Case Study Presentation Flashcards
(12 cards)
First Slide - Title Page
Hello, my name is Non McCarthy. Today, I shall be presenting my case study project based on external restoration works to 151-161 Kensington High Street.
Second Slide - Agenda
I’ll start by covering the project overview, setting the context for the project. I’ll then outline my approach in undertaking the external restoration, followed by two key issues I faced during the project. I’ll end with the conclusion where I’ll describe the outcome of the project.
Third Slide - Project Overview
151-161 Kensington High Street is located in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. This Edwardian mixed-use terrace property is constructed of traditional solid masonry wall construction, over basement and five upper floors.
The ground floor comprises glazed curtain walling forming commercial shopfronts. The upper floors comprise a combination of red brickwork, and Portland stone architectural features. Fenestrations comprise timber sash windows. The roof is of mansard construction finished with natural slates to the pitches, and a single ply roofing membrane to the flat-topped section.
The client owns a Freehold interest in the property, with separate head leaseholders for the residential and commercial parts of the property. The client instructed restoration works to the gutters, canopies, balconies, brickwork and stonework following a fragment of stone which fell onto the shop front canopy.
The project was procured via the traditional method, under the JCT Intermediate Building Contract with Contractors Design 2016.
The Contract Sum amounted to £299k with a Final Account value settled at £353k.
The contract period was a total of 22-weeks, with a 7-week extension of time.
Fouth Slide - Project Involvement
My project involvement included acting as Contract Administrator and supporting the Principal Designer in accordance with Construction (Design & Management) 2015. Considering this, my roles and responsibilities covered both pre and post contract duties.
Fifth Slide - Key Issue 1 (Welfare)
During the preparation of the Pre-Construction Information document, I identified that the housing of welfare facilities was problematic due to the prominent location of the property. My main considerations included the level of disruption to the Tenants and the public; identification of the narrow rear passage; and Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s Code of Construction Practice.
Before finalising the location of the welfare, I specified within the tender documentation that the tendering contractors should provide cost-options for the provision of suitable welfare in line with CDM Regulations 2015, as my Client was unable to accommodate this.
Sixth Slide - Welfare Options
Various options were considered to evaluate the most viable location for welfare facilities. Option A considered locating the welfare in a suspended parking bay; Option B sought to locate the welfare facilities on the mansard roof; Option C appraised the viability locating the welfare on a gantry to the front elevation of the property.
I evaluated key considerations under each option. Option A amounted to approximately £42,120.00 before considering any welfare facility hire charges for a suspended parking bay. Whilst convenient, this was uneconomical.
Contrastingly, Option B meant that the location of the welfare facilities would not impact the public nor the works progress. However, option B was perceived as costly when concerning the potential H&S implications, including the requirement for additional edge protection, and plumbing down to the below apartments, amounting to a cost of £60,000.
Finally, Option C allowed for an undisturbed walkway on Kensington High Street whilst maintaining unobstructed access to commercial shop fronts, with access to the WC facilities located in the rear passageway, away from the residents and the public. With its close proximity to the site and lower cost due to minimal plumbing requirements, the gantry proved feasible, amounting to a total cost of £32,000.00.
Seventh Slide - Welfare Outcome
I determined that adapting the scaffolding to provide a gantry (Option C) was the most viable option. This conformed to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s Code of Construction Practice, whilst ensuring that shop fronts and entrances on the front elevation were not obstructed. This solution was deemed the most economically advantageous, which was a key factor considering the cost was recoverable through service charge. I subsequently advised the client to proceed with Option C.
Eighth Slide - Key Issue 2 (Artificial Chimneys)
Despite roof works being outside the original scope, having gained access to the roof once the scaffold was erected and signed-off, I identified that 2 chimney stacks and associated clay chimney pots located on the mansard roof had become unstable. Further investigation revealed that the chimney stacks were artificial, constructed of plywood and brick slips. Due to the weight of the clay chimney pots and penetrating damp causing the timber plywood frame to rot, the chimney stacks had lost their structural integrity. Whilst 2 chimney stacks were deemed in disrepair, upon further investigation I considered the removal of all 10 chimney stacks considering their replicated construction.
Following consultation with my client and their appointed Section 20 solicitor, I advised that all chimney stacks and clay pots be removed entirely to eliminate any immediate public risk.
Ninth Slide - Artificial Chimneys Options
Option A was for the removal of all artificial chimneys from the mansard roof down to the roof deck, without reinstatement. This option would eliminate all H&S risks associated with the artificial chimneys in the most cost-effective manner. The removal of the chimneys was deemed the least time-consuming option, whilst minimising any additional requirement for labour and scaffold hire costs.
Option B was for the removal and wholesale replacement of the existing artificial chimneys. The existing construction comprised brick slips of deleterious material, which significantly increased the H&S risk associated with this construction; therefore, rebuilding the chimney stacks with more robust materials would mitigate the reoccurrence of these issues, and address the property’s aesthetics; however, it maintained an increased costs associated with ongoing maintenance and risk management.
Tenth Slide - Artificial Chimeneys Outcome
In conclusion, Option A was identified as the most viable solution. Although both Options A and B were presented to the client as equally viable, I considered the client’s brief for an economical project. Beyond the cost, programme implications were also presented to the client. Option A would extend the programme by 7-weeks, while Option B would extend it by-12 weeks, significantly impacting the critical path and delaying the completion of low-level works post scaffold striking. Additionally, I considered the impact on both residential and commercial tenants.
Elevnth Slide - Before and After
Here are four before and after comparisons following the restoration works. Comparison one captures the reconstruction of urns to the shopfront canopy; whilst comparison two, three and four portray the reconstruction of scrolls to various flights, built up of lime-based mortar.
Twelfth Slide - Conclusion
To conclude - among stakeholder management, and problem-solving skills, I managed variations and certificates effectively throughout the project. Additionally, I issued and recommended advice relating to an Extension of Time Certificate following a relevant matter.
Whilst I believe the project was an overall success, I will attempt to manage my client’s expectations in terms of time, cost, and quality in future instructions. I would achieve this through carrying out thorough desktop research and on-site investigations to eliminate unexpected delays or variations.
