180525-SPC-DE-CastleHillHouse

Castle HillHouseSt Peter’s College, OxfordInvited Competition1825-01May 2018 1www.designengine.co.uk

Contents Option 01 | 51 Studyrooms 1 Introduction 22 Urban discourse | Bulwarks Lane and Internal Court 23 Connecting Courts Site Considerations 24 Level B1 25 Level 00 2 Influencing Factors 26 Level 01 3 Location Plan and Listed Neighbours 27 Level 02 4 Local High Points 28 Level 03 5 Canal House 29 Section 30 Views from Internal Court Site Analysis 31 Views from Entrance Court 32 Views from New Road 6 Duality 7 Urban Realm Option 02 | 40 Studyrooms 8 Organic Growth Over Time 9 Section 33 Urban discourse | New Road and the Law Centre Court 34 Connecting Courts Working on a City Centre Site 35 Level B1 36 Level 00 10 Constrained Site 37 Level 01 11 Previous Examples 38 Level 02 12 Risk Areas 39 Section 40 Views to Castle Mound and Nuffield Tower Brief Requirements 41 Views from Bulwarks Lane 42 Views from New Road 13 Accommodation - Scale Comparisons 14 Student and Staff Wellbeing Relevant Projects 15 Accommodation Model 16 Stage 0, 1, 2 Consultation 43 Hubert Perrodo Project, St Peter’s College, Oxford 44 Oxford Brookes University, Headington Campus Law Centre 45 Arts University Bournemouth, Student Village 17 Current Status Fee Proposal 18 Initial Considerations 46 Traditional and D&B Procurement Capacity Study 19 November 2017 20 Analysis 21 Oxford City Design Code 2

IntroductionCastle Hill House DevelopmentCastle Hill House ProjectIn October 2017, we were approached by the College to carry out afeasibility study for this site. With limited survey information, we tested theConservative Club site for a capacity study for study rooms.The site is irregular, has an overall change in level of more than 3m, and sitsbetween two listed buildings. Moreover, it is located across New Roadfrom the castle mound and sits over the original castle grounds. As such, itoccupies an important position in the immediate area.Our relationship with St Peter’s College began in 2014 with thecompetition and our subsequent commission for Perrodo Phase 2. Nowcompleted, the project consists of two remodelled quads, a rejuvenatedChavasse Building and the new Hubert Perrodo Building. Having securedPlanning and Listed Building Consent, internal improvements to the listedHannington Hall are to begin imminently.In May 2018, the Hubert Perrodo Building won a Royal Institute of BritishArchitecture Award.Over the course of the Perrodo project, we have forged a trusted workingrelationship with the College, and have cemented relationships withPlanning Officers, Tree Officer, Landscape Officer and Conservation Officerfrom Oxford City Council. These relationships have been developing since2007, when we were appointed as architects for Oxford BrookesUniversity’s Headington Campus. That project won a national RIBA Award,was RIBA South Building of the Year in 2014 and featured in the StirlingPrize mid-list. Hubert Perrodo Building, completed 2018 1

Site ConsiderationsInfluencing Factors B C A 1 1 1 1 1 Public Pedestrian RoutesSt Peter’s College Trees Fellows’ Car ParkConsiderations include disturbance to functioning parts of the College; There are significant trees adjacent to the site; most notably the 20m high The site is circumnavigated by a footpath along New Road and along This is a unique asset for the College. There have been proposals in theparticularly the Master’s House (Canal House) and study bedrooms in New Lime in the car park of the Law Centre (A), the 14m Norway Maple (B) and Bulwarks Lane. During construction, it may be necessary to partially close past to redevelop it, but there are issues with this idea; namely blockingBuilding and Besse. 8m Sweetgum (C). The protection needed to canopies and root sections of these in the interests of health and safety. the view of Master’s House from New Road, overshadowing the garden protection areas of these trees will be taken into account in any design and and a continuation of the street edge development (after the Castle Hill construction method statement. Having negotiated the removal of two House), which is out of context with the immediate area. Both options large Limes inside the campus, credibility and dialogue with OCC is shown in this document have the option to link the car park to the College established. via the new development. PM AMMaster’s House (Canal House) 1 Nuffield College Ownership 1 Contractor’s Compound & Deliveries 1 Orientation NOONCanal House is a building of 2* Listed status, in recognition of both the Until the leased Law Centre becomes SPC ownership, the building will Unless agreement can be made with Nuffield College on the Law Centre The site orientation means that parts of the new development will benefitquality of the house and its interior, but also it’s place in the history of the affect the design of the new development. Party walls, overlooking and car park (or unless it can be acquired by SPC prior to construction), the from south-facing views towards the castle. The new building will however,canal system in this area. As a residence of the Master and his family, and as rights of light will all be factors in the design. only available space for a contractor’s compound would be the Fellows’ overshadow a section of Bulwarks Lane, New Building and Besse for longa College reception building, it is of utmost importance to minimise car park. This has implications for the College, in that it is unlikely that the parts of the day. In the morning, the Master’s House and garden will bedisruption to both the house and garden. car park could be divided in two due to restricted access from New Road. overshadowed, and we have taken this into account in our Option 1. 2

Site Considerations 9Location Plan and Listed Neighbours 8 1Legend 2 10Listed Buildings in close vicinity of the site: 111. Nuffield College: Grade II 52. Oxford Castle and settlement remains: Scheduled Monument 3 73. St Georges Tower: Grade I4. C Wing including the Round Tower: Grade II* 4 65. The Governors House: Grade II6. The Governors Office and former Laundry: Grade II7. County Hall: Grade II*8. Bastion: Grade I9. Worcester College Park and Garden: Grade II*10. St Peters College Master Lodge: Grade II*11. Law Centre (Nuffield College owned) Grade ll SiteSite location plan to show monuments and listed neighbouring buildings 3

Site ConsiderationsLocal High PointsLegend 11 10 12The following list has identified significant spires and tallest 13 4 8towers in Oxford’s city centre: 91. Nuffield College Tower: 46m Site plan identifying key heights of neighbouring buildings2. Castle Mound: 19.5m 1 53. St George’s Tower 24. Wesley Memorial Methodist Church5. St Peter’s College Chapel 36. Tom Tower, Christ Church: 46m7. St Aldate’s Church 78. Radcliffe Camera: 43m 69. University Church of St Mary the Virgin: 55m10. All Souls College: 39m11. Exeter College Chapel: 37m12. Lincoln College Library (formally All Saints’ Church)13. Saïd Business School: 28.5m Site 4

Site ConsiderationsCanal HouseRetaining History in the Urban GrainThe proposed development for Castle Hill House is situated to the South Potential single-storey developmentEast of Canal House, in order to maintain the Fellows Car Park free of high zonelevel development. Potential multi-level developmentIt is felt that due to the historic significance of Canal House it would be zone (refer to OCC Design Code)inappropriate to propose any multi-storey development on this site. If thiswas to occur it would shield the house from New Road and it would Proposed site development zonebecome lost from the public realm. Key viewsHowever a potential single storey development would not obstruct theviews and therefore could be deemed acceptable. This would be anuneconomic solution, particularly if parking was retained below as anundercroft. In the spirit of the OxfordAn excerpt from the Conservation Plan makes a point of the importance of Plan of Oxford Canal Company Wharf and premises, 1838being able to retain a view to Canal House from New Road.“A well executed essay in Greek Revival architecture that was designedto make an impact when viewed across the canal wharf and from thewestern approach to Oxford, as it could be seen rising above the wharfwall.”St Peter’s College Oford Conservation Plan, October 2009.Canal House looking East, 1943 Canal House from Coal Wharf (corner of New Road, 1935 Diagram depicting critical views 5

Site Analysis Bulwarks Lane New Road street viewsDualityNew Road & Bulwarks LaneThis site falls between the busy New Road and the quieter pedestrian-scaleof Bulwarks Lane. As such, it has a duality which we see as an opportunityto offer two sides of a new development: one to the city and the other to StPeter’s College. Indeed, it is the unique relationship and proximity with theCollege and which makes this scheme possible.Improving SafetyCentral to our thinking is to include Bulwarks Lane as a connector betweenthe new development and the main College campus. Currently, adoorway allows access to the Master’s House and into the lane, but thereare new opportunities which can be explored.With its narrow path and high walls, Bulwarks Lane can be an intimidatingplace to be - particularly at night. As part of this scheme, we wouldpropose improvements to lighting and surface finish; subject to OCCapproval.The section of party wall to the site itself (below) has been lowered overtime and the stone replaced with brick. Whilst this allows for viewstowards the castle , the original wall would not have done and we wouldargue that the glimpses are a temporary visual asset. In any event, ourproposals offer new framed views from the public areas of thedevelopment to mitigate this loss.Site setting 6

Site AnalysisUrban RealmObservations 1 2 31. The current building offers no real street presence and therefore is Eye level unable to contribute to the urban realm. 62. The Law Centre court is currently used as a car park, with asphalt ground treatment. This generates poor quality space and essentially fails to ‘give back’ to the urban realm.3. There is a layering of uninterrupted high walls without fenestration or elevational interest facing New Road. Therefore there is no active frontage within the site, which generates a negative and uninviting condition.4. The relationship between wall and human scale works more successfully at this point in Bulwarks Lane, with more breathing space between wall and buildings.5. The variations in height, materiality and quality vary greatly along Bulwarks Lane and therefore fails to provide aesthetic continuity.6. The human scale and eye level is completely overwhelmed by high level walls and railings, which adds to a sense of intimidation, with minimum light and greenery opportunities. 45 7

Site AnalysisOrganic Growth Over TimeThe Conservative ClubThe Conservative Club comprises an early Nineteenth Century villa,with more modern additions (1950’s and 1960’s). This building is notlisted, nor does it appear on Oxford City Council’s list of non-designated heritage assets. The original element of the buildings hasclearly been the subject of considerable alteration.The current layout of buildings on the site provides single-storeydevelopment at the New Road end of the site, with the three-storeybulk of the older building to the rear, adjacent to Bulwarks Lane.Bulwarks Lane is approximately level with the first floor. OverlookingExisting site view 01 Public realm does not benefit from the space hidden behind View to castle mound the wall Tree root protection area Existing site analysis diagram restricted due to proximity of surrounding buildingsExisting site view 02 8

Site AnalysisSectionCastle Mound Oxford Castle Nuffield Tower Existing building Bulwarks Staircase 2 Hannington Quad Lane 9

Working on a City Centre SiteConstrained SiteSite LogisticsThe Castle Hill House site is physically constrained by its inner city location,but also in terms of the perception of its sensitive setting. It will beimportant to distinguish between the two, and the relationship theCollege has formed with Oxford City Council on recent projects will helpin this regard.Issues of Health & Safety will be paramount. Robust Risk Assessments willbe required from all parties, and the selection of contractor will be criticalwith well considered method statements. There are also several Party WallAgreements which will need to be drawn-up (fewer if the Law Centrecomes into St Peter’s College Ownership).Design solutions may need to investigate off-site construction to speed upprogramme and minimise disruption. Master’s House and garden Master’s House protected from visual intrusion access to College and noise during construction continues Noise and sightlines from Besse and New Building Contractor Deliveries off-road Contractor Welfare & Compound Demolition and construction Contractor Access Footpath from this direction closure for periods Hoarding line Potential contractor duSrainfegpceodnestsrturicatniornoute compound if (Law Centre in SPC ownership) Safe access for Law Centre Possible closure of Bulwarks Lane for periods Site logistics 10

Working on a City Centre SitePrevious ExamplesExample 1 : Examination School and Ruskin School of Example 2 : Hubert Perrodo Building, St Peter’s Example 3 : Camden Mill and Beyer Building, Lower Example 4 : Roseville Housing, Petit Bouet, St PeterDrawing & Fine Art College Bristol Road, Bath Port, GuernseyThis project, for Oxford University, consisted of intricate remodelling work This project involved the new Hubert Perrodo Building, plus significant The radical remodelling of these two buildings (one listed) between the This central site was made all the more difficult by the 12m change in levelto the these two historic buildings fronting the busy High Street. The work landscape works, and the remodelling of Chavasse Building. The campus River Avon and the Lower Bristol Road brought about huge challenges in between street level and top of site. Divided into parcels of land by existinginvolved new build and works to existing historic fabric, and necessitated has access on only side, New Inn Hall Street, making access and deliveries terms of public safety, deliveries and material handling. In addition, the granite walls, new car courts were concentrated at the lower levels with thecareful management of deliveries, materials handling, safe pedestrian a challenge. Party walls made also for careful design and negotiation. The buildings had to be in full occupation during the works. The small car park rest of the complex being for pedestrians only. Consisting of 34 dwellingsroutes and traffic management whilst both buildings continued to operate next phase, internal works to Hannington Hall, is imminent. acted as contractors compound for the period of the works. and a community centre, design and construction had to be innovativefor the University. and collaborative to succeed.Working closely with the University Estates Department, the maincontractor and Oxford City Council, the project was completedsuccessfully without delay and within budget. 11

Working on a City Centre SiteRisk AreasPlanning and Conservation Groups Archaeology Notable Trees Design Review PanelThis site falls within a Conservation Area, which has a bearing on the status Whilst outside the line of the ancient fortifications, Oxford Archaeology’s Barrell Tree Consultancy report says of the Lime in the Law Centre car park: JPPC note in their report: ”It is worth bearing in mind that there is likelyof certain trees. Neighbours include the Grade ll* Listed Master’s House fascinating report identifies the site as being within the extent of the ‘Castle to be considerable interest from external groups in the redevelopment ofand Garde ll Listed Law Centre. The setting of these buildings will be a key Grounds’, which follows the curve of Bulwarks Lane to the NE. The Fellows “This is an important B tree and the LPA are likely to want it retained the Conservative Club site (particularly Oxford Civic Society and Oxfordconsideration of the LPA and Conservation Groups. car park falls within the old Wharf, whilst the actual site for this study does without any adverse impact. However, there are some substantial Preservation Trust, as well as from Nuffield College). There may also be not. The report also suggests: “There is considered to the potential for obstructions to root growth on the site that are likely to have affected the pressure to pursue a “masterplan” approach (with the redevelopment ofOxford Archaeology describe the view below as “....the last surviving prehistoric, Saxon, medieval and post medieval remains to be present extent of its RPA (see image below). I have adjusted the annotated the Conservative Club to be undertaken in tandem with thevisual connection between Bulwarks Lane that marks the northern end of the within the site and whilst extant structures make a pre determination extent of the RPA to take account of what I believe is a reasonable redevelopment of the Fellows’ Car Park) – in our experience, such anCastle precinct and the Castle.” The photograph below is taken over the evaluation unlikely further work post determination such as a trial trench interpretation of where its roots are. Although I am confident that we approach is typically advocated by the Oxford Design Review Panel.”(relatively) recent lowered section of wall, where stone has been replaced evaluation and targeted excavation / watching brief will be required. can robustly support that judgment, the LPA may disagree and demandwith brick (lower image). The scope of further work will have to be agreed with the City a greater RPA. As we will not know the precise LPA stance until the We have a good deal of experience with Design Review Panels all over Archaeological Officer.” application is submitted, I advise that you observe the constraints I have the country (Cabe run the ODRP) and agree in principle with JPPC.Our proposal would be to offer a similar appreciation of the Castle from shown.” However, any masterplan offered by SPC can only extend to land in itsthe new development, plus a framed view of Nuffield Tower. ownership. In this case, we would propose some forward thinking Our second option provides this tree with more breathing space and ideas for the Fellows car park, and the Law Centre site should it protects its greater RPA. become owned by SPC. X:\o\Oxford Conservative Club\010Geomatics\03 GIS Projects\Oxford Conservative Club_Figure9.mxd*daniel.bray*26/02/2018 Proposed works to T1. Crown reduce by “The Oxford Design Review Panel draws from experts who have 3m all over back to previous reduction delivered high quality design, which includes working in sensitive and points. Remove dead, broken and historic environments, such as Oxford. ODRP Panellists cover a wide damaged limbs as appropriate. range of disciplines, including architecture, town planning, landscape architecture and other relevant professions and all operate under Cabe Terms of Reference and BEE handbook. The Panel will engage with the City Council as local planning authority, Oxfordshire County Council as highway authority, and statutory agencies as observers including Historic England, Natural England, the Environment Agency and othersTreeconstraintsplan Location of trees, categorisation and development constraints at New Road Site, St Peter’s College, Oxford where appropriate.”Barrell Plan Ref: 18008-BT1 Provided Plan Refs: Extract.jpg Permission is granted to scale from this drawing n for Local Authority Planning Approval purposes relating to tree protection measures only. Where applicable this drawing is to be read in conjunction with the arboricultural report. This drawing is the copyright of Barrell Tree Consultancy 2018. c This drawing to be reproduced in colour only. TX BS category A Trees of high quality TX BS category B Trees of moderate quality PRINCIPLES OF DESIGN REVIEW: Independent: the panelTX BS category C Trees of low quality members are independent and their report is compiled through the design review.TX BS category U Trees unsuitable for retention Estimated tree positions not included on Expert: the review isoriginal land survey and adjusted crown undertaken by leading designers who have an acknowledged standing spreads and expertise.Land owned by St. Peters College Land that the College are considering acquiring )\" Existing garage is T2 Existing building is Multidisciplinary: thePurpose of this plan and its annotation panel combines the different perspectives of architects, urban )\" a barrier to roots T3 a barrier to roots \") This constraints plan provides sufficient information to interpret the tree Existing boundary wall \") is a barrier to roots designers, planners, landscape architects, engineers, and other specialist experts to provideconstraints when designing a new layout. This guidance must be carefully )\" )\" Existing boundary wall reviewed with the individual tree information provided in the schedule on and level change is a this plan. If there is any doubt about how to interpret this information, you \") barrier to roots a complete, rounded assessment.must check it out with Barrell Tree Consultancy (BTC) on 01425 651470 or )\" Unlikely to be any substantial \") roots within the highway or [email protected]. \") pavement The number of each tree, hedge and group is highlighted in colour to enable NEW ROAD quick identification of tree categories. Category A and B trees are green; category C and U trees are blue. The number of each A and B tree is set Accountable: the panel and its advice must be clearly seen to work for the benefit of theinside a green triangle; the number of each C and U tree is set inside a blue rectangle. Category A trees are shown with double triangles and U trees are shown with double rectangles. Zone 1, indicating the RPA where no public. The panel reports will be published and publicly available where the scheme is theground disturbance should occur, is annotated with dark shading. Zone 2, indicating where shading, dominance and/or future growth may be an issue, is annotated with light shading. subject of a planning application.How to use the constraints information Our interpretation of the starting-point recommendations of BS 5837(2012) is that only category A and B trees are sufficiently important to influence a layout, so the category C and U trees are discounted in this constraints advice. The constraints that the A and B trees are likely to impose have Transparent:been assessed as follows: the panel’s remit, membership, governance processes and funding are in the public domain (Oxford City Council web site).Zone 1 (dense coloured shading): This is called the root protection area (RPA) where ground disturbance must be carefully controlled. If encroachment is planned within the RPA, then this must be assessed on a tree-by-tree basis by BTC. If important trees are to be successfully retained, no significant disturbance should occur within the RPA and a high level of care is needed when working within it. Zone Proportionate:2 (light coloured shading): The second Designconstraint is where Review will be used for major projects and projects whose significance warrants the investment needed to provide the service.shading/dominance/future growth may be an issue and is our estimate of how much space may be needed to retain trees after the development activity when the pressures of residential occupation come to bear. Factors such as crown density, future growth potential, orientation in relation to the sun and the number of trees in groups are considered to arrive at this second, less restrictive, constraints zone. Zone 2 is not normally suitable Timely: it should take place as early as possible in the design process, because this can avoidfor occupied buildings, but uninhabited structures and hard surfacing may be acceptable within it. wasted time. It also costs less to make changes at an early stage.Zone 3 Nominal RPA radii for category C trees: Low quality only to be considered for retention if there is scope within the layout and they do not compromise the potential to establish new trees of higher future sustainability. T1 Existing building is Designers should try to avoid the loss of category A and B trees because a barrier to roots )\" Advisory: the panel does not take planning decisions, but it offers impartial advice for thethe LPA will consider them important in determining the full impact of the \") proposal. Category C trees can be considered for retention if there is scope within the scheme. However, their loss should not be a material constraint Local Planning Authority, who does. (Oxford City Council)and layouts do not have to be designed around keeping them. As a starting point in the design process, no significant disturbance should occur within the RPA of any category A and B trees shown as zone 1. There is sometimes scope to reduce this slightly in some directions if a corresponding increase can be achieved in other directions that results in the RPA remaining the same. However, such changes should be the \") Objective: the panel appraisesexception rather than the rule and must be assessed on a tree-by-tree basis schemes according to reasoned, objective criteria rather by BTC. Under some circumstances, it may be acceptable to place footpaths, roads, \") than the stylistic tastes of individual panel members.services (including drains and soakaways) and unoccupied buildings within )\" )\" zone 1, but special precautions will be required and should be detailed after consultation with BTC. However, designers should always remember that )\" )\" the more encroachment there is into the RPA, the more likely the LPA are to object to the layout. Further consideration is required for occupied buildings; areas within the existing or future crown spread of retained trees )\" Accessible: the findings and advice are clearly expressed in terms that design teams,or in areas of excessive shade should be avoided. This is the zone 2 \") \") illustrated on the plan. Exceptionally, non-inhabited buildings such as garages may be acceptable within zone 2, but this would not normally apply decision makers and clients can all understand and make use of.to residential occupied buildings. Pruning overhanging branches may also be an option, but often prompts objections from LPAs. If such pruning is proposed, BTC must advise on the implications. Limitations and warnings This plan is confidential to the client and should not be released to 12 any third parties without authorisation 0 Metres 5 10 15 20 It does not consider any ecological or other constraints that may exist on the site Scale: 1:200 Approx. @ A1 Assessing constraints is subjective, especially the zone 2 advice, and the LPA may not agree with the BTC interpretation The plan is based on provided information and should only be used for dealing with the tree issues All scaled measurements must be checked against the original documents This constraints guidance is preliminary and only suitable for drawing up initial design proposals Further consultation with BTC is essential before finalising any layout Tree schedule Tree No Species Height (m) Category RPA Radius T1 Lime 20 B 10.2 T2 Norway maple 14 B 5.4

Brief Requirements Primary Accommodation Ancillary AccommodationAccommodation - Scale Comparisons 13.5- 15-20m2 15m2Building Planning and Layouts Bedroom (x50) Laundry 55-70m2The floor plans we use to illustrate our options in this document are hand- 24m2 15-20m2 Bike store (50 bikes)drawn but are based on CAD plans which adopt the briefing requirementsopposite to ensure fit with the site survey. Accessible bedroom (x2) LinenThe site is irregular and has many challenges in terms of levels andneighbours. However, we have used these challenges as a discipline to 14-16m2 15m2 5-15m2design, which has in turn added richness to the proposals. Kitchenette Comms & IT Store 1 per 8 rooms 16-18m2 DU Workshop 3-5m2 24m2 Cleaning store CAD drawing of Option 01 Communal area 1 per floor CAD drawing of Option 02 13

Brief Requirements Option 1 external spaces Option 2 external spacesStudent and Staff Wellbeing Public Realm “We live, in fact, in a world starved Inside-Out for solitude, silence, and private:Places and Spaces and therefore starved for meditation and true friendship.”The Bursar recently described places in the College “where peoplebump into each other”. This serendipitous social interaction is a C S Lewis, ‘The Weight of Glory’complement to academic discourse and fundamental to any Collegeculture. 14The thoughtful relationship between internal and outdoor space iscritical to the success of any scheme, but feels especially important atSt Peter’s College. Just as buildings respond to specific functions andneeds of occupants, external spaces all demand slightly differentcharacteristics of shelter, light, security and acoustics. In this uniqueand compact setting, we propose outside spaces to frame views, andto offer breathing and thinking space.A site can be regarded as having ‘positive’ ingredients, such asbuildings and structures, and ’negative’ spaces between them. Often,the landscape acts as a glue to the various physical forms, uniting themwith interstitial moments which add to the enjoyment of the campus asa whole. Here, we have the added ingredient of level changes, whichwe consider a benefit rather than a barrier.One of the central concepts of our capacity study options was the idea oflinked courts. Small as these may be due to site dimensions, they can addrichness and connectivity between the new study rooms, the College andthe town centre.The two proposals presented in this report offer different opportunities forsocial interaction, as described in each option.Formal spaces Changes in level Communal courtyards Places for solitude 1 Places for socialising

Brief Requirements Model adopted for option 01 Model adopted for option 02Accommodation ModelStudyroomsCurrent thinking for student accommodation is clusters of between 6-8with communal kitchens. The brief calls for “rooms to be laid out inmore of a hotel style with allocated kitchenettes rather than individualcluster flats” Typical study room adopted for this study (13.5sqm)Design Engine CGI view of a single bedroom, featuring an integrated window seat. Design Engine CGI view of a studio bedroom, with a separate kitchen and eating area. 15

Brief RequirementsStage 0, 1, 2 ConsultationManaging the consultation process From experience eliciting feedback from students on accommodation Engagement with St Peter’s College stakeholders projects is often more challenging than from staff. Rather thanWe are often tasked with managing stakeholder consultation. addressing the process to the whole student body, the establishment In simplified terms the engagement process can be broken down intoHowever, our experience on the Perrodo Phase 2 Project was that the of a student working group can be extremely helpful and great the following elements.Bursar and Project Manager were instrumental in navigating a careful advocates of the scheme to the wider student body.route map through the consultation process, and that will be just as Initial review of stakeholder requirementimportant on this new project. The way consultation is managed can also set the tone of a project. At • Identify the key stakeholders Oxford Brookes University, we designed a ‘Lab’ space within one of the • The stakeholders should be asked to define their key objectivesThrough the two and a half year journey to design and deliver the the existing buildings. This space included material on theHubert Perrodo Building, we believe we have formed a trusted development, proposed fittings, furniture as well as opportunities for for successworking relationship with key individuals of the College, as well as the feedback. It also created a base where the University’s communicationsGoverning Board and Steering Groups. From this project and our work team could facilitate better interaction with staff and students interested Regular design workshops with each stakeholderin Independent Schools, we are also well used to working with alumni in the project. • Meetings to tease out the functional needs and ambitionsand donors. • Learn from the way things are and how they can be improved Communal benefitChoosing the right material It is important to break down silos, bring the various groups together Individual user consultationThrough a number of past Higher Education projects the practice has and to explore how the creation of blurred edges between functions • Meeting with people in their own workspaces and learningexperience of how to ensure the consultation process extracts the right can create new opportunities.input from stakeholders, whilst maintaining programme. environments to understand how they approach their tasks and It is also key during the development of the design with stakeholders to what they perceive are their main needsWe are aware that different stakeholder groups require different types challenge how they think about the way they might work in future. • This can be the most difficult stage of engagement and canof material to aid discussion and we often make reference to disciplines Developing new approaches to staff and student working is key to fully depend greatly on users experience and whether they feel theyoutside architecture to help communicate our ideas. In order to realising the opportunities possible. have been listened to in the pastachieve best results, we put a lot of thought into the type andaccessibility of material for each workshop or presentation. A challenge with any Higher Education project is ensuring that people Wider user workshops look at what new opportunities are possible. This is why it is important • Necessary where user groups are large or more entrenched inWe always think carefully about the early on to identify key project objectives and galvanise a sense of thetype and level of material possible. current behaviourappropriate for each stakeholder • More involved and structured workshopsgroup. The goal is not to identify how things have been done in the past but • These can take the form of exercises around key themes or spun- instead to imagine how they could be improved in the future?Starting a conversation off presentations around key ideas.From experience, Oxford Colleges are highly democratic bodies Engender a collective positive • It is important in these sessions to draw ideas together but not towhere opinions are offered freely with intelligence and knowledge. approach to creating anThis has to be harnessed, whilst understanding that most successful exceptional living, learning and seek approval.projects are delivered to a vision and not to a common denominator. teaching environment. Joint stakeholder workshopsIt is therefore important at the start of a project such as Castle Hill Enjoying the process • As the dialogue with key stakeholders and users develop areas ofHouse to identify who the stakeholders are. This will doubtless involve The briefing and consultation process for a project such as this willrepresentatives from the accommodation team but will include, for inevitably be challenging and will require a huge commitment from all overlap can be identified and the opportunities to create ‘blurredexample, environmental sub groups, maintenance teams, catering and stakeholders if it is to be a success. But it should also be an enjoyable edges’ become apparentthe Students’ Union body. Dialogue should start early and at first key experience. • Workshops with two or more key stakeholders may be requiredproject objectives should be clearly identified both in terms of the to break down any barriers that may exist and to explore ideas ofpragmatic but also in terms of the vision. shared space and overlapping functions Regular update presentations • Keep wider College community informed of what is actually developing. • Be clear what has already been agreed/established and what is still in development. “Design Engine Architects are a very professional and dedicated ‘Lab Space’ company. The Directors and staff are very competent and really do • Possible creation of a space dedicated to sharing the vision and consider the client’s needs. Some architectural practices are only interested in the design – and what the design can do for their practice. testing ideas, Q&A’s etc. Design Engine really do want the client to have a building they can afford to own as well as one that delights them.” High level stakeholder review • Ultimate body for sign-off of proposals Kerry Hutchins Foreign & Commonwealth Office 16

Law Centre Current Status Evnomia Chambers W est North Elevation East Elevation The building has Grade ll Listed status and currently acts as a Law Centre, leased from Nuffield College. Its position in the overall scheme N orth Evnomia Chambers East Elevation as it has implications on scale, access datums, overlooking and party South wall conditions. LEGEND West Elevation LOCATION PLAN South LGFL Lower Ground Floor Level LGFC Lower Ground Floor Ceiling Level80.0m GFL Ground Floor Level GFC Ground Floor Ceiling Level FFL First Floor Level FFC First Floor Ceiling Level SFL Second Floor Level SFC Second Floor Ceiling Level TFL Third Floor Level TFC Third Floor Ceiling Level OHB Overhead Beam Level HL Head Level CL Cill Level SHL Structural Head Level SPL Spring Point Level EDB Electricity Distribution Board75.0m IC CL Inspection Cover Cover Level RWP Rain Water Pipe CEILING LIGHT WALL LIGHT FLUORESCENT EMERGENCY LIGHT BATTEN FITTING ELEC. DISTRIBUTION BOARD Clay tiles CLIENT Clay tiles Clay tiles Stone Clay tiles Clay tiles Stone70.00 Clay tiles Clay tiles Stone Stone Stone Stone Lee/Fitzgerald London Stone render SE1 0ED Stone render Stone render JOB TITLE65.0m Measured Building Survey Evnomia Chambers Stone St Peters College Elevations & sectionDatum NORTH WEST ELEVATION SOUTH WEST ELEVATION SOUTH EAST ELEVATIONLine 60.00m Brunel Surveys Ltd 80.0m Unit 59, Shrivenham Hundred Business Park Watchfield, Swindon, Wiltshire, SN6 8TZ75.0m 73.38 Tel : (01793) 784700 Fax : (01793) 78466470.00 Web : www.brunelsurveys.com65.0m Clay tiles Clay tiles Stone Stone 71.14 72.99 72.31 Loft space Land and Measured Building Surveyors render render 69.58 Loft space 69.64 Photomontage and 3D Visualisation Stone 69.79 render Law Library Room 14 69.77 Room 11 REVISIONS 63.13 66.91 69.64 66.69 A: Drawing moved to OS Datum Corridor Office 66.62 63.36 Corridor SCALE A1 @ 1 to 100 63.16 63.31 DATE SURVEYED BY SH CHECKED BY PJA February 2010 DRAWN BY SHDatum 60.71Line 60.00m SECTION A-A DRAWING No. Elevation drawings of the Law Centre NORTH EAST ELEVATION 3D d9r0a5w0i-n1g0s0o-0f t9hEeLLEawVRCeevnAtre 17

Law Centre VoidInitial ConsiderationsEvnomia ChambersThe building could convert partly to residential accommodation or toimproved teaching space. Should the building come into St Peter’sownership, it releases the car park as an potential entrance courtyard,with communal facilities at ground floor fronting on to the new court (asbelow). In Option 1, there is an opportunity to link to the internalcourtyard, whilst in Option 2, the entrance courtyard is larger and theLime could become a central feature if retained.In the case of the building coming into St peter’s ownership, we wouldlook to remove the poor rear extensions and introduce a new westentrance from the courtyard. First Floor PlanOption 01 etnoDtrcearnmecaoetleipsnhoerecwxhtension SA3Option 02 SA2 SA4 Communal Study SA1 Ground Floor Plan Basement Plan Note: Drawings NTS in this report 18

Capacity Study Conservative Club site only Conservative Club site plus existing Law CentreNovember 2017 Conservative Club site and demolished Law CentreCapacity StudyDesign Engine was commissioned in October 2017 to carry out a shortfeasibility study on the Conservative Club site in order to help ascertainthe value to the College of this particular site.Based on limited survey information available at that time, the studyincluded options for: Conservative Club site only; Conservative Club siteplus existing Law Centre and Conservative Club site and a theoreticallydemolished Law Centre (which has Grade ll Listed status). The latter twostudies explored the opportunities offered by taking the Law Centre into StPeter’s College ownership, which proved to be considerable.With new survey information, the proposals outlined in this documentevolve the thinking behind these original studies, and respond to the briefwhich concentrates on the Conservative Club site with reference to theLaw Centre. 19

Capacity StudyNovember 2017AnalysisDue to more accurate site survey information and additionalrequirements in the brief, the capacity study scheme proved to requiremodification to reach target numbers.Option 01 and Option 02 look to keep the width of the building to aminimum in order to reduce the overall mass and by developingcirculation efficiencies.Many of the original intentions have been retained and evolved inthese new options studies; particularly the strategy of linking NewRoad to Bulwarks Lane through courtyards in the the scheme. Conservative Club site only Concept of a strong Concept of creating a generousView of capacity study proposal relationship with New road has entrance relationship to been retained in new proposals Bulwarks Lane has been retained in Option 02 Capacity study analysis diagram Linked courts at different levels Tree root protection area restricted due to proximity of surrounding buildings. This is improved in Option 02 20

Capacity Study Drawing extracts from OCC Design CodeOxford City Design Code 21 Our proposals in Options 01 and 02 seek to align with the Design Code set out in OCC Area Action Plan. This has in part informed the evolution form the original capacity study: Architectural Principles Sunlight • Where a fifth storey is permitted, it should be set back to allow sunlight to reach the opposite facades and street Building Height • Building types over 3 storeys should not occupy the whole depth of the block and should be inset by a dimension of 15-20 metres • The design of ridge level, eaves level, or roof silhouette should vary so that there is no longer than 25 metres of continuous roof design Building Frontage • Rule of thumb transparency is 30-40% of the ground floor elevation • Where the building line is set back by more than 1metre or is discontinuous, then other elements should compensate by marking the continuity of the plot frontage line • Storey height will create variety between commercial and residential building heights • Ground floor height of minimum 3.5 metres will allow for the widest range of possible uses to the main street frontages Verticality • Building elevations should be given a vertical proportion • Wide street frontages should be articulated with one or more bays of a maximum of 8 metres

Option 01Urban discourse | Bulwarks Lane and Internal courtSummary• Proposed building follows the line of the existing built environment along Bulwarks Lane and ‘completes’ the street edge condition.• Proposed building is split into two elements that relate to one another to generate an internal court. This generates light into the centre of the site, individual room aspect and prevents ‘overlooking’ onto the Law Centre gardens and the Canal House garden and escape routes.• The relationship to New Road is staggered and set back, to reflect the submissive situation of the Conservative club. Location plan View 01 of Option 01 to show two separate entity buildings that are joined with the central courtOption 01 Key views and relationships diagram View 02 of Option 01 to show two separate entity buildings that are joined with the central court 22

Option 01Connecting Courts 1 Nuffield College 5 2 6 3Option 01 court and transitioning diagram 4 23Legend Castle Mound1. Linton Quad2. Hannington Quad3. Chevasse Quad4. Castle Hill House Court5. Canal House Garden6. Fellows car parkOption 01 establishes a clear language to connect the St Peter’s Collegecampus to Castle Hill House by creating a route that transitions from gardento garden.The gardens can serve as a physical amenity or as a visual amenity. There isan opportunity, through landscaping to make a physical connection fromthe Castle Hill court to the Canal House garden. Alternatively the link canbe visual, in order to give both buildings a more open aspect and allowlight to transcend between.This option does not make a visual or physical connection to the LawCentre court, as it does not assume it to be under St Peter’s Collegeownership. Option 01 Proposed key routs, destinations and access

Option 01 | 51 roomsLevel B1LegendBedroomAccessible bedroomShared kitchenTotal floor Area = 198m2 Building line above + 62.500m Existing tree will be impacted by Option 01 RPA already restricted due to existing building. Plant Bike store L ST Bin store Plant + 61.200m New Road New Road 0 2.5m 5m 10m Entrance 24

Option 01a High level windows in semi- Bulwarks Lane basement locationsLevel 00 Laundry Linen Storage Office WorkshopLegend Store ITBedroom Entrance from Bulwark laneAccessible bedroom level above.Shared kitchen Note. half level difference.Total floor Area = 516m2Total studyrooms = 8 LTotal Kitchenettes = 2 CS L + 60.800m Visual connection and Court + 62.500m Potential widening of CS potential stepped access + 63.600m entrance area by removal from Canal House Garden L CS to Castle Hill House Court of rear extensionOption 01b | 48 rooms EntranceLevel 00 L CSConference Rooms in lieu 3 study rooms New Road Entrance / Fellows’ Car Park + 61.200m New Road 0 2.5m 5m 10m 25

Option 01 Bulwarks Lane + 64.810m CS EntranceLevel 01 LLegendBedroomAccessible bedroomShared kitchenTotal floor Area = 547m2Total studyrooms = 14 ( 2 accessible rooms)Total Kitchenettes = 2 + 60.800m Court + 62.500m (level below) + 63.600m L CS + 61.200m Corner window with views to Castle Mound and Nuffield Tower New Road 0 2.5m 5m 10m 26

Option 01 CS Common RoomLevel 02 Court (level below) LLegend L CSBedroomAccessible bedroom Corner window with viewsShared kitchen to Castle Mound and Nuffield TowerTotal floor Area = 547m2Total studyrooms = 15Total Kitchenettes = 2 0 2.5m 5m 10m 27

Option 01 CS LLevel 03LegendBedroomAccessible bedroomShared kitchenTotal floor Area = 452m2Total studyrooms = 14Total Kitchenettes = 2 Terrace with views to Castle Terrace Mound and Nuffield Tower Court (below) L CS Terrace with views to Castle Mound and Nuffield Tower 0 2.5m 5m 10m 28

Option 01Section New protected court, views to Nuffield TowerCastle Mound Oxford Castle Nuffield Tower Outline of existing Proposal Bulwarks Staircase 2 Hannington Quad building in pink Lane 29

Option 01Views from Internal Court AOption 01 diagram View looking East from internal courtyard (A) past rear of Law Centre, which could be given a new entrance from this court. This illustration shows the option of conference rooms off the courtyard, which effectively loses 3 study bedrooms (see Option 01b, Level 00 plan) 30

Option 01Views from Entrance Court BOption 01 diagram View looking West from courtyard entrance point (B) between law court and proposed building. This illustration shows the framed views this option provides back towards Nuffield Tower. By splitting the building into two masses and generating a courtyard, the benefit of forming a dynamic centre can also be seen in the above sketch. 31

Option 01 View looking EastViews from New Road 32 Location plan View looking West

Option 02Urban discourse | New Road and the Law Centre courtyardSummary Location plan• This proposal follows the line of New Road on the South West View 01 of Option 02 to show widening of court and existing building relationship elevation to ‘complete’ the urban building line.• This reduces the current ‘dilution’ of the street edge, which generates a negative relationship.• The East elevation of Master’s House is released, giving light in and views out.• The court becomes a larger usable and active edge which also allows space to soften the new proposal and the old Law Centre.• The more generous court allows for the central tree (which has a constrained root protection zone) space for further growth and general health improvement.• Pockets of space are generated on the North elevation along Bulwarks Lane, to give a sense of openness to what is currently a very constrained situation.• By opening up these areas, greater levels of light will be available in this space and therefore reduce the ‘alley’ effect to provide moments of respite and the idea of being visible.Option 02 Key views and relationships diagram View 01 of Option 02 to show set-back from Bulwarks Lane 33

Option 02Connecting Courts 1 Nuffield College 5 2 6 3Option 02 court and transitioning diagram 7 Castle Mound 4 34Legend1. Linton Quad2. Hannington Quad3. Chevasse Quad4. The Law Centre Court / Castle Hill House Court5. Canal House garden6. Fellows car park7. Sunken gardenOption 01 also establishes a clear language to connect the St Peter’sCollege campus to Castle Hill House by creating a route that transitionsfrom garden to garden.The gardens here all serve as a physical amenity, except for the CanalHouse Garden which serves as a visual amenity. There is potential withinthe plan to allow for a restricted physical link if this is desired. This can be akey connection for the Master and guests to access the top levelconference rooms with views to Nuffield Tower and Castle Mound.This option makes a physical connection to the Law Centre court, and canbe used as the main entrance from New Road. This option assumes that theLaw Centre is under the ownership of St Peter’s College. Option 02 Proposed key routs, destinations and access

Option 02 | 40 rooms Bulwarks Lane Sunken CourtLevel B1 Entrance from Bulwark laneLegend half level aboveBedroomAccessible bedroomShared kitchenTotal floor Area = 506m2Total studyrooms = 7Total Kitchenettes = 1 Visual amenity to gardens CS + 62.500m and potential stepped Store access from Canal House Garden to Castle Hill House IT + 60.800m Entrance L Plant Office Bike Laundry store Workshop New Road Existing tree is protected and will benefit from Option 02 RPA currently restricted due to existing building. + 61.200m New Road 0 2.5m 5m 10m Entrance 35

Option 02 Bulwarks LaneLevel 00 + 64.810mLegend L EntranceBedroom CSAccessible bedroomShared kitchenTotal floor Area = 473m2Total studyrooms = 12 ( 2 accessible rooms)Total Kitchenettes = 2 Court + 62.500m (level below) + 60.800m L Potential for terrace or Linen St. green roof to bike store New Road entrance roof. + 61.200m 0 2.5m 5m 10m 36

Option 02 Bulwarks LaneLevel 01 View out from upper floor windowsLegendBedroomAccessible bedroomShared kitchenTotal floor Area = 473m2Total studyrooms = 13Total Kitchenettes = 2 Bay window with views to L Castle Mound and Nuffield Linen St. Tower Corner window with views to Castle Mound and Nuffield Tower 0 2.5m 5m 10m 37

Option 02 Bulwarks LaneLevel 02LegendBedroomAccessible bedroomShared kitchenConference roomTotal floor Area = 400m2Total study bedrooms = 8Total Kitchenettes = 1 L CS Conf WC Conf Commercial benefit from Terrace large conference rooms with historic views, access. Large terrace with views to Castle Mound and Nuffield Tower 0 2.5m 5m 10m 38

Option 02Section Widening of Bulwarks lane, views from Canal House protectedCastle Mound Oxford Castle Nuffield Tower Outline of existing Proposal Bulwarks Staircase 2 Hannington Quad building in pink Lane 39

Option 02View to Castle Mound and Nuffield TowerLocation plan Upper floor view to Castle and Nuffield tower looking West from the terrace, with conference facility on right 40

Option 02View from Bulwarks LaneLocation plan Comparative View of existing and proposed Option 02 from Bulwarks lane View West looking at Master’s House from Bulwarks Lane. The proposal opens up the lane, allowing light into the lane and generating views down into the sunken garden. 41

Option 02 View looking East View from New Road 42Location plan View looking West

Relevant ProjectsHubert Perrodo Project, St Peter’s College, OxfordPROJECT DETAILS PROJECT SUMMARYClient St Peter’s College The reason to include this project is that it involves close working relationship with the Master, Bursar and Fellows; involves listed buildings and part newProject Perrodo Building build/part remodelled accommodation; imaginative use of natural site levels; creation of two new quads.Location Oxford Our brief from the College For the Perrodo Project was to:Construction value £2.5 million improve study, teaching and livingFloor area 400 sqm environments as well as improving the public spaces.Contract form Traditional Thanks to a recent donation from the Perrodo family, the college is able to undertakeAppointed 2015 a series of improvements that will help to continue in this tradition. Our competition winning scheme includes a new 4-storey pavilion building within a remodelledCompleted Spring 2018 Chavasse Quad. This is alongside significant re-imagining and refurbishment of existing accommodation to provide both private and communal spaces.Components of the project• 6 study bedrooms The project includes six new Fellows’ study bedrooms, roof level seminar room and• Seminar and group work a ground floor study and event space, as well as the refurbishment of the three existing seminar spaces in the Chavasse Building. rooms• Social learning space The site is constrained for its lack of access, leading to us develop an off-site strategy• Flexible meeting spaces enabling craning of the structural frame into the quad.• New quadsServices provided by DEAArchitecture, Interior Design, LeadDesigner The reconfigured Chavasse Quad with new Perrodo BuildingHannington Quad Remodelled Chavasse Building Chavasse Quad and Hannington Hall The ground floor social space A typical study room Hubert Perrodo Building 43

Relevant ProjectsOxford Brookes University, Headington CampusPROJECT DETAILS PROJECT SUMMARYClient Oxford Brookes University The reason to include this project is manyfold: multiple stakeholders; Oxford “This is absolutely conservation area; combined urban and rural setting; imaginative use of natural exquisite...this is theConstruction value £85 m site levels; interconnected internal and external spaces. beginning of a great modern cathedral ofFloor area c20,000 sqm The project was driven by a desire to create a new heart for the university and to learning” bring together a critical mass of functions and to generate a functional but dynamicContract form NEC3 set of spaces. To this end a series of functions are centred around a new ‘Forum’ Shami Chakrabarti CBE space. These functions include teaching and study space, library, student services University ChancellorAppointed Summer 2007 and careers, students’ union and significant social learning and catering space. To articulate this diverse range of elements the scheme was conceived as a central Forum, lecture theatre and library, leftCompleted February 2014 glowing box into which ‘pegs’ of accommodation penetrated (see concept model Entrance forecourt, with new entrance at old first floor levelComponents of the project image opposite). This strong concept• 300 seat lecture theatre became a touchstone during the detailed• Seminar and group work design development an approach which is a common thread in the work of the practice. rooms• Social learning space The scheme provides adaptable and flexible• Library accommodation for changing curricula and• Catering areas teaching patterns. The John Henry Brookes• New architecture faculty Building is designed to meet the University’s• Student services and careers vision for a ‘holistic approach to enhancing the student experience’.• Students’ UnionBREEAMExcellent (Design and Construction)Services provided by DEA Our approach to ensuring that the design solution met our Client’s objectives andArchitecture, Interior Design, Lead resulted in a creative and innovative solution was to understand the needs ofConsultant, FF&E Design & stakeholders but not to be constrained by them. In essence to think about howSelection, NEC Supervisor things could be rather than how they had always been. This was particularly relevant in the breaking down of silo thinking. A key aspect of the design was to New atrium cafe blur the edges between functions, and in so doing create better functionality and more dynamic and engaging spaces. The scheme has won numerous awards including a RIBA National Award, RIBA South Building of the Year, RIBA Sustainability Award, Stirling Prize Mid List, Oxford Preservation Trust Award and Education Estates Student Experience Award. Sustainable design was a key driver for the project and was recognised at completion with the RIBA Sustainability Award. “Anyone who has seen the way in which students have already made the space their own will recognise that not only is it beautiful, it is also functional” Professor Janet Beer Vice Chancellor Oxford Brookes University Abercrombie Building: part remodelling and part new build 44

Relevant ProjectsArts University Bournemouth Student VillagePROJECT DETAILS PROJECT SUMMARYClient Arts University The reason to include this project is manyfold: multiple stakeholders; OxfordBournemouth conservation area; combined urban and rural setting; imaginative use of natural site levels; interconnected internal and external spaces.Construction value £22 mFloor area 10,000sqm The project was driven by a desire to create a new heart for the university and to bring together a critical mass of functions and to generate a functional but dynamicContract form Two Stage D&B set of spaces. To this end a series of functions are centred around a new ‘Forum’ space. These functions include teaching and study space, library, student servicesAppointed 2016 and careers, students’ union and significant social learning and catering space. To articulate this diverse range of elements the scheme was conceived as a centralCompleted Summer 2020 glowing box into which ‘pegs’ of accommodation penetrated (see concept model image opposite). This strong concept became a touchstone during the detailedComponents of the building design development an approach which is a common thread in the work of the• 300 study bedrooms practice.• Seminar and group work rooms• Reception, concierge• Laundry• Student commons spaces• Students’ UnionBREEAMVery GoodServices provided by DEAArchitecture, Interior Design, LeadConsultant, PD Corner windows to communal kitchens New atrium cafe \"It's very important with buildings in a specialist institution like our own that it goes beyond the cliched phrase ‘fitness for purpose’. What we need are spaces that accommodate the types of work that are undertaken but also signify care over design and are themselves inspirational.\" Professor Stuart Bartholomew CBE Principal & Vice-Chancellor, Arts University Bournemouth. Entrance canopy and stepped approach Typical study room and studio, below 45

Fee ProposalTraditional and D&B Procurement(Based on construction cost of £5m plus 20%)Architectural Services Traditional Procurement Route Design and Build Procurement Route £5,000 £5,000RIBA Stage 0 Strategic Definition £5,000 £5,000 £40,000 £40,000RIBA Stage 1 Preparation and Brief £45,000 £45,000 £90,000 £75,000RIBA Stage 2 Concept Design £110,00 £100,000 * £5,000 £2,500RIBA Stage 3 Developed Design £300,000 (6%) £272,500 (5.45%) * Assumes novationRIBA Stage 4 Technical Design * We would offer a Design Guardian service (Client side) for 0.5%RIBA Stage 5 ConstructionRIBA Stage 6 Handover and Close OutTotalHourly Rates £150 £125Director £110Associate/Senior Associate £90Senior Architect £60ArchitectGraduatePrincipal Designer CDM 2015 (Sub-Consultant) Traditional Procurement Route Design and Build Procurement Route £ 750RIBA Stage 0 Strategic Definition £ 750 £1,500 £1,500 £1,500 **RIBA Stage 1 Preparation and Brief £1,500 £2,000 £3,000RIBA Stage 2 Concept Design £1,500 ** Assumes MC assumes PD role from tender £ 1000RIBA Stage 3 Developed Design £8,250RIBA Stage 4 Technical DesignRIBA Stage 5 ConstructionRIBA Stage 6 Handover and Close OutTotal 46