£4m bill for replacing panels on Manchester’s best-known skyscraper
The bill for recladding one of Manchester’s best-known buildings will reach £4m.
Earlier this month the High Court ruled that landlord Ground Rents Income Fund would have to replace 1,350 glazing panels on the Beetham Tower.
The panels on the 47 storey building which is home to the Hilton Hotel and cost £150m to construct will have to be replaced because of safety concerns.
A survey found that the sealant used to fix the glazing panels on the building which dominates the city centre is failing.
The landlord was given 18 months to complete the refit of the 47 storey building in the wake of Carillion’s collapse. Problems with the sealant first came to light in 2014.
Carillion carried out a temporary fix four years ago but failed to find a long term solution before its collapse.
Malcolm Naish, the Chairman of Ground Rents Income Fund said: “The court ordered the temporary hoardings which had been erected by Carillion outside the hotel as an exclusion zone to be removed by 28 February 2019.
“It is expected that the completion of their removal will be finished within days.
“The cost of the permanent remedial works to the façade of Beetham Tower, Deansgate, Manchester, has been estimated by NWGR’s advisers, based on their recommended solution, to be approximately £4m, excluding VAT, any professional advisory costs and damages yet to be determined.
Manchester city centre
He added: “NWGR is pursuing the proceedings it has already issued against Carillion through its insurers and the sub‐contractor BUG, through existing warranties and indemnities, which, if successful, would greatly limit any potential liabilities or irrecoverable losses for NWGR.
“However, in order to comply with the judgment NWGR will be required to finance the remedial work and any litigation costs while seeking recovery from Carillion’s Insurers and BUG.
“There can be no guarantee that NWGR will be successful in that recovery, but it has received legal and expert advice which suggests that its case is strong.
“If NWGR is unsuccessful in its action against the original contractor’s insurers or the sub‐contractor, it may be able to recover some of the remedial works costs from other parties.”
