Complaints - Please scroll to the bottom of the page
« Location Of Sub-Regional Pool | Main | Major Event Fund - Update! »

TCDC Reeply On Zoom-Zone Dry-Court

Here is Laurna White's reply (sent Friday at 3.44pm) in regard to my LGOMIA enquiry on the Dry Court (soon to be re-named, again!). Unfortunately I was in Auckland for the weekend, and have only now  managed to post them. My apologies for that.

1.      What precisely is the fault with the ceiling and/or roof for which repairs are now necessary?

"We discovered that there was insufficient provision made for roof ventilation, which has resulted in condensation forming on the underside of the roof surface and made its way through the building paper and ceiling tiles. This is causing water damage to the tiles and in some instances dripping onto the playing surface. This is known as aggravated thermal bridging."

2.      What is the specific nature of damage to and repairs necessary in relation to the floor of the building, if any?

"There has been no damage to the playing surface as it was covered immediately"

3.      What is the nature of the ventilation required to deal with the under-floor moisture problem, if any?

"Mechanical ventilation was added during construction. However a contractor noticed moisture on the underside of the temporary construction floor and while some thoughts were that this was due to construction moisture or high ground water levels, we were advised that a mechanical ventilation system would provide a constant air flow and thus prevent any future possible moisture problems."

4.      What is the nature and extent of any other problems that have arisen in relation to this building since ‘completion’, if any?

"The building was given practical completion on the 26 September 2017 with no known additional issues arisen."

5.      What is the total estimated cost of rectifying all identified defects?

"As the Council is in legal consultation with several parties about costs, this information won't be released at this time."

6.      How much is the total amount remaining, if any, in ‘retention’?

"Retentions held are $53,931.33."

7..      Who was the principal architect retained for the task of designing the building?

"The project architect is Boon Goldsmith Bhaskar Brebner Team Architects Ltd (BGBB)."

8.      Who was the principal engineer retained for the purpose of providing engineering advice on the design of the building?

"The principal engineer was Nagel Consultants Ltd - structural engineer subcontractor to BGBB."

9.      Were either of the tasks under 7/8 put out to tender?

"BGBB was brought onto the project through the procurement of SGL in March 2013 through an open tender under contract C13/18.  Our contract is with BGBB - Nagel Consultants are sub-contractors to BGBB, so tender by Council was needed."

10.  Was any person used for either 7/8 related to the previous Area Manager – Greg Hampton?


11.  Had either the architect or engineer engaged under 7/8 ever designed a similar building before being engaged for this purpose?

"Yes. You can see more about their projects on their website "

12.  In the light of the major subterranean drainage problems experienced on the carpark above the school site, were any specific reports sought in relation to the suitability of the school site for this building?

"A geotechnical assessment was undertaken by Tonkin & Taylor Ltd for use in foundation design and as part of the contract documents."

It is indeed gratifying that Laurna managed to get this material together in the time, despite concerns that this may not have been possible. It seems that much of the information provided to me was faulty as is often the case, and thus the need to get it corrected as soon as possible.

I remain concerned about the geo-technical report - we know that one was prepared in the planning stage. What was concerning was the unexpected difficulty in constructing the car-park above the site, at what we have been told was substantial additional cost. I would have thought that this would have prompted a closer look at the actual building site to determine if work at the car-park may have brought about changed conditions on the building site below.

Permanent mechanical ventilation does appear an expensive and doubtful solution to a problem that should have brought about a close examination of the adequacy of the original Tonkin & Taylor report. I don't think that we have heard the last of this problem by any means.

Regardless, my thanks to Laurna for her prompt reply.



PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (1)

Reeply? If you demand perfection from others, is it not reasonable for others to expect a passable level of competence from you? I understand that you can't afford a fact checker but, come on Bill, in 2017 spell checks are a free service. Please avail yourself of them so that your message is not so often undermined by the frequency of your typos. Mathew 7:1-3 Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you.

December 13, 2017 | Unregistered CommenterBJ

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>