Abby shared the report with the panel.
Capacity for change: character zones; where more radical interventions can be made; eastern end set piece of restoring original structure so not so radical change possible there.
Cast iron repair and conservation priorities: heritage and material features, how they are weighted in terms of their structural and architectural significance and how that dictates the rate of intervention.
Deck replacement options: concrete deck has a high structural significance but a low architectural (heritage) significance; the recommendation is for full replacement of the deck as the embedded steel beams are so damaged. Option A in-situ concrete; Option B pre-cast concrete; Option C Timber; Option D interchangeable surface tiles. Option B pre-cast concrete had the best outcome with good durability and low comparative cost. This was Design Team’s preferred option.
RRG noted that Option D’s versatility would suggest it would be cheaper than the other options in its life term. He also wondered whether there were no other materials available for this use than timber or concrete as these are the only options set out in the report.
AG pointed out the practicality and suitability to the project of the option that allows pre-formed pieces to be brought on site for assembly.
Action: AH to forward email re. solar panels to the panel.
JF wondered how the options had been weighted and if this had discounted low carbon sustainability options; he questioned whether we want lowest common denominator materials on this project or low carbon methods. AH advised options were dictated by available budget; JF felt the Project Board should be briefed on this to make a judgement based on the council’s carbon neutral target. Action: AH to ask Design Team how options have been weighted.
AG pointed out that the cost summaries of each option have not taken into account the speed of construction or the length of time Madeira Terrace will be closed for works and public access disrupted. More than just project costs, also effect on the locality. AH will consider this when reviewing the draft report.
Lift and ramp access
Options suggested for alternative access to lift from deck to Madeira Drive were spiral staircase or ramp. The proposed site for single lift at Royal Crescent steps has been moved slightly further east as there is an opening on Madeira Drive at the original site; proposed increasing to double lift to reduce waiting times which is a heavier intervention. Design Team is recommending 4 lifts across the whole Terrace. Ramp access: to scale a DDA compliant ramp would be of such a length that Design Team is recommending this not be included in the first phase, i.e. immediately west of Concorde 2 due; they are recommending a site in the centre of the Terrace, one staircase west of Royal Crescent steps. AG pointed out it could be easier to install in the western end of the Terrace where heritage is less significant than the eastern end; also that there is a good reason to have the lift at the same point as the stairs so that people who can use the stairs will be able to use that option, increasing capacity of the lift and reducing waiting time.
Design Team suggesting re-activating the Madeira Terrace Shelter Hall lift to the deck level or installing a (spiral) staircase. This would be available year-round without operator. RRG pointed out that the lift would not be available when Concorde 2 is operating, also not an appealing or practical solution in bad weather.
Panel discussed Design Team’s option of infilling 5 arches to west of Concorde 2 with fixed units which could be used as backroom facility for major events or a community space; JF pointed out this was the site of the oldest part of the green wall; RRG recalled Design Team had committed to not filling in any arches; DL felt it would be useful for back office function during an event but was not the right location to be useful, preferring the western end; AG suggested a better place would be the less sensitive western end of the terrace; Concorde 2 had originally expressed a preference to be able to use any infilled arches provided; DW/RB pointed out that this, as a permanent structure, would not be expected by residents as not permanent structure: a pop-up facility would be preferred.
Rake illustrated on report is not steep enough to see Madeira Drive; Panel asked if it could be made steeper, or if temporary seating could be included under the arches instead.