SPECIALIST ARCHITECTURE
instead linking residents with their surroundings, and connecting them with nature.
The new building has a huge range of support of offer, from long-term disability management, and rehabilitative services following a brain injury to help people to improve or regain their abilities, to day services to enable people to remain independent at home. JDDK Architects worked closely with the client and end- users to draw up, in great detail, each of the required spaces within the facility, to ensure that each space functioned to its optimum level. It is clear from the initial
feedback from Sue Ryder that the spaces do, on the whole, exceed the charity’s requirements in terms of functionality, and reflect the level of detail that it was hoping for. Sue Ryder’s Executive director of Neurological Services and Scotland, Pamela McKenzie, commented: “There is no comparison between the Lancashire Care Centre and what we had at Cuerden Hall – the new facilities are absolutely superb – the physio gym and occupational kitchen are incredibly well designed. This means that our ability to carry out proper rehabilitation programmes is now first- class.”
Need for ‘large-scale’ modifications in Aberdeen As JDDK Architects’ site appraisals and design work were continuing in Lancashire, Sue Ryder had become aware that significant work would also be required to its premises in Aberdeen. It had become increasingly apparent that changes in the nature of care provision over recent years, alongside increased demand in the Aberdeen area, would require large-scale modifications. In contrast to Lancashire, Dee View Court was an existing building, which, prior to the extension work, accommodated
Contract value
Sue Ryder Neurological Care Centre Aberdeen £3,500,000
Construction contract period 17 months Brief description Type of contract Setting Pros
14-bed extension plus six apartments to existing 22 bed at Dee View Court
Traditional contract, with contractor appointed after tendering on fully detailed drawings Construction work was on a live site where Sue Ryder was already providing care
Time/Cost: Because the site was already in Sue Ryder’s ownership, there was not an extensive period of time required to search for a suitable location. This saved time, and potentially money, as work could immediately commence on design proposals once the decision to extend had been made.
Quality: Clients and staff had a good knowledge and understanding of the existing building, which meant that their feedback could be incorporated into the design for the newly extended centre.
Quality/Cost: There was no need to move clients off site and relocate to new premises during the work – this can be particularly disruptive to some residents, as well as staff.
Quality: The contractor at Dee View was very considerate of the impact upon existing residents and staff, and took time to ensure that issues such as privacy and dignity were not adversely impacted upon. The company also paid close attention to the health and safety considerations of the site, as a whole, to minimise any potential risk associated with their works.
Cost: Remaining operational while the work is carried out avoids the considerable cost and disruption of decanting to different premises for the duration of the construction work. This potentially increases the budget available for the construction.
Time/Cost: The fact that Sue Ryder already had an operational building meant that the amount of new building work required was significantly reduced. This meant that funds could be directed towards the new-build areas, with limited elements of refurbishment reducing the overall capital costs.
Quality: JDDK was able to take the successful elements of the existing building, and add to these, to create a care centre with increased capacity that addressed the operational challenges of the previous layout.
Cons
Quality: The fact that the existing care facility in Dee View was operational meant that Sue Ryder was living side by side with a construction site for 17 months, which, although the contractor did its best to minimise any inconvenience to Sue Ryder, undoubtedly caused disruption for patients and staff.
Quality/Cost: The fact that the contractor did not become involved in the process until the detailed design was complete meant that it was not party to design decisions that had been made throughout the process, and was effectively employed purely for construction. Sue Ryder felt that it might, in fact, have benefitted from contractor input at an earlier stage in the process.
October 2020 Health Estate Journal 29
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108
