palace of westminster restoration and renewal (r&r) · pdf filepalace of westminster...

Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal (R&R) Programme

Delivering the R&R Programme whilst maintaining permanent use of the Lord’s Chamber and a Temporary Chamber located in the Royal Gallery.

A high level review of the proposal suggested by Anthony Delarue Associates in their letter to Sir Edward Leigh MP of 3rd November 2016

Status C Final 13th January 2017

2

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 31.1. This paper ........................................................................................................................... 3 1.2. The key findings ................................................................................................................. 3 1.3. The assumed scope of the Anthony Delarue Associates solution ............................... 4 1.4. Key limitations of this paper ............................................................................................. 6 2. INTERPRETATION AND KEY IMPACTS ................................................................ 72.1 Interpretation of the ADA proposal .................................................................................. 7 2.2 Phasing ............................................................................................................................... 7 2.3 Schedule comparison and impacts .................................................................................. 9 2.4 Phasing assumptions ...................................................................................................... 11 2.5 Financial comparison to IOA scenarios ........................................................................ 11 2.6 Key risks ........................................................................................................................... 14 3. LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................ 154. APPENDIX I: LETTER OF 3RD NOVEMEBER 2016 FROM ANTHONY DELARUEASSOCIATES - TO SIR EDWARD LEIGH MP .............................................................. 175. APPENDIX II: DIAGRAMS ILLUSTRATING POSSIBLE SEQUENCING OFPHASING FOR THE R&R WORKS ............................................................................... 186. APPENDIX III: REFERENCES .............................................................................. 197. APPENDIX IV: GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS ....................................................... 20

3

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1. This paper

This paper summarises the implications of maintaining access to and use of two Parliamentary Chambers within the Palace of Westminster (the Palace) whilst the Restoration and Renewal (R&R) works are undertaken.

It follows a high level review of a proposal (the ‘ADA proposal’) by Anthony Delarue Associates Chartered Architects1 (ADA).

In that proposal ADA suggest the creation of a ‘temporary’ Chamber for the House of Lords located within the Royal Gallery and the use of the existing Lord’s Chamber by the House of Commons. Both Chambers would be accessed via a safe and secure route formed through New Palace Yard, Westminster Hall, St Stephen’s Chapel, Central Lobby, the Robing Room and Victoria Tower.

1.2. The key findings

• The ADA proposal is in essence a hybrid of ‘Option 2 Partial Decant’ and ‘Option E1A aRolling Programme of works’ as defined by the Independent Options Appraisal (IOA)2.This is because the proposed access route and the two occupied Chambers create anoperational ‘corridor’ that threads through the length of the building. The length andconfiguration of the corridor, its proximity to the construction works and the need to avoidimpacting the business of Parliament, would dictate a rate of completion similar to thatassumed in the IOA for a Partial Decant and / or a Rolling programme of Works.

• Based on the phasing assumptions set out in this report, the most likely duration of theADA proposal could be in excess of 15 years and it could be nearly 20 years if enhancedinterventions (additional Outcome C scope as defined by the IOA) are undertaken. Thisis because of the sequential phasing required to complete the works and the restrictionson the rate of completion described above. In addition a two year enabling period wouldbe required ahead of 2023.

• Although a detailed costing exercise has not been undertaken, mid-range (P503) CapitalExpenditure4 is very likely to exceed the £4.69billion described for Scenario 2B (PartialDecant) in the IOA, as updated in Q1 20165. The key reasons are as follows:

1 Anthony Delarue Associates Chartered Architects letter to Sir Edward Leigh MP of 3rd November 2016. 2 Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal Programme Independent Options Appraisal September 2014 3 P50 refers to the likelihood (probability) of realising a specific outcome. P50 is mid-range with an equal probability of outcomes being higher or lower. 4 Capital expenditure includes construction costs, construction delivery costs, programme management costs, risk, inflation, VAT and decant costs (all undiscounted). 5 Material Impact on the Independent Options Appraisal 23 June 2016. This paper provided high level and limited updates to the IOA’s key financial metrics based on information made available in Q1 2016. In particular it accounted for a revised start date of Q1 2023 and a more detailed decant solution. No further changes were made and the IOA was not fully updated.

4

– The programme duration is longer and therefore inflation and delivery costs willincrease;

– Rates of completion of work (quantity of work completed, rate of expenditure andlabour/logistics conditions) will be reduced by the constraints of working hours andwork space availability; and

– Working conditions (site establishment, logistics, security, management andsupervision) will be restricted and more complex.

• The IOA as updated in Q1 2016 noted that Scenario 2B (Partial Decant) could be morethan (approximately) £0.9billion more expensive than Scenario 3B (Full Decant) based onmid-range (P50) Capital Expenditure. For the same reasons described above it istherefore highly likely that the ADA proposal considered in this paper will exceed this costdifferential when compared to a full decant approach.

• The ADA proposal may impact the business of Parliament. This is principally because ofthe fragmentation of business functions and the increased travel distances between theChambers, temporary buildings and decant accommodation. This has not been exploredin this paper.

• There may be significant constraints on access by members of the public toParliamentary activities during the R&R works, particularly during the first 11 years. Thisis because the Royal Gallery may not have space to reproduce public and press galleriesand ancillary facilities on a like for like basis.

• The retention of an occupied access corridor and Chambers across the length of the sitecould create significant fire and security implications. This is due to the proximity ofMembers and staff to a construction site. In addition both Members and contractors arelikely to require mutual routes of escape across each other’s territories in the event ofemergency evacuation.

• The location of the temporary and then permanent Chamber may prevent some scopeitems within Outcome Level B and C being completed. For example it may not bepossible to excavate or glaze over courtyards immediately adjacent to occupiedChambers.

1.3. The assumed scope of the Anthony Delarue Associates solution

The ADA proposal comprises:

• A temporary debating Chamber constructed within the Royal Gallery, to be used by theHouse of Lords throughout the period of the R&R works;

• The House of Commons are to make use of the existing House of Lords Chamber duringthe R&R works, until the refurbished House of Commons Chamber is available forreoccupation;

• A safe and secure access route is provided between Portcullis House and the Chambersvia Cloister and New Palace Yard, through Westminster Hall, St Stephens Hall, CentralLobby and the Lords Corridor;

5

• Similar access is provided through the Victoria Tower entrance to the Robing Rooms andthe temporary Chamber(s); and

• Temporary canteens, lavatories and offices/committee space is provided within atemporary building in Old Palace Yard or possibly Abingdon Street Gardens.

This is illustrated in the sketch provided by ADA (full version included as Appendix I), as Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 – Sketch Plan of Proposal by ADA Source: ADA Proposal

The limited technical detail within the ADA proposal has required a degree of interpretation to allow high level comparisons with IOA scenarios. Accordingly, the following has been assumed:

• Phasing of the overall works will be required covering enabling and temporary works,temporary support facilities, site infrastructure internal moves and final reoccupation(these are set out in 2.2 and Appendix II);

• A temporary building (to support the critical debating Chamber and associated functions)will be located on New Palace Yard;

• Temporary site infrastructure including utilities services and plant rooms to service theChambers will be required; and

• During the relevant phases, decant accommodation will be required of the same size andscale as for a full decant approach without the need to construct temporary debatingfacilities in the decant accommodation.

6

1.4. Key limitations of this paper

A full list of limitations is provided in section 3. However key limitations are as follows:

• The ADA proposal does not consider cost or schedule and has no supporting technicalanalysis. It is based upon observations made from a site tour and a supporting sketchplan. Consequently it has been necessary to make a number of assumptions around theintended scope, particularly in relation to the technical sequencing of works, supportingtemporary facilities and access arrangements.

• As no detailed analysis is available or has been completed, this paper only provides ahigh level relative comparison between the ADA proposal and the mid-range CapitalExpenditure and schedule durations set out within the IOA, as updated in Q1 2016.

• High level extrapolation of existing schedule information has been undertaken and theconclusions drawn should be considered in that context. A full technical analysis isrequired if the findings of this paper are to be used for any purpose other than high levelrelative comparison.

These very broad assumptions illustrate the high level nature of this review. All assumptions and conclusions require a fuller analysis if this paper is to be used for anything other than high level relative comparison.

7

2. INTERPRETATION AND KEY IMPACTSIn the following sections where comparisons are made to IOA scenarios (as updated in the Material Impact paper dated June 2016), they relate to mid-range projections of Capital Expenditure and the ‘most likely’6 schedule durations as defined in the IOA as updated in Q1 2016.

2.1 Interpretation of the ADA proposal

Section 1.3 details the assumed scope of the ADA proposal.

In addition and to allow a reasonable comparison with the IOA Scenarios7, a number of assumptions have been made regarding the need for essential facilities to support the debating chambers (located in close proximity to the chambers themselves) as well as temporary services infrastructure, to heat, ventilate and power the occupied spaces.

These additional requirements have been based upon (and extrapolated from) technical details previously provided in support of the Westminster Hall Temporary Chamber Study8. These included a temporary building on New Palace Yard to provide supporting facilities such as catering, administration, toilets and immediate supporting administration and committee rooms for both Chambers.

The temporary building has been assumed to be located in Old Place Yard rather than Abingdon Street Gardens, as proposed by ADA. This is because:

• Advice previously provided by security experts (in consultation with the ParliamentarySecurity Directorate) suggests that temporary buildings located in Old Palace Yard do notmeet minimum security requirements due to their adjacency to the public highway; and

• Constructing a secure underground tunnel from Abingdon Street Gardens to the Palaceof Westminster is likely to be impractical due to the presence of a major sewer beneaththe road.

Temporary mechanical and electrical services infrastructure to serve the Chambers (whilst the existing services are removed and replaced) is assumed to be located in Royal Court and Chancellor’s Court.

2.2 Phasing

A workable 6 (or 7) phase programme sequence has been devised based on the assumed scope of works and where relevant the known practicalities of delivering the R&R scope of

6 Most likely is the term used to describe the most likely construction period that could be reasonably expected 7 Scenario is a combination of the Delivery Option approach (1, 2 or 3) based on varying proportions of the building being vacated whilst the works are carried out and an Outcome Level (A, B or C) driven by scope and specification for the physical works to be undertaken. 8 Westminster Hall Decant Study (WHTC): R&R Decant Feasibility Rev A Fieldon & Mawson April 2016 and. Westminster Hall Study: MEP strategies Buro Happold April 2016

8

works. The phasing of work has been completed at a high level only and would require further analysis.

The phased programme sequence is further illustrated in the plans contained in Appendix II and comprises the following phases:

Phase 1. An enabling works Phase comprising the installation and commissioning of the temporary Chamber in the Royal Gallery, modifications to the existing Lords Chamber to suit Commons use, installation of supporting temporary plant and services infrastructure, construction of temporary building for Chamber-critical functions in New Palace Yard, construction of a safe and secure access route for Members and staff between Portcullis and the Chambers and from Victoria Tower entrance.

Phase 2. The House of Commons and House of Lords relocate to off-site Decant Accommodation (assumed to be completed separately and ahead of a 2023 start date), temporary building and chambers put into use. The remainder of the Palace (excluding the safe and secure corridors) will have been fully decanted and the main R&R works will be undertaken.

Phase 3. On completion of the R&R works (in Phase 2) the completed areas in the Palace are re-occupied. The Commons return to the House of Commons chamber, and the Lords remain in the temporary Chamber in the Royal Gallery. New safe and secure access routes are created to allow those routes used under Phase 2 to be accessed for R&R works. Temporary facilities and site infrastructure are reduced to suit.

Phase 4. The remaining areas (excluding those areas required to access the temporary Chamber in Royal Gallery) of R&R works are undertaken. The Lords will continue to use the Royal Gallery as a temporary chamber. Westminster Hall, St Stephens Hall and access between Chambers through Central Lobby will not be available.

Phase 5. On completion of the works in Phase 4 these areas would be re-occupied which includes the Lords recanting to the Lords Chamber. All remaining temporary facilities and site infrastructure will be dismantled, including any safe and secure routes temporary works in areas re-occupied in Phase 3.

Phase 6. This phase will be required to undertake any outstanding R&R works within the temporary safe and secure access routes created for Phase 4 and at the southern end around Victoria Tower. The temporary chamber in Royal Gallery will be dismantled and removed and R&R works in this area will be undertaken. On completion of Phase 6 these areas will be re-occupied.

9

Phase 7. A possible final Phase 7 maybe required to undertake enhanced interventions that are impractical to undertake during earlier phases, due to access constraints and proximity to Chambers.

2.3 Schedule comparison and impacts

As described above the totality of the R&R works are likely to be undertaken in 6 or 7 separate sequential phases under the ADA proposed approach. These multiple Phases create inefficiencies in establishing safe construction access, safety evacuation routes, the construction logistics of people, contractor’s accommodation, plant, laydown areas and materials movements.

By analysing this phased approach, an overall duration in excess of 15 years is likely to be required to complete the R&R works. This duration could be closer to 20 years if enhancement interventions comparable to Outcome Level C9 are undertaken as the final phase (7) of the programme.

In comparison to the IOA scenarios, this projected duration is at least 4 years longer than the ‘most likely’ duration of 11 years under a Delivery Option 2.

This 15 year duration represents 3 Parliamentary periods of continuous construction activity at the Palace. The following diagram compares the likely duration of the ADA proposal against the ‘most likely’ schedules for each of the IOA Delivery Options:

Figure 2 – Comparison of Schedule Source: R&R Programme Team

9 Outcome levels are outcomes that could be realised by delivering the R&R Programme. These are described at three different levels, A, B and C (C being greater) and are influenced by the scope and specification of physical works to be undertaken.

Q2 2023

Delivery Option 2

Delivery Option 3

Delivery Option E1A

Royal Gallery Temporary Chamber

-2 35

All Members reoccupy the

Palace


Palace


Palace

5 10 15 20 25 30

Enabling Works Possible Outcome Level C Interventions

House of Common's re-occupied

House of Lord's re-occupied

10

This analysis of most likely duration is based on the key impact that the continuous occupation of the Palace during the R&R works will impose constraints on working time and construction productivity. These constraints are comparable to a combination of IOA Delivery Options 2 and E1A and the following assumptions have been made when analysing the most likely duration of the ADA proposal:

• In Phase 2 it is assumed that the completion rate of works at the north end of the Palacewill be equivalent to that described in the IOA Delivery Option 2 (Partial Decant);

• In Phase 2 it is assumed that the completion rate of works at the south end of the Palaceimmediately adjacent to the in use Chambers will be equivalent to that described in theIOA Delivery Option E1A (a Rolling Programme of works); and

• All work undertaken from Phase 3 onwards is assumed to be carried out under DeliveryOption E1A productivity metrics, again due to the proximity of Members and staff inoccupation.

These construction completion rates reflect the significant inefficiencies and complications associated with working in an occupied building and the close proximity to operational Chambers. This application of productivity metrics and Phases is also detailed within the illustrative phasing diagrams in Appendix II.

The overall potential duration is predominately influenced by the Phase 2 period of 11 years during which works adjacent to the two Chambers will need to be undertaken under Delivery Option E1A productivity metrics, i.e. slowly and more inefficiently.

Although the projected duration has accounted for the phasing of the works and a partially occupied Palace, there are other items which might lengthen this schedule. These include:

• The use of Victoria Tower and New Palace Yard for access by Members, staff and thepublic is likely to significantly constrain access for construction workers and materials.The temporary building at the north end will do likewise. This is likely to adversely affectrates of completion of work and the contractors ability to efficiently move workers andmaterials;

• The loss of construction logistic space (including contractor’s accommodation andwelfare facilities) in New Place Yard and Cromwell Green is likely to necessitateadditional space being procured elsewhere (for example in Victoria Park Gardens orfurther afield) decreasing rates of productivity;

• Temporary vertical risers to accommodate the phasing may be necessary. This mayimpose disruption to the works and increase the duration of Phases of the R&R works;

• It is possible that there could be further constraints and limitations placed upon noise,dust and vibration immediately adjacent to the Chambers (over and above that alreadyassumed given the immediate proximity to the works and the central location of theChambers); and

• It is possible that the recanting into areas undertaken in Phase 4 may be progressive asthe works are complete, which may allow the Lords Chamber and Central Lobby to beoccupied before the completion of the Phase 4 period.

11

No analysis has been undertaken on these possible impacts within the high-level nature of this paper. In the event that a more detail analysis of the ADA proposal is required, then a full and detailed reassessment should be undertaken to arrive at the exact delivery conditions and implications.

2.4 Phasing assumptions

The following assumptions underpin this schedule analysis:

• The Phase 1 enabling works can be constructed and occupied as part of the widerdecanting works prior to the start of the R&R works;

• Use of the Chambers and the safe and secure access routes by Members, staff, pressand visitors is acceptable to security and fire safety authorities. This includes theresolution of suitable means of escape across the construction site and through occupiedareas (this paper does not analyse any construction work access or escape routes thatwould also be required);

• Other than the areas occupied for Chambers and access, the remainder of the Palace isfully decanted for the duration of the construction Phases;

• Under Phase 2, the basement is available uninterrupted and unhindered for R&R worksand the new services infrastructure works are completed during this phase;

• No R&R works will be undertaken directly above operational occupied areas;• Areas directly below operationally occupied areas will only be accessible for construction

work outside of operational hours;• Temporary site infrastructure can be constructed and commissioned without impacting on

the safe, secure and continuous operation of the Palace by Members, staff and visitors;• Planning consents for all temporary buildings and works, for example a temporary

facilities building on New Palace Yard, is granted and is not conditioned on items whichwill have a schedule impact; and

• On completion of Phase 2 the re-occupation of part of the Palace provides adequatefacilities to enable the temporary building on New Palace Yard to be dismantled andremoved.

2.5 Financial comparison to IOA scenarios

When comparing the ADA proposal (together with the further interpretation assumptions set out herein) with the Delivery Options of the IOA, the closest proxy for Capital Expenditure comparison is likely to be Delivery Option 2 (Partial Decant).

However, as noted above this high level review suggests that Delivery Option 2 costs and durations would be in all likelihood exceeded, as the characteristics of the ADA proposal are more akin to a hybrid of Delivery Option 2 (Partial Decant) and the more restrictive Delivery Option E1A (a Rolling Programme of works).

12

The key reasons for this are as follows:

• The programme duration is longer and therefore inflation and delivery costs willincrease. Specifically, the ADA proposal would be delivered over a period in excess of15 years, whereas the IOA Scenario 2B has been modelled over an 11 year period, as:– Rates of completion of work (quantity of work completed, rate of expenditure and

labour/logistics conditions) will be reduced by the constraints of working hours andwork space availability with a resultant uplift on base construction costs to account foradditional labour time; and

– Working conditions (site establishment, logistics, security, management andsupervision) will be restricted and more complex due to partial and fully occupiedconditions, with a resultant uplift on construction delivery cost to account for theimpact on working hours, working space availability and constraints to sitemovements.

• The loss of construction logistic space in New Place Yard and Cromwell Green is likely tonecessitate additional space being procured elsewhere e.g. Victoria Park Gardens.Specific costs in relation to any premium for obtaining space within the Park may havebeen included;

• In Phase 4 as the R&R works progress through Westminster Hall there is the potential tosterilise or reduce the current security handling facilities for visitors. Allowance may haveto be made to temporarily re-locate/provide this capacity and capability elsewhere;

• The use of Courtyards (Royal Court and Chancellors Court) for temporary services andutilities to support the Chambers during the R&R works further compromises theconstruction logistics space assumed within the IOA scenarios. This loss of space mayrequire procurement of space elsewhere and increase the logistics inefficiencies. Specificcosts may have been included but this will require further analysis to be able to make anyassessment; and

• The risk profile and hence the required risk provisions would be greater.

13

Based on the IOA as updated in Q1 2016 Capital Expenditure figures are as follows:

Delivery Option Delivery Option E1

Rolling Programme of Works

Delivery Option 2 Partial Decant

Delivery Option 3 Full Decant

Outcome Level Outcome Level A Outcome Level B Outcome Level B

Scenario Scenario E1A Scenario 2B Scenario 3B

Capital Expenditure10 £6.03bn £4.69bn £3.81bn

Table 1 – Base Capital Expenditure of IOA Delivery Options P50 Source – R&R Programme Team

Therefore it is very likely that the mid-range (P50) Capital Expenditure projection for the ADA proposal will exceed the IOA Scenario 2B (Partial Decant) Capital Expenditure of £4.69billion.

In turn that means it is very likely the ADA proposal will be in excess of £0.9billion more expensive than the IOA Delivery Option 3 (Full Decant).

At present the detailed analysis does not exist to establish by how much the Capital Costs could exceed Scenario 2B. If this information is required then further more detailed analysis is essential.

This review has only considered relative (not actual) Capital Expenditure on an undiscounted but inclusive P50 basis. No other financial analysis has been completed. If necessary reference should be made to the report ‘Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal Programme Material Impact on the Independent Options Appraisal of 23 June 2016’ for a full understanding of the basis of the figures quoted.

10 Taken from the Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal Programme Material Impact on the Independent Options Appraisal of 23 June 2016. Capital expenditure is ‘Mid-Range (P50) and includes construction costs, construction delivery costs, programme management costs, risk, inflation, VAT and decant costs (undiscounted).

14

2.6 Key risks

Although a full quantified risk analysis has not been undertaken, the most significant additional risks to the R&R works from the ADA proposal have been identified below.

These are risks that are over and above those set out within the IOA:

• The likelihood of construction works (noise, dust, vibration, security etc.) causing anunacceptable degree of disturbance to the business of Parliament is increased. This isprincipally because the area retained in use by Parliament would run for almost the entirelength of the building and is surrounded on both sides and beneath by a constructionzone. If this risk were realised, it would increase cost and schedule uncertainty.

• The day to day business of Parliament may be disrupted by the fragmentation andgeographical dispersal of Parliamentary functions. Some functions would remain in thePalace (Chambers) and others would decant and relocate to temporary accommodationoutside of the Palace. The full impact of this is not currently understood and furtheranalysis would be required.

• Security, including means of escape in the event of emergency, has not been consideredas part of this paper. Maintaining adequate fire and security separation between aconstruction site and those areas retained in use is likely to be challenging, especially inthe event of fire alarms and evacuations which are likely to require mutual passagethrough the separated areas.

• It may not be possible to deliver some major interventions such as excavating and/orglazing Chancellor’s Court and Sate Officers Court given their proximity to occupiedChambers throughout the programme. As such, the extent of the assumed OutcomeLevel C could be compromised.

• Whilst protection will be installed, there remains an inherent risk of damage to thestructure and fabric of the Royal Gallery. Fuller analysis is required to verify whether theproposed approach is both viable and acceptable.

• The historic and highly ornate nature of the Royal Gallery and the existing LordsChamber may necessitate special measures (unknown) to allow for them to be used as afunctioning Chamber.

• The amount of press and public access that can be accommodated in the Royal Gallerytemporary chamber is unknown and requires further analysis.

• A significant risk is the ability to secure complex town planning and heritage consent priorto the assumed enabling phase starting. It is currently assumed that any consents andpre-commencement conditions can be met in sufficient time to allow construction of thetemporary facilities and the Royal Gallery conversion to a Chamber by Q2 2023. This isuncertain and further analysis is required.

15

3. LIMITATIONSThis paper is limited in its nature. It is high level analysis suitable only for the purpose of relative comparison of the ADA proposal with scenarios set out in the IOA.

This paper has been based on desktop analysis only. It relies heavily on the extrapolation of existing information which means that any costs or durations noted in this paper should be considered in that context. More detailed analysis is required if this paper is to be used for any other purpose than initial relative comparison with IOA scenarios.

Source information has been provided by others. That information has not been verified and should be read in conjunction with this paper.

The existing information and source information provided by others were all themselves produced for a different exercise at earlier points in time and were all based on their own respective assumptions and limitations (see the individual documents for further details). This further contributes to the high level nature of this paper.

The paper does not attempt to change or amend the solution proposed by ADA, only to interpret it as indicated. Further variant solutions or scenarios have not been considered.

The assessment does not verify that the assessed ADA proposal is viable or deliverable, nor that it meets Parliament’s requirements.

There has been no consultation with security advisers or the Parliamentary Security Directorate.

No consultation has been undertaken with the town planning authority, heritage bodies or other stakeholders.

No assessment of efficiency or disruption to the business of Parliament has been undertaken.

No assessment of damage to existing structure and services arising from the temporary Chambers and facilities has been undertaken.

Scope, timescales, cost and risks shown in this paper are relative and illustrative and are based on P50 costs and most likely durations. Further analysis is required to improve certainty.

The reference to updated IOA base date P50 Capital Expenditure reflected the updated assumed start date of Q2 2023 and the revised decant solution. No other cost assessment has been undertaken (for example whole life costs, net present costs, cash flows etc.).

No calculation of figures at the P10 and P90 confidence levels has been undertaken.

16

The figures within this paper are set out on the same basis as the IOA i.e. they are not single point estimates or cost plans, and should not be used for budgeting purposes. The figures are still based on notional Scenarios without any design having been undertaken.

Reference to Q1 2016 relates to an update at a point in time to reflect additional available information (regarding the potential start date and additional decant information). It does not mean that figures have been rebased from Q2 2014 prices.

The calculation of inflation for the change to the assumed R&R start date is consistent with the IOA methodology, using the long term compound annual growth rate at P50.

No assessment of value has been undertaken.

No risk modelling or Monte Carlo simulations have been undertaken for this high level paper.

Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the ADA letter make reference to the means of delivery of the contract, ongoing maintenance and new uses with the Palace. These matters have not been considered as part of this paper.

17

4. APPENDIX I: LETTER OF 3RD NOVEMEBER 2016 FROM ANTHONYDELARUE ASSOCIATES - TO SIR EDWARD LEIGH MP

A N T H O N Y D E L A R U E A S S O C I A T E S

• C H A R T E R E D A R C H I T E C T S •

7, 54 TRINITY STREET LONDON SE1 4JZ TEL 020 7403 8449 [email protected] A M J L DELARUE MA(HONS) DIP ARCH RIBA RAI ASSOCIATE: E A J W DE ÉVORA

AD/

3 November 2016

Sir Edward Leigh MP House of Commons London SW1A 0AA

Dear Sir Edward,

It was a great pleasure to see you again last Wednesday, and to have a most fascinating tour of the basement services of the Palace. As requested, I outline below my various thoughts upon the current proposals for the Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster.

I must say, despite the dire warnings of decay, I was most impressed by the competence and technical professionalism of our guides, and the general good order and maintenance of the services, which do credit to the engineering and maintenance staff.

I am an architect in private practice, with experience of mid-19th century buildings, including churches, which in a much more compact scale share many of the problem the Palace now faces, including the frequent need to maintain safe public access during building works and renewal of mechanical services. I am acting in this context pro-bono, through my interest in this project and long-standing appreciation of the buildings, and have no financial involvement beyond that of a taxpayer.

1. Current situation

1.1. Notwithstanding the evident excellence of the maintenance referred to above, there is no doubt, as has been expressed in the various reports, that the whole M&E installation is a disaster waiting to happen, a ticking bomb in which one can have no idea of its eventual victim; it could be a compete failure of electrical power to one of the Houses, or an explosion in the steam heating system. However well built an installation may be, it only has a certain life-span, and this has already been long exceeded in most fields in the Palace.

1.2. In recent years essential replacement and maintenance works have been carried out to the tune of about £73M. Much of this will be capable of reuse in the renewal programme.


2. The way forward

2.1. There are three broad approaches to the way forward, identified in the reports as ‘Scenarios E1, 2 and 3’. Within the second and third of these are subdivisions of detail, which need not concerns this broad overview.

2.2. The first, ‘Scenario E1’ foresees the work being carried out in much the manner in which ongoing maintenance has been carried out to date, over a long period, namely the division of the Palace into 12 zones, to be carried out piecemeal while the building remains in use. These works would take 40 to 50 years. The objection must be that it is not so much a bad idea as that it will not in fact work at all. The life-cycle of most of the new plant is around 25 to 30 years, so the first phases would need renewing long before all the planned work was complete, the dog biting his tail. As a technical level it would necessarily leave in place most of the haphazard and antiquated design arrangement of the services, leading to loss of flexibility and safety in maintenance, inefficiency and increased running costs. I must advise strongly against any consideration of this approach.

2.3. The second approach, ‘Scenario 2’, is to divide the Palace into two halves, more or less the Lords and Commons. One half would then be used by the Commons while the other was being worked upon. This approach would be likely to take ten or twelve years, very probably running on for longer as unforeseen problems arose. While this approached is workable, it has many disadvantages, the most significant being that the need to maintain the half which remains functioning during the first part of the works will seriously limit the scope for a wholesale technical redesign, and will build into the completed new services many of the inefficiencies of the present haphazard installation. This will impact upon efficiency, and the ease and safety of ongoing maintenance. There will be a very high investment in temporary services, and, even to the most experienced engineer, the overall scope will remain an unknown quantity until it becomes to possible to open up after works begin. This is exactly the sort of approach which leads to spiralling costs and timescale. At an administrative level it mean that half-way through the project there would be second round of musical chairs within the Palace, into newly refurbished but temporarily fitted-out rooms. In my view future generations would look back on this as a regrettable compromise and a missed opportunity.

2.4. The third option, ‘Scenario 3’, looks to remove all the services at one go, and renew them wholesale. Ostensibly this closes the entire Palace, and strips the building back to the condition in which Sir Charles Barry left it. This approach allows the mechanical, electrical and technological systems to be redesigned to suit precisely the needs of the modern Parliament, maximizing efficiency in fuel use, and ensuring, as much as is possible within the existing structure, an installation which will allow ease of future maintenance and space to provide flexibility for future servicing requirements.

2.5. There is no doubt at all that this represents the most mature approach, and properly executed, the one for which future generations will be grateful. Nevertheless, this is still a duration longer than a single parliament and thus if all the functions of the House were removed from the Palace it would result in some Members never actually sitting in the Commons chamber, and the returning Parliament containing a sizeable proportion


of Members who had never known the building, nor those customs of the House which are inextricably attached to the building.

2.6. Nevertheless, while the building is complex, the services are by their nature behind the scenes, and there are important areas which would remain relatively untouched by the works going on around them. I address below (in paragraph 5) certain wider observations about how it this approach to the works may be put into effect without a complete evacuation of both Houses from the building.

3. Impact of the works

3.1. Whichever approach is adopted, as with any such project, the works will involve substantial removal of fabric to gain access to the services: panelling, ceilings, panel paintings (canvases as opposed to murals) etc. These will need to be carefully removed and recorded, and it is important that they are replaced using traditional techniques and skills, to avoid any long-term damage to the integrity of the historic structure. The works will also allow later unfortunate accretions to be removed, as identified in the various reports, and also permit improvements in less sensitive areas, such as the upper level offices. New work should ideally be executed within the spirit of Pugin and Barry’s design, to leave the Palace with the dignity and harmony it merits.

3.2. It must be accepted that the recent restoration of the Pugin wallpapers in many committee rooms and elsewhere will suffer, and it is to be hoped that these will again be reproduced by the traditional hand-printed methods and restored. Thankfully such skills exist.

3.3. The various reports foresee a renewal of the external stonework where it is decayed, and it is good that this opportunity be taken to carry out as much conservation work as possible when disruption to the normal workings of Parliament will be minimal. It is not necessary to renew all areas at once, but ideally this fabric renewal would be built into a long-term rolling programme of continued maintenance (see my paragraph 7).

3.4. This restoration work will have the additional benefit of necessitating the training of specialist building crafts, much as happened after the Windsor fire, which will be to the future befit of the building industry and the wider economy.

4. Cultural perspective

4.1. Motivated as it has been by the more mundane considerations of maintenance and mechanical services, this project of major works of renewal differs greatly from it two predecessors, namely Barry’s rebuilding of the Palace after the fire of 1834 and the rebuilding of the Commons after the Second World War. Both of those were periods of great pride in the traditions of Parliament, attacked by outside events, accompanied by a desire on the part of everyone involved to preserve and enhance those traditions.

4.2. This is not the case today, where various voices within and beyond Parliament may call for a new approach, the abandonment of those things held of value in the past, and for solutions which may relegate the Palace of Westminster to a museum of things past, a


mere tourist destination, divorced form the legislative life of the country. One would argue that this would have a dramatic and deleterious effect upon the continuity and character of Parliament and of the whole of the government of this country. The likelihood of this argument gaining ground will increase with the length of time the Houses are absent from the building.

5. Temporary Accommodation within the Palace

5.1. To this end, one would propose a solution, which seems perfectly workable if all are willing to collaborate, whereby both Houses remain on site within the Palace in those areas which by their constructional nature (mostly stone walls full height, the grander pubic spaces) are significantly devoid of services. This is alluded to, but not specified, in ‘Scenario 3C’. These areas are: Westminster Hall, St Stephen’s Hall, the Central Lobby, the Lords Corridor, the Lords Chamber and the Royal Gallery (and occasionally the Robing Room and the steps of the Victoria Tower entrance). All the services in these areas, apart from electricity, are run externally to them, and thus they will be but little affected during construction.

5.2. These areas may readily be securely separated from the rest of the building, allowing linear safe access for members from Portcullis House via the cloister of New Palace Yard. The contractors would retain unimpeded access to all other areas. It is imperative that the internal courts are left within the contactors’ realm, any impinging upon them would seriously compromise the efficiency of the works.

5.3. One would suggest that the Commons under this arrangement would use the Lords Chamber, and the Lords the Royal Gallery, suitably fitted out with temporary raked bench seating, in much the way as it is prepared for the State Opening. I append a photomontage illustrating this.

5.4. This arrangement would further permit the State Opening to continue with the minimal necessary disruption to its customs.

5.5. Temporary canteens, lavatories, and if needed some office or committee space could be erected in temporary buildings in Old Palace Yard and possibly even Abingdon Street Gardens. Indeed even a secure tunnel under Abingdon Street would be vastly more economical than the proposals for removing to the Department of Health or the QEII Conference Centre.

6. Means of delivery of the contract

6.1. Having witnessed the excellent nature of the Engineering Department, I would caution against giving complete oversight of this engineering project to external consultants reporting directly to a Committee. A building of this age and nature is extremely complex and takes a lifetime to understand. To remove those who through long experience have developed this understanding from feeding into the design would be very foolish. The nature of large engineering consulting firms, however excellent and qualified, is to bring the standard methods of the age to bear across all project, thereby missing the opportunity for a subtler approach geared directly to a building’s strengths


and weaknesses. This suggested more in-house method is likely to bring many economies, both in execution and ongoing running costs, as well as minimizing disruption to the historic fabric.

7. Ongoing maintenance

7.1. It is to be hoped that the opportunity would be taken on this occasion, to avoid a repetition of the present situation in fifty years time, to make a serious financial commitment to a programme of ongoing maintenance, the Forth Rail Bridge principle. Notwithstanding the amusing sense of déja-vu in looking at previous reports of committee discussions on the fabric of the Palace since the 1830s, it is essential to break away from the very British problem of committing to large capital expenditure without identifying long-term funding for continued maintenance. While we can take great pride in our ability to muddle along in the face of adversity, modern technological services are far less tolerant of this approach.

8. New uses with the Palace

8.1. As part of the various opportunities which a single-project approach offers, ‘Scenario 3C’ proposes new and enhanced facilities with the refurbished Palace. Whilst it would be desirable on historical grounds, for instance, to open up access to Cloister Court, I believe care should be taken about wider applications of roofing-in the various courts. It often seems good sense to make full use of all the space, but the negative impact upon those rooms which look into these courts, both from considerations of amenity and ventilation, should be considered, as well as the impact upon surrounding service areas of admitting much lager numbers of people. A roofed in courtyard become an ‘atrium’, and those rooms with windows opening into these courts become effectively internal spaces. Such seemingly efficient use of ‘backland space’ is rarely without its major drawbacks.

I trust these notes are of use, and should be very happy to discuss them further.

Yours sincerely,

A M J L Delarue

18

5. APPENDIX II: DIAGRAMS ILLUSTRATING POSSIBLE SEQUENCING OFPHASING FOR THE R&R WORKS

Westminster Hall

Speakers CourtCommons Court

CommonsInnerCourt

Peers InnerCourtPeers Court

Royal Court

Royal Gallery

Chancellor’sCourt

State OfficersCourt

Central HallPeers Corridor

Star Chamber Court

CloisterCourt

CommonsHouseLobby

Phase 1. Create Temporary Chamber in Royal Gallery + Modification to Lord’s Chamber + Decant* of the building to the Other places – Pre 2023

Palace of Westminster Restoration & Renewal ProgrammeRoyal Gallery Temporary Chamber Study

* Decant buildings available prior to start of Phase 1.Period scale relates to 'most likely' in years.

Temporary Support facilities willbe built over New Palace yard carpark. Car park may remain closedduring this period.

43

3

1 6 2 4 4

4

4

4

4

5

17 18 19165 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 154-2 -1 1 2 3

Years

1. Temporary Chamber Construction in Royal Gallery2. Modification works to Lord’s Chamber3. Temporary MEP Plant4. Provision of Safe & Secure environment formembers, staff and public access during the R & RWorks5. Temporary Support Facilities6. Shared Lobby Area

Westminster Hall


CommonsInnerCourt


Royal Court

Royal Gallery

Chancellor’sCourt

State OfficersCourt


Star Chamber Court

CloisterCourt

CommonsHouseLobby

Phase 2. R & R Works


Rate of Progress asDelivery Option E1A


Rate of Progress asDelivery Option 2

Temporary Support facilities willbe build over New Palace yard carpark. Car park may remain closedduring this period.

4

1 6 2

5

4 4

4

4

4

43

3

Rate of Progress asDelivery Option 2

15 1610 11 12 13 145 6 7 8 9-2 -1 1 2 3 4 17 18 19

Years

1. Lord’s Chamber move to Royal Gallery2. Common’s Chamber move to Lord’s Chamber3. Temporary MEP Plant4. Provision of Safe & Secure environment formembers, staff and public access during the R & RWorks5. Temporary Support Facilities6. Shared Lobby Area

R & R Works through all vertical levels of thebuilding

Period scale relates to 'most likely' in years.

It assumes that the whole of thebasement will be worked onincluding under those areaswhich will be occupied

Depending onlogistics, someareas of theVictoria Towermaybe beincluding in thisphase of theR&R works

Rate of Progress as Delivery Option 2

Westminster Hall


CommonsInnerCourt


Royal Court

Royal Gallery

Chancellor’sCourt

State OfficersCourt


Star Chamber Court

CloisterCourt

CommonsHouseLobby

Phase 3. Open House of Common’s Chamber + Create Temporary Routes


4

1 6 2 4

4

4

4

4

4

3

3

5

13 14 15 16-2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 17 18 19

Years

1. Lord’s Chamber Operational in Royal Gallery2. Common’s Chamber re open and relocate3. Temporary MEP Plant – Dismantle in Royal Court4. Provision of Safe & Secure environment formembers, staff and public access during the R & RWorks5.Dismantle temporary support facilities6. Shared Lobby Area

R & R Works Complete and recanting


2

Westminster Hall


CommonsInnerCourt


Royal Court

Royal Gallery

Chancellor’sCourt

State OfficersCourt


Star Chamber Court

CloisterCourt

CommonsHouseLobby



4

1 6

3



11 12 13-2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1614 15 17 18 19

Years

1. Lord’s Chamber Operational in Royal Gallery3. Temporary MEP Plant4. Provision of Safe & Secure environment formembers, staff and public access during the R & RWorks6. Shared Lobby Area

R & R Works through all vertical levels of thebuildingIn Occupation


Rate of Progressas DeliveryOption E1A

Westminster Hall


CommonsInnerCourt


Royal Court

Royal Gallery

Chancellor’sCourt

State OfficersCourt


Star Chamber Court

CloisterCourt

CommonsHouseLobby

Phase 5. Re Locate Lord’s chamber into their Original location from Royal Gallery


4

6

3

11

14 15 168 9 10 11 12 13-2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17 18 19

Years

1. Lord’s Chamber reopen and relocate3. Commence removal of Temporary Plant4. Provision of Safe & Secure environment formembers, staff and public access during the R & RWorks6. Shared Lobby Area

R & R Works Complete and recantingIn Occupation


Westminster Hall


CommonsInnerCourt


Royal Court

Royal Gallery

Chancellor’sCourt

State OfficersCourt


Star Chamber Court

CloisterCourt

CommonsHouseLobby



3


12 13 14 15 16-2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 17 18 19

Years

3. Dismantle Temporary Plant and base R & Workscompletion

R & R Works through all vertical levels of thebuildingIn Occupation


The extent ofworks willdepend onwhat isachievable inthe earlierphase

Westminster Hall


CommonsInnerCourt


Royal Court

Royal Gallery

Chancellor’sCourt

State OfficersCourt


Star Chamber Court

CloisterCourt

CommonsHouseLobby

Phase 7. R & R Works – Possible Outcome Level C Interventions


-2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17 18 198 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Years

R & R Works – Possible outcome level CInterventions1. Chancellor’s Court2. State Officers Court3. Boilers House4. New Palace Yard – Visitor CentreIn Occupation


1 2 3

4

Work likely to be at rate of progress as delivery option E1A.

19

6. APPENDIX III: REFERENCES

Item Source Date Description

Base R&R assumptions for construction cost; construction delivery; risk and inflation

IOA Report 08 September 2014

The IOA Report (in particular Volume 2) set out the key metrics, assumptions and risk, schedule and cost build up that this high-level analysis has then assessed the likely impact against.

Westminster Hall Decant Study (WHTC): R&R Decant Feasibility Rev A00

Feilden + Mawson 15 April 2016

A high-level feasibility study undertaken by Consultants to the Decant Workstream providing the technical requirements and capital costs for the WHTC option.

Westminster Hall Study: MEP strategies Buro Happold 15 April 2016

WHTC option feasibility Cluttons / Parliamentary Estates Directorate

15 April 2016

WHTC option costs (revised) Cluttons / G&T 20 April 2016 IOA Material Impact on the Independent Options Appraisal Note: Restricted Access, Committee in Confidence

IOA Consortium Team

23rd June 2016

This paper summarises the capital cost adjustments for an updated decant solution and assumed start date of Q2 2023.

Source: As noted above

20

7. APPENDIX IV: GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS

Term Definition

ADA Proposal

The proposed solution suggested by Anthony Delarue Associates Chartered Architects to create a temporary Chamber for the House of Lords positioned within the Royal Gallery and the use of the existing Lord’s Chamber by the House of Commons throughout the duration of the R&R works as described in their letter to Sir Edward Leigh MP of 03rd November 2016.

Capital Expenditure

Constituent elements considered in this exercise include construction costs, construction delivery costs, programme management costs, risk, inflation, VAT and decant costs. Costs are quoted on a Q1 2016 basis and are undiscounted. Reference should be made to the IOA Material Impact on the Independent Options Appraisal 23 June 2016 for the full basis of costs.

Decant

The process of relocating to and from accommodation or a temporary location. Under IOA Delivery Options 2 and 3 significant accommodation is required to accommodate those functions within the Palace that would be moved to a new and temporary location for the duration of the works.

Delivery Options

The three potential approaches to deliver the R&R programme whilst maintaining the Business of Parliament:

• Delivery Option 1: A rolling programme of phased works over a significantly prolongedperiod of years but still working around the continued use of the Palace.

• Delivery Option 2: A programme incorporating a partial decant of each House in turn totemporary accommodation and closure to Members and the public of broadly half thePalace in turn for a prolonged period.

• Delivery Option 3: A programme incorporating a full decant of the Palace to temporary accommodation and closure to Members and the public of the entire Palace for a shorter period.

Disruption The potential detrimental impact on the business of Parliament as a direct result from decanting occupiers and functions from the Palace.

House of Commons House of Commons; where MPs represent the UK public.

House of Lords House of Lords; the second Chamber of UK Parliament.

Independent Options Appraisal (IOA)

An independently produced, costed options appraisal of the Scenarios, to enable Parliament to reach a well-founded decision in principle on the means of restoring and renewing the Palace of Westminster whilst maintaining the ongoing business of Parliament; and to pave the way for an Outline Business Case that conforms to public sector good practice.

IOA Material Impact on the Independent Options Appraisal 23 June 2016

This paper summarises the capital cost adjustments for an updated decant solution and assumed start date of Q2 2023.

Monte Carlo Simulation

An industry accepted statistical technique that has been applied to each IOA scenario to assess the likelihood of the certain outcomes taking account of multiple risks of varying probability.

Most Likely

A term used in the schedule section of this paper to describe the most likely construction period that could be reasonably expected for a given IOA Scenario. This has been established by statistical analysis of rate of expenditure, resource and delivery rate, as well as analysis of task durations using a typical sequence of works.

21

Term Definition

Nuisance Nuisance arising from construction activity including noise, dust and vibration. In some cases Nuisance could lead to Disruption.

Outcome Level The required outcomes that could be realised by delivering the R&R Programme. These are described at three different levels, A, B and C and are influenced by the scope and specification of physical works to be undertaken.

Outcome Level A

• Ensures compliance with legislation.• Maintains World Heritage and Grade 1 Listing status. • Repairs or replaces systems to contemporary standards of design and quality, optimising

costs and benefits over a full system lifecycles. • Meets built environment standards expected for public buildings.

Outcome Level B

As Outcome Level A plus:

• Meets any additional built environment policy objectives stated by the Houses. • Provides facilities to meet the stated objectives of both Houses (such as inclusion, outreach

and education). • Defined improvements to amenities within the constraints of the present design. • Future proofing of infrastructure and provision for change to the current occupation where

the requirement can only be loosely anticipated, over an indefinite period.

Outcome Level C

As Outcome Level A and B plus:

• Significant defined improvements e.g. high performance and long life cycles appropriate to each system.

• Defined improvements to the amenities within the constraints of the present design andoutside of the Palace site boundary.

P10 – P90 Confidence Levels The range from 10% probability to 90% probability of realising specific outcomes.

Palace of Westminster (the Palace)

The premises subject to the Restoration and Renewal Programme. Buildings outside of the Palace are not considered within the IOA, other than where they are required to facilitate a Delivery Option.

Risk Risk is defined as known and quantifiable factors that might impact the achievement of the Programme objectives and is measured by likelihood and impact against cost and time variables.

Scenario

Each Scenario comprises a combination of the Delivery Option approach (1, 2 or 3) based on varying proportions of the building being vacated whilst the works are carried out and an Outcome Level (A, B or C) driven by scope and specification for the physical works to be undertaken. The following Scenarios were shortlisted and analysed in the IOA: 1A, 2A, 2B, 3B and 3C.

22

Term Definition

Scenario E1A

A Delivery Option 1 (Rolling Programme of works) approach and an Outcome Level A scope and specification of physical works to be undertaken.

Enabled (E) 1A – A rolling programme of repair and replacement works of total duration most likely to be 32 years but still working around the continued use of the Palace. At completion Outcome Level A will have been achieved. Enabled refers to the need to remove three significant constraints that to date prevent the Programme from being completed. The enabling assumptions are: (1) accepting that all activities within the Palace will need to be moved on a phased basis (12 phases) to temporary locations elsewhere within the Palace boundary (this includes at least one Chamber); (2) clearing the entire basement of all existing staff and providing contractor’s access throughout; and (3) accepting a very prolonged period of significant disruption and nuisance whilst the works are completed.

Scenario 2B A Delivery Option 2 (Partial Decant) approach and an Outcome Level B scope and specification of physical works to be undertaken.

Scenario 3B A Delivery Option 3 (Full Decant) approach and an Outcome Level B scope and specification of physical works to be undertaken.

Schedule The result of planning a sequence of time based tasks and activities in a logical manner to describe when the activity will be undertaken. It also defines the overall period needed to complete the work.

Temporary Accommodation

The accommodation required to House those functions currently located within the Palace that would be displaced during the Programme. The temporary accommodation would be located outside of the footprint of the Palace except in respect of Scenario E1A where temporary churn space will be within the Palace footprint.

The Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal Programme (R&R)

The Programme has been established to address the significant work required to preserve the Palace of Westminster and ensure it can continue to serve as the home for the UK Parliament in the 21st Century.

palace of westminster restoration and renewal (r&r) · pdf filepalace of westminster...

Documents