Committee Reports > List of Committees > Joint > 1980 > Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies > Report No. 12 - National Building Agency, Limited

APPENDIX 2

WRITTEN ANSWERS PROVIDED BY THE NATIONAL BUILDING AGENCY LIMITED TO QUESTIONS PUT TO IT BY THE JOINT COMMITTEE SUBSEQUENT TO THE TAKING OF ORAL EVIDENCE ON 23 JANUARY 1980

1. HOUSING COSTS

1.1 Comparative Housing Costs.

Question: It is desirable to compare the cost of NBA housing with housing provided by the local authorities themselves. The NBA supplied comparative figures relating to Dublin City and County areas, Dun Laoghaire and Limerick Corporation. The comparative cost figures supplied by NBA indicate that in Dublin, Dun Laoghaire and Limerick City the cost of NBA housing is similar to housing provided by the local authorities. Do the NBA not feel that due to their large housing programme and rationalised administrative and technical procedures they could reduce the unit cost of houses relative to those provided by local authorities? Are the comparative figures supplied representative of relative costs throughout the country?

Answer: The comparative figures supplied by the Department of the Environment include two major elements of cost—expenditure on actual construction and overhead expenses. As regards the former, it must be borne in mind that standards generally for local authority housing, as determined from time to time by the Minister for the Environment, apply to projects provided under the aegis of the Agency in the same way as they apply to schemes planned and constructed by the local authorities themselves. Apart from special schemes involving, for instance, centre city development, house designs are based on the outline house plans issued by the Department of the Environment in October 1973 for use in local authority housing. It should be noted also that even where the Agency’s services are retained, the location of the building site is chosen by the housing authority, which sets down also the other criteria—including density, housing mix and road structures—which, in the final analysis, will have a large bearing on the ultimate all-in cost. What the Agency’s rationalised administrative and technical procedures do achieve on the construction side is the elimination of any unnecessary costs which, in turn, enables the Agency to pay special attention to items such as elevational treatments, screen walling and planting, and still remain within the cost norms acceptable to the Department of the Environment.

It is, however, in the area of the second major element of cost—overhead expenses—that the results of rationalisation can be more readily seen. An examination of the comparative cost figures supplied by the Department of the Environment will show that, with the exception of one project, the Agency’s charges for a comprehensive service—including administrative expenses—were lower than the comparative figures (taking the same year of completion) for technical salaries for projects handled by local authorities themselves.

1.2 Agency Fees.

Question: According to the NBA’s initial Memorandum its consultancy fee charges to local authorities average 6% of construction costs. As a result of an analysis of an enclosure to a letter dated 6 December 1979 from the Chairman of the NBA it would appear that agency fees are all below 6%—7 out of 10 schemes are under 5%; one is 4.33% and the average on the NBA projects is 4.9%. Is there any discrepancy between the two sets of figures? Could the Agency justifiably charge higher fees? What proportion of such fees is retained by the NBA and what proportion is paid to consultants?

Answer: There is no discrepancy between the two sets of figures. The figures quoted relate to projects completed in past years whereas the current charge by the Agency for a comprehensive service is 6%. Bearing in mind the extent of the service, including site and soil surveys, architectural design, engineering, quantity surveying, supervision and administration, the Agency would be justified in charging higher fees. However, it is our policy to approach the year’s operations with a view to achieving a break even situation, due regard being paid at the same time to the state of our balance sheet from year to year. The proportion of Agency fees paid to consultants for a particular project will depend on the extent to which their services are utilised. Such proportion will take into account also the involvement in the project by the Agency’s Principal Architect and the use made of the Agency’s standard plans and other documentation.

2. HOUSING CONSTRUCTION

2.1 Energy Saving.

Question: Have the NBA responded to the current energy crisis in their approach to house construction and modes of heating?

Answer: Agency housing is almost exclusively in terraced form and this is highly efficient since two sides of the perimeter walling are party walling with no external heat loss. External walls, floors and attics have always been insulated to the Department’s standards for local authority housing. (These standards were improved substantially in July 1976). We continue, however, to explore improved modes of heating. For example, we are currently installing, in co-operation with Bord na Mona and Unidare Limited, and with the approval of the housing authority, a new form of room heater to be fuelled primarily by turf, in ten dwellings in a new housing project in the midlands.

2.2 Use of Native Materials.

Question: Do the NBA have any major problems with availability of Irish materials or products to implement their housing programme?

Answer: Yes. There has been considerable difficulty in obtaining asbestos/cement watermains, clay bricks and concrete tiles. In the sector of services, considerable delays have been experienced in obtaining prompt service from the E.S.B.

3. PROJECT DESIGN PROCEDURES

3.1 Design Procedures.

Question: In executing the management and design of a housing project for a client authority the NBA must agree a brief for the scheme with the local authority. There have been some suggestions from local authorities that the procedures in this area could be improved. Who within the NBA discusses and agrees the design brief with the local authority? Is a standard briefing procedure and checklist utilised? Are the NBA satisfied with their working methods in this area? Do the NBA enter into a formal written agreement with the client authority? Do the NBA agree a project programme from the outset?

Answer: The initial brief is normally the subject of a general discussion involving the City or County Manager and his senior technical officers and the Managing Director and the Principal Architect of the area in which the project will be located. Subsequently, the design brief is developed by the technical officers and the Principal Architect. No rigid procedures are followed at these briefing sessions and we are satisfied with the current arrangements. The main requirements of the client under this heading are usually the subject of correspondence and a general programme is agreed.

3.2 Co-Ordination of Design Team.

Question: Under a traditional design team situation the consultant architect takes responsibility for the co-ordination of the activities of the consulting engineer and quantity surveyor. Who undertakes the co-ordination of the design team on housing projects when consultant architect, engineer and quantity surveyor are engaged? Are procedures in this area satisfactory?

Answer: The co-ordination of the design team on projects where a consultant architect, engineer and quantity surveyor are engaged is the responsibility of the Principal Architect. The procedures in this area are regarded by us as satisfactory.

3.3 Briefing the Design Team.

Question: The brief obtained from client authority has to be translated into a brief for the project design team. Wexford County Council have stated that they consider it necessary that discussions on design take place between the Council’s technical staff and the architects who are designing the schemes for the NBA. Who takes responsibility for briefing the design team? Do the consulting architect, engineer and quantity surveyor meet the client authority? Does the consultant architect meet the planning officer dealing with the project?

Answer: The design team is briefed by the Principal Architect, who decides if it is necessary for any of the consultants to meet the client authority. The general practice is for the consultant architect to meet the planning officer.

3.4 Control of Design Programmes.

Question: What procedures are adopted to programme the design process? Who is responsible for this? Is a progress chart used? Is there a standard procedure for notifying the client authority of the progress of the design work?

Answer: The design process is programmed to meet the commitment given to the local authority. The Principal Architect is responsible for the projects in his area. A progress chart is not deemed necessary as there are constant meetings with staff and consultants on the various programmes. The client authority is kept informed of the progress of the design work.

3.5 Cost Control Procedures.

Question: Have the ‘Standard Control Procedures for House Construction Costs’ recently published by An Foras Forbartha been adopted by the NBA and implemented during design stage to produce cost estimates at outline and final design stages? Are final costs recorded and analysed in accordance with these recommended procedures?

Answer: The ‘Standard Control Procedures for House Construction Costs’ recently published by An Foras Forbartha are being adopted by the Agency and will be implemented during the course of the current year in accordance with the requirements of the Minister for the Environment. The final costs will be recorded and analysed in accordance with these recommended procedures.

4. PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES

4.1 Procedures for Tendering.

Question: Do the NBA adopt open tendering for housing projects? If so, do they experience delays in appointing contractors necessitated by the need to examine the credentials and resources of the lowest tenderer? Do they find difficulties when the lowest tenderer’s abilities are in doubt? Do the NBA consider there is an argument for selective tendering based on an approved list of competent contractors?

Answer: The normal policy of the Agency is to adopt the open tendering procedures. This policy has not resulted in any undue delays in appointing contractors arising out of the need to examine the credentials and resources of the lowest tenderer. As was explained during the course of the oral evidence, the E.E.C. directives make provision in circumstances where the lowest tenderer’s abilities are in doubt. An argument can be made for selective tendering where, for instance, the particular project requires special expertise but, in general, it is felt that the open tendering procedure is the most satisfactory.

4.2 Bonds — Procedures.

Question: Do the NBA insist on a bond? Were bonds always insisted upon by the NBA? If so, what is the extent of the bond? Has this bond level changed over the years? What checks do the NBA undertake on the credit worthiness of contractors?

Answer: While our normal policy is to insist on a bond, we are prepared to waive this requirement in exceptional circumstances which would justify such a course of action. In recent years a bond is equivalent to 12½% of the contract sum. Previously it was usually 25% of the contract sum. Generally, the creditworthiness of contractors is only in doubt if they are unable to secure an insurance bond. The provision of a bond implies that the bonding company has carried out a financial assessment of the affairs of the contractor. If a bond is not being provided, the Agency before appointing the contractor, will seek reports from the contractor’s bankers and auditors, and use alternative arrangements to ensure due performance of the contract.

4.3 Forms of Contract

Question: Do the NBA employ the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland Standard Form of Contract and if so, do they make any major amendments to it? If not, what form of contract is employed? Who in the NBA or design team is responsible for the preparation and execution of the contract? Do the drawings and bills of quantities form part of the contract? Is the contract with the NBA or the client authority?

Answer: The RIAI Standard Form of Contract is employed by the Agency and the only major amendment made to it relates to the specific requirements of the Department of the Environment in relation to the Prices Variation Clause. The contract documents for a project are correlated by the Quantity Surveyor and approved by the Principal Architect before being signed by the Managing Director on behalf of the Agency. The drawings and bills of quantities form part of the contract. The parties to the contract are the NBA and the contractor.

4.4 Control of Construction Programme.

Question: There have been complaints from local authorities about lack of liaison between the NBA and local authorities during construction (Wexford Corporation, Wexford County Council, Kildare County Council, Naas U.D.C. and Carlow U.D.C.). For example, Carlow U.D.C. state that they were not advised by the NBA officially of the proposed start of a housing scheme and it remained for the contractor to make contact with the Town Clerk after the start of the work. Who is responsible for the control of the progress of project construction? Is the contractor required to prepare and update a construction programme? Who in the NBA examines, approves and monitors the contractor’s programme and progress? Have the consultants any function in this regard? Is there a standard procedure for notifying the client authority of progress? If so, is it on a three monthly, monthly or more regular basis?

Answer: The control of the progress of project construction is the responsibility of the Principal Architect who has available to him a project architect or consultants and site supervisory staff. The contractor is required to prepare and to keep updated a construction programme. This programme is monitored by the project architect or by the consultants. Any client authority who requests reports of progress is supplied with such reports on a monthly basis.

4.5 Quality Control.

Question: Some local authorities have expressed the need to have closer involvement in supervision e.g. Wexford County Council have stated that they consider it essential that the Council have the facility of liaising with the clerk of works on each scheme and that full time clerks of works be assigned to particular schemes for the full period of construction. Who is responsible for the supervision and quality control of projects under construction? Is there a full time clerk of works on all projects? Are there roving site inspectors? To whom do the above report in the NBA? Do the consultants have any function in this regard? Do client authority personnel have any involvement in the supervision of projects?

Answer: The project architect or consultant architect under the general control of the Principal Architect is responsible. A full time clerk-of-works is employed on all medium and large sized schemes. Where a small scheme of, say, ten or twelve dwellings is involved, the clerk-of-works may be required to take on additional duties on another project. On big projects, a site engineer is also engaged. We have roving site inspectors who report to the Principal Architect for the particular area. Consultants, if employed, must satisfy the Principal Architect that the quality control is in operation. Client authorities may, if they wish, be involved in the supervision of projects but there can be certain dangers of a legal nature in such an arrangement bearing in mind that the contract for the construction of the project lies between the Agency and the contractor.

4.6 Handing Over Procedures.

Question: Can the NBA explain their procedures for final inspection and handing over of completed dwellings? Who in the NBA is responsible for this procedure? At what stage are representatives of the client authority involved in the inspection procedures? Are consultants involved at this stage?

Answer: All contracts entered into by the Agency have a Defects Liability Clause which requires the contractor to make good any defective work during the period of twelve months after the practical completion of the contract. The project architect, or consultant architect, with the assistance of a clerk-of-works or site inspector, will carry out a final inspection at the end of the defects liability period and will confirm to the Principal Architect (who is the contract architect in all cases) that the scheme has been satisfactorily completed. The Principal Architect will satisfy himself that such is the case and at that stage a formal application will be made to the client authority to have the project taken in charge. The actual taking in charge will depend on how quickly the officials of the local authority will deal with the matter.

5. HOUSING DEFECTS

5.1 NBA Housing at Finglas South (1).

Question: In early 1978 movements in roof structures were observed in NBA housing at Finglas South, Dublin resulting in potential failure of gable walls requiring temporary shoring. The NBA engaged the services of consultant structural engineers and the Building Division of the Institute of Industrial Research and Standards to investigate the problems, identify. the causes and recommend remedial action. Regarding roof movements in NBA housing at Finglas South, Section 2 —when were these houses built? When were the problems first reported? What did the IIRS and the structural consultants conclude were the causes of the roof movements? The roofs were constructed of prefabricated trussed rafters —were they fitted, in the first instance, with diagonal internal wind bracing? What remedial action was adopted? Has this been implemented? Are the NBA satisfied that the problems in Finglas South have been rectified? Prefabricated trussed rafters are almost universally employed on housing roofs — is there any likelihood of more failures of this nature? Who was held responsible for the failures in Finglas South? Who carried out the remedial works? Who paid for the remedial works?

Answer: This scheme of 346 dwellings at Finglas South was provided under the Guaranteed Order Project which was set in train in August 1970 by a public advertisement inviting contractors to submit proposals to the then Department of Local Government for the erection of dwellings to their own design, which would offer significant economies in cost on the basis of guaranteed orders over a period of three to five years. Construction commenced in 1972 and the last houses were handed over to Dublin Corporation in December 1973. The problems associated with roof movements came to light in the course of regular maintenance by Dublin Corporation staff in April 1978. The Institute for Industrial Research and Standards concluded that “the principal cause of roof movements was the out of plumb of the trusses as built taken in conjunction with the absence of lateral restraints against winddrag, which restraints would have had the effect of containing possible movements and counteracting eccentric vertical loading”. (In accordance with general practice at the time, the prefabricated truss rafters had not been fitted with diagonal internal wind bracing). The remedial measures — as recommended by the Agency’s consulting structural engineers and approved by the IIRS — consisted, in the main, of strutting off the cross walls. The roofs of four blocks more seriously affected were stripped and the trusses were straightened and braced. The remedial works, which are being carried out by the contractors who had built the scheme, are almost completed and the Agency is satisfied that the problems have been rectified. Since the remedial measures proposed by the stuctural engineers included certain works which were not part of the original contract, an arrangement about apportioning the costs was agreed between the Agency and the contractors. No part of such costs fall to be met by Dublin Corporation.

On the general question of prefabricated truss rafters, it should be noted that the current specification as issued by the IIRS requires permanent mutual bracing of rafters at each gable, supplemented by runners to ceiling ties and rafters to allow for wind and other horizontal loadings.

5.2 NBA Housing at Galway (1).

Question: In the 1974 and early 1975, dampness was reported in houses at Corrib Park, Newcastle, Galway. The NBA commissioned IIRS to investigate the problem. Regarding dampness and mould growth reported in houses at Corrib Park, Newcastle, Galway — when were these houses constructed? When were problems first reported? In what way did the dampness manifest itself? What did the IIRS report attribute as the causes? Did the houses have cavity walls? Did the houses have chimneys? Did the houses have external wall ventilators? What remedial action was recommended? Has it been effective? Has this problem occurred since then in any other NBA housing developments? Have problems of this nature been eliminated? Was this a design defect or a construction defect?

Answer: This scheme was also provided under the Guaranteed Order Project. The dwellings were all completed by June 1973 and the first complaint was received from Galway Corporation in January 1975. Mould growth was observed on the external walls at corners of certain rooms and around windows. The IIRS report stated:

“The mould growth in the houses has been caused by high local relative humidities due to insufficient use of the central heating system.

The most severe attack of mould growth in house No. 281 is probably due to the size of the family.

House No. 281 is too small for the present size of family”.

The dwellings have cavity walls; there are no chimneys or external wall ventilators. The remedial action recommended by the I.I.R.S. is reproduced hereunder:

“A permanently open ventilator should be installed in the bathroom and there should be an extractor fan fitted in the kitchen to remove as much moisture as possible at source. A door closer should be fitted to the bathroom door. Clothes should not be dried near the air intake of the central heating unit, and definitely not in the heating unit alcove itself.

The house owners should increase their use of the central heating system up towards the levels indicated in 5.2 above. When redecorating it will be necessary to sterilise the wall surface prior to repapering or repainting. This can be done by washing down the wall surface with a household bleach diluted 5 parts water to 1 part bleach. This should be done at least twice. Care must be exercised to ensure that the solution is not splashed into the eyes. When the wall has dried out fully redecoration can commence. Please note, however, that unless the internal environmental conditions have been improved the mould growth will invariably reoccur. The house occupiers must be encouraged to open the bedroom windows when the rooms are in use. Too much ventilation in cold weather is uncomfortable and wastes heat. Because of this the windows should be opened by not greater than ½”. A serious attempt must be made to inform the house occupiers of the importance of ventilation, and the removal of moisture vapour at its source, together with the management of the heating system. A printed booklet might usefully be issued to cover these points.

Consideration should be given to reducing the thermal transmittance of the walls and roof by installing insulation at these locations. The above recommendations are offered on a trial and error basis. It is probable that, possibly with the exception of house No. 281, by increasing the levels of heating used the problem of the mould growth will not reoccur.

With regard to the insects on the plaster one or two should be sent to University College Galway’s Department of Zoology for identification, and for their recommendations for removal. The damp patch in the bedroom of house No. 238 should be investigated further”.

The contractor could not be held liable for this problem since the design, materials and workmanship were in accordance with the contract drawings and specifications. Consequently, the IIRS report was referred to Galway Corporation in December 1975 and no further correspondence has taken place between ourselves and the Corporation on the matter. A similar problem has occurred in a number of other Agency projects constructed under the same Guaranteed Order Project — two similar cases are dealt with in the following pages. Generally, it can be stated that these problems did not arise through a design defect, or a construction defect. The size and effects of the oil price escalation were not and could not be foreseen at the time these houses were designed on the basis that they would be centrally heated.

5.3 NBA Housing at Tallaght.

Question: Similar dampness was earlier reported in housing at Castle Park Estate, Tallaght, Co. Dublin and a report was prepared by IIRS. Regarding dampness and mould growth reported at Castle Park Estate, Tallaght, when were these houses constructed? When were problems first reported? What did the IIRS report conclude were the causes? Did the houses have cavity walls? Did the houses have open fires? Did the houses have external wall ventilators? What remedial action was recommended? Has it been effective? Was this a design defect or a construction defect?

Answer: This scheme was completed in October 1972 and the problems were first reported in May of that year. The IIRS report concluded as follows:

“The mould growth in both houses has been caused generally by high local relative humidities aggravated by condensation which is occurring on the windows. The extent of the mould growth in house No. 184 is far greater than in house No. 121. The more severe attack of mould growth in house No. 184 is due to the lower heat input. The damp wall in the kitchen of house No. 184 is most probably due to rising damp.

Nothing was observed which would suggest that the mould growth was due to rain penetration in either house.

The overall thermal transmittance, or U. value, of the houses is so high that the house occupiers, with the recent increases in the cost of fuel, are finding it economically difficult or impossible to provide sufficient heating to ensure that conditions which favour the growth of mould do not occur”.

The dwellings were constructed in standard form of ‘no fines’ concrete; there were no open fires. The dwellings had external wall ventilators. The IIRS recommended the following remedial action:

“A permanently open ventilator should be installed in the bathroom, and there should be an extractor fan fitted in the kitchen to remove as much moisture as possible at source. A door closer should be fitted to the bathroom door. The use of flueless gas or oil heaters should be discouraged as they discharge water vapour into the air as a product of combustion. (Cf. Clause 5.5.1.2 of Draft B.S.C.P. on Condensation).

It is possible that, because of the locations of the warm air vents downstairs, adequate heat is not getting into the bedrooms on very cold nights. The heating and mechanical consultants should be contacted on this point as it may be necessary to fit local heaters, probably electric, near the windows. They should also investigate the possibility of extending the present warm air system to provide direct heating into the landing and two of the bedrooms.

The overall thermal transmittance of the houses should be reduced so that the heating system can be run more efficiently. This could be done by putting an extra 75 mm. thickness of fibre glass insulation into the attic space and by fitting 50 mm. insulation behind dry lining on the external walls with appropriate vapour barriers.

Condensation drainage holes should be provided in existing timber windows from the drainage channel. These should consist of 6 mm. dia. holes at 300 mm. centres lined with copper or plastic tubing. A serious attempt must be made to inform the house occupiers of the importance of ventilation, and the removal of moisture vapour at its source, together with the management of the heating system. A printed booklet might usefully be issued to cover these points.”

The problem in house No. 184 was attended to by the contractor and the results were satisfactory. Since no further contractual liability was involved, the IIRS report was referred to Dublin County Council.

5.4 NBA Housing at Galway (2).

Question: In 27/28 January 1974 severe gales caused extensive damage to tiled roofs in a new housing scheme at Corrib Park, Newcastle, Galway. The NBA requested the IIRS to examine the causes of the damage. Regarding storm damage to tiled roofs at Corrib Park, Newcastle, Galway, when were these houses constructed? When did the damage occur? What did the IIRS report conclude were the causes? Has remedial action been effective? Have there been any other instances of failures in this area? Was this a design defect or a construction defect?

Answer: The last dwellings in this scheme were completed in June 1973 and the roof damage occurred on the 27th/28th January 1974 when the country was struck by a severe storm which caused widespread damage. The IIRS concluded as follows:

“Specified nailing was insufficient. All tiles require to be nailed.

The 57* 2.9 mm. nails are too short. Consideration should be given to using a nail which would give a nominal purchase of 25 mm.

The 57* 2.9 mm. nails have not got very good resistance to withdrawal. Consideration should be given to the use of an improved nail.

The use of 38×38 tiling battons should be considered. This would permit the use of longer nails and reduce the tendency of the batton to deflect under nailing.”

The remedial action was effective. Many non-Agency schemes were seriously affected in the Galway area by the same storm. It was a construction defect and the cost of the remedial action was borne by the contractors.

5.5 NBA Housing at Cork.

Question: In early 1973 there were complaints of dampness and mould growth in three housing projects in Cork resulting in a major investigation carried out by the British Building Research Establishment and the IIRS. Regarding dampness and mould growth in houses in Mayfield and Togher housing projects in Cork—how many houses came under scrutiny in this review? When were the houses constructed? When did complaints arise? The main problems appear to have been mould growth on mass concrete walls and on plasterboard under windows—to what did BRE attribute these problems? What remedial action was recommended? What remedial treatment was effected on site? Were these failures design or construction failures? Who paid for the remedial works? Have the problems in these houses been eliminated?

Answer: These schemes comprise 1254 houses and 558 flats. The problem manifested itself in various degrees in approximately 300/400 houses. Seven houses were inspected altogether by representatives of the British Building Research Advisory Service. All houses in the schemes were completed by January 1972. The complaints arose in the winter of 1972/73. The BRE said the main reasons for the problems were:

“The high thermal capacity of the party or gable walls in conjunction with the cold bridge produced where the walls extend beyond infill panels.

Inadequate drainage of the window sills.

Reduced ventilation due to the inability of window catches to provide suitable openings for natural ventilation.

Intermittent or underheating of the houses”.

The remedial measures recommended were as follows:

“The dense concrete cross walls where exposed to the outside should be insulated and thus prevent these exposed parts of wall forming a cold bridge. The thermal resistance of the applied insulation should be of the order of 0.7 m ²⁰C/W.

This could be achieved by sticking by mechanical fixing on to the defined areas 25 mm thick rigid sheets of a foamed plastic and then covering with a weatherproof protection. A composite board of approx. 25 mm. thickness comprising of approx. 18 mm. thickness foamed polyurethene and a protective skin of either metal or wood would allow the modification to be carried out in a single operation. Other combinations of insulation and protective weatherproof covering should also be considered as the final choice may have to be determined by practical problems involved in the modification of the structure.

The exposed dense concrete of the gable walls should be treated in a similar manner to that above, and also including the front face of the exposed fin. Again, the final solution may have to be determined by the practical problems involved in the modification of the structure.

The drainage channels and weep holes on all the narrow window sills will have to be inspected to ensure that adequate drainage takes place rather than spillage over the sill. Where adequate drainage is not taking place due to incorrect sloping of sill or sole board, it will be necessary to either increase the depth of the existing channel or provide a timber upstand to reduce the likelihood of water spillage. It will also be necessary to clear any blocked weep holes, provide additional weep holes and to ensure that there is a weep hole at the lowest point in the channel.

All broken window stays will have to be repaired and the friction hinges adjusted to ensure adequate control of the window opening. If the friction hinges cannot be adjusted then adjustable stays may have to fitted to some of the windows.

Even after the above repairs it is doubtful whether natural ventilation during the winter can be satisfactorily obtained from window opening. It is, therefore, recommended that controllable ventilators be fitted in each room. The adjustable ventilator should preferably be of the long narrow slit type and when in the closed position there should still be a small permanent opening. The control for the ventilators must be within easy reach of the tenants without recourse to standing on chairs, etc.”.

The remedial treatment recommended by the BRE was effected on site. The problems could not be attributed to either a design or construction failure. They came about because tenants could not afford the heating input for which the houses were designed. This was confirmed by the fact that no problems arose in any of the 558 flats which were heated from a central boiler unit. The cost of the remedial works was met by the contractors. A contribution towards the cost was made by the Agency. No element of the cost fell to be met by the Corporation. As far as the Agency is aware, the problems in the houses have been eliminated.

5.6 NBA Housing at Finglas South (2).

Question: Dublin Corporation have stated that in another section of Finglas South a problem has arisen in recent weeks regarding rear garden walls, some of which collapsed and many others of which have had to be demolished in the interest of tenants safety; and that the examination in this case has not yet been finalised. What is the present position in regard to the solution of the foregoing problem mentioned by Dublin Corporation?

Answer: It would be imprudent for the Agency to comment on this matter until the Corporation has an opportunity of considering a report which will be presented to them.

5.7 Low Cost Housing.

Question: The Bray UDC stated that the main problems with regard to defective housing were the result of Government policy with regard to low cost housing in the early 1970’s. Kildare County Council have stated that earlier schemes which were built as low cost housing have given a lot of trouble with maintenance/repairs and a lot of complaints from tenants. (a) Is it correct that the majority of technical problems that have arisen on NBA projects generally derive from the period of the Government Low Cost or Guaranteed Order Housing Programme? (b) What period did this programme cover? (c) Were there housing projects from this period, other than those in Bray and Kildare, that gave problems? (d) What was the general nature of such problems? (e) Have building practices which resulted in the aforementioned defective housing been eliminated?

Answer: (a) Yes. (b) From 1970 to 1974. (c) Yes, including the schemes at Finglas, Corrib Park, Galway and Tallaght already covered in this report. (d) There were particular defects, such as the roof movements in the Finglas 2 scheme, but the general problem associated with the Guaranteed Order Project was condensation. The dwellings had been designed for central heating and chimneys were omitted. The oil crisis in 1973 meant that tenants could not afford the necessary heating input for which the houses were designed. It was evident also that tenants did not pay sufficient attention to the necessity for ventilation. (e) Current building practices have eliminated these problems.

25 March, 1980.