Agenda item

To receive questions and representations from the public under Rule 5 of the Cabinet (Executive) Procedure Rules of the Constitution.

Councillor Jonathan Davies submitted the following question under Rule 5 of the Cabinet (Executive) Procedure Rules of the Constitution:

I would like to put forward a question for the leader of Eden Council on behalf of Evolve Penrith.

Eden Council has over the last Two years continued with its plans for Voreda House despite original planning applications been refused by this very council.

Eden council as the developer was then forced to change the plans for Voreda House after issues emerged that the original plans would risk crushing the building with the weight of the proposed cladding.

Despite LGR Eden council has ploughed on with its single site plans.

Now it has emerged that the building had asbestos not discovered until demolition work was underway and then the discovery the building structural integrity has been compromised.

This now resulting in cost increases of £1.47 million.

Can the leader confirm the level of pre purchase and pre work commencement building surveys and due diligence that was conducted by Eden council and why the number of structural related issues from asbestos to the integrity of the building was not known before a single screw was removed from the original Voreda House building.

The Leader of the Council responded as follows:

Thank you for your question which I am pleased to answer, as no one is more disappointed than I am, that costs have risen to deliver the project.

In terms of the initial due diligence, I can confirm that in September 2019 a Valuation Report and a full building ‘General and Structural Condition Report’ were commissioned from our property advisors Walton Goodland prior to the purchase for Voreda House being agreed. 

I can also confirm that, as a follow up to the initial survey, and to provide further assurances, a specific asbestos survey was commissioned from specialist consultants which identified a small quantity of low risk asbestos material associated with the buildings heating system.  This survey was also undertaken prior to entering into the construction contract.  The material was removed safely, by the construction contractor, as part of the internal demolition of the building and was not significant in terms of, quantity, cost or programme.  During this process no further asbestos materials were detected.

In August 2021, the Council commissioned a drainage survey which identified some silting of the drains but did not identify the presence of asbestos.

In addition to the asbestos related surveys the Council also commissioned, electrical and lift surveys as part of the approach to due diligence.

The fact is that the additional asbestos and structural issues that are contributing to the increase in costs were not and could not have been identified prior to construction commencing and were uncovered when the main fabric of the building was being stripped back and groundworks carried out.  This required further tests and surveys to be undertaken to establish the structural integrity of the building following historical damage identified to the main supports  and impact of carbonisation.  When the building was stripped back it was found that the main support struts on the two upper floors had been cut through at some point to accommodate cables which required additional steel supports to remedy the damage and the areas of carbonisation identified, which weakens the fabric of concrete, also needed specialist treatment. 

During construction additional asbestos was identified in two areas which could not have been identified previously.  The first, and less significant area, was located in the insulation behind the external concrete tiles.  The concrete tiles formed part of the structural integrity of the building and required a bespoke steel cradle and overhead crane to safely remove.  The second, more impactful area, was associated with the drains below the undercroft.  This was only identified when the area was fully excavated and resulted in the asbestos, and associated contaminated ground, requiring removal prior to construction being allowed to continue.

Councillor Jonathan Davies asked the following supplementary question:

Have the additional funding obviously for Voreda House during development works from the Salix Finance, has that grant funding to Eden Council due to the delays with construction etc. been impacted or does the council still have that finances part of its budget while unfold delivery for Voreda House?

The Leader (Interim Director of Resources) responded as follows:

Yes, the funding is still in place and hasn’t been impacted.