Islington Wharf

        Islington Wharf Residents Association
Meeting With Waterside Places

1. Introductions

1. Waterside Places Et Al

1. Garry Brown (Thomasons)
2. Mike Payton (Waterside Places)
3. Simon Fraser (Ryder)
4. Ian Joyce (Hannan)

2. Islington Wharf

1. Jonathan Isaacs
2. Wayne Langford
3. Tracey Lanford
4. Paul Kelly
5. Derek Smith
6. James Needham

2. Apartment 193 (Water Leaks)

1. MP advised that property 193 had some leaks which resulted in buckets being needed to be used to collect water. TL and WL advised that their apartment was having issues.
2. MP advised that Cladtech (curtain walling consultants) recommended that in the first instance a temporary solution would be put in place which a film system is applied across the spandrel zone which is believed this will provide temporary solution to the problem, and confirm whether this was indeed the cause..
3. WL asked if a sealant could be used, MP stated Cladtech advised against this as it wouldn’t fix the problem.
4. First would look at applying this temporary solution to apartment 193 and to the floors above it. Revolution have been asked to arrange for this temporary solution be put in place ‘imminently’.
5. A document showing the temporary solution was passed around, MP to send a copy of this to JI to distribute. (ACTION: MP)
   

   ---

3. Mullion/Transom Arrangements (Acoustics)

1. MP advised that SF had looked at the original design information for the curtain walling used on Apartment 200 to look at noise transference. SF stated that having looked at the detail of the makeup of the panel, and there may be some gap behind the mullion at floor level, which is what was tried to be filled.
2. The detail in the drawings and visits were as they should be, but most people have their TV against the wall which is near the metal which acts as an amplification. JN stated this couldn’t be the only cause, which SF confirmed wouldn’t be the only cause, but could exacerbate it.
3. JN asked if this could have got worse overtime with water ingress. SF confirmed that if the fireproofing had been soaked, the soundproofing could sag, causing more noise. SF confirmed this is speculatory. When a full repair (not temporary) to the identified leaks removes the spandrels off and inspect the fireproofing, this could be looked at. The sagging of the fireproofing is unlikely to cause problem with the fireproofing, only noise but this will be confirmed when the inspection happens. (Post meeting note: SF had investigated further and the fire insulation is water resistant and consequently the water leaks should not have a significant effect on the fire protection measures)
4. DS asked if we had a number of apartments which raised cause of concerns. It was discussed that we didn’t have an accurate list.
5. JN asked if WP found any localised problem with some fire protection during the testing, would the whole building be looked at. MP said a ‘reasonable review’ would take place. MP wanted to reiterate the point we have already looked behind the cladding and it was all in good condition.

4. Block A Laminated Glass

1. MP stated that the original spec of works was for installation of laminated glass which fronted onto the main area (sloped side).
2. MP stated, that Richard Kells did the surveys of the properties, plot 41, the glass is toughened but not laminated. This is not to say that this is the case for all. MP said this is not something WP are happy with, and are proposing of adding a containment film as a temporary measurement.
3. It’s a colourless film which will hold the glass together, it won’t have any solar properties.
4. An information sheet will be sent to residents. The contractor can start within the next 4 weeks and the works will take 2 weeks (weather permitting) to complete.

5. Overheating

• Update on building modelling (architectural)

1. SF stated the information was produced, and shared with Ian and the team. There were anomalies around the split windows which needed correcting to give the correct outputs. Allowing the thermal modelling to be completed

• Update on thermal modelling (3D comparison/corridor impact/Derek Smith’s comments and response)

1. IJ stated that the current modelling is based on the Cundall model which any errors/omissions improved upon without rebuilding, but using the new model from SF.
2. New information was gathered against TM59 and other runs for every room in the building, and carried out modelling with results for the application of 0.25g solar resistant glass and series of corrections to the existing windows (windows open to 100mm clear of the building) and new set of results which show these.
3. New results show average improvement of between 65% and 85% which has correction of current window openings and solar performance.
4. IJ advised as a separate exercise they put in heating pipe in the corridors, and compared the model vs actual recorded temperature data. Results of the model are higher than the actual and the actual exceeds TM59. TM59 uses climate data which assesses future changes. The result differences of switching the heat gain from the pipe work doesn’t have a significant cause on the failure in the apartment. DS stated that the temperature of the corridors does exceed TM59 criteria and asked if there was scope for further insulation. IJ advised he had modeled for new insulation and it didn’t make any significant difference. IJ advised it doesn’t seem viable to have any additional ventilation in the corridors as any effective exhaust routes are part of fire safety structures.

5. MP confirmed that the corridors feel warm, however that the committee asked to see if had an effect. JN stated staff do work in the common parts so it was important to have this under control.
6. GB received from IJ a spreadsheet that provided data from every single building and sorted the information into degrees of hours of exceedance with the data to find something, stored into each room was behaving in relation to standards to see how many rooms were affected.

1. MP to provide stats on improvements that were read out by GB to ensure accuracy as could have mistyped them (ACTION: MP)

7. The apartments where more improvements were needed to be done (can’t improve any more than what is in place) tend to be stacked or grouped together in a pattern.
8. IJ said he would plot a graph with what the temperature threshold was over time (ACTION: IJ) DS and IJ to work together.

6. Remedial Solutions

1. New window opening.
2. New glazing. OR Film on existing windows to improve solar performance.

7. Next Steps

1. Conclusion of Costing Work

1. Conclusion of this will be by end of Feb.
2. Going to WP Board Mid March with costings/proposals.

2. WP/LOR Discussions

1. Remains non constructive.
2. By end of March be able to suggest direction which work goes in, which may include waiting for legal action to carry out.

3. Programme

1. Testing:

1. Looking at having the apartments with temp loggers in place last year (170 and 165) with sample work done.

8. AOB

1. Date for next meeting to be for end of March. Waterside Places to share some dates for confirming which are convenient.
2. WL gave to WP a mortgage letter from a resident advising that this was affecting property values.

Questions Which Have Arisen On Fitting Test Film To 165/170

• Any problems with film, WP will remove it? Response received on 14th Feb: Yes
• If final film fitted to IW A/B after testing is different to the test film, WP will replace it? Response received on 14th Feb: Yes