Category: Construction Industry Today | Subscribe to Construction Industry Today Feed Published Tue, Oct 18th 2016 “On behalf of myself and partner Tim, I would personally like to thank you and your team for making the Grand Final such a wonderful and enjoyable experience. It was a day which we shall remember for a long time. Keep up the good work, and look forward to next year’s event.” Said Ian Marsh, Design Engineer at Thurston Group, who won the Nearest the Pin at the 2016 Golf Classic Grand Final. This year’s final took place on Friday 30th September at Hanbury Manor, a beautiful stately hotel set in 200 acres of stunning parkland in Hertfordshire. The Final was the culmination of six rounds of knock out golf from across the country. The lucky finalists and sponsors enjoyed a day of competitive golf on the hotel’s acclaimed England Championship Course, followed by a gala dinner, prize presentation and overnight stay. Posted via Industry Today. Follow us on Twitter @IndustryToday Congratulations to Paul Cornish (Civil Engineer at Dave Lucey Ltd) and partner Drew Wrintmore (MD Developer at NJG) who won the competition with an impressive 45 points. Stan James, Marley Plumbing and Drainage, Managing Director presented the winners with their trophies and £200 vouchers. Beaten by only two points, runners-up Duncan Clark (Classical Gas) and Toby Clark (Gibson Clark Builders) both received trophies and vouchers. There were also prizes for the Longest Drive, which went to Paul Martin (Harpenden Construction) and Ian Marsh for Nearest the Pin. Both received a gift from Hanbury Manor. The Final was enjoyed by all the competitors, many of whom return each year to take part in the competition. There is always good humoured camaraderie between players as competitor Alan Cunningham shares with us: “I’d like to congratulate the Golf Classic on this year’s Final. Everything was spot on: venue, course, personnel, weather, food and drink. Pity we were nowhere near the rostrum, but it was good to see Paul and Drew pick up the trophy. Looking forward to 2017!” The sponsors had a separate competition which is always closely-fought. 1st prize was awarded to Clive Coxon’s Marley Plumbing and Drainage team with guests Subhash Chauhan from Building Services Design at Capita, Garry Prescott and John Woodward from JDP (experts in drainage and waste management) went on to win the competition with an incredible 92 points. Runners-up Hamerville publishing team were not far behind with 86 points. 2017 marks the 25th anniversary of the Golf Classic tournament and we’re very excited about this milestone in our history. The Golf Classic is the national golfing tournament for the UK construction industry. The event has become an important part of the calendar for the many golfers who enter each year to enjoy playing golf locally and meeting new people that often become profitable partnerships. The six round knock-out competition starts in February 2017 and we look forward to seeing you next year. The Golf Classic is open to those employed within the UK construction industry (except Ireland).   Source link

Browser does not support script. Contact us The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) last night 28th April, announced the winners of the RIBA Regional Awards for 2016, four West Midlands buildings won RIBA West Midlands Regional Awards in recognition of their architectural excellence from the eight buildings which were shortlisted. The winning buildings are: Chattock Gardens in Solihull by Khoury Architects McIntyre House in Birmingham by Associated Architects The Master’s House in Ledbury by Butler Hegarty Architects The School Yard in Harborne by BPN Architects From the above regional winners, four special category awards have been announced as: RIBA West Midlands Project Architect of the year Award Andrew Khoury at Khoury Architects for Chattock Gardens RIBA West Midlands Client of the Year AwardEDG Property for The School Yard RIBA West Midlands Conservation Project of the Year Award The Master’s House in Ledbury by Butler Hegarty Architects RIBA West Midlands Building of the Year Award The Master’s House in Ledbury by Butler Hegarty Architects Speaking today, Jonathan Hines, RIBA West Midlands Jury Chair said: “Choosing the winners was really tough. The shortlisted schemes were so diverse but I think we’ve been able to select four well-crafted and skilfully executed buildings. Congratulations to both the shortlisted schemes and to this year’s winners!” RIBA West Midlands Regional Award winners will also be considered for a highly-coveted RIBA National Award in recognition of their architectural excellence, which will be announced in June. The shortlist for the RIBA Stirling Prize for the best building of the year will be drawn from the RIBA National Award-winning buildings later in the year. ENDS Notes to editors: For further press information, and access to high resolution press images and citations, please contact: Matthew Dobson, 07501 466655, matthew.dobson@riba.org or Gursharan Kaur, 07989 079896, gursharan.kaur@riba.org  This event is kindly sponsored by Marley Eternit, Lafarge Tarmac and Sika. RIBA Awards have been running continuously since 1966 and are judged and presented locally.  No matter the shape, size, budget or location, RIBA award winning schemes set the standard for great architecture all across the country. RIBA awards are for buildings in the UK by RIBA Chartered Architects and RIBA International Fellows. The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) champions better buildings, communities and the environment through architecture and our members. www.architecture.com.     Posted on Friday 29th April 2016 Source link

What rights do neighbours have when construction gets noisy and troublesome? Jonathan Pawlowski, construction litigation partner at Brecher Solicitors reports. Above: Jonathan Pawlowski is construction litigation partner at Brecher Solicitors The London skyline is constantly evolving, with tired old buildings being replaced by ever more adventurous skyscrapers redefining the City’s visual identity. These new structures are often marmite, but we soon fall in love once they have a nickname, and a restaurant with a view always helps us to get over our initial misgivings. All this construction work does comes at a cost, though. Those of us who work or live next to a building site have to put up with noise, dirt and vibrations that can, at times, become excessive. When the situation becomes intolerable, the only solution is to look at the remedy for private nuisance and apply for an injunction to stop that nuisance and prevent it from reoccurring. In these situations, the court has the difficult task of balancing the rights of those suffering and the right of landowners to develop their land. From the landowners’ perspective, they will have spent years and a small fortune developing a design and obtaining planning permission, and from the claimant’s point of view, their quality of life is being materially affected.Who wins? The case The benchmark 2014 case of Coventry and others v Lawrence and another is one of only a handful of rulings on private nuisance. It is especially welcome, as previous case law had led to uncertainty for developers. While not dealing directly with the issue of construction noise and disturbance, Coventry clarified a number of issues, including whether it is possible to obtain a right to make a noise, the extent to which planning permission is relevant in determining if a nuisance exists, as well as the approach of the courts when deciding whether to award the aggrieved party a sum of money or an injunction. The facts In 1975, planning permission was granted for Coventry to construct a stadium for “speedway racing and associated facilities”, which was renewed on a permanent basis in 1985. A year earlier, in 1984, stock car and banger racing had started and after 10 years a certificate for lawful use was granted. In 2006, Katherine Lawrence and Raymond Shields moved into in a bungalow close to the stadium. Two years later they issued proceedings against the operators of the stadium for noise nuisance. At first instance, they were successful: the judge ordered an injunction limiting the level of noise emitted by the complex. The Court of Appeal then overturned the decision on the basis that the claimants had failed to establish that the actions on Coventry’s land constituted a nuisance. Lord Justice Jackson emphasised that Coventry had been granted planning permission, the conditions of which had not been breached. The Supreme Court eventually decided in favour of the claimants, ruling that the noise was a nuisance and restoring the original injunction. The decision In ruling, the Supreme Court considered these five questions: Can a right to commit a noise nuisance be obtained by prescription (i.e. long use)? Yes. However, to justify the establishment of a right to create a noise by prescription, the defendant must show that the relevant activity has been carrying on at the site for over 20 years without substantial interruption.  To what extent can a defendant rely on the fact that the claimant “came to the nuisance”? In this case, the motor sports activities began many years before the claimants moved into their house. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held that it is not a defence to show that the claimant acquired or moved into the affected property after the nuisance started. It may be a defence, however, where the pre-existing activity only becomes an alleged nuisance when the claimant changes how they use their land.  In Coventry, as the neighbours’ property was always a residential house and had been built before the stadium was constructed, this defence did not succeed. Can the actual use of the defendant’s premises be considered when assessing the overall character of the neighbourhood? Nuisance claims rarely succeed where the activities giving rise to the nuisance are part of the established pattern of activity in the neighbourhood.  Is planning permission a defence to a nuisance claim? Not necessarily. The fact that a party has been granted planning permission to undertake the activity that gives rise to the nuisance will not normally assist a defendant. Nevertheless, the existence and terms of the planning permission could be relevant.  In this case, a framework of conditions existed that governed acceptable noise limits, which the court found to be a helpful when considering if the noise levels amounted to a nuisance.  What is the appropriate remedy? Prior to Coventry, the courts would award an injunction unless there were exceptional reasons not to. The leading authority on the issue was Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co [1985], which established that damages can only be awarded instead of an injunction where: the injury to the claimant’s legal rights was small; the claimant could be compensated in money; a small payment would have been adequate compensation for the claimant; and it would have been oppressive to the defendant to grant an injunction. Importantly, Lord Sumption in Coventry labelled this test “out of date”, and now a person defending a nuisance claim may argue that damages are a more suitable alternative to an injunction. This should be very welcome news to developers, not only in the realm of private nuisance, but also rights of light, where the same tests apply. Practical implications Coventry clarified the status of planning permission in nuisance claims, following previous contradictory case law on the issue. Those suffering from a nuisance are now able to establish their claim more easily, as such planning permission will normally be of little evidential value. Defendants, on the other hand, will be encouraged that the Courts may now be more willing to order compensation instead of an

Hammerson announces that Elliott’s Field Phase II, Rugby, has achieved two sustainability world firsts, having been awarded an interim Outstanding BREEAM rating in addition to becoming the first shopping park globally designed to be carbon neutral. These achievements follow Hammerson’s recent commitment to becoming Net Positive by 2030, and mark a significant milestone in its carbon objectives. Over the next 13 years, Hammerson aims to remove a total of 757,200 tonnes of carbon emissions from its operations, equivalent to the annual carbon emissions of 85,000 households. Whilst the overall targets are stretching, the successful creation of a carbon neutral park sets a new benchmark for the industry. BREEAM is the world’s leading sustainability assessment method for masterplanning projects, infrastructure and buildings. BREEAM certified developments are sustainable environments that enhance the well-being of the people who live and work in them. Outstanding is the highest accreditation, achieved by less than one percent of new non-domestic buildings, and indicates that the developer embraced sustainability from the outset. Elliott’s Field Phase I, which opened in 2015, achieved a BREEAM Excellent rating, marking the first shopping park in Hammerson’s UK portfolio to receive this accreditation. Elliott’s Field Phase II has been designed to be carbon neutral in terms of its regulated consumption, with energy efficiency measures reducing the carbon emissions created by such sources as heating, hot water and cooling and on site renewable energy initiatives offsetting the remaining carbon emissions. Initiatives at Elliott’s Field Phase II include: Passive design features to minimise energy demands including optimised fabric parameters Agreements with retailers to fit out units with energy efficient systems A number of design variations to reduce the embodied carbon emissions including the incorporation of timber to replace steel and aluminum, acting as a carbon sink Installation of a major PV array on the rooftop to offset all remaining regulated emissions Sourcing of materials with environmental accountability Creation of a canal bankside nature area for wildlife to enhance the site’s ecological value Andrew Berger-North, Director, UK Retail Parks at Hammerson, said, “Elliott’s Field Phase II marks a huge step forward for the business in its Net Positive sustainability objectives, and being credited with two world firsts is a fantastic result, demonstrative of the business’ dedication to its ambitious targets. Phase I set a benchmark for our portfolio and for the industry as a whole, and achieving BREEAM Outstanding for Phase II has made raised the bar even higher. It is clear that with the implementation of forward thinking initiatives, and by encouraging retailers and contractors to get on board, we can achieve exceptional results and make a positive impact.” Louise Ellison, Head of Sustainability at Hammerson commented, “Net Positive builds on the sustainability work that the business has achieved in the last ten years, pushing teams to go the extra mile to make a real difference across our four key pillars. To receive an Outstanding BREEAM Rating for Elliott’s Field Phase II and be recognised as the world’s first carbon neutral shopping park demonstrates our commitment to the Net Positive targets and is a very positive indication of what we can achieve by 2030.”