More wall woes

[skier-hughes]

After deleting cookies also check that your anti/virus/firewall software is set to allow cookies.

 

[MdB]

If you switch to FF, get the addon Adblock Plus (not Adblock). You will then never switch back.

 

[Pford75]

Diverting the thread back to the subject of the wall for a moment...

I have today received a draft of my structural engineers report. Thought you might be interested to read....I have highlighted the particularly amusing parts of the report. Needless to say, I have a big smile at the moment....but there is still a long way to go.

INITIAL OBSERVATIONS

Richard Jacksons Report was commissioned by Brit Insurance on the 11th August 2009, and almost 11 months after the final event of the actual wall collapse.

Given that the section of wall under consideration has long been removed from site by the Local Authority, the condition of that section of wall may now reasonably be judged by the condition of the adjacent sections of wall, that were beyond the influence of the flooded section of road but are of the same construction and are assumed to be in a similar condition as the affected wall, prior to the flooding occurring. In addition there are large sections of intact pieces of wall, adjacent to the drive and these remain available for inspection, are indicative of a sound and robust internal core structure.

The remaining standing sections of wall do not indicate that they are in dire need of repair and appear to be quite serviceable and in far better condition that many walls of this type of which countless examples remain.

The suggestion by Richard Jackson in clause 7.7 that the wall was comprised of highly friable and depleted old lime mortar therefore seems to be entirely without basis.

The wall appears to have received regular attention as necessary and has been maintained to a reasonable and acceptable standard for the normal conditions to which it reasonably could be expected to endure.

The wall would be expected to resist the normal weather pattern for this part of the country and by all accounts it has managed this since it was built despite having had the adjacent road hard surfaced for many years, and it is believed that the wall dates from the late 1700’s. The wall is therefore thought to be approximately 230 years old.

Given steady ongoing maintenance it had survived to date (2008) without mishap.

DISCUSSION

The wall is agreed to have comprised of a nominal 330mm wide wall. The core was comprised of Flints and probably Carstone, laid in a lime mortar.

The state of the core of this wall can be judged by the examples of some of the demolished material that now lay adjacent to the drive. Large sections of wall remain whole among this debris and these examples give no indication of the core having being made up of a lime mortar that could remotely be described as being weak. On the contrary, the mortar is quite robust despite having lain in the open for 11 months. This alone shows that the material when exposed to rain has not resulted in its breaking down under normal rain pattern.

It would be unusual for a wall of this type and construction to just suddenly collapse with out warning and without having exhibited significant signs of distress prior to doing so.

Photograph 1 in Richard Jacksons Report gives no indications that this wall was showing signs of distress 3 days before the collapse and the wall face of flint facings was still intact at this time.

What would normally explain a sudden collapse of any structure, without warning, is a sudden and usually quite dramatic change in the structures hitherto stable environment.

Richard Jackson in their report, seem to have overlooked the fundamental fact that this section of wall collapsed in the vicinity of a section of flooded road and that until this event occurred, the wall had performed satisfactorily since about C1780 or so, and with no signs of undue distress.

The concept that these regular inundations of the road and this latest flood in particular, in conjunction with the vehicular spray associated with the flooding, would signify an exceptional and substantial change in the walls environment, has been avoided in Richard Jackson’s assessment in their report to the Insurance Company.

There is no consideration that explains why only the section of wall alongside the flood collapsed, when remaining sections of wall that were not alongside the flood appear unaffected.

There is some comment in clause 5.10 that hard cement mortar have been used in a few locations. While use of cement mortar is frowned upon the few isolated locations that it exists does not a significant effect on the performance of the wall as it represents only a minute area of isolated repairs in which it was used.

Richard Jackson’s conclusion appears to be based upon the wall being in a poor condition before the flood. The flood in their view being of little significance to the collapse but concede that the spray from the flood water by passing vehicles was the ‘last straw’ as stated in clause 7.11.

Flint faced rubble cored walls have a proven longevity that does not require a treatise here. However, no one would locate one at a location where it would be expected to resist the force of water the equivalent to that of a modern day pressure washer. Nevertheless that was what this wall had to sustain during the periods in which the road flooded.

A Conservation Officer noting anyone pressure jetting a flint wall such as this one, would be bound to take measures to arrest and prevent such treatment. A flint faced wall in a lime mortar could not, whatever its condition, be expected to withstand such abuse.

Not even a new flint wall of lime mortar construction could be expected to withstand such treatment. That this wall endured and withstood this water-jet force over a period from April 2007 to September 2008 before it finally gave up, is a sound gauge to the fact that this wall was not in poor condition, but was in fact maintained in very good condition to withstand this misuse for as long as it did.

Richard Jackson also refer to the fact that parts of the existing sections of wall are out of plumb in one position by an estimated 100mm and in another by an estimated 210mm. This lack of verticality is clearly outside of the middle third of the wall, at which point the centre of gravity of the centroid of the wall mass is sufficiently eccentric to the centre line of the wall that negative, rather than positive pressures, can in theory begin to develop at the base of the foundation at the rear, and in the rear face of the wall.

However, in reality, the wall is also locked in by the soils either side up to ground level which adds additional support against overturning. In a straight line on plan wall, negative stresses in the wall are a concern, and if the whole length of a straight wall develops this lean this will be of concern since the entire length of the wall can fail in its totality. Masonry can only withstand limited negative stresses and usually is not relied upon in its design, to withstand any tensile forces, unless suitably reinforced. This is not going to be the case in this instance.

Richard Jackson have made no allowance in their assessment for the fact that the wall is in fact curved on plan and only a short length is affected by the lean. As such their very simplistic assessment of the application of the middle third rule is more complex than has been so far considered by them and in fact the wall is considerably more stable than has been alleged, due to the curvature of the wall of which the main bulk of the wall does not posses an excessive lean and therefore act to counter the effects of the short section that does have a lean.

However any softening of the supporting soils due to a sudden inundation along one edge of a wall can also have a rapid effect upon the load carrying capability of a soil and can also have catastrophic results due to the destructive lubricating effect it would have upon the homogenous integrity of the supporting soils. However, this does not appear to be the case in this instance as the face flints were simply just blasted out of the wall face by regular and forceful water jetting from passing vehicles, and there is no claim that the wall developed a rapid outward lean just prior to the point of failure. Therefore Richard Jacksons comments in respect of their relevance to this particular length of wall failure seem irrelevant to this report.

If all walls of this construction were to receive stabilizing works based on the above premise, as recommended, it would necessitate one of the largest embarkations of remedial works contracts, ever seen throughout the Country, since millions of walls would fall under this remit, but which will have existed in their state of equilibrium for many years and for which no reason for strengthening or rebuilding would be justifiable.

There would be little support from a Conservation or Planning Officer for wholesale rebuilding of a wall just because it has a lean, especially when the wall is under a listed curtilage. The recommendation to rebuild these sections of a Grade 2 listed wall just because they are out of plumb, is therefore neither very practicable or viable since Approval to it on those grounds will be rejected, and again countless examples of this situation can be cited.

During the period of the floods, the wall needed required urgent protection from the flood water spray. Mr Ford attempted to effect repairs with a lime mortar, but it was no sooner in place than the passing vehicles washed it out again with their spray. Lime mortar does cure rapidly and any attempt to reinstate and maintain the fresh pointing under the prevailing conditions, would have proved a fruitless task.

To provide temporary protection, even just a tarpaulin, would have required some kind of a construction to be erected on the Public and already very narrow footpath, just to hold it in position.

It is understood that Mr Ford approached the Highways Department with just such a request and also asked for the footpath to be closed to enable the necessary protection to be implemented. Because no footpath existed on the far side of the road, the Local Authority refused permission to close the footpath. Due to the narrowness of the existing footpath alongside the wall, any form of construction, even just that to retain sheeting, was refused. The general public have no jurisdiction to carry out work on the Public Highway and so Mr Ford found that his hands were thus tied in respect of him carrying out any protective measures to his property on the Highway side of the wall.

Nevertheless by this stage, Mr Ford had investigated all the avenues available to him to protect his wall from erosion by spray and could therefore do no more.

The wall could not therefore be protected by Mr Ford due to measures imposed upon him by the Highways Department and the matter was therefore clearly beyond his control.

However, the Highways Department do have a responsibility to maintain their surface water road drainage in working order, to prevent, among other things, damage occurring to adjacent and private property.

The Highways Department therefore would appear to have a case for the interference of established road drainage rights against Goymour Homes Ltd who presumably and without consultation with either the The Environment Agency, The Parish Council, Norfolk County Council Highways Department or The Planning Department, disposed with the pre-existing drainage that had, up until that date, effectively dealt with the surface water drainage from this particular road gulley.

Mr Ford had already, and at his own expense, re-routed his own domestic drainage from his cellar, by the installation of a pumped system into another drainage ditch over which he also had an Easement granted and had thus taken all available preventative measures that were within his legal remit to obviate the effects of the action by Goymour Homes, but could do nothing more in regard to the Highways drainage.

The Highways Department clearly recognized that they had a responsibility for this in carrying out the works they did, in their attempts to remediate the situation.

Unfortunately this leaves Mr Ford in a position which legally appears to require an action to be taken out by him against Norfolk County Council Highways Department for a failure to maintain adequate drainage to the road and leaves the Highways Department and others to take action against Goymour Homes Ltd for the apparent unauthorized and therefore illegal removal of an existing drainage course.


CONCLUSION

I do not remotely agree that the wall collapsed as a result of it having been initially in a poor state of repair prior to these events.

From what I can see of the remaining sections of wall and of those large remnants on site, I consider it to have been in good repair and quite capable of surviving many more decades had it not been for the road floods. That it survived for as long as it did, under this onslaught, I consider testament to that view.

The wall therefore collapsed as a direct result of a major alteration in the environmental conditions it was subjected to, and was the successive events of a section of road flooding from which the constant flushing from the heavy vehicle spray broke down the lime mortar to the point of promoting a domino effect failure, exactly as one would expect to occur in such circumstances. The failure was not as a result of the wall being faced with existing mortar that had previously suffered from frost damage as the wall face was intact, which would not have been the case had it been already suffering from frost damage. This is state is clearly evidenced in Photograph 1 of Richard Jackson’s Report.

The only way in which the remaining lengths of wall will suffer a similar collapse, is if the road adjacent to them also floods to a similar depth and if the Authorities again fail to act effectively in clearing the drainage in good time

 

[MdB]

I can understand your smile

Good luck with getting this sorted.

 

[Moo]

Hurrah!

That's telling 'em.

xxxxxxxxx M

 

[jocelyn plummer]

Excellent--

 

[Flyfisher]

It's outrageous, really, that you are forced to such lengths; everyone involved in this whole saga has the luxury of being able to hide behind 'legal departments' and therefore has no personal responsibility, or motivation probably, to help prevent or rectify the basic problem - all except you, of course, and you carry the additional burden of being legally responsible for a listed wall. It's ironic, really, that the state holds you personally liable for the upkeep of the wall while at the same time its own negligence, via the highways agency, has been largely responsible for the cause of the problem in the first place. Still, everyone involved is 'just doing their job'.

Hopefully this new report will start to turn things in your favour. Best of luck with it.

 

[Pford75]

What I feel is equally outrageous is that most people faced with this sort of thing expect that their insurance will pay up.

The cost of the claim equates to less than 2% of my total cover and yet insurers would rather drag this out for months/years. Even if there is a successful case with the ombudsman at the end of this, I am unlikely to be reimbursed for my time and expense of pursuing this matter. From what I can see, there is very little 'downside' to insurers of dragging these things out. Even the FOS can only really smack them on the wrist and tell them not to be so naughty in future.

I wouldn't wish this on anyone....but the one positive note is that I am now reasonably well versed in dealing with these sorts of claims - happy to assist other PPUKrs if they find themselves in a similar situation.

 

[Penners]

It's outrageous

Hear, hear to that. As you say, Pford, you still have to get from here (your SE's report) to there (the insurer's coughing up). But congratulations on taking your stand - at considerable risk of incurring even more cost. If the insurers do now pay up, will they also pay for your SE?

 

[FamilyWiggs]

PF - great news; well done. A significant piece of progress. Let's hope it is maintained through to victory. The moral case for recompensing your lost time is compelling. I presume once the claim is settled, you'll be switching insurers?

Hear, hear to that. As you say, Pford, you still have to get from here (your SE's report) to there (the insurer's coughing up).

Penners, I hate to point it out, but I know you won't sleep for worrying about that sentence.... :wink:

 

[Flyfisher]

He won't now you've pointed it out! :lol:

 

[Pford75]

If the insurers do now pay up, will they also pay for your SE?

Well the carrot I am dangling is that if insurers agree to reconsider their decision to refuse the claim and pay for the reconstruction, then I will not pursue them for any additional costs (SE, litigation costs in pursuing the developer, my time etc.). If however, they choose not to reconsider, then I will register a claim with the FOS for the reconstruction cost, plus my additional expenses.

As you point out, from here to there is a path fraught with risks. The whole FOS process could, I am told, take another 6-9 months to complete. I'm off to sunny Riyadh tomorrow, so Brit have until I return to make their minds up.

 

[Penners]

PF - great news; well done. A significant piece of progress. Let's hope it is maintained through to victory. The moral case for recompensing your lost time is compelling. I presume once the claim is settled, you'll be switching insurers?

Hear, hear to that. As you say, Pford, you still have to get from here (your SE's report) to there (the insurer's coughing up).

Penners, I hate to point it out, but I know you won't sleep for worrying about that sentence.... :wink:

FW - I'm having trouble getting into worrying mode. Could you please point out my howlers?

 

[Moo]

Ahem. I think it may be something to do with apostrophes, and whether an insurance company should be regarded as a single entity.

 

[Penners]

But of course an insurance company is a single entity. I abhor the current habit of using a plural verb with a single collective noun. The correct form is "the Government says..." or "the company has...".

Many a BBC news reader has occasion to thank me for howling such corrections at the television. :wink:

And I'm sure we're all aware that the present participle of a verb should always be preceded by the possessive. Hence "please forgive my spilling paint", or "do you mind John's borrowing your mower?"

P. Edant

 

[Moo]

Ooh, I do love it when you come over all grammatical.

 

[JoceAndChris]

And I'm sure we're all aware that the present participle of a verb should always be preceded by the possessive. Hence "please forgive my spilling paint", or "do you mind John's borrowing your mower?"

P. Edant

Really? John's borrowing your mower? Are you sure? Prove it and I'll eat my collection of 1940s hats.

 

[Penners]

Now you know that's not going to be good for your low-millinery diet.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

I did hesitate before embarking on this Penners - you normally best me on these, but I'm really not sure that a "coughing up" is an object that can actually be possessed by an insurer (collectively plural or plurally collective).

8)

 

[Moo]

Go to it, chaps! This is getting really exciting.