Viewpoint

Citation

Gardner, P. (1998), "Viewpoint", Structural Survey, Vol. 16 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/ss.1998.11016aaa.001

Viewpoint

My text for today is prompted by the questions posed by Tony Poole in his Viewpoint article in Volume 15 No. 1, 1997. You might recall the questions that were raised in relation to a residential survey following a paper that he gave on the subject. The various questions arising stemmed from the same source, namely, how far should the surveyor go? The answer of course is that he can never go far enough but the most important feature of the survey is the confirmation of instructions and the statement of what will actually be done; at the same time the opportunity can be taken to seek further instructions to deal with issues raised such as the design of estate drainage, the assessment of frequency of cavity wall ties (remembering of course that you still can't check whether they are correctly bedded or free from mortar) and so on. There is a balance, of course, to be struck between satisfying the Judge (ultimately) and dissuading the client from having any survey at all on the basis that, after all the omissions and caveats have been taken into account, there is not much left to be inspected. I must say in this context that I do like the practice of appending a (standard) list of caveats and disclaimers to the letter acknowledging instructions which enables the letter to be brief, to the point and friendly whilst blaming the PI insurers for the attached list of exclusions!

Whilst on the subject of structural surveys (or building surveyors' inspections, to use the PC term), I would like to draw attention to two issues of relevance to commercial property surveys. The first concerns the modern trend towards dry forms of construction. The particular dry construction to which I refer is the use of boarding and fibrous materials to provide fire protection to steel columns and beams and to form fire protective enclosures to lift shafts, staircases etc. and to separate different habitations. Recent detailed investigations of such installations following the discovery on survey of small pointers to failings in workmanship have led to the discovery of extensive deficiencies in workmanship and in material selection. This gives rise to the need for special care to be taken when surveying such constructions particularly in commercial buildings. Whilst there is absolutely no doubt about the quality of the materials nor about their ability to perform when installed in accordance with manufacturer's instructions, it is apparent that the necessary standards of fire protection will not be guaranteed if there is any deviation from the manufacturer's requirements. This is where the problem lies. Recent experience suggests that some so-called specialist contractors are either unfamiliar with or disregard the very precise requirements for boardings, fixings, laps and making good of perforations laid down by the manufacturers following rigorous testing and thus, at best, jeopardise the integrity of structures and at worst, put lives at risk.

The difficulty when surveying such installations is of course that the fixings are totally concealed and the identity of the materials is largely concealed by decorations and possibly other finishes. It is thus extremely important that the surveyor, first, should have at least a working knowledge or means of identifying the qualities of different fire boards and secondly, should take great care to gain access to all possible concealed voids such as service ducts, shafts and ceiling voids to inspect as much "base" construction as possible. Evidence of failure to use correct materials or fixings or evidence of failure properly to make good perforations or complete fire separations will put the surveyor on notice of inadequate workmanship and should cause him to warn that the problem may be more widespread than can be identified from a limited inspection.

Naturally the surveyor would not wish to be alarmist but in the case of new buildings it is not unusual for the new occupier or owner to remove elements of new construction in order to achieve his fitting out requirements and it is during this progress that the full extent, or some measure of it, will certainly be ascertained.

Manufacturers such as British Gypsum offer a monitoring service to contractors and consultants engaged in construction work and it is probably worth enquiring whether anyone has taken advantage of this to provide confirmation of compliance. It is doubtful whether British Gypsum would underwrite any contract which they have so inspected but it is a starting point and certainly the making of the enquiry would be evidence of awareness of the risk.

My second issue is that of "Millennium Bug". Whilst I don't believe that we as surveyors are required to investigate the various pieces of "kit" which may be affected in the year 2000, and this could include alarm systems, boilers, lifts and anything else which may contain a "chip", we should of course draw attention to the risk and the need for proper investigation and appraisal. We shall not be thanked on 1 January 2000 if lifts fail to operate, alarms remain mute and boilers fail to ignite, even if responsibility for investigation assessment and remedial works lie well beyond the limit of the building surveyor's inspection. A simple warning should satisfy the situation.

Paul GardnerMember of the Editorial Board