36 PROJECT REPORT


they wanted to keep them on their side (including the architects).” RSHP looked after the concept, but their role up to Stage 3 was to “develop a design that could fit any modular system. eunier says they had “quite an agnostic view,” although it was “designed for volumetric.” Premier Modular tweaked some of the design details, for example reducing the height of units to make the project “more cost-effective,” and to mitigate some transport issues. Structural engineering firm eter ann did a review at tage  to check the  aspects were meeting the clients needs.


id the architects design pose any particular structural hurdles for the volumetric system chosen? Meunier asserts that it wasnt particularly challenging, although during the later value engineering  process the floortoceiling heights were reduced slightly to a “perfectly acceptable” 2.4 metres.


Another reason for this was, says Neil, the fact the original design raised issues for a full volumetric build as it would require a “double-layer of structure at intermediate floors which wasnt reflected in the design, which was more akin to a traditional panelised system.” There were also rights of light issues which constrained the overall building height, meaning the parapet had to be reduced slightly.


WWW.HBDONLINE.CO.UK


Meunier adds that there were further plusses within the design from a volumetric standpoint: “The kitchen wasnt between two units, and the window arrangement was already well thought-out.” Meunier says that the challenge for Premier to address was more about staying within the clients budget, given that it was “quite a striking design, and there were still questions around whether it was really what the planners wanted, and what the client wanted to pay for.”


ACHIEVING VALUE


In terms of maintaining the scheme within budget and achieving best value for the client, Meunier says the council retained another provider alongside Premier Modular in a rigorous exercise to establish that “it was really the best building that can be delivered within the budget.” During this “really involved” six week value engineering  process to fine tune the design, the firm reviewed absolutely every detail about the kitchens from the brand to the feel, the cost benefit ratio of bathroom pods, and the overall building maintenance.”


he  had a minimal impact on the design, says Neil Patience, design manager at Premier Modular, but adds that the architects original door specification was one area that would have raised issues in terms of replacement costs in a building


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