Building Safety & Engineering

Background

Which buildings at Stratford Halo are affected?

Sapphire Court, Ruby Court, Opal Court and Amber Court are the parts of the estate now affected. All residents at Sapphire Court have already been moved into temporary accommodation and we are supporting residents from Opal, Ruby and Amber Courts to be relocated.

An assessment has taken place regarding Halo Tower and no health and safety concerns have been identified. Assessments of Warton House have already been undertaken, and due to the differences in construction methods and design, have not identified any risks.  We do not currently anticipate that anyone living in either of these buildings will need to move to temporary accommodation.

When was NHG first told of the issues?

We were initially contacted by the structural engineers responsible for the original structural design of the estate in February 2025, as they were carrying out a desktop review of projects designed by URS (a firm whose work they are now responsible for) in response to the requirements of the Building Safety Act. This desktop review indicated that further investigations would be needed. Those investigations were carried out, and temporary propping was identified as a solution. The exact nature of the propping solution requirements evolved as more information came to light and further investigations were completed. We recognise how frustrating it has been waiting for the plans to be finalised.

Back to top

Our response

Who at Notting Hill Genesis was responsible for signing off on the relocation?

Our executive board signed off on each decision to move households temporarily.

On what basis has NHG relocated residents?

We have relocated residents on a voluntary rather than a legal basis as this enables us to work collaboratively with you to meet your needs, and preserves access to the building wherever possible, for example with a chaperone. We have taken the difficult decisions to relocate residents on safety grounds, on the safety advice received from structural engineers. Our priority throughout has been to ensure the safety of you, your household and your home and we must reiterate that it is vitally important for your safety and the safety of other people that you only do so by using the chaperone service, which allows access to be safely managed and for us to know how many people are in the building, where they are, and for how long.

There have been a very small number of instances where we have had to seek a court order to require residents to move where they have confirmed they will not do so voluntarily. There are legal avenues which can be pursued to require relocation and/or stop access to the building and we are grateful to all residents for working with us such that this is not needed. We ask all residents to please continue to support us in preserving your safety.

Will NHG share the report that led to the decision to relocate residents?

While we have kept residents updated on the progress of investigations and, in the case of Opal and Ruby Court, proposed propping solutions for many months, as well as setting out the reasons why the temporary relocation is necessary, it is not possible for us to share the information provided to us by the structural engineers in full.

We will continue to share as much as we possibly can about the ongoing investigations and the timeframes for these, as we have done by recently sharing information provided to us by our third-party advisers about the reasons for their advice. We will also set out what this means for any future remediation work and the impact it would have on residents.

Have residents of some buildings been prioritised over others?

Our priority is ensuring the safety of all our residents no matter which block they live in, and to get you back into your homes as soon as we safely can. The issues at Sapphire Court are distinct from those at Ruby, Amber and Opal Courts. At this time, the plan for remediation at Ruby, Amber and Opal Courts is clearer than for Sapphire, and the structural engineers are continuing to develop designs for Ruby, Amber and Opal Courts. Further investigations at Sapphire Court are ongoing.

Why did you allow residents of Amber, Ruby and Opal to remain in their homes up until now?

There were strict safety and risk management procedures in place, including ongoing monitoring, within parts of Amber, Ruby and Opal Court, mainly within the basement area, and working on the advice of the structural engineers responsible for the original design of the estate, and our third-party advisers, this monitoring approach ensured the safety of residents in these buildings remaining in their homes while a temporary propping solution was implemented.  

However, in December our third-party advisers said that, while they had been satisfied with the ongoing monitoring and safety checks that have been in place since June, they did not receive sufficient technical information to continue to support the ongoing occupation of the buildings. Furthermore, as the propping solution has not been installed as set out in the original programme, they are unable to determine that Ruby, Opal and Amber Courts remain safe to occupy.

We therefore made the difficult decision to relocate the residents of these buildings to temporary accommodation while we work to install measures that will provide the safety assurance necessary for people to move home.

Why have earlier referenced temporary measures for Sapphire Court not taken place?

We fully understand residents’ frustration that we have not yet been able to set out a remediation plan: we have aimed to provide you with the information we have, as transparently as we can. At the time we informed you of the temporary propping plans for the areas of concern originally identified at Sapphire Court, we were working on the basis of a proposal put forward by the original structural engineers. Further information and investigations carried out since then have identified more widespread issues, and thus the proposals have needed to evolve. As you are aware, further investigations remain underway at Sapphire Court.

Why did safety advice change and why were people asked to relocate with short notice?

We know that moving with such short notice is incredibly distressing and disruptive, and it’s something we would never ask of our residents unless we are given advice that gives us no other choice. Your safety is our first priority. Wherever possible, we want you to be able to remain in your home – however, when it comes to safety, we have had to make difficult decisions often at short notice.

The structural engineers had, for some months, assured us that their analysis indicated that it was safe for residents to continue to occupy the affected buildings. When we received updated information that it was no longer safe for residents to remain, we had to act to relocate all residents, to keep you safe. We understand that the experience of this from your point of view was very sudden and abrupt.

Why have the structural engineers changed their mind over their safety advice?

Advice is always given based on the information held at the time, and the structural engineers’ understanding of the building and safety issues has changed through the investigation process. In addition to the firm responsible for the original structural design of the estate, NHG has engaged Pell Frischmann as our independent third party advisers who have been assisting us in reviewing the information received.

We are therefore not able to speak to if, when and why engineers may take a different view but this is usually due to the information that they obtain through the course of their investigations or the passage of time, which can impact the risk associated with a decision.

In the interest of your safety, we need to act on information when we get it and so will always review a decision which might previously have been taken in light of updated information when we receive it. At Sapphire Court, further investigations were conducted which gave rise to updated information; informed by this and the information we were given at that time, NHG had to take the difficult decision to relocate residents.

Back to top

Technical questions

If this is a design fault, how did it get building control sign-off? Was something missed by NHG?

Sapphire Court was developed through a design and build contract, meaning the contractor undertakes to do the design and construction of the building. That is a very common approach and means that building control sign-off  is sourced by the contractor, rather than the building owner .

If you do fix the building, will you be able to do it without having to take apart our flats?

The issues at Sapphire Court are quite extensive and the original structural designers may need to strip the building back to the concrete frame in specific areas to carry out repairs. In areas where work is needed, we expect there  is going to be a lot of disruption to how they look, though those areas would be restored to their previous state as best as possible before residents return.

What happens to our belongings if you need to strip back areas of the building?

The next investigations are going to be very intrusive and we have spoken to all the households affected at this stage. All belongings will need to be removed from those particular flats before those investigations happen.    We are working with the original structural designers to ensure that this can be done safely.

Based on the current timeline, are we expected to move back in 2028? And does that timeline include building control?

Our aim is for work to be completed towards the end of 2027, inclusive of building control sign-off, but that is based on everything going to plan. It could potentially roll into 2028.

Were the checks on Sapphire Court triggered by building safety policy?

The original structural designers have been taken over by another company. That new company then reviewed all design drawings of the building to make sure they continue to meet the updated expectations introduced by the Building Safety Act and that review first highlighted these concerns.

I understand you are closer to a solution with Opal, Ruby and Amber Courts. Will that help towards Sapphire Court?

There are some similarities, but there are also things that are inherently different. Propping of the structures at Opal, Ruby and Amber Courts will be undertaken and while that will also be done at Sapphire, there are a lot of other issues that also need addressing. Lessons will be learned from the other buildings, but that will only contribute to the eventual plan.

Is there a clear engineering solution or can these issues not realistically be resolved?

It is not going to be easy to fix. There are lots of locations impacted and lots of different issues that need fixing, so those have to be worked through area by area. We are hopeful that the building can be fixed and you can all return home, but your safety is at the forefront, as is ensuring minimal impact on how you occupy the building. It is very complex and at this stage it is impossible to say what the final outcome will be.

If the building structure can only allow a maximum of two people in the building, and no large furniture to be moved, how can it be safe for anyone?

A risk assessment looks at both the risk being managed and the potential outcome should the worst happen. In this case, while the probability of a building collapse is low, the outcome of that would be unthinkable. As such, access is currently limited to the very minimum while still allowing residents in. If those restrictions can be relaxed in time, we will do so.

Will NHG share further technical details so we can make a better decision on whether to wait or sell?

We will provide residents with as much detail as we can, and we will share information provided to us by our third-party advisers as we have done in the past fortnight, but information from the original structural engineers has been shared with us on a legally privileged basis and so is not something we are able to share at this time. We are really sorry but we are not able to share documents that could prejudice any legal claim we might have to make. Please do come along to the sessions we are organising on technical building safety matters to learn more about this and ask questions.

What exact defects were found in the affected part of the structure of Sapphire Court?  

When the initial investigation took place in August, the structural engineers identified potential concerns with the “transfer slab” in specific areas of Sapphire Court, due to unusual details in close proximity. These are very standard parts of a building structure, but in this case, there were concerns they are not performing as would be expected. There are signs of cracking on the slab edge at these locations, and while cracking in a concrete building is normal, the location and pattern around these specific transfer slabs and their design, mean further investigation and temporary measures are currently considered to be needed.  

There was an additional area of concern relating to "knock-out panels" close to the slab edge. Due to where these columns are located, a desktop assessment of their ‘utilisation’ levels was undertaken. The term ‘utilisation’ refers to how much of the building load a column is carrying e.g. from floors, the roof, people moving about the building, and other loads. This assessment showed that in some cases, the utilisation levels were higher than applicable building codes (in place both at the time of design and today) allow. As part of this review it has further been identified there is a lack of reinforcement within the concrete of Sapphire Court. 

The Building Safety Regulator has put out a warning about transfer slabs. Is that warning related to what has happened here?

We cannot speak for the Regulator, but we have kept them apprised of the issues in the affected buildings at Stratford Halo, and those updates predate the warning issued in December.

Are transfer slabs on all levels of Sapphire Court and what can be done?

There is more than one transfer slab at Sapphire Court, and the issues, which are not exclusively related to transfer slabs, are present on multiple floors of the building. Pell Frischmann, our third party advisers, have explained that transfer slabs are not necessarily a problem, but that there are particular issues that have been identified at Sapphire Court which are both complex and have been found on multiple floors.

Can Sapphire Court be fixed?

Pell Frischmann explained that, in theory, anything can be fixed, but that the consequences, timing and practical application have to be considered – in particular, the question of whether your homes could continue to be lived in in the same way as before. When we receive a remediation plan from the original structural engineers this will be scrutinised by our third-party advisers and any proposal will need to be agreed by the Building Safety Regulator.

What is the structural problem at Ruby Court and how it will be resolved permanently rather than temporarily?

We shared a letter on Monday 26 January 2026 from our third-party advisers, Pell Frischmann which sets out the issues at Ruby Court, the short-term risk mitigation strategy and the reasons they could no longer determine that the buildings remain safe to occupy. The temporary solution is very likely to involve propping and we received a plan for temporary fixes to Opal, Ruby and Amber Courts in February, but our structural engineering advisers had some further questions which are being investigated. It may be that the permanent solution is also based on propping, but those longer-term solutions will be looked at once we have agreed the temporary work and are able to look at returning residents safely to their homes. Please come along to the building safety sessions we have organised to find out more and ask questions.

Is the work going on at the footbridge related?

The issues at Sapphire Court are related to design and structural matters and not external impact. Please do come along to the sessions on technical building safety matters to learn more about this.

Would it be a good idea to empty our flats?

We recommend that you keep valuable items, essential documents, and things which are irreplaceable due to their sentimental or emotional value, with you – although we recognise that this may not be possible for Sapphire Court residents while the chaperone service has been suspended. For those who have relocated from Ruby and Opal Court, we still have the chaperone service running seven days a week for those who need to collect any belongings. There is no need to remove large items of furniture. If there is any specific reason why an item of large furniture needs to be moved, then you should speak to your local officer or the team at the resident hub.

For those of you who have relocated from Sapphire Court, following a risk assessment from the structural engineers, we are now exploring whether it is safe to restart the chaperone service. If it is found to be safe, we hope to do so as soon as possible. We hope to have the service back in place next week, allowing you to collect any belongings. We will update you as soon as we have a start date for the service.

If any intrusive investigations or works need to take place in your home in the future, we would work with you to ensure that your belongings are removed and stored safely. We are exploring options to enable the removal of all belongings from your homes to see if this is a viable option.

Back to top

What's next?

When will the investigations be completed?

We are expecting the results of the inspections by 31 March, all things being well.

What percentage chance is there that you will do the remediation work at Sapphire Court?

We can’t give a number and there are a range of issues and solutions being worked through, but we are working closely with the original structural engineer to find a resolution that will allow residents to move back home safely.

Is the remedial propping solution currently being designed a temporary solution to make the building safe for reoccupation or a permanent solution to the identified structural deficiencies? 

Any temporary solution will be signed off by our third-party advisers, Pell Frischmann, and the Building Safety Regulator as being suitable for allowing the safe return of residents before the proposal is accepted and work begins. Should any mortgage lenders have questions we will be happy to speak to them, as well as provide them with a letter of comfort that confirms a remediation plan is in place and that no costs of that work are being passed on to leaseholders.

When will the programme of works covering both the temporary work and the permanent work be shared with residents?

We have received a plan for temporary fixes to Opal, Ruby and Amber Court in February from the original structural design engineers. This was scrutinised by our structural engineering advisers who have gone back with some questions about the solution proposed. Investigations are still ongoing at Sapphire Court. The longer-term solution will be looked at once we are able to safely move residents back into their homes. We have shared the current outline timeline with you all and will continue to keep you updated.

Who will have to sign off the building as safe?

We are working with Pell Frischmann, a third-party structural engineer, who are providing independent oversight for the remediation work. The building is a High-Risk Building as defined by the Building Safety Act, so any remediation proposals will also need to be submitted to the Building Safety Regulator who will provide building control oversight of the plans and the work, and their approval will be obtained once the works are completed. We will be required to demonstrate to the Building Safety Regulator that the building meets all relevant safety standards before you move home.

Would any eventual assessment be done by a third party or Notting Hill Genesis?

We are working with Pell Frischmann, a third-party structural engineer, who are providing independent oversight for the remediation work. The building is a High-Risk Building as defined by the Building Safety Act, so any remediation proposals will also need to be submitted to the Building Safety Regulator who will provide building control oversight of the plans and the work, and their approval obtained once the works are completed.

Back to top