The challenge was to secure the steel podium structure without fixing it to the wooden floor of the stage.

The story line involved a bath tub contraption (which now the drama has been televised) we can reveal disappeared through a floor, plunging the bather into darkness below.

All of this required the hire of Pinewood Studios unique underwater set and we suspended an entire film set above the water so that the ejected bather could be filmed in merky water after being ejected from the bath.

With basements becoming increasingly popular and with space at a premium, the types of foundations deployed are complex and often require the adjoining owners express consent. The associated rights of the parties and compensation claims are complex matters and some of these issues have not been raised in a court of law before and the industry is finding it difficult to determine, within current legislation.

The moot took the form of an appeal against a Third Surveyors Award under section 10(17) of The Party Wall etc Act 1996. The “appeal” was argued by Nick Isaac of Tanfield Chambers and Elizabeth Repper of Keating Chambers.

 The “appeal” was presided over by the Honourable Mr Justice Akenhead, the Judge in charge of the Technology and Construction Court, who gave his views on the issues. Our thanks to everyone who gave up their time to assist with the evening.

Three major issues were presented and opinion provided, as follows;

a) The previous argument of “downward raising” of a Party Wall (instead of underpinning) was no longer considered a valid argument. (Standard Bank of British South America v Stokes 1878).

b) A special foundation should be considered with regard to its “engineering function and intent” and items such as mass concrete which form no structural design purpose should be disregarded, when considering the Adjoining Owners rights under 7(4) of the PW Act.

c) LOSS under section 7(2) can include any type of loss including future diminution in value, loss of amenity etc, not just physical loss at the time of the works. it was agreed that this is a very difficult matter and required very careful consideration.

See Simon Pole’s article on the subject elsewhere in this website under technical/business and commercial/surveyors/party walls/basements and special foundations. I am pleased to report that my views in the enclosed article sit well alongside the informal findings of Honourable Mr Justice Akenhead.

For anyone interested in the strategic management of structures, please see the following details and link to the IStructE website.

Convenor: Alan Gilbertson Contact details

A study group on the management of structures has been set up to discuss how Structural Engineers can actively manage structures once they are in use.

The convenor Alan Gilbertson (Email: alangcltd@aol.com) is keen to hear from anyone who would like to be involved. Anyone can join the Study Group – it is not necessary to be a member of the Institution.

Structural Engineers frequently advise on the necessity for programmes of inspecting, testing and monitoring in order to manage the risks, including the requirements for input to the H&S file under CDM (in the UK). There is little guidance available (that has been identified so far) on the approach to be taken in advising clients on these matters and in particular the need for situations to be managed over the longer term in order to seek to maintain adequate levels of public safety.

The risks we seek to manage include:

• Degradation and ageing
• Fatigue and brittle fracture
• Impact damage
• Progressive movements and settlements
• Changes in use and loading
• Known defects (however they arise)

http://www.istructe.org/study-groups/management-of-structures?CID=209