Comprehensive Report

REEMA Flats, West Bletchley, Milton Keynes

What are the REEMA blocks?

The REEMA blocks are a group of 18 low-rise apartment blocks (180 flats) built in the 1960s using the REEMA Hollow Panel construction system. This prefabricated reinforced-concrete method was widely used across Britain after WWII to build homes quickly.

Why are they being demolished?

Although the buildings have been assessed as safe to live in, the concrete construction deteriorates with age. Experts found that:

• Weathering causes the concrete surface to break down.
• Pieces of concrete can become loose.
• The long-term repair costs are becoming unsustainable.
• Fencing and scaffolding have been installed around some blocks to protect residents while they remain occupied. 

Timeline

• Late 2023: Milton Keynes City Council announced all residents would eventually be rehoused.
• 2024–2028: Residents are being moved in three phases.
• End of 2028: All blocks are expected to be vacant.
• Afterwards: Demolition and redevelopment. 

Latest progress

As of July 2025:

• 46 households had already been rehoused.
• The first four blocks—Argyll House, Stirling House, Edinburgh House and Sawley House—are empty.
• The council has begun looking for a demolition contractor while continuing to rehouse remaining tenants. 

What will replace them?

Current planning documents state the land should be redeveloped for new affordable housing. The West Bletchley Neighbourhood Plan strongly supports replacing the blocks with:

• predominantly social rented homes
• some shared ownership properties where necessary to help fund the scheme
• homes prioritised for people with local connections. 

Why are they called REEMA?

REEMA was a British company that developed a prefabricated concrete building system after World War II. Thousands of homes, schools and public buildings were constructed using this method throughout the UK. Many councils are now replacing these buildings because of age-related deterioration rather than any immediate structural danger.

Local impact

The programme affects one of the largest concentrations of this construction type in Milton Keynes. The council says each household is assigned a dedicated officer to help them find a suitable replacement home, with particular attention given to accessibility and family needs.

https://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/news/2025/new-homes-reema-block-tenants-city-council-prepares-next-phase?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Structural Condition, Asbestos, Health Impacts and Legal Duties

Prepared from:

• Michael Dyson Associates Structural Surveys (July & October 2013)
• Current demolition programme
• UK asbestos legislation
• HSE guidance

1. Introduction

The REEMA Hollow Panel flats in West Bletchley were built during the late 1940s and early 1950s using 

prefabricated reinforced concrete (PRC). Around 14 blocks containing approximately 180 flats formed one of the largest remaining REEMA estates in England.

The buildings were originally designed to solve Britain's post-war housing shortage but were never intended to last indefinitely. Their construction method is now recognised as defective under the Housing Act 

because of known long-term deterioration of the reinforced concrete structure. The 2013 engineering 

surveys assessed whether the buildings remained structurally sound and whether refurbishment was a 

viable option.

2. Structural Problems Identified

The engineers found the buildings were not in immediate danger of collapse, but deterioration had clearly begun.

The principal defects included:

Carbonation

Carbon dioxide from the atmosphere had penetrated the concrete.

This reduces the natural alkalinity protecting embedded steel reinforcement.

Once carbonation reaches the steel:

• corrosion begins
• steel expands
• concrete cracks
• concrete breaks away (spalling)
• structural strength reduces.

Several panels had already carbonated to reinforcement depth by 2013.

Chloride contamination

Perhaps the most significant finding.

Large numbers of concrete samples contained elevated chloride.

The engineers concluded calcium chloride had probably been added randomly during manufacture.

This means corrosion can begin internally even where external concrete appears undamaged.

The reports describe this as a significant long-term corrosion risk.

Corroding reinforcement

Most reinforcement remained in reasonable condition.

However severe corrosion was already found in:

• Stirling House
• Edinburgh House
• Lewes House

with measurable loss of steel section.

This demonstrates corrosion was already active in parts of the estate.

Concrete deterioration

Observed defects included:

• cracking
• spalling
• rust staining
• deteriorated entrance canopies
• cracked corner columns
• damaged window surrounds
• previous concrete repairs

These are classic signs of reinforcement corrosion.

Fire safety

Roof spaces contained openings cut through compartment walls.

These reduced fire separation between flats.

The engineers recommended fire doors or permanent closure of these openings.

Thermal performance

Walls were extremely poorly insulated.

The measured wall U-value was approximately 2.23 W/m²K, many times worse than modern building standards.

Consequences include:

• higher heating costs
• colder internal wall surfaces
• increased condensation
• greater risk of mould growth.

3. What the engineers recommended

Importantly, the engineers did not recommend demolition in 2013.

Instead they recommended:

• repair damaged concrete
• repair spalling
• structural restraint ties
• corner straps
• external wall insulation (over cladding)
• weatherproofing
• improved fire stopping

They concluded these works could provide at least another 30 years of service life if properly maintained.

4. Asbestos

Was asbestos likely?

Yes.

Buildings of this period commonly contain asbestos-containing materials (ACMs).

The structural surveys specifically excluded asbestos from their scope and recommended a separate asbestos survey before any construction work.

Typical locations

Likely materials include:

• pipe lagging
• heating insulation
• asbestos insulating board (AIB)
• floor tiles
• bitumen adhesives
• textured coatings
• ceiling panels
• service risers
• soffits
• roof products

Finding asbestos during demolition preparation is entirely expected for buildings from this era.

5. Health effects of asbestos

Asbestos is not generally dangerous simply because it is present.

The main hazard occurs when asbestos-containing materials are damaged and fibres become airborne.

Once inhaled, fibres can remain in the lungs permanently.

Diseases include:

Mesothelioma

An aggressive cancer affecting the lining of the lungs.

Almost exclusively linked to asbestos exposure.

Usually develops 20–60 years after exposure.

Lung cancer

Risk increases significantly with asbestos exposure.

Smoking dramatically increases this risk.

Asbestosis

Permanent scarring of lung tissue.

Causes:

• breathlessness
• chronic cough
• reduced lung function.

Pleural disease

Asbestos can also cause:

• pleural plaques
• diffuse pleural thickening
• pleural effusions.

6. Could tenants have been exposed?

That depends on the condition of the asbestos.

If asbestos remained:

• sealed
• painted
• enclosed
• undamaged

then exposure risk is generally considered low.

Potential exposure increases if materials were:

• drilled
• cut
• broken
• deteriorating
• disturbed during repairs.

Without an asbestos survey it is impossible to conclude whether tenants were exposed.

The fact that licensed contractors are now carrying out asbestos removal does not itself prove residents were exposed. It shows asbestos has been identified and is being managed before demolition.

7. Legal duties of landlords

The main legislation includes:

Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012

These regulations require those responsible for non-domestic premises—and the common parts of domestic buildings such as stairwells, service ducts, boiler rooms and communal areas—to:

• identify asbestos where present
• assess its condition
• maintain an asbestos management plan
• prevent unnecessary disturbance
• provide information to anyone liable to disturb it (such as contractors).

The regulations do not generally require landlords to proactively tell every tenant where asbestos is located inside their flat if it is safely managed and undisturbed.

Housing Act 2004

Landlords must ensure homes are free from serious hazards.

If deteriorating asbestos created a significant health risk, the local authority could require action under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Landlords must maintain the structure and exterior of rented properties and keep key installations in repair.

Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974

Applies to employees, contractors and anyone undertaking maintenance work where asbestos may be present.

8. Should tenants have been informed?

This depends on the circumstances.

If asbestos was:

• safely managed,
• in good condition,
• and unlikely to be disturbed,

there is generally no legal requirement to notify every tenant simply because asbestos exists.

However, landlords should provide relevant information where:

• planned works could disturb asbestos,
• contractors require the information,
• or there is a material risk arising from the asbestos.

If asbestos became damaged or posed a risk to occupants, the landlord would be expected to take appropriate action and communicate as necessary.

9. Current asbestos removal

The recent photograph showing a contractor's sign stating "Asbestos removal in progress" indicates licensed removal work is underway before demolition.

This is consistent with normal UK demolition practice.

Typical sequence:

1. Buildings emptied.
2. Utilities disconnected.
3. Hazardous materials removed.
4. Asbestos removed under controlled conditions.
5. Demolition begins.

10. Overall assessment

The evidence paints a picture of buildings that, in 2013, were ageing but still structurally serviceable if substantial investment was made. The engineers identified active concrete deterioration, chloride 

contamination, and isolated reinforcement corrosion, but concluded that repair and over cladding could potentially extend the buildings' life by around 30 years.

Separately, the presence of asbestos in buildings of this age is unsurprising. Current licensed asbestos removal work before demolition reflects standard legal practice and does not, on its own, demonstrate that residents experienced unsafe exposure while living there.

But shown movement and deuteration dose grater that risk of exposure. 

No works was done that was recommended in the 2013 report.

Milton Keynes council continued to move people in to the flats even though of the risks. 

Risks to Residents;

1. Asbestos exposure

The greatest health concern is asbestos.

If asbestos-containing materials remained:

• sealed,
• painted,
• enclosed,
• and undisturbed,

the risk to residents would generally have been very low.

However, risk could have increased if:

• ceilings or walls containing asbestos were drilled or damaged,
• pipe lagging deteriorated,
• refurbishment work disturbed asbestos,
• water leaks caused asbestos insulating boards to break down,
• DIY work released fibres.

Diseases linked to significant asbestos exposure include:

• Mesothelioma (a cancer of the lining of the lungs)
• Lung cancer
• Asbestosis (scarring of the lungs)
• Pleural thickening and pleural plaques

These diseases usually develop 20–60 years after exposure and are more commonly associated with occupational exposure (builders, plumbers, electricians, shipyard workers), although environmental exposure can occur in some circumstances.

2. Damp and mould

The 2013 surveys found the buildings had poor thermal performance, making condensation more likely. Combined with ageing construction, this can contribute to damp and mould if ventilation is inadequate.

Possible health effects include:

• worsening asthma
• coughing and wheezing
• sinus problems
• chest infections
• allergic reactions
• irritation of the eyes and throat

Young children, older adults, and people with respiratory conditions are most vulnerable.

3. Cold homes

The walls were poorly insulated, meaning homes were harder and more expensive to heat.

Living in cold housing is associated with:

• higher rates of respiratory illness
• increased cardiovascular strain
• poorer mental wellbeing
• increased risk of falls in older adults due to reduced mobility

These effects arise from the indoor environment rather than the concrete structure itself.

4. Concrete deterioration

The structural deterioration identified in 2013—cracking, spalling and reinforcement corrosion—was primarily a safety and durability issue, not a direct health hazard.

Potential indirect risks included:

• falling pieces of concrete if deterioration became severe
• trip hazards from damaged concrete
• dust generated during repairs

This is one reason fencing and protective measures were later installed around some blocks.

5. Mental health impacts

Living in buildings awaiting demolition or major repair can also affect wellbeing.

Research has shown that prolonged uncertainty, deteriorating surroundings, and concerns about relocation can contribute to:

• stress
• anxiety
• depression
• sleep disturbance
• reduced quality of life

These impacts vary between individuals but are recognised in public health research.