Home > Waterside Places Meeting Minutes > Waterside Places Meeting – 30th November 2017 – Minutes



        Islington Wharf Residents Association
Meeting With Waterside Places



DATE: 30th November 2017

TIME: 19:00

LOCATION: Eric Wright Offices

In attendance:

Waterside Places

Simon Fraser (SF) – Ryder Architecture

Ian Joyce (IJ) – Hannan Associates (Modelling)

Mike Payton (MP) – Waterside Places


Gary Brown

Islington Wharf Residents Association:

Katherine Harrison (KH)

Jonathan Isaacs (JI)

Paul Kelly (PK)

Tracey Langford (TL)

Wayne Langford (WL)

James Needham (JN)


Susan Swientozielskyj

Ian Forrester

Derek Smith

  1. Introductions.

MP opened the meeting setting the intention to summarise and share the progress and findings of the exploratory/investigative work they have done to date, and to outline things that still need to be done, and aiming towards a final report in January 2018. Also to clarify that discussions with Laing O’Rourke (LOR) are ongoing.

  1. Progress since last meeting
  1. Water leaks:
  • 13 apartments in Block A, and 30 in Block B have recorded water leak issues.
  • Appear to be from 2 areas, the curtain walling (glass; spandrel/floor zone) and brickwork/cladding, but manly from curtain walling. JN and WL asked if this could be a possible cause for noise transference that has been raised previously, and had been considered by Laing O’Rourke by injecting foam. This was the first time that Waterside Places (WP) had heard about the issue of noise and following discussion to ascertain the nature of the problem with resident committee members, WP agreed to take this away with them to look at in more detail.

  1. Glass installation
  • Cladtec, SF and IJ were able to gain access to 28 apartments, and in addition, WP have introduced another expert from the Glass and Glazing Federation, Richard Kells.  The inspection has identified the following issues:
  1. non openable windows
  2. Limited free air – this is especially relevant
  3. Findings of Richard  Kells:
  1. Any  concerns about the kite mark can be ruled out it as it is generally ok and confirms that the glass is safety glass.. This is positive news. However, it does not confirm that the glass has been heat soaked so this remains a separate matter.
  2. It cannot be confirmed that the sloping glass windows in  Block A are laminated, another significant issue in terms of health and safety should glass fall out.
  3. There are a number of instances where reversals on the way the glass has been installed, ie  the reflective coating is on the wrong side.
  4. His findings also confirm that the glazing is of differing performance ratings – 0.4g (will preclude 60%) and 0.6g (will preclude  40%). Windows  facing South and West require 0.4g and windows facing North and East require 0.6g.
  5. The impact and relevance of the reversed installation, along with the differences between 0.4g and 0.6g, in terms of impact on the heat gain issue will be covered in a detailed report to follow.
  1. There has been 18 glass breakages in total, 3 of those that were tested have all been confirmed as having Nickel Sulfide Inclusion (i.e 100% of failures tested are caused by the inclusion). Richard Kells is looking into the effect and relevance/remedials of this.
  2. The building facade makeup has been examined with nothing of concern as this stage, but with investigations still ongoing. The work done so far has however given WP the opportunity to look at the  fireproofing/waterproofing, etc.

  1. Overheating
  • Corridors have been looked at, and work on this is ongoing. Waterside Places agree they are warm. They found that there has been some attempt, some years ago, by LOR, to insulate the pipework but this is  patchy. Ian and team are looking at this in terms of thermal modelling, as it is a potential contributing factor to the issues of heat gain in the apartments.
  • The heat exchange units and surrounding pipework is contributing to the excess heat in some apartments. Further work needs to be done to fully understand the overall impact of this.
  • Review against the building regulations has been done; these are the 2006 Building Regs, 2010 which introduced TM52, and 2017 which introduced TM59 (most current and most relevant  as linked to the ‘stay at home’ profiling that was done). Looking at the issues against all 3 of these profiles shows the same failure rates. 3d  modelling has been done from which, alongside archive information,  they have been able to complete 2d modelling of the floor plates. However, remodelling  has to be done against these regs with everything known and discussed so far fed into this action. The current failures are – Block A, 99% of bedrooms and 67% of lounges: Block B, 100% of bedrooms and 86%  of lounges.
  • In addition to all points above, the window recess issue was discussed  as this is also a contributing factor to the heat gain  in apartments. The recess is 300mm but the windows need to open to 400mm in order to create free air. This is definitely an issue.

  1. Remedial actions
  • Improving the performance of the glass can be done in two ways, either by replacement of the glass or the application of film, but, regardless of whichever solution is eventually agreed, there will be still be  some degree of failure. However, the improvement could be around 78% for the hours of exceedance, as set out against TM59, which in turn reduces the number of months per year where heat gain is an issue.
  • To get the full benefit of meeting all criteria involves increasing window openings, ie correcting the window restrictors to enable 100mm of free air.
  • To meet TM59 without changing the windows is impossible although it is recognised that this will create some design issues. This aspect created some discussion amongst all present; in particular, WL and KH picked up on the challenges posed by the high winds that circle the Islington Wharf buildings. WP clarified that the 100mm free air standard is the industry norm and should have been in situ from the outset, and as an industry standard it will stand up to the rigors of wind and rain.
  • In addition, issues that will affect  the aesthetic of the building were discussed whilst recognising this is something for future meetings when solutions have been agreed.  For now, WP confirmed that they retain responsibility for the external facade. This in turn triggered questions from committee members re: replacement costs of film if this was to be one of the solutions, whilst TL expressed concern about the potential for damage caused by window cleaning. All points are noted for future reference as and when a final solution is agreed.
  • Furthermore, WP are using AEC as Acousticians to look at how the remedial action will affect the noise. Further evaluation could also be done by Arup if needed.

  1. Lift and front entrance doors
  • Revolution to provide  the number of breakdowns for comparison: they have already provided the comparable costs which show that Islington Wharf is not an outlier. WL again asked if a remedial action is needed to prevent failure of the front door opening mechanism but it was generally agreed by all present that this is not an issue for consideration at this time.

  1. Next Steps
  1. 3D model / 2D floor renders based on 3D scanning: 3D model has been completed, Ryder are now completing 2D models for each floor. The 3D model needs to generate 2D models for some of the software to run, which is just about finished (generate the model).
  2. New thermal model based on an accurate 3D model
  3. Remedial proposals – film installation / glass enhancement and window interventions; use of film still remains an option and is supported by the glass expert.
  4. LOR are not engaging with WP although a meeting is now set with LOR and their advisors in early December.
  5. All in all, many things need to be considered before a definitive timeframe for action can be agreed, not least of which includes the current issues affecting LOR.
  6. KH to write to Lucy again to see if we can get a response to the letter sent to LOR questioning whether have insurance in place, and ask them to come to the table with Waterside Places.
  7. Questions submitted to WP by Derek Smith were briefly discussed and agreed that WP will take these away and respond to Derek directly. JI and PK to be copied in.

  1. Date of next meeting
  • WP  to send some dates through for end of January 2018 for JI to coordinate with Residents Committee.