Technical due diligence report Kestrel House, Fenwick Business Park, Marlbury |
| Property | Kestrel House, Unit 7 Fenwick Business Park, Longmoor Lane, Marlbury |
| Client | Harrowgate Estates Management Ltd |
| Report reference | RK-2026-0417 |
| Inspection date(s) | 12 Mar 2026 |
| Prepared by | Eleanor Whitcombe, Report Kit 360 |
| Red: 2 | Amber: 3 | Green: 1 |
Sample report
| Kestrel House, Unit 7 Fenwick Business Park, Longmoor Lane, Marlbury | RK-2026-0417 |
Document control
Status code: S4
| Revision | Date | Status | Description | Author | Checked | Approved |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P01 | 16 Mar 2026 | Draft | Draft for internal check | EW | DO | |
| A | 19 Mar 2026 | Issued | First issue to client | EW | DO | DO |
Distribution
| Name | Organisation | Copies |
|---|---|---|
| Harrowgate Estates Management Ltd | Harrowgate Estates Management Ltd | 1 |
This report has been prepared for the client named on the cover and may not be relied upon by any other party without the written agreement of Report Kit 360. The issue table above records every revision; the latest row is the current issue.
| Kestrel House, Unit 7 Fenwick Business Park, Longmoor Lane, Marlbury | RK-2026-0417 |
Contents
| Kestrel House, Unit 7 Fenwick Business Park, Longmoor Lane, Marlbury | RK-2026-0417 |
1 Executive summary
1.1 Main findings
Kestrel House is a two-storey office with an attached single-storey warehouse built in 2008 on a steel portal frame with composite cladding. The building is in fair condition for its age and is suitable for the proposed continued use as a distribution office. The principal matters affecting the investment are: breaches of fire compartmentation between the warehouse and the offices (immediate), the corroded external escape stair (immediate), impact damage to the loading-bay cladding, and warm-air heaters to the warehouse that are close to the end of their economic life.
No evidence of structural movement, asbestos-containing materials in poor condition or flooding was found. Budget repair costs over ten years total about £135,000 excluding VAT and fees, of which £4,550 is immediate.
1.2 Recommended further testing and vendor enquiries
Obtain an Electrical Installation Condition Report (the last is dated 2022 and was unsatisfactory in three observations), a gas safety record for the warm-air heaters and a drainage CCTV survey of the yard gullies. Ask the vendor for the cladding panel specification and the external wall fire performance statement, the lift maintenance contract (passenger lift to the offices) and the planning and building control approvals for the 2016 mezzanine.
1.3 Programme of repairs
Immediate: £4,550. Short term (within one year): £9,200. Medium term (two to five years): £45,700, dominated by replacement of the warm-air heaters. Long term (six to ten years): £76,000, mainly roof-lights, windows and yard resurfacing. Costs are budget estimates at today's prices and exclude VAT, fees and access.
1.4 Technical issues pertinent to the investment
The mezzanine installed in 2016 has no building control completion certificate on file; the tenant's fit-out drawings should be obtained. The EPC rating is D (68); the heater replacement offers an opportunity to improve it. The yard surface is at the end of its life and resurfacing will be a tenant service-charge matter under the lease.
This summary must be read with the main body of the report and the appendices, on which it relies.
| Kestrel House, Unit 7 Fenwick Business Park, Longmoor Lane, Marlbury | RK-2026-0417 |
2 Introduction
Instruction
| Client's instruction | Technical due diligence survey prior to acquisition of the freehold interest | Date(s) of inspection | 12 Mar 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Specialists involved | None; M&E and structural desk reviews only | Weather conditions | Dry and bright, 9 °C, light south-westerly wind |
| Occupancy at inspection | Occupied; single tenant trading normally | Persons providing information | Site manager (tenant) and the vendor's agent |
| Units inspected (multi-let) | Single let; whole building |
2.1 Limitations
This report records a non-destructive visual inspection carried out from the positions, and under the conditions, described in the methodology section. No parts of the building or asset were opened up, lifted, moved or tested unless the report says so. Concealed, covered, inaccessible or obstructed areas have not been inspected and we cannot confirm that they are free from defects. Observations describe the condition on the day of inspection only.
The inspection was visual and non-destructive. The warehouse roof was inspected from a mobile tower at the eaves and from the drone imagery supplied by the client; we did not walk the roof. Fitted floor coverings, suspended ceiling tiles (except at six sample locations) and the cladding cavity were not opened. The server room was locked and not inspected. Services were not tested. A full roof inspection could be arranged with a rope-access contractor at about £900.
2.2 Documents reviewed
| Document | Date | Source | Retained |
|---|---|---|---|
| Asbestos management survey (Harrowgate Environmental) | 2021-06-14 | Vendor's agent | Copy retained |
| Fire risk assessment | 2023-11-02 | Site manager | Copy retained |
| EICR | 2022-03-18 | Vendor's agent | Copy retained |
| Planning permission 08/01234/FUL (original construction) | 2008-02-27 | Council planning portal | Copy retained |
This report is confidential to Harrowgate Estates Management Ltd and is provided for the purpose described in the introduction. Report Kit 360 accepts no responsibility to any third party who relies on it, in whole or in part, without our prior written agreement. Where our report refers to information supplied by others we have assumed it to be accurate unless stated otherwise.
| Kestrel House, Unit 7 Fenwick Business Park, Longmoor Lane, Marlbury | RK-2026-0417 |
3 Description of the property
Property
| Type | Two-storey office with attached single-storey warehouse | General design | Steel portal frame, composite cladding, built 2008 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Principal elements of construction | Steel frame, insulated composite wall and roof panels, facing brick plinth, aluminium glazing, concrete ground floor, composite deck first floor | Age | About 18 years (2008) |
| Size (floor area, basis) | 1,850 m² GIA (from the vendor's plans) | Dates of substantial modification | Mezzanine to the warehouse (2016); office fit-out (2019) |
| Historical status | Not listed; not in a conservation area | Current use | B8 storage and distribution with ancillary offices |
| Services (summary) | Three-phase electricity, mains gas, water and drainage; warm-air heating; split AC to offices; passenger lift | Tenure and onerous lease obligations | Freehold; let on a 15-year FRI lease from 2019 |
| Location context | Established business park 2 km from the M-road junction | Site features, topography and boundaries | Level site; tarmac yard and car park; palisade fencing |
| Full address | Kestrel House, Unit 7 Fenwick Business Park, Longmoor Lane, Marlbury, MB4 7CV |
Figure 3.1 — Location / site plan
| Kestrel House, Unit 7 Fenwick Business Park, Longmoor Lane, Marlbury | RK-2026-0417 |
4 Rating and time-band definitions
| Kestrel House, Unit 7 Fenwick Business Park, Longmoor Lane, Marlbury | RK-2026-0417 |
| Time band | Definition |
|---|---|
| Immediate | As soon as practically possible |
| Short term | Within 1 year |
| Medium term | 2 to 5 years |
| Long term | 6 to 10 years |
| Kestrel House, Unit 7 Fenwick Business Park, Longmoor Lane, Marlbury | RK-2026-0417 |
5 Elemental condition
5.1 Roofs, balconies and canopies
Insulated composite roof panels on cold-rolled purlins with GRP roof-lights at about 10% of the area and a hidden eaves gutter. Two panels above the loading bay are impact damaged with exposed cut edges, and the roof-lights are discoloured. The roof is otherwise sound and watertight according to the tenant.
The six questions
| What, if anything, is wrong? | Impact damage to two panels; discoloured roof-lights | What are the consequences? | Edge corrosion and eventual leaks; reduced daylight |
|---|---|---|---|
| What repairs are recommended? | Replace the two panels, reseal joints; renew roof-lights in the long term | When should they be completed? (time band) | Short term / long term |
| Who is responsible for the cost? | Vendor (price) then tenant under FRI lease | Is further investigation recommended, and when? | No |
5.2 Rainwater goods
Hidden eaves gutters with internal downpipes and uPVC gutters to the office block. The rear office gutter sags and overflowed during the inspection.
The six questions
| What, if anything, is wrong? | Sagging and blocked rear gutter | What are the consequences? | Saturation of the wall below and damp internally |
|---|---|---|---|
| What repairs are recommended? | Clear, refix and realign; renew brackets | When should they be completed? (time band) | Short term |
| Who is responsible for the cost? | Tenant (repair covenant) | Is further investigation recommended, and when? | No |
5.3 Walls, cladding and facades
Facing brickwork at ground level with insulated composite panel cladding above. Panel joints and sealants are weathered and two panels at the loading bay show impact damage with exposed cut edges.
The six questions
| What, if anything, is wrong? | Weathered sealants; impact damage | What are the consequences? | Water ingress at joints; corrosion of cut edges |
|---|---|---|---|
| What repairs are recommended? | Reseal joints and replace damaged panels | When should they be completed? (time band) | Short term |
| Who is responsible for the cost? | Tenant | Is further investigation recommended, and when? | Panel fire classification to be confirmed by the vendor |
5.4 Windows, doors and joinery
Powder-coated aluminium windows and curtain walling to the offices, in fair condition. The rear fire exit door has a damaged push bar and does not latch reliably.
The six questions
| What, if anything, is wrong? | Fire exit push bar damaged | What are the consequences? | Means of escape compromised |
|---|---|---|---|
| What repairs are recommended? | Repair or replace the push bar | When should they be completed? (time band) | Immediate |
| Who is responsible for the cost? | Tenant | Is further investigation recommended, and when? | No |
5.5 Structural frame
Steel portal frame at 6 m centres with cold-rolled purlins and side rails. The frame is painted and shows surface corrosion at the base of two columns in the loading bay where water collects. Clean and recoat the affected bases and provide a drainage channel; the loss of section is minor.
The six questions
| What, if anything, is wrong? | Surface corrosion to two column bases | What are the consequences? | Loss of section if left for many years |
|---|---|---|---|
| What repairs are recommended? | Clean, recoat and form a drainage channel | When should they be completed? (time band) | Medium term |
| Who is responsible for the cost? | Tenant | Is further investigation recommended, and when? | No |
5.6 Substructure and basement
Assumed pad foundations to the frame and strip footings to the plinth walls; the ground floor is a power-floated slab. No cracking or settlement was found.
The six questions
| What, if anything, is wrong? | Nothing | What are the consequences? | None |
|---|---|---|---|
| What repairs are recommended? | None | When should they be completed? (time band) | Not applicable |
| Who is responsible for the cost? | Not applicable | Is further investigation recommended, and when? | No |
5.7 Floors
Ground floor power-floated concrete slab with sealed finish; first floor composite deck with carpet tiles; warehouse mezzanine of steel beams and particleboard deck. The slab has minor surface crazing only.
The six questions
| What, if anything, is wrong? | Nothing significant | What are the consequences? | None |
|---|---|---|---|
| What repairs are recommended? | None | When should they be completed? (time band) | Not applicable |
| Who is responsible for the cost? | Not applicable | Is further investigation recommended, and when? | Mezzanine approvals to be obtained |
5.8 Internal walls, ceilings, partitions and doors (including fire compartmentation)
Blockwork and stud partitions with plasterboard linings. Fire compartmentation between the warehouse and the offices relies on a fire-rated partition which has been penetrated by unsealed cable trays in two places. Fire-stop the penetrations immediately.
The six questions
| What, if anything, is wrong? | Unsealed penetrations in the fire-rated partition | What are the consequences? | Fire and smoke spread between compartments |
|---|---|---|---|
| What repairs are recommended? | Fire-stop the penetrations | When should they be completed? (time band) | Immediate |
| Who is responsible for the cost? | Tenant | Is further investigation recommended, and when? | No |
5.9 Finishes
Carpet tiles, suspended ceilings and painted plaster to the offices; sealed concrete to the warehouse. Finishes are tired but serviceable. Budget for redecoration at the next tenant change.
The six questions
| What, if anything, is wrong? | Tired finishes | What are the consequences? | Cosmetic |
|---|---|---|---|
| What repairs are recommended? | Redecorate and renew carpet tiles | When should they be completed? (time band) | Medium term |
| Who is responsible for the cost? | Tenant | Is further investigation recommended, and when? | No |
5.10 Internal and external staircases
Internal steel stair with timber treads and an external steel escape stair. The external stair treads are corroded and the handrail is loose at the half landing; repair within three months as the stair forms part of the means of escape.
The six questions
| What, if anything, is wrong? | Corroded treads; loose handrail | What are the consequences? | Risk of fall on the escape route |
|---|---|---|---|
| What repairs are recommended? | Repair treads and refix the handrail | When should they be completed? (time band) | Immediate |
| Who is responsible for the cost? | Tenant | Is further investigation recommended, and when? | No |
5.11 Sanitary and welfare facilities
Male, female and accessible WCs on the ground floor with a shower room. Fittings are serviceable; the accessible WC alarm did not sound when tested and must be repaired.
The six questions
| What, if anything, is wrong? | Accessible WC alarm inoperative | What are the consequences? | Non-compliance; risk to a user in difficulty |
|---|---|---|---|
| What repairs are recommended? | Repair the alarm | When should they be completed? (time band) | Immediate |
| Who is responsible for the cost? | Tenant | Is further investigation recommended, and when? | No |
5.12 Building engineering services
Three-phase electrical supply with a main switchboard in the plant room, gas-fired warm air heating to the warehouse and a split-system air conditioning to the offices. Certificates were not available for inspection; condition appears fair with the heaters near the end of their economic life.
The six questions
| What, if anything, is wrong? | Warm-air heaters near end of life; no certificates seen | What are the consequences? | Breakdown and inefficiency |
|---|---|---|---|
| What repairs are recommended? | Replace heaters; obtain EICR and gas safety record | When should they be completed? (time band) | Medium term |
| Who is responsible for the cost? | Tenant | Is further investigation recommended, and when? | Yes: EICR and gas safety record before exchange |
5.13 External areas, outbuildings and boundaries
Tarmac yard and car park with concrete kerbs, palisade fencing to the rear boundary and a sliding vehicle gate. Potholes at the yard entrance are a trip and vehicle hazard and should be patched; the gate motor is unreliable according to the site manager.
The six questions
| What, if anything, is wrong? | Potholes; unreliable gate motor | What are the consequences? | Trip hazard; vehicle damage |
|---|---|---|---|
| What repairs are recommended? | Patch now; resurface long term | When should they be completed? (time band) | Short term / long term |
| Who is responsible for the cost? | Tenant | Is further investigation recommended, and when? | No |
| Kestrel House, Unit 7 Fenwick Business Park, Longmoor Lane, Marlbury | RK-2026-0417 |
6 Statutory and compliance matters
Documents requested on site
| Item | Result | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Asbestos register and management plan | ✔ Pass | Management survey 2021, no ACMs |
| Fire risk assessment / fire strategy | ✔ Pass | Dated November 2023; review due |
| Accessibility audit | ✘ Fail | None available |
| Statutory test certificates (lifts, pressure systems, electrical) | ✘ Fail | Lift LOLER report not supplied |
| Energy performance certificate | ✔ Pass | EPC D (68), valid to 2029 |
| Planning and building control approvals | ✘ Fail | Mezzanine approvals missing |
The external wall is insulated composite panel with a PIR core; the vendor should supply the panel classification. The fire risk assessment dated November 2023 is due for review and does not record the compartmentation breaches found. The site is in flood zone 1. No contamination was reported and the site was previously agricultural land. The asbestos survey found no ACMs, consistent with the 2008 construction date.
| Kestrel House, Unit 7 Fenwick Business Park, Longmoor Lane, Marlbury | RK-2026-0417 |
7 Certification
This report was prepared and signed by the surveyor who carried out the inspection. A record of the internal peer check is kept on file.
Prepared by Eleanor Whitcombe Report Kit 360 Date: 19 Mar 2026 | Checked by Daniel Okafor Report Kit 360 Date: 19 Mar 2026 |
| Kestrel House, Unit 7 Fenwick Business Park, Longmoor Lane, Marlbury | RK-2026-0417 |
Appendix A — Photographs
Front elevation from the car park | Open-plan office, first floor |
Loading bay cladding showing impact damage | Rear gutter overflowing during the inspection |
| Kestrel House, Unit 7 Fenwick Business Park, Longmoor Lane, Marlbury | RK-2026-0417 |
Appendix B — Schedule of defects and repairs
| Ref | Element | Condition / description | Rating | Timescale | Recommended action | Responsibility | Cost | Photo |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Fire compartmentation | Unsealed penetrations through the 60-minute fire-rated partition. | Red | Immediate | Fire-stop with a tested system | Tenant | £ | |
| 2 | External escape stair | Corroded treads and loose handrail at the half landing. | Red | Immediate | Repair treads and refix the handrail | Tenant | £ | |
| 3 | Roof cladding | Two impact-damaged panels with exposed cut edges. | Amber | Short term | Replace panels and reseal joints | Tenant | £ | |
| 4 | Rainwater goods | Sagging gutter overflowing in rain. | Amber | Short term | Clear, refix and realign | Tenant | ||
| 5 | Warm-air heaters | Three gas-fired heaters of 2008, serviceable but near end of life. | Amber | Medium term | Budget for replacement | Tenant | £ | |
| 6 | Roof-lights | Discoloured GRP roof-lights reducing daylight. | Green | Long term | Renew in the long term | Tenant |
Budget costs are indicative, exclude VAT and professional fees, and are for programming purposes only.
Table B.1 — Immediate — schedule of repairs (calculated)
| Ref | Element | Repair | Budget cost (£) | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Fire compartmentation | Fire-stop unsealed service penetrations in the warehouse/office partition | £1,800 | Life safety |
| 2 | External escape stair | Repair corroded treads and refix the half-landing handrail | £2,400 | Means of escape |
| 3 | Accessible WC | Repair the assistance alarm | £350 | |
| Subtotal | #CIRC! |
Table B.2 — Short term — schedule of repairs (calculated)
| Ref | Element | Repair | Budget cost (£) | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Roof | Replace two impact-damaged cladding panels and reseal panel joints at the loading bay | £6,500 | |
| 5 | Rainwater goods | Clear, refix and realign the rear gutter; renew two brackets | £1,200 | |
| 6 | Yard | Patch potholes at the yard entrance | £1,500 | |
| Subtotal | #CIRC! |
Table B.3 — Medium term — schedule of repairs (calculated)
| Ref | Element | Repair | Budget cost (£) | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Heating | Replace the warm-air heaters, which are beyond economic repair | £28,000 | Allow in year 3 |
| 8 | Structural frame | Clean and recoat column bases; form drainage channel | £3,200 | |
| 9 | Finishes | Redecorate offices and replace carpet tiles | £14,500 | At tenant change |
| Subtotal | #CIRC! |
Table B.4 — Long term — schedule of repairs (calculated)
| Ref | Element | Repair | Budget cost (£) | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Roof | Renew the roof-light units (discoloured, reduced daylight) | £18,000 | Years 6 to 8 |
| 11 | Windows | Replace the office window units | £22,000 | Years 8 to 10 |
| 12 | Yard | Resurface the yard and car park | £36,000 | Year 10 |
| Subtotal | #CIRC! |
Table B.5 — Cost summary by time band (calculated)
| Time band | Budget cost (£) | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Immediate | #NAME? | #REF! |
| Short term | #NAME? | #REF! |
| Medium term | #NAME? | #REF! |
| Long term | #NAME? | #REF! |
| Total | #CIRC! | #REF! |
| Kestrel House, Unit 7 Fenwick Business Park, Longmoor Lane, Marlbury | RK-2026-0417 |
Appendix C — Reinstatement cost assessment
Reinstatement
| Gross internal area (m²) | 1,850 | Rate basis | BCIS rebuild rates, Q1 2026, regional factor applied |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reinstatement cost (£) | 2,640,000 | Date of assessment | 19 Mar 2026 |
| Assumptions | Includes demolition, fees and VAT on fees; excludes site contamination |
| Kestrel House, Unit 7 Fenwick Business Park, Longmoor Lane, Marlbury | RK-2026-0417 |
Appendix D — Scope of service and standard limitations
This report records a non-destructive visual inspection carried out from the positions, and under the conditions, described in the methodology section. No parts of the building or asset were opened up, lifted, moved or tested unless the report says so. Concealed, covered, inaccessible or obstructed areas have not been inspected and we cannot confirm that they are free from defects. Observations describe the condition on the day of inspection only.
The findings describe the condition observed on the inspection date. Buildings and assets change with time, weather and use; if a decision is to be made more than three months after the inspection date we recommend that the relevant areas are re-inspected.