property required re-roofing or potentially re-cladding over the asbestos, and if necessary liaise with an Asbestos Consultant to prepare a refurbishment/demolition asbestos survey.

Question 23

What advice did you give to the client in relation to Nelson St, Newcastle and why? What was the outcome(s) of your advice?

Answer 23

Marketing Report – advice etc. –

• I analysed the property pitch and unit size/frontage/internal arrangement against nearby units, reported that whilst the unit was in good internal order, only parts of the existing fit out (suspended ceiling, lighting, floor and wall surfaces and air con, WC/tea) should be retained.
  I reported that comparable evidence ranged between £35-£42 psf ZA, primarily dependent on whether double unit or not, alongside pitch.

I advised my client that to compete with/be at a similar level to both neighbouring units specification and arrangement, in current condition/arrangement would achieve £19,000 p.a. (£35 ZA), assuming 5 year lease as per market norms (5-10 years), which was at level for a much larger double unit. Additionally advised that void period may be significantly longer, thereby incurring significant void costs that must be taken into account.

The client initially did not take my advice, however following several promising viewings followed up by offers significantly below quoting or ceasing to pursue a letting due to difficult fit out, client then took my advice.

I received approval to instruct several contractors to provide cost estimates for removal of the parts that were impacting marketability, rent and therefore value, who I accompanied to provide access and explain the works necessary (security counter/stud walls, and making good suspended ceiling and electrics following removal).

I advised my client that the lowest quote of £6,000 should pay for itself within 2 years, as I expected a rental uplift to £22,000 p.a. (£40 ZA) (+£3,000 p.a.) alongside a shorter void period, hopefully a quick letting given previous strong interest that had fallen following a viewing.

Following the works completion interest has been strong, and viewings have been followed up. At the end of March a 5 year lease at £22,000 was recently formalised in HOTs and is now in solicitors hands.

Question 24

What advice did you give to the client in relation to Cambois, Blyth and why? What was the outcome(s) of your advice?

Answer 24

Valuation Report – advice etc. –
- I documented and reported on the restrictive covenant (solely miner’s institute) and horizontal cracking indicating a structural issue in my report.

• I provided two MV – an additional special assumption of the MV subject to the restrictive title covenant being able to be lifted at minimal cost and that the building was structurally sound.
  OR
• COULD SAY I provided MV subj. to special assumption issues could be dealt with, and held report in draft.
• I advised my client to instruct a structural surveyor, and to contact the holder of the restrictive covenant in the freehold title to establish the cost of lifting the covenant, whom I was aware was a major historic landowner in Northumberland, and who had a working relationship with my client, NCC. I reported that alongside the implications these two issues could have on value and disposal prospects, failing to address them would mean the current tenant (doctor’s office) would have to vacate, as the building may not be structurally safe and the tenant was not currently permitted to use the property as a doctor’s office.
• I also noted that potentially title indemnity insurance could be purchased to cover this risk, but that should be secondary to contacting the covenant holder and releasing the client from the covenant.
• I held the report in draft whilst my client undertook the necessary enquiries. I was informed that the restrictive covenant holder had agreed to release the restriction at a nominal cost.

I was also provided with correspondence from a structural surveyor, who had originally installed the internal steelwork to help tie the extension to the original building, and had monitored the situation for a number of years. The surveyor had established the cracking was due to differential settlement rather than heave or subsidence, and had taken place gradually and eventually stopped, indicating the building was now structurally safe.

• I then issued the report following this information, providing a valuation on this basis and advising that the property was now a readily saleable asset.
• Perhaps worth mentioning – comparable evidence was vacant and similarly obsolete social clubs/public houses in other isolated mining villages, therefore was able to account for all factors (condition, obsolescence, location etc.) in my valuation analysis, other than the 2 noted issues.

Question 25

How did you ensure your personal safety when inspecting the asbestos (Peacock St, Sunderland)?

Answer 25

Having considered the nature of the asbestos roof from the external inspection, I decided it was safe enough to enter the property, given that it was generally unheated space (asbestos around heating elements more prone to cracking, releasing fibres) and given previous experience that asbestos roof cladding is typically low risk. I also made sure to make the space well ventilated before entering, and to be mindful of the areas where asbestos was present.