CONSERVATION ENGINEERING TEAM

To: Henry Owen-John Planning Director North West Date: 15th February 2013 From: Keith Weston Conservation Team Tel. 01243 514217 Fax. 01243 514217

English Heritage

Preston Bus Station

I visited the bus station on the 12th February and inspected the building in the company of our quantity surveyor Jon Kiely and Dr David Farrell from Rowan Technologies Limited. The purpose of my visit was to consider the structural condition of the building and report on the extent and significance of structural problems in relation to its intended demolition. My inspection considered only structural matters and did include issues such as the need for safety barriers or the width of the access ramps. Prior to the visit I was provided with copies of the Inspection and Report 1999 by consulting engineers Thomas & Partners and the Options Report November 2012 by Jacobs. My copy of the report by Thomas & Partners did not include their photographs so it was not possible to compare the structural conditions in 1999 with the present conditions, which may have helped with an assessment of the rate of deterioration of defects. Because my report is needed promptly my inspection could not be detailed but was one that obtained a general view of the overall condition of the structure by visual inspection. On the day the weather was dry and cold and we inspected by starting at the top level and progressively walking down to the ground floor. Because of safety considerations and limited access the external ramps at the east and west ends of the building could not be adequately inspected. We also did not go into the various rooms and offices at ground level to inspect the mezzanine construction. On the lower levels of the car park the bays were being used which limited our inspection but it is not anticipated that anything significant was concealed by the parked vehicles. The construction of the bus station is a mixture of precast and insitu reinforced concrete. The outer columns (which are possibly precast) support insitu concrete beams that run the length of the building. These beams support the internal precast beam units that form the car decks and the curved external precast units that form the unique exterior of the building. The internal insitu concrete columns support insitu concrete and the deck ends along the centre of the building. Two transverse movement joints occur within the length of the building. Details of the building and the defects observed are shown on the attached photographs. Generally the defects observed are similar in nature and relate to inadequate concrete cover to the reinforcement, which combined with carbonation of the concrete has caused corrosion of the reinforcement resulting in surface spalling of the concrete. In places the steel stirrups that encompass the main reinforcement are

very close to the surface, and the main reinforcement also has poor concrete cover. Some of the defective areas are close to the internal ramps so there is also the possibility that impact damage from vehicles is a factor. Pages 5 to 10 of the attached photographs show the defects generally seen on the precast concrete. A variation occurs on the precast concrete at Level 5 where the damage to the end of two transverse ribs on the precast deck units (photographs on page 11) reveals formers that were placed inside the ribs before the casting of the units. On the insitu concrete there appears to be just a few visible defects. Spalling and minor cracking on the insitu concrete is shown on pages 4 and 12 of the photographs. Some damage can be seen at the base of columns and this is likely to be caused by a high level of chloride from the application of salt in icy conditions or possibly by salt brought in on vehicles. However, chloride was an accepted additive to concrete during the time the bus station was constructed. There is some patching of the top surface of the concrete decks as shown on page 13. The surface damage is not significant and may have been caused by freeze/thaw conditions when the surface was wet. The movement joints are also in a poor condition and need to be renewed. Although the external access ramps at the ends of the building could not be adequately inspected viewed from a distance the concrete construction appears to be in a reasonable condition. There are no signs of significant movement of the structure or visible evidence to suggest any foundation deficiencies. Elements of the construction have not deflected or moved significantly and do not show visible signs of serious structural weaknesses. The structural defects noted in this report are localised and can be rectified with appropriate repairs. The 1999 report did not take concrete samples so we do not know the concrete mix, the concrete strength, and whether additives are present. The staining on the surface of the precast concrete also suggests that hidden corrosion may be occurring and this needs to be investigated. Therefore it is recommended that a full structural survey is undertaken. When the bus station was built the possibility of a disproportionate collapse, from the sudden loss of a primary member such as a column, was not something to be considered and the structural design of the building would not have taken it into account. Disproportionate collapse now has to be considered, particularly regarding the ground floor columns which are double height. This should be investigated and if there are problems it should be possible to resolve them. For a building of this age the structural condition is quite good and better than I had expected. The defects are a small proportion of the overall construction and I would have thought that the cost of repairs will not be unreasonably high, but Jon Kiely will be advising on this. On the basis of the information obtained from my preliminary visual inspection, and subject to the findings of a detailed structural survey, the structural condition of the building does not make a good case for demolition. Keith Weston Senior Structural Engineer