IN Brief:
- Aster has appointed 3Sixty Consulting after the September fire at the 32-flat Keel House in Weymouth.
- The procurement record describes 16 flats completely lost, eight partly affected and eight without direct fire damage.
- The £117,000 including VAT consultancy award does not represent the overall rebuilding contract or final project cost.
Aster Group has appointed 3Sixty Consulting (UK) to coordinate specialist building consultancy services for the reinstatement of Keel House in Weymouth following a serious residential fire. The appointment is recorded in a procurement award published on 19 October 2026 and addresses the design, approvals, insurance and project-management work required before damaged parts of the building can be repaired.
Keel House contains 32 flats and suffered extensive damage in a fire during the early hours of 20 September. Aster’s award description identifies the complete loss of 16 flats together with substantial damage to the roof, lift infrastructure and shared areas. Another eight homes sustained partial damage, principally from smoke, water and toxic fumes, requiring selected strip-out and refurbishment. The remaining eight flats escaped direct fire damage but still depend on the restoration of essential services.
The professional-services award is valued at £117,000 including VAT. That is not a reinstatement budget for the 32 flats and does not constitute appointment of a main construction contractor. The award documentation does not establish the eventual insurance settlement, detailed structural specification or programme for complete rebuilding. Those questions depend on investigations and decisions taken during the consultancy work.
Fire damage can affect a structure unevenly, so the condition of individual load-bearing elements must be established before retention or replacement is specified. Inspections may need to assess floors, supporting walls, connections and roof components after access is made safe. The notice reports extensive damage but contains no structural engineer’s findings, and it would be premature to assume that entire sections must be demolished or that retained elements have already been certified safe.
Smoke, firefighting water and contaminants create another class of work in flats where direct fire damage was limited. Moisture can be retained in finishes and concealed parts of the building, while affected electrical and mechanical services need appropriate inspection before reinstatement. Selective strip-out and drying must therefore be planned around what can safely remain, what needs replacement and how the affected areas are isolated from accommodation intended for earlier occupation.
The award description gives 28 October 2026 as the intended date for electrical restoration to the eight flats without direct fire damage, with further drying expected afterwards. This is a programme expectation and not evidence that services have been restored or homes reoccupied. Electricity, shared access, fire protection and other services may each need checks before any resident can safely return, subject to the appropriate approvals and building management decisions.
The damaged lift and communal spaces complicate the relationship between individual flats and shared infrastructure. Even where a dwelling is structurally intact, safe occupancy can depend on common access, means of escape, lighting, fire protection and service routes. Reinstatement design must consider these building-wide functions alongside repairs within individual dwellings. The available award documentation does not identify the full scope of lift replacement or any final arrangement for temporary accessibility.
3Sixty is to coordinate consultants and parties involved in design, statutory approvals, loss adjustment, insurance and project delivery. Structural engineers must assess damage and proposed interventions, while the relevant building control and planning bodies determine applicable approval requirements. Insurers and loss adjusters address the financial claim. None of those functions substitutes for the others, and the procurement award does not evidence final approval of a reconstruction scheme.
Sequencing will be important because investigation may reveal conditions that change the eventual repair specification. Opening up a damaged roof, for example, can expose connections or adjoining fabric that could not be assessed visually. Surveys of electrical distribution, water-damaged finishes and communal infrastructure may similarly identify work beyond the initial visible defects. The consultancy will need to coordinate that developing information so repair packages and contractor access can be planned without prejudging findings.
The scope is also affected by the continuing occupation or planned reoccupation of unaffected parts. Temporary separation, access control and safe service reinstatement may be needed if repair work proceeds while some residents are able to return. The procurement record provides no completed phasing plan or confirmed arrangement for residents during construction, so specific occupation measures remain subject to the client’s approved programme and safety decisions.
The next work comprises investigations, development of a repair specification, approvals where required, and procurement of the contractors who would undertake physical reinstatement. Aster has identified the scale of damage and appointed a coordinator, but the award contains no verified full rebuilding cost or completion date. Whether any flats can reopen earlier than others will depend on the condition of the shared building systems and the approved programme.
