Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think

Lewes Forum New message

Printworks life expectancy

On 26 Oct 2009 at 7:00pm Printworks watcher wrote:
In my opinion these flats were so badly constructed that I think they will be demolished within 25 years. The external insulation and render system was not correct for timber frame. Combined with the flat roof and poor sitework they will leak, rot and go mouldy.
Vancouver built places like these in the 80s and 90s. Look up leaky condo british columbia.
On 26 Oct 2009 at 7:11pm PhoenixWatcher wrote:
So what a lucky escape we've had with the collapse of Angel Property - imagine having to rebuild on the industrial estate flood plain every 25 years.
On 26 Oct 2009 at 7:41pm eh? wrote:
Is this what the legal case is about?
On 27 Oct 2009 at 8:25am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
They should never have been built in the first place. Baxters was a bit of an eyesore, but it least it didn't dominate the rest of the street the the Pantworks does. It's hideous, inappropriate and can't fall down quick enough for me.
On 27 Oct 2009 at 8:56am ere be monsters wrote:
Anyone buys one of those flats gets what they deserve. The workers who did the flintwork should hang their heads in shame.
On 27 Oct 2009 at 9:30am Geoff wrote:
Well to be a little more neighbourly to our new neighbours, I think it would be more accurate to say that it is their surveyors (pressuming they used one) who should hand in their resignation letters, whoever was overseeing the building work(the architect whop happily accepted a quality build award?) the building control company ( Zurich) and most laughably of all the Sussex Heritage lot who not only accepted sole sponsorship for an award category from Quadric, but then (as if by magic) gave them the award. Very cosy. I hope they all enjoyed the award dinner.
Finally LDC should be congratulated for orchestrating this mess with Clifford Dann despite numerous people telling Councillors that this was all a very bad idea. It is a shame that the PAC are still ignoring residents and listening, without even a hint of impartiality, to anything that developers, and planning officers will tell them. It is about time they learned the difference between moaning minnies, and intelligent Lewesian residents who have enouigh brain power to be able to warn LDC of real problems, legal issues, and innaccurate information. has anyone told peter gardiner yet that Lyndsey Frost still doesn't understand fire access is a planning issue? Baxters might themn have had a turning circle without car parking spaces in it.
I understand the legal action does involve the builders, but don't know how, or who is pursuing them.
On 27 Oct 2009 at 10:22am sashimi wrote:
One of the residents showed me round. The flats are extremely pleasant: nicely designed and laid out and fitted out. Fantastic views from the roof gardens above. Like ACT I don't like the development from the outside. The problem is it is so badly built that it's a nightmare to live in. A lot of people bought flats 'off plan' and promptly sold them when they saw what they'd got. I gather the very reputable architects weren't engaged to oversee the building process and whoever project managed it failed to notice none of the builders were familiar with the very innovative processes for sealing the walls and the flat roof. The flint walls are what you get if you ask otherwise very competent Polish builders to wing it with some flints and concrete. My understanding is that Zurich are in dispute with the builders and developers because they have underwritten the 10 year guarantee on the properties but have unde4rstandably refused to accept them in their present condition. But Geoff may know better. I don't understand how LDC building control could have accepted them - but I don't know much about that process.
On 27 Oct 2009 at 11:29am PhoenixWatcher wrote:
And they say Lindsay Frost is in line to be LDC chief executive. My god! I hope the councillors who are ultimately responsible for the appointment have got their eyes open, though I doubt it.
On 27 Oct 2009 at 1:48pm Eh? wrote:
Well if Lindsay Frost is ever going to be a CEO (God Help Us!) I suggest that ex-Councillor Kim Clarke stops talking about his health to residents.
On 27 Oct 2009 at 4:07pm LTLR wrote:
Kim Clarke want's to keep her nose out of Lewes's business,and stay in Weald.
On 27 Oct 2009 at 4:13pm LTLR wrote:
Sorry Wealden
On 27 Oct 2009 at 10:59pm Spinster Of This Parish wrote:
What an interesting thread!
The "flintwork" arrived on site in prefabricated block form - half the flints fell out whilst the blocks were put in position and some poor sod had the task of spending weeks cementing them back in place.
As for the polish builders comment - there were very few on site and, from what I observed during the construction, they were the only ones doing a semi decent job.
The architect responsible for the Pantworks is Phillip Naylor who works for RH Partnership from Brighton - best to avoid this company for eternity.
Building control was alledgedly provided by LDC (ha ha ha)
But the biggest laugh is provided by LDC's planning department - a whole catalogue of errors and staff too incompetant to learn from their mistakes.
On 28 Oct 2009 at 12:04am Geoff wrote:
I was under the impression Zurich covered building control,. but I could be wrong. The way to sort it olut is to establich who did the Building Control, and to identify whta building regulations applt to render that we can all see is blistered and cracked, and then ask LDC how this meets the planning conditions . Building work should meet the basic standards of quality required in a Conservation aream, and tghis pile of rubbish clearly does not. The same applies to any other faults. I see that the bollard is still issing that should be protecting the listed funeral directors, so someone could ask why this has been left for almosta year, especially as we can all see damage and scrapes that would have been preventyed. The other side was recently hit, and damaged. it is negligent maladministration by either LDC or ESCC.
An embarassment.
On the subject of kim Clark She is on the Friends of lewes Planning commitee, so since she was a member of the PAC responsible for this mess, it seems to me that someone should ask her what she is going to do as a FOL member to improve this shoddy new build.
On 28 Oct 2009 at 11:02am Down and Out wrote:
To save you all a lot of running round in circles:
Planners approve, or don't approve, samples of materials. They have no authority in respect of workmanship thereafter, provided the finished building is compliant with what was shown on the approved drawings.
If Zurich were appointed for Building Control, then it would have been as an alternative to LDC approval, so LDC BC have no input. There are no Building Regulations which deal with the appearance of materials, or the deterioration of materials post-completion. If it was signed off at completion, that's your lot.
If there are latent construction defects then it's up to the freeholder to take it up with the contractor.
What does make me chuckle about this thread is when you relate it to the uproar about the proposed Harvey's Depot redevelopment. When you arrive in Lewes on the train and see the back of those listed terraces on Lansdown Place they look like s**t, frankly - poor maintenance, cracked render, peeling paint, dropped / rotting sashes. But they're 'heritage', so they must be lovely!
Why do people get into a blind strop when one part of the built environment looks shabby, but not another? Is it just blatant hypocrisy?
On 28 Oct 2009 at 11:21am Sherlock wrote:
Down and out: Old and shabby is character; new and shabby is incompetence.
On 28 Oct 2009 at 6:42pm Printworks watcher wrote:
Down and Out: Building regs do cover resistance to moisture. I do not think the insulated render system was approved by and / or installed in accordance with a BBA certificate and as a result the building envelope may fail over years to come. Maybe an owner could ask the developer for details of the BBA approval. It will then be simple to check the failed render and insulation on the Walmers Lane side to see what has gone wrong. If it is just an isolated fault you can rest at ease. If it is more serious it can be dealt with under warranty during the developer liability period. If it is left it could blight the whole development.
On 28 Oct 2009 at 8:04pm You gotta be kidding wrote:
the building has been shabby since it went up, and the style, like modernist houses of the 1920's and 30's relies on sharp finish that stays like that despite age. buckled 'rende; on wood is not only bad practice, and unattractive to start with, but it does not 'look better with time' and leads to structural flaws. What kind of standards must lindsay frost have that he is failing to get this building up to scratch. it is a beacon of disaster advertising his failings as much as the builders. we deserve better than this, and were promised it too!
On 29 Oct 2009 at 11:56am Down and Out wrote:
Printworks watcher: I've already mentioned about latent defects and the responsibilities of the contractor. The point I was making was that there is no come back through Building Regs for a construction defect which appears after the building has been completed. And, anyway, to take your point about Part C2, I would expect that, on a timber frame, moisture resistance would be primarily provided by the membrane over the face of the frame. It does look like the render basecoat is delaminating from the mesh (assuming the mesh was fixed correctly) which might well suggest a dodgy batch of render (dried out, maybe?). What did worry me at the time was that they took too long to complete the render overall and did not work sequentially. Time will tell.
On 29 Oct 2009 at 12:23pm Printworks watcher wrote:
D & O: With insulated render on timber frame there has to be a ventilated cavity either between the breather paper and the insulation or (better) between the insulation and the render. I do not think there was either and a mineral type insulation was used, so that if any water enters through the render it will be wicked up by the insulation and the breather paper into the timber frame, which will slowly rot. The breather paper is not a waterproof membrane and will offer no protection if in direct contact with damp insulation.
On 29 Oct 2009 at 12:48pm Bonfirek wrote:
A touch analy retentive?!
On 29 Oct 2009 at 3:06pm Printworks watcher wrote:
A pointless and misspelt remark?!
On 29 Oct 2009 at 5:00pm Down and Out wrote:
PW: This is all getting a bit over-technical but there are IR systems which don't have a cavity over timber frame and do have BBA, but don't have NHBC, so I'm not sure what was being aimed for and where Zurich stand. I had assumed, however, that there was a breathable membrane of the Nilvent type over a water resistant carrier board of the Bluclad / Pyroc type, and then a cavity before the frame (in effect rainscreen detailing for the purposes of C2). But to be honest I can't say I was paying that much attention to the detail as it went up as I only passed by occasionally.
On 29 Oct 2009 at 8:17pm Kimmy wrote:
EH? You are a frightful bore! Youve a look of Fred West!
On 29 Oct 2009 at 10:07pm Ehhy? wrote:
That is the sort of nutty thing that Kimmy C would say. A bit like telling another Lewes Councillor that she wouldn't vote to approve the HQ development
On 29 Oct 2009 at 10:12pm Geoff wrote:
??? why does Eh? look like Fred West?
On 29 Oct 2009 at 11:10pm Residentevil wrote:
Well pardon me but what the Hells it got yo do with any of you? My flat is lovely inside, well insulated, hardly have need for heating, and has hardly a glitch since we moved in. Better than a lot of newbuilds. Yes some problem with the render. That will get sorted out in time. Yes some problems with the planning side no doubt but this is my HOME, I LIVE here and I LOVE IT. So naff off and mind your own business. I'm sorry if you don't like the way it looks, for a matter of fact I do, I can see it might be upsetting if you lived OPPOSITE and didn't like it but to my mind that is about 9 flat full of old codgers and one house. If that isn't you then bog off and leave us alone because I.m fed up of reading about it. Thanks bye.
On 29 Oct 2009 at 11:19pm yawn wrote:
don't read it then.
On 30 Oct 2009 at 7:41am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Lol, so it's ok to ruin the townscape of an ancient and historic town as long as you have a nice cosy flat, eh?
I definitely can't wait for it to fall down now!
On 30 Oct 2009 at 8:03am spongebob wrote:
That arguement holds no water at all ACT. Towns need to be built on to grow and move with the times. Would you have said the same thing say, 150 years ago as the high street was developing "oh let's all ruin the townscape of our twee town...we wont be able to see the castle with all these shops etc"
I get the feeling that many people in this town have the attitude of "i'm alright Jack, the town is just how I want it and stuff the future generations"
On 30 Oct 2009 at 10:57am Yawn wrote:
and another Spongebob comment that doesnt relate to what anyone has actually said. Spongebob you are obsessed with the idea that just becuase people think that a building is crap, that they only like twee things Well you are the sort of idiot who should be a Councillor. Making bad decisions because you can't read things properly, and make up arguements that other people aren't actually having!
The Pantworks is crap because it is too big, and is badly built. I can't see anyone here suggesting it should have been half timbered and mathematically tiled, just built properly. Any idiot knows that modern buildings have a place in Lewes. actually I think it isn't modern and sophisticated enough, it is a timid and mediochre example of 2007 architects trends.
I suggest that anyone who doesn't think it is valid to question cracks in buildings and the implications this has on structures should contact the RIBA.
On 30 Oct 2009 at 1:15pm Taff wrote:
Gotta say I agree with Spongbob to a degree.
Repeating what I posted a while back just look at the building styles in the High Street. Certainly wouldnt have what we have today if historically, the town didnt try to keep up with the times.
However I dont paricularly like the Printworks, that is why I do not reside there! Cant think of a better reason for choosing ones home, can you?
On 30 Oct 2009 at 1:18pm Taff wrote:
Gotta say I agree with Spongbob to a degree.
Repeating what I posted a while back just look at the building styles in the High Street. Certainly wouldnt have the diversity we have today if historically, the town didnt try to keep up with the times.
However I dont paricularly like the Printworks, that is why I do not reside there! Cant think of a better reason for choosing ones home, can you?
On 30 Oct 2009 at 1:46pm Taff wrote:
Apologies for the duplicate posting. First one timed out according to the sites feedback so did the second!
On 30 Oct 2009 at 1:50pm spongebob wrote:
Yawn.....i was commenting on Annette curtain-twitcher's post about someone's cosy flat spoiling the historic landscape of the town....nothing to do with the building standards, planning apps etc etc.
Therefore, everything you've put in your last post is relevent to you. Bloody retard.
On 30 Oct 2009 at 2:40pm Down and Out wrote:
"I suggest that anyone who doesn't think it is valid to question cracks in buildings and the implications this has on structures should contact the RIBA."
Get a grip man (or woman?). It's a little bit of cracking, relative to the overall large area, in a non-structural surface finish. And suddenly everyone's talking like the whole thing is going to slide into the station car park by the middle of next week!
On 30 Oct 2009 at 5:17pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Yes, Spongenob has gone off at half-cock again. I have no objection to development in genreal, I am certainly in favour of proving affordable homes for local people so that they can remain local people, but the Pantworks is is a hideous development and utterly inappropriate for its site in terms of scale, mass and finish.
While it purports to provide "affordable homes" for local key workers, they were so unaffordable that they are now offered to social workers and teachers from as as far afield as Croydon, and the planners have spoilt a once pretty little lane for the benefit of DFLs, albeit suburban ones.
On 30 Oct 2009 at 5:54pm Down and Out wrote:
I'm with Spongebob ACT - you're offering vague subjective opinion as though it had some basis in objectivity. 'Hideous' - that's your opinion. I find it preferable to that naff 80's(?) number between Station Street and the Printworks. 'Inappropriate scale and mass' Nope - it's of a similar order of scale and mass to the aforementioned flats, and to the buildings on School Hill beyond.
'Finish' - there's plenty of render in Lewes. If they'd built it in brick the lanes either side would have been much darker. At least there's a fair amount of reflected light. You're welcome to dislike it, but don't start suggesting it's fundamentally 'wrong' just because it doesn't suit your one-eyed vision of what Lewes should look like.
On 30 Oct 2009 at 7:22pm Deep Thought wrote:
Down and Out, your post makes you sound like some sanctimonous t0sser but I am sure you did not mean to offend

This thread has reached its limit now
Why not start another one


Closet and Botts 29:132
Closet and Botts

@Old Mayor - you know its bad when even the British seem compassionate as occupiers compared with Israel. But yea, i can't recall... more
If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.
George Washington