The Asbestos debate

There isn't arf some crap being written about this!

Yes it has to be sorted but jeez it isn't the end of the world, in fact if you ask me it'll be milked as yet another delaying tactic.

Any building of that age will have higher demolition costs than a newer building because of the asbestos problem, however it's not going to be a massive difference and only a small part of the overall budget. I still think the delay is coming from the fact that Brent doesn't actually have any cash. I think that the enabling idea is bullshit, if a company wants to fund its own build it would expect a freehold purchase or at least a long lease, sums not adding up me thinks.

Asbestos is a known, identifiable and manageable risk.

Not cheap but certainly no show stopper.

That's absolutely right SD, there's no way such a thing is a show stopper in this instance. Being a public space the Club will already have a very good idea of what is involved from its previous asbestos surveys anyway!

Most of it would have been removed years ago.

Wasn't there asbestos in the old catering units in the old lyndhurst?

I'm sure I saw pictures of the demolition around them done and the two units were left standing for a little while longer while the asbestos was removed.

Didn't take too long though.

In an old power station it can take years, in a stand in a football stadium I think it would be more like days or weeks.

A lot of hokum about very little to give an impression of "it's not our fault guv, honest".

asbestos kills as we know full well with a former member of the forum Thai Green. Its not to be messed with.

Angry wrote:

asbestos kills as we know full well with a former member of the forum Thai Green. Its not to be messed with.

But with the health risks being so widely known nowadays there's companies that specialise in its removal so this should really not be a problem for the development.

Unless of course it's being used as a convenient excuse.

Yea Man wrote:

Angry wrote:

asbestos kills as we know full well with a former member of the forum Thai Green. Its not to be messed with.

But with the health risks being so widely known nowadays there's companies that specialise in its removal so this should really not be a problem for the development.

Unless of course it's being used as a convenient excuse.

you still have to be careful around it. its still a hazard if struck so until its gone its not wise to go near it. Special suited removers are protected the average joe isnt. So on this occasion although i do agree it seems like another excuse i cant fault the club for wanting it gone before workmen moved in.

The survey would have thoroughly identified where it is, how much of it there is, what type it is, and what sort of condition it is in. It's no biggie as long as the correct procedures are followed.

Wasn't the old asbestos roof replaced 20-odd years ago?    I can't see there being tonnes of the stuff still in situ.

Was an asbestos survey carried out during the planning for our 46k seater stadium? If so, where is it?

Dingle wrote:

Was an asbestos survey carried out during the planning for our 46k seater stadium?  If so, where is it?

I dont think so as it was all talk at the end of the day no planning papers of survey work carried out (to my knowledge)

We deal with this issue a lot in work

but its no biggie and certainly not uncommon, An asbestos survey is carried out, and then the results of that survey will determine the method and cost of removing it.

Anyone who believes any waffle about this being the reason the project is delayed is a fool

The Waste Management Plan by Kier included in the Planning Application does not make specific mention of Asbestos but estimates 36 cubic metres of hazardous Waste to be disposed of under COSSH regs.

The contaminated land assessments talk about likelihood of asbestos being found in made up ground in car park.

Asbestos would have been expected but Kier should have included in the Risk Schedule for their tender rather than in agreed target or fixed costs.

Asbestos is not a health hazard as long as it is left alone, not damaged in any way and when it is removed it is done with special PPE for the people removing it. It is when asbestos is damaged and the fibres are released that it becomes a health issue.

Where I work the building is only 25 years old and we had asbestos in some of the plant rooms. When we had a refit of the building last year we had an asbestos survey done and it took about a week of nights to complete. The senior managers were getting really pissed off at the fact that when they came in the next morning the offices would be moved around and holes drilled in walls and ceilings. With the grandstand being as old as it is, I would expect a fair bit.

It's the pipe insulation that's the worst for it generally.

if in the loft of an average house it costs 3k to remove it, mayflower likely to be 40k ?
wheres the forze verda when you need them ?

Elias wrote:

if in the loft of an average house it costs 3k to remove it, mayflower likely to be 40k ?
wheres the forze verda when you need them ?  

What asbestos can be found in the average loft to give an average cost Ellas? Genuine question, I have never heard that average figure given before.

I was recently quoted nearly £4K to remove asbestos insulation board from our garage. The front of the garage has a flat roof and the back of it is built into the bungalow. The back part was the problem because an airlock would have to be formed in the roofspace. This would be a double airlock as well making life really difficult. All the asbestos would then have been removed through another double airlock in front of the garage. I was just as concerned about where to put all the stuff that is currently in the garage. We would probably have put it all in storage.

Even more frightening was the chap who came around was doing us a favour!

We opted to treat any dodgy looking edges and leave it well alone!

I can't see asbestos at Home Park holding any work up for too long. Basically a survey is done, samples are sent to a lab, two weeks notice is given to the HSE and it can then be removed. It maybe expensive but in a development costing £50 million I'm sure it would have been budgeted for, considering the age of the stand it would have been expected.

GOB wrote:

Elias wrote:

if in the loft of an average house it costs 3k to remove it, mayflower likely to be 40k ?
wheres the forze verda when you need them ?  

What asbestos can be found in the average loft to give an average cost Ellas? Genuine question, I have never heard that average figure given before.

Ive got some in my loft, other houses council owned had it removed. Was told roughly 3k to shift it but no actual quote mind . White cyclic ? is what ive got in my loft

GOB wrote:

In an old power station it can take years, in a stand in a football stadium I think it would be more like days or weeks.

A lot of hokum about very little to give an impression of "it's not our fault guv, honest".

I'm still in a panic about the global price of breeze blocks. Did they ever come down in the end, or does that not bother anyone any more?

I'm reliably informed the price of breeze blocks has gone up!

Any developer should have inflation in the costs of materials / commodity prices built in to their calculations. The exchange rate of the Euro can also have an impact, along with the costs of labour. The lack of apprentices in most industries is now being felt as a report yesterday pointed out the severe lack of bricklayers.

Richard Blight wrote:

I'm reliably informed the price of breeze blocks has gone up!

Any developer should have inflation in the costs of materials / commodity prices built in to their calculations. The exchange rate of the Euro can also have an impact, along with the costs of labour. The lack of apprentices in most indyustries is now being felt as a report yesterday pointed out the severe lack of bricklayers.

Expensive breeze blocks? No apprentice bricklayers? I can't see this thing ever getting built now.

This is the problem when you hand over the local construction market to just one company, they then control the market and delay projects to keep unemployment high, pay low and local suppliers on very long pieces of string.