NCC orders project review
An extensive external review into the management of the problematic Greenmeadows project will be carried out.
The review was announced at a meeting of Nelson City Council’s audit risk and finance committee yesterday. It will focus on the beleaguered Stoke community centre project, but will cover the council’s management of all large projects.
Committee chairman John Peters said he wanted to remind members that ‘‘we are in the process of getting legal and expert advice, and are seeking to recover all losses in this regard’’. He did not clarify what losses those were.
‘‘The chief executive [Pat Dougherty] will undertake an extensive external review of the project processes, including Greenmeadows but taking the review processes beyond that,’’ Peters said.
‘‘In the meantime, there are a number of internal reviews being undertaken, and there is a considerable amount of work going on at the moment.’’
Greenmeadows has been riddled with problems for months, including poor management and workers with a lack of basic construction knowledge.
A whistleblower raised concerns about the $7.1 million project in June. Since then, major structural problems have been identified in an independent review of the site.
The independent review is now finished, and the main contractor is aware of all issues found.
The project manager, Peter Chisholm of Onus Construction Management, was removed from the project on July 27. When contacted, Chisholm said he was unable to comment on the job or the departure of Onus, due to contractual reasons.
Council spokesman Paul Shattock said contractual and confidentiality reasons meant he could not say why Onus had been removed.
A council clerk of works is now overseeing the project, and a council officer is filling the role of engineer’s representative.
Councillor Mel Courtney last month called for an external review of the council’s processes, saying there was ‘‘something wrong’’ with the tendering process. At that time, Nelson Mayor Rachel Reese said an internal review was being initiated.
At yesterday’s meeting, Reese said an external review was ‘‘appropriate’’. She said the project had ‘‘some major implications in terms of delivery, but a broader impact on, I think, the public’s trust in council’’.
‘‘I always think when these instances occur there is an obligation on us, all of us, to make sure we understand the why, the wherefores, and how we make sure that we improve processes moving forward.’’
The full council meeting last Thursday remained in public excluded for several hours discussing Greenmeadows, and it is apparent that some changes were made to council’s approach.
From now on, Dougherty will oversee all Greenmeadows matters, rather than staff or councillors.
The terms of reference for the external review, and the committee that will receive the report, have yet to be determined.
‘‘We are in the process of getting legal and expert advice.’’
NCC audit risk and finance committee chairman John Peters
Host of flaws raised
Notices given to Greenmeadows contractor Watts & Hughes outlined problems and
failures with the construction from May this year.
In a notice dated May 23, then project manager Peter Chisholm highlighted exposure to moisture as an issue on all exposed eaves or soffits. Chisholm’s notice said ‘‘the same conditions that contributed to the growth of mould and fungi on plywood soffits on other buildings owned by the client [NCC] were now present on this building . . . the framing and the back of the plywood have been exposed and continue to be exposed to moisture’’.
The moisture content in the framing was measured in some points to be as high as 26 per cent. The acceptable level of moisture for untreated timber is 18 per cent, and 20 per cent for treated timber.
The eaves on the west side of the building were described as ‘‘visibly swollen from high moisture’’.
‘‘The cause of this is the membrane on the canopy roof is rolled up . . . allowing moisture to seep under the membrane.’’
The roof was also improperly aligned, leading to water pooling up to 5mm deep in areas, and a waterproof membrane was being worked on top of with no protection from stones, screws, or nails, leading to perforations.
After a site inspection on June 26, Chisholm delivered another notice to the contractor with a list of failures, including a wall being out of a true straight line by 15mm. The notice is described as outlining ‘‘key points’’ from a site meeting at the troubled centre.
Chisholm said ‘‘methodologies required a month ago have still not been provided’’, which set the project back by up to two weeks.
‘‘W&H have not demonstrated to the building inspector that they have a suitable methodology in place to protect the framing and gib lining while the cladding is being replaced and the flashing is being installed . . . it is important to note that the failure of W&H to protect framing and cladding from moisture has led to these methodologies being critical to demonstrate competence to the building inspector.’’
Chisholm said Watts & Hughes agreed to deliver the methodologies on June 20, but they still were not available on June 28.
There was at that time still no date for replacement windows from InSite, and the note said it was ‘‘clear from the discussion that the relationship between W&H and InSite has broken down.’’
InSite has contacted Stuff to say it installed windows only, not the flashings, which were installed incorrectly.
The notice said replacing the windows was Watts and Hughes’ responsibility, and that it ‘‘had previously been recommended to W&H’’ to have a backup plan.
The letter revealed that a shelf in the Stoke Rugby Club rooms had ‘‘collapsed’’ a week before, and had not been fixed by Watts & Hughes. ‘‘Council had to get Paul Galbraith to install screws late on Friday to make the cabinet safe for rugby’s open day that Saturday.’’
Watts and Hughes was barred from installing cladding after multiple claddingrelated issues.